Brain Gene Identified!!

Quoted message said:

From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55:

<snip>

Cites here need to be to the original study with the actual scientific conclusions, not a newspaper
reporter's *interpretation* of what the study actually means. From *a study* published in *,,,,,,,*
tells us nothing about what the study actually said.

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much malleability
that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence really mean in
terms of humans living together in communities.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:25:12 -0600, toto <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55:

<snip>

Cites here need to be to the original study with the actual scientific conclusions, not a newspaper
reporter's *interpretation* of what the study actually means. From *a study* published in *,,,,,,,*
tells us nothing about what the study actually said.

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a lot of
people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence.

"nobody" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

toto said:

Quoted message said:

From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55:

<snip>

Cites here need to be to the original study with the actual scientific conclusions, not a
newspaper reporter's *interpretation* of what the study actually means. From *a study* published
in *,,,,,,,* tells us nothing about what the study actually said.

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a lot
of people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence.

Most of the studies makemyday has cited have nothing to do with his premise, and those that even
approach the subject typically don't support his premise -- some have even countered it (because he
doesn't read beyond the headline). In those very few cases where the cites DO support his premise,
it has, without fail, been shown that the authors of the proffered material have no peer review and
are often associated with groups that have a very specific and obvious racist agenda.

See rethinkingschools.orgiq141.shtmlOpen ↗

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those
who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron Canfield said:

"nobody" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

toto said:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:04:18 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

>
>From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55:
>
<snip>

Cites here need to be to the original study with the actual scientific conclusions, not a
newspaper reporter's *interpretation* of what the study actually means. From *a study*
published in *,,,,,,,* tells us nothing about what the study actually said.

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a lot
of people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence.

Most of the studies makemyday has cited have nothing to do with his premise, and those that even
approach the subject typically don't support his premise -- some have even countered it (because
he doesn't read beyond the headline). In those very few cases where the cites DO support his
premise, it has, without fail, been shown that the authors of the proffered material have no peer
review and are often associated with groups that have a very specific and obvious racist agenda.

Un-peer-reviewed racist study: nces.ed.gov2004459.pdfOpen ↗
******************** exZZZZZZZerpt********************************** 2003 NAEP Public Schools Avg
Reading Scores

Grade 4 Grade8

White IQ-75 DAFN White IQ-75 DAFN LOOZerz LOOZerz ***Nation*** ------> 227 197
270 244 Large Cities 226 193 268 241 Atlanta 250 191 TS 237 Boston 225 202 273
245 Charlotte 237 205 278 247 Chicago 224 193 265 243 Cleveland 208 191 250
238 Dist Columbia 254 184 TS 236 Houston 235 201 270 244 Los Angeles 217 187
266 233 New York City 231 201 270 245 San Diego 231 196 269 236

TS - Sample size too small

DAFNz -- What Mother_Nature hath *GENETICALLY* created, **DUMBER** than white people...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

At least get this clarification correct: Genes determine the maximum IQ potential,

There is no evidence of that, and I'm not sure whether there could be evidence since "maximum IQ
potential" is undefined and entirely unquantifiable.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own;
I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

nobody said:

Quoted message said:

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a lot of
people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence.

No post I have seen claims that there is NO genetic component. None has claimed "negligible" either.
Consensus is that it is around 50/50 heredity and environment.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own;
I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nobody said:

Quoted message said:

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a lot
of people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence.

No post I have seen claims that there is NO genetic component. None has claimed "negligible"
either. Consensus is that it is around 50/50 heredity and environment.

lojbab

correct. i have seen it range from 40-60 percent.

so, on average 50/50 is about the best guess

whit

Quoted message said:

--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my
own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

At least get this clarification correct: Genes determine the maximum IQ potential,

There is no evidence of that, and I'm not sure whether there could be evidence since "maximum IQ
potential" is undefined and entirely unquantifiable.

lojbab

and most probably has an asymptotic relationship. there is no "perfect environment" to develop the
mind that is possible. thus, IQ will always lag the theoretical IQ potential, whatever that is for a
given individual and we have no way of knowing. as one gets closer to the asymptote, more effort is
required for smaller and smaller increments.

as i see it

whit

Quoted message said:

--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my
own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

terryvohio said:

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nobody said:

>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
>malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in
>intelligence really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a
lot of people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence.

No post I have seen claims that there is NO genetic component. None has claimed "negligible"
either. Consensus is that it is around 50/50 heredity and environment.

lojbab

correct. i have seen it range from 40-60 percent.

so, on average 50/50 is about the best guess

The latest estimate is 85% genetic in adults, in a peer-reviewed article Bob has roundly condemned
without even looking at it. The maximum potential IQ is 100% genetically determined (whether or not
that upper limit is achieved is the environmental component).

For DAFNz, the upper limit potential tends to run in the two-digit realm. All scorz data from head-to-
head intellectual competition fit with this TRUTH. Believe it.

You could take a million DAFNz, give them the absolute best possible *environment* assuming you knew
what that was, and you would never get anything approaching an Einstein, because the genetic
potential is not there...

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

At least get this clarification correct: Genes determine the maximum IQ potential,

There is no evidence of that, and I'm not sure whether there could be evidence since "maximum IQ
potential" is undefined and entirely unquantifiable.

lojbab

Hey, Bob, what do you make of this:

Correlation of IQ Tests

The same person tested twice .87 Genetically Identical twins reared together .86 Genetically
Identical twins reared apart .76 Fraternal twins reared together .55 Biological siblings .47 Parents
and children living together .40 Parents and children living apart .31 Adopted children living
together .0 Unrelated people living apart .0 *Adoptive parent and adopted child .0

Sources of info: cmgm.stanford.eduRedden.pdfOpen ↗
*info.med.yale.edu99jungen.htmOpen ↗ (There are plenty of other
sources with this same info.)

Please provide your analysis. I could use a chuckle!

Who's yer daddy, boy?!

King of SCAA

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

nobody said:

Quoted message said:

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a lot
of people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence.

No post I have seen claims that there is NO genetic component. None has claimed "negligible"
either. Consensus is that it is around 50/50 heredity and environment.

lojbab

It's higher than that, Bob.

Look how IQ correlates between adoptive parent and child. Or, should I say, DOESN'T correlate.

Correlation of IQ Tests

The same person tested twice .87 Genetically Identical twins reared together .86 Genetically
Identical twins reared apart .76 Fraternal twins reared together .55 Biological siblings .47 Parents
and children living together .40 Parents and children living apart .31 Adopted children living
together .0 Unrelated people living apart .0 *Adoptive parent and adopted child .0

Sources of info: cmgm.stanford.eduRedden.pdfOpen ↗
*info.med.yale.edu99jungen.htmOpen ↗ (There are plenty of other
sources with this same info.)

Now, if IQ between adoptive parent and child, and adopted children living together is random (zero),
how strong can the environmental component possibly be???

Also, look at the Genetically Identical Twins reared together and apart. It doesn't appear there is
much environmental component at all.

Awaiting your analysis, Bob...

Who's yer daddy, boy?!

King of SCAA

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

terryvohio said:

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nobody <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic

component.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>What is disputed is how much malleability that has

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>environment comes into play and how much differences

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>intelligence really mean in terms of humans living

together

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>in communities.
>
>Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for

months now, and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>there are still to be a lot of people who deny there

is any kind of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>genetic component to intelligence.

No post I have seen claims that there is NO genetic

component. None

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has claimed "negligible" either. Consensus is that it

is around 50/50

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

heredity and environment.

lojbab

correct. i have seen it range from 40-60 percent.

so, on average 50/50 is about the best guess

The latest estimate is 85% genetic in adults, in a

peer-reviewed

Quoted message said:

article Bob has roundly condemned without even looking at

it.

Quoted message said:

The maximum potential IQ is 100% genetically determined

(whether

Quoted message said:

or not that upper limit is achieved is the environmental

component).

Quoted message said:

For DAFNz, the upper limit potential tends to run in the two-digit realm. All scorz data from
head-to-head

intellectual

Quoted message said:

competition fit with this TRUTH. Believe it.

You could take a million DAFNz, give them the absolute

best possible

Quoted message said:

*environment* assuming you knew what that was, and you

would

Quoted message said:

never get anything approaching an Einstein, because the

genetic

Quoted message said:

potential is not there...

You'd be lucky to get something approaching Byron Canfield!

E.B.

[email hidden] wrote in news:4010FE25.761584B1
@worldnet.att.net:

Quoted message said:

terryvohio said:

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nobody <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
>>malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in
>>intelligence really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.
>
>Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>there are still to be a lot of people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to
>intelligence.

No post I have seen claims that there is NO genetic component. None has claimed "negligible"
either. Consensus is that it is around

50/50

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

heredity and environment.

lojbab

correct. i have seen it range from 40-60 percent.

so, on average 50/50 is about the best guess

The latest estimate is 85% genetic in adults, in a peer-reviewed article Bob has roundly condemned
without even looking at it. The maximum potential IQ is 100% genetically determined (whether or
not that upper limit is achieved is the environmental component).

For DAFNz, the upper limit potential tends to run in the two-digit realm. All scorz data from head-to-
head intellectual competition fit with this TRUTH. Believe it.

You could take a million DAFNz, give them the absolute best possible *environment* assuming you
knew what that was, and you would never get anything approaching an Einstein, because the genetic
potential is not there...

Of course. Our intelligence has to do with how our brains are wired and the amount of brain
chemicals we have.

Apparently, painting some peeling walls giving people a higher paycheck seems to rewire brains in
Bob's world.

Who's yer daddy, boy?!

King of SCAA

Said Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

At least get this clarification correct: Genes determine the maximum IQ potential,

There is no evidence of that, and I'm not sure whether there could be evidence since "maximum IQ
potential" is undefined and entirely unquantifiable.

And there's little evidence that IQ means anything real.

Alberto.

Said "terryvohio" <[email hidden]> :

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nobody said:

>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
>malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence
>really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a lot
of people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence.

No post I have seen claims that there is NO genetic component. None has claimed "negligible"
either. Consensus is that it is around 50/50 heredity and environment.

lojbab

correct. i have seen it range from 40-60 percent.

so, on average 50/50 is about the best guess

What I dispute however is that intelligence is a relevant measurement of anything that makes any
difference.

Alberto.

Said King IV <a> :

Quoted message said:

Correlation of IQ Tests

The same person tested twice .87 Genetically Identical twins reared together .86 Genetically
Identical twins reared apart .76 Fraternal twins reared together .55 Biological siblings .47
Parents and children living together .40 Parents and children living apart .31 Adopted children
living together .0 Unrelated people living apart .0 *Adoptive parent and adopted child .0

Therefore, we must immediately divide every number by 0.87. This leads us to this:

Genetically Identical twins reared together: 98% Genetically Identical twins reared apart: 87%
Fraternal twins reared together: 63% Biological siblings: 54%

Yet it's a well known thing that even genetically identical twins have vastly different
personalities and hence react to influences in very different ways, and often end up in totally
different walks of life.

Hence: those numbers, cozy as they are, do not reflect reality.

[snip...]

Alberto.

Alberto Moreira <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Said "terryvohio" <[email hidden]> :

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nobody <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
>>malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in
>>intelligence really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.
>
>Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a
>lot of people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence.

No post I have seen claims that there is NO genetic component. None has claimed "negligible"
either. Consensus is that it is around 50/50 heredity and environment.

lojbab

correct. i have seen it range from 40-60 percent.

so, on average 50/50 is about the best guess

What I dispute however is that intelligence is a relevant measurement of anything that makes any
difference.

you are falling into the trap, to paraphrase gould, of reverse reification.

if you want to live in a little fantasy world that is fine. if you honestly think that there is not
a difference in cognition between somebody with an iq of 130 and with an iq of 90, that's great.

whit

Quoted message said:

Alberto.

Bob LeChevalier said:

"maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely unquantifiable.

Definition:

Max IQ Potential (MIP) -- The IQ a person would have if that person experienced an ideal
environment...

DAFN MIP -- two-digit for most of them...

Alberto Moreira <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Said Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much
> malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in
> intelligence really mean in terms of humans living together in communities.

At least get this clarification correct: Genes determine the maximum IQ potential,

There is no evidence of that, and I'm not sure whether there could be evidence since "maximum IQ
potential" is undefined and entirely unquantifiable.

And there's little evidence that IQ means anything real.

Alberto.

rubbish. reverse reification all over again.

whit