4
   

Study gives more proof that intelligence is largely inherited

 
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:16 am
Quote:
UCLA researchers find that genes determine brain's processing speed
By Mark Wheeler March 17, 2009 Category: Health Sciences, Research
They say a picture tells a thousand stories, but can it also tell how smart you are? Actually, say UCLA researchers, it can.

In a study published in the Journal of Neuroscience Feb. 18, UCLA neurology professor Paul Thompson and colleagues used a new type of brain-imaging scanner to show that intelligence is strongly influenced by the quality of the brain's axons, or wiring that sends signals throughout the brain. The faster the signaling, the faster the brain processes information. And since the integrity of the brain's wiring is influenced by genes, the genes we inherit play a far greater role in intelligence than was previously thought.

Genes appear to influence intelligence by determining how well nerve axons are encased in myelin " the fatty sheath of "insulation" that coats our axons and allows for fast signaling bursts in our brains. The thicker the myelin, the faster the nerve impulses.

Thompson and his colleagues scanned the brains of 23 sets of identical twins and 23 sets of fraternal twins. Since identical twins share the same genes while fraternal twins share about half their genes, the researchers were able to compare each group to show that myelin integrity was determined genetically in many parts of the brain that are key for intelligence. These include the parietal lobes, which are responsible for spatial reasoning, visual processing and logic, and the corpus callosum, which pulls together information from both sides of the body.

The researchers used a faster version of a type of scanner called a HARDI (high-angular resolution diffusion imaging) " think of an MRI machine on steroids " that takes scans of the brain at a much higher resolution than a standard MRI. While an MRI scan shows the volume of different tissues in the brain by measuring the amount of water present, HARDI tracks how water diffuses through the brain's white matter " a way to measure the quality of its myelin.

"HARDI measures water diffusion," said Thompson, who is also a member of the UCLA Laboratory of Neuro-Imaging. "If the water diffuses rapidly in a specific direction, it tells us that the brain has very fast connections. If it diffuses more broadly, that's an indication of slower signaling, and lower intelligence."

"So it gives us a picture of one's mental speed," he said.

Because the myelination of brain circuits follows an inverted U-shaped trajectory, peaking in middle age and then slowly beginning to decline, Thompson believes identifying the genes that promote high-integrity myelin is critical to forestalling brain diseases like multiple sclerosis and autism, which have been linked to the breakdown of myelin.

"The whole point of this research," Thompson said, "is to give us insight into brain diseases."

He said his team has already narrowed down the number of gene candidates that may influence myelin growth.

And could this someday lead to a therapy that could make us smarter, enhancing our intelligence?

"It's a long way off but within the realm of the possible," Thompson said.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/more-proof-that-intelligence-is-85134.aspx
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 3,813 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 04:25 am
@Pamela Rosa,
Can we assume that Wisdom is learned?
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 04:41 am
@rosborne979,
Well, if wisdom is learned it obviously has to do with learning capabilities, which in turn have to do with intelligence.

As intelligence seems to be inherited (cf PR), hence PR's gene pool is quite poor: QED.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 06:10 am
@Pamela Rosa,
Which part of the article did you want us to be interested in? The new scanner? Because this article- the one I'm providing the link for and posting- is eleven years old and it a) talks about what everyone already knew and b) even foretells the fact that intelligence will be measured one day through pictures of the brain instead of testing:
I've cut and pasted the relevant bits of the article here, as well as providing the whole link to what you might find an intersting article if you're interested in this stuff.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99feb/intel.htm

Quote:
Binet is a hero to many psychologists. He was a keen observer, a careful scholar, an inventive technologist. Perhaps even more important for his followers, he devised the instrument that is often considered psychology's greatest success story.
Millions of people who have never heard Binet's name have had aspects of their fate influenced by instrumentation that the French psychologist inspired. And thousands of psychometricians -- specialists in the measurement of psychological variables -- earn their living courtesy of Binet's invention. Although it has prevailed over the long run, the psychologists' version of intelligence is now facing its biggest threat.
Many scholars and observers -- and even some iconoclastic psychologists -- feel that intelligence is too important to be left to the psychometricians. Experts are extending the breadth of the concept -- proposing many intelligences, including emotional intelligence and moral intelligence. They are experimenting with new methods of ascertaining intelligence, including some that avoid tests altogether in favor of direct measures of brain activity.


Quote:
The public is more interested in the second question: Is intelligence (or are intelligences) largely inherited? This is by and large a Western question. In the Confucian societies of East Asia individual differences in endowment are assumed to be modest, and differences in achievement are thought to be due largely to effort. In the West, however, many students of the subject sympathize with the view -- defended within psychology by Lewis Terman, among others -- that intelligence is inborn and one can do little to alter one's intellectual birthright.
Studies of identical twins reared apart provide surprisingly strong support for the "heritability" of psychometric intelligence. That is, if one wants to predict someone's score on an intelligence test, the scores of the biological parents (even if the child has not had appreciable contact with them) are more likely to prove relevant than the scores of the adoptive parents. By the same token, the IQs of identical twins are more similar than the IQs of fraternal twins. And, contrary to common sense (and political correctness), the IQs of biologically related people grow closer in the later years of life. Still, because of the intricacies of behavioral genetics and the difficulties of conducting valid experiments with human child-rearing, a few defend the proposition that intelligence is largely environmental rather than heritable, and some believe that we cannot answer the question at all.
Most scholars agree that even if psychometric intelligence is largely inherited, it is not possible to pinpoint the sources of differences in average IQ between groups, such as the fifteen-point difference typically observed between African-American and white populations. That is because in our society the contemporary -- let alone the historical -- experiences of these two groups cannot be equated. One could ferret out the differences (if any) between black and white populations only in a society that was truly color-blind.




aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 06:24 am
@aidan,
Here's another old study that highlights the heritability of intelligence Pamela Rosa- this subject really is old news (though interesting).

Quote:
Last Updated: Tuesday, 3 October 2006, 23:39 GMT 00:39 UK

Breast milk 'does not boost IQ'

Breastfed babies tend to be brighter
Breastfed babies are smarter because their mothers are clever in the first place, not because of any advantage of breastfeeding itself, a study suggests.
Researchers found breastfeeding mothers tended to be more intelligent, more highly educated, and likely to provide a more stimulating home environment.

However, they stressed that there were still many advantages to breastfeeding.

The British Medical Journal study was carried out by the Medical Research Council and University of Edinburgh.

It is important that women make a decision that is right for them

Rosie Dodds
National Childbirth Trust

Lead researcher Geoff Der said: "This question has been debated ever since a link between the two [high IQ and breastfeeding] was first discovered in 1929.

"Breastfed children do tend to score higher on intelligence tests, but they also tend to come from more advantaged backgrounds."

The researchers analysed data from more than 5,000 children and 3,000 mothers in the US.

They found that mothers who breastfed tended to be more intelligent, and when this fact was taken into account, most of the relationship between breastfeeding and the child's intelligence disappeared.

The rest was accounted for by other aspects of the family background.

Sibling comparison

The researchers also looked at families where one child was breastfed and another was not.

This confirmed the earlier results - the breastfed child was no more intelligent than his or her sibling.

Putting the results together with other studies that measured the mother's IQ confirmed this pattern.

Mr Der said: "This research shows that intelligence is determined by factors other than breastfeeding.

"But breastfeeding has many benefits for both mother and child. It's definitely the smart thing to do."

Breastfeeding has been linked to a range of health benefits.

Just one day of breastfeeding is thought to be enough to stabilise a baby's blood sugar levels, and provide natural antibodies against disease.

Breastfed babies have been shown to be less prone to diarrhoea, vomiting, and respiratory infections. Breastfeeding may also have a long impact on reducing blood pressure and obesity.

The World Health Organization recommends that babies should be breastfed for at least the first two years.

The UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe - almost a third of women in England and Wales never try to breastfeed, compared with just 2% in Sweden.

Low rates

Rosie Dodds, of the National Childbirth Trust, said the study was not conclusive.

She said a study in the Philippines - where, unlike the West, poorer women are more likely to breastfeed - showed that breastfed children were likely to be more intelligent.

However, she added: "Women do not breastfeed because of any benefit to their baby, they do it because it feels like the natural thing to do.

"It is important that women make a decision that is right for them, and their family, and they should not be pressurised either way, but we would like to see more support for women who do decide they want to breastfeed."

The Department of Health said breastfeeding was the best form of nutrition for infants.

"We know that the composition of breast milk meets the individual needs of each baby and that, as a result, breastfeeding can make a major contribution to public health."
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 06:33 am
Study gives more proof that intelligence is largely inherited

i've met folks whose parents must have been overdrawn at the memory bank
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 06:40 am
@aidan,
Breastfed babies tend to be brighter
Breastfed babies are smarter because their mothers are clever in the first place, not because of any advantage of breastfeeding itself, a study suggests.
Researchers found breastfeeding mothers tended to be more intelligent, more highly educated, and likely to provide a more stimulating home environment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to this breastfed babies are smarter and their mothers more clever and more intelligent than mothers of not breastfed babeis. This comparasing is done in modern times when many mothers do not breastfeed at all.

If this researche would be absolutely correct would mean that children in the "old days" when all mothers or a wet nurse breast fed the children children in the "old days" would have as an average been smarter than modern children.
There was a time when all children were breastfed. Some children got cowmilk if the mother died and they still survieved. But this was an exception.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 06:40 am
I belive that PR's intent was belittling races, based on stuff like this:

Quote:
..such as the fifteen-point difference typically observed between African-American and white populations


Inteligence maybe be inherited but, curiously, it's not particularly shared by those focusing on these aspects..
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 06:56 am
@Francis,
I know that Francis - that's why I'm trying to cut her off at the pass. She's not telling anyone anything that anyone didn't already think about, study or know.
If she reads the article I linked in its entirety, she'll find out more - since she seemed to show an interest, I thought I'd help her learn something.

And I hope that little barb was not directed at me. I actually have very good processing speed - I bet my myelin is almost as thick as yours. My processing is even quick enough to see through Pamela Rosa's ruse all on my own without your help.

Saab - I'm not anti-breastfeeding. I breastfed my son (I adopted my daughter so couldn't breastfeed her). I'm very PRO breastfeeding. I'm just showing Pamela Rosa that what she's trying to prove or reprove here - unless she just wants to introduce us to the new technology behind this scanner- is old news.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 07:15 am
@aidan,
I am sure you are not anti breastfeading,
I was trying to tell Pamela Rosa that breastfed or not a child still can be smart and intelligent.
We can only compare with modern children and not go back a few decades or centuries and compare.

What does my IQ mean anyway? I get along very well in my civilicied world.
Put me on a desert island where I have to survive by fishing, putting up traps and climb trees to get some fruit. I would have in this area an IQ of 10.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 07:17 am
@saab,
You should read that article I linked Saab. It's very well written and conveyed and speaks to that very point (which is a very good one). I think you'd find it interesting.

I posted it in hopes that Pamela Rosa would read it too.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 07:17 am
Pamela Rosa seems awfully hostile toward her parents (in such a public forum).
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 07:54 am
@rosborne979,
See original article - learning seems to be only 45% genetic, mathematical ability about 85%, other categories are 100%:
http://medgadget.com/archives/2009/03/hardi_scanner_says_intelligence_is_inherited.html
http://www.medgadget.com/archives/img/Wheeler-IQnew.jpg
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 08:39 am
@saab,
saab wrote:
.........Put me on a desert island where I have to survive by fishing, putting up traps and climb trees to get some fruit. I would have in this area an IQ of 10.

Do you know anybody at the Karolinska Institute? They have a great mathematical simulation model of the brain; I'm sure that the tasks you mention use specific processing locations in the brain, so you should be able to see how well you would do. Here's a link to their model:
http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?l=en&d=130&a=74425&newsdep=130
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 09:06 am
The only person I know at Karolinska Institutet is a retired dentist and his retired nurse wife.

I read the link and it is interesting.

Personally I think that an IQ is also connected with ones personality.
A person with a high IQ and a personality which has one or more than one of following trades will not do so well: lazyness, afraid of changes, lack of curiousit, don´t dare to or don´t see new chances in life, pessimist, disinterest in things.
A person with a lower IQ who is eager to learn, take chances when they come, curious, optimistic and interested in people and things will do much better in life.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 10:41 am
So, even if intelligence is due to inheritance, more than previously thought, is "stupidity" due to a lack of the inherited intelligence factor (greater myelin)?

I am not sure, since there might be people that cannot conceptualize certain concepts, regardless of how slow connections might be due to lesser myelin. In other words, perhaps not everyone can conceptualize fractions, decimal fractions, etc. If so, then we might really have two groups of homosapiens that look very much alike? Or, is it just that those that cannot conceptualize certain concepts did not have their brains given the right input at an early age, and therefore their brains are just sufferering from too little early programming by society?

This question reminds me of the old saying, "a silk purse cannot be made out of a sows ear." Or, with early intervention, it can?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 02:17 pm
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/posters-demotivated-19.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Study gives more proof that intelligence is largely inherited
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 05:45:09