| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« The Ambivalent Bond With a Ball of Fur | Main | turning back the clock »

October 02, 2007

The Heritability and Malleability of IQ

Cosma returns to the topic (definitely worth reading):

People seem to be experiencing more than the usual difficulty grasping what I was getting at in my posts on accent and intelligence. This is my fault, for trying to be cute rather than trying to be clear. (I realize I'm too murky even when I am trying to be clear.) I am already heartily sick of the subject, which is turning into the huge time-suck I was afraid it would be, and which presents a depressing prospect from every point of view, not least those which make it clear how rare it is for anyone to change their mind on any aspect of it for any cause at all. (I do wonder if I should've stuck with the original title of "Duet for Leo and Razib.") My aim here is to lay everything out cleanly and explicitly, and be done with this matter.

I was originally going to do just one post, explaining why I called the general factor of intelligence a "statistical myth", why I don't put any real faith in what I regard as even the best of the current estimates of IQ's heritability, and the evidence for IQ's malleability. But the thing grew unwieldy, and the only thing which I find more dreary, right now, than discussing heritability and malleability is explaining why factor analysis can't do what people want it to, so I'll save that for later, and stick to the heritability and plasticity of IQ here. Whether IQ means anything or not, it is, unlike general intelligence, unquestionably something we can measure, so we can consider how heritable and malleable it is. I am going to assume that you know what "variance" and "correlation" are, but not too much else.

To summarize: Heritability is a technical measure of how much of the variance in a quantitative trait (such as IQ) is associated with genetic differences, in a population with a certain distribution of genotypes and environments. Under some very strong simplifying assumptions, quantitative geneticists use it to calculate the changes to be expected from artificial or natural selection in a statistically steady environment. It says nothing about how much the over-all level of the trait is under genetic control, and it says nothing about how much the trait can change under environmental interventions. If, despite this, one does want to find out the heritability of IQ for some human population, the fact that the simplifying assumptions I mentioned are clearly false in this case means that existing estimates are unreliable, and probably too high, maybe much too high.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 09:56 AM | Permalink

Comments

Thanks, Robin!

Once more, Cosma Shalizi explains it all to you. Read this! If you think about this stuff at all, this is a post that will save you lots of time.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 2, 2007 5:22:10 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Sundar on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Jim on Why Shouldn't I Work for the NSA?

Stuart Mathieson on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Lusine on Rajesh Rao: A Rosetta Stone for the Indus script

Norman Costa on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

Lusine on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Raza Husain on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

j_93 on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

martina_j on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Raza Husain on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

Bill on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

roger gathmann on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

Doogle on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

Kyle on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Peter John on Gezi Park

dthoko on The History of Typography - Animated Short

Richard on John Gray’s Godless Mysticism

Abbas Raza on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

nogodrod on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Lusine on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Bill on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

j_93 on Gezi Park

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed