| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS | 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

Help 3 Quarks Daily

Bookmark This Page

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3QD ADVERTISING



Compare prices

  • Canada (French)
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa
  • Brazil
  • Please Visit Wikio

  • Wikio
  • Wikio Shopping
  • LCD Monitor
  • LCD TV
  • Recent Comments

    Nick Smyth on Billionaires Back Antismoking Effort

    ghostman on Identifying the Most Racist City in America

    Karen Peters on Identifying the Most Racist City in America

    Carlos on Identifying the Most Racist City in America

    Carlos on The ideology of voters, congressmembers, and senators

    ghostman on Identifying the Most Racist City in America

    missvolare on The ideology of voters, congressmembers, and senators

    Carlos on The ideology of voters, congressmembers, and senators

    JonJ on The ideology of voters, congressmembers, and senators

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Beautiful Minds: Stephen Wiltshire

    missvolare on The ideology of voters, congressmembers, and senators

    missvolare on Beautiful Minds: Stephen Wiltshire

    aali on In Pakistan, the Taleban Get Away with Murder

    Nathan on Philosophy in the Barnyard

    jazili on The Future is Now, At Least for Motorcycles

    Ruchira on The Future is Now, At Least for Motorcycles

    George Coffman on Bill Maher on the French

    Karen Peters on Identifying the Most Racist City in America

    Sagredo on The ideology of voters, congressmembers, and senators

    Carlos on The Future is Now, At Least for Motorcycles

    Ruchira on Identifying the Most Racist City in America

    Carlos on Identifying the Most Racist City in America

    Phillip on The Future is Now, At Least for Motorcycles

    Carlos on The Future is Now, At Least for Motorcycles

    ghostman on Identifying the Most Racist City in America

    Acclaim For 3QD


    Best Non-European Weblog Winner


    Best Group Blog and Blog Most Deserving of Wider Attention Finalist


    Wikio - Top Blogs

    "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.

    Subscribe to this blog's feed