Wall Street Journal says that intelligence is genetic

From today's WSJ "Science Journal" article, written by Sharon Begley:

For as long as there has been a science of intelligence (roughly a century), prevailing opinion has held that children's mental abilities are highly malleable, or "unstable." Cognition might improve when the brain reaches a developmental milestone, or when a child is bitten by the reading bug or suddenly masters logical thinking and problem solving.

Some kids do bloom late, intellectually. Others start out fine but then, inexplicably, fall behind. But according to new studies, for the most part people's mental abilities relative to others change very little from childhood through adulthood. Relative intelligence seems as resistant to change as relative nose sizes.

I'm not sure why Ms. Begley thinks that this is somehow new. Arthur Jensen argued in a Harvard Education Review article in 1969 that scholastic results were almost entirely a result of genetic ability, and it was completely convincing back then. I don't think it was ever the "prevailing opinion" among those who truly understood the intelligence research that intelligence was "highly malleable."

But the good news is that another major newspaper reveals the truth. Public policy will improve immensely once the people making the policy have the correct understanding of human nature.

Comments

[Russ]

What is the tipping point where

1) Vast Majority of people will believe that intelligence is genetic.

2) Vast Majority of people feel comfortable publicly admitting that intelligence is genetic.

Until then, no social policy will be constructed to deal with this reality.

[Austrian]

That intelligence has a high genetic component seems like common sense - the brain is a physical organ, and like other physical characteristics, its makeup isn't random but made through the combination of the mother's and father's genes. Now of course intelligence will be squandered if the nurture aspect isn't there (just as a body predisposed to gain muscle mass more quickly than the norm will be wasted in a family that lays on the couch all day), but to deny that the underlying genetic component is there is just silly.
I also don't see why there would be such denial over this fact; saying "there is a strong genetic component to intelligence" is not the same as saying "eugenics is a great idea!". And individual variation is greater than any racial bell curve difference - for instance, Thomas Sowell is significantly more intelligent than Half Sigma.
So why are (some) people so afraid of the reality of intelligence?

[pjw]

Its probably new in the sense that the PC crowd still would like to argue that everyone is equal and if given a chance, anyone can go to college, and anyone who doesn't is just being held back by racism, economic inequality, etc.

[RogueLefty]

Don't forget the feedback effect of environment resulting from initial genetic phenotype at birth. Um, what I meant is that kids who are smart will find reading, etc. easy and will tend to do it more. Also if smart kids are born to smart parents their parents will encourage them to read, etc.

My question is: What's so important about intelligence? No, really. I see conservatives going on and on about how intelligence is genetic and thus we don't have to have affirmative action because MINORITIES ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY'RE BORN STUPID, in a Sailerite bit off bluntness. Which I think is what you are all trying to say.

Maybe Jensen is right. Unlike my buddies on the left, I'm perfectly willing to concede that. Hey, on the other side of the coin, it seems to be very difficult to keep the Jews and Asians down.

But intelligence isn't what matters so much anymore. High-tech jobs are going overseas and sales jobs are staying here. What really matters now is personality. So why the obsession with intelligence?

[Half Sigma]

RogueLefty: "High-tech jobs are going overseas and sales jobs are staying here."

You must have read my post on the marketing economy!

[RogueLefty]

Not until now, but good post. I do wonder if other countries can't learn to market too--after all, they learned the other things. But for now that is where the jobs are.

Really has me worried, I was not born to be a salesman. That's one of the reasons I'm a liberal--the economy holds no bright future for me!

[nobody]

The general public is weary of this notion of IQ is genetic for good reason. Everyone wants to think they are above average. The fact is, half the people are below average. No one likes to be told that.

HS have never explained how exactly is this marketing economy is going to run on. It sounds like he assumes that Americans will simply all become Avon ladies and sell to each others. The loss of manufacturing in this country is a great threat to its economic health. Marketing is a value added service that has no value unless there is a market. Where are the Americans going to get money to buy stuff?

The idea that Americans have a monopoly on marketing skills is unsupported. Look at some foregin media ads. They used the same techniques as the ads here. Those emerging nations learn fast and they don't need 5th Ave firms for very long.

What American has left to sell is a image. This image is based on the strength of our nation. In other words, people are status seeking and they want to be associated with the big boys. But this country has been living on borrowed money for decades. Once America is no longer #1, other people will find our culture less appealing and you will see a decline in demand for Holywood movies, and other American culture products.

[Ian Welsh]

IQ is important, and largely genetic, however it matters a lot less than most people think. I reccomend Dean Simonton's book "Greatness" for a discussion.

And when people talk high IQ they tend to talk about not very high IQ (I've always laughed at Mensa, for example, ooh boy 2 standard deviations.)

When you get up to really brilliant (say 5 standard deviations (which, for the record is significantly smarter than I am)) the pathologies get really striking. More than half of people with 5 standard deviations never even get through high school, and they die like flies, both from suicide and from risky behaviour, including drugs.

As long as you're bright (1 to 3 standard deviations up), what matters are your social skills, your drive... and who your parents were (but not in terms of how smart they were.)

[Dan Morgan]

RougeLefty,

IQ matters because it determines more than any other measurable characteristic how people will do, on the average, in life in terms of income and success. But who cares about this? Well, with the average IQ in Africa at about 75 it matters tremendously that ideas are generated on how to overcome this. For example, Botswana is doing just fine, but they have great mineral wealth plus a lot of help from outsiders running the mines. Regardless, Botswana is democratic and has had steady economic growth. It is also ranked less corrupt than Italy or Greece.

So this means that there are conditions which countries with low IQs can thrive. What is needed is to find conditions where IQs can be compensated for in the other countries of Africa. I would say that this matters a great deal (unless someday it is shown that IQ really does not correlate with the wealth of nations after all, which I doubt will happen).

Until the problem of low IQs in Africa are acknowledged as the core problem for its lack of progress, the world will continue to look on baffled wondering how things could be so bad there.

[RogueLefty]

Dan Morgan: maybe. I'm not sure how much of that is due to correctable causes like malnutrition, etc.

Ian Welsh: what's your source on this 5 SD thing? It sounds credible and I'd like to read more.

[Ian Welsh]

RogueLefty: I'm afraid I heard that from a friend who is at that level of IQ. I trust he knows what he's talking about, but I don't have references, alas.

Dan: look into the effect of early childhood nutrition on long term IQ levels. Then look into the long upward trend in average IQ's in the US (as measured by the US Army for over 80 years) and account for that.

The primary indicator for IQ is heredity. It is not the only one. Heredity determines your potential IQ, how you are raised (including very simple things like how you eat in your very early years) also makes a significant difference.

I would also reccomend to you looking into the effects of early childhood study of music and languages (especially Japanese, oddly) on the brain.

[jult52]

Interesting discussion but the equation of the service economy in the US with sales & marketing is pat and incorrect.

[The Superfluous Man]

I didn't notice this post before.
The brain is not a muscle. Analogies implying so are inapt... If you could demonstrate that eugenics, through selective sterilization, would drastically reduce murders, would you have a moral imperative to sterilize? Many libertarians agree that a government may regulate externalities. One can easily see how some people are a net negative externality (say murderers), while others aren't. If criminality is significantly heritable, even libertarian theory can be applied in support of eugenics. Lynn in Eugenics, according to an Amazon review, suggests using embryo selection technologies to raise the child's IQ 15 points, for every generation. But those most in need of it are probably too irresponsible to do so, even if it was free. (I'm not saying whether eugenics is wrong or right, but that gut reactions determine the responses to eugenics. And if you think gut reactions are informative, is homosexuality wrong because it's repulsive?)

Look at the jobs most easily automated - they're overwhelmingly low IQ. And in the long run, foreign wages will catch up with ours, or sync with their productivity, erasing the impetus to outsource. Indian software job salaries have been appreciating 15% a year I believe.

Mr. Welsh, when people say IQ is important, they don't mean it predicts greatness. Greatness is an entirely different issue. All except one of the symptoms described are in fact true of lower IQ people. Suicide is higher among higher IQ people and nations, but nowhere near enough as to negate the myriad other gains of higher IQ, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Practical_validity . Despite the Flynn effect, racial disparities have remained stable. Some say that the Flynn effect does not correspond with an increase in g, general cognitive ability.

Roguelefty, from the Economist: "They found a statistically significant difference in the language and IQ scores between otherwise comparable vaccinated and unvaccinated children... Since it is known from other studies that these scores are good predictors of adult income, the researchers concluded that childhood vaccination would have significant economic benefits." Regarding feedback effects: maybe they do significantly contribute to IQ (I don't know), but their effect is as good as heritable if dumb parents don't practice them, or do so badly. Are you going to have a reverse Robin Hood government, where the IQ poor kids are stolen and given to IQ rich parents? Your argument is rooted in the assertion that IQ matters little now. See jult52's comment above. Also, considering that American blacks have an IQ of 85 and are 20% white, crude math with possibly wrong premises says that nutrition can raise sub-Saharan IQ (70) by 9 points. If 25% white, 7.5 points.

It's no coincidence that you "can't keep the Jews and Asians down."

[Austrian]

"If you could demonstrate that eugenics, through selective sterilization, would drastically reduce murders, would you have a moral imperative to sterilize?"

If you can demonstrate that a willful action committed at the individual level (ie, murder) can be deterministically tied to genetics, good luck.
Come on man, don't float around the issue by bringing up IQ instead of what you really want to do - sterilize most of the black population. Be honest in your racism.