From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 11:31:37 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>Damien wrote:
>
>
>>At 06:26 PM 10/2/02 -0400, Rafal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>### Regression to the mean is a natural by-product of recombination
>>>of recessive traits - the super-smart are so smart because they have
>>>the luck of being homozygous for some IQ-enhancing recessive genes
>>>
>>>
>> ...
>
>### You got it just right - the regression is to the mean of the
>*remaining*, not the initial population. E.g. if you remove persons above IQ
>100, the IQ of the breeding population will drop to 89.88 (see
>http://www.psychstat.smsu.edu/introbook/normal.htm for the calculation
>applet), and the regression will be towards 89.88, for both the remaining
>parents with IQ 100 and the ones below 89.88.
>
>Rafal
>
>
It is, however, a complex trait rather than a simple trait. There is no
reason to believe that all "smartness enhancing" genes are mutually
reinforcing, and considerable reason to disbelieve that. There are
occasional individuals who have exceptionally fortuitous combinations
and can, for example, have both an eidetic memory and the ability to use
it properly, but those are rare enough that eidetic memory is more
commonly associated with stupidity than with intelligence, though no one
denies that an exceptionally good memory facilitates intelligence.
Further, most musicians would be hampered by absolute pitch. (My wife,
a music teacher, insists both that it is possible to develop in anyone
with a reasonably good ear, and that it is generally more of a
hinderance than an asset.) But some musicians make notable use of this
facility. Excellent is a marvellous facilitator of intelligence, but
hearing verbal sounds can be a real hinderance when one is working on
any formal problem. Etc.
These are just a selection from the characteristics that I am
consciously aware of. I'm reasonably sure that the equivalents exist at
all levels down to chemical interactions. And that the effects from one
level are compounded onto the effects from the others. (I.e., that no
one level is dominant.) But this needs proof, if anyone can think of how.
Remember that biologic systems are the result of eons of evolution, and
even simple evolutionary processes (as exemplified by genetic computer
programs or electronic circuits) frequently exhibit interactions that we
can't explain. (In one circuit a hypothesis is that certain isolated
pieces enable the remainder of the circuit to work either by capacitive
interaction, or possibly via radio interferrence [no radio waves were
detected .. this was an explanation from desperation].)
Genes are a simplified model that we use to understand living systems.
Don't confuse them with reality. They are an abstraction from reality.
Useful, but not true. (Just start considering all of the ways that we
now know that the "Central Dogma" is violated. And each one of them is
a violation of the way that genes are popularly/were originally defined.)
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:24 MST