<p>Genes provide a potential for intelligence that cannot be accessed unless environmental factors are in agreement (e.g. one must develop correctly via consumption of correct types of food needed for brain and body maturation). Potentially, genes could account for 100% of one's intelligence, assuming the mother and the child were adequately cared for in the development stages of the child, but such is not the case. </p>
<p>Success:</p>
<p>Mostly genetic/small environmental factor</p>
<p>Same rationale as intelligence, both are inexorably linked.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>Secondary question:</p>
<p>The average IQ of blacks is 85. The average IQ of Jews is 115. Asians 106, Whites 100. What do you think are the reasons for this inter-racial difference? </p>
<p>completely genetic</p>
<p>Of course, by this option I mean that the reasons for this inter-racial difference are dependent on genes that were produced in response to different ethnic backgrounds. Specifically, because of the different environments between, say, the Europeans and Africans, the Europeans were more inclined to create a complex agricultural society while those on the African continent remained a (mostly) Tribal Hunter/Gatherer society. Survival in the more complex societies yields a need for greater intelligence, thus leading to what we see today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In such a short period of time? Technically, Indian and Chinese, assuming that the latest time we can safely assume can possibly be the earliest estimate that they were in their current forms was at the Aryan migration, 4000 years is hardly enough for this to occur.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was enough to produce mutations in the DRD4 receptor in certain ethnic groups. It was enough to produce mutations that changed skin color. It was enough to produce mutations that made Scandinavians lactose tolerant, and Europeans less insulin resistant. It could be enough to produce mutations for increased intelligence in certain groups (we don't know what such mutations are - we just have to find them).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not all, but a lot. Asian kids in general in America are almost always pressured to succeed. However, similar tests actually taken in the respective countries will hardly show the same results.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even then - are you really sure that it explains a lot of the variance? It's hard to say though. The fact is - people are more or less motivated to complete a test (to check answers, for example). And people with lower IQs have been known to complete a few test items and to suddenly give up on the exam - which inevitably kills their IQ scores (Source: "Why Smart People Can Act So Stupid, Sternberg). </p>
<p>
[quote]
Another interesting question - What causes the Flynn effect?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay - one observation: it is slowest in industrialized nations like Britain. It is fastest in less developed countries. Some people say nutrition, some people say that it's the result of people becoming more used to a society oriented around tests (of course testing is somewhat culturally biased if done on Africans who have never taken a single test before - are they really motivated to do the best they can on the test? There might be variation in test-taking behavior too - which you don't see as much of in standardized testing situations in the US)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have about 20-25 back copies of Science (no subscription) and I flip through them. I've gotten to the point where I can understand quite a bit of a lot of the articles and papers. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is also good, I hear, though I've never seen it myself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Intriguing. There tends to be a lot of biological lingo that one needs to learn to understand all the terms - terms beyond the AP Biology level. But one can learn them as one goes (though it takes time). Meh - I haven't gotten to the point of reading Science or Nature for fun. I just read American Sociological Review or Journal of Political Psychology for fun. Bleragh. Oh well, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND REGRESSION ANALYSIS AND THIS HURTS MY APPRECIATION FOR SOCIOLOGY PAPERS</p>
<p>OMG - I spent like one whole week once trying to deconstruct the statistics in a journal article. I finally realized that the researchers didn't provide all the information that was needed to check their math. A lot of the stats in these articles are generated with statistical software and we are only given the final numbers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
OMG - I spent like one whole week once trying to deconstruct the statistics in a journal article. I finally realized that the researchers didn't provide all the information that was needed to check their math. A lot of the stats in these articles are generated with statistical software and we are only given the final numbers.
<p>It seems most journal papers are deliberately written to confuse people. Equations without derivations, figures without methods -- you really have to work to understand them.</p>
<p>Obfuscation helps when you're faced with people who could disprove your results, or competitors you're trying to surpass.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obfuscation helps when you're faced with people who could disprove your results, or competitors you're trying to surpass.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's an interesting observation in itself - a number of scientists are fairly notorious for defending their right to keep their data private - even when asked (Frank Sulloway refused to allow his research for "Born to Rebel" to be released - in fact - he attacked someone who decided to conduct research on his topic independently of the data he collected)</p>