Intelligence; nature v nurture (again). Prof. Robert Plomin.

[Gruach]

Listening to The Life Scientific on R4 right now.

Professor Robert Plomin talks to Jim Al-Khalili about what makes some people smarter than others and why he's fed up with the genetics of intelligence being ignored. Born and raised in Chicago, Robert sat countless intelligence tests at his inner city Catholic school. College was an attractive option mainly because it seemed to pay well. Now he's one of the most cited psychologists in the world. He specialized in behavioural genetics in the mid seventies when the focus in mainstream psychology was very much on our nurture rather than our nature, and genetics was virtually taboo. But he persisted, conducting several large adoption studies and later twin studies. In 1995 he launched the biggest longitudinal twin study in the UK, the TED study of ten thousand pairs of twins which continues to this day. In this study and in his other work, he's shown consistently that genetic influences on intelligence are highly significant, much more so than what school you go to, your teachers or home environment. If only the genetic differences between children were fully acknowledged, he believes education could be transformed and parents might stop giving themselves such a hard time.

Oh fabulous - he's ducked the "racial inheritance" question.

If Jw35 and Pixi listen to the interview in full, and pay attention to the part where he discusses adoption studies where identical (mono-zygotic) twins are reared separately, they will hear the response that the twins' educational outcomes remain virtually identical.

Plomin seems slightly left-wing to me. I couldn't care less about their politics though because they're one of the very few forces doing serious research around education as opposed to the crocky feeble stuff we usually get that is intended to further this or that educational ideology.

So I quite like them, have read G is for Genes (Asbury/Plomin) and most of that behavioral genetics gang's research papers published in the last few years.

I wish more people would read G is for Genes, Stuart Ritchie's Intelligence: All That Matters or preferably both, because some of what many people think they know and then assert is pitifully ignorant. It would save some time, in fact simply understanding the difference between 'inherited' and 'heritable' would help.

Personality is a defining factor, but doesn't lend itself to scientific data collection.

One of the Plomin gang's recent papers was on precisely that i.e. the genetic influence of behavioural attributes on academic acheivment.

Oops. That doesn't make sense.. it was about the level of genetic influence on behavioural attributes (personality) and their contribution to academic achievement.

Oops. That doesn't make sense.. it was about the level of genetic influence on behavioural attributes (personality) and their contribution to academic achievement.

In this interview he doesn't duck the race question.

Thanks for the reading suggestions PiqueABoo.

Somehow I'd imagined this argument was done and dusted about half a century ago. Given the terrifying cost of university and the fact that a robot could probably carry out most of the tasks available to people with a "minimum floor of achievement" I'm a little scared of the decisions that this argument might be used to support.

But I don't know enough to say anything sensible.

So what if some people are smarter than others because of their genes?

Does it make them more valuable or more important human beings?

I don't think so.

Besides, he says, "within a group, genes may explain a lot but the difference between that group and another could be wholly down to environment if one of them is discriminated against or kept in poverty."

This (from the Guardian interview TheFallenMadonna linked above) is a little weak when it is an earlier version of the nature argument that endorsed such discrimination.

But not his earlier version of the genes argument...

Adding my thanks for the reading list. The Guardian article expands on Prof Plomin's life and times and his views rather usefully; I was completely ignorant of his existence until Gruach posted yesterday but have been fascinated by the heat that discussions of genes and inheritance generate ever since my PGCE!

Trout you wouldn't play the Lifeboat game then?!

This lifeboat game?

that's not ordinary life, is it?
tbh, I'd compromise choices for survival between useful people (whoever can repair the lifeboat being most important) and the strongest who had best chance of survival: overall maximising group survival in the circumstances.

I only heard part of the episode, but did wonder if he also said there was evidence that genes could explain the things below (maybe genes can)

Work ethic
emotional stability
kindness
teamwork skills

If we have to rate value of human beings, those things must come higher on the list than brains.

Has no one else seen Gattaca??

So, if you were deciding who to keep and who to save we'd be living in a world devoid of a vast swathe of art, music and literature created by people not perhaps overly gifted with the qualities you rate highly Trout?

And if we have to keep going after a global disaster I'd favour brains over everything else.

The Admirable Crighton

There will always be outliers whose terrible neglect thwarts any inherited advantage. But given a non abusive upbringing, the argument (and Pinker makes it convincingly) is that intelligence is genetically influenced.

I have not seen Gattaca; should I make a point of doing so? That was the lifeboat game I meant.

And no, he doesn't ascribe those valuable qualities to genetics; he didn't mention them explicitly at all. Personally I would venture that work ethic and teamwork skills are learned; emotional stability is absorbed and kindness is probably innate in most people unless it is driven out by negligence, neglect or experience of cruelty. He does say that that he was "ornery" and that drove him to succeed, because he didn't want to be poor.

If I may, do you think that early experience of the world is pivotal in defining any measure of personal success? If someone grows up in a secure environment where education is valued and respected, then that person is more likely to pursue education. That's why students at selective schools do so well; every day they see adults, likely their parents' friends, who have succeeded economically. Someone who is raised in without role models who have done well may not see things the same way. It would go some way to explaining the educational under-performance of the poor white class. (Please note, I am not making a judgement of their worth as individuals. And no, I don't think people want to be poor, but many don't know how to escape it, either because they are not familiar with the routes or in some places there aren't opportunities. Hence the attraction of lottery tickets, Premier League footballers or showbusiness.)

The plot in Gattaca is relevant... about how our genes cannot actually decide everything. Big part of the plot is the brother with all the right genes but he coasts thru life never learning to work hard, prove himself, take risks or develop compassion. Everyone just assumes he's able to do XYZ because that's what his genetic profile says he can do. The brother who has to lie & cheat & connive because doors are ostensibly shut to him due to genetics, is a much more admirable character not limited by raw material.

Bit Jurassic park, too, isn't it?! "Life will find a way" when we least expect it.

Energy and determination counts for a vast amount, and some of it is probably inherited, but where on the genome is the chromosome to be found? If we knew that... Humanity would probably consume the planet's resources even faster!

I'm under the impression that there is some heritability in how much sleep you need. I have a friend who needs 5 hours at most. She's very successful, but I've always felt that she is cheating a little as her productive hours are so much longer than mine. That said, I do enjoy sleep - it's virtually a hobby.

My DH and his brother were adopted at birth by a very working class family with no interest in education; virtually lived on the streets, never seen a book, never been on holiday, etc

The parents were both shocked when both brothers passed the 11 plus, went to grammar and gained firsts from uni as they had both left school at 14 to work in factories.

So the brains definitely in the genes; although I truly believe that had they had more opportunities growing up they would have achieved a lot more and certainly not missed out on a range of life experiences that would have put them on different paths.

Out of our 4 children only one stands out as virtually genius like; my dh keeps saying he doesn't know who he gets it from, but I believe he is like his dad but brought up in a culturally rich environment

A lady I know has adopted children.
She and her DH are sciency highly academic
the kids are arty and flighty : like their birth family

Nurture can help out nature
but nature will out

I have twins and I think nature and nurture interact in a very slippery way.

Identical or fraternal twins? Fraternal twins can be as similar/dissimilar as other siblings according to Plomin, even though they have shared the same environment since conception because there were two zygotes.

Shegots kids are a girl and a boy therefore pretty certain to be fraternal