Another score for the curvy burds..

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by wee scary burd

I read that as Turkey Wotsits. Yuck

Someone call Jamie Oliver! That Mannings trying to poison our children again! This time based on the spurious notion that fat people are more intelligent!!!

(I'm a meagre 110 IQ wise - well depending on the particular test I've taken)

[hotblonde]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Right oh.

IQ isn't a trait btw.

It is a QTL, which is Quantitative trait loci (locus). A trait that is quantifiable in other words, so yes it is. Out of interest, what do you consider a trait? It may be a tenuous trait, due to dubious stats and interpretation, but that's science.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Well I dunno there is a case for intelligence being as much about nature as nurture but probably less so for Intelligence quotient given the illiterate will nearly always have low IQ scores. (Although there are IQ tests specifically designed for folks without language comprehension now IIRC)

I'd say exactly the opposite!

You can teach someone to read, and you can (with practice) get used to how to approach the sorts of questions that are typically asked in IQ tests... so you can improve your test results, ie nurture plays a big role in test scores...

wheras if you're thick as mince ain't much is gonna change that, seems to be what i observe, nurture doesn't seem to me to play much part at all in people's ability to reason etc: bright kids become bright adults, likewise dim ones. No?

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by djtoast

I'd say exactly the opposite!

I'm confused to how thats the oppossite?

Ah... actually I see your point know. Tis a good one. But it is the same as mine. (Abeit mines put in a really confusing manner)

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

No, phenotype does not mean purely genetic. IQ is a quantifiable trait, in other words a QTL (such as height, weight, heart weight, blood pressure, etc). So, yes both yourself and Les are misunderstanding what phenotype means.

Yeah, you're right. Just looked it up.
I was thinking along the lines of the phenotype being the observable or measurable outcome of a genotype. I would have assumed that if you had to control greatly for environmental factors then it wouldn't be a phenotype, as such (i.e. skin/hair colour would be a near perfect phenotype, whereas things like IQ or taste in food would be very shakily described as phenotypes).
Doesn't seem to be the case though.

[hotblonde]

A phenotype is just an observable attribute of any living organism, hence why a universal approach to measurement is crucial to studies. Genetics and environment are not easily disentangled, even in animal studies and QTL analysis is generally always subject to both (with generally polygenic influences also).

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

A phenotype is just an observable attribute of any living organism, hence why a universal approach to measurement is crucial to studies. Sadly, it's not the case.

See as I am a constructionist I contend that a universal approach to measurement in the case of human behaviour is far from crucial and is actually harmful. Mainly because by the very nature of the things being studied a valid and all encompassing universal measure is practically impossible. (At least until neuroimaging is advanced enough so people can actually experience other peoples philia - which then opens a whole new can of philosophical and epistomological worms.)

[djtoast]

Although there is a 'critical period' for aquiring language skills...

well yeah, it's harder later... i guess a better example would be giving an intelligent adult an IQ test written in a language they don't speak; they'll score almost nothing; in a couple of years they could learn a language well enough to score well on the test without being any more intelligent... so their environment affects their measured score more easily than their intelligence... was what i was getting at.

that's always seemed a real problem to me, that even in questions testing eg mathematical ability, the question is often expressed linguistically; i gather there are tests that aim to remove this as much as possible and use graphical means, which is probably closer to what i think of as intelligence (eg figuring out what the symbols on an in-flight safety card mean seems to me to be a closer skill to the sorts of problem-solving and knowledge/information -aquisition skills that i associate with brainyness, than figuring out what's meant by a sentence about "if djbarry has more cds than poprock, and dec has more vinyl than djbarry has cds, how many cassettes does poprock have" type pish).

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by djtoast

that's always seemed a real problem to me, that even in questions testing eg mathematical ability, the question is often expressed linguistically;

Even in cases where tests avoid a direct written language component the questions have to be explained linguistically using language. I don't consider mathematics to be seperate from language (in fact being heavily into my constructionist discourse analysis at the minute I don't consider there to be anything seperate from language) a different form or different language perhaps but still a language of sorts.

This maybe of interest (although I don't entirely agree with it, it might make interesting reading for those of us engaged in epistomological debate) http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Allport/concepts.htm

[Charlicat]

Its all that calorie counting, keeps their brains active. Not their bods though, obviously.

[endless psych]

Also spookily enough:- http://technology.newscientist.com/c...ine-news_rss20

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

A phenotype is just an observable attribute of any living organism

The most important thing about a it (by definition) is that it has genetic component, though, yeah? I mean, acquired characteristics aren't considered phenotypes.
I was mistaken in thinking that it was a direct outcome of a genotype. I guess even "classic" phenotypes such as height can be affected by environment. Makes perfect sense now.

[MarkMono]

For every genuinely curvy person in the world, there are 1000 fatties deluding themselves.

[hotblonde]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

The most important thing about a it (by definition) is that it has genetic component, though, yeah? I mean, acquired characteristics aren't considered phenotypes.
I was mistaken in thinking that it was a direct outcome of a genotype. I guess even "classic" phenotypes such as height can be affected by environment. Makes perfect sense now.

Everything has a genetic component tho', Les if you boil it down to bare bones. Yes acquired characteristics such as a scar caused by a knife fight, for example aren't what I would describe as 'phenotypic', but in terms of measuring a phenotype that is observed as a trait of a living organism, then there is both monogenic and polygenic inputs some which can be classified as quantitative traits. For example identical twins, may share a genotype, but there is never going to be a sterile and identical environment even in utero. Then you have the example of a hypertrophied heart in one of a pair of identical twins caused by genes and/or environment, but again acquired to an extent, even tho' the environmental influence will never be the same. Acquired characteristics is something that I would say is transient and not transferable, but again it can still contribute to an individual's phenotype and as such may still be measured..again muddying the waters of what is measured when studying genetics, etc.

[MarkMono]

Which is exactly why I don't consider IQ to be a quantifiable measure of human intelligence.

Or animal intelligence either, for that matter. Thats a little bit outside my area of expertise tho.