Another score for the curvy burds..

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

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.

Can you explain what a QTL is a bit more?
I thought locus referred to the position on the chromosome, not the trait itself. So I would have said that IQ is a (loosely) quantifiable trait and its QTL is/are the area(s) in the genome which have (so far) been shown to influence the given trait.
Where have I gone wrong here? My genetics is pish. I know as much as I use in work and that's about it.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by endless psych

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.

well yeah...

but i think different sorts of language have different levels of artificiality: counting numbers must surely be an inherent property of the universe in a way that the names we give to them (in English or French or Spanish aren't); likewise the way we see things arises out of our physiology, so while

Zwei plus drei ist:

Ein
Fünf
Elf
Elefant

requires a certain kind of liguistic skill to determine the answer, and probably arouses almost no response in someone who doesn't speak german, wheras independent of country of origin, or even completely illiterate, or indeed deaf/mute, a person might have a meaningful understanding of the picture here; they might struggle to communicate what they understand by it but i think if you presented that problem (using real objects instead of a picture), it wouldn't really be language that would be at work, cause that's about an abstract representation/communication of ideas, wheras recognising that five is always five, and that it's made up of smaller units, requires intelligence, but (in my view) not necessarily language.

[endless psych]

[quote=djtoast;3184424]counting numbers must surely be an inherent property of the universe in a way that the names we give to them (in English or French or Spanish aren't);/QUOTE]

Can you count or understand or convey or communicate your understanding of numbers without using language?

Counting numbers as an inherent property of the universe? An abstract set of concepts designed to define how many there are of something isn't inherent to the universe - inherent to our understanding of it perhaps and in such terms it is a construction within our universe. Its something we invented to explain quantity (which is itself a construction) not an inherent property of quantity.

Thats if quantity can be defined objectively, indeed if anything can, if we accept that most of our means of defining the 'objective' reality of the universe were infact created as ways of speaking about them. And that these 'objective' descriptions are prone to constant refinment and redefiniton in line with different understanding then are they not inherently subjective?

IE the notion of objectivity or what is objective is itself subjective and closely tied into the discurssive formations and cultural and societal biases and prejudices of the time.

[hotblonde]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Can you explain what a QTL is a bit more?
I thought locus referred to the position on the chromosome, not the trait itself. So I would have said that IQ is a (loosely) quantifiable trait and its QTL is/are the area(s) in the genome which have (so far) been shown to influence the given trait.
Where have I gone wrong here? My genetics is pish. I know as much as I use in work and that's about it.

No your genetics isn't pish at all and I'm just shit at explaining things. I should have really said IQ is measurable by QTL analysis rather than is a QTL..when I meant to say is a QT . We just don't use the term 'QT' and so used to banding about the acronym QTL. A QTL is basically a region which can influence a quantifiable trait as measured by phenotype and generally assessed genetically by a F2 or recombinant inbred line. It's also possible to measure these traits and QTL regions in heterogeneous populations such as humans. Locus or loci plural does refer to a region on a chromosome or chromosomes but when discussing a particular trait in reference to a genetic component, it is generally referred to as a QTL for a trait; a chunk of genes rather than a single gene. This is really basic and I could explain it better if I could draw you something. For example IQ is a quantitative trait but can be described in terms of a QTL when associated with a specific region on a chromosome. There will most likely be more than one QTL for this particular trait and it may be different in different ethnic groups and the same ethnic groups in different environments, likewise in different animals and different strains within species, etc, etc. A QTL may influence a trait, be completely in control of a trait under certain environmental cues or be simply monogenic; depending on certain mutations within individual genes (e.g. some monogenic hypertension genes involved in salt regulation). I'm not trying to dumb it down, but even that description is too basic and not really defining a QTL..and probably a bit rubbish, if I'm honest..I'm telling you, I can draw this and explain it great! If you're really interested I can send you some reviews? I know of at least one QTL containing at least one GST.

Again, a lot of that is down to stats before you even get off the ground and it's all down to how good a genetic map is and how well the phenotype data has been collected. When you really get down to the nitty gritty of it, some of it is utter bollocks. Anyway, you were meant to have read my thesis ye wee shite...my intro explains very well what a QTL is!

[hotblonde]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's outside mine too, but I'm of the thinking that measuring an animal's IQ can give a some degree of accuracy that is almost impossible to attain with human sampling. There is a sterile and contained environment for a start and little language/education interpretation to consider. I wonder is curvy rats have been investigated with regards IQ.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

It's outside mine too, but I'm of the thinking that measuring an animal's IQ can give a some degree of accuracy that is almost impossible to attain with human sampling.

Except that for the most part animals are defined as being intelligent if they can perform tasks that humans would be able to and probably has little or no relation to actual animal intelligence or ecological validity.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Can you count or understand or convey or communicate your understanding of numbers without using language?

Counting numbers as an inherent property of the universe? An abstract set of concepts designed to define how many there are of something isn't inherent to the universe

sorry, i kind of meant to say what we intend them to represent; ie not our words for "one" and "two" but the properties they represent. conveying and communicating without language, no... understanding? yeah, i think so. if there are two grapefruit in front of a person who has never been taught to communicate with other humans, and he pick them up at the same time - one in each hand - i think that's displaying numeracy of a sort without relying on language. an understanding that there's an equivalence between two grapefruit and two hands - if there were three in front of him his response would be different, and i think that would be due to undrestanding the notion of counting or quantity, whether or not he has a word for that.

Originally Posted by endless psych

Thats if quantity can be defined objectively, indeed if anything can, if we accept that most of our means of defining the 'objective' reality of the universe were infact created as ways of speaking about them. And that these 'objective' descriptions are prone to constant refinment and redefiniton in line with different understanding then are they not inherently subjective?

IE the notion of objectivity or what is objective is itself subjective and closely tied into the discurssive formations and cultural and societal biases and prejudices of the time.

i think what you say is true to a point. again, means of defining - yes, but understanding (in some measure) our environment can be more basic than describing it - and while we may struggle to be objective, i think it's unhelpful to suggest that objectivity can't exist. Things exist outside of our attempts to describe them

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

No your genetics isn't pish at all and I'm just shit at explaining things. I should have really said IQ is measurable by QTL analysis rather than is a QTL..when I meant to say is a QT . We just don't use the term 'QT' and so used to banding about the acronym QTL. A QTL is basically a region which can influence a quantifiable trait as measured by phenotype and generally assessed genetically by a F2 or recombinant inbred line. It's also possible to measure these traits and QTL regions in heterogeneous populations such as humans. Locus or loci plural does refer to a region on a chromosome or chromosomes but when discussing a particular trait in reference to a genetic component, it is generally referred to as a QTL for a trait; a chunk of genes rather than a single gene. This is really basic and I could explain it better if I could draw you something. For example IQ is a quantitative trait but can be described in terms of a QTL when associated with a specific region on a chromosome. There will most likely be more than one QTL for this particular trait and it may be different in different ethnic groups and the same ethnic groups in different environments, likewise in different animals and different strains within species, etc, etc. A QTL may influence a trait, be completely in control of a trait under certain environmental cues or be simply monogenic; depending on certain mutations within individual genes (e.g. some monogenic hypertension genes involved in salt regulation). I'm not trying to dumb it down, but even that description is too basic and not really defining a QTL..and probably a bit rubbish, if I'm honest..I'm telling you, I can draw this and explain it great! If you're really interested I can send you some reviews? I know of at least one QTL containing at least one GST.

Again, a lot of that is down to stats before you even get off the ground and it's all down to how good a genetic map is and how well the phenotype data has been collected. When you really get down to the nitty gritty of it, some of it is utter bollocks. Anyway, you were meant to have read my thesis ye wee shite...my intro explains very well what a QTL is!

Yeah, that all makes sense.
What GST is it?

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by djtoast

i think what you say is true to a point. again, means of defining - yes, but understanding (in some measure) our environment can be more basic than describing it - and while we may struggle to be objective, i think it's unhelpful to suggest that objectivity can't exist. Things exist outside of our attempts to describe them

I don't mean to suggest there isn't an objective reality just that I don't think the human brain is capable of objectively observing it. Then its a wee hop skip and jump to saying "well if we rely on language and our ability to communicate to explain how we understand the world" then there may well be things external to our attempts to describe them but not being able to describe them makes them tantamount to non-existant. Although means of explaining such things in exsisting 'words' or neulogisms will probably arise quite quickly if for example we are trying to describe the moment Cthulu rises and kills us all.

[hotblonde]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Except that for the most part animals are defined as being intelligent if they can perform tasks that humans would be able to and probably has little or no relation to actual animal intelligence or ecological validity.

Like what, for example? What do you mean by ecological validity? I've never been involved in IQ tests but I've sat in a fair few talks - pinching tails, wheels, treadmills, walking balances, etc. Neurobiology and wooly psychology united

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Yeah, that all makes sense.
What GST is it?

GSTM1 and endothelial dysfunction/oxidative stress. On rat chromosome 2, mouse chromosome 3 and human chromosome 1. I'm not sold on it myself, as there is little evidence in humans of association with SNPs, but there is strong evidence from rat microarrays. Of course much is now moving toward small RNA (microRNAarrays) and exonic arrays; technology moves on so fast this years work is obsolete before it even hits the first reviewer.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

Like what, for example? What do you mean by ecological validity?

Well most of the work on animal intelligence as far as I recall involves as you mentioned sterile lab experiments that are designed to measure how well certain animals perform certain tasks. Like swimming to find a fixed platform or finding their way through a maze. Compliant animals that perform well are said to be of greater intelligence whereas conversley I suspect that if you put a human in a maze and observed their progress then you would find it a pretty piss poor measure of IQ. In animal IQ testing compliance is generally whats actually being measured (IMO).

Ecological validity means that lab experiments might not nessecarily hold true in the 'wild'. A praying mantis eating its mate after copulation is an example of something thats been found in labs but never actually observed in the wild. Thus this observation could be said to be of low ecological validity.

Taking things away to measure certain variables therefore arguably doesn't nessecarily mean your getting a true or 'ecologically valid' picture of the internal cognitive processes or a measure of animal intelligence.

[hotblonde]

I would never refer to it as ecologically valid, more environmentally translatable as you're not sure how behavior translates to a non monitored laboratory setting. To say something is actually invalid is quite a statement, surely? Generally lab animals are inbred or bred to a specific genotype even for psychology purposes heterogeneous animal strains are not easy to come by, are they? If they are, then validity isn't so much the issue, more how behavior is assessed in a variety of environmental situations as that more of a dynamic rather than defining factor.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by hotblonde

I would never refer to it as ecologically valid, more environmentally translatable as you're not sure how behavior translates to a non monitored laboratory setting. To say something is actually invalid is quite a statement, surely? Generally lab animals are inbred or bred to a specific genotype even for psychology purposes heterogeneous animal strains are not easy to come by, are they? If they are, then validity isn't so much the issue, more how behavior is assessed in a variety of environmental situations as that more of a dynamic rather than defining factor.

I didn't say it was invalid I said that it was ecologically valid. It would be perfectly acceptable to draw valid conclusions about the intelligence of animal a breed and raised in conditions b,c and d based on performance in tasks x,y and z. But any process of generalisation from that to animals in the wild is fundamentally flawed and as such the only evidence gathered, IMO, relates to a very specific artificial (heterogenus granted) sample that in all likelyhood would never have naturally occurred in the wild.

[hotblonde]

Ah, right I see. I thought that 'no relation to actual animal intelligence or ecological validity' therefore meant invalid or at least was a negative. Of course I have no actual knowledge of psychology. If lab animals are inbred, they are by definition homogenous, the wild population would be heterogeneous as they are not interbred with each other to the point they should be genetically identical. Although not all lab animals are, it would depend on the study and psychology is not my field, so not something I would be involved in (thank goodness).

I always thought sticking a rat on a treadmill or making them walk a balance after a stroke was a bit cruel. But hey, science is great fun and so diverse, who knows what crap you can get away with being published. So, human psychology when viewed from a microcosm such as a recluse tribe, how translatable is that to Western large and outbred cultures, say for example how depression manifests, how they cope with grief, etc and do larger hipped women indeed have more intelligent children in these small and most likely genetically close communities?

[endless psych]

I've got hetero and homo mixed up again it seems. doh.