{"id":2279,"date":"2011-10-17T10:28:43","date_gmt":"2011-10-17T17:28:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scotthyoung.com\/blog\/?p=2279"},"modified":"2019-03-08T06:26:45","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T14:26:45","slug":"genes-in-genius","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scotthyoung.com\/blog\/2011\/10\/17\/genes-in-genius\/","title":{"rendered":"How Much Do Genes Matter?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A reader emailed me after I wrote about learning calculus in five days<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cI question that you\u2019re just a person of average intelligence who knows how to learn faster. I can\u2019t imagine ever finishing an MIT class in 5 days.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

My response to him was that, of course, I was probably smarter than average. If we measure intelligence, in part, by a persons ability to learn quickly, then learning faster than average would imply being smarter than average. He responded back with:<\/p>\n

\u201cWould you say someone with average genes could learn a class in 5 days with the right techniques?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The question doesn\u2019t make any sense, but I feel it represents a common viewpoint so I wanted to share my thoughts here. What on earth does \u201caverage genes\u201d mean?<\/p>\n

Do You Need Good Genes to Be Smart?<\/h2>\n

The real problem is that society has extremely loaded definitions of the word \u201csmart\u201d or \u201cintelligence\u201d which tends to preclude any meaningful discussion. Worse, now these loaded definitions are mixed up in people\u2019s equally confused minds about genetics.<\/p>\n

I want to clarify some misconceptions:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. You can\u2019t have<\/em> an IQ.<\/li>\n
  2. When researchers say 50% of intelligence is heritable, they don\u2019t mean 50% of your intelligence is caused by genes.<\/li>\n
  3. Innate talent doesn\u2019t mean immutable talent.<\/li>\n
  4. No, not all people are created equal, but that\u2019s true of everything.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u201cMaybe You Just Have a Really High IQ?\u201d<\/h2>\n

    This first misconception bothers me the most. An IQ is never something you can possess, it is merely the result of a test you have taken. Think of an algebra test. You would never say, \u201cI have an algebra quotient of 120!\u201d So why do people say \u201cI have an IQ of 120\u201d?<\/p>\n

    It may seem like I\u2019m splitting hairs, but it\u2019s a big difference. IQ is not intended to measure only innate, immutable ability. It also measures knowledge you\u2019ve accumulated through experience.<\/p>\n

    The way IQ is calculated is that your score is compared to people the same age as you, using a bell curve. So a particularly precocious 10 year-old who scores 150 isn\u2019t necessarily smarter than me.<\/p>\n

    In fact this sorting by age is often necessary, because otherwise people\u2019s IQs would grow steadily higher as they aged. This only makes sense, if IQ tests also measure knowledge and cognitive skill, then one would expect to score better as you accumulate more experience.<\/p>\n

    The other misconception about IQ is that it measures general intelligence. I firmly believe that such a scalar quantity does not exist. Studies involving chess grandmasters show that they are not particularly more intelligent in other things than an average person, despite being a genius in chess. Intelligence, it turns out, is highly contextual.<\/p>\n

    I don\u2019t think IQ tests are useless, and most psychologists who use them understand their strengths and their limitations. The problem is that a misinformed public has grossly exaggerated both their relevance and the idea that intelligence is something you can pin down to a number.<\/p>\n

    What Does it Mean When Scientists Say 50% of Intelligence Heritable?<\/h2>\n

    Studies generally show about 50% of intelligence is heritable, with the other 50% coming from the environment. This type of research is usually grounded in separated identical twin studies, where the effects of genes and similar upbringings can be sorted.<\/p>\n

    Now most people take these results and interpret them as saying that 50% of my intelligence is caused by my genes. This is incorrect.<\/p>\n

    What scientists mean when they say 50% of intelligence is heritable, they are saying that over the population being sampled, 50% of the deviations from the average in intelligence can be explained by differences in genes. This sounds similar to saying your smarts are half genes, but it\u2019s not.<\/p>\n

    For example, let\u2019s say we took 100 boys and raised them in barrels, where they received no sunlight or human contact of any kind, until they were 15. Then we gave them an IQ test immediately after sending them into the world.<\/p>\n

    For this population, 100% of the deviation in IQ would be explained by genes. After all, their environments were identical, so it cannot be a factor. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that the boys\u2019 general mental ability is the result of their genes\u2014clearly their environment was the key factor preventing them from being normal.<\/p>\n

    Scientists cannot, at this point in time, say what percentage of your ability comes from genes. All they can do is observe population deviations. That\u2019s very useful information, but just because 50% of IQ is explained by genes, that doesn\u2019t mean 50% of your individual intelligence is caused by genes.<\/p>\n

    How Much Do Genetic Advantages Matter Anyways?<\/h2>\n

    This confusion is compounded by another common misconception people have. People hear the words \u201cgenes\u201d and they believe this means innate talent. Second, they believe that innate talent means immutable ability. Although these things could be true, they are not logical consequences of each other.<\/p>\n

    First, what is the difference between genetic predisposition and innate talent? Genes could cause a natural aptitude, in math, for example. But a genetic predisposition could also mean that you simply enjoy math more, so you\u2019re more likely to work hard at it.<\/p>\n

    The fact that researchers can see trends in populations being explained in heritability does not mean the mechanism of action is well understood.<\/p>\n

    The second, even more tenuous, jump people make is assuming that if talent is innate (or caused by genes) that it is necessarily impossible to change. This one is demonstrably false.<\/p>\n

    A really simple example is hair color. Hair color is mostly genetic. But I can purchase a bottle of hair dye for a few dollars and gain nearly 100% control over the actual color of my hair. In this case, the innate attribute of hair color is entirely modifiable by technique.<\/p>\n

    The same is true of talent. Yes, some people may have more natural aptitude, but that doesn\u2019t mean that you\u2019re stuck with what you\u2019re born with. Even if an attribute was mostly genetic, that wouldn\u2019t preclude new methods from being able to improve that attribute.<\/p>\n

    My favorite example of this is the running of the 4-minute mile. Before 1954, no human being had ever ran a 4-minute mile. Then Roger Bannister completed his run in 3:59.4. Now thousands of people have completed a 4-minute mile.<\/p>\n

    Running is something, I feel, has a lot of similarities to intelligence. There is definitely an element of innate advantage; Bannister was an incredible athlete. But the gene pool didn\u2019t suddenly change in 1954. Instead, the new approach allowed other people to push past the barrier as well.<\/p>\n

    The question I got was whether anyone can complete an MIT class in 4.5 days. I don\u2019t think most people could, just like I know I can\u2019t run a 4-minute mile. But that doesn\u2019t mean that you can\u2019t learn better, just as Bannister\u2019s aspirational marker doesn\u2019t mean you can\u2019t train to run faster.<\/p>\n

    No, People Are Not Created Equal<\/h2>\n

    Yes, some people have innate advantages over other people. Life is unfair. I\u2019m not trying to spin this article into saying that there don\u2019t exist fantastic geniuses whose abilities are largely unearned.<\/p>\n

    But it frustrates me when I see people making equally absurd chains of reasoning to assume that because some people have a head start, that there\u2019s no point trying to learn better.<\/p>\n

    My methods may not turn out to be fully correct. I\u2019ve worked with a lot of students, but I don\u2019t forget that many of my ideas haven\u2019t withstood a barrage of peer-reviewed experiments demonstrating causality. But I do feel that, regardless of your opinion on metaphors, the Feynman technique or flow-based notetaking, that anyone can improve how they learn, just as they can improve anything else.<\/p>\n

    —-<\/p>\n

    Speaking of learning faster, I just finished my second week (and second class) of my MIT Challenge<\/a> to learn MIT\u2019s computer science curriculum in 12 months, without taking classes. You can see the video below where I discuss how you can watch lectures at 2x speed, how to learn math faster and link to free resources I’ve been using:<\/p>\n