Lecture 2:

Intelligence – nature and nurture

CCST9025: Genetics and Human Nature
Lecturer: Dr. Larry Baum
 Nature + Nurture = Controversy
• One of the oldest debates in psychology
• But why is the topic controversial?
– It isn’t when it comes to the study of animals.
• Biological determinism – the (mostly false)
idea that since our genes influence who we
are, we can’t do anything to change who we
will become
 Inequality
• If we are born Blank Slates, we all start equal.
– Differences between any groups would be due only to life experience.
• For differences between the sexes, economic classes, and races
• In talents, abilities, interests, and inclinations
– Problem: We might envy those who are particularly successful and advocate for
policies that enforce equality of outcomes.
• If we differ among us due to genetic differences, problems may result.
– Prejudice – We might discriminate against people because we know they are
different.
– Social Darwinism – We might tolerate inequality because those at the bottom of
society are there due to innate differences and so we might feel they shouldn’t be
helped.
– Eugenics – We might prevent inferior people from having kids, or even kill them,
and encourage elite to have more children.
• Therefore, some people may wish we start as blank slates.
 Inequality
• But we don’t need to be blank slates to justify equal treatment.
• Political equality is a moral position, not a scientific one, although
because there are traits that all humans share, there is a biological
reason for treating everyone equally.
– “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.” Thomas
Jefferson, U.S. Declaration of Independence
– Abraham Lincoln thought that the signers of the Declaration “did not mean to say
all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity,” but
only in respect to “certain inalienable rights.”
– If political equality came from the idea that we are all equal because we are blank
slates, any evidence to the contrary would justify throwing out the idea of
political equality.
• We have equal value, but we are not the same.
 Francis Galton: Hereditary Genius (1869)
• Showed that “eminence” ran in families
– “Out of the 286 Judges, more than one in
every nine of them have been either father,
son, or brother to another judge, and the
other high legal relationships have been even
more numerous. There cannot, then, remain
a doubt but that the peculiar type of ability
that is necessary to a judge is often
transmitted by descent.”
– Same for “statesmen” and “commanders”
“…when we measure the intelligence of an individual and learn that he has so
much less than normal as to come within the group that we call feeble-minded,
we have ascertained by far the most important fact about him.” (1919, p.272)
 What are cognitive abilities?
• Verbal ability – how well we communicate orally
and in writing
• Spatial ability – understanding relationships
among objects in space, e.g. map-reading ability
• Memory – ability to remember what we are
exposed to
• Motor abilities – ability to manipulate physical
objects
From: http://super-economy.blogspot.hk/2011/04/iq-income-and-wealth.html
 Controversy
• Steven J Gould: The Mismeasure of Man (1981)
– Critical of IQ as a useful concept
• “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight
and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the
near certainty that people of equal talent have
lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
• “We pass through this world but once. Few
tragedies can be more extensive than the
stunting of life, few injustices deeper than the
denial of an opportunity to strive or even to
Steven J. Gould (right)
hope, by a limit imposed from without, but
falsely identified as lying within.”
 Controversy, cont.
• Not in Our Genes (1984) by Richard
Lewontin, Steven Rose (biologists),
and Leon Kamin (psychologist)
– Scientists have biases.
– Genetic influences on behavior
further politically conservative
agendas.
– “Science is the ultimate legitimator of
bourgeois ideology.”
 Controversy, cont.
• The Blank Slate: The Modern
Denial of Human Nature (2003)
by Steven Pinker
– Took on these criticisms in a
popular book
– https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_
human_nature_and_the_blank_slate
(22:23)
 Quantitative Genetics
• Why do organisms vary?
• Heredity: why do some traits run in families?
• Behavioral Genetics: quantitative genetic
study of human behavior and psychology
 Height
• Measure heights
of a bunch of
people.
• A normal
distribution
 Normal distribution
• Why?
 Galton Box

https://www.youtube.com/em
bed/kDkmSI39sWQ?start=9&e
nd=99 (9-1:39)
 Why do we differ in height?
• We all differ in our genetic alleles.
• We all differ in our environments.
– Environments created by our parents
– Random walk through life
• >80% of height variation is due to
genetic differences among us.
• How do we know this?
 Measuring familial resemblance
• Correlation (r)
measures similarity
between two variables.
• Knowing one member
of a twin pair’s score
tells you about the
other member’s score.
• r ranges from -1 to +1.
• Galton (1888) and
Karl Pearson (1857-1936)
Pearson (1896)
developed it.
 Scatter Plots of Data with Various
Correlation Coefficients Slide from: Statistics for Managers
Using Microsoft® Excel 4th Edition,

Y Y Y 2004 Prentice-Hall

X X X
r = -1 r = -.6 r=0
Y
Y Y

X X X
r = +1 r = +.3 r=0
 How do we calculate r?
cov( x, y )
You don’t need to memorize these equations. rxy =
sx s y
n

 ( x − x)( y − y)
i i
cov( x, y ) = i =1
n −1
Pearson and Lee’s diagram for measurement of “span” (finger-tip to finger-tip distance)
From Pearson and Lee (1903), p.378
From Pearson and Lee (1903), p.378
From Pearson and Lee (1903), p. 373
 Can we conclude from relatives that
stature is inherited?
• Each parent gives each child
– half of its genetic material
– a rearing environment
• Siblings share on average
– half of their genetic material
– similar rearing environments
 Ronald Fisher (1890-1962)

Fisher developed mathematical theory that reconciled Mendel’s work with

Galton and Pearson’s correlations
 Distribution of scores produced by two genes
a. (N=1000 subjects) b. The "smoothing" effect of the environment
(N=1000 subjects, 2 gene model)

0.4

0.4

0.3
0.3

0.2
0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0
0.0
-2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
S1
Y1
c. Continuous distribution of polygenic trait
(100 genes with small cumulative effects)

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
75 79 83 87 91 95 99 103 107 111 115 119 123
Y1
 Fisher (1918): basic ideas
• Continuous variation caused by lots of genes
(“polygenic inheritance”)
• Each gene follows Mendel’s laws.
• Environment smooths out genetic differences.
• Genes may show different degrees of “dominance”.
• Showed that correlations obtained by, e.g., Pearson
and Lee, were explained well by polygenic
inheritance.
 Differences between Mendel and Galton
Mendel Galton
• Discrete traits • Continuous traits
• Tall vs. short plants • Height measured continuously
• Single gene having large, • Multiple genes, each having
qualitative effect very small effects on the trait
 Multifactorial model of complex
disease or quantitative traits

G1 G2 G3 G4 Quantitative Trait
0.09
0.08
0.07

Y
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

E1 E2 E3 E4 T
Liability-Threshold Model
 Partitioning variance
Unique Shared Additive Dominant
Environment Environment Genetic effects Genetic effects

E C A D
c a
e d
Phenotype

P = eE + aA + cC + dD
(plus other effects)
 Twin Studies
• Comparing identical (monozygotic; MZ) with
fraternal (dizygotic; DZ) twin pairs
• MZ twins are genetically identical
• DZ twins share half their genetic material
• MZ and DZ twin pairs share environment
 Compare correlations
in MZ and DZ twins
Height measured in female twin pairs

MZFMZ correlation = .92 DZFDZ correlation = .52

190 190

180
180

170

170

160
stature twin 2

stature twin 2
160
150

150 140
150 160 170 180 190 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
 ACE model for pairs of people
1

MZ=1.0; DZ/sib=0.5

E C A A C E
e c a a c e

PT1 PT2
 Calculating heritability
• rMZ = a2 + c2
• rDZ = ½ a2 + c2

• rMZ – rDZ = (a2 + c2) – (½ a2 + c2)

= ½ a2
• a2 = 2(rMZ – rDZ) = h2 = Heritability
 What is heritability?
• The proportion of variance in a measured trait
that is due to genetic differences among people
in the population
• Characteristic of a population, not an individual
• Heritability changes if aspects of the population
change.
• Even a highly heritable trait might be changed.
 Environmental variance
• Shared (common) environmental variance
❑ c2 = 2 rDZ – rMZ
❑ Environment shared by a pair of people, causing them
to be similar
• Unique (individual) environment variance
❑ e2 = 1 – rMZ = 1 – a2 – c2
❑ Environment not shared by a pair of people, causing
them to differ
 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 =
 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 = 2 (rMZ – rDZ)
 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 = 2 (rMZ – rDZ) = 2 (.92-.52) = 2(.40) = .80

 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 = 2 (rMZ – rDZ) = 2 (.92-.52) = 2(.40) = .80

• c2 =
 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 = 2 (rMZ – rDZ) = 2 (.92-.52) = 2(.40) = .80

• c2 = 2rDZ – rMZ
 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 = 2 (rMZ – rDZ) = 2 (.92-.52) = 2(.40) = .80

• c2 = 2rDZ – rMZ = 2(.52) - .92 = 1.04 - .92 = .12
 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 = 2 (rMZ – rDZ) = 2 (.92-.52) = 2(.40) = .80

• c2 = 2rDZ – rMZ = 2(.52) - .92 = 1.04 - .92 = .12
• e2 =
 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 = 2 (rMZ – rDZ) = 2 (.92-.52) = 2(.40) = .80

• c2 = 2rDZ – rMZ = 2(.52) - .92 = 1.04 - .92 = .12
• e2 = 1 – h2 – c2
 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 = 2 (rMZ – rDZ) = 2 (.92-.52) = 2(.40) = .80

• c2 = 2rDZ – rMZ = 2(.52) - .92 = 1.04 - .92 = .12
• e2 = 1 – h2 – c2 = 1 - .80 -.12 = .08
 Back to height
• rMZ = .92
• rDZ = .52

• h2 = 2 (rMZ – rDZ) = 2 (.92-.52) = 2(.40) = .80

• c2 = 2rDZ – rMZ = 2(.52) - .92 = 1.04 - .92 = .12
• e2 = 1 – h2 – c2 = 1 - .80 -.12 = .08
 Four scenarios
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Twin 0.5 MZ
Correlation 0.4 DZ
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
G=(additive) genetic variance
C=shared (common) No G No C G and C G and I
environment variance
I=non-additive genetic variance Causes of Variation
 Heritability of disease
• Intelligence is a trait with a continuous measure:
any value along a scale.
• But what if you want to measure heritability of a
disease? It’s binary; you have it, or you don’t.
– Need to use the prevalence of the disease.
– Then concordance rates (chance of one person having
the disease if another has it) can be converted to
correlations.
 Colorado Adoption Project
• 245 adopted children, their biological parents,
their adopted parents, and their genetically
unrelated siblings
• Assessed periodically from birth
• 245 “control” families of parents and their
biological children
 Adoption studies correlations
• Biological parent and adopted away child: ½ h2
• Adoptive parent and adopted child: shared
environment only (c2)
• Unrelated siblings reared together: shared
environment only (c2)
• Ordinary biological siblings: ½ h2 + c2
 Twins reared apart
• An unusual form of adoption
study, where pairs of twin Tom Bouchard

were separated at birth and

adopted into different
families
• Minnesota Study of Twins
Reared Apart
• The Jim Twins
 Calculating heritability of twins reared apart

• rMZ = a2
• rDZ = ½ a2
• Resemblance between
pairs of twins reared
apart is due only to
genetic sharing.
 Conclusions from adoption and twins
reared apart studies

• Findings consistent with conventional twin

studies
• Shared environment plays a minor role in
personality traits
 Intelligence

• What is intelligence?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/9xTz3QjcloI?start=1&end=699 (11:39)

• Is intelligence inherited?
 Heritability of intelligence

• A = apart. T = together.
• What do you notice about MZA vs. MZT?
• What do you notice about DZA vs. DZT?
• Estimate heritability.
• You don’t need to memorize the numbers in this and subsequent slides.
 Genetic variants for IQ
• GWAS: genome-wide association studies
– Purpose: Find genotypes that cause a phenotype
– Phenotype: IQ
– Genotypes: many SNPs
• SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism
• Hundreds of thousands, using 1 chip/person
• DNA from blood
– Need to examine many unrelated individuals. Why?
• Association is weak.
• Small differences in probability appear with many tests.
 Genetic variants for IQ
• A recent GWAS for IQ
– Published July 2018
– ~1/4 million people
– Found ~200 places in the genome associated w/IQ
 Genetic variants for IQ
• Each dot is a SNP.
“Manhattan plot” • X-axis is position along chromosomes.
• Y-axis is strength of association with IQ.
Genetic variants for IQ
• Where are the
associated
genes
expressed?
• Mostly in brain
 Genetic variants for IQ
• A recent GWAS for IQ
– Genome-wide polygenic score (GPS)
• Combine the SNPs into an equation to predict IQ
• Explains ~5% of variance in IQ
– Why does polygenic score explain so little?
• Need more people to detect tiny associations.
• Genetic variants other than SNPs affect IQ.
• Heredity only affects some (~2/3-3/4) of variance in IQ.
 Intelligence is highly heritable

Was Goddard right? Is intelligence the

most important measure of a person?
 Prominence of IQ
“IQ is known to predict scholastic performance
better than any other single measureable
attribute of the child, … So the remedy deemed
logical for children who would do poorly in
school is to boost their IQs” -- A. R. Jensen
(1969)
 Can we raise IQ?
But how can we raise IQ if it’s heritable, and
environment has only a small effect?
Try anyway. Would a special school program or very
different family environment have more effect?
 Perry Preschool Program: IQ

We can raise IQ by this program, but only temporarily.

 Perry Preschool: Social/Economic Results
100%
Control Treatment
80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Completed High School Employed at Age 40 Earned >$20K at Age 40 Arrested 5+ Times

Huh? If IQ effect fades, why are there long-term benefits?

Heckman, J. J., et al. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1-2), 114-128.
 Soft skills
Perry Preschool Program results:

“… soft skills predict success in life, that

they causally produce that success and
that programs that enhance soft skills
have an important place in an effective
portfolio of public policies.” James Heckman

Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills.

Labour Economics, 19(4), 451-464.
James Heckman
Cognitive and Noncognitive Predictors of Academic Success
Age-17 Predictor Description
4 Weschler subtests:
Hard Vocabulary
IQ Information
Skill Block Design
Picture Arrangement
Sample Items:
Academic Motivation (AM)
Is motivated to earn good grades
(rated by parent) Turns in homework on time
MPQ Primary Scales:
Well Being
Positive Emotionality (PE) Social Closeness
Achievement
Soft Social Potency
Skills MPQ Primary Scales:
Aggression
Negative Emotionality (NE) Alienation
Stress Reactivity
MPQ Primary Scales:
Control
Constraint (CN) Harm Avoidance
Traditionalism
 Heritability of soft skills
Odds Ratio with
MZ Correlation DZ Correlation
College Completion

.78 .55 2.0

IQ
(.75, .80) (.49, .61) (1.8, 2.2)

.83 .38 2.7

Academic Motivation
(.81, .85) (.29, .46) (2.4, 3.1)

.53 .24 1.4

Positive Emotionality
(.48, .58) (.15, .33) (1.3, 1.5)

.49 .17 0.74

Negative Emotionality
(.43, .54) (.07, .26) (0.67, 0.81)

.57 .25 1.4

Constraint
(.52, .62) (.16, .34) (1.3, 1.6)
 Different family environment
What about a very different family
environment? Could that raise IQ? Would effect
be bigger if start with low IQ?
110
Before Placement
~ 10 Years After Placement
100

90

80

70
Total Low SES Middle SES High SES
Adoptive Home SES
 Does family affect soft skills?
Look at college attendance, which soft skills may
affect.
Likelihood of College Attendance
• How can you separate the
effects of nature and nurture?
• Effect of environment
(US$/yr)
– No heredity in adopted kids
– Compare among incomes
• Effect of heredity
– Nature + nurture in biological
kids
– Subtract effect of environment
 Is higher IQ always better?
IQ is a bell curve, so people at extremes may
have trouble understanding and being
understood by most people.

https://www.t3x.org/iq/window.html
 Conclusions from
behavior genetics research
• 3 laws of behavior genetics (Turkheimer, 2000)
1. First Law: All human behavioral traits are
heritable. (~50%)
2. Second Law: The effect of being raised in the
same family is smaller than the effect of the
genes. (~0%)
3. Third Law: A substantial portion of the
variation in complex human behavioral traits
is not accounted for by the effects of genes
or families. (~50%)
Eric Turkheimer
 Why do we care?
• Unless a genetically-informative study is • Parents get endless
conducted, we can’t separate parenting parenting advice and thus
often feel guilty if they
effects from genetic transmission.
don’t do everything
• Thus, much research on parenting and possible for their kids,
personality is useless. believing that they are
affecting the kids’ future.
• Parenting has minimal effect on personality.
– But they won’t affect
– Biological parent/adoptive offspring personality. Relax!
correlations: ~0. – Though parenting may
– Shared environmental effects: ~0. affect soft skills.
The End