←back to thread

136 points gwern | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
danieltillett ◴[] No.10490915[source]
I would be very surprised if high intelligence was anything other than the extreme edge of a normal distribution of the human population. For it to be anything other than this it would require people of high intelligence to be a sub-population that did not breed with the rest of humanity.
replies(11): >>10490953 #>>10491090 #>>10491222 #>>10491322 #>>10491415 #>>10491550 #>>10491579 #>>10493236 #>>10493248 #>>10493909 #>>10495309 #
yummyfajitas ◴[] No.10490953[source]
You could make this argument for any trait. However, some traits are the result of a single gene - e.g., sickle cell anemia and the accompanying malaria resistance. Yet some of these traits occur in large populations that are not strongly inbred.
replies(1): >>10491151 #
danieltillett ◴[] No.10491151[source]
Only single gene traits. Intelligence (however defined) is multi-genetic - there are thousands of genes that contribute to intelligence. Given this the only way that individuals with high intelligence could be anything other than edge of a normal distribution is if they were part of a human sub-population.

Edit. I should add that the humans are not completely one population because of genetic isolation and differential selection (especially over the last 10,000 years), but we are almost a single population. Like everything in genetics it gets fuzzy at the edges.

replies(3): >>10491417 #>>10492555 #>>10493302 #
1. cousin_it ◴[] No.10492555[source]
* Geographical isolation for much of history

* Social class

* Assortative mating