OpenPsych forums

Full Version: G factor (wikipedia entry)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I found this in the Wikipedia entry on the G factor:

"A number of candidate genes have been reported to be associated with intelligence differences, but the effect sizes have been small and almost none of the findings have been replicated. No individual genetic variants have been conclusively linked to intelligence in the normal range so far."

I agree that the effect sizes are small but, as I understand it, several authors have found genetic variants that are associated with normal variation in intelligence. What is going on here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(p...terminants
(2014-Aug-06, 23:36:03)Peter Frost Wrote: [ -> ]I found this in the Wikipedia entry on the G factor:

"A number of candidate genes have been reported to be associated with intelligence differences, but the effect sizes have been small and almost none of the findings have been replicated. No individual genetic variants have been conclusively linked to intelligence in the normal range so far."

I agree that the effect sizes are small but, as I understand it, several authors have found genetic variants that are associated with normal variation in intelligence. What is going on here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(p...terminants

Wikipedia is generally good but it can be nasty at times. In this case it's obviously lying. I am not even gonna attempt to modify it because I know it's a waste of time (idiots about in all editorial boards).
No need to jump to conclusions. Wikipedia was correct about this a few years ago. However, now some SNPs have been repeatedly replicated. Effect sizes are small, but that's not really a criticism, that just means there are lots of genes that affect general mental ability. That's hardly surprising. The brain is very complicated. :)

We can update it with some references. Basically, one would add the paper about most findings are probably false positives along with the replications of the new findings from the Rietvald et al paper and subsequent replications.
(2014-Aug-07, 01:00:50)Emil Wrote: [ -> ]No need to jump to conclusions. Wikipedia was correct about this a few years ago. However, now some SNPs have been repeatedly replicated. Effect sizes are small, but that's not really a criticism, that just means there are lots of genes that affect general mental ability. That's hardly surprising. The brain is very complicated. :)

We can update it with some references. Basically, one would add the paper about most findings are probably false positives along with the replications of the new findings from the Rietvald et al paper and subsequent replications.

Good luck with that! I hope the editors will approve the changes but I really doubt it. I once tried updating a Wikipedia entry where height was declared as "measured", when in reality was "self reported". They didn't bother changing it. Given the nature of the debate on intelligence genes, I think the task will be even harder.
The text seems sympathetic (or at least not hostile) to the hereditarian position. This may just be a case of a statement that used to be true but no longer is.
(2014-Aug-08, 16:49:22)Peter Frost Wrote: [ -> ]The text seems sympathetic (or at least not hostile) to the hereditarian position. This may just be a case of a statement that used to be true but no longer is.

Sorry for not noticing this thread before now. That article was written almost entirely by Victor Chmara, who seems to be generally sympathetic towards the hereditarian perspective. He wrote the article in spring of 2012, so the problem with that part of it is just that it's become outdated in the past two years.

It shouldn't be a problem for someone here to update it. Remember what I said here about which sorts of sources are best, though. Instead of citing the Rietvald study itself, it would be better to cite a literature review summarizing that study, if any exist.

EDIT: Actually, it would probably be better to cite a paper discussing the Deary 2011 study rather than the Rietvald study. The specific thing measured in the Rietvald study was educational attainment, and Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to include any conclusions that aren't explicitly stated in the sources being cited. (However, if there's a literature review that discusses the Rietvald study in the context of g, citing the literature review for this conclusion would be okay.)