Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览JayMan存档
智商与死亡
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

In 我以前的帖子, I noted that the oft-mentioned association between obesity and poor health and “early” death may be a function of the lower average IQ of obese people. I suggested that the true correlate of these things was in fact low IQ. And indeed, I’ve stumbled on additional studies that suggests that this is in fact that case.

There are in fact many studies that look at the relationship between IQ and mortality. A 2011 meta-analysis by Catherine Calvin et al. corralled these to thoroughly examine this relationship. There is no doubt: higher IQ individuals live longer, on average, than lower IQ individuals do. This isn’t just from accidental death, but heart disease and other “natural” causes as well (but not cancer, I’ll soon return to this).

The studies in this analysis span many Western countries (Denmark, UK, USA, and Sweden) and collectively include well over 1 million subjects (mostly thanks to one Swedish study). They followed their subjects from a minimum of 17 years in some studies to a maximum of 69 years in the longest. IQ measured in childhood and early adulthood predicts mortality. Socioeconomic status (SES) in childhood doesn’t attenuate this relationship. Adult SES and educational attainment had at best only modest effects (34% and 54%, respectively). IQ alone stood as a predictor of mortality.

There are a few limitations. For one, ideally, the studies would follow the participants until they 所有, or mostly all died – and monitored the cause of death. After all, concerns about “healthy” behaviors obscure the fact that mortality rates are always eventually 100%. But, then we’d see the relationship between IQ and longevity all the way down. Obviously, such a study would be very difficult (impossible?) to do. One of the few that comes close is the Terman Life Cycle Study (“Terman’s Termites”) – which is analyzed in the paper.

The other limitation is the somewhat inconsistent measurements across these studies, which is common to most any meta-analysis. However, on that point, the largest of the studies, the Swedish conscripts study (N = 994,262) found similar findings (with the drawback that the subjects in this study were only followed for 20 years).

The consistency of the findings, especially in the largest studies (and even race, as most of these studies were) shows the strong relationship between IQ and health. These may reflect “’Body system integrity’” (function of the neurologic system, which may correlate with function of other physiologic systems),” as the Swedish study put it. That is, mutational load and pleiotropic effects of these mutated genes coming to bear.

About the issue of the degree that the superior care higher IQ individuals take of themselves plays a role in this relationship, another study from Sweden (礼貌 斯塔), which looked at 1 million military conscripts found NO association between IQ and cancer incidence (except for modest correlations with lung and skin cancers). Since behaviors, especially “healthy” ones are related to IQ, this suggest that behaviors have 没有效果 on the incidence of most cancers. As Staffan put it:

It’s interesting because IQ is linked to lots of health behaviors. People love to think that health behaviors will fix everything but smart people eat their vegetables and get cancer anyway.

Indeed. This finding is interesting in its own right, because it suggests that the non-heritable contribution to cancer is essentially purely random. This weakens the case for adopting “the right, healthy behaviors” to ward-off unhealthy outcomes. Yet, none the less, that is the conventional wisdom – something which has not fared well around here.

As Staffan noted, the association between IQ and health can be attributed to behavioral patterns that differ by IQ. Quite likely that plays some role, but isn’t the primary, or perhaps not even a significant factor.

编辑,5年13月13日:[另请注意 这篇文章, Kevin Mitchell comes to the same conclusion:

各种研究人员建议 g 可能只是一般适应性因子的指标–一种对生物体突变负荷的间接度量。 这个想法是,虽然我们都携带数百种有害突变,但我们中的一些人携带的比其他人更多,或者具有更严重影响的突变。 这些影响的组合可以以一般方式降低发育和生理学的生物系统,使它们变得不那么健壮,并且不太可能产生我们的柏拉图式的理想表型。 在这个模型中,重要的并不是特定突变对特定性状有特定影响——而是整体负载通过系统级别的影响累积降低了适应度。

[...]

Direct evidence for this kind of effect of mutational load was found recently in a 根据一项研究, by Ronald Yeo and colleagues, showing that the overall burden of rare copy number variants (deletions or duplications of segments of chromosomes) negatively predicts intelligence (r = -0.3).

If g really is an index of a general fitness factor, then it should be correlated with other indices of fitness. This indeed appears to be the case. G is weakly positively correlated with height, for example, and also strongly correlated with various measures of health and longevity.

[...]

This correlation can be interpreted in two ways: one, less intelligent people have less healthy and/or riskier lifestyles (i.e., direct causation), or, two, both intelligence and rates of mortality at least partially reflect an underlying factor – general fitness.

Another good marker of general fitness is developmental stability. This refers to the robustness of the system and the ability of the genotype to reliably generate a phenotype within the species-specific normal range, despite genetic and environmental perturbations and intrinsic noise or randomness. It is a property that varies between people.

One can get a good measure of developmental stability by looking at how symmetric someone is. The two sides of the body develop independently from the same set of genomic instructions – if a particular genotype is very robust then it should generate a very similar outcome on each side of the body. If, however, the system is less robust, then the person may be more asymmetric in any number of features (arm lengths, finger widths, earlobe lengths, eye widths, etc.). This kind of asymmetry is called fluctuating asymmetry as the direction is random – one arm may be longer than the other, but it is equally likely to be the left or right (unlike the asymmetry of internal organs, for example, which is directional and a species-specific trait).

Fluctuating asymmetry should thus be a good indicator of general fitness and is fairly easy to measure (though it is important to look at multiple features to get an aggregate score in each individual). It is also a heritable trait – monozygotic twins are more similar to each other in degree of asymmetry than are dizygotic twins. There is no reason, however, to think this reflects variation in a set of genes whose function it is to make the organism more symmetric, or to make developmental systems more robust. Rather, mutations in any genes affecting development are likely to not just contribute to some specific phenotype, but also to generally decrease robustness of the system and increase variability.

You can probably guess what’s coming next – fluctuating asymmetry correlates negatively with various IQ measures. At least, most of the 研究 that have looked at it have found such a correlation – ranging from –0.2 to –0.4, which is fairly substantial. Not all studies have found this but a 荟萃分析 confirms a correlation with a value between –0.12 and –0.2. This correlation is weaker, but still significant, and means that there is at least some relationship between intelligence and symmetry. (It may also be an underestimate, as one 根据一项研究, found that psychometric tests with heavier loadings on g showed greater correlations with fluctuating asymmetry). The most plausible interpretation is that this correlation reflects the effects on both parameters of a “latent variable” – general fitness.

This may, incidentally, also explain the recently demonstrated correlation between intelligence and physical attractiveness, which itself has been correlated with facial symmetry.]

EDIT, 2/4/14: Indeed, a new paper (co authored by Ian Deary) found that the same relationship, to the same degree, between IQ and longevity turns up when simple reaction time is used as the measure:

主要死亡原因的反应时间和死亡率:NHANES-III研究

This strengthens the notion that intrinsic health – body system integrity (a bodily g factor if you will) – is in good part responsible for the IQ-longevity link.

What about proposition that the adverse outcomes associated with obesity might in fact be the result of low IQ? Well, fortunately, one of the studies in the Calvin meta analysis did take a look at that. The Vietnam Experience Study by Batty et al followed the outcomes of 4316 Vietnam War veterans, using their Armed Forces test scores upon entry into the military to gauge their IQ. The sample was subjected to a medical exam in 1986, which measured the subjects’ BMI, among many other things. The result: IQ was by far the strongest predictor of death. Indeed, “marital status, alcohol consumption, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, blood glucose, 身体质量指数,体检时的精神疾病和躯体疾病可以忽略不计(风险降低10%)!”

In other words, weight and other “common markers of health” had little to no effect on death rates of the subjects for the 15+ years they were followed after their exam in the 1980s.

Sure, we could (correctly) argue that these men veterans and presumably had to have a modicum of physical and mental fitness to have served in the first place – hence, their results were unrepresentative of the general population. But, it’s hard to ignore a result that is quite consistent with my previous prediction on health, obesity and cardiovascular markers.

Putting allI found and posted on this topic together, it would seem that the conventional wisdom – that we need to eat “right”, exercise, keep thin, etc., to live a long, healthy life is largely, if not entirely, bullshit. People who live long lives often do those things because they were healthier to begin with. It’s quite likely that a few (or more than a few) extra pounds won’t hurt you if you’re an otherwise all-around healthy (and mentally sharp) person.

Yet, people, including the medical establishment, continue to give this advice, (sometimes in spite of evidence). The reason? My own suspicion is that health advice is one of the last remaining straws of the Utopian wish to perfect man. Forced to let go (but not without great resistance) of the idea that we can socially engineer an end to poverty, war, strife, jealousy in a 星际迷航-esque manner if we just try hard enough, and still coming to grips with the idea of cognitive and behavioral inequalities, Utopians have latched to idea that we can make people healthier and live longer (and of course, thinner) if we just adopt the right behaviors. It may turn out that much of that might not be possible even in principle (not via behaviors, anyway). A serenity moment 如果有的话。

编辑,5年13月13日:[Indeed, if ever there was a shining example of this, it would be this poor family:

里克·德尔·桑特罗(Rick Del Sontro)的家人患上了早期的心脏病,每当他去跑步时,他都会害怕自己的心会背叛他。 因此,他竭尽所能提高赔率。 他保持身材苗条,远离红肉,不吸烟,剧烈运动,甚至完成了铁人三项铁人三项赛。

里克·德尔松特罗 (Rick Del Sontro) 保持苗条身材并注意饮食,但尽管他努力了,他还是和家人一样患有心脏病。

“我买了一个梦想:如果您做正确的事情并吃正确的事情,您会没事的,”德尔桑特罗先生说。他的胆固醇和血压都非常低。

但是在他47岁的姐姐发现自己患有严重的心脏病之后,当时43岁的Del Sontro先生和一家自动存储公司Zippy Shell的总裁去找了心脏病专家。

他的动脉 X 光片揭示了真相。 和他的祖父、母亲、四个兄弟和两个姐妹一样,他也患有心脏病。 (迈克尔的一个兄弟没有得到疾病的诊断。)]

As well, as noted, the anti-obesity people may have to come to terms with the notion that their crusade against obesity is more about aesthetics than health.

It is worth noting two pieces of evidence that may serve as counterarguments. There is a study of post-Soviet collapse Cuba that claims to have monitored marked declines in obesity and cardiovascular disease there for a time, only to rebound (at least obesity) after conditions improved. My impression is that, in this case, just as with sub-Saharan Africa, it’s hard to have weight problems when food is a scare commodity (smoking also greatly declined). As well, the authors admit to having problems with missing and unreliable data in their study. Nonetheless, there is it is.

Just the same, another study claims similar levels of good health for Victorian England. This study attributes the health of Victorian people to low salt consumption, lack of smoking and drinking, and much higher levels of (continuous) physical activity. The authors claim that degenerative diseases were generally absent in the day. On this one, I am doubtful because of the lack of anything resembling solid measurements and my lack of trust in the reliability of the diagnoses of 19th century doctors.

The field of health, going forward, is – contrary to what we might have thought about our time – rather wide open. There is much we still have to learn, a lot of it because of our reliance on poor research design and the failure to appreciate the power of heredity.

(从重新发布 JayMan的博客 经作者或代表的许可)
 
隐藏42条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. 您对维多利亚时代的研究表示怀疑是正确的。 它充满了事实和基本的概念错误,令我惊讶的是它曾经出版过。

    到65岁时,男人可以再活24,32,33年。 另有八名妇女[75.9](妇女的较低数字反映出分娩时死亡的高危险,主要是由于与营养不良无关的原因造成的)。 这与今天的数据相比令人惊讶地有利:出生时的预期寿命(反映了我们改善的新生儿保健标准)平均为81.3岁(男性)和XNUMX岁(女性);

    This, for example, which contains two howling errors, betrays the authors’ profound lack of understanding about basic demography and disqualify them from seriously writing about it.

    • 回复: @Toddy Cat
  2. 假设您说的对,而且有一个联系,那肯定会对医疗保健的未来提供有趣的辩论。 例如,在那些没有全民医疗保健的国家,官方记录的智商会开始影响您支付的保费吗?

    • 回复: @JayMan
    , @JayMan
  3. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Stakhanovite

    In the developed world, that’s the United States, right? I don’t know how well the pattern holds for non-Europeans (I’d imagine it does hold). I guess this is an argument 提供 全民医疗保健。

  4. 是的,我想美国是主要的例子。 当然也可以左右为难……有人可能会说,如果你很可能死于许多事情,而且你的智商很低,你不太可能对社会做出任何有价值的贡献,那其他人为什么要支持你,让你多活几年? 世界有时很残酷。

    哦,谢谢你在那儿的文章,让我想起了艾伦·凯勒希尔(Allan Kellehear)的《垂死的社会历史》。

  5. 好帖子! 我同意,我认为在现代,体重将保持在 BMI 正确的部分是一种乌托邦式的幻想。 令我震惊的是,当体重和饮食问题出现时,有多少人遵循 HBD 并了解人类在其他领域的局限性突然听起来像是基于培育的平等主义者。 我怀疑未来美国普通人群的体重是否会减轻,这将来自 mimAB1 或 beloranib 之类的东西,而不是持续的饥饿饮食。

  6. It’s my personal observation that high-IQ people develop more slowly, physically/social-maturity-speaking. They are children longer, they hit puberty later, etc. So it is not surprising that they would die later, too. I’ve read (probably here) that higher-IQ populations have longer gestations. It all adds up to more time for brain development. (By implication, then, environments which encourage high fertility would depress IQ because early adolescence would limit brain development.)

    The smart kids end up socially “behind”, smaller than their peers, and too smart for the material being taught. Poor kids!

    • 回复: @Staffan
    , @szopen
    , @Anonymous
  7. Staffan 说: • 您的网站
    @EvolutionistX

    Human civilization with its safer environment creates an opportunity for people to stay more childlike, which increases crystallized intelligence. That is, the more civilized a society is, the more advantageous neoteny becomes. And since the level of civilization is almost by definition a matter of intelligence, this means that neoteny is a way for smart people to get even smarter. (Just speculating a little here.)

  8. panjoomby 说:

    “…it would seem that the conventional wisdom – that we need to eat “right”, exercise, keep thin, etc., to live a long, healthy life is …BS.” amen, Jay-buddy! wonder if there are data from twin studies re: whether the higher-IQ twin lived longer… to get more out of that data with mainly Nordic-European stock, throw in some australian aborigines, etc. the more variability in that data, the stronger the relationship between IQ & age. hmm, then we could compute stats such as a “140” can smoke a pack a day & live to be the same age as a “125.”

    • 回复: @JayMan
  9. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @panjoomby

    Very good point! I will look and see of there are sibling studies. I’d imagine the data can easily be extracted from the Swedish conscript study, as there must be many brothers in the sample…

  10. It’s a good point with some validity, but it doesn’t explain everything.

    Romania has an average IQ of 94, but it is the EU’s slimmest nation.

    The UK has an average IQ of 100, but it is the EU’s fattest nation.

    http://www.romania-insider.com/eu-obesity-report-slim-trim-romania-big-fat-britain/41647/

    My thought is that functional traditions can take much of the burden of thinking away from the lower IQ segments of the population.

    If a society is traditional with regard to a certain life decision and that tradition is beneficial, then the masses will tend to default to beneficial behaviour.

    If a society has no tradition or weak tradition with regard to a certain life decision, then the masses will have to make their own decisions, with disastrous consequences. The cognitive elite will be better able to handle this added complexity. (They still make a lot of mistakes though.)

    If a society is traditional with regard to a certain life decision and that tradition is harmful (“traditional American cuisine”), then the masses will tend to default to harmful behaviour. (Pizza and burgers every day) The cognitive elite will be better able to identify and avoid these harmful behaviour patterns. (Eat a salad).

    This applies to other life decisions, like marriage. A large marriage gap is developing between the masses and the cognitive elites. Although in that case there are obvious cheater strategies that some segments of the masses can adopt.

    Of course, this is oversimplified, as it ignores the role of the cognitive elite in destroying traditions, creating a situation where the cognitive elite can thrive (or at least do alright) while the masses really, really struggle to make their own decisions.

  11. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes

    It’s a good point with some validity, but it doesn’t explain everything.

    Romania has an average IQ of 94, but it is the EU’s slimmest nation.

    The UK has an average IQ of 100, but it is the EU’s fattest nation.

    http://www.romania-insider.com/eu-obesity-report-slim-trim-romania-big-fat-britain/41647/

    I don’t think IQ explains much of the difference 之间 groups, but it probably explains a lot of the difference 组。

    For more on regional differences in body weight, see here:

    一个胖胖的世界–一个胖胖的秘密? | JayMan的博客

    My thought is that functional traditions can take much of the burden of thinking away from the lower IQ segments of the population.

    If a society is traditional with regard to a certain life decision and that tradition is beneficial, then the masses will tend to default to beneficial behaviour.

    If a society has no tradition or weak tradition with regard to a certain life decision, then the masses will have to make their own decisions, with disastrous consequences. The cognitive elite will be better able to handle this added complexity. (They still make a lot of mistakes though.)

    This echoes something Peter Frost recently wrote. While it probably plays some of a role in obesity, I don’t think it plays much. Genetic propensity (both in terms of metabolism and junk food addictive potential) is probably the overwhelming factor.

  12. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes

    BTW, it’s worth noting that cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is largely flipped between Western and Eastern Europeans with respect to obesity: CVD increases as you go from SW to NE in Europe. See:

    A Fat Problem With Heart Health Wisdom « JayMan’s Blog

    and

    And Yet Another Tale of Two Maps | JayMan’s Blog

    In other words, the thinnest Europeans aren’t necessarily the healthiest.

  13. @Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes

    I think the points you raise play a role, but on the other hand, the Anglo-American populations that currently suffer from high levels of obesity were much thinner only 50 years ago. They could have afforded fattening food back then, if they’d really wanted it. The genes haven’t changed, but the environment has.

    • 回复: @JayMan
  14. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes

    Fattening foods (modern junk food) largely didn’t exist back then. As well, the much higher rate of smoking could have been keeping people thinner.

    That said, you are correct. The environment did change. The relevant questions are can we change it to one where people are thinner, and if yes, how?

  15. szopen 说: • 您的网站
    @EvolutionistX

    There could be something about it – definetely I matured much, much later than many of my less gifted friends. Moreover, males height is rising only up to 20s, right? I was 179 at 18, 181 at 30, and NOW I am 182 meaning I have raised another cm AFTER 30, clearly impossible, right? And people claim I look as if I was ten years younger …

  16. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    Some anti-HBD, anti-manosphere genetic denialist nonsense by Mark Manson, ex-PUA. The kind of stuff you specialize in debunking. Check it out:

    http://postmasculine.com/the-biology-bias

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  17. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @EvolutionistX

    Staffan, “Human civilization with its safer environment creates an opportunity for people to stay more childlike, which increases crystallized intelligence. That is, the more civilized a society is, the more advantageous neoteny becomes. And since the level of civilization is almost by definition a matter of intelligence, this means that neoteny is a way for smart people to get even smarter. (Just speculating a little here.)”

    Then the US is in trouble because I find kids here to be sexually maturing earlier and earlier.

  18. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Anonymous

    I clicked on the link and nothing he wrote was debunkable;

    “In psychology, there’s a well-observed phenomenon known as the actor/observer bias and it states that we’re basically all a bunch of assholes.

    The actor/observer bias states that all of us unconsciously assume others to be more responsible for their negative actions than their environment, and for ourselves to be less responsible for our negative actions than our environment.

    For example, if you are at an intersection and someone runs through the red light and almost hits you, you think, “Wow, what a shitty driver. That guy is an idiot.” But when it’s YOU who runs the red light and almost hits somebody, you think, “It’s not my fault. The guy in front of me was driving slow and the light changed too quickly for me to stop.”

    When it’s us, it’s not our fault. When it’s someone else, they’re a shitty person.

    But it gets worse. The opposite happens with positive actions, too. In our own case, we over-estimate our own responsibility for the great things we do and under-estimate the responsibility of others. For example, if someone else wins a prestigious award, we make assumptions that they got it because of their connections or some sort of conspiracy and not of their own work. But if we win an award, we assume it was all because of the great work we did.

    The actor/observer is a natural bias that afflicts us all. We can be mindful and try to be better about it, but we’re never completely rid of it. ”

    ….. The rest of his article is similarly not debunkable. We are a combination of nature and nurture. Otherwise there would be no point to education or culture at all. All we should just do then is be born, exist, and let chips fall where they may. Which is not what humans do.

  19. Anthony 说:
    @Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes

    Malnutrition depresses IQ, and most adults in Romania spent some of their lives under Communism, which wasn’t always so good at keeping its subjects fed. Romania is *仍然* poor, and food is expensive relative to incomes, so Romanians are less *有能力的* to get fat despite any greater propensity to fatness.

    • 回复: @JayMan
  20. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Anthony

    Perhaps. I’m not sure that’s the explanatory variable in Eastern Europe. But, Belarus does seem to be an outlier there for some reason. They also claim to have very low unemployment…

  21. Dan 说:

    I don’t buy the link between IQ and ‘genetic load’ at all, for many reasons.

    (1) What is ‘genetic load’ anyway? It is not even defined properly. It is described vaguely as ‘deleterious mutations’ but what is deleterious depends on circumstances. A big brain could be a deleterious mutation if you live a hot climate where big brains lead to heatstoke or if it has big caloric requirements or causes your mom to die in labor. Or it could be an absolute necessity if you happen to be a member of the banking caste in middle ages Europe.

    (2) I just don’t see generally greater health in high-IQ types. Lots of smart people I know are nearsighted, lanky, or physically uncoordinated. Meanwhile, lots of top athletes, the pictures of genetic fitness, fill remedial classes and need tons of tutors to get through the easiest majors at their universities.

    (3) 人们普遍认为犹太人的平均智商高于其他群体。 而且他们还有许多其他群体不常见的遗传疾病:
    http://www.jewishgenetics.org/?q=content/what-are-jewish-genetic-disorders

    尽管前者更为珍贵,但已有成千上万的犹太诺贝尔奖获得者,但奥运冠军很少。

    (4) It’s possible to be extraordinarily well adapted and not have a high IQ. IQ is emphatically not the measure of fitness for most creatures and most creatures do not even try to have a high IQ. A hypothically genetically perfect creature may be naturally dumb. It seems clear that to me that this variation in what the target even is applies to different humans and human groups too.

    (5) 美国的西班牙裔人的预期寿命比白人长得多。

    Why, then do high IQ types live longer? Many reasons, all added up. They will do a better job avoiding danger, finding good living conditions, staying active and more. ‘Genetic load’ is not the explanation.

    • 回复: @JayMan
    , @Dan
    , @Dan
    , @Dan
    , @Dan
  22. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Dan

    您提出了一些有趣的观点。

    What is ‘genetic load’ anyway? It is not even defined properly. It is described vaguely as ‘deleterious mutations’ but what is deleterious depends on circumstances.

    Yes, whether a mutation is “deleterious” is generally dependent on the environment. That said, there many mutations that would be 时刻 negative, regardless. Clearly, anything that causes death (especially before reproduction) or interferes with major systems would be deleterious in any environment. But even milder mutations are likely to be generally negative for the simple reasons that there are many more ways of screwing something up than making it better.

    I just don’t see generally greater health in high-IQ types. Lots of smart people I know are nearsighted, lanky, or physically uncoordinated.

    Manwho much? IQ is 相关 with health, not 相称的 with it. One good manwho deserves another, what about Richard Lynn, James Watson, or even the late Arthur Jensen? Many brainy folks live to a ripe old age with minimal sign of impairment. The above studies show a clear positive relationship between IQ and health.

    Meanwhile, lots of top athletes, the pictures of genetic fitness, fill remedial classes and need tons of tutors to get through the easiest majors at their universities.

    我们在说话吗 race, or between them? Genetic load is probably responsible primarily for race variance. Between race variance is largely another matter. But indeed, there is evidence that athletes die earlier than others, so just how healthy are they?

    Jews are generally agreed to have a higher average IQ than other groups. And they also have a whole host of genetic diseases not common to other groups

    Ashkenazis recently went through fairly intense selection for intelligence. That probably promoted a whole host of sub-optimal “quick fix” IQ-boosting genes. That said, a good question is are more intelligent Jews healthier, overall, than less intelligent ones?

    It’s possible to be extraordinarily well adapted and not have a high IQ. IQ is emphatically not the measure of fitness for most creatures and most creatures do not even try to have a high IQ. A hypothically genetically perfect creature may be naturally dumb. It seems clear that to me that this variation in what the target even is applies to different humans and human groups too.

    你可能是正确的。 Razib Khan raised a similar point. In general, I suspect genetic load is a 部分 of the story with health, not the whole story. But thinking of IQ as a measure of general fitness is a fairly good approximation.

    Hispanics in America have a considerably longer life expectancy than whites.

    This may very well be thanks to their Iberian component. Southwestern Europeans are known for longevity. An interesting question on this matter is how Latin American lifespans compare to their source populations’.

    Why, then do high IQ types live longer? Many reasons, all added up. They will do a better job avoiding danger, finding good living conditions, staying active and more. ‘Genetic load’ is not the explanation.

    I think it’s clear at this point that you can’t make that declaration. There is evidence that suggests that the longer life of higher-IQ people isn’t just due to better self-care, as noted above.

  23. Soxy 说:

    If high iq people live longer than low iq people,can it reduce the effect of dysgenics on society.

  24. Dan 说:
    @Dan

    感谢您的周到答复。

    I might have more thoughts but here are few for now…

    (1) First I will concede that genetic load does have *一些* explanatory power, in the sense of broadly debilitating things such as Down’s Syndrome and a few others. But I think most genetic defects are not syndromic like that.

    (2) Good prenatal and childhood nutrition have large positive effects on both IQ and lifelong health. Folks like Richard Lynn, James Watson, or Arthur Jensen would certainly have had good prenatal and childhood nutrition.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11244286

    (3) People who are nearsighted (a clear defect) are on average *substantially* more intelligent that their non-nearsighted peers. The reasons are not known, but the stereotype is true.
    http://blog.zennioptical.com/are-people-with-nearsightedness-smarter/

    这导致我

    (4) I would theorize that high IQ types can actually tolerate a *更高* genetic load. If I am a 98 pound weakling who gets sick a lot but who has a high IQ, I will probably manage just fine. There are lots of things I can do. If I am a 98 pound weakling who gets sick a lot and is also not that smart, there is not a lot I can do and there is not a lot that is a attractive about me. Stephen Hawking would have died of neglect in a care facility decades ago if he wasn’t smart.
    I would make a Dungeons and Dragons analogy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_gameplay#Ability_scores

    The fitness of a player is based on scores in a number of categories. Surely someone who has excellent intelligence, wisdom and charisma needs a lot less of the other things (strength, dexterity and constitution/health) to do well whereas someone who is poor in these categories needs a lot more of the other things to get by.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if people ultimately discover that high IQ types actually have more genetic load on average, although I repeat that I don’t quite know what I mean by genetic load since it is so situational. Heck, Hawking’s condition, which looks like a horrible defect from all angles, has been an overwhelming positive for his career and his fame.

    • 回复: @JayMan
  25. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Dan

    Good prenatal and childhood nutrition have large positive effects on both IQ and lifelong health. Folks like Richard Lynn, James Watson, or Arthur Jensen would certainly have had good prenatal and childhood nutrition.

    Where these things matter at all, I’d suspect it’s in a mostly negative sense; you can be harmed if you don’t get an adequate supply, but you almost certainly won’t be helped by anything that goes past your minimum baseline. Most people in developed countries receive well past that baseline.

    People who are nearsighted (a clear defect) are on average *substantially* more intelligent that their non-nearsighted peers. The reasons are not known, but the stereotype is true.

    Myopia is more like those Ashkenazi diseases. It boosts your IQ but represents a trade-off between increased performance in one area at the cost of decreased performance elsewhere. To people in civilized societies, poor distance vision wouldn’t have been as big as a fitness hit as it would be to say a hunter-gatherer.

    I would theorize that high IQ types can actually tolerate a *更高* genetic load. If I am a 98 pound weakling who gets sick a lot but who has a high IQ, I will probably manage just fine.

    I’d say probably not. That smart 98 lb weakling would be fine 今晚. In pre-modern times, not so much.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if people ultimately discover that high IQ types actually have more genetic load on average, although I repeat that I don’t quite know what I mean by genetic load since it is so situational.

    This is pretty much impossible. The brain, being the place where most genes are expressed, is the biggest mutational target. IQ, being highly polygenic, would be quite easy to screw up with deleterious mutations. There is evidence that indicates lower IQ is correlated with a host of diseases and fitness hits, including, as noted in the post, reduced symmetry, indicating higher levels of mutational load in the low-IQ.

  26. Dan 说:
    @Dan

    “That smart 98 lb weakling would be fine today. In pre-modern times, not so much.”

    That smart 98 lb weakling probably could have done fine as a craftsman or scholar or financier or trader or range of other professions that would have existed over the last 800 years in England or other places.

  27. Toddy Cat 说:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    是的,而且很明显。 我的意思是在维多利亚时代的英格兰喝酒不足? 真的吗? 真的?!?

  28. Dan 说:
    @Dan

    “大脑是表达大多数基因的地方,是最大的突变靶标。”

    这是真的? 大多数基因与大脑有关,这是真的吗? 当然,与新陈代谢或免疫系统等相关的基因会间接影响大脑,但大脑真的表达“大多数基因”吗?

    你有这个说法的证据吗(链接很棒!),因为如果这是真的,我想我不得不承认很多论点。

    • 回复: @JayMan
  29. Dan 说:
    @Dan

    是的,特里弗斯确实在他的书中暗示了这种可能性,不是吗? 好点子。

    特里弗斯没有在那本书中引用任何科学资料,但是他又是这个领域的巨人,他当然对这个话题有些了解。

  30. panjoomby 说:

    感谢您的博客和您的实证见解——以及您在其他博客上的评论——例如,您在 http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/05/the-new-eugenics-same-as-old-eugenics.html
    比文章更好! 您与hbdchick的博客对话非常轻松。 我希望有一天会有HBD博客大会。 我让paypal告诉您您好-希望它能为您做更多-您是HBD博客作者应得的。

    • 回复: @JayMan
  31. 一项很好的长期研究是Ian Deary对1932年苏格兰测试该领域中所有11岁儿童的后续行动。

    • 回复: @JayMan
  32. 将智力和责任心分开会很有趣,这两者往往在低风险的认知测试中结合在一起,在这种测试中,有责任心的人会更加努力地进行测试,因为合法权威人士告诉他们要努力工作。 我认为智商测试的一些预测能力来自衡量努力工作的意愿。

    • 回复: @JayMan
  33. Travis 说:

    因此,每天将自己充入Cheetos和Coke不会增加我患上成人糖尿病的可能性吗?

    尽管我喜欢那个声音,但我怀疑这不是真的。

    • 回复: @JayMan
  34. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Travis

    我在帖子中没有这么说。 我怀疑饮食确实会影响具有遗传易感性的人的糖尿病发病率……

  35. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Steve Sailer

    谢谢! 我看到这是Calvin荟萃分析中的一项研究。 这项研究报告了智商与较早死亡之间有更强的联系。 但是,研究中并没有大量的传播,因此这种模式是非常可靠的。

  36. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @Steve Sailer

    我同意。 我相信有一项研究做到了这一点。 我的另一个项目将是研究死亡率与智商和性格相结合的相关性。


  37. “出于多种原因,我根本不相信智商和‘基因负荷’之间的联系。

    ...

    (3) 人们普遍认为犹太人的平均智商高于其他群体。 而且他们还有许多其他群体不常见的遗传疾病:
    http://www.jewishgenetics.org/?q=content/what-are-jewish-genetic-disorders”

    我认为有两种提高平均智商的方法。

    1)明确选择智商,这意味着您在健康方面的选择并不那么强。 这样做的人群 *应该* 拥有更高的智商和更低的平均健康状况。

    2)选择一般健身。 这将包括智商,健康状况,对称外观,身高等。

    方案1的智商与健康之间的相关性可能仍然部分存在,仅仅是因为脑功能涉及这么多的基因,但是对于经历第二种选择的人群,智商与健康之间的相关性应该更高(我认为这是由西北欧洲人提供的)婚姻模式)。

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

  38. 杰曼

    您可能需要检查一下这项研究:“主要死亡原因的反应时间和死亡率:NHANES-III研究”

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082959

    “根据年龄,性别和少数族裔状况进行调整,反应时间减慢1 SD与因各种原因(HR = 1.25,95%CI 1.12,1.39)和心血管疾病(CVD)(HR = 1.36,95%CI 1.17,1.58)。 具有1 SD的更多反应时间也与更高的全因死亡率(HR = 1.36,95%CI 1.19,1.55)和CVD(HR = 1.50,95%CI 1.33,1.70)相关。 没有观察到癌症死亡率的相关性。 这种关系的大小在规模上与该数据集中已确定的危险因素(例如吸烟)相当。”

    • 回复: @JayMan
  39. JayMan 说: • 您的网站
    @franklindmadoff

    @franklindmadoff:

    是的,Mangan发了推文。 当然,Mangan的解释是,当论文本身讨论智商与寿命之间的已知联系时,反应时间是进行身体条件训练的标志。 这只是另一堆……😉

    感谢您链接到它!

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有JayMan评论