4.6 Article

The Paradox of Intelligence: Heritability and Malleability Coexist in Hidden Gene-Environment Interplay

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN
卷 144, 期 1, 页码 26-47

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000131

关键词

intelligence; heritability; gene-environment interplay; adoption; early intervention

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R03MH108706] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R03 MH108706] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intelligence can have an extremely high heritability, but also be malleable; a paradox that has been the source of continuous controversy. Here we attempt to clarify the issue, and advance a frequently overlooked solution to the paradox: Intelligence is a trait with unusual properties that create a large reservoir of hidden gene-environment (GE) networks, allowing for the contribution of high genetic and environmental influences on individual differences in IQ. GE interplay is difficult to specify with current methods, and is underestimated in standard metrics of heritability (thus inflating estimates of genetic effects). We describe empirical evidence for GE interplay in intelligence, with malleability existing on top of heritability. The evidence covers cognitive gains consequent to adoption/immigration, changes in IQ's heritability across life span and socioeconomic status, gains in IQ over time consequent to societal development (the Flynn effect), the slowdown of age-related cognitive decline, and the gains in intelligence from early education. The GE solution has novel implications for enduring problems, including our inability to identify intelligence-related genes (also known as IQ's missing heritability), and the loss of initial benefits from early intervention programs (such as Head Start). The GE solution can be a powerful guide to future research, and may also aid policies to overcome barriers to the development of intelligence, particularly in impoverished and underprivileged populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据