Toronto Escorts

Scientists Have Found That Intelligence Is Passed From Mothers, Not From Fathers

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
Scientists Have Found That Intelligence Is Passed From Mothers, Not From Fathers

Last updated Aug 7, 2018

A lot of fathers are going to hate this, but genetic research has found (people) probably get a log of intelligence from their X gene, the feminine one…The X chromosome has a thousand gene, and a bunch of them influence cognition. – Dr. Keith Witt

Until quite recently, it was generally accepted that both parents have a roughly equal influence on their child’s intelligence. However, it turns out – should this research be proven correct – that women have a much larger impact on their child’s cognitive abilities than men.

Now, it is important to understand that this research is quite controversial. Most studies claiming to uncover the enigmatic functioning of intelligence often evoke passionate debate. Relatedly, genetics is a highly-complex and multifaceted scientific arena. Studies are continuously being produced that seek to disavow, or seriously alter, any related study before it.

Regardless of the vigorous debate, it is beneficial to present (and interpret) these findings with an objective mind. If anything, this study is fascinatingly entertaining. Ultimately, this is our goal – to entertain. We hope that our readers find this study to be as intriguing as we have.

The Role of X and Y Chromosomes

Many people do not have much of a clue when it comes to genetics. As such, it’s beneficial to quickly go over a couple important facts. This will also make reading and understanding the remainder of this article much easier.

– A chromosome is a thread-like structure consisting of nucleic acids and protein. They carry genetic information.

– Every human being carries one pair of chromosomes in each cell.

– Females have two X chromosomes. Males have one X and one Y chromosome.

“Conditioned Genes”

Conditioned genes, in the most basic sense, are those that are gender-specific. As a rule, the genetic properties of conditioned genes are either activated or deactivated depending upon the specific designation and, subsequently, the genetic properties being influenced.

Conditioned genes inherently contain a “tagging” system, which is made up of biochemical material. This tagging system allows two important things: tracing to the gene’s point of origin, and determination of an activated or deactivated state within the body. Activated genes will influence genetic development, while deactivated genes will not.

To the second point, if an individual characteristic is influenced via the mother, the paternal genes are deactivated. Conversely, if an attribute is influence via the father, the maternal genes are subsequently deactivated.

The mechanisms of conditioned genes form the basis of the intelligence study.

Findings of the Study and Related History

Cognition is thought to be influenced mainly by the X chromosome. Theoretically, women are more likely to influence cognition, as females possess two X chromosomes while men carry just one. Of course, there is much more to the theory than the number of X chromosomes.

This is where conditioned genes (remember?) comes into play. Intelligence is thought to be a highly-conditioned gene – a conditioned gene that comes directly form the mother.

In this study, scientists used genetically-modified mice to test their hypothesis. They discovered embryonic test subjects that were administered predominantly maternal genetic material developed a disproportionately larger cranium and brain, while developing a much smaller body. Subjects administered disproportionate amounts of paternal genetic material developed a larger body, but a smaller cranium and brain.

In addition to cranium and brain size, researchers were privy to some other interesting observations. First, they identified six areas of the brain that contained only maternal or paternal genes. Second, they did not find any paternal genetic material within the cerebral cortex – the area of the brain responsible for executive functioning, such as language, planning, logical reasoning and advanced thinking.

The idea that mothers have a disproportionate influence on a child’s intelligence is not a new one. In 1984, the University of Cambridge studied both brain development (termed “co-evolution) and genomic conditioning. Cambridge sciences ultimately concluded that maternal genetics contribute more to the thought centers of the brain.

Fast-forward to today and similar findings have taken place, like the experiment described above.

In one particularly noteworthy study, researchers at a governmental agency in Scotland followed a group of 13000 people aged 14 to 22. Each year, researchers would interview the subjects while observing intellectual development while considering various factors, from education to ethnicity. The scientists conclusively state that the mother’s IQ was found to be the best predictor of intelligence.

Conclusion

Without a doubt, the findings of this and related studies pertaining to intelligence will continue to be evaluated and scrutinized. As mentioned, no scientific study that makes claims to the development of intellect will ever be fully accepted by all.

However, if there is one conclusion that can be reached it’s this: mothers have a significant influence on their children’s cognitive abilities.

And it isn’t just genetics, either. Far from it. Nourishment and nurturement of a child directly influences their intellectual growth – two responsibilities mainly overseen by the mother. Furthermore, the special bond between a mother and child provides stimulus for them to explore the world and navigate problems.

In conclusion, women play a much larger role to the intellectual development of children than can be understood by a genetics experiment. However, the findings of these and other studies seem to buttress the notion that our mom’s give us our brainpower.

Source: http://hangover-cure.co.uk

====

https://www.buggzodiac.com/scientists-have-found-that7/
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,403
113
Researchers want to be careful. It means that women are responsible for all the UNINTELLIGENT people as well if you follow this as the correct conclusion.

Betting that some people will have an issue with this.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,705
7,982
113
Toronto
Researchers want to be careful. It means that women are responsible for all the UNINTELLIGENT people as well if you follow this as the correct conclusion.
Betting that some people will have an issue with this.
The only thing they need to be careful of, is being accurate and unbiased (not hoping to find a particular outcome) in their research.

That is the nature of scientists, whether it be genetics, climate change, vaccines etc. They are seeking facts, truths, not what people will think of them. People that have issues with properly conducted scientific research are conspiracy theorists and/or have an agenda.
 

kkelso

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2003
2,472
28
48
The only thing they need to be careful of, is being accurate and unbiased (not hoping to find a particular outcome) in their research.

That is the nature of scientists, whether it be genetics, climate change, vaccines etc. They are seeking facts, truths, not what people will think of them. People that have issues with properly conducted scientific research are conspiracy theorists and/or have an agenda.
I certainly agree with you in theory, less so in practice. Increasingly, the business of science is business. I do a good bit of work in higher education, and I see that many scientists are as funding-driven as any entrepreneur courting VC or PE.

It is a sad thing.

KK
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,403
113
The only thing they need to be careful of, is being accurate and unbiased (not hoping to find a particular outcome) in their research.

That is the nature of scientists, whether it be genetics, climate change, vaccines etc. They are seeking facts, truths, not what people will think of them. People that have issues with properly conducted scientific research are conspiracy theorists and/or have an agenda.
I agree. But if a study comes out that says dumb people are the fault of women's genetics AND child rearing skills what do you think the reaction will be?
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,705
7,982
113
Toronto
I agree. But if a study comes out that says dumb people are the fault of women's genetics AND child rearing skills what do you think the reaction will be?
It matters not. Let the chips fall where they may.

Facts are facts and equate (hopefully) into knowledge. The (true) scientists have no control over that and (hopefully, again) should not concern themselves with that. Their job and purpose is to uncover truths/facts. End of story. If they allow opinion to sway their research, then they are not true scientists. They become propagandists.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,705
7,982
113
Toronto
I certainly agree with you in theory, less so in practice. Increasingly, the business of science is business. I do a good bit of work in higher education, and I see that many scientists are as funding-driven as any entrepreneur courting VC or PE.

It is a sad thing.

KK
In this particular case/thread, I believe the assumption is that the study is accurate. Butler only brought up the question of how these facts would be viewed, not if they were correct.

The only thing they need to be careful of, is being accurate and unbiased (not hoping to find a particular outcome) in their research. You are bringing up a completely different parameter.

A properly conducted research study is peer reviewed to determine the integrity of their study. If it passes muster, without new facts to contradict it, should be taken at face value.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,705
7,982
113
Toronto
I agree. But if a study comes out that says dumb people are the fault of women's genetics AND child rearing skills what do you think the reaction will be?
What if the scientists who determined that gay men were more likely to acquire AIDS were worried that they'd be labelled homophobics?
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,403
113
What if the scientists who determined that gay men were more likely to acquire AIDS were worried that they'd be labelled homophobics?
Exactly. But imagine if Aids started under today's conditions. Do you think they would have been identified as a high risk group? Without backlash?
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Exactly. But imagine if Aids started under today's conditions. Do you think they would have been identified as a high risk group? Without backlash?
Do you imagine there was no "backlash" back then? It was almost a half-century ago, and our cultural expressions were quite different, but that same sort of stupid knee-jerk prejudice certainly came out in different words and phrases for and against. It's just silly to imagine it wasn't expressed at all, and deliberately chosen blindness if you were an adult and lived through the seventies, eighties and nineties without noticing it.

But if all you were trying to get at is that back then the commonly expressed backlash would mostly have been variants on, "serves the fags right", I'll give you that. As we hear to this day, about any minority, aimed at those who concern themselves with their difficulties.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,403
113
Do you imagine there was no "backlash" back then? It was almost a half-century ago, and our cultural expressions were quite different, but that same sort of stupid knee-jerk prejudice certainly came out in different words and phrases for and against. It's just silly to imagine it wasn't expressed at all, and deliberately chosen blindness if you were an adult and lived through the seventies, eighties and nineties without noticing it.

But if all you were trying to get at is that back then the commonly expressed backlash would mostly have been variants on, "serves the fags right", I'll give you that. As we hear to this day, about any minority, aimed at those who concern themselves with their difficulties.
Old Jones. The backlash was against the Gay population. Hell it still continues for blood donations.

The new backlash will be against the researchers for stating they are a high risk group.
 

kkelso

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2003
2,472
28
48
In this particular case/thread, I believe the assumption is that the study is accurate. Butler only brought up the question of how these facts would be viewed, not if they were correct.

The only thing they need to be careful of, is being accurate and unbiased (not hoping to find a particular outcome) in their research. You are bringing up a completely different parameter.

A properly conducted research study is peer reviewed to determine the integrity of their study. If it passes muster, without new facts to contradict it, should be taken at face value.
Again, I would love to agree with you. But I can't.

If I'm a researcher making my living on grant money studying the effects of milk consumption on autism rates (just to make something up) and I'm peer reviewing a study on pesticide levels in milk, am I unbiased?

The more specialized the research the smaller the group of potential peer reviewers. I was also surprised to learn how many of these people know each other, especially at the very specialized level.

KK
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,705
7,982
113
Toronto
Exactly. But imagine if Aids started under today's conditions. Do you think they would have been identified as a high risk group? Without backlash?
Again, to a true scientist dedicated to his profession it matters not. His pursuit is facts/truths. Not public opinion.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,705
7,982
113
Toronto
If I'm a researcher making my living on grant money studying the effects of milk consumption on autism rates (just to make something up) and I'm peer reviewing a study on pesticide levels in milk, am I unbiased?
No. You are biased.

The discussion is about unbiased researchers and the backlash they may or may not receive based on the results of that unbiased research as brought up by Butler.

p.s. And a proper review by peers would probably uncover this bias. That is its' purpose.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,403
113
Again, to a true scientist dedicated to his profession it matters not. His pursuit is facts/truths. Not public opinion.
You are assuming two things. An unbiased researcher. And an unbiased revenue stream for said research.

But in this case yes it probably was unbiased. Hence my point.

Be careful what you publish because there are people who will use it for a political point, a social point, or just to rile people up.

Make women responsible for levels of intelligence as it seems to claim and they are then responsible for ALL levels. Good and bad.

Looking at the world there just seems to be more of the latter lately.......
 

shakenbake

Senior Turgid Member
Nov 13, 2003
7,598
1,621
113
Durham Region, Den of Iniquity
www.vafanculo.it
No. You are biased.

The discussion is about unbiased researchers and the backlash they may or may not receive based on the results of that unbiased research as brought up by Butler.

p.s. And a proper review by peers would probably uncover this bias. That is its' purpose.
It should all work as you describe it. However, there is quite a bit of bias and 'science' being carried out to help support an 'agenda' or two. Just because a paper is peer-reviewed does not mean that it communicates the truth. Usually, it does. However, some bad papers slip through, anyways.

https://www.sciencealert.com/two-sc...-a-study-by-maggie-simpson-and-edna-krabappel

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episod...per-accepted-by-scientific-journals-1.2905424
 

probyn

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2010
1,052
155
63
In conclusion, women play a much larger role to the intellectual development of children than can be understood by a genetics experiment. However, the findings of these and other studies seem to buttress the notion that our mom’s give us our brainpower.

Source: http://hangover-cure.co.uk



Do you think this study explains Justin Trudeau?
His critics say he has his father's arrogance and his mother's brains.
====

https://www.buggzodiac.com/scientists-have-found-that7/[/QUOTE]
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,705
7,982
113
Toronto
You are assuming two things. An unbiased researcher.
As I already said.

And an unbiased revenue stream for said research.
Revenue stream is not a part of science. If revenue affects the research in terms of influencing the result it is no longer unbiased and is not true science.

But in this case yes it probably was unbiased. Hence my point.
Since it was unbiased, the scientist did not let public opinion affect his research. That is my point. He may worry about his welfare afterward, but not during the research.

Be careful what you publish because there are people who will use it for a political point, a social point, or just to rile people up.

Make women responsible for levels of intelligence as it seems to claim and they are then responsible for ALL levels. Good and bad.

Looking at the world there just seems to be more of the latter lately.......
Not arguing with that, but that should have nothing to do with the pursuit of unbiased research.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,705
7,982
113
Toronto
It should all work as you describe it. However, there is quite a bit of bias and 'science' being carried out to help support an 'agenda' or two. Just because a paper is peer-reviewed does not mean that it communicates the truth. Usually, it does. However, some bad papers slip through, anyways.
And that is where and why all the heated debates start.
 
Toronto Escorts