Very interesting stuff:
The reasons are unclear, but higher IQ is correlated with longer life span
People are living longer than ever. According to a 2015 World Health Organization report, Japanese live the longest, with an average life expectancy of 84, while Americans can expect to live to 77. At the same time, it is an obvious fact that some people live much longer than other people. There is inequality in mortality.
What explains this inequality? Epidemiological research confirms what intuition suggests: lifestyle matters. A 2012 study published in Preventive Medicine followed over 8,000 people over a 5-year period. Risk of death by any cause was 56% lower for non-smokers, 47% lower for people who exercised, and 26% lower for those who had a healthy diet. Italian researchers analyzed the diets of inhabitants of the Monti Sicani region of Sicily, where there is a remarkably high prevalence of people who live to be 100. Along with being physically active and having close contact with relatives, the centenarians surveyed were found to adhere to a traditional Mediterranean diet.
A more surprising discovery is that there is a strong link between mortality and IQ: higher intelligence means, on average, a longer life. This relationship has been extensively documented by Ian Deary and his colleagues at the University of Edinburgh using data from the Scottish Mental Surveys. In 1932, the Scottish government administered an IQ test to nearly all 11-year old children attending school on a single day. More than sixty years later, focusing on the city of Aberdeen, Deary and colleague Lawrence Whalley set out to identify who from the cohort was still alive, at age 76. The results were striking: a 15-point IQ advantage translated into a 21% greater chance of survival. For example, a person with an IQ of 115 was 21% more likely to be alive at age 76 than a person with an IQ of 100 (the average for the general population).
The link between IQ and mortality has now been replicated in upwards of 20 longitudinal studies from around the world, and has given rise to the field of cognitive epidemiology, which focuses on understanding the relationship between cognitive functioning and health. One major finding from this new field is that socioeconomic factors do not completely explain the IQ-mortality relationship. In one study, focusing on the Central Belt region of Scotland, researchers linked IQ scores for over 900 of the participants from the 1932 study to those participants’ responses on a national health survey conducted in the early 1970s. The researchers found that statistically controlling for economic class and a measure of “deprivation” reflecting unemployment, overcrowding, and other adverse living conditions accounted for only about 30% of the IQ-mortality correlation.
This evidence suggests that genes may contribute to the link between IQ and living a long life. The results of a new study by Rosalind Arden and colleagues in the International Journal of Epidemiology provide the first evidence for this hypothesis. Arden and colleagues identified three twin studies (one from the U.S., one from Denmark, and one from Sweden) in which both IQ and mortality were recorded. (Twin studies disentangle the effects of environmental and genetic factors on an outcome such as intelligence or lifespan by comparing identical twins, who share 100% of their genes, and fraternal twins, who on average share only 50% of their genes.) They then performed statistical analyses to estimate the contribution of genetic factors to the IQ-lifespan relationship. The results were clear and consistent: genes accounted for most of the relationship.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/
It is quite interesting that they are pointing to the genes itself rather than just differences in the environments that people with high intelligence choose.
Anything that actively brings the discussion back to biological determinism is sure to be triggering and upsetting, but I think this is an interesting article that could also spark some fun discussion.
@philokalia saidYes, but only 'upsetting' to the irrational that erroneously equate the idea that genes effect general intelligence with racism. Sadly, I have noticed there doesn't seem to be any shortage of such irrational people in the internet forums. And the fact there are genes that do effect general intelligence doesn't in any way imply one race is generally and measurably more or less intelligent than another because it only implies variation of intelligence WITHIN each given race is partly explained by variation of genes, NOT imply a measurable general difference in intelligence between races.
It is quite interesting that they are pointing to the genes itself rather than just differences in the environments that people with high intelligence choose.
Anything that actively brings the discussion back to biological determinism is sure to be triggering and upsetting,
Having said that, I should point out the research in your OP link, and contrary to what it makes it sound like its saying, has completely failed to establish any DIRECT cause-and-effect genetic relation between intelligence and longlevity because all it has shown is a link, not a direct cause and effect relation. That's because that link can be easily explained away by the well known fact that more intelligent people (at least as measured by their IQ) tend to smoke less and generally are much less likely to do something stupid to their own health! (see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7548002/Smokers-have-lower-IQs.html "...Smokers have lower IQs than those who abstain, with intelligence decreasing the more one smokes, researchers have found.... " ) So the simplest explanation for that link is that the genes that give a person some advantage in intelligence only INDIRECTLY increase his likely lifespan because smarter people are less likely to take unnecessary risks or choose a less healthy lifestyle. So the way this works is that a gene makes someone smarter which in turn makes him less likely to make foolish choices in life that shorten his lifespan.
10 Aug 19
@humy saidIt's actually the case that they do believe intelligence is largely a polygenic trait that is inherited through the genes.
Yes, but only 'upsetting' to the irrational that erroneously equate the idea that genes effect general intelligence with racism. Sadly, I have noticed there doesn't seem to be any shortage of such irrational people in the internet forums. And the fact there are genes that do effect general intelligence doesn't in any way imply one race is generally and measurably more or less in ...[text shortened]... arter which in turn makes him less likely to make foolish choices in life that shorten his lifespan.
In other words, it is biologically determined:
Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by more than one gene,[3][4] more specifically, over 500, and is thought to be 50% to 80% genetic in origin.
The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73%[6] with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[7] and 86%.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Do note that the topic is highly debated in spite of the fact that the science in the journals does appear to be quite, quite settled. But it is at such a point that even very liberal places that tend to reinforce pop science & pop academia, like Wikipedia that has been cited here, are having troubles getting rid of the persistent assertion.
It also makes posters like Humy emotional that there are so many "irrational" posters on the forums.
@philokalia saidThat's because it is settled; Genes do play a measurable part in determining intelligence. Wiki is correct at least in that respect. Obviously, there are many other important factors measurably determining intelligence, but nobody denies this. The only thing about it that isn't settled, as clearly implied by that same wiki link, is the DEGREE which genes determine intelligence because the estimates on that vary wildly. I have no personal opinion and thus expressed no opinion on which might be the best estimate. I have seen only an extremely few errors on a very few wiki links (I am in fact currently writing a whole book about one of those very rare errors! I will explain that on request if you are interested) but I have yet to see something on that particular wiki link that I see as erroneous or misleading or probably wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Do note that the topic is highly debated in spite of the fact that the science in the journals does appear to be quite, quite settled.
@philokalia saidIn addition to this amazing "link" that theoretically has biological cause-effect significance, did you know that drinking lemonade is statistically linked to your belief that the movie Crash deserved to win best picture?
Very interesting stuff:
[quote]The reasons are unclear, but higher IQ is correlated with longer life span
People are living longer than ever. According to a 2015 World Health Organization report, Japanese live the longest, with an average life expectancy of 84, while Americans can expect to live to 77. At the same time, it is an obvious fact that some people live muc ...[text shortened]... and upsetting, but I think this is an interesting article that could also spark some fun discussion.
THe reasons are unclear.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition/