may sound odd but?

xlJ_dolphin_473

Hmm... it is certainly true that many CEOs, chess grandmasters and people with gigantic IQs are of below average height. There is some merit to your position. Maybe this is because more brainpower is required to control the body in a larger human, and so there is less spare for thinking.

maxx

my idea is because of evolution. large animals and humans have found it easier to get what they want, such as territory, mates, food, etc. smaller ones hd to rely upon cunning to achieve such survival.@xlJ_dolphin_473

Ampersand

Seems to be the opposite (keeping in mind IQ is a social categorisation and only one of many measures of intelligence):

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003451

Basically height and intelligence (as measured by IQ) are desirable traits so they will tend to correlate as a result of cross-trait assortative mating. I'd also suggest that in poorer countries they will similarly be correlated due to developmental issues with malnutrition etc which can harm physical and mental growth.

maxx

perhaps that this may be the way evolution may be slowly changing in todays world; however it stands to reason that in our evolutionary past that the smaller people had to be more intelligent in order to survive among those larger people who simply took what they wished by force alone.@Ampersand

Ampersand

maxx said:

perhaps that this may be the way evolution may be slowly changing in todays world; however it stands to reason that in our evolutionary past that the smaller people had to be more intelligent in order to survive among those larger people who simply took what they wished by force alone.@Ampersand

Or they weren't more intelligent and died out at a higher percentage. The actual evidence favours the latter.

John_C_87

maxx said:

I know this may sound strange; yet do you think that the larger an individual is, then the less intelligence that they have, while the smaller one is, then the smarter one may be.  I include this in all animals.

It’s not odd at all Maxx it is scientifically been proven at one-point essential amino acids have different needs as a person’s size increases. I believe there is a formula, okay I’m sure there is but don’t want to look it up sorry. Most powerlifters and bodybuilders have known this since Joe Weider, Jack Lalanne to some extent.

Many of the Martial arts have plaid with this principle for centuries.

maxx

I am not sure what evidence you may be referring to; I would like to see it, if youcan provide a full link, rather than just copy and paste. it may appear that  the taller one is, then the smarter one is, yet this is based upon the type of people society in general like. tall, strong people get better jobs because that is what people want to see. I am not saying that tall people are dumb; just in general, that smaller ones especially in evolutionary aspects had to be smarter in order to survive among those who were bigger, because  larger individuals did not need as much intelligence to simply take what they wanted from the smaller ones.  take a heavy-set child who is above average in height; what does he need a whole lot of intellect when he can simply bully others to achieve what he wants while the smaller one has to use his intellect more for various reasons to achieve the ability to make it in society @Ampersand

MayCaesar

On average, the animal size seems to positively correlate with intelligence - however, this is a very loose pattern. The most intelligent animals are considered to be humans and dolphins; both are miniature compared to, say, whales, but far more intelligent than them. These animals are also gigantic compared to spiders and, again, are much more intelligent than them.

If you look at very small animals, such as most insects, then they run on pure, and very basic, instincts.

I may be wrong, as my knowledge of biology is somewhat loose - but I would explain it in the following way. There exists some optimal animal size favoring high intelligence (explains why dolphins and humans are about the same size in general, although dolphins have slightly longer bodies due to their tails). If the animal is too small, then so is its brain, and the size is just not sufficient to have structure sophisticated enough to allow for complex thinking patterns. Very large animals have a different problem: their bodies are big enough that a huge fraction of the brain processing power has to be dedicated to just sustaining them, leaving very little room for intelligence. There is a sweet spot somewhere in between, where the essential bodily functions can be sustained by a relatively small brain volume, allowing the rest of it to be dedicated to things like abstract thinking. Even then there is a lot of variation, as intelligence development seems to have a very intricate evolutionary path which does not always lead in the same place. Humans are anomalous in this regard: somewhere along our evolution some dramatic mutation occurred and we gained sentience. It is not clear how exactly it happened and whether it can be induced in other animals as well.

maxx

of course, I am sure that you know, I am not talking about the differences between different animals, but in the same type of animals. a larger dolphin perhaps can take food easier while a small one has to be more cunning. The same with early humans@MayCaesar

ZeusAres42

Ampersand said:

Seems to be the opposite (keeping in mind IQ is a social categorisation and only one of many measures of intelligence):

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003451

Basically height and intelligence (as measured by IQ) are desirable traits so they will tend to correlate as a result of cross-trait assortative mating. I'd also suggest that in poorer countries they will similarly be correlated due to developmental issues with malnutrition etc which can harm physical and mental growth.

@Ampersand I would just like point out that just because it has been observed in a particular study that more intelligence was seen more in taller people does not mean to say that height is the cause of one being more intelligent. Correlation is not causation.

At the moment I do not know of any substantial evidence that demonstrates that there is a connection between height and intelligence.

piloteer

I will guess that most people who are making any arguments on this discussion are average height, and they’re most likely going to argue that size doesn’t matter when it comes to intelligence, or they’ll argue that smaller individuals are smarter. The same will be true for anybody who is larger than average, but if they argue there is a difference, it will be that larger people are smarter. So according to my not so scientific theory, I can deduce that “@Ampersand is a larger than average person.

ZeusAres42

piloteer said:

I will guess that most people who are making any arguments on this discussion are average height, and they’re most likely going to argue that size doesn’t matter when it comes to intelligence, or they’ll argue that smaller individuals are smarter. The same will be true for anybody who is larger than average, but if they argue there is a difference, it will be that larger people are smarter. So according to my not so scientific theory, I can deduce that “@Ampersand is a larger than average person.

@piloteer I'm pretty sure you're making some kind of joke here right?

piloteer

@ZeusAres42

Perhaps I am. But I stand by the logic of my statement. 

Ampersand

ZeusAres42 said:

Ampersand said:

Seems to be the opposite (keeping in mind IQ is a social categorisation and only one of many measures of intelligence):

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003451

Basically height and intelligence (as measured by IQ) are desirable traits so they will tend to correlate as a result of cross-trait assortative mating. I'd also suggest that in poorer countries they will similarly be correlated due to developmental issues with malnutrition etc which can harm physical and mental growth.

@Ampersand I would just like point out that just because it has been observed in a particular study that more intelligence was seen more in taller people does not mean to say that height is the cause of one being more intelligent. Correlation is not causation.

At the moment I do not know of any substantial evidence that demonstrates that there is a connection between height and intelligence.

Do you know what "Correlation is not causation" means? And have you considered how one would actually go about showing causation?

All to often "Correlation, not causation" is said as a meaningless platitude by people without any willpower to actually look into an issue and find out what the situation is.

Try actually reading the study I linked. Scientists are not morons and are aware that just because they have a hypothesis that X is a factor doesn't mean that Y and Z could also be factors, hence why they specifically control for this. In the study I linked not only does it talk about the previous research which has taken place into this area of study (Multiple different studies all taking different approaches and analysing data in different ways and coming to the same result is a key indication of causation, not correlation) but also specifically address it in the study. Hell, they literally talk about how they are investigating the cause of the correlation:

"A positive correlation exists for many traits related to sexual attractiveness, as predicted by various evolutionary theories, but the true cause of this correlation is typically ambiguous. Here, we demonstrated how a genetically informative design that used twins, siblings, and parents can clarify the etiology (the cause) of such correlations in humans."

maxx

most anyone one versed in psychology realizes that in order for any studies to be viable, it would have to be conducted over a couple of generations at least; one does not randomly measure the IQ of tall and short people. The subjects would have to be of same background, with same social aspects, same family values, the varibles have to be closely related and closely related over several generations.@Ampersand

Ampersand

maxx said:

most anyone one versed in psychology realizes that in order for any studies to be viable, it would have to be conducted over a couple of generations at least; one does not randomly measure the IQ of tall and short people. The subjects would have to be of same background, with same social aspects, same family values, the varibles have to be closely related and closely related over several generations.@Ampersand

No, you could conduct studies that account for confounding variables without needing to look at multiple generations, but it doesn't matter because what you ask for is literally what the study does (it also takes into account the data of the twins families so it's across generations, it's a twin-bases study so the social aspects and family values are inherently linked, etc.).

ZeusAres42

Ampersand said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Ampersand said:

Seems to be the opposite (keeping in mind IQ is a social categorisation and only one of many measures of intelligence):

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003451

Basically height and intelligence (as measured by IQ) are desirable traits so they will tend to correlate as a result of cross-trait assortative mating. I'd also suggest that in poorer countries they will similarly be correlated due to developmental issues with malnutrition etc which can harm physical and mental growth.

@Ampersand I would just like point out that just because it has been observed in a particular study that more intelligence was seen more in taller people does not mean to say that height is the cause of one being more intelligent. Correlation is not causation.

At the moment I do not know of any substantial evidence that demonstrates that there is a connection between height and intelligence.

Do you know what "Correlation is not causation" means? And have you considered how one would actually go about showing causation?

Well, being someone that has studied psychology to some degree I would hope that I know what this means. To answer your other question only data obtained in well-controlled experiments would allow us to draw conclusions based on cause and effect relationships. And just to give you a demonstration of my understanding of this I'll give you an example of correlation. Let's say that during the summer Ice Cream sales go up at the same time they go up there are also more murders occurring; this is an example correlation; not causation. In fact, it would be silly to conclude that high Ice Cream Sales are the cause of more murders or that more Murders are the cause of higher ice cream sales.

All to often "Correlation, not causation" is said as a meaningless platitude by people without any willpower to actually look into an issue and find out what the situation is.

This I cannot comment on as I do not know if this so often said and I don't think you do either. By contrast, from my own experiences and studies what I have noticed is how several people do tend to conflate causation with correlation. There might be a causal link regarding a correlation study but we cannot conclude that there is on this bases alone.

Try actually reading the study I linked. Scientists are not morons and are aware that just because they have a hypothesis that X is a factor doesn't mean that Y and Z could also be factors, hence why they specifically control for this. In the study I linked not only does it talk about the previous research which has taken place into this area of study (Multiple different studies all taking different approaches and analysing data in different ways and coming to the same result is a key indication of causation, not correlation) but also specifically address it in the study. Hell, they literally talk about how they are investigating the cause of the correlation:

I will admit here that I haven't look at this study yet. And nor was my argument a refutation on these scientists. My objection was with your argument as it seemed as if you were saying that there must a causal relationship to a correlational study. And it seemed as if you were drawing conclusions on one single study. If that wasn't what you were saying then I apologize but that was how it was coming across to me anyway. However, I will look at that study as time permits and then give my account of that too.

ZeusAres42

@Ampersand

Ok, after just skim-reading the study it appears it is just  confirming what I had already though which was thus:

Conclusion

This study found some relationship between height and intelligence, and found evidence to suggest that this may be due to shared genetic influences on these traits. Importantly, the association between height and intelligence was relatively small; meaning the link between the two is not clear cut. So it would be unfair to suggest, as some headlines have, that being short equates to being “intellectually challenged”.  It is also important to note that it’s not clear to what extent the results are due to the way in which traits affect how humans choose a mate, as opposed to the same genes directly affecting height and IQ. Greater height and IQ have both been linked to better health outcomes, and researchers hope their findings might help them to understand why this is. At the moment, however, the findings do not have any direct implication. There is not much you can do about how tall you are, aside from buying some killer heels or Cuban boots, but there are plenty of ways you can keep your brain active. Analysis by Bazian

https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/do-short-people-also-have-smaller-iqs/

It is for this reason that I have also been hesitant to read it deeply as this conclusion already demonstrates what I already thought in the first place.

maxx

I do believe that instead of relying upon the internet, in which, most links are highly dubious in the first place; you should borrow a few psychology books and magazines; tall people ,especially in children, tend to be more adept in social situations, true. Yet just due to that reason, they do not have the same amount of time as the shorter ones do, to invest in studies.  intelligence begins in childhood, and those who excel in sports, and social situations, tend to shun studies.  case in point. go to almost any college and one will see that the taller ones who are more socially adept and more into sports and other physical activities, are not as smart as their shorter counter-parts. as well, it can not be hard to understand, that in our evolutionary history, that the tall and stronger primates held the top of the hierarchy simply because they could take what they wanted from the smaller ones; such as mates, food, and so on; while the smaller ones had to be more cunning and more intelligent if they were to survive@Ampersand

ZeusAres42

maxx said:

I do believe that instead of relying upon the internet, in which, most links are highly dubious in the first place; you should borrow a few psychology books and magazines; tall people ,especially in children, tend to be more adept in social situations, true. Yet just due to that reason, they do not have the same amount of time as the shorter ones do, to invest in studies.  intelligence begins in childhood, and those who excel in sports, and social situations, tend to shun studies.  case in point. go to almost any college and one will see that the taller ones who are more socially adept and more into sports and other physical activities, are not as smart as their shorter counter-parts. as well, it can not be hard to understand, that in our evolutionary history, that the tall and stronger primates held the top of the hierarchy simply because they could take what they wanted from the smaller ones; such as mates, food, and so on; while the smaller ones had to be more cunning and more intelligent if they were to survive@Ampersand

@maxx speaking of books related to this subject here I would like to give some recommendations although I have yet to complete them:

• Psychology: A Concise Introduction by Richard A. Griggs, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Concise-Introduction-Richard-Griggs/dp/1429261552
• 50 myths of popular psychology, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Myths-Popular-Psychology-Misconceptions/dp/1405131128
• Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X
• I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that by Ben Goldacre, https://www.amazon.com/Think-Youll-Find-More-Complicated/dp/0007462484

I think the guy Ben Goldacre is awesome. He seems to be interested in a lot about actual researching about research if you get my drift.

Ampersand

@ZeusAres42

That's not the study I linked to, it's a random study you've pulled out of thin air - although even then it still supports my point. If you think otherwise you aren't understanding whats being said.

"Importantly, the association between height and intelligence was relatively small; meaning the link between the two is not clear cut." - this means that taller people are on average more intelligent, but that the difference is not massive so individual short people can be smarter than individual tall people.It is still however the exact opposite of the OPs claim that "the larger an individual is, then the less intelligence that they have".

"It is also important to note that it’s not clear to what extent the results are due to the way in which traits affect how humans choose a mate, as opposed to the same genes directly affecting height and IQ." - Regardless of whether it's a direct genetic influence or due to mating, it doesn't change the link they found.

"At the moment, however, the findings do not have any direct implication." - This means that we can't do anything about the fact that tall people are on average smarter than short people.

I'd also point out that even if the evidence was 100% correlational, that wouldn't make a difference and I'd still be correct. The OPs claim is "The larger an individual is, then the less intelligence that they have, while the smaller one is, then the smarter one may be". There is a well supported body of evidence showing the exact opposite and that taller people are on average smarter. But let's assume that the link isn't direct and that it's actually a third characteristic that entirely decides this - like nutrition. Now nutrition does have a role and is something the experiments control for because people who grow up malnourished will be shorter and less intelligent, but let's say that nutrition is actually responsible for 100% of the difference.

Even in this scenario, I am right and the people arguing against me are wrong. The topic is not whether short people or tall people are taller due to a direct genetic influence, just which ones tend to be smarter. Regardless of whether it's due to genetics or upbringing or nutrition or the transformative nature of prayer or alien genetic manipulation or literally anything, the evidence is very clear that whatever the causes (and there are several) tall people are smarter to a modest but statistically significant degree. Now you can argue that they are only smarter due to some third linked factor not direct genetics, but that's irrelevant as it doesn't change the fact research consistently shows taller people are smarter.

@maxx

I didn't link to a random internet article, I linked to a study published in the peer reviewed scientific journal PLOS Genetics. The study was built of the back of other peer reviewed research which had already been conducted in the field and which is explicitly cited in the article.

Also you have a random theory you have built in your head, but it's unsupproted by any evidence. I've linked to actual evidence and it clearly shows I'm right.

Dee

I came across this article in Discover magazine that states the opposite .......... One moderately interesting social science finding is that there is a positive correlation between height and measured intelligence (e.g., on an I.Q. test). Setting aside the possibility that I.Q. tests designs are culturally biased against shorter people, one wonders why this is so. Height is a highly heritable trait where most of the variation within the population is due to variation as numerous genes. In other words, there isn’t a “tall” or “short” gene, but thousands and thousands of variants which shape the variation of the trait across the population. When I say it is highly heritable, I mean to imply that most of the variation in height in developed societies is due to genes (80-90%). As it happens intelligence is somewhat similar in its genetic architecture, heritable due to small effects across many genes. In general estimates for the heritability of intelligence tend to be somewhat lower, on the order of ~50% rather than 80-90%. It is due to the highly polygenic nature that both of these traits have been posited as candidates for a “good genes” model of sexual selection. Presumably individuals with a higher mutational load will have lower intelligence and be shorter, all things equal, because these traits have extensive genome-wide coverage and are big targets. Geoffrey Miller’s The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature, was predicated on this logic. If the mutational load argument holds then the reduced I.Q. of shorter individuals may simply be due to the same cause: “bad genes.” Another scenario is that assortative mating between tall and intelligent people has generated a correlation between alleles which tend toward this end of the trait distribution. The phenomenon is simple enough to describe; height and intelligence are both attractive, and even if they are not due to the same genetic loci the pairing of tall and smart results in the correlation between the traits. My own assumption is that something like this, perhaps with a mutational effect at the bottom of the distribution (due to large effect deleterious alleles knocking people down in height and intelligence), generates most of the correlation. Part of this is due to my reading of The g Factor: It is now well established that both height and weight are correlated with IQ. When age is controlled, the correlations in different studies range mostly between 0.10 and 0.30, and the average about 0.20. Studies based on siblings find no significant within-family correlation, and gifted children (who are taller than their age mates in the general population) are not taller than their non-gifted siblings. Whenever people posit a pleiotropic relationship between traits I am always curious about the possibility that the traits may be correlated (or not) in siblings. Population structure of some sort can produce correlations, but patterns within families are often more informative of the genuine genetic basis of these correlations.

maxx

I am sure you realize that a larger brain does not always mean a higher intellect. 
Science has shown that. You yell for evidence; just look around the animal kingdom, in which humans are part of.  now-a-days it is not so apparent in humans because anyone can buy food, or rent a place to live or go dating. yet in ancient humans, and in all of the animals that we see today; all have hierarchies. The alpha male is at the top because he is bigger and stronger; not because he is smarter the  rest of the pack or tribe. That is not a theory. The alpha gets choice of mates, and more and better food, simply because they are bigger and strong enough to force it.  That is not a theory. The alpha male ruled by force and only had to defend his position and his status, while the smaller ones at the bottam of the hierarchy had to figure out various ways to get more since their brains were the only way that they could get what they wanted. This holds true in early humans. the smaller weaker ones had to think more to get what they wanted since they could not get it by force. They were not as adept at hunting as the larger ones, so they were the ones who had more time for inventing and discovering new ideas. we simply can not see this effect today because of the way civilization has developed. this is not a random theory,  the evidence is in the animal kingdom@Ampersand

Ampersand

@maxx

"You yell for evidence; just look around the animal kingdom, in which humans are part of."

No, if you want to support your arguments provide actual evidence. It's not my job to go and look for evidence for your arguments for you, you need to provide it. Now at the moment I could go and find eevidence showing how all your points are complete rubbish, e.g. you claim "The alpha male is at the top because he is bigger and stronger; not because he is smarter the  rest of the pack or tribe" but in fact small physically weaker chimpanzees can become alpha male, they just tend to have different strategies to do so. You see the difference between random things you claim with no support and me providing actual evidence?

The thing is, I don't need to do that. You haven't actually supported any of your arguments with any evidence so until you do all I need to do is point out "Hey, you still have absolutely no evidence backing up your beliefs" and that counters your entire argument.

maxx

no, you have no evidence either aside from posting dubious links, in which I could do the same, until we both have links debating each other. There is no evidence that tall people are smarter.  They only appear smarter because they are more in the social limelight than the shorter ones who tend to work in fields that are more in the background. your idea that a small chimp can be alpha male is few and far between; and those who become alpha, b]do so because they are smart. almost entirely in all primates and in the rest of the animal kingdom, the alpha is the larger ones because they can take the position by force. .there is your proof.  a hand full of exceptions does not deter the obvious@Ampersand

Ampersand

@maxx

I posted https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003451 which is is peer reviewed scientific study conducted by professors with relevant degrees in biology, psychology and genetics. It also references past peer-reviewed scientific research which validates and backs up the fact that intelligence and height are correlated such as "Resolving the genetic and environmental sources of the correlation between height and intelligence: A study of nearly 2600 Norwegian male twin pairs", "On the sources of the height-intelligence correlation: New insights from a bivariate ACE model with assortative mating" and "Genetic contributions to the association between height and intelligence: evidence from Dutch twin data from childhood to middle age." It is not a "dubious link" and the fact you feel like you have to claim it is just shows how little actual evidence or rationale you have to support your point of view.

Height and intelligence is something that scientists have thoroughly investigated from a variety of perspectives. There is a clear consensus that taller people are on average more intelligent. The only debate left is very niche arguments over the factors about WHY taller people are smarter e.g. how much is nutritional, how much is genetic, which type of genetic influence, etc.

maxx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence ; basically if you read and understand this; it states that most studies are conducted between tall people who are average and shorter ones who are short because of factors such as poor nutrition in which also relates to living in a poor lifestyle in which lack of education also plays a part. However, all things being geneteticlly equal and if the living standards were the same, their is no evidence that taller ones are more intelligent. the study is flawed. Yo may as well say that men in general are more intelligent than women, for in general, men are taller than women.  from Aristotle to Einstein, most scientific geniuses were slightly below average in height. as, well, I do believe you should take a very hard look at the animal kingdom. Tall people may have larger brains, but brain size within a spieces does not equal more intelligence. intelligence in a brain depends on how well the various part of the brain correlates with the other parts. Your study says tall people are more intelligent, then tell me, are men more smarter than women?@Ampersand

Ampersand

@maxx

You criticise my peer reviewed scientific study then in return provide a wikipedia article which for 8 years has been by Wikipedia itself as unbalanced, non-neutral and lacking factual accuracy as your source?

Not only that but you cherrypick your non-neutral non-factual wikipedia article to ignore all the points which say the exact opposite of what you claim, for instance literally the second sentence says that there is a statistically significant positive correlation between height and intelligence even when controlling for socioeconomic factors (which would include nutrition).

Lastly your criteria of "all things being genetically equal" shows your lack of understanding of the issue. Tall people are not taller by magic. Then you control for socioeconomic and environmental factors - the difference comes down to genetics. That tall people and short people are genetically unequal is the very point of this debate, so to try and sidestep it is absurd.

ZeusAres42

@Ampersand

And just responding on the fly here. Yes, you are also right about maxx being wrong about the taller someone becomes the less intelligent they are. That bit I am and was not disputing.

maxx

prove to me that taller people are more genetically  that short people.  where is the reasoning behind it. how in our evolutionary history did tall people become smarter that short ones?  I have already pointed out as to why in our distant past that short people had to be more intelligent to achieve the same status and material goods as the taller ones take by force.   explain to me why yu think it is the taller ones that gained superiority by being more intelligent rather than by force. How?  the bigger ones took what they wanted by force, not intellect. show me. I want to know your reasoning and the logic as to why, in our evolutionary history, as to why a taller individual wo could simply take by force instead of intellect were smarter that the smaller individuals who had to be smarter in order to survive
@Ampersand

Ampersand

@maxx

You're not after proof, so nothing I can show you would work. I've presented you with evidence and you dismissed it for nonsense reasons.

I mean I could provide you with another:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f8c/d914c37481df891e359f58c715ad33df6024.pdf - Sundet, Jon Martin, et al. "Resolving the genetic and environmental sources of the correlation between height and intelligence: A study of nearly 2600 Norwegian male twin pairs." Twin Research and Human Genetics 8.4 (2005): 307-311. - 

and another:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-010-9376-7 - Beauchamp, Jonathan P., et al. "On the sources of the height–intelligence correlation: New insights from a bivariate ACE model with assortative mating." Behavior genetics 41.2 (2011): 242-252.

and another:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2006.00208.x - Silventoinen, Karri, et al. "Genetic contributions to the association between height and intelligence: evidence from Dutch twin data from childhood to middle age." Genes, Brain and Behavior 5.8 (2006): 585-595.

It will mean nothing to you and you won't accept it no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. You'll dismiss it for no reason, repeat your unevidenced story about how you think peopl eevolved 9Which I've already disproved with evidence) and stick to your entrenched beliefs.

ZeusAres42

@maxx

@Ampersand ;

The issue I see here is that one of you thinks that the shorter people are more intelligent than taller people and others think the opposite. There seems to be some false dichotomy going on here; "Etierh short people are the most intelligent or tall people are the most intelligent."

Furthermore, even without studies, I think we can easily infer just from observation and personal experience that intelligence rests on all kinds of things and the size of a person isn't really that significant. Within the area in the country, I am from there are still some secondary schools that require you to take standardized tests in order to get into those schools. Now, even when these children leave these schools and are going into University (once they're pretty much grown) they're all of the different sizes. And the idea that taller people are more intelligent than shorter people is equally flawed and the flaw in this can also be easily observed just by considering the billions of people in Asian countries such as China for instance who happen to be shorter than the average person but also have varying kinds of intelligence regardless of their height.

And the link I posted before was not a random study pulled out of thin air. It was, in fact, an analysis of one or more of the studies being conducted where the focus was on height and intelligence. Here is the whole analyses in full:

Do short people also have smaller IQs?

Tuesday 4 March 2014

“They’re already called ‘vertically challenged’ – but are short people intellectually challenged too?” is the headline in the Mail Online. The website reports on a gene study which found taller people were more likely to have a genetic makeup associated with increased intelligence.

The study analysed 6,815 unrelated people and found some relationship between height and intelligence, although this relationship was not very strong. They also found evidence that this relationship could be due to shared genetic factors. The researchers hope this and future studies will help them better understand the links between height, IQ, and health.

Perhaps the most important thing to highlight is that the link between height and IQ is not clear cut – so it would be unfair to equate being shorter with being “intellectually challenged”.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Edinburgh and other Universities as part of Generation Scotland – a collaboration between the University Medical Schools and National Health Service in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow. It was funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates and the Scottish Funding Council, the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer Scotland and the BBSRC.

The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Behavior Genetics and has been published on an open access basis so it is free to read online or download.

Unsurprisingly, the UK media’s reporting focuses on the alleged link between height and IQ. Determining whether there was a relationship between height and IQ was not the main aim of the study and the association between these factors was limited.

What kind of research was this?

This was a cross-sectional study which looked at whether any relationship between height and general intelligence – in a large sample of unrelated adults – could be explained by shared genetics.

Traits may be correlated because they are controlled by some of the same genes or for other, non-genetic factors, for example if they are developmentally or structurally related.

What did the research involve?

The researchers took blood samples from 6,815 unrelated people and extracted DNA from the samples.

Using this DNA they looked at specific single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) – places where a single letter of the DNA code differs across the population. A change to a single “letter” of DNA can have a significant impact on how an organism develops.

Participants had their general intelligence assessed using four cognitive tests (processing speed, verbal declarative memory, executive function and vocabulary), and had their height measured.

The researchers then looked at whether there was a correlation between height and intelligence. They then used computer analysis to see whether there was evidence that this correlation was due to shared genetics (a genetic correlation).

What were the basic results?

After the researchers adjusted for age and sex, they found that height showed some correlation with general intelligence. This meant that there was some tendency for height to increase as intelligence increased – a “phenotypic correlation” (a correlation of observable characteristics). However, this relationship was not particularly strong.

The researchers then looked at the genetics. They found that 58% of the variability in height in people in their sample and 28% of the variation in intelligence were related to the SNPs that they had assessed.

The researchers found a genetic correlation between height and general intelligence. They estimated that 71% of the phenotypic correlation (correlation between observed height and intelligence) was explained by the same genetic variants.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers concluded that they had found a “modest” genetic correlation between height and intelligence, with they said, “the majority of the phenotypic correlation being explained by shared genetic influences.”

Conclusion

This study found some relationship between height and intelligence, and found evidence to suggest that this may be due to shared genetic influences on these traits.

Importantly, the association between height and intelligence was relatively small; meaning the link between the two is not clear cut. So it would be unfair to suggest, as some headlines have, that being short equates to being “intellectually challenged”. 

It is also important to note that it’s not clear to what extent the results are due to the way in which traits affect how humans choose a mate, as opposed to the same genes directly affecting height and IQ.

Greater height and IQ have both been linked to better health outcomes, and researchers hope their findings might help them to understand why this is. At the moment, however, the findings do not have any direct implication.

There is not much you can do about how tall you are, aside from buying some killer heels or Cuban boots, but there are plenty of ways you can keep your brain active.

Analysis by Bazian
Edited by NHS Website

Links to the headlines

You’re coming up short in the IQ stakes, titch

The Sunday Times, 2 March 2014

They're already called 'vertically challenged' - but are short people intellectually challenged too?

Mail Online, 3 March 2014

Links to the science

Marioni RE, Batty GD, Hayward C, et al.

Common Genetic Variants Explain the Majority of the Correlation Between Height and Intelligence: The Generation Scotland Study

Behaviour Genetics. Published online 20 February 2014

https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/do-short-people-also-have-smaller-iqs/

The bottom line is don't believe everything you hear or read in the media and that includes British Media too.  

Rerence to the science:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-014-9644-z

Home Log in Original Research Open Access Published: 20 February 2014 Common Genetic Variants Explain the Majority of the Correlation Between Height and Intelligence: The Generation Scotland Study Riccardo E. Marioni, G. David Batty, Caroline Hayward, Shona M. Kerr, Archie Campbell, Lynne J. Hocking, Generation Scotland, David J. Porteous, Peter M. Visscher & Ian J. Deary  Behavior Genetics volume 44, pages91–96(2014)Cite this article 15k Accesses 25 Citations 121 Altmetric Metrics details AbstractGreater height and higher intelligence test scores are predictors of better health outcomes. Here, we used molecular (single-nucleotide polymorphism) data to estimate the genetic correlation between height and general intelligence (g) in 6,815 unrelated subjects (median age 57, IQR 49–63) from the Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study cohort. The phenotypic correlation between height and g was 0.16 (SE 0.01). The genetic correlation between height and g was 0.28 (SE 0.09) with a bivariate heritability estimate of 0.71. Understanding the molecular basis of the correlation between height and intelligence may help explain any shared role in determining health outcomes. This study identified a modest genetic correlation between height and intelligence with the majority of the phenotypic correlation being explained by shared genetic influences.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-014-9644-z

Ampersand

@ZeusAres42

I referred to it as being pulled out of thin air because you presented it as being the study that I referenced, which it wasn't.

Also "Furthermore, even without studies, I think we can easily infer just from observation and personal experience that intelligence rests on all kinds of things and the size of a person isn't really that significant" is incorrect. The difference is modest but it is statistically significant as shown in the research. That is a standard specific probabilistic criteria of p < 0.05, not something you can just randomly fudge and say isn't really that significant. It's a binary state and the results are significant.

Lastly I have not been presenting a false dichotomy of "Etierh short people are the most intelligent or tall people are the most intelligent." if you check my posts you'll see I've for instance stated things like:

'this means that taller people are on average more intelligent, but that the difference is not massive so individual short people can be smarter than individual tall people. It is still however the exact opposite of the OPs claim that "the larger an individual is, then the less intelligence that they have".'

This is a case of trends and average intelligence. Short people can still be cleverer than normal  - geniuses even, just on average they will be less so then tall people. This is both what I have stated and what the research shows.

all4actt

I think the point here is you can't judge a book by it's cover.  

I personally have a brother who is 6'5" and has an.edetic memory.  So  for those of you who are on team "The bigger you are the dumber your are"    The majority of the people in my family are considered tall and most also have high to genius IQ's,  even the short throwbacks (jk).  Most of us were also very athletic too.  Our family benefitted from a good gene pool and a middle class upbringing.

I think that it all comes down to the:

DNA you are assigned at birth

The circumstances in which you are raised.

Your EQ

Your choices

Your mental healtg

Tall, short, popular, athletic, not popular, not athletic has little to do with Someones IQ and you don't need a scientific study to know that.   

More importantly a high IQ is not always an indicator that a person will be successful nor is a lower IQ.

ZeusAres42

Ampersand said:

@ZeusAres42



'this means that taller people are on average more intelligent, but that the difference is not massive so individual short people can be smarter than individual tall people. It is still however the exact opposite of the OPs claim that "the larger an individual is, then the less intelligence that they have".'

This is a case of trends and average intelligence. Short people can still be cleverer than normal  - geniuses even, just on average they will be less so then tall people. This is both what I have stated and what the research shows.

@Ampersand

This bit I am not disputing or misunderstanding the results of the study that was conducted. Sorry, I was reading into what you were saying a bit too much and then made an assumption based on your position. I should have actually asked for clarity before instead of jumping straight ahead.