Question

The following article is from Good Housekeeping and is one of the MYRIAD media outlets that perpetuated (and some continue to perpetuate) the myth that intelligence is inherited from your mother. This, and many other (usually reputable) news reporting outlets, cited the research as published from Psychology Spot – which with a click of the link provided in their own news articles reveals an individuals’ blog, not a peer-reviewed study.

1. Read the article below and write a few sentences about your initial response. I’ve told you that it’s (at best) grossly misrepresentative of the actual science, but is it convincing to you? Are there arguments made that seem believable because of the verbage used? Are there arguments made that tip off a science-informed student that something is amiss?

2. AFTER you have written your initial response, read the following response from a science writer at Forbes magazine. Summarize two to three of the important counterpoints she makes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-research-has-not-established-that-you-inherited-your-intelligence-from-your-mother/#66c7d826502d

New Research Confirms That Kids Get Their Intelligence From Mom

One more thing to add to the "Moms Are Awesome" list.

In the case of your intelligence, "I got it from my mama" couldn't be more accurate. New research featured in Psychology Spot says people are born with conditioned genes that work differently depending on if they're from your mother or father — and when it comes to your intelligence, those genes are from mother dearest.

Even though people used to believe your smarts were from your father and mother, that's not the case. You see, intelligence genes are located on chromosome X and since women carry two, that means children are twice as likely to get their intelligence from mom.

And even if your father passes off a few of his intelligence genes to you, chances are they won't have an impact on your brain since they only work if they come from your mother. "If that same gene is inherited from the father, it is deactivated," reports the study in Psychology Spot. "Obviously, other genes work the opposite, are activated only if they come from the father."

Want even more proof? The Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit in the United States did a study on mothers back in 1994 and interviewed 12,686 young people between the ages of 14 and 22. Their questions focused on the children's IQ, race, education and socio-economic status. The best predictor of intelligence? The IQ of their mother.

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health/news/a40385/intelligence-genes-come-from-your-mom/

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) Firstly, most of one’s intelligence is gained from experience and the environment that a child is exposed to. Although genetics do contribute to a few predispositions, one’s intellect is not largely dependent on genetic traits but rather on the nature of intellectual rearing. The piece talks about a research by the Medical Research Council where children with intelligent mothers had children with higher IQs. Perhaps, mothers who were well-educated and intelligent would understand the value of a good education and frequent studies. This would be a psychological or sociological factor and not really a genetic factor. An extensive study seems to have been degraded to a few lines that were picked out of context because it matched the agenda of the article.

The article may not have the facts right or legible sources, however, it does compensate with sentimentality.

In the second article (Forbes), the writer goes on to explain how the X chromosome could be inherited from both parents and not just the mother. The writer goes on to rightly remark that intelligence is attributed to several factors and the mother’s genes are not conclusively the only factor. However, the original flawed article isn’t doing too much damage, has questionable citations, is one among millions of “click-bait” articles and isn’t really inciting hatred or negative emotions. Furthermore, this article is not really affecting the scientific community or affecting research.

This is probably why the Forbes article comes across as a little mean and petty. Forbes is a recognised company that might not have the need to indulge in “click-bait” to attract an audience. Their staff might as well invest their time in proper journalism or entertainment that isn’t at the cost of another’s work. Yellow journalism (exaggerated headlines) has been around for decades. This is why it has become important for journalists to focus on producing good work that contributes to a cause and not pick on obscure articles to criticise.