DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Sex and Population Differences in Intelligence Are Partly Caused by Sexual Selection: Hn Evolutionary Hypothesis

  • Received : 2014.08.02
  • Accepted : 2014.08.18
  • Published : 2014.12.31

Abstract

Sexual dimorphism in intelligence suggests that this phenotype is a sexually selected trait. This view is supported by an overrepresentation (compared to the autosomal genome) of genes affecting cognition on the X chromosome. The aim of this study is to test the hypothesis that sexual selection can explain sex and country-level differences in performance on tests of fluid intelligence. Nationally representative samples from N = 44 countries were obtained from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Creative Problem Solving (CPS), which evaluates the core of intelligence, that is novel problem solving ability. Sexual selection has the double effect of increasing the prevalence of a favored phenotype and reducing genetic variation in sexually selected traits. Matching these predictions from evolutionary theory, the average country fluid intelligence is positively correlated to sexual dimorphism after partialling out per capita GDP and the latter in turn is inversely correlated to variance in intelligence scores within populations. Males have a higher variance than females but there is a negative correlation between male-female difference in variance and sexual dimorphism in intelligence, suggesting that selection reduces variance more in the selected sex. Average country male height is negatively correlated to sexual dimorphism in intelligence, a fact that supports the notion of a trade-off between physical and intellectual competition in the context of access to females. The results of this study, if replicated, imply that genome-wide association studies of cognition may benefit from a focus on sex chromosomes, which so far have been neglected. Another implication of this study is that intelligence has continued to evolve after different human populations migrated out of Africa and possibly up to the 19th century, as suggested by the substantial variability in sex differences even between neighbouring countries.

References

  1. Lande, R. (1980). Sexual Dimorphism, Sexual Selection, and Adaptation in Polygenic Characters. Evolution 34, 292-305. https://doi.org/10.2307/2407393
  2. Colom, R., and Lynn, R. (2004). Testing the developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence on 12-18 year olds. Personality and Individual Differences 36, 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00053-9
  3. Flores-Mendoza, C., Widaman, K. F., Rindermann, H., Primi, R., Mansur-Alves, M., and Pena, C. C. (2013). Cognitive sex differences in reasoning tasks: evidence from Brazilian samples of educational settings. Intelligence 41, 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.11.002
  4. Lynn, R. (1999). Sex differences in intelligence and brain size : a developmental theory. Intelligence 27, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00009-4
  5. Lynn, R., and Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis. Intelligence 32, 481-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.008
  6. Nyborg, H. (2005). Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status. Personality and Individual Differences 39, 497-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.011
  7. LoSasso, C. M. L. a. G. L. (2002). Discussions on Genius and Intelligence. Mega Foundation Interview with Arthur Jensen. (NY: Mega Press).
  8. Barkow, J. H. C. L. T. J. (1992). The Adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. Kaplan, H., and Hill, K. (1985). Hunting Ability and Reproductive Success Among Male Ache Foragers: Preliminary Results. Current Anthropology 26, 131-133. https://doi.org/10.1086/203235
  10. Smith, E. (2004). Why do good hunters have higher reproductive success? Hum Nat 15, 343-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-004-1013-9
  11. Fisher, R. A. (1931). The Evolution of Dominance. Biological Reviews 6, 345-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1931.tb01030.x
  12. Hurst, L. D. (2001). Evolutionary genomics - Sex and the X. Nature 411, 149-150. https://doi.org/10.1038/35075697
  13. Wang, P. J., McCarrey, J. R., Yang, F., and Page, D. C. (2001). An abundance of X-linked genes expressed in spermatogonia. Nature genetics 27, 422-426. https://doi.org/10.1038/86927
  14. Lercher, M. J., Urrutia, A. O., and Hurst, L. D. (2003). Evidence that the human X chromosome is enriched for male-specific but not femalespecific genes. Mol Biol Evol 20, 1113-1116. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msg131
  15. Reinhold, K. (1998). Sex linkage among genes controlling sexually selected traits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050508
  16. Skuse, D. H. (2005). X-linked genes and mental functioning. Hum Mol Genet 14 Spec No 1, R27-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddi112
  17. Gecz, J. (2004). The molecular basis of intellectual disability: novel genes with naturally occurring mutations causing altered gene expression in the brain. Frontiers in bioscience: a journal and virtual library 9, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.2741/1199
  18. Ropers, H. H., and Hamel, B. C. (2005). X-linked mental retardation. Nature reviews Genetics 6, 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1501
  19. Delbridge, M., McMillan, D., Doherty, R., Deakin, J., and Graves, J. (2008). Origin and evolution of candidate mental retardation genes on the human X chromosome (MRX). BMC Genomics 9, 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-9-65
  20. Crespi, B., Summers, K., and Dorus, S. (2010). Evolutionary genomics of human intellectual disability. Evolutionary Applications 3, 52-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2009.00098.x
  21. Fitzpatrick, M. J. (2004). Pleiotropy and the genomic location of sexually selected genes. Am Nat 163, 800-808. https://doi.org/10.1086/386297
  22. Andersson, M. B. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  23. Tomkins, J. L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J. S., and Tregenza, T. (2004). Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 19, 323-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.029
  24. Van Homrigh, A., Higgie, M., McGuigan, K., and Blows, M. W. (2007). The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Current biology : CB 17, 528-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.055
  25. Piffer, D. (2014). Opposite selection pressures on stature and intelligence across human populations. Open Behavioral Genetics.
  26. OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results: Creative Problem Solving (Volume V). OECD Publishing.
  27. Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  28. Leutenegger, W., and Cheverud, J. (1982). Correlates of sexual dimorphism in primates: ecological and size variables. Int J Primatol 3, 387-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02693740
  29. Bank, T. W. (2014). GDP per capita, PPP (current international $)", World Development Indicators database. [cited]. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc.
  30. Lynn, R. V. T. (2006). IQ and global inequality. Augusta, Ga.: Washington Summit Publishers.
  31. Lynn, R. V. T. (2012). Intelligence: a unifying construct for the social sciences. Ulster Institute for Social Research.
  32. Rindermann, H. (2012). Intellectual classes, technological progress and economic development: the rise of cognitive capitalism. Personality and Individual Differences 53, 108-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.001
  33. Sailer, S. (2012). Occam's Butter Knife. Taki's Magazine [cited]. Available from: http://takimag.com/article/occams_butter_knife_steve_sailer.
  34. Programme, U. N. D. (2012). [cited]. Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii.