The main goal of this work was not to verify the hereditary nature of intelligence but to demonstrate the operational existence of the genetic information verification method (GIV) pointed out by the GTCEL (General Theory of Conditional Evolution of Life) for the intelligence particular case; inasmuch as the determination of the criteria to identify the significant gene or, more explicitly, the logical genetic mechanisms of the intellectual potential generation.
In the previous tables and their corresponding graphs we have seen that the criterion of arrangement based on M1F1 is very good, confirming the behaviour predictions derived from the presence of the GIV method.
If the Verification of the Genetic Information method is part of the nature of intelligence; with the laws of Mendel, the children's variables C are configured with the M1F1 component with a 50% probability.
In general, the objective function R is almost as good as M & F; therefore, its definition contains the true rules of the transmission of human cognition and the nature of intelligence.
|R||M & F|
|Graphs||GMCI||r² max.||Graphs||GMCI||r² max.|
|3 - Original variables T1, T4 and WB|
|4 - Centred variables T1-d, X3 and X6|
From another point of view, function R, is also very good both as the goal function and as arrangement criterion in the simulation of intelligence model. It makes sense because it incorporates the effect of the genetic combination in agreement with the laws of Mendel. In despite of this, it is a bit inferior to the M1F1 arrangement criterion.
In order to be sure of the behaviour foreseen by the GIV method as part of nature of intelligence, we are going to use a special rearrangement criterion: the opposed order of M1F1, that is to say, the order of the vector formed by the grater values of M2 and F2, that we will call 2F2M.
The result of the simulation of intelligence model is substantially poorer with 2F2M than with the M1F1; therefore, we may assume more rigorously that the GIV method, or something similar, is operative in the inheritance of the characters associated to cognitive functions and is part of the nature of intelligence.
The precision of the results of the analysis of intelligence is really important if we want our interpretations to maintain a certain degree of confidence; when the lines corresponding to C variables and their different groupings follow a clear tendency we can assume that the results are not consequence of statistical coincidences. This fact is especially visible within the analysis of variables X3 and X6.
For the same reason, we have included another two rearrangement criteria in the analysis of the centered variables, that is to say, M and F.
For these two vectors of the progenitors, the result of the simulation of the evolution of intelligence is superior compared to that obtained with variable 2F2M, but it continues being quite inferior in respect to M1F1.
The same comparisons can be made with original variables.
In this analysis of the intelligence, The different behaviour between M and F is a peculiar subject because up until now there were no indications for it. As we can see from the graphs, vector M seems slightly more significant as rearrangement criterion whereas its correlation with X3 and X6 was smaller than vector F. Regardless of the correlation level of M and F separately, it seems as if their lines or curves were mirror images of one another. This would be a change!
Sociologically speaking, this subject of the nature of intelligence and mirrors has always been very sensitive between M and F. I think that when the first humans realized that women always had the children, there were great and violent discussions about the importance of matriarchy, especially, in its economic aspect.