Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research genetic basis for intelligence

Steve Hsu is a physics professor who also does research on intelligence. Below are some quotes from slides of a presentation he gave.

http://duende.uoregon.edu/~hsu/talks/g_colloquium.pdf
Investigating the genetic basis for intelligence
and other quantitative traits
Steve Hsu
University of Oregon and BGI

***********************************************************

General factor of intelligence

SAT, GRE heavily g-loaded: high correlation with g or IQ;
”SAT is an IQ test”
IQ: mean 100, SD 15 (normally distributed)
SAT (M+V): mean 1000, SD  200 (1995 ”recentering”)

*************************************************************

The far tail

Roe study (1950’s): 64 randomly selected eminent scientists had
IQs much higher than the general population of science PhDs.
Almost all of the eminent scientists in the sample scored above
+(3-4) SD in at least one of M / V categories.
Mean score in both categories was roughly +4 SD.
Average for science PhDs around +2 SD, so eminent group
highly atypical among scientists.
Positive returns to IQ > +2 SD in scientific research?

[The cited study is from the book "The Making of a Scientist" by Anne Roe]

**********************************************************

Your kids and regression

Assuming parental midpoint of n SD above the population
average, the kids’ IQ will be normally distributed about a mean
which is around +.6n with residual SD of about 13 points. (The
.6 could actually be anywhere in the range (.5, .7), but the SD
doesn’t vary much from choice of empirical inputs.)
So, e.g., for n = 4 (parental midpoint of 160 – very smart
parents!), the mean for the kids would be 136 with only a few
percent chance of any kid to surpass 160 (requires  2 SD
fluctuation). For n = 3 (parental midpoint of 145) the mean for
the kids would be 127 and the probability of exceeding 145 less
than 10 percent.

It contains some howlers, but overall, not bad for a physicist.

Moral of the story: Don't ask a physicist to teach you about a social science topic.

I read this opinion piece some time back and bookmarked it:
http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/10/the-perversity-of-human-biodiversity-a-k-a-scientific-racism/

What are the howlers?

Really?! So he's saying that it is highly unlikely that children will be smarter than their parents? I wonder what his n= for this study. Hmmmm . . . skeptical. . .

It's also clear that he didn't consult any teenagers about this. ALL of them are smarter than their parents, and have no qualms about telling you so...;)

Because of regression to the mean, the children of parents with above-average IQs will usually have lower IQs than their parents (but still higher than average), and the children of parents with below-average IQs will usually have higher IQs than their parents (but still lower than average).

All three of my kids are smarter than me - just ask them! And they aren't even teens yet... they must be prodigies

polarbear

I never had an IQ test but I can tell that my oldest is a carbon copy of me at twelve. My extended family concurs. I would be shocked if there were a significant difference in our IQs.

Yes. How you expect children's IQ to compare with their parents' depends heavily on your assumptions about the extent of genetic heritability, and (even if you think IQ is mostly genetically based) about exactly how its genetic basis works, and about how assortative mating works. (I think assortative mating, the fact that people tend to get together with people like them, has a strong influence on the environment a couple provides for their children, but I also think it's plausible that it has an influence on the genetics. There may be thousands of SNPs accounting for the genetic component of IQ, but I bet the sets of those SNPs held by parents are not independent.)

Just from observation, though, the idea that it's rare for children of highly intelligent parents to be as intelligent as their parents doesn't seem at all plausible to me, at least when we're talking about parents both highly successful in the scientific/technical domain. It would be interesting to see research that compared children of couples both with similar IQs who work in the same field and have other indications of having "the same kind of" high IQ with children of couples with similar IQ numbers but different "kinds", actually.


ETA: we've talked about this often on this site. Here is a post I wrote last year to explain that "regression to the mean" doesn't work the way people sometimes think. Short version: if you think children's IQ will regress towards the mean of the population, you have to ask yourself "which population?" Humans? Primates? Mammals? PhD scientists?

Since humans give birth only to humans, the 2nd and 3rd choices are silly. The PhD scientists choice is more plausible, if you are talking about their children, but we know that many children of two PhDs are not smart enough to get PhDs themselves, and that some of the offspring of non-PhD parents are.

A blog post by Steve Hsu (author of the article that started this thread) on "regression to the mean" is at
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/10/regression-to-mean.html .

Good grief, he should really stick to physics. Sorry, Bostonian, but this guy is not someone to listen to, really.

I just reread the blog post on regression to the mean and don't see the problem with it.

OK, let me spell out the first problem. (Calling MegMeg for the others!)
OK, for simplicity let's allow him that, setting aside the total implausibility of genes and environment being independent.
In fact neither of those situations is even possible. Suppose G ~ N(mu_G, sigma^2) and E ~ N(mu_E, sigma^2) - he said similar SDs, we're giving the distributions identical SDs of sigma. Now given the independence assumption, X = G + E ~ N(mu_G+mu_E, 2sigma^2); that is, the SD of X is sqrt(2)sigma. So two +2SD draws from the G and E distributions correspond to an individual with x = g + e = mu_G + 2sigma + mu_E + 2sigma = (mu_G + mu_E) + 4sigma = (mu_G + mu_E) + 2sqrt(2)(sqrt(2)sigma). In words: in the X distribution, this person isn't a +4SD individual, it's a +2sqrt(2)SD individual.

Totally basic error. Not the only one, nor even the only one I can see. Not someone I'm going to trust on matters where I might not spot the basic errors!

Yes, ColinsMum. Even I, non-mathematically gifted person, thought it was nonsensical to add the standard deviations like that. In addition in the previously linked slides he seems to present the regression to the mean of IQ scores in children as a fact, but in this blog post it's obviously conjecture. I think you've made other good points too, about picking populations for the supposed regression, etc. I'd buy perhaps that some regression happens in children, but not the way it's been presented.

There will be regression to the mean in IQ as long the correlation between the IQ of children and the average IQ of their parents is less than one. A lot of research has found this to be the case. Hsu is not breaking new ground here. Galton discussed regression to the mean in the 1800s.

Really? Galton discussed regression to the mean of IQ scores in children of highly gifted parents that long ago, or did he just discuss height? Does Hsu have some source for his assertions of hard facts, for example the .6 factor etc., or are they just based on fiddlings with numbers in turn based on his assumptions of how it might work, with an admittedly simplified model, while demonstrating lack of knowledge of how the calculations ought to be made, and while allowing that the real world might not be that way? Stating some basic ideas about regression to the mean in general is not enough to convince me in this context.

(Also, is there some independent corroboration, besides from the publisher of the test, about how g-loaded the current version of the SAT is?)

I do detect a bit of an agenda on the part of Hsu. It's not really based on disagreement with anything he believes; I at least would agree that if racial differences in intelligence exist, and are valuable to discuss, we should do so without fear.

Here is what the Wikipedia says about the heritability of IQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ .

"Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States.[6][16][17] It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[7][18] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[6]
A 1994 review in Behavior Genetics based on identical/fraternal twin studies found that heritability is as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability but it also varies based on the trait, with .60 for verbal tests, .50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only .40 for memory tests.[5]
In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies,[8] while a 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[7]"

The site has the citations. The level of heritability depends on how "child IQ" is measured. Hsu's 0.6 estimate is not implausible. As long as heritability of IQ is significantly less than one -- and all researchers have found that to be the case -- there will be some regression to the mean in IQ, just as there is in other human traits, such as height and athletic ability.

This seems like an awfully big assumption to make. He gives no justification for why we should assume G & E are independent and normally distributed, with similar standard deviations. Much less how we would or could go about actually measuring these values in the first place.

In addition, I would also point out that the children would have their own E, thus their "X" is not fully dependent on their parents X anyways. So even if you took his calculations as accurate, if you could calculate the parents' X, at most this could only give you the child's G (and that's being generous) but would not be related to their E, thus their outcome could be significantly different than their parents.

I agree with Colinsmom, he should stick to physics.

Hsu doesn't present his estimate as an estimate, just asserts it as a fact. Elsewhere he admits there may be confounding factors. I'm simply not convinced, though I would never argue that intelligence cannot be inherited or that it is completely based on the intelligence of the parents.

ETA: In thinking of ColinsMum's objection regarding which mean to use, I'm thinking now that the mean that makes the most sense is that of biological children of the same parents, raised in the same environment. I'd like to see a plot of the average IQs for children of high-IQ people, if anyone can find some.

Charles Murray has a few words on the subject (note that his name is linked to an article he wrote):


He also makes the point that smarter kids tend to get higher scores on any test, be it an achievement test or a pop quiz, and that any mental test has some g-loading in it. Fair enough, but this doesn't mean that the scores on current SAT are a proxy for IQ. The range of scores doesn't even go to three standard deviations above the mean, so at best even if it isa proxy for IQ scores --- which I don't think it is --- the SAT has a very low ceiling at best.

It seems to me that when Hsu is adding SDs, he's referring to SDs in X, and not trying to imply that G and E have the same SD as X. Simply replace SD with 15 IQ points, and he's saying that someone with an IQ of 160 is more likely to have such a high IQ because they were bumped up 30 points by genetics, and 30 points by environmental factors, than it is that the person was bumped up 45 points by genetics and 15 points by environmental factors (because it is so rare to be bumped up 45 points by genetics). The fact that 15 points is actually sqrt(2) standard deviations in E or G isn't important.

I think the point was to use a theoretical example to explain a consideration to keep in mind when interpreting population statistics, nothing more.


Yes, that's true. That's what is implied when the heritability is said to be less than 1, which I think everyone agrees on.

Yes, I would agree to that as well. But we are discussing Hsu's post here and I did not see this mentioned anywhere, and that is clearly what I was responding to. Perhaps it is another assumption of his that the reader would understand this, but many people who might read this will not take that into account and be misled.

[quote=DAD22I think the point was to use a theoretical example to explain a consideration to keep in mind when interpreting population statistics, nothing more.

[/quote]

Perhaps, but I see little point in theoretical examples that can never be empirically tested. If you cannot provide valid, reliable measures of these variables, then what's the point? As a social scientist (not a physicist) I have to justify my assumptions and demonstrate the validity and reliability of my measures to my colleagues in order to be taken seriously. My point here was that in addition to the critiques of the model itself presented by pps, I question the likelihood that we could ever know what G & E are anyways, much less their standard deviations. So for example, I could just as easily create a "theoretical" model that says that genetics has nothing to do with intelligence and it is completely dependent on environment, if I can make any assumptions I want and not have to justify how I measure my variables. But if there is no way to disprove it, then it is not science.

What concerns me about things like this, is that people will read it and believe it to be true, just because a scientist said it. No matter how questionable his assumptions or models are.

The post you have been discussing:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/10/regression-to-mean.html

is only a pedagogical example and not meant to be realistic. Its purpose is to illustrate that if there is a non-genetic contribution to intelligence, which is not perfectly correlated between parent and child, then regression must follow even if the genetic component is perfectly transmitted. Taking G and E to have similar effect on IQ, and similar standard deviations, was only to make the mathematics easier. Even if GxE effects are significant, or parental E is somewhat correlated with offspring E, one still expects regression from a similar line of reasoning.

You can find more detailed analysis here:

http://duende.uoregon.edu/~hsu/blogfiles/midparent_offspring.pdf

Regarding environmental effects on IQ, you may want to read up on shared vs nonshared environmental effects in the behavior genetics literature:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/11/mystery-of-nonshared-environment.html

I've been thinking about this thread.

1. Are there any studies that involve intelligence (IQ-based) beyond immediate family members? I have a eg/pg DS6. My husband and I may be gifted, but we're not eg/pg. However, both of my parents had sisters who were eg and tested around IQ 160+ in 50s. Just wondering if there's any data on extended family members, genetics, and intelligence.

2. I've seen the quantitive approach to intelligence by criticized and wondered if anyone has come across what UDL (Universal Design for Learning) has been arguing:

Psychometrics from the time of Binet asserted that a single, underlying trait called "intelligence," which varied only in quantity or amount but not in underlying nature, accounted for academic achievement. UDL is based on new brain research (Rose & Meyer, 2002) that asserts that the intelligence of individuals differs qualitatively according to how three distinct neural networks interact [recognition, strategic, and affective networks]. Virtually infinite combinations of learning preferences emerge in an individual based on variation in the way they receive information, act upon it strategically, and engage in learning activities affectively. If human intelligence varied quantitatively according to a single factor, the logical implication would be that the more of this single attribute an individual possessed, the more of the curriculum they could absorb, and, therefore, the more material they should be able to access. However, from a UDL perspective, qualitative differences in the ways in which individuals learn implies that similar qualitative differences are possible and should be available in the curriculum itself so that each learner may approach it in the manner best suited to her or his preferred learning mode.

(http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/promise_of_udl/how_udl)

If we use UDL's approach to intelligence, then you have a much wider swath of the population who are gifted but in multiple ways - which better fits Howard Gardner's theory on multiple intelligences.

I often wonder if the genes that lead to a specific ability have implications for other abilities in the next generation. Are the children of gifted artists and musicians smarter on average than would be predicted by the IQs of their parents?

IQ tests are normed on the general population, including the mentally retarded. The SAT is taken only by students applying to college, who are on average smarter than high school juniors and seniors in general (and who in turn are smarter than the population of 16- and 17-year olds, which includes drop-outs). I saw a study once showing that the average SAT score on an unselected sample of high school seniors was considerably lower (maybe 100 points for math + verbal) than the average of students who sign up to take the test.

Therefore a +3SD score among SAT test takers corresponds to a higher Z-score when compared to the entire population of 16- and 17 year-olds.

You'll have to show me that study before I can comment on it. How old is it? How many students were in the sample? Did they only test students who did NOT sign up for the SAT as part of the unselected sample? Etc.

Interesting: because of the national mania to send everyone to college, more students are taking the SAT. Yet they don't seem to be doing terribly well. For example, according to the College Board, only 43% of 1.65 million seniors who took the SAT in 2011 got scores of 1550 or higher, which it considers to be the minimum score for success in college. (Note: I find the upbeat perkiness of that depressing press release to be rather odd.)

The US Dep't of Education says that there were 14.5 million public high school students in 2011, and an estimated 1.36 million more in private schools. This is just under 4 million high school seniors. So 41% of high school seniors took the SAT in 2011. Measuring very crudely, this number would include students with IQs all the way down to 103-104 (Notes: I'm not claiming everyone with an IQ>104 took the test or that no one with an IQ <103 took it. I also reckon that some of the best students took it as 10th or 11th graders, got super-high scores the first time, and didn't take it again).

Interestingly enough, by using my crude estimation system, roughly 60% of SAT takers would have had IQs of at least 115, which is the IQ benchmark for being able to succeed in college. This number fits nicely with performance on the test (only 43% of test takers got the College Board's college-success score). So I'm reconsidering my idea that the test isn't a good rough proxy for IQ. But big disclaimer: there could be other factors at work, and of course my estimates are very crude and I could be way off here. For example, the SAT tests your knowledge of information and you can study to improve your score. At least a portion of scores probably reflect course content and study habits.

So, yes, many of the SAT takers are smarter and the average IQ is almost certainly higher. But most of them are probably in the average range of ability.

And I stand by what I said about the ceiling of the test. The score distribution at the top of the math test is quite weird:. 1,250 students scored 790, yet eleven times that number (~13,800) scored 800? Huh? I don't get that. And the strangeness continues as you go down ~720-730.

The score distributions at the top were similar but less extreme for reading and writing.

(That same strange effect happens in the scores below but nearish to the average for all three tests.)

I'm not sure about lower down, but the weirdness at the very top looks like a granularity effect to me - if you miss one question, you still get an 800, but if you miss two questions, you get a 780, not a 790. There are a relatively small number of versions of the test, each of which has a slightly different score distribution associated with it. (When I took the SAT, I remember there was at least one version of the math test where it was impossible to get an 800 - everything right was still a 790.)

Agreed - you see the same effect in the talent search pool.

The College Board says you need to see scores 60 points apart to be sure that you're really seeing a difference in ability, and not just measurement error.

I think I can explain some of the weirdness in scores on the math SAT.

According to a quick search, the SAT math section consists of 44 multiple choice questions, and 10 grid-ins. When you get a multiple choice question wrong, you lose points. When you get a question right, you gain points. When you don't answer a question, you fail to gain points. When you get a grid-in question wrong you don't lose points, but you fail to gain points.

If we look at the distributions for the top math scores from Val's link, we see that 770 and 740 are more popular scores than 760 and 730 respectively. This is most likely an indication that answering 1 multiple choice questions wrong results in a score of 770. Skipping 1 multiple choice question, or answering 1 grid-in question wrong probably results in a 780. I still haven't figured out how a score of 790 is possible, so my answer probably isn't entirely accurate. But following my logic, answering 2 multiple choice questions wrong probably results in a 740.

At any rate, I agree with Val's initial assertion that the SAT isn't a very good IQ test. I'm sure performance on the SAT correlates somewhat strongly with IQ, but I think it's measuring other things that are related, such as processing speed, accuracy (carefulness), focus and attention span, and retention. When I take an IQ test, I usually have to think. When I took the SAT, specifically the math part, I simply had to carefully regurgitate problem solving techniques I had been taught several years before. I also had the opportunity to take the SAT before I had been taught many of the appropriate problem solving techniques, and I didn't fair as well. It was quite evident to me in 7th grade (without any exposure to algebra or geometry) that the test wasn't measuring my intelligence by asking me geometry problems with vocabulary I'd never heard before.

Regarding the ceiling, I will say that it's lower than I would like. It would be nice for some of the people scoring perfect or nearly perfect to be able to differentiate themselves from some of the other people scoring perfect or nearly perfect. But I guess that's what SAT subject tests are for.

No, it's because different versions of the test have different scaled score results for the same raw score. http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/SAT-RAW_Score_Scaled-Score_Ranges_2011.pdf

(You lose 1/4 of a point for each wrong answer on the multiple choice, but your score is rounded up in calculating the raw score. So getting 3 wrong produces the same raw score as leaving 3 blank, but getting 4 wrong produces the same raw score as leaving 5 blank.)

AlexsMom, did you link the right thing? I'm not seeing a lot of specifics, and nothing about the range between 720 and 800.

I linked to two different things - which one were you looking at?

There's nothing magic about that range. A given SAT raw score maps to multiple scaled scores, depending on the test version (if you're looking at the second link), and the weird score distribution is attributable to that.

If you're looking at the first link, scroll way down to the bottom, and look at the notes for Standard Error of the Difference.

On page 422 of The Bell Curve there is a table of SAT scores (actually derived from the PSAT) from national norm studies conducted by the ETS in various years. "The results are summarized in the table below, adjusted so as to represent the mean score that all American juniors would have received on the SAT had they stayed in school for their senior years and had they taken the SAT."

year verbal_mean math_mean
1955 348 417
1960 374 410
1966 383 395
1974 368 402
1983 376 411

The SAT has been normed to have average verbal and math scores of test-takers equal to 500, so at least through 1983 there was a large difference between the average SAT-taker and the general high school population. As the proportion of students taking the SAT has increased, this difference has shrunk, but I think it is still significant.

Here is some more recent evidence along the same lines.
Mean SAT scores by state along with participation rates are shown at http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/sat-scores-by-state-2011 . Maine has the lowest average SAT score of 1391 for the three sections combined, because it uses the SAT as the high school NCLB test and therefore has a participation rate of 93%. On the NAEP, Maine is about average.

I wonder if he's heard of the Flynn Effect.

Yessss! Exactly that. Thank you.

IQ is measured relative to one's cohort. If people born in 2000 have higher raw scores on an IQ test administered in 2010 than people born in 1970 did on the same test in 1980, the IQ test will be re-normed to maintain a constant average IQ of 100. The Flynn effect is compatible with mean reversion of IQ.

Here is an analogy. People in 1980 were on average richer than in 1950, but there was still some mean reversion in income in the sense that not every child born into a richest (poorest) 10% household in 1950 belonged to a richest (poorest) 10% household in 1980.

The population consisting of (or closely representing) the offspring of the latest several generations of ancestors of the children sampled.

That would definitely make more sense than using the entire human race. I still think it might be interesting to use multiple-child families for one of the studies. There would be confounding factors that would have to be accounted for, such as first-sibling bias and I don't know what else, but there might be advantages too: availability of modern standard tests, rough equivalence of environment, closest genetic matching, etc.

Yes... but doesn't that mean that the tests have to be re-normed because the 2010 testers scored higher on the same test than the 1980 testers?

In other words, the later generation is testing higher on the older test? As in, if the test was left alone, the later generation would test as having higher IQ's? (I think the average increase is 7 points per generation).

Am I not understanding it correctly? Please correct me if I'm on the wrong track.

(Mind you, I'm guessing this is also a reflection of environment, which is not what this thread is about...sorry)

It was just hard for me to swallow given my family pattern - I am pretty sure my IQ measures above both of my parents, and I'm positive my son is at least 10 points above mine. Of course, one family does not a study make, but the bias it creates in my head is hard to ignore

I'm pretty sure that I'm significantly more intelligent than both my parents and my children.

However, I would estimate that I am at the level of my cousins and my uncle.

You need to look further out in your family.

A new study has found genes that are correlated with academic achievement even after controlling for IQ.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/07/genes.aspx
July 2, 2012
Genes May Play Role in Educational Achievement, Study Finds

Three genes identified as possible markers for academic success
WASHINGTON—Researchers have identified genetic markers that may influence whether a person finishes high school and goes on to college, according to a national longitudinal study of thousands of young Americans. The study is in the July issue of Developmental Psychology, a publication of the American Psychological Association.

“Being able to show that specific genes are related in any way to academic achievement is a big step forward in understanding the developmental pathways among young people,” said the study’s lead author, Kevin Beaver, PhD, a professor at the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.

The three genes identified in the study – DAT1, DRD2 and DRD4 – have been linked to behaviors such as attention regulation, motivation, violence, cognitive skills and intelligence, according to the study. Previous research has explored the genetic underpinnings of intelligence but virtually none has examined genes that potentially contribute to educational attainment in community samples, said Beaver.

He and his colleagues analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, also known as Add Health. Add Health is a four-wave study of a nationally representative sample of American youths who were enrolled in middle or high school in 1994 and 1995. The study continued until 2008, when most of the respondents were between the ages of 24 and 32. The participants completed surveys, provided DNA samples and were interviewed, along with their parents. The sample used for this analysis consisted of 1,674 respondents.

The genes identified in this research are known as dopamine transporter and receptor genes. Every person has the genes DAT1, DRD2 and DRD4, but what is of interest are molecular differences within the genes, known as alleles, according to Beaver. Subjects who possessed certain alleles within these genes achieved the highest levels of education, according to the findings.

...

A recent president of the Behavior Genetics Association (which hosts an online group of which I am part) saw the same press release, and commented,

"Dopaminergic Polymorphisms and Educational Achievement:
Results From a Longitudinal Sample of Americans

"Here is my question: if a linear combination of three environmental measures-- books in the home, air quality and hours spent watching TV-- correlated -.12 with educational achievement, would anyone take it seriously?"

There seems to be a lot of grasping at straws in current genetic studies of human behavior. The more genes are investigated across more individuals, the less each gene appears to have to do with any behavior of interest.

Apple. Fall. Tree.

Whether by nature or nurture....

My husband and I have different kinds of smart (both demonstrably from several generations of that kind of smart). We appear to have passed both kinds to our children. They are a little bit scary.

Don't keep us in suspense!

What "kinds of smart" have you given them?

On my husband's side of the family there does seem to be a gene for exceptional memory. Some of the people have it, some don't and it is crystal clear who has it and who doesn't. My husband has it, my oldest daughter has it, my other daughter does not. Ask my husband any birthday or anniversary date on either side of our very large and extended family - no problem. Ask him to put together a piece of IKEA furniture and we are in trouble.