Intelligence is not like height(theinfinitesimal.substack.com)
theinfinitesimal.substack.com
Intelligence is not like height
https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/no-intelligence-is-not-like-height
174 comments
> - The variation between IQ tests done by the same individual is significantly higher than almost any reasonable cross-group variation (men vs. woman, country A vs. country B, doctors vs. craftsmen, ...)
I don't know about your other points, but this doesn't seem believable.
Is there a reference for this?
I don't know about your other points, but this doesn't seem believable.
Is there a reference for this?
Can't find the one I actually had in mind right now, but here is one where they run various cognitive tests on high-IQ-value individuals, with performance regularly dipping below population average: 10.1007/s12207-021-09417-x
Well it does sound reasonable but I don't think it is as convincing as OP thinks.
If you take two IQ tests in your life and get 130 and 138, I imagine the variation to be higher than the group vs group comparisons he mentioned (maybe not doctor vs craftsmen? it is after all very correlated to education level) but it doesn't mean the measure is "nonsensical and ever-chaning values such as whether I liked today's dinner.."
It kind of does, though?
The point of such indicators is to make predictions about the real world. "If you're 5'6'', this mattress is a good fit" or "People taller than 6ft will be 2.4 times more likely to develop back problems".
Now imagine you try do anything intelligence-related, like hiring the best person for a job. If the variation between person A taking your intelligence test in week 1 and week 2 is higher than between person A and person B, you cannot use this metric to decide who is more intelligent — unless you're prepared to run the test dozens of times, and are fine with the "intelligence" of the person you're hiring regularly dipping below and above the "intelligence" of the other person you could've also hired. At that point you can very much go by firmness of handshake instead.
The point of such indicators is to make predictions about the real world. "If you're 5'6'', this mattress is a good fit" or "People taller than 6ft will be 2.4 times more likely to develop back problems".
Now imagine you try do anything intelligence-related, like hiring the best person for a job. If the variation between person A taking your intelligence test in week 1 and week 2 is higher than between person A and person B, you cannot use this metric to decide who is more intelligent — unless you're prepared to run the test dozens of times, and are fine with the "intelligence" of the person you're hiring regularly dipping below and above the "intelligence" of the other person you could've also hired. At that point you can very much go by firmness of handshake instead.
Many of these studies don't account for test/retest reliability of IQ tests. Height is pretty easy and reliable to measure, and it doesn't change based on how much sleep you had the night before, or whether you ate breakfast, what the conditions of the test were, the time of day, etc.
The test-retest correlation on most IQ tests is around 0.7-0.8, whereas for height, it's almost 1.0. That means if you're measuring intelligence by a single IQ test, the correlation with genetics has a maximum of 0.7-0.8 due to noise in the test.
Studies that either explicitly correct for this, or look at averages of multiple tests taken over time show higher correlations between genetics and intelligence.
The test-retest correlation on most IQ tests is around 0.7-0.8, whereas for height, it's almost 1.0. That means if you're measuring intelligence by a single IQ test, the correlation with genetics has a maximum of 0.7-0.8 due to noise in the test.
Studies that either explicitly correct for this, or look at averages of multiple tests taken over time show higher correlations between genetics and intelligence.
> whereas for height, it's almost 1.0
You grow and shrink about 1% per day, as you get compressed when you stand up and decompress when you sleep. That is about 1.5 cm, and with a human height standard deviation is about 6cm you get around 0.25 standard deviation variation when measuring the height of a single human at different times of day, or about 4 point difference if we have 15 points per standard deviation.
You grow and shrink about 1% per day, as you get compressed when you stand up and decompress when you sleep. That is about 1.5 cm, and with a human height standard deviation is about 6cm you get around 0.25 standard deviation variation when measuring the height of a single human at different times of day, or about 4 point difference if we have 15 points per standard deviation.
Standard deviation of human height (within a single sex) is about 7cm. If human height changes over the course of a day by 1.5cm, assuming it linearly declines over the day, that's a stddev of about 0.6cm. You also can reasonably assume that people are normally going to be measured at the doctor/researcher's office during business hours, so it's probably more like 0.4cm. The measurement error of just standing up straight or not and reading the numbers is probably more.
Not to make a nitpick in your point because it's a good one, but it made me wonder:
How different would the height measure be if it were standardized like IQ? E.g., how likely would someone who is in the 90% percentile in 6th grade be in the 90% percentile as an adult? From that perspective, I imagine the standardized height "re-test" correlation is a lot less than 1.0 (although it would certainly be close to that with two measures of height as an adult).
How different would the height measure be if it were standardized like IQ? E.g., how likely would someone who is in the 90% percentile in 6th grade be in the 90% percentile as an adult? From that perspective, I imagine the standardized height "re-test" correlation is a lot less than 1.0 (although it would certainly be close to that with two measures of height as an adult).
0.8 correlation with adult height for boys aged 4, according to [0]. The real study [1] is paywalled but looks legit. I'm guessing it's even higher at age 12, though it might be confounded by puberty soon after.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/can-you-pr...
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21767107/
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/can-you-pr...
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21767107/
Annecdata : Our primate brains has random number generators to keep our head moving and scanning the environment for threats (there a possible veritasium video on this topic). But my friend in university had a possible (gene?) modification which allowed him to focus on a particular task intently. He could ignore distractions very easily and unsurprisingly he could grok biology and physics textbooks like crazy. The fact a spider with salt sized brain can weave a web without seen examples is a proof that genes do have effects on brains and capabilities.
Straightforward intelligence boosting genes are valuable enough that unless they are very recent, they should already have spread everywhere.
It's more likely that developing brains have a huge number of potential tradeoffs to make for what tasks they are good at and how much energy they use. Genetics and epigenetics are merely one of the tools a brain uses to decide what shape it takes, and aren't even close to the whole picture.
It's more likely that developing brains have a huge number of potential tradeoffs to make for what tasks they are good at and how much energy they use. Genetics and epigenetics are merely one of the tools a brain uses to decide what shape it takes, and aren't even close to the whole picture.
You could say the same about genes in tons of other areas, and you'd be completely wrong. That's now how evolution works. "Beneficial" genes don't just get to spread everywhere quickly, otherwise parapatric speciation could never occur. Read the wikipedia article for Parapatric Speciation. What does "incomplete geographical barriers" remind you of?
Evolutionarily our intelligence IS very recent.
Evolutionarily our intelligence IS very recent.
This is the video. https://youtu.be/RY7hjt5Gi-E?t=564
Of course, but not anything that we can use an IQ test to measure, especially at a population wide level.
I find it hard to understand why we think it is possible to assume that the influence of genes and influence of environment are independent in this manner.
Given that we know that the environment affects how genes are expressed; and given that it's the genes that happen to be expressed which have more of an impact on intelligence than the genes one happens to 'have', then surely all research in this area which fails to account for interaction between (various) environmental impacts and genetics is bound to be futile?
Given that we know that the environment affects how genes are expressed; and given that it's the genes that happen to be expressed which have more of an impact on intelligence than the genes one happens to 'have', then surely all research in this area which fails to account for interaction between (various) environmental impacts and genetics is bound to be futile?
Heritability doesn't provide much information about anything. Researchers working in genetics and development have moved beyond it as more sophisticated, accurate approaches have become more widely available. This paper is a good basic introduction to the concept's limitations.
Moore, D. S., & Shenk, D. (2017). The heritability fallacy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(1-2), e1400.
https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcs.1...
Moore, D. S., & Shenk, D. (2017). The heritability fallacy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(1-2), e1400.
https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcs.1...
The heritability of IQ, from twin studies and via other traditional methods of measuring heritability, is way higher than the author of that article implies. It's as high as 0.8. (80% of variance down to genetics.) See, e.g.: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23919982/
If you measure heritability only via SNP studies, it looks a lot smaller. This is what's called the "Missing Heritability Problem." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_heritability_problem
This problem is, as yet, unsolved. There's a lot we don't know about traits that are governed by "many genes of small effect."
The author of the article probably knows better and is being disingenuous, but it's flat-out wrong to say that intelligence is only weakly heritable.
If you measure heritability only via SNP studies, it looks a lot smaller. This is what's called the "Missing Heritability Problem." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_heritability_problem
This problem is, as yet, unsolved. There's a lot we don't know about traits that are governed by "many genes of small effect."
The author of the article probably knows better and is being disingenuous, but it's flat-out wrong to say that intelligence is only weakly heritable.
Anyone who wants to look at heritability numbers should make sure to watch these lectures first. Heritability is often a misleading stat, because it has an unintuitive definition. Sapolskiy covers common failings of heritability numbers, as well as confounding factors for twin studies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OareDiaR0hg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ6D3-XHmEk
Full Lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL848F2368C...
An example of how non-intuitive heritability is: whether a person wears earrings or not would be a heritable trait if we're looking at mid-20th century America, because the variability is entirely explained by whether you're male or female.
Heritability is unable to identify whether a trait is caused by genetics, only whether the variation correlates with genetics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OareDiaR0hg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ6D3-XHmEk
Full Lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL848F2368C...
An example of how non-intuitive heritability is: whether a person wears earrings or not would be a heritable trait if we're looking at mid-20th century America, because the variability is entirely explained by whether you're male or female.
Heritability is unable to identify whether a trait is caused by genetics, only whether the variation correlates with genetics.
What do you make of this section that claims recent research has identified an upper bound on the genetic component?
> …prediction accuracy depends on sample size, could the findings drastically change with more samples in the future? In fact, through the magic of statistics, we actually know that this claim will always to be true. We know this because we have estimated a parameter called molecular heritability, which tells us the upper bound on what a genetic predictor could ever achieve. Molecular heritability comes in two forms. “Population heritability” is a non-causal measure of the overall correlation between all genotyped variants and the trait, and it is estimated in large populations of unrelated individuals. Population heritability includes direct genetic influences on the trait that we typically think of as “genetics” but it also includes a lot of other correlated stuff that we typically think of as confounding, like cultural influences on the trait from relatives or prior generations (including the effects of parenting or dynastic advantages) or biases due to population stratification. In contrast, “direct heritability” is a measure of the specific genetic influences that are acting within individuals, and it is estimated in a large number of families. Direct heritability is immune to many sources of environmental confounding and, with some assumptions, can be interpreted as an estimate of causal genetic effects (for theory and derivations see [Veller et al. (2023)])
> …prediction accuracy depends on sample size, could the findings drastically change with more samples in the future? In fact, through the magic of statistics, we actually know that this claim will always to be true. We know this because we have estimated a parameter called molecular heritability, which tells us the upper bound on what a genetic predictor could ever achieve. Molecular heritability comes in two forms. “Population heritability” is a non-causal measure of the overall correlation between all genotyped variants and the trait, and it is estimated in large populations of unrelated individuals. Population heritability includes direct genetic influences on the trait that we typically think of as “genetics” but it also includes a lot of other correlated stuff that we typically think of as confounding, like cultural influences on the trait from relatives or prior generations (including the effects of parenting or dynastic advantages) or biases due to population stratification. In contrast, “direct heritability” is a measure of the specific genetic influences that are acting within individuals, and it is estimated in a large number of families. Direct heritability is immune to many sources of environmental confounding and, with some assumptions, can be interpreted as an estimate of causal genetic effects (for theory and derivations see [Veller et al. (2023)])
Of course, IQ only weakly correlates to the intelligence that people actually refer to colloquially. It doesn't test for most behaviors that people do consider intelligent, and it tests a bunch of stuff completely unrelated to intelligence (e.g. cultural trivia).
No legitimate IQ test involves cultural trivia. It’s pretty much all Raven’s Progressive Matrices though that has it’s own issues.
> No legitimate IQ test involves cultural trivia.
It's often under the label "verbal comprehension".
It's often under the label "verbal comprehension".
That is blatantly false in my experience.
I once was administered an in-person WAIS-IV IQ test, which has been called the "Gold Standard of IQ Tests," from a licensed clinical psychologist for the purposes of diagnosing a medical syndrome.
On the verbal reasoning portion, I distinctively remember being asked two questions that sat wrong with me (paraphrasing):
1. "Who was Sacagawea?"
2. "Who was Catherine the Great?"
There were also vague questions in the word definition/comparison section.
I distinctively remember one of the questions being (paraphrasing):
"Compare and contrast the two words 'Practical' and 'Pragmatic.' What do the two words have in common and what are their differences?"
My issue, especially with the latter question, is what type of answer is acceptable?
I could say something like, "'Practical' and 'Pragmatic' both describe being concerned with reality or feasibility vs. theory."
But what about the differences? What if I said something like, "Well, there is no such things a 'Pragmatic' joke."
Would I have been correct, wrong, a smart ass, or at the mercy of the psychologist's opinion? Would I be marked wrong because it wasn't what the test authors' intended answer despite me being technically correct?
I once was administered an in-person WAIS-IV IQ test, which has been called the "Gold Standard of IQ Tests," from a licensed clinical psychologist for the purposes of diagnosing a medical syndrome.
On the verbal reasoning portion, I distinctively remember being asked two questions that sat wrong with me (paraphrasing):
1. "Who was Sacagawea?"
2. "Who was Catherine the Great?"
There were also vague questions in the word definition/comparison section.
I distinctively remember one of the questions being (paraphrasing):
"Compare and contrast the two words 'Practical' and 'Pragmatic.' What do the two words have in common and what are their differences?"
My issue, especially with the latter question, is what type of answer is acceptable?
I could say something like, "'Practical' and 'Pragmatic' both describe being concerned with reality or feasibility vs. theory."
But what about the differences? What if I said something like, "Well, there is no such things a 'Pragmatic' joke."
Would I have been correct, wrong, a smart ass, or at the mercy of the psychologist's opinion? Would I be marked wrong because it wasn't what the test authors' intended answer despite me being technically correct?
IQ is only a narrow specific type of intelligence biased to western education indeed, but it certainly isn't a pop quiz like you make it our to be
> IQ is only a narrow specific type of intelligence biased to western education indeed
I see this claim a lot, but what is even meant by "western education" here? IQ tests show similar results in most countries that have /any/ form of formal compulsory education. It's clear that education or lack of education can affect IQ scores, but not so much that IQ tests are biased by the specification type of education.
The best research I've seen on the matter concludes that education biases the results because in order to receive and participate in an IQ test you need to have some base level of language understanding of the terminology used in the IQ test itself, which implies that you've received some minimal amount of education. The most common IQ test used in the United States, the Stanford-Binet (SB5) generally recommends not administering it to people under the age of 8 years old for this reason, and there are specialized tests for children that show reduced bias for education when used on non-educated populaces.
Or, in summary, it seems standard IQ tests bias for /any/ education, not specifically "western" education. In other words, there's no cultural bias as claimed.
I see this claim a lot, but what is even meant by "western education" here? IQ tests show similar results in most countries that have /any/ form of formal compulsory education. It's clear that education or lack of education can affect IQ scores, but not so much that IQ tests are biased by the specification type of education.
The best research I've seen on the matter concludes that education biases the results because in order to receive and participate in an IQ test you need to have some base level of language understanding of the terminology used in the IQ test itself, which implies that you've received some minimal amount of education. The most common IQ test used in the United States, the Stanford-Binet (SB5) generally recommends not administering it to people under the age of 8 years old for this reason, and there are specialized tests for children that show reduced bias for education when used on non-educated populaces.
Or, in summary, it seems standard IQ tests bias for /any/ education, not specifically "western" education. In other words, there's no cultural bias as claimed.
> what is even meant by "western education" here?
IQ tests how good of a computer you are.
IQ tests how good of a computer you are.
It certainly seemed like a pop quiz the last time I took it. I just can't imagine it's useful outside ranking people arbitrarily for the purposes of shrinking a hiring pool or some similar need.
>unrelated to intelligence (e.g. cultural trivia).
When you think those facebook "test your IQ!" tests are actual IQ tests....
When you think those facebook "test your IQ!" tests are actual IQ tests....
this isn't accurate at all.
Remarkable that it starts with "Of course"
I mean, who takes IQ seriously? It's a business metric.
How do you figure?
> IQ only weakly correlates to the intelligence […] it tests a bunch of stuff completely unrelated to intelligence (e.g. cultural trivia).
These are unfortunate myths. See the following on IQ testing, relationship of various tests to general intelligence, and the absence of cultural bias in testing:
- Standardized exams measure intrinsic ability, not racial or socioeconomic privilege https://milkyeggs.com/society/standardized-exams-measure-int...
- Fair and Square: A Conclusion on IQ Test Bias https://menghu.substack.com/p/fair-and-square-a-conclusion-o...
"Generally, the most commonly used IQ tests aren’t biased or only minimally biased as to be of no practical value."
- Bias is Often Unpredictable https://www.cremieux.xyz/cp/140810182
"Bias does not simply mean that a measure gives different scores to different groups. This is one of the most common misunderstandings about “bias”. What it really means is that members of different groups obtain different scores conditional on the same underlying level of ability."
- The Relationship Between the Scholastic Assessment Test and General Cognitive Ability https://sci-hub.st/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1...
"Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests a substantial relationship between the SAT and g. In a study of 339 undergraduates, Brodnick and Ree (1995) used covariance structure modeling to examine the relationship between psychometric g, socioeconomic variables, and achievement-test scores. They found substantial general-factor loadings on both the math (.698) and the verbal (.804) SAT subtests."
- Systemwide Review of the Report of the Academic Council’s Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF) (2020) https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview...
These are unfortunate myths. See the following on IQ testing, relationship of various tests to general intelligence, and the absence of cultural bias in testing:
- Standardized exams measure intrinsic ability, not racial or socioeconomic privilege https://milkyeggs.com/society/standardized-exams-measure-int...
- Fair and Square: A Conclusion on IQ Test Bias https://menghu.substack.com/p/fair-and-square-a-conclusion-o...
"Generally, the most commonly used IQ tests aren’t biased or only minimally biased as to be of no practical value."
- Bias is Often Unpredictable https://www.cremieux.xyz/cp/140810182
"Bias does not simply mean that a measure gives different scores to different groups. This is one of the most common misunderstandings about “bias”. What it really means is that members of different groups obtain different scores conditional on the same underlying level of ability."
- The Relationship Between the Scholastic Assessment Test and General Cognitive Ability https://sci-hub.st/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1...
"Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests a substantial relationship between the SAT and g. In a study of 339 undergraduates, Brodnick and Ree (1995) used covariance structure modeling to examine the relationship between psychometric g, socioeconomic variables, and achievement-test scores. They found substantial general-factor loadings on both the math (.698) and the verbal (.804) SAT subtests."
- Systemwide Review of the Report of the Academic Council’s Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF) (2020) https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview...
[deleted]
Intrinsic ability to what, cram for a test? Doesn't seem that useful to measure.
> The heritability of IQ, from twin studies and via other traditional methods of measuring heritability, is way higher than the author of that article implies. It's as high as 0.8.
No one here can seem to be able to prevent an LLM from saying 3+5 is something other than 8, yet you talk about "IQ" as if some test cam boil down human brains to one integer and then rank them.
Also if one person is born in a stable, educated house, and another in a poor unstable house where they are not educated, how is environment separated from heritability? People try to make social science studies to do this, but the problem is they have limited data to draw on.
This ideal of a Calvinistic Brahmin chosen people is rooted in parasitism and idleness. We can have a meritocracy society where everyone starts on the starting line, or we can have one where at birth someone is either on the worker bee or rich kids of Instagram born on third base path. The idle class aristocratic parasitic view favors the very weak idea of heritability - some hidden genetic change in the past 50,000 years after behavioral modernity.
No one here can seem to be able to prevent an LLM from saying 3+5 is something other than 8, yet you talk about "IQ" as if some test cam boil down human brains to one integer and then rank them.
Also if one person is born in a stable, educated house, and another in a poor unstable house where they are not educated, how is environment separated from heritability? People try to make social science studies to do this, but the problem is they have limited data to draw on.
This ideal of a Calvinistic Brahmin chosen people is rooted in parasitism and idleness. We can have a meritocracy society where everyone starts on the starting line, or we can have one where at birth someone is either on the worker bee or rich kids of Instagram born on third base path. The idle class aristocratic parasitic view favors the very weak idea of heritability - some hidden genetic change in the past 50,000 years after behavioral modernity.
I am not disagree with what you said, but I wanted to point one thing out:
> how is environment separated from heritability?
It isn't. That's why heritable traits are different than genetic traits.
Alcoholism is a heritable disease but is not a genetic disease. One cannot suffer from alcoholism in an environment where alcohol does not exist.
> how is environment separated from heritability?
It isn't. That's why heritable traits are different than genetic traits.
Alcoholism is a heritable disease but is not a genetic disease. One cannot suffer from alcoholism in an environment where alcohol does not exist.
[deleted]
I read a large part of this article. While it appears to be really serious notably by the vocabulary used, like other articles trying to "debunk" genetic intelligence it pushes too hard its narrative.
In particular, two semantic tricks are used. First, the fact that current genetic markers aren't a good prediction for IQ heritability is used as an argument against it. The other likely explanation that our understanding of those markers is widely incomplete is not explored.
Second, is the more common "IQ isn't intelligence" trick. Sure, the measure doesn't encompass everything that is making intelligence, but it is still a somewhat interesting proxy as there is a high correlation between intelligence and IQ.
In particular, two semantic tricks are used. First, the fact that current genetic markers aren't a good prediction for IQ heritability is used as an argument against it. The other likely explanation that our understanding of those markers is widely incomplete is not explored.
Second, is the more common "IQ isn't intelligence" trick. Sure, the measure doesn't encompass everything that is making intelligence, but it is still a somewhat interesting proxy as there is a high correlation between intelligence and IQ.
It just seems strange to me that, like in the case of mental illnesses such as depression or Schizophrenia, scientists insist on looking for genes or even GWAS correlations and just aren't finding anything. At a certain point, you have to wonder if something other than genetics accounts for the observed heritability.
Maybe it isn't entirely a hardware issue. Maybe it is a software issue.
Where do persons get their software from? The environment. Observing how their parents/family/etc interact.
I think it's fair to say that communication matters and that communication & experiences will have an affect on peoples perceptions.
Where do persons get their software from? The environment. Observing how their parents/family/etc interact.
I think it's fair to say that communication matters and that communication & experiences will have an affect on peoples perceptions.
Depression is clearly a hardware issue. So also ADHD.
Depression very clearly is both a hardware issue and a software issue.
rolled 0.6 on hardware + 0.4 on software = 1.0
rolled 0.4 on hw + 0.6 on sw = 1.0
rolled 0 on both = 0.0 = maximum depression
rolled 1 on both = 2.0 = golden retriever with good owner
rolled 0.6 on hardware + 0.4 on software = 1.0
rolled 0.4 on hw + 0.6 on sw = 1.0
rolled 0 on both = 0.0 = maximum depression
rolled 1 on both = 2.0 = golden retriever with good owner
So riddle me this.
Hypothetical situation.
Take two dogs from the same litter.
Raise one with love and kindness. Play with it. Socialize with it.
Then take the other one and neglect and abuse the hell out of it.
Which dog do you think will show signs of depression?
Still think it's clearly just a hardware issue?
Hypothetical situation.
Take two dogs from the same litter.
Raise one with love and kindness. Play with it. Socialize with it.
Then take the other one and neglect and abuse the hell out of it.
Which dog do you think will show signs of depression?
Still think it's clearly just a hardware issue?
If you give all the love in the world to a schizophrenic, will he stop hallucinating?
We're looking at cause here not 'cure' or treatment.
Regardless schizophrenic individuals probably would do better with being treated with kindness, respect, compassion, and love than with derision and rejection. At least observational that has been my experience.
Regardless schizophrenic individuals probably would do better with being treated with kindness, respect, compassion, and love than with derision and rejection. At least observational that has been my experience.
If you put an LLM on better hardware, will it stop hallucinating?
Anthropomorphization of LLMs is bad, but the reverse is worse. This is not psychology.
Although... has anyone tried quantizing schizophrenia?
Although... has anyone tried quantizing schizophrenia?
depends on if you consider message passing (neuro-transmitters) in a graph NN as a hardware or software.
I'm not sure the distinction is meaningful at a high level. That which can be implemented in hardware can be emulated in software.
It may be significant with respect to a specific implementation. Do you mean to imply that the current crop of LLMs hallucinate only due to some flaw in the hardware they run on?
It may be significant with respect to a specific implementation. Do you mean to imply that the current crop of LLMs hallucinate only due to some flaw in the hardware they run on?
There is no software at all, it is all hardware. These are mere abstractions because the reality offers some guarantees which allows one to transfer one system onto another as if the underlying system didn't matter. Those guarantees allows one to speak of commonalities between one stuff and another.
ref : The Universe is Hostile to Computers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaZ_RSt0KP8
ref : The Universe is Hostile to Computers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaZ_RSt0KP8
In that vein, there is no hardware either. It too is just an abstraction. However, that is not particularly meaningful. We draw lines around those abstractions and are able to compartmentalize them when discussing them.
I think we agree. If hardware was perfect, we wouldn't need ECC in RAMs. The reason to do this is we are poking the walls of compartments here.
Once someone's lost touch with reality, maybe not. In the earliest stages? Maybe, yeah:
> McFarlane believes that psychosis can be prevented with a range of surprisingly low-tech interventions, almost all of which are designed to reduce stress in the family of the young person who is starting to show symptoms.
> McFarlane cites research done at UCLA suggesting that certain kinds of family dynamics — families that don't communicate well, or are overly critical — can make things worse for a young person at risk of schizophrenia.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/10/20/3566400...
> McFarlane believes that psychosis can be prevented with a range of surprisingly low-tech interventions, almost all of which are designed to reduce stress in the family of the young person who is starting to show symptoms.
> McFarlane cites research done at UCLA suggesting that certain kinds of family dynamics — families that don't communicate well, or are overly critical — can make things worse for a young person at risk of schizophrenia.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/10/20/3566400...
I can believe it. Not smoking is a great way to prevent certain types of lung cancer. However, if you have lung cancer, quitting smoking won't cure it.
This argument is genuinely horrible. Many times we have two “dogs”, same litter, same love and care, and one will be depressed and the other won’t be. Still think it’s just a software issue now hmmm?
Seriously, can you not just comprehend that it’s a complex issue and there is no singular source you can blame? If your kid committed suicide should I levy child abuse charges against you? And where does someone “learn” depression or schizophrenia anyway, especially if their parents are not acting the same way?
Seriously, can you not just comprehend that it’s a complex issue and there is no singular source you can blame? If your kid committed suicide should I levy child abuse charges against you? And where does someone “learn” depression or schizophrenia anyway, especially if their parents are not acting the same way?
[flagged]
>like in the case of mental illnesses such as depression or Schizophrenia, scientists insist on looking for genes or even GWAS correlations and just aren't finding anything
Source? Wikipedia says:
>A central point of debate on GWA studies has been that most of the SNP variations found by GWA studies are associated with only a small increased risk of the disease, and have only a small predictive value. The median odds ratio is 1.33 per risk-SNP, with only a few showing odds ratios above 3.0.[1][46] These magnitudes are considered small because they do not explain much of the heritable variation. This heritable variation is estimated from heritability studies based on monozygotic twins.[47] For example, it is known that 40% of variance in depression can be explained by hereditary differences, but GWA studies only account for a minority of this variance.[47]
which admittedly isn't airtight proof for "depression is 100% genetic!!1", but isn't exactly "just aren't finding anything" either.
Source? Wikipedia says:
>A central point of debate on GWA studies has been that most of the SNP variations found by GWA studies are associated with only a small increased risk of the disease, and have only a small predictive value. The median odds ratio is 1.33 per risk-SNP, with only a few showing odds ratios above 3.0.[1][46] These magnitudes are considered small because they do not explain much of the heritable variation. This heritable variation is estimated from heritability studies based on monozygotic twins.[47] For example, it is known that 40% of variance in depression can be explained by hereditary differences, but GWA studies only account for a minority of this variance.[47]
which admittedly isn't airtight proof for "depression is 100% genetic!!1", but isn't exactly "just aren't finding anything" either.
It is a bit more nuanced than that. An incorrect unstated assumption here is that schizophrenia or depression is a singular disease rather than a group of observable symptoms where any two cases may or may not have the same underlying cause.
There are certain types of schizophrenia that are highly heritable and others that are more sporadic. Highly pathogenic variants tend to be very rare because those regions of the genome are under evolutionary constraint.
GWAS are used is to figure out which genes may be involved in the pathology. So we are essentially looking at rare cases of inherited disease to figure out which genes might play a role in more common non inherited versions.
There are certain types of schizophrenia that are highly heritable and others that are more sporadic. Highly pathogenic variants tend to be very rare because those regions of the genome are under evolutionary constraint.
GWAS are used is to figure out which genes may be involved in the pathology. So we are essentially looking at rare cases of inherited disease to figure out which genes might play a role in more common non inherited versions.
Environmental factors are certainly a part of those. I heard a story of someone being stranded at a lighthouse alone for many months, and he had a break from reality which affected him the rest of his life. It's always seemed interesting that the brain can be damaged by stress rather than physical injury – or that perhaps stress causes physical injury.
> but it is still a somewhat interesting proxy as there is a high correlation between intelligence and IQ.
How does one find a definition of intelligence that allows us to correlate it to anything? My understanding is an IQ is defined and intelligence is not.
How does one find a definition of intelligence that allows us to correlate it to anything? My understanding is an IQ is defined and intelligence is not.
Psychometric intelligence ("g") is defined correlationally viz. cognitive tasks; that is, the definition is itself a correlation. But it's robust in the sense that it correlates beyond the correlations used in its definition, e.g.: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatt...
"g" is a measure of narrow set of skills and job performance outcomes that favor western developed society. It's not an observable, it's an inferred value. It makes sense that people good at math and reading are going to perform well in jobs that involve math and reading. And people without access to good schooling or even textbooks are going to have worse performance.
I don't think it's appropriate to measure intelligence as a correlation between the few things a statistician cares about, personally. It would be a naively meritocratic view to think performing well at the highest paying jobs is a decent measure for intelligence.
I don't think it's appropriate to measure intelligence as a correlation between the few things a statistician cares about, personally. It would be a naively meritocratic view to think performing well at the highest paying jobs is a decent measure for intelligence.
http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html
I am not sure if my 'g' is high enough that psychologist will allow me to express my opinions on the topic, but I have found the argument in the blog I linked to be quite interesting.
I am not sure if my 'g' is high enough that psychologist will allow me to express my opinions on the topic, but I have found the argument in the blog I linked to be quite interesting.
Agreed.
It's a classic post-modern 'we cannot define intelligence even when we see it'. IQ is such a bad proxy for intelligence! There's no gene for IQ! Regardless, let's keep digging in genes because that's the established science and grants are coming our way. This is the best available study to date!
If that's not a great example of looking in a wrong place, I am not sure what is.
It's a classic post-modern 'we cannot define intelligence even when we see it'. IQ is such a bad proxy for intelligence! There's no gene for IQ! Regardless, let's keep digging in genes because that's the established science and grants are coming our way. This is the best available study to date!
If that's not a great example of looking in a wrong place, I am not sure what is.
I've often wondered if IQ is in protected state in the field of psychology.
What I mean: Psychology cannot afford for IQ to be disproven or invalidated. Doing so would completely undermine a significant portion of field. It would be like if evolution was disproven in biology -- absolutely gutting. (Just an analogy, don't kill me).
I see this when people bring up Lewis Terman's studies on giftedness or Richard Feynman's IQ score of ~124 -- especially the latter.
People come rushing out of the woodworks with statements like, "Well, Feynman was probably goofing off," "Feynman's result cannot be accurate -- he was a Putnam Award winner in high school," "Test were different back then," etc..
Sure, all of those could be right, but we only can operate off of what we know. The actual cold truth? We will never know.
However, like a knife through the heart, people refuse to even accept Feynman's score as a possibility. Feynman was an exceptional person. Exceptional people are outliers -- perhaps in more than one way.
Personally, I think it crushes people's souls to know that a famous theoretical physicist scored lower on an IQ score than expected, but still accomplished more in life than they did.
That is why I personally believe life is the one true IQ test. You get one shot. One's true intelligence is what you do with it. But hey, maybe my IQ is too low?
What I mean: Psychology cannot afford for IQ to be disproven or invalidated. Doing so would completely undermine a significant portion of field. It would be like if evolution was disproven in biology -- absolutely gutting. (Just an analogy, don't kill me).
I see this when people bring up Lewis Terman's studies on giftedness or Richard Feynman's IQ score of ~124 -- especially the latter.
People come rushing out of the woodworks with statements like, "Well, Feynman was probably goofing off," "Feynman's result cannot be accurate -- he was a Putnam Award winner in high school," "Test were different back then," etc..
Sure, all of those could be right, but we only can operate off of what we know. The actual cold truth? We will never know.
However, like a knife through the heart, people refuse to even accept Feynman's score as a possibility. Feynman was an exceptional person. Exceptional people are outliers -- perhaps in more than one way.
Personally, I think it crushes people's souls to know that a famous theoretical physicist scored lower on an IQ score than expected, but still accomplished more in life than they did.
That is why I personally believe life is the one true IQ test. You get one shot. One's true intelligence is what you do with it. But hey, maybe my IQ is too low?
One must add that IQ & height distributions ALSO look the same despite the latter and artificial one being a good proxy for intelligence.
Lol, who ran a correlation analysis between intelligence and IQ to convince you that the "correlation" between the two is high?
> Lol, who ran a correlation analysis between intelligence and IQ to convince you that the "correlation" between the two is high?
Well you can ridicule this statement if you like, but I can suggest a good-faith approach to this question. For example you can trying coming up with a few definitions of what intelligence could be and then look for correlation between this definitions and IQ.
I can go first: intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income". This definition of intelligence strongly correlate with IQ. There are other possible approaches but all the ones I can think of (e.g. results in math tests) have at least some correlation with IQ.
Now how do you see intelligence? Does it correlate with IQ?
Well you can ridicule this statement if you like, but I can suggest a good-faith approach to this question. For example you can trying coming up with a few definitions of what intelligence could be and then look for correlation between this definitions and IQ.
I can go first: intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income". This definition of intelligence strongly correlate with IQ. There are other possible approaches but all the ones I can think of (e.g. results in math tests) have at least some correlation with IQ.
Now how do you see intelligence? Does it correlate with IQ?
I go in more detail in my other comment but I would imagine this is a definition most people can't get behind.
> intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income"
I think it just crumbles under light scrutiny. People have higher income for all kinds of observable reasons that don't have to do with intelligence. I have higher income than other employees at the same level just based on where I live.
Intelligence is something that is defined by academics. Surprise surprise that it it measures how people perform in a narrow set of academic skills.
> intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income"
I think it just crumbles under light scrutiny. People have higher income for all kinds of observable reasons that don't have to do with intelligence. I have higher income than other employees at the same level just based on where I live.
Intelligence is something that is defined by academics. Surprise surprise that it it measures how people perform in a narrow set of academic skills.
So someone born in Sub-Saharan Africa is almost definitionally "less intelligent" than anyone born in the US by this definition? I would say that this does not correlate well with "intelligence" at all.
No, because many people in Africa have higher-than-average salary in their region. If you adjust the definition to be "higher-than-median", it will be exactly 50%.
Who ever measured the "correlation" between intelligence and IQ and how?
...given that intelligence is not only abstract, but also not defined consistently?
...given that intelligence is not only abstract, but also not defined consistently?
[deleted]
what a garbage article, he spent so much time being mad he forgot to be convincing
I mean, technically, height is not like height either.
One's height is not fixed, even in a given day.
But I get his point. Kind of.
Intelligence is more like speed. Speed can be affected by multiple things. Once you run X fast, it doesn't mean you'll always be able to run that fast. One's top speed is more of a range than a fixed point.
And we measure speed all day long.
Intelligence is a thing. People have it to different degrees. People often mistake it for knowledge. And IQ is a way to measure at least a part of it.
One's height is not fixed, even in a given day.
But I get his point. Kind of.
Intelligence is more like speed. Speed can be affected by multiple things. Once you run X fast, it doesn't mean you'll always be able to run that fast. One's top speed is more of a range than a fixed point.
And we measure speed all day long.
Intelligence is a thing. People have it to different degrees. People often mistake it for knowledge. And IQ is a way to measure at least a part of it.
>It turns out molecular genetics has (for lack of a better word) thoroughly debunked [the view that Intelligence is significantly heritable].
There is also a replication crisis in post-modern science.
Not to mention, is it even legal, let alone reasonably possible for a study to publish in a real journal the view that Intelligence is heritable, in particular when it concerns race? This topic is arguably the in the top 3 forbidden taboos of western society. In European countries you can face charges of hate speech for even suggesting this, let alone dedicating a life of study regarding a certain conclusion.
That an article like this amounts to semantic evasion of the matter, like the post by gwervc here describes, does not give credibility to the side which continues to maintain that evolution has [by all significant measures] stopped at the neck.
There is also a replication crisis in post-modern science.
Not to mention, is it even legal, let alone reasonably possible for a study to publish in a real journal the view that Intelligence is heritable, in particular when it concerns race? This topic is arguably the in the top 3 forbidden taboos of western society. In European countries you can face charges of hate speech for even suggesting this, let alone dedicating a life of study regarding a certain conclusion.
That an article like this amounts to semantic evasion of the matter, like the post by gwervc here describes, does not give credibility to the side which continues to maintain that evolution has [by all significant measures] stopped at the neck.
> In European countries you can face charges of hate speech for even suggesting this
Source?
Source?
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/sormland/hd-tar-upp-fallet...
SVT is the Swedish government news agency. The article describes a politician facing charges for suggesting that South Sudanese people have a lower IQ.
SVT is the Swedish government news agency. The article describes a politician facing charges for suggesting that South Sudanese people have a lower IQ.
The original claim was that it is illegal to study or to publish on such a claim. For pure slander in a non-scientific context without evidence, sure, some countries prohibit that.
There's no empirical evidence that South Sudanese people, as a population, have lower IQ, therefore this cannot be interpreted as anything but an attempt to denigrate an entire people
Which highlights that even suggesting this is illegal in countries in Europe.
No it highlights that a right-wing politician known for saying inflammatory things about migrants made a comment for purely political purposes and clearly did not care about the underlying scientific validity of his claim, since it actually does not exist.
Can you source that it is actually legal to say that an ethnic group of people have a lower IQ, in Sweden?
I live in Sweden, and can attest to my own knowledge of the law, whilst not being a lawyer, that it is not legal. Let alone, reasonably possible therefore to have these things published in a journal here.
I live in Sweden, and can attest to my own knowledge of the law, whilst not being a lawyer, that it is not legal. Let alone, reasonably possible therefore to have these things published in a journal here.
>Not to mention, is it even legal, let alone reasonably possible for a study to publish in a real journal the view that Intelligence is heritable, in particular when it concerns race?
What do you mean by race? Because race isn't genetically determined, its socially determined--two people of a very different "race," can actually be quite closely related genetically, its just that their appearances differ.
>does not give credibility to the side which continues to maintain that evolution has [by all significant measures] stopped at the neck.
Its not that evolution has or hasn't stopped at the neck, its that the IQ test as a single objective measure of intelligence, like measuring height, is incredibly flawed since it has changed dramatically in the decades when these studies have been conducted.
Whether or how someone is intelligent cannot be measured empirically by a single standard since purely intelligible things, like concepts, math, artistic ability, by nature cannot have an empirical appearance. But you know if someone is smart, and you know it because they tend to do things that are smart. But that's only helpful at the level of a single individual, its not something that can be measured population wide.
>post-modern science.
The most "post-modern" thing here is your comment, which you clearly wrote without having actually read the article thoroughly.
What do you mean by race? Because race isn't genetically determined, its socially determined--two people of a very different "race," can actually be quite closely related genetically, its just that their appearances differ.
>does not give credibility to the side which continues to maintain that evolution has [by all significant measures] stopped at the neck.
Its not that evolution has or hasn't stopped at the neck, its that the IQ test as a single objective measure of intelligence, like measuring height, is incredibly flawed since it has changed dramatically in the decades when these studies have been conducted.
Whether or how someone is intelligent cannot be measured empirically by a single standard since purely intelligible things, like concepts, math, artistic ability, by nature cannot have an empirical appearance. But you know if someone is smart, and you know it because they tend to do things that are smart. But that's only helpful at the level of a single individual, its not something that can be measured population wide.
>post-modern science.
The most "post-modern" thing here is your comment, which you clearly wrote without having actually read the article thoroughly.
IQ remains one of the most highly predictive traits you even can measure from someones psychology, predicting crime rates, happiness, divorces. Just about everything actually is predicted by IQ in someones like, to an extent to which philosophical questions about determinism even can be brought up in discussion.
Race is genetically determined. Are you suggesting that for example breeds of dogs can swap from Labrador to Golden Retriever based on vibes during their upbringing. The term "black" as a racial group is of course an extremely crude and large genetic grouping, much like saying that perhaps "retrievers" are a race of dogs. Nonetheless, groups remain genetically determined.
Race is genetically determined. Are you suggesting that for example breeds of dogs can swap from Labrador to Golden Retriever based on vibes during their upbringing. The term "black" as a racial group is of course an extremely crude and large genetic grouping, much like saying that perhaps "retrievers" are a race of dogs. Nonetheless, groups remain genetically determined.
Dogs have far less genetic diversity than humans since they have been selectively bread for thousands of years, leading in many cases to extreme hereditary issues: often there are breeds which have these problems as a part of their breeding. [0]
IQ also correlates strongly with economic and social class, which also correlates strongly with crime and happiness and probably also divorce. If you think, then, that race, as a determinate measure of IQ, is determinate of economic and social class, then you are actually a racist, plain and simple. But, you might not think that, I'm just trying to point this out to you.
[0]https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/inbreeding-of-...
IQ also correlates strongly with economic and social class, which also correlates strongly with crime and happiness and probably also divorce. If you think, then, that race, as a determinate measure of IQ, is determinate of economic and social class, then you are actually a racist, plain and simple. But, you might not think that, I'm just trying to point this out to you.
[0]https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/inbreeding-of-...
>then you are actually a racist, plain and simple.
This is not an argument and is just an inflammatory remark.
This is not an argument and is just an inflammatory remark.
I'm not saying you are, I'm saying that if you say what you are saying without qualifying that its only because of social factors that people of particular races tend to have lower IQs, then you are a racist, which is the generally agreed upon definition. Instead of evading the label, why not embrace it? For instance, I am a misogynist through and through, and if someone calls me one I affirm it. Why not accept that you are a racist instead of trying to pretend what you're saying has anything to do with objectivity and empirical science?
Site guidelines prevent me from elaborating further. Have a good day. :-)
> if you say what you are saying without qualifying that its only because of social factors that people of particular races tend to have lower IQs, then you are a racist, which is the generally agreed upon definition
Generally agreed upon by whom? Just you? The dictionary definition, which is most indicative of what is generally agreed upon, of "racist" denotes a requirement of prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism. An assertion of different races exhibiting different IQs due to heredity factors may be incorrect, but being incorrect does not imply prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism.
Generally agreed upon by whom? Just you? The dictionary definition, which is most indicative of what is generally agreed upon, of "racist" denotes a requirement of prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism. An assertion of different races exhibiting different IQs due to heredity factors may be incorrect, but being incorrect does not imply prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism.
Its not that the assertion is incorrect, but that if it is made without knowledge that IQ is primarily influenced by social-economic factors, then it can be construed as racist because it is saying that a positive quality (high IQ) is given by nature to certain groups of people who already happen to hold certain economic and social privileges, instead of the other way around. Unless you're claiming that having a low IQ can be seen as something positive.
IQ is neither positive or negative. It is merely a factual representation[1] of what is. What has lead you to establish this emotional connection to it?
[1] To the extent of our best known ability to represent it. Any flaws in that representation accepted.
[1] To the extent of our best known ability to represent it. Any flaws in that representation accepted.
There are no IQ tests that measure IQ through genetics though. They are all measuring it by asking knowledge questions that the subject answers. There aren't many people that claim IQ isn't measuring anything. Just that it is not a measurement of genetics, as some people do insist that it is.
No reasonable scientist would study a correlation between a physical trait (intelligence) and a socio-economic concept (race). It would be like studying if height is correlated with "proper grammar".
Edit: race, not "rave"
Edit: race, not "rave"
While “rave” is a misnomer, being applied almost exclusively based on skin color, haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defined geographically. It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on, because different genetics found their footing in different areas. Claiming they are based solely on “socio-economic” factors is wildly incorrect and wildly racist. To what authority does someone’s social and economic standing define their genetics?
> haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defined geographically
Nobody is claiming there are no genetic differences between populations of people. People are reiterating that race is an entirely socially-constructed concept. Human racial categories are not based on genetics.
> It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on
As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone.
Race is not defined by genetics. Genetics were used to justify race. Race is also extremely nebulous. According to the US Census, an average Norwegian, Sicilian, Mexican, and Arab are all considered to be white. Again according to the US Census, on average, if you are from southwest Pakistan, you are Asian. If you are from southeast Iran, you are... caucasian? See how stupid this classification is?
I would bet good money that the genetic difference between someone from Iran (White) vs. Pakistan (Asian) is substantially less than someone from Pakistan (Asian) vs. South Korea (Asian).
Nobody is claiming there are no genetic differences between populations of people. People are reiterating that race is an entirely socially-constructed concept. Human racial categories are not based on genetics.
> It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on
As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone.
Race is not defined by genetics. Genetics were used to justify race. Race is also extremely nebulous. According to the US Census, an average Norwegian, Sicilian, Mexican, and Arab are all considered to be white. Again according to the US Census, on average, if you are from southwest Pakistan, you are Asian. If you are from southeast Iran, you are... caucasian? See how stupid this classification is?
I would bet good money that the genetic difference between someone from Iran (White) vs. Pakistan (Asian) is substantially less than someone from Pakistan (Asian) vs. South Korea (Asian).
> As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone.
That sounds pretty racist to me. Would you say the same about people from Uganda as opposed to the Caribbean, or Japan from China? That they all look the same?
That sounds pretty racist to me. Would you say the same about people from Uganda as opposed to the Caribbean, or Japan from China? That they all look the same?
There's a loaded grenade of a question.
Here's the thing though, a "white person" from Australia is a blandly generic European, they look like they could of come from Scotland, or Germany .. then of course you can start looking at European Australians and picking out people with deep ancestral roots to Spain, Italy, Serbia | Croatia, etc.
Modern Germany is a greater melting pot of origin stories than it once was - although to be frankly honest much of the population of Neukölln in Berlin look as though they might be from Melbourne, Australia - and they don't look at all like the 'Aryan Race' archetypes certain Germans of the 1920s were so fond of.
Forget "race" - it's a question of whether any family traits and features that started out strongly eveident are still present or not.
The greater truth is that outside of any obvious strong features, Australians come from all over; 25% of the current population was born outside of Australia, and with the exception of indigenous Australians and first settler, early convicts, soldiers that stayed on for land, servant families of the rich, very early gold rush adventurers, etc very few people in Australia are descended from anybody here prior to 1850.
Following 1850 the Australian population quadrupled rapidly from under half a million outsiders as prospecters poured in.
Conversely, the population of Japan largely looks Japanese in origin and it's generally not hard to pick those who don't have several generations there behind them.
Here's the thing though, a "white person" from Australia is a blandly generic European, they look like they could of come from Scotland, or Germany .. then of course you can start looking at European Australians and picking out people with deep ancestral roots to Spain, Italy, Serbia | Croatia, etc.
Modern Germany is a greater melting pot of origin stories than it once was - although to be frankly honest much of the population of Neukölln in Berlin look as though they might be from Melbourne, Australia - and they don't look at all like the 'Aryan Race' archetypes certain Germans of the 1920s were so fond of.
Forget "race" - it's a question of whether any family traits and features that started out strongly eveident are still present or not.
The greater truth is that outside of any obvious strong features, Australians come from all over; 25% of the current population was born outside of Australia, and with the exception of indigenous Australians and first settler, early convicts, soldiers that stayed on for land, servant families of the rich, very early gold rush adventurers, etc very few people in Australia are descended from anybody here prior to 1850.
Following 1850 the Australian population quadrupled rapidly from under half a million outsiders as prospecters poured in.
Conversely, the population of Japan largely looks Japanese in origin and it's generally not hard to pick those who don't have several generations there behind them.
The important thing I'm pointing to is that there is no correlation between those haplogroups, which definitely do exist, and what anyone calls race. So when you say that you want to study race VS intelligence, that just doesn't make any sense. If you want to study the heritability of IQ, or variation in IQ between diverse human populations, that's a different matter.
Race is not genetics; genetics are objective reality, race is not. Race is a series of socio-economic labels applied to people based on purely external factors, and highly un correlated with any genetic variation.
Race is not genetics; genetics are objective reality, race is not. Race is a series of socio-economic labels applied to people based on purely external factors, and highly un correlated with any genetic variation.
I agree with what you’re saying, ultimately I dislike the label. I don’t see where the “economic” part of “socio-economic label” comes in. Race as a social label makes perfect sense to me, because race is used in social contexts mostly as a way to discuss individuals in our daily life. “That [race] man” is expected vernacular, as our social groups tend to be made up of those that are like us, and “race” is a typical exclusion from that. However, it as an “economic” label is far too cultural to for me to accept as a general statement. In certain cultures, say 18th century USA, races such as “Irish” or “African” were seen generally as low-rung groups. However, that’s different nowadays, and was different across cultural borders, so while I would posit everyone understands the social aspects of race, the economic predispositions aren’t something we should be focusing on, as ultimately they are just another social aspect and thus redundant.
Is race a socio-economic concept? Can you explain what you mean by that?
Of course. At best it's based on skin color, eye shape, and hair type. But different countries have different notions of what is a race, or what race a person is. And these also vary historically a lot (e.g. Irish people and Italian people used to be considered different races in the USA). And there is nothing objective about the choice of characteristics attributed to "race".
And finally and perhaps most importantly, no studies of race ever look at any genetics to define the races, they look at the regular proxies. A black-skinned child of a black-skinned mother and a white-skinned father is typically considered "black" even if they are just as black as they are white, genetically (or even more, if the black-skinned parent also had a white-skinned parent).
And finally and perhaps most importantly, no studies of race ever look at any genetics to define the races, they look at the regular proxies. A black-skinned child of a black-skinned mother and a white-skinned father is typically considered "black" even if they are just as black as they are white, genetically (or even more, if the black-skinned parent also had a white-skinned parent).
Its not genetically mediated. Indians are a "race" someone from Assam, someone from Rajasthan, and someone from Tamil Nadu may differ dramatically in terms of their genetic heritage and even racial appearance, simply because they are defined in terms of associations which are not purely to do with genetic lineage.
Right, but this doesn't invalidate the idea that genetic groups exist and that heritability can significantly affect traits such as intelligence.
It simply moves the question to, which genetic groups are correct to create distinctions from. The adage that there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than outside it comes to mind.
It simply moves the question to, which genetic groups are correct to create distinctions from. The adage that there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than outside it comes to mind.
>which genetic groups are correct to create distinctions from.
None, because you cannot create a grouping without imposing certain parameters which are non-empirical in nature. Genetic science =! race science. Race as a concept is almost entirely mediated by social concerns and abstractions from concrete reality.
None, because you cannot create a grouping without imposing certain parameters which are non-empirical in nature. Genetic science =! race science. Race as a concept is almost entirely mediated by social concerns and abstractions from concrete reality.
You can create groupings in nature. Biologists do it all the time for all animals. The groupings are by some measure arbitrary, yes, unless you mean to suggest that for example crows are in the same grouping as seagulls, and that even these groupings are invalid?
No, in fact I'm not. But nobody is going to go around saying that a crow is a seagull, you know it when you see it. Its because we ourselves are not seagulls or crows. We are not dogs, we are not animals, except in one specific way. And since you, yes you yourself, are part of the thing you are commenting on (race), there is no way to "purify" your assessment of the thing since your own personal history, which you cannot even be fully aware of, factors into your sectioning of the world.
So we are unable to judge, and therefore the null hypothesis must be that humans are genetically similar enough that trait variation is explained by external factors?
I think we can judge, and also that the null hypothesis should be that humans are evolutionary creatures like all other creatures on the planet, with groupings exhibiting different traits based on the genetic makeup.
I think we can judge, and also that the null hypothesis should be that humans are evolutionary creatures like all other creatures on the planet, with groupings exhibiting different traits based on the genetic makeup.
No, but we cannot make any pure empirical judgements, just ones that we know are inflected by our particular social histories. Of course different humans have different traits, but IQ is not a measure of individual traits, its a mass measurement that correlates far more strongly with social factors such as nutrition and education than genetic heritage, which is what the article is saying
So do you believe that science as a whole is impossible because it is impossible for us to be truly logical and empirical on every matter?
Logical =! Empirical (there are many books on philosophy you could read on this subject, probably all of them.)
Science is the study of things that aren't logical. Concepts don't have anything to do with natural systems, they are patterns of thinking fixed into definite shapes to be applied to the natural world. It is precisely what we don't know, and what we don't yet know that we don't know, that scientific practice helps us discover. If you trusted in "logic" all the time you'd just get endless mathematical formulas that look cool and feel nice, but don't have anything to do with the universe more than a cat has to do with a ball of yarn that it's playing with. It is always when we discover things that break logic, that real scientific progress is made, not when we mindlessly follow what is "logical."
Science is the study of things that aren't logical. Concepts don't have anything to do with natural systems, they are patterns of thinking fixed into definite shapes to be applied to the natural world. It is precisely what we don't know, and what we don't yet know that we don't know, that scientific practice helps us discover. If you trusted in "logic" all the time you'd just get endless mathematical formulas that look cool and feel nice, but don't have anything to do with the universe more than a cat has to do with a ball of yarn that it's playing with. It is always when we discover things that break logic, that real scientific progress is made, not when we mindlessly follow what is "logical."
Absolutely, this is a subject that it would make sense to study. It's much harder to study than "race", though, because you need to do genetic studies on your participants or to design cross-cultural IQ tests (relying on geography as a much better proxy for genetics than skin color is). And in fact, no one is doing it in the area of intelligence, while there is a quite a bit of paper written on "race" and intelligence.
[deleted]
This article is very invested in constant mockery. As someone who just wanted to understand better, it made it a tedious read.
The author has a known ideological axe to grind, read his tweets
The real joke is quoting psychologist to counterpoint students of races? (I guess anthropologists?) Or quoting psychologists about anything, regardless
[deleted]
Add a perspective of IQ of separated monozygotic twins
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692....
---
UPD and this one https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6129-9_...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692....
---
UPD and this one https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6129-9_...
These studies are very flawed for several reasons, the main one being "separation" which is a very loose definition of separation. If identical twins grow up together but some time in childhood one is sent to live with a relative, before a later reunification, this is called "separated". It does little to separate nurture from nature.
Which makes sense - how many identical twins are separated at birth? Even if they were, it is unlikely one would be sent to Cambridge and one to rural Nepal (one of the lowest places for these IQ studies).
Which makes sense - how many identical twins are separated at birth? Even if they were, it is unlikely one would be sent to Cambridge and one to rural Nepal (one of the lowest places for these IQ studies).
[deleted]
The thing that all the moralisation around IQ misses, is that IQ is a serious problem in a lot of places around the world, and turning it into a career-ending taboo topic basically ensures that it goes completely unaddressed. I’ve worked with governments and companies in quite a few developing countries around the world where the average IQs are between 1-2 standard deviations below 100, and that problem is right up there with corruption when it comes to what’s holding these countries back. It would be great if solutions to this problem were being studied, but idiots like this author basically guarantee that will never happen.
Isn't an IQ of 100 by definition the average IQ of the country studied? What do they define as an IQ of 100 if not the average of their population, what are the tests calibrated on?
Obviously 100 is calibrated to western populations.
I believe IQ has also risen steadily with time in the west. It might have risen an entire standard deviation. It's called Flynn's effect, 3 points per decade.
That can't be explained by pure heritable genetics. Epigenetics possibly, nutrition, better education systems, higher information dissemination.
I believe IQ has also risen steadily with time in the west. It might have risen an entire standard deviation. It's called Flynn's effect, 3 points per decade.
That can't be explained by pure heritable genetics. Epigenetics possibly, nutrition, better education systems, higher information dissemination.
> Obviously 100 is calibrated to western populations.
How could you calibrate a cultrually-specific test like most IQ tests are by comparing with another culture?
I'm also pretty sure that people don't use the same tests across "the West", so that seems dubious to begin with.
> I believe IQ has also risen steadily with time in the west. It might have risen an entire standard deviation. It's called Flynn's effect, 3 points per decade.
That is more easily studied, as you can use the same test across generations and notice trends.
How could you calibrate a cultrually-specific test like most IQ tests are by comparing with another culture?
I'm also pretty sure that people don't use the same tests across "the West", so that seems dubious to begin with.
> I believe IQ has also risen steadily with time in the west. It might have risen an entire standard deviation. It's called Flynn's effect, 3 points per decade.
That is more easily studied, as you can use the same test across generations and notice trends.
> but idiots like this author basically guarantee that will never happen.
Could also be intentional
Could also be intentional
> I’ve worked with governments and companies in quite a few developing countries around the world where the average IQs are between 1-2 standard deviations below 100, and that problem is right up there with corruption when it comes to what’s holding these countries back.
Also consider how much brain drain contributes to this. Anyone in those countries who is smart enough to recognize this will just emigrate to more developed countries, and their home country will never get to benefit from their (relatively) smarter people.
So the country's IQs might be just about average, but if their top deviation is constantly leaving...you have a negative feedback loop through no one's fault.
Also consider how much brain drain contributes to this. Anyone in those countries who is smart enough to recognize this will just emigrate to more developed countries, and their home country will never get to benefit from their (relatively) smarter people.
So the country's IQs might be just about average, but if their top deviation is constantly leaving...you have a negative feedback loop through no one's fault.
[deleted]
The use of IQ is a problem, or are you taking the metric seriously?
I bet the solution is heavy on "access to clean water, food, security from war and violence, and education", amirite? sure let's fire up the "IQ science" machine to give us reasons to not have to do something so boring as to improve the lives of those living in developing nations.
I think you've misunderstood the comment you're responding to.
They're suggesting that to give the optimal assistance to those countries, the IQ of the current adult population needs to be considered as an important variable in the equation, but it's taboo and stigmatized to discuss or acknowledge, so the people get sub-optimal solutions instead.
If you want to help some community in need, but you're not allowed to address certain taboo topics- IQ, substance abuse, STDs, domestic abuse, religious beliefs or cultural norms, whatever may be relevant for that group, then you're probably not going to design your programs for assistance in the best way.
They're suggesting that to give the optimal assistance to those countries, the IQ of the current adult population needs to be considered as an important variable in the equation, but it's taboo and stigmatized to discuss or acknowledge, so the people get sub-optimal solutions instead.
If you want to help some community in need, but you're not allowed to address certain taboo topics- IQ, substance abuse, STDs, domestic abuse, religious beliefs or cultural norms, whatever may be relevant for that group, then you're probably not going to design your programs for assistance in the best way.
Well that’s certainly true, but my main point is that you want to study what interventions can be deployed to raise the IQ in these places. This absolutely is not being studied in any serious way, and I doubt it feasibly could be in the current academic climate. Obvious suggestions like “clean water and food” aren’t specifically helpful in any way, because this issue exists in plenty of countries that don’t have widespread issues with access to calories and bottled water.
> I think you've misunderstood the comment you're responding to.
respectfully I would suggest you've misunderstood mine
respectfully I would suggest you've misunderstood mine
And if you don’t take into account characteristics of the population you’re trying to introduce these things to, you’ll fail.
the notion that one of these characteristics could plausibly be "the population is less intelligent on average than other populations around the world, controlling for all other factors such as health care, education, happiness, etc.", that's what we call racist. it's why attempting to "study" such things are rightly frowned upon.
Science starts with questions and hypothesis, not with conclusions. I personally don’t think it’s significantly related to any of the factors you’ve listed (or with genetics either), but thanks to perspectives like the one you’re presenting here, the only possible outcome is that the world will permanently have a large low-IQ underclass (which as other have mentioned ITT, perhaps that is something a lot of people want).
The first line of the first study the author references as "the largest genetic analysis of IQ scores":
>Intelligence is highly heritable
The author then writes this whole piece without once mentioning twin studies. Which is kind like writing about climate change and not mentioning CO2.
Also the author works for Harvard, which has been speed running their credibility into the ground as of late, for exactly the kind of highly politicized topics like this one.
>Intelligence is highly heritable
The author then writes this whole piece without once mentioning twin studies. Which is kind like writing about climate change and not mentioning CO2.
Also the author works for Harvard, which has been speed running their credibility into the ground as of late, for exactly the kind of highly politicized topics like this one.
[deleted]
I don't understand the point of this article. That IQ is different then height? Oke great and? I have never seen anyone claim they were the same.
It's simply a claim about heritability of intelligence. In other words, "Intelligence isn't inheritable like height" according to the author. There are certainly plenty of people who claim that genetics explains a large part of intelligence.
It's very hard to look at heritability and make a genetics conclusion. That's because two people's genes fuse to make a new person. And this process could be chaotic for some traits. So even if trait x is genetic it may not be possible to predict that trait in the children based on the trait in the parents.
So it's possible intelligence is genetic even if heritability suggests it isn't. What would be interesting is to look at monozygotic twins. If their IQ scores are more highly correlated then siblings or non-monozygotic twins it's a clear indication intelligence is genetic. But I imagine that the sample set is tiny.
So it's possible intelligence is genetic even if heritability suggests it isn't. What would be interesting is to look at monozygotic twins. If their IQ scores are more highly correlated then siblings or non-monozygotic twins it's a clear indication intelligence is genetic. But I imagine that the sample set is tiny.
> I have never seen anyone claim they were the same.
well read some of the other comments coming in here. I dare not upmod this article on a site like Hacker News.
well read some of the other comments coming in here. I dare not upmod this article on a site like Hacker News.
I have! We're all singular entities with a narrow lens into the experiences of others, so it's inevitable we'll never encounter things that others encounter way too much.
Where do you encounter something like this? Could you point it out to me? If it deserves such a ridiculous rebuttal I would expect to be able to easily find it online.
I don't keep a log of silly eugenics nonsense I encounter and, if nothing else, we probably have the common experience of Google getting worse at this kind of query. Some of it was on HN, at least. If you find it, good luck! I've never had much success rebutting this kind of thing.
Interesting. How would one even go about expressing the idea that height and intelligence are literally the exact same thing in such a way that someone would want to talk about it?
People are weird. I gave up reasoning with them. "No amount of persistence and practice will let me dunk on Shaq, but high IQ people get dunked on all the time" should be a winner vs people who think genetics determine everything, but neo-eugenicists just don't want to hear it. They have an unreasonable faith in genes.
> "No amount of persistence and practice will let me dunk on Shaq, but high IQ people get dunked on all the time" should be a winner
How so? It seems you're not even speaking their language. Given that in their reality height and IQ are the same thing, your assertion contradicts itself. If no amount of persistence and practice will let you dunk on Shaq, why would tall people get dunked on all the time?
Be honest: You haven't really heard anyone claim that height and IQ are the same thing, have you?
How so? It seems you're not even speaking their language. Given that in their reality height and IQ are the same thing, your assertion contradicts itself. If no amount of persistence and practice will let you dunk on Shaq, why would tall people get dunked on all the time?
Be honest: You haven't really heard anyone claim that height and IQ are the same thing, have you?
[deleted]
>> "Be honest: You haven't really heard anyone claim that height and IQ are the same thing, have you?"
I cannot imagine what your motivation is for making such a bizarre and out of place accusation but I won't participate in whatever it is you're trying to do here.
I cannot imagine what your motivation is for making such a bizarre and out of place accusation but I won't participate in whatever it is you're trying to do here.
> I cannot imagine what your motivation is for making such a bizarre and out of place accusation
It is abundantly clear that you are not talking about the same thing as the original post. It was a friendly gesture to allow you to go back and clear up whatever misconception you picked up when you read it originally. But, as you have chosen to double down, ...
> but I won't participate in whatever it is you're trying to do here.
Thing is, you already have. On multiple occasions. Now you are blatantly lying. Is that what happened last time too?
It is abundantly clear that you are not talking about the same thing as the original post. It was a friendly gesture to allow you to go back and clear up whatever misconception you picked up when you read it originally. But, as you have chosen to double down, ...
> but I won't participate in whatever it is you're trying to do here.
Thing is, you already have. On multiple occasions. Now you are blatantly lying. Is that what happened last time too?
It's to debunk the pseudoscientific nonsense -- rooted in racism and white supremacy -- that IQ is a largely genetically determined trait which is then often used to assert that certain ethnic groups are on average smarter or stupider than other ethnic groups.
More that because IQ isn't genetically determined any data that makes it look like certain ethnic groups are smarter or stupider than other ethnic groups must be wrong.
The argument on both sides misses out that the IQ data seen could be a result of other factors that are only indirectly associated with an ethnic group, such as that group being descended from people who were enslaved or who practiced polygamy or who don't prevent first cousins from marrying.
The argument on both sides misses out that the IQ data seen could be a result of other factors that are only indirectly associated with an ethnic group, such as that group being descended from people who were enslaved or who practiced polygamy or who don't prevent first cousins from marrying.
> More that because IQ isn't genetically determined any data that makes it look like certain ethnic groups are smarter or stupider than other ethnic groups must be wrong.
Why must it be wrong? The data is quite clear that a person of a given ethic group is most likely to associate with other people of the same ethnic group. If we are to assume that intelligence is determined by environmental factors, it is quite likely that intelligence will vary by ethnic group due to ethnic groups tending to group around different environments.
> such as that group being descended from people who were enslaved or who practiced polygamy or who don't prevent first cousins from marrying.
For those who believe that intelligence is heritable, isn't that exactly what they are talking about? I don't see how it is missed.
Why must it be wrong? The data is quite clear that a person of a given ethic group is most likely to associate with other people of the same ethnic group. If we are to assume that intelligence is determined by environmental factors, it is quite likely that intelligence will vary by ethnic group due to ethnic groups tending to group around different environments.
> such as that group being descended from people who were enslaved or who practiced polygamy or who don't prevent first cousins from marrying.
For those who believe that intelligence is heritable, isn't that exactly what they are talking about? I don't see how it is missed.
A statement like "IQ is heritable" is neither science nor pseudoscience, it's just a statement that is either true, false or e.g. 80% true with 20% determined by other factors.
Doing studies to prove or disprove it, like ones on separated twins referenced here in comments -- this is science.
Saying that this statement is false because it's racist -- this is pseudoscience.
Doing studies to prove or disprove it, like ones on separated twins referenced here in comments -- this is science.
Saying that this statement is false because it's racist -- this is pseudoscience.
White supremacy that claims that asians have the highest IQs. Makes all the sense in the world.
Now I was curious and looked it up. They may have a point. Average IQ is highest in asian countries: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-i... and it's not even close.
HN is going to have to address bait topics (and bait “science”) more than bait clicks. The author has an axe to grind with a certain subset of the population and this board is caught in the cross fire.
I am surprised so many cling to the idea that intelligence is highly genetic when we have demonstrated before that so many things can be done to completely nullify any genetic advantage.
I am not saying there are no genetic contributions, but clearly any genetic benefit is highly contingent on many external factors.
For example, I doubt Terrance Tao would have become the genius he is today if he were raised in conditions like many children in the Romanian orphanages in the 1980s and 1990s.
I am not saying there are no genetic contributions, but clearly any genetic benefit is highly contingent on many external factors.
For example, I doubt Terrance Tao would have become the genius he is today if he were raised in conditions like many children in the Romanian orphanages in the 1980s and 1990s.
> we have demonstrated before that so many things can be done to completely nullify any genetic advantage.
If the genetic advantage is nullifiable, how can it exist?
When people compare intelligence to height, they are speaking with respect to maximum potential. As far as we know, genetics do dictate how tall you can potentially become. Environmental factors may leave you shorter than your potential, but if we were able to expose all people to a perfect growing environment, they would not all end up being the exact same height. They would only grow to the limit dictated by their individual genetics.
If a supposed genetic advantage with respect to maximum intelligence potential is nullifiable, that surely implies that all humans have the capability of reaching equal intelligence? But then what genetic advantage is there to speak of?
If the genetic advantage is nullifiable, how can it exist?
When people compare intelligence to height, they are speaking with respect to maximum potential. As far as we know, genetics do dictate how tall you can potentially become. Environmental factors may leave you shorter than your potential, but if we were able to expose all people to a perfect growing environment, they would not all end up being the exact same height. They would only grow to the limit dictated by their individual genetics.
If a supposed genetic advantage with respect to maximum intelligence potential is nullifiable, that surely implies that all humans have the capability of reaching equal intelligence? But then what genetic advantage is there to speak of?
> If the genetic advantage is nullifiable, how can it exist?
"Nullify" was a bad word to use, so thank you bringing that to my attention.
The genetic advantage is environmentally dependent. In other words, having the right genes may be necessary, but the right genes alone are not sufficient.
> they are speaking with respect to maximum potential.
And how is the maximum potential determined? Maximum potential seems to me like some kind of ethereal value based on comparative associations to others with the same/similar genes. "Feynman has these genes and was a genius. If you have these genes you should be a genius too." We both know genetics and intelligence do not work like this.
> Environmental factors may leave you shorter than your potential
Human Growth Hormones can also leave you taller than your "potential" if administered prior to your growth plates forming. So, the "potential" value is apparently not static because environmental values can increase/decrease the potential.
> people to a perfect growing environment, they would not all end up being the exact same height.
We can assume this, but we cannot possibly confirm this. Albeit, I do agree with you on this, rationally speaking.
> But then what genetic advantage is there to speak of?
The genetic advantage would be having the appropriate genes in the appropriate environment.
"Nullify" was a bad word to use, so thank you bringing that to my attention.
The genetic advantage is environmentally dependent. In other words, having the right genes may be necessary, but the right genes alone are not sufficient.
> they are speaking with respect to maximum potential.
And how is the maximum potential determined? Maximum potential seems to me like some kind of ethereal value based on comparative associations to others with the same/similar genes. "Feynman has these genes and was a genius. If you have these genes you should be a genius too." We both know genetics and intelligence do not work like this.
> Environmental factors may leave you shorter than your potential
Human Growth Hormones can also leave you taller than your "potential" if administered prior to your growth plates forming. So, the "potential" value is apparently not static because environmental values can increase/decrease the potential.
> people to a perfect growing environment, they would not all end up being the exact same height.
We can assume this, but we cannot possibly confirm this. Albeit, I do agree with you on this, rationally speaking.
> But then what genetic advantage is there to speak of?
The genetic advantage would be having the appropriate genes in the appropriate environment.
> having the right genes may be necessary, but the right genes alone are not sufficient.
Right, which is why the intelligence:height comparison exists at all. It is, to the best of our understanding, that the right genes are required to become eight feet tall, so to speak, but that you also need to right environment to actually get there. "8-foot genes" alone does not guarantee you will become eight feet tall, and that's what the height comparison tells.
> And how is the maximum potential determined?
I'm not sure that it is, nor does it need to be for any practical purpose.
> "Feynman has these genes and was a genius. If you have these genes you should be a genius too." We both know genetics and intelligence do not work like this.
Hence why the height comparison has been made. It is an example where environmental factors are generally accepted, and easily observed (you don't need any special tools to recognize when someone is tall) within accepted conditions.
> We can assume this, but we cannot possibly confirm this.
Well, then the assumption is good enough, isn't it? It is just a communication device anyway. It doesn't even actually have to be true so long as it effectively communicates the idea, and based on what you are saying I'm certain it does as you are echoing what it says exactly.
Right, which is why the intelligence:height comparison exists at all. It is, to the best of our understanding, that the right genes are required to become eight feet tall, so to speak, but that you also need to right environment to actually get there. "8-foot genes" alone does not guarantee you will become eight feet tall, and that's what the height comparison tells.
> And how is the maximum potential determined?
I'm not sure that it is, nor does it need to be for any practical purpose.
> "Feynman has these genes and was a genius. If you have these genes you should be a genius too." We both know genetics and intelligence do not work like this.
Hence why the height comparison has been made. It is an example where environmental factors are generally accepted, and easily observed (you don't need any special tools to recognize when someone is tall) within accepted conditions.
> We can assume this, but we cannot possibly confirm this.
Well, then the assumption is good enough, isn't it? It is just a communication device anyway. It doesn't even actually have to be true so long as it effectively communicates the idea, and based on what you are saying I'm certain it does as you are echoing what it says exactly.
I think a chronic problem is people and studies starting with a false premise without even realizing it.
"Affluence is strongly correlated with higher IQ, therefore IQ is a socioeconomic problem"
You have the classic example of the smart person saying "I grew up in a house with a lot of books"
And then everyone reflexively takes away "Having lots of books around when you are young leads to more success!"
But virtually no one goes to "Smart people tend to have lots of books in their home, and they also tend to give birth to smart children, who are unsurprisingly drawn to reading books"
You see this everywhere.
"Affluence is strongly correlated with higher IQ, therefore IQ is a socioeconomic problem"
You have the classic example of the smart person saying "I grew up in a house with a lot of books"
And then everyone reflexively takes away "Having lots of books around when you are young leads to more success!"
But virtually no one goes to "Smart people tend to have lots of books in their home, and they also tend to give birth to smart children, who are unsurprisingly drawn to reading books"
You see this everywhere.
- The variation between IQ tests done by the same individual is significantly higher than almost any reasonable cross-group variation (men vs. woman, country A vs. country B, doctors vs. craftsmen, ...)
- The original IQ-test had to use a mathematical trick to cut off "growth of intelligence" at exactly 16 years old, which totally incidentally was the age where mandatory schooling ended for the relevant population.
- The famous "Termites" study which attempted to use IQ to predict the future upper crust of society by testing a large number of children failed to predict any Nobel price winners, but excluded two future Nobel winners (they were too dumb)
- IQ is totally unchangeable and static — nonetheless, you are forbidden from studying or practicing for IQ tests.
So to me, it's not particularly surprising that genetics disappoint in predicting IQ — given that they also fail at predicting other nonsensical and ever-chaning values such as whether I liked today's dinner..