Twins reared apart do not exist(davidbessis.substack.com)
davidbessis.substack.com
Twins reared apart do not exist
https://davidbessis.substack.com/p/twins-reared-apart-do-not-exist
113 comments
I trust my own observations and my conclusion is that heritability is very strong. This is not a view that was imparted on me, quite the opposite. Growing up in a western country I was led to believe we are all blank slates, and I truly believed it. Once I started spending more time around the opposite sex some doubts started to emerge. Once I became a parent it became very apparent that this ideology had no basis in reality. Kids come with a personality, batteries included, and it's very easy to point out even individual behaviors that originate with either parent. Boys and girls are also very different on average. It's insane that we have somehow convinced ourselves that this is not the case, and I will surely be attacked by just pointing this out. I don't need twin studies to understand this basic fact, a fact that's been apparent to everyone throughout history, except for the past ~40 years in the west.
My father was told all his life that he had the same character than his mother, and until I was 10, I was told I showed the same character as my grandfather (I still have his walking cadence and posture).
My father is adopted.
My father is adopted.
The belief system opposing "very strong heritability of intelligence" isn't "blank-slatism". Plenty of researchers who believe there are only weak connections between genes and intelligence also reject the strong-form blank slate hypothesis, to the point where, when I see people bring "blank slate" into a conversation, I immediately have to convince myself that they're not just trying to stop the conversation.
The comment you wrote really isn't a response to anything this article said.
The comment you wrote really isn't a response to anything this article said.
> The question never was about whether or not genetic differences contribute to the spread of intellectual talent—they obviously do. The question always was about the “interesting place” Paul Graham talked about, the meaningful space between genetic potential and actual achievement, and whether or not it really existed. And, at 30% or 50%, this place surely exists.
The author of this piece totally ignored that heritability is only part of the genetic lottery.
"Heritability", strictly construed (as is the case in every study establishing heritability numbers) isn't necessarily a description of a "genetic lottery" at all. Plenty of things are highly heritable and not at all genetically determined, and the converse is also true!
What do you mean?
That heritability doesn't cover all genetic factors. E.g. out of 100% of IQ variation 50% might be inherited, but that doesn't say that the rest is nurture, right? It can still have a huge factor of genetic lottery. E.g. isn't heritability the mean of the genetic effects, but there's also the rest of the distribution (std. dev)?
Still have no idea what distinction you are making.
> I trust my own observations and my conclusion
Why would you decide to hold a position strongly based on a minuscule and extremely biased sample set and reject even considering data and studies outside of your immediate experience?
Unless you’re afraid your conclusion might be challenged? Wouldn’t it be interesting either way? Either to find out that your children are typical or to find out that you and they are special in some way?
I understand many people are not interested in or curious about science, but don’t understand people who are both disinterested but also strongly hold particular positions on scientific questions.
Why would you decide to hold a position strongly based on a minuscule and extremely biased sample set and reject even considering data and studies outside of your immediate experience?
Unless you’re afraid your conclusion might be challenged? Wouldn’t it be interesting either way? Either to find out that your children are typical or to find out that you and they are special in some way?
I understand many people are not interested in or curious about science, but don’t understand people who are both disinterested but also strongly hold particular positions on scientific questions.
It's also just common sense. Everyone agrees that traits like height is heritable, but somehow whatever goes on inside the brain is not? The null hypothesis here is that it is heritable, and I see no proof whatsoever against that hypothesis. My personal experience raising my own kids and observing countless others confirms common sense. Your own child is not one data point, it's a million small data points, things you notice in what they're like as a baby, and how they develop over time. Only someone without kids would boil this down to a "single data point". I also deny that I have do anything to prove heritability, how about you prove the opposite? It's a conclusion that is so obvious to the impartial mind that to be confused about it is a sign of extreme ideological indoctrination. To deny heritability of personality and intelligence is to deny evolution itself.
No-one is denying heritability here. The only question is where the heritability figure lies, and how reliable are the estimates that have been put forward in the past.
I don't see how anyone's "personal experience" could be a valid methodology for deciding whether the heritability of IQ is 30% or 80%.
As for the "extreme ideological indoctrination" slander, it'd be great if you could just withdraw it.
I agree. A child is a million small datapoints. My son established a strong personality early on that defied our attempts to modify it. Meanwhile he was raised in a relaxed environment that certainly provided no environmental explanation for his fixations.
I was raised with five siblings, yet only I got into fights at school, and made my mother cry on a regular basis. Each of my sibs is similar and each of us is strikingly different, too.
I was raised with five siblings, yet only I got into fights at school, and made my mother cry on a regular basis. Each of my sibs is similar and each of us is strikingly different, too.
> It's also just common sense.
Centuries of success with empirical based science is a direct rejection of the approach of trusting "just common sense".
> Only someone without kids would boil this down to a "single data point".
Why are you personalizing this? I have a family and have observed children grow from emergence from the womb and I grew in a much larger family. I'm not sure what the relevance is to the points being discussed. This seems like argument by anecdotal fallacy.
> I also deny that I have do anything to prove heritability, how about you prove the opposite?
I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you why you have no interest in looking at a scientific question beyond "I trust my own observations and my conclusion"?
And this question seemingly misses the point - it not a binary question about whether traits are inherited or not but about the degree of the role of inheritance. The author of the piece emphasizes this point extensively.
The salient point of the too-long article was about flaws in a seminal paper on this subject where the author Bouchard presented carefully collected data for identical twins - showing remarkably low variance suggesting a high degree of inheritance. But he hid the data he had collected for non-identical twins, which would have provided us with a basis for judging the significance of the findings regarding identical twins.
> It's a conclusion that is so obvious to the impartial mind that to be confused about it is a sign of extreme ideological indoctrination.
Can we just discuss the science and statistics here?
Centuries of success with empirical based science is a direct rejection of the approach of trusting "just common sense".
> Only someone without kids would boil this down to a "single data point".
Why are you personalizing this? I have a family and have observed children grow from emergence from the womb and I grew in a much larger family. I'm not sure what the relevance is to the points being discussed. This seems like argument by anecdotal fallacy.
> I also deny that I have do anything to prove heritability, how about you prove the opposite?
I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you why you have no interest in looking at a scientific question beyond "I trust my own observations and my conclusion"?
And this question seemingly misses the point - it not a binary question about whether traits are inherited or not but about the degree of the role of inheritance. The author of the piece emphasizes this point extensively.
The salient point of the too-long article was about flaws in a seminal paper on this subject where the author Bouchard presented carefully collected data for identical twins - showing remarkably low variance suggesting a high degree of inheritance. But he hid the data he had collected for non-identical twins, which would have provided us with a basis for judging the significance of the findings regarding identical twins.
> It's a conclusion that is so obvious to the impartial mind that to be confused about it is a sign of extreme ideological indoctrination.
Can we just discuss the science and statistics here?
What studies ? What data ? David Bessis basically says that there are so few twins reared apart that scientists can't make definitive conclusions.
I don't understand why you are challenging me here?
Isn't your question exactly that addressed by the (admittedly too long) article? That the graph Paul Graham presented proving the dominance of inheritance wasn't based on any science or data?
Isn't your question exactly that addressed by the (admittedly too long) article? That the graph Paul Graham presented proving the dominance of inheritance wasn't based on any science or data?
Your comment mentioned "studies" plural.
There are many studies of twins that try to determine if genes influence intelligence.
Some look at twins who are raised together. One [1] concludes that "MZ (identical) twins differ on average by 6 IQ points, while DZ (fraternal) twins differ on average by 10 IQ points".
[1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/
There are many studies of twins that try to determine if genes influence intelligence.
Some look at twins who are raised together. One [1] concludes that "MZ (identical) twins differ on average by 6 IQ points, while DZ (fraternal) twins differ on average by 10 IQ points".
[1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/
> Your comment mentioned "studies" plural.
Yes? I mentioned them because the article was about a bunch of studies? I was asking the poster why you would not be interested in the validity of such studies and just decide that "common sense" was enough to make a decision?
The question was asked with genuine curiosity as this forum is mostly filled with people who appreciate science and empiricism. And I was hoping there could be a reasonable discussion.
But I'm out. An interesting discussion should be possible here purely based on data and statistics but clearly - from the downvotes - that I've stepped into some toxic American identity politic minefield.
I learned quite a time ago that it's risky to raise certain scientific subjects with USAians including my US relatives: biological evolution, the science of climate change, renewable energy or justifications for gun control - without the conversation getting emotional and heated. But I still find it weird.
Yes? I mentioned them because the article was about a bunch of studies? I was asking the poster why you would not be interested in the validity of such studies and just decide that "common sense" was enough to make a decision?
The question was asked with genuine curiosity as this forum is mostly filled with people who appreciate science and empiricism. And I was hoping there could be a reasonable discussion.
But I'm out. An interesting discussion should be possible here purely based on data and statistics but clearly - from the downvotes - that I've stepped into some toxic American identity politic minefield.
I learned quite a time ago that it's risky to raise certain scientific subjects with USAians including my US relatives: biological evolution, the science of climate change, renewable energy or justifications for gun control - without the conversation getting emotional and heated. But I still find it weird.
It’s just Bayesian thinking. Too much open mindedness to scientific papers can have you frequently changing your beliefs based on some recent scientific paper that came out, or even worse based on a recent college graduate journalist’s summary of a recent scientific paper from some random university..
As opposed to holding on to a belief that has been reinforced via personal experience countless times until very strong evidence proves otherwise. You end up with a set of beliefs that have a much higher chance of being true this way.
As opposed to holding on to a belief that has been reinforced via personal experience countless times until very strong evidence proves otherwise. You end up with a set of beliefs that have a much higher chance of being true this way.
> You end up with a set of beliefs that have a much higher chance of being true this way.
Or, confirmation bias gives a much higher chance of you believing so.
People fight and die over beliefs reinforced via personal experience. It's not proof against incorrectness.
Or, confirmation bias gives a much higher chance of you believing so.
People fight and die over beliefs reinforced via personal experience. It's not proof against incorrectness.
There is rarely proof this or that way. It’s usually evidence, sometimes strong, sometimes weak, and you use your experience and intelligence to decide what is true. Though honestly, if you end up with a process where you change your mind whenever a new scientific paper comes out opposite of what you used to believe, well, I guess you would either have not thought about it much or your thinking is deeply flawed.
The article only asks the question of scientists have data to conclude that IQ is inherited. The author is only saying that there are so many problems with the little data we have, that he cannot rule out correlation without causation.
People in general don't like being told they're wrong. This means that arguments that challenge status quo get suppressed. Science isn't magically immune to this just because you add a label "it's scientifically proven, bro!". Therefore, a lot of research on controversial topics can be safely discarded simply because people doing the research have lots of reasons to be biased. This is especially relevant in social sciences, because it's a bottomless pit of controversial topics, and has almost zero possibilities of repeating an experiment. Sure, we have 50 years of research proving that children are blank states, but it's important to remember that eugenics were deeply rooted in science too. It's just that different societal attitudes expected scientists to come up with different scientific results, so they did. Think of a society-wide version of corporate-sponsored research centers that are expected to massage the results until they match the desired outcome.
Another thing is that sometimes it might be beneficial to believe something that isn't true. If you knew for a fact that tomorrow 99% of population will suffer extremely painful death then from the point of view of an individual the correct move would be to commit painless suicide, but the survival of humanity relies on everyone believing they'll be all fine. This is obviously a caricatural example, but there are lots of such lies that keep the society going, and "we're all equal" is just one of them.
Personally, I find it extremely difficult to believe that we'd be born equal, because evolution works only if some individuals are better than others, and I strongly believe that evolution is a thing.
Another thing is that sometimes it might be beneficial to believe something that isn't true. If you knew for a fact that tomorrow 99% of population will suffer extremely painful death then from the point of view of an individual the correct move would be to commit painless suicide, but the survival of humanity relies on everyone believing they'll be all fine. This is obviously a caricatural example, but there are lots of such lies that keep the society going, and "we're all equal" is just one of them.
Personally, I find it extremely difficult to believe that we'd be born equal, because evolution works only if some individuals are better than others, and I strongly believe that evolution is a thing.
> Sure, we have 50 years of research proving that children are blank states
No, we don't.
> I find it extremely difficult to believe that we'd be born equal
This is not what the article author claims or ever claimed.
No, we don't.
> I find it extremely difficult to believe that we'd be born equal
This is not what the article author claims or ever claimed.
lobochrome(3)
It’s not that surprising that many successful people seem to be strong fans of heritability, or more broadly, of the idea that metrics like IQ point to some sort of “universal independent” metric of value. To do otherwise requires living one’s life in cognitive dissonance; how could they be worthy of such riches while others struggle to just pay the bills? Surely success and intelligence is just an inborn thing, and thus inevitable and unchangeable. There’s nothing they can do, and it was always going to end up that way. Inevitability erases any feelings or guilt or shame.
Ironically IQ is also popular amongst people in a very different situation, that is, people that aren’t actually successful “in the real world” but score highly on aptitude tests. Their high scores serve as an identity pedestal to look down upon others and set themselves apart from the masses. This seems to be the primary demographic of IQ-requirement organizations.
Now of course there are scientific studies on this topic, but let’s not pretend like this is a cultural meme because writers like Cremieux are just tirelessly searching for the truth, no matter what ideological consequences that may have. They quite obviously have a viewpoint first and then work backwards from there to justify it.
As a meta comment: the whole obsession with IQ as a kind of unchanging permanent quality seems very much out of tune with how biological systems actually work, and is kind of a remnant of a Platonic worldview. That is, it’s not dynamic/process/system oriented in the way that nature actually works, but instead is in search of eternal qualities á la Plato.
Ironically IQ is also popular amongst people in a very different situation, that is, people that aren’t actually successful “in the real world” but score highly on aptitude tests. Their high scores serve as an identity pedestal to look down upon others and set themselves apart from the masses. This seems to be the primary demographic of IQ-requirement organizations.
Now of course there are scientific studies on this topic, but let’s not pretend like this is a cultural meme because writers like Cremieux are just tirelessly searching for the truth, no matter what ideological consequences that may have. They quite obviously have a viewpoint first and then work backwards from there to justify it.
As a meta comment: the whole obsession with IQ as a kind of unchanging permanent quality seems very much out of tune with how biological systems actually work, and is kind of a remnant of a Platonic worldview. That is, it’s not dynamic/process/system oriented in the way that nature actually works, but instead is in search of eternal qualities á la Plato.
Smart people tend to have gifted children, this is, unfortunately, factual.
Being smart is a poor proxy for success, you have to have access to the right knowledge and resources at the right time, and often the “smart” move is short term.
It could be argued (and often is), that the reason intelligence is strongly predicted based on heritage (though of course: not guaranteed) is due to your parents interactions with you as a child.
like many things, I’m not qualified to answer.
Sufficed to say that some of the smartest people I personally know are more limited in their success than some of the confident yet much less intelligent people I know: who seem to be, in general, much more successful.
Being smart is a poor proxy for success, you have to have access to the right knowledge and resources at the right time, and often the “smart” move is short term.
It could be argued (and often is), that the reason intelligence is strongly predicted based on heritage (though of course: not guaranteed) is due to your parents interactions with you as a child.
like many things, I’m not qualified to answer.
Sufficed to say that some of the smartest people I personally know are more limited in their success than some of the confident yet much less intelligent people I know: who seem to be, in general, much more successful.
The correlation between success and intelligence is as you say highly circumstantial. There are few areas of endeavor where intellectual prowess is the determining factor—normally persistence, luck, and resources are more determinant.
That said, the experiences of my youth in animal husbandry make me a strong believer in genetic determinism.
It is empirically practical to use breeding alone to predict cognitive abilities, behaviors, tendencies, and elicitable capabilities in animals, given identical rearing environments. Right down to nervous ticks, inherent fears, very specific nuisance behaviors, as well as predictable desirable behaviors, dispositions, and fascinations. Even preference for certain types and even colors (shades?) of toys over others. The fine grained nature of determinism in behavioral tendencies is remarkable.
There is so much overlap of structure and function within mammals that it is extraordinary to claim that apes are somehow exceptional by categorically fundamental properties rather than degree.
Great apes are much more adaptable and capable than most animals, and environment probably plays a much greater role in our development because of the power of our faculty for learning, but that does nothing to negate the underlying heritability of extremely fine grained cognitive traits.
Animals are in no way blank slates when they are born. Genetic or in-utero programming plays a huge role in cognitive processes, and cognitive capacity is a direct dependent of physical structure.
One does not predict the other necessarily, but there is still a difference between a partially full mug and an overflowing shot glass, even if they hold the same volume in practice.
We are born with unequal capacities in both physical and cognitive realms. It is an uncomfortable truth. We do ourselves a disservice when we try to pretend inconvenient things are not so just so we don’t have to face uncomfortable choices.
That said, the experiences of my youth in animal husbandry make me a strong believer in genetic determinism.
It is empirically practical to use breeding alone to predict cognitive abilities, behaviors, tendencies, and elicitable capabilities in animals, given identical rearing environments. Right down to nervous ticks, inherent fears, very specific nuisance behaviors, as well as predictable desirable behaviors, dispositions, and fascinations. Even preference for certain types and even colors (shades?) of toys over others. The fine grained nature of determinism in behavioral tendencies is remarkable.
There is so much overlap of structure and function within mammals that it is extraordinary to claim that apes are somehow exceptional by categorically fundamental properties rather than degree.
Great apes are much more adaptable and capable than most animals, and environment probably plays a much greater role in our development because of the power of our faculty for learning, but that does nothing to negate the underlying heritability of extremely fine grained cognitive traits.
Animals are in no way blank slates when they are born. Genetic or in-utero programming plays a huge role in cognitive processes, and cognitive capacity is a direct dependent of physical structure.
One does not predict the other necessarily, but there is still a difference between a partially full mug and an overflowing shot glass, even if they hold the same volume in practice.
We are born with unequal capacities in both physical and cognitive realms. It is an uncomfortable truth. We do ourselves a disservice when we try to pretend inconvenient things are not so just so we don’t have to face uncomfortable choices.
Why is that unfortunate? That doesn't sound unfortunate to me.
because if your parents are not smart, you're not likely be either.
It also gives some valid argumentation to people who promote race theory... which is, obviously, a racist ideology.
It also gives some valid argumentation to people who promote race theory... which is, obviously, a racist ideology.
If your parents are smart, you'll have advantages in cognitive and educational development. People without those advantages deserve supports to get similar benefits that don't depend on their parents. Seems easy to square for me.
> It’s not that surprising that many successful people seem to be strong fans of heritability, or more broadly, of the idea that metrics like IQ point to some sort of “universal independent” metric of value.
I agree that that could be a motivation. But I would also say that having a motivation for a given result doesn't preclude that result. That is generally true in science.
I'm not an expert. But there seems to be fairly overwhelming evidence that some significant amount of intelligence is heritable. That IQ is a reasonably good measure (or proxy) for intelligence. And that IQ correlates well with a lot of other things like educational attainment and income.
That doesn't mean that your genes determine your future. But it does suggest that some people are "born" in a better position than others -- aside from their socio-economic status.
This shouldn't be controversial. Height is well-known to be heritable. Being tall gives you a better shot at making the NBA. The same is true for many other things.
I agree that that could be a motivation. But I would also say that having a motivation for a given result doesn't preclude that result. That is generally true in science.
I'm not an expert. But there seems to be fairly overwhelming evidence that some significant amount of intelligence is heritable. That IQ is a reasonably good measure (or proxy) for intelligence. And that IQ correlates well with a lot of other things like educational attainment and income.
That doesn't mean that your genes determine your future. But it does suggest that some people are "born" in a better position than others -- aside from their socio-economic status.
This shouldn't be controversial. Height is well-known to be heritable. Being tall gives you a better shot at making the NBA. The same is true for many other things.
> This shouldn't be controversial. Height is well-known to be heritable.
I don't understand why so many commenters here are arguing against a straw man. The article author does not and never did believe in the "blank slate" theory. The author has a "centrist" view that genes matter but are not the only determining factor.
I don't understand why so many commenters here are arguing against a straw man. The article author does not and never did believe in the "blank slate" theory. The author has a "centrist" view that genes matter but are not the only determining factor.
I was responding to the previous comment, not so much the article.
> The author has a "centrist" view that genes matter but are not the only determining factor.
Nobody thinks genes are the only determining factor (that's a straw man on the other side :)
Most people agree it is somewhere on a continuum. Some people think it leans more one way; others the other way. Some people want it to lean more one way; others want it to lean more the other.
> The author has a "centrist" view that genes matter but are not the only determining factor.
Nobody thinks genes are the only determining factor (that's a straw man on the other side :)
Most people agree it is somewhere on a continuum. Some people think it leans more one way; others the other way. Some people want it to lean more one way; others want it to lean more the other.
> I was responding to the previous comment, not so much the article.
How so? You said, "This shouldn't be controversial. Height is well-known to be heritable. Being tall gives you a better shot at making the NBA. The same is true for many other things." But there's no indication that the previous comment was arguing the opposite of that. Rather, the previous comment was arguing against this idea: "Surely success and intelligence is just an inborn thing, and thus inevitable and unchangeable. There’s nothing they can do, and it was always going to end up that way. Inevitability erases any feelings or guilt or shame."
How so? You said, "This shouldn't be controversial. Height is well-known to be heritable. Being tall gives you a better shot at making the NBA. The same is true for many other things." But there's no indication that the previous comment was arguing the opposite of that. Rather, the previous comment was arguing against this idea: "Surely success and intelligence is just an inborn thing, and thus inevitable and unchangeable. There’s nothing they can do, and it was always going to end up that way. Inevitability erases any feelings or guilt or shame."
I said quite a bit more than what you quoted. And I find your interest in my comment and why I made it... odd.
I'm sorry if I didn't get my point across in a way that satisfies you. But I suggest you take a step back and re-read what both of us wrote. Or maybe just move on.
I'm sorry if I didn't get my point across in a way that satisfies you. But I suggest you take a step back and re-read what both of us wrote. Or maybe just move on.
The author questions whether genes are a meaningful factor, in the large, and comes down against it. I don't think that makes them a centrist; I think they're just rejecting a caricature (the "blank slate") laid out by people strongly invested in the idea that intelligence is determined genetically.
> At 30%, one does observe a faint correlation between genetic potential and IQ. The correlation becomes clearer at 50%, while remaining quite noisy. This is an essential aspect to keep in mind: 50% may sound like a solid heritability figure, but the associated correlation is rather modest. It’s only at 80% that the picture starts to “feel like” a line.
My understanding is that the author thinks the heritability of IQ is somewhere between 30% and 50%, but not 80% or 100%, and not 20% or 0%.
My understanding is that the author thinks the heritability of IQ is somewhere between 30% and 50%, but not 80% or 100%, and not 20% or 0%.
I'm not reacting against the article, but the people mentioned in the article that the author is critiquing.
[deleted]
There's also the problem that many "IQ" tests are heavily biased toward a Western, Anglophone education.
Being able to correctly say, for instance, which of four options a "façade" is most like has nothing to do with inherent intelligence; it has to do with whether you were taught the meaning of the word "façade", and the four (often somewhat uncommon) words presented as the choices. The same is true for any of the questions that are, even in part, testing your vocabulary.
Presenting such a test to two people, one of whom was educated at a private school in New York City, and came from a family that highly valued reading and education, and the other at a public school in rural upstate NY, and came from a family that thought it was "too woke" for boys to read books, it is painfully obvious which one will do better, regardless of any genetic factors.
Being able to correctly say, for instance, which of four options a "façade" is most like has nothing to do with inherent intelligence; it has to do with whether you were taught the meaning of the word "façade", and the four (often somewhat uncommon) words presented as the choices. The same is true for any of the questions that are, even in part, testing your vocabulary.
Presenting such a test to two people, one of whom was educated at a private school in New York City, and came from a family that highly valued reading and education, and the other at a public school in rural upstate NY, and came from a family that thought it was "too woke" for boys to read books, it is painfully obvious which one will do better, regardless of any genetic factors.
> the idea that metrics like IQ point to some sort of “universal independent” metric of value
What’s particularly annoying is that this can so easily be proven false. No amount of heritable IQ points are gonna help if you’re born to a starving family escaping genocide in Sudan.
But also, “IQ” has been a useful characteristic for a few decades to maybe a few centuries at most. For most of human existence, pure physical strength was likely much more useful than the ability to do abstract thinking.
So even if we accept all these easily disproven ideas, it’s still clearly evident that the fact that they’re in a position to benefit from these supposedly heritable traits is only because they happen to be extremely fortunate to be born in a time and place where these traits are actually valuable.
Several 9s of humans that ever existed would have found an Einstein level of genius worthless
What’s particularly annoying is that this can so easily be proven false. No amount of heritable IQ points are gonna help if you’re born to a starving family escaping genocide in Sudan.
But also, “IQ” has been a useful characteristic for a few decades to maybe a few centuries at most. For most of human existence, pure physical strength was likely much more useful than the ability to do abstract thinking.
So even if we accept all these easily disproven ideas, it’s still clearly evident that the fact that they’re in a position to benefit from these supposedly heritable traits is only because they happen to be extremely fortunate to be born in a time and place where these traits are actually valuable.
Several 9s of humans that ever existed would have found an Einstein level of genius worthless
> Several 9s of humans that ever existed would have found an Einstein level of genius worthless
Substituting "generations" for "9s", whatever that is...
Citation needed.
How do you know it didn't take Einsteinian-level intelligence to first make the leap that fire can be controlled, or flint knapped, or ochre used to paint images?
Substituting "generations" for "9s", whatever that is...
Citation needed.
How do you know it didn't take Einsteinian-level intelligence to first make the leap that fire can be controlled, or flint knapped, or ochre used to paint images?
> It’s not that surprising that many successful people seem to be strong fans of heritability, or more broadly, of the idea that metrics like IQ point to some sort of “universal independent” metric of value. To do otherwise requires living one’s life in cognitive dissonance; how could they be worthy of such riches while others struggle to just pay the bills? Surely success and intelligence is just an inborn thing, and thus inevitable and unchangeable. There’s nothing they can do, and it was always going to end up that way. Inevitability erases any feelings or guilt or shame.
I've never understood the idea that winning the genetic lottery somehow makes a person more "deserving" or "worthy" than another. To me, the whole idea of "meritocracy" is a moral abomination.
I've never understood the idea that winning the genetic lottery somehow makes a person more "deserving" or "worthy" than another. To me, the whole idea of "meritocracy" is a moral abomination.
How do you understand meritocracy? It seems natural that those that do valuable things get rewarded a lot.
Ideally everyone would get the same chances to do valuable things but that's not how the world is setup. Unfortunately.
However trying to change that must be done with care as it's easy to increase injustice (looking at most communist systems)
Ideally everyone would get the same chances to do valuable things but that's not how the world is setup. Unfortunately.
However trying to change that must be done with care as it's easy to increase injustice (looking at most communist systems)
> It seems natural that those that do valuable things get rewarded a lot.
I'm not fond of the term "rewarded." I understand how prices are determined by supply and demand in economics. Obviously in the labor market, some skill that is in high demand and/or short supply will bring a high price. However, economics are largely amoral. The economic system is not an ethical system to reward the worthy and punish the unworthy, just a method of distributing resources.
There's both an uncontroversial and a controversial interpretation of "meritocracy." Uncontroversially, those who are best qualified for a job should do that job, especially for life-and-death jobs like in medicine. This is how the argument usually starts, with the uncontroversial interpretation, but then it slyly shifts to the controverisal interpretation, that certain people "deserve" more money than others, often a lot more money, due to their qualifications. And while we may want economic incentives for the most qualified people to persue certain jobs, overall it doesn't appear to me that the economic incentives align with societal benefit. For example, we massively reward professional athletes and entertainers much more than doctors and nurses.
Ultimately, the controversial notion of meritocracy is used to justify enormous disparities of wealth, where a few people have so much money that they can buy politicians and elections, whereas others are so poor that they have trouble affording the basics like food, shelter, and medical care. And supposedly that's all based on "merit", which I think is crap.
I'm not fond of the term "rewarded." I understand how prices are determined by supply and demand in economics. Obviously in the labor market, some skill that is in high demand and/or short supply will bring a high price. However, economics are largely amoral. The economic system is not an ethical system to reward the worthy and punish the unworthy, just a method of distributing resources.
There's both an uncontroversial and a controversial interpretation of "meritocracy." Uncontroversially, those who are best qualified for a job should do that job, especially for life-and-death jobs like in medicine. This is how the argument usually starts, with the uncontroversial interpretation, but then it slyly shifts to the controverisal interpretation, that certain people "deserve" more money than others, often a lot more money, due to their qualifications. And while we may want economic incentives for the most qualified people to persue certain jobs, overall it doesn't appear to me that the economic incentives align with societal benefit. For example, we massively reward professional athletes and entertainers much more than doctors and nurses.
Ultimately, the controversial notion of meritocracy is used to justify enormous disparities of wealth, where a few people have so much money that they can buy politicians and elections, whereas others are so poor that they have trouble affording the basics like food, shelter, and medical care. And supposedly that's all based on "merit", which I think is crap.
> It’s not that surprising that many successful people seem to be strong fans of heritability, or more broadly, of the idea that metrics like IQ point to some sort of “universal independent” metric of value. To do otherwise requires living one’s life in cognitive dissonance; how could they be worthy of such riches while others struggle to just pay the bills?
It doesn't require any such thing. It doesn't take a super genius to understand the roles of chance and circumstance have on one's lot in life.
It doesn't require any such thing. It doesn't take a super genius to understand the roles of chance and circumstance have on one's lot in life.
I agree it doesn’t take a super genius to understand that, but it does require something like deep emotional intelligence and ethical sense for someone immensely successful to truly accept that chance and circumstance may be largely responsible for their success.
There aren’t a lot of billionaires out there acting in a way that shows this. At best, they give the idea some lip service.
There aren’t a lot of billionaires out there acting in a way that shows this. At best, they give the idea some lip service.
> There aren’t a lot of billionaires out there acting in a way that shows this
What would that be?
What would that be?
Complex question that depends on one’s ethical views, but I’d say not pushing the idea that inequality is good, or retweeting people that are obviously ideological making heritability claims, is a good start.
From there, the sky is the limit. Directly helping underserved communities access the same networks/resources is another. A handful of billionaires have also donated their entire wealth, but the laudability of that depends on your ethical stance of course.
From there, the sky is the limit. Directly helping underserved communities access the same networks/resources is another. A handful of billionaires have also donated their entire wealth, but the laudability of that depends on your ethical stance of course.
I don't see how lack of either of the suggested options is any kind of indication that the person doesn't accept that success has a factor of chance.
I doubt there's even a claim that this is right ethically or that you are not displaying a hipocrisy here. How far is your own wealth from the worldwide median?
I doubt there's even a claim that this is right ethically or that you are not displaying a hipocrisy here. How far is your own wealth from the worldwide median?
I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
That someone could be a billionaire, spend their time writing essays about how inequality is good, retweet and give attention to people insisting that intelligence and success are mostly inheritable – and yet also deeply understand that their success is largely dependent on chance? Uh, I guess such a person could exist, but it seems like you’re just nitpicking here.
And of course there is an obvious ethical claim here: that people who benefit from a system and become wealthy should feel some sort of ethical obligation to contribute to or improve access to that system. Or at least not actively try to deny that such a system helped them. This is a complicated topic which is why I said “depending on one’s ethical views.”
No idea what my personal situation has to do with this, but I assure you, I’m not a billionaire, nor am I wealthy, unless merely being born in a Western country implies that one is wealthy (a nonsensical claim.)
That someone could be a billionaire, spend their time writing essays about how inequality is good, retweet and give attention to people insisting that intelligence and success are mostly inheritable – and yet also deeply understand that their success is largely dependent on chance? Uh, I guess such a person could exist, but it seems like you’re just nitpicking here.
And of course there is an obvious ethical claim here: that people who benefit from a system and become wealthy should feel some sort of ethical obligation to contribute to or improve access to that system. Or at least not actively try to deny that such a system helped them. This is a complicated topic which is why I said “depending on one’s ethical views.”
No idea what my personal situation has to do with this, but I assure you, I’m not a billionaire, nor am I wealthy, unless merely being born in a Western country implies that one is wealthy (a nonsensical claim.)
(David Bessis is a fan favorite here, and Paul Graham makes an appearance.)
Related, from last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42200209
Related, from last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42200209
When I was an undergrad (or maybe it was grad - it was a long time ago) we learned about the Minnesota twins study that attempted to find the strength of genetics in personality. The study developed new statistical techniques to measure this and can to the conclusion that genetics is very strong.
But now you hear nothing about this study. I'm not sure if it's because the results are tainted by eugenics, or if the techniques they developed were wrong...
But now you hear nothing about this study. I'm not sure if it's because the results are tainted by eugenics, or if the techniques they developed were wrong...
You can see this type of thinking in the absolute certainty that the YC interview process finds every billion dollar company that apply. I’m unconvinced and think a lot of the people who joined those early batches and made so many great companies were changed by their environment not by being filtered for credentials or genetic gifts.
[deleted]
It seems surprising that IQ would not be heritable. Literally everything else is heritable.
Height, skin colour, sporting ability, body weight, eye colour, cancer risk, most disease risk, beauty.
Why would IQ be mostly random when other things are very heritable?
Occums razor says pick the simplest hypothesis that explains the data. The onus is on the blank slate crew to find some good data to demonstrate that IQ is not mostly heritable.
Height, skin colour, sporting ability, body weight, eye colour, cancer risk, most disease risk, beauty.
Why would IQ be mostly random when other things are very heritable?
Occums razor says pick the simplest hypothesis that explains the data. The onus is on the blank slate crew to find some good data to demonstrate that IQ is not mostly heritable.
IQ is not "mostly random". It's highly correlated with the quality of your education. Kind of like how height is highly correlated with childhood nutrition, and sporting ability is highly correlated with practicing sports.
The article is about how hard it is to tease these confounding factors apart. A highly intelligent parent is likely to prioritize their children's education. A hypothetical study that concludes "intelligent parents raise intelligent children" could easily be construed in favor of either the heriditarian or blank-slatist perspective.
The article is about how hard it is to tease these confounding factors apart. A highly intelligent parent is likely to prioritize their children's education. A hypothetical study that concludes "intelligent parents raise intelligent children" could easily be construed in favor of either the heriditarian or blank-slatist perspective.
Then be surprised, because we have comparative numbers (across a variety of different methodologies) for basic phenotypical traits like height and complex behavioral phenotypes like intelligence and educational achievement, and they do not line up. You're not supposed to use that razor to blind yourself.
Of course IQ is heritable to a certain degree. Why do you pretend to see blank slatism where there is none?
Another strawman from someone who DNRTFA.
No one here, including the author linked, is suggesting what you propose.
No one here, including the author linked, is suggesting what you propose.
Re: Von Neumann IQ Pill
https://archive.ph/6tOQF
https://archive.ph/6tOQF
jagoff(2)
jagoff(2)
In my mind, the bigger issue with twin studies trying to show that (say) IQ is highly genetic is that humans do not reproduce by cloning. And regression toward the mean is very much a thing for heritable traits.
In other words - Junior should not be presumed to be smarter, fitter, more deserving, or destined for success, just because his parents did well. No matter how attractive that conclusion might sound, to people who consider themselves to be the "better" sort.
In other words - Junior should not be presumed to be smarter, fitter, more deserving, or destined for success, just because his parents did well. No matter how attractive that conclusion might sound, to people who consider themselves to be the "better" sort.
That doesn't sound like a problem with twin studies exploring the degree to which IQ is genetic, that sounds like a problem with people treating aggregate tendencies and associations as a basis for individual discrimination.
Yes-ish. Hence my use of "issue".
The problem is most people's zealous desire to read socially self-serving conclusions into any data they can find on such subjects. And when they really like the Q.E.D. punchline, humans have very low standards for the "logic" used to reach it.
The problem is most people's zealous desire to read socially self-serving conclusions into any data they can find on such subjects. And when they really like the Q.E.D. punchline, humans have very low standards for the "logic" used to reach it.
"most people's zealous desire to read socially self-serving conclusions into any data they can find"
what planet are you living on?
also your comment was completely incorrect and missing the entire point of twin studies.
what planet are you living on?
also your comment was completely incorrect and missing the entire point of twin studies.
iq is "polygenetic" with the consensus estimates at 50-80% based on genes
success has components of luck as in "right place, right time" for someone with the right qualities and connections, and many of the very successful are quick to admit this
I am a 3rd generation machinist along the paternal line, and although the machines I operate are in expensive labs, those my father and grandfather operated were probably just as challenging. Engineering also seems to often run in the family. How much is nature and nuture? "It varies" is a safe response
success has components of luck as in "right place, right time" for someone with the right qualities and connections, and many of the very successful are quick to admit this
I am a 3rd generation machinist along the paternal line, and although the machines I operate are in expensive labs, those my father and grandfather operated were probably just as challenging. Engineering also seems to often run in the family. How much is nature and nuture? "It varies" is a safe response
Whoah, no, there is definitely not a consensus for 50-80%, and most of what's being published now refutes the 80% end of that range --- the 80% estimates come from underpowered studies like MISTRA that improperly assumed independent environments for twins reared apart.
okay, I saw the paper saying 500 genes are involved. So does a single number for iq mean anything? Does the number depend upon what is tested?
We have essentially no mechanistic understanding of gene/intelligence interactions. Rather, we have cohorts of people tagged with traits (educational achievement, tested IQ, height, etc), all sequenced, and then we can run correlation surveys across all their genomes to identify correlations between alleles and traits. When you do that, you get 10-30% heritability numbers; the gap between that and the range for MZ/DZ twin studies (the 50-80% you often see) is "the missing heritability problem".
Regarding missing heritability: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-good-news-is-that-one-s...
"That is, once you include the rare variants, the amount of genetic variation that “should” exist but doesn’t shrinks to only 12%. Plausibly an even bigger study, investigating even rarer variants, could shrink the gap further, all the way to zero."
Of course, even then heritability will not be 100%.
"That is, once you include the rare variants, the amount of genetic variation that “should” exist but doesn’t shrinks to only 12%. Plausibly an even bigger study, investigating even rarer variants, could shrink the gap further, all the way to zero."
Of course, even then heritability will not be 100%.
I don't think the rare-variant hypothesis is taken seriously anymore by practitioners, but feel free to cite.
I think you might be mistaken, but feel free to cite metastudies that support you POV.
Follow cites from here, and then look at the Twitter conversation between Gusev and Alexander Strudwick Young.
https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/the-missing-heritabi...
https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/the-missing-heritabi...
Thanks. I'll wait for proper meta-analysis.
So when you said "cite anything", you meant...
Oh. Never mind. You rewrote your comment after I provided the cite. Well played.
Oh. Never mind. You rewrote your comment after I provided the cite. Well played.
I clarified implied "anything [that supports your claim that it's not taken seriously anymore]". A proper way to do it is meta-analysis.
[deleted]