7 ms·

I do not believe IQ is heritable -- racially, or otherwise. Full stop. Intelligence is, by my estimation, entirely a function of nurture, not nature. Those exc

by hodwik2 10y ago

I do not believe IQ is heritable -- racially, or otherwise. Full stop. Intelligence is, by my estimation, entirely a function of nurture, not nature. Those exceptions are in situations where it is lacking due to handicap. Which is to say, everyone's brain has the same chance at brilliance (barring fetal alcohol syndrome, neglect, etc.) if they are not intellectually handicapped, and are provided the same child-rearing and temperament. But, if you believed IQ to be heritable, as many of you do, it would seem a fair guess that it would be distributed unequally among races, as is height, hormone levels, muscularity, and so on. I don't believe this, as I don't believe IQ is heritable, but I don't see how one could possibly buy into the heritability of IQ while vehemently denying that it could be spread unevenly among races. You guys, to me, all seem to be grappling with two wildly incompatible ideas -- that race can't effect intelligence, and that intelligence is heritable. You'll need to choose which it is. I'm happy, even having read his (wrong) ideas on IQ, to entertain Urbit because he seems no more wrong than the rest of you. Cheers.

Throwaway585250 10y ago
Heritability of traits can be measured by twin studies. Some people have spent quite a lot of time doing this for IQ. Others have even identified some of the genes that are correlated with high IQ, TOR1A being one of the more interesting ones. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this area of research. Regarding population genetics, I don't think it matters as much as people seem to think. Han Chinese are short, but Yao Ming is tall, and there's no contradiction in that. Regarding Urbit, I certainly hope that it isn't heritable, or for that matter infectious, because it seems totally opaque.
- hodwik2 10y ago
  >"Heritability of traits can be measured by twin studies." No, correlations between traits can be measured in twin studies, but they do not prove a causal link. In the realm of intelligence, it could be (and I would argue) that looking like a nerd generally proceeds becoming one. People become social outcasts, and then become intelligent as a defense mechanism. That is,once in that nerd social caste, a greater percentage of people will find themselves using their brains more often. As a result, they get smarter, and score better on IQ tests. Because twins are liable to look the same way, have the same temperament, same physique, etc. they are liable to be pushed into the same sorts of social groups, and as a result the same sorts of interests, ultimately pushing their IQs up or down together. This would not mean that IQ is heritable, but that traits which can have a forcing effect on nurture (and thus IQ) are heritable.
  - Throwaway585250 10y ago
    How about torsion dystonia? Increased IQ can be observed before the onset of the disease, even when matched to comparable members of the same population. What evidence would falsify your position?
    - hodwik2 10y ago
      A few things on torsio dystonia. One, Torsion Dystonia could just as easily be effecting something else which effects IQ. Two, the studies on Torsion Dystonia decided to only study people who were not showing symptoms. This means they were selecting around heredity, since those who show symptoms and those who don't were not divided on gene expression -- there is only one allele in play as far as we know. Three, the study was 14 persons. Removing a single person from the sample could have swung the data to say the opposite.
      - bordercases 10y ago
        Point 3 is weak without a quote of the variance or other such notions of spread.
- bordercases 10y ago
  Yao Ming was potentially part of a breeding program, of a sort. This is an argument that population genetics does matter, in that you generally get whatever the past has selected for unless you make a deliberate effort otherwise. Otherwise it's a no show. http://www.smh.com.au/news/basketball/yao-ming-the-basketball-giant-made-in-china-by-order-of-the-state/2006/01/18/1137553645228.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/basketball/yao-ming-the-basketbal...
Pyxl101 10y ago
I think you're making a good point overall. If a trait is heritable then it will vary by populations. People should understand the consequences of the position they're arguing. However, why do you believe that IQ is not heritable? It's hard to believe there is no genetic component that is heritable. Humans evolved over time from other species, and in the process of evolving into Homo sapiens sapiens, their intelligence was inherited and selected for strongly. There's nowhere else for the foundation of human intelligence to come from in the first place other than inherited genetic traits. As a peer comment asked, "If IQ is not heritable, then how did it evolve?" I suppose it's possible that a large component of intelligence could come from society and nuturing. Humans have gotten more intelligent as their diet has improved, and as their diet has become more stimulating, and with writing and education. Still, the fundamental capacity to have a verbal or written culture, and to teach and learn, arises from our baseline intelligence which is possible due to our genetics. To be fair, you might believe that all living humans have indistinguishably similar IQ at birth. There are reasons to believe it's not true, but it's a consistent belief. However, it would not be sensible to believe that IQ is stable over time, since we know that humans evolved IQ that was not previously present in proto-humans and ancestral species. Therefore IQ must be subject to genetics, and therefore must be partially heritable. From this position you might believe that IQ is heritable but does not genetically vary to a meaningful degree in modern populations. This position makes sense. However, by comparison, it would be fairly incredible to believe that IQ is not heritable whatsoever, especially given that intelligence is affected by physical traits such as size of skull and brain, and by metabolic pathways and disease and disease resistance. Brain size for example is correlated with intelligence [1]. A number of diseases are known to affect intelligence, such as phenylketonuria. I understand in your comment you acknowledged that such diseases might impair someone and drag their intelligence down -- but just as different people have different potential as athletes, as measured by their VO2max, why wouldn't you believe that the physical systems underlying intelligence couldn't be just a little bit different in one population versus another, thus resulting in a little bit of an edge in IQ? Humans are so different in height, weight, muscle, skin/hair/eye pigment, that it would be incredible if we all were exactly, immeasurably different on some treat that also distinguishes humans from other species. Science has explored this topic, and my understanding is that modern research on this topic suggests that IQ is heritable. Studies examine factors like twins who were separated at birth, and grew up in different households. Could you share the reasons why you think it is not? > Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States. A 1994 article in Behavior Genetics based on a study of Swedish monozygotic and dizygotic twins found the heritability of the sample to be as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability; however, it also varies by trait, with 0.60 for verbal tests, 0.50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and 0.40 for memory tests. In contrast, studies of other populations estimate an average heritability of 0.50 for general cognitive ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_o... [1] "Overall, larger brain size and volume is associated with better cognitive functioning and higher intelligence. The correlations range from 0.0 to as high as 0.6, and are predominantly positive." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#Brain_volume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
patrickg_zill 10y ago
So all other physical characteristics, even things to do with domestication of dogs, that are more "soft" like temperament, are hereditable? But not IQ? What's the exception? If your view is that genetics in terms of the science is flawed, then, don't beat around the bush, state your case.
- hodwik2 10y ago
  >"But not IQ? What's the exception?" I don't think intelligence, outside of unusual situations, is a physical characteristic. So I'm not sure how to answer your question.
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    Intelligence is produced by the brain, which is a physical organ...
    - hodwik2 10y ago
      >"Intelligence is produced by the brain" Depends what you mean by produced. If you mean it happens in the brain, then the following would also be true: - I prefer Strawberry ice cream. Preferences happen in the brain, which is a physical organ. Ice cream preference must be physical. - I speak English, which is a language, and language happens in the brain, which is a physical organ. English must be physical. If by produced you are just repeating that you think it is physical, that is begging the question. Do you argue that every process in a computer is physical, since it all runs on top of hardware? Do you have no conception of software when it comes to the human mind?
      - dwaltrip 10y ago
        Yes, I have a conception of software when it comes to the human mind. Even assuming the "software" is identical across humans (which seems unlikely), if one human has 10% or 20% better "hardware" due to genetics, wouldn't we expect differences in intelligence (accounting for differences in nurturing and other potential confounders)? Especially given how general human intelligence is -- it shouldn't arbitrarily cap out. It seems inconceivable to me that all humans would be born with exactly the same mental hardware, when that isn't true for any other attribute. I could go on... I don't want to get into a lengthy debate -- plenty of other commenters have already addressed it all fairly sufficiently. I do appreciate your patience and well articulated comments, even if I disagree with them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by hodwik2 10y ago

Throwaway585250 10y ago

Heritability of traits can be measured by twin studies. Some people have spent quite a lot of time doing this for IQ. Others have even identified some of the genes that are correlated with high IQ, TOR1A being one of the more interesting ones. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this area of research. Regarding population genetics, I don't think it matters as much as people seem to think. Han Chinese are short, but Yao Ming is tall, and there's no contradiction in that. Regarding Urbit, I certainly hope that it isn't heritable, or for that matter infectious, because it seems totally opaque.

hodwik2 10y ago
>"Heritability of traits can be measured by twin studies." No, correlations between traits can be measured in twin studies, but they do not prove a causal link. In the realm of intelligence, it could be (and I would argue) that looking like a nerd generally proceeds becoming one. People become social outcasts, and then become intelligent as a defense mechanism. That is,once in that nerd social caste, a greater percentage of people will find themselves using their brains more often. As a result, they get smarter, and score better on IQ tests. Because twins are liable to look the same way, have the same temperament, same physique, etc. they are liable to be pushed into the same sorts of social groups, and as a result the same sorts of interests, ultimately pushing their IQs up or down together. This would not mean that IQ is heritable, but that traits which can have a forcing effect on nurture (and thus IQ) are heritable.
- Throwaway585250 10y ago
  How about torsion dystonia? Increased IQ can be observed before the onset of the disease, even when matched to comparable members of the same population. What evidence would falsify your position?
  - hodwik2 10y ago
    A few things on torsio dystonia. One, Torsion Dystonia could just as easily be effecting something else which effects IQ. Two, the studies on Torsion Dystonia decided to only study people who were not showing symptoms. This means they were selecting around heredity, since those who show symptoms and those who don't were not divided on gene expression -- there is only one allele in play as far as we know. Three, the study was 14 persons. Removing a single person from the sample could have swung the data to say the opposite.
    - bordercases 10y ago
      Point 3 is weak without a quote of the variance or other such notions of spread.
bordercases 10y ago
Yao Ming was potentially part of a breeding program, of a sort. This is an argument that population genetics does matter, in that you generally get whatever the past has selected for unless you make a deliberate effort otherwise. Otherwise it's a no show. http://www.smh.com.au/news/basketball/yao-ming-the-basketball-giant-made-in-china-by-order-of-the-state/2006/01/18/1137553645228.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/basketball/yao-ming-the-basketbal...

Pyxl101 10y ago

I think you're making a good point overall. If a trait is heritable then it will vary by populations. People should understand the consequences of the position they're arguing. However, why do you believe that IQ is not heritable? It's hard to believe there is no genetic component that is heritable. Humans evolved over time from other species, and in the process of evolving into Homo sapiens sapiens, their intelligence was inherited and selected for strongly. There's nowhere else for the foundation of human intelligence to come from in the first place other than inherited genetic traits. As a peer comment asked, "If IQ is not heritable, then how did it evolve?" I suppose it's possible that a large component of intelligence could come from society and nuturing. Humans have gotten more intelligent as their diet has improved, and as their diet has become more stimulating, and with writing and education. Still, the fundamental capacity to have a verbal or written culture, and to teach and learn, arises from our baseline intelligence which is possible due to our genetics. To be fair, you might believe that all living humans have indistinguishably similar IQ at birth. There are reasons to believe it's not true, but it's a consistent belief. However, it would not be sensible to believe that IQ is stable over time, since we know that humans evolved IQ that was not previously present in proto-humans and ancestral species. Therefore IQ must be subject to genetics, and therefore must be partially heritable. From this position you might believe that IQ is heritable but does not genetically vary to a meaningful degree in modern populations. This position makes sense. However, by comparison, it would be fairly incredible to believe that IQ is not heritable whatsoever, especially given that intelligence is affected by physical traits such as size of skull and brain, and by metabolic pathways and disease and disease resistance. Brain size for example is correlated with intelligence [1]. A number of diseases are known to affect intelligence, such as phenylketonuria. I understand in your comment you acknowledged that such diseases might impair someone and drag their intelligence down -- but just as different people have different potential as athletes, as measured by their VO2max, why wouldn't you believe that the physical systems underlying intelligence couldn't be just a little bit different in one population versus another, thus resulting in a little bit of an edge in IQ? Humans are so different in height, weight, muscle, skin/hair/eye pigment, that it would be incredible if we all were exactly, immeasurably different on some treat that also distinguishes humans from other species. Science has explored this topic, and my understanding is that modern research on this topic suggests that IQ is heritable. Studies examine factors like twins who were separated at birth, and grew up in different households. Could you share the reasons why you think it is not? > Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States. A 1994 article in Behavior Genetics based on a study of Swedish monozygotic and dizygotic twins found the heritability of the sample to be as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability; however, it also varies by trait, with 0.60 for verbal tests, 0.50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and 0.40 for memory tests. In contrast, studies of other populations estimate an average heritability of 0.50 for general cognitive ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_o... [1] "Overall, larger brain size and volume is associated with better cognitive functioning and higher intelligence. The correlations range from 0.0 to as high as 0.6, and are predominantly positive." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#Brain_volume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

patrickg_zill 10y ago

So all other physical characteristics, even things to do with domestication of dogs, that are more "soft" like temperament, are hereditable? But not IQ? What's the exception? If your view is that genetics in terms of the science is flawed, then, don't beat around the bush, state your case.

hodwik2 10y ago
>"But not IQ? What's the exception?" I don't think intelligence, outside of unusual situations, is a physical characteristic. So I'm not sure how to answer your question.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  Intelligence is produced by the brain, which is a physical organ...
  - hodwik2 10y ago
    >"Intelligence is produced by the brain" Depends what you mean by produced. If you mean it happens in the brain, then the following would also be true: - I prefer Strawberry ice cream. Preferences happen in the brain, which is a physical organ. Ice cream preference must be physical. - I speak English, which is a language, and language happens in the brain, which is a physical organ. English must be physical. If by produced you are just repeating that you think it is physical, that is begging the question. Do you argue that every process in a computer is physical, since it all runs on top of hardware? Do you have no conception of software when it comes to the human mind?
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      Yes, I have a conception of software when it comes to the human mind. Even assuming the "software" is identical across humans (which seems unlikely), if one human has 10% or 20% better "hardware" due to genetics, wouldn't we expect differences in intelligence (accounting for differences in nurturing and other potential confounders)? Especially given how general human intelligence is -- it shouldn't arbitrarily cap out. It seems inconceivable to me that all humans would be born with exactly the same mental hardware, when that isn't true for any other attribute. I could go on... I don't want to get into a lengthy debate -- plenty of other commenters have already addressed it all fairly sufficiently. I do appreciate your patience and well articulated comments, even if I disagree with them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]