6 ms·

The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

91 points by jkaljundi 9y ago

Danihan 9y ago
>Based on decades of compelling data (including the latest DNA analyses), many researchers, myself included, think that the g-factor is influenced mostly by genetics. Good luck trying to reasonably discuss this finding here, lol.
- thrwaway657 9y ago
  YeH exactly
QAPereo 9y ago
Lower intelligence is a limiting factor when it comes to education, employment, and economic success but IQ has nothing to do with dignity, friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human attributes. Access to all the opportunities imaginable will not be effectively used by individuals with low IQ through no fault of their own. There is no rational reason to stigmatize people and every reason to provide support in everyway possible. Well, he was nice about it, but it still sounds pretty bad. He’s also talking about supporting people, and recognizing mothers role of personal fault... as though we already do that. The truth is that his insights, in the world as it is rather than as he imagines it, this would essentially be Gattaca. Edit sp
- Danihan 9y ago
  Ever since I saw Gattaca, I knew it was exactly where society would be heading. Minus all the fear-mongering and scary music. It's a very fundamental human (nay, multi-celled organism) instinct to try to pass on our strongest genes. If there was anything I could do to ensure my kids had 150 or 160 IQs (without any obvious downsides) I would do it in a heartbeat. And so would everyone else I know, if they're honest.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Everyone would... who could afford to. Now ask yourself what the majority who couldn’t afford it would do to protect and advantage their offspring. Gattaca is probably a fairly tale, and a nuclear wasteland the reality.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      It's sadly ironic to me that a YCombinator commentator manages to be even more hyperbolic over gene therapy fear-mongering than an already very exaggerated message film. Disparities in IQ between people and groups are already massive and it's not causing nuclear war. Disparities over how much time and effort are put into raising offspring between classes are already massive. Again, we're still not going to war over it. How would you even envision a nuclear war like that taking place, when the highest IQ people are spread among many nation states and demographics? You should really try to tone back the over-the-top exterminist rhetoric and thinking, if only for your own well-being.
      - QAPereo 9y ago
        That’s a lot of ad hominem noise to seemingly no signal all. Why?
      - dang 9y ago
        Please don't get involved in ideological flamewars here. This is an ideological flamewar topic because the high ideological bit determines nearly everyone's position about it. That means the more people get into it, the more it turns into the same ideological flamewar that every other such topic leads to, and that's what we're most trying to avoid here. One can see this, for example, in how your comment begins to slide into personal disrespect and name-calling.
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      Your comment seems intended to imply that parents of poor people will engage in nuclear war when rich parents engineer their children to have higher IQ scores. I doubt that scenario will come to pass.
- thrwaway657 9y ago
  The truth is that IQ is a determining factor. It's reality, why are we painting it as something else?
evilturnip 9y ago
Can't we agree that there are people on extreme ends of the mental capabilities spectrum? That is, people who are mentally challenged couldn't reasonably hold down a programming job, and people who are geniuses discover new theorems. We know that a whole host of mental handicaps are likely genetic (they show up very early in development). If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that result in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different people?
- narag 9y ago
  Because that idea could eventually affect the people in charge of applying it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- danharaj 9y ago
  > If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that result in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different people? What is the consequence of assuming it? If you don't know how genes affect intelligence you don't actually have any useful theory to go by. You also don't know how to judge the effect size of genetics against other causes. These are highly non-linear, complex systems we're talking about: brains and their societies. It's far easier to use such an assumption as cover for garbage science used to oppress people who are already vulnerable than it is to turn it into a good social policy. In short, you gain no deductive power about the world with such an assumption, just a lot of excuses for the powerful to be vicious.
  - evilturnip 9y ago
    What is the consequence of assuming the opposite? E.g. IQ has very little effect. You can use that assumption as cover for garbage social policy that doesn't recognize individual differences in intelligence and attempts to equalize outcomes when the distribution in ability is inherently unequal and leaves everyone less happy. What I believe is that the interplay MAY be complex, but your argument that an unqualified assumption leads to bad outcomes works both ways.
ujal 9y ago
"Based on decades of compelling data (including the latest DNA analyses), many researchers, myself included, think that the g-factor is influenced mostly by genetics." -- Can anyone here tell me the canonical way of excluding environmental factors in intelligence research? How can a neural network learn its weights without proper data? What I can imagine though is genetics heavily influencing your behavioural patterns creating an environment that in turn impacts your g-factor. "Since the first neuroimaging studies of intelligence, researchers have been trying to predict intelligence test scores from images. […] It was based on a mathematical way to assess how brain areas were connected to each other using MRI scans. Apparently, such connection patterns are stable and unique to individuals like fingerprints; and these patterns predict intelligence test scores." -- Is he talking about white matter? Doesn't it increase in volume long into adolescence?
- bobcostas55 9y ago
  >Can anyone here tell me the canonical way of excluding environmental factors in intelligence research? By looking at the correlation of traits between monozygotic and dyzygotic (identical and fraternal) twins, you can tease apart the effects of genes, shared environment, and non-shared environment. The wikipedia page on twin studies is pretty good.
  - ujal 9y ago
    Twin studies lets you fix the genetics factor, but unless you monitor the twins 24/7 or control their environment it is nearly impossible to tell if it influences your intelligence directly or through behavioural patterns. I am sure that if you train specifically for the g-factor test you would score much higher on it. And if that is the case it is your environment influencing your intelligence.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rweba 9y ago
I have thought about these questions for a long time. The issue is precisely what Haier brings up : "IQ has nothing to do with dignity, friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human attributes." The problem is that as a society we don't believe this, we believe that having high IQ makes someone more morally worthy of consideration than someone with low IQ. There is a reason people it's considered OK to insult "stupid" people. People will boast about overcoming poverty and becoming very successful, but how many people will brag that they succeed despite having a low IQ? A below average IQ is seen as shameful, a sign of moral inferiority, something that can should not be acknowledged or admitted. The assumption is that all the "good" people who need to be listened to and followed are ones with high IQs and those with low IQs should at best be ignored and at worst be pitied and shunned. If the technology to enhance IQ does become available, ideally it should be like compulsory public education now: Something that is made freely available to all citizens at birth. This would address a lot of the concerns that research into the genetic basis of intelligence will only be used to justify the existing social order, particularly if high continues to be seen as signifying moral worthiness.
jokoon 9y ago
I don't know if intelligence can really be defined, scientifically, objectively or otherwise. Intelligence is a part of evolution, so it is really hard to describe it. There are many behaviors which are deterministic, automatic because they are described by genes. I tend to think that brains are not really smart, but we just want to give value to what makes us better, so we call it intelligence. Intelligence doesn't really exist, there is just transmission of knowledge.
laurex 9y ago
I recently listened to a Sam Harris podcast about gene splicing, in which he wondered whether the technology would become divisive because 'if you could raise your child's intelligence, you would, at any cost,' (totally paraphrasing). I found this interesting since what I've found is that "intelligence" is not universally valued at all, at least in the US. As a kid, I was part of a research study on high IQ children development, and over time I've seen from my fellow study participants that IQ alone didn't predict success particularly well in the realms of what most people value, i.e. relationships, material success, power, or fame. IQ is correlated with mental health issues as well. I'm not saying intelligence is bad, it's obviously valuable, but in certain communities (ahem) there seems to be a blind spot around the relative importance of intelligence in relation to other factors of being human, particularly social components.
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  >I'm not saying intelligence is bad, it's obviously valuable, but in certain communities (ahem) there seems to be a blind spot around the relative importance of intelligence in relation to other factors of being human, particularly social components. Thank you so much for pointing this out. Intelligence is valuable, but that doesn't mean it should be valued above all else. There is an important differentiation between this and dis-valuing intelligence as well (e.g. anti-intellectualism). There are a lot of highly intelligent people that never do much of anything with their life. There are people who are not highly intelligent but do great things. That doesn't even start to mention how complicated it is to talk about degrees of intelligence. IQ is one aspect, but there are many others. It's very difficult to even talk about what is meant by High Intelligence generally speaking.

91 points by jkaljundi 9y ago

>Based on decades of compelling data (including the latest DNA analyses), many researchers, myself included, think that the g-factor is influenced mostly by genetics. Good luck trying to reasonably discuss this finding here, lol.

thrwaway657 9y ago
YeH exactly

QAPereo 9y ago

Lower intelligence is a limiting factor when it comes to education, employment, and economic success but IQ has nothing to do with dignity, friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human attributes. Access to all the opportunities imaginable will not be effectively used by individuals with low IQ through no fault of their own. There is no rational reason to stigmatize people and every reason to provide support in everyway possible. Well, he was nice about it, but it still sounds pretty bad. He’s also talking about supporting people, and recognizing mothers role of personal fault... as though we already do that. The truth is that his insights, in the world as it is rather than as he imagines it, this would essentially be Gattaca. Edit sp

Danihan 9y ago
Ever since I saw Gattaca, I knew it was exactly where society would be heading. Minus all the fear-mongering and scary music. It's a very fundamental human (nay, multi-celled organism) instinct to try to pass on our strongest genes. If there was anything I could do to ensure my kids had 150 or 160 IQs (without any obvious downsides) I would do it in a heartbeat. And so would everyone else I know, if they're honest.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Everyone would... who could afford to. Now ask yourself what the majority who couldn’t afford it would do to protect and advantage their offspring. Gattaca is probably a fairly tale, and a nuclear wasteland the reality.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    It's sadly ironic to me that a YCombinator commentator manages to be even more hyperbolic over gene therapy fear-mongering than an already very exaggerated message film. Disparities in IQ between people and groups are already massive and it's not causing nuclear war. Disparities over how much time and effort are put into raising offspring between classes are already massive. Again, we're still not going to war over it. How would you even envision a nuclear war like that taking place, when the highest IQ people are spread among many nation states and demographics? You should really try to tone back the over-the-top exterminist rhetoric and thinking, if only for your own well-being.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      That’s a lot of ad hominem noise to seemingly no signal all. Why?
    - dang 9y ago
      Please don't get involved in ideological flamewars here. This is an ideological flamewar topic because the high ideological bit determines nearly everyone's position about it. That means the more people get into it, the more it turns into the same ideological flamewar that every other such topic leads to, and that's what we're most trying to avoid here. One can see this, for example, in how your comment begins to slide into personal disrespect and name-calling.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    Your comment seems intended to imply that parents of poor people will engage in nuclear war when rich parents engineer their children to have higher IQ scores. I doubt that scenario will come to pass.
thrwaway657 9y ago
The truth is that IQ is a determining factor. It's reality, why are we painting it as something else?

evilturnip 9y ago

Can't we agree that there are people on extreme ends of the mental capabilities spectrum? That is, people who are mentally challenged couldn't reasonably hold down a programming job, and people who are geniuses discover new theorems. We know that a whole host of mental handicaps are likely genetic (they show up very early in development). If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that result in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different people?

narag 9y ago
Because that idea could eventually affect the people in charge of applying it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danharaj 9y ago
> If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that result in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different people? What is the consequence of assuming it? If you don't know how genes affect intelligence you don't actually have any useful theory to go by. You also don't know how to judge the effect size of genetics against other causes. These are highly non-linear, complex systems we're talking about: brains and their societies. It's far easier to use such an assumption as cover for garbage science used to oppress people who are already vulnerable than it is to turn it into a good social policy. In short, you gain no deductive power about the world with such an assumption, just a lot of excuses for the powerful to be vicious.
- evilturnip 9y ago
  What is the consequence of assuming the opposite? E.g. IQ has very little effect. You can use that assumption as cover for garbage social policy that doesn't recognize individual differences in intelligence and attempts to equalize outcomes when the distribution in ability is inherently unequal and leaves everyone less happy. What I believe is that the interplay MAY be complex, but your argument that an unqualified assumption leads to bad outcomes works both ways.

ujal 9y ago

"Based on decades of compelling data (including the latest DNA analyses), many researchers, myself included, think that the g-factor is influenced mostly by genetics." -- Can anyone here tell me the canonical way of excluding environmental factors in intelligence research? How can a neural network learn its weights without proper data? What I can imagine though is genetics heavily influencing your behavioural patterns creating an environment that in turn impacts your g-factor. "Since the first neuroimaging studies of intelligence, researchers have been trying to predict intelligence test scores from images. […] It was based on a mathematical way to assess how brain areas were connected to each other using MRI scans. Apparently, such connection patterns are stable and unique to individuals like fingerprints; and these patterns predict intelligence test scores." -- Is he talking about white matter? Doesn't it increase in volume long into adolescence?

bobcostas55 9y ago
>Can anyone here tell me the canonical way of excluding environmental factors in intelligence research? By looking at the correlation of traits between monozygotic and dyzygotic (identical and fraternal) twins, you can tease apart the effects of genes, shared environment, and non-shared environment. The wikipedia page on twin studies is pretty good.
- ujal 9y ago
  Twin studies lets you fix the genetics factor, but unless you monitor the twins 24/7 or control their environment it is nearly impossible to tell if it influences your intelligence directly or through behavioural patterns. I am sure that if you train specifically for the g-factor test you would score much higher on it. And if that is the case it is your environment influencing your intelligence.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rweba 9y ago

I have thought about these questions for a long time. The issue is precisely what Haier brings up : "IQ has nothing to do with dignity, friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human attributes." The problem is that as a society we don't believe this, we believe that having high IQ makes someone more morally worthy of consideration than someone with low IQ. There is a reason people it's considered OK to insult "stupid" people. People will boast about overcoming poverty and becoming very successful, but how many people will brag that they succeed despite having a low IQ? A below average IQ is seen as shameful, a sign of moral inferiority, something that can should not be acknowledged or admitted. The assumption is that all the "good" people who need to be listened to and followed are ones with high IQs and those with low IQs should at best be ignored and at worst be pitied and shunned. If the technology to enhance IQ does become available, ideally it should be like compulsory public education now: Something that is made freely available to all citizens at birth. This would address a lot of the concerns that research into the genetic basis of intelligence will only be used to justify the existing social order, particularly if high continues to be seen as signifying moral worthiness.

jokoon 9y ago

I don't know if intelligence can really be defined, scientifically, objectively or otherwise. Intelligence is a part of evolution, so it is really hard to describe it. There are many behaviors which are deterministic, automatic because they are described by genes. I tend to think that brains are not really smart, but we just want to give value to what makes us better, so we call it intelligence. Intelligence doesn't really exist, there is just transmission of knowledge.

laurex 9y ago

I recently listened to a Sam Harris podcast about gene splicing, in which he wondered whether the technology would become divisive because 'if you could raise your child's intelligence, you would, at any cost,' (totally paraphrasing). I found this interesting since what I've found is that "intelligence" is not universally valued at all, at least in the US. As a kid, I was part of a research study on high IQ children development, and over time I've seen from my fellow study participants that IQ alone didn't predict success particularly well in the realms of what most people value, i.e. relationships, material success, power, or fame. IQ is correlated with mental health issues as well. I'm not saying intelligence is bad, it's obviously valuable, but in certain communities (ahem) there seems to be a blind spot around the relative importance of intelligence in relation to other factors of being human, particularly social components.

jmcqk6 9y ago
>I'm not saying intelligence is bad, it's obviously valuable, but in certain communities (ahem) there seems to be a blind spot around the relative importance of intelligence in relation to other factors of being human, particularly social components. Thank you so much for pointing this out. Intelligence is valuable, but that doesn't mean it should be valued above all else. There is an important differentiation between this and dis-valuing intelligence as well (e.g. anti-intellectualism). There are a lot of highly intelligent people that never do much of anything with their life. There are people who are not highly intelligent but do great things. That doesn't even start to mention how complicated it is to talk about degrees of intelligence. IQ is one aspect, but there are many others. It's very difficult to even talk about what is meant by High Intelligence generally speaking.