4 ms·

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

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.
  - danharaj 9y ago
    Fortunately I don't have to assume either.
- alexmlamb2 9y ago
  "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. " What about twin studies?
  - danharaj 9y ago
    That doesn't tell you how to judge effects in specific situations. You can infer lots about a population without being able to particularize it at the level required to implement policy. Twin studies are observational. They aren't experimental. Twin studies can never give you a model of how genetics influence intelligence, unless you want to do extremely unethical experiments on twins. It is akin to the distinction between a non-constructive proof and a constructive proof of a mathematical property of a class of objects. The former lets you work under the assumption that that property holds, but if you want to work algorithmically you need a constructive, computable proof. Likewise, statistical inference can give you interesting signals to pursue, but it doesn't give you the models required to understand how those signals come about or how to influence them. The idea that they do is at best folly and at worst malice.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- bobcostas55 9y ago
  >highly non-linear There's no evidence for that, all the evidence so far points to linear additive models being sufficient to model the link between genes and intelligence. Here's one good overview: _Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings_ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
  - danharaj 9y ago
    Society is the non linear structure. I'm talking about policy here.
chesimov 9y ago
Such a line of thinking is at odds with the ideologies of our time. If it were true, it would diminish the potency of many concepts like inherited privilege. Imagine if people were privileged in their intelligence in large part due to their genetics, and not only because of societal considerations? I don't think this would be welcomed in the current zeigeist. Edit: I agree with danharaj's sentiment. The potential for abuse of power is increased by such lines of reasoning.
- Danihan 9y ago
  High IQ is the inherited privilege.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
AlexCoventry 9y ago
That's fine as far as it goes, but it's a bit of a straw man. Sure, you can't teach a horse calculus, but I'm deeply skeptical of the implicit assumption in this interview that contemporary psychology has sufficiently precise tools to even measure intelligence effectively, let alone query its genetic foundations.

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.
- danharaj 9y ago
  Fortunately I don't have to assume either.
alexmlamb2 9y ago
"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. " What about twin studies?
- danharaj 9y ago
  That doesn't tell you how to judge effects in specific situations. You can infer lots about a population without being able to particularize it at the level required to implement policy. Twin studies are observational. They aren't experimental. Twin studies can never give you a model of how genetics influence intelligence, unless you want to do extremely unethical experiments on twins. It is akin to the distinction between a non-constructive proof and a constructive proof of a mathematical property of a class of objects. The former lets you work under the assumption that that property holds, but if you want to work algorithmically you need a constructive, computable proof. Likewise, statistical inference can give you interesting signals to pursue, but it doesn't give you the models required to understand how those signals come about or how to influence them. The idea that they do is at best folly and at worst malice.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
bobcostas55 9y ago
>highly non-linear There's no evidence for that, all the evidence so far points to linear additive models being sufficient to model the link between genes and intelligence. Here's one good overview: _Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings_ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
- danharaj 9y ago
  Society is the non linear structure. I'm talking about policy here.

chesimov 9y ago

Such a line of thinking is at odds with the ideologies of our time. If it were true, it would diminish the potency of many concepts like inherited privilege. Imagine if people were privileged in their intelligence in large part due to their genetics, and not only because of societal considerations? I don't think this would be welcomed in the current zeigeist. Edit: I agree with danharaj's sentiment. The potential for abuse of power is increased by such lines of reasoning.

Danihan 9y ago
High IQ is the inherited privilege.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

AlexCoventry 9y ago

That's fine as far as it goes, but it's a bit of a straw man. Sure, you can't teach a horse calculus, but I'm deeply skeptical of the implicit assumption in this interview that contemporary psychology has sufficiently precise tools to even measure intelligence effectively, let alone query its genetic foundations.