5 ms·

For a community that likes to point out all the time that correlation is not causation, a lot of the posts so far seem to be making assumptions about causative

For a community that likes to point out all the time that correlation is not causation, a lot of the posts so far seem to be making assumptions about causative direction. But why should we assume that just because they're correlated in this study, high IQ causes longer life expectancy? Maybe the same early childhood circumstances (such as better nutrition) that led to measurably higher IQ also led to individuals being healthier / more robust later in life. Maybe exposure to certain toxins that decrease IQ (say, lead) also tends to make certain cancers more likely.

Houshalter 9y ago
Well adoption studies show that environment doesn't matter much to IQ. Kids raised in the poorest families didn't have higher IQs than kids raised in the richest families (http://sci-hub.la/10.1007/s10519-007-9142-7 http://sci-hub.la/10.1007/s10519-007-9142-7). Adopted siblings have little correlation in IQ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21807642 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21807642). And intervention programs to increase IQ in disadvantaged populations always fail (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500135X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961...). Lung cancer is one of the biggest correlation found here. And smoking is pretty genetic (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15971021 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15971021). Other things might be affected by diet and BMI, but that's also highly genetic. This study also controlled for socioeconomic status.
- fao_ 9y ago
  > Well adoption studies show that environment doesn't matter much to IQ. Really? I remember a few adoption study where they found the opposite: They measured the IQs of genetically identical twins that were adopted into different families, and found that family environment mattered a hell of a lot. I can't find the study that I remember, but here are some adjacent studies that have done similar things with similar results: http://sciencenordic.com/adopted-children-have-higher-iqs-their-non-adopted-siblings http://sciencenordic.com/adopted-children-have-higher-iqs-th... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872626 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872626 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4612 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4612
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    That's interesting. I don't think half siblings should be considered a representative random sample though. It may simply be that babies adopted away were more likely to be from low IQ fathers. The ncbi link seems to support my hypothesis, maybe I'm missing something.
  - kiliantics 9y ago
    Yes, there are publications with support both ways. IQ is basically meaningless and it pains me to see it constantly brought up here.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      People who need to believe in some Randian meritocracy require cheap and easy metrics to convince themselves and sort people. If you can’t feel confident in your ability to discriminate, then you might have to question the foundations of your ideology, which is painful for many.
      - s_m_t 9y ago
        How could there possibly not be a thing like general intelligence?
        IntronExon 9y ago
        Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m skeptical of our ability to accurately define intelligence, never mind accurately measure it (especially with a one-size-fits-all test), but I don’t doubt its existence. Although some people do make me wonder...
      - Houshalter 9y ago
        I just love the armchair experts who come out of the woodwork whenever this topic comes up. I'm sure you can accurately psychoanalyze the hidden motives. Of a subject you haven't even read the wikipedia page on.
  - 9y ago
- zzzzzzzza 9y ago
  your first link is broken
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    Science may be blocked in your country.
- Amygaz 9y ago
  I think you should update your reference baseline. Start with looking for papers who cite those papers, see what they think and what they found. For one, with recent advances in genomics, we now realise that conclusions from twin studies in general aren't aging so well. And all the above don't really do genetics, they used seemingly close-knitted cohorts. In themselves I find all the papers you pointed dubious at best, and more likely garbage. The experimental setups in all of these were rather weak to start with, and did not allow to discriminate between causation and correlation, and the authors all achieved/generalized conclusions that were not supported by their own data. Our societies fascination and obstination with deriving things from IQ is, well, fascinating... No of these start with asking a question to understand a tractable and useful problem. They're all a my "d!ck is bigger than your d!ck" kind of ranking problem.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    This are quite unspecific criticisms. IQ is very well researched and widely supported, as are twin studies.

Houshalter 9y ago

Well adoption studies show that environment doesn't matter much to IQ. Kids raised in the poorest families didn't have higher IQs than kids raised in the richest families (http://sci-hub.la/10.1007/s10519-007-9142-7 http://sci-hub.la/10.1007/s10519-007-9142-7). Adopted siblings have little correlation in IQ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21807642 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21807642). And intervention programs to increase IQ in disadvantaged populations always fail (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500135X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961...). Lung cancer is one of the biggest correlation found here. And smoking is pretty genetic (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15971021 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15971021). Other things might be affected by diet and BMI, but that's also highly genetic. This study also controlled for socioeconomic status.

fao_ 9y ago
> Well adoption studies show that environment doesn't matter much to IQ. Really? I remember a few adoption study where they found the opposite: They measured the IQs of genetically identical twins that were adopted into different families, and found that family environment mattered a hell of a lot. I can't find the study that I remember, but here are some adjacent studies that have done similar things with similar results: http://sciencenordic.com/adopted-children-have-higher-iqs-their-non-adopted-siblings http://sciencenordic.com/adopted-children-have-higher-iqs-th... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872626 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872626 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4612 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4612
- Houshalter 9y ago
  That's interesting. I don't think half siblings should be considered a representative random sample though. It may simply be that babies adopted away were more likely to be from low IQ fathers. The ncbi link seems to support my hypothesis, maybe I'm missing something.
- kiliantics 9y ago
  Yes, there are publications with support both ways. IQ is basically meaningless and it pains me to see it constantly brought up here.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    People who need to believe in some Randian meritocracy require cheap and easy metrics to convince themselves and sort people. If you can’t feel confident in your ability to discriminate, then you might have to question the foundations of your ideology, which is painful for many.
    - s_m_t 9y ago
      How could there possibly not be a thing like general intelligence?
      - IntronExon 9y ago
        Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m skeptical of our ability to accurately define intelligence, never mind accurately measure it (especially with a one-size-fits-all test), but I don’t doubt its existence. Although some people do make me wonder...
    - Houshalter 9y ago
      I just love the armchair experts who come out of the woodwork whenever this topic comes up. I'm sure you can accurately psychoanalyze the hidden motives. Of a subject you haven't even read the wikipedia page on.
- 9y ago
zzzzzzzza 9y ago
your first link is broken
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Science may be blocked in your country.
Amygaz 9y ago
I think you should update your reference baseline. Start with looking for papers who cite those papers, see what they think and what they found. For one, with recent advances in genomics, we now realise that conclusions from twin studies in general aren't aging so well. And all the above don't really do genetics, they used seemingly close-knitted cohorts. In themselves I find all the papers you pointed dubious at best, and more likely garbage. The experimental setups in all of these were rather weak to start with, and did not allow to discriminate between causation and correlation, and the authors all achieved/generalized conclusions that were not supported by their own data. Our societies fascination and obstination with deriving things from IQ is, well, fascinating... No of these start with asking a question to understand a tractable and useful problem. They're all a my "d!ck is bigger than your d!ck" kind of ranking problem.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  This are quite unspecific criticisms. IQ is very well researched and widely supported, as are twin studies.