4 ms·

The research is very good that, beyond basic nutrition, very little by way of environment has a significant effect on adult intelligence. Outcomes, as you say,

The research is very good that, beyond basic nutrition, very little by way of environment has a significant effect on adult intelligence. Outcomes, as you say, are a different thing and you can teach people to have lower time preferences, increase conscientiousness, etc. but, unfortunately, these are typically not what we focus on in todays social interventions.

beefield 9y ago
I thought that some childhood diseases are also having clear effect?
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Lead pollution via cars and paint seems another one that I thought was fairly well supported. Also Iodine-deficiency, though not sure that's covered by nutrition since it's now added to salt. People seem very attached to the "you can't do anything" approach though. I find it hard to imagine what a society without education would look like though, even if the people all had high IQs, so presumably there's some benefit to passing knowledge onto the next generation?
  - quantumofmalice 9y ago
    Yes, if you poison a child it will have an effect on them. Contra what you say, people (really, the liberal elite consensi) seem very attached to the "anyone can do anything" approach, but, once you avoid the obvious stuff and give kids enough food, it is simply not the case: raw genetics is responsible for 50-80% of adult intelligence. This is not a popular position, despite the ample evidence, and will get you thrown out of most sociology departments today. Educational institutions are, generally, an effect of high societal intelligence, rather than a cause.
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  Yes, avoiding death and horrible diseases in childhood appears to have major effects on adult outcomes. When we speak about these things we are assuming a non-disastrous environment and discussing incremental changes, such as spending more on education.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Yes, avoiding death and horrible diseases in childhood appears to have major effects on adult outcomes. When we speak about these things we are assuming a non-disastrous environment But even in the developed world (well, the US at least), the poor very often do not live in a non-disastrous environment, so if that is what you assume, your assumption is flawed.
    - quantumofmalice 9y ago
      "Very often" is too vague a statement to respond profitably to. I will say that, broadly, I am against poisoning children. But, if we are serious about the problem, we need to be honest about the large genetic basis of adult intelligence and then figure out how to humanely encourage eugenic reproductive patterns (or at least discourage dysgenic ones) in the poor.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > But, if we are serious about the problem, we need to be honest about the large genetic basis of adult intelligence and then figure out how to humanely encourage eugenic reproductive patterns If the problem you are concerned about is "people with a low adult IQ exist" rather than "people are unfairly obstructed by social conditions from realizing their potential", yes, eugenics would seem to be an important part of the solution. But for many people, the problem is not which people exist, but the degree to which we harm the potential of certain of the people who do exist.
        quantumofmalice 9y ago
        I think we are not as far apart as you might imagine: I am concerned with both problems and, particularly, how the former might interact with the latter, as well as the potential of future people who will exist (who, after all, are far more numerous than the people who currently happen to be walking around.) I would bet that we could agree on many social programs to help the poor. Where we probably disagree is on the amount that we think these programs would help fix the long term problem of poverty, and I might be more inclined to look to see if the program has dysgenic effects that would compound that long-term problem.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The research is very good that, beyond basic nutrition, very little by way of environment has a significant effect on adult intelligence. That's simply wrong; lots of environmental factors beyond nutrition (including pre- and peri-natal environmental factors, as well as post-natal environmental factors) are known which have significant effects on intelligence. As well as the disease and toxic exposure factors discussed by other responses, this includes things like prenatal maternal stress, and childhood exposure to violence and experience of psychological trauma.

beefield 9y ago

I thought that some childhood diseases are also having clear effect?

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Lead pollution via cars and paint seems another one that I thought was fairly well supported. Also Iodine-deficiency, though not sure that's covered by nutrition since it's now added to salt. People seem very attached to the "you can't do anything" approach though. I find it hard to imagine what a society without education would look like though, even if the people all had high IQs, so presumably there's some benefit to passing knowledge onto the next generation?
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  Yes, if you poison a child it will have an effect on them. Contra what you say, people (really, the liberal elite consensi) seem very attached to the "anyone can do anything" approach, but, once you avoid the obvious stuff and give kids enough food, it is simply not the case: raw genetics is responsible for 50-80% of adult intelligence. This is not a popular position, despite the ample evidence, and will get you thrown out of most sociology departments today. Educational institutions are, generally, an effect of high societal intelligence, rather than a cause.
quantumofmalice 9y ago
Yes, avoiding death and horrible diseases in childhood appears to have major effects on adult outcomes. When we speak about these things we are assuming a non-disastrous environment and discussing incremental changes, such as spending more on education.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Yes, avoiding death and horrible diseases in childhood appears to have major effects on adult outcomes. When we speak about these things we are assuming a non-disastrous environment But even in the developed world (well, the US at least), the poor very often do not live in a non-disastrous environment, so if that is what you assume, your assumption is flawed.
  - quantumofmalice 9y ago
    "Very often" is too vague a statement to respond profitably to. I will say that, broadly, I am against poisoning children. But, if we are serious about the problem, we need to be honest about the large genetic basis of adult intelligence and then figure out how to humanely encourage eugenic reproductive patterns (or at least discourage dysgenic ones) in the poor.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > But, if we are serious about the problem, we need to be honest about the large genetic basis of adult intelligence and then figure out how to humanely encourage eugenic reproductive patterns If the problem you are concerned about is "people with a low adult IQ exist" rather than "people are unfairly obstructed by social conditions from realizing their potential", yes, eugenics would seem to be an important part of the solution. But for many people, the problem is not which people exist, but the degree to which we harm the potential of certain of the people who do exist.
      - quantumofmalice 9y ago
        I think we are not as far apart as you might imagine: I am concerned with both problems and, particularly, how the former might interact with the latter, as well as the potential of future people who will exist (who, after all, are far more numerous than the people who currently happen to be walking around.) I would bet that we could agree on many social programs to help the poor. Where we probably disagree is on the amount that we think these programs would help fix the long term problem of poverty, and I might be more inclined to look to see if the program has dysgenic effects that would compound that long-term problem.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The research is very good that, beyond basic nutrition, very little by way of environment has a significant effect on adult intelligence. That's simply wrong; lots of environmental factors beyond nutrition (including pre- and peri-natal environmental factors, as well as post-natal environmental factors) are known which have significant effects on intelligence. As well as the disease and toxic exposure factors discussed by other responses, this includes things like prenatal maternal stress, and childhood exposure to violence and experience of psychological trauma.