5 ms·

Points 1 2 and 4 are pretty well studied in academia concerning intelligence. Intelligence is defined as "g", and it's 60 to 80% heritable depending on the stud

Points 1 2 and 4 are pretty well studied in academia concerning intelligence. Intelligence is defined as "g", and it's 60 to 80% heritable depending on the study (leaning towards 80%). More info for the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

fjsolwmv 8y ago
"heritability" is a mix of genetics and environment.
- asianthrowaway 8y ago
  No: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability. Perhaps you meant that at any given time, the heritability of a trait depends on the "state" of the population, and that heritability values can change over time. This is true, but I don't understand why you'd bring it up.
nabla9 8y ago
It's easy to misunderstand what heritable or even genetically heritable means. Consider just few hypothetical ways genes can increase g-factor: * Metabolic trait increases nutrition intake in high calorie low nutrition junk food environment. This leads to faster brain development. * Improved immune system against certain parasites that makes individual healthier and leads to statistically higher g-factor. Genes that improve intelligence can change from generation to generation and be different in different geographic areas.
- asianthrowaway 8y ago
  Huh, what? Are you talking about the appearance of new genetic mutations? I think evolutionary timescales are a bit longer than a few generations. Anyway, I don't understand how this is supposed to explain what heritability is...
  - nabla9 8y ago
    No. I was talking about existing genes interacting with rapidly changing environment.
nyrulez 8y ago
The article is pretty interesting and I didn't read the whole thing. The correlations are positive but not 1, sometimes less than 0.5. So it shows genes are positively correlated, but very different than saying it's an exclusive factor? So the problem with this is that even if something is correlated at 10% (for arguments sake), it can have predictive power. But that doesn't mean it can become the sole basis. Thats the cognitive jump most folks are incapable of and these discussions often lead to very wrong outcomes. Indeed this bias has led to many horrific examples of discrimination. Also the heritability seems to be put at 0.5, not a sure thing? So it obviously can be heritable, but that doesn't rule out that it is only heritable and no other avenues for it exist?

fjsolwmv 8y ago

"heritability" is a mix of genetics and environment.

asianthrowaway 8y ago
No: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability. Perhaps you meant that at any given time, the heritability of a trait depends on the "state" of the population, and that heritability values can change over time. This is true, but I don't understand why you'd bring it up.

nabla9 8y ago

It's easy to misunderstand what heritable or even genetically heritable means. Consider just few hypothetical ways genes can increase g-factor: * Metabolic trait increases nutrition intake in high calorie low nutrition junk food environment. This leads to faster brain development. * Improved immune system against certain parasites that makes individual healthier and leads to statistically higher g-factor. Genes that improve intelligence can change from generation to generation and be different in different geographic areas.

asianthrowaway 8y ago
Huh, what? Are you talking about the appearance of new genetic mutations? I think evolutionary timescales are a bit longer than a few generations. Anyway, I don't understand how this is supposed to explain what heritability is...
- nabla9 8y ago
  No. I was talking about existing genes interacting with rapidly changing environment.

nyrulez 8y ago

The article is pretty interesting and I didn't read the whole thing. The correlations are positive but not 1, sometimes less than 0.5. So it shows genes are positively correlated, but very different than saying it's an exclusive factor? So the problem with this is that even if something is correlated at 10% (for arguments sake), it can have predictive power. But that doesn't mean it can become the sole basis. Thats the cognitive jump most folks are incapable of and these discussions often lead to very wrong outcomes. Indeed this bias has led to many horrific examples of discrimination. Also the heritability seems to be put at 0.5, not a sure thing? So it obviously can be heritable, but that doesn't rule out that it is only heritable and no other avenues for it exist?