4 ms·

Well, if another HN user told you that something with a genetic component is a better measure of intelligence (whatever the Hell that means) than genes... "Peo

Well, if another HN user told you that something with a genetic component is a better measure of intelligence (whatever the Hell that means) than genes... "People with Down's syndrome are not less intelligent than average" is the sort of thing that you can only say in an ultra-progressive environment. It would not be taken seriously by most people. Under any reasonable definition of intelligence, those with Down's syndrome have less of it on average. Your observation about multiple intelligences isn't novel or profound. The interesting thing about intelligence is that different kinds of intelligence are positively correlated (SAT math scores correlate with SAT verbal scores. Musical ability is correlated with mathematical ability. Etc. etc.) At this point you've just recited the standard college freshman talking points, which tells me that this isn't a subject that you're curious about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) I don't even think a statement like "It seems clear to me that environment dictates more than heritability of genetics" is intelligible. The idea of dividing it into X% genetics versus (100 - X)% environment betrays an incredibly naive understanding of the question.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Symmetry 7y ago
The interesting thing about intelligence is that different kinds of intelligence are positively correlated It's a bit more than that. If you look at all the different measure of intelligence that people have come up with like vocabulary, finding patterns in shapes, SAT scores, etc, and do a factor analysis there seems to be more or less a single factor behind the correlation. Some of these, like vocabulary, have an additional large effect from training. Some, like vocabulary and SAT verbal scores, have a strong correlation independent of the the rest of these varied scores. But in general there seems to be one factor, the hypothetical g, that explains why everything is correlated together. And it seems to explain part of other test results too that don't seem to be what we would normally consider intelligence, like the classic reflex test that measures how long it takes you to press a button after a light turns on. IQ tests try to measure this 'g' by using a number of different subtests chosen to not respond strongly to practice. But these, like all tests, have a certain amount of noise and shouldn't be taken as absolute truth.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Symmetry 7y ago

The interesting thing about intelligence is that different kinds of intelligence are positively correlated It's a bit more than that. If you look at all the different measure of intelligence that people have come up with like vocabulary, finding patterns in shapes, SAT scores, etc, and do a factor analysis there seems to be more or less a single factor behind the correlation. Some of these, like vocabulary, have an additional large effect from training. Some, like vocabulary and SAT verbal scores, have a strong correlation independent of the the rest of these varied scores. But in general there seems to be one factor, the hypothetical g, that explains why everything is correlated together. And it seems to explain part of other test results too that don't seem to be what we would normally consider intelligence, like the classic reflex test that measures how long it takes you to press a button after a light turns on. IQ tests try to measure this 'g' by using a number of different subtests chosen to not respond strongly to practice. But these, like all tests, have a certain amount of noise and shouldn't be taken as absolute truth.