4 ms·

I accept that it's not a great study, but Gwern's refutation seems focused on mental illness/autistic disorders, and doesn't include the other conditions mentio

I accept that it's not a great study, but Gwern's refutation seems focused on mental illness/autistic disorders, and doesn't include the other conditions mentioned in the Mensa study - i.e., "environmental allergies, asthma and autoimmune disorders", which is more common in my observations of myself and others. (Notably, these conditions do not necessarily lead to reduced lifespan, particularly with modern medical interventions to extend lifespan, but they nonetheless affect enjoyment of life and limit people's abilities in various ways). Also, Gwern's refutation doesn't cite a conclusive study that either links IQ/intelligence to genetic coding, or positively correlates IQ/intelligence with physiological health. Another Scientific American article references several different studies that link brain/body impairments with enhanced cognition [1]. And we can easily see that several people generally accepted as being among the most intelligent in history – e.g., Hawking, Einstein, Tesla and Nietzsche – experienced debilitating physiological illness for much of their lives. I'm well aware that none of this is conclusive; it's a hugely complex topic, with a lot of different evidence pointing in different directions, and the evidence one will embrace will likely be influenced more by their pre-established position than anything cited in this discussion. For what it's worth, I had previously accepted the genetic-deterministic view of intelligence and general life outcomes, but can no longer do so after researching the topic deeply over many years. I do accept heritability has a strong influence, but I don't accept that it's limited to genetics, or that the effects are immutable. [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending...

gwern 7y ago
> I accept that it's not a great study, but Gwern's refutation seems focused on mental illness/autistic disorders, and doesn't include the other conditions mentioned in the Mensa study - i.e., "environmental allergies, asthma and autoimmune disorders", which is more common in my observations of myself and others. The asthma one may be correct (and probably due to the hygiene hypothesis, and for the same reason as myopia). SMPY and others have reported that one. It has nothing, however, to do with their theories about hyperactive brains or intelligence being a bad thing. And are also quite minor and tradeoffs we willingly make. > Also, Gwern's refutation doesn't cite a conclusive study that either links IQ/intelligence to genetic coding, or positively correlates IQ/intelligence with physiological health. Because there is zero need to do so, as even Karpinski et al admit that there is overwhelming evidence associating intelligence with health in the normal range (you say you researched this topic deeply...?); that's why they need to postulate a U-curve which tucks away all of the negative effects in the top percentile which stuff like population registry studies can't look at in order to save the appearances. > Another Scientific American article references several different studies that link brain/body impairments with enhanced cognition [1]. No. They link artistic obsession and savant syndromes. These are not exactly what people think of as 'enhanced cognition'. No one is being whacked on the head and waking up able to do quantum mechanics, compose a symphony, run a marathon etc. They are changed in narrow specific ways, often at the cost of other things.
- tomhoward 7y ago
  I'll start by appealing to you to engage in this discussion in good faith, and without the snark contained in the above comment. I may not have read all the same papers as you (just as you haven't read everything I've read), but I have read a wide range of material, and have been undertaking a several-years-long self-experiment on the links between physiology, cognition, and other factors including nutrition, toxicity and trauma. I am interested in the role of genetics too, and I'm open-minded about all of it. In no sense do I claim my knowledge to be exhaustive, but I don't think I can be accused of approaching the topic without sincerity or dedication. > The asthma one may be correct (and probably due to the hygiene hypothesis, and for the same reason as myopia) Can you provide links elaborating on that topic so I can learn more about the basis of those assumptions? > They are changed in narrow specific ways, often at the cost of other things. I'm not sure how that contradicts anything I've said. The notion that such trade-offs exist is fairly central to my understanding of these things. To be clear, the claim I'm questioning is that IQ-measured intelligence is genetically determined and immutable (and correlated with race), and I'm pointing out one example of evidence that factors other than genetics also seem relevant, sometimes in surprising ways. There are of course plenty of other factors, including but not limited to nutrition, toxicity and trauma. If you don't have any significant disagreement with the last two paragraphs then we don't have any quarrel. If you do, I'd welcome links providing opposing evidence.
  - gwern 7y ago
    Give me a break. You're very interested in physiology etc and yet you don't know what the hygiene hypothesis is and have to ask? Look: all of these things, like high IQ correlating positively (and not negatively) with health are well established in the field, starting over a century ago with Terman. If you really had investigated these things as extensively and diligently as you claim, you would not need to ask me for links, and you would not respond to my mention of specific very well-known paradigms by asking for links. You need links on the hygiene hypothesis or on the standard light-based theories of myopia...? Assuming you had somehow never heard of these, you are unable to search for it yourself? Really? No, I'm not going to waste my time digging up 101-level references for you; if you want to debate on these topics, get yourself up to speed so you understand the basics like why Karspinski et al do not dare to attempt to claim ill-health in the normal range and claim it's only at the extremes, and you know all the things that they leave out but everyone in the field knows perfectly well which is why they regard Karpinksi as steaming bullshit. > To be clear, the claim I'm questioning is that IQ-measured intelligence is genetically determined and immutable (and correlated with race), and I'm pointing out one example of evidence that factors other than genetics also seem relevant, sometimes in surprising ways. If savantism does not boost intelligence as opposed to narrow skills, then it does not serve as a counterexample and is simply a non sequitur. Obviously.

gwern 7y ago

> I accept that it's not a great study, but Gwern's refutation seems focused on mental illness/autistic disorders, and doesn't include the other conditions mentioned in the Mensa study - i.e., "environmental allergies, asthma and autoimmune disorders", which is more common in my observations of myself and others. The asthma one may be correct (and probably due to the hygiene hypothesis, and for the same reason as myopia). SMPY and others have reported that one. It has nothing, however, to do with their theories about hyperactive brains or intelligence being a bad thing. And are also quite minor and tradeoffs we willingly make. > Also, Gwern's refutation doesn't cite a conclusive study that either links IQ/intelligence to genetic coding, or positively correlates IQ/intelligence with physiological health. Because there is zero need to do so, as even Karpinski et al admit that there is overwhelming evidence associating intelligence with health in the normal range (you say you researched this topic deeply...?); that's why they need to postulate a U-curve which tucks away all of the negative effects in the top percentile which stuff like population registry studies can't look at in order to save the appearances. > Another Scientific American article references several different studies that link brain/body impairments with enhanced cognition [1]. No. They link artistic obsession and savant syndromes. These are not exactly what people think of as 'enhanced cognition'. No one is being whacked on the head and waking up able to do quantum mechanics, compose a symphony, run a marathon etc. They are changed in narrow specific ways, often at the cost of other things.

tomhoward 7y ago
I'll start by appealing to you to engage in this discussion in good faith, and without the snark contained in the above comment. I may not have read all the same papers as you (just as you haven't read everything I've read), but I have read a wide range of material, and have been undertaking a several-years-long self-experiment on the links between physiology, cognition, and other factors including nutrition, toxicity and trauma. I am interested in the role of genetics too, and I'm open-minded about all of it. In no sense do I claim my knowledge to be exhaustive, but I don't think I can be accused of approaching the topic without sincerity or dedication. > The asthma one may be correct (and probably due to the hygiene hypothesis, and for the same reason as myopia) Can you provide links elaborating on that topic so I can learn more about the basis of those assumptions? > They are changed in narrow specific ways, often at the cost of other things. I'm not sure how that contradicts anything I've said. The notion that such trade-offs exist is fairly central to my understanding of these things. To be clear, the claim I'm questioning is that IQ-measured intelligence is genetically determined and immutable (and correlated with race), and I'm pointing out one example of evidence that factors other than genetics also seem relevant, sometimes in surprising ways. There are of course plenty of other factors, including but not limited to nutrition, toxicity and trauma. If you don't have any significant disagreement with the last two paragraphs then we don't have any quarrel. If you do, I'd welcome links providing opposing evidence.
- gwern 7y ago
  Give me a break. You're very interested in physiology etc and yet you don't know what the hygiene hypothesis is and have to ask? Look: all of these things, like high IQ correlating positively (and not negatively) with health are well established in the field, starting over a century ago with Terman. If you really had investigated these things as extensively and diligently as you claim, you would not need to ask me for links, and you would not respond to my mention of specific very well-known paradigms by asking for links. You need links on the hygiene hypothesis or on the standard light-based theories of myopia...? Assuming you had somehow never heard of these, you are unable to search for it yourself? Really? No, I'm not going to waste my time digging up 101-level references for you; if you want to debate on these topics, get yourself up to speed so you understand the basics like why Karspinski et al do not dare to attempt to claim ill-health in the normal range and claim it's only at the extremes, and you know all the things that they leave out but everyone in the field knows perfectly well which is why they regard Karpinksi as steaming bullshit. > To be clear, the claim I'm questioning is that IQ-measured intelligence is genetically determined and immutable (and correlated with race), and I'm pointing out one example of evidence that factors other than genetics also seem relevant, sometimes in surprising ways. If savantism does not boost intelligence as opposed to narrow skills, then it does not serve as a counterexample and is simply a non sequitur. Obviously.