6 ms·

We also know that obesity is in part due to genetics. That doesn't mean people are doomed to be obese. It's a fact that anyone can lose weight if they expend mo

We also know that obesity is in part due to genetics. That doesn't mean people are doomed to be obese. It's a fact that anyone can lose weight if they expend more calories than they consume. My point is that people are perceiving a very different implication than what Murray or SSC are actually saying. E.g. saying cognitive ability is genetic evokes images of Gattaca-like society where people's fate is determined by their genome. In reality, IQ is far more malleable and can be developed through exercise or atrophy through lack of it.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> E.g. saying cognitive ability is genetic evokes images of Gattaca-like society where people's fate is determined by their genome This does seem to be murray's contention. I don't think SSC agrees though. And this is actively harmful if you subscribe to the view that it is malleable: claiming that it can't be changed and that someone is "inferior", as Murray does, probably isn't going to set them up for success. Taking a step back though, I'll trust you on obesity, but we do t have hard evidence that I'm aware of that intelligence is genetic. For example, cognitive ability and IQ aren't the same, and even if they were, there are all kinds of things (like language) that are clearly heritable but obviously not genetically so.
- manfredo 6y ago
  Cognitive ability is an abstract thing, IQ is a form of measuring it. It's like using 10k running time, amount of weight lifted in a deadlift, bench press, and squat as a measurement of athleticism. Regardless, > This does seem to be murray's contention. I don't think SSC agrees though. And this is actively harmful if you subscribe to the view that it is malleable: claiming that it can't be changed and that someone is "inferior", as Murray does, probably isn't going to set them up for success. This statement seriously makes me doubt whether you've read Murray . The central thesis of his book The Bell Curve is that society needs to do a better job helping people on the lower end of cognitive ability lead fulfilling and productive lives. The notion that less intelligent people are inferior is the complete opposite of what he actually wrote.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Cognitive ability is an abstract thing, IQ is a form of measuring it. It's like using 10k running time, amount of weight lifted in a deadlift, bench press, and squat as a measurement of athleticism. No, it's like picking one of those and using it as the measure. If you pick 10k running time, you'll be biased towards mid-length endurance athletes. If you pick deadlift, you'll be biased towards raw strength athletes. The question of if Usain Bolt or Hafthor Bjornsson is more athletic is malformed, it requires us to ask which athletic talents we value more highly (not to mention comparing to someone like Kobe Bryant or Tom Brady, where social interaction is a component of the athletic achievement). Similarly, most measures of IQ contain implicit assumptions about what intelligence means, and those assumptions are based on western cultural norms. Even tests designed to be less culturally biased, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, aren't free of this issue. And this ignores cultures where decision making is often a team sport, so being forced to take a test without aid is an unusual environment, and may be, culturally, a malformed question. > The central thesis of his book The Bell Curve is that society needs to do a better job helping people on the lower end of cognitive ability lead fulfilling and productive lives. Right, the unstated assumption here being that they are genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability (and further that this ability is highly correlated along racial lines). That they are genetically inferior and society needs to cater better to their inferiority: "we should be more willing to help the cognitively disabled". Not that they may be just as well equipped as everyone else, and we should address the biases in society that mismeasure their intelligence, such as biased IQ tests and other cultural assumptions about what intelligence is. The Bell curve doesn't engage with any of this criticism (it predates some of, but by no means all of it). It assumes that the measure is objective and valid. I've read enough of Murray, and enough criticism of him, to understand how he's wrong.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      > Right, the unstated assumption here being that they are genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability (and further that this ability is highly correlated along racial lines Not even remotely true. The intra-race differences are much larger than the inter-race difference. The difference along racial lines is a fraction of a standard deviation. They almost entirely overlap. Murray emphasized, repeatedly, that the IQ distributions between race almost entirely overlaps. "Highly correlated along racial lines" is the total opposite of what was actually written in the book. I'm sorry but this just about confirms my suspicion that you are not familiar with what Murray actually wrote. I'm sure the version Murray's message you have in your mind is highly racist. But that is a very different message than the one that exists in reality.
cutemonster 6y ago
> can be developed through exercise or atrophy through lack of it. There's a personal upper limit that can be improved only when one is a child from what I've read. Whilst at the same time, damaging one's cognitive intelligence is doable at any age, yes. And to some extent, undoing the damage You wrote elsewhere: > The book has an entire chapter called "Raising Cognitive Ability" Makes me interested in reading the book :-)

joshuamorton 6y ago

> E.g. saying cognitive ability is genetic evokes images of Gattaca-like society where people's fate is determined by their genome This does seem to be murray's contention. I don't think SSC agrees though. And this is actively harmful if you subscribe to the view that it is malleable: claiming that it can't be changed and that someone is "inferior", as Murray does, probably isn't going to set them up for success. Taking a step back though, I'll trust you on obesity, but we do t have hard evidence that I'm aware of that intelligence is genetic. For example, cognitive ability and IQ aren't the same, and even if they were, there are all kinds of things (like language) that are clearly heritable but obviously not genetically so.

manfredo 6y ago
Cognitive ability is an abstract thing, IQ is a form of measuring it. It's like using 10k running time, amount of weight lifted in a deadlift, bench press, and squat as a measurement of athleticism. Regardless, > This does seem to be murray's contention. I don't think SSC agrees though. And this is actively harmful if you subscribe to the view that it is malleable: claiming that it can't be changed and that someone is "inferior", as Murray does, probably isn't going to set them up for success. This statement seriously makes me doubt whether you've read Murray . The central thesis of his book The Bell Curve is that society needs to do a better job helping people on the lower end of cognitive ability lead fulfilling and productive lives. The notion that less intelligent people are inferior is the complete opposite of what he actually wrote.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Cognitive ability is an abstract thing, IQ is a form of measuring it. It's like using 10k running time, amount of weight lifted in a deadlift, bench press, and squat as a measurement of athleticism. No, it's like picking one of those and using it as the measure. If you pick 10k running time, you'll be biased towards mid-length endurance athletes. If you pick deadlift, you'll be biased towards raw strength athletes. The question of if Usain Bolt or Hafthor Bjornsson is more athletic is malformed, it requires us to ask which athletic talents we value more highly (not to mention comparing to someone like Kobe Bryant or Tom Brady, where social interaction is a component of the athletic achievement). Similarly, most measures of IQ contain implicit assumptions about what intelligence means, and those assumptions are based on western cultural norms. Even tests designed to be less culturally biased, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, aren't free of this issue. And this ignores cultures where decision making is often a team sport, so being forced to take a test without aid is an unusual environment, and may be, culturally, a malformed question. > The central thesis of his book The Bell Curve is that society needs to do a better job helping people on the lower end of cognitive ability lead fulfilling and productive lives. Right, the unstated assumption here being that they are genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability (and further that this ability is highly correlated along racial lines). That they are genetically inferior and society needs to cater better to their inferiority: "we should be more willing to help the cognitively disabled". Not that they may be just as well equipped as everyone else, and we should address the biases in society that mismeasure their intelligence, such as biased IQ tests and other cultural assumptions about what intelligence is. The Bell curve doesn't engage with any of this criticism (it predates some of, but by no means all of it). It assumes that the measure is objective and valid. I've read enough of Murray, and enough criticism of him, to understand how he's wrong.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > Right, the unstated assumption here being that they are genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability (and further that this ability is highly correlated along racial lines Not even remotely true. The intra-race differences are much larger than the inter-race difference. The difference along racial lines is a fraction of a standard deviation. They almost entirely overlap. Murray emphasized, repeatedly, that the IQ distributions between race almost entirely overlaps. "Highly correlated along racial lines" is the total opposite of what was actually written in the book. I'm sorry but this just about confirms my suspicion that you are not familiar with what Murray actually wrote. I'm sure the version Murray's message you have in your mind is highly racist. But that is a very different message than the one that exists in reality.

cutemonster 6y ago

> can be developed through exercise or atrophy through lack of it. There's a personal upper limit that can be improved only when one is a child from what I've read. Whilst at the same time, damaging one's cognitive intelligence is doable at any age, yes. And to some extent, undoing the damage You wrote elsewhere: > The book has an entire chapter called "Raising Cognitive Ability" Makes me interested in reading the book :-)