4 ms·

Thanks for asking, I should've explained. The percentage here is percent of variance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varia

Thanks for asking, I should've explained. The percentage here is percent of variance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance). What it means, basically, is the extent to which you can predict a child's intelligence just knowing the parents' intelligence--not assuming the child was raised by those parents. In your second paragraph, you've actually hit on one of the apologetic clichés that's popular now. People will say, "Yes, 70-80% of variance...GIVEN OUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT". And they will act as if they've said something profound. Yes, that's true, and we don't know about the heritability of intelligence in environments that don't exist...but we can make really good guesses. Further, from a public policy perspective, we've got to work in the environment that we've got. And in that environment, the number is 70-80%.

Ma8ee 5y ago
No, from a public policy perspective, the important question is what environment can we create that benefit as many people as possible. The current environment, from prenatal care to availability, cost and quality of higher education is something that is created by public policy. It is certainly not anything given.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > No, from a public policy perspective, the important question is what environment can we create that benefit as many people as possible. The problem is that since there already is substantial variance in environment that different people experience today, but nevertheless the amount of variance explained by shared environment is very, very low, this means that if we want to increase intelligence using environmental interventions, you can’t designate some environment that some (eg. well off people) already experience, and get everyone into that environment, because it simply won’t work. If it did, it would already show in the amount of variance explained by environment. Instead, what you need to do is to intervene by putting people in environments very few if any people today experience. This is the only approach that can work, as it can overcome the low amount of variance explained by environment. Suffice to say, nobody yet figured out what those unusual environments actually would be like, as you can’t simply copy whatever well off or genius people grow up like. If you do come up with something, it might end up being a hard sale too, given that this will be necessarily stranger than what people normally expect. But, if it works, you’ll improve the world massively and make history. Chances are against you though, as millions of people in the education industry worldwide have already tried almost anything you could come up with, and nothing really works.
- tgv 5y ago
  > what environment can we create that benefit as many people as possible That can't be researched (effectively). Policies affect the current situation, not the desired one.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    You create the desired situation by affecting the current situation.
    - tgv 5y ago
      But you can't base the decision that should lead to the desired situation on any present knowledge, and it's in practice impossible to research. You can't know the desired outcome, let alone the path towards it.
boudin 5y ago
So it could be interesting to look at the environment side then? Edit: Also, what do you call intelligence?
mewpmewp2 5y ago
There's some intelligence difference between population groups, let's say Group A and Group B. Lets say that Group B is measured to be on average 5p more intelligent based on whatever arbitrary measure we took. The debate here is about whether we should try to change the environment in such way that Group A and Group B would be more similar. We know that Group A in general has poorer environment however there's an argument that improving those conditions won't bring Group A to Group B level anyway since it's mostly genetical. Progressives want to change the environment, conservatives think it's a futile effort. How would you determine in the following scenario whether levelling the playing field would cause the averages to be the same? Would 70-80% imply that, yes, it's likely and under what circumstances? If the variance for a single person's measurement could be around 40p, then if genetics is causing 75% of it, then it would be responsible for 30p of that and environment 10p, then can we deduce that Group A given similar environment would actually be 5p higher in intelligence? In this case while genetics describe 75% of the variance, environment is still enough to make naturally more gifted group less successful. So without knowing the other variables the 70-80% is still not meaningful.

Ma8ee 5y ago

No, from a public policy perspective, the important question is what environment can we create that benefit as many people as possible. The current environment, from prenatal care to availability, cost and quality of higher education is something that is created by public policy. It is certainly not anything given.

xyzzyz 5y ago
> No, from a public policy perspective, the important question is what environment can we create that benefit as many people as possible. The problem is that since there already is substantial variance in environment that different people experience today, but nevertheless the amount of variance explained by shared environment is very, very low, this means that if we want to increase intelligence using environmental interventions, you can’t designate some environment that some (eg. well off people) already experience, and get everyone into that environment, because it simply won’t work. If it did, it would already show in the amount of variance explained by environment. Instead, what you need to do is to intervene by putting people in environments very few if any people today experience. This is the only approach that can work, as it can overcome the low amount of variance explained by environment. Suffice to say, nobody yet figured out what those unusual environments actually would be like, as you can’t simply copy whatever well off or genius people grow up like. If you do come up with something, it might end up being a hard sale too, given that this will be necessarily stranger than what people normally expect. But, if it works, you’ll improve the world massively and make history. Chances are against you though, as millions of people in the education industry worldwide have already tried almost anything you could come up with, and nothing really works.
tgv 5y ago
> what environment can we create that benefit as many people as possible That can't be researched (effectively). Policies affect the current situation, not the desired one.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  You create the desired situation by affecting the current situation.
  - tgv 5y ago
    But you can't base the decision that should lead to the desired situation on any present knowledge, and it's in practice impossible to research. You can't know the desired outcome, let alone the path towards it.

boudin 5y ago

So it could be interesting to look at the environment side then? Edit: Also, what do you call intelligence?

mewpmewp2 5y ago

There's some intelligence difference between population groups, let's say Group A and Group B. Lets say that Group B is measured to be on average 5p more intelligent based on whatever arbitrary measure we took. The debate here is about whether we should try to change the environment in such way that Group A and Group B would be more similar. We know that Group A in general has poorer environment however there's an argument that improving those conditions won't bring Group A to Group B level anyway since it's mostly genetical. Progressives want to change the environment, conservatives think it's a futile effort. How would you determine in the following scenario whether levelling the playing field would cause the averages to be the same? Would 70-80% imply that, yes, it's likely and under what circumstances? If the variance for a single person's measurement could be around 40p, then if genetics is causing 75% of it, then it would be responsible for 30p of that and environment 10p, then can we deduce that Group A given similar environment would actually be 5p higher in intelligence? In this case while genetics describe 75% of the variance, environment is still enough to make naturally more gifted group less successful. So without knowing the other variables the 70-80% is still not meaningful.