3 ms·

Unfortunately intelligence is mostly genetic, look it up... Edit: This is my opinion on what I consider a fact based on a fair bit of research and first hand o

Unfortunately intelligence is mostly genetic, look it up... Edit: This is my opinion on what I consider a fact based on a fair bit of research and first hand observation. People are free to disagree with this but if they've made it to this point still holding that opinion then I think it's unlikely anything I could say would change their minds.

dwringer 4y ago
Are you suggesting, then, that the answer is C? I would hypothesize A is more likely, even assuming intelligence is genetic. Thus, my only point was there's a confounding variable if we try to use the relative tested levels of intelligence between parents an children as a basis to say whether intelligence is genetic. That's not to say there aren't potentially ways around that by designing studies carefully.
bee_rider 4y ago
If you want to make a claim, source it. Given the difficulty of defining an objective measure for intelligence and the confounding factors of upbringing, I think it is almost impossible to find a good source on this sort of thing. Why should we go on a snipe hunt to prove your point?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > difficulty of defining an objective measure for intelligence IQ is not a perfect metric, but it is a decent predictor of many outcomes. > the confounding factors of upbringing This is why you do twin studies and studies using adoption as a control. We have quite a wealth of them. A good critical review of the evidence on both sides is here: https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the-effects-of-shared-environment-on-adult-intelligence-a-critical-review-of-adoption-twin-and-mza-studies.pdf https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the... * Identical twins have a much higher correlation coefficient of intelligence than fraternal twins (table 5). * Identical twins raised apart have a correlation coefficient for intelligence of around .73 (MZA studies). * Correlation coefficients of IQs of biologically unrelated siblings raised in the same adoptive environment are approximately 0. There are obvious confounds the paper mentions: * Fraternal twins may not have identical environments. * Adoptive environments may not represent typical parenting environments. * Some of these studies have had poor controls and practices. * Distribution of results from studies looks bimodal which indicates something weird is going on. Still, even if you take the most critical view I think you have to accept that there is still substantial heritability of intelligence. These results cannot be convincingly explained any other way.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dwringer 4y ago
> Edit: This is my opinion on what I consider a fact based on a fair bit of research and first hand observation. People are free to disagree with this You replied to my comment of "genes don't even have to boost intelligence for kids from smart parents to be more likely to be intelligent" with "Unfortunately intelligence is mostly genetic, look it up..." I'm not sure why you used the word "unfortunately" or what you want me to look up since you didn't even appear to be responding to what I wrote. > but if they've made it to this point still holding that opinion[...] I'm confused as to what this is intended to mean. > [...]then I think it's unlikely anything I could say would change their minds. How can you know to what extent anyone reading this has made up their mind about anything?
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  This seems like sealioning to me and I have no incentive to engage.

dwringer 4y ago

Are you suggesting, then, that the answer is C? I would hypothesize A is more likely, even assuming intelligence is genetic. Thus, my only point was there's a confounding variable if we try to use the relative tested levels of intelligence between parents an children as a basis to say whether intelligence is genetic. That's not to say there aren't potentially ways around that by designing studies carefully.

bee_rider 4y ago

If you want to make a claim, source it. Given the difficulty of defining an objective measure for intelligence and the confounding factors of upbringing, I think it is almost impossible to find a good source on this sort of thing. Why should we go on a snipe hunt to prove your point?

mlyle 4y ago
> difficulty of defining an objective measure for intelligence IQ is not a perfect metric, but it is a decent predictor of many outcomes. > the confounding factors of upbringing This is why you do twin studies and studies using adoption as a control. We have quite a wealth of them. A good critical review of the evidence on both sides is here: https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the-effects-of-shared-environment-on-adult-intelligence-a-critical-review-of-adoption-twin-and-mza-studies.pdf https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the... * Identical twins have a much higher correlation coefficient of intelligence than fraternal twins (table 5). * Identical twins raised apart have a correlation coefficient for intelligence of around .73 (MZA studies). * Correlation coefficients of IQs of biologically unrelated siblings raised in the same adoptive environment are approximately 0. There are obvious confounds the paper mentions: * Fraternal twins may not have identical environments. * Adoptive environments may not represent typical parenting environments. * Some of these studies have had poor controls and practices. * Distribution of results from studies looks bimodal which indicates something weird is going on. Still, even if you take the most critical view I think you have to accept that there is still substantial heritability of intelligence. These results cannot be convincingly explained any other way.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dwringer 4y ago

> Edit: This is my opinion on what I consider a fact based on a fair bit of research and first hand observation. People are free to disagree with this You replied to my comment of "genes don't even have to boost intelligence for kids from smart parents to be more likely to be intelligent" with "Unfortunately intelligence is mostly genetic, look it up..." I'm not sure why you used the word "unfortunately" or what you want me to look up since you didn't even appear to be responding to what I wrote. > but if they've made it to this point still holding that opinion[...] I'm confused as to what this is intended to mean. > [...]then I think it's unlikely anything I could say would change their minds. How can you know to what extent anyone reading this has made up their mind about anything?

cjbgkagh 4y ago
This seems like sealioning to me and I have no incentive to engage.