6 ms·

How does that correlate with an average, current IQ of 85?

by lzaaz 4y ago

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
Damn. You aren't really supposed to say the quiet part out loud fam, I feel like "race realism" is pretty frowned upon in almost every social setting outside of very smelly people... Obviously having generations of people put into bad schools and not be provided opportunities to have "good jobs" will lead to you not being able to take an IQ test well. IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Like, any gray haired black person in America will remember having actual Jim Crow laws persecute them and it was literally legal to discriminate people for housing in America until 1977. It will take a massive amount of time to heal those social wounds that were inflicted on our fellow humans.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tomp 4y ago
  > IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Actually IQ is highly genetic, and the amount it’s inherited actually goes up as one ages (meaning that while education and upbringing can influence IQ temporarily, genetics eventually dominates). Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf
  - runarberg 4y ago
    If you do this kind of research on a population where education has been less and less exclusive over the generations then surely you will find out that a score the correlates highly with education will correlate more among family members among your older population (where education was only available to richer families) then the younger (where education is accessible to the broader public). This trend should persist as long as the quality of education remains unevenly distributed. You should also find very little to no heritability before or at the start of formal education (say age 10 and younger), and then heritability should increase as the discrepancies in the quality of education between families materialize. To summarize this effect (called Wilson Effect) says nothing about how “genetic” IQ is, only that it correlates with the quality of education and that quality of education is not evenly distributed between families. PS. As a manifestation on how insignificant this effect is in the scientific literature, Wilson Effect doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article, referring you to [the Heritability of IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) which references a paper about this effect only once in the beginning summary.
    - tomp 4y ago
      Read the paper I linked to. The researchers aren’t stupid, obviously they try to control for things like schooling. Therefore, the strongest evidence for heritability of IQ (and the fact that it increases with age) comes from twin studies, where twins were separated at birth (by adoption).
      - runarberg 4y ago
        From your source: > Some evidence suggests that heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood independent of dementia (Panizzon et al., 2014); other results suggest a decline to about 60% after age 80 (Lee, Henry, Trollor, & Sachdev, 2010), but another study suggests no change in later life (McGue & Christensen, 2013). Your source is actually just partially about the Wilson effect, it only spends a handful of paragraphs about it as it enumerates it among the “top 10 Findings From Behavioral Genetics”. The pivotal study is actually a meta-analysis —or rather a summary of studies—from 2013[1]. Read it if you want to be more convinced of this pseudo-science. In the 10 years since the publication of this pivotal study, this Wilson effect has gone nowhere. Not even a wikipedia page to show for it. > The researchers aren’t stupid, obviously they try to control for things like schooling. Don’t be so sure. Twin studies on intelligence are reeked with bad science and malicious data manipulation. A lot of the researchers conducting these studies in the 70s and 80s were eugenicists doing scientific racism. Some even went so far as to forcefully separate twins into convenient families so they could be “studied” (See Peter B. Neubauer). The method of twin studies was actually proposed by non-other then Francis Galton (which should settle all discussion on the link to the eugenicist movement), and now century and a half later, we are still not convinced on the merits of this method. Given this history, I don’t think it is smart to take any results from twin and adaption studies seriously. Some researchers don’t want to go that far, so if they actually look more broadly they conclude that these effects go away if you include people adopted into lower income families. James Flynn (of the Flynn-effect) actually argues for a Family effect on intelligence[2] as a result. But—as I say—I think Flynn is giving twin studies weight that shouldn’t be given, and would claim that results are inconclusive. I actually want to go further and say not only that results are inconclusive, but they are irrelevant. Like I said, this is all pseudo-science. IQ is no different from SAT in that it is a metric whose only value is it’s score. It provides no insight into what we call intelligence, only some skills that people have acquired. Finding out how much better you can become at this skill by merits of your genes is a weird question that ultimately proves nothing. 1: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-hu... 2: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ifE4DAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=Imps9j0XKp&sig=uz-uxLrhdw_EOLrW28xCDQc9daU https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ifE4DAAAQBAJ&oi=...

How does that correlate with an average, current IQ of 85?

by lzaaz 4y ago

How does that correlate with an average, current IQ of 85?

Damn. You aren't really supposed to say the quiet part out loud fam, I feel like "race realism" is pretty frowned upon in almost every social setting outside of very smelly people... Obviously having generations of people put into bad schools and not be provided opportunities to have "good jobs" will lead to you not being able to take an IQ test well. IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Like, any gray haired black person in America will remember having actual Jim Crow laws persecute them and it was literally legal to discriminate people for housing in America until 1977. It will take a massive amount of time to heal those social wounds that were inflicted on our fellow humans.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tomp 4y ago
> IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Actually IQ is highly genetic, and the amount it’s inherited actually goes up as one ages (meaning that while education and upbringing can influence IQ temporarily, genetics eventually dominates). Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf
- runarberg 4y ago
  If you do this kind of research on a population where education has been less and less exclusive over the generations then surely you will find out that a score the correlates highly with education will correlate more among family members among your older population (where education was only available to richer families) then the younger (where education is accessible to the broader public). This trend should persist as long as the quality of education remains unevenly distributed. You should also find very little to no heritability before or at the start of formal education (say age 10 and younger), and then heritability should increase as the discrepancies in the quality of education between families materialize. To summarize this effect (called Wilson Effect) says nothing about how “genetic” IQ is, only that it correlates with the quality of education and that quality of education is not evenly distributed between families. PS. As a manifestation on how insignificant this effect is in the scientific literature, Wilson Effect doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article, referring you to [the Heritability of IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) which references a paper about this effect only once in the beginning summary.
  - tomp 4y ago
    Read the paper I linked to. The researchers aren’t stupid, obviously they try to control for things like schooling. Therefore, the strongest evidence for heritability of IQ (and the fact that it increases with age) comes from twin studies, where twins were separated at birth (by adoption).
    - runarberg 4y ago
      From your source: > Some evidence suggests that heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood independent of dementia (Panizzon et al., 2014); other results suggest a decline to about 60% after age 80 (Lee, Henry, Trollor, & Sachdev, 2010), but another study suggests no change in later life (McGue & Christensen, 2013). Your source is actually just partially about the Wilson effect, it only spends a handful of paragraphs about it as it enumerates it among the “top 10 Findings From Behavioral Genetics”. The pivotal study is actually a meta-analysis —or rather a summary of studies—from 2013[1]. Read it if you want to be more convinced of this pseudo-science. In the 10 years since the publication of this pivotal study, this Wilson effect has gone nowhere. Not even a wikipedia page to show for it. > The researchers aren’t stupid, obviously they try to control for things like schooling. Don’t be so sure. Twin studies on intelligence are reeked with bad science and malicious data manipulation. A lot of the researchers conducting these studies in the 70s and 80s were eugenicists doing scientific racism. Some even went so far as to forcefully separate twins into convenient families so they could be “studied” (See Peter B. Neubauer). The method of twin studies was actually proposed by non-other then Francis Galton (which should settle all discussion on the link to the eugenicist movement), and now century and a half later, we are still not convinced on the merits of this method. Given this history, I don’t think it is smart to take any results from twin and adaption studies seriously. Some researchers don’t want to go that far, so if they actually look more broadly they conclude that these effects go away if you include people adopted into lower income families. James Flynn (of the Flynn-effect) actually argues for a Family effect on intelligence[2] as a result. But—as I say—I think Flynn is giving twin studies weight that shouldn’t be given, and would claim that results are inconclusive. I actually want to go further and say not only that results are inconclusive, but they are irrelevant. Like I said, this is all pseudo-science. IQ is no different from SAT in that it is a metric whose only value is it’s score. It provides no insight into what we call intelligence, only some skills that people have acquired. Finding out how much better you can become at this skill by merits of your genes is a weird question that ultimately proves nothing. 1: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-hu... 2: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ifE4DAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=Imps9j0XKp&sig=uz-uxLrhdw_EOLrW28xCDQc9daU https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ifE4DAAAQBAJ&oi=...