3 ms·

Sorry, we're at the thread depth limit here, but in brief, I simply disagree with your assertion that IQ isn't primarily genetic. I enjoyed your exhortation to

by sfblah 4y ago

Sorry, we're at the thread depth limit here, but in brief, I simply disagree with your assertion that IQ isn't primarily genetic. I enjoyed your exhortation to agree with you ("please reconsider"). It reminded me of one time, in Paris, when two Mormon missionaries said something similar. I understand you think your view is scientific, but it just isn't. There is plenty of data on many, many traits being genetically determined, and IQ is no different. IQ absolutely has relatively less research, which enables you to poke holes in what is there. The reason there is less research is because of a quasi-religious belief that studying such a thing is "wrong." That belief would not exist if there weren't a substantial fear that such research would show conclusively that people have predetermined genetic ceilings for IQ (as they do for many other traits such as maximum VO2, height, etc.). I see no convincing argument here that environmental explanations should be the prior. It's just like religion. Activists have essentially outlawed IQ research, then insisted on compelling evidence to change their minds. Such situations remind me of Galileo and his telescope. The saddest part of all of this is watching society tear itself apart, laboring under the false assumption that the culture is beset by racist boogiemen. While evil people do undoubtedly exist, the vast majority of people are well-meaning. Being honest about IQ research would enable people to see that.

tptacek 4y ago
As you can see, we're not in fact at the thread depth limit. You suppose IQ to be genetically determined. That's fine, but you stated previously that it was heritable, which is a claim you could marshal evidence for, unlike your current claim. It's for that reason that it's important to distinguish the two concepts. It's you who brought in the claim that the evidence for heritability is "overwhelming". By your new definition of the term, I've reduced "overwhelming" to "hand-wavy" (your new evidence seems to consist of "other things are known to be genetically determined, and research into IQ determination has been "outlawed"). Not great. It's unsurprising that people are reluctant to talk about this stuff given the level of rigor it's approached with.
- sfblah 4y ago
  You're a funny person. Have you never even heard of "cancel culture"? The world must be super confusing to people who think the issue with IQ research is "lack of rigor." It's not lack of rigor, it's the (sometimes successful) calls by students to fire tenured professors for being "racists". I wouldn't research it either!

by sfblah 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

As you can see, we're not in fact at the thread depth limit. You suppose IQ to be genetically determined. That's fine, but you stated previously that it was heritable, which is a claim you could marshal evidence for, unlike your current claim. It's for that reason that it's important to distinguish the two concepts. It's you who brought in the claim that the evidence for heritability is "overwhelming". By your new definition of the term, I've reduced "overwhelming" to "hand-wavy" (your new evidence seems to consist of "other things are known to be genetically determined, and research into IQ determination has been "outlawed"). Not great. It's unsurprising that people are reluctant to talk about this stuff given the level of rigor it's approached with.

sfblah 4y ago
You're a funny person. Have you never even heard of "cancel culture"? The world must be super confusing to people who think the issue with IQ research is "lack of rigor." It's not lack of rigor, it's the (sometimes successful) calls by students to fire tenured professors for being "racists". I wouldn't research it either!