6 ms·

You should read all of Ned Block's piece. It's very good. He is not just dismissing your view as "extreme geneticism". He literally explains how fallacious it

You should read all of Ned Block's piece. It's very good. He is not just dismissing your view as "extreme geneticism". He literally explains how fallacious it is to conflate heritability with genetic determination. Using that to make judgments about genetic determination of IQ is therefore methodologically flawed and the only intellectual honest course of action is to dismiss these types of judgments outright.

sfblah 3y ago
[flagged]
- tptacek 3y ago
  This is the nth post on this thread where you repeat the argument that because you believe IQ research is suppressed, absence of evidence is in fact evidence of presence.
  - sfblah 3y ago
    I'm repeating it because it's important.
- runarberg 3y ago
  It is interesting that you apply Occam’s razor now, but not when the question is whether we need IQ at all in our models. In a different post when asked about the utility of IQ you answered: > In general, the goal is to quantify an individual's mental potential But IQ researchers have been trying to do that for over half a century, and so far have yielded pretty limited results, especially compared to models from other fields such as cognitive psychology or neuropsychology, neither of which use IQ in their models. The principle of parsimony states that: “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. In modern psychology IQ is a useless entity. However now you are talking about pedagogy or developmental psychology where IQ and other models of intelligence is still being used (though it is getting more and more fringe). Over there nobody cares about the heritability of IQ, only whether or not they predict certain learning disabilities and (and this is old school) which traits of intelligence predicts which learning outcomes (though I would argue behavioral psychologists that don’t use IQ nor intelligence have better luck with their models). Again, if you insist on Occam’s razor, and believe (IMO wrongly) that IQ is the preferred method then heritability should be left out of the model. Now there is one more thing I’d like to address: > I’d love to see such a selective demand for rigor applied to, say, studies that suggest secondary education makes a difference in outcomes. I encourage you to read a study in developmental psychology or pedagogy. I assure you there is plenty of rigor applied. You won’t find any models that include heritability, because, like I said, scientists in the field don’t need that, so they skip it for the sake of simplicity. But what you’ll find are double blind studies, AB tests, descriptions of metrics to assess quality, descriptions of methods to assess disability, plenty of scrutiny over these methods, experiments that valuate these methods, theories which take into account seemingly successful methods, scrutiny of theories with nuanced evidence, scrutiny of methods with nuanced evidence, meta-analyses where theories are ripped apart, meta-analyses where the same theories are supported. Entering “Secondary education efficacy” actually yields over 5 million hits on Google Scholar. I call that a fairly well studied question.
  - sfblah 3y ago
    Mostly I just want to make the argument below to see how/if you'll respond. In general, I just don't think you're arguing in good faith. The reason IQ isn't studied isn't because it's "not useful." It's because people who study it are systematically shunned by academia. But here's the main point I want to make: I find it sort of amazing that folks will twist themselves into pretzels to argue that IQ's genetic basis shouldn't be the prior. The majority of smart people I've talked to in life had a similar experience to me growing up. Namely, they remember very well just being "better" at school than other kids, even though their environments were similar and they didn't honestly try that hard. I specifically remember teachers lauding me in 2nd grade for how hard I worked, when honestly I was and am pretty lazy. I remember very well sitting in class in 7th grade, watching the same presentations by the teacher that all the other kids watched and then with zero studying getting 100% correct on the test while many of them struggled. And I remember going to many of their houses and seeing that their home environments were either equivalent or superior to mine. Athletic kids have a very similar experience, by the way, when it comes down to running or jumping or other sports. They're just "better". At base, the environmental argument boils down to something like this: "Anyone in the world could have beaten Magnus Carlsen to become world chess champion if they'd just had the proper environment." Such an argument is so obviously preposterous that the prior should absolutely be that it's false. Another point: We already know IQ is genetic. Witness that the housecat and humans have vastly different IQs, and no cat will ever perform better on an IQ test than the median human. Again, the prior obviously should be that IQ is genetic. And again, note that I'm simply pointing out what the PRIOR should be. Thus, it should be on YOU to provide evidence that the prior is wrong. It is insufficient to simply argue that not enough evidence exists to prove IQ is genetic, because that is the prior. The burden of proof is on YOU. Your arguments boil down to simply gaslighting smart people that their life experience is somehow completely inaccurate, unrepresentative, or misinterpreted. If you really are making it in good faith, it leaves me wondering what in your life experience leads you to believe the genetic explanation should not be the prior. Did you do poorly in school? Did you grow up in such a privileged environment that you can't believe that people like me exist?
    - tptacek 3y ago
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  >I actually think you could use his methodology to basically destroy all social sciences. You can indeed, which is why I judge peoples sincerity on this subject based on if they reject the social sciences entirely as pseudoscientific drivel or apply this reasoning to IQ heritability specifically because they don't like it. If I'm being honest, deep down, I have to think "the social sciences are pseudoscientific drivel" is the more sound argument. The science is pretty bad which is why the replication crisis hit the social sciences harder than virtually anything else.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    You cannot, in fact, use any of the logic in Ned Block's heritability piece to "basically destroy all social sciences". If you disagree, I'd challenge you to formulate any kind of argument based on what Block actually wrote, which is a straightforward explication of the concept of heritability, and not a philosophical treatise on epistemology. My counterclaim is that "this proves too much, as it implies all of social science is faulty" is a shallow dismissal based on a presumption about what the article says, rather than a close reading of it. If the previous commenter would like to rebut that argument, they too could come up with any argument based on what Block actually wrote to support their original claim. I knew nothing at all about that commenter at the start of this discussion, but what I've learned since makes me skeptical of their ability to draw sweeping conclusions from any work on this subject. It's not clear that they understand how cog. psych works, or what the implications of IQ actually are, and it is manifestly the case that they don't understand what heritability means.
    - sfblah 3y ago
      I'm not interested in formulating an argument against, say, the efficacy of secondary education using the same methodology as Ned Block, because to do so would take something like 20,000 words, and then you'd just reject it anyway. What you're doing is just standard trolling. You're making an argument in 100 words that requires 10,000 words to refute (i.e. timewasting). Ned Block's argument is absolutely a selective demand for rigor which at its core just argues that in social sciences nothing is "certain" therefore nothing can be known at all. I find it sort of amazing that folks will twist themselves into pretzels to argue that IQ's genetic basis shouldn't be the prior. The majority of smart people I've talked to in life had a similar experience to me growing up. Namely, they remember very well just being "better" at school than other kids, even though their environments were similar and they didn't honestly try that hard. I specifically remember teachers lauding me in 2nd grade for how hard I worked, when honestly I was and am pretty lazy. I remember very well sitting in class in 7th grade, watching the same presentations by the teacher that all the other kids watched and then with zero studying getting 100% correct on the test while many of them struggled. And I remember going to many of their houses and seeing that their home environments were either equivalent or superior to mine. Athletic kids have a very similar experience, by the way, when it comes down to running or jumping or other sports. They're just "better". At base, the environmental argument boils down to something like this: "Anyone in the world could have beaten Magnus Carlsen to become world chess champion if they'd just had the proper environment." Such an argument is so obviously preposterous that the prior should absolutely be that it's false. Another point: We already know IQ is genetic. Witness that the housecat and humans have vastly different IQs, and no cat will ever perform better on an IQ test than the median human. Again, the prior obviously should be that IQ is genetic. And again, note that I'm simply pointing out what the PRIOR should be. Thus, it should be on YOU to provide evidence that the prior is wrong. It is insufficient to simply argue that not enough evidence exists to prove IQ is genetic, because that is the prior. The burden of proof is on YOU. Your arguments boil down to simply gaslighting smart people that their life experience is somehow completely inaccurate, unrepresentative, or misinterpreted. If you really are making it in good faith, it leaves me wondering what in your life experience leads you to believe the genetic explanation should not be the prior. Did you do poorly in school? Did you grow up in such a privileged environment that you can't believe that people like me exist?

sfblah 3y ago

[flagged]

tptacek 3y ago
This is the nth post on this thread where you repeat the argument that because you believe IQ research is suppressed, absence of evidence is in fact evidence of presence.
- sfblah 3y ago
  I'm repeating it because it's important.
runarberg 3y ago
It is interesting that you apply Occam’s razor now, but not when the question is whether we need IQ at all in our models. In a different post when asked about the utility of IQ you answered: > In general, the goal is to quantify an individual's mental potential But IQ researchers have been trying to do that for over half a century, and so far have yielded pretty limited results, especially compared to models from other fields such as cognitive psychology or neuropsychology, neither of which use IQ in their models. The principle of parsimony states that: “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. In modern psychology IQ is a useless entity. However now you are talking about pedagogy or developmental psychology where IQ and other models of intelligence is still being used (though it is getting more and more fringe). Over there nobody cares about the heritability of IQ, only whether or not they predict certain learning disabilities and (and this is old school) which traits of intelligence predicts which learning outcomes (though I would argue behavioral psychologists that don’t use IQ nor intelligence have better luck with their models). Again, if you insist on Occam’s razor, and believe (IMO wrongly) that IQ is the preferred method then heritability should be left out of the model. Now there is one more thing I’d like to address: > I’d love to see such a selective demand for rigor applied to, say, studies that suggest secondary education makes a difference in outcomes. I encourage you to read a study in developmental psychology or pedagogy. I assure you there is plenty of rigor applied. You won’t find any models that include heritability, because, like I said, scientists in the field don’t need that, so they skip it for the sake of simplicity. But what you’ll find are double blind studies, AB tests, descriptions of metrics to assess quality, descriptions of methods to assess disability, plenty of scrutiny over these methods, experiments that valuate these methods, theories which take into account seemingly successful methods, scrutiny of theories with nuanced evidence, scrutiny of methods with nuanced evidence, meta-analyses where theories are ripped apart, meta-analyses where the same theories are supported. Entering “Secondary education efficacy” actually yields over 5 million hits on Google Scholar. I call that a fairly well studied question.
- sfblah 3y ago
  Mostly I just want to make the argument below to see how/if you'll respond. In general, I just don't think you're arguing in good faith. The reason IQ isn't studied isn't because it's "not useful." It's because people who study it are systematically shunned by academia. But here's the main point I want to make: I find it sort of amazing that folks will twist themselves into pretzels to argue that IQ's genetic basis shouldn't be the prior. The majority of smart people I've talked to in life had a similar experience to me growing up. Namely, they remember very well just being "better" at school than other kids, even though their environments were similar and they didn't honestly try that hard. I specifically remember teachers lauding me in 2nd grade for how hard I worked, when honestly I was and am pretty lazy. I remember very well sitting in class in 7th grade, watching the same presentations by the teacher that all the other kids watched and then with zero studying getting 100% correct on the test while many of them struggled. And I remember going to many of their houses and seeing that their home environments were either equivalent or superior to mine. Athletic kids have a very similar experience, by the way, when it comes down to running or jumping or other sports. They're just "better". At base, the environmental argument boils down to something like this: "Anyone in the world could have beaten Magnus Carlsen to become world chess champion if they'd just had the proper environment." Such an argument is so obviously preposterous that the prior should absolutely be that it's false. Another point: We already know IQ is genetic. Witness that the housecat and humans have vastly different IQs, and no cat will ever perform better on an IQ test than the median human. Again, the prior obviously should be that IQ is genetic. And again, note that I'm simply pointing out what the PRIOR should be. Thus, it should be on YOU to provide evidence that the prior is wrong. It is insufficient to simply argue that not enough evidence exists to prove IQ is genetic, because that is the prior. The burden of proof is on YOU. Your arguments boil down to simply gaslighting smart people that their life experience is somehow completely inaccurate, unrepresentative, or misinterpreted. If you really are making it in good faith, it leaves me wondering what in your life experience leads you to believe the genetic explanation should not be the prior. Did you do poorly in school? Did you grow up in such a privileged environment that you can't believe that people like me exist?
  - tptacek 3y ago
faeriechangling 3y ago
>I actually think you could use his methodology to basically destroy all social sciences. You can indeed, which is why I judge peoples sincerity on this subject based on if they reject the social sciences entirely as pseudoscientific drivel or apply this reasoning to IQ heritability specifically because they don't like it. If I'm being honest, deep down, I have to think "the social sciences are pseudoscientific drivel" is the more sound argument. The science is pretty bad which is why the replication crisis hit the social sciences harder than virtually anything else.
- tptacek 3y ago
  You cannot, in fact, use any of the logic in Ned Block's heritability piece to "basically destroy all social sciences". If you disagree, I'd challenge you to formulate any kind of argument based on what Block actually wrote, which is a straightforward explication of the concept of heritability, and not a philosophical treatise on epistemology. My counterclaim is that "this proves too much, as it implies all of social science is faulty" is a shallow dismissal based on a presumption about what the article says, rather than a close reading of it. If the previous commenter would like to rebut that argument, they too could come up with any argument based on what Block actually wrote to support their original claim. I knew nothing at all about that commenter at the start of this discussion, but what I've learned since makes me skeptical of their ability to draw sweeping conclusions from any work on this subject. It's not clear that they understand how cog. psych works, or what the implications of IQ actually are, and it is manifestly the case that they don't understand what heritability means.
  - sfblah 3y ago
    I'm not interested in formulating an argument against, say, the efficacy of secondary education using the same methodology as Ned Block, because to do so would take something like 20,000 words, and then you'd just reject it anyway. What you're doing is just standard trolling. You're making an argument in 100 words that requires 10,000 words to refute (i.e. timewasting). Ned Block's argument is absolutely a selective demand for rigor which at its core just argues that in social sciences nothing is "certain" therefore nothing can be known at all. I find it sort of amazing that folks will twist themselves into pretzels to argue that IQ's genetic basis shouldn't be the prior. The majority of smart people I've talked to in life had a similar experience to me growing up. Namely, they remember very well just being "better" at school than other kids, even though their environments were similar and they didn't honestly try that hard. I specifically remember teachers lauding me in 2nd grade for how hard I worked, when honestly I was and am pretty lazy. I remember very well sitting in class in 7th grade, watching the same presentations by the teacher that all the other kids watched and then with zero studying getting 100% correct on the test while many of them struggled. And I remember going to many of their houses and seeing that their home environments were either equivalent or superior to mine. Athletic kids have a very similar experience, by the way, when it comes down to running or jumping or other sports. They're just "better". At base, the environmental argument boils down to something like this: "Anyone in the world could have beaten Magnus Carlsen to become world chess champion if they'd just had the proper environment." Such an argument is so obviously preposterous that the prior should absolutely be that it's false. Another point: We already know IQ is genetic. Witness that the housecat and humans have vastly different IQs, and no cat will ever perform better on an IQ test than the median human. Again, the prior obviously should be that IQ is genetic. And again, note that I'm simply pointing out what the PRIOR should be. Thus, it should be on YOU to provide evidence that the prior is wrong. It is insufficient to simply argue that not enough evidence exists to prove IQ is genetic, because that is the prior. The burden of proof is on YOU. Your arguments boil down to simply gaslighting smart people that their life experience is somehow completely inaccurate, unrepresentative, or misinterpreted. If you really are making it in good faith, it leaves me wondering what in your life experience leads you to believe the genetic explanation should not be the prior. Did you do poorly in school? Did you grow up in such a privileged environment that you can't believe that people like me exist?