4 ms·

I actually like the nuance of your point. I think you're aiming at a certain circularity in the definition of intelligence. Namely, we know that there are a set

by sfblah 4y ago

I actually like the nuance of your point. I think you're aiming at a certain circularity in the definition of intelligence. Namely, we know that there are a set of cognitive abilities which set certain people apart in society as those who can advance modernity. We find those abilities intriguing, we investigate them, and we measure them and assign them a name. Then, we notice that people who test well for those abilities do well economically and otherwise in society. The whole situation is somewhat tautological. I agree with that reasoning! We defined intelligence the way we do because it "works." If jumping on chairs were what advanced modernity, we would test for that instead. And, that too would "work" because it would surely be a marker for people who were likely to be successful in life. Social sciences aren't going to be able to provide specific answers to your questions in the near term. No, there is no single gene or trait that codes for "intelligence" as we define it. But, that does not mean we can't come up with intelligence tests which correlate strongly with that definition and also correlate strongly with various measures of success in life. Such measures also correlate strongly with society-wide success (measured by a group's progress along the tech tree).

runarberg 4y ago
Being born to a rich family is a way better correlator of what you describe as “success”. Why than not construct a class quotient (CQ) and use that instead? Surely if the only thing it needs to do is work as a predictor of “success”, than there are simpler metrics than IQ. Actually I’m gonna repeat a couple of paragraph from the first post you responded to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35517130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35517130 > Your [faeriechangling] anecdotal evidence of high IQ parents (ugh!) having high IQ children is the same anecdotal evidence that sociologists have been describing for decades that high SES parents have high SES children, and is the main reason for why parents with high SAT scores are likely to have children with high SAT scores. > What IQ researchers discovered was basically the same thing that Marx described in 1867, class, however the eugenics were no communists, and instead of providing the simpler explanation, that society rewards the ruling elite, and wealth inherits, the eugenics went all conspiratorial and blamed other races for their perceived decline in society.
- sfblah 4y ago
  High SES correlates with IQ, so you're just measuring the same thing, going round and round in circles. You're just grasping at straws trying to find some arguments that allow you to invalidate the obvious null hypothesis. You're doing it for political reasons, and it's totally obvious.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Obviously high SES doesn't measure the same thing as IQ, and genetically unrelated children are brought up identical SES environments all the time. This argument doesn't even cohere logically. (For what it's worth: research suggests that adopting low-SES children into high-SES households is associated with as much as an 18 point increase in IQ test scores.)
    - sfblah 4y ago
      They don't measure the same statistic, but they correlate. You're selectively citing research on adoption. In fact, there's plenty of research showing that gains are transitory and parental IQ is a better predictor of IQ in late teen years than is the high-SES environment. This whole "mystery" is what prompted folks to ask Jensen to start studying Head Start, as it wasn't clear it was doing any good. The problem is these interventions don't work. They don't work because IQ is genetic.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        See Turkheimer: when you withdraw supports like Head Start, you get regression in the short term, but long term outcomes are significantly better, measured by graduation, matriculation into college, &c. That research is from the last 10 years years; Jensen's from the late 1960s. It doesn't help that Arthur Jensen was an out-and-proud white supremacist (sponsored by the Pioneer Fund!), and an associate of swastikas-and-all neo-Nazis. "That doesn't work because IQ is genetic" doesn't even make sense as a sentence. It implies that something being "genetic" means it's immutable. That's not even how genes work. But it's how people thought they worked in the 1960s, which is where your cite comes from.

by sfblah 4y ago

runarberg 4y ago

Being born to a rich family is a way better correlator of what you describe as “success”. Why than not construct a class quotient (CQ) and use that instead? Surely if the only thing it needs to do is work as a predictor of “success”, than there are simpler metrics than IQ. Actually I’m gonna repeat a couple of paragraph from the first post you responded to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35517130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35517130 > Your [faeriechangling] anecdotal evidence of high IQ parents (ugh!) having high IQ children is the same anecdotal evidence that sociologists have been describing for decades that high SES parents have high SES children, and is the main reason for why parents with high SAT scores are likely to have children with high SAT scores. > What IQ researchers discovered was basically the same thing that Marx described in 1867, class, however the eugenics were no communists, and instead of providing the simpler explanation, that society rewards the ruling elite, and wealth inherits, the eugenics went all conspiratorial and blamed other races for their perceived decline in society.

sfblah 4y ago
High SES correlates with IQ, so you're just measuring the same thing, going round and round in circles. You're just grasping at straws trying to find some arguments that allow you to invalidate the obvious null hypothesis. You're doing it for political reasons, and it's totally obvious.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Obviously high SES doesn't measure the same thing as IQ, and genetically unrelated children are brought up identical SES environments all the time. This argument doesn't even cohere logically. (For what it's worth: research suggests that adopting low-SES children into high-SES households is associated with as much as an 18 point increase in IQ test scores.)
  - sfblah 4y ago
    They don't measure the same statistic, but they correlate. You're selectively citing research on adoption. In fact, there's plenty of research showing that gains are transitory and parental IQ is a better predictor of IQ in late teen years than is the high-SES environment. This whole "mystery" is what prompted folks to ask Jensen to start studying Head Start, as it wasn't clear it was doing any good. The problem is these interventions don't work. They don't work because IQ is genetic.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      See Turkheimer: when you withdraw supports like Head Start, you get regression in the short term, but long term outcomes are significantly better, measured by graduation, matriculation into college, &c. That research is from the last 10 years years; Jensen's from the late 1960s. It doesn't help that Arthur Jensen was an out-and-proud white supremacist (sponsored by the Pioneer Fund!), and an associate of swastikas-and-all neo-Nazis. "That doesn't work because IQ is genetic" doesn't even make sense as a sentence. It implies that something being "genetic" means it's immutable. That's not even how genes work. But it's how people thought they worked in the 1960s, which is where your cite comes from.