5 ms·

Very interesting read, didn't think the SD would be so high for offspring. I always find it interesting when people attack the genetic aspect of IQ as nonexist

Very interesting read, didn't think the SD would be so high for offspring. I always find it interesting when people attack the genetic aspect of IQ as nonexistent. Given the heritability of almost literally everything else in our body, why is it such a stretch that intelligence, the most complicated of all, is also heridible? If that were the case, I'd love to know EXACTLY what Bill Gates's parents did growing up differently than mine. I read all the time, had a normal childhood, good food available, etc, yet am nowhere near his level of intelligence. Was it the cereal he ate? The weather? The arguments break down immediately when a simple (and proven) solution makes much more sense... it's his genes!

tptacek 3y ago
Heritability does not mean "genetically determined".
tokai 3y ago
They were properly much richer than your parents.
- brianbreslin 3y ago
  This ^ His parents had a ton of resources to allocate to him. They probably consciously or unconsciously taught him to think through logical problems the way they did thus allowing him to intrinsically be able to tackle problems quicker as he had the frameworks ingrained in him early on.
samwillis 3y ago
> I'd love to know EXACTLY what Bill Gates's parents did growing up Firstly comparing yourself to a top 1.43e-8% successful person is pointless. But more importantly, IQ isn't everything, nowhere near, success is somewhat random, but also influence by so very much more - location, environment, economic background, personality, confidence, family, friends, a random person you meet or interaction you have... You make success by making opportunities for these things to happen.
- hellisothers 3y ago
  Agreed, if you read the biography (or even just the Wikipedia entry) on gates you’ll see how much privilege and access contributed to his successes. Smart? Certainly. A genius? I dunno, I think I could have done just as well (I’m no genius).
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    "I think I could have done just as well (I’m no genius)." Doubtful (evidently)
fallingknife 3y ago
It's obviously a large genetic component. People arguing against that are doing so because they don't want to deal with the unpleasant implications of that fact. That's why the arguments are so heated. They are entirely based on emotion.
tzs 3y ago
> I always find it interesting when people attack the genetic aspect of IQ as nonexistent. Are they questioning the genetic aspect of intelligence or of IQ test results? If the former the question to ask them is how do they think intelligence evolved if it has no genetic aspect.
snowwrestler 3y ago
“Attacks” against “the genetic aspect of IQ” are often informed criticisms of common misunderstandings of IQ, heritability, and genetics. Obviously genetics are an important part of determining intelligence. That does not mean smart people who are attracted to smart people will produce smart kids. That seems to be a common belief that arises when people think about genetics and intelligence, despite the numerous counter examples in other heritable traits with a genetic component (e.g. kids are not always taller or even as tall as their parents).
VoodooJuJu 3y ago
Bill Gates also had a connected family and a lot of luck. There are far more upperclassmen who, after meeting, you'll find yourself asking, "If you're so rich, why aren't you so smart?", rather than saying to yourself "Wow, no wonder he's so successful - he's just so smart!" This kind of deterministic attitude is a problem that's been fooling people for thousands of years, where they equate things like wealth with merit. I don't know what the solution is. Maybe Taleb should be required reading in schools. Maybe there is no solution and these people will continue to be exploited, as they always have been, for fun and profit. I think I could use some fun. And some profit.
Retric 3y ago
Bill Gates doesn’t have a particularly high IQ. But, his parents did do an extreme amount to set him up. The most important thing was his mother served on “United Way’s executive committee where she served most notably with IBM's CEO, John Opel” which played a major role in IBM choosing DOS from a tiny company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates On top of this he grew up in a high income ultra competitive family. This meant he went to exclusive private schools with early access to computers. He also learned the basics of business much like how a child of farmers, lawyers, etc tends to learn a lot about their professions. Family game nights were extremely cutthroat which fostered the idea to keep pushing for #1.
- TMWNN 3y ago
  > Bill Gates doesn’t have a particularly high IQ. He scored a 1590 on the (pre-1995 recentering) SAT.
  - Retric 3y ago
    That’s a sign of intelligence but not an IQ test. Extreme test preparation, unusually large vocabulary, etc played a a major role in people’s scores. It may seem strange to test “test prep” not just intelligence, but the goal is to predict success in collage. Extremely motivated students have an advantage just like extremely intelligent ones. The test would be less accurate if preparation was less effective. To be clear, I say this having gotten an extreme score not to denigrate the test.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  I don't think anyone knows Bill Gates IQ. Online it looks like it is all guesses, and I can't imagine Gates taking a test, much less publicizing the results. He's smart enough to know that it could only hurt him, not help him.
  - Retric 3y ago
    You’re correct, I should have said he didn’t get to extreme wealth from having a 1 in 1 billion super outlier IQ. As to your point we don’t have a specific score, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence whatsoever. A very high SAT score does suggest a high intelligence but he didn’t win a Putnam prize or show similar extreme outlier performance.
pk-protect-ai 3y ago
While there is currently no complete understanding of the specific genes responsible for mental abilities, research suggests that genetics do play a role in cognitive development. However, it is also true that the environment in which a child grows up can have a significant impact on their mental abilities. It is important to note that while genetic factors may influence cognitive development, it is not solely determined by genetics, and other factors, such as education, socialization, and access to resources, also play a crucial role. Therefore, it is essential to consider both genetic and environmental factors when discussing mental abilities. The representation of how genes mix in offspring is often oversimplified, and as such, any predictions made based on this method are likely to be limited to average outcomes. While this method may be useful for statistical analysis, it may not be suitable for predicting mental development or other complex traits of an offspring, where a range of factors will play a role.
pfisherman 3y ago
I don’t think people argue that IQ - whatever it is - is not heritable. I think the mechanism of inheritance is in question. You have your biological determinists - who believe that genetics (molecular mechanisms) are the mechanism of heritability; and you have blank slate people - who believe that the environment provided by the parents is that main mechanism of inheritance. I personally find it to be kind of laughable because intelligence is not well defined. As I have gotten older and wiser I have realized that intelligence is multi dimensional, and the people who harp on IQ tend to be lacking along dimensions not related to analytic thinking - i.e. social, emotional, physical intelligence.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  And we're gonna be BTFO'd on all those dimensions by AI ;D By twist of postmodern irony, it turns out the most impressive thing our brains could do is the stuff we feel is the most basic: walking and picking up cups.
  - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
    This is less surprising if you consider that muscle control has been in evolutionary development for 500 million years while higher reasoning is 2 million years old and language is just 200,000 years old.
cornholio 3y ago
I expect the SD to be much higher in the real world, as anybody who has observed real children and their parents, for example a teacher, can attest. When you add environmental and cultural factors, as well as other genetic traits that strongly correlate with social success, such as agression, physical attractivity and verbal skills, it's pretty much a coin toss. What we know for sure from educational studies is that early intervention at the 2-6 years of age can completely negate any "inherited" learning issues, be they genetic or culturally acquired via parental neglect. So maybe that's where the focus should be. You also have to ask how much sense does the premise hold. How do you exactly determine which allele relates to inheritable intelligence? It seems almost impossible to separate and control for social factors, i.e. to actually find the that the genetic markup of white upper-middle class people is the best predictor of "intelligence", because there is no definition of intelligence that this group is not better trained and better socially positioned to exhibit. This fundamental difficulty in defining a culturally neutral measure of intelligence (and it's pervasive tendency to produce racist outcomes) has pushed the field into disrepute and makes people attack its conclusions.
croutonwagon 3y ago
I find it odd even discussing it is taboo these days. Even on a small scale its freaky. I have two kids, raised in the same house, largely with the same style but 2 years apart. Yet they are still entirely different. My oldest is more like her mother in personality and the way she works through stuggles, deals with issues, people etc. Eseentially the lens she views the world on. She has academically struggled, and we have had to work with her (and my wife) on how we deal with things that arent "easy" or overcoming not being a natural talent at things. My son on the other hand is so much more like me its freaky. He has to know how things work, or the why something works etc. Hes able to pick up more binary/finite tasks quite quickly for his age and even manipulating things/working on things in 3d or problem solving he is beyond his years. I can buy him, at age 5, pretty complex LEGO sets, like the 1000 piece ages 7+ or 9+ setups and he can pretty much do them solo. My wife is straight up intimidated doing them with him. Frankly im more worried about him socially as a result long term and I am doing my best not to project that onto him now as its not a problem yet, but I can see some of the struggles I had with blending in or assimilating socially being a problem too (and I had a TOTALLY different upbringing). Ultimately I cant think of it being much more than they are just wired differently. They approach things and the world differently (but still similarly to the differences between my wife and I).

tptacek 3y ago

Heritability does not mean "genetically determined".

tokai 3y ago

They were properly much richer than your parents.

brianbreslin 3y ago
This ^ His parents had a ton of resources to allocate to him. They probably consciously or unconsciously taught him to think through logical problems the way they did thus allowing him to intrinsically be able to tackle problems quicker as he had the frameworks ingrained in him early on.

samwillis 3y ago

> I'd love to know EXACTLY what Bill Gates's parents did growing up Firstly comparing yourself to a top 1.43e-8% successful person is pointless. But more importantly, IQ isn't everything, nowhere near, success is somewhat random, but also influence by so very much more - location, environment, economic background, personality, confidence, family, friends, a random person you meet or interaction you have... You make success by making opportunities for these things to happen.

hellisothers 3y ago
Agreed, if you read the biography (or even just the Wikipedia entry) on gates you’ll see how much privilege and access contributed to his successes. Smart? Certainly. A genius? I dunno, I think I could have done just as well (I’m no genius).
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  "I think I could have done just as well (I’m no genius)." Doubtful (evidently)

fallingknife 3y ago

It's obviously a large genetic component. People arguing against that are doing so because they don't want to deal with the unpleasant implications of that fact. That's why the arguments are so heated. They are entirely based on emotion.

tzs 3y ago

> I always find it interesting when people attack the genetic aspect of IQ as nonexistent. Are they questioning the genetic aspect of intelligence or of IQ test results? If the former the question to ask them is how do they think intelligence evolved if it has no genetic aspect.

snowwrestler 3y ago

“Attacks” against “the genetic aspect of IQ” are often informed criticisms of common misunderstandings of IQ, heritability, and genetics. Obviously genetics are an important part of determining intelligence. That does not mean smart people who are attracted to smart people will produce smart kids. That seems to be a common belief that arises when people think about genetics and intelligence, despite the numerous counter examples in other heritable traits with a genetic component (e.g. kids are not always taller or even as tall as their parents).

VoodooJuJu 3y ago

Bill Gates also had a connected family and a lot of luck. There are far more upperclassmen who, after meeting, you'll find yourself asking, "If you're so rich, why aren't you so smart?", rather than saying to yourself "Wow, no wonder he's so successful - he's just so smart!" This kind of deterministic attitude is a problem that's been fooling people for thousands of years, where they equate things like wealth with merit. I don't know what the solution is. Maybe Taleb should be required reading in schools. Maybe there is no solution and these people will continue to be exploited, as they always have been, for fun and profit. I think I could use some fun. And some profit.

Retric 3y ago

Bill Gates doesn’t have a particularly high IQ. But, his parents did do an extreme amount to set him up. The most important thing was his mother served on “United Way’s executive committee where she served most notably with IBM's CEO, John Opel” which played a major role in IBM choosing DOS from a tiny company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates On top of this he grew up in a high income ultra competitive family. This meant he went to exclusive private schools with early access to computers. He also learned the basics of business much like how a child of farmers, lawyers, etc tends to learn a lot about their professions. Family game nights were extremely cutthroat which fostered the idea to keep pushing for #1.

TMWNN 3y ago
> Bill Gates doesn’t have a particularly high IQ. He scored a 1590 on the (pre-1995 recentering) SAT.
- Retric 3y ago
  That’s a sign of intelligence but not an IQ test. Extreme test preparation, unusually large vocabulary, etc played a a major role in people’s scores. It may seem strange to test “test prep” not just intelligence, but the goal is to predict success in collage. Extremely motivated students have an advantage just like extremely intelligent ones. The test would be less accurate if preparation was less effective. To be clear, I say this having gotten an extreme score not to denigrate the test.
Workaccount2 3y ago
I don't think anyone knows Bill Gates IQ. Online it looks like it is all guesses, and I can't imagine Gates taking a test, much less publicizing the results. He's smart enough to know that it could only hurt him, not help him.
- Retric 3y ago
  You’re correct, I should have said he didn’t get to extreme wealth from having a 1 in 1 billion super outlier IQ. As to your point we don’t have a specific score, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence whatsoever. A very high SAT score does suggest a high intelligence but he didn’t win a Putnam prize or show similar extreme outlier performance.

pk-protect-ai 3y ago

While there is currently no complete understanding of the specific genes responsible for mental abilities, research suggests that genetics do play a role in cognitive development. However, it is also true that the environment in which a child grows up can have a significant impact on their mental abilities. It is important to note that while genetic factors may influence cognitive development, it is not solely determined by genetics, and other factors, such as education, socialization, and access to resources, also play a crucial role. Therefore, it is essential to consider both genetic and environmental factors when discussing mental abilities. The representation of how genes mix in offspring is often oversimplified, and as such, any predictions made based on this method are likely to be limited to average outcomes. While this method may be useful for statistical analysis, it may not be suitable for predicting mental development or other complex traits of an offspring, where a range of factors will play a role.

pfisherman 3y ago

I don’t think people argue that IQ - whatever it is - is not heritable. I think the mechanism of inheritance is in question. You have your biological determinists - who believe that genetics (molecular mechanisms) are the mechanism of heritability; and you have blank slate people - who believe that the environment provided by the parents is that main mechanism of inheritance. I personally find it to be kind of laughable because intelligence is not well defined. As I have gotten older and wiser I have realized that intelligence is multi dimensional, and the people who harp on IQ tend to be lacking along dimensions not related to analytic thinking - i.e. social, emotional, physical intelligence.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
And we're gonna be BTFO'd on all those dimensions by AI ;D By twist of postmodern irony, it turns out the most impressive thing our brains could do is the stuff we feel is the most basic: walking and picking up cups.
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  This is less surprising if you consider that muscle control has been in evolutionary development for 500 million years while higher reasoning is 2 million years old and language is just 200,000 years old.

cornholio 3y ago

I expect the SD to be much higher in the real world, as anybody who has observed real children and their parents, for example a teacher, can attest. When you add environmental and cultural factors, as well as other genetic traits that strongly correlate with social success, such as agression, physical attractivity and verbal skills, it's pretty much a coin toss. What we know for sure from educational studies is that early intervention at the 2-6 years of age can completely negate any "inherited" learning issues, be they genetic or culturally acquired via parental neglect. So maybe that's where the focus should be. You also have to ask how much sense does the premise hold. How do you exactly determine which allele relates to inheritable intelligence? It seems almost impossible to separate and control for social factors, i.e. to actually find the that the genetic markup of white upper-middle class people is the best predictor of "intelligence", because there is no definition of intelligence that this group is not better trained and better socially positioned to exhibit. This fundamental difficulty in defining a culturally neutral measure of intelligence (and it's pervasive tendency to produce racist outcomes) has pushed the field into disrepute and makes people attack its conclusions.

croutonwagon 3y ago

I find it odd even discussing it is taboo these days. Even on a small scale its freaky. I have two kids, raised in the same house, largely with the same style but 2 years apart. Yet they are still entirely different. My oldest is more like her mother in personality and the way she works through stuggles, deals with issues, people etc. Eseentially the lens she views the world on. She has academically struggled, and we have had to work with her (and my wife) on how we deal with things that arent "easy" or overcoming not being a natural talent at things. My son on the other hand is so much more like me its freaky. He has to know how things work, or the why something works etc. Hes able to pick up more binary/finite tasks quite quickly for his age and even manipulating things/working on things in 3d or problem solving he is beyond his years. I can buy him, at age 5, pretty complex LEGO sets, like the 1000 piece ages 7+ or 9+ setups and he can pretty much do them solo. My wife is straight up intimidated doing them with him. Frankly im more worried about him socially as a result long term and I am doing my best not to project that onto him now as its not a problem yet, but I can see some of the struggles I had with blending in or assimilating socially being a problem too (and I had a TOTALLY different upbringing). Ultimately I cant think of it being much more than they are just wired differently. They approach things and the world differently (but still similarly to the differences between my wife and I).