4 ms·

Not to defend the original argument (because comparing the difference between people, belonging to the exact same animal specie, and difference between radicall

Not to defend the original argument (because comparing the difference between people, belonging to the exact same animal specie, and difference between radically different model architecture make zero sense). > Small average variation overall, but some outliers are dramatically better and dramatically worse. Some brains produce fields medals, some can barely count change. Unfortunate but true. We don't actually know which part of the “can barely count change” situation comes from the “brain” compared to the situation people were raises in. Sure you'd always have outliers (good or bad) for purely genetic reasons, but if you looked at sport performance for instance you'd find that the theoretical difference between people is much lower than the practical one for many environmental reasons: in theory, once you factor in rare medical conditions, almost every human between 18 and 40 should be able to run a marathon. The reason why most people cannot is entirely environmental (not enough physical activity, overweight, work related health issues, etc.). And it's also true in terms of performance: almost any human ought to be able to run a 100m in less than 14 seconds, which is only 30% slower than the world record. Yet, for purely environmental reasons, only a small fraction of the population is actually able to do it. I suspect that in terms of intelligence the results would be roughly in the same ballpark: almost everyone, except rare mental development disorders, ought to be 70% as intelligent as the most intelligent person in history (and the enormous majority fitting in a much narrower band), but most end up far worse for environmental reasons alone. For some reason (mostly politico-philosophical), most people in the “nature” camp of the “nature vs nurture” debate are completely oblivious to the evidence for this.

naasking 3y ago
> We don't actually know which part of the “can barely count change” situation comes from the “brain” compared to the situation people were raises i I think this too is misleading. We've quantified the heritability of intelligence to quite a significant degree. Twin studies of twins who have been raised apart even shows that outcomes are largely the same despite different environments. Nurture is very much oversold. Basically, as long as you don't traumatize one of two twins they will develop very similarly. > And it's also true in terms of performance: almost any human ought to be able to run a 100m in less than 14 seconds But it's literally not true of all humans, and it won't be true if you drop that below 13 or 12 seconds. Which shows that the specific biomechanics you're born with will influence your natural physical abilities. By extension, we also have natural cognitive abilities with similar consequences. > most people in the “nature” camp of the “nature vs nurture” debate are completely oblivious to the evidence for this I think you're way overselling this claim. "It's all nurture" is a far more common opinion, and far less evidence supports it.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > We've quantified the heritability of intelligence to quite a significant degree Not really. I can't find the link again but there was a survey of cognitive science experts, and the question of inheritability of intelligence is still an open question with lots of conflicting opinions in the academic community. Also, “heritability” doesn't mean what you think it means. > Twin studies of twins who have been raised apart even shows that outcomes are largely the same despite different environments. I'd love to know your source, because I doubt the number of “twins that have been raised apart ” is large enough to be a statically significant cohort even if you could have them all in your study. > But it's literally not true of all humans Yes, some people are born without legs. And some are born with Down syndrome, nobody disputes that. > and it won't be true if you drop that below 13 or 12 seconds. Which shows that the specific biomechanics you're born with will influence your natural physical abilities. By extension, we also have natural cognitive abilities with similar consequences. Nobody questions that either (although 13 secs is probably close to what's reachable by anyone, and 12 by any male), the question is about scale: if you take a random sample of 20 Americans of the right age, you'd have insane disparities, with a significant number not being able to run the distance at all and struggling to finish in less than a minute, despite their completely functional genome. > I think you're way overselling this claim. "It's all nurture" is a far more common opinion, and far less evidence supports it. That's a strawman, a very common one in the mouth of the folks of the ”nature” camp. Nobody argues that it's literally “all nurture”, everyone know that Down syndrome exist. The actual argument is that when in my previous 100m example you have genetics variation with an impact of at best 30%, and a observed variation of more than 500%, it's fair to say nurture is the dominant factor. Doesn't mean nature has no role at all, but it doesn't have an explanatory role: the reason for observed variation is essentially nurture. Stop taking The Bell Curve seriously, this book has been written in bad faith by people with a political agenda (which even stated with a straight face in the book). The reason why these people argue for the genetic impact trumping everything is because they don't like the idea of state intervention to reduce poverty. When you say “these people are poor because they are genetically dumb” then you can claim there's no point in helping them, and without surprise that's exactly what Herrnstein and Murray are advocating in their book…
  - 3y ago

naasking 3y ago

> We don't actually know which part of the “can barely count change” situation comes from the “brain” compared to the situation people were raises i I think this too is misleading. We've quantified the heritability of intelligence to quite a significant degree. Twin studies of twins who have been raised apart even shows that outcomes are largely the same despite different environments. Nurture is very much oversold. Basically, as long as you don't traumatize one of two twins they will develop very similarly. > And it's also true in terms of performance: almost any human ought to be able to run a 100m in less than 14 seconds But it's literally not true of all humans, and it won't be true if you drop that below 13 or 12 seconds. Which shows that the specific biomechanics you're born with will influence your natural physical abilities. By extension, we also have natural cognitive abilities with similar consequences. > most people in the “nature” camp of the “nature vs nurture” debate are completely oblivious to the evidence for this I think you're way overselling this claim. "It's all nurture" is a far more common opinion, and far less evidence supports it.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> We've quantified the heritability of intelligence to quite a significant degree Not really. I can't find the link again but there was a survey of cognitive science experts, and the question of inheritability of intelligence is still an open question with lots of conflicting opinions in the academic community. Also, “heritability” doesn't mean what you think it means. > Twin studies of twins who have been raised apart even shows that outcomes are largely the same despite different environments. I'd love to know your source, because I doubt the number of “twins that have been raised apart ” is large enough to be a statically significant cohort even if you could have them all in your study. > But it's literally not true of all humans Yes, some people are born without legs. And some are born with Down syndrome, nobody disputes that. > and it won't be true if you drop that below 13 or 12 seconds. Which shows that the specific biomechanics you're born with will influence your natural physical abilities. By extension, we also have natural cognitive abilities with similar consequences. Nobody questions that either (although 13 secs is probably close to what's reachable by anyone, and 12 by any male), the question is about scale: if you take a random sample of 20 Americans of the right age, you'd have insane disparities, with a significant number not being able to run the distance at all and struggling to finish in less than a minute, despite their completely functional genome. > I think you're way overselling this claim. "It's all nurture" is a far more common opinion, and far less evidence supports it. That's a strawman, a very common one in the mouth of the folks of the ”nature” camp. Nobody argues that it's literally “all nurture”, everyone know that Down syndrome exist. The actual argument is that when in my previous 100m example you have genetics variation with an impact of at best 30%, and a observed variation of more than 500%, it's fair to say nurture is the dominant factor. Doesn't mean nature has no role at all, but it doesn't have an explanatory role: the reason for observed variation is essentially nurture. Stop taking The Bell Curve seriously, this book has been written in bad faith by people with a political agenda (which even stated with a straight face in the book). The reason why these people argue for the genetic impact trumping everything is because they don't like the idea of state intervention to reduce poverty. When you say “these people are poor because they are genetically dumb” then you can claim there's no point in helping them, and without surprise that's exactly what Herrnstein and Murray are advocating in their book…
- 3y ago