5 ms·

Maybe but you can't teach a Labrador algebra no matter how many treats you feed it. These are aggregate effects of low IQ genetic traits as they play out over g

Maybe but you can't teach a Labrador algebra no matter how many treats you feed it. These are aggregate effects of low IQ genetic traits as they play out over generations in our capitalist society. The trauma is a consequence of poverty and bad parenting which is because of low IQ. And don't call me racist. Ask why there was no IQ test line up amongst all that visualized data

danans 2y ago
> The trauma is a consequence of poverty and bad parenting which is because of low IQ You have the primary direction of causality between trauma and IQ reversed. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=childhood+trauma+and+IQ&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=childhood+trauma+and+IQ... Population scale trauma exposure and bad parenting is a result of poverty, social structures, and sometimes wars and conflicts, not something predetermined by genetics.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  The IQs of adopted children have next to nothing to do with their environments, and much more to do with the IQs of their birth parents. IQ in general is very strongly heritable. There are several adoption and twin studies that have demonstrated this effect, e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513766/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513766/
  - danans 2y ago
    Trauma (physical and emotional) causing reduction in IQ is totally compatible with IQ being in part heritable. Regarding race/ethnicity correlations from the paper you posted: "(McGue et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2012). McGue et al. (2007) reported minimal ethnicity effects in the SIBS sample at intake, which we largely replicate in the current follow-up assessment. While rearing family socioeconomic status and polygenic scores were both moderately higher among Asian offspring (Cohen’s = d .36–.46; p < .01 ), no measure of cognitive ability differed significantly between offspring of different ethnicities. See SI Table S6 for these and other comparisons, along with a discussion of their relevance." Also, the children in that study have not been victims of trauma (or the study has not considered and controlled for it), so it says nothing about that factor in eventual IQ of the individuals studied.
    - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
      It's also compatible with low IQ causing poverty and bad parenting.
      - danans 2y ago
        Low IQ doesn't "cause" poverty. Poverty is highly multivariate, and likely dominated by factors having nothing to do with IQ, like structural inequities in health/education access and historical lack of access to asset ownership, and exclusion from access to other vehicles of economic advancement.
        ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
        Of course low IQ can cause poverty. Someone with below 70 IQ is going to have a much harder time finding gainful employment than someone with 100 IQ. A college degree is huge for escaping poverty, and the average US college graduate has an IQ of 113. I agree that it's multivariate, and I'm open to the possibility that it is primarily another factor (although you haven't supported that claim), but it's absurd to conclude from that that low IQ does not cause poverty. People with learning disabilities have a much harder time finding success in the modern world, and I'm bewildered that I even have to say so.
        danans 2y ago
        > low IQ can cause poverty Is not the same as "people who are poor are that way because they disproportionately are genetically predisposed to have low IQs", which is the gist of the original comment I replied to. The discussion also isn't about intellectually disabled people (who fall into a separate category with specific legal protections).
        ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
        Ah, okay. My initial intent was to call out the different evidentiary standards between your own position and the opposition- it was enough for you to rule out low IQ leading to trauma by showing that childhood trauma leads to low IQ, but it was insufficient when someone pointed to evidence that genetics are the primary cause of IQ differences because it was still compatible with your position. I was quite surprised with your response and that should have triggered a more charitable reading; I can see now that you were quite obviously not saying what I interpreted. My apologies.

danans 2y ago

> The trauma is a consequence of poverty and bad parenting which is because of low IQ You have the primary direction of causality between trauma and IQ reversed. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=childhood+trauma+and+IQ&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=childhood+trauma+and+IQ... Population scale trauma exposure and bad parenting is a result of poverty, social structures, and sometimes wars and conflicts, not something predetermined by genetics.

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
The IQs of adopted children have next to nothing to do with their environments, and much more to do with the IQs of their birth parents. IQ in general is very strongly heritable. There are several adoption and twin studies that have demonstrated this effect, e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513766/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513766/
- danans 2y ago
  Trauma (physical and emotional) causing reduction in IQ is totally compatible with IQ being in part heritable. Regarding race/ethnicity correlations from the paper you posted: "(McGue et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2012). McGue et al. (2007) reported minimal ethnicity effects in the SIBS sample at intake, which we largely replicate in the current follow-up assessment. While rearing family socioeconomic status and polygenic scores were both moderately higher among Asian offspring (Cohen’s = d .36–.46; p < .01 ), no measure of cognitive ability differed significantly between offspring of different ethnicities. See SI Table S6 for these and other comparisons, along with a discussion of their relevance." Also, the children in that study have not been victims of trauma (or the study has not considered and controlled for it), so it says nothing about that factor in eventual IQ of the individuals studied.
  - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
    It's also compatible with low IQ causing poverty and bad parenting.
    - danans 2y ago
      Low IQ doesn't "cause" poverty. Poverty is highly multivariate, and likely dominated by factors having nothing to do with IQ, like structural inequities in health/education access and historical lack of access to asset ownership, and exclusion from access to other vehicles of economic advancement.
      - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
        Of course low IQ can cause poverty. Someone with below 70 IQ is going to have a much harder time finding gainful employment than someone with 100 IQ. A college degree is huge for escaping poverty, and the average US college graduate has an IQ of 113. I agree that it's multivariate, and I'm open to the possibility that it is primarily another factor (although you haven't supported that claim), but it's absurd to conclude from that that low IQ does not cause poverty. People with learning disabilities have a much harder time finding success in the modern world, and I'm bewildered that I even have to say so.
        danans 2y ago
        > low IQ can cause poverty Is not the same as "people who are poor are that way because they disproportionately are genetically predisposed to have low IQs", which is the gist of the original comment I replied to. The discussion also isn't about intellectually disabled people (who fall into a separate category with specific legal protections).
        ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
        Ah, okay. My initial intent was to call out the different evidentiary standards between your own position and the opposition- it was enough for you to rule out low IQ leading to trauma by showing that childhood trauma leads to low IQ, but it was insufficient when someone pointed to evidence that genetics are the primary cause of IQ differences because it was still compatible with your position. I was quite surprised with your response and that should have triggered a more charitable reading; I can see now that you were quite obviously not saying what I interpreted. My apologies.