3 ms·

Grok finally talked itself into a corner and admitted that there is no education/nutrition/etc induced IQ increase: In essence, while the context of education

Grok finally talked itself into a corner and admitted that there is no education/nutrition/etc induced IQ increase: In essence, while the context of education and IQ today is vastly different from the agricultural and genetic science debates of Lysenko's time, the core idea of inheriting acquired traits has a historical parallel in Lysenkoism. Modern science, however, does not support the notion that education-induced IQ gains are genetically inherited.

readthenotes1 2y ago
Not sure who Grok is, but the wiki article mentions ~15 points from iodide and 6 points from taking the test a second time. It's possible that parents with better education pass that on to their kids and part of that is better test prep (and/or a clause system emphasizing education, and whatever genetics contribute to impulse control may play a role in that)
- gs17 2y ago
  Grok is X's chatbot that, I guess, he was arguing with about this.
  - timonoko 2y ago
    Maybe the downvoter crew will tell us what the issue is. They always do :-)
Kim_Bruning 2y ago
Need to be really careful with chatbots—they can sometimes reinforce misunderstandings. Lysenkoism is a red herring here, since that's a (discredited) hypothesis about inherited traits. Acquired traits tend to have both inherited and environmental aspects (nature and nurture). These interact in complex ways to make you you. Education, nutrition, and similar factors have pronounced somatic (non-inherited) effects. I think your arrow of causality might have been a bit off here:the key insight is that genes aren’t necessarily expressed optimally in adverse conditions. For example, if you lack proper nutrition during a critical growth phase, even having the genetic potential to grow 7 feet tall won’t matter. Resource constraints mean it simply won’t happen—your body can’t grow that tall without the necessary inputs. Now I’m really curious about your mental model! Could you share more about it or relevant parts of your Grok chat?
- timonoko 2y ago
  Too messy discussion for any rational summary. Me no expert on any of this. Anyways arguing with Grok is entertaining, while it is politically correct and woke, it does not start screaming when proven wrong.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Not sure who Grok is, but the wiki article mentions ~15 points from iodide and 6 points from taking the test a second time. It's possible that parents with better education pass that on to their kids and part of that is better test prep (and/or a clause system emphasizing education, and whatever genetics contribute to impulse control may play a role in that)

gs17 2y ago
Grok is X's chatbot that, I guess, he was arguing with about this.
- timonoko 2y ago
  Maybe the downvoter crew will tell us what the issue is. They always do :-)

Kim_Bruning 2y ago

Need to be really careful with chatbots—they can sometimes reinforce misunderstandings. Lysenkoism is a red herring here, since that's a (discredited) hypothesis about inherited traits. Acquired traits tend to have both inherited and environmental aspects (nature and nurture). These interact in complex ways to make you you. Education, nutrition, and similar factors have pronounced somatic (non-inherited) effects. I think your arrow of causality might have been a bit off here:the key insight is that genes aren’t necessarily expressed optimally in adverse conditions. For example, if you lack proper nutrition during a critical growth phase, even having the genetic potential to grow 7 feet tall won’t matter. Resource constraints mean it simply won’t happen—your body can’t grow that tall without the necessary inputs. Now I’m really curious about your mental model! Could you share more about it or relevant parts of your Grok chat?

timonoko 2y ago
Too messy discussion for any rational summary. Me no expert on any of this. Anyways arguing with Grok is entertaining, while it is politically correct and woke, it does not start screaming when proven wrong.