5 ms·

First one that comes to mind is The Blank Slate from Pinker, but I have read that like 15 years ago. But it did shape my view on the subject and I have seen thi

First one that comes to mind is The Blank Slate from Pinker, but I have read that like 15 years ago. But it did shape my view on the subject and I have seen this topic come up many times since. I don't remember anyone disputing strong genetic component of IQ, other than people uncomfortable with implications. And I am not even that interested in the social implications, but more practical issues like IQ improvement (basically 0 impact from what I have seen other than being physically fit/exercising), implications on parenting (you cant imprint your desired outcomes on your children and need to play to their innate interests and strengths/weaknesses), etc.

tptacek 2y ago
I'm sorry, but this is a persistent myth about this space. Lots of research is done every year on the genetic components of behavior and cognition. The field doesn't see it as a yes/no question; there are questions about how far you can get with classic twin studies vs large-scale GWAS, questions about the malleability of intelligence, questions about the validity of IQ tests (see things like test-test reliability), questions about the meaningfulness of psychometric "g", all actively studied. Again you can just go read Turkheimer's Vox piece for an refutation of your "basically zero impact" thing. My big thing here though isn't to convince you that you're wrong about your belief that intelligence is innate and fixed. Rather, it's that you opened this thread with a citation to heritability research, and your usage of "heritability" was broken and misleading. With that cleared up, I don't think we need to drag this out.
- Izkata 2y ago
  Just a reminder about GP's original comment: > This is guaranteed to be a strong factor, there's plenty of evidence on IQ heritability and correlation with income. > Just because it doesn't predict the outcome fully doesn't mean it's insignificant. I'm just trying to figure out what your argument was, since it looks like you're trying to convince GP of what they already believed. Income isn't genetic after all.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    You've clipped out the question that comment replies to, which was about the genetic determinism of IQ.

tptacek 2y ago

I'm sorry, but this is a persistent myth about this space. Lots of research is done every year on the genetic components of behavior and cognition. The field doesn't see it as a yes/no question; there are questions about how far you can get with classic twin studies vs large-scale GWAS, questions about the malleability of intelligence, questions about the validity of IQ tests (see things like test-test reliability), questions about the meaningfulness of psychometric "g", all actively studied. Again you can just go read Turkheimer's Vox piece for an refutation of your "basically zero impact" thing. My big thing here though isn't to convince you that you're wrong about your belief that intelligence is innate and fixed. Rather, it's that you opened this thread with a citation to heritability research, and your usage of "heritability" was broken and misleading. With that cleared up, I don't think we need to drag this out.

Izkata 2y ago
Just a reminder about GP's original comment: > This is guaranteed to be a strong factor, there's plenty of evidence on IQ heritability and correlation with income. > Just because it doesn't predict the outcome fully doesn't mean it's insignificant. I'm just trying to figure out what your argument was, since it looks like you're trying to convince GP of what they already believed. Income isn't genetic after all.
- tptacek 2y ago
  You've clipped out the question that comment replies to, which was about the genetic determinism of IQ.