10 ms·

Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??

by brabel 1y ago

smokel 1y ago
If it isn't nature, then it probably is nurture. Averaged over the entire population, that is indeed mostly random.
mdp2021 1y ago
Personal development. It's a "subtle" skill. You train it (though maybe less directly than other skills).
pona-a 1y ago
Education? Or more directly, socio-economics. The many of the subjects tested never had any experience with this kind of formal testing, had little to no education, and of course predictably failed on several abstract tasks. It might be that the very pattern of sitting down and intensely focusing on apparently meaningless problems isn't as innate as expected.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  Eh, I wish we could retire socioeconomics as a valid term. It can mean just about any factor and for it to be used it scientific publications and even normal discourse that goes beyond Facebook level discussion, feel a little counter-productive. What, exactly, did you mean though?
  - pona-a 1y ago
    I thought I was being clear. Access to education, which is a function of wealth, race segregation, and/or cultural expectations, or in other words, economic + social factors. For example, if a family encourages their child to work from the earliest allowed age at the expense of schooling, that's a manifestation of both economic and social pressures.
qayxc 1y ago
The brain has pretty high plasticity. A large host of factors contribute to the final outcome, from mental stimulation to training to overall health, stress (both physical and mental), and nutrition. It has been shown that IQ scores improve significantly just by taking them multiple times (training) [1]. They also vary if the tested person is sleep deprived, sick, or stressed. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7709590 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7709590
- nialse 1y ago
  You do have to consider that g is the amount of plasticity though, which is mainly genetic. A better way is to think of it is that genetics provides a potential capacity which may or may not be fulfilled. Training helps individuals to varying degrees.
  - matthewdgreen 1y ago
    That seems intuitive to me, but lots of other things in science seemed intuitive because I wanted to believe them. If the measured IQ difference in individuals can be overwhelmed by simple factors like “have I taken the test before”, we don’t really have a useful empirical measurement to say these things and we’re just stating our hopes and dreams.
    - nialse 1y ago
      The training effect in test-retest is dependent on g as well. It is intelligent to learn from past experiences. Measuring g is hard and taking shortcuts is tempting. A reasonable repeatable g factor test takes hours, and is too often replaced by a single test. There are ways around the test-retest issues but they are roads less travelled.
      - thechao 1y ago
        My high school was right across from a branch of a university (UHD) where the PhD candidates developed IQ tests. We (the HS students) could take them for extra credit. My favorite example was a block-arranging test (there was a set of blocks & some pictures). Anyways, they printed the blocks "symmetrically"; once I figured that out, making the picture was limited only by how quickly I could move. (The test normally had you looking at all sides of the cube, repeatedly.) My "IQ" was well over 200 on that test. The candidate said that it was going to set their lab back bag years.
gus_massa 1y ago
Nutrition: just remove a few vitamins and watch the IQ drop like a stone. Even a "balanced" diet with 500kcal/day will be harmful. Education: in spite of the claims, a good education raise the IQ measurement. The test leak and school add similar tasks.
- nialse 1y ago
  Counter point: does not nutrition and education help some people more than others? That’s the g factor which is mainly genetic.
  - gus_massa 1y ago
    >>> They then hypothesized a general factor, “g,” to explain this pattern. >> what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here? > does not nutrition and education help some people more than others? That’s the g factor which is mainly genetic. Yes, if you ignore or compensate everithing else, it's mainly genetic.
    - nialse 1y ago
      That is correct. The null hypothesis tested is: if you compensate for everything the result is the same for everyone, given that genetics have no effects on g. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, mainly genetic factors underlie the g factor.
      - gus_massa 1y ago
        I think everyone is using a different definition of the g factor.
        nialse 1y ago
        One is certainly not, unless one is not well read. The g-factor is one of the most stable findings in psychology. It is well established and well defined.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hemabe 1y ago
IQ is largely genetic, even if some people claim otherwise. The evidence for this is now overwhelming: even when different ethnic groups grow up in very similar conditions in the same country, the PISA (which correlates r=0.9 with IQ) scores measured vary greatly. For example, among second-generation children in Germany, there are significant differences in PISA scores. Polish children achieve similar or even better scores than German children. Turkish children, on the other hand, remain at the same poor level that their parents (the first generation of immigrants) achieved in the tests. Twin studies and studies of adopted children also leave no doubt that there is a very strong genetic component that determines IQ. Even Wikipedia assumes that heritability can be as high as 80%. Links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174706968/OECD-Studie-So-schwer-haben-es-Migranten-an-deutschen-Schulen.html https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174706968/OECD-Studie-...
- aredox 1y ago
  And it doesn't occur to you the parents may help their kids during their studies? You never went to your father of mother to ask them to explain a concept you struggled with in class? Now imagine your parents didn't get an education and couldn't help you. Where would you be now?
- flir 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
- froh 1y ago
  especially Germany is a very poor example for this claim as school performance (PISA) in this country correlates with the parents academic background more than anything. if your parents aren't educated you can be intelligent AF and still will fail the German school system while you can be dumb as a brick but still make Abitur if your parents drill you through. in Germany. and Welt is a media source with a right conservative agenda pushing the genetics narrative.
  - robwwilliams 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
flir 1y ago
Consider genetics as a ceiling. An upper bound. Take the same child, give it an "ideal" upbringing or an abusive upbringing. You're going to get different IQ scores out of the adult. I believe you can see this in the Flynn Effect.
robwwilliams 1y ago
The simple answer that is usually right: “A god-awful complex mixture of genetic variation, stochastic variation during development, and innumerable environmental influences, all interacting in a big recursive hairball.” I hope that satisfies everyone ;-)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??

by brabel 1y ago

Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??

smokel 1y ago

If it isn't nature, then it probably is nurture. Averaged over the entire population, that is indeed mostly random.

mdp2021 1y ago

Personal development. It's a "subtle" skill. You train it (though maybe less directly than other skills).

pona-a 1y ago

Education? Or more directly, socio-economics. The many of the subjects tested never had any experience with this kind of formal testing, had little to no education, and of course predictably failed on several abstract tasks. It might be that the very pattern of sitting down and intensely focusing on apparently meaningless problems isn't as innate as expected.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
Eh, I wish we could retire socioeconomics as a valid term. It can mean just about any factor and for it to be used it scientific publications and even normal discourse that goes beyond Facebook level discussion, feel a little counter-productive. What, exactly, did you mean though?
- pona-a 1y ago
  I thought I was being clear. Access to education, which is a function of wealth, race segregation, and/or cultural expectations, or in other words, economic + social factors. For example, if a family encourages their child to work from the earliest allowed age at the expense of schooling, that's a manifestation of both economic and social pressures.

qayxc 1y ago

The brain has pretty high plasticity. A large host of factors contribute to the final outcome, from mental stimulation to training to overall health, stress (both physical and mental), and nutrition. It has been shown that IQ scores improve significantly just by taking them multiple times (training) [1]. They also vary if the tested person is sleep deprived, sick, or stressed. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7709590 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7709590

nialse 1y ago
You do have to consider that g is the amount of plasticity though, which is mainly genetic. A better way is to think of it is that genetics provides a potential capacity which may or may not be fulfilled. Training helps individuals to varying degrees.
- matthewdgreen 1y ago
  That seems intuitive to me, but lots of other things in science seemed intuitive because I wanted to believe them. If the measured IQ difference in individuals can be overwhelmed by simple factors like “have I taken the test before”, we don’t really have a useful empirical measurement to say these things and we’re just stating our hopes and dreams.
  - nialse 1y ago
    The training effect in test-retest is dependent on g as well. It is intelligent to learn from past experiences. Measuring g is hard and taking shortcuts is tempting. A reasonable repeatable g factor test takes hours, and is too often replaced by a single test. There are ways around the test-retest issues but they are roads less travelled.
    - thechao 1y ago
      My high school was right across from a branch of a university (UHD) where the PhD candidates developed IQ tests. We (the HS students) could take them for extra credit. My favorite example was a block-arranging test (there was a set of blocks & some pictures). Anyways, they printed the blocks "symmetrically"; once I figured that out, making the picture was limited only by how quickly I could move. (The test normally had you looking at all sides of the cube, repeatedly.) My "IQ" was well over 200 on that test. The candidate said that it was going to set their lab back bag years.

gus_massa 1y ago

Nutrition: just remove a few vitamins and watch the IQ drop like a stone. Even a "balanced" diet with 500kcal/day will be harmful. Education: in spite of the claims, a good education raise the IQ measurement. The test leak and school add similar tasks.

nialse 1y ago
Counter point: does not nutrition and education help some people more than others? That’s the g factor which is mainly genetic.
- gus_massa 1y ago
  >>> They then hypothesized a general factor, “g,” to explain this pattern. >> what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here? > does not nutrition and education help some people more than others? That’s the g factor which is mainly genetic. Yes, if you ignore or compensate everithing else, it's mainly genetic.
  - nialse 1y ago
    That is correct. The null hypothesis tested is: if you compensate for everything the result is the same for everyone, given that genetics have no effects on g. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, mainly genetic factors underlie the g factor.
    - gus_massa 1y ago
      I think everyone is using a different definition of the g factor.
      - nialse 1y ago
        One is certainly not, unless one is not well read. The g-factor is one of the most stable findings in psychology. It is well established and well defined.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

hemabe 1y ago

IQ is largely genetic, even if some people claim otherwise. The evidence for this is now overwhelming: even when different ethnic groups grow up in very similar conditions in the same country, the PISA (which correlates r=0.9 with IQ) scores measured vary greatly. For example, among second-generation children in Germany, there are significant differences in PISA scores. Polish children achieve similar or even better scores than German children. Turkish children, on the other hand, remain at the same poor level that their parents (the first generation of immigrants) achieved in the tests. Twin studies and studies of adopted children also leave no doubt that there is a very strong genetic component that determines IQ. Even Wikipedia assumes that heritability can be as high as 80%. Links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174706968/OECD-Studie-So-schwer-haben-es-Migranten-an-deutschen-Schulen.html https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174706968/OECD-Studie-...

aredox 1y ago
And it doesn't occur to you the parents may help their kids during their studies? You never went to your father of mother to ask them to explain a concept you struggled with in class? Now imagine your parents didn't get an education and couldn't help you. Where would you be now?
flir 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
froh 1y ago
especially Germany is a very poor example for this claim as school performance (PISA) in this country correlates with the parents academic background more than anything. if your parents aren't educated you can be intelligent AF and still will fail the German school system while you can be dumb as a brick but still make Abitur if your parents drill you through. in Germany. and Welt is a media source with a right conservative agenda pushing the genetics narrative.
- robwwilliams 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

flir 1y ago

Consider genetics as a ceiling. An upper bound. Take the same child, give it an "ideal" upbringing or an abusive upbringing. You're going to get different IQ scores out of the adult. I believe you can see this in the Flynn Effect.

robwwilliams 1y ago

The simple answer that is usually right: “A god-awful complex mixture of genetic variation, stochastic variation during development, and innumerable environmental influences, all interacting in a big recursive hairball.” I hope that satisfies everyone ;-)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]