4 ms·

I trust my own observations and my conclusion is that heritability is very strong. This is not a view that was imparted on me, quite the opposite. Growing up in

I trust my own observations and my conclusion is that heritability is very strong. This is not a view that was imparted on me, quite the opposite. Growing up in a western country I was led to believe we are all blank slates, and I truly believed it. Once I started spending more time around the opposite sex some doubts started to emerge. Once I became a parent it became very apparent that this ideology had no basis in reality. Kids come with a personality, batteries included, and it's very easy to point out even individual behaviors that originate with either parent. Boys and girls are also very different on average. It's insane that we have somehow convinced ourselves that this is not the case, and I will surely be attacked by just pointing this out. I don't need twin studies to understand this basic fact, a fact that's been apparent to everyone throughout history, except for the past ~40 years in the west.

lapcat 10mo ago
> The question never was about whether or not genetic differences contribute to the spread of intellectual talent—they obviously do. The question always was about the “interesting place” Paul Graham talked about, the meaningful space between genetic potential and actual achievement, and whether or not it really existed. And, at 30% or 50%, this place surely exists.
- lostmsu 10mo ago
  The author of this piece totally ignored that heritability is only part of the genetic lottery.
  - lapcat 10mo ago
    What do you mean?
    - lostmsu 10mo ago
      That heritability doesn't cover all genetic factors. E.g. out of 100% of IQ variation 50% might be inherited, but that doesn't say that the rest is nurture, right? It can still have a huge factor of genetic lottery. E.g. isn't heritability the mean of the genetic effects, but there's also the rest of the distribution (std. dev)?
      - IAmBroom 10mo ago
        Still have no idea what distinction you are making.
  - tptacek 10mo ago
    "Heritability", strictly construed (as is the case in every study establishing heritability numbers) isn't necessarily a description of a "genetic lottery" at all. Plenty of things are highly heritable and not at all genetically determined, and the converse is also true!
lobochrome 10mo ago
[flagged]
- pendenthistory 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- tzs 10mo ago
  That seems backwards. People with kids tend to prefer the way forward that is best for their kids even if it makes things worse for many more other people (adults and kids).
  - kelipso 10mo ago
    Best for their kids when they’re at a particular age range even.
- squidbeak 10mo ago
  This seems like a bad criteria for many reasons. What about people who delay procreation till their late 30s or 40s? Or people whose children have died? Then there's a category of people who resent their children and younger generations generally.And another category of childless idealists who feel protective of humankind and the planet as a whole. Would you approve the resentful and deny the idealists? The idea seems pretty flawed and unjust...
nroets 10mo ago
The article only asks the question of scientists have data to conclude that IQ is inherited. The author is only saying that there are so many problems with the little data we have, that he cannot rule out correlation without causation.
derriz 10mo ago
> I trust my own observations and my conclusion Why would you decide to hold a position strongly based on a minuscule and extremely biased sample set and reject even considering data and studies outside of your immediate experience? Unless you’re afraid your conclusion might be challenged? Wouldn’t it be interesting either way? Either to find out that your children are typical or to find out that you and they are special in some way? I understand many people are not interested in or curious about science, but don’t understand people who are both disinterested but also strongly hold particular positions on scientific questions.
- nroets 10mo ago
  What studies ? What data ? David Bessis basically says that there are so few twins reared apart that scientists can't make definitive conclusions.
  - derriz 10mo ago
    I don't understand why you are challenging me here? Isn't your question exactly that addressed by the (admittedly too long) article? That the graph Paul Graham presented proving the dominance of inheritance wasn't based on any science or data?
    - nroets 10mo ago
      Your comment mentioned "studies" plural. There are many studies of twins that try to determine if genes influence intelligence. Some look at twins who are raised together. One [1] concludes that "MZ (identical) twins differ on average by 6 IQ points, while DZ (fraternal) twins differ on average by 10 IQ points". [1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/
      - derriz 10mo ago
        > Your comment mentioned "studies" plural. Yes? I mentioned them because the article was about a bunch of studies? I was asking the poster why you would not be interested in the validity of such studies and just decide that "common sense" was enough to make a decision? The question was asked with genuine curiosity as this forum is mostly filled with people who appreciate science and empiricism. And I was hoping there could be a reasonable discussion. But I'm out. An interesting discussion should be possible here purely based on data and statistics but clearly - from the downvotes - that I've stepped into some toxic American identity politic minefield. I learned quite a time ago that it's risky to raise certain scientific subjects with USAians including my US relatives: biological evolution, the science of climate change, renewable energy or justifications for gun control - without the conversation getting emotional and heated. But I still find it weird.
anal_reactor 10mo ago
People in general don't like being told they're wrong. This means that arguments that challenge status quo get suppressed. Science isn't magically immune to this just because you add a label "it's scientifically proven, bro!". Therefore, a lot of research on controversial topics can be safely discarded simply because people doing the research have lots of reasons to be biased. This is especially relevant in social sciences, because it's a bottomless pit of controversial topics, and has almost zero possibilities of repeating an experiment. Sure, we have 50 years of research proving that children are blank states, but it's important to remember that eugenics were deeply rooted in science too. It's just that different societal attitudes expected scientists to come up with different scientific results, so they did. Think of a society-wide version of corporate-sponsored research centers that are expected to massage the results until they match the desired outcome. Another thing is that sometimes it might be beneficial to believe something that isn't true. If you knew for a fact that tomorrow 99% of population will suffer extremely painful death then from the point of view of an individual the correct move would be to commit painless suicide, but the survival of humanity relies on everyone believing they'll be all fine. This is obviously a caricatural example, but there are lots of such lies that keep the society going, and "we're all equal" is just one of them. Personally, I find it extremely difficult to believe that we'd be born equal, because evolution works only if some individuals are better than others, and I strongly believe that evolution is a thing.
- lapcat 10mo ago
  > Sure, we have 50 years of research proving that children are blank states No, we don't. > I find it extremely difficult to believe that we'd be born equal This is not what the article author claims or ever claimed.
orwin 10mo ago
My father was told all his life that he had the same character than his mother, and until I was 10, I was told I showed the same character as my grandfather (I still have his walking cadence and posture). My father is adopted.
tptacek 10mo ago
The belief system opposing "very strong heritability of intelligence" isn't "blank-slatism". Plenty of researchers who believe there are only weak connections between genes and intelligence also reject the strong-form blank slate hypothesis, to the point where, when I see people bring "blank slate" into a conversation, I immediately have to convince myself that they're not just trying to stop the conversation. The comment you wrote really isn't a response to anything this article said.

lapcat 10mo ago

> The question never was about whether or not genetic differences contribute to the spread of intellectual talent—they obviously do. The question always was about the “interesting place” Paul Graham talked about, the meaningful space between genetic potential and actual achievement, and whether or not it really existed. And, at 30% or 50%, this place surely exists.

lostmsu 10mo ago
The author of this piece totally ignored that heritability is only part of the genetic lottery.
- lapcat 10mo ago
  What do you mean?
  - lostmsu 10mo ago
    That heritability doesn't cover all genetic factors. E.g. out of 100% of IQ variation 50% might be inherited, but that doesn't say that the rest is nurture, right? It can still have a huge factor of genetic lottery. E.g. isn't heritability the mean of the genetic effects, but there's also the rest of the distribution (std. dev)?
    - IAmBroom 10mo ago
      Still have no idea what distinction you are making.
- tptacek 10mo ago
  "Heritability", strictly construed (as is the case in every study establishing heritability numbers) isn't necessarily a description of a "genetic lottery" at all. Plenty of things are highly heritable and not at all genetically determined, and the converse is also true!

lobochrome 10mo ago

[flagged]

pendenthistory 10mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
tzs 10mo ago
That seems backwards. People with kids tend to prefer the way forward that is best for their kids even if it makes things worse for many more other people (adults and kids).
- kelipso 10mo ago
  Best for their kids when they’re at a particular age range even.
squidbeak 10mo ago
This seems like a bad criteria for many reasons. What about people who delay procreation till their late 30s or 40s? Or people whose children have died? Then there's a category of people who resent their children and younger generations generally.And another category of childless idealists who feel protective of humankind and the planet as a whole. Would you approve the resentful and deny the idealists? The idea seems pretty flawed and unjust...

nroets 10mo ago

The article only asks the question of scientists have data to conclude that IQ is inherited. The author is only saying that there are so many problems with the little data we have, that he cannot rule out correlation without causation.

derriz 10mo ago

> I trust my own observations and my conclusion Why would you decide to hold a position strongly based on a minuscule and extremely biased sample set and reject even considering data and studies outside of your immediate experience? Unless you’re afraid your conclusion might be challenged? Wouldn’t it be interesting either way? Either to find out that your children are typical or to find out that you and they are special in some way? I understand many people are not interested in or curious about science, but don’t understand people who are both disinterested but also strongly hold particular positions on scientific questions.

nroets 10mo ago
What studies ? What data ? David Bessis basically says that there are so few twins reared apart that scientists can't make definitive conclusions.
- derriz 10mo ago
  I don't understand why you are challenging me here? Isn't your question exactly that addressed by the (admittedly too long) article? That the graph Paul Graham presented proving the dominance of inheritance wasn't based on any science or data?
  - nroets 10mo ago
    Your comment mentioned "studies" plural. There are many studies of twins that try to determine if genes influence intelligence. Some look at twins who are raised together. One [1] concludes that "MZ (identical) twins differ on average by 6 IQ points, while DZ (fraternal) twins differ on average by 10 IQ points". [1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/
    - derriz 10mo ago
      > Your comment mentioned "studies" plural. Yes? I mentioned them because the article was about a bunch of studies? I was asking the poster why you would not be interested in the validity of such studies and just decide that "common sense" was enough to make a decision? The question was asked with genuine curiosity as this forum is mostly filled with people who appreciate science and empiricism. And I was hoping there could be a reasonable discussion. But I'm out. An interesting discussion should be possible here purely based on data and statistics but clearly - from the downvotes - that I've stepped into some toxic American identity politic minefield. I learned quite a time ago that it's risky to raise certain scientific subjects with USAians including my US relatives: biological evolution, the science of climate change, renewable energy or justifications for gun control - without the conversation getting emotional and heated. But I still find it weird.

anal_reactor 10mo ago

People in general don't like being told they're wrong. This means that arguments that challenge status quo get suppressed. Science isn't magically immune to this just because you add a label "it's scientifically proven, bro!". Therefore, a lot of research on controversial topics can be safely discarded simply because people doing the research have lots of reasons to be biased. This is especially relevant in social sciences, because it's a bottomless pit of controversial topics, and has almost zero possibilities of repeating an experiment. Sure, we have 50 years of research proving that children are blank states, but it's important to remember that eugenics were deeply rooted in science too. It's just that different societal attitudes expected scientists to come up with different scientific results, so they did. Think of a society-wide version of corporate-sponsored research centers that are expected to massage the results until they match the desired outcome. Another thing is that sometimes it might be beneficial to believe something that isn't true. If you knew for a fact that tomorrow 99% of population will suffer extremely painful death then from the point of view of an individual the correct move would be to commit painless suicide, but the survival of humanity relies on everyone believing they'll be all fine. This is obviously a caricatural example, but there are lots of such lies that keep the society going, and "we're all equal" is just one of them. Personally, I find it extremely difficult to believe that we'd be born equal, because evolution works only if some individuals are better than others, and I strongly believe that evolution is a thing.

lapcat 10mo ago
> Sure, we have 50 years of research proving that children are blank states No, we don't. > I find it extremely difficult to believe that we'd be born equal This is not what the article author claims or ever claimed.

orwin 10mo ago

My father was told all his life that he had the same character than his mother, and until I was 10, I was told I showed the same character as my grandfather (I still have his walking cadence and posture). My father is adopted.

tptacek 10mo ago

The belief system opposing "very strong heritability of intelligence" isn't "blank-slatism". Plenty of researchers who believe there are only weak connections between genes and intelligence also reject the strong-form blank slate hypothesis, to the point where, when I see people bring "blank slate" into a conversation, I immediately have to convince myself that they're not just trying to stop the conversation. The comment you wrote really isn't a response to anything this article said.