3 ms·
Well I happen to have a phd in that broader domain. It's not censorship, as you imply, but IQ is just way fuzzier a concept than people outside of this area of
by atwrk 7mo ago
Well I happen to have a phd in that broader domain. It's not censorship, as you imply, but IQ is just way fuzzier a concept than people outside of this area of research think. The popular view is IQ is an objective thing, exactly measurable and so on (the metaphor of brains being computers, essentially). In reality you can put a 14 year old from a bad environment into an optimal environment and their IQ increases by up to 20 points over a view years.
- cubefox 7mo agoIQ is highly heritable, so I don't think there is any environmental factor that has this big an impact, except in extreme cases like severe malnutrition. Also note that IQ increases with age roughly into early adulthood independently of environment, so the IQ of a 14 year old increasing is a perfectly normal part of the heritable parts of development.
- tptacek 7mo agoWhat's "highly"? It's likely somewhere between 15%-50% --- weak-to-medium, if you read it as a correlation coefficient.
- cubefox 7mo agoIQ is about as heritable as body height. > The results show that the heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18–20 years of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-hu...
- tptacek 7mo ago2013 is the phlogiston era of this science. Even the hereditarians hedge on the 0.80 claim now.
- cubefox 7mo agoSource?
- tptacek 7mo agoAlex Strudwick Young.
- cubefox 7mo agoLink?
- tptacek 7mo agoHe's pretty easy to find. I'm not messing with you, he's just the most obvious example that came to my head. For I think kind of obvious reasons?
- cubefox 7mo agoIf you are unable to provide a specific source for your claim, you probably made it up.
- tptacek 7mo agoIf you don't know the people doing work in this field today, and instead are just Googling "heritability of IQ numbers" (which would explain the Wilson Effect paper you kind of inexplicably posted) you can find previous threads that I've discussed this in using the search bar below. Either way, "you probably just made this up" is not OK on HN.
- Jensson 7mo agoDo you have any argument as to why what a social scientist says today is more valid than what one said 20 years ago? I'd trust social scientists less today than 20 years ago due to the effect of social media on them. Social media creates much stronger social pressure on people to conform, and that isn't a good thing for science.
- atwrk 7mo agoObviously scientists have thought about that and therefore administer age-adjusted IQ tests for different cohorts, precisely with the aim of IQ staying constant during aging of an individual. And yet here we are. You really don't need a censorship conspiracy to explain these things. I'd recommend you try to challenge your assumptions about IQ and heritability by downloading a few textbooks about the topics. Many many papers are freely available, and the textbooks are let's say easy to find. You could try textbooks about a more accessible area like developmental psychology as it is more easily accessible and still covers these topics quite well.
- cubefox 7mo agoThe problem with the "I'm right, you are wrong, educate yourself" reply is that, because of the taboo, different books will say vastly different things about this topic. So you have to decide which books are the "good" ones and which are the "bad" ones.