16 ms·

Could it also be called wealth-mellishence or perhaps familialValuationOfWorkEthic-melloshence?

estearum 2mo ago
Those were some of the leading candidates until twin studies and controls for familial wealth invalidated them and left us only with shminshmellishence :/
- LPisGood 2mo ago
  “Controls” for familial wealth have mostly been debunked by any kind of basic statistical analysis.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    Look up twin studies. "Intelligence doesn't exist" is just a defense mechanism for above-average intelligence people to feel like they earned all their good outcomes. But here's the thing: even if it was all hard work and not that you were born of above-average intelligence, it's pure luck that you were born someone who works hard. But also intelligence exists and it's wildly discrediting to insist it doesn't.
    - AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
      You don't think people can choose to work hard?
      - estearum 2mo ago
        It is by sheer chance they are the type of person to choose to work hard, that is correct.
        AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
        So there are people who cannot choose to work hard? They have no agency in the matter? That sounds... suspiciously convenient.
        estearum 2mo ago
        You think there are people who are fortunate enough to have the desire to work hard, but nonetheless choose not to? No, there's actually nothing convenient about the fact that most people are accidents of their genetic, geographic, and environmental roll of the dice. The convenient view is: I worked hard because I chose to work hard. I achieved hard things because I worked to be smart. People who did not achieve the same things did not do so because they chose not to work hard or they chose not to be smart. Very self-serving and transparently wrong.
        AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
        I did not say what your first paragraph says. I think there are people who do not have the desire to work hard, but who never the less choose to do so, even though they don't want to. I will grant you that there are some people who, due to handicaps or other things beyond their control, do not have the option of choosing to work hard. But I claim (without statistical proof, I admit) that by far the majority of those who do not work hard, still have the real option of choosing to work hard, but do not. For most of those who won't, "I can't" is also "very self-serving and transparently wrong."
        estearum 2mo ago
        What do you think is going on inside the brain of someone who says "I can't?"
- tptacek 2mo ago
  Wait, flesh this thought out? Twin studies were the dominant methodology of the 1970s-1990s, until molecular genomics --- and genetic studies with controls for family relations demolished their heritability estimates. You just wrote a sentence that implies a straight line of progress on understanding this (weirdly, giving a 70s-vintage point in one direction along with a 2010s-vintage point in the other), but it's the opposite (there's a whole thing about this, the "missing heritability problem"). "Go look up twin studies" is a very strange thing to tell someone on a message board in 2026. It's like saying "go look up phlogiston".
  - estearum 2mo ago
    Identical twins reared together: .85 correlation in IQ Fraternal twins reared together: .55 correlation in IQ Identical twins reared apart: .75 correlation in IQ And the genetic correlation grows as children age. No, genetic studies did not "demolish" heritability estimates, they set a floor on them. Genetic studies do not and cannot (currently) predict all phenotypic outcomes, they set the floor on how much variation can be caused by genetic differences. The genetic predictions don't even directly contradict, never mind demolish, the twin study findings. The "missing heritability problem" is only a problem if one believes our genetic analysis techniques are comprehensive, but we already know they're not. For example, current methods are extremely limited in detecting gene-gene interactions, which we have good reason to suspect are widespread (otherwise making new genetic drugs would be trivial).
    - tptacek 2mo ago
      Even hereditarians don't believe the .85 number anymore. I think you probably want to do some more recent reading. This has come up a bunch on HN and I don't want to rehash dozens of earlier comments, but the search bar will give you plenty of cites.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        Yes, the .85 is probably at the upper end of the estimate. The genetic studies are the conceivable floor. I'm not sure what you mean by "hereditarian" given that even the genetic studies obviously point to significant heritability. This is always a funny conversation because on the one side you have people saying "intelligence is both heritable and correlated with nearly every outcome we care about." On the other hand you have people saying "nuh uh! It's only... medium-high heritability and medium-high correlation with other positive outcomes," as if it makes any material difference to any downstream question.

Those were some of the leading candidates until twin studies and controls for familial wealth invalidated them and left us only with shminshmellishence :/

LPisGood 2mo ago
“Controls” for familial wealth have mostly been debunked by any kind of basic statistical analysis.
- estearum 2mo ago
  Look up twin studies. "Intelligence doesn't exist" is just a defense mechanism for above-average intelligence people to feel like they earned all their good outcomes. But here's the thing: even if it was all hard work and not that you were born of above-average intelligence, it's pure luck that you were born someone who works hard. But also intelligence exists and it's wildly discrediting to insist it doesn't.
  - AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
    You don't think people can choose to work hard?
    - estearum 2mo ago
      It is by sheer chance they are the type of person to choose to work hard, that is correct.
      - AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
        So there are people who cannot choose to work hard? They have no agency in the matter? That sounds... suspiciously convenient.
        estearum 2mo ago
        You think there are people who are fortunate enough to have the desire to work hard, but nonetheless choose not to? No, there's actually nothing convenient about the fact that most people are accidents of their genetic, geographic, and environmental roll of the dice. The convenient view is: I worked hard because I chose to work hard. I achieved hard things because I worked to be smart. People who did not achieve the same things did not do so because they chose not to work hard or they chose not to be smart. Very self-serving and transparently wrong.
        AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
        I did not say what your first paragraph says. I think there are people who do not have the desire to work hard, but who never the less choose to do so, even though they don't want to. I will grant you that there are some people who, due to handicaps or other things beyond their control, do not have the option of choosing to work hard. But I claim (without statistical proof, I admit) that by far the majority of those who do not work hard, still have the real option of choosing to work hard, but do not. For most of those who won't, "I can't" is also "very self-serving and transparently wrong."
        estearum 2mo ago
        What do you think is going on inside the brain of someone who says "I can't?"
tptacek 2mo ago
Wait, flesh this thought out? Twin studies were the dominant methodology of the 1970s-1990s, until molecular genomics --- and genetic studies with controls for family relations demolished their heritability estimates. You just wrote a sentence that implies a straight line of progress on understanding this (weirdly, giving a 70s-vintage point in one direction along with a 2010s-vintage point in the other), but it's the opposite (there's a whole thing about this, the "missing heritability problem"). "Go look up twin studies" is a very strange thing to tell someone on a message board in 2026. It's like saying "go look up phlogiston".
- estearum 2mo ago
  Identical twins reared together: .85 correlation in IQ Fraternal twins reared together: .55 correlation in IQ Identical twins reared apart: .75 correlation in IQ And the genetic correlation grows as children age. No, genetic studies did not "demolish" heritability estimates, they set a floor on them. Genetic studies do not and cannot (currently) predict all phenotypic outcomes, they set the floor on how much variation can be caused by genetic differences. The genetic predictions don't even directly contradict, never mind demolish, the twin study findings. The "missing heritability problem" is only a problem if one believes our genetic analysis techniques are comprehensive, but we already know they're not. For example, current methods are extremely limited in detecting gene-gene interactions, which we have good reason to suspect are widespread (otherwise making new genetic drugs would be trivial).
  - tptacek 2mo ago
    Even hereditarians don't believe the .85 number anymore. I think you probably want to do some more recent reading. This has come up a bunch on HN and I don't want to rehash dozens of earlier comments, but the search bar will give you plenty of cites.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      Yes, the .85 is probably at the upper end of the estimate. The genetic studies are the conceivable floor. I'm not sure what you mean by "hereditarian" given that even the genetic studies obviously point to significant heritability. This is always a funny conversation because on the one side you have people saying "intelligence is both heritable and correlated with nearly every outcome we care about." On the other hand you have people saying "nuh uh! It's only... medium-high heritability and medium-high correlation with other positive outcomes," as if it makes any material difference to any downstream question.