4 ms·

For all practical purposes, "intelligence is largely not heritable" is actually closer to the truth than the opposite. As long as you can't tie intelligence to

For all practical purposes, "intelligence is largely not heritable" is actually closer to the truth than the opposite. As long as you can't tie intelligence to particular genes, as long as you can't tell what amount of intelligence in an individual is inherited, and how much isn't, there is no use for this in education, politics or social welfare. What I see the argument being used for, mostly, is to justify racism and entitlement issues in wealthy people...

rayiner 13y ago
IQ is highly heritable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of... (estimates of adulthood heritability are 0.7-0.8, similar to height). We can reject the existence of an observed natural phenomenon because we can't explain it. We still haven't unified gravity with the standard model, but that doesn't mean we reject that gravity exists (for practical purposes or otherwise). The fact that a natural phenomenon might be socially inconvenient is even less of a good reason to reject its validity. Finally, I don't even see why it should even be so socially inconvenient. Say the experiments are right, and intelligence is mostly heritable rather than a result of education, upbringing, etc. Why should that justify entitlement on the part of the wealthy? Indeed, it should cut across that grain. If its mostly heritable, being intelligent shouldn't be seen as intrinsically virtuous any more than is being tall. Moreover, the heritability of intelligence may very well imply a need for a change in our priorities when it comes to social welfare. E.g. maybe we need to de-emphasize education, and divert resources to building up social and family networks.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  I qualified my statement with "for all practical purposes". I have often claimed that there is no practical relevance and no reasonable way to use this "fact" in practical real world decisions. Nobody was able to tell me one that holds up to even superficial checking. "Socially inconvenient" doesn't even come into it, because twin studies don't tell us anything about differences between two ethnicities. For that matter, genetic diversity within populations might have a larger effect... The "intelligence is genetic" "fact" is often used to justify refusal to tackle socio-economic problems (like "under-achievement" in blacks or hispanics in the US, or the turkish minority in my home country) with socio-economic solutions. Because hey, it's all genetics, so we can't change it. Even if measures for improvement have been proven...
  - Guvante 13y ago
    > The "intelligence is genetic" "fact" is often used to justify refusal to tackle socio-economic problems Changing it wouldn't make a difference, everyone using that logic isn't basing their end goal on it, simply using it to justify their feelings. Hell it took a while for me to understand the benefit of such improvements, and it had nothing to do with genetics. My problem was few people talk about the socio-economic impacts on capabilities, and the fact that counteracting programs can theoretically stop the death spiral in those groups. However there are a lot of people who can't get over "not like me" and think the whole thing is a waste because it takes away from "hard working young men".
  - jcampbell1 13y ago
    "intelligence is genetic" and "intelligence is heritable" are completely different statements. The notion that IQ is fixed and encoded in genes is nonsense. What is true is that for a given environment, the variation in observed IQ is strongly explained by genetics. It is possible, and likely true, that lower intelligence among minorities is caused by the environment, but that the variation among those in this environment is explained by genetics. The fact that intelligence is heritable says nothing about social-economic policy for changing the environment. It is as absurd as saying that because "height is genetic" there is no reason to worry about malnutrition.
JackFr 13y ago
I'm not sure if you are misreading the article or disagreeing with it, but in either case you're wrong. The fact that a 'wrongness gene' hasn't been, and may not ever be, identified does not undermine my assessment, but rather indicates current models of the interaction of genes and wrongness might be naive, and the interactions are probably deeper and more complex.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  Please tell me one "practical purpose" were "Intelligence is largely genetic" as a use...
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    Off the top of my head: eugenics, diverting the smarter parts of population to science and leadership roles. Not saying it's moral, but definitely and obviously practical.
    - bayesianhorse 13y ago
      This might be practical, but it does not make for a proven profitable use of the "fact". Currently it is way easier to test children/students/workers for intelligence or academic achievement rather than subject them to a genetic test or pedigree inspection. Pedigrees and genetic testing in animal breeding are way more useful. But there you have completely different structures and goals. And some of them, particularly diseases with high heritability like canine hip displasia, can't be solved by current genetics yet.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    If we know intelligence is largely genetic and differs across genetic phenotypes, it would tell us that public policies designed to alter group outcomes by altering the environment might be counterproductive. To take an extreme example where genetics is the clear cause, cats are underrepresented in college. Because we know that cats are genetically less intelligent than humans, we can conclude that affirmative action/college for cats education programs/etc are a waste of money. Another use would be knowing that if only 50% of the population has the intrinsic intelligence for college, college prep programs should not serve more than 50% of the population (modulo technical details).

rayiner 13y ago

IQ is highly heritable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of... (estimates of adulthood heritability are 0.7-0.8, similar to height). We can reject the existence of an observed natural phenomenon because we can't explain it. We still haven't unified gravity with the standard model, but that doesn't mean we reject that gravity exists (for practical purposes or otherwise). The fact that a natural phenomenon might be socially inconvenient is even less of a good reason to reject its validity. Finally, I don't even see why it should even be so socially inconvenient. Say the experiments are right, and intelligence is mostly heritable rather than a result of education, upbringing, etc. Why should that justify entitlement on the part of the wealthy? Indeed, it should cut across that grain. If its mostly heritable, being intelligent shouldn't be seen as intrinsically virtuous any more than is being tall. Moreover, the heritability of intelligence may very well imply a need for a change in our priorities when it comes to social welfare. E.g. maybe we need to de-emphasize education, and divert resources to building up social and family networks.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
I qualified my statement with "for all practical purposes". I have often claimed that there is no practical relevance and no reasonable way to use this "fact" in practical real world decisions. Nobody was able to tell me one that holds up to even superficial checking. "Socially inconvenient" doesn't even come into it, because twin studies don't tell us anything about differences between two ethnicities. For that matter, genetic diversity within populations might have a larger effect... The "intelligence is genetic" "fact" is often used to justify refusal to tackle socio-economic problems (like "under-achievement" in blacks or hispanics in the US, or the turkish minority in my home country) with socio-economic solutions. Because hey, it's all genetics, so we can't change it. Even if measures for improvement have been proven...
- Guvante 13y ago
  > The "intelligence is genetic" "fact" is often used to justify refusal to tackle socio-economic problems Changing it wouldn't make a difference, everyone using that logic isn't basing their end goal on it, simply using it to justify their feelings. Hell it took a while for me to understand the benefit of such improvements, and it had nothing to do with genetics. My problem was few people talk about the socio-economic impacts on capabilities, and the fact that counteracting programs can theoretically stop the death spiral in those groups. However there are a lot of people who can't get over "not like me" and think the whole thing is a waste because it takes away from "hard working young men".
- jcampbell1 13y ago
  "intelligence is genetic" and "intelligence is heritable" are completely different statements. The notion that IQ is fixed and encoded in genes is nonsense. What is true is that for a given environment, the variation in observed IQ is strongly explained by genetics. It is possible, and likely true, that lower intelligence among minorities is caused by the environment, but that the variation among those in this environment is explained by genetics. The fact that intelligence is heritable says nothing about social-economic policy for changing the environment. It is as absurd as saying that because "height is genetic" there is no reason to worry about malnutrition.

JackFr 13y ago

I'm not sure if you are misreading the article or disagreeing with it, but in either case you're wrong. The fact that a 'wrongness gene' hasn't been, and may not ever be, identified does not undermine my assessment, but rather indicates current models of the interaction of genes and wrongness might be naive, and the interactions are probably deeper and more complex.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
Please tell me one "practical purpose" were "Intelligence is largely genetic" as a use...
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  Off the top of my head: eugenics, diverting the smarter parts of population to science and leadership roles. Not saying it's moral, but definitely and obviously practical.
  - bayesianhorse 13y ago
    This might be practical, but it does not make for a proven profitable use of the "fact". Currently it is way easier to test children/students/workers for intelligence or academic achievement rather than subject them to a genetic test or pedigree inspection. Pedigrees and genetic testing in animal breeding are way more useful. But there you have completely different structures and goals. And some of them, particularly diseases with high heritability like canine hip displasia, can't be solved by current genetics yet.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  If we know intelligence is largely genetic and differs across genetic phenotypes, it would tell us that public policies designed to alter group outcomes by altering the environment might be counterproductive. To take an extreme example where genetics is the clear cause, cats are underrepresented in college. Because we know that cats are genetically less intelligent than humans, we can conclude that affirmative action/college for cats education programs/etc are a waste of money. Another use would be knowing that if only 50% of the population has the intrinsic intelligence for college, college prep programs should not serve more than 50% of the population (modulo technical details).