4 ms·

Well, I'll respond, but you've gone orthogonal from my question - I'm not talking about tests. I'm talking about the notion that every person is born with appr

Well, I'll respond, but you've gone orthogonal from my question - I'm not talking about tests. I'm talking about the notion that every person is born with approximately equal intelligence potential. That being said... It may be something "extremely important" but there's no way to have a discussion about every individual in the world. So unfortunately, I'm going to have to dismiss this as impossible and useless to the discussion. Sorry. I've spent quite a lot of time recently chasing down papers about these huge social components to tests, and the impression I have at the moment (although I'm not done by a long shot) is that scientific surveys of this using data and rigorous analysis techniques show that what people consider test bias is actually at best bias outside the test, and most of the time, it's just shooting the messenger because the message is unpalatable. Many papers that claim to demonstrate that tests are biased nearly always concentrate on various interpretations of test wording but don't use any sort of empiricism to draw their conclusions. But again, that's all orthogonal to my question.

Retric 11y ago
The point is you can have a subset of people in a population with a specific genetic defect that limit intelligence. However, as long as the rates of people with said defects are similar the existence of such outliers has no relative impact on two populations. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  Let me be clear, I'm not talking about people with obvious genetic defects. I think you feel like I'm trying to make a political point here, because you keep trying to chip away at edges my question doesn't actually have. At least I'll achieve some clarity about what I'm asking this way.
  - Retric 11y ago
    I get that. But, current evidence suggests that the 'baseline' normal human IQ without genetic defects would be test at near genius levels in ideal environment. There seem to be a lot of genetic factors for intelligence but there almost exclusively negative and spread fairly evenly across populations. It's often said that 50% of the veracity in IQ is inherited, but a lot of non-genetic factors like prenatal nutrition are inherited or defects that are spread fairly evenly thought humanity. PS: Another factor shows up if your just looking at the top end. Where things increase variability without increasing the average.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      Hey! Where's the evidence? That's what I want to read!
      - Retric 11y ago
        Well as I said the Flynn effect, but also where it's slowing down. (Lots of research.) 'Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives.' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23012269 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23012269 Which is more negative evidence than positive. But when you exclude clear defects we really have found few links between DNA and IQ. It's a really complex topic, but here is an intresting take on the subject: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/01/where-are-my-smart-genes-searching-for-intelligence-in-our-dna/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/01/where-are-my-sm...
        oldmanjay 11y ago
        Thanks! I'll take some time to read through this material later. I've had a lot of interest in this topic recently, because it's an very tumultuous intersection of politics and science.
        JesperRavn 11y ago
        I don't see how any of that supports your claim that "current evidence suggests that the 'baseline' normal human IQ without genetic defects would be test at near genius levels in ideal environment."
        Retric 11y ago
        A while ago people tried to find what the ‘average’ criminal looked like, and by averaging a lot of faces they came up with an above average attractiveness composite. The idea was if you took a normal bland face and randomly changed something you would on average get a worse outcome, and occasionally gets significantly above average effects.(Most people: more negative traits than positive)<(average model: few negative or positive traits aka forgettable) < (super model: few negative traits and enough difference to be memorable) A similar idea seems to fit intelligence, where the most common traits in a population are beneficial and most mutations are generally negative. So, take the just the 'most common’ traits and add in poor nutrient absorption in the gut and you get lower IQ even if the connection is fairly indirect. The question then becomes what happens if you just take the most common traits for everything? Statistically, you would expect an above average as most people have far more negative than positive mutations, but not an outstanding result. Now combine an above average baseline (50% of variability) with an ideal environment (50% of variability) and bam really high test scores.
pekk 11y ago
If you aren't talking about tests, then what are you talking about? What does "intelligence potential" mean? The IQ test is at least a specific operationalization of intelligence. If all you have to say is that you're not talking about the IQ test, then it isn't clear you're talking about anything scientifically valid whatsoever.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  I'm talking about the sentence I specifically quoted in my OP, which states that all individuals are born with approximately equal potential for intelligence. I don't believe that to be the case. I believe genetics provide varying levels of potential across the human population. Admittedly, this is based largely on my experience as a highly intelligent individual from a family that displays far above average intelligence in general, which is why I am seeking out science that speaks to this. I don't like relying on my own anecdotes. My reading from links gathered in this conversation seems to back my intuitive position thus far, but I'm always willing to re-examine my ideas based on evidence, so if you have something to throw at me, please do!

Retric 11y ago

The point is you can have a subset of people in a population with a specific genetic defect that limit intelligence. However, as long as the rates of people with said defects are similar the existence of such outliers has no relative impact on two populations. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

oldmanjay 11y ago
Let me be clear, I'm not talking about people with obvious genetic defects. I think you feel like I'm trying to make a political point here, because you keep trying to chip away at edges my question doesn't actually have. At least I'll achieve some clarity about what I'm asking this way.
- Retric 11y ago
  I get that. But, current evidence suggests that the 'baseline' normal human IQ without genetic defects would be test at near genius levels in ideal environment. There seem to be a lot of genetic factors for intelligence but there almost exclusively negative and spread fairly evenly across populations. It's often said that 50% of the veracity in IQ is inherited, but a lot of non-genetic factors like prenatal nutrition are inherited or defects that are spread fairly evenly thought humanity. PS: Another factor shows up if your just looking at the top end. Where things increase variability without increasing the average.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    Hey! Where's the evidence? That's what I want to read!
    - Retric 11y ago
      Well as I said the Flynn effect, but also where it's slowing down. (Lots of research.) 'Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives.' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23012269 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23012269 Which is more negative evidence than positive. But when you exclude clear defects we really have found few links between DNA and IQ. It's a really complex topic, but here is an intresting take on the subject: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/01/where-are-my-smart-genes-searching-for-intelligence-in-our-dna/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/01/where-are-my-sm...
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
        Thanks! I'll take some time to read through this material later. I've had a lot of interest in this topic recently, because it's an very tumultuous intersection of politics and science.
      - JesperRavn 11y ago
        I don't see how any of that supports your claim that "current evidence suggests that the 'baseline' normal human IQ without genetic defects would be test at near genius levels in ideal environment."
        Retric 11y ago
        A while ago people tried to find what the ‘average’ criminal looked like, and by averaging a lot of faces they came up with an above average attractiveness composite. The idea was if you took a normal bland face and randomly changed something you would on average get a worse outcome, and occasionally gets significantly above average effects.(Most people: more negative traits than positive)<(average model: few negative or positive traits aka forgettable) < (super model: few negative traits and enough difference to be memorable) A similar idea seems to fit intelligence, where the most common traits in a population are beneficial and most mutations are generally negative. So, take the just the 'most common’ traits and add in poor nutrient absorption in the gut and you get lower IQ even if the connection is fairly indirect. The question then becomes what happens if you just take the most common traits for everything? Statistically, you would expect an above average as most people have far more negative than positive mutations, but not an outstanding result. Now combine an above average baseline (50% of variability) with an ideal environment (50% of variability) and bam really high test scores.

pekk 11y ago

If you aren't talking about tests, then what are you talking about? What does "intelligence potential" mean? The IQ test is at least a specific operationalization of intelligence. If all you have to say is that you're not talking about the IQ test, then it isn't clear you're talking about anything scientifically valid whatsoever.

oldmanjay 11y ago
I'm talking about the sentence I specifically quoted in my OP, which states that all individuals are born with approximately equal potential for intelligence. I don't believe that to be the case. I believe genetics provide varying levels of potential across the human population. Admittedly, this is based largely on my experience as a highly intelligent individual from a family that displays far above average intelligence in general, which is why I am seeking out science that speaks to this. I don't like relying on my own anecdotes. My reading from links gathered in this conversation seems to back my intuitive position thus far, but I'm always willing to re-examine my ideas based on evidence, so if you have something to throw at me, please do!