3 ms·

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 t

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.
        JesperRavn 11y ago
        In place of the promised evidence, you've just provided an argument that makes zero sense. Your argument amounts to proving that average people are above average.
        11y ago

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.
      - JesperRavn 11y ago
        In place of the promised evidence, you've just provided an argument that makes zero sense. Your argument amounts to proving that average people are above average.
        11y ago