Intelligence is Genetic

[maskedmelon]

Researchers have begun the work of identifying genetic contributors to intelligence. China has made some prominent steps into this field of research and elsewhere researchers have apparently (according to this article) linked over 500 genes to intelligence. So far those genes only account for about 10% of variation in mental acuity, but with previous and current twin studies suggesting genetics account for more than half of variation, there are sure to be more contributing genes and interplay uncovered in the near future. How do you feel about stupidity being certifiable? Please share your thoughts bElow.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...t-to-take-one/

tldr: idiocy is genetic privilege.

[loramin]

Didn't read the article, but ...

1) "intelligence" as a thing does not exist. There are something like 6-10 different types of intelligence (different researchers disagree) and they many don't even correlate with each other. In other words, if you're "math smart" it does not necessarily mean you are "language smart" or "musically smart", so there is no (plain and simple) "smart".

2) Almost everything about humans is a combination of genetics and environment (nature and nurture), so even if there was a "general intelligence" it wouldn't be true to say "Intelligence is genetic". All you can say is "Each particular type of intelligence has both genetic and environmental components, and we now know that at least 10% of whatever type of intelligence they were studying is genetic"

[katrik]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Didn't read the article, but ...

1) "intelligence" as a thing does not exist. There are something like 6-10 different types of intelligence (different researchers disagree) and they many don't even correlate with each other. In other words, if you're "math smart" it does not necessarily mean you are "language smart" or "musically smart", so there is no (plain and simple) "smart".

2) Almost everything about humans is a combination of genetics and environment (nature and nurture), so even if there was a "general intelligence" it wouldn't be true to say "Intelligence is genetic". All you can say is "Each particular type of intelligence has both genetic and environmental components, and we now know that at least 10% of whatever type of intelligence they were studying is genetic"

This. Both scientists and psychologists acknowledge that intelligence is a theory, and they have virtually no good way to test it (or if it exists). IQ tests have no scientific backing.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Didn't read the article, but ...

1) "intelligence" as a thing does not exist. There are something like 6-10 different types of intelligence (different researchers disagree) and they many don't even correlate with each other. In other words, if you're "math smart" it does not necessarily mean you are "language smart" or "musically smart", so there is no (plain and simple) "smart".

Why didn't you just write that you have no idea what g is? You are free to disagree with the source(s) of g and shill whatever ideological delusions you liek in support of your position, but arguing that g doesn't exist is simply retarded. Your position is at odds with language, statistics and decades of psychometrics.

2) Almost everything about humans is a combination of genetics and environment (nature and nurture), so even if there was a "general intelligence" it wouldn't be true to say "Intelligence is genetic". All you can say is "Each particular type of intelligence has both genetic and environmental components, and we now know that at least 10% of whatever type of intelligence they were studying is genetic"

Absolutely agree with the initial premise of your first sentence, but everything thereafter is entirely wrong. I didn't say that intelligence was exclusively genetic, nor does the article make that claim. Not even the well established and uncontroversial understanding of the nature of g imply any such thing. Feel free to waylay the phantoms though.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I didn't say that intelligence was exclusively genetic, nor does the article make that claim. Not even the well established and uncontroversial understanding of the nature of g imply any such thing. Feel free to waylay the phantoms though.

The title of your post was literally "Intelligence is Genetic", but sure I'm "waylaying phantoms" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In other news, I miss the other melon; bring him back.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The title of your post was literally "Intelligence is Genetic", but sure I'm "waylaying phantoms" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I agree with you on both of these points.

In other news, I miss the other melon; bring him back.

I'm still here. I just learned from previous Loramin interactions that my behavior was emboldening and neither change nor progress were forthcoming, so I adopted a new approach (^.~)v not gonna let loramin get away with bullying anymore.

[Baler]

Weren't IQ tests deemed racist? (this is a joke)

edit: mental acuity isn't the same as what the average person thinks of as 'intelligent'. it's part of the puzzle for sure though.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Weren't IQ tests deemed racist?

edit: mental acuity isn't the same as what the average person thinks of an intelligent.

Yes. Historically not just intelligence tests, but in fact any form of test (including stuff like the SATs) have been shown to be biased in favor of people who are more similar to the test's creator(s).

This is a simplistic example, but say you're a white professor from Harvard writing a test: you might think nothing of adding a question involving yachts. But if you're a student from a disadvantaged background you might have a harder time answering that question than the white kid from the nice part of town who goes yahting with his family.

There are also more directly racist tests, like the literacy tests applied to keep Southern blacks from voting. Such tests weren't inherently racist (they were just reading tests), but the racist part was that the white voters didn't have to take them.

Then there's also the (scientifically bogus) "science" of phrenology, and I'm sure there've been other racist intelligence stuff beyond that.

[Baler]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is a simplistic example, but say you're a white professor from Harvard writing a test: you might think nothing of adding a question involving yachts. But if you're a student from a disadvantaged background you might have a harder time answering that question than the white kid from the nice part of town who goes yahting with his family.

sounds like it's the dummy's fault for not knowing what a yacht is.

But taking the easy way out and crying racism, unfair, privlege is faster for results than studying and absorbing information that's not about yeezys and crunk.

Originally Posted by katrik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes. A child from a lower socio-economic background will never score as high as a privileged kid with both parents in the home. So, especially in schools, IQ testing can do more harm than good.

So bad parenting is not only the cause of kids bringing guns to school but is also a factor in how smart they turn out. That's not genetics that's parenting. wtf


---
Are genetics racist due to years of slavery amongts several cultures (not just America)

Wipe it clean 2018. A fresh start will fix everything.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

sounds like it's the dummy's fault for not knowing what a yacht is.

But taking the easy way out and crying racism, unfair, privlege is faster for results than studying and absorbing information that's not about yeezys and crunk.

Well, instead of using biased groups like the socially disadvantaged vs. the rich, try different ones. If you're a Chinese (or French, or whatever) exchange student, you're going to have a harder time than an American when you take an American test right? Even if your English is perfect, there are all sorts of cultural idioms and bits of knowledge that you, as someone from a different culture, simply don't know. You're not stupid because of that, you're just from a different culture.

Now consider how practically different the life of someone growing up in Watts is vs. someone growing up in Atherton (the most expensive zip code in America). It's neither group's fault, and neither group is "better" (unless you think having more possessions makes a person better). They're just different cultures.

The problem is, due to the lack of diversity among people writing these tests, they reflect the culture of one group more than others. That's not in any way saying that the other groups sucks, or should magically know everything the other group know. It's the same as if a bunch of (English-speaking) French people gave tests here: we Americans would do worse not because we suck, but just because our culture is different from the test maker's.