Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#11

Post by danharaj »

evilturnip wrote: post #7

Can't we agree that there are people on extreme ends of the mental capabilities spectrum? That is, people who are mentally challenged couldn't reasonably hold down a programming job, and people who are geniuses discover new theorems. We know that a whole host of mental handicaps are likely genetic (they show up very early in development). If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a wh…

> If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that result in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different people?

What is the consequence of assuming it? If you don't know how genes affect intelligence you don't actually have any useful theory to go by. You also don't know how to judge the effect size of genetics against other causes. These are highly non-linear, complex systems we're talking about: brains and their societies. It's far easier to use such an assumption as cover for garbage science used to oppress people who are already vulnerable than it is to turn it into a good social policy.

In short, you gain no deductive power about the world with such an assumption, just a lot of excuses for the powerful to be vicious.

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#12

Post by chesimov »

evilturnip wrote: post #7

Can't we agree that there are people on extreme ends of the mental capabilities spectrum? That is, people who are mentally challenged couldn't reasonably hold down a programming job, and people who are geniuses discover new theorems. We know that a whole host of mental handicaps are likely genetic (they show up very early in development). If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a wh…

Such a line of thinking is at odds with the ideologies of our time. If it were true, it would diminish the potency of many concepts like inherited privilege. Imagine if people were privileged in their intelligence in large part due to their genetics, and not only because of societal considerations? I don't think this would be welcomed in the current zeigeist.

Edit: I agree with danharaj's sentiment. The potential for abuse of power is increased by such lines of reasoning.

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#13

Post by Danihan »

QAPereo wrote: post #10
Danihan wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since I saw Gattaca, I knew it was exactly where society would be heading. Minus all the fear-mongering and scary music. It's a very fundamental human (nay, multi-celled organism) instinct to try to pass on our strongest genes. If there was anything I could do to ensure my kids had 150 or 160 IQs (without any obvious downsides) I would do it in a heartbeat. And so would everyone else I know, if they're honest.

Everyone would... who could afford to. Now ask yourself what the majority who couldn’t afford it would do to protect and advantage their offspring. Gattaca is probably a fairly tale, and a nuclear wasteland the reality.

It's sadly ironic to me that a YCombinator commentator manages to be even more hyperbolic over gene therapy fear-mongering than an already very exaggerated message film.

Disparities in IQ between people and groups are already massive and it's not causing nuclear war. Disparities over how much time and effort are put into raising offspring between classes are already massive. Again, we're still not going to war over it. How would you even envision a nuclear war like that taking place, when the highest IQ people are spread among many nation states and demographics?

You should really try to tone back the over-the-top exterminist rhetoric and thinking, if only for your own well-being.

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#14

Post by evilturnip »

danharaj wrote: post #11
evilturnip wrote: post #7

Can't we agree that there are people on extreme ends of the mental capabilities spectrum? That is, people who are mentally challenged couldn't reasonably hold down a programming job, and people who are geniuses discover new theorems. We know that a whole host of mental handicaps are likely genetic (they show up very early in development). If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a wh…

> If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that result in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different people? What is the consequence of assuming it? If you don't know how genes affect intelligence you don't actually have any useful theory to go by. You also don't know how to judge the effect siz…

What is the consequence of assuming the opposite?

E.g. IQ has very little effect. You can use that assumption as cover for garbage social policy that doesn't recognize individual differences in intelligence and attempts to equalize outcomes when the distribution in ability is inherently unequal and leaves everyone less happy.

What I believe is that the interplay MAY be complex, but your argument that an unqualified assumption leads to bad outcomes works both ways.

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#15

Post by Danihan »

chesimov wrote: post #12
evilturnip wrote: post #7

Can't we agree that there are people on extreme ends of the mental capabilities spectrum? That is, people who are mentally challenged couldn't reasonably hold down a programming job, and people who are geniuses discover new theorems. We know that a whole host of mental handicaps are likely genetic (they show up very early in development). If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a wh…

Such a line of thinking is at odds with the ideologies of our time. If it were true, it would diminish the potency of many concepts like inherited privilege. Imagine if people were privileged in their intelligence in large part due to their genetics, and not only because of societal considerations? I don't think this would be welcomed in the current zeigeist. Edit: I agree with danharaj's sentiment. The potential for…

High IQ is the inherited privilege.

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#16

Post by Chathamization »

Danihan wrote: post #4
QAPereo wrote: post #3

Lower intelligence is a limiting factor when it comes to education, employment, and economic success but IQ has nothing to do with dignity, friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human attributes. Access to all the opportunities imaginable will not be effectively used by individuals with low IQ through no fault of their own. There is no rational reason to stigmatize people and every reason to…

Ever since I saw Gattaca, I knew it was exactly where society would be heading. Minus all the fear-mongering and scary music. It's a very fundamental human (nay, multi-celled organism) instinct to try to pass on our strongest genes. If there was anything I could do to ensure my kids had 150 or 160 IQs (without any obvious downsides) I would do it in a heartbeat. And so would everyone else I know, if they're honest.

If you only care about the raw IQ score, then time will eventually take care of this. IQ points have risen by about 3 points per decade[1], but the scores keep being readjusted downward so what used to be a high score is now a medium score.

[1] http://theweek.com/articles/481988/are-americans-smarter-tha...

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#17

Post by QAPereo »

Danihan wrote: post #13
QAPereo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone would... who could afford to. Now ask yourself what the majority who couldn’t afford it would do to protect and advantage their offspring. Gattaca is probably a fairly tale, and a nuclear wasteland the reality.

It's sadly ironic to me that a YCombinator commentator manages to be even more hyperbolic over gene therapy fear-mongering than an already very exaggerated message film. Disparities in IQ between people and groups are already massive and it's not causing nuclear war. Disparities over how much time and effort are put into raising offspring between classes are already massive. Again, we're still not going to war over i…

That’s a lot of ad hominem noise to seemingly no signal all. Why?

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#18

Post by danharaj »

evilturnip wrote: post #14
danharaj wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that result in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different people? What is the consequence of assuming it? If you don't know how genes affect intelligence you don't actually have any useful theory to go by. You also don't know how to judge the effect siz…

What is the consequence of assuming the opposite? E.g. IQ has very little effect. You can use that assumption as cover for garbage social policy that doesn't recognize individual differences in intelligence and attempts to equalize outcomes when the distribution in ability is inherently unequal and leaves everyone less happy. What I believe is that the interplay MAY be complex, but your argument that an unqualified a…

Fortunately I don't have to assume either.

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#19

Post by [deleted] »

evilturnip wrote: post #7

Can't we agree that there are people on extreme ends of the mental capabilities spectrum? That is, people who are mentally challenged couldn't reasonably hold down a programming job, and people who are geniuses discover new theorems. We know that a whole host of mental handicaps are likely genetic (they show up very early in development). If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a wh…

[deleted]

Re: The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier

#20

Post by IncRnd »

QAPereo wrote: post #10
Danihan wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since I saw Gattaca, I knew it was exactly where society would be heading. Minus all the fear-mongering and scary music. It's a very fundamental human (nay, multi-celled organism) instinct to try to pass on our strongest genes. If there was anything I could do to ensure my kids had 150 or 160 IQs (without any obvious downsides) I would do it in a heartbeat. And so would everyone else I know, if they're honest.

Everyone would... who could afford to. Now ask yourself what the majority who couldn’t afford it would do to protect and advantage their offspring. Gattaca is probably a fairly tale, and a nuclear wasteland the reality.

Your comment seems intended to imply that parents of poor people will engage in nuclear war when rich parents engineer their children to have higher IQ scores. I doubt that scenario will come to pass.
Post reply on HN