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

21–30 of 40 posts

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

#21

Post by AlexCoventry »

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…

That's fine as far as it goes, but it's a bit of a straw man. Sure, you can't teach a horse calculus, but I'm deeply skeptical of the implicit assumption in this interview that contemporary psychology has sufficiently precise tools to even measure intelligence effectively, let alone query its genetic foundations.

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

#22

Post by alexmlamb2 »

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…

"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. "

What about twin studies?

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

#23

Post by tziki »

Chathamization wrote: post #16
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.

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...

The Flynn effect (the rise in IQ scores) has mostly stopped in western countries, and even reversed in some.

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

#24

Post by ujal »

"Based on decades of compelling data (including the latest DNA analyses), many researchers, myself included, think that the g-factor is influenced mostly by genetics." --

Can anyone here tell me the canonical way of excluding environmental factors in intelligence research? How can a neural network learn its weights without proper data? What I can imagine though is genetics heavily influencing your behavioural patterns creating an environment that in turn impacts your g-factor.

"Since the first neuroimaging studies of intelligence, researchers have been trying to predict intelligence test scores from images. […] It was based on a mathematical way to assess how brain areas were connected to each other using MRI scans. Apparently, such connection patterns are stable and unique to individuals like fingerprints; and these patterns predict intelligence test scores." --

Is he talking about white matter? Doesn't it increase in volume long into adolescence?

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

#25

Post by dang »

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…

Please don't get involved in ideological flamewars here. This is an ideological flamewar topic because the high ideological bit determines nearly everyone's position about it.

That means the more people get into it, the more it turns into the same ideological flamewar that every other such topic leads to, and that's what we're most trying to avoid here. One can see this, for example, in how your comment begins to slide into personal disrespect and name-calling.

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

#26

Post by danharaj »

alexmlamb2 wrote: post #22
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…

"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. " What about twin studies?

That doesn't tell you how to judge effects in specific situations. You can infer lots about a population without being able to particularize it at the level required to implement policy. Twin studies are observational. They aren't experimental. Twin studies can never give you a model of how genetics influence intelligence, unless you want to do extremely unethical experiments on twins.

It is akin to the distinction between a non-constructive proof and a constructive proof of a mathematical property of a class of objects. The former lets you work under the assumption that that property holds, but if you want to work algorithmically you need a constructive, computable proof.

Likewise, statistical inference can give you interesting signals to pursue, but it doesn't give you the models required to understand how those signals come about or how to influence them. The idea that they do is at best folly and at worst malice.

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

#28

Post by rweba »

I have thought about these questions for a long time.

The issue is precisely what Haier brings up : "IQ has nothing to do with dignity, friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human attributes."

The problem is that as a society we don't believe this, we believe that having high IQ makes someone more morally worthy of consideration than someone with low IQ. There is a reason people it's considered OK to insult "stupid" people.

People will boast about overcoming poverty and becoming very successful, but how many people will brag that they succeed despite having a low IQ?

A below average IQ is seen as shameful, a sign of moral inferiority, something that can should not be acknowledged or admitted. The assumption is that all the "good" people who need to be listened to and followed are ones with high IQs and those with low IQs should at best be ignored and at worst be pitied and shunned.

If the technology to enhance IQ does become available, ideally it should be like compulsory public education now: Something that is made freely available to all citizens at birth. This would address a lot of the concerns that research into the genetic basis of intelligence will only be used to justify the existing social order, particularly if high continues to be seen as signifying moral worthiness.

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

#29

Post by QAPereo »

IncRnd wrote: post #20
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.

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.

Not quite, it was more along the lines of another order of magnitude increase in inequality, which would be amplified with each passing generation. Not something you could hope to rise out of either, you’d be 100% born into it. Now, you might argue that birth already largely determine fate, but you’re talking about issues most of the world considers to be “luck”. A few billion people who can at least dream of a better life for their kids, won’t have that dream.

I can’t imagine a more potent straw for the camel’s back, than rich people being able to engineer their children for health, strength, intelligence while everyone else is still beholden to chance. You’re talking about turning an underclass made from circumstances, into a permanent underclass that will be essentially inescapable and mount with each generation.

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

#30

Post by [deleted] »

danharaj wrote: post #26
alexmlamb2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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. " What about twin studies?

That doesn't tell you how to judge effects in specific situations. You can infer lots about a population without being able to particularize it at the level required to implement policy. Twin studies are observational. They aren't experimental. Twin studies can never give you a model of how genetics influence intelligence, unless you want to do extremely unethical experiments on twins. It is akin to the distinction b…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN