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

31–40 of 40 posts

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

#31

Post by AlexCoventry »

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.

> It's a very fundamental human (nay, multi-celled organism) instinct to try to pass on our strongest genes.

There's nothing fundamental about it, it's just what we (and our instincts) are implicitly optimized for. I very much doubt that there's a biological basis for the drive to have kids. That involves some quite elaborate concepts which would be difficult to encode in the molecular machinery produced by DNA. A biological basis to seek pleasure, and to find pleasure in sex, though, sure.

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

#32

Post by bobcostas55 »

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…

>highly non-linear

There's no evidence for that, all the evidence so far points to linear additive models being sufficient to model the link between genes and intelligence. Here's one good overview: _Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings_ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

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

#33

Post by bobcostas55 »

ujal wrote: post #24

"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 pattern…

>Can anyone here tell me the canonical way of excluding environmental factors in intelligence research?

By looking at the correlation of traits between monozygotic and dyzygotic (identical and fraternal) twins, you can tease apart the effects of genes, shared environment, and non-shared environment. The wikipedia page on twin studies is pretty good.

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

#34

Post by jokoon »

I don't know if intelligence can really be defined, scientifically, objectively or otherwise.

Intelligence is a part of evolution, so it is really hard to describe it. There are many behaviors which are deterministic, automatic because they are described by genes. I tend to think that brains are not really smart, but we just want to give value to what makes us better, so we call it intelligence.

Intelligence doesn't really exist, there is just transmission of knowledge.

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

#35

Post by laurex »

I recently listened to a Sam Harris podcast about gene splicing, in which he wondered whether the technology would become divisive because 'if you could raise your child's intelligence, you would, at any cost,' (totally paraphrasing). I found this interesting since what I've found is that "intelligence" is not universally valued at all, at least in the US. As a kid, I was part of a research study on high IQ children development, and over time I've seen from my fellow study participants that IQ alone didn't predict success particularly well in the realms of what most people value, i.e. relationships, material success, power, or fame. IQ is correlated with mental health issues as well. I'm not saying intelligence is bad, it's obviously valuable, but in certain communities (ahem) there seems to be a blind spot around the relative importance of intelligence in relation to other factors of being human, particularly social components.

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

#36

Post by danharaj »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #32
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…

>highly non-linear There's no evidence for that, all the evidence so far points to linear additive models being sufficient to model the link between genes and intelligence. Here's one good overview: _Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings_ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

Society is the non linear structure. I'm talking about policy here.

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

#37

Post by Danihan »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #31
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.

> It's a very fundamental human (nay, multi-celled organism) instinct to try to pass on our strongest genes. There's nothing fundamental about it, it's just what we (and our instincts) are implicitly optimized for. I very much doubt that there's a biological basis for the drive to have kids. That involves some quite elaborate concepts which would be difficult to encode in the molecular machinery produced by DNA. A bi…

>I very much doubt that there's a biological basis for the drive to have kids

Hahaha, ok.

You've never seen a woman smell a newborn.

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

#38

Post by jmcqk6 »

laurex wrote: post #35

I recently listened to a Sam Harris podcast about gene splicing, in which he wondered whether the technology would become divisive because 'if you could raise your child's intelligence, you would, at any cost,' (totally paraphrasing). I found this interesting since what I've found is that "intelligence" is not universally valued at all, at least in the US. As a kid, I was part of a research study on high IQ children…

>I'm not saying intelligence is bad, it's obviously valuable, but in certain communities (ahem) there seems to be a blind spot around the relative importance of intelligence in relation to other factors of being human, particularly social components.

Thank you so much for pointing this out. Intelligence is valuable, but that doesn't mean it should be valued above all else.

There is an important differentiation between this and dis-valuing intelligence as well (e.g. anti-intellectualism).

There are a lot of highly intelligent people that never do much of anything with their life. There are people who are not highly intelligent but do great things. That doesn't even start to mention how complicated it is to talk about degrees of intelligence. IQ is one aspect, but there are many others. It's very difficult to even talk about what is meant by High Intelligence generally speaking.

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

#39

Post by AlexCoventry »

Danihan wrote: post #37
AlexCoventry wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a very fundamental human (nay, multi-celled organism) instinct to try to pass on our strongest genes. There's nothing fundamental about it, it's just what we (and our instincts) are implicitly optimized for. I very much doubt that there's a biological basis for the drive to have kids. That involves some quite elaborate concepts which would be difficult to encode in the molecular machinery produced by DNA. A bi…

>I very much doubt that there's a biological basis for the drive to have kids Hahaha, ok. You've never seen a woman smell a newborn.

> The researchers aren’t sure if new moms undergo a hormonal change that leads to this surge of dopamine or if their reaction is influenced by the experience of smelling their own baby, the researchers say.

> “It is possible that childbirth causes hormonal changes that alter the reward circuit in the caudate nucleus, but it is also possible that experience plays a role,” Frasnelli said in a statement.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-smell-of-newbo...

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

#40

Post by ujal »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #33
ujal wrote: post #24

"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 pattern…

>Can anyone here tell me the canonical way of excluding environmental factors in intelligence research? By looking at the correlation of traits between monozygotic and dyzygotic (identical and fraternal) twins, you can tease apart the effects of genes, shared environment, and non-shared environment. The wikipedia page on twin studies is pretty good.

Twin studies lets you fix the genetics factor, but unless you monitor the twins 24/7 or control their environment it is nearly impossible to tell if it influences your intelligence directly or through behavioural patterns.

I am sure that if you train specifically for the g-factor test you would score much higher on it. And if that is the case it is your environment influencing your intelligence.

Post reply on HN