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

You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

cookingonabootstrap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 344 posts

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#251

Post by fngjdflmdflg »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #233
fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are almost sure that genetics (and perhaps nutrition) are the main determinants of IQ. We won't have a complete answer until most of the genes that affect intelligence are found. With regard to your specific question of if educational attainment is the main factor in causing IQ to increase, that would mean that everyone at high-school would have the same IQ because they all have the same educational attainment (in…

Even if genetics is the "main determinant" what does that mean? Is it the the plurality of determinants? 51% correlation? 99%? Depending on the number, there's lots of room there for other factors. I think you're oversimplifying with your example regarding educational attainment. The results say it's not a 1:1, so not all high school students would be marked the same, but it would mean that if you finished your post…

I think you missed my point re. educational attainment. My point is that if education attainment only exists as a difference after high-school (for the most part). Therefore if "IQ follows educational attainment" IQ would be the same until after high-school. I do think wealth, nutrition and education have some effect on IQ. I do not know to what extent. You had asked if we are sure that IQ follows those other factors. To answer completely, IQ follows genetics as well as other factors, mainly genetics. I truly believe that this is a scientific question that can be answered with observation. I think in twenty years or less we will have cataloged most of the genes that affect intelligence and the nature vs. nurture argument will have a direct answer. (or, at least, the nature side of the equation will be mostly solved.) Currently the hardware to collect this data is expensive (Illumina machines are $1M last I checked) and the methods of analyzing the data are somewhat crude (eg. GWAS). As these two fronts advance more and more genes will be found until most of it is known.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#252

Post by shkkmo »

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #242
shkkmo wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genetics account for roughly half of the variation of intelligence between individuals. That leaves a ton of room for other factors, such as nutrition, health, and education, to create significant disparities.

Do you have a source for that claim? Might you be misquoting a different popular statistic that g accounts for roughly have of intelligence between individuals? Or perhaps the figure that intelligence is about 50% heritable?[0] It is important to note that heritability of a trait and the extent to which a trait is genetically caused are not the same. It is possible for a trait to be eg. 80% caused by genetics and onl…

I pulled that number from this article and I am pretty sure I paraphrased it correctly: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-h...

The article may be conflating genetics with other types of biological hereditability, (such as epigenetics?) however I think that is generally pretty common and fine in every lay conversations.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#253

Post by [deleted] »

thiago_fm wrote: post #70

That's one big paradox. Coming from poverty, I work with plenty of talented people, but nowhere as talented as the people I've studied in shitty schools. Now most of those people from my poverty times continue to be poor, because of many problems poverty brought to them. I can clearly see that, and that I was the lucky one to find a way up many times. Yet, my new social circle believe that I'm talented because of my…

[deleted]

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#254

Post by WendyTheWillow »

thiago_fm wrote: post #249
WendyTheWillow wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to need to do a lot of work to demonstrate that wealth is zero-sum, as it doesn't comport with any well-respected economic model I'm aware of. But even granting that, a government that creates a "survival floor" would protect against wealth-seeking in a world where it was zero-sum. The floor only needs to be high enough to allow people not to be held to the floor should they desire to participate in the…

If the people who ran that study were really as smart as they pretend to be, as they are from Harvard, they would understand how even their own thoughts, the language they speak and so on, all happened because they were lucky. Let me repeat to you, as you seem unable to read and comprehend what I have previously written, it can be reading comprehension issue, so I won't judge you negatively like Harvard, an elitist s…

I grant you all of this (for argument's sake). However, none of it actually addresses the merits of the "zero-sum" claim about capitalism or the claim that economic disparity will in the future be regarded in the same way as racism.

Also maybe I'm blind, but I don't think we've interacted before.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#255

Post by mftrhu »

andrewflnr wrote: post #235
mftrhu wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people point out that one's counter-argument, by virtue of ignoring the context the original argument is steeped in, is not actually countering any argument, they aren't saying that the counter-argument is "cheating" - they are adding context .

You can call it "adding context" if you concede that said context implies the original argument was badly phrased, in that the most direct reading is not what the writer really meant.

Or I could just call it "adding context". I could also expect readers to not have to be spoon-fed, and to avoid launching themselves into "counter-arguments" before they have understood what they are arguing against.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#256

Post by thiago_fm »

lwhi wrote: post #237
WendyTheWillow wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to need to do a lot of work to demonstrate that wealth is zero-sum, as it doesn't comport with any well-respected economic model I'm aware of. But even granting that, a government that creates a "survival floor" would protect against wealth-seeking in a world where it was zero-sum. The floor only needs to be high enough to allow people not to be held to the floor should they desire to participate in the…

I'm sorry. I consider you either very sheltered from poverty, delusional or both.

I just gave you a long answer, now you have no excuse to complain, but I agree with lwhi. You can only be either of those, or both.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#257

Post by thiago_fm »

AlexandrB wrote: post #216
thiago_fm wrote: post #70

That's one big paradox. Coming from poverty, I work with plenty of talented people, but nowhere as talented as the people I've studied in shitty schools. Now most of those people from my poverty times continue to be poor, because of many problems poverty brought to them. I can clearly see that, and that I was the lucky one to find a way up many times. Yet, my new social circle believe that I'm talented because of my…

Stephen Jay Gould said it best: > I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.

That is it. Just imagine. We would already have found all rules that govern our universe.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#259

Post by zozbot234 »

thiago_fm wrote: post #249
WendyTheWillow wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to need to do a lot of work to demonstrate that wealth is zero-sum, as it doesn't comport with any well-respected economic model I'm aware of. But even granting that, a government that creates a "survival floor" would protect against wealth-seeking in a world where it was zero-sum. The floor only needs to be high enough to allow people not to be held to the floor should they desire to participate in the…

If the people who ran that study were really as smart as they pretend to be, as they are from Harvard, they would understand how even their own thoughts, the language they speak and so on, all happened because they were lucky. Let me repeat to you, as you seem unable to read and comprehend what I have previously written, it can be reading comprehension issue, so I won't judge you negatively like Harvard, an elitist s…

> They still wake up every day early, work much harder than you ever will in your life, but are still in a shithole

A sad fact about the world is that one can work hard and end up accomplishing very little for their effort. "Working hard" may be a necessary condition for pulling oneself out of poverty (or very near to one, at any rate), but it's not even close to being sufficient.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#260

Post by WendyTheWillow »

zozbot234 wrote: post #259
thiago_fm wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the people who ran that study were really as smart as they pretend to be, as they are from Harvard, they would understand how even their own thoughts, the language they speak and so on, all happened because they were lucky. Let me repeat to you, as you seem unable to read and comprehend what I have previously written, it can be reading comprehension issue, so I won't judge you negatively like Harvard, an elitist s…

> They still wake up every day early, work much harder than you ever will in your life, but are still in a shithole A sad fact about the world is that one can work hard and end up accomplishing very little for their effort. "Working hard" may be a necessary condition for pulling oneself out of poverty (or very near to one, at any rate), but it's not even close to being sufficient.

I would even argue that "working hard" is dying, if not already dead, as a means of escaping poverty in developed nations.

What matters substantially more is working "intelligently," which is even harder for those in poverty, given their lack of education.

Post reply on HN