The Latest On Intelligence • Hacker News Board

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#131

Post by justin_vanw » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 1:28 AM UTC

DividesByZero wrote: post #130

DividesByZero wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The squirrel example is absolutely absurd - there are clear physiological, morphological differences between human beings and squirrels that influence whether or not squirrels even have the capacity to master fire, or whatever other silly comparison you choose. Furthermore, I think you will find that environmental factors plainly influence the behavior of animal populations (squirrels, chimpanzees, birds - any kingdo…

I would also add, that the political agenda is not from those advancing the idea that environment influences human development, but from those that contend it is genetics. Consider the sorts of policies someone who wanted to maximise productivity in society would develop if it was found that genetics was a greater influencing factor - why would you support development for poor populations of people if it was found th…

"Consider the sorts of policies someone who wanted to maximise productivity in society would develop if it was found that genetics was a greater influencing factor..."

You have somehow completely missed and then parroted back my entire point. If it turns out that genetics plays a key role in intelligence, and therefore intelligence is hereditary, all sorts of nazi-like policies could be theoretically be falsely argued for using that as evidence. Seeing this obvious conclusion, some in the scientific community have become crusaders, trying to squash any debate or research into this topic, making it taboo.

Being taboo, or having very negative or even awful potential consequences doesn't make something true or untrue. The universe doesn't care that the consequences of some fact are moral or immoral.

I am not saying the truth is one way or the other. I am pointing out the willingness on the part of some scientists to refuse to allow investigation because of the potential consequences of knowledge of the truth.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#132

Post by hazov » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 1:35 AM UTC

DividesByZero wrote: post #129

justin_vanw wrote: post #69

"A great deal of time has been wasted in the effort of measuring the heritability of traits in the false expectation that somehow the genetic nature of psychological phenomena would be revealed." There is a strong cultural bias among much of the research community to go out of their way to deny any genetic factors in intelligence. Perhaps this is well intentioned, but it is absurd. I have come across very few squirre…

The squirrel example is absolutely absurd - there are clear physiological, morphological differences between human beings and squirrels that influence whether or not squirrels even have the capacity to master fire, or whatever other silly comparison you choose. Furthermore, I think you will find that environmental factors plainly influence the behavior of animal populations (squirrels, chimpanzees, birds - any kingdo…

I don't think it's absurd, I only think initially that it was wishful thinking, now I see that it was only a poor example to a good idea that he explained later.

Yes intelligence has to do with heritability, there was initially an animal with had cognition (a word I much prefer instead of intelligence) this animal actually had descendants some of which are humans, we initially inherited this intelligence from him but also from other ancestors that developed this cognition latter as well.

You provided that we do not have a physiological model for intelligence, and I believe we will not have one for some decades at least if I'm to be optimist. That's a real large problem, another one is to relate this to genetics and environmental development, these would be a hard problem as far as I was told by some friends that are biologists.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#133

Post by DividesByZero » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 1:38 AM UTC

justin_vanw wrote: post #131

DividesByZero wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also add, that the political agenda is not from those advancing the idea that environment influences human development, but from those that contend it is genetics. Consider the sorts of policies someone who wanted to maximise productivity in society would develop if it was found that genetics was a greater influencing factor - why would you support development for poor populations of people if it was found th…

"Consider the sorts of policies someone who wanted to maximise productivity in society would develop if it was found that genetics was a greater influencing factor..." You have somehow completely missed and then parroted back my entire point. If it turns out that genetics plays a key role in intelligence, and therefore intelligence is hereditary, all sorts of nazi-like policies could be theoretically be falsely argue…

Refusal to allow investigation? According to these papers, their has been very extensive investigation with a largely null conclusion. However people continue to push the idea that intelligence is genetic.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#134

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 1:38 AM UTC

vectorpush wrote: post #44

stephengillie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define "poverty"? Most impoverished Americans have TVs and microwaves.

> Most impoverished Americans have TVs and microwaves. What's your point? Ownership of an arbitrary appliance doesn't mean you're able to put food on the table or afford tuition for your children. You don't need to eat a TV every night to survive nor can you fill up your gas tank on microwaves. Besides, in the developed world, TVs and microwaves are a dime a dozen and are regularly discarded because their abundance m…

What's your point? Ownership of an arbitrary appliance doesn't mean you're able to put food on the table...

Most impoverished Americans overeat. The average poor American is borderline obese.

http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1vh5dg3r/http://ers.usda.gov/...

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#135

Post by DividesByZero » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 1:41 AM UTC

hazov wrote: post #132

DividesByZero wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The squirrel example is absolutely absurd - there are clear physiological, morphological differences between human beings and squirrels that influence whether or not squirrels even have the capacity to master fire, or whatever other silly comparison you choose. Furthermore, I think you will find that environmental factors plainly influence the behavior of animal populations (squirrels, chimpanzees, birds - any kingdo…

I don't think it's absurd, I only think initially that it was wishful thinking, now I see that it was only a poor example to a good idea that he explained later. Yes intelligence has to do with heritability, there was initially an animal with had cognition (a word I much prefer instead of intelligence) this animal actually had descendants some of which are humans, we initially inherited this intelligence from him but…

My point regarding not having a model was to bring the genetics/environment statistics onto the same footing - the black box statistical evidence does not accept that genetics is a factor in measures of intelligence, but does accept that environmental factors such as income and health are.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#136

Post by SiVal » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 1:52 AM UTC

slurgfest wrote: post #88

gwern wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with upvoting is that I have read the underlying paper, and I'm not impressed at all. This paper takes a hugely nurturist approach, and at parts verges on dishonesty. I consider myself - if not an expert, at least very well informed - on the topic of dual n-back and I was flabbergasted when I read pg11 of the PDF. There is not a single mention of the many failures to replicate, methodological critiques, or…

Labeling the paper with the epithet "hugely nurturist" tells nothing about the paper but everything about what you are doing. You are attempting the early dismissal of some viewpoint you disagree with on a more or less political grounds but this has not very much to do with science. Most cognitive tasks used inside an MRI are about as meaningless as benchmarks. It seems gratuitous to turn this into evidence of intent…

From the article: "The American Psychological Association created a panel of eminent researchers to write a summary of what was known about intelligence, which would presumably contradict many of these claims."

"...would presumably contradict" is right, of course, because the APA is one of the most political organizations in America. An article published in The American Psychologist (the APA's own journal) describes how "a past APA president urged psychologists to advocate radical leftist positions and 'explicitly blend our data and values in order to make strong arguments for the kinds of [radical] change we think is necessary.'"

The people the APA chooses as "eminent researchers" to summarize "what is known" just aren't going to include anyone who doesn't promote their political agenda, leading Willingham to the "would presumably contradict" comment. What they would "find" would be a foregone conclusion, by policy, given the nature of the APA.

A study was conducted in which a liberal, a conservative, and a centrist independently rated the political leaning of articles published by the APA in The American Psychologist. The results, published in The American Psychologist itself, found the APA's published articles to be 97% liberal vs. 3% conservative, with a 93% correlation among the different raters.

This doesn't make any particular claim about IQ right or wrong, but it does mean that you might want to take the APA's word about "what is currently known" about a politically controversial issue with a grain of salt. If other things had been found (and they have), would the APA's hand-picked "eminent scientists" be sure to tell you?

[ See a lot of Philip Tetlock's articles on the topic (use Google Scholar, I'm lazy.) Also, see this in The American Psychologist on the APA's own website: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=fulltext.journal&jco... ]

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#137

Post by hazov » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 1:53 AM UTC

justin_vanw wrote: post #131

DividesByZero wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also add, that the political agenda is not from those advancing the idea that environment influences human development, but from those that contend it is genetics. Consider the sorts of policies someone who wanted to maximise productivity in society would develop if it was found that genetics was a greater influencing factor - why would you support development for poor populations of people if it was found th…

"Consider the sorts of policies someone who wanted to maximise productivity in society would develop if it was found that genetics was a greater influencing factor..." You have somehow completely missed and then parroted back my entire point. If it turns out that genetics plays a key role in intelligence, and therefore intelligence is hereditary, all sorts of nazi-like policies could be theoretically be falsely argue…

Some? Who? I think that's an unfair accusation.

What I see sometimes in these discussions is people throwing the "hot potato" in the hands of their detractors, people that believe in the difference between groups throw the potato in the hands of the disbelievers and accuse them of being obtuse for trying not to advance an "obvious truth".

The other side just answer by accusing the others of being "racist".

The fact is the data is poor for a significant statistical analysis and for some reason this research has become heavily politicized, this in academia is a good enough reason for some people just ignore this entire field, but I never saw people trying to prevent this type of paper from being publicized or peer reviewed, last time I searched there's various being published every year.

EDIT: typos

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#138

Post by gwern » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 1:59 AM UTC

hammersend wrote: post #121

gwern wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh. And I started reading the paper with such high hopes when it came out months ago, too.. For those not familiar, realitygrill is referencing a classic Crichton quote: "Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous n…

I never knew it was the "Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" but I've been using this exact line of reasoning for many years when discussing the validity of stories read and watched in the media. Interestingly I discovered it as a kid reading a newspaper article about video games something I was very much into at the time. The were talking about the Sega Genesis and the Super Nintendo and at least half of the article's…

> I didn't know it had a fancy name though.

Well, by giving it that, I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have!

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#139

Post by ekianjo » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 2:06 AM UTC

The title is misleading. This is not about intelligence, this is about IQ, and that's hardly the same thing. IQ has never been a reliable measure for anything, and something you can improve on by training/repeated exposure is certainly not linked to intelligence.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#140

Post by justin_vanw » Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 2:07 AM UTC

hazov wrote: post #137

justin_vanw wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Consider the sorts of policies someone who wanted to maximise productivity in society would develop if it was found that genetics was a greater influencing factor..." You have somehow completely missed and then parroted back my entire point. If it turns out that genetics plays a key role in intelligence, and therefore intelligence is hereditary, all sorts of nazi-like policies could be theoretically be falsely argue…

Some? Who? I think that's an unfair accusation. What I see sometimes in these discussions is people throwing the "hot potato" in the hands of their detractors, people that believe in the difference between groups throw the potato in the hands of the disbelievers and accuse them of being obtuse for trying not to advance an "obvious truth". The other side just answer by accusing the others of being "racist". The fact i…

Are you serious?

How can you say "that's an unfair accusation." and then in the next line say "The other side just answer by accusing the others of being "racist"."

I agree that there is no consensus, and no evidence that clearly helps determine the truth here. That is why I said it was an "unanswered question" in GGP.

However, we do have some ability to reason about this. Clearly genetics can play a role in intelligence. We don't know if it does between humans, but we do know that it could. Humans are very abnormally (as successful species go) genetically similar, probably because of various population bottlenecks.

So, it could go either way. It is quite obvious to me that there is a very complex interaction between genetics and environment. Some populations benefit from breast feeding, other populations do not. This is genetic. There are clearly some hereditary differences which have a measurable consequence in brain development. To what extent do these explain that one random person might be an idiot, while another might be a genius? I honestly don't know, but we shouldn't shut down debate.