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

Harold and George Destroy the World

tomclancy.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 322 posts

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#311

Post by xyzzyz »

tptacek wrote: post #305
xyzzyz wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I could have left off the last comment. I added it to illustrate where the debate currently lies. I am not sure what your point is.

That the logic of your comment doesn't even hang together? Which debate ? You've managed to cite two of them.

I’m really struggling to understand what your point is. The person I replied to was wrong as to where the current debate is among experts, so I pointed it out, and gave an example of where the debate currently is. Is that really so strange thing to say?

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#312

Post by xyzzyz »

snowwrestler wrote: post #308
xyzzyz wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but since the heritability is high, the average IQ of the children will be close to the average IQ of the parents, despite the fact that it will tend to regress towards the mean.

That’s not how genetics works. It’s not a simple averaging scheme.

That’s exactly how it works in the standard additive model of heritability, and we have lots of empirical evidence that heritability of intelligence matches that model very well.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#313

Post by yeh0kGo »

rayiner wrote: post #298
tptacek wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attacking IQ is nothing whatsoever like vaccine denialism. The valid/meaningful uses of IQ are widely debated in several hard science fields. That's not true of vaccines.

> ttacking IQ is nothing whatsoever like vaccine denialism. The valid/meaningful uses of IQ are widely debated in several hard science fields You’re shifting the goal posts from the first sentence to the second sentence. What I said was: “IQ is real and highly heritable.” Responding to that by asserting that IQ tests are “skewed” and culturally biased, as OP did, is up there with vaccine denialism. If you want to mak…

[dead]

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#314

Post by lucianbr »

chrisoverzero wrote: post #166
lucianbr wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a first time for everything, and an end to most things. The roman empire lasted hundreds of years, and then it ended. Many empires did. The sun will end too, at some point. Ice ages last for thousands of years, then they end. And there are countless other examples. "X has lasted a long time so it will last more" is so obviously wrong. Think about it for more than 3 seconds. Or was it sarcasm? I can't tell any…

> “X has lasted a long time so it will last more” is so obviously wrong. Smarter people than you and I have thought about this problem and come to the opposite conclusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

> is a theorized phenomenon

I wonder why they put that "theorized" word in there. It would be so much easier to say "it is a phenomenon". Only that sentence would not be true now would it?

Come on. The wiki article just connects a name to an explanation, does not prove or even claim the effect is real.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#315

Post by oa335 »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #115
rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also true that IQ is both real and highly heritable. The military uses what’s essentially an IQ test to screen out the bottom 15% or so of the population: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801... . The military has found that people with aptitude test scores below the cutoff can’t be trained to competently perform any job in the military. IQ is also highly heritable: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.n…

IQ correlates most strongly with socioeconomic class, with members of the same ethnic group scoring higher over the decades as that ethnic group as a whole becomes wealthier.

Socioeconomic status limits genetic potential. Thus the effects of SES dominate for those in poverty, but heritability dominates for those with higher SES.

For the intuition think of height - a malnourished child will not reach their “genetic” height. A fully nourished child will be limited by their “genetics”. Why wouldn’t other biological characteristics be similar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarr%E2%80%93Rowe_effect

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#316

Post by rayiner »

oa335 wrote: post #315
DiscourseFan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ correlates most strongly with socioeconomic class, with members of the same ethnic group scoring higher over the decades as that ethnic group as a whole becomes wealthier.

Socioeconomic status limits genetic potential. Thus the effects of SES dominate for those in poverty, but heritability dominates for those with higher SES. For the intuition think of height - a malnourished child will not reach their “genetic” height. A fully nourished child will be limited by their “genetics”. Why wouldn’t other biological characteristics be similar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarr%E2%80%93Rowe_…

Note that at what you’re describing is a hypothesis and at least some studies have failed to identify empirical support for it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027656242...

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#317

Post by c22 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #247
c22 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we hit "peak baby" around a decade ago, so this checks out.

Interesting, why do you say "a decade ago"? Peaks are only identifiable in retrospect, but what would mark "peak baby" then, that was more peak that current events?

Citations:

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-world-has-passe...

https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/11/12/the-stats-guy...

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#318

Post by skyberrys »

ranyume wrote: post #280
skyberrys wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. You articulate the difference between childish wonder and the sometimes innocent but still dangerous childish behaviors. The chance to experiment with your vision of the world is a good and valuable thing in both kids and adults. The childish behaviors that are more problematic are things like not fully considering the consequences of your actions. For instance a two year old might pick up a bumb…

While children have their own psychology, behavior and brain development cycle, I'd like to clarify that I'm being careful not to practice ageism, something deeply entrenched in our culture. The things you listed are not a special innate properties of children past a certain age (maybe it's the passage from infant to child? I don't know). If you don't teach children how a bumble bee is dangerous, they'll never know,…

I appreciate your nuance and care around ageism, it is something we don't want to default to.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#319

Post by econ »

ACCount37 wrote: post #58
econ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Education is a weird field with perhaps a few thousand years of very good unimplemented ideas. Imagine training an llm by putting it in a room with other untrained LLMs? All that knowledge is sure to rubb of!

A big part of the problem education systems are solving is not "how do we get knowledge to children", but "how do we get masses of children to learn without coercion of the ugliest kind". Some children are innately motivated to learn. Some are motivated so strongly you could give them a smartphone and watch them learn all they need to learn in life. But those children aren't the norm - they're the freaky 1 in 1000 ou…

Ricardo Semler had a hilarious take. When allowed to pick their own topics some kids chose to play only videogames. They dropped far behind. Then They hear other kids learned how to read and write! From scoring no points the gamers went to the top, catched up then continued at the same place.

That it was their own idea apparently made all the difference.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#320

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

c22 wrote: post #317
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, why do you say "a decade ago"? Peaks are only identifiable in retrospect, but what would mark "peak baby" then, that was more peak that current events?

Citations: https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-world-has-passe... https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/11/12/the-stats-guy...

Ah, the "the "Everyone is Twelve now" theory of politics" doesn't mean literal young children. It refers to the mentality of the (often gerontocratic) leaders and their adult supporters. Infantilism, not infants.
Post reply on HN