The Latest On Intelligence • Hacker News Board

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#41

Post by slurgfest » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:57 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #13

readme wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but if I remember correctly I believe that Ashkenazi Jews constitute 3% of the population yet have won 27% of the Nobel prizes in science. Can we get a citation on this?

"Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 800 individuals, of whom at least 20% were Jews, although Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates Although this need not be explained by genetics. It could just as easily be explained by culture.

It would be strange to assume uncritically that Nobel prizes were given out in a way which was completely unbiased. For example, it is at least highly plausible that there are biases on the basis of nationality, connections, school background and other things which have nothing to do with merit, ethnicity OR culture as such. So it seems strange to me to suggest that it must be some aspect of Jewishness that determines this difference.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#42

Post by Juniper » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:57 PM UTC

praptak wrote: post #14

Xcelerate wrote: post #11

I didn't read the entire paper, but to someone who did, how much of a link is there between genetics and IQ? I know this isn't a popular subject, but if I remember correctly I believe that Ashkenazi Jews constitute 3% of the population yet have won 27% of the Nobel prizes in science. I would think that much like how different types of people from different regions have differing athletic capabilities, there would als…

Both scientific and athletic achievements have an alternative explanation: culture. If there was a good sample of adopted children from a group with such achievements, one could examine these hypotheses in more detail.

That's an incredible statistic. If the cause is cultural then it's a wonder there isn't a plethora of books advising on how to raise children the Ashkenazi way. Are there any such books?

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#43

Post by Symmetry » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:58 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #9

mistercow wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is actually more subtle than that though. What they're saying is that holding social class constant , genetic difference is more important for the wealthy than the poor. For example, kid A and kid B are both wealthy and have significant genetic differences related to factors affecting intelligence. In this case kid A and kid B are likely to have significantly different intelligence from each other. Converse…

Right. The implication, in my mind at least, is that fighting poverty should be one of the key goals of society. Being in poverty effectively hides gifts as poverty will dominate "natural" ability.

Or at least we should be pushing micro-nutrient supplements. And encouraging school lunch programs.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#44

Post by vectorpush » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:58 PM UTC

stephengillie wrote: post #28

kenjackson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The implication, in my mind at least, is that fighting poverty should be one of the key goals of society. Being in poverty effectively hides gifts as poverty will dominate "natural" ability.

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 makes them worth so little.

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/zip?query=tv+&srchTyp...

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#45

Post by Xcelerate » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:59 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #13

readme wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but if I remember correctly I believe that Ashkenazi Jews constitute 3% of the population yet have won 27% of the Nobel prizes in science. Can we get a citation on this?

"Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 800 individuals, of whom at least 20% were Jews, although Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates Although this need not be explained by genetics. It could just as easily be explained by culture.

@slurgfest

Oh, I don't think anyone doubts that. The question we are discussing is: to what extent does their innate genetics (categories of similar DNA, if you prefer) influence their intelligence?

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#46

Post by scott_s » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:07 PM UTC

slurgfest wrote: post #41

scott_s wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 800 individuals, of whom at least 20% were Jews, although Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates Although this need not be explained by genetics. It could just as easily be explained by culture.

It would be strange to assume uncritically that Nobel prizes were given out in a way which was completely unbiased. For example, it is at least highly plausible that there are biases on the basis of nationality, connections, school background and other things which have nothing to do with merit, ethnicity OR culture as such. So it seems strange to me to suggest that it must be some aspect of Jewishness that determine…

I'm actually not assuming that - I tried to write something to that effect, but I wasn't pleased with what I wrote. Take my comment with the pre-condition that if we're going to assume it has something to do with Jews themselves, it need not be attributed to genetics.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#47

Post by sp332 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:09 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #39

tokenadult wrote: post #5

I would upvote this twice if I could. I have read the underlying paper Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012, January 2). Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130-159. http://psychology.msu.edu/pers_hambric3/PSY493%20Spring%2020... Daniel Willingham reviews in the submitted post, and the paper is a joint re…

Not sure if this is true, but I heard recently that the best predictor of IQ is actually the gene that controls determines the size of your mom's vagina, because that is what mediates the risk of brain cell loss due to lack of oxygen at birth. Kind of a funny, but also quite telling about the state of genetics.

That is funny, but babies "breathe" through the umbilical up to several minutes after birth, so I'm sure it has nothing to do with "brain cell loss" or oxygen.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#48

Post by rada » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:09 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #39

tokenadult wrote: post #5

I would upvote this twice if I could. I have read the underlying paper Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012, January 2). Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130-159. http://psychology.msu.edu/pers_hambric3/PSY493%20Spring%2020... Daniel Willingham reviews in the submitted post, and the paper is a joint re…

Not sure if this is true, but I heard recently that the best predictor of IQ is actually the gene that controls determines the size of your mom's vagina, because that is what mediates the risk of brain cell loss due to lack of oxygen at birth. Kind of a funny, but also quite telling about the state of genetics.

Given the prevalence of c-sections and episiotomies, highly unlikely. In 2010, a full third of US babies were not born through the vagina.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#49

Post by tokenadult » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:12 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #39

tokenadult wrote: post #5

I would upvote this twice if I could. I have read the underlying paper Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012, January 2). Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130-159. http://psychology.msu.edu/pers_hambric3/PSY493%20Spring%2020... Daniel Willingham reviews in the submitted post, and the paper is a joint re…

Not sure if this is true, but I heard recently that the best predictor of IQ is actually the gene that controls determines the size of your mom's vagina, because that is what mediates the risk of brain cell loss due to lack of oxygen at birth. Kind of a funny, but also quite telling about the state of genetics.

Not sure if this is true

That's definitely NOT a well replicated finding. In general, no study has ever shown any single-gene allele variation with strong effect on IQ across the general population. There are rare genes (but, really, mostly rare chromosome abnormalities) that have devastating effect on IQ, resulting in mental retardation, but the variance in IQ in the general population above and below the population median is still quite mysterious as to whatever genetic basis it has, as the references I've already shared in this thread will make clear.

After edit: has anyone got a contrary example to the general statement I'm making here? I gather someone disagrees with the statement, but I'm not seeing any citations posted in reply. Feel free to check the citations I've already posted in other replies in this rapidly ramifying thread if you disagree with me and would like to look up facts on the matter.

Re: The Latest On Intelligence

#50

Post by nollidge » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:13 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #43

kenjackson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The implication, in my mind at least, is that fighting poverty should be one of the key goals of society. Being in poverty effectively hides gifts as poverty will dominate "natural" ability.

Or at least we should be pushing micro-nutrient supplements. And encouraging school lunch programs.

Not that that isn't a great thing to do, but how does that help anyone overcome the limits on opportunity that poverty places on them?