←back to thread

136 points gwern | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.019s | source | bottom
Show context
danieltillett ◴[] No.10490915[source]
I would be very surprised if high intelligence was anything other than the extreme edge of a normal distribution of the human population. For it to be anything other than this it would require people of high intelligence to be a sub-population that did not breed with the rest of humanity.
replies(11): >>10490953 #>>10491090 #>>10491222 #>>10491322 #>>10491415 #>>10491550 #>>10491579 #>>10493236 #>>10493248 #>>10493909 #>>10495309 #
1. DonaldFisk ◴[] No.10493909[source]
I don't think there's such a thing as general intelligence. You can be good at some cognitive tasks and poor at other cognitive tasks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...

I also don't think you can separate genetic influences from environmental influences, i.e. one allele might make you do well in one environment and poorly in a different environment. This appears to the case for the 7R allele of the DRD4 gene: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2008/06/ariaa...

I also don't think any genes actually code for intelligence as it's commonly understood. Intelligence is, basically, knowledge (including knowledge about how to acquire knowledge). Genes affect brain chemistry, which influences intelligence in different ways, within a given environment.

replies(2): >>10493981 #>>10494083 #
2. jessriedel ◴[] No.10493981[source]
The theory of multiple intelligence you link to is in strong disagreement with the mainstream position of academia.

> Intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts, supporting the prevailing theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences (MI).[19] The theory has been widely criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on subjective judgement.[20]

replies(2): >>10494215 #>>10494236 #
3. moyix ◴[] No.10494083[source]
From the Wikipedia page you link on multiple intelligences:

> Intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts, supporting the prevailing theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences (MI).[19] The theory has been widely criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on subjective judgement.[20]

As for your other points...

> I also don't think you can separate genetic influences from environmental influences, i.e. one allele might make you do well in one environment and poorly in a different environment.

That's probably the case for some genes, sure. But finding strong correlations between twins raised apart would seem to indicate that many of the genetic factors are not entirely environment-sensitive.

> I also don't think any genes actually code for intelligence as it's commonly understood. Intelligence is, basically, knowledge (including knowledge about how to acquire knowledge). Genes affect brain chemistry, which influences intelligence in different ways, within a given environment.

Twin studies seem to contradict this. From Wikipedia (heritability of IQ [1])

* Identical twins—Reared together .86

* Identical twins—Reared apart .76

So yes, environment has an impact, but there's still a high degree of correlation in intelligence between identical twins raised apart.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlation...

replies(1): >>10494400 #
4. drumdance ◴[] No.10494215[source]
Has anyone looked at how these studies correlate with the Big Five personality traits? It seems to me that intelligent people are more conscientious but that could just be my bias.
replies(1): >>10494459 #
5. DonaldFisk ◴[] No.10494236[source]
IQ tests only measure a few factors, which may well be quite closely correlated. But I don't think everyone who does well in IQ tests has good social skills, is good at painting, playing a musical instrument, speaking a foreign language, playing football, or juggling (or could become good at them with sufficient practice). You could argue that these have nothing to do with intelligence, but they're clearly cognitive skills.
replies(1): >>10495103 #
6. DonaldFisk ◴[] No.10494400[source]
The identical twins in these studies would have been reared in similar environments and cultures by different adoptive parents. The case I quoted were hunter-gatherer vs. farmers. Notice the difference. I was arguing, not that there's a genetic component, and an environmental component, but that the two are interlinked: different alleles can make different individuals well adapted in different enviroments.

In an modern developed economy, where you'll be more likely to do well if your IQ is high, some people will have inherited alleles which tend to raise their IQs and make them well-adapted to their environment, others different alleles which make them poorly adapted.

And, on top of that, there's an environmental, or rather cultural component.

7. moyix ◴[] No.10494459{3}[source]
Some quick Googling turns up:

http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/PersonalityIntelligence_IJS...

Which seems to provide some (weak) evidence against that:

"The hypothesis of a significant correlation between various Big Five personality traits and intelligence test scores was only partially supported. Only Conscientiousness was significantly related to psychometric intelligence, correlating with BRT scores. It is worth noting that the correlation was negative, indicating that higher conscientious participants tended to have lower gf."

I'm far from an expert though, so I can't say how good that study is.

8. jessriedel ◴[] No.10495103{3}[source]
Playing a musical instrument, speaking a foreign language, and social skills, are definitely strongly correlated with IQ-loaded tests like the SAT. Yep.

I have no idea how football fairs, but you can debate the usefulness of that as an objection to the validity of IQ with someone else.