←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.405s | source
Show context
faeriechangling ◴[] No.35513202[source]
Could this have to so with smart people increasing pursuing hedonism over reproduction? Maybe Idiocracy was right all along.

From a strict evolutionary perspective I have doubts that a high IQ is useful anymore.

replies(6): >>35513534 #>>35513691 #>>35514025 #>>35514331 #>>35519826 #>>35520396 #
ZeroGravitas ◴[] No.35513691[source]
The point of the original Flynn effect being a big deal was that the changes were faster than was possible with genetics alone.

A big part of "The Bell Curve" was arguing that no interventions could change IQ except genetics and so any money spent on low IQ people (African-Americans in the book, but the author followed up by attacking poor people more generally) was a pointless waste.

It turns out he wasn't just an asshole, he was also wrong.

replies(6): >>35515288 #>>35517718 #>>35517876 #>>35517948 #>>35518147 #>>35518534 #
runarberg ◴[] No.35518147[source]
What is going on with Bell Curve apologists all of a sudden replying to this post. I thought the debate was slowly fading out and than I count 5 different account replying within an hour.
replies(2): >>35520333 #>>35520421 #
throwawayacc5 ◴[] No.35520333[source]
"Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%,[6] with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with the child's age and reaches a plateau at 18–20 years old, continuing at that level well into adulthood." [0]

You're denying settled science. Trying to tie it to the Bell Curve to assassinate the basic character of the science isn't tricking anyone. Pronouns in your profile only make this bad faith move easier to identify.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

replies(3): >>35521533 #>>35522542 #>>35525383 #
1. techno_tsar ◴[] No.35521533[source]
Really? Using the fact that someone put pronouns in their profile is a bad faith move? Your account is literally a throwaway.

Calling these twin studies as settled science is the most bad faith move here, since the chief problem of this section of The Bell Curve is that it confuses heritability with genetic determination, a mistake that informed scientists wouldn’t make. Unsurprisingly, that is why there is widespread scientific backlash against it.

Believe it or not, twin black babies separated at birth and raised with white parents are still treated as black by society.

replies(1): >>35690959 #
2. throwawayacc5 ◴[] No.35690959[source]
>Really?

Yes really.

>Using the fact that someone put pronouns in their profile is a bad faith move?

No, putting pronouns in your profile is a red flag for bad faith moves.

>Your account is literally a throwaway.

Which means you can expect unadulterated facts.

>Calling these twin studies as settled science is the most bad faith move here

No it's not, stop denying the science.

>since the chief problem of this section of The Bell Curve is that it confuses heritability with genetic determination

The Bell Curve makes no confusion between heritability and genetic determination.

>mistake that informed scientists wouldn’t make

Good thing the Bell Curve didn't make that mistake!

>Unsurprisingly, that is why there is widespread scientific backlash against it.

There wasn't much scientific backlash to it because it's fairly bulletproof. The backlash was because of contained heretical topics, and may have pointed to blasphemous conclusions.

>Believe it or not, twin black babies separated at birth and raised with white parents are still treated as black by society.

"Believe it or not, twin Asian babies separated at birth and raised with white parents are still treated as Asian by society."

You're almost there /r/selfawarewolves.