←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
globalreset ◴[] No.35514334[source]
Honest question that keeps bothering me.

In the absence of reasonably strong natural selection pressure to select for IQ, how could IQ not be falling over time?

replies(5): >>35514381 #>>35514499 #>>35515151 #>>35515183 #>>35518621 #
runarberg ◴[] No.35514499[source]
It is not. IQ doesn’t measure a kind of intelligence which inherits, and is subject to natural selection (there is even a debate whether such intelligence exists; or at least is of any significant between individuals).

IQ at best measures something that correlates with SAT. And with better education, less exposure to damaging pollutants, etc. it should always be on the rise (as demonstrated by the Flynn effect; an effect which this poor paper desperately tries to refute).

IQ research has always been about proving the superiority of one race over others, this superiority doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t stop these pseudo-scientist from trying. They bend the definition of “intelligence” and device test batteries (and in this case, interpret test battery) in skewed and bias ways to manipulate results like these. Regrettably media outlets like the Popular Mechanics and lifestyle journalists like Tim Newcomb take these researchers at their words and publish their results, despite their results pretty much being lies.

replies(1): >>35515158 #
faeriechangling ◴[] No.35515158[source]
The heritability of IQ is very well established, usually estimated in the 50-80% range. You are fighting an uphill battle here because even if people haven’t seen the scientific evidence this effect is so strong that virtually everybody has seen anecdotal evidence of high IQ parents having high IQ children, but just seem to assert a very heterodox and counter-intuitive position without further elaboration.

It is incredibly arguable if during an obesity crisis if population wide health is actually improving and if population wide health isn’t improving that could certainly contribute to lower IQ. We’re also seeing population wide declines of health in other ways like sperm count. Food is becoming less nutritious as soil depletes. Our fish stocks being about to collapse is going to be another hit against brain health as omega 3s will become rarer in the diet.

replies(3): >>35515786 #>>35517130 #>>35518459 #
runarberg ◴[] No.35517130[source]
I’m not fighting an uphill battle. Ever since The Bell Curve came out, there has been a slow but steady distancing of both psychological research and policy makers from the whole field of IQ research. Modern psychology couldn’t care less about on the heritability factor of IQ, and most policy makers don’t want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Heck the SAT has even been renamed as they don’t want to be affiliated with anything resembling IQ any more.

The heritability of IQ is only well established within true believers of a pseudo-science tightly linked with the eugenics movement. Most psychologists today believe that the supposed heritability was observed because of bias within the research. And given the people who were doing these research in the 1970s and the 1980s, and their motivation for doing those, there is no question on what these biases were. Some of the researchers went so went quite far in bending the data such that it would fit their narrow—and racist—world view. They tried really hard to define intelligence such that it would make rich white people smarter, they were regrettably successful for far to long, but ultimately failed.

Your anecdotal evidence of high IQ parents (ugh!) having high IQ children is the same anecdotal evidence that sociologists have been describing for decades that high SES parents have high SES children, and is the main reason for why parents with high SAT scores are likely to have children with high SAT scores.

What IQ researchers discovered was basically the same thing that Marx described in 1867, class, however the eugenics were no communists, and instead of providing the simpler explanation, that society rewards the ruling elite, and wealth inherits, the eugenics went all conspiratorial and blamed other races for their perceived decline in society.

replies(6): >>35517731 #>>35517864 #>>35518041 #>>35518073 #>>35524165 #>>35528386 #
1. int_19h ◴[] No.35528386[source]
Do you believe that it is just IQ specifically that's flawed, or the notion of some kind of measurement linked to intelligence in general?

If you see the latter as problematic, and any research that incorporates it as flawed, then how do you provide scientific basis for the assertion that intelligence is not at all inheritable? Marx certainly isn't one.

replies(1): >>35530535 #
2. runarberg ◴[] No.35530535[source]
The latter: I believe that any kind of measurement (or theory for that matter) linked to some construct of a general intelligence is fundamentally flawed.

I don’t think we can construct a philosophical understanding on what intelligence is, as we are always bound to select an arbitrary set of traits which describes the bias of the researcher more than a useful model of behavior.

How do I provide scientific basis for the assertion that intelligence is not at all inheritable?

I don’t, but others do. If you believe you can select a set of traits which constitute an intelligent personality, which some researchers do (or rather assume for the sake of argument that it exists), then what you get is a large environmental effect on the supposed intelligence, a large cofactor of environment and inheritance, some genetical factor, but a close to 0 genetic bases for any group differences.

This is really a double tier rebuttal which states: Even if you are right (and you are not) that general intelligence exists, and that IQ is a useful measure of general intelligence (which is also false), you are still wrong that there is a genetic basis for any perceived inheritance of this supposed intelligence.