[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.9424

File: 1625491358925.jpg (22.57 KB, 250x235, 50:47, Tyr_Anasazi.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

"Let us just imagine for the sake of the argument that even after all of the problems of disease, poverty, malnutrition, pollution and the rest of it are corrected for, there is still a genetic difference that means average African intelligence is ten points below that of average Caucasian intelligence (or mathematical ability or whatever).  By the time that rolled around, the technology would be in place so that would just be one more thing to be corrected – relying on the old fashioned way of shuffling genes around will be a disability in itself.  Whatever genetic differences there are between the human races will be nothing compared to those between humanity and post-humanity."
(https://skepticink.com/prussian/2014/03/31/the-anti-racialist-q-a/)

 No.9426

File: 1625526488452.png (158.85 KB, 524x396, 131:99, Screenshot from 2021-07-05….png) ImgOps Google

>>9424
You bring up a lot of topics at once.  I'm not sure where to go with it.  I'm a bit unsure about identifying problems in the genetics of Black people.  I don't think that's something I want to talk about.

Um...what do you think genetic engineering can accomplish and on what time scales?

 No.9429

File: 1625531976425.jpg (25.51 KB, 580x398, 290:199, ic_396900a7fff22bee6e36d8a….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9426
Polygenic screening for in-vitro fertilization is already able to significantly decrease the probability of things like cancer-causing defective BRCA2 genes.  (https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/welcome-polygenically-screened-babies)
I expect that within a decade, humanity will be able to use the same technology to select for higher IQ.  Probably by 2050 we'll be able to rewrite gamete DNA to achieve even better results, completely eradicating severe genetic defects and raising the IQ of children who would otherwise be born with low genetic potential.  I do fear though that the US will outlaw this technology and that China will use it (either openly or clandestinely) to gain an advantage over the US.

 No.9431

File: 1625536801561.png (714.27 KB, 800x600, 4:3, medium.png) ImgOps Google

>>9429
I like the squirrel.  He/she is grooming his/her tail.  :)

I see.  You're probably right about China.  It would be good to get rid of genetic disorders -- at least I'm pretty sure you can list things like cancer-causing genes that nobody wants.  Maybe there stuff to be done in mental health, too.  Some stuff is controversial, like not wanting to fix autism, but probably you could identify cases of emotional distress that limits folks.

How much of IQ do you think is -- independent -- and how much is factors such as your experience and learning, stress levels, maybe diet, how depressed you are, how much pain you're in?  Suppose the people who make the tests try to separate all that out so the measure really is something independent and meaningful.

 No.9432

File: 1625540699779.jpg (153.91 KB, 794x1059, 794:1059, yikesbutton.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Imma just leave this button here preemptively

 No.9433

>>9429
>>9424
Genetic screening can be interesting for eliminating severe defects.

But we also need to keep in mind that more and more experts find that IQ isn't as important as people used to think it is.

It would be like arguing that via genetic engineering you can help shape the skull for phrenological reasons.

 No.9442

>>9431
Squirrels are kawaii!

>>9431
>How much of IQ do you think is -- independent -- and how much is factors such as your experience and learning, stress levels, maybe diet, how depressed you are, how much pain you're in?  
IQ is largely independent of experience and learning.  Of course things like sleep deprivation, stress, pain, and so on can negatively affect performance on an IQ test.  Ideally IQ would be measured when all those disturbances are minimized.  In regards to diets, childhood malnutrition certainly has a large negative effect on IQ, and so does eating lead paint chips.

 No.9443

>>9433
>IQ isn't as important as people used to think it is.
IQ is extremely important at a population level.  There is a significant positive correlation between different facets of intelligence -- this g factor is the subject of highly replicated research.  Of course, some individuals are notably above average in some aspects of intelligence but average in other aspects.  But, e.g., there is negligibly small probability that someone with an IQ below 100 will get a PhD in physics from a top university.

Of course, while a high IQ is necessary for many lines of work in modern society, it is not a guarantee of success. Some high-IQ individuals do poorly, due to deficiencies in other capabilities.

 No.9446

File: 1625959448247.png (173.63 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, note_2019-10-02 14 28 00.png) ImgOps Google

>>9442
I recall these debates between people presumably much more intelligent than I can hope to be.

You know, all my life I was told I was very smart.  I've always sorta doubted it because although I'm better at, say computer programming or math than anyone I know, I am also pretty dumb about many other things, and I'm not really what people conventionally consider successful (although I'm coming up with new institutions where I am successful).  Suppose it might be described as a case of autism, which presumably violates the theory of IQ -- someone with a high IQ is expected to equally gifted over a range of areas.  Anyway it leads to mixed feeling about the subject, as I am sometimes assumed to have a high IQ and, at other times, a low IQ.  Although as an adult I seem to be rounding out a bit more, or maybe peers don't care as much about how smart people are.

 No.9447

>>9446
Did you ever have your IQ formally measured? Some IQ tests give separate sub scores for different areas.

 No.9448

I've seen lots of scientific evidence when it comes to different populations that IQ scoring appears EXTREMELY malleable.

Something as simple as encouraging mothers to breastfeed their children seems, by itself, to increase IQ scores by a significant amount.

See: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31925449

Just imagine what would happen if the lowest 25% economic slice of American children somehow got treated decently rather than being seen essentially as unwanted objects (let alone not being breastfeed, not being fed adequately at all is often their fate)?

To be frank, the modern obsession with IQ scores appears to be based on an assumption of near absolute heritability of IQ in all contexts: in which genes mean almost everything and environment means almost nothing.

This is, frankly, guff, pretentious nonsense.

 No.9450

>>9448
>Something as simple as encouraging mothers to breastfeed their children seems, by itself, to increase IQ scores by a significant amount.
Yes, depending on genetics.  There is a specific SNP for that:
https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs1535

>>9448
>To be frank, the modern obsession with IQ scores appears to be based on an assumption of near absolute heritability of IQ in all contexts: in which genes mean almost everything and environment means almost nothing.
If I recall correctly, in developed countries, the heritability of IQ is pretty high, greater than 50%.  Of course, malnutrition in childhood, infectious disease burden, and lead poisoning can all lower IQ.

 No.9451

>>9447
If psychologists need intelligence to effectively compress to one number, and if that were not possible for people like me, I would expect psychologists to treat us unkindly, and I don't care to be treated unkindly for who I am.  As long as psychologists (and biologists, I guess) don't prevent me from doing my scientific work, I will allow them to do whatever they please.

 No.9452

>>9450
>the heritability of IQ is pretty high

No. And yes. Somewhat. Not really. In part.

It's actually a rather complex situation in which it can be found to be even less than 50% (typically for certain groups of children) and even more than 75% (typically for certain groups of adults). There's no ironclad scientific consensus on the subject. It can be said, though, that beyond the complexity there's a certain kind of balance found in how genetics can be reinforced by environments that then encourage individuals to reinforce expressed traits. Thus, SES/socio-economic-status can be crucial.

"Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."

> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1475.x

It's also worth mentioning that "intelligence" as a general cluster of somewhat only slightly related attributes and the specific trait of "IQ testing success" are quite different in application often.

"General cognitive ability yielded a heritability estimate of about .80 in two assessments 3 years apart as part of the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging. This is one of the highest heritabilities reported for a behavioral trait. Across the two ages, average heritabilities are about .60 for verbal tests, .50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and .40 for memory tests."

> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01067188

Personally, I think that what's happening under the cloak of scientific-sounding racism, sexism, and the rest is something like coming upon a gigantic painting that's made of multiple shades of grey in a deliberately blended, sloppy fashion only for belligerent observers to scream "It's all black! Black as midnight!".

If the hardcore right-wing types who obsess about IQ scores actually cared about the general notion of "intelligence" then they'd advocate for something like, say, promoting breastfeeding among U.S. mothers. As mentioned before. Or for mass campaigns to destroy lead materials safely in order to stop the widespread lead poisoning that happens here.

Instead, they don't give a damn about that. It's all just an empty form of rhetoric. Criticism for those who supposedly have lower IQs and are thus of less worth compared to the self-puffery of the right-wingers.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]