In my mind, the bigger issue with twin studies trying to show that (say) IQ is highly genetic is that humans do not reproduce by cloning. And regression toward the mean is very much a thing for heritable traits.
In other words - Junior should not be presumed to be smarter, fitter, more deserving, or destined for success, just because his parents did well. No matter how attractive that conclusion might sound, to people who consider themselves to be the "better" sort.
It’s not that surprising that many successful people seem to be strong fans of heritability, or more broadly, of the idea that metrics like IQ point to some sort of “universal independent” metric of value. To do otherwise requires living one’s life in cognitive dissonance; how could they be worthy of such riches while others struggle to just pay the bills? Surely success and intelligence is just an inborn thing, and thus inevitable and unchangeable. There’s nothing they can do, and it was always going to end up that way. Inevitability erases any feelings or guilt or shame.
Ironically IQ is also popular amongst people in a very different situation, that is, people that aren’t actually successful “in the real world” but score highly on aptitude tests. Their high scores serve as an identity pedestal to look down upon others and set themselves apart from the masses. This seems to be the primary demographic of IQ-requirement organizations.
Now of course there are scientific studies on this topic, but let’s not pretend like this is a cultural meme because writers like Cremieux are just tirelessly searching for the truth, no matter what ideological consequences that may have. They quite obviously have a viewpoint first and then work backwards from there to justify it.
As a meta comment: the whole obsession with IQ as a kind of unchanging permanent quality seems very much out of tune with how biological systems actually work, and is kind of a remnant of a Platonic worldview. That is, it’s not dynamic/process/system oriented in the way that nature actually works, but instead is in search of eternal qualities á la Plato.
You can see this type of thinking in the absolute certainty that the YC interview process finds every billion dollar company that apply. I’m unconvinced and think a lot of the people who joined those early batches and made so many great companies were changed by their environment not by being filtered for credentials or genetic gifts.
I trust my own observations and my conclusion is that heritability is very strong. This is not a view that was imparted on me, quite the opposite. Growing up in a western country I was led to believe we are all blank slates, and I truly believed it. Once I started spending more time around the opposite sex some doubts started to emerge. Once I became a parent it became very apparent that this ideology had no basis in reality. Kids come with a personality, batteries included, and it's very easy to point out even individual behaviors that originate with either parent. Boys and girls are also very different on average. It's insane that we have somehow convinced ourselves that this is not the case, and I will surely be attacked by just pointing this out. I don't need twin studies to understand this basic fact, a fact that's been apparent to everyone throughout history, except for the past ~40 years in the west.
The belief system opposing "very strong heritability of intelligence" isn't "blank-slatism". Plenty of researchers who believe there are only weak connections between genes and intelligence also reject the strong-form blank slate hypothesis, to the point where, when I see people bring "blank slate" into a conversation, I immediately have to convince myself that they're not just trying to stop the conversation.
The comment you wrote really isn't a response to anything this article said.
When I was an undergrad (or maybe it was grad - it was a long time ago) we learned about the Minnesota twins study that attempted to find the strength of genetics in personality. The study developed new statistical techniques to measure this and can to the conclusion that genetics is very strong.
But now you hear nothing about this study. I'm not sure if it's because the results are tainted by eugenics, or if the techniques they developed were wrong...
It seems surprising that IQ would not be heritable. Literally everything else is heritable.
Height, skin colour, sporting ability, body weight, eye colour, cancer risk, most disease risk, beauty.
Why would IQ be mostly random when other things are very heritable?
Occums razor says pick the simplest hypothesis that explains the data. The onus is on the blank slate crew to find some good data to demonstrate that IQ is not mostly heritable.
12 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 40.5 ms ] threadRelated, from last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42200209
In other words - Junior should not be presumed to be smarter, fitter, more deserving, or destined for success, just because his parents did well. No matter how attractive that conclusion might sound, to people who consider themselves to be the "better" sort.
Ironically IQ is also popular amongst people in a very different situation, that is, people that aren’t actually successful “in the real world” but score highly on aptitude tests. Their high scores serve as an identity pedestal to look down upon others and set themselves apart from the masses. This seems to be the primary demographic of IQ-requirement organizations.
Now of course there are scientific studies on this topic, but let’s not pretend like this is a cultural meme because writers like Cremieux are just tirelessly searching for the truth, no matter what ideological consequences that may have. They quite obviously have a viewpoint first and then work backwards from there to justify it.
As a meta comment: the whole obsession with IQ as a kind of unchanging permanent quality seems very much out of tune with how biological systems actually work, and is kind of a remnant of a Platonic worldview. That is, it’s not dynamic/process/system oriented in the way that nature actually works, but instead is in search of eternal qualities á la Plato.
https://archive.ph/6tOQF
The comment you wrote really isn't a response to anything this article said.
But now you hear nothing about this study. I'm not sure if it's because the results are tainted by eugenics, or if the techniques they developed were wrong...
Height, skin colour, sporting ability, body weight, eye colour, cancer risk, most disease risk, beauty.
Why would IQ be mostly random when other things are very heritable?
Occums razor says pick the simplest hypothesis that explains the data. The onus is on the blank slate crew to find some good data to demonstrate that IQ is not mostly heritable.