Scrutable

Tessa K wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:08 pm This makes an interesting point in a good thread. (Interesting to me, some of you will know this already. I'm learning a lot today).

That's a great thread, thanks for posting that.

On the whole environmental thing, I skimmed the Wikipedia page on Race & Intelligence this morning. It makes good points about early nutrition affecting IQ, in particular IQ being depressed by exposure to lead, with a nice graph showing that historically more Hispanic and Black kids had high blood levels of lead in the US. Iodine and iron deficiencies affect IQ too. So, poverty and poor nutrition more likely to be at the root of a difference in IQ than anything genetic I think. Quelle surprise.

raven wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:08 pm

Tessa K wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:08 pm This makes an interesting point in a good thread. (Interesting to me, some of you will know this already. I'm learning a lot today).

That's a great thread, thanks for posting that.

On the whole environmental thing, I skimmed the Wikipedia page on Race & Intelligence this morning. It makes good points about early nutrition affecting IQ, in particular IQ being depressed by exposure to lead, with a nice graph showing that historically more Hispanic and Black kids had high blood levels of lead in the US. Iodine and iron deficiencies affect IQ too. So, poverty and poor nutrition more likely to be at the root of a difference in IQ than anything genetic I think. Quelle surprise.

Also Lynn's work was *very* iffy.

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2017/ ... tional-iq/

A bit more on the examples I mentioned upthread:

How does Lynn come up with these scores?
In some cases it is simply through misrepresentation of the data. One egregious example is the score for Equatorial Guinea in central Africa. Its national IQ is supposed to be 59, which is the lowest in the world. But that’s based on one sole study, and if you examine that study you find out a couple of interesting facts: firstly, that the study was actually done on a sample of children with various kinds of cognitive deficits, some of them organic like brain damage, and some not; the second thing you find out is that the population being sampled was not actually from Equatorial Guinea. So that’s as blatant as it gets.

cvb wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:20 pm Guardian article

Guardian article about Cummings and eugenics.

Once we identify a substantial number of IQ genes

And of course environment plays no part at all, does it.

Rich people (or at least educated people) are often better able to encourage their children to perform well in education and give them the resources to do this.

Diet, stress and many other factors affect learning.

Not all rich people are of high IQ especially if the wealth is inherited so there wouldn't be any genes to select. There are well known examples of rich people with thick kids who still buy them places at public schools and on into successful careers.

One response is that if this sort of thing does become possible, then a national health system should fund everybody to do this.

If everyone has a high IQ then having a high IQ is no advantage, the average just goes up. Then who will do the low-paid, low-skilled jobs now that the immigrants aren't allowed in?

“It ought to go without saying that turning this idea into a political/government success requires focus on A) the NHS, health, science, NOT getting sidetracked into B) arguments about things like IQ and social mobility. Over time, the educated classes will continue to be dragged to more realistic views on (B) but this will be a complex process entangled with many hysterical episodes. (A) requires ruthless focus,” he said.

Yes, let's not get hysterical about this. Sabisky said that hysteria was one of the reasons he had to resign.

[Monty Python]So apart from the scientific ignorance, the racism, the sexism and the general lack of a coherent argument, what has Cummings ever done for us on the far right? [/Monty Python]

Tessa K wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:37 pm

Not all rich people are of high IQ especially if the wealth is inherited so there wouldn't be any genes to select. There are well known examples of rich people with thick kids who still buy them places at public schools and on into successful careers in Government.

FIFY.

Part of my criticism of Cummings' "ideas" is that it is he who indulges in generalised hand waving of a type fairly typical of someone who does not know the basics of scientific method, but looks for something sciencey to support their pre-existing ideas

That and anyone who uses IQ to try to stand up their "arguments" clearly does not have much of an argument...See above post. The history of and indequacies of IQ as a metric are very well known and do not need repeating here - anyone who still insists on using it in the way Cummings did/does can only be ignoring that history for their own ideological reasons. Does he actually know anything sensible about child development? Certainly doesn't look like it to me.

murmur wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:20 pm Part of my criticism of Cummings' "ideas" is that it is he who indulges in generalised hand waving of a type fairly typical of someone who does not know the basics of scientific method, but looks for something sciencey to support their pre-existing ideas

That and anyone who uses IQ to try to stand up their "arguments" clearly does not have much of an argument...See above post. The history of and indequacies of IQ as a metric are very well known and do not need repeating here - anyone who still insists on using it in the way Cummings did/does can only be ignoring that history for their own ideological reasons. Does he actually know anything sensible about child development? Certainly doesn't look like it to me.

His attitude towards IQ has echoes of the pro-lifers. Stay with me. He believes that you fiddle with a child's genes and then they're set for life. The pro-lifers believe that birth is all that matters. In both cases, what happens after birth is of no interest to them. If it were they would have to consider massive social change to support people financially, educationally and medically. Which would cost a lot and require rich people to pay more tax. They're both simplistic one-size-fits all fixes using bogus science to back them up.

murmur wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:20 pm Part of my criticism of Cummings' "ideas" is that it is he who indulges in generalised hand waving of a type fairly typical of someone who does not know the basics of scientific method, but looks for something sciencey to support their pre-existing ideas

That and anyone who uses IQ to try to stand up their "arguments" clearly does not have much of an argument...See above post. The history of and indequacies of IQ as a metric are very well known and do not need repeating here - anyone who still insists on using it in the way Cummings did/does can only be ignoring that history for their own ideological reasons. Does he actually know anything sensible about child development? Certainly doesn't look like it to me.

Tessa K wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:42 pm His attitude towards IQ has echoes of the pro-lifers. Stay with me. He believes that you fiddle with a child's genes and then they're set for life. The pro-lifers believe that birth is all that matters. In both cases, what happens after birth is of no interest to them. If it were they would have to consider massive social change to support people financially, educationally and medically. Which would cost a lot and require rich people to pay more tax. They're both simplistic one-size-fits all fixes using bogus science to back them up.

This is a bit devil's advocatey, but - is it not reasonable to assume that, given equal (even equally awful) social conditions, individuals with higher innate intelligence* might achieve "better" outcomes? (Leaving the definition of "better" as an exercise for the idealogue)

If that were to be the case then it might be fair to argue for increasing innate intelligence regardless of what happens socially, and the two aren't *necessarily* mutually exclusive. (Obviously in practice those who emphasise the importance of nature tend to de-emphasise the power of nurture)

*measurement issues notwithstanding

But is IQ a measure of "innate intelligence" rather than a culturally influenced ability to do well in IQ testing?

What does anyone mean by "innate intelligence"?

ETA Also if one is not defining "better", what exactly are we talking about?

Or is that a satire on Cummings? Inadequate/faulty metric, lack of definition of outcomes, giving result I wanted in the first place 'cos reasons?

murmur wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:05 pm But is IQ a measure of "innate intelligence" rather than a culturally influenced ability to do well in IQ testing?

What does anyone mean by "innate intelligence"?

ETA Also if one is not defining "better", what exactly are we talking about?

Or is that a satire on Cummings? Inadequate/faulty metric, lack of definition of outcomes, giving result I wanted in the first place 'cos reasons?

I'm not being satirical but defining those things is a discussion unto itself, and I think we can discuss the other issues without defining them (assume your preferred definition is universally agreed).

I've not read the research in any detail beyond introductory textbooks, but my understanding is that IQ measurements are influenced by both cultural factors and something about the brain (even if that is only "being good at IQ tests"). If we eliminated all cultural differences, people would still differ in IQ and (I expect) IQ would still correlate with outcomes in certain areas.

(It might even correlated *more* strongly if all social differences could be removed?)

I recall in Gladwell's Outliers he mentions a group of very high IQ subjects who were studied and expected to achieve greatness but in reality many would be considered failures, merely illustrating that extreme intelligence isn't necessarily correlated with a competitive spirit or desire to achieve great things.

But then I realised I'd be using Malcolm Gladwell as a reference and perhaps that was a bit too meta.

Martin Y wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:14 pm I recall in Gladwell's Outliers he mentions a group of very high IQ subjects who were studied and expected to achieve greatness but in reality many would be considered failures, merely illustrating that extreme intelligence isn't necessarily correlated with a competitive spirit or desire to achieve great things.

But then I realised I'd be using Malcolm Gladwell as a reference and perhaps that was a bit too meta.

Intelligence isn't much use if you can't function in society so the best option is possibly to be more intelligent than average while not so intelligent that you want to spend your life working on equations and forget to change your socks.

There's something to be said for being cunning, having business savvy and being ambitious, determined, ruthless etc. While a certain amount of intelligence is required to become a mega-rich businessperson, personality is also a major player. Having power is a bit different, that needs contacts and networks. If you're born with those, that's half the job done and you only need to be smart enough to surround yourself with people who will do what you say or who have the same self-interest.

murmur wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:05 pm But is IQ a measure of "innate intelligence" rather than a culturally influenced ability to do well in IQ testing?

What does anyone mean by "innate intelligence"?

ETA Also if one is not defining "better", what exactly are we talking about?

Or is that a satire on Cummings? Inadequate/faulty metric, lack of definition of outcomes, giving result I wanted in the first place 'cos reasons?

The promoters of IQ tests, sidestepped this by saying in effect that an IQ test measures IQ, it measures what it measures and left it to others to decide whether it was a measure of anything useful. The Wiki on IQ is quite comprehensive.

Boustrophedon wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:00 pm

murmur wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:05 pm But is IQ a measure of "innate intelligence" rather than a culturally influenced ability to do well in IQ testing?

What does anyone mean by "innate intelligence"?

ETA Also if one is not defining "better", what exactly are we talking about?

Or is that a satire on Cummings? Inadequate/faulty metric, lack of definition of outcomes, giving result I wanted in the first place 'cos reasons?

The promoters of IQ tests, sidestepped this by saying in effect that an IQ test measures IQ, it measures what it measures and left it to others to decide whether it was a measure of anything useful. The Wiki on IQ is quite comprehensive.

However in the case of Lynn's - um... "publications" which Sabisky was using, even that isn't the case.

He proposed that "average national IQ" correlated with national wealth and indeed this was a causal factor in GDP. He then used the results from disparate studies with different methodologies, sample sizes (generally small), target populations (ten year olds in one country vs adults in another) to assign a national IQ. Some of countries had no data at all, so he interpolated between his own dubious figures in neighbouring countries and then plotted those values against GDP.

Some of the studies - the authors themselves said were limited, IQ tests aren't that good if someone is barely literate, for example. Some countries, he based it on studies of intellectually-disabled children.

And his claims were extraordinary - for example the idea that there are countries in Africa where any meaningful version of the average IQ is below 60 is laughable.

Tessa K wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:34 pm

Martin Y wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:14 pm I recall in Gladwell's Outliers he mentions a group of very high IQ subjects who were studied and expected to achieve greatness but in reality many would be considered failures, merely illustrating that extreme intelligence isn't necessarily correlated with a competitive spirit or desire to achieve great things.

But then I realised I'd be using Malcolm Gladwell as a reference and perhaps that was a bit too meta.

Intelligence isn't much use if you can't function in society so the best option is possibly to be more intelligent than average while not so intelligent that you want to spend your life working on equations and forget to change your socks.

There's something to be said for being cunning, having business savvy and being ambitious, determined, ruthless etc. While a certain amount of intelligence is required to become a mega-rich businessperson, personality is also a major player. Having power is a bit different, that needs contacts and networks. If you're born with those, that's half the job done and you only need to be smart enough to surround yourself with people who will do what you say or who have the same self-interest.

Intelligence without education, access to capital (financial, social, etc), and luck doesn't get you very far. My dad was very intelligent, but he was pulled out of school at 14 to go work as an apprentice in the shipyard, and to the end of his days was only semi-literate when it came to writing (though he could read just fine). He worked his arse off, but he lacked a lot of the attributes needed to be truly successful even though he ran his own business for years. Intelligence is just one attribute amongst many required to be successful, and I'd go as far to say that it's the least important one.

Boustrophedon wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:00 pm

murmur wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:05 pm But is IQ a measure of "innate intelligence" rather than a culturally influenced ability to do well in IQ testing?

What does anyone mean by "innate intelligence"?

ETA Also if one is not defining "better", what exactly are we talking about?

Or is that a satire on Cummings? Inadequate/faulty metric, lack of definition of outcomes, giving result I wanted in the first place 'cos reasons?

The promoters of IQ tests, sidestepped this by saying in effect that an IQ test measures IQ, it measures what it measures and left it to others to decide whether it was a measure of anything useful. The Wiki on IQ is quite comprehensive.

We only really used IQ at work as it came up as part of a broader, more detailed cognitive assessment (WISC-R, with which I'm sure you're familiar), which was a helpful tool in finding out more about a bairn's capabilities.

Educational psychology would fudge their unwillingness to carry out broad cognitive assessments by saying they wouldn't do IQ testing and constantly fudged WISC with IQ...

On the other hand, our LD colleagues insisted on a certain IQ point as their cut-off for accepting a bairn or not...

None of which says anything at all about the validity of IQ per se, but highlights its use in a more "political" sense.

Should also mention that higher intelligence is correlated with higher incidence of mental health issues which are confounders against achieving success.

plebian wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:38 pm Should also mention that higher intelligence is correlated with higher incidence of mental health issues which are confounders against achieving success.

Oooh, that's interesting. Have you got any links?

Of course there are many other factors at work.

But there is still a correlation between childhood IQ test results and later achievement in exams (eg https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9606000171 ),
between IQ scores and income (eg https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9606001127 ) and longevity (eg https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9706001967 ).

As far as I recall, IQ scores aren’t well correlated with wealth or happiness. The former probably reflecting the effect of inherited wealth.

IQ tests have their flaws, but they do appear to be a useful measure of a person’s ability to navigate the modern world.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:51 pm

plebian wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:38 pm Should also mention that higher intelligence is correlated with higher incidence of mental health issues which are confounders against achieving success.

Oooh, that's interesting. Have you got any links?

I doubt if it's a monotonic relationship across the spectrum of intelligence scores. There's a lot of mental health issues among people with low IQs as well, not least because they tend not to have very well-paid jobs and there are established links between low socio-economic status and depression. Yes, it's probably a bit lonely with an IQ of 150, but I'm going to guess that within 1.3 standard deviations of the mean (IQs from 80 to 120), the incidence of mental health issues declines more or les linearly, although perhaps not especially steeply.

sTeamTraen wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:20 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:51 pm

plebian wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:38 pm Should also mention that higher intelligence is correlated with higher incidence of mental health issues which are confounders against achieving success.

Oooh, that's interesting. Have you got any links?

I doubt if it's a monotonic relationship across the spectrum of intelligence scores. There's a lot of mental health issues among people with low IQs as well, not least because they tend not to have very well-paid jobs and there are established links between low socio-economic status and depression. Yes, it's probably a bit lonely with an IQ of 150, but I'm going to guess that within 1.3 standard deviations of the mean (IQs from 80 to 120), the incidence of mental health issues declines more or les linearly, although perhaps not especially steeply.

I have a friend whose measured IQ is in the top fraction of a percent (above 170 - though I forget which test he took), and while he is extremely good at the kind of puzzle solving measured by IQ tests, he doesn't stand out from the crowd of smart + educated people. You're not even going to notice unless you sit everyone down and make them do an IQ test. My point is, I don't think high IQ in itself alienates you from 'smart + educated' people, though I guess if you're 'smart + educated' but nobody around you is that could feel alienating. Personally, I occasionally find it annoying being around people I regard as poorly informed and anti-intellectual, but this is really about interests and culture. For all I know their IQs could be higher than mine.

secret squirrel wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:53 am

sTeamTraen wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:20 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:51 pm
Oooh, that's interesting. Have you got any links?

I doubt if it's a monotonic relationship across the spectrum of intelligence scores. There's a lot of mental health issues among people with low IQs as well, not least because they tend not to have very well-paid jobs and there are established links between low socio-economic status and depression. Yes, it's probably a bit lonely with an IQ of 150, but I'm going to guess that within 1.3 standard deviations of the mean (IQs from 80 to 120), the incidence of mental health issues declines more or les linearly, although perhaps not especially steeply.

I have a friend whose measured IQ is in the top fraction of a percent (above 170 - though I forget which test he took), and while he is extremely good at the kind of puzzle solving measured by IQ tests, he doesn't stand out from the crowd of smart + educated people. You're not even going to notice unless you sit everyone down and make them do an IQ test. My point is, I don't think high IQ in itself alienates you from 'smart + educated' people, though I guess if you're 'smart + educated' but nobody around you is that could feel alienating. Personally, I occasionally find it annoying being around people I regard as poorly informed and anti-intellectual, but this is really about interests and culture. For all I know their IQs could be higher than mine.

No time to ferret out links but I've read and heard that curiosity is often a marker of intelligence. The people I've met who are intelligent (whether educated or not) always have curiosity, whether that's for facts, people, new and different ideas/experiences or just about the world in general. People who maintain that curiosity throughout life are generally the most interesting (to me) and seem to keep a 'younger' outlook rather than settling into a narrow worldview, not wanting to try or learn anything new. Even if I'm not initially interested in what someone is curious or informed about, if they are fluent in talking about it, that can make it interesting or I can at least learn something new.

Of course there are smart people who are interested only in one thing but that could be as much to do with personality as intelligence.

I've done a few IQ tests in the past and know roughly what mine is - or at least what it was. Lately I feel like it's gone down about 50 points.

A quick google for "IQ mental illness" keeps bringing up the same study https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... telligent/ which showed that Mensa members are more prone to mental disorders than the general population. However, I'm not convinced that their IQ is necessarily the most parsimonious explanation for that. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... telligent/

I also found this Danish study of schizophrenia patients https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... EA84329325 which shows low IQ as a risk factor for subsequent diagnosis. However, both low IQ scores and schizophrenia can be influenced by social conditions so again, not convinced.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:10 pmA quick google for "IQ mental illness" keeps bringing up the same study https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... telligent/ which showed that Mensa members are more prone to mental disorders than the general population. However, I'm not convinced that their IQ is necessarily the most parsimonious explanation for that. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... telligent/

People, even within the IQ range that makes you eligible for Mensa membership, are not randomly assigned to become members.

FWIW, the few people I've met who made their Mensa membership public knowledge have all been insufferable a..eholes. Apologies to any members here --- I'm sure you're one of the lovely ones.

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:38 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:10 pmA quick google for "IQ mental illness" keeps bringing up the same study https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... telligent/ which showed that Mensa members are more prone to mental disorders than the general population. However, I'm not convinced that their IQ is necessarily the most parsimonious explanation for that. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... telligent/

People, even within the IQ range that makes you eligible for Mensa membership, are not randomly assigned to become members.

FWIW, the few people I've met who made their Mensa membership public knowledge have all been insufferable a..eholes. Apologies to any members here --- I'm sure you're one of the lovely ones.

I've known three people who disclosed their Mensa membership to me. Two of them had joined for identical reasons - there were insufferable a..eholes in the office going on about having joined, and the best way to shut them up was to take the test and get a higher score. The third was a bit of an a..eh.le.