Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
  1. #61
    If there's one thing in this world we need, it's to give even more data to the people who have no idea how to interpret data.

    I guess we can't stop science. Instead we gotta educate stupid people, which might be harder. Undecided.

    EDIT: To clarify, I highly doubt this will yield much useful information. I think intelligence is more down to environmental factors than people like to think. All this really hopes to achieve is give a basic idea of how smart someone could turn out to be. And even then it's unclear just how reliable that ballpark is. So the main outcome would be the recourses of people who absolutely cannot be trusted to see any actual data. They'll just end up making a whole ton of kids grow up feeling like shit and performing like shit.
    Last edited by Caaethil; 2018-04-02 at 10:43 PM.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by d00mGuArD View Post
    This has big potential to be abused and create an unofficial caste system of sorts that is based on intelligence scores. So the use of such test should be careful

    Other than that, it will be funny to see people that score low trying to disprove the studies and the science

    remember that, by definition, around half the people are below average. Imagine an army of angry people QQing they scored low and how inaccurate those scores are (because most people think they are smart)
    Since intelligence is so largely environmental, a grown adult getting tested will end up with a score probably a fair amount off how smart they actually are. Either way, that is. So it's kind of hard to expect people to wear their results with pride. I think the whole thing is a waste of time, personally.

    But you're right in thinking that most people seem to think they're of above average intelligence, which is obviously impossible.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I think anyone advocating mandatory "IQ tests," is likely showing off their own lack of common sense, which has been seen as more related to experience that any number indicated intelligence.
    The common IQ test is based on the work of Alfred Binet. His work was intended to be used to determine weaknesses in an individuals learning and in which ways it could be strengthened. That's right, the IQ test was intended to be a learning guide, not an end-all statement of how smart someone is. It was later modified and corrupted by Lewis Terman, a known eugenicist, into the Stanford-Binet test and used in the pseudoscience of eugenics. Terman's goal was to prevent the reproduction of those he determined to be feeble-minded.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Caaethil View Post
    Since intelligence is so largely environmental, a grown adult getting tested will end up with a score probably a fair amount off how smart they actually are. Either way, that is. So it's kind of hard to expect people to wear their results with pride. I think the whole thing is a waste of time, personally.
    Actually intelligence is largely genetic, and the environment plays a lesser role in adults.

    However, intelligence in children is more influenced by the environment - but that influence fades with age.

    And parents are largely irrelevant - except for their genetic contribution. (Considering the normal genetic and environmental variations within a country for humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ )

    That is what makes DNA testing potentially very important - since a genetic test could possibly be a better predictor for the future intelligence of a child than an intelligence test of the child. (Obviously they are nowhere close to that yet.)

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonus View Post
    Here's the thing:

    This thing tries to measure potential intelligence when there are a ton of variables to control for. For example, your parents' income is hugely important in determining whether you get a phd. Access to education. Cultural factors. There are also different types of intelligence.

    I think this is interesting but I also don't think IQ is deterministic. So let's not go crazy here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Caaethil View Post
    Since intelligence is so largely environmental, a grown adult getting tested will end up with a score probably a fair amount off how smart they actually are. Either way, that is. So it's kind of hard to expect people to wear their results with pride. I think the whole thing is a waste of time, personally.

    But you're right in thinking that most people seem to think they're of above average intelligence, which is obviously impossible.
    When we are talking about genes that determine intelligence, we are talking about tests that can be done even in the womb.
    These studies seem to me to suggest, that environment has less to do with intelligence than previously thought (but obviously environment affects how that intelligence will be used and what opportunities there will be for using it)

    An no people can't really be proud about something they did not achieve but where born with. But they will be happy about it and eager to show off
    and the geek shall inherit the earth

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Stelio Kontos View Post
    Yeah, I can imagine a lot of angry white internet posters getting butthurt that East Asians and Jewish folks are genetically more intelligent than they are.
    jews are white, and everyone already knows asians are smarter in general. only people gonna get upset about it are idiots.

    it's not about inborn ability, it's about how it is put to use through their life. you can have the best genes in the world and still wind up a fat moron if your personality turns out shitty.

    i'm a prime example of that. i pick up on things and learn easily, yet i've blown it all to shit through the years. i do my ancient ancestors great disservice. they had the second greatest example of modernity in all of human history, and here i am doing nothing but sitting in denial and escapism in video games lol.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonus View Post
    But we're basing it off of the genes people who are considered "intelligent" have. That presumes that their intelligence is the result of genetics and not circumstance.
    Hmm it may be that. I am not sure how they did their measurements, I don't really have knowledge in the matter or in genetics at all. I'd imagine they thought of that! haha

    I think these studies say that is more genetics than we thought.
    What percentage of intelligence is genetic and what percentage is environmental, I don't think is determined yet. It would be super hard to determine
    and the geek shall inherit the earth

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by d00mGuArD View Post
    When we are talking about genes that determine intelligence, we are talking about tests that can be done even in the womb.
    These studies seem to me to suggest, that environment has less to do with intelligence than previously thought (but obviously environment affects how that intelligence will be used and what opportunities there will be for using it)

    An no people can't really be proud about something they did not achieve but where born with. But they will be happy about it and eager to show off
    Let's say, hypothetically, that IQ was 1% genetic and 99% environmental. Just as an extreme example. There would still have to be genes which determine this 1%, and so this thread would still exist. So the fact that they may be able to detect these genes doesn't actually say anything about how much of a person's ability is determined by genetics.

    Don't get me wrong, they could actually use this data to determine that. All they would have to do is test adults in 3 or so different ranges (determined soley by these genes). Say, take a whole bunch of people who the data claims should be low IQ, then a whole bunch of people it claims should be average, then a whole bunch of people it says should be high IQ. Then all you have to do it test them to see how smart they all actually are compared to that prediction. If their predicted intelligence (based on their genes) and their actual intelligence line up almost perfectly, then we can safely say what you're saying. But there's also a chance that there will be a decent amount of variation, or that they would be completely different. These cases are still possible even when the gene exists.

    So yeah, these tests could prove that environment has less to do with intelligence than previously thought. Or they could prove it has a lot more to do with intelligence than previously thought. It could go either way - we always knew that these genes existed because we always knew that genetics are a factor (big or small). The fact they exist tells us very little.

    EDIT: the below has some interesting points. In short, we already have a pretty decent, but maybe slightly incomplete, idea of how much of IQ is genetic. A test like I've described probably won't swing either way. But the principle stands, which is that the discovery of X number of IQ genes doesn't say much about how much of IQ is genetic. And such a test as I've described would still likely be very useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Actually intelligence is largely genetic, and the environment plays a lesser role in adults.

    However, intelligence in children is more influenced by the environment - but that influence fades with age.

    And parents are largely irrelevant - except for their genetic contribution. (Considering the normal genetic and environmental variations within a country for humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ )

    That is what makes DNA testing potentially very important - since a genetic test could possibly be a better predictor for the future intelligence of a child than an intelligence test of the child. (Obviously they are nowhere close to that yet.)
    Very interesting. I'll concede this point, but I am curious as to how exactly this works. A neat point from the article:

    Dickens and Flynn (2001) argued that the "heritability" figure includes both a direct effect of the genotype on IQ and also indirect effects where the genotype changes the environment, in turn affecting IQ. That is, those with a higher IQ tend to seek out stimulating environments that further increase IQ. The direct effect can initially have been very small but feedback loops can create large differences in IQ. In their model an environmental stimulus can have a very large effect on IQ, even in adults, but this effect also decays over time unless the stimulus continues. This model could be adapted to include possible factors, like nutrition in early childhood, that may cause permanent effects.

    The increase in heritability with age seems to be an aggregate of a lot of different factors, most of which are probably rooted in genetics too, but it's hard to say.

    My main point, at least in my original post, was regarding the lesser correlation between genetic IQ and how educated and successful you can become. I'm vaguely concerned that this could be used to make people pretty much give up on certain children from day one unless the data is handled correctly. But yeah, I dun goofed there and conflated that with IQ, which is much more general. Thanks for the link, it's an interesting read.

    Makes me wonder though: if this only accurately predicts the intelligence of a teenager/adult, and doesn't say much about how they will perform as a child, how important is it really? I was under the assumption that the main purpose was to group children up based on intelligence so they could be taught better, but surely this wouldn't be useful if the heritability is low while they're still children?
    Last edited by Caaethil; 2018-04-03 at 08:00 AM.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Caaethil View Post
    Makes me wonder though: if this only accurately predicts the intelligence of a teenager/adult, and doesn't say much about how they will perform as a child, how important is it really? I was under the assumption that the main purpose was to group children up based on intelligence so they could be taught better, but surely this wouldn't be useful if the heritability is low while they're still children?
    Maybe that's where the genetic test will come in. To determine this at gene level without needing to wait until they grow up

    However, I am not sure if separating kids in classrooms according to their intelligence is a good idea. Need to think much much more about that
    It will be good for some kids not to be held back, and progress at their own level, and bad for others to know they have lower potential (but at same time may be good for them also to be grouped up with other kids that are all on same level). Really tricky waters here

    Until we can CRISPR edit the genes and we are all super-geniouses of course (like I am! haha)
    and the geek shall inherit the earth

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

    You can, maybe, measure for intelligence potential. With a big fat fucking "maybe" next to it.

    But environment plays a huge role in how smart someone will be, as well as what kind of smart they are. Plenty of book-smart people can't do common-sense shit for themselves, and vice versa.
    Thats the difference between knowledge and intelligence.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    IQ is a measure of intelligence, and does not give you anything. It's a measurement, not a statement. That's like saying MPH gives you speed.
    Ok, fine, I worded it wrong. Having more intelligence gives you real advantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    IQ tests are also largely bullshit, as they concentrate around a very specific area and can be studied for. Which is why they were used to promote "x area has low IQ naturally" because when presented with questions that involve specific cultural knowledge no fucking shit you're going to get a low score. You'll do better in the other areas of the test that don't do so, but it won't make up for it. It also has nothing to do with adaptability or knowledge that exists outside of rote learning, and has only a little bit to do with intuition and creativity, which are far more important in most jobs.
    IQ tests are NOT bullshit. They are directly correlated to being able to learn and understand new information, and directly ties to adaptability, and obtaining new knowledge.

    https://samharris.org/podcasts/forbidden-knowledge/

    "Intuition" is usually bullshit.

  12. #72
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by degarmo View Post
    Why stop there, lets just genetically engineer everyone, no sex needed. We could make some people really smart and some really dumb and fill societies labor needs that way. We could use the greek alphabet to sort out the groups.

    It'll be great everyone will know their place and there will be no fighting!
    Huxley was more right than Orwell but its less easy to reference due to what High Schools force kids to read.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Stelio Kontos View Post
    I hate white people about as much as whoever you were referencing with your post. Less even, considering I am white.
    I said people will find this racist. You were the one who went to "white people are gonna be so angry." Also are you saying that people can't be racist against their own people?
    Kom graun, oso na graun op. Kom folau, oso na gyon op.

    #IStandWithGinaCarano

  14. #74
    Poorly written headline for the thread. The tests are for intelligence POTENTIAL. No person can say how intelligent you will be by studying your DNA. What they can say is that you have the potential to become "THIS" smart given the right circumstances IF they can measure biological factors with sufficient accuracy.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Caaethil View Post
    My main point, at least in my original post, was regarding the lesser correlation between genetic IQ and how educated and successful you can become. I'm vaguely concerned that this could be used to make people pretty much give up on certain children from day one unless the data is handled correctly. But yeah, I dun goofed there and conflated that with IQ, which is much more general. Thanks for the link, it's an interesting read.
    Well, an alternative to day one is day negative 270 days, by e.g. preimplantation genetic diagnosis - especially if you already use that to screen for brain diseases like Tay-Sachs.

    Some would say that is a bit concerning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caaethil View Post
    Makes me wonder though: if this only accurately predicts the intelligence of a teenager/adult, and doesn't say much about how they will perform as a child, how important is it really? I was under the assumption that the main purpose was to group children up based on intelligence so they could be taught better, but surely this wouldn't be useful if the heritability is low while they're still children?
    That is one possibility - but I am not sure if we know the best way to teach children, and especially how the genes influence that.

    This might be one step closer to that - but we are still far from the goal. Similarly as we have had the entire human genome for some years, without understanding it.

  16. #76
    This is terrible.
    I can already imagine the abuse in job appliance (please send IQ results), dating (must be xxx feet tall, yyy IQ), ad targetting, and the worst, opinion manipulation (lower IQs being easier to manipulate via fake news, gossips, etc).

    Between this, recent social medias manipulation affairs, and genetic possibilities breakthrough, why the fuck this world is so shy to officialize true international Ethic Committees.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Kourvith View Post
    This is terrible. I can already imagine the abuse in job appliance (please send IQ results), dating (must be xxx feet tall, yyy IQ), ad targetting, and the worst, opinion manipulation (lower IQs being easier to manipulate via fake news, gossips, etc). Between this, recent social medias manipulation affairs, and genetic possibilities breakthrough, why the fuck this world is so shy to officialize true international Ethic Committees.
    why the fuck this world is so shy to officialize true international Ethic Committees.

    You mean; why the fuck this world is so shy to officialize true international Eugenic Committees.

  18. #78
    Deleted
    The first few years of a child are essential for brain developement. If the parents provide the child with a stimulating environment and do some home-schooling (such as teaching them to read and write before school), it gives the child a huge advantage at least in the early years of school. Sadly not all parents are like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

    You can, maybe, measure for intelligence potential. With a big fat fucking "maybe" next to it.

    But environment plays a huge role in how smart someone will be, as well as what kind of smart they are. Plenty of book-smart people can't do common-sense shit for themselves, and vice versa.
    This is so true. I know plenty of people who have even several academic degrees, and yet they are absolutely dumb as fuck when it comes to any real life issues, whether they are simple mechanical issues (like tying their shoelaces), or more abstract issues like politics and cultural differences.

    Some people just completely lack all natural intuition (or "common sense") and instead run blindly after some faith, ideology, or other dumbass lifestyle.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kourvith View Post
    Between this, recent social medias manipulation affairs, and genetic possibilities breakthrough, why the fuck this world is so shy to officialize true international Ethic Committees.
    We have tried several, like the UN with its various branches.

    They tend to get corrupted because morally corrupt and power-hungry people have a tendency to crawl their way to positions of influence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •