True, but heritability of IQ increases so dramatically with age that a genomic score at birth might predict adult IQ better than a phenotypic test at age 8 does...
-
-
-
"'Should we trust models or observations?' In reply we note that if we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time." -- Knutson & Tuleya 2005
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
IQ tests have a troubled past, people complaining that there's more to intelligence than what the IQ test tests. However I would argue the IQ test has become more useful over time, as its scope and predictive power become better understood. Genotyping is still a new technology.
-
Genotyping won't show anything like that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
#WednesdayWisdom#art#Intelligence#science needs to loosen up a little.pic.twitter.com/Pn2TbGSugaThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What is "intelligence"? Physical intelligence? (Athleticism) Rhythmic/musical intelligence? Visual/artistic intelligence? Play good chess? Any of those count? Or just scoring high on scholastic tests that are now treated as flawless quantifiers of some arbitrary definition?
-
I often define intelligence as the ability to search the space of possibilities for what maps to reality. I think biologically speaking it is correlate to the speed at which neurons can form connections. Hope that helps.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The fact that genes influence your intelligence is (and has always been) a given. The real question is, what % of that is gene-based and what % of it is environment based? Let me know when that study is published. Before that happens, it's all just empty data.
-
Attempting to partition traits on how 'genetic' or 'environmental' they are doesn't make sense. Yoy can't separate them.
-
-
You're a bit confused here. Do you disagree that environment can affect a single human being's intelligence? I'm not arguing that environment produced effects are then transferred genetically, if that's what you were building your argument against.
-
Not confused. You can't separate nature and nurture.
-
So twin studies are meaningless?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
By the way, gene based intelligence will become less relevant as we technologically modify our genes in the near future. Genetic essentialism, based on race, deteriorates as we progress technologically. Be wary of those who make too big a deal about IQ and intelligence...
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
False dichotomy (nature/nurture), genes don't determine, twins don't 'prove' that 'intelligence' is heritable because the EEA is false so twin studies don't prove 'intelligence' is heritable, heritability estimates continue the false dichotomy of nature vs nurture.
-
And iq tests are constructed on the basis of social class so no wonder it 'predicts'
-
You mean that IQ and income tends to strongly direct correlate - The higher IQ is, the higher income is?
- End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.