• AmadeusD
    1.8k
    :ok: Encouraging, even if it's misguided. I like to see everything on the table.
  • Lionino
    1.4k
    Am I? You linked what are basically blogposts that correctly point out that the studies have methodological limitations (like every social science study). That is far from Nyquist's claim that twin studies have been discredited, as if there is anything to discredit, those studies were simply gathering data and publishing it. The discovery that twins end up with very close IQs despite being raised in different environments is meaningful.

    I'm of the opinion you are defending something no one really takes seriouslyAmadeusD

    What are you even saying? I have defended nothing in this thread.
  • AmadeusD
    1.8k
    defended nothing in this thread.Lionino

    Twin studies. Not sure how you're missing your own comments?

    methodological limitations (like every social science study).Lionino

    * flaws.

    That is far from Nyquist's claim that twin studies have been discreditedLionino

    I don't think you read these sources, then. THey are clearly not doing what they have been purported to be doing. They aren't reliable, for basically anything they have been relied on. If that's not 'discredit'ing I can't understand what you'd think is, short of finding evidence for fraud.

    The discovery that twins end up with very close IQs despite being raised in different environments is meaningful.Lionino

    If you have read these sources, I need only say 'Obviously not'.
  • wonderer1
    1.7k
    Here's a good article about the science community's reaction to panpsychism:
    https://www.salon.com/2024/04/01/the-most-anti-science-belief-you-can-hold-is-that-science-is-a-religion/
    RogueAI

    Pretty bad article, but at least the author is trying to update their thinking:

    https://www.salon.com/2024/04/02/some-people-may-see-more-images-per-second-than-others-study-finds/
  • Lionino
    1.4k
    Twin studies. Not sure how you're missing your own comments?AmadeusD

    Doubting that a method of simply gathering data is "discredited" is not what I would a call a "defence" of something. If anything, it is progressfocuses dot com that seems emotionally invested:

    My suggestion is thus to not be to easily convinced when someone suggests to you that intelligence is largely determined by our genes "because this was proven by twins studies."
    That IQ is significantly inheritable is a frequently reproduced finding of psychology — which is remarkable for a field that has so much trouble reproducing.

    In fact, what I meant by second link is the third, by third is the fourth, I did not realise there were actually 4 of them... Now reading the second link, nevermind, it is basically a medium post by a "Future physician-scientist". Again an opinion piece by someone who does not hold qualifications. In any case, he brings up, like every link, the "equal environments assumption", and in the end, I am not sure you have missed, he shows the graph of a meta-analysis showing the correlation of some traits between twins. The meta-analysis says:

    The meta-analyses of all traits yielded an average rMZ of 0.636 (s.e.m. = 0.002) and an average rDZ of 0.339 (s.e.m. = 0.003). The reported heritability (h2) across all traits was 0.488 (s.e.m. = 0.004), and the reported estimate of shared environmental effects (c2) was 0.174 (s.e.m. = 0.004)
    Our results provide compelling evidence that all human traits are heritable: not one trait had a weighted heritability estimate of zero. The relative influences of genes and environment are not randomly distributed across all traits but cluster in functional domains.
    This implies that, for the majority of complex traits, causal genetic variants can be detected using a simple additive genetic model.Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies
  • Joshs
    5.2k

    That IQ is significantly inheritable is a frequently reproduced finding of psychology — which is remarkable for a field that has so much trouble reproducing.Lionino

    That may not be as impressive as it sounds, give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention.
  • flannel jesus
    1.3k
    That may not be as impressive as it sounds, give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention.Joshs

    That makes it more impressive. How many other vaguely-defined concepts do you know of that are very heritable?
  • Joshs
    5.2k
    That makes it more impressive. How many other vaguely-defined concepts do you know of that are very heritable?flannel jesus

    Only those that are vaguely heritable.
  • flannel jesus
    1.3k
    IQ is between 57% and 73% heritable. What other vaguely defined concepts are vaguely heritable, and how vaguely heritable are they?
  • Joshs
    5.2k
    ↪Joshs IQ is between 57% and 73% heritable. What other vaguely defined concepts are vaguely heritable, and how vaguely heritable are they?flannel jesus

    If one begins with a concept that can be defined in different ways, such that there is no one I.Q. but myriad kinds on there is no overarching consensus, then what exactly it is that is being inherited is also going to suffer from lack of clarity.
  • AmadeusD
    1.8k
    Doubting that a method of simply gathering data is "discredited" is not what I would a call a "defence" of something. If anything, it is progressfocuses dot com that seems emotionally invested:Lionino

    An interesting little Zoom-in you've made there.
    The meta-analysis says:Lionino

    These do not indicate what you've claimed. They bring to the fore the flaws in the study for ascertaining anything between Twins specifically.

    That may not be as impressive as it sounds, give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention.Joshs

    As I understand it, it is only contentious with those who do not like the results in aggregate. It is one of the better-tested psychological parameters we know of.

    IQ is between 57% and 73% heritable. What other vaguely defined concepts are vaguely heritable, and how vaguely heritable are they?flannel jesus

    The above from FJ makes it clear that IQ is not 'fraught' in any way that you can't ascribe to 'Why are we alive'. We are. It's not arguable. IQ's are consistent and heritable. Minimally mutable. But we don't know what it is. That's not a huge problem.
  • Lionino
    1.4k
    give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contentionJoshs

    As much contention as there might, g-factor is still highly related to academic achievement.

    These do not indicate what you've claimed. They bring to the fore the flaws in the study for ascertaining anything between Twins specifically.AmadeusD

    No clue what you are trying to say. Feel free to make a concrete point.
  • Joshs
    5.2k
    give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention
    — Joshs

    As much contention as there might, g-factor is still highly related to academic achievement
    Lionino

    My guess is they’re as much conflated as they are related. Intelligence tests are already achievement tests.
  • Lionino
    1.4k
    Intelligence tests are already achievement tests.Joshs

    Raven matrices are not influenced by educational or cultural background. That raven matrices scores and educational background are correlated is more than likely due to a common cause: genetically inherited intelligence.
  • AmadeusD
    1.8k
    I have made one.

    But given I expect this to either be missed or ignored, lets just move on to agreeing IQ is a fairly robust psychological measure.
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment