Hatrack River Forum: Are Ashkenazi Jews genetically prone to high intelligence?

This is topic Are Ashkenazi Jews genetically prone to high intelligence? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=055806

Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :

Here's the story from New York magazine:

link

What do you think?

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

I think that a story that starts with so-simplified-they-become-nonsensical claims like this:

quote:
But ultimately, they became known as Ashkenazim, a variation on the Hebrew word for one of Noah’s grandsons.

has, at best, not done its research.

Also, the story is 4 years old. Why bring it up now?

Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Also, the story is 4 years old. Why bring it up now?

It's an interesting story that I was not aware of four years ago. Was it discussed here? I did a search on the key terms and only got this thread.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

Given your posting history, you'll excuse a bit of paranoia on my part. [Razz]

Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Given your posting history, you'll excuse a bit of paranoia on my part.

What posting history?

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

Exactly.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

(Makes a note to read link after getting home)

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

There's a problem with any sort of research into correlations between ethnicity and intelligence: Namely, it is likely to make the researcher very unpopular, unless the result is "no correlation", in which case why bother? Even a one-sigma increase in IQ for some particular group would lead to a hydra-headed uproar as people criticised the data, the methodology, the intentions of the researchers, their private lives and thoughts, the journal that published them, the university that paid them... Just take a look at what happened with the Bell Curve. (Which, incidentally, is a fine example of why this sort of research is so suspect.) So the only people who take on this kind of thing are the ones with an axe to grind - nobody else wants the hassle - which only feeds the suspicion that their research is greeted with. By this time, we're so deep into this cycle that the critics are usually right; ethnic-IQ research really is pretty unreliable! So even if any particular study is actually correct, there's no way to tell it from the shizzle of people who found what they set out to find.

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

So I gathered from my sociology studies in college (only a few semesters of required breadth courses).

Even if there were a definable genetic trait that tended towards "higher intelligence," the outcome would be impossible to observe objectively. It would be impossible even to establish a baseline level of average intelligence, much less develop an effective instrument for measuring individual capacity for it. Every single possible test carries enough social and cultural variables to throw the results off by margins wide enough to discredit any result. And with good reason- human intelligence is effectively unmeasurable, and the belief that it can be defined is just a romantic notional holdover from colonial days.

quote:
By this time, we're so deep into this cycle that the critics are usually right; ethnic-IQ research really is pretty unreliable!

I don't think the current politics of research changes anything about the original outlook. It was always a foolish endeavor, based on wishful thinking and ethno-centric pseudoscience. Do you think that at any time in the past, we were actually more equipped to deal reasonably with the subject? Because as I recall much of the scientific thinking on race in years passed was deeply connected with political and cultural prejudice against non-European cultures- that's where we get the basis for eugenics and phrenology, the misapplied justifications for cultural prejudice couched in scientific observation.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Ok, it's a reasonable point. But in the 1930s, let's say, when such research was respectable, it would have been easier for someone who didn't have an axe to grind to look into this. Just for starters, he could have talked about his research at cocktail parties without becoming a pariah! And whatever he found wouldn't be immediately suspect as the product of axe-grinding, or at least not as much as it is today. Thinking about it, perhaps such research from the thirties exists, shows no measurable differences between whatever groups they looked at, and you never hear about it? Such a scenario would at any rate not surprise me. But notice: If we look up what was done back then, and we find that it shows Caucasians more intelligent than ethnic group X, we won't believe it; we'll chalk it up to bad experimental design. What's more, we'll likely be right to do so.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
I think that a story that starts with so-simplified-they-become-nonsensical claims like this:
quote:
But ultimately, they became known as Ashkenazim, a variation on the Hebrew word for one of Noah’s grandsons.
has, at best, not done its research.

Also, the story is 4 years old. Why bring it up now?

That story is. I remember reading it on Jerry Pournelle's site. link,link

Those are from 2002 and 2003.

I think it's an interesting idea, but there's no way on earth to really know if there's anything to it.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Why not? We understand how to measure IQ, and we understand how to extract genetic from cultural influences - twin studies, for starters. In an ideal world where neutral researchers could work on such questions without suspicions on their motives, we should certainly be able to see if there's any genes correlated with intelligence.

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Ok, it's a reasonable point. But in the 1930s, let's say, when such research was respectable, it would have been easier for someone who didn't have an axe to grind to look into this. Just for starters, he could have talked about his research at cocktail parties without becoming a pariah! And whatever he found wouldn't be immediately suspect as the product of axe-grinding, or at least not as much as it is today. Thinking about it, perhaps such research from the thirties exists, shows no measurable differences between whatever groups they looked at, and you never hear about it? Such a scenario would at any rate not surprise me. But notice: If we look up what was done back then, and we find that it shows Caucasians more intelligent than ethnic group X, we won't believe it; we'll chalk it up to bad experimental design. What's more, we'll likely be right to do so.

I think the results don't really matter that much- the area is taboo now largely, as you've said, because it is such a wasteland of actually useful or reliable data. But we have to remember that we arrive at our currently accepted scientific and sociological understanding of race as a somewhat a priori conclusion. Empirical observation of ethnic traits and general racial features is too subjective to allow us to define with any kind of reasonable reliability, the specific abilities of any racial group. And often in the past we've assigned certain traits to races, rather than more properly to social or linguistic groups that were actual responsible for the traits, ie: Asians have generally higher math scores because of their linguistic backgrounds, African Americans are dominant in professional sports because of socio-economic conditions in many black neighborhoods, etc. You can't start with the fully grown athlete, and deduce something important from his genetic structure that necessarily caused him to be an athlete, just like you can't take a spelling bee winner and isolate the gene that caused her to spell perfectly, so any study claiming to link genetics to general aptitudes must necessarily ignore 10 more prescient factors from the real world in order to focus on one hazy and impractical generality. If 9 out of the top 10 world chess champions are Russians, can you conclude that Russian genes are linked to chess ability? Of course not. The conclusion of general intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews is even more dubious, given that we're talking about an international ethnic group with an insular religion, and a strong emphasis on higher education that dates back millenia- given that members of this group have long been involved with the creation of and preservation of western theories of intelligence and enlightenment in the first place, that some instruments devised to test intelligence favor this group generally would not be surprising.

The blunt analogy is writing a universal intelligence test in Catalan, administering it to the whole world, and being fascinated with the conclusion that Catalans are the smartest people in the whole world, followed by the Spanish, Provencali, the French, Italians, etc. There's simply no test possible that obviates cultural bias when testing between different cultures. Hell, even just in America we know that our own standardized academic tests are advantageous to certain social groups, even if only because those are the groups who supply the largest number of test writers.

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Why not? We understand how to measure IQ, and we understand how to extract genetic from cultural influences - twin studies, for starters. In an ideal world where neutral researchers could work on such questions without suspicions on their motives, we should certainly be able to see if there's any genes correlated with intelligence.

Motives notwithstanding, all of these scientists, absolutely without exception, would have certain biases. There is no one person who speaks and understands every language in the world, or has even a working knowledge of every culture. There is no test possible that would avoid cultural bias, and as far as I know there is no effective way of testing intelligence without involving culture. Even IQ tests require basic cultural knowledge that is not universal by a long shot- IQ tests only really measure a person's facility with language and culture- the other elements are superficial items of general knowledge or methodology.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Ok, firstly, you appear to be underestimating the effect of IQ tests. They really do measure something that's not purely cultural, although I'm not claiming that they are zero percent culture. Secondly, your argument that

quote:
You can't start with the fully grown athlete, and deduce something important from his genetic structure that necessarily caused him to be an athlete, just like you can't take a spelling bee winner and isolate the gene that caused her to spell perfectly, so any study claiming to link genetics to general aptitudes must necessarily ignore 10 more prescient factors from the real world in order to focus on one hazy and impractical generality.

is a bit of a straw man. Of course you can't deduce anything from single people. The study of genetics is always the study of populations. That doesn't mean you can't learn something about the statistical effects of alleles.

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :

I would be more likely to put the blame on cultural things than genetic ones, because I think it's likely that the difference in intelligence/capability is very minor when compared to cultural/experience factors.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

On what basis? Nobody has ever studied this in a trustworthy way! All you're saying here is that you have a prejudice against genetic-ethnic explanations. Again, we know how to differentiate between culture and genetics, that's what twin studies and regression analyses are for. For all my disdain for social science, you really can learn things about genetics if it's done right. This is not rocket science!

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

No, it's neuroscience. That is, one might argue, more complicated than rocket science.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Um, no. You do not need to know anything about the gene-brain or brain-mind interfaces to learn about correlations of IQ and genes, any more than knowledge of the nuclear forces was needed for macro-level descriptions of radioactivity. You can learn quite a lot of useful things at high levels of abstractions without having any micro-level explanations.

Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :

How can you distinguish between cultural and genetic differences using studies of identical twins, unless identical twins are genetically identical? As Scientific American reports, it seems they are not. That would at least seem to make such studies more complicated.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

By measuring the difference in variation between twins and non-twins. Look, I know science is complicated. There is always some complicating factor that doesn't make it into the press release. But the other point is that scientists are, as a general rule, really smart. They really do find ways to deal with these complicated issues, and they really do come to conclusions that are genuinely true. It takes two seconds to post a link about some difficulty; it may well take two years to figure out how to get around it; but nonetheless it does get figured out. This is why a PhD thesis takes five years, but problems actually do get solved.

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Um, no. You do not need to know anything about the gene-brain or brain-mind interfaces to learn about correlations of IQ and genes, any more than knowledge of the nuclear forces was needed for macro-level descriptions of radioactivity. You can learn quite a lot of useful things at high levels of abstractions without having any micro-level explanations.

But those correlations don't *mean* anything. They don't at least mean anything terribly useful.

Thus my point- our assumptions about the nature of intelligence are a priori- the connection between genes and measured intelligence can't be shown to be causal without that link- we would actually have to show that the brain functions differently, more effectively, more precisely, whatever, instead of just being able to show that a person's cognitive process is most similar to what we arbitrarily consider the optimum. What exactly makes you think that there wouldn't be a plethora of aberrations in the data, and that all those would be conveniently linked to a significant alteration in background for the individual. What makes you think that intelligence is useful at all as a statistic? I can show you statistics that connect wealth with English ancestry, so I suppose I'm genetically predestined to be wealthy. I'm aware that's a strawman, but this that you're talking about isn't much better, really.

I just think this is all a fool's errand.

quote:
This is why a PhD thesis takes five years, but problems actually do get solved.

We both know studies pertaining to "cognitive potential" and genetic heritage have been kicking around for decades. As I said, some of the earlier versions of these theories formed the basis for eugenics and phrenology, which were popular pseudo-sciences. The problem is that the problem of studying this particular question is insurmountably large. It's not like finding genetic links for diseases or physical features- it's a couple of orders of magnitude removed from that level of observation. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe next year someone will build a machine that accurately measures everyone's ability to do anything with their brains, and it's 100% predictive. I seriously doubt it.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
What makes you think that intelligence is useful at all as a statistic?

This seems to me the core of your objection. Are you seriously suggesting that intelligence is not a factor in life outcomes? Because if it is, that looks like a damn useful statistic to me. If you can increase the intelligence of the human race by even a tenth of a sigma through tweaking one gene, or supplying one particular protein during childhood, or whatever, are you really going to say that's not worth doing?

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

Well, of course. My point is that "intelligence" is not a genetic feature. It's not even properly quantifiable at all. It's related to genetics in many ways, but so many ways that it would be a gargantuan task to even begin to map them. And where would you start to determine a "positive" sigma change? Aren't different genetic makeups also responsible for the ways in which our intelligence develops in our given environments? That's too many factors to control for, at least for me to sign off on the idea that it can be done at all.

I mean, maybe I'm being dense and stubborn here, but I know a guy who learned to speak Czech, with perfect fluency, in four months. The guy can barely hold an intelligent conversation in his own language. Do I want his genes?

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
My point is that "intelligence" is not a genetic feature.

I think we have here a serious mismatch in the way we are using language, because if this sentence is true, then either "intelligence" or "genetic feature" in the sense that I use these words is meaningless. Of course intelligence depends on your genes. So does body size, muscle development, and hormone distribution. That all of these can also be influenced by your environment does not change that they depend on your genes.

quote:
It's not even properly quantifiable at all.

I believe that on this point you are just plain mistaken as a matter of empirical fact. IQ tests at age sixteen do in fact measure incomes, you know. I do not claim that this is everything that is meant by intelligence, but it is clear that something is being measured which is at least a component of intelligence.

quote:
And where would you start to determine a "positive" sigma change?

IQ is normally distributed with average 100 and standard deviation 15. (Some tests use a different sigma.) What is the difficulty? And yes, I'm aware of the issues with IQ as a measure of intelligence; but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Once again, IQ does measure something useful.

quote:
I mean, maybe I'm being dense and stubborn here, but I know a guy who learned to speak Czech, with perfect fluency, in four months. The guy can barely hold an intelligent conversation in his own language. Do I want his genes?

If you are able to identify the genes for language-learning, and avoid the ones for bad communication skills, then yes, you surely do. I'm aware, of course, that the phrase "genes for X" is a vast over-simplification; but really, we're not going to learn anything by throwing up our hands and saying "It's too difficult"! You have to start somewhere.

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:
It's not even properly quantifiable at all.
I believe that on this point you are just plain mistaken as a matter of empirical fact. IQ tests at age sixteen do in fact measure incomes, you know. I do not claim that this is everything that is meant by intelligence, but it is clear that something is being measured which is at least a component of intelligence.

IQ is also a reliable determiner of social status, especially at an early age. I understand why you're using IQ as a reference, but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that higher IQ is necessarily desirable across the board, and even less sanguine about the notion that any specific racial group actually could have an identifiably higher IQ as a rule. I'm not just throwing my hands up- I'm being reasonably cautious about a subject that neither of us is expert in. I remind you that it is these questions in general which have led to many socially destructive acts, mostly caused by irresponsible use of questionable data, and even more questionable theories of its meaning.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
But I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that higher IQ is necessarily desirable across the board

Yes, of course any society needs some Gammas and Deltas to be janitors and whatnot. Are you sure you want to make this argument?

quote:
[E]ven less sanguine about the notion that any specific racial group actually could have an identifiably higher IQ as a rule.

Why? Here are several things to consider before you answer that. First, truth is truth. Second, you don't object to the idea that some racial groups have higher muscle/fat ratios, or more lung capacity, or better lactose tolerance. Third, if we knew how a racial group was getting its higher IQ, we could fix it in everyone else! Fourth, it is clear that any effect of race is going to be small; going back to IQ, it cannot be more than say five points, or we would certainly know about it by now. That's way smaller than the variation across individuals, which is on the order of a hundred points - at IQ 80, you're well within the normal range, while IQ 180 is one in several million. If there is any injustice in IQ distributions, the known fact that some people have 180 while some have 80 is a lot worse than the conjectured possibility that some ethnic groups average 103 and some average 98! And really, this known fact actually is a truly dreadful injustice. My observation and feeling is that smarter people are more alive, in the sense of taking more joy in life, than average people. They are more able to ignore small things and enjoy big things. They have (almost by construction) much better abilities at entertaining themselves out of their own resources, just by plain thinking about things. And, apart from these subjective interpretations, they are able to make enough money for a comfortable lifestyle without much drudge-work. That people are denied these advantages is terrible!

quote:
I remind you that it is these questions in general which have led to many socially destructive acts.

No. The socially destructive acts are caused by people believing they have answers for these questions, and not bothering to do real checks; and then reasoning from is to ought, or more accurately, from is to their existing prejudices. The Nazis had at least the courage of their convictions; it's rare to see modern race theorists argue that the low-IQ people of their own race should be sterilised. But no question has ever caused a socially destructive act.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Why not? We understand how to measure IQ, and we understand how to extract genetic from cultural influences - twin studies, for starters. In an ideal world where neutral researchers could work on such questions without suspicions on their motives, we should certainly be able to see if there's any genes correlated with intelligence.

IQ is nonsense. There are so many different types of intelligence that the whole idea becomes silly. I scored 150 in kindergarten and 135 in 5th grade. Did I get dumber in those 5 years? And those tests are timed. Those of us who are good test takers have a huge advantage over very intelligent people who aren't good test takers.

To say nothing of all the cultural bias that's built into so many of these tests.

I had a roommate once who needed to give an IQ test to someone for her grad work, so I let her test me. And there were vague things on the test that simply can't be any kind of objective gauge of intelligence.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Did I get dumber in those 5 years?

Why not? Children develop at different rates, and the rates change. IQ for children is defined a bit differently than for adults, being relative to their age group rather than the entire population; why shouldn't you have been a fast developer in your earlier years, then slowed down a bit and allowed others to catch up? And apart from that, how certain are you that it was the same test? There are many different IQ tests, with different standard deviations. For all I know, the 135 and the 150 are actually equal.

Finally, consider once again that IQ at 16 does, in fact, predict incomes at 40, even after accounting for social status - to answer Orincoro's objection from above. If the idea is nonsense, how can it have predictive power?

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

I don't think it's nonsense, I just haven't been convinced that it actually measures intelligence- that it doesn't more accurately measure other factors, like cultural awareness, grasp of language, etc.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
There are many different IQ tests, with different standard deviations. For all I know, the 135 and the 150 are actually equal.

If that's the case, the numbers are virtually meaningless.

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Finally, consider once again that IQ at 16 does, in fact, predict incomes at 40, even after accounting for social status - to answer Orincoro's objection from above. If the idea is nonsense, how can it have predictive power?

In the first place, there may be a corrolative relationship, rather than a causative one. In the second place, I recall a study where one set of parents were told their children had high IQs and another set were told their children had low IQs. The children of the first set of parents did better than the childre of the second set. Expectations can make a big difference.

Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :

To be a good test taker you have to be smart.

Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :

William Saletan of Slate on the topic.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

IQ sure ain't what it was made out to be, but it's not nonsense. Some people just have better genes when it comes to their potential for actualized intellectual power, and we do have ways of testing to determine which people are highly intelligent, and which people are not.

Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
If that's the case, the numbers are virtually meaningless.

No, it just means things are more complicated.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
In the first place, there may be a corrolative relationship, rather than a causative one.

Yes, yes. There are three options: Either 16-IQ causes 40-wealth, or vice versa, or both are caused by a third factor - your 'corrolative' relationship. Unless you believe in time travel, we can rule out the second option. And if there's a third factor - please notice, socio-economic class has been ruled out - then I'd say it's one that's worth knowing about! Since IQ is apparently a proxy for it, it's a quite useful number.

quote:
If that's the case, the numbers are virtually meaningless.

No, it just means you have to think for a minute. If one test is sigma 17.5, and the other is sigma 25, then the numbers are telling us exactly the same thing: This subject is two sigma above the average. Now these are fairly unlikely numbers for IQ test sigmas, so I think the explanation that you slowed down in your teenage development more likely; but having to know the sigma that the nubmers are relative to does not make the measurement meaningless.

Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :

If it were true that for genetic reasons Jews had higher average intelligence than surrounding Middle Eastern tribes, would that be evidence that the Jews are God's chosen people? >_> (I saw an article about this phenomenon in Commentary a few years ago that concluded this way. Hopefully the author was being facetious.)

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

Of course. "Chosen" in Hebrew really means "smart"!

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

Israel does indeed look kinda surrounded [Wink]

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

If so, it only applies to the Askenazim; Sephardic Jews do not have the higher average IQ.

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Of course. "Chosen" in Hebrew really means "smart"!

I thought "chosen" in Hebrew really meant "went to medical/law school."

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Israel does indeed look kinda surrounded

Ok, now that, I'll give you, is a great demonstration of the weaknesses of IQ tests. That's plain cultural effects.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

Eh, maybe.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Of course. "Chosen" in Hebrew really means "smart"!
I thought "chosen" in Hebrew really meant "went to medical/law school."

Don't be silly. That would be "alive".

Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :

If they're so smart why is there Hebrew pronunciation so atrocious?

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :

Though the article makes the whole idea seem really biased and unscientific, and though I believe it's almost impossible to look at such questions with any rigor at all, so that the question as it's posed seems almost meaningless, still, my son is by heritage an Ashkenazi Jew, and he happens to be very intelligent. So maybe there's something to it, though I suspect the best thing is to ignore that and go on treating people as individuals with traits and quirks that belong simply to themselves and not their genetic or ethnic or geographic group.

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Of course. "Chosen" in Hebrew really means "smart"!

I thought it meant a bridegroom.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

*snicker*

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
If they're so smart why is there Hebrew pronunciation so atrocious?

Bolded that for you.

[ July 15, 2009, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Lisa ]

Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :

quote:
And if there's a third factor - please notice, socio-economic class has been ruled out - then I'd say it's one that's worth knowing about!

IQ tests basically seem to me to test the ability to be good at tests. Break down a problem, solve it, not spend it too much time on things you can't solve but rather move on.

And that ability does influence future income, yeah.

But I'm not sure we'd necessarily want to increase the human race's ability to take tests, if it comes with the price of having the human race be antisocial or less creative.

IQ tests don't test how capable you're of writing a moving story.
Or how intelligent you behave in a relationship.
Or how capable you are to persuade others.

These all seem to me to be aspects of intelligence that matter lots and lots, but aren't measured even a tiny bit in IQ tests.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
But I'm not sure we'd necessarily want to increase the human race's ability to take tests, if it comes with the price of having the human race be antisocial or less creative.

And why do you make the assumption that this would be the case? Because in fact, IQ generally does correlate with creativity. Are you sure you haven't watched too much Star Trek? The thing about Spock, you know, and indeed all Vulcans who struggle with the 'dichotomy' between reason and emotion, is that they are not real.

Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :

quote:
"And why do you make the assumption that this would be the case?"

Since I used the word "if" I obviously didn't make an assumption.

quote:
"Because in fact, IQ generally does correlate with creativity."

If you have studies indicating such, you've not offered links to them in this forum.
If you don't have studies indicating such, you're merely stating an unsubstantiated belief.

quote:
"The thing about Spock, you know, and indeed all Vulcans who struggle with the 'dichotomy' between reason and emotion, is that they are not real."

And here you insult me by implying that I believe them to be real.

But since I spoke about creativity (and charisma, and general social capability), not emotion, you're not only making insulting implications, you're making insulting non-sequitur implications.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Since I used the word "if" I obviously didn't make an assumption.

And yet, of all the many things that conceivably could go wrong in tinkering with brain development, this one is really the first that just springs to mind? Of all the many things one could say about such a modification, the one topmost in your attention is "we might lose creativity"? I assume that you do not create English sentences and post them on Hatrack by drawing words at random from a dictionary; it follows that you must think this a concern valid enough to draw other people's attention to. (Or you might as well post "But what if increasing IQ causes comets to crash into Jupiter?") So what, then, makes you think this is something worth paying attention to?

Link on relation between IQ and creativity. Takeaway: Creative people are generally high in IQ; below IQ=120 creativity increases with increasing IQ; above that threshold you cannot make individual predictions except that such people are likely to score high on creativity. That is, if you have people of IQ 100, 110, 120 and 130, then it is very likely that the last two will be more creative than the first two, and the second more than the first, but the creativity ranking of the last two is almost random. However, since we are discussing gains of say two or three points distributed over the entire population, most of whom are below 120 in IQ, there is a clear net gain in creativity to be expected.

Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :

quote:
And yet, of all the many things that conceivably could go wrong in tinkering with brain development, this one is really the first that just springs to mind?

So it's my prioritization that you find so objectionable? Fine, then you tell me: what is the thing that YOU believe should be the *first* thing that we should be worried about, other than interference with other non-IQ-measurable forms of intelligence.

I find it a significant problem exactly because there's no easy way to measure those other forms of intelligence.

quote:
I assume that you do not create English sentences and post them on Hatrack by drawing words at random from a dictionary; it follows that you must think this a concern valid enough to draw other people's attention to.

Yes. Then the appropriate response would be to question me on *why* I consider that a possibility worth mentioning, rather than accuse me of making assumptions. And bring up Spock of all things.

So, why not ask?

In which case my response would have to entail my knowledge of existing conditions that correlate negatively to social intelligence, without a simultaneous decrease in IQ. See Asperger's syndrome.

When IQ is the only metric you discuss, I very naturally become worried that IQ is the only metric you care about.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
In which case my response would have to entail my knowledge of existing conditions that correlate negatively to social intelligence, without a simultaneous decrease in IQ. See Asperger's syndrome.

But you are apparently unaware of conditions with the opposite effect, such as Williams Syndrome:

quote:
People with Williams Syndrome (caused by deletion of a certain region on chromosome 7) are hypersocial, ultra-gregarious; as children they fail to show a normal fear of adult strangers. WSers are cognitively impaired on most dimensions, but their verbal abilities are spared or even exaggerated; they often speak early, with complex sentences and large vocabulary, and excellent verbal recall, even if they can never learn to do basic arithmetic.

quote:
So it's my prioritization that you find so objectionable?

That, and also that this is such a cliche. Can you name a science fiction movie, novel, or show from the last fifty years which included any consideration on intelligence at all, which did not show intelligence as opposed to emotion, rationality opposed to creativity, or some variant of this? When your first worry is a cliche - and notice that this is not one of those cliches that's based on a grain of truth, as far as the science can tell - then the obvious inference is that you haven't actually thought very much about it, but are just going for the first association you can think of.

quote:
Fine, then you tell me: what is the thing that YOU believe should be the *first* thing that we should be worried about, other than interference with other non-IQ-measurable forms of intelligence.

Creating an aristocracy of intelligence even more entrenched than the one we have now. But I must say I am not very worried about it. If, on the other hand, it turns out we cannot find a way to increase IQ without damaging some other aspect of the brain - before creativity, I would rather worry about less subtle failure modes such as schizophrenia or manic-depressiveness; it doesn't really take a lot of damage to knock the brain out of its evolution-tuned equilibrium - then this is very much a self-correcting problem. The early adopters will serve their purpose as canaries, just as they did for thalidomide.