
The Neuroscience of Intelligence: An Interview with Richard Haier - jkaljundi
http://quillette.com/2017/12/24/neuroscience-intelligence-interview-richard-haier/
======
evilturnip
Can't we agree that there are people on extreme ends of the mental
capabilities spectrum? That is, people who are mentally challenged couldn't
reasonably hold down a programming job, and people who are geniuses discover
new theorems.

We know that a whole host of mental handicaps are likely genetic (they show up
very early in development).

If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a
whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that result
in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different people?

~~~
danharaj
> If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a
> whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that
> result in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different
> people?

What is the consequence of assuming it? If you don't know how genes affect
intelligence you don't actually have any useful theory to go by. You also
don't know how to judge the effect size of genetics against other causes.
These are highly non-linear, complex systems we're talking about: brains and
their societies. It's far easier to use such an assumption as cover for
garbage science used to oppress people who are already vulnerable than it is
to turn it into a good social policy.

In short, you gain no deductive power about the world with such an assumption,
just a lot of excuses for the powerful to be vicious.

~~~
evilturnip
What is the consequence of assuming the opposite?

E.g. IQ has very little effect. You can use that assumption as cover for
garbage social policy that doesn't recognize individual differences in
intelligence and attempts to equalize outcomes when the distribution in
ability is inherently unequal and leaves everyone less happy.

What I believe is that the interplay MAY be complex, but your argument that an
unqualified assumption leads to bad outcomes works both ways.

~~~
danharaj
Fortunately I don't have to assume either.

------
rweba
I have thought about these questions for a long time.

The issue is precisely what Haier brings up : "IQ has nothing to do with
dignity, friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human
attributes."

The problem is that as a society we don't believe this, we believe that having
high IQ makes someone more morally worthy of consideration than someone with
low IQ. There is a reason people it's considered OK to insult "stupid" people.

People will boast about overcoming poverty and becoming very successful, but
how many people will brag that they succeed despite having a low IQ?

A below average IQ is seen as shameful, a sign of moral inferiority, something
that can should not be acknowledged or admitted. The assumption is that all
the "good" people who need to be listened to and followed are ones with high
IQs and those with low IQs should at best be ignored and at worst be pitied
and shunned.

If the technology to enhance IQ does become available, ideally it should be
like compulsory public education now: Something that is made freely available
to all citizens at birth. This would address a lot of the concerns that
research into the genetic basis of intelligence will only be used to justify
the existing social order, particularly if high continues to be seen as
signifying moral worthiness.

------
laurex
I recently listened to a Sam Harris podcast about gene splicing, in which he
wondered whether the technology would become divisive because 'if you could
raise your child's intelligence, you would, at any cost,' (totally
paraphrasing). I found this interesting since what I've found is that
"intelligence" is not universally valued at all, at least in the US. As a kid,
I was part of a research study on high IQ children development, and over time
I've seen from my fellow study participants that IQ alone didn't predict
success particularly well in the realms of what most people value, i.e.
relationships, material success, power, or fame. IQ is correlated with mental
health issues as well. I'm not saying intelligence is bad, it's obviously
valuable, but in certain communities (ahem) there seems to be a blind spot
around the relative importance of intelligence in relation to other factors of
being human, particularly social components.

~~~
jmcqk6
>I'm not saying intelligence is bad, it's obviously valuable, but in certain
communities (ahem) there seems to be a blind spot around the relative
importance of intelligence in relation to other factors of being human,
particularly social components.

Thank you so much for pointing this out. Intelligence is valuable, but that
doesn't mean it should be valued above all else.

There is an important differentiation between this and dis-valuing
intelligence as well (e.g. anti-intellectualism).

There are a lot of highly intelligent people that never do much of anything
with their life. There are people who are not highly intelligent but do great
things. That doesn't even start to mention how complicated it is to talk about
degrees of intelligence. IQ is one aspect, but there are many others. It's
very difficult to even talk about what is meant by High Intelligence generally
speaking.

------
ujal
"Based on decades of compelling data (including the latest DNA analyses), many
researchers, myself included, think that the g-factor is influenced mostly by
genetics." \--

Can anyone here tell me the canonical way of excluding environmental factors
in intelligence research? How can a neural network learn its weights without
proper data? What I can imagine though is genetics heavily influencing your
behavioural patterns creating an environment that in turn impacts your
g-factor.

"Since the first neuroimaging studies of intelligence, researchers have been
trying to predict intelligence test scores from images. […] It was based on a
mathematical way to assess how brain areas were connected to each other using
MRI scans. Apparently, such connection patterns are stable and unique to
individuals like fingerprints; and these patterns predict intelligence test
scores." \--

Is he talking about white matter? Doesn't it increase in volume long into
adolescence?

~~~
bobcostas55
>Can anyone here tell me the canonical way of excluding environmental factors
in intelligence research?

By looking at the correlation of traits between monozygotic and dyzygotic
(identical and fraternal) twins, you can tease apart the effects of genes,
shared environment, and non-shared environment. The wikipedia page on twin
studies is pretty good.

~~~
ujal
Twin studies lets you fix the genetics factor, but unless you monitor the
twins 24/7 or control their environment it is nearly impossible to tell if it
influences your intelligence directly or through behavioural patterns.

I am sure that if you train specifically for the g-factor test you would score
much higher on it. And if that is the case it is your environment influencing
your intelligence.

------
Danihan
>Based on decades of compelling data (including the latest DNA analyses), many
researchers, myself included, think that the g-factor is influenced mostly by
genetics.

Good luck trying to reasonably discuss this finding here, lol.

------
QAPereo
_Lower intelligence is a limiting factor when it comes to education,
employment, and economic success but IQ has nothing to do with dignity,
friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human
attributes. Access to all the opportunities imaginable will not be effectively
used by individuals with low IQ through no fault of their own. There is no
rational reason to stigmatize people and every reason to provide support in
everyway possible._

Well, he was nice about it, but it still sounds pretty bad. He’s also talking
about supporting people, and recognizing mothers role of personal fault... as
though we already do that. The truth is that his insights, in the world as it
is rather than as he imagines it, this would essentially be Gattaca.

Edit sp

~~~
Danihan
Ever since I saw Gattaca, I knew it was exactly where society would be
heading. Minus all the fear-mongering and scary music.

It's a very fundamental human (nay, multi-celled organism) instinct to try to
pass on our strongest genes.

If there was _anything_ I could do to ensure my kids had 150 or 160 IQs
(without any obvious downsides) I would do it in a heartbeat. And so would
everyone else I know, if they're honest.

~~~
QAPereo
Everyone would... who could afford to. Now ask yourself what the majority who
couldn’t afford it would do to protect and advantage _their_ offspring.
Gattaca is probably a fairly tale, and a nuclear wasteland the reality.

~~~
Danihan
It's sadly ironic to me that a YCombinator commentator manages to be even more
hyperbolic over gene therapy fear-mongering than an already very exaggerated
message film.

Disparities in IQ between people and groups are _already_ massive and it's not
causing nuclear war. Disparities over how much time and effort are put into
raising offspring between classes are _already_ massive. Again, we're still
not going to war over it. How would you even envision a nuclear war like that
taking place, when the highest IQ people are spread among many nation states
and demographics?

You should really try to tone back the over-the-top exterminist rhetoric and
thinking, if only for your own well-being.

~~~
dang
Please don't get involved in ideological flamewars here. This is an
ideological flamewar topic because the high ideological bit determines nearly
everyone's position about it.

That means the more people get into it, the more it turns into the same
ideological flamewar that every other such topic leads to, and that's what
we're most trying to avoid here. One can see this, for example, in how your
comment begins to slide into personal disrespect and name-calling.

------
jokoon
I don't know if intelligence can really be defined, scientifically,
objectively or otherwise.

Intelligence is a part of evolution, so it is really hard to describe it.
There are many behaviors which are deterministic, automatic because they are
described by genes. I tend to think that brains are not really smart, but we
just want to give value to what makes us better, so we call it intelligence.

Intelligence doesn't really exist, there is just transmission of knowledge.

