= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mattnewport comments on The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is soliciting ideas - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
I'm skeptical of a strong heritability for rationality independent of IQ. Your original statement suggested to me that you knew of stronger evidence than 'most things are heritable'. If you don't know of any such evidence I'm inclined to remain firmly on the fence.
Have you read The Millionaire Next Door? The book is about people of very ordinary intelligence who are more rational about money than many smarter people.
I haven't read it but I don't think this kind of example talks directly to the question of whether rationality is a strongly heritable trait independent of IQ. My current hypothesis (not strongly held or supported by large amounts of evidence) is that rationality is more a learned skill or habit of thinking which will tend to correlate with IQ (because higher IQ people will learn it easier/faster and apply it better) but that some high IQ people have failed to learn it and some lower IQ people have become quite good at it.
Examples of lower IQ people who are more rational than higher IQ people do not on their own help to distinguish whether rationality is a separately heritable trait from IQ or a learned habit of thinking.
I would not be hugely surprised if certain big 5 personality traits or other potentially heritable personality traits made people more inclined to learn rational thinking which might provide an indirect basis for heritability of rationality.
I wasn't reading carefully, so I just offered evidence that rationality is somewhat independent of IQ.
Didn't the people in that book get rich by saving a lot and investing aggressively for the long term?
How's that strategy working out?
I don't know of any follow-ups.
They invested conservatively, not aggressively. I expect they're better off than people who got heavily into debt, but probably not as well off as some people who were insiders enough to not lose too much when they made bad investments for other people.
I meant aggressively in the sense of well-diversified and stock-heavy (hence the "long-term" bit). If they got rich off of bond interest, well, it wasn't investment acumen that explains their success, but a) raw earning power, and b) not spending it all.
"Assume a high income" is not all that helpful.
Unfortunately, exactly what they invested in wasn't something I was very sensitive to, and I don't remember it.
Generally, they had fairly ordinary incomes, and they invested in things which were considered low-risk at the time. A fair number of them had real estate in the sense of owning car dealerships (used car lots?), with the land under the business being a large part of their wealth.
They disliked spending money. It was common for them to be men whose wives made a full-time job of running the household cheaply. (There was a later book called The Millionaire Woman Next Door.)
For heritability, I think rationality is closer to reading than it is to intelligence.
How heritable is reading?
For the time being, I'll just consider literacy as a binary quality, leaving aside differences in ability. In developed countries, with literacy rates around 99%, literacy is probably some what heritable because that <1% cannot read because of some sort of learning defect with a heritable component.
In Mail, with a 26.2% literacy rate, literacy is not very heritable. The illiterate there are a consequence of lack of educational opportunities. I think that the situation we are in regarding the phenotype of "rational" is closer to the Mali scenario rather than the developed world scenario.
You mean in general or for rationality in particular? Lots of things are heritable, to varying (and often disputed) extents. I tend to think genetic factors are often underestimated when explaining human variability. I'm not familiar enough with the evidence for heritability of other high level cognitive abilities to make a very good estimate for the heritability of rationality however.
I've just bought What Intelligence Tests Miss for my Kindle after reading the article series here. As I said, I'm skeptical that rationality as an independent factor from IQ is strongly heritable but I'm open to evidence to the contrary which is why I was curious if you had any.
No, it's not, but I think it's a reasonable excuse for not having a more specific prior than 'low and uncertain'. Being more specific in my prior would not be very useful without being more specific about what exactly the question is. I sometimes see a tendency here to overconfidence in estimates simply because a bunch of rather arbitrary priors have been multiplied together and produced a comfortingly precise number.
I don't know what it is. I suspect it is not a well established piece of information. I'm not convinced that heritability for 'traits-in-general' is a good basis for rationality in particular. Do you have a reference for a good estimate for this distribution?
I never qualified 'low' with 'very' or 'really'. If numbers make you feel better 'low' means roughly 1-10% probability. I find it a little backwards when someone focuses so much on precisely quantifying an estimate like this before the exact question is even clarified. I see it a lot from non-technical managers as a programmer.
I started this thread by asking for the information you were using to arrive at your (implied) high confidence in a genetic basis for rationality. There's been several recent articles about What Intelligence Tests Miss and I haven't started reading it yet (though it is now sitting on my Kindle) so I was already thinking about whether rationality as a separate trait from IQ is a distinct and measurable trait. I haven't seen enough evidence yet to convince me that it is so your implication that it is and is strongly heritable made me wonder if you were privy to some information that I didn't know.
While assigning numerical probabilities to priors and doing some math can be useful for certain problems I don't think it is necessarily the best starting point when investigating complex issues like this with actual human brains rather than ideal Bayesian reasoning agents. I'm still in data gathering mode at the moment and don't see a great benefit to throwing out exact priors as a badge of Bayesian honor.
This is what I meant about quantifying the probability estimate before clarifying the exact question. As I said originally, I'm skeptical of a strong heritability for rationality independent of IQ. I'm not sure what the correct statistical terminology is for talking about this kind of question. I think there is a low probability that a targeted genetic modification could increase rationality independent of IQ in a significant and measurable way. That belief doesn't map in a straightforward way onto a claim about the heritability of rationality. I'm expecting What Intelligence Tests Miss to help clarify my thinking about what kind of test could even be used to reliably separate a 'rationality' cognitive trait from IQ which would be a necessary precondition to measuring the heritability of rationality.
These all correlate significantly with IQ however I believe (correct me if you think I'm wrong on this). It's at least plausible that targeted genetic modifications could improve say spatial or verbal reasoning significantly more than IQ (perhaps by lowering scores in other areas) since there is some evidence of sex differences in these traits. Rationality seems more like a way of reasoning and a higher level trait than these 'specialized' forms of intelligence however.
You can apply laws of probability to intuitive notions of plausibility as well (and some informal arguments won't be valid if they violate these laws, like both X and ~X being unexpected). Specific numbers don't have to be thought up to do that.