V_V comments on Genetic "Nature" is cultural too - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 March 2016 02:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (39)
Tags: nature nurture genetics puzzle culture

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: V_V 21 March 2016 05:30:58PM 1 point [-]

Got any good references on that? Googleing these kind of terms doesn't lead to good links.

I don't know if anybody already did it, but I guess it can be done by comparing the average IQ of various professions or high-performing and low-performing groups with their racial/gender makeup.

I know, but the way it does so is bizarre (IQ seems to have a much stronger effect between countries than between individuals).

This is probably just the noise (i.e. things like "blind luck") being averaged out.

Then I add the fact that IQ is very heritable, and also pretty malleable (flynn effect), and I'm still confused.

Heritability studies tend to be done on people living in the same country, of roughly the same age, which means that population-wide effects like the Flynn effect don't register.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 22 March 2016 11:02:19AM 1 point [-]

This is probably just the noise (i.e. things like "blind luck") being averaged out.

And another plausible explanation is added to the list...

Heritability studies tend to be done on people living in the same country, of roughly the same age, which means that population-wide effects like the Flynn effect don't register.

Oh, I understand why this is the case. It just means that the outcome of many changes (if they are country-wide) are hard to estimate (and are typically underestimated from twin studies).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit