= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Watercressed comments on What truths are actually taboo? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (293)
What model of hereditary intelligence predicts significant hereditary differences in the current environment and negligible differences in an environment where people are raised better?
(this is talking out of my ass but:)
Variation in genetic robustness/fragility. A known example of this is Iron deficiency in women. If iron in the food is plentiful, no one will notice iron deficiencies, and if it's non existent then everyone will suffer. But if there's an almost sufficient amount of Iron, women will be far more likely to be deficient than men. Women are less robust to lack of environmental iron than men. You can imagine brain development such that everyone has the ability to develop a great brain in a great environment but certain genetics will deal better or worse with certain deficiencies.
I was not saying that everyone would have the same level of intelligence, but merely that the baseline might be high enough that violence becomes less of an issue. That was the original subject.
Similar to drethelin's comment.
I would argue that the higher the variance the more of an issue variance becomes.
Edit: Ignore this, I misread macolmmcc's comment.
What do you mean "sic"? "violence" was what I meant. The original comment was:
Now, it may not be the case that if you raise everyone's intelligence that violence decreases, but it's plausible that this is the case (given the original argument).
I didn't use the word variance and didn't mean to. I respectfully ask for the downvote rescinded.