= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
V_V comments on Genetic "Nature" is cultural too - 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 (39)
Got any good references on that? Googleing these kind of terms doesn't lead to good links.
I know, but the way it does so is bizarre (IQ seems to have a much stronger effect between countries than between individuals). Then I add the fact that IQ is very heritable, and also pretty malleable (flynn effect), and I'm still confused.
Now, I'm not going to throw out all I previously believed on heredity and IQ and so on, but the picture just got a lot more complicated. Or "nuanced", if I wanted to use a positive term. Let's go with nuanced.
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.
This is probably just the noise (i.e. things like "blind luck") being averaged out.
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.
And another plausible explanation is added to the list...
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).