Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Kawoomba 12 January 2013 08:33:14PM -1 points [-]

a tiny bit environmentally

Explain that claim, please.

Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 09:23:42PM 0 points [-]

Environmentally in this context just means anything that's not directly genetic or inherited epigenetic. It doesn't mean plants and animals or anything like that.

IQ is mostly genetic (in rich egalitarian countries like the USA), but everyone seems to agree that there's still some environmental factors that smart parents can do to make their children a tiny bit smarter. I don't know exactly what those factors are though. Probably any kind of practice with thinking and studying would help a tiny bit, but perhaps other things to do with better care such as nutrition. But I know there's not a lot that parents can do that helps with IQ long-term, especially when society as a whole is already trying to do everything they can to boost IQ environmentally already.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 January 2013 08:43:36PM 3 points [-]

What I mean is, someone with IQ 115 from a upper-class family will be more likely to go to college than someone with IQ 115 from a lower-class family.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence
Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 09:13:04PM -1 points [-]

I can't find anything right now on what effect parents' class (what does that mean? SES?) has on educational attainment for people of the same IQs. Someone else may want to look it up if they're better at googling than me.

But it doesn't matter. We already know that wordsum, IQ, and educational attainment are measuring similar things. Wordsum seems like a good proxy for IQ. It gives sensible answers in all the graphs, and it is said to correlate .71 with adult IQ.

Do you have a point, or some sort of theory about what I was saying? Do you disagree with the idea that Republicans are smarter (except at the top end) than Democrats, or that "liberals" are smarter than "conservatives"?

Comment author: [deleted] 12 January 2013 07:06:16PM 1 point [-]

I'd expect the correlation between IQ and WORDSUM to be much weaker when controlling for educational attainment, so some of those graphs will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence
Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 08:12:18PM 0 points [-]

But educational attainment is directly caused by IQ, so that wouldn't make any sense.

In response to Superhero Bias
Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 07:39:12PM 0 points [-]

The police officer is PAID to do that. He isn't doing it for free out of the goodness of his heart like the superhero is. He didn't have to make his own moral judgements like the superhero. He didn't have to resist the option of just taking whatever he wanted in life while nobody could stop him.

By the way, you should know better than to believe the PC propaganda about Ghandi.

In response to The Halo Effect
Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 07:23:26PM 0 points [-]

I think all those traits correlate, even when measured independently to avoid that effect.

Which makes sense for many reasons.

One reason: who are people going to marry? People of the same worth as themselves, but not necessarily from the same category. Smart rich men get to marry beautiful women, or the kindest women, or the most honest women, whichever they prefer. So the positive traits get mixed with each other, and the negative traits get mixed with each other.

In response to False Laughter
Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 06:34:25PM 1 point [-]

It's funny when you realise that Godzilla was an unforeseen consequence of Science used for evil purposes. Godzilla is actually a metaphor for the dangers of science. So, you ironically made a cartoon that makes sense.

But you misunderstand humour. Humour is mostly about building rapport. So for smart people that could involve jokes that are intelligent. But that doesn't make intelligence the defining characteristic for humour.

Comment author: Stephenjk 28 December 2012 03:43:29AM *  0 points [-]

How are values are true or false. You seem to be arguing for objectivist morality.

Consider, all the greatest minds in Philosophy, specifically ethics, believed in consequentialism. This provides no weight towards or against that particular ethical system. No one has value expertise. People can value one thing (security) or another (liberty). Inset whatever values as necessary.

The same is true with progressives and conservatives generally.

That fact provides no weight towards what we should value.

Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 06:02:57PM 3 points [-]

No, he's saying that liberalism and conservatism also come with sets of beliefs about the nature of reality and sets of predictions about the consequences of their actions. Some of which are wrong (for both groups). And he's saying we should be able to guess which group has a better understanding of the world by comparing their IQs. Which I think is a valid point, except that the example he chose is one where IQ clearly creates a bias of its own, and one where black people probably miscategorise themselves.

Comment author: Desrtopa 12 January 2013 04:59:22PM 3 points [-]

If you count most black people as liberals, then that intelligence difference between liberals and conservatives might disappear (if it exists, I haven't checked). For example, it's a proven fact that Republicans are smarter than Democrats (because of black people with an average IQ of 85 voting Democrat)

Could you give a citation for this? I've heard other studies claiming the opposite, and I'm not inclined to accept either at face value without knowing what actually went into the studies.

Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 05:46:28PM 6 points [-]

This article has a lot of bell-curve verbal IQ graphs from GSS (General Social Survey) data for the years 2000-2012, using the wordsum score as a measure of intelligence:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/verbal-intelligence-by-demographic/

It shows Republicans as smarter than Democrats, but Liberals smarter than Conservatives, and White people smarter than Black people, and some other comparisons.

Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 05:08:26PM 1 point [-]

You've called two different things "Argument Goodness" so you can draw your diagram, but in reality the arguments that the expert heard that led them to their opinion, and the argument that they gave you, are always going to be slightly different.

Also your ability to evaluate the "Argument Goodness" of the argument they gave you is going to be limited, while the expert will probably be better at it.

Comment author: pnrjulius 05 July 2012 04:17:50AM 2 points [-]

The statistical evidence is that liberalism, especially social liberalism, is positively correlated with intelligence. This does not prove that liberalism is correct; but it does provide some mild evidence in that direction.

Comment author: BlueAjah 12 January 2013 04:47:36PM 2 points [-]

Declaration of bias: I am a liberal, I am intelligent, but I'm not a Democrat or Republican.

It's hard to measure liberalism. For example, half the black people say they are conservative and half say they are liberal. But most outsiders would say most black people are liberal (and it's common for 100% of black people in an area to vote for Obama). People judge their liberalism against people like themselves, so it's hard to compare groups.

If you count most black people as liberals, then that intelligence difference between liberals and conservatives might disappear (if it exists, I haven't checked). For example, it's a proven fact that Republicans are smarter than Democrats (because of black people with an average IQ of 85 voting Democrat), although just between white people there is no real difference.

You also need to consider that intelligence comes with biases, even though it also improves your thinking. Intelligent people are biased towards things that benefit intelligent people, eg. complexity, even if they hurt other people.

Intelligent people are biased towards letting people do whatever they want, because intelligent people like themselves will do sensible things when given the choice. They aren't used to stupid people, who do stupid things when allowed to do whatever they want. Intelligent people need freedom, while stupid people need strong inviolable guidelines about acceptable behaviour.

View more: Next