this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
49 points (93.0% liked)

SneerClub

979 readers
87 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It earned its "flagged off HN" badge in under 2 hours

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41366609

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GraniteM 48 points 2 months ago (18 children)

What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

By Isaac Asimov

What is intelligence, anyway?

When I was in the army, I received the kind of aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored 160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two hours they made a big fuss over me.

(It didn't mean anything. The next day I was still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.)

All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other people to think so too.

Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with intellectual bents similar to mine?

For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was.

Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car.

Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test.

Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and I'd be a moron, too.

In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly.

My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.

Consider my auto-repair man, again.

He had a habit of telling me jokes whenever he saw me.

One time he raised his head from under the automobile hood to say: "Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering motions with the other hand.

"The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?"

Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers.

Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said, "Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them."

Then he said smugly, "I've been trying that on all my customers today." "Did you catch many?" I asked. "Quite a few," he said, "but I knew for sure I'd catch you."

"Why is that?" I asked. "Because you're so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn't be very smart."

And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there.

~ ~ ~

Autobiography by Dr. Isaac Asimov (1920–1992): It's Been a Good Life

[–] moistclump 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Excellent, “because you’re so goddamn educated.”

[–] GraniteM 8 points 2 months ago

What's great is that after reading this I used this exact gag on my (very educated) wife, and she fell for it too!

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

an hackernews:

a high correlation between intelligence and IQ

motherfuckers out here acting like "intelligence" is sufficiently well-defined that a correlation between it and anything else can be computed

intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income"

eat a bag of dicks

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago

Intelligence is when money.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

ooh can I play? A species' or race's intelligence can be reasonably defined by how rapidly it extracts resources from the surrounding area.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

That would be the Lexus-and-the-Olive-Tree definition, like the one by which McDonald’s burgers are the best cuisine

[–] trolololol 7 points 2 months ago

These must be the same people who say your rich because you are worthy in God's eyes.

🙄🙄🙄

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

"A high correlation between intelligence and the thing we define intelligence as"

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Second, is the more common "IQ isn't intelligence" trick. Sure, the measure doesn't encompass everything that is making intelligence, but it is still a somewhat interesting proxy as there is a high correlation between intelligence and IQ.

Any time you see something like this, what it’s really saying is:

IQ is intelligence to me and nothing you say can dissuade me. I just have a high enough IQ to write a disclaimer for plausible deniability.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago

Also:

I took an online IQ test in 2004 and scored 160 i am very smart --hakernews, probably

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Imagine being a skilled San Francisco-style tech worker, at the apex of your industry, and the heights of intellect and rigor you can scale outside of that very specific context turn out to be "race science" apologia. Probably a lesson in there somewhere.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's pretty on-brand for a techbro to search for answers in what they see as "the code" (genome) while ignoring the entire rest of the fucking world.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They're too stupid to understand anything beyond "the code", its unsurprising they're treating it as a technological hammer in a world of nails

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

at the logical end of this reasoning they do sound like a bunch of tools

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago

I knew this was good stuff when the majority of HN commenters where huffily complaining about the tone.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I want to make a HN account and reply to the 'depression and schizophrenia is or isn't a hardware/software issue' posters and tell them there is actually is a working IQ test, and they all just failed it.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@Soyweiser @sneerclub It is not possible to understand neuroscience using a “hardware/software” paradigm. That is a model created by humans to make building working computers possible. Brains develop without any such abstraction constraining the process.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Or at least what people are thinking of as "software" is wrong; neuroscience is 100% "hardware". Can't expect techbros to understand memetics or iatrogenic illnesses, though, not when they're fixated on the idea that people with depression/schizophrenia/etc. are having "issues" rather than experiencing society.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

non-linear analogue electrochemo-computer with distributed processing centers, multiple unmapped signalling sidechannels, multiple overlapping interdependent sets of subsystems, liquid temperature management, and no jtag

and that’s just on the intro leaflet

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

In particular, two semantic tricks are used. First, the fact that current genetic markers aren't a good prediction for IQ heritability is used as an argument against it. The other likely explanation that our understanding of those markers is widely incomplete is not explored.

Unlike our understanding of IQ, the game of matching shapes where the loser gets a teen pregnancy. That's been fully explored.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Science: “our current understanding of genetics leads us to believe IQ is not heritable”.

This fucking guy: “IQ is heritable and you just haven’t proved it yet. Citation: I belong to a race with good genetics, unlike you”

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Honestly, I'm really surprised to hear that IQ is not even a little bit heritable, given that IQ test performance correlates with level of education, which correlates with wealth, which is heritable.

True, wealth is not genetic, but heritability has an interesting definition which leads to some unintuitive cases of heritability abd non-heritability. For instance, wearing earrings is heritable while having ears is not.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

IQ is a little bit heritable. But there are plenty of things which are very heritable and also not genetic to use as comparisons, like accents or posture or little societal rituals of communication, compared to which IQ is barely heritable at all. And that's without cracking into memes/tropes/narremes, skills, maths, or other more-abstract inheritance.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@bitofhope @swlabr One of those quiet little scientific revolutions; cheap genetic testing let biologists realise that insects they had classified as different species were not, they were different morphs using the same genes. This let in the idea of developmental plasticity and the current consensus is that a whole lot of stuff is developmental, not genetic.

In humans, almost everything brain-based (sexuality, identity, language, symbol manipulation…) is likely significantly developmental.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

@bitofhope @swlabr This completely messes with the idea that you can use "good genes" as a guarantee of a desirable outcome.

It also hauls in the idea of environment as the arbiter in more-difficult-to-ignore ways. Even if you're using Origin and nothing since, you should be aware that "fitness" means "in some specific environment and moment in time", only there's this drive to ditch that. Recognising how much developmental plasticity matters breaks any concept of inherent quality of organisms.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

IQ test performance correlates with level of education

I read somewhere that this claim owes a little too much to the inclusion of pathological cases at the lower end of the spectrum, meaning that since below a certain score like 85 you are basically intellectually disabled (or even literally brain dead, or just dead) and academic achievement becomes nonexistent, the correlation is far more pronounced than if we were comparing educational attainment at the more functional ranges.

Will post source if I find it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

@Architeuthis @bitofhope Taleb calls that a "dead man bias," though I don't know if he originated the critique. https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

That's because the HN poster I quoted, like many many MANY people, has conflated predicting iq based off of genes with heritabilty. I'd recommend reading the linked substack, the author's much more succient and knowledgeable than I am, and I wouldn't want to misrepresent his point

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@bitofhope @swlabr

If you click enough links, you get to this substack article which I think all the discussion is about. https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/no-intelligence-is-not-like-height

Which indicates that IQ is a little bit heritable, just much less than other traits and with way more confounds.

Which, when you think about the extreme examples, makes sense - if your parents were humans, and mine were golden retrievers, you will be a human and I will be a golden retriever, and you will almost certainly have a higher IQ than me.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

@bitofhope @swlabr

... but, apparently, if your parents were particularly bright humans and mine were relatively dim humans, but we then got adopted by the same family and given the same educational opportunities etc., the chance that you will end up brighter than me is only very slightly better than 50/50.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] givesomefucks 6 points 2 months ago

We see height highly correlated to genetics, but only in places without widespread childhood food instability...

All kids getting proper nutrition and calories means they reach the max height they have DNA for.

So it's hard to compare to IQ in places where public education is shitty.

If kids aren't living up to their potential due to poor schooling, then it's going to look like there isn't a genetic component.

Like, identical twins where one grew up in luxury while another grew up in abject poverty will not be the same height.

Here's an actual academic study that goes in depth on it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

Tldr for the article (but it's worth the read):

There's lots of genes that effect intelligence, so rather than try to look at them individually like the article does, you need to look at a genome wide polygenic score

But a lot of the misunderstanding in OPs article is treat "IQ" as a single score. It's like SATs, people say the average of a bunch of small tests rather than list all of them. Two people with 120 IQs could be good at very different things.

So while it may be hard to correlate certain genes with an IQ score, it isn't to correlate a gene with a specific part of the IQ test like processing speed, associative memory, or fluid intelligence.

Comparing it to height just shows a complete misunderstanding of what IQ even is...

load more comments
view more: next ›