0:14 · Heritability does not imply determinism 4:59 · What is the value of the heritability coefficient? 7:47 · Nature and nurture are always intertwined 11:17 · Genes, giftedness, and responsibility 15:16 · Separating individual differences from hierarchy 19:50 · Genetics as a tool for social policy Brief history of intelligent testing but mostly the social implications of intelligent testing 28:08 · Can we systematically improve general intelligence? 38:49 · Prioritizing self-actualization in education 46:02 · Group differences data, racism, inequality 58:28 · Anti-eugenics and the great synthesis 1:05:24 · Polygenic scores: evaluations, correlations, and applications
You are scientists it's not about trying to make things the way you would like them to be. It's about looking at the way things actually are put feelings aside.
Thanks for this great podcast. This topic fascinates me. I'd like to point out that a skill is an acquired ability. A gift, or inherited ability, is one that is innate to the individual. They must both be counterpointed against ambition and interest. For instance, my first artistic love is music. However, I was quite tone deaf and had no rythym. Yet, after much work, I learned to play the guitar and piano. After a few years, I significantly surpassed the abilities of my more gifted friends who had perfect pitch and good rhythm. I however, do have a natural gift for art, drawing and painting. But I was not ambitious in that field. I decided to go with my inherent abilities and am pursuing art in my old age. Another point is that I have an abnormally high IQ, by measurement, and as a child was almost always able to help my classmates, particularly in math. In many different careers since then I have discovered that anyone with average or somewhat less than average intelligence is perfectly capable of thinking the same thoughts as a genius. It just requires a little more work and time. The individual's interest, passion, ambition and diligence are far more important than innate ability or talent. Having exceptional talent or gifts does not always mean success and can often produce slackers. Sometimes, when something is too easy, it is taken for granted and not really honed and refined and pursued to potential. I have yet to see any psychological metrics for ambition, passion, strength of character or determination. I think those are the missing keys in these discussions. I don't know that those things can be measured, but that should be taken into consideration. Think about it, who is the better person, the saint who refrains from sin or the sinner who refrains from sin?
If I recall correctly, positive psychology has a concept called grit which is pretty much the ability to stick to an action for long periods of time. Also, there's the concept of Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly which is a state of mind that is achieved by fitting the difficulty of the task to the persons ailitiy. It is basically a state of deep concentration. Maybe those two are measures that could be used to asses the attributes you described. However I don't really know how they are assessed and I think especially grit may be somewhat hard to find with objective measures. But I aggree that determination and time spend into a skill will best talent. I believe I heard in another podcast that talent actually only helps in the beginning since the first skills are easier learned, but as soon as you enter the field of high performers the gap is closed fast. And in some cases the "not talented" people may have an advantage since they put a lot of hard work into learning the underlying, basic skills that a talented person may just have brushed over and is lacking later on.
Guys it seems you are both somewhat conflicted about whether you want to be serious scientists or SJW’s. Sometimes the truth is inconvenient, sometimes the truth is offensive, notwithstanding if you consider yourself to be a serious scientist then stick with the facts, even if you don’t like them. To quote Gad Saad, “in the pursuit of justice you can’t kill truth”
It's a great book. Anyone who has fixed ideas about genetics and social life should read it an leave your received notions behind. Her use of data, concepts, and careful reasoning make a strong case for social scientists (and the educated public) to get up to speed on how genes affects life chances, and how they don't.
I have low iq, low intelligence and it has effected my life a lot for example I struggle in the workplace because I'm not smart enough to for most jobs. This topic is serious and it's your job is to be honest. Put your political correctness to one side and deal with the facts. That's what we need to help people like me who are struggling.
Before we can address any social inequalities we need to first identify the root causes of those inequalities on an individual basis. We will not solve our social problems by drafting policies based upon group differences because we don't know what factors went into the shaping of the individuals within those groups. Genetics certainly affects a person's development as do other external environmental factors, but to what degree is the individual within the group affected by either?
I recall listening to Charles Murray being interviewed on a podcast hosted by a progressive local to and shortly after that incident where Charles and a female academic were escorted out of a University due to hostility from protesters about his presence and the female academic was assaulted, in the car park I think. The progressive podcaster wanted to understand what Charles was saying that caused so much hostility. After Charles told him it was because of a book he wrote about intelligence testing result differences between populations which he used in his arguments about affirmative action, he went on to express his surprise progressives didn’t use these data to argue for higher taxes for social programs and welfare payment. Sadly the podcast has been deleted, backlash maybe, but I still have my response to the podcaster on my twitter timeline thanking him for doing it and how interesting I found it that Charles made a progressive case for the use of the data.
To address specifically the issue of environmental racism: Murray and Jensen have addressed that by using twin studies. They make major efforts to control for environmental factors. Including having representation of geographic diversity. They even break down the data based on income. Very high income African Americans still have a marked difference in IQ outcomes. If it were just lead in the water, you would expect local white people to have the same issues at the same rate. There is something to be said about lead in the water. But the outcome is more pronounced in one community than the other. And there are visible differences where there is no evidence of environmental contamination. The better way to handle this issue is to not be unscientific.The problem is if you duplicate the study multiple times, you will get the same results. If you deleted all the data now, and started fresh, you will get the same results. That's what it means to be scientific. Let the science help inform a policy discussion.
Great episode. I'm currently undertaking the first GWAS done in transgender individuals so this topic is really fascinating to me at the moment. Going to the bookstore to buy Kathryn's book tomorrow!
Brilliant discussion, but you can definitely see how their politics strongly influenced all of their carefully parsed statements about group differences, almost to the point where they both lose credibility. I now see the need for Martian psychologists and behavioral geneticists to visit Earth to speak on these issues without politically sensitive proclivities and liberal sanctimony. Maybe Robert Plomin should be credited as such a Martian.
Her vocal fry is very irritating, because it is so practiced. Spiritual development gets no traction from the Left, even though self-reliance, among other things would seem to be of vital importance.
It is very difficult to get past it. It used to be that you couldn't even get through a PhD program with that degree of poor communication skills. And it's not like she has good research to back it up. She's just excellent proof that they are giving PhDs to anybody lately.
Why is genetics so valuable in live stock, thus driving dramatic pricing, for the right genetic stock. It can be cattle, race horses, or dogs. But this is so taboo for humans. BTW, your idea about getting to giftedness is ridiculous.
I enjoyed the discussion. Though in terms of improving our quality of life, I’ve never understood why intelligence dominates the discussion. It seems to me, we need to foster empathy and active compassion. Intelligence simply amplifies underlying traits- positive and negative - and does little to improve our shared struggle.
I also think empathy should be encouraged. But the usefulness of the IQ test is in terms of predictive measures of generally understood prosocial outcomes. Completing education, a good job, law abiding, even successful marriages.
@@captaincarl1 I didn't discount the value of intelligence in human development. I merely suggested shifting focus. Historically, societies have formed in response to fear of the Other - rooting innovation in competition (pursuit of intellectual dominance). To that end, we've created a myriad of social structures to isolate ourselves from each other. Intelligence is the capacity to act - how we act is an expression of our humanity. It would seem to me the latter influences our quality of life, more so than our capacity.
You are so niave, intelligence is important to almost every aspect of functioning. Try getting by when low intelligence when there are so few jobs you can do
So awesome and so perfect for today's social climate and FYI is it that you are low in magnesium or have a familial twitch in eyes? #eatMeat #meatHeals #meatRX
IQ tests don't predict social outcomes; they simply correlate with social inequalities, which are a much better predictor of social outcomes. Maybe if the tests were taken in a perfect laboratory scenario where children are raised under the exact same conditions until they get older. But even then the IQ test would simply measure how good these children are at taking tests, which is what IQ tests actually measure. It's why you can practice and get better at IQ tests. You can literally buy practice guides to help improve your results on standardized tests. Plus, someone from a lower income home may be taking an IQ test while hungry or stressed out because of home troubles. Furthermore, the general population has increased their IQ over just two or three generations. Are people getting smarter? No. That's not how genetics works. It's that people are getting better educations. It's amazing how some in the Psychology field clutch on to IQ tests as some sort of real science. It's like they know that if they admit that IQ tests are bullshit, then they're admitting their field of study is not exactly a hard science. I mean, she is actually willing to use IQ tests as a real measure of how good someone is at Math or "spatial rotation". And she's willing to use IQ test results to influence social policy. This Kathryn Paige Harden speaks out of both sides of her mouth. I'm going to have to find out more about her, but I'm getting red flags from just the first couple of interviews I've listened to. Then there's her Sam Harris connection. Big red flag there. Yikes.
IQ tests measure a person's ability to answer questions that test your ability and effectiveness in the processes and strategies of drawing inferences, reaching conclusions, arriving at solutions, and making decisions based on available evidence, and not how well you take an IQ test.
@@psychicspy You literally just said the IQ test measures how well you answer the questions. In any case, the more you practice the tests the better you get at them. They don't measure intelligence.
@@avenuePad Let me try to explain it to you another way. A history test does not measure your ability to take a history test. It measures your knowledge of history. Just as a math test does not measure your ability to take a math test. Now do you see how ridiculous you sound when you say that IQ tests only measure your ability to take an IQ test? Yes you can take IQ tests and yes your score will improve - up to a point. Once you become familiar with how to process the questions the final score will be related to your innate intelligence, and no longer affected by your unfamiliarity with IQ tests.
IQ has not increased over the past few decades. The so called Flynn effect captures an increase in the general populations ability to perform abstract reasoning. It does not measure an increase in the general populations IQ. People became more familiar with abstract concepts over time. The Flynn effect has stopped, which indicates that people are more or less familiar with the concept of abstraction and IQ tests are now - even more accurately than ever - measuring innate intelligence.
@@psychicspy I wasn't talking about the Flynn effect. I was saying that the more you practice IQ tests, the better you get at them. That's why you can buy practice tests when you're going through the hiring process for the military, police, or gov't. Those tests are standardized IQ tests and the it's recommended by the employers to get the practice kits. I became very proficient at them because I practiced my ass off. I would probably be more rusty now because it's been a few years, but if I had a night or two to practice I'd be good at them again. Aside from that, testing in this nature is never truly accurate. Some people freeze up in tests. Maybe you have something personal going on in your life that is distracting you. Perhaps you didn't get enough sleep, or too much sleep, or you ate something beforehand that disagreed with you. These types of tests are not reliable. The idea that you can measure someone's intelligence like you can the temperature by taking a 100 year old test - that wasn't even intended as a tool to measure intelligence - is also absurd on its face. IQ tests don't measure creativity, artistic ability, musicianship, or critical thinking. Again, it measures how well you're able to answer the questions given on the test. To someone who's never seen these types of questions they might get frustrated and freeze up, but let them practice at home and then take the test and they would do really well. Sorry, but in terms of measuring intelligence IQ tests are meaningless. And that's not a controversial statement. There have been studies after studies proving this. It's also just fucking totally obvious.
