Can’t believe IQ is still a thing or taken seriously.
In any case, people should start viewing IQ testing as “cultural testing”. We know it doesn’t really capture “intelligence” but a western way of thinking about things. So basically some twins are more educated in western thinking than their siblings, and it has to do with their upbringing into the culture. Not surprised.
Math and spatial reasoning are western thinking? The only thing western about it is the language. I guess you could consider prioritization of math and spatial reasoning as western thinking but I think they would apply to anyone that participates in commerce which is basically everyone.
Not necessarily the topic itself, but many factors affect IQ tests performance. Our perception and assessment of the world around us is strongly biased by our culture and education. The one factor you mentioned being the language is amongst many but its relevance should not be downplayed.
I admit I wrote that comment being reductionist. Mostly because IQ tests and the conversation around them is often reductionist too, and lends itself to western elitism. The history of the study of intelligence is terrible and we should be better at dealing with the topic these days.
Some examples of bias: https://neurolaunch.com/many-intelligence-tests-are-biased-in-that-they/ https://www.science.org/content/article/what-does-iq-really-measure
I’m in general very skeptical of testing IQ.
So … what we’ve learned is that people with the same genetics will develop differently given different environments? Not exactly stop-the-presses news.
To the point where genetics is a rounding error is big news.
Yes. The issue is the accepted belief (among professionals) that “IQ doesn’t change through life”… which is nice as a goal to develop a less biased “ideal IQ test”, but also a really bad preconception when evaluating actual IQ test results.
There are many preconceptions like that in psychology, they need a periodic kick in the butt from actual data.
I mean, in the past eight years, I’ve noticed my mental acuity sharply falling off. I’d imagine some hope for the future might turn that around, but I’ve been burned enough times that the high point of my day is usually hearing from the ex-wife I tried to kill myself because of twice.
Yeah I hate when there are funded studies to tell us the obvious. NewsFlash: Eating double the recommended calories make people gain weight.
That’s the whole premise of science though. To corroborate what we think is true with data. And more often than not it will turn out it wasn’t even true in the first place.
Your example is actually a perfect example of that, because no, more calories doesn’t make a person gain more weight necessarily. This was thought to be true in the fifties, but then scientists checked again. And today we* know that it is much more complex how the body handles calories and when it gains more weight.
* well scientists know. The public knowledge hasn’t been updated since the fifties really…
Yeah, I know the details. I was being generalistic.
When I did power lifting I was probably eating 4000 calories a day and losing fat.
If I ate 4000 a day now though I would balloon up and be obese in no time.
The problem with the science world is they get paid for publishing, so sometimes nonsense studies are done.
By no means am I discounting science method.
But when I read full studies sometimes there are major flaws in the reasoning logic and it makes me irritated.
Yeah I hate when there are funded studies to tell us the obvious. NewsFlash: Eating double the recommended calories make people gain weight.
That’s still wrong though and just because people get paid money for trying to gather data doesn’t make it less valuable. Sure, the publishing system is utter bullshit, but the underlying scientific method applied is the same. So it doesn’t really matter for the example at hand. So your previous comment has a major reasoning flaw as well…
Oh and btw the amount of recommended calories one should take in per day is total bullshit as well…
What’s frustrating is that this seems like it could be twisted either way with respect to the real prize this research is after: the extent to which intelligence is genetic, or environmental. Am I wrong?
So Tripping the rift - Nature vs. Nurture got it right: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0865280/
