One actual researcher mentioned good habits will get anyone into their 80's but everyone tested over 105 has most of 100 certain genes. Really old age may be genetic.
I do aging genetics research and in fact that's the opposite of my impression so far. Not trying to be contrary, I'm sympathetic to that idea, but most of what I've seen suggests idiosyncratic environmental effects become more prominent as you age, even into late age. Those random fatal events, cumulative exposures, random nucleotide flips, and so forth, all add up more with time.
I suspect aside from lifestyle changes and drugs targeting those affected pathways, gene and "epigene" editing is the thing that will result in longer lifespans. But genetic and epigenetic editing targeting random accumulated mutations with age, not necessarily those at birth.
The phenomenon in the linked piece is important because it throws a monkey wrench into a lot of stuff. I'm skeptical of biological measures of aging because of the widespread idea that people can be biologically older or younger than chronological age. I think it's going to take some large population with good, verifiable, maintained records at birth, which will take some time to establish.
Researchers don’t care about that. We’ve already got IVF with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. So far it’s mostly used for eliminating genetic disorders like fragile-X but there’s nothing stopping parents from trying to select for other attributes except having enough money to pay for it and finding the right doctor. Though realistically the most you can really do now is avoid genetic disorders and select the sex of the baby.
Lol, you're telling me. I literally worked with one of the pioneers of human germline gene modification with IVF. Oh, that sweet, sweet DARPA money. I miss that paycheck.
I can assure you he had (and still has) a small contingent of protesters at all of his speaking engagements and a number of conspiracy theorists online who think that he is literally the devil. Only academic types even really know that he exists, so these protests are from the research community. There's even univeristy-published research comparing him, by name, to the Nazis.
/s used to write quality control software for IVF labs.
It's not making an argument, it's describing. And describing is not taking action.
[edit] about describing truth or evidences: we need that. Of course it all depends on how you present the truth, whether you are actually doing pseudoscience or not, whether you are manipulating concepts that are actually scientific or not, and whether you are conflating correlation with causation or not.
The Bell Curve wasn't simply descriptive. It contained "policy implications based on these purported connections [between IQ and race]." It opened by saying that if you want to hire good employees, you should hire by IQ... and then connected IQ to race, implying that racial discrimination is justified. On examination, many of the sources were directly tied to white supremacist organizations.
The Bell Curve is a singularly poor example of a scientific description of the status quo attracting unfair attacks.
No, but there's a title "Lack of peer review" in your link.
This doesn't look like science.
There a lot of pseudoscience around IQ too, probably starting with the very concept of IQ for measuring "intelligence" (for which we would need a strong definition anyway)
There are many things wrong with how IQ is tested, and even how the whole notion was born.
(note that between my comment and yours, I had edited that sentence a bit, it's not worded as strongly now - this is because I don't doubt much that IQ was scientifically researched, so saying IQ is pseudoscience may indeed a bit far-fetched, but I still think the whole notion is quite broken)
IQ tests are not and have never been intended to measure intelligence. They're intended to be a measure of potential.
The fact that those articles got it wrong from the basic definitions should indicate there is a problem with the interpretation. If you look at the actual first study link, for example, it doesn't debunk IQ but highlights logistical problems of pen & paper testing and sample size. What they then do is present an alternative measurement based on brain scans. They also do this intentionally to avoid controversial questions of heritability, race and gender that people associate with IQ measurement, as laid out by their introduction.
> The results question the validity of controversial studies of intelligence based on IQ tests which have drawn links between intellectual ability race, gender and social class and led to highly contentious claims that some groups of people are inherently less intelligent that other groups.
I read this as "These studies measuring intelligence using IQ which have drawn links between intellectual ability, race, gender and social class are shit and we prove it".
This is at the opposite of what you are writing. It's not at all avoiding controversies. It's debunking, basically.
You are being downvoted and flagged elsewhere because you are wrong, not because one can't describe "controversial" truth.
Cosma Shalizi has a piece about how if you aggregate any similar set of tests, even if they're meaningless, even if you literally generate them at random, you will get a "g"; it's like pointing out that a nonsingular matrix has an inverse.
Interesting, but also irrelevant - because the sorts of tests in question certainly are meaningful; it's not obvious a priori that such a correlation should be expected between them; and the extracted correlate has demonstrable predictive power.
You can't tell me you weren't convinced by the link to a wikipedia page. Not even to an argument on the wikipedia page, but just to the whole-ass wikipedia page.
The link demonstrates that there is a well-reproduced phenomenon in real science whereby, e.g., test scores in various academic subjects correlate positively with each other, and that this can be explained by a common psychometric factor that is reasonable to refer to as "intelligence". The IQ or "intelligence quotient" is an attempt to quantify that which is known to exist, and it's actually one of the best understood ideas in the science of the brain.
> There a lot of pseudoscience around IQ too, probably starting with the very concept of IQ for measuring "intelligence" (for which we would need a strong definition anyway)
The point is that we do, in fact, have all the necessary scientific research to argue that the concept of "intelligence" exists - i.e., that we can identify a single-factor quantity that can be fairly described with a single number - and that anything calling itself IQ is definitionally a measurement of that single quantity.
In particular: problem-solving capability is a real thing, and some people very obviously have more of it than others. Also, we notably don't have data to support more than one factor anywhere near as strong as Spearman's g. (That is to say: we see correlations between academic performance in all subjects - rather than strong positive correlations within certain groups but weak or negative correlations between those groups).
The fact that specific IQ tests might fail to actually measure intelligence, or might measure it inaccurately, is beside the point. The fact that an individual's capability to express intelligence might vary on a day-to-day basis, or for other immediate environmental reasons (stress, caffeine, ...) is also beside the point. Any correlation that any researcher might draw between measured IQ results and any other demographic measurement, mutable or immutable, is beside the point, too.
I have routinely seen people who attack the theory of intelligence engage in pseudoscience of their own, such as trying to invent strange alternate "intelligences" like "emotional intelligence" (apparently meaning some combination of empathy and social skills) and "physical intelligence" (apparently meaning some combination of dexterity and proprioception) so as to "debunk" the idea of intelligence being single-factor (which is not even what the theory of Spearman's g asserts; we're only saying that there is a roughly-measurable quantity that strongly positively correlates with academic success). This is, of course, utterly absurd, and further comes across as an attempt to dunk on "nerds" as "not as smart as they think they are" etc. It only makes sense if you redefine "intelligence" to mean something fundamentally incompatible with the accepted and well understood meaning.
And I, personally, have been called a racist elsewhere on the Internet before, simply for pointing these things out, when I had said nothing whatsoever about race. And I've seen it happen to others, too.
It's infuriating, and it's transparently political.
If I "disrespect" people by dismissing claims like "IQ is pseudoscience" out of hand, I will continue to do so, because I have all the evidence I need that the alternative would lead to far greater societal harm.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the notion of intelligence doesn't exist. Although I'm not sure we really know to define it correctly.
Emotional intelligence seems pseudoscience. I haven't heard about physical intelligence but that seems dubious.
The "IQ is pseudoscience" claim is possibly a bit strong. Now, whether it is a good measure of intelligence is being questioned, and one of the reason is that it has cultural biases and is strongly biased towards academia. It comes from a measure that attempted to assess the mental age of someone (a bit dubious on its own), and you can also train for IQ tests, that alone is a bit suspicious for a good measure of intelligence.
Problem-solving is a real capability, but doesn't IQ mostly attempt to measure pattern recognition? And isn't problem-solving only a part of intelligence?
It seems IQ is quite focused on specific aspects of intelligence, and might not even be measuring them very well.
You're quite welcome. The initial response was because of how weary I am of seeing similar arguments used disingenuously. It seems like you've put more thought than average behind your words.
> Now, whether [IQ] is a good measure of intelligence is being questioned, and one of the reason is that it has cultural biases and is strongly biased towards academia.
This is not a critique of "IQ", which is a name for "number that says how intelligent a person is". The only actual idea encoded in the concept "IQ" that persists to the modern day is "it makes logical sense to expect to be able to state such a number, and furthermore that a meaningful idea can be encapsulated by one such number". This isn't controversial among actual researchers in the field. Historically, there was also an idea that number could be conceptualized as a ratio (hence "intelligence quotient") of a purported "mental age" to a child's actual age (since initially there was only interest in assessing the intelligence of children). Of course, that breaks down for all sorts of reasons (notably, the fact that people don't continue improving at problem-solving throughout their lives - certainly not well into adulthood, and certainly not linearly) - but the concept was subsequently refined to address that (nowadays, the number is simply a measure of some raw capability which is normalized to fit a bell curve with mean=100 and SD=15 or so to the general population).
Cultural biases and biases towards academia are a potential issue with specific tests used to measure IQ. However, it isn't clear that the demands of those who seek to eliminate those supposed biases could actually ever be met in principle. It's also been reported that attempts to use less "biased" tests (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices) don't actually make whatever problematic disparities in observed results go away - in fact, they might widen.
Aside from which - if a culture demonstrably doesn't value the traits that we naturally associate with intelligence or expect people to demonstrate the associated skills as a part of daily life, why wouldn't it be correct to say that such a culture makes its adherents less intelligent? Why would it be "biased" to observe such a culture actually having such an entirely predictable effect on people?
> Problem-solving is a real capability, but doesn't IQ mostly attempt to measure pattern recognition? And isn't problem-solving only a part of intelligence?
There's some measure of streetlight effect here, sure; but problem-solving is a pretty darned big component of intelligence IMO. And if your objection to IQ tests is "people can study for the test and get a score that overstates their actual capabilities" then of course it's important to include some metric of problem-solving. (Another big component that you can't "study", but might be able to train over a long period of time, is working memory. For example, one classic IQ test component has the subject listen to a sequence of base-ten digits, then attempt to recite them in reverse order. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_span#Digit-span .)
Modern tests such as WAIS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Sc...) are kept updated, and include a battery of evaluations on a variety of strongly g-loaded tasks. And yes, they do admit the notion that correlations between these tasks are not perfect - but they have also settled on a consensus that a single number can reasonably encompass the results in general.
Fine, something not peer reviewed, crippled with fallacies posing as scientific material which describes falsehoods gets heavily criticized. This looks good to me. There are ways to reap storm by describing something false and by not doing one's homework, yes, I'm willing to believe this. Note that I was speaking about describing truth (implicit in the first paragraph, explicit in the second).
I'm not willing to engage further, our last argument two weeks ago [1] didn't end well and history seems to repeat itself. This won't lead to an interesting discussion.
edit: like last time, you could have stated your point instead of asking a loaded question and make me do your homework.
