> No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic.
Your claim is simply a just-so statement. You're the one making an unjustified assumption. Why should I assume you're correct by default? Until you actually provide any plausible reason why I should take it seriously, your claim is invalid.
You clearly didn't even read these wikipedia pages. Although they are about two different publications (one from 2002 and the other from 2006), each book is basically the exact same, and the latter presents the exact same flimsy evidence as the former.
> Several negative reviews of the book have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that "we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified." They also wrote that cross country comparisons are "virtually meaningless."[4]
> Richardson (2004) argued, citing the Flynn effect as the best evidence, that Lynn has the causal connection backwards and suggested that "the average IQ of a population is simply an index of the size of its middle class, both of which are results of industrial development". The review concludes that "This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade."[3]
> In a book review for the Journal of Economic Literature, Thomas Nechyba wrote that "such sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."[6]
> The methods of the study were criticized by Richard E. Nisbett for relying on small and haphazard samples and for ignoring data that did not support the conclusions.[10]
> University of Reading geographer Stephen Morse also criticized the book (as well as IQ and the Wealth of Nations), arguing that the authors' hypothesis rests on "serious flaws". Morse also argued: "The central dilemma of the Lynn and Vanhanen case rests with their assumption that national IQ data are primarily (not wholly) a function of innate ability, which in turn is at least partly generated by genes. There are many assumptions of cause–effect in here, and some of them involve substantial leaps of faith."[11]
> Evolutionary biologist Satoshi Kanazawa claimed in 2008 to have found support for Lynn's theories.[10] Kanazawa's study has been criticized for using the Pythagorean theorem to estimate geographic distance, despite the fact that this theorem only applies to flat surfaces and the Earth's surface is roughly spherical. Other problems identified in this study include that Kanazawa incorrectly assumed that individuals migrated from Africa to other continents migrated as the crow flies, and ignored that geographic distance and evolutionary novelty do not always correspond to each other.[11]
> Earl Hunt cited Lynn and Vanhanen's work as an example of scientists going far beyond the empirical support to make controversial policy recommendations, and as such as examples of irresponsible uses of science. Hunt argues that in their argumentation they both made the basic mistake of assigning causality to a correlation without evidence, and that they made "staggeringly low" estimates of Sub-Saharan African IQs based on highly problematic data. He considers that by their negligence of observing good scientific practice Lynn and Vanhanen are not living up to the basic responsibility of scientists to make sure that their results can function as reasonable empirical support for policy decisions.[19]
> There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments.
This is simply not true. I'm arguing that your claim is not based on solid rational foundations. You are the one throwing around irrational accusations, not me.
I am well aware that some people dispute it, but the fact is that IQ scores are consistently lower for some races. Similar studies have been done and always reach the same conclusions. You can easily replicate this result yourself. No one has been able to refute the basic data. The differences are self evident when comparing places such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong. Also observe that the Jews are extremely over represented in the list of Nobel Prize winners. Your emotions make you blind to this obvious reality. Isaac Newton, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wernher von Braun; where are their Africans peers?
I am aware that some people dispute it, but the fact is that IQ scores are consistently lower for some races. Similar studies have been done and always reach the same conclusions. No one has been able to refute the raw data and it is easily replicated. The differences are self evident when comparing cities such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong. Also observe that the Jews are extremely over represented in the list of Nobel Prize winners. Isaac Newton, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wernher von Braun; where are their African or Papua New Guinea peers?
EDIT: Having lower IQ doesn't make anyone less human, so this is no justification for actual hateful racism. Nature is a blind process. Some populations have selected higher IQ and they have a powerful advantage, whether we like it or not.
> The differences are self evident when comparing cities such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong.
And nobody denies it.
Yet plenty would ask to what extent and how has nutrition, education (notably during development), and other environmental factors have been factored in trying to draw conclusions from that.
India for example tends to score lower and that despite no lack of genetic intermingling with surrounding areas yet should anyone trying to find a cause not consider for example iodine deficiency which is more common there?
”Superior IQs associated with mental and physical disorders, research suggests”
That rings true with observations I've made of high-IQ types, myself possibly included - I've generally done well on intelligence tests and with some types of intellectual endeavours, but that hasn't translated to life success, and I've suffered a lot of physiological (including neurological) illness. I've observed this pattern in plenty of others.
It contradicts every (non-self-selected) longitudinal or cross-sectional study, including far more elite samples (which if their theory was correct would show vastly more dysfunctionality, except of course it isn't and those samples don't), and every genetic study as well, and the reported (self-diagnosis) rates are often orders of magnitude larger than any risk factor ever confirmed and literally unbelievable.
Incidentally, Hambrick's writeup here is also quite bad. Aside from failing to mention all of those reasons why it's BS, he doesn't describe accurately the research he does mention. Consider this paragraph from the end:
> All the same, Karpinski and her colleagues’ findings set the stage for research that promises to shed new light on the link between intelligence and health. One possibility is that associations between intelligence and health outcomes reflect pleiotropy, which occurs when a gene influences seemingly unrelated traits. There is already some evidence to suggest that this is the case. In a 2015 study, Rosalind Arden and her colleagues concluded that the association between IQ and longevity is mostly explained by genetic factors.
How did he miss the fact that the Arden study in question shows, as all such studies show, that intelligence correlates with greater lifespan/longevity when he's written an entire credulous column about how intelligence is bad for you and makes people crazy and increases the rate of mental disorders (some of which, like schizophrenia, reduce your life expectancy by decades)? It's right there in the abstract, it's not hidden away. One would think that would at least merit a brief pause to puzzle over the discrepancy...
I accept that it's not a great study, but Gwern's refutation seems focused on mental illness/autistic disorders, and doesn't include the other conditions mentioned in the Mensa study - i.e., "environmental allergies, asthma and autoimmune disorders", which is more common in my observations of myself and others. (Notably, these conditions do not necessarily lead to reduced lifespan, particularly with modern medical interventions to extend lifespan, but they nonetheless affect enjoyment of life and limit people's abilities in various ways).
Also, Gwern's refutation doesn't cite a conclusive study that either links IQ/intelligence to genetic coding, or positively correlates IQ/intelligence with physiological health.
Another Scientific American article references several different studies that link brain/body impairments with enhanced cognition [1].
And we can easily see that several people generally accepted as being among the most intelligent in history – e.g., Hawking, Einstein, Tesla and Nietzsche – experienced debilitating physiological illness for much of their lives.
I'm well aware that none of this is conclusive; it's a hugely complex topic, with a lot of different evidence pointing in different directions, and the evidence one will embrace will likely be influenced more by their pre-established position than anything cited in this discussion.
For what it's worth, I had previously accepted the genetic-deterministic view of intelligence and general life outcomes, but can no longer do so after researching the topic deeply over many years. I do accept heritability has a strong influence, but I don't accept that it's limited to genetics, or that the effects are immutable.
> I accept that it's not a great study, but Gwern's refutation seems focused on mental illness/autistic disorders, and doesn't include the other conditions mentioned in the Mensa study - i.e., "environmental allergies, asthma and autoimmune disorders", which is more common in my observations of myself and others.
The asthma one may be correct (and probably due to the hygiene hypothesis, and for the same reason as myopia). SMPY and others have reported that one. It has nothing, however, to do with their theories about hyperactive brains or intelligence being a bad thing. And are also quite minor and tradeoffs we willingly make.
> Also, Gwern's refutation doesn't cite a conclusive study that either links IQ/intelligence to genetic coding, or positively correlates IQ/intelligence with physiological health.
Because there is zero need to do so, as even Karpinski et al admit that there is overwhelming evidence associating intelligence with health in the normal range (you say you researched this topic deeply...?); that's why they need to postulate a U-curve which tucks away all of the negative effects in the top percentile which stuff like population registry studies can't look at in order to save the appearances.
> Another Scientific American article references several different studies that link brain/body impairments with enhanced cognition [1].
No. They link artistic obsession and savant syndromes. These are not exactly what people think of as 'enhanced cognition'. No one is being whacked on the head and waking up able to do quantum mechanics, compose a symphony, run a marathon etc. They are changed in narrow specific ways, often at the cost of other things.
I'll start by appealing to you to engage in this discussion in good faith, and without the snark contained in the above comment.
I may not have read all the same papers as you (just as you haven't read everything I've read), but I have read a wide range of material, and have been undertaking a several-years-long self-experiment on the links between physiology, cognition, and other factors including nutrition, toxicity and trauma. I am interested in the role of genetics too, and I'm open-minded about all of it.
In no sense do I claim my knowledge to be exhaustive, but I don't think I can be accused of approaching the topic without sincerity or dedication.
> The asthma one may be correct (and probably due to the hygiene hypothesis, and for the same reason as myopia)
Can you provide links elaborating on that topic so I can learn more about the basis of those assumptions?
> They are changed in narrow specific ways, often at the cost of other things.
I'm not sure how that contradicts anything I've said. The notion that such trade-offs exist is fairly central to my understanding of these things.
To be clear, the claim I'm questioning is that IQ-measured intelligence is genetically determined and immutable (and correlated with race), and I'm pointing out one example of evidence that factors other than genetics also seem relevant, sometimes in surprising ways.
There are of course plenty of other factors, including but not limited to nutrition, toxicity and trauma.
If you don't have any significant disagreement with the last two paragraphs then we don't have any quarrel.
If you do, I'd welcome links providing opposing evidence.
Give me a break. You're very interested in physiology etc and yet you don't know what the hygiene hypothesis is and have to ask?
Look: all of these things, like high IQ correlating positively (and not negatively) with health are well established in the field, starting over a century ago with Terman. If you really had investigated these things as extensively and diligently as you claim, you would not need to ask me for links, and you would not respond to my mention of specific very well-known paradigms by asking for links. You need links on the hygiene hypothesis or on the standard light-based theories of myopia...? Assuming you had somehow never heard of these, you are unable to search for it yourself? Really?
No, I'm not going to waste my time digging up 101-level references for you; if you want to debate on these topics, get yourself up to speed so you understand the basics like why Karspinski et al do not dare to attempt to claim ill-health in the normal range and claim it's only at the extremes, and you know all the things that they leave out but everyone in the field knows perfectly well which is why they regard Karpinksi as steaming bullshit.
> To be clear, the claim I'm questioning is that IQ-measured intelligence is genetically determined and immutable (and correlated with race), and I'm pointing out one example of evidence that factors other than genetics also seem relevant, sometimes in surprising ways.
If savantism does not boost intelligence as opposed to narrow skills, then it does not serve as a counterexample and is simply a non sequitur. Obviously.
- Yes, of course I know about the hygiene hypothesis and have done for decades, since well before I developed an interest in the field. And yes, I've heard about these kinds of theories about myopia. But, setting aside that plausible alternative hypotheses are easily found, what I was asking for something less hand-wavy than "probably" to explain away the finding.
- I haven't claimed, and have never believed, that there is a negative correlation between IQ/cognitive ability and physiological health. A positive correlation within the normal range of both is to be expected, and is central to my understanding and experimentation.
- I find the study and other article I shared moderately useful, not because of anything they prove - of course they don't conclusively prove anything - but for what they suggest, and for they way they align with what we see in nature: that extreme specialisation on one dimension is generally related to or co-existent with weaknesses or impairments in other dimensions.
Such a specialisation is unlikely to enhance overall life outcomes or evolutionary fitness, which is exactly what we see in society, where other aptitudes like social skills, leadership abilities and physical/physiological qualities are vitally important.
For what it's worth, I note in your writings, your mentions of the effects on IQ of lead and iodine, both of which are very much part of my understanding of the topic, so it seems we're not completely out of sync.
I stand by that and what I say in my next tweet about why I don't believe those rgs mean what people think they mean, which you apparently did not bother to read while trawling through my tweets.
> But, setting aside that plausible alternative hypotheses are easily found, what I was asking for something less hand-wavy than "probably" to explain away the finding.
There is lots of good evidence for both hygiene and myopia. They do not require dismissing an entire century of research based on a single completely wacky sample which is internally insane and has guaranteed bias due to double self-selection effects. One man's modus ponens... https://www.gwern.net/Modus
Your claim is simply a just-so statement. You're the one making an unjustified assumption. Why should I assume you're correct by default? Until you actually provide any plausible reason why I should take it seriously, your claim is invalid.
The impetus is on _you_.
reply