This issue seems loaded because cognition is the way you win big now. Although NFL stars win big with pay, it's the Gates and the Zuckerburgs who loom high in our minds.
I've learned to ignore the issue (aside from its entertainment value) because there's still too much for me to optimize within my phenotypic range and local environment to make me better off – or at least, so I think. Either way there's much more to keep me busy than navel-gazing at cognitive-height so much.
On a related note: James Flynn of the Flynn Effect has noted many paradoxes within his infamous and eponymous result. I.Q. might not be improving so much. He anticipates explanations which synthesize nature and nurture but also look at the mind in terms of more basic cognitive operations and strategies. If I.Q. scores increasing reflect on the acquisition of useful, task-specific strategies, one might still be emulate the downward effect of a couple of I.Q. points which is at least something to be optimistic about. Newton only discovered Freshman Calculus.
http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/12/16/the-flynn-effect-tro...
EDIT:
Or perhaps it's the reduction of ambiguity/improvement-of-clarity that intelligence can bring that makes it so appealing in modern life? In which case there's still Buddhism to help with that.
>Although NFL stars win big with pay, it's the Gates and the Zuckerburgs who loom high in our minds.
That's interesting. I have the opposite view: people in tech tend to earn more, but it's the LeBron James's and Taylor Swifts of the world that loom in our minds.
People like LeBron James and Taylor Swift make most of their money from endorsements, and I'd argue that endorsement income doesn't really scale very well. There's a limit to what your brand is worth if you're a celebrity - you can make hundreds of millions of dollars by diversifying across a huge range of products but that's pretty much it. You'll never earn more than a small percentage of the marketing budget of the biggest company in any one market multiplied by the number of markets your celebrity brand is applicable to. Whereas a tech founder has a practically unlimited upper bounds to their net value; if you start a company that becomes the defacto monopoly in a space (operating systems and office software, or social media for example) your fortune tops out at some percentage of that entire market, multiplied by the number of markets you can leverage your product in to. That's a far bigger number.
The reality is that the chance that an individual can convert being significantly smarter than the rest of their generation into becoming the largest shareholder in a de facto monopoly in a particular tech space is negligible. Whereas the chance of converting being significantly better at basketball than the rest of their generation into becoming a multimillionaire basketball star (with or without well-planned endorsements) is extremely high, with only injuries and attitude problems to hold them back.
If you're a young LeBron James (or Usain Bolt or Lionel Messi) your chances of becoming a multimillionaire owe very little to where you start and who you meet. Talent in sport is very efficiently identified, promoted and developed. You can't expect the same probability of outstanding success from a young person with the same personal characteristics as Mark Zuckerberg.
Startup founders are rolling the dice with Taylor Swift and the musicians. Massive talent coupled with attitude helps a fair bit, and above average talent is a basic requirement. But the sharpest minds have no reason to expect they'll make it to the top, and not everyone that makes it to the top owes it to "genius"
Yes, tech founders are making more money, but athletes and musicians are more famous.
Unsurprisingly brains tend to win at the economic game while physical talents dominate the social one. Of course being truly exceptional at either can help a person with the other.
I don't think that's true. Its common for a big name to negotiate a % royalty of gross sales not just points on the marketing spend e.g. U2 edition ipod. Its also increasingly common and amazingly lucrative to blur the endorsement/investment line and obtain equity e.g. Beats, Vitamin water etc.
That's mostly a factor of disjoint cultural spheres. I don't know the first, I vaguely associate the second with music but I wouldn't recognize her voice or any of her music (assuming she sings). They could both be movie stars I really have no clue, they're both in a bin labeled 'celebrity, safe to ignore' together with a whole pile of other names that I do know but refuse to further invest in because there is limited time in a life and if you waste it on the celebrity pages then you end up with a less interesting life.
Someone published a plug-in a while ago to remove a certain group of celebrities from your life, I've been toying with the idea to extend that to a more general solution to ban news about people from an extensible list from your life.
As far as objectives go? Health. Physical size and energy. I do think better after pushing myself at the gym and currently I'm still scaling up that sort of effort. Once I'm leading a non-sedentary lifestyle I think that would be a better description of baseline performance.
Meditation is also a pretty decisive win for me and once again it's something that has to be done consistently for benefits to be sizable and stable.
Even if it comes down to refreshing myself every day with the same routine for four to six hours and the rest is working at something that is worth doing, and I live that day over and over for most of the year, I think it would be worth it.
I was not born with any obvious defects although I don't think I'm exceptional by any means when compared against others in the middle class. Growth is one of those things that occurs when you focus on the derivative instead of the total objective function
As someone with ADHD I'm very interested how to improve the brain, now I'm working on the same(good sleep, meditation,physical exercice and less sugar).
I think that intellectual pissing contests are disgusting. In upper middle-class institutions such as Berkley people seem to revel in it. Everybody embraces the imaginary hierarchy so completely that watching them do it makes me gag. I think that this phenomenon has been intensified by the relative disappearance of the middle class. People no longer aspire to academic excellence because of their passion or enjoyment for the subject they study. Instead they believe that they need to be among the elite in order to have a happy and satisfying life.
I have become more and more discouraged by the blog kindly submitted here. The blog post author started out as a physicist, somehow didn't make a big mark in physics, and since then has been going into academic administration. His blog collects his unpublishable (in the scientific sense of "publishable," after peer review) thoughts about a variety of controversial issues on which he expresses opinions without as much knowledge base or professional training and experience as the older domain experts who actually research those issues. I just haven't found this blog to be a reliable source for Hacker News submissions that lead to informed, fruitful discussion. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
This has to be the nicest, most reasonable-sounding ad hominem argument I've ever seen.
But it's still an ad hominem argument. Is there any way you actually disagree with the post? What would you say to Dr. Hsu if he were in the room?
Also, what is your evidence that he's not in touch with experts in psychometrics and human genomics? I don't know him, but I have very much the contrary impression.
Also, what is your evidence that he's not in touch with experts in psychometrics and human genomics? I don't know him, but I have very much the contrary impression.
I don't know him in person but I have emailed him. He is in touch with a lot of eminent experts (I know some of the same eminent experts and see some of the regularly in person), but he hasn't imbued their worldview about human genetics, forged after years of pursuing other worldviews that don't hold up to experimental test. But your comment is fair, so I'll recommend here for you and for onlookers some writings by people who are experts in psychometrics and human behavior genetics.
The review article
Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 217-220
includes the statement "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)."
The review article
Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182
looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial selection.
"Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA [general cognitive ability] and height, the likely influences of gene-environment correlations and interactions on their developmental processes, and the potential for genetic background and environmental circumstances to release previously unexpressed genetic variation suggest that very different combinations of genes may produce identical IQs or heights or levels of any other psychological trait. And the same genes may produce very different IQs and heights against different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental circumstances. This would be especially the case if height and GCA and other psychological traits are only single facets of multifaceted traits actually under more systematic genetic regulation, such as overall body size and balance between processing capacity and stimulus reactivity. Genetic influences on individual differences in psychological characteristics are real and important but are unlikely to be straightforward and deterministic. We will understand them best through investigation of their manifestation in biological and social developmental processes."
(The review by Johnson, by the way, is rather like Tao's understanding of how mathematical talent develops in individuals, which prompted the blog post kindly submitted here.)
A comprehensive review article for social scientists on genetic research on IQ emphasizes what is still unknown.
Chabris, C. F., Hebert, B. M., Benjamin, D. J., Beauchamp, J., Cesarini, D., van der Loos, M., ... & Laibson, D. (2012). Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychological science, 23(11), 1314-1323. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611435528 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498585/
"At the time most of the results we attempted to replicate were obtained, candidate-gene studies of complex traits were commonplace in medical genetics research. Such studies are now rarely published in leading journals. Our results add IQ to the list of phenotypes that must be approached with great caution when considering published molecular genetic associations. In our view, excitement over the value of behavioral and molecular genetic studies in the social sciences should be tempered—as it has been in the medical sciences—by an appreciation that, for complex phenotypes, individual common genetic variants of the sort assayed by SNP microarrays are likely to have very small effects. Associations of candidate genes with psychological traits and other traits studied in the social sciences should be viewed as tentative until they have been replicated in multiple large samples. Doing otherwise may hamper scientific progress by proliferating potentially false results, which may then influence the research agendas of scientists who do not appreciate that the associations they take as a starting point for their efforts may not be real. And the dissemination of false results to the public risks creating an incorrect perception about the state of knowledge in the field, especially the existence of genes described as being 'for' traits on the basis of unintentionally inflated estimates of effect size and statistical significance."
The newer publications on the topic are not changing the picture significantly. If one desires to develop a child's mathematical ability, for example (a problem I have pondered four times over as a parent), then the thing to do, after gaining whatever favorable shuffle of genes one can through thoughtful choice of a marriage partner, is to ensure that the child receives a sound primary education in mathematics. That is rarely done in the United States,[1] but it's something parents can do if they know mathematics well through some other channel, for example having lived in another country.
> The review article...includes the statement "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)."
If you think this is contrary to Hsu's position, you don't understand his position.
TLDR: the researchers you admire are part of a school that disagrees with Dr. Hsu's school.
Or at least, sort of disagree. It's not that they have any results showing a method for increasing either IQ or mathematical capacity. They just don't feel that it's entirely, completely, totally and utterly proven that such a method (which the entire education industry has spent the last century searching for) doesn't exist. Well, sure. Obviously, in an empirical science, negatives are pretty hard to prove.
But let that be. Suppose your guys are totally right. It used to be, in days gone by, when perhaps the spirit of science was better understood, that everyone interested in science understood that a hundred flowers bloomed, contending schools are a great and normal thing, and scholars can disagree -- without attacking each other personally as failed physicists, college administrators, etc.
Let alone elitists, racists, and Trotskyist wreckers. Speaking of the spirit of science, and schools thereof, I wonder what your position on Professors Boas, Gould and Mead might be? Do you regard them as conclusively guilty of scientific fraud? Or do you feel that in some way the jury remains out? What do you feel Professor Turkheimer's views on the question might be?
The N. vs S. Korean example you mention is explicitly discussed in one of Hsu's articles. (Secular change in height due to improved environmental conditions.)
"Let me reiterate that within a range of favorable environments (i.e., providing good nutrition, hygiene, and access to education), evidence strongly supports the claim that individual differences in cognitive ability are largely associated with genetic differences.
Figure 8. Increase in stature in European countries over time, almost +2 SD. Nutrition, hygiene, and average number of years of schooling all improved dramatically over the last 100 years, leading to improvements in both physical and mental development."
You should probably read his paper carefully before making ad hominem attacks. Save your SJW signaling.
Practically no one makes a 'big mark in physics' anymore, unless they are a bona-fide genius. Hsu is merely very smart and hard-working, otherwise he'd not have graduated from Caltech.
> I just haven't found this blog to be a reliable source for Hacker News submissions that lead to informed, fruitful discussion.
Anything defending genetic determinism is basically flamebait. Methinks those people should stop flaming and read something on identical twins reared separately, and how they are less different from each other than siblings brought up together.
Has anyone done any studies to correlate intelligence with net worth? Since the +3 or +4 SD people usually work to satisfy their own curiosity and thirst for knowledge, I would assume that it doesn't pay really well above a level...
I find it rather discouraging that mediocracy really punishes people for being extremely smart. Evolutionary punishment is decreasing their fitness (money, social stature, e.t.c.) and thus decreasing their procreation chances. Smart women are affected even more. Not to mention the intentional punishment/oppression by different intelligence class supervisors.
> He wore a vest summer and winter, and never learned to bathe regularly.
I am curious as to why so many geeky/nerdy type guys express disinclination to daily bathing (myself included).
While regular bathing is beneficial to maintaining hygiene and health, too frequent bathing (especially when using cleansing products) can disrupt the skins natural sebum, pH & moisture control mechanism, dislodge the natural bacterial flora which may predispose the person to harmful infections. Many chemical products commonly used during bathing (soaps, shampoos, gels, disinfectants) are known to mess with the human immune & endocrine systems, a few may even be carcinogenic. Afflictions like eczema, asthma etc. are allegedly attributable to a heightened state of "hygiene" among modern humans - the immune system which keeps constant vigil against infections, is rendered "jobless" because the chemical disinfectants have done it's job, eventually attacks the body itself.
Spurred by the aggressive marketing from the personal cleansing products manufacturers, daily bathing has become a cultural phenomena in our society. Prime motivation for daily bathing seems to be grooming these days.
Anecdote does not equal evidence, but I've encountered many geeks who are inclined to hold off having a bath until it becomes necessary. I wonder why that is?
That article is rather misanthropic--all humans with average intellect are simply "teachable animals?" And does society and evolution really punish those with high intellect? Sidis was disgusted with sex and removed himself from the gene pool. That's his fault. And how are "smart women" affected by decreased procreation chances? They can go to the sperm bank and find a high IQ donor. And men can buy a surrogate.
I've learned to ignore the issue (aside from its entertainment value) because there's still too much for me to optimize within my phenotypic range and local environment to make me better off – or at least, so I think. Either way there's much more to keep me busy than navel-gazing at cognitive-height so much.
On a related note: James Flynn of the Flynn Effect has noted many paradoxes within his infamous and eponymous result. I.Q. might not be improving so much. He anticipates explanations which synthesize nature and nurture but also look at the mind in terms of more basic cognitive operations and strategies. If I.Q. scores increasing reflect on the acquisition of useful, task-specific strategies, one might still be emulate the downward effect of a couple of I.Q. points which is at least something to be optimistic about. Newton only discovered Freshman Calculus. http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/12/16/the-flynn-effect-tro...
EDIT:
Or perhaps it's the reduction of ambiguity/improvement-of-clarity that intelligence can bring that makes it so appealing in modern life? In which case there's still Buddhism to help with that.