Comment by tptacek
3 days ago
Current estimates of the "heritability" of intelligence are far, far lower than "0.7 or 0.8"; they're probably below 0.1, and that's before digging into what "heritability" means, which is not generally what people think it does.
I'd guess the person you're responding to has thought more carefully about this issue than the median HN commenter has.
> Current estimates of the "heritability" of intelligence are far, far lower than "0.7 or 0.8"; they're probably below 0.1
Sources please, if you have time? I tried to find something supporting what you wrote, but wasn't able to (this far).
Instead I found this from 2015:
Thinking positively: The genetics of high intelligence, > I'd guess the person you're responding to has thought more carefully about this issue than the median HN commenter has.
Well, in his reply to me, he was sort of name dropping and appealing to (the wrong) authorities, didn't make a good impression on me. Plus writing about himself, but he's a single person. -- I would have preferred links to research on large numbers of people.
> what "heritability" means, which is not generally what people think it does.
That sounds interesting. Can I guess: You mean that people believe that heritability means how likely a trait is to get inherited from parent to child? When in fact it means: (tptacek
4 hours ago
cutemonster
1 hour ago
My sibling comment (unsuprisingly) goes into more depth and with more sourcing. The 0.4 result you've cited is from 2015, which is in the phlogiston era of this science given what we've learned since 2018. As he has aptly demonstrated: his authorities are sound, and he has thought carefully about this matter --- respectfully, far more than you seem to have. That's OK! We're just commenting on a message board. I wouldn't even bring it up, except that you've decided to make his grasp on the subject a topic of debate.
> he has thought carefully about this matter --- respectfully, far more than you seem to have
He was wrong in his guesses about me and what I've read, and wrong about the quote too (see sibling comment).
> is from 2015 ... what we've learned since 2018
You're saying the graph is somehow invalid, because of newer GWAS related research?
The blog he links to looks biased to me. Are there two camps that don't get along: looking at DNA (GWAS), vs looking at twin studies etc ... yes seems so. I'll reply to both of you in another comment
1 reply →