If the "right thing to do" is to not have kids, who do you think IS having kids?

[Kriegsspiel]

My understanding is that there is no correlation between success and IQ.

Smart people do not necessarily become successful people, stupid people do not necessarily remain unsuccessful.

That's true, but it doesn't invalidate the statement that higher IQs are associated with better life outcomes.

And then you get into the question of "what is success." Some people think Hitler was successful.

You have to define success before you can see if it's correlated with anything, yes. The Bell Curve is loaded with data that suggests that IQ is correlated with many things, including socioeconomic success (income distributions). Even workplace injuries were correlated with IQ.

[Kriegsspiel]

@Kriegsspiel:

Both traits are correlated with waist-to-hip ratio=gluteofemoral fat storage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3268185/

Oh ok, I'm familiar with that concept, but in the context of women with lower WHR's having children with higher cognitive scores (cited in your link), offering an evolutionary explanation for men's WHR preferences. Anyways, framing aside I think we're arriving at the same place.

[7Wannabe5]

High IQ doesn't just correlate with ability to perform difficult tasks. If you want to hire somebody to mop your floors, you should choose the human with the highest IQ. So, in the affluent era prior to the 1970s, when the majority of the most intelligent women were full-time assigned to childcare and afforded the resources necessary to best perform this task, better results would obviously be likely.

Since the earliest influences on brain development are most likely to be significant, something as simple as the stress of maintaining full-time employment while pregnant might be cause of decline. The mid 1970s also was the tidemark for mass institutionalization of children under the age of 6 ,usually in large age peer groupings with borderline functional adult presence. Daycare workers in the most affluent districts where I teach are paid less than fast food workers. I doubt whether a few hours of "quality" time with a tired parent in the evening can make up for 8 hours or more of very little adult attention and scarce exposure to advanced vocabulary. This setting is lacking even the older siblings or children who could provide more advanced interaction in more traditional human setting.

IOW, the answer does not have to be something politically correct like "plastics" or "Ipad exposure." Although it is very likely that there is some correlation between lack of adult attention and exposure to both of these.

ETA: Of course, I must be respected as an expert on this topic since I am the mother of 2 very high IQ individuals born during the Millennial era. So, if I say the answer is to allow all pregnant women the freedom to lounge about eating liverwurst, reading library books, and keeping themselves cool on lounge chairs under lawn sprinklers, it must be.

I actually did have a part-time job in a record shop during my first pregnancy, but a customer said something gruff to me after I had been standing on my feet for several hours and puking with morning sickness, so I quit on the spot.

[EdithKeeler]

The Bell Curve is loaded with data that suggests that IQ is correlated with many things, including socioeconomic success (income distributions). Even workplace injuries were correlated with IQ.

I’m not sure “The Bell Curve” is the best reference for this discussion, due to the controversy over its conclusions about race and IQ.

[7Wannabe5]

Yes, the essential error in the evidence related to race and IQ presented in the Bell Curve is that in most cases if you are able to differentiate the population studied into distinct groups, such as black and white, you already know that there may very well be varying environmental factors not captured in the study.

These factors don't necessarily have to be related to history of racism. For instance, it could be the case that black children score lower because they are de facto segregated into underfunded school districts by virtue of results of both liberal and conservative short-sighted governmental policies OR it could be that they score lower due to unfamiliarity with cultural concepts assumed to be general knowledge by upper middle class WASP designers of test OR it could be due to higher level of Vitamin D deficiency correlated with dark skin tone. However, my experience teaching in a variety of districts would indicate that the first two possibilities are still true, and quite possibly relevant. For instance, I tutored a 10 year old who had clearly never been exposed to more than one word for the concept of "cooking vessel" in a school which was composed of at least 95% African-American students.

OTOH, I have recently noticed that in particularly affluent districts, young girls are not being pushed very hard academically. KInd of like it's okay to just be cute, well-behaved, and artsy.

[EdithKeeler]

For instance, I tutored a 10 year old who had clearly never been exposed to more than one word for the concept of "cooking vessel" in a school which was composed of at least 95% African-American students.

There were some studies done that linked the number of words heard in the home to educational outcomes. They looked at little kids, and I think it was related to the question about why Head Start wasn’t having more effect. They found that kids in lower income homes were exposed to massively fewer spoken words than kids in more affluent households. A lot of times the kids’ parents were working 2 jobs and kids were left with grannies who put them in front of the TV or whatever. Richer kids were read to, etc. (I used to be an adult literacy volunteer. I tutored one woman who seemed quite bright, but had not had her severe dyslexia diagnosed until she was a senior in high school. She was pregnant and her motivation for coming for tutoring was to be able to read kids’ books to her children). Kids who are exposed to more words when very young have a massive advantage.

I do believe there’s a genetic component to intelligence, but there are a lot of other extremely important environmental factors as well.

I get really uncomfortable when we start using “The Bell Curve” as a single point of reference. Let’s include Raj Chetty’s and others’ work as well.

[EdithKeeler]

Back to the OP’s original question: this was interesting. It talks about the vocabulary study I referenced, but also other things:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatl ... cle/36856/

Halfway around the world, in Kisumu, Kenya, Yale psychologist Robert Sternberg stumbled on exactly the same phenomenon in 2001 when studying the intelligence of Dholuo schoolchildren. First he measured their knowledge of local herbal remedies,then tested them according to their Western curriculum. Surprisingly, Sternberg found a "significantly negative" correlation. "The better the children did on the indigenous tacit knowledge," he noted, "the worse they did on the test of vocabulary used in school, and vice-versa."

Why -- and which test represented true intelligence?

Actually, none of these studies will likely come as a real shock to the reader. We're all familiar with the notion of "street smarts" as opposed to "school smarts." But the Baltimore carton packers and the Kisumu schoolkids did pose a serious challenge to research psychologists adhering to traditional definitions of intelligence. As Robert Sternberg watched studies like these pile up -- documenting the unusual, sometimes even untestable intelligence traits of Yup'ik Eskimo children, !Kung San hunters of the Kalahari Desert, Brazilian street youth,American horse handicappers, and Californian grocery shoppers -- he realized that the lack of correlation between their expertise and IQ scores demanded nothing less than a whole new definition of intelligence.

The original premise, that “Intelligent” people are not having as many children, gives rise to the question: what type of intelligence? Probably what my hillbilly granny (who was very, very smart) would called “book-learnin’.”
That may not be the best predictor of the survival of the human race.

[Bankai]

Surprisingly, Sternberg found a "significantly negative" correlation. "The better the children did on the indigenous tacit knowledge," he noted, "the worse they did on the test of vocabulary used in school, and vice-versa."

Not sure why this is surprising. Both these things measure crystalised intelligence, i.e. knowledge, and it's quite obvious that these two 'areas' compete - a child cannot be learning new words in the school and new herbs at the meadow at the same time.

There are 'culture fair' IQ tests which measure fluid (processing power, pattern recognition) and not crystalised (vocabulary, knowledge) intelligence.

[7Wannabe5]

Zemblanity tastes like Japanese Knotweed.

In the era just subsequent to the invention of driving apps, I would make seasonal rounds of many sales where I knew I could acquire rare books for my business. Typically, these sales might be held at the same location bi-annually, year after year. Eventually, I noticed that although I couldn't always remember exactly how to drive to one of these sales, I could almost always recall the location of the nearest coffee shop to any given sale. So, I wasn't surprised when I read research indicating that there are many "brain" cells in the human stomach.

I have been reading many books on the topic of foraging recently. It's interesting how difficult it is to transfer this "book-learnin'" to the field. I think the conflict between favoring verbal/aural input vs. visual input may be key. There is more fluidity with the first, because you are literally re-calling (talking to yourself) vs. more certainty with the second, because you are recognizing.

It's sort of like most of the decisions in our lives make use of the same part of the brain as "Is this new thing good to eat?" Possessing fluid intelligence allows us to intuit patterns that lower risk and increase reward. But, until we achieve a certain level of familiarity, we are still a bit hesitant about using "zemblanity" in a sentence or cooking Japanese Knotweed up into a jam.

Anyways, one of the delightful things about giving birth to other humans who likely may grow up to be a bit more like you than most other people, is one of them might text you a picture of a plant that just popped up in her garden, and confer with you about its identity. Then you can exclaim, "Trillium!" and type out exactly what the garden label should say. Or, you can meet your son for brunch and talk about books. It's a process called a relationship, not a production goal.

[Kriegsspiel]

I’m not sure “The Bell Curve” is the best reference for this discussion, due to the controversy over its conclusions about race and IQ.

I think a thread meandering around potentially dysgenic population trends is going to get spicy no matter what. Second, are you talking about controversy over whether there are differences in IQ among different populations? Or over Murray & Hernstein's conclusions (removing affirmative action)? EDIT also, the book was like 900 pages long and most of it dealt only with the white population to avoid confounding variables, including the parts I mentioned about socioeconomic and workplace injury correlations.

What do you think is the best rebuttal to The Bell Curve?

I get really uncomfortable when we start using “The Bell Curve” as a single point of reference. Let’s include Raj Chetty’s and others’ work as well.

By all means. I'm referencing it because I read it a few weeks ago, but I'm new to this subject so I'd appreciate more recommendations.

[EdithKeeler]

I think a thread meandering around potentially dysgenic population trends is going to get spicy no matter what. Second, are you talking about controversy over whether there are differences in IQ among different populations? Or over Murray & Hernstein's conclusions (removing affirmative action)? EDIT also, the book was like 900 pages long and most of it dealt only with the white population to avoid confounding variables, including the parts I mentioned about socioeconomic and workplace injury correlations.

What do you think is the best rebuttal to The Bell Curve?

Well, I think there are a lot of issues surrounding their motivations for writing "The Bell Curve." Too, the book is 25 years old, and relies on even older data (some of which, as I recall, was a little questionable), and much of which has been addressed more comprehensively since then. And yeah, I do think it's problematic to talk about differences in IQ among different populations, especially when we're breaking out those populations along racial and cultural lines.

I find Raj Chetty's work interesting, but I don't think his conclusions are necessarily complete either.

There's a lot to intelligence, well beyond traditional pen and paper measures of IQ. I think if we're really concerned with the idea that " 'intelligent' people aren't having as many kids," then it bears looking at what we're calling "intelligent." Are you "intelligent" because your life has been super easy, and attentive helicopter parents have paved your way for you and have made sure you score well on the pen and paper tests? Or are you "intelligent" because you overcame the adversity of bad parenting in a bad neighborhood and an early pregnancy to work three jobs and get a college education and do better for your kids? Are you "intelligent" if you live on a farm and have figured out a unique way to get better yields from your crops? Or are you "intelligent" because you never learned to read and write, yet managed to "mine" trash near the slum and sell it to earn money for your family and move out of abject poverty?

The more I think about this thread, the more I think it makes some assumptions that are concerning, particularly the assumption that the industrialized, American and European values of "intelligence" are somehow the right ones. (I'm not saying those values are wrong, I'm just saying it's a big world out there and other people value other things). And I think some of those assumptions are made in "The Bell Curve" (which I read years ago, not recently), and all I'm saying is that "The Bell Curve" probably just shouldn't be used as the single point of reference for this discussion.

[Jason]

The Bell Curve's historical antecedents is eugenics. Within the academic sociological community, The Bell Curve is not taken seriously. It is a politicized document. And it is abhorrent.

IQ tests are proven to be socially conditioned. Some kids don't know to put a cup with a saucer because they have never seen a saucer.

To reduce "success = IQ" and furthermore, to use Charles Fucking Murray as your basis, is an exercise demonstrating one's ignorance of how complex these issues are.

[Frita]

Past an IQ of 120ish, people tend to struggle to relate to and be liked by others. Being an outlier has its challenges.

[jacob]

@Frita - More along that line: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-14442-001 ... which could create the argument that very intelligent people should not have children because the chance is proportionally higher that they will not be able to relate to their children (intelligence is mean-reverting in the offspring) and thus not raise them very well (despite their higher intelligence).

There's also an old blog post: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/democ ... y-gap.html

[daylen]

As our friend BRUTE use to say.. "IQ tests measure the ability to do well on IQ tests". Answering IQ questions is a specialized task.

Assuming that the cultural components are normalized: what is answering IQ questions good for? Pattern recognition in a very abstract context. IQ is basically measuring the ability to focus on very specific "objects" or "statements", and to either perform basic manipulations or fill in the gaps until one answer is obvious.

The real world is not often like this, because the background usually has some vital information. Put another way, IQ measures the ability to ignore a large portion of your perception. This can be beneficial when looking at numbers on a screen in a controlled setting.. but bad when trying to account for many moving parts of equal importance with complex boundary conditions (basically all social interaction and management). This could even be detrimental in a situation where a predator lurks in your peripheral vision, but you are too busy considering how the flames in the fire could be abstracted into a cave painting.

The high IQ community forums are excellent at focusing on shit that does not matter at the expense of their health and sanity; they harbor the kings of internet trolling with swords made of clay that can bend language to their will.

IQ is a decent measure of some things, but those things are not all good/bad. There is also a big concern with cultural bias when administering IQ tests as Jason mentioned.

[Bankai]

As our friend BRUTE use to say.. "IQ tests measure the ability to do well on IQ tests".

It's like saying that 5k runs only measure the ability to do well in 5k runs.

[Bankai]

@jacob - interesting that there's very little (none?) research to support this argument. Also, I personally haven't experienced any gap at 2 sd.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuro ... NG-3hRKiUk

[daylen]

All language is based on tautologies. Information is emergent from a boundary illusion or arbitrary distinction that is true by necessity of its presentation.

[unemployable]

It's like saying that 5k runs only measure the ability to do well in 5k runs.

Well it would sure as hell be nice to submit my WISC-C scores to Goldman Sachs or Google or whomever and get a check based on my Z-score.

[Kriegsspiel]

Well it would sure as hell be nice to submit my WISC-C scores to Goldman Sachs or Google or whomever and get a check based on my Z-score.

It's illegal for employers to use IQ tests.