Where do persons get their software from? The environment. Observing how their parents/family/etc interact.
I think it's fair to say that communication matters and that communication & experiences will have an affect on peoples perceptions.
rolled 0.6 on hardware + 0.4 on software = 1.0
rolled 0.4 on hw + 0.6 on sw = 1.0
rolled 0 on both = 0.0 = maximum depression
rolled 1 on both = 2.0 = golden retriever with good owner
Hypothetical situation.
Take two dogs from the same litter.
Raise one with love and kindness. Play with it. Socialize with it.
Then take the other one and neglect and abuse the hell out of it.
Which dog do you think will show signs of depression?
Still think it's clearly just a hardware issue?
Regardless schizophrenic individuals probably would do better with being treated with kindness, respect, compassion, and love than with derision and rejection. At least observational that has been my experience.
Although... has anyone tried quantizing schizophrenia?
It may be significant with respect to a specific implementation. Do you mean to imply that the current crop of LLMs hallucinate only due to some flaw in the hardware they run on?
ref : The Universe is Hostile to Computers
> McFarlane believes that psychosis can be prevented with a range of surprisingly low-tech interventions, almost all of which are designed to reduce stress in the family of the young person who is starting to show symptoms.
> McFarlane cites research done at UCLA suggesting that certain kinds of family dynamics — families that don't communicate well, or are overly critical — can make things worse for a young person at risk of schizophrenia.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/10/20/3566400...
Seriously, can you not just comprehend that it’s a complex issue and there is no singular source you can blame? If your kid committed suicide should I levy child abuse charges against you? And where does someone “learn” depression or schizophrenia anyway, especially if their parents are not acting the same way?
"Maybe it isn't entirely a hardware issue."
Maybe read what I said first before going off.
"And where does someone “learn” depression or schizophrenia anyway, especially if their parents are not acting the same way?"
Man, I fear your family...
Source? Wikipedia says:
>A central point of debate on GWA studies has been that most of the SNP variations found by GWA studies are associated with only a small increased risk of the disease, and have only a small predictive value. The median odds ratio is 1.33 per risk-SNP, with only a few showing odds ratios above 3.0.[1][46] These magnitudes are considered small because they do not explain much of the heritable variation. This heritable variation is estimated from heritability studies based on monozygotic twins.[47] For example, it is known that 40% of variance in depression can be explained by hereditary differences, but GWA studies only account for a minority of this variance.[47]
which admittedly isn't airtight proof for "depression is 100% genetic!!1", but isn't exactly "just aren't finding anything" either.
There are certain types of schizophrenia that are highly heritable and others that are more sporadic. Highly pathogenic variants tend to be very rare because those regions of the genome are under evolutionary constraint.
GWAS are used is to figure out which genes may be involved in the pathology. So we are essentially looking at rare cases of inherited disease to figure out which genes might play a role in more common non inherited versions.
How does one find a definition of intelligence that allows us to correlate it to anything? My understanding is an IQ is defined and intelligence is not.
I don't think it's appropriate to measure intelligence as a correlation between the few things a statistician cares about, personally. It would be a naively meritocratic view to think performing well at the highest paying jobs is a decent measure for intelligence.
I am not sure if my 'g' is high enough that psychologist will allow me to express my opinions on the topic, but I have found the argument in the blog I linked to be quite interesting.
It's a classic post-modern 'we cannot define intelligence even when we see it'. IQ is such a bad proxy for intelligence! There's no gene for IQ! Regardless, let's keep digging in genes because that's the established science and grants are coming our way. This is the best available study to date!
If that's not a great example of looking in a wrong place, I am not sure what is.
What I mean: Psychology cannot afford for IQ to be disproven or invalidated. Doing so would completely undermine a significant portion of field. It would be like if evolution was disproven in biology -- absolutely gutting. (Just an analogy, don't kill me).
I see this when people bring up Lewis Terman's studies on giftedness or Richard Feynman's IQ score of ~124 -- especially the latter.
People come rushing out of the woodworks with statements like, "Well, Feynman was probably goofing off," "Feynman's result cannot be accurate -- he was a Putnam Award winner in high school," "Test were different back then," etc..
Sure, all of those could be right, but we only can operate off of what we know. The actual cold truth? We will never know.
However, like a knife through the heart, people refuse to even accept Feynman's score as a possibility. Feynman was an exceptional person. Exceptional people are outliers -- perhaps in more than one way.
Personally, I think it crushes people's souls to know that a famous theoretical physicist scored lower on an IQ score than expected, but still accomplished more in life than they did.
That is why I personally believe life is the one true IQ test. You get one shot. One's true intelligence is what you do with it. But hey, maybe my IQ is too low?
Well you can ridicule this statement if you like, but I can suggest a good-faith approach to this question. For example you can trying coming up with a few definitions of what intelligence could be and then look for correlation between this definitions and IQ.
I can go first: intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income". This definition of intelligence strongly correlate with IQ. There are other possible approaches but all the ones I can think of (e.g. results in math tests) have at least some correlation with IQ.
Now how do you see intelligence? Does it correlate with IQ?
> intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income"
I think it just crumbles under light scrutiny. People have higher income for all kinds of observable reasons that don't have to do with intelligence. I have higher income than other employees at the same level just based on where I live.
Intelligence is something that is defined by academics. Surprise surprise that it it measures how people perform in a narrow set of academic skills.
It's not so much a circle jerk of "we are so smart" as it is a circle jerk of "no one else wants to play SET! with me".
I don’t know if the IQ test (Advanced Raven Matrices) was a useful bar — there were lots of smart people who weren’t in Mensa — but there were enough smart people in it that I found a community of like minded folks. It’s not easy for kid to find a community like that but I did.
Most people think Mensa is full of self aggrandizing nerds but that wasn’t my experience (it varies by chapter).
Mensa probably doesn’t have a purpose today but pre Internet it did, even if by accident. I don’t think IQ is a useful membership criterion due to sheer arbitrariness but sometimes arbitrary groupings of people can work.
I would also say that people who have a knee jerk negative reaction against Mensa are no more likeable than the socially inept segment of the Mensa membership they disparage. They have the same kind of puffed up pride that they dislike.
That said, I was being mean because of Mensa's shtick is scamming naive young people. But it's an awful organization which is chock-full of very dumb adults with fully-developed cortices: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/jamie-loftus-...
You have to be ignorant and closed-minded to even consider being a member of Mensa - this is fine for a teenager but not for a real adult. I understand some people are not neurotypical and have trouble finding community (I have schizophrenia, trust me, I get it). But anyone who actually takes Mensa's membership criteria seriously is an idiot, by which I mean "utterly lacking in intellectual curiosity and proudly ignorant about science," even if they're (supposedly) good at trivial puzzles.
...given that intelligence is not only abstract, but also not defined consistently?
In particular, two semantic tricks are used. First, the fact that current genetic markers aren't a good prediction for IQ heritability is used as an argument against it. The other likely explanation that our understanding of those markers is widely incomplete is not explored.
Second, is the more common "IQ isn't intelligence" trick. Sure, the measure doesn't encompass everything that is making intelligence, but it is still a somewhat interesting proxy as there is a high correlation between intelligence and IQ.