jagoff
I see no issue here, in this case.
>Of course I think we should study art! Why yes of course I studied the greats to hone my skills, sometimes even copying their work directly to strengthen a specific skill set!
>Ai "studies" prior works to hone it's skillset...
>No! Not like that!
What? Coding is like the one thing that RL can do without any further human input because there is a testable provable ground truth; run the code.
The evidence is overwhelming in that direction:
Twin & family designs: h² ~0.4–0.8, often ~0.7–0.8 in adult samples like MISTRA.
Adoption: people resemble their biological relatives more than their adoptive relatives in IQ, despite strong environmental differences.
Molecular genetics: polygenic scores and GCTA show real, replicable genetic signal for intelligence.
What it does not mean is that:
1. IQ is fixed at birth in a way that cannot be influenced by environment.
2. IQ differences justify any sort of discrimination or moral ranking.
Those two points are where people tend to clutch their pearls and panic. Just because we have noticed an uncomfortable truth does not mean that it is valid to use it in a discriminatory manner; the issue becomes that people will inevitably do so, thus those "in power" cripple the theory in the crib so as to avoid the fearful and uncomfortable implications.
"Whether or not you like MISTRA, “they left out the non-identical twins” is a side issue, and the broader evidence that IQ is substantially heritable is extremely strong.
Even if DZA were excluded, MZA alone provides a solid heritability estimate. The DZA sample was small and noisy, and MISTRA uses other twin and family data. Plus, meta-analyses confirm high IQ heritability, typically 0.5-0.8; Later structural-equation models applied to the full MISTRA cognitive dataset (MZA + DZA) estimated the heritability of general intelligence around 0.77, essentially the same ballpark as the original simple estimate. laplab.ucsd.edu. Intelligence is highly heritable, potentially reaching 80% in adulthood, supported by further studies like the Haworth et al. meta-analysis, showing age-related increases in heritability.
Strong evidence for polygenic and SNP heritability is shown from Plomin & von Stumm's 2018 research, showing how polygenic scores predict general intelligence.
Adoption studies further support the genetic influence, as adoptive siblings show weaker correlations compared to biological ones.
Environment is certainly NOT outweighed entirely or beyond merit, but evidence clearly shows the "uncomfortable" result having strong support despite desperate attempts to debunk.
In short; the op's story only works if including the DZA data actually drags the heritability estimate down into trivial territory. It does not.
Later analyses of the MISTRA sample that explicitly include both MZA and DZA twins and use full structural-equation models estimate heritability of general intelligence (g) at about 0.77 in adults. https://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf
That is higher, if anything, than the original approximate 0.70. In other words:
The alleged “suppressed control group” does not turn the result into “no heritability”.
The more sophisticated models using that very same DZA data still say “IQ differences in this adult sample are heavily genetic.”
You just don't like this data, and don't want to accept it, because of the implications."
"For some people some subjects take on an irrational religious experience. Anything that is not a forceful agreement must be destroyed." Disagreement is not against the rules. Flagging a comment simply because you disagree with the content does appear to be against the rules, however, based on my reading.
Whether or not you like MISTRA, “they left out the non-identical twins” is a side issue, and the broader evidence that IQ is substantially heritable is extremely strong.
Even if DZA were excluded, MZA alone provides a solid heritability estimate. The DZA sample was small and noisy, and MISTRA uses other twin and family data. Plus, meta-analyses confirm high IQ heritability, typically 0.5-0.8; Later structural-equation models applied to the full MISTRA cognitive dataset (MZA + DZA) estimated the heritability of general intelligence around 0.77, essentially the same ballpark as the original simple estimate. laplab.ucsd.edu. Intelligence is highly heritable, potentially reaching 80% in adulthood, supported by further studies like the Haworth et al. meta-analysis, showing age-related increases in heritability.
Strong evidence for polygenic and SNP heritability is shown from Plomin & von Stumm's 2018 research, showing how polygenic scores predict general intelligence.
Adoption studies further support the genetic influence, as adoptive siblings show weaker correlations compared to biological ones.
Environment is certainly NOT outweighed entirely or beyond merit, but evidence clearly shows the "uncomfortable" result having strong support despite desperate attempts to debunk.
In short; the op's story only works if including the DZA data actually drags the heritability estimate down into trivial territory. It does not.
Later analyses of the MISTRA sample that explicitly include both MZA and DZA twins and use full structural-equation models estimate heritability of general intelligence (g) at about 0.77 in adults. https://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf
That is higher, if anything, than the original approximate 0.70. In other words:
The alleged “suppressed control group” does not turn the result into “no heritability”.
The more sophisticated models using that very same DZA data still say “IQ differences in this adult sample are heavily genetic.”
You just don't like this data, and don't want to accept it, because of the implications.