Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoImmatureAdHom | Hacker News Reader

Yes, exactly like that!

If you would be so kind to explain to me why I should believe you, a random person on the internet claiming to be a "scientist" who "spends a lot of time thinking" about this subject, over thousands of peer reviewed research articles and case studies stating that even if genetics is a factor in intelligence then it is so closely tied to other causal factors that it is effectively impossible to control for, then I am happy to listen.

So please, I am begging you, tell me why I should believe you over everyone else.

That is not, in fact, what "thousands of peer reviewed research articles" state. You might be confusing the % of variance we can predict from genetics (e.g., knowing your ATGCATAGCCGTAG code), which at present is maybe 4%(?), with what we can show is due to heritability (70-80%). We didn't even know about DNA when people started measuring this kind of stuff with twin studies in the early 20th century.

So, to reiterate because I'm realizing that para wasn't so clear: guessing how smart you are based on your genetic code is something we're only just learning how to do. We're getting better at it though. Estimating how smart you are based on how smart your parents are is a totally different game that we've been playing for a century.

Why shouldn't intelligence be inherited while other traits are? It makes little sense to me, especially because intelligence is so important for survival.

> "spends a lot of time thinking"

Why is this in quotes when it isn't a quote?

There was another comment I had just finished reading and merged them in my head. I'll go back through and edit, sorry for any confusion

Reply on news.ycombinator.com