DNA tests can predict intelligence

Arklight

Malthusian wrote: »

The ability to process information and derive a correct solution to a problem.

The ability to process information and derive a correct solution to a problem that can be delivered via a paper based medium in an exam room and then scored by a researcher. To be accurate.

John-K_3

kinger101 wrote: »

You are misreading;

Individuals with a higher predicted score had, on average, a higher phenotype. Thus, SNP effects estimated in the discovery cohort are significantly predictive of cognitive phenotype outcomes in a fully independent cohort.
.

I’m not misreading, you’ve just repeated my point. I said that the study that you mentioned did not say that an individual’s intelligence could be predicted from their DNA. You are now arguing exactly the point that I made.

I said that I suspect that the new study doesn’t say it either. I said this as it seems unlikely.

A point that you are agreeing with too.

Malthusian

No, ability to give the correct answers to problems delivered by a screechy microphone in a pub and marked by the table next to you is also fine.

Of course the reason you and your mates from Momentum never win the crate of beer is racism.

kinger101

John-K wrote: »

I’m not misreading, you’ve just repeated my point. I said that the study that you mentioned did not say that an individual’s intelligence could be predicted from their DNA. You are now arguing exactly the point that I made.

I said that I suspect that the new study doesn’t say it either. I said this as it seems unlikely.

A point that you are agreeing with too.

I'm not agreeing with you, or repeating you. And I've said nothing about the predictive powers of the later studies, but it seems from reading the paper, they can predict up to 6.8% of the variation in intelligence. You might not think that's much, but intelligence is a complex, polygenic (>150 known genes) and somewhat subjective (therefore difficult to reliably measure) trait, for which a large part of the variation (likely >50%) is environmental.

GreatApe

Whatever intelligence is the scary thing is the fact that humans are likely nowhere near the peak of its possibility. Our brains are limited by our skull sizes and the density of connections and the speed at which biology can process. Digital intelligence can be the size of warehouses or mountains or even whole planets.

We don't have long left the end of homo sapiens will be this century let us hope whatever takes over deserves life and consciousness more than we do.

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

The ability to process information and derive a correct solution to a problem that can be delivered via a paper based medium in an exam room and then scored by a researcher. To be accurate.

Instead of trying to be a smart !!!! why don't you define intelligence if you feel an IQ test really isn't measuring intelligence

I would say general intelligence is the ability to learn multiple different types of tasks quickly and well. You could even say general intelligence is the ability to win a wide range of games and everything can be made into a game. Google seems to have on its hands the first AI in the form of alpha zero.

IQ tests do seem to measure the ability to do large number of different intelegence tasks well.
Higher IQ people seem to be able to do lots of tasks better and faster. Everything from reaction times to following DIY instructions to mathematics to pattern recognition to reasoning.

You wouldn't find many 130 IQ people who most people would consider dim likewise you would not find many 70 IQ people who would be functional. So to pretend IQ only measures ability to do IQ tests seems a simple lie

GreatApe

Lefties should embrace IQ

You could simply say 2% of the population have an IQ so low they are or borderline mentally !!!!!!.
Another 8% (so 10% in total) have an IQ so low they can only do the simplest of tasks.

This would be a very powerful argument for a social state and welfare.
If people are born disabled or very incapable I'm sure most the right would not object to helping them. People can be born blind or deaf or physically disabled and everyone feels compassion and sympathy towards them. Well it appears many people are born mentally disabled and there is a spectrum it isn't just mentally disabled or fully competent there is clearly a grey area where people are partially competent.

Anyone who has gotten to know a wide range of people would see this.
I've known of people on the borderline and I have a lot of sympathy towards them but a lot on both the left and the right don't seem to accept they are in effect disabled or at least very limited as it isn't obvious to see outwardly without talking to them for some time.

elsien

So where do other types of intelligence, such as emotional intelligence fit into the IQ scoring scenario? Or cultural biases?
Or does asking the question automatically make me a "momentum-supporting envy monkey"?

michaels

GreatApe wrote: »

Whatever intelligence is the scary thing is the fact that humans are likely nowhere near the peak of its possibility. Our brains are limited by our skull sizes and the density of connections and the speed at which biology can process. Digital intelligence can be the size of warehouses or mountains or even whole planets.

We don't have long left the end of homo sapiens will be this century let us hope whatever takes over deserves life and consciousness more than we do.

It always surprises me that people are so laid back about an existential threat that is as little as 10 years away.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

It always surprises me that people are so laid back about an existential threat that is as little as 10 years away.

Smart people generally don't protest or get emotional when explaining risks. Its a really big problem.

This is far more dangerous than atomic weapons. At least with nukes your dead with an AI it could keep you alive and torture you forever. in theroy someone with a computer can potentially build an AI.

I think right now its like highly enriched plutonium is for sale and anyone can go to the supermarket and buy a few kilos and experiment with it. The first kid to descover how to make it go boom could end the world or become the devil and no government seems to understand or accept this risk.

I would be the first one to be against state intervention in creating new things but this is one that needs extremely heavily regulation and worldwide and right now. It may even need really heavy restrictions like limiting the processing power of chips to x and not allowing more than a certain number connected together via high bandwidth networks so limit processors and limit the number of processors in one building.

Sure it might slow progress and economic growth and we might need to go back down to watching SD videos rather than HD videos on facebook but that's a limit well worth mitigating the risk of potentially calling forth demons.

I don't believe in the gods they don't exist but man is about to give birth to gods let's hope if they are not kind they do us the favor of killing us quickly.