I don't want to come off as supporting the grandparent comment, but ultimately there is at least some degree of heritability of IQ [0]. US IQ also seemed to have peaked in the 1990s [1].

It's quite a leap to claim that immigration is the cause of the US IQ decline. The best explanations seem to be that it's environmental [2]. The general decline in IQ is impacting several countries.

0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

1 https://nchstats.com/average-iq-by-state-in-us/

2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29891660/

▲

ninetyninenine 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I’m not implying immigration leads to US decline. The pool I refer to is international. China.

Environmental factors Of China have been changing in the past 3 decades leading to extraordinary gain in IQ. This re normalizes the IQ every year which leads to what appears to be a decline in IQ in the US.

Genetics plays a part because with the economic infrastructure of China supporting students to their maximum potential it brings the playing field on par with US. China no longer has to deal with poverty effecting IQ scores.

This with environment in parity the only thing left is really genetics.

▲

tptacek 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Heritability != DNA.

▲

quotemstr 5 days ago | parent [-]

Do you expect embryo selection startups to fail? Come on. I know you're smart enough to have heard about GWAS.

I'll bet you 3:1 odds embryo selection works. If you're serious about your anti-hereditarian position, take me up on my offer.

▲

tptacek 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think embryo selection companies, to the extent they don't actually result in people selecting for embryos with autism, are brilliant products. They're "magician's choice" setups: embryo selection promises single-to-low-double-digit improvements in metrics that aren't fully evaluable for over a decade after the product is paid for, on metrics with huge variability and low test-test reliability. The people paying for the products are generally upper-income and already predisposed to invest in educational achievement, which is the actual outcome the customers care about to begin with. It's a can't-lose proposition for the vendors.

So, no, of course I'm not going to take you up on that bet. It's like betting against Bitcoin. I think Bitcoin is a farce but I'm not dumb enough to short it.

I'm not an "anti-heriditarian". I think there's probably a lot of value, long term, in embryo selection for things like disease avoidance. I also believe there's natural variability in cognitive ability; I don't believe all people are "blank slates"; that's a caricature (or, if you like, a deliberate wrong-footing of people who reflexively reject psychometrics and genetics for ideological reasons) of the actual concern I have.

Finally, I don't know what anything you said has to do with what I said. I said, very simply, "heritability != DNA". That's an objective, positive claim. Was this bet your attempt at rebutting it?

▲

quotemstr 5 days ago | parent [-]

It's interesting: to the extent the orthodox position acknowledges that genetically mediated trait inheritance exists, it cases it in terms of "disease" and "treatment". It's morally wrong to select an embryo for height, but acceptable, even imperative, to use genetics to screen for "shortism".

I'm sure you've read Gwern's essay on polygenic trait inheritance. I'm not sure repeating the literature would be productive here. We have every reason to believe that embryo selection and genetic engineering more generally won't just "cure disease" but make us taller, smarter, more beautiful, and longer lived -- and there's nothing wrong with that.

Of course there's a lot of variability. At some point technology will improve to the point that denying the effect exists will seem ridiculous, although I'm sure plenty will try.

I will say, though, that downplaying trait inheritance and the way genetics is the mechanism for this inheritance produces models that don't predict reality nearly as well as models that incorporate hereditary via genetics, and especially when it comes to education, we're throwing public money down the toilet as long as we make policy using inaccurate models.

	▲	tptacek 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I have no idea what the first paragraph you wrote means. I don't have a moral issue with embryo selection. Select them for eye color for all I care. I don't know what any of the rest of this has to do with what I said. I ask again: are you writing all this by way of declaring that "heritability == DNA"? That's a straightforward discussion we can have. Why avoid it?

▲

kasey_junk 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What is the success criteria of the bet?

	▲	tptacek 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm just happy for an opportunity to rattle off my embryo-selection rant! :)

▲

dmbche 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IQ testing is flawed at its core, and engaging with it is akin to phrenology.

▲

ninetyninenine 5 days ago | parent [-]

IQ is one of the most heavily studied constructs in psychology. Modern IQ tests have over a century of development behind them, starting with Binet and refined through versions like the WAIS-IV and Stanford–Binet. They have high test–retest reliability, meaning a person’s score tends to be stable unless there’s brain injury, illness, or some major change. Scores correlate strongly with academic performance, job performance in cognitively demanding roles, and even certain life outcomes like income, health behaviors, and longevity. There’s also a body of neuroscience work showing links between IQ and measures like processing speed, working memory, and brain connectivity.

The “IQ is BS” meme mostly comes from misunderstandings and misuse. People often assume IQ is meant to measure all kinds of intelligence when it really focuses on certain reasoning and problem-solving skills. Early tests had cultural biases, and while modern versions address this better, that history sticks. It’s also been used for discriminatory purposes, which has left a bad taste even when the measurement itself is valid. Critics are right that IQ doesn’t capture creativity, emotional intelligence, or practical skills—but psychologists never claimed it did.

In short, IQ is a valid and reliable measure for a specific set of cognitive abilities. It’s not the whole story of intelligence, but dismissing it outright ignores a large and consistent body of evidence.

▲

dmbche 5 days ago | parent [-]

No, and your chatgpt written response is uninspired (edit: and contradicts itself multiple times!). Sadly, you are not as smart as you fantasize.

Also, that replication crisis, that was in psychology, was it?

	▲	ninetyninenine 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		It wasn't written by chatGPT — I myself like to use dashes. There are no contradictions and I never mentioned anything personal. Going to personal insults and remarks is a strategy for people who have no logical argument so they resort to alternatives. The replication crisis doesn't apply. IQ is one of the most studied and replicated statistics in psychology. IQ IS in fact the exception to the replication crisis. Your beliefs are a myth.

▲

nyc_data_geek1 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You know what else is heritable? Wealth, the possession of which tends to help with standardized test scores.

▲

peterfirefly 5 days ago | parent [-]

That causality goes in the other direction.

Wealthier parents tend to be smarter (that's how they got wealthy or managed to keep inherited wealth) and tend to have smarter kids... who then tend to up on the wealthier side of the spectrum.

It's very unfair. It's also very real. Your fantasy is not real.

	▲	dmbche 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Capital agregates. The ruch don't make smart kids - smarts are not genetic. Your fantasy is not real.