:ok: Encouraging, even if it's misguided. I like to see everything on the table.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

defended nothing in this thread. — Lionino

Twin studies. Not sure how you're missing your own comments?

methodological limitations (like every social science study). — Lionino

* flaws.

That is far from Nyquist's claim that twin studies have been discredited — Lionino

I don't think you read these sources, then. THey are clearly not doing what they have been purported to be doing. They aren't reliable, for basically anything they have been relied on. If that's not 'discredit'ing I can't understand what you'd think is, short of finding evidence for fraud.

The discovery that twins end up with very close IQs despite being raised in different environments is meaningful. — Lionino

If you have read these sources, I need only say 'Obviously not'.

Here's a good article about the science community's reaction to panpsychism:
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/01/the-most-anti-science-belief-you-can-hold-is-that-science-is-a-religion/ — RogueAI

Pretty bad article, but at least the author is trying to update their thinking:

https://www.salon.com/2024/04/02/some-people-may-see-more-images-per-second-than-others-study-finds/

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

That IQ is significantly inheritable is a frequently reproduced finding of psychology — which is remarkable for a field that has so much trouble reproducing. — Lionino

That may not be as impressive as it sounds, give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention.

That may not be as impressive as it sounds, give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention. — Joshs

That makes it more impressive. How many other vaguely-defined concepts do you know of that are very heritable?

That makes it more impressive. How many other vaguely-defined concepts do you know of that are very heritable? — flannel jesus

Only those that are vaguely heritable.

IQ is between 57% and 73% heritable. What other vaguely defined concepts are vaguely heritable, and how vaguely heritable are they?

↪Joshs IQ is between 57% and 73% heritable. What other vaguely defined concepts are vaguely heritable, and how vaguely heritable are they? — flannel jesus

If one begins with a concept that can be defined in different ways, such that there is no one I.Q. but myriad kinds on there is no overarching consensus, then what exactly it is that is being inherited is also going to suffer from lack of clarity.

Doubting that a method of simply gathering data is "discredited" is not what I would a call a "defence" of something. If anything, it is progressfocuses dot com that seems emotionally invested: — Lionino

An interesting little Zoom-in you've made there.

The meta-analysis says: — Lionino

These do not indicate what you've claimed. They bring to the fore the flaws in the study for ascertaining anything between Twins specifically.

That may not be as impressive as it sounds, give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention. — Joshs

As I understand it, it is only contentious with those who do not like the results in aggregate. It is one of the better-tested psychological parameters we know of.

IQ is between 57% and 73% heritable. What other vaguely defined concepts are vaguely heritable, and how vaguely heritable are they? — flannel jesus

The above from FJ makes it clear that IQ is not 'fraught' in any way that you can't ascribe to 'Why are we alive'. We are. It's not arguable. IQ's are consistent and heritable. Minimally mutable. But we don't know what it is. That's not a huge problem.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention
— Joshs

As much contention as there might, g-factor is still highly related to academic achievement — Lionino

My guess is they’re as much conflated as they are related. Intelligence tests are already achievement tests.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I have made one.

But given I expect this to either be missed or ignored, lets just move on to agreeing IQ is a fairly robust psychological measure.