I am clueless about what you’re trying to imply. Are you saying that because one heritable thing which has a test for it is unimportant, that means all heritable things that can be measured are unimportant? I think that is what you’re saying.
The importance of IQ isn’t even what I was arguing over; I was just rebutting top-level comment that IQ is heritable. (I am aware they referred to intelligence, not IQ; but thread is about IQ.)
If there is no proper definition for what IQ is, it’s just another fallacy for normative thought. I mean by this that going through classical logic seamlessly does not incur into intelligence, even though it might incur into intellectual fitness. And then it’s all again why we have a certain model of thought of what is considered normal. This needs to exist if we are to assert “Intellectual Quality”.
Now, if we assert what is “normal” we also have to assert what is a “disorder” or “deviance”, which is what’s treated as “dumbness” here. If it is a desired “heritable” quality, that means to be included or fit to the current intellectual state.
Next to relate as to why I have compared this to the AI results. AI could predict race based on X-rays - but that means as much as IQ being heritable. A normative study for normative thought with no valid conclusions using formal logic as an excuse.
There is no proper definition for what intelligence is. IQ is well-defined – it’s the number that comes out of an IQ test. This number correlates with many concretely measurable things, such as success (income and/or education level). I don’t desire kids, but if I did have kids, I would do what I could to increase their expected IQ, such as through genetics, since that correlates with success and ease of living. These are valid conclusions. Formal logic is not used, only statistics.
It’s also known by the MIT that race can be identified on X-rays using AI, and that doesn’t mean much, does it?
I am clueless about what you’re trying to imply. Are you saying that because one heritable thing which has a test for it is unimportant, that means all heritable things that can be measured are unimportant? I think that is what you’re saying.
The importance of IQ isn’t even what I was arguing over; I was just rebutting top-level comment that IQ is heritable. (I am aware they referred to intelligence, not IQ; but thread is about IQ.)
If there is no proper definition for what IQ is, it’s just another fallacy for normative thought. I mean by this that going through classical logic seamlessly does not incur into intelligence, even though it might incur into intellectual fitness. And then it’s all again why we have a certain model of thought of what is considered normal. This needs to exist if we are to assert “Intellectual Quality”.
Now, if we assert what is “normal” we also have to assert what is a “disorder” or “deviance”, which is what’s treated as “dumbness” here. If it is a desired “heritable” quality, that means to be included or fit to the current intellectual state.
Next to relate as to why I have compared this to the AI results. AI could predict race based on X-rays - but that means as much as IQ being heritable. A normative study for normative thought with no valid conclusions using formal logic as an excuse.
There is no proper definition for what intelligence is. IQ is well-defined – it’s the number that comes out of an IQ test. This number correlates with many concretely measurable things, such as success (income and/or education level). I don’t desire kids, but if I did have kids, I would do what I could to increase their expected IQ, such as through genetics, since that correlates with success and ease of living. These are valid conclusions. Formal logic is not used, only statistics.