The Psychology Thread 🧠

[DoesTheHeavyLifting]

From the above link:

IQ and personality data were available for 646 twins. There were an additional 1307 twins with NEO-FFI data, and 535 with IQ data. Multivariate genetic structural equation modeling was carried out.

Significant positive phenotypic correlations with IQ were seen for agreeableness (r = 0.21) and openness to experience (r = 0.32). A negative correlation emerged for neuroticism and IQ (r = −0.10). Genetic factors explained (nearly) all of the covariance between personality traits and IQ. Genetic correlations were 0.3–0.4 between IQ and agreeableness and openness. The genetic correlation between IQ and neuroticism was around −0.18. Thus, personality and IQ did not appear to be independent dimensions, and low neuroticism, high agreeableness and high scores on openness all contributed to higher IQ scores.

[Njord]

@DoesTheHeavyLifting

If you won a million dollars in the lottery, would you consider that ticket purchase successful?

Sure, but the context was high intelligence begetting success or not, not luck of the draw making the draw itself a “successful” one. Maybe a touch of semantics but a different application of the concept to be sure.

@DoesTheHeavyLifting

The thing is the numbers are big, and so is the bell curve. Being in the top 0.3% (3 in 1000) is only three standard deviations from average. So you can be very lucky for a very long time.

I disagree because:

@DoesTheHeavyLifting

And success makes it own luck and success.

Success doesn’t make luck. Perpetuation and leverage are intentional and deliberate efforts.

@DoesTheHeavyLifting

People invest with the mutual fund manager who has been mostly right for the last ten years.

This isn’t luck.

@DoesTheHeavyLifting

But people will mostly attribute to grit and genius what actually happened due to luck and circumstance

Circumstance maybe, but this would circle back to leverage, which requires the intelligence to understand a scenario to manipulate. I agree success breeds success, but I don’t think throwing luck in the mix is accurate for the greater context of intelligence application. Dumb luck never lasts long. Even a significant number of powerball winners wind up bankrupt. Maybe most, I can’t remember the statistic. I wouldn’t call their lucky event a success as it relates to the conversation.

[BrickHead]

@OTay

But, yeah keep blaming the environment and not the unfortunate truth.

I do believe environment plays a part in outcomes, but the outcomes are also greatly affected by biology.

I’ve said it before on here: people inherit physical stature, athletic ability, eye, skin, and hair color, facial features, but no, no, no, what’s between the ears gets lost in the ether. You know, people can be whatever they want, so long as they give enough effort and are provided with adequate nutrition—doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, industrialists, and so forth—even if they don’t have the appropriate material in the noggin.

There are anomalies though, people of remarkable intelligence and performance who have popped up from ordinary patents of the lower class.

There are also intelligent people who actually were hampered by their environments. I know some intelligent people who were abused, treated like shit, had seriously wacky home lives, and were hampered by that.

I also know people who are certainly not highly intelligent (I actually think some are slightly dumb) who have enormous wealth mostly because their families and ethnic groups set them up from day one, and gave them positions to fill as adults for which they can complete appropriate tasks, boss others around, and sustain money hunger. They’re provided with businesses or positions in them, homes, and yes, women.

[DoesTheHeavyLifting]

I don’t disagree with your points. I am saying things are less black or white.

If you are successful at picking stocks, maybe you are applying knowledge and keen intelligence and maybe you just got lucky. After all, if you had 10,000 managers, 30 have to be in the top 0.3%.

I am saying many of these managers had the intelligence, and some did not but were still successful. However, all of these 30 managers will credit intelligence and none will say it was pure luck, though it was for some of them. Because it is hard to be in the top 0.3%, all will get promotions and increase the size of investments they look after.

[EmilyQ]

Not sure the exact quote, but something to the effect of “when good men disagree, both are right.” I’ve enjoyed following the conversation.

@Njord

Circumstance maybe, but this would circle back to leverage, which requires the intelligence to understand a scenario to manipulate. I agree success breeds success, but I don’t think throwing luck in the mix is accurate for the greater context of intelligence application. Dumb luck never lasts long.

I think you may be looking at luck too specifically to the work that brings the success. But we know that things like height, appearance, a winsome personality or charisma, etc. factor into financial or workplace success. These things are largely dumb luck. Ugly women (or overly beautiful women) and short men have to work harder.

@SepCalla

Nutrition, values, bases of the worldview, way of speaking, amount of stimulus in early childhood etc…

Some of these things can be impacted by the arrival of an important role model and support, e.g. teacher, therapist, school counselor. Over and over again I’ve encountered kids who have no idea how bright they are, and whose fledgling ambition I watch develop as we explore their strengths. The phoenix, rising.

@zecarlo

But the truth is, they were poor because of conditions that had been imposed upon them by colonizers and feudalists. The descendants of those who immigrated, who didn’t have the same conditions imposed upon them, managed to become doctors, lawyers, politicians, scientists, etc.

Qualities that correlate with success also correlate with emigration: intelligence, drive, courage, etc. So their advantages are not just environmental.

@zecarlo

and my experience teaching tells me it’s not true, but I do know that there are a lot of kids out there who have the potential to do more than their circumstances will allow.

Completely agree.

Again, great conversation.

[Njord]

@EmilyQ

I think you may be looking at luck too specifically to the work that brings the success. But we know that things like height, appearance, a winsome personality or charisma, etc. factor into financial or workplace success. These things are largely dumb luck. Ugly women (or overly beautiful women) and short men have to work harder.

I’ve read about this phenomenon over the years but it seems hard to objectively qualify. There are plenty of “ugly” people in highly successful positions. I would suggest success requires both inward self-confidence and self-belief (especially early on, pre-success) and outward expression of confidence, largely as professional assertiveness. Then again, some of the most successful people on the planet by conventional definitions are absolute nerds/trolls.

Self-esteem no doubt factors in here, and I suppose you could attribute luck of high self-esteem to traits you’ve listed, but they’re not guarantees or exclusive to tall, generally attractive people. An ability to find success and build on it, both objectively and internally as a “win” to store, is something anybody can do.

I don’t believe we are born in to a scripted track. If one needs a self-esteem boost, they should work on it.

[SkyzykS]

Who are you going to take with you or send to meet with investors or prospective clients?

A. Fatty that knows her stuff.
B. A 9/10 that also knows her stuff.

[Njord]

Whomever has the best track record closing the task at hand. Sincerely.

Or

C. A dude. Way less drama

[SkyzykS]

I’m taking the 9/10, cuz the human male
can only think with one head at a time!

[jshaving]

@zecarlo

they were poor because of conditions that had been imposed upon them by colonizers and feudalists

Whoa, sounds way too woke. There’s no way that can be real.

@BrickHead - I know you removed the post, but I don’t quite know what your point was. I only bring it up because I’ve seen you say it before. I agree that many people are probably most likely going to be born with about the same IQ as their parents, same as they would inherit physical characteristics, but what should the response be to that? “Your parents are dumb and you seem like you might be dumb too.” What does that do? I guess I’m just not sure what you were trying to say - besides that maybe it’s become “not nice” to say IQ is affected by biology as well as environment, was there something else there? (Fine if you don’t want to answer.)

[zecarlo]

@jshaving

Whoa, sounds way too woke. There’s no way that can be real.

It’s only woke when the descendants of colonizers criticize it.

[SkyzykS]

Not Brick, of course, but it seems like a criticism of the ban on studying iq as it relates to race if the result sheds a “negative” light on certain ones.

Along with the various other factors that have some effect on learning development. Like, with me for example. I had a hard time functioning in school being cold, tired, hungry, filthy, and scared- which was all the time pretty much until 7th or 8th grade.

I basically sucked in school, but did extraordinary on standardized tests. My academic achievements include failing 7th grade after my mother committed suicide, and getting kicked out of one district after being snagged in a task force bust in 9th grade, and going to big boy jail after a particularly violent bar fight in 12th grade.

On tested raw intelligence I’m far above average or normal. In actual dollars as an indicator of success, I’m a total failure.

My take on intelligence and success and nature vs. nurture is that there are the cards you’re dealt and the way you play them. Some people can outplay 4 aces with a pair of 2’s.
.

[BrickHead]

@Njord

If one needs a self-esteem boost, they should work on it.

Hey, I just want to say how much I appreciate this and not just give a like, because I had to do serious work on this in the past.

@jshaving

• I know you removed the post,

I have at times removed posts when I thought I’m not going to be able to address further thought-provoking conversation on them because of time and energy. I put it back up and I’ll try to respond later. Oftentimes, from the gym, work, chores, and kids, my mind is done.

[jshaving]

Totally understand. Don’t worry about it if you’d rather not.

[BrickHead]

@jshaving

but what should the response be to that? “Your parents are dumb and you seem like you might be dumb too.” What does that do?

I don’t think we need to respond to it considering people usually people are reminded of their limitations by life experience. And I certainly am not inclined to tell people they’re dumb. It’s uncalled for.

@jshaving

maybe it’s become “not nice” to say IQ is affected by biology as well as environment, was there something else there?

This is my point. It seems as if discussing IQ affect by biology is politically incorrect and I have spoken to some people on here and offline who’ve said that certain professions can be entered so long as people apply themselves. So by that logic, everyone can male themselves into material for Rice, Caltech, and MIT no matter what raw material is in their heads, and the terms genius and moron meaningless.

There’s a guy on my wife’s side of the family who is a trained chef and food-service director who obsessively talks about work and the economy. He has several times said about food-service workers, something to the effect of, “they can make more of themselves”. Certainly some will go on to other work, and some will not, and about the latter, I asked, “What if they can’t?” I forgot what he said, but he holds the sentiment that people can do any sort of brain work they wish if they “apply themselves”. I actually think that this view on such people is callous, unlike mine.

My mother-in-law is also someone I’ve heard several times say something similar and looked perplexed when I said, “Yes, people can be anything they want to be–within their limitations”.

Then there are those who will read or hear what I’ve said on the matter and respond, “Whatcha tryin’ ta say? People shouldn’t try?,” when I’ve never thought people shouldn’t give their best efforts to what they’re interested in.

I do not say all this in a condescending, snobby manner, because it’s not as if I am a genius and from the upper crust of society or of thoroughbred stock. I do think I have enough intelligence as evidenced by some things that and I had I known what I could have done with my strengths and had guidance at a young age, I would have picked another route in life. I make an alright middle-class income and am trying to work own something else in my spare time, but I would have chosen a route that brings much money, influence, and status had I known better and had adequate mental well-being and healthy self-image from an early age (yes, I admit that). That’s my personal cross to bear that I think of nearly everyday and will not drop it until I die. I mean that literally. So it’s not as if I speak on the subjects of IQ and life outcomes as if I am hot stuff.

And as I said in the talk of life outcomes, I do not think biology tells all and I think environment is very consequential. I have encountered edge lords online who say that so long as a kid is of thoroughbred stock, she or he can be thrown to the wolves or raised like a potato and turn out just fine. If that’s the case–and generally it isn’t–then we can all save ourselves time, energy, money, and mental energy and not sign our kids up for all sorts of activities, instruct and train them, shower them with love, pay attention to them, etc, etc. But we all know providing them with a great environment give them an edge, regardless of their inherent abilities.

We Americans love the underdog story of Jane/John Doe who lived in a shelter, studied on the subway, endured abuse and life-threatening situations, and went on to be a heavyweight. We like the idea of people moving mountains as individuals. We don’t like to hear of all the stories of people of varying abilities who could have had good life outcomes had it not been for those bad environments and wound up irreparably traumatized, dead, or imprisoned.

Life is complicated and the interaction of one’s biology and environment shape life outcomes.

As I’ve said, I have seen:

1. Lesser intelligent people in bad environments.
2. Intelligent people in bad environments.
3. Intelligent people in great environments.
4. Lesser intelligent people in great environments.

And the results have been varied across the board.

[DoesTheHeavyLifting]

No one seriously disputes that having smart parents and being raised in an environment that values education and provides ample opportunities to learn gives children a great advantage. In fact, there’s some evidence people are getting smarter.

In most wealthy countries, children have access to a reasonably good education; and a remarkable amount of practical skills or academic knowledge can be gained online through free tutorials, videos, message boards, open universities, multilingual multimedia and services like Coursera to anyone inclined to invest the time and effort. Also, used books are as cheap and easy to find as at almost any point in human history. In many towns and cities there is a reasonably good library system.

As I said above, there are different types of intelligence. These include practical skills, life experience and wisdom, general intelligence, academics, music and language skills, social and relationship skills, management and business acumen, cultural knowledge etc. Few people are good at everything - many can get better with effort by varying degrees.

[Njord]

@BrickHead

As I’ve said, I have seen:

1. Lesser intelligent people in bad environments.
2. Intelligent people in bad environments.
3. Intelligent people in great environments.
4. Lesser intelligent people in great environments.

And the results have been varied across the board.

I would suggest extremes are only a legitimately limiting factor when comparing to each other regarding limitations. A high IQ person compared to a mentally retarded person is clearly going to live a less limited life, but for the vast majority I personally believe the capability to achieve a great life and notable accomplishments exists.

An average or slightly better IQ may never rewrite physics, but can learn and apply knowledge at a high functioning level. One may take more work and time than another on a given subject, but can achieve.

IMO where people get lost is in the emotional intelligence arena. This is where self-doubt, quitting & negativity can surface and become extremely limiting. You can do anything is a bit far fetched, but I don’t think you can do most things is, for most people.

[BrickHead]

All good points.

[SkyzykS]

@Njord

IMO where people get lost is in the emotional intelligence arena. This is where self-doubt, quitting & negativity can surface and become extremely limiting.

Yeah. Like, I have trouble filling out forms. Not that there’s anything difficult or mentally intense. Most forms are written so that anybody but the most intellectually impaired can complete them without assistance.
But some fears and anxieties take over and I go “Aghhhh!!!”. It could be a form which upon completion awards one $1,000/week for life, and I would still probably freeze up on a mundane question about nothing in particular.

[BrickHead]

@DoesTheHeavyLifting

No one seriously disputes that having smart parents and being raised in an environment that values education and provides ample opportunities to learn gives children a great advantage. In fact, there’s some evidence people are getting smarter.

Good post.

From talking with other parents of my generation, including some who grew up in the area I was raised, I suspect some Gen X parents are generally savvier in their parenting and aware of the risks of raising their kids like potatoes as a chunk of boomers did.