undefined

points

[-]

Or are smarter people better able to regulate their food intake? (Either innately, or because society gives them other privileges which makes them less likely to overeat)

by lo_zamoyski27 days ago|

parent|

[-]

I would say, that on the whole, this has to do with habituated impulse control and self-restraint.

Classical writers speak of this as well, things like how inordinate and undisciplined appetites (not just for food, mind you; sex, too, and undue acquisitiveness of all sorts, for instance) darken the mind. What is inordinate and undisciplined is not proportioned or directed by reason. So, such character traits are rooted in fidelity to reason which means that not only do they avoid the aforementioned darkening of the mind by moderation of appetite, but the very character strength of being able to do so enables rational existence in other things.

Innate intelligence doesn't secure discipline. Indeed, it gives the person a bigger footgun and allows for more elaborate rationalizations of vice.

by Earw0rm26 days ago|

parent|

[-]

Which then begs the question, what is IQ actually measuring - something more like innate intelligence, or a fairly big slice of learned, habituated test-taking ability?

Regardless of what underlying trait it's actually measuring, the habituation factory is a big component of its supposed bias - that is, has your background taught you the kind of problem-solving habits that will help you to post the best possible score?

by Gareth32126 days ago|

parent|

[-]

> Which then begs the question, what is IQ actually measuring - something more like innate intelligence, or a fairly big slice of learned, habituated test-taking ability?

This question was asked and answered many decades ago in sociology. Researchers moved onto more interesting topics and fields. IQ tests measure g factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)).

> "It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the assertion that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks."

In other words people who are good at these tests are also good at real world tasks. Meaning IQ measures much more than one's ability to pass an IQ test. There are of course many examples of poorly structured IQ tests (including people re-taking the same IQ test and doing better at it the second time around). However a well-structured IQ test presenting novel questions (absent popular culture references and trivia) provides a very good approximation of the g factor in almost all cases. This means high IQ is highly correlated with things like income, unemployment, crime, homelessness, addiction, divorce, and many other objectively measurable life outcomes.

There is room for a philosophical debate about what g factor is, but it is beyond contest at this stage that g factor is real, and IQ almost always does a very good job of measuring it.

by tptacek26 days ago|

parent|

[-]

It's beyond contest that the g factor is real in part because it's a statistical inevitability in any series of related tests, be they for intelligence or product/market fit in automobiles. It's an exploratory statistic, a hint at underlying causality; it is not a dispositive revelation about the structure of human thought.

Sure: there's a battery of general cognitive tests, and if you smush data sets together a dominant factor will emerge. And?

by Gareth32126 days ago|

parent|

[-]

This is exactly my point. It's tautological to argue that IQ isn't correlated with intelligence. It is, definitionally. You seem to acknowledge this so perhaps I don't understand your original comment.

by tptacek26 days ago|

parent|

[-]

I just don't think there's anything meaningful about that. Group of related tests is related. Ok, now what?

by tptacek25 days ago|

parent|

[-]

(I misread your original comment --- no, it's not tautological. It's tautological to say that IQ isn't correlated with IQ test results. "g" has nothing to do with "intelligence" as a construct.)

by Gareth32125 days ago|

parent|

[-]

If IQ tests measure one's ability to do most other cognitively demanding tasks then it's measuring more than the test itself. Whatever you want to call that thing is irrelevant. In sociology and psychology we call that the g factor. The vast majority of people call that intelligence.

by tptacek25 days ago|

parent|

[-]

That's the tautological argument! Note that I'm not even really engaging with the validity of IQ tests, just the surface logic that you're using. You literally just argued, in effect, that IQ tests measure intelligence because people call them intelligence tests!

by Gareth32124 days ago|

parent|

[-]

That's a semantic point you're making, and I'm not contesting it. To repeat myself, you can call the correlation anything you like. I'm merely explaining that the correlation exists and is incredibly material.

by tptacek24 days ago|

parent|

[-]

We agree the correlation exists. The incredible materiality of it is what's in dispute. The obvious problem with these arguments is that people point to the correlation and say "see, I'm right about the materiality!".

by Gareth32122 days ago|

parent|

[-]

We have strong data to show that people who score higher on IQ tests also earn more, have higher net wealth, have lower rates of unemployment, higher graduation rates, lower suicide rates, lower rates of addiction, lower rates of crime, lower rates of divorce, lower rates of fatherlessness, lower rates of household abuse, higher rates of home ownership, longer life spans, have better general health on almost every metric, and a host of other positive QoL indicators. I don't see how you could argue that is not material.

by tptacek22 days ago|

parent|

[-]

We were talking about psychometric G. I don't know what it is you're trying to talk about now.

by Gareth32121 days ago|

parent|

[-]

I continue to talk about IQ, IQ tests, and g factor.

by hirvi7427 days ago|

prev|

[-]

> which is suggestive that there's probably something causal, in some direction, somewhere in there.

Perhaps suggestive, but far from conclusive (I know you know this too). To me, it is suggestive that there is likely some other factor that may explain the relationship better, but then again, I am wrong more often than right, so what do I know? ;)

For example, compare that to growing wealth inequality, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is a potential factor. Less income = less access to care, less access to healthier food options, perhaps less time to for self-care, etc., and if wealth/career potential is gatekept by academic achievement, economic utility, or intelligence, then I can see the two, intelligence and BMI, being correlated, but not directly causal. Though, no study would give people large sums of money to improve their lives, so I doubt we will know for certain.