Nietzsche As Biological Visionary?

[Drareg]

How kind it is of you to assume that me and others are reading nietzsche with a closed mind, rejoice, if correct your previous argument is marginally strengthened. I would say RP avoids any talk of competition in nature as a driving force in evolution because it goes agianst his own cooperative/passive conceptual view.

He speaks of opposition rather than competition(Ray Peat),this is in relation to the majority of humans current behaviour.

If nature is one force it's impossible for it to compete with itself,this renders the idea of nature being competitive to perception/brain, what we can know currently ,nature/reality knows all.

Peat is anything but passive.

I don't assume anything this is why I used the word "some". Many philopshers work has been bastardised by those projecting their own bias,it's easier to use selected works,quotes to use as a mask/persona for underlying issues an individual will not address,personality pathologies,patterns the individual cannot/refuse to break,they get worse under stress.

 

[Drareg]

@Drareg HUFA???

Highly unsaturated fatty acids I think.

 

[Xisca]

I understand that one can "master" a foreign language or a subject at study. But the point is that things are always changing. We might consider Peat to be a "master" of health and nutrition. But even he has change his stance on certain things

A master's characteristic is adaptation to change!
If you want your head to stay out of the sea water, you have to be adapting to the waves.
Mastery refers to what a junggler does, he knows that without going on with some attention, he will miss a ball.
The better you are the more you can play. It is a process.

 

[Dopamine]

Well done Dopamine.

Thanks. I edited my response though- some ideas were off or incomplete

 

[jaguar43]

The quotes I posted on "being vs becoming"- the fluidity of time. The parallel of his views with Heraclitus. Amor Fati (love of fate), etc... Time is a huge theme in many of his ideas.

Thats not what Ray Peat is referring too.. Peat's point was how time is not incorporated into the philosophy of the "will". If the "will" is independent of the external. Then time is excluded. Of course the whole purpose of the "will" is based on the independence of the will to power. And basically thats what it is. The "will" forces it's might through life regardless of anything else. For Peat Time, change and development must be incorporated.

Which brings me into my next point in which the "Will to power" has transcended philosophy presently and has incorporated into political philosophy. It's no surprise that the forum members who identified with the "Right-wing" have defended Nietzsche's ideas on this thread. Regardless of how wrong they were. But Nietzsche fit's nicely into their political commitments. Even @Dopamine has made some interesting remarks about.

I live in Canada- probaly one of the most liberal/leftist countries in the world but if I lived in the United States I would vote for Trump in a heartbeat. - @Dopamine

Bernie is way too passive to run a country. If Putin confronted him he would pee his pants. - @Dopamine

https://raypeatforum.com/community/...l-election-2016-plus-the-harshest-peat-quote-
ever.9092/page-2#post-179326

It's hard to not label you as one of the typical alpha male ideologues of the western world. However, your own words speak for themselves.

I think their work is complementary- not necessarily their personalities and views on certain things. Compatible was maybe not the right word to use. Complementary.

Disagree

That's not what I meant. The body is mastering itself- weakness is suppressed while things that make us powerful are encouraged to develop- things that raise serotonin, nitric oxide etc are identified and suppressed, bad nutrition is avoided and bad digestion, the body seeks out strength and power largely through the conscious mind which is a product of the body. I think the main purpose of the mind maybe is pattern recognition- the mind distinguishes between patterns of what makes us weaker and what makes us stronger. Good and Bad are identified. There is a natural drive to order things. Of course nothing is intrinsically good or bad- everything serves its purpose. Good and bad are projections of patterns of what gives us power and what takes it away.

To master something means that knowledge is limited, because to master something means to understand the subject/thing in it's total form. For people like Ray Peat and Blake knowledge is unlimited, so therefore mastering is only a concept for the those who want to use the idea of sufficient knowledge as experts in a field or something. Reason, or the ratio of all we have already known, is not the same that it shall be when we know more. - William Blake. Meaning that when we know more in the future, it will change the totality of the knowledge from that of the past and present. If the world is the source of knowledge, and is unlimited. Then human potential is infinite.

Nietzsche's "will" says something very different. It's states the the "Will" is the source of human potential. Independently from the world that we live in.

 

[jaguar43]

I always took Stefan's take on IQ to be:

- It is a largely heritable trait, developed through some environmental pressures over time.

If I assume you mean intelligence as IQ then I disagree completely with that argument. Intelligence is not heritable, because many factors are involved in intelligence. Denying environmental


-

How quickly an upward pressure on IQ can occur is unknown, but obviously does occur -- he cites the differences between population average native West African IQ, and African-American IQ.

Does he cite the differences in environmental and educational conditions ? I highly doubt it.

- It is likely that early developmental issues can reduce IQ from one's maximum potential. He uses the height analogy, wherein malnutrition is going to reduce your maximum height, but good nutrition isn't going to push you past your genetic limit.

And yet Ray Peat has specifically dealt with the idea that good nutrition causes growth. Which looks like it's not the case.

The idea that poor nutrition stunts growth has led to the idea that good nutrition can be defined in terms of the rate of growth and the size ultimately reached. In medicine, it is common to refer to an obese specimen as “well nourished,” as if quantity of food and quantity of tissue were necessarily good things. But poisons can stimulate growth (“hormesis”), and food restriction can extend longevity. We still have to determine basic things such as the optimal rate of growth, and the optimal size. - Ray Peat

Caffeine: A vitamin-like nutrient, or adaptogen. Questions about tea and coffee, cancer and other degenerative diseases, and the hormones.

- He then claims something along the lines of regardless of whether it is genetic or cultural or other issue, we still don't know how to push up IQ drastically over a single person's lifetime.

No, but we know how to create bigger brains through environmental enrichment. The work by Marian Diamond proves that. It's almost insane that a person who follows Ray Peat ( assuming that people who participate in the ray peat forum, follow his ideas) still holds on to certain ideas like the genetic theory of intelligence.

 

[tyw]

@jag2594

"IQ" means "computed Intelligence Quotient measured by standardised tests", and that is what Stefan Molyneux is referring to.

----

Genetics obviously plays a role in everything to do with biology. Whether or not it is a primary role depends on the trait that we're concerned about. eg: in mitochondrial energetics, there are clear genetic predispositions to how much PUFA one incorporates into membranes where energy production takes place, and those how put very little PUFA there are automatically more resilient to PUFA consumption, and also stand a higher chance of living longer.

How to actually affect the underlying genetics to allow for "positive expression" for the existing time in history is a much more difficult consideration. Clearly, it is not just about the simple addition of pro-energetic substances like Caffeine -- someone would have found a substance that fixed a majority of issues by now.

From a practical perspective, it is much more important in today's context to figure out what are the sources of stress that compromise the organism beyond it's ability to function well. This is obviously a hard problem.

----

I "follow Ray Peat" for some information. I disagree with a large chunk of it

.....

 

[jaguar43]

@jag2594

"IQ" means "computed Intelligence Quotient measured by standardised tests", and that is what Stefan Molyneux is referring to.

----

Genetics obviously plays a role in everything to do with biology. Whether or not it is a primary role depends on the trait that we're concerned about. eg: in mitochondrial energetics, there are clear genetic predispositions to how much PUFA one incorporates into membranes where energy production takes place, and those how put very little PUFA there are automatically more resilient to PUFA consumption, and also stand a higher chance of living longer.

How to actually affect the underlying genetics to allow for "positive expression" for the existing time in history is a much more difficult consideration. Clearly, it is not just about the simple addition of pro-energetic substances like Caffeine -- someone would have found a substance that fixed a majority of issues by now.

From a practical perspective, it is much more important in today's context to figure out what are the sources of stress that compromise the organism beyond it's ability to function well. This is obviously a hard problem.

----

I "follow Ray Peat" for some information. I disagree with a large chunk of it

.....

It's ironic how you don't talk about intelligence in your reply. Which was Stefan's main argument. Most of us know that when someone talks about IQ they are referring to intelligence ( at least in the western world). I think it's pretty dishonest to try to make it seem like Stefan was not referring to intelligence. And changing the argument completely .


You say...

Genetics obviously plays a role in everything to do with biology. Whether or not it is a primary role depends on the trait that we're concerned about. eg: in mitochondrial energetics, there are clear genetic predispositions to how much PUFA one incorporates into membranes where energy production takes place, and those how put very little PUFA there are automatically more resilient to PUFA consumption, and also stand a higher chance of living longer.

Again you aren't clear in your argument. Are you saying that it's genetically determined that there exist a certain threshold as to how much pufa can be ingest before diseases or health problems arise ? Or are you saying that ingesting PUFA changes the genetic disposition of people ?


You also try desperately to change the argument by using a straw man argument saying that certain pro-energetic substances don't fix everything, therefore it's wrong to consider the plasticity of human biology. No one made that argument, not even Peat does. It's that all variables must be incorporated and included into the examination of human health. It's not that we deny that genes exist or have a role. But is it the main role in the development of the human biology is the real question.

 

[Drareg]

The same forum members made this genetic intelligence heritability argument before and it went nowhere.
They were asked to create a separate thread outlining the argument,they didn't,all this took place in the brexit it thread I believe.

I refuted one of the videos from this Stefan guy,he is full of projection issues,refuses to see his contradictions.
Following this guy and and the intelligence heritability arguments is close to pathological when you put the known research to it.
It's projection of deep bias not being addressed.

 

[jaguar43]

The same forum members made this genetic intelligence heritability argument before and it went nowhere.
They were asked to create a separate thread outlining the argument,they didn't,all this took place in the brexit it thread I believe.

I refuted one of the videos from this Stefan guy,he is full of projection issues,refuses to see his contradictions.
Following this guy and and the intelligence heritability arguments is close to pathological when you put the known research to it.
It's projection of deep bias not being addressed.

Agree completely.

 

[BigPapaChakra]

Some good cursory reading on IQ and things that can impact it, what high IQ is associated with, etc:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-carl.pdf IQ and socio-economic development across local authorities of the UK
The IQ Halo effect - Gwern.net

I haven't dug into a vast amount of research regarding this, but, does IQ have any meaningful relationship to fluid intelligence (Gf) or crystallized intelligence (Gc)? I know there is some relationship, but from my cursory readings in the past it seems as though IQ is really a reflection of many factors, which leads to a "mental age" score, then divided by chronological age, and lastly multiplied by 100. I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem to account for peoples' differences in Gf and Gc.

@tyw
Do you think that the apparent lack of rapid upswings in IQs - from any pressure, really - may be misrepresenting actual changes in intelligence that may be more so reflected in individualized testing for Gf or Gc? Further, I know you're a fan of Mae Wan Ho, PhD. I know she published a paper awhile back arguing that there is 'no genetic basis for intelligence' - have you come across that one?

 

[Drareg]

The irony of IQ tests is you will score lower if you have not eaten food or possibly if you consumed high pufa, if you were awake for 24 hours and took the test without food,all this points to metabolism in some way,stress in excess essentially.

Perhaps if you got to keto level using the keto keys it could help intelligence,I'm not sure this is even feasible.

It doesn't cover intelligence in its entirety,the name needs to get changed I think.

 

[jaguar43]

Some good cursory reading on IQ and things that can impact it, what high IQ is associated with, etc:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-carl.pdf IQ and socio-economic development across local authorities of the UK
The IQ Halo effect - Gwern.net

I haven't dug into a vast amount of research regarding this, but, does IQ have any meaningful relationship to fluid intelligence (Gf) or crystallized intelligence (Gc)? I know there is some relationship, but from my cursory readings in the past it seems as though IQ is really a reflection of many factors, which leads to a "mental age" score, then divided by chronological age, and lastly multiplied by 100. I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem to account for peoples' differences in Gf and Gc.

@tyw
Do you think that the apparent lack of rapid upswings in IQs - from any pressure, really - may be misrepresenting actual changes in intelligence that may be more so reflected in individualized testing for Gf or Gc? Further, I know you're a fan of Mae Wan Ho, PhD. I know she published a paper awhile back arguing that there is 'no genetic basis for intelligence' - have you come across that one?

The study you posted states that IQ and socio-economic development are correlated. Not cause and effect. It could be that having a higher socio-economic status leads to a better environment, education, nutrition, health and development. And therefore a higher IQ, but a high IQ isn't necessarily a determining factor in intelligence. It says more about your social status then your intelligence, according to Peat.

It's hilarious how people are so committed to their false ideas on IQ and genetic intelligence. While being being proponents of people like Mae Wan Ho who prove rightly that their was no basis for those statements. I think it's a personal thing, people who defend genetic theory of intelligence probably believe that they themselves are superior to others in intelligence and want to continue with that framework to give them the boost in confidence.

 

[jaa]

I know she published a paper awhile back arguing that there is 'no genetic basis for intelligence' - have you come across that one?

That seems wrong to me. There are groups of people like ashkenazi jews who have higher than average IQs. There is also the limited effect upbringing has on a child's adult success. Identical twins who are adopted by different parents of different status end up in the same socioeconomic class.

I don't think genetics is everything. It seems to define a range. If you take a child who's parents have a 120 IQ and raise them under the same conditions as a child who's parents have an 80 IQ, then the child with the 120 IQ parents will very likely have a higher IQ than the child who's parents have an 80 IQ.

 

[BigPapaChakra]

Network resets in medial prefrontal cortex mark the onset of behavioral uncertainty Network Resets in Medial PrefrontalCortex Mark the Onset ofBehavioral Uncertainty

http://epileptologie-bonn.de/cms/upload/homepage/axmacher/NatRevNeurosci2011.pdf The role of phase synchronization in memory processes

There are things discussed in the above articles that I don't think many cognitive scientists and psychologists take into consideration, either. Phase resets, particularly in the mPFC are accompanied by increases in exploratory behavior and can underlie moments of "sudden insight". Phase synchronization between brain regions, as outlined in the second paper, is very important for both working and long-term memory. This is likely true for several reasons, one of which is greatly enhanced ability of the post-synaptic neuron to receive several inputs at once. It additionally allows there to be precision in the timing of action potentials resulting from said phase synchronization between two regions, allowing for 'timing dependent plasticity' of those synaptic connections. This greatly increases the entire brains ability to communicate with itself.

The cool thing is - there are now newer technologies and programs available that can actually train proper phase synchronization in the brain, especially regarding gamma oscillations as well.

@jag2594: "It's hilarious how people are so committed to their false ideas on IQ and genetic intelligence. While being being proponents of people like Mae Wan Ho who prove rightly that their was no basis for those statements."

Was that directed towards me?

I'm of the opinion that intelligence is (1) poorly defined by most people (or they at least use the wrong form of intelligence to describe what they're speaking about) and (2) that it is malleable to a great extent.

 

[jaguar43]

That seems wrong to me. There are groups of people like ashkenazi jews who have higher than average IQs. There is also the limited effect upbringing has on a child's adult success. Identical twins who are adopted by different parents of different status end up in the same socioeconomic class.

I don't think genetics is everything. It seems to define a range. If you take a child who's parents have a 120 IQ and raise them under the same conditions as a child who's parents have an 80 IQ, then the child with the 120 IQ parents will very likely have a higher IQ than the child who's parents have an 80 IQ.

Here is a quote from Peat on the so called twin studies.

The argument for a “genetic” cause of schizophrenia relies heavily on twin studies in which the frequency of both twins being schizophrenic is contrasted to the normal incidence of schizophrenia in the population, which is usually about 1%. There is a concordance of 30% to 40% between monozygotic (identical) twins, and a 5% to 10% concordance between fraternal twins, and both of these rates are higher than that of other siblings in the same family. That argument neglects the closer similarity of the intrauterine conditions experienced by twins, for example the sharing of the same placenta, and experiencing more concordant biochemical interactions between fetus and mother.

Defects of the brain, head, face, and even hands and fingerprints are seen more frequently in the genetically identical twin who later develops schizophrenia than the twin who doesn’t develop schizophrenia. Of the twins, it is the baby with the lower birth weight and head size that is at a greater risk of developing schizophrenia.

Oliver Gillie (in his book, Who Do You Think You Are?) discussed some of the fraud that has occurred in twin studies, but no additional fraud is needed when the non-genetic explanation is simply ignored and excluded from discussion. The editors of most medical and scientific journals are so convinced of the reality of genetic determination that they won’t allow their readers to see criticisms of it.

Thyroid, insomnia, and the insanities: Commonalities in disease

So we know that your argument in dealing with twins studies are most likely false in nature. I don't think their is much evidence aside from that. The ashkenazi jews theory doesn't really seem to be accepted by science community like the twin studies is.

I really do hope that Mr. Peat doesn't read this forum. To see how so many people are committed to false ideas that he has taken so much time to address.

 

[BigPapaChakra]

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/fbp/2009/09augfbp/09augfbpJungET1.pdf The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence

"There is a theoretically informative distinction, relevant to the current review, between intelligence in general (e.g., FSIQ) and a general intelligence factor (g). As noted by Jensen, the g-factor should be conceived as a “distillate of the common source of individual differences in all mental tests, completely stripped of their distinctive features of information content, skill, strategy, and the like” (Jensen 1998), p. 74). As noted by Colom et al. (2006), whereas the scientific construct of g relies upon the correlations among test scores, intelligence in general is merely a summation of standardized mental test scores. However, the simple sum of various test scores cannot be considered the optimal measure of g, but rather considered a measure of intelligence in general. Intelligence in general means g plus several more specific cognitive abilities and skills. Typical IQ scores comprise a complex mixture of those abilities and skills (Colom et al. 2002). Although IQ scores have high g-factor loadings, IQ scores only approximate g."

"We propose a model – the Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory, or P-FIT – that elucidates the critical interaction between association cortices within parietal and frontal brain regions which, when effectively linked by white matter structures (i.e., arcuate fasciculus, superior longitudinal fasciculus), underpins individual differences in reasoning competence in humans, and perhaps in other mammalian species as well (see Fig. 1). We arrive at this model based on the 37 neuroimaging studies ointelligence and reasoning reviewed here and guided conceptually by the recent and extensive review by Cabeza & Nyberg (2000) of cognitive neuroimaging research summarizing the functional correlates of brain activity, by lobe, at the level of Brodmann areas. The importance of the P-FIT model to intelligence and reasoning can be summarized as follows: (1) We begin with the assumption that humans gather and process cognitively salient information predominantly through auditory and/or visual means (usually in combination) – therefore, particular brain regions within the temporal and occipital lobes are critical to early processing of sensory information: the extrastriate cortex (BAs 18, 19) and fusiform gyrus (BA 37) involving recognition and subsequent imagery and/or elaboration of visual input, and Wernicke’s area (BA 22) involving analysis and/or elaboration of syntax of auditory information. (2) We assume this basic sensory/perceptual processing is then fed forward to the parietal cortex, predominantly the supramarginal (BA 40), superior parietal (BA 7), and angular (BA 39) gyri, wherein structural symbolism, abstraction, and elaboration emerge. (3) We further assume the parietal cortex interacts with frontal regions (i.e., BAs 6, 9, 10, 45–47), which serve to hypothesis test various solutions to a given problem. (4) Once the best solution is arrived upon, the anterior cingulate (BA 32) is engaged to constrain response selection, as well as inhibit other competing responses. (5) Finally, we propose that this process is dependent upon the fidelity of underlying white matter necessary to facilitate rapid and error-free transmission of data from posterior to frontal brain regions."

The researchers go on to discuss the neuro-anatomical correlates of this model in greater detail, in addition to a worthwhile discussion of genomic analyses on intelligence. Really massive, well cited study, worth reading by anyone interested in intelligence modulation. Again, though, what's cool is that one can actually train the brain to attain, and then to 'recognize' cross-frequency coupling particularly in the brain regions/systems discussed in the above article, which would theoretically allow one to directly enhance intelligence.

 

[Dopamine]

Thats not what Ray Peat is referring too.. Peat's point was how time is not incorporated into the philosophy of the "will". If the "will" is independent of the external. Then time is excluded. Of course the whole purpose of the "will" is based on the independence of the will to power. And basically thats what it is. The "will" forces it's might through life regardless of anything else. For Peat Time, change and development must be incorporated.

To master something means that knowledge is limited, because to master something means to understand the subject/thing in it's total form. For people like Ray Peat and Blake knowledge is unlimited, so therefore mastering is only a concept for the those who want to use the idea of sufficient knowledge as experts in a field or something. Reason, or the ratio of all we have already known, is not the same that it shall be when we know more. - William Blake. Meaning that when we know more in the future, it will change the totality of the knowledge from that of the past and present. If the world is the source of knowledge, and is unlimited. Then human potential is infinite.

Nietzsche's "will" says something very different. It's states the the "Will" is the source of human potential. Independently from the world that we live in.

Mastery is a process not an end, obviously nothing can be mastered. Perfection doesn't exist in the universe. You misunderstand me.

Again your view of Nietzsches will to power is wrong and twisted. You think will to power is metaphysical and exists outside us- I am trying to explain it is a psychological concept that exists within us. Psychology has its basis in biology as the mind is inseperable from the body. The body is inseperable from its environment. Our perceptions of change in space and time are a major function of our psyche. If will to power is understood as a psychological concept then it must incorporate perceptions of change in space and time.

Which brings me into my next point in which the "Will to power" has transcended philosophy presently and has incorporated into political philosophy. It's no surprise that the forum members who identified with the "Right-wing" have defended Nietzsche's ideas on this thread. Regardless of how wrong they were. But Nietzsche fit's nicely into their political commitments. Even @Dopamine has made some interesting remarks about.

It's hard to not label you as one of the typical alpha male ideologues of the western world. However, your own words speak for themselves.

Is that supposed to be an insult? I will take it as a compliment.
You act like I am supposed to be embarrassed for having right wing views? I don't support any political party in particular rather whichever one offers the most freedom and is least oppressive. It is obvious that the far left is at present the greatest danger to western society and to its peoples individual freedoms.

 

[jaa]

Here is a quote from Peat on the so called twin studies.

The argument for a “genetic” cause of schizophrenia relies heavily on twin studies in which the frequency of both twins being schizophrenic is contrasted to the normal incidence of schizophrenia in the population, which is usually about 1%. There is a concordance of 30% to 40% between monozygotic (identical) twins, and a 5% to 10% concordance between fraternal twins, and both of these rates are higher than that of other siblings in the same family. That argument neglects the closer similarity of the intrauterine conditions experienced by twins, for example the sharing of the same placenta, and experiencing more concordant biochemical interactions between fetus and mother.

Defects of the brain, head, face, and even hands and fingerprints are seen more frequently in the genetically identical twin who later develops schizophrenia than the twin who doesn’t develop schizophrenia. Of the twins, it is the baby with the lower birth weight and head size that is at a greater risk of developing schizophrenia.

Oliver Gillie (in his book, Who Do You Think You Are?) discussed some of the fraud that has occurred in twin studies, but no additional fraud is needed when the non-genetic explanation is simply ignored and excluded from discussion. The editors of most medical and scientific journals are so convinced of the reality of genetic determination that they won’t allow their readers to see criticisms of it.

Thyroid, insomnia, and the insanities: Commonalities in disease

So we know that your argument in dealing with twins studies are most likely false in nature. I don't think their is much evidence aside from that. The ashkenazi jews theory doesn't really seem to be accepted by science community like the twin studies is.

I really do hope that Mr. Peat doesn't read this forum. To see how so many people are committed to false ideas that he has taken so much time to address.

I don't know how that makes you think the studies are most likely false in nature. You're just deferring to Peat. I'm sure he wouldn't like to see that more than someone disagreeing with him on a forum bearing his name :p

Would you say appearance is all down to the placenta too? What about the myriad of other features that children share with parents?

As for the ashkenazi jews, it seems like you're being selective. Some studies have found no results (looked at all jews), but most find they have above average IQs. This fits nicely with the observation that jews are over represented in intelligence demanding fields.

 

[tyw]

Some good cursory reading on IQ and things that can impact it, what high IQ is associated with, etc:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-carl.pdf IQ and socio-economic development across local authorities of the UK
The IQ Halo effect - Gwern.net

I haven't dug into a vast amount of research regarding this, but, does IQ have any meaningful relationship to fluid intelligence (Gf) or crystallized intelligence (Gc)? I know there is some relationship, but from my cursory readings in the past it seems as though IQ is really a reflection of many factors, which leads to a "mental age" score, then divided by chronological age, and lastly multiplied by 100. I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem to account for peoples' differences in Gf and Gc.

@tyw
Do you think that the apparent lack of rapid upswings in IQs - from any pressure, really - may be misrepresenting actual changes in intelligence that may be more so reflected in individualized testing for Gf or Gc? Further, I know you're a fan of Mae Wan Ho, PhD. I know she published a paper awhile back arguing that there is 'no genetic basis for intelligence' - have you come across that one?

Welp, you know that my bias is about finding Practical solutions first and foremost , and about applying those solutions to myself and those who happen to be directly involved with me.

IQ is clearly measuring something. Whether or not that something is to going to be manifested in useful ways is entirely contingent upon the individual. IMO, the way the tests are setup measure "processing speed" and "pattern recognition". Accordingly, the Doctors I have met who have verified IQs of 180+ are extremely good at memorising and conceptualising information ... but then go ahead and do what I see to be stupid activities like cutting people up , or endlessly obsessing over Blood Markers as if it were the be-all-end-all information to a person's current state of health.

Sidenote: I like to make fun of the doctors relying on Serum / Urine / Saliva / whatever-methodology of doing point-in-time snapshots of biomarkers , likening it to the practice of sacrificing a Dove before going to war, and reading its innards to "Ask the Gods if the omens are favourable for victory in battle".

Then, when the battle is won, more often than not via Practically obtained Tactics and Strategies, the general goes back and thanks the Gods for the good omen.

That is basically what a lot of these extremely smart Doctors are doing , and attributing their treatment protocols (most unsuccessful) to things like better blood markers, and "balancing PUFAs in the blood", and many other post-hoc rationalisations which their "high IQ" allows them to reason about .

Still doesn't change the main goal of actually helping people recover from illness, to which the tactics for doing so are largely discovered by trial and error (and "intellectual discourse" is basically collective trial-and-error).​

Therefore, I do not know, and given my position, to do not attempt to universalise the consequences of such data on IQ and Intelligence in general. All I do is give the people who happen to be come into contact with me something that is useful, and that is mostly a closed-door private affair (as you would know )

----

Mae-Wan Ho had some good ideas. I liked the fact that she presented a whole bunch of data, and was willing to eagerly make connections between that data to form novel hypotheses.

I agree with her, in the sense that it is clear that trying to find a "gene for intelligence" is futile, because what we have termed "intelligence" is such a high level trait, and restricted purely to cognitive abilities.

As far as I am concerned, I revert to a lower-level definition of "Intelligence", which is for an entity to be able to take in information from the environment, and then modify its future behaviour based on past information, to obtain better outcomes for the specific problem domain. As such, an artificial software Neural Network that becomes better at playing Chess over time is more intelligent at playing Chess.

Sidenote: this definition applies to the word "Stupid" as well, which if strictly defined, means that future behaviour actually leads to worse outcomes, with the failure to realise this and/or the inability to adapt behaviour to attain good outcomes.​

Again, I am concerned with successful practical outcomes .... If when playing a musical instrument, the musician is capable of using their "body intelligence" to "feel the notes better" (which is my experience) and allow for better accuracy, then that musician possesses an intelligence that allows them to be successful in that particular endeavour. The same goes for something like writing a computer program, and I've worked with programmers "way more intelligent" than me, who were capable of (in their words), "seeing the shape of the program, and knowing that certain patterns were wrong".

How we will ever measure this in terms of generic metrics, I do not know, nor do I concern myself heavily with that. I tend to let the practical outcomes sort themselves out, and then seek to avoid any actions that would reliably cause harm to a person.

....