This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My point was less about the specifics of measuring intelligence or athleticism and more about asking if given the degree of uncertainty, is it really a good idea to run headfirst into embryo IQ selection. There are almost certainly aspects of intelligence not captured by IQ tests that help with mathematics, physics, music, writing, etc. By optimizing so narrowly for IQ we don't know if we could be excluding the regions of gene space that might generate a brain that performs best at those tasks, much like focusing only on triathlon (or vertical leap or sprint) performance would exclude the musculoskeletal parameters that make Messi or Phelps so perfect for their chosen tasks.
Sure, there are aspects, but 1. what makes you think they would be negatively correlated with IQ 2. we can't measure them for now or it is too time consuming
Right now, most genetic studies on intelligence do not even use IQ but use EA (educational attainment) as a proxy for IQ. Obscurantists laugh that genes explain small fraction of EA, but what do you want if these studies do not use full genome sequences and mediocre proxy of IQ?
I don't think they would be negatively correlated, I just think there are enough unknowns that the possibility is far from negligible. My priors are that the "no free lunch" theorem applies to intelligence, so if I had to guess I would expect some degree of tradeoff, particularly at the upper ends of performance (whether in intelligence or athleticism). Hence why we never see people elite in both running and swimming events despite both being strongly, positively correlated with "general athleticism".
There is no reason to believe the "no free lunch" theorem holds and plenty of reasons to believe it doesn't. There are lots of genes with purely deleterious effects (those which are fatal to embroys, for instance. Or cystic fibrosis).
Even if the tails come apart -- e.g. you cannot simultaneously MAXIMIZE running and swimming ability -- does not mean that there's no genetic free lunch. Starting from a genotype that wasn't near human capacity in either, you could increase both.
If I were to refine my thoughts, I would say I believe not in an absolute, universal no free lunch, but rather a weaker, "not much free lunch beyond a particular threshold". As you put it, where the tails might tend to come apart.
My concern lies there, at least to the extent that human progress depends on the abilities of the individuals at those tails.
More options
Context Copy link
Wouldn't trade-offs being everywhere in evolutionary biology count? I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, if intelligence were a 'free lunch' wouldn't we expect to see far less variation in intelligence in humans? Natural selection having already optimised it?
The most significant drawback for IQ is 'doesn't want to have children' and longer reproduction cycles. Also, a fraction of variation in intelligence is non-linear (heterozygosity) which simple selection cannot maximize and this is why agriculture uses f1 seeds, albeit aiming other traits.
More options
Context Copy link
There's lots of traits that haven't reached fixation, but this doesn't mean there's no free lunch. Evolution is slow and the environment changes much more quickly; we are not at equilibrium. The "no free lunch" theorem is equivalent to "all organisms are equally fit", which is clearly false.
More options
Context Copy link
Natural selection was still in the process of optimizing our genes when they hit the point where their phenotypes could invent and spread much faster-optimizing memes and then (in an instant, geologically) start wondering whether faster optimization was possible for genes too. Even brain size growth, perhaps the cruelest obvious tradeoff, doesn't show any obvious signs of having leveled off.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Okay. I wouldn't worry too much about these things, since in any embryo selection other factors will outweigh IQ. In IVF, embryos are already screened for chromosomal defects. They are also graded based on a cell development and uniformity.
If (lucky you!) you had multiple embryos with no defects and high grades, then you might do additional screening which is already available from Orchid. This might tell you if your child had a high risk of chronic disease or mental illness. If you still had multiple candidate embryos after all that, you might choose one based on IQ. But consider the uncertainty of this test, and also how siblings already exhibit a high degree of similarity with IQ. The difference in expected IQ might be 1 or 2 points with huge error bars.
So I wouldn't worry that we're going to be breeding people like pugs with huge defects caused by over selecting for obscure characteristics.
The biggest risk to our genetic health is that people are having children later in life and intelligent people have too few children.
Where's you getting this from? Per Jensen, average difference between sibs is 12-13 IQ points. If your PGS captures r^2=25% variance, then expected difference is 12.5*sqrt(0.25) IQ points. (That is about 10-20% difference in income when adult). That's for two embryos only. Steve Hsu gave more data - how how far you go with more embryos - but i can't remember where it was
Nobody knows how much of the variance is captured. I assume a low amount as this is unproven technology.
I'll grant that I assumed the average difference between sibling was less than 12-13 points, so if that's true I'll admit the difference in IQ can be more than 1 or 2 points.
(Caveat: even though IQ is mostly genetic, it's still partially environmental. So if the mean difference is 12-13 points, the mean genetic difference is less.)
Nevertheless, until we radically change how IVF works we won't be selecting from dozens of embryos. I still rate this intervention as incredibly minor without further advancements.
Sasha Gusev lists IQ PGS as explaining 41% variance at population level and 14% between sibs, since he tries to give as much deflated numbers as possible without lying, true must be higher.
sibs share environment.
ROI of improvement in possible child income by IVF PGD expenses is high
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link