Twin study suggests rationality and intelligence share the same genetic roots - the study suggests that being irrational, or making illogical choices, might simply be another way of measuring lower intelligence.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/twin-study-suggests-rationality-and-intelligence-share-the-same-genetic-roots/

[u/subhumanprimate]

These sort of tests are so skewed to experience

Take the ball and the bat where together they cost 1.10 ... If you are used to puzzles like this it's simple but if you aren't it's much harder. But you might be more familiar with other sort of logical tests that if they had used the type of puzzle you were used to you would do better

They aren't good predictions of real world success they just measure how familiar you are at that particular sort of puzzle

[u/Xolver → u/subhumanprimate]

People have given very basic counters to IQ tests such as you gave just now for as long as they've existed. But these counters just largely aren't true. 

Yes, education and practice have an effect, but most of the weight is genetic.

It is also untrue that these aren't good predictors of real world success. Intelligence is the best predictor according to most studies, although conscientiousness is up there as well. 

[u/Draugron → u/Xolver]

Yes, education and practice have an effect [on intelligence], but most of the weight is genetic.

Bold claim there.

It is also untrue that these aren't good predictors of real world success. Intelligence is the best predictor according to most studies

[Citation needed]

I haven't read a single study that makes that claim that hasn't been ripped to shreds by peer review. As a matter of fact, this meta-analysis concludes the exact opposite, and that recent studies have not borne any evidence to that claim.

[u/Xolver → u/Draugron]

Okay, so I couldn't read the whole study now but had about 10 minutes or so to skim it. The whole study reads like an opinion piece - they keep citing highly cited sources saying IQ does have these predictive effects, followed by repeatedly saying words like "unfortunately" to then tell us either that the studies had problems, or that it's not a surprise that IQ correlates with these attributes since they measure similar metrics.

On the first type of objection they have, I'll say - citation needed, but from more high quality sources and hopefully with a less "let's find holes" tone. On the second type of objection I'll say... Uh, okay? If the goalpost is now moved from IQ doesn't correlate with these things to it correlates so much since it measures similar metrics, that doesn't exactly negate anything anyone's saying. A big part of what is said about IQ is that any test that has some sort of cognitive testing ability (so almost all non very simple and repetitive tasks) is some sort of an IQ test. This isn't the counter jab to IQ testing you'd like it to be. 

I think you're the one who might be putting too much weight on certain peer review rather than other. I could look up a paper ripping your paper down, but what's the point? Seeing who's the last one to be ripped? No, the point is that IQ literature has had high quality highly cited studies for eons, and neither of our confirmation biases should trump this by citing one paper or another. 

[u/DieMafia → u/Draugron]

That intelligence is mostly heritable is not a bold claim, it is the consensus. Heritability also increases into adulthood, while the effect of shared environment decreases to almost nothing.

The results show that the heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18–20 years of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood. In the aggregate, the studies also confirm that shared environmental influence decreases across age, approximating about 0.10 at 18–20 years of age and continuing at that level into adulthood.

Source

Here is a very recent study with a large sample size (n > 14.000):

Genetic transmission, in turn, seems to be the primary mechanisms of intergenerational transmission of cognitive ability and becomes increasingly important with age.

Source

That IQ is heritable is not surprising, since almost any trait is. Here is a more general overview that was published in Nature Genetics and encompassed virtually all published twin studies for all kinds of traits with over 14 million twin pairs, of which a subset of >300k related to higher level cognitive traits:

Source

That intelligence is highly heritable is really not a question if you are at all familiar with the literature. IQ test scores of identical twins raised apart are almost as highly correlated as those of the same person tested twice, while scores of unrelated siblings raised together are almost not correlated at all.

[u/Draugron → u/DieMafia]

It is very funny that one of the conclusions of the source I gave was that the existing primary data was gathered using flawed assessment methods, and that the solution moving forward was to conduct more primary research using better methods, not more meta-analyses using corrected data from those same sources.

And the sources you gave in your responses were all meta-analyses using corrected data from those older, flawed primary sources.

[u/DieMafia → u/Draugron]

It is very funny that one of the conclusions of the source I gave was that the existing primary data was gathered using flawed assessment methods, and that the solution moving forward was to conduct more primary research using better methods, not more meta-analyses using corrected data from those same sources.

Your link is about the correlation between job performance and IQ. This has nothing to do with the heritability of IQ. That IQ is heritable is the scientific consensus and majority view, and the methodology for assessing the heritability of IQ has nothing to do with the methodology for assessing the correlation between job performance and IQ.

And the sources you gave in your responses were all meta-analyses using corrected data from those older, flawed primary sources.

This is obviously not true, since the sources I cited were not related to job performance (where correlations are corrected for e.g. range restriction) but were based on a twin study design. The second source I cited is a recent well-conducted primary study with a large sample size showing a large heritability of IQ.

[u/Draugron → u/DieMafia]

And yet you interpreted my disagreement with the statement that genetics are the primary determinant of intelligence as one wherein I completely dismiss all forms of the heritability of cognitive ability.

And your second study has yet to be cited for any further research, and specifically makes the claim that it is outside the common consensus. You'll forgive me for dismissing it until the broader scientific community can chime in.

[u/DieMafia → u/Draugron]

And yet you interpreted my disagreement with the statement that genetics are the primary determinant of intelligence as one wherein I completely dismiss all forms of the heritability of cognitive ability.

Where did I do that? Apart from that, the sources I cited all show the heritability of intelligence (in adulthood) is >50%. What is your definition of primary determinant?

And your second study has yet to be cited for any further research, and specifically makes the claim that it is outside the common consensus.

The study specifically refers to the conventional social mobility perspective in sociological research on the "intergenerational transmission of advantage". It does not refer to the view on the heritability of intelligence amongst researchers of intelligence or behavioral genetics, where substantial (e.g. >50%) heritability is the consensus.

You'll forgive me for dismissing it until the broader scientific community can chime in.

If you want an overview that probably reflects the general consensus of scientists in the field, you could take a look here: Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings. Robert Plomin (the main author) is a professor of behavioral genetics and one of the most cited psychologists in general (>750 articles and >100k citations). Is that good enough?

[u/guareber → u/Draugron]

Are you sure he was claiming education and practice have an effect on intelligence, as opposed to on IQ?

I think the latter would be quite a defensible position.

[u/Draugron → u/guareber]

Education and practice do have an effect on the intelligence quotient. I agree with that

What I disagree with is the second half of that sentence where he claimed that most of the weight given to IQ is genetic. There are myriad more recent studies showing that it comes down more to socioeconomic status, residency, access to education, hell, even coaching on the test itself, rather than genetics.

[u/guareber → u/Draugron]

No I get it, i was only asking about the addition to the quote since I'm not sure what OP meant (int or IQ) and I don't think it's clearly stated.