Does a theory of psychology underpin your politics?

[Broken_Erika]

I also wonder about what effects gene-editing would have on viruses and bacterial infections:

if a virus that we've already "dealt with" spreads to someone who is heavily genetically manipulated, in what ways would the virus adapt? would it change so much that it could possibly become dangerous again for vaxxinated "normal" people? a lot of interesting questions open up once you REALLY consider the scenario beyond the constantly repeated "superior humans", "nations of geniunses", "genetic supersoldiers" bs.

Sounds similar to a plot for a Star Trek TNG episode
https://www.ditl.org/episode-page.php?Series=TNG&Episode=32

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I know for a fact LM has posted multiple times on her top percentile IQ, dropped some numbers and made some very, very hostile remarks about MENSA, even though she herself is/was a member, but still looking down on the other members.

Just to clarify, there has never been an attempt by me to look down on other members of the forum because of perceived intelligence. Most of you are far more intelligent and well-read than I am. I'm just good at solving puzzles.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Narz]

Just to clarify, there has never been an attempt by me to look down on other members of the forum because of perceived intelligence. Most of you are far more intelligent and well-read than I am. I'm just good at solving puzzles.

Make of that what you will.

Like gaming puzzles, crossword puzzles, jigsaw puzzles?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Psyche puzzles.

 

[Hehehe]

Anyway, you're a leftist. The whole "false consciousness" is a theory of psychology that has always seemed like a variant of blank slatism to me. Does it matter much for the revleft if this theory is correct or not?

Theory of false consciousness, as explained by a meme (I don't think it's related to blank slatism)

Low confidence answer: it did refute studies from the 2010s and bogus studies about 5-HTTLPR and depression are still being published.

I took a closer look at the studies, and one of them at least mentions the refuted link to depression. Perhaps I should take a look at their sample sizes.

I'm puzzled about the viability of doing this. The Chinese kids who were CRISPRed recently had one gene edited iirc. How realistic is it to edit 1,000 genes in the near future? How many people or governments are going to be OK with the risks this entails just to grab a small fraction of a standard deviation? I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's a very complicated and risky endeavor that makes me skeptical of it's viability in the near future.

If you can already modify one gene, then why not all of them? That is, right now. The costs might be prohibitive, but I suppose they will come down. Not to mention that IVF selection is already possible. Also, as for the gains, it might be more than 10%. I'd need to do the maths, but my brain hurts just thinking about the probability maths involved. In any case, the work is ongoing, they will find more genes as science advances. Rudimentary genetic engineering is possible already, I see no reason to think that it would not become more advanced as time goes by.

I also wonder about what effects gene-editing would have on viruses and bacterial infections:

if a virus that we've already "dealt with" spreads to someone who is heavily genetically manipulated, in what ways would the virus adapt? would it change so much that it could possibly become dangerous again for vaxxinated "normal" people? a lot of interesting questions open up once you REALLY consider the scenario beyond the constantly repeated "superior humans", "nations of geniunses", "genetic supersoldiers" bs.

Unless we edit their resistance to diseases, I'd say that the risk of this is zero. And even if we do, I'd say that the risk is still low. Immune system does not work like antibiotics. Antibiotics kill all bacteria, whereas the immune system develops antibodies to mark harmful bacteria, so that the immune system can destroy them. I guess everything is possible, but I just don't see it.

If anything, it might be the opposite. It could be that genetically engineered people are more susceptible to diseases. We know that plants, which have been selected for crop yields, sometimes lose their natural immunity to diseases. It might be that if we prioritize some things, such as intelligence, in favor of other things, we lose some of those other things.

 

[Truthy]

If you can already modify one gene, then why not all of them? That is, right now. The costs might be prohibitive, but I suppose they will come down. Not to mention that IVF selection is already possible. Also, as for the gains, it might be more than 10%. I'd need to do the maths, but my brain hurts just thinking about the probability maths involved. In any case, the work is ongoing, they will find more genes as science advances. Rudimentary genetic engineering is possible already, I see no reason to think that it would not become more advanced as time goes by.


Unless we edit their resistance to diseases, I'd say that the risk of this is zero. And even if we do, I'd say that the risk is still low. Immune system does not work like antibiotics. Antibiotics kill all bacteria, whereas the immune system develops antibodies to mark harmful bacteria, so that the immune system can destroy them. I guess everything is possible, but I just don't see it.

If anything, it might be the opposite. It could be that genetically engineered people are more susceptible to diseases. We know that plants, which have been selected for crop yields, sometimes lose their natural immunity to diseases. It might be that if we prioritize some things, such as intelligence, in favor of other things, we lose some of those other things.

My point with the gene editing is more like what you're saying in the last paragraph here. We know complex traits are massively polygenic. And if we want to optimize one massively polygenic thing (like intelligence), it will necessarily impact a bunch of other massively polygenic things. To emphasize the difficulty, we're talking about editing ~1,000 genes or more out of just several tens of thousands. I think that's a lot to account for if we want to eke out smarter babies. Enough to pose a very big barrier to the adoption of gene editing.

As an aside, people often assume we'll be forced to take these huge risks because... China. Yet the CRISPR editing of those kids was extremely controversial and unpopular in China. I don't think the Chinese government or public is any less wary of gene editing than Westerners are. So I'm skeptical that pressure from abroad is really going to be much of push factor.

In terms of the risk/side-effect challenge, off the top of my head I can roughly imagine some algorithmic ways to go about it. If we formalize "optimal gene editing" (which itself is a big challenge), we'll need to do something like searching a high-dimensional combinatorial space defined by possible genomes and we want to maximize a set of polygenic scores. Which would very likely be NP-hard, so a lot of effort needs to go into approximations. And I'm not sure about how many errors we can expect. I assume they'll be normally distributed for any editing tech and the goal will be to bring down the mean and variance. I'm sure improving reliability will be a big goal in the next few decades.

So no, I'm not saying genetic engineering of humans isn't going to be a huge thing this century. But I'm very curious about what the obstacles are and how they might be overcome.

 

[Hehehe]

My point with the gene editing is more like what you're saying in the last paragraph here. We know complex traits are massively polygenic. And if we want to optimize one massively polygenic thing (like intelligence), it will necessarily impact a bunch of other massively polygenic things. To emphasize the difficulty, we're talking about editing ~1,000 genes or more out of just several tens of thousands. I think that's a lot to account for if we want to eke out smarter babies. Enough to pose a very big barrier to the adoption of gene editing.

Yes, you may be right. If we select for one useful trait, we might be deselecting for other useful traits. This is especially plausible if one believes in an omnigenic model, such as in the articles you linked before (I'm not a 100% sold on it, but I suppose it is plausible). If it's of any consolation though, intelligence is generally positively correlated with most (but not all) of the traits we care about.

As an aside, people often assume we'll be forced to take these huge risks because... China. Yet the CRISPR editing of those kids was extremely controversial and unpopular in China. I don't think the Chinese government or public is any less wary of gene editing than Westerners are. So I'm skeptical that pressure from abroad is really going to be much of push factor.

I don't know if the pressure will come from China, but I know there are a lot of people who are interested in this (myself among them).

In terms of the risk/side-effect challenge, off the top of my head I can roughly imagine some algorithmic ways to go about it. If we formalize "optimal gene editing" (which itself is a big challenge), we'll need to do something like searching a high-dimensional combinatorial space defined by possible genomes and we want to maximize a set of polygenic scores. Which would very likely be NP-hard, so a lot of effort needs to go into approximations. And I'm not sure about how many errors we can expect. I assume they'll be normally distributed for any editing tech and the goal will be to bring down the mean and variance. I'm sure improving reliability will be a big goal in the next few decades.

So no, I'm not saying genetic engineering of humans isn't going to be a huge thing this century. But I'm very curious about what the obstacles are and how they might be overcome.

Well, the field is very much new. I suppose we will learn more as science progresses. Right now we're only learning the basic code, but we still don't know what that code does under the hood. Much of what you say will become more (or less) relevant as the field progresses. Right now, all this seems highly speculative to me.

 

[Truthy]

If it's of any consolation though, intelligence is generally positively correlated with most (but not all) of the traits we care about.

Lol yeah. I did think of this while writing my last post, but shied away from bringing it up because of how crazy it sounds to most people.

Well, the field is very much new. I suppose we will learn more as science progresses. Right now we're only learning the basic code, but we still don't know what that code does under the hood. Much of what you say will become more (or less) relevant as the field progresses. Right now, all this seems highly speculative to me.

Well, it was speculative. But not wildly. I mean, those were run-of-the-mill computational motifs that crop up everywhere. Computational biology is no exception. If gene editing involves the question "what's the best set of edits to make to a given genome?", I think what I said applies.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Just to clarify, there has never been an attempt by me to look down on other members of the forum because of perceived intelligence. Most of you are far more intelligent and well-read than I am. I'm just good at solving puzzles.

Make of that what you will.

I understand what you mean, maybe I read you wrong . I didnt say you look down on members on this forum, but rather on other MENSA members (for their arrogance or their elitism or something else i dont remember im sure you can explain better. I would never thin that you look down on ppl on this forum, or look down on anyone for their intelligence actually.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I understand what you mean, maybe I read you wrong . I didnt say you look down on members on this forum, but rather on other MENSA members (for their arrogance or their elitism or something else i dont remember im sure you can explain better. I would never thin that you look down on ppl on this forum, or look down on anyone for their intelligence actually.

That's exactly my problem with MENSA and some of the members in it. They tend to look down on people who don't share their intellectual gifts. They feel that somehow they are superior to those without the high IQ's, and that really irritates me, but people will be people. Some people just get off on feeling better than others, I guess. The thing is that they are one blow to the head away from being mentally impaired and it can happen to anyone. People forget that.

Another thing to consider is that in a contest of mental acuity, a high IQ person and a median IQ person will usually arrive at the very same answer to a problem. The only difference is that the high IQ person will get to the answer a little faster.

Is that really a reason to feel superior over someone else? I mean seriously? These people need to get a grip.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Absent an unprecedented technological breakthrough, quite a few billion are guaranteed to die within the next 100 years.

As a reference point, currently about 58 million people die annually. Over the next 100 years, at that death rate, 5.8 billion people will die.

No but it would probably mean a collapse of civilization and humanity, which is a net positive for the planet.

The planet doesn't care. In fact after mass extinction, life has rebounded with greater abundance and diversity. It is OK to worry about people, but the planet will take care of itself.

 

[Kyriakos]

I wouldn't say that a psychological theory underpins my politics. I am mostly influenced by honor, humanity, a morbid mindset, misanthropy, opportunism and suspension of disbelief. I added a couple parameters which aren't really there, just to make the list have more parts.

 

[bernie14]

I wouldn't say that a psychological theory underpins my politics. I am mostly influenced by honor, humanity, a morbid mindset, misanthropy, opportunism and suspension of disbelief. I added a couple parameters which aren't really there, just to make the list have more parts.

Well, your perspective is your psychology

 

[Lexicus]

Is that really a reason to feel superior over someone else? I mean seriously? These people need to get a grip.

I have rubbed shoulders with quite a few people who thought - still think for all I know - that IQ is like a human worth rating, and it tends to be because they don't have much else to be proud of.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I have rubbed shoulders with quite a few people who thought - still think for all I know - that IQ is like a human worth rating, and it tends to be because they don't have much else to be proud of.

IQ certainly isn't a measure of intelligence. Some of the stupidest people I know have IQs above 150 (myself included). I can't count the number of times I've done something brain-dead or said something stupid. One only has to look through my posting history to see evidence of that.

To be perfectly honest, I believe that IQ is only useful on the bottom of the scale, as a measure of intellectual impairment. When you get below 75, it's a useful scale to measure basic functioning (or lack thereof). But really, when you look at the bell curve and the median is around 100 to 110, (in most cases. Some scales differ.), the outliers are certainly interesting, but don't mean a whole hell of a lot above 130 or so. I dunno, I just don't think it is a very useful tool, TBH. And actually, even though the low end of the scale is useful, it still suffers from experimental biases because the test administrator has to help the person do the test in a lot of cases.

All in all, IQ is a really useless way of measuring intelligence. I would like to come up with a better way of doing it, but the bulk of my training has been in aberrant and criminal psychology, not the science of intelligence and research. Yes, I deal with everyday patients now, but it wasn't always that way. Usually the cases had some element of comorbidity to them and the patient had to be institutionalized. Now I deal with walk in patients.

Perhaps I should write a paper on IQ? I wonder how I would do?

 

[Truthy]

I disagree with most of the above.

But I like the irony of you saying "I have an IQ of 200 and IQ doesn't matter that much" and me saying "you're wrong," which sorta implies you're right.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I am mostly influenced by honor

get the **** outta here

 

[Mouthwash]

IQ certainly isn't a measure of intelligence. Some of the stupidest people I know have IQs above 150 (myself included). I can't count the number of times I've done something brain-dead or said something stupid. One only has to look through my posting history to see evidence of that.

To be perfectly honest, I believe that IQ is only useful on the bottom of the scale, as a measure of intellectual impairment. When you get below 75, it's a useful scale to measure basic functioning (or lack thereof). But really, when you look at the bell curve and the median is around 100 to 110, (in most cases. Some scales differ.), the outliers are certainly interesting, but don't mean a whole hell of a lot above 130 or so. I dunno, I just don't think it is a very useful tool, TBH. And actually, even though the low end of the scale is useful, it still suffers from experimental biases because the test administrator has to help the person do the test in a lot of cases.

How strongly does high IQ correlate with autism? May be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing there are plenty of autists at MENSA.

 

[brennan]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21272389

Of the 75 children with ASD, 55% had an intellectual disability (IQ<70) but only 16% had moderate to severe intellectual disability (IQ<50); 28% had average intelligence (115>IQ>85) but only 3% were of above average intelligence (IQ>115).

Autism might benefit certain types of cognition, but overall it seems to be a negative.

 

[Kyriakos]

get the **** outta here

It was a joke
You would have gotten it if you had an IQ of over 150