0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Richard Heyer on the science of human intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is a highly controversial topic, but a critically important one for understanding the human mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
I hope you will join me in not shying away from difficult topics like this, and instead, let us try to navigate it with empathy, rigor, and grace.
0
SPEAKER_00
If you re watching this on video now, I should mention that I m recording this introduction in an undisclosed location somewhere in the world.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m safe and happy, and life is beautiful.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
We got Calm for meditation, Linode for cloud computing, Buy Optimizers for health, SimpliSafe for security, and Masterclass for inspiration.
0
SPEAKER_00
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_00
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_00
I try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you will, too.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by Calm, a meditation and mental wellness app.
0
SPEAKER_00
Over 100 million people around the world use Calm to take care of their minds.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m a big believer, I m a big fan of meditation in general, and there s all kinds of ways to achieve that state of mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
where it s complete focus, where there s focus on the breath, focus on a singular idea, or focus on just the emptiness of space.
0
SPEAKER_00
I do that through running, through walking, through deep work sessions when I have to focus on a particular idea.
0
SPEAKER_00
Herman Hesse talked about that, which is meditation is just not simply meditation.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the ability to just focus on one thing, and all the great writers and the scholars are able to do that, even if they don t call it meditation.
0
SPEAKER_00
But if you wanna get into it and do systematically and rigorously, guided meditation is a great way to do it.
0
SPEAKER_00
And Calm is my favorite app to get that done.
0
SPEAKER_00
As a listener, you ll get 40% off a Calm premium subscription, which includes hundreds of hours of programming.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out at calm.com slash flex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Linode, Linux Virtual Machines.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s an awesome compute infrastructure that lets you develop, deploy, and scale whatever applications you build faster and easier.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is both for small personal projects and huge systems.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s lower cost than AWS.
0
SPEAKER_00
They got great customer service 24-7, 365, however many days there are a year.
0
SPEAKER_00
Like I said, I don t shut up about it.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love Linux.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love Linux in the cloud.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love when the interface and the infrastructure of distributed computing is done really well, whether it s for hosting websites or doing any kinds of compute, whether it s CPU, GPU, all that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love it when people do this well.
0
SPEAKER_00
And the interface on Linode is just done incredibly well.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s user-friendly, very accessible, very clear to monitor.
0
SPEAKER_00
What the heck is going on?
0
SPEAKER_00
I love it.
0
SPEAKER_00
Did I mention how much I love Linux?
0
SPEAKER_00
I think of Linode as love in the cloud because Linux is love.
0
SPEAKER_00
Visit linode.com slash Lex for free credit.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by BiOptimizers.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have a new magnesium supplement.
0
SPEAKER_00
When I fast or I m doing keto or carnivore, sodium, potassium, and magnesium are essential.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s what they call the electrolytes.
0
SPEAKER_00
Of those, magnesium is the trickiest to get right.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s why I use Magnesium Breakthrough for BiOptimizers.
0
SPEAKER_00
Most of the other supplements contain only one or two forms of magnesium, like glycinate or citrate.
0
SPEAKER_00
I ve actually had a long discussion slash debate slash learning session with Andrew Huberman, who may be the world s greatest expert in magnesium.
0
SPEAKER_00
It was very eye-opening.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, there s not just glycinate and citrate, there s seven other kinds that the body can benefit from.
0
SPEAKER_00
So this particular bio-optimizer supplement gets all of them.
0
SPEAKER_00
So you re covered.
0
SPEAKER_00
And it makes it super easy so you don t have to think about it.
0
SPEAKER_00
Like I said, the difference between
0
SPEAKER_00
an awesomely clear and focused mind on keto or when you re fasting for 16 or 24 hours or multiple days, 48, 72 hours, the difference between feeling crappy and feeling amazing is electrolytes and magnesium for me, like when I fasted for 72 hours, that was the key.
0
SPEAKER_00
I wasn t feeling that great when that was lower than it needed to be and when it got higher, I felt great.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, get a special discount at magbreakthrough.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by SimpliSafe, a home security company designed to be simple and effective.
0
SPEAKER_00
It takes 30 minutes to set up.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can customize the system to your needs.
0
SPEAKER_00
I have it set up in my place and I love it.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is, I guess, the first layer of security in my place.
0
SPEAKER_00
I take my physical and cyber security extremely, extremely seriously.
0
SPEAKER_00
And part of doing a good job of securing your physical location is
0
SPEAKER_00
having systems that are actually really easy to set up, really easy to monitor, really easy to debug if anything s going wrong, and that s exactly what SimpliSafe does for any consumer.
0
SPEAKER_00
You don t even need professional installation.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think they offer professional installation, but you can set it up yourself, it s super easy.
0
SPEAKER_00
From a robotics perspective, it s cool to turn your home into a smart robot type of device that s sensing the world around it.
0
SPEAKER_00
through cameras, through motion sensors, all that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Go to simplisafe.com slash lex to customize your system and claim your free indoor security camera plus 20% off with interactive monitoring, which you should definitely sign up for.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Masterclass.
0
SPEAKER_00
$180 a year gets you an all-access pass to watch courses from the best people in the world in their respective disciplines.
0
SPEAKER_00
The list is frickin  ridiculous.
0
SPEAKER_00
Chris Hadfield, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Will Wright, Carlos Santana, Garry Kasparov, Daniel Negrano, Neil Gaiman, Ron Scorsese, Tony Hawk, Jane Goodall.
0
SPEAKER_00
I really gotta talk to Jane Goodall at some point here soon.
0
SPEAKER_00
She s an incredible, incredible woman.
0
SPEAKER_00
And the list keeps going.
0
SPEAKER_00
Andrew Huberman just texted me and he should definitely have a masterclass because that guy, actually every single episode of his podcast is a masterclass of its own.
0
SPEAKER_00
This whole series of ad reads is all about how awesome Andrew Huberman is, which he is.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, I do believe that the way to learn about a topic, there s two ways.
0
SPEAKER_00
One is you do hands-on training, so you follow tutorials that are hands-on and you build something, something you care about.
0
SPEAKER_00
Or you listen or get as close as possible to get the wisdom from the best people in the world that are doing that kind of thing.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s no replacement for that.
0
SPEAKER_00
just in life in general, whatever you wanna do in life, make sure you figure out who s the best person in the world at that and find a way to work with them, even if it s like intern or make coffee for them, all that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Masterclass makes it super easy for you that you don t have to make coffee for anybody.
0
SPEAKER_00
You just pay 180 bucks a year and you get to listen to these experts.
0
SPEAKER_00
I highly recommend you check it out.
0
SPEAKER_00
You get unlimited access to every Masterclass and get 15% off an annual membership at masterclass.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, dear friends, here s Richard Heyer.
0
SPEAKER_00
What are the measures of human intelligence and how do we measure it?
0
SPEAKER_01
Everybody has an idea of what they mean by intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_01
In the vernacular, what I mean by intelligence is just being smart, how well you reason, how well you figure things out, what you do when you don t know what to do.
0
SPEAKER_01
Those are just kind of everyday common sense definitions of how people use the word intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_01
If you want to do research on intelligence, measuring something that you can study scientifically is a little trickier.
0
SPEAKER_01
And what almost all researchers who study intelligence use is the concept called the G-factor, general intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that is what is common, that is a mental ability that is common to virtually all tests of mental abilities.
0
SPEAKER_00
What s the origin of the term G-factor, by the way?
0
SPEAKER_00
It s such a funny word for such a fundamental human thing.
0
SPEAKER_01
The general factor, I really started with Charles Spearman.
0
SPEAKER_01
And he noticed, this is like, boy, more than 100 years ago.
0
SPEAKER_01
He noticed that when you tested people with different tests, all the tests were correlated positively.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so he was looking at student exams and things.
0
SPEAKER_01
And he invented the correlation coefficient, essentially.
0
SPEAKER_01
And when he used it to look at student performance on various topics, he found all the scores were correlated with each other, and they were all positive correlations.
0
SPEAKER_01
So he inferred from this
0
SPEAKER_01
that there must be some common factor that was irrespective of the content of the test.
0
SPEAKER_00
And positive correlation means if you do well on the first test, you re likely to do well on the second test, and presumably that holds for tests across even disciplines.
0
SPEAKER_00
not within subject, but across subjects.
0
SPEAKER_00
So that s where the general comes in.
0
SPEAKER_00
Something about general intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_00
So when you were talking about measuring intelligence and trying to figure out something difficult about this world and how to solve the puzzles of this world, that means generally speaking, not some specific test, but across all tests.
0
SPEAKER_01
Absolutely right.
0
SPEAKER_01
And people get hung up on this because they say, well, what about the ability to do X?
0
SPEAKER_01
Isn t that independent?
0
SPEAKER_01
And they said, I know somebody who s very good at this, but not so good at this.
0
SPEAKER_01
this other thing.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so there are a lot of examples like that, but it s a general tendency.
0
SPEAKER_01
So exceptions really don t disprove, you know, your everyday experience is not the same as what the data actually show.
0
SPEAKER_01
And your everyday experience, when you say, oh, I know someone who s good at X, but not so good at Y, that doesn t contradict the statement of about, he s not so good, but he s not,
0
SPEAKER_01
the opposite, it s not a negative correlation.
0
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so we re not, our anecdotal data, I know a guy who s really good at solving some kind of visual thing, that s not sufficient for us to understand actually the depths of that person s intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_00
So how this idea of g-factor,
0
SPEAKER_00
How much evidence is there?
0
SPEAKER_00
How strong, you know, given across the decades that this idea has been around, how much has it been held up that there is a universal sort of horsepower of intelligence that s underneath all of it?
0
SPEAKER_00
All the different tests we do to try to get to this thing in the depths of the human mind, that s a universal stable measure of a person s intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_01
You used a couple of words in there.
0
SPEAKER_00
Stable and... We have to be precise with words?
0
SPEAKER_00
I was hoping we can get away with being poetic.
0
SPEAKER_01
We can.
0
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot about research in general, not just intelligence research, that is poetic.
0
SPEAKER_01
Science has a poetic aspect to it.
0
SPEAKER_01
And good scientists are very intuitive.
0
SPEAKER_01
They re not just...
0
SPEAKER_01
Hey, these are the numbers.
0
SPEAKER_01
You have to kind of step back and see the big picture.
0
SPEAKER_01
When it comes to intelligence research, you asked, how well has this general concept held up?
0
SPEAKER_01
And I think I can say, without fear of being empirically contradicted, that it is the most replicated finding in all of psychology.
0
SPEAKER_01
Now, some cynics may say, well, big deal, psychology, we all know there s a replication crisis in psychology and a lot of this stuff doesn t replicate.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s all true.
0
SPEAKER_01
There is no replication crisis when it comes to studying the existence of this general factor.
0
SPEAKER_01
Let me tell you some things about it.
0
SPEAKER_01
It looks like it s universal, that you find it in all cultures.
0
SPEAKER_01
The way you find it, step back one step, the way you find it is to give a battery of mental tests.
0
SPEAKER_01
What battery?
0
SPEAKER_01
You choose.
0
SPEAKER_01
Take a battery of any mental test you want, give it to a large number of diverse people
0
SPEAKER_01
And you will be able to extract statistically the commonality among all those tests.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s done by a technique called factor analysis.
0
SPEAKER_01
People think that this may be a statistical artifact of some kind.
0
SPEAKER_01
It is not a statistical artifact.
0
SPEAKER_00
What is factor analysis?
0
SPEAKER_01
Factor analysis is a way of looking at a big set of data and look at the correlation among the different test scores and then find empirically the clusters of scores that go together.
0
SPEAKER_01
And there are different factors.
0
SPEAKER_01
So if you have a bunch of mental tests, there may be a verbal factor, there may be a numerical factor, there may be a visual spatial factor, but those factors have variants in common with each other.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that s what s common among all the tests.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that s what gets labeled the G factor.
0
SPEAKER_01
So if you give a diverse battery of mental tests and you extract a G factor from it, that factor usually accounts for around half of the variance.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s the single biggest factor.
0
SPEAKER_01
But it s not the only factor.
0
SPEAKER_01
But it is the most reliable.
0
SPEAKER_01
It is the most stable.
0
SPEAKER_01
And it seems to be very much influenced by genetics.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s very hard to change the G factor with training or drugs or anything else.
0
SPEAKER_01
We don t know how to increase the G factor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Okay, you said a lot of really interesting things there.
0
SPEAKER_00
So, first, just to get people used to it in case they re not familiar with this idea, G-factor is what we mean.
0
SPEAKER_00
So often there s this term used, IQ.
0
SPEAKER_00
which is the way IQ is used, they really mean g-factor in regular conversation.
0
SPEAKER_00
What we mean by IQ, we mean intelligence, and what we mean by intelligence, we mean general intelligence, and general intelligence in the human mind from a psychology, from a serious, rigorous, scientific perspective actually means g-factor.
0
SPEAKER_00
So g-factor equals intelligence, just in this conversation to define terms.
0
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so there s this stable thing called g-factor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Now, factor, you said factor many times, means a measure that potentially could be reduced to a single number across the different factors you mentioned.
0
SPEAKER_00
And what you said, it accounts for half.
0
SPEAKER_00
half-ish, accounts for half-ish of what?
0
SPEAKER_00
Of variance across the different set of tests.
0
SPEAKER_00
So if you do for some reason well on some set of tests,
0
SPEAKER_00
What does that mean?
0
SPEAKER_00
So that means there s some unique capabilities outside of the G-factor that might account for that.
0
SPEAKER_00
And what are those?
0
SPEAKER_00
What else is there besides the raw horsepower, the engine inside your mind that generates intelligence?
0
SPEAKER_01
There are test-taking skills.
0
SPEAKER_01
There are specific abilities.
0
SPEAKER_01
Someone might be particularly good at mathematical things, mathematical concepts, even simple arithmetic.
0
SPEAKER_01
Some people are much better than others.
0
SPEAKER_01
You might know people who can memorize, and short-term memory is another component of this.
1
SPEAKER_00
for memory is one of the cognitive processes that s most highly correlated with the G factor.
1
SPEAKER_01
So- So all those things like memory, test-taking skills account for variability across the test performances.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you can run, but you can t hide.
1
SPEAKER_01
from the thing that God gave you, the genetics.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that g-factor, science says that g-factor is there.
1
SPEAKER_01
Each one of us have
1
SPEAKER_00
Each one of us has a g-factor.
1
SPEAKER_00
Oh boy.
1
SPEAKER_00
Some have more than others.
1
SPEAKER_00
I m getting uncomfortable already.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, IQ is a score.
1
SPEAKER_00
An IQ score is a very good estimate of the g-factor.
1
SPEAKER_00
You can t measure g directly.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s no direct measure.
1
SPEAKER_00
You estimate it from these statistical techniques.
1
SPEAKER_00
But an IQ score is a good estimate.
1
SPEAKER_00
Why?
1
SPEAKER_00
Because a standard IQ test is a battery of different mental abilities.
1
SPEAKER_00
You combine it into one score, and that score is highly correlated with the G factor, even if you get better scores on some subtests than others.
1
SPEAKER_00
Because again, it s what s common to all these mental abilities.
1
SPEAKER_01
So a good IQ test, and I ll ask you about that, but a good IQ test tries to compress down that battery of tests, like tries to get a nice battery, a nice selection of variable tests into one test.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so in that way, it sneaks up to this G factor.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s another interesting thing about G factor.
1
SPEAKER_01
First of all, you have a great book on the neuroscience of intelligence.
1
SPEAKER_01
You have a great course, which is when I first learned.
1
SPEAKER_01
You re a great teacher, let me just say.
1
SPEAKER_01
Your course at the teaching company, I hope I m saying that correctly.
1
SPEAKER_00
The Intelligent Brain.
1
SPEAKER_01
The intelligent brain is when I first heard about this g-factor, this mysterious thing that lurks in the darkness that we cannot quite shine a light on, we re trying to sneak up on.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the fact that there s this measure, stable measure of intelligence, we can t measure directly.
1
SPEAKER_01
But we can come up with a battery test or one test that includes a battery of variable type of questions that can reliably or attempt to estimate in a stable way that G factor.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s a fascinating idea.
1
SPEAKER_01
So for me as an AI person, it s fascinating.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s fascinating there s something stable like that about the human mind, especially if it s grounded in genetics.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s both fascinating
1
SPEAKER_01
that as a researcher of the human mind and all the human psychological, sociological, ethical questions that start arising, it makes me uncomfortable.
1
SPEAKER_01
But truth can be uncomfortable.
1
SPEAKER_00
You know, I get that a lot about being uncomfortable talking about this.
1
SPEAKER_00
Let me go back and just say one more empirical thing.
1
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t matter
1
SPEAKER_00
which battery of tests you use.
1
SPEAKER_00
So there are countless tests.
1
SPEAKER_00
You can take any 12 of them at random, extract a g-factor, and another 12 at random and extract a g-factor.
1
SPEAKER_00
And those g-factors will be highly correlated, like over 0.9 with each other.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it is ubiquitous.
1
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t depend on the content of the test, is what I m trying to say.
1
SPEAKER_00
It is general among all those tests of mental ability and tests of mental, you know, mental abilities include things like, geez, playing poker.
1
SPEAKER_00
Your skill at poker is not unrelated to G. Your skill at anything that requires reasoning and thinking, anything from spelling, arithmetic, more complex things.
1
SPEAKER_00
this concept is ubiquitous.
1
SPEAKER_00
And when you do batteries of tests in different cultures, you get the same thing.
1
SPEAKER_01
So this says something interesting about the human mind, that as a computer is designed to be general.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that means you can, so it s not, it s not easily made specialized, meaning if you re going to be good at one thing, Miyamoto Musashi has this,
1
SPEAKER_01
He s an ancient warrior, famous for the Book of Five Rings in the martial arts world.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the quote goes, if you know the way broadly, you will see it in everything.
1
SPEAKER_01
Meaning if you do one thing, it s going to generalize to everything.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s an interesting thing about the human mind.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that s what the G factor reveals.
1
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so what s the difference, if you can elaborate a little bit further, between IQ and g-factor, just because it s a source of confusion for people?
1
SPEAKER_00
An IQ is a score.
1
SPEAKER_00
People use the word IQ to mean intelligence, but IQ has a more technical meaning for people who work in the field.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s an IQ score, a score on a test that estimates the g-factor.
1
SPEAKER_00
Um, and the g factor is what s common among all these tests of mental ability.
1
SPEAKER_00
So if you think about it s not a venn diagram, but Um, I guess you could make a venn diagram out of it, but the g factor would be really at the core What s what s common?
1
SPEAKER_00
to everything.
1
SPEAKER_00
And what IQ scores do is they allow a rank order of people on the score.
1
SPEAKER_00
And this is what makes people uncomfortable.
1
SPEAKER_00
This is where there s a lot of controversy about whether IQ tests are biased toward any one group or another.
1
SPEAKER_00
And a lot of the answers to these questions are very clear, but they also have a technical aspect of it that s not so easy to explain.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, we ll talk about the fascinating and the difficult things about all of this, but
1
SPEAKER_01
So by the way, when you say rank order, that means you get a number and that means one person you can now compare.
1
SPEAKER_01
Like you could say that this other person is more intelligent than me.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, what you can say is IQ scores are interpreted really as percentiles.
1
SPEAKER_00
so that if you have an IQ of 140 and somebody else has 70, the metric is such that you cannot say the person with an IQ of 140 is twice as smart.
1
SPEAKER_00
as a person with an IQ of 70, that would require a ratio scale with an absolute zero.
1
SPEAKER_00
Now, you may think you know people with zero intelligence, but in fact, there is no absolute zero on an IQ scale.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s relative to other people.
1
SPEAKER_00
So relative to other people, somebody with an IQ score of 140 is in the upper less than 1%, whereas somebody with an IQ of 70 is two standard deviations below the mean.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s a different percentile.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it s similar to like in chess, you have an Elo rating that s designed to rank order people.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you can t say it s twice.
1
SPEAKER_01
One person, if your Elo rating s twice another person, I don t think you re twice as good at chess.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s not stable in that way, because it s very difficult to do these kinds of comparisons.
1
SPEAKER_01
So what can we say about the number itself?
1
SPEAKER_01
Is that stable across tests and so on or no?
1
SPEAKER_00
There are a number of statistical properties of any test.
1
SPEAKER_00
They re called psychometric properties.
1
SPEAKER_00
You have validity, you have reliability.
1
SPEAKER_00
There are many different kinds of reliability.
1
SPEAKER_00
They all essentially measure stability.
1
SPEAKER_00
and IQ tests are stable within an individual.
1
SPEAKER_00
There are some longitudinal studies where children were measured at age 11 and again when they were 70 years old and the two IQ scores are highly correlated with each other.
1
SPEAKER_00
This comes from a fascinating study from Scotland.
1
SPEAKER_00
In the 1930s, some researchers decided to get an IQ test on every single child age 11 in the whole country.
1
SPEAKER_00
And they did.
1
SPEAKER_00
And those records were discovered in an old storeroom at the University of Edinburgh by a friend of mine, Ian Deary, who found the records, digitized them.
1
SPEAKER_00
and has done a lot of research on the people who are still alive today from that original study, including brain imaging research, by the way.
1
SPEAKER_00
Really, it s a fascinating group of people who are studied.
1
SPEAKER_00
Not to get ahead of the story, but one of the most interesting things they found
1
SPEAKER_00
is a very strong relationship between IQ measured at age 11 and mortality.
1
SPEAKER_00
So that, you know, 70 years later,
1
SPEAKER_00
they looked at the survival rates and they could get death records from everybody and Scotland has universal health care for everybody.
1
SPEAKER_00
And it turned out if you divide people by their age 11 IQ score into quartiles,
1
SPEAKER_00
and then look at how many people are alive 70 years later.
1
SPEAKER_00
I know this is in the book, I have the graph in the book, but there are essentially twice as many people alive in the highest IQ quartile than in the lowest IQ quartile.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s true in men and women.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it makes a big difference.
1
SPEAKER_00
Now, why this is the case is not so clear since everyone had access to healthcare.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, there s a lot, and we ll talk about it.
1
SPEAKER_01
Just the sentences you used now could be explained by nature or nurture.
1
SPEAKER_01
We don t know.
1
SPEAKER_01
Now, there s a lot of science that starts to then dig in and investigate that question.
1
SPEAKER_01
But let me linger on the IQ test.
1
SPEAKER_01
How are the test design, IQ test design, how do they work?
1
SPEAKER_01
Maybe some examples for people who are not aware.
1
SPEAKER_01
What makes a good IQ test question that sneaks up on this G factor?
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, your question is interesting because you want me to give examples of items that make good items.
1
SPEAKER_00
And what makes a good item is not so much its content, but its empirical relationship to the total score that turns out to be valid by other means.
1
SPEAKER_00
So, for example, let me give you an odd example from personality testing.
1
SPEAKER_01
Nice.
1
SPEAKER_00
So there s a personality test called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, MMPI.
1
SPEAKER_00
Been around for decades.
1
SPEAKER_01
I ve heard about this test recently because of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t know if you ve been paying attention to that.
1
SPEAKER_00
I have not been paying attention to it.
1
SPEAKER_01
They had psychologists on the stand and they were talking, apparently those psychologists did, again, I m learning so much from this trial.
1
SPEAKER_01
They did different battery of tests.
1
SPEAKER_01
to diagnose personality disorders.
1
SPEAKER_01
Apparently there s that systematic way of doing so, and the Minnesota one is one of the ones that there s the most science on.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of great papers, which were all continuously cited on the stand, which is fascinating to watch.
1
SPEAKER_01
Sorry, a little bit of attention.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s okay, I mean, this is interesting, because you re right, it s been around for decades.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of scientific research on the psychometric properties of the test, including what it predicts.
1
SPEAKER_00
with respect to different categories of personality disorder.
1
SPEAKER_00
But what I want to mention is the content of the items on that test.
1
SPEAKER_00
All of the items are essentially true-false items.
1
SPEAKER_00
True or false, I prefer a shower to a bath.
1
SPEAKER_00
True or false, I think Lincoln was a better president than Washington.
1
SPEAKER_00
What have all these, what does that have to do, and the point is the content of these items, nobody knows why these items in aggregate predict anything, but empirically they do.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s a technique of choosing items for a test that is called dust bowl empiricism.
1
SPEAKER_00
that the content doesn t matter, but for some reason, when you get a criterion group of people with this disorder, and you compare them to people without that disorder, these are the items that distinguish.
1
SPEAKER_00
Irrespective of content, it s a hard concept to grasp.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, first of all, it s fascinating, but from a, because I,
1
SPEAKER_01
I consider myself part psychologist, because I love human-robot interaction, and that s a problem, half of that problem is a psychology problem, because there s a human.
1
SPEAKER_01
So designing these tests to get at the questions is the fascinating part, like how do you get
1
SPEAKER_01
What does Dust Bowl empiricism refer to?
1
SPEAKER_01
Does it refer to the final result?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so it s the test is Dust Bowl empiricism, but how do you arrive at the battery of questions?
1
SPEAKER_01
I presume one of the things, now again, I m going to the excellent testimony in that trial, the explanation, because they also, they explain the tests, that a bunch of the questions are kind of,
1
SPEAKER_01
make you forget that you re taking a test.
1
SPEAKER_01
It makes it very difficult for you to somehow figure out what you re supposed to answer.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yes, it s called social desirability.
1
SPEAKER_00
But we re getting a little far afield, because I only wanted to give that example of Dust Bowl empiricism.
1
SPEAKER_00
When we talk about the items on an IQ test,
1
SPEAKER_00
many of those items in the Dust Bowl and Pearson method have no face validity.
1
SPEAKER_00
In other words, they don t look like they measure anything.
1
SPEAKER_00
Whereas most intelligence tests, the items actually look like they re measuring some mental ability.
1
SPEAKER_01
So here s one of the- So you were bringing that up as an example as what it is not.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
1
SPEAKER_01
Got it.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
1
SPEAKER_00
So I don t want to go too far afield on it.
1
SPEAKER_01
Too Far Afield is actually one of the names of this podcast, so I should mention that.
1
SPEAKER_00
Far Afield.
1
SPEAKER_01
Far Afield.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so anyway, sorry.
1
SPEAKER_01
So they feel the questions look like they passed the face validity test.
1
SPEAKER_00
And some more than others.
1
SPEAKER_00
So for example, let me give you a couple of things here.
1
SPEAKER_00
One of the subtests on a standard IQ test is general information.
1
SPEAKER_00
Let me just think a little bit, because I don t want to give you the actual item.
1
SPEAKER_00
But if I said, how far is it between Washington, D.C.
1
SPEAKER_00
and Miami, Florida, within 500 miles, plus or minus?
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, you know, it s not a fact most people memorize, but you know something about geography.
1
SPEAKER_00
You say, well, I flew there once.
1
SPEAKER_00
I know planes fly 500 miles.
1
SPEAKER_00
You know, you can kind of make an estimate.
1
SPEAKER_00
But it also seems like it would be very cultural.
1
SPEAKER_00
So there s that kind of general information.
1
SPEAKER_00
Then there s vocabulary test.
1
SPEAKER_00
What does regatta mean?
1
SPEAKER_00
And I choose that word because that word was removed from the IQ test because people complained that disadvantaged people would not know that word.
1
SPEAKER_00
just from their everyday life, okay?
1
SPEAKER_00
Here s another example from a different kind of subtest.
1
SPEAKER_00
What s regatta, by the way?
1
SPEAKER_00
A regatta is a- I think I m disadvantaged.
1
SPEAKER_00
A sailing competition, a competition with boats.
1
SPEAKER_00
Not necessarily sailing, but a competition with boats.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yep, yep, I m probably disadvantaged in that way.
1
SPEAKER_01
Okay, excellent, so that was removed, anyway, what you were saying.
2
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so here s another subtest.
2
SPEAKER_01
I m gonna repeat a string of numbers, and when I m done, I want you to repeat them back to me.
2
SPEAKER_01
Ready?
2
SPEAKER_01
Seven, four, two, eight, one, six.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s way too many.
2
SPEAKER_00
Seven, four, two, eight, one, six.
2
SPEAKER_01
You get the idea.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now, the actual test starts with
2
SPEAKER_01
a smaller number, you know, like two numbers.
2
SPEAKER_01
And then it is people get it right.
2
SPEAKER_01
You keep going, adding to the string of numbers until they can t do it anymore.
2
SPEAKER_01
Okay.
2
SPEAKER_01
But now try this.
2
SPEAKER_01
I m going to re I m going to say some numbers.
2
SPEAKER_01
And when I m done, I want you to repeat them to me backwards.
2
SPEAKER_01
I quit.
2
SPEAKER_01
Okay.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I gave you some examples of the kind of items on an IQ test, general information.
2
SPEAKER_01
I can t even remember all.
2
SPEAKER_01
General information, vocabulary, digit span forward and digit span backward.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, you said I can t even remember them.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s a good question for me.
2
SPEAKER_00
What does memory have to do with geometry?
2
SPEAKER_01
Okay, well, let s hold on.
2
SPEAKER_01
Let s just talk about these examples.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now, some of those items seem very cultural.
2
SPEAKER_01
and others seem less cultural.
2
SPEAKER_01
Which ones do you think, scores on which subtests are most highly correlated with the g-factor?
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, the two advances less cultural.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, it turns out vocabulary is highly correlated, and it turns out that digit span backwards is highly correlated.
2
SPEAKER_00
How do you figure?
2
SPEAKER_01
Now you have decades of research to answer the question, how do you figure?
2
SPEAKER_00
Right, so now there s like good research that gives you intuition about what kind of questions get at it.
2
SPEAKER_00
Just like there s something I ve done, I ve actually used for research in semi-autonomous vehicle, like whether,
2
SPEAKER_00
humans are paying attention, there s a body of literature that does end-back tests, for example, where you have to put workload on the brain to do recall, memory recall, and that helps you kind of put some work onto the brain while the person is doing some other task, and there s some interesting research with that.
2
SPEAKER_00
but that s loading the memory.
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s research around stably what that means about the human mind.
2
SPEAKER_00
And here you re saying recall backwards is a good predictor.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s a transformation.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, so you have to do some, like you have to load that into your brain, and not just remember it, but do something with it.
2
SPEAKER_01
Right, now here s another example of a different kind of test.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s called the Hick paradigm, and it s not verbal at all.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s a little box, and there are a series of lights arranged in a semi-circle at the top of the box, and then there s a home button that you press,
2
SPEAKER_01
And when one of the lights goes on, there s a button next to each of those lights.
2
SPEAKER_01
You take your finger off the home button and you just press the button next to the light that goes on.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so it s a very simple reaction time.
2
SPEAKER_01
Light goes on, as quick as you can, you press the button and you get a reaction time.
2
SPEAKER_01
From the moment you lift your finger off the button to when you press the button with where the light is.
2
SPEAKER_01
That reaction time doesn t really correlate with IQ very much.
2
SPEAKER_01
But if you change the instructions and you say three lights are going to come on simultaneously, I want you to press the button next to the light that s furthest from the other two.
2
SPEAKER_01
So maybe lights one and two go on and light six goes on simultaneously.
2
SPEAKER_01
You take your finger off and you would press the button by light six.
2
SPEAKER_01
That reaction time to a more complex task, it s not really hard, almost everybody gets it all right, but your reaction time to that is highly correlated with the G factor.
2
SPEAKER_01
This is fascinating.
2
SPEAKER_00
So reaction time, so there s a temporal aspect to this.
2
SPEAKER_00
So what role does time?
2
SPEAKER_01
Speed of processing, it s the speed of processing.
2
SPEAKER_00
Is this also true for ones that take longer, like five, 10, 30 seconds?
2
SPEAKER_00
Is time part of the measure with some of these ideas?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and that is why some of the best IQ tests have a time limit.
2
SPEAKER_01
Because if you have no time limit, people can do better, but it doesn t distinguish among people that well.
2
SPEAKER_01
So that adding the time element is important.
2
SPEAKER_01
So speed of information processing, and reaction time is a measure of speed of information processing, turns out to be related to the G factor.
2
SPEAKER_00
But the G factor only accounts for maybe half or some amount on the test performance.
2
SPEAKER_00
For example, I get pretty bad test anxiety.
2
SPEAKER_00
Like I was never, I mean,
2
SPEAKER_00
I just don t enjoy tests.
2
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy going back into my cave and working.
2
SPEAKER_00
I ve always enjoyed homework way more than tests, no matter how hard the homework is, because I can go back to the cave and hide away and think deeply.
2
SPEAKER_00
There s something about being watched and having a time limit that really makes me anxious, and I could just see the mind not operating optimally at all.
2
SPEAKER_00
But you re saying underneath there, there s still a G-factor, there s still-
2
SPEAKER_01
There s no question.
2
SPEAKER_01
And if you get anxious taking a test, many people say, oh, I didn t do well because I m anxious.
2
SPEAKER_01
I hear that a lot.
2
SPEAKER_01
They say, well, fine, if you re really anxious during the test, the score will be a bad estimate of your g-factor.
2
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t mean the g-factor isn t there.
2
SPEAKER_01
And by the way, standardized tests like the SAT,
2
SPEAKER_01
They re essentially intelligence tests.
2
SPEAKER_01
They are highly g-loaded.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now, the people who make the SAT don t want to mention that.
2
SPEAKER_01
They have enough trouble justifying standardized testing, but to call it an intelligence test is really beyond the pale.
2
SPEAKER_01
But in fact, it s so highly correlated because it s a reasoning test.
2
SPEAKER_01
The SAT is a reasoning test, a verbal reasoning, mathematical reasoning.
2
SPEAKER_01
And if it s a reasoning test, it has to be related to G. But if people go in and take a standardized test, whether it s an IQ test or the SAT, and they happen to be sick that day with 102 fever, the score is not going to be a good estimate of their G.
2
SPEAKER_01
If they retake the test when they re not anxious or less anxious or don t have a fever, the score will go up and that will be a better estimate.
2
SPEAKER_01
But you can t say their g-factor increased between the two tests.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s interesting, so the question is how wide of a battery of tests is required to estimate the g-factor well?
2
SPEAKER_00
Because I ll give you as my personal example, I took the SAT in, I think it was called the ACT where I was too, also, I took SAT many times, every single time I got it perfect on math, and verbal, the time limit on the verbal made me very anxious.
2
SPEAKER_00
I did not I mean part of it I didn t speak English very well but honestly it was like you re supposed to remember stuff and like I was so anxious and like as I m reading I m sweating I can t you know that like that feeling you have when you re reading a book and you you just read a page and you know nothing about what you ve read because you zoned out that s the same feeling of like
2
SPEAKER_00
I can t, I have to, you re like, nope.
2
SPEAKER_00
Read and understand and that anxiety is like, and you start seeing like the typography versus the content of the words.
2
SPEAKER_00
Like that was, I don t, it s interesting because,
2
SPEAKER_00
I know that what they re measuring, I could see being correlated with something, but that anxiety or some aspect of the performance sure plays a factor.
2
SPEAKER_00
I wonder how you sneak up in a stable way, I mean, this is a broader discussion, but that s like standardized testing, how you sneak up, how you get at the fact that I m super anxious and still nevertheless measure some aspect of my intelligence.
2
SPEAKER_00
I wonder, I don t know if you can say to that, that time limit sure is a pain.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, let me say this.
2
SPEAKER_01
There are two ways to approach the very real problem that you say that some people just get anxious or not good test takers.
2
SPEAKER_01
By the way, part of testing is you know the answer, you can figure out the answer, or you can t.
2
SPEAKER_01
If you don t know the answer, there are many reasons you don t know the answer at that particular moment.
2
SPEAKER_01
You may have learned it once and forgotten it,
2
SPEAKER_01
It may be on the tip of your tongue and you just can t get it because you re anxious about the time limit.
2
SPEAKER_01
You may never have learned it.
2
SPEAKER_01
You may have been exposed to it, but it was too complicated and you couldn t learn it.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there are all kinds of reasons here.
2
SPEAKER_01
But for an individual to interpret your scores as an individual
2
SPEAKER_01
Whoever is interpreting the score has to take into account various things that would affect your individual score.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that s why decisions about college admission or anything else where tests are used are hardly ever the only criterion to make a decision.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I think people are, college admissions, letting go of that very much.
2
SPEAKER_00
But what does that even mean?
2
SPEAKER_00
Because is it possible to design standardized tests that do get, that are useful to college admissions?
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, they already exist.
2
SPEAKER_01
The SAT is highly correlated with many aspects of success at college.
2
SPEAKER_00
Here s the problem.
2
SPEAKER_00
So maybe you could speak to this.
2
SPEAKER_00
The correlation across the population versus individuals.
2
SPEAKER_00
So, you know, our criminal justice system is designed to make sure, well,
2
SPEAKER_00
It s still, there s tragic cases where innocent people go to jail, but you try to avoid that.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the same way with testing, it just, it would suck for an SAT to miss genius.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and it s possible, but it s statistically unlikely.
2
SPEAKER_01
So it really comes down to do which piece of information
2
SPEAKER_01
maximizes your decision-making ability.
2
SPEAKER_01
So if you just use high school grades, it s okay, but you will miss some people who just don t do well in high school, but who are actually pretty smart, smart enough to be bored silly in high school, and they don t care, and their high school GPA isn t that good.
2
SPEAKER_01
So you will miss them.
2
SPEAKER_01
in the same sense that somebody who could be very able and ready for college just doesn t do well on their SAT.
2
SPEAKER_01
This is why you make decisions with taking in a variety of information.
2
SPEAKER_01
The other thing I wanted to say
2
SPEAKER_01
I talked about when you make a decision for an individual.
2
SPEAKER_01
Statistically, for groups, there are many people who have a disparity between their math score and their verbal score.
2
SPEAKER_01
That disparity, or the other way around, that disparity is called tilt.
2
SPEAKER_01
The score is tilted one way or the other.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that tilt has been studied empirically to see what that predicts.
2
SPEAKER_01
And in fact, you can t make predictions about college success based on tilt.
2
SPEAKER_01
And mathematics is a good example.
2
SPEAKER_01
There are many people, especially non-native speakers of English, who come to this country, take the SATs, do very well on the math and not so well on the verbal.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, if they re applying to a math program, the professors there who are making the decision or the admissions officers
2
SPEAKER_01
don t wait so much to score on verbal, especially if it s a non-native speaker.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, so yeah, you have to try to, in the admission process, bring in the context.
2
SPEAKER_00
But non-native isn t really the problem.
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, that was part of the problem for me.
2
SPEAKER_00
But it s the anxiety was, which it s interesting.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s interesting.
2
SPEAKER_00
Oh boy, reducing yourself down to numbers.
2
SPEAKER_00
But it s still true.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s still the truth.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s a painful truth.
2
SPEAKER_00
That same anxiety that led me to be...
2
SPEAKER_00
the struggle with the SAT verbal tests is still within me in all ways of life.
2
SPEAKER_00
So maybe that s not anxiety.
2
SPEAKER_00
Maybe that s something, you know, like personality is also pretty stable.
2
SPEAKER_01
Personality is stable.
2
SPEAKER_01
Personality does impact the way you navigate life.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s no question.
2
SPEAKER_00
And we should say that the G factor in intelligence is not just about some kind of number on a paper.
2
SPEAKER_00
It also has to do with how you navigate life, how easy life is for you in this very complicated world.
2
SPEAKER_00
So personality s all tied into that in some deep fundamental way.
2
SPEAKER_01
But now you ve hit the key point about why we even want to study intelligence and personality, I think, to a lesser extent.
2
SPEAKER_01
But that s my interest, is more on intelligence.
2
SPEAKER_01
I went to graduate school and wanted to study personality, but that s kind of another story how I got kind of shifted from personality research over to intelligence research.
2
SPEAKER_01
Because it s not just a number.
2
SPEAKER_01
Intelligence is not just an IQ score.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s not just an SAT score.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s what those numbers reflect about your ability to navigate everyday life.
2
SPEAKER_01
It has been said that life is one long intelligence test.
2
SPEAKER_01
And who can t relate to that?
2
SPEAKER_01
And if you doubt, see, another problem here is a lot of critics of intelligence research, intelligence testing, tend to be academics who, by and large, are pretty smart people.
2
SPEAKER_01
And pretty smart people, by and large, have enormous difficulty understanding what the world is like for people with IQs of 80 or 75.
2
SPEAKER_01
It is a completely different everyday experience.
2
SPEAKER_01
Even IQ scores of 85, 90, you know, there s a popular television program, Judge Judy, where Judge Judy deals with everyday people with everyday problems.
2
SPEAKER_01
And you can see the full range of problem-solving ability demonstrated there.
2
SPEAKER_01
And sometimes she does it for laughs, but it really isn t funny because
2
SPEAKER_01
people who are, there are people who are very limited in their life navigation, let alone success,
2
SPEAKER_01
by not having good reasoning skills, which cannot be taught.
2
SPEAKER_01
We know this, by the way, because there are many efforts.
2
SPEAKER_01
You know, the United States military, which excels at training people.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I don t know that there s a better organization in the world for training diverse people.
2
SPEAKER_01
And they won t take people with IQs under, I think, 83 is the cutoff.
2
SPEAKER_01
Because they have found you,
3
SPEAKER_01
They are unable to train people with lower IQs to do jobs in the military.
3
SPEAKER_00
So one of the things that g-factor has to do with is learning.
3
SPEAKER_01
Absolutely.
3
SPEAKER_01
Some people learn faster than others.
3
SPEAKER_01
Some people learn more than others.
3
SPEAKER_01
Now faster, by the way, is not necessarily better.
3
SPEAKER_01
As long as you get to the same place eventually.
3
SPEAKER_01
But, you know, there are professional schools that want students who can learn the fastest because they can learn more or learn deeper or all kinds of ideas about why you select people with the highest scores.
3
SPEAKER_01
And there s nothing funnier.
3
SPEAKER_01
by the way, to listen to a bunch of academics complain about the concept of intelligence and intelligence testing, and then you go to a faculty meeting where they re discussing who to hire among the applicants, and all they talk about is how smart the person is.
3
SPEAKER_00
We ll get to that, we ll sneak up to that in different ways, but there s something about reducing a person to a number that in part is grounded to the person s genetics that makes people very uncomfortable.
3
SPEAKER_01
But nobody does that.
3
SPEAKER_01
Nobody in the field actually does that.
3
SPEAKER_01
That is a worry that is a worry like
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, I don t want to call it a conspiracy theory.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s a legitimate worry, but it just doesn t happen.
3
SPEAKER_01
Now, I had a professor in graduate school who was the only person I ever knew who considered the students only by their test scores.
3
SPEAKER_01
And later in his life, he kind of backed off that.
3
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you this.
3
SPEAKER_00
So we ll jump around.
3
SPEAKER_00
I ll come back to it.
3
SPEAKER_00
I tend to, I ve had like political discussions with people and actually my friend Michael Malice, he s an anarchist.
3
SPEAKER_00
I disagree with him on basically everything except the fact that love is a beautiful thing in this world.
3
SPEAKER_00
And he says this test about left versus right, whatever, it doesn t matter what the test is, but he believes, the question is, do you believe that some people are better than others?
3
SPEAKER_00
The question is ambiguous.
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you believe some people are better than others?
3
SPEAKER_00
And to me, sort of the immediate answer is no.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s a poetic question, it s an ambiguous question, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
Like, you know, people wanna, maybe the temptation to ask better at what?
3
SPEAKER_00
Better at like sports and so on?
3
SPEAKER_00
No, to me, I stand with the sort of defining documents of this country, which is all men are created equal.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s a basic humanity.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there s something about tests of intelligence,
3
SPEAKER_00
just knowing that some people are different, like the science of intelligence that shows that some people are genetically, in some stable way across a lifetime, have a greater intelligence than others, makes people feel like some people are better than others, and that makes them very uncomfortable.
3
SPEAKER_00
And maybe you can speak to that.
3
SPEAKER_00
The fact that some people are more intelligent than others in a way that cannot be compensated through education, through anything you do in life.
3
SPEAKER_00
What do we do with that?
3
SPEAKER_01
OK, there s a lot there.
3
SPEAKER_01
We haven t really talked about the genetics of it yet, but you are correct in that it is my interpretation of the data that genetics has a very important influence on the G factor.
3
SPEAKER_01
And this is controversial.
3
SPEAKER_01
We can talk about it.
3
SPEAKER_01
But if you think that genetics, that genes are deterministic, are always deterministic, that leads to kind of the worry that you expressed.
3
SPEAKER_01
But we know now in the 21st century that many genes are not deterministic, they re probabilistic, meaning their gene expression can be influenced.
3
SPEAKER_01
Now, whether they re influenced only by other biological variables or other genetic variables or environmental or cultural variables, that s where the controversy comes in.
3
SPEAKER_01
And we can come we can discuss that in more detail if you like but to go to the question about better people better there s zero evidence that smart people are better with respect to important aspects of life like honesty even likeability
3
SPEAKER_01
I m sure you know many very intelligent people who are not terribly likable, or terribly kind, or terribly honest.
3
SPEAKER_00
Is there something to be said?
3
SPEAKER_00
So one of the things I ve recently re-read for the second time, I guess that s what the word re-read means, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is, I think, the best telling of the rise and fall of Hitler.
3
SPEAKER_00
And one of the interesting things about the people that, how should I say it?
3
SPEAKER_00
justified or maybe propped up the ideas that Hitler put forward is the fact that they were extremely intelligent.
3
SPEAKER_00
They were the intellectual class.
3
SPEAKER_00
They were like, it was obvious that they thought very deeply and rationally about the world.
3
SPEAKER_00
So what I would like to say is one of the things that shows to me is some of the worst atrocities in the history of humanity have been committed by very intelligent people.
3
SPEAKER_00
So that means that intelligence doesn t make you a good person.
3
SPEAKER_00
I wonder if there s a G factor for intelligence.
3
SPEAKER_00
I wonder if there s a G factor for goodness.
3
SPEAKER_00
The Nietzschean good and evil, of course that s probably harder to measure, because that s such a subjective thing, what it means to be good.
3
SPEAKER_00
And even the idea of evil is a deeply uncomfortable thing, because how do we know?
3
SPEAKER_01
But it s independent, whatever it is, it s independent of intelligence.
3
SPEAKER_01
So I agree with you about that.
3
SPEAKER_01
But let me say this, I have also asserted my belief that more intelligence is better than less.
3
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t mean more intelligent people are better people, but all things being equal, would you like to be smarter or less smart?
3
SPEAKER_01
So if I had a pill, I have two pills, I said, this one will make you smarter, this one will make you dumber.
3
SPEAKER_01
Which one would you like?
3
SPEAKER_01
Are there any circumstances under which you would choose to be dumber?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, let me ask you this.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s a very nuanced and interesting question.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s been books written about this, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
Now, we ll return to the hard questions, the interesting questions, but let me ask about human happiness.
3
SPEAKER_00
Does intelligence lead to happiness?
3
SPEAKER_00
No.
3
SPEAKER_00
So okay, so back to the pill then.
3
SPEAKER_00
So why, when would you take the pill?
3
SPEAKER_00
So you said IQ 80, 90, 100, 110, you start going through the quartiles and is it obvious, isn t there diminishing returns and then it starts becoming negative?
3
SPEAKER_01
This is an empirical question.
3
SPEAKER_01
And so that I have advocated in many forums more research on enhancing the g-factor.
3
SPEAKER_01
Right now there s there have been many claims about enhancing intelligence.
3
SPEAKER_01
with, you mentioned the NBAC training, that was a big deal a few years ago, doesn t work.
3
SPEAKER_01
Data s very clear, it does not work.
3
SPEAKER_00
Or doing like memory tests, like training and so on, yeah.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, it may give you a better memory in the short run, but it doesn t impact your g-factor.
3
SPEAKER_01
It was very popular a couple of decades ago that the idea that listening to Mozart could make you more intelligent.
3
SPEAKER_01
There was a paper published on this with somebody I knew published this paper.
3
SPEAKER_01
Intelligence researchers never believed it for a second.
3
SPEAKER_01
Been hundreds of studies, all the meta-analyses, all the summaries and so on.
3
SPEAKER_01
There s nothing to it, nothing to it at all.
3
SPEAKER_01
But wouldn t it be something?
3
SPEAKER_01
Wouldn t it be world-shaking if you could take the normal distribution of intelligence, which we haven t really talked about yet, but IQ scores and the g-factor is thought to be a normal distribution, and shift it to the right so that everybody is smarter?
3
SPEAKER_01
Even a half a standard deviation would be world-shaking.
3
SPEAKER_01
because there are many social problems, many, many social problems that are exacerbated by people with lower ability to reason stuff out and navigate everyday life.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I wonder if there s a threshold.
3
SPEAKER_00
So maybe I would push back and say universal shifting of the normal distribution may not be the optimal way of shifting.
3
SPEAKER_00
Maybe it s better to whatever the asymmetric kind of distributions is like really pushing the lower up versus trying to make the people at the average more intelligent.
3
SPEAKER_01
So you re saying that if in fact there was some way to increase G, let s just call it metaphorically a pill, an IQ pill, we should only give it to people at the lower end.
3
SPEAKER_00
No, it s just intuitively I can see that life becomes easier at the lower end if it s increased.
3
SPEAKER_00
It becomes less and less, it is an empirical scientific question, but it becomes less and less obvious to me that more intelligence is better.
3
SPEAKER_01
At the high end, not because it would make life easier, but it would make whatever problems you re working on more solvable.
3
SPEAKER_01
And if you are working on artificial intelligence, there s a tremendous potential for that to improve society.
3
SPEAKER_00
I understand, so whatever problems you re working on, yes, but there s also the problem of the human condition.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s love, there s fear, and all of those beautiful things that sometimes if you re good at solving problems, you re going to create more problems for yourself.
3
SPEAKER_00
I m not exactly sure, so ignorance is bliss, is a thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
So there might be a place, there might be a sweet spot of intelligence,
3
SPEAKER_00
given your environment, given your personality, all of those kinds of things, and that becomes less beautifully complicated, the more and more intelligent you become.
3
SPEAKER_00
But that s a question for literature, not for science, perhaps.
3
SPEAKER_01
Imagine this.
3
SPEAKER_01
Imagine there was an IQ pill, and it was developed by a private company, and they are willing to sell it to you.
3
SPEAKER_01
And whatever price they put on it, you are willing to pay it because you would like to be smarter.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
But just before they give you a pill, they give you a disclaimer form to sign.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
Don t hold us.
3
SPEAKER_01
that you understand that this pill has no guarantee that your life is going to be better, and in fact it could be worse.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, yes, that s how lawyers work, but I would love for science to answer the question, to try to predict if your life is going to be better or worse when you become more or less intelligent.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s a fascinating question about what is the sweet spot for the human condition.
3
SPEAKER_00
Some of the things we see as bugs might be actually features may be crucial to our
3
SPEAKER_00
overall happiness is our limitations might lead to more happiness than less.
3
SPEAKER_00
But again, more intelligence is better at the lower end.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s something that s less arguable and fascinating if possible to increase.
3
SPEAKER_01
But you know, there s virtually no research that s based on a neuroscience approach to solving that problem.
3
SPEAKER_01
All the solutions that have been proposed to solve that problem or to ameliorate that problem are essentially based on the blank slate assumption that enriching the environment, removing barriers, all good things by the way, I m not against any of those things,
3
SPEAKER_01
But there s no empirical evidence that they re going to improve the general reasoning ability or make people more employable.
3
SPEAKER_00
Have you read Flowers of Algernon?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s to the question of intelligence and happiness.
3
SPEAKER_01
There are many profound aspects of that story.
3
SPEAKER_01
It was a film that was very good.
3
SPEAKER_01
Uh, the film was called Charlie for the younger people who are listening to this.
3
SPEAKER_01
Uh, you might be able to stream it on Netflix or something, but, uh, it, it was a story about, uh, a person with very low IQ who underwent a surgical procedure in the brain and he slowly became a genius.
3
SPEAKER_01
And the tragedy of the story is the effect was temporary.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s a fascinating story, really.
3
SPEAKER_00
That goes in contrast to the basic human experience that each of us individually have, but it raises the question of the full range of people you might be able to be, given different levels of intelligence.
3
SPEAKER_00
You ve mentioned the normal distribution.
3
SPEAKER_00
So let s talk about it.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s a book called The Bell Curve, written in 1994, written by psychologist Richard Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray.
3
SPEAKER_00
Why was this book so controversial?
3
SPEAKER_01
This is a fascinating book.
3
SPEAKER_01
I know Charles Murray.
3
SPEAKER_01
I ve had many conversations with him.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, what is the book about?
3
SPEAKER_01
The book is about the importance of intelligence
3
SPEAKER_01
in everyday life.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s what the book is about.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s an empirical book.
3
SPEAKER_01
It has statistical analyses of very large databases that show that essentially IQ scores or their equivalent are correlated to all kinds of social problems and social benefits.
3
SPEAKER_01
And that in itself is not where the controversy about that book came.
3
SPEAKER_01
The controversy was about one chapter in that book, and that is a chapter about the average difference in mean scores between black Americans and white Americans.
3
SPEAKER_01
And these are the terms that were used in the book at the time and are still used to some extent.
3
SPEAKER_01
And
3
SPEAKER_01
Historically, or really for decades, it has been observed that disadvantaged groups score on average lower than Caucasians on
3
SPEAKER_01
on academic tests, tests of mental ability, and especially on IQ tests.
3
SPEAKER_01
And the difference is about a standard deviation, which is about 15 points, which is a substantial difference.
4
SPEAKER_01
In the book, Herrnstein and Murray, in this one chapter, assert clearly and unambiguously that whether this average difference is due to genetics or not, they are agnostic.
4
SPEAKER_01
They don t know.
4
SPEAKER_01
Moreover, they assert they don t care, because you wouldn t treat anybody differently knowing
4
SPEAKER_01
if there was a genetic component or not, because that s a group average finding.
4
SPEAKER_01
Every individual has to be treated as an individual.
4
SPEAKER_01
You can t make any assumption about what that person s intellectual ability might be from the fact of an average group difference.
4
SPEAKER_01
They re very clear about this.
4
SPEAKER_01
Nonetheless,
4
SPEAKER_01
people took away, I m going to choose my words carefully because I have a feeling that many critics didn t actually read these, read the book.
4
SPEAKER_01
They took away that Herrnstein and Murray were saying that blacks are genetically inferior.
4
SPEAKER_01
That was the take home message.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if they weren t saying it, they were implying it because they had a chapter that discussed this empirical observation of a difference.
4
SPEAKER_01
and isn t this horrible?
4
SPEAKER_01
And so the reaction to that book was incendiary.
4
SPEAKER_00
What do we know about, from that book and the research beyond, about race differences and intelligence?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s still the most incendiary topic in psychology.
4
SPEAKER_01
Nothing has changed that.
4
SPEAKER_01
Anybody who even discusses it is easily called a racist just for discussing it.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s become fashionable to find racism in any discussion like this.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s unfortunate.
4
SPEAKER_01
The short answer to your question is,
4
SPEAKER_01
There s been very little actual research on this topic since 19... Since the bell curve.
4
SPEAKER_01
Since the bell curve, even before.
4
SPEAKER_01
This really became incendiary in 1969 with an article published by an educational psychologist named Arthur Jensen.
4
SPEAKER_01
Let s just take a minute and go back to that to see the bell curve in a little bit more historical perspective.
4
SPEAKER_01
Arthur Jensen was a educational psychologist at UC Berkeley.
4
SPEAKER_01
I knew him as well.
4
SPEAKER_01
And in 1969 or 68, the Harvard Educational Review asked him to do a review article on the early childhood education programs that were designed to raise the IQs of minority students.
4
SPEAKER_01
This was before the federally funded Head Start program.
4
SPEAKER_01
Head Start had not really gotten underway at the time Jensen undertook his review of what were a number of demonstration programs.
4
SPEAKER_01
And these demonstration programs were for young children around kindergarten age.
4
SPEAKER_01
And they were specially designed to be cognitively stimulating, to provide lunches, do all the things that people thought would minimize this average gap of intelligence tests.
4
SPEAKER_01
There was a strong belief among virtually all psychologists
4
SPEAKER_01
that the cause of the gap was unequal opportunity due to racism, due to all negative things in the society, and if you could compensate for this, the gap would go away.
4
SPEAKER_01
So early childhood education back then was called literally compensatory education.
4
SPEAKER_01
Jensen looked at these programs.
4
SPEAKER_01
He was an empirical guy.
4
SPEAKER_01
He understood psychometrics.
4
SPEAKER_01
And he wrote a, it was over a hundred page article detailing these programs and the flaws in their research design.
4
SPEAKER_01
Some of the programs reported IQ gains of on average five points, but a few reported 10, 20, and even 30 point gains.
4
SPEAKER_01
One was called the miracle in Milwaukee.
4
SPEAKER_01
that investigator went to jail ultimately for fabricating data.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the point is that Jensen wrote an article that said, look, the opening sentence of his article is classic.
4
SPEAKER_01
The opening sentence is, I may not quote it exactly right, but it s, we have tried compensatory education and it has failed.
4
SPEAKER_01
And he showed that these gains
4
SPEAKER_01
were essentially nothing.
4
SPEAKER_01
You couldn t really document empirically any gains at all from these really earnest efforts to increase IQ.
4
SPEAKER_01
But he went a step further, a fateful step further.
4
SPEAKER_01
He said not only
4
SPEAKER_01
have these efforts failed, but because they have had essentially no impact, we have to re-examine our assumption that these differences are caused by environmental things that we can address with education.
4
SPEAKER_01
We need to consider a genetic influence, whether there s a genetic influence on this group difference.
4
SPEAKER_00
So you said that this is one of the more controversial works ever in science.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think it s the most infamous paper in all of psychology, I would go on to say.
4
SPEAKER_01
Because in 1969, the genetic data was very skimpy on this question.
4
SPEAKER_01
Skimpy and controversial.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s always been controversial, but it was even skimpy and controversial.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s kind of a long story that I go into a little bit in more detail in the book, Neuroscience of Intelligence.
4
SPEAKER_01
But to say he was vilified is an understatement.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, he couldn t talk at the American Psychological Association without bomb threats clearing the lecture hall.
4
SPEAKER_01
Campus security watched him all the time.
4
SPEAKER_01
They opened his mail.
4
SPEAKER_01
He had to retreat to a different address.
4
SPEAKER_01
This was one of the earliest kinds, this is before the internet and kind of internet social media mobs, but it was that intense.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I have written that overnight, after the publication of this article, all intelligence research became radioactive.
4
SPEAKER_01
Nobody wanted to talk about it.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then nobody was doing more research.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then the bell curve came along.
4
SPEAKER_01
the Jensen controversy was dying down.
4
SPEAKER_01
I have stories that Jensen told me about his interaction with the Nixon White House on this issue.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, this was like a really big deal.
4
SPEAKER_01
It was some unbelievable stories, but you know, he told me this, so I kind of believe these stories.
4
SPEAKER_00
Nonetheless, 25 years later, 25 years later, all the silence basically saying, you know, this, uh, nobody wants to do this kind of research.
4
SPEAKER_00
There s so much pressure, so much attack against this kind of research.
4
SPEAKER_00
And here s a,
4
SPEAKER_00
sort of bold, stupid, crazy people that decide to dive right back in.
4
SPEAKER_00
I wonder how much discussion there was.
4
SPEAKER_00
Do we include this chapter or not?
4
SPEAKER_01
Murray has said they discussed it, and they felt they should include it, and they were very careful in the way they wrote it, which did them no good.
4
SPEAKER_01
uh so um as a matter of fact when the bell curve came out it was so controversial i got a call from a television show called nightline it was with a broadcaster called ted koppel who had this evening show i think was on late at night talked about news it was a straight up news thing yeah and uh producer called and asked if i would be on it to talk about the uh the bell curve
4
SPEAKER_01
And I said, you know, it, it, she asked me what I thought about the bell curve as a book.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I said, look, it s a very good book.
4
SPEAKER_01
It talks about the role of intelligence in society.
4
SPEAKER_01
And she said, no, no.
4
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about the chapter on race?
4
SPEAKER_01
That s what we want you to talk about.
4
SPEAKER_01
I remember this conversation.
4
SPEAKER_01
I said, well, she said, what would you say if you were on TV?
4
SPEAKER_01
And I said, well, what I would say is that it s not at all clear if there s any genetic component to intelligence, any differences, but if there were a strong genetic component, that would be a good thing.
4
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, complete silence on the other end of the phone.
4
SPEAKER_01
And she said, well, what do you mean?
4
SPEAKER_01
And I said, well, if it s, the more genetic any difference is, the more it s biological.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if it s biological, we can figure out how to fix it.
4
SPEAKER_01
She said, would you say that on television?
4
SPEAKER_01
And I said, no.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so that was the end of that.
4
SPEAKER_00
So that s for more like, biology is,
4
SPEAKER_00
within the reach of science and the environment is a public policy, social and all those kinds of things.
4
SPEAKER_00
From your perspective, whichever one you think is more amenable to solutions in the short term is the one that excites you.
4
SPEAKER_00
But you saying that it s good,
4
SPEAKER_00
The truth of genetic differences, no matter what, between groups, is a painful, harmful, potentially dangerous thing.
4
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask you to this question, whether it s bell curve or any research on race differences,
4
SPEAKER_00
Can that be used to increase the amount of racism in the world?
4
SPEAKER_00
Can that be used to increase the amount of hate in the world?
4
SPEAKER_00
Do you think about this kind of stuff?
4
SPEAKER_01
I have thought about this a lot, not as a scientist, but as a person.
4
SPEAKER_01
And my sense is there is such enormous reservoirs of hate and racism
4
SPEAKER_01
that have nothing to do with scientific knowledge of the data, that speak against that, that, no, I don t want to give racist groups a veto power over what scientists study.
4
SPEAKER_01
If you think that the differences, and by the way, virtually no one disagrees that there are differences in scores.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s all about what causes them and how to fix it.
4
SPEAKER_01
So if you think this is a cultural problem, then you must ask the problem, do you want to change anything about the culture?
4
SPEAKER_01
Or are you OK with the culture?
4
SPEAKER_01
Because you don t feel it s appropriate to change a person s culture.
4
SPEAKER_01
So are you OK with that and the fact that that may lead to disadvantages in school achievement?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s a question.
4
SPEAKER_01
If you think it s environmental, what are the environmental parameters that can be fixed?
4
SPEAKER_01
I ll tell you one, lead from gasoline in the atmosphere, lead in paint, lead in water.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s an environmental toxin that society has the means to eliminate.
4
SPEAKER_01
And they should.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, just to sort of trying to find some insight and conclusion to this very difficult topic.
4
SPEAKER_00
Is there been research on environment versus genetics, nature versus nurture on this question of race differences?
4
SPEAKER_01
There is not no one wants to do this research.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s first of all, it s hard research to do.
4
SPEAKER_01
Second of all, it s it s a minefield.
4
SPEAKER_01
No one wants to spend their career on it.
4
SPEAKER_01
Tenured people don t want to do it, let alone students.
4
SPEAKER_01
Um, the way I talk about it, I, well, before I tell you the way I talk about it, I want to say one more thing about Jensen.
4
SPEAKER_01
He was once asked by a journalist straight out, are you a racist?
4
SPEAKER_01
His answer was very interesting.
4
SPEAKER_01
His answer was, I ve thought about that a lot, and I ve concluded it doesn t matter.
4
SPEAKER_01
Now, I know what he meant by this.
4
SPEAKER_00
The guts to say that, wow.
4
SPEAKER_01
He was a very unusual person.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think he had a touch of Asperger s syndrome, to tell you the truth.
4
SPEAKER_01
Because I saw him in many circumstances.
4
SPEAKER_00
He would be cancelled on Twitter immediately with that sentence.
4
SPEAKER_01
But what he meant was, he had a hypothesis.
4
SPEAKER_01
And with respect to group differences, he called it the default hypothesis.
4
SPEAKER_01
He said whatever factors affect individual intelligence are likely the same factors that affect group differences.
4
SPEAKER_01
It was the default.
4
SPEAKER_01
But it was a hypothesis.
4
SPEAKER_01
It should be tested.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if it turned out empirical tests didn t support the hypothesis, he was happy to move on to something else.
4
SPEAKER_01
He was absolutely committed to that scientific ideal.
4
SPEAKER_01
that it s an empirical question, we should look at it, and let s see what happens.
4
SPEAKER_00
The scientific method cannot be racist from his perspective.
4
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t matter what the scientists, if they follow the scientific method, it doesn t matter what they believe.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if they are biased, and they consciously or unconsciously bias the data,
4
SPEAKER_01
Other people will come along to replicate it, they will fail, and the process over time will work.
4
SPEAKER_00
So let me push back on this idea.
4
SPEAKER_00
because psychology to me is full of gray areas.
4
SPEAKER_00
And what I ve observed about psychology, even replication crisis aside, is that something about the media, something about journalism, something about the virality of ideas in the public sphere,
4
SPEAKER_00
they misinterpret, they take up things from studies willfully or from ignorance, misinterpret findings and tell narratives around that.
4
SPEAKER_00
I personally believe, for me, I m not saying that broadly about science, but for me, it s my responsibility to anticipate the ways in which findings will be misinterpreted.
4
SPEAKER_00
So I ve had, I thought about this a lot, because I published papers on semi-autonomous vehicles and those, you know, cars, people dying cars.
4
SPEAKER_00
there s people that have written me letters saying, emails, nobody writes letters, I wish they did, that have blood on my hands because of things that I would say, positive or negative, there s consequences.
4
SPEAKER_00
In the same way, when you re a researcher of intelligence, I m sure you might get emails or at least people might believe that a finding of your study is going to be used by a large number of people to increase the amount of hate in the world.
4
SPEAKER_00
I think there s some responsibility on scientists, but for me, I think there s a great responsibility to anticipate the ways things will be misinterpreted, and there you have to, first of all, decide whether you want to say a thing at all, do the study at all, publish the study at all, and two, the words with which you explain it.
4
SPEAKER_00
I find this on Twitter a lot actually, which is when I write a tweet, and I m usually just doing so innocently, I ll write it, it takes me like five seconds to write it, or whatever, 30 seconds to write it, and then I ll think, all right, I close my eyes open and try to see how will the world interpret
5
SPEAKER_01
Like what are the ways in which this will be misinterpreted?
5
SPEAKER_01
And I ll sometimes adjust that tweet to see, like, yeah, so in my mind it s clear, but that s because it s my mind from which this tweet came.
5
SPEAKER_01
But you have to think in a fresh mind that sees this,
5
SPEAKER_01
and it s spread across a large number of other minds, how will the interpretation morph?
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, for a tweet, it s a silly thing, it doesn t matter, but for a scientific paper and study and finding,
5
SPEAKER_01
I think it matters.
5
SPEAKER_01
So I don t know.
5
SPEAKER_01
I don t know what your thoughts are about that.
5
SPEAKER_01
Because maybe for Jensen, the data is there.
5
SPEAKER_01
What do you want me to do?
5
SPEAKER_01
This is a scientific process that s been carried out.
5
SPEAKER_01
If you think the data was polluted by bias, do other studies that reveal the bias.
5
SPEAKER_01
But the data is there.
5
SPEAKER_01
I m not a poet.
5
SPEAKER_01
I m not a literary writer.
5
SPEAKER_01
What do you want me to do?
5
SPEAKER_01
I m just presenting you the data.
5
SPEAKER_01
What do you think on that spectrum?
5
SPEAKER_01
What s the role of a scientist?
5
SPEAKER_00
The reason I do podcasts
5
SPEAKER_00
The reason I write books for the public is to explain what I think the data mean and what I think the data don t mean.
5
SPEAKER_00
I don t do very much on Twitter other than to retweet references to papers.
5
SPEAKER_00
I don t think it s my role to explain these because they re complicated, they re nuanced.
5
SPEAKER_00
But when you decide not to do a scientific study because you re, or not to publish a result because you re afraid the result could be harmful or insensitive, that s not an unreasonable thought.
5
SPEAKER_00
And people will make different conclusions and decisions about that.
5
SPEAKER_00
I wrote about this, I m the editor of a journal called Intelligence, which publishes scientific papers.
5
SPEAKER_00
Sometimes we publish papers on group differences.
5
SPEAKER_00
Those papers sometimes are controversial.
5
SPEAKER_00
These papers are written for a scientific audience.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re not written for the Twitter audience.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I don t promote them very much on Twitter.
5
SPEAKER_00
But in a scientific paper,
5
SPEAKER_00
You have to now choose your words carefully also, because those papers are picked up by non-scientists, by writers of various kinds, and you have to be available to discuss what you re saying and what you re not saying.
5
SPEAKER_00
Sometimes you are successful at having a good conversation, like we are today, that doesn t start out pejorative.
5
SPEAKER_00
Other times I have been asked to participate in debates where my role would be to justify race science.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, you can see you start out
5
SPEAKER_00
You know, that was a BBC request that I had, that I received.
5
SPEAKER_01
I have so much, it s a love-hate relationship, mostly hate, with these shallow journalism organizations.
5
SPEAKER_01
So they would want to use you as a kind of, in a debate setting, to communicate as to like, there is race differences between groups, and make that into debate.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
5
SPEAKER_01
And put you in a role of,
5
SPEAKER_00
Justifying racism, that s what they re asking me to do.
5
SPEAKER_01
Courses like educating about this field of the science of intelligence, yeah.
5
SPEAKER_00
I want to say one more thing before we get off the normal distribution.
5
SPEAKER_00
You also asked me, what is the science after the bell curve?
5
SPEAKER_00
And the short answer is there s not much new work, but whatever work there is supports the idea that there still are group differences,
5
SPEAKER_00
It s arguable whether those differences have diminished at all or not.
5
SPEAKER_00
And there is still a major problem in underperformance for school achievement for many disadvantaged and minority students.
5
SPEAKER_00
And there so far is no way to fix it.
5
SPEAKER_01
What do we do with this information?
5
SPEAKER_01
Is this now a task, now we ll talk about the future on the neuroscience and the biology side, but in terms of this information as a society, in the public policy, in the political space, in the social space, what do we do with this information?
5
SPEAKER_00
I ve thought a lot about this.
5
SPEAKER_00
The first step is to have people interested in policy understand what the data actually show to pay attention to intelligence data.
5
SPEAKER_00
You can read policy papers about education and using your word processor, you can search for the word intelligence.
5
SPEAKER_00
You can search a 20,000 word document in a second and find out the word intelligence does not appear.
5
SPEAKER_00
anywhere in most discussions about what to do about achievement gaps.
5
SPEAKER_00
I m not talking about test gaps.
5
SPEAKER_00
I m talking about actual achievement gaps in schools, which everyone agrees is a problem.
5
SPEAKER_00
The word intelligence doesn t appear among educators.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s fascinating.
5
SPEAKER_00
As a matter of fact, in California,
5
SPEAKER_00
There has been tremendous controversy about recent attempts to revise the curriculum for math in high schools.
5
SPEAKER_00
And we had a Stanford professor of education who was running this review assert there s no such thing as talent, mathematical talent.
5
SPEAKER_00
And she wanted to get rid of the advanced classes in math because, you know, not everyone could do that.
5
SPEAKER_00
Now, of course, this has been very controversial.
5
SPEAKER_00
They ve retreated somewhat.
5
SPEAKER_00
But the idea that a university professor was in charge of this who believes that there s no talent, that it doesn t exist, this is rather shocking, let alone the complete absence of intelligence data.
5
SPEAKER_00
By the way, let me tell you something about what the intelligence data show.
5
SPEAKER_00
Let s take race out of it.
5
SPEAKER_00
even though the origins of these studies were a long time ago.
5
SPEAKER_00
I m blocking on the name of the report.
5
SPEAKER_00
The Coleman Report was a famous report about education, and they measured all kinds of variables about schools, about teachers, and they looked at academic achievement as an outcome.
5
SPEAKER_00
And they found the most predictive variables of education outcome were the variables the student brought with him or her into the school, essentially their ability.
5
SPEAKER_00
And that when you combine the school and the teacher variables together,
5
SPEAKER_00
the quality of the school, the funding of the school, the quality of the teachers, their education.
5
SPEAKER_00
You put all the teacher and school variables together, it barely accounted for 10% of the variance.
5
SPEAKER_00
And this has been replicated now.
5
SPEAKER_00
So the best research we have shows that school variables and teacher variables together account for about 10% of student academic achievement.
5
SPEAKER_00
Now, you want to have some policy on improving academic achievement?
5
SPEAKER_00
How much money do you want to put into teacher education?
5
SPEAKER_00
How much money do you want to put into the quality of the school administration?
5
SPEAKER_00
You know who you can ask?
5
SPEAKER_00
You can ask the Gates Foundation.
5
SPEAKER_00
because they spent a tremendous amount of money doing that, and they, at the end of it, because they re measurement people, they wanna know the data, they found it had no impact at all, and they ve kind of pulled out of that kind of program.
5
SPEAKER_01
So, oh boy.
5
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you, this is me talking, but there s... Just the two of us.
5
SPEAKER_01
Just the two of us, but I m gonna say some funny and ridiculous things, so you surely are not approving of it.
5
SPEAKER_01
But there s a movie called Clerks.
5
SPEAKER_00
I ve seen it, I ve seen it, yeah.
5
SPEAKER_01
There s a funny scene in there where a lovely couple are talking about the number of previous sexual partners they had.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the woman says that, I believe she just had a handful, like two or three or something like that, sexual partners, but then she also mentioned that she, what s that called?
5
SPEAKER_01
Fallatio, what s the scientific, but she went, you know, gave a blow job to 37 guys, I believe it is.
5
SPEAKER_01
And so that has to do with the truth.
5
SPEAKER_01
So sometimes knowing the truth can get in the way of a successful relationship of love of some of the human flourishing.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that seems to me that s at the core here, that facing some kind of truth that s not able to be changed makes it difficult to sort of, you know,
5
SPEAKER_01
is limiting as opposed to empowering.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s the concern.
5
SPEAKER_01
If you sort of test for intelligence and lay the data out, it feels like you will give up on certain people.
5
SPEAKER_01
You will sort of start binning people.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s like, well, this person is like, let s focus on the average people or let s focus on the very intelligent people.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s the concern.
5
SPEAKER_01
And there s a kind of intuition that if we just don t measure and we don t use that data, that we would treat everybody equal and give everybody equal opportunity.
5
SPEAKER_01
If we have the data in front of us, we re likely to misdistribute the amount of sort of attention we allocate, resources we allocate to people.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s probably the concern.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s a realistic concern, but I think it s a misplaced concern if you want to fix the problem.
5
SPEAKER_00
If you want to fix the problem, you have to know what the problem is.
5
SPEAKER_00
Now let me tell you this, let s go back to the bell curve, not the bell curve, but the normal distribution.
5
SPEAKER_00
16% of the population on average has an IQ under 85.
5
SPEAKER_00
which means they re very hard, if you have an IQ under 85, it s very hard to find gainful employment at a salary that sustains you at least minimally in modern life.
5
SPEAKER_00
Okay?
5
SPEAKER_00
Not impossible, but it s very difficult.
5
SPEAKER_00
16% of the population of the United States is about 51 or 52 million people with IQs under 85.
5
SPEAKER_00
This is not a small issue.
5
SPEAKER_00
14 million children have IQs under 85.
5
SPEAKER_00
Is this something we want to ignore?
5
SPEAKER_00
Does this have any, what is the Venn diagram between, you know, when you have people with IQs under 85 and you have achievement in school or achievement in life?
5
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of overlap there.
5
SPEAKER_00
This is why, to go back to the IQ pill, if there were a way to shift that curve toward the higher end, that would have a big impact.
5
SPEAKER_01
If I could maybe before we talk about the impact on life and so on, some of the criticisms of the bell curve.
5
SPEAKER_01
So Stephen Jay Gould wrote that the bell curve rests on four incorrect assumptions.
5
SPEAKER_01
It would be just interesting to get your thoughts on the four assumptions, which are intelligence must be reducible to a single number, intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order, intelligence must be primarily genetically based,
5
SPEAKER_01
and intelligence must be essentially immutable.
5
SPEAKER_01
Maybe not as criticisms, but as thoughts about intelligence.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, we could spend a lot of time on him.
5
SPEAKER_01
As soon as you go there.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, he wrote that in what about?
5
SPEAKER_00
1985 1984 he his Views were overtly political not scientific.
5
SPEAKER_00
He was a scientist, but his views on this were overtly political and I would encourage
5
SPEAKER_00
people listening to this, if they really want to understand his criticisms, they should just Google what he had to say and Google the scientific reviews of his book, The Mismeasure of Man, and they will take these statements apart.
5
SPEAKER_00
They were wrong
5
SPEAKER_00
Not only were they wrong, but when he asserted in his first book that there was no biological basis essentially to IQ, by the time the second edition came around, there were studies of MRIs showing that brain size, brain volume were correlated to IQ scores, which he declined to put in his book.
5
SPEAKER_01
So I m learning a lot today.
5
SPEAKER_01
I didn t know the extent of his work.
5
SPEAKER_01
I was just using a few little snippets of criticism.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s interesting.
5
SPEAKER_01
So there s a battle here.
5
SPEAKER_01
He wrote a book, Mismeasure of Man, that s missing a lot of the scientific grounding.
5
SPEAKER_00
His book is highly popular in colleges today.
5
SPEAKER_00
You can find it in any college bookstore under assigned reading.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s highly popular.
5
SPEAKER_01
The Mismeasure of Man?
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes, highly influential.
5
SPEAKER_01
Can you speak to the Mismeasure of Man?
5
SPEAKER_01
I m undereducated about this, so what, is this the book basically criticizing the ideas in the book?
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, yeah, where those four things came from.
5
SPEAKER_00
And it is really a book that was really taken apart point by point by a number of people who actually understood the data.
5
SPEAKER_00
And he didn t care.
5
SPEAKER_00
He didn t care, he didn t modify anything.
5
SPEAKER_01
Listen, because this is such a sensitive topic, like I said, I believe the impact of the work, as it is misinterpreted, has to be considered.
5
SPEAKER_01
Because it s not just going to be scientific discourse, it s going to be political discourse, there s going to be debates, there s going to be
5
SPEAKER_01
politically motivated people that will use messages in each direction, make something like the bell curve the enemy or the support for one s racist beliefs.
5
SPEAKER_01
And so I think you have to consider that, but it s difficult because...
5
SPEAKER_01
Nietzsche was used by Hitler to justify a lot of his beliefs and it s not exactly on Nietzsche to anticipate Hitler or how his ideas will be misinterpreted and used for evil.
5
SPEAKER_01
but there s a balance there.
5
SPEAKER_01
So I understand, this is really interesting, I didn t know.
5
SPEAKER_01
Is there any criticism of the book you find compelling or interesting or challenging to use from a scientific perspective?
5
SPEAKER_00
There were factual criticisms about the nature of the statistics that were used, the statistical analyses.
5
SPEAKER_00
These were more technical criticisms.
5
SPEAKER_00
And they were addressed by Murray in a couple of articles where he took all the criticisms
5
SPEAKER_00
And and spoke to them and people listening to this podcast, uh can certainly find all those online Uh, and it s very interesting, but murray went on to write some additional books two in the last couple of years uh one about human diversity Where he goes through the data?
5
SPEAKER_00
refuting the idea that race is only a social construct with no biological meaning.
5
SPEAKER_00
He discusses the data.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s a very good discussion.
5
SPEAKER_00
You don t have to agree with it, but he presents data in a cogent way, and he talks about the critics of that, and he talks about their data in a cogent nod
5
SPEAKER_00
personal way.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s a very informative discussion.
5
SPEAKER_00
The book is called Human Diversity.
5
SPEAKER_00
He talks about race and he talks about gender, same thing, about sex
6
SPEAKER_00
differences.
6
SPEAKER_00
And more recently, he s written what might be his final say on this, a book called Facing Reality, where he talks about this again.
6
SPEAKER_00
So, you know, he can certainly defend himself.
6
SPEAKER_00
He doesn t need me to do that.
6
SPEAKER_00
But I would urge people who have heard about him and the bell curve and who think they know what s in it,
6
SPEAKER_00
you are likely incorrect and you need to read it for yourself.
6
SPEAKER_01
But it is, scientifically, it s a serious subject.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s a difficult subject.
6
SPEAKER_01
Ethically, it s a difficult subject.
6
SPEAKER_01
Everything you said here calmly and thoughtfully is difficult.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s difficult for me to even consider that g-factor exists.
6
SPEAKER_01
I don t mean from like that somehow G-factor is inherently racist or sexist or whatever.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s just, it s difficult in the way that considering the fact that we die one day is difficult.
6
SPEAKER_01
That we are limited by our biology is difficult.
6
SPEAKER_01
And it s, at least from an American perspective, you like to believe that everything is possible in this world.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, that leads us to what I think we should do with this information.
6
SPEAKER_00
And what I think we should do with this information is unusual.
6
SPEAKER_00
Because I think what we need to do is fund more neuroscience research on the molecular biology of learning and memory.
6
SPEAKER_00
Because one definition of intelligence
6
SPEAKER_00
Is based on how much you can learn and how much you can remember Yes, and if you accept that definition of intelligence Then there are molecular studies going on now and nobel prizes being won on molecular biology or molecular neurobiology of learning and memory
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, the step those researchers, those scientists need to take when it comes to intelligence is to focus on the concept of individual differences.
6
SPEAKER_00
Intelligence
6
SPEAKER_00
Research has individual differences as its heart because it assumes that people differ on this variable and those differences are meaningful and need understanding.
6
SPEAKER_00
Cognitive psychologists who have morphed into molecular biologists studying learning and memory hate the concept of individual differences historically.
6
SPEAKER_00
Some now are coming around to it.
6
SPEAKER_00
I once sat next to a Nobel Prize winner for his work on memory.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I asked him about individual differences.
6
SPEAKER_00
And he said, don t go there.
6
SPEAKER_00
It ll set us back 50 years.
6
SPEAKER_00
But I said, don t you think they re the key though, to understand, you know, why can some people remember more than others?
6
SPEAKER_00
He said, you don t want to go there.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think the 21st century will be remembered by the technology and the science that goes to individual differences.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because we have now data, we have now the tools to much, much better to start to measure, start to estimate, not just on the sort of through tests and...
6
SPEAKER_01
IQ test type of things, sort of outside the body kind of things, but measuring all kinds of stuff about the body.
6
SPEAKER_01
So yeah, truly going to the molecular biology, to the neurobiology, to the neuroscience.
6
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you about life.
6
SPEAKER_01
How does intelligence correlate with or lead to or has anything to do with career success?
6
SPEAKER_01
You ve mentioned these kinds of things.
6
SPEAKER_01
Is there any data, you had an excellent conversation with Jordan Peterson, for example.
6
SPEAKER_01
Is there any data on what intelligent means for success in life?
6
SPEAKER_00
Success in life, there is a tremendous amount of validity data that looked at intelligence test scores and various measures of life success.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, of course, life success is a pretty broad topic, and not everybody agrees on what success means, but there s
6
SPEAKER_00
general agreement on certain aspects of success that can be measured.
6
SPEAKER_01
And those- Including life expectancy, like you said.
6
SPEAKER_00
Life expectancy.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now there s life success.
6
SPEAKER_00
You know, life expectancy.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, that is such an interesting finding, but it, you know, IQ scores are also correlated to things like income.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, OK, so who thinks income means you re successful?
6
SPEAKER_00
That s not the point.
6
SPEAKER_00
The point is that income is one empirical measure in this culture that says something about your level of success.
6
SPEAKER_00
You can define success in ways that have nothing to do with income.
6
SPEAKER_00
You can define success based on your evolutionary natural selection success.
6
SPEAKER_00
But for variables, and even that, by the way, is correlated to IQ in some studies.
6
SPEAKER_00
So however you want to define success, IQ is important.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s not the only determinant.
6
SPEAKER_00
People get hung up on, well, what about personality?
6
SPEAKER_00
What about so-called emotional intelligence?
6
SPEAKER_00
Yes, all those things matter.
6
SPEAKER_00
The thing that matters empirically, the single thing that matters the most is your general ability, your general mental intellectual ability, your reasoning ability.
6
SPEAKER_00
And the more complex your vocation, the more complex your job, the more G matters.
6
SPEAKER_00
G doesn t matter in a lot of occupations, don t require complex thinking.
6
SPEAKER_00
and there are occupations like that, and G doesn t matter.
6
SPEAKER_00
Within an occupation, the G might not matter so much.
6
SPEAKER_00
So that if you look at all the professors at MIT,
6
SPEAKER_00
and had a way to rank order them on, you know, there s a ceiling effect is what I m saying, that, you know.
6
SPEAKER_01
Also, when you get past a certain threshold, then there s impact on wealth, for example, or career success, however that s defined in each individual discipline, but after a certain point, it doesn t matter.
6
SPEAKER_00
Actually, it does matter in certain things.
6
SPEAKER_00
So for example, there is a very classic study
6
SPEAKER_00
that was started at Johns Hopkins when I was a graduate student there.
6
SPEAKER_00
I actually worked on this study at the very beginning.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s the study of mathematically and scientifically precocious youth.
6
SPEAKER_00
And they gave junior high school students, age 11 and 12, the standard SAT math exam.
6
SPEAKER_00
And they found a very large number of students scored very high on this exam.
6
SPEAKER_00
Not a large number.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, they found many students when they cast the net to all of Baltimore, they found a number of students who scored as high on the SAT math when they were 12 years old as incoming Hopkins freshmen.
6
SPEAKER_00
And they said, gee, now this is interesting.
6
SPEAKER_00
What shall we do now?
6
SPEAKER_00
And on a case-by-case basis, they got some of those kids into their local community college math programs.
6
SPEAKER_00
Many of those kids went on to be very successful.
6
SPEAKER_00
And now there s a 50-year follow-up of those kids.
6
SPEAKER_00
And it turns out, these kids were in the top 1%.
6
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so everybody in this study is in the top 1%.
6
SPEAKER_00
If you take that group, that rarefied group, and divide them into quartiles, so you have the top 25% of the top 1%, and the bottom 25% of the top 1%, you can find on measurable,
6
SPEAKER_00
variables of success, the top quartile does better than the bottom quartile, in the top 1%.
6
SPEAKER_00
They have more patents, they have more publications, they have more tenure at universities, and this is based on – you re dividing them based on their score at age 12.
6
SPEAKER_01
I wonder how much interesting data is in the variability, in the differences.
6
SPEAKER_01
But that s really, oh boy, that s very interesting, but it s also, I don t know, somehow painful.
6
SPEAKER_01
I don t know why it s so painful.
6
SPEAKER_01
That G-factor s so determinant.
6
SPEAKER_01
of even in the nuanced top percent.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, this is interesting that you find that painful.
6
SPEAKER_00
Do you find it painful that people with charisma can be very successful in life even though having no other attributes other than they re famous and people like them?
6
SPEAKER_00
Do you find that painful?
6
SPEAKER_01
Yes, if that charisma is untrainable.
6
SPEAKER_01
So one of the things, again, this is like I learned psychology from the Johnny Depp trial, but one of the things the psychologist, the personality psychologist, he can maybe speak to this, because he had interest in this for a time, is she was saying that personality
6
SPEAKER_01
technically speaking, is the thing that doesn t change over a lifetime.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s the thing you re, I don t know if she was actually implying that you re born with it.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s a trait.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s a trait.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s a trait that s relatively stable over time.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think that s generally correct.
6
SPEAKER_01
So to the degree your personality is stable over time, yes, that too is painful.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because what s not painful is the thing, if I m fat and out of shape, I can exercise and become healthier in that way.
6
SPEAKER_01
If my diet is a giant mess and that s resulting in some kind of conditions that my body s experiencing, I can fix that by having a better diet.
6
SPEAKER_01
that sort of my actions, my willed actions can make a change.
6
SPEAKER_01
If charisma is part of the personality that s, the part of the charisma that is part of the personality that is stable, yeah, yeah, that s painful too, because it s like, oh shit, I m stuck with this, I m stuck with this.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, I mean, and this pretty much generalizes to every aspect of your being.
6
SPEAKER_00
This is who you are.
6
SPEAKER_00
You ve got to deal with it.
6
SPEAKER_00
And what it undermines, of course, is a realistic appreciation for this, undermines the fairly recent idea
6
SPEAKER_00
Prevalent in this country that if you work hard you can be anything you want to be Which has morphed from the original idea that if you work hard you can be successful Those are two different things.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and now we have If you work hard you can be anything you want to be this is completely unrealistic I m, sorry.
6
SPEAKER_00
It just is now you can work hard and be successful.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s no question
6
SPEAKER_00
But you know what, I could work very hard and I am not going to be a successful theoretical physicist.
6
SPEAKER_00
I m just not.
6
SPEAKER_01
That said, I mean, we should, because we had this conversation already, but it s good to repeat.
6
SPEAKER_01
The fact that you re not going to be a theoretical physicist is not judgment on your basic humanity.
6
SPEAKER_01
Returning again to the all men, which means men and women are created equal.
6
SPEAKER_01
So again, some of the differences we re talking about in quote-unquote success, wealth, number of, whether you win a Nobel Prize or not, that doesn t put a measure on your basic humanity.
6
SPEAKER_01
And, you know,
6
SPEAKER_01
basic value and even goodness of you as a human being.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because that, your basic role and value in society is largely within your control.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s some of these measures that we re talking about.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s good to remember this.
6
SPEAKER_01
One question about the Flynn effect.
6
SPEAKER_01
What is it?
6
SPEAKER_01
Are humans getting smarter over the years, over the decades, over the centuries?
6
SPEAKER_00
The Flynn effect is James Flynn, who passed away about a year ago, published a set of analyses
6
SPEAKER_00
going back a couple of decades, when we first noticed this, that IQ scores, when you looked over the years, seemed to be drifting up.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now this was not unknown to the people who make the test because they re-norm the test periodically and they have to re-norm the test periodically because what 10 items correct meant relative to other people 50 years ago is not the same as what 10 items mean relative today.
6
SPEAKER_00
People are getting more things correct.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, the scores have been drifting up about three points, IQ scores have been drifting up about three points per decade.
6
SPEAKER_00
This is not a personal effect, this is a cohort effect.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s not for an individual, but- The world, how do you, so what s the explanation?
6
SPEAKER_00
And this has presented intelligence researchers with a great mystery.
6
SPEAKER_00
Two questions.
6
SPEAKER_00
First, is it effect on the 50% of the variance that s the g-factor or on the other 50%?
6
SPEAKER_00
And there s evidence that it is a g-factor effect.
6
SPEAKER_00
And second, what on earth causes this?
6
SPEAKER_00
And doesn t this mean intelligence and g-factor cannot be genetic because the scale of natural selection is much, much longer than a couple of decades ago?
6
SPEAKER_00
And so it s been used to try to undermine the idea that there can be a genetic influence on intelligence.
6
SPEAKER_00
But certainly it can be, the Flynn effect can affect the non-genetic aspects of intelligence because genes account for maybe 50% of the variance.
6
SPEAKER_00
Maybe higher, it could be as high as 80% for adults, but let s just say 50% for discussion.
6
SPEAKER_00
So the Flynn effect, it s still a mystery.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s still a mystery, that s interesting.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s still a mystery, although the evidence is coming out.
6
SPEAKER_00
I told you before I edited a journal on intelligence, and we re doing a special issue in honor of James Flynn.
6
SPEAKER_00
So I m starting to see papers now on really the latest research on this.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think most people who specialize in this area of trying to understand the Flynn effect are coming to the view based on data that it has to do with advances in nutrition and health care.
6
SPEAKER_00
And there s also evidence that the effect is slowing down and possibly reversing.
6
SPEAKER_01
Oh boy, so how would nutrition, so nutrition would still be connected to the G-factor.
6
SPEAKER_01
So nutrition as it relates to the G-factor, so the biology that leads to the intelligence.
6
SPEAKER_01
That would be the claim, the hypothesis being tested by the researchers.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yes, and there s some evidence from infants
7
SPEAKER_01
that nutrition has made a difference.
7
SPEAKER_01
So it s not an unreasonable connection.
7
SPEAKER_01
But does it negate the idea that there s a genetic influence?
7
SPEAKER_01
Not logically at all.
7
SPEAKER_01
But it is very interesting, so that if you take an IQ test today, but you normal, but you take the score and use the tables that were available in 1940,
7
SPEAKER_01
you re gonna wind up with a much higher IQ number.
7
SPEAKER_01
So are we really smarter than a couple of generations ago?
7
SPEAKER_01
No, but we might be able to solve problems a little better and make use of our G because of things like Sesame Street and other curricula in school.
7
SPEAKER_01
More people are going to school.
7
SPEAKER_01
So there are a lot of factors here to disentangle.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s fascinating, though.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s fascinating that there s not clear answers yet, that as a population, we re getting smarter.
7
SPEAKER_00
When you just zoom out, that s what it looks like.
7
SPEAKER_00
As a population, we re getting smarter.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s interesting to see what the effects of that are.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, this raises the question.
7
SPEAKER_00
We ve mentioned it many times, but haven t clearly addressed it, which is,
7
SPEAKER_00
nature versus nurture question.
7
SPEAKER_00
So how much of intelligence is nature?
7
SPEAKER_00
How much of it is nurture?
7
SPEAKER_00
How much of it is determined by genetics versus environment?
7
SPEAKER_01
All of it.
7
SPEAKER_00
All of it is genetics?
7
SPEAKER_01
No.
7
SPEAKER_01
All of it
7
SPEAKER_01
This is nature and nurture.
7
SPEAKER_00
So yes, okay.
7
SPEAKER_01
But how much of the variance can you apportion to either?
7
SPEAKER_01
Most of the people who work in this field say that the framing of that, if the question is framed that way, it can t be answered because nature and nurture are not two independent influences.
7
SPEAKER_01
They interact with each other.
7
SPEAKER_01
and understanding those interactions is so complex that many behavioral geneticists say it is today impossible and always will be impossible to disentangle that, no matter what kind of advances there are in DNA technology and genomic informatics.
7
SPEAKER_00
But there s still, to push back on that,
7
SPEAKER_00
That same intuition from behavioral geneticists would lead me to believe that there cannot possibly be a stable G factor, because it s super complex.
7
SPEAKER_01
Many of them would assert that as a logical outcome.
7
SPEAKER_01
But because I believe there is a stable g-vector from lots of sources of data, not just one study, but lots of sources of data over decades, I am more amenable to the idea that whatever interactions between genes and environment exist, they can be explicated, they can be studied,
7
SPEAKER_01
and that information can be used as a basis for molecular biology of intelligence.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yes, and we ll do this exact question, because doesn t the stability of the G factor give you at least a hint that there is a biological basis for intelligence?
7
SPEAKER_01
Yes, I think it s clear
7
SPEAKER_01
that the fact that an IQ score is correlated to things like thickness of your cortex, that it s correlated to glucose metabolic rate in your brain, that identical twins reared apart
7
SPEAKER_01
are highly similar in their IQ scores.
7
SPEAKER_01
These are all important observations that certainly more than that indicate, not just suggest, but indicate that there s a biological basis.
7
SPEAKER_01
And does anyone believe intelligence has nothing to do with the brain?
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s so obvious.
7
SPEAKER_00
Well, indirectly definitely has to do with it, but the question is, environment interacting with the brain, or is it the actual raw hardware of the brain?
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, some would say that the raw hardware of the brain, as it develops,
7
SPEAKER_01
from conception through adulthood, or at least through the childhood, that that so-called hardware that you are assuming is mostly genetic, in fact, is not as deterministic as you might think.
7
SPEAKER_01
That it is probabilistic, and what affects the probabilities are things like in uterine environment,
7
SPEAKER_01
and other factors like that, including chance, that chance affects the way the neurons are connecting during gestation.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s not, hey, it s pre-programmed.
7
SPEAKER_01
So there is pushback on the concept that genes provide a blueprint.
7
SPEAKER_01
that it s a lot more fluid.
7
SPEAKER_00
Well, but also, yeah, so there s a lot, a lot, a lot happens in the first few months of development.
7
SPEAKER_00
So for, in nine months, inside the mother s body, and in the, you know, the months, the few months afterwards, there s a lot of fascinating stuff, like including chance and luck, like you said, how things connect up.
7
SPEAKER_00
The question is afterwards in your plasticity of the brain, how much adjustment there is relative to the environment, how much that affects the G-factor, but that s where the whole conclusions of the studies that we ve been talking about is that seems to have less and less and less of an effect pretty quickly.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and I do think there is more of a genetic, my view, and I m not an expert on this, genetics is a highly technical and complex subject, I am not a geneticist, not a behavioral geneticist, but my reading of this, my interpretation of this, is that
7
SPEAKER_01
there is a genetic blueprint, more or less, and that has a profound influence on your subsequent intellectual development, including the G factor.
7
SPEAKER_01
And that s not to say things can t happen to, I mean, if you think of that genes provide a potential, fine, and then various variables impact that potential.
7
SPEAKER_01
And every parent of a newborn
7
SPEAKER_01
implicitly or explicitly wants to maximize that potential.
7
SPEAKER_01
This is why you buy educational toys.
7
SPEAKER_01
This is why you pay attention to organic baby food.
7
SPEAKER_01
This is why you do all these things because you want your baby to be as healthy and as smart as possible.
7
SPEAKER_01
And every parent will say that.
7
SPEAKER_00
Is there a case to be made, can you steal me on the case, that genetics is a very tiny component of all of this and the environment is essential?
7
SPEAKER_01
I don t think the data supports that genetics is a tiny component.
7
SPEAKER_01
I think the data support the idea that the genetics is a very important, and I don t say component, I say influence, a very important influence.
7
SPEAKER_01
And the environment is a lot less than people believe.
7
SPEAKER_01
Most people believe environment plays a big role.
7
SPEAKER_01
I m not so sure.
7
SPEAKER_00
I guess what I m asking you is, can you see where what you just said, it might be wrong?
7
SPEAKER_00
Can you imagine a world and what kind of evidence would you need to see to say, you know what, the intuition, the study so far, like reversing the directions.
7
SPEAKER_00
So one of the cool things we have now more and more is we re getting more and more data and the rate of the data is escalating because of the digital world.
7
SPEAKER_00
So when you start to look at a very large scale of data,
7
SPEAKER_00
both on the biology side and the social side, we might be discovering some very counterintuitive things about society.
7
SPEAKER_00
We might see the edge cases that reveal that if we actually scale those edge cases and they become like the norm, that we ll have a complete shift in our, like you ll see,
7
SPEAKER_00
G-factor be able to be modified throughout life, in the teens and in later life.
7
SPEAKER_00
So, is it any case you can make where your current intuitions are wrong?
7
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and it s a good question because I think everyone should always be asked, what evidence would change your mind?
7
SPEAKER_01
It s certainly not only a fair question, it is really the key question for anybody working on any aspect of science.
7
SPEAKER_01
I think that if environment was very important, we would have seen it clearly by now.
7
SPEAKER_01
It would have been obvious that school interventions, compensatory education, early childhood education, all these things that have been earnestly tried and well-funded, well-designed studies would show some effect.
7
SPEAKER_01
And they don t.
7
SPEAKER_00
They don t.
7
SPEAKER_00
What if the school, the way we ve tried school, compensatory school sucks?
7
SPEAKER_00
And we need to do better.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s what everybody said at the beginning.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s what everybody said to Jensen.
7
SPEAKER_01
He said, well, maybe we need to start earlier.
7
SPEAKER_01
Maybe we need not do pre-kindergarten, but pre-pre-kindergarten.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s always an infinite
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, maybe we didn t get it right.
7
SPEAKER_01
But after decades of trying, 50 years, 50 or 60 years of trying, surely something would have worked to the point where you could actually see a result and not need a probability level at 0.05 on some means.
7
SPEAKER_01
So that s the kind of evidence that would change my mind.
7
SPEAKER_00
population level interventions like schooling that you would see, like this actually has an effect.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and when you take adopted kids,
7
SPEAKER_01
And they grow up in another family, and you find out when those adopted kids are adults, their IQ scores don t correlate with the IQ scores of their adoptive parents, but they do correlate with their IQ scores of their biological parents, whom they ve never met.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, these are important.
7
SPEAKER_01
These are powerful observations.
7
SPEAKER_00
And it would be convincing to you if the reverse was true.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yes, that would be more.
7
SPEAKER_01
And there is some data on adoption that indicates
7
SPEAKER_01
the adopted children are moving a little bit more toward their adoptive parents.
7
SPEAKER_01
But it s, you know, it s, to me, the overwhelming, the weight, I have this concept called the weight of evidence, where I don t interpret any one study too much.
7
SPEAKER_01
The weight of evidence tells me genes are important.
7
SPEAKER_01
But what does that mean?
7
SPEAKER_01
What does it mean that genes are important, knowing that gene expression,
7
SPEAKER_01
Genes don t express themselves in a vacuum.
7
SPEAKER_01
They express themselves in an environment.
7
SPEAKER_01
So the environment has to have something to do with it, especially if the best genetic estimates of the amount of variants are around 50 or even if it s as high as 80%, it still leaves 20%.
7
SPEAKER_01
of non-genetic.
7
SPEAKER_01
Now maybe that is all luck.
7
SPEAKER_01
Maybe that s all chance.
7
SPEAKER_01
I could believe that.
7
SPEAKER_01
I could easily believe that.
7
SPEAKER_01
But I do think after 50 years of trying various interventions and nothing works, including memory training, including listening to Mozart, including playing computer games, none of that has shown any impact on intelligence test scores.
7
SPEAKER_00
Is there data on the intelligence, the IQ of parents as it relates to the children?
7
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and there is some genetic evidence of an interaction between the parents  IQ and the environment.
7
SPEAKER_01
High IQ parents provide an enriched environment which then can
7
SPEAKER_01
impact the child in addition to the genes, it s that environment.
7
SPEAKER_01
So there are all these interactions that, you know, but it s not, you know, think about the number of books in a household.
7
SPEAKER_01
This was a variable that s correlated with IQ.
7
SPEAKER_01
And, and- It is.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, why?
7
SPEAKER_01
Especially if the kid never reads any of the books.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s because more intelligent people have more books in their house.
7
SPEAKER_01
And if you re more intelligent and there s a genetic component to that, the child will get those genes or some of those genes as well as the environment.
7
SPEAKER_01
But it s not the number of books in the house that actually directly impacts the child.
7
SPEAKER_01
So the two scenarios on this are you find that
7
SPEAKER_01
And this was used to get rid of the SAT test.
7
SPEAKER_01
Oh, the SAT score is highly correlated with the social economic status of the parents.
7
SPEAKER_01
So all you re really measuring is how rich the parents are.
7
SPEAKER_01
Okay, well, why are the parents rich?
7
SPEAKER_01
yes and so you could the opposite kind of syllogism is that people who are very bright make more money they can afford homes and in better neighborhoods so their kids get better schools now the kids grow up bright where in that chain of events does that come from
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, unless you have a genetically informative research design where you look at siblings that have the same biological parents and so on, you can t really disentangle all that.
7
SPEAKER_01
Most studies of socioeconomic status and intelligence
7
SPEAKER_01
do not have a genetically informed design.
7
SPEAKER_01
So any conclusions they make about the causality of the socioeconomic status being the cause of the IQ is a stretch.
7
SPEAKER_01
And where you do find genetically informative designs,
7
SPEAKER_01
you find most of the variance in your outcome measures are due to the genetic component.
7
SPEAKER_01
And sometimes the SES adds a little, but the weight of evidence is it doesn t add very much variance to predict what s going on beyond the genetic variance.
7
SPEAKER_01
So when you actually look at it in some, and there aren t that many studies that have genetically informed designs,
7
SPEAKER_01
But when you do see those, the genes seem to have an advantage.
7
SPEAKER_00
Sorry for the strange questions, but is there a connection between fertility or the number of kids that you have and G-factor?
7
SPEAKER_00
So you know, the kind of conventional wisdom is people of, maybe is it higher economic status or something like that are having fewer children?
7
SPEAKER_00
I just loosely hear these kinds of things.
7
SPEAKER_00
Is there data that you re aware of in one direction or another on this?
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, strange questions always get strange answers.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
7
SPEAKER_00
Do you have a strange answer for that strange question?
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, the answer is, there were some studies that indicated the more children in a family
7
SPEAKER_01
the firstborn children would be more intelligent than the fourth or fifth or sixth.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s not clear that those studies hold up over time.
7
SPEAKER_01
And of course, what you see also is that families where there are multiple children, four, five, six, seven, you know, really big families,
8
SPEAKER_00
The socioeconomic status of those families, usually in the modern age, is not that high.
8
SPEAKER_00
Maybe it used to be the aristocracy used to have a lot of kids, I m not sure exactly.
8
SPEAKER_00
But there have been reports of correlations between IQ and fertility, but I m not sure that the data are very strong that the firstborn child is always the smartest.
8
SPEAKER_00
It seems like there s some data to that, but I m not current on that.
8
SPEAKER_01
How would that be explained?
8
SPEAKER_01
That would be a nurture.
8
SPEAKER_00
Well, it could be nurture, it could be in uterine environment, I mean... Boy, biology is complicated.
8
SPEAKER_00
And this is why this, you know, like many areas of science, you said earlier that there are a lot of gray areas and no definitive answers.
8
SPEAKER_00
This is not uncommon in science that the closer you look at a problem, the more questions you get, not the fewer questions, because the universe is complicated.
8
SPEAKER_00
And the idea that we have people on this planet who can study the first nanoseconds of the Big Bang
8
SPEAKER_00
That s pretty amazing.
8
SPEAKER_00
And I ve always said that if they can study the first nanoseconds of the Big Bang, we can certainly figure out something about intelligence that allows that.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m not sure what s more complicated, the human mind or the physics of the universe.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s unclear to me.
8
SPEAKER_01
I think we overemphasize.
8
SPEAKER_00
That s a very humbling statement.
8
SPEAKER_01
Maybe it s a very human-centric, egotistical statement that our mind is somehow super complicated, but biology is a tricky one to unravel.
8
SPEAKER_01
Consciousness, what is that?
8
SPEAKER_00
That s a... Well, I ve always believed that consciousness and intelligence are the two real fundamental problems of the human brain.
8
SPEAKER_00
And therefore, I think they must be related.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, heart problems like walk together, holding hands kind of idea.
8
SPEAKER_00
You may not know this, but I did some of the early research on anesthetic drugs with brain imaging, trying to answer the question, what part of the brain is the last to turn off when someone loses consciousness?
8
SPEAKER_00
And is that the first part of the brain to turn on when consciousness is regained?
8
SPEAKER_00
And I was working with an anesthesiologist named Mike Elkire, who was really brilliant at this.
8
SPEAKER_00
These were really the first studies of brain imaging using positron emission tomography long before fMRI.
8
SPEAKER_00
And you would inject a radioactive sugar
8
SPEAKER_00
that labeled the brain.
8
SPEAKER_00
And the harder the brain was working, the more sugar it would take up.
8
SPEAKER_00
And then you could make a picture of glucose use in the brain.
8
SPEAKER_00
And he was amazing.
8
SPEAKER_00
He managed to do this.
8
SPEAKER_00
In normal volunteers, he brought in and anesthetized as if they were going into surgery.
8
SPEAKER_00
uh, and he managed all the human subjects requirements on this research and uh, it was he was brilliant at this and and What we did is we had these normal volunteers come in on three occasions On one occasion he gave them enough anesthetic drug So they were a little drowsy
8
SPEAKER_00
And on another occasion, they came in and he fully anesthetized them.
8
SPEAKER_00
And, you know, he would say, you know, Mike, can you hear me?
8
SPEAKER_00
And the person would say, uh, yeah.
8
SPEAKER_00
You know, that s, and then we would scan people under the, and under no anesthetic condition.
8
SPEAKER_00
So same person.
8
SPEAKER_00
And we were looking to see if we could see
8
SPEAKER_00
the part of the brain turn off.
8
SPEAKER_00
You subsequently tried to do this with fMRI, which has a faster time resolution, and you could do it in real time as the person went under and then regain consciousness, where you couldn t do that with PET.
8
SPEAKER_00
You had to have three different occasions.
8
SPEAKER_00
And the results were absolutely fascinating.
8
SPEAKER_00
We did this with different anesthetic drugs.
8
SPEAKER_00
And different drugs impacted different parts of the brain.
8
SPEAKER_00
So we were naturally looking for the common one.
8
SPEAKER_00
And it seemed to have something to do with the thalamus.
8
SPEAKER_00
And consciousness, this was actual data on consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
Real, actual consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
What part of the brain turns on?
8
SPEAKER_01
What part of the brain turns off?
8
SPEAKER_00
It s not so clear.
8
SPEAKER_01
But maybe has something to do with the thalamus.
8
SPEAKER_00
The sequence of events seem to have the thalamus in it.
8
SPEAKER_00
Boy.
8
SPEAKER_00
Now, here s a question.
8
SPEAKER_00
Are some people more conscious than others?
8
SPEAKER_00
Are there individual differences in consciousness?
8
SPEAKER_00
And I don t mean it in the psychedelic sense.
8
SPEAKER_00
I don t mean it in the political consciousness sense.
8
SPEAKER_00
I just mean it in everyday life.
8
SPEAKER_00
Do some people go through everyday life more conscious than others?
8
SPEAKER_00
And are those the people we might actually label more intelligent?
8
SPEAKER_00
So now, the other thing I was looking for is whether the parts of the brain we were seeing in the anesthesia studies were the same parts of the brain we were seeing in the intelligence studies.
8
SPEAKER_00
Now this was very complicated, expensive research.
8
SPEAKER_00
We didn t really have funding to do this.
8
SPEAKER_00
We were trying to do it on the fly.
8
SPEAKER_00
I m not sure anybody has pursued this.
8
SPEAKER_00
I m retired now.
8
SPEAKER_00
He s gone on to other things.
8
SPEAKER_00
But I think it s an area of research that would be fascinating to see
8
SPEAKER_00
There are a lot more imaging studies now of consciousness, I m just not up on them.
8
SPEAKER_01
So, but basically the question is which imaging, so newer imaging studies to see in high resolution, spatial and temporal way, which part of the brain lights up.
8
SPEAKER_01
when you re doing intelligence tasks, and which parts of the brain lights up when you re doing consciousness tasks and see the interplay between them, try to infer.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s the challenge of neuroscience.
8
SPEAKER_01
Without understanding deeply, looking from the outside, try to infer something about how the whole thing works.
8
SPEAKER_00
Well, imagine this.
8
SPEAKER_00
Here s a simple question.
8
SPEAKER_00
Does it take more anesthetic drug
8
SPEAKER_00
to have a person lose consciousness if their IQ is 140 than a person with an IQ of 70.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s an interesting way to study it, yeah.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, if there is a, if the answer to that is a stable yes, that s very interesting.
8
SPEAKER_00
So I tried to find out, and I went to some anesthesiology textbooks about how you dose, and they dose by weight.
8
SPEAKER_00
And what I also learned, this is a little bit off subject, anesthesiologists are never sure how deep you are.
8
SPEAKER_00
And they usually tell by poking you with a needle, and if you don t jump, they tell the surgeon to go ahead.
8
SPEAKER_00
I m not sure that s literally true, but it s... Well, it may be very difficult to know precisely
8
SPEAKER_01
how deep you are.
8
SPEAKER_01
It has to do with the same kind of measurements that you were doing with the consciousness.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s difficult to know.
8
SPEAKER_00
So I don t lose my train of thought.
8
SPEAKER_00
I couldn t find in the textbooks anything about dosing by intelligence.
8
SPEAKER_00
I asked my friend, the anesthesiologist, he said, no, he doesn t know.
8
SPEAKER_00
I said, can we do a chart review?
8
SPEAKER_00
and look at people using their years of education as a proxy for IQ.
8
SPEAKER_00
Because if someone s gone to graduate school, that tells you something.
8
SPEAKER_00
You can make some inference as opposed to someone who didn t graduate high school.
8
SPEAKER_00
Can we do a chart review?
8
SPEAKER_00
And he says, no, they never really put down the exact dose.
8
SPEAKER_00
No, he said, no.
8
SPEAKER_00
So to this day, the simple question, does it take more anesthetic drug to put someone under if they have a high IQ?
8
SPEAKER_00
Or less.
8
SPEAKER_00
Or less.
8
SPEAKER_00
It could go either way.
8
SPEAKER_00
Because by the way, our early PET scan studies of intelligence
8
SPEAKER_00
found the unexpected result of an inverse correlation between glucose metabolic rate and intelligence.
8
SPEAKER_00
It wasn t how much a brain area lit up.
8
SPEAKER_00
how much it lit up was negatively correlated to how well they did on the test, which led to the brain efficiency hypothesis, which is still being studied today.
8
SPEAKER_00
And there s more and more evidence that the efficiency of brain information processing is more related to intelligence than just more activity.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and it ll be interesting, again, it s the total hypothesis of how much, in the relationship between intelligence and consciousness, it s not obvious that those two, if there s correlation, they could be inversely correlated.
8
SPEAKER_01
Wouldn t that be funny?
8
SPEAKER_01
If you... The...
8
SPEAKER_01
The consciousness factor, the C factor plus the G factor equals one.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s a nice trade-off.
8
SPEAKER_01
You get a trade-off, how deeply you experience the world versus how deeply you re able to reason through the world.
8
SPEAKER_00
What a great hypothesis.
8
SPEAKER_00
Certainly somebody listening to this can do this study.
8
SPEAKER_01
even if it s the aliens analyzing humans a few centuries from now.
8
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you from an AI perspective.
8
SPEAKER_01
I don t know how much you ve thought about machines, but there s the famous Turing test, test of intelligence for machines, which is a beautiful, almost like a cute formulation of intelligence.
8
SPEAKER_01
that Alan Turing proposed, basically conversation being if you can fool a human to think that a machine is a human that passes the test.
8
SPEAKER_01
I suppose you could do a similar thing for humans.
8
SPEAKER_01
If I can fool you that I m intelligent,
8
SPEAKER_01
then that s a good test of intelligence, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
Like you re talking to two people.
8
SPEAKER_01
and the test is saying who has a higher IQ.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s an interesting test, because yeah, maybe charisma can be very useful there, and you re only allowed to use conversation, which is the formulation of the joint test.
8
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, all that to say is what are good tests of intelligence for machines?
8
SPEAKER_01
What do you think it takes to achieve human-level intelligence for machines?
8
SPEAKER_00
Well, I have thought a little bit about this, but every time I think about these things, I rapidly reach the limits of my knowledge and imagination.
8
SPEAKER_00
So when Alexa first came out,
8
SPEAKER_00
And I think there was a competing one.
8
SPEAKER_00
Well, there was Siri with Apple and Google had Alexa.
8
SPEAKER_01
No, no, Amazon had Alexa.
8
SPEAKER_00
Amazon had Alexa.
8
SPEAKER_00
Google has Google Home.
8
SPEAKER_00
Something.
8
SPEAKER_00
So I proposed to one of my colleagues that he buy one of these, one of each, and then ask it questions from the IQ test.
8
SPEAKER_01
Nice.
8
SPEAKER_00
it became apparent that they all search the internet so they all can find answers to questions like how far is it between Washington and Miami and repeat after me.
8
SPEAKER_00
Now, I don t know if you said to Alexa, I m going to repeat these numbers backwards to me.
8
SPEAKER_00
I don t know what would happen.
8
SPEAKER_00
I ve never done it.
8
SPEAKER_00
So one answer to your question is, you re going to try it right now.
8
SPEAKER_00
Let s try it.
8
SPEAKER_00
Let s try it.
8
SPEAKER_00
Ask Siri.
8
SPEAKER_01
So it would actually probably go to Google search and it would be all confusing kind of stuff.
8
SPEAKER_01
It would fail.
8
SPEAKER_00
Well then I guess there s a test that it would fail.
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, but that s not, that has to do more with the, you know, the language of communication versus the content.
8
SPEAKER_01
So if you did an IQ test to a person who doesn t speak English and the test was administered in English, that s not really the test of- Well, let s think about the computers that beat the Jeopardy champions.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so that, because I happen to know how those are programmed, those are very hard-coded, and there s definitely a lack of intelligence there.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s something like IQ tests.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s a guy,
8
SPEAKER_01
artificial intelligence researcher, Francois Chollet, he s at Google, he s one of the seminal people in machine learning.
8
SPEAKER_01
He also, as a fun aside thing, developed an IQ test for machines.
8
SPEAKER_00
I haven t heard that, I d like to know about that.
8
SPEAKER_01
I ll actually email you this, because it d be very interesting for you.
8
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t get much attention because,
8
SPEAKER_01
people don t know what to do with it.
8
SPEAKER_01
But it deserves a lot of attention, which is, it basically does a pattern type of tests, where you have to do, you know, one standard one is, you re given three things and you have to do a fourth one, that kind of thing.
8
SPEAKER_01
So you have to understand the pattern here.
8
SPEAKER_01
And for that, it really simplifies to,
8
SPEAKER_01
So the interesting thing is he s trying not to achieve high IQ, he s trying to achieve like pretty low bar for IQ.
8
SPEAKER_01
Things that are kind of trivial for humans.
8
SPEAKER_01
And they re actually really tough for machines.
8
SPEAKER_01
Which is seeing, playing with these concepts of,
8
SPEAKER_01
symmetry of counting.
8
SPEAKER_01
Like if I give you one object, two objects, three objects, you ll know the last one is four objects.
8
SPEAKER_01
You can like count them.
8
SPEAKER_01
You can cluster objects together.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s both visually and conceptually.
8
SPEAKER_01
We could do all these things with our mind that we take for granted.
8
SPEAKER_01
The objectness of things.
8
SPEAKER_01
We can like figure out what spatially is an object and isn t.
8
SPEAKER_01
and we can play with those ideas.
8
SPEAKER_01
and machines really struggle with that.
8
SPEAKER_01
So he really cleanly formulated these IQ tests.
8
SPEAKER_01
I wonder what that would equate to for humans with IQ, but it d be a very low IQ.
8
SPEAKER_01
But that s exactly the kind of formulation like, okay, we wanna be able to solve this.
8
SPEAKER_01
How do we solve this?
8
SPEAKER_01
And he does this as a challenge and nobody s been able to.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s similar to the Alexa Prize, which is Amazon is hosting a conversational challenge.
8
SPEAKER_01
Nobody s been able to do well on his.
8
SPEAKER_01
But that s an interesting, those kinds of tests, interesting, because we take for granted all the ability of the human mind to play with concepts and to,
8
SPEAKER_01
formulate concepts out of novel things.
8
SPEAKER_01
So like, things we ve never seen before.
8
SPEAKER_01
We re able to use that.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s, I ve talked to a few people that design IQ tests, sort of online, they write IQ tests, and I was trying to get some questions from them, and they spoke to the fact that we can t really share questions with you because part of the,
8
SPEAKER_01
Like, first of all, it s really hard work to come up with questions.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s really, really hard work.
8
SPEAKER_01
It takes a lot of research, but it also takes a lot of novelty.
9
SPEAKER_00
You re constantly coming up with really new things.
9
SPEAKER_00
And part of the point is that they re not supposed to be public.
9
SPEAKER_00
They re supposed to be new to you when you look at them.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s interesting that the novelty is fundamental to the hardness of the problem.
9
SPEAKER_00
At least a part of what makes the problem hard is you ve never seen it before.
9
SPEAKER_01
That s called fluid intelligence, as opposed to what s called crystallized intelligence, which is your knowledge of facts.
9
SPEAKER_01
You know things, but can you use those things to solve a problem?
9
SPEAKER_01
Those are two different things.
9
SPEAKER_00
Do you think we ll be able to, because we spoke, and I don t want to miss an opportunity to talk about this, we spoke about the neurobiology, about the molecular biology of intelligence.
9
SPEAKER_00
Do you think one day we ll be able to modify the biology?
9
SPEAKER_00
or the genetics of a person to modify their intelligence, to increase their intelligence.
9
SPEAKER_00
We started this conversation by talking about a pill you could take.
9
SPEAKER_00
Do you think that such a pill would exist?
9
SPEAKER_01
Metaphorically, I do.
9
SPEAKER_01
And I am supremely confident that it s possible because I am supremely ignorant of the complexities of neurobiology.
9
SPEAKER_00
Ignorance is bliss.
9
SPEAKER_01
Well, I have written that the nightmares of neurobiologists, you know, understanding the complexities, this cascade of events that happens at the synaptic level, that these nightmares are what fuel some people to solve.
9
SPEAKER_01
So some people, you have to be undaunted.
9
SPEAKER_01
I mean, yeah, this is not easy.
9
SPEAKER_01
Look, we re still trying to figure out cancer.
9
SPEAKER_01
It was only recently that they figured out why aspirin works.
9
SPEAKER_01
You know, these are not easy problems, but I also have the perspective of the history of science is the history of solving problems that are extraordinarily complex.
9
SPEAKER_00
And seem impossible at the time.
9
SPEAKER_01
And seem impossible at the time.
9
SPEAKER_00
And so one of the things you look at at companies like Neuralink, you have brain computer interfaces, you start to delve into the human mind and start to talk about machines measuring but also sending signals to the human mind, you start to wonder what that has, what impact that has on the G-factor.
9
SPEAKER_00
Modifying in small ways or in large ways the functioning, the mechanical, electrical,
9
SPEAKER_00
of chemical functioning of the brain?
9
SPEAKER_01
I look at everything about the brain.
9
SPEAKER_01
There are different levels of explanation.
9
SPEAKER_01
On one hand, you have a behavioral level, but then you have brain circuitry, and then you have neurons, and then you have dendrites, and then you have synapses, and then you have the neurotransmitters,
9
SPEAKER_01
and the presynaptic and the postsynaptic terminals.
9
SPEAKER_01
And then you have all the things that influence neurotransmitters.
9
SPEAKER_01
And then you have the individual differences among people.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, it s complicated, but 51 million people in the United States have IQs under 85 and struggle with everyday life.
9
SPEAKER_01
Shouldn t that motivate people to take a look at this?
9
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and to treat it seriously.
9
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but I just want to linger one more time that we have to remember that the science of intelligence, the measure of intelligence is only a part of the human condition.
9
SPEAKER_00
The thing that makes life beautiful and the creation of beautiful things in this world is perhaps loosely correlated but is not dependent entirely on intelligence.
9
SPEAKER_01
Absolutely, I certainly agree with that.
9
SPEAKER_00
And so for anyone sort of listening, I m still not convinced that sort of more intelligence is always better if you want to create beauty in this world.
9
SPEAKER_00
I don t know.
9
SPEAKER_01
Well, I didn t say more intelligence is always better if you want to create beauty.
9
SPEAKER_01
I just said all things being equal, more is better than less.
9
SPEAKER_01
That s all I mean.
9
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but that s sort of that, I just wanna sort of say, to me, one of the things that makes life great is the opportunity to create beautiful things.
9
SPEAKER_00
And so I just wanna sort of empower people to do that, no matter what some IQ test says.
9
SPEAKER_00
At the population level, we do need to look at IQ tests to help people.
9
SPEAKER_00
And to also inspire us, yeah, to take on some of these extremely difficult scientific questions.
9
SPEAKER_00
Do you have advice for young people in high school, in college, whether they re thinking about career or they re thinking about a life they can be proud of?
9
SPEAKER_00
Is there advice you can give?
9
SPEAKER_00
whether they want to pursue psychology or biology or engineering or they want to be artists and musicians and poets.
9
SPEAKER_01
I can t advise anybody on that level of what their passion is, but I can say if you re interested in psychology or if you re interested in science,
9
SPEAKER_01
and the science around the big questions of consciousness and intelligence and psychiatric illness.
9
SPEAKER_01
We haven t really talked about brain illnesses and what we might learn from, you know, if you are trying to develop a drug to treat Alzheimer s disease, you are trying to develop a drug to impact learning and memory.
9
SPEAKER_01
which are core to intelligence.
9
SPEAKER_01
So it could well be that the so-called IQ pill will come from a pharmaceutical company trying to develop a drug for Alzheimer s disease.
9
SPEAKER_00
Because that s exactly what you re trying to do, right?
9
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, just like you said.
9
SPEAKER_01
Well, what will that drug do in a college student that doesn t have Alzheimer s disease?
9
SPEAKER_01
So I would encourage people who are interested in psychology, who are interested in science,
9
SPEAKER_01
to pursue a scientific career and address the big questions.
9
SPEAKER_01
And the most important thing I can tell you, if you re gonna be in kind of a research environment, is you gotta follow the data where the data take you.
9
SPEAKER_01
You can t decide in advance where you want the data to go.
9
SPEAKER_01
And if the data take you to places that you don t have the technical expertise to follow, like, you know, I would like
9
SPEAKER_01
to understand more about molecular biology, but I m not going to become a molecular biologist now, but I know people who are.
9
SPEAKER_01
And my job is to get them interested, to take their expertise into this direction.
9
SPEAKER_01
And it s not so easy, but.
9
SPEAKER_00
And if the data takes you to a place that s controversial, that s counterintuitive in this world, no.
9
SPEAKER_00
I would say it s probably a good idea to still push forward boldly.
9
SPEAKER_00
but to communicate the interpretation of the results with skill, with compassion, with a greater breadth of understanding of humanity, not just the science, of the impact of the results.
9
SPEAKER_01
One famous psychologist wrote about this issue, that somehow a balance has to be found between pursuing the science and communicating it with respect to people s sensitivities, the legitimate sensitivities.
9
SPEAKER_01
Somehow, he didn t say how.
9
SPEAKER_00
Somehow.
9
SPEAKER_00
Somehow.
9
SPEAKER_00
Every part of that sentence, somehow and balance is left up to the interpretation of the reader.
9
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask you, you said big questions, the biggest or one of the biggest.
9
SPEAKER_00
We already talked about consciousness and intelligence, one of the most fascinating, one of the biggest questions, but let s talk about the why.
9
SPEAKER_00
Why are we here?
9
SPEAKER_00
What s the meaning of life?
9
SPEAKER_01
Oh, I m not gonna tell you.
9
SPEAKER_00
You know, but you re not gonna tell me?
9
SPEAKER_00
This is very... I m gonna have to wait for your next book.
9
SPEAKER_01
The meaning of life, you know.
9
SPEAKER_01
We do the best we can to get through the day.
9
SPEAKER_01
And then there s just a finite number of the days.
9
SPEAKER_00
Are you afraid of the finiteness of it?
9
SPEAKER_01
I think about it more and more as I get older.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I do.
9
SPEAKER_01
And it s one of these human things that it is finite.
9
SPEAKER_01
We all know it.
9
SPEAKER_01
Most of us deny it and don t want to think about it.
9
SPEAKER_01
Sometimes you think about it in terms of estate planning.
9
SPEAKER_01
You try to do the rational thing.
9
SPEAKER_01
Sometimes it makes you work harder because you know your time is more and more limited and you want to get things done.
9
SPEAKER_01
I don t know where I am on that.
9
SPEAKER_01
It is just one of those things that s always in the back of my mind.
9
SPEAKER_01
And I don t think that s uncommon.
9
SPEAKER_00
was just like g-factor intelligence.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s a hard truth that s there.
9
SPEAKER_00
And sometimes you kind of walk past it and you don t want to look at it, but it s still there.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yes, you can t escape it.
9
SPEAKER_01
And think about the g-factor and intelligence is everybody
9
SPEAKER_01
knows this is true on a personal daily basis.
9
SPEAKER_01
Even if you think back to when you were in school, you know who the smart kids were.
9
SPEAKER_01
When you are on the phone talking to a customer service representative that in response to your detailed question is reading a script,
9
SPEAKER_01
back to you and you get furious at this.
9
SPEAKER_01
Have you ever called this person a moron or wanted to call this person a moron?
9
SPEAKER_01
You re not listening to me.
9
SPEAKER_01
Everybody has had the experience of dealing with people who they think are not at their level.
9
SPEAKER_01
It s just common because that s the way human beings are.
9
SPEAKER_01
That s the way life is.
9
SPEAKER_00
But we also have a poor estimation of our own intelligence, we have a poor, and we re not always a great, our judgment of human character of other people is not as good as a battery of tests.
9
SPEAKER_00
That s where bias comes in.
9
SPEAKER_00
That s where our history, our emotions, all of that comes in.
9
SPEAKER_00
People on the internet, there s such a thing as the internet, and people on the internet will call each other dumb all the time.
9
SPEAKER_00
You know, that s the worry here is that we give up on people.
9
SPEAKER_00
We put them in a bin just because of one interaction or some small number of interactions as if that s it, they re hopeless.
9
SPEAKER_00
That s just in their genetics.
9
SPEAKER_00
But I think no matter what the science here says, once again, that does not mean we should not have compassion for our fellow man.
9
SPEAKER_01
That s exactly what the science does say.
9
SPEAKER_01
It s not...
9
SPEAKER_01
opposite of what the science is.
9
SPEAKER_01
Everything I know about psychology, everything I ve learned about intelligence, everything points to the inexorable conclusion that you have to treat people as individuals respectfully and with compassion.
9
SPEAKER_01
Because through no fault of their own, some people are not as capable as others,
9
SPEAKER_01
and you want to turn a blind eye to it, you want to come up with theories about why that might be true, fine.
9
SPEAKER_01
I would like to fix some of it as best I can.
9
SPEAKER_00
And everybody is deserving of love.
9
SPEAKER_00
Richard, this is a good way to end it, I think.
9
SPEAKER_01
I m just getting warmed up here.
9
SPEAKER_01
I know.
9
SPEAKER_00
I know you can go for another many hours, but to respect your extremely valuable time, this was an amazing conversation.
9
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for the teaching company, the lectures you ve given with the Neuroscience of Intelligence, just the work you re doing.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s a difficult topic.
9
SPEAKER_00
is a topic that s controversial and sensitive to people, and to push forward boldly, and in that nuanced way, just thank you for everything you do.
9
SPEAKER_00
And thank you for asking the big questions of intelligence, of consciousness.
9
SPEAKER_01
Well, thank you for asking me.
9
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there s nothing like good conversation on these topics.
9
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Richard Heyer.
9
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
9
SPEAKER_00
And now, let me leave you with some words from Albert Einstein.
9
SPEAKER_00
It is not that I m so smart, but I stay with the questions much longer.
9
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.