pol can't even prove IQ is 100% genetical.
Pol can't even prove IQ is 100% genetical
Thomas Butler
Other urls found in this thread:
libgen.io
intelligence.martinsewell.com
youtube.com
thealternativehypothesis.org
s3.amazonaws.com
en.wikipedia.org
unz.com
psycnet.apa.org
emilkirkegaard.dk
vimeo.com
philipperushton.net
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
iapsych.com
theguardian.com
twitter.com
Isaac Cooper
Culture affects iq, not genetics
Ethan Powell
because it isnt
Christian James
>pol can't even prove IQ is 100% genetical.
Sup Forums never said it is so why should we prove this?
Owen Rodriguez
hard to measure something you can't technically define.
what is intelligence?
Dylan Baker
hard to measure something you can't technically define.
What is time?
Ayden Reed
IQ is 75-80% heritable, like almost everything else about you. Genes aren't perfectly deterministic but close enough that heuristics like "black people are more violent impulsive" are useful.
Cameron Brown
Widely accepted definition of intelligence:
Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings, “catching on,” “ making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.
intelligence.martinsewell.com
inb4not rigerous enough. Fine throw away the word intelligence and let's talk about general mental ability as defined by jensen:
youtube.com
Heritability is environment and population specific. There were probably many times in european history where the variance in Intelligence was much more due to environmental difference than they are now. We have gotten quite good a providing good enough environments to almost everybody so heritibility is very high now in developed countries.
IQ is one of the most heritable traits. Personality traits usually are much less heritable.
Christian Nguyen
>implying anyone claimed that it was 100% genetical
It's at least 80% genetics
Josiah Rogers
Trips speak Truth.
If you read any study about the inheritance of intelligence, it is much more determined by genetics than nurture.
Obviously there can be small variances, but overall settled.
Different studies will have different ways of measuring it. Such as ability to solve spatial problems, logic, etc.
I encourage you to go through a few articles to learn about it.
Jacob Cook
>Econometrically
What does that even mean? Pls source your shit.
Levi Edwards
> Implying that culture isn't heavily influenced by genetics and just an outgrowth of a population's genetic mean
Thomas Phillips
of course it isn't
Robert Hernandez
both do
Nathan Rivera
The only thing that affects IQ is spanking.
Michael Miller
IQ and g aren't perfect isomorphic mappings of "intelligence" but they conform to the general idea of the definition well enough in how they manifest in people tested for them, i.e. people who score high on the metrics do what you would expect intelligent people to do much moreso than people who score low, that is invent, not have bastard children, hold less retarded beliefs, not commit crime, make more money, etc.
Hunter Cook
What would melanin have to do with the brain?
Anthony Cox
Depends on what you define as personality traits I guess. IIRC political ideology is extremely heritable, about as much as IQ, though I'm not sure that would be considered a personality trait. How exactly would you define a personality trait as distinguishable from a general behavioral trait?
John Reyes
>>genetical
genius
Wyatt Powell
Pretty much this. You can't inherit iq.
So the whole muh whiteness = high iq is rubbish.
Jeremiah Smith
Bullshit and you know it
Christopher Foster
Brody Lopez
Note that even personality psychologists won't agree 100%. Some even think traits don't exist. There are different ways to look at personality such as Trait Theory, Humanism, Existentialism, etc.
If we go by the trait theory approach though, The Big Five is generally the most popular to go by.
Behaviours stem from traits. Behavioural traits are kind of like what you might do on a day to day basis, personality trait is why you will do it.
Alexander Reed
>Sup Forums can't even prove IQ is 100% genetic
That's because it's not, it's probably more like 50%
Cooper Lee
Yes, intelligence is one of the more heritable traits, but I've also seen this 75-80% heritable figure thrown around, when actually it means that 75-80% of the variance in twin studies is attributed to inheritance. It's a subtle distinction, but it's an important one. Robert Sapolsky, an ethologist at Stanford has a great way of explaining it by postulating two example twin studies.
Say you run a twin study to determine whether number of fingers a person has is more environmental or genetic. Since most variance in number of fingers a person has is due to traumatic accidents, you might conclude that environmental factors play a larger role in determining number of fingers, although really, genetics plays an obvious role in this.
Conversely, say you run an absurd twin study at particular points in European history when only men wore hats and women did not, and you check to see if hat-wearing behaviour is environmental or genetic. You'd find that all the variance in hat-wearing behaviour is attributable to genes, namely to whether or not you have a Y chromosome or not. Of course, in reality, hat-wearing behaviour is entirely a cultural phenomenon.
This is not to say that the 75-80% heritability of intelligence is not a valid measure, it's just that you have to take into account the conditions in which the twin studies were performed.
Really, you should say that, within 20th century Western nations, and America in particular, 75-80% of the variability in intelligence in twin studies can be attributed to genetic influences.
I would wager that if we were ethically allowed to conduct twin studies across cultures and in areas with vastly different HDI's than Western nations, we'd find a much larger variance attributable to environmental factors. Even if your parents are geniuses, if you somehow end up in Sub-Saharan Africa, with poor prenatal care, poor nutrition, and high parasite burden, you'll probably be dumb.
Dominic Ortiz
> with poor prenatal care, poor nutrition, and high parasite burden, you'll probably be dumb
Only works to a certain extent. Srinivasa Ramanujan says hi
Colton Bell
I don't know that much about personality psychology. But I was talking about the big 5. I checked again and some recent studies even show relatively high narrow sense heritability (.5 to 0.7). So I might have been mistaken to some degree. As always shared environment doesn't influence shit and gene-enviroment interaction isn't as important as non-experts tend to believe.
Henry Evans
Trackibg adopted children proves you're wrong.
The adopted have a correlation in IQ with bio parents. Nurture only moves a few measely points if you read to them and early schooling.
Ethan Torres
>genetical
You just did it for me thanks
Dylan Bennett
>pol can't even prove IQ is 100% genetical.
I don't think they have to. Even using the most liberal way that we can we can "judge people by their actions" and see all the niggerosity. I doubt people with higher IQs would burn down their own neighborhoods for attention.
Gavin Morgan
The problem is that it's not clear that there are strong differences in mean genotypic intelligence. For one, the Flynn effect is a demonstration that even amongst industrialized Western societies, mean IQ has continued to rise over the past century, on average about 3 IQ points per decade. It's not clear that we can extrapolate further back in time, but if we could, one could say that sub-Saharan Africans are as intelligent now as Europeans were 100 years ago.
If environmental factors were clearly so important in the rise of European IQ, then it would not be surprising that they would be important for the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans either. There are clear detrimental effects upon IQ of factors such as poor prenatal healthcare, malnutrition, and diseases such as malaria and soil transmitted helminths. Such diseases alone can account for much of the former IQ differences between northern and southern USA.
The other problem is that even within seemingly homogenous populations, if you break it down into subpopulations, you find pretty large differences in mean performance as well. See pic, though it's not IQ, but rather performance on the GCSE. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of large scale studies on IQ that break down races by subgroup and cultural background.
Still, groups like the Ibos of Nigeria perform at levels similar to that of Indians and Chinese people, while Congolese people perform poorly. Obviously, these are immigrant groups, so they represent a highly selected sample of people from their home countries, but so far it doesn't seem that regression to their genotypic means is happening. We'll have a clearer picture in future generations.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were genotypic differences in IQ between different ethnicities, but so far, I see no convincing evidence that these differences are large ones that cannot be accounted for by environmental and cultural factors.
Luis Stewart
en.wikipedia.org
What about this?
Brandon Morris
What the fuck is happening? Is CTR back?
And a quick Google search would reveal to you fucktards that IQ is 50/50 nature nurture minimum.
Jaxon Phillips
>Say you run a twin study to determine whether number of fingers a person has is more environmental or genetic. Since most variance in number of fingers a person has is due to traumatic accidents, you might conclude that environmental factors play a larger role in determining number of fingers, although really, genetics plays an obvious role in this.
This is an misunderstanding. Heritability is always about !differences! within a specific population. If you compare humans you will find almost all of the variance in the number of fingers is due to environment but if you expand the population definition to include other types of animals the heritability of this measure will rise. Thus the difference in the number of fingers within humans is mostly due to enviirmental factors, the differnce between humans and "some animal with a normal phenotype of 3 fingers" however is almost all due to genetic variation. No contradiction here. Just a basic as fuck missunderstanding.
>Conversely, say you run an absurd twin study at particular points in European history when only men wore hats and women did not, and you check to see if hat-wearing behaviour is environmental or genetic. You'd find that all the variance in hat-wearing behaviour is attributable to genes, namely to whether or not you have a Y chromosome or not. Of course, in reality, hat-wearing behaviour is entirely a cultural phenomenon.
This is another issue enterily. It's called gen-enviroment correlation. And behavioral geneticist know about this and no evidence for it has been found when it comes to intelligence.
>This is not to say that the 75-80% heritability of intelligence is not a valid measure, it's just that you have to take into account the conditions in which the twin studies were performed.
True. it's limited to developed countries.
You should read this book, it deals with most of your missconceptions:
Chase Long
Not actually familiar with that person, but it's very possible that some of his arguments have influenced my own.
Any factor only works to a certain extent. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if there were genotypic differences in IQ because we've all evolved in different environments and it seems unlikely that we'd all end up exactly the same. Yet, at the same time, I don't really see any convincing evidence that differences in mean genotypic intelligence are large, or that current differences in mean phenotypic intelligence can't be largely attributed to environmental and cultural factors. I actually wish research into the subject weren't so taboo because ironically, I believe that the taboo has only crystallized the results of old research and that more contemporary research might show greater convergence of intelligence.
Grayson Richardson
I wouldn't dispute anything you said, it's also important to note though that for many groups that Britain's migration policy is extremely selective about receiving educated individuals. I was going to mention that the Nigerian sample is probably inflated by the Igbo but you ninja'd me, but oh well. It's fair to assume that given Africa's level of intercontinental genetic diversity that there are rather massive differences between different tribes when compared to the differences between European ethnic groups. The Igbo are a very high-IQ group outlier from virtually every other black African group and I don't think anybody has any idea why the hell that is.
unz.com
Charles Russell
Yeah, they're purpose fatuous examples just to demonstrate what attributable variance actually signifies. The point is that they're obvious misunderstandings which undermine the validity of the results, which are otherwise accurate in the technical sense.
That's a very interesting study and the fact that there's interracial convergence of IQ is especially convincing that genotypic IQ is a valid concept. Still, the authors themselves note that there are many confounding variables at play. In fact, the same authors have one study in which they looked at black orphans raised by white families and they had an average IQ of 106, higher than the mean for white Americans.
psycnet.apa.org
During both WWI and WWII, the US Army tested their soldiers. It was found that soldiers who had immigrated from Russia, Poland, and Italy performed as poorly as American negroes, and as most of these immigrants were Jewish, Carl Brigham (creator of the SAT) actually said that this disproved the idea of superior Jewish intelligence. He was forced to eat his words when intelligence tests a generation later, as Jews climbed the socioeconomic ladder in America, demonstrated IQ scores above the national mean.
When you look at the relative difference between American whites and American blacks (~IQ points), it is comparable to the differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in Israel, or Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. There were also clear regional differences in the states by which the average IQ of a northern black was similar to the average IQ of a southern white.
Owen Morris
>The problem is that it's not clear that there are strong differences in mean genotypic intelligence.
Direct evidence is hard to come by if you just start to find the genes responsible due to the large number of genes involved and the small effect of individual genes. But we already can explain 20% of the h^2 of educational attainment (highly related to IQ). But for the genes that have been found to explain variance in intelligence within populations, they also tend to vary in distribution between populations in the pattern that would be expected with a hereditarian view on IQ difference between groups.
emilkirkegaard.dk
You seem to have very little faith in the power of traditional behavioral genetic methods. And I'm not quite sure why.
>I wouldn't be surprised if there were genotypic differences in IQ between different ethnicities, but so far, I see no convincing evidence that these differences are large ones that cannot be accounted for by environmental and cultural factors.
National differences have much more confounders. You can make a very strong case for high heritability of racial differences within the US using Jensens argument of the risng constrains high within population heritability puts on environmental explanations of the gap. This argument is explained in Chapter 4 of
Angel Cox
I meant to write
>When you look at the relative difference between American whites and American blacks (~15 IQ points)
Yes, but the same can be seen in the same GCSE data for differences between Irish people in general and Irish travellers who perform worse than blacks. The more data we have on performance between smaller ethnic subgroups, I think the more apparent it will be that racial IQ means are not a particularly meaningful measure, especially for sub-Saharan Africans, given their enormous genetic diversity.
Grayson Rodriguez
>Yeah, they're purpose fatuous examples just to demonstrate what attributable variance actually signifies. The point is that they're obvious misunderstandings which undermine the validity of the results, which are otherwise accurate in the technical sense.
I don't see how anything you wrote is actually relevant for discrediting the hereditarian position on IQ difference (individual and group) within developed nations. Jensen was perfectly aware of all of this and I fail to see how stating these obvious facts attacks any of his arguments.
Michael Smith
>During both WWI and WWII, the US Army tested their soldiers. It was found that soldiers who had immigrated from Russia, Poland, and Italy performed as poorly as American negroes, and as most of these immigrants were Jewish, Carl Brigham (creator of the SAT) actually said that this disproved the idea of superior Jewish intelligence.
Pls cite the study. I don't think it exists tbqh.
Kevin Bailey
I probably put less stock into traditional behavioral genetics than you do, but not because I don't think they obtain accurate results, but because I'm not sure how applicable or valid they are considering the complex nature of a trait such as intelligence. Genes respond to environment and vice-versa, and not simply due to epigenetics and changes in the transcriptome, but even in terms of a population genetics.
For example, intelligence is not without it's tradeoffs as the brain is a very costly organ in terms of the energy required to maintain it. I would hypothesize that as a society improves upon it's nutrition, it is also more able to select for alleles that boost intelligence but also increase caloric requirements.
I'm very familiar with Arthur Jensen, but I haven't actually read the book you posted earlier. I might check that out at some point. Personally, I've been reading Thomas Sowell's trilogy Race and Culture, Migration and Culture, and Conquest and Culture recently and he makes a persuasive argument for the importance of internal cultural factors. Especially it seems to have more explanative power for why there are large differences in performance even within one ethnicity in one country which become especially apparent as they emigrate to other countries.
Jose Bennett
Why doesn't the Flynn Effect actually close any gaps between groups or races generally but actually increases the gaps if anything, even if the IQs of both groups increase, it seems like the higher IQ group's IQ increases by more given time, is there any research into that?
Leo Richardson
Sure, I'm lifting that statement from Thomas Sowell's "Race and Culture" p.168, and he cites Carl Brigham's "A Study of American Intelligence". pp 80, 121.
I believe the full text is available online.
Oliver King
He isn't a psychologist or anything, he was a poor-as-hell Indian born in the late 1800s living in a small backwater farming village without any access to modern utilities or anything that didn't even have access to a good library. He went onto independently teach himself mathematics and by the time he was 14 had independently proven numerous mathematical theorems proven by Europeans going back to the early 1700s. G.H. Hardy, a Cambridge Mathematician, had overheard stories of him before and went to visit him and was so impressed with his ability that he took him to Cambridge where he got a Ph.D. Hardy described him as the greatest mathematician he had ever seen and thought that he would be the greatest mathematician of his generation until he died 2 years later of a sickness he got in England. Despite coming from a terrible environment and having virtually no formal training in pure mathematics he made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions.
Josiah Baker
Ah nice I understand what you were trying to say now. I don't doubt that there are exceptions, but they're all the more notable for being exceptions. I suspect he was remarkable not just for his intelligence but for his initiative, curiosity and resilience. Not only that but he had the fortune of being sought out and discovered by a Cambridge Mathematician.
Ain't it a fucking shame he wasn't born to a wealthy Western family? What might he have accomplished if given even a middle class upbringing? I often wonder how many geniuses are lost because they weren't born in the right circumstances.
Gabriel Gray
by that logic it would be a permanently degrading feature of humans and high IQ faggots came out of nowhere
Aiden Parker
That's a very good point, and if IQ continues to diverge in such a manner, would provide very convincing evidence of strong genetic differences. There are some people who say that the Flynn effect is coming to an end in the West, so time will tell.
I believe that cultural attitudes toward abstract thinking play a large role in IQ. The Russian neuropsychologist Alexander Luria did some very interesting work in Uzbekistan as the Soviet Union was starting literacy campaigns there. He tested illiterate Uzbeki peasants and he showed that they had a peculiarly non-abstract mode of thinking. Here's an excerpt of a film based on that work where you can get an idea of what I mean.
The Uzbeki peasants are shown a hammer, an axe, a saw, and a log and are asked to determine which object does not belong. The reasoning they use show a firmly entrenched mode of thinking that relies far more on function than abstraction. This is exactly the sort of test that forms the basis of IQ tests as well.
Anthony Cooper
Thanks, it's unusual to get more than a google it. I think Rushton asserts in a review of the book (and others) that the tested groups were actually a feeble minded group and that this was stated in the original publication by Goddard but I'm not entirly sure because he discusses the use of Brigham as a source for this only in passing as far as i can tell. But I just skimmed thought and it's a scan so I can't search.
philipperushton.net
Well pre-ww2 IQ testing results is a blind spot for me so I can't really say much about this.
Blake Moore
IQ means nothing. Seriously, have you ever met a mensa fag? They have nothing to offer. In fact, anyone I've ever met who calls themselves a 'genius' has been a total fucking idiot.
Parker King
I mean it's an exceptional case and sure he may have done better had he been in a better environment, but the fact that virtually every single person in the Western world is brought up in an environment magnitudes better than he was and yet virtually none of them have anything even close to his abstract intellectual ability says something about how much of the intellect is plainly down to genetics and random chance mostly outside of the effect of a whole lot else
Ethan Hall
Satoshi Kanazawa's book, "The intelligence paradox" shows that IQ is 80% heritable and environment plays a rather small part.
Asher Bell
>IQ means nothing. Seriously, have you ever met a mensa fag?
Have you ever taken an IQ test? It does measure something of value that can distinguish capabilities between two different people. I took one ten years ago and what I remember was a series of a puzzle and questions which tested your ability to integrate different sources of information and produce a solution while under time pressure.
High IQ means you have a higher likelihood of finding good solutions faster than low IQ people.
>In fact, anyone I've ever met who calls themselves a 'genius' has been a total fucking idiot.
Geniuses don't call themselves geniuses. The people you've met are good at book learning which anyone can achieve given enough time.
Nicholas Sanchez
I don't think we disagree. I have no doubts that genetics play a large part in intelligence. How intelligent a person ends up though, is pretty clearly a strong mix of many factors.
I will say that potential intelligence, if such a concept is meaningful, probably comes down largely to genetics and prenatal development (much of which is random chance, much of which is determined by environment and the mother's genetics). However, it seems to me that random chance probably plays a larger role than racial differences.
Here's another example. In 1998, North America experienced a very severe series of storms that particularly affected Quebec, causing weeks and up to months of time spent with no electricity. A fascinating series of studies called Project Ice Storm has been performed upon Quebecois women who happened to be pregnant during this stressful period.
The effects of prenatal exposure to stress due to that ice storm has been a full standard deviation drop in IQ scores by the age of 5 and a half.
Camden Jenkins
Ok skimmed through Brigham a bit and the difference between some of immigrant groups you mentioned and the blacks seem to be pretty small indeed. His discussion of jewish iq seems brief and only slightly dismissive, he acknowledges that his data isn't that good to estimated jewish iq.
There are probably language issues etc. but it's at least an interesting empirical reference that doesn't seem to be total made up crap which is the default for people in the environmental camp. Thanks leaf
Nolan Collins
Yeah, if you get a chance, try reading Race and Culture by Thomas Sowell. He isn't a hereditarian, but he's not your typical liberal environmentalist, in that he pretty completely rejects the idea that a groups performance has to do with how that group is treated by the rest of society. Instead, he argues that performance is largely driven by internal cultural factors.
He's a black conservative, and an economist by trade. He also has some interesting passages where he looks at multiculturalism through a very transactional and economic lens.
Chase Robinson
German sociologist Georg Oesterdiekhoff used Piaget's stages of cognitive development to explain cultural difference in thinking style (historical and current) because research shows that the higher stages are usually never reached by people living in less developed nations. This seems to be highly related to Flynns view on the flynn effect (abstract style reasoning becomes more dominant which raises IQ) and yours as well.
Landon Watson
Found an english paper by him on this:
iapsych.com
I've added it to my reading list. I have no problem with environmentalists as long as they take the arguments by hereditarians seriously and don't strawmen and caricature them to death while shouting "racist pseudoscience". Flynn is an example of honorable environmentalist and he seems to argue quite similarly to Sowell in his newest book which promptly got him a somewhat negative review in the guardian.
theguardian.com
Carson Foster
Yeah I know what you mean. It's an unfortunate consequence of the fact that Hitler used hereditary arguments to justify atrocity, so it has become vilified by association.
In general, much of liberal thought and morality is clinging to the idea that people must be identical in order to be treated equally and there is this fear that if you demonstrate that people are not the same, then it can only justify more atrocities. Really though, whether or not people are the same is an empirical matter while whether or not people should be treated the same is an ethical matter. They don't see that tying the two together places the ethical foundations of equal treatment on potentially shaky empirical grounds.
Ultimately, it should be clear that everyone deserves to be treated equally before the law and accorded similar respect, even if it turns out that groups have different averages. Similarly, I believe that you can judge an individual far more accurately with a short conversation than you can with racial pigeonholes.