Science Confirms Red Pill: 'Smart genes' account for 20% of intelligence

yahoo.com/news/smart-genes-account-20-intelligence-study-184838584.html

How will the so-called "science" loving liberals respond to this?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3721991/China-develop-genetically-enhanced-superhumans-experts-predict.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They can't

Liberals eternally BTFO

>there are many different kinds of intelligence
>true intelligence can't be measured
>you can't measure genius
>there is so much more to people than just intelligence
>but what about emotional intelligence?
>IQ is just a number

probably

Rumors say that the first Humans with the known intelligence genes fully activated have already been born, China loves genetic modification.

well, good genes dont matter much if you starve a child from infanthood, only allow them to drink soda, and put them in front of a screen playing finger family 24/7.

>Rumors say

stop

Rumors say they've engineered women who derive the greatest pleasure and satisfaction from deepthroating Chris-Chan.

Truly we are close to the City On The Hill.

>dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3721991/China-develop-genetically-enhanced-superhumans-experts-predict.html

If you lack (((morals))) you can do things others are scared to do.

>Scientists confirm 80% of intelligence NOT down to race or genes
>ZRHUMPH BTFO

That's how.

People might want to read the fine print: some genes had a positive correlation with autism and a negative relationship with intelligence. Of course, it's a group of some 50 genes, so there's a lot of latitude for where intelligence seems to come from in this study. Still, might explain this site a little bit

Key quote from article:

"For intelligence, there are thousands of genes," she said. "We have detected the 52 most important ones, but there will be a lot more."

So in other words, based on these 52 genes, we can put the genetic heritability of IQ at 20%, though as we unlock more of these genes, you can expect that number to go up.

You talk, but all I hear is
>CRUMPFT
>BTFO

Unless you read closer. Then you see that the other "80 %" was based around crystalized intelligence--i.e. all the shit you learn/are conscious of and can't be factored out of an intelligence test. Of course, such things are dependent on one's intelligence, which must be a factor independent of what is encountered--meaning the genetic component is the most critical contributing element of intelligence, versus other factors which can be seen as limiting or controlling factors.

You're seriously expecting leftists to "read close" to see "key points"? Are you fucking stupid or just plain stupid? However much your particular genes contribute to your intelligence it's a hell of a lot less than 20%

The proportion of these "genes" is likely to be different across ethnic groups

Cool, I just pretend after they tested it enough and ruled out mistakes, they'll just re-create the aryan race.

>yfw jews white genocide sucessfully but chinks revive those by genetic "enhancement" unintentionally

Is it actually considered a liberal position that genetics don't influence intelligence?

t. Shareblue

>20%
That's it?

Yes, especially since the data that we have on IQ show a difference of about one deviation between the average IQ of Whites and Blacks.

That child will still turn out much better than one in similar conditions with African genes, and he will be much less violent and still probably be able to figure out chess with practice instead of it being a permanent mystery

The article states that scientists have identified 52 smart genes, with many more to come. As more of these smart genes are identified, the heritability of IQ will likely go up as well.

As a lifelong leftist I've never encountered this but alright.

The validity of the bell curve is a separate topic entirely.

Most researchers admit to the basic premise of the Bell Curve.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns

Either you are very young scientist (less than 3 years old), or one in a very narrow field which has no involvement with biology.

Here's an extracirricular activity that would look great on your CV.

Disguise yourself as a homeless person and take a walk down to skid row in LA.

You'll see stereotypes that are more stereotypical than anything found int this board. You'll see blacks either suffering from untreated schizophrenia or blacks that CONSTANTLY try to fight over the dominance hierarchy. You'll see asians who feel bad for falling into the pit of cocaine addiction (I never saw an asian do any other type of drug than cocaine). You'll see white guys that run the gamut from white trash to truly tragic stories. You'll see a couple of native americans who suffer from the disease of alcoholism. They'll be moralized for it but it genuinely takes more time for them to process alcohol than most other races. Alcohol destroyed what little community they had left after being wiped out by the germs of farmers.

You can't be a lifelong leftist if you see the perversity and deranged incentives that keep people poor. I was a godamn trotskyist until I became homeless.

So are you a Strasserist now?

The problem with the bell curve is that it can't tell you anything about causes. Just because the mean of the curves is different does not imply that genetics is the cause of this.

Take for example a population in a 100% homogeneous environment. Use the heights of corn plants as an example. In this environment, 100% of the variation in height is due to genetics.

Now imagine you could put the same seeds into a 100% homogeneous environment that is less nutritious than the first. Still 100% of the variation in height is due to genetics, but the mean is lower.

The article says:

"Conversely, the absence of certain high-IQ genes was more common in people suffering from schizophrenia or obesity"

But Ashkenazi Jews have very high iq and are predisposed to schizophrenia, so they have the genes for schizophrenia. How can this be explained?

Because we still don't know shit about shit with respect to how genes affect a specific behavior. The genome is way too complex to conclude anything about subtle effects like that. The only genes we can isolate are the ones with huge effects on the organism. If a phenotype is due to a bunch of small combined effects then there's basically no hope of figuring out what caused it.

Someone predisposed towards developing schizophrenia doesn't necessarily mean that they will develop the disorder.

Nature vs nurture has always been a false dichotomy.

>But Ashkenazi Jews have very high iq and are predisposed to schizophrenia, so they have the genes for schizophrenia. How can this be explained?

Why do idiots think that there is a single gene for everything? In genetics it's more about probabilities i.e., having X gene increases chances of Y.

Trying to find a link to the study the article refers to. Anyone have it?

That's why they do adopted twin studies to account for different environmental influences.

The BEST studies we have right now to show much much intelligence is correlated to race based on genetics, shows a .8 correspondence.

Jews are a very unique case and are anomalous compared to the "average". These are average trends they're tracking. For instance they said higher IQ are able to kick tobacco easier, but I myself am a fairly high IQ person who probably has traces of autism but am heavily drawn to substances. coffee, cigarettes, weed (in my teens). Always used substances as a crutch

I'm also part Jewish though, so that could be part of the unique situation

>yahoo news
Oh, shit, that probably means you inherit about 80% of your intelligence.