Do genes partially play role in intelligence (most reliably measured with IQ score) among populations, or is it purely environmental/cultural?
If Australian aboriginals lived in the same cultural environment as say, the Japanese, would they grow to be as smart as the Japanese?
Other urls found in this thread:
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
en.wikipedia.org
nature.com
biorxiv.org
psychology.jrank.org
abc102.wordpress.com
newrepublic.com
sciencedirect.com
mdpi.com
twitter.com
it's half and half
If Aboriginals lived in the same cultural environment AND shared the same culture as Japanese, then they would be somewhat less intelligent, but after a few generations, that disparity would ebb away.
Your genes determine your max intelligence and your environment determines how deep you can dig into that potential.
yeah, take a look at Albania, they're the worst country in Europe also borderline retarded
>a greek retard completely misunderstands the question
But they're genetically you.
It's mostly genetic according to twin studies.
...
If the twins were both raised in first world countries, it's not the best test of how much intelligence is effected by the environment.
>Your genes determine your max intelligence
that is some videogame-tier logic
your genes have nothing to do with your intelligence but with your ability to learn (ie faster or slower)
you can have ADHD, two dumb parents and a family history of people who never achieved anything and still be one day the most intelligent Belgian that ever lived. It's not likely simply because of the chances of growing up an idiot being higher because your parents are idiots too. Environment is pretty much everything. If instead you were adopted by an intelligent or rich French family, you'd no longer be a Belgian idiot.
yeah, like that movie What's wrong with Gilbert Grape, they're our little brother
Well, intelligence is somewhat of an ambiguous term. Many people associate intelligence with ability to learn fast or have quick insight.
And it's not all environmental, everyone had that kid in class with extremely quick wits.
SJW tier
>tfw 100IQ bros with netherlands, switzerland and finland
>tfw too smart to be this poor
>No gene has been linked to intelligence.
Yes , just look at spain and norway, they both have the same score and spain is more niggerish than norway and more mixed race, Race doesnt mean shit , if the niggers in the USA were rich for generation they and their offspring would have a higher IQ
you can even see this in indians from india with average IQ of 80 and 2nd gen indians with an IQ average of 110. a 30 point difference with just better nutrition and better life quality
The most educated and wealthy Indians immigrate to the US. We get the cream of the crop, not the average Poo.
Anyways the richest nigs are still dumber thwn the richest whites. See minnesota transracial adoption study.
>lewobtins fallacy
Actually a lot of poor as fuck Indians still perform well in the Us or India.
I always wondered if no gene for inteligence exists, then how did humans evolve to be this intelligent. If every generation started from blank.
For the last time, that study ONLY controlled for the HOME ENVIRONMENT. It did show a significant rise in the black IQ because of that one factor.
>Anyways the richest nigs are still dumber thwn the richest whites. See minnesota transracial adoption study.
Probably because those aren't owners of big companies or engineers, those rich nigga's are people like lil wayne, young thug and the likes. So no surprise.
>spain is more niggerish than norway
maybe like 0,000001% more, obviously that doesn't mean shit
well it's true
The environmental explanations for this are the Flynn Effect which does not occur on g (thus flynn effect gains on IQ tests do not mean nigs are actually getting smarter)
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
And because group differences on IQ correlate extremely strongly with g-loadings.
The second was the stereotype threat which was proven to have massive issues with replication and suffering from massive publication bias.
Citation for this. Indians have the highest median income in the US.
There was still a significant gap you tard, which increased even more when the children reached 17. This is consistent with the hereditarian position that genes play the smallest role during childhood and the biggest during adulthood. As the gap was lowest during childhood but increased during early adulthood. See pic.
You've also had two studies where severely malnourished koren and vietnamese children were adopted by white families who still ended up scoring higher than their white children and the US white mean as they were tested during childhood and then adulthood. Clark et al 1982, Winick 1975, and Frydman 1989.
Why ate you posting articles we can't have full access to and no concluding statements?
But the environmental position also predicts that the IQ gap would grow as children become adults. Studies have shown that blacks with lighter skin have higher IQs, but blacks with more European ancestry do not, which means that how people are treated based on their skin color could effect IQ. IE: people don't encourage black students to try as hard in school and stuff. Younger children have been less exposed to environmental factors outside of the home environment, so their IQs would be closer to that of if they were raised under an ideal environment.
Those studies really matter little on the grand scale. Looking at the history of black americans makes nobody raise an eyebrow on why they're scoring lower, also who's to say those psychologists didn't have a political agenda in a very racist america where everyone puts a tremendous emphasis on race?
Those studies are always american, never seen this done anywhere else so it'd be best to take them with a grain of salt if you have a critical mind.
No genes have been identified for height either. It's a consensus that height is extremely hereditary. Red herring pham.
>what are sat scores
Ayy.
Because Sup Forumstards create these huge pastas/link spam and then share them, and people just assume they're right and save them without even opening the links.
>be albanian
>be stupid
>what are sat scores
Why are you bringing up sat scores? I know they're correlated with iq scores but I wasn't denying anything? Are you stupid?
>why are you posting studies you have no full access to
Because I can't access them as they are behind a paywall. Like almost every other study except the ones lucky enough where you can find a pdf.
No it doesn't. The view that genes play the smallest role in IQ and the biggest during adulthood does.
The Stereotype Threat was proven to be bunk as it had massive issues with replication and suffered from massive publication bias.
en.wikipedia.org
>MUH RAAAAAYCIIST RESEARCHERS
Yes, they are all racist. Fuck you leftists are retarded.
Sat is all about grinding and how much money your patents and schools have.
Nice way to show off your confirmation bias. Americans are really fucking retarded.
Intelligence is highly genetic, almost entirely actually since ideal conditions can raise IQ only a set amount while genetics offers an upper ceiling in the stars.
Personality matters as well since people certain personality types can do much more with their intelligence than others with less useful personality traits.
You made the implication that every rich white person is an owner of a big company when this isn't even true in the vast majority of cases. And that most of rich blacks are rich because of entertainment their parents produce.
>And that most of rich blacks are rich because of entertainment their parents produce.
This isn't true as opposed to white people?
And again, you see the same thing with height as genes affecting height have the smallest role during childhood and the biggest during adulthood.
You're the only one that brought up the stereotype threat. It's almost like you have these arguments so memorized you're depending on me to argue specific points for you to counter because controlling what I say makes it easier for you to argue against me...
How do you explain that blacks with lighter skin have higher IQs, but ones with more European ancestry don't compared to another black of the same skin color if the IQ is primarily genetic?
>MUH RAAYYYCIIIST
Yeah I recognize you. You can't keep calm and just resort to insults after a few replies. Bye.
Prove that these researchers have hidden agendas.
You didn't even try to prove this. Citation needed.
Blacks having lighter skin scoring have higher IQs
Citation to study?
forgot maymay arrows
biorxiv.org
>Using ~20 000 individuals in the Generation Scotland family cohort genotyped for ~520 000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we exploit the high levels of linkage disequilibrium (LD) found in members of the same family to quantify the total effect of genetic variants that are not tagged in GWASs of unrelated individuals. In our models, genetic variants in low LD with genotyped SNPs explain over half of the genetic variance in intelligence, education, and neuroticism. By capturing these additional genetic effects our models closely approximate the heritability estimates from twin studies for intelligence and education, but not for neuroticism and extraversion. From an evolutionary genetic perspective, a substantial contribution of genetic variants that are not common within the population to individual differences in intelligence, education, and neuroticism is consistent with mutation-selection balance.
>Prove that these researchers have hidden agendas.
You can't prove they don't have any either.
>You didn't even try to prove this. Citation needed.
Now you're being delusional, look at the list of the richest black americans and compare it to the list of the richest white americans. Almost all of the black people work in the entertainment industry.
It's also pretty obvious black people are less educated so you will see much less black people who became upper middle class due to being engineers or doctors.
>you can't prove either
You are throwing baseless accusations. Burden of proof is on you.
>now you are being delusional look at the list of richest blacks almost all of them work in the entertainment industry see blacks are less educated as a result
You are unaware of the fact that when black babies are raised in a rich white household they score lower than the adopteees rich white children during childhood and then early adulthood. The gap increases as they become adults, this is consistent with genes play the smaller role during childhood and the biggest during adulthood.
USA has an obvious history of putting strong emphasis on race. That's a pretty good base if you ask me.
About the adoptee, wasn't that like just a single study and if I recall correctly the researchers themselves said the study was all but conclusive due to many factors such as the black kids having adjustment problems.
Interpretation is just that, interpretation.
Because skin color correlates poorly to IQ in the first place. This isn't a study and you didn't link to any studies in the first place.
abc102.wordpress.com
>Below is a list of studies to date, published and unpublished, on skin color and IQ. The N-weighted correlation at 0.15 (N= 3694).
>Herskovits (1926)/r=0.17/n=115
>Klineberg (1928)/r=0.12/n=139
>Peterson and Lanier (1929)/r=0.18/n=83
>Peterson and Lanier (1929)/r=0.3/n=75
>Scarr et al. (1977)/r=0.155/n=288
>Lynn (2002)/r=0.17/n=430
>NLSY97 (unpublished)/r=0.12/1433
>ADD Health (unpublished)/r=0.17/n=1131
>And the average Cohen’s d between the upper and lower 4rths of the spectrum is about 0.5 n = >6,000.
>Feguson (1919)/d= about 0.7/n=657
>Feguson (1919)/d= about .9 SD/n=667
>Kock and Simmons (1926)/d= about 0.15/n=1078
>Klineberg (1928)/d= about 0.15/n=200
>Young (1929)/ d= about 0.8 and 0.33/n=277
>Peterson and Lanier (1929)/d = about 0.66/n=83
>Peterson and Lanier (1929)/d= about 0.2 SD/m=83
>Bruce (1940)/d=about 0.25/n=72
>Codwell (1947)/d= about 0.33/n=480
>Lynn (2002)/d= about 0.5/n=430
So what about Belgium?
>A study by Frydman and Lynn (1989) examined 19 Korean infants adopted
by families in Belgium.
>At about 10 years of age, their mean IQ was 119, the
verbal IQ was 111, and the performance IQ was 124.
>Neither the social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child
spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child’s IQ.
>You are unaware of the fact that when black babies are raised in a rich white household they score lower than the adopteees rich white children during childhood and then early adulthood.
Because pre-natal health on top of whatever stuff the mother did with the baby before they kid was up for adoption.
>Frydman and Lynn
Those aren't very Belgian names, now are they?
>all those studies from the early 1900s and Richard Lynn (who doesn't engage in peer review)
Really makes me think
>prenatal health
Yet black father, white mother mixed-race children still scored six points lower at age 6 and then 10 points lower close to a standard deviation at age 17 during early adulthood.
Did you miss the fact about malnourished asian babies still scoring higher than the white means and the adoptees white children during childhood and adulthood? I cited studies for this.
>study was conducted looking at belgian data
lmao
That's up to you to prove that skin color correlates significantly with IQ. You just gave me a blog link without any studies cited.
Supposedly mostly genes unless you have an absolute terrible upbringing, like malnourishment
>A study conducted by americans who produced the data
You really are fucking retarded. It's not as if the data was already there in Belgium. Your being white or whatever has no value because your stupidity is below subhuman.
Are you fucking retarded? They examined Belgian data.
source?
You only have personal attacks. It's really pathetic desu
...And you responded with a blog that uses eugenics era "studies" and Richard Lynn, who doesn't peer review.
How did you miss the citations at the bottom of the page?
And you have no arguments.
Personal attacks aren't arguments.
>murican reading comprehension
Did I imply this?
Because the brain is an extremely malleable and trainable organ. We aren't talking about an organ working automatically like pancreas or liver.
Of course plays, in another case try hire a gorilla as a waiter, but in live of major parts of beings of the Earth, intelligence not much important. For example an waiter with low IQ and with high IQ will receive same wage.
>flynn effect
Does not occur on g. The rises in IQ scores due to the Flynn effect do not mean blacks are becoming more intelligent.
newrepublic.com
>Does the rise in IQ scores over the past century mean people are getting smarter? Since the beginning of the twentieth century, IQ scores around the world have been increasing at a rate of around three points per decade, leaving intelligence researchers puzzling over whether historical gains in IQ—known as the “Flynn effect”—reflect an increase in general intelligence or something else, be it better education, better nutrition or even bigger brains. A new paper published in the journal Learning and Individual Differences (2014) may have the answer: We’re getting better at taking tests.
Paper is here
sciencedirect.com
Independently replicated here and here
sciencedirect.com
And which of the citations have you provided that prove that skin color is strongly correlated to IQ?
>but in live of major parts of beings of the Earth, intelligence not much important.
That's total bullshit though. the case that the environment in one place makes people smarter in history then elsewhere has been poked with holes thousands of times.
STOP POSTING STUDIES WE CAN'T READ AND HAVE NO CONCLUSION TO THE RESEARCHES RESULTS TO AT LEAST SKIM OFF OF. ABSTRACTS ARE NOT ENOUGH AT ALL IT'S LITERALLY READING A NOVEL'S BOOK SUMMARY.
Bravo, Estonia!
Abstracts are the best you have when you don't have access to the full pdfs m8
Cuck.
not an argument, fuck off
>Albania
What the shit?
Belgium, you had human zoos with blacks in them through the 1950s, and you were the single most brutal and lethal of all European powers in Africa. You've got no right to throw stones.
They probably do, but culture and education seem to be a more relevant factor.
Not according to twin studies
Islam, pretty much
Genes*
>Cousins
>.15
Therefore population genetics are not that important, it's more of a familiar factor
Did one of the twins grow up in Congo, and the other one in Norway? I don't think they made such studies
Not sure if trolling or just genuinely retarded