Reminder that race realism is speculation, not science

Reminder that race realism is speculation, not science.

Other urls found in this thread:

ibc7.org/article/journal_v.php?sid=312
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence
archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/16/non-shared-environment-doesnt-just-mean-schools-and-peers/
gwern.net/iq
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19418213
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000706
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001221
bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872626
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286575/
youtube.com/watch?v=F0_NsS1Zdlk
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Bill Nye the science bitch

Hmm... Sure makes you think, doesn't it?

reminder that racism is materialistic as fuck and therefore bluepill

>disallow scientists to study race science
>dismiss it because there's no evidence

Leftist logic

Nobody disputes the IQ test averages, but saying these differences are based on genetics is speculative and not based on any direct evidence.

then what the fuck are they based on???

White supremacy

Genetics determines the colour of your skin and other physical attributes.

Race is a characteristic based off your skin colour and other physical attributes.

Therefore race is genetic.

What else can they be based on? Blacks are less inteligent no matter if they are rich or poor.

It really isn't.
Breed two dumb mice and you'll (very likely) get a dumb mouse.
Breed two smart mice and you'll (very likely) get a smart mouse.
This experiment has been done a million times in different ways, often with populations upward of 1000. The results are always the same.
Yeah, unfortunately even science isn't safe from political correctness.

Nobody knows. It could be cultural, or differences in socioeconomic status. It could be differences in average age between the races(IQ is not immutable). But the main point is there is no evidence that it is genetic and race realists need to stop pretending that there is that than anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with science, because that is not what the science says.

A lot of problems with IQ testing. But to answer your question, IQ tests are not truly unbiased towards people from different cultural and economic backgrounds. For example people from Shanghai china score a lot higher on IQ tests than people 100km away from Shanghai.

i.e. economics plays a role in IQ tests.

Also, its hard to say IQ actually relates to intelligence because there is no definition of intelligence. IQ is supposedly trying to test a specific type of intelligence.

Came here to post something to this effect

Science says testing differences between race is unethical if it puts one in a bad light.

>I wonder why there is no current testing on these subjects.

All the data points to it.
The Darwin Foundation used to fund many successful race related studies.
White supremacy is irrelevant and only used to silence people.
Black supremacy is given a pass.

only race that actually matters is the space race. We won, so Americans are better than any other nationality on the planet.

Reminder that Bill Nye is an engineer, not a scientist.

This argument is valid because since there is no evidence that differences in IQ is genetic, it does not follow that black people are genetically inferior in intelligence.

>speculative
Factor Analysis of Population Allele Frequencies as a Simple, Novel Method of Detecting Signals of Recent Polygenic Selection: The Example of Educational Attainment and IQ.

Two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) whose associations with intelligence seem to be robust because they have been replicated in several independent studies were chosen as representative of intelligence increasing alleles.

The first is rs236330, located within gene FNBP1L, whose significant association with general intelligence has been reported in two separate studies (Davies et al, 2011; Benyamin et al, 2013). This gene is strongly expressed in neurons, including. hippocampal neurons and developing brains, where it regulates neuronal morphology (Davies et al, 2011).

The second SNP is rs324650. It was included because its association with IQ has been replicated in four association studies (Comings et al, 2003; Dick et al, 2007; Gosso et al, 2006, 2007). This SNP is located in the gene CHRM2 (cholinergic receptor, muscarinic #2), which is involved in neuronal excitability, synaptic plasticity and feedback regulation of acetylcholine release.

East Asian populations (Japanese, Chinese) have the highest average frequency of beneficial alleles (39%), followed by Europeans (35.5%) and sub-Saharan Africans (16.4%).

ibc7.org/article/journal_v.php?sid=312

>Reminder that Bill Nye is a TV personality, not a scientist.

FTFY

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence
"Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 ... indicating genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences"
"Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence"
"That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment ... IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter"

Testing in and of itself is a cultural thing, and test-taking is a skill one learns and perfects.

Anyone who has taken an IQ test knows there are questions where you can rationalize that it's 2 or more or even all the answers make some "sense," in the context of the question.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence
"Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 ... indicating genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences"
"Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence"
"That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment ... IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter"

Not to mention a fucking kids tv show host on the marxist channel known as PBS

I used to watch PBS and listen to npr and honestly thought they were unbiased.

Then I got a job
Then I had to pay bills
Then I started studying
How wrong I was...

...

>Nobody disputes the IQ test averages, but saying these differences are based on genetics is speculative and not based on any direct evidence.
Design an environment that turns any Australoid, Hottentot or Igboo into the next Tesla. Then get back to us.

...

...

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence
"The spread of people along the IQ continuum ... can be represented well by the ... ‘normal curve'."
"Intelligence tests are not culturally biased"

...

>but saying these differences are based on genetics is speculative and not based on any direct evidence.

So your opinion is "really nobody knows why but I KNOW it's environmental?"

You do know there's research that has matched socioeconomic factors right? And that the results don't change.
You know that right?

...

...

...

>White supremacy is irrelevant and only used to silence people.
You can hold that one population group is different from another without being a "supremacist". "Supremacist" means someone who want to rule over others

>Supreme Court (are they considered "better or do they rule over lower courts?)
>Supreme Allied Commander
>distinction between air supremacy and air superiority

...

...

We got a common core kid here!

I'll assume the only IQ test you took were ones online

The real tests are all logic based.
Like you're given squares with different colored triangles or shapes on them and asked to build them into a picture

You're asked to complete logical statements

You're asked to find something that doesn't make sence in a logical statement


Asked to find which information is and isn't needed to solve a problem

None of it is biased
None of it deals with economics
The only reason rich people do better is because they had to be smart to get rich and they pass on their good genes to their kids who are now also smart.

idk why people even use IQ as a basis for anything. Intelligence has many different forms, such as: adaptability/learning, information processing, information recall, and probably other factors. for example, a high-functioning autistic person would have shitty adaptability, but excel in information processing and recollection.

Genetics depends on environment though.
The bad parts about these ststisticsl studies is thr methodology. Almost all.of them are >implications at best

Speculation that you'd have to be a fool to believe otherwise. Inductive reasoning is a thing. Does evolution just not apply to Humans? IQ is chiefly genetic if only genetic you may be able to improve your score on an IQ test, but that's the fault of the test. The more words you know the more likely to unscramble anagrams.

I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm saying nobody does. And this whole idea of "scientists actually do know but they are afraid to say" is moving beyond speculation into conspiracy theory.

That purple candle shit was so retarded.

That's not actual science thats just being lazy and not actually looking for truth. Newton's law of physics were thought to be true for over 200 years and every physical experiment coincided with his equations. It took Einstein to say Newtonian physics is not the actual reality of the universe.

Fucking this, a guy who knows his shit. Except "muh feelz fags" mostly ignore this stuff

Goddamn, I can't stand you anti-science PC faggots. Here is just one example of your regressive ideology halting scientific progress:

>archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all

>By the mid-1990s prominent academics and sociologists even went so far as to say that race did not exist at all.

>"Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification," said an editorial in the May 3, 2001 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, adding that "In medicine, there is only one race -- the human race."

>Then, along comes Frudakis with a science that seems to be saying the opposite.

I discussed this with an American guy and he said it was down to systematic oppression, I asked why it applies to blacks in UK, Europe, Japan, China, South America and of course Africa. He didn't have an answer to that....

people in shanghai score higher because people with high intelligence move there to work, you fucking retard. Shouldn't be that hard to figure out unless you have a low IQ.
also wrong retard, current scientific consensus has the genetic component at a 60-70%, being dominant over the cultural components. Taking your shitty argument even further, seeing as it's a consensus there is also no evidence that the IQ gap is caused by cultural differences or differences in socioeconomic status; the probability connection would be even lower than the genetic one, you low IQ retard.

Sorry there's massive evidence pointing that IQ is accurate and proxy for raw intelligence, that's why mainstream scientific community agrees that intelligence is mostly genetic.

Hey Everybody! We found the scientist! LOL

It's a conspiracy theory to say that in 2016 it'd be career and social suicide to come out and blatantly say that race is real and IQ's vary by race?

Just look at what happened to that one guy who made a joke about female lab workers crying too much. It was actually a self deprecating joke about himself and they still nailed him to the wall over it.

This is supposed to be the 'alt right' ?

LOL

Sounds like some crap sub on Reddit

Something so obvious isn't deserving of discussion. The obvious is obvious and the proof confronts every minute of every day

Science relies on grants and tenure

Science has become a prostitute

Even the mainstream media admits regularly that less than 15% of 'scientific theory' stands up to scrutiny

Science can be used, like statistics, to 'prove' anything you like

So rely on experience and observation

and stop being cucked by fake science and those with agendas

>Even the mainstream media admits regularly that less than 15% of 'scientific theory' stands up to scrutiny

Someone doesn't know what "theory" means.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Really fucking makes me think

If he is a "scientist" then it's probably the "gender "scientist"" or "african studies "scientist" " variant.

Get a bone marrow transplant from a negro, I'll pay for the procedure if I get to film the few weeks after the surgery.

>unfortunately even science isn't safe from political correctness.
That's been the case for a long, long time. Speaking out about the differences of the races is career suicide even if there's no ill intent.

not true at all. go read and educate yourself before opening your mouth

there's research and clear evidence that IQ is 50~80% genetic

It's amazing how much research gets silenced because it's not politically correct.

>economics plays a role in IQ tests.

It must be fascinating to be this naive about the world. You have to be dumb as a rock to think the causation runs wealth -> IQ and not IQ -> wealth. There's a reason the Arab oil states are rich as fuck yet their native population scores similar to other Arab populations on intelligence tests. There's a reason why Vietnam, ethnically fairly similar to Chinese, scores high as fuck despite being relatively poor. If North Korea was tested on the PISA, TIMMS, etc, their scores would be a tremendous outlier due to their East Asian genetic potential.

There is literally SO MUCH data that points to one answer, yet idiots do the most insane mental gymnastics to get the opposite

>speculation

Haha. If you send me a drop of blood i can tell you exactly what race/races you are.

OP BTFO

The American Psychology Association published many papers debunking The Bell Curve.

Regarding Murray and Herrnstein's claims about racial differences and genetics, the APA task force stated:

There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation...It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.

Regarding statements about other explanations for racial differences, the APA task force stated [emphasis added]:

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.

It's speculative science, like anthropogenic climate change.

Finally someone said it
>muh IQ test is rassis against low income school kids

Im surprised you know of this. Biology masters?

It'd be career suicide because the conclusion that race realists come to is not a scientific one, so any scientist who published a paper with the same conclusion would just be revealing their own racism and confirmation bias.

It really is telling that race realists have to use this conspiracy argument, which is far weaker than the speculative argument, which is already weak and indefensible.

That's why the g factor used. Turns out it is heavily correlated with IQ and, since the latter is easier to measure, it is preferred.

You realize there's tremendous political pressure on these groups to come out against this line of thinking right? There's been a bunch of times where people have done mass anonymous surveys of psychologists where they pretty much admit that IQ is genetic but they're afraid to say so publicly because it ends their careers. These surveys have been published in major journals.

Anyway, we'll know in 20 years who's right. The Chinese are starting to do this kind of research and they don't give a flying fuck about political correctness.

But remember: it's literally a statistical impossibility for every ethnic group in the world to have exactly the same median potential IQ. The default scenario is that IQ varies across ethnic groups the same as other characteristics like height, lean body mass, etc, etc

IQ is both environmental and genetic. On the genetic side, you must further subdivide into hereditary sources and pure random ones. The order of importance on IQ seems to go like this:
pure random genetics > hereditary > environmental

Never mind drawing conclusions, scientists can't even hypothesize without being castigated, which is what happened to James Watson.

Posting the sources would strengthen your argument.

>psychology
There is also not much direct evidence of cultural influences - You cherrypicking publications with clear agenda isn't proving anything, see , , , you biased retard.

Except "environment" is just normally used as a catch-all by people for any unexplained variance

Read

slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/16/non-shared-environment-doesnt-just-mean-schools-and-peers/

>it's all a conspiracy maaan they have an agenda

Literally not an argument

Imagine the reaction if tomorrow it were announced that niggers had lower IQs than whites

Of course the elites are going to prohibit studies on the subject, it would be chaos

>is not a scientific one
it's funny how pseudoscientists always try to redefine science-related terms. The conclusion that IQ has cultural components is just as scientific as the conclusion that it has genetic components, and the current scientific consensus has the genetic components dominating - no matter how many articles by biased psychologists (heavily left-leaning field) you cite, this doesn't change the consensus defined by biology.

Funny, isn't it? Turns out the pseudoscientists that denounce empirical data are the ones that use non-scientific means.

t. scientist, throw away your burger-flipping social "science" degree and accept the facts, little buddyboyo.

Yep sorry, Sneiderman/Rothman is the most famous example

Again, this shit will be blown wide open in like 20 years once the Chinese scientists start doing the research en masse. They don't give a fuck about political correctness

Lee Kuan Yew, the founder and former PM of Singapore, and possibly the GOATest leader of all time said:

>I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that's the most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each other, developed independently, had different intermixtures between races, peoples, climates, soils... I didn't start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I've come to.

Reminder - scientific observations that show Earth orbiting The Sun are nothing more than speculation.

There is more.
Earth is flat.

Is that Mike Brown?

He also said:

>I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not want to offend the Muslim community... I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration – friends, inter-marriages and so on – than Muslims... I would say, today, we can integrate all religions and races, except Islam.

The man was literally the greatest leader ever, he took a backwater port and turned it into one of the richest countries in the world in less than 50 years by ruling over with the complete opposite of Western-style "feels first" policies. I can't recommend reading "Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas" more.

>the current scientific consensus has the genetic components dominating

[citation needed]

>no matter how many articles by biased psychologists (heavily left-leaning field)

So defending your position requires a negation of psychology entirely as a field of study, and the findings of the largest scientific organization of psychologists in the US. Neat.

None of this suffices, however. As I've pointed out, we have moved far beyond speculation into conspiracy, with no direct evidence to even support the former. This is just sad.

When it comes to studies on IQ, environment usually does mean parents, peers, income, opportunities in education, the culture of the social circle (this is operationalized in some way), etc.

However, there will always be some degree of confounding, like skin color. That's a way people, claiming institutionalized racism explains everything, can dismiss genetic influences, especially since there are studies in psychology that confirm that reminding people that they belong to disadvantaged groups can have detrimental effects on performance. The effects are very small, though, and they usually ignore that and just say they are (statistically) significant.

A Lee Kuan Yew like leader in the US or Europe would be a gift from God. Still, do note he's very far from the Sup Forums meme of ethnic nationalism. He was an authoritarian centrist democrat who was a civic/cultural nationalist

But race is a social construct.

I'll tell you what IS an argument for you being a shitposter: you ignoring the brazilibro's links/data.

It's all there - go through it. We've got time.

Here's a good summary of the research

gwern.net/iq

IQ is highly, highly, highly, highly heritable. I know that makes you uncomfortable, but it's true

If East Asians are genetically superior, how do you explain Amerindians? Aren't they from East Asia?

>rs324650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19418213

Nah bro

Only pure lunatics and fanatics can ignore the fact that genetic determines basic qualities of our body. Somehow ideologically handicapped morons are able to deny effects of genetics on your brain-tissue.
Yes, brain-tissue is the engine running our consciousness. It can be slower, it can be faster and have other differences in qualities too.

If someone is trying to deny effects of genetics on our intellectual abilities - hit her/him with this and it does wonders.

>Bill Nye
>Science

Pop science is nowhere near real science. Saying "The sun is bright" is not the same as quantifying the brightness of the sun. Pop science faggots like Nye exist to spout facts and make people feel like they know things about the world. They improve peoples self esteem and make much bux doing it.

While improvement of self esteem is all well and good, pop sci actually works to dumb down the population. Knowing science facts while not knowing science process serves to mythologize the facts. When you take a fact on faith you actively undermine science. Science is about evidence not facts, and because of pop sci shit no one understands this anymore. True science is a rare and endangered species. Even at the Ph.D. level you can succeed by just following what your peers tell you to do instead of truly understanding.

The heritability of IQ does nothing to imply that some races are objectively more intelligent than others. For example, if I had an IQ of 100, and so does my father, and his father, etc, there is nothing in that data that suggests that as a family, our IQ is the way it is because we come from this part of the world, or that part of the world, or our skin color is this color, or that color. In other words, your argument is logically invalid because the premises do not support the conclusion.

What I can say is that multiple researchers on several different occasions who are in adjacent social science/behavioral science fields have shared with me that they believe this type of work to be toxic to careers and they stay the hell away from it as a result. They believe that it is likely that, if they did study closer to this area, either the fact of asking those questions or some set of results they would be likely to find could garner attention which would lead to very bad professional outcomes.
There's a lot of research that relies on certain assumptions or comes to certain conclusions that get attacked when they are in the context of race/intelligence debates but pretty much left alone the farther you are from those. Like, you can do a study where you look at what's predictive of job outcomes, you can include something that gets at cognitive ability, and you can look at whether there's underprediction or overprediction by race. And there isn't going to be pressure to fire you over it and journalists aren't going to write screeds about how race and cognitive ability aren't real. But if you're in that kind of position, you're probably going to avoid...well, drawing too much attention to this. When other researchers get criticized for making the same assumptions in their research that you make in yours, you're keeping your head down and not coming to their defense.

He's taking about not being equal to you, gwei-lo.

>evolution stops
>natural selection leads to human defined "better"

Wew laddie

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000706

(2013) Edward Dutton and Richard Lynn conclude that Finland has suffered a negative Flynn Effect between the years of 1997 and 2009 in all IQ metrics.

These results are in contrast to the gain Finland accrued between 1988 and 1997. The likely cause is the massively increased importation of migrants from other races, ethnicities, and cultures within that time period coupled with a slackening of mate selection criterion and racial endogamy. These findings are in-line with the consensus that outbreeding reduces IQ and the importation of migrants preempts that happening.

The manifestation of dysgenics in Finland supports IQ heritability, differences between races, and opposes the Flynn Effect and miscegenation propaganda in the same manner.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001221

(2015) Michael Woodley and Curtis Dunkel conclude that France has suffered a 4-point drop in IQ scores in the decade between 1999 and 2008-9 during a period of mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa in particular.

Their conclusions are as follows

• Dutton and Lynn have identified a 4 point decline in French IQ.
• Dysgenics and replacement migration are causes.
• French IQ losses are found to be associated with the Jensen effect (ρ = .833).
• A common factor of g loadings and 3 biological variables loads on the loss-vector.
• This supports biological causation.

bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

(2012) Das-Munshi, et. al., conclude that ethnic diversity leads to more psychotic episodes and more social conflict.

pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

(2010) Douglas Massey concludes that human ethnocentrism is driven biologically and it is a natural, healthy phenomenon. This is indicated by increases in oxytocin when acting ethnocentrically and decreases when acting in a humanitarian manner to other races. He further concludes that oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and derogation of the out-group.

ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

(2012) Alvarez and Levy begin their study by stating their assumption that ethnic diversity will lead to gains in health for African and Mexican Americans and conclude their study by showing that it leads to a degradation in general health of African-Americans, an increase in health in White Hispanics, and a decrease in health in non-White Hispanics. The rates of heart disease and cancer are heightened for all races studied in more ethnically diverse communities.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

(2012) Vogel, Monesson, and Scott conclude that infants develop ethnocentrism naturally as a means to help their survival and nurture their growth. Babies demonstrate this ethnocentrism before exposure to other races.

www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

(2003) Axelrod and Hammond conclude that ethnocentrism is natural, universal, and likely acquiesced as an evolutionary safeguard response.

curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

(2015) Dinesen et. al., conclude that being within 80 metres of an individual of another ethnicity or race reduces social trust and creates feelings of unease. This is concluded to be a natural evolutionary response to the out-group.

psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

(1976) Sandra Scarr and Richard Weinberg conclude that Black children raised in wealthy White homes show better intellectual performance in their youth than Black children raised in Black homes. This supports the idea of youth malleability in the area of intelligence.

The White children in wealthy White homes performed even better in an amount matching the Black-White gap that can be seen in tests of IQ and academic performance outside of this experiment.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872626

(1983) Sandra Scarr and Richard Weinberg conclude their experiment from the 1970s by testing the children again as adults.

Regardless of youth results, both races regressed to their respective racial means. The White-Black gap still existed and was not reduced.

These findings show that IQ malleability in youth exists, but it levels off as individuals age and subsequently regress to their racial means. These results further prove that there is a genetically heritable component to IQ and that there is an innate difference between different racial groups in this arena

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286575/

(2015) Shakeshaft et al., analyze 360.000 sibling pairs, 9.000 twin pairs, and 3.000.000 18-year-olds in order to determine the heritability of IQ and its relation to genetic factors.

They conclude that IQ is, "familial, heritable, and caused by the same genetic and environmental factors responsible for the normal distribution of intelligence." They show that high-intelligence is, "a good candidate for, 'positive genetics,'" and conclude that there is a positive end to the distribution of intelligence as it is.

They show that there is no support for the Discontinuity Hypothesis that IQ is the result of environment or that mental illness is the result of something besides genetics.

In total, they conclude that IQ is extremely heritable (85% or more), genetic, polygenic, and does not arise from environmental factors but instead merely interacts with them. They show that people with exceptionally high IQs also tend to have other positive traits and very few negative genetic factors or expressed traits. They conclude IQ has almost no relation to de novo mutations, i.e., new mutations in DNA and that it nearly always matches what is heritable. They show that mental illness does not arise from environmental factors either and must arise from genetic factors and their interaction with the environment. These conclusions lend more credence to both Dual-Inheritance and the Continuity Hypothesis of IQs and Mental Illness.

If it is possible for one person to be measurable genetically and thus physically different from another, and it is possible for one person to be more closely related to another, at what point in abstraction does this stop?

>I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm saying nobody does
And you're wrong, sorry
Ignorance is not a virtue.

When adopted kids have an 80% correlation with their biological parent's IQ and a 0% correlation with their adoptive parent's IQ, it really takes a lot of mental gymnastics to say "eh, we can't reeeeeeally be sure"

It's just like Evangelicals saying "eh you can't reeeeeeally be sure there's not a creator of some sort right? So let's just assume that it's the God of the Bible."

youtube.com/watch?v=F0_NsS1Zdlk

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/

(2009) Rushton & Ankney analyze data from various studies of over 1.000.000 individuals and confirm that there is a positive correlation between brain size and IQ. Larger skulls have larger brains on average and larger brains have higher IQs on average.

They conclude that this phenomenon is likely primarily genetic and as socioeconomic conditions reach a certain level the effects of nutrition on this narrow down and genetic gaps thus become more visible and exposed.
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

(2005) Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen (author of, "The g Factor") conclude that IQ is the greatest indicator of future success in Western societies when inter-generational income dependence is accounted for.

They also found that IQ is at least 50% heritable and likely nearer to 80% heritable. To draw comparison, height is 70-90% heritable.

During their analysis they concluded that Whites have a minimum of 75% IQ heritability.

thanks for playing, old man

Please read my post here Do you disagree that genetics determines how we look? Both outside and inside.
How can you disagree that one organ inside us - The Brain - is not determined by genetics?

Do you have brain?