I hate when low IQ retards try to disprove scientific theories

[CupOfCoffee]

Agreed religious cucks are coping machines

 

[Harold O'brien]

He is smarter. Way smarter than you. Making observed phenotypic differences go away is something that genetics can't do.

these group differences can be adequately explained by environmental factors

jumping straight to the conclusion of genetics playing a significant role is unscientific and suggests underlying emotional reasoning

 

[metagross]

these group differences can be adequately explained by environmental factors

jumping straight to the conclusion of genetics playing a significant role is unscientific and suggests underlying emotional reasoning

No, they can not.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. If, on average, the people having kids are dumber than the average, the population gradually gets dumber. It's Selection. Breeder's equation.

 

[Harold O'brien]

No, they can not.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. If, on average, the people having kids are dumber than the average, the population gradually gets dumber. It's Selection. Breeder's equation.

Ok but you do not have any evidence for this occuring in human populations. You have no way of knowing that what you are observing is not environmental differences

And yes, they can. I I know more about this than you. Read wicherts

ps I looked into the breeders equation and it is for artificial selection with limitations when applied to natural populations so that was a great way to convince me you don't know what you're talking about

 

[BigJimsWornOutTires]

Fuck physics and biology, what do you think about that? Would you care to share your thoughts about that? But tbh, I don't give a fuck what you have to say about that. Now, what do you think about THAT?

 

[metagross]

Ok but you do not have any evidence for this occuring in human populations. You have no way of knowing that what you are observing is not environmental differences

You have plenty of evidence. You are just too stupid to look at it.
It is _already_ known that educational attainment and income are highly heritable. However, finding specific genes linked to cognitive and behavioral traits has been difficult. This is primarily because most traits are polygenic. Hence, figuring out what alleles are linked to what behaviors against the backdrop of the tens of thousands of genes in the genome—and the many more variants of such—is by no means an easy task - but also not impossible. So this has been done actually.

Of course we do see differences in intelligence, substantial ones. Everyone knows this.

 

[Harold O'brien]

You have plenty of evidence. You are just too stupid to look at it.
It is _already_ known that educational attainment and income are highly heritable. However, finding specific genes linked to cognitive and behavioral traits has been difficult. This is primarily because most traits are polygenic. Hence, figuring out what alleles are linked to what behaviors against the backdrop of the tens of thousands of genes in the genome—and the many more variants of such—is by no means an easy task - but also not impossible. So this has been done actually.

Of course we do see differences in intelligence, substantial ones. Everyone knows this.

Heritability is just a statistic btw it is impossible to entangle the environmental component from the genetic one

Regardless intelligence being hereditary doesn't say anything about mean group differences. There is more genetic variation within human races than between them.

No one is denying the results of iq tests einstein, but we have no reason to believe these differences arise from genetics

In general you seem like the type of guy who read a few abstracts from Lynn and rushton papers (or read a compilation of these some other retard made) and thinks he is some contemporary race and intelligence researcher lmao

 

[Gonthar]

Do ur own research

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

Nice strawman

I still encourage doing your own research, and dont agree with that article

 

[Gonthar]

Nice strawman

I still encourage doing your own research, and dont agree with that article

Please show me how exactly you "do your own research" for something like vaccines for example...

 

[metagross]

Heritability is just a statistic btw it is impossible to entangle the environmental component from the genetic one

Regardless intelligence being hereditary doesn't say anything about mean group differences. There is more genetic variation within human races than between them.

No one is denying the results of iq tests einstein, but we have no reason to believe these differences arise from genetics

In general you seem like the type of guy who read a few abstracts from Lynn and rushton papers (or read a compilation of these some other retard made) and thinks he is some contemporary race and intelligence researcher lmao

Nope.
Also the old Lewontin stuff you say there - observed Fst isn't big enough for populations to be really different - also implies that coyotes aren't really different from wolves. But they are.

In addition: Average cranial capacity , and brain size, varies between existing groups. By more than a standard deviation.

Nobody's been able to identify environmental factors that explain the big within-country between-group differences in IQ.
That is because it's EXTREMELY unlikely that this is 100% environmental.
Say, we have 0.8 h^2w and 0.0 h^2b then we would need an environmental difference of 2.2 SD within the same country.

Completely ridiculous. Microaggressions won't cut it

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

Please show me how exactly you "do your own research" for something like vaccines for example...

I dont do my own research.

I trust research studies. Therefore i dont see a point in taking the vaccines.

What im saying is that you shouldnt just claim all research you dont agree with to be fake without backing up your claims. If you want logical ground to stand on, you need to back up your claims.

I honestly dont what your point is. It seems to me that you believe science is some elitist cult which only a select few people control.

Which couldnt be firther from the truth. The point of science is that its objective and non discriminatory and everyone can participate.

But obviously not everyone can fund large research studies which cost a lot of money and resources, which is why we "must trust the experts". Because its too hard to do independently.

But if you had the resources, you could fund your very own studies independently and no one could stop you.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Nope.
Also the old Lewontin stuff you say there - observed Fst isn't big enough for populations to be really different - also implies that coyotes aren't really different from wolves. But they are.

In addition: Average cranial capacity , and brain size, varies between existing groups. By more than a standard deviation.

Nobody's been able to identify environmental factors that explain the big within-country between-group differences in IQ.
That is because it's EXTREMELY unlikely that this is 100% environmental.
Say, we have 0.8 h^2w and 0.0 h^2b then we would need an environmental difference of 2.2 SD within the same country.

View attachment 1503161

Completely ridiculous. Microaggressions won't cut it

read: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/4175964/46967_Wicherts.pdf

it's very long but worthwhile

the main points are:

african iq is roughly the same as european iq was in the early 1900s and they are at a similar stage of economic development. we are already beginning to observe increases in africa iq as their economies pick up and there is no reason to think this trend will discontinue

african americans have a significant white admixture yet there measured iq is scarcely higher than pure africans. this strongly suggests that environmental factors are at play here and that the impact of genetics is non-significant

 

[Gonthar]

I dont do my own research.

I trust research studies. Therefore i dont see a point in taking the vaccines.

Huh???

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

Huh???

Low iq

 

[metagross]

read: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/4175964/46967_Wicherts.pdf

it's very long but worthwhile

the main points are:

african iq is roughly the same as european iq was in the early 1900s and they are at a similar stage of economic development. we are already beginning to observe increases in africa iq as their economies pick up and there is no reason to think this trend will discontinue

african americans have a significant white admixture yet there measured iq is scarcely higher than pure africans. this strongly suggests that environmental factors are at play here and that the impact of genetics is non-significant

European IQ in the early 1900s was around 100.
Especially g-loaded intelligence doesn't really increase.
Flynn effect gains were not on G.

The reason that Witcherts found something different than Lynn, is because Witcherts had different samples. - Rindermann tested a group in Nigeria with "above average education" and their average was 89. Wicherts has estimated 82, while Rindermann felt 75 was more accurate which reflects issues with nutrition and education.
Basically, do you test people only in elite universities or in poor villages aswell? Witcherts thought that testing people who were severely ill etc was unfair. Lynn's counterargument to this was, that this also is a part of africa and therefore it does count. But Lynn has a lower estimate than Rindermann and Witcherts and puts the Sub-Saharan average at 70. Lynn makes some weird corrections and arrives at below 70, but his data shows 70.

I find Rindermann's paper most convincing.

 

[Gonthar]

Low iq

What are these "research studies" that made you not see the point in vaccines?

 

[Harold O'brien]

European IQ in the early 1900s was around 100.
Especially g-loaded intelligence doesn't really increase.
Flynn effect gains were not on G.

The reason that Witcherts found something different than Lynn, is because Witcherts had different samples. - Rindermann tested a group in Nigeria with "above average education" and their average was 89. Wicherts has estimated 82, while Rindermann felt 75 was more accurate which reflects issues with nutrition and education.
Basically, do you test people only in elite universities or in poor villages aswell? Witcherts thought that testing people who were severely ill etc was unfair. Lynn's counterargument to this was, that this also is a part of africa and therefore it does count. But Lynn has a lower estimate than Rindermann and Witcherts and puts the Sub-Saharan average at 70. Lynn makes some weird corrections and arrives at below 70, but his data shows 70.

I find Rindermann's paper most convincing.

this is painfully wrong, like I said read the paper

 

[metagross]

this is painfully wrong, like I said read the paper

Nope.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Nope.

beta psychometrics mogs alpha psychometrics

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

What are these "research studies" that made you not see the point in vaccines?

The ones saying natural immunity works (Ive already had corona)

 

[Gonthar]

The ones saying natural immunity works (Ive already had corona)

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

Youre unironically retarded.

Youre turning this in to an argument which has nothing to do with the original discussion just so you can win.

Kys