Race Realism Is Not Bullshit (Response to @holy’s Post)

[Archimedes]

also the fact that you responded TWICE to a single post of mine shows again that I hit a raw spot indeed. I can read you like an open book you subhuman incel. I am playing your feelings like a violin.

Also lol at this cumskin now begging black gangbangers for backup against other ethnics. Pigskin cuck needs BBC reenforcement to fight his battles. I thought your hyperborean aryan faustian spirit would be enough to eviscerate billions of shitskins with a single punch huh?

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @Chadeep @TheBiggestIncelEver

Jfl at doublepost because you're arguing with me via a hot potato.

Calling black people BBCs is a bit gay, huh? Do you regularly think about black dick? Is this a concern over in the afghani slums?

 

[LegitTheory]

I don’t dismiss any legit research, I just don't blindly trust everything in academia. If academics say valid stuff imma agree. This may come as a shock to you, but you can actually reason from first principles and check studies for their methodology instead of doing character assasinations like women do.

Multiple scientists from academia already eviscerated Pfiffer, Kirgegaard, Rushton etc and the like. As i said it would like citing a flat earther who publishes his work on pseudoscientific journals.

 

[Archimedes]

if so why dont you go to the ethnic muslim neighborhood of your city and try to mog some ethnics there. Im sure you will make headlines with your head stabbed multiple times by the local kurd, afghan, paki, somalien gangbangers.

The fact that you are threathening me physically on an anonymous online forum tells me that I truly hit a raw nerve. Just face it subhuman: there will never ever be a day of the rope. There will never be a racial white awakening. You will be replaced and there is nothing you subhuman incel turd will ever be able to do about.

This is a blackpill forum. Not a bluepilled stormcuck safespace.

"brown people have no honor and will jump and stab you in the back" No shit, gayboy.

 

[LegitTheory]

"brown people have no honor and will jump and stab you in the back" No shit, gayboy.

skill issue. keep coping subhuman

 

[widdi]

Multiple scientists from academia already eviscerated Pfiffer, Kirgegaard, Rushton etc and the like. As i said it would like citing a flat earther who publishes his work on pseudoscientific journals.

send a refuation and we can go over it

 

[Archimedes]

skill issue. keep coping subhuman

You got assraped every response. Have fun talking about BBCs, brown rape gangs, how Muslims will jump you and stab you in the back, and whatever else. Clearly you're the true Storm front cel... I can't compete

 

[LegitTheory]

send a refuation and we can go over it

google is your friend. no one academia takes Pfiffer and his buttbuddy Emil Kirkegaard serious. Literally no one. this is easy to look up with a simple google search. I know you wish that would be the case but it isnt. Plenty of researchers who post on twitter have already destroyed that nerd as well on other platforms completely shredding his papers to shreds.

the thing is: you already have your preconcieved notion so no matter what i send, you will question it even though you yourself have 0 academic expertise. The fact that you have send a paper by Pfiffer tells me already everything I need to know. But I get it. Its 'forbidden' science and thats why Jew controlled academia just doesnt respect Pfiffer and Emil Kirkegaards papers. And thats why they have to publish their works on their own pseudoscientific journal. Its a conspirarcy!!

OpenPsych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[widdi]

google is your friend. no one academia takes Pfiffer and his buttbuddy Emil Kirkegaard serious. Literally no one. this is easy to look up with a simple google search. I know you wish that would be the case but it isnt. Plenty of researchers who post on twitter have already destroyed that nerd as well on other platforms completely shredding his papers to shreds.

the thing is: you already have your preconcieved notion so no matter what i send, you will question it even though you yourself have 0 academic expertise. The fact that you have send a paper by Pfiffer tells me already everything I need to know. But I get it. Its 'forbidden' science and thats why Jew controlled academia just doesnt respect Pfiffer and Emil Kirkegaards papers. And thats why they have to publish their works on their own pseudoscientific journal. Its a conspirarcy!!

OpenPsych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It shouldn't be this hard to link at least 1 peer reviewed paper that proves that the Black White IQ gap is fully environmental. I mean if its the mainstream position in academia there should be a ton of papers right?

 

[LegitTheory]

It shouldn't be this hard to link at least 1 peer reviewed paper that proves that the Black White IQ gap is fully environmental. I mean if its the mainstream position in academia there should be a ton of papers right?

IQ tests only portray a social reality not a biological. Psychology is a social science just like gender studies. A soft science. Not a hard science. Unlike natural sciences like genetics or biology which are needed to prove intelligence differences.

Its also low IQ to compare populations who live in vastly different socioeconomic environments. And nope twin studies dont prove shit since they dont control for epigenetics and prenatal and the short window of postnatal environemnt. And whole bunch of other confounding factors.

 

[widdi]

IQ tests only portray a social reality not a biological. Psychology is a social science just like gender studies. A soft science. Not a hard science. Unlike natural sciences like genetics or biology which are needed to prove intelligence differences.

Its also low IQ to compare populations who live in vastly different socioeconomic environments. And nope twin studies dont prove shit since they dont control for epigenetics and prenatal and the short window of postnatal environemnt. And whole bunch of other confounding factors.

Twin studies do control for epigenetic effects, they're modeled as C already in the ACE model. We can infer prenatal effects via looking at monozygotic twins that share/do not share a placenta. Also, if you don't believe in social science, you are going against academic consensus after being super agro about me doing the same thing.

 

[Lord Shadow]

@XiaoXiao thoughts?

 

[XiaoXiao]

The post by @holy that this post responds to:

"Racial realism" Is Fucking Delusional

Let's start with straight facts: These racist fucks love citing "race and IQ" studies without understanding basic population genetics. The entire concept of distinct biological races is scientifically bankrupt. There's more genetic diversity between two random African villages than between...

looksmax.org

I agree with most of OP’s points. The facts he brought up are true. But the conclusion that race realism is bullshit doesn’t follow from the facts.

In other words, I agree with his evidence but not his conclusion.

For instance:



There being more variation within ethnic groups than between ethnic groups doesn’t contradict race realism!

Analogy: Female humans generally have higher body fat percentages than male humans. There is also more variance in body fat percentage within the sexes than between them.



There need not be biologically distinct racial categories for race realism to be legit.

We agree that traits like nose shape and skin tone are continuously variable across geography, evolved due to climate and sunlight levels.

Can’t intelligence be such a continuously varying trait?

---

Most Important:

@holy and I have different definitions of what race realism is.

What @holy calls race realism, is the subset of race realism that leans towards actual racism. Chronically online guys in fringe communities obsessed with racial purity, the Jews, etc.

What about the variety of race realism that’s closer to the mainstream view of race than to Nazi-tier racism. Simply acknowledging that humans with different ethnic ancestry, on average, have advantages and disadvantages. For example, West Africans are advantaged in power sports because of the “sprinter gene”, myostatin deficiency, and longer limbs in relation to their torsos. This qualifies as race realism in my view.

Why is it race realism? Because it stands in contrast against the bluepilled, soy “race optimism” that’s so prevalent nowadays. The belief that absolutely zero biological racial differences exist. The attribution of every measured difference between ethnic population groups entirely to social factors. “Race optimism” isn’t backed up by science and is more faith-based than evidence-based. I’d go as far as calling @holy himself a race realist, for him citing studies and history already places him in a category separate from the equality-copers.

See, the issue with both Stormfront racist-cels and bluepill equality-copers is that they start with the conclusion and look for evidence to back it up. Whereas race realism is all about starting from the evidence and believing the truth that it unveils. Maybe the truth is that IQ doesn’t differ genetically between races. Maybe the truth is that it does. But whatever the evidence says, is what we shall believe, even if the truth hurts our feelings. This is race realism.

My opinion on race and IQ is I don’t know the answer. Inconclusive. There’s a ton of contradictory evidence out there.

There’s a study that shows the Black-White IQ gap doesn’t disappear when children are adopted by parents of the other race. There’s a study that shows IQ is correlated with head size in children which is correlated with race. There’s a study that shows there still is a Black-White IQ difference even when adjusting for socioeconomic status. Other evidence, however, states the contrary about Black and White IQ in the United States. There’s a study that shows Japanese IQ is higher than White IQ. But that study was debunked by another study that showed no difference. The previous study’s samples were biased: the Japanese sample was disproportionately urban. There’s a popular map of the average IQ of countries around the world. China’s IQ is 105 according to it. But other evidence shows that the average Chinese IQ is LOWER than the average European IQ. And IQ testing itself is culturally relative; culture determines what sorts of test questions test-takers would find familiar (and thus easier to solve).

Do races differ in mean fluid intelligence at the genetic level? I don’t know. But even this answer is a race realist take! Admitting that we don’t yet know the answer is a form of race realism imo. Because the mainstream, socially accepted, politically correct take is to assert that we do know the answer and the answer is that average IQ is uniformly distributed around the globe. We don’t know this. To say that we do is a conclusion clouded by faith, not one based on realism. Merely saying that a genetic racial difference of IQ is A POSSIBILITY is already controversial enough to place you in the category of race realism. Race realism isn’t White supremacy. It ain’t about being absolutely sure that one race is better than another and dying on the hill. Race realism actually is about letting go of preconceived notions about race (both positive and negative) and taking a purely scientific approach. Race realism sometimes is admitting that we don’t know enough to be sure about all the details of human genetic diversity.

You present a whole lot of ideas that on the surface seem reasonable, in respect to genetic diversity in Africa and even acknowledging group differences. But here's the thing: the mere fact that we observe variation within groups does not provide justification for making a jump to conclusions regarding race and intelligence, or race realism, as some would claim it.

Let's take your analogy about body fat. Of course, there is more variance within the sexes than between them, but that does not justify saying, "Hey, let's claim body fat differences are the result of some biological gender essentialism that influences social outcomes." The same logic applies to race and intelligence-you can't just cherry pick variations in traits and then say, "This proves a genetic basis for intelligence differences."

But on your whole "race realism" angle, here is the problem: you say that race realism is about starting with the evidence, and that you don't know the answer on IQ. Well, therein lies the contradiction. You go on to hint at how differences in IQ may be genetic, then provide contradictory evidence that the findings are uncertain. So, if you’re claiming to be “scientific,” why jump to conclusions based on incomplete or conflicting evidence? Isn’t the scientific stance not to make definitive statements on a topic that’s still debated? You are using "we don't know" to justify playing with ideas that are simply not proven, while you yourself claim to be for "evidence-based realism." Well, let me get this straight: You are contradicting yourself when you say the mainstream politically correct view is "clouded by faith," but then you turn around and make a conclusion about genetics and IQ based on contradictory studies. That is not evidence-based; that is confirmation bias. You’re selecting studies that seem to support a narrative and ignoring others. And that’s exactly the type of "faith-based" thinking you’re accusing others of.

Race realism might claim it’s about "letting go of preconceived notions," but the reality is it often leads to reinforcing outdated and dangerous stereotypes, especially when the evidence isn’t clear or is actively contested. So, if you say you are into the truth, then acknowledge it: there is much that is still unknown, yet you double down and want to make choices to continue indulging hypotheses placing genetic explanations of racial differences center front. There you go that in itself is one big inconsistency.

 

[Crusile]

Heritability within groups is uninformative about differences among groups: Cases from behavioral, evolutionary, and statistical genetics - PMC

The causes of differences among groups of organisms have been a topic of conversations in and adjacent to genetics research for decades. Here, we mathematically generalize a set of arguments from more than half a century ago, showing that they have ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In the absence of environmental control or clear understanding of the causes of a phenotype, it is generally difficult or impossible to isolate the aggregate contribution of genetics vs. environment to an observed difference between groups.

Heritability of complex traits in sub-populations experiencing bottlenecks and growth - Journal of Human Genetics

Populations that have experienced a bottleneck are regularly used in Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) to investigate variants associated with complex traits. It is generally understood that these isolated sub-populations may experience high frequency of otherwise rare variants with large...

www.nature.com

We then investigate the power to resolve heritability of complex traits in GWAS studies subjected to demographic effects. We find that demography is an important component for interpreting inference of complex traits and has a nuanced impact on the power of GWAS. We conclude that demographic histories need to be explicitly modelled to properly quantify the history of selection on a complex trait.

REMINDER RACISM CAN NEVER BE PROVEN, IT IS FUNDMENTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[LegitTheory]

Twin studies do control for epigenetic effects, they're modeled as C already in the ACE model. We can infer prenatal effects via looking at monozygotic twins that share/do not share a placenta. Also, if you don't believe in social science, you are going against academic consensus after being super agro about me doing the same thing.

twin studies are pseudoscience. read here for more:

Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning

2350 words Twin and adoption studies have been used for decades on the basis that genetic and environmental causes of traits and their variation in the population could be easily partitioned by two…

notpoliticallycorrect.me

 

[Bars]

What about him?

 

[widdi]

twin studies are pseudoscience. read here for more:

Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning

2350 words Twin and adoption studies have been used for decades on the basis that genetic and environmental causes of traits and their variation in the population could be easily partitioned by two…

notpoliticallycorrect.me

EEA’s upward pressure on heritability estimates is at most .1 and is swamped by measurement error and assortive mating assumptions (which both bias downwards)

https://sci-hub.se/https://do1.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.10.004

 

[LegitTheory]

EEA’s upward pressure on heritability estimates is at most .1 and is swamped by measurement error and assortive mating assumptions (which both bias downwards)

https://sci-hub.se/https://do1.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.10.004

heritability estimates are pseudoscience. They say nothing about genetic inheritance. Heritability measures how much traits vary due to genetic differences but doesn’t tell you how much a trait is caused by genes. A trait can have high heritability because of environmental factors. wearing earrings is considered highly heritable because it depends on whether someone is male or female (XY or XX chromosomes) but it’s clearly not caused by genes. On the other hand, something like having a heart has almost no heritability because everyone has one, and its entirely due to genetics.

again read here in regards to critique of EEAs, heritability, twin studies: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/category/heritability/

“Missing Heritability” and Missing Children: On the Issues of Heritability and Hereditarian Interpretations

3100 words “Biological systems are complex, non-linear, and non-additive. Heritability estimates are attempts to impose a simplistic and reified dichotomy (nature/nurture) on non-dichotomous …

notpoliticallycorrect.me

you can never create an environment free of outside influences. not to mention as i said before: social sciences are pseudoscience to begin with. Most of these studies arent even be repeated.

ultimately social sciences are the last cope for race surrealist who try to infer some sort of biological causality of the current social hierarchy.

 

[widdi]

heritability estimates are pseudoscience. They say nothing about genetic inheritance. Heritability measures how much traits vary due to genetic differences but doesn’t tell you how much a trait is caused by genes. A trait can have high heritability because of environmental factors. wearing earrings is considered highly heritable because it depends on whether someone is male or female (XY or XX chromosomes) but it’s clearly not caused by genes. On the other hand, something like having a heart has almost no heritability because everyone has one, and its entirely due to genetics.

again read here in regards to critique of EEAs, heritability, twin studies: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/category/heritability/

“Missing Heritability” and Missing Children: On the Issues of Heritability and Hereditarian Interpretations

3100 words “Biological systems are complex, non-linear, and non-additive. Heritability estimates are attempts to impose a simplistic and reified dichotomy (nature/nurture) on non-dichotomous …

notpoliticallycorrect.me

you can never create an environment free of outside influences. not to mention as i said before: social sciences are pseudoscience to begin with. Most of these studies arent even be repeated.

ultimately social sciences are the last cope for race surrealist who try to infer some sort of biological causality of the current social hierarchy.

You don't understand what pseudoscience is. Also wtf is a race surrealist? The reason why the heritability of wearing earrings is high while not directly being genetically caused is because its actually measuring a GxE interaction effect. The analogous GxE effect here would have to violate the EEA, which it doesn't. Twin studies have been replicated for around 17,000 traits across almost 15 million twin pairs. On the other hand, the GxE effects that you hypothesize constantly fail replication. In fact, many top level journals require replication of GxE effects BEFORE they publish because its that bad even for the low standards of modern science:

Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies - Nature Genetics

Danielle Posthuma, Peter Visscher and colleagues report a meta-analysis of 17,804 traits based on virtually all twin studies from the last 50 years. For a majority of traits, twin resemblance seems solely due to additive genetic variation and lacks evidence for a substantial influence of shared...

www.nature.com

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11020191

Its really interesting that you first lambast piffer for promoting views outside the mainstream in academia and then you do the same thing with your denial of twin study literature and the validity of IQ, both of which are extremely fringe views. Then you complain about low standards in the social sciences while promulgating the worst quality research to debunk the highest quality research in behavioral genetics. All of this is obviously a post hoc rationalization for the fact that you first want to take advantage of the most altruistic race and then spit in our face to show your grattitude.

 

[Crusile]

You don't understand what pseudoscience is. Also wtf is a race surrealist? The reason why the heritability of wearing earrings is high while not directly being genetically caused is because its actually measuring a GxE interaction effect. The analogous GxE effect here would have to violate the EEA, which it doesn't. Twin studies have been replicated for around 17,000 traits across almost 15 million twin pairs. On the other hand, the GxE effects that you hypothesize constantly fail replication. In fact, many top level journals require replication of GxE effects BEFORE they publish because its that bad even for the low standards of modern science:

Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies - Nature Genetics

Danielle Posthuma, Peter Visscher and colleagues report a meta-analysis of 17,804 traits based on virtually all twin studies from the last 50 years. For a majority of traits, twin resemblance seems solely due to additive genetic variation and lacks evidence for a substantial influence of shared...

www.nature.com

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11020191

Its really interesting that you first lambast piffer for promoting views outside the mainstream in academia and then you do the same thing with your denial of twin study literature and the validity of IQ, both of which are extremely fringe views. Then you complain about low standards in the social sciences while promulgating the worst quality research to debunk the highest quality research in behavioral genetics. All of this is obviously a post hoc rationalization for the fact that you first want to take advantage of the most altruistic race and then spit in our face to show your grattitude.

i mean, missing heritibility is a very real concern among geneticists. educate yourself: http://gusevlab.org/projects/hsq/#h.tcjznjgxl034

Twin studies "replicate" overinflated estimates because twins copy their twins behavior. They have someone to copy their behavior from whom also copies their own behavior. Iq variance is the result of noise and having a twin reduces noise

 

[Crusile]

"Why does the same flawed study design with false assumptions replicate?"@widdi xD

 

[widdi]

i mean, missing heritibility is a very real concern among geneticists. educate yourself: http://gusevlab.org/projects/hsq/#h.tcjznjgxl034

Twin studies "replicate" overinflated estimates because twins copy their twins behavior. They have someone to copy their behavior from whom also copies their own behavior. Iq variance is the result of noise and having a twin reduces noise

https://open.substack.com/pub/josephbronski/p/new-meta-analysis-of-gwas-highlights?r=1saiyl&utm_medium=ios

You’ve both repeated the same equal environments assumption critique 4 times now. It’s clear that you don’t understand what you are talking about because I’ve addressed this multiple times.

 

[Crusile]

https://open.substack.com/pub/josephbronski/p/new-meta-analysis-of-gwas-highlights?r=1saiyl&utm_medium=ios

You’ve both repeated the same equal environments assumption critique 4 times now. It’s clear that you don’t understand what you are talking about because I’ve addressed this multiple times.

By Occam’s razor, the IQ and height variance are missing in the same place. And because height is missing along with IQ, it’s probably not missing because of “culture.”

Yes so it is a real concern with no answer. bruh it must be in the genome somewhere xD

meanwhile, heritability estimates are getting lower and lower with less biased study designs.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4491976 0.3 iq heritability estimate

Maximum within group iq heritability is 0.35-0.40, minimum is 0.10, but

Heritability within groups is uninformative about differences among groups​

Heritability within groups is uninformative about differences among groups: Cases from behavioral, evolutionary, and statistical genetics - PMC

The causes of differences among groups of organisms have been a topic of conversations in and adjacent to genetics research for decades. Here, we mathematically generalize a set of arguments from more than half a century ago, showing that they have ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[widdi]

Yes so it is a real concern with no answer. bruh it must be in the genome somewhere xD

meanwhile, heritability estimates are getting lower and lower with less biased study designs.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4491976 0.3 iq heritability estimate (2023)

1. Not a twin study
2. Read the post. After correction for measurement error IQ heritability from GWAS is the same as height. Do you think height is environmental too? JFL

 

[Crusile]

1. Not a twin study

Yes twin studies are #p-hacked. Less bias study designs fail to replicate the (overinflated estimates) of twin studies

 

[Harold O'brien]

race realism is about as real as fairies and unicorns jfl

 

[Harold O'brien]

1. Not a twin study
2. Read the post. After correction for measurement error IQ heritability from GWAS is the same as height. Do you think height is environmental too? JFL

required reading for psychometrics: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/4175964/46967_Wicherts.pdf

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

dnr, i wholeheartedly believe ethnics are not capable of empathy if not raised in a western country

Humans in nature dont need empathy

 

[widdi]

Yes twin studies are #p-hacked. Less bias study designs fail to replicate the (overinflated estimates) of twin studies

twin studies are typically pre registered

 

[cooldude1231]

Good thread

 

[Crusile]

twin studies are typically pre registered

Sadly twin studies are environmentally confounded there's no way around this. You believe in magical genes that magically control peoples mind. At most, genes can make you smarter by physically looking smarter (physiognomy).

 

[widdi]

Sadly twin studies are environmentally confounded there's no way around this. You believe in magical genes that magically control peoples mind. At most, genes can make you smarter by physically looking smarter (physiognomy).

How are they environmentally confounded? If twins copy behavior for non genetic reasons you would expect monozygotic and dizygotic twins to copy at the same rate which would cause it to be labeled as an environmental effect.

 

[notsocommonthumb]

Humans in nature dont need empathy

Source?

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

Source?

Humans survived so long in nature because we observed and mimic what other animals did to survive & prosper.
Copied their movements, Hunting patterns/tactics, Worn their fur, Mimicked their voices, Etc.
Ex. Lions kill rivals (Like in the pictures above) for power, Lions kill their young for limited food, Lions kill for fun/pleasure they have no room for empathy or sympathy here. We dont either.

 

[Crusile]

How are they environmentally confounded? If twins copy behavior for non genetic reasons you would expect monozygotic and dizygotic twins to copy at the same rate which would cause it to be labeled as an environmental effect.

i would expect identical people would copy each other's behaviors more than non identical people..

 

[incel194012940]

meta analysis isn't really the highest form of evidence because anyone with excel can make one

it just seems more authoritative than a tweet to publish a meta analysis in a toliet paper journal with 0 citations

https://open.substack.com/pub/josephbronski/p/new-meta-analysis-of-gwas-highlights?r=1saiyl&utm_medium=ios

You’ve both repeated the same equal environments assumption critique 4 times now. It’s clear that you don’t understand what you are talking about because I’ve addressed this multiple times.

 

[JohnDoe]

Blacks are homo erectus

 

[notsocommonthumb]

View attachment 3444102View attachment 3444103View attachment 3444104
Humans survived so long in nature because we observed and mimic what other animals did to survive & prosper.
Copied their movements, Hunting patterns/tactics, Worn their fur, Mimicked their voices, Etc.
Ex. Lions kill rivals (Like in the pictures above) for power, Lions kill their young for limited food, Lions kill for fun/pleasure they have no room for empathy or sympathy here. We dont either.

source? I dont want an opinion

 

[widdi]

i would expect identical people would copy each other's behaviors more than non identical people..

yes, because of genes you dummy. Its either a direct or indirect genetic effect through phenotype. You can't argue that its environmental. You can use census based estimates to confirm that its a direct genetic effect instead of manifesting via physiognomy (which is mostly fake anyways). Here using population measures they got a heritability of 85%

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00160

meta analysis isn't really the highest form of evidence because anyone with excel can make one

it just seems more authoritative than a tweet to publish a meta analysis in a toliet paper journal with 0 citations

That's fair, but its easier to see if someone's fucking around with a meta analysis by looking at the relationship between effect size found and statistical power. With individual studies, you don't really have that same baseline.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

source?

Nature

 

[Crusile]

yes, because of genes you dummy. Its either a direct or indirect genetic effect through phenotype. You can't argue that its environmental. You can use census based estimates to confirm that its a direct genetic effect instead of manifesting via physiognomy (which is mostly fake anyways). Here using population measures they got a heritability of 85%

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00160

I would expect identical people with different genetics to copy each other's behavior. Twin studies are environmentally confounded. There is no way to control for the unique shared environment of identical twins

 

[widdi]

I would expect identical people with different genetics to copy each other's behavior. Twin studies are environmentally confounded. There is no way to control for the unique shared environment of identical twins

Why is population derived heritability from pedigree mixed models the same as that inferred from twins? You’d have to posit that for some reason, people are just as likely to copy the behaviors of their half siblings as they are their grandparents. And that they are as likely to copy the behaviors of their full siblings as they are to copy the behaviors of their parents. If the variance explained wasn’t genetic to the same degree as we see in twins, we’d either see vertical transmission or horizontal transmission be more prevalent. So, either you are more likely to learn from your grandparents and parents as opposed to siblings or vice versa. The fact that we don’t see this confounding in census studies says that there isn’t a systemic bias in twin studies because the results match up.

 

[Crusile]

\So, either you are more likely to learn from your grandparents and parents as opposed to siblings or vice versa. The fact that we don’t see this confounding in census studies says that there isn’t a systemic bias in twin studies because the results match up.

Yes those studies are explained by non-genetic cultural/social class transmission.

Identical people copying each other's behavior theory is logical and invalidates EEA:

The EEA is a basic premise of the twin model and involves the assumption that MZ and DZ co-twins are exposed to the same amount of common environment.

"how can you prove that" That's just what I believe and there's no plausible way of proving it. It is rational to believe something more likely to be true than not. Racism has poisoned your mind into believing fake p-hacked non-replicated #replicationcrisis psychological studies and magical mind genes

 

[widdi]

Yes those studies are explained by non-genetic cultural/social class transmission.

Identical people copying each other's behavior theory is logical and invalidates EEA:

"how can you prove that" That's just what I believe and there's no plausible way of proving it. It is rational to believe something more likely to be true than not. Racism has poisoned your mind into believing fake p-hacked non-replicated #replicationcrisis psychological studies and magical mind genes

If EEA is false, Why do population heritability estimates from pedigree mixed models show the same heritability estimates as twin studies?

 

[Lulleko]

There’s a study that shows the Black-White IQ gap doesn’t disappear when children are adopted by parents of the other race.

could you link it? would be an interesting read.
From what I've seen all "studies" that imply culture affects IQ results do not control for practice effect. Always take a look at methodology when 2 studies arrive at different conclusions.

IQ testing itself is culturally relative; culture determines what sorts of test questions test-takers would find familiar (and thus easier to solve).

I've taken a professional test and I can say this is absolutely not true.
You can make a case for verbal comprehension but those are meant to be administered to native speakers.
The questions are composed of memorization, rotating shapes and basic arithmetics which are inherent intellectual abilities.

 

[Crusile]

If EEA is false, Why do population heritability estimates from pedigree mixed models show the same heritability estimates as twin studies?

Less biased studies designs show lower heritability estimates. More biased study designs confounded by by non-genetic cultural transmission have higher heritability estimates.

 

[widdi]

Less biased studies designs show lower heritability estimates. More biased study designs confounded by by non-genetic cultural transmission have higher heritability estimates.

Why do they have the same result then? Should pedigree mixed models taken from census data of hundreds of thousand of people give a lower heritability?

 

[Crusile]

Why do they have the same result then? Should pedigree mixed models taken from census data of hundreds of thousand of people give a lower heritability?

What do you mean by same results? Why do less biased study designs have lower heritiblity estimates?

 

[widdi]

What do you mean by same results? Why do less biased study designs have lower heritiblity estimates?

Post in thread 'Race Realism Is Not Bullshit (Response to @holy’s Post)'
https://looksmax.org/threads/race-r...-response-to-holys-post.1278238/post-18942495

 

[WELOVELOOKS]

>cuckold intellect: "there's no reason proof people of different races score differently on IQ"

Note how the first premise doesn't assume a cause, merely states that there is a difference.

You got casually dogwalked by a guy who doesn't even study this because you're a spastic retard who couldn't shut the fuck up for a second and come up with any reply that was actually topical.

He’s right I don’t even like legit theory but you are an ignorant faggot who just claims shit with 0 proof and tries to sound smart while providing 0 evidence and weak logic

 

[WELOVELOOKS]

The argument is that

a) there is variation in IQ among races
b) that IQ is largely genetic, and people regardless of environment (assuming basic needs are met) regress to the mean (i.e., education has a temporary effect, but your IQ will largely return to your genetic predisposition)
c) that there is a valid genetic hypothesis for why races would have varying IQ.

Its about using occams razor and determining the simplest, most reasonable conclusion given the facts.

The reason you forcing an analogy between eyesight is stupid is because there isn't massive gaps in eyesight between races or groups of people, and if there was, we would assume it has a genetic explanation. Your point is a retarded, you're a pseudo-intellectual, and you type in all bold like a spastic.

It just is simply false by any distinguished/credible scientist’s view that IQ is genetic, you say it’s genetic doesn’t make it solely genetic that’s not a fucking fact just because you said it, you absolute retard. Of course some part of intelligence can be genetic but saying that it’s purely genetic is just DUMB

“IQ is genetic GOTCHA!!”

But it’s not, and ur retarded. Genetics are far more complicated than that whether it be looks or intelligence, a super smart guy can have a dumb son, a super handsome guy can have an ugly son. It happens, iq is not purely “genetic”. Saying iq is genetic is like saying looks r purely genetic, if that was true people wouldn’t be getting more recessed, guess what the food we ate led to less muscle use in our jaws and led to less pressure on the bones forcing them to grow forward, environment made some more subhuman. Just like environment made some lower iq and this had a “butterfly effect”. Just retarded to even argue with this it’s basic knowledge on genetics