what would you choose

[2s2f]

If you were forced to choose, would you rather gain 20 IQ points but lose 3 inches of height, or lose 20 IQ points but gain 3 inches of height?

 

[2s2f]

gotta mention I stole this from r/shortguys from here

 

[AppealGod123]

gain 20 iq lose 3 inches

 

[Pony]

jesus

 

[johnbon]

If you were forced to choose, would you rather gain 20 IQ points but lose 3 inches of height, or lose 20 IQ points but gain 3 inches of height?

IQ isnt fixed you can raise it by 20 with habits, gimme that height…
Id rather be a chad downie

 

[Eyelet]

probably gain iq and still be 6'5

 

[2s2f]

bump

 

[Knifezombie]

I’m not that tall but I'm still growing so ill choose gain 20 iq and loose 3 inches cause I’m really stupid

 

[2s2f]

bump

 

[2s2f]

bump

 

[Outlander]

2nd option

 

[Tyler1]

Lose 20iq and gain 3 inches I would be lowkey retarded (85iq)

 

[2s2f]

bump

 

[2s2f]

bump

 

[Topkra]

100 iq is not that bad
I'll take the height

 

[m1graine]

Gain 20 iq and later in live just get leg lengthening surgery and gain the height back

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

Neither.

 

[Trevor Wonter]

View attachment 4863310

jesus

nigga gonna become so smart he'll finally realize to kill himself

 

[diditeverbegin]

IQ isnt fixed you can raise it by 20 with habits, gimme that height…
Id rather be a chad downie

20 points with habits is impossible

 

[iwannasleeponurlap]

dont know my iq but people say im smart so second

 

[johnbon]

20 points with habits is impossible

Wrong. I work in the medical field, did research throughout college on it. Sick and tired of mongoloids like you blabbing lies.

The brain in essence is a muscle faggot
Sources:
The Flynn Effect (Flynn, 1984, 2009)
Training Fluid Intelligence (Jaeggi et al., 2008)
Desirable Difficulties (Bjork & Bjork, 1994, 2011)

Faggot nigger

 

[diditeverbegin]

Wrong. I work in the medical field, did research throughout college on it. Sick and tired of mongoloids like you blabbing lies.

The brain in essence is a muscle faggot
Sources:
The Flynn Effect (Flynn, 1984, 2009)
Training Fluid Intelligence (Jaeggi et al., 2008)
Desirable Difficulties (Bjork & Bjork, 1994, 2011)

Faggot nigger

Flynn Effect is generational and it’s only 3 points every 10 years
The second source makes no mention of a 20 point boost in IQ, the results aren’t in IQ points
The third source makes no mention of IQ at all
The last two sources are about enhancing performance through learning which does correlate with IQ but no increase in IQ is needed to learn and improve at a task

Twins studies like this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2889158/ and Bouchard & Lykken (1990) demonstrate how highly heritable IQ is and so does the Wilson Effect

How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis - PMC

Intelligence test scores and educational duration are positively correlated. This correlation could be interpreted in two ways: Students with greater propensity for intelligence go on to complete more education, or a longer education increases ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This paper found the highest difference in IQ before and after testing to be about 6 points, but the various standard error values for each test created a wide margin. It’s additionally interesting that in the paper above the power of the test when examining the results of three treatments was 99% which could result in increasing false positives.
@Bryce

 

[Bryce]

Flynn Effect is generational and it’s only 3 points every 10 years
The second source makes no mention of a 20 point boost in IQ, the results aren’t in IQ points
The third source makes no mention of IQ at all
The last two sources are about enhancing performance through learning which does correlate with IQ but no increase in IQ is needed to learn and improve at a task

Twins studies like this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2889158/ and Bouchard & Lykken (1990) demonstrate how highly heritable IQ is and so does the Wilson Effect

How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis - PMC

Intelligence test scores and educational duration are positively correlated. This correlation could be interpreted in two ways: Students with greater propensity for intelligence go on to complete more education, or a longer education increases ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This paper found the highest difference in IQ before and after testing to be about 6 points, but the various standard error values for each test created a wide margin. It’s additionally interesting that in the paper above the power of the test when examining the results of three treatments was 99% which could result in increasing false positives.
@Bryce

The guy you're responding to has never even stepped foot on a college campus. Another retarded ragebaiter trying to get reps and be obnoxious for no reason. Clavicular ruined this place.

 

[ThraxxGlo]

none, im content with my height and iq

 

[johnbon]

Flynn Effect is generational and it’s only 3 points every 10 years
The second source makes no mention of a 20 point boost in IQ, the results aren’t in IQ points
The third source makes no mention of IQ at all
The last two sources are about enhancing performance through learning which does correlate with IQ but no increase in IQ is needed to learn and improve at a task

Twins studies like this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2889158/ and Bouchard & Lykken (1990) demonstrate how highly heritable IQ is and so does the Wilson Effect

How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis - PMC

Intelligence test scores and educational duration are positively correlated. This correlation could be interpreted in two ways: Students with greater propensity for intelligence go on to complete more education, or a longer education increases ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This paper found the highest difference in IQ before and after testing to be about 6 points, but the various standard error values for each test created a wide margin. It’s additionally interesting that in the paper above the power of the test when examining the results of three treatments was 99% which could result in increasing false positives.
@Bryce

Great arguments iqcel, thought everyone here had low neurons in their grey matter.

However, high heritability does not mean immutability. This is the fundamental error in your argument. Height is ~90% heritable yet average height rose 10cm over a century due to nutrition. More critically, Turkheimer et al. (2003) showed that in impoverished families, heritability of IQ drops to near zero while shared environment accounts for 60% of variance, the opposite of what twin studies from affluent Western samples show. Those twin studies are not universal constants they describe specific populations under specific conditions.
There is direct empirical evidence for ~20-point gains. Duyme et al. (1999, PNAS) tracked severely deprived children (mean IQ = 77) adopted between ages 4–6 and found gains of up to 19.5 IQ points in high-SES adoptive homes. Separately, the introduction of iodized salt raised IQs by approximately 15 points in iodine-deficient U.S. regions (Feyrer, Politi & Weil), and a Chinese meta-analysis documented 12–17 point gains from iodine supplementation programs. These are peer-reviewed, replicated findings.
The Flynn Effect itself makes the case. Dutch military IQ scores rose approximately 20 points between 1952 and 1982, within a single generation. No genetic change can explain that. You are correct the rate is ~3 points per decade and that heritability is real and significant. But the cumulative and context-specific evidence shows environments absolutely can move IQ by 20 points. Obviously situational, so maybe I was being slightly hyperbolic with 20 points.

 

[2s2f]

Great arguments iqcel, thought everyone here had low neurons in their grey matter.

However, high heritability does not mean immutability. This is the fundamental error in your argument. Height is ~90% heritable yet average height rose 10cm over a century due to nutrition. More critically, Turkheimer et al. (2003) showed that in impoverished families, heritability of IQ drops to near zero while shared environment accounts for 60% of variance, the opposite of what twin studies from affluent Western samples show. Those twin studies are not universal constants they describe specific populations under specific conditions.
There is direct empirical evidence for ~20-point gains. Duyme et al. (1999, PNAS) tracked severely deprived children (mean IQ = 77) adopted between ages 4–6 and found gains of up to 19.5 IQ points in high-SES adoptive homes. Separately, the introduction of iodized salt raised IQs by approximately 15 points in iodine-deficient U.S. regions (Feyrer, Politi & Weil), and a Chinese meta-analysis documented 12–17 point gains from iodine supplementation programs. These are peer-reviewed, replicated findings.
The Flynn Effect itself makes the case. Dutch military IQ scores rose approximately 20 points between 1952 and 1982, within a single generation. No genetic change can explain that. You are correct the rate is ~3 points per decade and that heritability is real and significant. But the cumulative and context-specific evidence shows environments absolutely can move IQ by 20 points. Obviously situational, so maybe I was being slightly hyperbolic with 20 points.

damn

 

[johnbon]

The guy you're responding to has never even stepped foot on a college campus. Another retarded ragebaiter trying to get reps and be obnoxious for no reason. Clavicular ruined this place.

While I did go to college and work in the medical field now… Going to college != being intelligent you absolute mongoloid JFL

 

[stigmaboy]

@ThraxxGlo lol ok buddy stay content then if ur happy being average

u know this site is for people tryna improve right like we're not just here for the lols and the lore

you choosing "none" is the ultimate cope imo

but hey enjoy ur lifefuel water i guess

 

[ThraxxGlo]

@ThraxxGlo lol ok buddy stay content then if ur happy being average

u know this site is for people tryna improve right like we're not just here for the lols and the lore

you choosing "none" is the ultimate cope imo

but hey enjoy ur lifefuel water i guess

i am 6'3 and 128 iq , i dont want to decrease my height for 20 plus iq as itll make me even more aspie or to decrease my iq for more height as ill be a normie retard and listen, we are on off topic retard, we are here solely for shits and giggles.

 

[diditeverbegin]

Great arguments iqcel, thought everyone here had low neurons in their grey matter.

However, high heritability does not mean immutability. This is the fundamental error in your argument. Height is ~90% heritable yet average height rose 10cm over a century due to nutrition. More critically, Turkheimer et al. (2003) showed that in impoverished families, heritability of IQ drops to near zero while shared environment accounts for 60% of variance, the opposite of what twin studies from affluent Western samples show. Those twin studies are not universal constants they describe specific populations under specific conditions.
There is direct empirical evidence for ~20-point gains. Duyme et al. (1999, PNAS) tracked severely deprived children (mean IQ = 77) adopted between ages 4–6 and found gains of up to 19.5 IQ points in high-SES adoptive homes. Separately, the introduction of iodized salt raised IQs by approximately 15 points in iodine-deficient U.S. regions (Feyrer, Politi & Weil), and a Chinese meta-analysis documented 12–17 point gains from iodine supplementation programs. These are peer-reviewed, replicated findings.
The Flynn Effect itself makes the case. Dutch military IQ scores rose approximately 20 points between 1952 and 1982, within a single generation. No genetic change can explain that. You are correct the rate is ~3 points per decade and that heritability is real and significant. But the cumulative and context-specific evidence shows environments absolutely can move IQ by 20 points. Obviously situational, so maybe I was being slightly hyperbolic with 20 points.

The guy you're responding to has never even stepped foot on a college campus. Another retarded ragebaiter trying to get reps and be obnoxious for no reason. Clavicular ruined this place.

damn

You said the twin studies are not widely applicable, yet you cited Turkheimer et al. (2003) which this 2017 article found Turkheimer’s results difficult to replicate in other studies. Figlio’s results contradicted directly with Turkheimer as he found no evidence of the “heritability of IQ dropping to zero in impoverished families.” Moreover, using Duyme (1999)? The children (65 of them compared to Figlio’s nearly 300,000 and the twin studies with thousands of subjects) in the study were described as severely deprived; that already implies it cannot be applied to the general population, and it didn’t follow the subjects into adulthood to see if their IQs were retaining, meaning that the Wilson Effect could have resulted in a decrease in IQ as they approached adulthood. Here Arthur Jensen found the difference in the general intelligence of kids raised by their biological parents and adoptive parents was due to genetics and in his 1998 book, he stated the tests Duyme and Capron conducted weren’t g loaded, which is in line with what I said about improving at a task. The children got better at the subtests that tested concepts which can be learned more easily compared to other subtests, but still didn’t improve much in underlying cognitive ability which is in Jensen’s book which he published in 1998; it’s quite lengthy.
Plus, in China (and other countries which data/observations were drawn from) the children were retarded and deficient in iodine as their brain did not function properly. Applying the iodized salt study in the context of trading height for IQ doesn’t really make sense since addressing iodine deficiencies prevented stunting, like the height increase you mentioned; it’s not the same as actually increasing your IQ without being stunted.
Again you cited the Flynn Effect (which itself has limitations) acknowledging it was generational, so how does it pertain to the thread’s discussion which is about an individual.
Your argument pivoted to nutrition when you said “habits can raise IQ substantially.” Sure a diet can be considered a habit, but it seems more likely you were talking about learning tasks like you referenced in your first reply.

Spoiler

@EthiopianMaxxer @pfl @Mogs Me @moggerofhumanity

 

[johnbon]

You said the twin studies are not widely applicable, yet you cited Turkheimer et al. (2003) which this 2017 article found Turkheimer’s results difficult to replicate in other studies. Figlio’s results contradicted directly with Turkheimer as he found no evidence of the “heritability of IQ dropping to zero in impoverished families.” Moreover, using Duyme (1999)? The children (65 of them compared to Figlio’s nearly 300,000 and the twin studies with thousands of subjects) in the study were described as severely deprived; that already implies it cannot be applied to the general population, and it didn’t follow the subjects into adulthood to see if their IQs were retaining, meaning that the Wilson Effect could have resulted in a decrease in IQ as they approached adulthood. Here Arthur Jensen found the difference in the general intelligence of kids raised by their biological parents and adoptive parents was due to genetics and in his 1998 book, he stated the tests Duyme and Capron conducted weren’t g loaded, which is in line with what I said about improving at a task. The children got better at the subtests that tested concepts which can be learned more easily compared to other subtests, but still didn’t improve much in underlying cognitive ability which is in Jensen’s book which he published in 1998; it’s quite lengthy.
Plus, in China (and other countries which data/observations were drawn from) the children were retarded and deficient in iodine as their brain did not function properly. Applying the iodized salt study in the context of trading height for IQ doesn’t really make sense since addressing iodine deficiencies prevented stunting, like the height increase you mentioned; it’s not the same as actually increasing your IQ without being stunted.
Again you cited the Flynn Effect (which itself has limitations) acknowledging it was generational, so how does it pertain to the thread’s discussion which is about an individual.
Your argument pivoted to nutrition when you said “habits can raise IQ substantially.” Sure a diet can be considered a habit, but it seems more likely you were talking about learning tasks like you referenced in your first reply.

Spoiler

@EthiopianMaxxer @pfl @Mogs Me @moggerofhumanity

Putting tags in to get your boyfriend harem agreeing with you regardless of substance is pathetic.

Refuting your Turkheimer and Figlio arguement…
Figlio measured academic achievement, not IQ, in a state whose SES distribution doesn’t capture the extreme poverty Turkheimer’s design targeted. A study that doesn’t probe the tails of deprivation will attenuate the finding by construction. that’s a sampling mismatch. Multiple independent studies confirm lower heritability in low-SES environments. Figlio is one outlier against a broader pattern.
For duyme’s sample size,

You’re confusing N with design quality. Duyme’s study had a pre-adoption baseline: children assessed before placement, then after. Figlio’s 300,000 subjects have no such control. Scale without a baseline is not superior science.

For Jensen’s g-loading:
If IQ is so genetically locked that environment can only move non-g subtests, where are the genes? Decades of molecular genetics and genome-wide association studies have failed to find polymorphisms consistently associated with normal-range IQ variation. The g-loading argument is circular: g is defined as what environment can’t touch, then used to prove environment can’t touch it.
Now for you refuting iodine:
The “correcting a deficiency isn’t really raising IQ” distinction is metaphysics, not science. Iodine deficiency is an environmental variable. Remediating it and producing measurably higher cognitive outcomes is environmental influence on cognition by definition. The implicit claim that there’s a true genetic IQ underneath all environments is a naive assumption, not an established fact. We don’t say someone’s true height is what they’d reach under malnutrition.

Heritability is a population statistic describing variance within a specific population in a specific environment. It cannot be used to determine individual causation, cannot explain between-group differences, and critically high heritability and large environmental effects are not mutually exclusive. Kinship studies systematically credit environmental inputs to genes whenever those inputs correlate with genetic differences. That’s the Dickens-Flynn paradox, and it’s never been resolved by the hereditarian position.
The 2012 American Psychologist consensus review by Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer and colleagues documented 12–18 point IQ gains from working-class to middle-class adoption. That’s not one study. Disregard that tardcel and you’ve dismissed the entire standard you've been trying to appeal to my lil vegetable.

@

@EthiopianMaxxer @

@pfl @

@Mogs Me @

@moggerofhumanity

 

[brotato78]

i chose the iq, im already a manlet might as well double down for some free ahh iq i could reach like 130, 5'9-5'10 aint worth it if im at like 80-90 iq

 

[diditeverbegin]

Putting tags in to get your boyfriend harem agreeing with you regardless of substance is pathetic.

Refuting your Turkheimer and Figlio arguement…
Figlio measured academic achievement, not IQ, in a state whose SES distribution doesn’t capture the extreme poverty Turkheimer’s design targeted. A study that doesn’t probe the tails of deprivation will attenuate the finding by construction. that’s a sampling mismatch. Multiple independent studies confirm lower heritability in low-SES environments. Figlio is one outlier against a broader pattern.
For duyme’s sample size,

You’re confusing N with design quality. Duyme’s study had a pre-adoption baseline: children assessed before placement, then after. Figlio’s 300,000 subjects have no such control. Scale without a baseline is not superior science.

For Jensen’s g-loading:
If IQ is so genetically locked that environment can only move non-g subtests, where are the genes? Decades of molecular genetics and genome-wide association studies have failed to find polymorphisms consistently associated with normal-range IQ variation. The g-loading argument is circular: g is defined as what environment can’t touch, then used to prove environment can’t touch it.
Now for you refuting iodine:
The “correcting a deficiency isn’t really raising IQ” distinction is metaphysics, not science. Iodine deficiency is an environmental variable. Remediating it and producing measurably higher cognitive outcomes is environmental influence on cognition by definition. The implicit claim that there’s a true genetic IQ underneath all environments is a naive assumption, not an established fact. We don’t say someone’s true height is what they’d reach under malnutrition.

Heritability is a population statistic describing variance within a specific population in a specific environment. It cannot be used to determine individual causation, cannot explain between-group differences, and critically high heritability and large environmental effects are not mutually exclusive. Kinship studies systematically credit environmental inputs to genes whenever those inputs correlate with genetic differences. That’s the Dickens-Flynn paradox, and it’s never been resolved by the hereditarian position.
The 2012 American Psychologist consensus review by Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer and colleagues documented 12–18 point IQ gains from working-class to middle-class adoption. That’s not one study. Disregard that tardcel and you’ve dismissed the entire standard you've been trying to appeal to my lil vegetable.

@

@EthiopianMaxxer @

@pfl @

@Mogs Me @

@moggerofhumanity

Turkheimer’s Scarr-Rowe hypothesis has failed to replicate in several meta-analyses.
de Zeeuw et al. (2017) or Polderman et al. (2015). Large-scale European and US studies (with N > 50,000) consistently showed that heritability of IQ remains high even in lower-SES groups in developed nations. By moving the goalpost to extreme poverty and nutrient deficiencies, you are admitting that for the majority of the population, genes are the primary driver. Only in cases of starvation or severe abuse are you claiming the environment suppresses genetic potential. Additionally, you dismiss Figlio because he used academic achievement, but academic achievement has a fairly high correlation with IQ.
Adoption studies almost always show an IQ boost in childhood, but this boost fades out by late adolescence, which I keep referring to, Wilson’s Law. As children grow into active gene-environment correlation they seek out environments that match their genetic predispositions. Adoptive parents are screened. They are not a random environment, leading to selection bias as the families are almost all stable and middle-class. This restricts the environmental variance, making the boost appear as a miracle when it is the removal of a deficit.
IQ is a polygenic trait; GWAS can now predict a significant percentage of IQ variance using DNA alone.
Removing a poison like lead or a deficiency such as iodine allows a person to reach their biological ceiling, which I do not disagree with. It does not prove that you can raise someone above their genetic potential by adding additional iodine or education.
I’m still going to side with Spearman and Jensen that the Flynn Effect is not a rise in g because the gains are primarily on the least g-loaded subtests. Michael Woodley suggests that while scores go up due to better nutrition and testing familiarity, the underlying biological g factor does not .
Your examples all use subjects in extreme situations; why not find such large jumps in IQ for people who grew up in normal conditions. Your original post said a person can easily gain 20 IQ points from habits, so why not find evidence for an average or wealthy person doing so.
@imontheloose

 

[moggerofhumanity]

Removing a poison like lead or a deficiency such as iodine allows a person to reach their biological ceiling, which I do not disagree with. It does not prove that you can raise someone above their genetic potential by adding additional iodine or education.

I think this sums it up pretty well. From what I understand, you have to already be deficient to increase anything, so for most ppl, you can’t just change your habits and gain iq

 

[diditeverbegin]

Putting tags in to get your boyfriend harem agreeing with you regardless of substance is pathetic.

Refuting your Turkheimer and Figlio arguement…
Figlio measured academic achievement, not IQ, in a state whose SES distribution doesn’t capture the extreme poverty Turkheimer’s design targeted. A study that doesn’t probe the tails of deprivation will attenuate the finding by construction. that’s a sampling mismatch. Multiple independent studies confirm lower heritability in low-SES environments. Figlio is one outlier against a broader pattern.
For duyme’s sample size,

You’re confusing N with design quality. Duyme’s study had a pre-adoption baseline: children assessed before placement, then after. Figlio’s 300,000 subjects have no such control. Scale without a baseline is not superior science.

For Jensen’s g-loading:
If IQ is so genetically locked that environment can only move non-g subtests, where are the genes? Decades of molecular genetics and genome-wide association studies have failed to find polymorphisms consistently associated with normal-range IQ variation. The g-loading argument is circular: g is defined as what environment can’t touch, then used to prove environment can’t touch it.
Now for you refuting iodine:
The “correcting a deficiency isn’t really raising IQ” distinction is metaphysics, not science. Iodine deficiency is an environmental variable. Remediating it and producing measurably higher cognitive outcomes is environmental influence on cognition by definition. The implicit claim that there’s a true genetic IQ underneath all environments is a naive assumption, not an established fact. We don’t say someone’s true height is what they’d reach under malnutrition.

Heritability is a population statistic describing variance within a specific population in a specific environment. It cannot be used to determine individual causation, cannot explain between-group differences, and critically high heritability and large environmental effects are not mutually exclusive. Kinship studies systematically credit environmental inputs to genes whenever those inputs correlate with genetic differences. That’s the Dickens-Flynn paradox, and it’s never been resolved by the hereditarian position.
The 2012 American Psychologist consensus review by Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer and colleagues documented 12–18 point IQ gains from working-class to middle-class adoption. That’s not one study. Disregard that tardcel and you’ve dismissed the entire standard you've been trying to appeal to my lil vegetable.

@

@EthiopianMaxxer @

@pfl @

@Mogs Me @

@moggerofhumanity

Figlio’s study doesn’t need a control, it was not an experiment and Duyme’s control does not compare individuals of the same age anyway.