/sci/ - Science & Math

Human intelligence up to 75% inheritible
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

Human intelligence is highly heritable.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

>>10947484

>>9020345
>>9020363
>>9020365
It is true that we haven't yet cataloged every single gene related to intelligence, but we have found some of them. And as it turns out, these are not evenly distributed among different human populations (pic related)

>>9020473
>Does /pol/ actually have a higher standard of discourse than /sci/?
>Does /sci/ even have standards?
/Sci/ has trouble dealing with certain realities when it runs against their ideology. That's why /sci/ turns to mental gymnastics and trolling

>>9020500
Why do you post here if you can't be bothered to read even the very basics of intelligence research? Yes, there are different types of intelligence. There is also general intelligence, which is highly heritable, and which helps you all across the board in everything

>>9020572
Now let’s turn to IQ. The most popular IQ tests include items which test mathematical ability, pattern recognition, short-term memory, verbal comprehension, and vocabulary. They are not perfect measures of intelligence, but they predict how smart a person’s peers say they are as well as how well people do in school and on the job (Denissen et al., 2011; Palhusand and Morgan, 1997; Bailey and Hatch, 1979; Bailey and Mattetal, 1977). In fact, IQ is a better predictor of income and educational attainment than parental socio-economic status is (Strenze, 2006).

>>8829017
The SNP's discovered so far as contributing to Educational attainment are not differently distributed between Africans, Mexicans, East Asians, Europeans South Asians.

Here's an example of one where Africans "win". The "A" one is the "bad" one, reducing EA by 0.021 units.

As you can see Africans have 0.52, the other groups are 0.60+.

http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?db=core;ph=26069;r=15:47409745-47410745;v=rs188133;vdb=variation;vf=82646

To see whether it increases or decreases click on the little icon with the brown and the blue eye. It says "Phenotype or Disease" when you hover over it with the mouse.

But generally, my point is that you aren't able to explain an Educational achievement gap between Europeans and Sub Saharan Africans(not to mention other racial groups) in terms of the SNP data we have currently. Perhaps Africans are just more violent and that's their problem, I don't know. Not saying they are just as capable on average, but obviously there's a lot more to it.

This is my 2 cents and I feel I did a better job than pic related HBD bloggers cherry picking nine(lol) SNP's.

There's still some more SNP's to look at - in regards to a "Cognition" category, "Information speed processing" and possibly more if I can find. Based on a few peeks I've taken, I don't expect different results.

>>8677340
>So how can anybody be confident that such intelligence-determining genes, numerous in number, are EXACTLY THE SAME across all population groups in the entire world?

Two smart people of different races produce a smart person either way. Two dumb people of two different races produce a stupid person.
Basically race mixing. "Human biodiversity" is small and genetic differences are very small.

>>8667250
>white genes
>it's different genes that make different races smart
Mostly no.
Also >>8665600

>>8665668
To elaborate. It's already known Trump has familial history of Alzheimer's.
I don't see how this isn't considered a major, major genetic defect he's probably passed down to his offspring.

And worse, something that might be going on in his skull in this very moment.

>>8650844
>muh north europeans
Natural selection could have made even africans go beyond gooks and japs

>>8645349
No.

PS:
>European
If you define your ability as intelligence we ought to be looking for any such genes in Asians first.

>>8617193
I agree the variance between races is very small. This is precisely the reason you can define races any way you like. And the reason we are all humans.

The difference in average IQ is not a difference in genes, but a difference in the frequency of positively correlated with IQ alleles.

>>8611570
>superior European genes
The genes that make a person smart are the same genes across all groups (and individuals).

Through selection/eugenics any group can become smarter, the data suggests.

>>8607973
These are markers that correlate with about 1% of the IQ DIFFERENCE each(that's not a lot but cumulatively it could matter). Some of the studies had 5k people involved. I saw another blogger (lmao) had tabulated some other studies where a set of genes accounted for about 3 IQ points.

Obviously, obviously we don't know how each gene exactly affects intelligence, we don't know if the genes themselves are correlated or independent etc. But it's a start in the right direction.

Not a pol-fag btw, if you ask me I'd rather use the genes themselves as classifiers than muh races as some sort of a proxy.

I know it's kind of weak and it's all correlations, no actual mechanisms, but it's a start. There is a way to brand this without having racism or any sort of politics involved. Those studies are very recent 2013-2015, scientists are trying to figure it out.

I don't see how this is so much worse than investing a lot of stock in MUH AI

>>8594610
Literally go ask stormfront why, they've made all these charts and done the 'research'.

Genetically North and south Euros are the same, when it comes to active genes, but you can trace based on SNPS in non-coding junk DNA.

Are Japs/Koreans/Chinese different from philippinos? My guess is, probably not very much.

Are Arabs genetically Caucasian? Will you be surprised if pic related holds for them too? What about Hispanics?

Those markers account for about 1% of the difference in IQ between people/populations, I'm not sure honestly.

>>8594615
I don't know, I am just looking at the data. I'm sure IQ is very malleable at least for some groups who haven't achieved their max.
Whites have and so have Asians. I see no reason why you would ever assume Whites are as intelligent as Asians based on the data I've been shown.

Literally drawing conclusions SOLELY based on stormfront science.