/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10556740
>debate
Lrn2debate fgt pls

>>10556740
No. There wasn't even a debate to begin with.

>>10556740
Yes. Melanin in particular is extremely important to a child's cognitive development, pic related.

>>10556740
It's not even a debate. Only popsci normies think there is one.
A cell is like a self-modifying biocomputer. Its genetics and epi-genetics determine the programming. The "environment" acts as input to the program. The output is in the phenotype. Most of DNA, previously called junk, is actually a series of conditional if-then statements which trigger when a specific chemical is present. Only a small amount codes for protein. Some of those conditional statements are triggered by the output proteins of the DNA itself, thus creating self-modifying behavior.

Your phenotype is dependent on both genes and environment. The more "generally useful" a phenotype is across environments, the less it is varied by environmental input.

how do "nature" einsteins explain how wealth is ridiculously highly correlated with acceptance into elite undergrad programs?

>hurr durr this is all genotype and phenotype

>>10556972
>physical development
now add the rouge test

>>10557222
>>10557214
stuff like wealth / what college you went to really aren't part of the topic at hand, although there is some weak genetic correlation i believe
what's more striking is that stuff like psychological traits, which scientists used to think were wholly nurture related, are in fact substantially heritable

see book related, which is by the lead author cited in OP's image

>>10557214
>>10557222
Because their parents had a high IQ to accumulate that wealth and passed it to their children

>>10557237
>weak genetic correlation
this is what a person with a cognitive bias/dissonance says when a STRONG correlation is staring them in the face and they just can't accept it

>>10557249
IQ is a psychologist meme. in the real world, degrees and academic prestige of who gives those degrees is much more highly linked with intelligence (e.g. there are plenty of high-IQ autists and plenty of people like Feynman who don't perform well on a psychologist's test who win Nobel prizes). moreover the prestige of the school you go to is much more correlated with how good of an education you got as a kid (which is linked to how wealthy your parents are because of public school districts, private school tuition, and paying for extra SAT/ACT prep classes), and with how wealthy you later become in life, and how good of an education you can endow on your kids

psychologists can ramble on about IQ all they want, but reminder that 1) psychologists have a history of being racists 2) a lot of things debunk IQ, like for example the Flynn effect 3) the field of psychology is riddled with p-hacking so nobody should trust anything a psychologist says unless they do something like aspredicted.org, which is a very recent development in the social sciences and 4) social scientists in general are retarded

just look at the numbers for wealth and college acceptance and it's absolutely clear that privileged kids have a huge advantage in life. nurture is clearly a GIGANTIC and undeniable effect on outcomes

>>10557222
You probably thought this was clever

>>10557292
>denies IQ
>calls people retarded

>>10557391
>psychologists:
>”let’s pick a number that defines a retard”
>”uhhh i donno, 70?”
>”ok, why?”
>”i donno, i like round numbers”
>”cool, let’s go with that. very scientific.”

what’s worse is their methods for writing the test questions. that’s more of them being like “oh fuck that’s a good question, in my opinion! very scientific”

>>10557406
...you don't actually have any idea how IQ tests are designed, do you

>>10557410
they bootstrap the test questions off old test questions. garbage in garbage out

>>10557413
Keep seething stemlord.

>>10557391
it's not that intelligence doesn't exist, it's that IQ is a shit way to measure it

anyhow, let's not turn this into an IQ thread, this is a nature vs nurture thread and for sure these two posts prove that nurture is HUGE in terms of academic attainment, which is what most people care about to gauge intelligence (e.g. employers ALWAYS ask your degree and school, but almost never your IQ):
>>10557214
>>10557222

>>10556740
No. We will never have a lack of race baiting threads on this board.

>>10557294
Given that the best thing you could reply with was snark, it's safe to say it was too clever for you.

>>10557486
someone who knows shit about neuroscience or brain anatomy, help me interpret this. what should i know about the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex that has to do with "risk" and "threatening stimuli"

>>10557486
ACC > Amygdala

>>10557443
...so what's a good way to measure it?

>>10557511
The amygdala processes fear and threat related emotional information and the anterior cingulate cortex processes error detection.

>>10557803
unfortunately, we haven't figured one out yet.
so until we do, let's stop pretending we have

>>10557857
how can you assert that intelligence exists if there's no way to measure it. that's about as scientific as string theory and dark energy

also, philosophically speaking, how can something be a shit measure when it measures something with real world predictive value and there's no superior measure?

>>10557858
does humor exist? talent? emotion? have you measured these scientifically?

>>10557858
kek listen to what you're saying

>>10557859
i'm sure people will argue that personality tests have a "predictive value" and people will argue that there is a best personality test, but that doesn't mean any personality test is particularly up to the scientific standards demanded of e.g. biology

>>10557862
humor is culture specific and even with a culture there are different tastes, so it can't be measured objectively
talent is measurable based upon achievement relative to peers, or relative to some particular benchmark. this is domain-specific though. there is no platonic Talent, unless we're talking about intelligence, which does correlate with being talented across talent domains
and emotions, i imagine that psychologists have tests or else we would not be able to diagnose people that lack emotions and which is considered pathological. but psychology isn't much of a science. best we can do though.

>>10557869
best measure is better than no measure; saying something is a shit measure is ultimately an arbitrary distinction, particularly in the context of biology. only domains like physics have perfect measures, and even then some are better than others. look at how much data particular physicists need to collect

>>10557858
i didn't say there's no way to measure it. i said our measurement is not good. it's not fine-grained enough for the purposes you wish you could turn it to.
we can tell if someone is a retard and we can sometimes say subjectively that someone is a genius. both these judgments are made based on multiple distinct observations.
furthermore, when someone is retarded, we can point out a verifiable causal relationship (e.g. brain damage).

>>10557859
>real world predictive value
with real world outcomes, it is weakly correlated at best

>there's no superior measure
don't confuse "we don't have it" with "it doesn't exist"

>>10557891
>domains like physics have perfect measures
but that's not true.

>it's good if it's the best we have
imagine your contractor says "we use the length of my hand to measure distance" and when you protest he says "it's the best thing we have at the moment, so it's fine"

>>10557406
>what is a standard deviation

>>10557894
we _don't know_ whether there's a better way to measure it. given that, _currently_ IQ tests are our best way of measuring general intelligence. assuming general intelligence exists. i assert that it is unjustifiable to call your best known method of measure, and what may in fact be the best measure possible, shit. also

>when someone is retarded, we can point out a verifiable causal relationship (e.g. brain damage).
there are plenty of people with subhuman iqs that do not have brain damage. if i had to guess, probably the majority do not. they are just too dull for modern society.

>>10557904
i had exactly this in mind when i wrote that some are better than others. i only meant that when you do see perfect measures, they're going to be in physics. but even physics suffers from "shit" measures.

>>10557891
this is an uncharacteristically civil post for an IQ poster, so thanks. anyhow i would take issue with this:
>there is no platonic Talent, unless we're talking about intelligence,
even on IQ tests they separate verbal and spatial, right? i would argue that for sure there are way more dimensions to intelligence than that. if you even look at how the statistics of IQ works, they end up with a gaussian, right? to me, this indicates that they're measuring some sort of sum of a lot of uncorrelated variables, as in the Central Limit Theorem. if there were one magical thing that represents intelligence, (which psychologists make up a nonsense word called "g-factor" for, which they claim is a real but unmeasurable thing [right there a scientist should be skeptical]) then i'd assume it would have a less trivial distribution than a gaussian (for example, eye color distributions have several different peaks because they correspond to combinations of a discrete set of genes).

just because one can p-hack out some measurement that has some statistical significance doesn't mean it's demonstrating the existence of a real phenomenon. in this case IQ may be correlated with other things out there, but that doesn't mean IQ has any real scientific phenomenon underlying it. read this paper: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/DPlab/papers/publishedPapers/Simmons_2011_False-Positive%20Psychology.pdf

>>10557918
>even on IQ tests they separate verbal and spatial, right
not necessarily. in fact, there are tests that do not have any verbal component. [1] i'm not an expert in intelligence research so i can't tell you how its results compare against other tests though, nor concretely what the limitations are.
> i would argue that for sure there are way more dimensions to intelligence than that
in fact, most intelligence researchers would agree with you. pic related. [2] arthur jensen, who wrote the book the G-Factor, which name you deride, discusses this, in fact.
from looking at the correlations among the particular subtests in an IQ test, researchers have (indirectly) observed these. however, (and because i am not an expert, i will have to evade explaining), the evidence suggests that there is a also a more general factor, which intelligence researchers simply call g.
> p-hack
i don't see how you can possibly call g p-hacking

[1] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices
[2] from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-stratum_theory

>>10556740
yes but people will still kill each other over it

>>10557912
but we do know that our way is not sufficiently accurate.

>i assert that it is unjustifiable to call your best known method of measure, and what may in fact be the best measure possible, shit.
it is irrational to say that something that is objectively insufficient can suddenly be considered sufficient if you claim that it's the best you can do.
if a ride says you must be 6'0 to enter, and you're 5'9, you can't argue with the operator that you're tall enough because this is the best you can do. you don't meet the required bar. period.

>>10557912
>even physics suffers from "shit" measures.
the difference is physicists don't try to pretend the measurement means more than it actually does.
the difference is in physics, if you try to achieve an end but your technology is insufficient, you get bad results and you can't fake it, handwave a bunch and pretend that your bad results were good. it doesn't matter if your technology is the state of the art. there are limits to what can be realized by it.

>>10557975
what specifically would be sufficient?

>>10556842
this
the idea that things like this have to be dichotomies is one of the most time-wasting paradigms around

>>10557469
can we all go back to this post? why does everything have to turn into an IQ thread?

>>10557469
>employers ALWAYS ask your degree and school, but almost never your IQ
employers legally cannot administer IQ tests and if they asked for your IQ it wouldnt be verifiable, and it would generate negative press from retards claiming that such and such company were tantamount to being fascist eugenicists

>>10557977
depends on what you're trying to achieve. what specific application do you have in mind?

>>10558028
whatever you had in mind when you said that it's not sufficiently accurate. what would be sufficiently accurate and how would we know that it is?

sorry for fucking up the thread btw let's drop all the IQ shit

>>10557292
yikes

>>10557406
you are even dumber than me

>>10558031
since you cited Jensen as a leading authority let's talk about using iq to guide eugenics policy. since eugenics implies the restriction basic human rights, accuracy and fairness are of prime importance.
"sufficiently accurate" would mean that if A has a higher IQ than B, then A has higher intelligence than B.
IQ does not have this trait. therefore, IQ is insufficient.
moreover, the necessary accuracy can never be achieved because the entire idea of boiling the concept of intelligence into a single number is misguided in the first place.

>>10558501
this

>>10557851
So for brainlets, this basically means that Conservatives are more perceptive and sensitive to potential threats than Liberals, but Liberals are better at catching potential errors in their thoughts than Conservatives, right?

I.E: Conservatives have a higher risk of identifying something as a threat that's not a threat, while Liberals have a higher risk of not identifying a threat at all?

Both nature and nuture are important but it's obvious that nutrition is tie breaker that favors nurture.

Iodine and prenatal nutrition (and health in general) is literally the difference between normalcy and mental retardation. There's no amount of intelligent genes that prevents being crippled by malnutrition.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15734706/

https://www.who.int/features/qa/17/en/

>>10557859
Don't know, but this simple aspect is why IQ deniers are fucked. You don't even need to know what is IQ or what genes are caused it, if it has predictive validity, it is intrinsically useful. Just like the entire field of genetics was founded on the mere fact that the concept of "genes" was useful and made repeated predictions, even though NO ONE knew at the time, what mechanism was even causing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenic_score

Also, there are doubly fucked because now, you don't even need to know the IQ of a person to know if they are genetically intelligent. You can just find the polygenic score of an embryo and pick out the smartest one of the bunch. Since polygenic scores are being used in animal/plant breeding to actual success, then there is nothing stopping the same thing for humans.

>>10558881
No, because the study was posted by a gene/IQ denier. If you read past threads, you'll know he's some neurotic loser black guy. So its a flawed bias study that ought to be thrown out because of it being inherently not useful, we cannot trust his judgement and we don't need brainlets simplifying such a thing to a moronic degree.

The biggest problem with such a study trying to make biological correlates with personality and beliefs, is that it tells us nothing. Its not universal. So its already useless. How do you apply your Republican/Democrat paradigm to a mere 60 years ago? Or to the UK or Japan? Or the interest groups preceding the French Revolution, were the term "left wing and right wing" were coined?

There are genetic differences between moronic progressivists and sane people though. One way to test this, is if they are disgusted by body odor or not.

>>10558985
>No, because the study was posted by a gene/IQ denier.
we're reviewing studies based on who posted them, instead of based on the actual content of the study?
sounds like something a leftist might say.
>this study doesn't mean anything because it was posted by a racist

>>10558929
correct, here's some more on this

Moleti Mariacarla, Trimarchi Francesco, et. al. Thyroid. February 2016, 26(2): 296-305. https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2015.0336
>Overall, the prevalence of borderline or defective cognitive function was more than threefold higher in the children of mothers not using iodized salt than of those mothers using it (76.9% vs. 23.1%, odds ratio 7.667 [CI 2.365–24.856], χ2=12.65; p=0.0001).

Yousafzai, Aisha K et al. Effects of responsive stimulation and nutrition interventions on children's development and growth at age 4 years in a disadvantaged population in Pakistan: a longitudinal follow-up of a cluster-randomised factorial effectiveness trial. The Lancet Global Health , Volume 4 , Issue 8 , e548 - e558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30100-0
>1302 mother–child dyads were re-enrolled between Jan 1, 2013, and March 31, 2013, all of whom were followed up at 4 years of age. Children who received responsive stimulation (with or without enhanced nutrition) had significantly higher cognition, language, and motor skills at 4 years of age than children who did not receive responsive stimulation.

>>10556740
You don't understand genetics. The nature/nuturte idea was dismissed decades ago. It's all about gene-environment interaction.

The measurement we call heritability is NOT the measure how much a trait is determined by genetics.

>>10558936
genes have a physical basis tho. DNA. intelligence is just a statistical inference. no?

>>10559191
Correct, IQ is pseudoscience.

>>10556740
I'd say it's mostly nature but nurture hones the nature

>>10558985
>So its a flawed bias study that ought to be thrown out because of it being inherently not useful, we cannot trust his judgement
I didn't write the study, brainlet.

>>10556740
Wouldn't nature determine how one would interprets nurture?
As in, a naturally dumb person may not even be able to use the nurture to further themselves, even if they grew up in a good household, whereas a naturally smart person would be able to more effectively utilise their available resources, even if they came from a shitty household.

>>10557292
>>10557406
>when you score below 100 on an IQ test