/sci/ - Science & Math

Less than 30% of identical twins are concurrently trans, concurrently gay, and concurrent in their personalities in general. A majority of your personality is determined by external factors that aren't genetic, retard.

>>12698386
No one said it was entirely genetic anon. Also why are you so upset?

>Also this is fucking /sci/ related faggot jannies.
It really isn’t. >>>/pol/

>>12698368
>childhood abuse lowers iq
>impoverished families usually resort to eating fast food
>black children on average have more lead in their blood than a child of any other race
>impoverished families also experience more stress which also can lead to lowered iq in a child
it's almost like things can snowball into either direction. if you're born into a family with a healthy dynamic and the means to thrive, you might as well have a higher iq.

>>12698368
Its accepted within Asian cultures. Its a taboo in western cultures. Even though its apparent in all domains for competition from physical competitions to intelligence. Genetics underlying play 95% of the role.

>>12698401
>Genetics isn't /sci/
lol

>>12698368
Personality and intelligence are determined by your environment. Vote left.

>>12698406
Yes anon we know the environment can effect IQ but 80% of intelligence is genetic. This has been shown multiple times.

>>12698368
name the genes that given certain personality traits and explain their pathways, sorry but minor statistic correlation isn't going to cut it

>>12698398
>No one said it was entirely genetic anon
>personality and intelligence are mainly determined by genetics
Bad faith faggot. If less than 50% of personality factors are concurrent in identical twins, then it suggests such personality factors are mainly environmentally driven.

I'll try putting it in /pol/ language so your retarded monkey brain can understand. If less than 50% of identical twins are concurrently trans or gay, it implies trans and gaiety are mainly environmentally determined. Is not that not what /pol/tards like you believe? I don't know why it's so difficult for you morons to accept that racial differences in IQ and personality are primarily environmentally determined. Oh, wait, you're just trying to be racist.

>>12698386
Gay isn't a personality anon

>>12698427
>Mainly
They are mainly. Also gay isn't a fucking personality type.

>>12698427
>>12698401
Nice cherrypick stupid. Gay isn't a personality. Also
>Someone can't bring up genetics without being le /pol/
Maybe you shouldn't be on a science board.

>>12698424
explain the flynn effect

>>12698386
so not 100% genetic just 70%? still seems high

>>12698461
Anon, it means less than 30% is genetic. Are you legitimately retarded?

>>12698442
The flynn effect hasn't been a thing for years. It's reversing in fact. Gains in environmental IQ are dwarved by lowering of genetic IQ.
Pic related

>>12698468
Not that anon but that isn't what it means at all. Different aspects of personality and intelligence are more or less genetically determined.

>>12698499
Then why do identical twins have less than 50% similarity on personality tests? Why do identical twins diverge so much in personality, enough so to have completely distinct personalities?

>>12698427
Why does something have to be over 50% for it to be considered a drag on civilization which isn't worth carrying? If it's 30-40% we can still reach that conclusion regarding blacks and their cognitive ability

>>12698504
>One such study, conducted at Edinburgh University on more than 800 sets of twins, found that identical twins were twice as likely as fraternal twins to share personality traits. Other studies have produced similar results in favor of nature’s dominant role in personality development, leading some to believe the debate is over.

Will you ever accept the fact that the Jews are genetically superior to you in personality and intelligence?

>>12698368
but genetic expression is 100% dependent on environment, so your take is just as cringe as the social science "all humans are blank slates white people bad" take

>>12698524
>2*0.01% = 0.02%
Idiot.

>>12698524
>>12698504
>. Broad genetic influence on the five dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness was estimated at 41%, 53%, 61%, 41%, and 44%, respectively.
It seems to be about 50%. Also watching the "sage" anon sperg because people disagree with him is hilarious.

>>12698534
Who are you quoting?

>>12698427
>Faggotry is an induced mental illness
Yes.
>IQ is mainly genetic
Yes.
I see no contradictions.

>>12698368
>much of sociology and social sciences try to avoid this fact y
Entire field trying to work out why some kids don't learn good but religiously won't consider genes. Really is amazing.

>>12698386
K but like 0% of DZ twins are concurrently trans, so that indicates like a 0.6 narrow sense heritability of trannyism. Of course, this would only be self-ownage if anybody viewing your post actually understood this. Also, the narrow sense heritability of personality traits is consistently 0.4

>>12698424
Heritability=\=genetic

Anyone who tries to say that is a massive pseud. No genetic study has found an 80% explanatory power on intellect of any kind

>>12698468
30% concurrency with 0% concurrency in DZ twins implies like 60-65 percent narrow sense heritability lol. The stat, by itself, straight up implies that it's heritability is more than half.

>>12698417
>Its accepted within Asian cultures
They believe blood types are correlated with personality.

>>12699214
Do you mean GWAS studies when you say "genetic"? Geneticists don't believe that non-molecular-genetic ways of measuring intelligence are "less accurate" than GWAS because broad, classical heritability estimates capture the entire genome without having to tabulate individual gene contributions.

This is the most charitable interpretation of what you said, all other possible interpretations are so dumb that you should be banned from speaking.

>>12699229
I'd be shocked if you have actually worked with bioinformaticians and geneticists. Heritability is a measure of both enviormental and genetic components which make it inherently lower quality. Even GWAS are subject to the whims of population structures and all sorts of genetic/social fuckery, heritability estimates grind up all the errors into a fine powder and snort it off the ass crack of reality.

Heritability is used as a last resort and mainly for traits that have simple presentation such as hair colour. Using it for even cancer risk or god forbid intelligence is retarded.

So yes, heritability of coat colour in dogs is fine. Heritability of psychological traits and things that change throughout a lifetime based on their enviorment are not. Hence why conflating and 80% heritability of intelligence with 80% of intelligence is genetic is retarded ad you quite literally implant enviormental considerations into the genetic component as a nessicity and have to make an assumption of enviormental factors not influencing the trait

>>12699219
>30% = 60%
Idiot.

>>12699268

>Even GWAS are subject to the whims of population structures and all sorts of genetic/social fuckery,
Yes, hence GWAS not being a silver bullet. Just like with broad heritability estimates, there are operating assumptions that can cause you to underestimate or overestimate heritability. But just because your operating assumptions cause theoretical errors doesn't mean that the measure is hopelessly confounded. Only in human genetics (the most politically hot academic field) do people pretend that the error bars could span the entire spectrum of possibilities.

Also, the "genetic"/"heritable" confounder doesn't need to be outlined because people nearly always mean "heritability". They're nearly always asking what proportion of a difference in a trait in a given population at a given time is attributable to genes vs. environment, even if they don't know the textbook definition well enough to state it in this way.

>Traits that have simple presentation
Lol polygenic traits are analyzed all the time. wtf is this shit? This seems to only come up because there's certain special polygenic trait (*cough* g-factor *cough*) that makes a lot of people butthurt. Height is also highly polygenic but researchers don't play dumb and pretend that the complications of measuring polygenic trait heritability put a nearly full stop to analyzing the heritability of height. Also, broad heritability estimate methods like twin studies are immune to the monogenic/polygenic distinction.

>Heritability of psychological traits and things that change throughout a lifetime based on their enviorment are not.

Yeah, heritability can be bounded by specifying the locale or time you're considering. This isn't some fatal problem, you just have to specify the environment. Nearly every heritability study has the bounding environment innately specified by the cohort they examined, so this is never actually a problem. It's something a normoid wouldn't get right off the bat, maybe.

>>12699282
They refer to different things: 30% refers to the concordance between MZ twins and 60% refers to the heritability you would infer from this GIVEN than the concordance between DZ twins is nearly 0. Look up how twin studies work.

>>12699325
Man you're stupid. So if the concordance of MZ twins is 85% you'd probably claim it's 160% genetic.

>>12699226
Yep. And we believe covid will kill everyone. Retards are amongst us.

>>12699318
>Gwas
That's my point, a gwas isn't a silver bullet but that doesn't magically give heritability estimates more credence of deciding to just tank the error in the analysis instead of seperating it.

Heritability is distinct from genetic. Heritability is a technical term referring to specific abilities of phenotypes to be inherited. If said phenotypes are under complex enviormental and multi-gene control than heritability estimates diverge from genetic ideas. Calling them the same is not only lazy it's deceiving.
>Simple presentation
Height is a simple presentation despite being polygenic. Height also has easily controlled factors such as nutrition availability and damage to the body. Intelligence has complex presentation and is influenced by many factors from years in schooling to musical instruments learned to number of languages learned. Presentation doesn't mean polygenic. Twin studies are under fire as there can be massive deviations in twin genetic information.

>Never actually a problem
Except it is when trying to generate information on something like intelligence. You can say intelligence is "80% heritable" using an all white, all upper middle class, all college educated subset of individuals that are rigorously screened for child raising methodologies. But then you are only able to comment on that specific population and not in a genetic context.

Here's a nifty overview of the topic and it discusses IQ heritability in detail. It goes over some of the math and logic on why things get muddy so quickly. It's a good read
https://www.google.com/amp/s/scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/heritability-a-handy-guide-to-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt-mean-and-that-giant-meta-analysis-of-twin-studies/amp/

>>12698495
Empirically wrong.

>>12698368
>So much of sociology and social sciences try to avoid this fact
"So much" - good fucking scienceing dipshit

>>12698386
Identical twins that are separated at birth are more similar in terms of Personality, than ones that are raised together. Because ones raised together deliberately make distinguish themselves from another, but ones that are separated act more inline with their innate nature.

>>12698406
Mal/undernourishment does not affect general intelligence. neither does brain damage most of the time or stress
IQ differences in race are on general intelligence
therefore environmental differences do not explain race differences in intelligence.

>>12698442
The flynn affect has been proven ad nauseam to not be related to general intelligence, and this is already widely acknowledged, and by James flynn himself.

>>12699226
Social classes correlates with blood type.

>>12700032
>therefore environmental differences do not explain race differences in intelligence
does not FULLY explain*

>>12698427
>>12698386
t. Centrist Democrat Who doesn't know shit about cognitive science or evolutionary psychology

>>12699335
>Anon doesn't understand genetics but claims others don't

>>12700032
>IQ differences in race are on general intelligence
that's vague as fuck.

>Mal/undernourishment does not affect general intelligence. neither does brain damage most of the time or stress
Those factors extremely effect it. Indian farmers scored lower before their harvest was done then after it was done and they were more well fed.

>>12700229
>that's vague as fuck.

No, general intelligence (g) is a construct extracted from factor analysis. There was a huge book written on it by Arthur Jensen. You are very confused.

>Those factors extremely effect it.

Nice man

>>12700229
>IQ differences in race are on general intelligence
>that's vague as fuck.
nope

>Those factors extremely effect it.
Except they don't, They affect IQ test scores, and more specialized expressions in intelligence that are environmentally sensitive, but that does not reflect a genuine decrease on general intelligence. These differences can be identified using factor analysis. >>12700238

>>12700032
Adding iodine to salt raised the national IQ by >5 points alone. Removing lead from everything had similar effects. A concussion can definitely permanently lower IQ. Depression alone is known to cause a drop in IQ test scores.

You are literally waving away an entire massive amount of information and interaction as "unimportant" without actually addressing it. Malnutrition stunts growth on pretty much every level including cognitively.

Hell, look at Genie. She should have inherited her intelligence regardless of what was done to her right?

>>12699380
Lol, nobody here is conflating "genetic" with "heritability" in a technical sense, and when people say a trait is "genetic" they usually mean "it has a heritability of >0.5 in the USA right now".

>Simple presentation
OK, IQ is a simple presentation, it has an internal correlation of 0.9 and is a consistent feature of somebody's adult cognition, especially g-loaded IQ tests.

"80% heritable" using an all white, all upper middle class, all college educated subset of individuals that are rigorously screened for child raising methodologies

Jej we can use subtest heritability to infer an 80% between-group heritability between blacks and whites in the modern USA. You didn't even know that between group heritability was being inferred and you are so uninformed that you thought that all heritability studies were general studies conducted on the white upper middle class, clown.

>>12700251
Lol, showing those things affect IQ isn't the same as showing that they are the CAUSE of the current black-white IQ gap.

A gasoline diet probably lowers IQ a lot, but it's obviously not the cause of the black-white IQ gap.

my dad got a perfect LSAT. my brother is #1 at a top 25 school in lawschool. I studied math and am about as smart. it's totally genetic, get out of here, thanks.

>>12699490
>In a 2018 paper, cognitive scientists James R. Flynn and Michael Shayer argued that the observed gains in IQ during the twentieth century—commonly known as the Flynn effect—had either stagnated or reversed, as can be seen from a >combination of IQ and Piagetian tests. In the Nordic nations, there was a clear decline in general intelligence starting in the 1990s, an average of 6.85 IQ points if projected over 30 years. In Australia and France, the data remained >ambiguous; more research was needed. In the United Kingdom, young children suffered a decline in the ability to perceive weight and heaviness, with heavy losses among top scorers. In the German-speaking countries, young people saw >a fall in spatial reasoning ability but an increase in verbal reasoning skills. In the Netherlands, preschoolers and perhaps schoolchildren stagnated (but seniors gained) in cognitive skills. What this means is that people were gradually moving >away from abstraction to concrete thought. On the other hand, the United States continued its historic march towards higher IQ, a rate of 0.38 per decade, at least up until 2014. South Korea saw its IQ scores growing at twice the average >U.S. rate. The secular decline of cognitive abilities observed in many developed countries might be caused by diminishing marginal returns due to industrialization and to intellectually stimulating environments for preschoolers, the cultural >shifts that led to frequent use of electronic devices, the fall in cognitively demanding tasks in the job market in contrast to the twentieth century, and possibly dysgenic fertility.[33]

>>12700262


same poster, forgive me for being a faggot flexer. not trying to flex, but honestly my inner bad thoughts come out on 4chan. but seriously this is true, it is genetic most likely given a lot more than just my smart brother and dad, who I am not as smart as . thanks

>>12700254
You literally did. That is quite literally the entire reason I initially responded saying heritability=/= genetic. If you didn't want to discuss this shit with the actual scientific terms go make this stupid bait thread on /pol/.

Cool we did a study on the heritability of intelligence of the two groups black and white. The white income average is 60k and the black is averaged at 30k. The white cohort lives in a nice city. The black in a shitty. The white cohort was in a dry county. The black had a liquor store every block. Etc. Etc. Etc. The controls on that data set are an absolute nightmare and if you'd tried to run analysis on them your understand that.

>>12698532

> But genetic expression is 100% dependent on environment, so your take is just as cringe as the social science "all humans are blank slates white people bad" take

This is the worst fucking board I swear

>>12700251
But the CDC has shown black and white lead blood levels are bout equal and lead is at an all time low

>>12700267
>>12700262
Ngl you do sound like a massive faggot but it's okay.
>>12700265
You took that entire fucking passage and all you took from it was the last part saying that its "possibly dysgenic fertility" completely ignoring all the other listed reasons.

>>12700280
Lol, environmentality estimates are just the flip-side of heritability estimates. You are totally clueless. You can even say that the environmentality (ANY environmental factor, including income and every other environmental difference) was inferred to be 0.2 from subtest heritability. It isn't affected by environmental confounders in the way you think it is. You literally do not understand behavioral genetics, at all. The point of heritability estimates is to tease out how much variance is caused by genetic differences, as opposed to differences in environment.

Also, we know from transracial adoption studies that the 20% that IS environmental is not even due to SES differences. So even as far as the environmental proportion of the gap goes, income differences aren't a great explanation.

>>12700290
Not what I was talking about at all, nice attempt to shift the point though.

If only I had been raised like a child in the wild, unable to speak language or learn how to use a toilet.

>>12700312
That guys post is absolutely pertinent to what you were saying and you're just pretending it isn't. You have to show that things that affect IQ actually cause the gap.

>>12700251

If differences in racial IQ can be completely ascribed to environmental factors then why haven't any interventions to raise outcomes for black students been successful? Billions of dollars in government funding, half a century of education reform, etc. has not made an impact on the race IQ gap. You've listed some plausible reasons for IQ being lowered but I challenge you to come up with a convincing explanation for how it can be increased and why that has not happened yet.

(Spoiler alert: It's not malnutrition/lead poisoning)

I am a fraternal twin what does that mean?

>>12700251
>Adding iodine to salt raised the national IQ by >5 points alone
Yep except once again cognitive stagnation cause by neurotoxins or whatever are not related to g (General intelligence), which was the point of my text. look up: What Caused over a Century of Decline in General Intelligence? Testing Predictions from the Genetic Selection and Neurotoxin Hypotheses.

Furthermore, superficial increases in IQ scores are also unrelated to General intelligence. Particular components of IQ tests are more genetically innate, and others more environmentally impressionable, This is a primary function of IQ tests so you can identify brain damage and other inhibiting factors in intelligence (like adhd or autism, neither one inhibits intelligence, but causes you to do worse on IQ tests, so in a sence, you are "less intelligent" because it is more difficulty expressed), hence >A concussion can definitely permanently lower IQ. Depression alone is known to cause a drop in IQ test scores
The reason why we know this because reduction in test scores are not ubiquitous across subtests and are more pronounced on particular ones. The flip side to this is, adopted children are reported to have higher IQ’s then they should be genetically predisposed to have. However, they ONLY do better in the environmental components of IQ tests, as in they do slightly better in the 0.8 g loaded tests (genetically innate) , and significantly better in the lower 0.2-0.4 g loaded tests (environmentally impressionable). The correlation between g loading, and increased performance is, I kid you not -1.0. (study titled: Are adoption gains on the g factor? A meta-analysis).

p1

>>12700307
You already put your foot in your mouth and can't even acknowledge that. A gwas can tease out the genetic component of intelligence and create a list of actual genetic information on intelligence. Heritability is something that inherently can't make direct inferences between populations on complex traits. There is a genetic component to intelligence.

You cited an 80% genetic intelligence figure, that is a bald faced lie. We have at best a 20-50% genetic component. There is, at best, an 80% heritability.

>>12700339
p2

By definition there aren't race differences in "environmental components of intelligence" so to speak, because these environmental impacts aren't innate to race. I know you are arguing that people of different races are disproportionately affected by encumbering environmental impacts, problem is, it does not matter anyway. We can identify the genetically loaded components to intelligence which are germane to race differences. We can look at these differences independently from any environmental influences through factor analysis, and there are clear race differences anyway.

If you're wondering how Genetic/environmental IQ scores are, It depends. If you give an IQ test to a class of students, It would be very unlikely that there would be asymmetrical influences on environment to any of the students. Thus the individual differences in intelligence between another could be explained entirely to genetics. However if you introduced someone to the sample who does not know how to read because he was never taught, then given physical brain trauma, His poor test score can be attributed entirely to Environment.

g however does not work like this, its pretty much 100% genetic.

>>12700342
read
>>12700347

>>12700281
nah there are worse boards.

>>12698368
Are the things you can learn from a book dependent on the contents of the book? Yes. But now consider if a set of books is written in Mandarin and you've only taken two semesters of Mandarin. Are you gonna rank usefullness books solely from a remedial understanding of the language and the pictures on their covers? Or are you going to be careful to factor in the considerable uncertainties involved?

>>12698368
>Will society ever accept the fact that personality and intelligence are mainly determined by genetics?
False
>So much of sociology and social sciences try to avoid this fact yet advances in genetics continue to prove it to be true.
It's not a fact and it's not proven to be true.

The Bell Curve was proven to be misleading and/or false on most of its claims. It was rightfully lampooned by science communities and there's no controversy about it being shit.

>>12700395

> It was deboonked!

No, it really wasn't. The subject is politically radioactive and attracts a lot of advocates who argue in bad faith against it. Leftists will argue that race/IQ research has no more legitimacy than horoscopes but scurry away from the burden of proving it's not hereditary. They mostly resort to emotional rhetoric, cherry picking, accusing the other side of being racist. Occasionally they even forge data.

>>12700328
>why haven't any interventions to raise outcomes for black students been successful?
Or for whites or retards in general. There is basically no amount of money or quality of schooling that will make dumb kids normal or normal kids smart.

>>12698368
Accepting that fact would enable a given geopolitical entity to vastly outperform all others.
Especially since said entity would probably also recognise the value of using the artificial womb to industrially reproduce superior segment of its population.

It's going to go like the spread of lactose tolerance, except several orders of magnitude faster.

>>12698419
IQ is literally astrology for popsci retards who think they’re the next Einstein. And I’m saying that having an IQ of ~3σ, a better education than 99% of /sci/ and being well versed in Solomonofian Bayesianism.

>4 chronic diseases at age 25
>3 of them autoimmune
How does one dead with being a genetic dead end? Would reproducing be immoral?

>>12700906
lol nice bait

>>12698368
Yes, I believe that society will eventually come to accept it. First off, we're far from the days were the social sciences were dominated by literal communists (Gould, Lewontin). Not so long ago, in the 70s, even milquetoast evolutionary psychologists like Dawkins were decried as fascists ; proponents of the link between genes and behavior, such as EO Wilson or Arthur Jensen, were routinely assaulted and received death threats. Nowadays, communism is dead and leftist sociology is relegated to irrelevant comparative literature departments, while psychometrics and evolutionary psychology are firmly entrenched academic disciplines.

Second, the progress in genetics will inevitably produce results identifying intelligence-boosting genes (in fact it has already started). Once we have identified those genes, it will be painfully obvious that they will be unequally distributed between individuals, and even between groups (ethnic groups, social classes, etc.)

Thirdly, China. China, unlike the west, don't suffer from negrolatry, and are pushing full steam ahead in their eugenic efforts to boost intelligence. If they ever deliver results, there will inevitably be an arms race to boost IQ, which can lead to two solutions: either the West abandons its egalitarian ideology and joins the race, or it persists in it and will get overtaken by China. In either case, the eugenic view will prevail.

>>12698368
Interesting study. Ironically half the posters here are below average iq though so dumber than even an average nigger. Also what is the exact difference in capablilities when it comes to a difference of 20 iq points?

>>12700953
>below average iq = below than the average nigger
not at all the case anon

>>12698504
They don't.

>>12698442
Flynn effect doesn't increase intelligence, or g. James Flynn said so himself

>>12700958
People here are very low iq. The average differential is 20 iq points. So statistically, chances are you're much below the average baboon. What do studies say about the differences in cognitive ability between two people with a 20 iq point difference?

>>12698406
>>childhood abuse lowers iq
No it doesn't.

>>impoverished families usually resort to eating fast food
and?

>>black children on average have more lead in their blood than a child of any other race
This hasn't been true for decades. And even back then, race differences in lead could explain one IQ point in B-W IQ gap

>>impoverished families also experience more stress which also can lead to lowered iq in a child
Stress does not lower IQ and racial differences in stress levels are small anyway.
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-stress/

>if you're born into a family with a healthy dynamic and the means to thrive, you might as well have a higher iq.
No, black kids adopted by middle class white families have IQ as general black population.

>>12700988
>>>childhood abuse lowers iq
>No it doesn't.
you're a retard if you think external factors like depression ect.. dont effect someones intelligence. Although it is true iq isnt a true test of intelligence and most people on here have never had their iq tested anyway. Kinda outdated.

>>12700988
>https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-stress/
Careful, Alt-hype triggers leftoids because he engages in pure academic arguments which they can't push back against. Even the debatelord Destiny got freaked out by him and apologized to his viewers for "giving a platform to white supremacy" lmao

>>12698427
>>12698386
What does being trans and gay have to do with intelligence? Different mental traits have different heritabilities.
Heritability of homosexuality is around 30% IIRC but IQ has 80% heritability.

>>12700993
>you're a retard if you think external factors like depression ect.. dont effect someones intelligenc
Show me evidence that depression has negative lasting effects on IQ.

>>12701003
In any case, niggers are the least depressed race, based off suicide rates.

>>12700973
g =/= intelligence,

If you give someone brain damage, as long as it is not too severe, general intelligence will still be maintained, as the integrity of g is the most heavily safeguarded component of intelligence, at the expense of the more specialized expressions of intelligence which are more vulnerable. Yet the person will still be noticeably less intelligent (because of the inhibited specialized intelligence. Therefore g=/= intelligence directly.

but yeah Flynn effect is not on g.

>>12701008
Everything you said in your post is false.

>>12701003
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1572949/

>>12700993
>>>childhood abuse lowers IQ
>>No it doesn't
>Show me evidence that depression has negative lasting effects on IQ.
It does, just not g, g =/= IQ score or Intelligence define shit properly. Also IQ inhibition does not need to be permanent for "childhood abuse lowers IQ" to be an accurate statement.

read >>12701008

>>12700395
>he Bell Curve was proven to be misleading and/or false on most of its claims. It was rightfully lampooned by science communities and there's no controversy about it being shit.
Bell Curve has stated what was the mainstream view among psychologists at least since 1980s.
Compare pic related to this quote from TBC

>"If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental
explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a
sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to
us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial
differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as
far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate."

>>12701013
nope :)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088733

>>12701024
Yup, as I thought. No long-term effects.

>>12701042
>being depressed lowers iq
i dont think that's what you thought

>>12701039
Did you even read the study you linked to? It's about a gene which allows for neural regeneration. It does not claim any of the following:
> that g is different from intelligence
> that giving someone brain damage always leaves g unaffected (only in that restricted sample size which possessed the gene)
> that the group possessing the gene had impaired "specialized intelligence"

In conclusion, kill yourself you fucking braindead retard.

>>12698461
Stop posting until you finish high school.

Did we ever come to a conclusion as to the effects of a 20 iq point differential? Im also curious if anyone can tell me about how IQ tests work and why IQ test is universal but others are not.

>>12701051
The paper didn't show that being depressed lowers IQ. It showed that if people with depression take an IQ test, they have lower score.
If you made study of people that got stabbed in the leg and made them take an IQ test, they would also have lower score. Does it mean getting stabbed in your leg lowers your IQ?

>>12701064
Have you heard of this thing called "Google"?

>>12701072
sure according to google there is no real difference in ability between 20 iq points so the bell curve is retarded

>>12701067
so you admit external factors lower iq. Imagine being depressed your whole life like many.

>>12701077
Jesus, your post reeks of low IQ.

>>12701078
t. low iq poster

look up Minnesota trans racial study. Funny thing is it only proves the average differential is super low lol.

>>12701077
>so you admit external factors lower iq.
Read my post again. Getting low score on an IQ test does not always mean your IQ was lowered wile you were taking that test.

> Imagine being depressed your whole life like many.
Many who? Black people? This whole conversation started when anon suggested that blacks have lower IQ because of depression. Even if I grant you that depression has long-term effects on IQ it wouldn't mean shit unless you demonstrate that blacks have higher rates of depression than whites.

>>12701084
lol

>>12701089
Why does it have to be one way or the other anyway? Maybe a low IQ causes depression, which in turn also affects IQ?

>>12701097
That is a possibility but since higher IQ races suffer from depression more it's not very likely.

>>12701102
Sure thing on that issue specifically, but why is the heritability vs environment argument in general so one-dimensional all the time? It would make sense that heritability causes environment factors to occur, which also have an influence on you

>>12701054
Do you seriously thing g is the only component of intelligence? Even though g is virtually entirely genetic, It has to be expressed through a specialized manner or task. If g could be expressed on its own, we would already have 1.0 g loaded tests that would be entirely culturally/environmentally independent. We very evidently don't have this. Because g has to be expressed through a specialized manner (eg Progressive raves matrix that is only 0.8 g loaded usually), that specialized mental ability is not entirely genetic and very environmentally impressionable. (the 0.2 of the task is environmentally influenced) Therefor in every mental task you can do, something other than g is at play simultaneously, so therefor g can't be the only component of intelligence.

>>12700906
You don't know what you are talking about. Popsci is biased against IQ.

>>12700951

> Nowadays, communism is dead and leftist sociology is relegated to irrelevant comparative literature departments, while psychometrics and evolutionary psychology are firmly entrenched academic disciplines.

Communists, or at least hard leftists are still firmly entrenched in academia. The strong incentives that deter this research are still there. Look at what happened to Steven Hsu. He didn't even explicitly research race/IQ, he just acknowledged that there were differences and explored genetic engineering as a way to close the gap. Cancelled. Researchers in psychometrics have to walk a fine line and end up struggling for funding or in career hell.

> Thirdly, China. China, unlike the west, don't suffer from negrolatry, and are pushing full steam ahead in their eugenic efforts to boost intelligence. If they ever deliver results, there will inevitably be an arms race to boost IQ, which can lead to two solutions: either the West abandons its egalitarian ideology and joins the race, or it persists in it and will get overtaken by China. In either case, the eugenic view will prevail.

This is going to be how it most likely happens

>>12700906
>I’m saying that having an IQ of ~3σ
b8 but if true, you're pretty retarded for being high iq

>REEEE YOU CANT JUST TALK ABOUT THE SCIENCE I DONT LIKE ON A SCIENCE BOARD REEEEEEEEEE IF I DONT LIKE IT ITS NOT SCIENCE
>LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALA

>>12700906
3σ in which direction anon? From your post I’d say sub 55

>>12698386
Ken, so most LGBT people aren't actually LGBT? Hilarious.

>>12698386
Lol of course being trans isn’t genetic it’s a cultural phenomenon that hasn’t even been mainstream for a decade

>>12698368
>Will society ever accept the fact that personality and intelligence are mainly determined by genetics?
meh this is only partially true though. Genetics do a lot but so does external influence. People are more defined by their initial conditions, aka their formative years, than anything else. Nice, outgoing friendly intelligent people don't exist without that influence coming from somewhere. You cant just put a baby in a room by itself, feed it from time to time, and expect to have a grown intelligent human adult in 18 years. Instead you just get a big feral monkey. Personality and intelligence are most related to nurture though yes genetics does have an effect too.

>>12700998
>heritability
different anon here.
what do you think scientists mean by "heritability"?
I'm curious if you actually know

>>12702018
Behaviour is 100% genetic.
Personality is 100% genetic.
Intelligence is 100% genetic.

Deal with it, kikish negress.

>>12699355
No-one believes this.

>>12702018
you're being realistic and smart, love to see it

>>12700995
based

>>12698386
>trans
Stopped reading

>>12702388

>>12698401
>le /pol/ boogeyman

>>12698442

When you breed dogs for intelligence, you get an intelligent breed but when it comes to humans.....no no no, they were colonized, they had bad nutrition, muh systematic oppression, etc, etc.
When will we stop lying to ourselves to feel virtuous? Acceptance is the first stage to a solution

>>12704492
Nobody wants to be told that they're simply inferior to somebody else because of random, cosmic chance of birth. It's so frustrating to pretty much everyone, that most will resort to entertaining delusions which may or may not increase their chance of improving. Hell, even I notice this within myself. How can I just 'accept' that I am simply damned to be a 120 - 125 IQ (possibly even 115 - 120 IQ) underling of geniuses with 140+ IQs? What is actually the point of just accepting it? I may as well entertain the faint, or even absurdly minimal, possibility that I can actually boost my cognitive abilities. I don't even care for partying, most pop culture, etc and get this weird serotonin boost whenever I accomplish anything 'intellectual'.

>>12704492
Because humans aren't dogs and at no point in times have humans ever been 'bred'
Because everything you mention as 'irrelevant' are true and real and you're attempting to ignore them to push your racist fantasies
Because the very concept of 'race' is highly flawed.

>>12706376
N

>>12706382
I

>>12698368
>intelligence

>>12706273
I relate to your sentiment anon. I’m a midwit through and through. It is a hard fact to swallow, certainly it isn’t one that most of us want to be true (although there are /pol/ types who are all to eager to mention intellect differences between different groups), but the truth does not rely on our sense of fairness or what "ought" to be. There is an overwhelming history of data and evidence that supports the fact that genetics differences account for the vast majority of intellectual/cognitive differences in humans. Getting upset and trying to suppress evidence, or ignore the results of experiments when we don’t like the conclusion is anti-science. The more rational choice is to accept the evidence as exists, and work forward with that awareness. We should seek a greater understanding of the mechanisms that govern intelligence, so that we can perhaps one day find effective methods to improve it.

Behavioralists have been refuted, public policy is ironically harmful to those it seeks to protect when it is unrealistic about their cognitive capacity, and if we refuse to address the elephant in the room, we will progress more slowly as a result. I wonder how many people arguing in this thread have actually read the book in OP.

Pic related is a good book and I recommend it to highly to anyone who is skeptical of IQ. Before I read it, I was firmly in the "IQ is not a meaningful number" camp. This book definitely informed me.

>>12698368
>its another feed me epigenetics thread again

>>12706402
G

>>12706579
You have a good point in accepting the conclusion. Though I still have no point in just stopping my pursuits in my interests that are correlated with higher intelligence (Cybersecurity / hacking, programming, philosophy, psychology, etc.) I simply won't just enjoy a boring 'normie' exsistence of watching NFL, playing the latest vidya and other things normie when I simply won't enjoy them as much as the serotonin highs I get doing intellectual things and charity. I actually know this sounds so irrational, and I agree, it IS irrational. Sometimes, it's actually somewhat 'smarter' to turn your brain off. Just look at some people on /biz/. They probably don't know what a blockchain even is and yet some STILL become millionaires. I simply believe (not know, I'll admit) that a good new strategy for myself is to kind of think I'm 'destined' to become smarter and rise above my apparent deterministic factors, even when most will obviously tell me I'm just being delusional. Fuck it, I'm a happy wannabe.

>>12707103
Help me anon!

Valentine's day card to my mom

"Dear Mom___??"

PLS I HAVE LIKE 5 MINUTES!!!!

>>12707103
>charity
midwit

>>12707103
/biz/ is high iq, green lumber effect

>>12700906
This is bait but there is some truth to it. Nobody that is actually high IQ cares about IQ.

>>12700993
I wonder what my real IQ is, considering I did the IRL test at the bottom of my depression after not sleeping for a couple days and still got 142.

>>12706910
G

>>12702527
Talk to the general population a bit more and you'll see.

do you guys keep a .txt with this thread. sigh.
I have seen this same post since 2005.

>>12707875
Hello McBrag

>>12707875
The verbal proportion is not effected by depression, mainly the working memory and processing speed idexes are. The viso-spacial subtest are only slightly effected. you can get a better estimate of your IQ by just looking at the verbal/spacial subtests.

>>12707103
>Though I still have no point in just stopping my pursuits in my interests that are correlated with higher intelligence
But no one is asking you to. You're welcome to do what you want, just like everyone is welcome to play sports even if they probably don't have the potential to become professionals.

>>12698386
>IQ
genetics
>Trans
culture, brainwashing and trauma

>>12707839
/biz/ is like every other board on this shithole. The idiotsjust barely know more than normies and think it makes them a genius when in reality they barely have any clue wtf they are talking about at any given. That being said /biz/ is infinitely smarter than this shithole board full of literal fucking retards

>>12707888
and here is it 2021 and most of you morons still dont get it. Go figure

>>12698368
>When will society accept I’m a special snowflake because mommy came from Europe?
Never.

>>12708950
Butthurt low IQ detected

>>12709757
I am a member of Mensa, and I have a skyrocketing IQ.

I have degrees in Engineering and mathematics. I'm also a writer for the natural sciences, technical documents, nonfiction, religion, music, AND software.

I'm probably the smartest person you'll ever quote.

>>12708289
>Train son to patch the IQ puzzles better before the IQ Test
>Son gets 147 IQ
Good genes!

>>12709973
No anon, that doesn't mean your son has 147 IQ

>>12709978
IQ tests aren't genetic if you can game train for them and practice to get better at them.

>>12709989
IQ tests aren't genetic, IQ is genetic

>>12709973
>>12709989
You simply don't understand what an IQ test is.
>protip: if it's an online test, it's not valid

>>12698406
>black children on average have more lead in their blood than a child of any other race
Maybe they should stop joining gangs and resisting arrest then.

>>12710070
>>12710242
>Noooo don’t practice for a test I need my cope number!!!

>>12699214
>haha dude you can't claim gravity exists without having been to the moon to prove that it affects objects equally in vacuum

>>12710251
>IQ is as real as gravity

>>12710248
You literally can't practice for a proper IQ test, that's the whole point. All you can theoretically do is cheat by memorizing the correct answers, but you shouldn't even be given the answers for an IQ test to begin with. What you are saying is basically like claiming 100 meters sprint is not a good way of measuring max running speed, since you can just bring your car to the race track and BTFO all the runners. You are a total brainlet with zero knowledge on psychometrics and it shows.

>>12710258
>didn't even understand the analogy
Oh look, another brainlet denying the validity of IQ. What a shock!

>>12706376
>muh colonization is real
Explain why black countries that haven't been colonized show the same results on tests as those that have.
>muh bad nutrition
Explain how blacks earning 100.000$+ a year manage to provide their kids with worse nutrition than trailer trash whites.
>muh systematic oppression
Explain the exact mechanisms by which this vague concept depresses black IQ scores.

>>12710288
>No you can figure out the methods of cuckotronics!
Haha shape patterns go clink

>>12710293
>IQ is valid s-stop saying mean things about my cope method!
You will never be a real scientist

>>12710337
>>12710329
>>12710258
>>12710248
>>12709989
Samefag

>>12701783
>social """sciences"""
>science
lmao

>>12710288
Can you /pol/tards just stay in your containment board? You embarrass yourselves every time you leave
>You literally can't practice for a proper IQ test,
Yes you can. If the test is about finding patterns in shapes and numbers, you can practice finding patterns in shapes and numbers. There's no such thing as a test you can't prepare for

>What you are saying is basically like claiming 100 meters sprint is not a good way of measuring max running speed, since you can just bring your car to the race track and BTFO all the runners.
I don't know if you're retarded or intentionally made a horrible analogy to support your argument
It's more like using children's performance in their 2nd grade gym classes as a measure of their genetic physical capabilities
You won't get meaningful measurements because some kids will be in better shape than others and also might not have grown as much as others their age.

>>12698368
These race IQ threads have popped up every single day on /sci for God knows how long now and always with the same graphs and the same prompts. This is either the work of one or two extremely dedicated NEETs who want to use scientism as an excuse for hating niggers or a CCP psyop intended to undermine faith in certain beliefs that the West holds true and that are antithetical to those of a homogenous, collectivist China.

>>>inb4 “NOOO YOU CAN’T CLAIM THERE’S DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RACES”

Presenting race IQ differences as an “uncomfortable truth” is a pretty effective strategy for getting your message to resonate with rational but scientifically illiterate anons. They take “facts don’t care about your feelings” to imply “uncomfortable = truth” or “as most likely equalling truth” even though science is indifferent to human emotion in either direction. Race realist will use the veil of contrarianism as a signal for rationalism because they know that this is a controversial and emotionally charged topic. Its a rhetoric strategy that has nothing to do with the strength of the underlying argument. Of course anyone with an above room temperature IQ will know that this whole thing has nothing to do with the question of whether there is a legitimate debate to be had about IQ differences. If it was, the arguments would have been presented and a conclusion would have been reached implicitly a long time ago with these specific threads becoming less frequent and threads about the topic’s next logical stage displacing them. By design this has not been the case. The only intention behind these threads is to implant the idea that niggers are dumber than white people as an indisputable fact irrespective of it’s implications. For the most part, it looks like this has largely been a success >cont.

Can anyone tell me how legit pic related is or if it has major issues?

>>12709934
lol no

>>12710541
Height is a physical trait and intelligence is a neural trait. They grow and adapt too differently to be reasonably compared. Brains are more flesh-like, they do not typically ossify.

>>12710515
OP never mentioned race tumblr

>>12710515
means nothing for the comparison

>>12698427
Dilate.

>>12703648
>Obssesed with fantasy of old jewish men sucking baby penises
>everyone who disagrees with you is the schizo though

>>12710323
>black countries that haven't been colonized
Name some
>Explain how blacks earning 100.000$+ a year manage to provide their kids with worse nutrition than trailer trash whites.
Income isn't an exact measure of living conditions. Also do you have any kind of numbers behind this?
>Explain the exact mechanisms by which this vague concept depresses black IQ scores.
The short version is basically (within America at least) non-whites were treated like second class citizens until around the 60s, but when they got equal protections and stuff, their conditions didn't magically improve. They were still redlined into shitty neighborhoods with shitty public schools and shitty tap water. Because of this poverty, they score worse on academic tests.

>>12711310
Not a scientific explanation. See >>12710541

>>12711202
It's not really a fantasy, you could just Google it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/herpes-babies-jewish-circumcision-ritual-link-rabbis-infants-a7620446.html
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/infant-herpes-jewish-circumcision_n_3021277
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618
https://nypost.com/2017/03/08/new-case-of-neonatal-herpes-caused-by-jewish-circumcision/

>>12703648
The /pol/tard is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a chud, incel, nazi, racist, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a /pol/tard and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

>>12711310
>Name some
Not him but Ethiopia and Liberia. Two African countries that weren't colonized by anyone so they should be economic powerhouses of Africa (If the theory that colonization was some terrible exploitation was correct). However the opposite is true.

>Income isn't an exact measure of living conditions. Also do you have any kind of numbers behind this?
Sure but it is very unlikely that black kids from families earning $200K+ a year would have worse living conditions than white kids from families earning $20K - $40K a year.

>he short version is basically (within America at least) non-whites were treated like second class citizens until around the 60s, but when they got equal protections and stuff, their conditions didn't magically improve. They were still redlined into shitty neighborhoods with shitty public schools and shitty tap water. Because of this poverty, they score worse on academic tests.

None of these things can explain the 15 point IQ gap.
First, their poverty decreased in this period but their IQ did not rise.
Second, school funding does not matter. And blacks schools receive more per pupil funding than white schools anyway.
I assume that by the shitty tap water you mean lead. There are no racial differences in blood lead levels in adulthood. And there is no evidence that lead exposure has lasting effects. And even if it did, it can only explain 1 IQ point at most.
I don't see what redlining has to do with anything. Firstly, they were pushed into black neighborhoods. Every black neighborhood is shitty neighborhood esentially. And transracial adoption studies shown that black kids raised in white middle class homes still have lower IQ than their white siblings.

More on this here:
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020/09/30/on-proposed-environmental-causes-of-the-american-black-white-iq-gap/
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/

>>12710515
>the fact that me and others refuse to consider the arguments presented repeatedly to us proves that there is no legitimate debate to be had
Lol

>>12710541
Hey i wrote that

>>12710515
The evidence wins out though in this case, and it IS something which there is substantial evidence for which is seldom acknowledged by mainstream thought.

>>12711996
It just sounds like shit that's too crazy to be true, but it is.

people prefer morality more than anything else. They will accept that 2+2=5 before accepting immoral thoughts

>>12712519
Morality used to revolve around religion though

>>12698368
This dude actually believes in race theory kek

>>12712541
yes and now morality revolves around being anti-racist.
Even under christian fundie rule people never tried removing calculus from education due to it being immoral.

>>12712547
So your saying the difference between Somalia and Japan is poverty? Just curious.