/sci/ - Science & Math

4chan has always had low impulse control. Sorry for asking desu.

>>15286958
>>15286970
Low impluse control means low intelligence

I believe that it comes down to parenting at that point. Parents lose control of the last half of kids most the time.

>>15286996
So intelligence isn’t genetic? I feel like low vibrating entities have a lot to play in retardation and causing low iq niggas. Low vibrations are stored via trauma in certain areas of the body (mainly psoas and hip muscles) which in turn block high vibrational energy.

>>15286958
Inheritance and genetics pertaining to complex traits and risk factors of any given complex phenotype do not imply any expectation of guaranteed presentation of said phenotype. They're probabilities. Entirely possible for two children or a parent and child and so on to be complete opposites in any or every respect. Same goes for shifts of which genes and sets of genes and interactions of genes behave in any given way in any given environment. Yes, genes do "have control" over all presentations. No phenotype is possible without corresponding genes that, given some environment, render it possible.
>>15286996
As a correlating factor if one does not control for neurodevelopmental disorders, it has some utility. It does not "mean" low intelligence. Else accounting for asymmetric executive functioning results on IQ tests would not render IQ score otherwise normal for, say, ADHD. That is to say, the fact people exist with ADHD with 2 or even 3 SD above normal demonstrates you don't understand what impulse control association research really means.

>>15287008
I understand that the phenotype has a range of probable outcomes now that you enlighten me, but is it ‘nurture’ that create entire families that are near perfect?

Like those large wealthy Catholic families that produce the top 1% of humans, without fail?

>please withhold your bias if you hate religious people and role with me here

>>15286996
Actually true. The whole marshmallow experiment with kids. 1 marshmallow now or 2 if you wait ‘x’ time… interesting

>>15287008
This makes complete sense, but the anon above me >>15287021 kind of hit the next question on the head. Do you have a higher probability of high impulse control if you raise them the right way?

>>15287004
This is also interesting to think about. My mom is really into Tesla and the whole vibrational theory. She used to be Uber Christian then started becoming more logical after my brother died and all the boomers migrated to telegram conspiracy groups after Faceberg started banning triggers.

>>15287021
>I understand that the phenotype has a range of probable outcomes now that you enlighten me, but is it ‘nurture’ that create entire families that are near perfect?
The answer is effectively the same as how phenotypes are interactions of genes and environments. Luck, of whatever genes and whatever environment and whatever prior circumstance, etc. I can only summarize by noting that depending on what one means by "nature" or "nurture" those kind of questions can't be meaningfully answered. Any more than distinguishing "phenotype" from "genes" and "environment". Absent any environment whatever you don't get a phenotype inasmuch as you get something not alive. Same in this case.

That is to say, transplanting some population to a different context if you could manage to "mind wipe" their culture and behaviors and proclivities would necessarily also entail altering genetic expression as their behavior is, in some parts, also phenotypic expression. Usually such expression tend to be formed nearer conception or prior to, of course, so it's even less relevant to talk about interventions with respect to that. This is not to say interventions are meaningless, just that "it's fuckin complicated".

tl;dr there is no way to predict whether any given population will benefit or not to any given degree from any notion of nurture. You would need such a complete simulation of biology such that you could predict the outcomes in a way that may as well be magic.
>>15287027
>Do you have a higher probability of high impulse control if you raise them the right way?
For impulse control? That's real hard to say, as noted above. "raise them right" might mean not slapping them on the head whereas formerly that amount of added head trauma made it worse. It's just a really broad question. Depends on what your comparison points between "wrong" and "right" are, and how vast the difference. In the U.S. on average? Maybe not I think intervention studies are inconclusive IIRC.

>>15287057
Ockhams razor applied to this post tells me you are a psued. Why can’t you give simple answers? Witten-tier mental masturbation.

>>15287074
I did give a simple answer. Depending on what you mean by the question the answer is inconclusive or not answerable. Don't whine when someone also tries to explain why that is.

>>15287057
I’m headed to the gym, but I will read this after. Thank you for the input anon!

>>15287027
>interesting
LMFAO

>>15287916
>gym
Post pump or never mention this again.

>>15288024
>>15288027
Meds