[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 6 KB, 225x225, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11649535 No.11649535 [Reply] [Original]

>world IQ increasing
>this means people a hundred years ago were noticeably dumber
>people from 2000+ years ago must have been complete imbeciles
>yet there were scientists and philosophers from that time period with minds much greater than even the great scientists from today

now consider someone like Archimedes, an ancient scientist who is often regarded as one of the greatest minds ever. Today, a great scientist might have an IQ of 160, let's say. Chris Langan supposedly has an IQ of 195. Now, Archimedes is obviously much smarter than a great scientist from today, and even smarter than Chris Langan. In today's numbers, Archimede's IQ would be 200+.

But now adjust that for his time period, and the IQ numbers back then. That means this guy's IQ must have been literally GOD-LIKE. I'm talking this guy was basically a supernatural deity with an IQ of 500+. I'm talking Super saiyan 4 kaio-ken times 50.

So my question is, WHY do we not have anyone who is comparably smart in our time? Basically a man who has an 800+ IQ, who can solve literally anything?

>> No.11649548

>>11649535

IQ does not increase. it is per definition always averaged at 100, no matter what the make up of a population

now whether IQ 100 means the same today as 100 , 100 years ago, that is questionable

anyway

> another IQ thread

>> No.11649562

>>11649535
this is believed to be at best a phenotype change not a genotype change

>> No.11649575

>>11649535
you misunderstand the flynn effect

the flynn effect affects the people who are underfed and dumber than their real potential
archimedes would probably be around 150-160 too, but back then probably 190 compared to all the other underfed diseased people around him

for example bobby fischer scored 190 on an IQ test in the 50's but today his IQ is regarded as 150 to 160

please try to understand why that is

>> No.11649665

>>11649535
>So my question is, WHY do we not have anyone who is comparably smart in our time?
Degeneration. Humans are failing as a species at every single level, and that includes genetically. There are no longer any selective pressures put on deleterious genes, so they just multiply through the population.

>> No.11649702

>>11649535
Flynn effect is mostly due to nutrition, less exposure to pollution, heavy metals, parasites, developmental disease etc etc. Also your claim that Archimedes was smarter than anyone living today is pretty suspect.

>> No.11649712

>>11649665
>deleterious genes
Imagine being such a cuck you want rich kids with daddy money to decide who gets to be born.

>> No.11649715

>>11649712
>The rich have good genes
Nobody said anything so fucking stupid.

>> No.11649718

>>11649715
Yes. Yes they did.

>> No.11649723

>>11649712
That is a biology term used for genes or mutations that are harmful to an organism

>> No.11649724

>>11649718
No, I didn't. The rich have the worst genes of all.

>> No.11649725

>>11649535
>assuming the flynn effect continues back indefinitely
>declaring Archimedes to be smarter than anyone alive based on nothing
>assuming that someone having an IQ vastly higher than the rest when everyone was much dumber necessarily means it's possible in modern times with much smarter people

>> No.11649727

>>11649724
fuck off commie

>> No.11649728

>>11649718
To elaborate, the people who think society should regulate genes are all kinds of stupid. You really think they'll stop at purging the downies from the gene pool? Nah, they start purging the genes of people who cross them too, since defying the state means you got shit genes and a broken brain. Off with the balls, your sperm makes dissidents. That is your brain on eugenics.

>> No.11649740

>>11649727
Just go ahead and be mad about everything.

>> No.11649741
File: 290 KB, 866x878, 1505501558610.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11649741

>>11649535
>>world IQ increasing

Average world intelligence is decreasing.

>bbut muh Flynn effect..

It is an example of a Simpson's paradox. Average IQ tends to increase locally but decrease globally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

>> No.11649742

They all dealt with low-hanging fruit, shit that a 6th grader can easily understand. Consequently the IQ they needed to have was much lower. If you were transported back in time your average /sci/ poster could think in circles around these dudes

>> No.11649744

>>11649728
Lol you fucking retard. It literally doesn't matter what your pea-brain NPC opinion is. You'll either regulate your species' gene pool or mama evolution will fucking do it for you, and you won't like that.

>> No.11649750

>>11649535
High intelligence in Homo Sapiens was forged during harsh survival of 100,000 years long Ice Ages. Especially the last one gave rise to Whites and east Asians. Since the last Ice Age ended roughly 12,000 years ago, average genetic intelligence has been decreasing. This is offset by better education and nutrition, but it can only go so far..

>> No.11649751

>>11649724
moron

>> No.11649752

>>11649535
>Well there was less carbon dioxide then.
>Apples were like x5 more nutritious.
>You didn't have to contend with traffic noise and other modern distractions.

>> No.11649756

>>11649728
Well, I am still going to CRISPR my future kid for better healh as intelligence if it is available, and your dumb hypothetical conspiracy theory won't change it.

>> No.11649758

>>11649756
No you're not, you faggot. You'll be lucky if personal computers are still around and you're allowed outside your house without your personal spy camera.

>> No.11649767

>>11649535
>So my question is, WHY do we not have anyone who is comparably smart in our time? Basically a man who has an 800+ IQ, who can solve literally anything?
You called?

>> No.11650355

>>11649575
>for example bobby fischer scored 190 on an IQ test in the 50's but today his IQ is regarded as 150 to 160
Apocryphal nonsense. The only GM with a known IQ score is Garry Kasparov who scored 135.

>> No.11650505

>>11649744
>Regulate your species gene pool
Yes, let the idiots who consistently mishandled everything also have the power over who gets born. Do you think that will lead to any positive results? Are you this fucking dumb? Genetic bottlenecks is what that leads to and if you have a society that doesn't make that a problem, you don't need to cull genes arbitrarily.

>>11649756
Less conspiracy and more an example based on how mental health is consistently used to terrorize dissidents. A country with the 1st amendment like the US having eugenics is a 1st amendment violation anyways, the 1st amendment covers right to reproduce as genetic transfer is a form of free speech if money transfer is.

>>11649741
>Look at my numbers ma, they show blacks DUMB
Lol

>> No.11650514

>>11650505
(Yes I know, early 20th century America broke the 1st amendment, guess what happened than? Mass jailing of political dissidents for opposing WW1. You hand them one 1st amendment violation, they start taking others)

>> No.11650522

>>11649548
100 is the reference and can be set to any test value

>> No.11650546

>>11649723
But you really want the government to define who had those? Even if say, the GOP or whatever did it with the way you had in mind it's only an election cycle away from dems using it to cull white genes as well for whatever BS 'deleterious' gene they can find, than some Bush type goes in and decides war protestors have the onions gene and therefore have the balls cut off, even if they're conservatives who just don't want their kids dying for israel, than you get some gay obama in there who is like 'yeah maybe some eugenics bad so we removed the ones that hurt some people under this means tested program'. And this is ignoring all the arbitrary dysfunction that would be doled out with this shit just like with the welfare state or law enforcement.

>> No.11650555

>>11650546
Also, if you hate jews, you sure as hell shouldn't like eugenics since if it's in the US jews wouldn't be affected in the slightest by it. They got too many levers of power this time.

>> No.11650621

>So my question is, WHY do we not have anyone who is comparably smart in our time? Basically a man who has an 800+ IQ, who can solve literally anything?

>Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

Are you an economist or a madman OP? Smartest people back then are comparable to smartest people of today. Fastest sprinters were probably almost as fast as the ones today. Only difference is that they didn't have the access to all the information/knowledge/training methods/proper nutrition etc. Genetic engineering is the way forward. Human "progress" has peaked long time ago.

>> No.11650622 [DELETED] 

>>11649535
The things that old greeks invented is so utterly trivial that a bright child can come up with them today.

>> No.11650627

>>11650621
Genetic engineering could create a diverse human ecology able to crack lots of issues or bottleneck humans to oblivion down the path of even worse echo chambers.

>> No.11650631 [DELETED] 

>>11649728
>Nah, they start purging the genes of people who cross them too, since defying the state means you got shit genes and a broken brain. Off with the balls, your sperm makes dissidents.
That's actually the ONLY thing I would use eugenics for if I was a dictator.

>> No.11650636

>>11649535
For someone to be that smart, they would have a conception of the world beyond our imagination. A great person is created by great people. We can't imagine the power, so we can't create it.

>> No.11650823

We do . We do have people that can solve anything. There are several problems with the quote 800 IQ and quote issue, in terms of literal understanding. - the answer anyting - scenario quickly becomes more about an extensive checklist of models, than it does about actual IQ. It's a lot more economic, to have a computer or a group of specialists assist you then it is to turn the Google effect upside down and memorize a ton of General Lee irrelevant insignificant models, for rare use. So we do actually have people who can solve any problem - the issue is models, - not the insight into solving problems.... Another issue - . This illustration brings another issue to light - the understanding of how to solve problems, is basically a learnable trade. It is doable for any reasonably intelligent person given the right mentor, or being sufficiently self-taught. However, when we begin to talk about learnable trades oh, Ivan is apparently at odds with how we like to think about IQ. We love to speak of IQ in a sort of ego - masturbation set of terms and descriptions. But, when it is display does a learnable trade, - it hurts my delusions of superior genetics and - natural - ability. Dot-dot-dot sorry if this is as much a pain to read, as it was a pain to write. - I am a high-scoring IQ what's a genetic mutation who can't afford a decent device, - so I'm using voice to text on a broken phone.

>> No.11650854

How much smarter will I get than the point where I'm at now, as an 18 year old entering college. Responses from people 25+ ? Just curious.

>> No.11650906

>>11650854
Your brain will get smart but your head will get dumb.

>> No.11650915
File: 110 KB, 1400x1400, maxresdefault.0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11650915

>>11650906

>> No.11650921

>>11649742
>low hanging fruit
not a real thing

>> No.11651074

>>11649535
Other modes of production

>> No.11651305

>>11650505
Oh I'm not saying humans can do that competently. You misunderstand me entirely. I don't believe humans should be permitted to self-govern at all. I think they should be totally enslaved by another species or wiped out. I'm just giving you the facts. Evolution's processes don't stop because humans are filled with hubris. Inheritance, mutation and selective pressure are all still happening. Except that humans have turned the selective pressure way WAY down by encouraging literally every unfit person to produce as many children as possible. Right now all that is keeping entire bloodlines alive are social order and scientific progress. That shit has a shelf life though and when that dam breaks, mankind is basically over. The jews alone would be extinct within about a generation due to all their genetic flaws.

>> No.11651323

>>11649535
>IQ
>Intelligence Quotient
It's based on a population distribution, the Flynn effect accounts for the fact that most high schoolers know more than Archimedes did

>> No.11651934

>>11651305
Define genetic fitness

>> No.11651969

>>11651934
How about shit like not passing on genetic illnesses that literally result in death before maturity? Is that a suitable enough definition for you, you fucking parasite?

>> No.11651993

>>11649535
What I’m getting from this is that your IQ is in the 90-100 range

>> No.11652030

>>11651969
Not at all.

>> No.11652033

>>11651969
Yeah, this is a huge problem. I know so many people who died before maturity because of the genetic diseases that their unfit parents passed down to them

Nah but seriously please stfu and go back to /pol/ you insufferable faggot

>> No.11652071

>>11650505
>Look at my numbers ma, they show blacks DUMB
What makes this especially funny is that the bottom chart is from a study of Norwegian conscripts

>> No.11652083

>>11652033
You mean like Tay-Sachs? Yeah, me too.

>> No.11652085

>>11652030
>>11652033
Shit like this is why I now understand the reason for throwing socialists out of helicopters.

>> No.11652087

>>11649575
Bobby Fischer's IQ was lowered because he spoke out against Jews.

>> No.11652177

>>11652085
I'm not a socialist. I just don't want jews with less birth defects.

>> No.11652204

>>11652177
You dumb lying tranny.

>> No.11652218

>>11652204
I have a 6.5" pulsating cock and at least 110IQ.

>> No.11652258

So, uh. Back to the question at hand.

I think that we won't be having that because the thing that you forget is that people are adapted to environments quite well. If we were to release a bunch of humans into the woods, destroy their tech base to primitive and then check back in 800 years we would find a bunch of people that would test very low on an IQ test.

However their genetic predispositions would not be significantly worse then us. The selection pressure might even put them better genetic predispositions. So what could it be?

The answer is that these people who test higher on an IQ test from the Flynn effect are a large composite of different things like adding iodine to salt or a long education because they effect the specific intelligence of IQ memorizing and abstracting. Those people who had lived such practical lives had masterful terrain mapping, exceptional survival skills, and constant practice infinitely stronger then us. But that had to come from somewhere.

Back to the people who were trapped for 800 years, those decedents IQ's would be altered by the focus of their cognition. If you brought them back into the fold and gave them proper education and food and socialization they would probably be better then most from the focused attention.

Oh, just accidentally wrote a stupid YA novel

>> No.11652276

>>11652258
This is what I said
>>11650636

>> No.11652308

I got lazy on my iq test and scored 40. If I applied myself I'm sure I would have gotten around 69.

>> No.11652320

>>11652083
>fewer than 20000 US cases per year

>> No.11652324

>>11652320
Oh guess it's fine then. Why even test for it?

>> No.11652329

lol the average college student couldn't pass highschool in the 1950's

>> No.11652769

The IQ of Richard Feynman was smaller than 130.
I doubt IQ is good measure for intelligence.

>> No.11652775

>>11650505
>Genetic bottlenecks is what that leads t

Only an issue if you have less a hundred people procreating among themselves. Inbreeding danger exponentially decreases as you increase number of people. It is literally a non-issue for all practical purposes.

>> No.11652777

>>11652769
130 is high you moron

>> No.11652779

>>11650505
>genetic transfer is a form of free speech
Nope.

>> No.11652813

>>11649535
>>yet there were scientists and philosophers from that time period with minds much greater than even the great scientists from today
Yeah I'm sure those retards were smarter than today's scientists while thinking that everything is made from fire, water, air and earth or that humans have a soul which enters a pea after death lmao

>> No.11652823

>>11649535
Why do you guys like to talk about IQ so much? I don’t understand.

>> No.11652912

>>11649535
You misunderstand the effect.
IQ test scores are rising too fast for it to be a genetic effect so essentially what this demonstrates is that there is a strong environmental component to IQ testing.

>> No.11652918

>>11652769
Childhood IQ tests are unreliable and shouldn't be regarded as compelling data.
His true IQ was probably much much higher, especially considering how studying math is very good "cross-training" for non-verbal IQ test questions (abstract pattern-based reasoning).

>> No.11652945

>>11649562
>800 generations of money getting you laid doesn't case an average increase in the ability to quickly perform calculations and think abstractly by genetic selection.

>> No.11652948

>>11649665
>incels, abortions, no selective pressures here
>religious people having more kids, none there
>in current year its not like actions have consequences and genes still function the way genes function

>> No.11652972

>>11652945
The Flynn Effect is on the timescale of one generation. All experts agree that if way to short for genetic selection to play a role. It's obviously environmental.
How is it that half the retards who learn about this effect completely misunderstand it?

>> No.11653035

>>11652918
>Childhood IQ tests are unreliable and shouldn't be regarded as compelling data.
Giga cope, literally the entire purpose of IQ testing is to quantify the intellectual development of a child to peers.

>> No.11653141

>>11652823
You are not allowed to talk about it seriously on most other websites, you should be able to figure this out on your own numbnuts.

>> No.11653159
File: 29 KB, 492x623, 0F9D9F1A-ED2A-48C2-A353-3C591D74F842.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11653159

>>11649535
>So my question is, WHY do we not have anyone who is comparably smart in our time? Basically a man who has an 800+ IQ, who can solve literally anything?

We do.

>> No.11653236

>>11649535

>there were scientists and philosophers from that time period with minds much greater than even the great scientists from today

Outliers

>> No.11653722

>>11650906
...what?

>> No.11653907
File: 222 KB, 2000x1380, income and fertility.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11653907

>>11652945
>800 generations of money getting you laid
It's not about sex it's about offspring. this hasn't been the trend for the last several decades. infact it has reversed in America

>>11650546
>>11650555
>the GOP
>if you hate jews
No, deleterious genes are not about tribalism or the political binary. The idea that the species population can endlessly reproduce or not reproduce without consequence is ludicrous. Nor can you take away the factors that lead to it's natural selection and expect it to happen on it's own, most gene mutations are deleterious and will accumulate if allowed to. Worse of all our current society is set up in a way that encourages dysgenics with those of higher IQs being statistically less likely to have children then those of of lower IQs. A departure from generations past.

This isn't a tribalism thing, its a problem that any advanced species has to eventually address or face the consequences of. One that our current political climate seems incapable handling with judiciousness.

>> No.11653914

>>11653907
seems like an inevitable consequence of women spending their most fertile years becoming highly educated/female careerism.

>> No.11653931

>>11653914
that's certainty a contributing factor

>> No.11654723

>>11653035
And those scores don't extrapolate into adulthood.
Nothing you said addresses my point.

>> No.11654747 [DELETED] 

>>11649535
Hint: IQ as a measurement of innate intelligence is kind of bogus. Here's a fun fact. IQ is normalized by age. On average the older a person is the higher their raw IQ score is. Raw IQ scores typically improve throughout life. Almost as if what we're primarily measured is learned abilities. IQ is only stabilized by normalizing it by age and that's how we get nice fixed numbers.

>> No.11654756

>>11649535
Hint: IQ as a measurement of innate intelligence is kind of bogus. Here's a fun fact. IQ is normalized by age. On average the older a person is the higher their raw IQ score is. Raw IQ scores typically improve throughout life. Almost as if what we're primarily measuring is learned. IQ is only stabilized by normalizing it by age and that's how we get nice fixed numbers.

>> No.11656155

>>11654756
This, a thousand times THIS.

>> No.11656210

>>11649575
>the flynn effect affects the people who are underfed and dumber than their real potential
Proof, please?

>> No.11656302

>>11649715
Someone around here proposed that rich people in our capital's west end are more handsome/beautiful simply because the rich prefer to marry the handsome/beautiful. And looks are a proxy for healthy genes.
It is no exaggeration to say that this caused a massive outrage.

>> No.11656307

>>11649535
meanwhile Tesla droppin' bombs on ur moms

>> No.11656402

>>11656210
it's one of the theories what the flynn effect is
or what you think everyone had their IQ grow by 3 points/decade uniformly? that makes no sense
no, definitely poor malnourished uneducated people saw a larger increase overall

>> No.11656413

>>11649548
>IQ does not increase

He was speaking about using our current IQ reference frame and look to other periods compared to it.

>> No.11656439

>>11650505
>Yes, let the idiots who consistently mishandled everything also have the power over who gets born.
Around here the politicians always grant themselves exceptions. Make the school really bad? No problems, send their children to an international school, problem solved. Pension scheme underwater? No problem, they have their own special pension plan. Health care in despair? No problem, they have special privileges to get around any health queue.
>Do you think that will lead to any positive results?
For themselves? Why, of course.

>> No.11656453

>>11649548
fpwp

>> No.11656457

>>11650621
>Smartest people back then are comparable to smartest people of today.
How do you know? Op's premise is that this is not true.

>> No.11656794

>>11656402
Better food, heathcare and education were the first and obvious things to check for. And they did.
Here in Western Europe diet hasn't been a problem since the war. In some ways the diet during the war was better since there was a lot less sugar and luxury items such as alcohol and tobacco.

>> No.11656922

Well people from the victorian era did speak in a more flowery language.

>> No.11657498

>>11649535
What is taking scientific models way beyond their scope?

>> No.11657507

>>11649548
fpbp

>> No.11657550

>>11654756
This is false. IQ increases up until around age 25, then it is very stable until about age 60. Of course you can normalise it by age - a 5 year old is retarded compared to a 30 year old, but you want a meaningful comparison between 5 year olds, not between 30 year olds and 5 year olds. 5 year olds dont have fully developed grey matter.

It also depends on the test, verbal subtests show less correlation with g than ravens progressive matrices. But the iq score is used as a proxy for the g factor - its not the factor itself. g is the "innate intelligence", the part that is part of the hardwire of the brain, hence its estimated heritability of about 0.8-0.9.

>> No.11657690

>>11657550
If g increases as you age then it cant be innate.

>> No.11657703

>>11657690
Why? You have a different body from when you were young that was pre-determined by your genes. You don't just grow higher if you eat more when your young. You have an innate max height. You also have an innate intelligence g, that crystalises out as you develop.

>> No.11657730

>>11649535
>misunderstanding the Flynn effect this badly

>> No.11657806

>>11657703
Development is never totally pre-determined. It depends on complicated environmental interactions.

>> No.11657840

>>11657806
This again? Ok organisms are genes expressed in an environment. But what percentage of the environment is just an expression of genes?

You're parents choose where you live sure, but they share more than half your genes, so that environment, in part, is just an expression of your genes. Its ALWAYS a gene environment interaction, the environment never magically affects your physiology without going through the genes. From this angle, there is no development that is genetically independent.

Muh environmental circumstances is a meme that needs to die.

>> No.11657906

>>11650505
>making fun of facts because it's spouted by retards at /pol/
I bet you've never seen a smart black kid in your class... EVER.

>> No.11657912

>>11657840
>This again? Ok organisms are genes expressed in an environment.

No organisms are phenotypes produced through gene expression in the dynamics of environmental context.

>But what percentage of the environment is just an expression of genes?
>You're parents choose where you live sure, but they share more than half your genes, so that environment, in part, is just an expression of your genes.

I don't know what your point is here. Gravity isn't an expression of genes last time I checked

>Its ALWAYS a gene environment interaction

Thats exactly what I said in my last post.

>the environment never magically affects your physiology without going through the genes.

What do you mean "going through your genes". Physical random noise, nutrition, injury, learning etc etc don't necessarily work through your genes.

>From this angle, there is no development that is genetically independent.

Well I said this in the previous post.

>Muh environmental circumstances is a meme that needs to die.

I don't know what you mean by this.

>> No.11658009

>>11657912
When i say going through the genes i mean the physical random noise is not as significant as you are portraying, and the genes control your response to your environment, so by age 24 your environment is just as much an expression of your genes. Furthermore, you reacting to a stimulus is an expression of your genes.

Ok you're parents don't encourage you to learn, so you are less educated. The reasons for this include your parents having genes which means they just do not care for learning, are low intelligence, whatever. Theres a chance they pass these on to you. If you are in fact interested in learning you could just ignore your parents and create your own environment which is an expression of your genes.

Injury will depend on how high of a risk taker you are, genes. Ok you can be pressured into something stupid, but you caving to social pressure is another expression of your genes. And choosing to hang around those people is another.

Nutrition, well ok, but dumb people are more likely to be obese and unhealthy because theyre more impulsive. They're likely to mate with people who are impulsive etc etc...

Gravity isnt an expression of genes no. But you're claiming the physical random noise is external to the organism, when organisms, especially complicated ones, shape their own environment. The environment you're parents foster is partly due to genes you have yourself.

Not only that but physical random noise is easy to quantify because theres so much data on it, and has been in IQ tests. In fact socio-economic class is one of the easiest to control for, it often contributes a shift of +-3 or 4 points.

>> No.11658027

>>11657912
To put it simply your body and brain is just the expression of your genes. An organism is genes expressed in an environment. You can call the expression a phenotype, and the environment a "dynamic environmental context" blah blah blah...
But you're body reacting to something is a gene expression reacting to something, because you're body/brain is coded by genes, so as i put it "it goes through the genes."

>> No.11658034

NO. The Flynn effect does NOT affect "g". The avg intelligence is decreasing, and Victorian England had a much higher average iq.

>> No.11658111

>>11649535
>So my question is, WHY do we not have anyone who is comparably smart in our time? Basically a man who has an 800+ IQ, who can solve literally anything?
because the body of knowledge has increased, and literally no one is able to "know it all" like in those times.

>rest of the post
retard

>> No.11658131

>>11658027
>But you're body reacting to something is a gene expression reacting to something, because you're body/brain is coded by genes, so as i put it "it goes through the genes."

No your body isnt just a gene expression reacting to something. The product of gene expression is proteins. They mean nothing on their own without the environmental context that results in the phenotype. Your body phenotype isn't explicitly coded by your genes, its the output of a dynamic process of gene expression within the context.

>>11658009
>When i say going through the genes i mean the physical random noise is not as significant as you are portraying

It is significant. genetically identical mice brought up in the same environment nonetheless grow up different to eachother.

>and the genes control your response to your environment, so by age 24 your environment is just as much an expression of your genes. Furthermore, you reacting to a stimulus is an expression of your genes.

It works both ways, environmental factors regulate gene expression and gene's relation to the environment.


>Ok you're parents don't encourage you to learn, so you are less educated. The reasons for this include your parents having genes which means they just do not care for learning, are low intelligence, whatever. Theres a chance they pass these on to you. If you are in fact interested in learning you could just ignore your parents and create your own environment which is an expression of your genes.

But the fact is that education is still an environmental factor that informs the development of your intelligence regardless of what caused the circumstances of your education which also are informed by the environment. Your parents encouragement of your education isn't genes in a vacuum. It depends on culture, socioeconomic context, random events etc.

>> No.11658133

>>11658009
>Injury will depend on how high of a risk taker you are, genes. Ok you can be pressured into something stupid, but you caving to social pressure is another expression of your genes. And choosing to hang around those people is another.

Your personality may influence your risk of being injured but alot of it is also completely independent of yourself. The specific chain of causal events leading to an accident will inevitably involve things completely independent to you. Accidents.

>Nutrition, well ok, but dumb people are more likely to be obese and unhealthy because theyre more impulsive. They're likely to mate with people who are impulsive etc etc...

Again, your personality influences these things but alot of it is completely indepenent of you. You can't influence what country youre from for example aand regardless of which way you put it, its an influence. The fact is that for whatever reason if someone manipulated my nutrition e.g. during childhood, then they could probabky influence things like my height or IQ in the future.

>Gravity isnt an expression of genes no. But you're claiming the physical random noise is external to the organism, when organisms, especially complicated ones, shape their own environment. The environment you're parents foster is partly due to genes you have yourself.

My parents didn't choose to live on earth. Random noise by definition has nothing to do with the organism. You keep talking as if you or your parents behaviour are the only thing that affects you and regardless of that, it doesnt change the fact that these environmental mechanisms are still affecting your phenotype even if there are other factors that predict those.

>Not only that but physical random noise is easy to quantify because theres so much data on it, and has been in IQ tests.

Don't know what you mean. I don't think we know that much about physical noise affecting peoples biology because its inherently very difficult to look at.

>> No.11658149

>>11649535
Because the problems are more complex.

>> No.11658985

>>11658133
Look i know a body is made of proteins. I'm saying is the proteins, your nerves, your brain are all synthesised because of code held on genes. So when they react its your genes acting indirectly. Its the basis of natural selection no, that selection for phenotypes is selection for genes?

>environemental factors regulate genes expression
I know, but I've stated, that environment, when your young, is partly down to your genes being expressed through your parents shaping that environment. Not 100% external.

>education is real important as an environmental factor
Simply false, we have a method called adoption studies. Those focused on the intelligence and education of the child shows no varience of childrens (with the same starting iq) iq when they are adopted by families of different socio-economic status. So this whole "its really independent" is simply false we have the data. Adoption studies like this have been repeated ad nausea since the 70s because of this kind of belief. Smart kids leave dumb homes, usually.

>You cant influence what country you're born into
Yes you can, indirectly, before you're born (magic). Intelligent people from all around the world are more likely likely to immigrate to richer areas. That intelligence in your parents is an expresion of genes (as above) that you will share to some extent. Also the area of a country shows even higher correlation to such things, as its so much easier to move within a country.

>Don't know about physical noise
I'm laughing. Theres tonnes, cause all you need is a large enough group (we have 7billlion people) and some categories. Nutrition is easy - calorific intake (crude but its easy). How do yo think we get the recommended data on "calories per day"? Yeah being poor can affect brain development, but it seems to only result in losses on the magnitude of 5 IQ points. Not even a standard deviation.

>> No.11659112
File: 1.10 MB, 1800x1399, peasants brawling over cards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11659112

In the recent past, your height was very closely related to your nutrition. Poorly nourished people grow up shorter, less intelligent.

You could tell a member of the nobility right away, because they were taller, more vigorous, more intelligent. A peasant was a short little thing, quick to anger, very low IQ. Most of this was solved by improving nutrition, which increased height and increased average IQ level. But this is just bringing peasants up to the level of a noble, it's not actually changing anything about the genetics. You are raising IQ and height, but the underlying genetic difference still exist.

You can raise a rabbit in captivity, it will grow much larger and healthier. But it's still a rabbit, you can't put it in a classroom and expect it to learn anything

These peasant people still exist in places like India. Short, skinny, quick temper, low IQ people. Untermenschen people

>> No.11659184

>>11659112
We likely have the worst nutrition in centuries. The extra height is likely gigantism from a deficiency. Possiblly connected to how our eyes grow too big to work properly.

>> No.11659261

>>11649535
Average IQ has been going up since literal niggers and chinks have been spawning by the millions like insects
People "getting smarter" is really just the first world getting smaller. Shit we're getting dumber here too it's just not as noticeable because of how fucking stupid everyone else is

>> No.11659304

>>11649750
are their any inuit scientists?

>> No.11659881

>>11658985
>Look i know a body is made of proteins (etc etc etc).

But the configuration of your body is completely dependent on the environmental circumstances in which genes are expressed. Change the context you get different outputs. Develop an embryo on the moon it probably wont be the same as ones earth. Making an overly strong equivalence between you and genes is erasing lots of possible varibility affecting development.

>I know, but I've stated, that environment (etc etc etc)

Your genes have a strong influence but it is meaningless outside of the environmental context. All genetic effects are averages across specific populations which probably cover many non-linerities.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23661762/

This is interesting because youre giving mice environmental genes and nominally identical environments but variation emerges due to the naturally evolving dynamics of the system.

>Simply false, we have a method called adoption studies (etc etc etc)

Adoption studies show that children IQs correlate more with their biological parents than their adopted parents but they also show that adoption can also increase IQ. This is not conflicting as these two things look at different statistics: the former on variance and the latter on means.

>Yes you can, indirectly, before you're born (magic) (etc etc etc).

How much realistic control is there though? Yes, I can imagine there is some effect and a plausible mechanism, but theres always a large of amount of independent influence. in the country example those influences will be huge.

>I'm laughing (etc etc etc).

When I say noise im not talking about things like nutrition and socioeconomic status. Im talking about genuine noise in development whether it be noisy influences in the trajectory of your life experiences or noisy trajectories in biological development. Noise is like the cause of variation in that mouse study where the environment and genes were identical across all mice.

>> No.11659949

>>11659881
Whatever, look you can say "environmental effects" all you like, it doesnt matter until you quantify them.

The adoption studies stuff, well yeah a good socio economic status will boost your iq a bit, about 3-4 points (maybe more in kids bc iq isn't such a great predictor at 5 years old). But the effect reverse when you leave the home (ie by age 24).
Ok if you want to understand an individuals life you need more than their genes. But the big picture, whats happening to groups of people, its not some environmental thing, its the genes.

>some mice were different
Ok how different, quantify it, was one really fat. Or where they basically the same? I could just say "people raised in different environments are actually really similar all things considered" otherwise.

>moon baby
yeah sure, but these kind of radical differences dont exist on earth. We can quantify the effects of where your raised. I've already said they are controlled for. But even take extreme cases, theres a reason some groups end up in bad situations.

>random single events that change development.
Don't really exist, its you responding to those changes. Like small changes maybe. But again, big picture model vs individual circumstance. It averages out.

>> No.11660355

>>11659949
>Whatever, look you can say "environmental effects" all you like, it doesnt matter until you quantify them.

Its not black and white. environmental effects very obviously exist even if we dont know much about them.

>The adoption studies stuff, well yeah a good socio economic status will boost your iq a bit, about 3-4 points (maybe more in kids bc iq isn't such a great predictor at 5 years old). But the effect reverse when you leave the home (ie by age 24).

Well you are seeing the environmental effect there then. The fade out effects take a long time though suggesting they involve a gradual drift in environment

>Ok if you want to understand an individuals life you need more than their genes. But the big picture, whats happening to groups of people, its not some environmental thing, its the genes.

>yeah sure, but these kind of radical differences dont exist on earth.

Its only an example. The point is that there varibles that may not always vaty but nonethelesa are important to development.

>Don't really exist, its you responding to those changes. Like small changes maybe.

You can have random cause as well as gene-environment interactions. They coexist. And just as genes can have a selective effect, the reverse can occur since we know that the environment can affect gene expression. Genes and environment cannot be separted. Gene effects are context dependent and mediated/moderated environmentally while environmental effects are also moderated by genetics. 'Random' environmental causes clearly do have an effect since its a notable issue in behavaoural genetics.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3147062/

>But again, big picture model vs individual circumstance. It averages out.

Unclear what you are trying to say here.

>> No.11660415

>>11659184
You're not that smart dude. Just stop arguing, were anonymous you won't lose anything. People have amazing nutrition in not shit countries.

>> No.11660421 [DELETED] 

>>11659184

i grew tall and i attribute this to relatively good nutrition during my teenage years.

>> No.11660727

>>11660415
given the amazing nutrition, was is the cause of the obesity and diabetes epidemic?

>> No.11662690

>>11649535
Because trends don't always extrapolate arbitrarily far backwards.
What a dumb fucking thread.
>>11649548
They can compare raw scores at the time with raw scores now. This is just retarded.

>> No.11662779

>Flynn Effect
Why should I believe that horse shit?

>> No.11662794

>>11662779
it's an observation based on test scores. The question is why has it occurred

>> No.11662797

>>11662794
Are today's people taking the same test as those, 100 years ago?

>> No.11662803

>>11662797
yes it is specifically referring to the observations of when the people of today take tests from people of the past

>> No.11662881

>>11662803
I am not convinced. There must be many variables. Even now, most people do not know their IQ. There must be samples from sources where a certain level of the population are in a general range. Such as compulsory military service, where there would be acceptance testing, just to be eligible and more privileged individuals gain exemption. Tests now, are not the same as when I was a child. There is more access to remote locations. I find the easy explanation, as to why it occurred is that it did not occur. There have been changes in available data.

>> No.11662897

>Research suggests that there is an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. a decline in IQ scores, in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France and German-speaking countries,[4] a development which appears to have started in the 1990s.
hmmm

>> No.11662899

>>11662881
explain this>>11662897

>> No.11662919

>>11662881
yeah there are deffinitaly valid criticisms from what we can draw from the score discrepancies but you could make much of the same criticisms against IQ testing in our own time. The point of the effect is NOT to say we are genetically smarter then our grandparents, it is saying we are doing better on tests when a given test taker take them.

> Tests now, are not the same as when I was a child
yes this is why IQs are normalized to the population of the takers of the test at that time. then when someone with say a 100IQ based on his score on today's test takes a 1940's test normalized with 1940's testers his score gives him an IQ of say 120IQ. And when repeated everyone on average has higher IQs when they are in that 1940's scale

>> No.11662949

>>11662919
This makes sense. I still think the effect is more an amusing mystery, not something phenomenal. I would like to know the reason but I don't think that we are smarter than ever, and fear that this is what most dummies will believe when given this information.
>>11662899
Likely, someone is considering lines on a map, when there is a different type of people who are being added to the whole. ?? I think, I explained the best I could, already. I'm not too smart, "these days."

>> No.11662960
File: 26 KB, 226x471, actual_iq.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11662960

>>11662919
here's a fun implication of what you just said

>> No.11662981

>>11652777
There are people who have higher IQ than Feynman.
I don't think they are smarter than him.

>> No.11662985

>>11649535
>>world IQ increasing
source?

>> No.11662989

>>11662981
>muh feynman
he didn't take the test seriously

>> No.11662998

>>11649575
>the flynn effect affects the people who are underfed and dumber than their real potential
so i never heard of the flynn effect but what you wrote sounds so INCREDIBLY retarded that i refuse to believe it actually says this

>> No.11663037

>>11659112
Absolute low iq lanklet cope. The supplements you were fed by your insecure father only made you grow taller and made your bone structure less resistant, you're just as dumb as your great grampa.

>> No.11663718

>>11649535
Miles Mathis exists.

>> No.11663791

>>11649575
>>11649702
These

>> No.11663824

>>11649535
The intelligence of the average person was lower. Most people lived in comparative squallor and died young. Their nutrition, sanitation, and general health was not good. For a brain to fully develop, it needs to be fed good food, which commoners did not have. The elites, of which Archimedes was a part, lived under much better conditions and could develop fully. The elite back then are just as smart as the ones that exist now. The Flynn effect is the result of the IQ of the masses increasing, not the elites.

>> No.11663885

>>11663824
exactly
archimedes probably had an IQ of 5 SD's above average but today, probably only 3

>> No.11664044

>>11649535
Since measurement invariance doesn't hold between generations, you can't say people were dumber in the past. It's comparing apples and oranges.
There are some small gains not due to bias, but they're on the lower factors so irrelevant.

>> No.11664319

Hi /sci/ I saw this thread on the front page, don't normally come here. I understand that I'm a retarded smooth brain but is there anything I can realisticly do to make sure my future kids are better off than I am? If I am trying to currently better myself will that transcribe to my offspring?

This might sound cringy but should I consider the IQ or life achievements when searching for a potential waifu? Obivisouly from the thread I can tell how important nutrion is. And as far as nurturing goes, I hope to better myself in hobby and routines as to better pass that on. Not just do as I say but do as I do, I feel like this is the best route to get children invested in worthwhile endeavors. I'm the son of a truck driver and a stay at home mom, while I had good grades in school college never seemed like an option for me and only now in the latter half of my 20s am I trying to break out of the 9 to 5 rut.

I truly just want my kids to be better off in life, not necessarily a free ride but to know the opportunities in life and how to take them.

>> No.11665216

>>11664319
>I truly just want my kids to be better off in life, not necessarily a free ride but to know the opportunities in life and how to take them.
Hard work is a good alternative to sheer brilliance. So give them a good upbringing, teach them the value of work and knowledge.

>> No.11665226

>>11664319
Look up the Polgar sisters. Spend time looking into literature on child development and nutrition. There is going to be a lot so it will be easy to be overwhelmed. Make sure that when you have kids to screen for genetic diseases. Then what >>11665216 said. You can only do so much. One thing that I have read some good research on is the value of ensuring "green space", such as forests, for kids.

>> No.11666963

>>11656922
>Well people from the victorian era did speak in a more flowery language.
So, is this a sign of increased or decreased intelligence? Not sure what point you want to make.

>> No.11668405

>>11664044
>Since measurement invariance doesn't hold between generations, you can't say people were dumber in the past.
What?

>> No.11670222

>>11660727
those are not really related, you absolute retard

>> No.11670557

>>11670222
So nutrition and obesity are not related? Astonishing.

>> No.11670589

>>11649535
>Archimede's IQ would be 200+.
>t. retard that doesn't understand iq
The highest IQ you can have is 195 until more people are born. IQs are nothing more than rankings from smartest to dumbest turned into percentiles that are then feed into an inverse Gaussian (error function) to get a score. THEY DO NOT MEASURE OBJECTIVE BRAIN POWER. Only relative standing per population.

>> No.11670719

>>11649728
Iceland got rid of downies almost completely through aborting fetuses that tested positive and they are doing just fine

>> No.11670795

>>11670589
>The highest IQ you can have is 195 until more people are born.
Please explain this, especially in view of outliers on a Gaussian distribution.

>> No.11671770

>>11670557
no. from my dictionary:
>nutrition
>the process of giving or getting the right type of food for good health and growth
you could eat tons of fat and nothing else, and that wouldn't be "nutritive"

>> No.11671945

>>11658034
Citation please

>> No.11673355

>>11670795
The score is forced fit onto a Gaussian and does not naturally form one. An IQ of 195 would be 1-1/(world population) percentile.