Any actual evidence for IQ not being genetic?

[Anonymous No.9883506]

So many fucking retarded Liberal tier cock suckers on /sci/ claim IQ isn't genetic, yet they fail to reference their previously aforementioned assertion/s.

[Anonymous No.9883510]

[math] \sqrt{n} = \sum_{k=1}^n \dfrac{1} { \sqrt{ k } + \sqrt{ k-1 } } [/math]

[Anonymous No.9883650]

>>9883506
Intelligence is clearly genetic. IQ is just one way of measuring intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9883691]

>>9883506

[Anonymous No.9883843]

>>9883506

Just gonna do some skimming on wikipedia to feel like I am qualified to draw wild conclusions out of my ass

>The heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77% (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80% and 86%.)
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

So although IQ seems to be more genetic than not, there also seems to be some room for influence from non-genetic factors.

[Anonymous No.9883877]

>>9883506
IQ is clearly not genetic, a gorilla could probably learn calculus in the right socio-economic conditions

[Anonymous No.9883891]

>>9883877
We need a gorilla quota for our schools right this instant.

[Anonymous No.9883929]

>>9883877

Koko the gorilla got 95 on human IQ test.
> Koko's IQ has tested at 85-95 with several administrations of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and other such instruments as detailed by Patterson in her dissertation (1979b). This score range resulted in spite of the human cultural bias of the test. which placed Koko at a disadvantage.
Source: http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=etd_theses

Hence, Koko could actually maybe learn calculus IQ is sufficient. Since IQ is probably more genetic than not (as referenced here >>9883843 ), it's less because of Koko's socio-economic conditions and more because of innate intelligence, although Koko would clearly need shit tons of special ed.

[Anonymous No.9883942]

>>9883929

I made a boo boo, since studies on heritability of IQ referenced is done on humans. I will allow myself to speculate that similar results will be found with gorillas.

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9883965]

>>9883506
>he thinks there is a gene for intelligence

[Anonymous No.9883966]

>>9883691
>strawman.jpeg.

[Anonymous No.9883968]

>>9883965
>something being heredity/genetic means there is a single gene.

[Anonymous No.9884297]

>>9883506
IQ is 55% genetic last i checked

[Anonymous No.9884326]

>>9883691
Wow, really nicely constructed argument, it totally changed my mind. Wooo, you really got ‘em with this one.

Faggot.

[Anonymous No.9884371]

>>9883965
There are many genes that work together in order to develop your brain.

[Anonymous No.9884498]

If your mom's called garlic and your dad's onion, you can't help that you stink.

[Anonymous No.9884509]

>>9883506
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

[Anonymous No.9884542]

>>9883506
IQ is obviously genetic because humans have brains and brains are made the way they are because their parts are encoded by DNA.

Liberals argue that what separates intelligence between groups is more complicated than some tests, and they tend to correctly observe that a human develops different based on environment. You can have someone who is genetically predisposed to genius be pretty stunted. You can have someone predicted to be about average perform at a higher level.

If you really want to know about what evidence there is and how to interpret it, maybe go get a biology degree. I'm sure you could help uncover new information about learning and cognition.

[Anonymous No.9884548]

>>9883966
>>9884326
>not appreciating the irony that the image is directly modeled after the strawman cartoons /pol/tards are constantly throwing around
Hearty kek.

[Anonymous No.9884558]

YOU CAN STUDY FOR A FUCKING IQ TEST YOU FUCKTARD

YOU CAN ALSO GET BAD AT TAKING THEM

[Anonymous No.9884629]

>>9883506

<i> IQ arising genetically </i> is a vehicle of artful subterfuge engendering — or augmenting — byzantine hegemonic “power” structures — more appositely, “founders of discursivity” for the Foucaultian. As with Austin’s performative utterances, to say “I am being intelligent" is to be distinguished from "I am intelligent” — a hyperreal affectation; To be <i> being </i> is to do or perform — namely, <i> being intelligent </i> is an activity performed by the individual onto whom intelligence is <i> imposed </i>. In much the same way, an infant is littered with a myriad of objects disclosing their sex(?) before they can reflect on the sex they’re being. Notwithstanding its acceptance, the IQ test is analogous to the doctor who, through ostension, remarks that one is a “girl.” Will the craven lackeys of science-language games surmount their domain of discourse or fall victim to its sinuous clutches?

[Anonymous No.9884665]

>>9884548
I'm assuming you're referring to smuggies. You thinking they're strawmen is the point. They're usually verbatim leftist "arguments" with and I AM SILLY face attached so that when you see them you assume that they must be strawmen. Leftist argumentation is literally so retarded all it takes for you to think it's a misrepresentation is an MSpaint face next to it. Now go back where you came from

[Anonymous No.9884689]

>>9883929
heritability doesn't mean what you think it means

[Anonymous No.9884700]

>>9884665
Great, so then I can repeat your """"arguments"""" verbatim as well. :^) Also I came from right here: you go back to /pol/.
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9884709]

>>9884558
>YOU CAN STUDY FOR A FUCKING IQ TEST YOU FUCKTARD
So what? You can also study for a vision check by memorizing the letters, are you saying that humans don't genetically differ in the quality of their vision?

[Anonymous No.9884714]

>>9884709
>You can also study for a vision check by memorizing the letters
Except you can't because they're randomized.

[Anonymous No.9884716]

>>9884700

[Anonymous No.9884721]

>>9884716
Yeah, but that refutes your point and you replied with an off-topic cartoon. Nice.

[Anonymous No.9884722]

>>9884709
This is a poor analogy: memorizing the letters for a vision check would be like memorizing the questions on a test and their corresponding answers. Knowing the specific patterns -- specific abstractions -- tested on an IQ test is different; for example, knowing how to expand a specific algebraic expression vs. knowing how to expand algebraic expressions.

Despite the poor analogy, I think you make a valid point: how do we distinguish the person who learns the test patterns from the person who knows them without having to learn them? And more importantly, is there a difference between these two people?

[Anonymous No.9884733]

>>9884722
Yeah didn't really think the analogy through.

Anyway a better counter argument would be to state that if IQ was really trainable then everybody could score 200 on an IQ test which obviously is not the case. So even if you can improve your IQ by a few points by training the range in which your IQ falls is genetically determined, ultimately.

[Anonymous No.9884734]

>>9883506
>previously aforementioned assertion/s.

[Anonymous No.9884739]

>>9884721
Refutation implies an argument, I see nothing but sobbing about the /pol/ boogerman. Try again and try not to be a brainlet this time

[Anonymous No.9884745]

>>9883506
IQ is a bit more then genetics. There has to be a degree of luck in play. That being said, you cant make omelets with no eggs.

[Anonymous No.9884752]

>>9884739
Not an argument, try again sweetie.

[Anonymous No.9884850]

>>9884722
>>9884733
>improve your IQ by a few points

it's wayyyyyyyyyyyy more than that.. imagine how shitty a smart person would do if they were tired or something..

everyone should instinctively know that some people have "more horsepower" in their brains than others or that some people are better at visualization or being rational....

but


the iq test is severely fucking limited and people's health varies throughout their lives and with that their mental abilities and some people improve their cognition by literal leaps and bounds.. I've met people that got smarter over time.. one of my friends actually was nothing special but overtime i think he got smarter and now he works in a research lab.

You could argue that those people just never reached their potential early on but is that what iq is?? Potential??? Tbqh most people have great potential it's just that theyre lazy so is that their potential also??

It's very very nuanced and complicated and no one should be put off by a low test score. It's just a very imperfect test done on one random day of your life. I've scored highly on tests but sometimes my head feels "cloudy" and i think i would have scored much lower if i had to take the test on one of those days.

They might provide some value for hiring practices or something like that but personal interviews are going to be the best because some people have a high "empathetic quotient" and are able to read people and they will outscore a stupid test anyday of the week.

And yeah people are good at different things.. a lot of high iq individuals are shitty at relationships and also think how many kids that take iq tests are having an off day when they take the test and therefore miss out on education opportunities. Really education as it is today is just brainwashing and it's all flawed, severely.

[Anonymous No.9884855]

>>9884850
also want to add that environment has a lot to do with the test scores

a lot of people have a hard time performing at school or in front of others but are literal geniuses at home on their computers

fuck institutionalization

[Anonymous No.9884945]

>>9883506
The entire continent of Africa is a pretty big example.

[Anonymous No.9884948]

>>9884850
>>9884855
Low IQ posts.

>it's wayyyyyyyyyyyy more than that
How much? Quantify it, and provide a citation

> imagine how shitty a smart person would do if they were tired or something..
There's no denying that, but the question is about the other direction, scoring better at IQ tests after training for them. You could not answer any question and get an IQ of 0 but that wouldn't mean anything.

>the iq test is severely fucking limited and people's health varies throughout their lives and with that their mental abilities and some people improve their cognition by literal leaps and bounds
[citation neede] all the scientific evidence shows IQ to be stable after a certain age (usually 10 to 12).

>I've met people that got smarter over time.
Anecdotal evidence. Discarded.

>It's very very nuanced and complicated
It's actually not that nuanced and complicated.

> I've scored highly on tests
Doubt it tbqh.

> a lot of high iq individuals are shitty at relationships
Irrelevant.

Jesus Christ, the absolute state of /sci/

[Anonymous No.9884957]

>>9883506
Injecting your political bias into a bitch fest doesn't purauade anyone that you, yourself, have an IQ above 100.

[Anonymous No.9884985]

>it's another thinly veiled white supremacism thread

[Anonymous No.9885026]

>>9884948
>Low IQ posts.
nah youre just dogmatic and want this to be true for your own egocentric reasons

>quantify it, and provide a citation

too lazy tired

>scoring better at IQ tests after training

would be easy as shit motherfucker all you have to do is know what kinds of questions there are an try them over and over.. you really think that wouldnt work?? Can you not practice multiplication?

>Anecdotal evidence. Discarded.

that's irrational

>Doubt it tbqh.

ok i bet you didn't even break 150 lol

>It's actually not that nuanced and complicated.

proof youre stupid and you just want reductionist dogma to be real soooooooooo bad

>Irrelevant.

no because there is different types of intelligence.. iq tests just test a few of them and they do it VERY primitiviely

>scientific evidence shows IQ to be stable after a certain age (usually 10 to 12).

They base it on tests done by schools and that excludes people who never had one and it includes people who were tired. And if you dogmatically believe mainstream scientific sources without taking it with a grain of salt, especially about shit like this then you're obviously not very rational or someone that thinks critically and SKEPTICALLY.

[Anonymous No.9885045]

>>9884948
and btw the "more complex and nuanced" includes stuff like there being more types of intelligence than the ones tested and the fact that some people just suck at tests or waking up for class etc etc..

the BOTTOM LINE is that human intelligence is SUBJECTIVE.. the best measure of it is another human being and their subjective "vibe" or inclination.. a fucking primitive test only nicks the surface but might be enough to help with employment when resources are low or something non-ideal like that.

Basing your ego on IQ tests though??

NOW THAT IS FUCKING RETARDED LOL.. indicator of a sub 150 brainlet.

Also people with high IQ being successful might be other factors like the people that took more than one test were in gifted programs in school or whatever, so they were more conditioned to taking the tests?? Every thought about something as simple as that you pathetic brainlet???

[Anonymous No.9885056]

>>9884948
Oh and btw the moment you think you understand something as complex as human intelligence or "the meaning of the universe" that is clear fucking proof you have no fucking clue what you are fucking thinking or talking about!

You have to understand that intrinsically human intelligence is too primitive to fully grasp such matters and if you don't admit to that then it becomes evident that you are basing your conclusions on EGO.

Plato (i think) said "all i know is that i know nothing."

HUBRIS is no sign of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9885243]

>>9883929
Koko the gorilla got 95 on human IQ test that was meant for 5 years old children. GZ.

[Anonymous No.9885278]

>>9884689
I am willing to admit that, but maybe I need some help from you though. What do you think I think it means, and what does it mean?

[Anonymous No.9885310]

>>9884509
Interesting post. Would you tie leftist antiscience to postmodernism? I guess this is kinda what Jordan Peterson have been trying to do, but I feel he don't want to discuss postmodern ideas explicitly and in-depth. I don't know much about postmodernism, so I really wonder if leftist militant relativism in cases that goes against their agenda is tied to a inaccurate reading of postmodern ideas, or if this type of coping mechanism is truly postmodern? Or maybe it does not have much to do with postmodernism at all?

I feel like a lot of the antiscience I encounter when talking to my non-STEM educated friends is rooted in misconceptions about how science works. Very few seems to understand the scientific method and the way science approximates truth. They will get confused and disheartened if it turns out a scientific theory is even just the slightest wrong.

[Anonymous No.9885319]

>>9884509
>>9885310
how do you explain leftists saying that "97 percent of climate scientists" agree with huwoman created climate change?

or lol how about shit like "modern monetary theory," ie the government cant default on loans denoted in dollars because they print dollars, lol?

[Anonymous No.9885342]

>>9885243
Thanks. I read up on this now. Koko born in 1971, and they did several tests from 1972-1977, so Koko kind of was a child. Gorilla childhood development is different from human childhood development though. It's hard to draw conclusions.

[Anonymous No.9885345]

Some of it is genetic, certainly, since we can show heritability estimates for a portion of the variance in iq. However, theres a LOT of heritability missing and we are way down in the weeds of diminishing returns with our GWAS studies. Whatever isnt heritable is necessarily either noise or environmental variation.

Also, this is a completely different issue than determining whether two IQ scores are different because of genetic or environmental factors, which let's not kid ourselves, is why you made this thread. If your starting assumption is that differences in IQ scores are mostly due to genetic differences, you're probably a white supremacist and should fuck off back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.9885386]

>>9885319
I can't. But I didn't say leftists are incapable of uttering nuanced phrases
>leftist militant relativism in cases that goes against their agenda

I have heard people that would agree with "97% of climate scientists ..." type of stuff later be completely unable to reason about new topics they don't have been already conditioned to agree with. Just because someone regurgitates "97% of climate scientists ..." don't mean they have good understanding of science. I have met people that are up to consensus with a lot of things in science, but at the same time discounts the whole of mathematics as religious metaphysics that deludes the mission of science.

[Anonymous No.9885408]

>>9883506

if it were genetic, why can you literally train being better at the tests? I mean there's literally cases where in the us people had to do iq tests so often they finally score over 70 so they could be executed.

[Anonymous No.9885415]

>>9885408
By your logic being black isn't genetic because you can get swarthier by lying naked in the sun.

[Anonymous No.9885419]

>>9885386
i mean i agree but i wonder if there is something more peculiar going on than they just regurgitate something theyre conditioned to which validates their dogma..

like for example marxism itself has some axioms and it's own logic.. the oppressor and the oppressed etc etc..

And it seem related to aesthetic dogma... basically believing that just because something isn't falsifiable it must not be true.. it's obvious that reality could be any one or combination of hundreds of plausible theories and to commit to one is irrational.

Any way it's the pretentiousness and self contradiction that really bothers me. It seems pathological. I don't even know quite what to make of it.. the more I try to understand it the more I'm reminded of the quote "when you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back" or however it goes. I guess the best thing we can learn from them is how to manipulate their triggers as to get them to spew out something obviously hypocritical in order to get them to discredit themselves? I can't think of anything else to glean from it..

[Anonymous No.9885423]

>>9885419
>aesthetic dogma

i meant to say atheist.. and it's clearly ego serving because people are afraid of the unknown and death is this in extreme so people start to have faith that their eternity will be blissful nothingness when there are all manner of possibilities.. many of which are quite disturbing..

[Anonymous No.9885472]

>>9884714

so if iq test are randomized then you cant study for them...you moron.

[Anonymous No.9885481]

>>9885408
this is the most retarded shit I have ever read on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9885521]

>>9884850
>t. roastie wandering in /sci/
>like omg, it's not like genetic
>while like empathic quotient is like really real and like IQ is like totally not real
>I like totally have like high IQ so like my reasoning is like valid
This is basically how it felt to read your post and probably how you talk irl.

[Anonymous No.9885600]

>>9883843
Fleshing this out a little, IQ shows about 50% heritability in children, rising 80% in adults. This could be either because the brain continues to develop over time, or because of interactions between genes and environment, driven by the individual, that tends to increase IQ (such as intelligent people studying harder and pursuing more years of education).

Behavioral genetics indicates that of the environmental component to IQ, most of it seems not to be shared with siblings in a family, indicating that it’s not the stuff people usually talk about (like reading more books to kids)—it’s more like the sum of different kinds of interactions that make up a person’s life.

[Anonymous No.9885679]

>>9883691
You can believe that IQ is genetic while also believing that the genetic differences between races are smaller than that of the standard deviation within races.

In otherwords, if you're a stormfag who believes we need to shape policy because of "racial IQ differences", then your first priority should actually be to start segregating members of your own race.

A society built on policy pertaining to IQ differences would actually be a lot more ethnically diverse than alt righters would like. Of course, they don't actually care about facts or effective policy, they're just bigots.

However, IQ is genetic and not accepting that has already lead to go down stupid roads in terms of educational reform. The push for easy student loans and for everyone to go to college is based on the blank slate fallacy.

[Anonymous No.9885685]

>>9885419

>i wonder if there is something more peculiar going on than they just regurgitate something theyre conditioned to which validates their dogma
Yes, I agree, I have been a little black/white and I admit I don't know what's going on. I believe there exists views that don't line up with scientific consensus in all parts of politics, but what they get wrong may vary from camp to camp. I am not gonna make claims about what camp has the largest number of views against scientific consesus, because I don't know, and while it is relevant to this discussion, it is not at the core of it since we are talking about a particular flavor of antiscience instead the act of just being wrong about science. I also somewhat misinterpreted the first guys post, since he was mainly talking about leftish philosophers instead of leftist politicians & followers.

I have an impression that the blank slate stuff, the cultural relativism, the non-rigorous and tactical rejection of objective truth and reality, the shallow/uneducated critique of science itself is much more common in circles related to the left, whether it is in academia, politics or the general public.

>And it seem related to atheist dogma... basically believing that just because something isn't falsifiable it must not be true
Yes, it is a dogma, and it is one that I believe might interfere with science.

>I guess the best thing we can learn from them is how to manipulate their triggers as to get them to spew out something obviously hypocritical in order to get them to discredit themselves?
This is what Jordan Peterson did with Cathy Newman. It was beautiful.

[Anonymous No.9885688]

>>9885679
>In otherwords, if you're a stormfag who believes we need to shape policy because of "racial IQ differences", then your first priority should actually be to start segregating members of your own race.
Well Eugenics is pretty much the most important aspect of traditional racial hygienics. It never was just about racial segregation.

[Anonymous No.9885705]

>>9883506
I remember there was a research by a University in Sweden where they studied an adopted mongolian baby who was raised with a swedish baby from the same family and both raised the same, the mongolian parents are known, and they had their IQ tested, and then when they tested the IQ of the mongolian and swedish kid at the age of 18 they found that the swedish had a similar IQ to his parents and the mongolian had similar IQ to his genetical parents not the swedish parents

[Brandon !!tbkOPmI7bEB No.9885721]

>>9885408
I don't even support the concept of IQ testing and I know this is wrong.

Your IQ score is invalid if you take an identical or similar test multiple times in succession. Your most valid score is the one you receive after a blind attempt at it.

[Anonymous No.9885986]

>>9885685
don't you think they try to change science though more than just outright reject it??

like with the gender thing for example..

[Anonymous No.9885989]

>>9885721
>Your IQ score is invalid if you take an identical or similar test multiple times in succession. Your most valid score is the one you receive after a blind attempt at it.

so the second one?

[Anonymous No.9885996]

>>9885472
they aren't randomized. they test specific types of patterns. get good at recognizing them, and ur a 'certifiable genius'

[Anonymous No.9886031]

>>9885521
look someone communicated what i wanted to more eloquently

>>9882010

[Anonymous No.9886055]

>>9884850
>imagine how shitty a smart person would do if they were tired or something..
Last time i did some IQ test was three years back at psychologist. I have ADHD and i hadn't slept at all since i was a NEET with basically opposite daily rhythm to a normie, plus i had just ended a three days drinking streak.
I got 122 points.

[Anonymous No.9886079]

>>9886055
>I got 122 points.

that's not a good score..

[Anonymous No.9886151]

I've done my fair share of research and I can say it is 60% genetic and 40% environmental. Those who say it is 100% environmental have dumb parents.

[Anonymous No.9886796]

>>9883966
>strawman
nope, actually...
this is exactly what its like speaking with an alt-righter

[Anonymous No.9886802]

Why is every single fucking thread on this board about IQ? You guys know you could be discussing things that people actually care about, right? Like unique hypotheses that you'd like others to review?

[Anonymous No.9886868]

>>9886802
>Why is every single fucking thread on this board about IQ?
Because people on /sci are insecure about their intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9886870]

>>9886868
86 this right now

[Anonymous No.9887672]

>>9886870
cool

[Anonymous No.9887678]

>>9883968
No, intelligence is a polygenic trait meaning several genes contribute to intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9888251]

>>9885986

>don't you think they try to change science though more than just outright reject it??

I am not sure what you mean by "try to change science". What do you mean by it? I have an example of outright rejection though.

In 2010 in Norway there was a television documentary called "Hjernevask" which means "Brainwash". Each episode brought up some property of humans nature and wanted to investigate whether it was due to nature or nurture. The intent of the show was to showcase the willful scientific ignorance thriving in Norwegian departments of social science. In each episode they interviewed several researchers about some topic, for example gender. Almost all these guys were promoting blank slate views without referring to empirical evidence. They usually got arrogant and provoked when evidence for their views was requested. Then the reporters went and talked to scientists that had done quantitative experiments relevant to the topic at hand. These were guys from biology, medicine or psychiatry. They usually had clear evidence for non-nurture, although never claiming 0 nurture. Then they confronted the social scientists they had talked to earlier about their findings. They basicly refused to believe in the evidence and said explicitly that the methods used in the studies was hogwash. Several of them explicitly said that empirical quantitative biological/medical studies was useless for investigating human nature. Others dismissed the idea to investigate nature/nurture of traits at all and used 'biology' & 'biological' as derogatory terms. It seemed that they had bias against empirical studies in general.

[Anonymous No.9888286]

>>9888251

The whole series is on youtube with english subtitles.

Part 1/7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs&t=0s
Part 2/7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41ryusHlrgw&t=0s
Part 3/7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5iEnZt2t7k&t=0s
Part 4/7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2pRbPydPjA
Part 5/7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m951x1-nbNs&t=0s
Part 6/7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve6uK00AvNo&t=0s
Part 7/7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97dBxYGGUGk&t=0s

[Anonymous No.9888293]

>>9888286
Thank you!
I've only ever seen clips of this before