Do you mean specifically epi-genetic or more generally environmental? Also how many vaccines did you have growing up because I can literally drown you in racist science.
(Probably) less than genetics and environment.
The title of this post is nonsense, btw. Obviously genetics are important, but so are environmental factors. Einstein's genes won't help you much if your meth head single mother drops you on your head a lot. The influence those factors have on your intelligence could be due to epigenetic modifications, but it doesn't have to.
I consider epi-genetic factors to be slightly separate from environmental factors. If your parents don't feed you, so you end up shorter than your genetics allow, you're brain is also probably malnourished.
Not literally designed you retard. Food, and the lack of it, was the biggest thing for nearly all of our evolutionary past. So we're very good at starving.
Still >99th percentile IQ, >99th percentile scores on every standardized test, usually taken on no sleep with no studying.
You don't seem very smart though.
Environmental factors are an excuse.
No, they are established science. In the last century, average IQ in most developed countries has increased by up to 25 points within one generation. This has obviously nothing to do with genetics.
And since you mentioned it: We can be reasonably sure that the black-white IQ gap is not due to genetic differences.
Says the guy who is talking out of his ass throughout this entire comment section. Can you even comprehend that there are other human beings who might NOT be talking out of their ass like you? You don't even know what it's like to be intelligent, let alone understand the intelligence research.
No, they are established science. In the last century, average IQ in most developed countries has increased by up to 25 points within one generation. This has obviously nothing to do with genetics. Guess what's part of the reason for this effect? Improved nutrition. Who'd have thought that your baseless conjectures are wrong.
You don't understand what you're talking about here, in regards to the Flynn effect.
First of all, it's not 25 points in 1 generation--it's 3 points per decade at the highest. The higher numbers are just not reliable.
Anyway, it's very important where these gains are. They're almost exclusively on the lower end of the spectrum. We're talking about a bunch of people moving from scoring borderline retarded to scoring somewhat borderline retarded. Also, many of the studies are on CHILDREN's IQ scores, which are mainly dependent on emotional state and motivation rather than general intelligence.
Which brings us to the fact that these increases in scores are not even necessarily even increases to intelligence, but rather increases to the ability to take an IQ test (familiarity with tests, ability to direct attention, emotional state, motivation, etc).
​
And since you mentioned it: We can be reasonably sure that the black-white IQ gap is not due to genetic differences.
Oh. "We" can? Funny how you don't give any explanation. It's almost as if you are just talking out of your ass.
Let's put IQ on hold for a second, and focus on a few other differences between blacks and whites.
First, explosive power. Blacks are faster than whites. Better sprinters, jumpers, etc. Out of the top 200 Olympic sprinters ever, zero are white. Zero. Blacks have significantly more fast twitch muscle fiber than whites. But hey, I imagine, all of this is just somehow magically environment, right? Except that it's finally being tracked down to genes--blacks in general have 4 times the ratio of the R vs X ACTN3 alleles, compared to whites (an important gene in muscle composition).
So let's talk about environment--first, the environment blacks evolved in.
Even a cursory understanding of evolution would tell you that an environment where you have like a 10% annual chance of dying to malaria, would favor a much higher time preference than places without malaria. And guess what? Blacks have an incredibly high time preference compared to other races, even other races in extremely deprived countries.
But that's racist, so let's just look at the sickle cell allele instead. 40% of people in Equatorial Africa carry it. It sentences 1/4th of your children to death, leaves 1/4th unaffected, but the remaining 1/2 are given additional resistance to malaria. The fact that many blacks have a gene, that automatically kills a quarter of their children, speaks for itself--they have been under fundamentally different selection pressures.
But hey, all of this is just speculation, right? We could never make conclusions based on evolutionary history, and we all know blacks are being deprived in America, right? Except they aren't. Most American blacks have it better than a lot of people in Eastern Europe and Asia, yet still have vastly lower IQ scores. Funny how that works.
And all the intelligence research, including twin studies, shows IQ to be 50-80% heritable in the modern environment. Let's not forget that.
Saying that the black white IQ gap is due to environment, and not genetics, is like saying blacks have dark skin because they're getting more sun than whites. You have to be fucking delusional. Blacks and whites separated 50-100,000 years ago, and many populations are even more distant. We easily fit as separate species, let alone subspecies. Like Polar bears and Grizzly bears (who can interbreed fine btw, and actually have a hybridization zone and smooth continuum between the species, just like blacks and whites).
Says the guy who is talking out of his ass throughout this entire comment section.
...Says the guy who just posted a gigantic wall of text without a single citation.
First of all, it's not 25 points in 1 generation--it's 3 points per decade at the highest. The higher numbers are just not reliable.
Do you know what a generation is? Do you realize that you can literally look these numbers up, right?
How the point increase is calculated is also important, since a score of "100" has always been defined as the average.
And this average shifted by 5-25 IQ points, a 100 point score today is not a 100 point score 50 years ago.
Anyway, it's very important where these gains are. They're almost exclusively on the lower end of the spectrum.
This makes no sense. Citation please.
Also, many of the studies are on CHILDREN's IQ scores, which are mainly dependent on emotional state and motivation rather than general intelligence.
This is wrong too, citation please.
Which brings us to the fact that all of these increases in scores are not even necessarily even increases to intelligence, but rather increases to the ability to take an IQ test (familiarity with tests, ability to direct attention, emotional state, motivation, etc).
This is part of the equation, but really only a small part. The Flynn effect isn't exclusive to IQ test, an increase in fluid intelligence was shown e.g. here: The Flynn effect in neuropsychological assessment.
And of course there's direct proof that environmental factors play a significant role in increasing intelligence:
About the Black–White difference in IQ, which at the time
was about 15 points, the Neisser et al. (1996) article stated,
“There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what
there is fails to support a genetic hypothesis.” That conclusion stands today: There has been no new direct evidence
on the question.
Feel free to read on to get to know why it does not make sense to attribute the black-white IQ differences to genetics.
Let's put IQ on hold for a second, and focus on a few other differences between blacks and whites.
Why? I was talking about IQ. Of course there are genetic differences between races, I'm not sure why you'd even have to reach for muscle fibers, when skin color is so much more obvious.
Even a cursory understanding of evolution would tell you that
And a deeper understanding of evolution would tell you that these kinds of conjectures are always worthless. Evolution is measurable, so put some data to your claims, because what you're saying here makes no sense.
Most American blacks have it better than a lot of people in Eastern Europe and Asia, yet still have vastly lower IQ scores. Funny how that works.
Yes, and what leads you to conclude that it's based on genetic differences? Because it seems like you're, well, talking out of your ass.
And all the intelligence research, including separated twin studies, shows IQ to be 50-80% heritable in the modern environment.
The term 'heritability,' as it is used today in human behavioral genetics, is one of the most misleading in the history of science. Contrary to popular belief, the measurable heritability of a trait does not tell us how 'genetically inheritable' that trait is. Further, it does not inform us about what causes a trait, the relative influence of genes in the development of a trait, or the relative influence of the environment in the development of a trait.
Saying that the black white IQ gap is due to genetics goes against established science and lacks any kind of evidence.
Split some more hairs. And I know how heritability works.
Feel free to read on to get to know why it does not make sense to attribute the black-white IQ differences to genetics.
....
Saying that the black white IQ gap is due to genetics goes against established science and lacks any kind of evidence.
Nice assertion dude. At least I backed up my claims with some speculation about evolutionary history.
A couple things here. For one, there absolutely is "any kind" of evidence--blacks, a genetic cluster, have lower IQs statistically. That, alone, is "any kind" of evidence.
Also, there is huge bias when it comes to this subject, you cannot push the idea of blacks being less intelligent without becoming a complete pariah due to the moral implications.
Anyway, you tell me, why do blacks have such low IQs? What factors in their environment are causing this? Even rich blacks are less intelligent than poor whites. And whites and Asians in impoverished countries still have far higher IQs. Why are blacks universally so much less intelligent, if not genes?
We don't[fit as separate species].
Depends on your definition of species. Do you think Polar bears and Grizzlies are the same species?
If you'd ever stepped foot inside a university, you'd know that you don't actually have to spend that money. But you're either still in school or without any meaningful education.
I've seen a few studies before that show small correlations between brain volume and intelligence. A few pop up on google. It seems generally accepted that there's at least a small correlation, and it's obvious why there would be.
But I don't care about brain size. A better example for my point would be reaction time. It's also correlated with iq, and that correlation increases with age. It's a much better analogue for general brain health, since reaction time slows due to exhaustion, degenerative brain disease, intoxication, etc. (again, just google it lmao)
But my point is that brain health is not everything. A drunk Einstein is still Einstein.
Your point was brain size but you seem to deflect this topic. Why? Because you seen a few studies pop up? Rofl...we only use like 10%-20% of our brain. If you believe in your fairytale, then you are probably using 3,5%.
You obviously lied about working on brain disease, since you just repeated one of the dumbest myths about the human brain. Do you know how metabolically costly our brain is? We use 100% of it.
Why did you lie?
Please go back to posting on r/funny and r/fuckthealtright you lying nigger.
I was never talking about brain size, and do not care. Fuck off you mentally ill nigger.
Stop lying. Stop pretending to know what you're talking about. From Wikipedia:
Neurologist Barry Gordon describes the myth as false, adding, "we use virtually every part of the brain, and that (most of) the brain is active almost all the time."[1] Neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein sets out seven kinds of evidence refuting the ten percent myth:[13]
Studies of brain damage: If 10 percent of the brain is normally used, then damage to other areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects.
Brain scans have shown that no matter what one is doing, all brain areas are always active. Some areas are more active at any one time than others, but barring brain damage, there is no part of the brain that is absolutely not functioning. Technologies such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow the activity of the living brain to be monitored. They reveal that even during sleep, all parts of the brain show some level of activity. Only in the case of serious damage does a brain have "silent" areas.
The brain is enormously costly to the rest of the body, in terms of oxygen and nutrient consumption. It can require up to 20 percent of the body's energy—more than any other organ—despite making up only 2 percent of the human body by weight.[14][15] If 90 percent of it were unnecessary, there would be a large survival advantage to humans with smaller, more efficient brains. If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brain portions. It is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place; given the historical risk of death in childbirth associated with the large brain size (and therefore skull size) of humans,[16] there would be a strong selection pressure against such a large brain size if only 10 percent was actually in use.
Localization of function: Rather than acting as a single mass, the brain has distinct regions for different kinds of information processing. Decades of research have gone into mapping functions onto areas of the brain, and no function-less areas have been found.
Microstructural analysis: In the single-unit recording technique, researchers insert a tiny electrode into the brain to monitor the activity of a single cell. If 90 percent of cells were unused, then this technique would have revealed that.
Synaptic pruning: Brain cells that are not used have a tendency to degenerate. Hence if 90 percent of the brain were inactive, autopsy of normal adult brains would reveal large-scale degeneration.
Also, never did I say the environment has no effect. Just not significant enough to explain the vast racial disparity, or significant enough to make Einstein's genes not matter.
Hilarious to me that you think linking studies you have not read, somehow wins you an argument.
If you're a NEET with no idea how academia works, yes, you'd have to pay for those studies. Not that that wasn't obvious before. And you wouldn't understand them either.
And yes, linking literal science that proves I'm right wins me the argument.
linking literal science that proves I'm right wins me the argument
LOL
For all you know, the affect they measured could be tiny. Anyone can pull a paywalled study off google that supports their claim. My citations don't have paywalls :)
bviously genetics are important, but so are environmental factors
Its not nonsense though - twins studies have demonstrated that environmental factors are of minimal importance for the vast majority of people (the vast majority of people don't have meth head single mothers so you're point is invalid)
you're clearly not familiar with the research literature. Twin studies have established the heritability of IQ pretty firmly as around 80%, with 0 percent attributable to shared environment
I'm obviously more than familiar with this topic. You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment by reading through the comments I've made in this thread so far. I trust they will be pretty enlightening for you. It is entirely uncontroversial that intelligence is influenced significantly by both environment and genetics, and I've shown quite a few reasons why.
First off, heritability of IQ has not been established "firmly" at 80%. The usual number you will find in scientific literature is 50-70%, with some results lower than that, some higher. It's also generally accepted that heritability is below 50% up to young adulthood.
You've been talking about twin studies, yet the graph you've posted mostly mentions adoption studies, a completely different thing. Concerning the proportion of the variability due to shared environment in 16-20 year olds (e.g. roughly where it drops off in adoption studies) twin studies put it at 30%. You can find this reviewed here: The effects of shared environment on adult intelligence: A critical review of adoption, twin, and MZA studies.
It's not surprising to me that you don't know about these results, since if your picture is any evidence, you seem to get your information from a blog by someone who's not a scientist and clearly trying to push an agenda on an uneducated audience.
If you want to form an opinion on a scientific topic, you should get your information from respected, peer-reviewed publications, not random blogs. It's hard for laymen to interpret data correctly, know which data is available, or notice when someone is being disingenuous.
Concerning heritability estimates: These do not mean that this is the relative influence of genes on intelligence, they describe the proportion of observed variability that can be explained by genetic variation. This is important, since for example adoption studies create a rather specific environmental context for adopted children, i.e. parents adopting children are older, better educated and wealthier than average. These environmental factors, which (provably) all increase IQ, are the same and therefore won't create variability and won't show up in the proportions of variability (obviously). But they still exist! Here's a proper explanation of heritability and common public miconceptions about the concept: The heritability fallacy
Thus, your simplistic claim that environmental factors are of "minimal importance" is wrong, even if you arbitrarily constrain environmental influences to a vague "for us".
Concerning the proportion of the variability due to shared environment in 16-20 year olds (e.g. roughly where it drops off in adoption studies) twin studies put it at 30%.
Oh really? How about we actually look at what the authors say:
McGue et al. (1993) reportedthat the estimated proportion of IQ variability that is explained bythe shared environment “is relatively constant at approximately30% for ages up to 20 years but then drops to 0% in adulthood” (McGue et al., 1993, p. 64). They and other authors interpretedthese numbers as being supportive of the results from adoptionstudies
Oops. Looks like you are trying desparately to pick at straws here. The evidence is clear, shared environment has no effect in adulthood, the stage of life everyone actually cares about.
f you want to form an opinion on a scientific topic, you should get your information from respected, peer-reviewed publications, not random blogs. It's hard for laymen to interpret data correctly, know which data is available, or notice when someone is being disingenuous.
This actually pretty funny given how you just tried to mislead me and anyone reading this. Unfortunately for you, I have database access to these articles and can actually see how you're trying to spin things falsely and distort research findings.
These environmental factors, which (provably) all increase IQ
False, there is not evidence that they increase IQ permanently. Just that they might increase IQ temporarily. Stop lying and trying to spin things, please.
Thus, your simplistic claim that environmental factors are of "minimal importance" is wrong, even if you arbitrarily constrain environmental influences to a vague "for us"
Environment is important, but without the right genetics a person will never, ever increase their IQ. the research is VERY clear here - despite BILLIONS of dollars on failed projects like Head Start and other failed commercial ventures (e.g. Lumosity) we are no closer to increasing IQ. The only paths forward that seem to increase IQ is genetic engineering through embyro selection or CRISPR. So you're points about the environment are moot - it doesn't really matter, our society is rich enough that we can provide a good enough environment. Theres also a lot of evidence that IQ is decreasing currently, and this can only be explained by dysgenic effects. So despite all of our enrichment and social programming, we are going in the opposite direction we need to be, and its down to genetics.
Oh really? How about we actually look at what the authors say:
This isn't what the authors are saying at all, it's a quote of a paper they are discussing in that review. If you'd actually read on, you'd have found this part:
Actually, the evidence from twin studies does not support the
evidence from adoption studies; it contradicts it. As we have seen,
the three adoption studies involving participants beyond childhood
are studies primarily involving late adolescents. (The average age
of adoptees in the second phase of Loehlin et al.’s, 1997, Texas
study is 18 years. The average age of participants in Scarr &
Weinberg’s, 1978, study is 18 1 ⁄ 2 years. Participants in Teasdale &
Owen’s, 1984, study are Danish men reporting to their draft board
at the age of 18 years or shortly thereafter. There has never been
an adoption study primarily involving adults over the age of 20
years.)
Thus, the appropriate comparison is not between the adoption
studies and the studies of adult twins. It is between the adoption
studies and the studies of twins between the ages of 16 years and
20 years.
For twins in that age group, the estimated proportion of vari-
ability due to the shared environment is around 30%. This contra-
dicts the results of the adoption studies for participants in that age
range, which indicate little or no effect for the shared environment.
The only way to interpret the evidence from adoption and twin
studies as being mutually supportive is to be careless about the
definition of the word adult.
And further:
Thus, there are at least two major problems with McGue et al.’s
(1993) conclusion that studies of adult twins indicate little or no
effect of the shared environment on adult intelligence. One prob-
lem is that they made a questionable statistical adjustment in order
to deal with a negative estimate of a quantity that cannot be
negative. The other problem is that their conclusion requires
grouping together adults of all ages, but if young and middle-aged
adults are treated as a separate group from the elderly, the results
look very different. For young and middle-aged adults, the esti-
mated effects of the shared environment are slightly greater than
are those of the unshared environment. For the elderly, the esti-
mated effects of the shared environment are negative, a result that
is impossible.
I really didn't distort anything, that's exactly what I said.
False, there is not evidence that they increase IQ permanently.
This is very obviously wrong. Nutrition, wealth, parent education, etc are all major factors in intelligence, from infancy onward. This isn't debatable in any way, it's well established science. You can literally put this into google and find hundreds of publications. Here, I picked one for you, which concludes:
Environment is important, but without the right genetics a person will never, ever increase their IQ.
This is absurdly wrong. Increase IQ with respect to which baseline? Obviously you can increase IQ by improving the environment, this is completely uncontroversial, the paper cited mentions environmental interventions too. If you want your child to have higher IQ, you should be wealthy, educated and feed a proper diet.
The only paths forward that seem to increase IQ is genetic engineering through embyro selection or CRISPR.
This is complete and utter nonsense. First off, as I've explained before, we can only pinpoint polymorphisms explaining roughly 5% of the variance, secondly, genetically modifying literally thousands of genes is impossible, and will be for a long time. You know what seems much more feasible to me? Improving environmental conditions.
our society is rich enough that we can provide a good enough environment.
This is... obviously wrong again. SES is incredibly unequal in pretty much all societies. And how do you define "good enough"?
Theres also a lot of evidence that IQ is decreasing currently, and this can only be explained by dysgenic effects.
How does that make sense to you? How can a rise in 5-25 IQ points over one generation be reasonably explained by genetic changes? And how could a drop afterwards? Don't you think it's more likely that the drastic changes of everyday life are responsible? These guys seem to think so: Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused.
Honestly, I have no idea why you are trying to argue with me. You're clearly not educated in this topic. I've given you a lot of facts, you should try to understand them, maybe read through the papers I linked a bit and then rethink your opinions. Currently, you're denying scientific facts because you don't like them, but facts really don't care about your feelings.
No idea about epigenetics, but in terms of environmental factors, there are some. But IQ is about 85% genetic in most cases according to latest studies iirc.
Some environmental factors can have big impacts though, for example lead exposure can drastically reduce IQ, especially in childhood (B12 deficiency also does this).
If a larger amount of lead penetrates the blood brain barrier, say with a force of 790 joules with a dosage that is .357 inches wide, IQ will drop to essentially 0.
69 comments
1 AutoModerator 2019-08-19
Horny? Chat live with hot autists in your area today with DeuxCHAT
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 SnapshillBot 2019-08-19
homosexuals reproduce by raping kids
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 NotchDidNothingWrong 2019-08-19
Ok now just get a bunch of people to agree which genetics mean what.
1 Baial 2019-08-19
How do epi-genetic factors affect those attributes? Are they more or less responsible than the genetic factors?
1 freet0 2019-08-19
Is this really the best place to ask that?
1 sub2tine 2019-08-19
Do you mean specifically epi-genetic or more generally environmental? Also how many vaccines did you have growing up because I can literally drown you in racist science.
1 Baial 2019-08-19
Well, my parents made the prudent choice of getting me all the vaccines, instead of gambling 800k on the off chance I got tetanus.
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
(Probably) less than genetics and environment.
The title of this post is nonsense, btw. Obviously genetics are important, but so are environmental factors. Einstein's genes won't help you much if your meth head single mother drops you on your head a lot. The influence those factors have on your intelligence could be due to epigenetic modifications, but it doesn't have to.
1 Baial 2019-08-19
I consider epi-genetic factors to be slightly separate from environmental factors. If your parents don't feed you, so you end up shorter than your genetics allow, you're brain is also probably malnourished.
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
That's why I said could. It's one mechanism by which the environment influences cognition (or other attributes), but of course not the only one.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
I had very inconsistent eating, very poor nutrition and calorie intake throughout my childhood and adolescence.
Still >99th percentile IQ, >99th percentile scores on every standardized test, even taken on no sleep.
Almost like environmental factors are an excuse.
We're designed to do okay on malnutrition, all it really does is stunt your growth and hurt your long-term health.
Brain health, just like brain size, is a factor in IQ. But it's a very small one relative to brain organization.
1 Baial 2019-08-19
So you think intelligence is heritable but also believe in an intelligent designer? Who hurt you?
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
Not literally designed you retard. Food, and the lack of it, was the biggest thing for nearly all of our evolutionary past. So we're very good at starving.
1 Baial 2019-08-19
Well you were pretty clearly put together by a moron...
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
Epic response. I could kill you with my bare hands.
1 Baial 2019-08-19
Are you just saying that because you couldn't figure out a tool to do it better?
1 ManBearFridge 2019-08-19
Doubt it, you are a malnourished manlet.
1 streeeker 2019-08-19
High IQ should give you the ability to respond less animalistic. Apparently you turn to violence pretty quick.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
Did I say I WOULD kill him with my bare hands? No. Only that I could. poop yourself retard
1 BobJohnson1979 2019-08-19
Like any Catholic scientist?
1 PM_ME_UR_SUSPICIONS 2019-08-19
I'll bet everyone wishes they could be as smart as you obviously are. You should write a book.
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
You don't seem very smart though.
No, they are established science. In the last century, average IQ in most developed countries has increased by up to 25 points within one generation. This has obviously nothing to do with genetics.
And since you mentioned it: We can be reasonably sure that the black-white IQ gap is not due to genetic differences.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
Says the guy who is talking out of his ass throughout this entire comment section. Can you even comprehend that there are other human beings who might NOT be talking out of their ass like you? You don't even know what it's like to be intelligent, let alone understand the intelligence research.
You don't understand what you're talking about here, in regards to the Flynn effect.
First of all, it's not 25 points in 1 generation--it's 3 points per decade at the highest. The higher numbers are just not reliable.
Anyway, it's very important where these gains are. They're almost exclusively on the lower end of the spectrum. We're talking about a bunch of people moving from scoring borderline retarded to scoring somewhat borderline retarded. Also, many of the studies are on CHILDREN's IQ scores, which are mainly dependent on emotional state and motivation rather than general intelligence.
Which brings us to the fact that these increases in scores are not even necessarily even increases to intelligence, but rather increases to the ability to take an IQ test (familiarity with tests, ability to direct attention, emotional state, motivation, etc).
​
Oh. "We" can? Funny how you don't give any explanation. It's almost as if you are just talking out of your ass.
Let's put IQ on hold for a second, and focus on a few other differences between blacks and whites.
First, explosive power. Blacks are faster than whites. Better sprinters, jumpers, etc. Out of the top 200 Olympic sprinters ever, zero are white. Zero. Blacks have significantly more fast twitch muscle fiber than whites. But hey, I imagine, all of this is just somehow magically environment, right? Except that it's finally being tracked down to genes--blacks in general have 4 times the ratio of the R vs X ACTN3 alleles, compared to whites (an important gene in muscle composition).
So let's talk about environment--first, the environment blacks evolved in.
Even a cursory understanding of evolution would tell you that an environment where you have like a 10% annual chance of dying to malaria, would favor a much higher time preference than places without malaria. And guess what? Blacks have an incredibly high time preference compared to other races, even other races in extremely deprived countries.
But that's racist, so let's just look at the sickle cell allele instead. 40% of people in Equatorial Africa carry it. It sentences 1/4th of your children to death, leaves 1/4th unaffected, but the remaining 1/2 are given additional resistance to malaria. The fact that many blacks have a gene, that automatically kills a quarter of their children, speaks for itself--they have been under fundamentally different selection pressures.
But hey, all of this is just speculation, right? We could never make conclusions based on evolutionary history, and we all know blacks are being deprived in America, right? Except they aren't. Most American blacks have it better than a lot of people in Eastern Europe and Asia, yet still have vastly lower IQ scores. Funny how that works.
And all the intelligence research, including twin studies, shows IQ to be 50-80% heritable in the modern environment. Let's not forget that.
Saying that the black white IQ gap is due to environment, and not genetics, is like saying blacks have dark skin because they're getting more sun than whites. You have to be fucking delusional. Blacks and whites separated 50-100,000 years ago, and many populations are even more distant. We easily fit as separate species, let alone subspecies. Like Polar bears and Grizzly bears (who can interbreed fine btw, and actually have a hybridization zone and smooth continuum between the species, just like blacks and whites).
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
...Says the guy who just posted a gigantic wall of text without a single citation.
Do you know what a generation is? Do you realize that you can literally look these numbers up, right?
And this average shifted by 5-25 IQ points, a 100 point score today is not a 100 point score 50 years ago.
This makes no sense. Citation please.
This is wrong too, citation please.
This is part of the equation, but really only a small part. The Flynn effect isn't exclusive to IQ test, an increase in fluid intelligence was shown e.g. here: The Flynn effect in neuropsychological assessment.
And of course there's direct proof that environmental factors play a significant role in increasing intelligence:
Obviously, these factors aren't everything, but extremely impactful. Simply supplementing iodine increased IQ scores by 8 points in China.
By we I mean everyone, since it's scientific consensus. You could take a look at Nisbeth's comprehensive review Intelligence New Findings and Theoretical Developments:
Feel free to read on to get to know why it does not make sense to attribute the black-white IQ differences to genetics.
Why? I was talking about IQ. Of course there are genetic differences between races, I'm not sure why you'd even have to reach for muscle fibers, when skin color is so much more obvious.
And a deeper understanding of evolution would tell you that these kinds of conjectures are always worthless. Evolution is measurable, so put some data to your claims, because what you're saying here makes no sense.
Yes, and what leads you to conclude that it's based on genetic differences? Because it seems like you're, well, talking out of your ass.
It's 50-70%, and common genetic polymorphisms explain 5% of that variation. It does not mean that this percentage is caused by genetics either. Here's a good paper for you to educate yourself: The heritability fallacy.:
Saying that the black white IQ gap is due to genetics goes against established science and lacks any kind of evidence.
We don't.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
Says the guy who keeps linking me random shit off google I have to pay $12 for. Also the guy who is pooping his pants right now.
It makes a lot of sense. It's a similar pattern with traits like height. The higher end increases much less.
Anyway, here's your citation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160289689900214?via%3Dihub
"The gains appear to be concentrated among lower intelligence levels, and we find no evidence of gains at the higher levels. "
Split some more hairs. And I know how heritability works.
Nice assertion dude. At least I backed up my claims with some speculation about evolutionary history.
A couple things here. For one, there absolutely is "any kind" of evidence--blacks, a genetic cluster, have lower IQs statistically. That, alone, is "any kind" of evidence.
Also, there is huge bias when it comes to this subject, you cannot push the idea of blacks being less intelligent without becoming a complete pariah due to the moral implications.
Anyway, you tell me, why do blacks have such low IQs? What factors in their environment are causing this? Even rich blacks are less intelligent than poor whites. And whites and Asians in impoverished countries still have far higher IQs. Why are blacks universally so much less intelligent, if not genes?
Depends on your definition of species. Do you think Polar bears and Grizzlies are the same species?
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
This is for one, very specific group. Your claim was that it's for the Flynn effect at a whole.
You very clearly don't, else you'd know that what you're saying makes no sense at all.
I literally linked you a comprehensive scientific review explaining all the evidence available.
Read the review I linked.
No it doesn't.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
i'm not spending $12 faggot
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
If you'd ever stepped foot inside a university, you'd know that you don't actually have to spend that money. But you're either still in school or without any meaningful education.
I have a PhD in biochemistry.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
still not spending $12. poop your pants
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
Maybe you should try really hard in school then so you can go to university and use their access.
1 TotesMessenger 2019-08-19
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-19
sweaty... did you base your 99 percentile just against nigs? That's gonna be a yikes from me dawg.
1 Brahmasexual 2019-08-19
In a world without nigs I might not even be in the top 80%... a troubling thought
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-19
MTV commercial: "This is why I need the mayocide"
1 streeeker 2019-08-19
Explain brain size?
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
I've seen a few studies before that show small correlations between brain volume and intelligence. A few pop up on google. It seems generally accepted that there's at least a small correlation, and it's obvious why there would be.
But I don't care about brain size. A better example for my point would be reaction time. It's also correlated with iq, and that correlation increases with age. It's a much better analogue for general brain health, since reaction time slows due to exhaustion, degenerative brain disease, intoxication, etc. (again, just google it lmao)
But my point is that brain health is not everything. A drunk Einstein is still Einstein.
1 streeeker 2019-08-19
Your point was brain size but you seem to deflect this topic. Why? Because you seen a few studies pop up? Rofl...we only use like 10%-20% of our brain. If you believe in your fairytale, then you are probably using 3,5%.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
Yes, tell me what my own point is LOL.
You obviously lied about working on brain disease, since you just repeated one of the dumbest myths about the human brain. Do you know how metabolically costly our brain is? We use 100% of it.
Why did you lie?
Please go back to posting on r/funny and r/fuckthealtright you lying nigger.
1 streeeker 2019-08-19
Biochemically we use it 100% but never at the same time. So where is the proof that brain size matters.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
I was never talking about brain size, and do not care. Fuck off you mentally ill nigger.
Stop lying. Stop pretending to know what you're talking about. From Wikipedia:
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
And where did you get the information telling you that Einstein's genes wouldn't help if you had a shitty childhood?
Keep talking out of your ass.
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
From science:
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
IQ scores in young kids are known to be almost entirely dependent on emotional state, motivation, and ability to direct attention. Not intelligence.
You clearly are not at all familiar with this subject. For the tenth time, stop talking out of your ass.
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
Here's the same result for adolescents:
and here for adults:
Also, you're wrong and your post lacks citations again.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
I have to pay for those studies.
Also, never did I say the environment has no effect. Just not significant enough to explain the vast racial disparity, or significant enough to make Einstein's genes not matter.
Hilarious to me that you think linking studies you have not read, somehow wins you an argument.
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
If you're a NEET with no idea how academia works, yes, you'd have to pay for those studies. Not that that wasn't obvious before. And you wouldn't understand them either.
And yes, linking literal science that proves I'm right wins me the argument.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
LOL
For all you know, the affect they measured could be tiny. Anyone can pull a paywalled study off google that supports their claim. My citations don't have paywalls :)
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
So you didn't even understand the titles, lmao.
Because this is a completely different topic?
You can't, obviously.
That's easy cos you don't cite anything. I'm a scientist so there are no paywalls for me anywhere.
1 whys0serial 2019-08-19
Its not nonsense though - twins studies have demonstrated that environmental factors are of minimal importance for the vast majority of people (the vast majority of people don't have meth head single mothers so you're point is invalid)
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
That's simply not true.
1 whys0serial 2019-08-19
it kinda is though. maybe try researching your opinions?
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
That's not my opinion, I'm talking facts in this thread.
1 whys0serial 2019-08-19
you're clearly not familiar with the research literature. Twin studies have established the heritability of IQ pretty firmly as around 80%, with 0 percent attributable to shared environment
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
I'm obviously more than familiar with this topic. You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment by reading through the comments I've made in this thread so far. I trust they will be pretty enlightening for you. It is entirely uncontroversial that intelligence is influenced significantly by both environment and genetics, and I've shown quite a few reasons why.
First off, heritability of IQ has not been established "firmly" at 80%. The usual number you will find in scientific literature is 50-70%, with some results lower than that, some higher. It's also generally accepted that heritability is below 50% up to young adulthood.
You've been talking about twin studies, yet the graph you've posted mostly mentions adoption studies, a completely different thing. Concerning the proportion of the variability due to shared environment in 16-20 year olds (e.g. roughly where it drops off in adoption studies) twin studies put it at 30%. You can find this reviewed here: The effects of shared environment on adult intelligence: A critical review of adoption, twin, and MZA studies.
It's not surprising to me that you don't know about these results, since if your picture is any evidence, you seem to get your information from a blog by someone who's not a scientist and clearly trying to push an agenda on an uneducated audience.
If you want to form an opinion on a scientific topic, you should get your information from respected, peer-reviewed publications, not random blogs. It's hard for laymen to interpret data correctly, know which data is available, or notice when someone is being disingenuous.
Concerning heritability estimates: These do not mean that this is the relative influence of genes on intelligence, they describe the proportion of observed variability that can be explained by genetic variation. This is important, since for example adoption studies create a rather specific environmental context for adopted children, i.e. parents adopting children are older, better educated and wealthier than average. These environmental factors, which (provably) all increase IQ, are the same and therefore won't create variability and won't show up in the proportions of variability (obviously). But they still exist! Here's a proper explanation of heritability and common public miconceptions about the concept: The heritability fallacy
Lastly, while heritability of IQ is firmly established as 50-70%, this does not mean that this percentage is environment independent! We can only explain 5% of this variation with common genetic polymorphisms (GWAS meta-analysis (N=279,930) identifies new genes and functional links to intelligence), where the rest of this heritability comes from, we aren't so sure. What we are sure about is that environment and genetics are inextricably linked: Genetics shape the environment, and the environment shapes genetics. For example, the missing heritability is linked to epigenetics (Epigenetic variance in dopamine D2 receptor: a marker of IQ malleability?), which is influenced by the environment, and to genetic amplification through selected environments, i.e. genetic predispositions lead to the selection of specific environmental conditions, which then in turn influence intelligence (Explaining the increasing heritability of cognitive ability across development: a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies.)
Thus, your simplistic claim that environmental factors are of "minimal importance" is wrong, even if you arbitrarily constrain environmental influences to a vague "for us".
1 whys0serial 2019-08-19
Oh really? How about we actually look at what the authors say:
Oops. Looks like you are trying desparately to pick at straws here. The evidence is clear, shared environment has no effect in adulthood, the stage of life everyone actually cares about.
This actually pretty funny given how you just tried to mislead me and anyone reading this. Unfortunately for you, I have database access to these articles and can actually see how you're trying to spin things falsely and distort research findings.
False, there is not evidence that they increase IQ permanently. Just that they might increase IQ temporarily. Stop lying and trying to spin things, please.
Environment is important, but without the right genetics a person will never, ever increase their IQ. the research is VERY clear here - despite BILLIONS of dollars on failed projects like Head Start and other failed commercial ventures (e.g. Lumosity) we are no closer to increasing IQ. The only paths forward that seem to increase IQ is genetic engineering through embyro selection or CRISPR. So you're points about the environment are moot - it doesn't really matter, our society is rich enough that we can provide a good enough environment. Theres also a lot of evidence that IQ is decreasing currently, and this can only be explained by dysgenic effects. So despite all of our enrichment and social programming, we are going in the opposite direction we need to be, and its down to genetics.
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
This isn't what the authors are saying at all, it's a quote of a paper they are discussing in that review. If you'd actually read on, you'd have found this part:
And further:
I really didn't distort anything, that's exactly what I said.
This is very obviously wrong. Nutrition, wealth, parent education, etc are all major factors in intelligence, from infancy onward. This isn't debatable in any way, it's well established science. You can literally put this into google and find hundreds of publications. Here, I picked one for you, which concludes:
Which nicely leads us to your last point.
This is absurdly wrong. Increase IQ with respect to which baseline? Obviously you can increase IQ by improving the environment, this is completely uncontroversial, the paper cited mentions environmental interventions too. If you want your child to have higher IQ, you should be wealthy, educated and feed a proper diet.
This is complete and utter nonsense. First off, as I've explained before, we can only pinpoint polymorphisms explaining roughly 5% of the variance, secondly, genetically modifying literally thousands of genes is impossible, and will be for a long time. You know what seems much more feasible to me? Improving environmental conditions.
This is... obviously wrong again. SES is incredibly unequal in pretty much all societies. And how do you define "good enough"?
How does that make sense to you? How can a rise in 5-25 IQ points over one generation be reasonably explained by genetic changes? And how could a drop afterwards? Don't you think it's more likely that the drastic changes of everyday life are responsible? These guys seem to think so:
Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused.
Honestly, I have no idea why you are trying to argue with me. You're clearly not educated in this topic. I've given you a lot of facts, you should try to understand them, maybe read through the papers I linked a bit and then rethink your opinions. Currently, you're denying scientific facts because you don't like them, but facts really don't care about your feelings.
1 VanuCultist 2019-08-19
It obviously depends on the environment.
But in the modern environment, IQ is 50-80% heritable.
1 Agrianioi_Peltaskoi 2019-08-19
No idea about epigenetics, but in terms of environmental factors, there are some. But IQ is about 85% genetic in most cases according to latest studies iirc.
Some environmental factors can have big impacts though, for example lead exposure can drastically reduce IQ, especially in childhood (B12 deficiency also does this).
If a larger amount of lead penetrates the blood brain barrier, say with a force of 790 joules with a dosage that is .357 inches wide, IQ will drop to essentially 0.
1 Snowayne2 2019-08-19
This is wrong. IQ is 50-70% heritable (in twin studies).
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-19
After how expensive epigenetics have gotten this year due to the greedy drug companies, I'm not sure this is really the time.
1 BurgerLaowai 2019-08-19
It's over for geneticresearchcels
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2019-08-19
"Imma bust your ass" - Adam
1 AI_WAIFU 2019-08-19
It's a shame that zoomers will never understand this.
1 tejanx 2019-08-19
cope but IQ is such a lame trait to brag about if you don’t have any real-world accomplishments to show for it
1 mums_spaghetto 2019-08-19
unironically the best take. effort generally > iq
1 Agrianioi_Peltaskoi 2019-08-19
"effort" can be explained with genetic factors as well
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-19
How hard you bust determines this. This is biological determinism.
1 streeeker 2019-08-19
You’re too funny that you believe your own lies. Good luck living in your moms basement.