https://x.com/eyeslasho/status/1848004187247858090
In study after study, modern genetics research is murdering blank slatism, and it's quickly becoming a bloodbath.
— i/o (@eyeslasho) October 20, 2024
Marxist biologist Stephen Jay Gould (who is still widely read and taught in academia) once said: "There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000… https://t.co/DhxRwitE3f
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021v1
!ifrickinglovescience !redscarepod !chuds
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How does it not follow? It's one of the main arguments against intelligence being genetic. The other ones being lack of reaction norm and the fact that intelligence isn't objectively quantifiable as it's not a purely biological trait but rather certain cognitive abilities that we arbitrarily defined as intelligence
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What are you on about? Do you not understand what any of that means or what is the issue?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You can create very complex systems with very little information and "lack of reaction norm" makes no sense to me
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not by those orders of magnitude though
Well then this whole discussion is pointless
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Says who?
U could expand on what u mean by that u know
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm an ESLcel so it's kinda difficult to have a discussion this technical, but we dont have any model for human intelligence that links a specific genotype to a specific phenotype(intellect) depending on environmental circumstances, like we do for plant phenotypes etc. So no reaction norm, which would describe what genotype leads to what level of intelligence while factoring in circumstance. There's just no way to link the two, meaning there's 0 evidence for intelligence being genetic.
And the genome size argument is generally regarded as true by pretty much everyone
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This doesn't follow at all
also, no reaction norm would mean entirely genetic.
Not by me lol and I can't imagine any of my colleagues
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It means we can't link the two or predict one from the other
Well I've had the opposite experience I guess.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Says who?
U could expand on what u mean by that u know
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context