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.
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.
It doesn't mean that at all???
Are you in academia? Then why are you struggling with English?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My point is whatever correlation there may or may not be between specific genotypes and levels of intellect, we can't determine because that would require us to clone a dude a thousand times and raise him in very similar environments with only very specific details differing so we could derive a reaction norm for that genotype and the variable circumstances. We don't have anything like that for humans though so we can't make that correlation. - And even then we'd have to first define what "intelligence" even means and how we would even quantify it, which is a whole different can of worms. IQ is a nice tool we developed for it but is measures entirely arbitrarily set abilites that can and do vary quite a bit depending on cultural context, it's far from objective.
No.
I'm not "struggling with English" per se, I'm just not sure I can properly express my point in a matter this technical
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That just means it's too complex for whatever neat theoretical description you want. But obviously intelligence is genetic and obviously influenced by the environment.
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
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