/sci/ - Science & Math

>mismeasure of man
>Stephen Jay Gould

dude is a fraud

>>10204792
>being dumb enough to read a straw man argument that's the length of a book.

Never changed the measurements of the skull...

>displeasure of man
Oh yeah, well what about dis man's pleasure ayyy gotem

>>10204844
>hurr durr phrenology, t. 19th century scientist

>>10204792
This isn't the right board. Take it directly to the source. That shit doesn't belong here in any capacity, as it only attracts them.

>>>/pol/

Please

>>10204860
the genetics of intelligence is a scientific topic, anon

>>10204857
>hurr durr a mental midget paleontologist can't even identify fucking bones.

>>10204857
>phrenology is craniology
why do brainlets always make this mistake?

That book is fraud and even if it wasn't it wouldn't matter (see Jensen's review of the book).

>>10205001
Wtf is between Australia and S America? Why do Australians have such small heads??

>>10204792
>lying about Mortons skull measurements counts as debunking divergent evolution in humans
the races have different genes, its not difficult to understand

>>10205045
Everyone has different genes. Except identical twins at birth.

>>10205015
ever heard of something called an island?

>>10205001
why is this map backwards

>>10205067
Right, and individuals share common genes within certain groups, and we can use these groups to determine things like skin-color, height, hair texture, intelligence, etc.

>not being a eugencist
Far superior, ignores unrigorous notions such as race. Certain gene expressions will result in a physically testable result. Some traits are desirable, some undesirable, some neither or unknown.

We see eugencists in both farming and animal husbandry, the same techniques apply to humans.

>>10205098
there was more human migration into the pacific than there was in the atlantic.

>>10204792
Better yet read "the mismeasure of science"
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
Gould was full of shit.

>>10204792
But we still circumcise penises, so.

>>10204792
The book is a notorious for misusing data and presenting straw man arguments. His attempts of dismantling Rushton's work is pretty bad, using political rhetoric over actual data in many instances.

>>10205107
>individuals share common genes within certain groups
Indeed. Now realize that you can define these groups literally any way you want. You created this ill-defined group called race (based on like 5 dumb phenotypes) and gave it validation for no reason.

>>10205274
>Now realize that you can define these groups literally any way you want.
What's wrong with geographical and cultural definitions?

>>10205123
the highest-correlate SNP on your table is within an intron upstream of a generic and obscure nucleolar protein that has been cited in exactly two papers

there is no significance to any of this besides the fact that they drew correlations from two extremely large datasets and extracted outliers - cognitive differences can exist due to sociological causes and also correlate with genetic lesions that are more prominent in one group than the other. that doesn't mean that those lesions are causing differences in IQ scores and educational achievement.

these kinds of genetic trends will show up if you look at IQ versus genes that encode skin color or hair - you're just masking sociological trends behind genes more common in one cohort versus another. In fact, the reason this table probably referenced SNPs is because anybody would be able to tell you that claiming melanin lowers IQ is stupid - but less folks are willing to actually look up these polymorphisms and try to infer whether they mean anything at all biologically.

another strike-out for race-realist shitposters on /sci/

>>10205123
>If I keep posting it, it will become true!
Just stop. It's been debunked hundreds of times.

>these genes are known to INCREASE INTELLIGENCE
What a load of shit. Go through the sources and find me one mechanism of a gene on a specific brain function.

>based on educational attainment
Epic fail here.

>>10205285
>cultural differences
May as well group our species based on political views. I mean, you can. I'm sure you will find genes that correlate strongly.

>Geographical
There's different levels of geography. Look at the Sentinelese. They obviously have differences from their Indian neighbors. But they're so isolated. Many such population groups have existed throughout history. It is perfectly valid to try to see what genes are unique to these specific population groups.

>>10205291
>that doesn't mean that those lesions are causing differences in IQ scores and educational achievement.
that doesnt mean they dont

>these kinds of genetic trends will show up if you look at IQ versus genes that encode skin color or hair
thats because genetics cause both you fucking spaz, dark skin doesnt make you stupider no one fucking thinks that, its a total straw man

>>10205292
>find the genes that correspond to iq
<finds the genes
>thats not true, and you actually need to find the mechanism instead
fuck off with your shitty god of the gaps

>>based on educational attainment
even after accounting for education levels, blacks still under perform compared to their white and asian counterparts, im not posting a source since youd ignore it anyway you anti science faggot

>>10205310
>that doesnt mean they dont

how can you browse and post on a board allegedly dedicated to science and not understand the concept of Burden of Proof?

>thats because genetics cause both you fucking spaz, dark skin doesnt make you stupider no one fucking thinks that, its a total straw man

Oh, but a polymorphism in non-coding DNA adjacent to a probably-inconsequential protein is /definitely/ responsible for race achievement disparities! /s

>>10205310
>im not posting a source since youd ignore it anyway you anti science faggot
I read everything. Please provide source so I can prove you wrong. I'll quote it directly in 5 minutes. It's easy.

Keep in mind, lower scores or whatever is just data. I'm looking for causal links from genetics. Post one study that demonstrates it.

>>10205322
>causal links from genetics
Trees are dumber than people. QED

>>10205318
>Oh, but a polymorphism in non-coding DNA adjacent to a probably-inconsequential protein is /definitely/ responsible for race achievement disparities! /s
you accept they're different, skin color and that
then you say they cant possibly be different in the head
justify that
I have a mechanism, its called evolution, and it doesnt stop from the neck up

>>10205322
>>im not posting a source since youd ignore it anyway you anti science faggot
>I read everything. Please provide source so I can prove you wrong.
Immediately assuming its wrong is ignoring it

>Keep in mind, lower scores or whatever is just data. I'm looking for causal links from genetics. Post one study that demonstrates it.
Keep in mind, lower heights or whatever is just data. I'm looking for causal links from genetics. Post one study that demonstrates it.

>>10205274
>categories have blurry edges
>so we can't know nothing
imagine believing this

>>10205342
>then you say they cant possibly be different in the head

that's not what I'm saying - what I'm saying is you have no proof, which means I don't have to reject the null hypothesis. which is of course: no effect.

>I have a mechanism, its called evolution, and it doesnt stop from the neck up

here's a hot take for you: what if europeans evolved to be a bunch of pricks that make up psychological tests that just happen to coincidentally confirm their intrinsic biases against people who don't look like them?

>>10205348
>what I'm saying is you have no proof
then youre fucking retarded
evolution doesnt lock certain stats in place
everything about a species begins to change if it moves environment, claiming i have no proof that divergent evolution happens is rejecting evolution wholesale

>here's a hot take for you: what if europeans evolved to be a bunch of pricks that make up psychological tests that just happen to coincidentally confirm their intrinsic biases against people who don't look like them?
psychological tests have only recently become a thing, it couldnt have had any effect on the evolution of modern humans which has been happening for tens of thousands of years
QED

also, it cant be a coincidence considering how many disparate tests all point to the same thing you dishonest shit

>>10205366
>evolution doesnt lock certain stats in place

yes it does - google 'highly conserved sequences'. just because time has passed and two populations live in separate places doesn't mean that they have completely different intrinsic cognitive faculties.

also, consider the fact that H. sapiens spread out across modern day eurasia somewhere on the order of ~300k years. that is a mere blip in evolutionary history.

>also, it cant be a coincidence considering how many disparate tests all point to the same thing you dishonest shit

there are achievement gaps, but the claim here is whether it stems from biology. because you have no evidence, the prudent scientific decision is to assume you've spouting bullshit. that's literally how the method works brochacho.

>>10205342
>Immediately assuming its wrong is ignoring it
You have it all wrong. I've already read it and analyzed it.

>lower heights or whatever is just data. I'm looking for causal links from genetics. Post one study that demonstrates it.
Literally allele-to-centimeter in some cases:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21039

>>10205379
lalalalala
correlation isnt causation
it can be explained by magic sociological conditions
google "highly conserved sequences". just because time has passed and two populations live in separate places doesn't mean that they have completely different intrinsic biological faculties.

>>10205374
>just because time has passed and two populations live in separate places doesn't mean that they have completely different intrinsic cognitive faculties.
>completely different
i never said they were completely different, stop fucking putting words in my mouth

>because you have no evidence
no i have evidence, but you say it isnt science if it disagrees with your internal biases of equality

>>10205394
>i never said they were completely different, stop fucking putting words in my mouth

well, the achievement gap accounts to a statistically-significant difference, so if you're blaming it on biology, that does amount to a substantial difference. no magic SNP will explain that by itself.

>no i have evidence, but you say it isnt science if it disagrees with your internal biases of equality

I'm pretty sure I discredited the SNP table because it relies on specious connections to biology - that image has no evidence that any of those variants even /regulate/ mRNAs expressed in brain tissue. that's the kind of thing that you entirely lack evidence for.

>>10205394
>google "highly conserved sequences". just because time has passed and two populations live in separate places doesn't mean that they have completely different intrinsic biological faculties.

if height was highly conserved across humans, people would all be the same height.

you literally know nothing about basic biology but think you're educated enough to claim black people are genetically-inferior. kiss my ass

>based Gould births the contemporary science of Evo-devo without even doing research, purely through his literary prowess.
>Cuck racists get triggered

>>10205409
>but think you're educated enough to claim black people are genetically-inferior
i never fucking said that, i dont even believe that. Theyre faster, stronger, more muscular etc, what the fuck do you think you gain from lying about me

>you literally know nothing about basic biology
>the guy who clearly has an interest in biology thinks everyone cares about it as much as he does
ok Mr Dunning Kruger
i hope you realized i was using the other post against you, you must be fucking blind

>>10205401
>that image has no evidence that any of those variants even /regulate/ mRNAs expressed in brain tissue. that's the kind of thing that you entirely lack evidence for.
Theres literally no fucking reason to go that far to know that its highly related to the brain
If you're a farmer who thinks of your plants as plants and not as organisms made up of atoms you can still learn an awful lot about how they fucking function.
You water one plant and not another, the one you didnt water dies, you repeat this experiment dozens of times and it holds true.
YOU DONT NEED TO LEARN FLUID DYNAMICS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WATER IS IMPORTANT TO PLANTS.
using fluid dynamics and determining how water moves into and around a plant is an explanation, but you dont need the explanation to know that you should water plants.

Your view of science is a fucking sham. You are far too insulated into engineering thinking, into thinking mechanisms and design are the only acceptable justifications. You aren't scientifically minded, science doesnt demand finding the explanation for a phenomenon, youre just being too autistic for your own good.

you need a hypothesis, and a conclusion, not an explanation.
hypothesis, water is important to plants
conclusion, true

hypothesis, genetics is important
conclusion, true

>>10205446
>>based Gould commits academic fraud and still gets supported by the rest of his cult

>>10205453
>i never fucking said that, i dont even believe that. Theyre faster, stronger, more muscular etc, what the fuck do you think you gain from lying about me

ah, how virtuous that you've changed the goalposts from "black people are genetically inferior" to "black people are genetically athletic and dumb". that's totally a crucial distinction

>i hope you realized i was using the other post against you, you must be fucking blind

I did - but you used it against the genetics of height which is by inspection, not highly conserved. You were trying to mock me, but in the process made yourself look like a dumbass who doesn't even understand the term he's mocking.

>Theres literally no fucking reason to go that far to know that its highly related to the brain

You mean besides ruling out the fact that those sequences might do /nothing/? Fun fact - your genome is made 8% out of endogenous retroviral DNA that came from ancient diseases that left their useless junk DNA. Or hell, there are thousands of pseudogenes that encode RNAs which do nothing.

Ruling these things out doesn't seem important to you because you aren't a biologist (and probably have no background/education in the sciences), but actually checking what any of these things do is crucial to understanding what they do in biology. They might do nothing - you don't know - you didn't do the work and you didn't present any evidence.

The guy who made the image is probably not a biologist either - he incorrectly refers to the SNPs as 'genes' and claims that they influence brain tissue (even though the research required to claim that has never been done by anyone, ever).

I'm going to level with you dude - the only reason you think any of this has credibility is because you aren't a scientist and are also kind of dumb. I can debunk your bullshit all day - but ultimately it's going to boil down to you recognizing that you don't know anything at all.

>>10205453
>science doesnt demand finding the explanation for a phenomenon, youre just being too autistic for your own good.
>you need a hypothesis, and a conclusion, not an explanation.
>hypothesis, water is important to plants
>conclusion, true
You... are very naive to how science is done.

>>10205291
you don’t know what you’re talking about but are abusing undergraduate level understanding of SNP’s to obfuscate. the variation in frequency between populations is consistent and correlates strongly with other observed differences in frequency of alleles between the populations, this coupled with differential rates of heritability between traits basically guatantees distinction between populations and thus likely genetic isolation and subspecies or biological races. Those genes are associated with differences in brain region size and efficiency, and they are less or more common depending on what distinct group you look at but are all highly heritable and thus very frequent within each population meaning over time there’s cause to suspect they distinguish said populations. Sociological factors are significantly less important than genetic, where one is .4 in childhood with the vast majority of “environment” being random effects in the womb and the genetic nurture interaction with one’s own kin who are mostly driven by genetic influence, in late adolescence and adulthood genetic influence increases starkly to .6-.8 at the end of puberty effectively making most cognitive function gene driven at that point. with a large amount of “environment” being genetic nurture from people with the same genes as you its unlikely we can control that environment unless we remove those genes from their kin, reproduce artificially and essentially prove the racialists point by rearing people in alien environments. For instance its been shown that one can add about 3-5 iq points with one additional year of education in highschool or middleschool, there’s no evidence this works past this threshold. Why? probably because genetic influence eclipses environmental modulation of cognitive function and genotypic g predominates over phenotypic. The environment where this is feasible is almost exclusively found outside the environment that would retard maximum pot. g

>>10205453
>you need a hypothesis, and a conclusion, not an explanation.
>hypothesis, water is important to plants
>conclusion, true

Literally the first thing they teach you in a high school statistics course is that you can't conclude a hypothesis is 'true', you can only reject or fail-to-reject one.

This probably explains why you're grappling so badly with the concept of burden of proof - nobody is obligated to disprove your bullshit. You are obligated to prove it.

>>10205472
>Those genes are associated with differences in brain region size and efficiency, and they are less or more common depending on what distinct group you look at but are all highly heritable and thus very frequent within each population meaning over time there’s cause to suspect they distinguish said populations.

Literally no evidence that any of those variants are part of genes. For someone who parades advanced knowledge in genomics you should know this.

>>10205476
there is no evidence that they don’t and their variation between populations probably indicates that they’re related to immunity or brain function since these are the most likely traits besides those related to enzymes for digestion to be subject to rapid selection pressure. You have almost no argument. And truth be told, my argument isn’t even concerned with these alleles, the very psychometric evidence, historical record, cranial capacity, skull circumference, test score variation and behavioral propensities of the races proves the point and matches what would be expected of highly heritable traits undergoing harsh selection in disparate environments. It would be shocking if the frequency of alleles that code for brain cortical volume and efficiency aren’t found at vastly different rates between populations in different environments in a species whose neurology is its most important and malleable trait. The idea of purely sociological differences explaining it doesn’t explain the origin of those differences or why they would not have effects on frequency of traits associated with cognitivr function over time. You can go round and round but you end up with the same picture of population differences.

>>10205490
What about the Flynn effect?

>>10205490
>psychometric evidence, historical record, cranial capacity, skull circumference, test score variation and behavioral propensities of the races
Holy hell... Where to begin?

>>10205490
>there is no evidence that they don’t and their variation between populations probably indicates that they’re related to immunity or brain function since these are the most likely traits besides those related to enzymes for digestion to be subject to rapid selection pressure.

That is a completely unsubstantiated claim my dude.

>cranial capacity, skull circumference

unironically talking about phrenology bullshit on a science board. jesus christ lol

>>10205502
>cranial capacity is totally irrelevant
unironically talking about how numbers dont real on a science board, jesus christ lol

>>10205515
science operates via consensus and reproduction - phrenology is thoroughly discredited and regarded as pseudoscience by all modern neuroscientists

>>10205519
see
>>10205001

>>10205519
i never defended phrenology

>>10205540
>uncited figure with no error bars or statistical tests

great science you've got there buddy. brain size is clearly a proxy for achievement, which is why highly-developed nations such as japan and australia are the same color as africa

>>10205493
flynn effect is most prominent in populations with retarded phenotypic g and is almost entirely environmental modulation of cognitive function. it is not a substantial gain in g, nor is it raising genotypic intelligence and is reversing in advanced populations like Nords, and elsewhere in prized flynn effect locales like Khartoum in Sudan among elites. It seems like dysgenics and hard limits on gains in g among healthier, more advanced populations cause it to stop at a certain point and then reverse back to scores more in line with real genotypic g.
>>10205501
go back
>>10205502
no its a pretty accurate and obvious phenomena, complex extremely important traits for adaptation would be the first to be subject to selection. immunity and digestive enzymes are some of the strongest differences between human populations and then of course cognitive function is up there with them. if you cannot fathom why that would be you’re an insect and aren’t a good biologist, and should probably never post about evolutionary biology again.
>phrenology
you don’t know what that word means, its craniometry and is respected in the field of physical anthropology and forensic science, correlates strongly with cognitive function and the differences in craniometric measures between the races indicates strony differences in innate intelligence. You’re a brainlet, please don’t post here again you stick out like a sore thumb.
>holy hell
>my dude
>folks
>lets unpack this
>yikes
I wonder where you wandered in from?

>>10205552
Mongoloids have significantly bigger cranial capacity and head circumference than congoids, there is no question as to why Japan has top 5 national avg iq and african states are consistently at the bottom matched only by island populations

>>10205561
>no its a pretty accurate and obvious phenomena, complex extremely important traits for adaptation would be the first to be subject to selection. immunity and digestive enzymes are some of the strongest differences between human populations and then of course cognitive function is up there with them. if you cannot fathom why that would be you’re an insect and aren’t a good biologist, and should probably never post about evolutionary biology again.

How many gene discovery articles have you read that conclude an unusually-frequent SNP is digestion/immunity/brain related because "hurr why wouldn't it be?" There are actual means by which you could figure out whether these variants matter for brain tissue - nobody has done it and the image falsely claims they have. This amounts to just straight-up lying about science that doesn't exist.

>correlates strongly with cognitive function and the differences in craniometric measures between the races indicates strony differences in innate intelligence

Sure doesn't look like it based on the shitty map anon posted. Australia is apparently the dumbest place on Earth despite being top 20 in GDP per capita?

>You’re a brainlet, please don’t post here again you stick out like a sore thumb.

Stay mad buddy.

>>10205566
Real talk - did you learn your biology from an inner-city high school that only has access to medical textbooks circa 1890?

>>10205576
you keep hanging on the image. i didn’t post it at all, and it comes from an educational attainment article which you’re obscuring repeatedly. Since selection pressures would act first and harshest on superficial traits like skin melanation and then on important socio-biological traits like immunity, digestion, behavior its extremely likely its related to one of those anon. Use your brain. That’s not my graph and i wasn’t referencing that graph I was referencing the literature on population differences in head circumference at birth and cranial capacity variation between races. The East Asians have the biggest cranial capacity, head circumference and frontal lobe volume of all the races. Blacks consistently have the smallest with a very few outlier studies where cranial capacity but not head circumference is on par with whites. Being fair, when capacity is the same iq tends to be similar, but it seldom is for obvious reasons. The Australia portion of the map obviously is in reference to Abos.
>stay mad
>folks
>holy hell my dude where to unpack this
go back, brainlet

>>10205579
Brainlet the studies are all from the second half of the 20th C
>real talk
>my dude
>folks
>holy hell
>lets unpack this
i wonder what all that means

>>10205582
>Since selection pressures would act first and harshest on superficial traits like skin melanation and then on important socio-biological traits like immunity, digestion, behavior its extremely likely its related to one of those anon. Use your brain.

You still seem to be hung up on this idea that science is just coming up with plausible ideas and berating people until they capitulate to your bullshit. If you want to know whether these SNPs are naturally-selected adaptations that influence brain function - figure out what they actually do. Lying about your understanding and getting defensive when people ask for evidence is something internet cranks do - not scientists.

>That’s not my graph and i wasn’t referencing that graph I was referencing the literature on population differences in head circumference at birth and cranial capacity variation between races. The East Asians have the biggest cranial capacity, head circumference and frontal lobe volume of all the races.

Fun fact: did you know that brain size doesn't actually correlate well with cognitive ability across species? Crows are more intelligent than cows, and people can have their brain hemisected for severe epilepsy with little to no cognitive impairment. Your entire thesis about brain size predicting intelligence is highly specious.

>>10205582
yo I hate to go off track but I didn't actually post the 'folks' or 'holy hell...' messages. please do continue to stay mad tho

>>10205590
>fun fact
>pro-tip
>lets unpack this
Brain volume correlates significantly with cognitive function and performance in an academic setting in humans. Its also not at all a coincident that the highest iq races have a larger cranial capacity and brain volume than the lowest iq races with Jews being the sole outlier.
>>10205593
>yo my g i did not post dat

>>10205619
>Its also not at all a coincident that the highest iq races have a larger cranial capacity and brain volume than the lowest iq races

Why's that?

The map anon posted looks like it matches temperature better than societal achievement. Australians attain far more education and wealth than South Africans, but the latter beats them by brain-size.

>>10205626
>>10205619
Ah, I completely called it. Here's the actual paper that image was based on.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/69706893/morphological-adaptation-climate-modern-homo-sapiens-crania-importance-basicranial-breadth

Title: "Morphological Adaptation to Climate in Modern Homo sapiens Crania: The Importance of Basicranial Breadth"

>>10204792

OK, name ONE large nation run by black Africans that ANY sane person would choose to live in.
Name ONE IQ test that shows black Africans score higher on average than White Europeans or East Asians.

>>10205633
>tropical paradises do not exert the same selection pressure on brain volume that frigid northern hell holes do
no shit

>>10205576
>Sure doesn't look like it based on the shitty map anon posted. Australia is apparently the dumbest place on Earth despite being top 20 in GDP per capita?
>what are indigenous populations
imagine being this stupid

>>10205409
>black people are genetically-inferior
Blacks are inferior to non-blacks civilization and their ability to function in it. Seems like blacks have a difficulty understand that just because your genes are responsible for your societal inferiority somehow means your genes are inferiors. DNA doesn't make value judgements on genes, the environment does.

>Theyre faster, stronger, more muscular

This is also a lie, black people are not stronger then any other race, but are in fact, more on the weak side.

>>10204792
Is OP and this thread the ultimate proof that blacks are inferior?

>>10204860
>waaa don't talk about forbidden science waaaaaaa
Kill you're self my man

Racists say the genes of the race are more important than the genes of the family.
By this logic intelligent families of black people don't exist because everything returns to the mean.
They have a flawed view of genetics

we should get real. iq differences in race are real and very plausibly have a big biological contribution. I myself am sold that ashkenazi jews have a very high mean iq and this is largely biological.
we need to study it accurately though and not use overarbitrary racial categories like black. black people are highly diverse and no doub lt the iq studies done on africans are so few that they give zero picture of how iq works on that continent in its diversity.

what the problem here is that people make faulty inferences that because the mean iq of one group of people might be higher, they think that when they meet a person from that race they are intelligent/dumb. couldnt be further from the truth. theres a good saying : "just because jews have a higher iq doesnt mean your high iq is because youre jewish" and to me that is a very real true statement. we need to stop being biological essentialists about things like gender or race etc.

>>10206697
I agree. I think there should be more subdivision in Africa because people further South of the Congo display very different abilities than those to the North as well as very close-knit regional instances (for example, Nigeria showing a large spike in IQ gains). All this academic politically fueled infighting helps nobody.

>>10206464
>making shit up
fuck off and stop straw manning

>>10206900
One thing that also hasnt been sorted out is how cultural difference or things unrelated to iq migt impact an iq test.

>>10206900
>>10206697

>idiots arguing over the rigor of their own racist pseudoscience

this is like reading arguments between chemtrail theorists about what exactly is in the gas

>>10207178
>congo niggers and nigerians are just as smart as each other
fuck off with your hocus pocus bullshit

>>10207207
nigeria has two of the biggest oil-producing cities in the entire continent and is also not-land-locked

sociological explanations for disparities between societies are pretty obvious unless you're stupid or intentionally trying to ignore them

>>10207348
>admitting the environment is different
>but its not evolution causing the change, its the environment
>even though evolution happens from living in a different environment

>sociological explanations for disparities between societies are pretty obvious unless you're stupid or intentionally trying to ignore them
yeah, but claiming they're the entire explanation without justification is just as intentionally stupid.

>>10207088
It's true though. Ask any racist what he thinks of high IQ immigrants and he's gonna say their offspring will always return to the mean

>>10207207
Nigerian's are niggers but have high IQ. Explain

>>10206452
>forbidden science
Sub 70memeintelligencepoints

>>10207454
regression to the mean exists, non additive genetic effects will be reset in the next generation. The reason people have high iq is because they have good additive genetics and non additive effects.
obviously their kids wont fall 10 iq points, but they will likely fall a bit.

if you take everyone with a significantly higher iq than the average from a country and make them interbreed, their kids average iq will be lower than their parents average iq. again, not a whole lot, but its fairly important if you mainly consider the high end.

>>10207456
nigerians have higher iq than people in the congo. people in hong kong have higher iq than people from japan.
etc
i shouldnt need to specify the (((on average))) bit

>>10207383
>hurr you admit coastal geography and oil matter, but why not evolution?

probably because large-scale naval shipping has only existed for a couple thousand years, and the modern petroleum industry has existed for 200 years. there is literally no connection between those environmental factors and any kind of selective pressure which has existed long enough to change anything of consequence.

>yeah, but claiming they're the entire explanation without justification is just as intentionally stupid.

I'm just going off what has evidence and what's actually been proven. If you want to say biology is a causal factor, then show proof that isn't just some quack's table of SNPs from a gene discovery article, or Phrenology 2: Electric Boogaloo™

>>10207481
>if you take everyone with a significantly higher iq than the average from a country and make them interbreed, their kids average iq will be lower than their parents average iq. again, not a whole lot, but its fairly important if you mainly consider the high end.
So high IQ people grow on trees because according to you their parents can't be smart.

>>10207498
my logic works off of the environment being different, not specifically based around petroleum or coasts
>there is literally no connection between those environmental factors and any kind of selective pressure which has existed long enough to change anything of consequence.
i agree, which is why i said environment and not specifically either of those.

>>10207500
dude, i literally said significantly high iq comes from BOTH having smart parents (ie good additive genetics) and good non additive genetic effects (ie luck of genetic synergy)
just good parents makes you smart, but probably not super genius or anything
just good non additive means even less
but both are incredible
dont put words in my mouth, genes are vitally important

>>10207498
>phrenology
there goes that word again. disingenuous brainlets like you should be banned from /sci/ on sight.

>>10207178
what was wrong with what i said. i made the jew quote and made another post afterwards about sociocultural influences on iq. why chastise me. i thought i was being fair.

>>10207481
IQ is actually psychologically famous for being the one trait which has no non-additive effects. IQ seems to be 100% additive. This has confused behavioural geneticists concerning things like outlier genius. But summarising genetic research.. IQ seems to be totally additive as opposed to things like personality traits which have atleast 20% of heritability as non additive.

>>10207568

>>10207575
not my fault you keep parroting debunked bullshit about how the shape of the skull predicts intelligence - that is by definition phrenology

>>10207568
>i agree, which is why i said environment and not specifically either of those.

So why are you calling me a hypocrite for citing environmental factors that have absolutely nothing to do with evolution or selective pressure? Pointing out that Nigeria has a thriving oil industry and substantial geographic economic advantages doesn't validate any of your bullshit about how the environment ostensibly makes Europeans smarter.

I believe in race realism but i also believe that its plausible and probable that sociocultural differences make a difference. i can imagine people in certain communities which are educationally dissimilar will do worse. and one study (only one so dont take it as concrete evidence) by duckworth suggested that other personality traits and motivations influence iq.y reasoning is that from what ive seen. africans are not stupid enough to have the iq claimed. you would not be able to survive in the wilderness if that was true. since their iq is close to retarded according to us. i cant believe that. i imagine culture has an influence on how they do the test even if a valid g score is largely genetic. look at colours. different cultures have different colour categories and perform very badly on colour tests that seem obvious to us. and thats culture.

>>10205626
>>10205633
I'm not going to call you stupid, but the brain size in australia is of Aborigines not white australians. Its commonly accepted that islanders and Australoids tend to have the smallest brain size, bantus and other sub-saharan africans next and then various semitic, first nation, hispanic peoples and then Caucasoids and then mongoloids. I don't really know why you think you're making good points in this thread. You don't seem to understand SNP's at all or what they are or what they pertain to or why they would have been found in an educational attainment study (why don't you go read the study so the context makes more sense), and you don't seem to understand most of the terms you use in these threads. I have to say, you come off like either an incurious and poor student of genetics or a layman who is really interested for the sake of arguing online and not so interested in the subject as a whole (you could accuse /pol/ of this too, but I'm not from /pol/ and this isn't most of what I look at on a daily basis in that field).
>>10207151
they seem to account for 1/3-1 SD of performance iq depending on the race and time since industrialization. Black iq in America has increased by about 5 points in 40 years, and may increase by another 3-5 points. So it would likely peak around 90-93. But white iq is supposed to also slightly increase by 1-3 points in the next century so there would still be a 2/3 SD gap between them and the black iq would be artificially high from environmental training that lowers the g loading of the test. In their native environments blacks are over a full SD below whites.
>>10207456
Nigerian iq is not at all high, its around 80. You mean Igbo (less than 20% of the Nigerian population) iq is high, and that is true, its around 99-103, on par with NW Europe. If you mean high relative to most of the congoids then yes of course it is much higher, almost 20 points higher than is found in other parts of the continent.

>>10207725
>the black iq would be artificially high from environmental training that lowers the g loading of the test
this is a ridiculous statement because assuming you have had a good education your iq is artificially inflated too.

Where did you source those environmental effects from.

>>10207725
about the 1/3 i think i get what you mean now. i was confused and i understand and what ill say is all these studies are context dependent so you cant generalise across them super well especially in different cultures and also that 1/3 variance doesnt mean a 3rd of an individuals iq "is genetic" because that makes no sense. no study i am aware of rules out possible cultural difderence as to lower african iq differences. and i expect for poor people and those who dont care about the test, the effects will be similar. Also heritability via twin studies or even polygenetic scores cannot take into account homogenous environmebtal influences ao while someone like plomin may say individual differences are largely genetic which is to some extent true, hes ignoring the fact (maybe willlfully for money) that there are huge environmental commonalities that determine traits which dont come up in heritability tests but affect people. if more people were maltreated at warly life then i guarantee that the hertability changes.

>>10207725
>Its commonly accepted that islanders and Australoids tend to have the smallest brain size, bantus and other sub-saharan africans next and then various semitic, first nation, hispanic peoples and then Caucasoids and then mongoloids.

except by all the anthropologists that dispute the findings in those studies. this idea that whites have the biggest brains literally dates back to the 19th century - and it's been contradicted and reassessed by loads of paleontologists

i've said it before and I'll say it again - just because you claim it isn't phrenology means nothing when it operates off of the exact same evidence and makes the same bullshit conclusion.

>>10207737
Your problem with my statement doesn't seem coherent. The additional benefits from education are much lower for higher iq people who are genotypically cognitively superior to other populations. That's why the reverse flynn effect begins appearing only after development has reached a critical threshold, like in Norway and Sweden. The innkate differences between different populations hold, its just one may tap all of its plausible phenotypic performance iq gains from existing in an advanced society much sooner than the other, and others like China might already have reached their maximum potential much sooner. Chinese iq is not going up and hasn't for almost half a century, g in the west has been falling steadily every decade since the 1950's (considered by many to be the peak of fitness and beginning of fitness relaxation in the West).
>where did you source the environmental effects from
from the literature on the flynn effect and reverse flynn effect and from Stuart Ritchie's recent study on the 5 point iq gain that one additional year of education grants. The research team didn't control for preexisting g prior to the additional year of education and its theorized that lower performing students benefited more just as the flynn effect is stronger in lower iq nations. The idea is that you have a maximum phenotypic and genotypic potential for g and they differences, if vast enough, are insurmountable between populations and that dysgenic breeding and regression to the mean will depress g eventually and that iq tests and standardized tests like SAT's and ACT's become less g loaded as the environment begins training for them and as people become more adept at tailored thinking for those tests. This is why there's a debate if raven matrices or verbal tests are more important for checking g changes; for instance ravens performance iq has gone up more in Africa than verbal, and yet verbal is more g loaded.

>>10207725
And bare in mind im saying this as someone qho believea in genetic differences and that when looking at individuals, genes are the largest single influence on your traits i.e. personality iq etc.

>>10207761
it's not phrenology, cranial capacity as a whole has absolutely nothing to do with phrenology i am truly sorry you are too dumb/disingenuous to see why

raw brain size in of itself and brain size when controlling for overall mass of the organisms that you are comparing is a very good way to gauge intelligence and you need to cope with it

>>10207761
>>10207761
>except by all the anthropologists that dispute the findings in those studies. this idea that whites have the biggest brains literally dates back to the 19th century - and it's been contradicted and reassessed by loads of paleontologists
It has not, Rushton and Jensen have shown that it holds at least as late as the early 00's. There is a noticable and observable size difference between black and white brain volume and black and white cranial capacity and black and white head circumference at birth.
>just because you claim it isn't phrenology doesn't mean I won't continually poison the well by saying that it is
Phrenology is the belief that things like the shape of the frontal bone and occipital, or temporal bones have strong and predictable implications for the personality and performance of the subject. This is actually somewhat valid as AI trained on cranio-facial data are able to spot convicted criminals much more easily than police can. However, that's actually not what these researchers or HBD proponents are discussing, some of them do bring up things like the occipital in relation to caucasoid-mongoloid differences in creativity and genius, but that's again not what's being discussed here which is very simply a point about the maximum capacity for the skull to accomodate a larger brain which strongly correlates according to neuroscientific research higher iq.
>>10207758
>and also that 1/3 variance doesnt mean a 3rd of an individuals iq "is genetic" because that makes no sense. no study i am aware of rules out possible cultural difderence as to lower african iq differences. and i expect for poor people and those who dont care about the test, the effects will be simila
Well, this isn't entirely true, there's a strong belief that much of the environmental differences are random or are genetic nurture and that the rest is in fact genetic influence.
>heritability
see above

>>10207765
>The additional benefits from education are much lower for higher iq people
but again you are using heritability measure that dont take into account homogenous influences. if you and your friend take part in a heritability test but have the same background, those background influences wont come up. and its the same genetically. if youve heard that chimps share 97% of our dna but our siblings share 50% then you will know this is arithmatically impossible. the reason is that these tests rule out homogenous influences. its a methodological issue that distorts peoples thinking.

>>10207773
>raw brain size in of itself and brain size when controlling for overall mass of the organisms that you are comparing is a very good way to gauge intelligence and you need to cope with it

I've read books that make the exact opposite conclusion, but ok.

>>10207782
replying to your last part. when i say 1/3 isnt genetic is true im actually allidong to the fact that studies that find herotability in studies have no validity when jidging a single person. and this i thought would open the way for my thoughts about homogeneity but i articulated it badly.

>>10207794
alluding*

>>10207769
Yes, I mean if you poison someone with lead from a young age they will have a lower iq. But people who live in lead laden environments tend to have lower iq's to begin with, just as people with higher disease and parasite burden (thought by many people who are HBD proponents to be a likely cause of some of the iq gaps between blacks and whites) are also likely to live in environments that select for a lower iq and which correlate with lower genotypic iq. That's the problem, most of these are compounding deleterious effects, not easy to remedy explanations. You could theoretically eliminate much of the disease and parasite burden in the tropics, give trillions of dollars for food and education, and then hope that in a century you raise iq by 2/3 SD's but that isn't really a viable solution from a cost-benefit perspective and moreover you would immediately see plummeting iq from dysgenic breeding due to relaxed selection pressures, reverse flynn effect later on, regression to the mean and then eventually you'd hit a hard cap on iq gains for that population where you'd have to wait much longer to see any appreciable boost in performance (as in maybe thousands of years, much like whites are likely not going to get much more intelligent for hundreds of years). Environment is important, but its usually random factors like injury or disease or natural disaster and famine that have the biggest effects and the rest is due to inherited differences which cause different indirect genetic influences.
>>10207784
No, because indirect genetic influence is accounted for, which is highly heritable and the rest of the environmental differences are random. And their effects on the genotypic g are likely to be long lasting and to have taken many millenia to accumulate. So, whatever is not accounted for by genetic nurture and heritable g is likely to be something that literally can't be altered for a long period of time or is much too expensive to alter.

>>10207794
Well no they do, because if we know the heritability of a trait and if we can narrow down the search for the alleles responsible for iq to a reasonable group, and if we know the frequency of those alleles in that population the person derives from, all we have to do is find the heritability and effect size of genetic nurture/indirect genetic influence and then the rest is obviously random environmental effects like for instance getting concussed or very sick at a young age or high parasite load. Most of the differences are going to be genetic influence from mom and dad or your own. You didn't articulate it badly, I know what you're getting at and exactly what you mean when you say Plomin supposedly doesn't account for this. He and others have discussed this and they believe it to be largely aleatory environmental phenomena and the influence of the genetics of the family and kin in keeping with gene-environment interactions and Dawkins' concept of the extended phenotype.

haha holy shit
/pol/ incels got absolutely BTFO ITT

>>10207789
maybe books aren't your speed, put them down and try reading introductory wikipedia instead

look up "encephalization quotient"

>>10207765
>The additional benefits from education are much lower for higher

this is key. you use the word additional. this is assuming a context. but if you made an assumption that education was zero or had a population of tonnes of people that had no education. then herotability would change and would be smaller.

this is what people forget. heritability is totally context dependent. you cant generalise between say a uk school and a poor native american tribe that is living traditionally because the environmental influences are different and so the heritability changes. its weird but it unveils the facts that heritability estimates are not objective.

if you do a big study that represents fairly a big whole population thats fair but if you add new environmental influence to it that wasnt there before.; your heritability score will change. its context dependent. its useful to assume its objective because people are chained to a wider context so you can assume that withput influence people will follow a trend. and thats what behavioural geneticists play on. but change the context then everything changes. an easy example is how iq changes heritability drastically as you grow up. context changes as you grow up.

>>10207799
>environmental differences are random. And their effects on the genotypic g are likely to be long lasting and to have taken many millenia to accumulate.
i know exactly why you said this but this is only true for individual differences. but the broader you generalise grom person to area to race, the more systematic those effects become until they end up being homogenous like i said. again. context. individual difference isnt the same as group difference and theres a great example of tqo plant plota to show with. within a plot dofferences could be shade, water etc but between if you feed one more nitroents than the other then this is the only dofference. heritability studies are necessarily contextually confined. you shouldnt overgeneralise.

>>10207824
dude didnt you find my chimp example convincing. i think that gets right to the point. the fact thatthese genetic statistics differ in impossible ways shows my point. its context dependent. if you share 97% dna with a chimp then you certainly share more than 50% with ur sister. and thats because u are changing the context.

>>10207845
but i should say im not arguing against genetic influences. all im saying that whilst heritability gives a great estimate on a persons disposition in a context, individual differences arent generalizeable to race differences which plomin agrees on and it means most importantly; genetic dispositions doesnt mean that something cant be changed. im very pessimistic and believe we change easiest in the first quarter of life. i also agree maybe somethings are harder to change than others like iq but given my arguments i feel its difficult to say iq has no cultural influence since the iq tests we do are done on western college students not africans who wont have the same education. "you might be great at spatial processing but i still need to teach you how to play football". its complicated.

>>10207724
your argument is retarded my man. literal ants and cockroaches can "survive in the wilderness". it's not a measure of intelligence in any meaningful way

>>10207824
.but change the context then everything changes. an easy example is how iq changes heritability drastically as you grow up. context changes as you grow up.
No heritability likely increases because neuroplasticity decreases and because fixed neurological patterns develop over time. You're not being very rigorous in your assumptions really at any point in this critique.
>but if you made an assumption that education was zero or had a population of tonnes of people that had no education. then herotability would change and would be smaller.
It likely would not change significantly, and g is the thing being tested for which there is little evidence can be modulated by environment. Not iq.
>this is what people forget. heritability is totally context dependent
It isn't really and behavioral geneticists are well aware of how heritability works as is anybody who has taken a population genetics class.
> you cant generalise between say a uk school and a poor native american tribe that is living traditionally because the environmental influences are different and so the heritability changes
It probably doesn't change significantly enough to warrant not factoring it into assessments of all human populations. Heritability of a behavioral trait between domestic and wild horses is probably not vastly different. I now sort of see what you were getting at and I strongly disagree with your assumptions. Also, again Flynn addresses this in the other thread in the catalog, just because someone is more likely to be adapted to an environment with low technology does not mean we should not measure people's iq in relation to their performance in a high technology environment or else we would just be ignoring the reasons for performance deficits. Blacks have the almost exact same environment as whites in the UK and consistently have lower iq's than them, in American middle class suburbs the environments are the same, heritability should also be the same.

>>10207817
I'm going to go ahead and return to the real world where phrenology and fringe interpretations of human anatomy aren't actually talked about.

>>10207883
i have a great example. give me a population. give me a score e.g. depression. now. i give every person cbt the exact same and the mean depression changes. tell me what happens to the heritability... nothing. thats a great example. the fact you can theoretically induce an environmental change and mathematically... the heritability changes nought. try it for yourself. its true.

>>10207883
and u miss the fact that intelligence is human contextualised so u cant objectively measure it in another animal.

why the insults man. im on your side.

im sorry but you read well but not enough to do more than regurgitate facts without critical thought.

>>10207839
No, you're misunderstanding heritability. First of all if a trait is highly heritable in a population, then it is logical to assume that between that population and others there are differences in the frequency of that phenotype. Next, heritability in shared environments, like the West with the different races that cohabit therein, is not subject to the same influences from the environment. Additionally, environment need not change heritability if it does not have a profound effect on breeding success or gene expression. Finally, much of the missing heritability is either just not accounted for yet by genomics studies or is actually random noise and uncontrollable environmental effects, and what isn't those factors, and please pay attention since you've ignored what I've said multiple times, is almost certainly indirect genetic influence in complex environments like the one's post-mesolithic humanity tends to produce. You cite differences in color discrimination, color acuity is highly heritable, correlated significantly with g and is almost certainly not the found at the same rates among disparate racial groups like Aborigines (who have amazing color acuity and depth perception) and White Europeans. Plomin and others do acknowledge this, they do factor it in and they have discussed it many times in their books, papers and on twitter and other forums. You're misrepresenting their position and research. no one thinks environment doesn't play a factor, but the effects from a distinct environment are likely to take long periods of time. Plants have incredibly short growth cycles, and are much more susceptible to changes in the epigenome (which can be transmitted transgenerationally unlike in humans) than mammals and especially apes. The diets of primitive populations are inadequate certainly, but it is nothing like completely starving a plant of basic nutrients.

>>10207961
>probably doesn't change significantly enough
speculation? what makes you think this apart from your bias.

>and I strongly disagree with your assumptions
what assumptions. explain my assumptions.

>and g is the thing being tested for which there is little evidence can be modulated by environment. Not iq
youre assuming by iq i meant g. i didnt. i meant iq. cultural influences or other influences on how you take an iq test arent necessarily related to g. i never said that. i said the iq would be effected not g and i already said that there is reason to believe this might be the case. e.g., duckworth.

>It isn't really
you clearly are ignorant then because it is.

>>10207961
>Also, again Flynn addresses this in the other thread in the catalog, just because someone is more likely to be adapted to an environment with low technology does not mean we should not measure people's iq in relation to their performance in a high technology environment or else we would just be ignoring the reasons for performance deficits
i already fucking told you. control for peoples ability to do a test. control for motivation etc etc.i cant play water polo. you gonna test me on that?


>>10207961
>Blacks have the almost exact same environment as whites in the UK
define environmwbt and i guarantee you arent broad enough. define it.

Man i dont understand your automatic hate.i believe in genes like you but you seem to be tied by an ideology. Iq and other traits are defo genetic but youre dismissing criticism so you can push your view and not explore some facts. Traits are genetic but dont forget context bud.

>>10208037
>then it is logical to assume that between that population and others there are differences in the frequency of that phenotype
you can watch any popsci video of plomin and he will tell you what im telling you. heritability within has no baring on heritability between. I can literally quote plomin. so no you misunderstand coz you have no methodological understanding.

>>10208037
>. Next, heritability in shared environments, like the West with the different races that cohabit therein, is not subject to the same influences from the environment.
this sounds like youve misinterpreted something. explain what you mean. this isnt right.

>>10208037
>. Additionally, environment need not change heritability if it does not have a profound effect on breeding success or gene expression.
you miss my point. i told you just now environmental effects can occur without changing heritability. dude. heritability is a heuristic.

>Finally, much of the missing heritability is either just not accounted for yet by genomics studies or is actually random noise and uncontrollable environmental effects, and what isn't those factors, and please pay attention since you've ignored what I've said multiple times, is almost certainly indirect genetic influence in complex environments like the one's post-mesolithic humanity tends to produce

never said anything about missing heritability. i understand indirect effects but you dont understand when im telling you that heritability is relative to the population. a great example is how high are you. if i were only to use adjectives like small medium tall then this is relative to the populations mean height and im telling you heritability works in a similar way. all it does is calculate variance so by definition its totally dependent on a statistical distribution given your sample. this might be accurate on the wider populace but logically and im not being vague. heritability isnt immutability. its a description of data.

>>10208037
>You cite differences in color discrimination, color acuity is highly heritable, correlated significantly with g and is almost certainly not the found at the same rates among disparate racial groups like Aborigines (who have amazing color acuity and depth perception) and White Europeans.

im talking about colour caregorization. not the same thing. its culturally variant. and its well known. i saw it in high school, i saw it in college, i saw it in a documentary last week where i saw an astounding thing where some african guy took very long to distinguish an obvious colour to us. yes he can discriminate but he categorised it differently.

>>10208037
>but the effects from a distinct environment are likely to take long periods of time
youre literally pasting what youve heard. yes its true genetics is the single biggest factor and influences environmental effects but environment is massive as shown in homogenous culture. i feel you are actually misunderstanding plomin. he says genes are the biggest factor of differences between us. but hes not looking at the homogeneity and if he thought genes were so indisputible why does he advocate early intervention


anon. ive decided. our convos are too convoluted so i will say no more.


state what you believe and why.
state what you think i believe and why.
i will respond.

>>10208093
read bottom of my last post.

and this bugs me that you havent responded to my point about heritability in chimps (97% same dna) vs siblings (50%) which is impossible unless theres an underlying context.

>>10208037
>it does not have a profound effect on breeding success or gene expression.

irrelevant fairly certain youre mixing up heritability and inheritance.

Maybe one thing that is confusing us... the variance in heritability data has no baring on mutability. just so you know. heritability is data inference on a sample not an experiment on mutability.

>>10208093
>state what you believe and why.
>state what you think i believe.
>conclude
>i will respond likewise

lets do this bro.
i wont say more till ypu reply.

>>10207459
Kill you're self