/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10809975
>Ay the same time the push to say that everything is based on culture is tougher now than ever before

I wonder why.

>>10809975
The time when behaviorism ruled psychology has long since passed. No one really claims that stuff except some philosophers, certain think tanks and naive leftists.

We are soon at the point where the value of a person will be based solely on his/her DNA. Any undesirable subjects will be aborted and if that fails killed afterwards. This is the real future. The big majority of people will belong to the caste of mediocrely intelligent people who are smart enough to work but too stupid to think independently while a small elite will live in even more luxury than they do nowadays.

>>10809998
That is a caricature of behaviorism. Skinner never denied the importance of genetics in the behavior. He always mentioned evolution explicitly.
The biology-deniers are the social "sciences" and humanities. And the leftists in general, of course.

>>10809998
>All those people in psychoology still trying to argue that gender isn't real
Sure. Maybe true scientists aren't buying the bullshit but nearly every voter and politician does or at least says they do.
Stating the biological differences between men and women is enough to put you job on the line.

>>10810100
There are certain political groups who are interested and keen on keeping pointless discussions alive that revolve around... nothing because it prevents the majority of voters from redirecting their attention to those issues that really deserve attention. This whole talking about women, transgenders and homosex rights is not a coincidence. It's a desired process. None of modern "feminism" deals with actually important issues that affect women. It only deals with identity politics and ideas coming from some mentally unstable women who desperately try to justify their perverted impulses.

>In general, the finding of robust sex differences in boys' and girls' toy preferences across a range of ages, different time periods, countries, and settings indicates an innate influence on this behaviour, an effect that appears to be subject to modification by developmental and social factors arising at different ages.
>In observational studies of the type reviewed here, it is impossible to determine the degree to which findings are a result of biological predisposition or environment. However, this study attempted to assess the variables most likely to be indicative of either nature or nurture and must conclude that there is some (circumstantial) evidence for both sides of the argument.

Sounds like a whole lot of nothing. Obvious stuff here. Where did OP get his conclusions from? Sure doesn't sound like the study he linked. It's as if he's trying to misrepresent it.

>>10810133
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.497.7442&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Testosterone determines toy preference.

>>10810172
So they injected little girls testosterone to see if they play with cars? Don't fucking do that for the science, you sound like some crazy doctor.

Maybe later. But then we will have only immigrants in America which are already being experimented on doctors and their mating ritual is here for centuries. Different for centuries, and somebody told me it's even illegal here, I haven't saw Muslims mating, but fucking Lil Boys in Europe is not kinda good.

>>10811000
Fascinating that some lesbians looks like they've been injected testosterone while younger.

>>10810172
It doesn't determine it. It contributes to the outcome, along with the environmental/cultural influences.
>No single perspective can completely account for
all of the phenomena observed in gender develop-
ment, and it is likely that social learning, cognitive
development, and biological factors combine to in-
fluence the development of most behavioral sex
differences.

They also stress that they are not claiming a causal connection, and that the hormonal aspect could simply be correlated to the true mechanism involved, perhaps something pre-natal.

>>10811033
Remember, you're arguing with /pol/, they don't understand the meaning of "variance".

>>10809975
Well there are studies that show the opposite. I find the studies in favour of genetic differences much more compelling.

But as ever, people just believe what they want to. It's hard to convince people to change their minds with weak sciences like psychology and sociology.

>>10811000
Some girls have disorders where they have elevated testosterone. Studies find these girls or more likely to pay with boyish toys as babies than normal girls.

Is this the thread where we misinterpret studies to support our own narrative? Very well. Since, according to the study, gender behaviour is biological, I choose to believe male-to-female transsexuals behave the way they do because their brains are actually that of biological women in the body of a man.

some people are looking at this in a really black and white way, no ones really saying that all men will do this and all women will do that cause of the way they were born or that social factors are 100% why but its just that biology plays atleast a small part in the way men and women behave and act, its a middle ground but still means that men and women will probably never be ''truly equal''

>>10811033

>There's more than one variable involved, therefore the variable you're claiming is important can be completely disregarded as a contributing factor!

How does one become this intellectually dishonest?

>>10811303

This may not be far off. I still maintain that no non mentally ill person would willingly lop off perfectly functioning chunks of their body without any medical necessity.

>>10811901
>>10811303
theyve done brain scans where transgender women brains were more like womens brains than men, its not complete bullshit at least

>>10811303
This isn’t improbable, most neurological evidence suggests gays have brains closer to the opposite sex than their own.

>>10809975
It's also true for muscle

>>10809975
>he thinks environmental influence starts only after you are born
lol

>>10809975
>Highlights
>Gender differences in toy choice exist and appear to be the product of both innate and social forces.

>>10811907

>feminists claim gender is a construct while simultaneously believing that trans persons are unfortunately born in a genetically determined biological body that doesn't match their genetically determined biological brain.

Pottery.

>>10811925

Not even remotely true.

Things straight men find attractive about females are the same things gay men find attractive about each other.

The closest thing we have to men and women having interests close to each other are between bisexual women and straight men and even then only in relation to other women.

>>10812602
You'd be the expert on what fags find attractive.

>>10809998
>>10809975
Here is the thing though, it doesn’t predict all girls are like a and all boys are like b
It just says 60% of boys are like b and 60% of girls are like a, that still leaves 40% that like the non gender standard toy (and job), which in a population would be a huge amount of people.
Not even good enough numbers to make a monetary bet on.

>>10814146

Until you go to the extremes of human activity where all progress is made and those small changes at the norm cause enormous changes once you get 1 or 2 standard deviations up.

>>10814157
Yeah sure, but that that isn’t in op’s study.
Also no one cares about that <1.5% of the population

>>10809975
the charade holds until an extinction level event occurs
the narrative is cemented in stone

>>10809975
SHUT UP. WOMEN ARE MEN BECAUSE MEN ARE SUPERIOR. ITS ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR MISOGYNISTIC CULTURE

>>10811048
The fact that people unironically think that it's "/pol/" making these threads is the saddest thing I've ever seen.

>>10811892
He's not being dishonest, he's taking your words at their meaning, make your statements more carefully.
For example, instead of "determines", state "Testosterone is major contributing factor to toy preference."

I already read it on Reddit (r/science a year and a half ago).

Ah yes the tin foil hat wearing apes of /sci/ are back at it again.

>>10809975

i only hope that when the truth finally pierces the veil, the momentum created will be enough to be able to scalp every sjw in the streets.

It is not enough that they should get to just slink back into the shadows for what theyve done.

They have upset a natural balance that must be expressly restored.

Children can recognize faces by six months. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say there would be different results if you had female experimenters ask children to play with toys, or even people that do and don't look like their parents. One can easily argue these results support a psychological theory, because male and femaleness do differ across cultures. If you're not using exactly the same toys in every experiment that's a huge methodological flaw, and while you could use something like a sword and parent-dolls to reduce that, there's still cultural issues. ultimately this study, like nearly every meta-study, and even basic studies, doesn't tell us anything we can actually use.

>>10809975
Personality is environment but intelligence is pure genetics. Unless the child is a psychopath meaning no matter what you do they will always end up as an evil cunt their personality cant be molded depending how you raise them from an early age.

>>10814165
Apparently they do care when youre talking about the demography of top universities or jobs etc..

>>10814146
Does it actually 60%? Its a metaanalysis..

>>10809975
>>>>/pol/

Stay in your containment board

>>10809989
Juxtapositioning?

>>10812594
It's almost as if there are more nuances than "with us (right) or against us (left)"

>>10809975
>Get's
This is the reason real people like Europeans and city-dwelling Americans largely ignore you non-people.

>>10814920
>tfw you just want to shitpost with your internet friends on the chinese cartoon board but it's now known as a political influencer and shills will be here forever and ever
we need a solution, a final solution

>>10809975
Global warming, er I mean climate change, er I mean man-made climate change is still a hot topic, so I imagine this will stay around for a while as well.

>>10815475
you're one of them, denier, don't equate yourself to us

>>10815489
ok this is epic

>>10809998
isn't the movie Gattaca based on this?

>>10815457

Except nuance is 100% what the left is destroying and it's fun watching them flop and twitch with the cognitive dissonance.

Like how they pushed for Title 9 to provide scholarships and other opportunities for women in universities and then welcome male to female transgenders to BTFO women in competition.

A man won woman of the year after only being one for 8 months. Take THAT all you feminists rotting in a Saudi Arabian prison, this stunning and brave rich white woman is the best your gender has to offer.

>>10814165

But people use that 60/40 split to say men and women are more alike than not, which is true, and therefore women should be represented at those higher levels because they are more or less the same (false at those high levels they push for.)

Notice how nobody pushes women to take high paying average IQ jobs even though the actual data says they'd absolutely be able to do it.

>>10814365

Even male and female chimpanzees see sexual preferences for toys. Young male chimps prefer toy trucks while female chimps prefer dolls.

>>10815858
>Young male chimps prefer toy trucks while female chimps prefer dolls.

Yeah pretty much. That should have ended this debate, but the complete ridiculousness of these environmental determinism like this faggot >>10814365 to make excuses to cling the idea that gendered behavior is not sociological, its all biological. Its all genetic. All human behavior is. Only people with certain political persuasion deliberately argue against this in order to support environmental determinism. Never forget that these people invented Lysenkoism.

>>10809975
Maybe its Destiny but theres a study about monkeys and they also pick toys based on their sex

>>10816134
>hes a determinist

>>10814146
Every retard in the thread ignores you, unfortunate because this anime poster is correct.

>>10810100
>Stating the biological differences between men and women is enough to put you job on the line.
Yeah if you chose to live in some ultra progressive shithole. The vast majority of America is not like that. Reality extends far beyond want reporters see on twitter

>>10809998
Any scenario in which the double-digiters and sub-110s are dead is based.

>>10816817
t 112 brainlet

>>10811000
did you even skim, let alone open the study? christ, stop posting. at all.

>>10815848
>A man won woman of the year
To be fair awards like that are bullshit anyways and nobody here should care about them.

>>10811892
>Accounting for possible counfouding variables is intellectual dishonesty.
You got that the other way around idiot. Read a basic study design and stats book.

>>10809975
Well, seeing as genes and their expression are so complex, it really seems like both.
there may be some innate differences that interact heavily with the environmental influences/exposures as with physiological responses in the body( example, a person with certain genes being at minor risk for anemia if they don't take care of themselves or a species of rabbit that changes fur color with seasonal changes).

Girls may have and slightly easier time developing emotional intelligence and more abstract thinking for example, but it's development is accelerated by the social roles they are given and expected(being moms, communication/being social, having nice, being passive aggressive/emotionally manipulative rather than physically aggressive).
Boys may have a slight propensity for more practical concepts and hand eye coordination but it's development is accelerated by their social roles.
Idk. I think the main thing the feminists and conservatives tend to disagree on is the implication of these things. Does it mean that girls can't do well in math, engineering, the business world, etc. if they study or work hard or be mechanics with the right tutalage? Does it mean they have to be the ones taking car of kids all or even most of the time?
Does it mean that most guys can't be good at kids or develop high emotional intelligence? Does it mean that strict gender roles are required for most people? I think not. At least from what I know about genes and the fact that we haven't even identified any specific ones that could be involved in this like we have for say addiction, or more physical differences between the sexes).

>>10816817
It would boos productivity and drop expenses in social budgets. And it will take ages to do.

Science :

The heritability of psychological traits varies widely but probably has a mean of roughly about 50%.

4Chan :
ITS ALL GENETIC

>tfw have to deal with a bunch of retards

>>10819408

>retard doesn't understand that something which bottoms out at causing 50% of variance is fucking huge

That's a p value of .7.

>>10809975
>How much longer can this charade hold up?
As long as virtue signaling is not seen for what it really is.

>>10809975
>>More and more evidence indicates that your personality, intelligence, ect is based on your biology and has only a little to do with environment/culture
Lie to cover-up media mind control. You really think people would care about trannies if a central authority weren't forcing it on them?

>>10811000
A boy is just a girl that has been injected with test in the womb, so a ftm is indeed a male, a mtf in the other hand can pretend all it want, but it is still a male, one way street.

>>10809975
>ect
Etc, short for et cetera.

>>10809998
>small elite will live in even more luxury than they do nowadays
so what, the more time they'll have reflecting on their own pointless existence and fear of death assuming they aren't low IQ trust fund babbies

and judging by the hubris of past kings and emperors, they'll still believe they can reverse entropy and get very disappointed as they edge towards death

>>10820248
What do you mean bottoms out at 50%? Many heritability scored are far lower than 50. And think of it this way - if the average heritability is 50 then the average environmental influence is also 50. just as much.

>p value of .7
what in gods name are you on about. do you mean effect size?? daft twat.

>>10814920
bump to counter the beta-orbiting left wingtard

>>10809975
>How much longer can this charade hold up?
Either dysgenics makes society collapse, or neo-eugenics gets stablished.
I was just thiking about this, wishing i would get a better set of kappa-opiod receptors genes, the ones I have totally fucks me.
Even if a future like "eclipse phase" would get to happen, at least we would had the option to upgrade us away from being this deffective.

>>10809989
Yep. Neumann, Einstein and Heisenberg were only pushing an agenda. They weren't actually creating modern physics, because according to /pol/ they were Jews so they can't do anything scientific

>>10819408
Are you agreeing that at least half of the reason why blacks are violent, low IQ and not fit for civilization is due to genetics?

>>10819408
So, that means a black person is still 50% a nigger even if gets the best perfect well nurturing education and family environment.

So as they say: Dressing a monkey in silk...
Stop enabling niggers.

>>10820377
Don't copy my post redditor.

>>10819408
literally no one has ever made the claim it is entirely genetic you fucking dishonest spastic leftard cuckold. go back to chapofaghouse

>>10820248
Youve also done this wrong in various ways. The effect size in heritability is the heritability itself and even if youre doing it how i think you are, .7 would be the correlation not the effect size but even so, heritability scores arent derived from a correlation score as such so that type of effect size cant be used in heritability.

>>10820379
Don't copy my post redditor.

>>10820381
Theres people in thia thread saying that you retarded chapstick

>>10820345

P value is the square of the percentage that goes with the regression of the data.

Saying something is 50% is saying something has the equivalent p value of approximately .7 (of which something like .2 is a big deal.)

You are saying. Of EVERYTHING that has an effect on a measurement, genes make up half.

Meaning EVERY OTHER FUCKING THING comprises the other 50% including the uncompensated error of what you did measure, can at best match genetic contribution.

You daft twat. Read a goddam book.

>>10820377
>>10820371
No because within-group heritability is different to between-groul heritability

>>10820401
You are likely to be eaten by a groul.

>>10820406
>If this predicament seems particularly cruel,
consider whose fault it could be:
not a torch or a match in your inventory.

>>10820388

Stay out.

P value is probability. Of which anything over .05 is statistically significant accounting for 1 in 20 the result is a random fluke.

Going up from there. (Like say to .7) is a big fucking deal. Especially from a single factor like genetics.

>>10820396
read this >>10820388

you dont know what p values are and again as 50% is an average, many traits are well below 50% heritability

>>10820412

Look at that.

LOOK AT IT.

Schizophrenia is fucking .86.

All the IQ measurements effectively say to environmental effect.

You are wrong sir.

Again. At 50% you effectively say every other factor combined can match that one factor.

>>10820412
>/pol/ is over 50% inheritable
Gas the rednecks

>>10820482
Only over age 20.
Just preemptively kill anyone over 20.

>>10820369
They stole works of others and are now heralded as being the sources of those things.

>>10820473
schizophrenia is 80 and about half those traits are under 50. you are literally biasing one half over the other. and just because one half is in one factor, it doesnt help you predict the other half. Imagine trying to predict someones life course on half the information.

>>10820510

It's not ine half over the other.

It's one half, versus literally everything else that isn't that one half including any error from that one half.

>>10820510

And heritability is a square value based on P because only P is observable.

It's a number representing how close the variable fits the model of measured data.

Again. 50% of variance is a value of just slightly over .7.

And people start getting excited/trying to find out where they fucked up at a solid .2.

>>10820551
And I could argue that Twin study methods are not perfect either and that they quite possibly overestimate the heritability abit.
If the argument is simply nature vs nurture, why does it matter that nurture is lots of components Your genetics is also a complex group of components too.

>>10820562
You are literally making things up anon. You mean effect size not p value and the heritability is its own effect size!

>>10811303
This is true for a good portion of that population. Checkout out the difference between HSTS and AGP MTF transexuals

>>10820396
Did you confuse r with p?

>>10820412
intelligence is 85% heritable ahahahaha

>>10820619
>heritable
There's that word again

>>10820961
Yeah, it's a technical term.
Is there some other terminology you would prefer?

>>10820299
based ftm-pilled. Y'all can call yourself a woman all you want: you still will never have a womb. If a woman is up for some man's work then if she is up for the task then throw her in there.

>>10816662
free will and determinism cannot coexist

>>10811469
>biology plays at least a small part
The whole point of this thread is to argue that biology actually plays a fuck huge role, like 80%.

>>10820314
Sour grapes: the post.

>>10815457
To be fair the individual feminists i knew in high school really did believe contradictory things like that, that dissonance is why i quit the lgbt club at that school. Didn’t meet many of those wackos since i started studying stem though

>>10815858
>>10816134
>young female chimps prefer dolls
>doesn’t know what SEM means

>>10815581
Look at what we as humans value. Physical fitness as in the Olympics and professional sports. Hell, nobody knows shit about female sports because we value the biggest and strongest. That is the overarching value that 21st century society has built. There is one end to it and you can see it forming already with the federal legalization of abortion in Ireland, the common practice of aborting genetically “flawed” fetuses in Iceland, and the push for abortions covered by government healthcare in America.

The human race has become aware of itself with the rise of the Internets and is disgusted with the flaws put on blast every day with modern media, memes, Twitter bullshit and modern politics. Human en masse are suicidal (sterilizing themselves ala transexualism) and trying to create super humans through artificial selection to bring in the new dawn for their race, I believe.

The Gene Wars are coming bro. Either that or we’ll settle into a blissful ignorance like in Gattaca. Personally I think that representation is more likely, but who knows how it’s gonna play out?

>>10809975
>More and more evidence
spoken like a true pseudo scientist
off yourself sciencelet

>>10816741
>The vast majority of America
is a third world shithole

>>10820381
>go back to chapofaghouse
rent free

>>10809975
>implying there is a rigorous definition of personality
>implying that behaviour in ambiguous situations is a rigorous definition
god damn, when will people stop trying to controle and monitor every single little fiber of your existence

>>10811930
lol

>>10819408
A .5 heritability of a trait does not imply there is .5 influence of socialization, most environmental infuence is likely random variation. For most traits there is barely any evidence for shared heritability. This is possibly because the differences between households within the same nation are not large enough to produce effects. Which is good - we have such levels of material wealth it doesn't matter much whether you're raised in a dead poor household or middle class suburbia, your cognitive traits will largely be the same.

>>10814146
Except its actually 98% of boys are like A, 98% of girls are like B.

>>10821268
non-shares environment doesnt imply randomness. More likely just emphasises the complexity of environmental interaction; degrees of freedom. It doesnt mean that environmental factors dont have systematic effects.

>>10821306
It does imply that the environmental effects are not coming from something that can be replicated by raising a child in the same household with the same parents. So we can rule out cultural transmission from the parents, nutrition, wealth etc. Which means any social programme trying to replicate these things is doomed from the start. Your complexity might be coming from cosmic rays, quantum level differences in a developing zygote, accidental bumps on the head, that one embarrassing thing you did when you were 7 that you dream about every night, literally anything that can't be replicated in an identical twin who grew up sleeping in a bed 3 feet away.

>the rationalists were right all along
Based

>>10821402
Exact conditions cant be replicated because of the worlds complexity and much of non shared environment eould include random events or biological events but there are definitly social factors that have systematoc effects even if they arent linear. Just because two children migjt be affected differently it doesnt mean that the effect of something like a positive peer interaction is no different from a negative one. Thats pretty much the nature of statistics in all contexts of human population whether youre looking at medicines or nutrition etc etc.

>>10821482
>definitly social factors that have systematoc effects even if they arent linear.
I agree, they're just not present within developed nations for 95% of the population. Cognitive behaviour might be influenced by language or religion, severe malnourishment, repeated zoonotic infections in childhood etc., but those studies don't really exist because there isn't the cross cultural adoption of twins necessary to test them. But within developed nations, between middle and working class households, genetics rules the roost. Which is a good thing; we want everyone to achieve their genetic potential, but it does mean there are deminishing returns from massive social interventions.

>>10821615
They are clearly present. I can point you to a meta analysis which describes a quarter of environmental effects in terms of social factors and infact thats more variance than ee know about genetic influence right now. I also wonder whether gene environment correlationa overemphasise the genetic side.

>>10821047
It is indeed a technical term. That's exactly why you don't understand it. You shouldn't use terminology you don't understand.

>>10820562
You must be this larping because no one ignorant enough would come out and say this shit. You dont know what youre talking about you delusional megalomaniac. Literally everything youve said is wrong on multiple levels.

>>10821632
Post some studies.

My God, is this what /sci/ has devolved(not actually a thing) into?
Pathetic strawmanning for people looking to jerk each other off over how smart they are by misinterpreting studies and not even reading the entire article.
Sad.

>>10820961
shut the fuck up you pseud faggot brainlet
>>10821233
Its just true though go read a fucking genetics journal retard
>>10821632
The highest parity between subpopulations on the planet is found among first worlders specifically westerners, heritability estimates increase the better economic opportunity and less racially stratified the society or environment. blacks universally do worse than whites at all income levels including upper class blacks and lower class whites on standardized tests. get over it

>>10821766
If you're just going to spout the same thing over and over again without evidence then go to /pol/.
You have made your point, now present the evidence or GTFO

>>10821784
learn to use google scholar and get off my board idiot. I have posted evidence, dozens of studies, as have other people, its well understood that genetics accounts for most differences observed in behavior and that these differences are highly heritable and the result of differential selection pressures in ancestral environments, biogeographic isolation, and developmental noise which cannot be predicted or prevented

>>10821792
>heritable
There's that word again. I don't think you know what it means.

>>10821792
Holy shit, literally not an argument.
I'm not trying to defend any position, I'm just looking for evidence to analyse so I can be convinced of your viewpoint.
This isn't a siege, I'm not trying to attack you, just show me the damn evidence.

>>10821798
innumerate retarded aphid
>>10821801
that’s not what’s going to happen, you can do your own fucking leg work, use the resources available to you and read papers on your own time we’ve had hundreds of threads discussing the genetics of behavioral differences, the very first studies that appear if you type in “behavioral genetics intelligence/educational attainment/aggression/conscientiousness” have been posted multiple times, fuck off idiot

>>10821814
If you're not going to attempt to substantiate your point, then why even come to the thread?To be argumentative?
To feel superior?
If you want to restate your point over and over again, there's a board for that.

>>10821766
What dont you understand about within group and between group heritability being different

>>10821792
not one thing youve said here is true.

>>10821674
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10668351/

>>10821615
Ironic you use the thing about developed countries or ses moderating heritsbility because if you think about that, this moderation is due to an environmental effect.

>>10821817
neither you nor a single other person who have disputed the claim that genetic influence explains differences in intelligence have demonstrated familiarity with basic inductive reasoning, a good background in quantitative genetics or a strong grasp of biochemistry and physiology. what you do display is stupidity, weak quantitative reasoning, weak inductive reasoning, generally low morals, a propensity to lie, to believe very stupid implausible explanations for the evolution of highly advantageous traits and unimaginative thought. Since you have irreperably damaged the reputation of the life sciences by lying for decades about this issue, and pollute major american universities with this despicable, lowly, mendacious level of pseudoscientific nonsense which holds back real scientific inquiry especially evolutionary theory, you don’t get leddit discourse you get mockery and nothing but mockery. We’ve posted dozens of studies regarding this issue, I’ve told you twice now how you can go read them.
>>10821828
What don’t you understand about response to selection pressure and differences in selection pressure between biogeographically isolated groups with low gene flow between them? What don’t you understand about nonexistent environmental differences between middle class whites and blacks?

>>10821839
a study from 2000 and a blanket statement that’s meant to invalidate an entire subfield of genetics and evolutionary biology isn’t an argument either, this is my point you people are dishonest and openly motivated by political considerations. I don’t care even a little about what group happens to be genetically superior, only that people don’t deny the role of genes in determining behavior which we’ve known would be the case for almost a century now, RA Fisher wrote extensively about this exact topic.

>>10821846
Word salad.
Once again,I'm not disputing your claim, I'm just a layperson looking for evidence.
The evidence is everywhere, and has been the general consensus for quite a while, according to you, so just show me!
I'm not attacking you, nor your family.

>>10821846
>What don’t you understand about nonexistent environmental differences between middle class whites and blacks?
Source?

>>10821846
What dont you understans about evidence; no scientist would accept you just purporting a known mechanism without demonstrating evidence for this mechanism working in this context. There isnt evidence for selection pressure in IQ.
What dont you understand about the nonlinear complexity of environmental effects. Environment is a complex group of events not just these very broad categories. Have all the possible environmental influences even been exhaustively studied? I doubt it.

>>10821852
Studies from 20 years ago can be important you know. Lets discredit 100 year old quantum physics shall we. Anyway this study has nothing to do with what youre talking about. It was the study showing environmental variables contributing to non shared environment. I dont know what you think you read or if youre just stupid but it doesnt invalidate anything.

>deny the role of genes
no one is denying that. youre just too thick to understand that studies on heritability in onw context dont necessarily apply to another and that we dont know very much about between group heritability in people or race atm.

>>10821846
>previous post says blacks have lower incomes, now saying no environmental differences

brainfuckinglet

>>10821839
>moderating heritsbility because if you think about that, this moderation is due to an environmental effect.
Of course it is. Heritability is clearly not fixed, it's descriptive of the current contributions of genes to the variance of a trait, and is reflective of society. You can easily imagine a society of two classes with radically different environments, that's just not the case in developed countries today. You can also imagine a scenario where everyone is under equally poor conditions, resulting in high heritability, which may have been the case 500 years ago, so something having a high heritability doesn't preclude environmental changes, such as mass lead poisoning. I doubt there is anything major like that occuring at the moment.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10668351/
Sorry, can't get sci hub to access that, although I'm aware of Turkheimer carrying water for the environmental crowd.
This broadly sums up my point:
nature dot com dot sci-hub dot tw/articles/ng.3285

>>10809998
Theres outliers. My parents were both self admitted idiots who struggle with basic math but they had horrible early childhoods where they werent really engaged. I had a good one where my dad would buy me history books and lend me his college textbooks and id read them for fun because I liked the praise of being the smart child. Dad has 105 iq, ive got 148, mother is probably sub 100. Anecdotal yes but Im not argueing the majority of people are majorly different from the parents, only that it can happen.

Early childhood determines a large portion of who you are. If it were purely genetic, then feral children could be cured and their brains wouldnt be malformed from a lack of age 0-5 stimulus.

If it were purely genetic, sexual abuse or other forms of abuse ages 0-5 would not disproportionately produce sociopaths and borderlines. If there can be major differences in personality and intelligence based on major events happening during age 0-5, who is to say that minor differences cant occur due to minor events in childhood?

I still think its mostly nature over nurture though.

>>10814365
Chimps do the exact same thing, unless you are arguing that baby chimps have a patriarchal society instilled in them from captive birth I dont think that arguement has much more to go on.

>>10821180
it still shows that male chimps heavily prefer mechanical toys and females prefer dolls and are averse to mechanical toys.

>>10821634
But he quoted it directly from a table in which it was used in a technical sense.
So there was nothing inaccurate in his post whatsoever.

>>10811303
>>10811901
>>10811907
>>10811925
So basically fags are brain damaged? Makes sense.

>>10822015
Well this is the issue i guess with heritability. Its so context dependent it doesnt really answer peoples questions about nature vs nurture in an absolute sense because its all context dependent but maybe an absolute answer wouldnt be meaningul anyway.

I cant copy and paste from phone so you should send me the original paper url. I should also note one of the interesting things about the paper i sent was that turkheimer actually had written it and the abstract as a pessimist paper. Though it doesnt really bare on nature vs nurture, his view is actually toward your random view but reading the results you can interpret it another way. It does show socialization factors. about a quarter of environmental variance. the question is as to how much more factors are there to be discovered. When we look at genes we know about half of that variance and whilst early criticisms were "missing heritability" now people just think we havent discovered it yet. Is this the same for the environment? up to you to judge.

I DONT WANNA WAKE UP IN THE MORNING BUT I GOT TO FACE THE DAY THATS WHAT ALL THE FRIENDS I DONT LIKE AS MUCH AS YOU SAYYYYYYYY.....

>>10822052
where did you get your iq tests done... dont believe you. Tbh a scientific prediction isnt the same as a laymans one either. The average IQ difference between randomly picke people from the general population is 17 points. Siblings have the scope to be as different as random people due to environmental differences. however iq is mostly genetic by far. 60% atleast. bare in mind you ony share 50% of your dna with a parent i think but im pretty sure your iq tests are wrong.

>>10811002
>Fascinating that some lesbians looks like they've been injected testosterone while younger.

Finally. An explanation for the flannel and Bieber haircuts.

>>10823556
>however iq is mostly genetic by far. 60% atleast.
If you are referring to heritability, heritability doesn't mean the portion of a trait caused by genetic factors.

>>10823065
But he is using the term incorrectly, so that makes his opinion wrong. Bringing up that metric is totally off-topic, and not relevant to the argument.

>>10823616
It depends what you mean by "caused" but heritability is basically variance.

>>10823616
tbqh i cant believe youre coming into a thread which already has had quite decent discussions and giving rudimentary almost patronising statements like this. you clearly havent even read the rest of the thread and for all i know youre just parrotting for controversey.

Silly cunt.

>>10823625
His post literally just quoted from the table.
Read it for yourself >>10820619
How could he possibly be using the term incorrectly when he was just repeating what the table said, more or less verbatim?

>>10823799
Because E = mc^2.

Am I wrong????