/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15357921]

Apparently identical twins reared in different environments will have very similar IQs. What implications does this have for race science?

[Anonymous No.15357924]

>>15357921
How different were the environments and how many tiwns were tested?

[Anonymous No.15357977]

>>15357921
It was definitely important to include Musk's opinion on this tweet

[Anonymous No.15357993]

>>15357921
low IQ sisters... we got too cocky

[Anonymous No.15358002]

>>15357921
Twins should be banned if they keep demonstrating unwelcome data.

[Anonymous No.15358144]

>>15357921
yeah no shit
an organic being is a product of its genes

[Anonymous No.15358148]

>>15357921
black children should all be taken away from their parents...?

[Anonymous No.15358194]

>>15357921
sorry, am I dumb or is the graph telling a completely different story from the text ?

[Anonymous No.15358299]

>>15358194
You are dumb

[Anonymous No.15358314]

>>15358299
Ah fair enough, could someone explain that graph to me then and why it seems there is a significant difference between "two testings of the same person" and "reared-apart mz twins" ?

[Anonymous No.15358489]

>>15357921
retarded beyond belief and conveniently leaves out swathes of pertinent data.

Try to base your "science based arguments" on actual scientific papers rather than on twitter celebrities next time.

[Anonymous No.15359457]

>>15357921
>What implications does this have for race science?
None that wouldn't be pure coincidence of however you're choosing to define "race". Any grouping at all would be about as predictive in that by pure chance of necessity you'll have clustering of traits or averages, but they're not caused merely because you chose to define the group that way. Hence, none.
>Apparently identical twins reared in different environments will have very similar IQs.
The environments are not all that different, generally. You're not going to find in the western world many examples where twins get adopted out to families who proceed to live disparate lives as middle-class americans vs an isolated village in Nigeria or some bad parts of Mexico. In any event it doesn't really tell you much since health of the mother nearer conception and during development is where your most significant variations would occur for large samples.
>>15358314
>Ah fair enough, could someone explain that graph to me then and why it seems there is a significant difference between "two testings of the same person" and "reared-apart mz twins" ?
I'm a bit confused by the question because the question isn't relevant at all. There's nothing wrong with the graph. There does appear to be a lot wrong with your understanding of the relevant science and its implications or lack thereof, but very rarely do people accept correction on that.

[Anonymous No.15359472]

>>15358148
No, the message is that it doesn't matter who their parents are, they still have the Mark of Cain on them and in their DNA.

[Anonymous No.15359501]

>>15357924
Exactly, no one is linking the study cited nor is anyone giving any details about the social economic differences the subjects were raised in question.

Just on diet and reading education level alone you will have a significant IQ gap if one is raised in a environment attuned to $15k living vs one raised $90k living. That's even with regression to the mean in play.

[Anonymous No.15359533]

>>15359501
You don't want to over-interpret things like that. In any event however ones biology adapts to a given environment the end result is still "genetic", and in theory if done properly the heritability of such things would still be quite high. The problem is people confuse a lot of terms and jargon such that they either believe such estimates imply inheritance or inheritance patterns, like simple mendelian patterns, OR go the other way and don't recognize "is genetic" would nonetheless apply in any range of circumstances barring "macro-level" chance events without associations at population level.

I can't assume you're making any mistakes from what you wrote but if you don't keep in mind where/why people misunderstand things, such as confusing "is genetic" with "trait is predicted like mendelian traits", no explanation will help. Since their base assumption is the actual problem.

[Anonymous No.15359541]

>>15359457
Lol, no doubt you're the same midwit who posted 40 times in the last thread to fellate ideological hacks like Lewontin. Do you swear oaths by placing your hand on books by Gould?

[Anonymous No.15359548]

>>15357921
This is just an evidence that telepathy between twins is real, not that genes and IQ are necessarily related

[Anonymous No.15359557]

>>15357921
Why do musk fanboys keep making threads? You couldn't even post the actual paper.
ban twitter theads they're nothing but low effort garbage dumps.

[Anonymous No.15359575]

>>15359541
>Lol, no doubt you're the same midwit who posted 40 times in the last thread to fellate ideological hacks like Lewontin. Do you swear oaths by placing your hand on books by Gould?
Yes, I am the only one who cited any literature in that thread. I'm also the same one who cited and quoted the original paper you idiots lie about when you incorrectly claim the statistical reality of human descent is somehow "a fallacy".

What's the matter? Still can't figure out an argument? >>15359457
>None that wouldn't be pure coincidence of however you're choosing to define "race". Any grouping at all would be about as predictive in that by pure chance of necessity you'll have clustering of traits or averages, but they're not caused merely because you chose to define the group that way. Hence, none.

[Anonymous No.15359612]

>>15359575
>Yes,
Yeah, I have a talent for spotting the incoherent drivel characteristic of midwits. It is so fascinating to watch you string words together that carry the facade of confident intellectualism while having no merit or value whatsoever. You are like ChatGPT trying to factor large prime numbers.

Your understanding of Lewontin's fallacy would disappoint the average 8th grader, yet you just compensate through mindless repetition. Argument by exhaustion. Oh well, it's enjoyable from a distance. Maybe I'll engage when you finally answer that request for your own ethnic background.

[Anonymous No.15359638]

>>15359612
Yeah I thought not.

[Anonymous No.15359653]

>>15357921
>raised separately
When were they separated? Nutrition and exposure to pollutants in infancy impact IQ so if they weren't separated immediately at birth then it matters. In fact even in the womb it makes a difference so the implications aren't as much as brainlet /pol/cels like to think

[Anonymous No.15359712]

>>15359612
You know, you could also just be honest and admit you don't understand it, and ask questions. Juuuust sayin.
>>15359653
Well usually if you're talking populations within a developed nation like the USA most of the variance would be in fetal development and the mother's behaviors and health post conception. The "separations" are not exactly throwing people in disparate analogous environments such that one would explain international variation, though it is often assumed that it does because... fucking reasons I guess?

[Anonymous No.15359770]

>>15359638
>>15359712
>Maybe I'll engage when you finally answer that request for your own ethnic background.
Yeah, I thought not.

[Anonymous No.15359781]

>>15357921
>Apparently identical twins reared in different environments will have very similar IQs.
Well duh. they are of the same genetics.

Now if one child was over-vaccinated and the other one was not, then the less/no-vaccinated child would obviously be smarter by comparison.

So it is genetics first, but envio-factors like toxins also exist.

[Anonymous No.15359797]

>>15357977
butthurt musk hater detected

[Anonymous No.15359827]

>>15359797
only people who hate musk are seething government frauds installed in office, or their bureaucratic handlers. The public loves Musk.

[Anonymous No.15360114]

>>15359770
>>Maybe I'll engage when you finally answer that request for your own ethnic background.
lol your engaing is contingent upon an anonymous person reporting their race... and you think that's some kind of own?

[Anonymous No.15361479]

>>15359781
Autism is often detectable in infants before they get vaxx. It's the older mothers causing higher autism rates. I think the stat is mothers over 30 have 40x more likely for autism

[Anonymous No.15361489]

>>15359612
He's really easy to spot, isn't he? It's incredible how little he fits in with the culture here.

[Anonymous No.15361500]

>>15357977
Rocketman bad

[Anonymous No.15361506]

>>15361489
Your resistance only makes my penis harder

[Anonymous No.15361524]

>>15357921
No one knows intelligence and genetics well, but in reality, it's probably something that is inherited, but doesn't express itself always in the same way. It's a simple confounding variables statistics problem.

Some kids will be 11: they're smart and highly intelligent in all scenarios
Some kids will be 10: they're intelligent only in scenarios that are 'privileged' but they're genes find a different means of survival when they're poor/disadvantaged
Some kids will be 01: dumb as shit if they're in a privileged life, but highly intelligent if raised in the struggle bus (I actually think there are a number of wealthy families that fall into this category)
Others are the doomed 00: just always a bag of stupid rocks

This is of course an oversimplification, but it illustrates the point. I think these traits are all inheritable, but how would you even go about testing it? Twin studies, the best thing we have, all have a shit ton of holes and you'd need not just twin studies, but twin studies with twin children to study (and a large number of these cases).

[Anonymous No.15361663]

>>15361524
If only it were that easy. Genetic engineering, or embreyo selection "gattaca" style, for something like intelligence would have far larger of an effect size than currently predicted if it were.

Helps to also understand that a lot of people's notions of what "inheritance" implies doesn't match reality. You can get extreme phenotype variations that family history would not otherwise predict, but quite a few people take inheritance to suggest you cannot get such variance. This is also possible for IQ, such that a family history of average, even below average, can produce a genius It is difficult to say how significant or prevalent such discontinuity is in terms of probabilities, as social conditions and social impetus from conditions seem to result in most of them never being discovered. Society definitely doesn't give a shit. There are a few datapoints suggesting this e.g. https://archive.is/DWi7v

Is the phenotype inherited? Very probably. Does inherited imply some fatalistic measurable potential from ones family history? Self evidently not. Quite a lot of people seem to think it does is the issue, and completely misinterpret the implications of twin studies as a result. Same goes for completely failing to understand what "heritability increases as people get older" means. It does not, in fact, imply some regress to the parent's phenotype, but rather a higher association with the genes you have over time. Not your parents genes. Not your parents phenotype. Your genes and phenotype compared to the total sample's genes and phenotypes.

Hard to talk about outside very specialized circles, as people make all manner of nonsense assumptions about what is meant or what it means. What little data does exist suggests that genius, +3SD, are probably produced at a higher rate from discontinuity simply due to raw numbers involved. So few exist that the rate from assortative marriage, and genius continuity, may in fact be lower than the discontinuity rate.

[Anonymous No.15361672]

>>15357921
>observational studies
aaaaaannnnd dropped

[Anonymous No.15362027]

>>15357921
No new implication. Nurturfags have been annihilated by facts and logic for decades now. They really only continue to exist because they get a constant stream of fresh ideological cannon fodder tabula rasa-believing retards, produced by public education.

[Anonymous No.15365336]

>>15357921
>What implications does this have for race science?
None whatsoever. There is always the God-of-the-gaps. No matter how consistent the differences between races, you can always explain them away with something, be it racism, dark matter, random chance, or this ,or that.

[Anonymous No.15365378]

>>15359548
this. step up op

[Anonymous No.15365624]

>>15365336
But that's a political concern and therefore not legitimate science.

[Anonymous No.15366084]

>>15359533
You should read the bell curve. Environmental and socioeconomic factors in IQ distribution have been debunked since the 90’s. IQ of parents has a much larger effect on the academic and career success of a person.

[Anonymous No.15367533]

>>15366084
Yes, rather than reading modern research with modern methods and large scale GWAS associations or polygenic scores, or intergenerational comparisons, I should read an old book by an inept jackass that doesn't disagree with anything I wrote anyway.

Why are you this dumb?

[Anonymous No.15367538]

>>15366084
Yes, rather than reading modern research with modern methods and large scale GWAS or polygenic scores, or intergenerational comparisons, I should read an old book by an inept jackass that doesn't disagree with anything I wrote anyway.

Why are you this dumb?

[Anonymous No.15368111]

>>15367538
>an old book by an inept jackass
lol imagine outing yourself like this.