With Halloween only a few days away, now is a good time to post about one of the creepiest stories I have ever heard of. Award-winning neuro-scientist James Fallon, who by all appearances was a normal man (a husband and father with a successful prestigious career and wonderful childhood) starts doing brain scans on cold-blooded killers, and accidentally discovers that his own brain scan has the neurological profile of a psychopath. As a committed believer in behavioral genetics and biological determinism, this terrifying discovery must have inspired a lot of cognitive dissonance. How could such a normal man with no history of violence have such a dangerous brain? He documented this story in the book The PSYCHOPATH INSIDE. I think the moral of the story is that while the social environment can determine behaviors, biology determines the actual traits. So for example biology will determine whether you score high or low on a test of psychopathy or a test of IQ, but social environment will largely determine what you do with those traits.
I’ve always thought psychopaths would be very well suited to experimental psychology. The Stanford prison experiment and the experiments Ted Kaczynski’s professors put him through stand out as particularly brutal examples but there are many others.
sociopaths who see human emotions as something to be toyed with
To be fair, human emotions can be quite amusing. I personally enjoy testing people’s emotional stability at cocktail parties whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Very true Sisyphean, although there are now so many ethical rules concerning research, that a psychopath would likely get into trouble quickly.
Let’s split hairs then and say “people with psychopathic traits” or “those who might score more highly than average on a psychopathy test”
Let’s split hairs then and say “people with psychopathic traits” or “those who might score more highly than average on a psychopathy test”
Good point. There might be an optimum level of psychopathy for success in general: too much and you become a cold blooded killer, too little and you become so nice that everyone takes advantage of you.
Let me guess: small amygdala in psychopathy.
Finally watched the video. Yes, it is about amygdala problem in psychopath.
It is very hard to do self-assessment on psychological issue since we tend to believe whatever we do should be normal or correct.
If calculated revenge which takes 5 years of time frame as sign of psychopath, then I am guilty of it. I did send some one into jail legally. The person in jail has no idea who did it since the individual is so stupid to realize when, where, who he violated. The individual had no clue I am looking for chance to punish him. Soon or later, the opportunity present itself when he did some thing illegal. Without tips to authority, he might get away with it. If he never violated me, I would have never been looking for his wrong doing. After this, his life went really downhill due to criminal record.
My father criticized me to have very dark mind. But I believe what I did is correct for justice, for society. At end, the person is too stupid to remember who he violated, not careful enough to think about consequence of violating others, not careful enough to not be caught to do illegal stuff. His low IQ caught up with him. No wonder low IQ people end up in jail. I still believe what I do is everybody else will do in term of revenge. So it is very difficult to believe what we did is wrong. Arresting and punishing escaped Old Nazi after half century is psychopathic? I do not think so.
If people with good long term memory, long term planning, concealing intention are psychopathic, then lots of high IQ people are. I believe psychopath is some one with zero empathy and violating other without mercy. Revenge should not be considered psychopathic. On the other hands, stupid people will not even think about possible future revenge against them. So stupid people often are openly obnoxious and `brave’. But watching out, there are plenty of people waiting their chance to get back at them. That do not yourself on the blacklist is best way to prevent such consequence. But such cautious behavior needs high IQ.
And BIG corpus callosum.
IC,
The individual you sent to jail must have done something bad to you
the biggest female brain on record belonged to a murder-ess. that is, according to Guiness.
Yeah. You say you don’t like psychopaths until you need open heart surgery. Then you’ll beg and plead for someone who can cut open your chest and saw through your breastbone without a shred of doubt or compassion.
Nonsense. Do try to remember that “objective detachment” at the middle of this P’s curve, and psychopathy is at the far, far outlying end. A psychopath will also shred your insides without a shred of compassion or care. Then, the same psychopath will lie through his teeth during the med mal suit.
Why do none of you THINK
maybe there’s a confusion here 😉 between “malignant narcissism” and psychopathy. that is, as if either of these terms referred to things.
Dr Dean Edell said once that in med school the ginormous egos wanted to be surgeons.
here’s an Irish American actor playing a surgeon (IQ >> 87 ;)):
An MD from Harvard?
My impoverished douche bag dad has an AB from Harvard. Big whoop! He wasn’t even a bad lawyer. He’d enough a rep, that Connie Chung asked for an interview.
But as soon as he was making bank he gave it up.
Why?
Because it was IMMORAL.
and I gave up being an actuary, because it was immoral.
so must’ve inherited my moral sensitivity?
maybe. is that a bad thing?
it is for your net worth!!!
one guy I used to work with is now a director.
he was a hick from southern Indiana. there are smart hicks, but he wasn’t one of them. he had to move back home to move up, or rather to Tennessee.
this is an illustration of how social class and IQ are NOT especially strongly associated. Lion of the Blogosphere has posted on this. even though he has moved far above his parents and has more money than he knows what to do with, he’s never made more than $175k in salary per year, according to him. Which is a lot in Ottawa, but in Manhattan Lion feels like a loser, especially considering his education and test scores. The 1% in annual income in Manhattan is or was recently, iirc, > $800,000.
The region of Ottawa-Gatineau has the third highest income of all major Canadian cities.[84] The average gross income in the region amounted to $40,078
one of the effects of extreme income inequality in America is that almost no matter how much one makes he still feels like a loser.
it’s the hedonic treadmill or the frog in boiling water.
the guy who’s done everything he was supposed to do in America and therefore works in finance in Manhattan is still a loser compared to some geek in silicon valley.
Seeing George C. Scott in that clip reminds of the scene from The Hustler (The Hustler won the Oscar for best cinematography iirceven though it was a dramatization of a story in Playboy ):
You don’t know what winning is Bert. You’re a loser.
Bert was played by Scott.
testing, testing, 1, 2, 3, …
http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_bar.swf?pid=nkxsvvysnj
Seems some or a lot a psychopaths aren’t criminal and a lot of criminals are not psychopaths. Don’t have emotions necessarily don’t implies to be criminal.
Psychopathy is like many ”variable” or large phenotypes like intelligence. To some races, populations, families and individuals, psychopathy phenotype behavior will be more inherited than other groups or persons.
My hypothesis, personality types (and all traits and phenotypes) have variable heritability, 0% to 100%.
Neuroticism is more common in jews, shyness is more common in japaneses, etc…
Variability of human phenotypes seems less greater.
this might be a good example of GxE or norms of reaction.
that is, if the psychiatrists Fallon quotes aren’t right and there really is such a thing as psychopathy.
in The Thin Blue Line a court appointed psychiatrist diagnoses the innocent Randall Adams as a psychopath who will kill again if ever let out.
Kenneth Bianchi is the paradigmatic case.
this might be a good example of GxE or norms of reaction.
Having the genes of a psychopath and not becoming one might be a good example of norms of reaction, but this guy apparently has not only the genotype, but the biological phenotype (the psychopathic brain). What he’s lacking is the actual behavior associated with psychopathy.
behavior is the phenotype which behavior genetics studies.
uhhh…drrr…
behavior is the phenotype which behavior genetics studies.
Well phenotype is your score on some measure of a certain trait. In this case the trait would be psychopathy so the score would be either some measurement of his brain scan or his score on the psychopathy check list.
My point is that he still scores about as high on the trait as his genetics would predict, but for whatever reason he’s not behaving violently.
you have no point.
he’s not a criminal, I assume.
therefore he’s an example of GxE in behavior genetics.
there may be an environment where those with his physical brain characteristics are never psychopaths, whereas those with some other characteristics are always psychopaths, yet these are never psychopaths in the prevailing American environment.
The very question “Nature on nurture?” betrays a P = G + E model.
It’s almost never one or the other or some of one and some of the other.
One way to think of genes is as shadow puppets behind a screen which affects how they are seen. The screen is the metaphor for the environment.
Psychopathy obviously is not a ”thing” like mouth or hands. But, is a expression of kind of mind.
I think about breathing and respiration, because obviously, we need oxygen to live. Brain and path of construction of thinking can explain differents behavior phenotypes AND changes ”abstract” things to REAL things.
it’s not a thing in any sense at all.
hearing voices and talking in a word salad is a thing.
if you think alien vampires are eating your brain, that’s a thing.
If ”it” can be observed in brain morphology, yes, it can be a thing.
No, things is a Concrete matter.
If you think who is blogger of this blog… it is not a thing.
I hear schizophrenophobe?? 😉
Well he sure looks like a psychopath.
That said, I wonder what Neuroskeptic would say on something like this, though?
There of course is no question that psychopathy is highly heritable, as are all behavioral traits.
As well, not all psychopaths are violent, or even particularly dangerous. There are several traits relevant (the Dark Tetrad).
what’s “highly”?
some good studies show no heritability for personality traits.
and gcta studies show 0 heritability for a number of psychiatric conditions.
No question? “Highly” heritable?
Meta analysis found 53% explained by non-shared environment.
@Swanknasty:
(Assuming you’re not the same 13 year old troll soiling this blog)
A) That seems pretty highly heritable to me.
B) Follow the link above. I discuss the study. Read it closely, both the link and the study itself. Note a few things about measurement error. The true heritability is closer to 75% like most traits.
Hey JayMan, can you explain to the Michael Mugabe on the other post the invalidity of Turkheimer 2003 and how it was proven totally false?
That’s fine. You apparently believe that less than half of variance associated with equals “high.” I don’t hold the same threshold for “high.”
Regarding measurement errors, both in the random and systematic bias form — fair enough. The degree of attenuation depends on the degree of potential error.
However, measurement error and reliability depend on random factors that over or underestimate the “true score.” These factors tend to be environmental. It’s an assumption that the “true value” is unaffected by these short-term fluctuations in environment, and this assumption makes the difference in scores an artifact of error. Sometimes it may be true (an outsider’s perception) and other times it may be false (X is in a bad mood today).
Regardless, even if the heritability is high, you seem to use heritability in the “genetic determinism” sense. In which case, I’d just bring up the general “norms of reaction” discussion. I’d also bring up the missing heritability problem and the general failure to identify genetic variants that meaningfully account for the variance in these traits. And, in the cases where we have found “single gene” disorders, successful treatment for these diseases often is environmental (which seems to underscore the norm of reaction viewpoint).
And you have directed to me to a giant wall of text that sprawls out over many studies and discusses many different issues. Rather than telling me to “read it closely,” just repeat your specific argument against the points raised here.
@swanknasty:
You know, some things I do get tired of repeating, especially when I write whole blog posts (which link to other blog posts) which – I think – pretty clearly explain the situation.
Do not mistake laziness on your part for a failing on mine.
When the heritability shoots up systematically when certain measurements are used (e.g., peer reports), it’s a sign that inaccurate measurements is responsible for the lower estimates derived from other reports (e.g., self-report).
Nevermind that there is other evidence precisely quantifying the degree of error in self report (longitudinal studies).
You know, if you actually go ahead and read the posts I’ve directed you to, you wouldn’t say stupid things like that.
And if you did so, I’d say you were an idiot.
If you honestly have no idea what I’m talking about, see here.
‘Do not mistake laziness on your part for a failing on mine.’
It’s lazy for you not to be able to just quote or cite the specific part of your own diatribe that is relevant to this discussion. If we are discussing what Matthew’s account of Jesus, it’s not “laziness” for me to ask the Gospel of Matthew be shown to me rather than being told to “read the entire Bible.”
‘When the heritability shoots up systematically when certain measurements are used (e.g., peer reports), it’s a sign that inaccurate measurements is responsible for the lower estimates derived from other reports (e.g., self-report).’
Are those measures more reliable than self-reports in the context of individuals evaluating twins? I’m not sure why it’d be surprising that peer reports would “increase heritability.” Most of the peers were “friends” and “spouses.” So it’s hard for me to believe that they didn’t know the other twin well enough to develop a bias.
We have other problems, such as EEA, etc. and you can present the gist of your argument against this being a limitation at any time.
‘You know, if you actually go ahead and read the posts I’ve directed you to, you wouldn’t say stupid things like that.’
Or you, you know, could actually just tell me your stance here and now instead of assuming Jayman qua teacher assigning homework.
‘And if you did so, I’d say you were an idiot.’
Mmmhm…
“We also performed gene-based association tests and biological pathway analyses. No genetic variants that significantly contribute to personality variation were identified, while our sample provides over 90% power to detect variants that explain only 1% of the trait variance. This indicates that individual common genetic variants of this size or greater do not contribute to personality trait variation, which has important implications regarding the genetic architecture of personality and the evolutionary mechanisms by which heritable variation is maintained.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051110002176
Thus far you’re just a nekkid emperor, so that’s fine.
And I certainly hope that link wasn’t your attempt to quiet the discussion. Sure, as a matter of deductive logic, bringing this up is a fallacy. Social science is not a matter of deductive logic. In the context of inductive reasoning, which is what we are using, such a failure does cast doubt on the model used. A lot of doubt, in fact.
@swanknasty:
The problem is that you’re raising silly objections that I’ve heard a million times before. The whole reason I wrote much of my blog is so I wouldn’t need to keep refuting these objections. So no, I’m say read the damn blog, and then we’ll talk.
Don’t bother appealing to authority either. You won’t get far.
Teacher reports have the same effect. As well, you have the longitudinal studies I mentioned (i.e., about 50% of the “unique environment” effect is unstable from one time point to the next, consistent with 25% of the total variance being just test noise).
Look, why present the “gist” of arguments when you’re obviously going to delve into the technical details? Why don’t you just read them for yourself? See my HBD Fundamentals page, specifically a paper which gives a thorough treatment of the EEA.
I’ve given you more than enough to address your concerns. If you’re uninterested in reviewing it, I’m uninterested in this discussion. Good day.
i’m a BGIer gayman.
and you a moron who has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.
Gayman can’t explain ANYTHING.
He’s mathematically RETARDED.
The correction for reliability is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE
unless one ASSUMES there is a true score.
ERGO
Gayman is RETARDED.
NONE of the objections are silly.
AND you have never addressed ANY of them.
BECAUSE you simply lack the mathematical and conceptual understanding to address them.
PERIOD!
‘ The whole reason I wrote much of my blog is so I wouldn’t need to keep refuting these objections. So no, I’m say read the damn blog, and then we’ll talk.’
If these objections are so silly, then you should have no problem giving me a short, sweet, simple refutation. However, as revealed by the inadequacy of what you thought served as a response to “missing heritability,” I’m doubting that you can. So no thanks. Have fun in your heavily-moderated echo chamber.
‘you have the longitudinal studies I mentioned (i.e., about 50% of the “unique environment” effect is unstable from one time point to the next, consistent with 25% of the total variance being just test noise).’
Alluded too is more like it (mainly because I do not accept you in your role of Prof assigning reading). You seem to misunderstand what I posted earlier about the assumptions and “true values” or “test noise.” You apparently believe this error is completely disentangled from the environment and has no impact on the “true value.” This is an assumption, and it seems unwarranted.
‘Look, why present the “gist” of arguments when you’re obviously going to delve into the technical details? Why don’t you just read them for yourself? See my HBD Fundamentals page, specifically a paper which gives a thorough treatment of the EEA.’
Where? I Ctrl-F’d “EEA,” “Equal environments assumption” and found nothing. Stop referring me to an obscure stack of text and JUST COME OUT WITH THE SPECIFIC REFERENCES.
The technical details of ONE particular argument still will FAIL to implicate the WHOLE of your voluminous screeds.
‘I’ve given you more than enough to address your concerns. If you’re uninterested in reviewing it, I’m uninterested in this discussion. Good day.’
Ah but to say to have done is not to have done. Adieu.
… is unstable from one time point to the next…
a virtue only for the vicious.
Jayman et al are the dogs in the dog park who snarl at the standard poodles.
Gayman gives his e-mail on his blog…
so I e-mailed him the Sewall Wright and G-matrix papers.
if he reads them he WON’T understand them.
but he may not read them.
I e-mailed them with the address, “jaymanloveswhitecock@gmail.com”.
and if you’ve ever taken a personality test…
I was given the MMPI, and I got up and walked out.
ALL of the questions are so vague or meaningless, they’re impossible to answer.
psychology might be a science, but as of today it’s a pseudoscience, because PhDs in psychology have low IQs.
the new GRE is likely dumbed down compared to the old, but here’re the scores by graduate major.
psychology — 300
sociology — 300
physics — 317
maths — 315
econ — 313
according to this dildo: http://magoosh.com/gre/2013/gre-scores-by-program-major/
…soiling this blog…
gold is shit to Jayman.
he soils the whole world by his mere existence.
Here to illustrate, let’s discuss height. Height will always have a measurement error. Part of this is simple error — viewer looking at the wrong notch on the tape. Part of this error is definitional — do we include your hair, how must you stand, what time of day must we measure…etc etc.
So our definition of these indirectly measured traits boils down to that part which is noticed and real and important. Here is the problem: for height in everyday life the time of day, my hairstyle, my posture, my shoes etc all form part of the real and useful trait.
Put on some undetectable lifts and see for yourself.
My true height plus and minus these fluctuations is my true height even though my true height has changed.
A scientist who was only looking for real and important in everyday life height would seem suspect if he were in a rush to discount these fluctuations as error apart from environment.
So measurement error as part of nonshared environment seems valid.
e-mailed them with the address,
Notice how the most vile racism comes from HBD deniers. I suspect that HBD deniers are some of the most racist people there are, but they feel guilty about it, so they throw themselves in HBD denial to compensate.
The email address you wrote is also homophobic. Homophobes are some of the most gay people there are, but they feel guilty about it, so they become extremely homophobic to compensate.
hardly. it’s a more than reasonable conclusion that black male HBDers love white cock.
there’s NO OTHER REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR A BLACK MALE HBDer.
Pumpkin Person, I believe we can measure psychopathy of a group based on profit per capita. Money, I believe, is a indirect measure of psychopathy.
The Gambino family made $500 million a year with approx 2200 soldiers and made men in the early 90’s under John Gotti. Considering drugs have a profit of 90%, I’d say $450 million is a reasonable profit with $205,000 profit per capita. In 1992, Berkshire Hathaway, Xerox, and Motorola each had around $450 million profit.
Motorolla had 20000 employees, and an profit per capita of $22000. So, one could assume the average Gambino member was 9 times more psychopathic.
Of course, this is imperfect, but I believe there is a strong correlation between psychopathy and making money in cut-throat businesses and it seems psychopathy, success, and iq blur at it’s highest levels.
and Prof. Shoe agrees with you.
but Prof. Shoe, as is his wont, shows himself to be pulling the rickshaw of the individualist ideology.
that is…
what works isn’t psychopathy per se, but rather extreme extroversion.
not in the everyday sense, but in Jung’s original sense.
(hey one of my great grandmothers studied with Jung.)
the pure Jungian cases:
introvert — one who assigns values of his own by himself
extrovert — one who has no values other than those of others, the crowd. (he laughs with the laugh track.)
maybe when you were little your mother asked you if you’d jump off a bridge if other people were doing it.
needless to say, perhaps, there are problems with the pure extrovert and the pure introvert.
although in terms of total dead the pure extrovert leaves the pure introvert in the dust.
a serial killer might be a pure introvert.
someone who joined the Cheka or the SS would be a pure extrovert.
…in the original Jungian sense.
that is the pure introvert is somewhat anti-social, but the pure extrovert is social even when the society itself is evil.
Pumpkin Person, I believe we can measure psychopathy of a group based on profit per capita. Money, I believe, is a indirect measure of psychopathy.
This might work better if you said profit per IQ per capita. Most psychopaths probably lack high incomes because they have have below average IQ and/or have criminal records, thus destroying their careers. But controlling for IQ there might be a non-trivial correlation between IQ and money and other forms of success.
This should especially be true among the mob families considering that most were high school dropouts and seem to have an iq of 92.
maybe.
as Unz mentions, the IQs of Southern Italians are explained by Southern Italians being more rural.
here’s the ref on the “n-back”. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.short
it’s pretty silly but still interesting.
the abstract:
Fluid intelligence (Gf) refers to the ability to reason and to solve new problems independently of previously acquired knowledge. The term “fluid intelligence” refers to something which does NOT exist in fact. Or are psychologists gods who can speak things into existence?
Moreover, Gf is closely related to professional and educational success, especially in complex and demanding environments.That is, those tests which are subjectively labeled as “fluid” are so related.
Furthermore, there is a long history of research into cognitive training showing that, although performance on trained tasks can increase dramatically, transfer of this learning to other tasks remains poor.Huh? Pele would totally suck at indoor soccer?
Here, we present evidence for transfer from training on a demanding working memory task to measures of Gf. This transfer results even though the trained task is entirely different from the intelligence test itself.Uhhh….even though the grad student is Swiss and I have a Switzerdeutsch surname, the n-back involves a tic-tac-toe “game board”.
Furthermore, we demonstrate that the extent of gain in intelligence critically depends on the amount of training: the more training, the more improvement in Gf.Well I’m an idiot so I gave up after passing the first two levels.
The n-back is online. Make yourself a genius. 😉
so where’s the explanation of the Irish IQ data?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/
So we are left with strong evidence that in the early 1970s, the Irish IQ averaged 87, the lowest figure anywhere in Europe and a full standard deviation below than that of Irish-Americans, a value which would seem to place a substantial fraction of Ireland’s population on the edge of clinical mental retardation.
Lynn seems to have accepted this conclusion. The current issue of the academic journal Personality and Individual Differences is organized as a tribute to Lynn and contains a lengthy interview in which he describes the turning points of his career, beginning with his appointment as a research professor in Dublin. His official responsibility was to investigate the social and economic problems of Ireland, and he soon concluded that the nation’s backwardness was largely due to the low IQ of its people, with the only obvious solution being a strong eugenics program, presumably including sterilization of a substantial fraction of the population.
If you aren’t BLIND, it’s OBVIOUS:
Lynn and psychologists generally are RETARDED SCUM.
Lucy, you got some splainin’ to do
So do you:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html
At the outset, that paywalled study indicates much lower heritability than is reported.
And that’s the general pattern:
swanknasty,
Here’s another study not behind a pay-wall:
http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/gcta-establishes-genetic-basis-of-class-differences-in-intelligence/
It’s also important to understand that GCTA studies greatly underestimate heritability because they only detect additive effects of the common SNPs used in genome-wide genotyping. Most of the anti-HBD research you cite is written by academics with social science PhDs who do not understand a hardcore science like genetics.
‘It’s also important to understand that GCTA studies greatly underestimate heritability because they only detect additive effects of the common SNPs used in genome-wide genotyping’
That’s just an assumption and ad hoc explanation (among many) that GTCA researchers are putting forward to explain what is right in front of our noses.
correct!
genetic distance will converge for the number of SNPs they’re using as long as they’re uniformly distributed over the genome, which they are.
that is, if the entire genomes were used the results would be the same.
peepee’s IQ is too low to talk to.
like ALL hereditists.
here’s an article by a mathematically and conceptually competent person:
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html
peepee will be unable to understand it.
here’s an article by a mathematically and conceptually competent person:
Seeing as you’re not mathematically or conceptually competent yourself, you must link to those who you assume are. Must be depressing to be so dependent on others to do your thinking for you. 🙂
peepee will be unable to understand it.
If you understood it, HBD people could understand it before age five. 🙂
typical.
not only
stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
but
stupid people think they’re smarter than their betters.
peepee is a moron.
very sad but consistent with the HBD-sphere.
here’s the article AGAIN.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6641/full/388468a0.html
IQ heritability, the portion of a population’s IQ variability attributable to the effects of genes1, has been investigated for nearly a century, yet it remains controversial. Covariance between relatives may be due not only to genes, but also to shared environments, and most previous models have assumed different degrees of similarity induced by environments specific to twins, to non-twin siblings (henceforth siblings), and to parents and offspring. We now evaluate an alternative model that replaces these three environments by two maternal womb environments, one for twins and another for siblings, along with a common home environment. Meta-analysis of 212 previous studies shows that our ‘maternal-effects’ model fits the data better than the ‘family-environments’ model. Maternal effects, often assumed to be negligible, account for 20% of covariance between twins and 5% between siblings, and the effects of genes are correspondingly reduced, with two measures of heritability being less than 50%. The shared maternal environment may explain the striking correlation between the IQs of twins, especially those of adult twins that were reared apart. IQ heritability increases during early childhood, but whether it stabilizes thereafter remains unclear. A recent study of octogenarians2, for instance, suggests that IQ heritability either remains constant through adolescence and adulthood3, or continues to increase with age2. Although the latter hypothesis has recently been endorsed4, it gathers only modest statistical support in our analysis when compared to the maternal-effects hypothesis. Our analysis suggests that it will be important to understand the basis for these maternal effects if ways in which IQ might be increased are to be identified.
While this study undermines the importance of genes, it also undermines your constant suggestions that IQ is determined by the social environment, because maternal effects are biological, and the B in HBD stands for biology.
So even your evidence against HBD contradicts your own social environmental perspective.
it also undermines your constant suggestions that IQ is determined by the social environment
not only I have not constantly suggested such, I have NEVER suggested such AT ALL.
So even your evidence against HBD contradicts your own social environmental perspective.
I have no such perspective nor have I EVER said anything which would lead a non-retarded person to believe I had such a perspective.
IT’S POINTLESS. PEEPEE IS MENTALLY RETARDED.
I have no such perspective nor have I EVER said anything which would lead a non-retarded person to believe I had such a perspective
You’re constantly going on about how there’s no such thing as fluid tests or culture reduced tests; this implies that you think IQ scores are heavily influenced by culture (social environment) as opposed to the biological environment or genes.
this implies that you think IQ scores are heavily influenced by culture (social environment) as opposed to the biological environment or genes.
in one sense yes. in another sense no.
YES:
it is true that Danes are good at badminton, Russians at chess, Kiwis at rugby, etc.
that is, one will score higher to the extent that he is acculturated. but…
NO:
within any culture the extent of acculturation may depend on many factors other than a hypothetical pure naked ability.
the putative absence of a shared environment effect is, or at least may be, merely that the same environment is not the same for two different genomes. it’s only a problem within the P = G + E numbskull paradigm.
What about lead levels?
“Findings support that blood lead concentrations in early childhood, even <10 µg/dL, have a long-term negative impact on cognitive development."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065230
What about the non-linear and threshold effect lead may have on IQ?
"Not only do many studies support the existence of adverse effects below 10 mg/dl, but the rate of declinein IQ scores might be greater at blood lead levels below10 mg/dl than it is at levels above 10mg/dl [25–30"
What areas have a high amount of lead?
"Children from lower income families are four times more likely to suffer from lead poisoning than children from higher-income families, and African American children are four times more likely to suffer from lead poisoning than Caucasian children."
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/27/the-early-chimp-gets-the-fig/
This is about benifit of big brain in monkey without tail (ape). Understanding reality-figuring out problem-finding solution-beneficial consequence. If chimp can do it, you can beat that 🙂
Ted Bundy told that there were moments when he had this urge to kill. He could not control it. It is like hunger.
I think there must be a brain structure evolved for a long time to have this complex, useful(for that time) instinct.
Many adopted children of criminals turn out criminals too, but is often said that it is due to abuse in that early years with criminal family. I think it is a genetical trait. There was a little girl adopted (criminal biological parents), she always wanted to kill her little brother. She was always trying to stab him with a pen. Now she grew up, she seems quite normal, she is a nurse even.
I also think that people who like thrillers, criminal stories are excited from it, cause they have still this inner complex structure, to a certain extent. I am scared of that kind of people, who are into crime genre in movies or novels.
I have seen as a child, some kids who liked to torture little animals. Nobody teaches a child to torture animals, they must have that instinctive feeling inbuilt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10082502
This study presents univariate narrow-sense heritability estimates for 33 common craniometric dimensions, calculated using the maximum likelihood variance components method on a skeletal sample of 298 pedigreed individuals from Hallstatt, Austria. Quantitative genetic studies that use skeletal cranial measurements as a basis for inferring microevolutionary processes in human populations usually employ heritability estimates to represent the genetic variance of the population. The heritabilities used are often problematic: most come from studies of living humans, and/or they were calculated using statistical techniques or assumptions violated by human groups. Most bilateral breadth measures in the current study show low heritability estimates, while cranial length and height measures have heritability values ranging between 0.102-0.729. There appear to be differences between the heritabilities calculated from crania and those from anthropometric studies of living humans, suggesting that the use of the latter in quantitative genetic models of skeletal data may be inappropriate. The univariate skeletal heritability estimates seem to group into distinct regions of the cranium, based on their relative values. The most salient group of measurements is for the midfacial/orbital region, with a number of measures showing heritabilities less than 0.30. Several possible reasons behind this pattern are examined. Given the fact that heritabilities calculated on one population should not be applied to others, suggestions are made for the use of the data presented.
”Given the fact that heritabilities calculated on one population should not be applied to others, suggestions are made for the use of the data presented.”
Yes, as i said
Heritability varies 0% (humans with wings) to 100% (humans with two eyes). Neuroticism more common in jews, shyness more common in japaneses, etc,etc…
Humans with two eyes is probably 0% heritable. Proof that many hbders do not seem to understand heredity.
No, If it was not hereditary, then there would be selected. This proves that hbd-deniers do not understand the real world, concrete and prefer to believe in the abstract world. It’s kind of ”trash-genes”.
In a human population the variation in number of eyes is almost one hundred percent associated with environmental factors.
You’re right that genes assuredly cause us to have two eyes, but the statistic h^2 as indicated here is limited re: genetic causation
Big noses more common in jews (specially ashkenazim) than japaneses.
Some traits are universal, some phenotypes are not phenotypes per si, but part of broader phenotypes, like sexuality, blood types and laterality.
”Junk genes”, better…
Pumpkin, do you think that Asian men are more monogamous than non-asian men because asian women are less diverse (phenotypically)? What i mean by this is that Asian women vary less, phenotypically, and therefore there is not much new to be gained by substituting your present girl for another.
Of course i know that there are lots of other facts at play here, but the variation in the phenotype of women might be a factor.
I think white women have more masculinized sexual prefferences than asian women. Men of all races intermixing more than women. Masculinised women have prefference by beauty, athleticism and sexual potency.
china people all look alike.
it’s impossible to distinguish them one from another.
Impossible to you, not for them.
WOW, typical popular anthropologic prejudice against east asian people….
….because ”blacks” are like gods of perfection…
no Western Europeans are “gods of perfection”.
I’m 100% Western European.
‘What i mean by this is that Asian women vary less, phenotypically, and therefore there is not much new to be gained by substituting your present girl for another. ‘
lmfao……..
fuck this gay earth.
Homophobic, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Josh, I think that’s a small factor in East Asian monogamy but the bigger factor is they’re just more evolved; I’m sorry.
who’s josh?
more evolved and yet had to copy Europe and its diaspora to make bank.
the Taiwan bubble and the Japan bubble were dirigibles compared to the American internet bubble or 20s bubble.
China people get carried away.
”In a human population the variation in number of eyes is almost one hundred percent associated with environmental factors.”
What? Stop read horoscope. Why??? Is a fossil phenotype.
Pingback: Do you have to be a psychopath to get ahead? | Pumpkin Person