[Please post all off-topic comments in the most recent open thread. They will not be posted here]
In my previous article, I described two studies showing Wechsler stability coefficients of 0.89 and 0.9 in young and older people tested 14 and 20 years apart respectively.
In the interest of full-disclosure, I found a study of Wechsler IQ that did not show such sky high long-term stability: 24 men and 24 women aged 39 to 44 were given the WAIS circa 1969 after having already taken it in 1956. The correlation was 0.73.
Of course the sample suffered from range restriction, with an IQ variability much smaller than the general U.S. population’s. This probably explains why the stability was only high instead of sky high.
There was also a study as cited by Ian Deary et al. that found a 0.78 correlation between Wechsler IQ measured at age 2 and at age 15 (incredible considering IQ is thought to be unstable before age 10 and especially before age 6), though oddly, only a 0.47 correlation between Wechsler IQ at age 9 and 15.
So for all studies I could find, comparing Wechsler IQ in people tested at least 13 years apart, the correlations are 0.73, 0.78, 0.88, and 0.9 with a median of 0.83, which is probably an underestimate given that most studies suffer from range restriction.
If anyone knows of any other studies of long-term Wechsler IQ stability, please let me know in the comments.
and the height data from denmark you give is not for the same age as the IQ data, but for age 13. growth spurts during puberty explain it. if height had been measured at age 9 rather than 13 the correlation might’ve been higher.
Yes I probably overplayed my hand on height. Jensen presents data showing height at age 10 correlates 0.88 with height at age 18. He argues height is considerably more stable than IQ, but similar to weight. Of course he’s basing this on Stanford-Binet IQ which is not as comprehensive a test as the Wechsler imo.
were any of these on normal people?
range restriction means the correlation will go DOWN not up. retards have more stable IQ scores.
In the WAIS subjects tested in the 1950s and late 1960s, their IQs were above average. Can’t access the other study. When we were discussing the SAT, you argued range restriction shrunk the correlation with other tests.
no misread it.
the correlation between the wechsler and the S-B goes from .83 to only .58.
YET the test retest reliability of the S-B is .77.
HIGHER THAN THE WECHSLER!
so what this long-term reliability is not for the hypothetical g.
or the wechsler would actually be more reliable if it dropped a lot of its performance subtests.
(hypothetical g)
I think my g now is the same when I was 12 but my FSIQ is lower than my g. much much lower.
yeah. i think that’s what this is really saying. keep the most reliable non-verbal tests and get rid of the rest.
the crappy cereal box tests on the performance half are bringing down the reliability of the FSIQ.
Verbal IQ is always going to be more stable because a lot of your vocab today reflects how quickly you learned 10 or 20 years ago.
Seems people are confusing
Individual IQ stability versus collective/historical IQ stability.
If you want to know little if your ”IQ” is stable or unstable just check out your vocabulary score today and throught the time.
Collective/historical IQ data have a lot of technical problems to start.
Your motivation to do a cognitive test may varies a lot and interfer in your scoring but… you know your vocab don’t change too much throught days, weeks, months and years.
General knowledge, seems more representative of human intelligence than IQ, even in the end of day, both will be positively correlated if not very correlated.
Hi pumpkin I did a study on adopted babies from Haiti. I can safely say the stability level was as high if not higher than your findings.
Why do you ban everything i say?
Pumpkin stop moderating me so badly. This is the worst ive seen in months.
i believe the restriction of range is irrelevant as long as the distribution is still normal and has the same sd.
Huh? Restriction of range is when the sample SD is smaller than the population you’re interested in
no it isn’t. stop doing math.
Yes it is:
The larger is the ratio of the standard deviation in the data set to the standard deviation in the universe, the greater is the observed correlation relative to the true correlation. Thus, the degree of range restriction or extension is proportionate to the ratio of the standard deviations.
Restriction of range is the term applied to the case in which observed sample data are not available across the entire range of interest. The most common case is that of a bivariate correlation between two normally distributed variables, one of which has a range less than that commonly observed in the population as a whole. In such cases the observed correlation in the range restricted sample will be attenuated (lower) than it would be if data from the entire possible range were analyzed.
DOH!
in the bivariate normal case a truncation above at b and below at a, where a > b, will result in a much higher variance in the data and an overestimate of the correlation.
IQ distributions are seldom truncated. Usually the distribution of something correlated with IQ (i.e. education) is what’s truncated, so a sample of college students will have a smaller IQ SD than the U.S. population. In many studies this is corrected for and the result is a higher r.
I’ve only seen one study where the r was corrected for extended range. This was a study correlating MRI brain size with abbreviated WAIS IQ in a sample of college students with either very high or very low SATs. Comparing two extremes made the correlation artifiticially high so they corrected for this
you can do the simulation in excel.
for a correlation of .5 the sample correlation would be about .75.
restriction just means that the sample is not representative of the population distribution…where “the population” one is concerned with is defined ahead of time.
the point is if the sample is drawn from a normal distribution with mean 130 and sd 15 then the correlation is the same even though the range is restricted.
stop doing gmath.
the point is if the sample is drawn from a normal distribution with mean 130 and sd 15 then the correlation is the same even though the range is restricted.
If the SD is still 15, then the range is NOT restricted. The range is higher cause the mean is higher, but it’s not restricted, so they wouldn’t correct for range restriction.
What would happen if an IQ test married an IQ test. Would they have IQ test babies?
Baby would be retards because parents correlate too much .
Why does anime keep talking about his ‘g’?
Does he mean ‘g spot’?
It’s my only score besides linguistic understanding (132) and logics (130) that is not retarded. It is 130.
I don’t like being retarded (113) FSIQ. I dropped off from 125 when I was 12 years old. The supposed 170 IQ guy said I was 118 and the tests were not measuring me right.
Recently 80 percent of my anxiety has gone away in 2 days 3 weeks ago now 90 percent is gone. My brain is still adjusting to it. I will function better now.
so maybe I am not a retard be of my high g. You think its possible?
Your words say for yourself…
“so maybe I am not a retard be of my high g. You think its possible?”
Are you basing your worth off a stupid test score? Why do you constantly talk about it as if it means something?
Hey Animekitty,
Are you familiar with concept of, “beating the pussy up? There was a popular song about it ten years ago, I’ll try to find it for you on Youtube. It has nothing to do with cats (I don’t think) but listening to it may be an edifying experience for you.
RR “basing your worth off”
Ability, basing off ability.
I try to do stuff, not so good at it, so try and find out why.
One thing is AK working memory in 95 and RR is above 120.
So he thinks everyone should be smart like him and not care,
that they have limitations when he is fine because his IQ matches,
what he does intellectually for a purpose.
AK working memory does match what AK wants to do for a purpose. So AK cannot follow most of his purpose because of his abilities and RR is telling him not to care about it because RR can follow RR’s purpose because RR has the abilities to follow RR’s purpose so everyone is exactly the same as RR. Everyone has the same ability to follow their purpose according to RR.
I understand things that I am unable to do. It bothers me.
But at least I understand. or something. (I wish I could do stuff)
Iluminatikit,
rr is idiot, don’t waste your time with him, please.
AK, I don’t care what my ‘scores’ on some stupid meaningless test say about me and neither should you. You’re reifying your test scores. You’re then creating a self-fulfilling prophecy with yourself. You need a better attitude; being down in the dumps all woe-is-me isn’t good. You need a more positive outlook.
Santo if ‘rr is idiot [sic]’ then don’t talk to rr, simple.
Obviously RR you do not know the things I struggle with. You’re the one obsessed with “stupid tests”.
Telling someone to “have a better attitude” when they say that they have limitations to do their purpose and wish they could do stuff and is really kicking them when they’re down. Tell a lame man to jump why doncha. You completely misunderstand what the real problem is. Has nothing to do with my perception of myself but with what I can and can’t do. What if I said everything RR says is wrong because what he says is just coming from his perception of his abilities to know stuff and not to really actually know it. See how condescending that is. Yet he thinks that is true of AK. what a jerk.
he is a stupid test itself.
next question to rr
evidence required
argument required
brain required
OK! I finally found it! But I feel like this has been posted before:
Enjoy Animekitty!! Unfortunately it’s hard to find an unedited version.
Haha it’s my jam. Pretty sure I drunkposted it here or elsewhere on social media.
I’m not into it.
Why does Santo always ramble on and on about me? Just don’t comment to me or read my comments. Is that hard?
I said before it hard for me to put things together in my head. I stare at my notebook and draw a blank. It’s like I have ADD or something but I know the real problem is not enough working memory and speed. These are real things not made up artifacts of a test. Simple fact: I have a had time solving problems in my head and I have several I have been working on I am only 5 percent in 6 months. It is because I cannot make diagrams or equations or technical schematics. I barely doodle.
With doodling I got 5 percent done in 6 months because it is hard to hold stuff in my mind. This is not so bad when my medications work because I am stable and feel fine with doodling but when I feel like crap that is when I know solutions exist I can’t reach them and I get depressed that doodling doesn’t do anything. I am not that good at engineering stuff. But I need that for my idea. Could be holding stuff in my head is a problem.
Why hbdears says high cognitive skills are strongly heritable if there is regression to the mean**
It’s impossible for psychological traits to be inherited.
Just your stories honey…
How is it possible?
oops
deaRest
Some sons are more in temperament as their father,
others are more as their mothers,
others are more as both…
teaching the basic reality to teleprompter.
This means psychological traits can be inherited? How can they be inherited in a non-lawlike way?
Physiological processes-only only in non-biological and concrete things, first lesson of basic mental sanity.
”This means psychological traits can be inherited? How can they be inherited in a non-lawlike way”
So are you totally different in psychological [stup…features] than your family [mafia]**
i cant understand the wordsalad, please retype it.
the same loser tactic…
why PP gave to you such space, i wonder…
Now you are writing another retarded ”paper” to delight us how genius you’re…
PP, a explanation for that is required, why*
RR, has made some valid contributions to the HBD-o-sphere. Yes he believes a lot of nonsense, but if I banned everyone with bad judgement, I’d be the only one left.
Nothing to say?
”RR, has made some valid contributions to the HBD-o-sphere. Yes he believes a lot of nonsense, but if I banned everyone with bad judgement, I’d be the only one left.”
You would be the second one… just your extremely bizarre obsession with oprah .. to starts.
”Valid contributions”
examples or evidences required.
Obsessions are not bad judgements, they’re interests you can’t suppress
RR pointed out some of the sloppy HBD research on testosterone & race, though i would have preferred he distinguished between different types of T
“though i would have preferred he distinguished between different types of T”
Either or, doesn’t matter. All the same, highly flawed.
It doesn’t matter if the T is circulating or not????
Free vs total?
”RR pointed out some of the sloppy HBD research on testosterone & race, though i would have preferred he distinguished between different types of T”
Something another hbd blogers already have point out.
”Obsessions are not bad judgements, they’re interests you can’t suppress”
Three types of obsession
required/ to survive
distractive/ entertainment
delusional /your case.
Because only the additive part of your genome affects your kid’s traits. The rest of the trait is determined by complex interactions of DNA that gets so scrambled & rearranged when you pass them to your kid, that they don’t inherit it the same way you had.
Your kid may also have a different environment than you
You’re assuming genes cause IQ scores.
you deny variation in genomes has any causal effect on IQ variation?
Yes.
RR, do you even believe differences in genomes partly caused modern humans to be smarter than erectus?
Can’t answer. I don’t know.
The fact that you can’t answer shows how extreme you are. 99% of evolutionary biologists would have no problem answering yes. Even Richardson and Gould would say yes.
You’re making a baseless assumption.
“Can’t answer. I don’t know”
LMFAO what a fucking retard.
“It’s impossible for psychological traits to be inherited.”
Please substantiate this claim. It’s the consensus that cognitive functions can be inherited, genetically and epigenetically.
I don’t care who would say yes or no. I answered the question honestly.
1) the genetic inheritance of psychological states requires laws linking or identifying mental events under their own mental descriptions and physical events under their own physical descriptions
2) these types of laws don’t exist
3) therefore psychological traits can’t be inherited
Address the argument. And no, linking studies isn’t a refutation of the argument.
”I don’t know.”
Some hope.
My bet is that rr don’t have a pre frontal cortex.
”1) the genetic inheritance of psychological states requires laws linking or identifying mental events under their own mental descriptions and physical events under their own physical descriptions”
Genetic inheritance of psychological ”STATES” requires must be passed intergenerationally without minimal environmental disturbance to be validated. what happens.
Many people may don’t understand that
– combination among father and mother [ i mean, both direct family gene pool] genes sometimes fractionates the arquetypical integrity of given trait, ”reducing” its total inheritance, just like when a green-eyed father and a blue-eyed mother have a hazel-eyed son;
blue eye inheritability is pretty high among only-blue-eyed people
much lower among heterogeneous-colour-eyed people/pairs.
– age of conception also may have a impact in increasing of mutational load-effects likelihood;
– some people believe mother mental STATE during pregnancy may affect its child but it seems another case of genetic confounding [stressful mother is more prone to have a stressful kid, and pregnancy tend to affect woman humor]
– some or many people also believe alcohol, drug or any other unhealth behavior during pregnancy may result in huge developmental disturbance in child [someone have stats about the % of drunked pregnant women who had kids with fetal alcohol syndrome*].
”2) these types of laws don’t exist”
….
”3) therefore psychological traits can’t be inherited”
So d’elight us how do you think it’s happens..
”a green-eyed father and a blue-eyed mother have a hazel-eyed son”
jees, bed exempru
the idea is there…
This is the unfortunate part about Internet discussions. The boldness that anonymity provides, testosterone-driven chest-thumping, and the lack of checks and balances/reality-testing that exist in a traditional university setting allows arrogant amateurs like RR (although I’m sure he usually means well) to repeat their claims ad nauseam even though they ADMIT THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE EVEN TALKING ABOUT.
“My bet is that rr don’t have a pre frontal cortex.”
Hahahaha
Santo,
“Genetic inheritance of psychological ”STATES” requires must be passed intergenerationally without minimal environmental disturbance to be validated. what happens.”
How can this occur in a non-lawlike way?
Unfortunately, the rest of your comment is irrelevant.
Gondwanaman,
“even though they ADMIT THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE EVEN TALKING ABOUT.”
Quote me.
Dude, feel lucky that PP censors offensive comments against you. And if you really need a protector online, don’t even talk about how things would play out IRL.
Gondwanaman, if you’re referring to this:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/04/23/more-data-on-long-term-wechsler-iq-stability/comment-page-1/#comment-87676
that’s not “ADMIT[tting] [I] HAVE NO IDEA WHAT [I’m] EVEN TALKING ABOUT”, I don’t know the answer to the question and I said as much.
Is that relevant to the argument I’ve provided? Not at all.
RR, are the cognitive differences between humans and chimps caused (at least in part) by differences between the human & chimp genomes?
Also,
“but it seems another case of genetic confounding”
Genetic confounding requires a mechanism (gene or set of genes that contribute to the supposed confounding); what’s the mechanism? Just saying “genes” isn’t a mechanism.
“RR, are the cognitive differences between humans and chimps caused (at least in part) by differences between the human & chimp genomes?”
Sure. Chimps didn’t evolve brains like ours that have them able to do what we do.
I fail to see the relevance to my argument though.
I’m just checking to see if you agree genomic differences can cause mental differences at all. So why can genomic variation cause mental differences between very different species, but not within humans or even perhaps humans and erectus? Just trying to understand your reasoning.
it’s not evidence that psychological traits can be inherited; it’s not an empirical issue (take note on that, melo).
in support of rr last year i planted tomato seeds and from these grew potatoes.
irl afro is a fat, bald, middle-aged jew working for mossad.
You don’t provide sane, serious, interesting arguments… NEVER.
”Genetic confounding requires a mechanism (gene or set of genes that contribute to the supposed confounding); what’s the mechanism? Just saying “genes” isn’t a mechanism.”
what is it
your life is iRRelevant…
”play video games increase IQ”
genetic confound
”people who was born with higher cognitive skills, expressed via better school grades/achievement tend to play video games more than other groups, ON FUCKING AVG”
Again, if PP was a serious person s/he already have forbiden you to ”comment” here.
“Just trying to understand your reasoning.”
My reasoning is the argument I’ve provided above.
”it’s not evidence that psychological traits can be inherited; it’s not an empirical issue (take note on that, melo).”
IT’S NOT EVIDENCE… = no have evidence.
that guy is completely lost OR he is a complete well paid minion/troll.
Any murrican redneck or russian mujik can perceive this patterns easily. Everyone with pre frontal cortex know that, even most people no have curiosity and deep thinking enough to investigate more.
Everyone know that their sons ”is more like” the mother or the father or a [mostly stable] combination.
I KNOW i’m more like my maternal gene pool [i have a social phobic uncle and i had a social phobic aunt].
This knowledge everyone if they have motivation, correct direction and talent, can have…
less brain-drained as this guy.
look at LotB. he makes up excuses about why he’s not married. likely he’s just short.
so part of the narrative about female hypergamy is just un-attractive men making excuses.
same with women claiming men are only interested in appearance and youth.
gay men like afro believe this. sad!
lion thinks he’s a failure because he makes just under 200k per year, even though this is a very high percentile in individual earned income in the US…though not for someone with his credentials living in manhattan.
some female insurance executives/actuaries are married to mechanics and garbage men and live in their husband’s parents’ basement.
not everyone can get what he wants, so sometimes he takes what is available and/or what isn’t too much effort to acquire.
nerd girls are easy. even when they’re hot, they have no clue how hot they are.
stop pedestal-iz-ing women.
in the sexual marketplace IQ is like height. neither men nor women have any long term interest in people much dumber than themselves, however good looking they are. it’s a yuge turn off.
Santo,
All those words, yet nothing of substance to my argument.
Santo,
“You don’t provide sane, serious, interesting arguments… NEVER.”
What’s wrong with the argument I’ve provided here in this thread?
“genetic confound”
What’s the mechanism?
“Again, if PP was a serious person s/he already have forbiden you to ”comment” here.”
You don’t have to read my comments, or even reply to me.
”Santo,
All those words, yet nothing of substance to my argument.”
So it’s a very good thing to me, yes, i’m not trying to add more/some substance to your vague, repetitive, robotic, empty sentences.. no way.
Again the same fucking bullshit ever here
prove your claims about my comment answering point by point
you can’t
a loser
“I’m just checking to see if you agree genomic differences can cause mental differences at all. So why can genomic variation cause mental differences between very different species, but not within humans or even perhaps humans and erectus? Just trying to understand your reasoning.”
I’ve been making this exact same point in a jokey way for weeks now and RR still hasn’t picked up on it.
Stephen Jay Gould who is a hack and knows hes lying wouldn’t make some of the arguments race is making here. And gould has no shame.
The argument still sits, unaddressed. Shame.
Philosopher what’s wrong with the argument I’ve provided?
everyone can get what they want if they are willing to do what it takes.
if you want something….you take it. any other road is a road to suckaville.
the worst path there is to pretend you never even wanted the thing you wanted.
Why?
Who cares what anyone else thinks…
better to die trying than quit on your desires.
The Greeks were faggots with pretensions to nobility
The Romans lacked this sophistication.
The Romans were better.
Why?
They kept it real.
better to die trying than quit on your desires.
better to quit the day you’re born and never have any desires.
i like Jay Kordich too. he was the original juicer, OJ.
I believe RR is a Creationist. Are the Catholics creationists/intelligent design people? I know my Pentecostal friends are.
“Genetic variation doesn’t cause variation among humans, just between species. There’s only microevolutiom, not macroevolution.” they say.😈
RR & other HBD deniers say the opposite: only macro evolution, no micro evolution
RR & other HBD deniers say the opposite: only macro evolution, no micro evolution
Why do you believe I’m a Creationist? And by the way, most genetic variation is irrelevant.
”Most genetic variation is iRRelevant…”
Jesus blessed!!!
crude sentences don’t help you son
Are the Catholics creationists/intelligent design people?
We aren’t.
The father of genetics, Mendel, was a German Catholic monk.
Catholic schools teach evolution like secular schools do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church
It’s funny because HBD literally is Darwinian Creationism. Replace “genes” by god and “IQ” by Holy Spirit and you get a nice religious mythology like Creation. You really are just like them, you fill all your gaps in knowledge (and there are many of them) with a single supernatural factor that confirms your preconceptions.
RR & other HBD deniers say the opposite: only macro evolution, no micro evolution
What a straw man.
No one denies evolution. The difference is that we know that evolution, in the Darwinian sense, isn’t the cause of all biological variation and that most attempts to explain biological patterns within an evolutionary framework are and will remain just-so stories like Creationism. You don’t seem to be aware that evolution isn’t the focus of medical research and practice. In fact medical research exists because scientists don’t believe in evolutionary determinism otherwise, they would just say “god Darwin made us this way, all we can do against disease is pray”. But medical schools and biology departments aren’t centers of Darwinian indoctrination. Far from it.
As for differences between and within species, it’s very simple: different species have different genes and chromosomes, different individuals within a species just have different versions of the same genes. Unless they have non-heritable anomalies like gene deletions or a different chromosome count. So obviously, variation within species can never come close to variation between species, especially on those traits that are said to involve all of the organism’s biological systems in complex ways.
As for differences between and within species, it’s very simple: different species have different genes and chromosomes, different individuals within a species just have different versions of the same genes. Unless they have non-heritable anomalies like gene deletions or a different chromosome count
I like this argument.
I never said you denied evolution, but you do seem to deny cognitive micro evolution among humans, at least recent micro cognitive evolution. That is you seem to deny human intelligence has evolved since the Africa exodus. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I never said you denied evolution, but you do seem to deny cognitive micro evolution among humans, at least recent micro cognitive evolution. That is you seem to deny human intelligence has evolved since the Africa exodus. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I deny nothing. 84% of the genome has some expression in the brain. So there is no reason that these 84% would have remained untouched by genetic drift and selection. However, there is not a single piece of evidence that this results in “intelligence” differences that fit the HBD hierarchy (you know my intuition goes the opposite way) nor that it imposes limits on malleability.
As for what you told RR about height, the difference between humans and other primates is that we’re full bipeds so our legs could evolve freed from the need for our arms to easily touch the ground.
Apart from this, I don’t see how height is beneficial to survival, some even say taller folks die faster and if you’re tall, you probably know all the tourments that your back makes you go through.
But do you agree that there must be at least a 10 point genomic IQ difference between at least one pair of the many ethnic groups on Earth? With so many different ethnic groups, evolving in so many different environments, surely common sense tells us that at least some group must have at least a 10 point genomic advantage over another group. What are the odds of everyone ending up roughly the same?
I don’t think “genomic IQ makes sense”. But if you mean that equalizing all the biological systems from which the genome depends could still result in a 10 points difference between two ethnic groups (assuming that IQ does measure intelligence in a way that incorporates all of the organism’s biological systems), I’m agnostic, it’s not impossible, but just because it’s not impossible doesn’t mean it’s probable.
What are the odds of everyone ending up roughly the same?
I don’t know, what are the odds that every population on earth ends up with two arms and two legs on average?
I don’t think “genomic IQ makes sense”. But if you mean that equalizing all the biological systems from which the genome depends could still result in a 10 points difference between two ethnic groups (assuming that IQ does measure intelligence in a way that incorporates all of the organism’s biological systems), I’m agnostic, it’s not impossible, but just because it’s not impossible doesn’t mean it’s probable.
But the biological systems themselves are under genomic influence. You’re still thinking genome only means “genes” even though I cited a reference saying genome refers to an organism’s complete set of DNA, including all of its genes. Each genome contains all of the information needed to build and maintain that organism. In humans, a copy of the entire genome—more than 3 billion DNA base pairs—is contained in all cells that have a nucleus.
So person A has a higher genomic IQ than person B if clones of both were gestated and raised identically in many environments, and A’s clones averaged higher than B’s clones in every environment.
But the biological systems themselves are under genomic influence
But the genome is also under the influence of these systems. Its expression is switched on and off depending on circumstances so you can’t really separate the various components of the whole biological machinery like “heritability” studies attempt to do.
You’re still thinking genome only means “genes” even though I cited a reference saying genome refers to an organism’s complete set of DNA, including all of its genes. Each genome contains all of the information needed to build and maintain that organism. In humans, a copy of the entire genome—more than 3 billion DNA base pairs—is contained in all cells that have a nucleus.
And?
So person A has a higher genomic IQ than person B if clones of both were gestated and raised identically in many environments, and A’s clones averaged higher than B’s clones in every environment.
Equal environments don’t really exist either. Genome A can be more “efficient” than genome B in some environments but less in others.
Equal environments don’t really exist either. Genome A can be more “efficient” than genome B in some environments but less in others.
if clones of A average higher IQs than clones of B across a diverse range of environments, then A has the higher genomic IQ. And IQ heritability is simply the squared correlation of genomic IQ with phenotypic IQ in a given population, corrected for gene-environment covariance.
There is no true empirical measure of this.
The point is not that height is necessarily beneficial but rather that there’s been so much selection for height in the last 4 million years that by RR’s logic, it should have reduced heritability too.
The point is not that height is necessarily beneficial but rather that there’s been so much selection for height in the last 4 million years that by RR’s logic, it should have reduced heritability too.
So much selection for height? I don’t think so. There was selection for bipedal locomotion, this is our fitness trait and it has no variance, no “heritability”. Height is a byproduct of bipedalism, not the phenotype that natural selection targeted throughout hominin evolution.
The Pygmies have short stature. However, their fitness trait isn’t height, it’s the absence of pubertal growth spurt.
It doesn’t matter whether the selection was direct or indirect, nor does it matter if height is one trait or many traits combined into one.
The argument just made by RR (previously made by swank & Mug of Pee) seems to be that if there’s too much selection for a phenotype, you hit a selection limit because you’ve exhausted all the existing genetic variation. Mug of Pee used the example of no race horse getting faster than Secretariat
So why didn’t we hit a selection limit for height since height increased maybe 8 SD in the last 4 million years. And yet today different ethnic groups differ 4 SD in height & it’s thought that much of that is genomic
It doesn’t matter whether the selection was direct or indirect, nor does it matter if height is one trait or many traits combined into one.
Of course it matters. The only thing that was selected is bipedalism. Height and weight evolved alongside because bipedalism enabled them but they were not selected as if they were necessary for bipedal locomotion. You seem to conflate evolution and selection.
The argument just made by RR (previously made by swank & Mug of Pee) seems to be that if there’s too much selection for a phenotype, you hit a selection limit because you’ve exhausted all the existing genetic variation. Mug of Pee used the example of no race horse getting faster than Secretariat
They’re right.
So why didn’t we hit a selection limit for height since height increased maybe 8 SD in the last 4 million years. And yet today different ethnic groups differ 4 SD in height & it’s thought that much of that is genomic
It’s not thought that much of that is genetic, diet and health play a more crucial role in between populations across time and space.
The pygmy phenotype is very special because it’s due to the fact that adults don’t experience pubertal growth. But there is no clear pattern of genetic variation on height between populations.
Of course it matters. The only thing that was selected is bipedalism. Height and weight evolved alongside because bipedalism enabled them but they were not selected as if they were necessary for bipedal locomotion. You seem to conflate evolution and selection.
Why would matter how or why? What matters is whether the genomic variation in height has decreased as a result of selection for bipedalism. The genomic variation in bipedalism has, and since height evolution was correlated with walking evolution, its variation should have decreased by proxy. It’s like guys in the NBA are selected for basketball ability, not height, but since height is correlated with basketball ability, their height variance might be relatively small.
Genetic variation didn’t decrease as a consequence of bipedalism. On the contrary, I’d assume that once freed from the constraints of quadrupedalism, height would have evolved randomly since if faced no pressure in any direction.
The genomic variation in bipedalism has, and since height evolution was correlated with walking evolution, its variation should have decreased by proxy.
No. Bipedalism just allows the upper body to grow farther from the ground. There would only have been reduced variance on height if bipedalism and growth were controlled by the same pleiotropic genes.
It’s like guys in the NBA are selected for basketball ability, not height, but since height is correlated with basketball ability, their height variance might be relatively small.
Wrong. Height directly contributes to basketball ability. So basketball selects for height alongside other factors. And since basketball selects for height, their variance is smaller than within the general population. On the contrary, height doesn’t contribute to bipedalism.
Genetic variation didn’t decrease as a consequence of bipedalism. On the contrary, I’d assume that once freed from the constraints of quadrupedalism, height would have evolved randomly since if faced no pressure in any direction.
Average height increased maybe 8 SD but there was no pressure to get taller. LOL.
Here’s the point: short primates were largely eliminated from the gene pool. Unless the elimination of short DNA was equally balanced by new mutations for tall DNA, genetic variation should have been reduced.
Wrong. Height directly contributes to basketball ability.
But NBA players are generally not directly selected for their height, they’re directly selected for basketball ability. When choosing players to recruit for a team, people generally pick the best known players, bot the tallest, so performance, not height is the target of selection. If you can dunk like Michael Jordan, you can play in the NBA, even if you’re below six feet. The fact that height causes basketball skill, doesn’t mean it’s being directly selected when we select for basketball ability. if you want direct selection for height, see a club for tall people. From an evolutionary perspective, if survival or reproduction depended on basketball ability, height would be considered a spandrel.
Average height increased maybe 8 SD but there was no pressure to get taller. LOL.
We can make up stories and speculate that height would have helped humans looking more impressive to predators, gave them an edge for hunting and fighting etc. But these are only small advantages that wouldn’t lead to the selection of very specific genotypes and the selection process would have been severely weakened by genetic drift.
But NBA players are generally not directly selected for their height, they’re directly selected for basketball ability.
Which selects for height, because you’re much more likely to be good at basketball if you’re tall.
When choosing players to recruit for a team, people generally pick the best known players, bot the tallest, so performance, not height is the target of selection.
But they owe their performance in part to their height. Height isn’t necessary or sufficient but it’s an advantage when you dunk, run and in contact situations. So the best players are taller on average.
The fact that height causes basketball skill, doesn’t mean it’s being directly selected when we select for basketball ability.
It is directly selected, but as a secondary criterion.
Also, height isn’t a trait per se. In the sense that not everybody achieves height with the same skeletal characteristics. My height is a lot of leg length, other guys are as tall as me with shorter legs but longer torsos or skulls. I achieved this height probably thanks to a mix of good health, good nutrition and an unknown amount of growth hormone during puberty. But I wasn’t a tall kid.
“RR & other HBD deniers say the opposite: only macro evolution, no micro evolution”
I don’t deny any modes of evolution. The argument is simple:
P1) Natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival
P2) Intelligence is important for survival.
C) Therefore intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans.
Behavior genetics lies on a false paradigm. Is denying BG make you think I only believe in macro and not microevolution? Are you assuming I’m a Creationist or variation thereof?
RR, that actually makes a lot of sense, but where does height fit in this paradigm? It’s been key to human survival (or reproduction), at least judging by the huge height gap between humans & chimps. Does it have low to no genetic variation? You might argue it hasn’t been important in the last tens of thousands of years but some would say same about intelligence
“Jesus blessed!!!
crude sentences don’t help you son”
What did I say that’s incorrect?
”P1) Natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival
P2) Intelligence is important for survival.
C) Therefore intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans.”
Intelligence, what is it**
Human beings exactly because ”their’ higher intelligence [you mean CREATIVITY] created ways to reduce their direct exposure to environment challenges, specially with the advent of civilization.
It’s not ALWAYS that natural selection lowers genetic variation…
Genetic variation can be very useful to species survival.
Humans has been selected to be very specialized because social species tend to be like that.
Higher sexual dimorphism increase genetic variation.
Same species adapting to different environments may/logically speaking increase genetic variation.
“You might argue it hasn’t been important in the last tens of thousands of years but some would say same about intelligence”
Correct. Modernization (along with agriculture) obviously changed the course of our evolution.
Cultural evolution occurs faster than Darwinian evolution. If cultural evolution occurs at a faster rate then Darwinian evolution, we should therefore see nongenetic differences between populations. We see nongenetic differences between populations.
Either way, re height, there is a great paper on the epigenetics of height and how it contributes to height gains over time.
Santo,
“Intelligence, what is it**”
It’s a broad statement for a reason. Intelligence is important for survival. Therefore intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans.
“Genetic variation can be very useful to species survival.”
It’s not needed; most genetic variation is irrelevant since most traits important for survival are buffered against genetic variation and are subsumed into developmental plasticity along with becoming canalized during development. Natural selection lowers genetic variation (reduced heritability) by eliminating deleterious gene variants, which is why intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans.
And identical genes do not restrict variation.
So, finally you know the concept of inteligence, at least THEORICALLY…
Intelligence is not important for survival, it’s fundamental.
All life form behavior is
directly related with intelligence
indirectly related.
Intelligence is underlying in everything life does.
No have such thing huge abrupt discontinuity between humans and non-humans, it’s not facts, but anthropocentric ideology. ”We’ are not the only ones who possess intelligence, but it’s undeniable to non-drunkers that ”we’ have the most sophisticated intelligence form.
”even” our bodies are intelligent machines.
Based on this macro-logic i can describe myself organically-sexually dumb because i’m homossexual, but to be a opposite mirror of existence never was a good deal.
”It’s not needed; most genetic variation is irrelevant since most traits important for survival are buffered against genetic variation and are subsumed into developmental plasticity along with becoming canalized during development. ”
Do you know we already are ”individually genetically diverse” [multicellular organism] isn’t**
Individually speaking, genetic variation was a huge step for life sophistication.
Where you copied this*
Stop to write in academic way, it’s horrible, most people don’t understand and it’s not JUST because they are dumber, it’s also because verbal variation or better, redundancy is mostly irrelevant.
Translate this in the way i can understand.
Genetic variation, again, is important if not fundamental in social species. Yes, i can agree that, not MOST but many traits can be described in some ways as ”predominantly irrelevant” or recreative, maybe.
”Natural selection lowers genetic variation (reduced heritability) by eliminating deleterious gene variants, which is why intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans.
And identical genes do not restrict variation.”
You mean increase heritability.
your ”WHY” seems mostly incorrect.
First of all, comeback to real world and collect evidences before to start to over-use abstractions. You’re coming from the results of something you no have collected concrete basis.
I’m live in the real world and i can see all the time that human intelligence varies and that human races are cognitively different, in different [qualitative and quantitative] levels, and that some human races, on very average, have a lower cognitive capacity.
But because you’re a believer, facts don’t matter for you. And because you’re a imoral or amoral, values neither. So what*
Santo: Intelligence, what is it**
It the internal use of information to understand and change reality.
It can also be used to understand the internal reality, to begin with.
Generally, it is what you can hold and put together with your mind.
Milesimal time
try to take part-on-part of my comments and refute or dialogue with them. I wrote things here, i said sexual dimorphism increase genetic variation, i said social species because their specialization seems incease genetic variation. I wrote things and i like when the person i’m debating use this things and refute them.
The smartest human races created artificial environments and started to select those who are capable to deal with their expansive cultural/material and representative enterprise.
Less smarter ones are ”still’ in natural environments so they no have evolved/i mean, selected to live properly in highly complex artificial/human-like places.
Even we can describe
paleolithic
neolithic
modern human intelligence’s.
”It the internal use of information to understand and change reality.”
but what reality exactly*
In this case it look like creativity
change = ~ create = ~ manipulate.
”It can also be used to understand the internal reality, to begin with.
Generally, it is what you can hold and put together with your mind.”
Based on life behavior, adaptation is the capacity of the organism to emulate and or mimic in itself relevant parts of environment it is living, exactly to stablish a harmonic relation with it.
Adaptation via body [and less centralized in brain] is also a form of knowledge because you’re taking from environment some of its features and expressing in yourself, in your body, just like a tatoo.
For example, lighter skin in tempered climates.
testosterone is a hormone of desire
the way of the eunuch isn’t for everyone
to ignore desire is UNMANLY
no wonder releasing desire is a key feature in East Asian philosophy
girly men
Being able to see and hear well is important to intelligence. They are what give you the information needed to make decisions.
ah rr is making the same argument i made long ago about intelligence.
height is much the same:
IT HAS NOT BEEN STRONGLY SELECTED FOR WITHIN HUMANS
in fact IIRC in hunter-gatherer tribes the ‘male-taller’ norm isn’t even present…
women just want to fuck.
stop making them more complicated than they are.
the mind of a woman:
“by RR’s logic, it should have reduced heritability too.”
What’s the heritability of height and how is it gleaned?
So why didn’t we hit a selection limit for height since height increased maybe 8 SD in the last 4 million years. And yet today different ethnic groups differ 4 SD in height & it’s thought that much of that is genomic
well, you’re using an evolutionary time period that spans beyond the time of homo sapiens.
if we limit our view to the history of our species, we can see that (a) human height has NOT increased much, if at all over our species history — hunter gatherers stood about 5’8 or 5’9, and ENVIRONMENTAL decreases in nutrition contributed to people being shorter within civilization. it’s only when the ENVIRONMENT — nutrition — exceeded the environmental conditions of hunter-gatherer societies that we saw an additional two inch gain in height, and (b) there isn’t much sexual selection on height, not presently, and not — by all indication — in the past.
Almost everything you said about height could be said about IQ, so shouldn’t IQ have similar heritability to height?
“ah rr is making the same argument i made long ago about intelligence.”
Great minds think alike.
Almost everything you said about height could be said about IQ, so shouldn’t IQ have similar heritability to height?
according to HBDers it does!
so you can’t have it both ways.
either IQ was heavily selected for, in which case the evidence cuts against this being the case.
or IQ was not heavily selected for in the slightest.
now, if everyone agrees that intelligence has been selected for…
then it strongly implies that IQ is not intelligence.
this would be consistent with phenomena like the flynn effect.
intelligence may simply reflect the capacity to develop mental skills, which itself may be more or less equal across humanity. IQ may be a set of mental skills that people are under differing environmental motivational pressures to develop.
Great minds think alike.
no rr, you long ago said i was stupid and i’d like to keep it that way, with one correction:
stoopid.
a bit of qualitative analysis….
Mike Tyson would never do well on the SAT
but watch his one man show, watch him in interviews…
he is NOT stupid
What’s the heritability of height and how is it gleaned?
That is you seem to deny human intelligence has evolved since the Africa exodus. Correct me if I’m wrong.
this wasn’t addressed to me but there are GOOD REASONS to believe intelligence hasn’t ‘evolved’ since then…
with pleiotropic and polygenic traits, the mutation rate is SLOW
in fact, the mutations humanity’s forebears that changed intelligence took several hundred thousand/millions of years to occur at a time. and it just seems like they were mutations quickly went to fixation, altering brain size/cranial capacity/whatever.
homo sapiens have not been around long.
so, with regard to skin color, eye color, nose shape, whatever…..
these things are likely controlled by not so many genes and subject to new mutations adding genetic variance….and we see diversity here.
other traits? not so much.
“1) the genetic inheritance of psychological states requires laws linking or identifying mental events under their own mental descriptions and physical events under their own physical descriptions
2) these types of laws don’t exist
3) therefore psychological traits can’t be inherited
Address the argument. And no, linking studies isn’t a refutation of the argument.”
1) Why does the genetic inheritance of psychological traits( an already observed phenomena) Require That mental events have their own inheritance mechanism?
As Bruno pointed out, It’s pretty clear that you don’t fully understand Anomalous monism. Davidson’s original thesis was that desires and beliefs present at a particular physical event were an accumulation of multiple prior events, thus making the causal reduction of said events redundant.
Of course my own position is that this is simply another form of quazi intellectual semanticism. Irreducible complexity is of course an ID ideology, and there’s simply too much evidence indicating there are psychophysical laws to begin with.
Anyway, Mental events can be inherited through culture, and their corrspoding physical structures can be inherited through genetics.
That’s just me humoring you, Here’s actualy validation:
“We also show that colony error rate depends on mean nest quality, and difference in quality, in agreement with Weber’s law. Psychophysical laws, particularly Weber’s law, have been found in diverse species, including unicellular organisms. Our theoretical results predict that superorganisms may also exhibit such behaviour, suggesting that these laws arise from fundamental mechanisms of information processing and decision-making. Finally, we propose a combined psychophysical law which unifies Hick-Hyman’s law and Piéron’s law, traditionally studied independently; this unified law makes predictions that can be empirically tested.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22616-y
Even with all the logic in the world, it’s nothing to empirical substantiation.
“P1) Natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival
P2) Intelligence is important for survival.
C) Therefore intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans.”
Another syllogism shown to have faulty premises, by simply just doing a little bit of research. Intelligence corresponds to neuro plasticity and is infact subject to experience dependency, therefore intelligence can have high phenotypic variation and still be important to survival.
Also this is a little off topic but it seems neuroscience is making waves in cognitive research at the moment, and we may have a unified model soon:
” a clinical state that typically precedes Alzheimer’s dementia, and healthy older adults. Their cognitive reserve measure indexed education, occupation, leisure activities, as well as IQ. They also generated a neural efficiency measure that is based on a neurophysiological measure, P300, and performances measures, all captured during the attention task. They found that among older healthy adults, higher cognitive reserve was associated with higher neural efficiency during their performance on the attention task. In contrast, this advantage that cognitive reserve imparts on older healthy adults is compromised among older adults with aMCI as they found no association between cognitive reserve and neural efficiency in performing the attention task among aMCI participants. More importantly, neural efficiency accounted for 34% of the relationship between cognitive reserve and performance on the attention task.
It is hypothesized that cognitive reserve is supported by neurobiological mechanisms that support neuroplasticity (Whalley et al., 2004). Recently, a neurophysiological study in vivo demonstrated that while neuroplasticity is impaired in the frontal lobes of patients with early Alzheimer’s dementia, it is still present (Kumar et al., 2017). Further, there was an association between the neurophysiological measure of neuroplasticity and working memory performance.”
Intelligence corresponds to neuro plasticity and is infact subject to experience dependency, therefore intelligence can have high phenotypic variation and still be important to survival.
experience dependency = ENVIRONMENTAL STIMULUS
phenotypic variation != GENETIC VARIATION.
Duh.
RR originally made this point to discredit the concept of wide variation in IQ. Genetic isn’t that same as saying genotypic, but I completely understand the confusion. Therefore this adresses RR’ s overall point that there are no individual differences in expressed intelligence.
To refrain from continuing to look like a jackass, I’d suggest not butting into conversations you haven’t actually been following. Nice try though.
Haha, swank. Before you further argue with the kid, just know that he considers that it’s a “logical fact” that he has a pet dragon. Also, beware: his stupidity know no limit.
Quiet down Afro, grown ups are talking.
No one denies evolution.
i do.
biology departments aren’t centers of Darwinian indoctrination.
they are everywhere except france.
medical schools … aren’t centers of Darwinian indoctrination.
correct. because darwinism is 100% useless in the treatment of disease. the closest it comes to usefulness is explaining why…
1. there are anti-biotic resistant bacteria.
2. chemotherapy works only until the cancer evolves resistance.
3. the drug cocktail for HIV is effective while the drugs by themselves are ineffective.
but this is all “micro-evolution”. the super anti-biotic resistant bacteria are the same species as the non-resistant.
Genetic isn’t that same as saying genotypic, but I completely understand the confusion.
in the sense you said them it is, sucka.
you said phenotypic variation can exist while also being necessary for survival.
that wasn’t RR’s — or anyone else’s point — the whole debate is around genetic variation.
rr’s (C) referred to genetic variation rather than just ‘variation.’
The survival of an organism is dependent on it’s phenotypic expression not it’s genetic variation. However genetic variation is a useful proxy of phenotypic variation, hence why it’s being used as a parameter in this discussion. Therefore if the physical expression of intelligence has a low correlation to genotype then the genetic variation has no bearing on the usefulness of intelligence in a survival situation and subsequently how selected it is.
I love your memes though.
women like italian men presumably because of genetically “influenced” traits?
i think IQ is like physical attractiveness.
some people are better looking than others because genes.
some people look smart.
some people look dumb.
to the extent that looking stupid is because genes then being stupid is because genes.
aesthetics don’t lie.
pleiotropic and polygenic traits, the mutation rate is SLOW
or nill. the effect sizes of these genes among the “many genes of small effect” are way too small to be selected for individually.
the selection is for “enrichment”.
polygenic traits may evolve via “distillation”.
…some even say taller folks die faster…
they die younger. short people who are not pathologically short live the longest. rr can attest to this. but the difference is not that great. taller people have higher risk of cancer and lower risk of CVD.
and if you’re tall, you probably know all the tourments that your back makes you go through.
i know that however perfect my form i can’t do too many squats and not have back pain. but i attribute this to my michael phelps proportions…my long torso.
aesthetics are nothing but lies. useful within the context of ‘who’s winning here and now,’ but nothing doing about anything universal.
case in point. this guy doesn’t look particularly bright:
but he was a genius, or at least very very smart.
actually, it’s better to say that aesthetics are true….for RIGHT NOW. and that’s it.
“1) Why does the genetic inheritance of psychological traits( an already observed phenomena) Require That mental events have their own inheritance mechanism?”
Mental states are irreducible to physical states. Either a mental trait is a mental state, meaning it cannot be inherited genetically, or it is a physical state and therefore not a mental state.
Is there an assertable identity relation between the mental and the physical? I’ll also ask you the same question I asked Bruno: Are there any ex ante specifiable ceteris paribus clauses with respect to mental phenomena?
I’ll let you and swank tango on intelligence and genetic variation.
i thought tricky dick had straight hair.
”“ah rr is making the same argument i made long ago about intelligence.”
Great minds think alike.”
think alike to the extermination camp..
The survival of an organism is dependent on it’s phenotypic expression not it’s genetic variation.
yes we are all aware that selection operates on phenotype not genotype…
however, the only interesting part of the entire debate is how ‘genetic’ and (according to HBD) immalleable intelligence is.
so sure if you want to concede the entire HBD side and say ‘look there likely isn’t much genetic difference here’ to save the notion of intelligence being selected for or subject to strong selective pressure….neat.
altho, the fact that a lot of phenotypic variation in IQ exists would still cut against strong selective pressure existing, because it means that the environments that are causing such variation are all persisting across time. they wouldn’t do that if there were some sort of selective pressure in favor of certain environments and against others for the phenotype.
unless intelligence isn’t IQ.
the level of intelligence is probably just the smarts enough to go where you BELONG.
“I can improve your hair very much by shampooing it first, then blending the hair with a razor and using a hot-air drier on it. That will give your hair a softer, more natural look and straighten it some.” The President’s steel-gray hair was a bit oily and curly and had a shiny look to it even though it was healthy and free of dandruff.
http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2008/03/the_final_haircut_of_the_nixon.html
everyone puts in work to look like whatever it is they want to be.
even if the look is presidential hair.
“think alike to the extermination camp..”
Keep your genocidal fantasies to yourself.
Swank,
“however, the only interesting part of the entire debate is how ‘genetic’ and (according to HBD) immalleable intelligence is.”
Okay. I’m discussing something a little different.
“so sure if you want to concede the entire HBD”
I’m an HBDer in the sense that I enjoy studying Humans, specifically their culture and bio-anatomy across space time. I don’t endorse dichotomizing nature or nurture.
“because it means that the environments that are causing such variation are all persisting across time. they wouldn’t do that if there were some sort of selective pressure in favor of certain environments and against others for the phenotype.”
By environment I’m assuming you mean ecological systems, whereas I believe it is differences in culture that cause phenotypic differences in intelligence. Also, Adaptions are not absolute, I’d argue a large part of our encephalization and increase in IQ is from Competition with other members of the species.
RR,
“Either a mental trait is a mental state, meaning it cannot be inherited genetically”
How does that mean it cannot be inherited genetically? How are you extrapolating this?
Then how do you explain schizophrenia? Autism? extraversion, neuroticism, intelligence all of which are hereditary?
Anomalous monism is a very nuanced view, it denies dualism, whilst simultaneously reinforcing a dichotomy. I don’t think it’s as simple, I think by the evidence available it’s easy to determine that the effects crossover. Jut because there is enromous complexity doesn’t mean it’s impossible to decipher it. Again I think you need to look into probabilistic causation.
“Are there any ex ante specifiable ceteris paribus clauses with respect to mental phenomena?”
Yeah, that’s what the nature study is.
“How are you extrapolating this?”
Mental states are irreducible to brain states. Physical traits and disorders can be inherited; psychological traits do not, and cannot (even indirectly) cause psychological traits since the mental is irreducible to the physical.
“Yeah, that’s what the nature study is.”
There are no ex ante specifiable ceteris paribus clauses with respect to mental phenomena.
“Mental states are irreducible to brain states. Physical traits and disorders can be inherited; psychological traits do not, and cannot (even indirectly) cause psychological traits since the mental is irreducible to the physical.”
They can be inherited culturally, and physically in an indirect manner(you didn’t address any of my examples). This is a demonstrable fact, and no amount of cognitive dissonance will change that.
“There are no ex ante specifiable ceteris paribus clauses with respect to mental phenomena.”
I just provided you some. Sorry but Nobody is going to bend to your demands of validation, if you wont except the truth then it’s not my fault.
“So person A has a higher genomic IQ than person B if clones of both were gestated and raised identically in many environments, and A’s clones averaged higher than B’s clones in every environment.”
Are you assuming that person A’s clone would experience that same environment in the same exact way compared to his clone?
Nice thought experiment but I don’t think it’ll never happen. I don’t think any ethics board will approve a study like this. Especially not for something like IQ. If it did happen I don’t think it’d prove your point either.
Different genomes sometimes process the same environment in different ways so what’s a good environment for my genome may be bad for yours.
That’s why you need lots of clones of each person in many environments
Full disclosure: this was mostly mug of pee’s idea
I know it’s not practical, but it illustrates what heritability & genomic IQ are truly meant to measure
You have no way of knowing whether or not the clone would experience the same environment in the same way.
It’s still the same environment whether it experiences it that way or not.
You’re leaving out numerous factors. Peer group, parents, etc etc.
Sorry I did a poor job explaining the thought experiment:
Person A and person B are each cloned 100 times. The fertilized zygotes are inserted in random women found in random places around the world. In 30 years test all of the clones. if the 100 clones of person A average higher IQs than the 100 clones of person B, person A has a higher genomic IQ.
So we can’t ever perfectly equate environments for any two genomes, but what we can do (in theory) is allow environment to vary so randomly (while holding genome constant) that environmental differences cancel out across the 100 clones per person.
Mugabe,
“i know that however perfect my form i can’t do too many squats and not have back pain. but i attribute this to my michael phelps proportions…my long torso”
High bar or low bar squat?
“They can be inherited culturally, and physically in an indirect manner”
Not genetically.
“you didn’t address any of my examples”
“Genes” (SNPs, alleles, whatever) ’cause’ physical traits and disorders, not psychological traits.
“I just provided you some.”
What is/are the clause(s)?
The mental is nomologically irreducible.
“So we can’t ever perfectly equate environments for any two genomes, but what we can do (in theory) is allow environment to vary so randomly (while holding genome constant) that environmental differences cancel out across the 100 clones per person.”
Cute thought experiment but it’d never happen. There’d still be other confounding factors as well.
The notion that ‘IQ’ is “genetic” is ridiculous.
There’d still be other confounding factors as well.
such as?
The notion that ‘IQ’ is “genetic” is ridiculous.
I’m just saying heritability is a viable concept that can in theory be measured. I’m not claiming IQ’s heritability is high. That would depend how well each person’s IQ correlated with the average IQ of their 100 clones. The correlation could be quite low.
“such as?”
Development, epigenetic effects, etc.
Heritability is a useless concept. You’re pretty much saying we have to treat human like cattle to get heritability estimates ‘right’. Of course, when you sample from many environments, as I’ve quoted from Robert Sapolsky, heritability will plummet. The correlation will be pretty low.
Even then how would you be sure the ‘genome’ is ‘causing’ said IQ scores without any trait analysis and analysis of molecular genetic pathways?
“such as?”
Development, epigenetic effects, etc.
Unless these effects were caused by shared environments, which would be unlikely if the DNA was inserted into different oocytes and different surrogates in different countries, any epigenetic similarity between the clones would be part of genetic variance via part of the genome that causes gene regulation. To the extent that clones would have different epigenomes, that would just be environmental effects:
It’s likely the same and important reason why Debbie the Dollie has more advanced osteoarthritis than her sisters, who are from the same “batch” of Dolly clones and were raised alongside her: epigenetics. Epigenetics is how geneticists describe subtle but crucial differences in gene expression. DNA often contains genes that aren’t expressed — essentially genes that are switched to the “off” position. We know that those switches can flip to “on,” but it seems to be linked to environment and experiences.
Heritability is a useless concept. You’re pretty much saying we have to treat human like cattle to get heritability estimates ‘right’. Of course, when you sample from many environments, as I’ve quoted from Robert Sapolsky, heritability will plummet. The correlation will be pretty low.
Well heritability is relative to the population. The more genetic variation relative to independent environmental variation there is in a given population, the higher the heritability. If a sample of Americans had 100 clones scattered around the world, clones of the same person could differ enormously based on environment, but you might still find a moderate phenotypic correlation between the Americans and the average of their 100 clones. That’s because the 100 different environments the clones were living in should cancel each other out, leaving the average clone phenotype a measure of genotype.
Even then how would you be sure the ‘genome’ is ‘causing’ said IQ scores without any trait analysis and analysis of molecular genetic pathways?
Because all the non-genomic causes would in theory cancel out across 100 different random oocytes inserted in 100 different random surrogates in 100 different random locations. Virtually the only thing your 100 clones would have in common would be their genomes and the effects thereof.
First para: Epigenetic effects and development doesn’t happen as you would expect all the time. Epigenetic similarity isn’t part of genetic variance.
Second para: Again, how would you know the ‘genome’ (or sections of it) is causing said trait without further molecular genetic analyses and finding genetic pathways for said trait?
3rd para: It’s an alright thought experiment but, again, no ethics committee, as far as I’m aware, would never sign off on a study like this. You can fantasize that it’d give you your desired results but it’s all speculation.
First para: Epigenetic effects and development doesn’t happen as you would expect all the time. Epigenetic similarity isn’t part of genetic variance.
Then epigenetic variance would be classified as environmental. Its effect would be to lower the heritability in the thought experiment
Second para: Again, how would you know the ‘genome’ (or sections of it) is causing said trait without further molecular genetic analyses and finding genetic pathways for said trait?
The average phenotype of the same genotype in 100 different environments would have to be caused by said genotype, because all the environmental causes should cancel out when you take the average. The genomic cause is the only constant.
3rd para: It’s an alright thought experiment but, again, no ethics committee, as far as I’m aware, would never sign off on a study like this. You can fantasize that it’d give you your desired results but it’s all speculation.
My only point is that heritability is a logical concept, not that this study can be done, and it may not give me the desired results even if it were done. But what will be done is computer algorithms predicting IQ from DNA. If the same algorithm can predict a substantial chunk of the variance in every country, then that will prove IQ is at least moderately heritable. What’s unlikely to ever be proven is that DNA explains MOST of the IQ variation in any country, which is what many HBDers still think (I no longer think that)
First para: epigenetic variance is environmental but shows up in heritability estimates as ‘genetic’ when the source of said variance is ‘environmental’.
Sexond para: I still don’t think it’s logical to state that, if said experiment ever existed, the cause would be ‘the genome’ because you need to analyze molecular genetic pathways etc.
Third para: heritability isn’t a logical concept. It’s based on a false and outmoded concept of the gene. (Along with the false assumption that ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ are separable—they’re not.)
the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend – that of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance – is unsound
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S1057-629020150000016002
You can take the last word on the thought experiment. I’m more interested in the concept of heritability and the false concepts of the gene it pushes so if you’d like we can continue this part of the conversation.
First para: epigenetic variance is environmental but shows up in heritability estimates as ‘genetic’ when the source of said variance is ‘environmental’.
That’s part of the larger confound of MZ twins sharing the same womb. How big a confound this is, I know not. In the thought experiment I described, the clones would all be gestated in different women
Sexond para: I still don’t think it’s logical to state that, if said experiment ever existed, the cause would be ‘the genome’ because you need to analyze molecular genetic pathways etc.
I don’t think you do. Once you rule out environment as a cause of people’s IQs correlating with the mean IQ of their 100 clones (since 100 different environments cancel out), genomic variants become the cause by default. You don’t have to understand how the causation works to infer that it does.
Third para: heritability isn’t a logical concept. It’s based on a false and outmoded concept of the gene.
While it’s true that genes are not as important as we used to think, hereditists need only shift from talking about genes, to talking about genomic variants
(Along with the false assumption that ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ are separable—they’re not.)
Anytime a scientist finds genomic variants that have a similar effect in virtually all environments, he’s separated nature from nurture. Anytime a scientist finds environment variants that have a similar effect in virtually all genomes, he’s separated nature from nurture. Of course that’s not to deny that some (perhaps most) of the phenotypic variation in many traits can not be neatly divided into nature or nurture.
the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend – that of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance – is unsound
Traditional methods of measuring heritability (particularly the CTM) assumes separate effects, but the thought experiment I described does not assume separate effects, so the conceptual flaw is not with heritability, but its traditional measurement. You see, if nature and nurture truly can not be separated, then if Americans each had 100 clones in 100 wildly different environments, the average IQ gap between person A’s 100 clones and person B’s 100 clones would be statistically insignificant because the IQ variation would be entirely explained by genome-environment interactions.
However if clones of person A have higher IQs than clones of person B in EVERY environment, then there’s obviously something about person A’s gemome, separate from his environments that’s making him smarter, because what are the odds that all 100 of person A’s clones just happened to always have better environments, or better genome-environment interactions, if the clones were scattered into random environments?
If you want a more realistic study, just compare the IQs of normal people to people with Downs Syndrome. The former average higher IQs in every country on Earth, so obviously there’s something about the Downs Syndrome genome, separate from environment, that’s subtracting IQ points.
Now you might argue that Downs Syndrome it outside normal variation, and that’s true.
But research on normal height variation has found the same genomic algorithm explains at least 25% of the variance in height in locations as diverse as UK, Africa, South Asia, and China. That proves that genomic effects can be separated from environment even in normal samples: they have the same effect in every environment.
My height is a lot of leg length
afro is being honest about his sexual disability here.
i would bet that sitting down swank is taller than afro.
but compared to me they’d both be midgets.
sad!
Any trait who are common in given population have high ”heritability”. So average IQ of guven pupuleishon have higher heritability… just ceiin’
“Any trait who are common in given population have high ”heritability””
What’s the heritability of having a head? Fingers? Hands? Feet? Toes? Heart? Brain?
“Not genetically. Genes” (SNPs, alleles, whatever) ’cause’ physical traits and disorders, not psychological traits.”
‘Physically in an indirect manner’ means genetically. There is no separation of body or mind. Schizophrenia is a genetic trait that affects neuro-physical functions which project as mental abnormalities like hallucinations.
“What is/are the clause(s)?”
“In this study, we show how colony decision time increases with the number of available nests, in agreement with the Hick-Hyman law of psychophysics, and decreases with mean nest quality, in agreement with Piéron’s law. We also show that colony error rate depends on mean nest quality, and difference in quality, in agreement with Weber’s law. Psychophysical laws, particularly Weber’s law, have been found in diverse species, including unicellular organisms.”
Please read the citations, multiple commenters have now answered your question.
When Marsha said RR was the dumbest person here I didnt believe her. Now Im starting to think it.
you’re welcome to your own opinion
no! the quote is…
you’re entitled to your wrong opinion.
Only insane people to deny this.
HEY GUYS CAN YOU QUIT IT WITH THE RR BASHING??? HE MITE HAVE A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN!!!!!😭😭
santo: but what reality exactly*
santo: In this case it look like creativity
santo: change = ~ create = ~ manipulate.
Reality = environment
map reality
manipulate the map
change reality
big maps hold more can imagine more to think to do more.
a map in the head of people and things and how to move.
bigger imagination you create more in the map that can be done.
https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2017/10/30/economia/1509378342_617037.html?rel=str_articulo#1524574547051
Here is my opinion on this heritablity thing. IMO intelligence is like looks. Just because you have 2 good looking parents doesn’t mean you will be good looking. If you have the wrong environment and the wrong incubation etc you will prob look worse than your potential. But your parents/grandparents genes will largely effect your ‘ceiling’ or ‘potential’ looks, just like IQ. I think the you can become more intelligent with some chemicals/activities/lifestyle unlike pumpkin. It just that average or stupid people never figure out the right habits or don’t care enough about it to do it.
Its obvious to me intelligence has a genetic component. I bet if they surveyed people over 130IQ and people at 80IQ and asked them who had more retard babies, the later would say so showing that the mean IQ of potential babies for this pop is lower, even if the SDs are the same.
”Here is my opinion on this heritablity thing. IMO intelligence is like looks. Just because you have 2 good looking parents doesn’t mean you will be good looking. If you have the wrong environment and the wrong incubation etc you will prob look worse than your potential.”
You don’t need have a bad environment whatever it is to have a different phenotype in appearance of their fathers.
Simple limited combination among father and mother genes already can give a different result.
I had a great environment during my mother pregnancy but i inherited similar psychological challenges of my maternal aunt and uncle.
Human higher cognitive skills firstly is in the extreme end of this traits, so it’s mean it have more novel mutations because it’s a genetic border. Secondly, a novel set of traits must in intense selection to clean this novel mutations.
The neuroplascity studies are interesting in the sense that it shows the brain can rewire itself to put energy into certain areas of the brain. I remember reading car crash victims showed evidence of damaged parts of the brain shutting down and sending neurons or whatever theyre called to remaining parts.
However, IMO, I think it is possible to increase IQ (and the IQ ceiling you pass down) a bit during ones lifetime overall and the evidence for this is the famous flynn effect. However I think people thinking that blacks will can be as smart as jews with enough ‘training’ and perfect environments is a stretch. I think it could happen if you selectively breeded intensely and did cousin marriages between geniuses and that like the jews did but it would be extreme social engineering.
because the man woman thing is ultimately savage. sex is animal.
so even today there’s a sort of transportation back to the hunter-gatherer past.
darwinism says…
1. what people should most want is a clone of themselves.
2. because that has been impossible, the next best thing is to procreate with someone is most similar to you in the ways that count…and not a near relation.
but darwinism has never come to france.
hard to believe but both adam gopnik and chomsky have said so.
if it didn’t happen in france…it didn’t happen…
anyway, ww ii and the mass mutinies of french soldiers during ww i etc.
france is germany’s butt boy.
Darwin never came to France? What does that mean? Are behavioral geneticists only Anglo?
Are all smart French people Marxists/post-modernists?
darwinism is likely wrong about the clone thing…
if chimps are to be believed!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5319312/
the truth?
muggy is right that we are like chimps in that women just want to fuck
and people choose people who are like themselves
but the reason why we pick those who are like us?
social influence!
“A significant family environmental influence was found for the age and income of females’ mate choices, possibly reflecting parental influence over mating decisions. We also tested for evidence of sexual imprinting, where individuals acquire mate-choice criteria during development by using their opposite-sex parent as the template of a desirable mate; there was no such effect for any trait. The main discernable pattern to mate choice was assortative mating; we found that partner similarity was due to initial choice rather than convergence and also due at least in part to phenotypic matching.”
“This revealed near-zero genetic influences on male and female mate choice over all traits and no significant genetic influences on mate choice for any specific trait”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444291/
this is why listening to what women say turns them on will get you nowhere
everything turns them on
that guy bothering the ‘arctic woman’ that pumpkin lectured is probably nailing that same woman right now.
that woman probably loves it when the man yells at her and treats her like trash
it’s probably their foreplay
sounds strange, but yes, it can indeed be true!
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/02/13/women-have-a-genetic-need-to-be-dominated-men-have-a-genetic-need-to-dominate/
Pumpkin said men can dominate women at board games and make them aroused.
and pumpkin…
was….
RIGHT.
BUT
he was WRONG in that dominating a woman was ‘they’ way to win a woman.
women like WINNERS
as i said in that post:
If a man wants to see his success with women skyrocket, he need only a) put on 15 pounds of muscle (not too much…), b) decrease his bodyfat to around 10%, c) wear clothes that would signal him as high-status in whatever group he’s in, and d) act very normal relative to that group.
It’s not about negging, it’s not about openers, it’s not about stupid feather boas, and it’s not about trying to dominate anyone.
more qualitative analysis…
way back when i was in college i had a summer job at a book store
there were two extremely beautiful women who worked there. one was 5’10 and had the look of a model. the other was curvy, 5’6, looked eastern european, striking green eyes. there were four nerdy, cute-ish girls.
there were three other guys there. me and two of them quickly became cliquish…man’s men! we passed around the nerdy girls but afaik none of us were successful with the really hot ones. there was another guy….scrawny, short — maybe 5’3 — mild-mannered, wore thick black nerd glasses….we loved to bully this guy. and he didn’t really seem that bothered by it. very ‘aww shucks, hahahaha’ kind of responses.
near the end of the summer it came to light that he had been nailing both of the hot chicks. how did we find out? because they both got into a raging argument over him!
according to them they just liked him because he was so nice and friendly and warm.
an exception to this rule of dominance but…
an exception to the rule about winners?
no!
you see. he was extraordinarily good-looking. he was mixed and had light green eyes, a very chiseled jawline and cheekbones, perfect white teeth and a pretty smooth sounding voice. he was also very very smart.
in fact, AFTER we found out about it, it all made perfect sense.
but beforehand we never would have thought. it’s almost as if his mild nature camouflaged it. in fact, had he been more ‘dominant’ or aggressive, we probably would have interfered with him and cockblocked him, because we would have been threatened.
moral of the story…
with humans…there’s always more than one way to get into a cat.
green eyes? Mixed what?
black and white like barack. although im guessing the black was more admixed than barry’s, because he definitely looked more white than mr. o.
5’3″ banging 5’10”? No fucking way.
yes way, afro!
and let’s be clear
this girl was — really, both were…
Nah, that’s because you fucked up. Your bullying made you come off as childish and his smart reactions made him pass for the bigger dude. But still, I’ve never seen a guy so small getting chicks so tall. Maybe he had some special brown boy tricks that made these girls lose their minds.
lol, WRONG!
no one fucked up! stop thinking that all interactions are under your control
and i say attraction is simple because it IS SIMPLE.
there’s a lot of it that is just random chance, and the rest is very very easy:
be MUSCULAR
be LEAN
be TALL
have a DEEP VOICE
smell GOOD
dress WELL
although before muscular it must be said that being handsome is first. but that can’t be helped or changed much.
he was probably already banging them by the time we go around to making our moves which is why they weren’t open. or a hundred other random reasons.
and if you’re going to sit here and say women can’t get turned on by childish/bullying behavior….well, please go study the experimental lab of any American HS.
lol at women not liking ‘childish behavior.’
stop listening to them. for your own health.
his “brown boy trick” was to be extremely handsome.
i already solved the riddle for you.
STOP OVERTHINKING WOMEN.
although it is remarkable how strong the ‘just world’ bias is.
it’s how ridiculous Poo-Ahs are able to make $$$….
no one fucked up! stop thinking that all interactions are under your control
I’m not saying that. But man if you wanted a chick but she left with dwarf you either didn’t want her that much or you are overestimating your sexual power.
and i say attraction is simple because it IS SIMPLE.
there’s a lot of it that is just random chance, and the rest is very very easy:
be MUSCULAR
be LEAN
be TALL
have a DEEP VOICE
smell GOOD
dress WELL
I’d add be mature and not boring. All the things you quoted matter but in no particular order.
and if you’re going to sit here and say women can’t get turned on by childish/bullying behavior….well, please go study the experimental lab of any American HS.
lol at women not liking ‘childish behavior.’
stop listening to them. for your own health.
Women hate immature dudes. That’s why they rarely go for younger men and despise childish behaviors from men. As for high school dynamics, your undeniably sharp social intelligence failed you here. Bullies are tryhards and mostly get second rank chicks. The queen bees go for the big dudes who have nothing to prove, when they’re not simply fucking dudes in higher grades or out of school because they think dudes their age are dumb kids.
But man if you wanted a chick but she left with dwarf you either didn’t want her that much or you are overestimating your sexual power.
you sound like an hbd racist upon hearing that a black guy outscored a white guy on an IQ test: it simply -can’t- happen.
it can!
it does!
Billy Bob Thornton scored with Angelina Jolie. Do you think other better looking taller Hollywood Actors weren’t after her, too?
shit happens, man.
however, yes…while i am very handsome i will concede that that guy was more handsome than I or the other two…and more than likely you too…by a mile.
I’d add be mature and not boring. All the things you quoted matter but in no particular order.
nope. they matter in the exact order i said….which has apparently been confirmed by empirical study.
‘being mature’ is relevant only to the extent that being immature is a deviation from ‘normal’ behavior. and it usually isn’t that much of a deviation.
Bullies are tryhards and mostly get second rank chicks
WRONG!
bullies have high self-esteem and tend to do very well!
“the study by researchers at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, also found that bullies had the lowest levels of depression, the highest levels of self-esteem and the highest social status.”
https://www.today.com/parents/study-bullies-have-higher-self-esteem-social-status-lower-levels-t36271
the world is not just. it just is.
women don’t go for younger men because being young in a man (a) correlates with lower social status and (b) correlates with the man simply not wanting an older woman.
remove those factors and most women would gladly bed down with a younger man.
you sound like an hbd racist upon hearing that a black guy outscored a white guy on an IQ test: it simply -can’t- happen.
It can happen, if the competitors suck or aren’t trying. I’ve always made sure that it couldn’t happen with any girl I wanted.
Billy Bob Thornton scored with Angelina Jolie. Do you think other better looking taller Hollywood Actors weren’t after her, too?
There is nothing about him that would decrease his chance as much as being 5’3″.
however, yes…while i am very handsome i will concede that that guy was more handsome than I or the other two…and more than likely you too…by a mile.
Haha, tell my 50,000 instagram followers.
nope. they matter in the exact order i said….which has apparently been confirmed by empirical study.
Nah, if there was one thing that could possibly come first it would be smelling good, or at least not stinking, being clean, looking clean. Bad hygiene is the number one turn off for girls, although many like manly fresh sweat scents during sex.
‘being mature’ is relevant only to the extent that being immature is a deviation from ‘normal’ behavior. and it usually isn’t that much of a deviation.
It really matters between ages 15-25. After that, there isn’t much variation I agree.
WRONG!
Nope. Someone really confident about themselves doesn’t mean to depreciate others and their charisma just speaks for itself naturally.
bullies have high self-esteem and tend to do very well!
“the study by researchers at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, also found that bullies had the lowest levels of depression, the highest levels of self-esteem and the highest social status.”
Studies say anything and its contrary. People who have nothing to prove don’t need to bully to become somebody.
women don’t go for younger men because being young in a man (a) correlates with lower social status and
Right.
correlates with the man simply not wanting an older woman.
You crazy? There’s a lot of MILF fantasizin’ going on right now. When I was with a married 30 something chick a couple of years ago, all my friends were in complete awe and I was avidly bragging about how the sex was nothing like what we were used to with our cute post-teen chicks.
the “short man syndrome” my mom talked about. she was only 5’9″. and a man in a sports car…must have a small penis.
anyway…
a short man may not be short in his own population.
i’m sure swank can get any girl he wants…in sardinia.
but he should not waste his time hitting on dutch girls.
it would be smelling good, or at least not stinking
thus i know afro is not a real person.
he fits the black man stereotype too well.
the only non-offensive smell is no smell.
blacks love cologne. it’s hideous.
maybe just to cover up the black smell?
Then you just haven’t moved that far outside of your comfort zone. Any man who says he has gotten every woman he has ever wanted is ego blind.
And uh……we can agree to disagree about older women lol.
Oh guys….lol….
It’s fine. You know…..you’re good with numbers and shit. And hey….that’s really keen.
i think swank and afro could prove they aren’t virgins by talking more about my mom.
because you know a man is not a virgin when all he talks about is what women want and how many chicks he’s nailed.
You’re here talking with us lol
Lets all be virgins together
Then you just haven’t moved that far outside of your comfort zone.
Depends on what you mean by comfort zone. No girl ever looked too good to be with me. Most chicks I’ve been with were sorority types, instagram queens, club whores… They’re easy chicks but they are way too full of themselves to sleep with a guy that would deteriorate their image. And since I’m kind of a male version of this, it’s the perfect fit.
But I don’t go outside of my comfort zone in the sense that I’ve never chased girls who were unresponsive to my eye contact and my touch. Mostly because nothing turns me on more than a girl who looks at me with her “shut up and fuck me!” eyes.
afro has had sex with 10 different women per year on average for the last 10 years for a total of 100.
and he’s proud of it.
i believe afro…
but in french “women” includes men.
“but in french “women” includes men.”
hahaha
Swank is really angry about being short. You can tell.
IMO being short is not the nail in the coffin.
Being aspy or nerdy is.
As much as I find swank to be really annoying, his personality is something a lot of women would like. Basically a douche.
Yeah I have a thing for older women as well. I think some women can look great well into their 40s with the right diet and grooming and that. 100%.
But Macrons wife is too far for me.
“But I don’t go outside of my comfort zone in the sense that I’ve never chased girls who were unresponsive to my eye contact and my touch”
So as I said….you like it easy.
Romans….conquer.
And if they’re that easy how can you really want them?
Sorority chicks?
Lol….
Go tag some women who aren’t fish in a barrel.
Put some hair on your chest.
If you’re chasing after anything older than 23 for a fling or 27 for something more substantial……
….
You’re a girly man.
it could be there are clubs and discotheques and singles bars which are basically heterosexual bathhouses.
i don’t know. i’ve never been.
but the girls are gonna be prole and loaded with STDs.
So as I said….you like it easy.
What’s easy for me certainly isn’t for most guys. It’s pointless to try to turn a lesbian straight just to prove myself that my charm is absolutely irresistible.
Many dudes don’t get laid because they don’t know when it’s worth the effort. So they stick around till the chick says no in a way that shatters their self-esteem. No need to go the hard way when all you need is to go the smart way.
Romans….conquer.
Haha, I’m the French guy here. Hyphenated Americans are Anglos and know nothing about the Roman way.
And if they’re that easy how can you really want them?
There are two types of situations. Club hook-ups or vacation flings are very straightforward, no time to play games. Regular relationships that can lead to something deeper are better if things don’t come to fast. But they’re only worth my time if I know the girl wants me but she’s making me wait while I’m making her wait too. It’s the sempiternal suis moi je te fuis, fuis moi je te suis game of seduction.
Sorority chicks?
Lol….
Go tag some women who aren’t fish in a barrel.
Put some hair on your chest.
It’s the type of girls I like. They’re definitely not spreading their legs for every guys, they’re only easy for some kinds of guys. So I can’t see what would the next level be. That’s why I chose to settle down and marry.
phil says i’m gay then he says i’m angry then he says chicks are hot for me…
…i feel like a closet door is about to open…
i typed “suis moi je te fuis, fuis moi je te suis” into google translate and it came back with “mangina”.
i typed it into google and the to hits were for some french “love coach”, named alexandre cormont.
this is just plain sad!
“Love coachs” are cringey. Anyone who needs coaching is lost forever. You have it or you don’t, you can’t force your nature based on the advice of a scam artist.
““Love coachs” are cringey. Anyone who needs coaching is lost forever. You have it or you don’t, you can’t force your nature based on the advice of a scam artist”
This. “Pick up artist”? Scam artist is more like it.
well, if you mean charm in the personality sense, if you’re going after women who are immediately receptive….then you really have no idea if you’re even charming at all.
fyi, lesbians ‘turn’ all the time…and when they ‘turn,’ they really go crazy. muggy isn’t completely wrong in all of his jokes! while i only have one story, i’ve heard many others….
So they stick around till the chick says no in a way that shatters their self-esteem. No need to go the hard way when all you need is to go the smart way.
see…there’s your problem. if you properly understand that women love ALL male attention, there is no way that ‘shatters’ your self-esteem. ‘no’ means ‘not at the moment.’ and that’s all it ever means. it often changes in the next moment…as long as you handle the present moment with grace and pursue without appearing to do so.
this concept in a picture; the Rorschach test for these things….
On the famous image Craig explains that it is a “celebration of strong, independent women who aren’t afraid to live life.” Of course most peoples’ initial reactions are not to see this when they look at the photo, but to see the harassment the woman is experiencing. According to Craig, “Men who see the picture always ask me: Was I frightened? Did I need to be protected? Was I upset? …Women, on the other hand, look at that picture, and the ones who have become my friends will laugh and say, ‘Isn’t it wonderful? Aren’t the Italians wonderful? … They make you feel appreciated!’” Craig also insists that the men were completely harmless, although they appear to be jeering at her. None of the men went further than merely catcalling at her. Craig swears that none of the men intended to harass her either. Not even the man who appears to be grabbing his crotch.
women.
love.
love.
love.
ATTENTION.
stop listening to them. TUNE IT OUT.
know nothing about the Roman way.
….you should try it….
But they’re only worth my time if I know the girl wants me
…then you’ll really never live, man.
Pumpkin is a love coach.
well, if you mean charm in the personality sense, if you’re going after women who are immediately receptive….then you really have no idea if you’re even charming at all.
Sure I know, because women who are receptive to me aren’t receptive to anybody. I don’t get with average-looking sluts who’d jump on the first guy that tries something.
fyi, lesbians ‘turn’ all the time…and when they ‘turn,’ they really go crazy. muggy isn’t completely wrong in all of his jokes! while i only have one story, i’ve heard many others….
I’ve known some girls posturing as bisexual who were really hot, but real lesbians are often very ugly and annoying. Definitely not my type.
see…there’s your problem. if you properly understand that women love ALL male attention, there is no way that ‘shatters’ your self-esteem.
Whatever. Women like attention, but only from men they’re attracted to. A chick that looks just average already receives way too much attention from random guys in her life and it feels more like harassment than flattery. And even if they like you, they don’t like when you’re showing too much attention, too fast, never leaving her wanting more.
‘no’ means ‘not at the moment.
Ask chicks around you and you’ll know that 90% of the “nos” they’ve said in their lives meant “never”.
Craig swears that none of the men intended to harass her either. Not even the man who appears to be grabbing his crotch.
I’m afraid I’ll sound like PP but only prole women crave this type of attention, just like the ghetto chicks who want to make the guys holla at them. A self-respecting lady can’t tolerate that, let alone hook up a random admirer on the street.
…then you’ll really never live, man.
I’m fine, don’t worry.
Ask chicks around you
….why? lol. the whole point of this is that that way of thinking is wrongheaded.
A chick that looks just average already receives way too much attention from random guys in her life and it feels more like harassment than flattery.
no. that’s just what you have been led to believe. it’s what most guys believe.
that’s why i showed you what i showed you: the MEN viewing the picture said what you are saying…which was completely the opposite of what the WOMEN — who were talking to OTHER WOMEN (that’s crucial) said.
I’m afraid I’ll sound like PP but only prole women crave this type of attention, just like the ghetto chicks who want to make the guys holla at them. A self-respecting lady can’t tolerate that, let alone hook up a random admirer on the street.
there is no such thing. there is no Madonna/whore differentiation.
the smarter the lady, the more likely she is to do just that!
don’t worry. you and PP will soon see that i am right. about all this.
until then…
wow! i was right! this proves how dumb prof shoe is. sad!
1599 twin subjects from the LTS and QIMR twin
registries were rated on Facial Attractiveness by 8 raters. Facial Attractiveness
appears to be predominately controlled by additive genetic variation and unique
environmental effects. In the best fitting model, AE model, we found that A
accounted for 65% of the phenotypic variation in Facial Attractiveness and E the
remaining 35%.
https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1883&context=honr_theses
so according to prof shoe someone who was bred to have the highest score possible based on “many genes of small effect” would be 10x better looking than ingrid and marlon.
no!
i’m always right in all of my jokes.
only a small fraction of lesbians are genuine.
most of them are revolted by men because they were molested.
or they’re just experimenting.
so a better description is…there are way more fags than genuine dykes, but there are way more bisexual women than gay OR bisexual men…at least this is the case in anglo-america.
….why? lol. the whole point of this is that that way of thinking is wrongheaded.
Nope,
there is no such thing. there is no Madonna/whore differentiation.
the smarter the lady, the more likely she is to do just that!
There definitely is such a thing. A chick who enjoys teasing random dudes on the street is a cum urinal, I could make her a side chick/fall back chick, but I won’t buy her flowers, take her out to nice places, introduce her to my parents. We meet at KFC, she pays her meal, we fuck at her place, I leave when I’m done.
don’t worry. you and PP will soon see that i am right. about all this.
until then…
I don’t really care, I’m in love and almost married. I’ve come to value quality over quantity in relationships.
Its like economics, in the long run, the market will find equilibrium, in the long run IQ is completely malleable. In the central limit theorem everything reverts to a normal distribution given enough time.
But the real time effect of this is that at any particular point in time, some populations and some markets and some population observations are not in these states.
IMO in most circumstances it is not true to say those things in the moment one says it.
They’re just tendencies.
Aspies confuse tendencies with the real thing. As Keynes once said to paraphrase, “its is all well and good to say the storm will pass, but its not true to say the sea is therefore calm”.
“we” know that contemporary academic econ is rot. or at least i know it.
it’s a joke. or rather a (((joke))) which even more autistic goyim don’t get.
it’s transparently just ideology to everyone who doesn’t have autism.
you don’t need to repeat yourself.
In the long run is just packaged a chasing after the wind or this too shall pass.
All societies are religiulous….especially secular ones.
there was a [redacted by pp, April 25, 2018] here called “dealwithit”. she claimed to be a lawyer from a t14 school too. and she said she liked italian men.
peepee should hook you two up.
but she also said that once she had become rich she would move to the riviera and become a lesbian.
also. height would NOT be an issue. she was a midget.
People replace God with genes.
all women like italian men, so who cares
”People replace God with genes.”
retarded…
maybe it’s environment…
Is there any idea that’s ever come out of economics that we can know for sure is probably true (not just in a classroom setting but actually occurs in the real world?)? Comparative advantage? Efficient market hypothesis? Marginal revolution? Supply and demand curve?
I had a Eureka! moment when LotB said Michael Porter described the real world better than any economics textbook.
Well, economics has very basic laws that are universally true like money is not wealth, production precedes consumption, value is subjective etc.
But it doesn’t have true scientific theories that explain phenomena above the level of describing patterns and presenting correlations.
I hate having to do non troll comments.
this means that the above reliabilities will only increase if these IQ tests are inherently less reliable the higher the mean of the population.
the SDs are greater than the full population SDs.
therefore peepee must admit that high scores aren’t as reliable and retract her claim that the wechsler is “incredibly reliable” per se.
OR retract her claim that it is “incredibly reliable” at all.
maybe only “incredibly reliable” for low birth weight danes.
the 50 to 70 study was also on danes.
S-B SD 1956 15.2, 1969 14.3
wechsler FS scaled score SD 1956 17.3, 1969 16.0
wechsler FS scaled score SD 1956 17.3, 1969 16.0
You misread the chart. Those are the SDs of the scaled scores, not the full-scale IQs
they are the SDs of the scaled scores of the FSIQ.
raw score FSIQ is converted to scaled score FSIQ with the typical SD = 15 or 16.
explain how i misread it.
i don’t think i did
Raw scores on subtests are converted to scaled scores. Sum of scaled scores is converted to IQ. The chart lists the actual IQ SDs too, but you read the SDs of the sum of scaled scores.
so in this case the sample with the lower mean has a smaller SD.
RR, your argument, wich is a loose adaptation to differential psychology of Davidson anomalous monism doesn’t entail what you think :
1) the genetic inheritance of psychological states requires laws linking or identifying mental events under their own mental descriptions and physical events under their own physical descriptions
2) these types of laws don’t exist
3) therefore psychological traits can’t be inherited
Address the argument. And no, linking studies isn’t a refutation of the argument.
The conclusion ought to be
3’) therefore pysochological states must be identifiable to physical states and are inherited following physical rules
4) psychological traits are rational explanations – not causes – of mental and physical events.
5) so your argument relied on the confusion between explanations – that you can’t inherit – on one side, and, on the other side, psychological states that you inherit the same way as physical ones.
So there is no logical nor ontological problem with a genetic explanation of behaviour. You inherit the behaviour. Not the explanation.
Are there any ex ante specifiable ceteris paribus clauses with respect to mental phenomena?
If you speak of mental causation, there must be only strict laws. So even if all physical laws doesn’t need to be reductible to clasical logic proposition formalism, it can’t include true (or exclusive if you want) caeteris paribus clause (that lead to inconsistencies).
But as a matter of explanations, not only are there such clauses, but they have to exist a priori, because else you wouldn’t need such a level of description (you would eliminate the mental of all causalités).
This poses fine logical and ontological questions but nothing to do with our purpose, wich is the logical possibility of having heritability in the mental realm. Then it doesn’t prove there is such an heritability. It dissolves the (fallacious) aporia.
Then I am not a judgmental person RR so it’s vain to use epithets . I try not to in general, even if I can be awkward sometimes .
It’s a yes or no question.
What are the clauses? What epithets did I use?
My answer is no for causation and yes for explanation. If you don’t understand why you’re question is ambiguous, I can’t help, because it’s the point I have been discussing.
Saying the chihuahua argument is held by dumb people. That’s an epithet !
It’s not an ambiguous question. You claimed there are clauses, well what are they?
We have ”three” steps
logic
semantics
abstractions
RR don’t get the two first and jump to the most difficult without basis
= ….
People who don’t get logic but semantics tend to be good to manipulate, more than to grasp and follow facts, firstly.
We already have a cascade, repetitive, strong-pattern evidences that most behaviors are genetically inherited.
But your fathers can pass to you a mutant combination and result in a different outcome or what i believe: fathers have the genes of their respective direct families. It’s explain why sometimes people are more similar to their aunts or uncles, or grandpa than to their own fathers [and yes, i can be totally wrong].
He suffer from intellectual dysphoria or archetypical discharacterization. He is another ”eternal student” but he believe it can evolve to teacher levels. Maybe to help people in physical education but not to be a intellectual.
There are no psychophysical laws.
just your stories…
Logical arguments are evidence.
your ass carcamano
This is something i would agree with Santo.
As I always say ‘labels are not logic’
let’s go with this santo,
logic, semantics, abstractions
logic is what allows us to build systems from concepts
semantics is what allows us to refine our concepts
and abstractions are what allow use to even create concepts.
so logically the first place to start would be the abstractions.
you can’t perform logic or semantics without first having assembled the concepts.
and you have it backwards anyway
someone who gets logic but not semantics is good to manipulate because they would be vulnerable to equivocation
We already have a cascade, repetitive, strong-pattern evidences that most behaviors are genetically inherited.
no we don’t, jackass.
we have correlations across generations within families.
but environments correlate across generations as well.
so what do we really have?
”so logically the first place to start would be the abstractions.”
soo wrong…
are you ”italian-murrican”*
All living beings are logicals because they get the reality they are, they must understand the reality they are and/to adapt. But they can’t
separate,
divide,
add,
manipulate reality in such many and sophisticated ways as humans because they lack ABSTRACT REASONING.
Abstract reasoning if not only possible thanks to language/semantics, no doubt is burst via language.
Logic is not just a human property, is the reality itself.
Firstly, adapt to reality, i mean, to given logic via mirroring.
Secondly, we use ”older ‘GPS”’ = language, the way ”we” have to navigate in the space and time. We creates point of refferences or words. = semantics.
Abstraction is
manipulation of logical and symbolized/marked reality.
”someone who gets logic but not semantics is good to manipulate because they would be vulnerable to equivocation”
oi*
good at logics = grasp / get facts
good at semantics = good at manipulation of concepts, i mean, named or marked facts [or forged factoids] and or also good to understand, apply and invent concepts, in factually correct ways.
good at abstraction = must be good in both firstly.
”no we don’t, jackass.
we have correlations across generations within families.
but environments correlate across generations as well.
so what do we really have?”
correlations are primary evidences retard.
yup
semaaaantics…
”but environments correlate across generations as well”
develop…
In ALL environments there are exceptions and often considerable exceptions.
But, often, people creates their own environments based on what they have, i mean, in personality, cognition and cultural inheritance.
Less civilization-adapted people tend to creates worse environments in places they are not adapted.
”autists/people who don’t understand people love to ‘study’ about… people”.
syntax ~ semantics
logic ~ abstractions
rules ~ reason
”logic ~ abstractions”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
LOL, based on its ethimology logics is semantics, look like…
I redefined logic, based on its adjective
”dude, it’s logic…” = ”it’s make sense, it’s the correct/ it’s works”
of course, something else outsiders refuse to understand….
the viciousness…
the meanness…
the discrimination…..
is not a bad thing!
we all know what it takes to assimilate
Michael Corleone had a wasp girlfriend and an ivy league education and yet…
…still remained loyal to the family.
and it’s no accident that italian americans successfully ‘integrated.’
because they integrated BY FORCE.
so too the irish.
so too the other immigrants.
the unfortunate thing about the black community is that it buys into fairy tales about how this society works.
the closest thing to black assimilation that ever was….were the black panthers! malcolm x!
that was the right idea!
respect is earned.
high risk game?
high stakes?
yes.
but it is necessary.
it’s not personal.
it’s just business — right down to the violence.
and to complain, to whine?
teach blacks to do pizzas..
lmfao