Commenter RR argues that IQ tests measure social class. If by social class he means the home one grew up in, the following author begs to differ:
First, family has little effect on whatever cognitive abilities you have after the age of 17. While family environment is potent early on, its effects fade away to low level by age 17 and become insignificant by maturity. As you grow up, you move outside the family and go to school, become a member of a peer group (your close friends), find a job, and marry. You enter a current environment that swamps the lingering effects of family environment. Current environment is surprisingly self-contained: it influences one’s current cognitive abilities with very little interference from past environments. Most of us assume that your early family environment leaves some indelible mark on your intelligence throughout life. But the literature shows this simply isn’t so.
Second, once the influence of family disappears, the cognitive quality of your current environment tends to match your genetic quality. This is often called the tendency toward “gene-environment co-relation”. This means simply that if your genes are at the 90th percentile for cognitive ability, your current environment tends to be at the 90th percentile of the population for cognitive quality…In other words, chance events aide, genes and current environment tend to match, so whatever genetic differences exist predict cognitive performance without any need to take current environment into account.
You might think the above was written by Arthur Jensen, but it was written by Jensen’s most formidable opponent, James Flynn. It’s from pages 5 to 6 of Flynn’s book Does Your Family Make You Smarter?
Evidence in support of Flynn’s comments is a 2010 study by Haworth et al, where an astonishing 11000 pairs of twins from four different countries were intelligence tested. The results: heritability was 41% at age nine, 55% at age 12, and 66% by age 17.
66% is very similar to the WAIS IQ heritability found in the Minnesota study of twins reared apart, but Haworth et al compared the IQ correlation of MZ twins raised together with the correlation of DZ twins raised together (the classical twin study). If one assumes that both types of twins are equally similar in their environments (including prenatal), the greater IQ similarity found among MZ twins can only be explained by their greater genomic similarity. This is known as the equal environment assumption.
Critics claim that MZ twins raised together enjoy more similar environments than DZ twins raised together and so genes are getting undeserved credit for an environmental effect. However Arthur Jensen notes:
…some same-sex DZ twins look much more alike than others. In some cases their parents even wrongly believe that their DZ twins are identical twins, and they treat them as such by dressing them alike and giving them the same hairstyles and so on. But DZ twins whose parents and others had mistaken them for MZ twins are no more alike in IQ than other DZ twins or ordinary siblings who don’t look much alike.
Source: Intelligence, Race and Genetics by Frank Miele, pg 98
Indeed if people think MZ twins have more similar environments than DZ twins because they look identical, then it follows that same sex DZ twins should have more similar environments than opposite sex DZ twins because they too look more similar (and are treated more similarly) and yet the IQ correlation between same sex and opposite sex MZ twins are virtually identical.
Further support for the equal environment assumption comes from a study of 1,030 female-female twin pairs from the Virginia Twin Registry with known zygosity. About 15% of the twins disagreed with their actual zygosity, however perceived zygosity had no impact on the correlation between twins when it came to any of the five psychiatric disorders studied.
Pumpkin Person 
“if your genes are at the 90th percentile for cognitive ability, your current environment tends to be at the 90th percentile of the population for cognitive quality”
How do I gauge the cognitive quality of my environment PP? I want to see if it matches with my genes.
Is access to the internet part of my cognitive environment.
You have IQ genes born into a low IQ environment, but as Flynn says, as people get older, high IQ genes began to select a high IQ environment (this blog).
But like Mensa, you could be attracting odd characters with strange personalities lol
I include myself in this potentially perceived slight.
It’s more likely that when someone has “low IQ genes” and then moves into a high IQ environment the environment changes the genes.
Again it only makes sense to say a trait is malleable or robust not genetic or environmental and the brain is arguably the most malleable trait.
When we say a trait is highly heritable we mean individual differences in the trait are highly correlated with individual differences in DNA code that they’ve had since they were an embryo
”But like Mensa, you could be attracting odd characters with strange personalities lol”
I prefer someone who love Ingmar Bergman movies than somehunk who pay huge importance to masculine-like sports.
I know what heritability is Pumpkin. My point was that 1. Intelligence is incredibly malleable no matter the heritability and 2. That People with “low IQ genes” are more than likely being affected by transitioning into high IQ environments instead of them actually having “high IQ genes” the entire time and just somehow ending up where they “belong”.
Melo, the past few days reading your comments I don’t really disagree with you. Weird. Is the world ending?
“It’s more likely that when someone has “low IQ genes” and then moves into a high IQ environment the environment changes the genes.”
This. You could also say that when one goes from a “low IQ environment” (i.e., one of poverty) to a “high IQ environment” (one of middle class or higher) they are then exposed to and familiarized with the structure, content and questions asked on the test and that exposure to such environments is what causes the increase in scores.
Though, when they are removed from those stimulating environments, their IQs decrease. This is analogous to gaining muscle.
Take a gym noob. He has no mind-muscle connection, he’s weak, he has no muscle mass. But when he starts training and eating right, his body changes. Over the weeks, months, and years he gets higher and more defined. But then he stops lifting and eating right. His body then returns to what it looked like before he started lifting. This is a classic interaction, and examples like this lend credence to Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of human development.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/09/13/the-fade-out-effect/
There are 2 ways you can lift more weights: 1) gaining strength or 2) gaining technique
Jensen would probably say most social environment gains in IQ are analogous to gaining technique while melo & Flynn would probably argue they are analogous to genuine gains in strength
Melo have you had the chance to read up on Bronfenbrenner’s and Ceci’s model of human development? If so, what’re your thoughts? I think it lines up with your beliefs.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1972) reanalysis of twin studies, of course, also lends credence to their model.
“There are 2 ways you can lift more weights: 1) gaining strength or 2) gaining technique”
Hmm. I think this is fine. I’m struggling to think of a third way that wouldn’t be just subsumed under (2) but I can’t think of any. I’ll come back to this. (What about neural mind-muscle connections? Interaction between strength and technique?)
“Jensen would probably say most social environment gains in IQ are analogous to gaining technique while melo & Flynn would probably argue they are analogous to genuine gains in strength”
Why not both?
Billy, Yea. “High IQ societies” are really cringey.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/08/18/high-iq-societies/
One of the founders of Mensa got “disappointed that so many members spend so much time solving puzzles” (quoted in Tammet, 2009: 40). If Mensa were anything but “members [who] spend so much time solving puzzles“, then I think Ware would have stated as much. While the other founder of Mensa—Ronald Berrill— “had intended Mensa as “an aristocracy of the intellect”, and [he] was unhappy that a majority of Mensans came from humble homes.”
The more exclusive clubs get cringier and cringier. There’s one “society” that has no members.
“Weird. Is the world ending?”
Technically yes.
“Melo have you had the chance to read up on Bronfenbrenner’s and Ceci’s model of human development?”
No I’ve seen you talking about it but I haven’t had a chance to take a look yet. Do you have a link?
“Why not both?”
I agree why not both.
Melo, the article is in Montagu’s edited compilation of articles Race and IQ. It’s available on Google books. I’m going to scan a copy and host on my blog when I find one at a library.
Yea Melo, it is both. Strength and coordination to hand in hand.
Family gave me that book for christmas when i was a teenager. It’s been collecting dust on my book shelf ever since.
“It’s been collecting dust on my book shelf ever since.”
Why?
I’ve always wondered why certain IQ blogs (like this one) seem attract people with mental illness. It seems worse on some blogs than others (which im sure has to do partly with moderation)…
well, one of the reasons why this blog attracts the mentally ill is because it has a younger readership than the other HBD blogs. Those blogs are filled with stereotypical older white men who have little to no creative input on their worldviews and like to share stories of the “good ol’ days.”
The brain is like a network of routers.
There is an algorithm for rewiring the routers to form better representations.
The algorithm gets all routers to work together.
Teamwork
Memory prioritization
This has been known from the ’80s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soar_(cognitive_architecture)
”Most of us assume that your early family environment leaves some indelible mark on your intelligence throughout life. But the literature shows this simply isn’t so.”
Just analyse yourself to deduct the same. If you have a good long term autobiographical memory you can perceive how surprinsingly independent you are in cognitive terms despising basal needs for it as literacy.
RR’s and his colleagues suffer from kind of sofisticated collectivist thinking… it’s make sense to think everything is collectively//environmentally influenced. I thought psychology is more sensible to environment, not at the point to change completely people, than cognition, because the designed function to cognition is not environmental adaptation, which is the primary function for noncognitive or psychological traits.
IF there is such thing ”real division between noncognitive and cognitive traits”.
”This means simply that if your genes are at the 90th percentile for cognitive ability, your current environment tends to be at the 90th percentile of the population for cognitive quality…In other words, chance events aide, genes and current environment tend to match, so whatever genetic differences exist predict cognitive performance without any need to take current environment into account.”
This make more concrete sense for workplace because people primarily choice their cohabitants by personality//interests similarities, proxy for higher and certain type of cognitive abilities.
The preference for personality over cognition may help to explain why intelligence varies within families.
Collectivist neolamarckian behaviorist doctrine attemps to deny the very existence of individuality over collectivism, for sure another false dichotomy. I’m hard-coeur leftist and exactly because i understand so well what it’s mean i’m completely against this kind of falsification of reality even by good ends.. you don’t need lies to do it, believe in me.
When you was born in the biological pool where mutations from one [or both side] is more common, you can see more easily why live in the home don’t have any significant role in your cognition.
Who are these “neolamarckians” you keep referring to? Names and quotes?
Evidence in support of Flynn’s comments is a 2010 study by Haworth et al, where an astonishing 11000 pairs of twins from four different countries were intelligence tested. The results: heritability was 41% at age nine, 55% at age 12, and 66% by age 17.”
So what?
“66% is very similar to the WAIS IQ heritability found in the Minnesota study of twins reared apart”
Have you read Joseph’s Twenty-Two Invalidating Aspects of the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart? What’s the hereditarian response to those points?
Why won’t Bouchard release the data for the other IQ test used in his study? What does he have to hide?
“some same-sex DZ twins look much more alike than others. In some cases their parents even wrongly believe that their DZ twins are identical twins, and they treat them as such by dressing them alike and giving them the same hairstyles and so on. But DZ twins whose parents and others had mistaken them for MZ twins are no more alike in IQ than other DZ twins or ordinary siblings who don’t look much alike.”
Fosse, Richardson, and Joseph addressed this in their assessment of the twin method on schizophrenia:
Twin researchers claim that studies where parents or twins themselves have misclassified twin zygosity show that the EEA is valid. The assumption in these studies is that if it is the parents’ treatment of the twins and not the twins’ genes that is etiologically important, then fraternal twins that are misclassified as identical should correlate higher for mental disorders than twins correctly classified as fraternal, whereas identical twins misclassified as fraternal should correlate lower than correctly classified identical twins. When twin researchers have not found this pattern of correlations for mental disorders, they have concluded that it is not the parents’ treatment but the twins’ genes that are important. However, the misclassification test is based on the assumption that it is the parents’ or twins’ beliefs about twin zygosity that underlie how similarly they (or other people) expose the twins for adverse treatments. Again, this is a hypothesis that twin researchers have not tested empirically, making them unable to reject the alternative hypothesis that erroneous beliefs about twin zygosity is not associated with the similarity of adverse treatments of the twins.
The EEA is false and it’s been known to be false for decades.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281067919_The_Twin_Research_Debate_in_American_Criminology
Along with the assumptions of twin studies not holding, the heritability estimates are flawed as environments cannot be perfectly controlled as we can do in animal breeding studies. So h2 claims lie on both biological and environmental flaws in the assumption.
https://www.academia.edu/30672400/The_heritability_fallacy
“So what?”
I wonder what pumpkin thinks of the increase in heritability with age?
“environments cannot be perfectly controlled as we can do in animal breeding studies.”
What are your ethical views regarding trying to “perfectly control” human environments the way we do animals?
Davis (2014) studied the Tsimane, a people from Bolivia, on the Raven. Average eleven-year-olds 78 percent or more of the questions correct whereas lower-performing individuals answered 47 percent correct. The eleven-year-old Tsimane, though, only answered 31 percent correct. There was another group of Tsimane who went to school and lived in villages—not living in the rainforest like the other group of Tsimane. They ended up scoring 72 percent correct, compared to the unschooled Tsimane who scored only 31 percent correct.
now all rr needs to do is find a study like this done on american negroes. like american negroes living in vermont.
why would such a study exist for a bolivian tribe but not for american negroes?
I wonder what pumpkin thinks of the increase in heritability with age?
I think there’s more to it than just people selecting environments that match their genome. Even height shows increasing heritability with age yet it’s hard to imagine people with tall genes selecting environments that make them grow so it seems certain genes just don’t express themselves until adulthood. For example the y chromosome makes males increasingly different than females after puberty.
none of these half pakistanis look like the picture of peepee santo posted here a while back.
they’re good looking.
I’m 100% ayrian, 50% german, 0% afro and 0% pakistani.
Ian, they’re all ugly because of their strong, hooked noses. I have a perfectly nice nose, a la Tom Cruise or something. And no, I’m not making this up, you’ve seen a picture of me, you’d have to be an idiot not to be able to judge for yourself.
What picture?
It’s not heritability but trait stability . Many twin development is assynchronic but stabilize with end of developmental period
PP says “If one assumes that both types of twins are equally similar in their environments”. But this assumption is false.
“What are your ethical views regarding trying to “perfectly control” human environments the way we do animals?”
For that we would have to just take babies after they’re born, reset them in what amounts to a bubble, and perfectly control every aspect of their environment from the food they eat, to what they watch, hear, do etc. They would need to expose them to the same exact things in the same exact ways. They would then need to, for example, test them on the same tests. Then, and only then, can we get a “perfectly controlled human environment.”
I think it’s ethically indefensible. Sure someone could argue that we could understand X, Y, and Z better. But at the expense of our humanity? I don’t think we should ever do that.
What are your views there?
The one where you asked me about my height, meLo. You said we looked similar to one another.
after they’re born?
rr just needs to stop!
and read all of my comments ever.
Supposedly that’s been debunked
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/09/17/great-news-for-hereditists/
I spit my beer out while reading this. PP owes me beard balm to fix my beard.
“Thus studies of identical twins reared apart are dismissed as meaningless by these people, ”
“Reared apart” is living next door to your co-twin raised by a family member being “raised apart”? Do you realize how devastating Joseph’s work is for twin studies?
Ill respond to all other comments tomorrow.
Alternate model: Asymptotic equipartition property. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_equipartition_property)
As a simple model, assume genetic effects are deterministic and environmental effects are zero-mean noise and what you’re measuring over time is determined as a series of sums of genetic contributions and environmental contributions.
Then as time progresses, you expect the series to converge more closely to around the set of outcomes predicted by the genetic component.
Or as a related more layman-sequel explanation – see the law of large numbers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
“But at the expense of our humanity”
How would we lose our humanity? What defines humanity to you? I always assumed our genes are what makes us human.
“First, family has little effect on whatever cognitive abilities you have after the age of 17. While family environment is potent early on, its effects fade away to low level by age 17 and become insignificant by maturity.”
Flynn is talking about twin studies, no? In virtue of what should we accept that conclusion?
and [redacted by pp, oct 18, 2019] like steve shoe and bryan caplan conclude from this that jewish mothers make no difference.
this does not follow.
can peepee or rr explain why and show which one has the higher IQ.
Because the putative zero correlation between family environment and middle aged IQ is based on the normal range of environments, not extremes like Jewish mothers?
Also most if not all of the data on Jewish IQ comes from kids or young adults. Even by 20, family environment still explains about 20% of the variance, implying a correlation of 0.45. If the median Jew is in the top 1% of family environment (+2.33 SD), then that would add 0.45(+2.33 SD) = +1 SD in IQ
Of course I doubt the average Jew is anywhere near the top 1% of family environment.
Of course I doubt the average Jew is anywhere near the top 1% of family environment.
once again making the flat earth mistake. there is no single 1% family environment.
and i’ve already posted: by one measure your assertion is false. the study comparing canadian jews, protestants, and catholics is cited by lynn, and he makes the same retarded mistake shoe and caplan make.
[redacted by pp, oct 18, 2019]
Oh yes I forgot about the Lynn quote:
Fourth, other environmentalists such as Majoribanks (1972) have argued that the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews is attributable to the typical “pushy Jewish mother”. In a study carried out in Canada he compared 100 Jewish boys aged 11 years with 100 Protestant white gentile boys and 100 white French Canadians and assessed their mothers for “Press for Achievement”, i.e. the extent to which mothers put pressure on their sons to achieve. He found that the Jewish mothers scored higher on “Press for Achievement” than Protestant mothers by 5 SD units and higher than French Canadian mothers by 8 SD units and argued that this explains the high IQ of the children. But this inference does not follow. There is no general acceptance of the thesis that pushy mothers can raise the IQs of their children. Indeed, the contemporary consensus is that family environmental factors have no long term effect on the intelligence of children (Rowe, 1994).
What are these “normal range of environments”? What do you think of models like HOME?
Here’s a similar example:
Ethnic differences in children’s intelligence test scores: role of economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal characteristics.
We examine differences in intelligence test scores of black and white 5-year-olds. The Infant Health and Development Program data set includes 483 low birthweight premature children who were assessed with the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. These children had been followed from birth, with data on neighborhood and family poverty, family structure, family resources, maternal characteristics, and home environment collected over the first 5 years of life. Black children’s IQ scores were 1 SD lower than those of white children. Adjustments for ethnic differences in poverty reduced the ethnic differential by 52%. Adjustments for maternal education and whether the head of household was female did not reduce the ethnic difference further. However, differences in home environment reduced the ethnic differential by an additional 28%. Adjustments for economic and social differences in the lives of black and white children all but eliminate differences in the IQ scores between these two groups.
Yet another devastating blow to the hereditarian hypothesis.
“He found that the Jewish mothers scored higher on “Press for Achievement” than Protestant mothers by 5 SD units and higher than French Canadian mothers by 8 SD units and argued that this explains the high IQ of the children. But this inference does not follow.”
The inference is a modus ponens, if p, then q. p. Therefore q. Let p be “Jewish mothers scored higher on “Press for Achievement” by X SDs” and let q be “then this explains the high IQ of the children.”
So now we have:
If “Jewish mothers scored higher on “Press for Achievement” by X SDs”, then “this explains the high IQ of the children.”
“Jewish mothers scored higher on “Press for Achievement” by X SDs.”
Therefore,. This explains the high IQ of the children.” (Modus Ponens, P1, P2)
How does that inference not follow?
Note Lynn’s specific claim that the “inference does not follow.” If he means “either P1 or P2 is false”, then that’s not what the “inference does not follow” means. An argument can have false parts and still be valid, or an argument can have true premises and be invalid. Lynn’s objection to either premise does not mean that “The inference does not follow”; the argument is valid, as I have demonstrated. The specific phrase Lynn used has specific usage in logic.
Even if he meant “the [conclusion] does not follow” that still wouldn’t fly, as the conclusion does follow from the two premises. I didn’t see Lynn refute either premise on that passage. Is that all he says on the matter? Pathetic handwaving of a sound argument using faulty ‘logic.’
If the inference did not follow—that is, if it were invalid—then the premises would be true but the conclusion false. Lynn didn’t demonstrate that. But P1 and P2 both establish the truth of the conclusion.
Yet another elementary mistake by Lynn—must be his “old age.”
there’s a saying…by whom idk…
the only thing a catholic mother can’t forgive is…
SUCCESS.
once again rr just repeats things i said 5 years ago or whenever.
all but eliminate differences
right. they don’t eliminate differences, but they do make the differences small.
rr can’t read.
lynn claimed it didn’t follow for the same reason of shoe and caplan.
No. The actual *inference* is a valid one. Lynn’s squabbling with either of the two premises is irrelevant to his claim that the inference does not follow. (It clearly does, as I’ve demonstrated.)
What the help you nodded every single comment but published rr 12 ti.es saying the same thing. Wtf.
I published your idiotic oprah argument from yesterday & responded
It wasnt an idiotic argument. Oprah would not rise to the top in africa. This means race is actually the defining reason for her success.
Even if being black were an advantage, it’s the same advantage 40 million other blacks had, yet none became as successful as oprah.
If she can exploit opportunities in America better than 99.999999% of blacks, she could do the same Africa, assuming equal luck of course
By contrast George soros would have been fucked in Africa because his math skills would have been of little use. At best he would have had a small store selling fruit before dictator oprah garnished his income
Puppyits very sad that you keep protecting this person. She seems very important to you. And the reason she is important is because of the Magic Negro Effect. This is how many black celebrities come into being. ‘The First Black X’ is a well known phenomenon in america e.g. Obama, Toger Woods, Serena Williams etc etc
Honestly, if oprah grew up in africa she probably would have 3 kids by the age of 21. Im not kidding. And been 1 of many wives of a some dude.
Puppyits very sad that you keep protecting this person. She seems very important to you. And the reason she is important is because of the Magic Negro Effect.
You really need to expand your perspective. She’s interesting to me because she combines the 3 most darwinian correlates of IQ in such an extreme way: race, money & brain size
This is how many black celebrities come into being. ‘The First Black X’ is a well known phenomenon in america e.g. Obama, Toger Woods, Serena Williams etc etc
And what do all 3 of those people have in common? Incredible talent. So at the highest levels, the magic negro effect only serves to magnify the fame of the most gifted blacks, not promote mediocrity.
She seems very important to you.
because peepee is a black lesbian.
I doubt lesbian blacks find Oprah Winfrey am example more than retero sexual black women
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Woods/Williams referred to as the “first black X.” Probably because they’re so good and because blacks do well at sports in general.
It’s normally used for: a) blacks who aren’t qualified and b) blacks who perform reasonably well in white-dominated areas.
Bigotry of low expectations is REAL.
More specifically, IQ tests test ones cultural distance from the middle class, its skills and knowledge structure of the test. This is seen most in the most “g-loaded”, culturally-specific tests.
A synthesis of Richardsonand, Ceci, and Bronfenbrenner, in my opinion, would go a long way in explaining these differences (not just in IQ, but for all human “traits”)
Youve been saying this same thrash for 5 years and I’m not even sure you really believe that. So if I raised a dog in a middle class home you seriously think the dog would score the same as Bill Gates?
rr says GxE and just E within the same comment.
apparently norms of reaction is still too hard for him, like for professor shoe.
also according to rr’s meaningless theory he refuses to test:
1. the upper class should score lower than than the middle class. if “middle class” and “upper class” are used in their british senses then i believe it.
2. the reason why negroes are so over-represented as prisoners in every developed country, not just the US, is because not middle class because racism.
rr needs to look up “norms of reaction” and “stenotopic” and “eurytopic”.
his explanation for transracial adoption studies fails epically. the adoptive parents were far above average in income, education, and IQ.
he’d have to claim the black adoptees were blackified somehow or they were born dumb because biological parents dumb for blacks because genes or because bad womb.
maybe negroes have the same potential but they need a better environment to realize it or an environment which is both better and better for blacks. like bermuda or pretend french aristocrat parents.
“Maybe negroes have the same potential ”
RR??
I’ve been arguing this for about 2.5 years, philosopher.
Mugabe,
“rr says GxE and just E within the same comment.”
Everything is GxE.
“
you actually don’t believe in GxE, RR. You claim middle class environments increase IQ, lower class environments decrease IQ. That’s the P = G + E model.
If you were a GxEer you’d say middle class environments increase IQ for some people and lower it for others.
“the upper class should score lower than than the middle class. if “middle class” and “upper class” are used in their british senses then i believe it.”
Why?
“the reason why negroes are so over-represented as prisoners in every developed country, not just the US, is because not middle class because racism.”
How does that follow?
“his explanation for transracial adoption studies fails epically. the adoptive parents were far above average in income, education, and IQ.”
See Drew Thomas’ reanalysis.
“maybe negroes have the same potential”
Maybe all humans have the same potential.
“You claim middle class environments increase IQ, lower class environments decrease IQ. That’s the P = G + E model”
This is the case due to knowledge exposure. The claim “everything is a GxE interaction” is true in virtue of genes interacting—needing—an environment to be expressed in, with different environments leading to different gene expressions and context-dependent knowledge useful for test-taking.
Its interesting that you say that the claim that certain environments raise and lower IQ scores isn’t GxE; I don’t see how that’s divorces from the model, as everything is GxE. Taking Ceci’s claims:
“But even though such potentials may be genetic in origin, this does not mean that they contribute to variance [in IQ]: Everyone may possess them to the same degree, and the variance may be due to environment and/or motivations that led to their differential crystallization.”
“… individual differences in biological constraints on specific cognitive abilities are not necessarily (or even probably) directly responsible for producing the individual differences that have been reported in the psychometric literature.”
“If you were a GxEer you’d say middle class environments increase IQ for some people and lower it for others.”
See above.
and the variance may be due to environment and/or motivations that led to their differential crystallization.
yep. this is P = G + E. rr is using GxE in “his own” sense, not the sense any one else uses it in.
Maybe all humans have the same potential.
but doesn’t that sound EXTREMELY unlikely?
according to rr the only reason this race isn’t always a tie is racism.
Just ignorant people believes IQ is a “middle classe IQ “……….
The best example of people who are dumb but naturally rose to the top because of their environments are Indians.
Broad statement but it naturally fits because in their environments, they’re very simpleminded fools but as they come to the West, they adapt things that the whites have. Same goes for the Chinese but not other East Asians.
I never thought that memes are real until I moved here. Then I realized everything is a consistent accumulation of mutated memes that happen to exist and form a code for society to exist.
This is the reason I believe society and civilization are both entities that form a living thing. This is the same with ecosystems, planets, and the Universe in totality.
Most times, the Universe will end up forcing you to conform. The more it does this and you fail to pick it up naturally, the more there will be chaos and friction within your life.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7585197/Monkeys-OUTSMART-humans-problem-solving-exercise-win-food-test-cognitive-flexibility.html
On another note, I would say that from a very, very young age, younger than 5, I vaguely knew of a thing called genetics or believed that traits were inherited from your parents. I would attribute all my accomplishments to having inherited the traits that I had.
I was always a very, very precocious individual, though I ultimately lost all trace of having the mind that I did as I grew up, mainly because of socialization and what not.
i was thinking about rr on the toilet.
rr says, “social construction!”
and some goombah comes in and wipes his butt for him.
please. take the “old ways” back to the “old country”.
You dumbass. I had no intent in supporting RR’s hypotheses in any form, just an article I found interesting. You demented fool!
The main takeaway you should have from that article is that there are cognitive traits that some groups will be superior at and other traits that other groups will be superior at.
In the case of African-Americans, it seems like their cognitive flexibility is rather high but their comprehension of understanding is very, very low. That is what I was trying to point out with that article.
This Mugabe guy is a doofus regardless and worse yet, an actual schizophrenic, always inferring things when they’re not there.
I guess the most disturbing thing is that I’m so fearful of death that it probably is the only reason why I’m still alive.
As a man of science, I don’t particularly believe in an afterlife. Because of this, life becomes so precious and death becomes so scary.
I’d like to believe in an afterlife too but unfortunately, it would require me to live an eternity, something I’m not entirely committed to doing.
Ethical standards have kept us back from scientific advancements, though it’s preserved the humanity within us. Picking what to take on is usually done arbitrarily, with little to no speculation on the cost-benefit analyses of pursuing an endeavor.
Elizabeth Warren being a psycho is something Ian and I can agree on. She’s the last person I’d wanna see win. As a resident of MA, I’d rather see Trump win than Warren.
[redacted by pp, oct 16, 2019]
Puppy should run for premier of Canada and enact laws promoting blacks. Puppy could hire oprah to be his spiritual advisor. That way oprah can dress up like a witch doctor and roll her eyes into the back of her head and put on a weird voice when making prophecies.
you are such a freak. LOL. Btw it’s prime minister of Canada. The provinces have premiers.
You think that’s much different to what she does now?!
[redacted by pp, oct 18, 2019]she can’t unnuhstan what’s wrong with the eea.
it assumes P = G + E.
environment x for person a and environment x for person b is NOT the same environment.
[redacted by pp, oct 18, 2019]
it assumes P = G + E.
environment x for person a and environment x for person b is NOT the same environment.
I thought about that but I’m not so sure.
if P = G + E is partly false, it would inflate the correlation between MZtwins raised together relative to DZtiwns raised together which would inflate heritability.
on the other hand, it would also inflate the correlation between DZtwins raised together relative to the general population which would deflate heritability.
It might be a wash. I’ll have to think about it.
“if P = G + E is partly false,”
I didn’t know that there was a truth value called “partly false.” I thought there were only two truth values: T and F.
this guido needs some subtlety.
“partly true” and “partly false” are descriptions of statistical propositions which are couched in non-statistical terms.
1. partial penetrance for various genetic diseases
2. smoking and lung cancer
3. alcoholism and throat cancer
all of the following are “partially true” and “partially false”:
1. gene x causes disease y.
2. smoking causes lung cancer.
3. alcoholism causes throat cancer.
so “P = G + E is partly false” might mean, “P = G + E is a good approximation globally, not just locally in (G, E) space. not perfect, but good.”
so it’s false but not meaningless.
Pumpkin believes genetic environment is geographic… but, usually hetero trashy people tends to select for those who are genetically complementary, for example, a male who is taller than his female partner.
But, even this difference seems common a very taller male or female choice for comparably shorter ones resulting in regression to the mean
Why do you keep calling heteros thrash? If we surveyed the world population on homosexuality basically 80% would call it a moral abomination.
Am i hurting your fragile empty ballon super ego???
Most people are mediocre
As you
Most people are hethrotrash cattle
Moral abomination
Is moral relative, illusion or valid enough to be conjugated with hyper bolic statements??? You must decide what your instincts will phill…
Be pervert is so gooood
What does everyone think about transgenderism?
Personally, I think it’s a bizarre psychiatric disorder.
I think homosexuality and transgenderism are both environmental and both psychiatric disorders. Only (((political correctness))) forces people in the west to ‘respect’ these perversion.
Uau!!!!!!
Homosexuality is a perversion that starts with a need to dominate or be dominated. It functions as a disorder that is characterized by excess submissiveness or dominance in one’s behavior and physicality.
Transgenderism is a compulsive need to act a certain stereotype out, pretty much someone who feels insecure about who they are and is beginning to search for an answer elsewhere.
That’s the best I can provide for now but I may be able to supply more information if probed on the subject matter.
it’s more subtle than pill gets.
what if a something which deserves the label “mental illness” is developmental and also un-change-able?
the “born this way” stuff is obviously bullshit, but whenever something is labeled an “illness” this implies resources should be allocated to research for a cure.
doesn’t it?
what’s 100% evil and fake is the same liberals who won’t label sexual deviants as “ill” will label donald trump a sociopath and their own children autistic, etc.
it’s the evil stupid!
Loaded
Homossexuality is not a perversion
Just accept this and move to topics you are good
For example ,say unnecessary intimate aspects of your life
Homossexuality /sexual diversity is a difficult subject because it never mean easy answers.
Perversion is, for example, mugabe exist. Its a crime against reality, existence, life, such inferior creatures exist, has a big fat super ego,, be privileged in some way and a long life.
It’s a true perversion
People feel atracted to the same sex is just a matter of probability .
A beautiful planet being destroyed by hetero trashy males (most them who are subhumans , must be [redacted by pp, oct 20, 2019] or treated like human primates ) is a true perversion.
Perversion was the wrong word I used but it is a fetish of one form or another, probably a better word to use there.
so the proposition “genome a is smarter than genome b” means, in rr’s own terms:
genome a has “a smaller distance from middle class culture” than genome b in all environments…or all environments with a “middle class”…
and by “all environments” i don’t mean all actual environments. i mean all environments which are possible in this sublunary sphere.
= stupid
“why?” asks rr.
because people whose whole life is just collecting art and breeding race horses and looking down on middle class strivers are going to be pretty distant from middle class culture too.
upper class = money + time + attitude. rr is right about the attitude part of class.
and rr may think that the higher the class the more opportunities.
this is not exactly right.
there are some things which a younger son of a duke could do, but at the same time couldn’t because socially impossible.
that is, the people he’d have to work with would be so different from him that it would be hell.
how do rr’s theories explain alzheimer’s?
what i have heard:
people with larger brains and people with more education/higher IQs can have the same histopathology as people who can’t even wipe their own butts yet have no behavioral/cognitive symtpoms.
but i’ve also heard:
when such people do show symptoms they decline very rapidly, like a dam breaking.
the history of mathematics starting in the late 19th century is accurately summarized as…
abstract! abstract! abstract!
where “abstract” is a VERB.
NOT an adjective.
that is…
generalize! generalize! generalize!
the idea that people are “sick” if they can’t make a living, and therefore suffer from x disorder, is a good idea and a bad idea.
a good idea in that some states of mind make one unfit even on a desert island.
a bad idea in that some states of mind make one un-fit only in the prevailing arrangement…
and in that it blames the individual and doesn’t blame his society.
ted k describes this very well.
the alt-right, tucker carlson, trump, and the actual voting stats say…
it’s their critics who have class anxiety…
all of these are actually higher class than average.
and it’s one of the “arguments” deployed so often by the murdoch types…
the entrepreneur is a hero…
therefore shut up! you’re a socialist!
as usual the roman church has the best economic policy but refuses to promote it at the papal level.
before mis-key peepee won’t post because dis-honest…
and it’s one of the “arguments” deployed so often by the murdoch types…
the entrepreneur is a hero…
therefore, shut up! socialism!
as usual the roman church has the best economic policy but refuses to promote it at the papal level.
reality is…
the entrepreneur is very often an heroic figure…really!
but this does not imply that bezos’s secretary should pay a higher tax rate than he does.
trickle down economics (what george 41 called “voodoo economics”) taken to its logical conclusion means…
the rich should pay a NEGATIVE tax.
the workers should pay the masters for the privilege of having a job.
swank only hates george 41 because handsome man.
in other words…
what does rr make of the tests that first generation chinese american neurologist gave me?
i mean there ARE objective tests of the brain. right?
i mean alzheimer’s patients have OBJECTIVE cognitive issues. right?
the point is…
any theory of “cognitive ability”/”IQ” must also explain the “edge cases” like…
1. retards
2. senility
think about how it’s totally legit to talk about how bernie is too old and biden is too old…
when in reality…
at least 20% of people over 70 are as good as they were in their 30s…
or so said some neurologist i heard on charlie rose.
age-ism is still not an approved -ism by the jews.
ecological fallacy = the member’s traits are the same as the average of the group to which he belongs.
reality = SOME very old people are NOT retarded.
I was thinking about commenting on the fact that fluid intelligence reaches its full capacity at 30 and plateaus till 50, and that crystallized intelligence does the same until 70. However, mental flexibility seems to deteriorate after 18. All things to keep in mind within the next election.
Contrary to the typical person, if you have a very resilient brain that can keep itself from developing any form of age-related cognitive impairment, you should be fine.
why won’t peepee let me post my EPIC guest article [redacted by pp, oct 18, 2019]
RR accepts guest posts. And you can link to it in the comment section
you should publish it
You don’t accept guest posts anymore? Or does this only apply to mugabe?
i accept guest posts, just not the topic mugabe suggested.
modi can say to the whites and pakis and pathans…
LOOK MOTHERFUCKERS…
WE ARE YOU!
YOU ARE US!
YOU’VE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY SAND NIGGERS!
ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY ARE JUST YUGE SAND NIGGER MIND CONTROL MECHANISMS.
YOU KNOW THE SWASTIKA IS AN INDIAN THING, RIGHT?
FUCK YOU!
The Swastika is a 10K year old symbol out of the pontic steppes. Not hard to see why Hitler would have his fantastical vision.
am i the only guy who wants to plow 59 year old amy klobuchar?
she’s thick and sturdy.
I read in some article that she has a horrible domineering personality. And she drives her underlings to mental breakdowns…..
She does look sturdy tho…
Seems like crystallized intelligence has decreased and fluid intelligence has increased over the last century. If environment is any factor, it probably would have an effect on crystallized more than fluid intelligence, as fluid intelligence is much more malleable and is characteristically a pure measurement of one’s ability to problem-solve, regardless of the context.
Unrelated people who look alike as if they were MZ twins have 0 correlation on intelligence nor personality. That also weakens environnemental interpretation of differences among MZ and DZ.
The most recent study by Segal et al, “Pairs of Genetically Unrelated Look-Alikes : Further Tests of Personality Similarity and Social Affiliation” is garbage. 45 twin pairs with no ratings of similarity. There is no information on the validity of the information used which were completed at home and mailed, along with the 16 to 84 age range. The absence of a correlation is easy and it’s no indication that one doesn’t exist at all. But the genetic model it’s predicated on, of course, is false.
And did they look alike when they were babes and toddlers? I doubt it, and that would of course go against Segal et al’s claims
the idea that appearance explains the much stronger MZT correlation vs DZT is again P = G + E and dumb.
give it up rr.
join the dark side.
hereditists AND environmentalists are both wrong and dumb.
This was addressed by Joseph et al.
I find this surprising because pleiotropy and physiognomy would predict personality and physical appearance would correlate.
These blog is a kind of chronos prison… since one decade, same people, same subject, same stupid opinions and the blogger using it to talk about “opera”… i always come here because i’m emprisoned. But, this blog is very revealing about humanity , life and instjnctive beliefs…
Yeh. I hate the fact that this place doesn’t change. I’ve been here for a long while now, and seems like we’re just stuck in time indulging on aimless pursuits. Whimsical, yet constrained in this narrow subject, marred by repeated battles and their diatribes.
I realize that I come here out of bad habit. I hate that.
”Whimsical, yet constrained in this narrow subject, marred by repeated battles and their diatribes.”
I must use dictionary to understand what you wrote. Yes, i have participated of many of these stupid battles. Every year, maybe, even hundred of times, these guys are more interested on debate about how perverted given behaviors are instead find a mate. Masculinity is so fragile. Homossex is just attraction to the same-sex. Perversion is a broader concept which also can be related with homossexual behavior, PERIOD. Perversion is often translated as irrational cruelty.
This is a blog where most of these battles are not about how smart is your opinion or ”argumentative basis” but how strong and repetitive is your cognitive biases.
I hope my mania about this blog disappear soon. I have no reason to repeat myself thousand times here specially with the two//three fundamental losers. We already know phill is only capable to think based on his emotions, i mean, instincts… mugabe is a elderly bitter dying decadent ”aristocratic” guy and rr no have a frontal cortex. It’s enough to stop visiting here.
rr should appreciate the analogy because his job. but beard + native language = italian so can’t.
IQ is like blood pressure, adiposity, bone density, cholesterol, insulin sensitivity, etc.
that is, almost every one has the potential to have perfect numbers, but it takes a more severe environment for some than for others.
that is, some people can eat shit, get no exercise, etc and still have great numbers and this is true for genetic reasons.
but even polynesians and native americans can have such great numbers too, and had great numbers when they lived as their forefathers lived.
“that is, some people can eat shit, get no exercise, etc and still have great numbers and this is true for genetic reasons.”
Any examples? I’ve never come across something like this. Sure, I’ve had people with better panels than expected but they were still bad relative to one who knows their stuff.
RR, I have a question for you: what do you think of physical superiority? Why can you accurately assess someone’s physical strength or speed or overall physical performance and not do so for cognitive traits? Is it because of an inferiority complex?
Environment seems to give people attributes both physically and mentally. When growing up in an environment where an ectomorphic body-type would be advantageous, we see a prevalence of it. Same thing holds true for cognitive traits as well.
Why does Ian Mugabe “the Great Dumbass of the West” either speak in riddles or speak only to himself? Is it a reminder that he too is an inferior being and needs to remind himself of his inferiority repeatedly? I dunno but please answer because I am losing my patience.
“RR, I have a question for you: what do you think of physical superiority? Why can you accurately assess someone’s physical strength or speed or overall physical performance and not do so for cognitive traits?”
Person A who deadlifts more, absolutely (sans looking at bodyweight), is stronger than person B in that lift. I’ve described muscle movement and the process by which muscles move (sliding filament theory) and that, of course, also plays a part in strength differences—how one’s CNS is prepared for the stress of the lift. If they have practice with their mind-muscle connection then they can tap into more of their fibers and thusly lift more.
In contrast, a person with a higher IQ has more, and was exposed to more, middle class knowledge and skills. I see no reason, outside of extreme cases (Down’s for instance) for a normal person to not acquire such scores with more exposure to the test items and structure.
“Is it because of an inferiority complex?”
Appeal to motive.
Here’s some reading material for you.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/12/09/muscle-fibers-obesity-and-race/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/02/20/strength-and-neuromuscular-coordination/
(Post this one.)
Interesting stuff. Don’t know enough about the subject matter to comment on it but rather interesting articles you wrote there. I’m amused.
How much success in weightlifting and other physically-based activities relies on genetics? Like an individual’s genes and not their race’s overall performance.
It seems as though ethnic identity matters a lot for how one performs because racial means tend to have a greater impact on a person than individual genes. What I mean by this is that people seem to clump where their racial average is rather than having a lot of individual variation within a race, unlike other traits of the mind and body.
That’s not an appeal to motive.
I’ve corrected you on this at least 3 times now.
Yea you’re right.
Basically, what I’m saying is that the more technologically advanced a society is, the better they will score on an IQ test collectively. On an individual level, it might test for how well someone would do in technologically-related matters.
I think Papuans, Africans, and archaic civilizations have more symbolic intelligence than any other group of people. I think spatial, mathematical, reasoning and logic functions are high in technologically-advanced societies, whereas symbolic crystallized intelligences would be higher in so-called “primitive” societies.