Tags
Alysson Muotri, autism, brain organoids, heritability, IQ, mini brains, monozygotic twins raised apart, neanderoids, Neanderthals, SAT
One way psychologists estimate IQ heritability (the percentage of variation in IQ linked to variation in DNA) is by correlating the IQs of monozygotic (MZ) twins raised apart. The higher the correlation, the more genetic IQ is thought to be.
However skeptics argue that because MZ twins raised apart still shared the same womb, and still grow up in the same country and sometimes the same town, the high correlation doesn’t prove the genetic effects are independent of environment (maybe the same genotype that increases IQ in the U.S. would decrease it Japan, but we’ll never know if virtually all the twins raised “apart” are still raised in the same country).
As commenter “Mugabe” suggested, the ideal study would have genetic clones separated at conception and gestated and raised by random women all over the developed World, but such a study would be unethical. And even if such a study were possible, and even if it showed strong independent genetic effects, the nature of these effects would remain mysterious. Does DNA directly cause IQ (i.e. coding for bigger and more efficient brains), or does it do so indirectly (i.e. causing us to stay in school longer, where we learn how to think). The problem with even the best designed study of MZ twins separated into random environments is that only the starting environment is random. As we grow old, we select environments that fit our DNA, and although the effects of such environments are counted as genetic effects (since our genes made us choose those environments) they are actually gene-environment feedback loops.
But what if it were possible to clone just our brains, and these cloned brains were reared in environments completely alien to anything we have experienced. You grew up in a nice middle class family, and your cloned brain grows up in a petri dish, where its environment was 100% controlled with no gene-environment feedback loop.

Then we could be sure that any cognitive correlation between us and our cloned brains was not only an independent genetic effect, but a direct one to boot.
It sounds like science fiction, but something similar is actually happening in the lab of Alysson Muotri, a biologist at the University of California, San Diego. Muotri takes skin cells from volunteers, turns them into stem cells, and then makes them grow into tiny pinhead sized balls of brain tissue called organoids.
Of course these organoids are way too tiny to be considered cloned brains, but they are complex enough to make brain waves. And Muotri has already found that cognitively impaired populations have cells that produce underdeveloped brain organoids in the petri dish. For example brain organoids derived from autistic people had about a 50% reduction in synaptogenesis.
Muotri also decided to study Neanderthal brain organoids. Since it’s not possible to get cells from Neanderthals, he edited modern human DNA. Of the 20,000 protein coding genes, only 61 differ between us and them, and of these, only four are highly expressed in the brain so by editing just these four genes, he was able to produce Neanderthalized organoids, or Neanderoids as he calls them. Modern humans had far more spherical skulls than Neanderthals so it’s interesting that our brain organoids are spherical, while theirs look like popcorn.

Muotri notes that like the autistic brain organoids, the Neanderoids have a 50% reduction in synaptogenesis. Neanderoids also show 65% to 75% reductions in firing rate and activity level per neuron per minute. Muotri thinks this may help explain why it took them several hundred thousand years to progress from simple stone tools to, well, simple stone tools. By contrast, in just the last 50,000 years we jumped from simple stone tools to the internet, genetic engineering and traveling to the moon.

So clearly brain organoids are very good at identifying cognitively impaired populations, but can they measure normal variation in human intelligence?
Muotri could greatly advance our understanding of behavioral genetics if he made brain organoids of a representative sample of Americans of known IQ scores, and then correlated the synaptogenesis, neuron activity level and firing rate of the organoids with the tested IQs of the people from whom they were derived. Perhaps a carefully weighted composite score of all three measures would give the best prediction of IQ, and perhaps such a formula could allow us to estimate how Neanderthal’s would score on IQ tests (if they were reared in our society).
If it’s too difficult to get a representative sample of Americans and test their IQs, he could simply have students at his university donate their cells, and then correlate their brain organoid scores with their SAT scores. Would there be statistically significant differences in the brain organoids of people who score a perfect 1600 on the SAT compared to those who score 1400 compared to those who score 1200 compared to those who score 1000?
Muotri is also trying to teach the brain organoids how to control a robotic body. The speed with which they learn might be considered a low level IQ test. So imagine taking a conventional intelligence test like the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) or the SAT, while your mini-brain, raised in a petri dish is taking its own IQ test (learning to control its robotic body). This could be the 21st century version of studies where identical twins raised apart have their IQs correlated. If your score on a conventional intelligence test predicts the speed with which your brain organoid learns to control its robotic body, then that proves IQ tests are measuring a genetic property of the brain that is completely independent from social class and culture because environment is perfectly controlled in the petri dish.
Perhaps in the future instead of universities testing candidates on the SAT, they’ll just test the student’s brain organoids instead to eliminate the cultural bias some think confounds the SAT. For there’s no culture in the petri dish (aside from bacteria culture :-)).
When a prosecutor suspects a murderer is faking his low score on the WAIS to avoid execution (because it’s illegal to execute people with IQs below 70 in some states) he could insist on testing the murderer’s brain organoid instead (since they can’t fake low scores-as far as we know).
On the other hand brain organoids might prove that normal variation in IQ is nowhere near as genetic or biological as its proponents think. I find it fascinating that just four brain genes separating modern humans from Neanderthals produced such dramatic differences in brain organoids. That implies each gene must have huge effects. That’s not at all consistent with research on normal IQ variation among modern humans, which estimates that some 10,000 genomic variants are involved, each one affecting IQ by only a fraction of a point. It’s also possible that brain organoids showcase too early a stage of brain development to correlate with the higher abstract abilities measured by IQ tests (for example infant development scales have weak correlations with adult IQ).
In the below video Muotri discusses his brain organoid research:
Similarly, they found that only one gene controls fish brain size and intelligence.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2015/jun/single-gene-controls-fish-brain-size-and-intelligence
Genes don’t “control” and most pop-sci, including this, is garbage.
What’s wrong with the study?
“selected for”
???????
(Genes don’t “control” and most pop-sci, including this, is garbage.)
Genes regulate cell metabolism.
example: insects can be bred to have 4 legs rather than 6.
humans have 5 fingers
I think it is called morphology.
correct is wrong 🙂
correct if wrong 🙂
“Does DNA directly cause IQ (i.e. coding for bigger and more efficient brains), or does it do so indirectly (i.e. causing us to stay in school longer, where we learn how to think).”
It’s ridiculous to believe that DNA would directly “cause” any “trait” (“IQ”).
Its ridiculous to believe that DNA would indirectly “cause” one’s action (staying in school, thinking).
“But what if it were possible to clone just our brains, and these cloned brains were reared in environments completely alien to anything we have experienced. You grew up in a nice middle class family, and your cloned brain grows up in a petri dish, where its environment was 100% controlled with no gene-environment feedback loop.”
A clone’s brain grows in what kind of petri dish? If the cloned brain stays in the petri dish and doesn’t have the same experiences that the real you had, then is the cloned brain really “your brain”?
“Genetic causation” in the way hereditarians speak of is ridiculous.
“Perhaps in the future instead of universities testing candidates on the SAT, they’ll just test the student’s brain organoids instead to eliminate the cultural bias some think confounds the SAT. For there’s no culture in the petri dish (aside from bacteria culture :-)).”
Perhaps in the future, universities get rid of the SAT and don’t do any dumb proposals such as” testing student’s brain organoids”.
Anyway, your sci-fi fantasy is really far-off, if it’ll happen that is.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/brain-organoids-are-farther-from-consciousness-than-you-might-think
“That’s not at all consistent with research on normal IQ variation among modern humans, which estimates that some 10,000 genomic variants are involved, each one affecting IQ by only a fraction of a point”
What’s the basis for Hsu’s idiotic claim?
It’s ridiculous to believe that DNA would directly “cause” any “trait” (“IQ”).
It’s ridiculous to not believe it. As mentioned in the article, by editing just four genes, brain organoids showed 50% less synaptogenesis, and 65% to 75% lower firing rate and neuron activity level.
If the cloned brain stays in the petri dish and doesn’t have the same experiences that the real you had, then is the cloned brain really “your brain”?
It’s your genetic brain (at a very early stage), but not your environmental brain. The whole point is that in the dish, everyone’s brain has the experience (or lack thereof) so experience is no longer a source of phenotypic variation. Only DNA is. Thus if your brain organoid quality can predict your IQ, it means your IQ is caused by DNA.
Perhaps in the future, universities get rid of the SAT and don’t do any dumb proposals such as” testing student’s brain organoids”.
I’m with you brother. Intelligence testing should only be used for research, not social engineering.
“It’s ridiculous to not believe it. As mentioned in the article, by editing just four genes, brain organoids showed 50% less synaptogenesis, and 65% to 75% lower firing rate and neuron activity level.”
How do you go from this to “genes are causal for IQ”? What does the term “genetic causation” mean to you? What’s the a priori justification for privileging DNA over other developmental resources?
“It’s your genetic brain”
This phrase is nonsense to me. These organoids, in any case, aren’t “brains.”
“everyone’s brain has the experience (or lack thereof) so experience is no longer a source of phenotypic variation. Only DNA is. Thus if your brain organoid quality can predict your IQ, it means your IQ is caused by DNA.”
“Brain organoid quality”? What standard will this “brain organoid quality” be measured against? What’s the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit?
In any case, how would (3) follow in your thought experiment? How would these brain organoids (clusters of cells, not brains) show “IQ”?
“Intelligence testing should only be used for research, not social engineering.”
Baby steps, we’re half way there.
How do you go from this to “genes are causal for IQ”?
You said it’s ridiculous to believe DNA causes any trait. It obviously does because they can do experiments now where they edit the DNA and the phenotype changes. I don’t have proof it causes NORMAL variation in IQ specifically, though I have my opinions.
This phrase is nonsense to me. These organoids, in any case, aren’t “brains.”
Depends how you define “brain”
“Brain organoid quality”? What standard will this “brain organoid quality” be measured against?
The average American’s brain organoid.
What’s the specified measured object,
the brain organoid.
object of measurement
the neural network
and measurement unit?
number of synapses, number of Hz per second, etc
What does the term “genetic causation” mean to you?
it means if the DNA were different, the phenotype would be different.
What’s the a priori justification for privileging DNA over other developmental resources?
Because all phenotypic variation is caused by DNA and environment, so those two variables are privileged. Developmental effects are themselves caused by DNA and environment.
“You said it’s ridiculous to believe DNA causes any trait.”
Yes, it is.
If A causes B, then B necessarily counterfactually depends on A. Thus, claiming that a trait would be different had the variant in question not obtained is merely repeating the claim under contention—it’s the task of the “genetic determinist” to explain how traits counterfactually depend on genetic differences.
For your claim of “genetic causation” to hold, what are the mechanisms? If you don’t know, can you name one instance in which causation was proved without identifying a mechanism? What is the causal pathway? If you don’t know, then to make the claim that T is “genetic” is incoherent, right?
“Depends how you define “brain””
The brain is an organ. Organoids are not brains. It’s explicitly said by these researchers that organoids are not brains.
Maybe you didn’t get what I meant by “quality”—is this science or…?
Neural networks are objects?
Synapses are measurement units?
How would you know that a real brain wouldn’t be different than these brain organoids?
“it means if the DNA were different, the phenotype would be different”
Yea that’s wrong. Trait variation arises though development. Have you read Noble, Moore, Richardson, or Oyama yet?
Transcription factors are important gene products/regulators but they only vary slightly from mouse to human to flies. But the phenotypic variation between the three species is quite obvious to us. So this shows that the form and the variation of the cells and what they produce, when they produce etc is under the control of the dynamic system, not the genes (which are just developmetal resources that have parity with other resources).
https://elifesciences.org/articles/04837
The environmental structure regulates gene expression and so every gene transcript becomes the environment of other genes—how do got partition that?
DNA does nothing at all until it’s activated by transcription factors, interactions with other proteins, environmental (such as cellular context), etc.
If only you held a systems view of development and not a reductionist one that’s been outdated for decades.
RR, you can’t claim to be part of the Kool Kids Klub and still think that DST implies genes don’t cause phenotypic variation. That’s just dumb. Saying that genes are the source of the perceived variation isn’t privileging them as nobody is denying the alternative’s influence.
I’ll give Pumpkin the benefit of the doubt and assume he isn’t dumb enough to think the environment is non-causal to the development of the organoid’s phenotype, but if the respective environments have been equalized then it isn’t fallacious to say that variation is caused by the difference in genetics. That’s how heritability works.
RR, are you really arguing against hereditarianism purely on the basis of quibbling about the semantics of the word “causal”? If genes are the only thing that’s different, and it leads to a different result, clearly the genes caused the difference.
Some of your arguments remind of creationist arguments, like the missing link argument: “You haven’t found every intermediary between two species, therefore god”.
“You haven’t found every intermediary step between DNA and outcome, therefore DNA is not causal”. It’s sort of the “god of the gaps”-argument, where if not every step is known, nothing can be concluded.
Imagine if Richard Dawkins suddenly became a creationist and started making arguments like that, or semantically confused arguments like “if we came from apes why are there still apes?”. Since RR used to be a hereditarian, that seems like what he’s doing.
Maybe you should stop thinking verbally RR, and just visualize the process of different genes forming different proteins forming different brains. Could physically different brain have anything to do with different performance of those brains?
Do chimpanzee and human brains differ in intelligence because of genes? Are racial human differences in genetics the result of the same process that cause chimpanzee-human differences, except at a much earlier stage?
Youve had this debate 10 times already.
Melo, it comes down to active vs passive causation. And I was specific when I said “the form and the variation of the cells and what they produce, when they produce etc is under the control of the dynamic system, not the genes.”
LOADED,
“RR, are you really arguing against hereditarianism purely on the basis of quibbling about the semantics of the word “causal”?”
Yes.
“If genes are the only thing that’s different, and it leads to a different result, clearly the genes caused the difference.”
Ceterus parobus claims are nonsense here—conditions are hardly if ever the same. What I wrote about TFs (and I could write more) backs me up here.
Is normal variation associated with genetic variation?
Genes don’t influence mental traits. The mind is intentionally constituted meaning that it’s irreducible to dispositions or causal tendencies. Humans can intend, chimps cannot and I assume it comes down to brain differences. Dozens of arguments establish that the mind cannot be the object of selection—it’s not physical. So even granting “natural selection”, the mind still can’t be selected for. Chimps lack intentionality—humans obviously don’t. What explains this is their brains—but you can’t point to differences in genes or expression to show how “mind arises” in humans compared to chimps as the mind is non-physical.
Right. Well causation is still causation. So it is coherent to say that “genes cause trait T”
Also why are you privileging the dynamic system of other factors?
“Neural networks are objects”
???
RR is irrational regardless his ideological positions . RR is fanatical about environmentalist or neolamarckist hypothesis while is extremely biased about genetic or darwinian hypothesis. He can’t be ponderated and accept facts of both. He doesn’t understand every behavior we are performing every moment of our lives are genetically or biologically controlled. Right now i’m writing this comment and everything i’m doing is not based on “environmental influence”. He seems deny very human self determination just like if i’m not capable to learn english i must blame my environment and not because i have no cognitive facility to do it neither self determination to do it. Also because my very pragmatic mind i don’t see any reason and then willingness to expand my english grammar . Behavior specially human is variable but It’s not indefinible neither impredictable as RR assume.
PP are you assuming that variation in experience wouldn’t have an impact on phenotypic variation? Because these “brain organoids” wouldn’t “experience” things all in the same way.
Their objective experience is the same, so any difference in subjective experience is genetic variation including reaction norms.
But any correlation between us & our organoids would exclude such reaction norms because their environment is so alien to ours
Santo what’s up, hope you’re well.
“RR is irrational regardless his ideological positions”
What’s my ideological position?
“RR is fanatical about environmentalist or neolamarckist hypothesis while is extremely biased about genetic or darwinian hypothesis”
What’s the “environmentalist or neolamarckist hypothesis” that I push?
“He can’t be ponderated and accept facts of both”
I’ve been saying that G vs E is a false dichotomy literally for years.
“He doesn’t understand every behavior we are performing every moment of our lives are genetically or biologically controlled.”
What do you mean by “bioigically controlled”? What’s the distinction between action and behavior?
“Right now i’m writing this comment and everything i’m doing is not based on “environmental influence”.”
Yet you’re responding to my comment.
“Behavior specially human is variable but It’s not indefinible neither impredictable as RR assume.”
How can we predict behavior? With situationism?
“Youve had this debate 10 times already.”
True.
Experiences are “genetic”?
“Genes don’t influence mental traits. The mind is intentionally constituted meaning that it’s irreducible to dispositions or causal tendencies. Humans can intend, chimps cannot and I assume it comes down to brain differences. Dozens of arguments establish that the mind cannot be the object of selection—it’s not physical. So even granting “natural selection”, the mind still can’t be selected for. Chimps lack intentionality—humans obviously don’t. What explains this is their brains—but you can’t point to differences in genes or expression to show how “mind arises” in humans compared to chimps as the mind is non-physical.”
The difference between humans are chimps is genetic, so differences in mental traits are obviously caused by genetic differences.
If intentionality is this binary thing, do human children suddenly acquire it from one day to the next? Because the brain matured enough? So it’s still caused by biology, which is controlled by genes. Same thing with minds.
You’re just making the “god of the gaps”-argument again, pointing out ever smaller gaps in knowledge as proof against something when it’s actually showing we’re narrowing down how it works more and more.
Do you believe in evolution or creationism? Because if brains that cause minds can’t be selected for, then god must’ve did it eh?
RR, hi, yes i’m fine right now. Better than the last year. We hope that retard be impeached soon. And you? I was with long hair too but the last summer fucked up my patience to cultivate them. I will try to answer all of your counterarguments by cell. Wish me lucky, amen!1
1. If you still don’t know why i could??
Your ideological position is pogressist academicism.
2. Why you do silly questions believing it will help your argumentative basis??
RR, out of your bubble, you convert just converted.
3. Yes, but because you even’t believe genes or biology have some role in human behavior…
4. RR is completely submerged in this stupid fake philosophy today. Action and behavior are the same thing. There are many words which are synonimous but they exist fundamentally for aesthetic purpose to avoid repeat the same word., to make texts less repetitive But action also can be intérpreted as self directed behavior but…
“I’m acting
Performing
Behaving in such way” see? Same thing
5. Every behavior of everything is predictable because reality is based on logical laws. Human behavior too..
We can predict behavior by patterns observation or detection.
RR believes dificult or rarely used words (aesthetics) are fundamental part of the art of “well think”
And he also believes that arguments is superior than facts or truths
That’s why philosophy is so badly judged.
You don’t win fascists like that.
“The difference between humans are chimps is genetic, so differences in mental traits are obviously caused by genetic differences.”
This claim is defeated by dozens of a priori arguments.
Genes don’t “control” development.
Brains can be selected as brains are physical. Since the mind is not physical, evolutionary biology—being a physical theory—can’t explain he rise of the mind.
I don’t claim to know, I know that the mind can’t be selected and that just-so stories are told by many creationists and evolutionists.
Santo,
The distinction between action and behavior is:
Actions are done for reasons, behaviors are instantiated by to past events.
Arguments use facts and come to truths.
Genes are necessary, not sufficient, causes for behavior
Meaning words matters
Words itself no…
Many argumentations are not totally based on facts or truths (perceived facts).
How genes are necessary??
Nobody think just genes but you and your colleagues believes just-environments and you can deny it thousand times
Both left and right lie but left ihas lots of sophisticated intelectual fraudulents, not about everything.
“Brains can be selected as brains are physical. Since the mind is not physical, evolutionary biology—being a physical theory—can’t explain he rise of the mind.”
A mind is just the outcome of a functioning brain. This is like saying “Legs can be selected as legs are physical. Running is not a physical *thing*, it’s an action, therefore evolution can’t explain running.”
What do you think is the cause of intelligence differences between animals and other animals, and animals versus humans? Why don’t chimps raised as humans become like humans?
Genes are necessary causes for chimp/human differences. Genes are but one resource that constructs an organism. We are talking about TWO KINDS of developmental systems. Phenotypic organization is irreducible to genes. What makes a human human, a chimp a chimp, a rat a rat etc? Development. The developmental process is why humans and chimps are different.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00556.x
Check figure 2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/
Genes and conditional genetic combination
Genes are like ingredients and conditional genetic combination is like recipe
Different ingredients and or different combinations result in different recipes or developments…
Let’s say there was only one chimpanzee and one human, then yes it would be difficult to know which differences were due to genetic differences. But there’s billions of humans living in all kinds of environments and they consistently develop differently to chimpanzees. Differences between chimps and humans that are consistent must be due to genetic differences. When you look at a large number of beings, the random developmental factors even out.
Let’s say there’s a cake recipe that consistently results in cakes with chocolate taste, and then there’s a cake recipe that consistently results in cakes with vanilla taste, regardless of where and when and by whom these cakes are made.
What causes the difference? Is it the different recipes? Or did random developmental factors just happen to differ in such a way as to always impart a vanilla taste when the vanilla cake recipe was followed? What would be the odds of that happening millions of times consistently?
Some Guy,
Excellent point
Yes, not just structure of this thinking line is the same but also the “Jesus doctrine”: the impossible christian purism pasteurized from its mythological just so stories.
Atheist RR is defending christian purism believing its science, Lol.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/01/05/christianity-and-sociobiology-synthesizing-just-so-stories/
I know this but i’m talking about how christianism morality is infuencing egalitarianism.
I know this was meant for you Pumpkin but I want to have some fun.
“it’s the task of the “genetic determinist” to explain how traits counterfactually depend on genetic differences.”
Right, which is what the organoid research set out to prove.
” If you don’t know, then to make the claim that T is “genetic” is incoherent, right?”
Lol no.
While I admit that kind of evidence would be nice, it isn’t necessary for the claim to be coherent. Remember Science isn’t about finding something out without a doubt but more about exhausting other conclusions until one is more than likely the correct answer. You can only be less wrong.
“Neural networks are objects?”
Actually some of them are.
“Synapses are measurement units?”
I think you’re being intellectually dishonest here. Synaptogenesis is used as a yard stick for differential levels of Intelligence between brains. The reason of course being obvious, I shouldn’t have to link you any Neuroscience papers on the subject. Like how inches are counted to give a precise measurement of height, if one brain has noticeably more growth in it’s neural architecture it gives a precise measurement of cognitive growth or potential.
“Transcription factors are important gene products/regulators but they only vary slightly from mouse to human to flies. But the phenotypic variation between the three species is quite obvious to us. So this shows that the form and the variation of the cells and what they produce, when they produce etc is under the control of the dynamic system, not the genes (which are just developmetal resources that have parity with other resources).”
Good job, now are you going to explain how this contradicts any statement made by Pumpkin?
I know this was meant for you Pumpkin but I want to have some fun.
That’s okay. I’ve already had this conversation with him 10 times. Maybe you can get through.
I doubt it.
RR has an agenda.
Most Biologists and biology enthusiasts I talk to outside of HBD understand and support DST. None of them would ever say genes aren’t causal factors to phenotype though. So either RR is ignorant or just lying for the sake of “sticking it to the genetic determinists” whoever those people are.
Whats my agenda?
“Most Biologists and biology enthusiasts I talk to outside of HBD understand and support DST.”
“A not uncommon reaction to Dsτ is, “That’s completely crazy, and besides, I already knew it.””
“None of them would ever say genes aren’t causal factors to phenotype though.”
Passive vs active causation—genes are resources that are on par with other developmental resources—this is a DST position.
“Right, which is what the organoid research set out to prove.”
How do traits counterfactually depend on genetic differences?
How are neural networks objects? I take issue with “precise measure”—Berka/Nash measurement objection.
What about multiple realizability of psychological traits? Why should I look at the structure of something and make an assumption?
What I wrote about TFs shows that genes are necessary, not sufficient causes. DNA has parity with other resources.
“So either RR is ignorant or just lying for the sake of “sticking it to the genetic determinists” whoever those people are.”
Richard Lynn is one of them.
“Whats my agenda?”
You want to “DESTROY HEREDITARIANS WITH FACTS AND LOGIC.”
““That’s completely crazy, and besides, I already knew it.”””
Is that what you think I’m saying lol? No, I’m saying most proponents of DST wouldn’t object to someone saying that Genes have causal influence on Phenotype variation. You do because you have an axe to grind.
“genes are resources that are on par with other developmental resources—this is a DST position.”
Right, so now explain how that contradicts any statement being made by Pumpkin or I. Again, I give Pumpkin the benefit of the doubt and think he understands that even though the environments have been theoretically equalized, that doesn’t mean there is no causal influence from non-genetic factors happening in these experiments.
“How do traits counterfactually depend on genetic differences?”
Trait A cannot exist without genotype B assuming conditions X, Y, and Z.
Why are you asking me irrelevant questions? Don’t waste my time.
“How are neural networks objects? ”
The same way a chair is an object. At least educated yourself about the topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_circuit
“What about multiple realizability of psychological traits?”
What about the The critique of multiple realizability I sent your way last time we had this discussion? Do i need to refresh your memory?
“Why should I look at the structure of something and make an assumption?”
You’re not making “assumptions”. You’re making an observation and creating hypotheses from it. It’s more inductive. The conclusions aren’t airtight, but they sure as hell aren’t baseless.
“What I wrote about TFs shows that genes are necessary, not sufficient causes. DNA has parity with other resources.”
So you are a Liar. Or maybe you just have a really poor short-term memory? This si what you said:
It’s ridiculous to believe that DNA would directly “cause” any “trait” (“IQ”).
Its ridiculous to believe that DNA would indirectly “cause” one’s action
So you clearly don’t even think Genes can be a necessary cause. Is that not what that meant? Because it sure as hell seems that way, ask anyone here. I thought the precision of words mattered? I mean all of your arguments seem to rest on that premise anyway.
“Richard Lynn is one of them.”
Am I Richard Lynn? Is Pumpkin Richard Lynn? Is the person doing the organoid research Richard Lynn?
(Post this one.)
Are you a type identity theorist? If MR is true then IT is false. If IT is true, then MR is false. ITs believe that mental states have a 1:1 relationship with brain states. So take these “brain organoids.” Looking at these in their petri dishes, noticing a physical change and then attempting to correlate it to a mental change would be a fool’s errand.
If MR is false, then all mental properties are realized in exactly one way.
It is highly plausible that all mental properties are capable of MRs.
It is highly plausible that MR is true (MP, I, ii)(Nevermind Kripke’s treatment of IT in Naming and Necessity.).
And PP obviously doesn’t believe that genes are on par with other resources if he thinks there are “independent genetic effects.” I know you know that DST is different than MS-derived theories so why are you acting as if it’s not? If DNA is on par then there is no reason to privilege it in the ontogeny of traits.
Genes are a necessary cause for behavior in virtue of the fact that no genes = no organism. Genomes are background conditions of phenotypic variation—if we didn’t have genomes we wouldn’t have phenotypic variation. But we have genomes so we have phenotypic variation. But it doesn’t follow that genetic differences counterfactually explain differences in phenotype.
D. Noble (2018):
“The uni-directionality of sequence information transfer from DNA to proteins no more determines life than the QWERTY keyboard determines what I wrote in this article.”
“If MR is true then IT is false. If IT is true, then MR is false.”
That’s actually false to anyone who has read on the topic.
Even Stanford disagrees.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiple-realizability/
The mind is conceptually different than the Brain. Physically it is not. Even though thought is impossible without outside activation, and is therefore holistic, all of thought occurs within the CNS because all thought is simply the variation in Synaptic activity and communication between brain regions.
If there were no physical constraints on the variation of Mental states then convergent evolution would be highly unlikely. Also how does MR reconcile with the Causal closure of the physical?
“I know you know that DST is different than MS-derived theories so why are you acting as if it’s not? If DNA is on par then there is no reason to privilege it in the ontogeny of traits…..But we have genomes so we have phenotypic variation. But it doesn’t follow that genetic differences counterfactually explain differences in phenotype.”
What makes you think the term “independent genetic effects” is privileging genes of other causes? Actually I know why you think that, but I’ve explained the concept multiple times. One more time:
Do you understand the difference between a cause and condition? Well there really isn’t a difference other than the scenario we find ourselves. A cause is a condition if it is the “fixed” variable in said scenario. Subsequently if I control for all other causes except for the genetic variation that exists, then those controlled causes are now conditions and it is coherent to say that “genetic variation counter-factually explains the observed phenotype variation”. Because if said variation was removed the perceived outcome would be different.
Furthermore if every gene had the same potential as every other historical contingency would be highly unlikely as well, so Noble’s metaphor isn’t even coherent.
How is it false? If MR is false then all mental properties would be realized by one physical (brain) state. Where’s the error in Putnam’s argument that I’ve provided?
What do you mean by “Physically [the mind] is not [different from the brain]”?
How did you provide an account of how traits counterfactually depend on genetic differences? What experiment would establish that behavioral variation is dependent on genetic variation?
I didn’t say MR was false. I said the two concepts weren’t mutually exclusive, read the link. I then laid out valid critiques of MR which you have yet to address for whatever reason.
We conceptualize water and H2O differently even though they are the same physically. The mind and brain are the same way. That’s what irreducibility refers to. Nobody is a substance dualist in this day and age.
Theoretically if I controlled all other variables except for genetic variation then by definition genetic variation would be the cause because the other causes are no longer causes but instead conditions.
Simply put, genes cause traits ceteris paribus. To deny this would not only deny the existence of convergent evolution, but also the theory of historical contingency that you endorse as all genotypes do not hold the potential to produce all the same phenotypes. Meaning if a chimp and a human were raised the exact same way, they would still be different.
None of this contradicts DST. To deny any of this is to deny Evolutionary theory. What you say is true but you take it to such an erroneous extreme that it ends up contradicting well established theories. And you’ll lose that battle every time.
I forgot to add, that because genetic variation is the only cause (as the others have become conditions by definition) therefore the traits counter factually depend on genetic variation because if you change the gene the trait changes.
And “independent genetic effects” are impossible—GxE is ubiquitous.
A Y chromosomes is an independent genetic effect because in all known environments, it makes you taller & stronger than you would have been without it. Since it has the effect of increasing height & strength in all known environmentalists its effect does not depend on environment thus independent.
Capiche?
ALL effects are GxE, read the probabilistic epigenesis paper from Gottlieb.
Then why isn’t the Y chromosome’s effect on height & strength an interaction?
I mean, just read the article—he talks about “direct independent genetic effects”—but this assumes that these “brain organoids” would have the same “subjective experience”—I dont need to say how ridiculous a claim that is.
I hope PP wrote this as sci-fi piece and not to predict what would happen in the future for this research and “IQ.”
Whats the causal closure again? That’s Kim’s argument right?
“Nobody is a substance dualist in this day and age.”
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Immaterial_Self.html?id=yHlm355BdfUC
“To deny this would not only deny the existence of convergent evolution, but also the theory of historical contingency that you endorse as all genotypes do not hold the potential to produce all the same phenotypes. Meaning if a chimp and a human were raised the exact same way, they would still be different.”
Are you pushing genic selection?
“Meaning if a chimp and a human were raised the exact same way, they would still be different.”
Chimps and humans are different in virtue of their developmental system and evolutionary history.
“None of this contradicts DST. To deny any of this is to deny Evolutionary theory. What you say is true but you take it to such an erroneous extreme that it ends up contradicting well established theories. And you’ll lose that battle every time.”
Haha what theories did I contradict with my “extreme” position? Organisms (that is, their developmental system) is what is selected—in pretty sure you agree there, correct me if I’m wrong.
“B iff G” (behavior B is possible if and only if a specific genotype G is instantiated) or “if G, then necessarily B” (genotype G is a sufficient cause for behavior B). Both claims are false; genes are neither a sufficient or necessary cause for any behavior. Genes are, of course, a necessary pre-condition for behavior, but they are not needed for a specific behavior to be instantiated;
1. Yeah, I’m talking about Kim.
2. Nobody that knows what they’re talking about is a substance dualist in this day and age****
3. What do you mean by genic selection? I have a feeling you’re about to say something really stupid.
4. Right, now how does that contradict what I said?
5. You might find it funny , but I think it’s pretty sad. You’re contradicting the theory of Evolution.
6. That last sentence is nonsensical. If genes are necessary for behavior, then they are necessary for any specific behavior. The same is true for any specific gene in reference to any specific trait ceteris paribus.
Anyway I’ve demonstrated that genes are counterfactual causes. (Btw counterfactual do not need to be sufficient or necessary) Though I’m not sure what the point is as none of this is even relevant to the truth of this blog post. I already provided evidence that you clearly think genes aren’t causes which of course conflicts with DST, that subsequently proves you have an agenda. Also I find it curious that you continue to ignore the substantial parts of my argument. If you’re not going to take this seriously then don’t waste my time.
EVERYTHING IS AN INTERACTION.
An interaction would be XY genotype being taller XX genotype in america, but XX being taller than XY in Australia. But men are taller than women in all countries so no interaction
Look up norm crossing & get back to me
You’re missing the point—the Y chromosome interacts with numerous other factors: it is NOT independent.
It’s effect is environment independent, meaning it has the same effect in virtually every environment.
I’m using the statistical definition of interaction, where an interaction is when the effects of two variables on a third is not additive. The effect of the Y chromosome is additive because it adds height in virtually every environment. In other words, the line graph predicting the phenotypes of xx vs xy genotypes in different envrionments shows parallel lines because the y chromosome has the same effect in every environment. When the lines are not parallel, that’s the statistical definition of gene-environment interaction:
I KNOW!!
WHY ARE WE YELLING?
what about the trans caveman gene deletion?
is that an interaction?
Does RR know about knockout genes?
He said something about CREs but he tried to spin it as the “EnVirOnmEnt tO oThEr gEneS”.
(1) Do you have a formalization of the argument?
(2) How do you know that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
(3) Are genes the unit of selection?
(4) The developmental process is why humans and chimps are different and is why, to use a popular “HBD” saying, you wouldn’t turn a chimp into a human by raising him like a human.
(5) Because I don’t think genes are causes (in “HBD” parlance) means that I deny evolution?
(6) How does that refute me?
Let’s get back to Putnam—in the argument I provided which premise do you take issue with?
1. https://www.iep.utm.edu/mental-c/#SH3biii
2. Well seeing as how every other Dualist argument tends to be begging the question, or the intensional fallacy I have an abductive reason to believe this will be the same.
What’s his argument?
3. No. What’s your point though? Do you not understand genes are a fundamental part of Evolutionary Theory?
4. I don’t understand how that conflicts with what I said.
5. You said genes have no part in trait development. Or more specifically, your views on the matter tend to be inconsistent. The ones I quoted are incompatible with Evolutionary Theory.
6. It’s literally the opposite of what you just said.
(1) This leads to epiphenominalism which states that intentions causally relevant. Yea, the causal exclusion argument also shows that AM entails mental epiphenominalism. But Davidson showed that reasons are causes for actions, which are intentions.
(2) I’ll get back to you, I need to formulate it.
(3, 4, 5) So if they’re not units of selection then they can’t be selected-for.
But phenotypic adaptation is more reorganizational than it is “due to genes”; ‘adaptation’ doesn’t await mutation, genes are followers, not leaders, in evolution (West-Eberhard, 2003, 2005)
(6) That doesn’t refute my argument; see also (3, 4, 5).
“phenotypic organization” = phenotypic novelty.
How can it be shown that G is causal for B?
But Davidson showed that
he didn’t show anything you fucking fucktarded guinea. the mere “analysis of concepts” can’t show anything.
thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.
you can tell a “philosopher” has nothing interesting to say and has a low IQ when he makes arguments. an authentic philosopher merely observes and describes and is great to the extent he sees what others have not.
1. Go on.
2. Ok.
3,4,5. Right, we both know this, how does it contradict what I said?
That’s not entirely true. While yes, most Adaptation is re-organizational, we classify ancestry by genetics and proponents of historical contingency, (like Gould) recognize that genetic differences largely influence re-organizational pathways that organisms adhere to. Did you check out that video I sent you?
6. You stated: “genes are neither a sufficient or necessary cause for any behavior. Genes are, of course, a necessary pre-condition for behavior, but they are not needed for a specific behavior to be instantiated”
This is incoherent simply because if Genes are necessary for behavior in general than it necessary for any specific behavior automatically.
“How can it be shown that G is causal for B?”
B cannot exist without G. That’s like trying to say the brain doesn’t cause the mind.
i have to repeat for rr because inbred albanian.
darwinism, natural selection, descent with modification, etc. are just ways of saying…
while mutations are uniformly distributed across the genome of gametes, changes in genome of an interbreeding population over many generations is NOT.
donald davidson died from stupidity.
as an actual math major whose primary interest was mathematical logic i can tell you…
the mathematical proof is almost always simply a formalized way of saying…”this is what i SEE.”
that is, the see-er is trying to communicate what he has seen and so far as he can formalize his communication his attempt to communicate is RECOGNIZED.
it’s true in physical science too. the author of the paper in physical chemistry is writing FOR HIMSELF and hopes others will understand him.
no matter how high the IQ, no one can read papers in p-chem, phsyics, or math like a newspaper…it’s a different genre.
rr is a son-of-a-cop who insists everything be built with lincoln logs.
btw…NYC cops make > $CAD 140,000 per year…2x the average american cop…and they retire at 50…
it’s the same in boston…
because mafia?
BUT rr believes his sexual attraction to anal-ytic “philosophers” is NOT genetic…
rr believes everyone should want donald davidson to do him [redacted by pp, may 26, 2020]
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1420315
so GAY and LYING!
KANT SAID EVERYTHING ANGLO-AMERICAN PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY HAS TRIED TO SAY…
AND MORE ! ! !
READ THIS. UNNUHSTAN IT. AND STOP BEING SUCH A PATHETIC CARTOON OF AN ITALIAN AMERICAN.
genes DO control for hairstyle, and 100% of trans cavemen have deletion mutation not found in cis cavemen. this mutation also causes micropenis.
Lol. IQ and other mental disorder’s being polygenic is just ad hoc reasoning from the failures of the concept of heritability which itself comes from spurious correlations. Maybe the results are inconsistent because heritability is spurious and the genetic and environment language is used inconsistently? Lol this field is cope.
Interesting post Pumpkin, never heard of organoids before. I would think the specific structure of a brain matters for intelligence as well though? Which would limit their accuracy to measure intelligence with.
All this just because majority of monozygotic twins are not clones… but some seems fantastically alike.
Seems more interesting analyse how similar nurtured apart mz twins are and how identical are their results. Isn’t?
Yes they’re so alike due to their treatment. See Joseph et al 2015.
But assumptions are not physical objects.
The greatest thing happening rn is that cynicism is signaling intelligent which it actually is.
Openness in liberals is actually stupidity.
Intelligence**
What.
Openess predict creativity.
All this because psychologists no have self knowledge as well can’t see any utility of it to their works.
And RR’s no have autobiographical memories.
I don’t know what this means.
Self knowledge?
What is that?
The only “self knowledge” I’m aware of is Akeel Bilgrami’s Self-knowledge and Resentment.
“Self knowledge” refers to understanding and knowing one’s self.
If you’re referring to “my own” ideas, then you don’t understand how knowledge and facts are generated.
RR do you believe intelligence is measured by life expectancy as a substitute for IQ tests.
You said life outcomes measure intelligence better than tests. That makes sense. But tests are kind of subconscious aspects of our mind that we have.
Its like horse power in a car. It is measure so innately inside the person or object that it leads to feelings of competency when doing activities in this world.
No I don’t believe that.
RR
In the height of this championships you believes i don’t know why??
In my views, facts are anything exist independent of our perception of awareness.
Knowledge begin with sensorial perception of reality. Knowledge and truth are basically the same thing. Another example of synonymous by aesthetic purpose. Knowledge or truth is what we perceive from reality. I know people traditionally define knowledge as a structured domain of truths. It’s true humans interact with environment. Geography is the knowledge that study the interaction between humans and their environments. But in the of day, Both are same thing. So knowledge starts with our sensorial perception and then intelectual elaboration.
rr and 85% of so-called “italian americans” must refer to themselves as “sicilian americans” because 85% of them are from the former “kingdom of the two sicilies” which was only made part of italy out of charity.
The kingdom was the largest sovereign state by population and size in Italy prior to Italian unification, comprising Sicily and all of Peninsula Italy south of the Papal States, covering most of the area of today’s Mezzogiorno.
Utility means organizing all time into one space.
My final thoughts are that previous generations being possibly more k selected were probably autists in their purest form.
This was actually a test we are becoming more k selected.
The greatest lesson to be learned is based on the humbleness of being the weakest link while not necessarily being the weakest link.
It humbled me so much I seek truth!
Santo mental hygiene=physical hygiene right
If people like Pumpkin understood how difficult it was to get CLONES to produce the same phenotypes in identical environments they’d probably shit themselves.
https://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/4/510
I always figured when I got rich id clone myself
multiple times and see what possible life outcomes I would have:
Biggest wish I still have tbh
It’d definitely be interesting to do.
But all of this isn’t to say that development can’t be theoretically controlled. It’s just extremely difficult These organoid studies may unfortunately not be the Obi-wan to our Princess Leia.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/bioscience/clones-different/amp/
As my one my fellow Redditor once said:
I feel like high school doesn’t do enough to convey just how unbelievably complex biology is. I’m studying pharmacology, and I still get surprised at just how ‘uncooperative’ experimental animals can be.
It’s like, you were literally designed for this! I have your genome on file! I can point to the exact genes my lab supervisor edited to make you perfect for this experiment, so WHY THE FUCK AREN’T YOU RESPONDING TO THIS DRUG WHEN ALL OF YOUR LITERAL CLONE BROTHERS ARE?
Oh yeah its definitely further from possible and makes it difficult to find stability and similarity to the prototype (which is obviously yourself) than to have a functional remnant of yourself left over.
That is why it costs so much and would only be viable if I were rich. Thats why my goal is to attain wealth to do things like this.
One LOADED could make a lot of money but 10 of us as an investment would make a fuckin make a killin. And of course I’d treat them as my equals just like having a child is treated as a subordinate.
My mind is too blurry to read but that is a good opportunity to describe my condition in light of gene studies. I have bipolar and schizo like symptoms. When I go through my cycles of high and low energy levels this means my psyche is soaking up energy. Soaking up energy and me exerting myself because of triggers causes hallucinations. the built-up energy starts releasing into a dream state.
If what I have is genetic then it is a less than sever condition. It is not over lasting nor overexerted. It lasts less than 5 minutes and happens every 6-12 months.
Energy bounces back and forth and regulation of the brain is genetic/gene oriented.
Genes make proteins and proteins regulate the bouncing of energy.
This causes the brain to learn or not.
There is bouncing on the inside and bouncing on the outside. The correlation between genes and the environment is never going to be exact. Because of my schizoaffective disorder my IQ scores will never properly reflect my genes. I never know when I will be too tired o take the test nor if my genes cause me to make mistakes on the test. If my tiredness and my speed were not a problem I may get 121 Full-Scale and 140 (g).
If everything bounced around in my brain were regulated properly my scores would be higher. Different environments cause difficult/better or worse regulation problems.
Regulation by genes and environment could be mapped out but the complexity means all maps genes/enviro need to be controlled for. We are not going to get control studies exact because variables are not controlled for. A model simplified will not exactly work either once complexity increases. But the more variables controlled for the more we understand gene regulation in the brain. It is a balance.
It is possible to have genes for mental illness and show no symptoms in adulthood. But if a trigger happens the genes are activated and symptoms occur. Depending on the type of illness and severity mental functioning weakens. IQ may drop. Day to day living activities are disrupted.
I firmly can say that I have a self-regulatory problem. I was abused at some point and my mother never taught me any life skills. I devolved into learned helplessness. So it is a psychosocial problem. School was the only environment I was adapted to although I was alone in school most of the time. Leaving it was hard to do.
Sometimes if life becomes too random we lose control of our ability to adapt. The distribution in time, place and persons needs to be just right or we fall into situations to difficult to push through. The right space to be in require good judgment. What holds people back is the failer to see future problems. Who what when where why.
right place, right time.
Animekitty knows more about human behavior than RR…
“genes for”
Great phrasing.
“Animekitty knows more about human behavior than RR…”
Read Akeel Bilgrami. He will tell you more about human behavior than any “behavioral geneticist.”
Read less
Think (observe, analyse) more
It’s not everything your intellectual ideological colleagues write that is right, right???
This blog It’s not academia. Explain with your own words what you mean. Since 2014 i’m expecting from you self made thoughts. You only have other made thoughts.
ANSWER my questions DIRECTLY
Can you??
Bear in your mind important facts
You are not geneticist
Neither psychologist
Neither biologist
Neither a thinker blinded from bias
Neither philosopher
It’s sound fallacious to say it but in this specific confrontation is not.
Words precision’s meaning worth absolutely more than words itself
Arguments are never superior than truths
A good text is clear, objective, well structured and only with minimal use of uncommon words
Philosophy is not the silly art of inventing new words just for this ends. Philosophy is the search for objective truths and the learning how separate them from subjective truths (our feelings and impressions) specially the most important ones.
Your way to philosophy is just wrong , very sorry.
Behaviors are constituted by patterns or recognizable actions 😉 thanks for them we are capable to detect a person suffering with psychotic breakout And othet who are not. In every school in the whole planet, humans shows up variation in learning that’s one of the way to catch intelligence expression. In every country, there are poor children who show up giftedness and rich children who show up lack of intelligence. Only you and your colleagues denies COMPLETELY the mere influence of biology on behavior. We are open to find environmental influences. None born with limitless and equal potential. It’s mean something about how biology DEFINE our limits and potentials but not exactly how we can adapt based on what we have.
Behaviors are like to be at home in lockdowns.
It’s a pre defined , perceived or not, potentials or limits. Like stay at home and can’t go out.
But You can circulate inside your home. It’s a metaphor to explain behavior limits and potential for development and self adaptation.
Your incapacity to avoid overuse of quotations and read-this is an example of look like innate difficulty to do different than that and without absolute “environmental influence”. Nobody is forcing you to act in that way.
Source of Akeel?? I google and find nothing.
Intelligence development is like height development
Personality is like weight
Rationality is a Always harmonious interaction between both.
Height has a vertical development reaches It’s maximum stays in its plateau until starts to shrink with aging
Weight has a horizontal development in which individual can have some control on it but It’s also depending the diet or the places you are. Different personalities means different niches adaptation.
Bilgrami:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00451.x
“Read less
Think (observe, analyse) more”
Wow thanks. It’s not like I’m told my college papers are really observant and analytic.
“Intelligence development is like height development”
Nonsense.
“You are not geneticist
Neither psychologist
Neither biologist
Neither a thinker blinded from bias
Neither philosopher”
I’m a nutritionist/trainer. But what does stating my profession bring to discussion?
Actions are done for reasons, behaviors occur due to antecedent conditions. That’s it.
Wanna hear some of “my own” (whatever that means) on nutrition? (When you say ‘your own’ you obviously don’t know how know and facts are generated.)
You’re a lost case, man.
It’s very near to cognitive/psychosis your freak show all the time here.
Another victim of fake philosophy.
What you deny so inflexibly It’s what you do here and whatever the debate you are, all the time.
“I don’t believe in ‘genetic determinism'”
Sorry, i’m not really interested in nutrition.
Well, because you firmly believe you are all these expert types. You can deny it but your actions OR behaviors speak for yourself.
”Bilgrami:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00451.x”
So???
Are you trying to teach me something you seems incapable to learn??
Self knowledge
Your tremendous fanaticism to behavioral environmentalism is just a notorious example about a complete absence of self control or knowledge about your own intentionalities.
I never claimed to be an expert—I read a lot and am knowledgeable on what I talk about.
If you’re not interested in nutrition then I guess you’ll never hear “my own” theories.
If I’m a “lost case” then stop talking to me/about me.
Behavior intrinsic influences can be observed without comparison among several individuals.
You must autist as RR to have no MENTALISM. How explain my incapacity to learn english properly.
RR is with you
Explain me
Do I have MENTALISM? yes
It is possible to recognize an individual’s mental conditions/history, yes.
RR ?
Animekitty,
Of course you have specially you are very sensitive toward other people feelings.
RR tactics is to make finding of genetic or intrinsic influences extremely dificult based on unrealist scientific vigor to gain time.
RR doesn’t understand pattern recognition is basal for science, It’s also her factor g if science is the materialized and structuralized human intelligence.
Wtf I didn’t use any bad language insult you. Why moderate that?
I did a Covid serologic test and asked about sensitivity and specificity. I then spoke with the physician biologist and she had never understood before I spoke to her that the chances of having a false positive was a relative value, to prevalence in the population, and how then to estimate the veracity of a positive result.
This epidemic has shown us that epidemiologists and biologists physician, so I suppose all physician, struggle with probabilities as soon as they are just a little bit difficult.
She had to draw to accept the reasoning and she was almost taking her head with her hands as she had had a revelation 😊
Where PP goes wrong is talking about “independent genetic effects”—everything is a gene-environment interaction. Nevermind his acceptance of “heritability estimates” and the pseudoscientific ways to glean them.
“Genes don’t control anything”
Versus
“Genes can be on or off'[behavior]”
What do you have against st me mentioning apes puppy?)
stop trolling
santo, in future include a comment discussing your link. Just posting links without comments violates blog policy because it looks like spam.
santo,
most of the american 99% has no idea what a rich person actually is. they think they’re mostly people like oprah.
ok,sorry,pumpkin
Americans are even worst than brazilians regards existential alienation.
Someone think democrats are comunists is absurd.
Leftists in USA are not called liberal at all.
Shapiro’s voice is disgusting
Santo he’s right but like most shitlibs he simply can’t comprehend the other dimensions of corporate power. It’s so frustrating.
Getting un-personed for not sucking up to [redacted by pp, may 22, 2020] is way more tyrannical than working at maccies.
In fact he probably supports Cheryl Sandberg in her epic quest to Silence Dee Knot Seas.
It’s so hard to take people like this seriously.
I posted a video, period.
Can you explain what i supposedly don’t know about it?? Or are you still TRIGGERED?
Real red pilled cannot be rightist, conservative or fascist…
The fantastic metaphor of Matrix trilogy directed by two transexual brothers now sisters, show up a capitalistic//conservative ilusion or alienation be Neo become enlighted by the fundamental truth.
”In fact he probably supports Cheryl Sandberg in her epic quest to Silence Dee Knot Seas.”
I have no clue what you are talking. I”’m not american neither a typical progressist. This must be crystal clear for anyone who visit this blog since i’m here commenting.
lmao I said I agreed with the video. I just wished people like the narrator understood the bigger picture. nothing to do with you.
Ok ok
Sorry
I understood completely wrong
Yes
It’s so dificult for them understand some basic things. It’s always tragedy for me.
the guy in the vid works for the guy who wrote Why You Should Be a Socialist…
[redacted by pp, may 23, 2020]
Conservatives are the biggest problem of humanity
[redacted by pp, may 22, 2020]
I wish i can participate of this extremely necessary forward step.
Specially TRUE MENTAL ILL
“Religious”
Truth hurts for real losers
Universalism is the biggest threat to humanity. Conservatism is an extension.
Humanity concept IS universalism itself
If humanity attemp to become a Global civilization universalism is inevitable
The problem is the new face of capitalism
Yes, Majority of what you call “liberals” are not uber intellectuals as they believe
But they at least don’t do bad things consciously as conservatives
Liberals on avg have a fragmented consciousness
Conservatives on avg have a compact but primitive one.
[redacted by pp, may 22, 2020]
PP,
Still don’t know how to censor with ponderation.
What i wrote is morally wrong for you??
Liberals can be religious as well without identifying with a mainstream religion [redacted by pp, may 22, 2020]
Wtf [redacted by pp, may 22] is banned now?
For now. It will come back soon.
Social intelligence can be heavily drawn on from two things: speed of emotions and depth of emotions. A speed of emotion will allow some to appropriately react to circumstances without deep emotional investment which could lead to rational outcomes.
Emotional depth is how strong one feels an emotion and is important for feeling good emotions strongly and bad ones in small amounts.
Either way those are two ways of associating things in terms of social tactless.
Intelligence also has a factor of appropriately responding to fear and being able to point out potentially hazardous things one could deal with in life. This is the biggest real life intelligence left out of IQ tests that is necessary to living a successful life.
Danger recognition is basically a skill one that can be learned and improved but might be as innate as some g loaded skillsets.
Why push the innate/learned dichotomy as if it tells us anything about a trait?
There’s a difference between learned and acquired RR.
You don’t learn epigenetic effects that were acquired from your mother.
Words matter remember?
Give me a beak bro. It was 4 in the morning when I wrote that.
Trumps media and financial elites speech and JFKs secret government speech – best 2 political speeches in the last 50 years.
Its been over 50 years since Kennedys been dead moron.
JFK’s secret govt speech was referring to communism not [redacted by pp, may 23, 2020] dummkopf.
socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy.
extreme free market capitalism = guatemala
extreme socialism = cuba, the USSR
every other country is between these extremes, but rich countries are farther left than poor countries and without state capitalism japan, korea, taiwan would never have developed. neo-liberalism has done a lot more harm than communism.
pragmatism, humanism, and not being a moron says continental style social democracy is best for “human flourishing”, and it’s actually easier to become a billionaire in scandinavia than it is in the US.
sweden had the longest lasting eugenics program of any country. it lasted until the 70s iirc.
supposing being an idiot IS “genetic” then holmes was right. supposing it’s NOT then he was wrong. but in a small number of cases (eg the trans caveman gene deletion) it clearly is, but these idiots almost never have chirrens i expect.
the US is a country born on third base that thinks it hit a triple. that is, it has incomparable natural resources. what about brazil, australia, canada? brazil has tropical diseases and a rampant jungle which takes over at the blink of an eye. canada and australia are mostly uninhabitable because cold and desert respectively.
median houselhold wealth austraila is about the same vermont.
Pumpkin, does having a much lower spatial iq reduce your speed of understanding math, but not necessarily the ability? I once read somewhere that visual learners learn things all at once.
“Conservatives” or subhumans are thousand times worse than this loudly minority of self defined social justice warriors. They are the biggest problem of all humanity. From Jackarta to New York. From Vladvostok to Lisbon. Zero exageration. One of deepest truth about human evolutionary trajectory.
An eugenic program without thinking seriously about the conservative problem is not a real eugenics specially ultraconservatives or fascists. Dumbest and cruelst monkeys amongst us.
Almost supposedly wise political institutions built by humans namely by “whites” are primitive, based on pseudo knowledge and poorly defined concepts. Example: FREEDOM of speech and other individual freedoms. What do you mean freedom?? What is it for you??
For Majority of people freedom mean “to do whatever i want”. This is polite savagery, basically the civilizational style of european and diasporal european “elites” for centuries.
Freedom became a synonymous for irresponsibility. From the moment you do whatever you want without use your intelligence to meta-think you will be affecting negatively others freedom.
And conservatives on avg are the worst to understand this or they do but they don’t care.
Freedom is your self autonomy and it starts from very basic behaviors, for example, a person with mental issues have a reduced freedom than a person without it. If humans were not mostly like retard functional ones….
the trans caveman/ridiculous hair gene deletion only matters in homozygotes.

this map also explains why rr is so utterly dishonest.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5927581/The-tragic-truth-cousin-marriages.html
you can see here how political correctness kills people and why rr defends his right to fuck his sister, because genes don’t cause anything by themselves.
The World Health Organisation insists that attempts to stop consanguineous marriage are ‘undesirable and inappropriate’.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/05/21/consanguinity-in-different-cultures/
so peepee will say, “then mixed race people are the healthiest.” this is not true. after a certain genetic distance, like that between icelanders, there is no further health benefit. the curve of genetic distance between parents and health of children doesn’t have an asymptote. it drops to zero and stays at zero after second cousin or something like that. and if the allele is beneficial then homzygotes can actually be healthier.
For Hiba comes from the city’s British-Pakistani community, in which around 60 per cent of mothers are married to their cousins according, to a major academic study.
first cousin marriage is also halakhic, totally accepted by orthodox jews.
hindus and roman/orthodox christians have the strictest rules regarding consanguinity of parents iirc.
Then
Romans were retards, shadows near to greek inventivity while ortodox christians are mujik since Ivan the evil.
But
Don’t look historically accurate though …
Hajnal line since tells us another history.
Next try to search good sources instead voices of your mind.
About misicigenation.
Whitey are far from magical aryan ideal. Can you see the reality???
Specially white conservatives
Those are the worst among whites. Or they are full retard, evil or a combination of both, just like some people which i know.
Seems
Hindus???
Recent 2001 data for Brazil indicate a rate of cousin marriage of 1.1%, down from 4.8% in 1957.[110] The geographic distribution is heterogeneous: in certain regions, the rate is at typical European levels, but in other areas is much higher.
In Roman Catholicism, all marriages more distant than first-cousin marriages are allowed,[176] and first-cousin marriages can be contracted with a dispensation. There are several explanations for the rise of Catholic cousin marriage prohibitions after the fall of Rome…By the 11th century, with the adoption of the so-called canon-law method of computing consanguinity, these proscriptions had been extended even to sixth cousins, including by marriage…
Protestant churches generally allow cousin marriage…
But in contrast to both Protestantism and Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church prohibits up to second cousins from marrying.
The Hindu Marriage Act prohibits marriage for five generations on the father’s side and three on the mother’s side…
when i say “roman” i usually mean “roman catholic”, the roman church being the latter day roman empire with emperor the pope.
how can so many hindu marriages be arranged AND not consanguin(e)ous?
it should be mentioned though that even forst cousin marriages usually result in healthy children. it’s just that the issue of such have much higher rates of genetic diseases.
It doesn’t work. Avg russian is not know by its intelligence.
know..n
What is wrong with LOADED?
I never had a problem with him?
Is this some genetically mixed-race thing.
I do not see that as any big deal.
lol
as you can see the identity “italian” is recent, like the identity “german”.
being french, english, or spanish is less recent.
i’d be surprised if wild animals (mammals) routinely hook up with relatives.
the no cousin or more thing is ancient.
second cousin = child of parent’s cousin
i don’t care how sexy…not doing it…DISGUSTING!
and people still defend islam and judaism.
this is what nukes are for.
even though the issue of such a congress would likely be as healthy as any.
still NOT!
rr is an extreme sexual deviant/pervert who needs to be locked up.
peepee should do a post on rr’s genetic issues, including his extreme, in your face, homosexuality.
Puppy if you want to worship billionaire geniuses why dont you ever mention Elon musk? That guy is way more impressive than gates.
How so?
gates is left handed, has a small head, and talks weird.
Worshiping for this parasitic mischling…
Jeez
Obsession for aesthetics is a feminine attribute
PP
My 12 year old nephew recently took the WISC V and scored a 130. Am quite proud of him but have a few questions that perhaps your expertise will help me work out.
Though I’ve run into a lot of this before and have a rough idea what the answers are I need a higher resolution perspective on the topic which isn’t readily available online.
1) What is the correlation of a childhood IQ test(say WISC) to an adult IQ(say WAIS)? 12 vs 18+ years old lets say…?
2) Is the 95% CI usually around 20 points at the average, gets narrower as the IQ increases and then gets wider again once we get to genius levels?
3) Are IQ tests for <12 year olds less accurate, get more accurate for 12-17 yo and even more so for adults(18+)?
4) On a more anecdotal level Marylyn Vos Savant is reputed to have scored a 228 at 10(albeit with shoddy extrapolations) and then again in adulthood scored a 186 on the Mega test. That is a 42 point difference, what is the probability that someone could have such a gap with the WISC and WAIS?
The answers to your questions would probably interest a lot of people so I’ll turn your comment into a Q & A article that I will post today or tomorrow.
”My 12 year old nephew recently took the WISC V and scored a 130. Am quite proud of him”
I just try to to guess Pumpkinhead :
1) 12 to 18 yo IQ correlation for same kind of test , I would say 0,65. So it would regress on average to 120 for White people but the CI would be quite big (-15 and +25) . Then you would have to correct for change in the given population IQ (like Flynn).
2) CI of 95% (quite big !) would be two times the error of measurement. Errors probably is stronger further from the mean for each subtest. But it would diminish if you got plenty of correlated very low or very high sub-scores. So I would guess the opposite. The CI would get lower away from the mean (meaning the interval gets bigger because the standard error of measurement is bigger) but then start to be bigger at the extremes provided the test get several independant sub-scores (because the error of measurement gets smaller). Else, no sub-scores, it would just diminish further from the mean..
3) it depends on the meaning of accurate. But it looks that the younger the more environnemental the older the more nature the IQ is. The older you get, the more you test is correlated to g standing and the more accurate it is. So if accuracy would be the more g loaded, i would say the older the better. As less and less people are able to pass a test when they get older, the average IQ is higher. So it shouldn’t be 100 at 70 yo for example. A
4) if the sd is 15 and you force the IQ into a normal
Curve, 228 would be a 8,5 sd, wich is absolutely impossible because there have not been trillions of humans. So I guess it was a ratio IQ and not a deviation or Gaussian IQ.
I guess if the maximum mental age is fixed at 18, If she got the maximum score of 160, it would give a 208. So either the maximum score was higher back then (like 170) or the adult chronological age was fixed at 21. In both cases, the ratio IQ extrapolation doesn’t work. So it just mean she was a very clever girl. If the score was 228, with a correlation of 0,5, she would have regress to 164. If she had a real g of’186, +22 is really in the CI (all the more that applying a regression to a set of 1 person is really gross)
—-> I just guesstimates all that – and don’t think it’s very serious – so we would have to Wait for Pumpkin answer 🙂
at age 10 she had a mental age of 22.8 but it wasn’t a real mental age of 22.8 because scores on the test peaked around age 16 however if in some parallel universe, scores had continued to increase with age beyond 16, her score would have equated to 22.8 according to the arbitrary intuition of the test creator.
I bet musk has interesting views on HBD being a refugee from south africa too.
musk is right handed?

but musk has apparently had hair plugs. what a [redacted by pp, may 25, 2020]
musk is right handed.

Parasite
While consanguineous arranged marriages are common and culturally preferred in some Islamic countries and among migrants from Muslim countries to other parts of the world, they are culturally forbidden or considered undesirable in most Christian, Hindu and Buddhist societies.[23] Consanguineous arranged marriages were common in Jewish communities before the 20th century, but have declined to less than 10% in modern times.[24][25]
peepee should do a post on the bregman carlson exchange. it revealed so many things about the nature of social reality.
—
90+% of humans are right handed.
other animals are handed but 50/50.
so humans differ from non-human animals in this totally objective way.
Sinistrophobia??
Now he is ovulating for musky mischling because he’s right handed. Self projection.
“I’m right handed. He is right handed. He is a ‘winner’. I’m a ‘winner’ (in my mind). We are Brothers, we are alike. His wife is my woman”
Cousin marriage is correlated with conservative levels then cultural primitiveness..
homosexuals are much more likely to be left handed. they are also shorter and less symmetric than heteros.