Traditionally, there have been two types of twin studies used to estimate heritability. The first is the classical twin study. In this, you take the phenotype correlation of MZ twins raised together and compare it to the correlation of DZ twins together. Since both types of twins shared the same home and same womb, the greater phenotypic similarity of MZ twins must be caused by their greater genetic similarity. And since MZ twins share twice as many segregating genes as DZ twins, we double the difference between the correlations to estimate heritability.
One criticism of this method is that even though both MZs and DZs share the same womb and home, the former are still more environmentally similar because of the unique experience of being an identical twin. If so, heritability will be overestimated.
The second type of study is taking the phenotypic correlation between MZ twins raised apart and using this as a proxy for heritability. The problem with this is even MZ twins raised apart shared the same womb and are often not raised far apart enough to prove much.
It occurred to me though that the perfect study would combine both methods and compare MZ twins raised apart with DZ twins raised apart. Now if the MZ twins are more alike, you can’t say it’s because of the unique experience of being an identical twin, because they don’t know their identical twin. And you can’t say it’s because they shared the same womb or were not raised far enough apart because the same applies to the DZ control group.
It’s absolutely BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!
To brilliant for me to be the first person to have thought of this.
Indeed I vaguely recalled the famous Minnesota study of twins reared apart (MISTRA) also having data on DZ twins raised apart. I recalled that MZ twins raised apart correlated about 0.75 on IQ and thus IQ had a heritability of 0.75. Well, I’ll just subtract the correlation of DZ twins raised apart from 0.75 and double the result (since MZ have twice as many common segregating genes) and I’d have myself a revised heritability estimate that was beyond reproach.
Sadly, I could not find the data anywhere.
And then I found this article by Jay Jospeph:
Bouchard and colleagues never published their full-sample DZA IQ correlations, even though they published full-sample DZA correlations for personality, “special mental abilities,” and most other MISTRA-studied psychological characteristics. To this day, they have prohibited independent researchers from inspecting the closely guarded MISTRA raw data. I show in my new article that the likely reason that they did not publish, share, or make available their full-sample DZA control group IQ data was that—based on the near full-sample DZA IQ correlations that were published in 2007 and 2012—the results would have revealed their failure to find a significantly higher MZA group versus DZA group mean correlation for any of the three IQ measures they used. An “important first step” requirement in the process of determining whether genetic factors influence IQ scores is finding that the MZA correlation is higher than the corresponding DZA correlation at a statistically significant level. The researchers bypassed this required step in their 1990 Science study, most likely because the hidden results failed to confirm their pre-existing belief that IQ was (strongly) influenced by genetic factors.9 Their strong genetic biases, it seems, led them to omit, bypass, and suppress their DZA IQ correlations in order to obtain the desired results.10
So it seems this excellent study was actually done, we’re just not allowed to see the results.
Pumpkin Person 
Jopseh also has a newer, more in depth article on this matter as well. He argues that the actual, not reported, heritability is 0.
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/521922
Well statistical significance is just a function of sample size so I wont hold that against MISTRA.
But interesting that the WAIS correlation for DZA was 0.5. He lists 0.62 for MZA but that’s probably an early number since the 1990 paper says about 0.7 for the WAIS specifically iirc. So heritability 0.4 which implies a genotype phenotype correlation of about 0.65 (similar to the predictive accuracy of Steve Hsu’s height polygenic scores)
“Well statistical significance is just a function of sample size so I wont hold that against MISTRA.”
Why do you say that? Yea MZAs are rare, but such h2 estimates have been used for years to state a genetic influence on IQ due to the results of these kinds of studies. It’s probable that Bouchard isn’t reporting the results since they’re not salient with his belief.
“genotype phenotype correlation”
What does a G and P correlation mean to you?
“Fraternal or dizygotic (DZ) twins on average share half their genes (assuming there is no assortative mating for the trait), and so identical or monozygotic (MZ) twins on average are twice as genetically similar as DZ twins.”
Not a good assumption for IQ.
why wasn’t the data released?
obvious. dishonesty.
thenceforth do not trust.
It wasn’t released presumably because it made WAIS IQ look like its heritability was only 0.24: MZA 0.62, DZA 0.5.
However the g factor score had a respectable heritability of 0.52: MZA 0.73 DZA 0.47
However by simply using MZA as the measure of heritabilty, they could make H^2 look much stronger.
It’s a clear case of dishonesty. They have refused to release the data to Jay Joseph. I wonder why that may be? Why did they publish results of one IQ test and not the other and restrict data to critics? Maybe because the DZA correlations were as high as DZA? In any case, what Bouchard is doing is not within the bounds of science.
Furthermore, it betrays understanding that the EEA is false—DZs experience more similar environments than DZs, which has been admitted for literally decades by twin researchers who then attempted to redefine the EEA in one of two ways:
(1) That twins create or elicit similar environments due to their genetic similarity. This is a circular claim, since the conclusion that genes explain behavioral differences is in a premise of the argument—they create similar environments because they’re more genetically similar. Formalized, it’s:
(1) If environmental similarity makes MZs more similar, then by behaving alike, MZs create more similar environments.
(2) Environmental similarity makes MZs more similar.
(3) Thus by behaving alike MZs create more similar environments.
(2) As for the second redefining of the EEA, it was first redefined by Gottsman in 1966 who merely add the word “trait-relevant” in front of “environments” in the original definition of the EEA. They they task critics to show which environments are relevant for a trait for MZs compared to DZs. So twin researchers can then claim that the critic hasn’t shown that MZs and DZs don’t differ in trait-relevantness, but this is a mere argument from ignorance.
http://logosjournal.com/2015/joseph-twin-research/
There is also the fact that (1) (argument A) makes (2) (argument B) irrelevant, since even if critics show that MZs have more trait-relevant environments (which they don’t need to do), they could just circle back to A, the circular argument.
The whole 100 years of twin research is a masterclass in assuming what you’ve set out to prove and then when shown to be wrong, doubledown on your claims, make it circular, and then state that critics need to disprove certain claims, when at the end of the day, everyone agrees that MZs experience more similar environments than DZs.
You should read Joseph’s Trouble with Twin Studies, since in one of the Appendices he has numerous quotes from twin researchers on the EEA.
Pumpkin, how similar genetically would DZ be on a trait if assortative mating for that trait is say 0.5? If it’s say 0.75 then you’d need to quadruple the MZA-DZA difference, no?
It’s assumed DZ twins share 50% of their segregating genes and MZ share just under 100%. Thus we double the difference. Now if DZ shared 75% of their genes we’d quadruple.
so called sesquizygotic twins are very rare according to wikipedia only two cases are known.
but falconer’s should actually overestimate H^2 slightly. i was confused. as usual.
youre going to war with the wrong guy you faggot. suck my cock some more and ill bust in your mouth so hard youll choke. idiot fucking Canadian cuckold.
Don’t fuck with me retard
i am a 27 year old male with nothing to lose Mug is absolutely right youre like a 50 year old negress with an entitlement streak.
go get your ovaries checked or something you low T fucking cuck.
if humans could be experimented on like rats the findings would be:
P1. there is STILL a significant residual of the bullshit measure h^2 despite whatever rr’s MIS-understanding of the “conceptual problems with” h^2.
P2. this residual would be SMALL!
like VERY SMALL!
[redacted by pp, 2023-02-18]
Your sarcasm is often off. I’m not right about every thing even less was Hitler, what i said he was very mediocre. And Kevin Macdonald and great majority of far right are just copying the same path of mediocrity. Most white people are right for not wanting to follow a group of very negative and biased group even if they also has been targetly induced to embrace their own disappearance (classical stages of parasitism).
The best way to conquer people is with a welcoming, positive and fair messages, narratives… But nuanced thinking throught multiple perspectives seems impossible to be learn by fanatic people like most far righters as well most leftswingers.
Good video thought
I was always fascinated about what happened with Japan economy during the 90’s.
I imagine AS TOTALLY EXPECTED a bunch of useless psychos was responsible for that.
peepee redacted the comment before you responded.
therefore you are peepee or a fellow mossad agent of peepee’s.
significant statistically vs significant practically…NOT the same.
this is why you get Brave New World embryo selection increasing IQ by 2.5 points or whatever. who cares?
yes.
merely pointing out how much power the 2% have will get you cancelled.
and peepee will cancel this comment.
because small minority group X has too much power doesn’t mean group X is evil or the mortal enemy of the majority.
but such nuance is not allowed under the sway of the 2% in america…not even any hint of it…which actually creates more people who actually hate the 2%…it is part of the 2%’s identity to be hated…so they foster hatred in the 98%…dershowitz agrees.
Danes are not hated. Democrats are too enlightened to be bigoted and MAGA is simply too stupid to know how Danes manipulate them & their foreign policy
Mugabe is retarded. The ‘danes’ are in power precisely because they have certain very controversial personality traits. Its not ‘public perception’. Its public perception everywhere they settle as Kevin McDonald shows. West Europe, East Europe etc. Only in America have danes attained power without anyone saying danes are in power explicitly.
Most leftswingers are not really “enlighted” and they are very bigoted because they just cant deal with opinions or views which are different than theirs.
Do you know what bigotry means right??
Santo you told me during an altercation we had at Peter Frost’s blog that you arent japanese you are full brazilian.
i wanna know the truth are you a kamikaze man or a braziliano?
either way i dont like you so its not going to change much.
He’s more or less white.
PP knows.
“More or less white” isn’t “white.” Sad that Santo tried to latch onto the idea that he’s white. What a sad worldview to have.
Santo may be “white” in Brazil, but he isn’t “white” in America.
Sadly you’re not white in America either.
Haha why do you say that?
Some of your photos suggest slight black or chinese ancestry
Nope my family is from South Italy. I am a pluralist about race and so there can be different race concepts depending on time and place. So while Santo may be “white” in Brazil (and note that people that are “white” in Brazil have significant non-whige ancestry), he isn’t in America.
RR is a typical ignorant wokeistard. Look how oversimplistic he is specially when says something more directly?!
No just that because he thinks he knows more about Brazil than myself. This is a generalized pattern about histheir inferences about behavior and development. He and his colleagues pretending to know more about people/us even at individual levels than ourselves.
The lack of true nuanced thinking is very characteristic to the fanatical.
“White” in Brazil isn’t “white” in America. I never said I “knew more about Brazil” than you. From what I know about race in Brazil, yea you’re probably “white”.
I actually look whiter than RR. Always when RR write like a normal people he regress to this older level or persona. You can fake an intelectual improvement throught ideological indoctrination;)
You are hilarious.
peepee wants to talk about race all day long because she’s black.
sad.
in haiti rr’s baby will enjoy wyprivilege. so rr has decided to move to haiti? no!
””””’“White” in Brazil isn’t “white” in America. I never said I “knew more about Brazil” than you. From what I know about race in Brazil, yea you’re probably “white”.”
It’s more complex than that.
First of all, primary reference of whiteness in Latin American countries is from Southern Europeans, mostly brunette mediterranean type. Because this phenotype is relatively less recessive than Northern and Central European one, specially through diluted intergenerational mixing, a lot of people here have some drop of mix but look partially to fully white, just like me.
Secondly, even this large historical interbreeding didn’t make people here think that for example Rihanna is white. Also it’s depending on how approximate to white some people can look, the region, social class and self identity*. There are lot of “passing” BUT if has been traditional for Latin America extend the whiteness identity, in US you have done it to blackness in which just a detection of black ancestry specially in the recent past but still today make people classify someone as black no matter their phenotype or actual racial genetic composition.
*People from pardo and black working class background and from regions above the Southern region, tend to overextend whiteness. For example, the former Brazilian football soccer player Ronaldo. In relative contrast, people from white and light skinned pardo middle to upper class and from Southern to South regions use’d to overextend blackness identity or underextend whiteness.
Thanks for the explanation. Is it correct to say that race in Brazil is based on color?
“because small minority group X has too much power doesn’t mean group X is evil or the mortal enemy of the majority.”
At priori, no, you are correct. Just at priori. But often in human history overempowered minorities has been specially cruel with other groups, like the so called “elites”.
“but such nuance is not allowed under the sway of the 2% in america…not even any hint of it…which actually creates more people who actually hate the 2%…it is part of the 2%’s identity to be hated…so they foster hatred in the 98%…dershowitz agrees.”
Maybe it’s not even “2%” we are talking about. Most jews, in my view, even if aware of what’s going on, are more likely to experiment the same problems of of white gentiles if not more in some cases. In France, for example, they are experiencing an increase of anti semitic hostility through en masse immigration especially by muslims.
What’s make jewry infiltration so difficult to be perceived is that there are really many jewish people who think like that so they don’t need brainwash themselves too hard to make it look natural. If you look for most of highly intelligent people around the world and beyond the western world you will see a disproportion of progressivists among them, a byproduct of high intelligence but at some point even thought most of progressivists is not that super smart, as we know.
But it Always about my perception specially here. I really don’t know if majority of adult Jewish people is completely aware of what their “elites” are promoting and really don’t care or happy with that.
RR,
I explained in the comment. Depending the social group and region you are talking about. People with noticeable african facial traits but fair skin is not easily considered white for many many people here. South of Brasil is way more similar to US in this stuff than the rest of country and also the Southern, relatively different too. One of the reasons is that they are the regions with more european immigration, historically and statistically. From the 25 million brazilian people who have partial or predominant italian ancestry, like myself, I no doubt 80% of more them are concentrated in South and Southern (for example).
So what are you Santo? 75% white 25% Japanese?
my mom and dad lived for 2 years in bahia.
in bahia it was based on color AND hair. the richest people in the town were lebanese.
0% japanese and based on avg ancestry of self declared white people here i’m likely around 90-95–8% white European, mostly portuguese.
Pumpkin you fucking douche i dont care if the nigga was being sarcastic or whatever i have to maintain positivity in my life by accepting things the way i see them.
youre a fucking autistic psychopath you cant see the bigger picture at all you fucking shortsighted fucking chink loving fag.
You can’t recognize sarcasm but I’m the autistic one. LMAO
i hate you RR. you are the worst thinker on this blog and so stupid you cant wrap your head around why people dont like you!
you suck bro. get a life. try raising your kid. you lack common sense and open mindedness. okay?
People don’t like me because I tell the truth about hereditarianism and they don’t like that – hereditarianism is fraudulent and can’t possibly be true. So shut up.
Honestly I would say its a tie between your comments and his comments for the worst comments on this blog. I basically don’t even read RRs comments theyre so bad.
My comments are 99 percent on topic.
99% on topic of pseudoscience.
“People don’t like me because I tell the truth about hereditarianism and they don’t like that – hereditarianism is fraudulent and can’t possibly be true. So shut up.”
It’s also because you deny intelligence differences, even though anyone with two brain cells (almost literally) can figure out they exist from everyday life.
It’s fine to argue about nuances of gene interactions with themselves and the environments (and genes as part of the environment).
It’s not fine to argue that because nuances exist there is no such thing as natural selection, or no such thing as heredity because genes or any other inherited material can’t have any privileged place in creation of the phenotype of the organism compared to any other material that comes into contact with the organism… since all evidence suggests otherwise.
“anyone with a brain can figure out [intelligence differences] exist”
I deny the claim that “IQ tests” show “intelligence” differences between races, social classes and individuals. Non-cognitive factors could explain most all of the variance.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354302012003012
“because such nuances exist there is no such things as natural selection”
Natural selection can’t be an explanatory mechanism since it can’t sustain counterfactuals that distinguish selection of from selection for.
“no such thing as heredity”
I never said anything remotely similar to this. What I have said is that more than genes are inherited, and that genes are but a part of the numerous interactants that are responsible for the phenotype, and that development is irreducible to any of the interactants.
“since all evidence suggest otherwise.”
Which evidence?
“I deny the claim that “IQ tests” show “intelligence” differences between races, social classes and individuals. Non-cognitive factors could explain most all of the variance.”
You can’t explain why exuding more mental effort creates better results, why tiredness, grogginess, intoxication, etc. effects our test results, if our minds are not heavily tied to the physical world.
“Natural selection can’t be an explanatory mechanism since it can’t sustain counterfactuals that distinguish selection of from selection for.”
Natural selection doesn’t necessarily select the most adaptable set of traits, just any set of traits that allow it to survive in the harsh environment of reality.
Plus, even if what you said was true, you would have no explanation for evolution except an altered form of natural selection (mechanical/physical determinism) mixed with intentionality (generative causality).
“I never said anything remotely similar to this. What I have said is that more than genes are inherited, and that genes are but a part of the numerous interactants that are responsible for the phenotype, and that development is irreducible to any of the interactants.”
No hereditarian says that “development is reducible to genes” in the sense that genetic material determines development regardless of the actual medium it occurs in (the environment). That wouldn’t make sense… of course genes have to interact with the actual medium they are located in.
“since all evidence suggest otherwise.”
“Which evidence?”
Everything around you that shows that East Asians and Europeans are much more intelligent than Sub-Saharan Africans.
That was explained in the Richardson paper—whether or not one is anxious for their test is a function of their class, and the nexus that Richardson describes accounts for the variations in test scores. One’s preparedness and distance from the middle class—the main types of items found on the tests—explains score variations.
“Natural selection” is said to be the mechanism which causally explains trait fixation in animals today through the fit trait being selected-for in virtue of its contribution to fitness. But if what I said is true—and it is—then NS isn’t a mechanism. Natural selection isn’t the only “mechanism” (for lack of a better term, since it’s not mechanistic), so rejecting it doesn’t entail rejecting evolution. What intentionality is there in evolution? Even the proposed “altered form of natural selection” wouldn’t be selection theory being causally explanatory since other things would be doing the heavy lifting.
“No hereditarian says that “development is reducible to genes”—this is patently bullshit, due to heritability estimates (even though they ignore development and lead to “developmental denialism”, as the DST theorist I linked above argued).
What evidence? You mean the highly selected East Asians? Spare me, I took care of that already.
differences matter
differences in intelligence come from differences in the brain.
there is no way around this.
evolution happened period.
why are there differences between organisms otherwise?
you can’t explain it without evolution.
“Mind-brain identity is true” – what’s the argument?
Where did I deny that “evolution happened”? Attacking the ToNS doesn’t mean that I think evolution didn’t happen.
You don’t need to involve Dualism to say that differences exist.
If there are no differences then all rr memories and all animekitty memories would be the exact same.
Differences are caused in the brain by wires being connected differently.
This is why we think differently and why memories are different between persons.
mutations happen
so animals become different over time
why complicate things further?
“That was explained in the Richardson paper—whether or not one is anxious for their test is a function of their class, and the nexus that Richardson describes accounts for the variations in test scores. One’s preparedness and distance from the middle class—the main types of items found on the tests—explains score variations.”
False. One can be less anxious for a test because of class circumstances, but also because they are a physically better specimen or more adapted to their specific environment. Part of that adaptation is more brainpower to work with since one has a larger brain.
Either way, what you’re saying proves IQ depends on the physicality of the organism, because you’re once again appealing to purely physical circumstances (class which determines survivability and resources) rather than anything purely mental or intentional.
““Natural selection” is said to be the mechanism which causally explains trait fixation in animals today through the fit trait being selected-for in virtue of its contribution to fitness. But if what I said is true—and it is—then NS isn’t a mechanism. Natural selection isn’t the only “mechanism” (for lack of a better term, since it’s not mechanistic), so rejecting it doesn’t entail rejecting evolution. What intentionality is there in evolution? Even the proposed “altered form of natural selection” wouldn’t be selection theory being causally explanatory since other things would be doing the heavy lifting.”
NS is mechanistic. The organism with the adaptive trait survives and reproduces. What part of that is not mechanistic? It’s like balls of the right size falling through holes big enough. (Granted that certain traits change the environment itself by changing the organism’s interaction with the environment)
If NS was not mechanistic (deterministic) it would have to be intentional because those are the only two types of causality (as they are equivalent to logical deduction and induction over time respectively).
““No hereditarian says that “development is reducible to genes”—this is patently bullshit, due to heritability estimates (even though they ignore development and lead to “developmental denialism”, as the DST theorist I linked above argued).”
Heritability estimates are estimates for a reason, aren’t they?
“What evidence? You mean the highly selected East Asians? Spare me, I took care of that already.”
No, you threw out the evidence that you didn’t like.
Meanwhile Asia continues being good at engineering, Europe leads in other sciences and cultural development, and Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be third world despite massive health and monetary aid.
AK,
The claim you made is a M-B claim. Our memories wouldn’t be the same as we have different experiences.
Lurker,
You didn’t say anything that refutes Richardson’s sociocognitive affective nexus. IQ depends on experience with the items due to the nature of the test items themselves and how they’re normed/constructed.
“NS is mechanistic. The organism wkth the adaptive trait survives and reproduces.”
Natural selection can’t be an explanatory mechanism since it can’t sustain counterfactuals that distinguish selection of from selection for. If T and T’ are coextensive, then since NS isn’t an agent and there are no laws of selection then it can’t select the fit trait over the trait that hitches a free ride and isn’t conducive to fitness. That’s why NS isn’t mechanistic.
“Its like balls of the right size falling through holes big enough.”
That’s Sober’s sieve and sorting for is an intensional process. And sieves aren’t intensional systems.
NS can’t be intentional because there is no mind selecting.
“Heritability estimates are estimates for a reason aren’t they?”
That doesn’t address anything. It in effect denies development and assumes we can apportion causes into genetic and environmental ones which is nonsense.
“you threw out the evidence you don’t like”
Do you deny that I showed that Asians are a selected population? Do you deny that I showed that the Chinese cherry picked which provinces to use for the PISA? Do you deny that I showed that immigrants have a higher educational level than those that don’t emigrate?
The DPT degree prepares students to be eligible for the physical therapy license examination in all 50 US states. Along with the license examination…
but the pass rate is like 90% and it can be taken many times.
i base that claim on this picture:
“You didn’t say anything that refutes Richardson’s sociocognitive affective nexus. IQ depends on experience with the items due to the nature of the test items themselves and how they’re normed/constructed.”
There is no perfect test item which is why many test items are used in one test, and the results of one test are not taken as definitive of the G of the test taker.
“NS is mechanistic. The organism wkth the adaptive trait survives and reproduces.”
“If T and T’ are coextensive, then since NS isn’t an agent and there are no laws of selection then it can’t select the fit trait over the trait that hitches a free ride and isn’t conducive to fitness. ”
Why does it have to select the fit trait over the trait that hitches a free ride? What are you on about? If it survives, it survives.
“That’s why NS isn’t mechanistic.”
NS is a deductive elimination of organisms with traits that cannot survive, and the traits and genes (anything inherited) themselves are either deductively or inductively created. NS does not need intentionality once the laws of physics are established.
“That’s Sober’s sieve and sorting for is an intensional process. And sieves aren’t intensional systems.”
I didn’t say sieves for intentional systems, I’m saying NS as it is usually described is not intentional. That’s the whole point.
“NS can’t be intentional because there is no mind selecting.”
As I said if you refute the deterministic mechanistic process of NS you are only left with intentional selection of traits across time… which you deny so basically you are left with your nihilism again. Once you refute deductive determinism (NS), inductive generation (intentionality) all you have is acausality (No explanation and hence you might as well just go somewhere else).
“That doesn’t address anything. It in effect denies development and assumes we can apportion causes into genetic and environmental ones which is nonsense.”
You don’t address anything. You are Mr. “Babes’ brains grow because they acquire foodstuffs from the environment”
“Do you deny that I showed that Asians are a selected population? Do you deny that I showed that the Chinese cherry picked which provinces to use for the PISA? Do you deny that I showed that immigrants have a higher educational level than those that don’t emigrate?”
Yes I deny that you’ve definitely proven that China (Korea or Japan would be better choices) has a G that is overestimated by 40 points compared to Sub-Saharan Africans (Since East Asians are generally estimated at near IQ 110 and Africans near 70).
“Our memories wouldn’t be the same as we have different experiences.”
Where are memories stored?
The soul?
Not the brain?
oh my fucking God!!!
The man who loses his memory every 10 minutes
and rr even said he knows what the brain does and that it was cring that I said I knew more than he does, what a load of bull.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampus
Natural selection can’t be an explanatory mechanism since it can’t sustain counterfactuals that distinguish selection of from selection for. If T and T’ are coextensive…
what retard are you quoting rr? it’s self-contradictory and ignut.
Pan-adaptationism is the strong form of this, deriving from the early 20th century modern synthesis, that all traits are adaptations, a view now shared by only a few biologists.
some traits are selected for the rest are carried along with them or result from genetic drift. DUH! the arctic fox has the most insulating fur of any canid. how did that happen?
rr: but muh intention.
mugabe: are you chatgpt?
i’ll say it again for the 1,000th time. anal philosophy is NOT philosophy. anal philosophers are STUPID.
jerry fodor = anal philosopher = retard
In a rejoinder to the authors, Kitcher and Block argued that the authors were demanding a form of mechanism that would distinguish between adaptive traits and those correlated with it, yet this is a standard that no one else had ever required in evolutionary thinking….in the case of coloured moths, a dark colour promotes reproductive success, with no further mechanism required to explain this. Block and Kitcher suggest that the authors mistakenly believe that there can be no “theory” of natural selection without this supposed mechanism, yet in the view of Block and Kitcher, no-one ever believed such a mechanism existed and thus this argument is irrelevant since scientists are able to determine how traits contribute to reproductive success in organisms (which is what natural selection is all about) regardless of whether or not a “theory” exists in the sense that Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini understand it.[29]…The evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne describes this book as “a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection”[31] and “as biologically uninformed as it is strident”.[32] Coyne argued that while Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini may claim that there is no way to tell whether or a trait was selected for or was merely a correlate, in reality biologists have different ways of determining which is the case. Coyne further gives the famous peppered moth as a classic example of biologists being able to conduct tests and studies to confirm it was the moth’s colour that was the trait being selected…In a review in Science Douglas J. Futuyma concluded:
Because they are prominent in their own fields, some readers may suppose that they are authorities on evolution who have written a profound and important book. They aren’t, and it isn’t.[38]
etc.
SAD!
evolution by natural selection vs mere random drift is an optimization problem with constraints. the criterion of optimization is survival and reproduction. this is one explanation for the origin of species.
the mechanism = the optimization criterion
it’s obvious to we moderns. but it wasn’t always. thus darwin’s fame.
Lurker,
“g” isn’t a thing. It’s posited as a brain property. So if you have a reference/argument for its existence, be my guest and cite it.
“If it survives, it survives.”
If it’s circular, it’s circular.
The fit trait needs to be selected-for since it’s posited as why the organism persists over time over others. That’s literally the theory of natural selection as it’s articulated.
“NS does not need intentionality”
If X is selected-for, then there is a selector selecting the fit trait over the free rider. But there is no agent selecting nor laws of selection that can distinguish between causes and correlates of causes.
I said “intenSionality”, with an “S”, not “T.” The laws of physics aren’t laws of selection.
What’s the argument against the developmental denialism claim?
Source for the 110 claim? What’s the response to Rebecca Sear re Lynn’s data?
AK,
We have different memories because we have different personal identities.
Muagbe,
That quote is nonsense—Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini don’t deny that humans can determine that, merely that we can’t do so using the ToNS.
https://www.academia.edu/2652045/Piattelli_Palmarini_and_Fodor_Replies_to_our_critics
i was thinking more about how jerry fodor is a retard.
it’s possible to identify natural selection mathematically.
There are different statistical tests that can be run to test for the presence of directional selection in a population. A few of the tests include the QTL sign test, Ka/Ks ratio test and the relative rate test. The QTL sign test compares the number of antagonistic QTL to a neutral model, and allows for testing of directional selection against genetic drift.[5] The Ka/Ks ratio test compares the number of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions, and a ratio that is greater than 1 indicates directional selection.
descent with modification…okay…why some modifications and not others?…why are the modifications not random?
answer: jerry fodor is a retard.
rr: but muh intention (or intension)…i’m weeeeetahded.
mugabe: nature may behave as if it had intentions just like a zombie. just like albanians with ridiculous hair.
darwin noticed domesticated animals had been altered by humans selecting for certain traits, against others. he thought, “can such change effected over so many generations result in whole new species?”
american professors of anal philosophy are STUPID.
here’s fodor being ridiculed.
fodor says ToNS can’t predict what traits will be fixed? is that all? then he’s sub-retarded.
1. this isn’t true.
2. even if it were this is not what ToNS is.
rr: then it isn’t a theory.
mugabe: once again rr thinks he can learn things about the world by defining words. he has the mind of an 11 year old girl.
fodor is just arguing about the meaning of words because he’s retarded.
if he said: ToNS is true by definition in any population, living or artificial with the following traits that all life shares. then he would’ve been half way right.
descent with modification…why these modifications? why similar modifications across species in similar environments? why do these traits help in survival and reproduction? ToNS = if you look you will find.
rr: just so story!
mugabe: wrong! from just so story to convincing explanation is a continuum. rr wants to define words his own way and then claim he can say new things about the world. 11 year old girl.
why did the frequency of an allele responsible for resistance to HIV infection jump during the black death?
what is meant by the term “natural selection” is “non-random change which may or may not be susceptible to explanation by humans.”
rr: well then they’re using the word “selection” wrong.
mugabe: are you wearing a training bra yet?
““g” isn’t a thing. It’s posited as a brain property. So if you have a reference/argument for its existence, be my guest and cite it.”
You either agree or you don’t. I can’t give you an reference to prove consciousness exists either if you don’t have it.
“If it survives, it survives.”
“The fit trait needs to be selected-for since it’s posited as why the organism persists over time over others. That’s literally the theory of natural selection as it’s articulated.”
Yes it is selected-for in the sense of it survives. As competition stiffens over time, there is generally a sense in which traits seem selected for compared to others because that is the nature of decreasing odds of survival.
“If X is selected-for, then there is a selector selecting the fit trait over the free rider. But there is no agent selecting nor laws of selection that can distinguish between causes and correlates of causes.”
Yes the selector/agent is survival vs. death.
“I said “intenSionality”, with an “S”, not “T.” The laws of physics aren’t laws of selection.”
You are talking about NS not being an agent, and sorting, which refers to intentionality.
Intension refers to the meaning of words… how is that relevant to natural selection or trait selection?
“What’s the argument against the developmental denialism claim?”
I don’t deny development exists and that genes interact with the environment.
“Source for the 110 claim? What’s the response to Rebecca Sear re Lynn’s data?”
Source for Sub-Saharan accomplishments?
“You either agree or you don’t.”
You said it exists so what’s the evidence?
If T is selected, then so is T’. That doesn’t cash out that the fitness-enhancing trait is what was selected if there is a free rider that is also linked (correlated) with that so-called fitness-enhancing trait.
“the selector/agent is survival vs. death.”
How can “surgical vs. death” tease apart correlated traits? Hint—it can’t.
“Intension refers to the meaning of words”
Intension refers to the character that determines the applicability of a term, for example “Select-for” is intensional. “One but not the other coextensive trait can be selected-for.”
Developmental denialism is when heritability is treated as a causal mechanism which leads to the reoccurrence/passing of traits through the generation in individuals.
Are you going to defend the data you’re referring to or not?
Intension refers to the meaning of words… how is that relevant to natural selection or trait selection?
exactly! but remember rr defines words his own way and then claims he knows things as a result.
extension vs intension are terms in SEMANTICS which have no bearing whatsoever on ToNS…unless you’re a dumbass anal philosopher.
words have intentions. agents, humans have intentions. agents, humans can’t have intensions.
*words have intensions. agents, humans have intentions. agents, humans can’t have intensions.
“It’s possible to identify natural selection mathematically.”
Humans can know what is selected-for, we can’t know using the theory of natural selection. I don’t think you—nor Fodor’s critics—understand that without counterfactual supporting generalizations that link traits with the environment that there is then no way for natural selection to distinguish between correlated traits. And this is what Darwinists claim the theory does.
Godfrey-Smith spoke of local contexts, but natural selection is supposed to generalize across all ecologies and lineages. Natural selection is supposed to explain why organisms have the traits they do. But natural selection doesn’t predict anything, and so if it doesn’t predict anything then it can’t explain anything. Selection-for is an intensional context and that presupposes a mind or laws of selection. A mind is obviously ruled out, so what are the laws of selection? Since there are no laws of selection then natural selection fails in explaining the fixation of traits in biological organisms.
It’s that simple.
Sad. Seems that you don’t know that a context is “intenSional” if the substitution of coextensive words/terms isn’t truth-preserving in that context.
It’s that simple.
indeed. you have defined ToNS as something it is NOT and NEVER was and then “refuted” it. strawman.
OBVIOUSLY ToNS can only rarely predict what will happen. this is because even if everything were know the computation would be impossible. training bra.
you are boring not just retarded.
Sad. Seems that you don’t know…the latest in anal philosophy humbug.
your low IQ is OFFENSIVE. that you are totally OBLIVIOUS to your stupidity is OBSCENE!
Natural selection is supposed to explain why organisms have the traits they do.
But natural selection doesn’t predict anything, FALSE and even if true SO WHAT? are you retarded? yes.
…and so if it doesn’t predict anything then it can’t explain anything FALSE! are you retarded? yes.
Selection-for is an intensional context and blah blah blah anal philosophers pretending to be as intelligent as natural scientists with their cargo cult of totally inapplicable jargon…
RR has made 2 claims which are FALSE and only an IMBECILE could believe.
rr: but jerry fodor discovered that biology isn’t particle physics!
mugabe: all he “discovered” was that darwin wasn’t jewish and he was jealous.
rr has conflated “explain” and “predict” because he has a low IQ. but this conflation is common among anal philosophers and others with physics envy.
rr: the fitness landscape can’t be calculated, therefore it doesn’t exist!
mugabe: it exists in silico for very simple artificial animals.
rr: it does? i never heard of that.
mugabe: training bra!
rr: there is no such thing as perfect chess because it can’t be calculated. and therefore i can play chess just as well as magnus carlsen. philosophy!
rr: the results of evolutionary algorithms can’t be predicted ahead of time and sometimes give startling results, therefore they are racist and should be banned. philosophy!
In computational intelligence (CI), an evolutionary algorithm (EA) is a subset of evolutionary computation,[1] a generic population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm.
Sad. Seems that you don’t know that a context is “intenSional” if the substitution of coextensive words/terms isn’t truth-preserving in that context.
WHICH MEANS FODOR AND YOU HAVE MISAPPLIED THIS CONCEPT!
SUCH INTENSIONALITY CAN BE A TRAIT OF A ZOMBIE.
isn’t truth-preserving in that context. = a statement about possible worlds = totally IRRELVANT!
Jerry Fodor was born in New York City on April 22, 1935,[3] and was of Jewish descent. He received his A.B. degree (summa cum laude) from Columbia University in 1956, where he wrote a senior thesis on Søren Kierkegaard[4] and studied with Sydney Morgenbesser, and a PhD in philosophy from Princeton University in 1960, under the direction of Hilary Putnam.
^^^PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL^^^
I don’t think you—nor Fodor’s critics—understand that … because there’s nothing to understand.
fodor doesn’t say ANYTHING.
you’ve said TWO things which are FALSE.
rr: a scientific theory has to make novel predictions therefore the theory of natural selection isn’t a scientific theory.
mugabe: good. who cares?!
Nothing wrong with being a 160 lb body builder. Slim but strong shows physical efficiency.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325234239.htm
true? just so story? maybe both.
ToNS predicts: ye who seek shall find.
rr: but how do i know it’s not just a just so story sans novel predictions?
mugabe: why are those two necessarily associated? they aren’t.
rr: because i can use the term “a priori”…incorrectly…and i am a robot…
mugabe: i know. but at least you can get a haircut and marry your babymomma and STOP smoking!
rr: smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer.
mugabe: okay. that’s enough. concentration casmp!
“which means you and Fodor misapplied this concept”
Nope. “Hearts are selected for pumping blood” and “hearts are selected for making thump thump rhythmic noises.” We know which we want to say is true, but pumping blood and thump thump rhythmic noises are correlated.
Smoking does cause lung cancer. Fisher claimed that “although lung cancer occurred in cigarette smokers it did not necessarily follow that the cancer was caused by cigarettes because there might have been something in the genetic make up of people destined to have lung cancer that made them addicted to cigarettes”.
“Natural selection is supposed to explain why organisms have the traits they do.”
It’s supposed to explain why don’t have traits they can’t have. It’s not an intentional process so of course it doesn’t explain why they have specific traits versus other traits.
When there is extremely stiff competition as the modern biological world would probably be, traits begin to seem more as “selected for” rather than simply “selected against”, but NS as a physics-based theory always works as “selecting against”.
“A mind is obviously ruled out, so what are the laws of selection? Since there are no laws of selection then natural selection fails in explaining the fixation of traits in biological organisms.”
That’s the whole point of NS. There are no other theories besides a mind (God). Situationism or DST are not theories that actually gel with deterministic physics, which is predictive… unless you assume something like intentionality mixed with deterministic physics (which would also imply that natural selection was a mechanism for selecting against traits).
No, it’s supposed to explain why traits came to fixation. “Selected against” is intensional, too. What do you mean that it’s a “physics-based theory”? Natural selection can’t be a mechanism, see Fodor’s argument. If you disagree, which premise is false and why?
“Selection-for is a causal process.
Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.
But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
So if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T.
So the claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.”
Nope. blah blah blah proving i don’t unnuhstan it.
YEP!
Nope.
YEP!
JERRY FODOR IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THE PHRASE…
NOTE EVEN WRONG!
RR: NOPE!
MUGABE: YEP!
RR: I AM A STRONG MANLET N SHEEEIT. AND I SMOKE AND THINK GUINESS IS GOOD BEER AND HAVE AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD.
MUGABE: YEP!
“No, it’s supposed to explain why traits came to fixation. “Selected against” is intensional, too. What do you mean that it’s a “physics-based theory”? Natural selection can’t be a mechanism, see Fodor’s argument. If you disagree, which premise is false and why?”
It explains how traits “came to fixation” by showing that traits that are successful survive through the organism who reproduces and those that aren’t die out. It doesn’t explain where the traits come from in the first place.
“Selection-for is a causal process.
Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.
But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
So if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T.
So the claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.””
Natural selection does not explain the origin of traits, but their “fixation” as you’ve stated. It doesn’t need to explain what is a free-rider or not. Natural selection is not a theory that “organisms are perfectly suited to their environment” but that they are adequately suited to it.
Natural selection can’t be a mechanism, see Fodor’s argument. If you disagree, which premise is false and why?
^^^anal philosophy^^^
EVERY PREMISE IS “NOT EVEN WRONG!”
BUT IT WOULD TAKE ME A BOOK TO EXPLAIN WHY!
AND YOU STILL WOULDN’T UNNUHSTAN!
BECAUSE LOW IQ!
WHY WOULD I MAKE THAT EFFORT?
I WOULDN’T!
biologist: no one ever said there was a mechanism.
biologist: you’re a very silly man and i’m not going to interview you.
“if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.”
Lol, I about had a brain aneurysm trying to read that, and RR wonders why nobody knows what he’s saying.
so first video on youtube fodor describing his “theory”. i listened for a few minutes before confirming he was a moron.
1. he says he knows nothing about biology.
2. his description of ToNS is FALSE.
3. he uses “tendentious” several times. and always INCORRECTLY. he meant “contentious”.
4. he says he has no interest in creationism or God and “all civilized people believe we all used to be paramecea.”
he just GROSS not just stupid.
“if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.”
Lol, I about had a brain aneurysm trying to read that, and RR wonders why nobody knows what he’s saying.
It’s not a car
All cars are a manufactured product.
What explains it’s a manufactured product ? It’s not the fact that it’s a car as is it has been ruled out. But it can be a plurality of things that are manufactured products.
There is a common fallacy that when A implies B people infer from B that A is a case (it could be C that also implies B) or when B is the case, they infer that A is a case (when it could be D that also implies B). Those are the two main fallacies related to this.
Oups i pushed the reply by mistake !
The two main fallacies are:
1) A implies B and B then A. Wich is false because it could B a C that implies B
2) A implies B and non A, then not B. Wich is also false for the same reason. A C could imply B.
The right 2 inferences are
3) A implies B and not B then not A
4) A implies B and A then B.
Lol, I about had a brain aneurysm trying…
it’s just an obvious fact of propositional logic which is totally IRRELAVANT to ToNS unless you’re a dumbass anal philosopher.
Lurker,
Yes I know that NS doesn’t originate traits, it’s supposed to be, in effect, a pruning process of deleterious genes/traits over generational time.
It needs to be sensitive to traits that cause alterations in fitness from traits that are merely correlated with causes of fitness.
Mugabe,
You’re wrong. It’s been posited as a mechanism by the creators of the Modern Synthesis.
Melo,
We’ve discussed Fodor’s argument at length, so I’m sure you know what is meant by the premise.
Bruno,
If T and T’ are coextensive, and if T is selected in virtue of its contribution to fitness, and T’ is selected due to its being correlated with T, then this counterfactual should be true: If T wasn’t selected, then T’ wasn’t either, but not the reverse. Basically, if T were removed, then it’s correlation with fitness would vanish. But if T’ were removed, ceteris paribus, then the relationship with fitness would be the same since T would still be there. Thus, selection needs to be sensitive to counterfactuals about removing either correlated trait affects how adaptive each is. This is demonstrated thusly:
P1 If natural selection is to explain the distribution of traits in organisms, then it needs to be able to distinguish between traits that cause fitness from traits that are merely correlated with traits that cause fitness.
P2 If T and T’ are correlated traits, then the distinction between selection for T and T’ depends on counterfactuals about which of the traits would be selected for in a possible world where the correlation doesn’t hold.
P3 The truthmakers for such counterfactuals are either (1) the intenSions of the agent that affect selection or (2) laws that govern how the relative fitness of T and T’ would be selected in a possible world where the correlation doesn’t hold.
P4 ~ (1) since there is no agent of selection that has the ability to discriminate between correlated traits and ~ (2) since context-dependency means it’s unlikely that there are laws of selection of relative fitness.
(C) Thus, natural selection doesn’t and can’t explain the distribution and fixation of traits in organisms.
Using computer modeling, they demonstrated how this disease provided the selection pressure that forced up the frequency of the mutation from 1 in 20,000 at the time of the Black Death to values today of 1 in 10.
rr: that’s nonsense. “selection pressure” doesn’t exist except “for us”. check out my bench!
i predict rr will say: you don’t unnuhstan fodor n sheeeit man!
AUTISM ON STEROIDS LITERALLY
Lurker,
Yes I know that NS doesn’t originate traits, it’s supposed to be, in effect, a pruning process of deleterious genes/traits over generational time.
It needs to be sensitive to traits that cause alterations in fitness from traits that are merely correlated with causes of fitness.
Mugabe,
You’re wrong. It’s been posited as a mechanism by the creators of the Modern Synthesis.
Melo,
We’ve discussed Fodor’s argument at length, so I’m sure you know what is meant by the premise.
Bruno,
If T and T’ are coextensive, and if T is selected in virtue of its contribution to fitness, and T’ is selected due to its being correlated with T, then this counterfactual should be true: If T wasn’t selected, then T’ wasn’t either, but not the reverse. Basically, if T were removed, then it’s correlation with fitness would vanish. But if T’ were removed, ceteris paribus, then the relationship with fitness would be the same since T would still be there. Thus, selection needs to be sensitive to counterfactuals about removing either correlated trait affects how adaptive each is. This is demonstrated thusly:
P1 If natural selection is to explain the distribution of traits in organisms, then it needs to be able to distinguish between traits that cause fitness from traits that are merely correlated with traits that cause fitness.
P2 If T and T’ are correlated traits, then the distinction between selection for T and T’ depends on counterfactuals about which of the traits would be selected for in a possible world where the correlation doesn’t hold.
P3 The truthmakers for such counterfactuals are either (1) the intenSions of the agent that affect selection or (2) laws that govern how the relative fitness of T and T’ would be selected in a possible world where the correlation doesn’t hold.
P4 ~ (1) since there is no agent of selection that has the ability to discriminate between correlated traits and ~ (2) since context-dependency means it’s unlikely that there are laws of selection of relative fitness.
(C) Thus, natural selection doesn’t and can’t explain the distribution and fixation of traits in organisms.
^^^AUTISM ON STEROIDS LITERALLY^^^
Thanks for the translation, Bruno. I appreciate it as a mere human who doesn’t speak in propositional logic.
It’s also funny that Mugabe understood the logic yet doesn’t understand Fodor’s argument.
“I’m sure you know what is meant by the premise.”
Yeah, I’m just criticizing your ability to communicate your argument effectively. But I reckon that’s more Fodor’s fault than yours in this instance since you are basically regurgitating him.
“Yes I know that NS doesn’t originate traits, it’s supposed to be, in effect, a pruning process of deleterious genes/traits over generational time.”
Yes it is.
“It needs to be sensitive to traits that cause alterations in fitness from traits that are merely correlated with causes of fitness.”
It doesn’t need to be sensitive to traits that are correlated at all unless they damage fitness. Unless you deny that certain traits make organisms more able to survive, natural selection does not need to be sensitive to correlated traits versus the trait that actually causes fitness increase.
If you agree that (probabilistically) deterministic physical laws exist, then you have to agree that organisms with traits that allow them to survive in a predictable environment and have a predictable mechanism to pass on those traits will survive and pass on their traits, and hence those traits will “be selected”.
And again if you throw out physical laws where traits emerge according to pre-structured laws you are only left with intentionality (design), which you deny. NS is the only way for things to evolve without intentionality (free will), because that’s the way determinism works.
…yet doesn’t understand Fodor’s argument.
because there’s NOTHING to understand.
IF YOU UNDERSTAND FODOR’S ARGUMENT…
THEN…
YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND FODOR’S ARGUMENT!
if you were an american you would’ve learned the propositional calculus and truth tables in the 8th grade…like i did.
for example: modus ponens = modus penis is 8th grade boy language.
in public school!
if you do NOT almost immediately realize that fodor is RETARDED then..
YOU are RETARDED!
if you ignore all the dispositive signs of fodor’s being RETARDED and keep listening…
just BIGGER and even MORE OBVIOUS signs he is RETARDED.
if you don’t see THESE…
YOU are RETARDED.
anal philosophers need to pay REPARATIONS to everyone else!
anal philosophers need to pay REPARATIONS to everyone else!
anal philoophers need to pay REPARATIONS to everyone else!
“if you were an american you would’ve learned the propositional calculus and truth tables in the 8th grade…like i did.”
But you went to school in the late 1800’s Muggy. Not really applicable to me.
@mugabe
traits fixate because of local ecology pressures = an analytical truth = not empirical verifiable = a physics theory of biology
my God? anal philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume_and_the_Problem_of_Causation
ian really has improved in my opinion.
rr – (argument, argument, argument)
memorization != a priori truth
Melo,
I explained P2 and then reconstructed the argument.
Lurker,
Yes it does need to be sensitive and I gave the argument again spelled lit differently. Where’s the error?
Wikipedia says:
Identical twins—Reared apart .76
Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations_between_IQ_and_degree_of_genetic_relatedness
Heritability of 0.82 if these numbers are true?
Yes but seems too good to be true. I can believe the 0.76 but the 0.35 seems suspiciously low.
Are fraternal twins not just like relatively normal siblings who shared the same womb???
PP insightfulness is no that good. I commented in the previous post a very interesting way to analyse heredity throught phenotypical and personality concordance between parents and their children because he cant go to far from known methods and then it was not seemed as important or interesting to him.
Actually if we find a very positive concordance between this specific mentioned stuff we can have other way to show how hereditarian point of view seems more factual than of its opponent.
Seems most people in this tedious debate also dont give the needed attention to genetic combination throught conception which primarily explain siblings phenotypical and behavioral differences.
humans only enjoy one thing and thats feeling pride. proud feelings are the only deterrent for them not to jump off the nearest cliff or bridge or whatever.
pride is the most disgusting human feeling but we indulge in it because we think it brings us happiness.
fuck your happiness ill show you something to be happy about it stupid motherfuckers.
I didn’t consent to this LOADED.
hmm i was wondering why ive been able to comment on here freely and then i realized cuz that asshole Lurker stopped trying to have a conversation with me.
i dont like you Lurker never will.
NO! peepee can’t do math and has disseminated KS.
h^2 = MZA correlation under ideal circumstances = can only be LOWER than under non-ideal circumstances.
the problem is with the “apart”.
and this starts in the womb. in two ways!
1. same womb.
2. identical twins may have the same placenta or two placentas. monchorionic vs dichorionic.
santo: you sound like you have an ideological psychosis.
mugabe: the EVIDENCE it matters! MUCH lower (or no) correlation for dichorionic identical twins.
About a lot of stuff you have, sorry, Cid!
And the fact that “apart” most often means in the same neighborhoods, at similar schools, raised by family members, contact before being “reunited.”
Uri Bronfenbrenner has some good stuff on this.
“The importance of degree of environmental variation in influencing the correlation between identical twins reared apart, and hence the estimate of heritability based on this statistic, is revealed by the following examples.
a. Among 35 pairs of separated twins for whom information was available about the community in which they lived, the correlation in Binet IQ for those raised in the same town was .83; for those brought up in different towns, the figure was .67.
b. In another sample of 38 separated twins, tested with a combination of verbal and non-verbal intelligence scales, the correlation for those attending the same school in the same town was .87; for those attending schools in different towns, the coefficient was .66. In the same sample, separated twins raised by relatives showed a correlation of .82; for those brought up by unrelated persons, the coefficient was .63.
c. When the communities in the preceding sample were classified as similar vs. dissimilar on the basis of size and economic base (e.g. mining vs. agricultural), the correlation for separated twins living in similar communities was .86; for those residing in dissimilar localities the coefficient was .26.
d. In the Newman, Holzinger, and Freeman study, ratings are reported of the degree of similarity between the environments into which the twins were separated. When these ratings were divided at the median, the twins reared in the more similar environments showed a correlation of .91 between their IQ’s; for those brought up in less similar environments, the coefficient was .42.”
http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html
and the “apart” problem then proceeds to the family environment…
NOT very varied!
relative to that of babies in general.
the MZAs aren’t shipped off to japan…or even puerto rico, hawaii, alaska…they’re “placed” in households near where they were given up…and “given up” often meant given up to RELATIVES…
sorry! it’s WAY worse than that! too lazy to list all the ways…
“apart” = BULLSHIT!
sometimes they even went to THE SAME schools!
the MZAs aren’t shipped off to japan…or even puerto rico, hawaii, alaska…they’re “placed” in households near where they were given up…and “given up” often meant given up to RELATIVES…
Yes but increasing the apart would lower the correlation for both MZA and DZA so this is arguably neutralized if heritability is calculated from 2(MZA correlation – DZA correlation)
1. same womb.
The control group (DZ twins) also share the same womb so this doesn’t bias the results.
2. identical twins may have the same placenta or two placentas. monchorionic vs dichorionic.
We discussed this in 2015. While a small study found this was an issue, and much larger study found it is not.
if DZA < 1/2 MZA then the data is garbage or falconer's formula can't be used.
h^2 = MZA* by definition, where A* = truly apart. MZA* <= MZA.
Is it possible for MZA > 2(DZA) and if so would it imply gene X gene interactions as opposed to additive genetics? Was Falconer assuming heritability was 100% additive?
i thought you could tell me. afaict his formula is derived by assuming:
1. DZ = G shared + G unshared + E shared + E unshared.
2. all of these are uncorrelated.
3. var(G shared) = 1/2 var(G)
so rDZ partitions the genetic component, but rMZ does not.
an improvement on 1 would be to add G shared x unshared. in this case the var(G shared) < 1/2 var(G) and falconer's formula underestimates heritability, BUT it should still never give results greater than MZA*.
sorry of course i meant H^2 = rMZA* by definition.
i was using MZA* etc. to mean rMZA*, r-etc.
and sorry falconer’s formula should overestimate H^2. why?
DZ1 = G shared + G1 unshared + GxG1 + E shared + E1 unshared.
DZ2 = G shared + G2 unshared + GxG2 + E shared + E2 unshared.
or conceptually, that part of the G effect of a DZ twin attributable to that half of his genome he shares with his twin, should be LESS than half the effect of his genome as a whole.
but then EMPIRICALLY falconer’s for MZTs and DZTs is usually LOWER than MZA. even though it should be GREATER than MZA*, if such could be assessed.
if E(G*GxG2) and/or E(G*GxG2) and/or E(GxG1*GxG2) is positive then falconer’s OVERestimates. if these are 0, then it estimates correctly.
and by h^2 i meant H^2 of course. h is narrow. H is broad. by convention.
trivia question why does that paper by de jong have 1530 in one study of americans and 1200 something in another?
because the “another” study…
The CARDIA study was initially funded in 1983 for a five-year cycle that included two clinical exams. The study began with a group of 5,115 black and white men and women aged 18 to 30 years in 1985-86. The participants were selected so that there would be approximately the same number of people in subgroups of race, gender, education (high school or less and more than high school), and age (18 to 24 and 25 to 30) in each of four centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Chicago, Illinois; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Oakland, California.
the chinese paper cited a paper about nigerians where the females had unusually small ICVs, intracranial volumes. 1100 something. the nigerian men were close to the chinese men.
…up to 1680 cm3 in Homo neanderthalensis, which was the hominid with the biggest brain size.
Neanderthals had larger eyes and bodies relative to their height, thus a disproportionately large area of their brain was dedicated to somatic and visual processing, functions not normally associated with intelligence. When these areas were adjusted to match anatomically modern human proportions it was found Neanderthals had brains 15-22% smaller than in anatomically-modern humans.[71]
peepee can still believe that mongoloids are the eloi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi
genghis khan DISAGREES VEHEMENTLY!
genghis khan says “if there was ever a morlock it was me!”
people from uttar pradesh have my name!
i dominate sumo!
No I looked at that study and it’s nonsense. The correlation between eye size and brain size is way too small to explain much of anything.
“normally associated with intelligence”
The right DLPC is associated with visual working memory.
The left DLPC is associated with lingual working memory.
Neanderthal could not speak so I assume that Neanderthals used their left DLP for something other than language. Vision?
post my comments or i will put a dick up your ass and bullet holes where your brain shouldve been you fucking pumpkin.
Seventy-five percent of monozygotic twin pregnancies are monochorionic; the remaining 25% are dichorionic diamniotic.
BUT how does anyone know? suspicious?
On avg psychologists if from right or left instance tend to be like that, very low in insightfulness.
Surprise…
To brilliant for me to… spell “too” correctly.
typo. I’m aware of difference between to and too. 🙂
im surprised modern day people even score a 100 on an IQ test. from my understanding the modern man is much more capable of manipulating people than objects in their heads.
it seems like the brightest brains arent even capable of showing a shred of productivity! its very sad the state of the world and i will be rooting for its collapse.
Youre so fucking stupid. Why would you be surprised??? The test forces the average person to be 100. Jesus christ I don’t think you understand what an IQ test is LOL.
no the test forces your mother to suck my cock. do you understand that or not?
So the price of a Chicago MBA is $175000 in London. WTF. Who the fuck do they think would pay that for a degree?? Arabs? Some dumbass chinese communist party elites kids? That is totally outrageous.
The other option is Cambridge at £78k which is a bit more reasonable but still a bank buster. I haven’t worked full time for 4 years. These numbers are a massive gamble.
An even more reasonable one is Imperial at £53k but I think the cachet wears off when you go below the top 3 schools in the UK. Imperial is kind of like the MIT of the UK. Very STEM focused.
My cousin had his mba paid for him by his employer.
I’m looking to do an MBA to get out of compliance. If I had it funded by my employer they would definitely expect me to stick around.
Pill is always complaining about other people being cogs in the machine but he is the most quintessential example of this sort of person.
he has never come up with a way of making money for himself only working like a dog for another person. he takes pride in it too so that shows you how stupid he is!
^^^unemployed and in sitting at the screen in his underwear with a pot belly.
thats you you dumbass. not only that but when have i revealed my identity? ive been countless leagues ahead of you in intelligence your critical thinking is just so poor.
sure i posted pictures here but you still dont know what university i went to etc. youre an idiot do some research on the guy youre trying to exploit for clout.
Loaded did you find a job yet? I could help you with excellent advice but I find you really annoying so I won’t.
Not many people do MBAs. I could count on one hand the amount that have done it and the results to their career are mixed. My manager did an MBA in Cambridge. Before the MBA he was a Big 4 consultant and after the MBA he went back to the Big 4. That was a total waste of money.
Count on one hand from my network I meant.
i dont need your fucking advice douche. youve been fired countless times and dont even have basic social etiquette. like everyone says on this blog you are a psychopath.
get an actual career started and we will talk about you giving me any form of feedback on anything faggot.
My cousin ended up starting a successful business which he sold for probably 8 figures
wow that is pretty common in my family too except you and i differ in that youre a psychopath and im not! hahahaha.
I had a rich white friend who went and got his MBA. He would always get mad because he couldn’t beat me at chess, pool, or even connect for.
I don’t think he ever used his degree, though. His true passion is music, and he’s quite good at it. Unfortunately, he hasn’t been very successful.
I’m actually pretty good at music too, but I never thought I would make it, so I didn’t try. I occasionally day dream about what my life would be like had I given it a more serious attempt.
Music is a dead end for the vast majority of people. I was into singer songwriter stuff and thought about making an album and then for the next 15 years rap music became dominant and technology basically lowered all musicians wages. Not even the jews can make much money from music these days. If you want to make it really big, you might have to suck some jewish guys dick.
there was or is a band called Big Head Todd and the Monsters…
who was todd? a half korean guy.
and you saw how those cranial capacities jumped from a southern coastal city in china to south korea.
You just spent half the weekend denying it
LIE!
I see
you see what?
MANCHUS AND MONGOLS AND SIBERIANS HAVE BIGGER BODIES AND BIGGER BRAINS THAN SOUTH CHINESE AND JAPANESE…
YOU NEED TO AUTO-GAS!
asian people are a bunch of [redacted by pp, 2023-02-2-20] i hate asian people more than i hate white people tbh.
bunch of low sentient insects. cringy ass fucking retards. eat my dick chinese rapist motherfuckers.
superior race how? cuz they eat bugs and bats? tf?
I LOVE Northeast Asians. They’re just so refined, perfected, and reasonable, I think Cat should do a youtube where he covers his face with different cat masks while he and his anime characters dance to the Chinese translation of Madonna’s Material Girl which WAY better than Madonna’s version:
LOL^^^
^^^irish indians are sad^^^
pill is OBVIOUSLY NOT white.
thus his bizarre antipathy towards pakistanis and his down voting wypipo vs jews.
no wonder he can be fired 15 times and still get a job. he’s an IMMIGRANT! and IRISH IMMIGRANT!
sad!
You just figured that out? I have known for YEARS that pill is NOT white.
”I LOVE Northeast Asians. They’re just so refined, perfected, and reasonable”
when they don’t…
Poor Fiji
Allow the comment on Dershowitz. The girl specifically mentioned him in her testimony against Epstein. Google it if youre unsure. Its public knowledge now.
I would say youre first job out of college is totally key. It will put you in a certain line of work for the rest of your life. I somehow converted from financial regulator to coporate banker and had to take a massive pay cut. I got fired anyway for being too aggressive. I wasn’t feeling well thinking about the jews and blacks all the time. It made my blood boil. My vision was literally like a limousine window for about a year under psychosis.
First job out of college is lions theory.
I have theories. Lion has experiences. Thats why Im called the philosopher.
the only way cloning exists.
I just read a comment from Mugabe which shows no matter how many times I comment about jews…he just doesn’t get it. It makes me throw my hands up in despair reading this drivel.
so with no covariance between non-identical terms falconer’s gives you…
2*(var(G) – var(G shared))
var(G shared) <= 1/2*var(G)
meaning 2 is likely a little too high a multiple.
But because assortative mating dz twins likely share more than 50% of segregating genes & MZ twins are not 100% identical so formula underestimates
How do you know this much about statistics by doing a psychology degree. Mugabe has a math degree so I expect him to know it. But it looks like you did it for bedtime reading.
I’ve always been head & shoulders above everyone else when it comes to math. Math talent is highly genetic. Never opened a stats book.
right. example: DZs in iceland are more similar than DZs in america. at least on average.
peepee: but i was talking about rich peepee n sheeeit.
mugabe: a poor icelander has more in common genetically with a rich icelander than two randomly chosen rich pipo.
peepee: but oprah said…
mugabe: shut up. you lack the basic human decency to admit what your ethnicity is. and you’ve lied about it. this makes people hate negresses.
Because iceland is until now more genetically uniform (?)
humans are only good at one thing and thats playing dumb. other than that they suck cock.
humans never had a fighting chance they deserve to be sank on the Titanic.
humans are ignorant shits. keep playing dumb. at least itll let you sleep at night.
because to be honest humans only care about one thing and thats not feeling guilt or shame. there is no human purpose except for that.
not to feel good not to do anything productive just to avoid guilt and shame. not any other form of pain but just those two.
let them burn in Hell. for fucking ever.
This ignores the fact that the biological model of heritability is “unsound”, and so the conceptual model is flawed. The biological model of heritability studies has been shown to be false and so it’s biologically nonsense due to the fact that we know how genes work. PP is the perfect example here: hereditarians need to continue to push the nature vs nurture debate since that’s the only way their proposals work.
We need to dispense with heritability estimates. They don’t do what it’s proposed they do. Math doesn’t undo the fatal flaw of these studies—it’s irrelevant to the fact that genes need to work a certain way for heritability estimates to have any biological validity and they just don’t have such validity.
Click to access 2015-burt.pdf
Click to access 2016_moore–shenk_the-herit.pdf
i know. but it’s fun to prove the hereditists wrong on their own terms.
Sadly PP has a problem with non matematical logic. Just like saying math ability is 100%…
I’ve noticed this as well Santo.
… genetic
Irrc mattention
Also many of so called “environmental” influence is basically how an organism reacts. Environment is not even a thing but a vague pletora of suppositions.
If an object or a subject is suffering an exterior pressure, it’s not only the pressure which influence how it will react but specially the object-subject itself.
Even if or when this pressure is extreme like what happened with the major characters of 1984′ George Orwell, during the torture’s part.
Biological determinism, ma boi
I was doing networking in London and met this Irish girl that went to a very small Irish college and somehow got into Goldman Sachs asset management.
I think she got the job because she was a girl to be honest.
Anyway she ended up going to Harvard to do an MBA and switching from finance into get this, product management for a small tech company. HAHAHA. What an idiot. That costed her nearly $200k!!
I had a chance to get into McKinsey just through networking. Some jew recommended me to McKinsey and frankly, I lost control of my mind by then. I had a panic attack during the IQ testing. It was very fucking unlucky but I wouldn’t have lasted in the job anyway as my condition was dire by then.
all of you are losers society doesnt want. no wonder Pumpkin thinks he is some type of supreme being he is constantly swarmed by affection from degenerates who feed nothing but lies and probably degenerate sex.
he reminds me of those assholes he constantly criticizes parasites like Jeff Epstein and countless other people with no morality.
and he wont even post it or will try to defame me instead of actually acknowledging the points and taking in what it would mean.
and Pill you are more autistic than Bill Gates. you think youre a socially adjusted person when you have so much of your life to prove against it. youre beyond foolish for even thinking you have the type of brain needed to fully function anywhere.
did you know peepee started this blog in iceland?
yeah i knew that so gay youre right. but i know one day he will have karma hit him!
Did you find a job?
yes a blow job from your mother.
So youre still unemployed. Thought you were going become an insurance salesman…lol.
RR and Mugabe on their way to prove that IQ is not heritable:
https://img.ifunny.co/images/a0c9b063bf19079839a427ca1cb4ece34bd50096be04876023092b0c0b2f6721_1.webp
Lurker can’t defend heritability estimates and can’t argue against the claim that heritability of psychological traits (“IQ” for one) is 0 percent. Sad. Keep posting the memes bro.
His memes are smarter than what you say in 10,000 words.
RR and his colleagues should be banned from academia but this is a perfect place to narcisist like them, sadly
The MZA study is a good design because if the assumption of independent environments is met, you get an estimate of broad heritability. The estimate also has the lowest variance of any heritability estimator for a given sample size. Dominance and epistasis are fully included in the estimate, and assortative mating will not bias it. The limiting factor is that it’s hard to find MZA twins.
The DZA design cannot provide estimates broad heritability. If there are non-additive genetic effects, DZA estimates will equal neither narrow nor broad heritability. Assortative mating also biases the DZA design. Moreover, DZA estimates of heritability have a much larger variance than MZA estimates. So there’s little to recommend in the DZA estimator.
dragon ballz the tv show lil bitch.
What is meant by “independent environments” here? Bronfenbrenner showed that that’s actually not the case, and it’s known that twins and adoptees go to similar environments and also go to the same schools and get picked up by family members. Interaction effects aren’t included in the model based on Fisher’s (false) assumptions. The limiting factor is that heritability estimates continue to push the false dichotomy of nature vs nurture, genes and environment. We don’t need heritability estimates for humans and we need to dispense wkth them. They’re not an index of how “genetic” a trait is, and it’s nonsense to think that we can partition traits into genetic and environmental causes due to interactions between all levels.
And cooking schools keep pushing the false dichotomy between cook and recipe. Don’t they realize you can’t separate the quality of the cook from the quality of the recipe he’s cooking!!!!!
Nice false analogy here trying to immunize heritability estimates from the lethal critiques that have been levied at them for over 50 years. Does this mean that G and E have independent effects on the phenotype and that heritability estimates can show us the proportion of G and E that contribute to trait ontogeny?
And the worst part for behavioral geneticists is that since MZ twins experience more similar environments, the EEA is false so we therefore cannot interpret the results genetically. Thus, environment explains twin study results.
But you can compare MZA to DZA. In that case, you can’t argue MZA are more environmentally alike.
We’ve been over this: “A” is anything but; they actually aren’t in “different environments” at all. All twin heritability estimates can be explained by environment. In any case, Bouchard is hiding the DZA data.
No we haven’t been over this particular argument. The twins might not have been sufficiently apart but as long as the MZ and DZ were EQUALLY insufficiently apart, the equal environment assumption is satisfied.
MZAs are reared in environments that aren’t correlated—this claim is false. So the claim that G is privileged over E for IQ fails. Therefore the claim that is is heritable is false.
The correlations were low. Unless you can show that the environment correlations were higher for MZA than DZA , Falconer’s formula can be used.
What correlations were low? The fact of the matter is, even as behavioral geneticists have agreed since the 60s, MZs experience more similar environments than DZs. I’d say that the issues with “reared apart” studies as stated by Joseph suffice.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/studies-reared-apart-separated-twins-facts-fallacies/
When they’re reared together MZ might have more similar environment than DZ cause parents will dress them alike and they’ll form a special bond. Not when they’re raised in different houses.
What studies do you have in mind?
All twin studies do is show the greater environmental similarity of MZ twins.
Independent environments means that cotwins have been placed in trait-relevant environments as if randomly. That’s a stringent requirement, but in general the range of shared environments within a given society is mostly causally ineffectual, so it cannot be violated that strongly even in the worst case.
The main effects of genes on human traits is an extremely replicable phenomenon, corroborated by many different methods. In contrast, gene-environment interactions are a theoretical hypothesis for which there is very little empirical support despite many, many efforts at finding some. At this late date, there is no reason cling to the interactionist hypothesis.
In contrast, gene-environment interactions are a theoretical hypothesis for which there is very little empirical support despite many, many efforts at finding some
That might be because there’ve been virtually no studies of twins raised truly apart, that is one twin raised in America and another raised by Bushmen.
“Independent environments means that cotwins have been placed in trait-relevant environments as if randomly.”
You know that twin researchers need to identify exclusive, specific “trait-relevant” factors, right? Do you agree with or deny that MZs experience more similar environments than DZs?
“The main effects of genes on human traits is an extremely replicable phenomenon, corroborated by many methods.”
So give me three references if it’s “an extremely replicable phenomenon, corroborated by many different methods.”
GxE interactions are the rule. Independent genetic effects don’t, and can’t, exist due to what we know about the genome. The interactionist thesis is true.
Seems like you’re treading in the “developmental denialism” lane:
Developmental denialism occurs when heritability is treated as a causal mechanism governing the developmental reoccurrence of traits across generations in individuals. Such an approach thwarts true developmental science by assuming a priori which mechanisms are causal in the development of specific traits. Opposition to heritability as a causal explanation is not new. Zing-Yang Kuo (1929) was arguing for the abolishment of heritability in psychology in the 1920s, and afterwards, American comparative psychologists T.C. Schneirla, Gilbert Gottlieb, and Ethel Tobach argued for a developmental approach to the reoccurrence of traits.
https://thefreephenotype.weebly.com/home/developmental-denialism
This is a nice article comparing several heritability estimators, both pedigree-based and genomic ones:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21283-4 See Table 4 with its assortative mating corrections in particular: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21283-4/tables/4 Phenotypic resemblance increases linearly with the coefficient of relationship even when the coefficient is entirely cryptic and socially meaningless, e.g. differences in relatedness between ordinary siblings. These results are exactly what the additive genetic model predicts and they are difficult to explain otherwise.
Genetic causation in quantitative and behavioral genetics is about estimating the average effects of having effect variants versus reference variants. Just like identifying the average treatment effect is sufficient to establish causality in RCTs, with no need to understand the intervening mechanism (e.g. the actual mechanisms through which many popular drugs do their work are murky at best), it is sufficient to identify the average effects of alleles, regardless of what the developmental process between genotype and phenotype is like. It turns out that the function relating average genotypic differences to average phenotypic differences is simple, with additive terms accounting for almost all of the variance, at least within relatively homogeneous populations (e.g. people in highly developed countries).
Yea h2 assumes P = G + E, meaning an additive model. I should have known you would have cited h2 estimates which assume additivity and asked for non-h2 studies that show this claim is true. It assumes no G and E interactions (false) and also no correlated environments (GxE reduces or invalidates genetic inferences gleaned from h2). All the math in the world is irrelevant if the assumptions that underlie h2 is false, and since it relies on a false model of the gene, then then they are of no use to humans, not least due to the fact that we can’t fully control the environments and placement isn’t truly “random.” This is noted wonderfully by Lewontin 1974 who wrote:
If an event results from the joint operation of a number of causative chains and if these causes ‘interact’ in any generally accepted meaning of the word, it becomes conceptually impossible to assign quantitative values to the causes of that individual event. Only if the causes are utterly independent could we do so.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/35/3/520/735787?login=false
The causes are NOT “utterly independent”, and so it follows that it NOT CONCEPTUALLY possible to quantify the relative contributions of G and E to P. The additive genetic model is quite clearly false.
For this to hold any value, you need to present an argument that P = G + E is true. In absence of an argument, whatever math is presented is irrelevant. Nevermind the other conceptual issues with GWAS such as population stratification and of course, ultimately, the assumptions that underlie heritability and the fact that larger datasets lead to spurious correlations. Association studies do not reveal biological mechanisms, this is what physiology does.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732118X1830196X
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-016-9489-4
So this of course has implications for Steve Hsu’s fishing expedition using GWAS, too. “Genetic causation” isn’t even a coherent concept. You DO need to understand the mechanism, lest you merely try to tell stories of associations between G and P.
Its grandiose thinking that heritability can can tease out the relative contributions of G and E for P. Thus, it’s conceptually unsound to think we can separate these, and all the math in the world won’t be able to justify the use of heritability in doing what it’s practitioners claim it does, since it is conceptually invalid.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272179794_Heritability_Studies_Methodological_Flaws_Invalidated_Dogmas_and_Changing_Paradigms
no amount of quantitative genetic research can establish the validity of such heritability estimates or their putative support for the irrelevance of shared environmental factors. Technically flawed and conceptually unsound models—no matter how often published or repeated—do not by virtue of their numbers make for sound evidence.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9125.12036
So unless you have an argument, h2 doesn’t do what it’s claimed it does. Behavioral genetics therefore crumbles, and crumbles spectacularly.
If there are non-additive genetic effects, DZA estimates will equal neither narrow nor broad heritability.
Can you elaborate?
For DZ twins, the additive genetic effect (A) correlation is about 0.5 while the (two-locus) non-additive effect (D) correlation is 0.25. If you double the DZA correlation to estimate heritability, you get an estimate of 2*(0.5A + 0.25D) = A + 0.5D, which is neither narrow nor broad heritability (unless D = 0).
In contrast, the MZA correlation is an estimate of A + D, with both additive and non-additive effects (including interactions between any number of loci) fully accounted for.
Thank you so much. That was very educational. Where did you get the formula 0.5A + 0.25D?
See chapter 3.3, page 60-> in this book for the derivation of the expected twin covariances with Mendelian algebra: http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/workshop2004/cdrom/HTML/book2004a.pdf
Cool! Thanks.
Anyways the visual art dysmorphia between men and women might be down to spatial intelligence? There are differences in that between men and women.
I might buy Bernie Sanders new book. It sounds like something I would write.
Puppy is a neoliberal of course, he think if all the wealth in the country was concentrated in one man that would be fine as long as his IQ was 1000.
Steve Sailer is really rampaging all over blacks. Blacks are 20 times more likely to commit crime even if you control for income. Wow. Puppy and Melo are crying.
Melo: THASSS RACISS!
People who accuse someone of being a racist….have low IQs.
so true. but they are useful idiots to their master. “the preferential option for the poor” of the roman church vs “the preferential option for the rich and the BIPOCs” of satanism, aka neoliberalism.
Homophobia and racism are very different biases. Racism is way more vague and in many cases we cant judge potentially racist situations without looking for contexts. It’s quite common accusation of racism specially about individuals from groups like blacks not being accurate or fair. People from sexual minorities are overwhelmingly bullied or discriminated without a really fair reason while people like blacks are disproportionately as bullies than as a bullied, specially black males. Actually homophobia is more similar to real colorism (discrimination against albino people, for example) than to racism. I’m not saying racism is correct but it is way more complex and or contextual-dependent than homophobia.
nope homophobia is actually justifiable racism far less. acceptance of homosexuality has been far more damaging than anything that involves race acceptance.
how can you justify racism and not homophobia that is so stupid and contradictory in every way.
Both homophobia and racism are totally natural and justified by instinct. Basically its a way to protect ourselves from bad people and nature wants it this way.
Both homophobia and racism are totally natural and justified by instinct.
no nuance in meaning of “racism” and “homophobia” because pill = gay BIPOC = peepee.
for how long were gay men banned from donating blood?
how would anyone know?
BUT it was CORRECT!
it saved lives!
Walking with clothes publicly is natural??
Protect normies from putin haters??
Huumm
What is natural??
Instinct mean lack of reasoning.
Do you suffer discrimination from being schizophrenic?? Do you think you are bad because you are schizophrenic and it protect the ‘good citizens’ from you??
Actually very racist and homophobic ones are more likely to be on anti social personality spectrum.
Loaded if you can’t find a job 6 months out from getting your degree you would be in danger of becoming long term unemployed.
You bragged about this finance degree from Lahore University and how you were going to set the world on fire and here you are 6 months on in your underwear in a basement making momma jokes on an anonymous forum you were stupid enough to reveal your identity to.
I just remembered Steve Sailer has an MBA. He went to a state university though. Still it seems to have accelerated his career when he worked in that market research firm.
I started lifting in Converse Chuck Taylors a few weeks ago and the difference is night and day between a shoe with a flat heel and one with an incline in the arch. My lifts went up 10 points due to a better grip on the floor. Why didn’t I do this years ago.
For those who lift here, what are your best lifts on the Big 4?
Deadlift – 480 lbs
OHP – 165 lbs
Squat – 315 lbs
Bench – 285 lbs
All at a body weight of 160.
And I do chin ups with 105 pounds around my waist for 5 reps.
can you pull a truck?
No I can’t. I focus on compound lifts.
i can tell you’re very observant.
i was dating a sicilian girl when i started taking steroids…i mean changed my views.
You weigh less than I thought you did. I thought you’d be at least 180.
When I’m on a “eat whatever” diet, I do get to around 180 and I still look pretty good. But I’ve been cutting for the winter and then I’m going to start a slow bulk. Most I’ve ever weighed is 180 when I’m lazy, but I don’t really “look” it; when I’m skint fat most of my body fat is in my thighs and lower stomach. The lower stomach is where my stubborn fat is and it takes a bit to get rid of it.
“most of my body fat is in my thighs and lower stomach. ”
Same, bruh. Honestly, I don’t really care as much anymore. I’d rather have a Jason Momoa body type than something like Tom Holland. I used to stress about it when I was in my late teens-early 20s, but bitches seem to like it now. I gained like 20 pounds over COVID.
I’ve been kinda lazy since covid too. I’ve lost a good amount of strength and have gained some fat, but I’m getting back into the swing since January. I’ve just been focusing on work and not too much on lifting and diet.
your squat form must be awful or something, why the huge discrepancy
I do lowbar. I have long legs and a relatively short torso and long arms so I’m a better puller then pusher (but I’m very strong on OHP, I have strong shoulders).
that study from 1984 which explained cranial capacity by winter temperature…the one with the map of the globe…
1. all the crania were from prior to 1940. how far back did they go?
2. the largest mean was for buryats at 1510. compare to contemporary ADNI study of 1530 for americans.
AND skulls collected by a forensic anthropology center at the university of tennessee found wypipo’s cranial capacity has increased by 200 cc in 150 years. (i couldn’t find the mean value.) that’s a lot. have the buryats’ increased as much or more? and interestingly their skulls have actually gotten narrower…but longer and higher. the high long skull is difficult to compare in volume to the skulls of northern chinapipo. and then the samoyeds look half white.
whose head is actually bigger? trump vs president of mongolia.
the dietary explanation for the 200 cc boost may not apply to northern chinapipo as they have always had a very animal protein rich diet.
but trump displays bergmann’s rule and his eye color and formerly genuine blond hair may also be adaptations to high latitude…
why have northern chinapipo never developed these traits?
maybe because haven’t occupied such latitudes for nearly as long?
But this actor has a big forehead.
Apparently, some Mongolians develop blonde hair. I don’t know if this is from European admixture, though.
Aboriginal Australians have developed light hair separately from europeans.
Due to the history of racial interbreeding in Central Asia and Siberia.
nobody sensible would want a South Asian woman especially not an Indian woman. you guys are all closeted homosexuals you just look at a womans aesthetics and assume theyre attractive.
theres more to woman than the way her skull is shaped you fucking pansies.
plus Lurker i dont want children. for what reason would i have them? so the next generation can leech off my kids the same way they did me?
not only that but my having kids with a tall woman doesnt make them any taller they would be unattractive and weird and the fact that my wife is taller than me would make my kids think i was some type of cuckold weirdo which i most definitely am not.
you guys are all closeted get a real mindset to these types of things.
Only women loaded can attrack are nurses.
Santo you are repulsive to both men and women.
Diet protein hypothesis is bullshit. What happened is that it was the increase of intelligence first which forced humans to consume more protein and then to search for a solution for that, fire control and cooking. But fire control probably was discovered first than cooking. In short, humans didn’t became smarter after cooking and eating more (animal) protein but humans were becoming smarter due strong selective pressure and then were capable to produce inovations to solve their problems and necessities like fire control and cooking.
google translate harder!
the point is korean crania did increase a lot recently. i forget how much.
but did the even farther north chinapipo’s heads increase 200 cc like wypipo americans’ supposedly has in the last 150 years?
maybe they’ve increased even more?
but if the explanation is diet then…maybe not. these people have never depended on cheap carbs because they can’t grow them in mongolia, siberia, manchuria, etc…
actually that 1984 study found buryat males had an avg volume of 1538. the ADNI study was 1530 for the average of males AND females.
so something is going on here.
As I said, there’s enormous variation based on how it’s measured.
you are correct mugabe. as usual.
the best theory is that light hair and light eyes (eye color is mostly just how much or how little melanin in the iris) are sequelae of the selection for light skin because high latitude and thus low light and thus cold and skin covered and thus low vitamin D.
but the very high latitude chinapipo…still no blue-eyed blonds…
= europeans have the HIGHEST latitude ancestry.
sequelae…
noun
MEDICINE
plural noun: sequelae
a condition which is the consequence of a previous disease or injury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Biology_of_blond_hair
so the nazi idea that the og indo-europeans looked like boris becker turn out to be TRUE. but sadly boris is into the dinge.
where’s the blond in eastern siberia today?
answer: bred out by admixture with people like melo OR people like melo displaced the blonds…RECENTLY!
either way…way sad.
because whatever the vitamin d content of the diet of eastern siberians…this is where blond originates…but contemporary
siberianscentral asian chinapipo have only a very few blonds in childhood…but this might also be explained by the wypipo of china: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummiesso the nazi idea that the og indo-europeans looked like boris becker turnS out to be TRUE. but sadly boris is into the dinge.
not only are South Asian women unattractive theyre annoying as shit. so entitled and diseased and ready to fuck anything that moves. who the fuck wants that in a partner.
count me out.
as for kids maybe i adopt or something but nah i dont need kids in my life to feel any better. i feel like its better to not have kids than to have one with a South Asian.
trust me what benefits would a South Asian womans genetics give to my kids probably just height if im lucky and thats all and that would be two or three inches off my 5 4 height anyways.
a son would be almost out of the question and a daughter….well why the fuck would anyone decent man want a daughter?
i have to say maybe im biased here because im really misogynistic but i dont really find women purposeful at all.
if theyre not attractive why would anyone want a kid with them.
i dont want any progeny of mine being leeched off of because theyre smart and ugly that would make their lives like ten times fucking more miserable.
mugabe’s point is…he has to keep beating a dead horse…
yes! genuine racism and/or homophobia is gross and stupid…
but if the putative victims were rich or just had good jobs…
why would they care?
they wouldn’t. that would be neurotic. and expecting politicians to make people like you…super neurotic.
why is santo still posting given that he’s peepee?
because I can
Still about all this debate, seems has been consistently found that, more identical twins are, more identical in behavior and intelligence they are, even with some remarkably fascinating ways. But rr clones are educated to confuse, distort and delay the conclusions of this debate as much as possible supposedly because “social justice” (???).
“Still about all this debate, seems has been consistently found that, more identical twins are, more identical in behavior and intelligence they are, even with some remarkably fascinating ways”
Who found this? What “fascinating ways”? There are numerous—non-genetic—reasons for these “remarkably fascinating ways” MZs are “more identical.” Joseph discussed quite a few of them.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/studies-reared-apart-separated-twins-facts-fallacies/
Ever seen a photo of the Jim twins and how one is relatively jacked and the other had apparent gynecomastia? The fact of the matter is, this “debate” has been over for decades: Once twin study proponents conceded thsg MZs experience more similar environments than DZs, that sealed its fate. Then they had to invent reasons to save a genetic hypothesis. “Science.”
Just look it up…
The most identical twins are quasi clones. They often have very similar traits from voice to special interests. It’s obvious the role of GENES or BIOLOGY there.
Madinamerica is a blog of a schizophrenic dude who deny that schizophrenia is intrinsically caused… when you lie too much, many people just stop to pay attention to you.
At least he knows he is mad lol
Now it is your time to grow some self awareness.
“Who found this?”
Scientists. Different than the pseudo marxist ideologues like you.
“What’s fascinating ways?”
If you still don’t know so you are just reading your besties.
NUMEROUS.
Generally it’s mean bullshit.
5,6 or 11 factors??
It’s morning here and i will lose my time again reading this shit. Here we go.
Your friend is so mad he can’t accept his disease was not caused by his own biology.
https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html
RR’s nightmare. Actual real evidences arranged in simple language and not an overwritten bullshit by people with identity problems like madinanywhere. (He enphasised “America” because he think mercan environment make him schizophrenic).
“70% from genes and 30% from ENVIRONMENT”
Actually “environment” means individual adaptation and not some metaphysical influence on behavior. It’s mostly or maybe always about the biology or nature.
Like if a human organism is not adapted to thrive in (relative) scarsed-resource environment the “problem” is not fundamentally (and contextually) the environment but the organism adaptative scope.
Don’t cry rr. I still believe you will be a good parent.
Biological determinism
Why most humans are “meat or animal protein-dependent”?? It’s caused by… environment??
“Madinamerica is the blog of a schizophrenic dude”
No, it’s a blog that hosts many writes other than Joseph. Where has he said he’s schizophrenic?
“who deny that schizophrenia is intrinsically caused”
What evidence is there that it is? Joseph has a new book on schizophrenia and genetics and of course concludes no role of genes in the etiology of schizophrenia. See also the fact that twin studies CAN’T show any role of genes and should not be considered in the etiology of schizophrenia. Then Joseph’s numerous lines of evidence that it’s not genetically caused.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411885/
Which scientists found this? References please.
“70% from genes and 30% from ENVIRONMENT”
This is nonsense, heritability doesn’t show anything like that, G and E aren’t independent, like heritability estimates assume.
“Biological determinism” is false.
Further, that article reports on Bouchard’s studies, and Joseph has poked so many holes in that study that it should not be taken seriously anymore.
What scientists.
You know well evil
No waiting time with someone who don’t know how to debate, don’t want to debate and never admit when occasionally perceive is wrong or the opponent has a better point.
Well?
He is mad like you who is psychotic too due to very lower rational capacity.
“Schizophrenia is caused by stress situations during childhood”
Lots of people experience very bad stressful situation when they are kids and never develop psychosis. You are still and forever missing the understanding of causation and causality differences because the cognitive and psychological mechanisms involved on ideological indoctrination are the same of religious one in which the indonctrinated cant see or understand certain basic things if they are against their deeply internalized core beliefs.
Every supposition for only-environmental cause is an extraordinary claim for causation rather because it doesnt consider firstly the trivial possibility of a correlation.
On avg people with mental disorders & diseases since they are born tend to have abnormal developments and then are more likely to experience traumatic or stressful and even long term events if inside their home (parents and or relatives with mental afflictions too) and or out of it, in school, for example. A correlation: being born differently increase the risk for being treated with gratuitous hostility, may correlated with increased emotional sensitivity and later can result or just coincide with developing psychosis during your 20’s. Even thought lots of people who relatively later develop mental disorders & diseases are born without any apparent developmental abnormalities reflected on their phenotypes.
Schizophrenia has been correlated with toxoplasma gondii infection. It’s also correlated with left handedness and born prematurely or with lower weight. If schizophrenia has nothing to do with biology as you are saying so we would havent found any correlations like these.
Unfortunately your wishful thinking that we are lords of our behaviors and only real influentiable interference is from abstract or indefinitive environments is not correct. Should be easier if it was.
What do you think the best evidence is that schizophrenia occurs due to intrinsic factors? Bold claims have been made since the 70s, and they haven’t panned out at all. What’s the reference for your “on average” claim? If you’re going to keep making empirical claims, you’re going to need empirical evidence—is that simple.
We can find many correlations, but are they causal? For instance, increasing size of datasets lead to spurious correlations, so what then?
Behaviors are due to antecedent conditions, we are “lords” of our actions.
”What do you think the best evidence is that schizophrenia occurs due to intrinsic factors?”
I just wrote what i think right above…
So called
PATTERNS
Found repetitive behavior, expression or form
The most basic and important thing for every real scientific study.
“Why do you think schizophrenia has an intrinsic cause”
All of our behaviors have, more or less. This is the basics to understand behavior. But if you can’t accept even a minimal influence of genetics or bio…
Often when we talk about “genes”, “biology” and “environment” we are literally talking about OURSELVES and the exterior world, “us” and “them” and how we react, resist or adhere, adapt or not to given circumstances.
”Behaviors are due to antecedent conditions”
Phrase completely empty of relevance to this debate.
”we are “lords” of our actions.”
Blame schizophrenics for being schizophrenics…?
So, the environment is no important…?
So you totally believe in free will…?
That doesn’t answer the question—more directly, since you seem to be saying there’s a biological cause, what is the best evidence for the assertion? References please. This debate needs references. Yea reactions are what BEHAVIOR is, it’s due to antecedent conditions and distinct from ACTION.
I’ll answer for you—since the 70s it’s been claimed that genes for schizophrenia have been found. Those didn’t hold up. Then from the beginning of the millenum we relied on candidate gene studies. But they “didn’t and can’t work” while they’re a “failure” and a “cautionary tale.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6950644/#!po=2.77778
Click to access The-Golden-Age-of-Behavior-Genetics_.pdf
Now we’re onto GWAS and PRS studies. And we all now what the outcomes will be there.
I didn’t “blame schizophrenics for being schizophrenics.”
At the end of the day, behavioral genetics is a house of cards held up by the glue of its practitioners who just won’t. Let. It. Die.
“At the end of the day, behavioral genetics is a house of cards held up by the glue of its practitioners who just won’t. Let. It. Die.”
Only way for this to happen would be if your (((mafia))) of narcisist and psycho keep deeplying their malevolent influence on academia. Because if just by real scientifical practice, your team would be permanently banned from there.
130% of your sources are obviously anti hereditarian and POLITICAL and then partial. You even’t read hereditarian literature to base your views. I dont need to read yours but i’m not pretending to be academic like you.
Already there candidate genes for schizophrenia. It is you who use a dramatic and manipulative language to give the idea that nothing was found or that nothing which was found works.
Dude, we are organisms. Biological or organic causes. Even if schizophrenia was totally environmentally caused still would be necessary the role of biology. Even if 99% of human beings feel cold when the temperature drops to negative, the Biology “still” has a very significative role. Biology predicts propension to criminal behavior to variable reactions to certain infectious disease.
Debating with you is like debating with a creationist. Both dislearn very basic knowledge throught indoctrination. Like arguing that ressurrection doesnt exist and that because we are organisms all of our behaviors, all of our traits are influenced by our organism aka biology, most of time and mostly in deterministic way.
But determinism is not inflexism. Biological or organic influence and causes for organisms is a basal default. Got it??? What people want to know is how environmental stuff can influence behavior and development but the basis for an organism is itself of its own biology. That’s why biological determinism is true. It’s a complete waste of time writing something very obvious and very basic you should know… That’s why you and your colleagues are in wrong place.
Still about schizophrenia just 1% have it. If schizophrenia is not caused by ia combination of intrinsicities so what??
Tell me what you think, in direct way. I dont want citations, links or answers with questions. Just a straight and plain answer. If biology doesnt has a significant role on schizophrenia and other mental disorders and diseases so what are the enviromental possible causes in your opinion??
I’m very well versed on hereditarian thought and literature. You seem to forget I used to be a hereditarian.
And the candidate gene era flopped hard just like the GWAS/PGS era will. Diseases are irrelevant to the social claims hereditarians make. Hereditarianism is a specific set of theories. What’s the argument that “biology predicts propensiom to criminal behavior”? What references do you have?
“That’s why biological determinatism is true.”
No its not. And this belief has had devestating consequences for whole groups of people. Developmental systems theory is the answer to hereditarianism.
The traumogenic neurodevelopmental model is promising. They summarize a suite of socio-environmental causes of psychosis which can be sunmazied as “Early childhood adversity—even environmental factors from being in the womb—lead to psychosis.”
https://repository.uel.ac.uk/item/85qw4
https://psychotherapy.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2016.70.1.5
“Don’t cite anything.”
Unlike you, I don’t make unevidenced claims.
”Possible environmental factors include being”
Raised in a city
CORRELAITCHON
Because great majority of people who lives in cities don’t develop psychosis.
Got it??
Childhood adversity,
CORRELAITCHON
If it was true so great majority of people who lives in very poor and poor countries would develop psychosis.
Cannabis use during adolescence,
CORRELAITCHON
Because majority of people who use it don’t develop psychosis
Got it??
Infections,
CANDIDATE [not 100% exterior or ”environmental”] CAUSATION
Still it’s not everyone who were exposed to some presumed infection during prenatal period which develop psychosis or any other developmental BIOLOLOLOLOGICAL abnormality like schizophrenia
Got it??
The ages of a person’s mother or father,
STILL A CORRELAITCHON
cus majority of peuple who were born from older parents don’t develop psychosis
Got it??
And poor nutrition during pregnancy.
CANDIDATE [not 100% exterior or environmental] CAUSATION
Because [great] majority of people who suffered from poor nutrition when they were inside the womb don’t develop psychosis later
Got it???
No you don’t.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5412319/
”While the risk is 1 percent in the general population, having an FDR such as a parent or sibling with schizophrenia increases the risk to 10 percent.
The risk jumps to 50 percent if both parents have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, while the risk is 40 to 65 percent if an identical twin has been diagnosed with condition.
A 2017 study from Denmark based on nationwide data on over 30,000 twins estimates the heritability of schizophrenia at 79 percent.
The study concluded that, based on the risk of 33 percent for identical twins, the vulnerability for schizophrenia isn’t solely based on genetic factors.
Although the risk of schizophrenia is higher for family members, the Genetics Home Reference indicates that most people with a close relative with schizophrenia will not develop the disorder themselves.”
https://www.healthline.com/health/is-schizophrenia-hereditary#schizophrenia-and-heredity
“Schizophrenia is a highly heritable”
Haha this is bullshit—“heritability” is a nonsense phrase, see the arguments I’ve levied in this comment section.
Then it cites twin, family and adoption studies as evidence—nope.
It’s “highly heritable”, yet per DSMV most people who have it have no family history of it. There is NO evidence for a genetic basis of schizophrenia and so-called “found genes” haven’t panned out—and the conceptual arguments rule it out, in any case.
Why is it so important for you to try to argue that schizophrenia is “genetic” and “heritable”?
Because you dont have the understanding of basics of the basics of all stuff you pedantically pretend to understand just copying what your masters write, it’s impossible to stablish a minimally intelligible conversation here. It’s not what i or you want or wish, it’s what it is. It’s OBVIOUS that genes have some to significant role on schizophrenia because as a biology is default for organisms so genetics. We are talking about completely different language. Your language is of malevolent pseudo philosophy and pseudo science. Again, you have too much space to bullshit this blog and PP thanks you for it. But you only can convince autists or insufferable dumb people like you no matter how academically posh you can sound in your stupid writing or how craft you can be in your sophistic skills. Your problem is not having lower IQ, you dont. Your problem is being completely indoctrinated and thus being irrational due very lower self awareness and likely related with very personal stuff. You think you
A study with 30 000 twins
If two parents have it so the risk for their offspring develop psychosis increase to 40-50%…
“Schizophrenia highly heritable is bullshit”
I also have problem to the concept and application of heritability but it required nuanced thinking you REALLY dont have. Heritability estimate how similar twins are and probably or soundly ON AVG how heritable a specific trait can be. But people, in my opinion, dont grasp that found heritability is an AVG which varies from case to case, meaning there are sub types also because it depend lots of others factors like genetic similarities between parents. Secondly, that if a trait has an avg lower heritability still doesnt mean it has a lower genetic OR biological influence. If homossexuality or left handedness has a relatively lower avg heritability it doesnt mean they are product of socioenvironmental factors if people can be become lgbt or left handed. Many times it is a matter of poor interpretation. Like i said above heritability results are dependent on parents traits like genetic similarities because multi or birracial twins from birracial couples have a higher likelihood to be less similar to monorracial twins, for example. Other problem is that people tend to confuse heritability with heredity. I already showed an example of correspondance level between physical and behavioral traits between parents and their kids. But you dont care, it’s simple because is bullshit because Pinkgoy and Jewlie said.
Oh man shut up with the bullshit “you don’t have the basics of the basics of all stuff you pedantic silly pretended to understand just copying what your masters write”—I have a clear understanding of what I write and it’s not “copied.” You can be an adult and stop with these idiotic, false claims about me and discuss these issues without acting like a child.
The problems with the heritability concept are insurmountable, MZs are more similar than DZs because they are treated more similarly. So we have to reject genetic conclusions and therefore it can be explained environmentally. Unless you can defend the equal environments assumption, your claims fail.
Pseudo basis is not basis as homeopathy is not medicine as your fake social science and philosophy are not real social science and philosophy yeah
Acting like a child
Completely you…
InSUMOtable??
“It’s easy. Identical twins are treated equal while non identical twins are treated different”
Everything for you is too easy only when it’s not your indoctrination…
When you FINALLY make a normal sentence, it is unuanced and undeveloped claim…
I could spend more time analysing and inevitably criticizing every piece of your extremely bored comments or even these rare moments of honest authenticity. But is more interesting looking at your possible reasons to being this zombie.
“So we have to reject..”
You without your arsenal of copied citations, quotations…
Again, pp, ban this shit. Enough is enough.
The claim I made is even ADMITTED by twin researchers, but then they still attempt to save the EEA by using a circular argument or an argument from ignorance. You clearly don’t know how to have a discussion and which claims need a citation.
You know, you don’t have to read my comments. You choose to.
He thinks that schizophrenia is a reactive/readaptative personality disorder.
Fucktard
You have by far the lowest self awareness i have seen in many years. All the time it’s the same fuckingthing. Endless and more endless of google or e-mail research to post these inumerous studies’s citations rather than pick my comment’s parts and answering directly whichever what.
My bet now is that in addiction to other psychological and cognitive factors, you are very deficient on self insight and then in self knowledge and most people who believe in Blank slate. That’s why you just cant believe on self analysis to understand yourself firstly and then the others.
From the assumption you are only dishonest on your sophistic tactics…
Blah blah blah. Keep the bullshit psychoanalysis to yourself. Twin studies are too flawed to have any use, that’s the end of the story.
It’s not just twin studies RR. Studies of unrelated people raised in the same home show the effect of shared environment VANISHES by later life.
So we find people who are identical in genes but different in home environment show very high correlations in later life.
Meanwhile people who are identical in home environment but different in genes show NO correlation in later life.
These two findings perfectly complement each other and together make a POWERFUL case for the importance of genes.
What studies did you have in mind?
”Keep the bullshit psychoanalysis to yourself.”
RRetard,
You want to explain everyone’s behavior and development with yourtheir very poorly developed and essentially ideological-dishonest hypothesis and even treat them as objective factual findings. So you are nothing to accuse me of wanting or attempting to analyse other people than just myself. The big difference is that I’m concerned to understand it while you and your masters don’t. It’s all about politics and taking power.
PP gives you a huge space to express yourself and you use it without moderation. You are not here or there to really debate but to attempt-to impose your indoctrination and because you’ve always found a big resistance to yourtheir bullshit so you
feel more excited to keep regurgitating your own self indoctrination here. Sad and pathetic.
”What studies did you have in mind?”
my
good
lord…
Jensen writes:
“The IQs of unrelated persons who were reared together correlate +0.25 in childhood and -0.1 in adulthood” (page 178 of The g Factor)
Which of Jensen’s references for that claim do you think is best indicative of that claim?
Pumpkin always tries to tear people down. i dont understand why he/she compulsively does this. like why have so much pride and heretical ego my bro?
try being chill for once. like me. lil bitch.
is this a real picture or a fake?
RR if he behaved in real life like he does specifically when debating about intelligence:
Imagine debating with him without all his personal arsenal of copied citations, study links and sentences?? Just by his own mental powerhouse??
Good idea. Let’s discuss these issues on voice, then. Let me know when you’re available and we can set up a time to do it.
I saw very quickly your participation in a YouTube Channel. Your voice is remarkably ugly and bored Exactly like an artificial intelligence who knows only binnary language.
Want to do it or not? Why make a proposal and not follow through when I say I’m down with it so we can see if what you’re saying is true? Are you retracting what you said now? You’re such a hater it’s astounding.
I was very disappointed but satisfying when you said of course something like “hereditarianism is bullshit”.
It’s him!!
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e47d54bbff682c8d37624bd942fd088d-lq
Yup
i have excellent social skills and intuition. the thing i do struggle with is awkwardness however especially during the early phases of interactions.
this is evident even on the Internet even on this blog i mean. i come across as a very erratic guy all over the place but when you get to know me all bets are off that you will love me.
love me.
”i have excellent social skills and intuition”
noticiable.
i always appreciate your compliments Santo i feel like theyre very authentic and meaningful not only because of your social understanding but more so your love of all things good?
i think thats a good way to put it and may it bring fortune to your endeavors my bro.
He was being sarcastic you retard.
way to be a cynical faggot you autistic bitch. listen im a pragmatist i dont read too much into words and shit like you do.
youre both a schiz in the fact that you believe all these superstitious correlations between things and then a fucking autist for sure because you literally interpret things to be set in stone as someone writes them.
youve really put a dent on yourself you piece of fucking shit. go eat my dick if youre that hungry for it. faggot ass.
LOADED you need to find yourself a good, tall, Pakistani woman (non-cousin).
You need to support monogamy and some degree of racial purity because otherwise society gets a lot more competitive and that doesn’t end up well for most of us with a moral compass, especially manlets.
i never asked for your opinion smartass. racial purity is retarded i have better genes than you except for a few physical traits why the fuck would i limit myself.
This is gender neutral police car.
Pill needs a reality check. your in a far more complicated situation than i at least i can inherit money from my parents and start a business.
also i still have a lot of time to find work i havent been able to find it in the city i currently live in because of a lack of jobs that cater to my field but if i move to another one ill have plenty of opportunities.
unlike your mother and father mine have money meaning i can take advantage of this situation to befit myself into a nice position.
Dumbass. Waiting for your parents to die is not a strategy. What a complete clown you are.
charles iii disagrees.
this blog is diseased. no one intelligent enough will browse through it. itd be a better move NOT to read this blog. bunch of assholes with no money no jobs nothing arguing with each other about stupid topics that dont even affect the world in a positive way!
thats clown world Pill.
autism: using math to understand perceivable behavioral patterns
Actually more like using math logic. E.g. Analytical philosophy.
Using math to say things about how things should be can’t be done. So all the effort is placed into re-saying how saying should be done.
thats what you do! literally! all your social “intuition” is literally just common sense or logic. i dont get what you keep projecting on other people for when its in you.
Something like 20% of people score more than 700 on the GMAT. I looked through the exam and it looks pretty easy.
I scored a 750 cold a few months ago which was in the 98th percentile iirc. Only the math section is reasonably challenging because it tests intermediate level geometry, probability, etc that most people haven’t seen since high school. Any IQ 140+ person who commits a couple weeks to prep could probably max it no problem. The verbal questions are a joke for anyone used to the LSAT.
the discrepancy between different IQ scores between people is vastly overstated when controlling for race. for example someone with a 120 IQ and a 140 IQ between races is far less than someone with a 120 IQ and a 140 IQ within the same race for whatever reason at least thats what my observations have been.
a better and more satisfactory observation is that when you stand above a certain threshold of intelligence the discrepancy in actual productivity limits itself but then picks itself back up again when another threshold is crossed. the numbers may sound arbitrary but i think 110 to 140 is midwit altogether.
140-155 can be lumped in the same category. 155-180 in the same category etc.
i say this because i have a 115 IQ i presume never tested but clear enough to make a statement on it verbal 130 spatial 100 but i dont think of myself as being overly capable although that may be because my crystallized is lacking plenty.
my fluid is really sharp and i have a lot of creativity and other factors that make me a great thinker. as for critical thinking i think i can solve problems well when given a space to construct my own arguments for my reasoning.
“I scored a 750 cold a few months ago which was in the 98th percentile iirc. Only the math section is reasonably challenging because it tests intermediate level geometry, probability, etc that most people haven’t seen since high school. Any IQ 140+ person who commits a couple weeks to prep could probably max it no problem. The verbal questions are a joke for anyone used to the LSAT.”
Your performance on a wide variety of cognitive tests is very consistent. According to pumpkin persons formulae your Gmat IQ score equivalent is 144. i presume that it would have been somewhat higher if you had prepared.Your score on the LSAT is a 149. On Teffecs test you had a 145(first norming). On kiwianons test you had a 148(first norming). On psychology today’s verbal intelligence test you had a 148. Have you taken any other cognitive tests?
Only the post-2016 SAT (1560) and the ACT (34). I think both of those equate to something in the 130s (but on scales with significantly lower ceilings). I’ve never taken the WAIS or any other pure cognitive test.
It’s crazy how true the “A students work for C students” adage is. I’m probably the smartest but also one of the least successful out of all my friends. I’ve always been a mediocre employee. IQ really is just one of several factors influencing success.
People that do the CFA when they’re outside of an investment role…wow what a massive waste of time. Its almost like an IQ test whether you should spend time like that.
Loaded you should try the CFA. At least level 1. I bet you wouldn’t be able to do it though. Youre too dumb.
I’m so nerdy I seriously considered doing the CFA for fun.
Maybe I will still do it. But its pointless for my personal portfolio. I only use ETFs and my first preference is to dump money into property.
how much money do you actually have Pill? why do you still live with your parents then?
yeah. the only reason to do the CFA is if you’re already in the field and it will add $$$ to your paycheck.
actuaries made fun of it for how ridiculously easy it was. but few of them ever have the opportunity to manage money unless it’s the insurance co’s portfolio.
I invested in a non-ETF once. That was the IPO of a bank and made 20%. But that was because I’m aware of the finance literature that IPOs are usually always undervalued due to the preferences of bankers.
I wonder how the Berekley sociology people explain why blacks are good athletes. I would like to ask them that.
Why do you think blacks are good athletes? Why do you act like there’s no sociological explanation?
“… by arguing for a cultural rather than biological interpretation of “race,” Edwards proposed that black athletic superiority results from “a complex of societal conditions” that channels a disproportionate number of blacks into athletic careers.” (Hoberman, 1996: 271, Darwin’s Athletes: How Sport Has Damaged Black America and Preserved the Myth of Race
Athleticism is irreducible to biology.
Humbly proposed
the winner of the slam dunk contest this year was a 6’2″ white guy named mac mcclung. i wonder if he cheated with flubber. there is some discrimination against white american basketball players and corner backs. or so i have heard from people who would know. the code word is “athleticism”.
but blacks have advantages due to allen’s rule. so what about abos and south asians and MENAs? not nearly as shaped by allen’s rule as black africans.
for the same reason blacks will never do especially well as swimmers or olympic weightlifters even if they have interest and access.
“for the same reason blacks will never do well as swimmers or olympic weightlifters even if they have interest and access.”
I agree.
Youre so fucking stupid it hurts. Why cant you just say they have more T. Its so obvious.
“Why cant you just say they have more T. Its so obvious.”
Because (1) it’s false and (2) even if it were true, it wouldn’t be an explanation.
Imagine being in Berkely sociology class. Jesus christ. It would be like going to mass again.
fodor/rr = NOT EVEN WRONG!
but even when you prove they’re absurd in their own terms they say: “that’s not what i meant!”
Caller #2: Yeah, I love guns.. but I ain’t no Commie, and I certainly ain’t no homosexual. Could I join?
Bob: Sorry, no. We’d love to talk guns with you, but unless you took the next logical step of becoming gay and Communist, I don’t see much chance. Do you?
fodor/rr being interviewed:
clown troll:
///
If RR was journalist
Animal and plant breeding for hundred of years and without any of these complex math calculations. For a further systematic use of eugenic or directed human and non human breeding hopefully for really ethical and or necessary reasons, complex mathematics will be indispensable but to know about behavior influences and the way it has been done seems quite pendantic, like “autism is ‘70%’ heritable’ and ‘30%’ environmental) (an avg). That’s a huge part of Science, the pedantic distraction for precision, still like a drying ice.