Sociopath Community

StillPork said: 

No I said that black people are stupid because of mostly genes, that's all. I have no reason to believe that education improves intelligence and def. no evidence that it has such a large effect as to explain why blacks are dumb.

What is your explanation for the IQ gap, it's both hereditary and environmental or that it's mostly environmental? [...]

The article I provided clearly stated education does matter. Why don't you believe that one?

I believe the IQ gap is mostly environmental. Genes obviously play a big role but I just don't think they are the cause for the large difference between, say, white's and black's measured IQ. I don't have comprehensive evidence for my position (since it doesn't exist for either side of the argument) but just consider, among other things, that 1) the black test score 1978 was on par with the white test score in the 1930s (meaning the Flynn effect is very real under certain circumstances), 2) blacks perform worse on tests when reminded they are black (so called 'stereotype threat') and 3) adoption studies show no clear evidence for genes/heritability to be the cause of the IQ gap. Taken together I believe these findings point to a big, complex and mostly unknown environmental effect on measured IQs.

Why I don't believe that playing basketball makes people tall? Because it's very difficult to do studies that isolate one variable without changing the other. These require very complicated multi-variated analyses that need to take into account every single possible source of bias, and if they miss any, the results won't be meaningful. That's why studies like that always come up with contradictory results irrespective of the topic. The same reason I don't trust every article that says IQ must be hereditary just because there's an overwhelming correlation between specific DNA and IQ: DNA can also correlate with the household. Use your head.

The reason the overwhelming majority of scientists have concluded that IQ is mostly hereditary is due to identical twin studies. These studies are as close to being unbiased as one can reasonably hope to be. According to them, about 80% of IQ variance hereditary, irrespective of if the twins are living under the same household or not and irrespective of the inclusion of the age correlation on IQ. The difference between SJW leftist cherry pickers like you, and realists like me, is that I look at professional meta analyses while you cherry pick individual SJW politically motivated articles without a proper basis to promote a conclusions that you were pre-biased towards by your leftist upbringing.

Adoption studies by the way 100% show that IQ is inherited, how about you double check your claims.

Also explain identical twin studies because really that's the golden pedestal you should be looking at. Literally two people who are genetically equivalent, you will not be able to get closer to isolating environmental effects than that.

golden standard

Inquirer said: 

I never said what caused blacks to be less intelligent and capable, just that they are. Even if as a whole the black population is dumb because their environment made them dumb it still means they're dumb and other races are superior, like some dogs are superior to other dogs.

But what's the point in talking about genetics and races if it's likely the difference in IQ is mostly caused by environmental and circumstantial effects? I could lock you into a dark room for 20 years, stunting your development, then use you as evidence that pork people are clearly inferior to beef people.

It'd also help your case over how pork isn't kosher. 

 

That meat until we later learned better food preparation was actually harder for humans to consume without poisoning themselves, having the value and importance of pork change as it's environment did beyond rigid practices. I'm sure such ideas helped with their cultivation of historical IQ. 

StillPork said: 

Why don't you claim that the more basketball you play the taller you become. LOL.

There's environmental factors for height too, much like IQ.

With the wrong diet and sleep you can end up with stunted growth, and I wouldn't be surprised if food additives could be affecting it as well. 

StillPork said: 

No I said that black people are stupid because of mostly genes, that's all. I have no reason to believe that education improves intelligence and def. no evidence that it has such a large effect as to explain why blacks are dumb.

What is your explanation for the IQ gap, it's both hereditary and environmental or that it's mostly environmental? If you had to put a number on it, what percentage would you say is caused by genes vs environment? Even if some small part of the IQ were environmental and I would be willing to even grant that, it would still mean blacks are stupid because of mostly genes.

Genes reflect the environment they were raised in as a matter of generations (CTRL + F the word gregarious over the course of this topic, frankly I abused the word). Using immigration as a basis comparison for Parental Modeling, it's usually around the third generation or so that they reflect where they live more nationally instead of racially.

Generally speaking, first gen's straight off the boat, second gen has some hardened lessons from first gen but otherwise has accepted their new environment as a mid-ground, then third gen from watered down cultural parenting in conjunction with their peers and environment lends to them behaving more like their country within it's subcultural racial demographic (ie: behaving as an American Asian instead of a South East Asian). While this could end up lasting longer over racial self-segregation practices, like living in Chinatown as a Chinese person, this is arguably the minimum. 

While your question of wanting 'a number put on it' alludes strongly towards the "Nature vs Nurture" debate, that nature takes two people fucking to produce the child that reflects it but their environment helps craft and shape their odds for who they'll fuck or if they'll even have children at all. You can outright see shifts in what people find attractive over Pop Cultural influences on TV and Magazines, and granting the disadvantaged a better environment with less stressors is bound to show changes as potentially early as four decades later if everything else is working optimally. 

What percentage of retard upbringing would you say is caused by genes vs upbringing?

Now replace the retard with blacks.

Ahh, but what increases the odds for retards to breed versus fail at doing so, and what shapes what's likely to fuck them? 

Environment. 

StillPork said: 

Why I don't believe that playing basketball makes people tall?

The reason the overwhelming majority of scientists have concluded that IQ is mostly hereditary is due to identical twin studies. These studies are as close to being unbiased as one can reasonably hope to be. According to them, about 80% of IQ variance hereditary, irrespective of if the twins are living under the same household or not and irrespective of the inclusion of the age correlation on IQ. 

So yeah, find a way to make only the smart ones breed for a long enough time and you'll have reversed the Idiocracy problem: 



What do you mean in this case by "80% of IQ variance hereditary", that the results could be as varied from one to another as around 20%? Also, for clarity's sake, are you referencing this? 

Adoption studies by the way 100% show that IQ is inherited, how about you double check your claims.

IQ is inherited, but how much of it? 

StillPork said: 

Why I don't believe that playing basketball makes people tall? Because it's very difficult to do studies that isolate one variable without changing the other. [...] Use your head.

I linked you an article that detailed a meta-analysis of several IQ-education studies and you just wave it away with "it's difficult to do so I don't believe it"? What specifically is wrong with that study?

Or how about this one, showing how Norway's increase of compulsory schooling from 7 to 9 years in the 1960s bumped students' IQ scores?

The reason the overwhelming majority of scientists have concluded that IQ is mostly hereditary is due to identical twin studies. These studies are as close to being unbiased as one can reasonably hope to be. According to them, about 80% of IQ variance hereditary, irrespective of if the twins are living under the same household or not and irrespective of the inclusion of the age correlation on IQ.

Firstly, hereditary and genetic are not the same thing. I specifically mentioned the "stereotype threat" before to show how a cultural idea or stereotype can affect someone's measured IQ. This factor would come into play irrespective of whether twins have been reared inside the same family or not. Yet it's clearly not due to genetics.

This leads me to my second point, which is that evidence of in-group heritability does not necessarily prove that between-group variability is due to genetics. The Flynn effect is a clear example of when massive changes in IQ can happen to a population without any real difference in genetics.

So while I do think twin studies are a convincing argument for IQ having a large genetic basis (though, counterintuitively, it does seem like IQ and heritability may correlate with how 'culturally loaded' the test was, ie. the more cultural bias the greater correlation), everything taken together also makes me believe that under certain circumstances the environment can have an outsized influence as well. It seems to me to be extra prudent to keep this in mind when comparing populations of different socioeconomic standards and culture. For instance, there are indications that the prenatal environment is very important for brain development. Perhaps we don't have to go as far as malnutrition for food to become a very important factor? Incidentally this is also something which most twin studies have difficulty picking up.

Adoption studies by the way 100% show that IQ is inherited, how about you double check your claims.

How about you check the link I gave and tell me why it's bad?

 Its not false equivalence you fucking moron when I never claimed equivalence. Its really only me saying that correlation does not necessarily imply causation or are you contesting that too.

"IQ is inherited but how much of it"

80%