Sociopath Community

StillPork said: 

 

Why wouldn't the Flynn effect not be real?

Disqualifying it would basically take away the strongest argument there is for a big environmental effect on IQ, so wouldn't that render this whole discussion pointless?

Do you agree that there is nothing akin to a scientific consensus on the cause of the Flynn effect?

Not really, I think there is a consensus on the most probable causes, but even if I did agree fully with your statement I don't see what it changes for our discussion. My point has been that there simply is too much uncertainty for you to boldly claim that IQ is mostly genetic and that's why blacks score lower. If we dismiss environmental effects as too speculative then I believe we should do the same for the strict genetic conclusion as well.

Inquirer said: 

Not really, I think there is a consensus on the most probable causes, but even if I did agree fully with your statement I don't see what it changes for our discussion.

Your main argument is apparently that the Flynn effect is the best evidence that IQ is not determined by genetic because the shift in the IQ is caused by environment/upbringing. Did I get that right? If in fact it is not agreed upon that the shift in the IQ is caused by environment/upbringing, then it kind of does change whether it is relevant to talk about the Flynn effect or not.

My point has been that there simply is too much uncertainty for you to boldly claim that IQ is mostly genetic and that's why blacks score lower.

You said your stance is that it is mostly environmental, another bold claim. Your stance is not the null hypothesis, so change your tone.

If we dismiss environmental effects as too speculative then I believe we should do the same for the strict genetic conclusion as well.

What are strict genetic conclusions? For Flynn effect? How about not looking at the studies that are too speculative and instead look at studies which have less subjective biases, like twin studies?

Less room for interpretation I mean of course. Two genetically identical people that can have different environments/upbringing. You can't get a cleaner study set-up than that. The Flynn effect can be mimicked by all sorts of population effects. Twin studies do not share these shortcomings.

StillPork said: 

Inquirer said: 

Not really, I think there is a consensus on the most probable causes, but even if I did agree fully with your statement I don't see what it changes for our discussion.

Your main argument is apparently that the Flynn effect is the best evidence that IQ is not determined by genetic because the shift in the IQ is caused by environment/upbringing. Did I get that right? If in fact it is not agreed upon that the shift in the IQ is caused by environment/upbringing, then it kind of does change whether it is relevant to talk about the Flynn effect or not.

We don't need a consensus to acknowledge that the mere existence of it greatly opens up the possibility for environmental effects to play a big role in IQ.

You said your stance is that it is mostly environmental, another bold claim. Your stance is not the null hypothesis, so change your tone.

My belief is indeed that the environment plays a huge role in the between-group variance of IQ but I've also argued that your conclusion, when just looking at what we can really prove, is too assumptive. There are too many unknowns and uncertainties.

If we dismiss environmental effects as too speculative then I believe we should do the same for the strict genetic conclusion as well.

What are strict genetic conclusions? For Flynn effect? How about not looking at the studies that are too speculative and instead look at studies which have less subjective biases, like twin studies?

A strict genetic conclusion would be, in my opinion, to argue that genes overpower nurture in almost every conceivable non-extreme case.

Why do you keep restating how you'd like us to only look at twin studies when I've already answered that? If we dismiss all other "speculative" studies then we're still left with the issue of interpretating the high heritability we find in twin studies. You seem to think they're clear evidence for the supremacy of genes while I think there are plenty of other, equally feasible explanations. Such as various positive feedback loops that rely extensively on environment.

Inquirer said: 

Why do you keep restating how you'd like us to only look at twin studies when I've already answered that?

To see how much longer he can get you to try to reason with him, as he's not actually arguing with you. Considering his character references, I can kinda see why he might risk running out of source material. 

Ironically, the very people he's basing himself off of here typically choose to retreat from arguments when the social climate is too challenging, or present the very definition of Alternative Facts before accusing their opponents of doing the same pre-defensively. 

If both sides are simply spouting instead of exchanging, it becomes a Faith Battle instead of an Academic Debate. With a debate, you can get more points and do a better job without supporting the objectively correct point, while a Faith Battle is simply butting heads and letting people know that they aren't getting to you. Phrases like "seethe" are quintessential Faith Battle rhetoric meant to attack their displayed character for their own peace of mind in lieu of being able to actually discuss more, and by being the conversational alpha they can just sit there and repeat how unconvinced they are as if that's a victory. 

You said your stance is that it is mostly environmental, another bold claim. Your stance is not the null hypothesis, so change your tone.

My belief is indeed that the environment plays a huge role in the between-group variance of IQ but I've also argued that your conclusion, when just looking at what we can really prove, is too assumptive. There are too many unknowns and uncertainties.

"What's more certain than twins tho? Hah, argue against that ya Ess Jay Dubya Pseudoscientists!"

He's doing exactly what he accused us of doing in our other topic: 

StillPork said: 

You failed to respond to any of my points and didn't even acknowledge you were wrong. Just skip over all those unpleasant points like the SJW lefitst media does. Everything inconvenient to your world-view you ignore.

He's stating these things so that he can beat you to the punch of calling him on it. It allows people like us to type fervently while all he has to do is purposefully misunderstand the effort that was put into it, call them some demographic ad hom, and then state the same one fact over and over again. 

I wouldn't be surprised if he was gathering all of this data to pretend to be a leftist SJW elsewhere. 

I'll keep ignoring Turncoat since it seems to throw him deeper into SJW rage. Don't mind him all this rage is just him wanting my attention.

Inquirer said: 

We don't need a consensus to acknowledge that the mere existence of it greatly opens up the possibility for environmental effects to play a big role in IQ.

Lol, facepalm.

If X can be caused by Y or Z, does it mean the Y is the cause? The conclusion we can draw from Flynn effect, at best, is "we don't know what's going on."

Why do you keep restating how you'd like us to only look at twin studies when I've already answered that?

Because your answer makes no sense and I like to school people on basic logic and science.

If we dismiss all other "speculative" studies then we're still left with the issue of interpretating the high heritability we find in twin studies. You seem to think they're clear evidence for the supremacy of genes while I think there are plenty of other, equally feasible explanations. Such as various positive feedback loops that rely extensively on environment.

Yet the experts who know what they're talking about seem to disagree with you that the twin studies point to environmental factors. Do you have a degree in any related field? Where is your publication debunking the twin studies?

By your admission, your main source doesn't have any robust conclusions. Are you also willing to admit that the twin studies have much less subjective bias and room for interpretation than the Flynn effect, before I claim victory?

StillPork said: 

I'll keep ignoring Turncoat since it seems to throw him deeper into SJW rage. Don't mind him all this rage is just him wanting my attention.

Actually I'm after both of your attention. 

StillPork said: 

Inquirer said: 

We don't need a consensus to acknowledge that the mere existence of it greatly opens up the possibility for environmental effects to play a big role in IQ.

Lol, facepalm.

If X can be caused by Y or Z, does it mean the Y is the cause? The conclusion we can draw from Flynn effect, at best, is "we don't know what's going on."

Exactly... Like I've said multiple times now, if we're not allowed to interpret findings then the best we can do is say "we don't know what's going on". If we're allowed to interpret findings then the Flynn effect is very important to that interpretation. Either way there's no real basis for you to argue so strongly for a pure/strict genetic basis for IQ variance between races.

Yet the experts who know what they're talking about seem to disagree with you that the twin studies point to environmental factors. Do you have a degree in any related field? Where is your publication debunking the twin studies?

By your admission, your main source doesn't have any robust conclusions. Are you also willing to admit that the twin studies have much less subjective bias and room for interpretation than the Flynn effect, before I claim victory?

You keep referring to these experts over and over without linking to them. Why not just do that?

I've already explained my thinking on the pros and cons of twin studies, so either engage with that or we can stop here. This repetition is pointless.

Inquirer said: 

I've already explained my thinking on the pros and cons of twin studies, so either engage with that or we can stop here. This repetition is pointless.

You didn't actually respond to the twin studies. All you did was cite a bunch of other studies that are not widely accepted, stated that they are proof that intelligence is determined by environment, and refused to comply when I asked we look at real studies with robust conclusions instead of crackpot articles, after which I explained the issue with your Flynn study and got you to change your stance from the IQ being determined by the environment to "I don't know."

I'm already satisfied with the result and feel no need to debunk every crackpot paper that you fart out.

I think we've exhausted the IQ topic and I am fully confident I have won this debate after your admission that your best evidence is no evidence at all, and your apparent rejection of the scientific consensus on twin studies. So instead of getting stuck in a loop where you keep citing your crackpot papers and expect me to debunk every one of them, I think we can change the angle here a bit to biology.

What is it about the claim that a person's capacity for thinking is set predominantly by biology that is so bold?

Do you think that your height is mostly set by your genes?

Do you think that the amount of hair you have is mostly set by your genes?

Do you think that your brain size and structure is set mostly by your genes?

Do you believe your brain mostly dictates your capacity for intellect? I.e., if two people study the same amount and follow the same order and schedule, the one with the better brain will prevail over the other one.

Do you think that the differences in brain size and structure between whites and blacks is due to environment? Or is that set by genes?

Guess which race has a larger brain: Whites or blacks. Guess if the rest of the IQ race order follows the order of the average brain size?

Now I'm not saying there is necessarily sufficient evidence to make a causal connection that a larger brain size necessarily implies more intellect, otherwise how would we explain the fact that whites are more innovative and intelligent than Asians, but it's curious that there are differences to the white and black brain, isn't it? Doens't your leftist SJW narrative tout that we're all the same?

If there are differences to the brain sizes and structures between races, isn't it rather *intuitive* to hypothesize that there are differences in intellect between races as well? So what is it that is so bold about that claim, besides that it is against the SJW leftist narrative and you get lynched in public for going against it? I'd rather say that it is bold to claim the opposite.