Intelligence, race and related issues.

[barbos]

This study seems to suggest a mixed influence:

Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil.../02e7e530fc6cceec1b000000/IQ-and-Heredity.pdf


"Since 1979, a continuing study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, separated in infancy and reared apart, has subjected more than 100 sets of reared-apart twins or triplets to a week of intensive psychological and physiological assessment. Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation. On multiple measures of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes, monozygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are monozygotic twins reared together. These findings extend and support those from numerous other twin, family, and adoption studies. It is a plausible hypothesis that genetic differences affect psychological differences largely indirectly, by influencing the effective environment of the developing child. This evidence for the strong heritability of most psychological traits, sensibly construed, does not detract from the value or importance of parenting, education, and other propaedeutic interventions."

Nope, there is no mixing, it's 100% genetic and 0% nurture.
I am talking about adult IQ here, which is really the only important IQ here.

 

[barbos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
Adoption studies found no effect of nurture on adult IQ.

That's a wiki page which seems to say there's a debate about it.

There is also a debate over global warming or even Earth curvature.
You asked for a citation, citations are on that page.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is also a debate over global warming or even Earth curvature.

Is that a good comparison? Is this issue as clear as either of those? I doubt it.

You asked for a citation, citations are on that page.

I was hoping for something more specific, partly because a page that presents mixed or different results does not do much to support a particular one.

Anyhows, I posted one, which seemed relevant to the particular point.

 

[ruby sparks]

Nope, there is no mixing, it's 100% genetic and 0% nurture.
I am talking about adult IQ here, which is really the only important IQ here.

Ok well that's a very strong claim indeed. I'm going to be honest and say that I find it very difficult to accept, at this time.

Do the results of that study not contradict it? I admit I have not read the whole study. Does it not measure adults? I think it does.

Unless I'm mistaken, you appear to be disputing this (from that study): "About 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation".

 

[barbos]

Nope, there is no mixing, it's 100% genetic and 0% nurture.
I am talking about adult IQ here, which is really the only important IQ here.

Ok well that's a very strong claim indeed.

Do the results of that study not contradict it? I admit I have not read the whole study.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil.../02e7e530fc6cceec1b000000/IQ-and-Heredity.pdf

No they don't contradict each other, it's just the one in my link directly measures effect of nurture and finds it to be zero .
70% genetic in your link does not mean 30% is nurture.
It could be 70% genetic and the rest of variation is epigenetic or simply something in the environment which is beyond your control - viruses, diseases, being hit by a bus. in other words not nurture. The study in my link is not subject to these factors, it directly measures effect of nurture.

 

[ruby sparks]

it's just the one in my link directly measures effect of nurture and finds it to be zero

I would like to read that. Which one are you referring to? And if it finds what you say, then it does seem to be at odds with the one I linked to.

70% genetic in your link does not mean 30% is nurture.
It could be 70% genetic and the rest of variation is epigenetic or simply something in the environment which is beyond your control - viruses, diseases, being hit by a bus. in other words not nurture. The study in my link is not subject to these factors, it directly measures effect of nurture.

But in the nature vs nurture debate, 'nurture' normally means 'all environmental influences', and certainly not just parenting or direct human influence. And you don't have to have any control. In fact, that you don't have control is a prominent aspect.

"Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors. Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences and learning on an individual."

Even allowing for epigenetics, and getting away from arguably incorrect terms like 'pre-wiring', it still seems as if environmental/external, non-genetic factors play a part.

 

[Bomb#20]

Despite being more similar to each other in skin tone and most these other "racial characteristics" than they are to northern Europeans, black Africans are less genetically similar to each other than they are to Eurasians or than Northern Europeans are to Asians and Native Americans.

[Digging up my copy of The History and Geography of Human Genes and checking the genetic distance matrices...]

Got a citation for your claim?

(The F_ST distances between sub-Saharan African populations in Cavalli-Sforza's table range from .01 to .15. Their distances to Eurasians are from .07 to .33. The distances from northern Europeans to Asians and Native Americans are from .02 to .16. The greatest genetic distance I can find in the table is .46: from Pygmies to New Guineans.)

Most of the genetic diversity in the human population exists within Africa, b/c the human lineage split into several branches (6-14 depending on method) before migration out of Africa, and only a portion of 1 or 2 branches left Africa while others in those same branches stayed...

And then for tens of thousands of years the various branches within Africa proceeded to exchange genes with one another a lot more often than they did with the branches on the far side of the Sahara. Genetic distance does not necessarily rise with elapsed time since branching.

Claims like yours usually turn out to be drawn from mitochondrial DNA, not autosomal DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is misleading for analyzing genetic distance because it reproduces asexually.

 

[ruby sparks]

Animals, plants, and insects adapt to the extreme urban environment—and even to specific subway lines.

These ducks are better "germans" than many immigrants.

Another thought on this.

By and large, as far as I know, immigrants to Germany are not sub-Saharan, African, negroid, black-skinned people. This is the group we have mostly been comparing with white-skinned people.

I think most of the immigrants coming to Germany have been from Syria, Romania and Turkey.

Now, it may be, I don't know, that the immigrants to Germany, or let's just hypothetically say the 'troublesome ones', the ones who don't 'behave properly', have lower IQs, on average, even if true it would only be relevant to the topic here if that was due to race (or indirectly linked to what is called race because of differently evolved/selected for traits that happened to correlate to race/ethnicity).

I mean, we're not lumping muslims, blacks, etc into a group labelled 'non white'. There would surely be some category errors in there if we did. Comparing apples, oranges and tomatoes, etc.

My point being that unlike sub-saharan, negroid Africans, people from, say, the middle east (and indeed eastern Europe) have a very rich history of achievement, technological progress and civilisation. I'm not saying sub-Saharan Africa had none, of course. The further back in time we go, the more it seems it was on a par with other parts of the world. It was only gradually, and not that long ago even in the short term evolutionary sense, that sub-saharan Africa fell behind. What is called 'Classical' sub-saharan African civilisation was on a par with 'white' civilisation for a long time. During the early Middle Ages for example. And that's not that far back.

 

[barbos]

it's just the one in my link directly measures effect of nurture and finds it to be zero

I would like to read that. Which one are you referring to? And if it finds what you say, then it does seem to be at odds with the one I linked to.

I gave you the link, wiki describes is rather well.

70% genetic in your link does not mean 30% is nurture.
It could be 70% genetic and the rest of variation is epigenetic or simply something in the environment which is beyond your control - viruses, diseases, being hit by a bus. in other words not nurture. The study in my link is not subject to these factors, it directly measures effect of nurture.

But in the nature vs nurture debate, 'nurture' normally means 'all environmental influences', and certainly not just parenting or direct human influence. And you don't have to have any control. In fact, that you don't have control is a prominent aspect.

Let me dumb it down it for you. You measure something which is bounded to be 0 to 100%.

Identical twins are not identical, they don't have identical brains ,they are not even genetically identical, they are extremely close but not identical genetically. So you can't expect 100% correlation for them to begin with. And secondly your measurement is bounded and there are statistical errors, so this another source of deviation from 100%. then there are errors in IQ test itself.
You simply can not get 100%, it's statistically impossible. For all we know this 70% has 20% error.

"Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors. Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences and learning on an individual."

Even allowing for epigenetics, and getting away from arguably incorrect terms like 'pre-wiring', it still seems as if environmental/external, non-genetic factors play a part.

What do you mean by "Even allowing for epigenetics" ? It does not require your allowing.

 

[ruby sparks]

I gave you the link, wiki describes is rather well.

A link to a wiki page is no good. There are numerous studies there, which suggest differing results, and the overall flavour seems to support a mixed picture, both nature and nurture playing roles. Which study are you referring to?

I'll leave off replying to your other points just now. I have to get on with work.

 

[barbos]

Despite being more similar to each other in skin tone and most these other "racial characteristics" than they are to northern Europeans, black Africans are less genetically similar to each other than they are to Eurasians or than Northern Europeans are to Asians and Native Americans.

[Digging up my copy of The History and Geography of Human Genes and checking the genetic distance matrices...]

Got a citation for your claim?

Don't bother, it's a very old and erroneous "But Africans are less related to each other than to whites" canard.
It's widely used even by people who should and actually know better.
What we have here is that Africans for obvious reasons are more genetically diverse than whites. All that means is that Europeans experienced a series of genetic bottlenecks in recent history and blacks had no such experience and accumulated a lot of meaningless genetic diversity (in junk DNA and even non-junk DNA)
What one need to look at is genes which corresponds to meaningful phenotype changes and Europeans are most likely more diverse than Africans.

 

[barbos]

I gave you the link, wiki describes is rather well.

A link to a wiki page is no good. There are numerous studies there, which suggest differing results, and the overall flavour seems to support a mixed picture, both nature and nurture playing roles. Which study are you referring to?

I'll leave off replying to your other points just now. I have to get on with work.

You do realize that the these numbers in the text are links to the studies itself?

I explained to you that your link does not contradict mine.

 

[ruby sparks]

You do realize that the these numbers in the text are links to the studies itself?

Yes. That's often how I find studies. But which number are you talking about though? There are 62 on that page!

I explained to you that your link does not contradict mine.

You didn't link to a particular study yet!

It certainly contradicts your (as yet unsupported) claim. Your 'explanation' is highly speculative as to the margins of error in the one I posted, just for one thing. You can't just hand wave away results on that uninformed basis. What's next? Handwaving all the various pieces of evidence away that do not conform to your pov?





What I will generally say is this, at this time, your claim of 100% genetic influence and 0% environmental influence remains unsupported.

And even if you do eventually post a study which supports it, it would have to be weighed and set against all studies. It does not seem to me that the issue is at all settled by any means, and in fact the most reasonable conclusion seems to be that both nature and nurture play roles.

 

[barbos]

You do realize that the these numbers in the text are links to the studies itself?

Yes. That's often how I find studies. But which number are you talking about though? There are 62 on that page!

You need to read the wiki page itself to figure out what number you need to click. You are not very smart, are you?

I explained to you that your link does not contradict mine.

You didn't link to a particular study yet!

What I will say is this, at this time, your claim of 100% genetic influence and 0% environmental influence remains unsupported.

And even if you do eventually post a study which supports it, it would have to be weighed and set against all studies. It does not seem to me that the issue is at all settled by any means, and in fact the most reasonable conclusion seems to be that both nature and nurture play roles.

Nope, we have a study which concluded that nurture play no role. And bunch of studies (including the one you posted) that say nature is ~70% That's settled.

 

[ruby sparks]

You need to read the wiki page itself to figure out what number you need to click. You are not very smart, are you?

I don't have time for people who don't back up their claims. Which you haven't. Referring me to a wiki page on which there are several studies with different results is a bit of a joke.

Nope, we have a study which concluded that nurture play no role.

Not yet we don't.

And bunch of studies (including the one you posted) that say nature is ~70% That's settled.

What do you mean settled? That can't be settled. In fact, it isn't settled. And if it were settled that way, then your claim would be wrong.

 

[barbos]

You need to read the wiki page itself to figure out what number you need to click. You are not very smart, are you?

I don't have time for people who don't back up their claims. Which you haven't. Referring me to a wiki page on which there are several studies with different results is a bit of a joke.

You have no time to read wikipage But you have time to read actual paper?
Do you know how much time it took for me to find that wiki page and then get relevant quote from that study to post it here?
probably 30 seconds. I put "nurture vs ..." google search, then clicked on wiki page,. then clicked on IQ subsection and here it was.

Nope, we have a study which concluded that nurture play no role. And bunch of studies (including the one you posted) that say nature is ~70% That's settled.

What do you mean settled? It can't be settled. Or, if it is, then your claim is wrong.

As far as reasonable people are concerned it's settled.

 

[ruby sparks]

You have no time to read wikipage But you have time to read actual paper?
Do you know how much time it took for me to find that wiki page and then get relevant quote from that study to post it here?
probably 30 seconds. I put "nurture vs ..." google search, then clicked on wiki page,. then clicked on IQ subsection and here it was

You aren't actually citing a study. Fuck knows why.

As far as reasonable people are concerned it's settled.

But you can't be serious. Or, you can't be serious to agree that it's settled at 70% (which it isn't in any case, that's only one study) because your claim was 100%.

This isn't difficult, and if you continue to be obtuse in multiple ways, don't expect me to interact with you much more on this because I have better things to do than waste my time this way. Hopefully others can make contributions to the discussion.

 

[barbos]

You have no time to read wikipage But you have time to read actual paper?
Do you know how much time it took for me to find that wiki page and then get relevant quote from that study to post it here?
probably 30 seconds. I put "nurture vs ..." google search, then clicked on wiki page,. then clicked on IQ subsection and here it was

You aren't actually citing a study. Fuck knows why.

You are not reading the wiki . Fuck knows why.
I cited wiki citing a study. And I did not bother to read the study, because I have no time for that and trust wikipedia would not lie

As far as reasonable people are concerned it's settled.

But you can't be serious. Or, you can't be serious to agree that it's settled at 70% (which it isn't in any case, that's only one study) because your claim was 100%.

I explained to you why 70=100.

And may I remind you that the whole thing started with LP claiming that nature=0%.

 

[ruby sparks]

I explained to you why 70=100

Nope. You made up a margin of error in your head and applied it speculatively. That's not an 'explanation' by any reasonable standards.

Your claim of 100% nature and 0% nurture is not established, it's not even properly supported yet. What support has been given contradicts it. That's where we're currently at.

Bye, I'm off to do the work I mentioned.

 

[barbos]

I explained to you why 70=100

Nope. You made up a margin of error in your head and applied it speculatively. That's not an 'explanation' by any reasonable standards.

Wrong, not only margin of error but also expected value is not 100%. And also your study most likely are not considering adult IQ.

Your claim of 100% nature and 0% nurture is not established, it's not even properly supported yet. What support has been given contradicts it. That's where we're currently at.

It is established and properly supported and it does not contradict your studies at all.

This isn't difficult, and if you continue to be obtuse in multiple ways, don't expect me to interact with you much more on this because I have better things to do than waste my time this way. Hopefully others can make contributions to the discussion.

Do you know what is obtuse here? Is you refusing to read a link I gave which you could have found on your own in 30 seconds if you were actually and honestly interested in the topic. You should have known about that study even before reading this thread. This thread is not new and I posted in all previous incarnations the same links. So I think it is you who is obtuse here.