Movement for Black Lives releases its agenda

[Loren Pechtel]

On the relationship between IQ, income, and crime. From Japan:



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949

IQ is not an imaginary concept.

IQ is a score on a test.

That is all it is.

It has nothing to do with human "intelligence", whatever that is.

Why do I get the strong feeling that you're in major denial about the score you got on an IQ test?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then tell me the gene, tell me what it does, and tell me how it is related to "intelligence", whatever that is.

The SNP is rs10457441, in Chromosome 6, Position 98678841, nameless gene, and the "t" allele has a Cohen's d effect size on cognitive scores of negative 0.0324, meaning that the competing allele "c" had an effect in the opposite direction.

Sorry--but you're only showing a relation to IQ tests, not what it does which is what he's asking for. Don't bother to hunt for genes, he's setting a standard far beyond current understanding.

 

[untermensche]

IQ is a score on a test.

That is all it is.

It has nothing to do with human "intelligence", whatever that is.

Why do I get the strong feeling that you're in major denial about the score you got on an IQ test?

Taking tests was always something I was good at.

But I always knew all they measured was the ability to take tests.

Many people who score very high on "intelligence" tests are not very intelligent at all.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The correlations count for a lot. We know the genes that account for eye color. But, we don't know how these genes work. Why does one variation change the color from brown to blue? We just don't know. Does that mean the genetic evidence is nil, in your opinion? Maybe the genes change the eye color, maybe not?

We at least have a consensus on what "eye color" is.

Nobody really has a clue what "intelligence" is. In terms of anatomy and physiology.

It's like asking; What are the genes responsible for consciousness?

Even more complicated since "intelligence" is an aspect of both consciousness and subconscious processes.

Your objection was that we don't know exactly how the SNPs cause the intelligence, and maybe now you see how the objection fails. Regardless of what we don't know about intelligence, we still know a helluva lot about it. Intelligence is something we can observe, measure, quantify, we know the variations are heritable, and we can identify some of the SNPs that code for those variants. Before the discovery of DNA, genetics was likewise largely an abstraction. We had only indirect evidence for the existence of genes. That was no good reason to say, "Therefore, the theory of evolution is bullshit." That's what you would do if your politics asked for it. Your objections are not motivated by an attempt to make sense of the science. But, anti-scientific politics does the politics no good. Liberalism will be hurt most of all by such willful blindness.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The "Germs" part of the theory is that the immune systems of Europeans evolved to fight epidemics that sprung up in animal farming environments, and the epidemics likewise evolved in competition. The Europeans brought these diseases to the Americas, which killed over 90% of the natives in a near instant, as the natives did not have immune systems adapted for it.

So, the Europeans would have a greater resistance to some diseases that aren't much of an issue anymore. That says nothing about how modern societies fare.

Yes, I agree. Jared Diamond placed a lot of emphasis on it, but the deaths caused by the European epidemics did not kill ALL Native Americans, and the hypothesis seems to have no logical bearing on why the remaining Native Americans alive today remain poor.

 

[untermensche]

We at least have a consensus on what "eye color" is.

Nobody really has a clue what "intelligence" is. In terms of anatomy and physiology.

It's like asking; What are the genes responsible for consciousness?

Even more complicated since "intelligence" is an aspect of both consciousness and subconscious processes.

Your objection was that we don't know exactly how the SNPs cause the intelligence, and maybe now you see how the objection fails. Regardless of what we don't know about intelligence, we still know a helluva lot about it. Intelligence is something we can observe, measure, quantify, we know the variations are heritable, and we can identify some of the SNPs that code for those variants. Before the discovery of DNA, genetics was likewise largely an abstraction. We had only indirect evidence for the existence of genes. That was no good reason to say, "Therefore, the theory of evolution is bullshit." That's what you would do if your politics asked for it. Your objections are not motivated by an attempt to make sense of the science. But, anti-scientific politics does the politics no good. Liberalism will be hurt most of all by such willful blindness.

Since there are so many genes mere statistical correlations are meaningless since statistical correlations can be made to just about anything if one is willing to look at enough genes.

Statistical correlations are meaningless. Devoid of any information.

What has significance is to know exactly what a gene does and how THAT correlates to "intelligence" whatever that is.

But that is real work as opposed to the silliness of looking at statistical correlations.

 

[untermensche]

So, the Europeans would have a greater resistance to some diseases that aren't much of an issue anymore. That says nothing about how modern societies fare.

Yes, I agree. Jared Diamond placed a lot of emphasis on it, but the deaths caused by the European epidemics did not kill ALL Native Americans, and the hypothesis seems to have no logical bearing on why the remaining Native Americans alive today remain poor.

Genes don't explain their poverty in any way.

It is just as easy to conclude invisible fairies are responsible as genes.

And just as meaningless and devoid of actual evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, the Europeans would have a greater resistance to some diseases that aren't much of an issue anymore. That says nothing about how modern societies fare.

Yes, I agree. Jared Diamond placed a lot of emphasis on it, but the deaths caused by the European epidemics did not kill ALL Native Americans, and the hypothesis seems to have no logical bearing on why the remaining Native Americans alive today remain poor.

Most of what he's talking about ceased to be a factor by about 1900.

I think there's another genetic factor that's a big issue with the Native Americans: Alcohol.

The Old World had year-round alcohol for a long, long time. Those especially vulnerable to it's lure were likely to take themselves out of the gene pool. (Whether by death or simply failure to find a mate.) The New World did not--alcohol existed but as a ceremonial thing only. This means that the gene pool wasn't scrubbed of those especially vulnerable to it's lure. Note how prevalent alcohol problems are on the reservations.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, I agree. Jared Diamond placed a lot of emphasis on it, but the deaths caused by the European epidemics did not kill ALL Native Americans, and the hypothesis seems to have no logical bearing on why the remaining Native Americans alive today remain poor.

Most of what he's talking about ceased to be a factor by about 1900.

I think there's another genetic factor that's a big issue with the Native Americans: Alcohol.

The Old World had year-round alcohol for a long, long time. Those especially vulnerable to it's lure were likely to take themselves out of the gene pool. (Whether by death or simply failure to find a mate.) The New World did not--alcohol existed but as a ceremonial thing only. This means that the gene pool wasn't scrubbed of those especially vulnerable to it's lure. Note how prevalent alcohol problems are on the reservations.

I agree with the hypothesis of the racial genetic predisposition to alcoholism. I doubt that it does much to explain poverty among Native Americans. Many Inuit villages outlaw possession of alcohol, and it reportedly reduces violent crime, but no reports of decreasing poverty.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Old World had year-round alcohol for a long, long time. Those especially vulnerable to it's lure were likely to take themselves out of the gene pool...

Right...because people who drink alcohol never find themselves in bed with someone.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

People keep talking about people who "weed themselves out of the gene pool", yet there are still just as many stupid people. Maybe it's not that significant?

 

[untermensche]

People keep talking about people who "weed themselves out of the gene pool", yet there are still just as many stupid people. Maybe it's not that significant?

It's because "intelligence" is randomly occurring.

A parent does not pass their "intelligence" to their offspring.

They may help their offspring with education but "intelligence" is arrived at randomly.

When the brain develops the neurons migrate and half die.

These are random events dependent on the immediate environment of the neuron, not under genetic control.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Parrots Are Birdbrains

Decisions to leave are arrived at randomly.

They involve random circumstances. And those that actually make it to the US make it here due to random events.

It is absurd to claim that only high IQ people leave or only high IQ people arrive. It doesn't take a high IQ to know you are unhappy.

The issue isn't whether you know you're unhappy, but whether you are willing to move away from everything you know, everybody or almost everybody to turn to. Since I'm married to an immigrant I'll use some of what she went through: There was a period of ~6 years where her only communication with her family was by letter and then another few years where voice communication with her parents was an occasional luxury. She didn't see her parents for ~10 years and it was nearly 15 until she saw her siblings. Lose your job and move back in with your parents temporarily? In the first years that would have been permanent (and difficult--tickets were expensive and her parents would not have been able to send money), after that it wouldn't have even been possible. Not to mention the years it took her to learn enough English to get by in society.

- - - Updated - - -

No. I'm not going to bother with Photoshop to fix it but the last frame should have labels

"Rich" and "Poor".

- - - Updated - - -



There's no question that blacks used to be treated very unfairly. You think slavery is fair?!?!

Slavery saved them from savagery. Unfairness has nothing to do with unequal treatment; it's all about equal people being treated unequally. So if superior players get paid more, there is nothing unfair about that.

Translation: "That's not what I've been told to think, so it must be stupid. I only judge things the way my intellectual father figures tell me to."

 

[ApostateAbe]

The Old World had year-round alcohol for a long, long time. Those especially vulnerable to it's lure were likely to take themselves out of the gene pool...

Right...because people who drink alcohol never find themselves in bed with someone.

Among those with genes for alcoholism, alcohol is like a hard drug, and that means many ways of reducing one's reproductive odds: losing one's job, losing one's business, impoverishment through losing money to alcohol sale, fights, accidents, alcohol overdose, liver disease, and fetal alcohol syndrome. It is very much expected through Darwinian natural selection that races with alcohol in their ancestry would have a greater resistance to alcoholism.

 

[untermensche]

Right...because people who drink alcohol never find themselves in bed with someone.

Among those with genes for alcoholism, alcohol is like a hard drug, and that means many ways of reducing one's reproductive odds: losing one's job, losing one's business, impoverishment through losing money to alcohol sale, fights, accidents, alcohol overdose, liver disease, and fetal alcohol syndrome. It is very much expected through Darwinian natural selection that races with alcohol in their ancestry would have a greater resistance to alcoholism.

Utter nonsense.

There is no evidence alcoholics are less successful in having offspring.

The debilitating effects of alcoholism usually begin in the 40's.

Since alcohol lowers inhibition and alters judgement it may be possible alcoholics have more children.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Right...because people who drink alcohol never find themselves in bed with someone.

Among those with genes for alcoholism, alcohol is like a hard drug, and that means many ways of reducing one's reproductive odds: losing one's job, losing one's business, impoverishment through losing money to alcohol sale, fights, accidents, alcohol overdose, liver disease, and fetal alcohol syndrome. It is very much expected through Darwinian natural selection that races with alcohol in their ancestry would have a greater resistance to alcoholism.

Some people think poor in the US have more children than rich. So that would affect the natural selection you're talking about if true.

 

[untermensche]

Among those with genes for alcoholism, alcohol is like a hard drug, and that means many ways of reducing one's reproductive odds: losing one's job, losing one's business, impoverishment through losing money to alcohol sale, fights, accidents, alcohol overdose, liver disease, and fetal alcohol syndrome. It is very much expected through Darwinian natural selection that races with alcohol in their ancestry would have a greater resistance to alcoholism.

Some people think poor in the US have more children than rich. So that would affect the natural selection you're talking about if true.

When your starting point is people are where they are due to genetics as opposed to sheer chance you end up with many many irrational contradictions.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Among those with genes for alcoholism, alcohol is like a hard drug, and that means many ways of reducing one's reproductive odds: losing one's job, losing one's business, impoverishment through losing money to alcohol sale, fights, accidents, alcohol overdose, liver disease, and fetal alcohol syndrome. It is very much expected through Darwinian natural selection that races with alcohol in their ancestry would have a greater resistance to alcoholism.

Some people think poor in the US have more children than rich. So that would affect the natural selection you're talking about if true.

Yes, that's true. It has long been known as the "dysgenic effect," more recently as the "Idiocracy effect." It works in the opposite direction of the "Flynn effect," which is the observable upward secular shift in intelligence from one generation to the next along any given ancestral line, for an unknown cause but probably epigenetics, 3 IQ points every decade. The Flynn effect is currently faster, overshadowing the dysgenic effect, but the Flynn effect probably has an upper limit and will eventually stop, and the dysgenic effect has a very distant theoretical lower limit, so the dysgenic effect will probably win in the end.

 

[Axulus]

Unter,

Things like working memory capacity, short term memory, attention, and "Set shifting" and "cognitive flexibility" (the ability to recognize a change in environmental context and adapt behavioral rules appropriately) have all been found to be components of intelligence. These traits vary from one human to the next just like height and can be more or less objectively measured. These traits also have been demonstrated to have a high degree of heritability.

Your "complete system" hypothesis is bogus.

 

[untermensche]

Unter,

Things like working memory capacity, short term memory, attention, and "Set shifting" and "cognitive flexibility" (the ability to recognize a change in environmental context and adapt behavioral rules appropriately) have all been found to be components of intelligence. These traits vary from one human to the next just like height and can be more or less objectively measured. These traits also have been demonstrated to have a high degree of heritability.

Your "complete system" hypothesis is bogus.

What is memory?

How do you say which genes are responsible for memory if you don't know what it is?

Absurd!

Memory tests may only be testing exposure and parental encouragement and countless other environmental factors.

There is no study that has ever removed environmental factors. There is evidence that there is learning in the womb.

And which system do you deny?

The visual system? The auditory system?

The digestive system? The immune system?

Or is it just the cognitive system?