Social policy and genes

[barbos]

Height is a superficial trait, like eye color.

Tell that to NBA. Also it was determined that height is a proxy for intelligence, that is taller people are smarter.

 

[Canard DuJour]

“The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way."

I really shoulda stopped reading there, but..

..watch the video from ~3 mins. Plomin specifies that the adoptive parents were selected by ability to nurture, then says their IQs were unrelated to their adopted childrens' IQs - allegedly "the real killer fact" supporting the idea that nurture makes little to no difference. The interviewer goes on "so it doesn't matter whether they read to them, tried to stimulate them intellectually (etc)," to which Plomin (non)responds "Well, the brighter adoptive parents didn't have brighter adopted children"

IOW, if you eliminate the conditions in which nurture is likely to make a difference, you're left with innate differences. This isn't telling anyone, left or right, anything that wasn't screaming obvious.

I am sorry but you are not making any sense.

To you.

They found that IQ of adopted children correlates with IQ of their biological parents and does not correlate at all with IQ of adopted parents.

From which it does not follow that nurture makes little to no difference, especially given the stated selection criteria for adoptive parents.

Ah, I see. You are saying that because adoptive parents tend to be high in nurturing, there is not sufficient variability in how nurturing adoptive parents are for it to covary with anything else, such as the child's future IQ.

Good point. If that is the main basis for his argument that parental nurture has "zero" impact, then your right that it is not valid evidence for that extreme claim.

Yes. What's weird is that Plomin presents that as if it were a control condition supporting somesuch claim. In fact it indicates lack of them. The interviewer then goes even further into unwarranted claim territory (reading to them, stimulating them intellectually makes no difference), which Plomin appears to corroborate with an ambiguous paraphrase.

Though the evidence on whole strongly suggests that the genes parents pass on wind up having a larger net effect than whatever parental nurturing does (which is only a fraction of the total "environmental impact")

Yes, given typical parameters for nurturing. But keep your kid alone in a basement for 16 years or starve and beat her (as some parents do), and environmental influence will predominate.

I have a big problem with the very assumption that parental nurture effect would show up as a parent-child IQ correlation anyway.
Some critics of genetic influence have tried to argue that part of the parent-child IQ correlation is due to parental nurture. The OP is trying to then say that the lack of such a correlation among adopted parents is evidence of the lack of nurture effects on IQ. Not only does that not follow for the lack of variance reason you pointed out, but the starting assumption is wrong. There is no reason to think high IQ parents are better at nurturing their kids IQ. A high IQ is neither neccessary nor sufficient for engaging in parenting that might aid cognitive development. By nurturing their kids development, a parent can just as easily make their kid less similar to themselves in IQ.

There is a double-edged sword to rejecting the (seemingly baseless) assumption that parental nurture effects on IQ would impact the correlation between the IQs of parents and their children. On the one hand, it means the OPs claimed lack of such a correlation for adopted parents is meaningless and says nothing about nurture effects on IQ.
OTOH, it means there is no reason to think that parental nurture has anything to do with the .40 correlation that does exist between the IQs of biological parents and their kids.

 

[Canard DuJour]

“The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way."

I really shoulda stopped reading there, but..

..watch the video from ~3 mins. Plomin specifies that the adoptive parents were selected by ability to nurture, then says their IQs were unrelated to their adopted childrens' IQs - allegedly "the real killer fact" supporting the idea that nurture makes little to no difference. The interviewer goes on "so it doesn't matter whether they read to them, tried to stimulate them intellectually (etc)," to which Plomin (non)responds "Well, the brighter adoptive parents didn't have brighter adopted children"

IOW, if you eliminate the conditions in which nurture is likely to make a difference, you're left with innate differences. This isn't telling anyone, left or right, anything that wasn't screaming obvious.

I am sorry but you are not making any sense.

To you.

They found that IQ of adopted children correlates with IQ of their biological parents and does not correlate at all with IQ of adopted parents.

From which it does not follow that nurture makes little to no difference, especially given the stated selection criteria for adoptive parents.

selection criteria for adoptive parents is irrelevant because whatever it is it was determined to have no effect on anything.

Erroneously.

IQ of children correlates with IQ of their biological parents regardless of anything.

It'd be truly astonishing if that were true, and even the video in question doesn't go that far.

For your theory to be correct you need to have loss of correlation between children and their biological parents but it's not there. And even then it would suggest weird correlations which mathematically impossible.

What theory

 

[barbos]

“The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way."

I really shoulda stopped reading there, but..

..watch the video from ~3 mins. Plomin specifies that the adoptive parents were selected by ability to nurture, then says their IQs were unrelated to their adopted childrens' IQs - allegedly "the real killer fact" supporting the idea that nurture makes little to no difference. The interviewer goes on "so it doesn't matter whether they read to them, tried to stimulate them intellectually (etc)," to which Plomin (non)responds "Well, the brighter adoptive parents didn't have brighter adopted children"

IOW, if you eliminate the conditions in which nurture is likely to make a difference, you're left with innate differences. This isn't telling anyone, left or right, anything that wasn't screaming obvious.

I am sorry but you are not making any sense.

To you.

They found that IQ of adopted children correlates with IQ of their biological parents and does not correlate at all with IQ of adopted parents.

From which it does not follow that nurture makes little to no difference, especially given the stated selection criteria for adoptive parents.

selection criteria for adoptive parents is irrelevant because whatever it is it was determined to have no effect on anything.

Erroneously.

It's possible, but since you have no evidence of that I prefer to give them benefit of the doubt and accept their claims.

IQ of children correlates with IQ of their biological parents regardless of anything.

It'd be truly astonishing if that were true, and even the video in question doesn't go that far.

Video does go that far.

For your theory to be correct you need to have loss of correlation between children and their biological parents but it's not there. And even then it would suggest weird correlations which mathematically impossible.

What theory

Your stupid theory.

 

[Canard DuJour]

OK, I'll revise my "theory" when I've given your couterarguments due consideration.

 

[iolo]

Nobody believes that people are born the same, but sensible people ask why rewards are given to some rather than others. What are human beings FOR? Until you've answered that one, the question of equality and inequality and the rewards therefor has not been answered and you have no reason to let some humans steal everything.

We know what are humans for, they are for increase of entropy.

So how do you decide who increases entropy most, and do you reward them?

 

[iolo]

Nature. Blame Nature. Why are only a small subset of men rewarded with the height to play and make $$$ in the NBA? Nature. Blame Nature.

What are human beings FOR?

Is this a religious question? Meaning of life? 42.

Until you've answered that one, the question of equality and inequality and the rewards therefor has not been answered and you have no reason to let some humans steal everything.

Tall men who make $$$ in the NBA are stealing from the short guys who never had a chance. Damn, Nature is cruel.

Doesn't answer the question, because societies, and circumstances, constantly vary. In certain mining societies, for instance. tall men soon break their backs. In a feudal society, the ability to make money helps you get robbed. If you don't know what people are for, how do you judge between them? Your logic leads to a world of Al Capones.

 

[ronburgundy]

“The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way."

I really shoulda stopped reading there, but..

..watch the video from ~3 mins. Plomin specifies that the adoptive parents were selected by ability to nurture, then says their IQs were unrelated to their adopted childrens' IQs - allegedly "the real killer fact" supporting the idea that nurture makes little to no difference. The interviewer goes on "so it doesn't matter whether they read to them, tried to stimulate them intellectually (etc)," to which Plomin (non)responds "Well, the brighter adoptive parents didn't have brighter adopted children"

IOW, if you eliminate the conditions in which nurture is likely to make a difference, you're left with innate differences. This isn't telling anyone, left or right, anything that wasn't screaming obvious.

I am sorry but you are not making any sense.

To you.

They found that IQ of adopted children correlates with IQ of their biological parents and does not correlate at all with IQ of adopted parents.

From which it does not follow that nurture makes little to no difference, especially given the stated selection criteria for adoptive parents.

selection criteria for adoptive parents is irrelevant because whatever it is it was determined to have no effect on anything. IQ of children correlates with IQ of their biological parents regardless of anything.

No, Canard is correct. The quote from the researcher in the OP acknowledges that adoption procedures select out most non-nurturing potential parents and people without the resources to be nurturing. If one of the variables you are measuring is also being used as the selection criteria so that much of the natural variance in that variable is not included in your sample, then you cannot plausibly find a correlation between that variable and anything else. In short, variables have to actually vary in order for them to covary. Thus, the lack of covariance in that special sub-sample tells you absolutely nothing about how parental nurturing might relate to child IQ in the population outside you non-representative sub-sample.

For your theory to be correct you need to have loss of correlation between children and their biological parents but it's not there. And even then it would suggest weird correlations which mathematically impossible.

Huh? Biological parents are not selected to be parents according to their will and ability to be nurturing or any variable highly related to IQ. Thus, both IQ and nurturing vary in the research sample for biological parents vary as they do in the general population, allowing any natural correlation between them to emerge. Thus the IQ correlation among bio parents and kids but not among adopted parents and kids is a meaningless inherent artifact of the different selection criteria for become a bio parent vs. and adopted one.
It isn't that this means there is no genetic influence, it means that the claimed evidence for your extremist theory that parental nurturing has "no effect at all" is bullshit and non-existent. There is no evidence for that claim, because the data you are pointing to have no logical bearing on the hypothesis due to sampling methods that guaranteed the empirical outcome.

 

[untermensche]

Height is a superficial trait, like eye color.

Tell that to NBA. Also it was determined that height is a proxy for intelligence, that is taller people are smarter.

Again, look at the differences in dogs if you want to see which traits are superficial and can easily be changed over time.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yet another meaningless observation.

What was the data and what were the conclusions?

Geniuses are rare freaks of nature and circumstances.

If "intelligence" is inheritable geniuses should be able to pass on their "genius" to their offspring.

Only person with complete lack of understanding how genes work would say that.

Your response is devoid of content.

If you had any point you probably would have made it.

But inheritable is not just that the human will produce a human offspring.

It means the offspring will be similar to the parents, and in superficial ways, like eye color and hair color and size and appearance this is the case.

But it is not the case with "intelligence", whatever combination of genes that may entail.

Are you claiming that two parents with IQ 160 are just as likely to produce a child with IQ 150 as two parents with IQ 100? Or they are just as likely to produce a child of IQ 150 as one of 100?

Because in either case, I don't think there is any evidence (scientific or anecdotal) to back you up.

I would accept a claim that they are more likely to produce a child with IQ 150 than one with IQ 160 because there will generally be "regression towards the mean" to some extent.

All the evidence (and common sense, and everyday obersavtion) seems to be that it is similar to height - two tall parents are likely to produce tall children. But the heights of those children will tend to be skewed closer to the average population height.

Height is a superficial trait, like eye color.

But systems, like the visual system are not superficial traits.

I contend whatever "intelligence" is, it is not a superficial trait, it is a system. It involves memory and language and incorporates the sensory motor system with speech. It is a hugely complex system.

So the transference of "intelligence" is not like the transference of height or skin color or eye color.

It is like the transference of the visual system or the immune system. A much more complicated affair than the transference of superficial traits.

If you want to see superficial traits, look at dogs. The differences are the superficial traits.

But things like their visual systems and digestive systems and skeletal systems are not superficial traits and are similar for all breeds.

The entire system does not need to be "changed" or "transferred" in order to change of transfer how effectively that system functions.
A change or transference in how many "chief cells" are produced in someone's digestive tract and you notably change or transfer how effectively their digestive system works to extract nutrients from food.
Likewise, change or transfer one small neurological feature (e.g., something that impacts how efficiently the brain prunes neural connections in any of a number of regions critical for "executive" functions) and you likely change or transfer how effective the system is that controls cognitive processes involved in most reasoning and problem solving.

That said, because the system is so complex and there are so many ways to change its net efficiency, that means there are countless mediated pathways through which genes could have their impact. As I said previously, many of those pathways could be mediated by environmental and even social factors that open to influence by contexts that could be subject to influence by "nurture" type variables.

Ironically, the thing that allows for so many plausible pathways for genes to impact general intellectual performance also allows for many pathways by which the changeable environment is the more proximal cause.

 

[untermensche]

The entire system does not need to be "changed" or "transferred" in order to change of transfer how effectively that system functions.

You can only change a system in minor ways, like in color blindness.

Because a system has to perform a complicated function.

We can see in something like autism where the system is not functioning properly.

A change or transference in how many "chief cells" are produced in someone's digestive tract and you notably change or transfer how effectively their digestive system works to extract nutrients from food.

That's not a change to a system. It is a superficial change.

Likewise, change or transfer one small neurological feature (e.g., something that impacts how efficiently the brain prunes neural connections in any of a number of regions critical for "executive" functions) and you likely change or transfer how effective the system is that controls cognitive processes involved in most reasoning and problem solving.

What are you talking about?

We don't have the slightest clue how a brain creates consciousness. Most likely it has something to do with neurons.

But what the brain is doing that specifically leads to consciousness is unknown.

We don't know how the brain creates the perception of vision either, but we know more about that than the generation of consciousness.

That said, because the system is so complex and there are so many ways to change its net efficiency, that means there are countless mediated pathways through which genes could have their impact. As I said previously, many of those pathways could be mediated by environmental and even social factors that open to influence by contexts that could be subject to influence by "nurture" type variables.

Base speculation with nothing behind it.

How "intelligence" is formed by the genes and how it might be changed is not understood at all. When a brain forms the neurons migrate greatly (this is a somewhat random process not under the direct control of genes) and about half the neurons die, again a somewhat random process. So even in the case of twins who have the same instructions completely different brains are formed. How much of an effect this migration and mass death has on something like "intelligence" is not understood. But intelligence is not just gene expression. Other factors come into play.

All we really know is that there is a difference between a superficial trait (skin color) and a system (human intelligence).

 

[Trausti]

You can only change a system in minor ways, like in color blindness.

Because a system has to perform a complicated function.

We can see in something like autism where the system is not functioning properly.

A change or transference in how many "chief cells" are produced in someone's digestive tract and you notably change or transfer how effectively their digestive system works to extract nutrients from food.

That's not a change to a system. It is a superficial change.

Likewise, change or transfer one small neurological feature (e.g., something that impacts how efficiently the brain prunes neural connections in any of a number of regions critical for "executive" functions) and you likely change or transfer how effective the system is that controls cognitive processes involved in most reasoning and problem solving.

What are you talking about?

We don't have the slightest clue how a brain creates consciousness. Most likely it has something to do with neurons.

But what the brain is doing that specifically leads to consciousness is unknown.

We don't know how the brain creates the perception of vision either, but we know more about that than the generation of consciousness.

That said, because the system is so complex and there are so many ways to change its net efficiency, that means there are countless mediated pathways through which genes could have their impact. As I said previously, many of those pathways could be mediated by environmental and even social factors that open to influence by contexts that could be subject to influence by "nurture" type variables.

Base speculation with nothing behind it.

How "intelligence" is formed by the genes and how it might be changed is not understood at all.

All we really know is that there is a difference between a superficial trait (skin color) and a system (human intelligence).

Are you a liberal creationist?

 

[Trausti]

Nature. Blame Nature. Why are only a small subset of men rewarded with the height to play and make $$$ in the NBA? Nature. Blame Nature.



Is this a religious question? Meaning of life? 42.

Until you've answered that one, the question of equality and inequality and the rewards therefor has not been answered and you have no reason to let some humans steal everything.

Tall men who make $$$ in the NBA are stealing from the short guys who never had a chance. Damn, Nature is cruel.

Doesn't answer the question, because societies, and circumstances, constantly vary. In certain mining societies, for instance. tall men soon break their backs. In a feudal society, the ability to make money helps you get robbed. If you don't know what people are for, how do you judge between them? Your logic leads to a world of Al Capones.

You're putting forth a philosophical question, not a scientific one. The Victorians weren't too accepting of the implications of evolution and natural selection either, btw.

 

[untermensche]

You can only change a system in minor ways, like in color blindness.

Because a system has to perform a complicated function.

We can see in something like autism where the system is not functioning properly.



That's not a change to a system. It is a superficial change.

Likewise, change or transfer one small neurological feature (e.g., something that impacts how efficiently the brain prunes neural connections in any of a number of regions critical for "executive" functions) and you likely change or transfer how effective the system is that controls cognitive processes involved in most reasoning and problem solving.

What are you talking about?

We don't have the slightest clue how a brain creates consciousness. Most likely it has something to do with neurons.

But what the brain is doing that specifically leads to consciousness is unknown.

We don't know how the brain creates the perception of vision either, but we know more about that than the generation of consciousness.

That said, because the system is so complex and there are so many ways to change its net efficiency, that means there are countless mediated pathways through which genes could have their impact. As I said previously, many of those pathways could be mediated by environmental and even social factors that open to influence by contexts that could be subject to influence by "nurture" type variables.

Base speculation with nothing behind it.

How "intelligence" is formed by the genes and how it might be changed is not understood at all.

All we really know is that there is a difference between a superficial trait (skin color) and a system (human intelligence).

Are you a liberal creationist?

No. And to even think that shows real imagination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Height is a superficial trait, like eye color.

But systems, like the visual system are not superficial traits.

I contend whatever "intelligence" is, it is not a superficial trait, it is a system. It involves memory and language and incorporates the sensory motor system with speech. It is a hugely complex system.

So the transference of "intelligence" is not like the transference of height or skin color or eye color.

It is like the transference of the visual system or the immune system. A much more complicated affair than the transference of superficial traits.

If you want to see superficial traits, look at dogs. The differences are the superficial traits.

But things like their visual systems and digestive systems and skeletal systems are not superficial traits and are similar for all breeds.

Just because it's more complex doesn't mean it's not inheritable. Complex systems are really just a collection of simple systems, often ones where we do not yet understand all the details. As time goes on we figure out how the pieces work and reduce it to a collection of simple bits.

 

[Trausti]

You can only change a system in minor ways, like in color blindness.

Because a system has to perform a complicated function.

We can see in something like autism where the system is not functioning properly.



That's not a change to a system. It is a superficial change.

Likewise, change or transfer one small neurological feature (e.g., something that impacts how efficiently the brain prunes neural connections in any of a number of regions critical for "executive" functions) and you likely change or transfer how effective the system is that controls cognitive processes involved in most reasoning and problem solving.

What are you talking about?

We don't have the slightest clue how a brain creates consciousness. Most likely it has something to do with neurons.

But what the brain is doing that specifically leads to consciousness is unknown.

We don't know how the brain creates the perception of vision either, but we know more about that than the generation of consciousness.

That said, because the system is so complex and there are so many ways to change its net efficiency, that means there are countless mediated pathways through which genes could have their impact. As I said previously, many of those pathways could be mediated by environmental and even social factors that open to influence by contexts that could be subject to influence by "nurture" type variables.

Base speculation with nothing behind it.

How "intelligence" is formed by the genes and how it might be changed is not understood at all.

All we really know is that there is a difference between a superficial trait (skin color) and a system (human intelligence).

Are you a liberal creationist?

No. And to even think that shows real imagination.

Then why are you denying evolution and natural selection? If complexity is not inheritable, then none of us would be here writing on this forum.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Height is a superficial trait, like eye color.

Tell that to NBA. Also it was determined that height is a proxy for intelligence, that is taller people are smarter.

I rather suspect it's both height and intelligence being related to good nutrition. I've had a very clear example of the effect of nutrition on height from our trips to China. When we first went there all the adults had grown up under the communist system--and I could look over the heads of the crowds. My eyes were above the top of the hair of everyone around me.

That state didn't last, though--the first children born from when they went capitalist came of age. More and more heads started blocking my line of sight. These days I see no better in a crowd over there than I do at home.

Nobody flipped a magic genetic switch, this is purely an effect of the nutrition they got growing up.

 

[untermensche]

Height is a superficial trait, like eye color.

But systems, like the visual system are not superficial traits.

I contend whatever "intelligence" is, it is not a superficial trait, it is a system. It involves memory and language and incorporates the sensory motor system with speech. It is a hugely complex system.

So the transference of "intelligence" is not like the transference of height or skin color or eye color.

It is like the transference of the visual system or the immune system. A much more complicated affair than the transference of superficial traits.

If you want to see superficial traits, look at dogs. The differences are the superficial traits.

But things like their visual systems and digestive systems and skeletal systems are not superficial traits and are similar for all breeds.

Just because it's more complex doesn't mean it's not inheritable. Complex systems are really just a collection of simple systems, often ones where we do not yet understand all the details. As time goes on we figure out how the pieces work and reduce it to a collection of simple bits.

You're pretending to understand something in which you don't have a bit of real knowledge.

Which genes create "intelligence" and how?

All we know is that human "intelligence" is a system, like the visual system or the immune system.

It is not a superficial trait like skin color or height or hair color.

And we know that systems can only be modified to a point while superficial traits can be modified greatly.

- - - Updated - - -

No. And to even think that shows real imagination.

Then why are you denying evolution and natural selection? If complexity is not inheritable, then none of us would be here writing on this forum.

I'm not denying it.

I understand it.

Unlike some who think a parent can pass their "intelligence" to their child the same way they pass on skin color.

Unlike those who don't understand the difference between systems and superficial traits.

 

[Jarhyn]

At the end of the day, if you believe that people are leopards who cannot change their spots, if you believe a person's feelings damn the forever to be broken and that there is no way a rational mind thinking rational thoughts can fix that, then you have absolved yourself of any need to try, of any charge you might have to be a better person yourself. You have abdicated the responsibility of self improvement.

It is very much a position that I hold, a worthwhile axiom, that you can effect positive change on your life. I don't believe this because it is true; I don't believe that it always is true for everyone. Merely that every human who wants to be a person MUST believe it or else they cannot possibly be. It is the same as a belief against a deterministic universe, in that it is probably not true but it is nonetheless necessary to believe lest people give up trying at all, and abdicate responsibility to make life better for ourselves.

What many foolish and hasty philosophers and lay people forget is that people are more than DNA. We are brains, and some of these brains look at nature, see a true relationship, and understand it well enough to communicate it. It isnt always a matter of accidents; Darwin's own work was the product of years of careful study and deliberation. It wasn't an accident. It was his own work with his own hands that allowed him to see a truth about the universe and more specifically about life. Then he communicated that, and other people also learned it. He changed the world not by spewing his DNA across it but by sharing his ideas. That wouldn't be possible of a person couldn't become more right over the course of their lives.

 

[barbos]

Tell that to NBA. Also it was determined that height is a proxy for intelligence, that is taller people are smarter.

I rather suspect it's both height and intelligence being related to good nutrition. I've had a very clear example of the effect of nutrition on height from our trips to China. When we first went there all the adults had grown up under the communist system--and I could look over the heads of the crowds. My eyes were above the top of the hair of everyone around me.

That state didn't last, though--the first children born from when they went capitalist came of age. More and more heads started blocking my line of sight. These days I see no better in a crowd over there than I do at home.

Nobody flipped a magic genetic switch, this is purely an effect of the nutrition they got growing up.

No, they are not talking about nutrition. They are saying there are genes which affect both intelligence and height. So on average, for genetically similar group of people, like for example white, taller people are smarter.