Intelligence is Genetic

[Baler]

Originally Posted by katrik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Focus, dear. Two different things.

sorry I get excitable..

The Study in the OP is in china where they have a population over 1 billion. Different standards for living and over avg a much higher college success rate.
I don't think it's applicable to compare it to America. Also there was a period of time where china didn't communicate with the outside world. That is part of their genetics.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are genetics racist due to years of slavery amongts several cultures (not just America)

This is actually an interesting point. African-Americans were effectively "bred", just like dogs, for a couple hundreds years or so. African-Americans who were smart, rebellious, etc. were killed (before making any babies), so there was in fact a selection factor guiding their evolution, and making the whole racial group more docile to some degree.

BUT, what you have to remember is, evolution takes a long fucking time. In fact, that was the crucial bit that let Darwin discover evolution: it wasn't until he understood how old the Earth was that he realized species could change over time.

So while there's little doubt that there was a (horrifying) selective force applied to the evolution of African-Americans, in practice that force was only applied for a very short time, in the evolutionary sense.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Study in the OP is in china where they have a population over 1 billion. Different standards for living and over avg a much higher college success rate.
I don't think it's applicable to compare it to America. Also there was a period of time where china didn't communicate with the outside world. That is part of their genetics.

Keep in mind China might be one country, but it's not one gene pool. There were hundreds of different peoples that all got conquered over China's history, and they didn't all get killed, so their genes got mixed in.

So even if China barred entry to foreigners for a few years, A) they were plenty diverse to start, B) that period was only a tiny speck in terms of evolutionary time.

Honestly a much bigger "anti-diversity" effect came much earlier in China's history. Ghengis Khan had A LOT of offspring, so many in fact that like 1 in 200 people on the entire planet are descended from him (and obviously China has an even higher ratio).

[Baler]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ghengis Khan had A LOT of offspring, so many in fact that like 1 in 200 people on the entire planet are descended from him (and obviously China has an even higher ratio).

This is actually a great point I'd totally forgotten about.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Didn't read the article, but ...

1) "intelligence" as a thing does not exist. There are something like 6-10 different types of intelligence (different researchers disagree) and they many don't even correlate with each other. In other words, if you're "math smart" it does not necessarily mean you are "language smart" or "musically smart", so there is no (plain and simple) "smart".

Why didn't you just write that you have no idea what g is? You are free to disagree with the source(s) of g and shill whatever ideological delusions you liek in support of your position, but arguing that g doesn't exist is simply retarded. Your position is at odds with language, statistics and decades of psychometrics.

2) Almost everything about humans is a combination of genetics and environment (nature and nurture), so even if there was a "general intelligence" it wouldn't be true to say "Intelligence is genetic". All you can say is "Each particular type of intelligence has both genetic and environmental components, and we now know that at least 10% of whatever type of intelligence they were studying is genetic"

Absolutely agree with the initial premise of your first sentence, but everything thereafter is entirely wrong. I didn't say that intelligence was exclusively genetic, nor does the article make that claim. Not even the well established and uncontroversial understanding of the nature of g imply any such thing. Feel free to waylay the phantoms though.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is actually an interesting point. African-Americans were effectively "bred", just like dogs, for a couple hundreds years or so. African-Americans who were smart, rebellious, etc. were killed (before making any babies), so there was in fact a selection factor guiding their evolution, and making the whole racial group more docile to some degree.

BUT, what you have to remember is, evolution takes a long fucking time. In fact, that was the crucial bit that let Darwin discover evolution: it wasn't until he understood how old the Earth was that he realized species could change over time.

So while there's little doubt that there was a (horrifying) selective force applied to the evolution of African-Americans, in practice that force was only applied for a very short time, in the evolutionary sense.

is that why it failed to make them more docile?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by skarlorn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

how does this factor in the power of epigenetics to radically change a person's genetic expression within one's own lifetime or close ancestors due to environmental exposures and intense emotional experiences?

it's like cool it's genetic but also our concept of genetics has just gotten thrown in the trash now that we know how much they can be adapted by behavior, habit, and environment

this is a good question and I believe the answer is: we don't know, just liek until these studies we had nothing concrete to link g to and even with the genes we've identified, we've only been able to account for roughly 10% of variability.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I didn't say that intelligence was exclusively genetic, nor does the article make that claim. Not even the well established and uncontroversial understanding of the nature of g imply any such thing. Feel free to waylay the phantoms though.

The title of your post was literally "Intelligence is Genetic", but sure I'm "waylaying phantoms" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In other news, I miss the other melon; bring him back.

[katrik]

Have you guys heard of the “Bell Curve” research work written in the 90’s? It is been debunked to death. I’ll link some scholarly journals later.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by katrik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Have you guys heard of the “Bell Curve” research work written in the 90’s? It is been debunked to death. I’ll link some scholarly journals later.

Yes, in fact that book (before it was debunked) is what caused me to do my high school senior thesis on intelligence testing, and that's when I learned about the multiple types of intelligence stuff.