Sammy Boy

I'm British. Sarcasm is my normal tone.

Indeed there might be. Why not get a book about it and find out if there are.

Yes, that's exactly the same issue I addressed in my last post. Here's a link http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/109600-the-heritability-of-attitudes-a-study-found/?do=findComment&comment=1013631 I never disagreed about that issue. I just pointed out your failure to understand the utter basics of heritability.

That's called gene-environment interaction and it's pretty much the final question of accurate heritability estimates. Notice I always used the word estimate. The appearance vs. social treatment is indeed a major potential confound. They're doing IQ GWAS and using methods to see whether genes are expressed in the brain to work it out. Also with the race IQ question discrimination could potentially depress IQ. The fact that we see a similar race IQ global pattern in many different societies pretty much controls for that. Or one can estimate genomic ancestry versus socially estimated ancestry and see which correlates better to IQ, especially with mixed people (brain and appearance genes don't always recombine together). There are some arguments showing GxE probably isn't significant if you want to dig them up.

And you people get to vote. Sad.

Ignored. Yes, both environmental and genetic factors affect behavioral traits. Did I not say that many times? When I said heritability estimates are the partition of genetic and environmental cause of variance? A heritability estimate of 0.75 is 0.75 genetic cause of variance and 0.25 environmental cause of variance. Try reading the Wikipedia page maybe.

He did say that. He asked how we test for heritability alone ignoring environmental factors. Heritability estimates account for environmental factors. Lol wtf. Your posts are really funny. Are you joking or do you really think you understand this stuff? I hope you're joking for your sake. Either way your posts will be ignored from now on, and I will link back to this post. It's really sad that such transparent fools get to post on this board. So much for science. Of course despite the fact that the lies, nonsense, idiocy and thread derailment is only coming from you, I will be banned for violating the precious fantasy space of snowflake world. Science my ass.

You don't understand heritability. You could test for heritability and come up with zero, meaning all variation is due to environmental factors. It could be fifty-fifty or any other combination. Saying "there are environmental factors, how can there be heritability" doesn't make any sense. Try reading Making Sense of Heritability. It's very good. https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/making-sense-of-heritability-neven-sesardic.pdf

The difference being I'm not basing my "argument" on being "offended" by terms. You personalised this by claiming to be "offended". So necessarily I must describe your behavior. No more responses. Address the issue or go play in your safe space fantasy world with the other snowflakes. FYI this is the issue

Well no because I'm using the word retard as shorthand for people on the far low end of the intelligence distribution, in the context of a debate on what I consider to be a socially important issue. It's used as a term of art and not directed towards an individual, and not intended to cause offence. It's a word with historical claim to its meaning. Calling me names is very far from equal to that. But look, the discussion has been derailed because the snowflakes are "offended". Mission accomplished. So much for science.

Your writing on that I classified as nonsense and ignored it. So much nonsense, you don't understand what heritability is for a start. The point isn't irrelevant. I'm aware that modern PC snowflakes are hyper offended by everything. Shrieking hysterically about random words is much easier than using logic. Everything is offensive. I get it. In special snowflake land nobody has any negative qualities and any words which suggest they do are offensive. Soon the word short will be offensive and we'll have to stop using dimensions in case anyone feels triggered. Unfortunately in reality some people are retarded. If you are unable to discuss the human condition without being offended feel free to go away. You have not supported your position. If you want to address the point go ahead. You do not get to tell me what I can or cannot say.

Most of your post is nonsense and irrelevance but this is somewhat on topic. I'm sorry I abbreviated "mentally retarded person" to "retard" because it's shorter. Does that trigger your feelings? Am I violating your safe space by using abbreviations you randomly decided were offensive for no reason I can fathom? My sincere apologies. Now onto the point. You say it depends. What does it depend on? Should the state ever intervene when retards are reproducing excessively? We may need to define the state. Perhaps you can.

Mate selection is a type of eugenics. The dispute is over another type. State eugenics. I was just clarifying terms. It helps to do that when debating people who can't write logically coherent sentences, let alone posts. Also, please stop putting line breaks between each sentence. It looks stupid. Now answer my question. Should retards be allowed to have ten children? What? Yes it is. More strawman nonsense. A marriage prohibition isn't "elimination from the gene pool". Obviously. They don't really know. It's some fashionable PC slogan relating to special interest groups desired immigration policy for the West (and only the West).

That is indeed eugenics. People think eugenics means "state sterilization of retards". It doesn't. Do you think retarded people should be allowed to have ten children? If you're going to engage in childish nitpicking at least get it right. Genos means stock, or breed. The study of good birth is called obstetrics.

The word means good breeding. That's the meaning. So it doesn't "lack meaning". The problem is you think it means state eugenics. It doesn't. So you support familial eugenics. But you oppose state eugenics? Why? Oh what's this. State level eugenics laws? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibited_degree_of_kinship#United_States You oppose this? Do you want to marry your sister? Are you campaigning to repeal this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#United_States

No it means good breeding. Only in your PBS worldview does it mean state sterilization, one form of eugenics. You don't even know the meaning of the word you are discussing. Why would you make a judgement if it wasn't important? Your posts are nonsense.

Lol did I say not perfect or mentally retarded? You're the one who complains about strawman arguments right? Ironic.

So it seems that at least within your own family, you advocate eugenics.

It's really easy. If a mentally retarded person has a child the child is more likely to be mentally retarded. Therefore avoiding having sex with mentally retarded people is a form of eugenics. It's also an application of knowledge to make predictions, which is science according to the science council definition. Is it too complex for you? I think what you're trying to say is "eugenics is currently unfashionable and I want to virtue signal to my friends, so I'll use the word science to mean I like it". Let me ask you a question. If you wanted a child, would it make any difference to you if your partner was mentally retarded or not?

If the environment is so overwhelming as you claim why do we see such strong correlations with natural parents rather than adoptive parents? "Impact development"? 98%? 0.02%? Nobody is "attempting to measure matters of the mind soley on genetics alone". Do you even understand what the word heritability means? It's the partition of genetics and environment which accounts for phenotypic variance in a population. Heritability by definition attempts to account for the environment. How do you explain this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study#Twins_reared_apart Nobody would disagree. How is this virtue signalling relevant?

I find it interesting that people who dismiss ideas using the words ignorant and bigoted with no other reasoning tend to be the most ignorant and bigoted. Bigoted means stuck on one point of view and immune to reason. Your glossary: Ignoranr : I don't like it Bigoted: I don't like it Science: I like it

Nonsense. You don't understand elementary population genetics. We don't increase morons because it would reduce variety in other groups? Are you on LSD? I didn't respond to you. I was responding to someone else and you jumped in with a totally different, completely insane, assertion. Except I didn't do that. I will not respond to any more of your posts. I suggest you spend the time spelling your name correctly.

Nonsense. It follows from what my opponent was saying. "Biodiversity is good". Not sometimes good. Eugenics is wrong because biodiversity is good. Therefore increasing genetic morons is good if it increases biodiversity. Exactly what my opponent is saying. Strawman is a word with a meaning, not a name you call things you don't like. My opponent is using the word good. This forum is a joke.

How silly. Do you define "science" as "concepts which match my fashionable PC beliefs de jour"? Would you care to define science and define eugenics and show how eugenics has nothing to do with science? How was that?

No it's strawman. I don't think cheerleading your forum buddies and name calling the people they disagree with is the kind of quality suitable to a science board. Please contribute substantive arguments or desist from posting.