nec209 Posted September 8, 2017 Posted September 8, 2017 The genetic basis of individual differences in attitudes, including personality traits, physical characteristics, and academic achievement. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11414369 Wow....... So this study and claim are saying the person IQ , education achievement and academic achievement is base on genetics? If person dos really bad in school vs some one has PHD or tow PHD's is base on genetics? In others words if you smart or dumb is base on genetics? Or how well you do at school or your job?
J.C.MacSwell Posted September 8, 2017 Posted September 8, 2017 Reading the abstract it seems to surmise that genetics is a significant factor. I don't think there is a claim that it is the only one.
CharonY Posted September 8, 2017 Posted September 8, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, nec209 said: So this study and claim are saying the person IQ , education achievement and academic achievement is base on genetics? If person dos really bad in school vs some one has PHD or tow PHD's is base on genetics? No, where do you get that from the paper? They looked at attitude, as written in the title. This includes whether they liked big parties, crossword puzzles, reading books, attitude to abortion among other questions. They found some potential heritability effect (and keep in mind that the latter is not a fixed value but changes with the relative loading of the environment). However glimpsing at the statistic it seems to be fairly weak and not e.g. accounting for multiple hypothesis testing (may have missed that, though). Edited September 8, 2017 by CharonY
Area54 Posted September 8, 2017 Posted September 8, 2017 9 hours ago, nec209 said: The genetic basis of individual differences in attitudes, including personality traits, physical characteristics, and academic achievement. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11414369 Wow....... So this study and claim are saying the person IQ , education achievement and academic achievement is base on genetics? If person dos really bad in school vs some one has PHD or tow PHD's is base on genetics? In others words if you smart or dumb is base on genetics? Or how well you do at school or your job? Do you doubt that there is a genetic component to IQ? Do you doubt that intelligence impacts upon academic achievement? I'm just puzzled why you seem surprised by this.
Strange Posted September 8, 2017 Posted September 8, 2017 The full paper is available here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11926557_The_Heritability_of_Attitudes_A_Study_of_Twins 12 hours ago, nec209 said: In others words if you smart or dumb is base on genetics? Or how well you do at school or your job? No. There may be heritable factors but that's all.
nec209 Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 On 9/7/2017 at 11:33 PM, J.C.MacSwell said: Reading the abstract it seems to surmise that genetics is a significant factor. I don't think there is a claim that it is the only one. Sounds like the paper is supporting eugenics by the sounds of it. That thing at one time science was supporting it!! Than science said eugenics was junk science and now they have mixed views. On 9/8/2017 at 0:25 AM, CharonY said: No, where do you get that from the paper? They looked at attitude, as written in the title. This includes whether they liked big parties, crossword puzzles, reading books, attitude to abortion among other questions. They found some potential heritability effect (and keep in mind that the latter is not a fixed value but changes with the relative loading of the environment). However glimpsing at the statistic it seems to be fairly weak and not e.g. accounting for multiple hypothesis testing (may have missed that, though). May be it not genetics alone or environment alone !! But genetics and environment.
John Cuthber Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 41 minutes ago, nec209 said: Sounds like the paper is supporting eugenics by the sounds of it. That thing at one time science was supporting it!! Than science said eugenics was junk science and now they have mixed views. Science does not have mixed views on eugenics. Biodiversity is good.
Strange Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 50 minutes ago, nec209 said: Sounds like the paper is supporting eugenics by the sounds of it. I cannot imagine what makes you think that. You must have read a different paper. 51 minutes ago, nec209 said: That thing at one time science was supporting it!! I don't think science has ever supported eugenics. 52 minutes ago, nec209 said: May be it not genetics alone or environment alone !! But genetics and environment. Finally, a sensible comment.
DrmDoc Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 As I understand the abstract, "Nonshared environmental factors accounted for the most variance in the attitude factors." Variances in the heritability of attitudes was significantly influenced by the non-shared environment of the twins in this study, which simplistically suggests that twins have differing attitudes when they do not share the same environment. This study doesn't convincingly suggest the heritability of attitudes but rather the shared attitude effects of a shared environment--in my opinion.
nec209 Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: I cannot imagine what makes you think that. You must have read a different paper. I don't think science has ever supported eugenics. Finally, a sensible comment. 1 hour ago, John Cuthber said: Science does not have mixed views on eugenics. Biodiversity is good. I think both of you misunderstood me. Eugenics is belief improving human population by controlled breeding for desirable heritable characteristics, attitudes, personality traits and behavior. The science was you could breed only the desirable traits. This was way back in time when many countries did forced sterilization for breeding for desirable traits. Than later on science said eugenics was junk science. You cannot bread for desirable traits be it forced sterilization or genetic engineering. Saying genes don't make person character, characteristics , attitudes, personality traits and behaviors and moral values . So when I seen that paper that say person character, characteristics , attitudes, personality traits and behaviors and values are because of genetics it seems to support eugenics. Not saying the researchers moral value will support sterilization or genetic engineering for breading. But many eugenics advocates may run with paper say yap that start doing sterilization or genetic engineering it now science now and now junk science any more. Edited September 10, 2017 by nec209
John Cuthber Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 Biodiversity is good. Eugenics removes biodiversity. Eugenics is not good. The science is very clear and simple. It's not a moral issue, because it's scientifically bad- so there's no need to consider the morality. 1 hour ago, nec209 said: So when I seen that paper that say person character, characteristics , attitudes, personality traits and behaviors and values are because of genetics it seems to support eugenics. You have missed the point that what looks to one person like a "problem" that eugenics could "solve" is a often variability which might be useful in the future. Since we have no idea what issues humanity will face in the future, we don't know what genes we will need to overcome them.
Strange Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 2 hours ago, nec209 said: You cannot bread for desirable traits be it forced sterilization or genetic engineering. Saying genes don't make person character, characteristics , attitudes, personality traits and behaviors and moral values . I don't believe anyone has ever said that. Please provide a reference.
nec209 Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 No I'm saying countries back in that time that use to do sterilization when eugenics was being advocated. Than later on eugenics was proven junk science. Like sterilization of poor people, criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics and people who have mental illness.
Strange Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 46 minutes ago, nec209 said: No I'm saying countries back in that time that use to do sterilization when eugenics was being advocated. Than later on eugenics was proven junk science. Like sterilization of poor people, criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics and people who have mental illness. This has nothing to do with science.
nec209 Posted September 14, 2017 Author Posted September 14, 2017 (edited) On 9/12/2017 at 5:17 PM, Strange said: This has nothing to do with science. What? honestly what? The paper is saying genetic factor found in supporting of individual differences in attitudes, personality traits, physical characteristics and behaviors so on.If other papers support this paper with more studies supporting this claim This where I said supporters of eugenics will run with this paper or any peepers similar to this. It is the members here acting like they never heard of eugenics and major profound confused of what eugenics has to do with paper. I would think people would of read up bit about history and read up bit about eugenics. Edited September 14, 2017 by nec209
Area54 Posted September 15, 2017 Posted September 15, 2017 On 12/09/2017 at 10:17 PM, Strange said: This has nothing to do with science. It was practised by individuals who had trained as scientists or doctors and identified themselves as scientists or doctors, doctors being specialists in medical science. The term eugenics was coined by Galton and he was instrumental in developing the concept. He was a notable scientist and, incidentally, a cousin of Darwin. An apropriate catchphrase for the eugenics movement could have been "Survival of the fittest", penned by Herbert Spencer, another notable scientist, to capture the heart of Natural Selection. Instead it became associated with Social Darwinism. If Survival of the Fittest represent Natural Selection, eugenics can readily be seen as a direct form of Artificial Selection. In short, eugenics may be bad science, it may be ethically unacceptable, but its origins and arguments relied upon scientific principles. 5 hours ago, nec209 said: This where I said supporters of eugenics will run with this paper or any peepers similar to this You chose not to answer me previously, so I'll ask again. Are you seriously disputing that there is a genetic component to IQ? Do you doubt that intelligence impacts upon academic achievement?
Sammy Boy Posted September 15, 2017 Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) On 9/10/2017 at 7:53 PM, John Cuthber said: Science does not have mixed views on eugenics. Biodiversity is good. So a high IQ population should try to increase the number of genetic morons to increase diversity? Where did "science" make this argument? Are you sure it's not an ethnic political interest based piece of nonsense? "But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive." — Richard Dawkins. All mutations increase your precious "diversity" right? But I thought most of them were deleterious, or in other words reducing fitness. In other words still they were garbage that needed to be removed. But they increased the precious "diversity". I'm confused now. You said "science" agrees with your opinion. That's what's confusing me. It's hard to argue with people who say the word science, even when they appear to be a total moron. Now I'm really getting confused. Science said diversity was good, and I agree because I saw that on TV. But Motoo Kimura calculated this. "Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral." What's going on? Edited September 15, 2017 by Sammy Boy
Area54 Posted September 15, 2017 Posted September 15, 2017 I've passed the time allowed to edit my previous post. The penultimate sentence should read " Are you seriously disputing that there is not a genetic component to IQ?" The "not" was missing. 57 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said: So a high IQ population should try to increase the number of genetic morons to increase diversity? You are assuming that a high IQ is the only important genetic factor in determining evolutionary fitness. Intelligence is not the product of a single gene. Genes that contribute to low IQ's may contribute to other aspects of fitness, today or tomorrow. Eliminate those genes and the population may have a higher IQ, but be less likely to successfully reproduce. (And since when was a high IQ an assured root to success?)
Sammy Boy Posted September 15, 2017 Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Area54 said: You are assuming that a high IQ is the only important genetic factor in determining evolutionary fitness. No, ceteris paribus, all other things being equal. According to my opponent "biodiversity is good" (it's science). Therefore taking the example of IQ genes where the gene reduces IQ and has no other effects, is that biodiversity good? Is it possible that sometimes biodiversity is bad? More precisely he said eugenics (good breeding) is bad because "biodiversity" is good. Is that something you agree with? Edited September 15, 2017 by Sammy Boy
nec209 Posted September 15, 2017 Author Posted September 15, 2017 21 hours ago, Area54 said: You chose not to answer me previously, so I'll ask again. Are you seriously disputing that there is a genetic component to IQ? Do you doubt that intelligence impacts upon academic achievement? Has there been link that person IQ, academic achievement or intelligence is because of genetics? May be some eugenics supporters may say person IQ, academic achievement or intelligence is because of genetics. I said at the start of the thread. But the paper does not seem to talk about that, only individual differences in attitudes, personality traits, characteristics and behaviors. So this study and claim are saying the person IQ , education achievement and academic achievement is base on genetics? If person dos really bad in school vs some one has PHD or tow PHD's is base on genetics? And the response I got. Saying.............. No, where do you get that from the paper?
Strange Posted September 15, 2017 Posted September 15, 2017 On 14/09/2017 at 10:25 PM, nec209 said: What? honestly what? Eugenics. Eugenics has nothing to do with science. It has never been good science. It has never been junk science. It has nothing to do with science. Sheesh. 21 hours ago, Area54 said: It was practised by individuals who had trained as scientists or doctors and identified themselves as scientists or doctors, doctors being specialists in medical science. The term eugenics was coined by Galton and he was instrumental in developing the concept. He was a notable scientist and, incidentally, a cousin of Darwin. One definition of art is "what an artist does". The equivalent definition does not apply to science. Just because some scientists are religious, play the piano or think that doing evil things will improve the human species does not make religion, jazz or eugenics anything to do with science. 40 minutes ago, nec209 said: So this study and claim are saying the person IQ , education achievement and academic achievement is base on genetics? No. It doesn't say that.
Sammy Boy Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 20 hours ago, Strange said: Eugenics. Eugenics has nothing to do with science. It has never been good science. It has never been junk science. It has nothing to do with science. 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? On 9/12/2017 at 9:31 PM, nec209 said: Than later on eugenics was proven junk science. How was that? -1
John Cuthber Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 On 9/15/2017 at 0:06 PM, Sammy Boy said: So a high IQ population should try to increase the number of genetic morons to increase diversity? Strawman. On 9/15/2017 at 0:06 PM, Sammy Boy said: Where did "science" make this argument? It didn't. Like I said; your claim is a straw-man. You entirely missed the point that we don't, and can't, know what "good" is.
Sammy Boy Posted September 16, 2017 Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Strawman. It didn't. Like I said; your claim is a straw-man. You entirely missed the point that we don't, and can't, know what "good" is. Nonsense. It follows from what my opponent was saying. Quote Science does not have mixed views on eugenics. Biodiversity is good. "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. Edited September 16, 2017 by Sammy Boy
nec209 Posted September 16, 2017 Author Posted September 16, 2017 On 9/10/2017 at 2:53 PM, John Cuthber said: Science does not have mixed views on eugenics. Biodiversity is good. what do you and other members here been by biodiversity?
Recommended Posts