The heritability of attitudes: a study found

[John Cuthber]

If you increase the variety of one group; say Sammy boys, then you reduce the diversity of other groups- like Johns because we only have finite resources.

That's why we don't seek to increase the number of morons, but we tolerate them.

And, since that's what I said earlier (even if you didn't understand it) and it differed from what you criticised, your critique was a straw man attack.

 

Also, as I pointed out

16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 

You entirely missed the point that we don't, and can't, know what "good" is.

If you cherry pick part of a nuanced argument and attack it in isolation, you are straw-manning the argument as a whole.

Were  you hoping people wouldn't notice?

[Sammy Boy]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

If you increase the variety of one group; say Sammy boys, then you reduce the diversity of other groups- like Johns because we only have finite resources.

Nonsense. You don't understand elementary population genetics.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

That's why we don't seek to increase the number of morons, but we tolerate them.

We don't increase morons because it would reduce variety in other groups? Are you on LSD?

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

And, since that's what I said earlier (even if you didn't understand it) and it differed from what you criticised, your critique was a straw man attack.

I didn't respond to you. I was responding to someone else and you jumped in with a totally different, completely insane, assertion.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Also, as I pointed out

If you cherry pick part of a nuanced argument and attack it in isolation, you are straw-manning the argument as a whole.

Were  you hoping people wouldn't notice?

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.

[nec209]

21 hours ago, Strange said:

Eugenics.

Eugenics has nothing to do with science.

When many countries done sterilization it tells me it was not just bunch of crackpot idea guys running around say that do sterilization on poor people, criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics and people who have mental illness.

It does not matter if it is good science or not at all at that time.

Quote

It has never been good science.

It has never been junk science.

You apply never been junk science? Junk science is worse than not good science.

There many junk science out there today like earth has no center mass or time travel so on. None of that is back by mainstream science

Quote

 

It has nothing to do with science.

If you apply not good science it one thing or lack of science proof but there was many scientist at that time supporting eugenics. Many countries have done sterilization in name of eugenics.

After ww2 eugenics make taboo being really bad.

Well I understand that eugenics can be abused.

Edited September 16, 2017 by nec209

[John Cuthber]

27 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

Nonsense. You don't understand elementary population genetics.

There are a number of possibilities  concerning who doesn't understand  things here.

27 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

We don't increase morons because it would reduce variety in other groups?

We don't increase morons because doing so would be eugenics.You are the one who pretended that I had said we would.

 

27 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

I didn't respond to you. I was responding to someone else and you jumped in with a totally different, completely insane, assertion.

Really?

You were responding to "somebody else".
Who?

Your first post in the thread - the one where you said this, started by quoting me.

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? Where did "science" make this argument? Are you sure it's not an ethnic political interest based piece of nonsense?

 

27 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

Except I didn't do that. I will not respond to any more of your posts.

I don't see that upsetting many of us.

 

27 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

I suggest you spend the time spelling your name correctly.

You have no idea what my name is.

As I said, there are several possibilities for which of us doesn't understand things

Edited September 16, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, nec209 said:

When many countries done sterilization it tells me it was not just bunch of crackpot idea guys running around say that do sterilization on poor people, criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics and people who have mental illness.

It tells me that it was a bunch of ignorant and bigoted politicians with no understanding or interesting in science.

33 minutes ago, nec209 said:

If you apply not good science it one thing or lack of science proof but there was many scientist at that time supporting eugenics. Many countries have done sterilization in name of eugenics.

There is no science behind it. You can keep pretending that there is, but it just makes you look foolish.

[Sammy Boy]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

It tells me that it was a bunch of ignorant and bigoted politicians with no understanding or interesting in science.

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

Edited September 16, 2017 by Sammy Boy

[nec209]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

It tells me that it was a bunch of ignorant and bigoted politicians with no understanding or interesting in science.

There is no science behind it. You can keep pretending that there is, but it just makes you look foolish.

You are aware there was scientist and philosopher had strong beliefs in eugenics.

I guess scientist and philosopher where much crackpot people too in that time line. But I get this paper must be also crackpot science  because it stinks with eugenics so is evolution like Darwinism going by your thinking . 

You not even debating if eugenics is good science or not. You seem be debating the past that eugenics is not science. Than why where scientist and philosopher not anti- eugenics? Why did science not scream to the politicians that is is wrong and junk science?

 Here is question do you support people that have mental illness or mentally handicapped should be allowed to have kids? What is point of crispr or genetic engineering?  if offspring has nothing to do with mom or dad.Where do you draw line on genetics?

Why did Sir Francis Galton coin eugenics in 188 why not some school janitor?

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

There are a number of possibilities  concerning who doesn't understand  things here.

We don't increase morons because doing so would be eugenics.You are the one who pretended that I had said we would.

 

Really?

You were responding to "somebody else".
Who?

Your first post in the thread - the one where you said this, started by quoting me.

 

I don't see that upsetting many of us.

 

You have no idea what my name is.

As I said, there are several possibilities for which of us doesn't understand things

And how would you prove or disprove eugenics when you cannot even run DNA sequence in that time line of before and after group. Every thing was base on breading with out even looking at genetics.

 

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, nec209 said:

You are aware there was scientist and philosopher had strong beliefs in eugenics.

The personal beliefs of scientists are not necessarily anything to do with science. 

 

14 minutes ago, nec209 said:

But I get this paper must be also crackpot science  because it stinks with eugenics so is evolution like Darwinism going by your thinking .

I have no idea why you would think that.  Neither this paper nor natural selection have anything to do with eugenics. 

The rest of your post is too stupid to respond to. 

[Ten oz]

On 9/7/2017 at 10:06 PM, 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?

 

 

The resource dilution model posits that parental resources are finite and that as the number of children in the family increases, the resources accrued by any one child necessarily decline. Siblings are competitors for parents' time, energy, and financial resources and so the fewer the better. Even one sibling is too many. The author describes the general elements of the dilution position and assesses its merits for explaining the effect of siblings on one component of the educational process--tests of intellectual development.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11413873

 

"There is substantial evidence indicating that children who witness domestic violence (DV) have psychosocial maladaptation that is associated with demonstrable changes in the anatomic and physiological make up of their central nervous system. Individuals with these changes do not function well in society and present communities with serious medical, sociological, and economic dilemmas. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193214/

 

" Meta-analyses, combining data from hundreds of individual studies, confirm an association between exposure to violence in media and antisocial tendencies such as aggression"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170902/

 

Many things impact development. The study in the OP looked at 2 types of twins. However as the above links (same source as the OP) show things like the number of siblings one has to witnessing violence, or even watching violence on TV all impact development. Very few people, perhaps none, a raised in a perfect enviroment and as such a study attempting to measure matters of the mind soley on genetics alone is very different. Perhaps impossible without ignoring ethical concerns which themselves could corrupt any such expirement. In my opinion a happy upbring by supportive loving parents who passed on average genetics is greater than a tragic upbringing by hyper intelligent parents who were abusive emotionally or physically.

[nec209]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I have no idea why you would think that.  Neither this paper nor natural selection have anything to do with eugenics. 

The rest of your post is too stupid to respond to. 

Why are you copying and pasting the same old thing. You are repeating your self, please stop repeating your self, and say some thing .

Do you have degree in historian? Or genetics and evolution? If not may be best you do not reply to this thread again you are not contributing any thing .  And base on your post history you like arguing and contribute nothing base on other threads.

Or It does not matter if 3% scientist or 90% scientist at that time thought eugenics was real or not. And you did not even give any citation or source saying otherwise. Just spoon out same thing you reaped over and over. That some how eugenics is not science and scientist never believed in it. No citation or source. How many scientist have to believed in it to be science? How do you define science or what is science?

I more likely to believe Francis Galton  sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, and psychometrician.......... Knows more about eugenics than some anonymous poster like your self not even read one chapter out of book on it. Be the science of eugenics be futility or real or not or mixed.

You have not shown any citation or source showing be it 3% scientist or 90% scientist at that time thought eugenics was science or not.  And not discussing the paper the start of OP thread or eugenics you seem to be addicted to history on origins on eugenics if 1%,  3% scientist or 90% scientists believed in eugenics or some way shaping government policies.  And still not ask what is science or how you define science?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I have no idea why you would think that.  Neither this paper nor natural selection have anything to do with eugenics. 

How do you define science? Is there some test proving evolution like Darwinism or eugenics? Or does eugenics like evolution like Darwinism suffer from same thing? no test and no proof?

Where are the tests, studies and proof? Or is it theory?  Is science not math base and running test to proof some thing?

Edited September 17, 2017 by nec209

[Sammy Boy]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Many things impact development. The study in the OP looked at 2 types of twins. However as the above links (same source as the OP) show things like the number of siblings one has to witnessing violence, or even watching violence on TV all impact development. Very few people, perhaps none, a raised in a perfect enviroment and as such a study attempting to measure matters of the mind soley on genetics alone is very different. Perhaps impossible without ignoring ethical concerns which themselves could corrupt any such expirement.

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

Quote

In my opinion a happy upbring by supportive loving parents who passed on average genetics is greater than a tragic upbringing by hyper intelligent parents who were abusive emotionally or physically.

Nobody would disagree. How is this virtue signalling relevant?

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sammy Boy

[Strange]

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

Is there some test proving evolution like Darwinism or eugenics?

There is a mountain of evidence for Darwinian evolution. There is zero evidence that eugenics does or can work. As far as I know, no research on the effectiveness of eugenics has been done. But feel free to present some science supporting eugenics rather than opinions. 

7 hours ago, nec209 said:

Where are the tests, studies and proof? Or is it theory?

There are none for eugenics (but lots for evolution). 

So evolution is a theory but eugenics isn't. 

7 hours ago, nec209 said:

Is science not math base and running test to proof some thing?

Science doesn't prove things. 

7 hours ago, nec209 said:

And not discussing the paper the start of OP thread or eugenics

I'm just pointing out that the paper has nothing to do with eugenics. 

[Sammy Boy]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is a mountain of evidence for Darwinian evolution. There is zero evidence that eugenics does or can work. As far as I know, no research on the effectiveness of eugenics has been done. But feel free to present some science supporting eugenics rather than opinions.

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?

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sammy Boy

[John Cuthber]

10 hours ago, Sammy Boy said:

I suggest you spend the time spelling your name correctly.

 

10 hours ago, Sammy Boy said:

Ignoranr : I don't like it

LOL

 

9 hours ago, nec209 said:

Every thing was base on breading with out even looking at genetics.

You might want to get a better spell checker.

Breading fish is what you do shortly before frying them. Breeding is something else.

9 hours ago, nec209 said:

And how would you prove or disprove eugenics when you cannot even run DNA sequence

http://tailandfur.com/unhealthy-dog-breeds/

20 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

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?

That's an exceptionally weird question.

Logically, from most people's point of view the answer is "no".
If my partner has done well enough in life to be settled, "married" and in a position to have kids then whatever their condition, it's sufficiently mild that a child with the same condition (assuming it's heritable)  wouldn't be severely disadvantaged.

 

What point did you think you were making?

24 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

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

I'm pretty sure that the reason why most people wouldn't have sex with someone with mental retardation isn't that any offspring would also be retarded.

It's not eugenics; it's more to do with informed consent- unless the degree of impairment isn't significant in which case the "problem" goes away.

 

Swap "retarded" for "short sighted" and you will see what I mean.

[Sammy Boy]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

What point did you think you were making?

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

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, Sammy Boy said:

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

Not really, no.

By the time you get round to having kids you will know well enough that your partner isn't perfect.

Does the fear that any children might also forget to put the top back on the toothpaste tube stop you having kids?
No- it doesn't.

In selecting partners we are pretty good at ignoring exactly the kind of traits that the eugenics movement would seek to eradicate.

Left handed people still get married.

Also, there's a massive difference between an individual decision and a societal one; it's only when society get to decide that it's eugenics- otherwise the word has no meaning.

[Sammy Boy]

14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Not really, no.

By the time you get round to having kids you will know well enough that your partner isn't perfect.

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

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sammy Boy

[John Cuthber]

3 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

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

And, as I already pointed out, if they are- in your view- good enough to marry they should be good enough to breed.

The degree of impairment isn't really important, since it would be a personal judgement in each case.

Now, what was that about strawmen?

[Sammy Boy]

21 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Also, there's a massive difference between an individual decision and a societal one; it's only when society get to decide that it's eugenics- otherwise the word has no meaning.

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.

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And, as I already pointed out, if they are- in your view- good enough to marry they should be good enough to breed.

The degree of impairment isn't really important, since it would be a personal judgement in each case.

Now, what was that about strawmen?

Why would you make a judgement if it wasn't important? Your posts are nonsense.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sammy Boy

[John Cuthber]

21 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Also, there's a massive difference between an individual decision and a societal one; it's only when society get to decide that it's eugenics- otherwise the word has no meaning.

Did you see the bit where I said "otherwise the word has no meaning."?

If you take every instance of mate choice as being eugenics- because the choice is made that "this mate is what I want and is therefore 'good' in some way" then the word lacks meaning.

7 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

Why would you make a judgement if I wasn't important? Your posts are nonsense.

You do make a judgement- every parent does. It's not meaningful to describe it as "eugenics".

 

[Sammy Boy]

8 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Did you see the bit where I said "otherwise the word has no meaning."?

If you take every instance of mate choice as being eugenics- because the choice is made that "this mate is what I want and is therefore 'good' in some way" then the word lacks meaning.

You do make a judgement- every parent does. It's not meaningful to describe it as "eugenics".

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

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sammy Boy

[John Cuthber]

6 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

familial eugenics.

OK, what's that?

Is it that people choose mates that-in the vernacular- they fancy?

Do you accept that people have always done that- and most animals do the same.

So people always choose what they consider to be "good" mates.

You seem to think that's eugenics.

Well, unless you can show me the people who choose mates whom they consider to be a bad model for the next generation, then you have labelled everyone as e eugenicist (and the word means "good birth", BTW- not "good breeding").

 

[Sammy Boy]

15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, what's that?

Is it that people choose mates that-in the vernacular- they fancy?

Do you accept that people have always done that- and most animals do the same.

So people always choose what they consider to be "good" mates.

You seem to think that's eugenics.

Well, unless you can show me the people who choose mates whom they consider to be a bad model for the next generation, then you have labelled everyone as e eugenicist

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?

15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

(and the word means "good birth", BTW- not "good breeding").

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.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sammy Boy

[John Cuthber]

OK, so every mate selection is eugenics.

It's always happened.

It always will.

There's no way to stop it.

So there's nothing to talk about.

You can stop now + go away.

On the basis of your definition of the word you have won the argument- because it's practically tautology.

Congratulations and goodbye!

The rest of us can now get back to the discussion on the basis of what the word usually means.

 

Incidentally, when you go you might want to look into the links between the kennel club and the eugenics moment and the views that the dog breeders had on  within-family mating.

You might be interested to know that the practical eugenicists- with their casual disregard for science- were quite enthusiastic about incest.

Marrying your sister isn't strictly a eugenics issue. There's nothing wrong with your genes or hers so the eugenicists wouldn't want to eliminate either of you from the gene pool.

The problem is when you get together.

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

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.

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race, stock, kin")

From 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Obstetrics is more about good pregnancy.

[Sammy Boy]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, so every mate selection is eugenics.

It's always happened.

It always will.

There's no way to stop it.

So there's nothing to talk about.

You can stop now + go away.

On the basis of your definition of the word you have won the argument- because it's practically tautology.

Congratulations and goodbye!

The rest of us can now get back to the discussion on the basis of what the word usually means.

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?

Quote

Incidentally, when you go you might want to look into the links between the kennel club and the eugenics moment and the views that the dog breeders had on  within-family mating.

You might be interested to know that the practical eugenicists- with their casual disregard for science- were quite enthusiastic about incest.

What?

Quote

Marrying your sister isn't strictly a eugenics issue.

Yes it is.

Quote

There's nothing wrong with your genes or hers so the eugenicists wouldn't want to eliminate either of you from the gene pool.

More strawman nonsense. A marriage prohibition isn't "elimination from the gene pool".

Quote

The problem is when you get together.

Obviously.

14 hours ago, nec209 said:

what do you and other members here been by biodiversity?

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).

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sammy Boy