The heritability of attitudes: a study found

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

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.

I don't know that IQ tests a perfect messure of intelligence and or cognitive function. There might be societal biases built into IQ tests. Because if the tests are not perfect and if there are biases built into them where someone who is Christian, vegan, spanish speaking, has blue eyes, comes from a suburb vs inner city, etc whatever has an advantage than that create errors. What if the exact same study of twins done in Minnesota as done in the Bahia state of Brazil; would the results be the same? For the study to be accurate in its conclusions the results would need to be same right?

[Sammy Boy]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There might be societal biases built into IQ tests.

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

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

As I said, it's imperfect, but it's the best we can do- of course, in principle you can seek to measure "attractiveness" and allow for it using multivariate stats.

What  you are talking about is the extent to which society treats pairs of  identical and pairs of non identical twins differently from each other. Now there's clearly some degree of "novelty value" in being an identical twin, but it's hard to see it making a huge difference to overall behaviour.

We can do better. We can get more data. The study of twins separated at birth can be done in more locations. Different countries or even parts of the same countries have different societal behaviors. Those difference may or may not influence the out of the studies. More data is the simple solution in opinion.

5 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

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

While annoying your sacrastic posting style is probably useful to you:

 

"But new research by Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School, Adam Galinsky, the Vikram S. Pandit Professor of Business at Columbia Business School, and Li Huang of INSEAD, the European business school, finds that sarcasm is far more nuanced, and actually offers some important, overlooked psychological and organizational benefits. "

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/07/go-ahead-be-sarcastic/

 

Does society accept sarcasm from everyone equally? In my experience sarascm from women and low income people at large isn't accepted. It is viewed as rude. We may tolerate a sarcastic reply by a professor or someone we respect but typically not from the employee serving us coffee at a cafe. As a result are certian people denied the mental benefits associated with sarcasm? As a result are their children negatively effected being raise by parents who lack or repress sarcasm as form of communication? Would that show up on an IQ test?

[Sammy Boy]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

While annoying your sacrastic posting style is probably useful to you:

I'm British. Sarcasm is my normal tone.

[Sammy Boy]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

We can do better. We can get more data. 

There are several types of experiments that control the necessary factors. The genome data is even available. They especially refuse to run the race IQ experiments because of the Marxist PTB. See what happened to James Watson for daring to suggest Blacks don't have exactly the same intelligence. Guess they know what the experiment will conclude.

[nec209]

13 hours 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. 

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

So evolution is a theory but eugenics isn't. 

Science doesn't prove things. 

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

Here is question do you believe mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped people,  mentally challenged people and IQ have nothing to do with genetics and there should be no law in place to stop them having kids? The mom or dad or both that have mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped,  mentally challenged  and IQ have nothing do with kids having mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped,  mentally challenged or the kids IQ.

Where do you draw the line on genetics?

 

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, nec209 said:

Here is question do you believe mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped people,  mentally challenged people and IQ have nothing to do with genetics and there should be no law in place to stop them having kids?

That's two different questions.

1 hour ago, Sammy Boy said:

There are several types of experiments that control the necessary factors. The genome data is even available. They especially refuse to run the race IQ experiments because of the Marxist PTB. See what happened to James Watson for daring to suggest Blacks don't have exactly the same intelligence. Guess they know what the experiment will conclude.

It's instructive to read what Watson said about it.
""To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief,""

[nec209]

14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's two different questions

Okay forget about ethics and morality should there be allowed to have kids or not.

Trying to understand you say science say mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped people,  mentally challenged people and IQ have noting to do with genetics? So mom or dad or both having that problem can have many kids as they want they will not get problem.

 

[Sammy Boy]

5 minutes ago, nec209 said:

Okay forget about ethics and morality should there be allowed to have kids or not.

Trying to understand you say science say mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped people,  mentally challenged people and IQ have noting to do with genetics? So mom or dad or both having that problem can have many kids as they want they will not get problem.

Good luck getting these PC clowns to actually answer a simple question.

Perhaps the gallows is the only solution to their cockiness.

[John Cuthber]

15 minutes ago, nec209 said:

you say science say mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped people,  mentally challenged people and IQ have noting to do with genetics?

Who said that?

When?

9 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

Good luck getting these PC clowns to actually answer a simple question.

He may have better luck than I did trying to get you to answer one

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

For example would you like to cite something I have said which is actually wrong?

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, nec209 said:

Okay forget about ethics and morality should there be allowed to have kids or not.

That is a question of ethics, so how should we "forget about ethics".

You are not making much sense. I'm not even sure what the relevance of this (rather confused) question was.

Quote

Trying to understand you say science say mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped people,  mentally challenged people and IQ have noting to do with genetics? 

I didn't say anything of the sort. There may a genetic component to some of those. How is that relevant? You seem to be confusing genetics with eugenics.

Genetics is a well-understood science (with some open questions, like all science). The paper that opened this thread is about genetics, not eugenics.

Eugenics is an obscene political ideology with no basis in science. You have yet to cite any experimental evidence that eugenics works (or even that it doesn't work). So your claim that it is science appears to be bogus. It appears to be based on the fact you don't know the meaning of the word.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Strange

[Sammy Boy]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Eugenics is an obscene political ideology with no basis in science.

Lol. Virtue signalling pseudoscientist.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have yet to cite any experimental evidence that eugenics works (or even that it doesn't work). So your claim that it is science appears to be bogus. It appears to be based on the fact you don't know the meaning of the word.

I already explained why it's science. Science makes predictions using knowledge. It's trivially obvious it's science. But "science" to you means "agreeing with my fashionable SJW beliefs".

[nec209]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is a question of ethics, so how should we "forget about ethics".

You are not making much sense. I'm not even sure what the relevance of this (rather confused) question was.

I didn't say anything of the sort. There may a genetic component to some of those. How is that relevant? You seem to be confusing genetics with eugenics.

Genetics is a well-understood science (with some open questions, like all science). The paper that opened this thread is about genetics, not eugenics.

Eugenics is an obscene political ideology with no basis in science. You have yet to cite any experimental evidence that eugenics works (or even that it doesn't work). So your claim that it is science appears to be bogus. It appears to be based on the fact you don't know the meaning of the word.

 

May be the confusing is your view what eugenics is different than mind. Or what you think eugenics is?

Or why you think eugenics is bad science. Or why you think eugenics bad science.

Or what some other members here think what is eugenics.

I'm guessing you think there is no genes that drive a persons behavior, attitudes, personality,  persons characteristics and traits that why it bad science .

 

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, nec209 said:

May be the confusing is your view what eugenics is different than mind. Or what you think eugenics is?

Eugenics is different than mind? That makes no sense.

Quote

Or why you think eugenics is bad science. Or why you think eugenics bad science.

It isn't science, good or bad. 

Communism isn't science. Art isn't science. Fairy tales aren't science. Lot's of things aren't science. Eugenics is one of them.

Quote

I'm guessing you think there is no genes that drive a persons behavior, attitudes, personality,  persons characteristics and traits that why it bad science .

I have no idea why you would guess such an idiotic thing. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Strange

[nec209]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Eugenics is different than mind? That makes no sense.

It isn't science, good or bad. 

Communism isn't science. Art isn't science. Fairy tales aren't science. Lot's of things aren't science. Eugenics is one of them.

I have no idea why you would guess such an idiotic thing. 

Than explain to me what is junk science or what is bad science? What is difference of bad science vs junk science? Why do people say bad science or junk science?

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Eugenics is different than mind? That makes no sense.

It isn't science, good or bad. 

Communism isn't science. Art isn't science. Fairy tales aren't science. Lot's of things aren't science. Eugenics is one of them.

I have no idea why you would guess such an idiotic thing. 

Eugenics say persons behavior, attitudes, personality,  persons characteristics and traits are because of genes? Do you agree or disagree?

Edited September 17, 2017 by nec209

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Sammy Boy said:

It's used as a term of art and not directed towards an individual, and not intended to cause offence.

Regardless of your intent, it does cause offense. You've had this highlighted for you. Should you now continue using the term despite this clarification, then your intent will reveal itself as a wish to hurt and you can no longer validly claim no desire to offend. 

Now, stop calling people retarded or stupid or snowflakes or PC or social justice warriors or whatever other ridiculous thing you assert right before acting indignant about people calling you names and let's stick to the topic. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by iNow

[Sammy Boy]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

let's stick to the topic. 

LMAO. Could you be any more hypocritical?

[Strange]

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

Than explain to me what is junk science or what is bad science? What is difference of bad science vs junk science? Why do people say bad science or junk science

Start a new thread on the scientific method if you want discuss this. 

 

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

Eugenics say persons behavior, attitudes, personality,  persons characteristics and traits are because of genes? Do you agree or disagree?

That is not the definition of eugenics. 

Also, "because of genes" is a bit meaningless. Do you mean "determined by genes" or "genes may have some influence" or something else. 

[StringJunky]

 

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

Eugenics say persons behavior, attitudes, personality,  persons characteristics and traits are because of genes? Do you agree or disagree?

Eugenics is a policy of actively selecting for certain genetic characteristics.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 

Eugenics is a policy of actively selecting for certain genetic characteristics.

"Supposedly genetic" might be more accurate. 

[Sammy Boy]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

"Supposedly genetic" might be more accurate. 

I think you'd get on well with this guy.

[Ten oz]

15 hours ago, Sammy Boy said:

There are several types of experiments that control the necessary factors. The genome data is even available. They especially refuse to run the race IQ experiments because of the Marxist PTB. See what happened to James Watson for daring to suggest Blacks don't have exactly the same intelligence. Guess they know what the experiment will conclude.

You say the neccessay factors can be controlled yet it is debatable whether or not race even exists. Race is a social construct and not a biological reality. So the controls you mentioned are just bias bits of imagination meant to produce an outcome.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

 

You also keep mentioning IQ as if IQ tests are the universally accepted gold standard for cognitive ability when they are not. Tests like IQ, ACT, SAT, and etc I designed to help predict what ones ability to accomplish certian things might be. They are not designed for the purpose of saying one person is more intelligent in absolute terms to another.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

 

On this forum if you search around you'll find threasd debating the existence of race and threads debating the best definitions for intelligence. Neither is perfect scientific definition so any experiment attempt to prove which race of people have the best inherited cognitive traits will produce an outcome relative to the researchers on own views. You are taking debatable theories produced from questionable research and treating it like proof of things which they are not.

12 hours ago, nec209 said:

 

Eugenics say persons behavior, attitudes, personality,  persons characteristics and traits are because of genes? Do you agree or disagree?

Eugenics has been used to accomplish different things throughout history. Hitler wasn't interested in the personality traits of individual Jews. Japan's Eugenics protection law purely focused on genetics diseases.

 

Throughout history some of the best researchers have been otherwise imperfect humans depending on ones definition of perfect. Stephen Hawking has ALS, John Forbes Nash was a paraniod schizophrenic, Charles Darwin had Agoraphobia, and etc. For our species to thrive it simply isn't clear which traits and combination of traits are the best. Evolution isn't linear. A species doesn't evolve from worst to best. There is not a pinnacle.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

Race is just ancestry. Only a moron would waste their time debating whether it exists.

Also lol @ your "Scientific American" that claims race doesn't exist with a picture of people from different races at the top.

So if a person is darker, lighter, has different hair color, or whatever they are a different race? Which populations in the countries of the various studies you have referenced are of a pure individual race? 

 

Different genes come from different time periods and different mutations were inherited by different populations. Which of these are you claiming is responsible for race and which genes responsible for different cognitive ability by race? 

[Sammy Boy]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So if a person is darker, lighter, has different hair color, or whatever they are a different race?

No

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Which populations in the countries of the various studies you have referenced are of a pure individual race? 

None

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Different genes come from different time periods and different mutations were inherited by different populations. Which of these are you claiming is responsible for race

All of them

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

and which genes responsible for different cognitive ability by race? 

Some of them

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you say so. 

Who needs peer reviewed assessments when one has self confidence....or rather it that one with confidence can accept review? I don't know; must be one of them.