Genetics and IQ.

[Ancalagon44]

I never understood why people can agree our genetics plays a role in everything except intelligence. We aren't all born equal. But can a healthy learning environment produce results for somebody with deficient intelligence genes? I'd like to believe so.

Because the lovey dovey political correctness believes everyone is equal and there are no losers. You should get awards just for trying because everyone is special in their own, unique way.

However, that being said, I don't think there is much utility in inferring intelligence from race. It doesn't do anything useful for you. What would being able to predict the intelligence of an individual based upon his race help you with? If you want to help that person choose a career, then just get them to do an aptitude test.

Scientifically though I think it is completely plausible and even likely. Consider this - when we talk about dog breeds, we talk about different dog breeds having different temperaments and intelligence levels. There are even laws banning particular dog breeds based upon their temperament as predicted by their genetics. For instance, we cannot guarantee that every single Pit Bull will be a vicious killer, but because the probability is higher than governments are willing to accept, they are banned in quite a few countries.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Poor Equatorial Guinea. Almost everyone there is retarded.

 

[dank69]

I never understood why people can agree our genetics plays a role in everything except intelligence. We aren't all born equal. But can a healthy learning environment produce results for somebody with deficient intelligence genes? I'd like to believe so.

I'm pretty sure it's been agreed upon that genetics and environment play roughly equal roles in determining intelligence. The exceptions are extreme environment factors that can drastically reduce intelligence. Everything from nutritional and/or chemical factors and even extreme emotional/mental abuse can override genetics pretty easily.

 

[alzan]

I respectfully disagree.

The opening post includes a world iq over time chart. The chart corresponds with advances in health technology.

All these kids with autism would probably have never made it in the stone age. They try to play with the kitty, and get their head ripped off by a tiger.

Kids without autism wouldn't make it in the stone age either.

Were there cats the size of today's house cats in the Stone Age? You know, I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure prehistoric children were kept well away from saber-toothed tigers, wooly mammoths, etc.

 

[Spungo]

No one disputes that your genes predispose you to your physical characteristics, height, eye color, strength, etc.. I dont see why its taboo to say that intelligence is part of that mix as well.

Saying American black men are taller than American white men = RACIST!
Saying men are taller than women = SEXIST!
Saying men have penises = GENDER STEREOTYPING!

The problem is that people suck at statistics and don't understand how probability works. If you said the median intelligence of group A was 3 points higher than the median intelligence of group B, people think that means all members of group A are smarter than all members of group B by 3 points. I remember quoting a stat like that about left handed people. Apparently, left handed people are statistically smarter than right handed people. Try to explain that to someone. It's impossible. People can't comprehend the concept of variability.

That's where these stats get dangerous. Stupid people start using them to justify racism. For example, a poor white man might complain about the economy being bad. A retard will say "you're white and have male privilege, so quit your bitching." So a stat saying white men typically get paid more than black women means there's no such thing as a a poor white man or a rich black woman? The same broken logic leads people to think all black people are criminals, all Asians are good at math, all ethnic Mexicans speak Spanish, all men are rapists, all women are trying to trap men through child support and alimony, and the list goes on.

Ironically, the people who don't understand statistics and would jump to racist conclusions are the ones saying the statistics are racist. I guess you could call that projected racism. Take something that is not racist, apply racism to it, say it's racist, and accuse others of being racist.
Democrats are notorious for this. A conservative will say something to the effect that all welfare should be cut off and poor people should be left to die. That's not a racist statement. IIRC, most people on welfare are white, so this policy would mostly kill white people. A democrat will apply a layer of racism to it by assuming most people on welfare are black, and they'll use that racist assumption to say the conservative is being racist.

 

[inachu]

Well how to get human to advanced in higher IQ?

Ban/Make illegal punishable by death the following:
Incest
Drugs known to lower IQ.

There was a research video on IQ many years ago and the reporter followed up on these children who were chosen because of their sperm donors were very smart.

The boy who is now an adult is so smart that he cries almost on a daily basis wishing he was normal IQ. He lives in a nice home in California on a mountain side.

 

[Spungo]

Well how to get human to advanced in higher IQ?

Ban/Make illegal punishable by death the following:
Incest
Drugs known to lower IQ.

Actually this would have the exact opposite effect.

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2...ople-love-drugs/45015/]smart people and drugs:

With over 40 years of research to support their findings, a team of British scientists was slightly surprised to learn that people with higher IQs are much more prone to drug use..
...
The results found that subjects that tested above average on IQ tests at age 5 were twice as likely to have done hard drugs within the past year, when asked at age 30. The smart kids weren't just smoking pot, either; the numbers suggest that they prefer cocaine and ecstasy.

Killing people who love drugs leaves you with a society of mindless drones.

 

[inachu]

Actually this would have the exact opposite effect.

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2...ople-love-drugs/45015/]smart people and drugs:


Killing people who love drugs leaves you with a society of mindless drones.

As if Timothy Leary truly benefitted from making friends with his purple people whose necks are on one side of the body!

heh.... yeah riiiiight.

 

[realibrad]

I'm pretty sure it's been agreed upon that genetics and environment play roughly equal roles in determining intelligence. The exceptions are extreme environment factors that can drastically reduce intelligence. Everything from nutritional and/or chemical factors and even extreme emotional/mental abuse can override genetics pretty easily.

Some people are born with brains that are horribly broken, that no amount of societal interactions can overcome. Some people are born with amazing brains that societal interactions can limit. Some people are born with amazing brains, and societal interactions allow the person to fully utilize its full potential.

As we learn more about evolution, we are coming up to some big questions. Little mutations can have huge impacts on people. And if those mutations are passed on, then its quite easy to see how different groups can get advantages.

Black people have Sickle Cell far more often than Europeans. The mutation that leads to this disease is only a problem, when a person inherits two abnormal copies of the haemoglobin gene. So, if mutation can cause something like this, why would we not believe mutations happen in the brain? They happened in the past, but suddenly brain mutations stop?

Its very possible that a mutation can happen, and it work its way into a groups breeding population. The idea that it does not happen is stupid.

 

[Spungo]

As if Timothy Leary truly benefitted from making friends with his purple people whose necks are on one side of the body!

heh.... yeah riiiiight.

Steve Jobs said taking acid was one of the defining moments of his life.

 

[zanejohnson]

the double edged sword sigh

i would say that most people i have met in life that i considered "highly intelligent," were active drug users, of the hard type.

i'm talking a very exclusive crowd too btw, there are two people i can think of off the top of my head of that i hold in that regard.

 

[gevorg]

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Racial genetic propensities? Say it isn't so!

 

[Zaap]

I never understood why people can agree our genetics plays a role in everything except intelligence.

I don't think it's so much that people don't agree with that. It's just when it gets broadly defined with too wide a brush based on race that the notion gets dicey.

I mean gee, I can't think of too much horrible that's happened in this world based on misguided broad-brush notions of genetics and race mixed together in terrible ways...

 

[Exophase]

No one disputes that your genes predispose you to your physical characteristics, height, eye color, strength, etc.. I dont see why its taboo to say that intelligence is part of that mix as well.

Groups of people are different on average. There are also a lot of differences within the group. It's dangerous when we let averages prejudice how we view individuals.

And that's the thing with physical appearances vs intelligence. You will immediately notice if someone is tall no matter how much you expected the person to not be. But if you assume they're unintelligent you're liable to never even let them demonstrate otherwise.

 

[alcoholbob]

I think professional sports and things like MMA make it obvious that our peak physical specimens are at a level never before seen in athletics. From what I've seen of younger generations, they too are getting smarter over time - or at least possess a greater range of knowledge than generations before did at their age.

Or scouting is getting better than ever. What about when there was a Colosseum in every major population center in the Roman empire. When combat sports are a culture and life style I imagine the number the physical specimens were more impressive back then.

As far as race studies and IQ, it's a radioactive subject in America and no university is going to fund research into it. So for now if Yahoo is 39% Asian but the population is only 5% Asian its just politically expedient to claim its institutional racism or social privelege.