Genetics and IQ.

[iGas]

James Watson selling Nobel prize 'because no-one wants to admit I exist'

Do you think James Watson is a racist?
I Google the results and articles on bell curve of genetics, and the result is some what interesting.

The Hispanic Asian Flynn Effect

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

 

[MongGrel]

Looks pretty questionable to me for several reasons.

 

[Zaap]

I don't believe in political correct bullshit, but I wouldn't go near this subject with a 20,000ft pole.

I'll just say I don't believe in any genetic link to race and IQ- but I do believe cultural influences enhance or dumb down IQ in ways that can be observed and possibly measured.

 

[iGas]

Perhaps it has more to do with living condition and upbringing that is hinted in the SAT Math graph from 81-92. IMHO, many Asians tend to enjoy flaunting theirs worldly possessions and life achievements. Therefore, many parents seems to force their children to accomplish more than they are so they can be brags at social gathering.

<-- Asian

 

[SheHateMe]

That guy on the last graph has a laser beam coming out of his eyes!




Oh...excuse me for not being able to keep focus on the subject matter. I'm black. :awe:





Btw, just a heads up...someone tried this before and that person no longer posts on this forum.

 

[Blanky]

The current trend in society is to assume without actual proof that any study showing racial differences in intelligence is wrong, even though there are many. People hate those studies' findings.

The one about men vs women seems interesting, if true.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

James Watson selling Nobel prize 'because no-one wants to admit I exist'

Do you think James Watson is a racist?
I Google the results and articles on bell curve of genetics, and the result is some what interesting.

The Hispanic Asian Flynn Effect

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

pics

 

[Jaskalas]

It's a simple, undisputed fact. That there are differences between groups of people separated for thousands of years.

It is good, due to our poor instinct of attacking different people, that we're working to integrate. It is unfortunate that we carry those who wish to remain ignorant of the true nature of things, and wish to bury the full scope of differences that we are working to overcome.

Any act to suppress knowledge may come back to harm or hold us back later.

 

[Texashiker]

Do you think James Watson is a racist?

I Google the results and articles on bell curve of genetics, and the result is some what interesting.

The truth does not fear investigation.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453562a.html

The genes for math skills are not present in the Cro-Magnon genome until after Cro-Magnon crossbred with neanderthal.

Since certain groups of humans do not have neanderthal genes, they do not have certain genes.

"That human mathematical intelligence came from Neanderthals? That's what the data say. The Cro-Magnons had the social skills. But that isn't all."

Genetics plays a large role in behavior and intelligence.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Idiocracy was a documentary....

 

[yllus]

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.

 

[Texashiker]

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.

When our ancestors were hunter gathers they put even the best athletes of today to shame.

This article is very interesting and well worth reading.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...potatoes-humans-through-6000-years-of-farming

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.

Define "smarter"?

With our modern schools kids are learning math, history and are being educated as never before.

But are todays kids smarter than a child 5,000 or 15,000 years ago? I am going to guess we are dumber today and in worse physical condition than before our ancestors moved from hunter gather to farmers.


I am not trying to be arugmentive. I just disagree that we are smarter or in better health today than we were 15,000 years ago.

 

[TheVrolok]

I am not trying to be arugmentive. I just disagree that we are smarter or in better health today than we were 15,000 years ago.

It's all relative, obviously. However, you're sitting there picturing all the peak physical condition farmers/hunters of that age and ignoring all the sickly people who were debilitated by ailments that are curable/manageable with today's medicine. Better health is certainly subjective. Did they weigh less on average with lower BMIs? I would say that very likely so. Healthier? I'm not so sure. For example; was the average 20 year old "healthier" then, than now (at least in the US)? Prrroooobbbbaally (I saw with a lot of caution), but the average 30-40 year old, I'd say the answer then is very likely not.

 

[Texashiker]

ignoring all the sickly people who were debilitated by ailments that are curable/manageable with today's medicine.

To a certain point modern medicine is polluting our gene pool with weakness.

Instead of a child developing cancer and dying, modern medicine saves his life for him to pass those bad genes down.

Modern medicine is a great thing, but we can not undue natural selection.

 

[master_shake_]

Idiocracy was a documentary....

fucking knew it.

 

[TheVrolok]

To a certain point modern medicine is polluting our gene pool with weakness.

Instead of a child developing cancer and dying, modern medicine saves his life for him to pass those bad genes down.

Modern medicine is a great thing, but we can not undue natural selection.

This is a different discussion altogether.

 

[Blanky]

When our ancestors were hunter gathers they put even the best athletes of today to shame.

This article is very interesting and well worth reading.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...potatoes-humans-through-6000-years-of-farming



Define "smarter"?

With our modern schools kids are learning math, history and are being educated as never before.

But are todays kids smarter than a child 5,000 or 15,000 years ago? I am going to guess we are dumber today and in worse physical condition than before our ancestors moved from hunter gather to farmers.


I am not trying to be arugmentive. I just disagree that we are smarter or in better health today than we were 15,000 years ago.

I think we are in better health because back in the day people were dying from all kinds of hilariously pathetic little illnesses that we barely take a day off work for now. Dental hygiene was a disaster (didn't exist), moderate injuries like a broken leg weren't dealt with properly, etc.

In terms of "physical fitness", we're much worse than we were just 50 years ago because most of us are overweight or fat.

Education is better for sure. A simple measure would be literacy. It's way up over a hundred years ago across virtually all demographics.

In terms of brute, genetic-predisposition intelligence, that's hard to say. It would be nigh impossible to measure now, but I would say it's probably better than it was a thousand years ago (slight preference to breeding among smarter people, as society moved toward more appreciation for knowledge work away from physical), but nowadays you see the stupidest in society tending to have the more children, and with the strong genetic component of intelligence, I would guess if you could accurately measure this you'd see that we're slightly, genetically, stupider than we were just 50 years ago. Basically, smart people are having less children than dumb.

 

[Blanky]

To a certain point modern medicine is polluting our gene pool with weakness.

Instead of a child developing cancer and dying, modern medicine saves his life for him to pass those bad genes down.

Modern medicine is a great thing, but we can not undue natural selection.

It's true. However, a less extreme example is polio or smallpox. Modern medicine has saved many of us from these, and although in a sense humanity is weaker, those are things we can quite easily deal with, so does it ultimately matter if we now have a population that is otherwise susceptible to these, since we can quite easily ensure we don't have prevalence of them?

In other words, if a single bee can kill me, but we kill all the bees, does it matter anymore? If we save a kid from cancer now and in 25 years he breeds his cancer-susceptible genes into another child, it's likely that his offspring will fare even better, with advances in medicine making his cancer significantly less severe.

 

[Texashiker]

This is a different discussion altogether.

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.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I don't know if that trend and projected trend are true or not, but if so it reminds me of this movie clip, staring Clevon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

 

[Slew Foot]

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.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

It's taboo because it leads to uncomfortable thoughts, like the notion that not everyone is born equal. People seem to be able to accept that some people are smarter and some dumber than others. However, the notion that genetics can play a factor in IQ offends people's dogmatic belief that everyone is born with equal intellectual capacity and can choose or at least be molded by their environment to be as intelligent as they want to be.

 

[OverVolt]

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.

That and solving seemingly simple problems like how to make an arrow out of sticks required lots of planning, observation, modification, etc.

 

[ralfy]

The problem is that there are different definitions of intelligence, such that the type of thinking skills that will allow a person to survive in an urban setting will likely not apply in the wilderness, and vice versa.

 

[Genx87]

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.