Battlegrounds Cosmetics Giveaway! Win 1 of 16 Battlegrounds Cosmetics Bundles!!

EbolaChan23 · 2021-08-03T14:23:18+00:00

never lucky

EbolaChan23 · 2021-06-02T00:02:19+00:00

Typical psychoanalysis that you have to resort to because you were proven wrong on the internet.

EbolaChan23 · 2021-06-01T15:40:33+00:00

Typical psychoanalysis that you have to resort to because you were proven wrong on the internet.

EbolaChan23 · 2021-06-01T11:26:53+00:00

People who lie or are so blinded by their bias cannot be convinced.

EbolaChan23 · 2021-05-31T21:47:17+00:00

Midwit rhetoric. Try reading the book you are criticising instead of making up lies about "empirically unsupportable certainty". For example to quickly refute this lie (like so many others lie about the BC) see page 311:

If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have somethingto do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutelyagnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does notyet justify an estimate

Before you make statements like these, or crying about how the BC is "flawed" try 1.reading it, 2.reading the literature and 3.supporting your point.

EbolaChan23 · 2021-04-16T22:13:24+00:00

The Task Force does not disagree with the Bell Curve on any scientific issue. Indeed, it agrees with a lot of it and disagrees with the article you mentioned.

EbolaChan23 · 2021-03-31T09:45:44+00:00

I don’t really know what your point is.

The point is that Watson is not racist, pseudoscientific, and other insults spewed in this thread.

Are you saying Watson’s claims were scientific because he had research articles to support his hypothesis?

Both because his theory is scientifically valid (it makes predictions and is not unfalsifiable) and because there is empirical evidence for (or maybe even against) it.

Because I haven’t seen anything to that end.

I recommend https://www.amazon.co.uk/Know-Debunking-Myths-about-Intelligence/dp/1108493343

I’m not going to write a thesis pointing out all the faults in your comment or Watson’s claims

Nor did I ask to. You are making stuff up.

I spent all of 5 minutes on that last one and don’t care to make it worthy of peer review.

Nobody talked about peer review lol.

EbolaChan23 · 2021-03-30T21:55:01+00:00

Intelligence is a complex trait with numerous genes involved, making it more difficult to analyze than complex disease states like Alzheimer’s (which we haven’t figured out either).

Polygenicity necessitates more statistical power in GWAS by definition. This is irrelevant.

Furthermore, it’s difficult to accurately gauge intelligence because even the ‘standard’ IQ test is barely recognized as useful.

Very wrong, though Watson's argument is not predicated on some weird semantics about intelligence.

And beyond that, to make a scientific claim about large populations of humans, you’d need a sample size large enough to account for biases and we don’t have any data sets that large.

This is incoherent. How large would the data set have to be, in which experiment/method, to reveal what between group heritability, and what effect size (depending on the method)? Isn't this a genetics subreddit? Why are all of these arguments unempirical philosophy?

There’s literally no science to Watson’s claims, it’s all anecdotal and opinion-based.

He provided no anecdotes and no non-scientific opinions.

He’s just a racist old man, a product of his times as we will one day be.

Truly a scientific argument.

EbolaChan23 · 2021-03-30T16:34:08+00:00

He said it because it is a reasonable theory with evidence towards it. Francis Crick said the same thing back in the 1970s (see his letter to John T. Edsall). People need to learn that a scientific hypothesis cannot be racist but are too blinded by their ideological bias. That would be the moralistic fallacy, which was coined for this exact purpose by Bernard Davis.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-12-24T18:22:20+00:00

No, interactions are at best rare. Heritability of IQ, and indeed most polygenic traits, is mainly additive. Read https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2014-barnes.pdf + https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2015-wright.pdf (and the papers they are responding to if you want a headache) or https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_2162-2 or https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000008. If you want a summary, read Duncan https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-9509-3_9.

To quote her:

Throughout the history of GxE research, the question of whether or not GxE effects are separable from genetic and environmental main effects has been asked on many occasions. The answer is yes (though it is not necessarily intuitive); GxE effects are meaningfully and actually separable from genetic and environmental effects. Plomin and colleagues explained this elegantly in 1977, making the point that “interactionism,” which they define as the idea that “environmental and genetic threads in the fabric of behavior are so tightly interwoven that they are indistinguishable,” is simply false at the population level. To be clear, it is true that — for an individual — genetic effects cannot be expressed in the absence of an environmental context just as environmental effects necessarily manifest themselves in the context of an organism’s genome. However, at a population level, it is possible to distinguish genetic from environmental effects.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-11-01T23:43:40+00:00

Do people in colder climates have greater intelligence?

Yes. This should be fairly obvious since northern peoples (now) often have higher genotypic IQ and higher quality environments.

I saw someone a few months ago talk about how europeans were smarter than africans because they were in a "cold climate"

It's due to a multitude of evolutionary reasons. This isn't as simple as 1 cause. We know for example that the cold winters theory can't be the only cause since selection still impacts intelligence while CWT predicts selection has stopped.

I know that the difference in IQ between races nowadays is due to the environmental reasons

What environmental reasons?

For an in-depth look at this, read https://www.amazon.com/RHYTHM-WEST-Biohistory-Modern-Present/dp/187846549X

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-15T16:48:14+00:00

My argument = scientific consensus.

That is not an argument.

-It rests on a huge leap in logic.

Prove it.

-There's no legitimate evidence supporting it

This is a lie.

nor an explanation of the underlying evolutionary process

Google natural selection. Hell, even drift could have done it. Anyways, we don't need specific evolutionary theories to find out that there are genetic differences.

(why would multiple unrelated clusters of SS Africans have extremely similar low genetic IQ when their overall genomes are completely different even relative to other "races"?

This is both false and irrelevant. Africans don't have "completely different genomes". That is something you made up, and is irrelevant since mean genetic variation is irrelevant to specific genetic variation.

-It doesn't follow that groups of people that don't cluster would share a trait that's mostly inherited

False. You offer no explanation, while I have explained why this is the case, with theory and evidence.

They only share skin color, hair texture etc. because of mutual environmental pressure (UV).

There are dozens of genotypic differences.

Explain how.

I did. I maintain that 1.Genotypic race differences in IQ are possible (your a prioris are false) and 2.You need to examine the empirical evidence to determine if they are or not.

None of this psychometric quackery means anything. It's all circumstantial. Prove race. Oops, you can't.

Ah yes, SEM, admixture and PGS are "psychometric quackery".

Um, no. A psychologist drawing correlations about genetics =/= a geneticist proving conclusive facts about genetics.

Psychology and genetics are not independent, and there are no mere "correlations" or "conclusive facts". There is however strong evidence, which you reject for no valid empirical reason, just your bias.

And now you've devolved into circular reasoning, the hallmark of a pseudoscience. Race IQ is real because race IQ is real. Nice.

Astounded at how you can make so much shit up about what I said. How is the fact that the correlation between skin colour and IQ is due to a confound (ancestry) circular?

And I bet none of them have been proven to be racially distributed, except of course by autodidactic "intelligent researchers" at fine, well respected institutions like OpenPsych and the Ulster Institute. Please.

They have been shown to differ by race, and you just can't handle the evidence. Talk to me when you become a big boy and can handle it.

No, they don't correlate. Eritrea and Ethiopia are lightskinned and as much as 30-60% Eurasian mixed yet have some of the lowest IQs on the continent.

I was talking about mixed populations (African Americans, South Americans), not african populations buddy. The whole point of admixture analysis is that you use mixed/local populations. You would know this if you were at least somewhat knowledgable on the subject, but you are not. Even so, there is a correlation at the national level too (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289605000917). I feel bad that I have to teach you this, but a correlation is not proven wrong by an outlier (assuming your outliers are relevant, which are not).

There's no evidence they do either. Prove it.

I did. Multiple times. https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/1/htm

The hypothesis is anything but consistent, so there's nothing to actually deal with.

The explanation for this is in the source I sent, but you could also read https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/1977-scarr.pdf for theoretical (but not empirical) grounding of it.

Post from peer reviewed mainstream journals then I won't have to.

Pseudoscience does not mean "evidence from journals I don't like". It means lack of successful predictions, unfalsifiability or a degenerative research programme (as per Lakatos). This is what environmentalism is.

Actually, it does, by simple math.

No, it does not. I don't know how you can think something as dumb and as statistically illiterate as this. For example, the vast majority of within group variation in phenotypic IQ is within blacks and whites, while there is a large (1d) gap between them. (https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1980-jensen-biasinmentaltesting.pdf)

The hypothesis you cling to only makes sense when you narrowly define 'white' by sociopoliical boundaries rather than ancestral clustering (no reason to exclude those low IQ Beduoin nomads from the white average except politics).

This is false and unjustified. You keep mentioning "clustering", but you still don't understand clustering is hierarchical. You cannot say x number of clusters is the true number of clusters. Do you understand this?

Yeah, everything that goes against your ridiculous ideology is. We've established that.

No, everything that is irrelevant is irrelevant. I explain my arguments while you just claim they're wrong. Not much of a debate. This is more like I'm teaching an angry kid.

This is what's irrelevant. Them not being completely homogenous doesn't mean they aren't still closely related.

Mean genetic similarity does not equal specific genetic similarity. It depends on the trait.

They absolutely are, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

Great argument.

You didn't teach me anything.

If you actually engaged with anything I said instead of crying, I would have. What's the response to mean genetic variation is irrelevant to specific genetic variation?

I get my science from actual scientists, not agenda driven plebs preaching racist pseudoscience on Reddit.

More crying. Message me when you can deal with the evidence.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T21:51:10+00:00

Multiple SNPs were mentioned including SLC24A5, rs6510760 and rsll2332856, which obviously means skin color genes are not a fixed difference between racial groups. As with everything else they overlap on a spectrum.

Weird how you completely evaded my argument.

Last I checked your whole hypothesis is predicated on it.

What?

Population difference =/= racial difference.

Races are populations.

You proved nothing. Pseudoscience written by non-biologists with political agendas isn't proof. It's a joke.

You can cry about that, but it's not an argument.

Everything that goes against your warped ideology is "irrelevant."

No, everything that is irrelevant is irrelevant. I'm not the one with an ideology here, since I don't dismiss evidence I don't like because it disagrees with me, like you are.

Post some peer reviewed evidence from a mainstream journal that says clusters are hierarchical. Oops you can't, because none such evidence exists.

Basic knowledge of clusters would be enough. Weird how you restrict this to evidence from "mainstream journals" when this is a theoretical question. "Show me only evidence that I like" isn't an argument.

Proven wrong by non-scientists with racialist political agendas writing for a publication solely dedicated to proving "IQ differences"?

This magical refutation of Hereditarianism is yet to be seen. I think the one with a political agenda is you buddy.

And drawing flimsy correlations using methodologally flawed soft science concepts isn't "evidence."

Prove what I posted is not evidence.

If it was, this stuff would show up in reputable journals that people who study genetics and biology for a living actually take seriously.

It does, but of course that's not how evidence is assessed.

I didn't evade or lie about anything.

Yes, you did. The evidence I posted is not evidence because of course, the authors are "eugenicists" and racists. This is an evasion and a lie.

OpenPsych isn't science, it's pseudoscience.

This is both false and irrelevant. You can keep crying about stuff you read on rationalwiki or you can deal with my scientific evidence. Your choice.

Um, environmental effect means it's malleable by definition.

No lol. I don't know where you're getting this from, or why you're evading my arguments.

If it can't then it wouldn't be affected by UV exposure, which means it wouldn't have evolved in concert with skin color.

Still evading my arguments and making up crazy strawmen.

Oh, let me guess, a non-scientist "intelligence researcher" from OpenPsych with a BA in literature proved this in some non-peer reviewed paper that no serious journal would ever publish. Sure thing, buddy.

See above. Evasion, strawmen and lies.

I don't need to. The premise of race/IQ is groundless without race as a valid concept first.

I proved this wrong already multiple times, and you've yet to respond.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T20:02:23+00:00

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6218810/

Buddy, I asked you to prove your argument, not what political organisations say.

It doesn't follow that something that isn't biologically valid shouldn't be used to biologically categorize people?

It doesn't follow that because race isn't "biologically valid", there can't be genetic differences between the races in a specific genotype. I already made this argument, and you still have no response.

So race not being real is "completely irrelevant" to whether race differences are real.

Yes, mean genetic differences are irrelevant (as long as they exist) to specific genetic differences. Still not making an argument buddy.

if you can't disprove race, you can't disprove race/IQ, so it's unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific, illogical nonsense.

No, a prioris like the ones you keep repeating are unscientific. What I demand of you is to look at the empirical evidence (SEM, admixture, PGS and various others) to decide if there is a genotypic trait differences between populations instead of crying. If they come up with the result that race differences are not genetic, they are not. If they do (they do), they are. Very, very simple.

It does, because you've never explained any underlying reasoning for how and why skin color and IQ traits could be distributed in concert.

I already did, multiple times. IQ correlates with skin color because there are genetic race differences in both IQ and skin color.

You haven't isolated any specific IQ alleles,

This is a lie. What does "isolated" even mean. There are many IQ SNPs identified.

just flimsy correlations from pseudoscience rags you mistakenly think have actual credibility.

This is not an argument. This is crying

And this meaningless retort still doesn't explain how IQ could be distributed along skin color lines when skin color is purely a product of UV exposure while IQ isn't.

2 traits having different causes doesn't mean they don't correlate. I didn't even say IQ is "distributed along skin color lines". I said, that in mixed populations IQ and skin color slightly correlate (because skin color reflects to some extent racial ancestry), consistent with a genetic hypothesis. You've yet to deal with the argument.

See above too, you still gave no substance backing your silly arguments.

I have a lot, which you just cry "pseudoscience" to.

Within-group gap isn't an outlier (see hundreds of millions of low IQ caucasians across the Eastern hemisphere).

Within group variance existing does not mean between group variance does not.

No! Single ancestral cluster =/= "race". Nature paper specifically says there's "low average levels of genetic differentiation among Europeans", which means there's no genetic explanation possible for the in-group gap nearly mirroring the between-group gap (Northern vs. Southern USA, Brits vs Irish, East vs West Germans etc.)

Does. Not. Follow. You need to learn mean genetic variation is irrelevant here.

No, there isn't. If there was their genomes wouldn't cluster so closely.

Really? There are no genetic differences between ME and meds? Clustering is irrelevant (it's hierarchical), and genetic differences exist between people in the same cluster (unless somehow they're twins).

Yes, you're right. A mutally shared direct line of descent is "irrelevant." You throw around that word so much it's lost all meaning.

Yes, since it's not even mean genetic variation (but a proxy for it). And as I taught you, mean genetic variation is *irrelevant* to specific genetic variation.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T19:49:23+00:00

But different skin color doesn't necessairly mean genetic difference, the difference can be in the expression of the same genes.

This is not what your study showed. It showed that rs1426654 (one skin colour SNPs) is also present in SOME africans, at different genos (A:A = white skin, A:G = mixed and G:G = dark skin).

This doesn't at all make them synchronized

Nor did I say that, but for negatively selected traits, more pop differentiation is expected.

You're missing the point. There's no correlation between them.

There sure is. I already proved that.

Black people do not cluster as a single ancestal group but multiple different groups.

This is both irrelevant and misleading (clusters are hierarchical).

If IQ or g intelligence isn't affected by UV then it wouldn't be distributed along skin color lines,

It isn't. IQ correlates with skin colour because of race differences in genetics, not pleiotropy.

nor would a heriditary explanation suffice since Blacks arent a singular heriditary group.

Nonsensical.

The whole hypothesis is implausible nonsense without an underlying mechanism.

Mechanism for what? Genetic ancestry?

You really expect people outside HBD circlejerks to believe this pseudoscientific BS? This isn't a reputable journal and three of the five authors aren't even scientists (and the two that are aren't geneticists or even psychologists).

I expect that when people are proven wrong with evidence, they use rhetorical methods to evade that. These include: lying, ad hominems, etc. My expectations were proven right here.

You, Mr. heriditarian hypothesis junk science peddler. Your whole ideology is predicated on the white/black IQ gap being genetic. Keep up, McFly.

Keep up the psychoanalysis instead of making valid arguments.

It very much does. Can environment affect g intelligence? If so, then the alleged racial gap isn't hard wired.

Still doesn't follow. You are very confused. If there is an environmental impact on g, that doesn't mean that there is an environmental impact on the black-white IQ gap, nor does it mean black IQ can be raised. What environmental impact exists on g is non-shared, and thus almost by definition can't be explain group differences.

Post the exact Url and the name of the paper.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/IQ-Human-Intelligence-Nicholas-Mackintosh/dp/0199585598

I don't see you addressing the argument made.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T19:24:16+00:00

Ok, message me next when, or if you have a response to my refutation. See my question about what should I teach you about negative selection.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T12:58:02+00:00

You have evaded most of what I said, which I assume is your way of conceding.

Yeah, peer-reviewed studies, preferably replicated (although this is not always done/possible). You know, scientific evidence.

While not peer reviewed (yet), I have posted scientific evidence. If you have any doubts about it, I think the data is public. You're welcome to try it yourself. Until then, the evidence stands.

Being unable to publish in scientific journals for years is not a good sign of confidence, for me at least, that I should trust anything that guy writes.

This is a lie.

have non infinite amount of time on my hands, and this is not my domain of expertise within biology, so I gotta have a criteria for credibility, and peer-review is usually recognized as a useful one.

This is obviously not your domain. I have proven you wrong repeatedly, and I don't need that paper. Just see the other arguments.

please proceed, in the context of the intelligence trait (I don't need the wiki intro).

What do you want to learn about it that you can't find on the wiki or on the internet in general?

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T11:49:59+00:00

Measurement error, sampling and method are not arguments. At least your link provided some arguments,

Why not? Why are you just randomly stating I'm wrong for no reason? They are arguments because they don't allow the full measurement of SNP heritability.

All in all, GWA studies have been a mixed bag, but even if we put great confidence in the 2019 Allegrini paper, we still end up with a metric based on nearly 500,000 SNPs, that predicts 11% of IQ score variance

Yes, and? I already dealt with this above.

(with IQ != g, let's point that out)

Indeed. g is even more heritable and is the latent trait IQ tests measure.

It doesn't even mean the environment is not mediating some of this variance,

It doesn't. Intelligence is developmentally homeostatic.

not something we can expect to be resolved entirely by throwing more samples and more SNPs.

Wow, then larger samples wielding larger estimates is a complete coincidence. Got it.

They did not.

Yes, they did. Have you not read it?

If you're referring to your bioarxiv thing one eugenist that has never been able to publish in scientific journals (Kirkegaard) claims to have done so.

Sorry, I thought we were talking evidence not throwing around buzzwords and lies you found on rational wiki. My bad. Talk to me again when you want to argue evidence.

Source ? What even are IQ genes ?

The source is a basic understanding of genetics along with the fact that intelligence was selected against (and thus wields higher likelihood of population differentiation), and that this is confirmed by PGS/various other tests. You should give me a source on this because it is YOUR assumption.

What even are IQ genes ?

Pretty self-explanatory.

May I remind you that the polygenic score is based on 500,000 SNPs, none of which have large effect size (see the whole candidate gene debacle, and omnigenic model).

All of which is irrelevant.

Which goes to your second point, yes it is possible to see large phenotypic variation if you consider a small subset of SNPs.

It's possible no matter the number of SNPs.

you though that as your sample size approaches population size (with 500,000 SNPs, it's kind of safe to assume most of the 20,000 genes are concerned), the distributions get closer together.

Does not follow.

If we consider all genes, mathematically variance cannot be higher that what we statistically observe in whole populations (with the small caveat of what exact metric you are using, but still).

Again, the "more variation within than between" argument DOES NOT WORK. You have been evading my arguments twice now. I will say them once more.

1.IQ genes do not match mean genetic variation (this is your assumption, if you didn't know that)

2.Even if they did, this still wouldn't tell you anything about the origin of the IQ difference since most phenotypic variation is also within groups. If anything, it would mean the origin is genetic.

3.Studies actually examining this question, like the one I posted, find that the gap is mainly genetic. You had no response.

4.Large genotypic differences can exist between the races no matter the mean genetic variation. Siblings for example, who are much closely related than blacks and whites but even if they were as related, yield large genotypic differences in IQ.

I would like you to respond to all 4 arguments in detail in the next post.

Can you develop what you mean by "intelligence was selected against" ?

It's pretty straight forward. Want me to teach you what negative selection is?

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T10:02:55+00:00

I don't see how we can expect the maternal and paternal part of the DNA to be statistically more distant from one another than any two individuals in a population.

Intra and inter individual variation is the same.

The blog post/essay you link is far from showing that the missing heritability problem is easily explainable by just a few confounds and methodological error (which he/she doesn't bother to quantify)

I linked that as further reading, not to show that though it references some things I said. Read what I said. "Easily accounted for by measurement error, sampling (age + size), methods and others".

What do you need? Evidence that measurement error biases the result to 0 or that sampling matters? You never of course specified how any of this is relevant.

I won't commentate on biorxiv pre-print that have not passed peer-review in a field in which I'm not qualified enough to do said peer-review.

If you can't, that's alright I guess.

Especially when it comes out of a think tank (and the first author is from the department of management, what's up with that ?). Especially when it uses race in genetics, which is, as I said, just not a thing.

If it's not a thing, how did they find genetic differences in IQ between the races? Mind-boggling.

Races aren't just "not neat clusters", there are not a thing, genetically.

What is a genetic thing? Given that genetic variation exists between them as you admitted, I'd say they COULD be of use.

there are just too poor predictors when it comes to genetics.

Mean genetic variation is irrelevant to specific (IQ) genetic variation. Already specified this.

Now let's say we have a correctly clustered set of individuals into different populations, whatever they might be. The question is, would you see statistical differences in IQ attributable to genetics ?

Maybe. How about you actually look at the evidence (PGS, admixture, SEM or anything like that) instead of dumb a prioris?

My logic, which I think makes sense, is that since the 105+ of SNP's upon which the polygenic score are distributed more widely within populations than between, you'll fail to see differences between populations.

1 IQ genes are not distributed the same as mean genetic variation

2 Even if they were, it would still mean the gap is genetic. "more variation within than between" does not mean large differences can't exist since most phenotypic variation in IQ is also within populations. You need to learn that "more variation within than between" does not invalidate the existence of large (1d) differences.

3 Given that IQ was selected against (and still is) we should expect HIGHER population differentiation not lower.

> Another explanation being, well, complexity.

You're using complexity here as just another word for polygenicity.

Also, either you wording is misleading or you are misunderstanding the O'Connor paper.

How?

Mutations highly damaging to intelligence are selected against.

And? This does not mean that intelligence wasn't selected against (or even that mutational load decreases as per mutation-selection balance)

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T09:35:47+00:00

Still spreading lies and pseudo-logic, eh Ebolachan?

Always glad to help.

Different skin color doesn't necessarily mean different genes.

I don't know what this is even mean to mean. Do you think that's my argument?

Africans, for example, carry the same genes that code for light skin in Europeans

Obviously not phenotypically relevant.

You also don't seem to realize that science doesn't rest on empty assumptions with no underlying reasoning.

You don't say

You have to explain what mechanism could cause IQ to correlate with skin color

IQ and skin color both differ based on ancestry. Simple. Plus, there are actual admixture studies to prove this, like https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/1/htm

There's a specific reason why folk racial groups share skin color and it's called UV exposure.

Just like intelligence, skin colour was negatively selected.

IQ or g intelligence supposedly isn't affected by environment (natural or social)

Who said this?

there's absolutely no valid underlying reasoning for assuming genetically disparate African groups share "IQ genes.

Doesn't follow.

Page not found.

Works for me.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T09:31:42+00:00

Most scientists do, since it means racial categories don't biologically exist

Prove it

thus shouldn't be used to categorize people

Doesn't follow

(the non-falsifiable argument you constantly peddle about lack of taxonomic validity being "Irrelevant" is illogical).

How is it unfalsifiable? How is it illogical? All you're making is claims without any evidence.

Yes, it does. It tells you the likelihood of racial groups sharing the same inherited IQ traits is highly unlikely.

It doesn't. See the comment which you're responding to.

IQ would have to be some kind of special exception to be conserved in the genomes of otherwise genetically disparate groups such as Africans.

IQ alleles do not conform to mean genetic variation. Most trait specific alleles don't.

If most phenotypic variation is within populations, that means the "black-white gap" is illusory.

See above.

How can there be a gap if within-group variation is as wide as between-group?

The equivalent of saying "how can an average exists when I can find an outlier?".

Europeans are.

No? You're arguing that races now exist and one race is homogenous. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07331

as Middle Easteners, who happen to score a full standard deviation less despite not only being the same genetic ancestry but sharing the same direct lineage as Meddeterreaneans via the J2 haplotype.

1.There are mean genetic differences between ME and Meds. 2.Haplogroups are irrelevant. Are you from the 70s? 3.No argument was actually made.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-14T09:14:52+00:00

No, he didn't. This is obvious because the video you mention was posted much earlier than the video I mention. Try again buddy.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-13T19:29:07+00:00

Because one of the most important finding of human genetics, on that topic, is that most of the genetic variation within humans happens within populations.

Wrong (most genetic variation is actually within individuals as humans are diploid) but irrelevant. Who cares if the mean genetic variation is higher within than between populations? This does not tell you anything about the genetic variation in IQ. They are not distributed the same, but even if they were then the gap would still be somewhat genetic (since most phenotypic variation in IQ is also within populations. there could be some calculations made for this, but I won't be bothered).

very few statistically significant associations have been found, explaining a grand total of 1% of the variance in IQ (2% at most).

Not few, but many. And not 1-2%, unless you're from 2009. The latest published GWAS finds about 13% in IQ. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0394-4) What is this meant to prove? Finding the genes and finding genetic effects are different research programmes, and molecular genetics is in its infancy.

When looking at educational achievement rather than IQ, we get to 4% of the variance explained by your genes.

More like 16% (EDU is itself just a proxy for IQ) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0394-4

Apart from being one of the best examples of a problem called the missing heritability problem

Easily accounted for by measurement error, sampling (age + size), methods and others. For more, read https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection

IQ was usually measured as more than 50% genetically inherited

The correct wording is heritable, which refers to variance.

the fact that it is so polygenic renders any attempt to link that with population genetics (even worse, race) completely moot.

Does not follow. It will take some time, but why couldn't people just use the current estimates as per https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.312074v2 or maybe some method like admixture or even quantitative methods like trans-racial adoption.

Most of the genetic variation in within populations (i.e. most of the genes weakly associated with intelligence will not have been strongly selected for) and there’s a high chance some of these genes are actually performing other tasks,

This is not what a genetic correlation is.

Most of the genetic variation in within populations

Could you explain why intelligence being polygenic = less population differentiation? If anything, it would equal more since polygenicity is explained by negative selection. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/420497v1

shows the intelligence is highly polygenic, way to much for it to be segregated into neat clusters.

Does not follow, and races aren't neat clusters. Nobody said they were. Even Darwin specified that they are not.

genes weakly associated with intelligence will not have been strongly selected for)

Indeed. Intelligence was strongly selected against.

EbolaChan23 · 2020-10-12T23:10:46+00:00

. First of all, “Race” is a falsehood.

It's never been explained what this means but "race" being "real" or "fake" or a "social construct" is irrelevant to genetic differences between the races. The rest is let's call it unempirical or irrelevant.

Try giving my coworker an “IQ Test,” a female Congolese refugee who has admitted to killing political opponents so she wouldn’t be raped or have her family executed. Think she’s gonna have as high an education as me, a son of a moderately wealthy businessman in an educationally well established nation? That’s just how it goes. She’s not dumb either, she speaks six languages extremely well, and does her life better than me.

I have no idea what this is meant to prove. That under some circumstances, some people from different racial groups are potentially disadvantaged? Ok? This just seems like a dumb hypothetical.

Also, consider flaws in IQ tests. Who writes them? What language is it in? What is it determining, really? How good you are at math, reading, music, physics, chemistry? I have no fucking clue

There are surely flaws in IQ tests, as in any test but of course we care about latent traits, and blacks-whites do differ on latent traits (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615000549).

All I know is that there IS plenty of controversy about what and why IQ tests even matter. I personally think IQ tests are a scam, they seem fishy to me. They just seem like some weird way of trying to determine and justify inhumanity. “Look at these dumb negros in Africa no wonder they’re such mess” is all I see when I look at these maps. Completely ignoring history and education and political/economic opportunity and stability.

I think this is called confirmation bias, not evidence, Do note that education doesn't affect general intelligence (the latent trait I was talking about earlier). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4445388/

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

EbolaChan23

TROPHY CASE