The Future of China?, Where India left in dust? Options

[AnybodyKiller]

A High IQ does not necessarily equate to high intelligence. For example, a child with a high intelligence but who is not exposed to maths, or cosmic science, or atomic physics, will never know about those sciences. Neither does someone with a high IQ be able to understand the differences of Christianity and Islam or Hinduism if he was not exposed to any of these philosophies. So intelligence is related to the accumulation of knowledge that has been acquired by that person and then if he is able to take cognisance of all these factors to evolve a final perception of ALL such information. Without the ability to inter-relate all this information, cognisance, the data is just fragmented information and does not constitute clear intelligence.

Thank you. The messed up part about it is if people who know this didn't correct people trying to correlate these IQ scores with innate "general" intelligence people would continue the misinformation, even knowing better, to suit race based political agendas.

Very well said too btw.

richasiankid

Like I said, just because malnutrition can stunt height; it does not therefore follow with equal nutrition populations will be equally tall or 6 feet tall. Period. It's an inconvenient fact, unless you think otherwise.

Furthermore if environment is so important (never mind 'education' explains education outcomes etc, re-read what you wrote yourself), it makes sense ancestral environment will also shape genes and gene frequencies downstream. Selection. By nature. Population differences can also be secondary to genetic differences which in turn are secondary from environmental selection simply because not every individual had an equal chance of reproduction. I see no reason why the brain - merely another organ much like our skin (and think of skin color) - should be exempt from selection during our course of hominid life-history.

About heights, they probably wouldn't be equal heights but environment does play an extremely important role in the development of height as well. In the past quarter century, historians have increasingly used average heights to assess health aspects of the standard of living. The average height for American men has gone up 3 inches from 1900 to 1950 due to better environmental factors. You're also comparing something elementary (measuring height) with something cutting-edge (measuring logistic function).

I was talking about IQ and intelligence tests when I said education effects them. They are often the tests attempting to measure innate intelligence, not PISA or any other tests you've mentioned. For PISA, grades etc. I could easily substitute 'education' for 'quality of education'.

"Population differences can also be secondary to genetic differences which in turn are secondary from environmental selection.".... In the bolded text are you suggesting people the same "race" genetically can be different races biologically? Genetic drift and the effects of selection are able to be measured by modern genetics by fixation index (distance) between populations and within populations. the Human Genome Project is completed now they need to define their functions. Genes and environment are intertwined. Your statement is false. Or maybe you just need to "clarify" again?

The brain wasn't exempt from selection, but a lot of what you are doing is misleading people to believe (while knowing better at that) that the color of the skin "organ" is in direct correlation with the innate logistic functions of the brain "organ". Blatant white power propaganda, easily disproven by mainstream science. The state of measuring brain function, as I've already shown, is very complicated. No scientists at present time can accurately measure any form of innate intelligence.

If they are ever capable of measuring innate logistic talent and other cognitive talents in my lifetime (and I think it will happen) I would be happy to learn which races are more predisposed to produce people with these talents. The most accurate aptitude test ever designed! Until then, I think it's important to remain unbiased and not get to eager with our theories and hypotheses. I will continue exposing falsehoods, due to ignorance or intentionally, accordingly.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Jan 31 2012, 02:38 PM

[oolong]

NBA is filled with black players.You dont see us b!tching about it.Truth is some races may just be better at taking IQ tests.You cant say all those tests are fake or misleading.

This post has been edited by oolong: Jan 31 2012, 09:47 PM

[AnybodyKiller]

NBA is filled with black players.You dont see us b!tching about it.Truth is some races may just be better at taking IQ tests.You cant say all those tests are fake or misleading.

Mark my words. You will start to see more Asian, white, Latin, mixed etc. NBA players in the future. It's already happening, look how many of the top 50 players you could say look more white than black even. Look at the increase of foreigners in the league. As basketball continues to globalize you will see American blacks become less dominant in the sport.

If you read my previous posts you will see that I do think that certain races are predisposed to produce individuals talented in certain areas more than others. At the same time, we must avoid blanket statements and stereotyping and judge based on a person to person basis. This also benefits the whole, for example a white player could be the next Larry Bird but because basketball is not a "white" sport he ends up a 2nd string pitcher in baseball. Therefore not reaching his true potential or potential "human capital" even. Would actually be quite beneficial to have tests that accurately measure peoples innate aptitudes IMO.

Welcome to AF btw.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Jan 31 2012, 11:31 PM

[richasiankid]

Some rhapsodise just how great India will thrive on multi-religious democracy (unlike Israel or mid east). Others fancy India becoming like HK or S'pore securing itself via English facility against evil Sinic hegemony.

But in the end it's a lesson where everything's sweet & swell India where it doesn't measure up, where it still can't even secure the basics and where human capital matters:

http://www.zshare.net/download/97642747c4df52c8/ (light end of tunnel; patience patience!)

PISA 2009 report for (against?) India?

Cities of India are still at the very very bottom, while cities like Shanghai are wowwing off the charts.

Yet another data point we're different.....

I reply to my OP in conclusion and thank posters for a lively discussion. I will also reply to a few loose ends, and add a couple points not previously raised on the exhibited huge China-India PISA gap.

First, in reply to a few posters whom I've neglected as they're side-points to PISA:

ElleX0 wrote:

The way humans behave towards one another today in the 21st century, perhaps it would be better if we revert back to the Chimp era of evolution. They have happier lives.

Actually not quite, primitive peoples are not so peaceful afterall.

ElleX0 also wrote:

A High IQ does not necessarily equate to high intelligence. For example, a child with a high intelligence but who is not exposed to maths, or cosmic science, or atomic physics, will never know about those sciences. Neither does someone with a high IQ be able to understand the differences of Christianity and Islam or Hinduism if he was not exposed to any of these philosophies. So intelligence is related to the accumulation of knowledge that has been acquired by that person and then if he is able to take cognisance of all these factors to evolve a final perception of ALL such information. Without the ability to inter-relate all this information, cognisance, the data is just fragmented information and does not constitute clear intelligence.

Quite true, what you're referring to is fluid vs crystallized intelligence. It's interesting, however, that NE Asians (Chinese, koreans, japanese) have always scored higher on the visuospatial/practical aspects of intelligence than the verbal parts (fluid and crystallized respectively), and as we learn how Intelligence tests highlight importance of genetic differences, "40% of the variation in knowledge (called "crystallised intelligence" by the researchers) and 51% of the variation in problem-solving skills ("fluid-type intelligence") between individuals could be accounted for by the differences in DNA. " [*] This means that, as I said before, as we equalize environment (welfare states, helping out the poor etc) as well as culture (globalization, increased exchange etc.) a greater and greater part of the residual cognitive differences may be attributed to innate or DNA difference factors.

Oolong wrote:

NBA is filled with black players.You dont see us b!tching about it.Truth is some races may just be better at taking IQ tests.You cant say all those tests are fake or misleading.

Very good point. Imagine if now people suddenly cry foul that basketball rules are arbitrary. Or that differences in NBA representations are somehow, ipso facto, evidence of bias.
Well, speak to sport coaches: more often than not they will probably say champions are born, not made. Same with differential population cognitive capital.

One more thing: why is it that measures of cognitive ability - be it IQ tests, or PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, SAT in America etc, always show the consistent pattern where East Asians > whites >> blacks. How is it that no one has or can devise a test that show all races and groups achieving the same in cognitive measurement? The evidence of population difference and diversity is overwhelming.


* * *

I also want to refer to one seductive point for far too many - that poverty explains a lot of differences of outcome, and in this case, PISA (and standardized test) scores. Here are a few facts:

First, a metaanalysis:

(Dotted line plot is when the outlier Mexico is removed)

Second, China was once much poorer than India. Note the log y-axis.

Yet China always had higher cognitive capital than India

* *

One more reflection:

Recall these PISA scores are for 15 year olds. Twenty years from now in 2030s these Chinese Shanghaiese will be full-fledged human-capital-rich citizens.

Alas, the same cannot be said of the Indian cohort.




---

[*] these are for individual differences; for population differences the random errors of measurements will cancel out decreasing the standard error. It may be less daunting to improve the outcome of an individual with an score 1 standard deviation below the mean; it is much more difficult to increase a whole population with a 1 SD difference. See the black-white gap in America for example. In the case of China - India at least in these selected cohorts, the gap is over 2 standard deviations.

(As side point and in the context of other gaps, it's practically intractable:

If somebody invented a magic bullet tomorrow that would somehow eliminate racial IQ disparities among all babies born from now on, measurable (though diminishing) gaps in the total population would still exist until everybody alive today is dead in the 22nd century.

Of course, no one has found anything close to a magic bullet.

And it may well be another case of the chicken-and-egg Matthew effect:

In the 40 years I’ve followed testing stats, the biggest change in American racial rankings has been that the cognitively rich have gotten richer: Asians are pulling away from whites on high-stakes tests. In California in 2009, there were 49 National Merit Semifinalists named Wang versus only seven Smiths and one Cohen.

Nature has given us a wonderful and colorful world of biodiversity.

We should celebrate it rather than suppress or deny our heritage.)

This post has been edited by richasiankid: Feb 1 2012, 12:38 AM

[AnybodyKiller]

Measured in Shanghai no doubt. There are reports of entire villages from 30-40 years ago in rural China with average IQs of 60 due to environmental factors including lack of nutrition (iodine specifically was studied in this case).

"As recently as the 1980s, researchers were finding entire villages just miles from Beijing where the average IQ was 60, well below the norm of 100. A third of villagers suffered from cretinism, a severe form of mental retardation that often involves stunted growth as well as loss of speech and hearing."
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/24/news/adfg-salt24

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug...es-intelligence
This link is very good though, I commend you for actually linking a modern study attempting to correlate SNPs with logistic intelligence. Saying that ~40% of our intelligence is heritable seems plausible, but I think that it is much more complicated than that (You have to pay to read the actual study so I didn't get to read it besides the abstract and a few segments 'pasted' elsewhere). The study is also NOT about differences within races, just that better memory and problem-solving skills are partly (but not wholly) linked to genetics.

I do believe that there is definitely "something" proved by this study but there were obvious question marks in whether they truly even correlated these SNPs with intelligence let alone proved causation. Based on the abstract and what I've found posted from the study elsewhere.

"They didn't deal with entire gene functionality - they looked at common SNPs that are in LD with unknown causal variant"

The method we have used here does not attempt to test the effects of single SNPs; rather, it tests their accumulated effects. It estimates the joint effect of genotyped SNPs and that effect reflects their LD with unknown causal variants. These variants are not necessarily common SNPs or, indeed, even SNPs; however, causal variants are in sufficient LD with the genotyped SNPs to be captured

We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation.

Obviously.

We Estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants.

Assumption. Not correlation. Snips usable for PRC, only one codon at best. Can't determine entire gene functionality with snip. Like said, vague correlation. Sensationalism.

From the actual study's 'abstract'

Environment can effect which genes are even expressed in the first place, but of course they won't include that because it weakens their study.

Again also this ignores the different aspects of intelligence. As one poster commented: "this begs the question, what is intelligence? Is it the ability to do mathematics? The ability to pick the winner of a horse race? The ability to persuade others to participate in sex? The ability to ignore a noisy neighbor without feeling bad? The ability to find more food than others? The ability to make people laugh? What is intelligence?"
Or which form of intelligence being measured is the better question. Logistic and verbal in this case.

It is awesome that we are starting to be able to find which SNPs could determine different traits. This study hasn't proved correlation between these SNPs and innate logistic intelligence let alone causation though. The article you cited changes the word "estimated" from the abstract to "found". Pretty much just confirmed what most already know, but sensationalized it to make it seem like they accomplished more than they did.

"We've got a century of twin and adoption studies," such as those comparing twins reared in different families, that support the notion that about half of IQ differences come from DNA, he said.

Plomin said this doesn't mean half of a person's intelligence is due to genes nor does such a genetic influence imply that a person's intelligence is fixed.

EDIT: Besides the Genomic study (Which doesn't even mention race by the way), everything else you've stated is (yet again) more of the same. If this is your hypothesis so be it, everyone is entitled to opinions. Don't try to pass it off as hard fact though, because all you have are theories.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Feb 1 2012, 02:34 AM

[richasiankid]

Measured in Shanghai no doubt. There are reports of entire villages from 30-40 years ago in rural China with average IQs of 60 due to environmental factors including lack of nutrition (iodine specifically was studied in this case).

"As recently as the 1980s, researchers were finding entire villages just miles from Beijing where the average IQ was 60, well below the norm of 100. A third of villagers suffered from cretinism, a severe form of mental retardation that often involves stunted growth as well as loss of speech and hearing."
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/24/news/adfg-salt24

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug...es-intelligence
This link is very good though, I commend you for actually linking a modern study attempting to correlate SNPs with logistic intelligence. Saying that ~40% of our intelligence is heritable seems plausible, but I think that it is much more complicated than that (You have to pay to read the actual study so I didn't get to read it besides the abstract and a few segments 'pasted' elsewhere). The study is also NOT about differences within races, just that better memory and problem-solving skills are partly (but not wholly) linked to genetics.

I do believe that there is definitely "something" proved by this study but there were obvious question marks in whether they truly even correlated these SNPs with intelligence let alone proved causation. Based on the abstract and what I've found posted from the study elsewhere.

"They didn't deal with entire gene functionality - they looked at common SNPs that are in LD with unknown causal variant"



From the actual study's 'abstract'

Environment can effect which genes are even expressed in the first place, but of course they won't include that because it weakens their study.

Again also this ignores the different aspects of intelligence. As one poster commented: "this begs the question, what is intelligence? Is it the ability to do mathematics? The ability to pick the winner of a horse race? The ability to persuade others to participate in sex? The ability to ignore a noisy neighbor without feeling bad? The ability to find more food than others? The ability to make people laugh? What is intelligence?"
Or which form of intelligence being measured is the better question. Logistic and verbal in this case.

It is awesome that we are starting to be able to find which SNPs could determine different traits. This study hasn't proved correlation between these SNPs and innate logistic intelligence let alone causation though. The article you cited changes the word "estimated" from the abstract to "found". Pretty much just confirmed what most already know, but sensationalized it to make it seem like they accomplished more than they did.





EDIT: Besides the Genomic study (Which doesn't even mention race by the way), everything else you've stated is (yet again) more of the same. If this is your hypothesis so be it, everyone is entitled to opinions. Don't try to pass it off as hard fact though, because all you have are theories.

Then I will state the same: just because malnutrition can stunt height does not mean populations willl be equally tall or 6 feet tall. And when environment is equalized residual differences will be even more - not less - attributed to non-malleable causes.

Period.

Or if you prefer a softer version: if environment is so important it also makes sense ancestral environment will also shape genes and gene frequencies downstream. Selection. By nature. Population differences can also be secondary to genetic differences which in turn are secondary from environmental selection simply because not every individual had an equal chance of reproduction. I see no reason why the brain - merely another organ much like our skin (and think of skin color) - should be exempt from selection during our course of hominid life-history.

One more: it takes only one SNP - just one - to make the difference between having or not having something as serious as sickle-cell anemia. Just one SNP makes a whole set of downstream differences. Good luck.

But we don't have to delve into such details do we? We are afterall 99.4% same as chimps as I said before. Please please don't tell us we're all suddenly almost all the same as chimps etc.

[AnybodyKiller]

Then I will state the same: just because malnutrition can stunt height does not mean populations willl be equally tall or 6 feet tall. And when environment is equalized residual differences will be even more - not less - attributed to non-malleable causes.

Period.

Of course but intelligence while heritable is not as fixed as height. Neuroplasticity, the ability of the brain and nervous system in all species to change structurally and functionally as a result of input from the environment. The mind is a muscle, height isn't.

Or if you prefer a softer version: if environment is so important it also makes sense ancestral environment will also shape genes and gene frequencies downstream. Selection. By nature. Population differences can also be secondary to genetic differences which in turn are secondary from environmental selection simply because not every individual had an equal chance of reproduction. I see no reason why the brain - merely another organ much like our skin (and think of skin color) - should be exempt from selection during our course of hominid life-history.

Isn't this exactly what you said two posts ago? In that case I'll repeat my response too

"Population differences can also be secondary to genetic differences which in turn are secondary from environmental selection.".... In the bolded text are you suggesting people the same "race" genetically can be different races biologically? Genetic drift and the effects of selection are able to be measured by modern genetics by fixation index (distance) between populations and within populations. the Human Genome Project is completed, they now need to demonstrate causation between genes and phenotype. Genes and environment are intertwined. Your statement is false. Or maybe you just need to "clarify" again?


The brain wasn't exempt from selection, but a lot of what you are doing is misleading people to believe (while knowing better at that) that the color of the skin "organ" is in direct correlation with the innate logistic functions of the brain "organ". Blatant white power propaganda, easily refuted by modern science. The state of measuring brain function, as I've already shown, is very complicated. No scientists at present time can accurately measure any form of innate intelligence.

One more: it takes only one SNP - just one - to make the difference between having or not having something as serious as sickle-cell anemia. Just one SNP makes a whole set of downstream differences. Good luck.

But we don't have to delve into such details do we? We are afterall 99.4% same as chimps as I said before. Please please don't tell us we're all suddenly almost all the same as chimps etc.

Perhaps you're even now implying that "overlapping populations" from the same cluster will express logistic intelligence differently due to 1 SNP?


Recent studies (including the one you cited) have already shown logistic intelligence is determined by many, thousands of SNPs and is not as simply measured functionally or genetically as height or sickle cell anemia, as much as you would like it to.

In regards to the second part of the quote.. No actually, quite the opposite we are further from chimps than you think. You have to measure the distances relatively. I will again expose the truth behind the time timeworn "chimp argument" certain people use to diminish the importance of modern genetic studies.

"A phylogenetic tree like the one shown above is usually derived from DNA or protein sequences from populations. Often mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human demographics. These single-locus sources of DNA do not recombine and are almost always inherited from a single parent, with only one known exception in mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing 2002). Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents. The tree is rooted in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, which is believed to have originated in Africa. Horizontal distance in the diagram corresponds to two things:
Genetic distance. Given below the diagram, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 2%,[3] or 20 times larger than the variation among modern humans.
Temporal remoteness of the most recent common ancestor. Rough estimates are given above the diagram, in millions of years. The mitochondrial most recent common ancestor of modern humans lived roughly 200,000 years ago, latest common ancestors of humans and chimps between four and seven million years ago.
Chimpanzees and humans belong to different genera, indicated in red. Formation of species and subspecies is also indicated, and the formation of races is indicated in the green rectangle to the right (note that only a very rough representation of human phylogeny is given). Note that vertical distances are not meaningful in this representation."





Even the scientists you quote know that logistic intelligence is hard to pin down and that there's been no demonstration of causation between SNPs and expressed cognitive function of any form (We may not have to wait long for this anyways). Most are also careful to explain all of this if you read their studies, but people with agendas cut out those bits and pieces. I think that's why a lot of them get a "bad rap".

You can color a cow purple and convince a few people of it's authenticity. But don't look me in the eye and call me a fool for not believing you.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Feb 2 2012, 03:41 AM

[richasiankid]

Of course but intelligence while heritable is not as fixed as height. Neuroplasticity, the ability of the brain and nervous system in all species to change structurally and functionally as a result of input from the environment. The mind is a muscle, height isn't.



Isn't this exactly what you said two posts ago? In that case I'll repeat my response too

"Population differences can also be secondary to genetic differences which in turn are secondary from environmental selection.".... In the bolded text are you suggesting people the same "race" genetically can be different races biologically? Genetic drift and the effects of selection are able to be measured by modern genetics by fixation index (distance) between populations and within populations. the Human Genome Project is completed, they now need to demonstrate causation between genes and phenotype. Genes and environment are intertwined. Your statement is false. Or maybe you just need to "clarify" again?


The brain wasn't exempt from selection, but a lot of what you are doing is misleading people to believe (while knowing better at that) that the color of the skin "organ" is in direct correlation with the innate logistic functions of the brain "organ". Blatant white power propaganda, easily refuted by modern science. The state of measuring brain function, as I've already shown, is very complicated. No scientists at present time can accurately measure any form of innate intelligence.





Perhaps you're even now implying that "overlapping populations" from the same cluster will express logistic intelligence differently due to 1 SNP?


Recent studies (including the one you cited) have already shown logistic intelligence is determined by many, thousands of SNPs and is not as simply measured functionally or genetically as height or sickle cell anemia, as much as you would like it to.

In regards to the second part of the quote.. No actually, quite the opposite we are further from chimps than you think. You have to measure the distances relatively. I will again expose the truth behind the time timeworn "chimp argument" certain people use to diminish the importance of modern genetic studies.

"A phylogenetic tree like the one shown above is usually derived from DNA or protein sequences from populations. Often mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human demographics. These single-locus sources of DNA do not recombine and are almost always inherited from a single parent, with only one known exception in mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing 2002). Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents. The tree is rooted in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, which is believed to have originated in Africa. Horizontal distance in the diagram corresponds to two things:
Genetic distance. Given below the diagram, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 2%,[3] or 20 times larger than the variation among modern humans.
Temporal remoteness of the most recent common ancestor. Rough estimates are given above the diagram, in millions of years. The mitochondrial most recent common ancestor of modern humans lived roughly 200,000 years ago, latest common ancestors of humans and chimps between four and seven million years ago.
Chimpanzees and humans belong to different genera, indicated in red. Formation of species and subspecies is also indicated, and the formation of races is indicated in the green rectangle to the right (note that only a very rough representation of human phylogeny is given). Note that vertical distances are not meaningful in this representation."





Even the scientists you quote know that logistic intelligence is hard to pin down and that there's been no demonstration of causation between SNPs and expressed cognitive function of any form (We may not have to wait long for this anyways). Most are also careful to explain all of this if you read their studies, but people with agendas cut out those bits and pieces. I think that's why a lot of them get a "bad rap".

You can color a cow purple and convince a few people of it's authenticity. But don't look me in the eye and call me a fool for not believing you.

Thank you for showing us that some populations groups are more related to each other, e.g. Han and Japanese are much closer to each than than either are to, say, Pygmies. Hey maybe this info you just posted comes in handy when it comes to charity and donations next time?

As for intelligence, I should also point out most of the literature so far quoted is from psychology. From neuroscience we have this gem:

Quote: "Other factors, such as the environment, obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant appears to genetic."

Furthermore, the paper included the following gem (considering the political climate):

Nature is not democratic. Individuals’ IQs vary, but the data presented in this review and elsewhere do not lead us to conclude that our intelligence is dictated solely by genes. Instead genetic interactions with the environment suggest that enriched environments will help everyone achieve their potential, but not to equality. Our potential seems largely predetermined.

Again, "our potential seems largely predetermined". I suggest you start debating with neuroscientists. Or are they merely propagandizing "racism" or "white supremacy" etc etc also where injustice is just everywhere, you know the litany. "Nature is not democratic".

With respect to PISA scores (which afterall is the OP) I would also like to remind you once again its downstream utility appears to be score leading to economic growth and the other way around, i.e. NOT $$ -> high scores. (On separate note you may recall that blacks with 10 times the income of whites have children who score lower on the SAT; if you'd like the link I'll repost it else you'll accuse me of misleading) The two relevant links which I replied to others on this thread on PISA in case you missed it are reposted here for your reference:

[AnybodyKiller]

[size=3]Thank you for showing us that some populations groups are more related to each other, e.g. Han and Japanese are much closer to each than than either are to, say, Pygmies. Hey maybe this info you just posted comes in handy when it comes to charity and donations next time?

You, again, aren't interpreting the data correctly my friend. Let me put it to you plainly.
The first display shows the distance between humans races and Chimpanzees. The distance between races is usually about 0.1 - 0.2, while the distance between Chimps and humans is 4.0
(Notice it says vertical distances are meaningless)


The distance between humans and chimps is 20x larger than the distance between the racial cluster families. Do you understand now?

The second display I chose to show the vertical distances as not meaningless. This display which racial clusters are slightly further/closer (though still meaninglessly so) to our chimpanzee ancestors. Simply a magnification of the first... the * is still "4.0 away" despite looking closer in the second one.


____________________________________

As for the second part of your post is more false correlations and more of the same (again and again and again) . Which have become a predictable two part argument.

Part A) Show that intelligence is heritable using methods that try and eliminate environment as a variable
True I know for a fact that intelligence is partly heritable, I think everyone knows this... (Again making an invisible strawman saying I didn't, then telling me to "debate with neuroscientists".)

Part B) Link this heritability from "Part A" to PISA scores, math scores etc.
False, while the tests from "Part A" of your argument have eliminated variables, the tests from "Part B" haven't. We're working on finding the intelligence genes, I'll let you know when it happens.

In terms of rich blacks, scoring lower than poor whites in IQ. You're assuming that money eliminates all environmental factors or that you even need "logistic intelligence" to succeed in the world. For instance, the children of black "Defensive Linemen" (American Football) would be 10x richer than the children of white professors, but who would score better on a test? The children of teachers or the children of linemen.
And of course the opposite is sometimes true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...d-language.html
"Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black youngsters all outperform their white English classmates from deprived backgrounds."

And to say that only logistic intelligence is explaining economic "success" is false and a even a flat out lie given what we've discussed. Environment effects these scores just as much if not more. Remember the Flynn effect is explained by environmental factors. Test familiarity (Studying) has also been shown to significantly effect results on even the most culturally unbiased "puzzles" on intelligence tests as well.

What a selective memory you have.
_____________________________________

Even when we find ways to measure innate talents of all sorts.... What most "racialists" want is to impose a biological caste system for corporatism, rather than help people determine their aptitudes like most would use these tests for . That is the reason they ignore that various mental skillsets are being discovered to be equally relevant to logistic intelligence. It is also the reason they use blanket statements like "Population A" has better logistic intelligence than "Population B", rather than recognizing the fact that there are plenty of "intelligent" people from both populations.

Some examples of different mental skillsets aptitude tests would search for:

General - The ability to motivate, lead and command men, definitely a different form of intelligence.

Teacher- The ability to make people understand what you do is an important aspect of many careers. Conveying information is a mental skillset different from logistic IQ.

Detective- Needs the ability to read people, put two-and-two together in ways regular people can’t and under extreme pressure. Think Poker player.

Lawyer- I’ve overheard lectures claiming that one doesn’t need a logistic/mathematical type of mind to become a historian, or even a lawyer. The ability to manipulate and interpret written laws to revise their effective definition is definitely a different form of Intelligence altogether. Being able to evoke the moral side in every human while at the same time playing to their logical side in convincing their version of this definition of law is correct is another form

Scientists- This is the field where people with logistic intelligence excel. Scientists may have genius logistic IQs (Assuming we can measure innate IQ to begin with) of 140 but still being functionally the same as a scientist with an “above average” IQ of 120. Basically you can do all the “day to day” stuff of a technically advanced job with this IQ level. Only rarely are these genius scientists also blessed with “creative intelligence”, inspiration. A scientist could have a logistic IQ of 160 and still end up doing lectures and periodic articles without “innate creative IQ” as well, rather than say making Fission Power applicable.
Many of these intellects are probably overlapping, but still have hundreds if not thousands of unique SNPs that cause their expression.

Entrepreneur- Many of those who succeed in a "very capitalist" society are talented in being dynamic, creative and experts at taking calculated risks. I highly doubt many millionaires have genius or even exceptional IQ, Bill Gates being the exception. A Business Mind is different from a Science Mind.

Determining people's aptitudes is better for society and the individual than operating under the false pretense of "biological caste".
________________________________________

The dangers of mimicking the white supremacists should not be ignored

White supremacists in the Southern United States turned on each other, saying those with blonde hair are better than those with dark hair, because at the heart of white supremacist ideal is Nordicism; The idea that Northern Europeans are “better” than Central Europeans who are in turn “better” than Southern Europeans(The darker skin/hair, the worse). Europeans are more united now because they feel they are endangered, but as little as 100 years ago it was commonplace for Southern Europeans to be viewed as inferior (even today it's not uncommon actually). They are nearly indistinguishable and are even overlapping to certain degrees. Taking on this supremacist mindset will only lead you here, they will find something minute to impose this system even in homogenous societies.

Who becomes the slave in a society without "minorities"? Corporatism will find a way. Be careful.

EDIT: The "biological caste system" and "biological determinism" arguments are full of holes, it is actually you who should be debating with mainstream scientists.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Feb 4 2012, 07:18 PM

[richasiankid]

You, again, aren't interpreting the data correctly my friend. Let me put it to you plainly.
The first display shows the distance between humans races and Chimpanzees. The distance between races is usually about 0.1 - 0.2, while the distance between Chimps and humans is 4.0
(Notice it says vertical distances are meaningless)


The distance between humans and chimps is 20x larger than the distance between the racial cluster families. Do you understand now?

The second display I chose to show the vertical distances as not meaningless. This display which racial clusters are slightly further/closer (though still meaninglessly so) to our chimpanzee ancestors. Simply a magnification of the first... the * is still "4.0 away" despite looking closer in the second one.


____________________________________

As for the second part of your post is more false correlations and more of the same (again and again and again) . Which have become a predictable two part argument.

Part A) Show that intelligence is heritable using methods that try and eliminate environment as a variable
True I know for a fact that intelligence is partly heritable, I think everyone knows this... (Again making an invisible strawman saying I didn't, then telling me to "debate with neuroscientists".)

Part B) Link this heritability from "Part A" to PISA scores, math scores etc.
False, while the tests from "Part A" of your argument have eliminated variables, the tests from "Part B" haven't. We're working on finding the intelligence genes, I'll let you know when it happens.

In terms of rich blacks, scoring lower than poor whites in IQ. You're assuming that money eliminates all environmental factors or that you even need "logistic intelligence" to succeed in the world. For instance, the children of black "Defensive Linemen" (American Football) would be 10x richer than the children of white professors, but who would score better on a test? The children of teachers or the children of linemen.
And of course the opposite is sometimes true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...d-language.html
"Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black youngsters all outperform their white English classmates from deprived backgrounds."

And to say that only logistic intelligence is explaining economic "success" is false and a even a flat out lie given what we've discussed. Environment effects these scores just as much if not more. Remember the Flynn effect is explained by environmental factors. Test familiarity (Studying) has also been shown to significantly effect results on even the most culturally unbiased "puzzles" on intelligence tests as well.

What a selective memory you have.
_____________________________________

Even when we find ways to measure innate talents of all sorts.... What most "racialists" want is to impose a biological caste system for corporatism, rather than help people determine their aptitudes like most would use these tests for . That is the reason they ignore that various mental skillsets are being discovered to be equally relevant to logistic intelligence. It is also the reason they use blanket statements like "Population A" has better logistic intelligence than "Population B", rather than recognizing the fact that there are plenty of "intelligent" people from both populations.

Some examples of different mental skillsets aptitude tests would search for:

General - The ability to motivate, lead and command men, definitely a different form of intelligence.

Teacher- The ability to make people understand what you do is an important aspect of many careers. Conveying information is a mental skillset different from logistic IQ.

Detective- Needs the ability to read people, put two-and-two together in ways regular people can’t and under extreme pressure. Think Poker player.

Lawyer- I’ve overheard lectures claiming that one doesn’t need a logistic/mathematical type of mind to become a historian, or even a lawyer. The ability to manipulate and interpret written laws to revise their effective definition is definitely a different form of Intelligence altogether. Being able to evoke the moral side in every human while at the same time playing to their logical side in convincing their version of this definition of law is correct is another form

Scientists- This is the field where people with logistic intelligence excel. Scientists may have genius logistic IQs (Assuming we can measure innate IQ to begin with) of 140 but still being functionally the same as a scientist with an “above average” IQ of 120. Basically you can do all the “day to day” stuff of a technically advanced job with this IQ level. Only rarely are these genius scientists also blessed with “creative intelligence”, inspiration. A scientist could have a logistic IQ of 160 and still end up doing lectures and periodic articles without “innate creative IQ” as well, rather than say making Fission Power applicable.
Many of these intellects are probably overlapping, but still have hundreds if not thousands of unique SNPs that cause their expression.

Entrepreneur- Many of those who succeed in a "very capitalist" society are talented in being dynamic, creative and experts at taking calculated risks. I highly doubt many millionaires have genius or even exceptional IQ, Bill Gates being the exception. A Business Mind is different from a Science Mind.

Determining people's aptitudes is better for society and the individual than operating under the false pretense of "biological caste".
________________________________________

The dangers of mimicking the white supremacists should not be ignored

White supremacists in the Southern United States turned on each other, saying those with blonde hair are better than those with dark hair, because at the heart of white supremacist ideal is Nordicism; The idea that Northern Europeans are “better” than Central Europeans who are in turn “better” than Southern Europeans(The darker skin/hair, the worse). Europeans are more united now because they feel they are endangered, but as little as 100 years ago it was commonplace for Southern Europeans to be viewed as inferior (even today it's not uncommon actually). They are nearly indistinguishable and are even overlapping to certain degrees. Taking on this supremacist mindset will only lead you here, they will find something minute to impose this system even in homogenous societies.

Who becomes the slave in a society without "minorities"? Corporatism will find a way. Be careful.

EDIT: The "biological caste system" and "biological determinism" arguments are full of holes, it is actually you who should be debating with mainstream scientists.

So you've now revealed what's really gnawing at you in the first place with your last few paragraphs - not dissimilar to all the 1960s cries about the endless litany of oppression, slavery, "social justice" i.e. power grab, blame blame and blame rather than taking responsibility. Maybe that's why the environmental hypothesis is so seductive; perhaps you're merely following the footsteps of white radicals and cultural Marxists (Frankfurt school etc) etc. Whatever. I'm not here to discuss your politics and you're entitled to what you believe. The point remains, however, that the heritability of IQ/g-factor is real and significant (see previous neuroscience link and the following) whatever your political persuasions and not some "science for the people" as some may call it; and minimizing the role of heredity (we're biological creatures) will not make it go away.

Furthermore, I now have this one for you and for posters (on top of the neuroscience one above [Quote: "Other factors, such as the environment, obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant appears to genetic."]) updated in 2010 version. Implications were known but usually relegated to discussions, but this one boldly placed it in the abstract. Why is this important? Results are consistent with the predominantly hereditarian hypothesis but utterly devastating to the predominantly environmental one when it comes to IQ and its nature vs nurture determinants. Again,this one from 2010 in Molecular psychiatry.

Look at the figure:



Figure 1
Increasing heritability and decreasing shared environment for general cognitive ability from childhood to adolescence to young adulthood. Lines show additive genetic (A), common environment © and non-shared environment (E) estimates from childhood to young adulthood. Error bars represent±1 s.e. (bootstrapped with 10 000 samples). Confidence intervals (95%) for these parameter estimates can be found in Table 3.

The abstract is here:

Mol Psychiatry. 2010 Nov;15(11):1112-20. Epub 2009 Jun 2.
The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood.
Haworth CM, Wright MJ, Luciano M, Martin NG, de Geus EJ, van Beijsterveldt CE, Bartels M, Posthuma D, Boomsma DI, Davis OS, Kovas Y, Corley RP, Defries JC, Hewitt JK, Olson RK, Rhea SA, Wadsworth SJ, Iacono WG, McGue M, Thompson LA, Hart SA, Petrill SA, Lubinski D, Plomin R.
Source
Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, UK.

Abstract

Although common sense suggests that environmental influences increasingly account for individual differences in behavior as experiences accumulate during the course of life, this hypothesis has not previously been tested, in part because of the large sample sizes needed for an adequately powered analysis. Here we show for general cognitive ability that, to the contrary, genetic influence increases with age. The heritability of general cognitive ability increases significantly and linearly from 41% in childhood (9 years) to 55% in adolescence (12 years) and to 66% in young adulthood (17 years) in a sample of 11 000 pairs of twins from four countries, a larger sample than all previous studies combined. In addition to its far-reaching implications for neuroscience and molecular genetics, this finding suggests new ways of thinking about the interface between nature and nurture during the school years. Why, despite life's 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune', do genetically driven differences increasingly account for differences in general cognitive ability? We suggest that the answer lies with genotype-environment correlation: as children grow up, they increasingly select, modify and even create their own experiences in part based on their genetic propensities.

(More white supremacist literature and capitalist propaganda I suppose?)

Re-read: one should expect as one gets older, exposed to more and more social/school/environmental influences, that this will somehow "wash out" innate/genetic/nature influences. A 6 year old's ability should be more genetically determined than a 17 year old given the latter's accumulation of new educational experiences. Not only is that not the case, it's the reverse that's true. Consistent with what I posted before from another study (re-read a few replies earlier) -- on individual basis, on the variable of high school GPA it is genetic niche picking more than environment niche picking when it comes to outcome. By early adulthood, heritability of cognitive ability rises of 66%.

Implications? If Johnny gets a low math GPA or PISA and Johnny hates Math and doesn't like to study Math, well, it may be possible that his environment may not be conducive towards studying math. But part of that environment also includes Johnny isn't good in Math in the first place which is why he hates it and doesn't study it in the first place. (Same applies to if Johnny does well in GPA or PISA.) And no matter how many hours of training you throw it to someone with an IQ of 60-65(*), it's highly improbable he will be able to complete a college course of calculus or even a high school course of algebra.

(*) PS - Given national PISA scores correlate with IQ scores at a national level of 0.95+, if you were to set China's Shanghai population as 100, the Indian ones would come out roughly at the 60-65 range. Note: I am not saying here India's IQ scores are 60-65; it's just for illustration purposes of the exhibited magnitude of difference between the populations in PISA. There have been cases where the differences are even bigger - previous TIMSS scores reveal a 3-5 standard deviations between subsaharan countries and Korea, for example, rendering their distributions virtually discontinuous and non-overlapping. Such is the magnitude of - how should we now euphemistically put it - human intellectual diversity....

[AnybodyKiller]

So you've now revealed what's really gnawing at you in the first place with your last few paragraphs - not dissimilar to all the 1960s cries about the endless litany of oppression, slavery, "social justice" i.e. power grab, blame blame and blame rather than taking responsibility. Maybe that's why the environmental hypothesis is so seductive; perhaps you're merely following the footsteps of white radicals and cultural Marxists (Frankfurt school etc) etc. Whatever. I'm not here to discuss your politics and you're entitled to what you believe. The point remains, however, that the heritability of IQ/g-factor is real and significant (see previous neuroscience link and the following) whatever your political persuasions and not some "science for the people" as some may call it; and minimizing the role of heredity (we're biological creatures) will not make it go away.

Furthermore, I now have this one for you and for posters (on top of the neuroscience one above: "Other factors, such as the environment, obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant appears to genetic."]) updated in 2010 version. Implications were known but usually relegated to discussions, but this one boldly placed it in the abstract. Why is this important? Results are consistent with the predominantly hereditarian hypothesis but utterly devastating to the predominantly environmental one when it comes to IQ and its nature vs nurture determinants. Again,this one from 2010 in Molecular psychiatry.

Look at the figure:



Figure 1
Increasing heritability and decreasing shared environment for general cognitive ability from childhood to adolescence to young adulthood. Lines show additive genetic (A), common environment © and non-shared environment (E) estimates from childhood to young adulthood. Error bars represent±1 s.e. (bootstrapped with 10 000 samples). Confidence intervals (95%) for these parameter estimates can be found in Table 3.

The abstract is here:

Mol Psychiatry. 2010 Nov;15(11):1112-20. Epub 2009 Jun 2.
The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood.
Haworth CM, Wright MJ, Luciano M, Martin NG, de Geus EJ, van Beijsterveldt CE, Bartels M, Posthuma D, Boomsma DI, Davis OS, Kovas Y, Corley RP, Defries JC, Hewitt JK, Olson RK, Rhea SA, Wadsworth SJ, Iacono WG, McGue M, Thompson LA, Hart SA, Petrill SA, Lubinski D, Plomin R.
Source
Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, UK.

Abstract

Although common sense suggests that environmental influences increasingly account for individual differences in behavior as experiences accumulate during the course of life, this hypothesis has not previously been tested, in part because of the large sample sizes needed for an adequately powered analysis. Here we show for general cognitive ability that, to the contrary, genetic influence increases with age. The heritability of general cognitive ability increases significantly and linearly from 41% in childhood (9 years) to 55% in adolescence (12 years) and to 66% in young adulthood (17 years) in a sample of 11 000 pairs of twins from four countries, a larger sample than all previous studies combined. In addition to its far-reaching implications for neuroscience and molecular genetics, this finding suggests new ways of thinking about the interface between nature and nurture during the school years. Why, despite life's 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune', do genetically driven differences increasingly account for differences in general cognitive ability? We suggest that the answer lies with genotype-environment correlation: as children grow up, they increasingly select, modify and even create their own experiences in part based on their genetic propensities.

(More white supremacist literature and capitalist propaganda I suppose?)

Re-read: one should expect as one gets older, exposed to more and more social/school/environmental influences, that this will somehow "wash out" innate/genetic/nature influences. A 6 year old's ability should be more genetically determined than a 17 year old given the latter's accumulation of new educational experiences. Not only is that not the case, it's the reverse that's true. Consistent with what I posted before from another study (re-read a few replies earlier) -- on individual basis, on the variable of high school GPA it is genetic niche picking more than environment niche picking when it comes to outcome. By early adulthood, heritability of cognitive ability rises of 66%.

Implications? If Johnny gets a low math GPA or PISA and Johnny hates Math and doesn't like to study Math, well, it may be possible that his environment may not be conducive towards studying math. But part of that environment also includes Johnny isn't good in Math in the first place which is why he hates it and doesn't study it in the first place. (Same applies to if Johnny does well in GPA or PISA.) And no matter how many hours of training you throw it to someone with an IQ of 60-65(*), it's highly improbable he will be able to complete a college course of calculus or even a high school course of algebra.

(*) PS - Given national PISA scores correlate with IQ scores at a national level of 0.95+, if you were to set China's Shanghai population as 100, the Indian ones would come out roughly at the 60-65 range. Note: I am not saying here India's IQ scores are 60-65; it's just for illustration purposes of the exhibited magnitude of difference between the populations in PISA. There have been cases where the differences are even bigger - previous TIMSS scores reveal a 3-5 standard deviations between subsaharan countries and Korea, for example, rendering their distributions virtually discontinuous and non-overlapping. Such is the magnitude of - how should we now euphemistically put it - human intellectual diversity....

I can relate to the guy on the couch

Wow, another study on how Intelligence is heritable, this one claims ~66%. The one currently considered "cutting edge" (also the one currently being discussed in blogs and forums I frequent) is still the one you posted from 2011. Claiming an estimate of 40-50%, it was the one I was waiting for you to find.

Ive heard of this one too... Nothing new, nothing big.

There are outdated twin studies claiming that IQ is 82% hereditary. These are also often dismissed by mainstream science as being biased and "geared" toward a certain outcome. Again there is no accepted concrete value for heritability of logistic intelligence... Though everyone knows it is partially heritable.

Then more correlation to PISA scores where you assume that these populations environmental factors are the same.

In any case, people ~60 years ago would be considered functionally retarded today by the measurements of intellect you've been talking about. India has plenty of S-Class scientists capable of making some of the world's fastest rockets (that are first strike capable), so I care little about you perceive IQ tests or PISA scores to be.
______________________________________

Here is a study I think you will enjoy


Study links low intelligence with "prejudiced" beliefs
Researchers have found a possible explanation for why certain people are prejudiced: they’re less intelligent.

Oh the irony!!!

It's always seemed to me that people on the "left tail of the bellcurve" were the ones with beliefs like this. The need to cling tight to the "elite group" because they themselves may not be "up to par". Why do individuals considered "white trash" by the average white guy scream "white power"? Could the need for "blanket statements" like Our race > Their race, instead of judging case-by-case, be a crutch for their own perceived flaws? Even "racialists" make the argument that cognitive levels and morality are strongly correlated after all.

This study does make the distinction between cognitive levels and innate cognitive potential, so it's not hypocritical (Which was actually the first point I brought up). People with "low measured intelligence" tend to have prejudiced beliefs and justifications.

Maybe this is why overly "racialist" scientists are often laughingstocks who have their studies rejected 90% of the time? Or maybe it's an "egalitarian" conspiracy? Who knows.

EDIT: My "hunch" is that the study was done to make certain "racialist" scientists have an epiphany of sorts. Almost satirical if you think about it....

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Feb 6 2012, 04:01 AM

[richasiankid]

[/size]

I can relate to the guy on the couch

Wow, another study on how Intelligence is heritable, this one claims ~66%. The one currently considered "cutting edge" (also the one currently being discussed in blogs and forums I frequent) is still the one you posted from 2011. Claiming an estimate of 40-50%, it was the one I was waiting for you to find.

Ive heard of this one too... Nothing new, nothing big.

There are outdated twin studies claiming that IQ is 82% hereditary. These are also often dismissed by mainstream science as being biased and "geared" toward a certain outcome. Again there is no accepted concrete value for heritability of logistic intelligence... Though everyone knows it is partially heritable.

Then more correlation to PISA scores where you assume that these populations environmental factors are the same.

In any case, people ~60 years ago would be considered functionally retarded today by the measurements of intellect you've been talking about. India has plenty of S-Class scientists capable of making some of the world's fastest rockets (that are first strike capable), so I care little about you perceive IQ tests or PISA scores to be.
______________________________________

Here is a study I think you will enjoy


Study links low intelligence with "prejudiced" beliefs
Researchers have found a possible explanation for why certain people are prejudiced: they’re less intelligent.

Oh the irony!!!

It's always seemed to me that people on the "left tail of the bellcurve" were the ones with beliefs like this. The need to cling tight to the "elite group" because they themselves may not be "up to par". Why do individuals considered "white trash" by the average white guy scream "white power"? Could the need for "blanket statements" like Our race > Their race, instead of judging case-by-case, be a crutch for their own perceived flaws? Even "racialists" make the argument that cognitive levels and morality are strongly correlated after all.

This study does make the distinction between cognitive levels and innate cognitive potential, so it's not hypocritical (Which was actually the first point I brought up). People with "low measured intelligence" tend to have prejudiced beliefs and justifications.

Maybe this is why overly "racialist" scientists are often laughingstocks who have their studies rejected 90% of the time? Or maybe it's an "egalitarian" conspiracy? Who knows.

EDIT: My "hunch" is that the study was done to make certain "racialist" scientists have an epiphany of sorts. Almost satirical if you think about it....

Coated with so many words and side-tracks (and your frequenting all those sites too) you can't explain the main finding of heritability can you? No sir, it's not the percentage of heritability of g; it's how heritability increases with age rather than decreases if environment and malleability are so & such key. That has tremendous and tremendous implications.

Once again is that what gnaws you in the beginning? Not some audacity of hope, not even a mendacity of hope, but the futility of hope?

Especially when confronted with PISA data.

This post has been edited by richasiankid: Feb 12 2012, 12:47 AM

[AnybodyKiller]

Coated with so many words and side-tracks (and your frequenting all those sites too) you can't explain the main finding of heritability can you? No sir, it's not the percentage of heritability of g; it's how heritability increases with age rather than decreases if environment and malleability are so & such key. That has tremendous and tremendous implications.

Tremendous and tremendous implications such as what? What suggests that an increase in age goes hand-in-hand with a decrease in environment as a variable?

I have frequented anthropology and population genetics sites way before this discussion, don't flatter yourself. I didn't bother to "explain" the finding of heritability because it's not worth the effort. Like I said, I've seen studies which claim as low as 0% and high as 82%, what makes this one special? It's also neuroscience which I don't feel comfortable enough with to offer critiques the way I would with a genetic study. Why go out of my way if you're just going to keep forgetting that I've refuted all of this in less than a week anyways?

Remember that these studies claiming to find the heritability of "g" often use tests that are by no means accurate measures of innate logistic intelligence (IQ tests in this case). But, as usual, you don't remember that I've gone over this already. It's actually not hard to determine the heritability of these tests for yourself, no need to be a scientist. I have questions deemed "g loaded" from intelligence tests and they aren't as requiring of innate logistic talent as you might think, as you will soon see. I'll add them to this post when I get home.

I would also like to remind you that heritability does not imply immutability, an extremely important concept. Also that by endeavoring to prove the a high heritability of IQ you by default prove that those with beliefs similar to yours are logistically less capable on average. Of course the tactic now seems to be "ignore and forget" and hope I do the same when you present a near identical argument. (Hence the cartoon earlier)

Once again is that what gnaws you in the beginning? Not some audacity of hope, not even a mendacity of hope, but the futility of hope?

Especially when confronted with PISA data.

Gnaws?

I'd say the effect is more akin to a mosquito or house fly than a vicious dog "gnawing" at me. "Futility of hope?" If you somehow equate genetic studies, mainstream science and even recent historical evidence as hope I guess... This is also a hypocritical statement, as the same sources you cite as projecting China at #1 project India at #2 more often than not. India is already in command of it's own destiny, can you say the same for many of these high IQ nations with little to no military who are not nuclear capable? Especially in these times of economic collapse? As already obvious to so many on this forum, it may be the US and EU that are in need of hope in the future. I say this not in spite of the people of these countries, but as a reality check...

Even though I resisted engaging you in this nature vs nurture discussion, I now thank you for making me realize how much easier recent evidence has made it to refute both the "biologic determinism" and the "race nonexistence" stances rhetoric spewers are so fond of.
-------------------------------------
EDIT: Here are examples of very "g loaded" questions typical of IQ tests. As in, supposedly these measure innate intelligence or "g"

For 1-4 find the next letter/number in the sequence

1) 2,3,5,8,__

2) B,A,C,B,D,C,E,D,F_

3) 2, 3, 7, 5, 11, 13
a) 15
b) 17
c) 10
d) 14

4) 1,8,27,__,125,216

5) Which one of the following objects is least like the others
a) painting
b) statue
c) flower
d) novel

6) Four years ago, Jane was twice as old as Sam. Four years on from now, Sam will be 3/4 of Jane's age. How old is Jane now?

7) What is the number that is one half of one quarter of one tenth of 400?

8) Which same three-letter word can be placed in front of the following words to make a new word?
SIGN, DONE, DUCT, FOUND, FIRM, TRACT, DENSE

9) Pear is to apple as potato is to?
a) radish
b) banana
c) orange
d) lettuce

10) The same word can be added to the end of GRASS and the beginning of SCAPE to form two other English words. What is the word?

I'll leave everyone to draw on their own conclusions on how well these measure innate logistic intelligence and what environmental factors could possibly effect the outcome. These are basic level ones, but advanced questions still follow the same design. PISA questions are far less "g loaded". Example of a "hard PISA question":

Develop a decision tree diagram for the Greenwood High School Library system so that an automated checking system can be designed to deal with book and magazine loans at the library. Your checking system should be as efficient as possible (i.e. it should have the least number of checking steps). Note that each checking step should have only two outcomes and the outcomes should be labeled appropriately (e.g. “Yes” and “No”).

Even the most culturally unbiased matrix reasoning and numerical sequence questions can be taught and studied. Engineers are often schooled on innovative problem solving as an example.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Feb 12 2012, 07:35 PM

[Ilikeasians]

India is still a cast system, where the majority of the people are left out of educational reforms. I remember they had a protest several years ago where Indian medical students complained about affirmative action that let in a few students from the lower castes. Innate intelligence plays a role but I still believe the environment has the final say. For India, there's a very flawed democracy, which I believe is not a good system for Asians. The most successful Asians I know tend to have strong parents who beat the $hit out of them if they don't study. Now, apply this to the federal level, and one can see why an iron fist Chinese communist system can drive a lot of positive change. In India, it's sort of a laissez faire system with few policies in place to stimulate educational reforms, and the ones that passed get mired in bureaucracy to actualization. Also, economic development between India and China is kind of different. Service sector development is dependent on other countries for continued growth whereas manufacturing is more or less self-sustaining process that guarantees returned capital for initial investment, and China's next phase will be to stimulate a domestic consumption. The offshoot of this will be the development of a service based sector. India tries to cheat the system by going to phase two without having completely finished phase one. Also, from a historical perspective, China have gone through many bloody revolutions and wars. When these events happen, the weak all die off leaving a population with a higher intellectual capacity than the previous generations. In the case of India, they had peace for too long.

[AnybodyKiller]

India is still a cast system, where the majority of the people are left out of educational reforms. I remember they had a protest several years ago where Indian medical students complained about affirmative action that let in a few students from the lower castes. Innate intelligence plays a role but I still believe the environment has the final say. For India, there's a very flawed democracy, which I believe is not a good system for Asians. The most successful Asians I know tend to have strong parents who beat the $hit out of them if they don't study. Now, apply this to the federal level, and one can see why an iron fist Chinese communist system can drive a lot of positive change. In India, it's sort of a laissez faire system with few policies in place to stimulate educational reforms, and the ones that passed get mired in bureaucracy to actualization. Also, economic development between India and China is kind of different. Service sector development is dependent on other countries for continued growth whereas manufacturing is more or less self-sustaining process that guarantees returned capital for initial investment, and China's next phase will be to stimulate a domestic consumption. The offshoot of this will be the development of a service based sector. India tries to cheat the system by going to phase two without having completely finished phase one. Also, from a historical perspective, China have gone through many bloody revolutions and wars. When these events happen, the weak all die off leaving a population with a higher intellectual capacity than the previous generations. In the case of India, they had peace for too long.

Damn, I should have just posted my 'edit' as a new post. Didn't see your post until it was too late.

Good assessment though. Definitely innate intelligence plays a role. We still have to take into account that there are different cognitive aptitudes other than what traditional intelligence tests measure. Just like in anything else though certain people are just more talented in certain things.

The fu-ked up part about it is India is a caste system of the same race of people. There's a lot of genetic diversity in India, but not between each other if that makes any sense.

[Ilikeasians]

Heterozygosity is a part of any given population pool, so that even in a very homegenous, highly incestuous population, there will be some very intelligent people in a population of all stupid individuals or some very talented flute players in a population of all pianists. The caste system prevents gene flow, which also limit the creation of unique phenotypes conducive to innovation. The Han Chinese identity is highly flawed since China has received some good genes from Mongols, Manchurians, British and Japanese. This allowed the Chinese gene pool to evolve since China has a rather low emigration rate in proportion to its total population.

Damn, I should have just posted my 'edit' as a new post. Didn't see your post until it was too late.

Good assessment though. Definitely innate intelligence plays a role. We still have to take into account that there are different cognitive aptitudes other than what traditional intelligence tests measure. Just like in anything else though certain people are just more talented in certain things.

The fu-ked up part about it is India is a caste system of the same race of people. There's a lot of genetic diversity in India, but not between each other if that makes any sense.

[richasiankid]

Tremendous and tremendous implications such as what? What suggests that an increase in age goes hand-in-hand with a decrease in environment as a variable?

I have frequented anthropology and population genetics sites way before this discussion, don't flatter yourself. I didn't bother to "explain" the finding of heritability because it's not worth the effort. Like I said, I've seen studies which claim as low as 0% and high as 82%, what makes this one special? It's also neuroscience which I don't feel comfortable enough with to offer critiques the way I would with a genetic study. Why go out of my way if you're just going to keep forgetting that I've refuted all of this in less than a week anyways?

Remember that these studies claiming to find the heritability of "g" often use tests that are by no means accurate measures of innate logistic intelligence (IQ tests in this case). But, as usual, you don't remember that I've gone over this already. It's actually not hard to determine the heritability of these tests for yourself, no need to be a scientist. I have questions deemed "g loaded" from intelligence tests and they aren't as requiring of innate logistic talent as you might think, as you will soon see. I'll add them to this post when I get home.

I would also like to remind you that heritability does not imply immutability, an extremely important concept. Also that by endeavoring to prove the a high heritability of IQ you by default prove that those with beliefs similar to yours are logistically less capable on average. Of course the tactic now seems to be "ignore and forget" and hope I do the same when you present a near identical argument. (Hence the cartoon earlier)




Gnaws?

I'd say the effect is more akin to a mosquito or house fly than a vicious dog "gnawing" at me. "Futility of hope?" If you somehow equate genetic studies, mainstream science and even recent historical evidence as hope I guess... This is also a hypocritical statement, as the same sources you cite as projecting China at #1 project India at #2 more often than not. India is already in command of it's own destiny, can you say the same for many of these high IQ nations with little to no military who are not nuclear capable? Especially in these times of economic collapse? As already obvious to so many on this forum, it may be the US and EU that are in need of hope in the future. I say this not in spite of the people of these countries, but as a reality check...

Even though I resisted engaging you in this nature vs nurture discussion, I now thank you for making me realize how much easier recent evidence has made it to refute both the "biologic determinism" and the "race nonexistence" stances rhetoric spewers are so fond of.
-------------------------------------
EDIT: Here are examples of very "g loaded" questions typical of IQ tests. As in, supposedly these measure innate intelligence or "g"

For 1-4 find the next letter/number in the sequence

1) 2,3,5,8,__

2) B,A,C,B,D,C,E,D,F_

3) 2, 3, 7, 5, 11, 13
a) 15
b) 17
c) 10
d) 14

4) 1,8,27,__,125,216

5) Which one of the following objects is least like the others
a) painting
b) statue
c) flower
d) novel

6) Four years ago, Jane was twice as old as Sam. Four years on from now, Sam will be 3/4 of Jane's age. How old is Jane now?

7) What is the number that is one half of one quarter of one tenth of 400?

8) Which same three-letter word can be placed in front of the following words to make a new word?
SIGN, DONE, DUCT, FOUND, FIRM, TRACT, DENSE

9) Pear is to apple as potato is to?
a) radish
b) banana
c) orange
d) lettuce

10) The same word can be added to the end of GRASS and the beginning of SCAPE to form two other English words. What is the word?

I'll leave everyone to draw on their own conclusions on how well these measure innate logistic intelligence and what environmental factors could possibly effect the outcome. These are basic level ones, but advanced questions still follow the same design. PISA questions are far less "g loaded". Example of a "hard PISA question":

Develop a decision tree diagram for the Greenwood High School Library system so that an automated checking system can be designed to deal with book and magazine loans at the library. Your checking system should be as efficient as possible (i.e. it should have the least number of checking steps). Note that each checking step should have only two outcomes and the outcomes should be labeled appropriately (e.g. “Yes” and “No”).

Even the most culturally unbiased matrix reasoning and numerical sequence questions can be taught and studied. Engineers are often schooled on innovative problem solving as an example.

So you're now reduced to deconstructionism in your MO now? Put this way: do you think women can be men? Do you think chimps can be human as we're all afterall more or less the same. Or in support of what you posted too:

More difficult: China vs India scores. If it doesn't matter on a population level at 2+ standard deviation level, what does; and why care anyway. Or can you ever imagine in a locker room or bar when some say women are weaker than men and all the men go, no no no that's sexism!! That's prejudice! That's bias!! The rules are rigged and just plain unfair!!!!

Tell me when and where why strangers should be preferred to family in the first place, of or from any culture.

And China > India PISA.

Why fight it?

[AnybodyKiller]

So you're now reduced to deconstructionism in your MO now? Put this way: do you think women can be men? Do you think chimps can be human as we're all afterall more or less the same. Or in support of what you posted too:

Really? You're calling me out for "deconstructing" your lies? "Hey, that's not fair! You can't attack my arguments"

"Do you think chimps can be human as we're all afterall more or less the same"

Not really, as I've already shown the distance between chimps and humans is 20x greater among even the most distant groups, 30x between black and white etc. So this, again, is false. My argument is not even close to chimps can be people. More "straw man" tactics, supremacist rhetoric and selective memory.

More difficult: China vs India scores. If it doesn't matter on a population level at 2+ standard deviation level, what does; and why care anyway. Or can you ever imagine in a locker room or bar when some say women are weaker than men and all the men go, no no no that's sexism!! That's prejudice! That's bias!! The rules are rigged and just plain unfair!!!!

Tell me when and where why strangers should be preferred to family in the first place, of or from any culture.

And China > India PISA.

Why fight it?

Two standard deviations of a test measuring education, not innate intelligence. I've already shown what a supposed difficult "g loaded" question looks like on PISA.

"Tell me when and where why strangers should be preferred to family in the first place, of or from any culture."
More inane rhetoric having nothing to do with the discussion.


"some say women are weaker than men and all the men go, no no no that's sexism!! That's prejudice! That's bias!! The rules are rigged and just plain unfair!!!!"
Calm down.

Males and females fill different roles in a species. The differences between different sex of the same species are well documented. You're comparing males (or females) of the same species to each other, So your comparison is invalid. Homo sapiens sapiens are the same species and races are not subspecies. Also strength is an easily measured attribute compared to innate logistic intelligence.


"Why fight it?"
Fight what? China scores better on India on a test measuring education levels. Sure I'll agree with that. If you mean why do I keep responding to you if I'm so sure, it's because I enjoy exposing bull$hitters or "deceivers" if you're going to accuse me of ad hominem again. Don't take it personally though, I do the same to all the -centrists who try to stake a claim where they have no business to.

Why keep insisting these tests measure more than they do?

'A' for effort bro, but what you're trying to do is find the genes which demonstrate causation with innate intellect and prove that these genes are at higher frequency in certain races. It's quite obvious from the test questions above that intelligence tests aren't accurately measuring innate logistic intelligence anyways despite what all the heritability estimates you may 'google'. When science is capable of doing this we can have a 'biological caste system' vs 'individual aptitude' debate.

Everyone is entitled to their theories, but pass it off as fact and I'll call you on your bull$hit.



This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Feb 14 2012, 01:36 AM

[perncreague]

Ïðèâåò!
áîðüáà ôóòáîëêè êëàññè÷åñêèå ìóæñêèå ôóòáîëêè æåíñêèå ñòèëüíûå ôóòáîëêè
Ôóòáîëêà ñ äëèííûì ðóêàâîì Äîëü÷å ãàááàíà ôóòáîëêà
ôóòáîëêè ðóññêèå marc jacobs ôóòáîëêà ñèíÿÿ ìàéêà
Ôóòáîëêè ñ íàäïèñÿìè ðîññèÿ Everlast ôóòáîëêà
denis simachev ôóòáîëêè ôóòáîëêè ñ íàäïèñÿìè õàðüêîâ ìîêðûå ìàéêè
ôóòáîëêà rocky äåòñêèå ñïîðòèâíûå ôóòáîëêè Ôóòáîëêè ñ íàäïèñüþ àê 47
ôóòáîëêè â îáòÿæêó ôóòáîëêè ýä õàðäè âèäåî êîíêóðñ ìîêðûå ìàéêè

Other sites ìàéêè ñïàðòàêà, êîððåêòèðóþùàÿ ìàéêà, ìàéêà ñ ÷ëåíîì, ôóòáîëêà system of a down
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/1029211246119...957395613/posts

[richasiankid]

Really? You're calling me out for "deconstructing" your lies? "Hey, that's not fair! You can't attack my arguments"

"Do you think chimps can be human as we're all afterall more or less the same"

Not really, as I've already shown the distance between chimps and humans is 20x greater among even the most distant groups, 30x between black and white etc. So this, again, is false. My argument is not even close to chimps can be people. More "straw man" tactics, supremacist rhetoric and selective memory.



Two standard deviations of a test measuring education, not innate intelligence. I've already shown what a supposed difficult "g loaded" question looks like on PISA.

"Tell me when and where why strangers should be preferred to family in the first place, of or from any culture."
More inane rhetoric having nothing to do with the discussion.


"some say women are weaker than men and all the men go, no no no that's sexism!! That's prejudice! That's bias!! The rules are rigged and just plain unfair!!!!"
Calm down.

Males and females fill different roles in a species. The differences between different sex of the same species are well documented. You're comparing males (or females) of the same species to each other, So your comparison is invalid. Homo sapiens sapiens are the same species and races are not subspecies. Also strength is an easily measured attribute compared to innate logistic intelligence.


"Why fight it?"
Fight what? China scores better on India on a test measuring education levels. Sure I'll agree with that. If you mean why do I keep responding to you if I'm so sure, it's because I enjoy exposing bull$hitters or "deceivers" if you're going to accuse me of ad hominem again. Don't take it personally though, I do the same to all the -centrists who try to stake a claim where they have no business to.

Why keep insisting these tests measure more than they do?

'A' for effort bro, but what you're trying to do is find the genes which demonstrate causation with innate intellect and prove that these genes are at higher frequency in certain races. It's quite obvious from the test questions above that intelligence tests aren't accurately measuring innate logistic intelligence anyways despite what all the heritability estimates you may 'google'. When science is capable of doing this we can have a 'biological caste system' vs 'individual aptitude' debate.

Everyone is entitled to their theories, but pass it off as fact and I'll call you on your bull$hit.

In other words, in so many words, equality is still the biggest lie of all.

Thanks.