Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:02:58 UTC No. 16417743

Each parrent got one pair of dumbness gene, and now child have two, so it's strongly expressed.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:04:45 UTC No. 16417746

>>16417724
Heritable doesn't mean genetic.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:05:46 UTC No. 16417748

>>16417724
Predisposition is heritable, bad education is something else.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:07:23 UTC No. 16417754

>What is Regression-to-the-norm?
come on now /sci/

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:17:18 UTC No. 16417773

>>16417754
I know what regression to the mean is but still doesn't explain why IQ would drop to 100 if it is supposed to be heritable unless my premise is wrong.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:18:24 UTC No. 16417776

>>16417724
Plot the IQ for 10,000 children whose parents both were 130 IQ.
Plot the IQ for 10,000 children whose parents both were 115 IQ.
Surprised Pikachu
Realize that you're an outlier on the left end.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:41:36 UTC No. 16417810

>>16417776
So if your parents were 130 IQ then there is a 50% of being +130 IQ?

You still can explain it unless it's just polygenes or something else but I don't feel like that accounts for it either. Do other traits like height regress in the same way? Also if IQ is mostly heritable and the average score has risen by like 20-30 points since the test started being administered unless the environment was genuinely that bad.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:47:00 UTC No. 16417815

>>16417810
Evolution

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:51:55 UTC No. 16417821

>>16417815
So a WW2 vet is dumber than the average black American now because "evolution"? How can you explain IQ supposedly regressing to 100 in a specific line if polygenes or Mendelian genetics don't explain it?

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:53:20 UTC No. 16417826

>>16417821
No, blacks are degenerate and select for distinct features to intelligence.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:42:27 UTC No. 16418083

>>16417743
>parrent
ESL. Next!

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:56:37 UTC No. 16418106

>>16417773
Because 100 is the mean.. It's the fucking definition of the mean. The lineage IQ of a gifted individual will be above the population average. But if you measure a singular individual far enough down the line, they'll likely be ~100

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 20:07:02 UTC No. 16418120

>>16417724
my iq is 145. if my children are below 130 im killing myself

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 20:10:13 UTC No. 16418122

>>16418120
Kids mostly inherit intelligence from the mother.

raphael at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 21:06:59 UTC No. 16418189

>>16417743
this

raphael at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 21:07:37 UTC No. 16418190

>>16418122
i thought it was the average of both parents minus 2 because of regression to the mean

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 21:10:41 UTC No. 16418194

>>16418190
Intelligence is also affected by environmental factors, not solely genetics.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 21:14:49 UTC No. 16418197

>>16418190
Intelligence is highly polygenic, you're not going to see a nice predictable decay each gen. You simply inherit most of the intelligence associated genes from momma.
>>16418194
It has been measured in twin studies. Difference between garbage and solid nutrition is 10 IQ, no education vs good education is 5 IQ. The environmental contribution is lessened the more G-weighted the test is.
G is complete genetic tyranny, it's pretty much decided at the point of recombination.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 22:03:30 UTC No. 16418239

>>16418190
>minus 2 because of regression to the mean
Thats not how regression to the mean works lol. Its not some force pulling subsequent values towards the mean, its just an artifact of the fact that if you have an outlier, the amount of the distribution that is closer to the mean is far larger than the amount that is further away.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 22:25:25 UTC No. 16418262

>>16418197
The heritability of g is not absolute. In younger years it's around 40 - 60%, and at adult 50 - 80%; high, but not all encompassing.Also, G shows some of the highest genetic influence with lower environmental affect compared to other factors of intelligence.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 22:31:40 UTC No. 16418276

>>16418262
Those are very high heritability numbers for any trait in humans, much greater than even height. It's also not what I said, I said it was a genetic tyranny, as proven by twin studies. Whatever puts your genes in a certain configuration is not relevant to the question, but G itself is highly linked to this configuration.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 22:55:58 UTC No. 16418300

>>16418197
"good" education here only meant public schooling, and american public schooling at that

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 23:04:27 UTC No. 16418305

How come IQ can't be improve significantly through neuroplasticity? I mean, you can learn a tonne of languages and musical instruments...etc, forming new neural connections in the brain, but at most you can improve your IQ by only a few points.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 23:14:10 UTC No. 16418310

>>16418300
Education is fundamentally about expanding your world model with useful information, your intelligence is more the meta process behind it. On a physical level it's tied to synapse fire rates, neuronal conduction, etc. Which we partially understand at a genetic level from knockout studies. Have you ever during your schooling seen someone who was a fucking retard suddenly walk up to the board and hand derive a diff equation after a few years of schooling? It's a psychotic pipe dream to think any kind of intervention, short of neuralinking someone will meaningfully increase their G.
>>16418305
Why would it? G is not your crystalized intelligence and plasticity isn't automatically a good thing, it's chaotic and requires purging which happens during late puberty and young adulthood.
Intelligence can loosely be defined as how well you handle novelty, how efficient is your mind at working an unknown problem where you have no priors. It's a potential for what's possible with your mind in a given amount of time.

raphael at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 01:10:14 UTC No. 16418417

>>16418239
i was using a higher iq person as an implicit example

raphael at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 01:10:45 UTC No. 16418418

>>16418194
this is cope its largely genetic diet and vitamin d play a role but you dont know that

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:01:28 UTC No. 16418854

>>16417754
>>16418106
Crazy how so many people, even on /sci/, misuse regression to the mean in this way. Regression to the mean refers to trends among heterogeneous populations. Two parents with identical IQs could have an outlier first or second or maybe even third child, but if they have 30 children, the mean of the IQ of the population of all their children will regress to that of the parents, not that of all humanity. Midwits that learn a basic statistical principle and then misapply it to blindly explain material reality without knowing it.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:02:30 UTC No. 16418855

>>16418305
>but at most you can improve your IQ by only a few points.
A full standard deviation is more than a few points

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:05:24 UTC No. 16418857

>>16418854
The parents could have a high iq kid, which is a little more likely than on the average.
Still it is most likely the kid will be dumber than the parents if the parents are above the mean

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:08:43 UTC No. 16418860

>>16418857
>Still it is most likely the kid will be dumber than the parents if the parents are above the mean
No it is not. The most comprehensive study of the heritability of high-intelligence, published in Lewis Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius, found that children with IQ's above 130 overwhelmingly had siblings and parents also above 130. You're invoking a mantra as if it invalidates the measurable reality of genetic heritability and quantifiable intelligence.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:20:51 UTC No. 16418865

>>16418860
>found that children with IQ's above 130 overwhelmingly had siblings and parents also above 130.
This does not disprove what I said at all. On average smart parents produce dumber children, and dumb parents produce smarter children.
If you want to disprove my point, you would have to study all the parents that were smart, not the smart children. Now, the children that are less smart, but still from smart parents, are not in the sample.
All your study proves is that smart children are more likely to have smart parents, which is a separate thing, as the rate of smarter children per smart parent isn't accounted for.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:26:54 UTC No. 16418871

>>16418865
You just said
>>16418857
>Still it is most likely the kid will be dumber than the parents if the parents are above the mean
Stop lying and apply a little critical thinking to realize that the "mean" does not exist as a material thing, it is an abstraction that we use to understand material things. An individual child does not regress to any mean, they are the sum of the material genetic sequences (and harm exposures) granted via their parents.
>On average smart parents produce dumber children, and dumb parents produce smarter children.
Again, Terman's study (and most studies) disprove this.
>If you want to disprove my point, you would have to study all the parents that were smart, not the smart children.
Do you not believe in genes?

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:06:30 UTC No. 16418891

>>16417773
Lets say X amount of genes are involved in IQ, with variants that can boost IQ. For some genes you need to have two copies of the IQ boosting variant to get the IQ boost, other genes give you half the boost if you only have one copy and full boost if you have two copies, and finally others give you a crippling condition if you get two copies, but a boost in IQ if you get only one copy. The chances to get a perfect mix of genes to boost IQ to the maximum is very low, so is far more probable that gifted people will only have a sub set of those IQ boosting genes. When two gifted people have children, the children will have to get lucky to get the IQ boosting genes instead the one that doesn't boost IQ. In some unfortunate cases the kid will inherit two copies of the cursed IQ boosting gene and develop a crippling condition.
Regression to the mean will happen just because there are fewer lucky combinations. Even if both parents have a perfect set of genes and there is only one cursed gene, 25% of their kids will get crippled while other 25% will lose the IQ boost from the cursed gene. In reality there are several of those cursed genes.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:08:58 UTC No. 16418894

>>16417724
Threads are getting dumber in this board.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:20:30 UTC No. 16418901

>>16418891
That's plausibly logical but not backed by any real data. There is no known thing as a gene that causes genius (or really any improvement in intelligence) when heterozygous but retardation when homozygous. Additionally, we know from actual heritability studies of intelligence that children inherit the IQ of their parents. This disproves a need for a "perfect roll" that you seem to be suggesting matters. The complex sum of all alleles for intelligence (positive and negative) will statistically net a child right around the expected average of the parent as a result.

Imagine it more like two bowls of marbles, a paternal and a maternal bowl with 100 marbles, some green (good; promoting higher intelligence), grey (neutral; average), red (bad; promoting lower intelligence), and black (retarding; negating all other marbles especially when homozygous).

Working from a premise that intelligence is primarily genetically inherited (we both agree here), we can easily infer that two parents with IQ's of 130 have a preponderance of green and grey marbles, few red marbles, and zero black marbles. When the child blindly takes 50 from each bowl, the single most likely outcome is that he receives a distribution extremely similar to that of his parents.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:36:36 UTC No. 16418910

>>16418854
The parents can have genes that have a certain quantum probability of expressing smart, and they got lucky and both happen to express it. Doesn't mean their gene is now changed to smart, it's still a dice roll gene, and the child needs roll well too.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:24:33 UTC No. 16418955

>>16417773
You dont actually inherit all of your parents genes, just approximately half. So if your parents are heterozygotes for the same intelligence increasing gene, then you have a 50% chance of being a heterozygote, 25% homozygote intelligent and 25% homozygote stupid.

If you inherit the homozygote stupid, and statistically speaking 25% of children will without exception, then you'll be less intelligent than your parents.