Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 23:01:49 UTC No. 16589667

>>16589572
because of diversity, equity and inclusion which trump will kill soon and opposition to the racial skills based hypothesis.
The solution is a caste system

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:36:57 UTC No. 16589806

>>16589572
because GWAS don't confirm those findings (but actually because it shatters their worldview)

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:09:36 UTC No. 16589886

>>16589572
uoh ToT

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:21:19 UTC No. 16589891

>>16589572
Because Hitler was a naughty boy so we have to prendend we are all equal or something like that.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:41:42 UTC No. 16589946

>>16589667
>The solution is a caste system
you want india?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:45:59 UTC No. 16589948

>>16589572
How have they shown that? Present the evidence and methods they used to measure intelligence. Note that just wishing for or claiming it to be true doesn't make it true.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:47:38 UTC No. 16589950

>>16589572
Because shut up and vote for 100,000 more Somali Immigrants in your country bigot!

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:51:27 UTC No. 16589953

>>16589950
>>16589891
>>16589806
>>16589667
Can any of you losers answer this >>16589948?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:25:38 UTC No. 16589960

>>16589953
>Can any of you losers answer this >>16589948?
Sure. Those studies are fake. Everybody is equal and whoever says the contrary is a bigot, a racist and a nazi. The end.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:31:32 UTC No. 16589961

>>16589960
I'm asking if you can prove that intelligence is "primarily determined" by genetics; not if you can seethe sarcastically to cover up your inability to do what I asked.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:54:04 UTC No. 16589978

>>16589960
also everything bad is the fault of white heterosexual men

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:00:34 UTC No. 16589987

>>16589961
Well the result of over 100 years of testing and intense study tells us that intelligence if 60-89% heritable with the heritability increasing with age meaning thta the older we get the more our genes dictate the expression of our abilities compared to our contemporaries.

And out of the entire field of psychology (lol) the subset known as psychometircs and especially that pertaining to intelligennce research has the highest replicability

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:01:35 UTC No. 16589989

>>16589987
*60-80% heritable

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:12:52 UTC No. 16590004

>>16589987
How did you or "100 years of testing and intense study" come up with that percentage for heritability? What methods were used to calculate it? What assumptions went into it? Were they tested? You need to spell out all of this in detail.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:18:09 UTC No. 16590010

>>16590004
You could just go and read the work of researcher's in this field like Robert Plomin?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:24:12 UTC No. 16590013

>>16590010
You should be able to summarize and present it here, if you know what you're talking about.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:26:37 UTC No. 16590016

>>16590013
Don't feel like effortposting against a motivated antagonist. Have a vid instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lev8dGnxvdw

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:36:51 UTC No. 16590023

>>16590016
Motivated antagonist? So you think anyone who questions your claims are antagonists? If you want an echo chamber, you shouldn't be doing science. I skimmed through the video and all I see is just an entertainment-style video of some guy making lots of claims without actually explaining how he came to those conclusions.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:39:03 UTC No. 16590025

>>16590004
Go to google scholar, put "twin studies" in the search field and come back in a couple of years.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:25:09 UTC No. 16590205

>>16589953
yeah well women have their own sports divisions and chess divisions for no reason and that makes no sense at all.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:40:04 UTC No. 16590223

>>16590025
Unfortunately, you cannot use "twin studies" as a magical buzzword to evade all questions. Why don't you spell out in more detail how twin studies let you calculate the heritability of intelligence?

>>16590205
What point are you trying to make?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:49:07 UTC No. 16590473

>>16589953
>>16589948
"link me the sources now (even though I could find it with google in 15 seconds) so that I can either ignore it or proceed to cherry pick statements to misrepresent it, while arguing over technicalities" - /sci/ anniversary edition
ok, here you go: https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2014.105

now go on little one, twist it to confirm your own bias of poor kids being just as intelligent as white kids

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 18:56:21 UTC No. 16590536

>>16590473
That paper doesn't address anything. I asked for how they come up with those numbers for the heritability of intelligence and you're unable to answer the question. I can only assume that this because you're too stupid to know how these calculations are done.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:26:50 UTC No. 16590563

>>16589572
Sociology is a psudoscience and commies took over universities.
>>16589948
>>16590473
They will never admit that these studies have been suppressed for decades. Remember Bryan Pesta? He wasn't the only one to test the waters and be severely remanded.

Sociology and Psychology departments took over the science departments to push their pseudoscience agenda.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:30:12 UTC No. 16590568

>>16590563
I didn't ask for your schizophrenic rambling. Explain how the heritability of intelligence was calculated or fuck off.

It's really amusing to see you "scientific racist" retards fall apart and lose your minds when you get even a little pushback.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:03:48 UTC No. 16590688

>>16590536
>I asked for how they come up with those numbers for the heritability of intelligence and you're unable to answer the question.
It's all cited in the review dumbass, learn how to read perhaps.
Seriously, this is the hundredth time at a minimum that I've had this string of discussion on /sci/.
It's always the same. You retards demand information to be handed to you on a golden platter, and even when you get it, you pretend to see nothing.
You are the bane of this board and one of the main reasons why it has deteriorated so much.
Frankly go back to le front page of the internet or wherever you came from and don't come back here anymore.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:15:28 UTC No. 16590700

>>16590688
Why are you so afraid to post even a sketch of that procedure for calculating heritability here? I don't really care about your past experiences on this board and how they've traumatized you.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:36:38 UTC No. 16590736

>>16589572
>twins raised by the exact same family are equally intelligent
w o a h

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:22 UTC No. 16590741

>>16590700
You are now admitting that you don't want to read it.
Every single question you have would be answered by reading it.
All the statements are notated with nice little numbers that will point you straight to it's academic source.
Just admit you have the attention span of a pigeon and leave.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:49:35 UTC No. 16590755

>>16590741
I'm not interested in answering the questions for myself. I already know that the calculations are totally fraudulent. I'm testing you to see if you know what you're talking about and you're completely failing.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:03:38 UTC No. 16590776

>>16590755
>I already know that the calculations are totally fraudulent.
And I am sure you are capable of backing up your claim, so let's see your proof.
>I'm testing you
You're very funny.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:44:31 UTC No. 16590898

>>16590755
>I already know that the calculations are totally fraudulent.
Elaborate

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:57:06 UTC No. 16590901

>>16590776
>>16590898
The definition of heritability is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability#Definition
It states that [math] P = G + E [/math], where P is the trait that can be measured experimentally like IQ test scores and G is the genetic effect on P and E is the environmental effect. This equation is the basis of all calculations of heritability in things like twin studies. Now anyone with even a middle school knowledge of mathematics can tell you that there is literally no reason for such an equation to hold because in general P will be a complicated function P(G, E). Just think about it - even if IQ score is considered a measure of intelligence, how do you know that IQ is equal to the sum of G and E rather than IQ^2 or 10^IQ or any other of the infinitely many possibilities? Indeed, how do you even know if any measure of intelligence can be written as such a sum? When this assumption is questioned, the entire industry of heritability calculation falls apart and is revealed to be nothing more than a pseudoscientific numerology.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:41:24 UTC No. 16590929

That formula is a statistical model used to approximate the variance in a population, not an absolute law. And it's backed up by mountains of real world data.
That real world data supports additive models, not your IQ^2 retardation.
>Indeed, how do you even know if any measure of intelligence can be written as such a sum?
Because the data from various twin studies, adoption studies and GWAS fits the assumption...
How long did you just spend malding on that Wikipedia page? Are you trolling? Are you actually retarded?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:55:40 UTC No. 16590940

>>16590901
P = G + E is indeed a simplification but a reasonable one. The validity of a scientific theory is in its predictive power. Just to give one example Steve Jobs biological relatives are all quite accomplished, despite very different environments (including growing up in poverty like his daughter Lisa), while his adoptive relatives are unexceptional. This is just an example among many. There are numerous studies on adoptive children and they all show the same thing: IQ is more correlated to that of their biological parents than with that of their adoptive parents. Blank statism cannot account for this. You can complicate P = G + E, grasp at straws all you want, but the harsh reality is that genes count. I'd like to point out, before getting accused of waaaaahhhcism that I don't like this state of affairs. In fact blank statism was, more or less, the worldview I was given as a child. The realization that genes were so fundamental was quite shocking, and not in a good way as I didn't like the implications at all. Unfortunately the data points overwhelmingly in one direction. It's nobody's fault, nature is a bitch and all that.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:10:25 UTC No. 16590948

>>16590929
You call it an approximation but that's ridiculous since you have no idea how close it is to the actual thing. Or if it is even a meaningful equation.
>data from various twin studies, adoption studies and GWAS fits the assumption...
You can make any data fit any assumption if you're sufficiently mathematically illiterate, like psychometricians are.

>>16590940
>predictive power
Lol. What predictions exactly has the widely used P = G + E model of heritability for intelligence made? And your image is evidence of nothing, btw because calculation of H from those correlations still relies on the retarded P = G + E assumption.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:19:52 UTC No. 16590955

>>16589572
>why do so many sociologists still unduly question the role of genetics?

You know why!
Because it would make people think naughty things about the priest class of the new religion, blcks.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:20:36 UTC No. 16590958

>>16590948
I cannot convince someone who's not in good faith. Reality comes knocking your door sooner or later. Good luck.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:20:53 UTC No. 16590959

>>16589953
Fuck
You

That is my answer.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:22:25 UTC No. 16590960

>>16590958
>>16590959
Yep, I expected no better. This is exactly how cultists behave when they're exposed to reality.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:23:24 UTC No. 16590961

>>16590960
Good. Now go adopt 5 african kids and raise them to be geniuses.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:26:18 UTC No. 16590962

>>16590960
>and then, for no reason at all, Donald Trump became president of the United States of America

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:28:58 UTC No. 16590965

>>16590961
>>16590962
They're not sending their best scientific racists! Sad! (paraphrasing your cult leader)

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:54:12 UTC No. 16590985

>>16590960
Typical group think repeater.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:55:25 UTC No. 16590988

>>16590965
You would be the first sack of subhuman trash to brow beat us how asians and jews are so intellectually superior.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 02:05:40 UTC No. 16590993

>>16590965
There is plenty of evidence in literature for the heritability of IQ, some of it was linked in this thread. It's not even a topic of debate outside the social """"sciences"""".
A word of advice, kid. People are fed up with your kind of shit. Really, really fed up. I've known insufferable faggots like you in real life. You just won't accept evidence if it goes against your ideology. By not accepting the scientifically backed answers other people give you, you "win" by default. The thing you don't understand is that your behaviour does not result in ACTUAL winning. Millions of people like you, behaving like you do, is the main reason Donald Trump won the last election. Millions of people, even in academia, denying the biological reality of sex, have permanently jaded a lot of people, even on the left. And now Donald Trump is in the White House and wants to rape academia (we can only hope). Are you happy with this result? If you are, please continue behaving like a faggot, online and in real life, so that we can speedrun the rise to power of the next Hitler.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 02:10:56 UTC No. 16590998

>>16590993
You are so retarded that you don't even realize IQ is a part of social science.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 02:22:19 UTC No. 16591011

>>16590998
Oh dear, I was referring to the part of the ideologically driven part of social science (the part that likes pronouns), not the fields who specifically study IQ like behavioural genetics. I guess it was clear from the context for anybody with an IQ>100 but I was wrong.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 02:27:11 UTC No. 16591016

>>16591011
>anything i like is not ideological
>anything i hate is ideological
Come on now, at least try to be less of a brainless NPC

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 02:27:56 UTC No. 16591017

>>16591016
Yes. It's also true.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 02:30:17 UTC No. 16591019

>>16589667
>The solution is a caste system
The solution is a concentration camp.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:45:17 UTC No. 16591196

>>16590568
Look up the twin studies dealing with IQ. They describe their methodoligy in depth.

What do you believe produces intelligent thought in a given human? Is it the brain or something else? Because if you believe that our thoughts are products of our physical bodies, then of course variance in cognitive ability depends on genes. Then we are just quibbling over whether or not the genes for intelligence are spread evenly across all of humanity. Which would be almost impossible. Why would the cold asiatic planes produce the same genetic outcomes as the african jungles in regards to IQ but nothing else in humans?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:36:29 UTC No. 16591280

>>16591196
Look up the critique of twin studies that was posted ITT >>16590901. Their methodology is outright fraudulent and would never be entertained if psychometry were a real science. Also, I suspect that even these correlation reports in IQ studies are highly fraudulent and undistinguishable from noise.
>Then we are just quibbling over whether or not the genes for intelligence are spread evenly across all of humanity.
No, the question is how much of the influence to attribute to the environment vs how much to genes. Keep up.
>Why would the cold asiatic planes produce the same genetic outcomes as the african jungles in regards to IQ but nothing else in humans?
Nothing else? You think the number of hands is not genetic? The number of eyes? etc. You are exactly the type of dimwitted moron who is the customer for this type of pseudoscientific fraud.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:56:32 UTC No. 16591349

>>16591280
the ragebait lmao

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:09:15 UTC No. 16591359

>>16591349
>ragebait
Yes, the typical reaction of cultists when anyone calls them out is rage.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:20:46 UTC No. 16591366

>>16590023
Yes, everything about your posting style screams that you don't want to hear arguments and aren't going to do any actual reading around the topic and wish to be spoonfed because you're lazy..

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:28:23 UTC No. 16591371

>>16590998
>IQ is a part of social science.
IQ is psychometrics, the only legitimate data driven area in all of the social "sciences" and iq is the most replicable field in psychometrics

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:56:30 UTC No. 16591415

I am >>16590929
>>16590948
>You call it an approximation but that's ridiculous since you have no idea how close it is to the actual thing. Or if it is even a meaningful equation.
It's a statistical model that fits the observed data.
>You can make any data fit any assumption if you're sufficiently mathematically illiterate, like psychometricians are.
Prove that the data shouldn't fit the model or that the model is wrong, prove that the researchers in question are mathematically illiterate.
Again, >>16590473 contains the link to the expert review with over 100 citations for you to go through and debunk.
I will be waiting and until you can deliver on your claim that it is fraudulent, I and any half-aware fool in this thread will assume you are full of shit and coping because you scored lower on an IQ test than you expected.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:37:47 UTC No. 16594719

>>16590023
yes, anyone who is sooo invested in disagreeing with heritability of intelligence as you are but who keeps asking for basic stuff is dishonest. consider offing yourself.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:39:21 UTC No. 16594720

>>16591366
no, she hopes to tire out her opponents with this tactics better suited to two year olds, then crow about victory.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:21:14 UTC No. 16594750

>>16591415
>It's a statistical model that fits the observed data.
Wrong, you have no idea about how any of this works, because you're mathematically illiterate. The heritability is a calculation made using some observed data. There's no fitting anything here. It's just assuming that the data fits the model (particularly the dumbest possible model) and then using that to calculate the "heritability", when in fact there is no reason to think that this number has anything to do with any heritability at all.

>>16591371
That's what they like to advertise themselves as but it's complete nonsense as I've shown throughout the thread.

>>16594719
>>16591366
>>16594720
Psychometry fans can only do adhominems because they're retarded and don't know how to argue their points like real scientists.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:49:26 UTC No. 16594785

>No the heritability isn't real
this is a new cope

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:57:35 UTC No. 16594792

>>16594785
Yep. Definitely not real. When they say something like "le heritability of intelligence is le 69%", those two digits have no significance at all.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:18:10 UTC No. 16594815

>>16594792
read this: https://lesacreduprintemps19.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/making-sense-of-heritability-neven-sesardic.pdf
until then, shut the fuck up.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:31:34 UTC No. 16594828

>>16594792
Nobody argues that.
they argue based on all the data available that heritability rises with age

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:02:39 UTC No. 16594964

>>16594815
I skimmed through the first chapter where they try and fail to define heritability, so I stopped reading. Their definition fails because of the reason I already gave in >>16590901. Specifically, their claim in page 21 that the variance in the phenotype [math] P [/math] can be split up as [math] V_P = V_G + V_E + V_I + 2 \text{Cov}(G, E) [/math] is already unjustified (I included the factor of two to correct their typo), since there is no reason for such an equation to hold when [math] P = P(G, E) [/math] for even a slightly complicated function P. Of course, you could simply try to define [math] V_I [/math] as [math] V_P - V_G - V_E - 2 \text{Cov}(G, E) [/math] or something, but that would have no scientific meaning since [math] V_I [/math] couldn't even be interpreted as a variance of some variable anymore - it's not even guaranteed to be non-negative and it would be impossible to measure without already knowing [math] V_G, V_E [/math] beforehand. The way they split up [math] V_G, V_E [/math] further as a sum of different types of variances is unjustified for the same reason. This means that the equation is ill-defined and as a consequence their notion of heritability is also ill-defined and the rest of the book might as well be fiction. To their credit, they do mention the various discontents of serious scientists with trying to measure heritability, so if you want to look up these criticisms by others, the book might help lol.

>>16594828
Sadly, they have no way to know the heritability from the data so such conclusions have to be baseless.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:05:27 UTC No. 16594969

>>16594964
So you inherited a few special characters, and found no joy in the equations.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:13:03 UTC No. 16594987

>>16594964
So why does it increase with age?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:15:57 UTC No. 16594995

>>16594987
Why does what increase with age?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 23:13:38 UTC No. 16595641

>>16594750
>It's just assuming that the data fits the model
No, the data fits the model. The model itself is an assumption, a simplification, but valid for its common use cases and empirically sound.
It is not arbitrary.
Take a step back and think about what you are actually saying.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 23:59:13 UTC No. 16595714

>>16589946
Yes. We want Vedic era India, not modern India after it has been corrupted by centuries of exploitative British colonialism, which themselves were preceded by centuries of Islamic rule, which in turn were preceded by centuries of intermixing between the Indo-Aryan settlers and the earlier Dravidian populations of the Indian subcontinent. In the times of Ancient Greece and prior, the Indians were some of the most intellectually and culturally advanced people on earth - and they also would have been much whiter. India when it was ruled by the ancient Indo-Aryans was a great civilization, and it relied on a caste system to protect it's elite human capital (i.e. the white who migrated there from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in modern Russia and Ukraine).

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:41:28 UTC No. 16596327

>>16589572
>sociologists favor the explanation which gets their Field Jobs
It’s a Mystery

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:26:01 UTC No. 16596380

>>16596327
retard