Dysgenics: Is the western society gene pool degenerating?

[Q Classic]

My university did some research (UChicago) on the subject.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Are you going to rest your argument purely on correlation and insults KH?

It's not an argument when one side is manifestly correct. It's a beatdown.

[lord of the mark]

there is evidence of an inheritable component to IQ. There is also evidence of non--inheritable components to IQ (note, that identical twins dont always have identical IQs, for example) We have a tendency to jump on the fact of an inheritable component of a trait and to ignore the non-heritable component shown in the same studies (not this is done with regard to homosexuality as well as intelligence, for very different political reasons)

AFAIK there is no evidence that observed differences in IQ by class, of the kind that concern Dis wrt to dysgenics, are based on the heritable component. IE the poor may have the same IQ genotype as the rich, but have a lower IQ phenotype, due to the non-heritable component.

Note, non-heritable does not necessarily mean upbringing. It COULD mean pre-natal environment - lead exposure, prenatal nutrition,fetal alcohol syndrome etc. Oddly, all the people who are so sure that the poor have low IQs because of bad genes, when they or their spouses get pregnant, are VERY careful of maternal nutrition, lead etc. AFAIK, anyway.


Id spend less time worrying about dysgenics, than I would about the costs we as a society bear due to thinkgs like lead exposure, poor prenatal nutrition, etc.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
My university did some research (UChicago) on the subject.

[RGBVideo]

There have been hundreds of studies about this subject, Kid. If you can come up with another possible cause for the correlation of this trait between parents and their children, chances are that it has already been noted in research decades ago. Feel free to use google if you think your theory is Right.

But do these studies provide evidence that intelligence is inherited? Causation has not been determined here. There are two significant problems associated with twin/adoption and family studies. First is the assumption that genetic effects can be separated from environmental effects. This position rests on the “equal environments assumption” (EEA), which posits that the environment of individuals in the same or different homes can be controlled for in such a way that genetic effects can be separated out. There have been serious critiques levied at EEA due to the way adoptive and non-adoptive environments are appraised as being different or alike [19]. Additionally, the idea that genetic and environmental effects are simply additive and work in isolation of one another is false.

If you look at my post above, it already dealt with this:

A strong correlation between parents and their children has been observed in every >400 person study made about the subject during the last 50 years, even if the parents gave away their children for adoption right after they were born.

Another phenomenon that seems to refute current heritability estimates is the “Flynn effect [21],” which describes a steady worldwide rise in performance since testing began. A three-point rise in IQ per decade on average has been noted, even when tests have been re-standardized to account for these gains. The reasons for this rise are not known, but one explanation involves children’s need, and the need of people in general, to adapt to the increasing complexity of modern life. Obviously the rise cannot result from genetic mutation as the time frame is too narrow. Rather, the Flynn effect may demonstrate how flexible human cognitive development really is. As successive generations take in greater, and more complex, amounts of information from shifting sources such as television and radio, they learn to process the increase. The phenomenon calls into question the extent to which g is an inborn trait. Members of the American Psychological Association task force underscored in their 1995 report that: “…heritable traits can depend on learning and they may be subject to other environmental effects as well. The value of heritability can change if the distribution of environments (or genes) in the population is substantially altered [22].”

Altough the global quality of education has gone up, the Flynn effect has actually reversed during the last 10 years. This is currently noted in the link to a wiki article Dis' provides in the OP of this thread. I believe the reversal of Flynn effect is in fact the reason Dis started this thread.

"We all know that inheritance is inherited to a large extent, but because that doesn't fit with our world-view we're going to spout a bunch of nihilistic mumbo-jumbo to try and cast some doubt on what is a very clear result. Luckily most of the people who study psychology couldn't find the ground if they fell out of an airplane, so this approach works fairly well"

Yeah... research conclusions dictated from an ideology, not ideology dictated from research conclusions. I hate that.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
there is evidence of an inheritable component to IQ. There is also evidence of non--inheritable components to IQ (note, that identical twins dont always have identical IQs, for example)

Yes, most studies about the inheritance of IQ which have been published in the 20th century seem to be actually about how much of the IQ is inherited, not whether IQ is an inheritable trait or not.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VJ
Yeah... research conclusions dictated from an ideology, not ideology dictated from research conclusions. I hate that.

When did you aquire your ideology?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VJ
If you look at my post above, it already dealt with this:

Can you explain this too me?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VJ

Yes, most studies about the inheritance of IQ which have been published in the 20th century seem to be actually about how much of the IQ is inherited, not whether IQ is an inheritable trait or not.

Obviously this is an error since it was never proven that IQ is an inheritable trait. You need to show causation first, or correlation is meaningless.

[KrazyHorse]

Obviously this is an error.

[RGBVideo]

Can you explain this too me?

Read what the quotes say. If you can't understand what I mean after reading this whole thread, I can't help you.

When did you aquire your ideology?

What is my ideology? If some -ism is needed, I have always labeled myself as a pragmatist.

[Kidlicious]

Everyone has an ideology, and I'm not talking about pragmatism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VJ

Read what the quotes say. If you can't understand what I mean after reading this whole thread, I can't help you.

Simply clarify what you mean. Why is it important when the adoption occured to prove causation?

[MOBIUS]

Careful you don't get sucked into another 1,000+ postathon of meaningless crap with the Kid. We've already established he's a moron in the first couple of posts - clearly in the New World Order he would be one of the first cleansed from the gene pool...

Our job is done here, time to move on.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You have to clearly show causation to have PROOF. I'm I wrong?

No. That's very dumb.
For almost all traits that are called "inheritable" the causation is not actually understood they just have a very high correlation.
For example, would you argue that height is not inheritable?
It is, in almost all senses of the word, yet the link is just a correlation.
For almost any sensible definition you use of intelligence, you will find a similar (but probably much weaker) correlation.
In terms of inheritance, there is not much qualitative difference between height and intelligence.