Dysgenics: Is the western society gene pool degenerating?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You need to show causation first, or correlation is meaningless.

This is one of the dumbest thing I have seen on this site in a while.
If you know causation, then correlation is not needed.
Do you even know what correlation means?

EDIT:
I've read your posts more in detail now and I think I'm just wasting my time...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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

kids an easy mark. Not cause hes dumb about substance (he isnt always) but because he doesnt seem to grasp elementary debate strategy. Or else he doesnt care about it.

Arguing "theres no evidence for any X" is supremely difficult, because ANY evidence for even a little bit of X proves you wrong. Anyone whos spent a tiny amount of time on a high school or college debate team knows you dont want to be in that position, you want your adversary to be in that position.

And proving "theres no evidence for any genetic component to intelligence" is hardly essential to address the points that Dis raises.

Lul Thymes mention of height is relevant. Height is partly inherited, but theres been massive increases in average height over the years due to improved health and nutrition.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


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.

I would not question whether height is an inheritable trait or not, because there is no ideogically bent examination of that question. However when you look at eugenics you see a **** load of bogus science. In this case I would like to see causation and proof. The point is of course that you need causation to have proof not just to have the opinion one way or the other.

[KrazyHorse]

Height is partly inherited, but theres been massive increases in average height over the years due to improved health and nutrition.

I don't know anybody who claims that intelligence is not also heavily dependent on upbringing/general health etc...

[KrazyHorse]

I would not question whether height is an inheritable trait or not, because there is no ideogically bent examination of that question.

What. The. ****.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


This is one of the dumbest thing I have seen on this site in a while.
If you know causation, then correlation is not needed.
Do you even know what correlation means?

EDIT:
I've read your posts more in detail now and I think I'm just wasting my time...

Well my age has strongly correlated with the size of the national debt. I suppose causation is not important here.

[Lul Thyme]

You dont understand anything.
There IS NO direct causation for intelligence, you are right.
But there is no direct causation with height either!!
Yet it is still inherited!
Point being that your requirement that you want to see "causation and proof" is stupid.

Again, there is no direct causation for height and it is still inherited, just like intelligence.
There is no qualititative difference between height and intelligence. Both are partly inherited partly nurtured, just like LOTM said and every study has shown (and people also knew).
The only difference between those two issues is in your own mind.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well my age has strongly correlated with the size of the national debt. I suppose causation is not important here.

What's your point?
You finally figured that correlation doesn't imply causation?
Nobody has claimed causation anyway, only correlation.
In fact, somebody could argue that basically almost all of science is studying correlations and nobody ever knows anything about causations.


Here let me turn the whole thing around.
/in Kidicious voice : Give me PROOF and CAUSATION that height is inherited!!

Warning: You won't be able to do it, thus I claim that height is not inherited.

Now turn the table around, replace height by int. and that's basically the argument we're having.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
You dont understand anything.
There IS NO direct causation for intelligence, you are right.
But there is no direct causation with height either!!
Yet it is still inherited!
Point being that your requirement that you want to see "causation and proof" is stupid.

Again, there is no direct causation for height and it is still inherited, just like intelligence.
There is no qualititative difference between height and intelligence. Both are partly inherited partly nurtured, just like LOTM said and every study has shown (and people also knew).
The only difference between those two issues is in your own mind.

Sadly you are confusing proof with assumption.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Height is partly inherited, but theres been massive increases in average height over the years due to improved health and nutrition.

I don't know anybody who claims that intelligence is not also heavily dependent on upbringing/general health etc...

Murray Hernstein in the Bell Curve, confounded that by saying "IQ is partly heritable, you cant change that, we know its partly not heritable, but we see no evidence you can change that by social engineering, so lets just treat it as if it was all heritable" which is, IMHO, intellecutally dishonest and has been a big influence on thinking about intelligence and social policy. If theres a big non-heritable component, how relevant is the fact of a heritable component (and Im dubious of attempts to quantify each component, because I think they do interact - higher genetic IQ in infants changes care provider interaction) to the question of social policy - could it be because then the focus would be on IF and WHY prior interventions have failed to impact IQ, and what policies might work?

Ignore kid for a moment, and look at the OP.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Murray Hernstein in the Bell Curve, confounded that by saying "IQ is partly heritable, you cant change that, we know its partly not heritable, but we see no evidence you can change that by social engineering, so lets just treat it as if it was all heritable" which is, IMHO, intellecutally dishonest and has been a big influence on thinking about intelligence and social policy. If theres a big non-heritable component, how relevant is the fact of a heritable component (and Im dubious of attempts to quantify each component, because I think they do interact - higher genetic IQ in infants changes care provider interaction) to the question of social policy - could it be because then the focus would be on IF and WHY prior interventions have failed to impact IQ, and what policies might work?

Ignore kid for a moment, and look at the OP.

I see the point you're making LOTM but to me, the OP seems kind of disjointed and I am at loss to comment on it.

[Lul Thyme]

Kid, once again, I challenge you to explain why height and intelligence and different in the regard we are discussing.

[KrazyHorse]

Im dubious of attempts to quantify each component, because I think they do interact - higher genetic IQ in infants changes care provider interaction

I have no doubt that the two factors are not independent, however I don't think you have to throw your hands in the air and claim to be unable to put limits on it.

[KrazyHorse]

Personally, I feel that the weakest link in the whole discussion is actually the identification of IQ with intelligence...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


What's your point?
You finally figured that correlation doesn't imply causation?
Nobody has claimed causation anyway, only correlation.
In fact, somebody could argue that basically almost all of science is studying correlations and nobody ever knows anything about causations.


Here let me turn the whole thing around.
/in Kidicious voice : Give me PROOF and CAUSATION that height is inherited!!

Warning: You won't be able to do it, thus I claim that height is not inherited.

Now turn the table around, replace height by int. and that's basically the argument we're having.

In regards to height it is understandable to assume that height is both indepedently determined by both nature and nuture. In regards to intelligence it is not understandable to assume that intelligence is determined by nature indendent of nuture.