Dysgenics: Is the western society gene pool degenerating?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by 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.

Very good point.
A lot of people think factors are additive, like say if something is 40% inherited that it is 60 % nurtured.
That's of course not true in general, but some people who know that think that means it's not quantifiable at all.
Not additive doesn't mean not quantifiable.
You can still measure the interaction factor and statements like" trait A is .2 inherited, .5 nurtured and .3 interaction between the two " are actually meaningful.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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.

Height is not "indepedently determined by both nature and nuture".
It may be "understandable to assume" it, but it is false.
Think about it a bit, if you still disagree with me about this, I guess I can give more details, but it should be clear to anybody I think.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

And then claim there is proof?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

I said im dubious, not that its impossible. I dont think you can do it with twin studies though.

My assumption is that parents with a relatively high IQ infant will parent differently than ones with a low IQ infant. In terms of amount and type of attention, play, verbal stimulation, etc. (there may also be an impact of parental IQ phenotype, with its genetic component, on parental decision making,including prenatal decision making, but i think thats lesser than the differential parenting style effect) I assume that this impact would effect adoptive parents as well, and I dont know how you design an ethicial and feasible study (IE not one that dictates the details of parenting) that would test for it. But then im not an experimental psychologist.

Im also unclear on how twins studies adjust for prenatal environment effects. Anyone know?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme

Height is not "indepedently determined by both nature and nuture".
It may be "understandable to assume" it, but it is false.
Think about it a bit, if you still disagree with me about this, I guess I can give more details, but it should be clear to anybody I think.

The effects of nature and nuture are independent, no? Regardless, this isn't about height. How can you say you proof that intelligence is determined by nature if you can't show that the effects of nature and nuture are not independent?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The effects of nature and nuture are independent, no? Regardless, this isn't about height. How can you say you proof that intelligence is determined by nature if you can't show that the effects of nature and nuture are not independent?

No the effects of nature and nurture on height are not independent.
This has both been shown in studies and should be pretty obvious.
You may try sidestep and say this isn't about height, but the point is, intelligence is in the same basket, and you don't understand what is happening in the height case anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme

No the effects of nature and nurture on height are not independent.
This has both been shown in studies and should be pretty obvious.
You may try sidestep and say this isn't about height, but the point is, intelligence is in the same basket, and you don't understand what is happening in the height case anyway.

I'm sidestepping? Look bud, is it reasonable to expect the factors to have independent effects? I don't have a PHd in statistics but I know a little. And I also know when someone is bull****ting. And there's a lot of ****ing bull****ting here.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm sidestepping? Look bud, is it reasonable to expect the factors to have independent effects? I don't have a PHd in statistics but I know a little. And I also know when someone is bull****ting. And there's a lot of ****ing bull****ting here.

Well I'm doing a PhD in math right now (not that it is needed here, this is basics stuff) and I can tell you, you seem to understand nothing of what is happening here.

I'm a bit tired of you keep repeating it is reasonable to assume the factors are independent, since every study ever done has shown they are not, and it is obvious to anyone. I think you don't even understand what independent means,
Let me give you an example.
Say there are two sets of genes A and B, and two different environments C and D.
We see a kid with genes A in environment C and he measures 5 ft.
A kid with gene A in environment D is 5 ft 1.
So the effect of environment C->D is +1 inch.
Now another kid has gene B in environment C and measure 5ft 3.
A last kid with gene B in env D would nec. measure 5f 4 if the effects were independent, but in practice this is of course not always the case. (OF COURSE)
In other words THE EFFECT OF A CERTAIN ENVIRONMENT ON THE PHENOTYPE DEPENDS ON THE GENOTYPE.

This is true for almost any trait or gene considered, btw and the fact that you keep saying the opposite is obvious shows that you don't even understand these issues at the most basic level.

You say you know a little statistics.
Come forward and explain what independence means, in a statistical sense.
Done properly, this will contradict pretty much everything you've said so far.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Arguing "theres no evidence for any X" is supremely difficult, because ANY evidence for even a little bit of X proves you wrong.

Yeah, I should have said proof, not evidence.

[Fake Boris]

Here's the quirp, Kid: causation is a metaphysical concept that is pretty much meaningless in the context of experimental science.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


In fact, somebody could argue that basically almost all of science is studying correlations and nobody ever knows anything about causations.

This is far from being the most basic problem in Kid's case.

Thinking that something like height is independently caused (or even correlated) by both genes and environment blows my mind as it not only goes against every study, but also against common sense.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


Well I'm doing a PhD in math right now (not that it is needed here, this is basics stuff) and I can tell you, you seem to understand nothing of what is happening here.

I'm a bit tired of you keep repeating it is reasonable to assume the factors are independent, since every study ever done has shown they are not, and it is obvious to anyone. I think you don't even understand what independent means,
Let me give you an example.
Say there are two sets of genes A and B, and two different environments C and D.
We see a kid with genes A in environment C and he measures 5 ft.
A kid with gene A in environment D is 5 ft 1.
So the effect of environment C->D is +1 inch.
Now another kid has gene B in environment C and measure 5ft 3.
A last kid with gene B in env D would nec. measure 5f 4 if the effects were independent, but in practice this is of course not always the case. (OF COURSE)
In other words THE EFFECT OF A CERTAIN ENVIRONMENT ON THE PHENOTYPE DEPENDS ON THE GENOTYPE.

This is true for almost any trait or gene considered, btw and the fact that you keep saying the opposite is obvious shows that you don't even understand these issues at the most basic level.

You say you know a little statistics.
Come forward and explain what independence means, in a statistical sense.
Done properly, this will contradict pretty much everything you've said so far.

This is nothing but crap. How about defending your claim?

[Lul Thyme]

That "crap" actually proved my claim, that the two are not independent.
Care to explain what you think independence means in this case?

[ZEE]

kid,

stop trolling. i know you are having fun... but you are geting lame...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Here's the quirp, Kid: causation is a metaphysical concept that is pretty much meaningless in the context of experimental science.

Yes, I know. However, in this case we have people claiming that there is strong evidence for something based on correlation when it seems reasonable to assume that the dependence of the variables is significant enough to discredit the study.