Dysgenics: Is the western society gene pool degenerating?

[KrazyHorse]

Well the last time that I studied this was 1995

My mother has a BSc in psychology from the early 70s and all of her textbooks regard intelligence as highly inheritable.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Well the last time that I studied this was 1995

My mother has a BSc in psychology from the early 70s and all of her textbooks regard intelligence as highly inheritable.

Back then there surely was no proof. I still would like to know what you think is the big proof today.


Not that I'm questioning it necessarily. I would just like to know.

[KrazyHorse]

Back then there surely was no proof

You're an idiot.

[Kidlicious]

I think you're the idiot if you don't have the ability to back up what you claim.

[Kidlicious]

Ok KH, what was the proof that intelligence was inheritable in the 70s *******.

[RGBVideo]

I'm amazed that all you people can do is post a wiki article link to answer the question.

It's the fastest way. You want me to recollect what I was told in school from my incoherent (and biased) memory when I can google a source directory in two minutes?

Well the last time that I studied this was 1995, and I read that there is new evidence, so I'm just trying to brush up on it. That's what I said in my post.

The first scientific report which proves the presupposition that intelligence is an inherited trait offered in the wiki article is from 1869: http://galton.org/books/hereditary-genius/

[KrazyHorse]

I still would like to know what you think is the big proof today.

Any one of dozens of studies which demonstrate a strong correlation between the intelligence of related individuals who did not share common upbringings.

Many of which date back to the first half of the 20th century, by the way.

[KrazyHorse]

If you want the ****ing article cites then find them for yourself, you ****ing tool.

You're ****ing pathetic.

[Kidlicious]

VJ, I'm not looking for citations. What is the proof?

[LordShiva]

Disgenics

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I still would like to know what you think is the big proof today.

Any one of dozens of studies which demonstrate a strong correlation between the intelligence of related individuals who did not share common upbringings.

Many of which date back to the first half of the 20th century, by the way.

Are you refering to the Cyril Burt study? I need to know which one.

[RGBVideo]

VJ, I'm not looking for citations. What is the proof?

The method for measuring intelligence in the 1869 study I linked is quite complex, but you should understand the point by reading the PDF's contained within my link.

The easiest scientific way you can prove the inheritance of intelligence for yourself is to hire psychologists to start taking IQ tests from people and their relatives. 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.

[Kidlicious]

You have to clearly show causation to have PROOF. I'm I wrong?

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/d...sm/Intell.html

Family Studies

Findings from twin, adoption, and family studies are the most commonly cited forms of evidence for a biological theory of intelligence. These studies compare individuals with very similar DNA (identical twins or related family members) with biologically unrelated children growing up in the same home or with children and their adoptive parents. This method attempts to distinguish traits a person is born with from those influenced by his or her environment. Molecular biologist, Robert Plomin has utilized such studies to estimate the heritability of intelligence at around .50 (50%) of the variance [18]. Other studies utilizing g as a cognitive measure have arrived at similar estimates. Longitudinal studies show that these effects increase with age. The heritability of g appears to rise to about .75 (75%) by late adolescence. One explanation for this shift is that family influences on cognition are deemed to diminish throughout development. Also possible, explains Plomin, is that additional gene expression delayed during childhood may be triggered as cognitive processes develop.

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.

Second, a majority of these studies do not account for how IQ outcomes are affected by class differences. Eric Turkheimer, et al. utilized the twin/adoption and family method to show that socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children [20]. The study found that in families who subsisted on incomes at or below the poverty line, the heritabilty effects on IQ were close to zero, whereas in affluent families, these effects were quite high. They also found that parental education levels modified both the effects of heritability and environment, increasing the former and decreasing the latter as years of education increased. In cases where adequate nutrition, access to education, protection from exposure to environmental toxins, and similar issues have affected the development of individuals, heritability estimates have been shown to be expressed quite differently.

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].”

[KrazyHorse]

What kiddy posted boils down to this:

"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"

[Kidlicious]

Are you going to rest your argument purely on correlation and insults KH?