Strength? Partially genetic. Partially diet.
and yes I do think that it is mostly a genetic trait. Our DNA is constantly being coded with new and different information at increasing rates. At the same time info is junked or blocked off.
and yes I do think that it is mostly a genetic trait. Our DNA is constantly being coded with new and different information at increasing rates. At the same time info is junked or blocked off.
no, if the genetics was 100% than yes your conclusion would be true but if genetics is 50% than you could see a difference but not as marked a difference as you would see if say genetics accounted for 0%.
I think I worded that bad.
What I mean is, if IQ is at all genetic wouldn't the population of the children whose parents moved to England still be lower than the native white population of England? According to that study within one generation the children pretty much closed the gap.
Now either Indians have ridiculous evolutionary abilities and evolved beyond their previous intelligence in one generation or this is just bunk.
I'm going with bunk.
ed21x
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2001
- 5,411
- 8
- 81
whatever it is that your profesor says, i find it hard to imagine when Asians tend to consistently wreck the curve here in any class, be it math, science, or english. I personally hate it because most of them can hardly speak english, yet tend to score rediculously high on essays =\ but yeah, the stuff that you mentioned is probably hard to dispute because creativity cannot be measured. unfortunately, IQ, mathematics, science, and analytical thinking can.
That still doesn't sense. If the base intelligence of one group of people is higher and they are in the same environment as people of another group, shouldn't it be base + improvement.Originally posted by: Ronstang
Maybe what it means is that genetics sets the base....and environment influences improvement.
Like if one group has an 85 base IQ and the other group has a 100 base IQ and they are both moved to a better environment with lets say... 5 points of improvment.
It would be 100+5=115
85+5=90
The other group could improve but since the genetics aren't there they would always be a gap.
:roll:
talking about jumping to a conclusion with no logical reasoning.
so you start with the premise that genetics = 50% and enviroment = 50%.
you then state that because some kids changed their enviroment and their iq changed that automatically meant that enviroment = 100%??
how about your logic is bunk.
Originally posted by: Proletariat
That still doesn't sense. If the base intelligence of one group of people is higher and they are in the same environment as people of another group, shouldn't it be base + improvement.Originally posted by: Ronstang
Maybe what it means is that genetics sets the base....and environment influences improvement.
Like if one group has an 85 base IQ and the other group has a 100 base IQ and they are both moved to a better environment with lets say... 5 points of improvment.
It would be 100+5=115
85+5=90
The other group could improve but since the genetics aren't there they would always be a gap.
It was said in jest. You are putting way too much effort into this subject.
Bleh, whatever. If you don't see that study as groundbreaking its not my fault. It pretty much disproves the originally premise.
I do realize that it is fine to attack blacks on these boards though so I guess I'm fighting an uphill battle.
:roll:
disagreeing with your logic is not the same as attacking blacks. :roll:
again, a complete lack of logical progression.
Oh god nerd. Stop rolling your eyes you knows its kosher here. There are so many of these damn threads.
Anyways what exactly is wrong with my logic? If a group is in a nonconducive environment to learning and scores an 85 and another portion of that group is moved to a conducive environment towards learning and scores a 100 which on par with the natives in the conducive environment isn't that some major ammo against any sort of genetic distinction?
only if the OP had made the initial claim that enviroment is 100% of the reason behind IQ. that's not what was posted. it was posted that enviroment is 50%.
the fact that their iq's went up only proves that enviroment is a partial component, which everyone already knew.
*sigh* this is getting repetitive. The study I posted pretty much shows that that is not true. If it was the genetically superior race would almost always score higher regardless of environment.
Unless he is saying 50% of the time its environment and 50% of the time its genetics. And that just doesn't make any sense.
you don't even understand what it is you are arguing against. that's pretty sad.
let me lay it out for you.
50% of determining factors in determining someones IQ is enviroment (parents, schooling, friends, teachers etc) 50% of determining factors are genetics (what you are innately born with).
it could easily be argued that the reason the indian kids went from an iq of 85 to 100 is because of their innate genetic ability.
let's say in india they could only study 2 hours / week, even tho they had the innate ability to score higher on the IQ exams because they could only spend 2 hours / week in any kind of mental stimulation, their iq scores were lower.
once they moved to india, the kids were able to spend 20 hours / week studying, the additional mental stimulation allowed their natural genetic abilities come out and wow, they scored higher on the IQ exams.
does it really have to be spelled out that clearly for you?
No it doesn't. It has already been said in this thread, in the OP, and other studies that there are variables.
I posted a link by the same author talking about one thing that might contribute.
Well that makes sense. So environment can override the genetics and vice versa. Why didn't you just post that in the first place?
But if you use that logic and say that blacks are mostly in non-conducive home/school environments how will we ever know what their real potential is unless we transplant them and put them into one and then carry out the study?
Of course enviroment can override genetics. Why do you think you know what you do. You aren't born with it. The only reason we have advanced as far as we have is because we write stuff down or are told.
However that has limitations.
It still doesn't change the fact that there is an average that varies among races.
that's why the study linked by the OP is controversial.
you can't separate out that 50% any more than you can ignore it.
if the averages are true.
whites average 100, blacks average 85 and asians average 106
it would be difficult to try and claim that scores are based 100% on enviroment. anymore than you can claim it is 100% on genetics.
I didn't claim either.
I think everyone should read The Bell Curve, The Mismeasure of a Man, Richard Lynn's writings, the available studies, previous thread (great links) and Guns, Germs, And Steel to get a perspective on the subject.
The gap is there. Both nature and nurture play a roll. The only argument is to what extent. Even then there is going to be a ceiling. If there is any genetic part to this that varies by race no amount of equal nurture will change the overall difference.
This is an interesting subject but I think it's funny how the "free thinking" PC movement wants you to stop thinking about this subject.
How can you honestly believe that somehow all these people from different areas of Earth evolved to look so different, be different sizes, different strengths, different everything... yet still somehow be 100% equal in regards to intelligence? You don't think it's possible that one group took a slightly different evolutionary path and evolved more intelligence?
Playing the "whitey keeping us down" card only gets you so far. It doesn't explain why some groups turn out to be more intelligent than whites, while others are less intelligent.
I let the test scores speak for themselves. This isn't a fluke. As long as SAT scores have been recorded, certain groups have always done better than others. This is a plain fact, and you can't weasel your way around it. You also can't weasel your way around the fact that no white guy has ever been able to run a sub-10 second 100m dash, while plenty of athletes of Western African descent have been able to do it. People from Kenya seem to dominate marathon events. This isn't a rare occurance, the people from that area are just make better marathon runners.
Can't people read the writing on the wall? Some groups of people that evolved in certain areas of Earth have different capabilities than others. They have their own set of strongpoints/weakpoints.
Now like Dijobi said, I don't know if you'd call that "race", since the categories are way too broad. But you can see that people who evolved in certain areas of Earth do have genetically prevalent strongpoints/weakpoints.
How can you honestly believe that somehow all these people from different areas of Earth evolved to look so different, be different sizes, different strengths, different everything... yet still somehow be 100% equal in regards to intelligence? You don't think it's possible that one group took a slightly different evolutionary path and evolved more intelligence?
Playing the "whitey keeping us down" card only gets you so far. It doesn't explain why some groups turn out to be more intelligent than whites, while others are less intelligent.
I let the test scores speak for themselves. This isn't a fluke. As long as SAT scores have been recorded, certain groups have always done better than others. This is a plain fact, and you can't weasel your way around it. You also can't weasel your way around the fact that no white guy has ever been able to run a sub-10 second 100m dash, while plenty of athletes of Western African descent have been able to do it. People from Kenya seem to dominate marathon events. This isn't a rare occurance, the people from that area are just make better marathon runners.
Can't people read the writing on the wall? Some groups of people that evolved in certain areas of Earth have different capabilities than others. They have their own set of strongpoints/weakpoints.
Now like Dijobi said, I don't know if you'd call that "race", since the categories are way too broad. But you can see that people who evolved in certain areas of Earth do have genetically prevalent strongpoints/weakpoints.
Agreed. From the other thread:
"The rate at which information is written to DNA has increased greatly over human history. Currently it is about one bit per year. It is stupid think that the same information was written to all races especially since most were isolated for long periods. What allows us to have society as we know it is written language that lets us pass down information from one generation to the next without having to wait for it to be coded into our DNA. The complexity of this information is growing and just because you are human does not mean that your DNA has been coded with the appropriate tools (intelligence) to grasp it."
lol. All this argument is simply over the fact that people would never like to admit your race is more retarded than anothers.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter