general
Discord ID: 634367565304561675
1,011,369 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 347/4046
| Next
it's the general heritability
`Estimates of the total heritability of human traits assume the absence of epistasis, which has been called the "assumption of additivity". Although some researchers have cited such estimates in support of the existence of "missing heritability" unaccounted for by known genetic loci, the assumption of additivity may render these estimates invalid.[12] There is also some empirical evidence that the additivity assumption is frequently violated in behavior genetic studies of adolescent intelligence and academic achievement.[13]`
there are genetic bottlenecks
where a few families end up making the whole population
babygottbach i dont really understand what you are ultimately arguing
you dramatically change the gene pool that way
@BabygottBach why is the assumption of additivity necessary?
are you trying to tell us that children dont inherit genes from their parents?
I don't know, @Nerthulas
that's a simple way groups will difer by time
there
discussion over
I don't understand the statistical measures of heritability to understand why
can you explain why twins perform similarly in different environments if heritability of IQ is bullshit?
He's calling things into question unjustifiably
Some funky sociological mechanism
That quote he just posted is shit
I'm fully justified
It's not even making a counter claim
how is it not?
It's simply trying to create doubt
God of the gaps except god is society
Sure
Where's the counter claim and evidence to back it up
I don't understand, what do you mean some funky sociological mechanism - they have identical genomes
There literally are sociological studies though
the findings are consistent
Post up the study invalidating additivity
>sociology
LOL
why do the twins have similar results?
All you have is variance, @Nerthulas
Exactly
@Nerthulas it conflicts with his world view so he has to invent some random "sociological mechanism" he cant explain
Sociology is literal Frankfurt School shit
```One of the most interesting developmental findings about intelligence is that its heritability as estimated in twin studies increases dramatically from infancy (20%) to childhood (40%) to adulthood (60%), while age-to-age genetic correlations are consistently high43,44. What could account for this increasing heritability despite unchanging age-to-age genetic correlations? Twin studies suggest that genetic effects are amplified through geneโenvironment correlation as time goes by45. That is, the same large set of DNA variants affects intelligence from childhood to adulthood, resulting in high age-to-age genetic correlations, but these DNA variants increasingly have an impact on intelligence as individuals select environments correlated with their genetic propensities, leading to greater heritability of intelligence.
Developmental hypotheses about high age-to-age genetic correlations and increasing heritability can be tested more rigorously and can be extended using GPS. Does the variance explained by GPS for intelligence increase from childhood to adolescence to adulthood? Are the correlations between GPS at these ages consistently high?```
They have identified many intelligence involved genes
Additivity is correlating with performance
if the twins have similar results in different environments, and that's broadly consistent across studies, then it must be heritable @BabygottBach
what else could be happening?
can you explain?
And you come in with a "maybe this or that" to counter actual positive data
`These are valid concerns โ because genetics are rarely accounted for in sociological research on parental, neighborhood, and school influences on children, if genetic factors are related to shared environments and the outcomes, genetic confounding is a possibility. Because sociological and other social science research frequently concludes that these social environments are major determinants of educational prospects in early childhood (Alexander, et al., 2007, Fryer and Levitt, 2006, KewalRamani, et al., 2007), adolescence (Camara and Schmidt, 1999, Hedges and Nowell, 1999, Kobrin, et al., 2007) and beyond (Elman and O'Rand, 2004, Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999), it is important for sociological researchers to critically examine this literature to evaluate its conclusions.`
I don't care about naked theory
@Nerthulas it cant be the case that things could be heritable because that would be racist
@TheUserNameofPeace, have you actually looked into the sociological side?
therefore it must be something else
@BabygottBach yes
Or are you only familiar with the behavioral geneticist side?
I'm sorry you're majoring in sociology
Nice!
We're going to eliminate it
You've got no argument against the sociologists
Sociology has what 80 percent replication crisis
Lmao
Sociology has a huge body of evidence that IQ is social
@Deleted User, so does genetics
(((huge body of evidence)))
we've addressed this please stop posting it
that's dishonest
`The exponential fall in genome sequencing costs led to the use of GWAS studies which could simultaneously examine all candidate-genes in larger samples than the original finding, where the candidate-gene hits were found to almost always be false positives and only 2-6% replicate;[7][8][`
๐
Have you addressed this passage?
@BabygottBach
Epistasis is biologically real but generally insignificant for selection purposes
https://t.co/tPjSuuDw13?amp=1
The replicability of sociology was brought up
But genetics also has this problem
how can anyone possibly cope
Smart parents have better SES to pass to their kids because they are smart @BabygottBach Classic example that correlation does not equal causation
tapirs have the largest pecker
one for the hall of retard
GWAS was replaced with GCTA which found that the traits were highly polygenic @BabygottBach
so yes I've addressed it I think three times now
`Lewontin claims that equation (1โฒ)(1โฒ) above presents the most accurate picture of the contributions to phenotypic variance. He goes on to argue that VI,VGรEVI,VGรE and COV(G,E)COV(G,E) are not negligible. In fact, he argues that these are always part and parcel of the variance in traits. As a result, apportioning the phenotypic variance between genes and environment is no easy matter and standard analyses of variance simply cannot come up with useful and informative values for h2bhb2 and h2h2. `
soft science lol
Listen, yo. Maybe there are neuron elves which help on IQ tests in some environments and not others. So we've got to toss out all your highly correlated genetic IQ data.
Sociology TM
"reading to your kids makes smart kids", or it's just the fact that smart parents read to their kids that inherit their intelligence
I know a lot of stupid people who read novels like crazy
@BabygottBach that quote is meaningless without context
lol
`Finally, VPVP can be effected by non-random correlations between genotypes and environments referred to as gene-environment covariation, COV(G,E)COV(G,E). For example, if plants with a genotype that tends to produce large plants also select nutrient- rich environments and plants with a genotype that tends to produce small plants also select nutrient- poor environments, the variance in height would be increased. If the relation was switched the variance would decrease (Futuyma 1998). `
I still would like you to explain why twins keep performing similarly across measures and studies @BabygottBach
there's that @Deleted User
@BabygottBach Blacks underperform whites worldwide
@Nerthulas, I'm not familiar with the sociological research on this matter.
Let's try them in the vacuum of space
Nigga I can't understand these snippets of a paper without the context
So you trust it with no knowledge?
What's the replicability rate of the GCTA?
@Deleted User, nope
@BabygottBach get in vc
ok but the environments are different so why are the twins performing the same across measures and studies @BabygottBach
I dont trust either side with no knowledge
can you please explain this to me
At this glance, it seems like there's a huge debate between two camps
I just want you to explain why the twins perform the same
Do you think parents treat twins exactly the same?
The overarching point is that there are variances and I don't give a fuck exactly how they exist ๐
Sociology TM
well, its consistent across all measures and studies
Look up the twin niching effect, @Nerthulas
but its consistent across ***all*** twin studies
Sexual reproduction causes the shuffling around (recombination) which breaks the epistasis so it actually isn't the death toll for heritability estimates or quantitative genetics
Maybe there's a consistent sociological effect, @Nerthulas?
if they didn't treat them the same, wouldn't that make them score differently?
A confounding sociological variable.
that's the opposit eof the claim
but its different from the other siblings @BabygottBach
"Parent may treat their twins differently by 1/10,000th of a degree, therefore ambiguity on heritability
lmao
so they are more alike to each other than to people they share environment with
omg you guys are still at it
can you explain this?
@TheUserNameofPeace, where's the evidence for how close the parents treat their twins?
It's pretty obvious actually considering we have been breeding animals and plants (and prob humans too) for over ten thousand years with great success
twin adoption studies
@BabygottBach yes
still score the same..
sociological effects
@BabygottBach but can you explain why the twins are always more alike in intelligence than their non-related siblings
kraut already explained twin studies are useless unless you precisely understand the genetic mechanisms
Separated twins perform similiarly
Raised separated
sociological effects are the answer @TheUserNameofPeace ?
Sociological effects
yep
How do you know
no
what sociological effect causes twins to be 80% alike in intelligence? @BabygottBach
can you tell me?
until you debunk the sociological effect hypothesis, you're just arguing god of the gaps
thats liyerally your argument
It's fascinating how mirrored the two positions are.
Jesus this guy is such a sophist
I ask for the genetic molecular mechanisms, I get accused of god of the gaps
I just want you to explain why the twins perform so similarly @BabygottBach
it seems like you're squirming
Then you do exactly the same thing with the twin studies
```"We were surprised by certain behaviors that showed a genetic influence, such as religiosity [and] social attitudes," said Nancy Segal, an evolutionary psychologist at California State University, Fullerton, who was part of the study for nine years. "Those surprised us, because we thought those certainly must come from the family [environment]," Segal told Live Science. Segal described the groundbreaking research on Aug. 7 here at a meeting of the American Psychological Association.```
It's not just IQ
You are arguing from god of the gaps.
no, you don't understand
We explained it many times
nerthulas is my bf
We focus on IQ because it's important and we have a lot of data
"I need to see the quarks interacting for it to be true"
this guy
It's disposition
Social factors
Everything
Your argument against sociology is literally that you lack the the abiity to come up with a mechanism.
if your position were more likely, we'd expect the people raised together to be more alike than the twins raised apart, but we see exactly the opposite, and we see it very strongly @BabygottBach
bf above
You blanketly deny the most likely solution to say muh sociology
@Deleted User "I need to see the exact social mechanisms for it to be true" this guy
you're now trying to say its equvalent
you're conceding territory
but its not equivalent
@Nerthulas, that is false
@BabygottBach can you please address this?
The sociological effects may provide a confounding variable.
what do you mean by that?
What sociological effect
why are the twins more similar?
what genes?
LOL
Banjod posted about 600 of them I think
There may be a sociological effect that has not been accounted for
earlier
Twins raised apart being so much more similar to one another than another random set of people or the twin compared with another random sample from his own group utterly wrecks your entire position @BabygottBach
He did
what molecules do these genes code for, @Nerthulas ?
hahahah
and that sociological effect affects twins hundreds of miles apart to be similar @BabygottBach
?
how do these molecules interact with IQ?
see he used the kraut line
FIND THE GENES BIGOT
@Nerthulas, sure.
"There may be"
Don't humor him
we need to have complete molecular understanding of every gene expression before we can accept twin studies
He's being sarcastic i think
these guys are stamped off a factory or something
We've stacked up a mountain of evidence and he's brought faith-based arguments
I'm sorry, how do you know these genes have any causal relation to IQ?
i dont think so
@fuguer, just like I need to have complete sociological understanding before I reject twin studies?
so some unknown sociological effect causes twins raised in different environments to be 80% similar with respect to intelligence, and much more similar to each other in intelligence than people they were raised with and shared an environment with @BabygottBach ?
what a hypocrite you are
No you need to have any iota of proof
can you just tell me if that's your position?
Which uou have provided exactly none
No smart black population ever in the history of man, with a massive variance in enviroment
@Nerthulas, I've proven that there ARE sociological studies that show social effects for IQ.
@BabygottBach this one please
I'm just not familiar with them
You also aren't
if you're picking and choosing what scientific studies to accept and they happen to all align with your worldview, then you're not intellectually honest
No one here is
no I'm not talking about social causes of IQ
you're just like a climate denier
You equate an imcomplete understanding with a void understanding
please understand
@fuguer, have you read the sociological studies?
I'm asking you to explain the similarity of twins with respect to this
>these studies I never read say something that validates my worldview
No, you've come in to disprove and downgrade the heritability factor of IQ
That's what you came in with
I'm not asking you if sociological factors can influence IQ, please understand that @BabygottBach
@Nerthulas the study I linked is just such a study
I'm asking you if you think that sociological factors account for the 80% similarity between twins regardless of environment with respect to intelligence
I said I'm not asking you if sociological factors influence IQ
This study isclaiming hat position.
I know you did
no its not, it claims that they should be more cautious
lol
can you explain their mechanism?
It does more than that I'm afraid
their explanation of that?
"These findings should encourage caution among those who claim that the frequently trivial variance attributed to shared environments in behavioral genetic models means that families, schools, and neighborhoods do not meaningfully influence these outcomes."
Yeah there is a difference between a critique of the methodology behind twin studies and actually producing some empirical evidence that contradicts them lol
yes, they just encourage caution
they don't claim to be some big btfo
and I don't know how people have responded to them
` Using monozygotic twin fixed effects models, which compare outcomes among genetically identical pairs, we show that many characteristics of objectively shared environments significantly moderate the effects of nonshared environments on adolescent academic achievement and verbal intelligence, violating the additivity assumption of behavioral genetic methods. `
I'll have to investigate that
Damn, they do more than encourage caution
How dishonest can you be?
I just quoted them
They aren't JUST encouraging caution
```Another study, commissioned by the editor of the journal Science, looked at genetics and IQ. The Minnesota researchers found that about 70 percent of IQ variation across the twin population was due to genetic differences among people, and 30 percent was due to environmental differences. The finding received both praise and criticism, but an updated study in 2009 containing new sets of twins found a similar correlation between genetics and IQ.```
I didn't say they were
I said that was their conclusion
and I'm right
lol
He's offering sociological shit
You could literally cite me an infinite number of heritability studies, @TheUserNameofPeace, and it won't budge me one inch
Sociology is literally only able to survive so long as PC HR departments are around
@TheUserNameofPeace critique the study, sophist
Prove that
1,011,369 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 347/4046
| Next