>Environment is a significant factor even if it isn't the biggest factor
>OMG I guess environment is everything

lel jew IQ meme.
israel IQ is 95😉

ashkenaz, if I am left to be more specific

@Beemann
Nearly every reliably measured psychological trait, especially IQ, is significantly influenced by genetic factors.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00295.x
https://archive.fo/L6kaY

Okay, that doesn't contradict what I said

Come back when you bolster your reading comprehension

@Beemann Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636
https://archive.fo/S2Wiw
africans will never be as smart.

>less common
>entire group is fucked now lol
Someone missed the gene in their pool

@Beemann so how much affect environment has to IQ?

Depends on who you ask

Debated range is like 14-49%, shit's ridiculous

Nature vs Nurture is a fucking mess always

humans are just too damn complex

there's so much that goes into making a person who/what they are, and we barely understand the components, let alone how they all fit together.

all we can do is guess or look at broad statistics

We have models that are decently predictive, but it's not locked down

And then the question is whether we have the factors in, in the correct direction

Like is IQ a measure of success on its own, or because it's an indicator of other factors, or the result of them

`Like is IQ a measure of success on its own, or because it's an indicator of other factors, or the result of them`
can you elborate little

how it could be other way around?

Environmental factors

Like you can get a pretty hefty difference between the shittiest of shit environments and the closest to best we have

but even in america black IQ is one standard of deviatoin lower?

and its demosntably false to claim it because of bad school.

>America doesn't have bad schools
Cmon now

There's also cultural and legal aspects that will most certainly lead to worse outcomes

cant poist picture here but look shitposting

Fancy shit != better education

The US is struggling with education in general now too, what with Common Core being a shitshow

I would actually not be surprised if negative Flynn was partly a result of schools going to shit in the west. "We" are doing a shit job

Poverty and fatherlessness are also huge proven hindrances to success, so demos that disproportionately suffer from these factors will also take a hit

Black children raised in White households have similar IQ scores to Black children in Black households.
https://archive.fo/oNKYp

what you think about this one

Um "The socially classified Black adoptees, whose natural parents were educationally average, scored above the IQ and the school achievement mean of the White population. "
"The high IQ scores of the socially classified Black adoptees indicate malleability for IQ under rearing conditions that are relevant to the tests and the schools."

You wanna point out where I've gone wrong here m8?

Malleability != static

Hm?

Alright @Timcast . I have a criticism of the video about the Ford memo. It has nothing to do with your reporting on the memo. My main issue is with what you percieve to be the ability to deny or whatever a supreme Court nominee based on you disliking the opinion of that particular nominee on whether you thought a ruling was too restrictive.

The problem with the process, even with Merrick Garland, was the obvious politicization of the nomination. I'm not going to bother with a chicken/egg argument here. The point is that the "advise and consent" role is SUPPOSED to be a review of the record of the judge and their ability to be fair minded, unbiased in their ruling, and if they are reading the law.

Now I've no doubt people could argue all day about whether or not Congress has ever really held to that purpose or if they even SHOULD be held to it. The point stands, the judciary is ideally only supposed to interpret law. The only real question is what you think is correct in terms of the way in which a judge interprets said law.

For example, you might think that judge kavanaugh was rather opposed (I guess) to the 4th amendment. To that I would say he isn't opposed or in favor of it. He is extremely narrow in his interpretation. The question I would ask in my own mind would be "Why is this judge particularly narrow in the 4th as oppose to the 2nd?"

To this question I look to the text. The 4th amendment is very broad for when it was written. However, in the digital age, it's actually pretty narrow. Whereas the 2nd (if you hold to the idea it does account for individual ownership) is incredibly broad. Anyway, this is my interpretation at least of what I see. Admittedly, I am a often heavily partisan person so take that for what it's worth.

Addendum: Arguably, this lack of following the rules that were setup for the process of making and changing amendments is extremely unfortunate.

Civics knowledge is pretty low these days. I had only half a year of civics taught all through grade school (California).

Most the rest I learned on my own.