Reread what I wrote.

I mean maybe there is a mis-placed negative? Or are you asking about epigenetic transfer in humans?

I was acknowledging the Dutch Hunger Winter as being an example of the kind of thing I was looking for.

And wanting others.

Sure fucking tons if you are asking about neonatal epigenetics. Like FAS for instance. It's caused by endocrinological coding in-utero.

Sopalsky did a big section on how stress hormones can prime and then generationally cycle.

Also, for clarification, are we talking about an experiment where, for instance, a group of mice are tested for their maze running ability, and then bred, and their offspring is also tested for their maze running ability, and that the result was, the mice who had been subject to tests had offspring with a superior ability to navigate mazes which couldn't be explained by the mate selection?

https://puu.sh/E0DOw/caa32bcff3.png

https://puu.sh/E0DPa/138805ccc9.png

....maybe provide another example, lol

I cannot recall the specifics which is why I asked you to DM me a reminder so I can get into my library tomorrow.

Howdy fellas

Yeah Sopalsky doubled in Primatology and Neurology. You should check out his bio150 at Stanford they have the whole course on YT. The texts are Glicke's *Chaos* and his own *Why Zebras Don't get Ulcers*.

But you do need at least some basic knowledge of neurobiology to get through it. I'm afraid the pre-reqs are not available from Stanford's YT. But with a general knowledge of how neurochemical signals work you can get through.

I think you missed my joke.

Oh wait the Jew thing? I mean if that's a problem likely you should avoid science. It's pretty Jew-ey.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I mean science. Fucktons of Jew there.

Particularly economics and physics, iirc

or at least insofar as representatives of nobels

Kinda everywhere. Fun fact one of the excuses for restricting Jewish migration to the US back in the day was that they were *too low IQ*

that said, I'm at least glad you didn't try to cite Jared Diamond

Some jewish populations are low IQ. Also, there's the factor that our sampling of the IQ of modern jewish populations isn't as extensive as for other groups.

I suspect there's probably a kind of self-selection, in the same way as other populations.

We're more likely to encounter high IQ Jews outside Israel, for instance, because higher IQ people tend to navigate a variety of circumstances more easily, and often have more widely marketable skills and expertise.

Diamond is not totally wrong he just ignores culture and that leads to big holes in his framework. I mentioned Boyd and Richerson earlier. While not their intent *Not by Genes Alone* is a firm rebuttal of Diamond's geographic determinism.

Diamond ignores a lot.

Faulk goes into that, too. Some of it is admittedly speculation on the part of Faulk, but almost everything Diamond said was speculation.

Geography is really important though. Just not as important as Diamond asserts. Faulk, again, is an idiot. But geography is always a significant factor. I mean read McKinder or Mahon.

He starts from the position of assuming that the Papua people are more or less equivalent to western whites, and then comes up with a bunch of conjecture to explain why they had different outcomes.

Hell, he even seems to entertain the possibility that Papua are *superior* to western whites.

Geography is important. But it also influences the selection for phenotypes. This is undeniable.

They are basically the same. Please tell me he did not rely on Rushton's data. You know he got it by measuring skulls in a Portuguese home for the disabled right?

Geography will both impact what behaviors a population will adopt to survive and thrive in a given environment, but it will also impact what gets passed on genetically.

I don't recall if he cited that.

Not nearly as much. The ability to build a canoe is a lot more important than some adaptation that might improve swimming.

There are heritable trait considerations for who will be the best canoe builders, though.

More specifically, it would select *against* traits which would be an obvious impairment.

From what i can tell from scanning through his sources, it looks like Faulk is mostly referencing the domestication arguments.

Not nearly as important as being in a culture that has a tradition of building canoes. Think about this for half a second. 200 years ago 90% of our ancestors were agricultural labor. We did not genetically inherit the ability to function in this environment.

Crops and beasts of burden.