Does anyone in here have a understanding of genetics?


Does anyone know if recessive genes are ever eliminated or do they always get passed down even if they don’t show up in their off spring for many generations?

Neither of my parents have blue eyes but I do. Neither of my brothers have blue eyes either but is it certain they also carry the recessive blue eyed gene, even tho it didn’t show up

I have a basic school understanding of genetics, does that work?

My understanding is that recessive genes may still be present, many generations down the line, as they may or may not have been passed on

Being recessive just means that they require special conditions to be expressed, but they are no more or less likely to be passed on than any other gene

Of course at this point @iamwhoiam is probably already dead of old age

https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/

Fair warning, I got obsessed with playing the HTML5 pigeon-breeding game on the site

@Nerthulas @Aqua

ok

what was their proxy for 'extroversion' - how well does that proxy represent the reality? what was their proxy for IQ? how well does that proxy represent the reality of intelligence? this was a sample size of 118 people from a specific setting

to me, the study is little more than worthless on the question of the relationship between intelligence and extroversion

certainly nothing to base a theory on

tl;dr no, I don't have much faith in Raven's matrices

Ambiguity works against its predictive ability

how strong was the relationship between their proxy for extroversion and their proxy for intelligence anyway?

There are implicit and presupposed concepts that a participant would need to have in order to score higher, so the test suffers from false negatives and false positives.

Being more familiar with the expected approaches to solvingthe problems would hinder or assist participants

1. I am checking for their proxy of introversion-extroversion. 2. I guess it has predictive power, so greater than .0. 3. They used three proxies for IQ, including the Raven's matrix. That proxy, according to Dutton and Woodley is pretty good, and Rushton considers it good. 4. 118 is a good enough sample for me. How many do you consider good?

Given that cognition is largely efficiency - that is, it's quantitative rather than qualtitative - this kind of test doesn't seem very reliable or accurate.

It may still be so functionally, but who can say if that's thanks to, or despite, its design.

made a correction to 1..

good would be many thousand over diverse populations

Fundamentally, intelligence is too broad as a concept. Until the predicate stops being vague,there are going to problems with testing for it

Because if you don't know what you're testing for...

at least that would be saying *something*

Coincidentally, this is something you can see if you try to test linguistic IQ.

My claim is that introversion would only be correlated negatively with Europeans and Asian. If you do it over different populations, I predict for a different result.

well 'europeans and asians' is a much more broad category than some female students at one university

Wierzbicka and her Sapir-Worf-derived hypothesis of linguistic primes - basic linguistic concepts that exist in human languages universally - is unknown or ignored in almost any test (all I know of, anyway) that measures linguistic IQ.

This would create an obvious problem across cultures and languages.

Have you heard of the sorites paradox, Hector?

It exists entirely thanks to vague predicates as such.

I really don't know what to say in response other than get more studies.

same

No.

I have not heard of that paradox.

<:hyperbrainlet:641878745631817738>

It is only able to exist because there is no concrete definition of a pile of sand.

get more studies

lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox