Was the ping to conclude?

@Spider Sutra I disagree with that definition of heritability. But that doesn't change the fact that IQ is significantly hereditary.

heritability and hereditary are two different things though

I know

Those are two seperate points

so would you agree that the heritability of IQ doesn't really matter to the race realism argument?

@Spider Sutra what exactly is your definition of heritability?

heritability describes the degree to which the variation in a trait for a particular population can be attributed, explained, or predicted by genetics

what do you think heritability is?

That more or less is what I thought it was. In that case, heritability does matter to race realism because the degree to which IQ is influenced by genetics as opposed to environmental factors is important. @Spider Sutra

uh well no the word opposed doesn't quite work there

because heritability itself depends on a particular population, and with it a particular environment

If I take a population, and move it to a new location, the heritability of the trait can change

and even a trait which is 100% heritable, can be changed if the environment is changed

Well I meant more like on an individual level. But yes you're correct.

Point is: a certain percentage of IQ is hereditary and a certain percentage is based upon that individual's experience in life.

So do certain people have a cap on their IQ that can never be surpassed? Because heritability has nothing to do with this.

Yes, some people could put forward their hardest effort towards learning and developing their intelligence but be beaten by someone who has inherited "more" IQ.

okay but, and my problem was with murray on this, heritability doesn't have anything to do with how genetic a trait is, nor can it explain a difference between two seperate populations

as little thought experiment, how heritable would you say the trait "having 2 hands" is?

If you are correct, which isn't too improbable, that doesn't really change my point, just the language being potentially used. I don't know how heritable that would be. Presumably fairly high

Well it's kind a trick question.

Because the question of how heritable a trait is pretty much meaningless unless we specify a population. So let's just use the United States as an example.

Having two hands at birth is almost universally determined by our genetic code, it's the reason why most people don't have 3 hands, or feet for hands or something crazy like that.

but heritability isn't concerned with how genetic the trait is, it's concerned with how genetic the variance of the trait is

so in the US, the heritability of the trait "having two hands" is actually very close to zero, because barring any extremely rare genetic diseases, most people are going to have fewer hands through something like a workpalce accident

so even though the trait strikes us as extremely genetic, the heritability is extremely low

Ah I see. Then it's not that important to my point or to race realism.

Correct. But racerealists constantly sight the bell curve which has strong focus on heritability.

And Charles Murray in interviews has demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding the meaning of the word.

In it doesn't he mention the whole x% of IQ is hereditary thing?

yes he has some weird layman understanding of heritabilit in which genetics determine the percentage of IQ you have

which on its own doesn't make much sense to me as a model but that's a different discussion

Well the Bell curve isn't my only source. There was a study done on the heredity of IQ that I've got somewhere

<:really:591181753625083905>

Look at average IQ per nation.

what about it?

Marked differences.

yes and?

<:wtf:591182282648190986>

@The Desert Fox VI https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo