Slashdot Mirror
About Half of Kids' Learning Ability Is In Their DNA
Taco Cowboy writes with this story about new research that finds a strong genetic component to a child's ability in math and reading. "You may think you're better at reading than you are at math (or vice versa), but new research suggests you're probably equally good (or bad) at both. The reason: The genes that determine a person's ability to tackle one subject influence their aptitude at the other, accounting for about half of a person's overall ability. The study, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications, used nearly 1,500 pairs of 12-year-old twins to tease apart the effects of genetic inheritance and environmental variables on math and reading ability. The researchers administered a set of math and verbal tests to the children and then compared the performance of different sets of twins. They found that the twins' scores — no matter if they were high or low — were twice as similar among pairs of identical twins as among pairs of fraternal twins. The results indicated that approximately half of the children's math and reading ability stemmed from their genetic makeup.
A complementary analysis of unrelated kids corroborated this conclusion — strangers with equivalent academic abilities shared genetic similarities. What's more, the genes responsible for math and reading ability appear to be numerous and interconnected, not specifically targeted toward one set of skills. These so-called 'generalist genes' act in concert to determine a child's aptitude across multiple disciplines. The finding that one's propensities for math and reading go hand in hand may come as a surprise to many, but it shouldn't. People often feel that they possess skills in only one area simply because they perform slightly worse in the other."
A complementary analysis of unrelated kids corroborated this conclusion — strangers with equivalent academic abilities shared genetic similarities. What's more, the genes responsible for math and reading ability appear to be numerous and interconnected, not specifically targeted toward one set of skills. These so-called 'generalist genes' act in concert to determine a child's aptitude across multiple disciplines. The finding that one's propensities for math and reading go hand in hand may come as a surprise to many, but it shouldn't. People often feel that they possess skills in only one area simply because they perform slightly worse in the other."
strangers with equivalent academic abilities shared genetic similarities
and these are unequally distributed in different races
100% of kids' learning ability is in their genetic makeup. If they had no genetic makeup, they'd have no learning ability.
Now it is proven.
What this shows is that identical twins are more likely to be treated identically, while fraternal twins are more likely to be treated differently.
Oh wait, it doesn't show that either. But since this is correlation-is-causation century, I thought I might as well go for it.
(Anyway, if it is/i. true, it shows that meritocracy has no ethical basis.)
I was typing something really insightful about this and the stupid page reloaded and it all disappeared. Well, I'm not gonna type it again.
But, I will call BS on this "generalist genes" concept.
The study as described by the summary doesn't take into consideration that parents might have a tendency to treat identical twins more equal than they treat non-identical twins.
They will need identical twins that have been separated at birth to be certain.
Assuming that events occurring at birth have no impact on learning capabilities that is.
Doing proper tests on children is tricky, if you care about ethics at all it pretty much puts and end to proper testing procedures.
I've got a kid who is clearly ahead of the class with mathematics but clearly behind the class with reading. So, these studies probably mean it isn't a fundamental ability problem, so where do I go from here?
Sure, you can stunt someone, butof course our abilities - our potentials - are genetic. The surprise would be if environment has any effect beyond the ability to stunt an otherwise present potential. Why do PC nuts always hyperventilate, when aptitudes turn out to be inborn.
The link between reading and math runs, as nearly as I can tell from this and other studies, over general intelligence. If you have an IQ of 130, likely you are pretty good at both. If you have an IQ of 80, not so much.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
1) What is meant with "skill at reading"? This does not become clear from the summary. If they mean just the ability to convert symbols into sounds I'd assume the plateau for that is pretty low and most people reach it pretty early on in their lives. If they mean interpretative ability, how do they quantify that, and how do they distinguish between correct and incorrect interpretations beyond a certain point? In the sentence "When the cat entered the room, he sat down on the mat." it is obviously incorrect to interpret "he" as referring to a dog, but when asked to interpret who or what "the shadow" refers to in Eliot's The Hollow Men it becomes a lot less clear which responses are correct and which ones incorrect. Compared to the high end of interpretative ability, mathematical ability is much easier to test and quantify, so how can they say that reading ability and mathematical ability are comparable? Maybe my reading ability is particularly low, but the more I think about it, the less I understand of what is meant by these researchers.
2) What does "twice as similar" mean? I obviously realize that this refers to some statistical characteristic of the data, but that doesn't make "twice as similar" as an expression any more comprehensible. I guess a fish is twice as similar to a horse as grass is (all three are alive, but only horses and fish have spines, and only horses and fish convert oxygen into carbon dioxide), but I doubt that's what they mean.
They have not shown a causal relationship.
What's more confusing is they state "..results highlight the potential role of the learning environment in contributing to differences in a child’s cognitive abilities at age twelve." This indicates that if there is a genetic component, it is largely irrelevant as the learning environment has the greater impact.
Answer in search of a problem.
So half of the twins learned twice as much half the time than the other half of the other twins?
Sounds like one of Tolkien's best lines...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
What I'm wondering is what implications this will have for standardized tests. Most of the tests assume that everyone is on the same playing field - but if this is true, and genetics play a role equal to 50% of a student's learning ability, this would essentially mean that some students will intrinsically perform better than their peers simply because they have the genes and other people don't.
I'm willing to bet that the second they come up with a test for these genes, there will be lawsuits by school districts who lose funding over standardized tests, claiming that they are at an unfair disadvantage because their students simply don't have the genetic makeup to score well on the tests.
Specifically:
Singular neurons are simple things, their value and complexity grows only when you have many of them connected in a network.
Genes (and other things) that make neurons work faster and allow for more connections, make for 'general intelligence'.
Genes (and other things) that affect which specific complex network, will only help skills that use those specific networks of neurons.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Like anything else knowledge and learning come with effort. Most likely the reason why groups of children performed as the did is because of their parents and environment. With the exception of mentally ill people, Anyone has the ability to be smart. Its just a matter of how much an person is willing to exercise their brain.
FWIW: there are two groups or people. People that are physically lazy and use there brain to devise alternative means to perform labor, or those that are mentally lazy and choose to use physical activity to perform labor. Yes this is an very generalization, dumbed down to avoid writting a lengthly article on the topic.
In my many years of computer consulting, I have ended up teaching many people various computer/math skills. I have no doubt that some people simply come under the category of thick headed. I will explain something simple 8 different ways and they just don't get it. While other people might not have a knack for things computery they only need to be shown something once.
.15 is the tax and together they get the total. But I also just say, do 1.15 and it will just work. Write it on the calculator if needed. Easy Peasy.
The same with math. For some reason I have ended up teaching people elements of math. Some people I have shown how to calculate percentages multiple times, while others I will show something far more complex such as how to calculate a mortgage payment and it sticks. Both groups will have had roughly similar math educations.
I wonder if this is where some people choke when learning to program. There are many concepts in programming that must be mastered. There is no wiggle room with each concept such as ifs, whiles, switches, etc. You either get it or you don't, and with so many to learn they must be gotten quickly in a typical intro to programming course. Again I have helped people with their programming homework and while some would instantly absorb what I was saying there were groups to whom I might as well have been just making up words.
Maybe I am a lousy teacher but lets say I am teaching someone to do the local sales tax (15%) and I tell them to do 1 x 1.15 to get the total on a calculator. I might even explain that the 1 represents the original price and the
They are saying that twins with the exact same genes show more correlation in some useful skills than twins with differing genes.
So genetic makeup affects useful skills.
One thing to consider is that all twins have at least similar genes and due to this, one would expect there results to be minimal.
It is interesting that they can not yet correlate specific genes to this.
Over time, it seems likely that this will be doable.
No doubt a problem for folks who think society should provide equal outcome instead of equal opportunity.
No child left behind may be an impossible task given this.
It's just anecdotal evidence, but my kids Adopted from Africa... he's smart but in regards to entirely different things than I am. I'm your typical computer guy... terrible with people but good with math, bad at spelling and grammar. He's totally outgoing, a natural leader. I take him to the park and he's organizing group activities with all the kids within minutes. It's truly amazing. I couldn't do that now, as an adult! He's 6, and already reading at a level I wasn't at until middle school. So genetics are definitely a factor.
That being said, I'm intensely interested in the mechanics of just about everything. How do you build a fence? How does a lawn mower work? I've passed this curiosity on to my son. So nurture is a factor to.
I've learned more about life by adopting than just about any other thing I've ever done in my life. I highly recommend it, you'll get more out of the venture than you ever had to put in.
I've got a kid who is clearly ahead of the class with mathematics but clearly behind the class with reading. So, these studies probably mean it isn't a fundamental ability problem, so where do I go from here?
Aptitude is only half the story. The other half is being interested in the subject.
*HOW MANY* stories have been written over the years with just this premise? Frankly, I've lost track.
Science Fiction has already predicted the consequence: designer children. Whether the consequences predicted of THAT come to pass remains to be seen.
Gattica / Brave New World indeed...
smell the fear....
Reminds me of the "schizophrenic AI" results for an experiment involving machine learning rates set too high. Doing so also causes them to make bogus connections. While it may cause them to recognize patterns quickly it also causes spurious connections to emerge, lose meaning and see links that aren't really there.
Obviously there are questions about how comparable this model is to actual human brains. However the implications are highly interesting.
Half of Kid's ability to be a Banana is in their DNA! More at 11...
So what? Everyone knows that race is a social construct so there can't be any genetic correlations with race of social significance independent of racism's social construction.
Therefore, the racial disparities that appear in society are the result of the White Man keepin' us down! The Heterosexual White Man that is.
Open the borders!
Seastead this.
The Slashdot summary draws a conclusion that seems unsupported by the paper:
You may think you're better at reading than you are at math (or vice versa), but new research suggests you're probably equally good (or bad) at both.
But the paper says otherwise:
The genes that determine a person's ability to tackle one subject influence their aptitude at the other, accounting for about half of a person's overall ability.
So your score is 50% correlated, not equal. That is a really important difference! If the paper said people were equally good at math and reading, that would be a startling conclusion!
Claiming there are genes involved is probably true, but our genes are constantly changing base on our environment. Bad diet, your genetics will be off. Lots of stress, same thing. Being brought up believing that "smart is cool", compared to certain ethnic groups believing "dumb is cool" has massive impact on someone's IQ. Knowing how to learn must be learned and reinforced, it has very little to do with genetics (There are always exceptions, like autism).
If it was truly genetic they should be able to point to the Asian math gene, but there is NO such thing! This is yet another attempt at selling eugenics to the masses, masked as 'science'. Seems like most of the slashdot crowd is missing the gag.
Oh, I know.. "science" is in the title and it fits your natural bias so it's really hard to see, but it's there.
The study was about genetics, not about injecting alcohol into the womb.
Egads... with 15% sales tax the streets must be paved with gold.
Anyway, the method you teach is something I actually learned in grade school (I guess fourth grade) from my vice principal, of all people. He was sitting in the class and suggested it along with the "standard" method of "x + %x" that the teacher was using. The handful of kids who had trouble grokking it (or were just annoyed by the extra step) got it right there.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What I see here is a test where they compare two individual with the same DNA and the same education. So if you share the same DNA and the same education you are able to get the same performance.
What they did not test is if solely the DNA is really half of the learning ability or if their parents taught their kids properly how to learn even more. Learning to learn, is just another expression to say "stay calm, listen and do what you're told in the permitted limits" which is a not so simple part of a kid education.
I guess the only reason you haven't been modded to -1 by the PC set is because you didn't include a TL;DR version.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
How many confounding variables are present in this data set? Do people in the biological sciences even bother to learn statistics?
This experimental design is never going to reliably yield real effects. You cannot control for the myriad of confounding factors, especially when you don't have any specific proposed mechanism for the effect in the first place. Large population-scale studies of this sort of thing are /always/ going to be polluted in this way, and anyone with any understanding of experimental design knows that this is not really worth anything.
Obviously, it's likely that there is some genetic component to learning ability (look at Ramanujan, Newton, or Galois - if you think those men were not biologically inclined toward mathematical genius, you are deluded). The nature and extent of the effect(s) will /only/ be discovered through understanding of the underlying biology. You will never figure it out through this sort of large-scale misguided data-sifting, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a lousy scientist.
So, are run-on sentences a racially based thing, or is that just you?
IOW, try to avoid big blocks of text - shorter sentences and paragraph structures make things easier to read, and more likely to be read.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"Variance component analysis
For twin and population-level analyses, we consider a general partitioning of a quantitative phenotype Y (either reading or mathematics ability in our study) into five components Y=A+D+I+C+E, where A, D and I correspond to additive, dominance and interaction genetic effects over the whole genome, respectively, and C and E are within-family and individual environmental effects, respectively. We assume that these components are defined to be uncorrelated with each other and thus the phenotypic variance is also partitioned into five components VY=VA+VD+VI+VC+VE."
Note the start of the last sentence. Good luck justifying that assumption, especially in a data set drawn from the general population.
If the premise is false, so so is the hypothesis. When twins are raised separately how do they control all of the factors in IQ to make their 70% number? Oh, they don't!
Unless someone was providing housing, jobs for parents (and static pay), home education, dialogue in the home, hobbies, diets, clothing, soap/shampoo, household cleaners, etc.. it should be obvious that any number they decide to put into the study will be skewed.
Stop and think for a minute. If they don't control the environment these "studies" are done in, how are they measuring the influence of environment in IQ? They can't! We KNOW that certain chemicals reduce cognitive ability, in fact many over the counter drugs do just that. Yet we don't control all of these influences and can claim to know genetic disposition? Wow, just wow...
As I responded above, this study is still bogus. Unless someone was providing housing, jobs for parents (and static pay), home education, dialogue in the home, hobbies, diets, clothing, soap/shampoo, household cleaners, etc.. it should be obvious that any number they decide to put into the for genetic vs. environmental impact is skewed. They control NONE of the environment, and magically claim its 70% genetic..
Come now, you can't really be "that" bad at science.
So please, take your racist bullshit elsewhere.
[FUCK BETA]
whoever upmodded the above comment is a bad moderator
parent is a troll...obviously...
that's trolling...it's not connected to anything other than an ideal easily offended...equality
TFA is worth picking apart but parent's response is not conducive to productive discussion (or funny)
whateverthefuckasshats who moderated it up are idiots and encouraging trolling
Thank you Dave Raggett
... eye color, skin color, and so on, for instance Caucasians ...
Here:
... eye color, skin color, and so on. For instance, Caucasians ...
These symbols are really just suggestions. Believe it or not the text and meaning can in most cases be broken up and understood without you following a punctuation "program" to dictate this explicitly for you. Use your brain.
Am I missing something here? The study showed a high correlation between math and reading skill in twins. So if one twin is better at math then they will be equally better at reading than the other twin. How do you derive from this that genetics is determining your intelligence? If it was than the twins should be equally good math and equally good at reading, but the study actually shows they are not equal since this is difference they are using to show the correlation between math and reading skill.
there is a sizable minority of people in modern society who are full-on 'social darwinists' in that they would go hook, line, and sinker for a program that told them it would bring us Brave New World level society
they'd get 1984 of course, but they'd believe a company/monarch/government that would **promise** a utopia
here's part of the issue...***they don't acknowledge their beliefs***
they don't self-identify as a 'social darwinist' or 'eugenics proponent' ever
**by function** they are...the policies, attitudes, and beliefs they champion are exactly the same as the eugenics/social engineering types.
social darwinism is the enemy of freedom
Thank you Dave Raggett
good comment AC
the **best part** is this gem:
also:
this is the reality...a bunch of idiots learned they can use science language to bolster any theory if you can get 51% to answer one side of zero on a likert scale...now we really are in the 'correlation-is-causation century'
Thank you Dave Raggett
science cannot end racism
it can only defend against racists who would misuse it
also, "sharing genetic similarities" is so broad anything could be correlated...this research is all over the map and, if you agree with GP the best idea is to not even consider the researchers findings
Thank you Dave Raggett
asshat mods are out in force today
AC parent is a troll...whoever modded it 'insightful' is a racist
race is not tied to intelligence and only idiots go looking for some kind of connection...it's been disproven over and over...it's like trying to prove the world is flat still
look at all the ignorant white trash in this country
Thank you Dave Raggett
hasn't this been prove, over and over?
all of this science is stupid...this is a bad use of social science/psychology/biology
the whole ontology is reductive & with certainty will produce off-kilter results that are useless for comparison
Thank you Dave Raggett
The evidence and data on racial differences of IQ are pretty well established. In the scientific community, there is virtually no question that there are major differences in IQ between races, with Orientals and Caucasians at the high end and Negros, Mesoamericans, etc at the lower end. There are massive differences in biochemistry, physiology and neurology in almost every area between racial groups, including brain size, skeletal structure, biochemistry, genetics, eye color, skin color, and so on, for instance Caucasians are the only racial group where most adults can digest Lactose, and this is clearly due to tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution that caused some races in cold climates to develop higher IQ and larger brain capacity. A strong and compelling scientific argument has been made by many, such as J.P. Rushton, et al that racial genetics is the cause, for instance, the fact that IQ differences show up by age 3 before education has had a large effect, the MRI studies that have shown that Caucasians have a larger brain that the Negro, and as well the strong predictor that IQs are of SAT scores. Studies of black children living with adoptive white parents show that blacks still have the same IQ as black children living with black parents. The study found that even that where white children and black children were living with the same adoptive parents, the white children still scored 20% higher despite growing up with the same parents. The higher IQ of caucasians likely developed due to the cold, temperate climate of Northern Europe which required more long term planning and skilled crafts to develop technologies to survive the cold winters. The cold winters heavily selected for higher IQ, whilst the tropical environment, where the fruit hangs on the true all year, does not. SAT scores and IQ scores are accurate predictors of life outcomes a well, showing that IQs are a very accurate measurement of a persons intelligence occupational capabilities. As in the book, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, the success of countries is tightly coupled to the average IQ levels, and since IQ levels is the result of the racial makeup of the population, it reflects the racial groups. This is why you can very easily predict GDP of different countries with the racial demographics of the countries, as well a predict a vast number of other things from test scores to rates of homicides. Some have also looked at the fact that Caucasians have a larger frontal lobe than even orientals, where impulse control and creativity is based, which could explain why Caucasian majority countries have had longer lived, healthier democracies, especially the US. Orientals have excellent math skills, but seem to have a totalitarian streak. Caucasians and Orientals have been shown easily beat the average Negro in mathematical tests.
It is pretty clear that entire civilizations are nothing more than the reflection of microscopic DNA that constructs the neurological system and constructs human behaviour. Cultural interactions can share information and influences, but the more of the high IQ racial groups you have, the most of such sharing and origination occurs. The population tends to take on the characteristics of the average individual rather than the outlier. For Einstein to do his work required a country that had a well established industrial base, faciliitated by a high IQ, highly capable population that could provide the environment stable enough that things could move a bit past basic sustenance level of existance, that there was enough industrial base to provide for labatory equipment for instance. Einstien was building on previous work, of others as well, so these things do not come about as a result of the lone genius but require a country that is well populated with High IQ genetics. If Einstien had been born in Nigeria, no matter how intelligent or smart he was, he wouldnt have gotten very far for the lack of everything that he would have needed. Indeed, there is a feedback effect, the high IQ population
Just do a google image search for "potholes of halifax nova scotia" and you can see what a 15% sales tax actually does. It produces a giant pothole for businesses trying to operate in the area so they either die or go away. You can guess what the other taxes in Nova Scotia are like which also are working together to kill the economy.
Also thanks for confirming that I was not way off base with the way that I have taught something so basic as sales tax. I don't know how many tellers have looked at me strangely when I hand them the exact change with taxes. More than once they have commented something like, "Wow that was lucky that you happened to pick out the exact amount." I don't think that they thought it was possible to work out tax in your head.
you won't accept any answer...
so you're saying genetics can limit how intelligent someone can be
tell me, what would be good evidence enough for you?
what level of scientific proof, specifically, must be met?
explain what would be sufficient evidence of your conjecture that 'races' are genetically limited to how intelligent they can be
Thank you Dave Raggett
And/Or possibly by interbreeding with neanderthals. They had larger brains than modern humans.
Neanderthals inhabited cold northern climates over 300,000 before present. We know they were extremely muscular, they were also probably highly intelligent. Perhaps they were, literally, superhuman. Modern Europeans are partially descended from them.
Those comments are speculative obviously, but testable, because we have sequenced neanderthal DNA. In fact there have been many ancient and modern migrations into Europe. There was an ancient invasion into central Europe of agriculturalists from the middle east, and the medieval Jewish diaspora into the Rhine Valley. Mongols reached Poland, not sure how much DNA they left behind.
It would be interesting if the ancient genetic origins of distinguishing modern European behavioral traits could be identified. Interesting because Europe is unique in the high degree of genetic mixing which has gone on for such a long period. Other societies not so much, they are more genetically homogeneous. Judging from tremendous achievements of Europeans in science, art and technology, diversity is a good thing. Diversity in the traditional sense of the word, not in the modern sense of eligibility for affirmative action handouts.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
With diversity, comes more chances for the top traits in each group to be displayed through natural selection
See subject-line, & I see a lot of 'racist' comments here: Got something to say to that, & those feeling "superior" on those grounds alone (as well as arrogance on others) - EVERYONE YOU MEET, KNOWS SOMETHING YOU DON'T... fact. I've heard "stupid polock" my ENTIRE life... I know what 'racism' is like... however, most of the time, I know better (just judging on things I've done that such a detractor of mine will NEVER be able to achieve).
Still: On "everyone you meet knows something you don't" - It takes ALL KINDS to make a world. We NEED 'specialization' in humans... nobody is "superman" that can do EVERYTHING, super-well, is why. Think about it.
We're different for a reason & "God don't make no junk"!
Once you get ALL OF THAT thru your heads? You realize 1 thing, a thing that's REAL wisdom:
Nobody knows it all, & the more you know, the more you learn you need to know more.
As far as racism & "politically correct" crap too (per my initial opening here)? Not all men are created EQUAL on all grounds, period. Some are physically better, others are better in various areas of academic pursuit... however, imo @ least (as well as 1/2 a century of observation & experience from life itself) - there is NOTHING you can't master, since we can all, hopefully, read... it's what separates us from "lower" lifeforms (which, sometimes, I feel are OUR superiors on many grounds both physically & behaviorally, & it's why I'll often state I am sometimes ashamed to be a human being & that "dogs + cats are better people, than people" operating more directly & with FAR less deceits etc. - et al also)... reading is, our "racial memory" & allows us all to "stand on the shoulders of giants" before us (some who spent their lives, or large portions of them, doing things like solving practically applicable math theory for instance that we can all now, use).
The BIG difference? Drive, & determination... how BAD do you want it, & what will you do to LEARN in order to achieve it??
You can have ALL THE native "in-built" natural brainpower in the world, but minus drive to build it up? Might as well not have it @ all, if you're not willing to develop it - you'd be wasting it.
APK
P.S.=> Being goal-oriented helps too... not everyone has that, & imo, it's NOT (@ least solely) determined by genes, but more environment (ala wanting to "get outta the ghetto" for instance, by educating one's self vs. being a drug-dealer, for example) - necessity? It *TRULY* is "the mother of invention"... apk
You may think you're better at reading than you are at math (or vice versa), but new research suggests you're probably equally good (or bad) at both.
When I do math, or anything really, I visualize what I'm thinking about. When I read, I am using my visual center trying to read. I have a hard time reading and comprehending, but I can listen and comprehend because audio input does not conflict with my visualizations. What I'm getting at is it is much easier for me to read a small math problem and play with it in my head than read and comprehend large amounts of text. I think that I am better at math than reading.
I will explain something simple 8 different ways and they just don't get it.
Some of these people suffer from various anxieties given to them by the school system and their parents. They just lock up after the explanation attempt number two or three. A change of teaching method is what is needed at that point.
15% isn't a bad number to work out in your head. Move the decimal place, remember that number. Divide it by 2. Add the result to the previous number and the total. Done
There is one province where your method of working out taxes fails: Quebec. But they do something non-standard (surprised? lol no) so it's their fault. :P
Schools also fail to each some elementary skills for programming. I took a programming course in college. One of the required courses had us learning about netmasks. Rather than have us perform the math correctly with binary AND/OR operations, they had us use silly tables and "tricks" like "add 1 here". I mentioned it to the teacher after class. Result: "I've tried that and the students don't get it. They don't teach that in math so I'd end up turning a class on subnetting into a math class." :( Doubly sad that it was a programming class not getting it.
...we'd sooner improve our genes than improve our schools.
"Egads... with 15% sales tax the streets must be paved with gold." EmperorOfCanada is from... Canada... HST is 13% now, was 15% a few years ago...
Sadly the streets are not paved with gold here. Snow in the winter is as close as it gets.
As a person who is actually Caucasian and was found to have genius IQ -- I'm going to dispute the way racial intelligence is computed. For one thing, I experienced a lot of ADD and ADHD as a child -- and later it seemed I "grew out of it" but the real reason was my allergy load reduced. It appears I should not be getting gluten in my diet and mold in my air. So in the wrong environment -- I seem to be an air head.
The other issue is that these IQ tests are from a Caucasian mindset. Sure, cold weather led to "planning ahead" but I don't seem to have the auditory memory, rhythm and linguistic acumen of other people. So there is a lot of "intelligence" that is not measured. If it was just bench press and not jumping that made an athlete, Caucasians would win -- so we've rigged the tests for the ability to spit back what we've read (memorization) and a few mathematical abilities that are good to have.
I just don't see how this IQ correlation matches anything in the real world of success, because I've seen more comprehensive studies that prove your parents income has much more influence on your success in life than your grades in school. That's about networking and influence -- not intelligence.
And GDP correlating to IQ? GDP is a measure of economic activity. If a hurricane ruins houses, GDP goes up. The difference between the Dutch and Mexico is more about Socialism vs. Kleptocracy -- is that something to do with genetics? I doubt it. The US has a strong GDP because we've got a strong military and any market not open to exploitation gets "a visit." I was just born in this country, and my greater intelligence in finding connections and invention isn't tested by IQ tests and is not used by my job.
We can say that relative to a given test -- there are differences genetically. But I think we also need to say; "not all intelligence is measured." A lot of us high IQ guys are socially inept -- and social intelligence is as important or more important than book learnin'.
I think that; yes, there are PC issues that stop the science on this question, but the MOST IMPORTANT THING, is that humans have not really understood human intelligence. We don't get that Elephants are more social than we are because we cannot speak their language -- it may be richer than ours. We don't know, because we aren't smart enough yet to know what we don't know.
So IQ won't be settled until we can figure out all aspects of what it means to make something intelligent, and by that time, we will all be in the short bus compared to an artificial intelligence that helped us solve it.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I think he was trying to make complex points. Yes he could have provided clip notes.
However I notice that you didn't add enough jokes to your comment. More jokes would make me WANT to read an english critique.
I also disagreed with about 50% of what he said, but I think we need to argue what he said and not how he said it.
TL;DR More funny stuff make me read. ;-)
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
For about 20 years I figured (before the anthropologists made it gospel), that we didn't kill off Neanderthals but interbred with them. Much of the superior Neanderthal strength however was bred out. Why? I figure the reason the weaker branch outbreak the genes for strength during an ice age was due to "metabolism." Super strong muscles even if the creature is smart requires more food.
Humans are about the weakest mammal pound for pound, but we also seem to have nearly the lowest metabolism. Only the Armadillo has lower average body temperature and it's barely a proper mammal.
Humans learned to cook to improve digestion and concentrate energy in food, and we also turned into omnivorous wimps to survive on what an animal a third our size requires -- and meanwhile manage to carry around a large brain. Something had to go. If this is accepted theory or not today, I haven't checked.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Yeah, and about half of the children's learning ability came from the learning environment. Ye Olde Nature vs. Nurture argument coming to a point. Maybe this time the point will end up in the eye of the dumbass that brought it up!
About Half of Kids' Learning Ability Is In Their DNA
The other half is in a combination of Caffeine and Methylphenidate.
Lactose intolerance is about the GUT bacteria not the genetics of the person. You can transplant gut bacteria and get rid of lactose intolerance. This has been known (not mainstream) for a long time already.
No evolution is involved except perhaps in the bacteria why exist to carry. Face it, you are the minority of your own body and those bacteria let you live so you can bring them food.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Neanderthals had slightly larger brains... but then if you look at dolphins you'll see that part of their large brain size is due to FAT to keep their brain temperature up-- because temp is a really HUGE factor on brain function. I enjoyed the Neanderthal connection and how it upset so many white people... (I'm white) and I will enjoy the discovery that Neanderthals were fat headed too.
Not long ago there was some scientists claiming high testosterone levels were damaging to evolution so it lowered and probably allowed more brain development. Neanderthals could have had high testosterone levels... Neanderthals are known to be anti-social with small groups while the humans had tribes and could work as a group (or some tradition kept their bones together and Neanderthals bones apart) - and before people were forced to accept the interbreeding science the thought was that Neanderthals didn't stand a chance.
Also large human brains require a lot of PROTEIN in the diet. So does muscle. It would seem to me as brains became more important the protein in the diet migrated. I remember reading something about our ape ancestors moving to more meat in the diet and how that was needed for brain size. It wasn't out of desperation.
Also when one reads the science it becomes rather clear (but not provable) that brains were tiny all the way to the top of the food chain and the only pressure would have been competition between packs of the plains apes (which date far before Neanderthals.) There wasn't a food shortage as much as too much demand. That would also encourage them to spread out over a wide range. Just think about the facts-- humans have little hair, sweat out their whole body's skin, run efficiently on two legs, and are the best distance runners in the whole animal kingdom. We didn't become best for nothing. We ran in packs after lions etc. until they over heated and then anything made easy kill. A Cheetah may be way faster but it can't go out of your sight and a pack of healthy humans can jog after it for 20 miles without rest... if the Cheetah can even make it that far in the heat (plus having thumbs, throwing sticks and rocks is likely. Chimps still throw things to deter/herd... they just can't chase and don't need to compete.) Humans use less energy and muscle to propel themselves great distances than probably any other land animal; again the evolutionary pressure of jogging explains most everything.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You would think a specific group would tire of presenting the same ole repackaged Nazi research time and time again. The Bell Curve was refuted, debuked and dismissed. This piece of work is easily refuted but for some, they just want to believe.
OK, I have no problem with the study that indicates that some people are better suited to academic pursuits than others. I also have no issue with reports that the expense of the home severely effects what students will accomplish. In other words rich kids tend to do better than poor kids. But none of these facts do a thing to make things better without action. Facts without acts become trivia. So just what can we do to make the poor kids' homes more stable? How do we control violence and drug use in poor communities? How do we fund real mental health clinics for the poor? How do we make the ghetto a happier, friendlier place for a kid to live? You can bet your last penny that anything we try to do to help out will be jumped upon by the right wing to close it or defund it. And even if it is private citizens or private groups that try to help you can bet that the powers that be will fight it tooth and nail. There is no higher proof of what I am saying than Palm Beach County passing laws to prevent feeding the poor. It is like the pigeon fighting types of laws. If you feed the homeless and poor you will attract more to the area and therefore it is illegal to feed them. Then you pass more laws to prevent begging. You spend tax payer dollars telling the public never to support the poor with spare change.
Hardly.
Adding 15% tax (15% of a dollar) to a $1.00 item yields $1.15 sales price. Making the the tax 15% of the selling price is $1.18 (1 / 0.85). Not easy peasy. Yes, you are a bad teacher.
BLOCKQUOTE>but I think we need to argue what he said and not how he said it.
We should argue about both.
How he said it affects whether people even finish reading what he said.
You can make complex points using paragraphs, rather than just stringing ideas together with commas till your readers can no longer follow your points.
In my case, I hit that sentence I quoted, and by the time I figured out what he was saying, I was no longer interested in continuing to read his comment.
So, even if his ideas were enough to revolutionize several sciences, they're not presented clearly enough that people will work their way through even the three paragraph summary.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Well said.
PC nuts hyperventilate because racists, plutocrats and bigots always seize on any claimed differences between the averages of the abilities of any ethnicity, race or social class and their own, and draw conclusions that wouldn't even be valid if every single person in every group was 100% identical.
Take, for instance, the claim that the average Asian is "smarter" than the average African. The same studies that make this claim also say that the variance between individuals within each group are far, far more extreme than the difference between the averages - the "smartest" African is much more intelligent than the "dumbest" Asian, just as the "smartest" Asian is much more intelligent than the "dumbest" African. So in the real world, individuals still have to be evaluated as individuals, of course.
But it seems that stupid people cannot understand this, perhaps because their education has not compensated for their flawed DNA, and thus they seize on any study like this to pump their racist pipe organs, and promote hatred and discriminatory hiring and educational practices. Which draws the predictable response from the anti-racist crowd.
It's all stupid. People are wildly variable and they need to be individually taught to fully realize their abilities. So the only real, guaranteed, proven, sustainable way to get better educational outcomes is to reduce class sizes. The exact opposite of what America is doing....
the landmark book by Judith Rich Harris, in which she analyzes a huge body of social science research to conclude that about half of the variation in personality is genetic.
The really interesting question is: what acounts for the OTHER half? Harris marshals powerful evidence that it has very little to do with how your parents raised you. The best explanation seems to be the influence of the child's peer group.
This of course flies in the face of what everybody believes, but, well, read the book. Fascinating.