It does not all come down to status, though it does have predictive value. And you really shouldn't expect it to, since status is, at its best, an approximate proxy for a number of environmental factors, like parental involvement, education quality, medical care, nutrition.
All of those, in turn, can vary between different social and economic cohorts.
Spoiler, they have, and the results are... less than fully informative.
From a purely genetic basis, whereas identical twins have a 95-100% similarity on these things, you might expect a 50% similarity from fraternal twins in a purely genetic environment. Instead, it comes out to 70%, which suggests other factors playing an important role. However, because these are non-isolated from environmental factors(i.e. raised by the same parents), we can't use it to precisely tamp down the amount of a role genetics plays.
Maybe a bigger sample size would help, but conclusions are limited, other than genetics plays some role which we already knew.
Now that is moving the goalposts. But that's okay, I understand the point you're trying to make, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expand to such a search. Just don't expect me to grant you the premise that it's a likely explanation.
I mean, of the predictive utility of what they have discovered is presumably real. But the point I'm contesting is your central thesis that "intelligence is highly heritable". Which is not what this study found. Correlations of intelligence to (these) genetics, even on multivariate examinations, is weak. Thus your "intelligence is highly heritable" comes of as reductionism.
Not necessarily. Natural experiments for individual genes like this one can be conjoined with careful observation of fetal development, and maybe lead us to some useful conclusions(whether they be positive or negative for the hypothesis I described).
It shows that a large number of specific candidate genes don't do it. Even if it's not a complete refutation of the hypothesis, it is a push to maybe look elsewhere for some of the mechanisms of intelligence development.
The counterpoint here is twin studies. Identical twins, born to the same parents, but adopted by different families, tend to have extraordinarily unlikely similarities in adult general intelligence scores. What this study has been undermining is the notion that because it tracks from birth, it has mostly to do with genes.
Instead, this suggests there are other conditions that identical twins share besides genes. As I said in my earlier post, a lot of expertise has been focused on in-utero development instead.
There's a lot more evidence that in-utero nutrition has a big role to play on intelligence. In fact, it's a commonly cited possible causal mechanism behind the Flynn effect.
So... you might be born with dramatic differences in your eventual (general) intelligence already in play, but that doesn't necessarily implicate genetic determinism.
Also intuitive is the fact that genes do play a role in the difference between human intelligence and apes. Just not necessarily between humans. So genes do something. Just not as much as "racial realists", social Darwinists, and other genetic determiminst believers contend.
Every single space program* is currently for peaceful purposes. But every single space program also has incredibly convenient methods to convert to completely-not-for-peace-at-all purposes at a very short notice.
The lander is named after Philae Island in the Nile, where an obelisk was found that was used along with the Rosetta Stone to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics.
So... doesn't that mean that yet another useful google service is trying to be shoved into their one size fits all social network people have repeatedly and widely rejected?
Of course, there will be applications. Let no one call me a Luddite who doesn't see the value in genetic engineering. I'm just instantly incredulous of claims that "regular people will do this in their backyard" as a degree of revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you just conveniently forget about the last time someone provided you with evidence. You just got through making this exact same argument, and someone dumped a ton of evidence on you. This is evidence you could easily have found yourself, and yet you repeatedly use the burden of proof to ignore the facts you've already seen presented.
How many times do you expect someone else to present the evidence to you?
Enjoy your 30 year life expectancy, I guess.
It does not all come down to status, though it does have predictive value. And you really shouldn't expect it to, since status is, at its best, an approximate proxy for a number of environmental factors, like parental involvement, education quality, medical care, nutrition.
All of those, in turn, can vary between different social and economic cohorts.
Spoiler, they have, and the results are... less than fully informative.
From a purely genetic basis, whereas identical twins have a 95-100% similarity on these things, you might expect a 50% similarity from fraternal twins in a purely genetic environment. Instead, it comes out to 70%, which suggests other factors playing an important role. However, because these are non-isolated from environmental factors(i.e. raised by the same parents), we can't use it to precisely tamp down the amount of a role genetics plays.
Maybe a bigger sample size would help, but conclusions are limited, other than genetics plays some role which we already knew.
General intelligence a slightly more robust tool than IQ for measuring intelligence abilities. So neither.
Now that is moving the goalposts. But that's okay, I understand the point you're trying to make, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expand to such a search. Just don't expect me to grant you the premise that it's a likely explanation.
No, I'm not.
I mean, of the predictive utility of what they have discovered is presumably real. But the point I'm contesting is your central thesis that "intelligence is highly heritable". Which is not what this study found. Correlations of intelligence to (these) genetics, even on multivariate examinations, is weak. Thus your "intelligence is highly heritable" comes of as reductionism.
The problem is that they don't completely (or sufficiently) explain the variation that is seen.
I don't think it's narcissistic. This reads like "please validate the ethical value I've invested into Social Darwinism" to me.
Not necessarily. Natural experiments for individual genes like this one can be conjoined with careful observation of fetal development, and maybe lead us to some useful conclusions(whether they be positive or negative for the hypothesis I described).
Not quite true.
It shows that a large number of specific candidate genes don't do it. Even if it's not a complete refutation of the hypothesis, it is a push to maybe look elsewhere for some of the mechanisms of intelligence development.
The counterpoint here is twin studies. Identical twins, born to the same parents, but adopted by different families, tend to have extraordinarily unlikely similarities in adult general intelligence scores. What this study has been undermining is the notion that because it tracks from birth, it has mostly to do with genes.
Instead, this suggests there are other conditions that identical twins share besides genes. As I said in my earlier post, a lot of expertise has been focused on in-utero development instead.
Profits lie all the time.
Homeopathic remedy companies make bank.
Well, sorta.
There's a lot more evidence that in-utero nutrition has a big role to play on intelligence. In fact, it's a commonly cited possible causal mechanism behind the Flynn effect.
So... you might be born with dramatic differences in your eventual (general) intelligence already in play, but that doesn't necessarily implicate genetic determinism.
Also intuitive is the fact that genes do play a role in the difference between human intelligence and apes. Just not necessarily between humans. So genes do something. Just not as much as "racial realists", social Darwinists, and other genetic determiminst believers contend.
Yeah, I'm struggling to come up with a counter-example. Even medicine, where skill is of life or death importance, has professional quacks.
I guess you can't talk your way through farming?
I don't think that was a slashdot poster "rest of us" but a whole world "rest of us".
Wait. You run with a crowd nerdy enough to regularly attend star parties, but none of them are nerdy enough to recognize an operating system?
I was going to say they already do, but I didn't spot any Chinese flags on this page.
I don't know.
Every single space program* is currently for peaceful purposes. But every single space program also has incredibly convenient methods to convert to completely-not-for-peace-at-all purposes at a very short notice.
*Unless you count North Korea's "space" "program"
Maybe these replies are all very android centric? I don't know.
The lander is named after Philae Island in the Nile, where an obelisk was found that was used along with the Rosetta Stone to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Wikipedia.
So no. Instead, it's a "clever" tie-in to the overall mission name.
Yeah, I gotta toss in my agreement too, with caveat.
Nothing is ever simple, and summary presentations miss so much detail that you can never know for sure if they're really meaningful.
The caveat is the OP is still quite clearly a nincompoop making an argument from imagination.
So... doesn't that mean that yet another useful google service is trying to be shoved into their one size fits all social network people have repeatedly and widely rejected?
Ok.
Wait.
Shit.
Sorry.
Of course, there will be applications. Let no one call me a Luddite who doesn't see the value in genetic engineering. I'm just instantly incredulous of claims that "regular people will do this in their backyard" as a degree of revolution.