User Tag List

First 567

Results 61 to 66 of 66

  1. #61
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I'd say I'm 99&#37; sure there is an effect, if not 100%. I guess my question is if the effect constitutes a dominant (ie: 75%), very high (ie: 50%), moderate (ie: 15%) or low (ie: <5%) contribution... I currently believe it is somewhere between moderate and very high, but I accept that since "race" are generally environmentally confined, it could be much lower (much like the propensity of heart attacks is now diet based rather than genetic). Instead of race, perhaps using particular genetic lineages would be better. "Families" would be likely to have higher averages. The degree of drift and what not plays an important role here.
    We basically agree then, although I am not sure you have fully understood it yet (fault is likely to be mine). :P

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    ...What would be sufficient to determine how valid the test would be... I'd say that it would require a random sample (including rural areas) to be placed in a fixed environment for each of the "races", sampling roughly ~1000 or so for each. Their children would have to be removed from their parents and raised in subgroups of mixed races. That would allow a far clearer example of how purely genetic IQ is. Along with that, the group should probably go 4-5 generations worth of testing, both mixed and not...
    This indeed could give some reliable results, maybe in combination of some gene expression assays and gene identification. Which, of course, makes the whole thing totally out of question.
    But I am not reasoning against the initial post, which was totally biased, based in very poor evidence and, as you said, politically incorrect. I disagree with the intelligence based on genetic heredity because there is no evidence on such a thing, on the contrary there are many cases which suggests there is no correlation.
    The brain size argument is not convincing, because, through evolution, the brain size is more likely to have been reduced, not increased.
    Again, I believe environmental factors can (and probably do) affect intelligence, which would explain some differences between various cultures, societies, wealth and geographical origin

  3. #63
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lastrailway View Post
    The brain size argument is not convincing, because, through evolution, the brain size is more likely to have been reduced, not increased.
    The brain size argument is convincing, because we know brain size correlates with IQ:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
    Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    The brain size argument is convincing, because we know brain size correlates with IQ:
    Reference?

    EDIT: Nevermind, I found it
    Black-White-East Asian IQ differences at least 50% genetic, major law review journal concludes

  5. #65
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lastrailway View Post
    I disagree with the intelligence based on genetic heredity because there is no evidence on such a thing, on the contrary there are many cases which suggests there is no correlation.
    I believe it has been shown that IQ is pretty heavily hereditary... If we are arguing over if there is a significant genetic component (direct line descendents only) to intelligence, we can probably hash that out first. The question as to if it is dominant - that I don't know and I don't think has been proven... but I think it has been shown to be a significant factor, all other things being equal.

    The major problem is that people use direct-line hereditary in a similar way that evolution means natural selection. While the foundation for large scale associations of race are possible, even logical, it doesn't mean it actually works that way - much like the generalised natural selection argument was associated with survival of the fittest rather than the "most reproductive trait". And finding out if this is how things work can't be done with fruit flies...

    There are huge assumptions in the IQ tests, meaning that even if we disregard the results being talked about here and started over, it is nearly impossible to accurately test across social differences even in the present. This means we have nearly no way of knowing how far IQ drifts over multiple generations... it is clearly erratic. On top of that, there are all sorts of IQ flaws, like Flynn and such. These factors are very important and very dominant and undermine the concept of IQ where social stratification has happened (or geographic mobility is limited, etc).

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I believe it has been shown that IQ is pretty heavily hereditary... If we are arguing over if there is a significant genetic component (direct line descendents only) to intelligence, we can probably hash that out first. The question as to if it is dominant - that I don't know and I don't think has been proven... but I think it has been shown to be a significant factor, all other things being equal.
    No, I don't disagree that it is probable -yet not confirmed- that intelligence is hereditary in direct line descendents. What I am trying to say (and obviously my poor english does not help me to be as clear as I 'd like) is that:
    1)There is not an adequate description of the concept of intelligence:the IQ is supposed to describe it, but, as you said (and I cannot refute because I am not very familiar with the mechanism), IQ has various functional flaws. If I recall well, the factor is calculated of age AND education level, for one thing. It estimates some traits like spacial, visual aptitude, memory, pattern recognition and categorisation, logic, math ability, etc (maybe I am wrong with this, I am trying to remember of an online IQ test I 've taken a year or more ago)
    Yet intelligence can be correlated with other factors, which typically are not estimated in a test, and I cannot name now, but I 'll look through it and tell more about.
    2)There has been made research trying to correlate particular genes with intelligence and there are some results: however, those results only confirm that there might be a relation between several genes (I don't know whether you are interested on their names) and results in several functions typically atributed to intelligence: dyslexia, discalculia, and motor coordination disorder. There are assumptions for another gene influence the cognitive growth, but in relation with tendencies for depression and self-destructive behaviour. I think you might agree that nothing suggests and established correlation of one gene and intelligence.
    3)I do believe, that there are numerous genes involved with what we use to describe as intelligence. Genes are always hereditary, however the way they combine in each generation is not necessary hereditary, nor the way they express.
    And, to conclude to my original statement: even if there are genes involved with intelligence (which is not proved), the similar patterns between groups should be related to environmental factors rather than genetic, because sociologists can spot nurture patterns quite accurately, when biologists cannot yet spot genetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    The major problem is that people use direct-line hereditary in a similar way that evolution means natural selection. While the foundation for large scale associations of race are possible, even logical, it doesn't mean it actually works that way - much like the generalised natural selection argument was associated with survival of the fittest rather than the "most reproductive trait". And finding out if this is how things work can't be done with fruit flies...
    I do not completely agree with this, because a small-scale model, under certain conditions, can describe a bigger-scale phenomenon. However I agree that there are used a lot of simplifications on these things

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] What are the differences in NFP and NFJ flirting?
    By Cypocalypse in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 05:28 PM
  2. [NT] Differences in ENTP and ENTJ sense of humor
    By sakuraba in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 08:51 PM
  3. Sex differences in corporate management
    By RDF in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-21-2007, 12:08 PM
  4. Differences in type descriptions
    By Maverick in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-28-2007, 04:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO