Genetics Not Environment Biggest Factor In Intelligence

[Grace O'Malley]

An interesting study on identical twins separated at birth and raised by different parents in different countries have found they have the same IQ scores.

This study has been done on 15 Chinese identical twins that were adopted in different countries.


These twins were, in turn, separated. Parents from other countries looking to adopt them would often be assigned only one. Segal has worked to track down both halves in 15 instances where identical twins were separated in this way, then used them to understand aspects of intelligence. “The mum who initially contacted me knew a couple of other families. And then sometimes I’d read about them in the newspaper. Then families would contact me once they heard what I was doing.”

Of the 15 pairs, 14 are boys. It is not many but, she said, given how unusual it is, enough. “Even though it’s a small sample, it’s a much more powerful sample than twins raised together.”


The IQ scores of the children were highly correlated and appeared to become more so as they got older, though the small sample size meant they could not be sure about the latter finding.

Either way, said Segal, it fits with a growing body of research into the importance of the genetic component in intelligence — yet that does not make parenting pointless. “Should parents and educators throw their hands up in despair? Absolutely not. Everybody can become smarter. But we’re not going to all be the same.”

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/science/article/identical-twins-raised-apart-match-iq-scores-b3d0xggv0

I have seen older studies have different findings but this is interesting and it should be studied further.

[Mortimer]

That sounds reasonable, but im not sure if we can project from a case of identitical twins because they are indeed identical, and twins on group IQ, like the IQ of large groups like "white/caucasian, and black or african" or whatever groups there are. Im in no way a expert or scientist, or know anything, but i have a gut feeling a feeling just that this is not really the same. Or can be seen that way, what do you think about my feeling?

[Petalpusher]

The more researches the more we realize everything is more deterministic than we imagined. The cursor keeps moving away from culture that still does exist but i think we ll reach a point it will even start to question free will. There are some very disturbing developpments about how much we can with AI simulate biological beings once we have individually mapped their entire genome.

I remember also this story of twins separated at birth in quite different families, reunited in the 40's, they even liked the same things, had the same hobbies, bought the same cars etc...that was mindblowing. That was not just some general characteristics, it seems if you give it enough time and wiggle room, nature always manage to win.

[Mortimer]

The more researches the more we realize everything is more deterministic than we imagined. The cursor keeps moving away from culture that still does exist but i think we ll reach a point it will even start to question free will. There are some very disturbing developpments about how much we can with AI simulate biological beings once we have individually mapped their entire genome.

I remember also this story of twins separated at birth in quite different families, reunited in the 40's, they even liked the same things, had the same hobbies, bought the same cars etc...that was mindblowing. That was not just some general characteristics, it seems if you give it enough time and wiggle room, nature always manage to win.

Very interesting, but somehow i do not like the idea there is no "free will", and if even your hobbies or the food you like is determined completely by genetics, that is scary to me rather then something positive, and i would wonder why is it like that, but it is a existential question or philosophical question why is it like that, and if someone programmed us, a higher intelligence, to be that way, like we programme AI, he also does what we programme him as.

[Grace O'Malley]

Very interesting, but somehow i do not like the idea there is no "free will", and if even your hobbies or the food you like is determined completely by genetics, that is scary to me rather then something positive, and i would wonder why is it like that, but it is a existential question or philosophical question why is it like that, and if someone programmed us, a higher intelligence, to be that way, like we programme AI, he also does what we programme him as.

I think there is still free will but in a lot of things you have a genetic predisposition towards certain traits. I also feel most illnesses and things like cancer have a big genetic component.

[Scandal]

Same goes for other mental and physical traits of a human being.

[CosmoLady]

An interesting study on identical twins separated at birth and raised by different parents in different countries have found they have the same IQ scores.

This study has been done on 15 Chinese identical twins that were adopted in different countries.





https://www.thetimes.com/uk/science/article/identical-twins-raised-apart-match-iq-scores-b3d0xggv0

I have seen older studies have different findings but this is interesting and it should be studied further.


The more researches the more we realize everything is more deterministic than we imagined. The cursor keeps moving away from culture that still does exist but i think we ll reach a point it will even start to question free will. There are some very disturbing developpments about how much we can with AI simulate biological beings once we have individually mapped their entire genome.

I remember also this story of twins separated at birth in quite different families, reunited in the 40's, they even liked the same things, had the same hobbies, bought the same cars etc...that was mindblowing. That was not just some general characteristics, it seems if you give it enough time and wiggle room, nature always manage to win.

We tend to inherit IQ from our parents, either due to genes or environment.

Do you think that our genes can decide our maximum IQ? And other life outcomes?

It would be an interesting (but awful) experiment to separate identical twins born to dysfunctional, low-IQ parents,
and leave one with the parents, and give the other to functional, high-IQ parents, and see if there is a major difference.

And to compare the twin raised by the high-IQ parents to a biological child of the high-IQ parents, to see if there is a difference

Genes or environment?

[SudanGuy]

How would it be genetics? Can a human brain be altered negatively if the mother consumes drugs, alcohol or other bad substances during pregnancy?

It’s 100% environment, easy to understand. Sub-Saharan thugs act the way they do because of the culture taught to them growing up.

Put them in a Nordic neighborhood and they’ll act and behave like Nordics.

[Grace O'Malley]

We tend to inherit IQ from our parents, either due to genes or environment.

Do you think that our genes can decide our maximum IQ? And other life outcomes?

It would be an interesting (but awful) experiment to separate identical twins born to dysfunctional, low-IQ parents,
and leave one with the parents, and give the other to functional, high-IQ parents, and see if there is a major difference.

And to compare the twin raised by the high-IQ parents to a biological child of the high-IQ parents, to see if there is a difference

Genes or environment?

I think this is interesting and I do think genetics are a big factor in IQ and a supportive environment can help this. I would like more studies done on this.

[CosmoLady]

How would it be genetics? Can a human brain be altered negatively if the mother consumes drugs, alcohol or other bad substances during pregnancy?

It’s 100% environment, easy to understand. Sub-Saharan thugs act the way they do because of the culture taught to them growing up.

Put them in a Nordic neighborhood and they’ll act and behave like Nordics.



I think this is interesting and I do think genetics are a big factor in IQ and a supportive environment can help this. I would like more studies done on this.

It would be interesting if there were a study of Aboriginals or Native Americans,
separated from their parents at a young age and raised in white society (many decades ago obviously),
to see if there would be any innate difference between the Aboriginals and whites when they grow up together in the same environment.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2021/12/12/the-iqs-of-australian-aboriginals-adopted-by-whites-part-i-picture-vocabulary/

"When raised in their own communities, unmixed Australoids seem to average about IQ 47 on English Picture Vocabulary (3.53 standard deviations below the white mean). But when raised in white homes they likely average IQ 90 (0.66 SD below the white mean). Thus this racial gap appears at most, only 19% genetic."

https://pumpkinperson.com/2021/12/14/the-iqs-of-australian-aboriginals-adopted-by-whites-part-2-quantity-conservation/

"On a scale where white Australians average IQ 100 (SD = 15) on a test of quantity conservation, the average unmixed Australian aboriginal likely scored about IQ 69 (1.9 percentile of the white distribution). However if raised in the same environment as whites, their IQ increases to 81, suggesting about 61% of the white > Australoid IQ gap is genetic. The effect of adoption at near infancy from a traditional fringe dwelling Australoid family into an average white family is to raise IQ by 12 points which is actually a lot considering how culture-fair conservation tests are thought to be (by some)."

https://pumpkinperson.com/2019/01/30/a-closer-look-at-the-minnesota-transracial-adoption-study/

"In the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study, white babies, black babies, and mixed babies (biological father black; biological mother white) were adopted into white upper middle-class homes when they were 19 months, 32 months, and nine months respectively. The purpose of the study was to determine how much of the 15 point black-white IQ gap in the United States is genetic."

"In 1975, the children and adoptive parents were IQ tested on at least an abbreviated versions of the Stanford Binet/WISC/WAIS (depending on age), and then retested in 1986 on the WISC-R/WAIS-R depending on age. Here are the results:

https://pumpkinperson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/minnesota.png

https://pumpkinperson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/decline.png

"But many people ignore the IQs themselves, and instead just focus on the IQ differences. They see that at age 17, adopted whites scored 7.1 points higher than adopted mixeds in the unadjusted data, and 16.2 points higher than the adopted blacks, and conclude that the 15 point black-white IQ gap in the United States is roughly 100% genetic."

"One problem with this is that black babies were adopted later than the non-black babies. Another problem is they were born to black mothers, while the non-black babies were all born to white mothers, so the prenatal and perinatal environments may have been quite unequal."

"Thus I have always been more intrigued by the 7.1 IQ gap between the adopted whites and adopted mixeds. Since the adopted mixeds presumably had only half as much black ancestry as the typical U.S. black, it’s interesting that there’s roughly half the infamous 15 point black-white IQ gap, despite being gestated in white wombs and raised in white homes. Does this point to the importance of genetics?"

[Petalpusher]

We tend to inherit IQ from our parents, either due to genes or environment, and genes seem to be more and more likely.

Do you think that our genes can decide our maximum IQ?

It would be an interesting (but awful) experiment to separate identical twins born to dysfunctional, low-IQ parents,
and leave one with the parents, and give the other to functional, high-IQ parents, and see if there is a major difference.

And to compare the twin raised by the high-IQ parents to a biological child of the high-IQ parents, to see if there is a difference

Genes or environment?

We consider intelligence as something special but once you start to see it as any other attribute of a person, there is no reason to think it wouldn't be heavily determined by genetics, at least as much as everything else on average. I think it's even crazy to think otherwise, all the evolutionnary behaviors and psychology we display are based on the premise that we are going to pass our genes to our offsprings, the vast majority of them being related to the brain. This not being determined the most by genetics is the least likely actually, of all our traits. We would do all this since the dawn of time for nothing? Nature is not insane like that, it's very pragmatic.

Of course if you put someone on drugs or the most terrible environement growing up it will affect his abilities but the question is by how much exactly. That doesn't contradict any of the above anyway.


Very interesting, but somehow i do not like the idea there is no "free will", and if even your hobbies or the food you like is determined completely by genetics, that is scary to me rather then something positive, and i would wonder why is it like that, but it is a existential question or philosophical question why is it like that, and if someone programmed us, a higher intelligence, to be that way, like we programme AI, he also does what we programme him as.

I don't like the simulation theory too much even if im probably in the camp of it having better odds than 50:50. It's fascinating but i don't think its useful or should be scary. That would require to expand a lot more about it but there is no other viable state for a character in a simulation, outside the program it will never exists (in a particular movie it's only for entertainement purposes). Wether we are into one or not we have to accept it and cling on the free will we might have. There shouldn't be that much practical differences anyway between what we can see of this strange universe being the "real world" and something artificially created.

[Grace O'Malley]

It would be interesting if there were a study of Aboriginals or Native Americans,
separated from their parents at a young age and raised in white society (many decades ago obviously),
to see if there would be any innate difference between the Aboriginals and whites when they grow up together in the same environment.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2019/01/30/a-closer-look-at-the-minnesota-transracial-adoption-study/

https://pumpkinperson.com/2021/12/12/the-iqs-of-australian-aboriginals-adopted-by-whites-part-i-picture-vocabulary/

"When raised in their own communities, unmixed Australoids seem to average about IQ 47 on English Picture Vocabulary (3.53 standard deviations below the white mean). But when raised in white homes they likely average IQ 90 (0.66 SD below the white mean). Thus this racial gap appears at most, only 19% genetic."

https://pumpkinperson.com/2021/12/14/the-iqs-of-australian-aboriginals-adopted-by-whites-part-2-quantity-conservation/

"On a scale where white Australians average IQ 100 (SD = 15) on a test of quantity conservation, the average unmixed Australian aboriginal likely scored about IQ 69 (1.9 percentile of the white distribution). However if raised in the same environment as whites, their IQ increases to 81, suggesting about 61% of the white > Australoid IQ gap is genetic. The effect of adoption at near infancy from a traditional fringe dwelling Australoid family into an average white family is to raise IQ by 12 points which is actually a lot considering how culture-fair conservation tests are thought to be (by some)."

I would say if you want to reach your genetic potential then a supportive environment is needed but genetics does play a big part in intelligence. I've no doubt environment is a factor also. If you have spent years in a dysfunctional environment and miss out on important milestones you will not reach your IQ potential. If you were born to high IQ parents and you were sent to a alcoholic caregiver who didn't give you any love that will not help. It would be obvious to me that if you are malnourished as a child that would be highly likely to affect your intelligence and IQ.

[Tooting Carmen]

Of course most of it is genetic. Don't confuse intelligence which is innate and instinctual with knowledge which can indeed be acquired and learnt (as is in large part the case with behaviour, for that matter).

[CosmoLady]

We consider intelligence as something special but once you start to see it as any other attribute of a person, there is no reason to think it wouldn't be heavily determined by genetics, at least as much as everything else on average. I think it's even crazy to think otherwise, all the evolutionnary behaviors and psychology we display are based on the premise that we are going to pass our genes to our offsprings, the vast majority of them being related to the brain. This not being determined the most by genetics is the least likely actually, of all our traits. We would do all this since the dawn of time for nothing? Nature is not insane like that, it's very pragmatic.

Of course if you put someone on drugs or the most terrible environement growing up it will affect his abilities but the question is by how much exactly. That doesn't contradict any of the above anyway.



I don't like the simulation theory too much even if im probably in the camp of it having better odds than 50:50. It's fascinating but i don't think its useful or should be scary. That would require to expand a lot more about it but there is no other viable state for a character in a simulation, outside the program it will never exists (in a particular movie it's only for entertainement purposes). Wether we are into one or not we have to accept it and cling on the free will we might have. There shouldn't be that much practical differences anyway between what we can see of this strange universe being the "real world" and something artificially created.

Modern man is afraid of determinism, liberal society does not accept determinism,

and yet educated liberal couples trying to have a child DO screen their surrogate mothers for intelligence,
education, life achievements, many factors. :rolleyes:

This is standard procedure at surrogacy agencies,
so there is already tacit acceptance that genes affect IQ and many other things.

And the Aboriginal adoption and Minnesota interracial adoption studies I mentioned also showed some effect of genes.

So I answered my own question, I become more redpilled everyday.

[rothaer]

https://i.imgur.com/ErWCpqx.png

[VC]

I'm not saying the study is wrong but I do wonder how I know several people who are intelligent and successful but were born to dumb fuck parents. One of my friends has two incredibly white trash parents with no curiosity about the world whatsoever, and she has a career in psychology and is extremely intelligent and embarrassed by her parents. I do have to wonder how that happens.

[Tooting Carmen]

I'm not saying the study is wrong but I do wonder how I know several people who are intelligent and successful but were born to dumb fuck parents. One of my friends has two incredibly white trash parents with no curiosity about the world whatsoever, and she has a career in psychology and is extremely intelligent and embarrassed by her parents. I do have to wonder how that happens.

Yes, social mobility is far more common than this study appears to be insinuating is possible (and not just in the developed world either). However, while intelligence is indeed mostly genetic, the point is that there are different types of intelligence, and also knowledge (as opposed to intelligence) can be acquired by anyone.

[rothaer]

i think we ll reach a point it will even start to question free will.

I questioned that with 18, or more correct: I deduced from logics that if there is no real randomness there can also not be a free will and human actions will be inevitable consequences of particular (indefinitely detailed) conditions like all other events.

That we often are not skilled enough to predict it is another story.

Incidentally, this makes us think again about the exact reasons why the insane are punished differently from the sane. The statement that the sane could have acted differently to what he did is then factually not applicable.

Now, I don't know whether there is a real randomness anywhere in nature, i. e. a consequence that cannot be completely deduced from the preconditions and that could have been different if the preconditions had been exactly the same. I don't know an example, at least none that is considered relevant in this context. And as long as I don't know an example I will preliminarily have to conclude what I elaborated above.

[Hektor12]

Reminder for Veşna topic=

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?384939-SNPs-linked-to-intelligence-lightbul

[Insuperable]

It's quite known by now that environment can activate or deactivate genes (epigenetics) including those related to intelligence and then these genes can be passed to future offsprings. It's just that once these genes are acquired and passed on it's not that easy to change those genes during a lifetime. So in essence, genetics is the biggest factor, but the environment is a driving factor.

[catgeorge]

Can go both ways - bottom line is good parenthood good education and good upbringing.

Indians and Asians are CEO's and in control of the top US tech companies and pushed aside all Whites taken over by Browns.

Is this the planet of the apes coming to reality?

No it's just modern white culture is abhorently bad. It was elite until the 1960s - the Christian way of life guided cvilization and hence IQ of Christian families.

Today - dumb-as-dog-shit.

[Petalpusher]

I questioned that with 18, or more correct: I deduced from logics that if there is no real randomness there can also not be a free will and human actions will be inevitable consequences of particular (indefinitely detailed) conditions like all other events.

That we often are not skilled enough to predict it is another story.

Incidentally, this makes us think again about the exact reasons why the insane are punished differently from the sane. The statement that the sane could have acted differently to what he did is then factually not applicable.

Now, I don't know whether there is a real randomness anywhere in nature, i.e. a consequence that cannot be completely deduced from the preconditions and that could have been different if the preconditions had been exactly the same. I don't know an example, at least none that is considered relevant in this context. And as long as I don't know an example I will preliminarily have to conclude what I elaborated above.

You mean you started to question it at 18? From what ive read of your posts usually, they sound entirely deterministic. Im not there yet but depends at what level exactly we talk about an absolute determinism. If by that we mean everything can be explained as a function of nature i would agree, however even nature itself has managed to implement some mechanisms of both short term randomness and adaptation, it's also part of the theory of evolution, otherwise species could too easily get fatally stuck into a niche turning out being a misfit the next day when an environemental changes occurs. It has integrated this feature it seems over time fascinatingly enough, thus even created some sort of emergency access points for the environement such as epigenetics (plants are the master of that). This is what i meant in another thread about the two playing alongside, one being a function of the other more than being necessarily in opposition like we always try to present it, because one seems more controllable. Maybe some other life forms elsewhere are completely reconfigurable on the fly, could be peak carbon based evolution of, nature.

More TLDR
Back on the cow floor, a little randomness is always beneficial evolutionnary speaking so you get more room to steer in another direction quickly -rarely quickly enough before extinction- that still gives better chances of survival and fast adaptations in case moderate changes, which is a trade-off as well since you don't want to degrade too much that pool of perfectly and painfully tailored genes over millions of years, but you don't want them either to be entirely set in stones each new generations.

Nobody denies for example height is 75-80% genetic, from out best estimations. There are studies with like thousands of twins on that, so it's pretty certain, unsurprisingly you have nearly half of humanity that particularly screens for it, rightly convinced this will be passed down their offsprings along other traits. Doesn't detract the idea that many boys are taller than both of their parents as it did tend to increase in the last century, now plateauing, so there is definitely an element of gene expression altered by the environement too, up to a point.

With intelligence everybody gets a little shy all of sudden, the stakes are higher, which is a bit comical because with height there was no problem a minute ago to make it even more genetic than it might really be, even if unconsciously. I would give it logically at least the same deterministic value than height. Measuring it so precisely in all its dimensions is another story indeed than just having a ruler. As well as the fact that most of us are not created as twins or clones but the product of two parents so it may look more random than it really is. Genotypes are also very quantic, it's 0,1 or 01. The complexity comes more from the sheer number of genes, than the genes themselves. On some attributes that are not defined by a lot of them, randomness will naturally increase.

What can be taught is irrelevant i would say, you can even teach wild animals to behave like pets if you nurture them early enough this way. They are still going display at times their wild animal natures. This is symptomatic of an era where everything should be trainable and equal with enough effort against nature. Nice but vain if you are trying to act on the 20% convinced this will change the remaining 80%.

Apparently everyone can be Pauling or Verstappen, no level of various types of giftedness is never involved, it's just hardwork ("hardwork, the most difficult job in the world"). It leads to a lot of delusions, some dangerous ones too as there is always a tendency to regression towards nature. Im afraid humans have an entropy as well.

[rothaer]

Just in advance as partial dealing with your comment:


You mean you started to question it at 18?

Yes, but I came to the mentioned conclusion within one day so also with 18.


From what ive read of your posts usually, they sound entirely deterministic.

My now claimed determinism is something else and not to be confused with a genetic determinsm of traits. I now refer to a determinism of all what happens in the world.


Im not there yet but depends at what level exactly we talk about an absolute determinism. If by that we mean everything can be explained as a function of nature

This. But with empasising that a specific constellation can not have two different outcomes (consequences) but only one.


i would agree, however even nature itself has managed to implement some mechanisms of both short term randomness

Are you sure?

The winning lottery numbers can not be predicted by us because we don't know the detailed information and likely also the necessary calculation perfomance would exceed our skills. If just one ball lays one millimeter different or starts with another velocity the whole result will become different. But, of course, the winning lottery numbers did not come randomly. The resulted winning numbers could be explained by a perfect analysis of the start conditions and we would come to the insight that by the given conditions only these winning numbers could be the result and nothing else.

The same goes for the "random" inheritage of DNA after a meiosis. Maybe the animal (or human) in question in the moment of the meiosis jumps down a stair or up or lays on the side or is drunk or whatever may influence the labile event of meiosis. But nobody claims that under exactly the same preconditions with every atom in the same place and moving with the same speed in the same direction anything else could have been the outcome instead.

So where in natur is there a real randomness? As the only possibility known to me I came to think of half-life and radioactive decay. If all atoms are equal, why do some decay and some not? Is there a real randomness involved? I asked an physicist this question and he answered that differences between the atoms are unknown but that it is assumed that there are some that do explain which one decays and which one not. More possible sources of real randomness are not known to me.

[Synergy]

Let me tell you, folks, this study is tremendous, absolutely tremendous. We're talking identical twins, separated at birth, raised in different countries, and guess what? Same IQ scores. This study is tippy top. I've been saying it for ages. Genetics, it's the real deal when it comes to intelligence. Liberals, they've been pushing this whole "environment is everything" nonsense, but this study blows that out of the water. They're wrong, folks. Wrong. That's just the way it is, believe me. Remember this, folks. When it comes to intelligence, genetics is where it's at. It's a winner, just like me.

[rothaer]

(...)


Back on the cow floor, a little randomness is always beneficial evolutionnary speaking so you get more room to steer in another direction quickly -rarely quickly enough before extinction- that still gives better chances of survival and fast adaptations in case moderate changes, which is a trade-off as well since you don't want to degrade too much that pool of perfectly and painfully tailored genes over millions of years, but you don't want them either to be entirely set in stones each new generations.

In fact, the DNA is essentially set in stone in this context and the effect of another "random" mutation is completely dwarfed by the effect of selection among the existent DNA. A species can not wait for an advantagous mutation giving the needed capability for an adaption to a new living environment to occur. Rather you have a diverse genepool from which you can immediately start to select. I would be careful with eradicting genetic wrongs and illnesses. Sickle cell anaemia protects against malaria. A population should better leave the genetics for sickle cell anaemia in its genepool and who knows for what other purposes various genetic deviations might be good.


Nobody denies for example height is 75-80% genetic, from out best estimations. There are studies with like thousands of twins on that, so it's pretty certain, unsurprisingly you have nearly half of humanity that particularly screens for it, rightly convinced this will be passed down their offsprings along other traits. Doesn't detract the idea that many boys are taller than both of their parents as it did tend to increase in the last century, now plateauing, so there is definitely an element of gene expression altered by the environement too, up to a point.

Yes there will be a complicated interaction of a number of factors.

But let me explain why I think the hotly debated question of what percentage is influenced by genetics and what proportion by the environment is nonsensical per se.

Imagine a hopeless alcoholic. Both parents and all grandparents were alcoholics as well. You could think of that the condition to be drunk is essentially 100% determined by his heritage.
And now imagine that you put the same individual on a lonely lsland where there is no alcohol. He will then not drink alcohol. In this case you could conclude that the environment is 100% decisive.

This thought will make clear that it is a delusional imagination that there at all is a generally valid answer to that question that is independent of the conditions. It is not and can not be.


With intelligence everybody gets a little shy all of sudden, the stakes are higher, which is a bit comical because with height there was no problem a minute ago to make it even more genetic than it might really be, even if unconsciously. I would give it logically at least the same deterministic value than height. Measuring it so precisely in all its dimensions is another story indeed than just having a ruler. As well as the fact that most of us are not created as twins or clones but the product of two parents so it may look more random than it really is. Genotypes are also very quantic, it's 0,1 or 01. The complexity comes more from the sheer number of genes, than the genes themselves. On some attributes that are not defined by a lot of them, randomness will naturally increase.

Yes, with the measure that "randomness" here just depicts something that we can not predict.


What can be taught is irrelevant i would say, you can even teach wild animals to behave like pets if you nurture them early enough this way. They are still going display at times their wild animal natures. This is symptomatic of an era where everything should be trainable and equal with enough effort against nature. Nice but vain if you are trying to act on the 20% convinced this will change the remaining 80%.

Oh yes, there is a lot of completely meaningless manipulation. I fully agree. It's resembling the need for religion. People desperately need hope. If the hope is well motivated is not that relevant.


Apparently everyone can be Pauling or Verstappen, no level of various types of giftedness is never involved, it's just hardwork ("hardwork, the most difficult job in the world").

Yep, this is needed for motivation of peoiple no matter how wrong it is.


It leads to a lot of delusions, some dangerous ones too as there is always a tendency to regression towards nature. Im afraid humans have an entropy as well.

The regression to the mean must be understood as the fragility of the phenotype of traits compared to its genotype. The genotype is definig the mean. There is no mean existent that is not based on the genotype, nor is there any mysterious "memory" of a prior mean. If you change the genotype of the genepool you solidly have a new mean and there will not be a regression to anything else.

I see another danger. It's popular today to think that you can learn much and then know all better than with your "dumb" and "biased" instincts. Within the context of celebrating intelligence the imagination of being able to replace the instincs with ratio becomes widespread.

I find it striking that educated people buy more and more parenting guides and that child rearing works worse and worse.

And if we were to use our minds to scientifically determine how exactly we should move our legs in order to walk optimally, we would probably start to stumble.

In this sense, the whole of today's "well educated" society is stumbling its way through life.

[#Oda#]

Genes define until where you are able to get, but invironment how much this space will be filled up.

I haven‘t read the thread yet, but this would be I know what science says in the shortest sentence I can think of (in probably funny English).

[Sebastianus Rex]

Interesting topic, subscribed.

[Synergy]

Interesting topic, subscribed.

Let me tell you, folks, genetics is where it's at when it comes to intelligence. I've been saying it for years. Liberals, they don't want to hear it, but it's true. You're born with certain gifts, certain abilities. It's in your DNA. You look at successful people, they've got something special in their genes. That's what makes America great, our talent, our drive.

[Purple Panther]

So, genetics is destiny in this brave new world? It's clear that the study's author didn't write the script for "Twins". I love those TV shows about real-life twins who were separated at birth, and they meet each other for the first time in forty years. "We both like Cap'n Crunch drenched in Coca Cola, have wives named Ethel Stinkinwater, have a Black child from our wife's boyfriend, have a pet cockroach named Sam,....".

[Purple Panther]

I'm not saying the study is wrong but I do wonder how I know several people who are intelligent and successful but were born to dumb fuck parents. One of my friends has two incredibly white trash parents with no curiosity about the world whatsoever, and she has a career in psychology and is extremely intelligent and embarrassed by her parents. I do have to wonder how that happens.

Parents have much to do with it. We were poor until I was in grade school, and my mom often bought books for me when they were on sale at the supermarket, so I read books aimed at adolescents or adults before I even started school (they weren't age appropriate in a good way), so I go crazy when college students can't answer basic knowledge questions that I knew the answers to when I was in kindergarten ("um, like, did we fight the Canadians in World War II?"). I definitely was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth, but that didn't stop me from reading my big sister's comic books when I was two, and I would get miffed if someone gave me a book written for toddlers....when I was a toddler.

[Petalpusher]

Genes define until where you are able to get, but invironment how much this space will be filled up.

I haven‘t read the thread yet, but this would be I know what science says in the shortest sentence I can think of (in probably funny English).

Even backward and upside down i don't get this one. Are you guys doing a competition now?

Could be as well that i got 30% altered by the environement outside earlier, so the rest will have to wait.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

An interesting study on identical twins separated at birth and raised by different parents in different countries have found they have the same IQ scores.

This study has been done on 15 Chinese identical twins that were adopted in different countries.





https://www.thetimes.com/uk/science/article/identical-twins-raised-apart-match-iq-scores-b3d0xggv0

I have seen older studies have different findings but this is interesting and it should be studied further.

Yes, genetics > environment. The environmental influence that has the greatest impact on IQ is almost always negative (such as exposure to leaded gasoline that impacted Americans living in urban and semi-urban areas born before the mid 90s (when leaded gasoline was banned), for example)). However, I'd be wary of articles like these from the media. They often misrepresent findings. Most journalists are ignorant and don't understand what they're covering or worse are sensationalists.

We'd have to look at the actual study. To say they got the same IQ score raises an eyebrow. It would make sense that they get similar IQ scores but the same? It sounds like the journalist is misrepresenting the study.

EDIT: your article says 14 of the 15 pairs are boys. That's wrong. 14 of the 15 pairs are girls. The journalist couldn't get something that simple right (Chinese culture favors boys and so that's why it's always girls up for adoption).

[Petalpusher]

Yes, genetics > environment. The environmental influence that has the greatest impact on IQ is almost always negative (such as exposure to leaded gasoline that impacted Americans living in urban and semi-urban areas born before the mid 90s (when leaded gasoline was banned), for example)). However, I'd be wary of articles like these from the media. They often misrepresent findings. Most journalists are ignorant and don't understand what they're covering or worse are sensationalists.

We'd have to look at the actual study. To say they got the same IQ score raises an eyebrow. It would make sense that they get similar IQ scores but the same? It sounds like the journalist is misrepresenting the study.

EDIT: your article says 14 of the 15 pairs are boys. That's wrong. 14 of the 15 pairs are girls. The journalist couldn't get something that simple right (Chinese culture favors boys and so that's why it's always girls up for adoption).

It's that study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886924002113#s0125

High correlation but they were indeed all girls except one pair.

Better mainstream abstract here with the author
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/pregnancyparenting/twins-separated-at-birth-have-identical-iqs-study-finds/ar-BB1pd4vG?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

[Friends of Oliver Society]

It's that study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886924002113#s0125

High correlation but they were indeed all girls except one pair.

Better mainstream abstract here with the author
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/pregnancyparenting/twins-separated-at-birth-have-identical-iqs-study-finds/ar-BB1pd4vG?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

I wonder what Jay Joseph has to say about this study. I'll send him an email.

A lot of times these people respond to emails.

[Tooting Carmen]

Parents have much to do with it. We were poor until I was in grade school, and my mom often bought books for me when they were on sale at the supermarket, so I read books aimed at adolescents or adults before I even started school (they weren't age appropriate in a good way), so I go crazy when college students can't answer basic knowledge questions that I knew the answers to when I was in kindergarten ("um, like, did we fight the Canadians in World War II?"). I definitely was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth, but that didn't stop me from reading my big sister's comic books when I was two, and I would get miffed if someone gave me a book written for toddlers....when I was a toddler.

That was what I said earlier: intelligence is mostly innate, whereas knowledge is mostly acquired and learnt.

[Purple Panther]

That was what I said earlier: intelligence is mostly innate, whereas knowledge is mostly acquired and learnt.

I gave our dog an IQ test. She scored with the Border Collies, but her breed was in the middle of the pack. We never taught her any of the parts of the test, so she evidently had innate intelligence in her canine brain. She once gulped her food and treats, so we said, "chew, chew", and she did on the spot, even though we never trained her to do that (how did she know?)!

[Tooting Carmen]

Parents have much to do with it. We were poor until I was in grade school, and my mom often bought books for me when they were on sale at the supermarket, so I read books aimed at adolescents or adults before I even started school (they weren't age appropriate in a good way), so I go crazy when college students can't answer basic knowledge questions that I knew the answers to when I was in kindergarten ("um, like, did we fight the Canadians in World War II?"). I definitely was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth, but that didn't stop me from reading my big sister's comic books when I was two, and I would get miffed if someone gave me a book written for toddlers....when I was a toddler.


I gave our dog an IQ test. She scored with the Border Collies, but her breed was in the middle of the pack. We never taught her any of the parts of the test, so she evidently had innate intelligence in her canine brain. She once gulped her food and treats, so we said, "chew, chew", and she did on the spot, even though we never trained her to do that (how did she know?)!

The thing is though, who is ultimately more intelligent and knowledgeable in a useful way: me with my knowledge of languages and geography, or some geographically illiterate (and maybe even in some cases outright illiterate) plumber or electrician, who can sort things out that I have no idea about?

[Purple Panther]

The thing is though, who is ultimately more intelligent and knowledgeable in a useful way: me with my knowledge of languages and geography, or some geographically illiterate (and maybe even in some cases outright illiterate) plumber or electrician, who can sort things out that I have no idea about?

Let's put it this way. I don't call a Women's Studies major when our toilet clogs.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

The thing is though, who is ultimately more intelligent and knowledgeable in a useful way: me with my knowledge of languages and geography, or some geographically illiterate (and maybe even in some cases outright illiterate) plumber or electrician, who can sort things out that I have no idea about?

That's not a question of intelligence but instead specific knowledge. Maybe if you took the time to learn about plumbing, you'd be better at it than most plumbers. Currently, a bad plumber knows more about plumbing than you.

[Tooting Carmen]

That's not a question of intelligence but instead specific knowledge. Maybe if you took the time to learn about plumbing, you'd be better at it than most plumbers. Currently, a bad plumber knows more about plumbing than you.

Maybe in an abstract and theoretical sense, but I know I wouldn't really be able to apply it to work professionally.

[~Elizabeth~]

I wonder what Jay Joseph has to say about this study. I'll send him an email.

A lot of times these people respond to emails.


Who is your "Jay Joseph"?

I googled Jay Joseph and a bunch of different people with the same name popped up.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Who is your "Jay Joseph"?

I googled Jay Joseph and a bunch of different people with the same name popped up.

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

[~Elizabeth~]

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

Ok, thank you. :)

[Lioncourt]

Let's put it this way. I don't call a Women's Studies major when our toilet clogs.

You will be surprised to know how many people with degree in law or economics here turn to repairment jobs because jobs in their field of studies are paid worse.

[Autrigón]

Interesting study but in general it's difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.

First of all, what does it mean to be intelligent? Be very good at maths? get very good results in school?...or be a complete disaster studying and leave the school to create your own company and be a millionaire? not being brilliant in school or work but you have social skills and don't develop mental illnesses (depression, anxiety, addictions, etc.), how to be around very intelligent people who will end up affecting your life positively?

What about those families where the parents have good jobs (engineers, doctors, etc.) but their children are alcoholics, drug addicts and do nothing with their lives? Also the opposite, parents who are a complete disaster but their children are brilliant.

In my wise and humble opinion, intelligence is something very relative and subjective. I think it may also be a combination of both, environment and genetics. So if you have grown up in a good environment and have "intelligent" genetics inherited from your parents, you have more lottery tickets to be "intelligent" or to adapt positively to life.

By the way, if someone dares to publish a study that affirms without discussion that intelligence is the result of your genetics, they would be indirectly affirming that, for example, the black race is inferior and always will be, since they have never been able to develop a civilization.
Racism would be knocking on the door of political incorrectness...

[Tooting Carmen]

You will be surprised to know how many people with degree in law or economics here turn to repairment jobs because jobs in their field of studies are paid worse.

Well even here, plumbers, mechanics and electricians usually would earn rather more than a junior lawyer or university lecturer (obviously, senior barristers and professors are another matter, but even so).

[Grace O'Malley]

Yes, genetics > environment. The environmental influence that has the greatest impact on IQ is almost always negative (such as exposure to leaded gasoline that impacted Americans living in urban and semi-urban areas born before the mid 90s (when leaded gasoline was banned), for example)). However, I'd be wary of articles like these from the media. They often misrepresent findings. Most journalists are ignorant and don't understand what they're covering or worse are sensationalists.

We'd have to look at the actual study. To say they got the same IQ score raises an eyebrow. It would make sense that they get similar IQ scores but the same? It sounds like the journalist is misrepresenting the study.

EDIT: your article says 14 of the 15 pairs are boys. That's wrong. 14 of the 15 pairs are girls. The journalist couldn't get something that simple right (Chinese culture favors boys and so that's why it's always girls up for adoption).

I was just going to add before I saw Petalpusher's post I think that was an error from The Times paper as it was girls that were unwanted. So yes it was majority girls as stated by Petalpusher.

[Purple Panther]

The thing is though, who is ultimately more intelligent and knowledgeable in a useful way: me with my knowledge of languages and geography, or some geographically illiterate (and maybe even in some cases outright illiterate) plumber or electrician, who can sort things out that I have no idea about?

It depends on the person because both a degree and a trade often involve both gained knowledge and innate intelligence. Some tradesmen have IQs that will get them into MENSA while some college students have IQs in the 80s, if not lower, and it sure seems like there are more of them these days. Check this out. What if the person, who can cure cancer, is an Untouchable in New Delhi?

[Purple Panther]

You will be surprised to know how many people with degree in law or economics here turn to repairment jobs because jobs in their field of studies are paid worse.

That's the situation here too (more economics than law). I'm not surprised that it's the situation there.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

I was just going to add before I saw Petalpusher's post I think that was an error from The Times paper as it was girls that were unwanted. So yes it was majority girls as stated by Petalpusher.

Please Grace give credit where credit is due. I spotted the error first. Petalpusher confirmed the mistake with the link (I forgot to post links). You'll see when he quoted my post I had the correct information written.

This slight will never be forgiven.

I'll send Jay Joseph an email later. It needs to be a thoughtful message and so I have to think about it. He has a running feud with Segal and Bouchard. If I just ask , 'Hey, what do you think of this study?' I believe he'll be less likely to answer since no time was put into the question.

[Insuperable]

https://medcraveonline.com/JNSK/factors-influencing-intelligence-quotient.html#ref8


Evidence of genetic influences in IQ

Twin studies shows that identical twins IQ’s are more similar than those of fraternal twins.
Siblings reared together in the same home have IQ’s that are more similar than those of adopted children raised together in the same environment.

Evidence of environmental influences in IQ

Identical twins reared apart have IQ’s that are less similar than identical twins reared in the same environment.

References are in a link above.

[Grace O'Malley]

Please Grace give credit where credit is due. I spotted the error first. Petalpusher confirmed the mistake with the link (I forgot to post links). You'll see when he quoted my post I had the correct information written.

This slight will never be forgiven.

I'll send Jay Joseph an email later. It needs to be a thoughtful message and so I have to think about it. He has a running feud with Segal and Bouchard. If I just ask , 'Hey, what do you think of this study?' I believe he'll be less likely to answer since no time was put into the question.

Haha. Sorry for my oversight there. :)

[Flashball]

Obvious things.

[#Oda#]

Even backward and upside down i don't get this one. Are you guys doing a competition now?

Could be as well that i got 30% altered by the environement outside earlier, so the rest will have to wait.

Maybe rothaer can explain xD . I'm too lazy today.