yet another POLITICAL TEST

[MBVC]

Very authoritarian by the look of it?

I am very authoritarian by nature. I take after my dad in this regard.
Plus I was born in a dictatorship so it might add to it

[Comealongwithme]

Attachment 128442

Very admirable.

[Oghuz]

[Universe]

I don't know if genetic heredity or environment is more important, and I know that you were not asking me,
but I suspect that personality traits are partially genetic. We are not completely blank slates.

For example, my twin sister and I were separated at birth. We grew up separately and reunited 5 years later,
and we had almost the same personalities and habits, strengths and weaknesses, without ever meeting each other.

So this opened my eyes to look beyond what can be known and proven scientifically.

Knowledge and truth are so much more than what can be proven scientifically.

And there are many clues everywhere, including but not limited to statistically significant correlations.

Our instincts, intuition, common sense, and pattern recognition abilities are meant to help us with survival,
and can be faster and more accurate than conventional logic in many cases.

My question was half rhetorical, I do believe personality traits are significantly influenced by genetics, I read books and studies on that (including studies about twins separated at birth).

Whether genotypic IQ has a slight correlation with wealth or not, I do believe overall character of an individual (that includes IQ among others things) determines income, character of a man is influenced by genetics. It is influenced by environment as well, but "bad environment" itself is often caused by parents who have "bad" heritable traits.

Being born equal does not exist anywhere in nature (for good and for ill), it's a constant race for survival of bloodline.

[#Oda#]

My question was half rhetorical, I do believe personality traits are significantly influenced by genetics, I read books and studies on that (including studies about twins separated at birth).

Whether genotypic IQ has a slight correlation with wealth or not, I do believe overall character of an individual (that includes IQ among others things) determines income, character of a man is influenced by genetics. It is influenced by environment as well, but "bad environment" itself is often caused by parents who have "bad" heritable traits.

Being born equal does not exist anywhere in nature (for good and for ill), it's a constant race for survival of bloodline.

My personal update as to the interaction of environment, genetic and traits - maybe contributing to answer your question indirectly:

excerpt:

„Heritage, environment and past shape
This is a very important finding in epigenetics, that today we no longer distinguish between heritage and environment, but we say: heritage, environment and the past always together shape complex characteristics such as health, intelligence and personality. We can no longer separate things today - as we might have done a few years ago - and say that intelligence is 50 to 80 percent genetic and 20 to 50 percent environmental.
The interaction of all these factors is a product and not a sum. If I multiply something by 0, the result is always 0, no matter what the other value is. And studies that attempt to separate this interaction into individual factors are essentially doomed to failure.“

[#Oda#]

...

Just want to say, I edited my answer, easily to find in bold, since there was a misunderstanding due to a wrong word I used, I guess. Just for not having done it for nothing. Feel free to keep silent, it‘s not that important.

[Kess]

No, the meaning of both sentences is the same. If you cannot comprehend written English, then that is your problem bro.

You are a naughty lady. You didn't quote the original sentence that I quoted.




I didn't quote "In any case 'weak' correlations may still be statistically significant and thus mostly (not entirely) true."
I quoted "Thus weak correlations can be sufficient to establish a general rule. Including for intelligence and wealth."



I understand English, but you are clearly dishonest.



Your slight of hand is not only unacceptable but also deserves shaming.

You are not here in pursuit of truth. You argue in bad faith and employ dishonest tactics.

Do not ever reply to me at this point. If you do, I will reply with this post again.

[CosmoLady]

...

Chill out, baby. Unintentional misquote, my mistake.

In any case, "weak" correlations may still be statistically significant and thus mostly (not entirely) true.

Thus "weak" correlations can be sufficient to establish a general rule. Including for intelligence and wealth.

A "weak" correlation can still be statistically significant and thus a general rule can be established about the relationship.

So I quoted the red quote unintentionally.
You wanted me to quote the blue quote.
I quoted the last quote correctly.
These three are chronological. The first two are from the same post, 5 sentences apart.
Anyone can make that mistake easily. No sleight of hand intended.

It's irrelevant, because the last 2 sentences mean the same thing:
a general rule can be established from a "weak" correlation.


The 3rd sentence only adds that a "weak" correlation can be statistically significant.
The 2nd sentence does not have this because it was mentioned in the 1st sentence earlier in the same paragraph.

The 3rd sentence does not have the word sufficient, it is implied for any normal person who understands English.

Your grammar software is silly, LOL. Grammar software is NOT a substitute for basic reading comprehension.

[Anglo-Celtic]

Chill out, baby. Unintentional misquote, my mistake.


[/COLOR]

So I quoted the red quote unintentionally.
You wanted me to quote the blue quote.
I quoted the last quote correctly.
These three are chronological. The first two are from the same post, 5 sentences apart.
Anyone can make that mistake easily. No sleight of hand intended.

It's irrelevant, because the last 2 sentences mean the same thing:
a general rule can be established from a "weak" correlation.


The last sentence only adds that a "weak" correlation can be statistically significant.
The 2nd sentence does not have this because it was mentioned in the 1st sentence earlier in the same paragraph.

Give the brother his "win". He's as bad as Frank FFS.

[CosmoLady]

...

Nah, he needs butt-hurt cream, because a naughty lady burned him twice already.