>110
(cont)
36:
>Finally, you are never going to get around the race thing with your talk of haplotypes and allele frequencies.
... No context again. But as I clarified earlier, I can get around to race quite easily with haplogroups.
With your very arguement you operate under the false "if-then" assumption that: IF race is a surrogate for unknown genetic mechanisms, THEN observed racial differences in IQ and "achievement" can be explained by genetic differences.
Straw man. It's about heritability. At least we are getting somewhere.
I just don't see how you can arrive to that conclusion with all of the blank spots in our understanding of human traits controlled by many genes in concert with environmental factors. I.E - INTELLIGENCE.
For the purposes of this so called debate, I will assume that you know IQ test scores correlate with things: social outcomes (unemployment, child outside of marriage, lives in poverty, ever incarcerated, chronic welfare recipient)[The Bell Curve - Herrnstein & Murray (1994) pp. 171, 158, 163, 174, 230, 180, 132, 194, 247-248, 194, 146] and income[Murray, C. (1997). IQ and economic success. Public Interest, 128, 21–35.], etc. If you are stupid enough to deny these let me know. Leftists debate over the causation. They say that IQ does not effect income, because when controlled for socio-economic factors, raw IQ ends up not mattering. Fallacious control.
IQ ------ Social
||
| `---- Income
|
`----- Economic
This is what IQ correlates with. And we know it does. Now let's look at what leftists say:
IQ Social
(out of the |
picture) \|/
Income
/|\
|
Economic
This is utterly retarded.
Let's have an analogy. A sprinter's time in the 200m correlates withbody composition -- less fat, more muscles tends to result in faster 200m times.
Body ------ 400m
||
| `---- 200m
|
`----- 100m
Now let's apply the leftist thinking.
Body 400m
(out of the |
picture) \|/
200m
/|\
|
100m
So what you're now saying is that controlling for 400m times and 100m times influences 200m times, and so the body composition is out of the picture. I needn't explain why this is blatantly retarded. When you factor things out, you ignore their own causation. Likewise, you ignore that IQ influences socioeconomic factors.
Now, onto the heritability of IQ.
Family IQs tend to correlate. A good example is the correlation between monozygotic twins. Reared together, 0.84*. When reared apart, one study puts the correlation at 0.77**. The fact that it isn't close to one.
*Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M (1981) Familial studies of intelligence: a review.
**http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/03/minnesota-study-of-twins-reared-apart.php (I'd like to add that I saw a .72 and .75 study too, but can't find it atm)
Let's do some calculus .84^2 = .7056 ... This is called the determination of the monozygotic twins' IQ. This is what it will predict.
Now, monozygotic twins reared apart IQ correlate at: .72 (you'll have to believe me for now on the .72, but I'll search more if you want) to .77 ... What does that tell us?
.7056 + E = .72 - .77
where E should fit the environmental similarities. Fits perfectly.
So, genes would make up at least more than 70.56% of the IQ score.
IQ determination > .7056 (because not even monozygotic twins have identical genes)
Thus, I'd say, genes make up about 75% of the IQ test score.
Looking at most scientific papers on this, you'll find that heritability of IQ has been correlated at 0.4-0.8 (keep in mind that most point toward the latter).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t0844nw244473143/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2218526&dopt=AbstractPlus
Also, short of malnutrition, certain mental disorders and illiteracy, IQ tests are mostly fixed through individuals for most of their lives. (If you have those conditions, you can improve your IQ tests)
To recap, IQ correlates with higher income, more positive social incomes, is heritable, much of it is genetic (75% by my estimation), it's very difficult to change unless you have huge problems.
On top of all that, your "pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- don't know where you're getting the data that says that. Anyway, by definition ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND). The whole thing is a poor effort on your part to biologically define race- but guess what? It doesn't exist. The very term "negroid" greatly over-generalizes and over-simplies a contenient of people who have the greatest number of haplotypes in the world. Different allele frequences only mean that a different parts of a continuum has been sampled.
Talked earlier about this.
You can't divide IQ among "racial lines" that don't exist.
Yes I can. I will expand on this when you will be willing to debate.
IQ isn't a good universal guage of intelligence.
Yes it is.
>You have no proof of your ancestors IQs, but considering that we're judgeing them based on the modern IQ test, we know they'd fail.
Apart from the bad English, what the fuck do you mean? Are you an idiot? Of course IQ changes, hello, evolution?
>You have no proof that leaps in civilization required a high IQ.
'g' and the things that correlate with it. There are studies. Do you want me to list them?
Enjoy.