titan said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

The studies on Genetics and IQ have been done and its irrefutable. Education, money and opportunities will not change it.

The science and data does not care about progressive feelings and that's why so many of them try to deny the truth and blame it on "economics".

---

Say again? That is certainly not true of volcanology and its a similar age of science. What makes what is done to date so special? Both present day (tainted by wokeness) and 19th C and early 20th (tainted by racial ideas) are a bit suspect and were not conducted with anything like Vulcan detachment.

That leaves a narrow window at the end of the 20th Century. Was it so infallible and conclusive? What did it find?

---

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

There are a myriad of studies like this.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F

IQ is 80% genetic by age 20, it has been confirmed over and over.

Now that focus seems to be on IQ rather than creation of behavior. But explain then, why so many campus level minds seem so witless and regresssing these days? Its hard to be impressed by IQ concepts among the elite these days. They look so foolish. Is the real flaw to assume IQ is so decisive once you are above a certain low number, the vastly ever higher it gets starts to matter less, because there is a level that could be called "good enough" and its what modern society kind of hit a stride for a while? (Or even the Classical world might have)

You know what would help this discussion?

Data.




The data being censored.

So true!

And definitions.

Like what is `race' anyway?

Vastly oversimplifying genetics and ignoring things like epigenetics. The whole "genetics explain everything" thing is motivated reasoning.

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Everything is governed by genetics, that's how it works. And I do mean everything from how religious you are, to how politically conservative or liberal you are relative to society, how disgusted you are by gays, what kind of foods you like, how likely you are to be promiscuous or not, your intelligence, your discipline, your laziness, your ability to fix things with your hands, etc.

---

This seems rather unlikely. Its not even clear how genes could determine such things because some of those kind of response are what your life experiences prioritize or put in front of you first. Which has everything to do with environment? If you tracked your own life well, you can even recall when had other stances and dispositions.

This without disputing its importance. It just seems very over-weighted.

---

Whether you want to believe it or not, that is reality. Why would you think your genes wouldn't make you act a certain way when this is literally the sole reason for why all animals behave the way they do? Do you think humans are somehow unique and not subject to the same rules as every other species on the planet?

---

Because some of those are too particular. In some cases I even know the date of an influence, and can track how it changed things. If that doesn't happen, neither does the change. What I am disputing is the level of detail and depth of how it "makes you act a certain way".

Things like how work with hands or food like make sense--some passed down element. The degree of religion? Seems iffy. Ditto to promiscuous.

titan said:

---

Now that focus seems to be on IQ rather than creation of behavior. But explain then, why so many campus level minds seem so witless and regresssing these days? Its hard to be impressed by IQ concepts among the elite these days. They look so foolish. Is the real flaw to assume IQ is so decisive once you are above a certain low number, the vastly ever higher it gets starts to matter less, because there is a level that could be called "good enough" and its what modern society kind of hit a stride for a while? (Or even the Classical world might have)

---

You should look into the concept of "regression to the mean". Humanity's IQ does not perpetually go up even with assortative mating. At some point it goes back down and conversely at some point it goes up in the case of dumber parents.

Jayman explains it very well at the below link.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/regression-to-the-mean/

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

titan said:

---

Now that focus seems to be on IQ rather than creation of behavior. But explain then, why so many campus level minds seem so witless and regresssing these days? Its hard to be impressed by IQ concepts among the elite these days. They look so foolish. Is the real flaw to assume IQ is so decisive once you are above a certain low number, the vastly ever higher it gets starts to matter less, because there is a level that could be called "good enough" and its what modern society kind of hit a stride for a while? (Or even the Classical world might have)

---

You should look into the concept of "regression to the mean". Humanity's IQ does not perpetually go up even with assortative mating. At some point it goes back down and conversely at some point it goes up in the case of dumber parents.

Jayman explains it very well at the below link.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/regression-to-the-mean/

---

I haven't heard of that. I will. One thing I think some of your posts may be getting at is the cultural impact of something called `time preference'. Now that is one of the more evocative and somewhat compelling theories of this kind of thing believe might have some kick to it. Not least because it would explain the situations where that time preference trait is over-ridden by the larger culture for an individual.

This goes to the idea of whether certain cultural mindsets certainly are more suited to do things than others.

titan said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Everything is governed by genetics, that's how it works. And I do mean everything from how religious you are, to how politically conservative or liberal you are relative to society, how disgusted you are by gays, what kind of foods you like, how likely you are to be promiscuous or not, your intelligence, your discipline, your laziness, your ability to fix things with your hands, etc.

---

This seems rather unlikely. Its not even clear how genes could determine such things because some of those kind of response are what your life experiences prioritize or put in front of you first. Which has everything to do with environment? If you tracked your own life well, you can even recall when had other stances and dispositions.

This without disputing its importance. It just seems very over-weighted.

---

Whether you want to believe it or not, that is reality. Why would you think your genes wouldn't make you act a certain way when this is literally the sole reason for why all animals behave the way they do? Do you think humans are somehow unique and not subject to the same rules as every other species on the planet?

---

Because some of those are too particular. In some cases I even know the date of an influence, and can track how it changed things. If that doesn't happen, neither does the change. What I am disputing is the level of detail and depth of how it "makes you act a certain way".

Things like how work with hands or food like make sense--some passed down element. The degree of religion? Seems iffy. Ditto to promiscuous.

---

Promiscuity:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886914000865

Religiosity:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656613000500

I could go on and on with every trait I listed but you get the idea. The data is all out there.

titan said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

titan said:

---

Now that focus seems to be on IQ rather than creation of behavior. But explain then, why so many campus level minds seem so witless and regresssing these days? Its hard to be impressed by IQ concepts among the elite these days. They look so foolish. Is the real flaw to assume IQ is so decisive once you are above a certain low number, the vastly ever higher it gets starts to matter less, because there is a level that could be called "good enough" and its what modern society kind of hit a stride for a while? (Or even the Classical world might have)

---

You should look into the concept of "regression to the mean". Humanity's IQ does not perpetually go up even with assortative mating. At some point it goes back down and conversely at some point it goes up in the case of dumber parents.

Jayman explains it very well at the below link.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/regression-to-the-mean/

---

I haven't heard of that. I will. One thing I think some of your posts may be getting at is the cultural impact of something called `time preference'. Now that is one of the more evocative and somewhat compelling theories of this kind of thing believe might have some kick to it. Not least because it would explain the situations where that time preference trait is over-ridden by the larger culture for an individual.

This goes to the idea of whether certain cultural mindsets certainly are more suited to do things than others.

---

Time preference also genetic has a genetic component. Of course time preference itself is related to IQ and other behaviors, which each have their own genetic components.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/kykl.12176

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

titan said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Everything is governed by genetics, that's how it works. And I do mean everything from how religious you are, to how politically conservative or liberal you are relative to society, how disgusted you are by gays, what kind of foods you like, how likely you are to be promiscuous or not, your intelligence, your discipline, your laziness, your ability to fix things with your hands, etc.

---

This seems rather unlikely. Its not even clear how genes could determine such things because some of those kind of response are what your life experiences prioritize or put in front of you first. Which has everything to do with environment? If you tracked your own life well, you can even recall when had other stances and dispositions.

This without disputing its importance. It just seems very over-weighted.

---

Whether you want to believe it or not, that is reality. Why would you think your genes wouldn't make you act a certain way when this is literally the sole reason for why all animals behave the way they do? Do you think humans are somehow unique and not subject to the same rules as every other species on the planet?

---

Because some of those are too particular. In some cases I even know the date of an influence, and can track how it changed things. If that doesn't happen, neither does the change. What I am disputing is the level of detail and depth of how it "makes you act a certain way".

Things like how work with hands or food like make sense--some passed down element. The degree of religion? Seems iffy. Ditto to promiscuous.

---

Promiscuity:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886914000865

Religiosity:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656613000500

I could go on and on with every trait I listed but you get the idea. The data is all out there.

---

Hmm. I will look at the promiscuity one first. Because we have some reliable comparisons there in that the behavior of Romans, Chinese, and others in Classical times on this score are known to some notoriety and can be compared.

titan said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

titan said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Everything is governed by genetics, that's how it works. And I do mean everything from how religious you are, to how politically conservative or liberal you are relative to society, how disgusted you are by gays, what kind of foods you like, how likely you are to be promiscuous or not, your intelligence, your discipline, your laziness, your ability to fix things with your hands, etc.

---

This seems rather unlikely. Its not even clear how genes could determine such things because some of those kind of response are what your life experiences prioritize or put in front of you first. Which has everything to do with environment? If you tracked your own life well, you can even recall when had other stances and dispositions.

This without disputing its importance. It just seems very over-weighted.

---

Whether you want to believe it or not, that is reality. Why would you think your genes wouldn't make you act a certain way when this is literally the sole reason for why all animals behave the way they do? Do you think humans are somehow unique and not subject to the same rules as every other species on the planet?

---

Because some of those are too particular. In some cases I even know the date of an influence, and can track how it changed things. If that doesn't happen, neither does the change. What I am disputing is the level of detail and depth of how it "makes you act a certain way".

Things like how work with hands or food like make sense--some passed down element. The degree of religion? Seems iffy. Ditto to promiscuous.

---

Promiscuity:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886914000865

Religiosity:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656613000500

I could go on and on with every trait I listed but you get the idea. The data is all out there.

---

Hmm. I will look at the promiscuity one first. Because we have some reliable comparisons there in that the behavior of Romans, Chinese, and others in Classical times on this score are known to some notoriety and can be compared.

---

I like Jayman a lot but he's on the radical end of the HBD spectrum wherein he believes free will does not exist and we just make the decisions our DNA programmed us to make. That is, it's an illusion of free will. I don't agree with him because there are clearly some environmental explanations and we know that trauma does affect behavior so clearly more than just genetics is at play. With that said, it's definitely best to think of genetics and behavior as giving you a significant compulsion or inclination to act in a certain way. Hence the reason some people fall easy into drug addiction, others into sex addiction, others become arrogant narcissists, others into depression and suicidal thoughts, etc.

You are clearly free to make your own choices but this is where I think religion comes into play. God tells us the correct way to act and behave, we all struggle with some sort of Vice that comes easy to each of us and it's easy to slide back into that habitual behavior.

My venture heavily into genetics has actually confirmed my faith. We all have our genetic flaws but it is through the belief in Jesus Christ that we may overcome them.

That is a very affirming final conclusion and affirmation. Maybe its not so negative an implication after all if that is what you found. The idea of so much being pre-determined is annoying not, just frightening. So that's a good counter.

It seems in the more practical impact, what this might end up meaning is a slight argument in favor of persisting with an in-race marriage tendency. Not banning otherwise, but not exactly whooping and hollering for it to come about like the Left's rather forced mingling until recently was doing, now they are heading back into full segregation. The late great Orphan's observation "birds of a feather flock together" retort being allowed to stand and simply be left along without so much tampering seems to be the best compromise. As the CRT thread got into, plenty would just assume their descendants continue to reflect them.

BusterAg said:

---

1) So, do you think that this research is evidence of this guy chasing eugenics?

The paper I was discussing earlier is very..troubling to say the least. The methods he chose with the proxy-phenotyping are not the hard science that I expect from genomic analysis. I won't speak to his justifications.

2) Does a study like this justify the NIH from withholding more complete data to make the results better?

More data does not necessarily make a better analysis. It depends on what is being requested and the intended use behind the data. That kind of medical information has really specific guidelines for sharing it and the usage of it for principal component analysis.

3) Do you think adding in behavioral data from internet history would make a study like this more accurate?

Internet history? I don't think that's useful. Too broad and too many variables.

I'm not defending this guys work. It's not the point. I'm saying the NIH shouldn't be denying access to helpful data for work LIKE this, and that this guy is obviously not chasing eugenics.

---

The NIH has the right to withhold data like this, but I'm curious as to their justifications. For all I know they could be grossly misusing their power.

10thYrSr said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Genetics absolutely do govern human behavior. This is why the best choice you can make for your kids is choosing the right spouse to ensure they have solid genetics. Choose the wrong spouse and they may make bad choices no matter how well your raise then.

---

Show me which chromosome the behavior gene is located on.

---

Probably the ones that cause genetic psychological disorders and diseases? If mental illness can be hereditary, why not behaviors?

---

We haven't found those either, just clusters of genes that are all interconnected and part of an incredibly complex regulatory system in the brain. We vaguely know that these have a tendency to be passed down, but it's not guaranteed and the treatment plans won't necessarily be the same.

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Zobel said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Zobel said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

They don't allow them access because they don't want it widely known that race is far more than skin deep and that the problems and issues we face from race relations will never go away because the behavioral issues and conflicts are genetic and cannot be changed through social engineering.

Human Behavioral Genetics or Human Biodiveristy (HBD) is the single most problematic science in history. It's definitive proof that genetics governs all human behavior no matter how or what we do.

There have been numerous geneticists who have been fired from their jobs for venturing into this field because it essentially proves that all modern psychology and sociological theories are not just incorrect but wildly incorrect and that if you don't account for genetics then you're ignoring 75% of the cause.

---

I can't agree with you on this at all.

It's absolutely true that certain cultural groups have certain tendencies, and that can be proven. Focusing on those tendencies, and how to adjust our social programs based on those, would be helpful to society.

But, I firmly reject the opinion that 75% of human behavior is caused by race.

I think that people that have this type of opinion are the problem, because the powers that be are more afraid of people like that than they are interested in making people's lives better.

---

I never said it was caused by race, just that race is genetic and much more than skin, eye, hair, and body shape. See the map below to see just how far apart the races actually are from a genetic standpoint. You can easily see that Europeans are closely related, Asians are closely related, Africans are closer to each other than anyone else, etc. Race is absolutely real from a genetic standpoint. Denying this leads back exactly to where we were before.



Genetics absolutely do govern human behavior. This is why the best choice you can make for your kids is choosing the right spouse to ensure they have solid genetics. Choose the wrong spouse and they may make bad choices no matter how well your raise then.

---

Africa has the highest genetic diversity of any continent. Which makes sense because as far as we know all other continental groups are subsets of that group.

---

All Africans are represented in the bottom left corner of the chart. None of them are close to Europeans or Asians and even further from natives to the Americas.

---

then this chart is using some cherry picked attribute as a stand-in for genetic diversity. simple thought exercise - all of human genetics came out of Africa, ergo all are derivatives of that set. Any measure that points you in the opposite direction from the basic fact that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent is suspect.

---

Africans never interbred with Neanderthals and it's likely that modern humans first evolved in the Balkans, not Africa. Humans then went back to Africa and interbred with a separate homonid there. Asians descended from the Balkan humans who went east and then interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Primates evolved in Africa but the evidence now is pointing more towards the Balkans as the actual origin of Homo sapiens who then went to the rest of Europe, Asia, the Americas, and back to Africa.

---

You are making a lot of very strong claims here that do not have strong evidence supporting these claims. Things were not even close to being this linear, and there hasn't been any significant evidence pointing to the Balkans as the origin.

CDUB98 said:

---

BAP has long had this "certain races are genetically inferior" shtick around here. I am vehemently against it and quite frankly wish STAFF would nuke the idea from orbit.

There is ZERO doubt that genetics plays a role in our brains. ZERO. But, this idea that certain races' behaviors and intelligence is solely based upon race and nothing else is a crock of **** propped up by junk science and bad conclusions.

---

This is where I am at.

Making inferences that races act very differently, and that is all racial genetics, is abhorrent, and just unsubstantiated.

Quote:

---

Everything is governed by genetics, that's how it works. And I do mean everything from how religious you are, to how politically conservative or liberal you are relative to society, how disgusted you are by gays, what kind of foods you like, how likely you are to be promiscuous or not, your intelligence, your discipline, your laziness, your ability to fix things with your hands, etc.

---

This is just an unsubstantiated and ridiculous position.

Everybody on this thread probably believes that genetics impacts behavior.

Exactly one person on this thread believes that genetics dictates behavior.

samurai_science said:

---

The studies on Genetics and IQ have been done and its irrefutable. Education, money and opportunities will not change it.

The science and data does not care about progressive feelings and that's why so many of them try to deny the truth and blame it on "economics".

---

I submit this as a counter example: https://amirsariaslan.com/archives/1010

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608007000982

There are more. Let me know if you accept that there are many twin studies to show that genetics is an important factor in IQ, but not the only factor.

Quote:

---

Do you think humans are somehow unique and not subject to the same rules as every other species on the planet?

---

I think that humans are somehow unique and are not subject to the same rules as every other species on the planet.

I would think that most smart people would agree.

Zobel said:

---

Vastly oversimplifying genetics and ignoring things like epigenetics. The whole "genetics explain everything" thing is motivated reasoning.

---

It also ignores things like Neuroplasticity, which is the literal rewiring of the brain due to behaviors, or exposures to hormones, drugs, or too much alcohol.

Dr. Huberman is a podcast neuroscientist that talks about neuroplasticity a lot, especially how the dopamine / GABA cycle constantly rewires our brain. It's very facinating.

Here is a short video about neuroplasticity and it's impact on people's behaviors based on the amount of certain hormones people were exposed to while still in the womb.

Most of his stuff is awesome, but it is mostly long form podcasts. This one makes the small point pretty quickly.