Why do stormniggers flock to the most simplistic "explanation" when asked about any historical incident?
>"Carthaginians lost because they were brown berber subhumans fighting against superior white europeans"
>"detroit was ruined because niggers"
>"third world countries are poor because they're shitskins"
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
digest.bps.org.uk
lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com
gwern.net
youtube.com
twitter.com
They're very stupid. They can only grasp simple ideas, and usually only one of those at a time.
That's not exclusive to stormniggers. An easy explanation makes it easier to tell yourself you're an expert on the subject. And defending an easy yet shitty explanations gives you a a bigger ego boost compared to the amount of work you have to put in than what a proper explanation would do.
Because Occam's razor.
And because its true. Why else can't you prove them wrong.
>detroit was ruined because niggers
Pretty much undeniable. Genes are the best explanation.
Please, please try your hardest to explain why muh based blacks aren't the main cause of Detroit. Every single living organisms is influenced by genes, except for humans because we're special.
>third world countries are poor because they're shitskin
Also undeniable. Genetic explanation are 100x more effective then any retarded Veeky Forums explanation that can easily be proven wrong by other examples. Wow, who knew the genes of a population can affect a country. Moreover, genetic explanations are not what I would call simple.
Why are historians such gene deniers.
>detroit was ruined by niggers
I think they're just looking at the symptoms. Niggers just started nigging after whitey left.
It´s convenient.
They do not understand the socio-political implications on these matters, nor the historical background.
>Socio-economics and politics are meaningless
You really are a nigger
I suspect a lot of them are Americans, as those topics aren't really a part of mainstream political discourse.
What I don't understand is this notion that most /pol/acks have that everything is going to be A-OK if they get rid of all of the jews and non-whites.
In a way I sort of hope they do, if European history has taught me anything it would only be a matter of time before they experience the horrors that their ancestors went through and maybe then better men could rise.
We'll definitely share a laugh in hell thats for sure
If they start believing in socioeconomics their entire narrative for "white people are superior" falls to the fucking ground
Of course they won't acknowledge it
>"detroit was ruined because niggers"
That actually is somewhat accurate.
Yeah, but saying this an stopping there like most /pol/tard would do completely ignores all the underlying issues that were plaguing this town.
Because they lack the knowledge needed to make more accurate and complex analyses of a situation, and are too pridefully ignorant to learn the knowledge. Thus, they kind of just stew in their own stupidity, occasionally recycling a meme with such efficiency that if you could the same with cans, you'd put a used can in one end and out of the other end would come a brand fucking new can.
Of course they are.
Socioeconomic and politics are nothing more genes masked as environmental effect. We know that a person's politics and socioeconomic position are heavily influenced by genes. Humans are biological creatures, and like every biological creatures, we are all genetic construct. Why do you think even bacteria show behavioral differences?
You can't understand socioeconomics and politics if you don't understand genetics, but hey, you're social scientist, you are 20 years behind the current understanding of genetics!
>If they start believing in socioeconomics their entire narrative for "white people are superior" falls to the fucking ground. Of course they won't acknowledge it
Well of course we won't acknowledge it, because its false. Furthermore, only leftists believe that white people are superior,which is why they shame whites to undermine this perceived "superiority". Only we understand that white people are better, but not superior.
>lack of 10 points of IQ turns a big city into a giant ghetto
>this is, what stormniggers, seriously and unironically believe
1.The population of the city has fallen from a high of 1,850,000 in 1950 to 677,116 in 2015
2.The automobile industry left, and with it left lots of jobs.
3.Riots of 1943, this was the tipping point that drove everyone piss poor.
4.finished off by the 1973 recession
>Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent. It was not despair that fueled the riot. It was the riot which marked the beginning of the decline of Detroit to its current state of despair. Detroit's population today is only half of what it once was, and its most productive people have been the ones who fled.[21] [Note: In Origins of the Urban Crisis, Thomas Sugrue states that over 20% of Detroit's adult black population in the 1950s and 1960s was out of work, along with 30% of black youth between eighteen and twenty-four] [25]
Now one last thing: if everything is about genetics explain southern european economic collapse? explain eastern europe being a shithole? i thought white superhumen were immune to such things?
And you sir, like the rest of the anons said ITT, are a literal nigger. no better than the people you hate, because you're a mindless drone that is incapable of researching and processing data on it's own.
See this giant ass post i wrote? i didn't need a Phd to write it, it just a literal abridging of facts from google
If they start believing in genetics their entire narrative for "racial equality is real and white privilege" falls to the fucking ground Of course they won't acknowledge it
Incas were superior to europeans, though.
Because its true
Of course the detail is more complicated than that, but its a fitting summary and conclusion of human history
Blacks barely have civilisation
Browns created civilisation as we know it, but not good at maintaining it
Whites adopted and maintain the greatest civilisation
Yellows are good civilisational builder but they will always be second to whites
etc
>being this much of a gene determinist
So this is the power of autism...
>socioeconomics, despite explaining perfectly everything I deny so strongly, is false
hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>We know that a person's politics and socioeconomic position are heavily influenced by genes.
oh the pseudoscience
If you knew a single thing about genetics other than what was being parroted 80 years ago you would know that the simple idea of x "race" being superior to y"race" because of genetic is fucking bullshit
Modern biology don't even recognize the concept of race as being more than a simple term to categorize something
The human genome didin't even have enough time to mutate to create signficant differences in out species
No sweetie. You fell for the IQ trap. What if I told you that literally every possible behavior has genetic influences and that these racial differences are the main cause?
>1.The population of the city has fallen from a high of 1,850,000 in 1950 to 677,116 in 2015
Gee why did it fall? Oh that's right muh based black man, its cause of blacks. Blacks behave more criminality which lead to white flight. Genetic preference for kin also contributed to racial segregation, resulting in race riots that led to white fleeing. IQ predicts income. Whites have a higher IQ. Whites earn higher salary. They leave. Detroits loses its income base. Low IQ blacks start occupying the city. Low IQ blacks start voting for black politician who are not cognitive able to create first world countries. Black politicians start doing what they do in Africa. Detroit sees spike in criminality, corruption, and further population loses. Wow, look at all those things that wouldn't have happened without blacks.
>2.The automobile industry left, and with it left lots of jobs.
And yet, there is a white city right next to Detroit that's doing just fine. There's numerous white cities that also loss their jobs but didn't experience the complete failure of Detroit. Interestingly, Detroit has more in common with Camden, East St Louis, New Orleans, then it does with closer rust belt cities. Why oh why. They have nothing in common with each other as except for its racial demographics. What a mystery. The problem is blacks.
>3.Riots of 1943, this was the tipping point that drove everyone piss poor.
Caused by blacks.
>4.finished off by the 1973 recession
And the entire US isn't detroit, which also got hit by that.
ISo, judging from your post. Blacks are the problem, and if blacks were never part of the picture, what happened in Detroit would have never happened.
Now, please tell me the excuse you make for Haiti/Dominican Republic.
>"Carthaginians lost because they were brown berber subhumans fighting against superior white europeans"
No one on /pol/ says this.
Most of that is true
That's not genetic determinism user. No one believes that. Sadly, there are people who are unironically environmental determinism.
It doesn't, because genes explain socioeconomic better, and provides a better explanation where a narrow "socioeconomic" explanation does not. You believe that socioeconomic explains things, but neglect that socioeconomic is itself, a function of genetics.
Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure all those youtube videos you just saw abut the subject are 100% correct
That's true. That explains the Inca superior relatively advanced system compared to eurangutan chimp """"trading"""" paleolitic system.
Oh boy, a social scientist is gonna lecture me on what genetics is. Yes, please tell me. I want to hear your gene denialism and boring bullshit that has been debunked years ago.
>race doesn't exist, evolution isn't real
>sweetieposter
cute, CUTE, C-U-T-E.
>What if I told you that literally every possible behavior has genetic influences and that these racial differences are the main cause?
Care to support your pseudoscience with some sources?
>Gee why did it fall? Oh that's right muh based black man, its cause of blacks.
It fell down because they moved looking for jobs because of the de-industrialization (a.k.a automobile industry bugging out)
infact the blacks-and-crime-in-detroit ordeal started way way after that
>And yet, there is a white city right next to Detroit that's doing just fine
and this has to do with De-industrialization of detroit how...?
>Caused by blacks.
>The Detroit race riot of 1943 took place in Detroit, Michigan, of the United States, from the evening of June 20 through the early morning of June 22. It occurred in a period of dramatic population increase and social tensions associated with the military buildup of World War II, as Detroit's auto industry was converted to the war effort.
>And the entire US isn't detroit, which also got hit by that.
So? missing entirely my point, detroit was already poor until it got finished off by the recession
I never said race doesn't exist
I never said evolution is not real
I said you misunderstand what race means according to modern biology
The Incas are a dead civilization and its people are now half whites. Evolutionary speaking, it hasn't been very successful except for some gay ass faggot on Veeky Forums to make some lame ass attack on whites.
Detroit was still a manufacturing powerhouse for decades after and the Japanese automotive industry didn't make headway in America until the 80s, likewise transfer of American manufacturing to China didn't really begin until the 80s as well.
So yes. Niggers. I don't think Middle Easterners are subhuman or third world countries are poor because of shitskins, some just don't have a decent culture to propagate industrialism. Or sometimes they lack resources or education.
But I will never defend niggers and their impact in the US. They had access to it all and squandered it.
Stormfags get their history from fuckin molyneux and Ben Shapiro
I did not think there would be so many autists defending their "muh genes" argument, really makes me ponder with which people i've discussing history on here.
but Ben Shapiro is a jew
So was Jesus, yet they are "Christians".
Wrong. Andean people exist. Try again, chimp.
Incas were superior to europeans and you literally cannot prove your superior wrong, subhuman monkey.
Get over it, pestilent eurangutan.
>I never said race doesn't exist
You did.
>I never said evolution is not real
You are, but so is every Veeky Forums dumb enough to say "but muh socioeconomics u dum racis" (which isn't even the biggest environmental effect on humans either). Very few people seem to actually understand the principles of evolution.
>I said you misunderstand what race means according to modern biology
Oh, I know what it means. Race has and still is, a useful taxonomic construct. Which incidentally, makes it an alright construct to explain population differences.
Average American White IQ in 1930 was about Sub-Saharan I today.
There is way more to it.
> Competent elite
> Relative military strength to avoid exploitation
> Civic culture and ability to either absorb migrants or have positive population growth
Etc.
/pol/ has raids every now and again, hence the ebb and flow of retards on Veeky Forums.
>You did.
Read my post again
I said your idea of race does not exist
It's easy to misunderstand even a simple concept like that if you get all your knowledge of said subject from youtube videos
You sound like a resentful shitskin who is also in gene denial. Good one. Keep believing what you did, but this world is not denial. Listen shitskin, if you want to talk about superiority, at least mention Muslims, they are indeed superior from an evolutionary standpoint at propagating their belief system and breeding fast, ensuring that their religion and worldview (also genetic) spreads across the world, while passive Europeans just sit there and die out.
You're hiding a lot of the information behind what you're saying. 'Heavily influenced' and 'behavioural differences' don't really mean anything if you don't disclose the degree to which these influences and differences occur. It's the difference between someone reading your post and thinking 'genetics determine everything' and someone actually engaging with what you are saying in an open, scientific manner.
Maybe he keeps bringing up the genes because its the only thing he's got going for him in life... Let's not bully him too much...
:(
They're stupid and need simplistic explanations for everything. That's also why any complex issue is caused by some cabal conspiracy.
Not the guy with the original argument, but it's less about superiority and more about aggressiveness. It can be empirically proven that black people are more violent than white people REGARDLESS of economic conditions. The poor, destitute shithole cities in Russia and Serbia have absolutely nothing on nigger infested cities in the USA. The "Wild West" of the late 19th century which is memed to oblivion as the epitome of a lawless shithole? It was a fucking Switzerland compared to modern day Detroit and St. Louis. Racial demographics are the single best statistical predictor for high murder rate.
>Free will
>Very few people seem to actually understand the principles of evolution
>Genes are the best explanation.
>Please, please try your hardest to explain
This lazy 'prove me wrong' mentality will be the death of Western civilization
Russia has a higher murder rate than the US though
>youtube video
Look, I understand this subject more then some retarded leftists emotionally clinging onto his "muh socioeconmic ideas" and needs to make this juvenile comebacks. Races matter because they differ genetically. Read a fucking Woodley paper.
Try again with some facts, pathetic chimp.
Incas were superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Deal with it.
>It wasn't a youtube video it was an article that I can't even summarise
Are you really surprised that the people who associate themselves with retards tend to be retards? Not every retard is a stormfag, but every stormfag is retarded.
>Care to support your pseudoscience with some sources?
You think my ideas about genetics is some pseudoscience? You sure it isn't you, clinging to some retarded environmental determinism because you're afraid of the implications of what a genetic explanation has. Did you come to this conclusion from an understanding of the current scientific data, or did you just come from it from your political personal beliefs? Are you rejecting it because you know what you're talking about, or because it hurts your fee fee. Seriously, apologize for my anger, but I really hate people like you. The leftism the smug indignation. Its all the same. Well okay, you want to hear it.
In order to understand my viewpoint, you need to understand behavioral genetics, and you need to understand a few of the laws of behavioral genetics that have been observed.
gwern.net
>All psychological traits show significant and substantial genetic influence
Because USA is only 12% black, but the blackest cities there rank in the top 10. You have a better chance getting shot in St.Louis than you have in Kabul.
I don't think they're stupid i think they're just looking for a comforting answer mostly.
Psychological domains traditionally focused on individual differences are those that have been studied most frequently with genetically sensitive designs, primarily
the twin method in which resemblance is compared in pairs of identical and fraternal twins: cognitive abilities and disabilities, psychopathology, personality, substance
use and abuse, and health psychology. Traits in these domains have consistently shown significant genetic influence in adequately powered studies
Although ubiquitous genetic influence is now widely accepted, this finding should not be taken for granted because it was a battleground in psychology as recently as a few decades ago
(Pinker, 2002) and remains controversial in some areas such as education
As an example, a review of the world’s literature on intelligence that included 10,000 pairs of twins showed identical twins to be significantly more similar than fraternal twins (twin correlations of about .85 and .60, respec-
tively), with corroborating results from family and adoption studies, implying significant genetic influence. We are not aware of a single adequately powered study reporting nonsignificant heritability.
Traits such as political beliefs, religiosity,
altruism, and food preferences also have shown significant genetic influence (Plomin et al., 2013). A recent meta-analysis of data drawn from 3,000 publications on nearly 18,000 traits of 15 million twin pairs showed that this finding is not limited to psychological traits
Significant and substantial genetic influence on individual differences in psychological traits is so widespread that we are unable to name an exception. The challenge now is to find any reliably measured behavioral trait for
which genetic influence is not significantly different from zero in more than one adequately powered study.
tl;dr Since all psychological traits show significant genetic influence, it is very likely, that such traits carry over into population differences. Psychological traits among different ethnicity may simple be the result of different genes these populations carry.
Yes, because when people want comforting explanation, they embrace genetic ones. The ones that almost say "you can't help it". Not the environmental one where you can pretend racial equality and you can just magical make up an explanation, oh no, that's too distressing. Genetic explanations are so simple for simple people.
Overall it's a very low chance of getting shot. You're more likely to get shot by someone who is 18-25 than someone over 25.
NUMBER 2
gwern.net
No traits are 100% heritable
>Again, we are unable to find any excep-
tion in which the heritability of a behavioral trait is near 100%. However, this is not a limitation of the methods, because some traits, such as individual differences in
height, yield heritability as high as 90%. It should be noted that behavioral traits are less reliably measured than physical traits such as height, and error of measurement contrib-
utes to nonheritable variance.
>Although this finding might seem obvious and unsurprising, it is crucial because it provides the strongest available evidence for the importance of environmental influence after controlling for genetic influence.
>Because genetic influence is significant and substantial, one must control for genetic influence when investigating environmental influence. Environmental research using genetically sensitive designs has led to three of the most important discoveries about the way the environment
affects behavioral development
tl;dr no shit no trait is 100% heritable. But what most environmentalist don't appreciate is that many "environmental effect" are heavily influenced by genetics, because genes dominate although all factors are intertwined. Which is what I have been talking about. You can't understand history without taking genes into consideration.
One thing about twins is they tend to be brought up in the same household.
>Top 10 Replicated Findings
>Finding 1. All psychological traits show significant and substantial genetic influence
>it just talks about the heritability of certain traits/behaviour such as personality
>ctrl+f: race
>0 results
Did you just hastily grab this off google without reading it or what?
i do not understand how the fuck exactly do you connect this to race
also this seems to be in your article
>Although ubiquitous genetic influence is now widely accepted, this finding should not be taken for granted because it was a battle-ground in psychology as recently as a few decades ago (Pinker, 2002) and remains controversial in some areas such as education (Haworth & Plomin, 2011; Hayden, 2013).
NUMBER 3
Heritability is caused by many genes of small effect
gwern.net
Powerful but overlooked evidence that many genes affect complex traits including behavior comes from selection studies in nonhuman animal research. If only a few genes were responsible for the heritability of a trait,
selected lines would separate after a few generations and would not diverge any further in later generations. In contrast, selection studies of complex traits show a linear
response to selection even after dozens of generations of selection, as seen, for example (Fig. 1), in one of the largest and longest selection studies of behavior that included
replicate selected and control lines
Although GWA studies have limited power to detect such minuscule effects even with samples in the tens or hundreds of thou-
sands, these studies have tremendous power to detect larger effects (M. R. Robinson, Wray, & Visscher, 2014).
For example, a GWA study of 20,000 individuals has 99.9% power to detect an association with an effect size
that accounts for 1% of the variance (i.e., a correlation of .10). This suggests that no such associations exist with effect sizes larger than 1% in the population. Some
extremely rare mutations have large effects on individuals, but because they are rare, their effect on the population is small. If the largest effects are so small, the smallest effects are likely to be infinitesimal, which implies that
heritability is caused by many genes of small effect
tl;dr complex traits tend to be influenced by many many genes.
from
>racial differences are the main cause of behaviour
to
>genetic influence is significantly different from zero
>Human traits being inheritable = race is all determiner of all actions = niggers ruined detroit and totally has nothing to do with socioeconomic problems
Funny how you dodged the rest of his points you dumb nigger.
gwern.net
NUMBER 4
Phenotypic correlations between psychological traits show significant and substantial genetic
mediation
Few of the thousands of reported correlations between traits such as these have been studied with genetically sensitive designs. However, when genetically informed designs are used, research consistently points to a finding with far-reaching implications: Phenotypic covariance between traits is significantly and substantially caused by genetic covariance, not just environmentally driven covariance (!!!)
Cognitive abilities have been studied most systematically from a multivariate genetic perspective. This research consistently shows that the phenotypic correlations among cognitive abilities are mediated significantly
and substantially by genetic factors called
generalist genes(Plomin & Kovas, 2005). For example, a multivariate genetic analysis of intelligence, reading, mathematics, and language in over 5,000 pairs of 12-year-old twins showed that genetic factors consistently accounted for more than half of the phenotypic correlations, ranging from 53% to 65%, with a mean of 61% and a mean 95% confidence interval of between
53% and 67% (O. S. P. Davis, Haworth, & Plomin, 2009).
These findings have received support from multivariate GCTA (Trzaskowski et al., 2013). One implication of this finding is that the phenotypic structure of domains is similar to their genetic structure, as has been shown, for
example, for cognitive abilities (Petrill, 1997) and personality (Turkheimer et al., 2014).
tl;dr IQ tests really are measuring what they are supposed to measure.
The heritability of
intelligence increases throughout
development
Although the effects of experiences could be reasonably expected to accumulate as
time goes by (as some developmental theorists propose, , the heritability of
intelligence has been shown consistently to increase linearly throughout the life course in more than three decades of research. An analysis of cross-sectional data for
11,000 pairs of twins—larger than all previous twin studies combined—showed that the heritability of intelligence increases significantly from 41% in childhood (age
9) to 55% in adolescence (age 12) and to 66% in young adulthood (age 17; Haworth et al., 2010). The nonoverlapping standard errors in Figure 3 suggest that the increases in heritability across the three ages are significant, and model fitting confirmed that the increases are significant. A meta-analysis of results from longitudinal twin and adoption studies also showed increases in heritability from infancy through adolescence (Briley &
Tucker-Drob, 2013). Some evidence suggests that heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood independent of dementia (Panizzon et al., 2014); other
results suggest a decline to about 60% after age 80
Why does heritability of intelligence increase throughout development? Increasing heritability could be due to new genetic influences coming online, a process called innovation, which would seem reasonable given the changes in brain structure and function that occur during
development. However, the next finding, about age-to-age genetic stability, suggests a less obvious reason for the developmental increase in heritability.
The best part is when they start pulling the science denier card as if anything more than a handful of discredited, dishonest geneticists agree with them.
People like lynn who include people suffering from malaria in their studies.
why the fuck are you spamming this without even looking at the replies, retard?
Number 6
Age-to-age stability is mainly due to genetics
Longitudinal genetic studies consistently show that phenotypic correlations from age to age are largely due to genetic stability. In other words, genetic effects contribute to continuity (the same genes affect the trait across
age), whereas age-to-age change is primarily the provenance of environmental factors
For intelligence, similar results have been found, for example, in a meta-analysis of 15 longitudinal studies (Tucker-Drob & Briley, 2014). This finding creates an
apparent paradox: How can the heritability of intelligence increase so substantially throughout development if genetic effects are stable? That is, how can the same genes largely affect intelligence across the life course and yet account for more variance as time goes by? Increasing heritability despite genetic stability implies some contribution from what has been called genetic amplification
(Plomin & DeFries, 1985). In other words, genetic nudges early in development are magnified as time goes by, increasing heritability, but the same genetic propensities
continue to affect behavior throughout the life course.
This amplification model has recently been supported in a meta-analysis of 11,500 twin and sibling pairs with longitudinal data on intelligence, which showed that a genetic amplification model fit the data better than a model in which new genetic influences arise across time (Briley & Tucker-Drob, 2013). Genotype-environment correlation seems the most likely explanation in which
small genetic differences are amplified as children select, modify, and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities
Personality is heavily influenced by genes, and a person's political outlook is heavily influenced by personality. He's not wrong.
NUMBER 7
Most measures of the
“environment” show significant
genetic influence (!!!)
Although it might seem a peculiar thing to do, measures of the environment widely used in psychological science—such as parenting, social support, and life events—can be treated as dependent measures in genetic analyses.
If they are truly measures of the environment, they should not show genetic influence. To the contrary, in 1991, Plomin and Bergeman conducted a review of the first 18 studies in which environmental measures were used as
dependent measures in genetically sensitive designs and found evidence for genetic influence for these measures of the environment. Significant genetic influence was found for objective measures such as videotaped observations of parenting
The reason appears to be that such measures do not assess the environment independent of the person. As noted earlier, humans select, modify, and create environments correlated with their genetic behavioral propensities such as personality and psychopathology.
For example, in studies of twin children, parenting has been found to reflect genetic differences in children’s characteristics such as personality and psychopathology.
Since 1991, more than 150 articles have been pub-lished in which environmental measures were used in genetically sensitive designs; they have shown consistently that there is significant genetic influence on environmental measures, extending the findings from family environments to neighborhood, school, and work environments. Kendler and Baker (2007) conducted a review of 55 independent genetic studies and found an average heritability of 0.27 across 35 diverse environmental measures. Meta-analyses
of parenting, the most frequently studied domain, have shown genetic influence that is driven by child character. Some exceptions have emerged. Researchers can use GCTA to assess genetic influence on family environments such as SES that differ between families, not within families. GCTA has been used to show genetic influence on family SES (Trzaskowski et al., 2014) and an index of
social deprivation.
tl;dr Oh look at that, SES (a objective means of measuring socioeconomics) is heavily influenced by genetics, but the idea that socioeconomic is not influenced by genetics is somehow wrong here. Hm.
NUMBER 8
Most associations between environmental measures and psychological traits are significantly mediated genetically
If genetic factors affect environmental measures as well as behavioral measures, it is reasonable to ask the extent to which associations between environmental measures and behavioral measures are mediated genetically. For
example, rather than assuming that correlations between parenting and children’s behavior are caused by the environmental effect of parenting on children’s behavior, one should consider the possibility that the correlation is in part due to genetic factors that influence both parenting
and children’s behavior. Individual differences in parenting might reflect genetically driven differences in children’s behavior or differences in parenting might be due to genetically driven propensities of parents that are inherited directly by their children.
Disentangling genetic and environmental influences on correlations between environmental and behavioral measures is important for three reasons. First, if these
correlations are mediated genetically, interpretations that assume environmental causation are wrong, which has
important implications for intervention. Second, genetically sensitive designs can be used to identify causal effects of the environment free of genetic confound
(Marceau et al., 2015). Third, genetic mediation of the association between environmental measures and behavioral traits is not just a nuisance that needs to be controlled. It suggests a general way of thinking about how genotypes develop into phenotypes, from a passive model of imposed environments to an active model of
shaped experiences in which humans select, modify, and create experiences in part based on their genetic propensities
tl;dr genes are not passive. They cannot be ignored.
>Personality is heavily influenced by genes
"no"
Personality is heavily influenced by your personal experiences
Where the fuck did you get that it's heavily influenced by genes?
Yeah because you know more than all clinical psychologists since the 20th century. I hope this is bait.
NUMBER 9
Most environmental effects are not shared by children growing up in the same family
It is reasonable to think that growing up in the same family makes brothers and sisters similar psychologically, which is what developmental theorists from Freud
onwards have assumed. However, for most behavioral dimensions and disorders, it is genetics that accounts for similarity among siblings. Although environmental effects
have a major impact (see Finding 2), the salient environmental influences do not make siblings
growing up in the same family similar. The message is not that family experiences are unimportant but rather that the relevant expe-
riences are specific to each child in the family. This finding was ignored when it was first noted (Loehlin & Nichols, 1976) and controversial when it was first highlighted (Plomin & Daniels, 1987a, 1987b), but it is now
widely accepted because it has consistently replicated
It seems likely that nonshared environmental effects are due to many experiences of small effect, analogous to Finding 3 (“Heritability is caused by many genes of small
effect”). That is, rather than asking whether a monolithic factor like parental control is primarily responsible for nonshared effects, it might be necessary to consider many seemingly inconsequential experiences that are tipping points in children’s lives.
However, the basic finding that most environmental effects are not shared by chil-
dren growing up in the same family remains one of the most far-reaching findings from behavioral genetics. It is important to reiterate that the message is not that family experiences are unimportant but rather that the salient
experiences that affect children’s development are specific to each child in the family, not general to all children in the family.
Personality is influenced by environment and experience
>personality is heavily influenced by your personal experiences
>that must meant here is no/little genetic input
Epic argumentation here.
Funny how those explanations also make them feel better about themselves.
Number 10 isn't that relevant. Its just saying that most mental illness are just outliers/extremes of genes that already code for that behavior. Personality is a function of genetics.
So to answer OP. Yes, genes are important.
>>that must meant here is no/little genetic input
who
are
you
quoting
>Where the fuck did you get that it's heavily influenced by genes?
>"no"
That's two people.
"Heavily influenced" implies that it does most of the work, which is wrong
funny how you never replied to, and
But it's not wrong. The only reason you have a personality is because of genes. Every thing that makes up your personality is the interaction between your genes and environment.
And genes, which has the strongest influence over personality, way more then environment and experience which these people never seem to define.
For example, many book worms CHOOSE to read books. Their genes influenced their behavior which influences their environment, because their personality is what makes them choose what they like, what friends they want, who they interact, in turn, the personality chooses environmental factors that in turn, influences him (person gets better at reading, has better vocabulary, starts doing better at school).
If a person is smart, but hates reading, then he will make different decisions due to his personality, which is influenced by his genes. That means, his genes influence his environment, which in turn influence him. It's why many programs aimed at inner city tends to fail. They can force them to read, but the moment the program drops, they revert back to their natural behavior, because that's who they are.
Are you retard my man? I never claimed genes have no imput on it
From a quick read of the thread you seem to have two problems:
1. You don't understand the difference between "personality is not heavily influenced by genetics" and "personality isn't influenced by genetics"
2. I suspect you don't actually know the meaning of the word "significant" and think scientists are using "significant influence" as synonym of "heavy influence"
youtube.com
First sentence "Political belief is determined in large part by temperament and personality, and that's very strongly biologically influenced." - Jordan Peterson, Professor of Psychology and Clinical Psychologist, PhD.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
>explain southern european economic collapse? explain eastern europe being a shithole? i thought white superhumen were immune to such things?
>Medshits
>Slavs
>white
Irrelevant semantic arguments. Your personality is determined, first and foremost, by your genetics, and secondarily by your environment. You're not psychologists.
>genetics influence personality MORE than life events, experience and environment
stopped reading there
open a fucking book
Get a load of this nordicuck
Slavs and meds did 99% of scientific breakthroughs and significant art pieces
what did nordniggers do?
>in sweden, where every effort has been made to close the gap between the genders, the differences in personality between males and females maximizes, leaving biology as the only cause
>women score higher on agreeableness across all cultures, due to their genetics
You may want to read some papers yourself.
Because why should I reply to garbage? You just shifted the argument. You said that genes have no influence on humans. I just proved you wrong. Now you're focusing on race. I posted an article showing you why race is of taxonomical importance. You're not gonna read it, because you're a resentful piece of leftists who is not here to engage logically.
Human traits are SIGNIFICANTLY influenced by genetics. Not a little. Not irrelevant. At least 30-50% at minimum, but many traits go as high as 85%, like IQ. Now, given that we know races differ in IQ, then we can probably guess that they differ in many other traits. These average differences in trait among population can go a long way into explaining why certain countries ended up the way they did. I don't care if you disagree. In the end, saying race doesn't exist is meaningless because population exists, and they will differ. Also, why are you saying nigger so much? You trying to fit in? Are you that same faggot on Veeky Forums?