Math ability is genetic

math capability is still entirely genetic

Congrats on winning the genetic lottery. Ugly families have good looking kids sometimes. You got lucky, congrats on the genetics.

retard alert

depression and lack of motivation is also genetic

All behavior is genetic in origin. It's amazing how scared people are of determinism that they make up shit.

los incas ya viajaban el espacio

India is literally full of math geniouses in their history

What was your point? The person you are responding to, me, already believes India has a high IQ subgroup within the population. The average IQ over all of India is shit though.

OBEY

Hello. Back from teaching.

Fuck off and die in a fire. The sooner, the better. Also, I was on an academic scholarship throughout my four years of undergrad.

You're such a fucking retard, it's incredible.

Excuses. I can pretty much guarantee that your lack of success is due to your inherent laziness and lack of drive. Your failures are a result of your own choices unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., severe retardation/mental handicap/intense poverty).

I'm not disputing that. But I'm also stating that you can actually fight against your 'muh depreshun' and 'muh motivashun.'

You know what's pretty fucking pathetic and hilarious? You people always blame your lack of IQ or whatever genetics you may have for your failures, but what is really the truth is that you're all failures because of the choices you've made. That's the most painful reality of all. You refuse to acknowledge this, however. Quite possibly because it's unbelievably painful.

*eurangutans

>inherent laziness
Laziness is determined by genetics, check your privilege.

Then, train your fucking will to overcome it. It's not that deep.

I know you're just joking, but how do some people actually survive in life with this defeatist attitude?

>Damn dude, my family's always been skinny, so I guess I can't put on any muscle and I'll always be skinnyfat.

Like, what the fuck. How do people just relegate themselves to mediocrity based off of dumb shit like 'muh genetiks.'

You didn't disprove anything with this statement.

Continue being a loser and listening to Veeky Forums, then. Not my problem.

Don't forget: Your genetics continuously hold you back, so you can't achieve anything. :^)

Was the invention of the tv a genetic act?

Are you saying you cant change laziness, depression or motivation?

Big whoop, all of our abilities are genetic to an extent. The rest of it that isn't genetics is up to the portion of your behavior that isn't influenced by genetics. The difference between you and a dandelion is just genetics.

No a magical intervention that physics can't explain led to it. We have huge amounts of evidence that our decisions have nothing to do with reality or biology. Instead a 3 year old dying of luekemia chose it by free will.

Ever do the mental experiment of believing free will doesn't exist for a day? How different does it feel?

Why do you do this

Served up a heaping helping of "muh muh motivation"

/bread

>high IQ high drive/grit engineered human btfos his theories
Can't wait. I guess the dogs that chase after the sticks with the most energy and determination just have wanted it "more" by self-choice.

Wow what a counter argument

Also I would just like to say that accepting these things doesn't change much. You just understand the world more. Unless you have some serious existential crisis type shit it's really not a big deal to experiment with these beliefs. It's not like knowing that a chocolate cake is bad for you will stop you from enjoying the taste. Luckily we are stuck inside the illusions and even knowing things are an illusion doesn't make them disappear.

You won't suddenly kill yourself if you mess around with the ideas of genetics being important.

Yes in the sense that their genetics led to them yearning for a certain feeling which expressed itself through rigorous intellectual development which just so happened to produce the television. Same reason why everyone has their own definition of success/ greatness

mmmm really makes me think

>______ is genetic

Will the masses ever be able to understand simple genetics?

any genetic study on this shit? Interesting.

Just because something is heritable does not imply that differences in phenotype are solely due to differences in heritability, especially when you can't rule out highly complex confounding factors.

Yeah you can. It's genetic.

You can't assume it's not because of your bias. All evidence points to the genetic cause of all of these differences. You are basically imagining your position makes sense because it has a 0.000000001% of chance of being true vs the theory that is 99.999% true.

Even if a trait was 99% genetic, if all humans have almost exactly the same genetic contributes to a trait, then differences would be explained mostly by other factors.

This is probably the case for humans. We have very low genetic diversity and we are very homogeneous. For a trait like intelligence, which probably has thousands of genes that contribute to it, we would have the same genetics for intelligence.

In fact, if different groups had differences genetics for intelligence, it would be really easy to find all the genes for intelligence. Just take the two groups and look for the differences. If that where the case we would have known all the genes for IQ a decade ago. The statistical power of things like GWA type studies is astronomical, and we can barely find a handful.

>tfw you could have been successful but you shilled yourself into submission

So youre saying environmental factors had no impact on the invention of tv?

Why do you think i believe in free will like that. I don't. You just jumped the gun.

This is badly said and almost tautologucally redundant.

This seems to be making unnecessary assumptions and atleast one logical error.

This one seems to make the error tin thinking that 50% heritability written in a science paper actually means 100% and that its all "caused by genes".

This one makes the mistake in thinking that 50% heritability equates traits being "50% caused by behaviour, 50% caused by genes". I also infer that they make the mistake in thinking that heritability means unchangeability. There is no necessary relation and even if you argue "height is mostly genetic and it cant be changed". Well thats not due to heritibility but the developmental nature of the phenotype.

2/10 at least you tried

Environmental factors do, but the response to those factors are genetic

>the plebs trying to shit on your dominance
>fails

Kek

Africa is the most genetic diverse peoples, they probably have the smartest and the dumbest

I just dont understand why people are so fatalistic about a trait being heritable considering the degrees of freedom you have in choosing the trajectories through your life. I mean sure, the guy who made the tv might have been smart, had good SES, but he also had lots and lots of sequences of individual choices and experiences. Yes, obviously these choices are going to be biased by his personality which has its causes (genes, history) etc. but it just amazes me how much people are willing to factorize their own very complicated lives under a few numbers and subheadings.

I also see the fatalism in that when people see 50% heritable, all they see is GENES. desu none of us even know our genetic makeup or its effect on our own behaviour anyway and we can't disentangle what causes an individual to be different from the people around them just by looking at them. We cant make assumptions about genetics in that way.

You are a fucking shithead moron

>If we assume everything works exactly how my bias wants it to work blah blah will happen
Shut the fuck up idiot.

First fucking defend your points with 1 fucking study on GWAS on whites vs blacks.

It's almost entirely genetic. 50% is a cop out. 50% is based on averages and not what we will see in the near future with current technology

Trust me, when chang is creating babies in the lab they won't be on the fucking bell curve.

>it's not entirely genetic
>muh dog is just as smart as a human

The only way you get as low as 70% genetic is because you are using arbitrary constraints. It's 100% genetic.

Stop. Think. Are you being scientific? Are you making unwarranted assumptions?

If the rock tries harder it will be good at math. Actually I'm just shifting the goalposts and context.

>NEVER be good at math because you lack the genes to understand math

you dont need to be good at math, just use matlab and other math app outthere and you are no different than mathematician pHd

Rocks dont have genes. Kek

The rock is very sad now. Good job.

You know heritability heavily depends on sanple context right? Theres no universal heritability score for a given trait.

Of course. The thing is this discussion is heavily propagandized by people with specific bias against it. I don't feel bad saying 100% genetic or other such nonsense.

Again, you seem to lack basic reading ability and reading comprehension.

pfft, sucks to suck.

Who cares anymore, just let the genetically engineered people inherit this hellhole. I'm done.

It's not genetic. You must free your mind

There are people who don't want to clone humans but don't mind creating humans based on a lottery. Fucking savage fuckers and their savage ethics.

>Fuck off. People like you rank among the worst in existence. I despise people like you.

Extreme ideologue detected. There is no reason to insult the other guy even if you disagree. Your insult proves that you are literally brainwashed.

...

>Then, train your fucking will to overcome it. It's not that deep.

Genetics is very deep. An individual may possibly overcome it, as an exception. A population will not. Intelligence averages are determined almost completely by genetics. Especially in developed countries where strong envirnmental factors such as starvation dont exist.

This is not rooted a defeatist attitude, quite the opposite. The fact that there are genetically very smart people is a great hope for humanity because genetic engineering could one day give such abilities to everyone. As someone else in the thread said, when the Chinese begin to CRISPR their babies, they wont be blinded by this ideology of radical equality and may very well create population cohorts with 130 IQ average. And who knows where the intelligence ceiling is..

tfw rocks are conscious and sentient just in such a higher dimension that we don't see their complex movements through the manyworlds

>MUH
>BLANK
>SLATE

Call me when Niggers actually advance civilization.

>Beaner We Wuzzing

You're not an Inca. You're a Mongrel who loathes Whitey like Obama does.

>Smartest
>Nigger believes this

>when the Chinese begin to CRISPR their babies, they wont be blinded by this ideology of radical equality and may very well create population cohorts with 130 IQ average.

They'll also have good hair.

People focus too much on abstract constructs such as intelligence predicting life chances when instead you should focus on tangible concrete skillsets. And just because somehing is highly genetic doesnt mean its not changeable. Executive function is a big example where this has been shown to be very trainable yet it has been found to have a .99% heritability component (so far in the literature). As said above, there is no universal heritability score for any given trait. Its highly sample and context dependent and most of the time theyre studying natural samples of people who have made no active effort to change their traits. People are so misleas by thinking this nature vs nurture debate is some universal objective thing when it is context dependent and malleable. Yes we might have special people whos difference from others is mainly genetic in e.g math but the point is that this isnt universal and in the dynamical nature of the brain its hard to truly tell what factors or events in a persons life lead somewhere. How other traits in them interact in their development to produce an outcome.

The only way we can really infer the data people want is through complicated experiments that just arent possible.

It is not at all surprising genetics largely defines intellectual capability.

It's actually a bit amazing liberals managed to deny it for this long.

They're too busy pretending women did the bulk of actual science and Niggers founded Egypt/Moors/Whatever.

You guys are pretty much on the money. As I said before, literally whole sale quoting the text of the journal:

"As discussed elsewhere, the difference between the twin and population-level models and their underlying assumptions complicates direct comparison of estimated parameters (see Methods). For example, unlike the twin model the population-level approach assumes that all environmental influences are independent among individuals. If there are geographically structured determinates of ability (for example, quality of teaching) that correlate with the genetic differences, then this can inflate population-based estimates of heritability."

However, the thread is filled with troll/ironic retards. Whats the fucking point about discussing paper if people don't actually read the whole fucking thing? Its like playing chess with a pigeon.

...

>It Dey Culcha

Indian detected.

This proposition has no facts, or reasoning whatsoever. So I'm not going to bother with a counter argument.
You are completely wrong and I know you are completely wrong because I study evolution

whats your 2 cents then

That's just legal boilerplate so the libtards in charge don't kick them out. Look at the quantitative results and ignore the "dont call me racist" notes.

So how did my facial features and body form? Was it my free will that chose the proportions? Is my biological outcome not predictable by genetics?

Why don't we just find exactly how einstien was taught and copy it. Then we could have millions of great physicists. Also why not open up a charter/boarding school and do the same to create some amazing scientists in Africa?

If we just control all the environmental variables we could recreate the environment of all the greatest scientists and make tons of them.

Although I really bet if we cloned great scientists the results would be shit because the environment would be different. Who would expect Einstein or any other great scientist to succeed if you put thousands of them in the worst american schools.

:thinking: It's so obvious it's environment and not genetic.

>This is what brainlets actually say to themselves to be able to sleep at night

>The statistical power of things like GWA type studies is astronomical, and we can barely find a handful.

It is not astronomical at all, it is barely up to the task. Only this year we found 52 genes accounting for 20% in IQ differences. This number will only go up in the future as statistical power increases and better data becomes available, especially whole genome data for non-European populations where real IQ variation lies.

medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-scientists-genetic-roots-intelligence.html#nRlv

>Back from teaching.

congrats on your phd, not landing a tenure-track position and being stuck as a high school teacher

It's impossible for me to understand why or how liberals can think how they do. There are conversations between liberals on podcasts where they say "I just completely avoid any articles on intelligence or even thinking about it"

The level of retardation and delusion you must have to not see reality is unfathomable to me. It's a mental illness to not notice genetic determisim.

Stop talking about shit you have no idea about.

Senior TAs/PhD students are oftentimes given a section where they can teach. If a professor considers you reliable and the department knows of your work, you can be assigned to teach a class without their assistance. Typically, the flow goes like this:
>Grade homework/tests 1st semester as TA.
>Grade homework/tests 2nd semester as TA + lead recitation for your classes. This goes on for an extra semester, maybe.
>If you're really good, you can be assigned to teach your own class.

Hence, there are grad student instructors for lower level classes.

Protip: I'm a grad student who teaches Calculus, you fucking moron. I also stated I haven't earned my PhD just yet.

You're a mouthbreathing retard. Neck yourself.
Not Indian.

read

You're retarded to not understand how complicated a topic is and using misleading phrases like genetic determinism. How can you talk about genetic determinism when heritability statistics don't even tell you about genetic causality and can only apply to populations and not individuals.

See. It's hard for me to emulate such a shitty brain like yours.

>Take argument about Y
>misrepresent it as about Z
>say Z is really complex
>Say Y is correct, but Z is not

You literally did nothing but make up a new argument, then discuss the new argument, and ignore the original.

For a clearer example since you are low IQ and can't understand the pattern I mentioned. You are taking a lower abstraction level of the argument, saying it is unknown, and then saying because it is unknown we don't understand it. Then right after saying we understand the higher abstraction level.

The entire argument was at the higher abstraction level of population. Basically you are fucking retarded and not logically consistent or really even understanding of simple concepts. You are braindead, get the fuck out of this thread.

If intelligence is not genetic why are nonhuman animals retarded?

Why are chimps stupid?

Why are niggers stupid?

A black box narrow AI could be what gives us an embryo score. The assumption we must understand anything is not correct. Humans have been using natural breeding methods to get results we want for a long time. It didn't require understanding a chicken's genome and which genes did what to get results.

The assumption we need low level of abstraction understanding is just fucking braindead. It's nice but not necessary. We also don't need perfect individual results. Random humans that we see now have genetic diseases, horrible traits, and other problems at what I would consider high rates.

All arguments can not be based on "we don't understand low levels of abstraction perfectly" or that "some things can go wrong". There is a balancing trade off for bad things happen that is completely acceptable and can easily be placed at the current level of genetic diseases / major defects that cause suffering.

The case that genetics do nothing can easily be abstracted out to dogs vs humans to prove genetics matter. Then you can simply assume humans vs new humans and see that genetics trump everything. Literally all arguments against this are terrible unless they are simply "Technology is not quite ready yet".

For the argument on current human differences, not even necessarily race.

Every country would have genius factories creating scientists if it was environment. There is a reason every country on earth use test scores, aptitude tests, gifted programs, and other such things. These are not imaginary constructs of evil patriarchies. Human ability varies regardless of sameness in environment. If it was simply a matter of environment why in the world are there no controlled systems producing 150 IQ geniuses consistently?

40% genetic 60% effort.
>
However 90% genetic if you have the Ed Witten's huge Brain PHENOTYPE.

wt are you talking about, all i was doing was arguing against genetic determinism and i mentioned that. Im not saying that at all, im saying that heritability does not equal genetic determinism. Look at executive function. Its widely considered and empirically shown that you can improve executive function through intervention yet it has been found to have something ridiculous like a .98 heritability.

Explain to me what i should understand if im so retarded. Im happy to listen. Im not sure what you mean by high or low level abstraction.

Level of Abstraction :
The amount of complexity by which a system is viewed or programmed. The higher the level, the less detail. The lower the level, the more detail. The highest level of abstraction is the entire system. The next level would be a handful of components, and so on, while the lowest level could be millions of objects.

For instance

Newton's laws vs Quantum Mechanics.
Depending on the level of abstraction of a system many things change. Ex. Calculating the trajectory of a baseball thrown from a catapult is different than calculating how an electron would behave. In this case it's that fine granular understanding really isn't needed. A black box function that gave you probable IQ based on inputs is enough even if no one on earth understands why. Aside: Meaning and Why are useless questions when you look at the real world btw. All you are really looking for is to capture patterns and if they seem intuitive or logical is entirely based on if you are used to the specific pattern enough.