Genes Do Not Matter (again) - Individuality Is An Inevitable And Unpredictable Result Of Development

[Drareg]

All this stuff is taken into account when assessing genes and heritability. Nothing is 100% genetic. A more aggressive domestic dog will likely be a more aggressive feral dog. Researchers know all this.

If you don't know the answer to his question you should say that instead of another vague response.

 

[jaa]

You do need to know the design of a plane to get on it and fly,if it doesn't have wings it's unlikely you will get on.

What are you talking about? Whether or not something looks like a plane isn't what determines whether you get on. Neither does your knowledge of aerodynamics. You could be blindfolded before walking on flights if that was SOP at airports around the globe and be fully confident the plane would fly. Most people get on planes without the slightest inkling that it is fit for flight aside from the overwhelming confidence that it will fly from A to B because of the inferences we make. This is pertinent to my point and I choose this example because it's so glaringly obvious. If you disagree, you're wrong, and continuing this is futile.

If there was a misunderstanding, or you think you can clear something up as it relates to this point I will give it an honest effort. Otherwise I'm done.

 

[jaguar43]

How would you expect genes that account for success in the modern era to stratify along SES layers? Again, the researchers are clearly aware of the "bias" you see, yet make their statements anyway.

Being born into a higher SES is more important in determining your SES than having the "genes" or a specific genotype. Thats why this study is so painfully biased.

And what's your point, people shouldn't discuss biases in the study because the researchers make their statements anyway. Are they immune to criticism, or should I accept their statements without and logical thinking.

That certainly seems like a potential mechanism. But given all the other evidence there is for genetics influencing outcomes, it seems rash to assign prenatal environment more weight (let alone 100% of the weight) over genetics. Is there any evidence for that claim?

In terms of intelligence and health, I would say yes.

Thus, the prenatal brain has been shown to be sensitive to negative influences like alcohol and malnutrition as well as to the positive influence of enrichment.

If mother rats were protein-deprived during pregnancy and lactation and their newborn pups were given both protein-rich diets and enriched living conditions after birth, the pups' brains grew more than those of standard colony rats that were only nutritionally rehabilitated. In the experiment dealing with postnatal deprivation, the cerebral cortices were lesioned or damaged during infancy, and then the animals were placed in enriched living conditions.


School of Education at Johns Hopkins University-Significance of Enrichment, Diamond

Environmental influences on child mental health

Preconception and Prenatal Environmental Factors Associated with Communication Impairments in 9 Year Old Children Using an Exposome-Wide Approach

Prenatal and early postnatal influences on measured intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI

That's one way to frame it, but it's not steelmanning your opponent. Try coming up with arguments that don't paint your opponents as elitist and who understand that environment plays some role (say between 20-70%). And scientists aren't a monolith. They aren't trying to save themselves the hard work of "making sure people get what they need to develop properly." There isn't one individual on earth doing that who you can point to and say "Aha! That's why they're motivated by genetic determinism!" That's just silly.

I can name one individual who is doing exactly what I said. I mean, lets face the facts, people like Charles Murray ( the author of the bell curve) true motivations aren't to prove genetic determinism of intelligence to be true. But rather to create the justification of a political and social system. He's a hard core libertarian/conservative who holds the belief that certain people are deterministically more intelligent than others. If certain people are more intelligent, then they should reap the rewards of being "better".

 

[DaveFoster]

This sounds like the ravings of a conspiracy theorist.

 

[jaa]

Good job singling out a single line of all my responses to Dareg. In the context of what I was writing it is part of an argument.

 

[DaveFoster]

Good job singling out a single line of all my responses to Dareg. In the context of what I was writing it is part of an argument.

Your context was out of context. The "competition" in state-subsidized education is a rouse. The inter-collegiate competition that occurs exists as a repeated test of favor. Do you agree with me? Advance past go, collect $200 tenure.

I'm not even agreeing with Drareg. I'm just pointing out that education does not have some meta-position distant from special interests as the "keepers of truth."

 

[jaa]

Your context was out of context. The "competition" in state-subsidized education is a rouse. The inter-collegiate competition that occurs exists as a repeated test of favor. Do you agree with me? Advance past go, collect $200 tenure.

I'm not even agreeing with Drareg. I'm just pointing out that education does not have some meta-position distant from special interests as the "keepers of truth."

I disagree with your oversimplification. There are hints of truth to it when looked at through a very specific lens. Small degrees of it here and there. But it doesn't come close to capturing the complexity of what's really going on isn't even useful for getting a glimpse of the general picture.

 

[jaa]

Being born into a higher SES is more important in determining your SES than having the "genes" or a specific genotype. Thats why this study is so painfully biased.

And what's your point, people shouldn't discuss biases in the study because the researchers make their statements anyway. Are they immune to criticism, or should I accept their statements without and logical thinking.

Yes. It's genes + environment. People with genes that lead to success, generally are successful, and generally pass that on to their kids. They also usually afford their children environmental advantages. I'm not saying it's 100% genetic. That's ridiculous. But so is the claim it's 100% environment, unless you define environment to include genes or some analog of genes that goes back many generations and sets limits on how high your IQ can get.

BTW, you can compare low SES people and also see heritability in IQ.

The comments about the researchers being aware of the fact that high SES affords a better environment is just that. You aren't saying anything they're not aware of. They have accounted for that fact and still overwhelming believe in say the heritablity of IQ. It'l like a layman telling an aeronautics engineer that planes are more dense than air so they probably can't fly. By all means think critically, but that applies to your own critical thinking as well. If you think the experts are overlooking something obvious, then you're either one of the most insightful people on earth who sees things others miss, or you're not giving the experts enough credit. It's a trap we all fall into, and the overwhelming majority of the time we fall into the latter group.

In terms of intelligence and health, I would say yes.

That is just evidence that environment plays a role. Not evidence against heritability. This seems to be a pattern. You point to environment playing a roll and claim therefor genetics is bunk. But that doesn't follow.

I can name one individual who is doing exactly what I said. I mean, lets face the facts, people like Charles Murray ( the author of the bell curve) true motivations aren't to prove genetic determinism of intelligence to be true. But rather to create the justification of a political and social system. He's a hard core libertarian/conservative who holds the belief that certain people are deterministically more intelligent than others. If certain people are more intelligent, then they should reap the rewards of being "better".

I have no idea what Murray's motivations are, but we can assume you have guessed correctly. This seems analogous to the previous problem of over extrapolation where you saw environment play a role and assumed therefore it plays the entire role. Now you see one individual who believes in the heritability of IQ who has those motivations you ascribe and assign the 90%+ of people in the field who believe in the genetic heritability of IQ as having the same motivations. Why? I assume you think the <10% who agree with you have pure motivations too.

BTW, have you seen the recent Vox article by intelligence researchers who take a hard stance against Charles Murray's claims? These guys are trying their hardest to claim that the differences in IQ between groups is 100% environmental. Even they believe that individual differences in IQ is heritable.

Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ

Murray’s premises, which proceed in declining order of actual broad acceptance by the scientific community, go like this:

1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.

2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.

3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.

4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.

5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.

Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.

 

[DaveFoster]

I disagree with your oversimplification. There are hints of truth to it when looked at through a very specific lens. Small degrees of it here and there. But it doesn't come close to capturing the complexity of what's really going on isn't even useful for getting a glimpse of the general picture.

Anyway, I don't want to spend too much time on the issue; I was just glancing at the thread and pointed out an ad-hominem.

Jordan Peterson has some interesting work on how agreeableness correlates with academic success; this does not remove the intensive intellectual standards placed upon academics, but all things being equal, professors will favor the agreeable genius rather than the disagreeable one, and over time this leads to greater success in aggregate, etc.

 

[jaa]

Anyway, I don't want to spend too much time on the issue; I was just glancing at the thread and pointed out an ad-hominem.

Jordan Peterson has some interesting work on how agreeableness correlates with academic success; this does not remove the intensive intellectual standards placed upon academics, but all things being equal, professors will favor the agreeable genius rather than the disagreeable one, and over time this leads to greater success in aggregate, etc.

Sure. And agreeable correlates with success across all fields not just academics.

But good ideas tend to win the day and the level of suppression isn't a rampant epidemic. Going with the scientific consensus is the best bet, unless you know things the scientists do not.

 

[Drareg]

What are you talking about? Whether or not something looks like a plane isn't what determines whether you get on. Neither does your knowledge of aerodynamics. You could be blindfolded before walking on flights if that was SOP at airports around the globe and be fully confident the plane would fly. Most people get on planes without the slightest inkling that it is fit for flight aside from the overwhelming confidence that it will fly from A to B because of the inferences we make. This is pertinent to my point and I choose this example because it's so glaringly obvious. If you disagree, you're wrong, and continuing this is futile.

If there was a misunderstanding, or you think you can clear something up as it relates to this point I will give it an honest effort. Otherwise I'm done.

You stated that you don't need to know the design of a plane to get on it,if you know the definition of the word plane and are at an airport expecting to fly, you imply by said words that you know a little about the design and mechanics of a plane therefore if you see a plane with no wings you would not get on it,your statement was incorrect hence your reaction.
Now if a human who has no idea what a plane is and they get on a plane with no wings Or broken wings that goes down the runway and tries to take off they will die,if you explain to the human before they get on the plane that it works like a bird in nature he may ask where are the wings and be reluctant to get on.

The earth still isn't round as you claim,it's dynamic and ever changing,shape is non deterministic!
Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round

 

[Drareg]

Sure. And agreeable correlates with success across all fields not just academics.

But good ideas tend to win the day and the level of suppression isn't a rampant epidemic. Going with the scientific consensus is the best bet, unless you know things the scientists do not.

Yet here you are on the Ray Peat forum,not exactly a consensus view of health........
Claiming richard lynn,murray etc are scientists is ridiculous,they are not scientists,they practice the equivalent of astrology or palm reading.

Below quote on scientific consensus-

"Among the most influential challengers of this approach was Thomas Kuhn, who argued instead that experimental dataalways provide some data which cannot fit completely into a theory, and that falsification alone did not result in scientific change or an undermining of scientific consensus. He proposed that scientific consensus worked in the form of "paradigms", which were interconnected theories and underlying assumptions about the nature of the theory itself which connected various researchers in a given field. Kuhn argued that only after the accumulation of many "significant" anomalies would scientific consensus enter a period of "crisis". At this point, new theories would be sought out, and eventually one paradigm would triumph over the old one – a cycle of paradigm shifts rather than a linear progression towards truth. Kuhn's model also emphasized more clearly the social and personal aspects of theory change, demonstrating through historical examples that scientific consensus was never truly a matter of pure logic or pure facts.[7] However, these periods of 'normal' and 'crisis' science are not mutually exclusive. Research shows that these are different modes of practice, more than different historical periods".

If only good ideas win the day,that's an issue of perspective,tell that to the Jewish during WW2,(eugenics)tell that to the....(insert multitude of historical and current examples)

 

[Drareg]

It's looks like a slight smile yet his psychosis just seeps through at all times,he is a manic psychopath with a vocabulary. Only a fellow low energy type like him can perceive this as a smile,everybody else wants to leave yet the psychopath can't pick up on those vibes for lack of empathy.
An adult who can't face his underlying drives,married to a psychologist supposedly.....this is human adult emanating rage from the surface,all Dad had to do was hug him,give a pat on the back sometimes.....
Now the rest of us have to be a sink for his entropic incoherent energy.

 

[Drareg]

Yes. It's genes + environment. People with genes that lead to success, generally are successful, and generally pass that on to their kids. They also usually afford their children environmental advantages. I'm not saying it's 100% genetic. That's ridiculous. But so is the claim it's 100% environment, unless you define environment to include genes or some analog of genes that goes back many generations and sets limits on how high your IQ can get.

BTW, you can compare low SES people and also see heritability in IQ.

"The comments about the researchers being aware of the fact that high SES affords a better environment is just that. You aren't saying anything they're not aware of. They have accounted for that fact and still overwhelming believe in say the heritablity of IQ. It'l like a layman telling an aeronautics engineer that planes are more dense than air so they probably can't fly. By all means think critically, but that applies to your own critical thinking as well. If you think the experts are overlooking something obvious, then you're either one of the most insightful people on earth who sees things others miss, or you're not giving the experts enough credit. It's a trap we all fall into, and the overwhelming majority of the time we fall into the latter group"



That is just evidence that environment plays a role. Not evidence against heritability. This seems to be a pattern. You point to environment playing a roll and claim therefor genetics is bunk. But that doesn't follow.



I have no idea what Murray's motivations are, but we can assume you have guessed correctly. This seems analogous to the previous problem of over extrapolation where you saw environment play a role and assumed therefore it plays the entire role. Now you see one individual who believes in the heritability of IQ who has those motivations you ascribe and assign the 90%+ of people in the field who believe in the genetic heritability of IQ as having the same motivations. Why? I assume you think the <10% who agree with you have pure motivations too.

BTW, have you seen the recent Vox article by intelligence researchers who take a hard stance against Charles Murray's claims? These guys are trying their hardest to claim that the differences in IQ between groups is 100% environmental. Even they believe that individual differences in IQ is heritable.

Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ

Murray’s premises, which proceed in declining order of actual broad acceptance by the scientific community, go like this:

1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.

2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.

3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.

4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.

5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.

Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.

You must be fanatical to be making this post after the article I provided for you,it's made up,it's a faith based ideology your spouting,palm reading "professionals".

5) "genes" are in the human body and will be found there,what you project over them is palm reading.


HUMANS POSSESS FEWER GENES THAN CORN. One of the surprising findings of the Genome Project was that the human genome contains an estimated 20,000 protein coding “genes,” less than maize (i.e., corn), which contains over 32,000 protein-coding “genes” ,and close in number to the nematode, with approximately 19,000. And many “genes” appear to be preserved across species. Surely, the distinctive properties of the human brain and human behavior are the result of something other than what we have less of than corn. Yet GCTA tells us that common SNPs, SNPs that we most likely share with corn and nematodes, account for 35% of the heritability of “intelligence.”

The B73 maize genome: complexity, diversity, and dynamics. - PubMed - NCBI


The "gene "is in the environment Mr Duality.

 

[DaveFoster]

Sure. And agreeable correlates with success across all fields not just academics.

But good ideas tend to win the day and the level of suppression isn't a rampant epidemic. Going with the scientific consensus is the best bet, unless you know things the scientists do not.

I remember reading a study that stated narcissism and disagreeableness as powerful boons in a competitive business environment: (of course the "modern," short-term-gain oriented business environment.)

 

[jaguar43]

Yes. It's genes + environment. People with genes that lead to success, generally are successful, and generally pass that on to their kids. They also usually afford their children environmental advantages. I'm not saying it's 100% genetic. That's ridiculous. But so is the claim it's 100% environment, unless you define environment to include genes or some analog of genes that goes back many generations and sets limits on how high your IQ can get.

In a higher SES, you have more resources available than someone in the lower classes. Your parents are more likely better connected to people who can take you places. You have more resources for education and career orientated directions. Less chances of getting in trouble.


You are also more likely to have biological advantages such as not being born to a malnutitioned mother. Not living in a polluted part of town, or drinking leaded water.


My point is that when you look at studies that somehow prove that genes are responsible for someone's success. Then state that there was a strong correlation between a High SES and the results, you have to wonder. How much did genes really play a role, or was it being born into a family with already social advantages and privilege that is responsible for someone's success.

Setting limits on your IQ by previous generations? Too bad no one told you about your IQ limitations because it would have spared you from making such an idiotic statement. LOL.

BTW, you can compare low SES people and also see heritability in IQ.

The only things that is heritable is the the social and environment conditions in which the subjects are born and subjugated too. IQ can change depending on the social characteristics such as the type of school or curriculum. Intelligence can be influenced by biological characteristics such has metabolism and brain size.

The comments about the researchers being aware of the fact that high SES affords a better environment is just that. You aren't saying anything they're not aware of. They have accounted for that fact and still overwhelming believe in say the heritablity of IQ. It'l like a layman telling an aeronautics engineer that planes are more dense than air so they probably can't fly. By all means think critically, but that applies to your own critical thinking as well. If you think the experts are overlooking something obvious, then you're either one of the most insightful people on earth who sees things others miss, or you're not giving the experts enough credit. It's a trap we all fall into, and the overwhelming majority of the time we fall into the latter group.

Then your being gullible. Just because the researchers are aware of the biases in the study doesn't make it any less bias. I mean, is it not true that if your born into a higher SES then your more likely to be in the same SES ? Not because you inherited a specific genotype, but because you have the advantages of being in the Higher SES to begin with. Don't you agree that being born in a higher SES you have numerous resources at your disposal. More money and better opportunities, better connections with people. None of these things are depended on your " genotype" but rather social opportunity. Why is that so hard to understand. Thats what makes the study biased.

That is just evidence that environment plays a role. Not evidence against heritability. This seems to be a pattern. You point to environment playing a roll and claim therefor genetics is bunk. But that doesn't follow.

It does follow, you make the argument that intelligence is determined by genes. I have posted studies stating otherwise.

I have no idea what Murray's motivations are, but we can assume you have guessed correctly. This seems analogous to the previous problem of over extrapolation where you saw environment play a role and assumed therefore it plays the entire role. Now you see one individual who believes in the heritability of IQ who has those motivations you ascribe and assign the 90%+ of people in the field who believe in the genetic heritability of IQ as having the same motivations. Why? I assume you think the <10% who agree with you have pure motivations too.

Well, elitism takes many forms. Some are more subtle than others. But I have seen enough of it that makes me certain that most academics believe that they know everything.

BTW, have you seen the recent Vox article by intelligence researchers who take a hard stance against Charles Murray's claims? These guys are trying their hardest to claim that the differences in IQ between groups is 100% environmental. Even they believe that individual differences in IQ is heritable.

Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ

Murray’s premises, which proceed in declining order of actual broad acceptance by the scientific community, go like this:

1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.

2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.

3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.

4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.

5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.

Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.

All of the points made against Murrary's ideas can be applied to arguing against genetic determinism.

 

[jaa]

You stated that you don't need to know the design of a plane to get on it,if you know the definition of the word plane and are at an airport expecting to fly, you imply by said words that you know a little about the design and mechanics of a plane therefore if you see a plane with no wings you would not get on it,your statement was incorrect hence your reaction.
Now if a human who has no idea what a plane is and they get on a plane with no wings Or broken wings that goes down the runway and tries to take off they will die,if you explain to the human before they get on the plane that it works like a bird in nature he may ask where are the wings and be reluctant to get on.

The earth still isn't round as you claim,it's dynamic and ever changing,shape is non deterministic!
Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round

I was specifically referring to the mechanics of a plane. How to design it to get it to fly. Most humans don't know this. Some, with a physics background or self learning can know the broad strokes of things like Bernouilli's equation and have a vague notion of how it operates. Only a very small minorty of humans known as experts will know how to design a 747 and almost all of those people have invested in the formal education system and have a post secondary degree.

Say 90% of 747 experts think that taking design action x will increase the fuel efficiency and 10% think it won't. You are talking to another non-expert and you say you agree with the 10%. Your friend is intrigued and asks why. You say because the total weight of the plane is now 5 grams heavier. Don't be surprised if your non-expert friend looks at you funny. The 5g of extra weight is common knowledge all the experts share. And if that type of common knowledge is all the info you and your friend have about the issue, you would both be wise to default to the 90% expert position.

 

[jaa]

I remember reading a study that stated narcissism and disagreeableness as powerful boons in a competitive business environment: (of course the "modern," short-term-gain oriented business environment.)

You're right. Disagreeableness and narcissism are correlated with higher levels of success among men. I tried to find the source of my claims, but could only find evidence that agrees with you. I think I was confusing it with information about humble, down-to-earth CEOs being the best earners for a company.

If Humble People Make the Best Leaders, Why Do We Fall for Charismatic Narcissists?

 

[jaa]

Setting limits on your IQ by previous generations? Too bad no one told you about your IQ limitations because it would have spared you from making such an idiotic statement. LOL.

Nice.

I'm well aware of my IQ limitations. Which is why for things I am not an expert in and cannot test for myself, I defer to experts. Keep tweaking your environment with whatever tip Ray Peat might suggest and I'm sure you'll double or triple your IQ in no time (that's nothing compared to the unbounded infinite). You're already an expert in genetics and with that increased IQ should make you smart enough to explain exactly why I should believe you instead of the experts in language that doesn't sound like it's coming from someone with a low level of knowledge like me.

 

[Drareg]

I was specifically referring to the mechanics of a plane. How to design it to get it to fly. Most humans don't know this. Some, with a physics background or self learning can know the broad strokes of things like Bernouilli's equation and have a vague notion of how it operates. Only a very small minorty of humans known as experts will know how to design a 747 and almost all of those people have invested in the formal education system and have a post secondary degree.

Say 90% of 747 experts think that taking design action x will increase the fuel efficiency and 10% think it won't. You are talking to another non-expert and you say you agree with the 10%. Your friend is intrigued and asks why. You say because the total weight of the plane is now 5 grams heavier. Don't be surprised if your non-expert friend looks at you funny. The 5g of extra weight is common knowledge all the experts share. And if that type of common knowledge is all the info you and your friend have about the issue, you would both be wise to default to the 90% expert position.

They work similar to a paper airplane that a child can make..... A plane needs wings and thrust to fly......
Also the 747 flies,it's proven on a daily basis by observation,it's easy to listen to 90% of engineers at that point because if it crashes it's an immediate repercusssion for them,people will die and they loose their jobs immedietaly,this is skin in the game.
Your "experts" in heritability "genes" for behaviour don't fly,clearly the studies are flawed so your analogy here is deluded denial,behavioural psychologists in academia speculating don't have skin in the game on the scale of the 747 engineers,neither do "geneticists" who will make pathological claims and intentionally not try falsify their studies into "special" snp's so they can make profit for pharmaceuticals,people will get slowly killed by said pills and it will be all but impossible to pin an academic for people's deaths.

Your use of the term "expert" is based on your definitions of those people being "experts" in their "field",you acknowledge you don't fully understand what they are talking about yet blindly accept they are "experts" because the "experts" say they are "experts" ,all the while ignoring the obvious study I posted from Charney,your using the term probability theory yet ignore the ignorance of the researchers you support for stochastic processes within their palm reading techniques for snp's and "heritability astrology".