PUFAs And Their Influence On Political Leanings

[Kartoffel]

I mean the study into actual verifiable genetic differences in heritable behavioural traits such as intelligence.

Dazzle me

 

[Prosper]

And you know that these phentotypic traits and characteristics are causally linked to any specific gene or set of genes? Please provide a specific example.

 

[thomas00]

LOL, that is not the centrism I am talking about. You are describing unidentified voters, not centrists. The economist magazine would describe centrism, not taking a political affiliation but analyzing each issue empirically and presenting a well constructed solution to each issue, while taking into consideration the major points from both sides.

one of the big jokes of centrism is it's pretense of being beyond ideology, usually based upon it's lack of strict allegiance to either side of a democratic duopoly who happen to support pretty much the same thing anyway


the economist is a capitalist magazine full of neocon positions, like Iraq war advocacy.

 

[thomas00]

I tend to like Libertarian ideas...I really don't like the idea of the state increasingly regulating my behaviour and charging services I didn't asked for.

swap out the state for private tyranny


"Your foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week than the police do in a decade."
-Bob Black

 

[managing]

No, not studying academic or social success , I mean the study into actual verifiable genetic differences in heritable behavioural traits such as intelligence. Similar to the study of genetic diseases and inherited susceptibility to them etc.

Why keep repeating the same mistakes? People have attempted for centuries to prove "other" races inferior and have always failed. Seriously, why would you keep trying? Your that sure that you know something the others didn't?

 

[Prosper]

Why keep repeating the same mistakes? People have attempted for centuries to prove "other" races inferior and have always failed. Seriously, why would you keep trying? Your that sure that you know something the others didn't?

You confuse "inferiority vs superiority" with "quantifiable differences". Former is bound to subjectivity and therefore doomed to fail, latter represents objective, undeniable facts.

 

[Kartoffel]

View attachment 9776

Thanks. I will look at those

 

[Sobieski]

If there aren't genetic differences in intelligence, why is there to anything to fear in it's objective study? Surely if every group is inherently equal then conclusive genetic evidence will forever prove the far right racists are wrong once and for all? People seem to be confusing superior with different btw.

 

[managing]

You confuse "inferiority vs superiority" with "quantifiable differences". Former is bound to subjectivity and therefore doomed to fail, latter represents objective, undeniable facts.

Yes, and then you find, lo and behold, tiny differences in brain size between Eurasians and Africans and then make the completely random and unjustified leap to claiming intelligence difference. And, by the way, you've already submitted that one, among others, so . . .

 

[Sobieski]

Why keep repeating the same mistakes? People have attempted for centuries to prove "other" races inferior and have always failed. Seriously, why would you keep trying? Your that sure that you know something the others didn't?

I don't know, and no one else can claim conclusively one way or the other, which is why it should be studied.

 

[Prosper]

Yes, and then you find, lo and behold, tiny differences in brain size between Eurasians and Africans and then make the completely random and unjustified leap to claiming intelligence difference. And, by the way, you've already submitted that one, among others, so . . .

Your ignorance and denial are not interesting to me. You will come to the conclusions you are determined to come to. Good luck.

 

[managing]

I don't know, and no one else can claim conclusively one way or the other, which is why it should be studied.

Yeah, like global warming. Because, you know, somebody doesn't agree. So its "inconclusive".

 

[Sobieski]

Yeah, like global warming. Because, you know, somebody doesn't agree. So its "inconclusive".

So are you against genetic study of heritable behavioural traits between groups? Ie prevalence of MAOA genetic mutations which increase probability of impulsivity and violence (very high in certain groups that are over represented in prison populations) etc

 

[managing]

So are you against genetic study of heritable behavioural traits between groups? Ie prevalence of MAOA genetic mutations which increase probability of impulsivity and violence (very high in certain groups that are over represented in prison populations) etc

To what end?

 

[Sobieski]

To what end?

The truth, same as any other branch of scientific enquiry. Are you open to it?

 

[Kartoffel]

View attachment 9776

Ok, this is what I expected. After having a first glance, the two most promising papers for your type of argument seemed to be Pfiffer and Weiss. Both of these papers cannot even be found on pubmed, and Weiss is known in Germany as a glorifier of Hitler and his racial policies, and his studies have been shown to be complete methodological Unfug. Pfiffer's paper was also rejected by the editor of the journal. The paper by Mekel-Bobrov doesn't really make any sort of causal claim and has already been rebuked for it's methodological errors.
So, this is not going to work. If you want to convince me of your hypothesis come back with a specific claim and some decent evidence for that, not just some screenshot of rejected studies that you have apparently never read, let alone understand.

Science. 2007 Apr 20;316(5823):370.
Comment on "Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens".

Yu F1, Hill RS, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC, Wang ET, Mignault AA, Ferland RJ, Moyzis RK, Walsh CA, Reich D.

Abstract

Mekel-Bobrov et al. (Reports, 9 September 2005, p. 1720) suggested that ASPM, a gene associated with microcephaly, underwent natural selection within the last 500 to 14,100 years. Their analyses based on comparison with computer simulations indicated that ASPM had an unusual pattern of variation. However, when we compare ASPM empirically to a large number of other loci, its variation is not unusual and does not support selection.

 

[Sobieski]

Ok, this is what I expected. After having a first glance, the two most promising papers for your type of argument seemed to be Pfiffer and Weiss. Both of these papers cannot even be found on pubmed, and Weiss is known in Germany as a glorifier of Hitler and his racial policies, and his studies have been shown to be complete methodological Unfug. Pfiffer's paper was also rejected by the editor of the journal. The paper by Mekel-Bobrov doesn't really make any sort of causal claim and has already been rebuked for it's methodological errors.
So, this is not going to work. If you want to convince me of your hypothesis come back with a specific claim and some decent evidence for that, not just some screenshot of rejected studies that you have apparently never read, let alone understand.

Science. 2007 Apr 20;316(5823):370.
Comment on "Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens".

Yu F1, Hill RS, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC, Wang ET, Mignault AA, Ferland RJ, Moyzis RK, Walsh CA, Reich D.

Abstract

Mekel-Bobrov et al. (Reports, 9 September 2005, p. 1720) suggested that ASPM, a gene associated with microcephaly, underwent natural selection within the last 500 to 14,100 years. Their analyses based on comparison with computer simulations indicated that ASPM had an unusual pattern of variation. However, when we compare ASPM empirically to a large number of other loci, its variation is not unusual and does not support selection.

Are you going to debunk the other 4 he posted?

 

[Kartoffel]

Are you going to debunk the other 4 he posted?

Lol, how about you people read them first, then make an argument so that we can have a discussion? Why should I debunk a bunch of studies for you, when you have apparently not even read those papers, or made an attempt to understand the specific arguments in them? It looks like a screenshot that Winnie-the-Pooh just found on some racist website, and then posted here triumphantly, thinking that he has convinced everyone that intelligence is genetic and specifically encoded in white people's brains.

 

[Sobieski]

Lol, how about you people read them first, then make an argument so that we can have a discussion? Why should I debunk a bunch of studies for you, when you have apparently not even read those papers, or made an attempt to understand the specific arguments in them? It looks like a screenshot that Winnie-the-Pooh just found on some racist website, and then posted here triumphantly, thinking that he has convinced everyone that intelligence is genetic and specifically encoded in white people's brains.

No need to be defensive over an innocent question, just wondering if you were likely to get round to it. So are you for or against scientific inquiry into the potential genetic components behind behavioural differences between groups based on their geographic ancestry?

 

[Kartoffel]

No need to be defensive over an innocent question, just wondering if you were likely to get round to it. So are you for or against scientific inquiry into the potential genetic components behind behavioural differences between groups based on their geographic ancestry?

I am not defensive, I am just pointing out the obvious here. Why do you ask me whether I am against any inquiry of that sort? I am not against any inquiries, just against claims that are not based on any evidence or misleading statements.
By the way, I am now absolutely convinced that @Prosper never read those studies and just copied the screenshot from somewhere. I just started reading the full text of the Wang and Su (2004) paper, and the statement that is on Prosper's screenshot "This allele is common in Eurasians but rare in Africans" appears nowhere in the paper. It's a made up statement. In fact, the whole paragraph isn't in the paper that was accepted and published by the journal.