Discuss racial, ethnic and multicultural issues. Warning: The topics here are likely to be taboo, so if you are easily offended, you are better off not participating here.
Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt
- Freshman Poster
- Posts: 161
- Joined: February 21st, 2018, 8:41 am
Looks like http://culturewhiz.org/users/culturewhiz
was a contributing source.... He's getting big!
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/m ... ce-science
Perhaps the most significant IQ researcher of the last half century is the New Zealander Jim Flynn. IQ tests are calibrated so that the average IQ of all test subjects at any particular time is 100. In the 1990s, Flynn discovered that each generation of IQ tests had to be more challenging if this average was to be maintained. Projecting back 100 years, he found that average IQ scores measured by current standards would be about 70.
Yet people have not changed genetically since then. Instead, Flynn noted, they have become more exposed to abstract logic, which is the sliver of intelligence that IQ tests measure. Some populations are more exposed to abstraction than others, which is why their average IQ scores differ. Flynn found that the different averages between populations were therefore entirely environmental.
This finding has been reinforced by the changes in average IQ scores observed in some populations. The most rapid has been among Kenyan children – a rise of 26.3 points in the 14 years between 1984 and 1998, according to one study. The reason has nothing to do with genes. Instead, researchers found that, in the course of half a generation, nutrition, health and parental literacy had improved.
So, what about the Ashkenazis? Since the 2005 University of Utah paper was published, DNA research by other scientists has shown that Ashkenazi Jews are far less genetically isolated than the paper argued. On the claims that Ashkenazi diseases were caused by rapid natural selection, further research has shown that they were caused by a random mutation. And there is no evidence that those carrying the gene variants for these diseases are any more or less intelligent than the rest of the community.
But it was on IQ that the paper’s case really floundered. Tests conducted in the first two decades of the 20th century routinely showed Ashkenazi Jewish Americans scoring below average. For example, the IQ tests conducted on American soldiers during the first world war found Nordics scoring well above Jews. Carl Brigham, the Princeton professor who analysed the exam data, wrote: “Our figures … would rather tend to disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent”. And yet, by the second world war, Jewish IQ scores were above average.
A similar pattern could be seen from studies of two generations of Mizrahi Jewish children in Israel: the older generation had a mean IQ of 92.8, the younger of 101.3. And it wasn’t just a Jewish thing. Chinese Americans recorded average IQ scores of 97 in 1948, and 108.6 in 1990. And the gap between African Americans and white Americans narrowed by 5.5 points between 1972 and 2002.
No one could reasonably claim that there had been genetic changes in the Jewish, Chinese American or African American populations in a generation or two. After reading the University of Utah paper, Harry Ostrer, who headed New York University’s human genetics programme, took the opposite view to Steven Pinker: “It’s bad science – not because it’s provocative, but because it’s bad genetics and bad epidemiology.”
Anyone who takes any estimates of collective IQs (like national IQs, especially using the brilliant method of averaging out neighboring countries’ IQs) is an idiot, or just looking for an ego boost. IQ only works for measuring people who have been exposed to the puzzles it tests for... turns out it’s a western culture test and slowly those cultural puzzles have been taught to more of the world to bring up the IQ scores. Seriously, one year more education rises the average IQ by 3 points.
http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/gene ... m-debunked
- Veteran Poster
- Posts: 2461
- Joined: May 18th, 2008, 9:16 am
- Location: El Paso, TX
This is just incredibly stupid. The difference between humans and rats is entirely encoded in the DNA. Give a rat one year more education, and its IQ will not rise. The same applies to humans lacking the genes for higher intelligence.
- Freshman Poster
- Posts: 161
- Joined: February 21st, 2018, 8:41 am
YOU actully just agreed with the findings lol. Just think about running, running puts pressure for neural growth and supplied the euphoria of learning via accelerated energy and nutrient movement in the body. As every thought and synaptic connection is strengthened during runs.. Genes merely direct the production of proteins
AND are entirely passive strings of molecules. In other words, they are just on/off switches. It is logically impossible for genes to initiate and steer development in any sense
.. Environments experienced by mothers before or during pregnancy, such as stress or malnutrition play a much better bigger part in development and can modify the way genes are utilized during the offspring’s development. However, that is only half the story!
Enter the microbiome. Quite literally, the microbiome is the community of bacteria and viruses (be they helpful or harmful) that exist within one’s own body. This micro-community can affect how our genes express themselves, since they essentially act as environmental stimuli. That means, of course, that they do not cause changes in actual genetic materials (the DNA or RNA) but rather induce epigenetic effects which may cause a gene to switch on or off. For instance, different microbial communities can trigger inflammation (the body’s response to injury), and that inflammation can subsequently lead to changes in gene expression.
You people don't do any type of rigorous research do you? Or maybe you're just too OLD and stupid
Let me break it down for you slow old people.
1. http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/huma ... telligence
2. http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/extr ... ted-autism
Even if you are a descendant of Shakespeare, there is only a negligible chance of your having any of his DNA. This is because autosomal DNA gets passed on randomly. Shakespeare's kid probably had 50 percent of his DNA; his kid in turn, on average, a quarter, and so on. Within 10 generations, Shakespeare's DNA has spread out and recombined so many times that it doesn't even really make sense to speak of a match.
Putting the same point the other way, each of us has so many ancestors that we have no choice but to share them with each other. Moreover, we don't share any DNA with the vast majority of them. True, you will share Y-chromosome DNA or mtDNA with very distant ancestors, but these make up a vanishingly small percentage of your total ancestry.
This all-encompassing area of biology has a name - systems biology. Systems biology has been responsible for some of the most important developments in the science of human biology over recent years. It is a holistic approach to deciphering the complexity of biological systems that starts from understanding that the networks that form the whole of living organisms are more than the sum of their parts. It is collaborative, and integrates many scientific disciplines – developmental biology, genetics, computer science, engineering, bioinformatics, physics and many others.
Therefore your premise IS rejected and you receive a b2 for ignorance/stupidity.
- Experienced Poster
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: February 11th, 2008, 4:56 pm
For a guy who thinks so highly of himself. Sure loves to troll.
- 12 Replies
- 1011 Views
Last post by pandabear
July 18th, 2015, 10:28 pm
- 21 Replies
- 4829 Views
Last post by fuzzy_corleone
May 2nd, 2013, 3:08 am
- 2 Replies
- 418 Views
Last post by GoingAwol
June 3rd, 2015, 3:13 pm
- 0 Replies
- 904 Views
Last post by zboy1
April 23rd, 2012, 8:13 am
- 6 Replies
- 1795 Views
Last post by Moretorque
September 13th, 2013, 6:27 pm