Intelligence Gene or More Eugenics Bull Puckey?

reply to post by soficrow


Well, what's the alternative to neural imaging? Slicing and dicing human brains? Considering that the test subjects in most of these experiments were children, I'm personally very glad to know that they are relying on neural imaging to note physiological differences and not more invasive methods. Use of imaging, however, is very effective in indicating both problems and bonuses in the functionality of an organ. In the same light, would you dismiss the efficacy of an echocardiogram as that's simply a picture of the heart functioning?

Genetics as it relates to physiological processes are still in their infancy and genetics alone shows a great deal of complexity. A single trait may actually be a complex trait whose existence depends on multiple variations within the genetic structure (polygenic inheritance). One of the articles that I linked actually did discuss genetics and that was in regards to oxytocin receptor gene and intelligence. Doesn't look like that one linked properly so will try again:

Oxytocin Receptor Gene

If you'd actually read the research that I linked, you'd find plenty of evidence of a "threefold" involving the manifestation of intelligence---heritability, possible prenatal exposure, and environment with acknowledgment that all may be a factor in developing intelligence.

behavioralneuroscience.org...

The environment in which we develop and exist will always have an effect on our physiological processes. We don't live in homogenous safety bubbles. If a soldier going to war can have his brain chemistry and function altered by his experiences (PTSD), then you bet brain function can be altered by environment. In fMRI's of dissociative disorder patients (emanating from childhood), the corpus callosum was found to be diminished as well as impacts to the right hemisphere of the brains. Again, environmental effect on the physiological. Likewise, someone prone to heart disease and who eats a ton of fast food is likely going to kick up that heart disease in response to his environment via diet. Saying that it is all prenatal and post-natal environment ignores genetic predispositions entirely and would be a serious logical error as it ignores genetic predispositions.

reply to post by Antigod

we know damn well that genetics has a major effect on intelligence

No - you and your like assume genetics has a major effect on intelligence - but do not distinguish between gene products and epigenetically influenced gene products.

Oh yes, dug up a paper for you:

www.udel.edu...

Basically it was undersigned by just about all the major specialists in IQ at the time.

A total of 131 invitations was issued, 100 responses were obtained by the deadline and only 52 signed. That's less than 40% of a group pre-selected for being supportive. Hardly "just about all the major specialists in IQ at the time."

The paper is highly biased but still blows Segal's assumptions out of the water: Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence …because they experience different environments within the same family. [sic]

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Saying that it is all prenatal and post-natal environment ignores genetic predispositions entirely and would be a serious logical error as it ignores genetic predispositions.

I think what's understood to be "genetic predispositions" actually refers to epigenetic inheritance. My main concern here has to do with distinguishing between genetic and epigenetic inheritance, and recognizing epigenetic influences after birth as being additional and different factors. I do not say "it is all prenatal and post-natal environment" - for one thing, such a viewpoint does not accommodate the proven inter-generational transmission of epigenetic influences.

soficrow
reply to post by Antigod

 

we know damn well that genetics has a major effect on intelligence

No - you and your like assume genetics has a major effect on intelligence - but do not distinguish between gene products and epigenetically influenced gene products.

Wow. Quite the fallacy you've got going there.

Oh yes, dug up a paper for you:

www.udel.edu...

Basically it was undersigned by just about all the major specialists in IQ at the time.

A total of 131 invitations was issued, 100 responses were obtained by the deadline and only 52 signed. That's less than 40% of a group pre-selected for being supportive. Hardly "just about all the major specialists in IQ at the time."

The paper is highly biased but still blows Segal's assumptions out of the water: Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence …because they experience different environments within the same family. [sic]

You kind of clipped out something really important in that quote but I'll fix it for you by reinserting the parts you omitted:

Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different environments within the same family.

I'll give you the principle of charity in that you were not attempting to misuse a quote by omitting statements that directly negate your argument of a "no genetic influence" in your plea to authority. What the actual quote references is basic Mendelian inheritance and that 50% is pretty typical for most genetically inherited things. For instance, I have Von Willebrand's. My children ran a 50% risk of inheriting Von Willebrand's from me and, ironically enough, one child inherited it and the other didn't. Go figure.

And right after that bullet point was another, this one, which is kind of what both Antigod and I were saying:

That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter.

Furthermore, in auditing, at least, sending out a notice does not guarantee receipt. They received 100 responses and had 52 signers. That's 52% of confirmed receipt and 52% is a majority. 48 opted not to sign so it's not a sizable majority but it is still a majority...

50+1 = majority.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

your argument of a "no genetic influence"

Not my argument - your and antigod's misrepresentation. In case you missed my repeated clarifications, my main concern here has to do with distinguishing between genetic and epigenetic inheritance, and recognizing epigenetic influences after birth as being additional and different factors. I do not say "it is all prenatal and post-natal environment" - for one thing, such a viewpoint does not accommodate the proven inter-generational transmission of epigenetic influences.

The way I see it:
Our DNA is our operating system, and epigenetics is the software - it tinkers with the proteins our genes encode.

It is well-recognized that the 20,000-25,000 genes in the human genome cannot possibly account for all the individual variations found in the human population. I personally know a chimp who figured that one out. Hence, it's all the different software programs that explain the (protein) variations.

How many genes does the Human Genome contain?

The Human Genome Project has revealed that there are probably about 20,000-25,000 'haploid' protein coding genes. The completed human sequence can now identify their locations. But only about 1.5% of the genome codes for proteins, while the rest consists of non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and noncoding DNA (once known as "junk DNA").

...Although genes get a lot of attention, it’s the proteins that perform most life functions and even make up the majority of cellular structures.

reply to post by soficrow


That's just it though and why I'm not in total disagreement with much of what you are saying. I recollect at least one of the papers that I posted as having basically beautiful brains of twins that had distinctions between what was heritable all the way to environmental in a full color spectrum. It was pretty cool. Some facets are going to be epigenetic--totally agree; however, that one paper also indicated heritable sectors of the brain common to both. That can't be dismissed either and much of what you've been saying read to me (and apparently Antigod) like you were dismissing those potentially more static (lack of a better word) portions of heritability that may be outside of epigenetic/environmental effects.

I also totally agree that I find much of the research in this and what goes on within the school systems as being utterly repugnant. In fact, it's one of my primary beefs. In my book, what is within the school systems most definitely was fathered by no good stinking eugenecist creeps. I hate it and find it patently distasteful and despicable. We could probably go on at length on the latter subject in total agreement.

reply to post by Antigod

Myopia ia a RARE mutation?

Myopia is not at all confirmed genetic - just heritable. Much confusion results from the fact that epigenetic mutations can be heritable without affecting the DNA. Looks like myopia is all about the software too (epigenetic alteration of proteins), not the operating system (genes in DNA).

Normally eye development is largely genetically controlled, but it has been shown that the visual environment is an important factor in determining ocular development.

Genetic Basis for Myopia
Genetically, linkage studies have identified 18 possible loci on 15 different chromosomes that are associated with myopia, but none of these loci are part of the candidate genes that cause myopia.

Instead of a simple one-gene locus controlling the onset of myopia, a complex interaction of many mutated proteins acting in concert may be the cause. Instead of myopia being caused by a defect in a structural protein, defects in the control of these structural proteins might be the actual cause of myopia.

A proteomics approach has been used to identify differentially expressed proteins in form-deprived combined retinal, RPE, and choroidal tissue from myopic versus normal eyes. The identified proteins may be components of pathways involved in myopia pathogenesis.

I find this one especially interesting - note that mutations in the SLITRK6 protein do NOT necessarily arise from mutations in the SLITRK6 gene; many heritable protein mutations are epigenetic, and do not involve DNA mutations.

SLITRK6 mutations cause myopia and deafness in humans and mice.

Myopia is by far the most common human eye disorder that is known to have a clear, albeit poorly defined, heritable component. …our results showed that SLITRK6 plays a crucial role in the development of normal hearing as well as vision in humans and in mice and that its disruption leads to a syndrome characterized by severe myopia and deafness.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

I'm not in total disagreement with much of what you are saying.

I often think we're in almost total agreement - then you yell at me! lol

I think the most important aspect of current genetic and epigenetic research is that the research promises to identify and distinguish epigenetically inherited protein mutations from inherited genes. And the most important thing about epigenetic inheritance is that it is not permanent. Unlike inherited genetic mutations, inherited epigenetic protein mutations tend to disappear if they're not beneficial after 3-7(?) generations, and assuming the environmental trigger is gone.


NOTE: Research on yeast shows that non-beneficial inherited epigenetic protein mutations disappear after 5-odd generations - we haven't been looking long enough to know the same process occurs in humans - but I can hope.

reply to post by Antigod

In our current environment, where food is plentiful and free schooling is availabler that is.

I would posit that more available food is counterproductive as we see what comes from laziness


The "modern" education system was founded by the Rockefellers to train workers from the day they're born to be "on time" in line with the mechanized production factory...look it up it may surprise you

Genetics is a MAJOR factor in human intelligence, it's influence is greater the older you are (it's only 20% in toddlers)

You're comparing apples to oranges

toddlers...still learning...collating absorbing, developing sense of self
older people...life experience...then they get to 80-90..then they regress to child-like behaviour (hows that fit with your theory)

Or are you saying that the genes you're born with mutate as you age?

Why do people get irate when genes that affect intelligence are found?

I guess its like the well documented Israelis search for the semite gene so to enable them to build "smart" biological weapons

Science without ethics morals and oversight by a neutral jury is what we have today...science paid for by the corporate fascist mafia...how has that worked out for curing cancer...see what I mean

reply to post by soficrow

But Eugenics is a money thing too - we're coming up to a culling,

Just heard on the news they passed a euthanasia, I mean assisted suicide Bill for terminally ill children, has been passed by the Belgium Parliament...slippery slope...
Whilst I think there is a place for the terminally to be allowed to not suffer; not having read the legislation I would suspect that there are pieces in the Bill itself that will have far reaching consequences, like most forms of legislation that usually give more power to The State.

www.smh.com.au...

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight


I suspect you're right. Soon chronically debilitated people who are unable to work to support themselves....

Belgian lawmakers pass child-euthanasia bill

Belgian lawmakers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of extending the country's euthanasia law to children under 18.

soficrow
reply to post by Antigod

 

Myopia ia a RARE mutation?

Myopia is not at all confirmed genetic - just heritable. Much confusion results from the fact that epigenetic mutations can be heritable without affecting the DNA. Looks like myopia is all about the software too (epigenetic alteration of proteins), not the operating system (genes in DNA).

Normally eye development is largely genetically controlled, but it has been shown that the visual environment is an important factor in determining ocular development.

Genetic Basis for Myopia
Genetically, linkage studies have identified 18 possible loci on 15 different chromosomes that are associated with myopia, but none of these loci are part of the candidate genes that cause myopia.

Instead of a simple one-gene locus controlling the onset of myopia, a complex interaction of many mutated proteins acting in concert may be the cause. Instead of myopia being caused by a defect in a structural protein, defects in the control of these structural proteins might be the actual cause of myopia.

A proteomics approach has been used to identify differentially expressed proteins in form-deprived combined retinal, RPE, and choroidal tissue from myopic versus normal eyes. The identified proteins may be components of pathways involved in myopia pathogenesis.

I find this one especially interesting - note that mutations in the SLITRK6 protein do NOT necessarily arise from mutations in the SLITRK6 gene; many heritable protein mutations are epigenetic, and do not involve DNA mutations.

SLITRK6 mutations cause myopia and deafness in humans and mice.

Myopia is by far the most common human eye disorder that is known to have a clear, albeit poorly defined, heritable component. …our results showed that SLITRK6 plays a crucial role in the development of normal hearing as well as vision in humans and in mice and that its disruption leads to a syndrome characterized by severe myopia and deafness.

Let me try this again.

Environment affects the organism. No one has an issue with this. The point that you seem to want to ignore is that genetic traits inherited directly from parents design the organism to start with, and the original template has a major effect on the intelligence of the organism/person in the long run.

All epigentic effects come into the 'environmental effect' camp. It's a red herring, a way to bamboozle. It comes into 'environment', it does not negate the effect of hereditary genes.

Myopia is seriously affected by the amount of high GI carbs you eat as a child, and by the amount of time you spend out doors. It doesn't stop it having a genetic component. Pre agriculturally, neither lots of close up work or high GI carbs would have occured which probably explains how a gene with such an obvious downside got selected in so quickly, as in a hunter gatherer lifestyle you'll end up with better visual spatial, and no myopia. And a bigger visual processing area in the brain.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You can't magically create a sort sighted genius if they didn't have the genes to produce the extra brain cells to start with. And this trait is inherited from parents. Environment/ epigentics loses to inherited traits/genetics. And someone with the the genes for myopia could end up with the high IQ and normal vision given the right environment.

BTW, it would be nice if you could explain away just why the increase in IQ associated wih myopia has to do with VS and not verbal intelligence. You can also detect the greater intelligence in childhood before the myopia develops and the precursor to myopia is detectable in infants.

In their study of over 4,000 twins, the researchers identified a myopia susceptibility gene called RASGRF1, which has been replicated in over 13,000 other people from the UK, the Netherlands and Australia

BTW, I'm not suggesting all genes that cause myopia cause higher IQ, just some of them.

You seem seriously resistant to the fact that IQ seems to be highly heritable/genetic, even though I've not seen you post any research that disagrees with it. I HAVE seen you clip a quote to try to make it look like Segal agreed with you, when she didn't ( as whitealice pointed out and I also noticed). Did you think I hadn't read the paper? Or did you think other people reading this thread weren't going to?

As for that letter, the names that signed it were the most well known names in the field. Nothing like it supporting 'it's all environment' has ever been produced AFAIK. For a reason, 'its mainly environment' is a minority POV. I spent a long time reading the published data, I've not seen any strong 'it's environment' camp that wasn't based on socialist ideology. Please feel free to post research that disagrees. Research on very young children is your best bet, as they show the least effect from hereditary.


Other relevant data:

IQ has a strong relationship to brain size relative to lean body mass.
Brain size is strongly heritable.
IQ has a very strong effect on life outcome regardless of parents SES

Brain structure volumes have substantial heritability rates ranging from high (70–95%) for total brain volume, cerebellar, gray and white matter, and corpus callosum, to moderate (40–70%) determined for the hippocampus, the four lobes (frontal, temporal, occipital, and parietal lobe), temporal horn volume, brain parenchyma, white matter hyperintensity, and planum temporal asymmetry. Middle structures of the brain show high heritability scores for the deeper structures (ontogenetically earlier formed) and moderate heritability scores for the surface structures.

Demonstrating that genetics seems to be the main determinate of brain size in the very young, with envorinment affecting development as you age. Non primate studies show a heritability of .99 for brain volume.

From a non psych POV, I've never ever seen an anthropolgist deny that earlier versions of our species were less intelligent because of their overall smaller brains. You see this proudly trotted out in class, the line up of replica crania from homo habilis to modern man, and the increase in brain size with each one as proof of greater intelligence (which one would logically assume was due to new mutations over the aeons).

TheConstruKctionofLight
reply to post by Antigod

 

In our current environment, where food is plentiful and free schooling is availabler that is.

I would posit that more available food is counterproductive as we see what comes from laziness


The "modern" education system was founded by the Rockefellers to train workers from the day they're born to be "on time" in line with the mechanized production factory...look it up it may surprise you

Genetics is a MAJOR factor in human intelligence, it's influence is greater the older you are (it's only 20% in toddlers)

You're comparing apples to oranges

toddlers...still learning...collating absorbing, developing sense of self
older people...life experience...then they get to 80-90..then they regress to child-like behaviour (hows that fit with your theory)

Or are you saying that the genes you're born with mutate as you age?

Why do people get irate when genes that affect intelligence are found?

I guess its like the well documented Israelis search for the semite gene so to enable them to build "smart" biological weapons

Science without ethics morals and oversight by a neutral jury is what we have today...science paid for by the corporate fascist mafia...how has that worked out for curing cancer...see what I mean

Facts are what they are. Intelligence is largely inherited, as you get older the higher the heritability is. No, I'm not suggesting genes mutate, I thinks thats more Soficrows thing. It's just that toddlers are what they are taught, the older you get the more you get exposed to other stimuli and you have more chance to blossom if you have the potential.

Rockerfellers... a minority of the worlds population live in America. The UK and European school systems are an evolution from victorian charity schools and private schools for the children of the rich.

Science overseen by 'moral' people... who decides what moral is? The religious right who'll forbid anything that contradicts the bible? Socialists who'll punish anyone who finds inherited traits are significant ? (Because everyone knows all inequality is down to unfair social advantages). This happened in Russia, by the way.

Basically, a fact is a fact.

Sooner or later someone will find it out, the research will be done even if the facts show an ugly truth. We are at this stage now with genetics. It contradicts creationism and socialist theories of inequality from advantage, and this gives a great many people reason to want it stopped. If 'genetics is dominant' becomes the accepted theory, people will start looking at eugenics as a way to solve social inequality instead of chucking resources at underclass children in an effort to improve them. You'll also end up with people being unable to blame their environment for their failures, except in exceptional circumstances.

The east Asians have no such qualms, not having the baggage of Hitlers genocide dragging behind them. They WILL start selecting embryos a soon as it's viable.

Oh, and Jews are WAY to close to Arabs in the middle east to tell apart genetically, any bioweapon that would work on one would work on another. Even biologically very disparate groups like Aborigines and Africans, that wouldn't be even close to possible for a REALLY long time.

reply to post by Antigod


Look I'm not getting into a slanging match with you but you obviously missed the Rockefelor connection altogether, or did you?
Look it up. You're also deflecting by "UK/Euro are an evolution."

a minority of the worlds population live in America. The UK and European school systems are an evolution from victorian charity schools and private schools for the children of the rich.

The point being that all modern urbanized central (federally/state) controlled countries expect students to be at school at a set time for 6.5/7 hours per day in classes with their own age groups, The model had its genesis between 1905/1930


www.cantrip.org...

"In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

There you have it. Now you know. We don't need Karl Marx's conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don't conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks." But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that "efficiency" is the paramount virtue, rather than love, lib, erty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed. "

further on...

"Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever re-integrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose - the actual purpose - of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor. "

reply to post by Antigod

Oh, and Jews are WAY to close to Arabs in the middle east to tell apart genetically, any bioweapon that would work on one would work on another

I do know this, it was mentioned in the Time article I read at the time. Again I find the absence of any mention of morality or ethics of such, in your responses quite telling.

You state:

"(Because everyone knows all inequality is down to unfair social advantages). This happened in Russia, by the way."
Are you serious? What...there are no programs in the western economies that insert disadvantaged children with other "more affluent" children in the same classroom?


hahahhahaha you're playing the Hitler card, try harder

www.google.com.au...:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=MSH-UpntG6aN8Qew4oCAAw &gws_rd=cr

Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reductio ad Stalin/Trosky/Marx

reply to post by Antigod

Science overseen by 'moral' people... who decides what moral is? The religious right who'll forbid anything that contradicts the bible? Socialists who'll punish anyone who finds inherited traits are significant ? (Because everyone knows all inequality is down to unfair social advantages). This happened in Russia, by the way.

I think you clearly understood what I meant, but played it..."overseen by moral people"

I said Science without ethics morals and oversight by a neutral jury...there is a big difference to what you're claiming I said.

Science is pure and to quote your words " Facts are facts"

But are they really?

www.economist.com...

"A few years ago scientists at Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 studies that they considered landmarks in the basic science of cancer, often co-operating closely with the original researchers to ensure that their experimental technique matched the one used first time round. According to a piece they wrote last year in Nature, a leading scientific journal, they were able to reproduce the original results in just six. Months earlier Florian Prinz and his colleagues at Bayer HealthCare, a German pharmaceutical giant, reported in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, a sister journal, that they had successfully reproduced the published results in just a quarter of 67 seminal studies."

"Academic scientists readily acknowledge that they often get things wrong. But they also hold fast to the idea that these errors get corrected over time as other scientists try to take the work further. Evidence that many more dodgy results are published than are subsequently corrected or withdrawn calls that much-vaunted capacity for self-correction into question. There are errors in a lot more of the scientific papers being published, written about and acted on than anyone would normally suppose, or like to think."


pages.stern.nyu.edu...

"The tragic effects of confirmatory bias are not, however, restricted to clinical disorders. In fact, as has been argued elsewhere (Mahoney, 1976), the most costly expression of this tendency may well be among scientists themselves. To the extent that researchers display this bias, our adequate understanding of the processes and parameters of human adaptation may be seriously jeopardized. If we selectively "find" or communicate only those data that support a given model of behavior, then our inquiry efforts will hardly be optimally effective. Despite the fact that confirmatory bias in scientists was first noted by Francis Bacon (1621/1960) over three centuries ago, precious little research has been devoted to the topic and the few extant studies have hardly challenged Bacon's observations. One study found that the vast majority of scientists drawn from a national sample showed a strong preference for "confirmatory" experiments (Mahoney & Kimper, 1976). Over half of these scientists did not even recognize disconfirmation (modus tollens) as a valid reasoning form! In another study the logical reasoning skills of 30 scientists were compared to those of 15 relatively uneducated Protestant ministers (Mahoney & DeMonbreun, 1977). Where there were performance differences, they tended to favor the ministers. Confirmatory bias was prevalent in both groups, but the ministers used disconfirmatory logic almost twice as often as the scientists did.

The costs of this cognitive bias are perhaps nowhere as serious as in the area of scientific publication. The valuable contributions of a piece of research may be seriously threatened by a single act of human decision-making-namely, the judgment of a journal editor. There is substantial consensus among sociologists of science that the publication process is an integral part of contemporary science (Hagstrom, 1965; Ziman, 1968; Zuckerman & Merton, 1971; Cole & Cole, 1973). Unless his or her research is published, a scientist can have little hope of either personal advancement or recognized professional contribution. As documented in the research of Merton, Zuckerman, and others, journal publication has become the sine qua non of scientific achievement. In the absence of the public dissemination afforded by professional journals, a piece of research is often doomed to both obscurity and impotence in the growth of knowledge. Moreover, particularly in academic settings, lack of publication may seriously jeopardize the researcher's job security and continued research opportunities (Caplow & McGee, 1958; Dixon, 1973)."

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

The model had its genesis between 1905/1930

Except that Uk and European schools were run this way from the mid Victorian era, starting about 9 and finishing about 3. Most had mixed age groups sole due to small class sizes, larger schools had split age groups back in the 1850's. And the main purpose of these charity schools was to improve the lot of the poor, even to the point of feeding the kids. Other than that...

Oh yes, forgot Americans think everything was done by them first and the world revolves around thm. Shock, it doesn't.

And an education makes you more employable. Call the cops. It also makes for a large empowered middle class that don't like dictatorial govts, pollution and crappy healthcare.

Are you serious? What...there are no programs in the western economies that insert disadvantaged children with other "more affluent" children in the same classroom

When did I say there wasn't? Never.

How is this relevant to the fact that the USSR basically forbade research that showed genetics as a factor in things like ahcheivement? It's not a reductio, it's an example. Learn the difference.

Also how is pointing out that East Asians lack the cultural baggage with Eugenics that we do anything to do with reductio ad Hitler? It's an observation of what's going on out there.

As to your post on fraud in medical science, well that's what peer review is for. Lies always get caught in the end (by other scientists). Science is effectively self correcting.

A fact has no morality. Calling someone names because they've discovered something you dont want to be real isn 't going to change reality.

reply to post by Antigod


I get it. You're myopic and are a genius too. I have myopia and a genius IQ as well. You want to claim genetic superiority; I do not.

As far as your claims that genetics override environment with age for intelligence, could you please explain recent breakthroughs in the science of neuroplasticity in that light.

Neuroplasticity, also known as brain plasticity, is an umbrella term that encompasses both synaptic plasticity and non-synaptic plasticity—it refers to changes in neural pathways and synapses which are due to changes in behavior, environment and neural processes, as well as changes resulting from bodily injury.[1] Neuroplasticity has replaced the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how - and in which ways - the brain changes throughout life.[2]

Neuroplasticity occurs on a variety of levels, ranging from cellular changes due to learning, to large-scale changes involved in cortical remapping in response to injury. The role of neuroplasticity is widely recognized in healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage. During most of the 20th century, the consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively immutable after a critical period during early childhood. This belief has been challenged by findings revealing that many aspects of the brain remain plastic even into adulthood.[3]

soficrow
reply to post by Antigod

 

I get it. You're myopic and are a genius too. I have myopia and a genius IQ as well. You want to claim genetic superiority; I do not.

As far as your claims that genetics override environment with age for intelligence, could you please explain recent breakthroughs in the science of neuroplasticity in that light.

Neuroplasticity, also known as brain plasticity, is an umbrella term that encompasses both synaptic plasticity and non-synaptic plasticity—it refers to changes in neural pathways and synapses which are due to changes in behavior, environment and neural processes, as well as changes resulting from bodily injury.[1] Neuroplasticity has replaced the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how - and in which ways - the brain changes throughout life.[2]

Neuroplasticity occurs on a variety of levels, ranging from cellular changes due to learning, to large-scale changes involved in cortical remapping in response to injury. The role of neuroplasticity is widely recognized in healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage. During most of the 20th century, the consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively immutable after a critical period during early childhood. This belief has been challenged by findings revealing that many aspects of the brain remain plastic even into adulthood.[3]

I never said I was a genius. You appear to think you are though. I post research from phds, which you generally disgree with then don't provide any research that counters, but find something borderline related that might be seen to shore up your arguments. See below.

Neuroplasticity has nil to do with this. The brain being able to reroute function after brain damage, or to train for a skill has what exactly to do with the heritability of human intelligence with age? It's kind of like the effect exercise and practise has on physical skills. I used to be able to touch type and play the guitar, but I haven't done this in 20 years and neuroplasticity has reassigned the space to other skills that I now use. You can use it to train for study, but again .... this is included in environmental affect on intelligence.

And they aren't my claims that IQ heritability increases with age. That's the observation of specialists in the field of human intelligence with years of study behind them. Feel free to post research data from others that disagrees.

reply to post by soficrow


Just to make my position clearer...

Every time I have looked up research into the heritability of IQ with age, ALL the papers that take a look at it show it increases with age. Since I can't find any reasonable evidence to refute this claims by the scientists (I did look), I'm not going to assume I know better than someone who has spent 25 years or more specialising in the subject.