I'd like to do a public service by answering questions about genetics, population genomics, and phylogeny from the viewpoint of a scientist.
Obviously I believe in HBD and think that a segregation policy (fascist or not) is best suited for a relatively peaceful coexistence of the human races.
Posted Mar 24, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC
I'll take your word for it, whatever you say probably won't really change what I think anyways unless it rly convinces me.
Do genetics truly affect IQ as much as some people say? I get that IQ can be affected by genetics but I seriously do think environment has more to do with it. IQ isn't stable, it fluctuates constantly, Italy had the highest IQ in Europe 10 years ago, now it's at the same rate as Romania. Singapore had sub-par IQ 20 years ago, now it's one of the highest. ( not sure about the singaporean one, maybe I'm exagerrating a bit)
What i'm saying is, that I'm sure a black american who completely ignored every single thing about "black culture" and focused on his studies and pretty much lived the average life of a suburban white american boy, he'd have a similar IQ score.
I read somewhere that British kids scored one of the lowest in the GCSE tests, having Africans from both the West Indies and Sub-Saharan Africa score higher. I need to know why British kids are doing worse in their GCSEs compared to close to every other immigrant group but, ofc, irish gypsies haha.
edit- I do want to reiterate, I do believe genetics do affect IQ, and probably to a considerable amount that it can be measured, but what I'm saying is that we should still give credence to environmental factors and that they're probably a lot more important than genetics. And having IQ be the forefront of ethno-nationalism is imo, kinda retarded.
Do genetics truly affect IQ as much as some people say?
Yes of course. Consider IQ a phenotype. Consider your genes a blueprint. Your genes "build" whatever is responsible for your measured IQ in your organism.
I get that IQ can be affected by genetics but I seriously do think environment has more to do with it.
Twin studies place the same genome into two very different environments and yet the twins end up very much alike eachother despite having been separate. Genes are the only explanation for this.
IQ isn't stable, it fluctuates constantly, Italy had the highest IQ in Europe 10 years ago, now it's at the same rate as Romania.
I see you are observing a change in genetics of a region, perhaps Italy's population demographics have changed. We are observing the same thing in other endangered White nations like France, Britain, Germany, Sweden, the United States.
he'd have a similar IQ score.
You cannot disconnect him from his biology. A black will be a black. His IQ is limited by his genes. We have reached the genetic potential in western countries, we feed the blacks very well and protect them from physical trauma (e.g. tribal warfare in Africa where children suffer brain injuries). If anything it is proof of genetics that blacks in Europe aren't much better than blacks in Africa, since the difference in environmental variables is basically absence of malnutrition and trauma, and yet the difference isn't much (maybe 5-10 IQ points, depending on samples).
Another thing about IQ, we deliberately test non-cultural mental faculties, this is how g was created and is being researched. Arthur Jensen is the man behind this.
And having IQ be the forefront of ethno-nationalism is imo, kinda retarded.
It's not. Ethnonationalism places racial genetics at any front, if any front. IQ is just a phenotype of our race, but ultimately what's important is our race. I don't care about IQ nearly as much as I do about the unadulterated existence of my race. I do not want an "IQ-Ethnostate" like the sargonites do. It's just a happy coincidence that Whites have a high IQ, it is not part of my political program.
You obviously know more about this than I do. I still do find it a bit too hard to believe that Genetics are more influential than Environment. I do still think genetics have a lot to do with IQ, but... I'm sorry but I just don't see it.
You obviously know more about this than I do.
I'm here to increase the awareness of this board of genes and to distribute a couple of easy talking points, of course.
Marketing aside, we can go into the specifics of it. I really recommend you have a look at the g factor. IQ is just the hyperpopular version of g. I think IQ is a left over from a hundred years ago when psychometrics first started, we have come a long way since then moving away from "cultural knowledge" (e.g. language competence, knowing who the 44th president of the US was, etc) and moving onto hard psychometrics where we are starting to quantify the brain's faculties in great detail.
The environmental factors should be viewed as "how damaging are they to the development of the child", not as "how much can they boost the child". This is why I phrased it as lack of malnutrition, the more malnutrition, the more hampered the child's development (mental and physical).
The closer our environmental factors (trauma in the womb/as a child, malnutrition/starvation, stimulation) get to zero, the closer the child has come to expressing it's genetic potential. A note on stimulation, yes, the brain does need to play with toys in order to develop its faculties (we know this based off of what happens with people kept in captivity all their lives like Fritzl's kids, a horrible fate but great scientific insight), but a child will always find some sticks, rocks, or whatever to mess around with. Functionally speaking, there is no difference between wood blocks with letters on them and sticks and rocks in a sandy pit, the child's brain is learning to engage the environment in the way it wants and seeing what happens as a result of its interaction. Stimulating children does not increase IQ, unless you literally tie their hands as 1 year olds and don't let them play with stuff around them.
An abundance of twin studies, with subjects numbering in the tens of thousands, thoroughly disproves this notion. Intelligence has a heritability factor of about 0.8.
Education doesn't raise IQ. But advances in nutrition and public health sure do.
Look at it this way, my genes have specific information about my height and I can never exceed that. I could fail to miss that target by being malnourished though.
It's the same deal with IQ. Phenotypic/Genotypic variances. The phenotype can fluctuate far more tumultuously than the genotype.
This is probably what's happening. For example, let's assume Italy had an average genotypic IQ of 95. Nourishment and public health advances remove factors that would depress the phenotypic expression for a great deal of people. As a result, phenotypic IQ is quite near to genotypic IQ and Italy leads Europe.
Now, countries who had higher genotypic IQ (combined with Southern Italy being invaded/mixing with Arab invaders) ALSO develop and cull factors that would depress phenotypic expression and now suddenly lead Italy.
This is what's known as the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect does not prove that genotypic IQ is shaped by environment, only phenotypic IQ.
Similarly, with British GCSE scores, a lot of the immigrants taking the exams are probably clustered around the higher end of the bell curve for IQ for their country. Nigeria has a population of hundreds of millions, and while still being poor and undeveloped, still has hundreds of thousands of students who would land in top percentiles for IQ. Combine this with wealthy parents who pay for their education and arrange visas and migration programs, and you get the entirety of the British bell curve competing against the highest end of the Nigerian bell curve, and in this capacity, white British students are outperformed by foreigners.
Most immigrants who moved to Britain were apart of the British Empire and there's a huge difference in the GCSE scores of Pakistani kids and Indian kids, same with household median income.
You need to show me a source of those twin studies and I don't see how that disproves anything, those twins would've been brought up the same way, having gone to the same schools, had the same nourishment, same education, probably same values and etc. And if I remember correctly the IQ in Hong Kong is a lot higher than other chinese provinces such as Shaanxi, Heilongjian and other poorer provinces. Hong Kong on the other hand is a lot richer.
I'm from England, and British kids - regardless of their race are actually quite dumb.
Twin studies disprove environmental effect on IQ because the studies specifically track twins growing up in wildly different households, wealth brackets, parenting situations, etc. Yet they still overwhelmingly express near-identical IQs among other similarities.
The IQ is higher in Hong Kong because the wealthier and more developed community has a greater phenotypic IQ. The poorer Chinese regions may have a similar genotypic IQ, but it's more likely that the averages are similar and they are just expressing a lesser phenotypic IQ.
Only the wealthiest of foreign inhabitants of the former British empire could afford to emigrate. Given historical and modern correlations between wealth and IQ, it's not out of the question. I'd have to actually look at the data and origin of the respective Indian and Pakistani cohorts though.
Show me sources then. First thing I found by looking twin studies, and it only says 0.5, not 0.8 and even there it said that Environment is way more influential than genetics
This
That.
And the other
Hi gingermarxist,
I'm a ginger fascist :o
While I do think a ginger ethnostate is desirable class struggle should come first brother.
Maybe the most I could give you, is maybe 50/50 Genetics/Environment. I just can't believe that environment doesn't influence IQ more than genetics. A rich child is more likely to have higher IQ than a poor child. A more studious child is more likely to have higher IQ than a retard. I do think that on average, Europeans and Asians probably have higher IQ considering Sub-saharan africans have very very very little influence on the world/history/culture.
Also btw, Southern Italians are poorer, Southern Italy is a lot more corrupt. And I really doubt it has anything to do with "arab invaders"
And I really doubt it has anything to do with "arab invaders"
It's a direct result of this mixing.
I'm talking about IQ from 10 years ago. I really don't think you can prove that IQ in southern italy has been affected thanks to the arabs...
Because higher IQ individuals are more likely to be wealthy and studious. It's the other way around.
And I know Southern Italians are poorer, I used their invasions and admixture to explain why Italian average IQ might have decreased in the same period that others surpassed them.
Brain drain is another factor to consider.
I meant from an IQ study done like 10 years ago. I don't think invasions or admixture is why their IQ is lower now. But, I'm going to say what I said to another guy, I'm not a biologist, I have no idea what phenotypic or genotypic IQ is, this isn't something I really look up. I do think genetics has a lot to do with IQ, but I just find it really hard to believe that genetics supercede environment.
A rich child is more likely to have higher IQ than a poor child.
There is a very large amount of genetic mediation between parent socioeconomic status and a child's IQ. Smart rich kids are smart because their parents are smart and pass on smart genes.
A more studious child is more likely to have higher IQ than a retard.
But which comes first, studiousness or IQ. In addition you can have someone with a large amount of memorized knowledge who is incapable of solving problems.
Edit: my autocorrect is a nightmare
We've maxed out phenotypic IQ and are actually observing a regression in genotypic IQ through the introduction of low genotypic IQ populations into our demographics and bad breeding practices.
Exactly right. We're seeing reversals in many European countries already.
D y s g e n e s i s
This is what's known as the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect does not prove that genotypic IQ is shaped by environment, only phenotypic IQ.
Don't forget that there is a negative correlation between g-loading and Flynn effect. We are bettering our crystalized intelligence but our general intelligence (being our real intelligence) remains roughly the same, and there is evidence of dysgenics(it going down)
Similarly, with British GCSE scores, a lot of the immigrants taking the exams are probably clustered around the higher end of the bell curve for IQ for their country. Nigeria has a population of hundreds of millions, and while still being poor and undeveloped, still has hundreds of thousands of students who would land in top percentiles for IQ. Combine this with wealthy parents who pay for their education and arrange visas and migration programs, and you get the entirety of the British bell curve competing against the highest end of the Nigerian bell curve, and in this capacity, white British students are outperformed by foreigners.
There's no study on the g-loading of GSCE scores that I've seen, and GSCEs seem dubious as a proxy for intelligence.
They have multiple subjects with some likely easier than others, involve course work in the scoring process and seem to rely heavily on crystalized intelligence, an unfair method of intelligence analysis.
I personally believe in ethnopluralism and racial separation.
I think multiculturalism fails due to the mixing of 3rd world, (more) animalistic people. Their nations and culture has to advance before multiculturalism can actually be done.
But remember, race = 50% environment + 50% genetics. The environment directly impacts populations over time. For example, if you take Asians and put them in a place that is totally different, and without the Asian culture, you get native americans. And as we all know, they were barbaric.
Culture/environment is everything
I read somewhere that British kids scored one of the lowest in the GCSE tests, having Africans from both the West Indies and Sub-Saharan Africa score higher. I need to know why British kids are doing worse in their GCSEs compared to close to every other immigrant group but, ofc, irish gypsies haha.
This video debunks that:
[removed]
Spud
Boas debunked all of this almost a hundred years ago.
no
Wowee what a rebuttal
Source? Boas didn't disprove anything about HBD.
Edit: Since HBD is the topic at hand, I'll keep to it specifically.
Whilst Boas didn't write about HBD afaik, he did extensively prove in several hundred studies that there is no major heriditary difference in humans, merely only environmental and circumstantial.
Citing a specific source would be hard, as it was his major life works. But i believe "On the minds of primitive man" has a little summary? (its been a while since I read it however)
Whilst Boas didn't write about HBD afaik, he did extensively prove in several hundred studies that there is no major heriditary difference in humans, merely only environmental and circumstantial.
The major study I've heard about this, is his study on brain size between immigrants and natives, and he supposedly found that brains got bigger with the superior nutrition, but that study has since been debunked because he never controlled for age in his samples, and when someone did, the differences weren't significant.
I would invite you to provide some of Boas's works that debunk anything about HBD, but please don't waste your time if it's a hassle.
Citing a specific source would be hard, as it was his major life works. But i believe "On the minds of primitive man" has a little summary? (its been a while since I read it however)
The problem with Boas is that he came into discussing race because he wanted to debunk it, not as an objective researcher. To quote Carl Degler, who wrote a great book on race relations in Brazil iirc,
“ Boas engaged in an life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differ- ences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups. He accomplished his mission largely through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the concept of culture”
There are numerous other researchers and historians whose insight into the early years of Boasian anthropology and its development call into question the objectivity of its research and claims.
This is not to say that HBD is unbiased, it certainly has its biases here and there, but it's important that we each expose our biases so we can actually have a decent discussion.
I read "On the minds of primitive man" a number of years ago. I'll have to reread it, though I have alot of duties which come before reading Boas.
Yeah I'm afraid I have a lot of other commitments right now, so I don't really have the time to go through Boas again (at least not until he becomes relevant to my work again), hope you understand
I will likely be unable to reply for a few days if you reply at all.
WEMT duties and all
Can you explain me how much a gene pool must be diversified and how many people you must have to perpetuate a civilization without the effects of inbreeding? Also, when will the effects of inbreeding occurs and what are they if anythings fail?
I'm curious how we managed to prosperity when there were times when two person could easily share at least one same great-great-grandfather.
3rd cousin level is optimal for keeping favorable gene configurations alive.
A race is on average about 6-7th cousin level. Genes must find their likewise (i.e. homozygosity) in order to express properly, especially for intelligence.
Inbreeding mainly brings a separate class of genes into play, recessive diseases that follow Mendelian rules. In pure theory, inbreeding (even at the 1st cousin level) would produce the most perfect propagation of a favorable gene complex (like one involved with higher intelligence), however we are faced with the practical reality of heterozygotic recessive disease carriers and that bringing together cousins who share a recent parental line will have a much higher statistical chance of expressing the disease rather than carrying or losing it.
I'm curious how we managed to prosperity when there were times when two person could easily share at least one same great-great-grandfather.
It would be a pair of great-great-grandparents, remember, it takes 2 people to make children. The level you're speaking of is 2/16ths, which is 3rd cousin level. That is the optimal breeding level where you benefit from the fragile sophisticated genetic configurations (SNPs, regulators, alleles) without getting the pesky recessive diseases. 3rd cousin level is how the villages worked in Europe for a long time, everyone knew that if you bring two too-related people together you end up with retards, so you sent your children to the village over, but the people in the village over share a common lineage from 4-5 generations ago, so you'll find your gene's likewise without producing retards.
To be clear: I do not advocate inbreeding (1st and 2nd cousin levels), however 3rd cousin level appears to be genetic optimum for desirable genes. A race is roughly 6-7th cousin level. Your race is your very distant family.
Thank you for your time!
? Are you trying to tell us something, Robespierre?
I've been asking myself those questions out of curiosity, like how a small village can stay «genetically healthy», how can it perpetuates all its tradition and culture without adding some outsiders.
Literally 150 people, if planned carefully. Realistically around 200-250.
[removed]
Really appreciate that you're doing this. Is there a book or online text you can recommend? I've read a troublesome inheritance, but it was pretty lukewarm on delivering real goods in regards to racial ability scores etc
Nicholas Wade's book is a great entry book to this material though. I would've recommended it as a starting point.
Unfortunately there is no modern "Treatise on Race" that would be 500 pages of more depth, detail, and dealing with other aspects of the specific genetic reality of race. Right now, we need to distill our own knowledge from multiple sources.
I will break my recommendations down into phenotypic empirics and genotypic empirics.
Phenotypic empirics are in my opinion that which we can observe about the groups of organisms (i.e. races) themselves: stature, strength, Olympic performance, behaviors, crime, intelligence.
Jared Taylor's The Color of Crime, Essential Writings on Race, and Why Race Matters
Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment and The Bell Curve
For discovering more about genes, Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene is a must read, but in relation to race I can only point you towards SNP PCA and cladistics studies that have been done so far. There is Richard Lynn's work to consider as well, however I haven't actually read much of it.
Are you the drunk geneticist on /pol/?
Shitlibs love to bring up that a lot of human genetic diversity is within Africans (even though it's mostly junk DNA). However, is it a possibility that certain African populations could have a higher genotypic iq than the rest?
Is there any evidence that epigenetics could inflate broad-sense heritability, and if so, by how much?
Are you the drunk geneticist on /pol/?
no, however I have been confused with him before. We are two separate people, we both post as Austrian flags on pol.
is it a possibility that certain African populations could have a higher genotypic iq than the rest
among themselves I am certain that there is an African race with the highest IQ and an African race with a lowest IQ. That's to be expected.
epigenetics could inflate broad-sense heritability
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Just wondering, what's your field in btw? Also, how many of your colleagues believe in hbd but are afraid to admit anything for fear of ending up like James Watson?
epigenetics could inflate broad-sense heritability
Some social-scientists have creamed their pants over epigenetics because it gives them an excuse to hand-wave away heritability estimates, especially the heritability of g. Here are some papers which are responses to two shitstain sociologist's call to ban (although they never directly used that word) heritability studies. One of the things that the sociologists brought up were epigenetics.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2014-barnes.pdf
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2015-wright.pdf
What am asking here is if epigenetics could potentially inflate the heritability estimates general intelligence or other personality traits?
Just wondering, what's your field in btw?
I'm a consultant without a degree in a totally unrelated field.
Biology and genetics is a hobby of mine. To expand on this here because someone else earlier tried to force my credentials, I articulate a condensation and distillation of 100s of hours of study of theory and the results of experiments in the areas of genetics, phylogenetics, and population genomics. If you have an open mind you will come to the same conclusions I have should you embark on a similarly intense study of the material. To finish my qualification here: the other guy did not engage any of my claims. He just pointed fingers and I pointed fingers back and he clearly didn't like that I first ignored him for a whole day before throwing smoke in his face. That was a classic anti-intellectual attempt at muddying the waters and I didn't let it happen until the thread's peak had been passed.
how many of your colleagues believe in hbd
I have been in contact with biologists, it's essentially an unspoken truth, pink elephant type of thing. Everyone knows it, everyone is afraid to touch it. Some of them relax around me because I use the "archaic" word race instead of the modern euphemism "population group" (these are functionally equivalent).
As a rule, the harder the genetics science, the less of the wishy washy lefty muh nurture types you will find. The nature vs nurture debate is settled, it's not 1980 anymore where this was up for debate on the grounds of the empirics not having been done (heritability, historically, was of course well known and we didn't need to find the gene to know it).
social-scientists have creamed their pants over epigenetics
well, either their interpretation gives way to heritability, or their interpretation is wrong and simple isn't what epigenetics is.
What am asking here is if epigenetics could potentially inflate the heritability estimates general intelligence or other personality traits?
There is a lot of statistics to be done here. I think the effects of epigenetics are within the error bars of current statistical methods, so discovering their effect, if any, will be a mathematical nightmare and is still off in the future.
Epigenetic configurations (i.e. as modulators/regulators of gene expression) are also heritable, epigenetic information is inherited with the gene it is attached to. The two are not separable. Social """scientists""" (bullshit mongerers) are chasing a ghost here. No matter which way they want to "de-inherit" genes, epigenetics simply doesn't do what they're after and they're just muddying the waters.
Unfortunately biology isn't getting the massive boom of interest psychometrics did, men like Arthur Jensen set out to prove the environment theory only to discover and repeatedly prove the gene theory. The result of this "accidental science" was to make the g factor one of the most scientifically rigorous constructs ever. I have joked about lefty types wanting to feverishly look for a "race" gene so as to disprove that race is real (i.e. they want to fail in finding a race-specific gene so they can claim there is no genetic basis for race) and accidentally finding a trove of race-associated genes, but apparently the hard statisticians got there first and this culled the anti-scientific interest of the leftists.
To dispell a specific epigenetics perversion I would need to read the claim associated with epigenetics. There are many ways the concept has been bastardized and each (unnecessarily and probably purposefully long and obscure) argument trying to make epigenetics something it isn't takes a different form to the next.
I'll have a look at those studies soon.
I always figured that
muh epigenetics
Social scientists were full of shit. In the conventional twin studies, the twins are sharing roughly the same genome as epigenome so they're is no major reason to think it would inflate heritability. Even if it did, the effects would be non-additive and lower-bound purely additive estimates of g from snp's put it at ~50% heritable. Cargo-cult scientists like sociologists just love it because then they can talk about "intergenerational stress." That theory is riddled with holes but I digress.
Anyways, I would highly recommend reading those papers because they do a good job tearing apart common arguments against heritability.
Do you have any proof that you are qualified to speak as an authority on such matters?
If you don't like what I say you are free to do your own research.
That isn't how this works. If you attempt to make a claim you are required to back up your information with peer reviewed sources, which I am very doubtful you have. You do not get to say the equivalent of "Source? Dude just trust me." If cannot do something as simple as provide a peer reviewed source, this leads me to believe that you know fuckall about your subject matter.
k prove me wrong lol
[removed]