Another Study consistent with the fact that IQ/Academic performance/life outcomes are genetic/Nature more than Nurture. The study is Not 100% airtight in that respect, but is quite consistent with both familial and perhaps racial IQ. The only thing I find surprising is that these Un-PC conclusions are being studied and uttered by MSM science and outlets. In the age of Biotech, PC will have to be swallowed, or at least adjusted. This story from Australian Public TV, SBS Maths and reading skills found to be 75% Genetic | SBS News New research shows Genes are more Important in explaining differences in academic performance than teachers and schools. By Madeleine King - 15 March 2016 http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/...-skills-found-be-75-cent-genetic?cid=trending Australian research into the academic performance of twins in NAPLAN tests has revealed that skills in maths, reading and spelling are up to 75% genetic. Genetics also had a 50% impact on writing skills. In stark contrast, the influence of teachers and schools on students was only found to be around 5%, when looking at why children performed better or worse than their peers. The research has been conducted by Emeritus Professor Brian Byrne and colleagues at the Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders, and the University of New England. Byrne is a guest on this week's episode of Insight, sharing his views on how research into twins can deepen our understanding of the general population. The research will shortly be published in full, with much of the peer review process complete. Some parts of the study have already been published. [......] The results were surprising. Families, teachers and schools had a much more modest contribution when explaining the difference in academic performance of children in the same grade or class. The majority of difference between students’ abilities in literacy and numeracy were instead attributable to their Genetic make-up. Writing skills were the least influenced by genetics – only about 50%. Genetic influences on reading, spelling and mathematics abilities were found to be between 50-75%. The findings back up earlier research done in the UK.".." And not only by earlier research in the UK, but... Some of us already knew IQ (which is highly correlative with academic performance/SAT/etc) was about 75% Heritable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates [......]A 1994 article in Behavior Genetics based on a study of Swedish identical/fraternal twins found the heritability of the sample to be as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability, however it also varies based on the trait, with 0.60 for verbal tests, 0.50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only 0.40 for memory tests; in contrast, studies of other populations estimate an average heritability of 0.50 for general cognitive ability.[18] In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about ¾ as a figure held by the majority of studies.[21] So the New research and [NAILED] 75%, hardly a shock for some of us, but is to ie, 'blank-slate liberals,' or at least it's News that has to finally be acknowledged. On this, and app 200 other boards, we have what is really a Self-Interested Black person Masquerading as an intellectual 'Egalitarian'... and failing on all of them. His main/Droning citations from Joseph Graves, a low IQ Black 'scientist' with the same Denialist All-Races-are-equal floater, and also abusing 'egalitarianism.' +
It seems that this Aussie study overstated the genetic factor, which was actually done by a Ph.D. student. The University of New England is ranked 700th in the world and it's really hard to do first-class research in this academic environment. The influence of parents on students is not purely genetic and their academic performances are also influenced by how much home tutoring can be done at home.
And the other 30% is specific. Sorry, serious now; Describing that 75% as pure genetic does seem to be overselling the principle (even beyond the headline apparently reporting the very top end of the highest result). I certainly agree that kids first coming in to school will each have a fundamental maximum potential in a given field that will be largely determined by genetic and early development factors but I very much doubt most students achieve anything close to their maximum academic potential through school for all sorts of other reasons. I’ve also known young people who have completely turned around their situations from being destined to fail in school to passing exams with great results (and occasionally vice-versa unfortunately) and quality of teaching along with more general adult guidance and support, can be a much more significant influence in that. I also think there is a question about how “success” and “achievement” is defined and measured. School structures and written exams are quite a limited way of measuring fundamental ability and one in which some people will excel and others struggle entirely independently of their underlying intelligence and knowledge. The bottom line would be that the whole area is much more complicated that the image article (and you) is trying to present, to the point that I don’t think you can really state that some percentage of ability is genetic.
You make a good point about NE Asians. Perhaps white nationalists should go back to Europe, and let NE Asians run America. After all, they have (according to white nationalists) higher IQ's than whites, and commit less violent crime. I mean you want what's best for the country, right?
Um.. No again smear attempt boy. White Nationalists do NOT accept that NE Asians have higher IQs, otherwise they wouldn't be WHITE nationalists/Supremacists. Your first charge was False, your new one .. Off the Wall/"logic-challenged." BUT, we would certainly would better off changing our immigration policy to favor NE Asians over what we're getting in vast majority now. +
Simply "disagreeing"/"No" is NOT enough in light of published studies in the OP and another in the UK it refers too. Nor the consensus I posted from Wiki, of virtually all studies, that IQ is a Majority (or 75%) HERITABLE. "I disagree" without any meat is NONSENSE posting. +
Dude,I could teach a kid with Down syndrome quadratic equations and factoring. It IS all about the teaching method. I'm not saying genetics and intelligence are not a factor. Common core teaching is beyond retardation. Math has never been dealt such a low blow since its inception.
I see one of my REFUTED opponents got embarrassed at being caught at 'unfortunate' posting technique and got my post deleted. Here it is again, more politely. You're Not skating on this sin. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - How [Disingenuous] Leaving out the other two authors and validators. you had to Edit Out: That was between the Phd Student and quoted text. So just another non sequitur/deflecting Link/claim. And of course, you left out the Wikipedia citation of Many studies whose consensus IS that IQ is... 75% Heritable. Untouched. [OK now? But still really embarrassing.] Debate by anecdote (fallacy). Not touching anything in the OP. The Bottom Line is people are actually Studying and uncomplicating it. You also left out the Wiki citation/consensus of many studies: 75% Heritable.. Actually, NE Asians always come out on top with IQ and academic testing. Vacuous smear attempt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The above post was a sterilized repeat of one that was deleted for reason of 'insult'. (#5) I'll therefore posted sterilized refutation/s, and pointing out opponents unfortunate techniques and 'logic.' +
This is not surprising and of course has no relevance to group differences in IQ. Intelligence can be highly heritable and run in families while genes have nothing to do with group differences which are entirely caused by environmental differences. If genetics can explain 75% of the variance in math and reading skills that doesn't change the fact that there is significant inequality in school quality between groups such as Blacks and Whites. Ability tests that correlate 80-90% with IQ have gone up significantly for Black Americans over the last several decades which includes math and reading skills. The Black-White IQ gap has decreased by around 53% since the 1970s. Environment clearly has a tremendous impact on the nurturing of intelligence and as environment improves racial IQ gaps decrease.
LOL You're posting they are catching up withOut acknowledging.. FROM WHAT? The "what" IS the "evidence" you deny.. and IQ testing for a Century confirms. ALL "evidence" points to the Asian/White-Euro/American-Mixed Black/sub-Saharan Black hierarchy. And off course the OP, and it's study, as well as the consistent European study it points to are also "evidence." The whole planet has noticed, and it gets worse every year for Race-Dif deniers. EJ and Graves will fall further and further into irrelevance every year due to studies like the OP and further unfolding of the genome. And of course (Didja ever notice), EJ ONLY uses/debates American Blacks, who are NOT a real Race, but an admixture of sub-Saharan Black and Euro (app 15-20%), and thus have IQ's of 85, Intermediate to the White/Euro 100 and sub-Saharan 70. That's what GENETICS, not oppression/'socioeconomic' would predict. If slavery/bias hurt 'blacks', they would be lower than the Free sub-Saharan 70, not 15 points higher. The closing of the gap in the late 20th C has stopped, and could be accounted for basic nutrition etc, and further Intermarriage... which even the 'nature' side will give you 3-5 points on. Beside denying the very GAP (evidence) he bases the ' gap closing' on, you'll note EJ is Not really interested in the topic generally, but is Self-interested in defending only ONE group (a mix no less), while Ignoring ALL the other Gaps that have NOT closed. Asians are still smarter than whites (in any country), who are smarter than whites, and then both 'black' races. No one even claims those gaps have closed, and EJ certainly isn't interested in the topic in General. Not only is EJ's obsession Only the salacious/trite American Blacks vs whites (NOT any other Races or differences), but he obsessively cites a similar Self-interested 'BLACK' researcher (Graves) as most of his 'back up.' +
One aspect that has not been discussed is the bifurcated distribution of Black I.Q. While White and Asian I.Q. distribution is nominally normal, the Black I.Q. distribution looks like a camel's back, two distinct distributions. We see this sort of distribution in math class, those who get it and those who are lost. Guess which group is breeding fastest and causing most of the social problems.
That is a lie. In fact I have talked about human populations in their totality while people like you fixate on the Asian > White > Black IQ hierarchy which is selective. What about Middle Easterners? What about Indians? What about Native Americans? What about Australian Aborigines? Why do you only talk about 3 groups when there are more populations to consider? Actually it could easily be argued that an environmental model predicts that African-American IQs would be lower than White but higher than Sub-Saharan Africans because of racism. Conditions for African-Americans are bad but not as bad as native Africans. It hasn't stopped and your Wikipedia source does not prove that. Why would they close? Environmental conditions are not improving for Whites and there are cultural differences to consider between Whites and Asians. Environmental differences have however improved considerably for African-Americans. By the way what do you make of the racial admixture studies that show that White ancestry does not boost Black IQ? Your genetic hypothesis is invalid. So now you are attacking the race of Dr. Graves? If I said that you obsessively cite Whites like Rushton and Lynn you would throw a fit. What I did here is explain that the high heritability of intelligence does not invalidate the environmental argument, I provided evidence that the Black-White IQ gap in America (the most studied racial IQ gap) is closing and presented scientific arguments for why the evolutionary arguments which are the basis for the genetic hypothesis of racists are invalid. Your genetic argument is false. Your racial admixture claim is false. Your Wikipedia source was proven to be false. Your whole argument is false and in desperation you have resorted to Ad Hominem attacks.
So Ability tests DO or Don't correlate with IQ? You took both sides in the same post. So you're just denying what this study DID find (and another in Europe it's consistent with) and replacing with your Baseless Apologetics claim. This is just Pure Denial: EJ says "no". Dishonest deflections with subgroups/muddying the waters, to avoid the major groups mentioned. Unanswered. Except that Admixture studies in South Africa show the same 85 for the Mixed Race 'colored' population/classification as we have for ours in America. 85. It's as good as Any claim you made that it happened, and you didn't even bother with claiming it continued. Shouldn't they be equal now at your rate? LOL Poor whites outscore poor blacks in a landslide. Poor whites outscore Middle class blacks significantly. Poor whites even slightly outscore Blacks with 6 digit family income. Even Poor condition Asians (Chinese countryside, Vietnamese war babies) have always CRUSHED even the Best condition black IQ. Cherry picked studies? In the meantime, we have the overwhelming macro-fact that 'Coloreds' in the USA and South Africa are midway between the two real Race IQs. I think I use Rushton in the single digits, perhaps (under 5%), and could easily do without him. YOU however CANNOT debate without Rushton to attack You rely on the Smears aimed at Rushton and need your opponent to use him. I take that away from you and as I point out below, that ruins your message-board-race-only level debate. BUT, Unlike me, You could NOT post without Graves. We're talking 30-60% Graves text. PERIOD. It's downright Scriptural and self-serving OCD. As far as Lynn goes, it's not just opinion, he amalgamated all the IQ tests of a century and is a valid reference. He is THE reference. Agree with him or not, people work with or against/apologetics for those numbers Again, Even poor Asians, (Chinese countryside/malnurished Vietnamese War babies) Outscore whites and bury black IQ. It's hardly False or ad hom. What I said is true. You're a message-board-race poster. Obsessed with the salacious '[American]Black/Your own vs-white', while I post all over the place on Race (distances, even/oft Other species!) and Genetics, mostly avoiding this Muddled little plot line that is 90% of your posts. I was Correct. +
No, I didn't. Do you even know how to read? I said that the high heritability of intelligence (including reading or math scores) is of no relevance to group differences in IQ (your claim). And as an example showed that ability tests that correlate up to 80-90% with IQ that include reading and math scores show that Blacks are doing better on tests which completely refutes your argument. You don't know what you're talking about and you have no answer to my argument. How are all of these populations subgroups and what relevance does that have to their IQ? First provide some criteria for classification and explain how the groups you mentioned are "Major" and why we should focus only on these groups rather than the ones I mentioned. Studies on the South African Colored population are not the same as the racial admixture studies I am talking about. These admixture studies looked at indicators of mixed ancestry such as skin color, facial features, self-reports of European ancestry and blood groups showing that there is no relationship between White ancestry and Black IQ. The Colored group of South Africa is treated as another class of people who often go to better schools than full Blacks. They are what we in America call Biracial or Multiracial folk with one Black and one White parent. Because of the legacy of Apartheid Whites are wealthier than Blacks and interracial families that produce "Colored" children have more money to give their kids better education. That explains the scores. In America as I explained before the Black IQ average today is about 93. Genetics can not explain this improvement and racial admixture studies show that European genes are not a factor in African-American IQ. I did claim that it continued. Between 1972 and 2002 the Black-White IQ gap was reduced by 4-7 IQ points. I cited a source for this. In 2016 the Black American IQ average is estimated to be about 93 (Nisbett, personal communication). So the gap has reduced significantly by about 53%. Lynn is wrong. He's wrong about a lot of other things too. And no it shouldn't be equal because environmental conditions are not equal. On SAT scores which require preparation to do well. Moore (1986) showed that Black children adopted in to White families scored higher than Black children adopted in to Black families at the same income level. This indicates that the culture these children were raised in was different. This isn't just a matter of income but culture which is affected by environment. Also a study by Brooks-Gunn and her colleagues showed that when controlling for Socioeconomic variables including family and neighborhood quality that Black-White IQ gap is virtually eliminated. This finding completely undercuts your argument for racial differences in IQ being caused by genetic differences. Culture can explain that. What about Asian vs. White? What about Southeast Asian countries that don't do as well economically or academically as Northeast Asian countries? They have lower IQs than White countries. If Asians are smarter why aren't they doing as well? For that matter why aren't Eastern European countries doing as well as Western European countries. They are both White, right? Why the difference? The studies in question had different authors, conducted at different times with 5 different types of designs. They were not cherry-picked. Try again. Which has nothing to do with genetics. Also the IQ average of Sub-Saharan Africa has been severely underestimated. What smears against Rushton? And so what if I attack Rushton? His research pervades this discussion. Even your Wikipedia source cited him. Cry me a river! You racists don't deserve to be subjected to different sources. Graves has effectively refuted your arguments especially from an evolutionary perspective. You're not going to shame me in to not using him as a source. Richard Lynn is a racist quack. In fact his IQ tests on Sub-Saharan Africans have been shown to be invalid. I did cite a source which refutes the contentions of Lynn, Rushton and Jensen that the Black-White IQ gap has not decreased in recent years. Stop bragging about where else you post. No one cares. You are a racist and you are obsessed with making racist arguments which is why you continue to come here and recite your drivel. You acted like you presented new information that could change the Race-IQ debate in your favor but you were refuted by me. And as a response you react by using Ad Hominem attacks and Poisoning the Well, bringing up irrelevant adverse information about your opponent to discredit their argument. Stick to the actual argument. Or maybe you are incapable of doing that. I have already established that your reading comprehension is poor. Maybe you are just not able to debate honestly and objectively.
Most Asians I know are a good deal more intelligent than your standard white trashionalist. Of course, that's not hard considering the "white pride" crowd seems to have IQs in the single digits.
I pointed out to you before that your own link shows the last WAIS test for adult blacks shows no change in the white-black gap from 100 years ago. Why don't you mention important caveats even if they undermine your argument for the sake of honesty?
Documentary conducted by Norwegian state telly (NRK) concluded pretty much the same thing- intelligence is mainly genetic[1]. Very interesting. 1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLd9_g7lAICxtlGbxh4_z8ik178o8CDPnv&v=DMdE3EsOafY
With the advent of better studies and the unfolding genome, the Truth tends to pop up all over the place. Race denialism will officially be joining Flat Earthers. +
New genetic roots for intelligence discovered https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083324.htm Date: May 23, 2017 Source: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Summary: Scientists have made a major advance in understanding the genetic underpinnings of intelligence. Using a large dataset of more than 78,000 individuals with information on DNA genotypes and intelligence scores, the team discovered novel genes and biological routes for intelligence. "Intelligence is one of the most investigated traits in humans and higher intelligence is associated with important economic and health-related life outcomes. Despite high heritability estimates of 45% in childhood and 80% in adulthood, only a handful of genes had previously been associated with intelligence and for most of these genes the findings were not reliable. The study, published in the journal Nature Genetics, uncovered 52 genes for intelligence, of which 40 were completely new discoveries. Most of these genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue. "These results are very exciting as they provide very robust associations with intelligence. The genes we detect are involved in the regulation of cell development, and are specifically important in synapse formation, axon guidance and neuronal differentiation. These findings for the first time provide clear clues towards the underlying biological mechanisms of intelligence," says Danielle Posthuma, Principal Investigator of the study. The study also showed that the genetic influences on intelligence are highly correlated with genetic influences on educational attainment, and also, albeit less strongly, with smoking cessation, intracranial volume, head circumference in infancy, autism spectrum disorder and height."..." [......] Future studies will need to clarify the exact role of these genes in intelligence in order to obtain a more complete picture of how genetic differences lead to differences in intelligence. "The current genetic results explain up to 5% of the total variance in intelligence. Although this is quite a large amount of variance for a trait as intelligence, there is still a long road to go: given the high heritability of intelligence, many more genetic effects are expected to be important, and these can only be detected in even larger samples," says Danielle Posthuma."" +
Researchers have not found the intelligence gene per se and they managed to build up their case by using anecdotal evidence, as genetic results only explain 5% of the total variance in intelligence. But you're lucky, if your parents are exceptionally smart and successful because their genetic traits are likely to be inherited.
