Races of people on average should have equal genetic potential for intelligence

[ApostateAbe]

Races of people on average should have equal genetic potential for intelligence.

I said "should." That is a moralistic statement, not my statement of belief about objective reality. Here is my statement of belief about objective reality:

Races of people on average do not have equal genetic potential for intelligence.

My first statement was the "should," because the is-ought fallacy is so common and so entrenched on matters of race that it is typical to think that an "is" unequivocally means an "ought." By advancing the "is," I am not advancing white supremacy or anything remotely similar. I am advancing the opposite of racial supremacy. I am advancing racial equality.

Intelligence experts have looked past the is-ought fallacy. Most of them have quietly accepted the belief that racial differences in intelligence are at least half due to genetics. The result of a survey of intelligence experts was published in the study, "2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence," and it corroborates the result of a 1984 survey and the attestations of those who work in the field and close to it, on both sides of the debate. They all claim that it is the majority-opinion opinion among intelligence researchers that racial intelligence differences are mostly due to genetics.

That doesn't mean they are right. We should not believe something just because most claimed experts believe it. But, it also turns out that they have good reasons for accepting this conclusion, reasons that are largely unknown to the public. (1) Intelligence variations are mostly due to genetic variations within each race, as we know from studies with identical twins, (2) there are very many relevant alleles that significantly vary by race that affect racial variations of every system of the human body, as every medical doctor knows, (3) intelligence scores vary by race on average (on average meaning that NOT all Asians are smarter than all whites and so on), consistently across all intelligence tests including the culture-fair tests, (4) when black children are adopted by white parents, the intelligence of black children tends to match their black biological parents and blacks in general, not their white siblings or white parents, (5) mixed races and mixed-race individuals have correspondingly-intermediate intelligences on average, (6) the average skin colors of populations have a very high relationship to the average intelligences of populations, indicating that the average intelligence of a race is strongly related to ancestral climate, (7) the average brain sizes of populations are strongly related to the average intelligence of populations, and within each race brain sizes are highly heritable and related to intelligence, (8) the racial hierarchy of intelligence scores is not unique to America, but it exists in every significantly multiracial nation in the world, (9) all attempts to identify testable environmental causes of racial differences in intelligence have fallen short.

Unfortunately, the beliefs of the public are plagued with common myths. Yes, IQ is a relevant measure of intelligence: perhaps the most informative metric in the science of psychology. No, those intelligence tests are not biased by culture. Yes, human races are biological: the theory of evolution would be impossible without races, and the human species is no exception to this pattern. The myths are promoted for a good cause: to fight racism. It used to seem to be a sound argument that, if the myths are wrong, then the myths should be promoted regardless because they would help fight racism, because, if racial differences are genetic, then such knowledge can be used for nothing but racist evil. That was never true and it has become especially untrue this year.

Why? Because we are now on the doorstep of genetic engineering. This year, alleles for intelligence have been identified, and they are being found to vary by race as expected. This year, mice have been successfully genetically engineered for higher intelligence. So, it is now scientifically possible to genetically-engineer humans for higher intelligence.

Suppose, instead, we outlaw genetic engineering of humans out of a science-fiction fear: Gattaca or Star Trek's Khan or The Time Machine or Brave New World. The law will not stop it, because rich couples will travel to a nation where it is practiced, they will pay millions, and they will return home pregnant with children of very high health, beauty, charisma and intelligence (IQ=200+). These children will become adults of high accomplishment, celebrities visible to everyone, and the utility of genetic engineering will become undeniable. But, these supermen and superwomen will tend to mate with members of their own race, so the highly-desirable genes will trickle and spread within their own race. As a result, the races of existing high intelligence (Ashkenazi Jews, northeast Asians and whites) will receive even more intelligence on average, increasing the racial intelligence gaps further.

It does not need to be this way. We should instead keep genetic engineering of humans legal, and states should subsidize genetic engineering for the races of lower intelligence. If such genetic engineering among the races of lower intelligence exceeds the genetic engineering of races of higher intelligence, then it would solve the racial intelligence gaps for the first time in human history. For the first time, the races would have equal intelligence, equal wealth, equal power and equal success.

Or, we can eternally close off this opportunity, because opposing racism in theory takes priority over acting on the truly best way to do it in practice.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceRace/

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

1. Define intelligence
2. Are eugenics necessary in light of the Flynn Effect?
3. The science is immature. "This year."
4. Why not nootropics, epigenetic, or chemical interventions? Improve function while preserving genetic diversity.
5. Genetic engineering isn't something that can be easily undone, and that's if we even realize there's a problem; if we're even capable of realizing it. There's a very long history of problems not becoming problems until they become problems. It's evolutionary procrastination, really.
6. Humans already rule the roost. Why bother? Because of this, why not preserve diversity, given that diversity's evolutionary function is to cope with the unforeseen future?

Spoiler

ROUND 2!!!

TLDR: Abe advocates for the role of top predator, I advocate for the (far more adaptable) role of mesopredator. It'll probably wind up a speciation event.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Also, there's also the issue of: we haven't figured out how to properly use the intelligence that already exists.

Oh, and aren't we already essentially doing this through computing technology?

 

[ApostateAbe]

1. Define intelligence
2. Are eugenics necessary in light of the Flynn Effect?
3. The science is immature. "This year."
4. Why not nootropics, epigenetic, or chemical interventions? Improve function while preserving genetic diversity.
5. Genetic engineering isn't something that can be easily undone, and that's if we even realize there's a problem; if we're even capable of realizing it. There's a very long history of problems not becoming problems until they become problems. It's evolutionary procrastination, really.
6. Humans already rule the roost. Why bother? Because of this, why not preserve diversity, given that diversity's evolutionary function is to cope with the unforeseen future?

Spoiler

ROUND 2!!!

TLDR: Abe advocates for the role of top predator, I advocate for the (far more adaptable) role of mesopredator. It'll probably wind up a speciation event.

1. Roughly, it is the ability to recognize and extrapolate patterns and model complex systems in the mind. Any typical English definition that allows intelligence to be measurable will do, as they all show roughly the same patterns. I define intelligence as the variable of Spearman's g, the variable that IQ tests are designed to best estimate. Spearman's g is the factor common to all tests thought to measure intelligence. The external correlations give g its value: very high relationship to academic accomplishment, high relationship to income, high relationship to "high intelligence" occupations, high relationship to genetic variations, and moderate relationship to brain size.
2. Yes, the Flynn Effect is relevant, as it shows the relevance of the minority environmental effect on intelligence, but it has not resolved the race gaps.
3. Yes, good point.
4. I would not want to take those methods off the table, but if they raise intelligence then they would raise the intelligences of all races. As long as the racial intelligence differences are due to genetics, the racial intelligence differences will remain.
5. Genetic engineering is scary because of the perceived uncertainty, or scary even after the uncertainties have been resolved (and I certainly recommend resolving the uncertainties), but I think it is important to realize that genetic engineering will happen whether we like it or not, and the risks of inaction seem to be greater than the risks of action.
6. There would be negligible cost to genetic diversity. Genetic engineering of only a handful of people would be necessary to significantly increase the intelligence of an entire race.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

These sorts who deny the reality of racial differences are of the same cloth as those whose position it was that the sun orbits round the earth.

Attempting to share enlightenment and intelligence with them is pointless. Like attempting to reason with a heroin addict. In this case the senseless addiction is to emotion based arguments as well as overlooking generalities and ceaselessly, stupidly, myopically focusing in on every exception they can possibly find in order to poke any and all holes in generally correct truths and principles.

Such degenerates are hopeless.

 

[Black Rose]

These are my scores from 2009 on the Wais 4

WMI – 103
VCI – 117
VIQ - 110

PRI - 120
PSI – 92
PIQ – 106

FSIQ – (110 + 106) / 2 = 108
GAI - 115

----------------------

My PSI on the test was way to low. It could be higher because on the symbol subtests I could have used a technique to get into the 99 percentile. So for PSI I substituted my score with the score I got on the Stroop test and the coefficient of it.

WMI – 103
VCI – 117
VIQ - 110

PRI -120
Stroop test 99%*0.8 = 79.2% = 112
PSI – 112
PIQ – 116

FSIQ – (110 + 116) / 2 = 113

113 = 80th percentile

----------------------

IQ is about metabolic efficiency which is the amount of energy it takes your brain to solve a problem. Every 5 point increase in IQ is double the metabolic efficiency.

metabolic efficiency = 2^((IQ – 100) / 5)

113 – 100 = 13

13 / 5 = 2.6

2^2.6 = 6

IQ 113 = 6x metabolic efficiency

Recently I have been taking cogentin and I think this has increased my IQ by 5 points so I should have an IQ of 118.

2^((118 - 100) / 5) = 12.12

IQ 118 = 12x metabolic efficiency

In the future we can give everyone smart drugs. A breeding program will not be necessary because drugs will be developed before designer babies. And nanotechnology will happen by 2025. We can improve everyone and this will happen soon.

 

[TheManBeyond]

period

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Everybody just gotta keep fucking each other till we're all the same color...and the same intelligence.

 

[Inquisitor]

It does not need to be this way. We should instead keep genetic engineering of humans legal, and states should subsidize genetic engineering for the races of lower intelligence. If such genetic engineering among the races of lower intelligence exceeds the genetic engineering of races of higher intelligence, then it would solve the racial intelligence gaps for the first time in human history. For the first time, the races would have equal intelligence, equal wealth, equal power and equal success.

Or, we can eternally close off this opportunity, because opposing racism in theory takes priority over acting on the truly best way to do it in practice.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceRace/

One problem is that the field of genetic engineering is going to progress exponentially, so the first generation of augmented humans will necessarily be less advanced than the subsequent generation, and the gap will get bigger every time. No matter how much the government subsidizes augmentation, inequality is bound to persist. This may cause a lot of instability...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

1. I believe you initially mentioned something about tests not being culturally biased. If they're not culturally biased, why do the !Kung score the same as literal retards from the west? What if Spearman's g is incomplete?

2. How can you restrict the Flynn Effect to environmental effects? In their sexual selection, one seemingly pretty major quality people select for in their mates is intelligence.

4. Not necessarily. Their effectiveness depends on how they're customized to the individual. There is no one size fits all aspect to it, which is exactly why it's effective.

5. Which is exactly why I'm taking action. Via the precautionary principle in the face of uncertainty coupled with some insightful forewarning.

I'm not sure if the proponents of this stuff truly realize its implications.... In most cases of genetic engineering, the results are disposable. GE corn variety 3205 gets tossed on the scrap heap as soon as the latest, greatest variety of new and improved corn makes its appearance. Delaware chickens get replaced by Cornish X. Purebred dogs replaced by... cockapoos.

There will be similar mistakes as well as a similar valuation of "better." But these are people. These won't be just any mistakes, but sentient, sapient mistakes with the same rights as everyone else. They can't just be thrown on the scrap heap and forgotten about (like technology, meds, nootropics, crops, fads, etc).

Moreover, people don't value intelligence, they value whatever's closest to what they are. They value what they want; subjectivity reigns and stagnation results, because as things are and have always been, no one ever really gets what they want; everything unexpected becomes variation, which is beneficial. This technology threatens to remove that benefit, and once such technology becomes commonplace, it will only serve to increase collective stupidity.

TLDR: Nigga, Bruce Jenner is just the beginning. ∑(functional change between now and then)=0, yet the variance increases.

6. Obviously you can't say that with any certainty, and "there's also the issue of: we haven't figured out how to properly use the intelligence that already exists." So again, why bother? Relating to sexual selection from earlier, the most intelligent people tend to reproduce less. In evolutionary terms via rhetorical question: Why is that?

Also, not all diversity is equal. There are only so many alleles involved in a given attribute, and by no means is an allele involved in one attribute (like fingernail growth) equal to another involved in another attribute (like eyesight). Functionally, we're not looking at billions of alleles here, we might be looking at as few as a dozen.

Attempting to share enlightenment and intelligence with them is pointless.

^Valuable input from our "extra special" resident non-sourcing phrenologist.

*yawn*

 

[Reluctantly]

Everybody just gotta keep fucking each other till we're all the same color...and the same intelligence.

Sounds like a recipe for HIV and AIDS mass extinction.
I APPROVE

Unless it motivates people to create a cure, then we'll be back at fucking our way towards The Great Idiocracy - when average is the only way!
I DON'T APPROVE

 

[Hadoblado]

Out of 1237 invited participants, 228 responded. Of those 228, only 70 responded fully.

Cited reasons include that the questions were poor, lack of faith in the expert selection process, or declining participation because such an issue should not be decided by majority vote.

How would you respond to a claim that the survey had an inherent flaw, in that only those who had no qualms about contributing to a study motivated by racism responded? Even if the purpose of the study was entirely innocent, the participating authors didn't know this, and thus the more egalitarian minded may have been selected against.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Where did ^that come from? <6% full response rate!?!?

*disappointed he doesn't have access to the same data to tear apart*

EDIT: Oh wait... "2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence," *googles*

EDIT2: Jeebus...

Spoiler

 

[Brontosaurie]

provided that intelligence is not to be equalized entirely: what's the point in equalizing it between racial groups?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

provided that intelligence is not to be equalized entirely: what's the point in equalizing it between racial groups?

Eugenics trojan horse, imho. It's okay so long as everyone's equal in the end, right? RIGHT?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Eugenics trojan horse, imho. It's okay so long as everyone's equal in the end, right? RIGHT?

i'm pro eugenics (or rather i embrace such inevitable and beneficial development) but i don't see it being applied to races in that strict way. i think that would require totalitarianism to implement. and besides, equality between groups is an ethical red herring. as long as inequality between individuals persists, less privileged groups will prevail, just not defined by the same attributes. equality is always about individuals (dislike that word tho).

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Most of them have quietly accepted the belief that racial differences in intelligence are at least half due to genetics. The result of a survey of intelligence experts was published in the study, "2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence," and it corroborates the result of a 1984 survey and the attestations of those who work in the field and close to it, on both sides of the debate. They all claim that it is the majority-opinion opinion among intelligence researchers that racial intelligence differences are mostly due to genetics.

O'RLY!?!?!?

Even in the 2013 study, 77% said 50% or less was due to genetics.

Page 16...

i'm pro eugenics (or rather i embrace such inevitable and beneficial development) but i don't see it being applied to races in that strict way. i think that would require totalitarianism to implement. and besides, equality between groups is an ethical red herring. as long as inequality between individuals persists, less privileged groups will prevail, just not defined by the same attributes. equality is always about individuals (dislike that word tho).

I generally agree, but otherwise, meh. Even if someone's right, if they don't know why they're right they might as well be wrong.

 

[Haim]

In evolutionary terms via rhetorical question: Why is that?

Evolution has no purpose,human mind do.
That just what happen.
Because intelligent people have things they want to do in their life and having children make it harder.
Intelligent people might be more selective or have fewer potential mate.
Might be because of financial future thinking and wanting to put more attention to their child.Might be that intelligent people tend to chose a mate that does not want many children.

The thing is that intelligence has a lot more than what IQ try to test:
creativity,imagination,social/environment manipulative intelligence,emotional intelligence,The genius intelligence(The person that use his intelligence) finding the right questions.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

O'RLY!?!?!?

Even in the 2013 study, 77% said 50% or less was due to genetics.

Page 16...

I generally agree, but otherwise, meh. Even if someone's right, if they don't know why they're right they might as well be wrong.

46% of 'experts' citing genetics playing some role in a source of IQ is significant. The graphical way in which this pie chart has been put together is potentially misleading if one doesn't look at it within the larger context.

Also one must wonder if the 15% and 24% who are not responding are afraid of going on the record and receiving backlash from the equality oligarchy entrenched in academia and the media.

Even then opinion polls on scientific topics are inherently flawed and pointless.

Case in point: At one point, less than 1 percent of 'experts' thought the earth orbited the sun. 99 percent of experts were burning anyone else at the stake who didn't agree with them that the sun orbits the earth.

The issue of racial differences is particularly littered with landmines loaded with bias.

The self evident truths inherent in the topic simply stand for themselves.

Of course, so many exceptions are made to the general rules that ofttimes it would appear to the less holistic observer that there are no general rules.

Must not lose sight of the forest in the trees.

 

[scorpiomover]

Races of people on average should have equal genetic potential for intelligence.

I said "should." That is a moralistic statement, not my statement of belief about objective reality. Here is my statement of belief about objective reality:

Races of people on average do not have equal genetic potential for intelligence.

I used to hear this as a kid, that Africans were of far less intelligence than White people. I had not really thought about it that much. But then I got to know some black people. They didn't say the sorts of stupid things that many white people say. That didn't acutally change my views at the time. But it did put a spot of doubt in me.

Later on, when I was watching a lot of TV documentaries, they mentioned many developments in Africa from several centuries ago, that were counter to that theory. E.G. the biggest and most developed university in the 12th century, was in Timbuktu. The Moors took over the Iberian Peninsula in the 9th Century, and turning it into a technological palace whose level of technology would only be equalled in Europe, in London, 1,000 years later. Even today, there's a gigantic mud palace in Africa, that has been standing for 800 years, and is still quite liveable. It keeps needing to be repaired, as it's made of mud. But then, it's not that hard to repair, because it's made of mud. There's only a few stone castles and cathedrals in Europe that are that old, and they require a huge amount of effort and work to repair them, because they're made of stone. As long as it gets regular maintenance, in theory, that mud palace could be standing for another 800 years and people could be living there for another 800 years. For quite a fair period of history, Africans were much more technologically advanced than Whites.

Then I got into MBTI again. One topic that's com up, is how Sensors tend to be not as good at calculus and calculation using functions. But they tend to be excellent at complex arithmetic, and are very fast at it. Knowing mathematics, I know that calculation of functions are just a generalisation for the calculations of arithmetic. In reality, it's just a different method of doing the same sorts of calculations. I've seen some of the top ground-breaking physicists in history typed as SJs, namely, Isaac Newton as ISTJ and Werner Heisenberg as ISFJ.

This topic came up on the subject of African-White tests. On tests, Africans showed a propensity for the types of complex arithmetical calculations that Sensors also do well at. However, there is a general presumption that anyone who can do functional calculations, can also do arithmetical calculations, while not everyone who can do arithmetical calculations, can do functional calculations. In reality, they are just two ways to do the same calculations. Some people tend to do some calculations quicker than others, and make less mistakes. The rest is usually due to people claiming they can't, and not even trying that hard, which is more a matter of false self-perception than anything biological. However, when comparing, those who do well in functional calculations, tend to be much slower and make many more mistakes, than those who do well in arithmetical calculations. So the presumption is false, proved by the evidence of how people behave in reality. In Western culture, IQ tests are designed to test for abstract functional calculations and to skim over the in-situ arithmetical calculations. So it's no surprise to me, that someone smarter than you, might do worse than you in an IQ test.

Then there's the other problem, how black people are treated in Western countries, which is still not nearly close to equal to whites. There's a lot of black people raised in poor, crime-ridden neighbourhoods, who turn to drugs and crime. But so do the white people in those neighbourhoods. There's plenty of white people who don't try in school. There's plenty of black people from middle-class families now, who do very well in school. So it seems that the basis of poor academic excellence due to races in Western countries, is more down to their background, and the fact that their educational systems also favour intuitive-style thinking.

My first statement was the "should," because the is-ought fallacy is so common and so entrenched on matters of race that it is typical to think that an "is" unequivocally means an "ought." By advancing the "is," I am not advancing white supremacy or anything remotely similar. I am advancing the opposite of racial supremacy. I am advancing racial equality.

Intelligence experts have looked past the is-ought fallacy.

The is-ought fallacy is more of a contradiction, between what we expect (what we think "ought to be"), and what happens in reality (what "is"). It's an inherent conflict between our beliefs and reality. When reality does not match with what we think, we do have to change what we think. But the important element is that what we think is WRONG. If what we think is wrong, we can't expect to be able to know which bit of our thinking is wrong either. We can only conclude that some part of our thinking is wrong, and we have to determine the source of the error and correct it.

I'd love to say that it's the "ought" element that is wrong. But 90% of the time, it's the "is" element, or both. 90% of the time, when people say their computer isn't working as it ought to, it's usually because they aren't using it correctly, and don't know how to operate it. Their "ought" is usually not incorrect. It usually was designed to do what they wanted, just not in the way that they are using it.

It's also true that people are often wrong about their expectations. But that's usually when they believe that they are doing things correctly, and say they can't understand why the results aren't turning out like they expected, because there's no way that their objective could be achieved by the general approach that they are employing.

If intelligence experts kept saying that some races were scoring highly in IQ tests, but their productivity and competency in the workplace doesn't come close to what their IQ tests are predicting, that's normally an indication that their IQ tests have seriously over-estimated the capability of those races. But in the case of black people, they say that their scores are low, but should be higher, because there's no rational reason why races should have such a wide disparity in intelligence.

On the topic of IQ between races, it's generally accepted by intelligence experts that black people score 15 points lower than white people in IQ tests. However, I've also read studies on identical twins, where the twins were from a poor family, and a rich family wanted to adopt a single child, and only adopted one of them. The twin who was raised with the rich family, scored 20 points higher on IQ tests than his twin who was raised with his poor parents. So clearly, environment has a far greater effect than genetics. Black people in America generally are raised in extremely poor environments. So it's far more likely to be due to environment than genetics, and likely, if they were raised in more successful families, they would score 5 points higher than whites. American atheists have been found to have 5.5. IQ points higher than American theists, and American atheists generally post as if they consider the views of American theists to have no reasoning whatsoever. So when you think about it, the IQ difference is a red herring, because we already have a good explanation that is far more likely to explain the difference.

Because we are now on the doorstep of genetic engineering. This year, alleles for intelligence have been identified, and they are being found to vary by race as expected. This year, mice have been successfully genetically engineered for higher intelligence. So, it is now scientifically possible to genetically-engineer humans for higher intelligence.

True. But Africans have been exposed to many wars, plagues and famines. As we all know, evolution works mostly by natural selection. Those who are less intelligent, would be less likely to survive, and so would die off, leaving only the more intelligent. However, that depends on the level of pressure to die put on those people by the environment. Africans received a high level of pressure for thousands of years. So likely, the stupid Africans died off many centuries ago, and their genes were not passed on, leaving only the smart genes being passed on to modern Africans and African-Americans.

What you are advocating, is trying to genetically change Africans, so that they use the white form of intelligence instead of the one they evolved to use. Why? Because they do poorly on the tests that were designed to favour white forms of intelligence in the first place. That would be trying to wipe out intellectual diversity, to ensure that all humans use only one type of intelligence, and that no humans use any form of intelligence other than one that whites prefer. What happens when you make an entire species have the same genetic traits? When they are exposed to the viruses that those genetic traits are immune to, no-one gets sick, not a one. But when they are exposed to the viruses that those genetic traits are not immune to, everyone gets sick, all at the same time. Even the doctors get sick. So no-one is well enough for long enough to find a cure. The entire species goes extinct. The same would be likely to happen with intelligence. If we were ever to face a problem that white forms of intelligence would not know how to solve, and we are beset with many of these at the moment, no-one would be able to come up with an answer, and the human race would go extinct.

This is why we NEED Africans to maintain their current forms of intelligence, as they have a different form of intelligence to Whites, and so can solve many of the problems that White people have tried for decades to solve without much success. They are what will keep Whites alive.

Unfortunately, because so many people believe in the is-ought fallacy, and still believe they are right, instead of admitting that they do not understand and need to go back and work harder to understand, they are sticking to their biases, and are ignoring and dismissing what Africans have to say, that can solve the problems of White people.

It does not need to be this way. We should instead keep genetic engineering of humans legal, and states should subsidize genetic engineering for the races of lower intelligence. If such genetic engineering among the races of lower intelligence exceeds the genetic engineering of races of higher intelligence, then it would solve the racial intelligence gaps for the first time in human history. For the first time, the races would have equal intelligence, equal wealth, equal power and equal success.

Or, we can eternally close off this opportunity, because opposing racism in theory takes priority over acting on the truly best way to do it in practice.

Western civilisation has buried many technologies over the centuries. Their standard tactic is to ridicule it and oppress it so no-one knows about it. Were Westerners opposed to genetic engineering, you'd NEVER see films about it, and you would find yourself being arrested by the police for a violent crime and thrown in prison for years, with no internet access.

Instead, we keep seeing TV programmes about it. Admittedly, those programmes usually portray it being carried out by a mad scientist whose attempts would risk the destruction of humanity. But they are not burying it, but instead are publicising it. So quite clearly, we are being told to remember genetic engineering.

However, those programmes usually portray it being carried out by a mad scientist whose attempts would risk the destruction of humanity. When genetic engineering has come up in political policies and parental choices, it has been carried out very thoughtlessly, with most likely very harmful consequences for humanity.

We're being repeatedly reminded about genetic engineering, but that we humans are not yet MATURE enough to handle it, because we aren't being responsible with the consequences of it yet.

As Uncle Ben told Spiderman:

With great power, comes great responsibility.

We are being told repeatedly, that when we start acting like we take the responsibility of genetic engineering seriously, then we'll be given the power to use it. But right now, we're like a child of 5 with a T-virus in its pocket, and no antidote. We need to think smarter.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

46% of 'experts' citing genetics playing some role in a source of IQ is significant.

I think you missed something (doesn't surprise me):

at least half due to genetics.
corroborates the result of a 1984 survey
racial intelligence differences are mostly due to genetics.

^Bullshit.

Also one must wonder if the 15% and 24% who are not responding are afraid of going on the record and receiving backlash from the equality oligarchy entrenched in academia and the media.

Pure speculation and excuse-making.

Even then opinion polls on scientific topics are inherently flawed and pointless.

Holla.

Case in point: At one point, less than 1 percent of 'experts' thought the earth orbited the sun.

Source?

The self evident truths inherent in the topic simply stand for themselves.

Source?

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Spoiler

I used to hear this as a kid, that Africans were of far less intelligence than White people. I had not really thought about it that much. But then I got to know some black people. They didn't say the sorts of stupid things that many white people say. That didn't acutally change my views at the time. But it did put a spot of doubt in me.

Later on, when I was watching a lot of TV documentaries, they mentioned many developments in Africa from several centuries ago, that were counter to that theory. E.G. the biggest and most developed university in the 12th century, was in Timbuktu. The Moors took over the Iberian Peninsula in the 9th Century, and turning it into a technological palace whose level of technology would only be equalled in Europe, in London, 1,000 years later. Even today, there's a gigantic mud palace in Africa, that has been standing for 800 years, and is still quite liveable. It keeps needing to be repaired, as it's made of mud. But then, it's not that hard to repair, because it's made of mud. There's only a few stone castles and cathedrals in Europe that are that old, and they require a huge amount of effort and work to repair them, because they're made of stone. As long as it gets regular maintenance, in theory, that mud palace could be standing for another 800 years and people could be living there for another 800 years. For quite a fair period of history, Africans were much more technologically advanced than Whites.

Then I got into MBTI again. One topic that's com up, is how Sensors tend to be not as good at calculus and calculation using functions. But they tend to be excellent at complex arithmetic, and are very fast at it. Knowing mathematics, I know that calculation of functions are just a generalisation for the calculations of arithmetic. In reality, it's just a different method of doing the same sorts of calculations. I've seen some of the top ground-breaking physicists in history typed as SJs, namely, Isaac Newton as ISTJ and Werner Heisenberg as ISFJ.

This topic came up on the subject of African-White tests. On tests, Africans showed a propensity for the types of complex arithmetical calculations that Sensors also do well at. However, there is a general presumption that anyone who can do functional calculations, can also do arithmetical calculations, while not everyone who can do arithmetical calculations, can do functional calculations. In reality, they are just two ways to do the same calculations. Some people tend to do some calculations quicker than others, and make less mistakes. The rest is usually due to people claiming they can't, and not even trying that hard, which is more a matter of false self-perception than anything biological. However, when comparing, those who do well in functional calculations, tend to be much slower and make many more mistakes, than those who do well in arithmetical calculations. So the presumption is false, proved by the evidence of how people behave in reality. In Western culture, IQ tests are designed to test for abstract functional calculations and to skim over the in-situ arithmetical calculations. So it's no surprise to me, that someone smarter than you, might do worse than you in an IQ test.

Then there's the other problem, how black people are treated in Western countries, which is still not nearly close to equal to whites. There's a lot of black people raised in poor, crime-ridden neighbourhoods, who turn to drugs and crime. But so do the white people in those neighbourhoods. There's plenty of white people who don't try in school. There's plenty of black people from middle-class families now, who do very well in school. So it seems that the basis of poor academic excellence due to races in Western countries, is more down to their background, and the fact that their educational systems also favour intuitive-style thinking.

...If intelligence experts kept saying that some races were scoring highly in IQ tests, but their productivity and competency in the workplace doesn't come close to what their IQ tests are predicting, that's normally an indication that their IQ tests have seriously over-estimated the capability of those races. But in the case of black people, they say that their scores are low, but should be higher, because there's no rational reason why races should have such a wide disparity in intelligence.

Chicken and the egg.

What came first the DNA or the Body/ Brain made manifest?

For example, in the case of blacks what came first the MAOA genetic mutation or the physical lack of impulse control (and the resulting crime etc etc etc) in the real world?

For another, what came first the low IQ (70 for Subsaharan Africans: the purest blacks...anything below 80 is considered functionally mentally retarded in the developed world) or the lack of creative problem solving ability (and the resulting lack of socioeconomic development, famines, wars, etc etc etc)?

The is-ought fallacy is more of a contradiction, between what we expect (what we think "ought to be"), and what happens in reality (what "is"). It's an inherent conflict between our beliefs and reality. When reality does not match with what we think, we do have to change what we think. But the important element is that what we think is WRONG. If what we think is wrong, we can't expect to be able to know which bit of our thinking is wrong either. We can only conclude that some part of our thinking is wrong, and we have to determine the source of the error and correct it.

I'd love to say that it's the "ought" element that is wrong. But 90% of the time, it's the "is" element, or both. 90% of the time, when people say their computer isn't working as it ought to, it's usually because they aren't using it correctly, and don't know how to operate it. Their "ought" is usually not incorrect. It usually was designed to do what they wanted, just not in the way that they are using it.

It's also true that people are often wrong about their expectations. But that's usually when they believe that they are doing things correctly, and say they can't understand why the results aren't turning out like they expected, because there's no way that their objective could be achieved by the general approach that they are employing.

I expect gravity would go away so I can fly. Damn gravity. Nope still not gone.

This is why we NEED Africans to maintain their current forms of intelligence, as they have a different form of intelligence to Whites, and so can solve many of the problems that White people have tried for decades to solve without much success. They are what will keep Whites alive.

Unfortunately, because so many people believe in the is-ought fallacy, and still believe they are right, instead of admitting that they do not understand and need to go back and work harder to understand, they are sticking to their biases, and are ignoring and dismissing what Africans have to say, that can solve the problems of White people.

Western civilisation has buried many technologies over the centuries. Their standard tactic is to ridicule it and oppress it so no-one knows about it. Were Westerners opposed to genetic engineering, you'd NEVER see films about it, and you would find yourself being arrested by the police for a violent crime and thrown in prison for years, with no internet access.

Oh yes its all because of limiting beliefs and biased expectations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CGwSqrGq8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQb0d7rYp9o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujU1DjaYfs4

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Spoiler

Evolution has no purpose,human mind do.
That just what happen.
Because intelligent people have things they want to do in their life and having children make it harder.
Intelligent people might be more selective or have fewer potential mate.
Might be because of financial future thinking and wanting to put more attention to their child.Might be that intelligent people tend to chose a mate that does not want many children.

The thing is that intelligence has a lot more than what IQ try to test:
creativity,imagination,social/environment manipulative intelligence,emotional intelligence,The genius intelligence(The person that use his intelligence) finding the right questions.

Evolution = Σ(collective agency), so it shares the same purpose as the human mind, regardless of if the human mind knows it or not.

I think all of those things apply, but also consider that some may view the world as negative and not want to be responsible for bringing others into it and that they may not derive pleasure from other people, possibly because they can't relate to each other.

Otherwise, agreed.

I

Spoiler

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

T
A
G
S
,

N
I
G
G
A
​

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Spoiler

...Later on, when I was watching a lot of TV documentaries, they mentioned many developments in Africa from several centuries ago, that were counter to that theory. E.G. the biggest and most developed university in the 12th century, was in Timbuktu. The Moors took over the Iberian Peninsula in the 9th Century, and turning it into a technological palace whose level of technology would only be equalled in Europe, in London, 1,000 years later. Even today, there's a gigantic mud palace in Africa, that has been standing for 800 years, and is still quite liveable. It keeps needing to be repaired, as it's made of mud. But then, it's not that hard to repair, because it's made of mud. There's only a few stone castles and cathedrals in Europe that are that old, and they require a huge amount of effort and work to repair them, because they're made of stone. As long as it gets regular maintenance, in theory, that mud palace could be standing for another 800 years and people could be living there for another 800 years. For quite a fair period of history, Africans were much more technologically advanced than Whites...

Like 1 African Mud 'Palace' (only thing using that thing for any palatial duties are goats for a palatial toilet. If that thing is an outhouse, the typical suburban home in America or Europe is the palace in comparison )

Cathedrals

Shirley, you can't be serious

But the TV said so, right? riiiggghhhttt...

 

[WALKYRIA]

hey guys, i think its really all about proportions.
I believe that in the different races, you get a smart/dumb ratio that is different for varying reasons... in blacks perhaps it is lower than in whites and even more so compared to ashkenaze jews or asians. This is because of evolution/fitness/environement adaptation and genetics. when a smart subgroup only reproduces internally, they will tend to get smarter kids... basically its like natural eugenism.(reason why jews have among the highest iq)... and jews are just a subset of whites. Note that some whites have mean iq of 90... so thats how important a mean is.
Theyre are of course smart blacks and dumb asians... just varying proportions such that the mean iq in respective races are different. One thing to keep in mind though is that the mean is just that.... a photograph of a certain point in evolution, it could go up or down because evolution is a dynamic process so you cant draw logically sound conclusions based on mean iq.(also would like to see the methodology of the study.... there were certainly sampling bias). Its pretty obvious to me that its all sexual and natural selection, and that might be the reason of the flint effect( global westernisation/modernisation and non restricted sexuality.. although most people still reproduce in the same social class/intelect bracket)...The cool things is that those proportions might come to change if sexual selection is not done correctly, smart pairing with dumber people perhaps. Its basically that simple.... and normal that iq differs in races.Again, the danger is overinterpreting and drawing bad conclusions based on a mean race iq.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I made a YouTube video out of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twaXTSg44Do

 

[Haim]

I do not agree with your stance on IQ tests.
IQ try to test only very specific tool of the mind
The importance of that tool compared to creativity and what I call the genius attribute is far more significant.
Genius attribute-the I of the person,looking for the right questions to ask,questions other did not ask.
Academic has a certain ways of thinking,there are mature way of thinking that are not successful in academic,they can be smart in other areas,like social or sport or any other way also being Academic does not make you smart,if you are smart you are more likely to be in academic,it is not the same,the most outstanding genius had/have little need for academic because they learned anyway.

About the genetic engineering,it will allow stupid people to be stupid people much more effectively and with more power,like letting random someone drive a race car,will make him faster to crush something.
Having a sword does not make you a good samurai.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I do not agree with your stance on IQ tests.
IQ try to test only very specific tool of the mind
The importance of that tool compared to creativity and what I call the genius attribute is far more significant.
Genius attribute-the I of the person,looking for the right questions to ask,questions other did not ask.
Academic has a certain ways of thinking,there are mature way of thinking that are not successful in academic,they can be smart in other areas,like social or sport or any other way also being Academic does not make you smart,if you are smart you are more likely to be in academic,it is not the same,the most outstanding genius had/have little need for academic because they learned anyway.

About the genetic engineering,it will allow stupid people to be stupid people much more effectively and with more power,like letting random someone drive a race car,will make him faster to crush something.
Having a sword does not make you a good samurai.

I attached a relevant slide of my video. I will see if attachments work.

 

[Haim]

My response was for the slide.
All the things you mention except social status are related to academic success.
Also social status is one part of social intelligence,there is also the kind of intelligence to make/enable to form a group in the first place or being in a group.
IQ test one tool! of intelligence,there are many more tools that what IQ test and what you do with the tools you have is far more important to intelligence then the tools you have.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

My response was for the slide.
All the things you mention except social status are related to academic success.
Also social status is one part of social intelligence,there is also the kind of intelligence to make/enable to form a group in the first place or being in a group.
IQ test one tool! of intelligence,there are many more tools that what IQ test and what you do with the tools you have is far more important to intelligence then the tools you have.

IQ is not just relevant to academic success/ failure.

Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations:

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/uploads/pdfs/Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations.pdf

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=2812

IQ and The Wealth of Nations:

"Lynn and Vanhanen test the hypothesis on the causal relationship between the average national intelligence (IQ) and the gap between rich and poor countries by empirical evidence. Based on an extensive survey of national IQ tests, the results of their work challenge the previous theories of economic development and provide a new basis to evaluate the prospects of economic development throughout the world.

They begin by reviewing and evaluating some major previous theories. The concept of intelligence is then described and intelligence quotient (IQ) introduced. Next they show that intelligence is a significant determinant of earnings within nations, and they connect intelligence with various economic and social phenomena. The sociology of intelligence at the level of sub-populations in nations is examined, and the independent (national IQ) and dependent (various measures of per capita income and economic growth rates) variables are defined and described. They then provide empirical analyses starting from the 81 countries for which direct evidence of national IQs is available; the analysis is then extended to the world group of 185 countries. The hypothesis is tested by the methods of correlation and regression analyses. The results of statistical analyses support the hypothesis strongly. The results of the analyses and various means to reduce the gap between rich and poor countries are discussed. A provocative analysis that all scholars, students, and researchers involved with economic development need to confront."

https://books.google.com/books/about/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations.html?id=KQ4rLiAbHQQC

 

[onesteptwostep]

Greg why does South Korea have the highest suicide rate of all the OECD nations even though it has one of the highest national average IQs?

And what's up with their parliment? I thought people with high IQs should be like, better or something.

Spoiler

My favorite.

 

[Haim]

Wealth of a country/person is largely influenced by country/personal academic success.
Therefore I put it in same group as academic way of thinking.
Education(academic/skill) allow more wealth as a person have more knowledge and skills.
Still IQ do not test art,genius attribute(finding new problems),sports/physical,acting,leadership,solving new problems and many other non obvious types of intelligence.
You can have high intelligence without wealth if you do not care for wealth much.

Let's say IQ test your Hammer quality(by asking you questions ),it will not test your screwdriver,sword or an umbrella quality.
Good like trying to cut cake with that lame sword of yours and a good Hammer.
Good luck trying to break concrete/hard thing with your poor skills and strength.

 

[ApostateAbe]

My response was for the slide.
All the things you mention except social status are related to academic success.
Also social status is one part of social intelligence,there is also the kind of intelligence to make/enable to form a group in the first place or being in a group.
IQ test one tool! of intelligence,there are many more tools that what IQ test and what you do with the tools you have is far more important to intelligence then the tools you have.

I don't claim that IQ is the only important thing. But, IQ differences are important, strongly predictive of so many relevant social variables, all the same. There are many tools in the toolbox, and IQ is the most important one.