On Darwinism

[Orton's Arm]

Correlation can very easily be heritability when you don't have a clue what "variance" is. Two months of this bull sh--, he still can't be bothered to look it up.

As usual, your accusations are based on ignorance. Broad-sense heritability (upper-case H^2) is a measure of how much variation in the phenotype is caused by variations in the genotype. Studying correlations in identical twins raised apart is a standard way of developing estimates of broad sense heritability.

[Ramius]

As usual, your accusations are based on ignorance. Broad-sense heritability (upper-case H^2) is a measure of how much variation in the phenotype is caused by variations in the genotype. Studying correlations in identical twins raised apart is a standard way of developing estimates of broad sense heritability.

 

phenotype = genotype + ENVIRONMENT

[bobblehead]

Should I even bother reading this car wreck?

 

 

somewhere in this thread, a retard baby had butt sex with a squirrel.

[DC Tom]

Studying correlations in identical twins raised apart is a standard way of developing estimates of broad sense heritability.

 

Then explain how. How does one derive a heritability of 0.8 from a correlation of 0.86?

 

You see, this is where you keep stumbling. You insist on quoting other people's work as Holy Writ without having even the first understanding of what it means. Saying "X got such-and-so as a meaasure of heritability. X used correlation in twins to calculate it" doesn't mean you know anything about it. It just means you're a parrot. And a !@#$ing stupid one at that.

[DC Tom]

As you ought to know, a number of studies have been done relating to the heritability of I.Q. Obviously the researchers who concluded I.Q. is 80% heritable either a) didn't rely on the identical twin study I mentioned, or b) didn't rely on it exclusively.

 

So obviously, since the numbers were different, the methodology was different. It couldn't possibly be that things that are different things (correlation and heritability) are actually not the same?

[Ramius]

Then explain how. How does one derive a heritability of 0.8 from a correlation of 0.86?

 

You see, this is where you keep stumbling. You insist on quoting other people's work as Holy Writ without having even the first understanding of what it means. Saying "X got such-and-so as a meaasure of heritability. X used correlation in twins to calculate it" doesn't mean you know anything about it. It just means you're a parrot. And a !@#$ing stupid one at that.

 

I am still waiting for the study that shows a high IQ = a productive member of scoiety.

[Bungee Jumper]

I am still waiting for the study that shows a high IQ = a productive member of scoiety.

 

 

Well...a person with a high IQ will on average be a productive member of society. So anyone with a high IQ who isn't is just unlucky. If you measure their productivity again, that error will cause their productivity to regress toward the mean. This is proven because, according to Wikipedia, productivity is heritable in East German scientists.

 

It's so simple, I don't know why you don't understand it by now.

[Ramius]

Well...a person with a high IQ will on average be a productive member of society. So anyone with a high IQ who isn't is just unlucky. If you measure their productivity again, that error will cause their productivity to regress toward the mean. This is proven because, according to Wikipedia, productivity is heritable in East German scientists.

 

It's so simple, I don't know why you don't understand it by now.

 

well, i did find a high correlation between east german scientists and wikipedia when i googled them. so that means they MUST be heritable.

 

I also did a study. when i used the same browser on 2 different computers to do my google search, i get similar results. But when i used a different browser to google them, i got different results. so obviously there is a correlation between firefox across coputers, but theres no google correlation between internet explorer and firefox. one oddity i noticed was that when i tried to open IE7, it kept saying it was opening IE 3.5. i think this is because internet explorer regressed to the mean. this would cause the difference in wikipedia heritability in east german scientists.

[Bungee Jumper]

well, i did find a high correlation between east german scientists and wikipedia when i googled them. so that means they MUST be heritable.

 

I also did a study. when i used the same browser on 2 different computers to do my google search, i get similar results. But when i used a different browser to google them, i got different results. so obviously there is a correlation between firefox across coputers, but theres no google correlation between internet explorer and firefox. one oddity i noticed was that when i tried to open IE7, it kept saying it was opening IE 3.5. i think this is because internet explorer regressed to the mean. this would cause the difference in wikipedia heritability in east german scientists.

 

Of course, we're missing a very important point here: there are no East German scientists. If they're in eastern Germany, they're wrong, and they should thus regress towards Hannover or Kassel.

[Ramius]

Of course, we're missing a very important point here: there are no East German scientists. If they're in eastern Germany, they're wrong, and they should thus regress towards Hannover or Kassel.

 

What would happen if a bunch of east german twin scientists wearing kelly holcomb jerseys were rolling die and watching America's Stupidest Woman®? I think the fabric of spacetime would collapse.

 

<Cue holcombs arm to tell us that space time doesnt really exist and that the world is actually flat, backed up by a hyperstats and wikipedia article>

[Bungee Jumper]

What would happen if a bunch of east german twin scientists wearing kelly holcomb jerseys were rolling die and watching America's Stupidest Woman®? I think the fabric of spacetime would collapse.

 

<Cue holcombs arm to tell us that space time doesnt really exist and that the world is actually flat, backed up by a hyperstats and wikipedia article>

 

 

But space-time doesn't exist. That would be four dimensions, not 3.5...

[Orton's Arm]

well, i did find a high correlation between east german scientists and wikipedia when i googled them. so that means they MUST be heritable.

 

I also did a study. when i used the same browser on 2 different computers to do my google search, i get similar results. But when i used a different browser to google them, i got different results. so obviously there is a correlation between firefox across coputers, but theres no google correlation between internet explorer and firefox. one oddity i noticed was that when i tried to open IE7, it kept saying it was opening IE 3.5. i think this is because internet explorer regressed to the mean. this would cause the difference in wikipedia heritability in east german scientists.

This has to be the most pitiful attempt at humor I've ever seen. And yes, I've heard Al Gore try to tell jokes.

[Orton's Arm]

I am still waiting for the study that shows a high IQ = a productive member of scoiety.

Here's a quote which addresses your concern:

g positively correlates with conventional measures of success (academic achievement, job performance, career prestige) and negatively correlates with various social issues (school dropout, unplanned childbearing, poverty). IQ tests that measure a wide range of abilities do not predict much better than g.

g is a measure of general intelligence. According to Wikipedia,

g has a large number of biological correlates. Strong correlates include mass of the prefrontal lobe, overall brain mass, and glucose metabolization rate within the brain.

[Bungee Jumper]

Here's a quote which addresses your concern:

 

g is a measure of general intelligence. According to Wikipedia,

 

 

 

And he's STILL waiting for the study that shows that high IQ = productive member of society...

 

You're not really saying that "g" and "IQ" are the same now, are you?

[bobblehead]

What would happen if a bunch of east german twin scientists wearing kelly holcomb jerseys were rolling die and watching America's Stupidest Woman®? I think the fabric of spacetime would collapse.

 

<Cue holcombs arm to tell us that space time doesnt really exist and that the world is actually flat, backed up by a hyperstats and wikipedia article>

 

 

I saw a "female" East German Shot-Putter on a track meet on NBC on Saturday Afternoon a while back. I swear to fugging God she was the spitting image of Mark Gastineau. In all areas, too.

[Ramius]

And he's STILL waiting for the study that shows that high IQ = productive member of society...

 

You're not really saying that "g" and "IQ" are the same now, are you?

 

i like how he conveniently left out this little blurb...

 

There is no strong consensus as to whether rising IQ scores also reflect increases in g

 

or these...

 

The late Stephen Jay Gould voiced his objections to the concept of g, as well as intelligence testing in general, in his controversial book The Mismeasure of Man.

 

Some researchers in artificial intelligence have argued that the science of mental ability can be thought of as "computationalism" and is "either silly or pointless," noting, "Mental ability tests measure differences in tasks that will soon be performed for all of us by computational agents. Such abilities probably have nothing to do with genius."(Bringsjord, 2000) .

 

Intelligence expert Howard Gardner notes:

 

I do not believe that there is a single general talent, whether it be called intelligence, creativity or 'g'. I do not locate talents completely within the human skull, preferring to construe all accomplishments as an interaction between cognitive potentials on the one hand, and the resources and opportunities provided by the surrounding culture on the other....All intellectual and creative work takes place within some kind of social discipline, craft, or organized activity, termed a domain. Accordingly, there is no sense in which one can speak about a person as being intelligent, or creative, in general.

 

Philip Kitcher wrote in 1985:

 

Many scientists are now convinced that there is no single measure of intellectual ability - no unitary intelligence. Their suspicion of the concept of general intelligence is based on the view that various intellectual capacities are not well correlated. ....it is useful to continue to expose the myth of "general intelligence".

 

but again, should this surprise me? no, because reading comprehension continues to elude holcombs arm. as well as defining variance.

[Orton's Arm]

i like how he conveniently left out this little blurb...

or these...

but again, should this surprise me? no, because reading comprehension continues to elude holcombs arm. as well as defining variance.

So now you've resorted to citing Stephen Jay Gould? Dude, that takes the cake.

[Orton's Arm]

And he's STILL waiting for the study that shows that high IQ = productive member of society...

 

You're not really saying that "g" and "IQ" are the same now, are you?

Here are quotes which address this issue:

The abstraction of g stems from the observation that scores on all forms of cognitive tests correlate positively with one another. g can be derived as the principal factor from cognitive test scores using the method of principal components analysis or factor analysis. . . .

 

Tests of cognitive ability derive most of their validity from the extent to which they measure g. If quantifiable measures of the performance of a task correlate highly with g, it is said to be g-loaded. Creators of IQ tests, whose goals are generally to create highly reliable and valid tests, have thus made their tests as g-loaded as possible.

[Ramius]

And he's STILL waiting for the study that shows that high IQ = productive member of society...

 

You're not really saying that "g" and "IQ" are the same now, are you?

 

I guess i need to tell my entire lab and the authors of the 200 ro so papers sitting on my desk that all of their and our work is a bunch of bull. We are all studying the effects of microenvironment on various cells. And our research results show that the exact same cells, with the exact same genes, grow vastly different under differing environments.

 

But, since environment doesnt effect phenotype and genotype is the only determining factor, i guess that our research is wrong, and that the significant differences shown are just error.

[Ramius]

So now you've resorted to citing Stephen Jay Gould? Dude, that takes the cake.

 

you cant define variance.

 

you cant define heritability.

 

you dont understand the fundamental concept of genetics, that phenotype = genotype + environment

 

And the most laughable is that you are too stupid to realize how wrong you are. :lol: