A peer-reviewed study about Wikipedia's accuracy

[Orton's Arm]

Whereas my dice example was excruciatingly clear to anyone but yourself, I'm pretty sure that no one other than you is under any delusion you know what you're talking about. Anyone who had any doubt is certainly convinced by your phenomenal "X doesn't measure individuals, but since X measures a population average, X measures some individuals" nonsense above.

Let me put this to you again: heritability is an average figure for the population as a whole. To get to an average figure, you have to average out traits for individuals. Let's say the heritability for shyness is 0.4. That fact means that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe are due to genetics.

[DC Tom]

Let me put this to you again: heritability is an average figure for the population as a whole. To get to an average figure, you have to average out traits for individuals. Let's say the heritability for shyness is 0.4. That fact means that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe are due to genetics.

 

Actually, it's a correlation. It's not an average of anything.

[Ramius]

Let me put this to you again: heritability is an average figure for the population as a whole. To get to an average figure, you have to average out traits for individuals. Let's say the heritability for shyness is 0.4. That fact means that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe are due to genetics.

 

And you're still an idiot. Since you have trouble reading, the link said that heritability is measured across a population, and does NOT pertain to individuals.

 

this DOES NOT mean than an average individual has 60% of his intelligence due to genetics, as you incorrectly state.

 

What it DOES mean is that across an entire population, the differences in intelligence between the people within are 60% due to intelligence. Note how this DOES NOT pertain to an individual, but differences across a population.

 

Any normal person can see the difference between these 2 statements. the fact that you cant exposes just how retarded you really are.

 

As stated in the link:

 

Heritability and environmentability are abstract concepts. No matter what the numbers are, heritability estimates tell us nothing about the specific genes that contribute to a trait.

[DC Tom]

And you're still an idiot. Since you have trouble reading, the link said that heritability is measured across a population, and does NOT pertain to individuals.

 

this DOES NOT mean than an average individual has 60% of his intelligence due to genetics, as you incorrectly state.

 

What it DOES mean is that across an entire population, the differences in intelligence between the people within are 60% due to intelligence. Note how this DOES NOT pertain to an individual, but differences across a population.

 

Any normal person can see the difference between these 2 statements. the fact that you cant exposes just how retarded you really are.

 

As stated in the link:

 

But...robble robble robble! So there!

[Orton's Arm]

And you're still an idiot. Since you have trouble reading, the link said that heritability is measured across a population, and does NOT pertain to individuals.

 

this DOES NOT mean than an average individual has 60% of his intelligence due to genetics, as you incorrectly state.

 

What it DOES mean is that across an entire population, the differences in intelligence between the people within are 60% due to intelligence. Note how this DOES NOT pertain to an individual, but differences across a population.

 

Any normal person can see the difference between these 2 statements. the fact that you cant exposes just how retarded you really are.

 

As stated in the link:

Unfortunately for you, the link doesn't say what you want it to say. Here's a quote:

A heritability of .40 informs us that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe in, say, shyness may in some way be attributable to genetic individual difference.

The point the link was making is that just because the heritability for shyness may be 40% across the whole population, doesn't mean it's an exact 40% for every last person. For some people, genetic variation will explain more than 40% of their shyness levels, while for others it's less than 40%. But it's just like you to expand upon this relatively simple, straightforward, intuitively obvious point and turn it into something else entirely.

[DC Tom]

Unfortunately for you, the link doesn't say what you want it to say. Here's a quote:

 

The point the link was making is that just because the heritability for shyness may be 40% across the whole population, doesn't mean it's an exact 40% for every last person. For some people, genetic variation will explain more than 40% of their shyness levels, while for others it's less than 40%. But it's just like you to expand upon this relatively simple, straightforward, intuitively obvious point and turn it into something else entirely.

 

It's not an "intuitive" point. Maybe you should stop trying to interpret it "intuitively", and start trying to understand it.

[Orton's Arm]

It's not an "intuitive" point. Maybe you should stop trying to interpret it "intuitively", and start trying to understand it.

And maybe it's time you started following your own advice!

[DC Tom]

And maybe it's time you started following your own advice!

 

 

I'm not doing anything intuitively here. I've been doing the actual math, and not intuitively equating colloquial terms like "luck" to actual mathematical terms like "variance".

 

Let's chalk up yet another set of concepts you don't understand: intuitive vs. deductive.

[Wacka]

I haven't been makng any comments beause Ramius as bee doing a good job. Holcomb's Arm, please explain why telomeres get shorter.

Before you say I don't know what I am talking about, I am a biologist. I interviewed at Geron back in 1997 and talked with Michael West, the founder. I also know two of the first twenty employees there. The couple were at Roswell Park the same time I was.

[Orton's Arm]

 

I'm not doing anything intuitively here. I've been doing the actual math, and not intuitively equating colloquial terms like "luck" to actual mathematical terms like "variance".

 

Let's chalk up yet another set of concepts you don't understand: intuitive vs. deductive.

You're claiming to have done actual math in response to the quote Ramius provided! That's a hoot--almost like the so-called "math" you refused to reveal that would somehow disprove the quotes from Stanford, Duke, et al.

[Orton's Arm]

I haven't been makng any comments beause Ramius as bee doing a good job. Holcomb's Arm, please explain why telomeres get shorter.

Before you say I don't know what I am talking about, I am a biologist. I interviewed at Geron back in 1997 and talked with Michael West, the founder. I also know two of the first twenty employees there. The couple were at Roswell Park the same time I was.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the quality of job Ramius has been doing. Given that the shortening of telomeres isn't material to any of the statements I've made, I'm not sure why you're asking me about it. I am sure that no matter what explanation I give, Bungee Jumper and Ramius will be a) quick to call it stupid, and b) slow to commit themselves to pointing out actual errors.

 

But despite the annoyance the two of them pose, I will answer your question. For whatever reason, DNA replication mechanisms are incapable of completely replicating a cell's DNA strand each time it divides. The ends of the strand--the telomeres--get shortened whenever there's a cell division.

 

Another factor in why telomeres get shorter is that TERT expression is inhibited in many types of human cells. But notably, it's not inhibited in stem cells.

 

Telomere shortening appears to be relating to aging, though it's not yet fully clear whether telomere shortening is a cause or effect of aging.

[Wacka]

Another Wikpedia answer! "For whatever reason " is not a scientific answer. It is known and can be found on the web, but may take some work.

 

I can't believe you are using Psychologists (not real scientists, in my opinion) to back up you view on GENETICS. Find some geneticists that back up the point, however convoluted it is, you are trying to make.

 

I am not going to get into arguments here because I will be very busy with work this week. I just got on now because my work laptop was frozen with the screen off and I had to wait for it to shut itself off. I was posting from my Mac.

[Orton's Arm]

Another Wikpedia answer! "For whatever reason " is not a scientific answer. It is known and can be found on the web, but may take some work.

 

I can't believe you are using Psychologists (not real scientists, in my opinion) to back up you view on GENETICS. Find some geneticists that back up the point, however convoluted it is, you are trying to make.

 

I am not going to get into arguments here because I will be very busy with work this week. I just got on now because my work laptop was frozen with the screen off and I had to wait for it to shut itself off. I was posting from my Mac.

I never claimed to be an expert in the field of telomeres--I simply indicated I'd heard of them. If you think a more detailed study of telomeres is relevant to the practicality of a eugenics program, I'd be happy to develop a deeper knowledge of them.

 

I agree analytical rigor isn't as pervasive in psychology as it is in the hard sciences. But not all psychologists are cut from the same cloth, and a number of them do good, analytically rigorous work. Psychometrics is one area where bright, rigorous men and women have made solid contributions. Not only have psychometric researchers used factor analysis to discover the concept of g, they've found strong correlations between g and specific life outcomes. Also between g and specific biological factors. Work like that is a lot harder to dismiss than Freud's writings about the Oedipal and Electra complexes or dream interpretations. And it's a shame that work of such disparate quality got lumped together in the same field.

 

I'm also interested in what geneticists have to say about intelligence. So far, I haven't heard them say much, beyond, "We don't yet know which genes are associated with intelligence." If you're aware of geneticists who are making a greater contribution to the subject of intelligence than that, please refer me to their writings. To the best of my knowledge, those who have--thus far--contributed the most to human knowledge about intelligence have studied psychometrics, not genetics.

[DC Tom]

I'm also interested in what geneticists have to say about intelligence. So far, I haven't heard them say much, beyond, "We don't yet know which genes are associated with intelligence." If you're aware of geneticists who are making a greater contribution to the subject of intelligence than that, please refer me to their writings. To the best of my knowledge, those who have--thus far--contributed the most to human knowledge about intelligence have studied psychometrics, not genetics.

 

...when just above you said you didn't care what geneticists said about intelligene, because it would only confirm what psychometricians have been saying...confirming once again you don't know anything about genetics or psychometrics.

[Orton's Arm]

...when just above you said you didn't care what geneticists said about intelligene, because it would only confirm what psychometricians have been saying...confirming once again you don't know anything about genetics or psychometrics.

You'd make an excellent poker player. Here you are, a guy who obviously knows nothing about either genetics or psychometrics, and yet you're doing a pretty good job of bluffing about both subjects. You've got nothing in your own hand, yet you're able to say with a straight face that the cards everyone else has been dealt are utter garbage. Even though you can't see those cards.

[DC Tom]

You'd make an excellent poker player. Here you are, a guy who obviously knows nothing about either genetics or psychometrics, and yet you're doing a pretty good job of bluffing about both subjects. You've got nothing in your own hand, yet you're able to say with a straight face that the cards everyone else has been dealt are utter garbage. Even though you can't see those cards.

 

 

It's not bluffing when I'm right, nimrod. There's not a person left on this board who doesn't know you're an ignorant ass. Pretending you're not doesn't make it so.

[Orton's Arm]

It's not bluffing when I'm right, nimrod. There's not a person left on this board who doesn't know you're an ignorant ass. Pretending you're not doesn't make it so.

Wrong from start to finish. Again.

[Ramius]

Wrong from start to finish. Again.

 

no, he's right. Anyone who reads your drivel can see right through it for what it really is: Incoherent ramblings from a Hamburger U grad.

 

And regarding poker, anytime you've called tom's "bluff", he flops over pocket Aces. The rest of the world knows that his hand beats yours, but you keep insisting that your 2-7 offsuit beats his Aces. Its kind of like you trying to call my "bluff" regarding genetics. I've tipped my hand to show my pocket kings before the betting even started, but you insist on calling and even raising with your 2-7 offsuit.

 

And then you post a wikipedia link, except when the wikipedia link disproves whatever current crap you are spewing, like the current psychometrics discussion.

 

This would all end if you just said you really dont know what you am talking about and are in over your head. No one is going to make fun of you . instead you make it painfully obvious that you DONT know what the hell you are talking about, and thats what gets ridiculed.

[Orton's Arm]

no, he's right. Anyone who reads your drivel can see right through it for what it really is: Incoherent ramblings from a Hamburger U grad.

 

And regarding poker, anytime you've called tom's "bluff", he flops over pocket Aces. The rest of the world knows that his hand beats yours, but you keep insisting that your 2-7 offsuit beats his Aces. Its kind of like you trying to call my "bluff" regarding genetics. I've tipped my hand to show my pocket kings before the betting even started, but you insist on calling and even raising with your 2-7 offsuit.

 

And then you post a wikipedia link, except when the wikipedia link disproves whatever current crap you are spewing, like the current psychometrics discussion.

 

This would all end if you just said you really dont know what you am talking about and are in over your head. No one is going to make fun of you . instead you make it painfully obvious that you DONT know what the hell you are talking about, and thats what gets ridiculed.

Let me count the ways your ignorance has been exposed:

- You recently revealed a lack of understanding of the relatively simple test/retest phenomenon

- You ridiculed the fact that the heritability of I.Q. increases as children get older. In this way, you displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of heritability. I won't even mention your evident ignorance of basic psychometric research.

- You expressed the opinion that group averages for heritability weren't calculated by averaging out the heritability for each member of the group.

- You tried to refute me by quoting Stephen Jay Gould. That's sort of like refuting an economics argument by quoting Karl Marx. In fact, it's almost exactly like quoting Karl Marx, given that a) Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist, and b) Stephen Jay Gould was even less qualified to talk about intelligence measurement than Karl Marx was to talk about economics.

 

As for Tom, he's expressed the opinion that regression toward the mean would doom any eugenics program to certain failure. Given that assumption on his part, he's failed to explain how Darwinism consistently produces results, despite the fact that regression toward the mean is applicable to just about every characteristic.

 

During the entire course of this discussion, neither you nor he has once turned over a king or an ace or any other high card. Everything the two of you have said has been bluff, ignorance, mistaken interpretations, or irrelevance.

[Ramius]

As for Tom, he's expressed the opinion that regression toward the mean would doom any eugenics program to certain failure. Given that assumption on his part, he's failed to explain how Darwinism consistently produces results, despite the fact that regression toward the mean is applicable to just about every characteristic.

 

During the entire course of this discussion, neither you nor he has once turned over a king or an ace or any other high card. Everything the two of you have said has been bluff, ignorance, mistaken interpretations, or irrelevance.

 

Wow. Once again you are just as wrong as you have been over the past 5 months. You've made the following absurd claims in your posts, none of which bear any semblance of truth.

 

Math:

1. You claimed that it is possible to roll a die and roll a 3.5

2. You claimed that rolling a 6 if "more in error" than rolling a 4, even tho then both have equal probabilities of being rolled.

3. You do not understand the concept of variance in a distribution

4. You cant tell the difference between "error" and "luck" and "variance"

 

Biology:

5. You dont understand the concept of heritability

6. When presented with numerous links and textbooks claiming that heritability cannot be used to measure a single induvidual, you claim it can

7. You claim that intelligence is strictly genetic, and that differences in intelligence between different 2 people is due to "error" and "head injuries"

8. You claimed that correlation = heritability

9. You claimed that correlation = causation

 

and the list goes on...GG could easily come up with 2 dozen more ideas you are incorrect on in the field of economics

 

Once again, everyone else here sees you for the blowhard nazi moron that you are. You're the only one that doesnt.