[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1712459756309.gif (175.06 KB, 200x151, 200:151, 200w.gif) ImgOps Google

This can be evaluated scientifically.


The short answer is "no". That's because of the vague nature of the "we" being asked about. The situation very, very drastically varies based on country.



File: 1712860450517.jpg (297.23 KB, 1289x1060, 1289:1060, Screenshot_20210118-113102….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Gee, it's like, human intellectual abilities are dependent on physical health, which is often dependent on access to proper nutrition and intellectual stimulation early in life, which is greatly influenced by one's economic status in their formative years or something really blatantly fucking obvious that people in wealthy countries are too chicken shit spineless to acknowledge.


I dunno
There's always a point on what actually defines intellect or something.

There's tribespeople living in the middle of nowhere who can't into high tech stuff, but can be perfectly outside safe in the wilderness and survive, while most people around here would die within a week.

I do believe that there are innate abilities to construct logical thinking patterns that are not tied to socioeconomic status.


File: 1712874652407.jpg (418.61 KB, 1388x1552, 347:388, Screenshot_20210419-161239….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>I do believe that there are innate abilities to construct logical thinking patterns that are not tied to socioeconomic status.

Okay, but what is innate still needs nurturing to grow. "Nature vs Nuture" is bad framing, the reality of the relationship is nature via nurture.

No matter what one's genetic potential is, no one can grow into that potential when they're malnourished.


Well, I shared this to state that I believe from an objective perspective via science the popular concept that the "Western world is getting less intelligent" is simply factually false.

As you point out, and is was pointed out in the scholarly report, a variety of community factors can outright prevent any sort of IQ based change from happening entirely. Or, alternatively, it can be accelerated due to toxic national factors. The choice is up to civil society.

Personally, I'd say from the research that I've seen that intelligence is vaguely around from 50% to 75% inherited and likely set partly before birth or even one's status as a fetus. Which means that people aren't blank slates. At the same time, rather obviously, the math means that nations can drop the ball horribly in helping people progress. If I tell a gardener at the local college besides where I live "hey, remember, only half of the odds that these plants survive is the soil and other stuff because so much is up to you", then he or she has a lot of strenuous work to do with fertilizer spreading and such.


File: 1712881617487.jpg (271.34 KB, 1289x1072, 1289:1072, Screenshot_20210427-101343….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Personally, I'd say from the research that I've seen that intelligence is vaguely around from 50% to 75% inherited and likely set partly before birth or even one's status as a fetus.

It seems logically invalid to try and quantify that when the relationship between nature and Nuture is mor akin to the relationship between an algorithm and it's inputs. Nature is like the algorithm, nuture is the input and the output is a person. Or like the relationship between a musician and an instrument, nature is the instrument, nurture is the musician and a person is the song played on the instrument.

Genes aren't actually like a source code, they're a chemical, and they don't trigger their own chemical reaction, they are always being expressed which means every living thing is reacting to their environment, in terms of both things like necessary nutrients, but also in terms of changes to internal chemical levels like stress. Genes are not predestination, they're a (finite) possibility set.


Cambodia's average IQ certainly dropped during the reign of the Khmer Rouge.  Killing the well-educated and intellectuals does that.  It hurts future generations too, given how much of IQ is genetic (at least in developed countries).


File: 1712884704669.png (328.91 KB, 1065x1085, 213:217, Screenshot_20240411-211623.png) ImgOps Google

Heritability depends on the specific population under study, yes.  Increasing the environmental diversity of a population tends to decrease the heritability of a trait, while increasing the genetic diversity tends to increase heritability.





Most phenotypic traits can't be traced to just one gene


It seems pretty clear-cut to me that nature and nurture both matter at a comparatively even level from the very moment that you begin your analysis onwards; using the gardening example mentioned above, again, it's equally ludicrous to claim either, first, that the conditions of a soil-covered patch don't matter and only a gardener's skill and choice of seeds matters or, second, that a nice enough spot with expensive enough seeds will produce the ideal results no matter what happens with the gardener's actions w.r.t. heat, rain, wind, et cetera.

There's a pretty detailed article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

And I recommend this specific study as well: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15734706/

It found, "The intelligence damage of children exposed to severe I[odine]D[eficiency] was profound, demonstrated by 12.45 IQ points loss and they recovered 8.7 IQ points with iodine supplementation or IS before and during pregnancy." Clearly, humans are not blank slates. And we equally are not comic book superheroes able to withstand anything circumstances throw our way.

{I'd also like to point out that for all of the constant debate that gets quite heated about ethnicity/gender/race and IQ environmental studies such as that pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov report constantly find the ability to shift IQ test results dramatically via civil society policies.}


File: 1712908079902.jpg (208.16 KB, 1021x1667, 1021:1667, bb8d124756bc414548ebe1abd8….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I kinda don't feel like reading a paper on intelligence from the guy writing "papers" on the IQ of Rick Sanchez or the scientific justification for incels. Certainly not on a eugenicist's personal slush fund posing as a "think tank".

Someone wanna give me the bullet points?


>Most phenotypic traits can't be traced to just one gene
Yes, but how does that relate to my post?


File: 1712929179602.jpg (395.3 KB, 1080x1863, 40:69, Screenshot_20240412_083441….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I don't get what you're saying. Literally all you have to do is scroll down to the "in conclusion" tab and read four sentences. And that's it. That's really it.

I'm not being sarcastic. That's all.

As far as the political organization supporting the author does, I would care if the article had some obvious agenda in its findings like "clearly socialists and the general left have destroyed IQ progress". However, the study has the exact, black-and-white opposite result. As in, "nah, we're fine".

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]