Victor David Hanson predicts America will split and the coasts will fall before we ever have a civil war (link)

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
9,172
12,089
1
Learn to read, I said Florence was one of the largest cities in Europe.
It wasn't diverse. It was full of Italians. If big cities in themselves gave rise to creativity and achievement, Istanbul and Beijing at that time would have been very productive in science.

Probably the greatest collection of human genius in history was found in a comparatively small place composed of one nationality.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
Native Americans were in the stone age because their average IQ is about 90.

Africa is in the stone age today because their average IQ is about 85.

Japan, Germany, UK, and US fought a world war with planes, steel, electricity, and competed to develop the first nuclear weapons because the average IQ in those countries is about 100.

It is harsh, it is unfair, it is unfortunate. I didn't do it, God did it. Or Darwin, or whoever you like. But this pretense that we are all the same is just intellectually dishonest.

That's it.

Nothing else.

Period.
That's complete garbage.
IQ scores are highly correlated to environment, for example, the IQ's scores of African Americans has been increasing in recent decades because they are getting better early childhood education and nutrition.
And isolated populations stagnate. We see it to this day in isolated tribes in the rain forests.
The Mediterranean region was a hotbed of innovation in the ancient world because there were multiple civilizations trading and stealing ideas from one another and conquering one another.
There was intense competition and the civilizations who were stagnant were killed off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
It wasn't diverse. It was full of Italians. If big cities in themselves gave rise to creativity and achievement, Istanbul and Beijing at that time would have been very productive in science.

Probably the greatest collection of human genius in history was found in a comparatively small place composed of one nationality.
Constantinople was a center for arts and science and when the Turks conquered it, most of the city's scholars fled to Italy and brought their knowledge with them and their knowledge played a large part in starting the Renaissance.
And those scholars were Greek, not Italian.
And the Turks were innovative too, especially when it came to warfare. They were diverse in that they did not require its soldiers to convert to Islam, they just had to follow orders.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
9,172
12,089
1
Constantinople was a center for arts and science and when the Turks conquered it, most of the city's scholars fled to Italy and brought their knowledge with them and their knowledge played a large part in starting the Renaissance.
And those scholars were Greek, not Italian.
And the Turks were innovative too, especially when it came to warfare. They were diverse in that they did not require its soldiers to convert to Islam, they just had to follow orders.
Diversity is a meaningless term derived from different. Anything can be different. So, you lefties can look for something a little different and say that diversity mattered.

The main theme of so-called diversity in the United States is that if you have somebody of a different nationality sitting in a room, that person adds diversity and efficacy to the room no matter how mediocre that person's work or academic background is.

From the Italians were smart enough to go back and learn from the Greeks. However, Florence did not have separate identifiable communities like Turks, Chinese, Indians, and Persians. This is the main goal of lefties __ to find pockets of white people and add different ethnicities to the group irrespective of their qualifications. This was not going on in Florence.

Also, if your idea about being a maritime center of trade was valid, Istanbul would have achieved much more because it certain times in the Renaissance era it was the biggest city in the world and was at the very border of Europe and Asia. Also, in Italy Venice and Genoa would have surpassed Florence in terms of art and science and they didn't.
 

tIUguy2

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2016
3,260
3,268
1
People from all over the country, including the homeless go to California.
And California does not lead the country in the poverty rate, states like Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky and Arkansas have the highest poverty rate. California is 26th.
You’re right, my apologies. California has more people living in poverty than any other state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
That's complete garbage.
IQ scores are highly correlated to environment, for example, the IQ's scores of African Americans has been increasing in recent decades because they are getting better early childhood education and nutrition.
And isolated populations stagnate. We see it to this day in isolated tribes in the rain forests.
The Mediterranean region was a hotbed of innovation in the ancient world because there were multiple civilizations trading and stealing ideas from one another and conquering one another.
There was intense competition and the civilizations who were stagnant were kille
Here is what happened in 1970, when a smart person (you know, those people you can't understand) wanted to answer the Evolution vs. Environment question.

There were 40 identical twins that were individually adopted into different families. I'm summarizing so you can understand.

Twin 1A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 115.
Twin 1B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =117.

Twin 2A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 97.
Twin 2B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =96.

Twin 3A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 92.
Twin 3B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =94.

Twin 4A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 129.
Twin 4B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =128.

Twin 5A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 83.
Twin 5B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =84.

So, no matter where they were adopted, the Identical twins got the same IQ score.

So, we know that the environmental component is essentially zero.

That's what the study found. Virtually no environmental component.

So, you're just wrong.

There is almost no environmental impact on IQ.

Now look, I've got you by at least 30 IQ points (I don't think your IQ is much above 100), so I've simplified the studies. But that's what they found.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with geography.

Those southern states have been historically agricultural during an Industrial Age.

California has the benefit of weather and convenient access to Asian manufacturing.

And you can't define "poverty" with a fixed number. A dollar buys a lot less in California compared to those states. It needs to be about standard of living.
There are poor people in both parties.
But geography and the economy have a strong influence on culture and culture influences political viewpoints.
As for the poverty rate, I believe the feds do adjust for the cost of living in calculating the poverty rate.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
Here is what happened in 1970, when a smart person (you know, those people you can't understand) wanted to answer the Evolution vs. Environment question.

There were 40 identical twins that were individually adopted into different families. I'm summarizing so you can understand.

Twin 1A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 115.
Twin 1B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =117.

Twin 2A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 97.
Twin 2B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =96.

Twin 3A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 92.
Twin 3B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =94.

Twin 4A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 129.
Twin 4B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =128.

Twin 5A went to a rich Family, His tested IQ = 83.
Twin 5B went to a poor family. His tested IQ =84.

So, no matter where they were adopted, the Identical twins got the same IQ score.

So, we know that the environmental component is essentially zero.

That's what the study found. Virtually no environmental component.

So, you're just wrong.

There is almost no environmental impact on IQ.

Now look, I've got you by at least 30 IQ points (I don't think your IQ is much above 100), so I've simplified the studies. But that's what they found.
Wrong, as I said the IQ scores of African Americans are increasing.
If it were all genes, their test scores will stay the same.
The scientific consensus is that genetics and environment play a role.
And you are taking a step further and arguing that ethnicity determines one's IQ and that certainly is not the consensus of scientists.
Apparently you think Asians should run the world because they score highest on IQ tests.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
Wrong, as I said the IQ scores of African Americans are increasing.
If it were all genes, their test scores will stay the same.
The scientific consensus is that genetics and environment play a role.
And you are taking a step further and arguing that ethnicity determines one's IQ and that certainly is not the consensus of scientists.
Apparently you think Asians should run the world because they score highest on IQ tests.
I wish there was just one liberal with a 125 IQ or more on this board.

Just one. Instead, I have to argue with people who scored about 105 on theirs. That's you.

You don't check anything out - you just read stuff and repeat what you like. Zero critical thinking. Zero.

Here is the IQ gap by decade? Is it really changing? No, it is not. Probably in some years, the test was a little easier, a little different, but overall....the gap is quite constant - 1 SD or 15 points.

IQ-by-Decade.png
 

Cosmos

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
25,449
17,939
1
All I know is the flyover states control: 1) the food supply, 2) the energy spigot and 3) the largest freshwater source on Earth. Color me a fool but that has got to count for something. Should it not then you belong to the AOC school of strategic management.

Historical analogy if I may. They say what won the Civil War was Irish labor and a pint of whiskey a day. Meaning, if not for the Erie Canal bringing the critical food supplies to the North the Union wouldn't have won the Civil War. :cool:
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
I wish there was just one liberal with a 125 IQ or more on this board.

Just one. Instead, I have to argue with people who scored about 105 on theirs. That's you.

You don't check anything out - you just read stuff and repeat what you like. Zero critical thinking. Zero.

Here is the IQ gap by decade? Is it really changing? No, it is not. Probably in some years, the test was a little easier, a little different, but overall....the gap is quite constant - 1 SD or 15 points.

IQ-by-Decade.png
You are so stupid, your own chart shows the gap has shrunk considerably since the 1970’s.
You remind me of Wiley Coyote, the self proclaimed super genius who is always falling off a cliff.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
You are so stupid, your own chart shows the gap has shrunk considerably since the 1970’s.
You remind me of Wiley Coyote, the self proclaimed super genius who is always falling off a cliff.
The chart shows that it went up a little , then down, then flat.

Intelligent people would say that the minor fluctuations in the chart are just noise, and that the gap has remained relatively constant.
 

McCloudersportLion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2019
2,399
1,449
1
No but yall need to stop the China schlucking b4 until on the day you were shooting with the Rock ad found out they didnt just blow up carrier bois in Woody Haroldson movies either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
All I know is the flyover states control: 1) the food supply, 2) the energy spigot and 3) the largest freshwater source on Earth. Color me a fool but that has got to count for something. Should it not then you belong to the AOC school of strategic management.

Historical analogy if I may. They say what won the Civil War was Irish labor and a pint of whiskey a day. Meaning, if not for the Erie Canal bringing the critical food supplies to the North the Union wouldn't have won the Civil War. :cool:
The thing with agriculture, farmers need a way to get their product to market, and that usually involves seaports.
Largely Agrarian and landlocked nations usually don’t fare well against commercial nations.
Look at the ancient Greeks they didn‘t have that great of farmland, but they were a commercial powerhouse and Greek armies conquered vast amounts of territory stretching into India.
The British Empire is another good example. A small island nation with a big navy to protect its trade routes and transport troops to far off places allowed it to have the largest empire in the history of the world.
Commercial nations can buy what they don’t produce themselves. Landlocked agrarian areas tend to be poor, their best bet is to be a part of a country that is not landlocked.
As for the Civil War, although the Erie Canal was an important mode of transportation, it did not win the civil war. The Erie Canal helped
and made transportation easier, but that single canal didn’t cause the south to lose the war.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
The chart shows that it went up a little , then down, then flat.

Intelligent people would say that the minor fluctuations in the chart are just noise, and that the gap has remained relatively constant.
You are not an intelligent person, since 1970 it went from 1.22 to 1. That's a big decrease, and it probably isn't a coincidence that it came after the civil rights movement and desegregation.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
39,301
13,475
1
Such a silly debate. Biden got 46.5% of the vote in Texas. Trump got 34% of the vote in California. Just because a state is “red” or “blue” doesn’t mean there aren’t a boatload of the other party in that state.

Just splitting by geography is silly and of course this whole hypothetical is silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LMTLION

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
6,815
5,451
1
The thing with agriculture, farmers need a way to get their product to market, and that usually involves seaports.
Largely Agrarian and landlocked nations usually don’t fare well against commercial nations.
Look at the ancient Greeks they didn‘t have that great of farmland, but they were a commercial powerhouse and Greek armies conquered vast amounts of territory stretching into India.
The British Empire is another good example. A small island nation with a big navy to protect its trade routes and transport troops to far off places allowed it to have the largest empire in the history of the world.
Commercial nations can buy what they don’t produce themselves. Landlocked agrarian areas tend to be poor, their best bet is to be a part of a country that is not landlocked.
As for the Civil War, although the Erie Canal was an important mode of transportation, it did not win the civil war. The Erie Canal helped
and made transportation easier, but that single canal didn’t cause the south to lose the war.

Red interior states are not landlocked. There is this body of water called the Gulf of Mexico, and I think it gets fed by the Mississippi River.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doctornick

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
You are not an intelligent person, since 1970 it went from 1.22 to 1. That's a big decrease, and it probably isn't a coincidence that it came after the civil rights movement and desegregation.
You are convincing no one. 1.22 to 1 is just noise. Is there some significance to getting worse from 1950 to 1970? Of course not.

Furthermore - since then it hasn't moved one whit. That's because it really hasn't moved at all.

It's just noise.

Further, how do you explain the identical twin studies?
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
6,815
5,451
1
You are convincing no one. 1.22 to 1 is just noise. Is there some significance to getting worse from 1950 to 1970? Of course not.

Furthermore - since then it hasn't moved one whit. That's because it really hasn't moved at all.

It's just noise.

Further, how do you explain the identical twin studies?

Not that I would dispute the extremely large role of genetics, but that study does have a major flaw.

My guess is that families that adopt, whether rich or poor, tend to care about the child enough to ensure that the early, formative years are positive.

So it's not really a randomized study that could be overlaid on the larger population that would have a much lower propensity for positive child care.
 

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
7,437
5,641
1
I think a less drama-filled prediction is that the northeast and west coast are going to decline in economic power, while the interior will increase in economic power.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
6,815
5,451
1
Such a silly debate. Biden got 46.5% of the vote in Texas. Trump got 34% of the vote in California. Just because a state is “red” or “blue” doesn’t mean there aren’t a boatload of the other party in that state.

Just splitting by geography is silly and of course this whole hypothetical is silly.

And yet you'll try to discredit an article by saying that the author is probably a "Trumper" because they are from Texas.

Yes, you did this. Wish I could find/remember the post. It just confirmed to me that people like you do not see individuals. You will not debate content. Like many in your party, you prefer to classify people through some form of Group Identity. In this case, the state of residence.

There seems to be no end to the way you twist content. It is not constructive. It is obstructionist, destructive.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
Not that I would dispute the extremely large role of genetics, but that study does have a major flaw.

My guess is that families that adopt, whether rich or poor, tend to care about the child enough to ensure that the early, formative years are positive.

So it's not really a randomized study that could be overlaid on the larger population that would have a much lower propensity for positive child care.
That's definitely not a major flaw. It's a minor weakness that can only be overcome if we're willing to purposely put one child into a family that does NOT want him. How bad would that be.

So, let's just say it like this: There's almost no impact of environment on IQ once you separate out the worst parents. And there may be no impact of environment on IQ even after that, but we're unwilling to forcibly conduct the experiment.

Not sure what your point was, unless it was really just scientific completeness. If so, I salute you. If your point is to just throw a cloud of haze over the subject....well,
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
6,815
5,451
1
That's definitely not a major flaw. It's a minor weakness that can only be overcome if we're willing to purposely put one child into a family that does NOT want him. How bad would that be.

So, let's just say it like this: There's almost no impact of environment on IQ once you separate out the worst parents. And there may be no impact of environment on IQ even after that, but we're unwilling to forcibly conduct the experiment.

Not sure what your point was, unless it was really just scientific completeness. If so, I salute you. If your point is to just throw a cloud of haze over the subject....well,

You have to understand that I did data analysis for a living, most of it on "happenstance" data, i.e., that which comes outside of a controlled test. I'm always looking for the flaws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
You have to understand that I did data analysis for a living, most of it on "happenstance" data, i.e., that which comes outside of a controlled test. I'm always looking for the flaws.
I have zero issue with completeness. as long as we go all the way and concede that there's no way to ethically study it any better than was done.

And to concede that, given what we know, IQ is mostly genetic, with very minimal environmental impact YET found.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
6,815
5,451
1
I think this thread may have become bogged down by semantics. Are we talking about "IQ," potential, or actual results in life? I think @JeffClear has been confusing or conflating these as he talks about differences that evolved within civilizations.

Not to side with @JeffClear, but I've seen the destructive results of parents who ignored their children during their formative years. I've seen the cost of malnourishment. I've seen the cost of social isolation. The cost of violence.

These might not relate that much to IQ, but they are huge factors in how children ultimately use their IQ. In time these factors, if left to isolate by geography or civilization, do evolve into genetics, as the process of evolution unfolds differently in different environments. This is true of every species on earth.

Part of me is here to emphasize this problem, as there is a tendency to classify by race and all other sorts of crap. We need to focus on what's important -- what parents and educators DO and TEACH -- not things that are beyond our control (like genetics).
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
I think this thread may have become bogged down by semantics. Are we talking about "IQ," potential, or actual results in life? I think @JeffClear has been confusing or conflating these as he talks about differences that evolved within civilizations.

Not to side with @JeffClear, but I've seen the destructive results of parents who ignored their children during their formative years. I've seen the cost of malnourishment. I've seen the cost of social isolation. The cost of violence.

These might not relate that much to IQ, but they are huge factors in how children ultimately use their IQ. In time these factors, if left to isolate by geography or civilization, do evolve into genetics, as the process of evolution unfolds differently in different environments. This is true of every species on earth.

Part of me is here to emphasize this problem, as there is a tendency to classify by race and all other sorts of crap. We need to focus on what's important -- what parents and educators DO and TEACH -- not things that are beyond our control (like genetics).
Now you're all over the place.

We are talking about reasons various areas/countries have done historically well (or not).

In other words, how do we explain why Europe, USA, Japan, South Korea, China have done well, whereas the majority of the middle East and Africa have not done well.

That has nothing to do with education or teaching. An entirely different topic. And we are DEFINITELY NOT talking about individual achievement. We are talking about society and nations.

But I note that you have failed to concede the two points that are really indisputable. So, I'm wondering if you aren't just trying to fog things up.

I have zero issue with completeness. as long as we go all the way and concede that there's no way to ethically study it any better than was done.

And to concede that, given what we know, IQ is mostly genetic, with very minimal environmental impact YET found.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
Why are you bragging about your IQ when you were simply “genetically gifted” it per your own logic? You have done nothing to attain, grow, or maintain it.

Would be like me bragging that I can walk…
That's absolutely true - no one earned their IQ.

But it's also true in all of life and all of what we celebrate.

Some component of any achievement is simply genetics.

98% of us were not going to play professional sports the second we were born. But we still acknowledge that level of excellence.

Hell, we take pride in our sons being "tall" or "big". And there's nothing wrong with it - it is an advantage in life, and no reason a parent shouldn't be happy about it.
 

zubrus1

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2016
399
821
1
That's absolutely true - no one earned their IQ.

But it's also true in all of life and all of what we celebrate.

Some component of any achievement is simply genetics.

98% of us were not going to play professional sports the second we were born. But we still acknowledge that level of excellence.

Hell, we take pride in our sons being "tall" or "big". And there's nothing wrong with it - it is an advantage in life, and no reason a parent shouldn't be happy about it.
Would be great if you chose to use your privilege to educate and not denigrate
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
Would be great if you chose to use your privilege to educate and not denigrate
Look how many times I do just that. My thread on COVID is quite informative.

Earlier threads on global warming, really good.

How about some honest debate from Jeffclear, rather than saying my first post is garbage.

How about you man up and tell JeffClear that my argument is actually pretty good, and he shouldn't call it garbage?

Oh, I get it, your outrage only goes one way.
 
Last edited:

TFBaum

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2020
1,158
1,077
1
Apparently this guy doesn't know much about the Roman Empire.
The eastern half of the empire was the wealthy half and the west was the poorer half.
The East was also more urbane and culturally and racially diverse and was populated by Romans Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, Persians, Africans etc. while the west was almost all white Europeans.
And if you look at the USA, the coasts are the richest, more urbane, and most culturally diverse areas and the "flyover" states are struggling economically.
If you look at the history of the world, the most powerful civilizations had big wealthy cities, usually on the coasts, while landlocked civilizations were poorer and were often conquered by the civilizations with big cities with big seaports.
Believe it or not I agree with you on most of what you wrote except for the fly over comment. I hunt at a friends ranch near Niobara NE. The family that runs the Sportman bar son ran Drag Queen contest in Omaha. They are well aware on immigration issues. And other social issues. They are liberals in supporting those issues they just don’t want DC to dictate. Much like Upper Westside NYC.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
You are convincing no one. 1.22 to 1 is just noise. Is there some significance to getting worse from 1950 to 1970? Of course not.

Furthermore - since then it hasn't moved one whit. That's because it really hasn't moved at all.

It's just noise.

Further, how do you explain the identical twin studies?
You have no argument. The gap is lower since the 1970 than anytime before it. That is not noise.
As for why the gap got worse between 1950 and 70, it could be any number of reasons.
One reason could be WW2 vets returning home got to go to college while few African Americans had that opportunity and the kids of parent who went to college tend to score higher on IQ tests.
As for your twin studies

Evidence of Environmental Influences on Intelligence​

  • Identical twins reared apart have IQ's that are less similar than identical twins reared in the same environment.3
  • School attendance has an impact on IQ scores .5
  • Children who breastfed for 12 months or longer had a higher IQ (about 3.7 points) at age 30.6.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
You have no argument. The gap is lower since the 1970 than anytime before it. That is not noise.
As for why the gap got worse between 1950 and 70, it could be any number of reasons.
One reason could be WW2 vets returning home got to go to college while few African Americans had that opportunity and the kids of parent who went to college tend to score higher on IQ tests.
As for your twin studies

Evidence of Environmental Influences on Intelligence​

  • Identical twins reared apart have IQ's that are less similar than identical twins reared in the same environment.3
  • School attendance has an impact on IQ scores .5
  • Children who breastfed for 12 months or longer had a higher IQ (about 3.7 points) at age 30.6.
The data speaks for itself.

School attendance correlation with IQ is surely that those who are really dumb don't tend to go to school, not that school is making people smarter. It's a self selection bias.

Same thing with breastfeeding - parent IQ probably correlates with breastfeeding....

Really, why do you deny science? Science says, unequivocally, that IQ is mostly genetic.

No serious person disputes this. You are Soooo desperate that you're just linking nonsense. Here's what your linked article says about breastfeeding/IQ correlation:

The association between breastfeeding and child cognitive development is conflicted by studies reporting positive and null effects. Relationship may be confounded by factors associated with breastfeeding, specifically maternal socioeconomic class and IQ [28]. One study states that it was the mother’s IQ that had a significant correlation with the IQ of her offspring, whether the offspring was breastfed or was not breastfed [29]. Another study found that breastfeeding had a positive effect on cognitive development at 24 months of age even after controlling for parental IQ [30,31]. A potential resolution to these different interpretations was proposed in a study showing that breastfeeding was linked to raise IQ if the infants had an SNP coding for a “C” rather than G base within the FADS2 gene. Those with the “G” allele showed no IQ advantage, suggesting a biochemical interaction of child’s genes on the effect of breast feeding [32]. How ever another study support the view that apparent effects of breast-feeding on IQ reflect differential likelihood of breast-feeding as a function of parental education and did not support the predicted interaction effect of FADS2 and breast-feeding on IQ [33]. If there is a genetic predisposition for some babies to benefit more from breastfeeding, current knowledge of genotype-phenotype interactions in general suggests that it is probably polygenic, but more research would be needed to confirm this So it may be concluded that Breast feeding may have some small effect on IQ but the effect may be explained by confounding factors including maternal intelligence.

That certainly doesn't support your case.

Look, I know facts like this are very painful for a person of your belief system. But you have to accept the most likely explanation for all these facts:

IQ is mostly genetic. Nothing will change it.
 
Last edited:

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
6,815
5,451
1

Evidence of Environmental Influences on Intelligence​

  • Identical twins reared apart have IQ's that are less similar than identical twins reared in the same environment.3
  • School attendance has an impact on IQ scores .5
  • Children who breastfed for 12 months or longer had a higher IQ (about 3.7 points) at age 30.6.

Not that I would agree with you on anything political, but this is the kind of thing I would expect. We could add any number of environmental factors. Nourishment and stimulation would seem big to me, as these impact brain development.

Do smarter people provide better nourishment and stimulation? That's seems likely, so there might be a bit of genetics buried into what we would discover by survey of environmental factors, just as we could expect to see, over time, environmental factors driving genetics ...

I had to scroll back to find @PSUEngineer89's post (shown below) to understand his objection to my comments ...

Native Americans were in the stone age because their average IQ is about 90.

Africa is in the stone age today because their average IQ is about 85.

Japan, Germany, UK, and US fought a world war with planes, steel, electricity, and competed to develop the first nuclear weapons because the average IQ in those countries is about 100.

It is harsh, it is unfair, it is unfortunate. I didn't do it, God did it. Or Darwin, or whoever you like. But this pretense that we are all the same is just intellectually dishonest.

That's it.

Nothing else.

Period.

I would agree with @PSUEngineer89's conclusion that there are differences among these groups, to include intelligence, that we observe today.

However, I'll have to remain somewhat of a devil's advocate once again on the point he is trying to "prove." I have to disagree with statements like this one:

Native Americans were in the stone age because their average IQ is about 90.

What has been shown is correlation, which does not establish causation.

..... Perhaps Native Americans handed down customs that did not drive advancement, but instead preserved tradition. Perhaps it wasn't intelligence that held them back from evolving to a higher average IQ. Perhaps they did not want to change. IQ might have been less important (but still a factor) for survival in peace, at least compared to those on a different continent ...

..... Perhaps the European and Asian continents grew in population more rapidly. They might have faced greater competition for land and resources, greater environmental challenges, like vast deserts. The more intelligent groups not only dominated competition (war) with improved weaponry, but had to innovate to survive on scarce resources. Maybe intelligence became more important for survival. Those with higher IQ were more apt to pass on their genes.

In each scenario it wasn't IQ that caused advancement. IQ was the result of survival needs, whether those needs were important or of little consequence.

This is just speculation, of course. No different from the statement highlighted in red above, which seems logical, but not established. I think there is likely some truth to both possibilities, even though they are disparate. It does make sense that a more intelligent group could advance easier, but it is probably the few individuals at the head of the curve that make the largest difference, not the mean average. Maybe standard deviation is the larger impact instead of mean.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
The data speaks for itself.

School attendance correlation with IQ is surely that those who are really dumb don't tend to go to school, not that school is making people smarter. It's a self selection bias.

Same thing with breastfeeding - parent IQ probably correlates with breastfeeding....

Really, why do you deny science? Science says, unequivocally, that IQ is mostly genetic.

No serious person disputes this. You are Soooo desperate that you're just linking nonsense. Here's what your linked article says about breastfeeding/IQ correlation:

The association between breastfeeding and child cognitive development is conflicted by studies reporting positive and null effects. Relationship may be confounded by factors associated with breastfeeding, specifically maternal socioeconomic class and IQ [28]. One study states that it was the mother’s IQ that had a significant correlation with the IQ of her offspring, whether the offspring was breastfed or was not breastfed [29]. Another study found that breastfeeding had a positive effect on cognitive development at 24 months of age even after controlling for parental IQ [30,31]. A potential resolution to these different interpretations was proposed in a study showing that breastfeeding was linked to raise IQ if the infants had an SNP coding for a “C” rather than G base within the FADS2 gene. Those with the “G” allele showed no IQ advantage, suggesting a biochemical interaction of child’s genes on the effect of breast feeding [32]. How ever another study support the view that apparent effects of breast-feeding on IQ reflect differential likelihood of breast-feeding as a function of parental education and did not support the predicted interaction effect of FADS2 and breast-feeding on IQ [33]. If there is a genetic predisposition for some babies to benefit more from breastfeeding, current knowledge of genotype-phenotype interactions in general suggests that it is probably polygenic, but more research would be needed to confirm this So it may be concluded that Breast feeding may have some small effect on IQ but the effect may be explained by confounding factors including maternal intelligence.

That certainly doesn't support your case.

Look, I know facts like this are very painful for a person of your belief system. But you have to accept the most likely explanation for all these facts:

IQ is mostly genetic. Nothing will change it.
Haha you have changed your position. Previously you argued that IQ is completely determined by genes, now you are saying IQ is "mostly" genetic.
And it is probably true that IQ is "mostly" generic because studies have shown it is between 50 to 80 percent genetic.

But even at 80 percent, that is still more than enough to account for the different IQ scores in ethnic groups.
Ethnicity is a subjective construct based on outward physical characteristics and these outward characteristics such as skin color have no more bearing on one's IQ than hair or eye color.
Face it, you are just an old man trying to rationalize your own racism.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
Haha you have changed your position. Previously you argued that IQ is completely determined by genes, now you are saying IQ is "mostly" genetic.
And it is probably true that IQ is "mostly" generic because studies have shown it is between 50 to 80 percent genetic.

But even at 80 percent, that is still more than enough to account for the different IQ scores in ethnic groups.
Ethnicity is a subjective construct based on outward physical characteristics and these outward characteristics such as skin color have no more bearing on one's IQ than hair or eye color.
Face it, you are just an old man trying to rationalize your own racism.
Obviously "All" was an exaggeration.

80% variation within individuals does certainly not allow enough room to account for differences in ethnic groups. Not even close. Go look up IQ by nations.

If it is racist to observe that Asians are slightly smarter than whites, who are smarter than blacks, then yes, I guess I'm a racist.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
Not that I would agree with you on anything political, but this is the kind of thing I would expect. We could add any number of environmental factors. Nourishment and stimulation would seem big to me, as these impact brain development.

Do smarter people provide better nourishment and stimulation? That's seems likely, so there might be a bit of genetics buried into what we would discover by survey of environmental factors, just as we could expect to see, over time, environmental factors driving genetics ...

I had to scroll back to find @PSUEngineer89's post (shown below) to understand his objection to my comments ...



I would agree with @PSUEngineer89's conclusion that there are differences among these groups, to include intelligence, that we observe today.

However, I'll have to remain somewhat of a devil's advocate once again on the point he is trying to "prove." I have to disagree with statements like this one:

Native Americans were in the stone age because their average IQ is about 90.

What has been shown is correlation, which does not establish causation.

..... Perhaps Native Americans handed down customs that did not drive advancement, but instead preserved tradition. Perhaps it wasn't intelligence that held them back from evolving to a higher average IQ. Perhaps they did not want to change. IQ might have been less important (but still a factor) for survival in peace, at least compared to those on a different continent ...

..... Perhaps the European and Asian continents grew in population more rapidly. They might have faced greater competition for land and resources, greater environmental challenges, like vast deserts. The more intelligent groups not only dominated competition (war) with improved weaponry, but had to innovate to survive on scarce resources. Maybe intelligence became more important for survival. Those with higher IQ were more apt to pass on their genes.

In each scenario it wasn't IQ that caused advancement. IQ was the result of survival needs, whether those needs were important or of little consequence.

This is just speculation, of course. No different from the statement highlighted in red above, which seems logical, but not established. I think there is likely some truth to both possibilities, even though they are disparate. It does make sense that a more intelligent group could advance easier, but it is probably the few individuals at the head of the curve that make the largest difference, not the mean average. Maybe standard deviation is the larger impact instead of mean.
I have argued the entire time that survival necessitated change among the Europeans and Asians.
But it wasn't so much from non human environmental conditions but human competition.
Even in the days on ancient civilizations there were vast trading networks between civilizations in Europe, Asia and North Africa.
And advancements in Asia were adopted in Europe and vice versa.
Take the horse for example, the horse was native to North America and Eurasia.
But the North American natives hunted their horses into extinction a long time ago.
But in Eurasia a tribe domesticated them and it gave them a huge advantage over all neighboring tribes and the tribes/civilizations that didn't domesticate the horse were soon killed off by those that didn't.
And the horse became an important weapon of war to all the major ancient civilizations in Europe, Asia and North Africa.
If you look at the globe, North and South America are separated from Europe, Asia and Africa by large bodies of water preventing all but minimal contact with the outside world.
The natives of Australia were also pretty isolated too and were in a similar boat as the North Americans.
All over the world, isolated civilizations tend to be more primitive.
This makes sense, Humans are at the top of the food chain, and nothing pushes humans more than a human competitors.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,494
2,025
1
Not that I would agree with you on anything political, but this is the kind of thing I would expect. We could add any number of environmental factors. Nourishment and stimulation would seem big to me, as these impact brain development.

Do smarter people provide better nourishment and stimulation? That's seems likely, so there might be a bit of genetics buried into what we would discover by survey of environmental factors, just as we could expect to see, over time, environmental factors driving genetics ...

I had to scroll back to find @PSUEngineer89's post (shown below) to understand his objection to my comments ...



I would agree with @PSUEngineer89's conclusion that there are differences among these groups, to include intelligence, that we observe today.

However, I'll have to remain somewhat of a devil's advocate once again on the point he is trying to "prove." I have to disagree with statements like this one:

Native Americans were in the stone age because their average IQ is about 90.

What has been shown is correlation, which does not establish causation.

..... Perhaps Native Americans handed down customs that did not drive advancement, but instead preserved tradition. Perhaps it wasn't intelligence that held them back from evolving to a higher average IQ. Perhaps they did not want to change. IQ might have been less important (but still a factor) for survival in peace, at least compared to those on a different continent ...

..... Perhaps the European and Asian continents grew in population more rapidly. They might have faced greater competition for land and resources, greater environmental challenges, like vast deserts. The more intelligent groups not only dominated competition (war) with improved weaponry, but had to innovate to survive on scarce resources. Maybe intelligence became more important for survival. Those with higher IQ were more apt to pass on their genes.

In each scenario it wasn't IQ that caused advancement. IQ was the result of survival needs, whether those needs were important or of little consequence.

This is just speculation, of course. No different from the statement highlighted in red above, which seems logical, but not established. I think there is likely some truth to both possibilities, even though they are disparate. It does make sense that a more intelligent group could advance easier, but it is probably the few individuals at the head of the curve that make the largest difference, not the mean average. Maybe standard deviation is the larger impact instead of mean.
The mechanism you propose is what is generally accepted.

Those groups in harsher climates had to be smart to survive.

It is simple evolutionary pressure that results in what we are.

Some have postulated that it is actually those at the tail end that drive civilizational advancement - Newton, Galileo, etc.

Devil's advocate really isn't useful. We can always say "Since we weren't actually alive during those times and there's no record, then we really can't say".

Sure that's true, but that's not how science is done.

What's done in situations like these are we resort to "Occam's razor" - that which is MORE likely and LESS likely. And we state explicitly that while a give theory is our best theory, it is far from confirmed and might even be overturned.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
44,735
19,733
1
No but yall need to stop the China schlucking b4 until on the day you were shooting with the Rock ad found out they didnt just blow up carrier bois in Woody Haroldson movies either.
Perhaps your sig pic explains why your posts are such an entertaining mishmash of verbal diarrhea. It appears that you may be hydrocephalic.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
8,530
3,420
1
Obviously "All" was an exaggeration.

80% variation within individuals does certainly not allow enough room to account for differences in ethnic groups. Not even close. Go look up IQ by nations.

If it is racist to observe that Asians are slightly smarter than whites, who are smarter than blacks, then yes, I guess I'm a racist.
It most certainly does.
And IQ by nation is not a good measure. Take Africans as an example, the average IQ scores of recent African immigrants to America would likely be higher than the average African Americans because these recent immigrants are usually well educated and have college degrees.
And the exodus of the educated from their native nations to seek better opportunities in wealthy countries lowers the average IQ scores of their home countries.
Brain drain occurs right here in the US, many of the smart kids who grew up in these poor rural towns go off to college and move away to places that have more economic opportunity.
And look at Native Americans, genetically they are essentially Asians and yet their average IQ score is lower.

Again things like race are based outward physical characteristics and have nothing to do with intelligence and if you think Africans are naturally inferior in intelligence than Europeans and Asians then yes you are likely racist because the science doesn't support your conclusions.