Leo is Wrong About Trump - Accountability Predictions

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

@Nemo28  @JustThinkingAloud

2 minutes ago, JustThinkingAloud said:

 IQ is a skill

Identical twins growing up in different environments (one good, one bad) will score the different scores when they are young.  However, by age 60, their IQs will be identical again

 

53 minutes ago, Nemo28 said:

who cares

Most people would rather hang out with someone 10 IQ points higher than them than 10 IQ points lower than them it turns out, and this could be for a variety of reasons.  IQ correlates with empathy, career success, relationships success, and even body symmetry.

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

9 minutes ago, SgtPepper said:

It is honorable to empathize with the situations of others and to want to help them as if they were your brother or sister.

 

The problem is that people say they want to help - but they want someone else to do it - not themselves.  Since you must have missed this two minute experiment I posted earlier, please watch for your viewing pleasure:

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[possibilities]

IQ in terms of what it attempts to measure is not a skill. Fluid intelligence can be trained (though this doesn’t make it a skill just like muscle strength isn’t a skill even though you can train for increases here) based on my estimations but it’s not at all widely known how to do so effectively and your mentions are not at all near the answer although they’re still definitely good options for stimulation. Probably less than far less than 1% of the population know how to do it so you can be sure that the answer isn’t likely going to be revealed in this thread, it’s certainly never been publicly advertised so I’d avoid false flags here. 

This will be my last comment in this thread, we have a range of people commenting who’s development is quite varied. The standards for discussion are a little higher for me but that’s okay I get it that some are at different stages. All the best.

Edited July 24, 2019 by possibilities

[Extreme Z7]

20 minutes ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

Most people would rather hang out with someone 10 IQ points higher than them than 10 IQ points lower than them it turns out, and this could be for a variety of reasons.  IQ correlates with empathy, career success, relationships success, and even body symmetry.

Substantiate these claims please. That last bit about body symmetry seems especially ridiculous.

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

@Extreme Z7

34 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Substantiate these claims please. That last bit about body symmetry seems especially ridiculous.

 

I read it in a book in the booklist so it wouldn't be fair for me to tell which one. 

It actually makes quite a lot of sense though that people with highly attractive traits would select mates that have highly attractive traits.

That's probably why body symmetry and intelligence correlate

Edited July 24, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

 

Identical twins growing up in different environments (one good, one bad) will score the different scores when they are young.  However, by age 60, their IQs will be identical again

This isn’t accurate. Even if we assume IQ tests are an objective measure of a measureable trait - it’s still inaccurate. 

There are two main inaccuracies;

First, it assumes that environment influences a trait early in life such that genetically identical individuals in two different environments can show different manifestations of a complex trait. This part is true. The part that is false is saying that these same individuals will then show an identical manifestation of a complex trait in a purely genetic mechanism. Thats not how it works. 

Secondly, the statement fails to consider  epigenetics. Even if we assume the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences are identical through the life of the twins, the neurological gene expression profiles of the two twins will be different due to environmental impacts on epigenetics (even without environmental insults to the brain). There will of course be similarities between their gene expression profiles and structure of their neural networks, likely more similarities than non-twins. Yet there will be considerable differences such that it would be inaccurate and misleading to claim they would show an identical manifestation of a complex genetic trait.

As a general comment: I’ve noticed a lot of users in this thread using terms like same/different/identical. These terms can have nuances, for example there can be degrees along continuums as well as relative meaning on context. Saying two things are “the same” can be true in one context and false in another context. A lack of of understanding of this will allow unconscious assumptions and miscommunication. Leo made a video on this titled  “sameness vs difference”. 

[Angelo John Gage]

And there is a genetic/racial basis for it too. As I said. 

This study took black children and put them into white families to see what would happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

Edited July 24, 2019 by Angelo John Gage

[Angelo John Gage]

@ChamberOfReflection  don't feel bad. I stopped voting over a decade ago after Bush sent me to Iraq twice for no reason. I swore never to vote again, then Trump came with all these promises to change the govt. He seemed legit: Why would a billionaire risk his life to be president. He's not part of the establishment. He can't be bought! He will 'drain the swamp" lol. He only CHANGED the swamp. The truth is, people give too much credit to presidents. They cannot do everything they want. We live under an oligarchy that dictates what happens. Neoconservatives run his cabinet. How we aren't at fully war with Iran is interesting, that he keeps pushing back against the war hawks, but that is irrelevant. Its just a matter of time till they figure out a way to dupe him or replace him with someone who will. The second Trump bomb Syria with zero proof at the behest of these insane murderous traitors in govt, I realized he was done. You can tell he is not even the same person who ran for office today. 

I'm a one issue voter and that's stopping the wars which trickle down and destroy everyone; from people across the planet, to our very own. The rest of our issue would solve themselves once we took the funding away from "defense" and use it towards medical, education etc. The only candidate who seems to be serious about that is Tulsi Gabbard, but of course, I do not agree with many other of her policies, and to think that the "deep state" military industrial complex would even allow her to win, would be very naïve of me. If she did miraculously win, she would be checked and balanced out, since our checks and balances are also compromised. She couldn't do anything without a willing congress; the bought off shills will just oppose her in every way.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Angelo John Gage

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

6 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

This isn’t accurate. Even if we assume IQ tests are an objective measure of a measureable trait - it’s still inaccurate. 

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2013-bouchard.pdf

 

Here's a study that shows that heritability of IQ increases with age if you'd like to read through the study.

Edited July 24, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Joseph Maynor]

IQ is an important metric.  Intellect in the Big Five though means something more like the ability to model-build with the mind in a way that solves problems.

[Apparition of Jack]

You know, I'm going to go ahead and say that IQ is a dogshit metric for evaluating humans and could be done away with tomorrow without much detriment to human society.

@GenuinePerspectiveXC You say that most people would prefer to spend time around people with higher IQs. I say "show me the evidence." Remember - IQ tells you nothing about social intelligence or wisdom. Perhaps someone says "would you like to meet this 90 IQ person, or 170 IQ person." You say you want to meet the 170 IQ person. Turns out, they're a black market surgeon who takes pleasure from performing live experiments on kidnapped people and ignoring their cries for help. The 90 IQ person, on the other hand, is a volunteer at their local charity shop who takes pleasure in asking the people they meet their life stories.

And if you're still convinced that IQ is a "reasonable metric for judging people", then that shows you that you simply haven't expanded your level of concern enough, and by relying on it too heavily you will fail to do so. Your goal in life is not to surround yourself with people who will reinforce your views and make you "feel good." Your goal in life is to develop as much compassion and care for as many beings as possible. You should, if you're doing self-actualisation correctly, feel a deep sense of love and concern for a potato stuck in a wheelchair unable to even wipe their own ass. You should feel a deep sense of love and compassion for a literal earthworm. YOU ARE GOD, so you get to decide how much God loves EVERYONE or how much God loves autistic minutia like IQ scores.

 

[Forestluv]

@GenuinePerspectiveXC I didn’t say genetics did not play a role.

First, if one constructs a test that is dependent on development, of course the correlation will strengthen with development.

Second, the twins in that study were raised in similar environments. Of course their traits will have a positive correlation.  Even the authors discuss this in the discussion section. 

Third, twin studies were cutting edge like 70 years ago ? . We have much more advanced technology to study this: such as micro arrays and genome-wide association screens. These would have much stronger statistical power than twin studies.

In terms of twin studies, here is what a genetically-determined trait looks like:

Huntington disease is a neurological disease which manifests in an individual in their 30s. It is a genetic trait, not influenced by environment. You could put one twin in a wonderful environment. And the other twin in an awful environment. They will both always heave Huntington disease.

Other traits have a mixture of genetic and environmental (such as schizophrenia). For twin studies, the key is to put each twin in a DIFFERENT environment, not a similar environment. In this case, one twin would go to a wealthy, loving, nurturing home with a healthy diet, community and school system. The other twin goes into poverty and undergoes, abuse, trauma, malnutrition, poor education, gangs in the community etc. Then do the test and compare how each twin did.

This would be a key experiment in twin studies, yet it is difficult to get a large enough sample size with statistical power. It is unethical to design the experiment by intentionally placing a child into abusive poverty. And this rarely occurs naturally since adoption protocols screen against this.

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

@Serotoninluv 

13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

the neurological gene expression profiles of the two twins will be different due to environmental impacts on epigenetics

Then why would their IQs be closer together as they get older?  You'd think they would get further apart due to environmental factors. 

Besides, that was just a study that debunks your counterclaim - and unfortunately - I don't have access to the original twin study I was referring too.   I think you really got confused by that, sorry I didn't make it clearer.

Edited July 25, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

@Serotoninluv 

Then why would their IQs be closer together as they get older?  You'd think they would get further apart due to environmental factors. 

If one designs a test that is dependent on development, the correlation will get stronger with development. For example, if a test involves abstract thinking, the correlation will be stronger when the twins are 20 than when they were 12, because the prefrontal cortex involved in abstract thinking begins to develop during teenage years. If the researchers used multiple tests for different ages and tried to normalize the tests as one set of IQ comparisons, it is comparing apples to oranges and loses relevance since each age-related test is assaying an age-dependent trait. It’s possible that researchers have designed methodology to address these concerns, yet I didn’t see it in the paper you linked and unaware if others have done so. 

As I’ve already stated, environment didn’t have a big impact because the environments were too similar. Even the authors state this in the discussion. If you want to test environmental impacts you don’t use similar environments. 

The researchers have designed tests that are able to detect a genetic input. Yet how strong the genetic input is was not established in the study due to the environments being similar. Environment has an input, these studies could not pick up the degree of environmental input. Yet the data does suggest that their tests are not highly sensitive to environmental input because slightly different environments did not show a large effect. 

Imagine testing the impact of temperature on iPhone performance. You test one iPhone at 72 degrees and another iPhone at 80 degrees. The phones perform about the same. We can state that minor differences in temperature did not have an effect, yet we cannot say that temperature does not have an effect. We would need to test a wider range of temperatures - for example temperatures ranging from 0 degrees to 110 degrees. The researchers in the article did not do this and it weakens the research. The reason they didn’t do it is because they are not allowed to intentionally place adopted kids into harsh environments. For determining ratios of genetic vs environmental input, twin studies are relatively weak and outdated. It’s like using a microscope from the 1950s. We have much more powerful technology today such as genome-wide association screens. I would recommend doing a search for “intelligence gwas”. I’m sure there have been dozens of studies conducted.

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

7 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

For twin studies, the key is to put each twin in a DIFFERENT environment, not a similar environment

This is exactly my point.  Well into adulthood - which would means in different environments - the IQs are similar.

"The results show that the heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18–20 years of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood. In the aggregate, the studies also confirm that shared environmental influence decreases across age, approximating about 0.10 at 18–20 years of age and continuing at that level into adulthood"

Edited July 25, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Forestluv]

9 hours ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

This is exactly my point.  Well into adulthood - which would means in different environments - the IQs are similar.

"The results show that the heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18–20 years of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood. In the aggregate, the studies also confirm that shared environmental influence decreases across age, approximating about 0.10 at 18–20 years of age and continuing at that level into adulthood"

If you want to test environmental effects on performance on a test, the most important experiment is to change environment. These studies did not do that. These studies look at environmental impact in healthy environments from childhood into adulthood. The environments are not “different”. The authors conclusions you state are based on SHARED environments and the authors stress this point and even ask the reader not to misrepresent the data by considering it to be different environments. 

Have you read the paper and put the conclusion you quote into context? Or did you simply cut and paste a statement from the abstract, assuming you know what it means without reading what the data and authors actually say about it in the paper?

The conversation is not about wether IQ tests are biased toward one person with lots of resources over another person with lots of resources. The conversation is about whether IQ tests are biased toward a person with lots of resources over a person with few resources. The studies did not address that at all and these studies are not applicable to this domain. 

Regarding the studies you link: Neurological maturation follows an internal developmental genetic program that is influenced by the external environment. Different genes are involved at different stages of development. Genetics will interact with the environment to different extents during different stages of development. The article you cite includes studies in which twins were in shared or similar environments. It is saying that within shared or similar environments the genetic program is influenced by the environment to different degrees at different stages of development. This is somewhat interesting, yet not at all surprising. Importantly, the data cannot be extrapolated to more general conclusions that environment does not have considerable influence because these studies were done in a very narrow set of environmental conditions. The authors state:

” It is important to specify the populations to which any results can be generalized and not misinterpret what they mean. The samples were drawn almost exclusively from Western industrial democracies. These settings have characteristic environments. Only a few of the participants were raised in real poverty or by illiterate parents, and all study participants had access to the contemporary educational programs typical of those societies. This is the domain to which we can generalize.”

The data in these studies cannot be extrapolated outside of this narrow domain. Generally, when people discuss the environmental impact on IQ, they are not talking about environmental impact of two people in essentially the same environment. The criticism is to those that are  over-stating the genetic basis of IQ because the tests are biased toward individuals in healthy environments with resources. The discussion isn’t about environmental impact between two people with with lots of resources. It’s about the environmental impact on a person with lots of resources and a person that lacks resources. A person that is in a good environment and a person in a bad environment. The studies you linked do not address this and one cannot make any conclusions within this domain. Doing so is a misrepresentation of the data. The authors themselves ask the reader not to do this.

This was your original statement to which you linked the article:

”Identical twins growing up in different environments (one good, one bad) will score the different scores when they are young.  However, by age 60, their IQs will be identical again”

You are misrepresenting the data of the studies you link in a way the authors themselves specifically asked you not to do. They specifically said the studies did NOT involve different environments of “one good, one bad” and specifically said the studies do not apply to that domain. The authors themselves say that doing so is a misrepresentation of the data. This is directly from the authors of the article you cite! 

 

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

10 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

If you want to test environmental effects on performance on a test, the most important experiment is to change environment.

Yes they did.  They're comparing adult IQ with child IQ.  Those are different environments.  It even said they changed the environments with age.

This is your whole first sentence.  No point in reading the rest if you're already starting off wrong.

 

10 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

”Identical twins growing up in different environments (one good, one bad) will score the different scores when they are young.  However, by age 60, their IQs will be identical again”

My original statement was referring to a different study.  I already told you that, and I said you might be confused.

Edited July 25, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Key Elements]

 

[Forestluv]

On 7/25/2019 at 6:09 PM, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

Yes they did.  They're comparing adult IQ with child IQ.  Those are different environments.  It even said they changed the environments with age.

One needs to be careful with the usage of terms to avoid misrepresentation. One could use the term “environment” to refer to an internal environment within the individual body. In this context, it would be accurate to say the (internal) environment of child is different than the (internal) environment of a adult. However, that is not the context of “environment” in the article you linked. Here, the term environment refers to the external environment outside the body. For example, the home someone lives in, the school system etc. In this context, to use the term environment to refer to internal physiology is a misrepresentation. 

As I quoted, the article you linked specifically said all the studies involved shared or similar environments. If you recontextualize the term “environment” is a misrepresentation of the data.

As well, you are not seeing nuances with the terms “different”, “shared”, “common”, “same” and “similar”. To learn and expand in this area, I would recommend watching Leo’s video titled “Sameness and Difference”. Also his video on recontextualization. 

If you want to write about this study, it is important to use the term in its proper context. Otherwise you are misrrepresting and misleading. Using terms in their proper context is an extremely important component of intellectual honesty. Without proper context, one can misrepresent data to promote a personal agenda and propaganda.

On 7/25/2019 at 6:09 PM, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

My original statement was referring to a different study.  I already told you that, and I said you might be confused.

 Have you read the article you linked? The article you linked is not a primary article. It is a review article that includes a variety of studies conducted by various researchers, including the other study you refer to. The same conclusions apply. Please read the review article you linked and see if includes the other study you are referring to. 

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

 

On 7/26/2019 at 1:24 PM, Serotoninluv said:

As I quoted, the article you linked specifically said all the studies involved shared or similar environments. If you recontextualize the term “environment” is a misrepresentation of the data.

I just read it closer. This is the second sentence of the article:

"We propose to call the phenomenon ‘The Wilson Effect’ and we document the effect diagrammatically with key twin and adoption studies, including twins reared apart, that have been carried out at various ages and in a large number of different settings."

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC