LiveWire Network Peer Answers Peer Support Teen Forums Tech Forums College Forums 299 users online 275513 members 43 active today Advertise Here Sign In
TeenCollegeTechPhotos | Quizzes | LiveSecret | Memberlist | Dictionary | FAQ
You have 1 new message.
Emergency Help
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.

Sign Up Now
Membername:
Password:
Already have an account?
Invite Friends
Active Members
Groups
Contests
Moderators
0 online / 0 MPM
Fresh Topics
  LiveWire / Teen Forums / Science & Business / Viewing Topic

Genes for intelligence discovered
Replies: 26Last Post Jan. 28, 2016 5:45pm by SHOAHizfunny
Welcome to LiveWire!
We're Stronger Together.
Join the Community
Pages: 1 2  Next » Email Print Favorite
( Friendship is Magic  )


Dairy Product Addict

Patron
Reply
Imperial College London finally pinpoints two networks of genes which determine intelligence

Tough break for liberals, who love claiming that everyone can be just as smart as everyone else as long as they're in the "proper" environment

I wonder what the results would show if they examined those genes in Sub-Saharan Africans...

-------
Make America Great Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJ6WYtLgbo


1:20 pm on Dec. 22, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2005 | Days Active: 1,133
Join to learn more about Friendship is Magic Ireland | Transgendered Female | Posts: 6,530 | Points: 33,395
LiveWire Humor
Mother Puncher


Dicky Bitch

Patron
Reply
I wonder what results they'd get if they examined you.

-------
If only I could be so grossly incandescent...

1:25 pm on Dec. 22, 2015 | Joined: July 2010 | Days Active: 759
Join to learn more about Mother Puncher Ireland | Posts: 21,064 | Points: 31,596
Disbelief


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Wow a strawman and miscomprehension packed neatly into three lines. How will the genetically inferior engage?

2:12 pm on Dec. 22, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2015 | Days Active: 271
Join to learn more about Disbelief | Posts: 1,603 | Points: 4,348
( Friendship is Magic  )


Dairy Product Addict

Patron
Reply
Quote: from Disbelief at 5:12 pm on Dec. 22, 2015

Wow a strawman

what strawman? liberals have been claiming for decades that if you throw enough money and good teachers at primarily black schools, that they''ll do as good as any primarily white schools, which failed miserably when put into practice. seemingly refusing to accept the genetic aspect of intelligence


and miscomprehension packed neatly into three lines.

no miscomprehension. just confirming what "politically incorrect" scientists have been saying for a long time, and what liberals hoped would never happen

-------
Make America Great Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJ6WYtLgbo

2:27 pm on Dec. 22, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2005 | Days Active: 1,133
Join to learn more about Friendship is Magic Ireland | Transgendered Female | Posts: 6,530 | Points: 33,395
Disbelief


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
"Liberals say 'x' " is rarely followed up by a politically aware analysis. I know of no serious commentators in this field that contest that there is no link between genetics and intelligence. It may be reasonably argued that we should ignore these differences for a variety of reasons. Hence your strawman and your confusion.

And I had a quick look at the actual paper. Now I'm no scientist but "a gene for intelligence" is not even what the researchers at Imperial are calling it. The study looked at people with neurological disorders, epilepsy for example. This finding is hoped to be a step on the way to curing certain people of such disorders.

Aside from that, "intelligence" in the way you are using it is a complex and philosophically, psychologically, neuro-chemically loaded term. To use that term in such a sweeping way based on one study is, quite frankly, laughable.


3:11 pm on Dec. 22, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2015 | Days Active: 271
Join to learn more about Disbelief | Posts: 1,603 | Points: 4,348
( Friendship is Magic  )


Dairy Product Addict

Patron
Reply
Quote: from Disbelief at 6:11 pm on Dec. 22, 2015

"Liberals say 'x' " is rarely followed up by a politically aware analysis. I know of no serious commentators in this field that contest that there is no link between genetics and intelligence. It may be reasonably argued that we should ignore these differences for a variety of reasons. Hence your strawman and your confusion.

Liberals have been saying for a long time that environment influences intelligence is more than genetics. this isn't an argument for debate


And I had a quick look at the actual paper. Now I'm no scientist but "a gene for intelligence" is not even what the researchers at Imperial are calling it.

tough break, reading comprehension is not your friend

"Our research suggests that it might be possible to work with these genes to modify intelligence"
Dr Michael Johnson, Imperial College London



-------
Make America Great Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJ6WYtLgbo

2:00 pm on Dec. 23, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2005 | Days Active: 1,133
Join to learn more about Friendship is Magic Ireland | Transgendered Female | Posts: 6,530 | Points: 33,395
Disbelief


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Your first point is a blatant misrepresentation or incredibly ironic, given your later (misguided) jibe about reading comprehension. I never said that it was argued that there is no link between intelligence and genetics, I said the degree of influence was debated. That is literally what is laid out in the first line of the abstract of the paper that you linked to.

I'll put it more clearly if you hypothesise that environment influences intelligence more than genetics, you have conceded that genetics has some influence. It is basely fallacious o claim that there is a putative argument that genetics has no impact on intelligence.

To address the second point, the one liner you cited is cute, but entirely consistent with my analysis. The action of 'modifying intelligence' is so broad as to be meaningless, when taken in abstract as you have done. I could modify your intelligence by hitting you over the head with a brick. However, that is clearly not what you are alluding to. I would suggest that given the parameters of the research 'modify intelligence' could be just as reasonably interpreted to mean that an epileptic brain could be restored, to some greater or lesser extent, to normal functionality.

I am not saying that you are wrong, insofar as this may be possible. I am simply noting that you are drawing conclusions beyond the evidence available to you.

And look, I managed to refute or cast reasonable doubt on both of your points without being a tool about it. A lesson to be learned, if there ever was one. As a final point, you did not address my original third point regarding the scope of the term 'intelligence' but that may have been deliberate, given that I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile that point with your analysis without first being more expert in neuro-biology than you clearly are now.


3:35 pm on Dec. 23, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2015 | Days Active: 271
Join to learn more about Disbelief | Posts: 1,603 | Points: 4,348
SHOAHizfunny


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from Disbelief at 2:12 pm on Dec. 22, 2015

Wow a strawman and miscomprehension packed neatly into three lines. How will the genetically inferior engage?

What did the OP misunderstand when the title and hyperlink text is from the news article itself?

If article is misinterpreting scientific research that fault is on the editors/journalists, not the poster for reporting by direct quotation the news article.


5:04 pm on Dec. 23, 2015 | Joined: July 2015 | Days Active: 149
Join to learn more about SHOAHizfunny | Posts: 767 | Points: 2,256
Disbelief


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 5:04 pm on Dec. 23, 2015

Quote: from Disbelief at 2:12 pm on Dec. 22, 2015

Wow a strawman and miscomprehension packed neatly into three lines. How will the genetically inferior engage?

What did the OP misunderstand when the title and hyperlink text is from the news article itself?

If article is misinterpreting scientific research that fault is on the editors/journalists, not the poster for reporting by direct quotation the news article.


Aren't you the same person as the OP? I thought you used this account to give yourself credibility. It's not working, by the way...

But to answer your question. The fact that the article was misrepresented by journalists does not absolve someone from parroting it, clearly it also does not make them right. You don't get to use the excuse of 'the journalist said it so it must have some credibility' it's your responsibility to check your own sources.

I work in law, and the way that the media represents cases are often completely wrong. I read a Supreme Court case recently, where the Daily Mail reported almost the exact opposite of what the judges actually said. Anyone who has any level of expertise in anything knows that there is often a serious disconnect between reporting a finding or notable event and what actually happened.


6:18 am on Dec. 24, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2015 | Days Active: 271
Join to learn more about Disbelief | Posts: 1,603 | Points: 4,348
( Friendship is Magic  )


Dairy Product Addict

Patron
Reply
Quote: from Disbelief at 3:35 pm on Dec. 23, 2015

Your first point is a blatant misrepresentation or incredibly ironic, given your later (misguided) jibe about reading comprehension. I never said that it was argued that there is no link between intelligence and genetics, I said the degree of influence was debated. That is literally what is laid out in the first line of the abstract of the paper that you linked to.  

I'll put it more clearly if you hypothesise that environment influences intelligence more than genetics, you have conceded that genetics has some influence. It is basely fallacious o claim that there is a putative argument that genetics has no impact on intelligence.



you seem to get the idea that i said that liberals believe that every single person could have an IQ of 100 if they were in the "right environment" which isn't what i meant at all.

if you were to map black american and white american IQs, you would find a bell curve, where black IQ averages 85, and white IQ averages 100

what i was referring to was that since leftists believe race to be a "social construct" meaning that they don't believe racial biology exists, they believe that blacks and whites are the same and the racial intelligence gap could be closed purely from environmental circumstances resulting in the black IQ being raised to a 100 average as well.


To address the second point, the one liner you cited is cute, but entirely consistent with my analysis. The action of 'modifying intelligence' is so broad as to be meaningless, when taken in abstract as you have done. I could modify your intelligence by hitting you over the head with a brick.

yeah, because that's exactly what the scientists doing the research are talking about


I am not saying that you are wrong, insofar as this may be possible. I am simply noting that you are drawing conclusions beyond the evidence available to you.  

well, then we shall soon find out how much modifying these genes will affect intelligence


As a final point, you did not address my original third point regarding the scope of the term 'intelligence' but that may have been deliberate, given that I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile that point with your analysis without first being more expert in neuro-biology than you clearly are now.

because it's irrelevant. intelligence being philosophical, chemical, and psychological...those things are largely genetic.
while you agree that intelligence is largely genetic, i do not currently care which of those aspects is most responsible for it.

-------
Make America Great Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJ6WYtLgbo

7:30 am on Dec. 24, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2005 | Days Active: 1,133
Join to learn more about Friendship is Magic Ireland | Transgendered Female | Posts: 6,530 | Points: 33,395
( Friendship is Magic  )


Dairy Product Addict

Patron
Reply
Quote: from Disbelief at 9:18 am on Dec. 24, 2015

Aren't you the same person as the OP?

...really?  

-------
Make America Great Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJ6WYtLgbo

7:32 am on Dec. 24, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2005 | Days Active: 1,133
Join to learn more about Friendship is Magic Ireland | Transgendered Female | Posts: 6,530 | Points: 33,395
Disbelief


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from Friendship is Magic at 7:30 am on Dec. 24, 2015

you seem to get the idea that i said that liberals believe that every single person could have an IQ of 100 if they were in the "right environment" which isn't what i meant at all.

if you were to map black american and white american IQs, you would find a bell curve, where black IQ averages 85, and white IQ averages 100

what i was referring to was that since leftists believe race to be a "social construct" meaning that they don't believe racial biology exists, they believe that blacks and whites are the same and the racial intelligence gap could be closed purely from environmental circumstances resulting in the black IQ being raised to a 100 average as well.


I understood exactly what you were referring to. I suggest you read that point again, because it still applies. To reiterate it in light of what you have just said, if race was totally a social construct, then genetics would have no effect on IQ, wouldn't it?


yeah, because that's exactly what the scientists doing the research are talking about

10/10 for missing the point. Which is impressive given that in literally the next sentance I noted that the brick example was not what was being talked about. I was trying to be as blunt as possible (literally and figuratively) to make the point. Apparently you still missed my brick-shaped point. I suggest you read it again.


well, then we shall soon find out how much modifying these genes will affect intelligence

So you concede that you don't have the data to make the claim in the OP?


because it's irrelevant. intelligence being philosophical, chemical, and psychological...those things are largely genetic.  
while you agree that intelligence is largely genetic, i do not currently care which of those aspects is most responsible for it.

It is not irrelevant at all, and here's why. Firstly, I didn't say that I thought that intelligence was largely genetic. I think it is fairly obvious, from responding to your other points that you have really not grasped what I am saying. All I noted, regarding genetics, is that everybody concedes that genetics plays some role. That is a fairly simple point.

Now to put my suggestion to you again, and I am mindful, given your responses that I will have to do this as clearly as possible, so here goes.

Try to define the term 'intelligence' for yourself, then take that definition and try to think up an experiment to test whether someone is intelligent or not.

One example you may have chosen is something mathematical. It is a fairly common (I think) connection to draw between highly abstracted logical problem solving and a measure of intelligence. It's what IQ tests are largely based on. Now imagine a high-functioning autist doing that test. They may score incredibly well. Are they intelligent?

The answer is yes and no. Clearly they performed well in the test and that kind of problem solving is indicative of some kind of intelligence. However, drawing the inference that any high performance in such a test defines intelligence is to equate the terms. I think it is relatively obvious that this is a mistake on some level.

Consider the same person, a high-functioning autist, in a social situation. A better example may be putting them in a situation where they have to cross-examine a witness in court. This is a skill, that I think we would both agree, takes a high degree of intelligence. But would someone who has a condition which inhibits their ability to read social signs be able to do it as well as someone else? So, on this definition, they are not intelligent.

The point of this thought experiment (and it is a thought experiment, so don't do what every first year undergrad does and attack the hypothetical facts) is to show that there is a real danger of circular reasoning, when you try to define intelligence. It is best to stop using broad terms in these scenarios. Much better to say what has actually been shown by the data than to simply draw sweeping conclusions about intelligence and genetics.


9:20 am on Dec. 24, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2015 | Days Active: 271
Join to learn more about Disbelief | Posts: 1,603 | Points: 4,348
SHOAHizfunny


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from Disbelief at 6:18 am on Dec. 24, 2015

Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 5:04 pm on Dec. 23, 2015

Quote: from Disbelief at 2:12 pm on Dec. 22, 2015

Wow a strawman and miscomprehension packed neatly into three lines. How will the genetically inferior engage?

What did the OP misunderstand when the title and hyperlink text is from the news article itself?

If article is misinterpreting scientific research that fault is on the editors/journalists, not the poster for reporting by direct quotation the news article.


 

Aren't you the same person as the OP? I thought you used this account to give yourself credibility. It's not working, by the way...


That goes to show how much you know.


But to answer your question. The fact that the article was misrepresented by journalists does not absolve someone from parroting it, clearly it also does not make them right. You don't get to use the excuse of 'the journalist said it so it must have some credibility' it's your responsibility to check your own sources.

Really? In what way? Is the OP writing a research paper where primary source material is a requirement?  

And in any event, it is not a case of 'miscomprehension' you previously accused the OP.


I work in law, and the way that the media represents cases are often completely wrong. I read a Supreme Court case recently, where the Daily Mail reported almost the exact opposite of what the judges actually said. Anyone who has any level of expertise in anything knows that there is often a serious disconnect between reporting a finding or notable event and what actually happened.

What is it you do and your educational background, exactly, that makes your disclosure relevant?

You read a Supreme Court case? I'm sure anyone can read a Supreme Court case. How is your 'working in law' relevant to reading Supreme Court cases?

Post edited at 10:13 am on Dec. 24, 2015 by SHOAHizfunny


10:06 am on Dec. 24, 2015 | Joined: July 2015 | Days Active: 149
Join to learn more about SHOAHizfunny | Posts: 767 | Points: 2,256
Disbelief


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 10:06 am on Dec. 24, 2015

Quote: from Disbelief at 6:18 am on Dec. 24, 2015

Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 5:04 pm on Dec. 23, 2015

Quote: from Disbelief at 2:12 pm on Dec. 22, 2015

Wow a strawman and miscomprehension packed neatly into three lines. How will the genetically inferior engage?
 

 What did the OP misunderstand when the title and hyperlink text is from the news article itself?  

 If article is misinterpreting scientific research that fault is on the editors/journalists, not the poster for reporting by direct quotation the news article.


Aren't you the same person as the OP? I thought you used this account to give yourself credibility. It's not working, by the way...


That goes to show how much you know.


But to answer your question. The fact that the article was misrepresented by journalists does not absolve someone from parroting it, clearly it also does not make them right. You don't get to use the excuse of 'the journalist said it so it must have some credibility' it's your responsibility to check your own sources.

Really?  In what way?  Is the OP writing a research paper where primary source material is a requirement?

And in any event, it is not a case of 'miscomprehension' you previously accused the OP.


I work in law, and the way that the media represents cases are often completely wrong. I read a Supreme Court case recently, where the Daily Mail reported almost the exact opposite of what the judges actually said. Anyone who has any level of expertise in anything knows that there is often a serious disconnect between reporting a finding or notable event and what actually happened.

What is it you do and your educational background, exactly, that makes your disclosure relevant?

You read a Supreme Court case?  I'm sure anyone can read a Supreme Court case.  How is your 'working in law' relevant to reading Supreme Court cases?


So you don't think that you have a responsibility to adduce evidence for your claims? I never said that the OP needed to provide primary source data. Isn't a strawman fallacy a wonderful thing? I thought the proposition "understand and back up your claims" should be a relatively uncontroversial one.

As for my qualifications, I'm training to be a lawyer and recently argued my first case. I'm assuming that you are an american, so I tend to say "working in law" or "lawyer" than explain the solicitor/barrister conundrum that half the world seems to be unaware of. Point is, it's my business to understand Supreme Court cases, as you never know when they're going to come in useful.

I'm not saying that only lawyers can read judgements. But proficiency comes, in part, from familiarity. Unless you too, are a lawyer, I can probably say, with no condescension or appeal to authority, that I have read more judgements and cases than you. My profession requires it.

Tell me what it is that you do?


2:58 pm on Dec. 24, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2015 | Days Active: 271
Join to learn more about Disbelief | Posts: 1,603 | Points: 4,348
SHOAHizfunny


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from Disbelief at 2:58 pm on Dec. 24, 2015

Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 10:06 am on Dec. 24, 2015

Quote: from Disbelief at 6:18 am on Dec. 24, 2015

Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 5:04 pm on Dec. 23, 2015

Quote: from Disbelief at 2:12 pm on Dec. 22, 2015

Wow a strawman and miscomprehension packed neatly into three lines. How will the genetically inferior engage?
 

  What did the OP misunderstand when the title and hyperlink text is from the news article itself?  

  If article is misinterpreting scientific research that fault is on the editors/journalists, not the poster for reporting by direct quotation the news article.


   

 Aren't you the same person as the OP? I thought you used this account to give yourself credibility. It's not working, by the way...


 

 That goes to show how much you know.  

 


But to answer your question. The fact that the article was misrepresented by journalists does not absolve someone from parroting it, clearly it also does not make them right. You don't get to use the excuse of 'the journalist said it so it must have some credibility' it's your responsibility to check your own sources.
 

 Really? In what way? Is the OP writing a research paper where primary source material is a requirement?    

 And in any event, it is not a case of 'miscomprehension' you previously accused the OP.  

 


I work in law, and the way that the media represents cases are often completely wrong. I read a Supreme Court case recently, where the Daily Mail reported almost the exact opposite of what the judges actually said. Anyone who has any level of expertise in anything knows that there is often a serious disconnect between reporting a finding or notable event and what actually happened.
 

 What is it you do and your educational background, exactly, that makes your disclosure relevant?  

 You read a Supreme Court case? I'm sure anyone can read a Supreme Court case. How is your 'working in law' relevant to reading Supreme Court cases?


So you don't think that you have a responsibility to adduce evidence for your claims? I never said that the OP needed to provide primary source data. Isn't a strawman fallacy a wonderful thing? I thought the proposition "understand and back up your claims" should be a relatively uncontroversial one.

As for my qualifications, I'm training to be a lawyer and recently argued my first case. I'm assuming that you are an american, so I tend to say "working in law" or "lawyer" than explain the solicitor/barrister conundrum that half the world seems to be unaware of. Point is, it's my business to understand Supreme Court cases, as you never know when they're going to come in useful.

I'm not saying that only lawyers can read judgements. But proficiency comes, in part, from familiarity. Unless you too, are a lawyer, I can probably say, with no condescension or appeal to authority, that I have read more judgements and cases than you. My profession requires it.

Tell me what it is that you do?


No, I think posting a news article to a general audience is sufficient for opening discussion purposes.

I notice you glossed over my point that you incorrectly claimed the OP 'miscomprehended' something.

How does law school work where you are?  Does that mean you've been studying law for 7 years?


6:37 am on Dec. 26, 2015 | Joined: July 2015 | Days Active: 149
Join to learn more about SHOAHizfunny | Posts: 767 | Points: 2,256
Pages: 1 2  Next » Email Print Favorite

Quick Reply

You are signed in as our guest.

Looking for something else?
 

  LiveWire / Teen Forums / Science & Business / Viewing Topic