Anyway, no surprise that the poorer region of Belgium does poorly at
math, also, iirc only the Dutch speaking part has universities.
Also note that his comparison is weird, as he doesn’t include the
german speaking part of belgium, which scores lower than the dutch one,
but above the french one. Clearly this means the Dutch genetics are best
genetics. Whohoo! Oranje boven!
But like, years of education is such a terrible measurement to start with because it is rather dependent on so many cultural factors, not only economic but also what kinds of jobs are offered, the way the system is set up, whether apprenticeships exist and how post-apprenticeship education is coded...
It’s more that ethnocentrism of Belgium isn’t exactly a high profile topic for most people, most Americans probably don’t even know about the language/regional split
The Netherlands is actually the same as Holland but neither of them are related to Belgium. Belgium is the one that’s like France but different/smaller. That’s how I learned it in school anyway.
This is bugging me so I’ll bite:
Belgium is what was once the Southern part of the Netherlands and is culturally linked to both France and the Dutch (in that French and Dutch, or specifically “Flemish” are both widely spoken languages within Belgium, which a significant cultural and political divide between the two groups which shapes much of politics within the country)
Holland is an important province within the Netherlands but does not constitute the whole of the country
Tbh, I'm not even mad, dutch shit is nuts. If I wasn't dutch I would think it all was intentially set up this way just to smugly confuse people and feel better about being ~~a swamp german~~ Dutch.
The oranges are the royalty.
It is all pretty weird, because it (the color) is also a sign of national prode even for people who dont care much about the royalty. Orange streamers next to the dutch flag are not uncommon.
But if you ever see a dutchman with the red part of the flag replaced by orange. Feel free to scream at the [nazi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince%27s_Flag). Just as the term schild and friend in flemish has been taken over by the fasc, so has the prinsen flag.
E: forgot to mention, the prisen flag isn't a sign of fasc when it is used in reinactment. It being used by fasc is a pretty obscure thing, and it is an historical artifact which has vastly different meanings depending on the time. (In this way it is unlike the conservative flag or the swastika).
Forgot to mention before, just make sure they are not a reinactor, or a museum or something, the prinsenflag isn't as bad as the swastika or the confederate flag, it has legit non nazi uses.
But a guy wearing it on a protest is bad.
/u/AcademicAsk5 is explaining to you that it's *not Rationalwiki* that "said it", it's *Kirkegaard himself*.
Also the dude is literally the definition of a hack. Imagine being so incompetent that you found your own journals just so you can publish there lmao
"Most people" have no idea rationalwiki even exists and who it debunks. You need to get your head out of your ass if you think these debates have any relevance beyond the online shitpostosphere.
You understand that arguing that a source's bias is leading it to a wrong conclusion is something that you're supposed to do *after* demonstrating that the conclusion is wrong, yeah? Like, you could probably correctly argue that my left-wing bias is leading me to certain conclusions, but those conclusions would be correct regardless of my personal reasons for believing them. You can only reasonably rail against RW's bias here if you've demonstrated that they're wrong, which they're not, so you can't.
Sure, we're all dumb and you're big brain. Everything Rationalwiki says about Emil is literally true, though, and that's the issue at hand. Do you disagree with anything on that page, or do you just dislike the page itself?
This would all be very insightful if you could actually demonstrate that they're wrong about anything. Without that it's worthless pontificating. Can you seriously not connect the dots here?
>How could you link to a biased website like ratinolwiki
>What? Are you just going to dimmish my source on race and IQ because of it came from a "Biased" researcher, can't you actually debunk it?
This had to happen some time, HBDers always talk about how it is
“Impossible” for genetics isolated populations like africans and
europeans to not develop different intelligence, but they never divided
those groups into even some smaller groups of intellectual superiority,
got to get as many sheep onboard as possible
Yeah, but race "realist" will claim that all europeans are one race and are all cognitively equal as well as superior when compared to africans, they ask how could africans and europeans evolve to have the same IQ but never how could slavs and Iberians could evolve to have the same IQ, it seems unlikely that Slavs and Iberians could evolve to have the same IQ unless, as you love to say" unless you believe evolution stops at the neck."
Edit:Oh god you post on [r/HBD](https://www.reddit.com/r/HBD/)
Sorry, but you are wrong here btw, race realists have all kinds of weird (sometimes contradictory) ways of carving up Europe in better and worse groups of genetic stock.
They love me some vaguely drawn lines on maps. See this : [hbd chick map](https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/religious-divisions-of-europe-map-austrasia-hajnal-line.png?w=300) also see this weird obsession with the hajnal line.
E: but just ignore the racist sealions who were attacking you btw.
That seems to me to be a strawman argument. I have never seen a race realist claim that all europeans have the same IQ.
But, the genetic distance between the european ethnicities is shorter than between euoropeans and africans, so lumping all europeans together as «White» kind of make sense, depending on context. Lumping all africans together as «Black» rarely makes sense, I guess, since the variation is much larger
HBD isn't real and is universally discredited among evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists and population geneticists alike. All the crap psych papers and pseudo-research produced by your clique aren't worth shit and it has been repeatedly destroyed by eminent experts in their fields like Graham Coop, Ewan Birney or Adam Rutherford. That is to say, when said experts have even heard of it in the first place. You know it, Kirkegaard knows it and in fact the entire purpose of the HBD clique is to set up a fake scholarly environment for academia rejects because they couldn't publish in normal journals. You're welcome to prove me wrong and present an HBD talk at a real genetics conference, I'll be looking forward to watching it.
Would that be a linguistics textbook, as it seems to be Kirkegaard's field? Or maybe a psychology textbook written by Lynn? Certainly not a genetics textbook though, I would have remembered the part about the IQ of black people in my graduate studies.
No, but the scientific consensus among intelligence experts is that racial differences in IQ are partly environmental.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1988-snyderman-theiqcontroversythemediaandpublicpolicy.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301886?via%3Dihub#f0015
See that's a nice sleight of hand since the *behavioral genetics* contains the word *genetics* so you'd expect the field to be full of geneticists and be held with the same standard of rigor as other genetics field. Turns out it's just another front for grifting psychologists to push their crap and none of behavioral genetics interfaces with real fields, just like evopsych. And lo, when you ask *population geneticists* (who happen to be actual geneticists) none of them agree with HBD stuff. What a surprise
I expect the field to know shit about genetics + intelligence, since genetics alone can't explain the relationship between race and IQ. Again, this is a cope. Behavioural geneticists/intelligence experts (the people who know both how IQ works and how genetics work) believe the gap is partly genetic.
>behavioural geneticsits/intelligence experts (people who know how genetics works) believe the gap is partly genetic.
And what a more splendid way to show you "know how genetics works" than pointing out something is "partly genetic" without even understanding how that statement makes absolutely no sense without a genetic explanation. Of course, these "experts" have suspiciously been unable to come up with a genetic explanation. "Uuuuh we tried everything we could, we swear we did, must be genes" doesn't count in serious fields.
But if you're sure of yourself go ahead, go and submit an HBD talk at a genetics conference. With covid going on and all I'm pretty sure there won't be travel expenses or attendance fees so it's only a matter of getting your abstract selected. As I said, I'll be looking forward to seeing even just one of those.
You're strawmanning/not understanding the arguments for the gap being genetic. Now, let's leave the expert consensus aside, which agrees with me and disagrees with you. The evidence that the gap is genetic is not only due to the lack of an environmental factor (even though that is evidence). It's got to do with many predictions (SES, heritability, heritability of tests, admixture analysis, Spearman's hypothesis, stability of the gap, etc.). All of these point to the gap being genetic. Hey, at least you admit the environmentalist position was not proven.
\> But if you're sure of yourself go ahead, go and submit an HBD talk at a genetics conference.
Who would ever present an intelligence/behavioural genetics paper at a genetics conference? Wtf is this dumb standard? It's not an argument, that's for sure. It's crying.
You're just repeating yourself. Again, if you knew anything about genetics, you'd know it makes absolutely no sense to try to isolate the "genetic" from the "environmental" part. Seriously, this dichotomy has been outdated for twenty years for geneticists. (Of course, I wouldn't expect psychologists to know about it.) The fact that you think you've successfully ruled out the "environmental" part by a bunch of ad hoc tests that basically say "look I've controlled for stuff" shows you have no idea about the standard of methodology required to establish the genetic determinism behind a complex trait. Hell, apparently you still believe heritability implies genetics lol
>Who would ever present an behavioural genetics paper at a genetics conference?
Idk maybe you shouldn't call yourself a behavioural *geneticist* if you can't defend your argument on *genetics* ground. In fact maybe you shouldn't make any claim about *genetics* if you're unable to come up with a *genetic* explanation and defend it in front of other *geneticists*.
\> You're just repeating yourself. Again, if you knew anything about genetics, you'd know it makes absolutely no sense to try to isolate the "genetic" from the "environmental" part. Seriously, this dichotomy has been outdated for twenty years for geneticists.
I think you need to learn basic BG buddy. You can read this to learn the basics:
[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-9509-3\_9](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-9509-3_9)
>Throughout the history of G×E research, the question of whether or not G×E effects are separable from genetic and environmental main effects has been asked on many occasions. The answer is yes (though it is not necessarily intuitive); G×E effects are meaningfully and actually separable from genetic and environmental effects. Plomin and colleagues explained this elegantly in 1977, making the point that “interactionism,” which they define as the idea that “environmental and genetic threads in the fabric of behavior are so tightly interwoven that they are indistinguishable,” is simply false at the population level. To be clear, it is true that—for an individual— genetic effects cannot be expressed in the absence of an environmental context just as environmental effects necessarily manifest themselves in the context of an organism’s genome. However, at a population level, it is possible to distinguish genetic from environmental effects.
\>The fact that you think you've successfully ruled out the "environmental" part by a bunch of ad hoc tests that basically say "look I've controlled for stuff" shows you have no idea about the standard of methodology required to establish the genetic determinism behind a complex trait. Hell, apparently you still believe heritability implies genetics lol
Me: "We didn't just control for some environmental factors then concluded the gap is genetic"
You: "You just controlled for factors then concluded the gap is genetic"
Try following along buddy.
Your "heritability doesn't imply genetics" attempt debunked what, in 1972 by DeFries, is dealt with in the study I posted and others. Interactions are insignificant in terms of IQ.
\> Idk maybe you shouldn't call yourself a behavioural *geneticist* if you can't defend your argument on *genetics* ground. In fact maybe you shouldn't make any claim about *genetics* if you're unable to come up with a *genetic* explanation and defend it in front of other *geneticists*.
Again, among intelligence experts, the gap is partly genetic. Why would geneticists even give a fuck about IQ? That's not how fields work buddy. Call me in 10 years when trans-racial GWAS are done.
>I think you need to learn basic BG buddy. You can read this to learn the basics
>Your "heritability doesn't imply genetics" attempt debunked what, in 1972 by DeFries, is dealt with in the study I posted and others. Interactions are insignificant in terms of IQ.
Pretty cool how it goes contrary to the entire paradigm of the last 20 years as far as the genetics of complex traits are concerned. Also, love how the next line goes in your textbook:
>For example, if monozygotic twins differ, it is clear that those differences are due to environmental variables, because monozygotic twins share effectively 100 % of their genetic material.
First off, they don't. Keep up with the times and stop quoting books from the 1970s, even "identical" twins have differences, look up copy number variants (CNVs). And second, even assuming they did, this just goes to show you have no idea. People grow literal clones whose full assumed genome is known, in identical, controlled conditions and they may turn out to be different. There are many, many other factors at play than "genes" and your idea of "environment", or your definition of "environment" is so large as to be impossible to control for. I'm frankly astonished by the assurance of psychologists who go on and affirm something is "genetic" when we struggle to prove it for model animals in known conditions.
>Why would geneticists even give a fuck about IQ?
We don't, we just start to give a fuck when you just sort of assume a genetic mechanism exists without evidence. Blather about IQ all you want, just don't don't involve *genetics* in it.
> Pretty cool how it goes contrary to the entire paradigm of the last 20 years as far as the genetics of complex traits are concerned. Also, love how the next line goes in your textbook:
Where is the evidence for this magical paradigm in genetics that says heritability estimates are not valid?
> First off, they don't. Keep up with the times and stop quoting books from the 1970s, even "identical" twins have differences, look up copy number variants (CNVs). And second, even assuming they did, this just goes to show you have no idea. People grow literal clones whose full assumed genome is known, in identical, controlled conditions and they may turn out to be different. There are many, many other factors at play than "genes" and your idea of "environment", or your definition of "environment" is so large as to be impossible to control for. I'm frankly astonished by the assurance of psychologists who go on and affirm something is "genetic" when we struggle to prove it for model animals in known conditions.
You should learn how i.e. twin/adoption studies work. You don't randomly control for variables in an ad hoc fashion. You have twins reared apart and rared together.
> We don't, we just start to give a fuck when you just sort of assume a genetic mechanism exists without evidence. Blather about IQ all you want, just don't don't involve genetics in it.
Heritability is evidence for genetic effects on a trait. I already proved you don't need to "find the genes" with this basic BG textbook. You're welcome for the free lesson.
>Where is the evidence for this magical paradigm in genetics that says heritability estimates are not valid?
The validity of heritability estimates is almost orthogonal to the presence of a genetic mechanism determining a trait.
>You should learn how i.e. twin/adoption studies work. You don't randomly control for variables in an ad hoc fashion. You have twins reared apart and rared together.
So you ignore stuff like prenatal exposure, microbiota, don't account for epigenetic transmission, you sort of assume the environment of twins reared together is equal while the environment of twins raised apart is completely different *and* you conveniently ignored my pointing out that monozygotal twins *do not necessarily have the same genome*. If you studied actual modern genetics instead of reading psychology textbooks from the last century you'd know this.
>Heritability is evidence for genetic effects on a trait
lol
>I already proved you don't need to "find the genes" with this basic BG textbook
Yes you do, otherwise don't call it "genetics". Use another word, it's not that hard.
> The validity of heritability estimates is almost orthogonal to the presence of a genetic mechanism determining a trait.
Heritability shows a genetic influence on a trait. Very basic BG buddy.
> So you ignore stuff like prenatal exposure, microbiota, don't account for epigenetic transmission, you sort of assume the environment of twins reared together is equal while the environment of twins raised apart is completely different and you conveniently ignored my pointing out that monozygotal twins do not necessarily have the same genome. If you studied actual modern genetics instead of reading psychology textbooks from the last century you'd know this.
No, we empirically prove their insignificance, or in some situations their significance. For example, we know transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is very rare. (http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-1.html), prenatal exposure is pretty irrelevant (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-015-9745-3) and EEA may hold or break though it's insignificant. If you knew basic BG instead of these childhood criticisms which you pretend somehow invalidate BG, you would know they have all been dealt with years or decades ago.
> lol
Not an argument.
> Yes you do, otherwise don't call it "genetics". Use another word, it's not that hard.
Learn the basics buddy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability)
> Heritability shows a genetic influence on a trait. Very basic BG buddy.
"Genetic influence" is handwavy. Literally everything that happens in our lives has a genetic influence since we are alive and born from a mother. What I mean to say, over and over again, is that heritability doesn't imply *genetic determinism*.
>No, we empirically prove their insignificance, or in some situations their significance. For example, we know transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is very rare.
You keep pointing at how they don't affect *heritability estimates* but that has little to do with the presence or absence of a *genetic mechanism* and how it could be modulated by prenatal development and/or epigenetics. And again, you are not addressing my pointing out (for the third time) that *monozygotic twins do not necessarily share the same genetic material*.
>not an argument
Ok Molyneux
>Learn the basics buddy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability)
You keep ignoring the same points over and over again. Come back when you do actual genetics instead of whatever blackboxy thing you call a scientific field.
\> "Genetic influence" is handwavy. Literally everything that happens in our lives has a genetic influence since we are alive and born from a mother. What I mean to say, over and over again, is that heritability doesn't imply *genetic determinism*.
Strawmen of genetic determinism. Learn how ACE models work then come back to me.
**For the complex traits that interest behavioral scientists, it is possible to ask not only whether genetic influences are important but also how much genetics contributes to the trait.**
[https://www.amazon.com/Behavioral-Genetics-Robert-Plomin/dp/1429242159](https://www.amazon.com/Behavioral-Genetics-Robert-Plomin/dp/1429242159)
\> You keep pointing at how they don't affect *heritability estimates* but that has little to do with the presence or absence of a *genetic mechanism* and how it could be modulated by prenatal development and/or epigenetics
You don't need to "find the genes". I already taught you this, and proved the insignificance of epigenetics/prenatal environment and you keep walking in circles.
\> And again, you are not addressing my pointing out (for the third time) that *monozygotic twins do not necessarily share the same genetic material*.
They share virtually all DNA, and things like epigenetics are insignificant like I already pointed out. All you do is point out some minor criticism that's been dealt with decades ago, and the answer to which you can find in textbooks, then repeat it ad nauseam like it debunks the field. That's not how it works buddy.
\> Ok Molyneux
cope
\> You keep ignoring the same points over and over again. Come back when you do actual genetics instead of whatever blackboxy thing you call a scientific field.
I already provided you with a BG textbook, so read that then come back to me, instead of evading the arguments.
>For the complex traits that interest behavioral scientists, it is possible to ask not only whether genetic influences are important but also how much genetics contributes to the trait.
Sure, as long as "genetics" doesn't actually designate DNA but just some black box you have no idea about. Got it.
>You don't need to "find the genes". I already taught you this, and proved the insignificance of epigenetics/prenatal environment and you keep walking in circles.
You do, if you want to isolate a *genetic cause* behind a trait.
>They share virtually all DNA
You're dense, aren't you? Instead of posting 70s textbooks just look up current literature on variants *among twins*.
>cope
go back to /pol/
>I already provided you with a BG textbook, so read that then come back to me, instead of evading the arguments.
How about *you* read a basic genetics textbook? Maybe you'd learn about how epistasis fucks up most of your precious models, or maybe you'd learn that twins do not share all their DNA, or that they may carry variants not present in their mothers. Maybe you'd learn that variants may be carried *within the same person and in different tissues*, or maybe you'd learn that differential expression at many points during pre- or post-natal development may lead to dramatically different outcomes and this cannot be simply reduced to "the environment". Our understanding has evolved a bit since your last century textbooks.
> Sure, as long as "genetics" doesn't actually designate DNA but just some black box you have no idea about. Got it.
Again, for the 5th time, you don't need to "find the genes" to find the effects of genes. You're still walking in circles.
> You do, if you want to isolate a genetic cause behind a trait.
No, you don't. Genetic influence is spotted without knowing ANY genes. Hence, we knew the heritability of IQ was .8 since the 60s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability
> You're dense, aren't you? Instead of posting 70s textbooks just look up current literature on variants among twins.
I didn't post any 70s textbooks. I posted a behavioural genetics textbook. Why are you lying?
> go back to /pol/
keep crying
> How about you read a basic genetics textbook?
Why would I read a genetics textbook to learn about behavioural genetics?
> Maybe you'd learn about how epistasis fucks up most of your precious models, or maybe you'd learn that twins do not share all their DNA, or that they may carry variants not present in their mothers. Maybe you'd learn that variants may be carried within the same person and in different tissues, or maybe you'd learn that differential expression at many points during pre- or post-natal development may lead to dramatically different outcomes and this cannot be simply reduced to "the environment". Our understanding has evolved a bit since your last century textbooks.
None of this invalidates heritability or BG. You're doing exactly what I said: bring up some small criticism then pretend it somehow invalidates the whole field. Again, read a BG textbook. I tried to teach you enough.
>Again, for the 5th time, you don't need to "find the genes" to find the effects of genes.
Yes you do, that's literally how genetics works.
>No, you don't. Genetic influence is spotted without knowing ANY genes.
Not knowing ANY genes is more damning against your methodology than proving anything.
>Hence, we knew the heritability of IQ was .8 since the 60s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability
Heritability has little to do with genetic determinism
>keep crying
You love using that word, I wonder why.
>Why would I read a genetics textbook to learn about behavioural genetics?
lol are you serious?
>None of this invalidates heritability or BG. You're doing exactly what I said: bring up some small criticism then pretend it somehow invalidates the whole field. Again, read a BG textbook. I tried to teach you enough.
You don't have idea what any of the things I mentioned are, do you? That's like basic stuff from the last 10 years that invalidated the whole nature-nurture paradigm. You'd know about this if you were an actual working scientist, which you aren't.
The issue with HBD is that it's wrong under the hood; the biology doesn't check out. It may be true that HBDers internally believe that there are significant cognitive differences within subgroups, but it doesn't matter, because all of the intellectual justifications are built on a misunderstanding of neurobiology. The important bit is that when HBDers do policy advocacy, they want to remove and eugenicize racial minorities, but never the supposedly-inferior European sub-subpopulations. The pseudointellectual justifications you give for your real beliefs are not the relevant factor here, and a quick examination of those real beliefs reveals that they're not so nuanced as you're claiming.
>The important bit is that when HBDers do policy advocacy, they want to remove and eugenicize racial minorities, but never the supposedly-inferior European sub-subpopulations.
That's where you're wrong mate, there are plenty of German and Dutch alt-righters seething at Spanish and Italian immigrants, and there's plenty of race science hierarchizing "nordic" over "alpine" or "mediterranean" stock (whatever that means). Of course these squabbles go under the hood when the German alt-right wants to gang up with the Italian alt-right against brown people but they pop right back eventually. You're spot on about the rest of course.
All you can do is strawman (eugenics, removal of minorities, inferiority, exception of white subpopulations) and vague, unsubstantiated claims like "misunderstanding of neurobiology", whatever that means. At least you admit you're being dishonest by having the assumption you're being lied to, and that you know the "real beliefs".
>All you can do is strawman (eugenics, removal of minorities, inferiority, exception of white subpopulations)
Oh, so you don't want any of those things
You must purge your mind of irrational thinking! By which of course I
mean accepting every spurious correlation and constructing an ad hoc
narrative that conforms to them :D This is science, folks!
His hammer is genetics.
Anyway, no surprise that the poorer region of Belgium does poorly at math, also, iirc only the Dutch speaking part has universities.
Also note that his comparison is weird, as he doesn’t include the german speaking part of belgium, which scores lower than the dutch one, but above the french one. Clearly this means the Dutch genetics are best genetics. Whohoo! Oranje boven!
Emil being a Vlaams Belang-esque Flemish supermacist is the most predictable, but esoteric developments of 2020
What and who am I reading
This had to happen some time, HBDers always talk about how it is “Impossible” for genetics isolated populations like africans and europeans to not develop different intelligence, but they never divided those groups into even some smaller groups of intellectual superiority, got to get as many sheep onboard as possible
You must purge your mind of irrational thinking! By which of course I mean accepting every spurious correlation and constructing an ad hoc narrative that conforms to them :D This is science, folks!