API tools faq
paste
Seneder

Esoterica

Seneder
Dec 28th, 2017
202
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 4.78 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Every 2 years or so they run to the newest biological frontier to either say the current scarcity of (subjectively sufficient) evidence for race realism is itself proof for environmental determinism (many conceptual errors of how science works in there. From science not being about proof but evidence, to saying evidence must fit their current preferred methodology, to suggesting this amounts to falsification and therefore they must provide no evidence for themselves which is a clear appeal to ignorance). Or they just make new variations new variations in a similar combination of the same denials they always made.
  2.  
  3. 1. Underpowered GWAS hasnt found the genes, or has found false positives, so therefore...no genetic aspect to IQ? They jump from "not proven" to "falsified". Which is of course, not evidence for their position and awfully preumptuous. But it also makes the mistake denialists always make. Thinking science is about proof when really it is about evidence. And like Kraut they are running to the newest frontier where the evidence for our position is thin and either citing the lack of evidence as evidence for their position or making the same kinds of denials they always made. The former is pretty easy to show as folly: "prove environmental determinism with your standard of evidence. Oh you cant? Would require too many genes to be looked at? Well I guess we will have to use the social sciences like actual researchers have no issue doing."
  4.  
  5. https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/still-chasing-ghosts-a-new-genetic-methodology-will-not-find-the-missing-heritability/
  6.  
  7. 2, esoteric rephrasing of the "IQ doesnt matter" argument. That its predictive power is meaningless because "test construction" and is just biased. They seriously argue that the IQ test being predictive is just because it is built that way. This being from Ken Richardson presumably
  8. https://twitter.com/Race__Realist/status/946569252580089856
  9. https://twitter.com/Cedarwooded/status/946569693489274880
  10. https://twitter.com/Race__Realist/status/946562682127298560
  11.  
  12. http://greyenlightenment.com/iq-tests-are-not-culturally-biased/
  13. http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx
  14. http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/cultural-bias-on-iq-tests/
  15.  
  16. 3. GxE means were cant figure out what is genetic or how much. So heritability is disproven biologically. Which means the idea that some variance of traits can be down to genetic factors is disproven, despite the whole theory of evolution and all of biology/genetics accepting that genetic factors produce a variance in ability just as environment affects the variance in ability. They arent saying you cant truly know heritability (same for environment btw so why assume that?), they say heritability isnt a real thing with any relevancy
  17.  
  18. When they say "not additive" they mean molecular genetics hasnt proven the pathway to the final phenotypr
  19.  
  20. https://twitter.com/hsu_steve/status/943131775366246400
  21. https://twitter.com/hsu_steve/status/943470159674724352
  22. https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3A%40enderraptor%20heritability&src=typd
  23.  
  24. https://twitter.com/Race__Realist/status/945036100791398400
  25. https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3A%40race__realist%20heritability&src=typd
  26.  
  27. Their resources dont know what heritability even is
  28. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcs.1400/pdf
  29.  
  30. Okay, same goes for environment. All environments are just a subtle reflection of genetic predispositions which are subtle reflections of environment...and so on
  31. http://www.unz.com/jthompson/10-replicants-in-search-of-fame/
  32.  
  33. It is extreme pedantry. Genes are expressed in an environment so genes are always a factor and by definition genes are always responsible for something, even admist the web of gene-on-gene regulation and trait on gene or gene on trait regulation.
  34. https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Traits
  35.  
  36. seriously thought there was something I was too biased to grasp. But nah, they're just generic denialists who know how to be proficient obscurantists
  37.  
  38.  
  39.  
  40. God damn string theorists, not even proven (because it cant be, hasnt been falsified)
  41.  
  42. How can you know if electricity exists, or gravity, without the electrons or gravitons
  43.  
  44. They also have criticisms of twin studies, because natural experiments are often less controlled than they'd like. They are imperfect but researchers know this and try to correct for them (and tbh, the SES of adoptive families being better, doesnt matter that much since heritability of IQ remains constant among SES categories and no meaningful divides in reared apart studies).
  45. And criticisms of the mice knockout studies we have done, because they arent humans. Which is itself hard to do but isnt enough.
  46.  
  47. Basically we need to resort to Nazi-like experiments where we knockout genes in humans and tear kids from their biological parents I guess
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!