I’m amazed you found any.
Guys, IQ has a genetic basis! This is a TOTALLY NEW THING.
Representing the top 0.03 per cent of the ‘intelligence distribution’, these individuals have an IQ of 170 or more – substantially higher than that of Nobel Prize winners, who have an average IQ of around 145.
Genetic research on intelligence consistently indicates that around half of the differences between people can be explained by genetic factors. This study’s unique design, which focused on the positive end of the intelligence distribution and compared genotyping data against more than 3,000 people from the general population, greatly enhanced the study’s power to detect genes responsible for the heritability of intelligence.
Paper geniuses. err… sure, okay, that methodology works I guess... but isn’t it a case of academia proving the benchmark of academia (grading, as SATs are a mathematically acceptable sub for IQ)?
On paper, Obama was a good President.
Did they check other demographic factors, like religion? Nope.
Did they check for any intelligence level above genius? No. Tests do not exist nor apply.
So they’re not even comparing the norm to the BEST, they’re comparing to themselves.
There are no polymaths in academia.
Our research shows that there are not genes for genius. However, to have super-high intelligence you need to have many of the positive alleles and importantly few of the negative rare effects, such as the rare functional alleles identified in our study.’
We’ve mentioned that before around NRx, it’s called the genetic load hypothesis.
I’ll leave this here.
Meanwhile, the people who can do maths are waking up.
TLDR: Stereotyping is MEAN! ….But also accurate?
It’s only prejudice if you ignore the evidence when it arises.
So if you ignore the negative evidence e.g. that guy could kill you, you’re also being prejudiced ( to ‘that guy couldn’t kill me’, the belief held prior to evidence aka The Prior).
‘Educated’ adults are hiding under the blanket from terrorism, hoping it will go away.
Nature tends to cull those people pretty quickly. Ahh, Darwin!
The tone of all these articles is the same: Disregard race, attend education.
Chock full of fallacies. They want censorship, they want suppression. You don’t ignore a factor. Science 101. Nothing is forbidden. This isn’t religion. If you don’t feel comfortable, scientists don’t care.
If HBD were true, what would we see in social science following a Blank Slatist denialism over many, many decades, an academic fraud enforced by regressive speech law?
A reproducibility crisis!
You have to understand that this system is not real, it’s just a game. In real life you have to be straight-up wrong sometimes. So you may as well get it over with.
This whole blog is one big thought experiment. Thanks for tuning in.