I can't understand how intelligence is measurable in a similar way to height. Intelligence is highly trainable, while height isn't. If you don't teach a human to sum or read, they will score very badly in any IQ tests, no matter how intelligent their parents are, right?
Many emotional and preconceived notions as one would expect in a topic like this; however I adjure viewers to watch this with an open mind,noting that Steve is less interested in promoting a particular view than he is in providing a landscape of the current state of research on the topic--which suggests good reason to support many of the mainstream claims of current IQ research. BTW, I was eligible to take part in this study based on the their requirements. but too apathetic to take part.
Well, being intellectually productive is not necessarily linked to a high IQ, there are many smart folks who waste their lives in a very animalistic manner.
What are the intelligent going to do to the unintelligent? We define success using very narrow parameters. Would Beethoven have passed such an IQ exam or would he have been aborted? What about Rosa Parks and the Chinese man who faced a tank in Tianamen square? The nuclear bomb was also created by very intelligent scientists. This study clearly favors the kind of intelligence peculiar to scientists like the one conducting this study. I find it macabre.
@addendum044 We've had no time to evolve since we were able to speak language 200,000 years ago. Population has bottle necked. Whatever deviation of intelligence we are discussing is marginal. They are probably dominated by genes that brought them to a more confident self with little relation to brain function. Geniuses lack scope of thought and have tunnel vision. Einstein failed a lot and was no 35 ACT student.
The claim that there has not been enough time for evolution to act on non-superficial traits is not scientific. First because nonsuperficial traits take no more time to evolve than superficial traits. More importantly, reasonable selection parameters allow for significant differences to arise between populations in 100 years, much less 100,000.
@addendum044 I disagree. 100 years is only 2 to 3 generations. That's like 50 individuals that may have gotten a mutation. Eugenics doesn't exist. It was some rich guy that was trying to justify his wealth when times were bad. If this were real America would be much more civilized and guns would be illegal. Whatever they are finding is marginal.
The mathematics disagrees with you, again, see Harpending's research.
For once, swallow your pride and politics. He illustrates how a 1 SD difference in a hypothetical trait, with a lower additive heritability than intelligence, could evolve in 500 years.
Oh, and don't bother to reply until you've found sources for your claims thanks. Sick of speaking to liberals who believe that they can make naked assertion after naked assertion with no corroborating proof.
I agree. I just think the differences are marginal. The highest capacity problems in physics aren't that hard. We all have the same capacity. It's a simple calculation. This guy sounds a little sadistic and conservative. Probably needs a vacation. What about emotional intelligence? I don't think they have found much and are grabbing at straws. A couple guys from some red state universities and Britain..of all places are not going to change my mind.
>Highest capacity problems in physics aren't that hard
[citation needed]
>We all have the same capacity
[citation needed]
>I don't think they have found much Except 40 years of kinship studies, a decade of GWAS studies. Physiological correlates for g. Predictive Validity of g. Etc
You've provided no evidence, your position is ideological (faith in egalitarianism), not scientific. The position of neurological uniformity is one that requires evidence, it's not default.
@chocobofarmer2021 I hate this thing called 'emotional intelligence', when dumbasses good at communication overtake really smart sociophobes in terms of career and relationships, further contributing to the importance of emotions and shit.
@addendum044 I'll wait to see the new studies. It's much more random. He talks about designer babies with the genius cocktail. I think he's a little sadistic. He needs to think that out more or he's not so intelligent. Seriously.
How is that sadistic? The definition of sadism is the derivation of pleasure from infliction of pain. How does that factor into talking about designer babies?
>He needs to think that out more or he's not so intelligent. Seriously.
Complete red herring. If he were so unintelligent you'd be able to dispute his mathematics and genetics rather than just engaging in the tired old leftist tactic of traducing him.
@addendum044 They should test more SPECIFIC traits. Like memory. I agree the geometries in people's brains are different but to say getting doped by speed to do better is not believable. He's just speculating but it shows where he is coming from. I see students all the time that say "do I have to show the work" and go on whining and do very good on tests. I think they're just little bitches. I could be like that but I pay attention to detail. I didn't HAVE to be super smart. Just smart.
He did, he tested for psychometric g, which is a verifiable trait at a physiological level.
>students
So you're a teacher hm? Makes sense. Typical loser job. And on top of that you feel jealous of smart kids who can pass exams easily. Do you fap to interracial porn too? lol. Fucking loser.
>I didn't HAVE to be super smart
The predictive validity of IQ disagrees with you.
@addendum044 Just saying. The whole cannon of human intellectualism is small. Being the very model of a modern major general is quite within a dumb persons grasp. Even physics is simple if you have a solid foundation. Look at KhanAcademy stories or listen to Chomksyauthors@google. (15:00)Sure we have geniuses in our bureaucracy. Maybe today's intelligence requires social ineptness and that is 90% of the polygenic sequence they found.
Small in comparison to what? Human "intellectualism" (is that even a word?) can only be compared in a 'within' sense, it's not like we have alien species to compare it to.
>Even Physics is simple if you have a solid foundation
You still haven't provided any citations.
>social ineptness and that is 90% of the polygenic sequence they found.
Yes, it's just a coincidence it ties in with all the four decades of physiological/kinship evidence.
@addendum044 I don't think any non retard in the population can't be a theoretical physicist. It's crystal and fluid intellect but the fluid intellect becomes stronger as you understand the minutia of the subject. Sorry for being hypercritical I am very critical when it comes to intelligence. I see a lot of capable people with low self esteem. Religion for example. I bet they found confidence traits peripheral to intelligence. 50%...I don't know what that means.
>but the fluid intellect becomes stronger as you understand the minutia of the subject.
Again, provide a citation.
>I see a lot of capable people with low self esteem.
Are you going to tie this into race? Blacks have the highest self-esteem out of any racial group and the lowest academic achievement. Asians the lowest and the highest academic achievement.
>I bet they found confidence traits peripheral to intelligence.
Furthermore, is it true that races only differ in a few appearance related genes? Nope. We already have this data and it's not true by a long shot.
>In a study of East Asians, Europeans and Africans, Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues found 700 regions of the genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection in recent times. In East Asians, the average date of these selection events is 6,600 years ago.
@addendum044 Say we take this early body of research as correct, how does it justify your racist beliefs?(your comment on interracial porn gives these away)
Almost any population group can be subdivided smaller, after you've killed* off all the blacks, for having an average lower IQ than whites, would you then start killing* off sub-groups of whites who have lower IQ than the average white IQ? At what point would this division and termination stop?
I'm not really a proponent of proactive eugenics, although I believe policies which give rise to dysgenic fertility should be halted.
As for where you draw the line with deportation, that's a matter for debate and people differ in their opinions. I want to maintain a permenant white majority of 95%+ in all Europeans countries, so whatever deportation policies arrive at that outcome. Generally speaking what we need is a minimization of inflow with the maximum of outflow.
@chocobofarmer2021 Nutrition and psychology are environmental variables but they do not have more predictive power of phenotypical traits than heritability. FACT
Mankind can say "We are all created equal" until mankind is blue in his freakin face. Nature does not live by mankind's rules. Mankind must live by Nature's rules and Nature dictates who is and who is not intelligent.
Nobody definitively claims that intelligence is strictly only inherited, and there is not a single word promoting the usage of any intelligence factors that *are* inherited as a basis of discrimination. Every day, people prejudge others based on first impressions, appearance, personal habits, apparent intelligence, etc. I don't see how finding out how genetics influences intelligence somehow supports atheism (I am atheist), evolution, discrimination, or any other of the BS many are spitting out.
Good to see all this renewed interest in eugenetics. Hitler would be proud of you, Google. Not that the world is in need to find solutions for energy and other problems, no. Let's waste more resources in really interesting, Nazi-friendly and China-friendly topics like this one.
@lennyhome Studying the genes for intelligence is not eugenics or Nazism. I hope for your sake you're trolling. This is scientific inquiry that can rightly be called one of the greatest questions of human existence. What exactly makes some individuals talented and other individuals not? In some hypothetical dystopian world, maybe knowledge of these genes would be used for eugenics. But here's the key point: The research itself does not *necessarily* give way to eugenics. It simply reveals truth.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@scimath42 Weren't those the same questions that Nazi scientists wanted to find an answer for using people in concentration camps? Nazis wanted, first of all, to make a better and more productive society. They wanted to eradicate crime and poverty through genetics. And please stop pretending that psychology and psychometrics are part of science. They're not. You're not after truth. You're after a New World Order.
@lennyhome Obviously if you define science as an orderly method of inquiry searching for truth any pursuit of knowledge is science. You though, are too stupid to understand that you are mixing science with politics because you have a personal opinion (an agenda devoid of truth but heavy on personal mental construction using facts selectively to shore it up)
@budoracle Are you saying that, since my intelligence is low, my genes are not worthy? I'm sure that several fine people in Nazi germany would have agreed with you.
@lennyhome It is you who constantly says this. Do you feel inferior because you are not as intelligent as others? These people are doing studies exploring the universe, it is YOU THAT CONSTANTLY ADDS NEGATIVE VALUE TO THIS. Some of the research that the Nazis did is still being used but most of it was done to support their political values. You are against this research because you put a negative value on it missing the point that the research is neutral. But yeah I think you are stupid
@lennyhome You are saying that I want to sterilize you, not me. That is what outs you as a person of lower intelligence. You put words in my mouth thoughts of genocide on scientists holding a neutral exp. These unreasonable fears which are unwarranted by the facts paint you as being a major problem to the freedom of all people. your types being too stupid to reason succumb to gov lies, supporting the very types who bring genocide of the intelligent so that they can work the dumb as slaves.
@budoracle I'm sorry. You wouldn't sterilize me. You would advice me not to have kids. Maybe you would give me some money or some other benefits to not have kids, right? I may be stupid, but you're a monster and I hope some day you'll become intelligent enough to realize this.
@lennyhome Those are the questions they wanted to answer, and their goals. And you might be right that their goals were moral. However, their means were deficient. Their experiments were often immoral; they also decided who was "inferior" based on personal opinion.
Here, we have scientists whose experiments are not painful or subjective. They want to find out what causes intelligence, and genetics clearly plays a part in the brain's development.
@GeekProdigyGuy Listen to yourself. What do you think scientists are? Some kind of gods? I'm sure you do. Oh, right but they aren't physically harming anybody yet, so let them do their thing, right? Let's maybe give them a lot of public money since they also put in a lot of efforts to sound politically correct, right?
@lennyhome Plus, there are no personal views supporting a radical social change, discrimination, or anything of the sort. Point to a single moment in this video where the speaker supports discrimination in any way. If you can't, then it's pretty obvious that you are prejudging (the same way you claim we/he is) others' value and opinions based on the video's title and description.
@GeekProdigyGuy He discriminates on intelligence, which is no different from discriminating on hair, eyes or skin color. And as I said, due to history, I have every right to be prejudicial.
History does not give you the right to prejudge. If it does, maybe I should call out Christianity for the Crusades or all Germans as being Nazis. The past is the past.
Moreover, valuation by intelligence is not discrimination. What can you judge a person by except for their various talents, aptitudes, and character? When you can tell me what you CAN judge a person by, and if this speaker judged by anything else, that's when you have the right to criticize, and definitely not before.
>And please stop pretending that psychology and psychometrics are part of science. They're not.
I'm pretty sure psychology is part of science. It's not as quantitative as physics, but it provides verifiable hypotheses. Psychometrics is scientific: It has duplicability. Test someone's IQ today, and it will be roughly the same in a year.
>You're not after truth. You're after a New World Order.
Well, therein lies the problem. That's why you have a distorted opinion about psychometrics. He's a professor of physics, not a politician, so the "conservative" label doesn't fly. "Absolutely having no idea what he is talking about" is similarly irrelevant.
Very elitist, it doesn't even give a chance to normal people, he is interrested only in big brains, and I've found a missing point : comparison between low and high IQs for quality of life, number of friends, and more.
Now it's normal, it's a domain where we should loose human concept and be like creators, not human.
@IceFritzLanger they are studying one phenotype: raw "intelligence." There are of course other factors to how someone functions such as their motivation and social interaction as he mentioned (I guess you weren't paying attention?)
=) No, I was liostening, but i can't bear the low IQ => poor life, no interest , you'll end up in jail parody he did about low IQs and high ones. Like it's said by Lisa in the Simpsons, the number of friend is the opposite of your IQ, and it's sad, but true. The clevest don't have that much friends, they can't belong with everyone without goofing, I'm worried about genes' tests done when you are born, and I don't want to get a job because my genes told it. like Futurama =)
Also, it would have prove the low number of friends for high IQs, and as I know it, high IQs don't like to loose, and they would, just by displaying those numbers for each category. The speaker has an high IQ, and he knees down when he sees one. He would beg me to do my laundry and would cook me a meal =))
@IceFritzLanger What's wrong about uber-smart men without emotions and friends? They make science instead of partying and boozing. I think it as desirable.
race is a social construct, not intelligence. even official marxist literature (i.e bleeding-heart liberal apparently)recognizes divisions of intelligence among human clusters, though along class lines
@infinummjb - okay, so maybe we have to go to China to do cutting edge research. But we have Jeebus riding dinosaurs in science class, so babam! Beat THAT, China!.
If you want to start your goddamn eugenics projects, then maybe you knuckleheads wouldnt be using LINEAR methods to obtain dimensional minds. STUPID!!! Another blatantly obvious verification to evolution is BLOODTYPING. Why do you think governments wish to keep people with intelligence down?? So they can control us. They dont want Smart slaves. Thats why you here propaganda in Japan about discouraging from mating with B type blood. hieght is a joke. This is dangerous to toy with.
Participating in this study is aiding the Chinese government in manufacturing a new generation of genuises who will overthrow the United States as a leader in innovation and discovery.
@limpviscid Or maybe they are trying to round us up. Maybe they want to kill the Phenomenon gene. They dont need slaves walking around with pre knowing or claiming psychical visions. They know we are a threat to their NWO.
How are we to believe that modern science has pinpointed a PSIONIC gene?? And how are we to draw this into a evolutional aspect when Animals carry these traits. Would it not be evident that precognition is infact a primal gene?? I would love to see the actual double blind studies that claim a PSI gene is an evolutional trait. Considering how it is NOT relevant in a domesticated society. Infact, MKULTRA & Freemason studies have triggered this gene switching in offspring via trauma. This is bad.
Others can be trained to access thru flashback in trauma. A PTSD victim can become aware of this unconscious database, why would it not be practical to learn how to teach others in method. Predeterminations by methods of statistical outcomes, as we do operate in mostly habitual programming. People are predictable, but this sounds like eugenics to me & i cant condone that. Its a bit too evil for my blood. As the ones in power would never allow for humanity to decompartmentalize into PSI.
This sounds real good for me, but i dont play that game. I got really lucky on the Tickle.com test & scored a 180. But to outline precognitive, which i am simply aware of does not outline intelligence. Although i do agree with a factor of right brain operation that has been neglected in modern education. But from my personal understanding of my precognitive dreams is only an ability to be aware of this memory access ability by in a way coming into agreeance with a unconscious database.
This has been flagged as spam show
I can't understand how intelligence is measurable in a similar way to height. Intelligence is highly trainable, while height isn't. If you don't teach a human to sum or read, they will score very badly in any IQ tests, no matter how intelligent their parents are, right?
Zincoontrin 1 month ago
Comment removed
Zincoontrin 1 month ago
Many emotional and preconceived notions as one would expect in a topic like this; however I adjure viewers to watch this with an open mind,noting that Steve is less interested in promoting a particular view than he is in providing a landscape of the current state of research on the topic--which suggests good reason to support many of the mainstream claims of current IQ research. BTW, I was eligible to take part in this study based on the their requirements. but too apathetic to take part.
lmaka1 3 months ago
lol, if I have absolute pitch recognition, so what, can I be dumb then?
arsviatticae 4 months ago
Well, being intellectually productive is not necessarily linked to a high IQ, there are many smart folks who waste their lives in a very animalistic manner.
arsviatticae 4 months ago
101 likes
it is safe... for now
EltBerserker 4 months ago
What are the intelligent going to do to the unintelligent? We define success using very narrow parameters. Would Beethoven have passed such an IQ exam or would he have been aborted? What about Rosa Parks and the Chinese man who faced a tank in Tianamen square? The nuclear bomb was also created by very intelligent scientists. This study clearly favors the kind of intelligence peculiar to scientists like the one conducting this study. I find it macabre.
reverenceforall 5 months ago
Regression to the mean is key. 10% chance of not regressing. That blows eugenics out of the water.
bookbagged 5 months ago
@bookbagged Not really because soon we will have the ability to map the genome of the fetus, don't you think?
reverenceforall 5 months ago
Damn this was my idea for research
007MrYang 5 months ago
Psychometrics is crap but it can be better
007MrYang 5 months ago
Comment removed
mcclanahoochie 6 months ago
really boring
daweiatwork 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021
>GWAS has found NO genetic correlation to intelligence
You really are clueless aren't you? See the recent Deary study.
"Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic."
>realtime malleable
Someone's been drinking the cranial plasticity koolaid again.
addendum044 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago in playlist Videos from GoogleTechTalks
@addendum044 We've had no time to evolve since we were able to speak language 200,000 years ago. Population has bottle necked. Whatever deviation of intelligence we are discussing is marginal. They are probably dominated by genes that brought them to a more confident self with little relation to brain function. Geniuses lack scope of thought and have tunnel vision. Einstein failed a lot and was no 35 ACT student.
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021
The claim that there has not been enough time for evolution to act on non-superficial traits is not scientific. First because nonsuperficial traits take no more time to evolve than superficial traits. More importantly, reasonable selection parameters allow for significant differences to arise between populations in 100 years, much less 100,000.
addendum044 6 months ago
@addendum044 I disagree. 100 years is only 2 to 3 generations. That's like 50 individuals that may have gotten a mutation. Eugenics doesn't exist. It was some rich guy that was trying to justify his wealth when times were bad. If this were real America would be much more civilized and guns would be illegal. Whatever they are finding is marginal.
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021
The mathematics disagrees with you, again, see Harpending's research.
For once, swallow your pride and politics. He illustrates how a 1 SD difference in a hypothetical trait, with a lower additive heritability than intelligence, could evolve in 500 years.
scienceblogs(dot)com/gnxp/2007/08/how_fast_do_gene_frequencies_c.php
addendum044 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021
Oh, and don't bother to reply until you've found sources for your claims thanks. Sick of speaking to liberals who believe that they can make naked assertion after naked assertion with no corroborating proof.
addendum044 6 months ago
I agree. I just think the differences are marginal. The highest capacity problems in physics aren't that hard. We all have the same capacity. It's a simple calculation. This guy sounds a little sadistic and conservative. Probably needs a vacation. What about emotional intelligence? I don't think they have found much and are grabbing at straws. A couple guys from some red state universities and Britain..of all places are not going to change my mind.
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Comment removed
addendum044 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021
>Highest capacity problems in physics aren't that hard
[citation needed]
>We all have the same capacity
[citation needed]
>I don't think they have found much Except 40 years of kinship studies, a decade of GWAS studies. Physiological correlates for g. Predictive Validity of g. Etc
addendum044 6 months ago
@addendum044
>sadistic and conservative
Ad hom.
>red states and britain
Red herring.
>not going to change my mind
You've provided no evidence, your position is ideological (faith in egalitarianism), not scientific. The position of neurological uniformity is one that requires evidence, it's not default.
addendum044 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021 I hate this thing called 'emotional intelligence', when dumbasses good at communication overtake really smart sociophobes in terms of career and relationships, further contributing to the importance of emotions and shit.
arsviatticae 4 months ago
@addendum044 I'll wait to see the new studies. It's much more random. He talks about designer babies with the genius cocktail. I think he's a little sadistic. He needs to think that out more or he's not so intelligent. Seriously.
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021
How is that sadistic? The definition of sadism is the derivation of pleasure from infliction of pain. How does that factor into talking about designer babies?
>He needs to think that out more or he's not so intelligent. Seriously.
Complete red herring. If he were so unintelligent you'd be able to dispute his mathematics and genetics rather than just engaging in the tired old leftist tactic of traducing him.
addendum044 6 months ago
@addendum044 They should test more SPECIFIC traits. Like memory. I agree the geometries in people's brains are different but to say getting doped by speed to do better is not believable. He's just speculating but it shows where he is coming from. I see students all the time that say "do I have to show the work" and go on whining and do very good on tests. I think they're just little bitches. I could be like that but I pay attention to detail. I didn't HAVE to be super smart. Just smart.
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021
>SPECIFIC traits
He did, he tested for psychometric g, which is a verifiable trait at a physiological level.
>students
So you're a teacher hm? Makes sense. Typical loser job. And on top of that you feel jealous of smart kids who can pass exams easily. Do you fap to interracial porn too? lol. Fucking loser.
>I didn't HAVE to be super smart
The predictive validity of IQ disagrees with you.
addendum044 6 months ago
@addendum044 Just saying. The whole cannon of human intellectualism is small. Being the very model of a modern major general is quite within a dumb persons grasp. Even physics is simple if you have a solid foundation. Look at KhanAcademy stories or listen to Chomksyauthors@google. (15:00)Sure we have geniuses in our bureaucracy. Maybe today's intelligence requires social ineptness and that is 90% of the polygenic sequence they found.
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chocobofarmer2021
Small in comparison to what? Human "intellectualism" (is that even a word?) can only be compared in a 'within' sense, it's not like we have alien species to compare it to.
>Even Physics is simple if you have a solid foundation
You still haven't provided any citations.
>social ineptness and that is 90% of the polygenic sequence they found.
Yes, it's just a coincidence it ties in with all the four decades of physiological/kinship evidence.
addendum044 6 months ago
@addendum044 I don't think any non retard in the population can't be a theoretical physicist. It's crystal and fluid intellect but the fluid intellect becomes stronger as you understand the minutia of the subject. Sorry for being hypercritical I am very critical when it comes to intelligence. I see a lot of capable people with low self esteem. Religion for example. I bet they found confidence traits peripheral to intelligence. 50%...I don't know what that means.
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021
>but the fluid intellect becomes stronger as you understand the minutia of the subject.
Again, provide a citation.
>I see a lot of capable people with low self esteem.
Are you going to tie this into race? Blacks have the highest self-esteem out of any racial group and the lowest academic achievement. Asians the lowest and the highest academic achievement.
>I bet they found confidence traits peripheral to intelligence.
[citation needed]
addendum044 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021
See Henry Harpending's research on this.
Furthermore, is it true that races only differ in a few appearance related genes? Nope. We already have this data and it's not true by a long shot.
>In a study of East Asians, Europeans and Africans, Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues found 700 regions of the genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection in recent times. In East Asians, the average date of these selection events is 6,600 years ago.
addendum044 6 months ago
@addendum044 Say we take this early body of research as correct, how does it justify your racist beliefs?(your comment on interracial porn gives these away)
Almost any population group can be subdivided smaller, after you've killed* off all the blacks, for having an average lower IQ than whites, would you then start killing* off sub-groups of whites who have lower IQ than the average white IQ? At what point would this division and termination stop?
*Replace with deportation if that's your thing.
eug1488 5 months ago
@eug1488
I'm not really a proponent of proactive eugenics, although I believe policies which give rise to dysgenic fertility should be halted.
As for where you draw the line with deportation, that's a matter for debate and people differ in their opinions. I want to maintain a permenant white majority of 95%+ in all Europeans countries, so whatever deportation policies arrive at that outcome. Generally speaking what we need is a minimization of inflow with the maximum of outflow.
addendum044 5 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Retardedly slow start. Where we already know that the point is true.
silmaril555 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
I'm short, it must be caused by environment and shit.
darklord220 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021 Nutrition and psychology are environmental variables but they do not have more predictive power of phenotypical traits than heritability. FACT
I'm short mainly because of my genes.
darklord220 6 months ago
Mankind can say "We are all created equal" until mankind is blue in his freakin face. Nature does not live by mankind's rules. Mankind must live by Nature's rules and Nature dictates who is and who is not intelligent.
Tbow088 6 months ago 2
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021 Not better...Just different and diverse. :0)
Tbow088 6 months ago
Nobody definitively claims that intelligence is strictly only inherited, and there is not a single word promoting the usage of any intelligence factors that *are* inherited as a basis of discrimination. Every day, people prejudge others based on first impressions, appearance, personal habits, apparent intelligence, etc. I don't see how finding out how genetics influences intelligence somehow supports atheism (I am atheist), evolution, discrimination, or any other of the BS many are spitting out.
GeekProdigyGuy 6 months ago
@GeekProdigyGuy It's not me who prejudge stuff like this. It's history that does. And I had not doubt you were a radical chic atheist.
lennyhome 6 months ago
Good to see all this renewed interest in eugenetics. Hitler would be proud of you, Google. Not that the world is in need to find solutions for energy and other problems, no. Let's waste more resources in really interesting, Nazi-friendly and China-friendly topics like this one.
lennyhome 6 months ago
@lennyhome Studying the genes for intelligence is not eugenics or Nazism. I hope for your sake you're trolling. This is scientific inquiry that can rightly be called one of the greatest questions of human existence. What exactly makes some individuals talented and other individuals not? In some hypothetical dystopian world, maybe knowledge of these genes would be used for eugenics. But here's the key point: The research itself does not *necessarily* give way to eugenics. It simply reveals truth.
scimath42 6 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@scimath42 Weren't those the same questions that Nazi scientists wanted to find an answer for using people in concentration camps? Nazis wanted, first of all, to make a better and more productive society. They wanted to eradicate crime and poverty through genetics. And please stop pretending that psychology and psychometrics are part of science. They're not. You're not after truth. You're after a New World Order.
lennyhome 6 months ago
@lennyhome Obviously if you define science as an orderly method of inquiry searching for truth any pursuit of knowledge is science. You though, are too stupid to understand that you are mixing science with politics because you have a personal opinion (an agenda devoid of truth but heavy on personal mental construction using facts selectively to shore it up)
budoracle 6 months ago
@budoracle Are you saying that, since my intelligence is low, my genes are not worthy? I'm sure that several fine people in Nazi germany would have agreed with you.
lennyhome 6 months ago
@lennyhome It is you who constantly says this. Do you feel inferior because you are not as intelligent as others? These people are doing studies exploring the universe, it is YOU THAT CONSTANTLY ADDS NEGATIVE VALUE TO THIS. Some of the research that the Nazis did is still being used but most of it was done to support their political values. You are against this research because you put a negative value on it missing the point that the research is neutral. But yeah I think you are stupid
budoracle 6 months ago 7
@budoracle And you would like to find a reason to sterilize me or worse, right?
lennyhome 6 months ago
@lennyhome You are saying that I want to sterilize you, not me. That is what outs you as a person of lower intelligence. You put words in my mouth thoughts of genocide on scientists holding a neutral exp. These unreasonable fears which are unwarranted by the facts paint you as being a major problem to the freedom of all people. your types being too stupid to reason succumb to gov lies, supporting the very types who bring genocide of the intelligent so that they can work the dumb as slaves.
budoracle 6 months ago 8
@budoracle I'm sorry. You wouldn't sterilize me. You would advice me not to have kids. Maybe you would give me some money or some other benefits to not have kids, right? I may be stupid, but you're a monster and I hope some day you'll become intelligent enough to realize this.
lennyhome 6 months ago
@lennyhome Those are the questions they wanted to answer, and their goals. And you might be right that their goals were moral. However, their means were deficient. Their experiments were often immoral; they also decided who was "inferior" based on personal opinion.
Here, we have scientists whose experiments are not painful or subjective. They want to find out what causes intelligence, and genetics clearly plays a part in the brain's development.
GeekProdigyGuy 6 months ago 3
@GeekProdigyGuy Listen to yourself. What do you think scientists are? Some kind of gods? I'm sure you do. Oh, right but they aren't physically harming anybody yet, so let them do their thing, right? Let's maybe give them a lot of public money since they also put in a lot of efforts to sound politically correct, right?
lennyhome 6 months ago
@lennyhome Plus, there are no personal views supporting a radical social change, discrimination, or anything of the sort. Point to a single moment in this video where the speaker supports discrimination in any way. If you can't, then it's pretty obvious that you are prejudging (the same way you claim we/he is) others' value and opinions based on the video's title and description.
GeekProdigyGuy 6 months ago 2
@GeekProdigyGuy He discriminates on intelligence, which is no different from discriminating on hair, eyes or skin color. And as I said, due to history, I have every right to be prejudicial.
lennyhome 6 months ago
@lennyhome
History does not give you the right to prejudge. If it does, maybe I should call out Christianity for the Crusades or all Germans as being Nazis. The past is the past.
Moreover, valuation by intelligence is not discrimination. What can you judge a person by except for their various talents, aptitudes, and character? When you can tell me what you CAN judge a person by, and if this speaker judged by anything else, that's when you have the right to criticize, and definitely not before.
GeekProdigyGuy 6 months ago
@lennyhome
>And please stop pretending that psychology and psychometrics are part of science. They're not.
I'm pretty sure psychology is part of science. It's not as quantitative as physics, but it provides verifiable hypotheses. Psychometrics is scientific: It has duplicability. Test someone's IQ today, and it will be roughly the same in a year.
>You're not after truth. You're after a New World Order.
Okay then.
scimath42 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021 >I didn't watch this.
Well, therein lies the problem. That's why you have a distorted opinion about psychometrics. He's a professor of physics, not a politician, so the "conservative" label doesn't fly. "Absolutely having no idea what he is talking about" is similarly irrelevant.
scimath42 6 months ago 2
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
@chocobofarmer2021 I would be interested to hear what these 'some' of yours have to say about this paper, recently published in Nature:
"Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic"
nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201185a.html
swevensent 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago
Very elitist, it doesn't even give a chance to normal people, he is interrested only in big brains, and I've found a missing point : comparison between low and high IQs for quality of life, number of friends, and more.
Now it's normal, it's a domain where we should loose human concept and be like creators, not human.
IceFritzLanger 6 months ago
@IceFritzLanger they are studying one phenotype: raw "intelligence." There are of course other factors to how someone functions such as their motivation and social interaction as he mentioned (I guess you weren't paying attention?)
"quality of life" is very hard to quantify.
jp3d2k 6 months ago
@jp3d2k
=) No, I was liostening, but i can't bear the low IQ => poor life, no interest , you'll end up in jail parody he did about low IQs and high ones. Like it's said by Lisa in the Simpsons, the number of friend is the opposite of your IQ, and it's sad, but true. The clevest don't have that much friends, they can't belong with everyone without goofing, I'm worried about genes' tests done when you are born, and I don't want to get a job because my genes told it. like Futurama =)
IceFritzLanger 6 months ago
@IceFritzLanger
Also, it would have prove the low number of friends for high IQs, and as I know it, high IQs don't like to loose, and they would, just by displaying those numbers for each category. The speaker has an high IQ, and he knees down when he sees one. He would beg me to do my laundry and would cook me a meal =))
IceFritzLanger 6 months ago
@IceFritzLanger What's wrong about uber-smart men without emotions and friends? They make science instead of partying and boozing. I think it as desirable.
arsviatticae 4 months ago
@arsviatticae
Nothing wrong for me too, but they are not better than average joe =)
This uber smart think he is, that's my point .
Have a nice day.
IceFritzLanger 4 months ago
Rather than see how people can do better, the ignorant see only elitists and react with envy and hate.
Thus is Socialism rationalized.
CurtHowland 6 months ago 3
race is a social construct, not intelligence. even official marxist literature (i.e bleeding-heart liberal apparently)recognizes divisions of intelligence among human clusters, though along class lines
maximummask 6 months ago
liberals told me intelligence was a social construct though
haterdrinkinhaterade 6 months ago 3
Google, this channel is awesome, but please fix the audio. It would make the entire experience way better.
Bionuker 6 months ago 27
Very interesting project but it also shows how fast China is overtaking USA in the innovation game :)
infinummjb 6 months ago
@infinummjb - okay, so maybe we have to go to China to do cutting edge research. But we have Jeebus riding dinosaurs in science class, so babam! Beat THAT, China!.
47f0 6 months ago
BGI - rms would solve the problem by recursion.
someman7 6 months ago
I find it ironic that this video has elicited so many stupid comments.
michalchik 6 months ago 29
@michalchik You said it.
Lanisdor 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is offensive and should be taken down.
coolman9999uk 6 months ago
@coolman9999uk Understanding human mental functioning better is offensive?
michalchik 6 months ago
Amazing audio, as always. <.<
LithiumLogica 6 months ago 4
If you want to start your goddamn eugenics projects, then maybe you knuckleheads wouldnt be using LINEAR methods to obtain dimensional minds. STUPID!!! Another blatantly obvious verification to evolution is BLOODTYPING. Why do you think governments wish to keep people with intelligence down?? So they can control us. They dont want Smart slaves. Thats why you here propaganda in Japan about discouraging from mating with B type blood. hieght is a joke. This is dangerous to toy with.
LendMeYourHand 6 months ago
Participating in this study is aiding the Chinese government in manufacturing a new generation of genuises who will overthrow the United States as a leader in innovation and discovery.
limpviscid 6 months ago
@limpviscid Or maybe they are trying to round us up. Maybe they want to kill the Phenomenon gene. They dont need slaves walking around with pre knowing or claiming psychical visions. They know we are a threat to their NWO.
LendMeYourHand 6 months ago
Comment removed
code933k 6 months ago
How are we to believe that modern science has pinpointed a PSIONIC gene?? And how are we to draw this into a evolutional aspect when Animals carry these traits. Would it not be evident that precognition is infact a primal gene?? I would love to see the actual double blind studies that claim a PSI gene is an evolutional trait. Considering how it is NOT relevant in a domesticated society. Infact, MKULTRA & Freemason studies have triggered this gene switching in offspring via trauma. This is bad.
LendMeYourHand 6 months ago
Others can be trained to access thru flashback in trauma. A PTSD victim can become aware of this unconscious database, why would it not be practical to learn how to teach others in method. Predeterminations by methods of statistical outcomes, as we do operate in mostly habitual programming. People are predictable, but this sounds like eugenics to me & i cant condone that. Its a bit too evil for my blood. As the ones in power would never allow for humanity to decompartmentalize into PSI.
LendMeYourHand 6 months ago
This sounds real good for me, but i dont play that game. I got really lucky on the Tickle.com test & scored a 180. But to outline precognitive, which i am simply aware of does not outline intelligence. Although i do agree with a factor of right brain operation that has been neglected in modern education. But from my personal understanding of my precognitive dreams is only an ability to be aware of this memory access ability by in a way coming into agreeance with a unconscious database.
LendMeYourHand 6 months ago
It will be crowded at princeton and yale when we will be able to kill off all the useless eaters in the womb.
fnyklr 6 months ago
Comment removed
chocobofarmer2021 6 months ago