TronCat

To be fair, The Minnesota Adoption Study has been known to exhibit several methodological flaws: 1) Small samples sizes 2) No controls for parental IQ 3) No controls for material IQ in the mixed-race groupings (as the IQ of offspring most strongly reflects material IQ) The heritability estimates are not the same for all environments. If the environment changed, so would the heritability estimate (to some degree). This has been known to psychometricians for years. Furthermore, the most commonly cited and generally accepted estimate for the heritability of IQ is the APA's estimate of 75% for individuals past adolescence. Their estimate entails that about 75% of the variation in IQ scores within a population is due to genetic factors and not the environment. http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/correlation/intelligence.pdf (p.85) The heritability of IQ in children has ALWAYS been found to be quite small as the genes of children get more expressed as they age (when the heritability of IQ increases dramatically). Heritability estimates of children are not reliable indicators the heritability of IQ for people past adolescence.

I think you should take the time to bolster your genetic argument before you rush into eugenics. Even Stef is not completely oblivious to this idea. He admitted in his latest interview on Adam vs. the Man that the crime rates in black communities is what skews the crime numbers, particularly in homicide. He also brought up Japan, and how its lower crime rate is indicative of its mostly homogeneously Japanese population.

Wow, where did that come from.. Leftfield indeed.. I'm curious to know how this social program could ever happen.. voluntarily? Firstly, the races generally tend to naturally segregate themselves - this can be seen in the demographic population clusters across the world, even in "mixed" and "diverse" countries, like the United States. Also, do you not argue for, and the protection of, property rights?

"Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age. The principal interest of the investigators was on the possible effects of severe malnutrition on later intelligence, and many of these Korean children had been malnourished in infancy. When tested, those who had been severely malnourished as infants obtained a mean IQ of 102; a moderately well-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an adequately nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 110....Neither the social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child's IQ." http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf(P.250) Even the severely malnourished Korean children went on to have an IQ above the national average in America. I'm not making a point about nutrition, I'm making a point about what can and cannot be infered from the heritability statistic. You were making a point about nutrition, considering the differences the diagram displays is in nutrition. Regardless, genes don't come with labels. To infer if a gene is causing something, you must first make a general heritability estimate and THEN estimate the effects of the specific gene. It's the same methodology used for group heritability differences, just at a smaller scale and with equipment that can actually see the genes.

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything. Well I'd rather let him state his viewpoint than keep guessing at it. In Video 3 of his The Fascists that Surround You series, he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment." But I'd still like more detail about this. I thought we were on the verge of getting that earlier in the thread, but now it just keeps growing beyond where TronCat and I were zeroing in on the issue. "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment" Now what I want to know is if he means he's a social/environmental determinist (genes don't have any effect), or if hs admits genes have a role, but that envrionment has a larger role. You have to work very very hard to come up with the interpretation that Stef argues that "genes don't have any effect." You have to ignore every dream interpretation that he's ever done, since he frequently refers to the power of the subconscious as an expression of shared biology. You have to ignore his theory on the origins of the belief in God. You have to ignore everything he's ever said about epigenetics. And you have to ignore his argument that freewill is an emergent property of enormously complex biological processes that are clearly based on genetics. If you pretend he never said any of that for the last 7 years; if you completely drop the context of the history of FDR; then you can barely squeak by with the hint of a whisper that Stef might have suggested that its possible "genes don't have any effect." But, let's pretend for a moment that he did say that. And let's hypothetically accept that he is wrong. Let's further accept he's not just a little off-the-mark, but he is in fact totally backwards. Let's hypothesize that all human aggression is an effect entirely controlled by fundamental genetic makeup. Let's imagine a world in which not only is violence an effect purely of biological determinism, no different than the color of a person's eyes or the shape of his nose, but we also have perfect knowledge of how to identify these biological patterns in any human, from fetus to deathbed. What do you intend to do with that? Obviously violence in society is still a problem, right? So now that you have a perfect and absolute measurement to determine that someone IS GOING TO BE violent, what do you do with that? Do you intend to start breeding programs to weed out the genetic precursors to violence? How would you implement that? Or maybe you could create a program of mandatory abortions for pregnancies where the fetus is identified as a future killer? Or you could create a societal mashup of Gattaca and Minority Report, where the Pre-Psycho division of the police force constantly monitors everyone's genetic material and rounds up and imprisons violent people? Unless you plan on implementing something like this, then it really makes no difference whether the origins of violence are only 1% environmental or 99% environmental -- because the environment is the only part that humans can control. You can't alter the genetic material in your 3 year old's body, but you can stop hitting, yelling at, and lying to your 3 year old. By focusing the question on biology, you focus on the thing you can't change. And so what good is having that answer? Do you simply want to prove that violence is an inevitable and unavoidable aspect of society? If that's your belief, then do you hold true to your values in action? Do you use violence in your normal interactions with people? Do you walk into a store and simply take whatever you want and if you're confronted by someone, beat them until they get out of your way? If so, how's that working out for you? If not, why not? Why don't you live in accordance with your beliefs? Do you fear arrest and imprisonment? Surely you could simply explain to the police that your genetic makeup compelled you to beat the store clerk to a pulp. It's not your fault; it's your selfish genes that beat him, not your free will. How about I propose an alternate theory for why you want to focus on the genetic basis for violence? You see, if violence were caused purely by genetics, then it wouldn't be *anyone's* fault. It wouldn't be a matter of morality any more than skin color or the thickness of someone's hair. And if that were the case, then all the violence in the world; all the pain and cruelty we witness; all the abuse heaped upon you; all the abuse you've inflicted on others; all the misery that will ever be caused by one person aggressing against another -- ALL of it would be forgiven. All the moral questions around violence would simply vanish. Nobody would be evil any more. They would simply be. Nothing would have to change. In fact, the problem of violence in society wouldn't even be a problem any more. We don't have a "problem of gravity in society," do we? It would simply be as inevitable as the tides. And no one would ever have to lift a finger to stop abuse and protect a victim. What an enormous relief that would be! So how can you get that relief? Well, one way might be to find someone who passionately and vigorously argues for volitional consciousness, non-aggression as a universal ethic, and the importance of peaceful relationships between all humans -- particularly between parents and children. Then you could prove him wrong. Sure you might have to completely mischaracterize his position in order to do that; perhaps by labeling him a "determinist" when he's published an ocean of material in support of free will; but so what? The important point is that if you can pin him against the wall and get him to confess that genes control behaviorial outcomes, ah then all weight can be lifted from your shoulders and all responsibility for the actions of people in society is whisked away in the cool breeze of genetic determinism. Nobody ever has to fear making moral choices again! What blessed, blessed relief! I can see why you'd work so very very hard for it. Aww, does natural selection scare you? Because it doesn't follow any particular morality you have come up with? I don't exactly know what the future holds regarding this subject, but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves.

"Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age. The principal interest of the investigators was on the possible effects of severe malnutrition on later intelligence, and many of these Korean children had been malnourished in infancy. When tested, those who had been severely malnourished as infants obtained a mean IQ of 102; a moderately well-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an adequately nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 110....Neither the social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child's IQ." http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf(P.250) Even the severely malnourished Korean children went on to have an IQ above the national average in America.

None of this really considers my question of why it's only white men as a group that are being condemned.

I never claimed they did; I said they have a significant effect. i'm not arguing for genetic determinism. Can you cite the study?

As soon as the "National Women's History Museum" is erected in Washington, every group that is chartered by the government for special privileges will have their own national museum, every 'group' will be represented, EXCEPT for white males. Oh wait, maybe they already are... They're represented in the Holocaust Museum as the perpetrators of a great evil... They're represented in the National Museum of the American Indians as the perpetrators of a great evil... They're going to be represented in the Museum of African American History and Culture as the perpetrators of a great evil... A museum of the history of white men will never be built because the people who are in charge of defining and imposing politically correct "groupism" do not include white men in their definition of diversity. 'Diversity' means to them - everyone EXCEPT for white males. Most of the greatest artists, scientists and philosophers, are white males. These "special" museums are created to pander to a demographic of underachievers and make their paltry accomplishments seem noteworthy, while appeasing to white guilt. What I take issue with, is that the achievements of white men are not viewed as achievements by 'White men' but rather they're viewed as personal achievements or achievements of individuals, unlike the achievements of people among these other demographic groups. 'White men' only exist as an identity group as VILLAINS, that are shamed for their supposed "privilege" in the name of "white guilt". So what's the beef?

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything. Well I'd rather let him state his viewpoint than keep guessing at it. In Video 3 of his The Fascists that Surround You series, he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment." But I'd still like more detail about this. I thought we were on the verge of getting that earlier in the thread, but now it just keeps growing beyond where TronCat and I were zeroing in on the issue. "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment" Now what I want to know is if he means he's a social/environmental determinist (genes don't have any effect), or if hs admits genes have a role, but that envrionment has a larger role.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_of_obesity You do understand that you're actually encouraging my initial argument, correct? hereditarianism and antinutritionism FTW Do not conflate heredity of intelligence/behaviour with obesity/health - even if the latter is genetically suggested, it does not mean it is as much so as the former.

Twin Study on Heritability: http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/1000H/Bouchard.pdf Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/4/148 Variability and stability in cognitive abilities are largely genetic later in life: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01067188 Genetic influences on Human brain structure: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17415783 "Twin studies have shown that genetic effects varied regionally within the brain, with high heritabilities of frontal lobe volumes (90-95%), moderate estimates in the hippocampus (40-69%), and environmental factors influencing several medial brain areas. High heritability estimates of brain structures were revealed for regional amounts of gray matter (density) in medial frontal cortex, Heschl's gyrus, and postcentral gyrus." The areas of the Brain that show high heritability (the frontal lobes, and Gray Matter) have a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, consciousness, analytical thought/thinkng, calculation, distinguishing things, technical skills, creative thought/thinking, imagination, artistry, socializing, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_of_obesity You do understand that you're actually encouraging my initial argument, correct?

This doesn't work, because 'obesity' is not a trait passed on genetically. Are you seriously attempting to deny hereditarianism this way?

I have never seen Stefan claim that he is a social determinist. I have never even seen him claim that genetics are less of a factor in determining violence of a person. Other than what you think his implications are, do you have any proof which shows either of the previous statements' truth? Here's what I've unraveled in my head: Stefan emphasizes the importance of fixing problems which you know you can fix and putting more of your efforts into those areas. Additionally, the development of a child's mind is most influenced in his/her's earlier years (between birth and around 5 years old). Given these assumptions, nonviolent parenting between these years is essential in creating a nonviolent child. Social science causality is merely impossible because of how many variables there are. That's why statisticians come in and eliminate as much bias as they can. That is how I perceive his thoughts on the subject; I asked him to clarify his position in this thread, but he has not done so yet.

Just so you know, I am not a genetic determinist. I just feel that Stefan's thesis on parenting and its connection to human violence and aggression is naive, as it seems t obe of that other radical side - social determinism. I consider myself a hereditarian, and that genetics and social aspects both contribute to our nature - although I have reason to believe that genetics have a more significant effect.

Of course it is inevitable, but I question Stefan's thesis that child abuse and corrupt culture are the absolute reason for violence and aggression in humanity.

Oh, Stefan, I'm sure you could comprehend that we meant to criticize your assumption that child abuse is responsible for most, if not all violence and agression perpetrated by PEOPLE. Yes this is what I meant, Stefan. And this is the view of your beliefs that I have after watching and reading tons of your work. So if it's not actually what you believe, then at the least it should concern you that for some reason this is what I - and apparently others - are perceiving. "most, if not all" Do you understand that these are enormously different positions, and that trying to mix them together is intellectually irresponsible? For instance, if someone says, "most lung cancer is caused by smoking" (80-90% is), that is a defensible position. If someone says, "all lung cancer is caused by smoking," then you only have to find one instance where it was not caused by smoking to disprove the position. To lump the two positions together as if they are interchangeable is to create a silly strawman not really worthy of response. Okay, so can you clarify your positon on parenting and the extent of its connection to violence in society then? Just so I know that I'm not strawmanning you. Because it seems that your position on the matter is close to social determinism.

Yes, indeed it is. Stefan realized that and has replied twice. And I think he would agree that the question of the extent to which child abuse underlies humanity's problems is very important business. That's probably why he has devoted hundreds of hours to discussing it.Yes, indeed. Yes, very important business, indeed. Do you have anything of value to contribute at all to this discussion?

What is it about telling parents to quality-consult with their children, about telling parents to be honest with their children about their knowledge, or lack thereof, of morality, instead of obfuscating and guilting, etc, that is so typical to the Parenting Industrial Complex? Comparing Stefan's parenting advice to the kind that hawks playtime tips, seems like a gross and insulting exaggeration. I think unfortunately TronCat has gotten a few separate topics mixed up in one thread: 1) To what extent is poor parenting at the root of humanity's greatest preventable problems? 2) Analysis of Stefan's particular parenting advice 3) Critique of the influence of cultural Marxism on academia. I would prefer if the thread focused on #1. I feel Stefan has overstated the role of poor parenting, even though I agree it's a crucial aspect of the problem. As for #2 and #3, I would prefer they had separate threads as they're really quite different issues. They are all different issues, but when debating 'nurture vs. nature', and whether or not hereditarianism stands over either genetic determinism and social determinism, it's hard not to consider all these other things in the broader picture.

What is it about telling parents to quality-consult with their children, about telling parents to be honest with their children about their knowledge, or lack thereof, of morality, instead of obfuscating and guilting, etc, that is so typical to the Parenting Industrial Complex? It implictly means to promote the same idea that Stefan promotes; that nurture, culture, and environment are determining factors in the traits a child will develop into adulthood. It does not even begin to consider hereditarianism, at all.

No I haven't, but I'm familiar with it. Overall, of course, we have different theorists that fall all along the spectrum on the nature vs. nurture argument. I think we're a ways away from having solid answers on the topic in most areas. Perhaps, but let us not excuse the influence of cultural Marxism on academia, which continues to push egalitarian assumptions, regardless of evidence. Let us not excuse any form of bias that distracts us from the evidence. I'm just saying that it's clear what the greater bias is, that's all.

No I haven't, but I'm familiar with it. Overall, of course, we have different theorists that fall all along the spectrum on the nature vs. nurture argument. I think we're a ways away from having solid answers on the topic in most areas. Perhaps, but let us not excuse the influence of cultural Marxism on academia, which continues to push egalitarian assumptions, regardless of evidence.

Have you ever read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker?

Oh, Stefan, I'm sure you could comprehend that we meant to criticize your assumption that child abuse is responsible for most, if not all violence and agression perpetrated by PEOPLE.