QwertyDavid

Next year I'll have to pick something to study. I live in the Netherlands, most of the fees are paid for me by the government, so while I'm not an advocate of this role of the government, if I'm going to pay taxes I might as well make use of the benefits. I have an interest in almost everything(lol). Biology and economics being the main ones. 3 options: Bachelor Biology-> neruology/genetics/evolution and self-study economics and law next to that Double Bachelor economics and law, self-study the biology things (neurology/genetics/evolution) Do a Liberal and Arts study, in which I can combine both subjects in 1 study (double major) I'll also do things on politics, but I'm not going to do that in school, too much left wing ideology here. What would you all recommend?

Yes! Thank you. The best one IMO for now: Lefties are big proponents of inclusivity and tolerance. Yes, you can have those values as a society, but then you can't let in people who are intolerant to other cultures (AKA Islam)

Hello everybody, In a few weeks I'll have to do a debate in class about the refugee crisis, I'm living in the Netherlands, and in contrast to the most of my class, I want to stop the flood of refugees. I want to have a good, objective debate. Any tips for good (non-biased) sources, hopefully good data. Thanks in advance! I'm also of course going to listen to all the FDR podcasts on this, but I couldn't find a study reference list in any of them, so maybe you all have something like that!

That still doesn't take away the fact that they have 2xX, yes one is inactive but it's still there. They still have more genes right?

Would the "best" for society be like this: Mostly K, laws are more K focussed (freedom, small government). But r people are there too but in minority

Wow long reply! Yeah I get what your are saying, it's true that if you want to get the most out of debates, you only debate people smarter than you. If you debate people who don't know anything about a subject, THEY will maybe benefit (most of the times not), but you won't learn anything new. Maybe just don't debate them at all... (Although that would be difficult for Me, I want to debate everything and everyone lol)

I think that if you want to have a productive conversation (which isn't possible with a lot of people), you should make the focus trying to get to the objective truth. If you talk to people who aren't going to do that, I think you just have to work for yourself, if you are getting closer you are the one benefitting, if he is getting more confident of being wrong he isn't benefitting at all of that discussion

Yea that's true but what I mean is this: Imagine a truck going 100 km/h You and your friend are watching it, you say it goes 90 km/h, and your friend says it goes 150 km/h You are closer to the truth, but maybe after talking for a while, he can convince you that the truck may go faster than you think and you change your opinion. Now you say the truck goes 100 km/h, the truth So yea, if he would have said the truck goes 25 m/s it's the same as your 90 km/h but different, but I meant that other one

Like this, but someone may be at the other side and can help you get closer to the red dot

So yes, I know there are other empirical studies proving that IQ is probably mostly genetic, but this is an underlying mechanism which proves it (without even looking at genes).

After finishing all the podcasts on intelligence, I was thinking today: (NB: I talk about VARIATION, not Averages, variation just means the average difference in abilities. So you could have 2x5, the variation is 0 and the average is 5, you could also have 10 and 0, the variation is super high but the average is still 5). There are average differences in traits for men and women, but how does this relate to the variation? (NB 2: You probably need to have some knowledge of genetics AND basic biology) - Women have a higher absolute number of genes coding for abilities (X chromosome is bigger than Y, also recessive X alleles have a higher chance of showing in the phenotype in a man because they just have 1 X) -This is a real genetic difference which is true in every man/women, while there are genetic differences between races, in theory, you could get 2 exactly the same people from different races without those races interbreeding (chances are almost 0, but it's possible in theory, but the X and Y difference will be there for everyone) -Because of that higher number of genes, the female population is more stable. The extreme for every trait is a man (shortest person, fattest person, tallest person, thinnest person, fastest person, strongest person, smartest person, dumbest person (probably) etc....), so if the variation in the male population is bigger, there is almost certainly a genetic component. The question now becomes: How much can the variation tell us? - This can be found in IQ too (male IQ has higher variation) My question/study proposal: We could run a formula like this: Calculate the number of genes in a male (maybe coding for a specific ability, like intelligence) Calculate the number of genes in a female (" ") You would be able to have a ratio of Male genes:Female genes (and calculate the standard deviation of allele frequency), if this ratio is similar in the variation (male variation:female variation), the trait would probably be highly genetic (correct me if I'm wrong) A second question: Is the variation of males and females more similar in more environment based traits? If yes, we don't need to identify all the "intelligence genes", we could just look at the ratio of Male:Female variation, and compare that to other traits. Height variation (height is highly genetic), muscle mass variation (more environment based, you can train your muscles, they'll get bigger), and other ones. If the variation ratio is more similar to that of height IQ will probably be more genetic. So: A study design in which we compare the variation ratio (male variation:female variation) of men and women, would that help us to see which traits are more genetic and which aren't (I think maybe, I don't know what the environment has for an impact on variation, women are more risico averse, so this could also have impact on the variation)

How I see it is like this: Imagine a circle with a small dot in the middle, that dot is "truth" Of complex things almost no one is really at that truth, but some people are closer than others, that doesn't mean that when you are closer you can ignore the rest of the people, if you are almost at the truth, but there is someone at the "other side", maybe he can give you some insights that make you come even closer to the middle. The point of a debate is to get closer to the truth, not to tell everyone that your point on the circle is the truth.

Thank you for your answer! I think you are correct in that, but if I want to use it I have to know it super well I think. There are still some things I don't understand (for example: male vs female, can you compare them in more r/K oriented, females look more r IMO but their sex drive is lower). My problem is: I don't care about feelings in opinions, I just want the facts/truth. If I say A and someone points me to good evidence for B I'll change my opinion, sadly most people don't think like this, took me a long time to figure it out myself, not trying to "win" an argument, but to get closer to the truth is a different approach.

I haven't argued about r/K stuff, Want to learn more first. Can't argue about something I know little about without making mistakes

Yeah, I try sometimes. Shapiro had a video of how to argue with far leftists lol. But I love rationality and a good debate, not this kind of bullshit, but yea if it's the only thing that works :(. Sad that we have to live in a society like this