Search the Community

This morning I an idea that I thought you'd all have an interesting perspective on. It was inspired by misreading the title of an article. Imagine a world where there are people who are genetically modified in respect to having specific genetic qualities selected through an artificial process. In this world there are regular people like all of us and then there are these superior people who are more efficient in every respect from intelligence to good looks and health. How would that make you feel about your own identity? Would you accept your inferiority or would you resent it because the advantage these genetically modified people have over you is a product of artificiality? If these people, through genetic modification naturally had better odds of selecting their desired partner and having success in general would you feel that your strong but unmodified genetic expression (the qualities that compose your organism) was being dominated in a way that severely threatened your ability to thrive? If these modified super humans found regular humans unattractive because of incomparable qualities and naturally the superior humans became segregated from the regular organic humans would the superior humans not have a more prosperous society while we continued to wrestle with the randomness of our own predisposed potential? Would regular humans not feel resentful toward the 'perfect' humans? Would you feel differently if their superiority was due to some kind of external technological fusion like a micro chip that would affect gene expression? A kind of technology that in other words is something that can be removed and that requires human labour post birth to implement. Looking forward to your thoughts! <3

This video helped to remind me that we still have a lot to suss out before we can be sure one way or another about genetics and cultural compatibility:

YouTube Description: Clinical psychologist Jay Joseph details medical science's 30-year failed quest to find any link between genetics and diagnoses of mental disorders, and debunks widely held beliefs in the psychiatric profession, including the idea of 'genetic predispositions' for mental illness. Jay is the author of The Missing Gene: Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes and The Gene Illusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope. http://www.jayjoseph.net/

The theory that smart immigrants from low IQ countries show a propensity to reversion to the mean IQ is inconsistent with the claim that the claim that IQ is 60-80% heritable Problem 1: If it is assumed that IQ is 60-80% heritable, then it follows that a smart immigrant is more likely than not smart by virtue of genetics. This means it is unreasonable to assume that an immigrant from a low IQ country is smart by pure environmental causes. This also means it is more likely than not that the intelligence of the immigrant is a heritable trait that will be passed to offspring. These are forces that resist the claim of reversion to mean. Resolving this contradiction is done either by assuming that (1) IQ is somewhat less than 50% genetic, this would eliminate the bias of inheritance and assure reversion to the mean. (2) if the premise of >50% heritability is kept then reversion to the mean requires additional assumptions like: smart immigrants tend to mate within their group and to randomly with respect to IQ.

Hi all, I heard Stef's podcast with Helmuth Nyborg and started to look into the data myself to confirm what they had been talking about. To give a summary, Professor Nyborg prescribes the advances of Western Civilisation and Democracy to greater IQs amongst the Northern Europeans and predicts that greater immigration from the Middle East will dillute the average IQ in Europe, uses Denmark as an example, and predicts that by 2050 the average IQ of Denmark will fall below 90 and democracy in the country will start to fall apart as democracies do not exist in countries that have an average IQ of below 90. That all sounds plausible and goes a long way to explaining the state of the world. Until you start to look at the data, and this is the bit I'm struggling with and maybe someone on here can show me what I'm missing as I'm seeing more exceptions to the conclusions reached by Professor Nyborg then the opposite. Most sites I found on Google for IQ data by country had similar numbers so I'm trusting sites such as this one as reliable sources of data. Some glaring examples: India has an Avg. IQ of 82 and is one of the largest democracy in the world Democracy in Eastern European countries has only been a recent concept and in the case of countries like Russia, which an Avg. IQ of 97 (similar to USA) democracy is staged and doesn't really exist. And historically Eastern Europe hasn't exactly been a great place to live. China has an Avg. IQ of 100, one of the highest in the world, and they too are no models of democracy or civilisation, just take a look at the Where to be born Index, the Corruption Perception Index, or the Quality of Life index So what's going on here? High IQs make for better countries and better democracies doesn't seem to hold up once you start to look at the numbers worldwide. If you just looked at China and India, they are 35% of the World's population. So 35% of the World's population are in direct conflict with Professor Nyborg's conclusions. Surely this invalidates his conclusions. What am I missing? Abs

The title is a bit of a bait and switch as the speaker only discusses Vitamin D from 5:30 to 12:30. Rhonda also fields a Vitamin D question from the audience at 46:00. No one would actually read this if I called it Nutriogenomics and Epigenetics. Considering that Stefan is very interested in genetic research as it may apply to philosophy, human psychology and child development, Mike should seek out Rhona Patrick for an interview. This is Rhonda's podcast: https://www.youtube.com/user/FoundMyFitness The Barbell Shrugged team also interviewed her. She discusses Vitamin D a bit more in this video, starting at 51:00 to the end of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWa4aJE8YpUt=49:00 Don't forget to get your Vitamin D levels tested! (I just ordered mine.) 70% of Americans do not have adequate levels of Vitamin D in the bloodstream! https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/testkit/

Molyneux spoke with Charles Murray who discussed the genetic component of child development, and others such as Steven Pinker have talked about it at length. There seems to be a need of extreme revision to the original hysteria against spanking. Studies are increasingly showing how parenting style has very little effect on children's development and traits. And most studies thrown around here (or by Molyneux) put emphasis on causality while ignoring potential reverse causality (e.g. people spank because they and their kids have lower IQs, they don't have lowers IQs because of the spanking). Molyneux still tries to cling to his conclusions by associating spanking with other substantial traumas (e.g. starvation, routinely locking a child in a closet of days, etc.) which have shown to be a significant environmental influence. But do studies confirm this similarity? And for what it's worth, I've never been spanked nor am I an aggressive person who will likely ever spank children myself. I think spanking is strange and ineffective, but I'm skeptical of the trauma and negative social effects associated with it.

The Selfish Gene - By Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary----Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453844947&sr=8-1&keywords=selfish+gene The central idea is around evolutionary stable strategy, which lends alot of insight in to r/K selection theory Thought never stated explicitly, what I gathered from it is a genetic based behavior/ethics that is, things wants to perpetuate their existence, there are no evil or righteous in the emotional sense. There are certain gene set that will take advantage of the characteristics of another gene set and increase it's own "existences" at the expense of the existence of that other gene set. However if "righteous" genes begins to dwindle then then entire gene pool suffers and evil genes begins to dwindle. Then "righteous" genes begins to flourish which causes "evil" genes to flourish as well. However this is not a spring back and forth action, but it reaches a equilibrium, with "evil" genes take the smaller percentage and "righteous gene being the majority, until the next evolutionary event occurs which breaks up the entire dynamic. To me this just opened up a whole new way of looking at "evil" of society. Taking emotion out, people are not evil, they are only acting out their genetic instinct to perpetuate their existence. Just like how things falls toward gravity, if there is a way for an individual to live without expending his/her own effort, he/she will walk that way.

This article is a powerful indictment of non-monogamy and its role in the creation of ISIS from the perspective of genetic selection (which the author mislabels "evolutionary theory"). Warning: There is a lot of discussion of extreme violence, especially rape. http://quillette.com/2016/01/07/original-sin-the-sexual-motivation-of-religious-extremists/

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/21/study-of-holocaust-survivors-finds-trauma-passed-on-to-childrens-genes Warning: This is a mix of ranting and observation and sharing personal experience, etc. so I apologize in advance if my thoughts are all over the place. This is one of the many articles you can find about passing on trauma through genes. I am not Jewish but I do live in Israel. This topic has been on my mind lately and now my niece is on a field trip in Poland to visit the Holocaust sites with her class. It's an optional trip, however in high school the kids are taught the Jewish experience of the Holocaust and visit the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, etc. She's sending photos of these sites which are very emotional and haunting. I can tell it's her attempt to connect to the family at a time where she needs her family to be there with her or for her not to be there at all! My kids are still young (1st and 3rd grade) but I have already made up my mind that they will not be visiting these sites with a class or without me. I thought I would chapparone but even that is out of the question. If they want to go, it will be just us, as a family on our own time. I had a suspicion that getting into the details of the holocaust while the kids are in school passes on the trauma. Now, having heard my nieces experience (she is 16), I can tell she is already traumatized AND keep in mind, she is in a foreign country, for the first time, without her parents for a week...which can be difficult enough! Now, you can imagine my legitimate concern added to the scientific research done on the matter (even Israeli media covers this research) is seen by many in Israel as mild nazi'sm or 'concern trolling. I find this highly irresponsible and abusive but of course this is the "jewish" right of passage I guess. I'm not stating this as any judgement because this type of teaching-trauma can occur in any way. This is what the 'black slavery' I believe does to modern black people..... keep hammering on about slavery and suddenly they felt enslaved, etc. I find it frightening and fascinating at the same time. It explains a lot about certain Jewish, especially Israeli behaviors.... especially in context of the current Palestinian conflict. You get the extreme right who just goes into spirals that everyone isagainst them and ...I won't get too much into it now, but in short, but these extreme right that are the biggest drivers behind keeping the Holocaust alive and viscerally palpable, think that if you try to discuss peace and consistancy, that you are a secret terrorist. LIke super weird stuff I can't even describe. They say, "you are a terrorist posting as a peace activist'. I mean... that is a whole level of paranoia I can't even explain. it's a riddle wrapped in a puzzle to understand how these people process information and others who aren't like them. Even to common Israelis they are baffling. I digress. I think this issues of how we can pass on our traumas in our genes either by our behavior from that trauma that is taught or by activating genes in our offspring or by literally TEACHING them the trauma so it feels real and present it hugely underrated. I have tried using this avenue of discussion to see if in my own life I am doing this to any degree unknowingly. But when I speak with others to see if they notice this in their own life or in society as a whole because I think if we can put context to this so people really see it, then it can begin, just like peaceful parenting, undoing a lot of the damage in the world. I am so so sorry that my niece is going through this but there is no way in her situation to even make it a 'bad' thing. They are proud to go through this. Even though it is traumatizing. I can only start with my kids by minimizing the damage and keep our conversations open and frequent. I've already told my hubby that our kids will not be participating with their class on these trips. If later in their life they want to visit these sites, I have no problem whatsoever and we will go together, as a family so we can share the experience and take the time to go at our pace and deal with the emotions together with honor and dignity and care. My niece's trip is 200 children! (some are from the same age group but different schools). I was horrified.... not even on our 'fun' field trips in the US could we get 200 kids, if we included the whole school in the whole county! lol But that many kids for such an emotional, scary, confusing and intensive trip it's outright abuse. And, she is already calling home everyday hysterical and crying and then when she gets home, she will sit for hours with her grandmother who lost 3 relatives in the Holocaust which will hit her stronger in her heart and knowing my mother in law, won't get into the 'how'. It's only the 'what'. My kids will learn the precursors to WWII to put things in context..not that it makes it ok but that's why she's so traumatized. she keeps asking, HOW? HOW? HOW? and no one has any fucking answers for her except: because we are Jews." not because THEY were Jews... but WE...they already put THEMSELVES in the past experience. It's so subtle. I tried once to say.... you know there were a lot of precursors that prepare for a dictator to take over and is preventable if society will read the signs. And I was given death stares and everyone's ears turned deaf...stick to the narrative!! They always say on the Holocaust Memorial Day, "never again'. They say you either have Jews who vow this will never happen again to THEM and you have Jews who vow this will never happen again to ANYONE. That's really true and I try to preach how this can never happen again to anyone and pay attention to economics, recognize propaganda, etc but that's very inconvenient to passing on trauma. If the youths don't feel the trauma, the elders feel the youths will put down their guard and it will happen all over again....which is true because the elders never learned or took the time or allowed anyone else to teach HOW it actually happened in order to read the warning signs. Lastly, don't judge Israel by its leader! lol I've come to the conclusion (and since we are all or mostly anarco-caps here) that when we see a leader of any country, it's probably most accurate to assume that he represents the LOUDEST MINORITY, not the rational majority. I know Democracy is suppose to be the mob rule, but from what I've seen in the 2 countries I've lived in (US and Israel) it's the loudest minority that wins the power seat. ok, I think that's the end of my rant. If anyone has anything to add, please do!