Do you believe there is a hereditary dimension to intelligence or personality traits?

Claiming otherwise is unscientific. We are made from the 4 base pairs as fish, but we are obviously smarter.
Depends on what you are implying. It is certainly true that some people are limited genetically in their abilities. Some people just are not able to ever achieve the same level of intelligence as others. I know plenty of people from either end of the spectrum. Upbringing and environment have a really big impact on it though. I know someone who just not smart and will never be, but when he spend a week with me and some other highly educated (ie smart) people, he told us he had never learned so much in his life. Intelligence alone doesnt come from your genes, you have to work for it. Nobody is born knowing logic or being able to speak lots of languages.
Unlikely. There is believed to be a genetic bottleneck ~70k years ago, and all humans alive today descend from those 1k-10k humans. The currently accepted out of africa theory states that the first wave (130k years ago) mostly died out, which made it mostly insignificant. The second wave occurred ~50k years ago. I do not think this is significant enough to result in significant enough time for there to develop large differences. The "but they had to plan for winter" idea is bullshit, as african tribes also have to plan a lot due to lack of rain, they breed cattle etc. Tribal life has not had a significant change from africa to europe apart from it being a bit colder, and african cultures did use sewing and whatnot. Agriculture was and was practiced in certain region in subsaharan africa and the first large civilisations (which could be argued promoted intelligence due to larger scale relations and military planning and trade/commerce) started roughly around 14k years ago. Writing was first developed in china 7k years ago.

These small timespans, compared to how long ago the neanderthals split off (160k years), and the surprising amount of ethnic mixing and migrations throughout history, leads me to believe that there isnt a good to reason to assume there is significant difference between population groups. The difference that may or may not exist aren't significant enough to warrant different treatment of ethnic groups as a whole, as all ethnic groups have proven themselves to be capable of higher education when given proper pre-education and living conditions (like those from ethnic groups of prominent civilisations get by default).

polite sage because inevitable poltards.

...

kek
Read an anthropology book published in the last five years.

Oh yeah. It is believed neanderthals were largely capable of the same kind of shit we can, and that they only died out because homo sapiens are more energy efficient and our skeletal structure was better evolved for throwing ranged weapons, while neanderthals relied mostly on close combat and strenght. This allowed homo sapiens to outcompete the neanderthals.

I tried to find a way to formulate it without sounding like a cock, but I think I can safely assume that if I can work my way through university without doing too much work that I am smart, as opposed to people who work much more than I do (like my not-smart friend) but simply don't seem to ever fully get it and only make it through vocational school.

tabula rasa has been debunked by genetic science. the role played by genes and heredity is only going to become more apparent as that science advances. at the same time, however, genetic engineering technology will advance in tow, potentially making heredity totally modifiable and ultimately a non-issue

You presuppose that institutionalized education can test intelligence as such, while in fact it tests specific skill-sets, i.e. reading, writing, mathematics, and even these with a very narrowed-down and non-creative way.

So people have different built-in mental content depending on their genetics? kek

"I was born with the idea of a green cat in my head."

Why dont you give me some quotes. Its not really relevant though since basically all humans descend from the second wave migration that happened 70k years ago.
Call me silly but im not going to take anthropology advice from people who think jews are subhuman.

Since OP is obviously talking about intelligence as it is commonly understood, namely the ability to reason abstractly and shit like that, that you need in your vilified "uncreative" institutions, I think I am still correct. If all my education ever was was simply fact recollection then I would have failed miserably because I am lazy as fuck and not good at plain recollection. I failed all my foreign languages (except english) because all they ever tested on was vocabulary recollection.

I understand that intelligence is more complicated than "I have a degree", but you seem to hold a position that intelligence differences do not exist, which is plain and simply not scientifically correct.

a specific thought or idea is not the same as the cognitive ability required to think it

no modern genetics scientist would accept the notion that human beings are "blank slates." it's just not supportable in the face of what's now known about human genetics

(Not to mention that you are clearly personally motivated to believe that intelligence coincides with one's university performance, and not detecting your own personal bias is not very smert.)

But riddle me this. Is your uni an elite institution? Did it ever occur to you that you are doing so fine "without actually studying, lol" because you are surrounded by an incompetent faculty?

Surely you don't think that your narrow personal experience ("look at me, I'm smart, people around me are dumb") is indicative of anything significant?

Yes, but OP is wrong on many levels. Just because he has wrong ideas I shouldn't share them, nor his premises. I mean… this should be clear on a communist board. Just because OP thinks that the bourg fart out value I'm not going to play his game.

I clearly defined what I mean by intelligence. It should be clear to you how it differs from your "scientific" definition.

Why are Chinese people who grew up in the west totally different to ones who grew up in China?

...

Yes

Yes

Yes, although significance of this is vastly overstated by reactionaries.

You can be a leftist and believe all these things.

Amount of noodles consumed, clearly.

so what term would you prefer?

calling someone a slate is incredibly offensive

is that important?

hugely

political correctness has no relevance to science or biology

Well it certainly isn't fucking hard work. If hard work and effort was the determining factor in your performance then god is playing a cruel joke on my friend who works much harder than I do.

I think you are taking me for a person I am not. This guy just is bad at learning anything or reasoning. We have to explain things twice the normal amounts before he understands it, he doesn't know or understand the most basic stuff. He is slow and bad at learning new concepts and applying them, which is literally the definition of intelligence, and I tend to perform better at quickly learning and applying new knowledge than he is. I gladly use my time to get him to understand it too, because he can understand it too, it just takes a lot more work, which means I can learn more in the same amount of time. I don't give a fuck about some clown ass degree, I am only getting one because I need one to get a nice job, and learning something along the way is just a nice benefit. You will be hard pressed to find someone who has more disdain for people who think they are better just because they are smarter or whatever other trait they base their elitism on. Intelligence is only one part of what makes a person, and I would take a not smart nice person over a smart mean person any day.

Mate you can get worked up all you want but I am not going to take your blank slate stuff seriously. It goes against everything that is understood by science in biology and evolution. If all humans were genetical clones, you would be right, but we aren't and genetics DO affect your mental capacity.

Sage because you are being a cunt and insulting me.

The same was said about Picasso, Bohr, and many others.

Intelligence can have many definitions. It is especially fishy when a certain field tries to portray its own as the only correct one, because it is motivated (just like all definitions). What this ultimately achieves is setting normative standards based on the most general observations, ruling out possible alternative ways of discussing the topic, and making its instrumental category appear superior to non-instrumental ones.

"Look, if I go by with my definition of intelligence, I can measure it. Can you do that? No? Then clearly my definition is superior."

I didn't say I agreed with the "blank slate."

I'm insulting your… intelligence?!

Don't call people slates.

no

Spoken like a typical slate.

Ah the old "if I refuse to give a definition I am always right" tactic. Fuck off. This kind of tactic makes it impossible to ever discuss anything because it all results in "oh but actually these definitions of words, which are supposed to encode concepts and agreed upon by pretty much anyone, are wrong and therefore you are wrong". You just try to shift the discussion from "is intelligence partially genetic" to "what is intelligence", which is unproductive because you can keep moving this goalpost forever. Why do you care, why do you presume that having a higher [some catagory] is better, hm? Maybe by my definition the best kind of human is a mentally disabled triple amputee. I will not slip into this shitty trap mate, its Holla Forums tier arguing. You can't just bud into an argument and then cop by making the argument about the semantics of the subject that two people who are not you were talking about.

hmmm, whats this. oh its you

No you are saying that I am an elitist because I can see that my friend is slower than I am which is impossible and excellent according to you, which makes you morally superior and allows you to feel good about yourself.

lel, the second post ITT

You are contradicting yourself right now.
Which you said and is exactly what you do. You dismiss the definition of intelligence that me and OP agreed upon, assert your own as correct and declare yourself the victor. But you don't even give a fucking definition for intelligence. You gave a definition of learning and knowledge, and said that "everybody with a 'functioning' phenotype (whatever convenient thing for you, you may define functioning as) has the same intelligence" without saying what it is. You then proceed to imply that it is the ability to learn and apply new knowledge, which is the exact definition I gave you.

So either you can give me a definition of intelligence or you can fuck off, because I am not going to agree with your blank slate preposition. I am also not in the mood at all for debating the blank slate hypothesis (IE ''everybody has the same intelligence and it is just a question how you utilize it"), simply because to me it feels even more retarded than debating race realists, since blank slate is just as provably false as flat earth. Good night.

There may be a hereditary dimension to certain things that are generally associated with "intelligence", but it's also a hugely cultural area of human development as well.

Some words don't mean what you think they do.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

Good thing I am not using the words tabula rasa then. You see, I am actually an antfucker who tries to win arguments over semantics. When I said blank slate I actually meant the concept that all humans are born equally with equal ability to perform any task giving the same conditions, like you claim is the truth, not the concept that people are born with innate mental knowledge.

yes
no
no

The idea that beliefs and values are hereditary is absolute nonsense, people cannot be genetically predisposed toward an idea they have not conceived or heard of. Attempts to link political orientation and biology only proved that Western politics are a meaningless farce between different flavors of the same neoliberalism.

OH OP, I just realised that your last question actually means
>Do you think intelligence or personality is not correlated with geographic ancestry.
I would advice you to not ask negated questions in the future, germanic languages are retarded like that.

bfy.tw/tQy

Fucking 🍀🍀🍀slates🍀🍀🍀.

That quote is really stupid. I. Q. is not a unary spectrum, but it's a composite of things that are. Some of those things are reasonably immutable and many of them are predictively strong when it comes to a variety of outcomes.

Intelligence Quotient research is some of the most replicable in social science. Whinging about semantics in response is childish and idiotic.

Political ideology is heritable to a moderate degree in adopted children. Homophobia has more of a hereditary basis than homosexuality.

This does not mean politics are a farce, it means that personality profile, which is heritable, has a strong impact on belief adoption.

lmgtfy.com/?q=intelligence definition
Be carefull before you pull out the "look up the definition" card if your entire argument relies upon the fact that you dont use the formal definition of intelligence.

This is exactly what I am talking about, there is no real philosophical differences between culture war spats like gay marriage. It's people with the same general worldview arguing about wedge issues, which inevitably leads to differences boiling down to gut feelings, and thus heritable personality traits.

In reality, there is absolutely no reason people with similar personalities cannot have different political views.

So stalin was right when he said we need to kill the reactionaries.

Well call concidering the fact that children of who have a parent or, even grandparent that was addicted to a cocaine/alcohol are statistically more likely to end up using those things, I'd say yes.

I think it does somewhat, but not completely.