Is This worth reading?

Is This worth reading?
Does it give a Non-Holla Forumsyp view in the idea of race and its possible links to intelligence?

Other urls found in this thread:

Read it, then become a sargonfag.

Read Bookchin instead

it is literally autistic screeching

The part that Holla Forumstards screech about is only two pages long if I remember right, but it's been proven that Autism Level tests aren't the end all be all, obviously. But they are apparently good as predicting future income.

A lot of people in the comments section pointed out the video's flaws.

such as?

The video poster doesn't know anything about genetics.

Literal fucking garbage, but read it by all means. You can then laugh in their faces when they bring it up.

That isn't an actual critism, specifically what did he get wrong about genetics?

Actually I got this video confused with another hour long one of the same exact premise, where the OP kept getting heritability and inheritance mixed up.

This one is still pretty shit, a lot of his "arguments" are assuming his audience already agrees with him that the book is shit and jerking himself off:
-10min in "Anyone who thinks that intelligence is closer to 80% genetics is stupid", with of course no evidence as to why it's an allegedly absurd claim
-27 min in, "Well basically the authors say we shouldn't allow idiots to breed", that's not what it says at all and throughout the book the authors specifically say "we're not supporting racism or genocide" several times

A lot of criticism for this book is more feels than actual evidence, and that the data is excellent because of social implications and not because its actually wrong. Check out Sam Harris interviewing with one of the authors on youtube and he gives his view points and retorts to common assumptions this video makes.

My biggest issue with a lot of liberals/lefties on the whole intellegence vs race debate is that there is a truth to it. Like all semi-isolated breeding populations (be they physical like being in different countries or social like not breeding outside of your religion), mutations occur in those populations that don't in others. This doesn't mean that they are "fit" mutations, for example Jews have the highest rate of Crohn's diesease in the world. It would follow that intelligence mutations (for better or worse) would vary throughout the world too. Some populations will just get the short end of the stick. This dosen't support racism or supremacy, as all populations will get a mix of bad genes and good genes, but its just a biological fact.

Also intelligence is ALL intelligence. Even the dumbest humans are a hell of a lot smarter than a goldfish. This is where the 80% comes from, just like how the vast majority of your height is determined genetically. Yeah malnutrition will cause you to be a foot shorter than you might have been, but there is a minimum height you will reach if you are taking enough nutrition not to starve to death. I can't give my child a spoonful of baby food a day and they end up being only 2 foot high as an adult. Genetics is a complicated science and much more in depth than the punit squares you did in highschool. Sometimes its not intuitive. Genetics is just one of those fields where everyone feels like they know more than they really do, like all those Redditors who think they understand quantum physics because they watched a PBS documentary one time.

yes but there are more modern and interesting books on the subject, and research articles. the trouble is that there's a lot of muddying of the waters on anything related to humans and genetics outside of medicine for ideological reasons, whether it's Marxists like Gould/Lewontin basically lying in the name of anti-racism or white nationalists exaggerating how low African I.Q. scores are.

also Murray is a libertarian so some of his biases seep in like "we need to abolish the welfare state"

nice non-argument

because the book is flawed, the inital premise, this being that intelligence is related to genetics, is false, because there is no actual data other than a book made out of butthurt, you need to prove that intelligence is related to genetics first, you braindead autist

except the book is actually wrong, didn't you watch the video you dumb brainlet?

excetp you can point out the chromosomes that cuase Crohn's disease whereas you cannot do the same with "intelligence", this is a false equivalence, stop being stupid, brainlet.

yes, however we don't know what biological fact is, as we cannot find exactly what gene mutations cause an increase in intelligence

yet your arifcat riddled .jpg are the basis of all knowledge regarding genetics and intelligence right?

basically you are a dumb Holla Forumsyp, and a furfag too, so just end urself

sorry, I asked you to prove that intelligence is related to genetics, not that intelligence is determined an unknown mixture between genetics and enviromental variables

It's trivial to prove that genetics plays a non-zero role in determining intelligence. If you remove the genes which code for the development of a brain, there cannot be any intelligence.

good, thanks for pointing out the obvious, now feel free to point out the percentage that genetic mixtures accounts for vs environmental factors when determining intelligence,which is what is being discussed here, and what the bell curve forgets to discuss

We can show it plays a role up to the limit of differences between species.
We'll be able to narrow it down a lot more once we know a lot more about how the human brain grows and functions. Ask again in ~100 years.

To clarify, I'm not the person you were arguing with earlier.

so does the environment, as that's how evolution takes place

the differences between species is also determined by environmental factors, as these environmental factors influence in the way the genetic mutations of evolution take place

You fundamentally misunderstand what is meant by "environmental factors".

If you take a monkey and put it in a human-like environment, it will never be as smart as a human.

I can see that I am the one fundamentally misunderstanding it, yes

if you put a monkey in a polluted environment with pollutant agents that cause brain damage, stressing him out with constant noise and light stimulus, then on another environment you put a monkey and teach him how to do certain activity. and later on you claim that the first monkey is dumb because he can do the same activity as the second one and that it is caused by genetic factors,

but I guess comparing a monkey to a human when talking about how environmental factors affect humans is fucking retarded

he can't do the same activity*

Either show us the exact percentage that genetics account for Autism Level, versus environment and nutrition, or take your divisive pseudoscience elsewhere. If you can't produce the exact percentage, and I have no reason to believe you can, what use are you?