+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 176 to 192 of 192

Thread: In the genes?

  1. #176

    Default Re: In the genes?

    In a followup to earlier research I posted here. Gene based IQ testing is now becoming available.

    Intelligence is Genetic, MIT Admits, and IQ-DNA Tests Soon Available
    http://newobserveronline.com/intelli...oon-available/

    "At least three online services, including GenePlaza and DNA Land, have started offering to quantify anyone’s genetic IQ from a spit sample.

    Others are holding back. The largest company offering direct-to-consumer DNA health reports, 23andMe, says it’s not telling people their brain rating out of concern the information would be poorly received."
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  2. #177
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,056

    Default Re: In the genes?

    That is interesting as shit. I'd really like to get it done to my two kids then see how the score compares later in life.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  3. #178

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    That is interesting as shit. I'd really like to get it done to my two kids then see how the score compares later in life.
    Yeah, can kind of understand where 23andMe is coming from though. Nobody wants to hear, "Yeah, your kids gonna be tarded tho."
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  4. #179
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,056

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Yeah, can kind of understand where 23andMe is coming from though. Nobody wants to hear, "Yeah, your kids gonna be tarded tho."
    See that wouldn't even bother me. There is nothing you can do about genetics. It'd be like your kid being short, or autistic or such--no reason to be mad. The only genetics related thing that would piss me off would be if my kid was born as a nog.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  5. #180
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,056

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Thoughts on this?

    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  6. #181

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Thoughts on this?

    The U.S. has 3x more gun crime than Britain, because Britain has more gun laws. Guns = more crime.

    You know this logic is bullshit. It's just the cart being put before the horse. They take a comparison that makes one side look bad and they assume, or worse the media often IMPLIES THAT THEY KNOW gun laws are the greatest predictor of gun crime and so much so that you don't need any others. To find a real answer you would approach a problem like this by lining up all meaningful factors to see which factors were the greatest predictor of crime. Spoiler alert: it's not gun laws. Baltimore has the same gun laws as Lonaconing but Baltimore's murder rate is like 57/100,000 vs a national average of like 4.something/100,000, while Lonaconing is statistically 0. Gun laws are a horrific predictor and you know lots of fun anecdotes for that... like mass shootings happening mostly in "gun free" zones.

    Baltimore violence mostly comes from blacks and Lonaconing is like 99% white. Literally 99%. That's a powerful sounding anecdote. So is your pic. So are all the pics you and Marou spam. But you're not going to change your mind on gun control because the libtards spam comparisons to Britain and assume they're right. Pics like that are still making the exact same mistake of implying race is the greatest predictor when it's clearly not. There are areas that are mostly black and there's no crime.

    I don't have the math background to argue this to it's conclusion, past discussions have showed me that, but I might in a week if I can get data. Maybe longer if I get bored and start learning something else before I get to statistics. We'll see.

    IIRC you like JBP, and he has discussed the best predictors being combined into a coefficient, and that coefficient has been accurate regardless of race. There's evidence that this is not just political correctness. Look at the stats of black WOMEN and you'll find they're doing disproportionately well, despite being single mothers coming from the worst areas in the country. This jibes perfectly with the fact that psychological predictors of crime apply disproportionately to men. If race were a stronger factor the difference between black men and black women would not be so stark. Also, I love that the CC reads "dominance hierarchy" as "dominant turkey".
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  7. #182
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,056

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    The U.S. has 3x more gun crime than Britain, because Britain has more gun laws. Guns = more crime.

    You know this logic is bullshit. It's just the cart being put before the horse. They take a comparison that makes one side look bad and they assume, or worse the media often IMPLIES THAT THEY KNOW gun laws are the greatest predictor of gun crime and so much so that you don't need any others. To find a real answer you would approach a problem like this by lining up all meaningful factors to see which factors were the greatest predictor of crime. Spoiler alert: it's not gun laws. Baltimore has the same gun laws as Lonaconing but Baltimore's murder rate is like 57/100,000 vs a national average of like 4.something/100,000, while Lonaconing is statistically 0. Gun laws are a horrific predictor and you know lots of fun anecdotes for that... like mass shootings happening mostly in "gun free" zones.

    Baltimore violence mostly comes from blacks and Lonaconing is like 99% white. Literally 99%. That's a powerful sounding anecdote. So is your pic. So are all the pics you and Marou spam. But you're not going to change your mind on gun control because the libtards spam comparisons to Britain and assume they're right. Pics like that are still making the exact same mistake of implying race is the greatest predictor when it's clearly not. There are areas that are mostly black and there's no crime.

    I don't have the math background to argue this to it's conclusion, past discussions have showed me that, but I might in a week if I can get data. Maybe longer if I get bored and start learning something else before I get to statistics. We'll see.

    IIRC you like JBP, and he has discussed the best predictors being combined into a coefficient, and that coefficient has been accurate regardless of race. There's evidence that this is not just political correctness. Look at the stats of black WOMEN and you'll find they're doing disproportionately well, despite being single mothers coming from the worst areas in the country. This jibes perfectly with the fact that psychological predictors of crime apply disproportionately to men. If race were a stronger factor the difference between black men and black women would not be so stark. Also, I love that the CC reads "dominance hierarchy" as "dominant turkey".
    I agree that is a weak singular argument (a correlation always is). But just because it doesn't tell the whole story, does that mean that it isn't useful?
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  8. #183

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    I agree that is a weak singular argument (a correlation always is). But just because it doesn't tell the whole story, does that mean that it isn't useful?
    Another factor is diversity. London has higher violent crime rates than New York right now. Diversity destroys social cohesion.

    Yes, Africans have higher base crime rates (wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites), but their crime rates have skyrocketed since desegregation.

    There are loads of studies on Diversity, social cohesion, societal trust, etc. I can link some if anyone wants. Essentially though people become overall shittier (more violent, more criminal, less trusting, more racist, etc) the more diversity they are forced to live around. Combine this with a breakdown of critical societal structures like the church and family; remove personal responsibility and mating selection with a welfare state, cradle to grave brainwash everyone with degenerate culture from controlled media...and you get shit. In a nutshell - garbage in, garbage out.

    The diversity tipping point where things go from "everything is fine" to "what the fuck" seems to be somewhere around 15-20%; a point we crossed as a nation a long time ago.

    I actually think whites will end up electorally allied with blacks against "progressives" before the American experiment comes to a close, I could be wrong; but it seems very plausible. Conservatives will pander to them and kiss their ass. Liberals have hispanics, Muslims, feminists, and LGBTLMNOP to pander to, they take the black vote for granted. Blacks are the second most represented racial group in our military. Black communities and poor white communities are the hardest hit by endless migration. Republicans will never do anything about endless migration, and to be honest it's way too far gone anyways, but there will be strange bedfellows before it's all over.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  9. #184
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    1,049

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    ... Essentially though people become overall shittier (more violent, more criminal, less trusting, more racist, etc) the more diversity they are forced to live around. Combine this with a breakdown of critical societal structures like the church and family; remove personal responsibility and mating selection with a welfare state, cradle to grave brainwash everyone with degenerate culture from controlled media...and you get shit. In a nutshell - garbage in, garbage out...
    To me I may disagree with some other points over minutia but this is the crux. FORCED diversity is TERRIBLE. Diversity as a naturally occurring paradigm is fine, but the minute a societal force or power attempts to FORCE it upon itself or others it becomes terrible.

  10. #185
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,056

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Yeah my thing with all this isn't centered around ethnic diversity; even though I'm am sympathetic to the racial arguments. The third greatest empire of all time, and probably the best in terms of longevity, The Roman Empire showed us that culture is important. They stamped out other cultures, by enforcing their values, and ended up with this amazing empire of all sorts of ethnic peoples that considered themselves above all Roman. America don't have the balls to do that anymore. We've lost out conviction to gadgetry and an easy life. Our culture has now become McDonald's and Iphones, not "Fuck you" manifest destiny. It's multi-cultural diversity that is untenable in my eyes.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  11. #186

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Yeah my thing with all this isn't centered around ethnic diversity; even though I'm am sympathetic to the racial arguments. The third greatest empire of all time, and probably the best in terms of longevity, The Roman Empire showed us that culture is important. They stamped out other cultures, by enforcing their values, and ended up with this amazing empire of all sorts of ethnic peoples that considered themselves above all Roman. America don't have the balls to do that anymore. We've lost out conviction to gadgetry and an easy life. Our culture has now become McDonald's and Iphones, not "Fuck you" manifest destiny. It's multi-cultural diversity that is untenable in my eyes.
    So why do you keep posting highschool tier alt-right memes?
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  12. #187
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,056

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    So why do you keep posting highschool tier alt-right memes?
    A couple of reasons. 1.) They are funny as shit to me (simplest explanation). 2.) They are often misleading, but also true. I think discussions that involve subjects like that bore the best kind of actual insight. I learn all kinds of shit from these discussions and arguments (like for example M's argument about the destruction of social cohesion from diversity at over 20% margins. I'd never heard that). 3.) Sometimes the boards feel dead and that kind of stuff is a great conversation starter (see current alt-right high school meme conversation).
    Last edited by Zavon; 06-20-2018 at 02:27 PM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  13. #188
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    1,049

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    A couple of reasons. 1.) They are funny as shit to me (simplest explanation). 2.) They are often misleading, but also true. I think discussions that involve subjects like that bore the best kind of actual insight. I learn all kinds of shit from these discussions and arguments (like for example M's argument about the destruction of social cohesion from diversity at over 20% margins. I'd never heard that). 3.) Sometimes the boards feel dead and that kind of stuff is a great conversation starter (see current alt-right high school meme conversation).
    Or in Reddit terms, because it's

    M E T A
    E
    T
    A

  14. #189
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,056

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    Or in Reddit terms, because it's

    M E T A
    E
    T
    A
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  15. #190
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    1,049

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Aww sheet Zavrone, yous is mighty awtistic these days. 11/10

  16. #191

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Hey Zav, this is the video that led me down the "Diversity" research rabbit hole.



    Discussed research: https://plus.google.com/+BlackPigeon...ts/4NyRpLRa1bA

    The only reason I care about Race/IQ data is because it is the only logical answer for the under-performance of some racial groups, eliminating many (not all) accusations of "systemic racism".

    If whites were the stupidest race on the planet I'd still think we should have the right of self determination and our own homelands, just like everyone else.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  17. #192
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,056

    Default Re: In the genes?

    I saw this and thought it was interesting:





    Last edited by Zavon; 07-19-2018 at 10:47 AM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts