Talk:Hereditarianism/Archive1

Those red links
You plan to create articles to fill in those red-links, right? If not, you should remove them. Thanks! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano Make a Reservation  19:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I plan to create them, but might take a couple of weeks to complete. Will also expand this article a bit more.Freddo (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Great article so far! I’ve been waiting for an article like this on RationalWiki. However, there’s a mistake here: “It is widely accepted the heritability of IQ within human populations ranges between 50% and 80%, most likely closer to the former than latter estimate.” Here, Mackenzie is cited, citing Plomin as a source. It’s worth noting that Plomin believes the heritability of IQ in adults in Western populations is 80%, while the heritability of IQ in the general population is 50%. (This is because the heritability of IQ increases with age (due to the Wilson Effect). Mackenzie mistakes the heritability of IQ in adults with that of everyone, which is problematic. However, there are still many reasons that the heritability of IQ may be overstated, such as range restriction (see “Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments,” where the authors respond to McGue’s criticism of this). There are also many arguments that need to be addressed though, such as brain size, the cold winters theory, and other stuff, but I assume this article isn’t finished. Other than that, great work! ExceptionallyAverageUser (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Feel free to make any corrections; concerning within group heritability, Nisbett (1995) says this: "Expert estimates suggest that anywhere between 30 and 80 percent of the variation in IQ scores is determined by genetic factors, with 50 to 60 percent being the most commonly accepted range" and several other sources say something similar. Hereditarians (Jensen/Rushton/Lynn etc) have always used the highest of this range (75-80%), which is probably an overestimation. The reason for the overestimation is Jensen argued within group heritability should be the default hypothesis for between-group heritability (i.e. 80% genes), but as mentioned in the article this is wrong since the default hypothesis is 0% genes (null hypothesis). Some sections on Rushton's bizarre theories (brain size, penis size) etc., can surely be added.Freddo (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome! We’ll also need to discuss regression toward the mean, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study, the pseudoscientific cold winters theory, evolutionary novelty theory, the alleged 10,000-year explosion, and Davide Piffer’s “findings.” It’s overwhelming just how much there is to cover. I’ll help when I have the time. ExceptionallyAverageUser (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "the default hypothesis is 0% genes"
 * Why? Is that the default hypothesis for polar bear fur color until we "find the genes"? Why isn't 0% environment the default hypothesis? If you see the same pattern everywhere genetic causality is the parsimonious hypothesis. I think you're confused between null in null hypothesis and the number 0 applied to some arbitrarily selected variable. In short, you're an idiot. 82.132.184.82 (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

1973 survey section and inclusion of the second Turkheimer, Nisbett, Paige Harden 'Vox' article
I'm unsure why this section implies that a consensus on hereditarianism in 1973 somehow means this consensus remains the same today. This needs to be clarified or racialists are going to pounce on this bit.

Since the 'Response to critics' article in Vox is included as a source for major claims on this page like the current estimated black-white IQ gap number, I think it is also important that the article rebut the counterpoints to this Vox piece made in | this Medium post that Charles Murray and Sam Harris retweeted in response to it. The post attempts to debunk the claims made about the current gap percentage by the Vox authors so this page should really try and demonstrate why the Turkheimer/Nisbett/Paige Harden article's claims are still valid in spite of said Medium post's counterpoints otherwise again you're going to leave an opening for racialists to poke easy holes in the page.

DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 2:05, 29 October 2018 (AET)
 * I mean... this is a hamfisted racist penning an opinion article on medium that the very real expert they brought in is biased because he's been debunking the racist pseudoscience for years. The graphs he cites are just the exact same shit the racist shitheads have always said.  Given a cursory examination of the purposefully misleading statements and giant-ass unstated conflations made in that "article", it's totally worth completely ignoring. The claims seem to be way more valid than their rejection.  Please get a source that doesn't suck ass, thanks.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on this topic and I personally would love to see the graphs and stats in that Medium post refuted. I'm your target audience for this page so if someone like me feels worried about trusting the Vox article because potentially the Medium post might be factually sound (regardless of the likely dubious motivation of its author), then the page really isn't doing its job as well as it could. DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 2:27, 30 October 2018 (AET)
 * What do you want me to say, that de facto re-segregation started in the 1980s, and tracks perfectly with the achievement gap expanding again, that educational investment in minority neighborhoods also went way down in the 1990s, that the NCLB act federally defunded almost exclusively minority majority schools, and that there's a whole plethora of economic problems quietly ignored as well?   This pseudoscience "response" article goes on to repeatedly repeat some of the concepts explicitly addressed by the experts already.  "It's got heritability",  "Look at all these graphs describing heritability" when the experts in this very article address exactly why that's a misleading and bullshit claim that relies on people conflating heritability with genetics.  And they bring up the unscientific survey of genetics scientists and the numbers it got out without addressing the exact problem with it addressed in the vox article "Much more important, however, is that respondents were not allowed to endorse what in my view is the only reasonable response: It is not possible to give a meaningful estimate of the percentage."
 * The thing is a crock of shit, bro. And if "someone" were to go out of their way to find that nobody replying to the vox article, after following the citation from here, it's about a 99% chance that they're purely looking for a rationalization of their existing racism, not a meaningful analysis.  Explicitly rebuffing a response that ignores how it's already been explicitly rebuffed is a waste of everyone's time.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the explanations for those aspects of the Medium piece (and I'd appreciate them even more if they WERE in fact added to the article since I have no idea where I would've found this info you provided otherwise and RationalWiki really should be acting as an aggregator of stuff like this that's hard to find outside journals), but there are major points in it you missed here that I think are perhaps the ones that look the most damning of Turkheimer et al when seen without rebuttal like I'm seeing them i.e. the Medium author's supposed debunking of the 9.5 number as I mentioned earlier, as well as his claim that Turkheimer's research on the heritability of IQ across social class is an outlier. DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 5:53, 30 October 2018 (AET)
 * "A nobody with a blog is still a nobody" is an important rule. Unless this piece on medium(where anyone with a twitter account can write a blog entry and have it have a professional news-articlesequre appearance) gains some particular note, it's probably just best to ignore it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It has gained particular note as I've detailed already. Sam Harris and Charles Murray spread the piece on Twitter, with Murray even saying that while he himself wasn't going to write a response to the first Vox article, if he had written one it would've likely been exactly like that Medium post. It was due to Murray's comments that Turkheimer/Nisbett/Paige Harden chose to respond to the post in their second article. If all that doesn't make it noteworthy, I don't know what does. DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2018 (AET)
 * These are the least surprising names I could possibly have heard, but you're right, that's worth noting. Also, I looked the author up a bit more, and he has the most naive idea of genetics imaginable.  People who think they're being rigorous because they're being mathematical are fucking dangerous.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright so will you perhaps rebut some of the post, at the very least its claims that would supposedly contradict stuff like the 9.5 number, within this article? DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2018 (AET)
 * You're going to have to be more specific, I'm not really up for re-reading both articles to guess at what 9.5 refers to. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the percentage at which average black American IQ scores sit behind white American ones DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 3:05, 31 October 2018 (AET)
 * But the whole thing in the first place is that racist pseudo-scientists take a correlation like that and run past every single standard of good science, from establishing reductionist physical mechanism, to validating the level of quality of the underlying measures, to controlling for other known causative factors, to speculating about other unknown factors, to controlled active experimentation, in order to reach a finish line they marked on the ground and declare it to be genetic inferiority. "refute this context-less talking point" is... not something I feel is appropriate to do.  At all.  And, to be completely honest with you, the fact that you've zoomed back to that particular point, ignoring the implications of the discussion we've had so far, makes me suspect you're probably one of the race pseudoscience people..  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I promise you I'm not a racist. I put in a lot of effort to get the admins here to take down the page for Atheism-Is-Unstoppable because the article on that notorious channel whitewashed its creator's racism, this is actually something I care deeply about combating. I only want this article to be as effective as it can since if it gets shared around and racists are there to muddy the waters by deflecting its claims by linking that Medium blog to 'refute it', then it won't work. I chose the number as priority because as far as I can tell the current estimate of the current gap between the average black and white IQ scores, and the fact Turkheimer et al argue the current number is evidence said gap has narrowed, is crucial information to the whole argument of this page. If it is insignificant as you say (though forgive me that I don't entirely comprehend what you've written in your previous point as it became too complex for me as an outsider), I'd love you to make that clear in the article. Otherwise you should make sure the 9.5 number is backed up by refuting the counterclaim in the Medium blog. I feel unsure about admitting this on a talk page anyone in the world can read, but I've genuinely fretted about my inability to understand the science on this issue and have been more worried than I can possibly convey to you that the anti-hereditarian scientists are wrong, and the 9.5 number is one I desperately hope is correct. So if you could refute the counterclaim regarding that number from the Medium blog within this article it would sincerely, 100% mean the world to me. DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 3:18, 3 November 2018 (AET)

Well, that's fair. I don't really know where to point you other than the broader discussion of this conversation, that the achievement gap(and I don't pay especially much attention to IQ in that context) has tracked remarkably well with level of de facto school segregation, and when desegregation stopped, so did the closing of the achievement gap. And that we see similar minority-majority trends in say protestant versus catholic populations in Norther Ireland. Or in India by caste. I dunno. They're pseudo-scientists, and as far as I can tell, the 9.5 thing is just them repeating the base claim, and ignoring the actual criticism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that as a start, but I am especially interested in a rebuttal of the specific point made in the blog that the 9.5 number cited in the (second?) Vox article is inaccurate. I still also think the appeal to scientific consensus in the '1973 survey' section is faulty as I said at the top of this thread and that still needs to be fixed. DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 1:36, 5 November 2018 (AET)

Splitting the difference
In this article it says, "It is widely accepted the heritability of IQ within human populations ranges between 50% and 80%". By rejecting racialism, but simultaneously claiming that IQ differences between people are heritable, this article is taking an extreme minority point of view. The only current, prominent academic who tries to split the difference in this way is Eric Turkheimer. The vast majority of legitimately anti-racist sources take the perspective that IQ is not heritable, period. Here are a few examples:


 * Southern Poverty Law Center article on Charles Murray - Refers to the idea that intelligence is heritable as "long-discredited theories of IQ and heredity".


 * The Myth of Race by Robert Wald Sussman - This book states that "Science has shown that intelligence is not a unitary, simply measured, genetically based phenomenon", and "It is difficult to correlate a measure of IQ, based on a simple concept of a unitary, biologically based 'intelligence,' with another false concept of biologically based 'races' when neither of these phenomena exist, no matter how tightly many bigoted, bad scientists might still cling to this age-old, culturally based, hateful ideology."


 * Softly, softly: genetics, intelligence and the hidden racism of the new geneism by David Gillborn - This paper is devoted to exposing the racism and bad methodology that underlie claims that intelligence is heritable.


 * The unwelcome revival of race science by Gavin Evans - "No one has successfully isolated any genes 'for' intelligence at all, and claims in this direction have turned to dust when subjected to peer review." Note that this is a very recent article, from earlier this year.


 * The Mismeasure of Minds by Michael E. Staub - Another book exposing the racist assumptions that underlie all research about genetics and intelligence.

This list is limited to recent sources that discuss the close relation between notions of hereditary intelligence and white supremacy. I could provide many more were I to include older sources, or those that explain more generally why there are no such thing as genes that affect intelligence.

All of the foundational research that underlies the assumption that intelligence is heritable was paid for by the white supremacist Pioneer Fund. (This is mentioned in Sussman's book.) When one looks at any book that presents the point of view that it is heritable, even those that are racially inexplicit, this ideology is never far beneath the surface. For example, the current edition of the textbook Behavioral Genetics contains approving citations to Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Linda Gottfredson, and The Bell Curve.

The belief that intelligence has a genetic basis has permeated the public consciousness to a much greater degree than explicitly racial theories have, but this viewpoint is inseparable from white supremacism, and should not be presented at RationalWiki. The sources I've linked above demonstrate the actual anti-racist viewpoint on this matter. In the next few days, I'm going to edit this article to make it more accurately reflect this point of view, instead of presenting a viewpoint that comes from racialists and apologists for racialists. --CBH (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Note "CBH" is likely a sockpuppet of Jean Lusaz, see here. This person is already making the same ridiculous and destructive edits e.g. describing IQ itself as pseudoscience (wtf?), while also adding "alt-right" tags to individuals who aren't necessarily alt-right, but conservatives; still right-wing, but there's a difference. As I mentioned before, CHH/Lusaz is a troll account parodying an SJW. The above claims are also total nonsense; allowing this person to edit the page will destroy the article. Concerned (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * LeftyGreenMario apparently thinks differently. (Whose sockpuppet are you?) Everything I've said is supported by the sources I posted. The Southern Poverty Center in particular is an authoritative source, and I've accurately quoted their view on the claim that IQ is heritable. I think you'll find that very few other RationalWiki users agree with you that the SPLC's views are "total nonsense". --CBH (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "LeftyGreenMario" is an example of why this place has declined in quality; sysops don't bother anymore to check content. Most the sources you posted aren't scientific, so they're almost useless; SPLC isn't even a trustworthy source outside of science, i.e. they recently settled a lawsuit paying out millions for wrongly labelling someone an extremist. IQ within populations is certainly heritable, read this article. What is disputed is between-group heritability; I fail to see how someone arguing the black-white IQ gap is only 1% genetic is somehow a racist. A large fraction of psychologists are arguing for that position. Anyway, you're obviously trying to turn these articles into a joke and non-science.Concerned (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Concerned, you're not really providing specific criticism while CBH has and backed up statements with sources. Calling it "nonscience" and "it will destroy the article" are not helpful criticisms to me, as well as the sockpuppet accusations (sockpuppetry accusations need to be thoroughly backed up). CBH appears to be good-faith and thus I give benefit of doubt. 03:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears that no one else has any objection to the changes I'm proposing, so I'm going to make them now. --CBH (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well done for destroying the article.
The claim within-group IQ isn't heritable is laughable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Yes, studies have not yet identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence, but that doesn't mean they don't exist - they clearly do as demonstrated by similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence

You're letting a troll add false information to the article.Concerned (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Have you actually looked at the sources you're citing? One of the four sources for that "Genetics Home Reference" page is Robert Plomin. The "Heritability of IQ" Wikipedia article is loaded with citations to both Plomin and Arthur Jensen (plus a citation to J. Philippe Rushton thrown in to boot). These are virulent, bigoted pseudoscientists, and no source that approvingly cites them has any place on RationalWiki. If you want to advocate this kind of racialist apologist material, fucking go do that at Metapedia or Rightpedia. --CBH (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're the Nazi parodying an SJW, hence you're adding deliberately false content to destroy article. Go back to Rightpedia yourself. The scientific consensus is within-group IQ is heritable and denying this is pretty much equivalent to creationism. Citing Plomin, Jensen or Rushton for their non-racial writings is perfectly fine; their work on race is pseudoscience, not within-group heritability, hence Plomin's research on the latter is published in mainstream peer-review journals. Reviews of more than 200 studies have shown that within-group heritability of IQ is 50-60%. According to you though this is "racialist apologist material". What a nutcase, but then again you're a fake account and know what you're posting is lies. As for RationalWiki's stance, it never supported within-group blank-slate.Concerned (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop with the accusations of parody, Nazism, and lies, and stick with the argument. 18:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already dealt with argument: within-group heritability of IQ is around 50% based on more than 200 studies. This is scientific consensus. The problem is you're a bunch of buffoons who don't know anything about the article topic. And well done for destroying the article (sarcasm). Finally here's a quote from Nisbett (1995), a prominent anti-hereditarian:

Note exactly the same thing said by Plomin, which is why quoting the latter on this issue is correct. Are you really that dumb you cannot see CBH is a vandal/fake account destroying the article with false information?Concerned (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no. That's not even remotely a scientific consensus.  But the "200 studies" and "within group heritability" talking points are straight out of notorious racist Emil Kirkregard propaganda.  Who are you trying to fool?  We fixed the things that were actually wrong you pointed out at the coop because they were actually wrong, but leveraging that into this shit ain't going to fly.  Now you're parroting painted-over race science bullshit and I'd prefer you stop.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is you're too lowbrow retarded to understand what was posted... Within-group heritability isn't between-group heritability; there's scientific consensus IQ is at least partly within-group heritable (as is almost every human trait), and most estimate the heritability of IQ to be around 50% between individuals e.g. read this article. I don't support any of Kirkegaard's pseudoscience about race and IQ; my issue doesn't even concern race but the vandalism and insertion of false information into the article that intelligence within populations cannot be attributed to genetics: when virtually no scientist disputes moderate-to-high heritability of IQ between individuals in a population. You've bizarrely allowed the destruction of the hereditarianism article and turning it into anti-science and a joke. And it is actually you supporting the racists since the person adding this blatantly false information is likely Kirkegaard or someone from OpenPsych to poke fun at RationalWiki.Concerned (talk)
 * And you are secretly a Great Dane in a trench coat. Do you see why unsubstantiated claims are problematic now? 23:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Concerned: for the last time, stop with the flaming and baseless accusations. 00:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The article claims that intelligence has zero heritability (wrong), that IQ measures nothing (wrong) and that no-one serious still believes in IQ (wrong wrong wrong). I have covered this on my twitter


 * "More than 100 years of empirical research provide conclusive evidence that a general factor of intelligence (also known as g, general cognitive ability, mental ability and IQ (intelligence quotient)) exists, despite some claims to the contrary. Intelligence can be reliably measured, is stable in rank-order across the lifespan, and is predictive of many important life outcomes, including educational and occupational success, health and longevity." Nature Reviews Neuroscience.


 * "We conclude that there is now strong evidence that virtually all individual psychological differences, when reliably measured, are moderately to substantially heritable." Woodland (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Recent genome-wide association studies have successfully identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% heritability of intelligence" I would agree with concerned that the above user has ruined the article. Woodland (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I predicted has happened: the false information inserted into article by a fake account is now being ridiculed. Note we are talking about individual differences or within-group heritability in IQ, not race. I don't support race and IQ pseudoscience. It's a legitimate and mainstream view to argue within-group heritability of IQ is 50-60%, but between-group heritability of IQ 0% e.g. the "black-white" IQ gap is 100% environmental.Concerned (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Heritability as a concept only makes sense when trying to predict the response of a trait to artificial selection in an agriculture selection. It is not a measure of the extent to which a trait is genetically influenced. So the "heritability of IQ" is meaningless for two reasons: heritability makes no sense when examining natural, interbreeding human populations that violate the fundamental assumptions of such calculations, and genes and environment are inseparable, as shown by the existence of epigenetics, so the question "what % of IQ is due to the environment vs. genes" is an ill-posed one and always has been.   Genes do have a role in the causation of behavioral traits such as IQ scores, but that role is multidirectional and interactive, rather than one-way or deterministic. Jinx (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I seriously don't know who you think you're fooling. A metanalysis that controls for literally zero environmental factors.  Nothing.  At all.  Sees an effect, declares it direct cause, combines multiple such correlations with inappropriate statistical methods, finds a result radically weaker than the underlying hypothesis, and goes "yep, this is good".  You're a goddamn moron.  I don't need to note that the author has had multiple cases in the past of misrepresenting this kind of research, but I'm gonna because fuck you.  Also I still love that your mom's genetics predict IQ and educational attainment outcomes better than your own genetics.  It's still a perfect bubble of exactly how purposefully naive and full of shit you people are.
 * (EC) as Jinx says, this is some weak-ass shit in terms of science. Not doing anything to control for your assumptions about underlying relationships being wrong, reversed, or multifactoral, is how you end up completely full of shit all the time.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * lol. So, if it's "weak-ass shit in terms of science" why is it scientific consensus? To quote Turkenheimer:


 * Noticeably the view you defend has virtually no support from scientists in relevant fields hence the sources on current article are all non-peer-reviewed, most aren't even scientific, and just seem to have been cherry-picked from someone searching through Google books.Concerned (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So, here's the thing. You talk about "within-group IQ" as if it wasn't a euphemism for "darker skin equals lower intellect", and well, it is. I'm honestly surprised that no one has called you out for the elephant in the room yet. And further, this whole thing is stupid. You might as well argue that hair color indicates someone's I.Q., or eye color, or fingernail length, or foot size. You've hyper-focused on an arbitrary trait and decided that that is somehow related to intelligence, which it plainly isn't. 20:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I love it, he still runs absolutely screaming back to the "heritability" raw measure even after acknowledge studies that show much much smaller effect sizes than that when they actually do controls for things like separation and environment, by doing the very clever trick of ignoring those results beyond there being a correlation at all, and expects me to eat the giant bowl of shit he just left. Shut up.  Go away, you're bad at science.  He also manages to cite a (unreasonably inaccurate) book that does the same thing, and half their citations are fucking plomin.
 * Sure your own full genome analysis variant analysis paper radically under-performs on your core hypothesis, and that's after refusing to control for anything that might confound, but baby needs his racism bottle. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Turkenheimer is somehow a racist for arguing between-group heritability is 0% and "There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes". You're blatantly a crackpot.Concerned (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Recent genome-wide association studies have successfully identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% heritability of intelligence" That was reported in the top peer-reviewed journal Nature, how do you explain that ikanreed? Woodland (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins find about half of IQ can be explained by genetics., hit me up on twitter and I will debate any of you on this. Woodland (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Genetics and heritability are not the same and you are very dumb. I refuse to hear debate on the "you are very dumb" part.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Studies reported in Nature have identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% heritability of intelligence. This contradicts your denialism of heritability and intelligence! It is clear you are anti-science ikanreed and you only use this website to attack people with ad-hominems. 104.203.252.112 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't even read that fucking paper did you? I know I fucking did, and I know that "50%" is justified nowhere in that goddamn paper.  He does regurgitate the "it's heritable therfore genetic and refer to his own damn pile of heritability assertions that he does over and over to and over which he dishonestly calls the state of the rest of the literature.  But the actual genetic analysis, which has incorrect aggregation methods, only shows 10 fucking percent, and he does zero goddamn controls for literally any counfounding factors.  Nothing.
 * If you think the dumbass nature paper one of your socks shows anything of the fucking sort, you are either stupid or a liar. No exceptions.  And fuck you for wasting my time.  Stop repeating your dumbass talking points and analyze the evidence you presented with the question of "what does this actually show?".  Christ.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're talking about. I was blocked here for 3 days; these other comments posted by users aren't mine. I was blocked for simply pointing out CBH is a sockpuppet of Jean Lusaz. I can easily back up my accusation e.g. CBH has just created a libellous article about Eric Turkheimer that reads so ridiculous it calls him "a rich, white cisgender man". If you compare to Jean's edit history, he used the virtually identical sentences e.g. "white, and most are cisgender and heterosexual white men" on the human brain size article he created. It's clearly the same user by duck test, furthermore CBH only become active when I complained about Jean Lusaz; so he just created a sockpuppet and has continued making anti-science articles and adding false information, under a different name. For the record my "concern" about this page is because I'm the article creator. I made the hereditarianism page to debunk race and IQ pseudoscience; the article now though laughably claims the concept of heritability and even IQ is pseudoscience and "racist". I'm objecting to the destruction of the article - it now reads as a parody. I'm not going to bother further editing or posting complaints as this place has gone down hill and I don't want to be anymore involved with it. I have though alerted Eric Turkheimer about his defamatory article.Concerned (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?
Your article claims this is pseudoscience then claims lack of evidence. Which is it? Why is it pseudoscience? Samantha Priss (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There are no genes that affect human intelligence
In the section "Heritability of IQ" it is written:

I guess that the intent was to say that human intelligence cannot be completely determined from genes in an easy way, like: "You have gene X, Y... then your intelligence is..." But it must be explained much better, because of course there are genes that affect human intelligence, just pick some that leads to intellectual disability.

Also, the given source is not about genes and human intelligence, but about heritability of IQ, which is different for several reasons (studies on heritability per se do not show which genes cause something, IQ does not equal intelligence...)

Since you made the last edits, what do you think? Thinker(unlicensed) 21:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * IQ doesn't exist. The source is pseudoscience. Gene Simmonds (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "IQ measures absolutely nothing except the correctness of a learned behaviour,[55] and because of its extreme dubiousness, the concept of IQ has been abandoned by almost all serious educational researchers."
 * And that's sourced to The Guardian before you question the authority. What's your source? A racist. Checkmate. Gene Simmonds (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think and  would be better people to discuss your issues with since they made more substantive edits recently, whereas Spud and I only made reversions recently. Bongolian (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. All I did was revert an edit by an obvious troll. I'm little more than an innocent bystander here. Spud (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While it is true that genes affect intelligence, as they affect literally everything else in multi-celled organisms, it is equally true that the point we're being led to here is false. Racial hierarchy is a concept that has been discarded in scientific circles since the 1800s, since it does not work within the taxonomic models we currently have evidence for. In fact, ideas such as Racialism have more in common with Creationism (Which you attempted to use as a smear against a wiki who's userbase has historically been primarily atheists, anti-theists, and non-literal theists, so, yeah...) given it's use of nebulous taxonomic labels, (in Creationism, Kinds. In Racialism, Races.) It's demands to replace the current models, and it's utter disregard for the scientific process (making your own journal to publish your "research" in order to avoid scientific rigor is not only a good sign that the ideas you espouse are false, but that you're also rather pathetic in your need to cling to them.)
 * Further, the very idea off "intelligence" is quite egocentric, as it is merely a by-product of one species encountering certain environmental pressures and adapting to them, something multiple species have done (elephants and dolphins to name the most well known examples), and that any species can do given the right selection pressures and time frame.
 * There, I demolished the poster's arguments, before I finished my coffee. Can I have a cheese bagel now? 14:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL. So there's no connection between race and intelligence because there is no such thing as race or intelligence. Real neat chief. Cool appeal to novelty and authority as an argument for that, real, uh, rational. For your next trick can you prove that air is a social construct? A Priori Communism (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh BTW Bolshevik Murderer (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually... Yeah, "air" is a social construct. "Air" is a generic term that refers to multiple atmospheric gases, including but not limited to, methane, Co2,H2O, hydrogen, lithium, and helium. Such generalizations exist because most laymen are, like yourself, scientifically illiterate. Oh by the way, popping out a dictionary for anything other than defining terms is a fallacy, as it merely proves that a word or phrase exists in the common parlance. Now, shut up and give me my cheese bagel. 16:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Woke. Have a Philly Cheese Steak Bagel Sandwich. :) 18:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not woke. It's literally just using the phrase "social construct" exactly as the definition implies.  A common and culturally taught concept without a strict or rigorous definition attached directly to material reality, and whose definition may shift as time goes on.  That's what it means.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Confusion about article and people adding dubious content, and now trolling
Hi, I'm the article creator, so I wish to clarify:


 * The idea IQ (as a measure of intelligence) is invalid – is a fringe view held by few psychologists; experts agree IQ tests have statistical reliability, make predictions and do reliably measure important elements of intelligence (see Turkheimer, E. 1990. “Consensus and Controversy About IQ”. Contemporary Psychology. Vol. 35. No. 5: 428-430).


 * Within-group heritability of IQ is widely recognised to be about 60% but with estimates ranging between 30% and 80%. There is a consensus “experts believe within-group differences in IQ to be at least partially inherited” (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987).


 * Butcher et al. (2008) first discovered six genetic markers (SNPs) associated with cognitive ability, although of these “inﬂuence of only one gene has been consistently replicated in subsequent studies” (Nisbett et al. 2012). In 2017, a study identified 52 genes linked to intelligence and in 2018 another study managed to find “538 genes that play a role in intellectual ability, along with 187 regions in the human genome that are linked to cognitive skills”.


 * At some point a troll vandalised my article to say "There are no genes that affect human intelligence" which is demonstrably false.


 * Even if scientists hadn’t discovered genes linked to intelligence, this doesn’t mean they don’t exist. For example within-group heritability of height is very high (90%) but so far only a small amount of genes involved in human stature variability have been identified.


 * Emil Kirkegaard has been trolling the main article and created a fake account to parody an SJW, adding the false claims, and has since been posting about this article, linking to the dubious content - to mock it on his Twitter profile. This also attracted Vekimekim (spell backwards because of word filter) to sock here on a bunch of fake accounts above, also parodying an SJW.


 * I totally get there are some people who reject IQ measures intelligence and so they reject IQ testing, but those people are a minority and I always thought RationalWiki should defend the scientific consensus rather than fringe views.


 * The fact I argue within-group heritability is 60% does not of course mean I think that between-group heritability is 60%; on the contrary, what I explained in the article is that "A group of very short people may have heritability's for height well above 0.9, but still owe their relative stature entirely to poor nutrition. Within and between group variation are entirely different phenomena" to quote Gould (1980). I emphasise this throughout the article.


 * The point in me creating this article was to debunk between-group heritability not within-group heritability.


 * It's entirely reasonable and a mainstream respectable position to argue within-group heritability of IQ is 60%, but between-group heritability, 0-1%. That's the position of Eric Turkheimer.Radicaljacky (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "At some point a troll vandalised my article to say "There are no genes that affect human intelligence" which is demonstrably false."
 * OK. So... can we correct that sentence? Thinker(unlicensed) 08:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * CBH put their justification for the line change above in the Talk Page, under the "Splitting the Difference" subsection. I slightly modified the line to incorporate both the misdirected reference and that no genes have been conclusively linked to intelligence. Despite the very good effort they placed in proposing the change, including citing their sources, I think CBH didn't do enough in the follow-up to making the change to the sentence to incorporate sources, make sure the article still flowed, etc. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is this article limited to IQ?
From Wikipedia: "Hereditarianism is the doctrine or school of thought that heredity plays a significant role in determining human nature and character traits, such as intelligence and personality. Hereditarians believe in the power of genetics to explain human character traits and solve human social and political problems."

Are we making up our own definitions? I'm sure there is a word for "a racist pseudoscience that argues mean differences in IQ between human populations (socially constructed races and ethnic groups) is significantly the result of genetics." But it is apparently not hereditarianism.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess where the woo lives. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. But the primary definition in WP does not in fact mention population groups. I do not disagree with attacking racist IQ theories. The basic idea in the WP main space article is that behavior is heritable, I think. Nothing about populations.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To elaborate more than just a meaningless quip, the heritability of, say, some mental illnesses isn't used and overextrapolated to invoke a racial superiority mythos adhered to by cabals of absolute lunatics. And you don't really see people saying "We should forcibly selectively breed depression and anxiety out of the human population" the same way you see with nominally non-racist eugenicists.  That's not to say there's no scientific controversy about other varieties of hereditarianism, heck, I personally worry a bit over people trying to wrap up psychopathy as genetic in spite of very real environmental factors.  It's not that there's no science in the field, it's that there's lots of pseudoscience in the spaces attached to certain kinds of ideologies.  We can give a better definition at the top, if you'd like.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a curious word. It is not present in several of the biological life science dictionaries. Yet it is not defined as given in this article in common dictionaries. I don't know.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Camps" in science don't tend to get official recognition in a formal definition series like that. It'd be like the Oxford Dictionary of physics giving "Plasma cosmology" an entry.  The actual umbrella of study that hereditarianism would fall under would be "Evolutionary psychology", and you  don't need me to tell you that that has its own controversies.  But it should at least be in the dictionaries you're using.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A survey from 1973 (?)
What's the point of including a survey from 1973 showing that 60% of the American Psychological Association disagree with Jensen? I mean, can't we cite today consensus? Just in 1972 homosexuality was still considered a mental illness, those are not the best years of psychology... Thinker(unlicensed) 08:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He was relevant enough to survey people about in 1973. Searching for recent(relevant) name checks of him on google scholar literally just turns up webshites like human biological diversity.  The field has long since moved on from 80% bullshit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict
This section is total BS:

Is totally wrong, and I always thought was added by a troll to destroy the rest of the article that is valid.Tobias (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To repeat above:


 * The idea IQ (as a measure of intelligence) is invalid – is a fringe view held by few psychologists; experts agree IQ tests have statistical reliability, make predictions and do reliably measure important elements of intelligence (see Turkheimer, E. 1990. “Consensus and Controversy About IQ”. Contemporary Psychology. Vol. 35. No. 5: 428-430).
 * Within-group heritability of IQ is widely recognised to be about 60% but with estimates ranging between 30% and 80%. There is a consensus “experts believe within-group differences in IQ to be at least partially inherited” (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987).
 * Butcher et al. (2008) first discovered six genetic markers (SNPs) associated with cognitive ability, although of these “inﬂuence of only one gene has been consistently replicated in subsequent studies” (Nisbett et al. 2012). In 2017, a study identified 52 genes linked to intelligence and in 2018 another study managed to find “538 genes that play a role in intellectual ability, along with 187 regions in the human genome that are linked to cognitive skills”.Tobias (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove the idea that IQ score heritability is motivated by white supremacist ideology? Just wondering. 18:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't. Dubious source that seems to have been quote-mined. The problem is adding silly claims like that to article dismiss the article as a parody written by SJWs; this claim was also added by a suspicious account and that was probably their intention. On this subject, I think it is advisable to just quote the scientific consensus e.g. “experts believe within-group differences in IQ to be at least partially inherited” (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). Of course we're talking here within-group heritability of IQ. The purpose of article was to debunk between-group heritability i.e. race and intelligence, not the scientific reality IQ differences between individuals have somewhere between 30% and 80% heritability (probably 50%). I fail to see what any of this had to do with white supremacism, since we're discussing individuals, not races/populations.Tobias (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure, fair enough. 19:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, I feel like I've seen that Turkheimer name before, like in that discussion above. 18:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If intelligence has a certain heritability, and I suppose that it does, that does not imply anything about the large classes, formerly referred to as races. There is no racial implication whatsoever that I can see. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

missing heritability problem
In trying to discover how much of intelligence is genetic, I ran into a problem. Twin studies indicate the heritability of intelligence should be between 40-80% but percent of variation that can be provably traced to known genes is far lower than that. This makes sense if you think about it since the first complete human genome was only derived in 2004. As of January 2018, known genes were able to account for 7% of the variation in intelligence between individuals. I don't know what advancements have been made in the past year. If the GWAs number has gone up since then, please tell me. There's even an official name for this problem, it's called the "Missing heritability problem" and it applies to many different traits not just intelligence.

While it's likely that science has yet to discover all the genes connected to intelligence, I also think that twin studies have overestimated the heritability of IQ. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 71.179.102.46 / talk / contribs

Surveys
The Rindermann2013 survey question on the source of the IQ gap in the US which was presented at ISIR has been published. This section should be updated to reflect the data of the final publication; e.g. the 0%-40% estamate is given by 40% of surveyed experts and 43% gave an estamate in the 60%-100% range which tips the scale in the hereditarian direction compared to the ISIR presentation and invalidates point three. Alternatively a new section for this article should be added. 2003:DD:2F4E:C700:ED7F:79AC:1BEC:D55E (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Intelligence is a shit source who waves white supremacist "Hereditarianism" bullshit through without a second glance due to editor biases. It's like how Skeptic magezine happens to favor sexist EvoPsych articles. Understand that this shit isn't cutting edge, it isn't new, it's old bullshit that's been throughly discredited. 13:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if you think it's a bad journal it is certainly peer reviewed so the non peer reviewed claim is pretty dubious. People like Flynn, Turkheimer, Wicherts and Mackenzie - all of whom are cited or mentioned approvingly in this article certainly think it's a journal worthy of their publications highlighting the mainstream nature of this journal within intelligence research.2003:DD:2F17:CB00:3148:AF8:F117:5621 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are aware that journals can have differing standards for peer review? It's certainly not mainstream, and this journal from the looks of it is pretty shoddy in its standards. — Oxyaena Harass  16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if it has "shoddy standards" (citation needed) it is certainly peer reviewed. The intelligence editorial board has Wicherts, Deary, Flynn, Plomin and Tucker-Drob among its members. To claim that it is not a mainstream journal within its field is laughable to put it bluntly. If you'd take it seriously you'd have to remove or critique the Wicherts et al (2009) citation in this very article for not being peer reviewed or only being peer reviewed according to the "shoddy standards" of a fringe journal.2003:DD:2F17:CB00:3148:AF8:F117:5621 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argument is weak, just because something passes peer review doesn't mean its shit. See the Sokal affair for more details on this, and to say that a journal that pushes racist white supremacist nonsense is "mainstream" is absurd. — Oxyaena Harass  13:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It means this survey has been peer reviewed contrary to what is claimed in this article. The situation is analogous to citing a preprint and complaining about it not beeing peer-rewviwed when a revision of the article has actually been published in a journal in the meantime. The mainstream nature of Intelligence is supported by the fact that many highly prominent Intelligence researchers publish in the journal or serve on its editorial board and by the fact that you'll have a hard time finding any books or review articles on Intelligence research that don't cite articles that were published in this journal extensively, e.g. Handbook of Intelligence and reviews in annual reviews and nature reviews neuroscience. Your claim that it isn't is not supported by anything except your own personal opinion which is worth nothing. BTW: The hoax article by Sokal was not actually subjected to a peer review process and I made no claims regarding the overall effectiveness pf peer review. 2003:DD:2F17:CB00:A52E:B60:A1CE:2AA (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)