Wrong, each can't play a large role. Each can't both contribute 80% or 60%. You can't claim a large role by both, it's a false claim. However, from previous studies and the large changes it is easy to see that it is environment and not genetics. As I had said, genes don't adapt that fast but the environment does.Aitrus wrote:Arries,
The problem is that it's not 100% environmental and not 100% genetic - each plays a large role in IQ.
Now if you want to actually claim genetics playing a larger role than environment than you have to show a difference in genetics. Which hasn't been found. Have you noticed none of your evidence involves genetic difference from genetic studies? We have mapped the whole human genome and a significant number of the population. I have had my DNA sequence.
Yet with all of the analysis were is the data that points to DNA difference that can account for it?
Yea, there is always an absolute link. But genetics could be just 1%.Aitrus wrote:However, we don't know how much for each side - but the conclusion is that there is absolutely a genetic link as well as an environmental one.
Aitrus wrote:As discussed in The Bell Curve, environment does play a role. However, per the authors themselves, if environment was 100% responsible for IQ differences, then there would need to be a deviation of at least 1.5 between the environment of whites and that of blacks in order to make up the difference - and that's nowhere near the case.
In regards to the question regarding test scores in 1932 versus today, the current understanding of the answer to that issue is that it is twofold: The Flynn Effect, and nutrition is better now than it was then.
My grandfather was arguably much smarter than I in many areas - such as math, carpentry, and manners / social graces.
Source for both conclusions regarding environment impact on IQ and Flynn Effect and nutrition - from a podcast interview with the authors of The Bell Curve (listen from 13:05 - 20:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YfEoxU82us&t=1415s
Your defence is I have a podcast. That's it, all you said comes down to, I have a podcast.
Your podcast is with Charles Murray about his book The Bell Curve which he wrote with Richard J. Herrnstein.
How about you read about the scientific criticisms of the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms
The largest and most damning criticism is of course their book relies on their own data and methodology that wasn't publish for peer reviewed. So it wasn't reviewed for scientific validity.