TL;DR: The Thread

[Claeyt]

You're citing a research study from 1976 that's been mostly disproved.

Disproved? Where? Yes, this was not a very conclusive study- I linked the study because you seemed to believe said study supported your side when it clearly doesn't.

Did you even read the bottom of the page where almost all of the modern interpretations of the study proved that environmental factors confounded the study?

Wrong again, that is not what "almost all of modern interpretations...proved (sic.)" I suggest you yourself read the bottom of the page. Pointing to the possibility that there are remaining confounding factors in a study designed to remove as many confounding factors as possible, is not proof of the opposite. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that IQ is almost entirely genetic, barring all but the most severe cases of child abuse/neglect. If you are really interested in reading what recent science has to say on the subject, I suggest reading Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate." Harvard Professor Pinker is hardly a reactionary. http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-M ... lank+slate

Or indeed just watch the earlier Norwegian documentary series to see how out of step your hippie ideas are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZoRihmI1Ug

You seem so desperate to attach Race to Intelligence, but it's just not true.

Again the modern interpretations of that study are almost universally against it being right. You are citing correlations of heritability (and even those show a huge aspect to environmental factor in early childhood), not overall intelligence with those statistics.

Nobodies saying that genetics don't play a part, but modern research has placed environment above genetics. Even one of the research studies that was the heaviest proponents towards genetics, the book 'The Bell Curve' put the ratio at only 60-40 for genetics, and all further research since then has moved it well into the environment as determinate.

Here are some articles that say Environment and SES (Socioeconomic status) are more important in the determination of Intelligence than genetics. In fact the greatest predictor of IQ is the person's SES not their parents intelligence.

http://selseta.com/article1.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2480605/
http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html
http://www.ur.umich.edu/0809/Feb02_09/05.php
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/04/01iq

[Taipion]

This is actually pretty interesting to read...
There remain only two questions:

1.) As the devs believe in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, am I as a German, favored in some way?

2.) Is this "Game of Trolls" ?

[wormcsa]

Same modus operandi every **** post you make-
1) Get refuted on statement A
2) Misrepresent what the other person said (especially if you can call someone a racist)
3) Misrepresent evidence supporting A
4) Repeat A again

You seem so desperate to attach Race to Intelligence, but it's just not true.

No, you keep bringing up race, and I was doing my best to ignore it.

Again the modern interpretations of that study are almost universally against it being right. You are citing correlations of heritability (and even those show a huge aspect to environmental factor in early childhood), not overall intelligence with those statistics.

Again you brought up the study, to prove your point. I showed you it did not. And no, those numbers (different source) are correlations of heritability of intelligence. Yes, studies consistently show a small environmental correlation in early childhood that disappears or becomes even smaller in adulthood. What does it disappearing/getting smaller imply do you think? I am sure whatever libtard answer you give will not be the answer every scientist in the field gives.

Nobodies saying that genetics don't play a part, edit- you did but modern research has placed environment above genetics. Even one of the research studies that was the heaviest proponents towards genetics, the book 'The Bell Curve' put the ratio at only 60-40 for genetics, and all further research since then has moved it well into the environment as determinate.

Here are some articles that say Environment and SES (Socioeconomic status) are more important in the determination of Intelligence than genetics. In fact the greatest predictor of IQ is the person's SES not their parents intelligence.

http://selseta.com/article1.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2480605/
http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html
http://www.ur.umich.edu/0809/Feb02_09/05.php
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/04/01iq

If you think the Bell Curve was the "heaviest proponent towards genetics," you are quite mistaken. 60-40 was Mr. Murray being as nice as possible on such a contentious topic- eg taking the absolute highest plausible value. If you are statistically literate (which it appears you aren't) and actually read his book, you will see what I mean. As to the 5 links you posted, only the first two of them are actual academic studies. Two of them are essentially valueless news articles, and the last is by the author of the first study summarizing his study. If you would read just their abstracts, you will see the second does not support your claim. In fact the study starts with "Heritability of cognitive ability is at present no longer in dispute: many behavior genetics studies have shown that additive genetic influences (A) explain large parts of the observed variation in cognitive functioning in both children and adults...The broad range heritability estimates (h2) reported in these studies vary roughly between 26% and 85%." The first is by James Flynn who is a very famous detractor to the mainstream, and tries to explain differences away with the "Flynn effect," that is observable increases in IQ over generations. And yes, everyone knows about his thesis, and no they are not usually accepted by other researchers. All fields have detractors. Refer to the wikipedia article I first linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_ver ... #IQ_debate Wikipedia is based off of truth by consensus, something you said was such an important value before. Surely you can read the first paragraph, which says very clearly that environment accounts for up to quarter in childhood (as in a maximum of 25%, where does the other 75%+ come from?) and appears to disappear in adulthood. And even more clearly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritabili ... lity_of_IQ "In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies,[9] while a 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[8]"

I don't really see the point in this, as you continue to argue with so much dishonesty, and there are obviously people more qualified to answer your willful ignorance. If I were arguing with James Flynn himself I would surely lose, but you Claeyt are no Mr. Flynn.

PS Since you are so obsessed with race, here is a debate between Flynn and Murray on the topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KD6i5TkjSs

[Claeyt]

Again the modern interpretations of that study are almost universally against it being right. You are citing correlations of heritability (and even those show a huge aspect to environmental factor in early childhood), not overall intelligence with those statistics.

Again you brought up the study, to prove your point. I showed you it did not. And no, those numbers (different source) are correlations of heritability of intelligence. Yes, studies consistently show a small environmental correlation in early childhood that disappears or becomes even smaller in adulthood. What does it disappearing/getting smaller imply do you think? I am sure whatever libtard answer you give will not be the answer every scientist in the field gives.

I was referring to your study not mine.

Nobodies saying that genetics don't play a part, edit- you did but modern research has placed environment above genetics. Even one of the research studies that was the heaviest proponents towards genetics, the book 'The Bell Curve' put the ratio at only 60-40 for genetics, and all further research since then has moved it well into the environment as determinate.

Here are some articles that say Environment and SES (Socioeconomic status) are more important in the determination of Intelligence than genetics. In fact the greatest predictor of IQ is the person's SES not their parents intelligence.

http://selseta.com/article1.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2480605/
http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html
http://www.ur.umich.edu/0809/Feb02_09/05.php
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/04/01iq

If you think the Bell Curve was the "heaviest proponent towards genetics," you are quite mistaken. 60-40 was Mr. Murray being as nice as possible on such a contentious topic- eg taking the absolute highest plausible value. If you are statistically literate (which it appears you aren't) and actually read his book, you will see what I mean.

And his twin studies and adoptive studies have been disproven with larger populations. And yes I've read it.

As to the 5 links you posted, only the first two of them are actual academic studies. Two of them are essentially valueless news articles, and the last is by the author of the first study summarizing his study.

2 of them were academic studies, 2 of them were news articles, 1 of the news articles included a 1/2 hour interview by one of the top cognitive psychologists in the country, and the other was written in the AllPsych Journal. I included the summary news article to make it an easier read.

If you would read just their abstracts, you will see the second does not support your claim. In fact the study starts with "Heritability of cognitive ability is at present no longer in dispute: many behavior genetics studies have shown that additive genetic influences (A) explain large parts of the observed variation in cognitive functioning in both children and adults...The broad range heritability estimates (h2) reported in these studies vary roughly between 26% and 85%."

If you follow that study down to it's conclusion you'll see

"Still, this study contributes to the growing body of evidence (e.g., Button et al. 2005; Jaffee et al. 2003; Johnson and Krueger 2005; Tuvblad et al. 2006) suggesting that the amount of variance attributable to genetic and environmental factors in traits such as cognitive ability, physical health, childhood conduct problems, and anti-social behavior is not static across the entire population, but can vary as a result of environmental moderators related to previous (childhood) or present (adulthood) home-environment."

The first is by James Flynn who is a very famous detractor to the mainstream, and tries to explain differences away with the "Flynn effect," that is observable increases in IQ over generations. And yes, everyone knows about his thesis, and no they are not usually accepted by other researchers. All fields have detractors.

He seems pretty main stream to me. The Flynn effect is absolutely accepted by most other researchers. It has it's skeptics and detractors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Flynn

Refer to the wikipedia article I first linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_ver ... #IQ_debate Wikipedia is based off of truth by consensus, something you said was such an important value before. Surely you can read the first paragraph, which says very clearly that environment accounts for up to quarter in childhood (as in a maximum of 25%, where does the other 75%+ come from?) and appears to disappear in adulthood. And even more clearly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritabili ... lity_of_IQ "In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies,[9] while a 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[8]"

Have you read the Wikipedia pages? Read down the second one towards the Caveats and Environment sections. And like I said before the first page is talking about comparisons through heredity, not in comparison across groups. The article the first wikipedia page uses actually cites the Flynn Affect in it's conclusion to describe the hereditary IQ deviations through environment.
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/correlation/intelligence.pdf

From my articles, the Brookings Institute, The National Institute of Health, and AllPsych have all published research saying that says that environment is a greater determinant than heredity.

I'll leave you with another quote from that one with the interview:

"Environmental conditions are much more powerful than genetic influences in determining intelligence, social psychologist Richard Nisbett says.

Recent research in psychology, genetics and neuroscience, and new studies on the effectiveness of educational interventions, have shown that intelligence strongly is affected by environmental factors that have nothing to do with genes, Nisbett says. In new research, Nisbett analyzes a large number of such studies, showing how environment influences not just IQ as measured by standardized tests but also actual achievement.Environmental conditions are much more powerful than genetic influences in determining intelligence, social psychologist Richard Nisbett says."

[wormcsa]

I was referring to your study not mine.

I linked the study that you actually mentioned. That is why I feel it is "your" and not "my" study. Notice it is a bad study only once you realize it actually doesn't support your side.

And his twin studies and adoptive studies have been disproven with larger populations. And yes I've read it.

Again, totally categorically false- you are simply in denial mode now. Do you care to send me a link disproving the correlations in identical twins separated at birth? See wikipedia again about twin studies.

If you follow that study down to it's conclusion you'll see

"Still, this study contributes to the growing body of evidence (e.g., Button et al. 2005; Jaffee et al. 2003; Johnson and Krueger 2005; Tuvblad et al. 2006) suggesting that the amount of variance attributable to genetic and environmental factors in traits such as cognitive ability, physical health, childhood conduct problems, and anti-social behavior is not static across the entire population, but can vary as a result of environmental moderators related to previous (childhood) or present (adulthood) home-environment."

Notice the tone, as in surprised, as in contradicting previous thought, as in there is growing contradictory evidence. Again nowhere does it say that environment is more important than genetics, merely not static across the entire population. You continue to read things you want to be there, that just aren't.

He seems pretty main stream to me. The Flynn effect is absolutely accepted by most other researchers. It has it's skeptics and detractors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Flynn

Yes, the Flynn effect is mainstream. Since you have apparently read "The Bell Curve," you know that Charles Murray coined the term after Flynn. Flynn's argument that it explains the majority of group difference is, however, not supported by the bulk of relevant research, and is not mainstream. Hence Flynn's use of "Paradox" in the title of the paper you cited. As in, there is a paradox with most research and my theory, and I am heretofore trying to account for it.

Have you read the Wikipedia pages? Read down the second one towards the Caveats and Environment sections. And like I said before the first page is talking about comparisons through heredity, not in comparison across groups. The article the first wikipedia page uses actually cites the Flynn Affect in it's conclusion to describe the hereditary IQ deviations through environment.

If you read the same wikipedia article as I did, and conclude that it supports your side of the argument, you are the one who has trouble reading. "In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies,[9]...while a 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[8]" You do know what meta-analysis is, right? As in averaging all the available studies. And yes, before you say it isn't, this number is a correlation of IQ.

Cites another detractor

I could also cite intelligent people who have all sorts of opinions outside the mainstream of science. Do you want me to spam you with HIV skeptics and Holocaust deniers? Your side has all the politically correct backing, but seriously lacks evidence. To my original post about political correctness stifling debate, see the treatment of Charles Murray after the publishing of "The Bell Curve." He published his scientific findings in good faith, but was crucified by the politically correct left (who knew nothing about the science,) which speaks volumes to your side's interest in evidence and honest debate. The response from his colleagues, however, was to endorse him as mainstream: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream ... telligence. And again before you say those who did not sign were on your side, no that was not the case.

As nothing can dissuade a hardcore liberal of his a priori "truth," I am once again going to try to leave this discussion. If believing this really makes you think you would have to give up your left wing values, once again I suggest Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate." Pinker is on the political left, but has been convinced by evidence of the power of genetics over environment.

[Claeyt]

I was referring to your study not mine.

I linked the study that you actually mentioned. That is why I feel it is "your" and not "my" study. Notice it is a bad study only once you realize it actually doesn't support your side.

Let's get off this, I have no idea what study you're talking about now. I don't think you have the right study that I was posting about and/or I may have cited the wrong study. Let's drop it. Moving on.

And his twin studies and adoptive studies have been disproven with larger populations. And yes I've read it.

Again, totally categorically false- you are simply in denial mode now. Do you care to send me a link disproving the correlations in identical twins separated at birth? See wikipedia again about twin studies.

If you read the same wikipedia article as I did, and conclude that it supports your side of the argument, you are the one who has trouble reading. "In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies,[9]...while a 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[8]" You do know what meta-analysis is, right? As in averaging all the available studies. And yes, before you say it isn't, this number is a correlation of IQ.

You keep mentioning that quote about that '75% from genetics' from that New York Times article, while not realizing that it actually proves my point and also provides newer research that disproves the Bell Curve's twin studies and the article also cites deeper research into the greater affects on IQ from environment.

Read the whole damn article before you cite it next time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

He seems pretty main stream to me. The Flynn effect is absolutely accepted by most other researchers. It has it's skeptics and detractors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Flynn

Yes, the Flynn effect is mainstream. Since you have apparently read "The Bell Curve," you know that Charles Murray coined the term after Flynn. Flynn's argument that it explains the majority of group difference is, however, not supported by the bulk of relevant research, and is not mainstream. Hence Flynn's use of "Paradox" in the title of the paper you cited. As in, there is a paradox with most research and my theory, and I am heretofore trying to account for it

His Affect or Paradox has been cited in 'The Bell Curve' and in 2 of the 3 articles from the wikipedia pages we've used, and several of the other articles we've used. How is his theory not mainstream. Most research points to his Affect or Paradox existing without research yet as to understanding how. It seems like a lot of research is actually in some long term studies on it as we speak.

Cites another detractor

I could also cite intelligent people who have all sorts of opinions outside the mainstream of science. Do you want me to spam you with HIV skeptics and Holocaust deniers? Your side has all the politically correct backing, but seriously lacks evidence. To my original post about political correctness stifling debate, see the treatment of Charles Murray after the publishing of "The Bell Curve." He published his scientific findings in good faith, but was crucified by the politically correct left (who knew nothing about the science,) which speaks volumes to your side's interest in evidence and honest debate. The response from his colleagues, however, was to endorse him as mainstream: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream ... telligence. And again before you say those who did not sign were on your side, no that was not the case.

How are the co-director of the Social psychology department at the University of Michigan, and a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and a professor of economics at the University of California- Berkeley who does research into the malleability of cognitive ability not mainstream scientists in your mind. All these people are detractors to your idea's about where IQ comes from, but they're all mainstream and important people in the field along with Flynn. Just because you say that they're detractors to your ideas doesn't make them wrong or outside of the mainstream.

Yes Murray was crucified. He was crucified for trying to promote a book on his weak studies saying race affects IQ which they didn't prove. He was crucified for being against affirmative action (which I don't support) because he believed his weak studies said that government supports for opportunity to higher ed would bring down the IQ gene pool.....and, Yes, he was criticized by some of his colleagues for not basing his work on deeper studies and better research. Not all of his research was wrong but the most important part of his work that he used as proof that genetics drove variation of IQ was based on those twin studies. He tried to define the entirety of the understanding of IQ and genetics across the entirety of Humanity, off a base study group of only 80 sets of twins all from middle to high income environments and he was rightfully called out on it. Again, I'm not saying all his research was wrong, but a lot of it has been expanded upon and found wrong or wanting.

All you have to do is read the wiki page on 'The Bell Curve' to see that more than the "Politically Correct Left" attacked it for good reason. He politicized his research from the beginning (probably to sell more books) and the second he said that America should stop immigration or we would become a country of White and Asian IQ enclaves surrounded by armed guards is when people realized that he was injecting politics into his research and stopped taking him seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

As to his support from colleagues the Wiki article talks about that also.

"Fifty-two professors, most of them researchers in intelligence and related fields, signed an opinion statement titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[7] endorsing a number of the views presented in The Bell Curve. The statement was written by psychologist Linda Gottfredson and published in The Wall Street Journal in 1994 and subsequently reprinted in Intelligence, an academic journal. Of the 131 who were invited by mail to sign the document, 100 responded, with 52 agreeing to sign and 48 declining. Eleven of the 48 dissenters claimed that the statement or some part thereof did not represent the mainstream view of intelligence"

and some of those 52 took their names off it after he further politicized the book.

[wormcsa]

Only responding because you for the first time have brought up a valid point. I was unclear, so let me clarify: The belief that adult IQ is mostly determined by environmental factors is an opinion held by a small minority of relevant researchers, and not supported by the majority of data, but is held by the majority of the politically correct hard left. I don't know whether the people you mentioned hold this belief or not, but yes, this belief is not mainstream, yet is propagated by the media, because it fits into the politically correct narrative.

Flynn's Paradox article was written after the publication of the Bell Curve, so I don't know how Murray cited it earlier than it was written. I did not mean to say all of Flynn's work is outside the mainstream- just his overuse of the Flynn effect to explain away everything. Yes, even his less accepted ideas are often mentioned, because that's how normal (ie not left wing ideologues) people make a case, by addressing its detractors.

Yes, I read the New York Times article, hardly a bastion of politically incorrect ideas. Most of what follows is a summary of IQ environmental evidence in children. Yes, a smaller than genetic correlation between IQ and environment is found in childhood, the problem is this continues to shrink as you age. This is completely compatible with the cited paragraph, and certainly does not "disprove it."

As to the Mainstream Science on Intelligence letter (which goes much further than I am, and was 20 years ago when much less genetics was known,) 52/100 signed the document. 11/100 disagreed with the legitimacy of IQ tests, not that intelligence was mostly environmental, 11/100 did not feel qualified to answer, and the remaining as other, including being afraid of the same harassment to what Murray was. This shows a clear majority agreed (somewhere between 52/89 and 78/89) with its detractors mostly disagreeing with some other point. You, in the usual liberal witch hunt style, have unfairly represented what Murray said. Murray did not provide as many policy recommendations as liberals like to pretend. Most of what you say he recommended is what he feared might happen, or he simply never said at all. But in any event, I do not wish to keep defending a 20 year old book, and Murray is perfectly capable of defending himself. I also was unaware that Murray relentlessly self-promoted the book. I didn't know that even worked. I thought the book gained so much attention and left wing scorn, because it was argued well, but flew in the face of a lot of what we "knew." Thank you for educating me on that point though.

[Claeyt]

Only responding because you for the first time have brought up a valid point. I was unclear, so let me clarify: The belief that adult IQ is mostly determined by environmental factors is an opinion held by a small minority of relevant researchers, and not supported by the majority of data, but is held by the majority of the politically correct hard left. I don't know whether the people you mentioned hold this belief or not, but yes, this belief is not mainstream, yet is propagated by the media, because it fits into the politically correct narrative.

Flynn's Paradox article was written after the publication of the Bell Curve, so I don't know how Murray cited it earlier than it was written. I did not mean to say all of Flynn's work is outside the mainstream- just his overuse of the Flynn effect to explain away everything. Yes, even his less accepted ideas are often mentioned, because that's how normal (ie not left wing ideologues) people make a case, by addressing its detractors.

Yes, I read the New York Times article, hardly a bastion of politically incorrect ideas. Most of what follows is a summary of IQ environmental evidence in children. Yes, a smaller than genetic correlation between IQ and environment is found in childhood, the problem is this continues to shrink as you age. This is completely compatible with the cited paragraph, and certainly does not "disprove it."

As to the Mainstream Science on Intelligence letter (which goes much further than I am, and was 20 years ago when much less genetics was known,) 52/100 signed the document. 11/100 disagreed with the legitimacy of IQ tests, not that intelligence was mostly environmental, 11/100 did not feel qualified to answer, and the remaining as other, including being afraid of the same harassment to what Murray was. This shows a clear majority agreed (somewhere between 52/89 and 78/89) with its detractors mostly disagreeing with some other point. You, in the usual liberal witch hunt style, have unfairly represented what Murray said. Murray did not provide as many policy recommendations as liberals like to pretend. Most of what you say he recommended is what he feared might happen, or he simply never said at all. But in any event, I do not wish to keep defending a 20 year old book, and Murray is perfectly capable of defending himself. I also was unaware that Murray relentlessly self-promoted the book. I didn't know that even worked. I thought the book gained so much attention and left wing scorn, because it was argued well, but flew in the face of a lot of what we "knew." Thank you for educating me on that point though.

Murray's policy recommendations and non-inclusion of SES in his research are what started the ball rolling on the attacks. His research was overly broad when he wanted it (ex. IQ related to income without taking into account base SES, or achievement of higher level SES through education), and overly specific when he wanted it (ex. 80 sets of high SES twins and small population and non-inclusion of lowered SES sibling adoption comparisons to define genetic/environmental differences in relation to IQ). This is why the science mostly disproved or corrected his work.

He promoted some incredibly controversial things and policies based on his works. Scientists usually let their work stand alone. It's one of the reasons that the Bell Curve was so controversial. Some of his good work, including mass-data researching pay and job attainment in relation to IQ and parents was ignored or thrown out with the bathwater. He's written a less controversial book on that.

Nobody's saying that Genetics have nothing to do with Intelligence. I accept the research that says that IQ as determined by genetics gives a base level which has a variant total amount of less or more base IQ on either side of the parents IQ. All I'm saying is that research since the Bell Curve has proven that environment when fully and completely taken into account can create a higher variant total of less or more base IQ than that natural genetic variant level.

Genetically defined potential for IQ and Environmental defined potential for IQ are not mutually exclusive as proven in some of those articles I posted. A child born to a smart parent grows up in a reinforcing environment which grows their IQ. A child born to a dumb parent and adopted by a smart parent grows up to have a generally higher IQ than their siblings. There is barely any research into a child born to smart parents then being adopted into a low SES or dumb parent family. Without getting that info we have no comparison to the low SES to high SES or dumb parent to smart parent numbers.

You'll notice that all of these research articles that we've thrown at each other including the Bell Curve don't include people with mental retardation or extremely low IQ. That's because they throw off the amounts with how much better their IQ and testable Intelligence improves with a better environment. There's some really interesting numbers on Criminals and IQ based on environmental studies with IQ rates rising with basic education and improved environment.

Environment also continues to affect IQ throughout life as shown in one of those articles I posted.

The important part of my argument that you should take away from this is that continuing research is proving that environment has a more and more important role in a person's IQ. We and the rest of the intelligence researchers can argue this for decades. They've been arguing this for 100 years now as it is, but Environment as most important has been proven in many studies and is now on the upswing and also is generally seen as creating a greater possible variant than Genetics, Murray had it at 60-40 genetics, I remember seeing 60-40 environment in my psych textbooks. The Flynn effect as applied towards mass population IQ is important and is being studied throughout the world. We'll see where it leads.

[Ass_Kraken]

Seatribe does, for the record, not condone or in any way lend any support to the (lack of) principles (of) liberalism, jacobinism, illuminism or any other sort of crypto-marxist newspeak designed to undermine the fundamental tenants of Christian civilization through the processes of ideological subversion. The company believes in freedom of speech, a healthy sense of humour, and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

God save the King.

Well now we know why Paradox dropped them.

Wonder if any other game company will let them dev for them after saying this stuff.

I've known plenty of people who've dropped the game because of Jorb's political views, some of us forget that Jorb's political rant in the thread here happened weeks before Paradox made it's decision to let them go.

I sort of doubt paradox has any problems with jorb's political views.

[RuneNL]

what is failure if its not the undesirable outcome projected by capitalistic success. starting from a young age and throughout education ive always been told to succeed along with my peers. failure is just not an option but in reality it doesnt exist. we were made to believe it and fear it and those that did set themselves up for a detrimental, self loathing, inhabitual future if they believed themselves to be unsuccessful.

Share the processes and you fail more then you win,
Show only possitive outcomes/products and your a winner.

One fails only in the eyes of others.