|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 16 2021 17:22 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2021 17:07 Acrofales wrote:On December 16 2021 16:30 Starlightsun wrote:
Can't believe that ice shelf set to break off in the next five years may cause 6 ft rise in sea levels. Just amazing our ability to kick the can down the road until the disaster is too bad to ignore. I guess that is typical human psychology and yet you would think collectively we would overcome that rather than amplify it? Why is our government falling into complete paralysis now of all times? The ice shelf won't cause much of a sea level rise (mostly Archimedes' law at work, but because it is resting on the ocean floor, it will still cause some rise). The multiple feet is for the glacier that is being held back by that ice shelf. It will slide into the ocean over the next couple of decades, and *that* will add a LOT of water to the oceans, potentially causing a few feet rise (although I haven't heard 6 mentioned for just that glacier). None of this is new, btw. The only thing that study shows is why that ice shelf is melting away so quickly. It was already known that it *was* melting away quickly. As were the previous ice shelves around it that have already broken off. Isn't a few feet quite catastrophic? The guy they were interviewing on the news said it's possible that the surrounding glaciers might also go, and that the rise could be 6-10 feet. Show nested quote +
We would see a dramatic rise of several feet of sea level. And it could be Thwaites itself perhaps two to three feet, but Thwaites is holding back its neighbors. And they, too, could fall apart, raising sea level by an additional maybe six feet, so, altogether, something of scale 10 feet. And if you try to wrap your head around that, we're talking around the entire Earth, the entire ocean.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/melting-of-the-thwaites-glacier-could-rewrite-the-global-coastline
Absolutely catastrophic. But that is in the next few decades, not 5 years. It's also something scientists have been warning about for decades as it becomes increasingly clear that Antarctic ice shelves and glaciers are melting at a record pace.
It's why buying property in Miami right now would be exceptionally stupid. But most coastal places are screwed. And no matter what we do to halt climate change, all of this will still happen. The hope is that halting global warming at 1.5 C will stop ALL the glaciers from melting.
|
On December 16 2021 17:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2021 17:22 Starlightsun wrote:On December 16 2021 17:07 Acrofales wrote:On December 16 2021 16:30 Starlightsun wrote:
Can't believe that ice shelf set to break off in the next five years may cause 6 ft rise in sea levels. Just amazing our ability to kick the can down the road until the disaster is too bad to ignore. I guess that is typical human psychology and yet you would think collectively we would overcome that rather than amplify it? Why is our government falling into complete paralysis now of all times? The ice shelf won't cause much of a sea level rise (mostly Archimedes' law at work, but because it is resting on the ocean floor, it will still cause some rise). The multiple feet is for the glacier that is being held back by that ice shelf. It will slide into the ocean over the next couple of decades, and *that* will add a LOT of water to the oceans, potentially causing a few feet rise (although I haven't heard 6 mentioned for just that glacier). None of this is new, btw. The only thing that study shows is why that ice shelf is melting away so quickly. It was already known that it *was* melting away quickly. As were the previous ice shelves around it that have already broken off. Isn't a few feet quite catastrophic? The guy they were interviewing on the news said it's possible that the surrounding glaciers might also go, and that the rise could be 6-10 feet.
We would see a dramatic rise of several feet of sea level. And it could be Thwaites itself perhaps two to three feet, but Thwaites is holding back its neighbors. And they, too, could fall apart, raising sea level by an additional maybe six feet, so, altogether, something of scale 10 feet. And if you try to wrap your head around that, we're talking around the entire Earth, the entire ocean.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/melting-of-the-thwaites-glacier-could-rewrite-the-global-coastline Absolutely catastrophic. But that is in the next few decades, not 5 years. It's also something scientists have been warning about for decades as it becomes increasingly clear that Antarctic ice shelves and glaciers are melting at a record pace. It's why buying property in Miami right now would be exceptionally stupid. But most coastal places are screwed. And no matter what we do to halt climate change, all of this will still happen. The hope is that halting global warming at 1.5 C will stop ALL the glaciers from melting.
Thanks for the clarification. So perhaps it will be when we here are elderly that the mass migration crises start all over the globe. I feel like kids today are going to look back with profound disgust and indignation at our current preoccupation with so called "culture wars", and all our political clownassery.
|
Russian Federation102 Posts
On December 15 2021 09:33 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2021 06:10 confusedzerg wrote:On December 15 2021 03:10 Erasme wrote:
The best predictor of wealth is your zipcode. Aka were you born with money ? Congrats, you now have way better chances at anything you do from min 0 of your life. You can be dumb as a rock and you'll still have a higher chance of making it than a 190IQ low income kid.
What was even the point of your post though ? I can't relate it to anything posted before. This goes against what the evidence is saying in studys I linked. Maybe I will link more to help. First if you are born with money that mean you are higher chance to be IQ. Many study have shown it is genetic. Remember how IQ is designed to test independent of an education. Study, this one very interesting I think you will agree: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201185This study uses genome wide-association study which is the best method, most reliable. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQEarly twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%,[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] I appreciate this discussion. Thank you. The wikipedia article you shared also very clearly explains that socioeconomic status is responsible for up to 50% of the variance in IQ. Even if we assume that IQ is a good measurement of overall intelligence - it might not be, because it measures very specific sort of cognitive ability under specific conditions - and we assume that IQ is hereditary, socioeconomic status can very easily prevent children from living up to their genetic IQ potential. Offhand, poor families are more likely to have children suffering from malnutrition or lack of appropriate mental stimulation. Wealthy families are more likely to have either parents or caretakers with time to encourage a child's curiosity and answer their questions, or just straight up teach them things like reading before they start school.
It says most recent studies show 80% hereditary my friend. Very first paragraph. Maybe you missed.
But yes, environment has small impact too. And yes IQ test is not perfect but it is best measurement we have. I do not think an idiot will score above 100 and a genius will not score below 100. I am curious to hear more your thoughts on why you think genetics do not mean intelligence and what studies show this. I have linked a few studies but I want to see the ones you found, I try searching but cannot find anything. Thank you.
|
On December 17 2021 02:39 confusedzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2021 09:33 Kyadytim wrote:On December 15 2021 06:10 confusedzerg wrote:On December 15 2021 03:10 Erasme wrote:
The best predictor of wealth is your zipcode. Aka were you born with money ? Congrats, you now have way better chances at anything you do from min 0 of your life. You can be dumb as a rock and you'll still have a higher chance of making it than a 190IQ low income kid.
What was even the point of your post though ? I can't relate it to anything posted before. This goes against what the evidence is saying in studys I linked. Maybe I will link more to help. First if you are born with money that mean you are higher chance to be IQ. Many study have shown it is genetic. Remember how IQ is designed to test independent of an education. Study, this one very interesting I think you will agree: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201185This study uses genome wide-association study which is the best method, most reliable. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQEarly twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%,[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] I appreciate this discussion. Thank you. The wikipedia article you shared also very clearly explains that socioeconomic status is responsible for up to 50% of the variance in IQ. Even if we assume that IQ is a good measurement of overall intelligence - it might not be, because it measures very specific sort of cognitive ability under specific conditions - and we assume that IQ is hereditary, socioeconomic status can very easily prevent children from living up to their genetic IQ potential. Offhand, poor families are more likely to have children suffering from malnutrition or lack of appropriate mental stimulation. Wealthy families are more likely to have either parents or caretakers with time to encourage a child's curiosity and answer their questions, or just straight up teach them things like reading before they start school. It says most recent studies show 80% hereditary my friend. Very first paragraph. Maybe you missed. But yes, environment has small impact too. And yes IQ test is not perfect but it is best measurement we have. I do not think an idiot will score above 100 and a genius will not score below 100. I am curious to hear more your thoughts on why you think genetics do not mean intelligence and what studies show this. I have linked a few studies but I want to see the ones you found, I try searching but cannot find anything. Thank you.
Here's some studies, from the wikipedia article you shared.
+ Show Spoiler +A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98." Turkheimer and colleagues (2003) argued that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary with socioeconomic status. They found that in a study on seven-year-old twins, in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in early childhood IQ was accounted for by the shared family environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse. Harden, Turkheimer, and Loehlin (2007) investigated adolescents, most 17 years old, and found that, among higher income families, genetic influences accounted for approximately 55% of the variance in cognitive aptitude and shared environmental influences about 35%. Among lower income families, the proportions were in the reverse direction, 39% genetic and 45% shared environment." A 2012 study based on a representative sample of twins from the United Kingdom, with longitudinal data on IQ from age two to age fourteen, did not find evidence for lower heritability in low-SES families. However, the study indicated that the effects of shared family environment on IQ were generally greater in low-SES families than in high-SES families, resulting in greater variance in IQ in low-SES families. The authors noted that previous research had produced inconsistent results on whether or not SES moderates the heritability of IQ. They suggested three explanations for the inconsistency. First, some studies may have lacked statistical power to detect interactions. Second, the age range investigated has varied between studies. Third, the effect of SES may vary in different demographics and different countries.
Unfortunately, the amount of my time I'm willing to spend doing research to argue with a person on the internet who shares a wikipedia article without reading the parts that disagree with their position is approximately zero minutes.
Two sentences after the quote you just shared is this sentence. However, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease are known to have lifelong deleterious effects.
Here's one study I found with 15 seconds on google.Low socioeconomic status (SES) children perform on average worse on intelligence tests than children from higher SES backgrounds, but the developmental relationship between intelligence and SES has not been adequately investigated. Here, we use latent growth curve (LGC) models to assess associations between SES and individual differences in the intelligence starting point (intercept) and in the rate and direction of change in scores (slope and quadratic term) from infancy through adolescence in 14,853 children from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS), assessed 9 times on IQ between the ages of 2 and 16 years. SES was significantly associated with intelligence growth factors: higher SES was related both to a higher starting point in infancy and to greater gains in intelligence over time. Specifically, children from low SES families scored on average 6 IQ points lower at age 2 than children from high SES backgrounds; by age 16, this difference had almost tripled. Although these key results did not vary across girls and boys, we observed gender differences in the development of intelligence in early childhood. Overall, SES was shown to be associated with individual differences in intercepts as well as slopes of intelligence. However, this finding does not warrant causal interpretations of the relationship between SES and the development of intelligence. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The point here isn't that genetics has no bearing on IQ, it's that there are other factors that go into how people's cognitive ability develops that we don't fully understand yet.
And we're not even discussing non-IQ mental functions such as executive function which are not necessarily relevant for taking an IQ test but essential for actually doing things.
|
On December 17 2021 02:39 confusedzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2021 09:33 Kyadytim wrote:On December 15 2021 06:10 confusedzerg wrote:On December 15 2021 03:10 Erasme wrote:
The best predictor of wealth is your zipcode. Aka were you born with money ? Congrats, you now have way better chances at anything you do from min 0 of your life. You can be dumb as a rock and you'll still have a higher chance of making it than a 190IQ low income kid.
What was even the point of your post though ? I can't relate it to anything posted before. This goes against what the evidence is saying in studys I linked. Maybe I will link more to help. First if you are born with money that mean you are higher chance to be IQ. Many study have shown it is genetic. Remember how IQ is designed to test independent of an education. Study, this one very interesting I think you will agree: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201185This study uses genome wide-association study which is the best method, most reliable. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQEarly twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%,[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] I appreciate this discussion. Thank you. The wikipedia article you shared also very clearly explains that socioeconomic status is responsible for up to 50% of the variance in IQ. Even if we assume that IQ is a good measurement of overall intelligence - it might not be, because it measures very specific sort of cognitive ability under specific conditions - and we assume that IQ is hereditary, socioeconomic status can very easily prevent children from living up to their genetic IQ potential. Offhand, poor families are more likely to have children suffering from malnutrition or lack of appropriate mental stimulation. Wealthy families are more likely to have either parents or caretakers with time to encourage a child's curiosity and answer their questions, or just straight up teach them things like reading before they start school. It says most recent studies show 80% hereditary my friend. Very first paragraph. Maybe you missed. But yes, environment has small impact too. And yes IQ test is not perfect but it is best measurement we have. I do not think an idiot will score above 100 and a genius will not score below 100. I am curious to hear more your thoughts on why you think genetics do not mean intelligence and what studies show this. I have linked a few studies but I want to see the ones you found, I try searching but cannot find anything. Thank you.
The second paper that you cited there does not back up this statement. It says:
We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants.
Going from that to saying that IQ is 80% hereditary is a bit of a stretch.
In any case, I'm not a fan of that paper. The sample size is rather small and focuses on individuals born in 1920-30s Scotland and England, so hardly a good cross-section of the global population. At best, they confirmed what we already know, i.e. that part of intelligence is linked to genes.
|
I don't understand what IQ even has to do with US politics. Why is this even a topic lol
|
|
|
On December 16 2021 16:30 Starlightsun wrote:
Can't believe that ice shelf set to break off in the next five years may cause 6 ft rise in sea levels. Just amazing our ability to kick the can down the road until the disaster is too bad to ignore. I guess that is typical human psychology and yet you would think collectively we would overcome that rather than amplify it? Why is our government falling into complete paralysis now of all times?
Hysteria much?
The ice shelf braking off won't do anything to the sea levels. I'm surprised that one has to point out how vast the amount of water in the sea is, and how little people think it's gonna take to raise the sea level.
What in actuality is happening is that the shelf braking off could (would) lead to a cascade failure, releasing so much ice that ultimately it would rise the sea level by around 65cm over the course of centuries. Plural. Multiple centuries.
That's not to say that it isn't catastrophic, but listen to this sentence: "ice shelf set to break off in the next five years may cause 6ft rise in sea levels". That's "immigrant invasion" levels of hysteria, and assuming that we're making it to that point in the first place.
As an interesting tidbit, to raise the sea level by a single millimeter (around 8 human hairs next to each other), you need 365 gigatons of water according to NASA. A single gigaton is 264 billion gallons of water. To raise it an inch, you need 2,400,000,000,000,000 gallons of water. Take that number times 51ish, and you have two feet (or the assumed amount, around 65cm).
You don't need to worry about it. Neither need your kids, nor their kids, nor their kids. If it's still an issue in the next 100 years, your descendants would've died from many other things related to climate change, before that even becomes an issue.
|
Okay my statement was wildly inaccurate. Is your timeframe of multiple centuries correct though? On climatechange.gov they say 30cm by 2100 is very likely. Highest though unlikely projections are 2.5m by 2100. What is the threshold at which coastal settlements start being seriously impacted?
|
There is a Danish economist who has made a point of noting and debunking strong claims about how the climate will change in the future that I always think about when I see stuff like that. ABC, BBC, The Guardian, and many more respectable news outlets have all claimed stuff like "Manhattan will be under water by 2013" or "The northern ice cap will be gone by 2015". The timelines are always set in stone and always pure fiction. Heck, a UN report from 1989 claimed we only had 10 years to win or lose the fight against climate change, or it would be "out of our control".
I suspect journalists and scientists aren't being called out because they are percieved as being good and nice and fight for the good cause. But in the long run this obviously hurts the attempts to convince people who doubt the serious problems of climate change. It's a mechanism that is so pervasive, especially in todays academia imo. It is summed up pretty well in this joke:
"Suppose you went back to Stalinist Russia and you said “You know, people just don’t respect Comrade Stalin enough. There isn’t enough Stalinism in this country! I say we need two Stalins! No, fifty Stalins!” Congratulations. You have found a way to criticize the government in Stalinist Russia and totally get away with it. Who knows, you might even get that cushy professorship."
|
Norway28706 Posts
Not sure that the 1989 claim is really wrong though, we've just adjusted the definition of what losing the fight means.1.5 degree to 2 degree warming is pretty disastrous as it is.
|
On December 17 2021 19:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Not sure that the 1989 claim is really wrong though, we've just adjusted the definition of what losing the fight means.1.5 degree to 2 degree warming is pretty disastrous as it is.
Sure, fair enough. We can go back further in time though if you like. 
Staying with the UN, the Environment Programme director said in 1982 that the world had until the year 2000 to halt the environmental degradation or the consequences would be as bad and irreversible as "any nuclear war". (In 1972 his predecessor gave the world 10 years to stop the same development.) Not literally 50 Stalins, but you get the point.
|
On December 17 2021 10:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2021 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't understand what IQ even has to do with US politics. Why is this even a topic lol The long road to justifying wealth disparity, poor people deserve it and rich are just better.
Just take 5sec to go through the dudes history, signature and stop bothering reading his posts.
|
Its wild that people can't spot obvious white supremacist eugenics arguments in 2021.
|
|
|
On December 17 2021 23:21 Sermokala wrote:
Its wild that people can't spot obvious white supremacist eugenics arguments in 2021.
Yeah I felt like it was extremely obvious and I was surprised kids didn’t just ban right away. We should not be engaging with that crap
|
Northern Ireland26021 Posts
While I haven’t really encountered anyone who is especially fixated with IQ who isn’t either using it to justify the poor meriting their station or something racially charged, I wouldn’t think mentioning it is something immediately bannable.
It’s a road that generally leads to rather bleak places, but taking the first step along the path isn’t necessarily the same
|
On December 18 2021 00:05 WombaT wrote:
While I haven’t really encountered anyone who is especially fixated with IQ who isn’t either using it to justify the poor meriting their station or something racially charged, I wouldn’t think mentioning it is something immediately bannable.
It’s a road that generally leads to rather bleak places, but taking the first step along the path isn’t necessarily the same
There is lots of data supporting a strong genetic component in IQ. Banning for mentioning it would be an extreme form of scientific denialism.
|
On December 18 2021 00:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2021 00:05 WombaT wrote:
While I haven’t really encountered anyone who is especially fixated with IQ who isn’t either using it to justify the poor meriting their station or something racially charged, I wouldn’t think mentioning it is something immediately bannable.
It’s a road that generally leads to rather bleak places, but taking the first step along the path isn’t necessarily the same There is lots of data supporting a strong genetic component in IQ. Banning for mentioning it would be an extreme form of scientific denialism.
Someone should not be banned for mentioning genetic impact on IQ. Someone should be banned when you sum up previous posting history, signature and all the early signs someone is about to make a kind of justification for eugenics. When you've been around the internet long enough, you see all the early signs. I've seen enough of these types to see them a mile away. Adding in the signature and the previous posting history makes it air tight.
|
On December 18 2021 00:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2021 00:05 WombaT wrote:
While I haven’t really encountered anyone who is especially fixated with IQ who isn’t either using it to justify the poor meriting their station or something racially charged, I wouldn’t think mentioning it is something immediately bannable.
It’s a road that generally leads to rather bleak places, but taking the first step along the path isn’t necessarily the same There is lots of data supporting a strong genetic component in IQ. Banning for mentioning it would be an extreme form of scientific denialism.
I'm okay with taking the "extreme" stance of banning eugenics arguments. Are you willing to recognize the historical and modern use of your arguments by the far right to justify racism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
