[patrickg_zill]

So all other physical characteristics, even things to do with domestication of dogs, that are more "soft" like temperament, are hereditable?

But not IQ?

What's the exception?

If your view is that genetics in terms of the science is flawed, then, don't beat around the bush, state your case.

[hodwik2]

>"But not IQ? What's the exception?"

I don't think intelligence, outside of unusual situations, is a physical characteristic. So I'm not sure how to answer your question.

[patrickg_zill]

If you have any reasoning or research to back up your view, I would genuinely like to see it.

For sure, we don't understand everything about the brain, but we certainly have found correlations between physical characteristics of the brain and IQ.

BTW, try to convince a dog breeder that temperament is 100% nurture and 0% nature. I would like to hear that person's answer.

[hodwik2]

Yes, there are correlations between genetics and IQ.

There are undoubtedly hereditary factors which will effect nurture, which will subsequently effect IQ. That is not synonymous with IQ being hereditary.

For example, there are hereditary factors which will effect career choices: temperament, physical strength, race, gender, height, and so on. Thus, career choices will correlate with genetics. That doesn't mean that career is a hereditary trait. This is an important distinction.

Likewise, twins being adopted and raised by other families does not correct for nurture. People are still treated differently depending on their genetics: temperament, physical strength, race, gender, height, facial structure, etc. As a result, seeing a correlation between intelligence in separated twins is not enough to prove a genetic cause.

Asking me to see researching backing up my view is asking me to support the null hypothesis. That's not how science works.

Wikipedia: "In inferential statistics, the term 'null hypothesis' usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups. [...] The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise."

Until IQ Heritability researchers can prove that twin studies aren't just measuring nurture as a result of genetics, the burden remains on them.

[dwaltrip]

Intelligence is produced by the brain, which is a physical organ...

[hodwik2]

>"Intelligence is produced by the brain"

Depends what you mean by produced. If you mean it happens in the brain, then the following would also be true:

- I prefer Strawberry ice cream. Preferences happen in the brain, which is a physical organ. Ice cream preference must be physical.

- I speak English, which is a language, and language happens in the brain, which is a physical organ. English must be physical.

If by produced you are just repeating that you think it is physical, that is begging the question.

Do you argue that every process in a computer is physical, since it all runs on top of hardware? Do you have no conception of software when it comes to the human mind?

[dwaltrip]

Yes, I have a conception of software when it comes to the human mind. Even assuming the "software" is identical across humans (which seems unlikely), if one human has 10% or 20% better "hardware" due to genetics, wouldn't we expect differences in intelligence (accounting for differences in nurturing and other potential confounders)? Especially given how general human intelligence is -- it shouldn't arbitrarily cap out. It seems inconceivable to me that all humans would be born with exactly the same mental hardware, when that isn't true for any other attribute. I could go on...

I don't want to get into a lengthy debate -- plenty of other commenters have already addressed it all fairly sufficiently. I do appreciate your patience and well articulated comments, even if I disagree with them.

[hodwik2]

Why would we assume the software is identical across humans?

My point is that the software is NOT identical. It's where intelligence comes from, as opposed to the hardware.

[VLM]

To provide some clarity and background to the problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

The left, even across cultures and vast geographic distances, has an unusual constitutional weakness against that specific mental disease.

Not implying, that the right has no unusual mental illness susceptibilities of its own, although that's a bit off topic.

Arguing with someone suffering from a bad case of Lysenkoism is about as effective as trying to argue my coworker out of being a type I diabetic. You can tell him all day long that its long term ineffective or environmentally wasteful or wrong or unhealthy or non-vegan or unpopular to inject insulin, but all that hot air talking is never going to wake up his pancreas. Ditto pointing out to people suffering a bad case of Lysenkoism that they're diseased is not an effective way to cure them. What does work is curing their political views, when that's possible, most of the time the patient regains their lost scientific reasoning capacity in that specific corner of genetic research.