No.
Yes I'm sure about the reason. Appreciate the alternative hypotheses though.
I don't have a biological urge to kill. Do many?

This is comical. You're sure of something for which there is no compelling evidence, just a hypothesis and a weak correlation.

You believe that cheating is moral from an evolutionary moral standpoint (perhaps not surprisingly, this fits perfectly with your desires), while you balk at identical moral reasoning being used in other scenarios that don't benefit you personally.

This is all very weak on your part.
Well you've likely never been in that situation, living a safe easy life built for you by men better than yourself (including the military, which you mock). The evidence seems to suggest for example that infanticide was the norm before the comforts of civilization.

I don't believe that lying to those you love most is moral.

The rest...

Reasons.

Adoption studies in general show that socioeconomic status plays a role in IQ scores: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...sponse-critics

And, as one might expect, the difference between adopted and non-adopted children's IQs correlates to the magnitude of change in socioeconomic status:

And this doesn't even take into account prenatal environment, which could also have a strong effect.

This is simply a false statement. It is strongly contradicted by the scientific evidence. Solid cherry pick though by a hard left VOX article. They try to appear reasonable in the next passage but the totality of the evidence is damning to the thesis that adoptive socioeconomic status or highly intelligent adoptive parents makes much difference to the child's IQ.
IMO this is the last refuge in the which the cowards can hide. But I think it's pretty weak. IMO the stronger case would be made by claiming multi generational epigenetic effects. They're a reasonable hypothesis and not ruled out completely by the evidence. It's possible, at least. i think if you were to set the line given the totality of the evidence, it would be about 20% this and 80% a meaningful genetic difference.

And in terms of men and women I'd argue it's at least 95% that men have superior spatial analysis skills, on average and more powerfully at the tails. Which means

- Men will be better at math and some physics
- Men will be better programmers
- Men will be better architects

The last one is interesting - why is architecture a male profession? Why only 18% women? It is not that cognitively demanding, it involves taste and aesthetics and creativity, something women excel at (women are 70% of interior designers). Architecture is like any other professional office job. Yet it also include a large component of spatial analysis skills. Is that the differentiator here, as in coding?

The article was written by IQ researchers. But even the critique of that article that was endorsed by Murray said this:

Even the low end of the estimates of the effect of socioeconomic status is 7 points, and that's almost half of Murray's Higher estimate of the black-white IQ gap.

There's basically no evidence for a genetic component to group IQ differences beyond "IQ is heritable." There is, however, evidence that IQ is affected by environment, even in ways that are not presently understood (e.g. the Flynn Effect.) I wouldn't be surprised if there were a genetic component to the IQ gap, but I'm mystified as to why anyone would think it was important.

https://twitter.com/clairlemon/statu...93873094414336

they do. its illegal so they don't admit it but the evidence is quite clear. i think their excuse is ironically racist in that they find a disproportionate number of asians are plain and indistinguishable outside of their academic achievements. i think if you're interested you can google the princeton study on harvard racial discrimination. i haven't seen anyone dispute the validity of the numbers, its just the legality in question
i barfed my thoughts out without proofreading (as i usually do). it was poorly written. those are ratios. obviously if a women has one child on average, the population is doomed. its a ratio. the reason it is important is because its factual evidence about sexual selection and human evolution. women select mates and nearly all women mate (historically). they select men from the top of the dominance hierarchy and about half of the men fail to get selected. this has a massive effect on gender roles and psychology. female psychologists and evolutionary psychologists have come out in defense of the memo. the critics on the other hand, are bloggers, journalists, SJW's, womens studies professors, etc. hmmmm

anyways, back to the dominance hierarchy. if men are trying to climb dominance hierarchies (and failing) and women have less competition (and successfully reproducing) it creates differences. maybe a bell curve looking like this



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25384550

and considering women have a different role than men historically, it would make sense that we have different interests. we even know that hormones affect your personality and that we have different hormone levels. prenatal studies on testosterone show behavior differences. the science is pretty clear on the social construction theories

actually differences in male and female personality have been measured and are clearly different. the idea that its a social construct has also been disproved when you can measure prenatal hormone levels and observe clear behavior differences

actually those findings highlight that there is differences in men and women. men are lower in trait agreeableness. this makes them better negotiators because they are competing for a selfish positive outcome. women (and beta males), who are higher in trait agreeableness are more cooperative. this makes them worse in negotiation. it also happens to be a good trait for dealing with infants. men low in agreeableness end up in jail far more often than men higher in agreeableness. this is probably relevant to the honesty issue, but things are complicated

anyways you are unknowingly backing the memos point. if men are more dishonest against women, you don't discriminate against men. you treat them as individuals. you also don't blame the legal system for being sexist if they lock up more men for being dishonest. a key point of the memo was to highlight the importance of treating people as individuals but also acknowledging valid reasons as to why we have disproportionate outcomes

The memo presented theories for disproportionate outcome. Those theories were cobbled together from some personality analysis, but weren't based on anything rigorous or observable when it comes to the tech industry. It also downplayed evidence of discrimination--specifically denying that there was any gender wage gap at all.

But the memo also purported to be concerned with Google's profitability, which is even further removed from the research cited. Even if personality traits accounted for 100% of the disparity, it doesn't follow that the status quo is the most profitable arrangement.

13ball,
Do you have a citation for the above? I couldn't see it in the original article, and I am certain it is not true. No reading of evidence that I've ever looked at would even come close to supporting this specific claim.

How would this explanation be racist?

The authors give this citation:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ol_Performance

From that paper (I haven't had time to go through it all, and where they even got the number isn't immediately obvious)

"Furthermore, the environmental influences of the adoptive family may fade as the adopted children grow older. In general, genetic and environmental factors may not operate on the same level across the life span. In longitudinal studies, the IQ of adopted children has been found to become more similar to the IQ of their birth parents with increasing age (Fulker, DeFries, & Plomin, 1988; Plomin et al., 1997), and in adulthood the correlation between the IQ of adopted children and that of their adoptive parents appears to be much lower than the correlation with the IQ of the biological parents (McGue, Bouchard, Iacono, & Lykken, 1993; Plomin et al., 1997)."

Also, any adoption study is going to be biased in favor of the adopted because the derpy looking ones obviously aren't getting rehomed as easily.

Co-signed.

When you make posts like these, you probably think they make you look like less of a white supremacist, right?

Do you have a though of you own? You're so boring.

If you'd said "Jewish verbal intelligence supremacist" or "Asian spatial analysis supremacist" or "female verbal intelligence supremacist" or "male spatial analysis supremacist" you might have a leg to stand on. In this thread I mostly talk about evidence for male and Asian supremacy in spatial analysis, and how it probably relates to coding.

Non-monogamus relationships benefit everyone. More available women and more men who haven't had their testicles domesticated.

They're great for most men. Pretty awful for women, most of the time.

Also, "testicles domesticated"? WTF? The bedrock of the civilization that was productive and unselfish enough to give you the ability to enjoy hedonist narcissism, is lifetime pair bonding. Parasites requite a robust host.

My parents would've been a hell of a lot happier had they divorced or been non-monogamus. Very likely I would have as well. Spare me the usual Mother Theresa treatment.

"Unselfish enough to stay together when you shouldn't".

Please.

Thanks a bunch for going to the trouble, I know it's not your claim.

Unfortunately it doesn't support the claim in the article. It looks like they're flat out lying in that Vox article. There might be a single study that shows it (I'd be amazed if there wasn't, individual studies are full of false positives and negatives), but there are also lots of contrary studies. For example,
The claim made in the Vox article is simply false. Adoption into a higher socioeconomic status home does not result in a 12 to 18 point IQ gain. If it did, there would be nothing left to debate. To make such an outrageously false claim disqualifies them from being taken seriously. That cannot be an honest mistake to anyone familiar with the research; it is purely a false claim.

Here's a rebuttal of the Vox article:

As you can see, the rebuttal seems to know what research they are referring to and cites a source that mentions a 12-15 point difference. They don't think those studies are accurate for various reasons, but they are not invented or fabricated.

And, again, this rebuttal cites research pointing to a 7 point IQ difference based on changing SES.

The facts are this:

Research shows unequivocally that changes in environment cause significant increases in IQ.

While it is clear that intelligence is inheritable, there is ZERO evidence for a genetic effect for IQ differences between different populations.

The bolded is widely accepted, but isn't really evidence for genetics as a cause of differences between groups.

Interesting theory. I guess the first step in testing it would be a rigorous definition of "derpy-looking."

That's just a goalpost shift. It's clearly evidence for a genetic component. If the difference were entirely environmental, this wouldn't happen. So you have a 7 point bump in childhood getting adopted into a higher SES home (supposedly, haven't scoured the paper any more to actually find it) and a lot of it has to be given back in adulthood to match the bolded. In other words, almost nothing that sticks a a result of childhood environment change. The paper also mentions the higher rates of school problems, etc. that remain in the adopted.

Downies, hydrocephalopods, anything else that presents obvious neurological or physical development issues at a young enough age.

Yeah. One, they ordered the countries incorrectly in order of strength of traditional gender roles. Two, they also forgot to order the countries correctly in strength of traditional gender roles.

What they did find was a very strong negative relationship between percentage of women getting advanced education and the percentage of those getting math education.

You will find that when few people of a population can obtain education, they tend to not major in art history.

The evidence is everything but clear.

It turns out that your ratios are off by a bit as well. We are largely a pair-bonding species.

If an extension of your thesis (to make it relevant to our discussion of coding) is correct, then we'd find that in populations that exhibited greater polygyny would have the largest proportions of "natural" male coders. We'd very much expect that gorillas would have evolved to be much greater coders than we are.

Sorry, but I'm at risk of becoming bored, so I will put off responding to the rest for a later date.

Why would I say that when you said this:

I even quoted it in the post you replied to, I figured it was implied what the pronouns were referring to.

Also, my 'original' thought, again implied, was:

So I asked.