j_wtf_all_taken

17 ms·

151.
by j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
> they are not an extrovert who feels confident in expressing their opinion As far as I understand it, that's called being shy, not being an introvert. So what were the previous groups that were in fashion with the media cycle? And
152.
by j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
Isn't there a difference between someone on the other side within the democratic political spectrum, and someone on the other side wanting to overthrow said democracy? And yes, there's people outside of the democratic political sp
153.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
INTJ = "incredibly tiring jerk"?
154.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
chinas russia today
155.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
And I was responding to your claim about the premise of the article? How is the original post relevant in that respect? Anyway, the point is still: if someone makes a claim, they should be able to back that up. That is not done in the paper
156.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
Did you really read my post? Anyway, I often hear that claim of 50-80% but I can never find the publications backing up that claim. Can you list some, please?
157.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
Since the discussion in the thread here seems to have stopped, I'll skip to the conclusion: Both fertility and intelligence are not as simple as the color of someones eyes. Lots of genes play a role, so the combination of two favorable
158.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
Your statement was: > Just because there's a political party committed to believing "the sky is red" doesn't make it political to say "the sky is blue". Now you say: > In that example, I'd say neithe
159.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
> The premise of the article is that fertility is heritable (...) Actually, that was the conclusion, and is exactly the thing that is being disputed.
160.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
> That this is not obvious to everyone is just a testiment to how little people understand about evolution. Exactly because things are not obvious, they need to be explained. As long as you do not explain the things you call obvious, you
161.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
> You might find it helps you develop an intuitive understanding. Happy to answer questions if you have any. Isn't "intuition" basically the opposite of "science"? Shouldn't we try to answer questions about
162.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
> Just because there's a political party committed to believing "the sky is red" doesn't make it political to say "the sky is blue". Just to clarify this. Why is the former political and the latter not? Beca
163.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
> If anyone thinks the paper is wrong, they are stating that the measures of those values are wrong. The rest is inevitable. > If you accept the heritability for age at first birth has not been measured wrong, then the hypothesis put
164.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
>> Also if a women gets an education her fertility drops and the more education the lower the fertility. This means uneducated women (for whatever reason, religious or other) will inherit the earth. If educated women tend to be those
165.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
Which "evolutionary process in question" do you mean? Isn't the point that it is NOT about an evolutionary process?
166.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
Thank you, really good example for that. This is also a good one: > If an antibiotic doesn't wipe out its target, then its target's numbers will be devastated in the short-term, but in the long-term, its target will evolve immu
167.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
I do not really understand what you mean with "The rest is inevitable", for example I do not know what exactly you mean with "the rest".
168.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
I did mean the "genetic heritability" part of intelligence, if all other factors stay the same (i.e. assuming a scenario as described in the paper, where no environmental factors change) and everyone gets the same level of support
169.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
I don't really understand how that is relevant for the discussion in this thread.
170.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
Would you then also argue that two smart parents have a much higher chance of having a smart kid than two of average intelligence? If not, why not?
171.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
Sorry, my mistake, forget it. I should have read your other comments first before replying.
172.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
>> There does seem to be darker political overtones that are exacerbated by commenters > Are we reading the same comments section? Which specific comments are you talking about? The comments section I read seemed quite apolitical,
173.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
I don't get the point. If science does care about the JOURNAL impact factors too much, why then, as a consequence, would everyone publish in low impact factor journals?
174.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
What exactly is your point?
175.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
One of the sources: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... >> This finding implies that individuals with genetic predispositions for an earlier AFB had a reproductive advantage and t
176.
by j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
The authors seem to have a background in economics, does that really fit the research topic of that paper?