[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


 No.10677

I am reading a study but I don't quite understand what they mean by heritability. Of course, that should mean that a trait is passed on from parent to child. A trait caused by genetics. But how does it make sense that a trait becomes more heritable with age or more heritable with higher social class? I know "IQ is bullshit" and so on, but that's not what I care about at the moment. What do they mean by heritability when they use the term this way?

<Further complicating the picture have been studies showing that IQ tends to be fairly highly heritable, with most reliable estimates ranging from ≈0.5 to 0.8 (5). More recently, heritability has been found to vary both with age, with IQ becoming more highly heritable in later years (6), and with social class, with IQ more highly heritable in higher social classes (7). Although heritability does not imply the fixedness of a trait (e.g., height is highly heritable but also modifiable), the mixed results of training studies have been taken to be consistent with the notion that IQ is relatively fixed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2383939/

The only rationalization I have at the moment is: Let's say there is trait X and its value x. The parent has a certain value of X x1 and the child also has a certain value of it x2. If something was highly heritable, then x1 and x2 of trait X should be very similar. But nurture has an influence on x1 and x2 as well to some degree. If we look at the study again this could mean the divergence between x1 and x2 can be much greater when the child is young, but when the child becomes older x2 should converge towards x1. Similarly, when we deal with people of a lower social class there can again be a great divergence between x1 and x2. But with a higher social class the divergence decreases. Is that what they mean? Because if so, it's phrased poorly in my opinion. It makes it sound like a genetic trait becomes harder to pass on when you are younger or when you are poorer, which shouldn't be the case. What they are saying is that nurture can then have a higher impact on the divergence of the values of a trait between parent and child.

 No.10678

Genes are not usually a binary 1 or 0 switch. You should think of them as more like risk factors that combined with other risk factors (environment or other genes) can contribute to a trait's appearance.

 No.10679

It's a probability distribution and the parents' position skews the distribution compared to the general population.

 No.10680

>>10678
>>10679
Sure, but I'm talking about how they said age and social class influence heritability and that seems odd to me.

 No.10681

>>10680
>age
In grafting the resemblance of a hybrid to its scion or stock is also determined by their age. This was adopted as part of the theory of dominance in Michurin Science.
<The properties of the adult predominate over the young plant, of the local over the imported, of the adapted over the unadapted, of own-rooted plants over grafted plants, old properties over newly acquired ones.

 No.10682

>>10681
Wouldn't the human equivalent of grafting be amputating your arm to sew a bodybuilder's arm in its place?

 No.10683

>>10677
>I don't quite understand what they mean by heritability
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/11/the-widespread-abuse-of-heritability/

>Heritability: the amount of phenotypic variance (“variation”) in a particular population in a given environment that can be attributed to the genetic variance (“variation”) in that specific population in that given environment, but not a measure of the relative influence of genes on the phenotype of an individual compared to environment.


You're welcome

 No.10684

>>10683
Oh nice, they have a bunch of articles on debunking race pseudoscience. Thx

 No.10685

>>10677
All of this has to be considered low grade and barely scientific. It's impossible to isolate and compensate for the environmental variables in humans.

Anybody that tries to attribute class privileges to genetics should be shot on the spot.
Workers are human, anybody who insists to be biologically distinct from workers, isn't human and doesn't have human rights.

 No.10686

>>10684
Back on the 8chan days, /pol/yps were so hellbent on enforcing their race "realism" views that they made weekly threads arguing in circle about race and IQ for hours. /leftypol/ was one of the few places where thoses claims were actually dunked on rather than just deleted on sight, this before breadtube did it.
It's because of the recurrent occurence of thoses threads that the IQ= Autism scre filter was established. I think i still have the archives somewhere.

 No.10687

>>10686
Nah, I know. I've seen threads like this on here before. Or actually the previous iterations of this community. But to be honest, back in around 2014 to 2016 people on /sci/ also gave significant pushback against race realism.

 No.10689

>>10688
>IQ is real and important.
When i was at university me and my friends did a number of IQ tests, i got scores around 150, the smartest guy in our study group, a towering intellect if I ever saw one, got scores around 120.
It has to be bullshit.

>There is a correlation between being attractive, rich, successful, etc.

Maybe there is some truth to this because of actors and models, they get payed for their looks.
But capitalists aren't particularly intelligent, the billionaires were found to have just average intelligence.

>That also implies being unsuccessful and generally low-status makes you more likely to think of your current society as "unfair"

Well capitalism is unfair, that's a mathematical fact. Wealthy people got rich because market economics have a tendency to concentrate wealth, it's a structural tendency inherent to markets, it's got nothing to do with merit. Economic scientists have done simulations, even if you make market agents just do random trades, you end up with a wealth distribution that is exactly the same as what we see in the real world. That rules out individual traits as variable. When people trade, the exchange is rarely perfectly equivalent, in most instances one party ends up getting a better deal. If you take this to a statistics level of large numbers you end up with a small number of random people just being lucky and making mostly beneficial trades. If you implement an economic model that is not based on money transactions in markets you get a different distribution of wealth.

There is an ideological need for wealthy people to attribute their luck to personal virtue and the misfortune of others to personal failure. Otherwise they can't justify having all that wealth and power. In the past people used to believe in religion and the King was willed by god. Today that religion is dead, even religious people only have their personalized faith. In the capitalist system the rulers seek for other justifications. There is of course a natural level of inequality between people but it is very small, it can't account for the inequality we see in society and that is very inconvenient for the rulers.

The economy has been really terrible for over a decade, and recently it's got even worse. If you wish to attribute this to biological traits of our rulers, that would not be inconvenient for revolutionaries who wanted a justification to chop of some heads. You can't pretend this is politically motivated rhetoric. Appreciate the intellectual honesty of socialists who attribute the sad state of affairs to the structural failures of capitalism as an economic system. There are different ways to measure success and failure. You don't have to think that capitalists are successful, because success would mean that the world would be much better. The homeless person on the street can't be responsible for any economic crisis since they are more or less excluded from the economy, and hence must bee seen as being less of a failure than the big capitalists who run the show.

The level of inequality has changed drastically during human history, but our genetic makeup can't change at the same speed as the unfolding of historic economic changes. In conclusion we can rule out that wealth and power are the result of biological differences between people.

 No.10718

>>10677
Siberia Tier thread zzz jukebox npc takes

 No.10819

>>10700
>while not even being aware of the definition of heriditabilty.
OP already gave a correct description of the term heritability. It's your definition that was wrong.

>"i know IQ is bullshit"

You don't even understand that statement. It's not denying the existence of different degrees of intelligence, but rather if that is the appropriate way to describe and measure intelligence.

>The only way to cope with this is by assuing equality apriori

Marx himself stated people aren't fully equal and striving for complete equality is a materially futile endeavour. You clearly aren't educated on the ideology you are criticizing and are just running with a caricature in your imagination.

>JQ

lol.


Unique IPs: 9

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]