Got EU Milk?

[Papewaio]

That's the spirit!

Spirits both alcohol and ghostly are also used to avoid personnel responsibilty too ;)

[Fragony]

Fragony post of the year.

A rare day if we agree on something, goes for Greyblades as well

[Husar]

The ability to notice when our influences would have us do bad is what makes us intelligent.

The ability to disobey our influences to do good is what makes us moral.

You're assuming that there is actually an ability and not a different result of other influences.
Morality is an illusion of the majority, however inevitable it may be given our predispositions to try to feel superior.
Intelligence is also a result of our early influences, to claim that it is somehow a person's own fault when they lack intelligence is quite a strange notion.

[Greyblades]

A rare day if we agree on something, goes for Greyblades as well

Turns out pointing out the other side is drinking the cool-aid is a good way of hiding your own side's flavored drink.

You're assuming that there is actually an ability and not a different result of other influences.
Morality is an illusion of the majority, however inevitable it may be given our predispositions to try to feel superior.
Intelligence is also a result of our early influences, to claim that it is somehow a person's own fault when they lack intelligence is quite a strange notion.

Huh, trying to make your own memorable quote for the next generation to parrot with no understanding is hard, who knew.

Using an unverifiable thought experiment to excuse someone's actions is still insane.

[Husar]

Huh, trying to make your own memorable quote for the next generation to parrot with no understanding is hard, who knew.

Using an unverifiable thought experiment to excuse someone's actions is still insane.

That's lazy, if you have a problem with the theory, go to the appropriate thread and debate it.
The theory is well-developed, unlike your knee-jerk dismissal of it.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-Eliminativism

[Greyblades]

Reading 111 posts of you and monty analysing lyrics is not what I call a good use of my time.

If it is right then you dont exist as anything but the delusion of a meat automaton, or it is wrong and you are an living, thinking, acting person.
Proving either conclusion is impossible and in both cases the indulgence of such an idea to the point of letting people off for wrongdoings will do nothing but incur existential crises and encourage more people to go "nothing matters so I might as well hurt others for personal gain"

So, no, I wont take it as an excuse.

[Husar]

Reading 111 posts of you and monty analysing lyrics is not what I call a good use of my time.

That's what the people say who believe god created the earth 7000 years ago. Or the ones who believe the earth is flat.

If it is right then you dont exist as anything but the delusion of a meat automaton, or it is wrong and you are an living, thinking, acting person.
Proving either conclusion is impossible and in both cases the indulgence of such an idea to the point of letting people off for wrongdoings will do nothing but incur existential crises and encourage more people to go "nothing matters so I might as well hurt others for personal gain"

Oversimplification, people say the same about losing all morality when you lose your religion but it does not happen.

Sob stories about upbringing might incrue sympathy, but it shouldnt bring blind forgivness.

Forgiveness for what? Trying to improve lives? Is she in jail yet?
Don't use unverifiable thought experiments to accuse people.

[Greyblades]

That's what the people say who believe god created the earth 7000 years ago. Or the ones who believe the earth is flat.

Come back when you finish the sargon of akkad video you blew off after 4 minutes, then you can lecture me about this.

Oversimplification, people say the same about losing all morality when you lose your religion but it does not happen.

Indeed, which is why I said it shouldnt be indulged instead of it should be banned. It is a theoretical dead end, so pointless it doesnt deserve even this small amount of attention.

Forgiveness for what? Trying to improve lives? Is she in jail yet?
Don't use unverifiable thought experiments to accuse people.

Spreading misinformation to make a buck probably wouldn't get her a jail sentance, it still doesnt make what she says any less full of it.

[Gilrandir]

Do you think that bananas going to Ukraine get a different treatment? They're sprayed by Love and Spring on the boat?

No, but that's one more reason to shun outlandish foods.

They don't get banana's.

I wonder, if moderators are those priviledged who can violate the rules set by them:

Nation and Religion Bashing

This occupation, a variant of trolling behaviour, deserves special mention. It is perfectly acceptable to take issue with a government or religious grouping, but we frown upon generalised insults.
Acceptable: "I can't stand the Lilliputian government's excessive use of hemp rope against innocents"
Unacceptable: " Lilliputians are small-minded pygmies"

Just remember that Respect thing we talked about. Would you like what you wrote said about your own nationality?

Intelligence is also a result of our early influences, to claim that it is somehow a person's own fault when they lack intelligence is quite a strange notion.

Intelligence is inborn, thus inherited. Some people are born smarter then others. It can be developed by influences, though.

That's what the people say who believe god created the earth 7000 years ago. Or the ones who believe the earth is flat.

Next thing you will be saying is there is no Santa.

[Husar]

Come back when you finish the sargon of akkad video you blew off after 4 minutes, then you can lecture me about this.

I watched a third or half of it once IIRC but it just continued to feel like a waste of time.
It's interesting that you're still mad about this though, so mad that you bring it up in unrelated threads.
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Indeed, which is why I said it shouldnt be indulged instead of it should be banned. It is a theoretical dead end, so pointless it doesnt deserve even this small amount of attention.

Banning religion/philosophy? Where did that one come from?
And it's not a dead end, it could be the next big step towards understanding the human brain.

Spreading misinformation to make a buck probably wouldn't get her a jail sentance, it still doesnt make what she says any less full of it.

But that wasn't the point, I said you can't blame her, it's not the same as saying she is right.

[Sarmatian]

I wonder, if moderators are those priviledged who can violate the rules set by them:

Relax, it was a joke.

Anyway, he's gotta look down on everyone else, he's British. If we take that away, all they've got left is bad food and bad weather.

[Husar]

Intelligence is inborn, thus inherited. Some people are born smarter then others. It can be developed by influences, though.

“Sometimes it is [...] said that 80 per cent of intelligence is determined by heredity, 20% by environment. This statement is nonsense. Both these variables are of 100% importance; their relation is not additive but multiplicative. Asking how much heredity contributes to man’s intelligence is like asking how much the width of a field contributes to its area, and how much length contributes.” - Donald O. Hebb

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....200700016/pdf

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, it's smarter than, "then" is temporal and not used for comparisons such as yours.

[Montmorency]

Intelligence is the ability to adapt to, shape, and select environments. The broadness of this definition is part of why it is almost universally accepted by researchers and academics.

By consequence, however, to describe such "intelligence" in either nativist or empiricist terms becomes obviously impossible.

Thus, we usually focus on specific measures of intelligence, or more precisely aptitude, which is assumed - hoped - to reflect intelligence in some way.

In short, discussing the heritability of "intelligence" is useless because "intelligence" isn't really a very useful concept in itself.

Contextual performance-based analysis, so to speak, is the only way to get at what we would like to get at, and even there, any single thing that you could think of as being affected by "intelligence" has been found to have a heritability:

between 0 and 1. Surprise!!!

And this is all without even beginning to take epigenetics, which adds a whole new layer to the problem, into account...

[Greyblades]

I watched a third or half of it once IIRC but it just continued to feel like a waste of time.
It's interesting that you're still mad about this though, so mad that you bring it up in unrelated threads.
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

The correct answer here should have been, "my failings dont excuse yours". And you'd be right, if I had blown it off completely I would have no leg to stand on, but I didnt because I was reading the thread when it was first made. I even made three comments, two were admissions of my uncertainty and one was somewhat more substantive:

Hrm, I really hope this doesnt turn into another excuse to be assholes. e.g. the republican's: "Greed is good" and "personal liberty is sacred aboove all else"

I was reading the thread back before it deteriorated to lyrical analysis and in spite of appearances I was paying attention. Even when I was still drinking the liberal kool aid the whole thing seemed like a theological dead end. The only thing keeping me from calling it out was the fact that people I considered more intelligent than me was taking it seriously, so I assumed I was just too dumb to understand.

Now that I no longer believe that smart people that agree with me on some things dont, or even cant, waste time on pointless things I find the reason for my lack of acceptance wasnt because it was too smart for me but because it was self defeating: Both possibilities of the theory are unprovable and if the automaton outcome is right then by definition there is nothing we can do about it.

A pointless grief and as you proved my assessment of it's misuse was correct. It has become an excuse to let people be assholes.

Food babe's show is full of crap and your attempt to excuse it's blatant bias with this philisophical dead end is the same sort of deflection as the people who use objectivism to excuse politicians who want to cancel welfare.

[Husar]

The correct answer here should have been, "my failings dont excuse yours". And you'd be right, if I had blown it off completely I would have no leg to stand on, but I didnt because I was reading the thread when it was first made. I even made three comments, two were admissions of my uncertainty and one was somewhat more substantive:

I do not see it as a failing not to watch an entire Sargon of Akkad video just like I don't blame you for not watching an entire Davis Aurini video.

Both possibilities of the theory are unprovable and if the automaton outcome is right then by definition there is nothing we can do about it.

But knowing about it will change us. And if it is right it may improve our knowledge about ourselves and how we work, and therefore help us improve and advance our scientific knowledge. Whether it is really unprovable is not something you can say with certainty, the existence of radio waves was unprovable in 1400.

A pointless grief and as you proved my assessment of it's misuse was correct. It has become an excuse to let people be assholes.

You're not seeing the entire picture and that's why your assessment is wrong.

Food babe's show is full of crap and your attempt to excuse it's blatant bias with this philisophical dead end is the same sort of deflection as the people who use objectivism to excuse politicians who want to cancel welfare.

Calling women "it" could be copnstrued as sexist, but there is neither an excuse nor is there necessarily a dead end. You seem to refuse a philosophy on the grounds that you simply dislike its implications without considering its actual merit.

[Gilrandir]

“Sometimes it is [...] said that 80 per cent of intelligence is determined by heredity, 20% by environment. This statement is nonsense. Both these variables are of 100% importance; their relation is not additive but multiplicative. Asking how much heredity contributes to man’s intelligence is like asking how much the width of a field contributes to its area, and how much length contributes.” - Donald O. Hebb

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....200700016/pdf

I have no idea who DOH is and how he came by the conlusions. I base my assumptions on my experience of teaching quite a number of kids and young adults. Some of them "are made" to learn English and master new skills very quickly. They get the essence of the rule and its application after they've done one exercise. They retain a lasting memory of grammatical patterns and new words and can easily retrieve them from memory when necessary. Others take 5-6 exercises to get it and can't hold in memory even the simplest words. It is true, though, that by hard work and perseverance the latter can make a substantial progress, yet whatever they reach is after struggling tooth and nail, and the former do it hand over fist.
Moreover, taking my family as an example I can claim that intelligence peculiarities (like propensity to humanities rather THAN sciences) are inherited. And it can be traced in dynasties of doctors, actors, military men...
It is useless to deny that some humans have inborn talent for painting, others - for 100-meter running, still others - for baking cakes. The talent needs development, of course, but trying to make a gifted painter into an outstanding athlete would deprive the world of either.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, it's smarter than, "then" is temporal and not used for comparisons such as yours.

I know that, a misspel, my bad. Try correcting Brenus' mistakes too.

[Husar]

I have no idea who DOH is and how he came by the conlusions. I base my assumptions on my experience of teaching quite a number of kids and young adults. Some of them "are made" to learn English and master new skills very quickly. They get the essence of the rule and its application after they've done one exercise. They retain a lasting memory of grammatical patterns and new words and can easily retrieve them from memory when necessary. Others take 5-6 exercises to get it and can't hold in memory even the simplest words. It is true, though, that by hard work and perseverance the latter can make a substantial progress, yet whatever they reach is after struggling tooth and nail, and the former do it hand over fist.
Moreover, taking my family as an example I can claim that intelligence peculiarities (like propensity to humanities rather THAN sciences) are inherited. And it can be traced in dynasties of doctors, actors, military men...
It is useless to deny that some humans have inborn talent for painting, others - for 100-meter running, still others - for baking cakes. The talent needs development, of course, but trying to make a gifted painter into an outstanding athlete would deprive the world of either.

The link I posted says that his conclusions are correct and why that is the case, I didn't read all of it but I copied the quote from there as well. Your experiences do not prove a lot, which is not to say they are wrong. But by the time you get to teach kids, the important part of their intelligence formed by the envionment has already passed. The way parents interact with their children in the very first years, when the brain still forms the most basic patterns and connections is apparently very important for the child's intelligence. The point about environmental factors is not that listening to Mozart by age 50 will make you gain 20 intelligence points within a year. Children already develop a sense for the patterns of their mother's language in the womb because when she talks, some of the sound waves reach down there. This just highlights that a lot of the brain's development starts early on and is still not genetic just because it might look that way when they go to school.

I know that, a misspel, my bad. Try correcting Brenus' mistakes too.

I think you two need relationship counseling.

[Montmorency]

You missed the conceptual point, which is that you can't partition "discrete influences" of heredity and environment. Environment determines heredity and heredity determines environment. What this means is that there is a possibility of the hereditary endowment of an individual transforming itself such that the individual goes from good painter and bad [soldier] (i.e. someone who has characteristics that make them well-suited to becoming a soldier/undergoing the training regimen to become a soldier) to a bad painter and a good soldier within one, or even within the same, generation. If you totally ignore epigenesis and interactional elements, then you would be limited to imagining such a transition over multiple, possibly even many, generations.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is a very good summation of the issue even without the inclusion of epigenesis:

Intelligence relates to how well systems process information, for example how well they
solve complex problems, how well they can store and retrieve information, how fast they process
information, but also how much information these systems contain. In addition, when we restrict
ourselves to the intelligence of human information processing systems - people - it should be noted
that the level of intelligence is usually not determined on a quantitative scale (interval or ratio scale),
but on a relative one (ordinal scale). Without commitment to any specific theory that relates
intelligence to a quantitative property (or multiple quantitative properties), intelligence is thus most
appropriately expressed in terms of a rank order (Bartholomew, 2004). However, as we will show
below, different rank orders of the level of information processing (henceforth cognitive functioning)
can be made. This is what makes the detailed interpretation of intelligence surprisingly difficult.
Consider the question whether intelligence changes during development. Based on the same data, one
researcher can legitimately conclude that it grows, hence changes, while another can legitimately
conclude that it is stable and does not change at all. The conclusion largely depends on the scientific
perspective.

In line with a developmental perspective, we can make a rank order on the basis of a within
individual comparison. Imagine a typical human newborn, call her Anne. Anne it is not yet able to
speak, does not have a vocabulary, and shows no sign that she is able to solve any problem that is
stated verbally. Provided Anne’s cognitive development takes place normally, by the time she is 7,
she has developed and improved many abilities that relate to information processing (e.g. speech),
and has gained a wealth of knowledge, including a vocabulary. At this point in development, she is
well able to solve certain problems that are stated verbally. Once Anne has reached adolescence, she
has gained even more knowledge and is able to solve many more (and more complex) problems, both
verbal and nonverbal. Given that such cognitive growth occurs in most people, the within-subjects
perspective can be translated to a between group ranking: Adolescents, have a higher level of
information processing than 12-year olds, for example, and 12-year olds a higher level than 7-year
olds; 7-year olds a higher level than newborns. Adopting this developmental perspective, one can
argue that throughout the course of development people become more intelligent, because cognitive
functioning increases.
��
Notably, in this developmental perspective people are treated as interchangeable, so that
this perspective will not provide an answer to the question of why 7-year old Anne processes
information better or worse compared to other 7-year olds. This requires an inter-individual
perspective. In line with this perspective, we can make a rank order based on a between individuals
comparison instead of a within individual (or between age group) comparison. Theoretically, the
between individuals rank order can be completely stable throughout development. Imagine three
healthy newborns, Anne, John, and Neil. Anne processes information better than John, and John
better than Neil. By the time they are 7, cognitive functioning has improved in all three, but Anne still
processes information better than John, and John better than Neil. By the time they are adolescents,
cognitive functioning has improved even further, but Anne processes information better than John,
John better than Neil, etc., etc. On the basis of this inter-individuals comparison, and in contrast to the
developmental perspective, one can maintain that Anne’s intelligence has not changed at all. In the light
of the above, it is important to note that the cause(s) of inter-individual differences in cognitive
functioning can be entirely different from the causes(s) of intra-individual differences in cognitive
functioning (cognitive growth). Within each
individual, verbal comprehension grows, but the rank order among individuals stays the same.
Imagine now that within each individual the growth is purely the result of learning and practice,
hence of experience. Next, imagine that every individual has the exact same experience, but that the
individuals differ in genetic makeup. The between subjects rank order might reflect purely these
genetic differences.

In reality, the between subjects rank order on cognitive functioning is not stable throughout
development. For example, it has been found that full scale IQ at age 3 correlate less than 0.5 with
full scale IQ at age 12 (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Bundy, 2001). Also, not one, but many variables,
influence cognitive growth (Sameroff, Seifer, Baldwin, & Baldwin, 1993). Interventions (e.g.
adoption) and other events (e.g. illness) that occur throughout development can have a profound
effect on cognitive growth, and thus on the ultimate level of cognitive functioning (Sternberg,
Grigorenko, & Bundy, 2001). In order to fully understand why one individual processes information
better than another, we need to take into account their life histories. This requires a developmental
perspective. On the other hand, cognitive growth is not unlimited, which implies that inter-individual
differences in limited resources or capacities will give rise to individual differences in the
developmental trajectories and the ultimate level of information processing. In order to understand
why the one individual develops differently than the other, one needs to take into account interindividual
differences in these capacities.

So, in order to understand and model human intelligence, we need both the developmental
perspective and the inter-individual differences perspective. The majority of the discussions, theories,
and models in the field of intelligence (as measured by psychometric tests) lack the developmental
perspective. Discussions and theories are mainly concerned with individual differences in
hypothesized limiting capacities (e.g. Spearman, 1904; Carroll, 1993; Jensen, 1998), either indirectly,
via the history of factor-analysis, or directly. The discussions have led to many different factor
models of intelligence (see, e.g. Jensen, 1998).

Enter epigenetics:

An important characteristic of the behavior genetic
methodology is that the partitioning of variance and the attendant causal interpretation pertains to
phenotypic individual differences, and not to phenotypes themselves (Dolan & Molenaar, 1995;
Lewontin, 1974; Oyama, 1985).

All developmental processes can be conceived of as the outcome of some dynamical system
(Guckenheimer & Holmes, 2002; van der Maas & Molenaar, 1992). Viewing the development of an
organism as the outcome of a nonlinear dynamical system, we accept the following characteristics. In
contrast to linear systems, nonlinear systems are characterized by a disproportional relationship
between cause and effect (Arnold, Afrajmovich, Il’yashenko, & Shil’nikov, 1994). This implies that
large influences may have small or limited effects, whereas small causes, e.g. initial changes or
differences, may have large effects. Hence, near-indistinguishable sets of initial conditions in the
same system may produce different outcomes.

Sensitivity to initial conditions can refer to two related, but distinct, forms of
unpredictability (Arnold et al., 1994). In some nonlinear systems the result is seemingly random
behavior. Such behavior is referred to as chaotic. In other nonlinear systems the result is a sudden
qualitative change in behavior when a small smooth change is made to a parameter. In mathematics,
such a change is termed a bifurcation. Bifurcations are a general characteristic of nonlinear systems in
physics (Prigogine, 1980), biology (Meinhardt, 1980), and psychology (e.g. van der Maas &
Molenaar, 1992; Kelso, 1995; Ploeger, van der Maas, & Raijmakers, 2008). In physics they are called
phase transitions; in biology and psychology they are often called stage transitions. Henceforth, we
use the term bifurcation as a general term to refer to these transitions.

Non-linear systems can attain certain levels of order, structure, and stability by a process
known as self-organization, i.e., an autonomous and self-regulating process (e.g. Camazine, 2001;
Meinhardt, 1982). Numerous instances of self-organization have been found in both non-living and
living systems. These include the formation of stripes in sand dunes and patterns on skins, coats, and
shells (Camazine; Meinhardt). Self-organization has also been established in the process of
morphogenesis that underlies the structured branching in organs, such as lungs, the cardiac muscle
network, and the blood circulatory system. In addition, the brain may be viewed as a highly structured
neural network. The notion that the formation of these structures involves self-organization is
supported by the fact that the total amount of information stored in the genome is too small to
prescribe these structures in any detail (Benno, 1990; Molenaar et al, 1993; Stent, 1978). In other
words, self-organizing processes are required to explain the process of ontogenesis.

In this context, epigenetics and epigenesis are important concepts. In general terms, there is
a close correspondence between self-organization and epigenesis, as Molenaar & Raijmakers (2000)
emphasized: ”[E]pigenesis constitutes an instance of a self-organizing developmental process" (p.
45). Or in the words of Beloussov (2006): “Epigenesis may be regarded as the theory of selforganization
as applied to ontogenetic phenomena” (p.1165). Traditionally, epigenetics refers to the
study of such processes, i.e., “the way genes and their products bring the phenotype into being”
(Jablonka & Lamb, 2002, p.82; Waddington, 1957). Nowadays, with the greater understanding of the
molecular mechanisms that control gene activity during embryonic development and cell
differentiation, epigenetics is defined as “the study of mitotically and/or meiotically heritable changes
in gene function that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence” (Jablonka & Lamb, p.87).
Despite differences in meaning and explanation, both traditional and molecular biological
epigenetics focus on alternative developmental pathways, and on the influence of environmental
conditions and its consequences for the organism. After fertilization, non-linear mechanisms initiate
autonomous growth processes that give rise to structure and pattern (e.g. brain structure). However,
the environment, the epigenetic process itself, and their interactions with both each other and with the
genetic effects tend to perturb development, possibly resulting in variations in developmental
pathway. That is, at critical points (i.e., bifurcation points, Arnold et al., 1995; Guckenheimer &
Holmes, 2002), these perturbations may cause development to follow a different trajectory, resulting
in variations in structure or pattern (Waddington, 1957). Given reciprocal influences between the
development of neuronal form and function, on the one hand, and neural activity, on the other (e.g.
van Oss & van Ooyen, 1997), differences in neuronal structure can result in differences in activity
and, thus, can become manifest at the behavioral level

[Gilrandir]

The link I posted says that his conclusions are correct and why that is the case, I didn't read all of it but I copied the quote from there as well. Your experiences do not prove a lot, which is not to say they are wrong. But by the time you get to teach kids, the important part of their intelligence formed by the envionment has already passed. The way parents interact with their children in the very first years, when the brain still forms the most basic patterns and connections is apparently very important for the child's intelligence. The point about environmental factors is not that listening to Mozart by age 50 will make you gain 20 intelligence points within a year. Children already develop a sense for the patterns of their mother's language in the womb because when she talks, some of the sound waves reach down there. This just highlights that a lot of the brain's development starts early on and is still not genetic just because it might look that way when they go to school.

It doesn't cancel what I have said. The environment is really important, yet if there is no original base to develop from, this development will lag drastically or will not take place. Unfortunately, some parents don't see it making their kids do things they are not fit for. As a result, everyone suffers- the kid, the parents and (oh, I know it for sure) the teacher.

I think you two need relationship counseling.

Are you fishing for a vacancy? Do you have a diploma of a long distance relationship advisor?

[Husar]

You missed the conceptual point, which is that you can't partition "discrete influences" of heredity and environment. Environment determines heredity and heredity determines environment.

I didn't miss it, I wanted to flesh out the environmental side. I will admit that the formulation was not optimal when I said "not genetic", what I meant was more like "not entirely genetic".
My point was that to blame everything mostly on genetics always seems a bit lazy as in there is nothing we can do, when in reality there is probably a lot that can be done to at least mitigate the effects of bad genes. There are even certain influences that can affect our genetic makeup IIRC. I'm not sure whether this affects intelligence but stress can apparently affect the genes of future generations so even genetics aren't entirely beyond our influence.
http://www.healthline.com/health-new...or-life-072914
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ons-genes.html

It doesn't cancel what I have said. The environment is really important, yet if there is no original base to develop from, this development will lag drastically or will not take place. Unfortunately, some parents don't see it making their kids do things they are not fit for. As a result, everyone suffers- the kid, the parents and (oh, I know it for sure) the teacher.

Are you a monarchist or am I reading too much into that?
And you can blame people even less for being stupid if it's genetic.
Stop hating on the food babe already.

Are you fishing for a vacancy? Do you have a diploma of a long distance relationship advisor?

No, I just tried to help.

[Montmorency]

Lol, so neither of you read my post.

[Husar]

Lol, so neither of you read my post.

I did, except the part in spoilers, I have work to do and I'm a slow reader. I'd also have to look up what epigenesis is exactly.
You may call it a summary but I'd have to look up half the technical terms mentioned therein and would find myself 3 hours later wondering why I didn't get any work done. Maybe you could summarize in one or two sentences what exactly I did not understand about it. You mean the part about IQ developing a lot between age 3 and 12? (see, now I partially read it instead of working...) What's a correlation of 0.5 again, I thought I mentioned somewhere that I'm bad at statistics?

[Montmorency]

OK, executive summary:

1. You're talking about the importance of the interaction of genes with environment, or V_ExV_G.
2. I'm acknowledging that and adding that there are indeed many such factors to consider, such as niche selection, and gene-gene interaction, but more importantly than all of that is that epigenetics provides a layer completely beyond this analysis, essentially making even the idea of multiplicative relationship between genes and environment outdated.
3. Epigenetics is "the study of...heritable changes in gene function that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence".
4. The consequence of epigenetics is that, to put it crudely, the environment can change how your genes act without actually changing the genes themselves.
5. Dutch Hunger Winter case study.

[Husar]

Eh, thanks, but that was also in the links I posted. I forgot that they called it epigenetic inheritance in the second link, but it's pretty much in there:

For the first time, genes chemically silenced by stress during life have been shown to remain silenced in eggs and sperm, allowing the effect to be passed down to the next generation.

The finding, obtained from detailed DNA scans in developing mouse eggs and sperm, backs up mounting indirect evidence from statistical studies that the genetic impacts of environmental factors such as smoking, diet, stressed childhoods, famine and psychiatric disease can be passed down to future generations through a process called epigenetic inheritance. Many geneticists had considered this an impossibility.

Genes can be switched off by altering DNA through a chemical process called methylation, in which enzymes respond to environmental factors by marking genes with methyl groups that prevent them from working.

So to return to the actual topic, the actual intelligence of the food babe is hard to judge from commercial material and even if she is not very intelligent, it is not her fault, whether it is based on genetics or environmental influences doesn't even matter a lot since she cannot influence either. You might claim that she can influence or change her environment, but that only works if she already has the required intelligence to realize that this change is necessary.

And that's why you should eat your veggies.

[Gilrandir]

Are you a monarchist or am I reading too much into that?

Didn't get this one.

Stop hating on the food babe already.

Didn't get this one either.

And you can blame people even less for being stupid if it's genetic.

Did you find in my post any words of blame? I rather feel pity for the people (mainly kids) who are forced (mainly by their parents) into occupations they are not fit for.
Many a time did I see them suffer.

No, I just tried to help.

Assistance is accepted from the authorized persons only. And we need consent of the second party anyway.

Lol, so neither of you read my post.

There is so called Olbanean Language - a jargon of Russian-speaking internet users:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padonkaffsky_jargon
The most prominent features of it are deliberate misspels (the words are spelt the way they are pronounced) and spelling words in the sentence together.
Why I brought this up: when a person using Olbanean encounters a very long piece of reading which he is reluctunt (or too lazy) to digest he says: Didn'tgetthrougitbecausemanyletters or (as an option) Didn'tgetthroughitbecausewarandpeace.

[Montmorency]

TLDR

[Greyblades]

Monty, you are the last person here who should say TL:DR.

Great, I leave to give ironside the high degree of thought he has earned and I come back to find the thread turn into Husar and Montmorency's... I chose to call it a chamber of mutual admiration for the sake of civility.

I do not see it as a failing not to watch an entire Sargon of Akkad video just like I don't blame you for not watching an entire Davis Aurini video.

You accused my words of being like those of people "who believe god created the earth 7000 years ago. Or the ones who believe the earth is flat." over the implication of not reading a thread. The disapproval was as clear as your self awareness is lacking.

But knowing about it will change us. And if it is right it may improve our knowledge about ourselves and how we work, and therefore help us improve and advance our scientific knowledge. Whether it is really unprovable is not something you can say with certainty, the existence of radio waves was unprovable in 1400.

Yes it will change us, as you have shown us it will make us try to excuse someone for being a con artist. I think I will take my chances of a better society where people think thier choices are thier own, thier lives are not essentially predestined, thus pointless, and don't consider a person wasting the national-racial demographic with the greatest potential in the world by becoming a shill for alternative milk an inevitable outcome.

You're not seeing the entire picture and that's why your assessment is wrong.

And you are so convincing and unremitting in you attempts to correct it.

Calling women "it" could be copnstrued as sexist, but there is neither an excuse nor is there necessarily a dead end. You seem to refuse a philosophy on the grounds that you simply dislike its implications without considering its actual merit.

Put down the placard, Brianna Wu, I was reffering to the show not the woman. I refuse the philosophy because it's effects on supposedly intelligent beings repulses me.

[Husar]

You accused my words of being like those of people "who believe god created the earth 7000 years ago. Or the ones who believe the earth is flat." over the implication of not reading a thread. The disapproval was as clear as your self awareness is lacking.

No.
A worthwhile discussion of an interesting mental phenomenon based on actual philosophy and science is not comparable to some dude making a video about how bad he thinks women are, that was my point.

Yes it will change us, as you have shown us it will make us try to excuse someone for being a con artist. I think I will take my chances of a better society where people think thier choices are thier own, thier lives are not essentially predestined, thus pointless, and don't consider a person wasting the national-racial demographic with the greatest potential in the world by becoming a shill for alternative milk an inevitable outcome.

How do you know that she is a con-artist? Can you prove it?

And you are so convincing and unremitting in you attempts to correct it.

Thanks.

I refuse the philosophy because it's effects on supposedly intelligent beings repulses me.

Exactly, but being repulsed by something does not make it wrong.

[Greyblades]

No.
A worthwhile discussion of an interesting mental phenomenon based on actual philosophy and science is not comparable to some dude making a video about how bad he thinks women are, that was my point.

That you still think that is even close to an accurate assessment of his video is why I will keep giving you grief when you complain about people not attending to your latest attempt to use other people's words in place of your own arguments.

How do you know that she is a con-artist? Can you prove it?

Lets see, 500,000 subscribers on youtube plus a book that screams pseudoscience that has had at least 2,273 buyers willing to write reviews, yet she backs it up only with a degree is in computer science and a grasp of chemestry comparable to lobotomised toddler.

This mastery of science most egregiously encapsulated by her thinking nitrogen is both not present in the atmosphere and has detrimental effects.

The air you are breathing on an airplane is recycled from directly outside of your window. That means you are breathing everything that the airplanes gives off and is flying through. The air that is pumped in isn’t pure oxygen either, it’s mixed with nitrogen, sometimes almost at 50%. To pump a greater amount of oxygen in costs money in terms of fuel and the airlines know this! The nitrogen may affect the times and dosages of medications, make you feel bloated and cause your ankles and joints swell.

Its also covered here.

Her show is a textbook example of exploiting a population's ignorance of chemestry for cash, whether she is also ignorant is speculation.

Thanks.

Beware the man who only says what you wish to hear, for reality is cold and will not bend to accomidate delusion.

Exactly, but being repulsed by something does not make it wrong.

Nor does your apparant desire to believe everything montmorency says, to the point of thanking him whenever he makes your argument for you, make it right.

[Husar]

That you still think that is even close to an accurate assessment of his video is why I will keep giving you grief when you complain about people not attending to your latest attempt to use other people's words in place of your own arguments.

You are mad because I post proof and sources for my claims?
Well, if you think that's the right way to go about it...

Her show is a textbook example of exploiting a population's ignorance of chemestry for cash, whether she is also ignorant is speculation.

Nono, whether she is not ignorant is speculation. What happened to in dubio pro reo?

Nor does your apparant desire to believe everything montmorency says, to the point of thanking him whenever he makes your argument for you, make it right.

Wow, I had no idea you're this jealous.