Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Schwarzwald" data-source="post: 65892" data-attributes="member: 544">I actually took the time to look up that 2018 Nature Genetics paper you keep posting, and it’s honestly embarrassing how much you’re misreading it. The authors, Lee et al., explicitly state that these polygenic scores are &quot;non-portable,&quot; meaning the markers they found in Europeans failed to predict anything when applied to people of African descent. You&#039;re trying to use a ruler calibrated for one thing to measure something else entirely; the researchers themselves said it doesn&#039;t work that way.Even more damaging to your &quot;nobility&quot; theory is that when they looked at siblings—people with the same parents but different genes—the impact of those &quot;intelligence&quot; alleles dropped by 40%. That proves the study was actually picking up on things like stable homes and wealthy parents, not just raw brainpower. On top of that, these genes only explained about 11% of the difference in how people did in school. Using a study that accounts for 11% of the story to claim a 100% biological rule isn&#039;t &quot;logic&quot;—it’s just desperate.You&#039;re ignoring the 99.9% of DNA we all share to obsess over a few markers that the scientists say are mostly influenced by the environment anyway. It’s the same way you ignore that the Mali Empire ran a global commodity superpower while your &quot;superior&quot; Mongols were living in tents without a single library to their name.PS: Protip, next time you use references, make sure the people who wrote and published them are actually on your side. Citing a paper that explicitly says your method is &quot;limited&quot; and &quot;non-portable&quot; is a massive self-own.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Schwarzwald, post: 65892, member: 544"] I actually took the time to look up that 2018 Nature Genetics paper you keep posting, and it’s honestly embarrassing how much you’re misreading it. The authors, Lee et al., explicitly state that these polygenic scores are "non-portable," meaning the markers they found in Europeans [B]failed[/B] to predict anything when applied to people of African descent. You're trying to use a ruler calibrated for one thing to measure something else entirely; the researchers themselves said it doesn't work that way. Even more damaging to your "nobility" theory is that when they looked at siblings—people with the same parents but different genes—the impact of those "intelligence" alleles dropped by [B]40%[/B]. That proves the study was actually picking up on things like [B]stable homes and wealthy parents[/B], not just raw brainpower. On top of that, these genes only explained about [B]11%[/B] of the difference in how people did in school. Using a study that accounts for 11% of the story to claim a 100% biological rule isn't "logic"—it’s just desperate. You're ignoring the 99.9% of DNA we all share to obsess over a few markers that the scientists say are mostly influenced by the environment anyway. It’s the same way you ignore that the Mali Empire ran a global commodity superpower while your "superior" Mongols were living in tents without a single library to their name. PS: Protip, next time you use references, make sure the people who wrote and published them are actually on your side. Citing a paper that explicitly says your method is "limited" and "non-portable" is a massive self-own. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread