Gregory Francois Think you can keep it up for more than a second or two? Everybody knows black dudes cum fast. Why do you think no one ever sticks with em? All cock for a second don't do shit.
I really like Robert Plomin's point on respecting genetic differences, and the challenges some individuals may face in the educational system with reading.
Most people should be taught the basics, enough to write their name and login to a terminal to do necessary rote and repetitive work. It is a waste of time teaching most humans Literature, Art, Science and Philosophy. That should be kept to an elite who are worthy of that and who can properly afford it.
People with genetic differences shouldn't be expected to learn by reading. 16 percent of the population in the USA has an IQ of 85 or less; whose jobs are they gonna take? The army won't even have them. Is that what you built your civilisation on? Well, if they allowed for closer management and even slavery, then perhaps....
The problem I have with this video is that it's making a lot of assumptions based on statistics and observations. Where is the biology that explains the genetic differences. I didn't hear much of this until the end where he alluded to the fact that we don't yet know if it is actually genetic, he is assuming it is.
Genome-wide association studies do show correlation of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and IQ. Biological mechanism very difficult to determine because > 1000 SNPs so each SNP contributes a tiny fraction of 1 IQ point. Also, SNPs can be in non-coding regions.
from what I understood, it's based on "statistical odds". Let's use a 100 parents population as an example. 10 would be intelligent, 80 average, 10 below average. Intelligent parents may have more chances to have intelligent children due to genetics but they are not guaranteed to have intelligent children nonetheless. Therefore, not only the 2nd generation of those intelligent parents might be less in numbers than the 1st generation but because that group only represented 10% anyway, there won't be many children anyway. In the same way, average and below average parents may have intelligent children. Even though there chances to have intelligent children may be lesser than the group of intelligent parents, it is still significant. Therefore, because the average group represents the majority, based on statistical odds (bell curve), the majority of intelligent kids will be from that group of average parents.
First we need to understand why kids of top achievers don't have higher chance to be top achievers themselves than the rest of the population. This can be explained by the phenomenon called "regression to the mean". Then, because average people are the largest group, chances are the the next generation of top achiever will emerge from this group. To me this theory seems flawed, because it basically negates evolution. If the genetic lottery was completely reset at each generation which this argument seems to imply, by now we wouldn't be smarter than other primates. What I am willing to accept, however, the hypothesis that the advantage a kid genetically inherits is negligible compared to the regression to the mean.
@@huget00nA child of top achiever DOES have higher chance to be top achiever, due to his/her genetic starting position, regression to the mean notwithstanding. But that higher probability multiplied by their very small numbers, they are in the tail of the distribution, results in a small number, N1. In contrast, the parents in the middle of the distribution individually have a smaller probability of producing a bright child, but when multiplied by their 100-fold larger number (percentage of the population distribution), results in a N2 bright kids, where N2 can be larger than N1. That is, the child of average parents has to “fall further from the tree”, but there are so many more apples falling
The average parents are more in the genetic pool hence the top achievers will emerge from those classes. The elite is just too small for them to produce high achievers. Moreover the elite kids tend to become complacent about their capacity to succeed compared to kids who come from the working class at all.
Reason is that there are > 1000 genetic factors in humans that determine intelligence. Your child's DNA depends on a random combination from both parents. If your child gets the right mix, child is intelligent. In a community, there are a 1000 average parents with a 10% chance for intelligent child so 100 intelligent children from average parents. In this same community there are 20 intelligent parents with a 90% chance of intelligent child, so 18 intelligent children from highly intelligent parents. Next generation of intelligent children is 100 from average parents and 18 from intelligent parents.
Millions of years we have evolved doing what we do. Some do challenging things and others do not hence the difference in intelligence in people being logical or other wise. Some have it...ingenuity cannot be trained overnight, it is an inate part of our evolution. Those with that gene need for it to develop and possibly need an accomplice gene to blossom. Tests are soppy games psychologist create having little substance and the best test is to study who invents a useful and unique item..... not an academic or anyone with a Masters or Doctorate hiding away in educational research institutions achieving nothing but hot air.....
I am sorry someone got the idea to add music to this mans talk.Music disturbs .Do you really think this professor use music in the background when he teaches his students at the college and university? N0 he does not and to add music just because this is on TH-cam shows a lack of knowledge.
Intelligent environments breeds intelligence. Take Chinese-Americans and Jewish-Americans who adopted intelligent environments 350 years ago here in America. They were bottom of the barrel and within 6 generations had surpassed the general population. Also, the vast Intra-racial differences in IQ between ethnicities. His theory is interesting and the point about school acceptance is certainly true but it almost sounds like he saying, if you're bottom of the barrel, stop trying. Which no one should ever do, always pursue success and growth.
Disciplined hard work can effectively boost performance higher than the IQ component alone. Those cultures you mentioned, like Ugandan family values... Prioritise discipline. A 90 IQ white kid from the Midwest vs a 90 IQ Ugandan-american (or Jewish, Korean, etc) kid within the same education system? The values make a huge difference.
@D L not if you factor in differentiation based on personality temperaments. There's an important correlation between things like conscientiousness and agreeableness in combination with IQ. But totally, without personality considered you are correct
@@lukemcaleer6448Yes. He is saying people are successful because they have high IQ, whilst people are poor because of low IQ. People with more melanin seem to be especially stupid. This is regardless of education
If you’re a woman, the best gift you can give your future children is a highly intelligent father. So many woman pick some “exciting” guy who gives them the butterflies, and then deal with children with poor behaviors, terrible opportunities, and a stunted future
What he is saying is true, however when it comes to social mobility I think that would only work if the lady brain surgeon would marry the male street cleaner and the male Nobel Prize winner for science would marry the woman mopping the floor in a factory. As it stands smart people are having children with other smart people and people with low general intelligence are having children with other people of low general intelligence. Social mobility isn't going to change because politicians don't accept that the reason for financial inequality is genetic and people with different levels of intelligence aren't having children together anymore. From my understanding of science the gap between smart people and people with low intelligence is only going to grow.
you clearly didn't understand what the professor was saying as you are spouting nonsense that was touted by eugenicists in the 20th century based on theory (unevidenced) and pseudoscience. This has been proven wrong.
As soon as he mentioned the Bell Curve I had to stop watching. This is scientific racism in it's modern form. What is his agenda? Is he trying to do what Hitler couldn't?
The problem I have with this video is that it's making a lot of assumptions based on statistics and observations. Where is the biology that explains the genetic differences. I didn't hear much of this until the end where he alluded to the fact that we don't yet know if it is actually genetic, he is assuming it is.
Gasp, the elephant in the room that no politician across the political spectrum will touch.
Gregory Francois Think you can keep it up for more than a second or two? Everybody knows black dudes cum fast. Why do you think no one ever sticks with em? All cock for a second don't do shit.
@Nolan Jaros Your IQ is definitely below 90.
@@-scrim what is nature of universe and earthly life?
@@symbolbouchardnoteira8155 Deep.
@@-scrim why is deep the way it is?
I really like Robert Plomin's point on respecting genetic differences, and the challenges some individuals may face in the educational system with reading.
Most people should be taught the basics, enough to write their name and login to a terminal to do necessary rote and repetitive work.
It is a waste of time teaching most humans Literature, Art, Science and Philosophy. That should be kept to an elite who are worthy of that and who can properly afford it.
@@myroseaccount well who is it has the right to judge justice?
People with genetic differences shouldn't be expected to learn by reading. 16 percent of the population in the USA has an IQ of 85 or less; whose jobs are they gonna take? The army won't even have them. Is that what you built your civilisation on? Well, if they allowed for closer management and even slavery, then perhaps....
Completely agree!! We need social mobility!
I really liked his opinion that, we should have this kind of mature discussions more to be prepared for the future.
I am with Dr. Plomin in his view based on may of his research.
he's 6'5? I had to do a double take on that one.
where is all the experiments?
Thanks
The problem I have with this video is that it's making a lot of assumptions based on statistics and observations. Where is the biology that explains the genetic differences. I didn't hear much of this until the end where he alluded to the fact that we don't yet know if it is actually genetic, he is assuming it is.
Genome-wide association studies do show correlation of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and IQ. Biological mechanism very difficult to determine because > 1000 SNPs so each SNP contributes a tiny fraction of 1 IQ point. Also, SNPs can be in non-coding regions.
He’s not assuming anything. He’s sharing factual research data. You just can’t understand cuz you have a low iq 😂
Iam shocked after this
Very helpful
why in near future then distent future when will it be helpful?
Can someone explain how the best performers in the next generation will be form parents of average ability?
from what I understood, it's based on "statistical odds". Let's use a 100 parents population as an example. 10 would be intelligent, 80 average, 10 below average. Intelligent parents may have more chances to have intelligent children due to genetics but they are not guaranteed to have intelligent children nonetheless. Therefore, not only the 2nd generation of those intelligent parents might be less in numbers than the 1st generation but because that group only represented 10% anyway, there won't be many children anyway. In the same way, average and below average parents may have intelligent children. Even though there chances to have intelligent children may be lesser than the group of intelligent parents, it is still significant. Therefore, because the average group represents the majority, based on statistical odds (bell curve), the majority of intelligent kids will be from that group of average parents.
First we need to understand why kids of top achievers don't have higher chance to be top achievers themselves than the rest of the population.
This can be explained by the phenomenon called "regression to the mean".
Then, because average people are the largest group, chances are the the next generation of top achiever will emerge from this group.
To me this theory seems flawed, because it basically negates evolution.
If the genetic lottery was completely reset at each generation which this argument seems to imply, by now we wouldn't be smarter than other primates.
What I am willing to accept, however, the hypothesis that the advantage a kid genetically inherits is negligible compared to the regression to the mean.
@@huget00nA child of top achiever DOES have higher chance to be top achiever, due to his/her genetic starting position, regression to the mean notwithstanding.
But that higher probability multiplied by their very small numbers, they are in the tail of the distribution, results in a small number, N1.
In contrast, the parents in the middle of the distribution individually have a smaller probability of producing a bright child, but when multiplied by their 100-fold larger number (percentage of the population distribution), results in a N2 bright kids, where N2 can be larger than N1.
That is, the child of average parents has to “fall further from the tree”, but there are so many more apples falling
The average parents are more in the genetic pool hence the top achievers will emerge from those classes.
The elite is just too small for them to produce high achievers.
Moreover the elite kids tend to become complacent about their capacity to succeed compared to kids who come from the working class at all.
Reason is that there are > 1000 genetic factors in humans that determine intelligence. Your child's DNA depends on a random combination from both parents. If your child gets the right mix, child is intelligent. In a community, there are a 1000 average parents with a 10% chance for intelligent child so 100 intelligent children from average parents. In this same community there are 20 intelligent parents with a 90% chance of intelligent child, so 18 intelligent children from highly intelligent parents. Next generation of intelligent children is 100 from average parents and 18 from intelligent parents.
There is an online IQ test. Free version gives you an IQ of 100, but paid version gives you IQ of 130.
Does the test have any questions? You get a result of 100 regardless of your answers?
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Millions of years we have evolved doing what we do. Some do challenging things and others do not hence the difference in intelligence in people being logical or other wise. Some have it...ingenuity cannot be trained overnight, it is an inate part of our evolution. Those with that gene need for it to develop and possibly need an accomplice gene to blossom. Tests are soppy games psychologist create having little substance and the best test is to study who invents a useful and unique item..... not an academic or anyone with a Masters or Doctorate hiding away in educational research institutions achieving nothing but hot air.....
why are we who we are as each one?
Think you are making an assumption here without any proof.
Mike Ehrmantraut is now a scientist. Interesting.
I must be far less intelligent than my parents because i didnt understand this interview. But im bot a native speaker so...
What genes ..?
I am sorry someone got the idea to add music to this mans talk.Music disturbs .Do you really think this professor use music in the background when he teaches his students at the college and university? N0 he does not and to add music just because this is on TH-cam shows a lack of knowledge.
I don't know why but this made me laugh uncontrollably at 3am.
Your frustration is palpable.
13 do 50; 85 100 105
I think I understand the 13 do 50, what about 85 100 105?
Rawdiswar hey I’ve replied twice. It keeps disappearing
Rawdiswar basically the ave IQ for black white and Asian.
@@jonathanjames1522 Odd
No jobs for half.
Intelligent environments breeds intelligence. Take Chinese-Americans and Jewish-Americans who adopted intelligent environments 350 years ago here in America. They were bottom of the barrel and within 6 generations had surpassed the general population. Also, the vast Intra-racial differences in IQ between ethnicities. His theory is interesting and the point about school acceptance is certainly true but it almost sounds like he saying, if you're bottom of the barrel, stop trying. Which no one should ever do, always pursue success and growth.
Disciplined hard work can effectively boost performance higher than the IQ component alone. Those cultures you mentioned, like Ugandan family values... Prioritise discipline. A 90 IQ white kid from the Midwest vs a 90 IQ Ugandan-american (or Jewish, Korean, etc) kid within the same education system?
The values make a huge difference.
@D L not if you factor in differentiation based on personality temperaments. There's an important correlation between things like conscientiousness and agreeableness in combination with IQ. But totally, without personality considered you are correct
Then why bother torturing kids with education
Indeed put the children of the poor to work rather than school. After all schooling is for the Rich.
@@myroseaccount did you not listen to anything this guy said?, ffs.
@@lukemcaleer6448Yes. He is saying people are successful because they have high IQ, whilst people are poor because of low IQ. People with more melanin seem to be especially stupid. This is regardless of education
Please tell me what else he is saying?
@@myroseaccount 2:30-4:10
If you’re a woman, the best gift you can give your future children is a highly intelligent father. So many woman pick some “exciting” guy who gives them the butterflies, and then deal with children with poor behaviors, terrible opportunities, and a stunted future
What he is saying is true, however when it comes to social mobility I think that would only work if the lady brain surgeon would marry the male street cleaner and the male Nobel Prize winner for science would marry the woman mopping the floor in a factory. As it stands smart people are having children with other smart people and people with low general intelligence are having children with other people of low general intelligence. Social mobility isn't going to change because politicians don't accept that the reason for financial inequality is genetic and people with different levels of intelligence aren't having children together anymore. From my understanding of science the gap between smart people and people with low intelligence is only going to grow.
why has this to be it at all of everything is it?
you clearly didn't understand what the professor was saying as you are spouting nonsense that was touted by eugenicists in the 20th century based on theory (unevidenced) and pseudoscience. This has been proven wrong.
Average intelligence couples can have high IQ children; it is less common but does occur.
He is shocked and scared by his own discover...
what will history be in distant future and distent past?
This is a very confused person.
Yes
As soon as he mentioned the Bell Curve I had to stop watching. This is scientific racism in it's modern form. What is his agenda? Is he trying to do what Hitler couldn't?
He's dealing with the facts and the truth. You can't cry racism just because you don't like the truth.
Hitler was a nutty opportunist who is always brought in to shame people who might be interested in this subject
Who is Hitler?
How dare he mention a standard distribution!
The problem I have with this video is that it's making a lot of assumptions based on statistics and observations. Where is the biology that explains the genetic differences. I didn't hear much of this until the end where he alluded to the fact that we don't yet know if it is actually genetic, he is assuming it is.