Is IQ genetic?

>>9100275
60-80% heritable. Twin studies confirm.

i guess your first post being deleted didnt send you a message.

>>9100279
Closer to 80% than 60% in the more recent studies.

File: 1502495087546.png (683KB, 1409x2289px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 1409x2289px

>>9100297
>>9100279


There's that word again...

>>9100301
Variance in genetic values is out of the question (humans haven't evolved in the past 100 years since IQ testing began), heritability does change with age, but that is pretty much irrelevant since only adult IQ values are relevant (and this is why any study done on children should be sent to the trash pile), and finally every single attempt to boost IQ environmentally has ended in pathetic failure (head start probably being the most expensive one).

So yeah, no, IQ IS a highly heritable trait.

>>9100301
Anyways the burden of proof is on you to prove that IQ's heritability is out of whack and could easily change with changing environments. If you think psychometricists came up with a figure based on a single sample set and without taking into consideration possible environmental factors then you're a retard.

>>9100279
that's aggregate, heritability should be thought of as a propensity more than anything. A percent doesn't do the science justice.

Why are you pretending IQ is a real thing? Intelligence cannot be quantified.

>>9100279
This is incorrect, heritability is determined for a SPECIFIC population. For individuals of specific ancestry, age, gender everything. You can't determine the heritability of IQ for a British population for example and generalise it to every other population as a "trait heritability value". The math behind heritability itself defines it as population-specific.

This is something that most people ignore or fail to understand when reading wikipedia pages about heritability, but there you go.

Could it be possible that a sub 90 IQ couple had a 130 IQ son?

No, you are probably around a 55 IQ

File: grass.jpg (63KB, 346x500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 346x500px

>>9100275
>Is IQ genetic?

Yes.

>>9100434
Do you disaprove of basically all psychological studies?
Because the guys who developed the concept of iq, also created most of the statistical tools for psychometrics.

>>9100301

This is at least the second time you've posted this, and it's still not a point.

>>9100434

Lets just concede that IQ is fake, and it's not a measure of intelligence. IQ score is still..

0 greatly correlated with other academic measures, like SAT and GRE scores, and ones level of education
1 the best predictor of income, better than education, ones SES growing up, and other measures.
2 a great predictor of ones longevity, about as good as ones BMI.
3 a great predictor of ones civic tendencies like voting, and ones criminal tendencies.
3 greatly heritable and caused by ones genetics.

It doesn't matter if it's fake, or perhaps better said, it's real because it has all these very powerful associations which couldn't be an accident, even if the actual mechanism of intelligence is a mystery.

>>9100786
Correlation does not equal causation

I just want to be smart :(

>>9100313
>>9100314
>>9100786
The Flynn effect would beg to differ.

>>9100786
>getting a good diploma, income, friends and being a good goy means your brain is superior
sounds more to me that a brain is hardwired to """obey"""

>>9100892

Okay

>>9100989

In what way does the Flynn effect differ?

>>9100313
>humans haven't evolved in the past 100 years
>I know better than actual scientists
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2410101/