Tests of delayed gratification, such as the Marshmallow Experiment, show that those who can better delay their gratification have better life outcomes than those who cannot. The children who succumbed to eating the treat while the researcher was out of the room had worse life outcomes than the children who could wait. This was chalked up to cognitive processes by the originator of the test, while individual differences in these cognitive processes also were used as explanations for individual differences between children in the task. However, it doesn’t seem to be that simple. I did write an article back in December of 2015 on the Marshmallow Experiment and how it was a powerful predictor, but after extensive reading into the subject, my mind has changed. New research shows that social trust has a causal effect on whether or not one would wait for the reward—if the individual trusted the researcher he or she was more likely to wait for the other reward than if they did not trust the researcher, in which they were more likely to take what was offered in the first place.
The famous Marshmallow Experiment showed that children who could wait with a marshmallow or other treat in front of them while the researcher was out of the room, they would get an extra treat. The children who could not wait and ate the treat while the researcher was out of the room had worse life outcomes than the children who could wait for the other treat. These lead researchers to the conclusion that the ability to delay gratification depended on ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ cognitive processes. According to Walter Mischel, the originator of the study method, the ‘cool’ system is the thinking one, the cognitive system, which reminds you that you get a reward if you wait, while the ‘hot’ system is the impulsive system, the system that makes you want the treat now and not want to wait for the other treat (Metcalfe and Mischel, 1999).
Some of these participants were followed up on decades later, and those who could better delay their gratification had lower BMIs (Schlam et al, 2014); scored better on the SAT (Shoda, Mischel, and Peake, 1990) and other tests of educational attainment (Ayduk et al, 2000); along with other positive life outcomes. So it seems that placing a single treat—whether it be a marshmallow or another sweet treat—would predict one’s success, BMI, educational attainment and future prospects in life and that there are underlying cognitive processes, between individuals that lead to differences between them. But it’s not that simple.
After Mischel’s studies in the 50s, 60s and 70s on delayed gratification and positive and negative life outcomes (e.g., Mischel, 1958; Mischel, 1961; Mischel, Ebbeson, and Zeiss, 1972) it was pretty much an accepted fact that delaying gratification somehow was related to these positive life outcomes, while the negative life outcomes were partly a result of the lack of ability to delay gratification. Though in 2014, a study was conducted showing that ability to delay gratification depends on social trust (Michaelson et al, 2013).
Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, (n = 78, 34 male, 39 female and 5 who preferred not to state their gender) completed online surveys and read three vignettes in order—trusty, untrustworthy and neutral—while using a scale of 1-7 to note how likeable, trustworthy, and how sharing their likelihood of sharing. Michaelson et al (2013) write:
Next, participants completed intertemporal choice questions (as in Kirby and Maraković, 1996), which varied in immediate reward values ($15–83), delayed reward values ($30–85), and length of delays (10–75 days). Each question was modified to mention an individual from one of the vignettes [e.g., “If (trustworthy individual) offered you $40 now or $65 in 70 days, which would you choose?”]. Participants completed 63 questions in total, with 21 different questions that occurred once with each vignette, interleaved in a single fixed but random order for all participants. The 21 choices were classified into 7 ranks (using the classification system from Kirby and Maraković, 1996), where higher ranks should yield higher likelihood of delaying, allowing a rough estimation of a subject’s willingness to delay using a small number of trials. Rewards were hypothetical, given that hypothetical and real rewards elicit equivalent behaviors (Madden et al., 2003) and brain activity (Bickel et al., 2009), and were preceded by instructions asking participants to consider each choice as if they would actually receive the option selected. Participants took as much time as they needed to complete the procedures.
When one’s trust was manipulated in the absence of a reward, within the group of subjects influenced their ability to delay gratification, along with how trustworthy one was perceived to be, influenced their ability to delay gratification. So this suggests that, in the absence of rewards, when social trust is reduced, ability to delay gratification would be lessened. Due to the issues of social trust manipulation due to the order of how the vignettes were read, they did a second experiment using the same model using 172 participants (65 males, 63 females, and 13 who chose not to state their gender). Though in this experiment, a computer-generated trustworthy, untrustworthy and neutral face was presented to the participants. They were only paid $.25 cents, though it has been shown that the compensation only affects turnout, not data quality (Burhmester, Kwang, and Gosling, 2011).
In this experiment, each participant read a vignette and there was a particular face attached to it (trustworthy, untrustworthy and neutral), which were used in previous studies on this matter. They found that when trust was manipulated in the absence of a reward between the subjects, this influenced the participants’ willingness and to delay gratification along with the perceived trustworthiness influencing it as well.
Michaelson et al (2013) conclude that the ability to delay gratification is predicated on social trust, and present an alternative hypothesis for all of these positive and negative life outcomes:
Social factors suggest intriguing alternative interpretations of prior findings on delay of gratification, and suggest new directions for intervention. For example, the struggles of certain populations, such as addicts, criminals, and youth, might reflect their reduced ability to trust that rewards will be delivered as promised. Such variations in trust might reflect experience (e.g., children have little control over whether parents will provide a promised toy) and predisposition (e.g., with genetic variations predicting trust; Krueger et al., 2012). Children show little change in their ability to delay gratification across the 2–5 years age range (Beck et al., 2011), despite dramatic improvements in self-control, indicating that other factors must be at work. The fact that delay of gratification at 4-years predicts successful outcomes years or decades later (Casey et al., 2011; Shoda et al., 1990) might reflect the importance of delaying gratification in other processes, or the importance of individual differences in trust from an early age (e.g., Kidd et al., 2012).
Another paper (small n, n = 28) showed that the children’s perception of the researchers’ reliability predicted delay of gratification (Kidd, Palmeri, and Aslin, 2012). They suggest that “children’s wait-times reflected reasoned beliefs about whether waiting would ultimately pay off.” So these tasks “may not only reflect differences in self-control abilities, but also beliefs about the stability of the world.” Children who had reliable interactions with the researcher waited about 4 times as long—12 minutes compared to 3 minutes—if they thought the researcher was trustworthy. Sean Last over at the Alternative Hypothesis uses these types of tasks (and other correlates) to show that blacks have lower self-control than whites, citing studies showing correlations with IQ and delay of gratification. Though, as can be seen, alternative explanations for these phenomena make just as much sense, and with the new experimental evidence on social trust and delaying gratification, this adds a new wrinkle to this debate. (He also shortly discusses ‘reasons’ why blacks have lower self-control, implicating the MAOA alleles. However, I have already discussed this and blaming ‘genes for’ violence/self-control doesn’t make sense.)
Michaelson and Munakata (2016) show more evidence for the relationship between social trust and delaying gratification. When children (age 4 years, 5 months, n = 34) observed an adult as trustworthy, they were able to wait for the reward, compared to when they observed the adult as untrustworthy they ate the treat thinking that, since they observed the adult as untrustworthy, they were not likely to get the second marshmallow than if they waited for the adult to return if they believed him to be untrustworthy. Ma et al (2018) also replicated these findings in a sample of 150 Chinese children aged 3 to 5 years old. They conclude that “there is more to delay of gratification than cognitive capacity, and they suggest that there are individual differences in whether children consider sacrificing for a future outcome to be worth the risk.” Those who had higher levels of generalized trust waited longer, even when age and level of executive functioning were controlled for.
Romer et al (2010) show that people who are more willing to take risks may be more likely to engage in risky behavior that provides insights to that specific individual on why delaying gratification and having patience leads to longer-term rewards. This is a case of social learning. However, people who are more willing to take risks have higher IQs than people who do not. Though SES was not controlled for, it is possible that the ability to delay gratification in this study came down to SES, with lower class people taking the money, while higher class people deferred. Raine et al (2002) showed a relationship between sensation seeking in 3-year-old children from Mauritius, which then was related to their ‘cognitive scores’ at age 11. As usual, parental occupation was used as a measure of ‘social class’, and since SES does not capture all aspects of social class then controlling for the variable does not seem to be too useful. Because a confound here could be that children from higher classes have more of a chance to sensation seek which may cause higher IQ scores due to cognitive enrichment. Either way, you can’t say that IQ ’causes’ delayed gratification since there are more robust predictors such as social trust.
Though the relationship is there, what to make of it? Since exploring more leads to, theoretically, more chances to get things wrong and take risks by being impulsive, those who are more open to experience will have had more chances to learn from their impulsivity, and so learn to delay gratification through social learning and being more open. ‘IQ’ correlating with it, in my opinion, doesn’t matter too much; it just shows that there is a social learning component to delaying gratification.
In conclusion, there are alternative ways to look at the results from Marshmallow Experiments, such as social trust and social learning (being impulsive and seeing what occurs when an impulsive act is carried out may have one learn, in the future, to wait for something). Though these experiments are new and the research is young, it’s very promising that there are other explanations for delayed gratification that don’t have to do with differences in ‘cognitive ability’, but depend on social trust—trust between the child and the researcher. If the child sees the researcher is trustworthy, then the child will wait for the reward, whereas if they see the researcher is not trustworthy, they ill take the marshmallow or whatnot, since they believe the researcher is not trustworthy and therefore won’t stick to their word. (I am also currently reading Mischel’s 2014 book Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control and will have more thoughts on this in the future.)
I’ve done the marshmallow test with my own children, which hopefully eliminates the trustworthy aspect. The only variables that have so far impacted marshmallow eating is age (younger children struggle to delay while older children do it easily) and desire for marshmallows (kids who want more marshmallows make more effort to get more marshmallows than kids who are happy with just one.)
This could simply be an effect from conditioning on a collider. Of course trust in the researcher could be be analogous to trust in the governmental/economic system. The causation can be probed out by identifying the present feedback loops, children are probably more likely to distrust the system if their parents do too , as well as if the individuals were unsuccessful in attaining a high resource output through their careers. It’s already well known that delayed gratification is a biological entity related to the level of cognitive complexity of the species, so the differences seen in humans is probably due to niche construction, which of course is still hereditary.
I love how those who push the gene-centered view always go back to ‘it’s the genes’ argument. Source that these differences is due to niche construction, even after I’ve provided evidence for alternative explanations of Mischel’s studies? I don’t deny (and I didn’t even imply) that DG did not have a biological component between species. The point is, DG studies that don’t control for social trust are confounded, and you, therefore, cannot state definitively that DG has to do with differences in cognition between individuals, when it just, as I’ve cited, tests differences in trust between individuals.
And it’s also worth noting that Mischel has been against these conclusions in recent years that one little marshmallow can predict your life success.
The marshmallow test became the poster child for the idea that there are specific personality traits that are stable and consistent. And this drives Walter Mischel crazy.
“That iconic story is upside-down wrong,” Mischel says. “That your future is in a marshmallow. Because it isn’t.”
Invisibilia: Is Your Personality Fixed, Or Can You Change Who You Are?
“I love how those who push the gene-centered view always go back to ‘it’s the genes’ argument. ”
I love how literally everything goes over your head, to the point that i have to explain it to you like you’re a 5 year old. Genes are required for long term evolution, they are highly important to evolution, this is an irrefutable fact. That’s not me saying genes are “selfish” or “slaves”, but Darwin’s theory of natural selection needed a mode of inheritance, otherwise it was unscientific. I didn’t bring anything back to “it’s the genes” I just brought it back to evolution, because selection is always occurring. This bring me to my next point, where you stated:
“Source that these differences is due to niche construction, even after I’ve provided evidence for alternative explanations of Mischel’s studies?The point is, DG studies that don’t control for social trust are confounded, and you, therefore, cannot state definitively that DG has to do with differences in cognition between individuals”
See, I can definitively state that because these differences in social trust are evidence of the niche that has been constructed. Society is our niche, and as you know niche construction is still a selection pressure. Culture is just another word for environment and environment is what directs selection. Society causes differences in social trust and subsequently DG, the relative level of which is dependent on the niche. It may be more adaptive to have low DG in the hood. This is still all assuming the results of your studies are not simply due to conditioning on a collider(selection bias).
“that one little marshmallow can predict your life success.”
Nobody thinks that. Your arguments are always based on extreme strawmans.
1) You implicated genes as the ’cause’ for different niches. Nature, meet nurture. You are a false dichotomy.
2) Social trust as the cause for differences in the test is an apt explanation. The authors write:
For example, the struggles of certain populations, such as addicts, criminals, and youth, might reflect their reduced ability to trust that rewards will be delivered as promised. Such variations in trust might reflect experience (e.g., children have little control over whether parents will provide a promised toy) and predisposition (e.g., with genetic variations predicting trust; Krueger et al., 2012).
So this implies, if one is more trusting of authority or whatever else, they will also be better able to delay their gratification. (But in today’s political climate in America, I doubt that’ll happen.)
Of course. And, as seen in the above quote, if people see that they cannot trust others, then they will not be able to delay their gratification because they may believe they may not get said reward due to life experiences. (Saying that everything, in the end, is ‘genetic’ or ‘controlled by’ ‘genes’ is lazy because genes do not work like that.)
What do you think?
1) that is not an argument, it is a quote. Arguments have premises and conclusions and 2) I quoted that to show you Mischel’s thoughts on his studies over the decades and how they are painted in the media.
“You implicated genes as the ’cause’ for different niches. Nature, meet nurture. You are a false dichotomy.”
You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension, because i never stated any of that, neither did I imply it.
“2) Social trust as the cause for differences in the test is an apt explanation.”
This doesn’t necessarily conflict with what i wrote, but since it is essentially a repetition of what i already addressed with my point on niche construction, this implies you didn’t understand what i said. go back and read and readdress the point, otherwise your statement is just a redundant comment. I understand if you sometimes lack the ability to grasp the points I make. So don’t be afraid to ask questions if it sounds confusing.
Basically my point ca be summed as”Social trust is a product of a niche which is a selection pressure that selects fro dg”. Start thinking feed back loops, not dichotomies. If you don’t get it then you’re hit bud.
“What do you think?”
Not sure. Biology is a pretty soft science, so the variability can make things confusing.
“1) that is not an argument, it is a quote. Arguments have premises and conclusions and 2) I quoted that to show you Mischel’s thoughts on his studies over the decades and how they are painted in the media.”
1) A strawman is a false premise to begin with so my statement was still correct. Your arguments are based on extreme strawmans. 2) Whatever.
We can surely implicate the sociocognitive-affective nexus, what you term “a new word” for feedback loops but it’s much much more than that. I’ve already discussed it too much so you know where I am going with this. Either way, lower class people, since they don’t have much, would take it since, for instance, they may be hungry. The sociocognitive-affective nexus is powerful with a ton of explanatory power.
I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard in my life. Do me a favor and take a biology 1 class and tell the professor that biology is a ‘pretty soft science’ and report back what he/she says. I’d love to hear it.
Please explain you’re reasoning because it’s highly flawed. Biology is not psychology. It’s a hard science.
1) I didn’t make an argument, I only provided a quote from the originator of the feat and his thoughts on what the media says about his studies. 2) It’s not ‘whatever’ because that wasn’t an argument (arguments have premises and conclusions) and see 1.
“but it’s much much more than that.”
“I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard in my life.”
….Why? Are you seriously that ignorant that you didn’t even know Biology is soft?
“Do me a favor and take a biology 1 class and tell the professor that biology is a ‘pretty soft science’ and report back what he/she says. I’d love to hear it.”
It’s safe to say I know far more than your professor about Biology especially if he’s the one teaching you this garbage you’ve been parroting lately.
“Please explain you’re reasoning because it’s highly flawed. Biology is not psychology. It’s a hard science.”
I’ll go ahead and quote someone “Much of Physics and Chemistry is rooted in mathematical principles. Math is considered the purest of disciplines because it’s not open to subjective interpretation. Biology, although utilizing math at times, is more rooted in conceptual understanding and interactions between living systems, which generally cannot be mathematically explained. Something like evolution doesn’t have a scientific law that says “if these conditions then this result” like, say, the laws of gravity or thermodynamics have.”
The theory of evolution and genetics contributes to Biology also being a historical science. Which is why you and Afro sound really stupid when you say things like construct validity should be a perfect correlation of 1, or all HBD theories are Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because technically all historical science is and expecting 1 correlation to arise out of such variation is unreasonable.
“I didn’t make an argument”
This entire post is an argument, and it’s wahtever because i dont even care.
How is the sociocognitive-affective nexus much more than feedback loops? Because it implies that when lower scorers get access to the cultural and psychological tools needed to, say, delay gratification for a little treat (in Mischel’s original studies they were mini-marshmallows), then they too will be able to delay their gratification since they also have the same tools as others.
You didn’t know what ATP was so that’s a false statement. I don’t take the class anymore (I passed with flying colors, of course), and so I teach myself, reading and studying my textbook.
Is this a quote from Reddit? Either way, the statment that ‘conceptual understanding and interactions between living systems … cannot be mathematically explained” is a false statement.
On the mathematical theory of living systems II: The interplay between mathematics and system biology
Coincidentally, it uses systems biology, Denis Noble’s field.
There are no ‘laws’ other than ‘species change’ (which isn’t even a law, too lazy to word it like one), but there are ‘patterns’ and ‘generalizations’, to quote Jerry Coyne (my archnemesis).
Four laws of evolutionary biology
And the final sentence in that Reddit quote “Something like evolution doesn’t have a scientific law that says …”, how about “if a species survives and passes on its genes, then it will evolve under the right conditions” (which is also a logical argument)?
The proposed laws are based on continuous representation in both time and population. Their generic nature is demonstrated through their equivalence to classical formulations. The present three laws appear to provide a coherent framework for the further development of the subject.
Laws in Darwinian evolutionary theory
Most are, and I’ll reiterate that most HBD theories are ‘just-so stories’.
Yes the post is an argument, but the quote from Mischel that I provided, to which you said that “my arguments” are “always based on extreme strawmans” is wrong because that’s not an argument and the I didn’t even write that. It’s simple. Logic 101.
one thing no HBDer understand is history.
the world’s most advanced society was once located in what is today iraq. then it was egypt. then persia. the greece. then rome. it was never chiner. sad! therefore, i conclude iraqis are superior to china people. the philippines have always sucked. sad!
“then they too will be able to delay their gratification since they also have the same tools as others.”
Again, not all properties of this system are equal in dynamism. Plasticity is relative as well.
The reddit comment was not meant as evidence, but just a way to better articulate myself. It should be noted, by “soft” I am not degrading it’s scientific importance or validity but judging by your reaction, you do. Which is very erroneous, because science is not a competition, Evolutionary theory has as much validity as gravity, just the latter has more concrete predicitonal power, which is why it’s called “soft”
Secondly, I realize Biology contains a lot of math, especially biochemistry and medicine which are very “hard” fields, but Evolution is not. Which again is why when you bark “correlations not causation” and Afro barks “construct validity” you just embarrass yourselves.
“The present three laws appear to provide a coherent framework for the further development of the subject.”
Notice how he continuously puts quotations around the word “laws”. yeah, that’s because they aren’t actually laws LOL.
“Most are, and I’ll reiterate that most HBD theories are ‘just-so stories’.”
As is all historical science so go ahead and throw Physical Anthropology and evolutionary theory out the window.
The quotation was a premise for your opponents views. Get over yourself.
These tools, though, make up the special cognitive preparedness needed to take the tests. Cognitive systems have evolved to deal with changeable but unpredictable circumstances, like those created in social contexts. This occurs by distilling the abstract informational structure and then apply it to the problem. These structure then can be used as psychological tools, which can then be used to generate processes specific to the problem at hand but informed by the informational structure. Cultural tools are self-explanatory.
Natural sciences are hard sciences while social ‘sciences’ are soft sciences. Natural science is life science and physical science. Therefore biology is a hard science.
Evolution is part historic, part a-historical science. See Are ecology and evolutionary biology “soft” sciences? by Pigliucci (2002).
Research in ecology and evolutionary biology (evo-eco) often tries to emulate the “hard” sciences such as physics and chemistry, but to many of its practitioners feels more like the “soft” sciences of psychology and sociology. I argue that this schizophrenic attitude is the result of lack of appreciation of the full consequences of the peculiarity of the evo-eco sciences as lying in between a-historical disciplines such as physics and completely historical ones as like paleontology.
I didn’t quote that to imply you meant it, just showing what the creator of the test said about it, I’ve seen people say the same, but I know you have a problem with me using my past experience.
“Cultural tools are self-explanatory.”
You didn’t address my point.
“Natural sciences are hard sciences while social ‘sciences’ are soft sciences. Natural science is life science and physical science. Therefore biology is a hard science.”
Subject is not what defines a “soft” or “hard” science. It’s how close it adheres to experimentation as defined under the rules of the scientific method.
Yes I did. Special cognitive preparedness explains it. When you say ‘this system’, what do you mean? The developmental system right? Epigenetic effects due to stress would also effect plasticity and the dynamic changes that would occur with better access to the cultural and psychological tools needed to do well on these tests.
I’ve shown that it’s not a soft science. Psychology is soft, evolutionary biology and ecology are not.
“Yes I did.”
No you didn’t, beneficial mutations of regulatory genes are far more rare, which means that Intelligence is possibly more plastic than plasticity itself. Different parts of the brain also have varying levels of this plasticity, and it’s a well established fact that our brains lose enormous amounts of plasticity as we grow.
“I’ve shown that it’s not a soft science. Psychology is soft, evolutionary biology and ecology are not.”
LOL no, try again. If you jump out of your window, you will hit the ground every time, at the same time I can guarantee you of the existence of two species with identical genotypes yet completely different phenotypic expressions. Evolution lacks repeatibility, or more precisely, the results will always be variable. Go ahead and make a long term prediction on our evolution, or any other multicellular species, It’ll be very wrong. When you a make a prediction in physics, the result is the same every single time.
The point is about special cognitive preparedness, the sociocognitive-affective nexus and how they intertwine with social class. I’ve shown so-called generic differences in IQ using GWAS are flawed and don’t take into account population stratification within Britain, nor do they take into account migratory patterns of different social classes that have become stratified. There is no evidence for the assertion—other than GWAS studies which are highly flawed—that differences between classes come down to genetic differences because the behavioral genetics model is highly flawed and based on numerous false assumptions.
Evolutionary biology has predictive power.
The Predictive Power of Evolutionary Biology and the Discovery of Eusociality in the Naked Mole Rat
The claim that evolutionary biology has no predictive power is a Creationist ploy (no I am not calling you a Creationist). That fact has been discredited by philosophers of science and Karl Popper.
“The point is about special cognitive preparedness, the sociocognitive-affective nexus and how they intertwine with social class.”
Irrelevant. You didn’t address my point you’re just repeating yourself.
“Evolutionary biology has predictive power.”
I didn’t say or imply the opposite. Evolution has predictive power, just less than any theory in physics. Evolution is science, it’s just less scientific, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Naked mole rats are actually a perfect example of my point:
“Moreover, unlike all other mammals studied to date, and regardless of sex or breeding-status, the age-specific hazard of mortality did not increase with age, even at ages 25-fold past their time to reproductive maturity. This absence of hazard increase with age, in defiance of Gompertz’s law, uniquely identifies the naked mole-rat as a non-aging mammal, confirming its status as an exceptional model for biogerontology.”
In physics, there is nothing that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
It’s not irrelevant. This: “Again, not all properties of this system are equal in dynamism. Plasticity is relative as well.” does not address the point on affective prepardness and cultural and psychological tools used for test-taking. Which properties of the system that use psychological tools are not ‘equal in dynamism’ and which show that ‘Plasticity is relative as well’? I’ve shown previous citations on the epigenetic effects brought on by certain social class living, which then would effect test performance. Must not be relevant.
If you’ve ever stated that “a calorie is a calorie”, that violates the Second Law and there have been instances of the First Law being violated:
Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics in f(R,T) Gravity
Second Law being violated:
Violation of the second law of thermodynamics in the quantum microworld
“does not address the point on affective prepardness and cultural and psychological tools used for test-taking”
It does address it, you just lack the ability to understand what it means. I’ve explained it’s reasoning multiple times, and this is the last time. The different parts in our biological systems are not equal in plasticity. Meaning, you can never fully mute all observed mental gaps between individuals. You’re living in a fantasy world, where you think everything is fair. Sorry bud, but Innate potential exists, it’s gotten to the point that you are literally denying evolution.
“Second Law being violated:”
LOL, you don’t know physics. Why are you trying to debate me on it? Physics breaks down in blacks holes, hence why thermodynamics does not apply in singularities brought on by massive gravitational effects. Secondly, Quantum mechanics does not violate Thermodynamics, thermodynamics just doesn’t apply on the small scale(As do almost all physical laws, one reason why Cells could not possibly be intelligent) So size is simply a confound. Which bring me to my next point: Evolution, biology have infinitely more confounds to control for, which is why the predictional power is so low to begin with. Also I should mention, unlike 90% of all physics theories, Thermodynamics is a statistical law, not an absolute one.
Where did I assert this? I made a claim that psychological and cultural tools are unevenly distributed between classes which is why they score differently, also bringing up the fact that IQ tests are constructed by people from a narrow social class which is another reason why lower classes score lower. So since they have differential access to these tools then they score differently.
These mental differences in the normal range, what causes them and where is the evidence for the assertion? Yea yea P-FIT. But where are the genes that cause these differences?
Thanks for the laugh. I’ve shown that IQ heritability estimates are way inflated. I’ve shown that natural selection lowers heritability for traits important for survival. Ergo genetic variation in ‘IQ’ should be low. Therefore I’m not ‘literally denying evolution’.
You made an absolute claim. I showed your absolute claim was wrong.
Scientific American: “Now Australian researchers writing in the July 29 issue of Physical Review Letters report that even larger systems of thousands of molecules can also undergo fleeting energy increases that seem to violate the venerable law.”
Either way my main concern with thermodynamics are the claims that the First Law has any relevance to weight loss. Since you’re so much more knowledgeable on physics than my measly brain is, does the First Law apply to human physiology? Is it relevant to human physiology?
“Where did I assert this? which is why they score differently”
This quote implies it. Meaning you don’t understand that “The different parts in our biological systems are not equal in plasticity.”
“But where are the genes that cause these differences?”
This question is more evidence of how little you actually know about biology.
” I’ve shown that IQ heritability estimates are way inflated.”
What does that have to do with anything I stated? Reading comprehension.
“You made an absolute claim.
Because you have a higher chance of winning the lottery 50 times in a row then observing Thermodynamics breaching the classical limit.
“I showed your absolute claim was wrong.”
No you didn’t. Try again.
“Either way my main concern with thermodynamics are the claims that the First Law has any relevance to weight loss.”
Thermodynamics always has relevance, it’s just how one interprets it. Thermodynamics is still relevant to weight loss in the sense that it’s relevant to biochemistry in general. The way calories work has no bearing on that.
“Since you’re so much more knowledgeable on physics than my measly brain is, ”
Look, you can’t help what your genes do, they’re very selfish.
“does the First Law apply to human physiology? Is it relevant to human physiology?”
Go ahead and post the link, you’ve already tried this before I was even reading on physics, and now that i know it I’m going to go ahead and dissect it and explain why it’s bullshit.
Of course I understand this. My assertion re psychological (and cultural) tools still hold. Psychological tools can be used to generate solutions unique to that problem, which comes from the structure of the problem. So if you’re not exposed to middle class culture, then you won’t know how to integrate the statistical information seen to generate solutions unique to said problem.
I laughed. I’ll play your game though. Where are the genes that are expressed differently that cause these differences in trait variation?
No, no ‘reading comprehension’. You said I am denying evolution. I then used evolution to prove my point.
I provided evidence against your absolute claim.
No it is not relevant to weight loss. It tells nothing about causation. And the way calories work DOES have a bearing on this.
Let’s say two people are on a diet with the same amount of kcal, say they both are the same height and weight, they consume the same amount of kcal, but the only difference is that one man is eating 60 percent kcal from CHO while the other is eating 60 percent kcal from fat. Over a 6 month period, what will happen to both of them? Will they end up losing the same amount of weight if they were locked inside of a metabolic chamber? Why or why not? Is a calorie a calorie? That is, does it matter where calories come from? If I eat 60 percent of my diet from sugar one week and 60 percent from fat another week, will there be any difference? Are calories ‘just calories’? Does it matter what type of source they come from?
“now that i know it” hahaha. You think because you did some auto-didactic reading on something that you “know it”? OOoooookkkk…..
Why the first law of thermodynamics is utterly irrelevant
The First Law gives no causal information, someone eats more they gain more weight. Cool, we know that. Why do they gain more weight? It doesn’t answer what causes it. No, ‘eating more’ is not the cause, it becomes circular.
This is also my go-to video when showing new people why it’s not relevant.
“Of course I understand this.”
But you obviously don’t. The basic premise of your thesis: is that culture will equalize mental differences between individuals. This disregards any differences in plasticity that could exist between biological structures that control cognition. For example, you have no idea whether the PFC is more malleable to the environment compared to the V1. Neither did you take into account that the V1 in one individual could be more plastic than the V1 in another. Culture can of course mute discrepancies assuming epigenetic change follows, which is still hereditary, still genetic, and still responsive to varying modes of selection.
I’m sure you did, Idiots tend not to know how stupid they really are.
” Where are the genes that are expressed differently that cause these differences in trait variation?”
The same question. It’s seems you simply don’t get that even asking that question means you have not successfully extrapolated the necessary knowledge from the corresponding literature. When I have tried to correct you on these misconceptions you simply ignore, or possibly can’t grasp it. Phenotype does not equal genotype.
“You said I am denying evolution. I then used evolution to prove my point.”
Heritability has little to do with what i was talking about, so yes, reading comprehension. Also it seems redundant for you to claim heritability as a useless measure, and then use it to try and prove a point.
“I provided evidence against your absolute claim.”
Pffft. Did that boost your ego? Do you want a cookie now?
“No it is not relevant to weight loss. It tells nothing about causation. And the way calories work DOES have a bearing on this.”
CICO follows Thermodynamics, but CICO is not the correct way weight regulation actually functions, because of confounding variables like Insulin. So the issue isn’t the relevancy of Thermodynamics, it’s the way people interpret how their metabolic system works. Thermodynamics is always relevant because it’s a physical law and Biochemistry runs on physical laws. Thermodynamics defines the origins of life itself.
Click to access 2013jcpsrep.pdf
“You think because you did some auto-didactic reading on something that you “know it”? ”
Well so far my “auto didactic reading” has gotten me much farther than you, at least in knowledge on biological systems and evolution. I already read the paper you posted on the supposed irrelevancy of thermodynamics in weight loss. Im sure you read it too, the difference is I critically analyzed it and took into account the physics I had been reading. This quote describes you to the T:
“I know people who read interminably, book after book, from page to page, and yet I should not call them ‘well-read people’. Of course they ‘know’ an immense amount; but their brain seems incapable of assorting and classifying the material which they have gathered from books. They have not the faculty of distinguishing between what is useful and useless in a book; so that they may retain the former in their minds and if possible skip over the latter while reading it”
And the other part of said thesis is that the test items are biased towards higher classes since they are exposed to more of what are on these tests. IQ tests, then, can be said to screen for those who have the requisite psychological/cultural tools to take said IQ test, and people in lower classes will be less prepared since they have less access to said cultural and psychological tools.
I know that stress affects the growth of the hippocampus and the vmPFC
Epigenetic changes are not ‘genetic’. We’ve been through this. Read the section on chromatin in my MS article. That’s not ‘genetic’. Just because it passes through the germline/survive meiosis/mitosis does not mean it’s ‘genetic’. Of course epigenetic variation would then become a target of selection if possible.
Thanks. I didn’t know that.
You said that “innate potential exists”. Where is this “innate potential”? Is it “in the genes”? If so, which genes? Do differences in genes account for differences between individuals in ‘intelligence’? If so, which genes? I hope these aren’t vague, what you would term ‘trap’ questions, I think they’re pretty clear.
You’re talking about ‘innate potential’ (whatever that is). So can you be more specific? Because I take “innate potential” to be IQ. So it’d be great if you can clarify your statement. Thank you. You think that because I’m denying what you term ‘innate potential’ means that I’m “literally denying evolution”? It is the logic of natural selection to have low heritabilities (genetic variation say). You know this. Therefore discussing heritability estimates (regarding humans) is useless (especially since they’re gathered using the flawed CTM). Others have argued that they’re useless for biological systems as a whole and that we need to study causes and not variances. Either way, it’s not useful for humans.
The First Law states that an increase in energy will accompany an increase in fat mass, but—and here’s the kicker—it does not say anything about causation.
How people interpret their metabolic system is different from how it actually runs (and obviously what you put into your body can make it more/less efficient).
Not regarding obesity (it always holds, but is irrelevant to human physiology), why should people attempt to be ‘cured’ with physics when we need to address the human metabolic system to cure the disease?
Two people, same height and weight go on an isocaloric diet but the only difference is that one is 60 percent CHO and the other is 60 percent fat. They are both in the same deficit and hypothetically, since they’re in a metabolic chamber. Over, say, one year they stick to the same diet, at the end, who would have the better body composition and weight loss?
Well, what did you think when you critically analyzed it? Because what you stated above was not critical at all and does not contradict what is stated regarding the First Law and obesity (it’s irrelevant to human physiology).
“And the other part of said thesis”
No, there are no other parts, address my points now, otherwise you claims are false. If youre trying to claim within-generation plasticty, I already demonstrated that synaptic pruning hinders this. so You are either on board with feedback loops or you’re wrong.
“I know that”
Irrelevant, address my points.
“Epigenetic changes are not ‘genetic’”
LMAO yes they are, Chromatin consists of DNA.
“Just because it passes through the germline/survive meiosis/mitosis does not mean it’s ‘genetic’. ”
But it does mean it’s hereditary.
“Thanks. I didn’t know that.”
Obviously not, if you kept asking for studies on genetic distribution of traits.
“You said that “innate potential exists”.”
Yea as in genetic potential not intellectual potential, there is a difference.
“How people interpret their metabolic system is different from how it actually runs (and obviously what you put into your body can make it more/less efficient).”
I know I just said that, try to read a little better. I understand it might be difficult for you, but if you want me to stay engaged, then It requires some kind of conceptual ability.
SO now that you agree with my point, you must agree with the following: that the issue is not the relevancy of thermodynamics(it’s always relevant), the issue is confounding variables like Insulin levels.
“Because what you stated above was not critical at all ”
It was actually very critical. This is the perfect example I can use to demonstrate your poor reading comprehension. In the article it specifically states that CICO doesn’t work because Insulin confounds it. The Author erroneously concludes that Thermodynamics is irrelevant, but it’s not, it just means CICO is inappropriate way to look at weight loss. CICO could work but doesn’t because of Hormonal fluctuations. Instead of actually analyzing the the article you just took it at face value. You’re a parrot.
Why are you removing one part of the overall thesis? Plasticity occurs constantly in the brain. You think that just because feedback loops exist that that invalidates the argument about cultural and psychological tools; it doesn’t.
Showing that stress alters the brain’s structure which then alter’s ability to take tests along with the other arguments in the sociocognitive-affective nexus are not ‘irrelevant’. Provide evidence for the “V1 in one individual could be more plastic than the V1 in another.”
Chromatin doesn’t initiate the epigenetic marks. DNA methylation is what alters the chromatin structure of DNA. Methylation is caused by environmental stressors which then get passed through the germline meiotically. Therefore epigenetic marks are inherited too.
Show me, then, differentially expressed genes between individuals that then cause trait variation.
With all due respect, I know more about human metabolism than you do. What one thinks of their metabolism has no bearing on how their metabolism actually is.
The relevancy IS the issue of the First Law. People invoke the First Law to state that calories are calories and therefore if you eat less than your TDEE you will lose weight. This, though, does not take into account differing insulin spikes from differing macros/food types. I have never not disagreed; I’ve always stated that the first law always holds but is irrelevant to human physiology. As you decrease calories, metabolism decreases to what is being consumed. They are extremely dependent variables; a 20 percent reduction in kcal coincides with a 20 percent decrease in TDEE. When discussing the physiology of obesity, the First Law is irrelevant. This is a fact. Read Gary Taubes and Jason Fung. Gary Taubes explained the First Law in that video, so you need to address that as well.
The First Law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. A positive caloric balance must be associated with weight gain, but where the wrong conclusions come in is when people assume that the positive caloric balance is driving the weight gain. So if the First Law is interpreted correctly, then both conclusions—getting fat makes one consume more energy and consuming more energy makes one fat—are both valid hypotheses. The evidence and observations suggest that getting fat makes one consume more energy.
Take this example. Caloric excess in children is positively correlated with height increases. Though the caloric excess is not driving the height increases; they eat because they are growing.
See, you don’t understand what Fung said. The point is, you’re ignoring the third storage system—fat storage. The three storage systems are kcal in/kcal out and fat storage. Insulin dictates fat storage, in the absence of insulin, the body cannot gain weight. Insulin shuttles fat into the adipocyte which is why insulin is fattening. That’s the point that CICO doesn’t work due to hormonal fluctuations. The most fattening hormone is insulin. People who assume CICO state that a calorie is a calorie; that’s wrong. That’s the point of the article.
All the first law of thermodynamics tells us is that people can’t become more massive without taking in more energy than they expend since people who are heavier contain more energy than people who are lighter. That person has to consume more energy to accomadate said increasing mass. That person also cannot become lighter without expending more energy than they take in. That’s all the First Law tells us: energy is conserved. It says nothing about causation. The First Law literally only says that if something becomes more massive than more energy has to come in than leave. Nothing is said about cause and effect; it only tells us what has to happen if said thinig does happen. That’s not causal information.
Imagine a crowded room. The room is getting more crowded, and you ask me why the room is getting more crowded. I say ‘the room is more crowded because more people are entering it than leaving it.’ You say ‘duh, of course that’s true, but why is the room more crowded?’ Saying a room gets crowded because more people are entering than leaving it is redundant; saying that one gets fat because more calories are consumed than burned is redundant, it only says the same thing in two different ways so it is meaningless. Rooms that have more people enter them than leave them will become more crowded since there is no getting around the First Law, right?
Now take that same logic with obesity. Thermodynamics states that if we get fatter then more energy is entering our body than leaving it. Overeating means we’ve consumed more calories than we have expended. It’s tautological.
The point about ‘CICO could work’ is irrelevant, since what is assumed by the CICOers is that calories are calories; the assumption that once ingested, they go through the same metabolic pathways. This is false. You agree with Fung then, since his theory is a hormonal theory of obesity. The First Law says nothing about why we get fat. It is irrelevant to human physiology.
“Why are you removing one part of the overall thesis? Plasticity occurs constantly in the brain. ”
Because it’s empirically invalidated. This is because plasticity occurs at varying levels depending on the rate of maturation. Adult brains are plastic but no where near to the degree of children. Most Epigenetic marks should be made near the early developmental stages(including inside the womb) of growth, at least concerning sensory learning and subsequently intelligence.
“Provide evidence for the “V1 in one individual could be more plastic than the V1 in another.”
You made a generalizing statement while not providing any EWAS or making any attempt to explain confounding variables, the burden of proof is on you.
I’ll humor you, I know factually that the average american black female at menarche has less synaptic plasticity than her White counterparts, subsequently this also means they generate less useful connections in general.
” Therefore epigenetic marks are inherited too.”
Yea I already said that, like years before you did.
“Show me, then, differentially expressed genes between individuals that then cause trait variation.”
I hope you mean variation in intelligence, or are at least trolling, otherwise you’re just stupid.
Either way, I don’t have to. The burden of proof does not fall on me because I didn’t make any such claim.
“With all due respect, What one thinks of their metabolism has no bearing on how their metabolism actually is.”
I already said that, so with all due respect, learn to read.
“I’ve always stated that the first law always holds but is irrelevant to human physiology.”
And that’s where your fallacy lies. How can something be irrelevant to another if it always holds within the context? Maybe I’m just using relevancy in a broader way than you. Also you didn’t need to write me a book, if you had taken the time to read what I said, you would’ve realized I already said that(but in a much more efficient way).
The ‘basic premise’ is not that ‘culture will equalize mental differences between individuals’, it’s that differing access to C and P tools cause score variance, which in part is the ‘g’ variance; along with differences in test-preparation and self-esteem etc.
I don’t care about associations. EWAS have the same problems as GWAS. Either way I’ve provided evidence for the claim on the PFC and hippocampus earlier in this thread.
Have you read my article on race and age at menarche?
SES differences can explain much of the age-at-menarche differences between blacks and whites (Deardorff et al, 2014). BMI doesn’t explain any of the variance.
Leptin is a main mediator in age of menarche onset (see my article linked above). Leptin levels are inversely related to age at menarche in girls. Black girls are more likely to have more body fat than white girls, therefore this explains a good amount of the variance between the two races.
Did you understand the context that was in?
So, as you reduce your caloric intake to 1200 calories in, the body is forced to reduce it’s metabolism to only 1200 calories. No energy is available anywhere else. This is precisely what happened on the Biggest Loser as seen in the study featured in the New York Times. This is also precisely what happens during any caloric reduction diet.
That is why these diets are doomed to fail. Studies of this strategy estimate failure rates at 99%. Notice that the First Law of Thermodynamics is not being broken in any way. It is irrelevant.
The lower metabolism means you feel cold, tired and hungry. Worse, the weight eventually plateaus and then as you decide that it’s not worth it, you start to eat more, say 1400 calories thinking that it’s still not as much as you used to eat. Hunger hormones are increased because the body wants to burn 2000 calories and you are only taking in 1200. So weight starts coming back. Sound familiar?
Yes I did need to write a book, to show you that I do understand this (I know much more if you’d care to know). What was ‘a much more efficient way’? This?
Do you know how and why insulin confounds weight loss? Either way, my claim is proven: the First Law only tells us what will happen if that thing does happen; it tells us nothing about weight loss.
“The ‘basic premise’ is not that ‘culture will equalize mental differences between individuals’, it’s that differing access to C and P tools cause score variance, which in part is the ‘g’ variance; along with differences in test-preparation and self-esteem etc.”
If you believe access to cultural tools will equalize results, then those statements are in fact identical, unless you mean feedback loops, but then you’d just be agreeing with me.
“I don’t care about associations. EWAS have the same problems as GWAS. Either way I’ve provided evidence for the claim on the PFC and hippocampus earlier in this thread.”
Well you have no way of inferring causation, so that’s really your only option, so either provide the proper citations or shut the fuck up. The “evidence” that you did provide, did not answer any objections I brought up, in fact it seems the point flew directly over your head, as usual.
“SES differences can explain much of the age-at-menarche differences between blacks and whites”
That’s completely irrelevant…
Unfortunately the Authors did not consider epigenetic feedback loops so while the correlation was positive it was weak, Further experimentation will mathematically make it inevitable that the association will become stronger.
“Yes I did need to write a book, to show you that I do understand this (I know much more if you’d care to know). What was ‘a much more efficient way’? This?”
No you didn’t because I was already aware that you understood it but a key point is flying over your head, the term “irrelevant”. Thermodynamics is always relevant, this is non-negotiable.
And no the more efficient statement was this:
“CICO follows Thermodynamics, but CICO is not the correct way weight regulation actually functions, because of confounding variables like Insulin. So the issue isn’t the relevancy of Thermodynamics, it’s the way people interpret how their metabolic system works. Thermodynamics is always relevant because it’s a physical law and Biochemistry runs on physical laws. Thermodynamics defines the origins of life itself.”
Meaning I already stated all of what you said, and then some.
It’s more than access to cultural tools though. The sociocognitive-affective nexus is more than cultural and psychological tools used for test-taking (and all facets of human life).
Genome-wide DNA methylation levels and altered cortisol stress reactivity following childhood trauma in humans
Three loci were associated with childhood trauma while the KITLG locus showed the strongest reaction to stress reactivity. This model also accounted for 35 percent of the variation in cortisol stress reactivity. The KITLG locus is what needs to be studied since the association with methylation was found in three independent samples. Small n though.
Cortisol is secreted in response to a stressor, in order to help you cope with that stressor efficiently. Exercise (hunting for our ancestors), disrupts homeostasis because of the stressors that are put on the body. The stressors then require an adaptive response, which is cortisol. Most anything our ancestors did disrupted homeostasis, causing cortisol to be secreted. Because of increased cortisol levels during times of need, you can push through certain things than if you didn’t have that cortisol increase due to the stressor that made your body secrete the extra cortisol.
Re your source: Why did they assume that MZ twins share all of their genes? Identical twins’ genomes are not identical.
Both members of a twin pair received the same ‘family’ environment, and the quality of the environment was sampled independently of properties of the genotype (i.e., there were no gene-environment correlations).
Is this a joke?
Heritability estimates assume that genes and environment are independent of one another, and additive. This model is wrong heritability estimates are not useful for humans. See my most recent article on behavior genetics.
You can take the last words in our discussions. No time (nor energy) to continue this. We will continue in the future.
“The KITLG locus is what needs to be studied since the association with methylation was found in three independent samples. Small n though.”
This is not what I originally asked for, but either way thank you, was that so hard?
“Is this a joke?”
I’m not sure why you think it would be? The point of the post was to show that there is indeed a relationship between the time of retained plasticity and Intelligence, The false dichotomy of nurture and nature is irrelevant to this.
I am not aware of any papers on what you asked for, so I just got the next-best thing.
Do MZ twins experience the same environment the same way?
“Do MZ twins experience the same environment the same way?”
No, but that doesn’t affect my point in the slightest. Remember I don’t believe in a dichotomy so asking to control for confounding variables with an experience dependent organ, sounds extremely nonsensical, not only to me but to any Neuroscientist.
The point is the assumption that there was no g/e correlation. That’s horribly wrong. There were no g/e correlations? Quality of the environment sampled independently from genotype? …
Ok, but that has nothing to do with the claim you wanted a citation for. We both already know the limitations of twin studies. It’s still a useful tool in the field. Is it perfect? No, but a part of science is not making speculative claims when data is limited, which most geneticists do in fact avoid. Plus I’d have reread the part you’re refrencing, because it may not be an assumption but instead a statistical entity from the study.
The questions are apt because those are huge (and wrong) assumptions to make for this model.
Twin studies are chock-full of unverified assumptions. The EEA is false, therefore h2=shared environment. MZ/DZ twin differences are caused by environmental—not genetic—similarity.
The quote provided was from the twin study you cited. My point for bringing it up is that the claim is wrong.
The questions are not apt. Most scientists are still unaware that nature/nurture is a dichotomy, hence why the twin study was being used in the paper. If you removed it from the study, the fact that retained plasticity coincides with increased intelligence would not change because this claim is not dependent on whether environment or genetics is responsible for the effect. What matters is that the effect is present. Why is this the only thing that matters? Because the brain experience dependent.
Now if you understand the prior parahraph and agree, then that’s all there is to it, the discussion is over. I don’t care what you think about twin studies, the information you’ve provided is not new to me and no longer intetesting and ultimately irrelevant to the concept we are currently arguing.
Do you have non-CTM evidence (which was based on assumptions and computer models…real-life is obviously more complex)?
As a matter of fact, a main claim (“Twin studies indicate that the heritability of general cognitive ability – the genetic contribution to individual differences – increases with age”) is incorrect, because the EEA is false you cannot say that h2 of IQ is .80 or whatnot.
The main reference used for twins (Brant et al, 2013) is a study on 11k twins; no mention of the EEA, nor any ‘attempts’ to correct for such biases.
The prediction was therefore that in higher ability individuals, the rise in heritability should occur later.
These h2 estimates are based on the flawed CTM. Remind me why I should accept this?
“because the EEA is false”
No it’s not, in fact when corrected for, the difference is negligible.
“no mention of the EEA, nor any ‘attempts’ to correct for such biases.”
That’s not true:
“Such assumptions have been argued to bias estimates of heritability (Polderman et al., 2015). Here, we simply report the difference between MZ and DZ correlations, which provides a measure proportional to heritability. The greater the disparity between the two correlations, the higher the heritability. This has the advantage of allowing direct comparison across populations with very different heritability levels.”
“This approach to implementing environmental influence was sufficient to simulate, for example, the asymmetric relationship between SES and delay versus between SES and giftedness (Thomas et al., 2013). More relevant to current aims, it is sufficient to simulate the way that SES modulates the heritability of individual differences in behavior: the heritability of cognitive ability is reduced in individuals from low SES backgrounds (Turkheimer et al., 2003; though see Hanscombe et al., 2012). It is also sufficient to show small non-linear influences of SES on network structure, with the steepest gradient present at the lower end of SES variable (Noble et al., 2015; Thomas & Coecke, in prep.). “
No the EEA is false.
1)For twin studies to be valid DZ twins and MZ fraternal twins would have to experience roughly equal environments.
2) Fraternal MZ twins experience much more similar environments than DZ twins.
3) Therefore the EEA is false and no genetic interpretations can be drawn from the data. Heritability=shared environment
The Twin Research Debate in American Criminology
The Trouble with Twin Studies
Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture
And by “‘attempts’ to correct for such biases” I mean Brant et al 2013 didn’t discuss the EEA nor ‘attempt’ to correct for biases.
So you obviously didn’t read my links, because they debunked all 3 premises.
“This research has indicated that the EEA is generally valid and that even when it’s violated, the effect on parameter estimates is small”
I suggest you read my links, so you don’t continue to look stupid.
No they did not. Joseph et al 2015 is a response to Barnes et al 2015.
… I read those papers a while ago. (And I knew you would refer to them.) Joseph et al 2015 rebutted them. The EEA is false. Since the EEA is false, MZ/DZ trait differences are environmentally caused.
Trust me, I read your links months ago. They’re wrong. They were responded too. All of the points that Barnes et al 2015 brought up were discussed and dissected by Joseph et al 2015.
Also your syllogism has laughable premises and conclusions again
This was addressed by Joseph et al 2015. It is agreed that MZ environments are more similar than DZ environments. BGs then say that their genes drive them to create these environments but it is cicular logic.
Seriously, read Joseph et al 2015. They cover anything you’ll throw at me regarding the EEA.
Why does my “syllogism has laughable premises and conclusions again”? That’s not an argument. Oh yea, “logic is imaginary”, I forgot.
This: “and no genetic interpretations can be drawn from the data. Heritability=shared environment”
does not follow this: “3) Therefore the EEA is false
If MZ twins experience more similar environments than DZ twins (they do, and both sides have admitted this), then differences come down to environment, not genetics. BGs then try to save this by stating that their genes drive them to create new environments but that’s just circular argumentation and is therefore fallacious.
The conclusion is sound, Melo. heritabilty=shared environment if the EEA is false.
“that’s just circular argumentation and is therefore fallacious.”
It’s not circular. Now address the new link.
How is it not circular? The conclusion is literally in the premise. That is the definition of circular argument.
‘Address the new link’, here we go again. It’s addressed in Joseph et al 2015.
The argument I provided was sound. The EEA is false. Heritability estimates and twin studies are useless.
“The conclusion is literally in the premise. ”
No the conclusion is that Twin environments are equal, the premise is that they share the same genes. Also, you may want to realize, the circularity of the argument may be due to feedback loops.
“It’s addressed in Joseph et al 2015.”
My bad, I thought I posted a different study, do you have the quote where he addresses the first study I posted? Or a link to the full book?
To attempt to save the EEA, twin researchers claim that they “create or elicit” more similar environments because they are more genetically similar. So their conclusion that MZ twins behave more similarly because they are genetically similar is based on the assumption that they behave more similarly because they are genetically similar. That’s an outstanding example of circular argumentation, as a matter of fact.
So their position that genetic factors explain both behavioral similarities and in MZ twins compared to DZ twins is both their premise and conclusion of their attempted save of the EEA.
The argument is invalid due to fallacious reasoning.
No worries. I’ve not bought that book yet but it’s addressed in this paper (Argument B):
The Twin Research Debate in American Criminology/a>
“The argument is invalid due to fallacious reasoning.”
Soemtimes talking to you, is like slamming my head into a brick wall.
Lets try a thought experiment:
separate this argument into two:
“So their conclusion that MZ twins behave more similarly because they are genetically similar”
“that they behave more similarly because they are genetically similar.”
Now both are emprically verified but contradictory statements, so how do you decipher which one is the correct one? Well if we fuse it back as one and then check the literature: https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/the_false_dichotomy_of_the It states that nature nurture is a false dichtomoy and that instead the two concepts work in tangent like a feedback loop, this makes the circularity of the argument valid, if if it’s fallacious, It stands to scientific testing.
Of course, but combined, they form an invalid argument—a circular argument otherwise known as a tautology.
Thanks for the link but, as you know, I am well aware that it’s a false dichotomy. This, however, has no bearing on the EEA argument.
It comes down to this: the differences between MZ/DZ twins either come down to genes (the EEA is true) or environment (the EEA is false). The fact of the matter is, even twin researchers admit that MZ twins experience more similar environments (which falsifies the EEA), but they attempt to save it by stating that their genes make them ‘elicit and create’ more similar environments. Though, again, this was rebutted by Joseph et al, 2015 (this is Argument A):
The first way that twin researchers redefined the EEA was through what could be called Argument A, which holds that MZ pairs “create” or “elicit” their more similar environments because they are more similar genetically. As a leading twin researcher put it, writing in support of the EEA’s validity, “Although similarity in environment might make MZ twins more similar, it is equally plausible that by behaving alike, MZ twins create for themselves more similar environments.” This, however, is a circular argument because the conclusion that genetic factors explain the greater behavioral resemblance of MZ versus DZ twin pairs is now based on a premise stating the very same thing. Twin researchers invoking Argument A, therefore, refer to the genetic premise in support of the genetic conclusion, and then refer back to the genetic conclusion in support of the genetic premise, in a continuously circular loop of faulty reasoning. There are additional problems with Argument A, and it is clear that it fails to support the EEA and the twin method. 
That interactionism is true (which invalidates heritability estimates) does not entail that the circular argument which twin researchers concocted to save the EEA is a valid argument.
So, sorry. The argument is invalid since it is a tautology. You attempting to save the EEA argument using interactionism doesn’t work.
(Further, you should know that interactionism invalidates heritability estimates since it assumes the false dichotomy of nature vs nurture which, in turn invalidates the twin method since the whole paradigm of twin studies is based on the correlations between MZ and DZ twins.)
“a circular argument otherwise known as a tautology.”
The circularity of the argument becomes validated if the feedback loop is an observable reality.
“using interactionism doesn’t work.”
I’m not using interactionism.
Also, check this out:
No it isn’t.
This is Argument A. Argument A is fallacious due to circular reasoning. The circularity does not “become validated if the feedback loop is an observable reality”; the argument is fallacious since one is assuming in their premise what their conclusion is attempting to prove.
Discusses trait-relevant environments which are discussed by Joseph et al (2015) in Argument B:
Until twin researchers are able to identify specific and exclusive “trait-relevant” factors that contribute to the cause of the behavioral characteristic they are studying, these two widely recognized facts combine to invalidate any genetic inferences based on Argument B.
“No it isn’t.”
Yes it is. This is not a debate. Even if you want to say it’s “incorrect” it still doesn’t change the fact that both arguments re seen in nature and that they do infact form a feedback loop off of eachother.
Another reason why logic is imaginary.
“Until twin researchers are able to identify specific and exclusive “trait-relevant” factors that contribute to the cause of the behavioral characteristic they are studying, these two widely recognized facts combine to invalidate any genetic inferences ”
Wrong. This is Unscientific to the fullest extent. Twin researchers have provided more evidence than anyone on the side of the alternative hypothesis. You can only argue “buts” and “ifs” You have no evidence. They don’t have to identify jack shit, you have the burden of proof.
“Across all traits — which range from psychological to sociological and from medical to morphological — the average same-sex DZ correlation is 0.35, while the average opposite-sex correlation is 0.30. At first blush, this suggests a small excess environmental similarity of 0.05 for same-sex DZs compared to opposite-sex ones. However, the average MZ correlation is about 0.63, indicating that any effect of sex is dwarfed by the effect of zygosity. Moreover, the slightly greater similarity of same-sex DZs is unlikely to be wholly due to environmental differences. Many traits examined in twin studies involve innate sex differences. For example, same-sex DZs have more similar heights than opposite-sex DZs not because of gender socialization but because height genes are differentially expressed in males and females.”
Why? You just making claims like “it’s noticed in nature therefore its not circular” literally doesn’t make sense since the argument form in and of itself is circular! Keep attempting to defend a logical fallacy.
The argument is circular. Whatever you say to attempt to save the circular argument won’t work.
Where have they “provided more evidence than anyone on the side of the alternative hypothesis” that the EEA is true? MZ twins are treated more similarly by their peers, parents, teachers etc; this causes MZ/DZ trait differences; not genes since the EEA is false.
Sure they have to “identify specific and exclusive trait-relevant factors that contribute to the cause of the behavioral characteristic studied”, that’s how this works.
The EEA is false. So even if Polderman et al has data on 29 trillion twins it wouldn’t matter.
“literally doesn’t make sense”
It makes perfect sense. Its a logical fallacy, but not an empirical one. Both statements are true, we both know this. How is this possible? Because they form a feedback loop together. This is also verifiable. So all feedback loops are not circular arguments? Is nature/nurture a dichotomy or not RR, make up your mind.
‘Where have they “provided more evidence than anyone on the side of the alternative hypothesis” ”
I posted the quote, they provide correlations and make educated inferences off of that, which is more evidence then anyone in your camp has.
If it’s illogical then it’s not sound and therefore not a valid argument. They assume genetic factors cause behavioral similarity in DZ twins is a conclusion and premise, identifying it as a circular argument, better known as a tautology. It’s not a valid argument, it invalidates itself. If you think illogical arguments are compelling then I don’t know what to tell you.
Correlations don’t show that. The environment relevant to said trait needs to be known. Bouchard 1990 says these environments are not known.
Behavior genetics and postgenomics
The heritability fallacy
Heritability Studies in the Postgenomic Era: The Fatal Flaw Is Conceptual
Logic is imaginary. It’s only illogical if you don’t except the feedback loop. Answer my question, are all feedback loops invalidated because of their circularity?
Tell that to the programmer who programmed your computer.
Nope. That’s irrelevant to the circular argument used by twin researchers. How is it relevant? They’re making an assumption (what causes twin similarity is genes) then refer back to the premise (which has the conclusion already in it) as evidence for the conclusion. It’s not a valid argument.
Not at all; all of those assertions have been addressed. They’re found wanting.
“Tell that to the programmer who programmed your computer.”
I will, I know programming(surprising huh?) and it is still based in empirically verified and tested conclusions.
“That’s irrelevant to the circular argument used by twin researchers”
Are we not arguing about the validity of these two statements?: genes propagate environment vs environment propagates genes.
“They’re found wanting.”
I don’t care it’s more evidence then you have. You have the burden of proof.
But it’s imaginary.
I’m arguing about the fallacious argument (Argument A) that twin researchers put forth to save the EEA.
Not at all. Specifically read the Evan Charney paper.
“But it’s imaginary.”
Logic is, yeah.
“I’m arguing about the fallacious argument (Argument A) ”
No it isn’t.
….What we’ve been arguing about since the conversation shifted to this discussion.
It is. That’s not a debate. If you dont agree, then you don’t understand philosophy, period.
Why can’t you just answer the fucking question you jack ass?
I don’t agree because you’re wrong. How is logic ‘imaginary’? It’s just a baseless assertion of yours.
Argument A is that MZ twins “elicit” or “create” more similar environments due to their genetic similarity.
My next response to you will be in this article:
Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture
“It’s just a baseless assertion of yours.”
It’s not. Logic is math, and math is true, but imaginary without context. 1+1=2 but 1 what? 2 what? Rocks, trees? Do I seriously need to envoke the pink goblin metaphor again?
“Argument A is that MZ twins “elicit” or “create” more similar environments due to their genetic similarity.”
Oh ok, then yeah, the circularity is justified.
That doesn’t mean logic is “imaginary”.
The circularity isn’t justified at all. Keep trying to defend a fallacious argument.
It does. Logic is pure symbolism and abstraction without proper context. I’ve proven my point.
Nope. Not crying.
Do you need a tissue? Little bitchboy.
I guess we’re done here too.
rome always wins.
it’s fucking sad.
by 2100 the whole world will be catholic.
the greatest right hand ever thrown.