CreateDebate


The Public Waterfall RSS

Every argument gets a chance to be on top!
The Public Waterfall shows you all arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Asks for an audit through the freedom of information act. Not received because it is not a government establishment. "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." From Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

1 point

It was a credible science article... You're now telling me articles aren't a valid source of reference... I could also reduce to such fallacies by saying no site on the internet is a valid source of reference, perhaps even no reference, including the scientists behind the study, is valid until we both see the results ourselves with our own eyes (and not through fallible video). But, it doesn't stop there, as our own senses are highly fallible and therefore we mustn't....

I never claimed it was not a credible magazine article.

I just pointed out that it was not a paper published in a scientific journal.

I used that point to mock your previous misinterpretation of a "complex" review paper.

1 point

Your points points to environmental effects. And as previously stated, genes influence the environment in which a child wishes to be, and hence genes heavily determine the outcome of one's IQ.

Now you countered by reducing to 'well not that much study has shown [...]' when plenty of study has shown the effect that genetic makeup has on the influence of a child environment.

It seems like you are confused about this too. It is just a supposition used to explain large variances during development. There has been no study done to verify this supposition, at least none that I have seen.

Maybe you should cite one of the "plenty of stud[ies]".

PS: The review paper you cited earlier actually refutes that explanation and uses the genetic amplification model (which supports my original point).

Then you issued red herring saying, well the child doesn't choose his/her environment. Though this may be true, this line of reasoning would entail a slippery slope. Perhaps i should've said, "assuming the child was not born in a Nazi concentration camp".

Obvious Nazi strawman aside, you have misinterpreted my earlier statement. A child does not choose his/her environment, not because the parents are fascist, but because children are under the care of the parents. Like I already pointed out several times, the socioeconomic status of the family is out of the control of the child. Just because the child is predisposed towards a specific environment does not mean it will be available to the child.

Kind of weird how you use a the accusation of a red herring as a red herring.

By the way, you still have not responded to my previous argument which was supported by scientific papers.

0 points

It was a credible science article... You're now telling me articles aren't a valid source of reference... Though the source you issued was also an science article, perhaps inadvertent hypocrisy?

I could also reduce to such fallacies by saying no site on the internet is a valid source of reference, perhaps even no reference, including the scientists behind the study, is valid until we both see the results ourselves with our own eyes (and not through fallible video). But, it doesn't stop there, as our own senses are highly fallible and therefore we mustn't....

I'm sorry, flewk, I have no intentions delving into Descarte's Meditations 1 & 2.

flewk(1010) Clarified
1 point

Are you talking about this peacock debate?

I still have no idea what you are talking about. Are you going to respond to my posts on the other side or do you admit defeat?

It seems pretty obvious by now that you did not understand your own citation at all.

1 point

Your points points to environmental effects. And as previously stated, genes influence the environment in which a child wishes to be, and hence genes heavily determine the outcome of one's IQ.

Now you countered by reducing to 'well not that much study has shown [...]' when plenty of study has shown the effect that genetic makeup has on the influence of a child environment.

Then you issued red herring saying, well the child doesn't choose his/her environment. Though this may be true, this line of reasoning would entail a slippery slope. Perhaps i should've said, "assuming the child was not born in a Nazi concentration camp".

Perhaps your not exactly sure of the type of environmental stimuli a child needs to develop her IQ?

flewk(1010) Clarified
1 point

You point was invalid and erroneous... what do you not understand.

Then quote the part of the review paper you cited that proves I was wrong.

I have already shown that your own citation supports my claim. Refute those points.

All you have done is claim I am wrong without showing why.

And wasn't it you who claimed peacocks appreciate human language, and because of that, knows how to speak it? I understand that you withdrew from the topic once you say imminent defeat, but to even ponder such a claim speaks volumes of your intellect...

What debate are you talking about? I have no recollection of debating about peacocks.

GenericName(2146) Clarified
1 point

I completely agree.

1 point

Just clicked on the link. Looks like you gave up trying to understand actual scientific studies/review papers. That is just a magazine article that tried to interpret the study for the reader.

It seemed to have failed the first try: "*Correction, 7 October, 12:20 p.m.: This item originally stated that 62% of academic achievement could be attributed to genetic factors. In fact, the research showed that 62% of the differences between individual students' GCSE scores were attributed to genetic factors."

1 point

You point was invalid and erroneous... what do you not understand. And wasn't it you who claimed peacocks appreciate human language, and because of that, knows how to speak it? I understand that you withdrew from the topic once you say imminent defeat, but to even ponder such a claim speaks volumes of your intellect...

Perhaps you should take you own advice, flewk.

flewk(1010) Clarified
1 point

I read my own citations. If you fail to understand what is meant by them, well... I don't know how else to help you really..

Then counter the points that I have presented. It should be easy since you understand them.

1 point

Furthermore genetics plays the largest role influences a child's drive to learn and influences their settings to which they wish be in. And since you say the environment plays the largest role, and one's genetics heavily influences their environmental attraction through which molds IQ, it would follow, then, that genes play the largest role in determining IQ.

You are referring to the hypothesis that certain genes might predispose a child to specific environments or methods. There has been no significant objective study on this topic. The reason for this is mentioned below.

The environment that a child wishes to be in or is predisposed to does not just magically appear around them. The environment that a child is exposed to depends on the parents and their socioeconomic status (a lot of other factors as well). As indicated by my first source, socioeconomic status can completely "zero out" the heritability of intelligence.

Amarel(503) Clarified
1 point

Hm, perhaps you're right. A measure I would advocate would be simply inking the finger of the voter like they do in some other countries. No Id required and multi-voting is impossible. A simple resolution that no one can bitch about.

2 points

Genetics plays the largest role influences a child's drive to learn, how well they learn, and influences their settings in which they wish be. And since you say environment plays the largest role, and one's genetics heavily influences their environmental attraction through which their IQ is molded, it would follow, then, that genes play the largest role in determining IQ.

I read my own citations. If you fail to understand what is meant by them, well... I don't know how else to help you really..

1 point

You should read something before you cite it.

Well, I guess another possibility is that you simply did not understand it; if that were the case, you should avoid debating topics that are beyond your understanding.

1 point

You should read your own citations.

I don't know why, but most people never bother reading them.

"second law of genetics for complex traits and common disorders: All traits show substantial environmental influence, in that heritability is not 100% for any trait. Acceptance of the importance of both genetic and environmental influences leads to interest in the interplay between genes and environment, such as their interaction (moderation) and correlation (mediation) in the development of complex traits"

Both are important. Let us keep reading to find out which one is most important to the variation of intelligence.

"It would be reasonable to assume that as we go through life, experiences—Shakespeare’s ‘whips and scorns of time’—have a cumulative effect on intelligence, perhaps overwhelming early genetic predispositions. However, for intelligence, heritability increases linearly, from (approximately) 20% in infancy to 40% in adolescence, and to 60% in adulthood. Some evidence suggests that heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood"

The effect of nurture seems to increase linearly over development. This means without the proper environment, variance increases. Let us keep reading to find out why.

"Increasing heritability despite genetic stability implies some contribution from what has been called genetic amplification.57 This has recently been supported in a meta-analysis of 11500 twin and sibling pairs with longitudinal data on intelligence that found that a genetic amplification model fit the data better than a model in which new genetic influences arise with time.58 Genotype-environment correlation seems the most likely explanation in which small genetic differences are magnified as children select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities. This active model of selected environments—in contrast to the traditional model of imposed environments—offers a general paradigm for thinking about how genotypes become phenotypes."

"Heritability of intelligence increases dramatically from infancy through adulthood despite genetic stability"

Let me refer to my original comment: "IQ is genetic, but inheritance does not seem to be the main factor. Nurture vs Nature."

My source noted how environment was a larger factor than genes where variance becomes 0 with low socioeconomic status (you probably did not read mine either).

You chose a review article to dispute my claims without actually reading it. It notes that the amplification of gene expression by the environment leads to the largest variances in intelligence which directly supports my point.

4 points

In a couple of years when their egos are deflated

Why are you conflating IQ with ego? I understand this is a simplistic piece of rhetoric, but for it to be meant to establish a point, it is entirely inefficacious.

for animals don't boost how great they are.

Take a look at the male peacock, lion, various insects, etc., and come back and look at this statement.

It was a nice try, but sometimes the best thing to do is to not try. Though I do apologize if you felt insulted (perhaps your IQ wouldn't fit the criterion for 'High'), this was entirely theoretical.

GenericName(2146) Clarified
1 point

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/voter-id-laws-september-2014.pdf

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps (hate Mother Jones, but they list the sources under the graphics).

The numbers aren't catastrophic or anything, but considering how voter fraud essentially doesn't exist, where as around a million or more people would be disenfranchised, balance seems pretty obvious.

1 point

To my knowledge, the evidence supporting the notion that people won't be able to vote as a result of is laws is as lacking as the notion that fraud is problematic.

1 point

That is erroneous in its entirety... As stated previously.

Amarel(503) Clarified
1 point

I don't have a ready example, but you didn't notice the stark contrast in what details were reported depending on which outlet you viewed?

3 points

I understood completely what you meant. Intelligence has a threshold, which is what makes such statement patently false. You should've known this (or at least had an idea).

Perhaps I shouldn't have presumed that everyone would understand such a simple statement.

1 point

Which just goes to prove that nostalgia isn't what it used to be.


1 of 25 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]