Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42262255_10156650204327264_424109724

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42262255_10156650204327264_4241097243488157696_n_10156650204322264.jpg The distribution isn’t quite even.

    I love how they take from 85-115 as average. that’s ridiculous. 106 should be the dividing line, so that we talk about quality more so thaan the flatness of the distribution.

    Really 95-105 is average and we need 100-110 to be average.Andy CurzonGood ^^ (useful data).Sep 20, 2018, 8:16 AMJames JensenEveryone said I was not living up to my potential… but, secretly I knew I was doing exactly what I could… in fact, when I really tried to reach beyond my home life and local environment I got lost down some dark hole… I think in circles, around and around… my wife is the smartest and stupidest person I have ever known… whenever I have an insight and share it with her she says something like “and, you have just learned that? I’ve known that since I was a child… you can’t be that dumb “… but it is new to me.Sep 20, 2018, 11:34 AMJames JensenSep 20, 2018, 11:36 AMArman GhaffariIt really seems strange to me that I’m far above average. I feel like a retard.Sep 20, 2018, 11:54 AMHusam Aldahiyat100-110 can’t be “average” since IQ is by definition normed to have 100 as its reference point.Sep 20, 2018, 12:43 PMMarcus JamesYou and I both know why they consider 85-115 to be average. If they didn’t, a whole group of people would be considered retarded or borderline retarded.Sep 20, 2018, 1:05 PMBryan Nova BreyIn line with your assessment here, I’d like to read your thoughts on this post by Jordan Peterson (I’m not a fan) and the most popular reply by TheDrogger who throws him off so much that he has to edit his original post.

    From my perspective JP is manipulating the IQ distribution and claiming 3 standard deviations for average population and only 2 deviations for Jews and then calculating the resulting populations. He also doesn’t compare Jews to Whites.

    Thought you’d enjoy ripping JP apart in an area of statistics, IQ, population, and disproportionate representation.

    https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/Sep 20, 2018, 1:07 PMJoshua SkeensVox Day did a VERY extensive rebuttal on this that got him started down the warpathSep 20, 2018, 1:17 PMBryan Nova Breylink? I’d love to read it.Sep 20, 2018, 1:23 PMJoshua Skeenshttp://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/an-eminent-person.html

    Check anything with the “Jordanetics” tag.Sep 20, 2018, 1:28 PMArman GhaffariThis has been debunked by Vox and DukeSep 20, 2018, 2:40 PMBryan Nova BreyI think Eli Harman did a great job ripping apart JP, though my comment is more specific to the argument JP made regarding the Jewish Question. I think Curt will articulate what JP is doing and how he fakes the IQ distribution.Sep 20, 2018, 2:43 PMWyatt StorchThanks for this. Stealing.Sep 21, 2018, 9:02 AMEli HarmanJordan Peterson is a Jew; maybe not literally but in all other important respects…Sep 21, 2018, 9:23 AMChristopher MatthewThere is a massive difference between 85 and 115.

    Not just in terms of criminality, but education, professional success, choice of mate, how many children, etc etc.Sep 21, 2018, 10:00 AMAaron KahlandI just read Jordan Peterson’s response to the criticism provided by TheDrogger and there is a significant error in Peterson’s calculation.

    He claims that Jews with IQ’s of 145 or above are, in percentage terms, commensurate with their proportion of millionaires / billionaires. However his baseline for the total is merely the Jewish and White population.

    However, White Americans now make up little over 60% of the overall population. His baseline thus comprises only 63% of the total US population. Treating the remainder US population as he has done Whites would ought to reduce Jewish millionaire numbers to 25% of the total.

    Peterson’s calculation therefore only adds up if he assumes that there exist no 145+ IQs outside of the US’ White and Jewish populations.

    Although it might be argued that US adult population demographics are likely to increase the accuracy of Peterson’s baseline, it nevertheless remains considerably off.Sep 21, 2018, 10:02 AMDylan BoswellWhew! Just in the 2.2% by a hair (4 points).Sep 21, 2018, 10:36 AMCarl EluThe fact that there still is a identifiable jewish people is proof enough of strong in-group preference. It is simply not possible to propagate through time as a minority without it.Sep 21, 2018, 3:05 PMAlex BirchThis is sort of why I quit following bell curve lit in college, whereupon I realized with each successive generation of dysgenics, authorities will simply readjust the curve to such a degree that the marginally gifted appear geniuses, and the highly gifted, threats to our civilization. After a while, the facts become impetus for action. There is only one sane response to this catastrophe.Sep 22, 2018, 12:16 AMThe distribution isn’t quite even.

    I love how they take from 85-115 as average. that’s ridiculous. 106 should be the dividing line, so that we talk about quality more so thaan the flatness of the distribution.

    Really 95-105 is average and we need 100-110 to be average.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 08:14:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42262255_10156650204327264_42410972

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42262255_10156650204327264_4241097243488157696_n_10156650204322264.jpg The distribution isn’t quite even.

    I love how they take from 85-115 as average. that’s ridiculous. 106 should be the dividing line, so that we talk about quality more so thaan the flatness of the distribution.

    Really 95-105 is average and we need 100-110 to be average.Andy CurzonGood ^^ (useful data).Sep 20, 2018 8:16amJames JensenEveryone said I was not living up to my potential… but, secretly I knew I was doing exactly what I could… in fact, when I really tried to reach beyond my home life and local environment I got lost down some dark hole… I think in circles, around and around… my wife is the smartest and stupidest person I have ever known… whenever I have an insight and share it with her she says something like “and, you have just learned that? I’ve known that since I was a child… you can’t be that dumb “… but it is new to me.Sep 20, 2018 11:34amJames JensenSep 20, 2018 11:36amHusam Aldahiyat100-110 can’t be “average” since IQ is by definition normed to have 100 as its reference point.Sep 20, 2018 12:43pmJames ArcherYou and I both know why they consider 85-115 to be average. If they didn’t, a whole group of people would be considered retarded or borderline retarded.Sep 20, 2018 1:05pmBryan Nova BreyIn line with your assessment here, I’d like to read your thoughts on this post by Jordan Peterson (I’m not a fan) and the most popular reply by TheDrogger who throws him off so much that he has to edit his original post.

    From my perspective JP is manipulating the IQ distribution and claiming 3 standard deviations for average population and only 2 deviations for Jews and then calculating the resulting populations. He also doesn’t compare Jews to Whites.

    Thought you’d enjoy ripping JP apart in an area of statistics, IQ, population, and disproportionate representation.

    https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/Sep 20, 2018 1:07pmJoshua SkeensVox Day did a VERY extensive rebuttal on this that got him started down the warpathSep 20, 2018 1:17pmBryan Nova Breylink? I’d love to read it.Sep 20, 2018 1:23pmJoshua Skeenshttp://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/an-eminent-person.html

    Check anything with the “Jordanetics” tag.Sep 20, 2018 1:28pmBryan Nova BreyI think @[11833594:2048:Eli Harman] did a great job ripping apart JP, though my comment is more specific to the argument JP made regarding the Jewish Question. I think Curt will articulate what JP is doing and how he fakes the IQ distribution.Sep 20, 2018 2:43pmWyatt StorchThanks for this. Stealing.Sep 21, 2018 9:02amEli HarmanJordan Peterson is a Jew; maybe not literally but in all other important respects…Sep 21, 2018 9:23amChristopher MatthewThere is a massive difference between 85 and 115.

    Not just in terms of criminality, but education, professional success, choice of mate, how many children, etc etc.Sep 21, 2018 10:00amAaron KahlandI just read Jordan Peterson’s response to the criticism provided by TheDrogger and there is a significant error in Peterson’s calculation.

    He claims that Jews with IQ’s of 145 or above are, in percentage terms, commensurate with their proportion of millionaires / billionaires. However his baseline for the total is merely the Jewish and White population.

    However, White Americans now make up little over 60% of the overall population. His baseline thus comprises only 63% of the total US population. Treating the remainder US population as he has done Whites would ought to reduce Jewish millionaire numbers to 25% of the total.

    Peterson’s calculation therefore only adds up if he assumes that there exist no 145+ IQs outside of the US’ White and Jewish populations.

    Although it might be argued that US adult population demographics are likely to increase the accuracy of Peterson’s baseline, it nevertheless remains considerably off.Sep 21, 2018 10:02amDylan BoswellWhew! Just in the 2.2% by a hair (4 points).Sep 21, 2018 10:36amCarl OnniThe fact that there still is a identifiable jewish people is proof enough of strong in-group preference. It is simply not possible to propagate through time as a minority without it.Sep 21, 2018 3:05pmAlex BirchThis is sort of why I quit following bell curve lit in college, whereupon I realized with each successive generation of dysgenics, authorities will simply readjust the curve to such a degree that the marginally gifted appear geniuses, and the highly gifted, threats to our civilization. After a while, the facts become impetus for action. There is only one sane response to this catastrophe.Sep 22, 2018 12:16amThe distribution isn’t quite even.

    I love how they take from 85-115 as average. that’s ridiculous. 106 should be the dividing line, so that we talk about quality more so thaan the flatness of the distribution.

    Really 95-105 is average and we need 100-110 to be average.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 08:14:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a memory

    Curt Doolittle shared a memory.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 08:13:00 UTC

  • Well, if parents are spending disproportionately more time with children but chi

    Well, if parents are spending disproportionately more time with children but children are getting WORSE, then what does that mean?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 08:10:00 UTC

  • Fun conversation last night with folks on the Propertarian Discord Server. Need

    Fun conversation last night with folks on the Propertarian Discord Server. Need to be more careful when I complain about keynesianism because I’m complaining about the Saltwater School and it’s abuse of Keynesianism to destroy human capital, and obtain power, in favor of expanding the socialist state. Still was interesting that you can’t have a conversation about political economy with people who have a monetary education, because ‘well we don’t consider that’ which is my whole criticism: cherry picking. Political Economy, Research and development economy, Entrepreneurial Economy, Investment economy (wealth preservation), and monetary economy. From the long to the short term.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 08:09:00 UTC

  • “…. we have been treated as second class citizens”– Ricardo Rosselló, Governo

    –“…. we have been treated as second class citizens”– Ricardo Rosselló, Governor of Puerto Rico

    Well. ‘Cause you are. You are south american’s not americans. ANd take your ‘immigrants’ with you. No statehood. End the possession of puerto rico.

    We do not need another hostile state. Independence for Puerto Rico.

    Sell it to the Dominican Republic for a dollar.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 07:59:00 UTC

  • CONFLATION. WE CAN’T HELP IT. HENCE OPERATIONALISM. —“Ontological confusions:

    CONFLATION. WE CAN’T HELP IT. HENCE OPERATIONALISM.

    —“Ontological confusions:

    Both children and adults tend to confuse aspects of reality

    (i.e., “core knowledge”) in systematic ways (Lindeman,

    Svedholm-Hakkinen & Lipsanen, 2015). Any category mistake

    involving property differences between animate and

    inanimate or mental and physical, as examples, constitutes

    an ontological confusion. Consider the belief that prayers

    have the capacity to heal (i.e., spiritual healing). Such

    beliefs are taken to result from conflation of mental phenomenon,which are subjective and immaterial, and physicalphenomenon, which are objective and material (Lindeman,Svedholm-Hakkinen & Lipsanen, 2015). On a dual-processview, ontological confusions constitute a failure to reflecton and inhibit such intuitive ontological confusions (Svedholm& Lindeman, 2013). Ontological confusions may also be supported by a bias toward believing the literal truth of

    statements. Thus, ontological confusions are conceptually

    related to both detection and response bias as mechanisms

    that may underlie bullshit receptivity. As such, the propensity

    to endorse ontological confusions should be linked to

    higher levels of bullshit receptivity.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 07:55:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42182269_10156650164812264_407059420

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42182269_10156650164812264_4070594205842407424_n_10156650164807264.jpg MEN JUST CARE MORE – BUT NOT A LOT MORE

    (why? as in all things, specialization and bias for genetic fitness of a woman vs bias for productive fitness of a male)

    Sex Differences in the Desire for Physical Attractiveness. Wrong Interpretation: Men just care about looks, women about other stuff. Right Interpretation: Both sexes care a fair amount about looks, but on average men somewhat more.

    Long-Term Mate https://books.google.com.my/books?id=c85WCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA146

    SIGNALS MATTER AS WELLErik LukovskyIs it possible men care more on average because they just don’t think women have much more to offer other than looks?

    High status males often select for intelligent women too, but not too many exist so men just give up lookingSep 20, 2018, 8:40 AMAnjin Bodhisattva🙄Sep 20, 2018, 8:52 AMAnjin BodhisattvaMaybe intelligent women are looking for intelligent men?Sep 20, 2018, 8:53 AMMartin ŠtěpánAnjin Bodhisattva Yep. Not necessarily because of it but because intelligent men are much more likely to attain higher status.Sep 20, 2018, 9:08 AMErik LukovskyIf you want intelligent offspring, she has to at least be 115 or 120 IQ because of regression to the meanSep 20, 2018, 12:37 PMErik LukovskyI would love to see where that’s the case

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the stereotype of the ” stupid hot blonde bimbo ” is a stereotype for a reason

    Because it’s somewhat true

    Very pretty women have no reason to be immersed in subjects that matter

    That’s why usually a modest intelligent one seems biologically like a better catchSep 20, 2018, 12:49 PMErik LukovskyIf you look at all the smartest women alive(biologists, geneticists, inventors, or businesswomen) hardly any of them pass as supermodels

    If you look at the women most men crave physically(actresses and celebrities) then they are almost never above average IQ at bestSep 20, 2018, 12:51 PMWilliam J MullenSurveys on what people find attractive are useless, there are many motivations in play regarding their answers and truth isn’t very high on the list. Empiricism fails here due to an inability to measure the variables, thus we must turn to heuristics. This “data” is uncompelling to me, I still see looks as preeminent among male preference. Looks are preeminent among YOUNG female preference, fading in importance as they age when status then resources begin to play a larger role.Sep 20, 2018, 12:55 PMAnjin BodhisattvaConservative women do tend to be more attractive than liberals though 😉Sep 20, 2018, 12:58 PMWilliam J MullenPersonally, through experience I’ve learned that NOTHING trumps or replaces looks, the other stuff can only ENHANCE a woman who meets my physical standard. Without the physical lust, there is no “relationship”, just friendship.Sep 20, 2018, 1:46 PMWilliam J MullenOn the flip side, being very physically attractive but low in status (I have resources but typically hide this fact), I can’t help but notice that my attractiveness to women is reduced the older they are. Women 30’s+ don’t find me attractive whatsoever, with my baggage (3 kids) and appearance of low resources, whereas I can basically get any teenager I want.Sep 20, 2018, 1:49 PMErik LukovskyA few women being accomplished doesn’t change the general ruleSep 20, 2018, 1:56 PMErik LukovskyLook at Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Beyoncé, the list goes on and onSep 20, 2018, 1:58 PMErik LukovskyWell I said actresses and celebrities and yes, trust me, they do

    Most men think Scarlett Johannson is a 10Sep 20, 2018, 2:24 PMWilliam J MullenWomen to me offer nothing beyond their looks and ability to satisfy my sexual urges. They won’t be as smart, and the smarter they are the more prone they are to 1) arguing with me, and 2) getting butthurt when they lose those arguments. What matters most is subject matter interest… if they are interested in those things on which I am superior (which, face it, is everything since I’m a 48yo genius with incredible and unusual experience, and they are typically much younger and know nothing beyond their childhood home, some dumb university classes, and a Sex & the City career lifestyle) then we can get along, as we enjoy conversations where they mostly learn from me and entertain me with their own anecdotes.Sep 20, 2018, 2:26 PMWilliam J MullenThe hottest women are models; Hollywood has hardly any truly beautiful women, by my standard. I firmly believe that I could walk into any high school in America and walk out with 10 girls hotter than ScoJo, for example. There is Gadot today, there used to be Angelina… everyone else just seems to top out at around an 8, if you ask me.Sep 20, 2018, 2:27 PMWilliam J MullenI already have 3 kids, though, so I don’t have to worry about progeny. I do think Erik’s metric of intellect in a potential mother makes a lot of sense.Sep 20, 2018, 2:30 PMWilliam J MullenMeaning you don’t want to believe it, so it’s easier to think I’m just talking out my ear. Sure, believe what you like, it’s of no matter to me. Just offering my personal perspective.Sep 20, 2018, 2:38 PMWilliam J MullenI know I can, and it doesn’t cause me to exclude my children in any way. Your insults are predictable and banal… social shaming on emotional grounds. I’m never sure why my opinions and actions offend people in this regard, but fortunately I don’t really care about the opinions of the hoi polloi (just as I care little about the opinions of dogs).Sep 20, 2018, 2:45 PMWilliam J MullenSpeaking of Lohan, she once hit on me at a movie premier party. But I turned her down because she was chubby and gross at the time.Sep 20, 2018, 2:49 PMCarl EluMen want a pleasant woman that is not dumb. All extra IQ points over “not dumb” suffers from sharply diminishing returns.Sep 20, 2018, 4:58 PMMEN JUST CARE MORE – BUT NOT A LOT MORE

    (why? as in all things, specialization and bias for genetic fitness of a woman vs bias for productive fitness of a male)

    Sex Differences in the Desire for Physical Attractiveness. Wrong Interpretation: Men just care about looks, women about other stuff. Right Interpretation: Both sexes care a fair amount about looks, but on average men somewhat more.

    Long-Term Mate https://books.google.com.my/books?id=c85WCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA146

    SIGNALS MATTER AS WELL

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 07:49:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42182269_10156650164812264_40705942

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42182269_10156650164812264_4070594205842407424_n_10156650164807264.jpg MEN JUST CARE MORE – BUT NOT A LOT MORE

    (why? as in all things, specialization and bias for genetic fitness of a woman vs bias for productive fitness of a male)

    Sex Differences in the Desire for Physical Attractiveness. Wrong Interpretation: Men just care about looks, women about other stuff. Right Interpretation: Both sexes care a fair amount about looks, but on average men somewhat more.

    Long-Term Mate https://books.google.com.my/books?id=c85WCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA146

    SIGNALS MATTER AS WELLErik LukovskyIs it possible men care more on average because they just don’t think women have much more to offer other than looks?

    High status males often select for intelligent women too, but not too many exist so men just give up lookingSep 20, 2018 8:40amAnjin Bodhisattva🙄Sep 20, 2018 8:52amAnjin BodhisattvaMaybe intelligent women are looking for intelligent men?Sep 20, 2018 8:53amMartin ŠtěpánAnjin Bodhisattva Yep. Not necessarily because of it but because intelligent men are much more likely to attain higher status.Sep 20, 2018 9:08amErik LukovskyIf you want intelligent offspring, she has to at least be 115 or 120 IQ because of regression to the meanSep 20, 2018 12:37pmErik LukovskyI would love to see where that’s the case

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the stereotype of the ” stupid hot blonde bimbo ” is a stereotype for a reason

    Because it’s somewhat true

    Very pretty women have no reason to be immersed in subjects that matter

    That’s why usually a modest intelligent one seems biologically like a better catchSep 20, 2018 12:49pmErik LukovskyIf you look at all the smartest women alive(biologists, geneticists, inventors, or businesswomen) hardly any of them pass as supermodels

    If you look at the women most men crave physically(actresses and celebrities) then they are almost never above average IQ at bestSep 20, 2018 12:51pmWilliam J MullenSurveys on what people find attractive are useless, there are many motivations in play regarding their answers and truth isn’t very high on the list. Empiricism fails here due to an inability to measure the variables, thus we must turn to heuristics. This “data” is uncompelling to me, I still see looks as preeminent among male preference. Looks are preeminent among YOUNG female preference, fading in importance as they age when status then resources begin to play a larger role.Sep 20, 2018 12:55pmAnjin BodhisattvaConservative women do tend to be more attractive than liberals though 😉Sep 20, 2018 12:58pmWilliam J MullenPersonally, through experience I’ve learned that NOTHING trumps or replaces looks, the other stuff can only ENHANCE a woman who meets my physical standard. Without the physical lust, there is no “relationship”, just friendship.Sep 20, 2018 1:46pmWilliam J MullenOn the flip side, being very physically attractive but low in status (I have resources but typically hide this fact), I can’t help but notice that my attractiveness to women is reduced the older they are. Women 30’s+ don’t find me attractive whatsoever, with my baggage (3 kids) and appearance of low resources, whereas I can basically get any teenager I want.Sep 20, 2018 1:49pmErik LukovskyA few women being accomplished doesn’t change the general ruleSep 20, 2018 1:56pmErik LukovskyLook at Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Beyoncé, the list goes on and onSep 20, 2018 1:58pmErik LukovskyWell I said actresses and celebrities and yes, trust me, they do

    Most men think Scarlett Johannson is a 10Sep 20, 2018 2:24pmWilliam J MullenWomen to me offer nothing beyond their looks and ability to satisfy my sexual urges. They won’t be as smart, and the smarter they are the more prone they are to 1) arguing with me, and 2) getting butthurt when they lose those arguments. What matters most is subject matter interest… if they are interested in those things on which I am superior (which, face it, is everything since I’m a 48yo genius with incredible and unusual experience, and they are typically much younger and know nothing beyond their childhood home, some dumb university classes, and a Sex & the City career lifestyle) then we can get along, as we enjoy conversations where they mostly learn from me and entertain me with their own anecdotes.Sep 20, 2018 2:26pmWilliam J MullenThe hottest women are models; Hollywood has hardly any truly beautiful women, by my standard. I firmly believe that I could walk into any high school in America and walk out with 10 girls hotter than ScoJo, for example. There is Gadot today, there used to be Angelina… everyone else just seems to top out at around an 8, if you ask me.Sep 20, 2018 2:27pmWilliam J MullenI already have 3 kids, though, so I don’t have to worry about progeny. I do think Erik’s metric of intellect in a potential mother makes a lot of sense.Sep 20, 2018 2:30pmWilliam J MullenMeaning you don’t want to believe it, so it’s easier to think I’m just talking out my ear. Sure, believe what you like, it’s of no matter to me. Just offering my personal perspective.Sep 20, 2018 2:38pmWilliam J MullenI know I can, and it doesn’t cause me to exclude my children in any way. Your insults are predictable and banal… social shaming on emotional grounds. I’m never sure why my opinions and actions offend people in this regard, but fortunately I don’t really care about the opinions of the hoi polloi (just as I care little about the opinions of dogs).Sep 20, 2018 2:45pmWilliam J MullenSpeaking of Lohan, she once hit on me at a movie premier party. But I turned her down because she was chubby and gross at the time.Sep 20, 2018 2:49pmCarl OnniMen want a pleasant woman that is not dumb. All extra IQ points over “not dumb” suffers from sharply diminishing returns.Sep 20, 2018 4:58pmMEN JUST CARE MORE – BUT NOT A LOT MORE

    (why? as in all things, specialization and bias for genetic fitness of a woman vs bias for productive fitness of a male)

    Sex Differences in the Desire for Physical Attractiveness. Wrong Interpretation: Men just care about looks, women about other stuff. Right Interpretation: Both sexes care a fair amount about looks, but on average men somewhat more.

    Long-Term Mate https://books.google.com.my/books?id=c85WCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA146

    SIGNALS MATTER AS WELL

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 07:49:00 UTC

  • LADIES, IT’S ALL NATURE AND NO NURTURE Mothers need to feel it’s nurture. But la

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3285SORRY LADIES, IT’S ALL NATURE AND NO NURTURE

    Mothers need to feel it’s nurture. But largely you can make your kids worse, but not better. So nurture is largely an effort not to let kids play in traffic. Otherwise it’s just genes.

    —“For a majority (69%) of traits, the observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where twin resemblance is solely due to additive genetic variation. The data are inconsistent with substantial influences from shared environment or non-additive genetic variation.”—

    THIS IS A HUGE STUDY

    —“We report a meta-analysis of twin correlations and reported variance components for 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits. “—

    I’m gonna amplify this a bit and say that your extra attention is making kids more fragile and literally driving them mad.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3285

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 07:17:00 UTC