>>12257482>Like all the race realists and Nazis etc they're so wrong it's unbelievable"Nazis" were environmental determinists just like the Lysenkoists in the Soviet Union. They repeatedly denied IQ as Jewish since Slavs performed similarly on IQ tests and Jews performed slightly better than Germans and denied any heritability of any sorts of behavior, intelligence, etc. Race Realists hold a contrary view, that there is significant heritability to IQ and other behavioral traits. Data is on the side of Race Realists for example. All you really can do at the end of the day is dispute how exactly groups are defined.
>No it's literally the opposite. It's Lamarck says but it doesn't transfer to your offspring.Genetic caused methylation does not transfer to offspring. But the genes that cause it can.
>The more you do something the better you get at it even at a genetic level (ie. what doesn't kill you makes you stronger). To a point. But that point can be argued to be limited by genetics and time in general. If you have short stubby fingers and you practice piano all the time, you'll still never be able to compete with a guy with long fingers who practices piano all the time. Your finger length given equal rearing is a product of your genetics just like height. If you have too low of an IQ, it doesn't matter how much you practice doing math, it'll take you too long to master enough subjects to move on to more difficult subjects. It could take you two, three, four, or an even greater multiple of time to be able to do half of the math that someone with a significantly higher IQ can do. If you want to then think about new things, you need pattern recognition. The ability to recognize patterns is predicted by IQ. IQ is mostly heritable. Therefore pattern recognition ability is mostly heritable. This assertion falls apart when you consider actual examples.
