Orton's Arm

Unfortunately for you, the link doesn't say what you want it to say. Here's a quote: The point the link was making is that just because the heritability for shyness may be 40% across the whole population, doesn't mean it's an exact 40% for every last person. For some people, genetic variation will explain more than 40% of their shyness levels, while for others it's less than 40%. But it's just like you to expand upon this relatively simple, straightforward, intuitively obvious point and turn it into something else entirely.

Where do you think I got the picture for my avatar?

Especially when you're a Bills fan.

Congratulations! You're once again wrong from start to finish. I assume that's your goal, given the consistency with which you've achieved it.

I'm pulling for Okoye, but I think that Willis or a CB would be more likely.

Let me put this to you again: heritability is an average figure for the population as a whole. To get to an average figure, you have to average out traits for individuals. Let's say the heritability for shyness is 0.4. That fact means that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe are due to genetics.

Nor is there a link which supports yours. You haven't provided a definition, because to do so might actually move the discussion forward.

Not necessarily. Plant material originating from within a 10 or 20 mile radius of the power plant would never be loaded onto a train.

And I don't see why I should continue to respond to accusations that Demonstrate no knowledge of the underlying subject matter Don't make specific claims. If you're telling me that 2 + 2 isn't equal to 4, you need to say whether you think 2 + 2 = 3 or 5. Aren't supported by any external link.

Right. And the coal can be conveniently loaded onto those 120 car trains, because it all came from the same coal mine. But the plant material is coming from a more dispersed area. You'd have trucks roaming around, gathering up leaves and branches from people's yards. Getting from that point to your 120 car train is pretty tough.

I respect a man like this. Good for him.

You moron, 5 + x = 8 is algebra, not calculus. If you're going to be your usual self and employ a pure argumentum ad hominum strategy, at least get your terms right. And the only people who didn't understand the quote from earlier were you and your husband Tom. A heritability of .40 informs us that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe in, say, shyness may in some way be attributable to genetic individual difference.

If the only people having kids are the ones with low-intelligence phenotypes, then obviously that does something to the underlying genotype. If on the other hand you had the wisdom and prudence to institute a eugenics program, your decision to favor the high-intelligence phenotype would move the underlying genotype in a more positive direction. The human species would actually have a shot at a decent long-term future. But hey, why should anyone care about the future? It's so much easier to pretend the future will never happen.

You're confusing the size of your network with the average distance you'll have to ship a unit of yard waste.

You haven't proven anything in the regression toward the mean thread, except for your unheard-of ability to misunderstand fairly basic posts.

I've given you a correct definition of psychometrics. You can't give any definition, nor can you substantiate the psychometrics-related accusations you've made against me. Hey, for that matter, you can't substantiate any of the accusations you've made against me.

Did Ramius write that post for you? Because I'd expect something this flat-out stupid from him much moreso than from you. Say that the heritability for shyness is 40% at the group level. Well, Einstein, where on earth do you think that 40% figure came from? Here's a little hint: you can't get a heritability of 40% at the group level if it's 0% heritable at the individual level. That'd be like saying, "The average income for a Buffalonian is $40,000, even though no individual Buffalo resident makes more than $0 a year." See? A group average means that some individuals fall above the average, while others fall below it. That's the way averages work, you nitwit. Go back to grammar school and start learning this stuff.

The only thing that's pathetic is your need to throw out vague, unsubstantiated, ignorant accusations.

I'm tenacious in the face of irrational, unthinking hostility. Whether I'd be equally stubborn in the face of enlightened commentary and intelligent, well-informed objections has yet to be seen.

Precisely what part of the phrase "on average" are you too stupid to understand?

Well, if you insist on blaming someone other than the spammers for their spam, then I can't stop you. Good luck to you.

At least I didn't have some bird use my face as its very own dumping grounds . . . If you want to explain systems theory to someone else, I suggest you first develop an understanding of it yourself. If you had the slightest idea as to what you were talking about, you'd realize that the lower the relevant energy density for a fuel source, the lower the optimal transportation distance is.

Even Tom now understands the test/retest effect. At least, I think he does. The fact that you still don't get it shows your own stupidity. And the fact that you're actually making fun of it shows you lack the wisdom to keep silent on the many occasions when you don't know the first thing about what's being discussed. Listen, bonehead. Let me explain this nice and simple, so that even a "McDonald's wouldn't hire me" reject like you can understand it. First, you give a group of people an IQ test. Some people are scored correctly, others get lucky, and an equal number get unlucky. Then you select a subset of the first group based on their test scores. This is the part you don't understand. Insofar as test scores are a result of luck, the group you selected got disproportionately lucky. Let's say that a test score is 90% due to something innate, and 10% due to luck. If that's the case, the average person in that subset you selected is only 90% as far from the population's mean as his test score says he is. When you retest the subset, the average score will move 10% closer to the mean. Suppose you select a group of parents based on their test scores. Their test scores say they're 40 points above the population's mean I.Q. If the test is 10% based on luck, then they're only 36 points above the mean I.Q. Suppose their children have I.Q.s of 136. Does this decline in test scores imply the children aren't as smart as their parents? No. Your inability to understand something even as simple as this is why you couldn't get hired at McDonald's.

I've already given a definition for psychometrics. Apparently you are unable to do the same. You're also unable to point out any specific errors in my earlier post. Instead, you stick to general accusations, which are harder to refute. Yes, everything you've written about psychometrics--from the initial accusation, to the subsequent refusal to substantiate it--has been 100% federally certified, credibility free.

1. I never claimed that the specific genes which influence intelligence have been discovered. 2. A heritability for I.Q. means that, on average, 80% of intellectual differences are determined by genetics. Again, that 80% can be lower or higher for specific people, but you'd generally expect to see something extreme about the underlying environment if someone radically deviated from that 80%. 3. Heritability tells us the portion of observed variation that can be explained by genetics. If everyone's environment was the same, all observed differences would be due to genetics. You are right to say that Billy (I.Q. = 140) won't always be more productive than Fred (I.Q. = 90). But give me a choice between a million Billys and a million Freds, and I can easily tell you which group will be more productive. If you give me a social policy which encourages those million Billys to have more kids than the million Freds, I can tell you that we're on the way to a long-term level of greater prosperity, lower crime, etc. Presently the reverse is true.