Inclined to think about this with animals somewhat.
Ive seen over a 300k pigs get born over 5 years and noticed results and mutations increase after 6th births round.
Most are physically noticeable but theres behavioural patterns including antisocial behaviours as fighting and self isolation which i rarely see with prime productive birth round (3rd) or first round (usually low count but high quality pop)
In general would it not be easier to prove these things with animals.
Might not be capable of gathering IQ stats lol, but thats not what this is about at its core.
Ofcourse that does leave up for more ideological and tactical denial, hur man isnt animal types, or tactical proving effect on animal doesn't on man.
I've suggested doing a study with wolves since they have similar social structure to primitive humans and they have short generation times, 1 to 2 years. Some studies already exist but are circumstantial because they don't prove it comes from ML per se, although that is a leading explanation of the observations. One example is the rat utopia. Under 0 selection pressure they degrade rather quickly and in the direction of decreasing intelligence and "rightism", ie masculinity, in group preference, and heterosexuality.
Some of these arguments against mutational load are terrible.
Argument 2: Mutational load is not about the total number of mutations. It's the number of bad mutations (and their effects) that matter. Purifying selection doesn't even necessarily decrease the total number of mutations–the number of mutations is almost exactly determined by paternal age, which could very well be (mostly) independent of the strength of purifying selection.
Argument 6: The qualitative effects of mutational load depend on the coefficients of selection. It's not "mutational load is true therefore society will collapse". Rather, it could be "mutational load theory predicts -10IQ per decade, hence society will collapse". But obviously mutational load is not predicting -10IQ per decade.
In the 20th century we had massive increases in height, brain size, and IQ scores that weren't related to changes in the genome. They are probably all explained by a common factor, likely improved nutrition and maybe some other things. It's possible that this also triggers some kind of difference in brain development leading to more passive / less "traditional" people and this is leftism. There are examples similar to this in EO Wilson's book Sociobiology in animal species responding to ecological abundance and population density. ML is the only way for leftism to be evolution since it almost certainly wasn't caused by selection pressures, so if ML is ruled out the next most biological/scientific theory would be this, it's "epigenetic" in a sense and parsimonious.
Inclined to think about this with animals somewhat.
Ive seen over a 300k pigs get born over 5 years and noticed results and mutations increase after 6th births round.
Most are physically noticeable but theres behavioural patterns including antisocial behaviours as fighting and self isolation which i rarely see with prime productive birth round (3rd) or first round (usually low count but high quality pop)
In general would it not be easier to prove these things with animals.
Might not be capable of gathering IQ stats lol, but thats not what this is about at its core.
Ofcourse that does leave up for more ideological and tactical denial, hur man isnt animal types, or tactical proving effect on animal doesn't on man.
I've suggested doing a study with wolves since they have similar social structure to primitive humans and they have short generation times, 1 to 2 years. Some studies already exist but are circumstantial because they don't prove it comes from ML per se, although that is a leading explanation of the observations. One example is the rat utopia. Under 0 selection pressure they degrade rather quickly and in the direction of decreasing intelligence and "rightism", ie masculinity, in group preference, and heterosexuality.
Some of these arguments against mutational load are terrible.
Argument 2: Mutational load is not about the total number of mutations. It's the number of bad mutations (and their effects) that matter. Purifying selection doesn't even necessarily decrease the total number of mutations–the number of mutations is almost exactly determined by paternal age, which could very well be (mostly) independent of the strength of purifying selection.
Argument 6: The qualitative effects of mutational load depend on the coefficients of selection. It's not "mutational load is true therefore society will collapse". Rather, it could be "mutational load theory predicts -10IQ per decade, hence society will collapse". But obviously mutational load is not predicting -10IQ per decade.
Nigga you almost 25 you better hurry 🤑
Could you explain your alternative hypothesis about leftism and the Flynn effect
In the 20th century we had massive increases in height, brain size, and IQ scores that weren't related to changes in the genome. They are probably all explained by a common factor, likely improved nutrition and maybe some other things. It's possible that this also triggers some kind of difference in brain development leading to more passive / less "traditional" people and this is leftism. There are examples similar to this in EO Wilson's book Sociobiology in animal species responding to ecological abundance and population density. ML is the only way for leftism to be evolution since it almost certainly wasn't caused by selection pressures, so if ML is ruled out the next most biological/scientific theory would be this, it's "epigenetic" in a sense and parsimonious.
If you are a rightwing High IQ man what is the cut of point for having children? Is being 70 but based better than 20 and a lib?