Considering the fact the we've already seen that two years of wearing a mask may have dropped the general population's maximum IQ by 20%; and considering that the other largest determining factors in stunting IQ development are: offspring of incest, violence towards children, and malnutrition of children; it seems pretty fucking clear to me that environment has a much more serious impact than he'd like to admit to.
It's like saying a groups is genetically pre-disposed to dying young; while not taking into account the likelihood of murders in that group. What would an environmental factor like murder have on a biological factor like lifespan?
You're talking about something completely different.
I'm telling you that there is an expected decrease in children and it's directly related to lockdowns and masks which has caused the children to become emotionally stunted.
What you're talking about is a general IQ statistic for a country.
You didn't specify the kids and kid IQ ratings are notorious for fluctuating. We'll see the true impacts in a decade. It's still early to draw conclusions.
Nurture v Nature is complicated (and thus so is heritability, which can change with the environment). Yes, if you lock someone in a dark room for their whole life and never speak to them, their resulting IQ will be entirely the result of environment.
That said, malnutrition isn't a thing anymore: Too much nutrition is the problem for our lower classes. Whatever portion of the Flynn effect that had to do with malnutrition ended decades ago (along with the Flynn effect itself).
Adopted twin studies show quite clearly that IQ is strongly hereditary in the conditions of modern western society. The IQ of a child adopted into an upper class home is better predicted by the IQ of their birth parent than they are of their adopted parents. There might be environmental detriments that lower the heritability of IQ at the lowest end of SES, but that is extremely questionable (Eric Turkheimer vs Alt Hype: https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=WPV6Hz9iwQo)
It is possible that wearing a mask and lockdowns will stunt the IQ of children, as it is massive systemic abuse on a large scale. However, most interventions that have an impact on the IQ of children only have short-term effects. IQ's heritability increases with age, peaking in the early twenties at around ~70%. Hopefully, this applies to temporary negative interventions as well.
Considering the fact the we've already seen that two years of wearing a mask may have dropped the general population's maximum IQ by 20%; and considering that the other largest determining factors in stunting IQ development are: offspring of incest, violence towards children, and malnutrition of children; it seems pretty fucking clear to me that environment has a much more serious impact than he'd like to admit to.
It's like saying a groups is genetically pre-disposed to dying young; while not taking into account the likelihood of murders in that group. What would an environmental factor like murder have on a biological factor like lifespan?
IQ hasn't dropped 20% because of masks. Average IQ in western countries had been dropping every year though because of immigration.
You're talking about something completely different.
I'm telling you that there is an expected decrease in children and it's directly related to lockdowns and masks which has caused the children to become emotionally stunted.
What you're talking about is a general IQ statistic for a country.
You didn't specify the kids and kid IQ ratings are notorious for fluctuating. We'll see the true impacts in a decade. It's still early to draw conclusions.
A fair enough criticism to be sure, but that still leaves violence and malnutrition which are more well documented.
Nurture v Nature is complicated (and thus so is heritability, which can change with the environment). Yes, if you lock someone in a dark room for their whole life and never speak to them, their resulting IQ will be entirely the result of environment.
That said, malnutrition isn't a thing anymore: Too much nutrition is the problem for our lower classes. Whatever portion of the Flynn effect that had to do with malnutrition ended decades ago (along with the Flynn effect itself).
Adopted twin studies show quite clearly that IQ is strongly hereditary in the conditions of modern western society. The IQ of a child adopted into an upper class home is better predicted by the IQ of their birth parent than they are of their adopted parents. There might be environmental detriments that lower the heritability of IQ at the lowest end of SES, but that is extremely questionable (Eric Turkheimer vs Alt Hype: https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=WPV6Hz9iwQo)
It is possible that wearing a mask and lockdowns will stunt the IQ of children, as it is massive systemic abuse on a large scale. However, most interventions that have an impact on the IQ of children only have short-term effects. IQ's heritability increases with age, peaking in the early twenties at around ~70%. Hopefully, this applies to temporary negative interventions as well.
There is no such thing as 'too much nutrition'. Yes, there is still malnutrition in the US, but also yes, people are fat. Being fat is not nutrition.