/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10902617
It’s illegal to discriminate based of mental function for the same reason your not allowed to discriminate based off iq. Confirming that there is both a mental and primarily a physical difference would be admitting that they are “different” which is not politically correct.

>>10902623
Interesting perspective but that has nothing to do with my question

It’s not really a pseudoscience; only people who aren’t actually scientists think of it like that.

The biggest issue is the replication crisis. What people outside of the field fail to take into account though is that unlike an experiment in physics where every particle is the exact same, or more general you are able to manipulate the configuration of your set up to the point where it is exactly the same as the previous n trials, psychological experiments have so many confounders that it’s almost impossible to create the same experiment.

>>10902636
>psychological experiments have so many confounders that it’s almost impossible to create the same experiment.
Then what use is the experiment in the first place?
If the results are individualized enough so as to prevent reproduction, why should I believe those results would apply to any individual outside of the study?

>>10902624
Oh my apologies I miss read. Doctors can get into legal disputes regarding diagnosis and if it turns out they’re wrong, it could lead to court hearing. The best example I could think of would be CTE, pretty recently they were able to diagnose candidates who had CTE but when it came to actually diagnosing a patient they can only legally say ,”sir do to your symptoms and CT scan and MRI it is highly likely that you’d fit into the category of those diagnosed with CTE.” They can’t tell a man he has it because common symptoms towards the later end of life are severe suicidal thoughts, depression, anger, low temper, etc. and if you tell a man he has CTE and he doesn’t he may start to second guess his sanity and think to himself... you know maybe I do have depression, maybe I do get angry easily, maybe I’m sucidal. Basically it sums down to the probability that there might be a false positive and if you misdiagnose a man he may begin to take on traits of the diagnosis causing a pseudo- placebo effect.

>>10902641
Isn't that a bit like professionalized gaslighting?

>>10902645
If they are wrong in there diagnosis yes. Which is why they steer clear of it.

>>10902646
Well if their rate of successful diagnosis rate mirrors the reproducibility crisis, you would be correct in assuming that any one diagnosis at random is inaccurate.

>>10902617
If phrenology is a pseudoscience why can they identify propensities based on skull shape?

>>10902651
This is the sort of answer I was looking for, thanks.

>>10902641
CTE is a neurodegenerative disease, not a psychological disorder.

>>10902640
Given a large enough sample size, it could give an indication of a particular trend in a region and time span. Since minds are evolving on shorter timescales than the laws of the universe (this is quite controversial though really appealing; see Lee Smolin’s papers on Cosmological Natural Selection), and differently across different cultures, certain results would only apply locally.

However, there is a caveat. The replication crisis afflicts about 30% - 40% of papers. This means that research emphasizing the more fundamental derivations of neuroscience as they apply to human psychology are reliably reproduced. Think of research from Tversky and Kahnemann on cognitive biases. Here’s another caveat though; while they are true now and reproducible, people will eventually learn about them and become actively aware of them while being tested for them. This is not the case for laws about physics, maths, etc. Psychology is a field that can’t really utilize the same standards of what constitutes a good experiment since it is not timeless, unlike the hardcore sciences which work with more fundamental and timeless laws.

>>10902617
They probably do but given the different colors your picture is highlighting very small differences in function over a much more complicated system at a specific point in time.

I don't think there's can be a one to one map between complex behavioral differences and some meme pictures of the brain

>>10902658
>The replication crisis afflicts about 30% - 40% of papers
That number goes to >50% when you consider only the 100 most significant findings

>>10902658
lol at this cope

>>10902660
You are trying to apply the same measures of what makes a successful theory in physics, to psychology. This is silly.
Human psychology is so many layers of abstraction deeper than the particles comprising them, that you cannot use the same metrics of testing theories in that space and then say when it only works half the time “lol it’s not a science”.

We haven’t found a better heuristic by which to test and evaluate theories of the mind as well as we have for physics.

>>10902653
So you’re not trying to actually figure out what the issue is, you’re just trying to fuel your confirmation bias. Alright man, have fun with that.
Good luck taking your math career nowhere. Maybe study octavions and let us know how gods psychology works; just make sure to have a better sample size than just one god (:

>>10902668
>Human psychology is so many layers of abstraction deeper than the particles comprising them
>All that wordsalad
you're trying to excuse inconsistency by saying "humans aren't consistent."

>>10902671
I was being sarcastic, retard
Thanks for outing yourself as a smug bitch though

>>10902672
... humans aren’t consistent. Look, we could replicate these papers easily if we did a shit ton of trials of the same people who did the initial experiment, in different moods and environments and see what the statistically significant findings are. Physics experiments are easy; dealing with changing systems like a human brain is hard.

>>10902617
None of that is psychology, it's psychiatry. Which, though it certainly has issues, is far less infested with bullshit than psychology.

>>10902682
>humans aren’t consistent
Then what is the purpose of attempting to derive a model that encompasses all individuals?

>>10902658
>people will eventually learn about them and become actively aware of them while being tested for them. This is not the case for laws about physics, maths, etc.
People are aware of the laws of physics and math and it doesn't make them change, that is why they withstand the scrutiny of the scientific method.

>>10902668
That is a pretty convoluted way of calling it a pseudoscience.

>>10902682
>dealing with changing systems like a human brain is hard.
The environment is just as finicky and transformative as the human brain, yet environmental science theories such as what causes tornadoes, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions still tend to stick around for more than a few years before being widely discredited and rewriting the manual.

>>10902617

>>10902693
lol

>>10902684
>contradict psychology with psychiatry
What?

>>10902693
made me laugh

>>10902692
>People are aware of the laws of physics and math and it doesn't make them change, that is why they withstand the scrutiny of the scientific method.

Okay man, now I know you’re trolling. I hope you get something out of bashing psychology on 4chan. Have a good night

>>10902705
HAHAHAHA go back

>>10902684
Psychiatry is so much worse than psychology your statement is laughable, its psychiatry that says some people are inherently disordered and you can drug them into being normal using chemicals that barely perform on the level of a placebo with behaviors that can randomly shift from being considered disordered or not based on the cultural zeitgeist while psychology just tries to distinguish patterns of behavior and functions more like a taxonomy structure than a full blown science in and of itself.

>>10902707
So what you can suddenly change the laws of physics just by being aware of them and utilizing your powerful psychology?

>>10902617
it isn't everything that is sudoscience. it is the way they treat the patients, misinterpreting the world through hilarious generalizations and guidelines, prescribing medications that don't actually fix people

psychology implied that i want to fuck my mother, gave us lobotomy, and is constantly spawning ultra deconstructivist nutjobs that are so crazy they eventually get banned from the field they came from. psychology is like religion in a way that the brain is a huge puzzle, and the field is so far from actually providing anything useful to society that can actually be enjoyed by anyone

>>10902707
So what you can suddenly change the laws of physics just by being aware of them and utilizing your superior powerful psychology?

>>10902723
Psychologists can't prescribe medications or perform medical procedures, you are thinking of psychiatry.

>>10902728
psychiatry neurology and psychology are all intertwined, i don't care who i am naming

>>10902747
>i don't care who i am naming
Name the psued and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've been found out."

>>10902751
the distinction is almost pointless given that psychiatry and psychology are both corrupt, irredeemable pseudosciences spawned by power hungry sociopaths and maintained by legions of do-nothing midwit insects.

>>10902751
that sounds like you projecting lol

>>10902747
Why stop there? Just blame the entirety of the AMA and modern medicine desu, most of it is pseudo bullshit and most doctors are greedy predators who don't know wrist bones from a wrist watches.

>>10902827
cause other fields don't need to make up shit
they can actually study stuff and innovate

>>10902827
>Just blame the entirety of the AMA and modern medicine
>most of it is pseudo bullshit
Not just that, but the barrier to entry is way lower than it should be.
Coincidentally why medical errors are the third leading cause of death

>>10902833
They all make stuff up all the time like the unnecessary surgeries, the safety and efficacy of the Chinese medical implants that break down constantly or the effectiveness of the faulty sterilization techniques that make hospitals the largest hotbed of infectious pathogens in any given city.

>>10902833
What exactly are they innovating anyway besides billing and collection practices?
Life expectancy is on a decade long decline, comfort and happiness levels are the lowest since they began collecting those statistics, and infant mortality and mother delivery deaths are the highest in the developed world in a country where health care is the most expensive by orders of magnitude.

That's psychiatry (a medical field), not psychology. Psychology is jewish pseudoscience.

>>10902869
>That's psychiatry (a medical field)
Psychiatry is a medical field in the same way that gender studies is
The only thing to justify that title is the "D" in "PhD"

>>10902645
That’s exactly what it is. The point is to shunt people to government programs so they can get NEETbux for being quirky.

>>10902617
Because it's neither specific nor sensitive.

>>10902872
>The only thing to justify that title is the "D" in "PhD"

You are aware that shrinks are MD's right?

>>10902961
That's just because they know that even an idiot wouldn't accept pills from somebody who didn't claim to be a doctor.

>>10902966
Its not just a claim, they have to graduate medical school and be a certified MD to be a psychiatrist and people with gender studies degrees don't even claim to be in a medical field.

>>10902978
It's all smoke and mirrors
Just look at how effective psychiatric medication is when compared with placebo
Unfortunately the gap between doctor and scientist is ever growing

>>10902982
Scientists are the ones who develop and certify the medications, not just the doctors.

>>10902991
>Scientists are the ones who develop and certify the medications, not just the doctors
That's where you have it backwards
Psychiatrists preform p-hacking voodoo to get their medications accepted
Your conflation of psychiatrists and scientists just goes to show how well their conditioning has worked

>>10902991
biochem and cell bio are not really hard sciences at all, the latter is having its own replication crisis.

>>10903004
All sciences have failed replications. And Im pretty sure youll have a replication crisis if you look at the average phd theses of any science

>>10902617
because neuroscientists did all the work for them already

>>10903033
but that’s bullshit lol

>>10903033
>Im pretty sure youll have a replication crisis if you look at the average phd theses of any science
Not to nearly the same degree as psychology
Out of their top 100 most significant findings, more than 50% have been proven false
This means that if you were to take a study at random, you would be more likely to be correct if you assumed the complement to the conclusion.

>>10903041
They werent proven false at all just that the experiments did not replicate possubly for various reasons. Some of the findings have been questioned as wrong subsequently but the failure to replicate in itself in that study doesnt necessarily make the initial finding wrong.

>>10903037
Its not. Read a nature article surveying sciences and was found failed replications etc were common in all sciences. Just a matter of degree

>>10903145
You’re an idiot.

>>10902617
>why can they identify disorders based on brain scans
Because what you see in those click bait studies about being able to "see" some psychiatric condition in a brain scan is always the easy direction of taking a bunch of samples and finding any similarities you can parse out of them to try to provide evidence for your diagnosis categories being legitimate. The hard direction is going the opposite way and taking those similarities you found and actually using them to successfully match diagnoses with samples in an unknown data set. That's called reverse inference, and the psychiatric diagnoses fail the reverse inference test due to various different diagnoses being indistinguishable from one another when you try to perform this diagnosing task from brain scans alone:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hbm.23486
See also the dead salmon MRI study for why finding significant results in a brain scan by sifting through all the possible features you can come up with until one happens to be far enough off from the norm to count doesn't give you very useful / accurate results:
https://www.researchgate.net/.../255651552_Neural_correlates_of_interspecies_perspective_taking_in_the_post-mortem_Atlantic_Salmon_an_argument_for_multiple_comparisons_correction

>>10903166
how do psychefags live with themselves?

Seriously asking I would have to end it all if any part of my self esteem or life’s work was bound up in shit like that, can you even imagine?

>>10903171
Sorry, fucked up the last link and had to delete and re-post.
>>10902617
>why can they identify disorders based on brain scans
Because what you see in those click bait studies about being able to "see" some psychiatric condition in a brain scan is always the easy direction of taking a bunch of samples and finding any similarities you can parse out of them to try to provide evidence for your diagnosis categories being legitimate. The hard direction is going the opposite way and taking those similarities you found and actually using them to successfully match diagnoses with samples in an unknown data set. That's called reverse inference, and the psychiatric diagnoses fail the reverse inference test due to various different diagnoses being indistinguishable from one another when you try to perform this diagnosing task from brain scans alone:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hbm.23486
See also the dead salmon MRI study for why finding significant results in a brain scan by sifting through all the possible features you can come up with until one happens to be far enough off from the norm to count doesn't give you very useful / accurate results:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255651552_Neural_correlates_of_interspecies_perspective_taking_in_the_post-mortem_Atlantic_Salmon_an_argument_for_multiple_comparisons_correction

>>10903147
https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

over 50% of physicists have failed to reproduce their own experiment and just under 70% have failed to reproduce another persons experiment.

Brain scans are neurology, which is a science

>>10903174
Reverse inference is generally difficult in all cases or else A.I. and machine learning would be more advanced than it is and the brain wouldnt have genetically defined areas dedicated to perceiving certain things. Get this, the brain is so bad at reverse inference it needs areas for detecting e.g. motion or objects to be defined apriori.

>>10903139
Major copeposting here

>>10903186
You can't compare reverse inference in machine learning to reverse inference done by researchers with their own fucking categories.

>>10903222
Whats your reason other than utter cope?

>>10902617
And out of these ADHD, PTSD, bipolar disorder and depressed patients, how many were scanned to get their diagnosis..?

You almost never do any physical tests in order to set a psycological disorder.

>>10903229
>cope
zoomers pls leave
Also because unlike with the ML example these are man-made categories we're talking about. It makes sense it would be difficult to parse out categories going in blind with feature extraction algorithms applied to a naturally evolved, highly convoluted structure we know nothing about because we didn't make it ourselves. You don't have that excuse when you're the one who came up with the categories you can't tell apart from one another when tested on it.

>letting people scan your brain and take pictures of the little person that lives in there

I honestly hope you guys don't do this

>>10903275
Check out my brain yo

>>10903271
>what is supervised learning
>what are unsupervised learning algorithms inferring that are not patterns designed or selected by the programmer.

>>10902686
It's obviously not a black/white issue. Just because a model isn't accurate 100% of the time doesn't mean the model is worthless. Even if a model is only accurate 60% of the time, this model is still valuable from a scientific point of view, as it offers more accuracy than going by mere chance. Findings from psychological research can be used to make meaningful predictions, which are generalizable and consistent over extended periods of time. Of course, the validity and reliability of the findings varies greatly between different constructs and some of them are indeed pseudoscience. But to discount the whole field of psychology because of these erroneous constructs is tantamount to dismissing physics as pseudoscience because of a few people "researching" how to generate energy out of thin air using zero-point energy.

>>10903315
Name me one psychological study that is independently verifiable that doesn't use personal testimony as its only metric

>>10903315
Might not necessarily be the model thats bad but just unreliable methodologies and a bad publication culture in science.

>>10903320
Task switching

>>10903328
>Doesn't name a study
>Doesn't name the independent study which replicates the results
It's like you're not even trying

>>10903339
Theres a huge literature on it. Highly replicated. I guess the first one is by Monsell in the 90s but doubt youll be able to get that.

>>10902755
Just because a discipline has been infiltrated and dominated by ideologues doesn't make the discipline itself worthless. Intelligence research, for instance, is about as solid as it gets and the fact that it's being largely ignored and not applied to shape policies, while "psychology" is used to normalize stuff like transgenderism, is thanks to the stranglehold of the ideologues and propagandists over the discourse and not due to psychological research in its totality being worthless.

>>10903346
>doubt youll be able to get that.
>doesn't link it
Gotta love you psyfags
There's a good reason you go to therapy and take pharmaceutical drugs at higher than the general population

>>10902686
>It's hard so we shouldn't bother
Pleb

>>10902692
>more than a few years before being widely discredited and rewriting the manual.
Except advances in psychology do stick around, like Freud's shit is still taught today

>>10903350
Irony of trying to make fun of psyfags using uncited psyfag research statistics

>>10902747
>I'm ignorant and I don't care

>>10903320
Literally the entirety of intelligence research.

>>10903321
That may well be, but unless you come up with a better methodology you might as well accept that this is the best we got so far. And as long as it offers more predictive power than guessing, it should be considered valuable by anyone who considers themselves a scientist.

I agree with you on the publication culture. However, the problem with this isn't a consequence of inherent flaws of psychological research but of the huge potential impact psychological findings can have on society via politics. On the spot I can think of no other field that offers as much motivation for ideologues to assert control over as psychology, making it one of the most targeted fields of research there is.

>>10903350
>>10903354

>>10903360
>And as long as it offers more predictive power than guessing, it should be considered valuable by anyone who considers themselves a scientist.
This. Compare psychology to something like Flat Earthers or any other true pseudononsense and there's clearly a huge difference between them.

>>10902684
LMAO

Psychiatry is basically making the humans into a Guinea pig for drug companies.

>>10903362
Sit in your bubble all you like. I might be too lazy to give you links but doesnt mean im wrong.

>>10903355
quite the opposite
i am aware that the shitty work of some neurologists contribute to psychology and psychiatry
so i got 3 jews to name and i can't do it properly because the subjects go back and forth between those fields

Is the 'wah wah drug companies evil' thing just an American thing?

>>10903380
>Is the 'wah wah drug companies evil' thing just an American thing?
Could stem from the fact that we're the only first world country that allows drug companies to advertise on TV

>>10903375
It's fine to be lazy. Being a hypocrite, however, is not.

>>10903394
Exactly. Thats what im tring to tell this guy

>>10903329
So why aren't scientists looking into things to make the brain more efficient?
It's better that there's a genetic/biological component to IQ, because then we can do something about it.

If it was social then it's over since shuffling huge amounts of wealth around is harder than making a pill.

>>10903416
The only way to do that is changing your genes.

>>10903430
Which is hard for the individual but very easy for groups.

>>10903440
>but very easy for groups.
If you know what genes you want to change and what every individuals genes are and know exactly what all those genes will do (so you don't break something else) and can be bothered to wait for ages for the population average to change

>>10903449
You don't need to identify specific genes for changing the genetics of a population to a desired state. See dog breeds for proof of this.

>>10902617
I'm curious what my brain would look like, been diagnosed with autism, depression and schizophrenia though I doubt I have any doctors just like to think they can understand you based on a few conversations

>>10903464
True you could take the more scattershot approach and maybe we'd end up with super smart humans who all suffer from early dementia or something like that

>>10903464
And how fucking long will it take for that to work on a population of 10 million people?

>>10902623
>It’s illegal to discriminate based of mental function
There is no such law. The US armed forces routinely turns down people who score to low on their aptitude testing re they are too stupid. In a more general sense every job interview is also a discriminatory test for mental function.

>>10902617
neurology /= psychology

>>10902747
>i don't care who i am naming

>on a text based image board

Yeah fuck language am I right? Why even bother speaking with specificity?

>>10903507
there is nothing specific about what i said retard

>>10902982
>just smoke and mirrors
Hello harvard medical school? Yes I would like my medical degree now. I havent done anything but I deserve it. Oh hello licencing board I cant take your exams because I dont actually know anything about medicine, will you certify me anyways?

Christ you are retarded.

>>10903037
No its not, the entire purpose of peer review is to create replication issues because experiments that cant be replicated are always faulty you absolute cretin.
>>10903139
>They werent proven false at all just that the experiments did not replicate possubly for various reasons.
The reason(s) are that the experiment was poor and couldnt control all factors, ie not empirical. Without rigorous replication experimental data is useless and meaningless.

This board needs to get over the fact that while it is true that the various disciplines that study the human mind are all infantile, that doesnt detract from the necessity of the pursuit or the merit of some of their conclusions.

>>10903513
>there is nothing specific about what I said
Yes, that is the point. That you dont understand this, and dont see a problem with it is mind blowing.

>>10903526
Still doesnt prove them wrong. Its difficult to even know if the replications were done probably and whether if you redid those replications you actually would get a statistically positive replication over all those replications.

>>10903186
>Reverse inference is generally difficult in all cases
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883690
>The actual detection limit of the real-time NASBA assay was approximately 50 copies per reaction. Compared with reference methods (viral culture, conventional RT-PCR, and real-time RT-PCR), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the present assay were all 100%.
https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/researchers-identify-tests-to-diagnose-invasive-aspergillosis-with-100-accuracy
>The fungal infectioninvasive aspergillosis (IA) can be life threatening, especially in patients whose immune systems are weakened by chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drugs. Despite the critical need for early detection, IA remains difficult to diagnose. A study in The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics compared three diagnostic tests and found that the combination of nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) detects aspergillosis with 100% accuracy.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/045d/8c929c016af52aacf7ca48be4af350e3fddd.pdf
>Pan-gram positive and pan-gram-negative probes were able to detect four (S. aureus, S. epidermidis, E. faecium, and E. faecalis) and five (E. coli, P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, E. cloacae, and K. pneumoniae) medically important species, respectively, and no cross-reactivity was observed between each group or with fungi. Pan-fungal, pan-Candida, and pan-Aspergillus probes also demonstrated 100% specificity. Eight Candida species (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, C. guilliermondii, C. lusitaniae, and C. dubliniensis), four Aspergillus species (A. fumigatus, A. flavus, A. niger, and A. terreus), Cryptococcus neoformans, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Table 1) were detected easily by the pan-fungal probe without any cross-reactivity with the bacterial probes.

>>10903566
>Another IQ thread masquerading as a psych thread

>>10903528
the subject isn't specific retard

>>10902617
>talks about psychology
>posts results of neurological studies
Psychology isn't pseudoscience because psychologists are trying to observe things that aren't happening. Psychology is pseudoscience because their process of observation is non-scientific, their process of research is non-scientific, their analysis is non-scientific, and the means by which they reach conclusions is non-scientific.
Surveys aren't an experiment, and the results are literally impossible to reproduce. No reproducible experiment, no science. That's the rules. Everything that isn't psychoanalysis is overly reliant on survey-based research. Ironically, every branch of psychology except psychoanalysis has a reproducibility crisis, and they all insist that psychoanalysis is wrong simply because it recognizes that human beings aren't fundamentally different than other animals. In recognizing that psychoanalysis is incomplete, the social psychologies and positivists and other pseudoscience idiots have insisted it's completely wrong because it doesn't make them feel good.

That's why psychology is pseudoscience - because the entire research process practiced by the majority of contemporary psychological researchers is largely non-scientific.

>>10903659
Psychological methodology isnt that much different from other areas of science. Your idea about experiment also rules out so many other scientific fields like geology or meteorology or pretty much half of biology. Also a majority of psyche research doesnt use surveys.
>psychoanalysis
what the fuck are you talking about

>>10902724
Anon, you really didn't get his point, did you? He never said such a thing.

>>10903659
>Psychology is pseudoscience because their process of observation is non-scientific, their process of research is non-scientific, their analysis is non-scientific, and the means by which they reach conclusions is non-scientific.
All false

>No reproducible experiment, no science.
So astronomy is pseudoscience

>>10903659
>psychoanalysis is a scientific theory
Imagine being this retarded. That shit is literally unfalsifiable

>>10903659
>No reproducible experiment, no science. That's the rules.
Graduate high school. Your understanding of science is IFLS-tier

>>10903470
You could easily test the outcomes over a generation or two to see if the changes you made end up being a net positive or not. After that, large scale application would bear few potential risks and many benefits.

>>10903471
It could theoretically happen within one generation. Let's say you sterilize anyone with a <100 IQ in a generation and make it mandatory for >120 IQ people to have 2 children or more. This would inevitably lead to a much more intelligent population in the next generation.


Obviously, all of this speculation completely disregards moral objections. But we were merely discussing if the proposed changes were technically feasible.

>>10902623
>It’s illegal to discriminate based of mental function
false
military gives an aptitude test called the ASVAB, you need to score at least 31 (out of 99 possible points) to join
no need to address the rest of your schizopost since it's predicated on a falsehood. back to /pol/ now young faggot, we deal only in facts and logic here.

>>10902651
Phrenology has the empirical flaw that brains have membrane layers between the skull and brain itself, the shape of the skull does not correlate to the brain’s structure.

>>10902617
Because mental disorders have a biological basis.

>>10904000
Biological =!= hard coded.

>>10903829
>over a generation or two
I doubt there'd be much change in such a short time, even if there was there may be subtler changes that take say, 10 generations. We simply don't know enough about the genetics of intelligence to say with any really confidence that it'd be a good thing to try

> Let's say you sterilize anyone with a <100 IQ in a generation and make it mandatory for >120 IQ people to have 2 children or more
Regression toward the mean would quench a lot of it

>>10902617
Not even gonna bother reading this thread. It's probably just poor bait.

What they are identifying on the brainscans is not evidence of any disorders. It only shows differences in brain function.

What psychologists should be doing is encouraging individuals to make the most of the way their brain functions.

Instead they are literally mentally handicapped themselves and somehow believe that all brains should look the same.

I hate psychs so damn much.

>>10904149
Don't you post this in like every thread about this topic

>>10902617
Yes, and yet you can find function people that scan like the right.
Brain scans are another dangerous tool for states and schools to exclude people based on propbitiy.
It’s not good science.
I Garettee if you double blind screen everyone going into the military or a college, the predictability will be like 10% or lower.
And 99% of those scans will not be so distinct.
Psychology is still a pseudoscience, but someone make a graph so it must be true right?

Behaviors are the crux of mental disorders. If the brain scan is lit up like a Christmas tree but you're volunteering at a soup kitchen; no harm no foul.

>>10904035
>I doubt there'd be much change in such a short time
There would though. If you have 100 people and you sterilize everyone who's under 1,85m tall, the percentage of tall people in the next generation would be way higher. We can measure IQ or rather g reliably enough and know enough about its heritability to say with certainty that extreme eugenic measures would increase the intelligence of a population.

>We simply don't know enough about the genetics of intelligence to say with any really confidence that it'd be a good thing to try
This is true. But the potential risk is not as great as the benefit, I would argue.

>Regression toward the mean would quench a lot of it
Not really, since the mean would be shifted.

>>10904289
>If you have 100 people and you sterilize everyone who's under 1,85m tall, the percentage of tall people in the next generation would be way higher
It wouldn't be that much higher. The Wikipedia page for 'Regression toward the mean' has a relevant example:

Galton's biological explanation for the regression phenomenon he observed is now known to be incorrect. He stated:
“A child inherits partly from his parents, partly from his ancestors. Speaking generally, the further his genealogy goes back, the more numerous and varied will his ancestry become, until they cease to differ from any equally numerous sample taken at haphazard from the race at large.”
This is incorrect, since a child receives its genetic make-up exclusively from its parents. There is no generation-skipping in genetic material: any genetic material from earlier ancestors must have passed through the parents (though it may not have been expressed in them). The phenomenon is better understood if we assume that the inherited trait (e.g., height) is controlled by a large number of recessive genes. Exceptionally tall individuals must be homozygous for increased height mutations at a large proportion of these loci. But the loci which carry these mutations are not necessarily shared between two tall individuals, and if these individuals mate, their offspring will be on average homozygous for "tall" mutations on fewer loci than either of their parents. In addition, height is not entirely genetically determined, but also subject to environmental influences during development, which make offspring of exceptional parents even more likely to be closer to the average than their parents.

>This is true. But the potential risk is not as great as the benefit, I would argue.
That's fair, clearly I disagree.

>>10903721
Bigger idiot
>>10903829
You’re an idiot
>>10903997
It does in terms of size of different structures

>>10903380
They are evil, they take normal behaviors like being “shy” and renaming it “anxiety" to sell you a pill instead of having the community help you.
Or “sad” becomes depressed, so instead of changing your environment, diet and lifestyle they sell you a pill.

>>10904357
and not you?
Why are we the idiots

>>10903180
It just proves 50 to 70% of the physicists out there shouldn't be physicists.

>>10904232
Yea, either me or somebody else with similar ideals. I also say stuff like schitzophrenia is an overactive imagination. Probably they could become writers or poets with proper support.

Actively resisting certain mainstream concepts. Most of them plied by the psych caste.

>>10904942
>schitzophrenia is an overactive imagination
I do find it interesting that they say "schizophrenia causes brain atrophy" while the drug used for "treating" it results in just that.

>>10902617
>Dude look at this unsourced picture. They have different shiny colors!

>>10904951
What they are too stupid to understand they destroy.