Why does it revert to the mean? Not reading any linked Wikipedia articles.
It's hard to argue with these animal breeding comparisons from a fully scientific standpoint.
I would want to say that there is a fundamental difference that we don't fully understand regarding human cognition, but I don't have Wikipedia articles to post with that.
for the same reason if Neil de Grasse Tyson and (insert smart scientist woman here) had a child, it's not likely to be smarter.
Shafi Goldwasser? Sabine Hossenfender? Mikhaila Peterson? Greta Thunberg?
I see. It's likely to be smarter than the mean but not smarter than the outlier (parents)
But is that actually true? Is a child equally likely to be smarter or dumber than the average of 2 parents, regardless of whether they are dumb or smart? (Meaning - the mean doesnt necessarily influence intelligence)
It's clear that there have been no efforts by any state to maximize IQ of its citizens. Like an optimization problem.
Yes agreed. It's a major problem
But on the other hand it has been the major project of the entirety of human history to maximize intelligence. Governments are downstream of human civilization as a whole and are therefore part of that project
If you kill all the ■■■■■■■■ black people, the distribution isn't really shifted, you're just sampling from that same distribution dependent on having smart black people.
Like here; if some environments lead to lower scores - the solution is clearly to move everyone to the opposite, whatever environment leads to higher scores.
If regression toward the mean was a thing in intelligence you wouldn't see such strong familial/genetic correlations
This is a fallacy.
Yeah it's not the environment this has been tested
Cope.
If you make a post like this again in this thread I will ban you.
tell me which fallacy it is
It's actually one of the first examples from a book by Thomas Schelling: Micromotives and Macrobehavior (1978)