Correlation between stupidity and obesity

Status
Not open for further replies.
So if your inference about obesity is based on the assumption that BMI measures obesity and your inference about intelligence is based on the assumption that IQ measures intelligence what is your inference about the correlation between BMI and IQ based on?
?

I would sumise that it could be based on the obese being on fattier food because they missed the gravy train of life because of being so dumb, also education into what is good to it. From the other angle lack of a healthy body could be leading to an unhealthy mind.
There could be many logical reasons why there may be a connection.
 
Heritability:

You need a gene to determine genetic differences. An assumption of a gene is not a basis for inference. Heritability studies the proportion of variation in a trait. The variation may be either due to genetic or environmental factors.

You are using the limited definition used in genetics, even geneticists who study heritability study the variation due to environmental pressures which affect natural selection.

Heritability: The proportion of risk of developing a trait that is atributable to genetic variation, within a specific range of environmental conditions (h2).
http://www.jcu.edu.au/fmhms/school/pms/CGC/DictGenetics.html
Heritability analyses estimate the relative contributions of differences in genetic and non-genetic factors to the total phenotypic variance in a population.

It is not an absolute value, it measures the proportion of variation, hence it is always relative to a population.


300px-Additive_and_Dominance_Effects.png

Estimating heritability is not a simple process, however, since only P can be observed or measured directly. Measuring the genetic and environmental variance requires various sophisticated statistical methods. These methods give better estimates when using data from closely related individuals - such as brothers, sisters, parents and offspring, rather than from more distantly related ones. The standard error for heritability estimates are generally very poor unless the dataset is large.

Because of the contextual nature of measured heritabilities, paradoxes often arise. For example, the heritability of a trait could be near 100% in one study and close to zero in another. In one study, e.g., a group of unrelated army recruits may be given identical training and nutrition and then their muscular strength may be measured. The variation in strength observed after the (identical) training will translate into a high heritability estimate. In another study, whose purpose might be to assess the efficacy of various workout regimes or nutritional programs, study subjects may be first chosen to match each other as closely as possible in prior physical characteristics before some of them are put onto Program A and others onto Program B, and this will lead to a low heritability estimate.

In the case of scholastic ability, how well one does in the final school exams depends on both what and how well one was taught, how hard one has studied, how ‘naturally’ smart one is and, of course, on a fair bit on luck. The actual heritability estimate will depend on the subjects used (reflecting genetic variation) and the testing conditions (reflecting environmental variation).

Much the same goes for intelligence tests. The conclusions from studies involving intelligence tests often conclude that intelligence has high heritability. This is probably due to inherent problems with human twin studies, as well as reflecting a high level of genetic variation for many human traits, and corresponding lower environmental variation within the confines of the test.

Heritability is often misunderstood when presented in the non-scientific media. Heritability only quantifies how much of the total phenotypic variation in a population is attributable to variation among individual genotypes compared to the variation in the their environment. Heritability does not quantify the extent to which genes and environment actually determine a phenotype, let alone the extent to which changes in genes and environment could change phenotypic values.
 
I would sumise that it could be based on the obese being on fattier food because they missed the gravy train of life because of being so dumb, also education into what is good to it. From the other angle lack of a healthy body could be leading to an unhealthy mind.
There could be many logical reasons why there may be a connection.

Very logical train of thought :rolleyes:
 
Sam,

Do you think that what we classify as "General Intelligence" is a trait bestowed upon a blank mind, by the environment, from birth?


General Intelligence:

They may test:

* spatial ability: the ability to visualize manipulation of shapes
* mathematical ability: the ability to solve problems and use logic
* language ability: This could include the ability to complete sentences or recognize words when letters have been rearranged or removed.
* memory ability: the ability to recall things presented either visually or aurally

How much of this is inherent?
 
Retesting! If the figures show a correlation after 100's maybe 1000's of runs then you can say that you have pretty well eliminated error, but OK nothing can be 100% error free.

If you start from a false premise then no matter how many retests you do, the result will be the same.
 
I wonder if I said fat people may be more intelligent because of theres a brainy goodness in lard, you wouldn't be so dismissive.
 
If you start from a false premise then no matter how many retests you do, the result will be the same.

Dont be stupid. You are just comparing two figures - IQ(which is a basic measure of intelligence) against obesity(which is a basic measur of being a fat ass) and seeing if there is a relationship.
 
What is illogical about one aspect of ones life having an impact on another? It is more illogical to assume that one could possibally have no affect on the other and vice versa.

Dont be stupid. You are just comparing two figures - IQ(which is a basic measure of intelligence) against obesity(which is a basic measur of being a fat ass) and seeing if there is a relationship.



Yes, Homer

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. (pause) It's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
 
Yes, Homer

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. (pause) It's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.[QUOTE/]




That is an impertinent analogy and you know it.
 
Fine. Fuck heritability. Is your degree of intelligence inherited (i.e. passed on genetically) to some degree?
 
That what it feels like when I see all the people with no statistical knowledge making fallacious inferences about misrepresented data.
So, is there properly interpreted statistical data showing that g is inherited (passed on by genes) to some degree?
 
Fine. Fuck heritability. Is your degree of intelligence inherited (i.e. passed on genetically) to some degree?

That is still heritability. They can ONLY calculate proportion of variation in a trait.

And you need a genotype to determine heritability. Which we do not have.
 
No you dislike the correlation of two figures could be construed as meaning the two variables are in mutual influence.

I work in nutrition. All epidemiological data from demographic studies is correlation.

I know the shortcomings of the methods used and what the representations signify.
 
Jesus! There is nothing fallacious in interpreting two correlating variables as having a possible connection.

Yes there is. Unless one can PROVE it by clinical or biological data, to infer a relationship based on a correlation is completely fallacious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top