Environmentally in this context just means anything that's not directly genetic or inherited epigenetic. It doesn't mean plants and animals or anything like that.
IQ is mostly genetic (in rich egalitarian countries like the USA), but everyone seems to agree that there's still some environmental factors that smart parents can do to make their children a tiny bit smarter. I don't know exactly what those factors are though. Probably any kind of practice with thinking and studying would help a tiny bit, but perhaps other things to do with better care such as nutrition. But I know there's not a lot that parents can do that helps with IQ long-term, especially when society as a whole is already trying to do everything they can to boost IQ environmentally already.
I can't find anything right now on what effect parents' class (what does that mean? SES?) has on educational attainment for people of the same IQs. Someone else may want to look it up if they're better at googling than me.
But it doesn't matter. We already know that wordsum, IQ, and educational attainment are measuring similar things. Wordsum seems like a good proxy for IQ. It gives sensible answers in all the graphs, and it is said to correlate .71 with adult IQ.
Do you have a point, or some sort of theory about what I was saying? Do you disagree with the idea that Republicans are smarter (except at the top end) than Democrats, or that "liberals" are smarter than "conservatives"?
But educational attainment is directly caused by IQ, so that wouldn't make any sense.
The police officer is PAID to do that. He isn't doing it for free out of the goodness of his heart like the superhero is. He didn't have to make his own moral judgements like the superhero. He didn't have to resist the option of just taking whatever he wanted in life while nobody could stop him.
By the way, you should know better than to believe the PC propaganda about Ghandi.
I think all those traits correlate, even when measured independently to avoid that effect.
Which makes sense for many reasons.
One reason: who are people going to marry? People of the same worth as themselves, but not necessarily from the same category. Smart rich men get to marry beautiful women, or the kindest women, or the most honest women, whichever they prefer. So the positive traits get mixed with each other, and the negative traits get mixed with each other.
It's funny when you realise that Godzilla was an unforeseen consequence of Science used for evil purposes. Godzilla is actually a metaphor for the dangers of science. So, you ironically made a cartoon that makes sense.
But you misunderstand humour. Humour is mostly about building rapport. So for smart people that could involve jokes that are intelligent. But that doesn't make intelligence the defining characteristic for humour.
No, he's saying that liberalism and conservatism also come with sets of beliefs about the nature of reality and sets of predictions about the consequences of their actions. Some of which are wrong (for both groups). And he's saying we should be able to guess which group has a better understanding of the world by comparing their IQs. Which I think is a valid point, except that the example he chose is one where IQ clearly creates a bias of its own, and one where black people probably miscategorise themselves.
This article has a lot of bell-curve verbal IQ graphs from GSS (General Social Survey) data for the years 2000-2012, using the wordsum score as a measure of intelligence:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/verbal-intelligence-by-demographic/
It shows Republicans as smarter than Democrats, but Liberals smarter than Conservatives, and White people smarter than Black people, and some other comparisons.
"Can you actually provide this evidence to us?"
I could, but it's 7:57am here, and I need some sleep. And half the information you want is in Arabic, and the other half requires you to understand genetics. And I don't think you actually care about the answer. But you could probably Google it yourself if you could suppress your biases and your snark.
Remember, you're looking for these facts, but not necessarily with the exact wording: 1. They saw the USA as somewhere where people are allowed to do whatever they want far more than in other countries or at least than their country. 2. They strongly dislike that fact or think Americans should have to follow harsh laws about many aspects of their life. 3. They are genetically different from us. 4. Genetic differences are caused by mutations in general. 5. They have personality differences from us that seem to be heritable and lead to a desire for external rules and/or violence.
"Citation needed: I've never seen the people who hate America call it "a beacon of freedom". They tend to call it stuff like "imperialist aggressor" instead. And likewise "imperialist aggressor" is rarely used as a descriptor of America by people who love it.
Firstly, people like Michael Moore call America an imperialist aggressor all the time (because it is), but still love America. "Imperialist Aggressor" is our term. Muslim terrorists don't talk like that as much as we do, because they are also trying to establish an Islamic empire through violent aggression.
Obviously, they are going to use synonyms for "beacon of freedom" rather than saying it word for word. And they would say it in Arabic rather than English, so you'd have no idea what they were saying. They would use an exact synonym like "cesspool of depraved anarchy that's sucking other countries in to their depravity" which means the same thing. What they would never say that the USA is a tyrannical totalitarian dictatorship.
The people you are thinking of, like "we need more gun control" or "gay people shouldn't be able to marry" are a bit hostile to freedom, but still very different from Muslim fanatics who think we need to all pray 5 times a day, cover ourselves from head to toe, never criticise our leaders, and a thousand other laws.