Do Our Genes or Environment Influence Our Intelligence? 

Eugenics

The modern world is just a giant case of "The Emperor's Not Wearing Any Clothes." It's not just on this issue, but 100 others.

@@Dennis-nc3vw Indeed

Exactly right!

i didn’t know we lived in a dictatorship country

The best predictor of finishing ivy league schools is having a parent be a politician, preferably senator congressmen or president, it beats any other predictive test, IQ, SAT, grade average, race. Also it's a great predictor of income because in general after graduation they tend to get well paid jobs in government or private companies that have government contracts.

@@FilipCordas Man, those are some good connections...I mean, genetics.

Anywhere “parent” is a verb and not a noun...

@@FilipCordas Even if they had a shard of windshield removed from their brain as a kid and have had a crack cocaine addiction. This is like noting how the average prince has it better than peasants. Is the sky blue today?

@@FilipCordas Shame on them for being born into that family and have advantages available.

Exactly

So if I'm not as smart as Einstein it's because I am not trying hard enough?

@@patmyles4776 more like, if you were as smart as einstein, but didn't apply yourself, you wouldn't go very far.

I see IQ as like a foundation for the home. A foundational high IQ is no good if there’s nothing good built upon said foundation and a foundational lower IQ can be improved or mitigated by good structure built upon it.

No correlation here your IQ would be your ability to drive your car

Show me this intelligence gene.

@@hakapelika7024 Regardless, mere intelligence quotients are way overrated. I have a high IQ, but have typically lived a very foolish and lazy life until recently. Wisdom is vastly more important and THAT has almost no genetic predictors whatsoever. I’ve known people who are nearly legally retarded, yet are considerably wiser than me.

@@hakapelika7024 Research genetic brain disorders. There isn't ONE "intelligence gene", it is far more complex than that. The notion that a bundle of common genetic differences we call "race" can't have any effect on intelligence is shown to be utter foolishness by simply substituting "race" for a synonym, "breed". Now, go talk to some canine specialists about smart breeds, dumb breeds, agreeable breeds, etc, etc. And keep in mind what Murray says about means.

Eugenics

@@benstoltz6528 Only if one believes that the measure of human value is intelligence. In which case, one likely supports the abortion of babies with Down's Syndrome. I don't, and I don't.

Chris Quinn . You seem to have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. My reply to your comment was that you seemed to misunderstand the mechanism of evolution. Personal changes to an organism, for example larger muscles because of much use, are not passed on to their offspring. That idea is called Lamarckism and has been disproved. Evolution proceeds by the mechanism of "natural selection" as proposed by Darwin.

@@stumccabe Capacity for muscle potential, However, IS passed on. For example, A small bone must inevitably anchor a smaller muscle then a large bone, no matter how much that small muscle is exercised.

There is a difference, but as Murray said, we don’t know why there’s a difference.

Honestly the modern world scares me to death. I feel we're so afraid of notions of...I hate to use this term, but...racial superiority that I think if we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt there are race based differences in intelligence, people would start to argue intelligence doesn't matter. Of course once that happens, society is doomed.

IQ is based on the environment someone is in Which gives that person pros and cons in certain fields

The irony of 'follow the science' is that science is rarely ever settled, that is precisely what makes it science, so trying to follow it would never actually lead you anywhere you might wish to be. Following the science is unscientific.

@@stanleyshannon4408 totally agree.

@@stanleyshannon4408 I think these folks intend to say, "Follow that which is backed by evidence and data, and that which is upheld by the rigors of the scientific method (peer review; replication; etc.)

@@belascialoja4812 Science is only science because it is free to be wrong and self-correcting. It cannot do that if it has an entire society following it around looking for salvation. At that point it merely becomes another corrupt social institution. Free people should not want to follow anything in any case. Yes, when science affords some useful conclusion that benefits society we should consider incorporating it. We should obviously give serious consideration to the opinions of learned people, but allowing science to become some kind of standard we meekly submit to on demand is fatally destructive to both science and human society.

I can't speculate about that. I did some very rudimentary research, and it turns out that he's not even a Scientist. He has a degree in Political Science which is not an Authentic Science. No wonder he never released any of the details of his fraudulent studies. Man... I like Klaven, but he should know better. He clearly didn't do the requisite research.

Even Murray would call this a moronic comment. As he said himself this is not about individual differences, and nothing can be extrapolated from individual differences..

@@periechontology then why bother with this moronic exercise?

Nonsense, nature/nurture is an complex area of the social science's. One of the greatest black academics of all time Thomas Sowell was adopted. Are you saying his adoption had nothing to do with his profoundly intellectual successs in life? At 7 I could play chess, at 7 Thomas Sowell had just learnt to read his first book. Yet, he has/had an intelllect I could only dream about. It may sound that I'm making your arguement for you but, quite the contrary. Without the opportunities that became open to him through adoption, I sincerely doubt he would have had the same outcome. His ability to communicate and the knowledge obtained would have been profoundly different..

@@vcrossCelticfc sowell would be smart anyway. Probably in a different field, but anyway.

@@AlexandreSk Exactly, the nature part always going to influence his intellect. Its the nurture part that got him to the level of success and success he has today. How difficult would it have been for a black man (or even a poor white man) born 90 years ago in the US to reach that pinnacle of success (unless they were part of the black elite/upper classes)? He would have additionally learnt things like etiquette, class, proper speech, acquired contacts and a level of academic achievement that probably wouldn't have been open to him otherwise. There are many 'commoners' who are highly intelligent but, they don't have the ability to converse on the level required to mix with the elite class in academic (and other) circles. He was very much blessed with having acess to both. Even with all that, his personal politics has kept many doors closed to him. He's so exceptionally smart, knowledgeable and well informed he is vehemently disliked by many politicians and the political class in general.

So true so true

IF the child is aware of Ten Commandments and raised in that spirit. But not when they learn about gangs and drugs way before Bible and church.

True...and yet not all related to the topic in discussion.

Eugenics

@@jocrntt2376 how

Do Jews give better prenatal care than others?

That's in other countries. Do you have any experiments showing improvements in intelligence within the same (developed) country due to improvements in prenatal care? Even famines don't have a conclusive lasting effect. Not only that, but you'd also need such experiment to show a lot larger improvement in one group, than in the other to explains the existing gap between those groups.

And even more importantly we can only acquire those smarter breeds of dogs through selective breeding for those specific traits as desirable for genetic transmission to subsequent generations. Therefore making a strong and compelling argument in favor of positive eugenics.

@@williamshockley7692are you saying we should selectively breed people?

We are not dogs 🐕 carry on

How many Jews are tall enough? 😁

Love ya Jews 💙💙💙💙

jew use to dominate basketball 100 years ago.

If LeBron puts more effort into jumping, he'll be able to reach Mars before Elon!

@@Abrdoks Interesting non sequitur

Autism affects social skills right? Sorry if I'm wrong, intelligence has a lot of components depending how much level in those components someone has the person can be considered intelligence it's incredibly complex

Well, it hasn't happened over all of human history...

Its because it can't. The US has poured a trillion dollars into these gaps for 60 years, tried policies tailormade from the best experts from the best schools and the gaps are still there.

@@KONgFUPANDAXO throwing money at it will never work. It's a cultural issue, not a lack of ability. There are plenty of examples of people coming from those environments and pulling themselves out. One example that comes to mind is Candace Owens, who talks about how her peers would tease her about studying and doing her school work. They'd say things to her like "why are you trying to be white?" If that is the pervasive attitude in the black community then no amount of help will be enough for those who wont help themselves. But I genuinely believe this is all cultural and can be changed.

@@sidraMPatty That’s a tough one to know and answer appropriately.

@@sidraMPatty it definitely needs to be encouraged & not ridiculed as it is. The whole "why you trying to be whyte" 🐂💩 is just another way they'll be left behind constantly. It's gotta be a values thing. And with the way this whole anti-whyte is going it sure doesn't look like it'll change anytime soon. They've got to keep pushing the you are victim, and you'll always be a victim to keep their stranglehold on the majority of black people in America. Boy oh boy would we be in such a better place right now if this had never taken hold. This -your a racist, I'm a racist, wouldn't you like to be a racist too- song has got be put to bed & destroyed if we are ever to have a better America. They sure don't like having anyone escape from this mental plantation do they. Now we've got new "leaders" who are helping with the plantation security. The DeAngelo (think that's the name) guy who is leading the charge, with this level new flavor of racism called anti-racist. Pretty sick $hit if ya ask me. Oh, bit of a rant there, once I get going....

But then why is Ireland the most prosperous country in Europe? Studies show their average IQ is as low as 92.

​@@Dennis-nc3vwIrelands tax rules for corporations is the reason.Prosperity is calculated as country GDP (Gross Domestic Product) devided by the population. Look where some of the largest global corporations are headquartered. These hundreds of billions count to Irelands GDP and screw the prosperity index.

Environment is the result of qi b

Thumbs up!!! I believe where there is a will there is a way. For me intelligence is to a large extent behavioral (nurture would be very much effective in the early part of an individual's life) and cultural. A normal individual with the will and interest can exhibit traits of highly intelligent people,even the Asians believe this (Confucianism). No wonder they are highly represented in STEM today. Working hard and logically following through would do wonders provided there is a will and interest on the part of the individual. The Arabs and the Greeks used to be a force to reckon with in the past but where are they today in STEM. Everyone has a chance to rise but its left to you and ur strong willed interest/determination. The origins of the behaviors exhibited by blacks in America has been exposited upon by Thomas Sowell in his writings.

So intelligent fathers can never get intelligent children if the mother is average?

Don't worry. The new gender(s) inventing society is taking care of that too. So now you can have 2 intelligent fathers & the kid will be brilliant. You know, because men can have babies, menstrual cycles, & breastfeed. Once again the oh-so-sensitive "progressives" have saved the world. Hoorraayy!

I didn't get mine from either of my parents apparently but my mom's mother and grandmother were extremely intelligent. So part might be hereditary, some due to spending a lot of my formative years around mostly adults and also because my grandma and greatgrandparents took the time to teach me. I credit them with being able to read and write by the age of 3.

@@toodlescae With perfect nutrition and great teachers... you can't improve your IQ more than a few points (compared to a pretty average upbringing). You are born with your IQ, you get it primarly from your mother/mothers line.

@@diamondmeepleany studies to substantiate this finding ?

No... Turns out this guy is literally a fraud. He has no credentials. He has no degree in any hard science. He's also notoriously disliked among legitimate scientists. I was looking at various world famous, renowned Scientists falsifying his conclusions and showing why his methodology is totally flawed. This is actually really, really unprofessional from an ethics and journalism perspective... American Network News is very bad as it pertains to impartiality. RU-vid News guys are even worse.

Is it racism if it's true? Genes determine both behaviour and capabilities to a large degree.

Don't put much stock into anything that Murray says. He's Universally despised by The Scientific Community. He's quite literally a propagandist masquerading as someone who appreciates Truth and Empiricism. As someone with tremendous appreciation for The Scientific Method, I won't mince words. He's a National Embarrassment. Moving on. I don't know much about Geneology. Genetic Markers don't dictate the nature of any trait, they're used as a means of identification. Every marker represents one very specific DNA sequence that occupies the same location on each chromosome. So... As you know, historically, we have always used phenotypic traits (purely Superficial, physical traits) as our sole metric for determining how we classify humans according to the fallacious concept of 'race'. If we were to use an objective, non arbitrary genetic phenomenon like the aforementioned Genetic Markers as our metric for categorization, that technically would be sufficient... BUT, because genes are constantly mutating, we've identified well over 60, 000 unique genetic markers. I don't know about you, but the proposition of having a perennially increasing amount of 'races' which ALREADY totals at over 60, 000 is... a bit much. In reference to intelligence, I will say matter of factly that Charles Murray has contributed nothing... Literally nothing to our collective understanding of the concept of intelligence or any other Scientific Hypothesis, or Substantiated Theory. He states that Genetics 'play a role' in determining your intelligence as well as subjective experience. No one would dispute that. There was already a Universal Consensus as it pertains to that quite obvious assertion. The problem with subjective experience is the fact that they're all inherently ambigious. I can hear a description of you recount an anecdotal experience, but one thing I cannot do is view said experience through the lens of YOUR mind. Philosophically speaking problems like this are often referred to as relating to 'The Egocentric Predicament'. Science as a Method works exceptionally well, but there's certain criteria that must be met to ensure accuracy. The phenomenon and hypothesis in question must be Observable. Well, when it comes to other people's experiences, you can throw that criteria of the window. So... Suffice to say, we're just scratching the surface of our academic understanding of what 'intelligence is'. We can postulate various phenomenon that almost certainly plays a role in determining said 'intelligence'. Have we developed any sort of methodology that takes into account the aforementioned factors and grants us the ability to predict IQ with any degree of accuracy? Hell No! Not even close. I appreciate the fact that you take interest in Science. That's fantastic. Ignore everything that Charles Murray says. He has zero credentials. He's a 'Political Scientist' which is not construed as a legitimate Science unlike Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Neuroscience, Astro Physics, st al. He's a Propagandist who uses completely erroneous data to convince the uneducated that there is Empirical Credibility to his thesis', all of which are completely sociopolitical in nature. And yes, he is a bigot. My primary grievance is how he so brazenly masquerades as a Person interested in Scientific Substantiation, and Empirical Truth when nothing can be further from the truth. Don't hesitate to read some of the scathing critiques from LEGITIMATE, RENOWNED Scientists like the legendary Lawrence Kraus who considers him to be an absolute National Embarrassment.

Is it 'racist' if 'it's' True. You're going to have to be more specific in reference to the 'subject' 'it'. In predictable fashion, Murray has completely eschewed The Scientific Method and Rational Skepticism in favour of using completely erroneous data from Non Scientific Observational Studies that he took no part in. There's a reason why all Scientists despise thus guy. You asked is it 'Racist' if 'It' is True? My response is 'If it was arrived at through completely fallacious means, we need not bestow attention upon 'it'. Is it 'racist'? Never mind that. Ask yourself, is it 'Scientific'? The answer is a giant, resounding 'No'. He's an infamous Propagandist that dishonestly presents collections of erroneous Context-Free bits of data in an attempt to manifest his own sociopolitical intetests. There's a reason why he's loathed by all Scientists. Moreover, I'm also concerned about the societal implications. This book will no doubt be a huge hit among White Supremacist Degenerates. He even made that consession in the interview. Just like his previous piece of Fallacious Drivel, this book will be scrutinized by the top minds in Academia and Science will expose just how fallacious and dishonest his dialectic is and all the logical issues contained in his latest piece of exploitative drivel. This has the capacity to ruin The Republican Party. That's assuming the book sells a fair bit. If it's a flop, then ignore it and go on with your life. If the book sells well, his fallacious and quintessentially unscientific methodology will be torn to shreds by all the leading names in Science. That, I assure you.

And that's why i think that "one man one vote" is the biggest theft of all times

It would be a terribly boring world if we were all the same. Some are great artists and others are amazing scientists but most are just a unique blend of this or that which makes getting to know someone always a different experience. Even within a race we can see a diversity of abilities. I need to find the full interview because I just dont see how this guy can write a whole book on this without being racist.

@@mig0000001 So who would be the authority on how many votes one gets? You? Surely not. You wouldn't consider yourself worthy of that role. So who? The mythical unbiased person who is incorruptible and can live forever or do you believe that such people are ever present and recognizable? It's foolish. While cognitive ability may be influenced by genetics, that does not mean that someone with less mental ability is worth less than the smartest genius. That may sound entirely backwards - and it is, if you believe that people are soley material. I, however, believe that there is inherent value in everyone that is more close to equal than not and thus they have the inherent right to dictate their own course in life as much as they are capable. Those who are mentally shattered cannot determine this for themselves, but falling short of that benchmark means that each should have their say and no say should be louder than the other. I have no want for an aristocracy, an intellectual oligarchy, or any of the fancies of the left.

@@mig0000001 the Democrats would surely agree with you on that one…..

Murray covers some of those in the Human Diversity.

Cuz morals trump IQ anyway... are morals genetic?

I think instead of 'premise', you mean 'proposition'. The only substantiating premise he provided were references to Observational (Non Scientific) studies that he was not remotely involved in. Now... Since his hypothesis deals primarily with Genetics, one would rationally surmise that he obtained loads of data providing complex insight into the genomes of all participants. Well, if you thought that, you would be wrong. He never received any genetic data from any of the participants in these observational studies. Furthermore, all 'racial groupings' in the myriad observational studies that he played no role in were decided exclusively by virtue of phenotype, which obviously is not even close to qualifying as an objective metric. You'd think a guy ALLEGEDLY interested in Genetics would demand an objective means of categorization. For instance one that uses some genetic phenomenon. If that does not convince you that Murray has zero interest in The Scientific Method and Empiricism, I don't know what to tell you. He has one clear agenda, and that is to convince swaths of uneducated and uncritical people that his hypothesis (which really is incomplete) is completely axiomatic and credible... Just don't ask him for any data... Because he doesn't have any. My friend. This guy is universally despised by the Scientific Community. He is an abject embarrassment to anyone with a passion and appreciation for The Scientific Method. I will always be vigilant in exposing the truth about this fraudster, and propogandist.

@@YoungMommy14 okay.

@@YoungMommy14 No I did not mean proposition. Here take a gander at this definition of premise: A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn. You are a complete pseudo-intellectual fraud. I just checked your channel out. Wow. Your whole RU-vid channel is you filming yourself as if you are some enlightened philosopher. You reference studies with no evidence of their existence, draw false conclusions and generally denigrate anyone who doesn't share your views. You are not clever. The "intellectual divide" which you refer to in your most recent video, even if it is real, certainly doesn't put you at the end of the curve that you imagine.

@@simont939 well, in all fairness I never made reference to myself. Either way, I appreciate the feedback. Thanks for watchin', dude. Have a good one.

@@YoungMommy14 Fair enough

The Han are predominantly Confucian. It's obedience to authority and tradition that has held them back. They often get stuck and unable to change.

People who blindly do what they're told are idiots, regardless of race or IQ.

He's discussing in abstract because until people actually grapple with the reality, "how do we deal with it?" is a distraction.

@@johnsanford3596 I apologize if my comment was unclear. What I meant to say is I'm unsure how impactful these differences are in the real world. For example what do the 10iq points from 90 to 100 actually mean? What happens to a human being within those 10 points, how specifically are they changed? My point wasn't asking what we should do about it but that (to the best of my knowledge) he doesn't tell us and I'd like to know thats all.

​@@mazharali3247 exactly

The problem is, those intelligence gains in children decay after puberty. Maybe there are lasting positive effects on other things, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

@@Abrdoks It's because IQ is age-adjusted. You can give a small child a head start in development through lots of intellectual stimulation, but their final IQ ceiling remains largely unchanged. By the time they're adults other children will have caught up or surpassed them in IQ. That's why the US "head start" program is a mirage.

This video won't be up longer than tomorrow, when Ben sees it. He flat-out LIES about race & IQ. It's where his professed allegiance to Truth ends.

@@belascialoja4812 give an example of when he's lied about this

@@corvoattano9303 - No matter where Ben is speaking (on his show, or at YAF talks, at universities) he attributes the lower incomes, the lower SAT scores, lower scholastic grades -- among Blacks -- to "culture." It's _always_ "culture" (and NOT genetics, which is the lie, as it *is* mostly genetics!) This saddens me, as I otherwise admire Ben. Listen to Sam Harris' podcast where Sam talks to Charles Murray. Ben Shapiro will *not* have Murray on his own Sunday Special. Will not.

@Owen Bailey-Waltz How is it rude? How is it wrong?

@@belascialoja4812 No you are going beyond the evidence. We have evidence for a gap. That's the extent of the evidence. The question then is, what part of this gap is genetic and what is environmental. To claim with certainty that it's mainly genetic or it's mainly environmental are both wrong. Murray tends to be on the genetic side of things but he himself will admit that that's speculation.

A seed for a shrub will never grow into an oak tree, regardless of how much fertilizer and water you apply.

@@marktrain9498 True, but you can grow a nice, big green shrub all the same.

Well yes the question is can the black IQ scores go up, or will the white scores go down so there isn't a gap anymore. The only way you could influence that is by controlled breading but by that logic the simplest way to raise the average is to kill everyone below it and I don't think that's a good idea. IQ is a made up metric it's as predictive as psychologists and other pseudo scientists would like you to think. They can tell you if someone is extremely mentally challenged and because people with mental disabilities have lower income you have some minimal correlations. When was the last time someone gave you an IQ test in a job interview, it doesn't happened because it's not a good test.

Through random genetic drift and merciless weeding by Mother Nature. That's not happening any more.

@@marktrain9498 Even Stefan Moloneux has noted that the proper health, for example, can help lead to taller future children, and grandchildren etc, if the pattern is maintained. Genetics can be MADE to change over time by altering patterns of living and behavior through the generations.

@@Hard_Boiled_Entertainment Stefan Molyneux is an idiot, then. Lamarck was thoroughly disproved by Darwin, which is why you've never heard of Lamarck.

@@FilipCordas Funny that you mention it, because it's the best predictor of job performance. And, of course, the correlations (albeit low) are not limited to the lower tail of the distribution. There are some legal risks attached to giving such tests in the US, but they are still used by the military, police (to weed out the smart ones, no kidding) and large companies, like the Microsoft. You'd know it yourself if you've bothered to read at least the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Oh, AMEN!!!

The Amish don't demand trillions of dollars in welfare claiming they're discriminated against.

He doesn't talk about Australian Aborigines, either. Not really relevant for this society.

In regards to hiring Asians from abroad leading to decline in white IQ, that is probably true. But it's not immoral. A private company hires based on merit. It has no interest in preserving a particular race. That's what Murray himself said in the beginning. He said bell curves are OVERLAPPING. Meaning if I'm a company hiring software engineers, I'll skim the cream of the crop and that will inherently include more Asians.

​@@corvoattano9303 Yes, but then democracies exist for a reason, and that reason is for the protection of those who are responsible for the existence of the political institutions which ultimate serve the social concerns and needs of that population. Corporations are not above that, or at least they should not be. Capitalism is one thing, corporatism is something else entirely. In my view, the fall of western civilization began when we went from mercantile (nationalist) economies to free market (corporatist) globalist economies. We became a society in which nothing was more sacred than the corporate bottom line. We sacrificed every other basic principle of our culture for being able to purchase ever more stuff.

@@stanleyshannon4408 Your definition of mercantilism is correct but you're incorrect about calling this corporatism. This is not corporatism, it's plain old free market capitalism. Where companies hire the best talent, from wherever they can get it. On the broader point of mercantilism vs capitalism, I have to say I agree more with Shapiro than I do with Knowles. It is extremely hypocritical to poo poo capitalism while reaping the benefits of it. All the prosperity that we see today, like the Japanese cars that we drive wouldn't have been possible if Ford had a government sanctioned monopoly against foreign made cars. Trade deficits don't help a country, they hurt it.

@@corvoattano9303 No, 'free market capitalism' is essentially turning the world over to control by corporations which is corporatism. The mercantile notion of protecting national markets, thus protecting national populations and the institutions those populations had created for themselves, was a far better social model. Yes, we have more stuff now. But we have less of everything else. The price we have paid cannot be measured in a spread sheet. And we have yet to fully feel the impact of the inevitable economic price we are going to have to ultimately pay. But here's a clue - all those cute Asian software engineers are not your friends. I know because I work with them (most of them are not actually all that bright either. I no longer believe the myth of high IQ Asians - I think they are rigging their results).

@@stanleyshannon4408 The definition of corporatism is when a business colludes with the government to gain an unfair advantage over their competitor(s). You are assuming this influx of labor import is a bug (namely corporatism) of capitalism. I'm saying it's a feature. It's how it is *supposed* to function. Now, you or I may not like this part of capitalism, but we should still call a spade a spade. As for the part of us being materialistically better off but spiritually worse off, this is a very big misconception. Economic productivity isn't just shallow things like having a big TV or the latest iPhone, it actually saves lives and quality of life. This may sound absurd to those who don't know economics but let me explain with a simple example. Money is gained by exchanging your labor and time. Your labor and your time make up your life. Remember when the BLM rioters were destroying people's businesses and saying "oh it's just property". Property is gained through exchanging your time and your effort for it. And finally on the point of Asians not being higher IQ, that's not what Murray's data suggests. Your personal experience is an anecdote.

Klavan knows his striving for a vast education and worldly experience has enhanced his amazing intellect. If Klavan has been a couch potato he would haven’t succeeded❤️

@@debralawlor9716 But then someone from a high IQ population would probably already know that.

Race

@gustavo042 if it's about race then explain why some white guys act black and are influenced by rap and act just as ignorant. And most successful black people unless a rapper have to drop the ghetto act?

Was sorta joking

you know we admit that some dog breeds are smarter than others? some dogs are easily trained, other breeds are stubborn as a bag of rocks.