It’s often been assumed that the best studies demonstrating the heritability of IQ are of identical twins raised apart, but it turns out these do nothing to silence the deniers of HBD (behavioral genetics). HBD deniers will argue that identical twins raised apart are not really raised apart because many grow up in the same towns or are raised by families of similar socio-economic status. You can try to counter these arguments but doing so becomes quite technical because you have to discuss esoteric concepts like correcting correlations for range restriction and distributional skew, and even if you do, some will still insist that environment can not be measured.
Thus a simpler way to demonstrate the heritability of IQ is to forget about identical twins and simply look at a study where people have been adopted from a very young age from a bad environment to a good one. If the adopted children are found to have IQ’s resembling non-adopted children from bad environments, then clearly IQ is highly genetic, but if adopted children are found to have IQ’s resembling non-adopted children from good environments, then clearly IQ is highly environmental. It’s so simple; even a child can understand this.
Now when such studies are done, they usually show that while genetics is important, the social environment also has a big impact, raising a child’s IQ sometimes more than 10 points beyond what it would have been had the child been raised by his biological parent(s). The problem is that virtually all of these studies involve children, and thus can not confirm or debunk the HBD claim that how you were raised has virtually no effect on your adult IQ for the vast majority of Americans (extreme exceptions are always plausible).
It is interesting that there are so few studies on the IQ’s of adopted adults despite the fascination with this topic among so many scholar and despite all the published studies on the IQ’s of adopted kids. My guess is that many scholars are deliberately studying only adopted children because these studies produce more politically correct results that advance their careers; they likely avoid studies of adopted adults because these would show IQ is highly genetic, and most academics (even tenured ones) are simply not allowed to say that.
Now the only study I could find where kids were adopted from a deprived environment to a privileged environment and then tested near-adulthood, was the Minnesota Trans-racial Adoption Study. In this study you had black kids (and kids from other backgrounds) adopted from a very young age into white upper-middle class environments. There can be no doubt that black Americans typically experience oppressed culturally deprived environments, particularly in the 1970s, and there can be no doubt that the black kids in the study were adopted into privileged environments (raised by professional whites with college degrees) so it’s interesting to see how much adoption raised their IQ’s beyond the national black average of about 85 (on the test used at that time). It’s also interesting to note how much the IQ’s of “half-black” children (who theoretically have a mean IQ of 94; half way between the black mean of 85 and the white mean of 102; U.S. norms) benefited from adoption. The children were tested first at age 7 and then at age 17. Because the IQ tests used had old norms which give inflated results, the scores were corrected for the Flynn effect (see the wikipedia article):
Non adopted, with two white biological parents (n=101):
Age 7 corrected IQ: 110.5, Age 17 corrected IQ: 105.5
Adopted, with two white biological parents (n=16):
Age 7 corrected IQ: 111.5; Age 17 corrected IQ: 101.5
Adopted, 1 white & 1 black biological parent (n=55):
Age 7 corrected IQ: 105.4; Age 17 corrected IQ: 93.2
Adopted, with two black biological parents (n=21):
Age 7 corrected IQ: 91.4; Age 17 corrected IQ: 83.7
So we see that age 7, adoption into a privileged home raised the IQ’s of black kids by 6 points above what you’d expect from black kids raised by their biological parents (IQ 91 instead of 85) and adoption raised the IQ’s of “half-black” kids by 11 points above what you’d expect (IQ 105 instead of 94) had they been raised by their biological parents. Even the IQ’s of white kids adopted into these privileged homes score about 10 points higher than they would have (IQ 112 instead of IQ 102) if raised by average white parents instead of the upper-middle class white parents who adopted them. So clearly, adoption has a sizable impact on childhood IQ, but notice how the effect completely vanishes in adulthood for all three demographics.
Now obviously this is only one study and the results need to be replicated before we can take it as gospel, but the fact that the results were internally replicated for three different adopted sub-samples (blacks, half-blacks, and whites) is very convincing to me.
With respect to race differences, the fact that the “half-black” kids scored intermediate between the white and black adopted kids is especially interesting, especially because the “half-black” kids had white biological mothers and then were raised in white adopted homes, so they had both a white prenatal environment as well as a white family environment, yet still scored at age 17 exactly as a purely genetic hypothesis would predict.
Although I find this study to be very convincing evidence of the truth of HBD, it’s important to emphasize that not only has it not been replicated, but it’s actually been contradicted by several other trans-racial adoption studies that did NOT find any correlation between IQ and race, however those studies had problems:
For example Tizard (1974) compared black, white and mixed-race kids raised in English residential nurseries and found that the only significant IQ difference favored the non-white kids. A problem with this study is that the children were extremely young (below age 5) and ethnic differences in maturation rates favor black kids. A bigger problem with this study is that the parents of the black kids appeared to be immigrants (African or West Indian) and immigrants are often hyper-selected for IQ (see Indian Americans).
A second study by Eyferth (1961) found that the biological illegitimate children of white German women had a mean IQ of 97.2 if the biological father was was a white soldier and 96.5 if the biological father was a black soldier (a trivial difference). Both the white and mixed kids were raised by their biological white mothers. One problem with this study is that the biological fathers of both races would have been screened to have similar IQ’s because at the time, only the highest scoring 97% of whites and highest scoring 70% of blacks passed the Army General Classification Test and were allowed to be U.S. soldiers. In addition, 20% to 25% of the “black fathers” were not African-American or even black Africans, but rather French North Africans (non-white caucasoids or “dark whites” as they are sometimes called). In addition, there was no follow-up to measure the adult IQ of the children.
A third study by Moore (1986) included a section where he looked at sub-samples of children adopted by white parents. He found that nine adopted kids with two black biological parents averaged 2 IQ points higher than 14 adopted kids with only one biological black parent but the sample size was quite small, and again, no follow up when the kids were older.
It’s so simple; even a child can understand this.
you’re a child and you don’t. and a paranoid child to boot.
you’re still thinking as genes and environment as having independent effects.
you’re still thinking in terms of P = G + E.
the single best such model included intrauterine effects and had a total sample of > 50,000. the broad h^2 was .48.
besides it’s a fact that kids aren’t assigned to homes at random. kids from shittier backgrounds are assigned to shittier adoptive homes.
and why did the non-adopted children’s IQ fall TOO?
n = 101. 5 points is significant. and why if their parents were professionals did they have kids with mean IQ only slightly above the mean or rather THE MEAN in Minnesota.
and why did the non-adopted children’s IQ fall TOO?
The adoptive parents had a WAIS IQ of 120, but since the WAIS was already 20 years old by the time they were tested, correcting for old norms (which expire at 3 points a decade) they would have had a corrected IQ of 114.
Now the correlation between the mid-parent IQ and the adult biological child IQ they raised is 0.6 according to Steve Hsu, so the expected IQ of the biological kids of the adopted parents is:
0.6(114 – 100) + 100 = 108
Not sure why they scored even higher in childhood than near adulthood since the correlation actually improves with age so if anything it should have been higher in adulthood.
It could just be sampling error, or it could be that these adoptive parents were higher in social class than is typical for people of their IQ so their IQ’s underestimated the quality of environment they provided. Or it could be that the type of parents who adopt kids are just super-parents in general, including to their biological children & the effects of parenting occur in childhood.
But it’s a mistake to over-interpret every detail in each subgroup, some of which almost certainly occurred by chance. It’s much wiser to look at the big picture.
It’s not mistake to “overinterpret” when:
1. Mean IQ for whites in Minnesota is 105
2. There are 101 non-adopted children
3. You have claimed that the adopted homes were upper middle class
The fall of 5 points for n = 101 is very SIGNIFICANT.
you’re still thinking in terms of P = G + E.
I’m thinking in terms of whatever explains the data.
the single best such model included intrauterine effects and had a total sample of > 50,000. the broad h^2 was .48.
Citation?
besides it’s a fact that kids aren’t assigned to homes at random. kids from shittier backgrounds are assigned to shittier adoptive homes.
They were all raised by white upper middle-class parents. If anything, the black kids were adopted into better homes because the kinds of white couples who ask to adopt a black child tend to be more intelligent and higher quality than the kind of white couples who only want a child of their own race.
The non-adopteds couldn’t have been raised in such homes and have a mean IQ equal to 105. Unless IQ matters much less to worldy success than HBDers claim.
Is “Minnesota” just the name of the researchers’ university?
This is important because not all states have the same mean IQ for whites. Minnesota’s is higher than the national mean. It’s at least 105. I’d guess W Virginia’s is much lower.
How could you not have herd of this? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6641/abs/388468a0.html
And also something you’ve likely NEVER considered:
1. Some IQ tests are quite unreliable when administered by different people.
2. So unless the administrations were double blind, they’re MEANINGLESS.
3. If the IQ test was the WISC or WAIS then it would require that the tester know the race of the testee.
4. If you think this doesn’t matter…
…then you really should have read my comments on infoproc.
A comment by “a last a loved a long the”:
“WAIS-R protocols from 2 vocational counseling clients (aged 34 and 41 yrs) were scored by 19 psychologists and 20 graduate students. Regardless of scorer’s experience level, mechanical scoring error produced summary scores varying by as much as 4–28 IQ points. For both protocols and both scoring groups, scoring agreement with the actual Full Scale IQ scores ranged from 32 to 35%. Over 77% of the scores were within 1 standard error of measurement (SEM) of the true scores. It is urged that IQs be reported in conjunction with a precision range based on the SEM of the test.
So many scorers are less reliable than one? Yet the test makers claim reliability of .97. Should’ve asked the twins what their SATs were. It looks like the psychologist administered iq test is a racket.”
So according to this study the best fit for the data for an additive, independent effects model, includes womb effects, and womb effects are a better fit than the so-called Wilson effect of increasing heritability with age.
The very idea of an HBD denier shows a lack of experience.
Most white liberals, at least, think there is some irreducible genetic component to intelligence and that intelligence is a genuine characteristic of individuals, though not very well operationalized by IQ tests. But they believe, correctly, that it is much much smaller than HBDers think it is, and that differences between groups, whatever they may be, are similarly much much smaller than is actually seen.
It should also be pointed that MZA studies have much higher h^2s than MZT and other studies.
The broad h^2 = .5 is likely correct for one national population.
But, again, h^2 is just a statistic meaning…
If I knew nothing about person A other than that he was an American and had an IQ of X, then I could say that his American clone/MZ twin would score between this and that such and such a % of the time.
h^2 is simply a FACT of a given population. It may be interpreted in many ways.
This is important because not all states have the same mean IQ for whites. Minnesota’s is higher than the national mean. It’s at least 105. I’d guess W Virginia’s is much lower.
When I said the adopted parents were upper middle class, I was speaking with reference to America as a whole. Their average education was 16 years (college grad) and they worked in professional and managerial type occupations. However if Minnesota is a smart place, it’s probably smart because a lot of upper middle class people moved there, so perhaps the parents were pretty ordinary by Minnesota standards but still impressive by national standards.
But the study’s name may just come from the university of the researchers, to wit, the University of Minnesota.
My data comes from a criticism of the claim that adopted NE Asians have higher IQs than whites. One of the most cited studies was for Minnesota exclusively, and it was pointed out that white Minnesotans have a mean IQ of 105 or whatever the claimed higher mean for NE Asian adoptees was.
The claimed NE Asian advantage is small enough that adoption studies are unconvincing.
As far as I know there have been no Ashkenazi-gentile adoption studies.
As far as I know there have been no Ashkenazi-gentile adoption studies.
No but there was a Korean-white adoption study:
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/02/16/gildea-1992-a-lost-iq-study-of-transracially-adopted-koreans/
Korean != Ashkenazi
What’re you retarded?
The scores in these other studies ranged from 109-117, but these numbers would not be adjusted for norm inflation. Even so, the children in this study appear to have scored 1/3-1 SD higher than what is typically found for adopted children.
Really?
jorge videla, I know fully well the Devlin et al. (1997) study. Non-hereditarians usually mention it. I commented Devlin here. If you don’t have the time to read all of it, just do CTRL+F and type “Devlin” in the key word.
When you say IQ is unreliable when used in different populations, you should elaborate a little bit more. What do you mean ? That the reliability and validity differ across races ? Or that IQ has predictive bias against blacks when objective criteria such as job performance or scholastic attainment is regressed on IQ ? Or that race differences are subjected to measurement bias in the psychometric realm ? In every case, you’re definitely wrong.
i never said that meng.
what I said was that the scoring of the wais is unreliable.
and furthermore I have little doubt that there is a “non-negligible”/hard-core/significant genetic cause behind some of the variance.
but I think it’s a lot smaller than 50%.
the problems with gcta are discussed here: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/still-chasing-ghosts-a-new-genetic-methodology-will-not-find-the-missing-heritability/
and a problem not mentioned is that gcta hasn’t been done on the developed world as a whole. only single countries as far as I know.
and, of course, the following paper discusses a criticism which even self-styled sophisticates like Steve Hsu don’t understand. http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/Rice/rice08b.pdf
and meng,
Devlin’s model fit better than the Wilson effect.
It’s obvious that almost all the studies are in kids and that hereditists will simply dismiss any prima facie contradiction in children qua children.
re: twins reared apart –> Bouchard and co haven’t made their data available, for one…which is already suspect. for two, just in the microcosm of environment, and in the microcosm of the ‘FEL’ stat,’ the study failed to match the population spread in education. more than half of the data was clustered in probably the top 5% of “normal population education” distribution— at the very least in the far right.
re: adoption –>
what corrections did they make for the Flynn effect? if the tests the adoptees took in the late 80’s were not the same as the originals, and were in fact tests that reflected renorming….wouldn’t all of the 17 y/o IQ scores go up to properly account for the Flynn effect? we are seeing my IQ relative to the norms of my childhood — that is the only way to consistently measure. I
re: adoption childhood/adult, the simple explanation is that children spend a lot of time ‘at home.’ a lot of environmental factors will be captured ‘at home.’ as children get older, they sped more time with peer groups, outside activities, etc.
what about pre-adoption experience? wholly conflated by all appearance…
this is all WITHIN the G + E = P paradigm. even WITHIN that paradigm, it’s still weak.
you seem to think that adult IQ “falling” relative to childhood IQ is evidence of HBD. this is a funhouse mirror of the actual implications.
in AFRICA BLACK CHILDREN score 92 — 3 points below American Blacks. YET BY ADULTHOOD they have IQ’s of 67, whereas black adults have IQs of 85.
why is the drop for whites only around 5 points here, which is less than half the drop in blacks?
EXPLAIN.
if anything, this demonstrates more ‘raw potential’ rather than less.
apparently Orwell was right…”To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”
you seem to think that adult IQ “falling” relative to childhood IQ is evidence of HBD. this is a funhouse mirror of the actual implications.
HBD people argue that only adult IQ is highly genetic; HBD critics can’t debunk that claim by constantly citing child adoption studies.
in AFRICA BLACK CHILDREN score 92 — 3 points below American Blacks. YET BY ADULTHOOD they have IQ’s of 67, whereas black adults have IQs of 85.
I don’t believe the African children score 92, however I agree that even the adult IQ gap between black Africans and African Americans is overwhelmingly environmental, but here you’re talking about really extreme environmental differences related to nutrition. Within North America, we don’t have anywhere near those kinds of environmental gaps for the vast majority of society.
why is the drop for whites only around 5 points here, which is less than half the drop in blacks?
The drop for adopted whites is actually greater than the drop for adopted blacks, so I wouldn’t over-interpret every little number, some of which will be random sampling error. Much wiser to average the drop for all 3 adopted races to get a general idea of the transient effect of adoption.
HBD critics can’t debunk that claim by constantly citing child adoption studies.
But they can.
Because the difference in heritability isn’t that much. It’s far too small to explain away the studies on children which are almost all of the studies after all.
And when the childhood scores are averaged over several years the heritability is the same.
The lower heritability for the scores of children arises entirely from the lower long term reliability of children’s scores. By long term I mean years not days.
The tests may be as reliable over very short time intervals, but over years children’s scores can go up or down by a lot.
‘I don’t believe the African children score 92’
2 year old children.
Lynn, R. (2006). Race Differences in Intelligence. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Pub.
‘here you’re talking about really extreme environmental differences related to nutrition’
no you’re just assuming that the difference stems from nutrition. if it was nutrition, why do the children score so well? did they get great nutrition and then from that point on someone decided not to feed them?
‘The drop for adopted whites is actually greater than the drop for adopted blacks’
i was talking about in the general population…
‘HBD people argue that only adult IQ is highly genetic’
this claim is MEANINGLESS
what do you mean ‘highly genetic?!’
the AMOUNT OF EYES I HAVE IS HIGHLY GENETIC YET HERE AND NOW PROBABLY HAS AN H^2 OF ZERO.
maybe you mean to say that HBD people argue that the variance in IQ is mostly a function of genotypic variation.
no one needs to debunk this claim. HBDers have taken the scientific consensus on the issue (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf) a step further; as such, they bear the burden of proof and HBD-deniers don’t have to “debunk” anything.
i have yet to see a study that simulates a random environment, like one would see in the general population. the MZA is a decent idea. however. youd have to plop those suckers EVERYWHERE to make it work.
and that’s just everywhere within a given country.
and “to make it work” means merely to come up with the right statistic.
that is, if one knew any more about someone than his country of citizenship, the conditional distribution would change.
Thomas Sowell had a great article titled iirc “The Mysteries of Black IQ”. I’m too lazy to find it now, but if you’d like a counterexample to the blacks are stupid mantra:
Buckley sounds like a ridiculous black preacher.
Or just compare Mugabe to Ian Smith.
2 year old children.
Lynn, R. (2006). Race Differences in Intelligence. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Pub.
I have that book and can’t find any talk about African 2 year old children. They youngest age I can find is age 6 on page 32-33 where Lynn cites studies that he converts to IQ’s of 63-64.
But age 2 is really kind of young to measure intelligence anyway. At that age you’re probably just testing motor development.
no you’re just assuming that the difference stems from nutrition. if it was nutrition, why do the children score so well?
I see no evidence that they do
i was talking about in the general population…
The correlation between phenotype and genotype increases with age.
p. 45. 2 year old iq.
‘The correlation between phenotype and genotype increases with age.’
that’s not an explanation for anything….
why in the general population do we record a general drop in childhood IQ to adulthood IQ? why is this drop more for blacks and less for whites?
the unreliability of the tests can explain some of it….but the trend is clearly downward.
p. 45. 2 year old iq.
I see what you’re talking about. He’s referring to African American 2 year olds, not 2 year old Africans. He calls them Africans because that’s just his generic term for the entire congoid race, regardless of whether they’re African Americans or Africans in Africa.
why in the general population do we record a general drop in childhood IQ to adulthood IQ? why is this drop more for blacks and less for whites?
There is no general drop from childhood to adult IQ. Average IQ at every age is defined as 100, so by definition the average stays 100 at every age. Now African Americans are a sub-population so their IQ’s do drop with age. The genetic perspective is that their lower IQ is caused by genes, so since IQ becomes more genetic with age, the lower their IQ should become.
However there are extreme cases where black IQ drops much lower than the genetic hypothesis would predict (i.e. blacks in the rural South) and in these extreme cases, the drop is indeed largely environmental. There are probably also cases of whites who suffer similar extreme environmental deprivation (in appalachia) but such outliers are extremely rare and don’t affect the aggregate IQ statistics.
It’s also worth noting that the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is supposedly genetic so we should predict their IQ’s would get higher with age and indeed that’s what happens.
So there’s no general trend for IQ to get higher or lower, there’s just a trend for people who differ genetically in IQ to differ more as they get older because IQ tests do a better job measuring genes with age.
and indeed that’s what happens
you made that up.
you made that up.
Uh no. I don’t make things up. The claim that Ashkenazi (verbal) IQ increases with age was made in Dan Seligman’s book “A Question of Intelligence”
‘There is no general drop from childhood to adult IQ.’
ummmmm…..among this sample there was. minnesota white IQ likely to be around 106. regression to the mean can explain drop in white scores sure. however, to assume black scores explained totally by regression to mean is to assume black pop in minnesota = rest of country blacks. any reason to believe this? all whites != homogenous. same goes for blacks.
adopted white children’s scores dropped below the mean, but i mean, it’s close enough to be within stat insig.
‘Average IQ at every age is defined as 100, so by definition the average stays 100 at every age. Now African Americans are a sub-population so their IQ’s do drop with age. The genetic perspective is that their lower IQ is caused by genes, so since IQ becomes more genetic with age, the lower their IQ should become’
nationally, sure…
and yes their IQ’s do drop. and i kno what the genetic perspective is. it’s a circular argument. does this difference in IQ scores reflect an environmental change or genetic change? well genetics are more important and exert a larger effect over time therefore it’s genetic.
not only that, but regression to the mean (what’s happening) depends on random factors that enhance or detract from performance and interfere with the measurement. so, taking more tests over time will give you a better and more accurate result. however, from this it does not follow that because you have obtained a more accurate result, the reason for that more accurate result is “your genes.” it’s just that the test is more and more unreliable the more (or less) IQ you have.
‘However there are extreme cases where black IQ drops much lower than the genetic hypothesis would predict (i.e. blacks in the rural South) and in these extreme cases, the drop is indeed largely environmental. There are probably also cases of whites who suffer similar extreme environmental deprivation (in appalachia) but such outliers are extremely rare and don’t affect the aggregate IQ statistics.’
seems speculative…
‘It’s also worth noting that the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is supposedly genetic so we should predict their IQ’s would get higher with age and indeed that’s what happens.’
….huh? where?
‘So there’s no general trend for IQ to get higher or lower, there’s just a trend for people who differ genetically in IQ to differ more as they get older because IQ tests do a better job measuring genes with age’
or something happens in the environment between age 7 and age 17 that has a profound effect on development. not sure why this is being discounted.
Right. The putative decline in the “shared environment” begins when kids enter school and thus share the school environment.
Although, obviously, schools differ a lot, it may be that some like school and thrive in school and others hate it, and that this has nothing to do with their innate ability.
The objection to the independent effects model would be silenced if the studies were on sibling adoptees adopted into the four corners of the earth or the developed world. Otherwise one may merely be seeing a lack of fitness fro a particular place and time.
HBDers reify heritability and claim they don’t.
‘By that standard virtually every study is suspect because almost no one makes all the data available. There’s so much of it, that it usually just makes more sense to provide summary descriptive statistics’
56 sets of MZA. It’s not that much data.
‘Bouchard reported the mean education of the fathers and mothers, the range, the SDs, the sample sizes. You’re free to analyze it.’
I already did. the SD was 4.5. The mean was 3 years over the general population median. the cluster of environments in the study decidedly differs from the cluster of environments in the general population.
Many researchers, especially in those days but even today, were unaware of the Flynn effect, so it was quite common to use tests that were 20 or 30 years old, and thus gave inflated norms. In this study, the norms at both age 7 and 17 were expired,’
iq tests were updated more regularly than you’re letting on, which is why i want to know how the corrections were done. it’s a worthwhile question. because the result seems counter-intuitive, knowing what we know about the Flynn effect.
‘As kids get older they spend less time with their adopted parents, but they don’t spend more time with their biological parents, so why do they become similar to their biological parents?’
they spend more time with more prole types they become more prole, like their bio parents. lol. that study isn’t set up to catch the effect of a child of low-class adoptive parents nevertheless retaining his high IQ. instead, that study -is- set up to MISS the effect of a child from a higher class home being subjected to a more prole environment (public school or whatever else in the general populous).
again, the fact that these adopted kids are much less similar to their bio parents when they are children supports this point of view. and because all of the adopted homes are upper class, your question ‘why do they become more similar’ has no real force.
‘They were adopted very young’
prenatal environment counts, too. but even if they are adopted very young….the pre-adoption experiences still matter.
iq tests were updated more regularly than you’re letting on,
No they really weren’t. The original WISC was published in the late 1940s and wasn’t revised until the early 1970s (the WISC-R), and many people continued to use the original long after the revision was published, because they preferred it or because they were too cheap to buy the new one.
which is why i want to know how the corrections were done. it’s a worthwhile question. because the result seems counter-intuitive, knowing what we know about the Flynn effect.
Not sure why they’re counter-intuitive, but if you read the wikipedia article on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study, it reports the IQ’s before and after the Flynn effect corrections. The main difference is that everyone’s IQ seems to be 5 IQ points lower after said corrections.
Wikipedia claims the corrections were done by John Loehlin in the “Handbook of Intelligence”. I assume what he did was noted that everyone was tested on scales that were published about 20 years earlier, and since the Flynn effect inflates norms at a rate of about 0.3 points a year, he deducted about 5 or 6 points from everyone’s score.
they spend more time with more prole types they become more prole, like their bio parents. lol. that study isn’t set up to catch the effect of a child of low-class adoptive parents nevertheless retaining his high IQ. instead, that study -is- set up to MISS the effect of a child from a higher class home being subjected to a more prole environment (public school or whatever else in the general populous).
But children adopted by upper middle class parents aren’t just adopted into upper middle class families, but upper-middle class schools and upper-middle class communities and peers.
prenatal environment counts, too. but even if they are adopted very young….the pre-adoption experiences still matter.
Prenatal environment might be a factor, though as I noted, the “half-black” kids had white prenatal environments and still scored half way between whites and blacks, suggesting prenatal factors are not responsible for these ethnic IQ gaps. As for pre-adoption, the kids were in foster care prior to adoption but there’s no evidence that these were not humane. The black kids were adopted at 32 months while the “half-black” kids were adopted at 9 months, but age of adoption only affects IQ before school age, and not after.
‘The original WISC was published in the late 1940s and wasn’t revised until the early 1970s’
right which is why it’s more than possible that, as children, the kids got an updated test…kids took the test in 1975. the wisc was updated 1974.
…
which is why im curious as to how they corrected for them all….
i guess we just dont know eh?
‘it reports the IQ’s before and after the Flynn effect corrections. The main difference is that everyone’s IQ seems to be 5 IQ points lower after said corrections.’
its counter-intuitive because if i take a correctly normed test the first time, then take an incorrectly normed test (really if i take the same test or a test that hasn’t been renormed) ten years later….then whatever raw iq score i got on the incorrectly normed test should be adjusted upwards in relation to the original.
i dont know what the specific situation, but ya, i think everyone’s iq just being lower is counter-intuitive.
‘I assume what he did was noted that everyone was tested on scales that were published about 20 years earlier, and since the Flynn effect inflates norms at a rate of about 0.3 points a year, he deducted about 5 or 6 points from everyone’s score.’
if so, sounds sloppy. as i just said above, if they took iq tests in 1975, then it’s more than possible they were taking an accurately normed test…
‘But children adopted by upper middle class parents aren’t just adopted into upper middle class families, but upper-middle class schools and upper-middle class communities and peers’
public school mixes and mingles kids. what were the school environments? what schools? do we know?
‘though as I noted, the “half-black” kids had white prenatal environments and still scored half way between whites and blacks’
not as children.
‘ As for pre-adoption, the kids were in foster care prior to adoption but there’s no evidence that these were not humane. The black kids were adopted at 32 months while the “half-black” kids were adopted at 9 months, but age of adoption only affects IQ before school age, and not after.’
define humane lmao.
that’s what we call a big hole….
and OBVIOUSLY the main effect is felt before school age. see what i said above regarding why.
right which is why it’s more than possible that, as children, the kids got an updated test…kids took the test in 1975. the wisc was updated 1974.
According to jensen, the kids were tested on the WISC and the Stanford Binet. If they were tested on the revised WISC,-Revised he would have likely said they were tested on the WISC-R, not the WISC. Also, the fact that after the Flynn effect corrections their scores in childhood (and adolescence) went down proves they took old tests,unless you think the person correcting the scores was completely incompetent.
…
i guess we just dont know eh?
No one knows anything 100% but we have a reliable published academic source saying the scores all needed to be lowered by about 5 points.
its counter-intuitive because if i take a correctly normed test the first time, then take an incorrectly normed test (really if i take the same test or a test that hasn’t been renormed) ten years later….then whatever raw iq score i got on the incorrectly normed test should be adjusted upwards in relation to the original.
First of all, both tests were incorrectly normed. Second of all, you have it backwards. If only one of the tests had old norms and the other test had correct norms, the test with correct norms would give a lower IQ than the test with old norms. That’s because older IQ tests were easier because the population keeps doing better on IQ tests every year (see the Flynn effect)
if so, sounds sloppy. as i just said above, if they took iq tests in 1975, then it’s more than possible they were taking an accurately normed test…
I’m sure John Loehlin read the study to see what tests they took before correcting the norms
public school mixes and mingles kids. what were the school environments? what schools? do we know?
I don’t know, but given that one of the biggest differences between upper-middle parents and lower class parents is the types of schools they send their kids to, the default assumption is that they attended good schools. Further evidence of this comes from the fact that the adopted kids did better on an SAT type test than they did on the official IQ testing.
not as children.
compared to the adopted black and adopted white children, even as children, the adopted “half-blacks” were intermediate.
re: twins reared apart –> Bouchard and co haven’t made their data available, for one…which is already suspect.
By that standard virtually every study is suspect because almost no one makes all the data available. There’s so much of it, that it usually just makes more sense to provide summary descriptive statistics.
for two, just in the microcosm of environment, and in the microcosm of the ‘FEL’ stat,’ the study failed to match the population spread in education. more than half of the data was clustered in probably the top 5% of “normal population education” distribution— at the very least in the far right.
Bouchard reported the mean education of the fathers and mothers, the range, the SDs, the sample sizes. You’re free to analyze it.
re: adoption –>
what corrections did they make for the Flynn effect? if the tests the adoptees took in the late 80’s were not the same as the originals, and were in fact tests that reflected renorming….wouldn’t all of the 17 y/o IQ scores go up to properly account for the Flynn effect? we are seeing my IQ relative to the norms of my childhood — that is the only way to consistently measure. I
Many researchers, especially in those days but even today, were unaware of the Flynn effect, so it was quite common to use tests that were 20 or 30 years old, and thus gave inflated norms. In this study, the norms at both age 7 and 17 were expired, so it was necessary to subtract IQ points from everyone (0.3 points for each year between the time they were tested and the time the norms were gathered). By correcting for the Flynn effect, you make everyone’s IQ comparable to other Americans their age during the year they were tested.
re: adoption childhood/adult, the simple explanation is that children spend a lot of time ‘at home.’ a lot of environmental factors will be captured ‘at home.’ as children get older, they sped more time with peer groups, outside activities, etc.
As kids get older they spend less time with their adopted parents, but they don’t spend more time with their biological parents, so why do they become similar to their biological parents? I suppose you could argue that black kids will start hanging out with black peers, but that doesn’t explain the phenomena in adopted white kids.
what about pre-adoption experience? wholly conflated by all appearance…
They were adopted very young
Another example of norms of reaction and how even if these studies said what HBDers claim they might still say very little.
SCZ is the most heritable psychiatric condition yet…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6609726
so why do they become similar to their biological parents
again you’re showing your P = G + E bias.
the answer is, inter alia, …
the same reason why the children of fat biological parents or diabetic biological parents or hypertensive biological parents are more likely to be fat or diabetic or hypertensive…
for them, the prevailing environment, is toxic;
NOT because they have genes which by themselves cause obesity or diabetes.
October 26, 2014 at 1:52 am
‘By that standard virtually every study is suspect because almost no one makes all the data available. There’s so much of it, that it usually just makes more sense to provide summary descriptive statistics’
56 sets of MZA. It’s not that much data.
‘Bouchard reported the mean education of the fathers and mothers, the range, the SDs, the sample sizes. You’re free to analyze it.’
I already did. the SD was 4.5. The mean was 3 years over the general population median. the cluster of environments in the study decidedly differs from the cluster of environments in the general population.
Many researchers, especially in those days but even today, were unaware of the Flynn effect, so it was quite common to use tests that were 20 or 30 years old, and thus gave inflated norms. In this study, the norms at both age 7 and 17 were expired,’
iq tests were updated more regularly than you’re letting on, which is why i want to know how the corrections were done. it’s a worthwhile question. because the result seems counter-intuitive, knowing what we know about the Flynn effect.
‘As kids get older they spend less time with their adopted parents, but they don’t spend more time with their biological parents, so why do they become similar to their biological parents?’
they spend more time with more prole types they become more prole, like their bio parents. lol. that study isn’t set up to catch the effect of a child of low-class adoptive parents nevertheless retaining his high IQ. instead, that study -is- set up to MISS the effect of a child from a higher class home being subjected to a more prole environment (public school or whatever else in the general populous).
again, the fact that these adopted kids are much less similar to their bio parents when they are children supports this point of view. and because all of the adopted homes are upper class, your question ‘why do they become more similar’ has no real force.
‘They were adopted very young’
prenatal environment counts, too. but even if they are adopted very young….the pre-adoption experiences still matter.
id also add jorge’s criticism of the entire model…but for now, im saying that EVEN WITHIN THE MODEL the experiment is still not very good.
for them, the prevailing environment, is toxic;
True; heritability is always measured in a specific country (or type of country) in a specific time, so one can’t flat out state that a given individual or group is genetically higher on a given trait in any absolute sense, though some of the ethnic IQ differences have been replicated in multiple countries over multiple generations, which does predispose most HBD types to think in terms of absolutes.
Ok if that’s true then the numbers seem off… if we use the straight 0.3 average anyway.
And I don’t have it backwards . If I take a correctly normed test then take an incorrectly normed test x years later…my iq would be higher on adjustment: iq is relative to MY cohort. If my cohort tends to do worse on new iq tests, then my lower score would be adjusted upward to reflect me versus my cohort.
—
Re: schools ummmm ok? I understand that there are a lot of assumptions in the model. You listed several.
—
Re: interracials…ok if you define intermediate as anywhere in between sure, but their scores were pretty close (within the realm of stat irrelevance….unsure what the exact iq test reliability is but there’s usually a spread of ~5 points)
Oh I see the issue: by incorrectly normed I mean incorrectly normed relative to me
oh…*close to whites
I’d read this Wikipedia article before. This study is certainly not what liberals would like, but …
The higher childhood IQ should seem as mysterious as regression to the mean at age 17.
That is…
Why???
The Wilson effect isn’t an answer. It’s merely a fact…or a putative fact.
The higher childhood IQ should seem as mysterious as regression to the mean at age 17.
I think there are 2 explanations:
1) certain genes don’t get expressed until after puberty
2) IQ scores are more correlated with socialization in childhood because kids need to be domesticated before an IQ test can reveal their full biological potential: They need to learn to sit still, pay attention, follow the psychologist’s instructions, concentrate, and try their best. I think kids raised by upper class families acquire these skills earlier because of better parenting and thus have a spurious advantage on childhood IQ tests, but by late adolescence, almost all kids have acquired these good habits in school, and having upper class parents is no longer an advantage on IQ tests, hence the vanishing effects of shared environment.
Childhood IQ is less heritable and less reliable for those with higher scores.
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=121315
When the children of Southern Italian immigrants were given I.Q. tests in the early part of the past century, for example, they recorded median scores in the high seventies and low eighties, a full standard deviation below their American and Western European counterparts. Southern Italians did as poorly on I.Q. tests as Hispanics and blacks did. As you can imagine, there was much concerned talk at the time about the genetic inferiority of Italian stock, of the inadvisability of letting so many second-class immigrants into the United States, and of the squalor that seemed endemic to Italian urban neighborhoods. Sound familiar? These days, when talk turns to the supposed genetic differences in the intelligence of certain races, Southern Italians have disappeared from the discussion. “Did their genes begin to mutate somewhere in the 1930s?” the psychologists Seymour Sarason and John Doris ask, in their account of the Italian experience. “Or is it possible that somewhere in the 1920s, if not earlier, the sociocultural history of Italo-Americans took a turn from the blacks and the Spanish Americans which permitted their assimilation into the general undifferentiated mass of Americans?”
Gladwell won’t say it. I will. Psychology, and behavior genetics, is a pseudoscience of morons.
Peer-ee-uhd!
Murray’s degrees are in history and polysci. He’s a mathematical embryo.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above
The whole purpose of psychology departments is to allow people who shouldn’t be in college to graduate.
Although as one with Spanish ancestry I wish “Spanish American” weren’t used to mean Latin American. And I’m suspicious of those who use it this way.
Louis C K is a Mexican.
“Latino” is meaningless from the HBD perspective.
The greatest chess player of all time was a blue eyed Cuban.
And Paul Morphy was a Louisianan of Spanish extraction.
or maybe they weren’t blue.
anyway, an argument can be made the the two greatest chess players ever and certainly the two most dominant in their time were both Spanish American in the sense that “Spanish American” should have.
And poor Capi’s another example of environment potentiating whatever genetics.
He died from malignant hypertension at 53.
HBD, like the KKK before it, is itself a case study in HBD.
the WASP bloggers are hicks.
few of the bloggers are WASPs.
none are RCs as far as I know.
none are WASHs.
HBD is fringe, because its promoters are fringe.
and HBD has an explanation which It doesn’t like.
namely, HBDers are genetically inferior to the elite who aren’t.
these are inconsistent themes of HBD blogs:
1. the elite are stupid pc pillow bighters.
2. status is determined by IQ which is “genetic”.
one can also smell the smoke from the burning cross reading Cockring’s blog or listening to Charles Murray’s faux posh accent.
1. the elite are stupid pc pillow bighters.
2. status is determined by IQ which is “genetic”.
The HBD community is divided on point #1. Some feel the true elites don’t actually believe their PC propaganda. Others, like the Lion, feel they believe it, but feels people believe things for emotional and social reasons, not based on reason (IQ).
HBD = a way for losers to rationalize themselves as winners.
HBD Denial = a way for racists to feel non-racist, even as they are raging with hatred towards black individuals.
yeaaah….im thinking one group has far more overlap with ‘racists’ than the other.
Jesus Christ,
i see ad himenen attacks everywhere.
Hbd”ers” are not perfect but they are near to reality and true than liberals und cia.
Yes all the hate of HBDers is interesting, particularly coming from jorge videla because he claims to have ancestry and traits supposedly lionized by HBD. He also doesn’t seem especially liberal so noblesse oblige can’t explain his HBD hate.
I think he has a genuine interest in HBD, but has a very different interpretation of the data, and is furious that the HBD community strongly rejected his theories.
Now he’s taking his revenge. It is a revenge he will continue to take, any time someone talks about HBD anywhere on the internet…
I’m slightly paranoid and think in Jorge Mugabe Videla et tal as liberal bullies that invaded their blog to cause chaos and confuse the debates since they are extremely concerned about supposed important details among environment-genetic research.
It is important to study the hierarchically important points, that can influence viscerally the research and not over rationalization of some details, which are the result of previous guidelines.
I questioned them about whether they believe that the equalization of environmental factors may have a similar effect on the biology of people.
To prove the greater influence of genetics, there seems NOT to be a strict need to prove it through their interaction with the environment, because all of the bio-dynamic matter that is not inanimate, will interact as their environment through itself, conscious or unconscious, and thus through their genetics.
What is interesting to think that by denying genetic, these people deny themselves, own free will, which is limited but there is.
I live in a country where it is impossible for a wise deny the reality of genetics and the truth of HBD.
Sometimes I wonder if liberals are affected by mechanisms similar to those that make the mouse, ” courageous ” to ” interact ” with the cat and your stomach.
The most important and fundamental human religion is the anthropocentrism.
Explain why people can understand very well about animal and plant domestication but NOT about themselves. And liberalism is a continuation about this powerfull denial about reality, we are ”only” animals, same level of existence, different level of (sofisticated) reaction to carnal finite existence.
that’s got nothing to do with it peepee.
although I’ve arrived at my opinions independently, none of them is original to me.
BUT that are either original or simply not understood by HBDers. including Prof Shoe.
I keep telling you…
read the paper on the g-matrix.
read Sewall Wright’s paper on the fitness landscape.
ask yourself how you might have been smarter or dumber.
understand all that is meant by P = G + E, and why it’s ridiculous.
the hereditist claim is that there is no what Bouchard called “disordinalization” resulting from norms of reaction for IQ over place and time.
that is, though the mean may go up or down, the rank order never changes.
or, whatever environment might make you smarter or have made you smarter would make all those smarter than you still smarter than you.
this is clearly false in the case of evening-ness and morning-ness. in a society where business and school is done at night, the morning people would be even dumber.
that is, certain genomes are simply better than others however intelligence is measured.
but, of course, for personality tests it’s clear that the tests must be fit to the culture/society even when within the developed world.
what reality, exactly?
trying to imply substantial genetic causation from a statistic that can only measure “variance associated with?”
To analyze twins there is a real need to match all your biological conditions, first …
If one twin has ADHD and the other does not, can not be compared.
All Monozygotic twins who have very similar behavioral and biological conditions, should be analyzed. All others must be analyzed through other investigative approaches.
Environmentalists believe that when environmental conditions are equalized, the differences disappear.
Is not it?
yes im sure environmentalists may believe that. however, i am not an environmentalist. im just someone who believes that hbd constantly overstates the actual state of research and that the research most strongly supporting hbders tends to make flawed assumptions.
so when environmental conditions are equalized, i think a substantial part of those differences will be “eaten up.”
Depends on what differences you’re talking about. Depends on what people are being analyzed. Phenotypically similar people into behavior, interests, intelligence and personality, tend to act very similar. So, you have a typical American school, with all the stereotypical real behavioral types and groups (this involves genetic, since the conditions of the school are the same for everyone). You have bullies, nerds, popular, sports people and spectra between them. They are all in the same environment, they receive similar educational instructions are warned about the rules of behavioral conduct by the board, but are solidly acting differently.
In this case, races not matter much, depending on how is the level of integration between the different populations that represent the melting pot.
It’s like when you analyze different breeds of dogs living with each other. Dogs are alike in a certain perspective because they belong to the same species. However, all physiological, external and internal, of the dogs characteristics influence throughout this dynamic.
Another problem is the confusion between essence and appearance.
For example, a black boy who was adopted by a liberal white family, can adapt their behavior and demonstrate greater willingness to study, but that does not mean that their intelligence will increase AND does not mean ”he’s MORE smart”.
It is not important to strictly the size of intelligence, but the efficiency of this intelligence to interact properly within your environment as well as in the production of intellectual achievements.
Please exemplifies your assumptions clearly so I can understand what you want to say.
I understand that there is no need to deny the role of genetics in human behavior, starting from the deterministic idea that by doing so, we are stating categorically that we are not behaviorally plastic.
Yes, we are, but is limited because no probability is infinite.
However, I fully agree that the environment can significantly depress the potential externalization of types of intelligences or other abilities correlated.
For example, the educational system significantly suppresses the potential externalization of creative skills among creative people other psychiatrically categorized as learning disabilities individuals.
This is proof that bad environments, can cause serious problems of adaptation and contribution of mentally discrepant individuals, but does not prove that genetics has not a role to determine and limit the adaptive behavioral plasticity of individuals and collectivities.
‘For example, a black boy who was adopted by a liberal white family, can adapt their behavior and demonstrate greater willingness to study, but that does not mean that their intelligence will increase AND does not mean ”he’s MORE smart”.’
it also doesn’t mean he will be treated like a liberal white individual will be treated.
‘Please exemplifies your assumptions clearly so I can understand what you want to say.’
idk i don’t have any assumptions. it seems likely that there is a genetic basis for behavior and intelligence. it just seems like HBDers overstate the genetic basis using models and studies that aren’t up to the task.
here is a good example
“An important study indicates that breastfeeding is effective in raising IQ by about six
points, but only for the large portion of the population having one of two alleles at a particular site that regulates fatty acids and is influenced by breast milk.”
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf
norms of reaction strike again…
a minority of the population possesses this particular allele….BUT….it’s not so crazy to suppose that many such alleles exist and are dependent on certain triggers (maybe found in DIFFERENT WORLD ENVIRONMENTS even) for trait “optimization.”
Iq tests IS NOT intelligence, is PART of it. Dumb elites or not-wiser elites (normal) can be greater negative effect in well being of societies than own people.
Correlation but not causality (seems). Smart people tend to have more healthier habits than stupid people. Babies of smart people in some industrialized regions drinking more mother milk than babies of stupid people.
breastfeeding does not raise IQ. The higher IQ moms breastfeed more, or the higher IQ child wants more milk probably…
‘breastfeeding does not raise IQ. The higher IQ moms breastfeed more, or the higher IQ child wants more milk probably…’
this is a SOP assertion from an HBDer. that is not EVEN THE STATE OF YOUR OWN SCIENCE you dumbass.
lol we can agree that IQ tests are not intelligence. id go further to say that ‘g’ is not ‘intelligence.’ 🙂
also that’s great you have a theory….that is not the state of the science.
Likewise the ‘gay germ’. If it is proven that organic and permanent changes in the brain occur when small children take milk with consistency, then it finally proved that the habit can increase some cognitive attributes.
Certain theories to be proven literally. There is no claim that something cause changes. You’re saying that external causes, produce internal changes and there are many variables that are involved.
Nice post!
Environment has little effect on IQ, otherwise we would see our pets studying quantum physics.
One problem with genetic weight is that, I am afraid, they are looking only into father and mother’s IQ, they should rather look at other ancestors, grandfathers,grandmothers. But that is difficult, and I believe that is the missing part in “genetic effect” which should be stronger than current weight.
‘Environment has little effect on IQ, otherwise we would see our pets studying quantum physics.’
this is such a silly statement. h^2 is a measure of a certain place and time. if a dog and human population were considered, we’d indeed probably find that most of the variation was associated with genotypic variation. however, the genotypic variation from human-human and human-dog is much less. figure it out.
How can you create complexity (which is intelligence) with environmental factors? It takes centuries or millenia to build that, not just one generation of well-fed babies.
you dont seem to understand that the genotypic variance between human begins is much smaller than the genotypic variance between humans and dogs.
this is the same phenomena re: # of arms/legs/eyes and heritability.
the populations studied have all the “right stuff” for higher intelligence (higher intelligence than a dog at least).
your point has no force…
@ swanknasty
I understand the genotypic variance between humans much smaller than humans-dogs. That is exactly the reason that it is the genetics, not the environment, that resulted into that smaller variance among humans even if they shared similar environments with dogs.
‘That is exactly the reason that it is the genetics, not the environment, that resulted into that smaller variance among humans even if they shared similar environments with dogs.’
oooookay? yes between these two populations the variance in genetics probably is overwhelmingly responsible for the variance in the trait. like i said your point has no force. it DOES NOT FOLLOW that the variation between humans has nothing to do with environment. DUCY
Environment has little effect on IQ, otherwise we would see our pets studying quantum physics.
Fascinating point! What could be a more radical environmental intervention than taking an animal out of the wild and having it live with modern civilized first world urban humans, and yet no improvement in their intelligence whatsoever.
One problem with genetic weight is that, I am afraid, they are looking only into father and mother’s IQ, they should rather look at other ancestors, grandfathers,grandmothers. But that is difficult, and I believe that is the missing part in “genetic effect” which should be stronger than current weight.
If by genetic weight you mean heritability estimates, these tend to come from identical twin studies which are as close to a genetic clone as one can get, and have all the genes of not just parents, but grandparents, great-grand parents etc
“If by genetic weight you mean heritability estimates, these tend to come from identical twin studies which are as close to a genetic clone as one can get, and have all the genes of not just parents, but grandparents, great-grand parents etc”
you are right… I make many mistakes… i was just remembering studies on parent-child IQ correlation. Twins IQ correlation is about 0.86 (kaufmann).. And for raised apart twins 0.76… however, the correlations for IQ of the “same” person at different times is about 0.95. Then there is a missing part, as the environmental effect is close to zero( unrelated children reared together 0.04) for adult IQ. Maybe we don’t need to complete to 1.0.(?)
Then there is a missing part, as the environmental effect is close to zero( unrelated children reared together 0.04) for adult IQ. Maybe we don’t need to complete to 1.0.(?)
Well there’s shared environment and unshared environment. Jensen believes unshared environment consists of a great many biological micro-effects (i.e. prenatal conditions, hitting your head as a child etc)
dogs are smarter in some ways than any other animal/non-human.
they can learn human words faster than chimps.
yet they have smaller brains than wolves.
dogs are smarter in some ways than any other animal/non-human.
they can learn human words faster than chimps.
They’re smarter at understanding people because of selective breeding; genes not environment.
yet they have smaller brains than wolves.
Because they’re dumber than wolves. Dogs might have more people smarts, but wolves can adapt more different kinds of situations to their advantage (true intelligence). If people ever get tired of having them as pets, dogs are toast because they’re too dumb to adapt.
@jorge videla
for the dogs.. they might be smarter, due to artificial selection by humans, through generations, not by improved environments.
”lol we can agree that IQ tests are not intelligence. id go further to say that ‘g’ is not ‘intelligence.’ 🙂
also that’s great you have a theory….that is not the state of the science.”
Iq is part of intelligence (different that iq is not intelligence), perhaps a phenotype of intelligence, there are so many. It is the second phenotype (that is) more adaptive human societies, the first is the combination of psychopathy with relatively high intelligence (there’s no need to be super smart to thrive with these two attributes combined).
If this text was directed at me. Whether the current science system deny my theory. Science is not only used to promote political agendas, it is itself a form of accidental political agenda because despises the world of hyperreality, where there are so many possibilities. What is left of us is the desire to impose the agenda.
If not, I do not know what the theory that accused me of having created, lol.
maybe science is used to promote political agendas, but peer review mediates this use. contrast this with a lone individual asserting this or that.
current science has not settled whether the IQ of breastfeeding moms causes the “rise” in IQ. so to assert ‘environment doesn’t cause the rise in IQ” is to take current science further than it is.
It is not the iq of intelligent mothers ‘increases’ the IQ of children, because is not increase, is inherited, pure and simple. The sons of mothers more-intelligent iq, tend to have higher IQ.
It is not a question of an individual making claims, the issue is if these assertions may be correct.
Is not my theory, i think is not.
yes i understand what you are saying. and I am saying that the current science is unsettled. the science does not yet support this claim.
ANTROPOMORPHIZED or derived of this kind of environment doesn’t influences genes in its bio-essence, influences phenotypical expression of genes. It’s individualized adaptation but in hierarchical and social environments as human environments, adaptation is a magical word, nonexistent. People with ”wrong” mind not adapt themselves correctly to environment because like i always said, transcendental agendas (civilization projects) tend suppress real individuality and neurodiversity. Liberalism is only a continuation of big human agenda.
IQ is the single best operationalization of “intelligence”, but it still sucks.
g is again a characteristic of a population. to speak of an individual’s g score is nonsense. it’s just the projection of the individual’s scores on a battery onto the principal component of the population.
so even if you’re very very smart, but in unconventional ways, your g score can still be not very high. it’s stupid.
and for HBDers who think themselves very smart there’s this thing called SLDR and this other finding that specific abilities aren’t inherited. in other words, high IQ is less heritable than low IQ; if you’ve gotten a high IQ score your clone/twin would likely score much lower.
and for HBDers who think themselves very smart there’s this thing called SLDR and this other finding that specific abilities aren’t inherited. in other words, high IQ is less heritable than low IQ; if you’ve gotten a high IQ score your clone/twin would likely score much lower.
Actually surprisingly, some twin studies show that high IQ is actually more heritable than low IQ. I keep telling you SLODR is overrated, and heritability is perhaps lower among low IQ people because low IQ is often caused by environmental hazards.
well of course.
h^2 isn’t static. it varies from one population to another.
among the poor h^2 is less in some studies. and one may assume that the mean is lower.
but within any social class dumb is congenital and smart isn’t so much.
Concept of g is correct. Its application is wrong because it is based only on the IQ tests.
I have commented these kind of studies here. Generally, they are uninformative. And I don’t necessarily like the way the non-hereditarians and hereditarians claim they support their preferred hypothesis.
Meng Hu,
What an honor to have someone of your intellect post on my blog, but it’s interesting that you chose today because I was just on your blog earlier today. You see I had a big quote of Jensen’s I wanted to blog about in my latest post but I was too lazy to type it out so I googled the first sentence, hoping someone else had typed it so I could copy and paste it. And sure enough, your blog popped up in my google search and I copied and pasted it from you. I felt guilty I didn’t hat-tip you, (though I’ve hat-tipped you before) but I was planning on writing about Jensen’s quote before I discovered you typed it out.
But now you showed up here just hours later for the first time ever, so did you somehow know I copied and pasted that quote from your blog?
meng,
peepee is a brownnoser par excellence.
don’t be flattered.
it’s his modus operandi.
No, I’m genuinely honored to have Meng Hu here, because he/she understands something that 99.9% of people don’t have a clue about: statistics. We desperately need more statistically literate types
I don’t understand. What is the quote you’re talking about ? From which book ?
P.S.: Also, it’s “he”.
In my latest blog post I have a huge quote from Jensen:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/26/more-studies-on-iq-genes-adoption/
This quote was from his book “The g Factor” but I didn’t feel like typing it at all out so I did a google search of the first sentence to see if it was already on the Internet for me to copy & paste. I found the quote on your blog & copied & pasted from there.
Iq is a statistical artfact, we need other term. Iq is not like brain or hands, is not part of human body.
As i said
” kilograms are hereditary” Very vague, incomplete…
I very like the term ” common type of technical intelligence” to ”iq”. Maybe, only stupid thoughts and aphorisms.
Pingback: Charles Murray is wrong: the SAT IS a ‘Student Affluence Test’ | Pumpkin Person