On pg 476 of Arthur Jensen’s The g Factor, he writes:
There is simply no good evidence that social environmental factors have a large effect on IQ, particularly in adolescence and beyond, except in cases of extreme environmental deprivation. In the Texas Adoption Study, [54] for example, adoptees whose biological mothers had IQs of ninety-five or below were compared with adoptees whose biological mothers had IQs of 120 or above. Although these children were given up by their mothers in infancy and all were adopted into good homes, the two groups differed by 15.7 IQ points at age 7 years and by 19 IQ points at age 17. These mean differences, which are about one-half of the mean difference between the low-IQ and high-IQ biological mothers of these children, are close to what one would predict from a simple genetic model according to which the standardized regression of offspring on biological parents is .50.
In still another study, Turkheimer [55] used a quite clever adoption design in which each of the adoptee probands was compared against two nonadopted children, one who was reared in the same social class as the adopted proband’s biological mother, the other who was reared in the same social class as the proband’s adoptive mother. (In all cases, the proband’s biological mother was of lower SES than the adoptive mother.) This design would answer the question of whether a child born to a mother of lower SES background and adopted into a family of higher SES background would have an IQ that is closer to children who were born and reared in a lower SES background than to children born and reared in a higher SES background. The result: the proband adoptees’ mean IQ was nearly the same as the mean IQ of the nonadopted children of mothers of lower SES background but differed significantly (by more than 0.5σ) from the mean IQ of the nonadopted children of mothers of higher SES background. In other words, the adopted probands, although reared by adoptive mothers of higher SES than that of the probands’ biological mothers, turned out about the same with respect to IQ as if they had been reared by their biological mothers, who were of lower SES. Again, it appears that the family social environment has a surprisingly weak influence on IQ.
Off topic, but two people of note in the sports world to add to your giant head collection:
Bochy is known for having one of the largest cap sizes in Major League Baseball at over size 8.[8] When he joined the Mets in 1982, they did not have a helmet that would fit him, and they had to send for the ones he was using in the minors.[9]
Kevin Ford Mench…He is most noted for having had the largest cap size (8) in the majors when he was an active player, a feature that earned him the nickname Shrek.[1]
The two don’t seem to have many accomplishments outside of baseball though.
You have to be careful with athletes because a lot of them take growth hormones which may cause their cranium to grow, even as their brain size remains static.
In regards to Bochy, HGH wasn’t really around during his days as a player. I would guess his large head is natural considering his face is trollish looking like Lagan’s (and completely unlike Barry Bonds who has the classic bulging forehead associated with HGH).
Anyways, here is a fun article and video about Bochy’s big noggin.
Very interesting. Jensen mentioned that there was a non-trivial IQ requirement in professional baseball, mostly via the reaction time.
Do you really need Jensen to tell you that baseball, at its core, is about reaction time?
pshaw!
pinheads.
that social environmental factors have a large effect on IQ
as is the wont of such morons, Jensen has confused independent effect with effect.
turned out about the same with respect to IQ as if they had been reared by their biological mothers
this is a lie. and the study wasn’t even by Turkheimer. it was by two Frenchies. here’s the study:
Regardless of whether the adopting families were rich or poor, Capron and Duyme learned, children whose biological parents were well-off had I.Q. scores averaging 16 points higher than those from working-class parents. Yet what is really remarkable is how big a difference the adopting families’ backgrounds made all the same. The average I.Q. of children from well-to-do parents who were placed with families from the same social stratum was 119.6. But when such infants were adopted by poor families, their average I.Q. was 107.5 — 12 points lower. The same holds true for children born into impoverished families: youngsters adopted by parents of similarly modest means had average I.Q.’s of 92.4, while the I.Q.’s of those placed with well-off parents averaged 103.6. These studies confirm that environment matters — the only, and crucial, difference between these children is the lives they have led.[and their experience in the womb]
Turkheimer (2003) found that for children of low socioeconomic status heritability of IQ falls almost to zero.
Harden and colleagues (2007) investigated adolescents, most 17 years old, and found that, among higher income families, genetic influences accounted for approximately 55% of the variance in cognitive aptitude and shared environmental influences about 35%. Among lower income families, the proportions were in the reverse direction, 39% genetic and 45% shared environment.”
The children’s IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family’s socioeconomic status. “Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98.”[
Ah, ok, it’s the quote you were talking about. Indeed, I have quoted it myself here.
I don’t understand why Mugabe (or whatever his pseudo is) speaks of Turkheimer (2003) and Harden (2007) studies. They are totally unrelated topics. And, saying that the IQ heritability is lower in lower SES is meaningless if you can’t improve IQ. Educational programs have been devised to improve black IQs, but they were generally not successful.
Concerning Capron/Duyme studies, I talked about that already in my blog post. The first thing is that the IQ gain is inversely related to g-loadings, which is not to say there is no gain in g, but that the IQ gain is less when the IQ test is more g-loaded. In any case, such environmental improvement is probably due to improvement in knowledge required by the tests. In that case, we can suspect measurement bias in the gains. That is, when bias is removed, the IQ gain is less. More importantly is the fact that the children are actually very poor, probably much poorer than the mean environment of the black children. These samples are not generalizeable.
i agree meng the merciless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_the_Merciless
because the environment has limited independent effect interventions also have limited effect, though some have non-negligible effects.
The first thing is that the IQ gain is inversely related to g-loadings
yeah. that’s just Rushton bullshit.
In any case, such environmental improvement is probably due to improvement in knowledge required by the tests.
errr…uhhh…drrr…which is all IQ tests test in the first place.
even if not “generalize-able”, they need explaining.
it is OBVIOUS to anyone with eyes that SOME of the evidence is inconsistent with the hereditist weltanschauung.
the same retarded faggots like Jensen and Rushton who have claimed the Flynn effect isn’t for g have claimed that Raven’s is g’s best measure.
Raven’s has been the most Flynned.
these are mathematically illiterate crypto-Nazis-klansmen.
please stop citing them.
and these same cross-burners claim environment has little effect yet nutrition explains the Flynn Effect.
which is it?
and anyway the Dutch famine shows and the APA letter on the Bell Curve claims that nutrition has no effect on IQ unless it’s really really bad.
Mugabe :
“errr…uhhh…drrr…which is all IQ tests test in the first place.”
You don’t know what is measurement bias. And you obviously didn’t read Jensen’s Bias in Mental Testing. There is bias when IQ scores reflect different amount of knowledge, above real difference in ability. There is a difference between exposure to knowledge and understanding. It’s the second component that IQ is supposed to measure. But people with better understanding tend to learn faster. They end up with a greater amount of knowledge. Exposure to knowledge, on the other hand, is passive. You can improve IQ (but not intelligence) if you give better exposure to knowledge to poor kids. But this will result in measurement bias. When psychometricians think of IQ between individuals and cultural groups, they probably assume no bias in the measured IQs.
Mugabe again says : “the same retarded faggots like Jensen and Rushton who have claimed the Flynn effect isn’t for g have claimed that Raven’s is g’s best measure”
I talked about the Flynn effect here. Try CTRL+F and type “Fox” or “Mitchum”. Some of the gains is due to psychometric bias. Also, Piaget tests actually show a decline in scores. Concerning nutrition, I’m afraid it does not explain Flynn gains; see my post on Flynn gains (section 2). None of your argument is special or new. If that is the best you can do, I really am disappointed.
There is bias when IQ scores reflect different amount of knowledge, above real [there is no “real” in the context of IQ tests. you’re making the classic mistake of assuming words always refer to THINGS. haven’t you read the study on the IQs of Afrikaners?] difference in ability.
I’ve never seen a subtest in a battery that wasn’t culturally loaded. That’s because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to make such a test. Digit span, coding, Raven’s are all going to be much more difficult for someone who’s never even seen a piece of paper let alone learned to write. That’s an extreme example, but the point is made all the same.
Mon Dieu Meng!
Then there’s nothing other than measurement bias Meng!
Jensen has already shown he’s got no hand or has shown he had no hand (he’s dead).
He claimed the Raven’s was culture-fair. And he made the mistake of equating within group to between group h^2.
Schoenemann was right about Jensen.
Why would you be disappointed?
Were you ever appointed?
Nothing special or new and still NOT understood by hereditists.
Some of the gains is due to psychometric bias.
there’s nothing other than psychometric bias you dumbfuck.
it’s time for Meng to read Wittgenstein.
You’re confusing culture loading and culture bias. The more a test is culture loaded, the more likely it may be biased. Culture bias test is necessarily culture loaded, but the reverse is not automatically true. They are two types of culture bias; one is when two groups of people unterpret the wordings or sentences differently, and another is rarity of exposure which causes members of one group to not know what is the meaning of the word. When the test is culture loaded, if people of all groups have the knowledge required by the test, there is no culture bias.
And reaction time tests are not culture loaded.
Also, Jensen never said Raven is culture-fair. This is another proof you never read his writings. Jensen said there is no culture-fair IQ tests. But some are more and some are less culture loaded. And Raven was, in his opinion, very culture-reduced. And actually, the Flynn effect does not disprove that Raven is very culture-reduced. Because nothing is known about what is causing the Flynn effect, and because of this.
Mean IQ in 1900 extrapolating would be 70.
It’s “psychometric bias”.
Do you have ANY IDEA WHATEVER what an IQ test is? What psychometrics is?
I really find it hard to believe how GROSS the STUPIDITY of hereditists can be.
They really need to learn that a word does not imply a THING.
You’re confusing culture loading and culture bias.
No. Meng is the one who’s confused here.
ALL tests are biased AND loaded. Do you live on Mars?
When the test is culture loaded, if people of all groups have the knowledge required by the test, there is no culture bias.
FALSE
Also, Jensen never said Raven is culture-fair.
FALSE
don’t make me look for the quote.
This is another proof you never read his writings.
Actually it’s proof you haven’t.
And it’s precisely because of Jensen’s assessment of the Raven’s that I will NEVER read him.
He was a MORON.
IT WAS THE RAVEN’S WHICH N-BACK PRACTICED IMPROVED!!!
THE MOST HERITABLE SUBTESTS OF THE WECHSLER ARE THE MOST CULTURALLY LOADED. CORRECTED FOR RELIABILITY THEY ARE STILL. VIZ. INFORMATION AND VOCABULARY. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/10/17/the-heritability-of-intelligence-not-what-you-think/
So you see Meng the Merciless, loading and bias cannot account for the Flynn Effect.
OR ANY HEREDITIST CLAIMS.
Mugabe :
“And he made the mistake of equating within group to between group h^2”
I repeat I’m correct in saying you have never read Jensen’s writings. In Educability & Group Differences, he mentioned that within-group h2 is not between-group h2. But he says the greater the within-group h2, the more likely that between-group h2 is larger than zero. He also has an argument that shows the black-white difference must have a genetic component. See ch. 7. And i can also say that the black heritability is equal to the white heritability. See here.
“FALSE don’t make me look for the quote.”
I won’t, because there is quote like this in Bias in Mental Testing. The passage is on page 374 :
You should just stop telling lies.
“Cultural load MUST be assessed SUBJECTIVELY. There is no other way.”
Wrong.
“THE MOST HERITABLE SUBTESTS OF THE WECHSLER ARE THE MOST CULTURALLY LOADED”
I know that link, and I know you’re not aware of my blog post, which was an answer to KJK even before he published his study.
these are quotes after Jensen’s bluff was called.
i’ll find the quote. and you’ll be ashamed.
“Cultural load MUST be assessed SUBJECTIVELY. There is no other way.”
Wrong.
you’re too stupid to talk to.
which was an answer to KJK even before he published his study
there is no answer meng.
the emperor has no clothes.
you can write exceedingly long and citation stuffed blog posts.
but there are certain things you obviously don’t, or perhaps can’t, understand or see.
Mugabe : “i’ll find the quote. and you’ll be ashamed.”
Yes, do so. I wish you good luck to find it…
why meng is retarded:
an English and an American adolescent are in gym class together at a Canadian high school.
some days the class plays soccer. other days it plays baseball.
then one day it plays indoor soccer.
“I’ve never played indoor soccer before”, says the English teen.
“Neither have I”, says the American.
Then Meng says, “Then it’s a novel game for both of you.”
Then one day the class plays hockey. The Canadians do well.
And Meng says, “No bias. There are Americans and English at this high school also.”
You can write absurdly long and pointless blog posts chock-a-block with citations, but they don’t impress. You can’t see the forest for the trees.
All tests are loaded and biased.
No tests are novel.
There is no means of assessing the degree of cultural loading, bias, or novelty.
As peepee might have said, even a child can understand this.
But Jensen and you haven’t been born yet.
it was “hearsay”. that is, it was a quote on another blog, like the above quote.
also,
there is no such thing as fluid intelligence. “fluid” is just a word.
though the tests which are categorized as fluid and those categorized as crystallized are different, the difference is NOT that one is fluid and the other crystallized. BOTH are crystallized 100%.
some other quotes (I found while looking) on the Raven’s from Jensen-tard:
…factorially the [R]PM apparently measures g and little else. . . The loadings that are occasionally found on other dperceptualT and dperformanceT-type factors, independently of g, are usually so trivial and inconsistent from one analysis to another as to suggest that the RPM does not reliably measure anything but g in the general population
g isn’t a thing which a thing, like the Raven’s, can measure. g is a statistic for a particular population at a particulat time and place.
The only authority cited by Jensen as support for this claim was a review by Burke (1958), which is surprising since Burke had argued that this was a peculiarly English view sponsored by Spearman, and had concluded his review of factorial studies with the statement: bThe evidence is not convincing that [R]PM (1938) has validity as a pure measure of the Spearman construct of g
Jensen-tard was not only a retarded racist. He was also a liar.
G f is most loaded in tests that have virtually no scholastic or cultural content, such as
perceptual and figural tests like Raven’s matrices
How would one know?
It’s subjective. Totally subjective.
There are some items in Raven’s Advanced Matrices, for example, that the majority of college students cannot solve with greater than chance success, even when given any amount of time, although the problems do not call for the retrieval of any particular knowledge.
FALSE
If the matrix doesn’t yield to analysis, then its “correct answer” requires a mind-meld with the test authors. That is, it requires specialized knowledge. That is, if the “correct answer” were explained, one would very likely say, “That’s absurd.” And one would be right. The test is made up by PhDs in psychology, that is, morons.
THE OVERWHELMIN PROBLEM WITH HBD IS THAT IT RELIES ON THE “RESULTS” OF PEOPLE WITH LOW IQS, TO WIT, PHDS IN PSUCHOLOGY.
Another quote:
While the secular gains are on g-loaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests.
And the Raven’s?
Jensen wasn’t just a pile of shit. He was an inconsistent pile of shit.
Pumpkinperson, could conscientiousness explain away differences in iq? Since both seem to be intertwined, how can we separate the 2 influences correctly? After all, if grades and wealth favor in conscientiousness very strongly, shouldn’t one’s iq not only measure g but also conscientiousness?
there’s no such thing as “conscientiousness”.
it’s just more reified psychobabble.
have you ever met a PhD in psychology?
to a man they’re morons.
jay-g,
I do think personality & motivational factors contaminate IQ tests but tests like the WAIS give problems & puzzles with short time limits (30 – 120 seconds) so even the least conscientious person can usually stay motivated for that long & because the test is individually administered, the psychologist makes a note of how hard you are trying & decides if the test was valid.
Conscientiousness probably plays a bigger role in group testing, especially the SAT because it’s an extremely long & boring test that you prep for & no one can keep track of how hard each person is trying. But by measuring conscientiousness , the SAT becomes an even better predictor of college grades
I did read the wiki on Jensen’s book Bias in Mental Testing, and it merely confirmed what I already knew…Jensen was a moron.
Let me explain to morons how a test can be unbiased and fair in Jensen’s sense yet still biased and unfair.
Cultural load MUST be assessed SUBJECTIVELY. There is no other way.
Is arithmetic less loaded or biased than vocabulary?
How could one know?
He couldn’t.
That one knows how to add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc. does not tell me how much one has practiced it.
That a subtest requires no “knowledge” does not mean it won’t be more or less familiar to one testee than it is to another.
That a subtest is “novel” does not mean the testee hasn’t done something like it before.
An example from my own experience. I was given the WISC at age nine. My high score on the performance section was in mazes. I had done a lot of mazes in books my parents had bought me. I, for some weird reason, was fond of drawing my own mazes.
Yet Jensen et al would claim mazes was not biased or loaded.
But what if white parents were much more likely to buy these books for their kids?
Etc.
Jensen was a racist moron.
And culture-fair tests like Raven might actually overestimate asian IQ, cause it is a spatial one. So there is not a perfect solution… yes, an ideal test should not improve results by practice.
I was also for a short period drawing my own mazes as a kid. 🙂
The Raven’s is NOT culture-fair. It is loaded and biased.
Thinking in abstract shapes and patterns is something some will have had more practice at than others even if never in the Raven’s itself.
The same results were found for Afrikaners in the 50s. They scored lower by ten points than British South Africans and as with black Americans the deficit was mostly in what Jensen claimed were culture-fair tests, which de facto if not de jure means non-verbal tests.
And what happened?
Now there is NO gap between Afrikaners and British South Africans. So many decades of the National Party and the political dominance of Afrikaners brought them up to the same standards as the British South Africans. One good thing the National Party did!
The same results were found for Afrikaners in the 50s. They scored lower by ten points than British South Africans and as with black Americans the deficit was mostly in what Jensen claimed were culture-fair tests, which de facto if not de jure means non-verbal tests.
And what happened?
Now there is NO gap between Afrikaners and British South Africans. So many decades of the National Party and the political dominance of Afrikaners brought them up to the same standards as the British South Africans. One good thing the National Party did!
Assuming this is even true, it proves nothing. In the span of a century the Dutch went from being among the shortest people in Europe to roughly the tallest in the world. So by your logic, tape measures must be culturally biased.
There’s this thing called nutrition. It affects both IQ and height:
yes, an ideal test should not improve results by practice.
Any fluid test will improve with practice because such tests are only fluid when they’re novel. Once you’ve seen them, you’ve been contaminated.
there are no novel tests.
there are no novel tests.
There are tests that are novel enough.
how could you possibly know?
ECTs and reaction time. but these aren’t part of any battery.
Emotional intelligence and other pseudo-positive labels used by psychology seems being related with ”ideal components to domesticated personality”.
Very smart people (higher iq OR other very higher ability) can be ”ultra-moralist”, specially when they are compared with ”normal or control population”, because they are fast to capture core problems of society. They born to do it. Capture more easily and fast the problems and propose solutions. But, greater majority of humanity are stupid in may ways, in many different levels and don’t understand intuitive and logical jumps. Humanity need to be training to accept ”reality”.
Many smarter people are emotionally irritable exactly because its solutions are not understood.
They aren’t anti-social predominantly by nature but (in parts) by social context.
Consciousness is other vague and potentially wrong label created by psychology.
People are more ”conscious” by what…
I know many these ”higher iq and conscious people”. Its ”conscious-ness” is not the same about ”self awareness”. They not have this component, more than others, is not about +, but -, less… They aren’t wiser and self aware enough to understand visceral problems of society. They can capture local problems and become specialists in ”climate”, ”diversity problems” (=more diversity) or ”math”. Education create this types. But, they are not capable to capture the essence of context and ”big picture”.
I’ll just repost my earlier comment regarding the transracial adoption study. The white participants in the study regressed to the mean Minnesota white IQ between childhood and adulthood.
Both the adopted children and the black children had greater regressions than a simple r*sd “equation would predict. And that’s even assuming that the Minnesota black population had the same IQ as the national black population (it’s even worse otherwise).
—-
I also showed that Bouchard’s FEL stat failed to match the population variability in education. Again — mean education level 3 years over the median population level. The standard deviation, at 4.5, necessarily meant that well over half the FEL distribution in Bouchard’s study was in or above the top 10-15-tile of the population.
—
Now I turn to the Texas Adoption Study. The problem here is selective placement. There are strong correlations between the biological mother and adopted child; but there are also correlations between the adopted child’s biological mother and unrelated children in that same adoptive family. We also have the usual problem of range restriction. Next we have the fact that these tests never seem to account for adoption itself being a potential environmental stressor.
And last, the same criticism — P = G + E.
The white participants in the study regressed to the mean Minnesota white IQ between childhood and adulthood.
Both the adopted children and the black children had greater regressions than a simple r*sd “equation would predict. And that’s even assuming that the Minnesota black population had the same IQ as the national black population (it’s even worse otherwise).
Childhood IQ is affected by social environment. The kids had good social environments so their childhood IQ was enhanced. Their IQ’s went down as they got older simply because social environment loses its relevance as kids get older.
If the kids had all been adopted into bad homes we would have observed the opposite phenomenon. IQ’s would have gone UP as kids got older
I also showed that Bouchard’s FEL stat failed to match the population variability in education. Again — mean education level 3 years over the median population level. The standard deviation, at 4.5, necessarily meant that well over half the FEL distribution in Bouchard’s study was in or above the top 10-15-tile of the population.
I don;t care if they were all the top 1%. It’s not the level of environment that matters in the study, but the VARIABILITY. Your argument is that the study underestimated the correlation between IQ and environment. Correlations are underestimated because of range restriction, and range restriction is measured by the SD so unless you have evidence that SD was small, it doesn’t matter whether the mean was too high or too low, under conventional statistical assumptions.
Now I turn to the Texas Adoption Study. The problem here is selective placement. There are strong correlations between the biological mother and adopted child; but there are also correlations between the adopted child’s biological mother and unrelated children in that same adoptive family.
Citation?
We also have the usual problem of range restriction.
It’s supposed to be restricted in the example I cited, because they’re showing that even when environment is controlled, the range of IQ’s remain just as wide and just as predictable from the biological mother’s IQ.
Next we have the fact that these tests never seem to account for adoption itself being a potential environmental stressor.
Nope. Jensen has stated that there’s no evidence that adoption lowers IQ.
And last, the same criticism — P = G + E.
What formula do you propose and please explain how it explains the results
‘Childhood IQ is affected by social environment. The kids had good social environments so their childhood IQ was enhanced. Their IQ’s went down as they got older simply because social environment loses its relevance as kids get older.
If the kids had all been adopted into bad homes we would have observed the opposite phenomenon. IQ’s would have gone UP as kids got older’
That’s a circular argument. It could be that. Or it could be that the social environment changes between 7 and 17; as in ‘household’ fails to capture the effect of that environment.
If the kids had been adopted into bad homes but were let loose into a good social environment, IQ’s would have gone up as kids got older.
And once again, “regression to the mean” and “unreliability” do not tell us anything about the relevance of genes or environment. They merely tell us that it takes several tests to get the “true” result; not that age or genes have anything to do with securing the true result.
‘I don;t care if they were all the top 1%. It’s not the level of environment that matters in the study, but the VARIABILITY.’
Yes. And if the cluster of the entire normal population is 98% captured by only the lower 30-40% of the sample distribution, the sample distribution has indeed failed to capture the normal population’s variability.
‘Your argument is that the study underestimated the correlation between IQ and environment. Correlations are underestimated because of range restriction’
They’re also underestimated when the pearson is used to measure correlation between two variables that have a non-linear relationship. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that SES/Education and IQ have this relationship. And if your population sample is set up to MISS this relationship, then you will believe the line fits when in fact you must acquit.
‘Nope. Jensen has stated that there’s no evidence that adoption lowers IQ.’
Where? Cite? Source?
‘Citation?’
” There is strong evidence of selective placement in the TAP and MAS studies [e.g., from sizeable correlations between biological mothers of adopted children and unrelated children in the same adoptive family; Scarr & Carter-Saltzman, 1989]”
‘What formula do you propose and please explain how it explains the results’
I have NO SUCH BURDEN. I merely need to show that the CURRENT FORMULA makes several unwarranted assumptions, which makes it deficient.
Norms of reaction alone destroy the formula. The evidence that intersecting reaction norms as a rule rather than exception destroys the formula. The formula’s “results” tend to come from its own assumptions.
That’s a circular argument. It could be that. Or it could be that the social environment changes between 7 and 17; as in ‘household’ fails to capture the effect of that environment.
If that’s true, why is the social environment changing in ways that mimic genetic effects?
And once again, “regression to the mean” and “unreliability” do not tell us anything about the relevance of genes or environment. They merely tell us that it takes several tests to get the “true” result; not that age or genes have anything to do with securing the true result.
So you’re arguing that adopted kids score better in childhood because childhood tests are unreliable,and not because the adoptive environment caused real improvement in childhood? Your arguing against your own case.
They’re also underestimated when the pearson is used to measure correlation between two variables that have a non-linear relationship. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that SES/Education and IQ have this relationship. And if your population sample is set up to MISS this relationship, then you will believe the line fits when in fact you must acquit.
But the Minnesota trans-cultural adoption study was set up to NOT MISS any relationship between SES and IQ, because here you have an extreme case of kids being adopted from low SES oppressed culturally deprived populations into white professional upper middle class homes and getting zero IQ benefit by age 17. This tells me that even if the twin studies included more low SES homes, the adult results would hardly change
Where? Cite? Source?
Second paragraph of pg 477 of “The g Factor” by Arthur Jensen. Someone kindly put the entire book on the internet for anyone to read for free:
There is strong evidence of selective placement in the TAP and MAS studies [e.g., from sizeable correlations between biological mothers of adopted children and unrelated children in the same adoptive family; Scarr & Carter-Saltzman, 1989]”
That may indeed cast a shadow of doubt over the Texas adoption study.
I have NO SUCH BURDEN. I merely need to show that the CURRENT FORMULA makes several unwarranted assumptions, which makes it deficient.
In science one must make a lot of working assumptions. Every scientific field does this, but HBD is held to a higher standard because it’s politically incorrect.
‘If that’s true, why is the social environment changing in ways that mimic genetic effects?’
when you assume the effects are genetic, I guess you would think that social environment changes “in ways that mimic genetic effects.”
‘So you’re arguing that adopted kids score better in childhood because childhood tests are unreliable,and not because the adoptive environment caused real improvement in childhood? Your arguing against your own case.’
That’s not my argument at all. The main group’s lower scores are explained by regression. The adopted group’s scores are not. The early “improved scores” are “improvement” + “random error.” In adulthood, those “improvements” have vanished, even correcting for normal regression. Why?
We know there is a change in environment between 7 and 17. As far as I know, there isn’t any real change in a person’s genome.
‘But the Minnesota trans-cultural adoption study was set up to NOT MISS any relationship between SES and IQ’
If they are all put into the same exact environment we will miss the non-linear relationship…..
If the effect drops off after level 10, and we put everyone in a level 10+ home, we will not find a significant correlation.
‘That may indeed cast a shadow of doubt over the Texas adoption study.’
More like ‘put it in a dark room.’
‘Second paragraph of…’
“There is no evidence that the effect of adoption is to lower a child’s IQ from
what it would have been if the child were reared by it own parents, and some
evidence indicates the contrary.56 Nor is there evidence that transracial adoption per se is disadvantageous for cognitive development. Three independent studies of Asian children (from Cambodia, Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam) adopted into white families in the United States and Belgium have found that, by school age, their IQ (and scholastic achievement), on average, considerably exceeds that of middle-class white American and Belgian children by at least ten IQ points, despite the fact that many of the Asian children had been diagnosed as suffering from malnutrition prior to adoption.”
That proves nothing. In fact, he’s describing improvement in child IQ scores — the same phenomenon we observe with the other children.
A few paragraphs below that, he discusses the .28 correlation between environment and IQ versus a .39 correlation with genetic indicators (race and education). He then speculates regarding the mother’s education and I — stating that it’s a poor proxy. It was written in 1998. My guess is that education in the 70’s was more highly correlated with IQ — higher education required a good score on the SAT, which correlated highly with IQ before 1994.
‘In science one must make a lot of working assumptions. Every scientific field does this, but HBD is held to a higher standard because it’s politically incorrect.’
The caveat is that the assumptions MUST WORK. Norms of reaction ARE THE NORM. The entire model FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM. We are no closer to finding and sorting specific genes for intelligence that act in G + E = P manner. Indeed, every time we discover anything, we discover a complex combination of genes that are connected by several environmental triggers and NORs.
when you assume the effects are genetic, I guess you would think that social environment changes “in ways that mimic genetic effects.”
No when people adopted from a low SES culture into a high SES culture score exactly the same as if they weren’t adopted at all, then this is strong evidence that IQ is determined by genes not the social environment. In light of this extremely strong evidence, the burden is on you to explain how the social environment is still dragging down the IQ’s of such kids, even after such a privileged upbringing.
‘
That’s not my argument at all. The main group’s lower scores are explained by regression. The adopted group’s scores are not.
Regression is not an explanation. It’s a description of what needs explaining.
The early “improved scores” are “improvement” + “random error.” In adulthood, those “improvements” have vanished, even correcting for normal regression. Why?
Because social environment has virtually zero effect on adult IQ. It affects childhood IQ because children need to master certain attitudes such as concentration, trying hard, listening to instructions before an IQ test can fully measure their intelligence. Those attitudes are learned first by high SES kids but eventually virtually all kids acquire them so in childhood IQ tests largely measure SES but by adulthood they are excellent measures of intelligence.
That proves nothing. In fact, he’s describing improvement in child IQ scores — the same phenomenon we observe with the other children.
So your argument is now what? That adoption lowers IQ?
The caveat is that the assumptions MUST WORK. Norms of reaction ARE THE NORM. The entire model FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM. We are no closer to finding and sorting specific genes for intelligence that act in G + E = P manner. Indeed, every time we discover anything, we discover a complex combination of genes that are connected by several environmental triggers and NORs.
The same ethnic IQ differences have been found for a hundred years on several continents, and indeed there’s evidence of these same ethnic IQ differences existing thousands of years. For example civilizations were only independently created by populations of caucasoid or mongoloid ancestry (The 2 highest scoring macro-ethnic groups) Norms of reaction would predict one group would be smarter in one place or time and another group would be smarter in a different place and time. That’s true to a small degree when comparing similar ethnic groups, but not true when comparing the most divergent ethnic groups.
‘No when people adopted from a low SES culture into a high SES culture score exactly the same as if they weren’t adopted at all, then this is strong evidence that IQ is determined by genes not the social environment.’
And this is an assumption. The transracial adoption study DID NOT include the biological IQs of the adopted children’s parents (as far as I can tell, anyway).
Further, in the current adoption study Indian/East Asian adoptees — predicted to score higher — still ended up with scores substantially lower than the white adoptees.
The study also notes a significant amount of IQ variance (~13%) explained by early adoptive experiences. UNSURPRISINGLY, blacks had the WORST early adoptive experiences.
‘Regression is not an explanation. It’s a description of what needs explaining.’
REGRESSION TO THE MEAN.
‘Because social environment has virtually zero effect on adult IQ.’
this is an ASSUMPTION and ASSERTION.
‘So your argument is now what? That adoption lowers IQ?’
No. Once again….if the early scores are the sum of “random error” and “actual improvement,” then adoption would have improved IQ. This improvement -for some reason- vanished between ages 7 and 17. Your answer is to assume that social environment has nothing to do with Adult IQ. My answer is that it’s equally plausible that the change in social environment produced these changes in IQ.
Based on interviews with the adoptive parents, all adoptees were more likely to have some sort of “school-age” problems. Caucasians generally more well-adjusted, and everyone else had varying degrees of problems.
‘The same ethnic IQ differences have been found for a hundred years on several continents, and indeed there’s evidence of these same ethnic IQ differences existing thousands of years.’
…and the IQ differences have also changed; IQs have also changed due to the Flynn effect.
No. Once again….if the early scores are the sum of “random error” and “actual improvement,” then adoption would have improved IQ. This improvement -for some reason- vanished between ages 7 and 17. Your answer is to assume that social environment has nothing to do with Adult IQ. My answer is that it’s equally plausible that the change in social environment produced these changes in IQ.
But your explanation is not plausible because there’s no social environment mechanism that causes the IQ’s of adopted kids to become progressively more similar to their genetic relatives & progressively less similar to their adopted relatives.
Now in the case of transracial adopted studies you could argue that as blacks get older, they are victims of a racist social environment which drags their IQ’s down, but all adopted people become more like their biological relatives & less like their adopted relatives, the older they get; not blacks only.
Now you can argue that adoption studies underestimate environmental effects because adoptive parents aren’t variable or low class enough, but this does not explain why people become more & more like their like their biological relatives they’ve never met.
…and the IQ differences have also changed; IQs have also changed due to the Flynn effect.
The black-white IQ gap has remained about 15 points for the last 100 years of American history, even as environment has changed so dramatically that both races have seen their test performance rise 30 points & huge civil rights changes have occurred . This is evidence against the relevance of norms of reaction in this context
‘But your explanation is not plausible because there’s no social environment mechanism that causes the IQ’s of adopted kids to become progressively more similar to their genetic relatives & progressively less similar to their adopted relatives.’
How again, do you know that they are becoming more similar to their genetic relatives from this study? The biological parent IQ’s are not included. You can say ‘move back to the mean,’ sure. But then you must explain the poor performance of East Asian/Indian adoptees. They certainly did not regress to their population’s mean.
Regardless, you may be looking at it backwards: the removal of whatever social environment mechanism that the adopted home captured until around age 7 would indeed do the trick.
‘Now in the case of transracial adopted studies you could argue that as blacks get older, they are victims of a racist social environment which drags their IQ’s down, but all adopted people become more like their biological relatives & less like their adopted relatives, the older they get; not blacks only.’
No, their IQs show a pattern of dropping. And as I stated, ALL adoptees suffered from problems outside the home. Unsurprisingly, blacks suffered the most problems.
‘Now you can argue that adoption studies underestimate environmental effects because adoptive parents aren’t variable or low class enough, but this does not explain why people become more & more like their like their biological relatives they’ve never met.’
This is just an assumption, as I have stated. You assume that because their IQs have dropped, this necessarily means they have become more like their ‘biological parents.’ I bet if you controlled for peer group, affiliations, similar problems, etc. etc. these kids would become “more like” their friends.
‘The black-white IQ gap has remained about 15 points for the last 100 years of American history, even as environment has changed so dramatically that both races have seen their test performance rise 30 points & huge civil rights changes have occurred . This is evidence against the relevance of norms of reaction in this context’
First of all, the gap relative to United States society in no way harms the norms of reaction analysis. It’s still a relatively homogenous environment, and the test is promulgated with that environment’s norms. Moving on, I’d say that you’re overestating how much the black environment changed. Last, “the constancy of the black/white IQ gap is a myth. Blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on whites over the last 30 years. ”
How again, do you know that they are becoming more similar to their genetic relatives from this study?
I’m assuming that the biological parents of the adopted black kids have IQ’s around the black mean.
But then you must explain the poor performance of East Asian/Indian adoptees. They certainly did not regress to their population’s mean.
Are you talking about the Indian and Asian kids in the Minnesota transracial adoption study? These did seem to score around the mean of both groups combined, since the Indians were Native Americans who have a relatively low mean.
Regardless, you may be looking at it backwards: the removal of whatever social environment mechanism that the adopted home captured until around age 7 would indeed do the trick.
Two general facts have emerged from many studies cited by Jensen, and need explaining:
1), the IQ correlations of genetically unrelated people raised together decreases with age
2) the the IQ correlations of genetically related people raised apart increases with age.
Now your theory is that social environment is important at all ages, but only reflects adoptive home in childhood, explains fact #1 but it fails to explain fact #2. My theory, that social environment is only important in childhood, parsimoniously explains both.
No, their IQs show a pattern of dropping. And as I stated, ALL adoptees suffered from problems outside the home. Unsurprisingly, blacks suffered the most problems.
Well you can always come up with ad hoc explanations for each specific study; ideally it would be nice to have a reverse study where upper middle class white kids were adopted into lower class black homes. If such a study were possible, I would expect the adopted white kids to score in the 90s during childhood, but as they got older rise to about IQ 105 (the same as upper middle class white kids raised with their biological parents). Although I doubt you would find such a study very convincing either.
First of all, the gap relative to United States society in no way harms the norms of reaction analysis. It’s still a relatively homogenous environment, and the test is promulgated with that environment’s norms.
But the U.S. environment has changed so massively for both races in the last 100 years that the test performance of both races has increased by an astonishing 30 points, and yet the gap between them remains 15 points.
Moving on, I’d say that you’re overestating how much the black environment changed.
Really? That whole civil rights movement had little effect?
Last, “the constancy of the black/white IQ gap is a myth. Blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on whites over the last 30 years. ”
Not true. Rushton & Jensen collected excellent nationally representative data from 1954 to 2008 on the same test and found no narrowing of the black-white IQ gap in at least 54 years:
1), the IQ correlations of genetically unrelated people raised together decreases with age
2) the the IQ correlations of genetically related people raised apart increases with age.
only in the context of the laughable P = G + E model.
it’s pointless.
peepee hasn’t passed seventh grade math yet.
only in the context of the laughable P = G + E model.
it’s pointless.
I didn’t say anything about G + E you moron. I simply cited 2 facts that need explaining. You’re too stupid to explain them so you just repeat the same tired mantra over and over again like some kind of severely autistic person.
of course you didn’t say anything about, blah, blah, blah, …
BUT THOSE FINDINGS ONLY NEED EXPLAINING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INDEPENEDENT EFFECTS MODEL.
here the problem is conceptual. peepee is unaware that he’s laboring under a delusion. he lives in Flatland, but the real world is multi dimensional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
you are the moron peepee.
Stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
BUT THOSE FINDINGS ONLY NEED EXPLAINING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INDEPENEDENT EFFECTS MODEL.
So what is the explanation under the dependent effects model?
‘I’m assuming that the biological parents of the adopted black kids have IQ’s around the black mean.’
And such an assumption leads to the same question — the drop is too great for regression to the mean.
‘These did seem to score around the mean of both groups combined, since the Indians were Native Americans who have a relatively low mean.’
It’s unclear, but according to Lynn there were 12 asians. The entire Asian/Indian group was 14 strong. So…
‘explains fact #1 but it fails to explain fact #2. My theory, that social environment is only important in childhood, parsimoniously explains both.’
This is a deficient attempt to invoke Occam’s razor. The identical twin studies on “fact #2” are extremely weak because they fail to mirror the population environment distribution. The correlation between fraternal twins and biological siblings reared apart is pretty low. To the point where controlling for other incidental common factors may explain the “increase in similarity.” So “fact #2” is hardly a fact.
Further, your theory assumes the existence of some hidden variable that is not present in mine. In mine, during development, social environment is important. Period. In your theory, some invisible force allows social environment to operate for X amount of time during development, then that force switches on the genetic influence. Sounds less parsimonious than you’re letting on…
‘Well you can always come up with ad hoc explanations for each specific study;’
It’s not an ad hoc explanation. Blacks tend to experience the worst environments.
‘ ideally it would be nice to have a reverse study where upper middle class white kids were adopted into lower class black homes’
How about a study where low class white kids were adopted into higher class families?
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0VDoaXaIou8dGVjb1hEZndHRW8/edit?pli=1
Social environment still seems fairly important in mid-adolescence….
‘But the U.S. environment has changed so massively for both races in the last 100 years that the test performance of both races has increased by an astonishing 30 points, and yet the gap between them remains 15 points’
Whites always had nearly equal parity. They were given more nutrition. Blacks have never had equal parity. They were given more nutrition.
‘Really? That whole civil rights movement had little effect?’
Not little, but here, I will paint you a picture. A bully is allowed to mercilessly beat you up every day after school. You are humiliated in front of the entire school daily. Finally you have had enough. You call the school principle to interdict this daily practice. The school principle, after much prodding, agrees and does so. The bully can no longer beat the shit out of you.
Do you think your status and standing in the school will change much?
‘Not true’
Rushton and Jensen concede a 2.1 point gain in IQ in that paper, though.
The entire model is horseshit, but even within the model, HBDers overstate the case….which is sad.
dear God peepee.
why does there need to be an explanation of any kind?
plant a cactus wherever you like. if it’s not planted in the desert or a particular desert you learn ABOLUTELY NOTHING about its potential.
that is, hereditists are “explaining” something which CAN’T be explained with tests and high school statistics.
and nothing needs explaining.
h^2 for any give trait is simply a FACT of a given population at a given time and place.
AND even WITHIN the independents effects model
AND WITHOUT correction for the correlation of environments of adoptees and twins and the RIDICULOUS EEA,
the single best estimate for the BROAD heritability of IQ is < .5.
what is hereditisim other than the belief that psychological traits are MOSTLY determined by genes.
AND even in the case of IQ (BY FAR the most heritable of such traits)
AND even with the above ABSURD simplifications and biases…
THE SINGLE BEST ESTIMATE IS < .5. THAT IS, NOT MOSTLY.
And maybe there will never be a black world chess champion or Nobel laureate in physics.
And maybe a white man will never again win the gold in the Olympic 100 m.
But these are EXTREMES.
Given the level of exclusion, isolation, ghetto-ization, cultural dislocation of black Americans, it’s remarkable they score as high as they do.
And such an assumption leads to the same question — the drop is too great for regression to the mean.
This appears to be a misunderstanding on your part.
It’s unclear, but according to Lynn there were 12 asians. The entire Asian/Indian group was 14 strong. So…
The sample size is small and unless all of the Asians were Northeast Asians, there’s no reason to expect high IQ. Southeast Asians score low.
This is a deficient attempt to invoke Occam’s razor. The identical twin studies on “fact #2″ are extremely weak because they fail to mirror the population environment distribution.
Flawed as the studies may be, the correlation between separated twins still increases in adulthood. Why?
The correlation between fraternal twins and biological siblings reared apart is pretty low.
Only in childhood is it low. By adulthood it’s the same as biological siblings reared together
How about a study where low class white kids were adopted into higher class families?
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0VDoaXaIou8dGVjb1hEZndHRW8/edit?pli=1
Social environment still seems fairly important in mid-adolescence….
Very interesting study. The white kids adopted into a high SES home scored 12 points higher at age 13 than equivalent white kids adopted into low SES homes, but a follow-up study is needed to see if they’ve maintained that 12 point advantage
Whites always had nearly equal parity. They were given more nutrition. Blacks have never had equal parity. They were given more nutrition.
The point is both races were malnourished 100 years ago and both are well nourished today, yet whites maintained their 15 IQ point advantage under both environmental conditions. Evidence against norms of reaction on IQ.
Not little, but here, I will paint you a picture.
The integration of schools and affirmative action and the reduction of racism have likely reduced social environmental inequality significantly over the last 100 years
the single best estimate for the BROAD heritability of IQ is < .5.
Citation? Jensen says 0.8 by later adulthood.
plant a cactus wherever you like. if it’s not planted in the desert or a particular desert you learn ABOLUTELY NOTHING about its potential.
Sure you do; you learn that it lacks the genetic potential to thrive outside the desert. And if there are few deserts in America, then you learn that its failure to thrive in America is genetic.
‘This appears to be a misunderstanding on your part.’
No. First you said they become more like their biological parents. Then you assumed that their biological parents were just around the population mean.
In which case, they would be bound to “become more like their parents” because of regression to the mean anyway, which deprives the point of force.
And, that assumption does lead us back to the same question from before.
‘The sample size is small and unless all of the Asians were Northeast Asians, there’s no reason to expect high IQ. Southeast Asians score low.’
Fair enough. According to the authors in response to Lynn, the genetic hypothesis would predict this group to score higher. Perhaps they were ignorant of these classifications.
‘Flawed as the studies may be, the correlation between separated twins still increases in adulthood. Why?’
I explained why in reference to the frat twin/bio sibling context.
‘Only in childhood is it low. By adulthood it’s the same as biological siblings reared together’
And in which case the same defects of the Twin Studies likely apply — are those biological “reared apart” studies control to sift out the effects I mentioned? General cohort effects? Same town, same area, same age, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Point me to one.
‘Very interesting study. The white kids adopted into a high SES home scored 12 points higher at age 13 than equivalent white kids adopted into low SES homes, but a follow-up study is needed to see if they’ve maintained that 12 point advantage’
Perhaps…but 14 years is a little more than halfway between 7 years old and 17 years old. So……..is there some magical genetic switch that turns on between 14 and 17?
‘The point is both races were malnourished 100 years ago and both are well nourished today, yet whites maintained their 15 IQ point advantage under both environmental conditions. Evidence against norms of reaction on IQ.’
No, it’s not. An entire cultural environment is not just food.
‘The integration of schools and affirmative action and the reduction of racism have likely reduced social environmental inequality significantly over the last 100 years’
Again, return yourself to the school. The bully can no longer physically accost you. And THAT’S the ONLY difference. Your life HAS changed A LOT. Yet, you are still at the very, very bottom of the hierarchy. And it’s not like the bully can’t push you around in more subtle ways.
Southern European immigrants versus Northern Europeans “assimilateds” had a huge IQ gap in the 1920s. That gap has since disappeared. In the meantime, a) a strict anti-immigration regime was enacted — which suddenly quieted (more like mooted) the discussion and b) a group assimilated into ‘white’ society.
In the meantime….blacks have yet to pull off b). It’s also funny how most HBDers favor a general “rollback” on certain policies (the parallel here is a)).
Now, everyone can STILL BE correct if we just toss out the model and accept that P = G + E as a total derivative and limit (ha!) our statements accordingly.
But even if we’re charging forward within the current model, the above should shed light on part of the situation blacks find themselves in.
No. First you said they become more like their biological parents. Then you assumed that their biological parents were just around the population mean.
In which case, they would be bound to “become more like their parents” because of regression to the mean anyway, which deprives the point of force.
The point is the adopted kids ended up with the mean IQ of their biological race, not their adopted race.
And in which case the same defects of the Twin Studies likely apply — are those biological “reared apart” studies control to sift out the effects I mentioned? General cohort effects? Same town, same area, same age, etc. etc. etc. etc.
You can argue that the studies underestimated environmental effects, but that doesn’t explain why those environmental effects diminished with age within the same studies.
Perhaps…but 14 years is a little more than halfway between 7 years old and 17 years old. So……..is there some magical genetic switch that turns on between 14 and 17?
Yes, puberty, which causes a lot of genes to be expressed. But more importantly, kids raised in low class homes are not trained to sit still, concentrate, and try their best on mental tasks, and thus tend not to fully acquire those habits until at least a dozen of years of schooling. Kids raised in upper class homes get domesticated early, and thus have an unfair advantage on childhood IQ tests but this advantage seems to vanish by adulthood when lower classes have finally acquired the same attitudes, and so adult IQ much better reflects biology.
No, it’s not. An entire cultural environment is not just food.
But massive changes in nutrition is a huge environmental shift, and one that displayed no evidence of norms of reaction with respect to IQ.
Again, return yourself to the school. The bully can no longer physically accost you. And THAT’S the ONLY difference. Your life HAS changed A LOT. Yet, you are still at the very, very bottom of the hierarchy. And it’s not like the bully can’t push you around in more subtle ways.
You don’t believe the actual culture has become significantly less racist against blacks over the last 100 years?
Southern European immigrants versus Northern Europeans “assimilateds” had a huge IQ gap in the 1920s. That gap has since disappeared. In the meantime, a) a strict anti-immigration regime was enacted — which suddenly quieted (more like mooted) the discussion and b) a group assimilated into ‘white’ society.
According to Lynn, the gap has not disappeared. But yes, IQ gaps between races can be wholly environmental, especially if the test used is culturally biased and the groups differ in language and educational opportunities. Even culture reduced tests can show environmental group differences if the groups differ in nutrition or test taking attitudes and motivation. Each group difference must be investigated on an individual basis.
‘The point is the adopted kids ended up with the mean IQ of their biological race, not their adopted race.’
Yes I get the point. However, this was bound to happen anyway seeing as how their adopted parents were above mean IQ and the adopted children tested above mean IQ.
Further, nothing in what I’m saying precludes a genetic influence. If a biological genotype gives a possible range of phenotype trait values, with a mean phenotypic value corresponding to the value in a certain, common developmental environment (whatever the parents were immersed in), then taking the child outside of whatever environment maximizes that genotype’s trait value will naturally cause that trait to regress back toward the parent’s value anyway.
‘You can argue that the studies underestimated environmental effects, but that doesn’t explain why those environmental effects diminished with age within the same studies.’
The defects actually would help explain a lot of it. Like I said, if they found a correlation between siblings but just used a totally random stranger to compare….well, that’s not quite fair. The correlation between siblings reared apart and their respective peers compared with the correlation between siblings is probably better and would settle the question.
‘and so adult IQ much better reflects biology.’
That’s a neat theory that makes several huge assumptions.The first one being that the lower classes “adopt” this attitude you speak of…ever.
And you’re hanging your hat on puberty, eh? Fine, then for biological siblings, we must note that increasing the similarity in age significantly increases the similarity in eventual IQ…which suggests that the environment common to them plays a large part.
‘But massive changes in nutrition is a huge environmental shift, and one that displayed no evidence of norms of reaction with respect to IQ.’
Better nutrition alone would fail to implicate norms of reaction…
‘You don’t believe the actual culture has become significantly less racist against blacks over the last 100 years?’
I believe the bully is prohibited from directly beating up the kid. Why don’t you take a look at actual demographics and tell me? Blacks are still in a state of de facto segregation.
‘According to Lynn, the gap has not disappeared.’
And he’s dead wrong.
So you agree then that many IQ gaps are indeed “environmental.” Actually, the environmental IQ gap is the rule rather than the exception. And, the Southern European Immigrant gap was, at the time, determined to be primarily due to genetics.
It’s not the level of environment that matters in the study, but the VARIABILITY.
it’s both.
the distribution must be identical to that of the population at large.
the only way to assure this is a deliberately random sample.
More metaphorical examples of how the cultural load and bias can’t be measured:
Person A plays video games a lot. Person B never plays video games.
Person A and person B play a video game neither has played before.
Who’ll do better, ceteris paribus?
A tree grows in the Great Karoo. Another grows in Ottawa.
Both are broad leaf trees and therefore “know” how to make leaves.
Therefore, the test which measures number of leaves or weight of leaves isn’t biased?
How many times have I said it?
The question is…How smart could I be or could I have been relative to the rest in an environment particularly suited to me?
an anecdote illustrating how little a given place and time may say about the potential of an individual or a group.
the final of the 1960 100 m. the world record holder at the time, Armin Hary, won it.
there were three blacks and three whites in the race.
gold, silver, and bronze went to the whites.
it took how many decades after Marciano for a European to win the title again (excluding the very brief reign of Johansson)?
it took the fall of the Soviet Union for two Ukrainian brothers to become heavy weight champions.
peepee should also watch the vid on the two Chinese twins.
the American mother says they’re so alike, but I didn’t see it.
one twin appears to spend most of her time outdoors and has a pet mouse.
the other’s adoptive parents aren’t Chinese, but they act like “Chinese parents”…if you know what I mean.
if kids like these had a mean difference in IQ much less than that of their non-adopted siblings, that would be a REAL problem for critics.
that is:
1. find this mean difference between twins.
2. to correct for lack of variability in adoptive homes in general, find the mean difference for the distribution of IQs of these families’ biological children. very likely this distribution is restricted and higher than average.
And, btw, Swanknasty is RIGHT about the Bouchard study. It’s in the numbers.
The variance is only 10 points, and the mean is 108.
The likelihood that either of these could result from a random sample of the white population is so close to zero it’s zero.
Mean IQ off regression off education off etc etc
All I have to show is that these studies aren’t strong support for much if anything.
“How can this “culture-free-culture-bound” continuum be characterized? A test item’s location on the continuum, relative to all other items, reflects the degree of its generality across subpopulations, both with respect to the content of the item and the formal demands of the item (i.e., understanding the test instructions or what one is expected to do with the item). By “generality” is meant the number of different subpopulations (however defined) in which the item can be deemed appropriate in terms of the subpopulation’s background and experience. This is admittedly a highly subjective judgment, and that is why this particular hypothetical continuum is of quite limited usefulness and not of crucial importance in the objective study of mental tests. Among various judges, however, there is a high degree of subjective agreement asto the relative positions of many test items on the continuum.”
I know, I know, this quote is meaningless, right? 🙂
“In other words, for a perfectly reliable and unbiased test, the major and minor groups share one and the same regression line.”
But for (every) test in the real world that is not perfectly reliable: “Unreliability, as we shall see, actually gives a disadvantage to high-scoring persons (regardless of their group membership). Hence any group with fewer high-scoring persons is thereby favored, as a group, by a test’s unreliability.”
…
So what happened in the Twin Study, exactly? 🙂
*Transracial adoption study
as he says you must correct for each group’s individual mean for regression….and the scores still show a greater drop. why.
jensen is hoist by his own retard.
really these guys need to start at the beginning if they’re ever going to convince anyone but themselves.
viz. they’ll have to find allelic correlates of certain physical measurements in the brain, like the alleles for wye color or skin color or whatever. there aren’t many of these.
see. if a group scores a lot lower on these tests on average, rather than assume there’s something wrong with the tests, you should just separate out that group, mean the scores, then correct for this separation you just made.
🙂
I try to understand the logic of a person who claims to have high iq, but denies the same genetic influences, which is not part of the body, biology, but is an expression of it.
How Kanazawa said, is not education that increases intelligence. Are the intelligent people who (tend to) seek for education and especially for knowledge.
Environmental factors can influence the expression of potentiality. In phenotypic expression, not the genotype. And in this case, I refer to the non-biological environmental factors.
It’s like when you have a very smart child who does poorly in school. The fact that doing poorly in school does not make her less intelligent.
There is a real need to study more about the role of the environment on gene from conception, ie, the union of sperm and ovum. People seem to be completely disregarding the basic lessons of genetic, y’all already had.
‘It’s like when you have a very smart child who does poorly in school. The fact that doing poorly in school does not make her less intelligent.’
It’s almost like….you put someone who has the potential to excel in environment Y in environment X, where he doesn’t excel.
What about this possibility?
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/poverty-mental-capacity-complex-tasks
Let me analogize — a white kid who has all white friends in a mostly white town in a country dominated by white media has how many social ills? Few, if any. Social interaction “comes easy” to him FOR SOME REASON. Wherever he goes, he’s accepted. He must HAVE A TALENT for it, as they say.
A black kid who has all black friends in a mostly white town in a country dominated by white media gets further removed from his environment — interact with these white children, say the researchers. The black individual second-guesses himself, he knows the white children do not like him or at least distrust him and he must filter every action through these thoughts. He’s awkward and stilted when trying to fit in to white social norms, and flatly rejected when trying to adhere to his familiar norms. He’s BAD AT SOCIAL INTERACTION, they say. He must HAVE SOME SORT OF DEFECT.
The excuse ever. Then go to Africa to see how the environment of a black child in a country of blacks, with black media. Black Americans should thank you for being born in the Western Hemisphere.
Why blacks in the Americas (except Haiti) tend to have higher IQ than black Africans ??
It is not a defect, necessarily. Are different reproductive strategies. However, the strategy of the black comes with high costs for the population.
As you pour your empathy for them, fighting against criticism of black behavior and their tendency to be less technically smart, millions of ordinary black people that has nothing to do with his personal crusade against racist thinking, are dying, being murdered by psychopaths low functioning that abound among them. It’s not even a matter of physiological race, but mental. Psychopaths thrive in sub-Saharan population demographically.
I saw an article talking about the future genocide of peaceful tribes of sub-Saharan blacks by other blacks, other subraces.
Stop this demagoguery. The ‘independence’ of african ” nations ” has killed millions of people and sentenced to life for millions to total poverty.
The problem with these studies is that there are many, many variables and IQ does not explain everything about intelligence, although it is plausible to many cognitive aspects.
Genetics can be measured at the individual level. There is no need of comparison.
No more, I repeat, why are you quietly accept that animals can be selected by their inherited traits but not humans ?? Also denies the theory of Darwinian selection ?? You constantly live among black people or live in a white, quiet, middle class neighborhood ??
‘Then go to Africa to see how the environment of a black child in a country of blacks, with black media. Black Americans should thank you for being born in the Western Hemisphere.’
Here’s the part where you MUST THINK. Would a test for “social success in black society” LOOK THE SAME as a test for “social success in white society?”
‘Why blacks in the Americas (except Haiti) tend to have higher IQ than black Africans ??’
Could be that they are immersed in a more westernized society from birth.
‘However, the strategy of the black comes with high costs for the population.’
Says you.
‘No more, I repeat, why are you quietly accept that animals can be selected by their inherited traits but not humans ??’
I never denied this. I just happen to actually know what h^2 measures — the genetic variance in relation to the trait’s general variance. It’s a snapshot of a certain population at a certain time and at a certain place.
I could turn this around easily — you can accept that what makes a dog a good “hunter” does depend heavily on his genes and that it also depends heavily on the hunting ground. Your reject that notion here.
Hej, pompkenpersøne, ðere is the behavior gënetik evidences for Rushton’s statement , look här: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030320
Ës nej such ðing cœlled G×E interaktion. So effekt of environment on gene alwejs 0.
Hmm, let’s see how Michael and swank explain this away. Harping on and on about environment, but here we have proven by Plomin no effect of environment on genes.
who is “Michael”?
The evidence however is inconsistent.
of course it’s inconsistent dumbass motherfuckers.
did you expect it would be consistent?
Turkheimer’s results were repeated for 17 year olds.
So you admit you are wrong as per environment moderating heritability of IQ? Turkheimer was wrong! Nisbett, Flynn et al. admitted Turkheimer was proven wrong.
Proven? Exhibit A — HBDers constantly overstate their case
“In this manuscript, I demonstrate this point analytically and show that the practice of improperly controlling for covariates is the norm in the G × E interaction literature to date. Thus, many alternative explanations for G × E findings that investigators had thought were eliminated have not been.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322313008251
“greater genetic variance was found in school environments in which student populations experienced less poverty. In general, ‘higher’ school-level SES allowed genetic and probably shared environmental variance to contribute as sources of individual differences in reading comprehension outcomes. Poverty suppresses these influences.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.12083/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
dear God,
why are all HBDers so fucking retarded?
that the results are “inconsistent” doesn’t mean they’re wrong!
Turkheimer was right
AND
Plomin was right.
Get it?
Only Plomin is right in this case. Environment doesn’t make IQ less heritable, same genes contribute, or not contribute, to the variance in IQ despite. This brings Turkheimer into question, only conclusion is that Turkheimer can’t be considered correct.
you’re a moron.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/14/6/623.short
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-006-9113-4#page-1
they’re both right.
or someone is faking his data.
Turkheimer is a Jew, and Plomin had RC parents, if that matters.
that link doesn’t give Turkheimer’s N.
but iirc, it was thousands.
that was the n for the sample which included the twins.
for the twins:
One additional DZ pair was eliminated as an outlier, because of an 81-point
difference between the IQ scores of the twins; the twin with the lower
IQ was identified as brain damaged at birth. Of the remaining 319 pairs,
114 were monozygotic and 205 were dizygotic. Of the DZ pairs, 81
were same-sex pairs and 124 were opposite-sex pairs.
if only I hadn’t been brain damaged at birth and then kicked in the head by a horse.
the full paper: http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/(38)%20Turkheimer%20et%20al%20(2003).pdf
that didn’t work. Try again: http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/(38)%20Turkheimer%20et%20al%20(2003).pdf
The twins were classified as 43% White, 54% Black, and 3% “other.”
Did Plomin give a race breakdown?
motherfucker. wordpress is such utter shit.
Copy and paste the following if you can.
“people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/(38)%20Turkheimer%20et%20al%20(2003).pdf”
Plomin had his sample of consist of white Scots
if that’s TRUE it proves:
1. Plomin is 100% mentally retarded with an extra chromosome or two or three or …
OR
2. He’s a disingenuous lying motherfucker douche bag.
OR
3. He’s both 1 and 2.
what this study says is that in the sample h^2 was the same irrespective of SES, but that there was greater variance in low SES than in high.
that is, genetics “explained” the same fraction of the variance, but the variance was larger for low SES.
how much larger?
Mugabe is obviously a clever person. He knows how to bring doubt to the findings that are presented here. But how come there a no studies supporting what he is arguing? There must be countless academics that want to prove what Mugabe is saying. Also, Mugabe is at least at a superficial glance a competent smasher of theories, but does he have any of his own? Any constructive thinking?
To support what he is arguing would require a complete overhaul of the current paradigm.
Of course, what you’re trying here — like what Pumpkin tried above — is a typical tactic. You realize that your theories are full of many holes, and so now, you appeal to “well do YOU have anything better?”
HBDers have charged out onto this terrain and beckoned everyone to follow. I don’t need to chart a different path. All I need to do is tell everyone why they shouldn’t follow you.
I have no theory Hugh.
what I want is the right studies to be done.
and I want the confusion between correlation and causation to stop.
the hereditist claim is that there is no “disordinalization” or it’s very slight.
but what’s the evidence for this?
one can imagine that within the developed world the phenotypic surface is quite flat and the G-matrix is a good approximation to the whole P(G, E) surface. but it might be a very bad approximation
but one cannot assume this a priori.
and the studies would have to be done for the developed world as a whole, for all the countries with mean IQ 100 or close, the countries for which IQ test results are meaningful.
and even then the results would only apply to a generic person living in the developed world.
as soon as one knew more about the person the distribution of the IQs he might have had will change.
there are many studies which would be close enough to dispositive for hereditism, but they haven’t been done.
So no study has established hereditism as the final indisputable truth? True, but lots of studies point in that direction, and few studies have pointed in any other direction.
Apart from studies and proofs, does it not rhyme with common sense that there are differences between groups? Woundn’t it be VERY surprising if there were no differences? What are differences between indiviuals, that matter in the given environment, if not the seeds for differences between groups living in different environments?
‘True, but lots of studies point in that direction, and few studies have pointed in any other direction.’
NAME ONE SUCH STUDY.
Every time a study gets posted on here that “points in that direction,” it turns out that the confounds and poor study design give the needle about 180 degrees of oscillation room.
I agree.
It would be strange if all groups, however defined, were mathematically equal at everything.
But it wouldn’t be that weird if the differences were trivial. At genetic level humans are quite homogeneous compared to other species, but, of course, that small genetic difference might be a large phenotypic difference.
but lots of studies point in that direction, and few studies have pointed in any other direction
I agree regarding IQ and 20th c “studies” in the developed world . But with personality traits the hereditist case is clearly false. The concordance rates for various psychiatric diagnoses are all over. I posted a link regarding GxE in the case of SCZ, the most heritable of such diagnoses.
But even IQ is NOT like height, an often heard simile.
How would the average literate Athenian have scored on an IQ test in the time of Aristotle? And the average German?
Come to think of it, HBD has been an “explanation” for the Greek sovereign debt crisis by Germans. It’s a kneejerk response of conservatards. But in that particular case the ENTIRE problem was tax evasion. The Greek govt was not spendthrift with lavish social programs and bureaucratic sinecures etc. It was smaller than Germany’s in fact.
Swanknast,
Environment MAY depress potential, but potential is not infinite.
”Here’s the part where you MUST THINK. Would a test for “social success in black society” LOOK THE SAME as a test for “social success in white society?” ”
Explain succes of east asians to me. They are better in western societies than in its own societies. MANY them was poor in the past.
”Could be that they are immersed in a more westernized society from birth. ”
WHITErnized society is better. Necessarily no, look to Dominican Republic, half part of Spaniola island…
I hear white superiority to do better environments??
”Says you. ”
Not me, but all evidences, millions of innocent black people murdered by poverty and civil wars. Sexual abuse against african woman. Kill and rape of many homossexual blacks. You want more?? Have many childrens without care them correctly.
” I never denied this. I just happen to actually know what h^2 measures — the genetic variance in relation to the trait’s general variance. It’s a snapshot of a certain population at a certain time and at a certain place. ”
Agree but it doesn’t explain black dysfunctionality in ”western”ized societies AND in all other countries, Mohammedland, India, Suriname and in China (degrees od dysfunctionality, because black africans who move to China seems more smart because greater geographical distance).
Genetic combinations changes, called mutations and adaptation.
”I could turn this around easily — you can accept that what makes a dog a good “hunter” does depend heavily on his genes and that it also depends heavily on the hunting ground. Your reject that notion here.”
Adaptation related generally to selection of GROUP of adapted individuals and not selection of individuals per si (per se, whatever, ridiculous this term, lol). Even humans generally are not superb-good to adapt in a environment in a individual level…
In fact, race dogs need specific environments, but it doesn’t explain heritability of intelligence.
‘Environment MAY depress potential, but potential is not infinite.’
No one ever argued that it was.
‘Explain success of east asians to me. They are better in western societies than in its own societies. MANY them was poor in the past.’
More similarities between the underlying societies and cultures. Done. By East Asian I’m assuming you just mean “Chinese and Japanese.” Further, self-selection effect of immigrants — already have an affinity for a different culture.
‘Not me, but all evidences, millions of innocent black people murdered by poverty and civil wars. ‘
You act like these calamities are absent from Western society. To die a slow quiet death is still to die. Think about it.
‘it doesn’t explain black dysfunctionality in ”western”ized societies AND in all other countries, Mohammedland, India, Suriname and in China (degrees od dysfunctionality, because black africans who move to China seems more smart because greater geographical distance).’
Black “dysfunction” is less in Britain. Why?
Irish IQ in 1972 almost an SD lower than British IQ, but now the gap has disappeared. Why?
‘Adaptation related generally to selection of GROUP of adapted individuals and not selection of individuals per si ‘
You don’t seem to understand. A test that’s developed to assess “good hunting” skills on hunting ground A will be different than the same test developed for hunting ground B.
”No one ever argued that it was”
Really??
”More similarities between the underlying societies and cultures. Done. By East Asian I’m assuming you just mean “Chinese and Japanese.” Further, self-selection effect of immigrants — already have an affinity for a different culture.”
Because the ” asian culture ” are more similar in some aspects (functional aspects) with Western culture than the ” black culture ” ??
Are not the ”cultures” that immigrate from one country to another, are the people. People necessarily do not carry the flag of the cultures of their countries. Also, it is very common to have people who have nothing to do with the culture of their country, I am one of them.
You do not understand, Asian immigrants in a white environment, with white media (veiled prejudice against them) and white and other non-Asian people, do best in these environments than in their own countries. Most East Asian immigrants who immigrate to western countries are middle class. The phenomenon of the children of the Chinese elite, studying in prestigious universities of the US, is small.
A black African who behaves more like a lord than a legitimate british in Britain. What is this, genetics or environment?
”You act like these calamities are absent from Western society. To die a slow quiet death is still to die. Think about it. ”
Then I’ll prepare my condolences to your parents when you die in 20 years later.
You act as if he had gone to Africa to see with their cold eyes and nihilism, the vibrant world in which we live much of that, many of them involuntarily.
Where have I stated that disasters do not happen in Western societies ??
The slow genocide of the white race is one.
”Black “dysfunction” is less in Britain. Why?
Irish IQ in 1972 almost an SD lower than British IQ, but now the gap has disappeared. Why?”
Why to explain their assumptions, one answer is valid while to explain my assumptions or other people who do not condone or understand their statements, you find numerous alleged variables?
You are not doing fair game forgive me.
Numerous possibilities for explanations, many of them genetic.
I’m not psychometrist, ask those who study hard these features.
Some people may be more affected by the environment, more than others.
Methodological errors in the IQ tests.
Iq tests are not really standardized. The tests of the 70 may be outdated. Can be evaluated and after verbal iq performance iq. How many Irish were evaluated ??
Ireland looks like a mini India, full of smart corners, and corners of stupid.
More blacks and Irish may be arrested than at the beginning of immigration, especially in the first group. Criminals arrested reduce the dysfunctionality of their ethnic community.
You have to answer ??
”You don’t seem to understand. A test that’s developed to assess “good hunting” skills on hunting ground A will be different than the same test developed for hunting ground B.”
I understand that methods of assessing intelligence can not effectively capture the ability of other groups that are evolutionarily divergent from Eurasian smarter.
However, it seems that blacks are not adapted to their own environment or as I said, its adaptation model has high costs for individuals, but it is effective because it keeps the demographically stable population, before the Western intervention.
The slow genocide of the white race is one.
”Black “dysfunction” is less in Britain. Why?
Irish IQ in 1972 almost an SD lower than British IQ, but now the gap has disappeared. Why?”
really?
‘Really??’
No one has said that “potential is infinite.”
‘Asian immigrants in a white environment, with white media (veiled prejudice against them) and white and other non-Asian people, do best in these environments than in their own countries’
Define “do best.”
http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/
You heard what I said — similarities. What similarities? Take a look at that link, then take a step back and look at the entire situation.
‘You are not doing fair game forgive me.’
I disagree. I’m only pointing out that there are several unknown unknowns and known unknowns which weakens the HBD case’s power.
‘However, it seems that blacks are not adapted to their own environment’
Based on what?!
good on swank.
he’s listened to zizek.
or explain why Asian carp and kudzu do better in N America.
Canada has no tests for undergraduate admissions. As a result one may get into its better unis by just being a pushy striver. It’s true in the US too, but not as bad. In most countries there are such things as grades in the American/Canadian sense of the word. There are just cumulative exams. These two measure different things. The exams come closer to measuring ability.
This is why it is so easily observed how unimpressive much of the American elite is compared to that of other countries. Elite status is mediated to a large extent by elite education.
that is…
…there are NO such things…
and besides, Hawaiians aren’t impressive.
Correction: doesn’t explain non-heritability of intelligence, genetic predominance.
swanknasty
I can point to the studies presented on this blog. And from time to time some professor gets into trouble for having made such a study. These studies may have imperfections, which is why one study will not establish much at all. Many studies however begin to build a theory. The opposers are very load, often demanding that these findings must not be taken seriously, but they never produce anything of their own. Most of those HBH:ers are intellectually honest, and would take onboard stuff that goes counter to what they believe, but please, it has to be based on something other than wishes.
‘Many studies however begin to build a theory’
If the same defects are common to each of these studies or newer studies simply use data from older studies that itself is deficient, then no, “many studies” do not begin to build a theory.
Or, put simply — a thousand compasses with needles oscillating 180 degrees cannot tell us true North any more than a single compass doing the same can.
also, no one is arguing that there isn’t a substantial genetic influence on these traits. I’m only arguing that the case has been overstated. There’s substantial genetic influence, but it’s probably much less than what HBDers believe.
There are studies from all over the world, sibling studies, adoption studies, new studies, old studies. The Flynn effect is the major questionmark. I personally believe that modern society and urbanisation helps lift the scores of intelligence tests, so parts of the differences are not real. This is why, to me, the most intersting case for intelligence studies is Israel. The european and middle eastern jews are both priviledged groups in israeli society, both urbanized, no backwoods there to hide in. And yet the groups display such a big gap.
Like I said, put up a study that “points in that direction.”
There are studies from all over the world, sibling studies, adoption studies, new studies, old studies.
but those siblings were all raised in the same country.
that’s something you’re wrong about.
behavioral genetics isn’t like physics.
it has only facts, not theories.
furthermore hereditism seems to be more common among economics conservatives and is used by almost all of them to support it.
but they’ve not thought it through.
the “It’s your nature to be poor and miserable. Sucks to be you loser.” is shallow to say the least.
but I’ve yet to hear a conservative who’d matured morally past age 12.
The theory of evolution is a theory, very compelling, no real counter-indications. And what we are talking about is a very similar topic.
Natural selection only acts on the phenotype. A “good” phenotype depends on the environment in which we find the phenotype in most cases. Yet, HBDers want us to believe that a particular way to measure a phenotype, which is normed against a certain environment, must apply equally well across all environments and give us accurate results across all environments.
Should I judge the athleticism of basketball players by watching them play basketball and judging their performance with soccer’s rules?
the question of whether or not and to what extent genes cause differences in test scores independent of environment is a question of fact which can be answered at any time, though genetic architecture may change over time.
swank was right!
here’s a piece by a fellow BGIer which hereditism must explain.
http://www.ronunz.org/2012/07/26/unz-on-raceiq-the-ruralurban-divide/
but even if the real differences in means are trivial it could be that at the outer limits, so to speak, the differences are quite large.
for example:
since 1984 every single medalist in the Olympic men’s 100 m has been of West African descent with the sole exception of Frankie Fredericks a Namibian. the Scot Allan Wells won gold in 1980.
but for those who might claim there will never be a black world chess champion:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/04/09/murrow-high-school-in-brooklyn-brings-home-national-chess-championship/
The victory marked the eighth national title for the school.
And there’s already been a black world champion at dominoes and iirc checkers.
‘but they never produce anything of their own’
WHO GIVES A SHIT
Waah boohoo people are always attacking your faulty theories and pointing out that you haven’t met your burden of proof waahh boohooo.
The only question is whether the evidence supports the nigh genetic determinism espoused by HBDers.
I ask again to President Mugabe and Swanknasty, explain clearly and objectively, what is the role of genetics in human behavior.
1. in the case of ALL psychological traits other than IQ, genetics has 0 independent effect.
2. in the case of IQ or g or whatever, when defined within a particular population, genes account for << 50% of the variance. 20% perhaps.
But and the cases of coma??? 🙂
…HBDers want us to believe that a particular way to measure a phenotype, which is normed against a certain environment, must apply equally well across all environments
The environments used to be more different. In the modern world the ‘goods’ of the western society have become global goods. Western populations have had time to adapt. It is not fair, but it is today’s reality.
…but those siblings were all raised in the same country.
If the finding is that there is no correlation between non-biological-siblings growing up in the same household, no advantage/disadvantage to being adopted. Simply no measurable consequence, or very slight, of the home environment. Then that settles it. It is possible that such a result would not be applicable across the globe, but really, very far-fetched.
A black person and a white person in America live in two very different environments. If you do not understand this there is no hope for you.
Swanknasty,
Why explain smart and hard working people who born in a bad environments??
Please, i wait its answer about genetic role in human behavior.
genes have their affect through the environment not absolutely.
genes and environment are prescinded in thought but not in reality.
two words do not mean two separate things or even one thing.
as Luther defined “consubstantiation”,
Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants orally eat and drink the holy body and blood of Christ Himself as well as the bread and wine (cf. Augsburg Confession, Article 10)
Indeed. Although some blacks live in environments much closer to that of whites than other blacks.
American blacks are de facto, though no longer de jure, segregated.
And although immigrants are self-selected for intelligence, the fact that black immigrants to the US achieve so much more than the much more numerous descendants of slaves is interesting.
I remember in the OJ trial Ito allowed a witness to say he’d heard a “black voice”.
It is true that there is likely no non-black who could sound like Yaphet Kotto or Neil Nunes, but those are rare exceptions.
Yet there is still a black American accent. This is impossible unless blacks are still excluded/isolated from the rest of America .
and I know from personal experience that that accent is NOT “genetic”.
I heard it twice in Madison, WI of all places, from whites. and they weren’t affecting it. apparently they were whites who’d grown up as a minority among blacks.
No it isn’t.
There’s a Japanese announcer who sounds like Nunes.
Though it may be there’s no white who could sound like him.
Different environments, yes, but ONE standard as to what IS a good/bad environment. There is no longer any.. “ehm, but in this and that culture good is actually bad, and bad is good, so you can’t make any comparisons”.
The world evolved as very different places, and today we have globalisation. It is one thing for a country to be under-developed when they never heard of the internet, quite a different thing to be it in 2014.
…but ONE standard as to what IS a good/bad environment
completely false.
in fact, if that were true, then even a study which assigned MZ twins randomly to homes all around the developed world would be meaningless.
since I’m an extreme night person who never understood the point of the classroom for learning I can thin of another possible environment wherein I would have been much smarter.
and I’m in the BGI study.
btw, 😉 I’m not Robert Mugabe, and Jorge Videla is dead.
one man’s meat is another man’s poison.
but there are shitty environments wherein anyone would turn out badly.
One standard?
Are you daft? There is no such standard and to declaim as much smacks of typical HBD dishonesty.
Perhaps there are extremes we can identify at the BAD end of the spectrum maybe….but from there, to argue that the continuum presents as a straight line for ALL genotypes to GOOD is to vastly and willfully oversimplify.
hardly.
what’re you retarded?
you’re assuming the independent effects model, P = G + E. then when you find no independent effect, you claim there is no effect, AT ALL.
yes. you’re retarded.
No, you like to claim that others assume that. I don’t. But I admit I prefer simple interpretations rather than as-clever-an-interpretation-as-is-needed-to-fit-with-my-preferences.
Hugh, baby,
YOU JUST THINK YOU DON’T!
IT’S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH CLEVER HUGH (NAMED AFTER THE FIRST KING OF FRANCE?). IT’S GOT TO DO WITH OBSERVATION.
A CACTUS ROTS IN THE FOREST NO MATTER WHERE IN THE FOREST IT’S PLANTED. A REDWOOD OR SEQUOIA SEERS IN THE DESERT NO MATTER WHERE IT’S PLANTED.
Get it?
SHOULD’VE BEEN SERES.
I CAN’T SPELL.
I’M A CHILD.
MOLEST ME ALREADY.
I’M SURE I WON’T BE YOUR FIRST VICTIM.
http://www.amazon.com/Kings-New-York-Oddballs-HighSchool/dp/1592402615
nurture over nature here?
but at another time, before 1971 at least, hereditists should have claimed that Soviet chess dominance was partly genetic. never mind that Soviet world champs included Jews (Botvinnik, Tal) and one Armenian (Petrosian) in addition to Russians (Smyslov, Spassky, Karpov). Keres was an Estonian. Kasparov is half Armenian, half Jewish.
but hereditists would never make such a claim, because:
1. They’re Anglo-Saxon conservatards in economic matters, and
2. None of them are former Soviets or even Eastern European, except Sesardic.
Alekhine was a defector or expatriate. He was Russian ethnically.
The above argumentation is just silly. Maybe there are no studies supporting your believes because that kind of childish retoric could not go into an academic paper. Even your allies would be embarrased.
Hardly childish rhetoric Monsieur Capet,
Chess is the touchstone of the intellect. — Goethe!
Here it is in bold caps Mssr Capet.
EVERY TEST, EVERY CONCEIVABLE TEST, IS CULTURALLY LOADED AND CULTURALLY BIASED (ECTs AND REACTION TIMES AREN’T IN ANY IQ BATTERY. ARE THEY?). HOCKEY IS BIASED FOR CANUCKISTANIS. FOOTER IS BIASED FOR BRAZILIANS. CHESS IS BIASED FOR RUSSIANS. THESE AREN’T SUBTESTS OF ANY IQ BATTERY, BUT THEY MIGHT AS WELL BE.
HAVE YOU ANY CLUE WHATEVER HOW IQ TESTS ARE CONSTRUCTED? THERE’S NO MAGIC MSSR CAPET.
HERE IN LES ETATS UNIS THE SAT, ACT, OR AT LEAST THEIR OLD VERSIONS, AREN’T JUST G-LOADED. THEY’RE AS WELL CORRELATED WITH SOI-DISANT IQ TESTS AS THOSE TESTS ARE WITH EACHOTHER. THAT IS, THEY ARE IQ TESTS.
NOW. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO PRACTICE AT CHESS OR HOCKEY OR FOOTER AND NOT AT THE OLD SAT OR ACT? HOW IS IT THAT THESE TESTS TEST ANYTHING OTHER THAN THINGS ACQUIRED?
SOME, INCLUDING TH TEST MAKERS, CLAIM THAT IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO PREPARE FOR THESE TESTS. IN THE SHORT TERM YES, OBVIOUSLY. BUT WHAT HAS A HIGH SCORER DONE BUT PREP FOR IT HIS WHOLE LIFE?
HE PLAYED SOCCER, AND THE TEST IS INDOOR SOCCER.
HE NEVER PREPPED FOR THE TEST SPECIFICALLY EXCEPT PERHAPS TO DO THE ONE OR TWO PRACTICE TESTS SENT TO HIM AFTER HE REGISTERED.
HE PLAYED TWO GAMES OF INDOOR SOCCER.
allies?
my only ally is my Irish Setter who insists he’s got as much potential as a poodle.
Jay Joseph publishes work that comes pretty close to calling the entire paradigm stupid…
an example of how subtle things really are:
it is a myth that alcoholism is “genetic”. even that behavior genetics douche-in-chief, Plomin, has said this.
that is, alcoholism in all of the “studies” taken together shows de minimis heritability.
YET!
it might still be that Injuns “jus’ can’t hold their liquor”. in the US it is a crime to sell liquor on a reservation.
but then again, the res sucks. big time!
and alcohol, unlike other drugs, can be a cheap source of calories.
my now deceased poodle was human like. I didn’t think of him as a dog.
but my irish setter has killed five squirrels.
poodles 0 – irish setters 5
which is more dog g-loaded?
acting like a person or killing squirrels?
Chess is not childish, but claiming that anyone would have drawn those conclusions from the sovier chess dominance is silly. It was known that they stimulated pursuit of chess. Denmark has many good Badminton players, and I draw no genetic conclusions even from that.
About “good” environments, what I meant and what I should have written was that the dominating environment of modern society all over the world is competitive capitalism which favors what we call intelligence, and also, maybe favors social skills increasingly.. that this environment is what makes personal traits “good” or “bad”. This is culturally unfair, like throwning baseball players into a soccer league, but it IS what count at this point in history.
I read somewhere that chinese are believed to be more robust against envirmental challenges, and that came out as a natural conclusion of a study, so it is possible that environmental factors twist the results of studies, but that is being considered.
You have a broad intellectual frame of reference Mugabe, clearly not a narrowly focused nerd, but some of your comments really are not up to that standard 🙂
claiming that anyone would have drawn those conclusions from the sovier chess dominance is silly. It was known that they stimulated pursuit of chess. Denmark has many good Badminton players, and I draw no genetic conclusions even from that.
You’re digging your own grave Mssr Capet.
Badminton in DK and Indonesia and chess in the Soviet Union are just like ANY IQ battery subtest.
Get it?
It is silly. Very silly.
AND SO IS THE IDEA THAT THERE IS ANY SUBTEST OF AN iQ BATTERY WHICH ISN’T JUST LIKE BADMINTON IN DK OR RUGBY IN NEW ZEALAND.
…the world is competitive capitalism…
and there are an infinity of ways of doing competitive capitalism.
travel.
well I did score at the mean level of 18 year olds on information when I was 9.
and information is the most heritable corrected for reliability of the old WISC tests.
so blame my genes.
“genes have their affect through the environment not absolutely.
genes and environment are prescinded in thought but not in reality.
two words do not mean two separate things or even one thing.
as Luther defined “consubstantiation”,
Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants orally eat and drink the holy body and blood of Christ Himself as well as the bread and wine (cf. Augsburg Confession, Article 10)“
”Blood of Christ” is not a real example, is a allegory.
Beautifull words, now prove it is true to genes-environment dichotomy.
The possible fact that genes and environment need each other to exist, DOESN’T prove hierarchical influence of genes in behavior.
Correction again,
DOESN’T prove contrary to hierarchical influence of genes…blablabla
”Define “do best.”
http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/”
Over generalisation and racial prejudice against evil yellow man.
”You heard what I said — similarities. What similarities? Take a look at that link, then take a step back and look at the entire situation.”
Two populations with similiarities to organization of society and social priorities.
”I disagree. I’m only pointing out that there are several unknown unknowns and known unknowns which weakens the HBD case’s power.”
You are pointing unknowns and not being successful to explain why, clear and objectively.
”Based on what?!”
You also don’t read the whole of my sentences. I write OR, after this part.
Based on lack of organisation, basic hygiene with exceptions of many tribes.
Only strategy reproduction of many african tribes to be have many babies.
This strategy have many costs as i said before.
‘You are pointing unknowns and not being successful to explain why, clear and objectively.’
The studies that people tout as evidence tend to have big flaws.
‘Over generalisation and racial prejudice against evil yellow man.’
But with blacks it all must be true, eh?
You can’t pick and choose your heuristics. Well, you can…
The fact that these studies are errors does not mean that all of these studies are wrong .
Do not play the victim and explain with clarity and objectivity refinement of what you want to say . Do not know about others , but I do not know what you guys are refuting .
The Mugabe used the example of Christ’s blood , as if genes and environment were the same thing . It is on depends on perspective. But what matters most is the objectivity that you guys have not clearly demonstrate , at least to explain their assumptions .
You said that most Asian Americans are corrupt to pass in universities . And is not the whole truth . In fact , there may be a large number of cases , but most Asian students undergo merit in universities .
More than many whites and Jews.
What I talk about blacks is no lie. Deny that black Africa is extremely poor. Deny they commit half the crimes in the US.
Their arguments to refute my arguments about blacks , smacks of desperation .
I ‘m not a ” racist ” redneck who hates black people without knowing them . I ‘m just using my judgment and for all, even for saying certain contextually unpalatable truths .
‘The fact that these studies are errors does not mean that all of these studies are wrong .’
Okay, but it does weaken their use as evidence.
‘Do not play the victim and explain with clarity and objectivity refinement of what you want to say .’
HBDers significantly overstate the degree to which genes cause variations in certain traits.
‘You said that most Asian Americans are corrupt to pass in universities . And is not the whole truth . In fact , there may be a large number of cases , but most Asian students undergo merit in universities .’
I said that there are similarities between both cultures. And while some may say the similarity is in the virtue of “more intelligence” or whatever some such, it may as easily rest in ruthlessness.
African tribal societies are egalitarian and very concerned with fairness. Indeed, inequality (and justified inequality necessarily) began in Central Asia and the Middle East.
‘Deny that black Africa is extremely poor. Deny they commit half the crimes in the US. Their arguments to refute my arguments about blacks , smacks of desperation .’
Was colonialism good for Africa?
http://www.voxeu.org/article/colonialism-and-development-africa
Probably not. It probably had something to do with an entirely different and dissimilar culture being foisted upon them.
Your arguments about blacks is that “africa sucks, therefore blacks suck.”
The slow genocide of the white race is one.
”Black “dysfunction” is less in Britain. Why?
Irish IQ in 1972 almost an SD lower than British IQ, but now the gap has disappeared. Why?”
””really?””’
Really what?
”Indeed. Although some blacks live in environments much closer to that of whites than other blacks.
American blacks are de facto, though no longer de jure, segregated.”
People don’t think why blacks are segregated???
Why some blacks are not segregated and live quietly with other peoples??
Why south deep americans accept segregation during many years??
Look to South Africa today…
In fact, many of you don’t live in a real world. And if many of you live still can’t understand it.
‘And you do the exact opposite is not it ??’
Obviously not, if my only contention is that HBDers overstate the case.
‘Greater genetic influences on behavior does not indicate either deterministically, there is no choice. ‘
Here is a problem with discussing anything with HBDers. They overstate the case to strongly imply some form of biological determinism, and then when called out, retreat back to something like this.
‘I do not deny the importance of environmental factors, but you can not deny completely the genetic influences. Is making the same mistake that hereditary determinists.’
I haven’t done this, though. Like I’ve said…I take no issue with genetic influence, or even “strong genetic influence.”
Swanknasty ”Okay, but it does weaken their use as evidence.”
Agree with you.
Swanknasty ”HBDers significantly overstate the degree to which genes cause variations in certain traits.”
And you do the exact opposite is not it ??
How do you explain me the process of domestication of dogs according to your point of view ??
I agree with you, when hereditarians claim that depression is mainly caused by a breakdown in the stomach. Depends on the case. In some cases, this is actually consist in true. How can you explain that a person who a week ago was normal and today is depressive ?? And I do not necessarily refer to non-externalization the true feelings. If there are these types of cases, then depression will be biological basis and therefore genetics. (Actually everything has a genetic basis, what changes is the degree of influence of genes because where there life, there genes envolved).
But there are many cases where environmental factors may predispose to extreme manifestation of a behavioral phenotype, such as death in the family for example.
If there is not infinite potential for expression of any phenotype then this itself indicates that there are deeper bases that preclude this possibility.
Greater genetic influences on behavior does not indicate either deterministically, there is no choice. But want to indicate that choices are limited and each of us presents our individual variation. Also want to indicate that the population to which they belong racially, can considerably influence or not, because every large population comes from a small amount of people.
There is no doubt that many identical twins tend to be extremely similar in behavior, whereas others do not. And to deny that there is a strong genetic component in all the phenomena of human behavior is stupidity.
I do not deny the importance of environmental factors, but you can not deny completely the genetic influences. Is making the same mistake that hereditary determinists.
‘And you do the exact opposite is not it ??’
Obviously not, if my only contention is that HBDers overstate the case.
‘Greater genetic influences on behavior does not indicate either deterministically, there is no choice. ‘
Here is a problem with discussing anything with HBDers. They overstate the case to strongly imply some form of biological determinism, and then when called out, retreat back to something like this.
‘I do not deny the importance of environmental factors, but you can not deny completely the genetic influences. Is making the same mistake that hereditary determinists.’
I haven’t done this, though. Like I’ve said…I take no issue with genetic influence, or even “strong genetic influence.”
”Obviously not, if my only contention is that HBDers overstate the case. ”
You overstate ” environmentalism ‘.
”Here is a problem with discussing anything with HBDers. They overstate the case to strongly imply some form of biological determinism, and then when called out, retreat back to something like this. ”
I do not back down because I did not feel intimidated by you, excuse me, did not want to be rude.
”I haven’t done this, though. Like I’ve said…I take no issue with genetic influence, or even “strong genetic influence.”
As I have stated here. Mugabe and you exhibit difficult to express coherently here.
You said that the environment of black people is not the same as the environment of white people, and that this influences the behavioral phenotypic expression. Seems to be saying that blacks are disadvantaged because they live in an environment of black people.
Anyway, you guys just are not able to explain objectively and consistently what they want to say.
I believe that what we call environmental effects is the interaction between people and their mutual influences. People are formed by genes that build every piece of their bodies and their brains. Therefore, these interactions are genetic, a genetic composition interacting with other genetic composition and produce post-interaction-scenarios.
If the US government wants to enforce racial integration for whites (especially white), then it is consists of a macro-environmental factor, in which a group oflimitrofe people in higher hierarchical positions, are imposing rules for a wide group of hierarchically inferior people.
You guys do not believe that the phenotypic expression cannot be affected by environmental changes because one depends on the other to exist. So if the environment changes, the phenotype will be irretrievably affected. If I hit your thoughts, then that means they are DETERMINING the dichotomous dynamics of environment and genes give this way, pointing to the methodological errors of the studies on the subject.
‘You overstate ” environmentalism ‘.’
This does not follow from me merely saying that HBDers overstate the case.
HBDers have taken the scientific consensus on many issues a step further than what it is, and accordingly, HBDers bear a burden of proof. They have failed to meet this burden, hence they have overstated what the current research supports.
Do you understand better now…
Swanknast ”I said that there are similarities between both cultures. And while some may say the similarity is in the virtue of “more intelligence” or whatever some such, it may as easily rest in ruthlessness.”
Organized cruelty yes, but it is different from the case of Africa, where cruelty is daily. The black issue, it is psychopathy, not the black race itself. Black Africa is the land where psychopathy became genetically endemic and it is evident that there are millions of blacks who are not psychopaths. These are the first to die.
Swanknast ”African tribal societies are egalitarian and very concerned with fairness. Indeed, inequality (and justified inequality necessarily) began in Central Asia and the Middle East.”
Some tribes. Not ALL.
Swanknast ”Was colonialism good for Africa?”
No, obviously.
Maybe not civilization because they have always, that black psychopaths, enslave their own people. Not very different from technicians slaves of Western civilization, as a condition, at least dictatorship is based on sugary lies.
‘Organized cruelty yes, but it is different from the case of Africa, where cruelty is daily. The black issue, it is psychopathy, not the black race itself.’
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4141717?uid=3739824&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104921148877
Blacks and whites don’t differ on this.
‘Some tribes. Not ALL.’
‘Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Archaeological_evidence
So maybe not ALL absolutely but almost.
No. The psychopathic personality is more common in blacks than among whites and Asians. This explains in part why his attempts at modern societies are a disaster and explains why practicing slavery since before the arrival of Europeans.
Please do not give me that psychology studies that you despise, to explain how reality works, I can see with my own eyes.
Quantify ”ALMOST”.
Most African tribes have been or may be equal, but the idea that equality is always a good thing, and the hierarchy is bad, is not the reality of the facts. Many African egalitarian tribes near the border with the Maghreb, equally cut off the clitoris of their women.
‘Please do not give me that psychology studies that you despise, to explain how reality works, I can see with my own eyes.’
Okay, either these studies are the best thing since sliced bread or they aren’t. You can’t adopt and discard heuristics according to what is convenient to your pet viewpoint.
‘Most African tribes have been or may be equal, but the idea that equality is always a good thing, and the hierarchy is bad, is not the reality of the facts.’
True, but a society that justifies inequality will be foreign to such an egalitarian society-raised individual.
It is not my view. I am universalist. I have seen close relatives stating that they would be dishonest chance was needed to help each other. I heard this blatant manner.
I did not raise the average white to the pedestal. For me, ordinary people are inferior, especially because they hold unequal regimes in complete ignorance. In most, Europeans have shown (some of them) that can build more humane societies, especially the blue-eyed blonds of Scandinavia.
And I’m sure non-psychopathic and high intelligence blacks can do the same, provided they are separated of niggers from Ferguson.
There is no justification for this kind of atrocity, unless extreme stupidity as children hunt albinos seeking aphrodisiac rewards.
grrrrrrr, correction again (and again), …. as black africans hunt albinos seeking aphrodisiac rewards.
http://www.panamath.org/testyourself.php
COMPLETELLY OFF TOPIC
Very interesting test. 🙂
P.P.
Think about this, the people against hereditarianism sure make a lot of noise, but are still unable to refute this link at all: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/
JayMan also has many posts up on the same topics, all stand solid without criticism.
HBD deniers make ad hoc attacks against specific bits of evidence, but struggle to see the overall pattern of evidence (the forest, not the trees)
If each patch of “forest” is 70% cleared out by the “bad study design” “bad control” loggers, then the combined “forest” will be far less impressive than you believe.
well put, but I assume you meant HBDers and not HBD-deniers, who are the majority of elite opinion.
both occidentalist and gayman are mentally retarded.
Insulting Mr. Fuerst does not make him wrong. The facts still need to be explained.
The facts he has are either useless or made up.
Or so you allege.
GTCA shows little heritability. Consensus puts heritability at around .5. P = G + E only relevant at one time and place even if taken correctly. Norms of reaction are the norm in biology.
It’s far from “alleged.”
an analogy for all the HBD-tards.
1. blood pressure is as heritable as IQ, and more heritable when corrected for its notorious un-reliability.
2. black Americans develop high blood pressure earlier than European Americans.
3. blacks living in rural Africa never develop high blood pressure even at advanced ages.
seems perfectly analogous to IQ.
as Swanknasty has said norms of reaction is the norm.
That analogy doesn’t prove blacks lack genetically high blood pressure unless you can show whites placed in rural Africa have higher or equal blood pressure
It could just be that rural Africa lowers blood pressure in all genotypes but the black higher than white pattern remains
peepee that’s easy.
the bp of rural Africans is so low it could get any lower without shock and death.
here’s an article regarding the malleability of bp and adiposity I posted on Shoe’s blog many times.
read it and weep.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6659.long
furthermore there are instances of adult IQ changing by much more than measurement error. they’re rare in the studies, but they do exist.
wheareas height really is fixed at age 17-21.
that is the bp of rural Africans is LOWER than that of American whites and always < 120/80.
here’s “el momento de verdad” from the paper:
Value
——————————————————————————–
Parameter
Pre-CR
≈1 yr CR
Present
BMI, kg/m2 24.5 ± 2.6 20.9 ± 2.4 19.5 ± 2.1
Tchol, mg/dl 194 ± 45 161 ± 31 157 ± 38
LDL-C, mg/dl 122 ± 36 89 ± 24 86 ± 17
HDL-C, mg/dl 43 ± 8 58 ± 13 65 ± 24
Tchol/HDL-C ratio 4.1 ± 1 2.8 ± 0.5 2.5 ± 0.4
TG, mg/dl 149 ± 87 72 ± 35 54 ± 15
Systolic BP, mmHg 132 ± 15 112 ± 12 97 ± 8
Diastolic BP, mmHg 80 ± 11 69 ± 7 59 ± 5
as you can see the cr followers went from SBP = 132 to 97 and DBP = 80 to 59.
Why does it have to prove anyone genetically LACKS something? That phrase makes no sense…
The fact that an environment exists that drastically alters P should clue you in on the limitations of h^2
the bp of rural Africans is so low it could get any lower without shock and death.
That just means there’s a floor on the trait preventing the black higher than white pattern to be seen.
It would be like an environment where women grew 10 feet tall. Men would not grow any taller because anyone over 10 feet dies , but genetic sex differences remain if we could keep them alive
and regarding adiposity…
I have it on “authority” that BMI can mislead regarding obesity in blacks, because blacks really do have denser bones than whites and therefore will weigh more even when no any fatter. but that might be a myth. it’s used to “explain” why there haven’t been any great black swimmers except Anthony Nesty. as if a physical explanation were required.
I don’t know, maybe there’s not much of a difference in adiposity between whites and blacks.
but there certainly is one in the case of native Americans.
the worst are the Pima on the Arizona/Mexico border. they have the highest rate of type ii diabetes in the world.
YET!!!
the Pima who live across the border in Mexico have LOWER rates of obesity and diabetes than American WHITES.
@peepee
that’s right. there is a floor. if bp is too low you die.
the same fro adiposity. if you’re too thin you die.
but why shouldn’t there be a ceiling for IQ?
as I’ve posted before…
it’s been 41 years
at least 10 generations of race horses all bred for speed
and with enormous motivation ($$$) to breed a faster race horse
YET!!!
the fastest horse EVER is still Secretariat.
there certainly are dumb people and smart people, but an “absolute” h^2 of > .5 isn’t necessary to explain that.
no matter how many generations of men are bred for flight, no man will ever fly.
…no man will ever run as fast as a cheetah.
…no man will ever live as long as a bow head whale.
…no man will be able to live underwater.
get it?
humans are the cleverest of the animals, but no amount of breeding or selection from the human genome will give you Talosians.
but why shouldn’t there be a ceiling for IQ?
There’s a ceiling for height; doesn’t mean men aren’t genetically taller than women.
Why can’t race IQ differences be like sex height differences?
peepee’s up past his bad time.
has he been reading Kanazawa? http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201005/why-night-owls-are-more-intelligent-morning-larks
1. there is a gross genetic difference between men and women. XY vs XX. whereas the difference between black men and white men is not gross in this way. Downs cases have an extra chromosome. I’d never argue that didn’t cause retardation.
2. it is true that Dutch women are taller than Mexican men.
Wikipedia:
Down syndrome (DS) or Down’s syndrome, also known as trisomy 21, is a genetic disorder caused by the presence of all or part of a third copy of chromosome 21.[1] It is typically associated with physical growth delays, characteristic facial features, and mild to moderate intellectual disability.[2] The average IQ of a young adult with Down syndrome is 50.
if black Americans had an extra chromosome and an IQ of 50 and died in their 40s from dementia and couldn’t play any sport, etc.
then i’d believe they were defective/inferior/whatever.
and more peepee,
I know how to get really skinny and get really low bp. but since i’m over 17, I can’t make myself taller.
my income an wealth aren’t low peepee. they just aren’t high.
my income and wealth are above the median for white American males my age with my education.
LION’S POSTS WERE MADE AT MY SUGGESTION IN COMMENTS.
so who’s whose bitch?
IN ALL DEVELOPED COUNTRIES THE CORRELATION BETWEEN INCOME/WEALTH AND IQ IS LEAST IN CANADA, BECAUSE CANADA IS THE ONLY DEVELOPED COUNTRY WHICH HAS NO COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMS.
“I have it on “authority” that BMI can mislead regarding obesity in blacks”
Mugabe you’re right.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.full
And apparently no one cares about lead….
Mugabe says – intelligence tests are like all other tests, for instance computer game tests favor those who have played a lot. BUT, the difference is, that life is also a big test, and for instance financial success is strongly correlated with success on certain tests, and correlated not only at the very top, but the whole spectrum of talent levels.
Wrong again Mssr Capet. You are exceedingly tiresome.
You know that fitting your ideology doesn’t make it true. Right?
The evidence from the GSS is that IQ has NO impact on earnings if you’ve got a college degree.
Furthermore, the NYLSY has a weak correlation between IQ and income and an even weaker one between IQ and wealth.
And almost all of this can be explained by deliberate selection for IQ.
And a study from Sweden found CEOs had a mean IQ of only 115.
and I know.
770 GMAT (790 on the practice test) but I never applied to any B-school.
I knew none worth the OBSCENE cost would admit me, and that they’d be chock-a-black with pushy striving morons like you.
Les Etats Unis Merdeux.
IQ tests basically measure affinity for and affinity with the ruling class of whatever society one belongs to. and thus the putative “validity” of IQ tests.
it’s exactly like this:
if I hate my teacher my grade will be lower, ceteris paribus, than if I like my teacher.
but if I hate formal education per se all my grades will be lower.
get it?
Mugabe you seem unaware that income and self-reported health have low reliability. And each of these measures are just rough approximate of the construct to which they belong. According to Strenze’s meta-analysis (2007), the r between IQ and income is 0.20, which is not small effect size (r² is not effect size). On the other hand, IQ correlates with occupation and education at 0.56 and 0.43. Income, unlike the other two mesures of SES, varies a lot over time. That’s what I’ve noticed here.
But of course, you need to know the fact, first.
Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35, 401–426.
The evidence from the GSS is that IQ has NO impact on earnings if you’ve got a college degree.
The GSS IQ test is a joke: A 10 word vocabulary test with a maximum IQ of about 125. Worthless for measuring IQ among college grads and probably anyone else. Actual IQ tests have indeed found a correlation between IQ and income among college grads:
http://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/even-among-college-graduates-iq-and-income-are-correlated/
http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2011/04/earnings-effects-of-personality.html
Furthermore, the NYLSY has a weak correlation between IQ and income and an even weaker one between IQ and wealth.
Seeing as income and wealth are not normally distributed, the scatter plots you post are meaningless as anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of statistics would know.
Mugabe you seem unaware that income and self-reported health have low reliability. And each of these measures are just rough approximate of the construct to which they belong.
Correct. Self-reported income is a notoriously unreliable statistic. Even when people tell the truth, their actual incomes can double or be cut in half in only a year’s time. And there are so many different types of income (salary, business income, investment income) that accurate measures are extremely tough.
Better studies, where income is independently measured and averaged over a life time find far higher correlations between income and IQ. And the correlation between IQ and income is likely far higher in hyper-capitalist America than in more socialist countries where incredible social services motivate smart people to work less.
peepee, you’re a joke.
that infoproc graph is meaningless, because it’s broken down into quintiles and most grads are in the top quintile.
Lion posted on this with the title “Shame on Steve Hsu”.
furthermore, even Prof Hsu has a graph showing that those in the top 1% of math ability at age 13 are no more likely than a random person to be in the top 5% of income.
again,
once deliberate selection for IQ is backed out all you find is what Lion has said so many times.
Namely, if you’re stupid there’s a high probability you’ll be poor, but if you’re smart the probability you’ll be rich isn’t much greater than average.
once deliberate selection for IQ is backed out all you find is what Lion has said so many times.
Namely, if you’re stupid there’s a high probability you’ll be poor, but if you’re smart the probability you’ll be rich isn’t much greater than average.
You’re just mindlessly repeating what the Lion says like an obedient little bitch.
Link to just one published study that shows that once you control for educational screening, only low IQ predicts financial outcomes.
That theory may make you feel better about your low income but it doesn’t make it true
my income an wealth aren’t low peepee. they just aren’t high.
my income and wealth are above the median for white American males my age with my education.
LION’S POSTS WERE MADE AT MY SUGGESTION IN COMMENTS.
so who’s whose bitch?
IN ALL DEVELOPED COUNTRIES THE CORRELATION BETWEEN INCOME/WEALTH AND IQ IS LEAST IN CANADA, BECAUSE CANADA IS THE ONLY DEVELOPED COUNTRY WHICH HAS NO COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMS.
it’s painfully obvious from all your posts and comments that you have a low IQ and resent it.
the GSS and the Vanderbilt study on mathematically precocious youth PROVE what I’ve said, and what Lion said after my somments.
it’s simply a FACT.
but it contradicts your ideology so you deny it.
VERY SAD.
it’s painfully obvious from all your posts and comments that you have a low IQ and resent it.
It’s painfully obvious that you’re mentally ill & inferior to me in every way.
Every
Single
Way
And everybody knows it
Including you
not to anyone I know, peepee which include me.
but i’m curious. what is my mental illness peepee?
maybe you can find something no doctor I’ve ever seen has been able to find.
one would think that a crazy person could be identified by a gp or a specialist.
and I’ve seen orthopedists and nephrologists and cardiolgists and urologists and pediatricians and allergists and ENTs and…
no diagnosis peepee.
I even made an appointment with a psychiatrist once just to see.
he told me my problems such as they were didn’t amount to a disorder but that I was very negative.
I’m superior to all your doctors & I say you’re mentally ill
Obsessive compulsive & more
oh i’m OCD for sure.
but like Howard Hughes?
no.
what else?
maybe there’s a cure.
besides peepee,
you shouldn’t assume that I comment here for any reason other than my own entertainment.
or that I ever comment when sober.
as far as I’m concerned you and other HBDers are like oysters.
brainless.
so there’s no guilt in eating you. or cracking you open. or mincing you. or whatever.
and there are some clear counterexamples to the “any black country must be a shit hole” idea.
they’re all small and depend on tourism and tax avoidance, but…
Barbados
Bahamas
Bermuda
are proof that almost all black countries don’t have to be like Haiti.
in fact in Barbados there’s a tiny white minority that’s poorer than anyone.
they’re called Redlegs.
for 300 years they’ve been poor and drunk.
some are part black, but it’s a small part.
and they’ve got something in common with black Americans.
they’re descendants of slaves, white slaves.
and they’re excluded, in their case by choice.
it would indeed be quite damning evidence if Bajan Redlegs scored higher on IQ tests than Bajan blacks.
someone should do this study.
it would indeed be quite damning evidence if Bajan Redlegs scored higher on IQ tests than Bajan blacks.
someone should do this study.
I must admit this is a brilliant idea. Finally some evidence of the 160 IQ you’ve implied you have (based on scores on the old SAT)
I’m kicking myself because I was in Barbados for an entire week and was looking for something to do beyond going on tour buses, eating flying fish, and sitting around the pool all day trying to meet women.
I could have been testing the Bajan Redlegs! Damn, what a wasted trip that was.
http://barbadosunderground.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/red-legs-in-barbados/
“Most accounts refer to their arrogance and alcoholism. One describes them as “lazy, worthless drunks of unworthy Irish/Scots origin, who have neither ambition nor intelligence, yet are white and proud. They believe they are a cursed people.” ”
“and Goddards proudly trace their lineage back to slave ancestry, but most tend to be poorer than the black population. They farm smallholdings of sugar cane on the arid eastern coast of the island or live in Bridgetown, the capital, drinking in local grog shops or running white brothels for middle-class blacks.”
probably less intelligent than blacks, looking at income…
Most accounts refer to their arrogance and alcoholism. One describes them as “lazy, worthless drunks of unworthy Irish/Scots origin, who have neither ambition nor intelligence, yet are white and proud. They believe they are a cursed people.
I wonder why they’re such losers. You can argue it’s because they’re the descendants of semi-slaves, but then the African diaspora has the same excuse. So maybe the descendants of slaves have low IQ’s regardless of whether they’re white or black, but then is it nature or nurture? Their ancestors were likely genetically below the average white intelligence to have ended up semi-slaves in the first place, but then the ancestors of black slaves were likely lower than the average sub-Saharan intelligence for the same reason.
But then white semi-slaves are quite rare, so maybe they were especially below the white mean.
You also find that Caribbean Indians tend to be the dumbest in the Indian diaspora because they too were the descendants of indentured servants, while Indian Americans are the smartest since they’re the descendants of high status voluntary immigrants.
the evidence likely already exists if Barbados has compulsory education and its schools give achievement or IQ tests.
and peepee, they weren’t indentured servants in the same way others were. they were POWs and the result of ethnic cleansing. they weren’t criminals. so their IQs were likely HIGHER than the average indentured servant.
but if they scored the same or lower that might not mean much.
they’re a small remnant population. maybe all the smart ones emigrated, and the remnant has an inbreeding problem.
here’s a vid on them:
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v1835859553zDf2sP?h1=Barbado'ed%3A+Scotland's+Sugar+Slaves
A Bajan study could be interesting, but Bajan studies can hardly refute all other studies. The most relevant studies are those made in fairly modern societies, and relatively urban environments, with populations that have been settled for over a generation. The area around Kairo in Egypt would do, but if you study rural India you get less reliability, for example.
And, very important, it is not good enough to say that intelligence is simply what the ruling class are good at. There are many different elites the world over, ideologically as different as you like, but differering very little on what natural science is.
you didn’t understand then Hugh.
it’s not what the ruling elite is good at. that would be silly.
it’s that intellectual development is takes place within a society. if one is alienated or inimical to his society his intellectual development will be stunted.
When a nation is governed by REAL smart people (multirracial elite, mulatos, blacks, whites, indians and east asians) AND have favorable conditions (little population, little territory, commonwealth)…
You do not think ”white slaves” is bad the same way ”black slaves” are too??
”are proof that almost all black countries don’t have to be like Haiti.”
But these nation are like Haiti.
You are astonished because whites CAN BE poorer than blacks?? I’m, this the difference among us, hbd deniers and hbd’ers.
Correction (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrjiraaaaaayaaaaaaaaa), I’M NOT, THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE AMONG US….
The three Bs are NOT like Haiti. Some have high crime rates.
Barbados has the lowest birth rate in the Western hemisphere.
Yes, but you need (with your iq 160) take many factors, predominantly biological, partially biological and environmental TO understand it clearly.
For example, in societies with BIG and intrusive government BUT with good and competent politicians, the social and economic problems will eliminated by half.
Many countries received economic help by commonwealth but is important that politicians to be honest and competent.
With nations where cognitive elites are really smart and concerned with harmony of society, the biological potential of people will be completely availed.
African ”nations” is not exactly nations. One of the most important problems today is the false idea of ”modern” nation”. Germany for example, in fact, is divided by many different states.
Empires and great non-internally cohesive nations, there only to aggregate power and impose fear to other enemies. ”Modern” nations itselves to be as big companies.
that’s true.
African countries are not nations. they’re just former colonies.
whereas Caribbean island countries are much more natural. the sea is their natural border, so a Bajan “feels” like a Bajan.
there’s a documentary somewhere on how Jamaica and Barbados were once comparable, but now Barbados has left Jamaica in the dust.
T&T is another example of a majority black country that isn’t especially shitty.
the difference is governance.
People are masses, anywhere. The problem, necessarily is not the people, but the ”cognitive” elite like Ms Chua or Obama. ”Convenient” people don’t born to be politicians or admnistrators.
Little territories or higher demographic density create environmental pressions to cooperation than competition. Not only it happens. Selective pressures select against non-cooperators BUT also select cooperators.
Not all blacks are equal you knew? 😉
…and lead is meaningless?
“Among the several indicators, the average blood lead levels from 4 to 10 years had the strongest association with the adult full-scale IQ. For each 1 µg/dL average blood lead levels, the adult full-scale IQ deficit was about two IQ points”
“Adult IQ scores are associated with childhood lead exposures that were measured at or below the CDCs level of concern. The scores declined with higher blood lead levels.”
“The average blood lead levels of the 43 study participants in the adult follow-up reached maximum at two years old (10 µg/dL) and then declined to 6.7 µg/dL at four years of age and then 3 µg/dL at 10 years of age.”
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/iq-effects-childhood-lead-exposure-persist-in-adults/
Swank,
it’s like Gregorian chant to a deaf Muhammadan.
it’s like Ingrid Bergman to a blind gay man.
forget about it and move on.
HBDers are sub-human.
they don’t even rise to the level of Harold:
— if one is alienated or inimical to his society his intellectual development will be stunted.
The jews have done alright, more like society has been inimical to them. And by the way, I mentioned the case of european vs middle eastern jews in Isreal. Are the middle eastern jews alienated from society in israel. I’m sure it is negative to be alienated, but it won’t keep a whole people down. Moreover, isn’t ethnic background chic? Don’t you get cheered on by most of society nowadays?
that’s a myth that serves Jewish interests.
the status of Medieval European Jews was similar to that of the minor nobility.
social status and affinity for and with the elite aren’t the same thing.
in Israel the IQs of Sephardic children on kibbutz (Ashkenazi dominated institutions) were lower than those of Ashkenazi children, but they were still > 120.
the non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel come from Muslim countries mostly.
the Sephardim in Europe and America were so small in number in the 20th c that their “small” achievement is still like that of the Ashkenazim. just look at the wiki on famous Sephardim. Nobel laureates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardi_Jews#List_of_Nobel_laureates.
anecdotes:
the richest non-Chinese in HK is an Iraqi Jew. b>Kadoorie
the richest, or formerly the richest, men in Brazil were Lebanese Jews. Safra
the richest man in Haiti (and billionaire) was, or is, a Syrian Jew. Bigio
two of Britain’s richest are Iranian Jewish brothers. Tchenguiz
It is true that medieval jews were in service of the elites, and encouraged to knowledge work, which is exactly why they as a group rose to higher brain capacity. Once that had happened the persecution they expericed later on couldn’t really knock them down, and if knocked down they quickly rose up again after escaping to america. I’m skipping some historical details, just the broad strokes here.
Regarding rich middle eastern jews, yes you will find them. A broad population base doing well tells more of a tale though.
it only “tells more of a tale” if there were as many Sephardim, Mizrahim, etc. in Europe and its diaspora as there were Ashkenazim. that is, as many in the developed world.
(it’s not an accident that Miamonides and Spinoza were Sephardic. there’s no comparable Ashkenazi figure until after the Haskalah. orthodox Jews would give Rashi as an example, but really his learning was insular, exclusively Jewish, compared to Maimonides’s.)
the numbers aren’t even close.
in the US, my country, 99% of all Jews are Ashkenazi.
But you can’t have that study, sephardim in europe would not be sephardim. You would no longer have the same comparison. It is at the core of being sephardim that you have not lived for generations in europe.
Likewise, you can’t have a study where millions of afticans had lived in europe since 500 years back. And if you could go back and arrange that, you would get a different reality to study, and most likely different results.
No one claims for instance that africans and Africa COULD not have developed differently under other historical circumstances. But we are the products of actual historical circumstances.
Dingleberry Humperdink,
Sephardim speak Ladino.
Ashkenazim speak Yiddish.
Sephardim are all descendants of Jews expelled from Spain.
I know that. But the bulk of people calling themselves sephardi and being identified as sephardi have not ancestors that lived in northern europe for the last 1000 years.
Don’t throw out counter arguments that are not counter arguments. I know where Spain is on the map, you won’t catch me not knowing about history and geography. It’s just I cant add a thousand clauses to everything I write.
huh?
But the bulk of people calling themselves sephardi and being identified as sephardi have not ? ancestors that lived in northern europe for the last 1000 years.
I agree.
regarding Ashkenazi or Jewish intelligence more generally…
so far as the advantage is genetic, anyone who knows anything about Judaism would know that Murray’s explanation is closer to the truth than Cockring’s and Harpoondick’s.
Judaism COMANDS studiousness.
mitzvah talmud torah.
You shall therefore impress these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, so that …
…COMMANDS…
WordPress is such utter shit. no editing.
ya know if peepee were older he simply wouldn’t be at all.
would’ve been consumed in the gay Holocaust of 1978-1996.
Sephardim have an average IQ of 100. Mizrahim have an average IQ of 90. Still some points higher than their host country’s average IQ like the ashkenazim. Kibbutz folks are rather idealist, smart people, they are not representative for the whole. Sephardim are about 15% of jewish population, however they won proportionally much less scientific nobel prices.
It has been 500 years after Sephardim left Spain, maybe they mixed a little bit with their new neighbours? I do not know.
Most sephardim immigrated to Balkan area, Ottoman Empire and around. Some sephardim also immigrated to Netherlands, diamond business, etc. Some to England. There was even once a Sephardim Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, the most intellectual prime minister I have ever known ( I do not know many).
I believe that jews were smart from the very beginning. You cannot produce torah, talmud and other books with average intelligence. Smarter jews from middle east immigrated, became sephardim, and ashkenazim.
Jewish intelligence is not due to commands. Murray is also wrong. All religions have commands, rules, etc…And mizrahim had the same rules, their IQ average is 90.
The hardest question for me is, what happened to Greeks? They were so smart. Did they immigrate, or did they mix too much with the slaves? Or maybe they only killed the smarter ones like Socrates.
Most sephardim immigrated to Balkan area, Ottoman Empire and around
this is a much better explanation than IQ for why Sephardim haven’t won so many science Nobels.
I believe that jews were smart from the very beginning. You cannot produce torah, talmud and other books with average intelligence.
this is definitely false. almost all of Jewish literature was collective until Maimonides. Greek and Roman literature was infinitely more copious and sophisticated.
the Summa was written by one man who died at age 49 and is comparable in length and superior in sophistication to the Talmud, produced by hundreds over hundreds of years.
there really is no comparing Athens and Jerusalem. it would be like comparing Usain Bolt to a man in a wheelchair.
Child IQ > 120 ? Why don’t we focus on adults. With kids you can get any numbers. Someone tried to argue that infats that “spoke” a lot we cleverer, and .. hahhaha. Maybe so, but what matters is later on in life. People get into puberty at different ages, and only after that can you get useful comparison.
it would be better,
but almost all of the studies are on children.
so if the studies on children are eliminated
there’s nothing to focus on or talk about
that the IQs of black kids adopted by white parents IS higher than the black mean even though their parents might have been well below it, IS discounted by HBD-tards.
that is TRUE.
and btw Hugh,
i’m not committed to the absurd notion that all groups are perfectly equal at everything, that is, have identical distributions.
but there are studies which would demonstrate dispositively/unequivocally whatever differences there are between groups and individuals at this particular time in human history,
and none of them has been done.
and what one finds without exception is the behavior genetics folks and HBD bloggers are simple, unsubtle, mathematically incompetent, ideologically motivated morons.
There is wishful thinking and blindness to data on both sides. The HBD:ers actually try to argue scientifically, if not always competently, but the opposers are truly idological.
you don’t know the meaning of “ideology”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Marxist_view
find another word.
the most valuable company in terms of maket cap is Apple, a luxury goods manufacturer for people with really bad taste headed by a confessed ass licker.
capitalism is evil, stupid, and gay.
This is where you show ideological motivation. Capitalism is evil, maybe so, but it is reality. And even marzists like money and luxury, thereby revealing that they are also capitalist. If not what are they?
If indeed most studies are on kids, that should favor populations that mature quickly. Gladwell makes an interesting point about being born early in the year and thus be older at the cut-off tests, and how that has major impact on the individual’s chances.
—that the IQs of black kids adopted by white parents IS higher than the black mean even though their parents might have been well below it, IS discounted by HBD-tards
Yeah, a more stimulation environment may do that to children, like if you learn early to play chess you will beat the crap out of kids who are just starting to know how the pieces move. But once the cohort of kids all get enough exposure to chess, the innate abilities come to dominate over who has done it the longest. As with chess in this example is it with all learning.
‘But once the cohort of kids all get enough exposure to chess’
A great assumption — namely that the cohort of gets will all get “that” level of exposure.
We are all exposed to what matters and counts in society. Ignorance of that is itself telling, about the ignorant person. It would have been different hundreds of years ago, you could have lived in isolation in the countryside, and maybe maybe get away with that as an excuse.
‘We are all exposed to what matters and counts in society’
What matters and counts on Martin Luther King Blvd is far different from what matters and counts in the ‘burbs.
another anecdote for Hugh:
it is a truism which isn’t that truhe traite that sprinters are born and not made.
so why do Jamaicans do so much better than other blacks?
could it be that sprinting is THE sport in Jamaica.
and why haven’t the y always done so well.
Donald Quarrie was the first great Jamaican sprinter and he was beaten by white guys.
if there’s a ceiling or a floor to trait that isn’t especially high or low then nurture really can overwhelm nature. that is, the most talented/gifted can only get so good. the rest just need to do more work.
here’s the pardigmantic case in athletics of nurture over nature. maybe it’s an anti-Soviet myth, but he was called “the mechanical man”. (and hey, i’m a white guy with short legs, but I could run as fast as asafa powell could in high school. that is, not very fast.)
so if the broad heritability for IQ were only 20% in the developed world as a whole, as I’ve claimed, what would that mean?
it would mean that if you had clones all around the developed world and had scored 130 on an IQ test, you could say that the probability that your clones in Japan or Italy or Australia or Namibia or etc. would score between 91.3 and 120.7 would be 95.5%
the probability of that would be only 67% you moron.
the range for 95% probability would be 76 to 135.4.
and that’s stupid.
the problem is h^2 is just Pearson’s rho for MZ twins/clones, and low IQ is much more heritable than high IQ.
so I’d give the 95% range as 100 to 145.
the probability of that would be only 67% you moron.
the range for 95% probability would be 76 to 135.4.
Correct. IF heritability were only 0.2
the problem is h^2 is just Pearson’s rho for MZ twins/clones, and low IQ is much more heritable than high IQ.
so I’d give the 95% range as 100 to 145.
Even if high IQ were less heritable than low IQ (some studies say the opposite), your numbers here make no sense given your argument. If over 95% of the clones of an IQ 130 are above IQ 100, then that implies a much higher heritability than 0.2.
only if a bivariate normal distribution is the best fitting distribution of IQs for clones.
I think it’s a bad model distribution especially for the developed world as a whole. though as noted in that paper on the G-matrix it’s good enough for a very small region of (G, E) space.
that is it isn’t clear what heritability means exactly and in particular cases as far as a gambler is concerned if the distribution isn’t bivariate normal.
if one were to taken the 45 points range as 4 SDs this would correspond to an h^2 of .66.
and Bouchard found a gap of 29 points in one of his twin pairs on the WAIS.
but again, only if the best fitting distribution is bivariate normal.
i don’t know how much developed countries vary. maybe s korea is at the top and Spain is at the bottom.
but it depends on what counts as developed and whether local or absolute z scores are used.
I was thinking in terms of local z scores.
using absolute z scores would give a larger range.
if one were to taken the 45 points range as 4 SDs this would correspond to an h^2 of .66.
Correct.
and Bouchard found a gap of 29 points in one of his twin pairs on the WAIS.
Small, if that was the biggest he found out of all of them. And interestingly, one of his most culturally separated twin pairs (one twin spoke like the Queen, her twin spoke like a prole) differed by only 1 IQ point. Someone should correlate the IQ gap between twins with the SES gap of the homes they were raised in or the geographic gap between where they grew up. If these correlations are insignificant, the HBD deniers lose some major talking points.
but again, only if the best fitting distribution is bivariate normal.
That’s the default assumption.
I was thinking in terms of local z scores.
Tests like the Wechsler have different norms (and sometimes different questions) for different countries, thus local Z scores, but that’s because the Wechsler includes a lot of general knowledge and vocabulary that doesn’t transcend nations. The Raven is one of the few tests psychologists consider culture-fair enough to score every country according to American or British norms.
But even if some psychologist did test a large sample of identical twins separated into different countries, you would still claim the study was flawed because the twins would not be RANDOMLY scattered all over the developed world. It would be impossible to have a study that meets that criterion..
Stop enumerating examples of super sprinters in Jamaica or really ruch sephardim jews. A few eamples neither make nor break any case. If on the other hand you find that jamaicans on average are faster runners than black cubans, or that the std is highter, then you might be on to something.
Mugabe, you in particular seem to think that single examples somehow can invalidate theories about whole groups. Stop it.
what’s the point. heritability is a useless metric for the ends to which HBDers put it. a trait could have 100% heritable and still be extremely sensitive to environmental interference. of course HBDers switch up and give lip service to heritability != malleability, but they then proceed to administer policy advice as if it did.
of course HBDers switch up and give lip service to heritability != malleability, but they then proceed to administer policy advice as if it did.
Not sure what HBDers you’re talking about here, but the authors of the Bell Curve made the point that it doesn’t matter whether IQ is heritable or not (precisely because heritability != malleability), what matters is that it’s not malleable.
Oh please the perfect example. The policies they say have minimal effect HAVE proven effects but the policies are cut short before the children come of age.
It doesn’t take any mathematical knowledge to see what’s going on. And it’s surprising at how easily some people are duped
Eye color is not malleable, height can be. Depends on the component being used as comparison.
I think the ” mathematical knowledge ‘, is what is causing all these problems of interpretation. First it is necessary to understand how the systems work. There is no doubt that genes have a more important role than the environment. We are not stones, inanimate matter. We have responded to in accordance with our environmental predispositions, which are not infinite.
No need that our answers are endless, but they always have the best answers for each event. And in this case, self-knowledge is the best way to build perfect societies.
The problem of intelligence tests is that they start from the same assumptions which education was built, the idea of human equality. It is believed that human intelligence is quantitatively unequal, but it is qualitatively similar. Even if psychometricians not consciously believe this assumption is exactly practicing in their labor niches.
Err…Eye color is malleable. Peoples eye color change through out their lives. Genes can and do change what they do depending on environment. Hair color also changes so does skin tone. Dark skinned people can actually go white patch by patch, its called vitiligo.
Another word is epigenetics. They tested these things on mammals, insects that literally have some of the genes we do. They changed eye color, coat color, bmi, memory, behavior everything by environmental induction and it was hereditary too.
HBD are a bunch of absolute morons. They just pile crap on top of crap then roll around in it. Circle jerk with while it rains shit from the massive pile of shit they made then act like its the truth.