A term I sometimes use on this blog is “genetic IQ”. An aggressively anti-HBD commenter on this blog named “Mugabe” feels the very idea of “genetic IQ” reveals how confused us HBD people are. I think it depends how HBD people define the term genetic IQ. If an HBD person defines genetic IQ (as I might have in the past) as the IQ people would have if everyone experienced the exact same environment, then this might show flawed thinking because it fails to consider the possibility that John might be smarter than Ted in environment A, but Ted might be smarter than John in environment B, so who has the higher genetic IQ? My answer might be whichever geneotype averages higher IQ phenotypes holding a wide range of environments constant, has the higher genetic IQ.
Mugabe has suggested that an ideal measure of heritability would be the IQ correlation between identical twins randomly assigned to different wombs and homes across the developed world. I think he’s on the right track, but if it were possible, I would do it very differently.
The ideal study (though obviously not practical) would be 100 groups of identical octuplets, where one member of each brood is randomly assigned to a womb and home in America, and each of her seven identical siblings are randomly assigned to wombs and homes across the entire world (not the developed world, only). At age 40, the 100 American assigned fetuses and each of their seven identical international siblings take a large battery of culture reduced IQ tests, and the IQs of the (now adult) American fetuses are correlated with the average of their seven siblings raised all over the world.
The average IQ of the seven clones would correlate extremely highly with the genetic IQ of each American because the seven identical siblings are raised in random environments around the World, so environmental effects, whether cultural, economic, prenatal, or nutritional, tend to cancel out when you average the IQs of the seven siblings. Thus knowing how well the IQ of Americans correlate with the average IQ of their seven international clones tells us how well IQ correlates with genetic IQ in America. Squaring this correlation might give us a much more meaningful measure of heritability than conventionally defined.
Now such an elaborate study might produce the same sky high heritability figures that conventional twin studies report, or it might produce a value much lower. It just depends on whether most of the genetic effects on IQ are dependent on the environment or independent genetic effects.
mugabe is very stupid person
even my proposed experiment wouldn’t settle the issue of group differences.
it’s not that i have an equalitarian agenda or worldview. it’s that when one makes claims like poor people and especially poor black people deserve their plight and the rich are biologically and or morally superior…it’s pretty obvious there’s some ideology there…
so have all your i’s dotted and t’s crossed before you make “such outrageous statements”.
my guess is that there are differences between groups, but they are small.
I feel that racial IQ differences that are correlated with great differences in cultural & technological achievements going back thousands or even tens of thousands years likely reflect large genetic differences.
But racial differences differences uncorrelated with such history might partly or entirely reflect norms of reaction
there are, at least, two problems with using the average too:
1. the distribution of environments in the contemporary developed world is not what it was nor what it will be and is itself arbitrary in a sense.
2. i mentioned the concepts of “eurytopic” and stenotopic” before only to be ridiculed by Pink Martini. the point was that some genotypes may have a greater maximum phenotypic value than some other genotypes which have a greater mean.
1. the distribution of environments in the contemporary developed world is not what it was nor what it will be and is itself arbitrary in a sense.
Which is why I suggested the clones be scattered throughout the entire World not just the developed World. So ideally each American’s IQ would be correlated with the average IQ of his clones, where one clone was raised by say an average couple in China, another raised by pygmies in the Congo rainforest & another raised by the British royal family.
point 2 is that you’d also want to look at the maximum value for each set of clones.
if genome A has higher scores on average, but genome B has the highest maximum, then the question of who’s smarter, what is the rank of their “genetic IQs” still can’t be answered in a way which both A and B could agree on.
Yes that does create a problem. One genotype might be smarter on average but the other genotype might be more likely to be brilliant.
I would probably say that the genotype that is smarter on average has the higher genetic IQ because the genotype more likely to be brilliant would also be more likely to be retarded so its extremes cancel out
But it’s awkward because if we cloned Einstein & found most of his clones were stupid or even retarded but a few had IQs in the stratosphere, the average IQ of his clones might be low enough to make a travesty of the whole concept of genetic IQ
But then the popular term genetic potential leads to the expectation that people should be defined by their best self.
So perhaps each person should have three genetic IQs. Potential genetic IQ based on his smartest clone. Typical genetic IQ based on the average of his clones. And overall genetic IQ based on the average of potential genetic IQ & typical genetic IQ.
Of course some individuals, and some groups, are more sensitive to environment, potentially having higher maximum and lower mean, or whatever different distribution. Of course, the opposite, every individual and group having the exact same sensitivity to environment, and blossoming in the exact same environments, would be very unexpected.
How on earth can this be taken as a refutation of HBD? I see it as a natural part of HBD. However, if this argument is used to argue that we can’t ever know anything because there might be some special environment where suddenly group X is sky high over the others, then it is simply dishonest, a cowardly way to escape having to look at existing reality.
it’s not a refutation. it’s pointing out that there is nothing to refute.
as yet hereditist have zero facts in their favor, because they are too stupid to know what studies must be done to test their hypothesis.
you’re an example rocky.
care to define hereditism rocky? hereditists never do, because they’re stupid. so i’ll repeat here my definition:
1. genes have an independent effect on psychological traits (assuming that there are such things as psychological traits).
2. this effect is dominant.
3. a corollary of 1 + 2: there is no norm crossing.
I think the implied definition of heteditism is that genes have an independent effect on mental traits (at least IQ) & that independent effect is the dominant explanation for group & individual differences within any specific (developed) country.
But there’s no implied claim that the independent effect is dominant between societies as evidenced by the fact that the likes of Lynn & Jensen believe the Flynn effect is overwhelmingly environmental as are the large IQ differences between African Americans and black Africans
So studies (however flawed) suggest genetics explain way more than 50% of the late adult IQ variation in America. Now I (and presumably other HBD people) had assumed this vindicates HBD, but I failed to consider the difference between independent genetic effects & dependent genetic effects.
The point of this blog post was we don’t know what percent of late adult American IQ variation is independently caused by genetics & may never know considering how hard such studies would be to do
But if it’s more than 50%, HBDers were right, in my opinion
1 and 3 are too strongly stated, just so they can be refuted. 2. Only confuses things. What shows is dominant by definition, what doesn’t is not.
Here are mine:
1. Genes have an effect on psychological traits, through interplay with environment.
2. Within the variation of environments observed in societies on this planet now and historically, genetics has proven to be robust as an explanatory factor. For example, move a European population to Africa, and you get a society resembling that which they left.
Let’s not confuse ourselves with impossible thought experiments, what if Mike Tyson had grown up in Russia, maybe he wouldn’t have been a good boxer, maybe he’d be knocked out by Putin ten times over.
And in fairness HBD deniers never define HBD denial though many HBDers assume they’re arguing genes have zero or very little genetic effect. When called on it, the more moderate HBD deniers say “we’re not saying genes have no effect” but are almost never more specific than that
I suppose Mugabe has defined HBD denial as belief in the non-dominance of independent genetic effects but non-dominance in the world & across generations is different from nondominance within a time & place. Even Richard Lynn would agree with the former
when the range of genomes and environments is sufficiently restricted the additive model is a very good approximation.
it seems Rocky is merely defining HBD as not “environmentalism”, but that’s a stupid definition, because there are no longer any “environmentalists if there ever were.
both hereditistm and “environmentalism” are gross oversimplifications.
the reality is that the function which takes genomes and environments to psychological phenotyopes can’t be decomposed into a sum of functions of genes and environment independently.
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander but not for the duck. get it?
“sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander but not for the duck. get it?”
Sun for the goose is sun for the gander but moon for the duck. Sorry, the duck needs to get with the program in that case. It doesn’t help that there is some imaginary world where the duck is right.
and of course one can’t prove there’s no Loch Ness monster save draining the loch. so what?
the point is that the h^2 for such and such a trait for one population cannot be taken as the h^2 for all populations taken together. and that even if h^2 for each population were about the same, this says absolutely nothing about the h^2 for all populations taken together.
and if hereditist claims are only true locally then they’re just trivial and stupid? societies vary over time and place.
Greg Cochran said it well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvJeasyBJZw#t=55. There is one dominant global culture, that everyone copies, envies, hates, tries to improve. And is it so different from successful cultures of the last 5k years.
but Greg Cockring is wrong.
that’s why i proposed that the clones or MZ twins be assigned at random to homes and wombs around the developed world or to those countries with mean IQ near 100.
it could be that if i had an MZ twin who’d been raised and gestated in rural Spain or on a cattle ranch in Namibia or whatever, he’d be as different from me as anyone in his psychological traits.
often herditists liken psychological traits to height. but i believe that adiposity and blood pressure are much better analogies. Bouchard’s twins correlated at .69 on the WAIS and at .64 on come measure of bp. yet both adiposity and bp can be lowered to ideal by almost anyone save kidney disease or some fat storage disorder. that is anyone can have a resting bp of 100/60 and a body fat % < 10, and the environment which would effect these is already known. http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6659.full
another example is skin cancer.
Australians have the highest rates in the world iirc. yet their ancestors in Europe had much lower rates. it’s the sun obviously. but for psychological traits no one knows what the environment is or what the equivalent of fair skin and sun and skin cancer are for psychological traits.
Australians have the highest rates in the world iirc. yet their ancestors in Europe had much lower rates
The same thing with height. Unmixed African Americans are several inches taller & 13 IQ points higher than their cousins in West Africa
“but Greg Cockring is wrong.
that’s why i proposed that the clones or MZ…”
Hahaha, that one takes the biscuit.
What is the iq*** Is the problem, iq are diverse is not*
Some people have higher VIQ, Lower SPIQ, higher MATIQ………. …….. ……….
Specification is very important to any work.
In the study I describe each American would have clones randomly scattered all over the World including places like the rain forest raised by the pygmies, so you would need tests that don’t require English or could be easily translated.
But I would use tests like Block Design, and tests that require you to repeat backwards nonsense sounds made by the examiner etc
Any single test will be enough to measure human intelligence, because there are many different cognitive combinations.
What other studies have found is that if you use one subtest, heritability is low, but if you use a compensate total score based on many subtests, heritability is high, so I would want to use many subtests, but the problem is very few subtests can be given to people raised by rain forest pygmies without the results being totally meaningless
”it’s not that i have an equalitarian agenda or worldview. it’s that when one makes claims like poor people and especially poor black people deserve their plight and the rich are biologically and or morally superior…it’s pretty obvious there’s some ideology there…”
Mugabe,
you have a prole-primitive-dualistic mind. No, in my case at least, there are a diversity of ”poor blacks” as well a diversity of ”rich white-ishes”. Criminal people deserve to be sterilized, black, white, indian, argentinian….
Many ”poor black” are more predisposed to be violent, like many ”rich whites and whitish” are more predisposed to be white collar criminals, they also deserve to be sterilized…
Correcting= ”In my case at least, i know there are a diversity of”.
”What other studies have found is that if you use one subtest, heritability is low, but if you use a compensate total score based on many subtests, heritability is high, so I would want to use many subtests, but the problem is very few subtests can be given to people raised by rain forest pygmies without the results being totally meaningless”
I’m not denying heritability of intelligence, i’m denying factor g as single proxy to measure genes who are related with intelligence. For example, genes to myopia can relate with intelligence and have a causal relation.
I don’t know how ”smart genes” are being measured. I think, highly smart with symmetric quantitative cognitive profile (very good in most of intelectual activities, the classical nerd) will have more neurons, more convolutions in many brain areas, balanced highly developed brain, than normal ones. While, ”twice exceptional”, generally, will have unbalanced brains, with very higher development in some brain areas which are exactly causal with deficit in other areas. The way as thoughts is produced is caused by brain morphology.
Of course because human populations are different.
Heritability without parents and relatives, is not heritability, heritability by what*** Recessivity and dominance were found because the heredity of traits like blue eyes, father to son.
Is not heritability, is genetics only.
Higher ”heritability” or higher correlation ”genes-iq” = 0,30*** It is higher****
Is more easy demonstrate that intelligence is genetic and hereditary, (many times), by families. Galton made a good job in the past.
But people simply is despising the importance of mother-father genes combination during the conception, after the intercourse.
Many of hbd deniers think literally and dualistically. They have difficult to touch the surface of simple complexity like ”personality and genetic influence”.
Well I’m just talking about the heritability of scores on tests that are highly g loaded in America (conventional IQ tests) because that’s almost all the field scientifically understands about intelligence and this point in time.
First we must establish the heritability of intelligence as traditionally tested before we worry about the heritability of potentially better measures of intelligence.
By heritability, scientists just mean the percent of the variation “explained” by genes. It doesn’t matter whether the genes were inherited or not, that’s taking things too literally. Genes mutate, so one could have genes or alleles that none of their ancestors had.
I watched a video not long ago, the point being made was that.. if we took the standards demanded by HBD deniers, and tried to apply it to dogs, we wouldn’t be able to conclude that pit-bulls are genetically more aggressive than golden retrievers. How could we, maybe there would be some environment where it’s reversed. And is it genes at all, which genes, are they dominant, independent?
”Well I’m just talking about the heritability of scores on tests that are highly g loaded in America (conventional IQ tests) because that’s almost all the field scientifically understands about intelligence and this point in time.”
How many IQ tests you’ve done*
heritability of scores on tests….
This sounds very strange to me.
”Genes mutate, so one could have genes or alleles that none of their ancestors had.”
Mutations are aberrant or novel expressions of existent genes. Then, my mutations are novel expressions of genes of my father or my mother. Impossible that ”i could have genes who aren’t present in my parents”. Right to say, ”i can have different genetic expressions tha my parents and not only different combinations”.
Generally, sons differ by their fathers because different combinations of the same genes with little mutational load.
Most genetic human diversity, i think, is a result of different genetic expressions or phenotype, and not different genes. In genotypical terms, there are a only one human species, so, we are the same, genotypically speaking.
I differ me for you, as the expression of my genes or my genetic expressions, but we are two human beings with the same genes, which are combined in different ways, are expressed differently, i think.
Phenotypes are like potential genotypes. Only stupid and pedantic opinions, ever.
of course pp is right that there are some genetic abnormalities which cause mental retardation. but afaik they are all either chromosomal or single alleles.
at one point Shoe had the theory that everyone was a little retarded, and the smartest just had fewer of the retard genes. but it failed replication according to him.
Organic retardates are genetically qualitatively different than normals. Familial retardates however are just an extreme form of genetically normal IQ
at one point Shoe had the theory that everyone was a little retarded, and the smartest just had fewer of the retard genes. but it failed replication according to him.
Retarded genes just seem like genes that screw up whatever system evolved, so if anything it should be the opposite. Everyone’s a little brilliant and the familial retarded just have fewer of the brilliant genes, while the organic retarded have genes that interfere
of the genetic causes listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability#Cause,
Mowat–Wilson syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, Phenylketonuria, and Neurofibromatosis result from single alleles. the rest are from chromosome level abnormalities. and all of these have physical signs, disability and disease, associated with them.
I believe all of those are examples of organic retardation. Familial retardates are just normal people who just happen to have IQs below 70. They typically come from low IQ families & look normal.
By contrast organic retardates can come from any family because the genetic cause of organic retardation overrides normal sources of cognitive variation
i’ve never heard of “familial retardates”. the woman of whom Holmes said, “three generations of imbeciles is enough”, wasn’t retarded. It is worthy of note that the child did very well in school for the two years that she attended (she died of complications from measles in 1932), even being listed on her school’s honor roll in April 1931…Historian Paul A. Lombardo argued in 1985 that Buck was not “feeble-minded” at all, but that she had been put away to hide her rape, perpetrated by the nephew of her adoptive mother.[9] He also asserted that Buck’s lawyer, Irving Whitehead, poorly argued her case, failed to call important witnesses, and was remarked by commentators to often not know what side he was on. It is now thought that this was not because of incompetence, but deliberate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell#The_case
i have seen on the tele a biological son of two retardates who was helping his parents with arithmetic when he was 13. he was not retarded.
especially since their children are often able to function competently in their daily lives outside school.
Read more: Familial Retardation – Mental Age, Children, and Mothers – JRank Articles http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/236/Familial-Retardation.html#ixzz3RDNewPkL
i was aware that there were some who scored very low who had nothing else wrong with them, but aren’t these so called “familial” retardates less retarded than the organic retardates?
there were only two retards in my school and they looked funny. that’s my bias.
i guess Larry Holmes and Joe Louis were familial retardates.
If you have two retardates with IQ 50; one is familial, the other is organic.
The familial will typically have parents with IQs around 70 (regression to the mean) while the organic will have parents with IQs of 100
In other words the organic is pathological; a freak condition & not part of normal biological variation. The same happens for extremes on lots of traits, not IQ only (height is an example)
Jensen argued that the reason people think IQ tests are culturally biased is minorities often have familial retardation because retardation is biologically normal for them & thus seem much less disabled than white retardates who are organic & thus look and act much more retarded & pathological
i was aware that there were some who scored very low who had nothing else wrong with them, but aren’t these so called “familial” retardates less retarded than the organic retardates?
The lower the IQ, the greater the odds of being organic, but organic is diagnosed independently of IQ based on very objective criteria (i.e. extra chromosome) & some organics have normal IQs and are not retarded at all
Familial retardation may be reduced by nutritional, health, and educational intervention at an early age. In a study conducted in the 1970s, educators selected mother-child pairs from among a group of women with IQs under 75 living in the poorest section of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, while establishing a control group of mothers in the same neighborhood with IQs over 100. For the first five years of the children’s lives, the targeted group of mothers and their children received instruction in problem-solving and language skills, as well as counseling to motivate them to learn and succeed. The mothers and children in the control group received no form of environmental enrichment. At the age of five, the children in the target group had IQ scores averaging 26 points higher than those of the children in the control group. At the age of nine, their average IQ was 106 (slightly above the universal norm of 100), while that of the other children was only 79. (Later results, however, were somewhat disappointing, as the mothers’ motivation to continue the program became difficult to maintain over the long term.)
Read more: Familial Retardation – Mental Age, Children, and Mothers – JRank Articles http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/236/Familial-Retardation.html#ixzz3RDN0yV8t
Sounds like the Milwaukee project. Jensen talks about that; says they were huge IQ gains but they were unrelated to g. Simply reflected teaching to the test & did not translate into gains in grades or any of things IQ predicts
Exactly. Teach as the tests are made increase superficially their scores. Interesting this “educators” (most them are stupid, i know what i’m saying, my mother and my brother are teachers, very difficulty to understand the reality, lower skills in “observative” capacity) not “measure” OR observe behavioral pattern changes??? Or, this poor kids of Study were black?? Mentally retarded behavior are well know. Organic mental retardation as down syndrome is different than normal lower intelligence ( iq less than 80-70). The average technical smart today will be the stupid tomorrow (????) Iq can be very good to measure mentally handicaped people, it was created for this kind of analysis but the high the “intelect-intelligence”, higher will be the complexity like a tree with many branches of the specialization to complex societies. Higher technical intelligence seems correlate with lower instinct. Genius and creative ones have higher instinct/ intuition while technically smart tend to have lower instinct/ intuition. They can’t read what is implicit ( correct pseudo-conspiracy theories… They can’t smell the dangers and threats).
What about two different genotypes with an identical IQ phenotype? We would then place their octupulet siblings together in several households around the world. Then, we would check the average correlation between their IQs in the different environments.