A lot of experts have a vague understanding of heritability (H2). They know that heritability is the phenotype correlation between genetic clones randomly separated into different enviornments, but what not even the World’s leading experts on heritability seem to understand is what the H in H2 means. They make statements that show they are clueless about which of these three statements is true and why:
H = phenotype-genotype correlation
H > phenotype-genotype correlation
H < phenotype-genotype correlation
Pumpkin Person 
I would think that because we have a mother and father we are similar to either of them by one fourth chance. If we fall in the middle as in mom has 110 and dad has 100 then we would be 105, 50% of the time and either 110 or 100 at 25% of the time for a population sample.
I am not sure but phenotype correlated with genotype would be greater than habitability because as phenotype is fully expressed by age 25 from genotype the correlation results as 0.9 where as heritability has 0.25 correlation of the child being exactly like mom or exactly like dad and 0.5 correlation of being between mom and dad.
Am I right 🙂
h is merely the coefficient of G in the local planar approximation of the P(G, E) surface P = hG + sqrt(1-h^2)E.
h^2 is the implied var(G)/var(P) from the correlation of of the Ps of clones.
all studies to date on the heritability of this or that in humans have been done within geographically/politically/socially restricted environments with very little statistical dispersion in comparison to the global and historical human environment and thus the planar approximation appears to be a good one to morons.
so then h is another measure stdev(G)/stdev(P).
so then h is another measure stdev(G)/stdev(P).
Correct, but what only I seem to know is whether the stdev(G)/stdev(P) among the general population from which the clones come is the same,greater, or less than the stdev(G)/stdev(P) among the clones scattered into random environments within said population
In other words, would the stdev(G)/stdev(P) among people reared (ideally from conception) in a random environment within a given population (the experimental condition) be the same, greater, or smaller than the stdev(G)/stdev(P) among people reared (from conception) by their biological parents?
Very few people seem to know.
iiuc…my comment is not inappropriate…
i heard a story recently on Radio Lab about some israeli fags who used eggs from a ukrainian woman and gestational surrogates from india.
i think that best results would be achieved when:
1. the biological mother carries the baby, and if not her then a woman within the same ethnic group.
2. the rearing parents are more closely related to the child genetically.
in both cases these are cateris paribus propositions.
and in fact in these studies of MZTs the adoptive parents were often relatives of the biological parents. and obvious confound…overlooked by hereditists.
…an obvious confound…
and then there’s the other obvious confound that adoptive homes are almost always superior to the homes the biological parents would have provided…and almost always superior to homes in general.
but tony blair is an interesting exception…or rather his father is an interesting exception.
iirc, his father was given up for adoption by middle class parents (in the british sense) and raised by working class parents, but he went on to become a law professor.
The most interesting study would be if a bunch of Ashkenazi Jews (mean IQ 110) raised the babies of gypsies (mean IQ 70) and vice versa.
Chartreuse, you very much overstate your anti-genetic case. Here’s some food for thought: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/11/1/24.abstract and http://pps.sagepub.com/content/11/1/3.abstract?etoc
h^2 is the implied var(G)/var(P) from the correlation of of the Ps of clones.
Correct, but what very few people with the exception of me know is how the genotype-phenotype correlation among clones from a population, separated into random environments within said population, relates to the genotype-phenotype correlation among a representative sample of people in said population. What only I seem to understand is whether it’s higher, lower, or equal to h, and why.
“In other words, would the stdev(G)/stdev(P) among people reared (ideally from conception) in a random environment within a given population (the experimental condition) be the same, greater, or smaller than the stdev(G)/stdev(P) among people reared (from conception) by their biological parents?”
If raised by random individuals, the environmental component of any trait would regress to the mean from if they were raised by their parents. Therefore, there would be less overall phenotypic variance.
This is a bit of a guess but intuition tells me that this means that h is equal to phenotype genotype correlation. Squaring of h is multiplying the effects of environment to account for the fact that the environmental affects of a trait are reduced when the superintelligent cat is raised by its parents.
One thing I don’t understand about this is that many traits don’t have a clear fitness advantage, or aren’t much affected by environment, so there would be no difference between being adopted and raised by biological parents. For example, the length of a moose’s jaw would be more or less equally heritable in both cases.
P = hG + sqrt(1-h^2)E
P = (0.76)G + (0.6499)E
Full Scale (0.76) come from here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/09/17/great-news-for-hereditists/
If genetic potential of whites is 100, G = 100
Environment would be 100 to 0 (stimulating environments leads to full expression of genetic potential(good food and smart parents))
So
140 = (0.76)100 + (0.6499)100
100/140 = 0.71 ~ h
108 = (0.76)100 + (0.6499)50
100/108 = 0.92 ~ h
100 = (0.76)100 + (0.6499)36.9
100/100 = 1.0 ~ h
92 = (0.76)100 + (0.6499)25
100/92 = 1.08 ~ h
82 = (0.76)100 + (0.6499)10
100/82 = 1.21 ~ h
————————
h * P = G
1.0 * 100 = 100
P = G + E
136.9 = 100 + 36.9
Flynn effect = E
————————
Environment = 57
Jews
120 = (0.76)110 + (0.6499)57
East Asians
116 = (0.76)105 + (0.6499)57
Whites(my Full Scale is 113)
113 = (0.76)100 + (0.6499)57
African Americans
105 = (0.76)90 + (0.6499)57
————————
If raised by random individuals, the environmental component of any trait would regress to the mean from if they were raised by their parents. Therefore, there would be less overall phenotypic variance.
Excellent inference!
BUT
And as you may have infered
This wouldn’t nessecarily cause the genotype-phenotype correlation to change.
See:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/08/31/height-is-a-useful-analogy-for-iq/
“This wouldn’t necessarily cause the genotype-phenotype correlation to change.”
Ok. I guess It depends on how genotypes are studied.
If models are based on analyses of wild animals or human populations where individuals are raised by their young, the model of which genes do what is based on that particular parent-raised environment wherein the aforementioned recursive intergenerational genetic-environmental interaction is considered an intrinsic function of the gene. Therefore, this model would not be able to predict phenotypes as well under different environmental conditions, such as in adoption studies, so the correlation would be lower for adoptees.
However, if models of genotypes are made on the level of which genes control which proteins, etc, then what I said before would impact the correlation: lower phenotypic variance among adopted individuals would occur. Less variable gene expression would make it easier to predict the exact genotype from the phenotype and vice versa. Right?
For how h relates to h^2, is the answer just like chartreuse says, a way to make estimates more conservative because heritability is a “local planar approximation”? If it is, isn’t what I said kind of accurate: “squaring of h is multiplying the effects of environment”? Uncertainty is synonymous with environment for heritability because something is either correlated with genes or it is unable to be predicted by the heritability models unless you somehow quantify all environmental variables. I ask partly because I wonder how coherent my writing is.
i would expect it to be lower…given that the rearing and womb environments are correlated positively with the child’s/infant’s genome.
i would expect it to be lower
You would expect what to be lower than what?
yet another subtlety of the way the world really works is that the power elite together and individually are often impotent, because they are not very well co-ordinated as a group and even the most powerful among them is powerful only within a very limited sphere.
but those who are heard by the masses are always selected to be nebishes without any opinions. the only thing they believe in is not believing in anything. everything is just a subject for a never ending argument.
when did politics become a discussion?
where did this idea come from that if only people were calm and “rational” they’d all agree?
it’s the faggotization and vaginalization of the world.
politics is “do what i say or i’ll kill you and eat your children.”
it can’t be any other way.
humans have irreconcilable differences. many.
and of course the power elite can be quite heterogeneous.
in the US there are several competing groups corresponding to various bisness sectors.
1. the financial services elite…wall street
2. the industrial elite
3. silicon valley
4. hollywood and mass media in general
5. the military industrial complex
6. elite universities admissions committees
business people get their way in america, but they don’t all have the same “way”.
jews largely control 1, 3, 4, and 6.
yet another subtlety of the way the world really works is that the power elite together and individually are often impotent, because they are not very well co-ordinated as a group and even the most powerful among them is powerful only within a very limited sphere.
Correct. As Condi Rice told Oprah, power means nothing unless you can turn it into influence. Many powerful people are not passionate or brave enough to use their power to create real change, or they are not passionate about the same things. If only 5% of elites are super passionate about one issue, they can overpower the 95% of elites who are only mildly passionate about opposing them, and as you and Chomsky say, the elites are selected to not be too passionate about challenging the system.
but those who are heard by the masses are always selected to be nebishes without any opinions. the only thing they believe in is not believing in anything. everything is just a subject for a never ending argument
This is where Oprah was brilliant (and a tiny bit sociopathic). For decades she pretended to have no political opinions and just gradually accumulated more and more money and popularity, and then the second she saw an opportunity where she could change the trajectory of history for her people (Obama running against Hillary) she suddenly dived in, and played the decisive role. As you’ve implied, Chomsky did the same thing on a much smaller scale (hid his political views until getting tenure)
.
when did politics become a discussion?
where did this idea come from that if only people were calm and “rational” they’d all agree?
Many people have learned the hard way that civility often doesn’t work. There are zero sum games and no matter how nice you are to someone, if you’re threatening their interests, they will hate you nonetheless
Heritability is not just the genes of mother and father but the genes of both families, specially the brothers and sister of the parents OR the genes that they express phenotypically (dominant expression) or sorely.
Explain me why you and most people think that twin studies measure heritability**
Take a dictionary to read what the word heritability mean.
Twins are exceptional source to study human behavior between them but not to measure heritability. I can be completely wrong but i really don’t understand where you are seeing ”heritability” in twin traits concordance.
First, twins are not clones, good start, twins are not perfect copies, they are essentialy those who shared the same pregnancy because same conception. Clone is a PERFECT copy, twins specially those who are very identical are like a printer papers. The model was the same but different individuals, even quasi-genetically identical, will develop differently during gestation period because different gestational environment or position, different food levels by mother and even because 99,99% stil is not the same than 100%.
Second, seems obvious that twins, specially the identical, will share a lot fo same traits.
I’m not the one who invent the concept for heritability. I’m the one who are trying to respect their original concept.
Heritability is intergenerational transmission, the full inheritance at individual level and proportional at collective level.
Just or specially it,
people who born in families with historical of higher proportion of smart individuals will ”live” in a micro-genetic cosmos where the potential heritability for ”higher intelligence” will be potentially higher. OF COURSE, there are families (a lot of them) where outliers will born, we no have a strict separation throghout spectrum from the families with higher proportion of smart individuals to the families with lower proportion, is not like the borders between Utah and Colorado but like West Virginia and Virginia.
Genotypes are all of genetic inheritance.
Phenotypes or expressions are all the dominant genetic inheritance, more intense and dominant.
Identical twins are very close to being clones. Heritability simply measures how much of human differences in a trait are because of human differences in genes.
So if you have people who are virtually the same in genes but not in environment (separated identical twins), then they should be very similar in a trait if heritability is high
You understand what i wrote*
read again and refutate every paragraph, please.
”Identical twins are very close to being clones”
very close,
clone is other pumpkin person, the same person (you) re-created. Your identical twin is not you. Your clone is other you, just think, a lot of logically strange things happen with identical twins… they are so near one each other than they tend to feel reality in very similar ways. similar is not same.
”Heritability simply measures how much of human differences in a trait are because of human differences in genes.”
Trait is a expressed ”gene’ (or whatever ”it” be).
No there a ”correlation” between phenotypes and genotypes because
(geno ( phenotypes) types), they are or belong in the same thing. No there a correlation between my expressed being and my biological full-blown bein because is not correlative but intrinsically causative.
Tell me, explain me why twins concordance measure heritability AND not intergenerational transmission*
I had blond had when I was 12. Now it is brown.
This would happen even if I was a twin and was adapted in another family.
If G = P then E is what causes a difference in adoption of P different than G.
E = G / P.
if E = 1 then
twin1(1 = 1 / 1)
twin2(1 = 1 / 1)
adoption means that E changes theoretical
twin1(2 = 1 / 0.5)
twin2(0.5 = 1 / 2)
So twin one over preformed his potential well twin 2 under preformed because E was different.
What PP is trying to say is that if G is genetic then G * E = P.
G is the same in twins so the way G is expressed must follow from the E difference.
Adoption make E more different than staying together with parents.
To find that difference requires:
Bio parents (G1 * E1 = P1) | (G1 * E1 = P2)
Adoption (G1 * E1 = P3) | (G1 * E2 = P4)
P = IQ
coe = IQ coefficient such as ravens.
(P1(ceo) * P2(ceo)) / (P3(coe) * P4(ceo))
This gives H as the mean regression of adopted and non adopted.
(1(0.9) * 1(0.9)) = 0.81 is base line G
(0.5(0.9) * 2(0.9)) = 0.81 represent P
G / P = E
0.81 / 0.81 = 1.0
H^2 = 1.0
Quote PP
H = phenotype-genotype correlation
H > phenotype-genotype correlation
H < phenotype-genotype correlation
Since twin studies involve multiple twins.
bio parents(average all twins G) / adopted(average all twins P) = H^2
H = phenotype-genotype correlation
1^2 = 1 / 1
Sorry Animekitty but i ask for Pumpkin and i don’t understand mathemonics.
Heritability is not just the genes of mother and father but the genes of both families, specially the brothers and sister of the parents OR the genes that they express phenotypically (dominant expression) or sorely.
It doesn’t matter whose genes they are. Heritability is just a measure of how much people differ because their genes differ
Explain me why you and most people think that twin studies measure heritability**
Because identical twins have virtually the same genes, so if reared truly apart, any similarity between them is likely genetic.
Take a dictionary to read what the word heritability mean.
It means what I said.
Twins are exceptional source to study human behavior between them but not to measure heritability. I can be completely wrong but i really don’t understand where you are seeing ”heritability” in twin traits concordance.
I really don’t understand where you’re not seeing it
First, twins are not clones, good start, twins are not perfect copies, they are essentialy those who shared the same pregnancy because same conception. Clone is a PERFECT copy, twins specially those who are very identical are like a printer papers. The model was the same but different individuals, even quasi-genetically identical, will develop differently during gestation period because different gestational environment or position, different food levels by mother and even because 99,99% stil is not the same than 100%.
99% similar is close enough, and scientists can estimate how much more similar they would have been had they been 100%
And differences in prenatal conditions are considered environmental differences, not genetic difference. In fact, to do a perfect study of heritability, you would not only want genetic clones raised in different homes, but also placed in the wombs of different women.
We are all a product of our genes and our environment, but most people seem to think of environment as only the cultural environment. The biological environment (i.e. prenatal conditions, head injuries, nutrition etc) can often be far more important.
For example, if you had two genetic clones, and one grew in the womb of an alcoholic and the other grew in the womb of a healthy woman, the first clone could be born with a much smaller brain and much lower IQ, but even though that difference is biological, it’s environmental, not genetic
Second, seems obvious that twins, specially the identical, will share a lot fo same traits.
I’m not the one who invent the concept for heritability. I’m the one who are trying to respect their original concept.
This is the original concept
Heritability is intergenerational transmission, the full inheritance at individual level and proportional at collective level.
Maybe you’re being too literal. Heritable doesn’t neccessarily mean passed down through generations. It simply means people differ because of genes. It doesn’t matter whether we differ because of genes we inherited from our great-grandparents or because of new genetic mutations that are original to us.
”It doesn’t matter whose genes they are. Heritability is just a measure of how much people differ because their genes differ”
You’re founding great different ways to define heritability is not* and matter whose genes they are.
Simple Definition of heritable
: able to be passed from parent to child before birth
law : able to be passed from a parent or older relative to a child
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heritable
”Explain me why you and most people think that twin studies measure heritability**
Because identical twins have virtually the same genes, so if reared truly apart, any similarity between them is likely genetic.”
You don’t answer this question. Read definition of ”heritable” again to understand.
proportional genetic similarity between twins (specially, identical twins) IS DIFFERENT than heritability OR genetic inheritance.
”I really don’t understand where you’re not seeing it”
because a apple is a apple and a orange is a orange, it seems to be conceptually wrong, is like to say ”intelligence is the ability to jump”, there is some correlation one each other but is not conceptually complementary.
People is misunderstood the concept of heredity ”OR’ heritability and heritable.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081209144911AAG1gc3
But i still think that to measure heritability you need measure proportion of certain trait in a certain population like for example, blue eyes among swedish population and in nigerian population. We know obviously that blue eyes will be highly heritable among native swedes and virtually non-heritable among native nigerians.
This is measure heritability and not just or fundamentally with twins concordance.
Twins concordance is twins concordance and not measure heritability of certain trait.
In portuguese, heredity and heritability mean the same thing or in other words, no have a word for ”heritability”.
”99% similar is close enough, and scientists can estimate how much more similar they would have been had they been 100%”
clone= 100%
twins= 99%
clone enough and not there.
”And differences in prenatal conditions are considered environmental differences, not genetic difference. In fact, to do a perfect study of heritability, you would not only want genetic clones raised in different homes, but also placed in the wombs of different women.
We are all a product of our genes and our environment, but most people seem to think of environment as only the cultural environment. The biological environment (i.e. prenatal conditions, head injuries, nutrition etc) can often be far more important.
For example, if you had two genetic clones, and one grew in the womb of an alcoholic and the other grew in the womb of a healthy woman, the first clone could be born with a much smaller brain and much lower IQ, but even though that difference is biological, it’s environmental, not genetic”
yes i know.
but thanks for this explanation again.
”Maybe you’re being too literal. Heritable doesn’t neccessarily mean passed down through generations. It simply means people differ because of genes. It doesn’t matter whether we differ because of genes we inherited from our great-grandparents or because of new genetic mutations that are original to us.”
Maybe, i’m confusing heredity with heritability BUT i don’t believe that twin concordance is measuring heritability.
What is strange about it is that heredity studies seems disappear while heritability studies become the common or usual way to measure ”heritability”.
Concordance twins measure concordance of traits among twins that will be generally higher among identical and less among non-identical and other types. Concordance traits among twins measure fundamentally itself and not heritability.
Color eyes concordance between identical twins in my opinion is saying NOTHING about heritability or proportional variation of this traits among populations. if it is found that the concordance between blue-eyed Norwegian identical twins was 60% that does not mean that the heritability is 60%. My opinion and obviously i can be wrong, completely wrong.
You can understand me now*
Heredity is a individual % of inheritance of certain trait AND the potential to pass this trait or phenotypical (expression) transmission.
Heritability is a colective % of inheritance, what i can understand by now.
For example, in a hypothetical norwegian little community where 70% of inhabitants have blue-variant-color eyes, people who born and marriage there will be 70% of chances, a priore, to be blue eyes and passed this traits forward.
But my individual % can be different than the collective % of the community where i live.
Finally i’m understanding the differences between heritability and heredity and the role of twin studies but i don’t change completely my argumentation because in fact, seems no have heredity studies today, they are very important, and there is a possibility that the heritability value of traits vary completely in different space, time and populations and not be static value.
For example, the case of homossexuality (everyone in this post use this example). Heritability of homossexuality degree dispositions was lower… as well left handedness. Both traits are not being very selected, specially homossexuality. Lower heritability may mean ”lower selective differential or pressure”. If certain population is intensively selecting ”trait” X so this trait will become demographically prevalent and this prevalence may likely to be noted among identical twins.
But seems homossexuality can be passed hereditarily, i think that traits with contextually lower heritability and polygenic need a combination of biological and genetic factors to happen and in this case they are universal common mutations.
Even if the bio-intrinsic nature of certain trait be lower still will be premature to say that ”he” is not heritable or be a developmental noise.
For example, some traits have higher heritability just because they are like that but it doesn’t mean that traits with lower heritability will not be heritable. Homossexuality can happen within families as well co-occurence of mental illness.
Also there are a biblical metaphor ”man was made from clay”
Clay is like a rough diamond and ”we” can turn them respectively into a ceramic vase or a gem. Same happen with human beings, we have a gypsy roma people, just very lunatic hard-left people that deny the enormous dysfunctionality of this people. But we can turn them into a ”ceramic vase”.
And this may can happen with traits like homossexuality. And the culture seems fundamental to stabilize certain dispositions. Inculcate laws adaptate behavior and exponential reciprocity with differential selective pressures (those who are more naturally reciprocal to internalize this laws being more selected).
Cultural evolution seems evolve faster than bio-cognitive human evolution, if the feral humans (without early cultural inculcation) are actually true.
People on average don’t manifest early the intrinsic motivation to explore the world where they are. They tend not to be observators, like happen with most of terrestrial fauna they, even with culture, tend to interact with reality without ask why.
It may explain why some thinkers in the past be concluded that ”only the men of the genius who are a complete men”.
Simple Definition of heritable
: able to be passed from parent to child before birth
law : able to be passed from a parent or older relative to a child
And parents pass down virtually the exact same genes to both identical twins.
As Jensen has explained, hereditary just means a trait is genetic. Heritability is the percentage of DIFFERENCES in the trait that are caused by DIFFERENCES in genes
So the number of fingers you have is hereditary, but has virtually zero heritability because although it’s genetic, there are virtually no DIFFERENCES in finger number (almost everyone has five on each hand)
By contrast height is both hereditary and highly heritable because there are huge differences in how tall people are and these differences are genetic.
Concordance is not the same as correlation.
Concordance is the percentage of cases where if one twin has X, his co-twin has X too, but correlation is a measure of how similar the rank order of twins is to the rank order of the co-twin.
If the tallest twin has the shortest co-twin, then that implies a perfectly negative correlation: -1.0
If the tallest twin has the tallest co-twin, that implies a perfect positive correlation: +1.0
If the tallest twin has an average height co-twin, that implies 0 correlation
You can play with numbers to see what different correlations mean
http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/correlation-coefficient/
”And parents pass down virtually the exact same genes to both identical twins.”
But this don’t prove the heritability of this genes, prove concordance among twins, fundamentally. Certain traits, specially because the ‘non-selection’, like schizophrenia and homossexuality, are fundamentally biological, as happen with gender, man or woman, homossexuality is just other gender variant but very minoritary.
Heritability need the historical of the patterns of marriages among people in certain region.
Tell me what you understand about my example of blue eyes in a hypothetical norwegian community.
”As Jensen has explained, hereditary just means a trait is genetic. Heritability is the percentage of DIFFERENCES in the trait that are caused by DIFFERENCES in genes
So the number of fingers you have is hereditary, but has virtually zero heritability because although it’s genetic, there are virtually no DIFFERENCES in finger number (almost everyone has five on each hand)”
again, please, essentially, heredity or whatever, hereditary (as adjective), already have their concept.
Number of fingers = is not the otherwise** heritability of absolute universal traits will be in normal conditions, 100% heritable and not 0%…. 0% to humans would have wings.
Twins co-heredity is like a mom give exactly the same % of cooks to their kids. But the process is not perfect and non-concordance or little concordance still don’t prove the un-naturality of certain traits.
We must need understand what is twins pregnancy. Generally, among humans, is expected that just one life be produced by ”fertilization-pregnancy”.
Some traits are universal ‘fixed” mutations, they quasi-always express around the world.
Schizophrenia again.
Happen a indirect selection of polimorphism and and as schizophrenia reduces the chances of reproduction, continue to express a minority. But why this happens *** For every complex trait need a combination of several favorable genes for it to manifest. Human matings tend to be based on complementarity or (submissive woman who prefers domineering man) or based on the similarity (couple nerds).
A minority of people who already have a certain predisposition marry and increase the chances significantly to have children with full blown schizophrenia.
Metaphorically speaking, you have a puzzle with pieces of many colors. The blue parts of schizophrenia rarely combine, because of mating patterns, but sometimes it happens and we have the genetic combination that produces the full phenotype.
H is greater than the phenotype-genotype correlation. H also represents additive genetic variance/phenotypic variance. H-squared is “broad-sense” heritability, and is equal to the phenotype-genotype correlation.
Nope, heritability have, conceptually talking, nothing to do with ”phenotype-genotype correlation’.
Correlation**** Association*** genotype and phenotype are not just mutually correlated.
nope, genotype is the ALL genetic traits that we inherited, our personal gene pool, BOTH dominant and recessive traits.
Phenotype is JUST the expression of the DOMINANT traits.
I can be wrong but seems clear to me by now.
Just a correction, phenotype is the full expression of all individual-contextual dominant traits. For example, i have a lot of recessive traits which are dominant for me because i express them. What is recessive or dominant will be individually relative and at collective levels demographically or proportionally universal, on average, because will be very likely we have a universal recessive trait like light eyes and regional recessive trait. But seems this also depend the proportion, if all human beings had light eyes the degree of recessivity of this traits would weaker than in the reality. Like seems happen with cat color eyes.
H is greater than the phenotype-genotype correlation. H also represents additive genetic variance/phenotypic variance. H-squared is “broad-sense” heritability, and is equal to the phenotype-genotype correlation
H squared = the correlation between identical twins reared apart
Since the correlation between identical twins reared apart is a product of the genotype-phenotype correlation of twns in environments X and the genotype-phenotype correlation of their co-twins in environments Y, it is the square root of H^2 (also known as H) which many experts think is equal to the phenotype-genotype correlation
BUT what only I seem to understand, or misunderstand if I’m wrong, is:
because twins reared apart live in random environments (in theory) and the general populations lives in environments correlated with their genotypes, then H could be quite different from the genotype-phenotype correlation in the general population
In other words:
Var(P) = Var(G) + Var(E) + 2 Cov(G,E)
but in separated twin studies Cov(G,E) is removed in theory, and:
H^2 = Var(G)/Var(P)
Ah… I just spent over an hour thinking about that and posted it up above, all proud of myself, and then I saw that you gave the answer… oh well. At least we agree. I also added an alternative interpretation of the definition of genotype and its affect on the
g-p correlation.
I think my intuition that h=genotype-phenotype correlation was correct. In Pearson’s correlation, r^2 is the predictive value, but r is the correlation between the actual and the predicted outcome. In heritability, genotype is the predicted outcome and phenotype is the actual outcome, and h^2 is the predictive value, but h is the correlation between genotype and phenotype.
the ONE thing that my country, the USA, is best at is…
its ABSOLUTE-ISM regarding freedom of speech.
as bill maher has said, “flag burning makes me feel patriotic.”
whatever the reason…however good the reason…those many HBDers who’ve banned me from commenting…
what?
are they that socially retarded?
or do they have a lot to hide?
i’d guess the former.
however determined the troll…
with no response…
he gives up.
how can these self-proclaimed smart HBDers not know this?
easy…
they aren’t that smart…
socially or “cognitively/intellectually”.
HBD is just another form of autism. 😉
Every thing that humans verbalize become ideo-logical… humans imprison the phenomena via words.
The computers were not built based on this kind of thinking mistakenly reductionist.
the fact that human behavior is relatively malleable, I say relatively, does not mean that there is no such thing as heredity.
You are saying something that does not have empirical certainty. If I lived in Iran for reasons of survival, I would have to settle for the local reality (and frankly do not think it would be so bad, because I am not exclusively homosexual). This does not mean that I had not been born ‘that’ way ‘, because every man or woman who has’ ‘deviations’ sex know they have them, which is something intrinsic, but depending on the intensity, they can control.
Another thing is to think naively that with regard to homosexuals who can not fully control its most acute sexual arrangements, they do not try to relieve your tensions in their homes.
Who looks more autistic here is you, in this perspective, because of their naiveté regarding the human capacity to transgress rules of implicit ways.
Culture can contain and even redirect certain trends, depending on the circumstances, but that does not mean they cease to exist.
Can you believe that homosexuality exists in Iran, only, or they are being murdered for that retarded, or are in the closet.
It never crossed your mind the famous phrase ” homossexuals closet ” ??
thanks to what you call pejoratively of ” autism ”, there are no modern societies.
You have many correct criticisms of society, and I totally agree.
But in terms of understanding of human behavior, I have the impression that you do not have systematic consistency so far, strong signal that has more power than base to talk about it.
the fact that most human beings are comparatively stupid, or living in a state of subconscious, live longer than understanding what goes on in their lives and how they are influenced to adapt to circumstances without having fully aware, they are not refutations about a supposed nonexistence of heredity.
The animals ” wild ” are instinctive and are highly predictable in their behavior. The human being, the less instinctive animals of all terrestrial fauna, will be less predictable, but mainly because they have not developed fairly accurate ways to predict with relative consistency.
You advocate for greater literalness in psychology, but is acting just like a social scientist, the archetype of the modern post pseudoscientist.
He says’ ‘iq’ is not a thing, and I agree.
Pumpkin need to explain the heredity of concepts, beginning with ” genotype ” and ” phenotype ‘.
What the hell are the two, literally ??
…
Let’s go back the basic lessons of genetics, recessive and dominant.
whatever the reason…however good the reason…those many HBDers who’ve banned me from commenting…
what?
are they that socially retarded?
or do they have a lot to hide?
i’d guess the former.
however determined the troll…
with no response…
he gives up.
Why wait for you to give up? If they don’t like what you’re saying, or the way that you are saying it,they might as well ban you from the start.
I think the problem is your comment quality has a huge standard deviation. So while your best comments are very perspicacious (as ruhkukah said), your worst comments are very ugly.
how can these self-proclaimed smart HBDers not know this?
easy…
they aren’t that smart…
socially or “cognitively/intellectually”.
As we’ve discussed social comprehension is cognitive and intellectual.
HBD is just another form of autism. 😉
LOL! Let’s wait and see if HBD is correct or not before declaring it autistic, even in jest.
heritability is an ideological concept…
but that it is an ideological concept is invisible to liberals and conserva-tards…
that’s what makes it ideological.
…
the homosexual issue is the best example i can think of.
…
jon stewart (liebowitz) explained that homosexuals are “born that way”…
and by “born that way” he meant that their orientation is “genetic”…
even though the two, “born that way” vs “genetic”, are very different.
…
ahmadinejad was boo-ed by columbia students for saying “we don’t have homosexuals in iran like you have in the us.”
this is american liberal hereditism.
and it’s just as much bullshit as american conservative hereditism.
…
as a red blooded american male…like burt reynolds…you still wonder…
why do girls like guys?
…
it’s amazing how much of american politics is ultimately animated by straight men’s un-willingness to admit that men ARE sex objects for women.
…
david bowie…
he made millions by pretending to be gay…
he may have even engaged in gay sex…
but he couldn’t change who he was…
no more the george mallory…
…
btw…
i expect that irvine’s camera will be found and george will be proved to be the first to summit the third pole, everest.
but according to wade davis, mallory…the most manly man who ever existed…was quite keen on buggering Lytton Strachey’s brother.
and?
he did the deed…
and found it repellent.
yet another example of how environment can make people do things they wouldn’t do in other environments.
Sons and daughters who are similar with their fathers have nothing about ”ideological”, at marxist parameters, 😉
Ideology is quasi-always a deformity of reality. Heritability is not a deformity of reality, i no have doubt about it.
Iq is like
– every sports
– rubik cube skills
Is for ”appreciation”, you test people and those who to do it better will be the winners.
the difference is that iq is the best mental game of all. Still a mental game.
We can’t to do nothing with iq 200 of Vos Savant, ”just” with its intelligence or cognitive exponential or expansible potential to manipulate the pieces of existent puzzles called human reality and or found new puzzles or useful associations.
Intelligence like YOU (chartreuse) said here is fundamentally moral and i agree completely.
What differentiates first world nations than third world is the level of novel moralities (care, nurturing culture, hygiene). Higher levels of real-world (read= utilitary) morality reduce mortality rates like care about food quality (without meat 😉 ), mental health, woman pregnancy, physical health of people on general.
Knowledge about heritability, genetics and improvement of quality of life via quality of human beings will be the next stage.
Our brains express in cognitive tests how ‘they” is configured (included toxoplasma and other permissive influences).
the two fundamental basis of intelligence is
– good -to- excellent judgment (wisdom) in their accumulative taking of learnings (and subsequent internalizations), via structured and logical understanding of phenomenology or life,
– creativity to improve the first.
This two (combined) CAN or not correlates linearly with iq tests scores (and i assume logically that will be a relative positive correlation with higher iq scores but not A_B_S_O_L_U_T_E).
And the irony is that once we finally get a behavioral trait that’s politically correct to call genetic, some HBDers are arguing it’s virtually all environmental, and in the most offensive way possible (gay germ theory). It’s almost like they’re trying to flout social norms.
This is phenomenon of human convenience and with political nature.
i think i remember oprah saying…or endorsing…
what goes around comes around…
given that my dog has killed 6 squirrels…
i don’t feel so sad….
especially as those “tree rats” can live longer than dogs.
but…
my GOD!
how many dogs…
in the history of dogs…
are actually capable of chasing and killing squirrels?
a very…
very…
small minority.
my dog reminds me of merv grifin in The Man with Two Brains…
i’ve been told that killing is like crack for dogs.
my dog will sit under a tree for hours and hours…waiting…
for his HIT.
it’s funny, because…
it’s so fucking…
obvious…
And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
it’s been 2000 fucking years.
what more “proof” do those who worship the world need?
George Berkeley sounds like someone I can relate to.
This is a recent message I gave to someone 30 minutes ago.
Acceptance is a choice.
When both people make that choice together.
They form more than a connection, they share a bond.
You seem to be motivated by independence at this time.
You only accept what true through empiricism.
I myself read the bible to know what a soul is.
I myself understand that a spirit is energy and emotion.
Yes blind people have souls because souls feel energy(spirit).
But we are not the energy because you can be aware without it.
Secondly I am Buddhist with my understanding of soul.
And I am Christian when it comes to the spirit.
The spirit of love is a holy energy.
My soul is the conduit for my spirit.
What I say can be deconstructed,
but also integrated as higher abstractions.
Its fine with me if you are skeptical.
I still have empathy toward you.
aesthetic judgement used to be an IQ subtest….ridiculous but true…as if binet, terman, or wechsler were great art critics…
but…
it’s very clear to me that the following list is wrong.
http://www.classicfm.com/composers/puccini/guides/best-nessun-dorma/#BzvV5BLX3xlLHTsl.97
it should be 1. gigli 2. pavarotti. 3. meaningless.
that is, every other performance is so crappy in comparison it shouldn’t even be rated.
other areas one might expect (if one were an hereditist) would have more recent record holders…but don’t…
karajan’s 1976 studio recordings of wagner…
if you hate wagner…you’ll love this. http://cdn.discogs.com/TLBIxqN4Zj9HXpKVYQ3eslMk_hQ=/fit-in/300×300/filters:strip_icc%28%29:format%28jpeg%29:mode_rgb%28%29/discogs-images/R-6712498-1425143607-5661.jpeg.jpg
1973 secretariat sets the still standing records in all three of the triple crown races.
his belmont is the single greatest accomplishment in all athletics human or animal.
secretariat was a fucking freak…he was usain bolt on steroids….lots of steroids.