Scientist Steve Hsu writes:
GCTA (Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis)…allows an estimation of heritability due to common SNPs using relatively small sample sizes (e.g., a few thousand genotype-phenotype pairs). The new method is independent of, but delivers results consistent with, “classical” methods such as twin and adoption studies. To oversimplify, it examines pairs of unrelated individuals and computes the correlation between pairwise phenotype similarity and genotype similarity (relatedness). It has been applied to height,intelligence, and many medical and psychiatric conditions.
Apparently this technique has been used to show that (fluid) IQ has a narrow sense of heritability of at least 51%. Not quite the 80% heritability found in twin studies but keep in mind, the latter measures broad sense heritability.
Of course as commenter chartreuse has noted, all of these studies are based on local populations so they don’t prove that high IQ folks are truly genetically smarter than low IQ folks; rather they may only show that high IQ folks have genes that are compatible with a specific environment. If their genes were planted in a different time and place, low IQ people might have higher IQs than high IQ people.
In order to show independent genetic effects (geneotypes that are smarter in virtually every environment), charteruse feels you would need a study of people, preferably of similar genetic background, living in different countries. He recomends a sample taken from the entire developed World.
On the other hand, I would recommend doing a study comparing unmixed African Americans (whose ancestors had been in the United States for centuries) with unmixed West Africans living in the same part of West Africa. Despite having the same genetic background, the latter score much lower on IQ tests than the former, presumably because of the extreme deprivation of the Third World compared to the First World.
If you had a 1000 pairs of such unrelated individuals (with one member of each pair being an unmixed African American, and the other being a West African) and you found a high correlation between IQ similarity and genetic similarity among coethnics living in such radically different environments, then this should be convincing evidence of independent genetic effects on IQ
Pumpkin Person 
So what you are saying is that pure West Africans who have 0 admixture of whites should be studied in the American environment and add mixture of African Americans who are 22 percent white should move to Africa and studied there.
It might take some time depending on the age of the people in mind to adapt to their environment. Just as white children with high IQ parents are adapted by a poor family and white children with low IQ parents are adopted into a rich family.
I think it should be noted that stress can lower IQ. It would be necessary to compare children in stressful environments and non stressful environments, comparing those two groups by the parental IQ and the resilience of the child. High IQ children may do better in poor families than low IQ children even if the parents had equally high IQs. Parents with an IQ of 120 with child B who has an IQ of 115 would do better in a poor family with IQ 95 than child A who has an IQ of 105 and who has parents with an IQ of 120 and goes to a family with IQ 95.
Even if a person lived in a stressful environment, the person with high IQ might do better than a person with low IQ. If the reverse is true, a low IQ person would do better than the high IQ person under stress.
Since the G Factor says the level of proficiency depend of the general ability (good at one thing means good at all things on that level of (g)) then the problems presented by the environment would match the success of a person given the coefficient of those problems with (g). The environment would have a coefficient with (g) and so high (g) and low (g) would depend on the different solutions they both use in the environment they live in. Narrow skills me be adaptive but having a relatively high proficiency of a narrow skill is adaptive not general. The environment may require a narrow skill for success the generality would fail to meet.
As you can see in this picture I made the yellow represents a narrow skill and the square in the middle along the slope represents the range of general ability a person may have. Even if a person had high (g), they may still fail do to not reach past another person with a high proficiency of the narrow skill required for success. High (g) can be overtaken in an environment requiring a specific skill.
So what you are saying is that pure West Africans who have 0 admixture of whites should be studied in the American environment and add mixture of African Americans who are 22 percent white should move to Africa and studied there.
No I’m saying scientists should go to a country in West Africa and get DNA samples & test scores from 1000 pure West Africans, and then compare those DNA samples & test scores to a 1000 fairly pure African Americans whose ancestors have been in the U.S. for centuries, and then randomly pair African American DNA with West African DNA, to see if there is an international correlation between genetic similarity and IQ similarity.
The point is all GCTA studies have presumably been done on pairs of people living in the same country. They need to compare people in very different countries to prove that these IQ genes transcend culture and nutrition and cause intelligence in virtually every environment.
You mean comparing genomes with computers and math? I think that they are doing this in china. So yes I can see that the genome of the two groups African Americans and native Africans, because their genome would be similar. Thus the outcome of the same genes in different environments.
I found a better way to represent (g)
I do not know particularly how factorization works,
but this chart may help people understand based on,
how subtests relate to eachother with coefficients and area.
I was going to link this post. I think Hsu is right that the quarrel over common variants is basically over, and the common variants side has won.
it seems something happened to peepee after she broke up with her fiancee…
she had her “road to damascus” moment. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9&version=NKJV
or at least i hope that’s the case.
i’m not a missionary, but i have made one convert?
not to “environmentalism”, because that’s just as absurd as “hereditism”.
but hereditists think the only alternative to their -ism is environmental determinism. and that they think this shows how stupid they are.
this all stems from the inability of almost everyone to think dialectically…
that is, to think the way hegel thought.
when confronted with two contradictory theories, each of which is total crap…
the comme il faut response isn’t to choose the lesser of two evils…
it’s to insist on an AUFHEBUNG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben
that is…
the reason why the apparent “this or that” is unsatisfactory is that…
both this and that are descriptions of A world which isn’t THE world.
I don’t know why you go about acting like the hereditarian side is a house of cards when there’s still so much evidence for the heritability of every trait…
GCTA, GWAS, etc. notwithstanding.
GCTA, GWAS, blah, blah, blah…
all local afaik.
and thus far does GWAS have any reproduced hits for IQ?
your mother had zika.
Lets see how weak things are on your side:
Click to access Psychological-Science-2015-Tucker-Drob-0956797615612727.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300629
There is absolutely no evidence for SES environmental factors interacting with g or having any influence of their own on phenotype. Heritability wins as always.
you’re a moron carl.
the first article you cite has it in its title.
“Large Cross-National Differences”…aka Carl is a moron.
and even this article just shows how utterly low the IQs of psychologists is.
do you even know what they mean by GxE in the articles?
what they mean is that heritability varies or doesn’t at the level of a population with the SES of that population…so, for example, low SES has been found in two studies in the US i know of to lower heritability compared with whatever the range and mean of SES is for adopted children or homes in general.
THAT’S IT YOU FUCKING RETARDED FUCKTARD.
IT DOESN’T EVEN APPROACH THE ISSUE OF NORMS OF REACTION.
IT’S JUST A CLAIM THAT THE NORMS ARE THE SAME IN MOST STUDIES WHEN THE SES OF THE POPULATION IS VARIED.
DEAR FUCKING GOD!
ARE THERE ANY HEREDITISTS WHO CAN EVEN GRASP THE CONCEPT OF NORMS OF REACTION THAT VARY ON THE LEVEL OF THE INDIVIDUAL?
IS THIS REALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND CARL?
IT’S CERTAINLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR STEVE SHOE AND CHARLES MURRAY TO UNDERSTAND, THOUGH BOTH HAS PAID IT LIP SERVICE.
AND THESE AREN’T UN-MEASURABLES. I HAVE DETAILED EXACTLY THE STUDY WHICH WOULD BE DISPOSITIVE, AND IT HASN’T BEEN DONE. WHY? BECAUSE PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE TOO FUCKING RETARDED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS.
that is by GxE they mean GxE for human beings in general.
human beings are never anything in general.
how to test for GxE at the level of the individual?
compare MZTs or closely related individuals in the full range of environments…limited to the developed world if you like…but never limited to one country or one region of one country.
see if it ever happens, or happens quite often, that the rank order of the pairs or n-tuple of closely related individuals is NOT predicted or is not even predictable from their respective environments.
IT’S THAT FUCKING EASY.
1. without mutliple clones or a rigorous measure of genetic similarity AND of environment, it is impossible to predict GxE at the individual level.
2. BUT it is possible to demonstrate that there is such a thing, and that it is very important.
3. to date all of the predictive power of behavior genetics for the individual is for the individual qua member of a particular population. and because there is much more to a person than the populations to which he belongs there is going to be a lot of large errors.
Charteruse,
you’re a zombie of environment or circumstances** You are not you*
Behavior in a true world IS NOT at long term, this is abstraction, behavior is always what we are doing in the real time, now.
Long term behavior is to history or biography
short term behavior is to sociology, geography, social psychology, in the real time, what humans are doing now because in a hiper-real world no there past or future.
I was created in the SAME environment, same circumstances, no visible assymetric parental care, my parents were very neutral in their nurture.
3 DIFFERENT men grew up in the SAME environment or ”become” like that, how explain it**
Environment have enormous influence but not the way what you’re thinking.
less name-calling and more development of its theory, please.
it seems something happened to peepee after she broke up with her fiancee…
There’s no correlation there. My conversion predated the breakup by a long time as the archives show.
.
i’m not a missionary, but i have made one convert?
I still believe in HBD at the macro-racial level, but for a long time now I have started agreeing with your agnosticism about HBD at the micro-racial and individual level.
not to “environmentalism”, because that’s just as absurd as “hereditism”.
but hereditists think the only alternative to their -ism is environmental determinism. and that they think this shows how stupid they are.
this all stems from the inability of almost everyone to think dialectically
I admit that us HBDers failed and many continue to fail to think outside the box. Everything I had ever read framed the debate as either primarily genetic or primarily environmental. The entire concept of independent vs dependent genetic effects was not a distinction I would have ever made, but once you mentioned that people with Down’s Syndrome would have low IQs in every environment, while biologically normal low IQ people might not,, the concept suddenly seemed plausible to me.
But lest one think I’ve become politically correct, I actually think your view is potentially much more racialist, not less, because if there are racial differences in IQ, then low heritability means it will be much much harder to equalize them through eugenics.
only if you believe in environment independent racial differences in psychological traits.
and equalize them within what environment?
within a multiracial state?
or in their native land?
all of this race and hbd crap is only an issue because there are these frankenstein monster states like the US and other new world states and some western european states which have had a lot of immigration.
it’s an artificial problem.
it’s an UN-Cynical problem.
there will never be and can never be racial equality within multiracial states…
those few minorities which are co-equal are small minorities. as soon as they’re % of the population exceeds 5%, it’s a problem. asian americans (including indians) and asian canadians are already > 5%.
why is it a problem?
why is the EU super state bullshit too?
because the foundation of politics is tribal and familial, and no other foundation is possible.
…as soon as they’re a % of the population greater than 5%…
that is,
as the prophet, Diogenes of Sinope (peace be upon him) would have said,
the solution to artificial un-natural problems is always to return to nature.
Care to explain?
Care to explain?
I think most of the IQ gaps between macro-races living in the same country are categorically genetic but it’s possible that most of the IQ gaps between micro-races & individuals within the same country are environment specific.
In other words I think a representative sample of mongoloids would score higher in IQ than a representative sample of caucasoids than a representative sample of negroids in any country, because that genetic hierarchy is so deep & so ancient, that it transcends time & place
However when comparing individuals or ethnic groups within those macro-races, it’s possible that the IQ rank order might change in different environments, because the within race hierarchy has not had as much time to evolve, & thus might just be environment specific. In other words, East Asians might not be categorically genetically smarter than Native Americans, they might just be genetically smarter in our society, by contrast Mongoloids are genetically smarter than Caucasoids in virtually every environment
”However when comparing individuals or ethnic groups within those macro-races, it’s possible that the IQ rank order might change in different environments, because the within race hierarchy has not had as much time to evolve, & thus might just be environment specific. In other words, East Asians might not be categorically genetically smarter than Native Americans, they might just be genetically smarter in our society, by contrast Mongoloids are genetically smarter than Caucasoids in virtually every environment”
Sorry, but I think you’re going in circles here.
The fact that the Eskimos or other american native mongoloids have not had time to ” develop ” as the East Asians to do is not different than interracial differences.
Another problem here is the use iq as a single evolutive parameter. The idea that one population can become smarter or more cognitively interesting only with increasing of IQ does not seem to be conclusive.
“hifh IQ” people also born in very deprived environment. How explain it??
(of course, this tend to rare but still happen)
Most people think you either have high IQ genes or low IQ genes.
chartreuse’s argument has always been that it’s more complex than that, because different genotypes can react in opposite ways in different environments
So if you and your brother were born in China, your IQ might be 30 points higher than your brother’s, but if you and your brother were born in England, you might be 30 IQ points lower than your brother.
So there are genes for IQ, but they could be environment dependent. The same gene might increase your IQ in one environment, but lower it an another.
However there are also independent genetic effects, that is, genes that have the same effect in EVERY environment
So if you had Down’s Syndrome, your IQ would be lower than your brother’s no matter where you were born.
I think you guys are trying to predict randomness of genetic combinations of parents.
too complex comments can not be objective, effective, honest.
Especially for a subject like this it is important to have clarity of thought.
First, it is important to return the conceptual ideas of intelligence, only it’s like I’m talking to the walls.
human intelligence is on cognitive specialties. Yes, there is a g, psychometric and general factor, but there are also its ramifications.
Every time we are faced with studies showing brain differences between types psychiatrically diagnosable as well as in ideological terms (among students of humanities and stem) on musicians and non-musicians, etc. That is to indicate something not *
In this case it is important to analyze how the genotype reacts to the environment, as you guys are suggesting. Human beings lived much of his story in environments comparatively deprived compared to today. And yet, I do not see many differences in cognitive ability among humans living in modern civilizations, compared to those who lived in other times. It changed little, which was evolved enough to technological evolution.
You still believe that Flynn effect is a real thing. I do not.
Do you believe that the Victorians ” had ” low IQ (i.e, lower intelligence) compared with today * It likely does not exist, not in the way that you’re are showing.
IQ is about progressively memorize a set of technical information through education. Perhaps early exposure increase a little the IQ scores, especially because what we learned in childhood have a little more chance to become fixed in our heads. Might become superficially analyzing storage capacity and average reasoning.
Intelligence is purely reasoning ability. And reasoning is closely related to the survival capacity. The reasoning ability is not only verbal, mathematical or visual, but also musical, intrapersonal (very important), interpersonal, kinesthetic, etc …. and all that relates to consciousness, have consciousness.
Iq is still a mental game directed to relatively complex intellectual activities.
While continuing to take the IQ as a synonym of intelligence, that is, while conceptually fully transferable, you guys will continue wallowing in the same mud.
As I have spoken elsewhere, which is a measurement of the ability or potential efficiency of the worker, correlates obviously with overall intelligence, but not so much.
Chartreuse use the same tone of authority and (I have IQ higher than you guys) to other individuals who already appeared in hbdsphere. He accuses you of being a hereditarian firstly, as if it were a crime, and second as if it were less than being an environmentalist. Most of environmentalist science is pure nonsense to those who can not or do not want to differentiate cause and effect, especially with reverberations that can prove the point of their opponents.
For now there is no conclusive evidences in relation to a number of factors that are routinely exposed here in this blog, starting with the most important variable, intelligence.
Iq is your life, but intelligence does not seem to be.
I will be objective with him
You believe that black Africans have a better environment in their ancestral lands, they will experience an increase in their ‘cognitive ability’ ‘** What would this increase ** The point to make them equal to the British whitey **
Pumpkin,
I’m just trying to understand something that is very vague, very speculative and start from a weak basis. I do silly questions, but did not deal with the devil to be perfect. Incidentally, none of you.
The vast majority of the most cognitively intelligent suffer from the syndrome polymath, they think they know everything, they just expose them to a certain knowledge that quickly understand and can already or quickly infer considerations.
We are not only machines (or cognition), the reasoning is not only rational, but also instinctive (logical) and emotional.
There has been a large increase in stature among the new generation in Brazil and do not seem smarter than previous generations.
Elephants have big heads but will not even smarter than we are, as we know. Again, it is very important the quotient encephalization. Hbd get into contradictions when say that taller people are smarter average, when you know that there are very tall people, on average, they are not. Not to mention that Jews and East Asians, community darlings, are on average lower than European Caucasians.
Pumpkin,
you seem very concerned about head size than compared to brain size.
The height is a variable trait among human populations, but the idea that greater stature is absolutely organic to greater intelligence, despises all the variables involved are many, but understandable.
The order of the factors change the product. The focus of you guys is not about intelligence or super-intelligent human behavior in the real world, from everyday accomplishments (especially moral character), to the great personal achievements.
There is a clear and obvious hierarchy of the living toward their environment, it is emanating from his expression or behavior.
Most of the smartest people (via ” iq ”) tend to be born rich countries or in rich environments. It is a classical case of correlation or causal or even both. what came first.
The environment can disturb or not certain genotype. For example, for a population which selected much more ‘intelligence’ ‘will possibly greater resistance to circumstantial variations. In return for a population that selected more weakly greater ” intelligence ”, there will be possibly a lower resistance and therefore a higher phenotypic diversity.
Again, it is important to determine the limits of impact and quality of the environment. How severe must be the environmental deprivation to cause reduction of positive characteristics of a population **
An unethical experiment would put ” smarter ” couples in deprived environments and observe them for, whatever, 50-100 years, or even much less, to see if their children will be born different.
If the most intelligent on average are healthier, then it is likely to be more likely to vary less phenotypically even they were exposed to possible environmental fluctuations, is what can cause decreased intelligence (a cause and for certain subgroups, more prone to be affected) would be the pathogenic interactions.
Human beings are social and (more) self aware.
These are the two fundamental basis of human behavior, know their limits and strengths, essential for survival, and be relatively good for socializing, also essential.
In my opinion, regardless of the environment, present these two features relatively well developed, it seems to be essential to at least survive for long-term.
Emotional intelligence to understand other people and intrapersonal intelligence to understand yourself.
Santoculto:
I remember reading an AmRen article from last year talking about how they can see the race of the person from looking at their brains. I can’t find the article at the moment, I will find it though.
Also, there are 3 (?) gene variants that differ between blacks and whites, which lead to changes in IQ. I have my notes at home, will link tonight.
Yes, indeed, my brain is different from the brain of my parents. If my brain is already different from the brains of two people who put me in the world, why not think that people from completely different places and families can not differ too **
Only one extra chromosome makes you a person with down syndrome. It seems little, but it can be a lot. The number 3 seems small, less if it is the penultimate number in a 0-4 scale. 😉
High*
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
and regarding love and marriage…
the Cynical truth is…
1. savages stay “in love” for as long as it takes to raise the savage chillens…no more than 4 years.
2. “until death do us part” is a contrivance of civilization.
3. once women were “liberated” the divorce rate exploded.
4. people stay married only so long as they have no better options.
5. the higher the education, income, and IQ the lower the divorce rate…but only up to a point…why?
because when the husband is rich, alimony will take care of the ex-wife just as well as if there’d never been a divorce.
Civilization is evil, and the fate of most in it will be that of slavery.
But it’s impossible to correct without killing billions.
”Civilization is evil, and the fate of most in it will be that of slavery.
But it’s impossible to correct without killing billions.”
Psychopathic thinking.
Do you regard Jesus as a Cynic?
It seems like it will get progressively more difficult to go back to wild nature. Civilization is like a metastasizing cancer.
I would have much preferred to have been born in 17th century Tahiti than working like a dog today just so that a woman won’t think I’m a “loser.” The baubles of the modern world really do not impress me.
jesus was a Cynic in thought if not by descent, though he may have been a Cynic by descent too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003k9js
the author of ecclesiastes is also quite Cynical…
of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
chartreuse“jesus was a Cynic in thought if not by descent, though he may have been a Cynic by descent too.”
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. – Aleister Crowley
If Cynics were called Dogs and had no restraint and had no problems with derogatory speech, perversion and and vulgarity. Then it is not what Jesus encouraged for how to act in society. Jesus would never say that defecating in public was ok if you wanted to do such things. In fact he was Utopian in how society should be.
Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Ephesians 4
…31Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
Mark 12:31
The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
soph·ist
ˈsäfist/Submit
noun
a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning.
a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.
Cynics are dogs (Revelation 22:15). There is no right or wrong to them other than yourself. I can’t possibly see how telling others what is right or wrong is that this is sophism. People who say Jesus was a Cynic / Sophist do not understand the is ought fallacy.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/if-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives-why-are
thank you Kana,
cognition (worker) versus real-world intelligence where indeed ”common sense” strikes ”stupid sense”, specially the wise/good sense.