Scientists Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending wrote a paper explaining how Ashkenazi Jews could have evolved IQs about a standard deviation higher than the European and Middle Eastern populations they split off of, in such a short period of time (less than a 1000 years). They argue that because of the historic correlation between genetic fitness and wealth and because of the correlation between wealth and IQ, there was rapid selection for IQ. They write:
Assume, for example, that the correlation between income and IQ is 0.4 (about the correlation in the United States today) and that individuals in the top 10% of income have twice the average fitness. The mean wealth of parents would be .16 standard deviations above the population average and the mean IQ of parents would be 0.4×0.16 or 0.064 IQ standard deviations, that is 1 IQ point above the population mean. This is the selective differential, and with a heritability of 0.8 IQ would increase by 0.8 points per generation. In 500 years—20 generations—average IQ would increase by 16 points.
Of course all this assumes relatively independent genetic effects (a reasonable but unproven assertion), but aside from an overly generous estimate of narrow sense heritability, the scenario they paint sounds plausible at first glance.
But then I wondered, if you can get a 16 IQ point increase in just 500 years from such a minor selection effect, then why do we only see about a 15-20 point IQ gap between blacks and whites? Afterall, the ancestors of whites and blacks have had different selection pressures for at least 50,000 years, and presumably, the challenges of adapting to cold winters likely selected for higher IQ in non-Africans during all that time, so either the cognitive demands of cold winters were very small, or, there’s something wrong with the breeder’s equation.
I think part of the explanation is that the breeder’s equation has diminishing returns. You might start out with a 0.4 correlation between IQ and income among incipient Ashkenazem, but with each generation of selection, the cognitive variance of this population shrinks slightly, and with the reduced variance, the correlation between IQ and incomes shrinks slightly (in the restricted population) and the parent-offspring IQ correlation also shrinks slightly, because range restriction tends to reduce correlations.
The rest of the explanation might be Charteruse’s claim of environment dependent genetic effects. In other words, a population might be hyper-selected for genes that make them smart in medieval Europe (and similar societies like modern America), but when the environment changes dramatically, those same genes stop enhancing IQ, or even reduce it. Perhaps only when a population is repeatedly selected for IQ in many different kinds of environments does it evolve environment independent high IQ genes.
Because if selection for IQ were really as easy as the breeder’s equation implies, then you would expect different populations to differ in IQ (and other polygenetic traits) by much greater amounts than the evidence shows.
Pumpkin Person 
Non human animals are adapted for relative fixed environments that produce specific selective pressures.
Middle eastern immigrants in UK for example, without grrreat assimilation will continue produce the same selective pressures/patterns than in their ancestral land.
Cultural environment are geographically transferable.
Humans can produce and regulate their own cultural environments and cultures have different evolutionary values.
Then when Pakistani immigrants immigrate to the UK and sustain their beliefs/values systems in the new home they will recreate Pakistan there.
Assimilation would progressive synchronization between the “new” and autochthonous neighbors, share the same values mean share the same cultural selective pressures. Nothing new here of course.
Are billionaires more likely to be graduates?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35631029
PP, you will like this.
Jonathan Wai found that even among billionaires, the richest ones were most likely to have attended an elite college.
On the other hand I did read in one issue of the Forbes 400 that college dropouts (on the Forbes 400) had a higher net-worth than those with more education.
We make the assumption that Ashkenazi became smart during their population boom between 1300 to 1800. It’s a more likely that the mean high iq was reached 800-years ago and then remained rather stable since.
I look at it like when the French came to quebec and multiplied from 26000 settlers in 1650 to 10 million plus descendants today. Like the French settlers, the 800 or so Ashkenazi ancestors were already better adapted to their environment and beat their competition to multiply (French vs Indians and jews vs 100 iq peasents). The French quebec genome did change but iq didn’t and I’d assume the same was true with Ashkenazi genomes after the population boom began.
Another reason why I believe the Ashkenazi became more intelligent during the middle ages but stopped becoming more intelligent over the past 500 years was because the Ashkenazi had overfilled their niche by the 1700s and most were living in poverty until the Russian revolution and great exodus to America.
First of all, the selective pressure to reward high iq is easier to enforce on a small population then a large one. Second, the selective pressure wasn’t there when Jews were isolated living in the ghetto or villages.
Just like how the Ashkenazi got yiddish from their ancestors, the same is true with iq.
There’s nothing in the breeder’s equation to preclude the possibility of a HUGE selection effect in one generation instead of tiny ones every generation. For example, if the cost of food in America suddenly got so expensive that only billionaires or decabillionaires could eat, we would see a massive IQ increase in one generation.
It could have been a one time selection event where the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jewish men married Italian women., similar to how the conquistadors and natives mixed or like how sikh landowners in early California took mexican wives. However, I doubt the selection for intelligence was a one time thing because the population would revert back to the mean iq of neighbours, like how the mean iq of puerto ricans is midway between African and white iq levels.
Of course there’s a difference between selection and interbreeding
If intelligence need to be reflected in achievements as many hbders show today and ashkenazis become smarter since medieval why just in the XX century that they produce enormous amount of visible achievements????
Jews were prominent well before the 20th century. Spinoza, Ricardo, Disraeli, all Jews. Around the 19th century or so, Jews were able to participate more in mainstream societies and they rose further from there. Seems they already had the potential but it was limited to their own community by cultural barriers.
Well according to the theory, Ashkenazi IQ did not finish evolving until 1600, and prior to 800, they probably had lower IQs than Whites because they are half Middle-Eastern. You might ask why they didn’t accomplish more from 1600-1900, but that’s a small sample of time, and there was a lot of anti-Jewish racism in Europe.that might have held them back
I think reduction of endogamy increase their social complexity behavior and or individuality (behavioral plasticity).
Some people argue that Jewish philosophers wasn’t less influent than European philosophers. The difference between Jewish achievements start XX century and before seems to be huge.
Sorry. Jewish philosophers were few and less influential than European ones.
To give citizenship to Jews was/is like open the Pandora box.
the breeder’s equation is nothing more than the assertion of linear regression…which is the case for bivariate normal distributions…and is always a good approximation for sufficiently small changes.
and the breeders have bred their breeds within a very restricted environment.
when whites moved into Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia…
their animals DIED.
and their crops ROTTED.
both animals and crop plants had been bred for millennia in europe and the near east.
just like the jari project…where the then world’s riches man D. K. Ludwig lost most of his fortune…
he had imported a fast growing tree from SE Asia…it wasn’t so fast growing in the Amazon.
and btw, i’m sure there are independent genetic effects on IQ or however one chooses to operationalize intelligence…but i’m sure merely from reflecting on my own life that such effects are less than half what hereditists claim…that is, less than half within the developed world as a whole. moore has a new documentary on how different america, one country among many, is.
I think I see the analogy you’re making here, each breed and species to its niche.
But isn’t intelligence about heightened adabtability to a wide variety of environments and situations?
That’s just what has allowed humans to thrive in many niches where a tropical hairless hominid should have perished.
Hence why we may be able to treat intelligence as a standard coin after all.
But isn’t intelligence about heightened adabtability to a wide variety of environments and situations?
Absolutely, but I don’t think charteruse is denying the utility of IQ in every environment, I think he’s questioning whether genes that enhance IQ in environment X will necessarily enhance IQ in environment Y.
and btw, i’m sure there are independent genetic effects on IQ or however one chooses to operationalize intelligence…but i’m sure merely from reflecting on my own life that such effects are less than half what hereditists claim…that is, less than half within the developed world as a whole.
Merely from reflecting on your own life you feel that independent genetic effects explain less than half the variance in IQ? Are you implying that if you had been born and raised in another country, that your test scores (relative to other whites in that country) would have been much less impressive?
On college admission tests (GRE, SAT, etc), you seem to average around +3.66 SD above the white mean.
Now if the 0.8 heritability is all independent, then your clone raised in another developed country would be expected to average (0.8)(3.66 SD) = 2.93 SD above the white mean in his country.
But you feel independent heritability is only around 0.4, so your international clone would likely score
(0.4)(3.66) = 1.46 SD above the white performance in his country
Of course, you’re just one individual, so in your case the regression might not be so extreme, or might not occur at all, but you did say you believe this model merely reflecting on your own life so apparently you think your own case fits the theory
So do you believe that if you discovered an identical twin within the United States, his IQ would likely be (0.8)(3.66 SD) = 2.93 SD on college admission tests, but if the two of you discovered a triplet, saying living in France, his IQ would be 0.4)(3.66) = 1.46 SD on college admission tests designed for his country?
And if you do believe this, based on reflecting on your own life as you said, what uniquely American experiences were so beneficial to the cognitve development of your particular genome that you wouldn’t have had in other developed countries?
“so you think you would have been dumber? perhaps a lot dumber?”
yes!
this is the possibility which motivates hereditists.
they don’t want to believe that they themselves might have been…”not so special”…in another environment…
that is, they themselves qua genome.
they all fancy themselves at the ceiling, so the other possibility…
that they may have been even smarter…
this has no weight for them.
however smart one is, it’s pretty easy to find an area where one is “not so smart”.
Gates’s IQ is 170, but given the 0.35 correlation between IQ & chess, his chess IQ is probably only (170 – 100)(0.35)+ 100 = 125
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/05/30/chess-iq/
The guy he was playing probably had a chess IQ of 180
Don’t know why Gates agreed to play him on TV. Perhaps having all that money causes delusions of invincibility
peter thiel was actually a quite accomplished chess player…
their game is part of this much more interesting video…
btw…
thiel is a gentile and kasparov is half gentile (armenian)…of course jews claim him as a full jew.
despite jewish claims, the spassky-petrosian match-es were 100% pure goyish.
1966 petrosian (the chess prophet, peace be upon him)
1969 spassky
Hereditarists are foolishly damning their progeny by their policies, particularly immigration.
I’ve lived in places where I’ve been regarded as handsome–and ugly. Furthermore, throughout history, my family name has been up and down the social hierarchy. They just don’t grasp the time and spacial context of social rank.
If they had any clue, they’d focus on producing a society that they wouldn’t mind their grandchildren being on the bottom or top of.
Radically different ways of life may tap into different cognitive traits entirely. Many foraging and pastoralist groups (and even some groups that are merely historically pastoralist) struggle with certain psychometric tasks in a way that is frankly difficult to credit, but which can’t be attributed to hostility, lack of interest or other issues of construct validity. Foragers often clock in at levels we would consider impediments to independent living, yet they seem to do just fine. (At least by their own values of “fine”.) A Pirahan and a German with IQs of 60 would not thrive in each other’s environments, but it’s only the German who could not thrive even in their own. These sorts of comparisons require a lot of caution, I think.
Even granting all that, though, I don’t understand how this gets you to a radical scepticism of heritability. One might even discount most twin adoption studies due to the fact that the class of adopting households (representing an estimated 90% coverage region for all households) nevertheless all share certain environmental features that cannot be controlled for. We are left, however, with the fact that cognitive differences between groups tend to remain stable no matter where those groups go. The outcomes of the Chinese in Malaysia, Indians in Nigeria, or Ashkenazi Jews in the US, to pick only a few examples, would suggest that there is a good approximation to a linear norm of reaction for cognitive ability, at least for the agrarian and industrialized worlds. Given that the industrialized world is at this point pretty much mopping up all other environments, I am unsure of the significance of hypothetical reversals of cognitive fitness in these other milieux.
We are left, however, with the fact that cognitive differences between groups tend to remain stable no matter where those groups go.
The fact that the rank order of groups seems to stay constant in different environments does not prove that the rank order of individuals does.
But even the group rank order is open to debate. The fact that Arabs went from the first civilization thousands of years ago, to a relatively primitive culture today might suggest that even group rank order of cognitive ability can change with changing environments.
Or it might just suggest that there’s a lot more to civilization than IQ.
Neither the rice nor one variety of trees took well to the region’s soil…Eucalyptus and Australian pine trees have been planted that are better suited to the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_K._Ludwig#Jari_Project
Ludwig has the distinction of being #1 on the first Forbes 400 “Richest Americans” list published in 1982.
Ludwig has the distinction of being #1 on the first Forbes 400 “Richest Americans” list published in 1982.
More evidence of the IQ-money correlation. He wasn’t smart enough to understand norms of reaction, and thus lost much of his fortune, falling down future Forbes 400 lists.
Pumpkin,
Higher variability of “heritability” ( or better: ” heredity … Or even better: Intergenerational transmission) within families couldn’t had been mistake /confuse with different environments??
Pumpkin,
don’t be rude, ask my question,
Santoculto, if a gene causes you to be tall in Brazil, then it will be selected in Brazil. But that same gene might make you short in Canada, it will be selected against when you move to Canada.
All charteruse is saying is that the same gene might have opposite effects in different places. However there might also be lots of genes that make you tall in EVERY country. The latter are called independent genetic effects, because they don’t depend on the environment
But my question was about what I put to be discussed. Height is a trait that seems to be, generally, very variable, depending on environmental factors OR phenotypical variability. There are cases in which the trait is already relative-to- quite ‘fixed”, for example, short stature of pygmies or high stature of montenegrinians. Another example, in the interior of Brazil, more precisely in the Northeast, we have some communities where the incidence of dwarfism is extremely high. Just as we also have, this time in the south of the country, some communities where the incidence of twins is very high. Even dwarfic people eat more or make more exercises seems to be bery unlikely that they will pass this lifestyle change to their children via comparative higher stature.
When you have great genetic similarity and geographic proximity, and large selective emphasis to certain trait, it seems, inevitably this trait will become locally epidemic and become very inheritable.
Moreover, the higher degree of outbreeding seems tend to cause higher phenotypic variation, as well as when we have no selective emphasis, that is, taking a specific trait or phenotype and significantly increase the proportion of individuals who are carriers of them.
The idea that the environment is the major cause, as I Noted, may be being confused with genetic or phenotypic variation within families.
phenotypic variations caused mainly by environmental insults are very true for species that are fully adapted to certain and/or limited environments (basics of natural selection), but the human being seems adapted for a good part of the earth. Of course, certain trait in more complicated environments, can have negative effects. For example, who is not adapted to live in high-altitude regions, it is very likely to have difficulties to adapt. But it is unlikely to cause changes ” a la lamarck ”.
Based on this logic, black Americans living in the deep South, should be healthier and more intelligent than black Americans living in the Northeast, but according to some intelligence estimates, the most intelligent among them, tend to live in colder regions as the American northeast. It would also be expected significant changes to the blacks who live in very cold regions such as Sweden and whites living in very hot regions. However, apart from being relatively complicated to determine the empirical nature of such changes, it is also complicated by the complexity of human environments.
The important thing here is to analyze to what degree of phenotypic plasticity is certain trait within a population.
This case may be similar to that of ” playing video games and boost iq ” which many people tend to confuse correlation with causality.
The same classical case we can see the Lamarckian theory.
Lamarck may have confused the effect of a disposition with own disposition. For example, men who start work muscles will pass these phenotypic changes for their children. But in fact, is not the phenotype but the genotype that will be passed and is far from unusual for parents with disposition for muscle development can pass this provision for their children and they in turn manifest it via repetitive effort.
Every leftist theories about human behavior have as fundamental source and/or inspiration the Lamarckian theory.
”All charteruse is saying is that the same gene might have opposite effects in different places”
As if you could prove it **
Myopia among the Eskimos *
The characteristics that are advantageous for the Eskimos survive in very cold environments and dominated by white ice, make it more likely to develop myopia in visually complex environment as the modern urban environments *
In this sense, this may be true, or part of it.
We have to keep in mind as well as the relative randomness of combinations during the conception that all human beings are subjected.
”Santoculto, if a gene causes you to be tall in Brazil, then it will be selected in Brazil. But that same gene might make you short in Canada, it will be selected against when you move to Canada.”
That does not make any sense.
”But that same gene might make you short in Canada, it will be selected against when you move to Canada.”
this part was worst of all.
”selected against”
selected by whom*
”might”
Homosexuals tend to have short stature (tends please). I could have been born in another way, but I was born like that, this discussion does not seem to match the reality of reality. There is no such thng as ” if I was born … would be so ”. Who can guarantee ** Who can guarantee that even there is some randomness combinations during the design * There is nothing proven, are only conjectures.
Most people tend to have stable biological developments. The people who are most vulnerable to environmental insults, can you be more likely to experience greater influence of the environment and the likelihood of more variable results, but who could prove it ** They don’t inherit environments, they inherit highly variable biological responses to the environmental fluctuations.
My case, I have the same height as my father and also share some of the same physical idiosyncrasies, for example, I have adipose fat, just who is distributed by body in atypical way, since I’m not totally flaccid. I’m not fat, but I’m paunchy, and my father has had the same characteristic. Some call it ‘high stomach’ ‘.
I’ve never been out of the house too much, to exercise (only now) or just to play with other children and adolescents, during my childhood and adolescence, it might have affected my development, BUT height, muscle strength and male voice are caused by the second wave of testosterone, in early adolescence, and I do not present a higher development in this second part. I was born with relative little body size.
What appears to be environmental or circumstantial actually (seems) was almost entirely organic, because it was just my developmental guidelines manifesting itself. we have a lot of teenagers of the new generations that are much higher than their parents, and they are often not healthy or sportspeople.
I have a ” gifted ” (psicometrically talking) cousin that looks a lot like me in temperament and was never the type to always be doing exercises, was also always be more at home than being on the street, socializing with their chronological pairs. And yet, he become very tall, especially if compared to me.
As I always say, chartreuse should be more objective, not only in relation to his theory, but also for himself, not only more objective, but also more honest.
He evoke hitler. says that left and right are just fanciful inventions, but praise for the Brazilian government, as most of leftist to do, and has left the impression that his theory is intended to -suggest- that the average intellectual differences between human groups and in particular between blacks and whites are caused fundamentally by environmental fluctuations, which are unfavorable to the first group. It’s not much different than the Chisala has said in the UNZ.
Sorry by this enormous comment again.
Pumpkin, do you try to estimate the IQ of your coworkers and friends? Do they ever say anything about you being a smart guy?
Yes and yes.
Since Jews have such high verbal IQ I would think that Jewish parents would try to marry their children off to the people with a propensity for Language. Gentiles who converted to Judaism would be another verbal IQ was so high. The ability to understand contracts would mean Merchants would allow their children to convert to Judaism by marriage. Pumpkin Person has said that smart people make fewer mistakes. Smart Jews would be more likely to understand the benefits of having grand children who make good business deals. And as people are more likely to marry people like themselves, the parents would match their children to the offspring of those with the same propensities. Children who read well would be married to each other in the community.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/do-opposites-attract-or-does-attract-relationships-understanding-science-love-276918
”Pumpkin Person has said that smart people make fewer mistake”
really* is relative, very relative.
how you see/interpret ”mistakes”, people tend to have their own top 10 smartest behavior and top 10 dumbest behavior.
”Smart people” seems more likely to commit a lot of mistakes but as society select them to occupy high-economic safe positions then they are less likely to be faced with real dangers.
I would say impulsive behavior is the cause mistakes. Impulsive behavior is tied in with the inability to delay gratification. When you want to make money or maintain a farm, you need to make sure you utilize all your resources. Mental ability can give you the foresight to see problems in the future and avoid them. Smart people can see a larger number of possible futures and thus understand the most successful option.
No, ” smarter ” people or, more efficient workers, are selected by the system since always, since they born, and if they born in a very favorable environment, even better for him. They are selected, and when they present the ”ideal” personality traits, so will be very likely to have a quiet life.
However, from the moment that we have a large proportion of ” smarter ” people making irrational policy choices, so we are with a ‘paradox’ ‘, because the policy has the role to decide on our lives.
They are born more privileged and they are rarely faced with real problems, and when they are confronted, they flee, white (smart) fly.
People who think, for example, about the future of America and make comparisons with what is happening in the rest of the world when you have a melting pot without control, are those that are truly thinking at long term. Gratification is not as so long term as many think.
The problem of speaking vaguely about intelligence.
Those ”smarter ones” who you are talking, are comparatively smarter than the rest of neurotypical populations, but they tend to be stupid in their own way.