[PLEASE PLACE ALL OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS HERE. THEY WILL NOT BE POSTED IN THIS THREAD]
Lion of the Blogosphere writes:
There’s a study publixhed in Molecular Psychiatry.
The only major newspaper to write an article about it is The Telegraph and their paywall prevents me from reading what they have to say about it.
Currently, genetic testing can only reveals 7% of intelligence differences between people but I’m sure as research and methods in genetic sequencing and computer analysis improve, that will eventually become a much higher percent. And then we will also finally have proof that blacks are less intelligent than whites because of genes, and not discrimination or poverty.
I took a look at the study he’s citing and found a few relevant quotes:
Using our meta-analytic dataset on intelligence we carried out polygenic prediction into UK Biobank subsamples following their removal from the meta-analysis. Between 3.64 and 6.84% of phenotypic intelligence (as measured by the VNR Test in UK Biobank) could be predicted (Supplementary Table 10); the upper limit is an improvement of ~43% on the largest reported estimate to date, of 4.8%
So if I understand correctly, it sounds like 7% is the upper limit of some kind of margin of error, but seeing as the lower limit is still around 4%, the single best estimate remains around 5%. However taking the square root of 5% tells us that genomic predictions correlate 0.22 with IQ, which is a weak (though not terrible) correlation.
However the good news for behavioral genetics is that the IQ test used in this study (the verbal-numerical reasoning test, abbreviated VNR) sounds shockingly bad:
The VNR test consists of 13 items, 6 verbal and 7 numerical questions, all of which are multiple choice. An individual’s verbal numerical reasoning score was measured by summing the number of correct responses given within a 2 minute time period.
Tests with only 13 items (scored right or wrong) almost never have high loadings on g (the general intelligence factor) because the reliability is too low. My educated guess is that the VNR has a g loading of only 0.65. Dividing the polygenetic predictive power (0.22) by the estimated g loading of the VNR (0.65), gives 0.34, which is a reasonable estimate of the genomic correlation with a hypothetically perfect measure of g.
A 0.34 correlation is still only moderate, but even modest correlations add up, because by the logic of regression, for every 1 standard deviation increase in the genomic score, general intelligence should increase 0.34 standard deviations on average (5 IQ points). This is not trivial. And I agree with Lion that predictive power will increase dramatically as the technology advances.
Of course none of this tells us anything about black-white IQ differences unless the races have been found to differ significantly on these genomic scores.
But of course as commenter Mug of Pee points out, all these predictions are in Western countries so the genotype-phenotype correlation could just be a local phenomenon and not reflect a truly independent genetic effect. We have no idea whether these genomic scores would predict IQ in societies with radically different environments.
Pumpkin Person 
wow! 7%! i never thought they’d get above 6.99%.
he laughed hysterically…
machine learning applied to estimate the IQ(G) function is the nuclear option. nothing more powerful is conceivable as long as “environment” remains a nearly opaque variable.
BUT it’s very important that the scoring be a society independent. even if society is not an explicit variable the machine may “find it” and use it. that is, there must be the same scoring for all peoples everywhere. otherwise the estimated function won’t have only G as argument.
as i;ve said…in the end…this will find a positive “real heritability” but it will be practically insignificant and MUCH less than that of twin studies.
in fact, these studies would do better if they just looked for genes for brain size.
that is, at a global level, it’s obvious that ethnicity and environment are very strongly correlated.
so the HBD case would be proven if there were one scoring system AND the rank order of japanese IQ and the rank order of japanese american IQ was predicted EQUALLY as well. that would be dispositive.
my point has always been that densen was a moron. the “true heritability” of IQ is NOT 90%. you;d have to be retarded to think that. it’s less than 50%.
For the record Jensen said 80% by later adulthood
for the record i know more about densen than you do.
densen claimed that h^2 for g was 90%.
that is, densen claimed that when the heritability of IQ was corrected for the imperfection of IQ tests…
in measuring g…
the heritability of g was 90+%…
anal sex…
I also think they will prove modern humans are smarter than neantherthals. For thousands of years we couldnt find neantherthals who didnt grow up in poverty to do a LEGITIMATE IQ test. Guess those hbd nazis are looking forward to it more than others (eg. me).
and yet neanderthals had brains as big as AMHs.
of course whale brains are even bigger and dolphins have big brains, but…
neanderthals were NOT bigger than AMHs. more muscular, but shorter.
They were bigger despite being shorter
“largest reported estimate to date, of 4.8%”
Social class stratification which caused genetic stratification irrelevant to cognitive ability and educational attainment.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.15252/embr.201744140
“However the good news for behavioral genetics”
There is no “good news for behavioral genetics”. It rests on fallacies and false paradigms.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/03/18/behavior-genetics-and-the-fallacy-of-nature-vs-nurture/
The good news for HBD is that there’s at least a moderate correlation between genotype and g. I agree they haven’t proven the correlation is causal, YET.
And indeed they are proposing causal biological mechanisms:
We found evidence that neurogenesis and myelination—as well as genes expressed in the synapse, and those involved in the regulation of the nervous system—may explain some of the biological differences in intelligence
They can make those assertions all they want; it’s unfounded because these results are hugely confounded by social class.These ‘differences’ that GWAS picks up are genetic differences between social class irrelevant to CA/EA. BGs can make all of the gymnastic leaps they want—that’s the reality of the matter.
And the behavioral genetic method is still founded on fallacies and false paradigms. Finding ‘genes for’ ‘intelligence’ won’t change that fact.
These ‘differences’ that GWAS picks up are genetic differences between social class irrelevant to CA/EA
How do you know? Can you describe a study they could do that would placate your skepticism. Perhaps a study comparing high IQ and low IQ siblings raised in the same family? That would control for social class.
Meanwhile they write:
Firstly, we identify a role for neurogenesis (gene-set size = 1,355 genes, P-value = 5.59 × 10−10), the process by which neurons are generated from neural stem cells. Secondly, a role was also found for genes expressed in the synapse (gene-set size = 717 genes, P-value = 1.43 × 10−6), consistent with previous studies showing a role for synaptic plasticity [52]. Thirdly, enrichment was found for the regulation of nervous system development (gene-set size = 722 genes, P-value = 4.02 × 10−8). Fourthly, we find evidence for enrichment for neuron projection (gene-set size = 898 genes, P-value = 2.07 × 10−7), neuron differentiation (gene-set size = 842 genes, P-value = 1.62 × 10−6), and central nervous system neuron differentiation (gene-set size = 160 genes, P-value = 5.33 × 10−7). Finally, we identify a role for oligodendrocyte differentiation (gene-set size = 1037 genes, P-value = 1.75 × 10−6). In addition to these novel results, the finding that regulation of cell development (gene-set size = 808 genes, P-value 9.71 × 10−7) is enriched for intelligence was replicated [16].
i agree with rr on every point.
but i think there may be a way to do (human) “behavior genetics” that isn;t retarded.
it;s just that the people pretending to do it are retarded.
so it’s retarded.
“How do you know? Can you describe a study they could do that would placate your skepticism. Perhaps a study comparing high IQ and low IQ siblings raised in the same family? That would control for social class.”
Non-reductionism in their models. Not using flawed twin studies. The Murray paper you will cite is not relevant here, either.
HBD depends on a reductionist view of biology which has been falsified.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/08/race-science-depends-on-dubious-genetics
I like all of those associations too. No causation. GWAS cannot show causation.
The behavior genetics paradigm is flawed. They’ll never ‘find’ what they’re looking for because their models and assumptions are wrong. BG will die soon. Reductionism will die soon.
I like all of those associations too. No causation. GWAS cannot show causation.
But if the same association is replicated under different conditions & circumstances, it becomes “proof” of causation.
Does an extra 21st chromosome cause low IQ?
Does a Y chromodome cause greater height & muscle mass?
Most scientists would say “yes”
How, then, would it become “proof” of causation if pathways or whatnot aren’t known? Just because an ‘association’ keeps appearing doesn’t mean it’s causal. You need to think about that, too. Associations do not equal causes. Genes don’t cause behavior.
Because the scientific definition of causation is “invariably associated and preceding in time”. A third 21st chromosome precedes low IQ in time and is associated with low IQ in every culture & social class, thus it causes low IQ.
I agree with you about social class confounding GWAS results, however if they can replicate the association within every culture and class, then they win.
The fact of the matter regarding the UK biobank is that it’s stratified by class, as far as I know there are no analyses out there that control for this, and if they do they’re not good (see Richardson 2017 cited in my first comment).
Chromosomes are irrelevant my friend. The debate is what causes variation in the normal range, sans a slew of diseases (which are by definition outside of normal variation). So your attempted analog does not work here.
But it’s the same concept on a smaller scale. Organic retardation is caused by a few large genetic effects. Normal IQ variation is arguably caused by many small genetic effects. Everyone accepts genetic causation in organic cases because a single chromosome subtracting 50 IQ points is imposdible to not notice, but when many small DNA strips alter IQ by only 0.5 points each, that’s much much harder to prove.
That argument would matter if the genome worked in a simple, additive manner, but it doesn’t.
But it works in a simple additive manner for Down Syndrome. Having a third 21st chromosome subtracts about 50 IQ points and 9 inches of height. Even in normal variation, it works in a simple additive manner when the height of children can be predicted from the average height of their parents. It works in a simple additive manner when biracial kids are darker than their white dad but lighter than their black mom.
The pertinent quote from that Guardian article:
Today, this reductionist approach to biology – and therefore to human biology – has been displaced by a more profound interpretation of the facts. “Systems biology” (see Denis Noble’s proposals on “biological relativity” in his new book Dance to the Tune of Life) sees an organism as comprising levels of relatively autonomous organisation each interacting with their total environment. Critical features of each of these levels cannot be predicted from the sequences of nucleotides. Genetic determinism is just plain wrong.
There is no debate whether differences in g is a product of genetic propagation. Multiple casual physiological mechanisms have been identified that affect the expression of intelligence, and now with this recent study, they’ve finally made a gwas that compares between populations. Feedback loops also ensure this. In reference to this “muh culture” RR keeps screeching, it seems quite stupid to assume that IQ wouldn’t fall along the lines of social class to begin with. I mean he did say people with higher social class have more environmental stimuli. Experience dependency is relevant here.
The genetic reductionist paradigm that BG rests on is false. If that’s false, then… Therefore…
“There is no debate whether differences in g is a product of genetic propagation. Multiple casual physiological mechanisms have been identified that affect the expression of intelligence, and now with this recent study, they’ve finally made a gwas that compares between populations. ”
There most definitely is a debate. Richardson’s sociocognitive-affective nexus is the answer to ‘g’ being ‘biological’. It’s possible that this, and not imaginary and undefined ‘g’ is the cause. Combine with test construction and social class stratification and this shows the GWAS 7 percent difference. That paper still holds here.
“RR keeps screeching, it seems quite stupid to assume that IQ wouldn’t fall along the lines of social class to begin with. I mean he did say people with higher social class have more environmental stimuli. Experience dependency is relevant here.”
Along with “muh culture” that I “keep screeching about” you’ve also got to keep in mind that these tests are designed by people from a narrow social class, too. All of this works together to cause low test score. ‘g’ isn’t the cause. The sociocognitive-affective nexus is.
”Social class stratification which caused genetic stratification irrelevant to cognitive ability and educational attainment.”
??
[whatever it mean…]
There are genetic differences between classes that are due to migration and social stratification that are irrelevant to cognitive ability and educational attainment.
Social stratification tend to be strongly related with educational attainment, one thing predict the other, as well cognitive ability.
Become a doctor [social stratification =middle class= specific professional class] tend to be the result of educational attainment [applied psychological and cognitive skills, aka, investiment] and previous psychological [conformity, long term gratification..] and cognitive [higher IQ] personal advantages to given outcome.
Social classes are bio-cognitive and psycho-cultural classes.
They are obviously stratified.. if not they cannot be labeled as ”classes”.
Elites are composed by high-driven/motivated, competitive, often selfish, narcisistic, dominant, hedonist and highly pragmatically/pratical–intelligent people.
Less tolerant you are to
live in dirty places
be subservient
more likely you will try to
scape from this places
scape from this condition
and there are three vias
conformity + material accumulation
idem + some implicit criminal activity
criminal activity [the shorter risk-investiment]
Middle classes are often composed by a ”light-version” of elites: reduced motivation, no have the elite lack of [fundamental] moral principles, amalgamated traits.. but, many highly intelligent people are on middle classes.
Maybe the most introverted and smart people tend to stay on middle class while most of extroverted.. and smart people tend to fight in the high society.
BUT
i think that most of rich people tend to be classical ambiverted people and sensation-seeker.
Poor classes tend to be similar to elites in many aspects BUT they lack required cognitive ability to reach the same results and many finish in crime scene. But many poor families are pre-middle classe-ones because they already have some common features of this groups for example higher conscientiousness.
Social classes can be defined as, at priori, ”level of individual and extended/familiar security” people is capable to reach to the given environment.
Elites in the sense we understand seems a invention of civilization because civilization itself is a social stratification.
”conformity + material accumulation
idem + some implicit criminal activity
criminal activity [the shorter risk-investiment]”
sorry, but… yes, i think there are more than ”three vias”, and specially the combination of ”be in line with the system” but ”be in lie with the morality”, seems considerably common among high society.
”BUT
i think that most of rich people tend to be classical ambiverted people and NOT sensation-seeker.”
correlations map
rr is sore for a good reason.
there is still some anti-italian prejudice in the US and hollywood hasn’t helped.
whereas there is NO prejudice against irish per se…none that i;ve ever encountered anyway…
buy there is still prejudice against roman catholics.
but that’s understandable. roman catholics DO have dual loyalty.
one to rome, the other to their country.
penis!
of course now the government of slovakia is about to fall from its connection to italian gangsters…
i mean…
the mezzogiorno has “issues”.
rr has never addressed these in full/point blank.
i think the mezzogiorno’s “issues” are like those of ireland and portugal and greece and recently iceland…
they’re all PERIPHERY countries.