[Please post all off-topic comments in the most recent open thread. They will not be posted here]
The famous Bouchard twin study found a potent 0.75 IQ correlation for MZ twins reared apart. Note that the phenotype correlation for MZ twins reared apart is a direct estimate of broad sense heritability (H^2).
But even MZ twins raised apart may spend their early years together, grow up in similar homes, have contact in later life, and be self-selected for similarity. For this reason, back in August 2014, commenter Mug of Pee cited a little known critic of twin studies named Susan Farber. Mug of Pee wrote:
Farber investigated and found the right figure for IQ’s h^2 in the US is more like 20%. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/01/books/nature-vs-nurture-a-natural-experiment.html
Clicking on the above NY Times article, the source for the 20% figure seems to be this paragraph (emphasis mine):
Defining ”reared apart” poses another great difficulty for researchers of twins. Different studies have used different criteria – such as age of separation, frequency of encounters between the twins or knowledge of the other twin’s existence. Dr. Farber, in her original and synthesizing role, has turned this confusion into an advantage. She devised a mathematical index with which she could measure the degree of separateness and used this information to correct the correlations found between the I.Q. test scores of twins reared separately. So corrected, the calculated correlation between twins’ I.Q. scores fell from a modest degree of within-pair similarity (accounting for about one-half of the variance) to a much lower degree of similarity (accounting for one-fifth of the variance). In other words, on the average, the more separately the twins were reared, the greater the difference between their I.Q. scores.
Presumably, the statement “one-fifth of the variance” is where Mug of Pee got his 20% heritability statistic, but 20% seems to actually be a squaring of the correlation between MZ twins apart (to get the percentage of variance explained). Taking the square root of 20% suggests that the corrected IQ correlation for MZ twins reared apart is 0.45.
This is much smaller than the 0.75 heritability found in the Bouchard study, but it’s still pretty high when you consider that heritability itself is a square of the genotype-phenotype correlation. Thus square rooting 0.45 implies a 0.67 correlation between genotype and IQ (among people raised in random homes).
So even after one of the biggest critics of twin studies corrects the data in a very biased way (according to her critics) genotype still predicts IQ about as accurately as SAT scores do (at least in countries like the U.S.)
Pumpkin Person 
how many fucking times do i have to explain it to you peepee.
h^2 = correlation of IQs of MZTs (raised in random environments—an unethical experiment)
h^2 != the correlation squared.
you’re mathematically illiterate.
But the IQ correlation of MZTs raised in random environments equals the squared genotype-IQ correlation of individuals raised in random environments.
So corrected, the calculated correlation between twins’ I.Q. scores fell from a modest degree of within-pair similarity (accounting for about one-half of the variance) to a much lower degree of similarity (accounting for one-fifth of the variance).
what is doing the “accounting for in this sentence”?
they aren’t referring to the other twin’s IQ. if they were then the h^2 would be sqrt(.2). but they aren’t.
they aren’t referring to the other twin’s IQ. if they were then the h^2 would be sqrt(.2). but they aren’t.
But they are!
At least that’s my interpretation & the most likely interpretation.
But i need to get a hold of her book to know for sure.
Which book?
https://www.questia.com/library/100975694/identical-twins-reared-apart-a-reanalysis
Thanks. Buying
Heritability also assumes independent genetic and environmental effects. Gene/gene, gene/environment interactions screw up the formula. Ronald Fisher’s original formula didn’t account for the interaction between ‘genes’ and ‘environment’, which he ignored (and Jensen did as well). This book covers the controversy.
By the way the EEA is false therefore you can’t make genetic inferences from the data.
Gene-gene interactions & EEA only screw up calculations based on comparing MZ to DZ twins, not calculations based on MZ twins raised apart.
“The chapter argues that heritability studies are futile for two reasons: (1) heritability studies suffer from serious methodological flaws with the overall effect of making estimates inaccurate and likely biased toward inflated heritability, and, more importantly (2) the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend – that of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance – is unsound.
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S1057-629020150000016002
The biological model isn’t valid.
FUCKING STOP DOING MATH!
h^2 = 20%.
the genetic “true score” and the IQ correlate at .45.
No 20% was the corrected heritability squared. 0.45 was the corrected correlation between MZTs raised apart. And the square root of that is the genotype-phenotype correlation in random homes.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2014/09/twins-reared-apart.html
the reason is both twins IQs are (theoretically) sums of G and E. it’s not like one twin always has his genetic true score and the other has that plus E.
I don’t think you read my article very carefully.
It’s GxE not G+E. Jensen didn’t realize that right?
Both models have been verified in nature. It depends on the trait & the organism. For IQ it could be a mix of both.
Where?
i highly doubt it’s a mix of both. gene-environment correlation alone casts doubt on that supposition — and it seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, because several, many, traits known to be environmentally caused are nevertheless “heritable,” suggesting a lot of correlation.
further, if this high-hokum about IQ tests measuring anything ‘genetic’ or ‘biological’ were true, then we would expect ‘culture reduced’ tests to exhibit high g-loading (they’re closer to the raw thing, right?) and culture-heavy tests to exhibit low g-loading.
the exact opposite is true.
well perhaps there’s range restriction! people are so similarly educated that the differential acquisition reflects natural propensities. i mean, that’s a joke…educational disparity in America and even the West is significant, real, and seems to be getting worse.
i mean, the Irish were retards 40 years ago, now they’re normies.
several immigrant groups were retarded 100 years ago, but now, after ASSIMILATING into mainstream society somehow are not retarded.
people are faced with different motivations in life.
a kid who is shamed into not asking questions because he looks like he’d be stupid is at greater risk of becoming/remaining stupid than the kid who is encouraged because he wears glasses.
yes, i believe the world is this stupid and that situations like the above account for a lot of ‘native ability’ differences.
further, if this high-hokum about IQ tests measuring anything ‘genetic’ or ‘biological’ were true, then we would expect ‘culture reduced’ tests to exhibit high g-loading (they’re closer to the raw thing, right?) and culture-heavy tests to exhibit low g-loading.
If you think of g as overall cognition, then culture loaded tests might be more g loaded simply because they use more parts of the brain. In order to learn a new word, you must have the working memory to pay attention what other people are saying while also (working memory) inferring meaning from context (reasoning), then you must recognize the word when you encounter it again(long-term memory) and see how it still relates to a completely different context (lateral thinking). Thus a single vocab item is arguably equivalent to four completely different culture reduced tasks (working memory, reasoning, long-term memory, lateral thinking) making vocab items an especially efficient sample of overall cognition (g).
well perhaps there’s range restriction! people are so similarly educated that the differential acquisition reflects natural propensities. i mean, that’s a joke…educational disparity in America and even the West is significant, real, and seems to be getting worse.
Yes, but if the education disparities are correlated with g disparities, then they may tend to multiply pre-existing differences more than changing the rank order. Kind of like if only tall people could afford elevator shoes, the rank order of height wouldn’t change, but the absolute size of individual differences would. Remember IQ is just a rank, not an absolute value.
Yes, but if the education disparities are correlated with g disparities, then they may tend to multiply pre-existing differences more than changing the rank order.
or they may cause the ‘rank order’ and the differences — at least the non-trivial aspects of them.
seeing as how we’ve seen several groups miraculously lift their IQs when exposed to wealth/education/social acceptance, there’s good reason to believe my PoV.
Thus a single vocab item is arguably equivalent to four completely different culture reduced tasks
no. you described what it takes to ‘learn’ a word.
that’s not what vocab tests test. they literally test WHAT YOU KNOW. like all iq tests.
i could utilize the same ‘process’ and apply it to pattern recognition, a mainstay of ‘culture-fair’ IQ tests: the working memory to retain all but the missing piece, inferring the pattern’s rules (which often involves recall to familiar shapes, etc. long-term memory and reasoning)
seeing as how we’ve seen several groups miraculously lift their IQs when exposed to wealth/education/social acceptance, there’s good reason to believe my PoV.
Is there?
no. you described what it takes to ‘learn’ a word.
Yes. My point is that vocab tests save time because the test subject does all of his learning before she even gets to the testing room. By contrast, culture reduced tests are designed to observe all the learning in the testing room, since they assume little pre-existing knowledge. Thus it takes much longer to sample the same amount of g.
i could utilize the same ‘process’ and apply it to pattern recognition, a mainstay of ‘culture-fair’ IQ tests: the working memory to retain all but the missing piece, inferring the pattern’s rules (which often involves recall to familiar shapes, etc. long-term memory and reasoning)
I agree my analysis was subjective, but culture reduced tests, by definition, don’t load as much on long-term memory of cultural knowledge, unless your point is that “culture reduced” is a misnomer.
Very dubious data. Chinese “IQs” are much lower than what HBD pretends.
The IQs of most developing countries are likely lower than reported. Very little testing occurs in remote villages where the most disadvantaged live. On the other hand, paper-pencil tests would be especially biased against such people.
Please. Everybody knows that it is impossible to calculate “national IQs” for most of the world. It’s not true that most developing countries have over-estimated “reported IQ” (reported by who?). The issue is only HBDers making up the data to fit their race and IQ bullshit.
Either way, if IQ means something, there is no way the Chinese score above 100 on average, the most reasonable and optimistic estimate would be in the low 90s, but it’s most likely in the low 80s or high 70s for Chinese adults and their high school completion rate of only 24%.
So why make obviously false claims, like in the case of China, about how ‘high’ their ‘IQ’ is?
So why make obviously false claims, like in the case of China, about how ‘high’ their ‘IQ’ is?
If the video Afro posted is true, we shouldn’t make such claims. At best we might be able to say China’s urban school children have high IQs, compared to the urban school kids of other developing countries.
it’s marketing.
when people want to say “stupid” or “uneducated” and sound smart and sciency they say “low IQ”.
when they want to say “i like this person” or “i don’t like this person but i respect him as an opponent” they say “high IQ”.
10x more can be learned about human psychology from studying the effect psychology qua academic “discipline” has on society than from studying psychology the academic discipline.
astrology is only interesting because so many people believe it.
If the video Afro posted is true
LMAO! Are you seriously implying that the video could be staged? Please…
At best we might be able to say China’s urban school children have high IQs, compared to the urban school kids of other developing countries.
Do you think you are fooling anyone? The HBD narrative is that the poorest Chinese children have very high “IQs” because the environment and all that matters is racial genetics.
As for urban children, how would you know? Lynn excludes urban Children in his African “estimates” on the basis that they are “unrepresentative elite samples”. Most studies I’ve seen on the Chinese had IQs in the low 80s.
LMAO! Are you seriously implying that the video could be staged? Please…
They might have their facts wrong. 50% of rural china retarded? Citation needed.
Do you think you are fooling anyone? The HBD narrative is that the poorest Chinese children have very high “IQs” because the environment and all that matters is racial genetics.
If 50% of rural china is mentally retarded, then China’s IQ is not as high as Lynn claimed
As for urban children, how would you know? Lynn excludes urban Children in his African “estimates” on the basis that they are “unrepresentative elite samples”.
According to Hernstein and muray, even in school urban african samples scored around 70
They might have their facts wrong. 50% of rural china retarded? Citation needed.
You’ll find anything you need on the program’s web portal.
http://reap.fsi.stanford.edu
According to Hernstein and muray, even in school urban african samples scored around 70
Please, we both know it’s not true. Wicherts et. al have extensively reviewed the literature and came up with an average of 82.
I’m not saying this figure is more representative of the current population. There’s no way to tell. But this is representative of the literature on healthy individuals.
Define healthy. If South African psych university students averaged IQs around 80, the typical black south african was likely below 65, at least at the time of the study, since university students were an elite (most educated 5%)
Other black african countries might be higher though, but it’s hard to believe any of them would score as high as blacks in America which is why wicherts data makes no sense
Healthy as in not specifically studied for a disability or a condition.
South Africa is a very special case, the apartheid school system was specifically designed to mis-educate the black population so the consequences would still have been felt by the time of the sudy. Plus the AIDS prevalence is off the chart there, lots of children grow up unattended, the crime rate is very high, it all causes a lot of trauma.
As for the other African countries, it’s entirely possible that they score around 80, just like South Asia. The living conditions are very similar in both places.
It’s stupid to say African IQs couldn’t be this high because blacks in America have an average of 85 (more like 90 actually). The gap isn’t necessarily caused by the same things in both places. And Black Americans barely have the life expectancy or the child mortality rates of a developed world population, so you are probably overestimating the difference between their living conditions and those of Africans.
It’s stupid to say African IQs couldn’t be this high
No it’s stupid to think that that blacks in the poorest countries in the world would score as high as blacks in the United States.
because blacks in America have an average of 85 (more like 90 actually).
No the average IQ of African American adults is about 85 not 90, and the average IQ of African American adults with virtually no white admixture is probably closer to 80 (excluding recent arrivals) .
And Black Americans barely have the life expectancy or the child mortality rates of a developed world population, so you are probably overestimating the difference between their living conditions and those of Africans.
Black Americans have a life expectancy of 75.6. In sub-Saharan Africa it’s 59.9. Also black Americans are almost a full standard deviation taller than their West African cousins, suggesting much better nutrition, not to mention black Americans have a much higher education level than black Africans.
No it’s stupid to think that that blacks in the poorest countries in the world would score as high as blacks in the United States.
No, this isn’t stupid. What’s really stupid is to believe that a poor and uneducated country like China would score higher than the developed world.
No the average IQ of African American adults is about 85 not 90,
Adults of what age? Those who grew up at the beginning of the post-civil rights era?
The studies that reported a narrowing of the gap are almost 20 years old, the children who scored 90 are in their late 20s or early 30s now.
and the average IQ of African American adults with virtually no white admixture is probably closer to 80 (excluding recent arrivals) .
Source?
Black Americans have a life expectancy of 75.6. In sub-Saharan Africa it’s 59.9.
75.6 is the same as Jamaica, Brazil and some other developing countries. Even Haiti has a life expectancy around 70 at age 10. So Black Americans really aren’t have the health profile of a developed world population.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/country-health-profile/haiti
Also black Americans are almost a full standard deviation taller than their West African cousins, suggesting much better nutrition
Height doesn’t suggest better nutrition when it’s coupled with sky high obesity. 60% of US black women are obese. Maternal obesity does impair a baby’s brain development and a overweight mother is apparently worse than an underweight mother for a baby’s brain.
http://contemporaryobgyn.modernmedicine.com/contemporary-obgyn/news/maternal-obesity-and-fetal-brain
not to mention black Americans have a much higher education level than black Africans.
Which is why their IQ is around 90.
No it’s stupid to think that that blacks in the poorest countries in the world would score as high as blacks in the United States.
No, this isn’t stupid.
Of course it is
What’s really stupid is to believe that a poor and uneducated country like China would score higher than the developed world.
That’s stupid too.
No the average IQ of African American adults is about 85 not 90,
Adults of what age? Those who grew up at the beginning of the post-civil rights era?
The average IQ of all U.S. blacks from 16 to about 90 as of 2006.
The studies that reported a narrowing of the gap are almost 20 years old, the children who scored 90 are in their late 20s or early 30s now.
Well if their improved scores last until adulthood, they might show up in the latest norming of the WAIS, due out in about a year.
and the average IQ of African American adults with virtually no white admixture is probably closer to 80 (excluding recent arrivals) .
Source?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503831?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Black Americans have a life expectancy of 75.6. In sub-Saharan Africa it’s 59.9.
75.6 is the same as Jamaica, Brazil and some other developing countries. Even Haiti has a life expectancy around 70 at age 10. So Black Americans really aren’t have the health profile of a developed world population.
Their life span is much closer to white Americans than to black Africans
Height doesn’t suggest better nutrition when it’s coupled with sky high obesity. 60% of US black women are obese. Maternal obesity does impair a baby’s brain development and a overweight mother is apparently worse than an underweight mother for a baby’s brain.
Obesity rates have been sky rocketing for all races in the U.S., yet their test scores keeps going up. Nutritional effects on height seem far more predictive of a country’s IQ than the first world problem of too many calories.
not to mention black Americans have a much higher education level than black Africans.
Which is why their IQ is around 90.
We’ll see in about a year
Of course it is
It’s not. You only understand simple things so you think poor country = all bad, rich country = all good.
The truth is that the lower classes of the developed world get the worst of both poverty and development and although this still results in a net advantage for poor people living in developed countries, this advantage is not as large as the overall difference in living standards between countries.
Well if their improved scores last until adulthood, they might show up in the latest norming of the WAIS, due out in about a year.
Why wouldn’t they?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503831?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
You’re amazing, we’re discussing how Lynn makes up false data and whose allegations do you choose to refer to? Lynn’s… With an article that refutes him. Do you realize that?
Their life span is much closer to white Americans than to black Africans
Which is in large part due to the fact that people in developed countries are kept alive longer but with poorer health than people of similar age in the developing world.
Obesity rates have been sky rocketing for all races in the U.S., yet their test scores keeps going up.
Because education has significantly improved and infectious disease and other health issues have been addressed. But the test scores probably haven’t increased as much as they could have.
Nutritional effects on height seem far more predictive of a country’s IQ than the first world problem of too many calories.
Source? I’ve never heard of height/IQ correlation that would be high enough to explain a supposed difference of 1 SD in IQ.
Many West African countries have average heights similar to Southern Europe, Japan and Korea, so it’s likely that both Africans and African Americans are shorter than they could be.
We’ll see in about a year
Haha, sure. I can make a very safe prediction: you’ll rationalize away all evidence contradicting HBD.
The truth is that the lower classes of the developed world get the worst of both poverty and development and although this still results in a net advantage for poor people living in developed countries, this advantage is not as large as the overall difference in living standards between countries.
But it’s still large
Well if their improved scores last until adulthood, they might show up in the latest norming of the WAIS, due out in about a year.
Why wouldn’t they?
Because research suggests that environmental effects on IQ are stronger in childhood.
You’re amazing, we’re discussing how Lynn makes up false data and whose allegations do you choose to refer to? Lynn’s… With an article that refutes him. Do you realize that?
I’m not citing Lynn. I’m citing his critic. And the critic doesn’t deny Lynn’s finding, only its interpretation. What Lynn’s finding showed is that darker African Americans score lower, which means that if the average African American adult is about 85 (as of 2006), those with the least admixture (and thus most comparable with black Africans) are likely closer to 80. Thus it’s very unlikely black Africans score 80 given their bad environments. And yes, African Americans, especially unmixed ones, have bad environments too, but black African environments are even worse, as measured by virtually every index known to correlate with environmental IQ gains.
Their life span is much closer to white Americans than to black Africans
Which is in large part due to the fact that people in developed countries are kept alive longer but with poorer health than people of similar age in the developing world.
Even infant mortality is much higher in black Africa (34 per thousand live births in 2011) than it is for African Americans (11.5 per thousand live births in 2011).
Obesity rates have been sky rocketing for all races in the U.S., yet their test scores keeps going up.
Because education has significantly improved and infectious disease and other health issues have been addressed.
And the exact same logic applies to Africans Americans vs black Africans
Source? I’ve never heard of height/IQ correlation that would be high enough to explain a supposed difference of 1 SD in IQ.
In virtually every country where IQ has gone up dramatically (the Flynn effect) we’ve seen parallel gains in height and education. Thus it stands to reason that African Americans (who have are taller and more educated) than their genetic counterparts in Africa, would also have substantially higher IQs.
Many West African countries have average heights similar to Southern Europe, Japan and Korea, so it’s likely that both Africans and African Americans are shorter than they could be.
Or those non-African countries are genetically shorter than West Africans
We’ll see in about a year
Haha, sure. I can make a very safe prediction: you’ll rationalize away all evidence contradicting HBD.
Ironically it’s actually you who’s defending HBD here. If environmental failed to cause an IQ gap between unmixed blacks in American and the Third World, then environment matters little. In the past you’ve argued that both life span and education are good proxies for environmental effects on IQ, and now you’re downplaying both, just to maximize the African IQ, not realizing that it doesn’t help your case.
Yes, 10 points. 80 vs 90, that’s only 5 points smaller than the 70 vs 85 you believe.
Because research suggests that environmental effects on IQ are stronger in childhood.
No, the research on heritability suggests that environmental influences account for less within-group variance in adulthood, not that it has less influence on a group’s average. But heritability rests on false assumptions anyway so it doesn’t even make sense.
Either way, as seen among of the participants of the add health study who are now in their 30s to early 40s after having been followed since the mid 90s, the black participants have a mean IQ of 94, the whites 105.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5291340/
What Lynn’s finding showed is that darker African Americans score lower
That’s a poor indicator of ancestry.
but black African environments are even worse, as measured by virtually every index known to correlate with environmental IQ gains.
Not to the extent that it would cause a very large difference in IQ.
Even infant mortality is much higher in black Africa (34 per thousand live births in 2011) than it is for African Americans (11.5 per thousand live births in 2011).
That’s not a large difference, if turn it around and express it as a survival rate it’s, 966/1000 in SSA vs 989/1000 in black America, just 2% more.
And the exact same logic applies to Africans Americans vs black Africans
No, because black Africans have experienced these improvements even faster without yet suffering as many of the first world’s conditions.
In virtually every country where IQ has gone up dramatically (the Flynn effect) we’ve seen parallel gains in height and education. Thus it stands to reason that African Americans (who have are taller and more educated) than their genetic counterparts in Africa, would also have substantially higher IQs.
They do have substantially higher IQs. 10 points is a substantial difference.
Or those non-African countries are genetically shorter than West Africans
Or African Americans are “genetically” less smart than Africans, which could be due to European admixture, dysgenics or subsampling due to slavery. Whatever, I don’t believe in genetic influence on IQ.
Ironically it’s actually you who’s defending HBD here. If environmental failed to cause an IQ gap between unmixed blacks in American and the Third World, then environment matters little. In the past you’ve argued that both life span and education are good proxies for environmental effects on IQ, and now you’re downplaying both, just to maximize the African IQ, not realizing that it doesn’t help your case.
You don’t get it. I don’t care if blacks in the US and Africa have the same IQs. My views rest on a simple fact: Wichert’s inclusion creteria come the closest to the criteria of demographic analysis:
“Employing independent raters, we determined of each sample whether it was (1) considered representative by the original authors, (2) drawn randomly, (3) based on an explicated stratification scheme, (4) composed of healthy test-takers, and (5) considered by the original authors as normal in terms of Socio-Economic Status (SES).”
All he cares about is representativeness as evaluated by the authors of the studies.
So my intuition is that Africans score 20 lower than White Americans, they lose maybe 15 points due to health and nutrition related variables, and 5 points or more due to cultural factors. Whereas Black Americans score 10 points lower, 5 points are lost due to health and nutrition factors, 5 or more due to cultural ones.
Unlike you, I’m not making a case about genetics since it’s not part of my paradigm at all.
The studies that reported a narrowing of the gap are almost 20 years old, the children who scored 90 are in their late 20s or early 30s now.
The median age of the black American population is 33 btw.
Lynn excludes urban Children in his African “estimates” on the basis that they are “unrepresentative elite samples”.
OMG!
did he actually say that?
did he do the same for china people?
i’m thinking no.
if true this means lynn is genuinely evil, not just stupid.
Here are a whole bunch of papers he ignored when he made his Chinese ‘IQ estimate’.
http://raceandiqmyths.blogspot.com/2016/10/fake-chinese-iq-studies-richard-lynn.html?m=1
Do any of them say 50% of rural china is mentally retarded?
Wang, 2001 (Average IQ of 76-81)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/wang-2001.pdf
Average IQ: 81 and 76
Hong, 2001 (Average IQ of 65-82)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/hong-2001.pdf
Average IQ fluctuates between 65 and 82 for china, depending on amount of fluoride in water. Shandong province, china.
Li, 1995 (Average IQ of 79-89)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/li-1995.pdf
Average iq is in between 79 and 89 for china. Guizhou province, china.
Yang, 1994 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/yang-1994.pdf
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Jinan, China.
An, 1992 (Average IQ of 76,84)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/an-1992.pdf
Average IQ for china is 76 and 84. Guyang county, inner Mongolia.
Guo, 1991 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/guo-1991.pdf
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Hunan province, china.
Not to mention the fact that they don’t subtract points to account for the Flynn effect.
Mug of Pee,
Lynn’s numerology exposed here:
In this rejoinder, we criticize Lynn and Meisenberg’s (this issue) methods to estimate the average IQ (in terms of British norms after correction of the Flynn Effect) of the Black population of sub-Saharan Africa. We argue that their review of the literature is unsystematic, as it involves the inconsistent use of rules to determine the representativeness and hence selection of samples. Employing independent raters, we determined of each sample whether it was (1) considered representative by the original authors, (2) drawn randomly, (3) based on an explicated stratification scheme, (4) composed of healthy test-takers, and (5) considered by the original authors as normal in terms of Socio-Economic Status (SES). We show that the use of these alternative inclusion criteria would not have affected our results. We found that Lynn
and Meisenberg’s assessment of the samples’ representativeness is not associated with any of the objective sampling characteristics, but rather with the average IQ in the sample. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples’ relatively high IQs. We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg’s unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downloaddoi=10.1.1.737.1195&rep=rep1&type=pdf
1. the apartheid school system was specifically designed to mis-educate the black population
this is 100% bs. as if everything that happens to blacks is determined by whites.
afro keeps lying about apartheid.
2. HBDers can claim south asia is different in that it really was conquered by white folk. the law of manu. even today there is a small minority of south asians who are almost indistinguishable from europeans.
peepee should do a post on all the evidence for the ashenazi IQ in israel.
lynn’s estimate of 103, if veridical, would KILL the genetic explanation.
but even if lynn weren’t dishonest he may have used non-verbal tests which the ashkenazim are known NOT to do better on.
this is 100% bs. as if everything that happens to blacks is determined by whites.
afro keeps lying about apartheid.
“There is no place for [the Bantu] in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour … What is the use of teaching the Bantu child mathematics when it cannot use it in practice?” – Hendrik Verwoerd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_Education_Act,_1953
^^^confirms what i just said^^^
if you don’t grok ZA apartheid…
you don;t understand REALITY.
the afrikaner is history’s ultimate butt boy.
i’m just repeating myself for the millionth time.
but some people ain’t got no memory.
american segregation, “separate but equal”, and apartheid have nothing in common.
let’s forget about black/white.
apartheid in the new world is indian reservations.
that’s what it is.
the only difference is…
1. bantus’ tfr is 3x that of native americans’.
(ZA was just as un-inhabited as the US and canada when the dutch landed in cape town.
as verwoerd said, “we settled a country bare.”)
2. the pululating bantus were exploited by whites.
they left their bantustans to work for whites.
ZA is an unambiguous example of a country WRECKED by capitalism and jews.
so am i saying indian reservations are a good idea?
NO!
but my God when columbus landed in the bahamas there might have been only 1 m people in the whole of what is today the US and canada.
so leaving the new world alone rather than colonizing it would’ve been stupid too.
de klerk said, “the zulu are as different from the sotho as the swiss are from the russians” or something like that.
he was right.
the plan was to give the so-called indigenes their own nation states.
this is seen today in swaziland and lesotho.
but the ZA indigenes were non-existent when the dutch landed in cape town.
the only TRUE ZA indigenes are the koi-san.
Stop spewing apartheid propaganda.
Whites have never been the majority on any territory that would become part of South Africa.
By the time they reached the Cape Region, the eastern half of what would later become South Africa was populated by Bantu peoples, with the Fish River serving as a border between Dutch and Xhosa settlements until the early 19th century.
It’s only when Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s that the Boer moved eastwards and northwards to establish the Voortrekker states of Transvaal, Orange and Natal. The lands were not-uninhabited and were conquered after bloody conflicts for both the Boer and the Native Africans. Nothing comparable to how European settlers acquired huge territories in the Americas by offering a few mirrors and some booze to the native tribes.
And the supposed autonomy and independence plans for the Bantustans were a laughable pretext, these territories were never meant to be viable, their territories weren’t even contiguous and they were left with the least agriculturally suitable land.
how can afro post after me in time but before me on the thread?
WordPress app
that article by professor shoe has a comment with another article link.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685620/
this article claims that using the twins raised together method comparing fraternal and MZ twins the heritability is 0 if the MZ twins are dichorionic.
So corrected, the calculated correlation between twins’ I.Q. scores fell from a modest degree of within-pair similarity (accounting for about one-half of the variance) to a much lower degree of similarity (accounting for one-fifth of the variance).
paraphrase:
So corrected, the calculated correlation between twins’ I.Q. scores fell from a modest degree of within-pair similarity (indicating about one-half of the variance is due to genes) to a much lower degree of similarity (indicating one-fifth of the variance is due to genes).
if they don’t mean that then that’s what they should have meant or i will irradiate them with my mangina.
Bouchard’s study is so incredibly flawed. They were raised together between 0 to 48 months. He wouldn’t release other test score information to Jay Joseph. Why? Either way, the EEA is false. Twin studies are garbage, DZ/MZ differences are caused by ‘environment’, not ‘genes’.
It’s time to retire heritability estimates and behavior genetics.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/03/18/behavior-genetics-and-the-fallacy-of-nature-vs-nurture/
“Fisher, however, noted in the paper that “throughout this work it has been necessary not to introduce any avoidable complications.” One of the complications he mentioned was the possibility that factors might not just add together like independent weights or forces; that they might actually have effects on one another (called gene-gene interaction). Also, their effects may be different in different environments—what is called a gene-environment interaction. Either compilation screws up the formula.” (Richardson, 2017: 41)
Studies of MZ twins raised apart capture gene-gene interactions, but genomic predictors based on SNPs do not & that’s one of the reasons genetic studies can’t recover all the heritability reported by twin studies. They’re only looking at common additive variance.
Molecular genetic studies can’t capture all of the heritability reported by twin studies because it doesn’t exist.
Bouchard’s study had nothing to do with EEA. Farber has attempted to correct for all the flaws in studies like bouchard’s
I know it had nothing to do with the EEA. But the EEA calls his findings into question, along with the other problems I’ve highlighted.
Sorry I just woke up.
Bouchard’s conclusions are invalid due to a host of methodological and conceptual flaws in his study which I’ve chronicled before.
“but 20% seems to actually be a squaring of the correlation between MZ twins apart (to get the percentage of variance explained). Taking the square root of 20% suggests that the corrected IQ correlation for MZ twins reared apart is 0.45.”
nah mang.
“the intra-pair correlations are estimates of the amount of the variance explained by genetic factors alone and this provides a broad sense heritability estimate (H2).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5635617/
so .2 would be the correlation between MZ reared-apart.
and then when you add the wide confidence interval resulting from the small sample sizes….that .2 probably looks like .0-.3.
But you’re assuming 0.2 is the correlation between twins apart. The quote from the NY Times article is ambiguous but i interpret it to be the amount of variance in IQ explained by your separated co-twin.
The square root of that percent of variance is the correlation between MZs reared apart (broad sense heritability) and the square root of broad sense heritability is genotype-phenotype correlation.
I assume that because that is literally how broad sense heritability is always measured from MZ twin studies — the correlation = variance explained.
i mean, i guess we can parse what the definition of ‘is’ is…but if the article says ‘variance explained’ i’m not sure why you’d assume it means anything but just that.
let’s look at the study
well pumpkin, you may be on to something
according to the article, the original study came away with around half the variance explained…the average correlation was .72 (Table 4), and .72^2 = .52
Click to access Bouchard.pdf
But the quote from NY Times makes it sound like they might be squaring the MZ apart correlation (perhaps to make it easier for non-stats people to understand):
So corrected, the calculated correlation between twins’ I.Q. scores fell from a modest degree of within-pair similarity (accounting for about one-half of the variance) to a much lower degree of similarity (accounting for one-fifth of the variance).
You and Mug of Pee are assuming one-fifth of the variance refers to variance in IQ explained by genes (heritability). I suspect it might refer to variability in IQ explained by separated twin’s IQ. In other words heritability squared. A confusing statistic since heritability is itself a square of genotype-phenotype correlation (in random homes).
I could be completely wrong. If I ever find a copy of her book we’ll know for sure.
well pumpkin, you may be on to something
according to the article, the original study came away with around half the variance explained…the average correlation was .72 (Table 4), and .72^2 = .52
Exactly, before her corrections are applied, twin studies show roughly half the variance in IQ explained by separated co-twin’s IQ. But her book is from the early 80s so I doubt she was using the Bouchard sample. Nonetheless your point still stands:
As a historical note, it is interesting to find that a full analysis of all the cases in Farber’s book yield a correlation of 0.771 (Bouchard 1982a), precisely the correlation Kamin accused Burt of fabricating (see page 147 of this article)
oh i wasn’t even paying attention…i thought this author was revising Bouchard’s data, because someone else did that recently, one of Jay Joseph’s friends…maybe it was one of the Bouchard study authors. Idk…
Swank which paper are you talking about?
but that’s not the “original study”.
farber was looking at data which did not include bouchard’s.
yes. in general when one here’s “correlation” he expects to hear what that figure is not what its square is, so i assumed they were referring to the correlation not to its square and the correlation is the % of variance “explained” by genes.
this ambiguity may be due to the universal innumeracy of journalists.
…one hears…
stupo not typo.
also when bouchard claims he did this calculation and the correlations were the same and = .76 this explains the first parenthetical .76^2 = .58 but does not explain the second .45^2 = .2.
but does not explain the second .45^2 = .2.
Presumably the second is after she corrected the correlation for the MZ twins not being sufficiently “apart”.
does not explain the second parenthetical.
jesus fucking christ!
peepee can’t even remember one post!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685620/
Been there, debunked that:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/09/17/great-news-for-hereditists/
Bouchard wrote an elegant refutation of the sort of data dregding exercises that the likes of Farber have conducted.
Thanks for the link
MZA similarities are due to environment, not genetics. Bouchard couldn’t have discussed the problems in his 1990 paper in this paper.
Why didn’t Bouchard release the other test data in his 1990 paper?
Why didn’t Bouchard release the other test data in his 1990 paper?
Exactly, I was just thinking it’s very easy to critique reviewers when you don’t even make your data public.
Another important issue has been the Minnesota researchers’ decision to deny access to critically minded reviewers seeking to perform independent inspection and analysis of the MISTRA raw data.28 Unlike the authors of the classical studies, for the most part the MISTRA researchers failed to include case histories for the pairs they studied, and also failed to provide basic information and test score results for each pair. Granting access to independent reviewers is especially important in this case because, unlike other types of human behavioral research, TRA studies are extremely difficult to reproduce due to the rarity of reared-apart twin pairs. In Born Together—Reared Apart, Segal wrote that the “burden of proof lies with the critics” to show that the study contained invalidating biases. “Bias must be demonstrated, not assumed,” she wrote.29 This has placed critics in a difficult “Catch-22”-like position because, if they were known to be inclined to look for bias, the Minnesota researchers denied them access to the raw data.
A committee of Dutch psychologists assessing previous and potential fraud in their discipline concluded in 2012, “It must always remain possible for the conclusions to be traced back to the original data. Journals should only accept articles if the data concerned has been made accessible in this way.”30 In direct contrast, the MISTRA researchers have kept their original data secret, thereby rendering it inaccessible.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/studies-reared-apart-separated-twins-facts-fallacies/
The fraud is obvious.
Pioneer Fund study btw.
BUT!
if it were possible to assign clones to random surrogates and random families and their scores correlated at significantly different from 0…
that would be maybe interesting.
if the correlation was only .2 it would not be interesting.
unless one wanted to embark on an extreme eugenics program.
but then eugenics is NOT sci-fi.
it’s been 20+ horse generations and secretariat has not even been approached.
Worst case scenario for liberals is race IQ gaps genetic but heritability is low. Then not even eugenics can close the gap.
Because “genes for” IQ are an HBDer (i.e., genetic reductionist) fantasy.
fake liberals who think that a bolivia type society is cool as long as the rules are indigenous lesbians.
colin powell and condaleeza rice vs white man and white woman…
it doesn;t matter.
they’re all scum.
Also a low heritability wouldn’t mean anything since it doesn’t speak to the malleability of a trait.
if really were “elegant” you wouldn’t say so.
Pumpkin why don’t you prove to the readers once and for all that intelligence is something you teach. I happen to believe that we can train animals to become scientists. But unfortunately we have not yet found the right medications to make scientists turn into animals.
if i’d only had the right environment i could breathe underwater and/or fly.
I remember watching Oprah once and she said that the best way to improve your cognition is to embrace the Secret. For only $9.99, you can get an introductory starter pack on a life changing journey, guaranteed to bring you all the things you ever wanted in life from the comfort of your home. Book now while stocks last. All major credit cards accepted.
Why doesn’t Oprah share the Secret with africans. They could use more money and working sewage and running water and the invention of the wheel. Why hasn’t oprah noticed this?
Its a pity they can’t measure the twins brains and see if they are the same size. If they are the same size as their parents and grandparents and great grandparents and distant ancestors and pre modern human ancestors and archaic ancestors that communicated only with grunts and clicks, that would prove once and for all the brain is genetically heritable throughout the generations and never changes since the dawn of time.
Genetics proffesors say that not only is IQ completely random and subject to local weather conditions….but that race is socially constructed and that gender is a matter of perspective.
Geneticists are very smart people. We should all listen to their findings that racism is the number 1 problem in the universe.
They feel guilt when their reasearch doesn’t confirm the social construct theory and are worried it could be nefariously used against minorities.
I’ve just read ‘How to judge people on their look’ from Edward Dutton and it could have been extracted from Pumpkin posts with comments (except environmental stance like RR, Afro or Feenopy is never mentioned. He cites as many articles as Feenopy though … ). It’s a fine 40 minutes read.
Pumpkin should have written such a book.
Twin/adoption studies are highly flawed due to numerous confounds therefore genetic interpretations cannot be made
We should IQ tests plants raised in middle class homes and see if their is a correlation with the Ravens. I bet there is. Im telling you.
Does Race read these papers he always talks about. Or does he ask grandma Race Realist in the old folks retirement home with dementia to read it and give him cliffnotes? I think its the second one.
rr is from the mezzogiorno genetically so he believes that his tiny village in apulia or wherever DOES contain the MASTER RACE.
southern italians hate everybody, especially other southern italians.
raised within a 100 miles is not truly apart peepee-tard.
truly apart means random gestational surrogate and adopted by random family from manhattan to timbuktu.
Truly apart within the U.S. is what I meant
but why would anyone care about that?
h^2 is 100% explained by similarity of environment for MZTs raised apart. that is, on average. the reason being that what is a great distance for one twin pair may not be for another. or put another way, if the respective environments are sufficiently different for the given twin pair then h^2 = 0.
when G varies as in GCTA then h^2 depends on similarities in G and on similarities in E.
The ideal study would be single fertilized eggs, split in a lab and one zygote from each of the eggs inserted into Bushwomen in the Kalahari desert, while the identical zygotes are each inserted into upper class Jewish women in Manhattan. Then 35 years later, calculate the IQ correlation between the separated twins.
or…it is theoretically possible to assign MZTs enviroments such that h^2 = 0.
put another way…if one had 10,000 such twin pairs he could find a subset of the data such that h^2 = 0.
“The ideal study would be single fertilized eggs, split in a lab and one zygote from each of the eggs inserted into Bushwomen in the Kalahari desert, while the identical zygotes are each inserted into upper class Jewish women in Manhattan. Then 35 years later, calculate the IQ correlation between the separated twins.”
So it’ll never happen.
The ideal would be having 8 children. MZ and DZ from very high and very low IQ parents. Then, you split them among 2 extreme environnement.
You would be able to distinguish environnement as necessary and as sufficient condition for IQ while controlling for pure genetic differences at the same times.
Mae Wan Ho argues that maternal environment and epigenetic effects can account for heritability.
One of the first rebuttals to The Bell Curve came from Bernard Devlin and colleagues at University of Pittsburgh in the United States in a paper pub-lished in Nature in 1997 (Devlin, Daniels, & Roeder, 1997). They showed that covariance (correlation) between relatives may not be due only to genes, but also to shared environment, especially maternal environment, which is not taken into account in conventional models. In a meta-analysis of 212 previous studies supplemented with twin studies published after 1981, Devin and colleagues showed that an alternative model with two maternal womb environments, one for twins—both monozygotic and (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ)—and another for siblings, fit these data much better.
Maternal effects, often assumed to be negligible, account for 20% of the covariance between twins and 5% between siblings, thereby correspond-ingly reducing the effects of genes, so the two measures of heritability were both less than 50%: the broad and narrow sense heritability were 48% and 34%, respectively.
The shared maternal environment may explain the striking correlation between the IQs of twins, especially adult twins reared apart. It also accounts for age-effects: an apparent increase in heritability with age. Devlin and col-leagues pointed out that cultural inheritance and interaction between genes and environment may also be at work to boost the apparent heritability of intelligence.
http://www.academia.edu/5853864/No_genes_for_intelligence_in_the_fluid_genome
She also discusses numerous other problems with twin studies. This may be the most important confound (along with epigenetic supersimilarity, which I will provide later).
“The ideal would be having 8 children. MZ and DZ from very high and very low IQ parents. Then, you split them among 2 extreme environment”
Trait-relevant environments aren’t known (see Bouchard 1990).
mae won ho founded ISIS.
no kidding.
look it up.
Of course it isn’t. Another confound is the same environment in the womb. Another is epigenetic supersimilarity
so as with so many things the meaning is the use.
the important question is not “what is the ‘real’ heritability”, it is…
1. what are the intellectual limitations of the “normal” human given his genetic endowment?
2. how difficult will it be for him to reach his maximum potential?
3. would nearly all who score higher than him today score higher than him in such a rigorous or nurturing environment? what is the extent of norm crossing?
and the problem with answering any of these questions is no one understands what “environment” means.
also the homogeneity of humans at genetic level which militates against much norm crossing also weighs against significant differences in ability. but what is “significant” in a human/cultural sense may be very insignificant in a biological sense. that is, for even the cleverest animals almost all humans are nobel laureates in physics.
there will never be a “genetic architecture” in the additive sense for things like sprinting speed or jumping ability, but i can’t believe rr doesn;t see that usain bolt and michael jordan have a genetic endowment which made running very fast and jumping high much easier for them than for the average person.
valery borzov and asafa powell are the great exception to the “sprinters are born not made” cliche.
“but i can’t believe rr doesn;t see that usain bolt and michael jordan have a genetic endowment which made running very fast and jumping high much easier for them than for the average person”
I don’t look at in a reductionist sense; I look at the whole system.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/20/why-do-jamaicans-kenyans-and-ethiopians-dominate-running-competitions/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/31/explaining-african-running-success-through-a-systems-view/
RR is very smart. Please respect his opinions.
RR I’ve read that Kalenjin tribes are around 6 millions, 10% of
Kenyan and ethnic related neighbours but they get 2/3 of the medals. Kenyan get 2/3 of long distance running. So it means that Kenyan without kalenjin are 25 times over-represented ww and that Kalenjin are 500 times over-represented .
In a RunningLongDistance IQ were worldwide population would be at 85, Kenyan would have 110 and Kalenjin 125.
Before wwii, it was the Scandinavian who dominated and their level would have been an average of 105. They were destroyed by Kalenjin.
Is that environnemental ?
To simplify I took 3/4 of ww long distance running medals for Kenyan with 2/3 of that being for Kalenjin.
i think peepee’s interpretation might be the less autistic.
the journalist might’ve thought, “people don’t know what ‘correlation’ means so i’ll put it in terms they can ‘understand’.”
Exactly, because the average NY Times reader understands percentages. They don’t understand correlations.
yet sometimes correlations are quoted as “the correlation is x %“.
this is true in the numerical sense…correlations range from -1 to 1.
anyways…
i couldn’t find her book in my local libraries’ catalogs, including my local university libraries’.
or as a free pdf.
i’ll leave rr to pay for it.
ultimately the HBDers are people who believe (even though they don’t know that they believe) that any sufficiently large group of people must have…
us
and
them
these people are “haters” in the sense that the idea of ein reich, ein volk, ein IDEE is something they CANNOT think.
the idea that humans may accommodate their irreconcilable differences IN LAW…they cannot think this.
today these people HIGHLIGHT difference ALL THE TIME.
except the ONLY difference that matters.
MARX (AND ENGELS) IS OBVIOUS.
MAKE THE EFFORT.
or maybe some west africans were “conquered from the north” too, just like the indians.
yaphet kotto is a jew because his dad was a jew.
wtf?
is his own story TRUE?
i doubt it.
peepee won’t post this but it’s very important.
why would anyone want to have a high IQ?
why is a higher IQ population better?
let’s not ignore these questions as trivial or stupid.
to what end is the higher and higher IQ?
what is EIN IDEE?
this question cannot be asked under the ruling regime’s ideology.
…
answer the question jerk!
i’m not sure that you have actually asked a question, and of you have, i ask…
why have you asked it?
why does everyone want to be a winner?
why is there even the term “loser”?
this is a sick society.
response from sick society brainwash-ee:
youz only say that ’cause you’s a loser.
iiuc, i agree with rr…in terms of What Is to be Done?…
that is…
the flynn effect has been greater than the effect of any breeding program could have been.
and so it will be in the future…
i suppose.
MAN CREATES HIMSELF THROUGH LABOR.
hell makes a lot of sense as a metaphor for the human creation known as the city or ‘civilization.’
afaik civilization and cities LOWER fertility rates, lead to HIGHER misery and less happiness….it literally is a place and environment that destroys the soul
i also find the fact that catholic theology is everywhere, even in the ‘modern age.’
Marx’s vision for human/civilization’s development (couched as positive fact or not) resembles the Irenaenan theodicy.
i.e. the thrust being that this journey of pain and suffering is (1) necessary — there is no other way we could progress and (2) will be worth it in the end.
this society is sick because civilization is a sickness.
there is a top down effort backed by violence to extract whatever can be extracted from the citizens and ensure conformity.
but the ruling elites are not evil. they are trapped too. the angels and demons are good metaphors for ideas. look an idea like HBD. just look at how it makes people behave. how it possesses people. what about scientism and the behavior that encourages (morally represensible questions and topics and behaviors being given a platform under the rhetorical cover of ‘objectivity’).
what about the idea of America? this is probably the greatest lie of all time. look at how much shittiness people are willing to endure in the name of ‘the American Dream.’ the idea is so powerful that it literally pulls people from around the world.
surely an HBDer can see that MZ twins operating under different ideas will/could become radically different people? can they? it’s just that putting MZ twins in such a situation is unethical and probably can’t happen within 100 miles of each other. oh well, timeless discussion.
Ecclesiastes says it best: there is nothing new under the sun.
or mostly…every people contributes some small thing.
for example the legacy of white (anglo) people for posterity will be penicillin and jean shorts.
And some have suggested the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for our hunter/gatherer past, which seemed like paradise compared to the hard work, disease & malnutrition of agriculture
Perhaps the sin of eating the apple is a metaphor for planting the first (apple) tree, and thus the start of farming
paradise in the strict sense of that lifestyle being closer to the universal human nature — if such a thing exists. other rosy aspects of hunter-gatherer life are often exaggerated. but here is another difference that comes down to culture:
civilization created the entire concept of leisure — of doing nothing even when doing something. so if a civilized person were to live as a hunter-gatherer, the presence of this artificial concept/idea would make his life miserable. but a person who lacked this idea would be fine — perhaps much better off even if the conditions were, to our minds, objectively worse; modern life is what makes boredom a thing.
imagine no concept of leisure as leisure and all work was understood as bearing a direct relation to the individual and the individual’s particular needs. such a person would do poorly on an IQ test (what is the point of sitting here and thinking about this or that and writing it down? it serves no real purpose — these are all questions that need answers, answers which are thoroughly conditioned into the civilized) while likely being at least moderately intelligent.
the reduction in autonomy and alienation of an individual’s mental focus from his or her own life to producing goods for ‘the greater whole’ is a huge part of what allows the development of skills like IQ, IMO.
eating the apple represents the birth of all techne — for-use knowledge. to apply ideas to the real world…that’s the work of God.
social science (including economics) is the next phase of religion.
the authority used to be ‘God’ and we had the priests to tell us what God said
now the authority is science and we have PhDs to tell us what it says.
the more ideas we have in the world, the better.
the more ideas, the more possibilities for behavior, the more readily we can adapt to changing times and conditions.
even diogenes recognized the greatness of free speech.
with the MZ twins, we’d need to place them in cultures missing essential elements of the other culture. like the above difference in leisure/boredom….
…
that’s true ‘apartness.’
the US is extremely conformist and doesn’t differ by as much as most people believe.
that said, the differences are enough to produce mass tumult. so just imagine.