A recent study used genomic predictors of cognitive ability, education, and reaction time respectively, derived from a UK sample, to predict test scores in Scottish samples.
As we can see, genomic predictors of VNR scores in a UK sample explained 3.59% of the variance in age 70 Morray House IQ scores in a Scottish sample , implying a correlation of 0.19. However if we assume that the VNR has a g loading of only 0.45, and further assume that the correlation between two scores is a product of their factor loading (Jensen, 1998), then dividing 0.19 by 0.45 tells us that a polygenic score based on a perfect measure of g would correlate 0.42 with Morray house scores at age 70, and if the Morray itself were a perfect measure of g, the correlation would rise above 0.5, explaining 25% of the variance, since variance explained equals correlation squared.
And keep in mind we are only looking at common additive genetic variance. Gail Davies et al writes
SNP-based estimates of heritability for general cognitive function are about 20–30%13. However, these estimates might increase to about 50% when family-based designs are used to retain the contributions made by rarer SNPs14. To date, little of this substantial heritability has been explained, i.e., only a few relevant genetic loci have been discovered
Heritability of 50% (meaning genomic predictions of 0.71) might be an overestimate because a lot of the variants might not be causal. On the other hand it could be an underestimate because we’re still only talking about additive variants; we haven’t even begun to look for gene-gene interactions.
I think it’s neither an overestimate nor an underestimate, but roughly correct, because even the most extreme critics of twin studies pegged heritability at 45%.
copulas are used in finance precisely because the constituent assets may have normal distributions but their joint distribution is NOT multivariate normal.
if the copula is asymmetric then the relationship will NOT be linear.
pill knows.
Puppy can you stop blogging about really boring obvious things and tell me something I don’t know like what Hamburglars IQs is?
To be fair Race doesn’t sound as stupid on his blog as he does here. It makes me think someone is using his name and doing a parody.
Puppys next post will be: how long does the battery in a regular alarm clock last?
That reminds me I need to change my watch battery.
truly apart in the same country is not truly apart.
dichorionic canuckistani MZTs correlate at 0%. random gestational surrogates is even less alike than dichorionic.
HBD-tards don’t grok the genetic vs congenital distinction.
strew 1,000 clone pairs into random gestational surrogates like the boys from brazil then add or subtract for differences in mean IQ of the country. you’ll get the real h^2. close to 0%.
but this is “unethical” so machine learning is the only way to do it.
If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.
Even more extreme critics of twin studies call to end them because they do not give any relevant ‘genetic’ nformation. It’s assumed that high heritability means there must be “many genes of small effect” ie, polygenic trait, though this is a BG fantasy.
IQ isn’t “genetic”.
What’s the a priori justification for privileging one system over another PP?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/
And Davies et al’s papers show a pittance of ~7 percent variance explained. Which means…. Population stratification. That’s all that GWAS captures. Call PGS PSS (population stratification scores). Ancestry is a huge component and this even holds regarding within country studies. Hmmm…
And I’ve already explained how gene-gene and gene-environment interactions screw up “heritability” estimates.
gene-gene don’t screw up the MZT “apart” studies.
I think you start to appreciate the parody more and more as time goes on.
A great way of determining whether intelligence is heritable or environmental would be to do an fMRI on people as they dream. The more activation, the more likely we are to see higher intelligence, more creativitu, or more “imagination,” or a combination of the three as I suspect. Then you could administer an IQ test, and see if there are any correlations. Maybe do a self reported evaluation of dream intensity.
I think Anime would really enjoy this aha.
General Intelligence.
General psychological development.
perception and executive function.
If you can use all your brain at once you are maximally intelligent.
the twin studies claim that the narrow sense is almost all of the full sense.
the reason why estimates of the full sense weren’t done by shoe et al is they did not have the computational resources.
that is, they could write the routine but it would freeze or finish 1,000 years from now.
gene-gene interactions in a linear model are like adding NxN new SNPs to the N you’re using.
the POINT/IMPORT/SIGNIFICANCE of the shoe paper is the yuge difference between height and educational attainment. it should have been smaller.
i forgot my jargon.
“full sense” = broad sense.
the twin studies claim that the narrow sense is almost all of the full sense.
75% of the full sense. Broad sense heritability = MZ twins reared apart. Narrow sense heritability = parents and kids apart.