Tags
95% confidence interval, Gregory Clark, IQ, Neanderthals, polygenic scores, Richard Klein, standard error, Upper Paleolithic Revolution
Commenter “Some Guy” had some questions about polygenic scores for me. His questions are in block quotes with my answers directly below each one.
How good do you think polygenic scores will have to get before they start getting used on an individual level? Like within how many SDs of the true IQ/g/educational achievement?
If one’s polygenic score is extreme enough, it doesn’t have to be very accurate at all to give useful information. For example, let’s say you have several embryos to choose from and one has a polygenic education score of +5 SD. Even though such scores only predict 12% of the variance, because +5 SD is so extreme, you can be about 97% confident that embryo will grow up to be more educated than the average person (assuming he or she is raised in a society similar to the one from which the stats were derived).
One problem with polygenic scores is they don’t seem translate well from one culture to another, suggesting they’re more correlative than causal.
The uses I can think of is to identify children with high potential from poor backgrounds, or as an environmentally unbiased entrance “exam” for schools etc.
What I would like to see them be used for is to estimate the IQs of historical Geniuses like Albert Einstein and to estimate the IQs of ancient human populations. For example Richard Klein believes there was a major genetic change in human cognition that occurred about 50 kya that allowed us to suddenly spread from Africa, replace the Neanderthals, colonize the globe and create representational art. If we compared the polygenic scores of humans both before and after the upper Paleolitic revolution, we could test this idea. Similarly Gregory Clark believes rapid genetic evolution in Europe allowed the industrial revolution.
I would also love to see polygenic IQ scores for the Neanderthals, assuming they would be meaningful in a group that culturally and genomically distinct.
What sort of PGS-IQ correlation would result in polygenic scores that are say within 1 SD of the true IQ? I know you often calculate standard errors from correlations, mind sharing the formula/method?
Within 1 SD with degree of certainty? If you mean with 95% certainty, you would need a correlation of 0.85+ which I doubt will ever be achieved. Even the correlation between two different IQ tests is seldom that high.
The method is to square the correlation to get the percentage of the variance explained, and then subtract that value from 1 to see what percentage is left unexplained.
So for example a PGS that correlated 0.85 with IQ explains 72% of the IQ variance, thus leaving 28% unexplained.
The variance is defined as the standard deviation squared, so since the IQ standard deviation is set at 15, the variance is 225, and 28% of 225 is 63.
The square root of 63 is 7.9 which is what the standard deviation would be if everyone had the same PGS. This is also known as the standard error of the estimate. Now in a bell curve, 95% fall within 1.96 of the mean, so multiplying 7.9 by 1.96 tells us that 95% of say the UK, will have IQs within 15.5 points of the PGS prediction.
So if you have a PGS of +2 SD that correlates 0.85 with IQ, your IQ will likely be 0.85(2) = +1.7 or IQ 126, with a 95% confidence interval of 111 to 142. But of course we’re nowhere near seeing a 0.85 correlation.
To get the general public to really trust polygenic scores for IQ, I’d guess the accuracy would have to be within 5 points of the true score. Within 10 points would lead to people who actually differ by 20 points regularly ending up with the same polygenic score. Since 20 points tend to be the difference between leaders and followers, such errors would be highly noticeable.
I think if they achieved a correlation of 0.7 with IQ they’d be considered credible (especially if the predictive power was maintained across oceans and generations). That’s the correlation between different IQ type tests with each-other and these are routinely used to decide issues as important as who gets into an elite college, who gets excluded from the military, who gets diagnosed as disabled or gifted, and who gets sentenced to death by the courts.
By the way, what do you think about this argument against people who consider intelligence entirely environmental: If that really was the case, then disadvantaged people would NEVER be smarter than people with good backgrounds. So why even bother giving people from poor backgrounds a chance? 100% environmentalism leads to un-egalitarian conclusions, and is easily disproven by the existence of smart disadvantage people.
It’s prima facie absurd, but it wouldn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that we shouldn’t give deprived people a chance. On the contrary it might lead to the conclusion that changing IQ is simply a matter of changing environments.
Pumpkin Person 
The brain is an experience dependent organ. That’s not something you can run from. Consciousness requires external input to exist.
I’m not RR, but the data in neuroscience far outweighs heritability estimates and polygenic scores
But human brains have different potential to learn throught experience.
Other animals learn through experience too. A solid review on the subject is Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony.
What governs said potential?
The point of my comment is that for a blog which discusses the properties of intelligence, the proponents seem too liberal in disregarding actual data on how the brain works. If your explanations of intelligence don’t match with the current literature on neuroscience and you can’t demonstrate that the literature is inaccurate in some way, any pontifications about IQ you make are pure sensationalist garbage.
A group of pseudo intellectuals pushing pseudoscience. But what else is new.
Thanks Pumpkinator!
Even a correlation of .95 seems to result in a 95% confidence interval of 18 points, or in other words predict within 9 points of the true IQ. The margin of error is much bigger than I would’ve thought for such a high correlation! Even the WAIS can’t rank order people all that accurately I guess.
“I think if they achieved a correlation of 0.7 with IQ they’d be considered credible (especially if the predictive power was maintained across oceans and generations). That’s the correlation between different IQ type tests with each-other and these are routinely used to decide issues as important as who gets into an elite college, who gets excluded from the military, who gets diagnosed as disabled or gifted, and who gets sentenced to death by the courts.”
Right, it will still be used. I was more thinking about how good it would have to be not to regularly cause noticeable discrepancies of like 15+ points. People will remain sceptical of polygenic scores for IQ if seemingly smart professors and doctors regularly get below average polygenic scores. And probably some famously smart person will get a below average score which will brought up whenever polygenic scores are discussed 🙂
By the way, I believe properly diverse IQ batteries like WAIS and Stanford-Binet correlate a lot more than 0.7 with each other, no? Surely they don’t use un-diverse tests like Raven’s to diagnose disability? It’s not surprising college admissions tests or military tests don’t correlate too highly with IQ tests, since they’re also trying to measure the narrow factors relevant to those specific fields.
Here’s something I wonder how to calculate:
Let’s say person A has a true IQ of 120, and person B has a true IQ of 100. They do an IQ test that correlates 0.7 with true IQ. What are the odds person B scores higher? Or, what’s the 95% confidence interval of the difference between the two person’s scores on the test? I guess you sum the two standard errors in some way?
“On the contrary it might lead to the conclusion that changing IQ is simply a matter of changing environments.”
Right, there’s hope for the next generation, but if environment is everything, then there’s no point in giving people who have already grown up disadvantaged opportunities for achievement, since even if their environments improve they won’t be able to compete with the people who’ve had good environments all along. A guy that’s definitively from a disadvantaged background does well on tests and grades? Must be an error, no point in letting him into college. That would be the implication of a 100% nurture-view.
“since even if their environments improve they won’t be able to compete with the people who’ve had good environments all along.”
This logic assumes synaptic connections continuously grow stronger and stronger which may not be the case. There could be a ceiling. This ceiling would have more variation between species and far less within.
Some Guy, a 95% confidence interval of 18 points may sound large but keep in mind that if you were guessing someone’s IQ at random, the 95% confidence interval would be 59 points.
Also keep in mind that even physiological measures like systolic blood pressure & heart rate only correlate 0.7 when tested twice.
Even height when measured twice would have a 95% confidence interval of several inches
“Also keep in mind that even physiological measures like systolic blood pressure & heart rate only correlate 0.7 when tested twice.”
Source? How long in between each BP reading?
My source is table 4 of this document:
Click to access Bouchard.pdf
I don’t know how long between each measure unfortunately
Presumably the study you have in mind made sure to use people trained to read BP, no? (Though there would be some degree of variation in the reading, anyway.)
“I don’t know how long between each measure unfortunately”
So why does it matter? BP is a physiological variable and physiological variables change due to environmental stressors, among other things.
It matters because BP is considered a relatively stable & reliable trait
How “stable” is BP? Are fluctuations throughout the day features of a “stable” trait? Sure, if one has a similar lifestyle in between readings then they will be similar. But if their habits/lifestyle changes then so does their BP.
yet bouchard found bp more heritable than IQ.
psychology is a pseudoscience for dumb people.
the bouchard data gives bp h^2 .64 for MZAs and WAIS FSIQ h^2 .68, but corrected for reliability the bp is much more heritable, .95 or something, even though bouchard’s reliability for the WAIS FSIQ was way too low in order to juice the reliability adjusted IQ h^2.
office measured bp can be meaningless. and bp drops a lot for everyone when asleep.
so in order to measure “true bp” requires wearing a monitor for 24 hours.
but bp is an example of a trait which can be made ideal without medication as long the person doesn’t have serious kidney disease. that is, high bp is like obesity and type ii diabetes, totally avoidable, but it takes more work for some than for others.
Sadly rr believe stable mean “zero variation over the day “…the problem begin with rr’s interpretation skills..
The tests have been done. The claim that DZ and MZ twin pairs experience similar environments is false. All of these other methods being created are used to attempt to justify the correlations from twin studies—but, again, Bronfenbrenner’s analysis strikes a stake through the heart of the vampire known as “HBD” which won’t stay dead.
Twins share the same womb and usually the same social class. Wouldn’t you agree?
Any study in mind? Yea I’d agree with that but I need more information. Have you come across Bronfenbrenner (1972) yet? What do your questions have to do with Bronfenbrenner’s reanalysis and the ultimate conclusion thsy the EEA is false?
Well clearly if twins share a prenatal environment and tend to share the same social class because they’re raised by the same family, isn’t that a pretty equal environment?
Rearing conditions matter, no?
Of course, but identical twins tend to have similar rearing conditions because they are obviously reared in the same family.
Are you talking about non-twin studies? Just the similarity of MZ pairs in general?
“Some Guy, a 95% confidence interval of 18 points may sound large but keep in mind that if you were guessing someone’s IQ at random, the 95% confidence interval would be 59 points.”
That may be Pumpkin, but it’s still surprising to me! Now that I think about it, IQ tests or polygenic scores probably don’t have to be that all that accurate for people to trust them, they just have to include a margin of error/confidence interval into the result!
Possible formats for scores:
97±21
97(76-118)
76-118
The first format is cleanest and easiest to remember, but requires some arithmetic if you want to know the range.
The second format has all the information easily digestible.
The third format is best in not misleading people into placing undue weight to a score that is after all only the mean of a large range.
The most stable of IQ sects is the verbal. People who can’t improve their vocabulary in mother tongue when they are younger it’s very unlikely they will be capable to do it when they are older.
Polygenic mean higher genetic recombination, what human bergs are, the most polygenic species of all. This may contribute to create the illusion that human intelligence is more environmental, whatever it’s mean. Cultural aquisition with language and learning cultural tools or skills seems like am artificial metamorphosis.
Oh gene reductionists…. Why not also discuss the pitfalls with PGS and similar methods as well? That one can ‘show’ that PGS X is ‘associated’ with life outcome Y means… What exactly? I don’t think it really means anything. What do PP et al think it Janssens (and others) critiques on the validity and methodology of PRS studies?
https://academic.oup.com/hmg/advance-article/doi/10.1093/hmg/ddz205/5555564#.XXJCTpADvvY.twitter
In fact, PGS/PRS are just like h2 estimates: in that they don’t show causation. It’s just yet another attempt at genetic reductionism.
As Mug of Pee stated, causation will be shown if and when we get a single PGS that works in very different countries. Similarly, an IQ correlation of twins raised in very different countries would also show genetic causation.
No—the same thing that haunts h2 is the same thing that haunts PGS/PRS (among the other methodological problems). It’d still be just an association until a ‘genetic’ mechanism is identified. (Spoiler alert: one won’t be.)
No we don’t need to understand the mechanism to prove causation. All we need to do is prove the correlation is ubiquitous and that DNA comes first.
“No we don’t need to understand the mechanism to prove causation”
Hahaha
Why is that funny?
What is “causation”? What is a “mechanism”?
What is “causation”?
one could define cause as that which produces an effect, but then effect can be defined as that which is produced by a cause.
Verbal arguments are ultimately limited by the circularity of language, which is why the best way to define something is to operationalize it.
A good operationalization of causation is an association between x and y that occurs almost everywhere and where x precedes y.
This definition is useful because it lends itself to hypothesis testing and has face validity.
But you’d rather play word games then make a genuine effort to find the truth.
still waiting for rr to test his theory that negroes score lower because distinct culture.
rr accuses everyone else of pseudoscience but refuses to look for any evidence confirming his theories.
with bp rr will say, “even though steroids increase bp, bp is just a risk factor and not a disease in itself unless over 160” or some nonsense and then he’ll start juicing.
remember all,
rr is the guy who denies that ‘roids are atherogenic or harmful in any way.
rr says, “‘roids increase bp and cholesterol and all pro wrestlers die from a heart attack in their 50s but i’m not worried. i love juicing.”
dumbass rr.
PGS has thus far confirmed that hereditism is retarded.
but a PGS done on a truly random sample of a truly diverse range of societies and cultures which still predicted something like the twin studies would be a marciano-walcott knockout blow to the anti-hereditists, developmentalists, whatever.
but again. that’s NOT what’s actually happened.
“negroes score lower because distinct culture.”
Otto Klineberg, in 1935, posited that worse-off education in southern blacks compared to northern was due the cause of lower test scores:
By investigation of the school records in Nashville, Birmingham and Charleston it was determined that the children of parents who had migrated were not, on the average, significantly different in school abilities from those of parents who had not migrated. Then by a series of intelligence-test studies of negro children of ten and twelve years in New York City it was established that in general the intelligence level is positively correlated with the duration of residence in the city; possible alternative factors like race mixture are suitably controlled.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1935-01925-000
Then Lee, in 1951 directly tested Klineberg’s hypothesis by analyzing the IQs of blacks from Georgia who migrated to Philadelphia schools and found that they gained .5 IQ points for each year they were enrolled in Philadelphia schools.
So, a popular “HBD” talking point—that it would be due to selective migration—was controlled for.
Klineberg’s hypothesis that there is an increase in the intelligence scores of southern Negro migrants to New York with increasing length of residence in New York is, in the main, substantiated by independent evidence in Philadelphia. There is a significant and continuous upward trend in the intelligence test ratings of southern born Negro children as their length of residence in Philadelphia increases.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2087699
Bonus: First-generation Italian Americans in the 1920s had below average school attendance even after controlling for ‘assimilation’ but by the third generation they were above average on school attendance as well as IQ. (Source: https://www.amazon.com/Educational-Handicap-Public-Policy-History/dp/0029279208 cited in Ceci, On Intelligence.)
“one could define cause as that which produces an effect, but then effect can be defined as that which is produced by a cause.”
PP just blasted the philosophical literature on causation.
“an association between x and y that occurs almost everywhere and where x precedes y”
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. “X always, or mostly, occurs in the presence of Y, therefore X causes Y.”
RR, give me an example of a ubiquitous yet non-causal correlation, where x always precedes y.
Coextensive traits.
Identifying a mechanism while not necessary does make for a more powerful argument.
Drinking bleach is correlated to dying. Observing how this occurs helps us reduce causation.
PP’s task on causal explanation (for PGS). The argument must
(1) be a valid deductive argument, in that the conclusion is the phenomena to be explained; (2) have an explanans (the sentences adduced as the explanation for the phenomenon) that has one lawlike generalization; and (3) the remaining premises which state the preceding conditions have to have empirical content and they have to be true.
The explanandum is the description of events that needs explaining whereas the explanans is what does the explaining.
Take Justin Garson’s example from What Biological Functions Are and Why They Matter (2018, pg 30):
“Explanans: Stripes deter flies
causes
Explanandum: Zebras have stripes”
is rr really so utterly fucking retarded he thinks he’s answered my question?
0.5 points vs what?
vs phili whites?
vs southern blacks?
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT IT?
NEGRO SCORE LOWER THAN WHITE BECAUSE IQ = WHITE-NESS, THEN…
WHAT FACT WOULD DISPROVE THIS?
ANSWER THIS!
THEN YOU KNOW WHAT THE TEST IS!
I’VE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS.
NEGROES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, VERMONT, MAINE MUST SCORE HIGHER RELATIVE TO WHITES THAN THEY DO IN THE BLACK BELT.
Muggy is another stupid one here who understand very little about maybe all subjects he touch…
His explanations are so superficial and wrong.
Now he is saying blacks among white places as new england are influenced by cultural environments they are.
He just failed to understand that in USA , blacks who behave like savages (at least 20% of these population) , are very unilikley to be tolerated in white middle classes environments. There is a previous selection there. If you behave like subhuman you will never be accepted in such sanctuary for white pee.
RR made an expected simple statement became a labyrinth..
RR doesn’ know [or he knows] write in such tortuous ways is always a conscious way to confuse people.
Mugabe,
Versus southern blacks. It’s in the paper. This is the closest data I’m aware of to answer your question.
PP,
“give me an example of a ubiquitous yet non-causal correlation, where x always precedes y.”
Fodor’s book What Darwin Got Wrong, Against Darwinism (Fodor, 2008).
RR, I knew you wouldn’t answer the question.
As expected, PP didn’t answer my challenge for the deductive valid argument.
Yea, I did. Coextensive traits, as Melo already stated, since when you have one you have the other. You’re assuming they since X “always” precedes Y, that X causes Y. That, again, is fallacious. Mechanisms and causation go hand-in-hand.
“give me an example of a ubiquitous yet non-causal correlation, where x always precedes y.”
The falling of a barometer before a storm.
Give me an example of a valid deductive argument for causation of PGS.
False!
Barometers don’t predict storms in Denver because they’re too far above sea level:
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/fair-or-foul-how-to-use-a-barometer/
Haha!
My IQ is FIFTY POINTS above your level!
Hahaha. A barometric pressure drop of 24 millibars precedes “bombogenesis”—the creation of a bomb cyclone—and they have the strength of category 1 and 2 hurricanes. One happened in Denver this year when I was there.
[redacted by pp, oct 16, 2019]
No one is disputing they have storms in Denver, but the same barometer that predicts storms at sea level will fail to do so in Denver. This is analogous to a polygenic score working in the UK but not predicting in China. In both cases it suggests the correlation is not ubiquitous & thus not causal
Quote where the article says that.
And that’s just a cop-out for GWAS being majority derived from Europeans.
Where’s your valid, deductive syllogism for PGS causation?
Under one of the photos the caption says:
Aneroid barometers also usually have layman’s terms like “Stormy” and “Dry” on them. The idea is that barometer readings at certain levels will portend those weather conditions. Unfortunately, those terms really only work at sea level. Here in Denver — a mile above sea level — they’re nearly worthless. No matter to me — they add to the decorative appeal of the barometer.
I don’t have a syllogism on PGS causation because it hasn’t yet been proven. I am merely suggesting a scientific standard by which the hypothesis could be tested.
But you’re no longer interested in hypothesis testing as others have noted.
And what does that caption mean?
So you’re assuming they’re causal. Who claimed I’m “no longer interested hypothesis testing”? The criticisms of PGS/PRS/GWAS are sufficient to disregard them.
In any case, again, “HBD” is disproved by its own data (Bronfenbrenner) and all of these attempts to find the missing heritability are laughable. They just can’t admit that it was never there at all.
Pumpkin ignores the Fodor example because he doesn’t understand the concept, which is fine. What’s hilarious though is that instead of asking you or I to elaborate he just simply pretends it never existed.
Such a “high IQ” yet he’d rather obfuscate the truth than have a meaningful discussion.
It seems you two have a lot in common.
Pumpkin ignores the Fodor example because he doesn’t understand the concept,
WTF? I asked for an example of a ubiquitous non-causal correlation where X always precedes Y and he cited the title of a book criticizing Darwin.
Right but you don’t understand the relevancy of the citation.
Organisms are the object of selection not individual traits. So a trait that doesn’t increase fitness (is not causal) in an organism is always selected anyway and therefore correlated to the trait that does increase it.
I can’t think of any exceptions. A good example is the thumping sound that the heart makes which is neutral to selection and the pumping that the heart is actually selected for.
But the thumping and pumping occur at the same time. One doesn’t precede the other.
Thumping doesn’t have to precede pumping or vice versa. The cause of selection is a fitness enhancing trait, yet selection is always preceded by the existence of a non-fitness causing trait.
You’re asking for a variable that always precedes an outcome but doesn’t cause it correct?
Correct, but a thumping heart doesn’t always precede increased fitness. Indeed most animal phyla manage to be quite fit without having a heart at all
The tests have been done. The claim that DZ and MZ twin pairs experience similar environments is false. All of these other methods being created are used to attempt to justify the correlations from twin studies—but, again, Bronfenbrenner’s analysis strikes a stake through the heart of the vampire known as “HBD” which won’t stay dead.
“Indeed most animal phyla manage to be quite fit without having a heart at all”
…The heart was just an example all traits that make up an organism are coextensive with one another.
Now that I think about it you guys are right.
Not all ubiquitous correlations where x precedes y are causal, but I guess the exceptions are rare enough, particularly in epidemiological studies, that this probably remains the standard for showing causation, but it’s not an especially high standard.
But of course science isn’t really about proving things, it’s about disproving enough things that whatever’s left standing is considered proven by default.
What is the difference between gene reductionists and environment/neolamarckian reductionists**
I don’t understand the question. Who are some “environment/neolamarckian reductionists”? Can you name and quote three of them? (I predict you won’t do so.)
JUST answer the question… can you*
“I don’t understand the question. Who are some “environment/neolamarckian reductionists”? Can you name and quote three of them? (I predict you won’t do so.)”
Answer the fucking question rr no more hiding
The answer to “the fucking question” is that I need some examples: some names and quotes of people who are “environment/neolamarckian reductionists”, because neo-Lamarckians (if we should use the term here) I know of are developmentalists and eschew reductionism.
Since virtually all traits are caused by interactions between genes and the environment to say environment A causes phenotype C is just as vacuous as saying gene B causes phenotype D
I’m an interactionist, not a determinist.
”I’m an interactionist, not a determinist.”
hahahahaha
even your mom believe in you..
RR believes my social anxiety is nothing to do with the biology i was born. Even if i said i have two close relatives who have psychological disorders. (An aunt and a uncle by mother side). Why?? Because RR doesn’t understand what he quotes…
And yes, i’m changing from the city and my family economic troubles no had a play in my mind (no had very close Friends for years, for example). It’s obvious dynamics we are inserted play a role . We are like a car often designed to drive in some places and the ground or asphalt the car is “walking ” interact with it. RR and other neolamarckians simply a n existence of pre design of organism, if like all individuals of given species are the same and environment had a huge role in its development. No have such thing inehrited pre dispositions , they say…
Conserting
“Yes, change of city and economic Family issues during my second childhood had a role in my mind, not exactly about my cognitive potential ”
But the way i had reacted has been based on my inherited pre dispositions of behavioral reactions. It’s doesn’t be so difficult to understand.
If a son was born more different than his biological father it doesn’t mean he don’t inherited these different pre dispositions, via mutations OR divergent recombination.
seems, neolamarckians think inheritance only can have in direct way, like, a depressed father and his depressed son…
Pumpkin, what’s the difference between Hispanic verbal and nonverbal scores in wisc v?
Pumpkin, I found the wisc stats, and I’m kind of confused. It shows only a 1 point difference between the FRI and the VSI, but on the WAIS IV and WISC IV it was a 4 point difference. And there’s a clear difference in the size of vocabulary of bilinguals compared to monolinguals? Is it just a sampling thing?
think of the power psychologists and psychiatrists must think they have and thus the lesbians and other psychopaths psychology and psychiatry attract.
you get to label people as sane or insane and smart or dumb. and if any one challenges you, you say, “it’s science.”
You’re a fucking moron if you think half the statements you make on this blog aren’t obvious to anyone who has lived life.
I, for example, have suffered tremendously because of the psychiatric industry….and yes, the proper term is industry here because it’s just another product they’re selling;
this time it was medication, but usually, it’s psychotherapy “lessons,” as they’re just lessons on how your frame of mind should work rather than how it’s already working.
psychiatry makes things worse 80% of the time. it only works for clinically sane people with moderate self-esteem issues but other than that, good luck with finding anything that’ll benefit YOU at the end of the day.
I was literally in a psychiatric hospital this time of year around 4 years ago in a hopsital in Memphis, tennessee and was overprescribed the antipsychotic haldol.
As a result of this, I ended up developing extreme akathisia, which prevents me from thinking normally and I have a pet theory that the needles they injected me with might’ve spurred a mild case of autism in me from excess mercury levels. Not that you could tell if you met me but only that that seems like a plausible case for why I think and behave the way I do now as opposed to before…
Akathisia, for anyone who doesn’t know about it, is so debilitating, it might be worse than Parkinson’s. In Greek, literally means “cannot sit still.”
And I realize now that autism is just caused by mercury-levels. Autism is not genetic, otherwise we would hear historical cases of autism that were way worse than those now. However, it does seem like there’s a huge environmental component and people can develop it later in life.
Things to keep in mind!
Joker is now andrew anglin’s favorite movie ever.
yet the reviewers say it’s about “mental illness” or “white nationalism”.
this is the state of america.
but at least canada is even crazier.
People who quote ”mental illness”… though
so, only transgenderism and homossexualism which are mental illnessess… hummm
for autistic people:
genuine laughter is always involuntary.
so the most “inappropriate laughter” can mean is that one does not stifle his laughter when he should.
but maybe with “pseudobulbar affect” people laugh and when asked “what’s so funny?” they say, “nothing. something’s wrong with me.”
laughing at funerals indicates a higher level of mental health.
Most psychiatric issues are probably epigenetic and caused by diet and what not. Not all, and certainly not extreme cases, but the ones that develop slowly can be attributed to lifestyle. they say boston people are terrible people to be around because of the weather and i terribly agree. on top of that, there’s a lot of paranoia and distrust among people here that may just happen to be from the collective PTSD of the Marathon bombings years ago.
anyways, no, psychopathy, sociopathy, and antipersonality disorder are not the same thing. in fact, they’re very, very different! a sociopath and a psycopath come into contact, the sociopath better make up a good lie or else he’ll be dead. a psychopath and an anti-social person meet up and it’s all a matter of who jumps the gun first.
Why were you put in a psychiatric ward? Once again the dumb psychiatrists thought that there was something wrong with you .mentally and not considering your English and hygiene would be poor anyway being an illegal immigrant from south asia. The psychiatric profession should test all their people for autism and fire anyone with any signs of it. People like loaded are wasting taxpayers mo ey with stupid diagnoses
In my understanding, psychopath is someone without normal palette of emotions, like a person who can dissociate their emotional state in given moment from its actions.
Psychopaths are known to be very resilient or resistent to pressure.
Psychopaths only can mimic emotions and non cognitive skills like affective empathy.
Sociopaths, differently, is just like us. When they are forced to become angry they become. Psychos simply no have an association between emotion and cognition or maybe because they have very little emotional expression to feel in proper or logical response.
They claimed I had psychosis due to drug abuse and mania. All three components of my behavior were true but obviously there were better ways to treat it than giving me haldol and hospitalizing me for a total of four weeks.
Most of my issues came from not having any intimacy with a woman in my life, something that could’ve been easily corrected and probably would’ve set my life on the right course. Now I’m a hopeless case.
I gained so much weight from the excess hunger and metabolic slowdown from the olanzapine they gave me, not to mention the crazy amount of boredom I had to endure in there. Went from 135 lbs to about 195. Not to mention the endless cycle of having people think you’re a schizo irl and then claim you’re crazy enough to hospitalize over and over. you lose the entirety of your credibility that way.
such a sad life i’ve lived over these last 5 years thanks to the bullshit i put myself through with the help of my incompetent parents, the psychiatric system, etc. just wish i could go back to my old life of moderate pleasure, heavy intellect and introspection, and a great appreciation for life.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the hospitalization took place in a facility where all of the patients were black except for one Irish Traveller, an Appalachian white who was the epitome of a redneck, and a self-proclaimed Iraq War veteran.
Need I remind you this took place in Memphis, TN, one of the most black cities in America and also one of the most poor white states in America. So this was not an environment conducive to a person like me.
RR! U R NOT A WOMAN!
IF WHITES IN ALABAMA SCORE 5 POINTS LOWER THAN WHITES IN VERMONT, BUT BLACKS IN VERMONT AND BLACKS IN ALABAMA SCORE 15 POINTS LOWER THAN WHITES IN VERMONT AND ALABAMA THEN…
U
R
NOT
A WOMAN
RR!
All minority groups have lower iq than the mainstream with the very important exception of jews. It’s kind of laughable how jews pull up all the other groups as a kind of shield . Puppy doesn’t understand this. Puppy will keep saying oprah is self made ayda yadda. If oprah was born in Tokyo with the same “genius” iq she may now be cleaning a street or something.
And if George Soros didn’t have parents who concealed his Jewish heritage during WWII, he would not have accomplished anything either. If you put any self-made person in a society that is racist against them, they’d be less successful. Duh. I agree Jews have tried to pull up blacks in recent decades but no black has been able to exploit that fact as brilliantly as big brained Oprah & she was born dirt poor with 400 years of apartheid pulling her ancestors down.
Jews have also pulled up other Jews like George Soros. White women are pulled up by both affirmative action and their rich white husbands and fathers. Whites are pulled up by old money and their access to historical perks like the GI bill and centuries of wealth made from slavery. Immigrants are pulled up by money they get from their home countries and affirmative action they steal from blacks. By all objective measures (net worth, home ownership, incarceration rates, health) blacks are a bottom caste in America, so don’t give me this crap about being pulled up by Jews. You simply don’t know enough to be having this conversation.
You just dont get it puppy. You watch waaay too much cnn. Blacks are the worst on prison single mothers drug addiction etc DESPITE the amount of help whites give them. Whites haven’t oppressed any blacks in Detroit and look what it became -haiti. And you cant say Haiti was oppressed if you know the history of that country.
I’m saying that oprah made it not because she didn’t suffer racist., but the fact she got the opposite of racism – magic negro my term is just this. Its privalages handed to blacks on account of their promotion by jews in culture. If you didn’t have the magic negro effect nothing would have happened to oprah.
For clarity imagine oprah growing up in africa. She would not have rise to the top there. Do you see that analogy?
All the usual cliched crap about oppression and 10000 years a slave I’m not going to bother refuting. Its retarded thrash only pigs should go near.
If blacks were significantly priveliged in u.s. society, we’d expect them to be more successful than whites of similar IQ but this does not appear to be the case. You overestimate how much jews promote blacks & you underestimate how many people eschew them, especially in oprah’s generation
Also if Jews are so aggressively promoting blacks then they’re promoting Jews even more, so by your silly logic, George soros didn’t need intelligence to become a billionaire either & gates must even smarter than I thought to have become so rich without either black or Jewish privrlige.
If soros were born in Africa he’d be some cheatah’s lunch
About cast in America, two of the three nobel prizes in economy are interesting :
Esther Duflo is from an elite Protestant minority in France. Some say there ashkenazim in her family. Her father is a very high level mathematician. She graduated from the best college – Normale Sup Ulm – but in humanities. She studied history before switching to economy.
Her husband is even more interesting because he is from the highest cast (jati) of Bengal Brahmin. His family is one of the 5 founders of the state there, more than two thousand years ago when casts were consolidating. His family are also important économists people there.
And both ended up at MIT …. it’s really another migration story than the cable news one.
I doubt there’s much evidence that a significant number of whites have been helped out by old money/slavery, but who knows, I don’t have the stats.
You’re spot-on wrt blacks
caffeine withdrawals, here’s one, and there are many others.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292114000695
thanks, I’ll give it a read with my uni shibboleth
This assassins creed odyssey is probably the best ac game to date. Wow. The value games provide these days. Easily 150 hours of gameplay with all the add ons. The only small issue I have with the game is that it repeatedly offers you the chance to sleep with other men. I think the developers put it in as a joke. But it seems like its contrived at times.
ACO is pretty dope
You can bang guys because
1. You can be a female character
2. The ancient Greeks didn’t care if you were gay or not.
Ok I’ve finally got an answer to the fiat money question about whether banks print money from nothing. The answer is that we are both right in certain ways. The bank cant invent credit and hand it out. It has to lend out ‘real money’s but the effect is that this then gets deposited in turn into another bank which in turn lends to a person who turns around and deposits the money back. Etc
Basically money is ‘created’ in an accounting sense.
The only people that can print money is the central bank.
This is explained in the book treasure island by shaxson.
I did 4 years of econ and never got a straightforward explanation until just now!!
Exactly, the amount of money banks can led is capped at:
reserves x 1/reserve ratio
Reserves are physical bills IIUC.
that’s US banks. other countries’ banks are usually restricted by a ratio of equity to liabilities.
Ok I said wasting taxpayer money but they fiat money system is kind of like a giant pyramid scheme.
I’ve often wo dared why governments borrow from international banks and the like at all. Why not just print money? On the conspiracy theory websites they call the former system debt bondage. We basically pay money to bank shareholders to get monopoly money when we could just make it ourselves.
And obviously the government takes the loan and deposits the money – making bank balance sheets make belief higher.
Very good book btw 5 stars. Learning a lot about financial history. And I consider myself very well informed on financial history but the book talks about stuff not in newspapers and textbooks. Basically a history of shadow banking.
this is exactly why the euro has ruined europe. the euro countries can’t print their own money. they have to beg the ECB to buy their bonds.
Among rich people that have been made suddenly poor – do they ever take on blue collar work?
I notice how a lot of bankrupt former property developers from the housing crash end up as ‘consultants’or living off their wives assets. I would guess 90% of ex rich or white collar convicts dont end up being something like a walk mart worker or bin man.
Puppy who is a zombie still watches cnn and ‘dear white people’. Why am I even talking to you?!
So what do people think about whether sandy hook was staged?
alex jones is a psychopath.
I wonder if PP realizes just how devastating Fagan and Holland (2002) is to the hereditarian hypothesis. This is worth quoting in full:
7.1. Method
7.1.1. Subjects The sample included 93 students (67 Whites and 26 Blacks), 14 males and 79 females with an average age of 26.5 years (S.D. 9.5, ranging from 18 to 52 years) attending the same community college as the participants in Experiments 14. The mean reported educational level of the group was 14.2 years, S.D. 1.5, range 10 to 20 years. Statistical comparisons of the Whites and the Blacks revealed no significant differences in age (Whites at a mean of 25.3 years, S.D. 9.0 and Blacks at 29.7, S.D. 10.3) or in educational level (Whites at 14.3 years, S.D. 1.5 and Blacks at 14.0, S.D. 1.2).
7.1.2. Procedure
Students were seen, in groups, in their classrooms. All students in Experiment 5 were asked (under the same instructions employed in Experiments 3 and 4) to complete the six items per page, group-administered, 72-item (items 104175) version of the PPVT-R that had been used in Experiments 3 and 4. In Experiment 5, however, the students received no exposure in the experimental situation to any of the 72 items prior to test.
7.2. Results
The PPVT-R tests were scored in the standard manner, i.e., basal (last 8 consecutively correct responses) and ceiling (6 incorrect responses out of a series of 8) were obtained, number of correct items between basal and ceiling were established, and conversion of number of correct responses to standard IQ scores was based on the number correct by age tables listed in the Dunn and Dunn (1981) manual.
Jensen (1998, p. 353) points out that the average IQs of groups of Whites and Blacks from large representative samples in the United States are, respectively, 100 and 85. Are the samples of Whites and Blacks in Experiment 5 representative of the U.S. population in IQ? Using Jensen’s figures, if we consider a group of 93 individuals, 67 of whom are White and 26 of whom are Black (as in Experiment 5) we would expect a mean IQ for that group of 93 people to be about 95.8, i.e., (67 100 + 26 85)/(93). In the present study, the mean IQ for all 93 participants was quite representative of the U.S. population at 93.8 (S.D. 14.5), with a range from 62 to 131.
What about the standard IQ difference between Whites and Blacks of approximately 15 points (100 minus 85)? In the present study, the IQs of the 67 Whites averaged 98.1 (S.D. 12.4, range 67 to 131) and the IQs of the 26 Blacks averaged 82.6 (S.D. 13.7, range 62 to 112), a difference of 15.5 IQ points (t = 5.3, df 91, P < .0001). Again, the mean IQs of the Whites and the Blacks and the scope of the difference in mean IQ between the racial groups for the participants in Experiment 5 (who were drawn from the same population as the participants in Experiments 1-4) are comfortably close to those of representative samples of Whites and Blacks in the U.S. population. In brief, throughout Experiments 1-4 we found that Whites and Blacks, when given equal opportunity for exposure to information presented on IQ tests, were equal in their knowledge of that information. The results of Experiment 5 tell us that such consistent findings were, indeed, obtained for samples representative of the general U.S. population in intellectual functioning.
So what I’ve been ranting about for 2 and a half years is true: IQ scores are indices of class-specific knwoeldge and skills.
KJ Kan (2013) also showed that the most greater the cultural loading on the test, the higher heritability is for that test—they have higher heritability coefficients than culture “reduced” tests. What’s the “HBD” explanation here?
On the nature and nurture of intelligence and specific cognitive abilities: the more heritable, the more culture dependent.
So the subtests that show the greatest black-white gap are dependent on culturally-specific knowledge. How strange!
Fagan and Holland (2009) showed a .82 correlation between novel learning and the SAT after correction for measurement error.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Culture-fair-prediction-of-academic-achievement-Fagan-Holland/860fe599dc2737b13895eac8785f7e9daae8a111
So this evidence points to what conclusion…?
What were the group means in experiments 1-4, and how were they performed?
(1) was 97 students, 78 whites, 21 blacks; tested for their knowledge on 40 novel words and 60 somewhat familiar words. So they had no difficulty identifying 98 percent of the matching common terms, but when knowledge of the items was not equally assured, there was a gap. When blacks and whites were equalized in exposure to thw knowledge, there was no gap.
(2) was pretty much the same but they omitted a memory pre-test. They were tested for their knowledge of novel words (45) and common words (35). 157 students, 83 whites, 10 Asians, 2 “Hispanics”, and 62 blacks. They, again, showed that when the groups were equalized for exposure to knowledge that there was no gap.
(3) used the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), testing 41 whites and 38 blacks. They chose the 72 hardest items on the PPVT-R. They assured equal opportunity in the exposure to the words by having the test-takers read a sentence that defined half of the words. Again, experiment (3) concludes like (1) and (2).
And (4) used 19 whites and 17 blacks. They used the data from experiment (3) and trained the groups on all of the even-numbered hardest words on the PPVT-R, while allowing the hardest odd numbers of the PPTV-R to vary to use it as sort of a gauge on cultural knowledge. So when knowledge varied, whites knew more than blacks. But when the opportunity for exposure to the items was, again, equalized, they were equal in knowledge.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/s0160-2896(02)00080-6
Thanks, I’ll check it out.
What explains the rise in hispanic verbal IQ? Is it because more and more Hispanics are monolingual and not bilingual? Does the vocabulary subtest on the WAIS have a high correlation with actual vocabulary size.
Source?
Back when I was hospitalized, though, I got along well with all the people in the facility except for the staff. I had a strong disposition towards an anti-social personality. I would get into verbal confrontations with the nurses and doctors. I was a menace to them…
Essentially, this caused me to be locked up in that facility way longer than I had to be. On top of that, the blacks in the facility were stereotypically aggressive, thrill-seeking, etc. I got along well with them as I said but from time to time I would get into confrontations with some of them as well.
I freely used the N-word on multiple occasions and the day I was released, I had a bad reaction to some of the medication they gave me, causing a locked-jaw that I had felt would break my face in half, causing me to yell out the N-word on the top of my lungs as loud as I could…”FUCK YOU, YOU N-WORDS AND CUNTS!”
I guess that’s the life you get when you look for cheap thrills…
Dude, that whole story is really sad. It’d make for a really good guest post or short story.
Where’re you living now?
Boston, MA.
Probably the worst place I’ve lived in and only reason I hold any “racist” views towards whites or Asians or Indians. People of certain classes here are very prejudiced, from the low-class whites to high-class Asians.
Winters are hard to deal with coming from southern California (I was born in Texas but moved around a lot until I settled down there when I was about 6 or 7). People are hostile and distrusting of one another.
It doesn’t help that I’m Muslim right after the Boston Marathon bombings that took place close to a decade back.
Overall, my environment here sucks. Worse than being in a mental hospital, honestly, because of all the mental and physical struggles I’ve been through trying to get over the everyday prejudice and grudges people hold.
Anyways, I guess all I could ask from a stranger is to pray for me. If you can do that, I’d feel assured that I may be heading in the right track one day…
Was desegregation, specifically of schools, a good or bad thing? Why or why not?
Yes because it ultimately led to a desegragated society. If you have segregation in schools, the odds of having a segregated society will be immense because school is the earliest form of socialization for most people.
It doesn’t matter because whites and blacks will self segregate anyway.
Less blacks and whites who are more culturally neutral or smarter.
not only whites and blacks, but non-guidos and guidos will self-segregate.
it’s obvious rr is half eggplant.