[update 2022-02-09: An earlier version of this article contained flawed logic which has been removed]
[update 2022-02-09: turns out the only flaw in my logic was thinking it was flawed; it appeared flawed but only because it was so subtle]
Many people do not understand why, if IQ is so genetic, the children of high IQ parents, regress to the mean. In fact, I was once told by a commenter on Lion’s blog that if IQ were 100% genetic, no regression to the mean would occur. His logic was we inherit 100% of our genes from our parents, so we should have the exact same genetic IQ as our parents.
But there also might be gene-gene interactions, so some genes might only boost IQ when they’re combined with other genes, so you might inherit only one of these genes from a parent, but without the other, it’s useless.
Pumpkin Person 
Pumpkin, with your example kids would regress toward the average of their parents and not to the mean. They would also regress to the mean (0,5) toward each parent.
To regress to the mean toward both parents, it means either that half the variation is random or that it doesn’t vary from a shared ethnic base that would count 0.25 for each parent .
So it means half of the variation inside the group is not genetic either because it’s 0.5 random or 0,5 doesn’t vary (like with an enormous shared pool of genes by the given population)
Ok this answers my question from the last thread but doesn’t explain why over the long term, if evolution favoured higher IQ genes then why wouldn’t the balance or all of the genes not produce high IQ.
I’ll answer my own question Puppy. The answer is because evolution only weakly selects for IQ beyond a certain point. After that its about social and sexual selection. Thats why [redacted by pp, 2022-02-09]
I bear witness that there is no god but Oprah, and I bear witness that Oprah is the messenger of Oprah.
There might be a decent chance selection for IQ in Africa stopped in the Stone Age and since then all the selection has been for clones of Muhammed Ali.
I respect Ali as a sportsman and celebrity but evolution basically considers him the Apex male in Africa even though his IQ is in the 70s.
If Puppy’s cold weather theory was a person it would be bleeding all over the place and having a heart attack because its barely hanging on. Look at the Artic people puppy. If cold weather selected high IQs, they would be smarter than jews.
And also, most east asians didn’t evolve in cold weather except maybe the manchus and mongolians and they don’t have high IQs.
1) Cold climate is not the only factor. Newness matters too and Ashkenazi are very new.
2) Mug of Pee says arctic people only recently moved to the cold.
3) The Mongoloid face evolved in the super cold, either in Northern Siberia or North America about 15,000 years ago.
4) Ashkenazi Jews are half European and evolved in Europe; a cold place.
So you admit other factors like newness are more important than cold. Fine. At least we are getting somewhere.
Jews are smart not because of cold weather but social selection [redacted by pp, 2022-02-11]. Everyone knows that. I have never read one IQ scholar that says jews are smart because of cold weather.
The original ancestors of Jews 70,000 years ago had an average genetic IQ of 80. By entering the middle east, the ice age raised their IQs to 90. By entering Europe 800 years ago to mix with even colder adapted white women, they raised their IQ to 95. Only in the last 800 years did further selection for financial talent raise them to 105. So being selected by cold climate, or breeding with people who were, explains 60% of why Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than tropical humans. The remaining 40% can be explained by the how recently they evolved into a distinct population (newer populations tend to be more advanced)
You just totally made up the figures for jews 70k yeara go, in the ice age and after mixing with europeans. Nobody knows those figures.
We know all non-Africans (including Ashkenazi Jews) are descended from an African exodus 70 kya
Answer me this pill. If climate has no effect on IQ, why do all three high IQ groups (Ashkenazi, whites, East Asians) have light skin and why do most of the three lowest IQ groups (Bantu, Bushmen, Australoids) have dark skin? Coincidence?
Answer me this: why did high IQ human beings evolve in warmest Africa from apes?
Africa does an excellent job selecting for intelligence up to IQ 80; beyond IQ 80 you need tougher puzzles
As RR would say, thats a ‘just-so’ story.
It is a just-so story but it’s a perfectly plausible one.
dominant vs recessive is a GxG effect. this explains why LOADED is so much dumber than his parents. his parents are cousins so lots of homozygosity for recessive shitty genes.
Loaded if you hate whites so much why dont you go back to mmmbacckystan?
or if you prefer an allele x allele effect.
so if you have a shitty but recessive allele it contributes nothing to your phenotype unless you’re homozygous. the same if you have a double plus good but recessive allele.
hybrid vigor is exaggerated but pakistanis have the highest rate of genetic disease of any people because cousin marriage.
[redacted by pp, 2022-02-09]. jayman did an article on this.
cousin marriage is more common in southern italy and in the arab world too.
so you have to correct for this when trying to assess the genetic true score of southern italians, arabs, and pakistanis.
“For example let’s say mom and dad both have five genetic variants that add 10 IQ points each (in reality effects are much smaller) and five neutral genetic variants, giving both an IQ 50 points above average. By chance, you might just inherit the five neutral variants from both parents and none of the boosters, and end up totally average.”
In this case, there would be no regression to the mean because you’re most likely to inherit 5 out of the total 10 booster genes (making some statistical assumptions)
Correct. What the hell was I thinking? Now I’m more confused than ever. Why does so much regression occur? Gene gene interactions?
My guess would be that the physiological traits underlying intelligence – brain size, glucose efficiency, etc. – have a multiplicative, rather than additive, combined effect, so that people with I.Q.’s far above their population mean are generally the lucky ones who were gifted in multiple ‘areas’ simultaneously.
Think of I.Q. as analogous to the volume of a cube, and the physiological traits underlying I.Q. as analogous to the cube’s dimensions (length, width, height). If you want to maximize the volume of a cube with a given surface area or total edge length, you set length, width, and height equal to each other. For example, if the surface area of your cube has to be 36, then the maximum possible volume is 216, which is achieved when all dimensions are 6. This can be proven with calculus, but it’s easier to convince yourself by plugging in a few numbers.
In this case, there would be no regression to the mean because you’re most likely to inherit 5 out of the total 10 booster genes (making some statistical assumptions)
False. You’re making a very subtle error.
Ha! You thought you out-thought at math for once, but I have seen further!
The likelihood of inheriting n booster genes from one parent, assuming each one has a 50% chance of being inherited and each gene is inherited independently, is:
[ (5 choose n) / (1/2)^5 ]
= (5 choose n)/32
Now let’s calculate this for each possible outcome for one parent:
Likelihood of inheriting no booster genes from dad: [(5 choose 0)/32] = 1/32
Likelihood of inheriting 1 booster gene = 5/32
Likelihood of 2 = 10/32
Likelihood of 3 = 10/32
Likelihood of 4 = 5/32
Likelihood of 5 = 1/32
Same calculations will apply to mom. Notice that these add up to 32/32, in accordance with Kolmogorov’s second axiom.
To find the probability of getting n booster genes from both parents (0 <= n <= 10), we find all the combinations that could give us that many booster genes and then sum their multiplied probabilities. For example, there are three ways we could get 8 booster genes: 5 from dad and 3 from mom; 4 from each parent; or 3 from dad and 5 from mom. So we would multiply the probability that we got 5 from dad times the probability we got 3 from mom, do the same for the other two possibilities, and add them.
Now I'll do all these calculations, without simplifying fractions so it's easier to double-check that they all add to 1. Also notice that 6-10 are symmetrical with 0-4.
Likelihood of 0 booster genes = Likelihood of 0 from dad and 0 from mom = (1/32)^2 = 1/1024
Likelihood of 1 booster gene = 10/1024
Likelihood of 2 = 45/1024
Likelihood of 3 = 120/1024
Likelihood of 4 = 210/1024
Likelihood of 5 = 252/1024
Likelihood of 6 = 210/1024
Likelihood of 7 = 120/1024
Likelihood of 8 = 45/1024
Likelihood of 9 = 10/1024
Likelihood of 10 = 1/1024
So, yes, the most likely outcome is that you will inherit 5 booster genes in total. This occurs with a probability of 252/1024, which reduces to 63/256, or just under 1 in 4.
If half the genes of both parents are booster genes, then you have a 50% chance of half your genes being booster genes too. BUT let’s say 50% booster genes made your parents the genetically smartest 2 people on Earth. How could their kid have a 50% chance of being just as genetically smart unless you believe the genetic parents-offspring correlation is perfect? But a perfect correlation would imply 100% chance of being just as genetically smart.
I’m very concerned that none of my readers have enough g to solve such a subtle paradox. 🙂
Is your argument that the genetic recombination is a thing? Not really a paradox. G was right given the parameters you established.
Let me make the point another way. Assuming siblings share half their genes and assuming only additive genetic effects, would the expected genetic IQ of the sibling of of a 190 genetic IQ person be higher, lower, or equal to 190? Why?
Intuitively expected results of 4 coin flips: 2 heads and 2 tails
Actual odds: 16 possible permutations (HHHH, HHHT, etc.), 6 of which feature 2 tails and 2 heads or 6/16 or 37.5% chance that you get two of each.
Would be even less than 37.5% of being exactly 50/50 the more trials you do.
Don’t know if that’s what you’re getting at, as deviation towards one direction should be as likely as the other. G’s right in his conclusion but semantically wrong I guess.
“If half the genes of both parents are booster genes, then you have a 50% chance of half your genes being booster genes too.”
Half of 5 is 2.5. You can’t inherit half a gene. At least not with the statistical assumptions that I figured were obvious and shared.
The specific numbers are irrelevant. The larger point is we get half our genes from dad and half from mom and have the same number of genes as both parents.
“Intuitively expected results of 4 coin flips: 2 heads and 2 tails
Actual odds: 16 possible permutations (HHHH, HHHT, etc.), 6 of which feature 2 tails and 2 heads or 6/16 or 37.5% chance that you get two of each.”
Five coin flips, not four. There are five booster genes per parent. So there are 2^5 = 32 possible permutations.
Ya I was just interested in showing the logic instead of crunching all the numbers
“I’m very concerned that none of my readers have enough g to solve such a subtle paradox. 🙂”
Simple solution: The reality is far more complex than the model you suggested. I’m sure that additive inheritance of “booster genes” is a large part of it, but there’s no way to know the entire picture for sure with the current state of knowledge in the relevant fields.
“Let me make the point another way. Assuming siblings share half their genes and assuming only additive genetic effects, would the expected genetic IQ of the sibling of of a 190 genetic IQ person be higher, lower, or equal to 190? Why?”
Lower, assuming the population mean is below 190. This is because the 190 I.Q. person presumably got a luckier combination of genes than their siblings did.
It’s probably also wrong to assume only additive genetic effects, hence part of why this thought experiment could seem to contradict reality.
Good!
Bonus question: Assuming children share half their genes with both parents and assuming only additive genetic effects, would the expected genetic IQ of a child of of a couple with an average genetic IQ of 150 to be higher, lower, or equal to 150?
Depends on the mean the children are regressing to, i.e., the mean of the population
100
I think it would be equal but I’m not certain
Excellent!
Since you’re doing so well, now for the Genius question. How is it possible that the IQ does not regress to the mean, given that the parents-child genetic IQ correlation is imperfect?
I can’t quite answer that, but I think in this case it’s because we know the genetic I.Q.’s of both parents, so the children DO regress to the mean – the mean of their parents! If we didn’t know the genetic I.Q.’s of the parents, we would expect the children to regress to the population mean instead.
Not the answer I’m looking for. Anyone else?
Does the answer have to do with rationalism vs. empiricism?
No.
Because phenotypic IQ isn’t the same as genetic IQ? The point is IQ isn’t 100% genetic.
But even genetic IQ is not perfectly correlated between parents and kids, and with imperfect correlations, there’s regression to the mean. So why would kids of genetic IQ 150 parents average genetic IQs of 150?
Is it because there can’t be a correlation higher than 1? Because the parents’ scores are so extreme, we’re assuming it’s the kid who regresses. But a 175-IQ kid of 150-IQ parents is a .67 correlation, just as a 133.33-IQ kid of 150-IQ parents is a .67 correlation.
The variable we’re trying to predict is the one that regresses so it’s the kid that should be less extreme than the parents.
Because correlation is determined by instantiation, not theoretical deduction?
Pumpkin’s Paradox might be something for Bruno to tackle. Or maybe I need some sleep for a fresh look.
not what i’m looking for
because the correlation is perfect in this simplified model but would be imperfect in the more complex real world?
For the purpose of the question, assume the model is good enough.
I give up
if no one gets it in 24 hours, i’ll give the answer
Pepe what’s your current recommend for how to best estimate my cranial capacity, given that I have $50 to spend on measuring equipment at Home Depot? I tried measuring with some other equipment, but the measurements were inconsistent and gave values that didn’t seem sensible when I plugged them into equations.
see pdf page 147 out 454 to see the device military apparently uses to measure cranial dimensions. i doubt home depot would have it
https://dacowits.defense.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=EbsKcm6A10U%3D&portalid=48
I assume you’re talking about page 147 based on page numbers at the bottom of each page, not the PDF page numbers. PDF page 147 just shows a tape measure lol
im taking about the pdf page number
You’re right; I was on the wrong page. I blame my phone. Looks like a caliper. They probably have calipers at Lowe’s, but I don’t think they’re quite like that model
When you say only additive genetic effects, is that excluding environmental effects too or just non-additive genetic effects?
With only additive effects the kids should be as likely to be above 150 as below 150, therefore averaging the same as the parents even though the correlation for individual children is not perfect. But that’s a very similar answer to some of the answers given already.
If IQ was 100% additive there would be no regression towards the population mean would there?
Including environmental effects there should be regression to the mean. What effect could there be that exactly counters that regression to bring IQ back up to 150? The Flynn Effect is not that exact.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see any conceptual support for “booster genes” and the additivity assumption is false as well – so what’s left here? “Addictive genetic effects”, how do you know they’re additive, what’s the argument and what data exists to justify this assumption?
“with imperfect correlations, there’s regression to the mean.”
Is that only true for the average of the children, rather than for each individual child?
Suppose everyone had a partner with the exact same IQ as themselves. Then 150 IQ couples would be as common as 150 IQ individuals, so there’s no regression to mean when 150 IQ couples have 150 IQ children.
And yet the correlation between a couple’s IQ and their individual children’s IQ would not be perfect, as some children would inherit more IQ-variants and some less.
If I’m not mistaken, that would cause 150 kids to be much more common, so 150 would no longer be 150, but 140 or something. There’s no getting around regression when correlations are imperfect.
Not if that level of assortative mating had gone on for several generations and was the status quo.
Maybe perfect assortative mating would lead to indefinitely increasing SDs for every generation while sub-perfect assortative mating doesn’t? It’s not intuitively clear to me.
PP how would that cause 150 IQ kids to be more common if the ow4ge rage of 150 IQs are built into the test? Can’t there only be a certain percentage of certain IQs by design of construction?
What I meant is what would qualify as 150 in the past generation would become too common to be 150 in the new generation.
Part of the reason why the I.Q. correlation between husbands and wives is imperfect is that men have a wider distribution of I.Q. than women do, so if everyone had a partner with the same I.Q. as themselves, we would be living in a world with different relative sex distributions or far more prevalent homosexuality.
Yes but that’s not the point “some guy” is making
Ganzir that’s built into the test. Terman 1916 describes the items he used to ensure an equal IQ distribution between men and women. The fluctuations in recent studies don’t undercut this claim. The Stanford-Binet is now on its 5th edition and since new tests are “validated” on whether or not they “agree with” older tests, Terman’s assumption is still out there. Furthermore, Rosser 1989 and Mensh and Mensh 1991 describe how the ETS changed the SAT to change score distributions between men and women using things the two sexes knew and the others didn’t. This can also be seen with the Wilson effect – the fact that IQ heritability increases up until about age 18 and then begins to tail off. This, too, can be built out of the test by adding items that older people know and younger people don’t, which would increase heritability as age increases.
And I’m pretty sure the “men are more variable” claim has been recently refuted.
pepe: Well it is the point that I am making.
RR: “Terman 1916 describes the items he used to ensure an equal IQ distribution between men and women.”
Kek. So he manipulated the items until he got the outcome he wanted. Backward-method science like this is standard in the social “sciences.” If he was willing to do that, he was probably willing to fabricate data too.
“The Stanford-Binet is now on its 5th edition and since new tests are “validated” on whether or not they “agree with” older tests, Terman’s assumption is still out there.”
And if a child gets a Mendelian disease, it came from their parents’ genes. Your point?
“Furthermore, Rosser 1989 and Mensh and Mensh 1991 describe how the ETS changed the SAT to change score distributions between men and women using things the two sexes knew and the others didn’t.”
This MIGHT have some validity to it insofar as men and women are differentially exposed to general knowledge, but it’s still backwards science, imposing a paradigm on reality without allowing any opportunity for falsification.
“And I’m pretty sure the “men are more variable” claim has been recently refuted.”
It never has been and it never will be. Greater male variability is a fact. The physical cause is that men have one X chromosome, whereas women have two, so they experience chromosomal regression to the mean.
From the perspective of evolutionary biology, it’s because males are expendable. If 90% of males die, the remaining 10% can impregnate the females and thus maintain the population’s size into the next generation, but not vice versa. This is also why males do the fighting and are combat-adapted.
Also, probably even more importantly, in some species, high-quality males monopolize the females. Therefore, greater variability in male offspring is a good reproductive strategy because only high-quality males will reproduce, whereas normal- and low-quality males fail equally.
I should add that greater male variability only becomes really conspicuous far from the mean, where normal I.Q. tests don’t measure well, if they claim to measure there at all. At the Mensa level (I.Q. 130), the male:female ratio is about 2:1. At I.Q. 145, it’s hard to say, but I would be stunned if it’s less than 10:1. Out in the stratosphere? Well, all I can say is you don’t see many women with I.Q.’s near those of Chris Langan’s.
near that of*
Just read your question,
I m not sure I understand it well.
If you get two 130 IQ scores on independant tests, your IQ is higher than 130.
As the parents distribution of genes that produced a higher IQ is independant, the kid is not in the situation when he would get two chances of having the same IQ, but in a twice better situation. That’s why he would have an average chance of having the same IQ.
It wouldn’t be the case with parents who would be hermaphrodit twins 😂
Bruno, you’re a super genius! You appear to grasp the concept.
The reason the kids don’t regress to the mean despite the imperfect correlation is BECAUSE THEY DO.
The odds of a couple having an AVERAGE genetic IQ of 150+ is about one in 30,000 (+4 SD), while the odds of an individual having a genetic IQ of 150+ is like one in 2000 (+3.33 SD). So despite all having the same genetic IQ, the kids have indeed regressed to the mean.
Ah, that was a tricky one: The distribution of average IQs of couples is narrower than the distribution of average IQs of individuals. Did you come up with that yourself Pumpkin?
Does that mean with a perfect correlation the kid would score 160 IQ?
I came up with it yesterday when I was trying to figure out how it was possible for couples with genetic mid-IQs of 150 to have kids with an average genetic IQ of 150. That seemed to imply perfect correlation which I knew was not true because the kids only average 150 (but there’s a margin of error unlike a perfect correlation where error is zero). Then I realized that it might be because the husband-wife correlation is only about 0.45, the distribution of mid-parent IQs would be about 100 (SD 12.5) vs individuals which is 100 (SD 15), so 150 has a higher Z score for the former than the latter, allowing for regression.
Of course in real life kids probably regress even more than this genetically because of non-additive genetic effects, mutations, recessive genes combining etc, but that’s an additional issue.
There was some blogger whose name I can’t remember who suggested that, if you wanted to create a race of ubermenschen (or uberfrauen), you should kidnap a year’s worth of National Merit Scholars, leave them on a tropical island, and let nature (and teenage hormones) do the rest. Suppose that National Merit Scholars have an average genetic I.Q. of 140. Their offspring would average a genetic I.Q. of 140, correct?
For maximum reproductive efficiency, a high female:male ratio would be wise, since one male can have children with many females, but not vice versa. And if National Merit Scholars are anything like regular teenagers, you better believe they’ll be up to the task!
Given your interest in bio-demographics, you may be interested to know that my father was a National Merit Finalist. If memory serves, that would place him in the top 1/200 of high schoolers that year, whereas National Merit Scholars proper are 1/300. He underperformed on the test because he was sick and had to take extended bathroom breaks under supervisors who suspiciously and stringently enforced anti-cheating measures like “no bathroom breaks,” but still doubts that he would have reached Scholar if he hadn’t been ill.
I’m not sure if the difference between Finalists and Scholars is determined by test score.
Anyway, I think I get the answer to your paradox now. I feel dumb for not getting it
That’s okay, only 2 of my commenters have the genetic brain wiring to answer that question. Bruno & Marsha.
How high is the correlation of that brain wiring with g?
PP what do you think of Flynn’s 2019 discussion on the misuse of regression to the mean in his paper Reservations About Rushton?
I’m not aware of the paper, but I do know Rushton & especially Jensen made the conceptual error of inferring genetic difference from the fact that the kids of high IQ parents regress to a lower mean if they’re black. Regression to different means tells us nothing about whether a group difference is genetic so I was surprised to see a men as smart as Jensen and Rushton make this error.
Could it imply some genetic difference because the smart parents presumably provide environment for their kids less inimical to intellectual development?
Am I missing something here, or does that make sense to you?
I suppose there are environmental impediments to Blacks’ IQs beyond their parents’ income (such as stereotype threat), which may indicate that resilience to such things is orthogonal to parental income or to other hereditary contributors to measured intelligence.
The point is regression to the mean tells us nothing about whether the black-white gap is genetic or environmental. The flynn effect is 100% environmental and the children of people who scored perfect on the Raven would regress to a much lower mean if they (and their kids) lived 70 years ago vs today.
Of course it doesn’t tell us whether it’s environmental or genetic per se. We have to contextualize. We can infer that the Flynn Effect is almost entirely environmental (improved standard of living and emphasis on tests) since we haven’t been selecting for higher genetic intelligence through the generations. We also can infer that the more precipitous IQ drop of black professionals’ offspring is genetic in nature because said offspring are considerably less likely to be subject to whatever detrimental environmental factors to which you may attribute the gap. You’re assuming that the time traveling people will automatically see a 3 points/decade decrease, without accounting for circumstantial differences, namely whether their old and new environments are representative of their time. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907168/
Pepe, given your interest in estimating I.Q.’s and other traits from bio-demographics, you may be interested in the work of Gerd Gigerenzer on the accuracy of various heuristics. One of his central conclusions is that more information can actually result in worse estimates. For example, if you know that someone is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist but has a tiny skull, your estimate of their I.Q. will probably be more accurate if you don’t factor in their minibrain.
One of his central conclusions is that more information can actually result in worse estimates. For example, if you know that someone is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist but has a tiny skull, your estimate of their I.Q. will probably be more accurate if you don’t factor in their minibrain
I think that’s a bad example because achievements and brain size are relatively independent predictors of IQ. A better example might be Teffic thinking Shaq is smart because he’s both super tall and super rich. In that case considering both factors might overestimate him because he’s rich largely because he’s tall, so you’d be better off just using one. On the other hand, Howard Stern is also super rich and super tall, but in his case one has almost nothing to do with the other so considering both (along with Ashkenazi ancestry) would likely improve our IQ estimate.
If I were to estimate Shaq’s IQ (or the NBA in general) I’d probably use height, coordination, and race.
Why do you spell my name like that? Not bothered but you’ve done it twice and I don’t get the reference. I am Slavic tho.
unintentional mistake
Is there such a thing as an intentional mistake?
Teffic may sound as terrific for an anglo-saxon eat but it sounds very Arabic for others in particular a Slavic or Greek person who are the ones who would be most unhappy about it …
I am glad Teffec is allowed back and that you find some time to give life to your blog.
When Lion started noticing he was unhappy with many of its commenters, he entered a negative loop, destroying what he had created, despite all the good that was in there.
I stopped commenting as he kept attacking his traders en masse.
Hope you keep the mostly good vibes here.
Ganzir yes if you do something on purpose but then regret it, like uttering an offensive joke or playing a dangerous game for fun, you can say it was a mistake although it was intentional. Sometimes you know it’s a mistake while you are doing it at the same time … (most sins are intentional mistakes)
i wonder if those old people who show no signs of AZD when they’re alive because so-called “cognitive reserve” have bigger brains even controlling for IQ or its proxies. in other words, theoretically, if you have a larger brain you can lose more neurons and still present as ordinary.
Perhaps, and if so, I suspect that few, if any, would provide better cases-in-point than Chris Langan, who seems remarkably “intact”, despite nearing the “ripe old age” of seventy. However, I also think it likely that Chris would further posit that, in no small measure, his retained brilliance is attributable to what some might view as borderline religiosity concerning his regimen of physical conditioning.
Stating the obvious, clearly CL does not “present as ordinary”, but the reasoning applies.
are neanderthals really 80 IQ? whats their breakdown then?
Breakdown of what?
nonverbal verbal etc.
Pumpkin, I noticed that each times you had some interesting IQ challenge emerging as a main entry, you converted afterwards some very bright but mostly silent readers into active commenters in the process – maybe like Ganzir or Teffec. So I guess it’s something good to have from time to time if you can . Because I suspect intuitively you have still an untapped reserve of good brain in this readership on top of all your commenters .
Since when have I been a mostly silent reader?
when did you start commenting on a regular basis ?
I thought it was after a test Pumpkin posted (with ice cream, coin, and number series questions) and you mentioned you were a reader of the blog. Maybe I am mixing up. I often mix up persons and stories even in real life !
My Wife (I recently married my longtime girlfriend) often joke saying “that story was with another girl of yours” .
Uh I think sometime in 2020 I think
I don’t remember that if so
Bruno, I know most straight people get married, but I think (and I think I’ve read it) that high IQ people tend to be more conservative in their personal lives than medium IQ’ers. Is it true?
Congrats on the wedding.
Bruno is married??!! Hahaha, his wife is an idiot.
Married last fall. But we have been together since
15 y almost so it was not a very conservative situation by a lot. My wife is a anesthesiologist physician. I met her when she was 17 yo because her brother is a good friend of mine. She is center-right and not religious either but also come from a traditionalist background wich was cool for our families.
Ps : I come from a traditional(ist) Catholic family with far right leaning but I don’t believe in the scripture god and never have been religious.
But I love Latin mass and rituals and Gregorian. I would like to pass the Saint Pius V mass to kids but don’t want them to be (too) religious so I’ll have to figure out how to do it.
I am very conservative in terms of being against African migration into Europe and in favor of mostly ethnic nation-states but quite liberal in terms of gays acceptance, abortion rights, social welfare, individual freedoms etc . I like Spanish expression “live and let live”.
I dress quite conservative so people are often wrong about my leanings.
I struggle to say “my wife” and often says my girlfriend wich I should beware because she notices pretending she doesn’t care …
For a moment I thought you said you had been together since you were 15 years old and I was raising an eyebrow
My sister married her school sweet heart, they have been together since 13 yo and are 42. Almost the same for me … same with my grandparents ! we must have a gene to settle very early or never in my family (lots of bachelors)
My grand -grand mother had 5 other siblings who were all bachelors (4 boys and 1 girl) dying in their 80ies … and they never settle out of their parent home.
Bruno, could it be that in your family, you call gay people singles and bachelors? haha
It could be … but at least those 5 probably were asexual … Because it wouldn’t have been possible to have a hidden sexual life in south Spain when your family owned three villages and all the buildings were their property …
Another bachelor lived in Seville and was known to spend weekend with female prostitutes/musicians and lose heavy money playing cards.
iirc in victorian britain the number of permabachelors was a lot greater than the number of gays. this was for economic reasons. maybe prostitution was more common. i recall reading the Leopard and when the aristocrat goes into town for whores i stopped reading.
so today whoring is looked down on but at the same time celibacy or even not having lots of girlfriends and boyfriends is also looked down on.
an hegelian moment.
asperger was a nazi. alois alzheimer died in 1915. was he a yuge supporter of the great war?
another example of an-historicism among the HBDers.
in the late 19th c germany was THE center of natural science. so many americans and brits would go to study in germany just to be au courant.
today germany is just better than average. and there hasn’t been a great german thinker since heidegger.
this german intellectual domination was one of the reasons for the world wars.
“we’re smarter than the british. why don’t we have an empire?”
If a father’s IQ is 160, a mother’s IQ is 150. What is the range of chid’s possible IQ?
Assuming you mean phenotypic IQ…
If dad is at the one in 30,000 level (+4 SD) and mom is at the one in 2000 level (+3.33 SD), then that’s one in 185,000 couple (+4.4 SD), and given the 0.6 correlation between mid-parent IQ and child IQ, their kid would have an expected IQ of 0.6(+4.4 SD) = 140 (standard error 12), so 95% of the time, the kid would have an IQ of 116 to 164.
Isn’t the heritability 0.7 – 0.8 in adults? What would the child’s expected IQ be then? In adult age
broad sense heritability is 0.8. Narrow sense heritability is 0.6. The latter is what we predict from our parents. The former is what we predict from our identical twin raised apart.
How much of our IQ that is set by genetics is increased from education? (till age 18)
Meaning, if a child’s iq is determined to be 150 at birth genetically because his parents are really intelligent would his IQ then be like 157 after he’s 18 since he’s gone through education? How much of an IQ from education would that be?
If the child gets way more education than expected for his genetic IQ, he will probably overperform on an IQ test, but this overperformance will be hollow with respect to g.
“given the 0.6 correlation between mid-parent IQ and child IQ, their kid would have an expected IQ of 0.6(+4.4 SD) = 140 ”
Is that the correlation using the normal way to calculate mid-parent IQs, and if so did/should you re-calculate that correlation if you want to use it with your new “couple-IQ” scale?
Normal way of calculating mid-parent-child IQ yields 0.6(+3.67 SD) = 133(+2.2 SD). This implies that the correlation between couple IQ(4.4 SD) and child IQ(2.2 SD) is actually 0.5.
I’m assuming the people who invented this method didn’t realize that couples have a narrower SD than individuals do when they multiply mid-parent deviation from 100 by narrow sense heritability.
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07/assortative-mating-regression-and-all.html
Oh, and given an assortative mating of 0.45, wouldn’t couple-IQ SD be closer to 13 than 12.5? 12.77 to be more exact?
That’s right. I was going from memory of what correlations in the range produce, but when I actually calculate it precisely, it’s 12.77.
You did all this math on IQ and you still haven’t explained why IQ trends downwards instead of upwards like you usually keep saying it does. I explained why in my initial comment and I think I’m right.
IQ does not trend downwards because regression is a two-way street. Smart parents have less smart kids. Dumb parents have less dumb kids. Smart kids have less smart parents. Dumb kids have less dumb parents.
Can you please tell me what the child’s IQ would be then probability-wise with the 12.77 of couple-IQ SD? Given that the father’s IQ is 160 and the mother’s is 150. And, calculate it as a heritability range of 0.7 since that’s how much it gets in adult-hood.
So by your reckoning the mean would never change but we know it does e.g. Flynn effect.
No, regression to the mean is a relative effect not an absolute one. That is, the population could get way smarter or way dumber, or stay the same, because what’s actually regressing is not the absolute level of intelligence, but one’s percentile rank relative to one’s generation compared to his parents’, sibling etc.
The logic of regression is actually very simple. Most people tend to resemble family members but most people also tend to be normal. Thus if all I know about you is your relative’s rank and the norm of the population you belong to, my best guess for your IQ (height, weight, autism level, income etc) is in between the relative and the population norm.
What’s so hard to understand? It’s just common sense.
“I’m assuming the people who invented this method didn’t realize that couples have a narrower SD than individuals do when they multiply mid-parent deviation from 100 by narrow sense heritability. ”
I see, I assumed 0.6 was an empirically observed correlation. I won’t try to understand how he derives his equations but it says the following at one point:
“The essential reason for this is that the predictor and outcome variables in this regression have different variances.”
And assortative mating is part of the calculation:
“Suppose that all measurements are expressed as deviations from the mean. If the trait has a narrow-sense heritability of 0.6 and ρ[assortative mating correlation] = .3, then the offspring of a couple with an average trait value of 4 will be distributed with a mean of 4 × .6 = 2.4…”
Although when I plug those numbers into the equation a bit further up I get 0.48 rather than 0.6, so I’m probably missing something there.
Ok, maybe I figured out the paper.
If you adjust couple-IQs for narrower SD then you need to use the formula in the paper to calculate child-IQs. On the other hand, if you just take the average IQ of the parents like normal then you can just use narrow heritability to get the same result.
Example:
Midparent IQ is 160
Narrow heritability is 0.6
Assortative Mating is 0.45
Simple Way
60/15 = couple is 4 SD above the mean
4 SD*0.6 = child is 2.4 SD above the mean
Advanced way
60/12.77 = couple is 4.7 SD above the mean.
Formula for child-couple IQ correlation is h2*sqrt(0.5(1+assortative mating)
0.6*sqrt(0.5(1+0.45)) = 0.51
4.7 SD * 0.51 = child is 2.4 SD above the mean
What I don’t understand: if narrow heritability explains 60% of the variance, why isn’t the correlation sqrt(0.6) even with assortative mating set to 1? It’s just 0.6.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByYDxaP-OyVjYUtKNktBVTFaVWs/view?resourcekey=0-AwYAGoMRF378Hb4tqrb-_g
I guess sqrt(h2) would calculate the child’s narrow genotypic IQ, rather than their phenotypic IQ?
Question for you Pumpkin: Suppose all your parents and grandparents have 160 IQ. We’re told regression only happens in the first generation as non-additive factors reset, so the children should also be expected to have 160 IQs.
That may be true in a large population, but for an individual family without infinite children, isn’t it more likely that previous generations got somewhat lucky in non-additive factors rather than previous generations had the kind of additive genetics that would let them score 160 even with no environmental luck?
(Yes, I now realize there’s technically still regression going on when 160 IQ couples have 160 IQ children, but that’s not what I’m asking about. Let’s say I’m talking about regression relative to individual parents and grandparents here, not couple-averages, if that makes it clearer.)
If I know the parents & grandparents in one family have an IQ of 160 I would not assume the grandkids do. For one thing, families are not endogamous groups.
Right, but let’s say it’s a *small* endogamous population on an island then. If the first generation has an average IQ of 160, you’d expect the second to regress to 136 and then no further regression. But if the second generation does happen to stay at 160, do you expect any further regression in the third generation?
I say yes, the second generation probably got lucky in non-additive factors. But I’d expect it to regress to more than 136, since staying at 160 for two generations also increases the likelihood that they really do have a high additive genetic score.
Of course in a large population there’s no reasonable chance of a whole generation getting lucky.
“For one thing, families are not endogamous groups.”
I wouldn’t be so categorical about that
supposedly 1 m views used to be worth $5k. that’s what tech lead said.
or was it $0.01?/
anyway.
/
someone needs to do a version of j j cale’s/eric clapton’s Cocaine and replace “cocaine” with “ukraine”.
internet: you’ve got money…at least enough for a snicker’s bar.
sorry…it was missing Gs.
there is an actual serial killer in a minor part in The Exorcist.
Puppy youre such an idiot. You first said genes regress based on the ‘good gene’/’bad gene’ model (lets forget about the math for the moment), then you changed your mind and said IQ is dependant on the distributions of the couple vs the individual. So basically you don’t know how IQ is handed down in humans. You went for a statistical artifact. If you have two theoretical physicists and they have babies, puppy would always say they have smart but not as smart babies, rather than ever saying they would have an even smarter baby than either of the couple. Thats the type of stupidity we’re entertaining here.
In other words, no baby can be smarter than the midpoint of their parents, or indeed either of the parents.
This is patently FALSE.
LOL! The discussion is flying above your head.
Philo, in my opinion, you are slightly more of a continental “French theory” philosopher than an analytical one …
Cheap shot against Derrida, Bruno! haha
Analytical philosophy isn’t philosophy.
Philo, if the journal of (analytical) philosophy is not enough challenge for your inquisitive mind, you could identify the proportion of Jewish authors, and uncover their crypto signs :
https://www.journalofphilosophy.org/
Older papers (>5y) are free.
and then anal-ytic “philosophers” will say only anal-ytic “philosophy” is philosophy and continental and indic and muslim philosophy aren’t philosophy. i’m woke enough to know that’s not true. philosophy is a very recognizable class of literature. so even if it’s stupid it still belongs to that class.
then i suppose some anal-ytic “philsophers will say, “that’s relgion not philosophy.” proving they have autism and a low IQ. theology is a type of philosophical literature.
but i’m also woke enough to know that:
1. ne asians have not distinguished themselves with their own literature of this class. chinese in particular is just not a good language for thinking.
2. western philosophy is greek and german + the schoolmen/scholastics, aquinas was an italian for example.
and by “scholastics” i mean to include all medieval religious philosophers, including maimonides and all the muzzies.
philosophy is caucasoid.
true.
I genuinely think religion is more of a class of philosophy than the rabbit shit bruno posted a link to but its also dogma which basically eliminates the idea you should be thinking.
Unban the other comment. You let him have a dig at me.
That was a rebuttal
Youre so autistic you think his rebuttal is him being helpful and not having a dig at me LOL.
You’re so autistic you think that I think that.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/11/sami-people-said-no-british-firms-plans-open-pit-mine-divide-sweden-greta-thunberg
By Puppy’s theory, the Sami people of northern sweden should have higher IQs than the rest of the Swedes. Right?
My IQ is 115 at the age of 26 (supposedly when IQ peaks). i dont think ill ever reach my potential g of 135 (that being based on the genetic capacity of my IQ).
right now i have probably a breakdown of 100 nonverbal 120 numerical 130 verbal. if my IQ went up to 135 but breakdown would be 125 nonverbal 140 numerical and 140 verbal.
thoughts?
What is your head circumference?
Ive stated this many times on this blog its about 23″. ive even used a tape measure and taken a picture which was thusly posted on this blog!
im 5 feet 4 inches btw so its actually a really solid head circumference to have compared to height-peers.
when will youtube ban RT? europe has banned RT. what utter morons.
in this conflict both sides are wrong and evil. but the US and its european buttboys at at a different level of evil.
A news reporter was trying to find when Cary Grant was born, so he sent the following telegram to Grant’s agent:
“HOW OLD CARY GRANT”
As it happened, Cary Grant himself picked the telegram and, upon reading it, sent back the answer:
“OLD CARY GRANT FINE. HOW YOU”
Chinese is like that. But 10 times worse.
Pepe how much of an I.Q. boost could I expect to see if I got super fit? I’m sure there would be a large boost in ability to USE my I.Q., but I mean an actual change in g and test scores
not much now, but might be significant 50 years from now in preventing cognitive decline
Ancestry didn’t test which APOE alleles I had. That’s the main genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s. I wonder whether or not I should find out. Testing won’t stop me from getting it if I’m fated to.
I read somewhere that Nigerians rarely develop Alzheimer’s disease, even though most of them have the highest-risk APOE-ε4 allele, presumably homozygously. The author attributed it to their diet, while conspicuously failing to note that this is probably because Nigerians don’t live that long.
caucasoid is a totally obvious classification of facial skeleton imho. does this always have a genetic explanation? idk.
naturally wikipedia LIES: The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid[a] or Europid, Europoid)[2] is an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. you’d have to be as low IQ as rr to believe that. or you’d have to not believe it but pretend you did because psychopath.
and wikipedia has this LYING map which claims abos were classified as negroes.
the negritoes of the bengal islands and se asia may have been so classified…
but this is just black israelite bullshit. or ((())) bullshit.
abos and s indians have been classified as caucasoid from forever.
melanesians and papuans idk.
but it’s obvious looking at their faces.
of course the melanesians can sort of blend with the polynesians at the fringe maybe.
When does someone’s IQ stop increasing? Can you do anything to increase it?
Pepe, do you think it’s possible to meaningfully estimate relative intelligence at the Mega-plus range of intelligence, given all metrics currently available to science? For example, to conclude which of Chris Langan and Rick Rosner has a higher g-loading?
Yes. It might require ultra-high IQ people to write the test items & might require both men to sit for 8 hours of testing, but yes, it could be done.
Do you think you would consistently see the same person emerge ‘victorious’ if this were repeated?
Depends how many times it was repeated. The same person would be victorious 19 out of 20 times.
I think the average IQ of a white american is overstated. I’ve never seen them do well in tv interviews and PISA scores and in europe most people think of americans as stupid. If American whites are IQ 100, then european whites must be av 110, or 115.
Europe’s whites are no smarter. They have antivaxers too. If American whites are so dumb, why is the U.S. so rich?
The US isn’t rich:
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2021/what-a-400-dollar-emergency-expense-tells-us-about-the-economy
It amazes me that high Iq people have let themselves get jabbed with a clot shot. What the hell is wrong with you guys?
Also, could you make an article about antivaxers and their IQ-s. This could be fun.
Hard to decide between Trump and Biden for 2024.
Puppy explain why the Mongolians and Manchus are dumber than Han chinese even though they both went through the ice age and the former groups stayed in the cold weather much longer. Explain.
New environment is what stimulates evolutionary change.
When apes left the trees, they evolved into humans. Those that stayed in the trees remained dumb apes.
When humans left the tropics they evolved into the Upper Paleolithic. Those who stayed in the tropics remained lower Paleolithic.
When the Upper Paleolithic made the Neolithic transition, there was new selection for IQ. Those who remained hunter-gatherers did not get that IQ boost.
When Ashkenazi Jews made the leap to lending money there was some final selection. Those who remained farmers did not get that selection.
Jews were already very successful in the Greek kingdoms in Egypt and Syria. They obtained being assimilated to the highest ethnic Greek group, Macedonian. They were already the equivalent to Jewish success in Western Europe in the 30ies or Jews in America now. So they already had an advantage inside the most advanced society of the time.
By the way, after first love, they started with revolutionary criticism against Greek society and it would have been very bad for them, but they went with Roman and signed a treaty in – 109 against Greeks. I think they have been instrumental in the destruction of Greek kingdoms .
In Rome, they had the same kind of success. And an even harder fall that almost had them destroyed.
The advantage was already there one thousand years before the bottleneck and the Christian barbarian society phase.
Maybe the diasporic life of Jews, changing environnement every two or three centuries, is what contributed to their IQ boost starting around 2600 years ago …
So you agree then that cold weather has not much to do with IQ. All the transitions since the Ice age don’t need cold weather.
It has a lot to do with it as proven by the high correlation between IQ and skin colour. Are you South Asian? Is that why the cold winter theory bugs you so much?
“the han” is like “european”. yuge diversity within the one ethnic group…in body size and brain size.
i’ve been looking at the ne asians i see in person. their heads are smaller than whites’ heads for the same height.
i’ve also been looking at people with yuge heads. most of them just look like they live in a trailer.
One bright couple must be this Ilya Lichtebstein and Heather Morgan, alias Bedouin Versace (I love this nickname, sounds so Jewish) . Hope they can make kids from jail …
Lichenstein is a jew I think.
i’ve looked and i can’t find a single coherent non-retarded explanation for the belief in reincarnation.
i have my own better than any i’ve heard.
if peepee were actually a south asian she could give such if such exists.
but…
buddhism and vedanta are great. really. but when they get to الاخره …
they fall apart into retardation.
recall: surviving 120 degree days all year long is hard…but the sahara hasn’t been so inhospitable for long.
why are women and fags the highest IQ blacks?
Because there were no cold winters in Africa to make the straight men need higher IQ to hunt. and build fire and shelter.
oprah [lying on a hospital bed like al pacino playing roy cohn in Angels in America, tubes coming out of every orifice]: i’m a billionaire!
mugabe: would you like to confess your sins?
oprah: hell know! i’m glad i conned all those wypipo!
mugabe: are you sure?
what does “hell know!” mean?
answer: mugabe is a bad speller.
Yes Puppy. I remember that time 5 years ago where you blamed the preference for white or fair skinned women by black men on the ‘legacy of colonialsim’. [redacted by pp, 2022-02-15]
The preference for light skinned PEOPLE (not women only!). Every time I say people, you hear women, because you’re so gay for black men you can’t imagine anyone not wanting sex with them. And colonialism was only one of multiple factors.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/econ-heavyweight-harald-uhlig-unloads-on-bidens-fed-board-of-governors-nominee-lisa-d-cook/
I’m not an expert on econ like harald uhlig but I think he’s actually wrong about criticising Biden’s black woman pick to the Fed board. First of all monetary policy is not very far off divination anyway and second, I personally think the adults at the Fed will just ignore the black woman when making decisions and listen to Robert Rubin anyway.
Maybe if they ever put black women in charge of the printing press they will print money for poor people instead of rich people. That would be good right?
not necessarily. it could just cause inflation, but the supply curve is often not monotonically upward sloping despite what the textbooks say.
There would be inflation but there would also be a seinorage effect before it. Blacks would still come out better initially.
Pepe my sixth-great-grandmother was the daughter of a Creek Native American Indian tribal chief
yeah. that never happened.
amy chua had a bolivian in her yale law school class who said, “we’re all mixed.”
chua looked at him and said (in her book) “dude! you’re white! who do you think you’re fooling?”
must reading for all fellow travelers:
Amy Chua is a pretty distasteful person.
indeed! it’s such tiger moms that actually cause the ne asian academic performance not innate superiority. flynn demonstrated this. she called her daughter “garbage” because she made a b or something like that. all my parents cared was i didn’t make Fs. but my white parents were very laissez faire precisely because they hated parents like amy chua and because they were unreflective hereditists.
and only a douche married to a jew would be allowed to publish the above nazi propaganda.
but it’s still must reading for all who might claim to be well educated in matters political.
seinorage effect? money is free to create. the “effect” is the same as the amount created. i guess you mean it would be more politically acceptable than redistribution.
No you idiot. I mean a literal wealth effect to giving money to the poor would happen. Inflation doesn’t kick in immediately. In fact its possible to print trillions and not have any effect at all if you spend it on things like say government bonds like theyve been doing the last 10 years.
no you idiot. i unnustan that. do you?
it causes asset price inflation, ala free money for people who own stuff, 10% owns most of the stuff.
even money for people who would spend on goods and services wouldn’t necessarily cause consumer inflation. it depends on what it’s spent on because the supply curve is often downward sloping.
I mean a literal wealth effect to giving money to the poor would happen.
that would be a lot more than the fed has printed idiot!
the wealth effect != the disposable income effect
the wealth effect is PRECISELY what asset price inflation, free money for people who own stuff does.
i guess peepee was right all along…
pill is a black man.
sad.
question: how can free money not cause inflation?
answer: if the money is spent on goods with steeply falling marginal cost of production.
economist: so you’re saying free money can actually cause greater production and greater welfare?
mugabe: yes! but only up to a point. and no one knows what that point is.
it is interesting that better parents is a much more primitive way making people better vs education which has only been a mass thing for 200 years at most.
mugabe the american says: let’s make people better but using the minimal amount of force required.
So you don’t understand how IQ genes are passed down in people and used a statistical artifact as your answer. Great. I’m the only person here who realises you don’t know the answer to the original question of whether smart people should/could have smart babies. I want that written down on the record.
What I’m saying is you inherit 50% of your genes from mom and 50% from dad. So (if IQ were 100% determined by additive genetics) both parents have an IQ of 150, you can expect to inherit 75 points from mom and 75 points from dad and have a 150 IQ yourself. This seems to contradict regression to the mean but it doesn’t for the following reason: An individual with a 150 IQ is a one in 2000 level individual, a couple with an AVERAGE IQ of 150 is a roughly one in 30,000 level couple, because the odds of both mom and dad being geniuses are much smaller than just one of them being one. Thus even if IQ were 100% determined by additive genetics, regression would still occur. Capeesh?
You just don’t get it. I don’t think you have the intellectual capacity to see that substituting in a statistical artefact for an understanding of human biology doesn’t get you any closer to the answer of whether a 150IQ man and 150 IQ woman would produce a smart kid. My assertion is that you still have no idea and you basically produced the equivalent of mathematical sophistry to my original question from the last thread.
doesn’t get you any closer to the answer of whether a 150IQ man and 150 IQ woman would produce a smart kid
I just told you, assuming only additive genetic effects, the kid would be expected to have the same IQ as the average of their parents.
peepee did chu just call me a genius??? ❤ ❤ :3 i wuvs u toos!!!
mugabe has two (non divine/non jesus) heroes:
1. martin heidegger
2. eric the old gay black guy.
Of course we both know there aren’t only additive genetic effects.
PP do you agree with this argument?
When responding to an ever-changing environment that gene-independence for complex traits is impossible? Gene produces automatically become a new environment for other genes and so as these gene products interact and create new environments, the “inner environment” is further changed. Variation is thusly created through these numerous interactions.
Behavioral geneticists feign knowledge that interactionism is “a thing” (see eg Gottfredson’s 2009 paper with a section on “the interactionist fallacy”. Behavior geneticists then interpret the interactive effects as additive effects and therefore call it heritability.
The CTM is based on the erroneous assumption of what genes do and the EEA, to name two things. Heritability estimates assume that there are no interactions among individual genes. So a gene product always has the same effects no matter what environment the gene is in. This assumption means that gene A will always have the same “role” for something irrespective of the outer environment and the inner environment that the gene is in.
So since they assume these premises to be true, gene A will make the same contribution no matter what so in effect there are no gene-environment interactions. There are also no gene-gene interactions and so the CTM—a main vehicle of heritability estimates and which the newer vehicles (GCTA, GWAS, PGS) attempt to validate—so this, therefore, invalidates twin studies and heritability estimates since there ARE gene-gene and gene-environment interactions.
“Quantitative genetics traces its roots back through more than a century of theory, largely formed in the absence of directly observable genotype data, and has remained essentially unchanged for decades…the available molecular evidence indicates that biological systems are anything but additive and that we need to evaluate alternative ways of utilizing the new data to understand the function of the genome.” – Ronald Nelson,” A century after Fisher: Time for a new paradigm in quantitative genetics”.
Heritability estimates assume that there are no interactions among individual genes.
This is an interesting point. I wish whoever wrote this would elaborate.
I’ll elaborate on it in a bit but the argument is made on Richardson and Norgate (2005), Moore (2006), Richardson (2017, 2021). Zuk et al 2012 also have a discussion. This argument invalidates heritability estimates.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3268279/
RaceRealist, I understand this Ronald Nelson statement as an invitation to use more sophisticated math to understand the huge amount of genetic/molecular data available. The underlying assumptions are (1) that there is a lack of progress to explain trait through genes (2) this lack is not due to profound causes like genes doesn’t contribute to traits but (3) lack of quantitative studies in the field that could be solved by good mathematician and computer scientists/cognitive sciences/Artificial intelligence people investing the field without bias and without an underlying theory (except the scientific method) .
That would be people more or less like Steven Hsu.
Regression toward the mean doesn’t invalidate anything. Smart people were more likely to successfully reproduce; the smartest of their kids were more likely to successfully reproduce, and so on. We should see a steady rise in intelligence intergenerationally assuming the environment continues to call/select for the smartest people having the most kids and the dumbest the fewest.
The opposite is the case nowadays. We’ve gotten so good at solving problems that we’ve enabled the least fit can have kids (and a lot of them). Meanwhile smart women are encouraged to fight the patriarchy via careerist disregard for child rearing. Eventually, similar propaganda, welfare, and “diversity for thee, not for me” will result in the replacement of the multimodal inter-race IQ distribution by a discreet bimodal one – depicting a crypto-****** elite and a “race [caste] of the future.”
I say this not out of fear, ignorance, nor hatred; it’s just what’s happening. Interesting development in the evolution of our kind.
Paul watch the movie Idiocracy. Its one of the most intelligent comedies of our time.
one of the most intelligent comedies
LOL! Says more about your intelligence.
What’s the argument that RtM—as used by hereditarians—isn’t pseudoscientific?
It makes sense intuitively, but it’s also an empirical statistical phenomenon seen in nature all the time. What’s pseudoscientific about that? Is there a more scientific explanation used by environmentalists?
*enabled the least fit to have kids
PP, If you are made incharge of creating a super race/ethnicity, which is even more superior than jews or (east Asians according to you), how would you go about it. What would be your criteria of superiority for that race and which genes would you pick from which race/ethnicity to introduce into the above race.
He could start by finding all the best-performing female students at the nearest university and locking them in a room with me
Obviously I didn’t mean that to imply that any sexual assault would occur. I’m just such a Chad that they would beg me to father their children.
this comment right here officer
https://www.takimag.com/article/half-cooked-data/
Sailer quotes black literacy at 89% in the 1940 census.
That is total lies and bullshit. Black literacy isn’t even 89% TODAY.
They did a study on a high school in baltimore and most of the black high schoolers were reading at 5 levels below or worse than their grade year.
My best guess is that maybe 50% of blacks read at an adult level.
You’re confusing 2 different definitions of literacy. Literacy used to mean any level of reading & writing ability but since this generous definition now applies to 99% of the population, higher standards define literacy today.
I remember someone telling me there was a literacy study where they found a black Ph.D. who couldn’t read a bus schedule. Unfortunately, I can imagine some white Ph.D. students I’ve met who probably couldn’t do that either.
I remember that… I’ll try to find it. I think the interpretation of that data was off.
Sometimes I do think I’m getting dumber from the pills I’m taking but actually I’ve read that the evidence is mixed for anti-psychotics causing stupidity.
i’ve been told antipsychotics can cause permanent tardive dyskinesia but that untreated schizos’ brains shrink just as much.
the yuge agreed on problem of antipsychotics is they cause obesity and all its sequelae.
Lions latest tweet is correct. 1m Americans have died from covid and Americans just don’t care. But if 2000 americans die from a terrorist attack it means $5 trillion in war spending. Wow. Daniel Kahneman would have a field day explaining this.
because the dead can be blamed for being old or fat but the victims of AIDS couldn’t be blamed for being gay or drug addicts.
The number of people who (1) actually died of covid, rather than having their deaths marked as covid just because they supposedly tested positive for it in some period before their death and (2) weren’t on death’s doorstep anyway is far, far below a million.
as long as rich people are taken care of who cares about the suffering of the 99%?
this can’t work for long before people are “taking off noses”.
Pepe have you ever watched Avatar: the Last Airbender or The Legend of Korra?
I saw the 2009 film Avatar.
Not the same thing, I was talking about the Nickelodeon series (not the movie adaptations)
he’s just being Passive-aggressive Person
Have you seen Black Mirror? I’m going through them now and they’re so good. Maybe the high IQ denizens of PP’s blog will appreciate the show.
No never seen it. Heard it was horror related so I should check it out.
A few episodes ye
could someone explain what steve shoe is talking about?
1. who are these people with status higher than income? who also have high V but much lower M/P/Q?
2. why does shoe think MBAs and JDs and MDs make less than engineers? none of these needs great math ability. all need superior verbal ability. and in the bell curve murray says that the rich tend to be skewed toward high VIQ not high PIQ. or at least this is the way it is america. and of course this is how ash jews skew too.
obviously steve is just repeating something that makes him feel better about himself. sad. or does peepee want to defend him?
in my own experience the high V low M/Q/P is much less common than the reverse. there was only one girl in my hs class who’d scored high on the SAT M but not so high on the M. there were lots of kids who did the reverse.
1. who are these people with status higher than income? who also have high V but much lower M/P/Q?
Elites in media, politics, black professionals.
I think its ‘worse’ than that puppy. I believe Steve Shu is making a veiled criticism of jews.
Schu is an idiot. He thinks you should be a billionaire whenever you can do partial differential equations. Engineers are rewarded in the US the highest of any profession in terms of SALARY but as we all know, the richest people in the West don’t work for salaries, they own capital. Most people that are able to do advanced math don’t set up businesses. They prefer to be employees Thats why they aren’t the rulers of the West. And it would be the same case in China.
no. engineers are NOT the highest paid. that’s in part because
(according to eric weinstein) their salaries are suppressed by immigration while salaries for MBAs an JDs aren’t and MDs much less…but i don’t know if this is true.
the highest paid job with a name in the US is medical doctor by far. engineers often only break 6 figures after 20 years. but something like 1/4 of MBA students were engineering majors.
who’d scored high on the SAT V but not so high on the M. there were lots of kids who did the reverse.
Fran Lebowitz
i actually scored a 730 V and a 510 M when I first took the SAT. second time after some practice was 720 V 630 M iirc. and then third time was 710 V and 730 M.
i would like to think im a very unusual performer though.
russia is also not economically powerless because…
china may support it.
What is Q?
quant
and a lot of these software savants who make billions coding wouldn’t score high on either the V or the P. because the ability to code isn’t tested. (even though there used to be a subtest called “coding”, this wasn’t related.)
I’ve read the comp science is closely related to P. People with autism are great at coding and math so they must be related.
woz vs jobs is the way it usually is in americastan.
or franco vs arnold.
or rogers vs soros.
and as it turns out steve is misinformed. “shape rotator” is used just like “wordcel”. it’s a synonym for “mathcel”.
the wais separate IQ into 4 things, yet the reason I did not get high on PIQ was because of processing speed and wm.
what good is g if you are slow and can’t concentrate?
and it doesn’t even help with creativity if you are not able to be creative first.
PIQ is no good if you can’t draw.
IQ is just manipulation it does not make you creative.
even creative at math not really help because symbols mean things, not simply manipullation.
santo said you need perception to be creative. I have low perception, can’t draw well.
Harry Potter is a good story not because of manipulating symbols but because of content. Where did the author get that content? she generated it.
how is it that its possible to generate? and to manipulate? these are a.i. problems.
Steve Schu or whatever the way its spelt is perhaps raising an interesting question of why math proficient people like Mugabe aren’t more successful than they ‘should’ be given who rare being good at math is.
My personal opinion is because math IQ is inversely correlated to social intelligence. Thats why a total idiot like Trump can be president and a billionaire and Mugabe works in a warehouse. In ‘America-stan’ social intelligence is the most important intelligence.
This also happens in banks by the way. The best people at coding and math are the ‘quants’ but they don’t make the most money in banks. Steve Schwarzmann in his book says he is terrible at math.
pill!
he may just mean he’s terrible compared to the mathletes he’s surrounded by or he’s just telling you, “i’m not a mathlete and don’t need to be idiot!”
math ability is like…even of you’re in the 99.9th percentile the people in the 99.99th percentile make you look like an idiot.
i think you’re confusing social intelligence with extraversion. these are very not the same thing. but they are confused in america especially, the world’s most extraverted country. i expect the high IQ introverted do better in switzerland, the world’s most introverted country.
most of the highest IQ people are introverts. true. this means:
1. they find dealing with people stressful…unless they’re immediate family or long time friends.
2. they have no interest in doing what it usually takes to get rich. they’d prefer to live in their minds than in the world. and what it takes to get rich is often very unpleasant and ugly.
and shoe confirms all racist stereotypes of chinese americans.
1. VIQ may not be a homogeneous factor. one high VIQ may not be the same as another high VIQ.
2. VIQ is a lot more than the ability to bullshit or talk endlessly about nothing.
3. the professors of humanities or soc sci (which shoe is familiar with because professor) who are glib and use sesquapedalianisms…
actually do NOT have high VIQs.
the kids with 700s in SAT-V all had 700s SAT-M, except that one girl.
It would be interesting to see if Chris Langan is also socially intelligent. We all know Rick Rosner has the personality of a traumatised child and Terry Tao has the social developed of a pre-teen girl. In the videos I’ve seen of Chris he is answering questions on serious topics but it might be more informative at this point if we could see Chris in a more candid setting with working class people or with his family or something.
What games are you playing right now puppy? You said you enjoy playing video games once.
Mortal Kombat 11
For some reason I’m procrastinating about starting a new game so I keep playing resident evil resistance and have done so for 2 months now.
you can tell the pill personality doesn’t have autism because he plays video games…wink wink.
i play video games i dont have autism.
Nier Automata.
I binged through Trails from Zero, Trails to Azure, Trails of Cold Steel 1-4 and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 last year (Xenoblade 3 out in September!). Nier is a solid game. Loving the philosophy aspect of the game and the humans vs machines aspect.