Twin studies predict that within a given (Western) country, up to 80% of the variation in IQ is heritable. And yet finding genes for intelligence appears to be analogous to finding intelligent life on other planets. We suspect they’re out there given the massive number of places for them to hide, but detecting them is the hard part. So far, out of the billions of genetic variants in the human genome, about 2,411 IQ “genes” have been found (with only about 127 of them being causal) and these explain only about 10% of the IQ variation within a Western country (not 80% like twin studies promised).
But these numbers should greatly increase as we use better measures of IQ (so far the largest studies use education level as a proxy for IQ since administering a million people a hour IQ test is much harder than just asking them their highest degree) and as genetic measures improve (so far the largest studies have only looked at a small fraction of the human genome).
Correlations: Individual vs group level
Currently polygenic scores correlate about +0.3 with IQ in Western countries (about the same as the correlation between IQ and brain size). While this correlation is not large, small correlations among individuals can become huge correlations among groups. For example, while the correlation between IQ and brain size is only about +0.3, the correlation between the average IQ and the average brain size of the 10 “races” studies by Richard Lynn in his 2006 book clocks in at 0.83! The reason for this is that as you move from individual to group level data, all the individual exceptions to a given trend tend to cancel one another out, and the underlying relationship becomes much more stark.
Applying the same concept to IQ “genes”, Davide Piffer found that the average polygenic scores of different races correlate about 0.9 with the average IQ of said “races”. So even though we’re a long way from being able to guess the IQ of an individual from his DNA alone, we can already make very reliable guesses about the average IQ of entire populations, or at least what their IQs would be if they were reared in contemporary America.
I turned to table 5 of one of Piffer’s paper (see appendix below) and noted the PGS GWAS sig scores of Northwest Europeans (IQ 100) and African Americans (IQ 85). Since the IQ gap between these two groups is thought to be 100% genetic (Lynn 2006), I simply equated their polygenic scores to their IQs, and using linear extrapolation, crudely assigned assign IQs to other groups in table 5. For example, since the polygenic scores of East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews were both about a third as far above Northwest Europeans as Africans Americans are below, I assigned them IQs that were as a third as much higher than the White mean defined as 100, as Black Americans are below (105 vs 85 respectively).
But since Black Americans are 15 IQ points below whites but only 75% bantu genetically, I assigned the congoid race an IQ 20 points below the white mean (15/0.75 = 20) which is 80, since they’re virtually 100% bantu. Then using Figures 5 and 11, I assigned Yoruba an IQ of 80 (since they’re Congoid) and the French an IQ of 100 (since they’re white) and by equating the polygenic scores of these groups to their IQs, I could linearly extrapolate to Arabs (Palestinians), Native Americans (indigenous Columbians), pygmies (mbuti), Australoids (Papuans) and Capoids (San). This method often gave wildly disparate IQs for the same race depending on whether I used figure 5 or 11 (perhaps because unlike table 5, these samples are low coverage genomes and thus unreliable) so I increased reliability by averaging. For example Papuans had an IQ of 81 using figure 5 but only 58 using figure 11, so I split the difference and assigned them IQ 70.
The first thing we notice is that the three light skinned races (East Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, and Whites) all have triple digit genetic IQs and the four dark skinned races (Pygmies, Congoids, Australoids and Capoids) all have genetic IQs below 90. The medium coloured races (South Asians, Arabs, Native Americans) are in between.
The next thing we notice is the geographically isolated races (Native Americans, Australoids, and Capoids) score lower than their skin color would predict while races that border a dark Caucasoid race (Arabs or South Asians) do not.
Conclusion
When modern humans first evolved a few hundred thousand years ago, we probably had (genetic) IQs around 70 (capoid level). Then when we finally left Africa about 70,000 years ago, IQ began to increase the further North we went, peaking at around 85 for those who reached Siberia (Native American level). Then sometime after the Native Americans colonized the New World about 15,000 years ago, there was a 10 to 20 point increase in IQ for everyone who bordered the Middle East or South Asia. This included the Congoids of sub-Sahara who jumped from 70 to 80 and the East Asians who jumped from 85 to 105. We don’t know specifically what selection pressures improved IQ by about 1 SD in the last 15,000 years but it looks like Native Americans (isolated in the New World), Australoids (isolated in Oceania) and Capoids (isolated on Africa’s Southern tip) were just too far away from the action, and that action was near the Middle East.
Whether it’s the birth of agriculture, the birth of civilization, or the start of Christianity and Islam, the Middle East has long been the contact place of different races and the land where history was written. Even today, wars in the Arab World, tensions over Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dominate the news. It’s thus not surprising that our genetic history was written there too.
Appendix
From Divergent selection on height and cognitive ability: evidence from Fst and polygenic scores
Pumpkin Person 
Psychology and behaviorial genetics….are science.
Just because jews have warped these disciplines in academia and the media doesn’t make the study of the brain, not a science.
Jews have also warped history, anthropology, economics, philosophy, theology, biology etc
^^^ clown statements.
YOU
=
Ready to stay 24 h monitoring this blog…
The medicines…actually work.
That is something Mugabe and RR will eventually have to realise. Idiots.
^^^AIDS^^^
of course the drugs work FOR SOME PIPO. but in general a psychiatrist just prescribes in alphabetical order hoping one drug will work.
YOU CAN’T READ!
>alphabetical order
They have cures for all “mental illnesses”.
Doctor Amen of the Amen Clinic says we should stop using the term “mental illness” and say instead brain dysfunctions.
There are cures for all brain dysfunctions if you are rich enough. Because they actually scan the brain and do chemical/genetic tests.
Even Anime is losing his temper with RR hahaha.
RR’s debating style:
Opponent: Here is scientific finding.
RR: I don’t believe it. Here is a jewish paper that agrees blacks aren’t stupid.
Opponent: So you don’t believe in science?
RR: NO, I believe in science even more than you!! And I don’t have severe emotional issues processing a world where humans aren’t equal.
Doesn’t understand any of the gene papers I cited, because he’s ignorant. Doesn’t understand my position on race and IQ. Shocker.
No matter you had memorized some isolated details about something if your basis is totally rotten.
All nonsense. I clearly know what I’m talking about.
rr doesn’t even unnuhstan gödel’s incompleteness theorem because FRAUD!
“but i love philosophy n shit.” — rr
When I say RR doesn’t believe in evolution. He doesn’t believe in evolution. RR can say that he believes in it, sure to stick to the JIDF manual. But he doesn’t believe in it.
Another maroon who doesn’t understand that the EES (which has DST principles) has better explanatory and predictive power than the MS.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
Calling someone “maroooon” = super cringe.
Few people knows about this term and use it. And it’s also related with Blacks who escaped from slavery…
Imagine rretard “offending” a thug Black calling him a “maroon”…
Wait
If people dont “know” (memorize) some technical of scientifical details, they are “maroon”, so 90% of Black people are MARROON.. sad.
It’s American slang. I “know” what I’m talking about.
^^^LIAR^^^
massimo pigliucci is NOT a biologist. he’s a FUCKING RETARD PHILOSOPHY PROF!
AND HE’S ALSO FROM CUNY!
SOUNDS LIKE RR IS MENTALLY RETARDED AND HAS BEEN BRAINWASHED BY HIS DUMBASS CUNY PROFS.
SAD!
EES = PSEUDO-SCIENCE! = FACT!
How is it pseudoscience?
It has explanatory power and makes testable predictions.
^^^LIAR^^^
“IT” DOESN’T EXIST. ITS SO-CALLED “PREDICTIONS” DON’T FOLLOW FROM ANY THEORY. THEY’RE JUST A HODGE-PODGE OF BULLSHIT WHICH “IT”S LOW IQ DISHONEST PROMOTERS CALL “EES”.
MODERN SYNTHESIS = DARWIN + THE MATHEMATICS OF POPULATION GENETICS + THE DISCOVERY OF DNA AS THE ONLY MECHANISM OF MULTI-GENERATIONAL INHERITANCE.
CORRECT!
THE ONLY MECHANISM OF MULTI-GENERATIONAL INHERITANCE.
WHERE “MULTI-” >= 4.
“ITS SO-CALLED “PREDICTIONS” DON’T FOLLOW FROM ANY THEORY”
Prove it.
There are multiple mechanisms of inheritance.
WE NEED TO DO AN INTERVENTION FOR RR…
1. MARRY YOUR BABYDADDY (=PEEPEE).
2. STUDY MATHEMATICAL LOGIC AT CUNY, THE ONLY SUBJECT IT EXCELS AT.
3. COME BACK TO US AND EXPLAIN WHY ELEMENTARY NUMBER THEORY IS INCOMPLETE WITH QUANTIFICATION OVER INDIVIDUALS BUT COMPLETE WITH QUANTIFICATION OVER SETS.
https://www.unz.com/ghood/macarthur-genius-grants-are-an-embarrassment/
”We don’t know what 2023’s winners will do in the years to come, but what they have been up to so far is, to put it mildly, eye-opening.
Tendayi Achiume, originally from Zambia, says her goal is to reimagine structures that help us make sense of the world we live in. She is a “legal scholar” at UCLA. If the law can be “reimagined,” there is no law.
Her main interest is “immigration as decolonization,” meaning that Third-Worlders “decolonize” their own countries by pouring into ours. She says white people caused the climate crisis and got rich exploiting everyone else. Therefore:
I argue that granting people the right to move can be a way of conferring reparations to which they’re entitled and that so much of the movement that we consider illegal economic migration is actually acts of individuals who are trying to enhance their self-determination in ways that I think should be coded as decolonial acts of political agency and economic agency as well. And what we need is laws that can recognize and protect that.
Climate change is, of course, all about race: “What you have to realize is that every action that is taken in relation to ecological crisis — environmental, climate, and otherwise — has racial justice implications, and so every action becomes a site of undoing racial subordination.”
The professor was the first woman to serve as the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which means traveling around the world, looking for bad white people. One of her reports was on the “threat of nationalist populism to racial equality,” especially as it “successfully advances heteronormative, patriarchal visions of the nation and a version of ‘traditional values’ that leads to serious violations against marginalize social groups . . . .” She wants governments to outlaw “racist organizations,” of which there are many.”
RR’s dream is to win this prize…
LOL. RR should change his name to “The Philosopher” and Philo should change his to “Illiterate Dumbass.”
It would make more sense.
Your IQ is so low you actually think RR is posting philosophy. Its social activism masquerading as academic work.
Your IQ is so low that you can’t understand what I post, just like Santo.
Audacity of a sociopath.
What you post endlessly here is just bullshit: poorly written garbage passing as science or philosophy.
PP is, like you, lacks character to keep you here. I even dont know what i’m still doing here. After many years with the same shit from YOU and peepee doing absolutely nothing. PeePee immoderate everyone here less you who should be banned forever after six years or more proving you are mentally ill and dont deserve to comment freely. But Pepee even stop to accept alln my comments.
Different than you i dont pretend to know what i cant. You just TRAINED yourself to pretend being a scientist but based on pseudo science, on a completely rotten basis and just to justify your poor decisions in life. You are the lowest level of intelligence and character here. Even loaded is smarter and morally superior than you because doesnt matter “appearing” scientific when your intelectual maturity is of a toddler. The most dishonest and thus evil dude among the frequent commenter, pure poison. But again why i still here, this blog is over, is dead. Would be great if all people leave you and pp alone to comment each other. It’s doesnt make any sense comment in this blog.
Yea yea yea. Anyway, I’ll be waiting for what I am predicting is flailing and handwaving on the quote from the paper on body fat and menarche and you not admitting that you were wrong and I was right.
”Andrea Armstrong is an “incarceration law scholar.” Her “Incarceration Transparency” project tracks conditions in prison and deaths behind bars. She says prisoners are “artists, they are musicians, they are brothers and siblings and uncles and aunts.” So were their victims. Incarceration Transparency includes an online memorial for people who died in prison.
Miss Armstrong, who is black, naturally fights racism. Her November 2022 report says that Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate because of “racism and lack of accountability.” She doesn’t mention that it had the highest murder rate in America in 2020 and the second highest percentage of blacks. Racism is “itself a driver of incarceration.” Mandatory sentencing based on prior offenses, “disproportionately incarcerates Black people and depopulates Black communities.””
https://www.unz.com/ghood/macarthur-genius-grants-are-an-embarrassment/
RR completely agrees…
“Incarceration law scholar”….sounds like a job Melo would apply for hahaha. Thankfully no IQ requirement for this one.
Blattth Lies Matthar!
These weirdos, degenerates and clowns RR keeps citing must have sub 100 IQs.
rr calling ak a reductionist all the time does not make rr’s argument correct. he does so because he has weak arguments.
They’re not “weak arguments” and I’ve correctly identified the reductionism in your views. My views are correct, and you haven’t even touched the heart of my argument.
Your ass rr
And AGAIN reductionism is not inherently bad…
Biological reductionism is false.
rr does not believe in self-regulating systems.
>I’ve correctly identified the reductionism in your views.
no
“rr does not believe in self-regulating systems.”
Quote me saying even ANYTHING similar to this or take this claim back.
And yea I did identify your reductionism, I quoted it back to you earlier and you had no response.
RaceRealist calls self-regulating systems “reductionism”.
Self-regulation is what animekity has been arguing for this whole time and RaceRealsits has been fighting against this whole time.
No, I didn’t say that. My words were clear and I correctly identified what you said yesterday as reductionism. Self-organization and regulation are complimentary. When will you read some DST work?
>I correctly identified what you said yesterday as reductionism.
you ass,
no you did not
Puppy RR doesn’t even believe in evolution. If a person came here bashing the bible and spamming religious posts and calling us all evil for accepting HBD, would you tolerate that too? RR basically is doing the same thing.
“RR doesn’t even believe in evolution”
Quote me saying this. Even anything remotely similar. You’ve been saying this for weeks and haven’t backed the claim. Strange.
Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?
If by “Darwinian evolution”, you mean “evolution by natural selection”, then no I don’t. I think the MS should be replaced by the EES (a kind of DST view on evolution). The EES has more explanatory and predictive power than the MS. I think it’s ripen for replacement, and Denis Noble has been the spearhead for that (along with of course Oyama, Jablonka and Lamb, Lala, Chu and others).
religious people can use citations to justify any belief they have as “Truth”.
Religious people can just handwave away anything they don’t like without responding to or understanding it. Is anything I said wrong? Does the EES not have more predictive and explanatory power than the MS? What’s the argument that the belief I have in the EES is a “religious one”?
Just because that’s the kind of guy I am (I provide references for my non-common knowledge claims), here’s the reference. Can you point out an error that would discredit the EES in favor of the MS? Can you explain, if you can, how the EES doesn’t have more explanatory and predictive power compared to the MS?
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
If by “Darwinian evolution”, you mean “evolution by natural selection”, then no I don’t.
There I just quoted you saying it.
What an idiot.
>Religious people can just handwave away anything they don’t like without responding to or understanding it. Is anything I said wrong?
without genes self regulation is impossible
you don’t understand self-regulation
you will call this word salad and handwave it away or not respond
Your it original response on that was incoherent word salad. Quote me where you think I don’t understand self-regulation (which is of course related with self-organization… Which I obviously understand). And without any part of the system anything is impossible. That’s why you’re a genetic reductionist.
>What’s the argument that the belief I have in the EES is a “religious one”?
you don’t understand EES
ESS allows genes to regulate biological systems differently if genes are different
your religious belief is that genes cannot change how systems are regulated when those genes are different.
>Can you point out an error that would discredit the EES in favor of the MS?
ESS allows different genes to regulate systems differently
so fuck you
>Can you explain, if you can, how the EES doesn’t have more explanatory and predictive power compared to the MS?
ESS allows different genes to regulate systems differently
fuck you
I do understand the EES, and it’s not a reductionist view of evolution; genes are followers, not leaders, in evolution (meaning passive, not active causes). Gene knockouts can be compensated for. Genes just aren’t special developmental resources like your reductionist beliefs lead you to believe.
So how would that discredit the EES in favor of the MS? Did you see the novel predictions that the EES makes? Is it rational to reject a theory or framework that generates novel predictions?
You’re so emotional over an internet discussion haha. Guess you don’t like your beliefs challenged with frameworks you clearly don’t understand. Like a “religious person.”
“When genes are different systems self-regulate in different ways.”
What’s the argument that the strong causal parity thesis is false?
(1) If there is no fundamental difference between the causal roles of genetic and non-genetic factors in biology.
Genetic factors are just as important and not special resources compared to other resources and all levels of the system interact for the phenotype to be created (see the works of Denis Noble, Paulo Griffiths, Jablonka and Lamb, David Moore).
(2) if genes do not hold a privileged central position in the shaping of biological traits.
This challenges the notion that genes are the central trait-determiners, since research in fields like epigenetics and theoretical developments in DST show that genes are just as important as other factors/causes/resources in the development of the phenotype and they are also subject to regulation by other factors that also interact with them, so genes aren’t privileged in isolation, but they are a part of the causal network of influences in which are irreducible and untangleable.
Then,
(C) The strong causal parity thesis is true.
The interplay between genetic and non-genetic factors along with gene-environment and gene-gene interactions, along with the fact that biological causation is multi-level and top-down, and with genetic compensation (that we can knock genes out and the MS can’t account for that), and a lot more, we can safely conclude from empirical and theoretical considerations that the strong causal parity thesis is true and that genes aren’t special resources compared to other developmental resources (and, of course, saying that genes are special resources is—your favorite word—reductionist).
“Differences in DNA do not necessarily, or even usually, result in differences in phenotype. The great majority, 80%, of knockouts in yeast, for example, are normally ‘silent’ (Hillenmeyer et al. 2008). While there must be underlying effects in the protein networks, these are clearly buffered at the higher levels. The phenotypic effects therefore appear only when the organism is metabolically stressed, and even then they do not reveal the precise quantitative contributions for reasons I have explained elsewhere (Noble, 2011). The failure of knockouts to systematically and reliably reveal gene functions is one of the great (and expensive) disappointments of recent biology. Note, however, that the disappointment exists only in the gene-centred view. By contrast it is an exciting challenge from the systems perspective. This very effective ‘buffering’ of genetic change is itself an important systems property of cells and organisms.
Moreover, even when a difference in the phenotype does become manifest, it may not reveal the function(s) of the gene. In fact, it cannot do so, since all the functions shared between the original and the mutated gene are necessarily hidden from view. … Only a full physiological analysis of the roles of the protein it codes for in higher-level functions can reveal that. That will include identifying the real biological regulators as systems properties. Knockout experiments by themselves do not identify regulators (Davies, 2009).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/?report=classic
>reductionist view
your dumb
genes are the reason proteins have shapes
you believe the opposite and do not want this belief challenged like a religious person
I’M dumb but you haven’t challenged any of my arguments on DST, genes, nor have you challenged the novel predictions of the EES. Makes sense.
Last night I dreamed Puppy hacked my computer and somehow we had a video call and Puppy was revealed as an asian guy. I guess this is how I feel subconsciously about Puppy at the moment.
this blog sucks. how many times do i have 2 reiterate that you guys are all losers. you have no common sense or perspective on cause and effect.
PP made this place a circus but hey i cant complain its his/her blog but its retarded that the idiot wants 2 maintain civility at this point when all things have been broken apart.
just a matter of time b4 this blog gets warped in2 nothingness.
peepee thinks she’s the only one who unnuhstans something she doesn’t unnuhstan, namely regression to the mean.
PEEPEE WAS MADE A LAUGHING STOCK BY MISDREAVUS AND SHE DENIES IT BECAUSE LOW IQ AND SOCIOPATH.
peepee: no because if you’re admitted to an elite b-school, then your IQGMAT is lower than that of those with the same GMAT who weren’t admitted because i have a low IQ.
YOU NEED TO APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR LOW IQ PEEPEE. AND BAN YOUR BABYMOMMA RR.
REGRESSION TO THE MEAN MEANS IQGMAT FOR HIGH SCORERS IS IN GENERAL GREATER THAN IQ(((WAIS))) FOR THE SAME PIPO. DRRR!
EVERYONE KNOWS THIS AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MUH SELECTION N SHIT…I NEED TO GO BACK TO AFRICA IMMEDIATELY.
peepee thinks she’s the only one who unnuhstans something she doesn’t unnuhstan, namely regression to the mean.
PEEPEE WAS MADE A LAUGHING STOCK BY MISDREAVUS
Yes, that’s why he deleted his twiter account and went into hiding after the debate. But keep pining for your African dream boy to return.
peepee: no because if you’re admitted to an elite b-school, then your IQGMAT is lower than that of those with the same GMAT who weren’t admitted because i have a low IQ.
Whether they were admitted or not has nothing to do with my argument, Mug of Pee. The point is you can’t judge the IQ of a group by the very test used to select them, because part of what they’ve been selected for is overperformance on that one test. Failing to understand this leads to absurd conclusions like Harvard Business students being just as smart as Nobel prize winners because perhaps they’d both score the same on the GMAT. The difference is the Harvard Business students were selected for overperformance on the GMAT, while the Nobel prize winners were not, so over and under performers canceled each other out, leaving the scientist group mean IQ quite accurate.
REGRESSION TO THE MEAN MEANS IQGMAT FOR HIGH SCORERS IS IN GENERAL GREATER THAN IQ(((WAIS))) FOR THE SAME PIPO. DRRR!
No Harvard Business students would regress from the GMAT to the WAIS because they were selected by the GMAT. Nobel Prize winners would NOT regress from the GMAT to the WAIS because they were selected based on achievements in science, so they would regress equally from their science achievements to BOTH the GMAT and the WAIS. The GMAT would not be an outlier high score for them like it would be for Harvard Business students.
Your repeated failure to grasp this indicates a serious conceptual problem on your part and puts a firm ceiling on your level of g.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but Puppy is correct [redacted by pp, 2023-10-29] even if you have a degree in math.
Thanks. I feel like I was born with a degree in math.
You were [redacted by pp, 2023-10-29] Issac Newton and Wittgenstein.
That’s some high praise. Sadly Mug of Pee’s not going to swallow this L like a good boy & already the comment section being carpet bombed.
^^^^PEEPEE^^^
PEEPEEE IS MENTALLY ILL.
No Harvard Business students would regress from the GMAT to the WAIS because they were selected by the GMAT.
FALSE. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW WHAT REGRESS MEANS.
Whether they were admitted or not has nothing to do with my argument, Mug of Pee. The point is you can’t judge the IQ of a group by the very test used to select them, because part of what they’ve been selected for is overperformance on that one test. Failing to understand this leads to absurd conclusions like Harvard Business students being just as smart as Nobel prize winners because perhaps they’d both score the same on the GMAT. The difference is the Harvard Business students were selected for overperformance on the GMAT, while the Nobel prize winners were not, so over and under performers canceled each other out, leaving the scientist group mean IQ quite accurate. >/B>
THERE IS NO POINT. THIS IS ALL YOUR INCREDIBLY LOW MATH IQ TALKING AGAIN.
I’M STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR LOW IQ.
Failing to understand this leads to absurd conclusions like Harvard Business students being just as smart as Nobel prize winners because perhaps they’d both score the same on the GMAT.
THEY ARE JUST AS SMART AS MEASURED BY ONE IQ TEST. THE GMAT. YOU FUCKTARD.
THEY MAY ALSO BE AS SMART ON THE WAIS. THE “ABSURDITY” ONLY HAS TO DO WITH YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT NOBEL LAUREATES ARE SMARTER BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOW IQ.
THEY ARE JUST AS SMART AS MEASURED BY ONE IQ TEST. THE GMAT. YOU FUCKTARD.
And that one test is wrong in their case, FUCKTARD.
THEY MAY ALSO BE AS SMART ON THE WAIS. THE “ABSURDITY” ONLY HAS TO DO WITH YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT NOBEL LAUREATES ARE SMARTER BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOW IQ.
The point is if they do have a higher IQ than elite business students, it would show on every test EXCEPT the GMAT. You have a low IQ because you can’t grasp the concept of observation selection bias. It’s too subtle for you.
NOTICE PEEPEE GIVES A TOTALLY NON-SENSICAL PURELY VERBAL ARGUMENT BECAUSE INCREDIBLY BAD AT MATH AND LOW IQ.
THE GMAT, THE WAIS, DOESN’T HAVE A LOWER CORRELATION IF YOU’RE ADMITTED TO AN ELITE B-SCHOOL VS NOT.
APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR LOW IQ AND STOP LYING ABOUT MISDREAVUS AND POSTING AS PILL, GO BACK TO AFRICA, AND TAKE AN ACTUAL IQ TEST.
PEEPEE’S repeated failure to grasp HOW LOW HER IQ IS indicates a serious conceptual problem on HER part and puts a firm ceiling on HER level of g…AT ABOUT AN IQ OF 40.
SOMEHOW BEING SELECTED FOR A NOBEL PRIZE ISN’T A SELECTION ACCORDING TO PEEPEE WOMAN IL-LOGIC BECAUSE LOW IQ.
SOMEHOW BEING SELECTED FOR A NOBEL PRIZE ISN’T A SELECTION ACCORDING TO PEEPEE WOMAN IL-LOGIC BECAUSE LOW IQ.
Every group has been selected for something. The point is they weren’t selected by the GMAT so it would be an unbiased measure of their IQs.
Didn’t PP tell you to hop off and stop with that a few weeks ago?
hop off and stop with that?
i don’t speak ebonics. please translate.
Mug of Pee is so in love with misdreavus it’s sad.
WOW! SHOCKER!
PEEPEE IS QUINTUPLING DOWN ON HER LOW IQ.
1. GO TO A PROFESSOR OF STATISTICS. ASK HIM TO WRITE YOU AN EMAIL EXPLAINING WHAT YOU’RE SAYING.
2. YOU WON’T. BECAUSE HE WOULD LAUGH AT YOU AND FIND YOU SUPER CRINGE AND TELL YOU TO “HOP OFF AND STOP WITH THAT A FEW WEEKS AGO”.
IT’S SECOND GRADE MATH! (above peepee’s head sadly)
the rgeression from GMAT to WAIS does NOT change because your score is high enough to be admitted or if you are admitted.
the rgeression from GMAT to WAIS does NOT change because your score is high enough to be admitted or if you are admitted.
There’s not supposed to be much regression at the group mean level because unlike individuals, group mean IQs are virtually perfectly correlated on different tests. However this assumes the test is used to assess the group, not create it. In the case of elite students, the admission process creates the group to maximize the scores so using said scores to assess the group is the equivalent of p hacking or data mining.
I’m very concerned that you don’t have the cognitive ability to understand this.
the expectation of WAIS score given GMAT score of elite B-school admits or students = the expected WAIS score of the mean of their GMATs IF the regression curve is a straight line. OTHERWISE it won’t be the same in general.
so and 800 GMAT might equate to an expected WAIS of 0.7-0.8 x 4 SDs = 2.8-3.2 SDs.
THAT’S MATH.
BUT THE REALITY MAY BE THE REGRESSION CURVE IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE…because spearman’s law among other reasons. BUT the GMAT is only ONE of many factors used to select elite b-school students. this means elite b-school students should PERFORM BETTER on the WAIS than the bivariate distribution of GMAT and WAIS predict. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY.
peepee has NEVER denied being black and a somali rr.
because that is what she is!
how can you not know this from following this blog.
when a somali moves to canada and hates white people she needs to be sent back. OBVIOUSLY!
I’ve denied it many times, not that I care. In fact as a white American you probably have 1% black ancestry which is likely more than I have.
Every group has been selected for something. The point is they weren’t selected by the GMAT…
^^^admitting you’re a LIAR^^^
maybe i finally get it. and it can only be explained by peepee’s PDD/autism.
IF the pipo who took the GMAT and scored high ALSO took all the other tests (or whatever the equivalent of a test was) and scored LOW, then those who scored high and thus elected to attend b-school would be expected to have a LOWER WAIS score than those who took the test and elected to go into another area.
BUT ONLY AN AUTISTIC PERSON WOULD THINK THE WORLD WORKS THIS WAY.
IT DOESN’T!
IN FACT MARVIN MINSKY SAID IT WORKED IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE WAY. HE SAID, “TODAY ALL THE GOOD STUDENTS GO TO B-SCHOOL OR LAW SCHOOL.”
THE TWO HIGHEST SAT SCORERS I KNEW BOTH WENT TO ELITE B-SCHOOLS.
SO ONCE AGAIN…TRY AGAIN!
You’re overthinking it. Anytime you select the best GMAT scores, you select a combination of the smartest & luckiest. Thus when you give them a test they weren’t selected on, the luck runs out and they regress to the mean. But if you have another group of people (e.g. pink haired lesbians) who were NOT selected for high GMAT scores, and they score just as high on the GMAT, they will NOT regress to the mean on other tests because they were selected for being pink haired lesbians, not for getting lucky on the GMAT, and thus they can’t run out of luck they were never using in the first place.
the smartest & luckiest.
TRUE OF EVERY TEST. THAT’S REGRESSION DUMMKOPF!
And on every test, a group selected for high scores on said test, will regress MUCH MORE to the mean on said test than an equally high scoring group NOT selected on said test. So for example, if MIT students and Mensa members both averaged IQ 135 on the Mensa admission test, the Mensa members would regress to the mean on the WAIS but the MIT students would not.
And on every test, a group selected for high scores on said test, will regress MUCH MORE to the mean on said test than an equally high scoring group NOT selected on said test.
one cannot regress on a test he’s already taken.
So for example, if MIT students and Mensa members both averaged IQ 135 on the Mensa admission test, the Mensa members would regress to the mean on the WAIS but the MIT students would not.
^^^GIBBERISH^^^
calm down. show us your TOEFL.
TRY AGAIN.
one cannot regress on a test he’s already taken.
The test being predicted is the one you regress on, regardless of which was taken first.
so over and under performers canceled each other out
^^^TOTAL NONSENSE^^^
THE DISTRIBUTION OF GMAT VS WAIS SHOULD BE A BIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION. THE EXPECTED WAIS SCORE GIVEN A GMAT SCORE DOESN’T CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. IT ONLY CHANGES WHEN YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. AND THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ADMITTED.
YOU HAVE A LOW IQ AND ARE INCREDIBLY BAD AT MATH AND AS MISDREAVUS DEMONSTRATED YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT STATISTICS AT ALL.
YOU’RE PATHETIC.
YOU’RE DUNNING-KRUGER AS FUCK AS MISDREAVUS SAID.
AND EVIL.
PEEPEE’S repeated failure to grasp HOW LOW HER IQ IS indicates a serious conceptual problem on HER part and puts a firm ceiling on HER level of g…AT ABOUT AN IQ OF 40.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF GMAT VS WAIS SHOULD BE A BIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION. THE EXPECTED WAIS SCORE GIVEN A GMAT SCORE DOESN’T CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. IT ONLY CHANGES WHEN YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. AND THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ADMITTED.
The additional information is that one group won the Nobel FUCKING prize you idiot, and the other group got into an elite Business school. But since getting into an elite Business school is largely a function of high GMAT scores, it doesn’t offer much independent new information while winning a Nobel prize does. Thus assuming both groups score about +3 SD on the GMAT, the business students have the expected WAIS IQ of a +3 SD GMAT people, while the Nobel scientists would be expected to exceed that score.
But let’s say they weren’t Nobel Prize winners. Let’s say a group of pink haired lesbians scored the same on the GMAT as elite business students. We’d STILL expect the pink hairs to have higher WAIS IQs than the elite business students, because it’s not just about additional information per se, it’s about group level regression vs individual level regression.
When individuals take tests, they can get lucky (good night sleep, lucky guesses, skilled in the domains sampled by the test) or unlucky (feeling sick that day, the tester makes them feel nervous, no test prep, etc). As a result the correlation between very different kinds of intelligence tests is around 0.7 so an individual who scores +3 SD on the GMAT might be expected to score 0.7(+3 SD) = +2.1 SD on the WAIS.
However when ENTIRE groups (Nobel Prize winners, billionaires, U.S. senators, pink haired lesbians) take tests, good and bad luck tends to cancel out, and the correlation between the group mean on different tests is 0.95 or even 0.99. So while individual Pink haired lesbians would regress precipitously from the GMAT to the WAIS, the group mean would hardly budge because the group level correlation between the tests is near perfect.
By contrast the group mean of the elite business students would regress much more because they were not a predefined group when taking the GMAT. Elite business schools simply cherry picked the individuals who got lucky on the test and rejected most of the others, so they would show the large individual level regression, not the tiny regression seen by groups.
Its basic common sense Mugabe. B-Schools pick your best test result. They don’t pick your IQ.
^^^MEANINGLESS AND PEEPEE^^^
why is it that when i stop commenting the comment number is reduced by 100x?
sad.
I’M NOT GONNA BE YOUR E-FRIEND ANYMORE PEEPEE IF YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND THIS…BECAUSE I’VE ALREADY TRIED TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU AT LEAST 3 OTHER TIMES.
AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS INSULT ME.
much independent new information
^^^LIE AND OR RETARDATION. NUMBER OF NOBEL MAUREATES WHO HAVE GMAT SCORES ON RECORD…I’M GUESSING 0.
I’m saying if we did a study where we gave a bunch of Nobel scientists the GMAT
SO MANY WORDS MEANS YOU KNOW I’M RIGHT. I ACCEPT YOUR APOLOGY.
But let’s say they weren’t Nobel Prize winners. Let’s say a group of pink haired lesbians scored the same on the GMAT as elite business students. We’d STILL expect the pink hairs to have higher WAIS IQs than the elite business students, because it’s not just about additional information per se, it’s about group level regression vs individual level regression.
When individuals take tests, they can get lucky (good night sleep, lucky guesses, skilled in the domains sampled by the test) or unlucky (feeling sick that day, the tester makes them feel nervous, no test prep, etc). As a result the correlation between very different kinds of intelligence tests is around 0.7 so an individual who scores +3 SD on the GMAT might be expected to score 0.7(+3 SD) = +2.1 SD on the WAIS.
However when ENTIRE groups (Nobel Prize winners, billionaires, U.S. senators, pink haired lesbians) take tests, good and bad luck tends to cancel out, and the correlation between the group mean on different tests is 0.95 or even 0.99. So while individual Pink haired lesbians would regress precipitously from the GMAT to the WAIS, the group mean would hardly budge because the group level correlation between the tests is near perfect.
By contrast the group mean of the elite business students would regress much more because they were not a predefined group when taking the GMAT. Elite business schools simply cherry picked the individuals who got lucky on the test and rejected most of the others, so they would show the large individual level regression, not the tiny regression seen by groups.
^^^SO MANY WORDS MEANS YOU KNOW I’M RIGHT. I ACCEPT YOUR APOLOGY. ^^^
it’s not just about additional information per se, it’s about group level regression vs individual level regression.
^^^YOU LITERALLY JUST INTRODUCED ADDITIONAL INFO!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR APOLOGY!
“the pipo who go to HBS only choose HBS because suck at other things.” — peepee autism logic which is FALSE!
I’m saying if we did a study where we gave a bunch of Nobel scientists the GMAT
probably. but how does that follow from one word “selected”?
it doesn’t unless you can read peepee’s mind.
it’s just a matter of experience. although feynman supposedly scored below 130 on an IQ test. only half of the GMAT is math. natural science draws much less on VIQ than some other fields. this is why the claim is only “probable”.
My point is Nobel prize winners are NOT selected for gmat scores so their gnat scores would reflect their IQ. Elite business students were selected for gmat scores so their gmats reflect IQ + luck hence they should regress on other tests while the scientists should not
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/what-are-your-bank-details-at-kind-of-creep-asks-vn1aqJcoA
LOL’d at this earlier…
That was funny.
When genes are different systems self-regulate in different ways.
self-regulation changes how the phenotype is expressed
a system that self-regulates differently will be different phenotypically
protein shapes matter (PSM)
Anyway I would certainly not say an elite b-school student was a genius just because he was picked for Stanford or Chicago. B-Schools promote AA and look at your career history and your diversity statement.
If you are black b-schools like Stanford will literally beg you to go to their school to make their intake stats look less ‘racist’.
Anyway if you want punch puppy on poor logic look at his statement that you can predict the IQ of 2 high parents simply by applying the statistical law of regression. What an idiot statement that was.
Thats like taking a theory from civil engineering and applying it to computer science.
I meant predict the IQ of the offspring of 2 high IQ parents. Puppy would literally bet the kid would always be dumber.
Not you too?
Most people have IQs near their parents and most people have IQs near the average.
So if all you know about someone is their parents IQ your best guess is they are in between the parents & the population average. Simple probability
The same applies if you’re guessing the parents’ IQ and all you know is the kid’s IQ. You guess in between the kid’s IQ & the population average
PP are you darker or lighter skinned. i feel like youre a piece of fried chicken at this point.
You have to stop thinking like a robot and actually think about domain knowledge. If I’m going to guess a kids IQ based on his parent’s IQ, I’m inclined to say similar to the parents or higher, owing soley to the Flynn effect. If you believe in evolution, the IQs should be going upwards, not regressing to Africa everywhere, all the time.
If you’re guessing the kids raw intelligence that might make a bit of sense, but IQ is normed for age & generation so the Flynn effect is factored out, kind of like an adjustment for inflation
“If you believe in evolution”
What a maroon, since this assumes that “IQ” is an evolutionary trait that can be selected-for—two issues there. Can’t defend these, can’t prove it.
BUT minsky might’ve meant “jews” when he said “good” students.
SO yes obviously people SELF-SELECT along the way for the things they’re good at. pipo choose one thing or are forced into it in part because they are good at it and in part because they are better at it then they are at anything else. TRUE!
BUT i brought this up many times and you deleted it or didn’t respond. i said, “your claim is that the regression curve for high scorers on the GMAT or maybe for those who sit the GMAT in general has a smaller slope or smaller average slope (in the case of a non-linear regression) than that of people chosen at random from say college graduates who did better than average in college.”
to expect me to unnuhstan that’s what you meant be “selected” is ABSURD! much clearer would have been “self-selected”.
i even know of a case of a billionaire harvard mba who chose to study business at boston college because a priest TOLD him “physics is only for serious students”. “serious” = euphemism for “smart” sadly. he said, “that was the best advice i ever got.”
BUT there’s still a regression curve and i doubt that there are a lot of pipo who take the LSAT or GRE or whatever IN ADDITION and choose not to go to HBS because of their other opportunities. if there were a lot of such pipo then yes one would expect the HBS students to be the “left-overs”.
peepee should give her commenters the monty hall problem. i mean after she can’t explain it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
if divide the pipo at random into GMAT takers and non-GMAT takers high scoring GMAT takers have a predicted WAIS of ρGMAT…assuming all the very highest scorers go to b-school.
all peepee can claim is that those who actually take the GMAT are somehow self-selected for shittiness at other things. sadly.
self-selection has nothing to do with it. The same happened with the SAT which was taken by 100% of brilliant people.
^^^INSANE^^^
it is OBVIOUSLY true that MIT mensa test takers will score higher on the WAIS than random pipo given the same mensa score of both, because ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. namely, MIT students ALSO have high SAT scores and high scores on other college entrance exams.
BUT EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
The point is almost ANY group that matched mensans on the Mensa test would outscore mensans on the WAIS, because mensans are the only group selected for getting lucky on the Mensa test
Anime and I are enlightened because we are cat worshippers stark contrast 2 all you peons on here….but the catch is the real Illuminati worships me!
peepee: everyone who doesn’t take the GMAT is like MIT students…already selected for being smarter at other things…
^^^PDD/AUTISM/LOW IQ CONFUSION IS INCREDIBLY SAD…BANJO MUSIC TIME!^^^
the banjo is beautiful…but pipo who play it have already been selected for being PWT hillbillies…sadly!
peepee: everyone who doesn’t take the GMAT is like MIT students…already selected for being smarter at other things
Keep thinking.
You’ll get it at some point.
Rome wasn’t built in a day.
The point is almost ANY group that matched mensans on the Mensa test would outscore mensans on the WAIS, because mensans are the only group selected for getting lucky on the Mensa test…
^^^FALSE AND/OR LOW IQ GIBBERISH^^^
TRY AGAIN!
Imagine two groups take the Mensa test: Mensa applicants and non-Mensa applicants.
In both groups, the overperformers and underperformers cancel each other out and let’s say the Mensa applicants end up with a mean IQ of 125 and the non-applicants end up with a mean IQ of 135.
Mensa then cherry-picks a subset of the applicant group who scored above 130 to create its membership, and in so doing, removes almost everyone who underperformed. This new group (Mensa members) has an IQ of 135 (like the non-applicants) but consists disproportionately of overperformers on the mensa test.
Obviously they’ll be less intelligent than the non-applicants who scored just as high without having their underperformers purged.
What part of this do you not understand?
I had a serious of ‘nightmares’. I kept waking up in my apartment and walking into the next room where a tv was on and music started. And then waking up again in my apartment and doing the same thing or choosing to leave and walk down the stairs. Eventually I kind of half woke up and heard a man say “Meet me on the second floor, consider this your second warning”.
I then fully awoke and decided to go to the 2nd floor of the building. But there was nothing there.
this blog is stupid. you got one side the whites (Pill Lurker etc.) who are dog worshippers and another side the Hindus (Melo RR etc.) who are the cow worshippers.
the system is fucked.
So now you call jews ‘hindus’. Very strong evidence of schiz.
i dont have schiz you idiot. its a metaphor. theyre used 2 convey messages between people.
pill can’t grasp metaphors. A common problem in schiz.
Till now jews encouraged muslim immigration into the west (europe and the states) hoping that they wont be the target of whites if/when whites gets pissed off at other groups. But now it seems like jews are becoming the target of muslims in the west :
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-770756?utm_source=jpost.app.apple&utm_medium=share
The above kind of incident/s could make jews tighten muslim immigration into the west.
why wouldnt they tighten Hindu immigration as well seeing as they serve no purpose 2 anyone at all. theyre useless.
They supply a lot of doctors, surgeons, physicists, computer programmers and Indian restaurants which are arguably useful.
those can be fixed with a simple AI hack cant they. those are dispensable jobs just like any other. we need creative thinkers and civil people in a post AI world but these Hindus are just the opposite of that.
plus a lot of that is cliched. they supply these people at no extraordinary rate i mean a Muslim can enter those fields 2 we are just using selection bias as well here so theres so many problems with saying Hindus are a talented group of people when clearly theyre not and others can be more talented than them!
see my logic! i hope this is sensible as i think it is influential in a positive way.
I am glad you brought this topic up. A single Hindu is more useful than a hundred muslims.
And what is the contribution of muslims to the west? Nothing! Infact even wealthy muslim countries dont take in muslim refugees that much because the muslim refugees/immigrants dont contribute much of anything to the wealthy muslim societies except more population.
same with HIndus you smelly Indian! Hindus contribute almost nothing 2 anyone. there is a limited amount of people in the Hindu community with skills 2 prove otherwise but overall theyre a self decadent group of people who have no aspirations 2 grow the world.
they are stuck in the old ways as well as the most disliked group of people in human history.
Hindus should have shame. theyre so disliked by everyone in this world its disgusting.
Lol you perfectly described muslims not hindus. Muslims shower rarely, contribute nothin to any society, breed a lot and have many children, more interested in food, sex and violence than anything else. no interest in education. Muslims are famous for this worldwide. Hindus teach them the importance of education, cleanliness, non-violence in india etc
Smelly muslims smelly muslims you eat meat everyday, dont shower and therefore smell. yuck.
Loaded, hindus contribute a higher percentage of doctors, scientists, engineers and even creative thinkers (I am saying this because you are saying doctors, engineers and scientists too are useless jobs because muslims contribute less of them) etc from their immigrant population than muslims do. You know it and everyone knows it. I welcome everyone here to look it up and search on the net and see which one of them: hindus or muslims contribute more to the society they live in and which one them destroy it more.
Let people here verify it for themselves if you or me is telling the truth.
If you look at Puppy and his judgement…you are basically talking about a moron.
Puppy believes in liberatarianism as actual policy solution to the declining middle class.
Puppy ‘worships’ an obese talk show host who talks about women’s issues.
Puppy thinks whites need to pay reparations to blacks…LOL.
Puppy thinks east asians are the most advanced human race.
If you look at Puppy and his judgement…you are basically talking about a moron.
Puppy believes in liberatarianism as actual policy solution to the declining middle class.
LIE! I’ve never endorsed libertarianism.
Puppy ‘worships’ an obese talk show host who talks about women’s issues.
Because I root for the underdog: an overweight black looking abused black woman from poverty who triumphed over adversity. Unlike you I was not born to serve the elites.
Puppy thinks whites need to pay reparations to blacks…LOL.
Not anymore I don’t
Puppy thinks east asians are the most advanced human race.
I think Mongoloids are the most advanced of the three main races. East Asians are sub-race within the Mongoloid race.
“Not anymore I don’t”
Why not?
Because under the law you have to show damages to get compensation & it’s hard to argue blacks were damaged from slavery when they’re much richer than the non-slaved blacks who stayed in Africa.
“it’s hard to argue blacks were damaged from slavery”
Like the hypothesis that black premature babies (low birth weight) is due in part to intergenerational transmission from slavery?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18925572/
Nonetheless, since Japanese, Natives, and victims of sterilization have received reparations (that is, the US government has a history of giving reparations to groups it has wronged in the past), and black Americans have been wronged in the past (slavery, Jim Crow, segregation), then it follows that black Americans deserve reparations. The historical precedent is there.
Their weights are compared to what? Whites (a whole other race with different cultural practices), Asians, or African blacks?
They already get reparations. Unless you believe regular cash and food assistance doesn’t count because it creates more negative perceptions… which would be even worse if they actually got reparations (look at Native Americans).
3105 g for blacks and 3364 g for whites (singletons).
Government assistance isn’t reparations.
”Like the hypothesis that black premature babies (low birth weight) is due in part to intergenerational transmission from slavery?”
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzPEEEPLIKEzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
”Nonetheless, since Japanese, Natives, and victims of sterilization have received reparations (that is, the US government has a history of giving reparations to groups it has wronged in the past), and black Americans have been wronged in the past (slavery, Jim Crow, segregation), then it follows that black Americans deserve reparations. The historical precedent is there.”
The only people the American government never gave ”reparations” for were poor white people…
sad.
This is an old topic you picked up here, of course, and you’re bringing it up again because you think about ”structural racism” every day, like a crazy bigot.
”Some even thought epigenetics as “proof” of Lamarckian evolution; i.e., the theory that existed before Darwin that postulated that acquired traits could be passed on to offspring. The most common example used to illustrate the Lamarckian concept of evolution is the giraffe, in which successive generations of primordial giraffes stretching their necks to reach higher branches of trees to feed on each passed on to their offspring a tendency to a slightly longer neck, so that over time this acquired trait resulted in today’s giraffe’s with extremely long necks. In any case, to be fair, one can hardly blame creationists for leaping on this particular concept of epigenetics as support for a form of neo-Lamarckian evolution, as several respectable scientists also argued basically the same thing, encouraging credulous journalists to label epigenetics to be the “death knell of Darwin” using breathless headlines. I even saw just such an article last week, which has the advantage of both touting arguments used to link epigenetics to CAM and arguments used linking epigenetics to the “consternation of strict Darwinists.” (More on that later.) It’s an argument that Jerry Coyne has refuted well on more than one occasion. In brief:
Their arguments are unconvincing for a number of reasons. Epigenetic inheritance, like methylated bits of DNA, histone modifications, and the like, constitute temporary “inheritance” that may transcend one or two generations but don’t have the permanance to effect evolutionary change. (Methylated DNA, for instance, is demethylated and reset in every generation.) Further, much epigenetic change, like methylation of DNA, is really coded for in the DNA, so what we have is simply a normal alteration of the phenotype (in this case the “phenotype” is DNA) by garden variety nucleotide mutations in the DNA. There’s nothing new here—certainly no new paradigm. And when you map adaptive evolutionary change, and see where it resides in the genome, you invariably find that it rests on changes in DNA sequence, either structural-gene mutations or nucleotide changes in miRNAs or regulatory regions. I know of not a single good case where any evolutionary change was caused by non-DNA-based inheritance.”
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/epigenetics-it-doesnt-mean-what-quacks-think-it-means/
“3105 g for blacks and 3364 g for whites (singletons).”
Why would you compare blacks to whites and not blacks to blacks?
“Government assistance isn’t reparations.”
Appeal to authority. Just because something is called “reparations” does not mean it is reparations, and vice versa.
Retarded.
No one can decide on a perfectly fair amount.
Again, this is like looking at someone who passed the finish line before you and saying they must have cheated somehow just because they passed it. You have no ground to stand on, because every race has been enslaved and faced death and starvation.
The whole point of government assistance is to make up for bad luck or mistreatment.
Again this is all old news but it’s really, really a bad argument.
Oh you’re back. Have you found the time to read that paper and finally admit I was right about menarche?
“Some even thought epigenetics as “proof” of Lamarckian evolution; i.e., the theory that existed before Darwin that postulated that acquired traits could be passed on to offspring.”
It actually is though.
“The most common example used to illustrate the Lamarckian concept of evolution is the giraffe, in which successive generations of primordial giraffes stretching their necks to reach higher branches of trees to feed on each passed on to their offspring a tendency to a slightly longer neck, so that over time this acquired trait resulted in today’s giraffe’s with extremely long necks.”
Nice bio-101 example, but no serious neo-Lamarckist believes this. It’s way more complex and physiology is the driver behind it.
And Jerry “everything that EES proponents say isn’t accounted for by the MS actually is, trust me” Coyne… He’s been against epigenetic inheritance for years. He’s tried to refute Noble for years, but his arguments just don’t stick. Also, we have empirical evidence of non-genetic inheritance leading to evolutionary change (there’s a lot more where this came from). Coyne is either a liar or he’s ignorant. What can you tell me about fetal programming and physiology?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5804513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3353344/
Because West African women have higher weight babies than black American women. There’s obviously something to the fetal programming hypothesis.
“Infants of the US-born white women, Africa-born black women, and the US-born black women were compared (David and Collins, 1997). White women had babies weighing 3,446 g at birth and the US-born black women babies weighting 3,089 g. Africa-born women had much heavier babies than US-born black women with average birth weight of 3,333 g. The overall distributions of birth weights were almost identical for white and Africa-born black women, and they were different from the distributions of birth weight among US-born black women. After statistically controlling for differences between these two groups in age, education, marital status, gravidity, prenatal care, and the history of fetal loss, white women’s babies still weighed 98 g more than babies of Africa-born women. A similar analysis, which after controlling for the same major risk factors associated with low birth weight, compared babies of white women with that of the US-born black women showed that there was a remaining 248 g difference in average birth weight.”
Government assistance isn’t reparations; slaves did trillions of dollars worth of free work.
Because West African women have higher weight babies than black American women.
Probably because the African women they looked at were immigrants to the United States (a very elite subgroup of Africans).
The hypothesis is about women (mothers) due to the fetal programming hypothesis. They found that regardless of SES, the recent (West) African immigrants to Illinois had higher birth weight than black Americans (the immigrants don’t have the 20 to 30 percent white admixture). It’s well known that black women born outside America have higher birth weights.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710233371706
Compared with black infants in the United States, Botswana-born infants had lower median birth weight for gestational age from weeks 37 through 42 (p < .02).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271964/
“West Africa”
“South Africa”
Yeah I thought it was weird they picked a southern african country as the control group. But using hyper-selected immigrants as the control group is also stupid, even if you control for SES which can’t meaningfully be done cross-culturally.
“The birth-weight distribution of the infants of African-born black women who delivered in Illinois is consistent with previous reports of the birth weights of infants of foreign-born black women of largely Caribbean origin.25-28 Studies of groups of women from New York, Boston, and multiple states have had concordant results: black women born outside the United States have heavier infants than those born inside the United States, even after adjustment for cigarette smoking, alcohol intake, and illicit-drug use.”
Again these are immigrants from the Caribbean and the Caribbean were slaves too.
I mean, I see where you’re coming from but is there proof that they’re selected for weight?
The fact that mothers born outside America have better health outcomes and higher birth weights is suggestive for the fetal programming hypothesis.
https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:A1991EX22600019?SID=USW2EC0DEDdmnrOO53wMhPJiMduOP
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19485565.1979.9988378
The fetal programming hypothesis is valid in explaining the low birth weight of black American babies, because insufficient nutrition during pregnancy and during infancy leads to lasting structural and metabolic effects that last and can be intergenerationally transmitted. We also know that black mother’s who are upwardly mobile from impoverishment have a lower chance of preterm birth, and consistent with the fetal programming hypothesis this effect isn’t seen in mothers born at a low birth weight.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21330589/
Well Rushton would have probably argued that the smartest and most upper class blacks get immigration to the U.S. and these tend to be more K and thus have heavier babies.
Well you know how I feel about that. Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure the fetal programming hypothesis does have some “weight” (pun intended) in explaining some of the variance between white and black Americans, due to the considerations I’ve provided.
And there are of course immediate environmental risk factors that both influence birth weight and risk of preterm birth. But I wouldn’t discount the epigenetic/physiological effects of stress from slavery, since that’s where it points.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frph.2021.684207/full
True expert not u
Jerry Coyne is just delusional and over-protective of the MS. The EES, as I’ve shown already, has better explanatory and predictive power than the MS (and makes novel predictions). There absolutely ARE evolutionary consequences of epigenetic variation and the epigenome.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0111
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-018-0113-y
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.871791/full
What do you think the strongest criticism there is? What’s the response to what I wrote above? What’s the response to race and menarche and body fat being permissive?
its more complex than we assume.
Excellent debate between bill and candace owens.
you assholes used 2 come after people 4 being autistic now you guys go after people 4 being schiz. what happened.
this is just a blame game going on anyways.
you came 4 my IQ you were wrong you came 4 my neurotypicality you were wrong now you come 4 my mental health you will be wrong.
how many times can you be wrong and succumb 2 the pressures of reality.
when youre wrong all your credibility dissipates.