The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Academic Establishment Suppresses Italian Anthropologist’s Proof That Race IQ Differences Are Genetic—for Now
“This Will Not Stand”
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
forbidden

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For our Social Justice Warriors, race differences in intelligence absolutely cannot be acknowledged to be genetic. If that happens, they sense, then racial inequality in outcomes will have to be accepted as fair and their entire religion of cultural determinism, the thing that gives SJWs their power, will be discredited. This sends them into paroxysms of fury. Which is why a young Italian researcher based in Israel simply cannot be allowed to publish his compelling proof that genetics do indeed determine race IQ differences.

Background: The SJW response to evidence of race differences in intelligence follows a predictable pattern:

But SJWs with half a brain have to back down when you explain that “intelligence” predicts important life outcomes and IQ test scores positively correlate with objective measures such as reaction times. And that “race” can be reduced to genetic clusters and that individual small race differences push in the same direction leading to crucial variation in genetic illnesses and even in response to drugs. [Richard Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence, 2006, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, The 10,000 Year Explosion, 2009]

But if SJWs concede this territory, they then assert that

  • Secondly, IQ tests are culturally biased and involve “stereotype threat”—i.e. people think they’ll do badly because of the group they’re part of, so they do.

But blacks do best on the most culturally biased parts of the test (which are the worst measures of intelligence) (see Lynn, above). Further, studies finding “stereotype threat” among blacks have been refuted—sometimes people actually score better when they are specifically told they will do badly by virtue of their identity. But most of these refutations of the theory don’t get published. [An examination of stereotype threat effects on girls’ mathematics performance.Developmental Psychology, Ganley et al. (2013).]

So SJWs must concede this territory too. But their next argument:

  • Thirdly, there are genuine race differences in intelligence—but they are not genetic.

To this, unbiased psychologists reply that blacks score worst on the parts of the IQ test measuring the most genetic aspects of intelligence, such as “general intelligence.” The differences show up very early in life, with earlier differences being more genetic.

whyraceAmerican whites have an average IQ of 100 and American blacks have an average IQ of 85—the difference between a police officer and a low-level security guard. This 15-point black-white difference has been resistant to all attempts at intervention. Blacks who are adopted as babies by white parents, usually upper-middle class with an IQ of about 115, end up with an average adult IQ of just 89, not much higher than the black average (for a good summary see Michael Levin , Why Race Matters, 2005).

Now, at this point things get interesting. The more emotional SJW will simply condemn you as a “white supremacist” and self-righteously storm off to a vegetarian restaurant.

However, her more cerebral friend will present a cleverer argument: Although there is a strong circumstantial case that race differences in IQ are mainly genetic, it hasn’t actually been proven using genetic evidence. And, until that can be done, it is best to remain open-minded, not least because of the awful social consequences if it were proven—which you surely don’t want, unless you’re a “racist.”

This is like a jury refusing to convict a murderer who shot someone in front of scores of witnesses while being filmed on CCTV, because there’s no DNA evidence.

But if SJWs want this evidence, they can now have it. However, the finding is so Politically Incorrect that even academic journals that are generally willing to publish race realist research dare not touch it. The defendant is just too powerful to be convicted without the possibility of parole.

Davide Piffer is a 34 year-old Italian anthropologist with a Master’s degree from England’s prestigious Durham University. He has an IQ of over 132. Piffer is currently studying for his PhD at Israel’s Ben Gurion University.

Piffer has written an analysis of a Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS). Putting it in lay terms, his “forbidden paper” explores the correlation between the percentage of people in a country who carry several dozen genetic variants that are significantly associated with very high educational attainment—based on this GWAS— and average national IQ.

National IQs are robust because they correlate very strongly, at about 0.8, with other national measures of cognitive ability, such as international assessment tests. (Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences, by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, 2012) Very high educational attainment is overwhelmingly a function of high IQ.

Piffer found that the correlation between the prevalence of the polygenic score (the average frequency of several genetic variants) in nations and national IQ was 0.9. This, of course, essentially proves that race differences in intelligence are overwhelmingly genetic.

Now, obviously, Piffer needs to get this in a high impact journal: because he deserves to, for his own career advancement, and also so that it can’t be fallaciously dismissed via an appeal to snobbery—not an insignificant factor in academic life.

And this is where the problems have arisen.

In late 2014, Piffer submitted his paper on this subject to the leading journal Intelligence. One would have assumed there’d be no problem, considering that the journal has published numerous articles on race differences in IQ and has even been condemned by SJWs for doing so [Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it, by Angela Saini, The Guardian, January 24, 2018 ]. But the editor, Doug Detterman, rejected the paper citing the reviews he received. In fact, only one of two reviewers recommended rejection; the other was extremely positive. Nevertheless, the decision letter read as if both reviews were negative.

In 2015, Piffer re-submitted the paper to Intelligence. He had successfully dealt with all the criticisms, and the paper should have been accepted for publication.

However, in 2016 Detterman stepped down as head of ISIR and was replaced by Richard Haier. With new reviewers and a new editor, it was rejected out of hand.

Piffer doesn’t give up easily, that’s for sure. Tiring of Intelligence, he improved the paper once more, in light of the critical reviews, and sent it to Frontiers in Psychology, another highly-respected journal. It passed the review process after three rounds, with reviewers recommending publication. However, Piffer tells me, “the editor, after sitting on the reviews for three weeks, decided to reject it, overturning the reviewers’ recommendation.”

Piffer adds: “This decision was kind of unprecedented and especially weird for a journal like Frontiers, whose philosophy is based on transparent review and less editorial power.”

mankindDespairing of getting it in anywhere worthwhile, Piffer posted the “forbidden paper” on a pre-print archive [Polygenic Selection, Polygenic Scores, Spatial Autocorrelation and Correlated Allele Frequencies. Can We Model Polygenic Selection on Intellectual Abilities?, January 27, 2017]. Still, it’s already been cited by a serious researcher in the field. [Geographic centrality as an explanation for regional differences in intelligence. by Edward Miller, Mankind Quarterly, Spring 2018]

More recently, Piffer self-published another paper, this time on Rpubs, using data from the latest GWAS carried out on 1.1 million people [Correlation between PGS and environmental variables, ]. It confirms his earlier findings, extending them to 52 populations from all over the globe and showing what he calls “fascinating correlations with latitude and polygenic scores of other traits.”

The top place is occupied by East Asians, followed by Europeans and equatorial people further down. “Geographic or genetic distances don’t explain these findings,” stresses Piffer, “as Austronesians (e.g. Papuans and Melanesians) have scores comparable to Africans, despite being genetically more different from African than are Europeans.”

Similarly, Piffer observes that Native Americans score lower than Europeans, despite being genetically closer to East Asians. This suggests that, after the East Asian-Amerindian split, there were later selective pressures for cognitive abilities among Eurasians.

Nobody can fault the sample size. The latest GWAS boasts an army of 1.1 million people and 2400 genetic variants. Piffer has created a plot with scores for the populations from the Human Genome Diversity Project:

edupgs

Piffer is now working on getting this into a good journal. He says: “It’s to be hoped that the next editor will have enough intellectual honesty to let my findings see the light of mainstream science.”

Let’s summarize: it has now been effectively proven that racial IQ differences in intelligence are fundamentally genetic. The only counter-argument from our SJW friends is an appeal to authority: “Why hasn’t it been published in a top peer-reviewed journal, then?”

The answer: editors are so frightened of SJWs that they daren’t publish it.

But that won’t suppress results like it used to. Brave academics can simply self-publish their results until an equally brave journal editor can be found.

Postscript: Absurdly, recent developments suggest it is acceptable to note that there is a genetic explanation of the higher incidence of prostate cancer among some populations e.g, West Africans than in others.

Just not for educational attainment.

To quote George Bush I: This will not stand.

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity, Science • Tags: Genetics, IQ, Race/IQ 
Hide 284 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. llloyd says: • Website

    This comes out of Ben Gurion University Israel. The worst possible State entity it could come out of. I suspect a Jerusalem agenda here not an Athenian.

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K, Vojkan
    • Replies: @laguerre

    This comes out of Ben Gurion University Israel.
     
    This is the point, isn't it? He's just a crumby academic out to make some noise, to advance himself. Masters at the unexceptional Durham, and he's still doing his doctorate, not yet finished, at one of the most racist universities around. At his immature stage of research, he shouldn't be claiming to have made world-changing advances. He simply doesn't have the experience. It's more likely that he's just a publicity-seeking prick.
    , @hyperbola
    Leading journal "Intelligence" has an impact factor in 2017 of 2.9 - which brings it in at number 2325 in terms of "high quality" journals. "Frontiers in Psychology" has iimpact factor 2.3, which is at number 3580. It seems that this paper is not worth publishing even this low down in the pecking order.

    As for the pre-print site and the "serious citation" claimed for "Mankind Quarterly", the journal(?) Mankind Quarterly does not even appear in Reuters compendium of impact factors, i.e. seems not to be even recognized as a scientific journal.
    , @Speak Truth To Power
    These so called scientists keep claiming East Asians/Mongoloids have higher i.q.s overall than Whites/Caucasians. This is because they lump all Caucasians together without differentiation between the different branches and nationalities of Whites. If you take the i.q.s of Nordics alone in northern Germany and Scandinavia they are several points higher than the Yellow race on average. I guess the scientists want to keep this fact quiet to keep from being accused of "racism" or "Nordicism".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. phil says:

    Please, SJWs are a cancer, but do not speak of a “proof” that race/IQ differences are genetic. Rarely are contentious social science assertions “proven” to be true or false. For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment. Or, subsequent research may find that other gene variants that are linked to IQ are not distributed across races in the expected way. As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a “race-realist” would have expected.

    Read More
    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @Henry's Cat

    As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a “race-realist” would have expected.
     
    How so?
    , @Meimou
    IQ is clearly based on the physical traits of the brain; children who grow up in houses with lead based paint have lower IQs, boxers loses IQ points because of blows to the head, people deprived if oxygen can become retarded because of the damage oxygen deprivation has on the brain.

    IQ is based on the physical traits on the brain, physical traits are largely genetic.

    Rarely are contentious social science assertions “proven” to be true or false

    The genetics of IQ is hard science, it is not social science, and it is only contentious because of politics, not evidence.

    For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment

    "Educational attainment" is not IQ.
    , @res

    As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a “race-realist” would have expected.
     
    Phil, what do you think of the hypothesis that this is because the GWAS was done on a European population which may have missed alleles which are low frequency in Europeans but higher frequency in Africans? Since Amerindians and Europeans diverged later than Africans diverged from all other groups this issue should be more important for African populations.

    This would be similar to what has been seen with Pygmies and height. See this preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/06/167551

    This excerpt could be read just as well as an argument against Piffer's results being proof:

    These polygenic scores should not be viewed as phenotypic predictions across populations. For example, the Maasai and Biaka pygmy populations have similar polygenic scores despite having dramatic differences in height.28 Discrepancies between polygenic scores and actual phenotypes may be expected to occur either because of purely environmental influences on phenotype, as well as gene-by-gene and gene-by-environment interactions. We also expect that the accuracy of these scores when viewed as predictions should decay with genetic distance from Europe (where the GWAS were carried out), due to changes in the structure of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between causal variants and tag SNPs picked up in GWAS, and because GWAS are biased toward discovering intermediate frequency variants, which will explain more variance in the region they are mapped in than outside of it. These caveats notwithstanding, the distribution of polygenic scores across populations can still be informative about the history of natural selection on a given phenotype,18 and a number of striking patterns are visible in their distribution. For example, there is a strong gradient in polygenic height scores running from east to west across Eurasia (Figure 1)
     
    Making the appropriate substitution of height to EA I think this is the most cogent criticism of the issues with Piffer's work that I have seen (do you know of any better?). And I suspect the "caveats notwithstanding" part is equally applicable.

    I am sure you know this, but to be explicit, these issues are most important with Africans because they have the largest genetic distance from the European populations which are typical for GWAS.

    Here is a graphic showing an example analysis:

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Uq9813v02_Q/WXgL1Bx0qJI/AAAAAAAASqQ/N0OKPmSy-UQ7kceLICw_1SAk5bmxwGZvgCLcBGAs/s640/Screen%2BShot%2B2017-07-25%2Bat%2B11.23.22%2BPM.png

    This Coop lab paper is well worth a look, but it is notable that despite looking at 34 complex polygenic traits they do not include any cognitive or education based traits. But for those willing to consider a level of indirection (the references in this iSteve comment might be good for context) the polygenic scores by populations results in Figure 2 for Infant Head Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio might be suggestive.

    This paper is a preprint. I don't think it is published yet so it will serve as a good example of what is and is not allowed through peer review.

    P.S. It is worth noting that (if I understand correctly) LD differences were an important issue with the early reviewer feedback to Piffer (and IMHO would have been good to mention in the Welton article). Piffer is working on enhancements to his methodology that account for LD decay, but I think the only solution for missing alleles which are important for Africans but not Europeans is for there to be more GWAS done on African populations.

    P.P.S. The Coop lab has an excellent reputation. This blog post from them discusses the issues with GWAS and traits in rigorous detail using a hypothetical tea drinking example: https://gcbias.org/2018/03/14/polygenic-scores-and-tea-drinking/
    Perhaps the best argument I have seen against leaping to conclusions in this area. Much more good stuff at that blog. I need to spend more time reading it.
    , @res

    As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a “race-realist” would have expected.
     
    As an alternative hypothesis to explain that seeming inconsistency, how about consanguinity? I am reading Rindermann's book and in Table 10.9 on page 314 there are three regions which have notably high rates of consanguinity.

    Africa (sub-Sahara) 37.5 - e.g. Nigeria 51.2
    North Africa M-East 29.24 - e.g. Egypt 23.89
    Asia (Central-South 30.44 - e.g. India 21.90

    All of these areas are underachievers in the country wide IQ data which is suggestive. Rindermann finds correlations of about 0.6 for consanguinity and cognitive ability.

    I wonder how a two factor model with Piffer's PGS and consanguinity would do for predicting country IQ?

    From a why does this matter perspective I see some important points:
    1. This provides an explanation for the dramatic underperformance of some countries.
    2. This is an issue which in theory is easily remedied. One generation of outbreeding eliminates the immediate problem in that generation (though there may be ongoing issues if THAT group keeps interbreeding).
    3. Rindermann also finds that consanguinity correlations are lower for the top 5% (i.e. the elites) than for the bottom 5%. This helps explain how a country might have smarter elites than its average IQ might suggest. See Chanda Chisala's posts for more on this. I need to add this to my list of possible explanations there.

    If anyone is interested in this idea, the conversation is probably better continued in James Thompson's blog post about Rindermann's book: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/cognitive-capitalism-2/
    , @Svigor

    Please, SJWs are a cancer, but do not speak of a “proof” that race/IQ differences are genetic. Rarely are contentious social science assertions “proven” to be true or false.
     
    Precisely. Smart people "grade on a curve," as it were, and lower the bar for "proof" in areas where things are less provable. Otherwise we surrender a useful word for broad contexts, which is worse than pointless (if you aren't an SJW) - it's wasteful.

    For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment.
     
    If conscientiousness is defined-down so far that one is considered highly conscientious because he tries his best on an IQ/scholastic test, we've now lost two words from the English language on your behalf.

    Any more fucking requests, snowflake? P.S. I don't think you're a "cancer"; don't be so hard on yourself.

    , @Santoculto
    We are not talking about personality traits which affects considerably intelligence-behavior [as a whole], but even if it was the case, certain types of personality traits correlates or even express better certain paths of intelligence than others, for example, introversion versus extroversion. Think more about your actions seems clearly a sign of higher intelligence than act impulsively, as often happen when you are more extroverted than introverted, and in the end of day, subsaharian africans are one of the most extroverted macro human groups while east asians are the least. And i even can bet that there are more introverted people among highly intelligent blacks than in general black pop.

    Based on PURELY COGNITIVE aspects, for example, vocabulary size in mother [or second mother] tongue, again, there are such racial differences.

    On very avg, blacks, at ''least'' in entire western hemisphere, do poorly to learn ''properly'' european mother tongue's than white europeans, east asians and whatever non-black group you want, for example, indians in Suriname.

    Instead analyse broadly, these researchers must analyse firstly this ''purely' cognitive aspects, because a lot of this findings seems will be due to ''personality-confounding'' as you said.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. utu says:

    The adjective ‘forbidden’ does not preclude the adjective ‘bad’.

    Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious. His high correlation between the list of Lynn’s IQ with several SNP’s (was it 8?)is spurious. No amount of work will prove that it is not so because the sample (even if all 200 or so countries were included) is way too small.

    There are no shortcuts. But cowboys like Piffer still are trying to find one. This is not how science is done. One has to solve the problem of intra-population IQ predictability from SNPs first where samples can be huge before going to inter-population predictability where samples are small. So far SNPs (500 or so of them) can explain circa 7% of variance of IQ and even thousands of them can’t explain more than 9% of variance of educational attainment (see Steve Hsu). And Piffer thinks that 8 or so SNPs can explain variance of IQ’s among 20 or so countries? An example of wishful thinking and will to power via minds over matter phenomenon. Who taught him? Davide Piffer is in much greater need of a tutor than an advocate defending his right to publish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious. His high correlation between the list of Lynn’s IQ with several SNP’s (was it 8?)is spurious. No amount of work will prove that it is not so because the sample (even if all 200 or so countries were included) is way too small. ... "

    If that was actually true, then wouldn't it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?

    , @Anonymous

    Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious.
     
    Utu, I don't think that you are qualified to judge it. I remember how in the thread on Piffer on Steve Hsu blog you clearly demonstrated lack of understanding of a couple of basic concepts in genetics and statistics.

    Truth is, it feels like it should be easy but in reality pointing an unambiguous critical flaw in Piffer's results is actually very difficult. I think that James Thompson has it right by saying that they seem to represent a puzzle: it shouldn't work but it seems like it actually does. If true, a serious effort to understand why is likely to reveal something important about genetics. Saying that the results are rubbish but refusing to explain why is atrocious argument and atrocious science.
    , @res

    Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious.
     
    What about the science in the Coop lab paper I linked above? Do you think that methodology is usable for EA and IQ? Perhaps you could explain to me how their underlying methodology differs from Piffer's?

    Utu, as you are well aware from conversations on James Thompson's blog, perhaps the most interesting thing about Piffer's work is how well it correlates across successively higher resolution GWAS. The theory that a small set of (the most important) SNPs can indicate selection pressure through their high correlation with phenotypic data is fascinating.

    Regarding % variance explained, do you think Hsu's work on height explains enough (~40%) to be useful?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Wally says:
    @utu
    The adjective 'forbidden' does not preclude the adjective 'bad'.

    Davide Piffer's science is atrocious. His high correlation between the list of Lynn's IQ with several SNP's (was it 8?)is spurious. No amount of work will prove that it is not so because the sample (even if all 200 or so countries were included) is way too small.

    There are no shortcuts. But cowboys like Piffer still are trying to find one. This is not how science is done. One has to solve the problem of intra-population IQ predictability from SNPs first where samples can be huge before going to inter-population predictability where samples are small. So far SNPs (500 or so of them) can explain circa 7% of variance of IQ and even thousands of them can't explain more than 9% of variance of educational attainment (see Steve Hsu). And Piffer thinks that 8 or so SNPs can explain variance of IQ's among 20 or so countries? An example of wishful thinking and will to power via minds over matter phenomenon. Who taught him? Davide Piffer is in much greater need of a tutor than an advocate defending his right to publish.

    said:
    “Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious. His high correlation between the list of Lynn’s IQ with several SNP’s (was it 8?)is spurious. No amount of work will prove that it is not so because the sample (even if all 200 or so countries were included) is way too small. … ”

    If that was actually true, then wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    If that was actually true, then wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?
     
    Indeed. It is very telling when ad hominem attacks seem to be necessary.
    , @utu

    If that was actually true, then wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?
     
    The triviality of it. The correlation he got is correct but there are millions of combinations of SNPs that will give even better correlation. Actually Piffer via random Monte Carlo search found some of them. The correlation is spurious. It means nothing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Mishra says:

    Lance Welton is the pen name of a freelance journalist.

    Ya gotta admit, it’s a tad ironic that the author of this article must remain anonymous.

    (Or–yes–pseudonymous, if you’re all spergy and such.)

    (And–yes–one may argue that the word “must” should be replaced with “feels the need to”…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    (Or–yes–pseudonymous, if you’re all spergy and such.)
     
    Pu-liece: Since we have no proof yet, that he is really using a pen name, we'd be better cautious and speak of a supposed pseudonymity or some such).

    argue that the word “must” should be replaced with “feels the need to”…)
     
    This could be a trifle wrong as well, so: In case, this really was a pseudonymic handle, it could (could!) show, that the author "felt the need to". Or else, it might turn out to be quite different alltogether, such as: The author likes to use - what might to some appear as a pseudonymic handle, but which in reality is (to be ctd. ... at infinitum....).

    ( :) )

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Twin studies already proved genetic determinism.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    No they didn't because 'genetic determinism' is false; genes don't "determine" and the EEA is false.

    https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/481747

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. This matter was resolved decades ago by earlier perceptive minds. Sic monumentum requiris, go live in sub-Saharan Africa and circumspice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. str says:

    Loovelay.

    An IQ of 132 and Piffer STILL conflatin’ correlation and causation. As would this author, evidently. Sure, SJW’s are lamentably goofy, but they’re irrelevant to sound science, of which theah ain’t none, here.

    Distressingly, most all the carryin’ on at this website about IQ is similar noise. Why so much of it? Confirmation bias, perhaps? Whose?

    This comment brought to you by a guy whose IQ comes in at around 165. Dig: one of the principal impediments to the full expression of IQ is fixity of thinking…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Meimou
    An IQ of 132 and Piffer STILL conflatin’ correlation and causation. As would this author, evidently. Sure, SJW’s are lamentably goofy, but they’re irrelevant to sound science, of which theah ain’t none, here.

    Distressingly, most all the carryin’ on at this website about IQ is similar noise. Why so much of it? Confirmation bias, perhaps? Whose?


    Are you admonishing Unzers for thinking IQ is genetic? I don't have a IQ of 165 (or a photographic memory) so I'm not sure what you meant.
    , @Wally
    "This comment brought to you by a guy whose IQ comes in at around 165"

    "around 165"? IOW, you're making it up.
    , @res
    Do you consider the Coop lab paper I linked above to represent sound science? Given your IQ of 165 perhaps you could spend some time here explaining in detail what is wrong with it.

    P.S. Asserting an IQ of 165 in your sole comment on unz.com to date is not a good way to establish credibility ; )
    , @songbird
    The article said above 132, meaning he is probably in MENSA or something, not that the author knows his exact IQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @phil
    Please, SJWs are a cancer, but do not speak of a "proof" that race/IQ differences are genetic. Rarely are contentious social science assertions "proven" to be true or false. For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment. Or, subsequent research may find that other gene variants that are linked to IQ are not distributed across races in the expected way. As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a "race-realist" would have expected.

    As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a “race-realist” would have expected.

    How so?

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    On average, Amerindians outscore sub-Saharan Africans on IQ tests, but not on their polygenic score for the alleles highlighted by this Genome-Wide Association Study.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Unable to comprehend all this fuss.
    Like fascism, nobody has ever defined intelligence.
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.
    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.
    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.
    The disaster is that politics has entered science.
    USSR agriculture showed what can happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Meimou
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.

    Whatever IQ is it's the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation...

    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Still?

    1.What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?

    2. Do black children adopted by whites as babies score as high as whites?

    3. Are IQ test baised towards East Asians and against whites?

    4. Do blacks score the sames as mulattoes?

    5. Are IQ test baised against mestizos?

    6. Do mestizos score higher than blacks?

    7. IQ test are divided into sub test. Ashkenazi Jews score higher in the verbal test and lower in the spatial test. East Asians score lower in the verbal and score higher in the verbal.

    Is culture bias to blame?

    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.

    It's clearly based in the brain, a physical trait, so yes.
    , @manorchurch

    Unable to comprehend all this fuss.
    Like fascism, nobody has ever defined intelligence.
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.
    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.
     
    Well, duh. IQ application is always local and circumstantial. Send a 180 IQ to Outer Mongolia, what's he gonna do? Shear sheep better?

    Besides, just look at how much better Mexicans do jobs Americans just won't do. Gotta be those astronomical IQs.

    Unz is just having fun with the local yokels. Let it be. As the day progresses, the heated shouting and generalized scuffling from the "IQ Article du Jour" will keep traffic high, and Ron's bandwidth costs optimized for volume. Gotta admit, I would do the same. Ya gotta provide something for the dumbass groundlings to fight over.
    , @Wally
    Yet the more "culturally biased" they are the better that blacks do.
    And even then they are the bottom of the heap.

    Please actually read the article, ex.:
    "But blacks do best on the most culturally biased parts of the test (which are the worst measures of intelligence) (see Lynn, above)."
    , @Vojkan
    I don't get either the obsession with IQ on this site. In my opinion, one's output in real life matters much more than his alleged intelligence due to his results on some "intelligence" measuring test. In my field, software design and programming, I have worked with people who allegedly scored way above 132 on tests and their output was such rubbish that after review, it was obvious it couldn't work so I had to redesign and rewrite. So much for the accuracy of IQ tests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Tyrion 2 says:

    As you found the ‘smart’ genes by looking at smart people, your argument is no more conclusive than merely pointing out that smart people are not evenly distributed by country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Could you elaborate? The difference I see is in phenotypic vs. genotypic characteristics. The interesting part of Piffer's work is the correlation between the two at a population level. And how that makes it unlikely (but not yet proved) that there is no genetic contribution to those between group differences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. If genetic research has all sorts of politically correct social scientists freaking out at the idea it can be construed to bear out White Supremacy in intelligence, likely their own lack of intelligence is to fail recognizing there are different kinds of intelligence in Humans.

    Anyone can learn this ‘White’ intelligence to a greater or lesser degree, but how useful is it? After all, only civilization descended from Plato would pursue a planet-wide life threatening degradation of the environment, capitalizing on its thirst ‘to know’, and label the resultant destruction ‘progress.’

    Perhaps other people’s genetics are predisposed to an intelligence, a higher intelligence, the European cultures do not know how to measure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    If genetic research has all sorts of politically correct social scientists freaking out at the idea it can be construed to bear out White Supremacy in intelligence
     
    The funny thing is that freak out only exposes the idiocy of PC social scientists who don't seem to understand the concept of "East Asian" and how that relates to "White Supremacy."
    , @ploni almoni
    There are also less intelligent ways of destroying the planet. You can see them in Haiti and where there are less intelligent immigrants in more intelligent societies. You can also see what more intelligent immigrants accomplished in less intelligent societies. Political correctness aside.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. laguerre says:
    @llloyd
    This comes out of Ben Gurion University Israel. The worst possible State entity it could come out of. I suspect a Jerusalem agenda here not an Athenian.

    This comes out of Ben Gurion University Israel.

    This is the point, isn’t it? He’s just a crumby academic out to make some noise, to advance himself. Masters at the unexceptional Durham, and he’s still doing his doctorate, not yet finished, at one of the most racist universities around. At his immature stage of research, he shouldn’t be claiming to have made world-changing advances. He simply doesn’t have the experience. It’s more likely that he’s just a publicity-seeking prick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bartok
    You may not be interested in la guerre, but la guerre is interested in you.
    , @utu

    It’s more likely that he’s just a publicity-seeking prick.

     

    The man is chutzpah personified.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Brave academics. OK. Why then is the person hiding behind the pen name Lance Welton not brave enough to tell us his real name?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What's your argument? Why should he not let what he says stand or fall on its merits or lack thereof? Are you saying that everyone should be brave when discussing matters that can rouse tempers? Will you guarantee him compensation "Michael Kenny" if he suffers from using his real name?
    BTW I have Googled for Michael Kenny. Are you the Cambridge and peripatetic one referred to by Wikipedia? I guess you are not the New Zealand boxer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Meimou says:
    @phil
    Please, SJWs are a cancer, but do not speak of a "proof" that race/IQ differences are genetic. Rarely are contentious social science assertions "proven" to be true or false. For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment. Or, subsequent research may find that other gene variants that are linked to IQ are not distributed across races in the expected way. As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a "race-realist" would have expected.

    IQ is clearly based on the physical traits of the brain; children who grow up in houses with lead based paint have lower IQs, boxers loses IQ points because of blows to the head, people deprived if oxygen can become retarded because of the damage oxygen deprivation has on the brain.

    IQ is based on the physical traits on the brain, physical traits are largely genetic.

    Rarely are contentious social science assertions “proven” to be true or false

    The genetics of IQ is hard science, it is not social science, and it is only contentious because of politics, not evidence.

    For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment

    “Educational attainment” is not IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    "IQ is based on the physical traits on the brain, physical traits are largely genetic."

    "The genetics of IQ is hard science, it is not social science, and it is only contentious because of politics, not evidence."

    "'Educational attainment' is not IQ."


    IQ is certainly related to brain activity, and the brain can be affected by "social" activities (e.g., education) as well as narrowly biological factors (e.g., parasites). Disentangling the separate impacts of genes, the physical environment, and the social environment is difficult in any case. The discussion is indeed especially contentious in light of politics.

    "Educational" attainment is indeed not the same thing as IQ so an attempt to correlate the presence of certain gene variants with educational attainment does not come close to proving that the highlighted genes account for a major part of the variation in IQ scores.

    It is unwise for The Unz Review even to have published this article.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Oh, please. Of course there are vast differences in intelligence between races and they are genetically determined for the most part, and sub-Saharan Africans are at the bottom of the pile. Even discussing it further is a waste of time. But, whatever……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Meimou says:
    @str
    Loovelay.

    An IQ of 132 and Piffer STILL conflatin' correlation and causation. As would this author, evidently. Sure, SJW's are lamentably goofy, but they're irrelevant to sound science, of which theah ain't none, here.

    Distressingly, most all the carryin' on at this website about IQ is similar noise. Why so much of it? Confirmation bias, perhaps? Whose?

    This comment brought to you by a guy whose IQ comes in at around 165. Dig: one of the principal impediments to the full expression of IQ is fixity of thinking...

    An IQ of 132 and Piffer STILL conflatin’ correlation and causation. As would this author, evidently. Sure, SJW’s are lamentably goofy, but they’re irrelevant to sound science, of which theah ain’t none, here.

    Distressingly, most all the carryin’ on at this website about IQ is similar noise. Why so much of it? Confirmation bias, perhaps? Whose?

    Are you admonishing Unzers for thinking IQ is genetic? I don’t have a IQ of 165 (or a photographic memory) so I’m not sure what you meant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Joe Hide says:

    Wow! What’s with all the character assassinating commenters? Are they afraid of something the author wrote? Many of their emotional arguments are couched in nebulous statistical terms and virtue signaling. This is not the way to win an argument
    Here’s a way…if we wait patiently, gene editing, brain-biochemical manipulation, sperm / egg hyper-selection, hardware and software brain implants, enhanced human-computer network connectivity, etc will increase I.Q.’s dramatically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    What’s with all the character assassinating commenters?
     
    When all you've got is a hammer...

    It is nice of them to so clearly out themselves as not worth listening to.
    , @Eagle Eye

    gene editing, brain-biochemical manipulation, ... , etc will increase I.Q.’s dramatically.
     
    True in theory. The POLITICAL reality is that gene editing will be used to turn 99% of the population into an array of subordinate castes (jatis, in Hindu terminology), whose sole purpose is to serve and pleasure a small, high-IQ alpha race with its hands on all levers of power.

    The lives of subordinate caste members will be cheap, any alpha may kill, torture or rape them at will, and they will be systematically killed once age reduces their fitness to serve.

    The personalities of subordinate jatis will be programmed to make them serve cheerfully, selflessly and tirelessly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Meimou says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Unable to comprehend all this fuss.
    Like fascism, nobody has ever defined intelligence.
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.
    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.
    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.
    The disaster is that politics has entered science.
    USSR agriculture showed what can happen.

    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.

    Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…

    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Still?

    1.What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?

    2. Do black children adopted by whites as babies score as high as whites?

    3. Are IQ test baised towards East Asians and against whites?

    4. Do blacks score the sames as mulattoes?

    5. Are IQ test baised against mestizos?

    6. Do mestizos score higher than blacks?

    7. IQ test are divided into sub test. Ashkenazi Jews score higher in the verbal test and lower in the spatial test. East Asians score lower in the verbal and score higher in the verbal.

    Is culture bias to blame?

    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.

    It’s clearly based in the brain, a physical trait, so yes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Still?

    1.What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?
     
    Yes, IQ tests are culturally dependent. I am aware that you cannot be convinced of it, but such is truth before those who cannot believe.

    On a "Look, Stupid" note, in cultures that don't use numbers as an integral part of social function, it is very difficult for members to acquire the concept, and to memorize numbers in backward order.

    Plus, you forgot (?) that memorization is not a function of intelligence. Of IQ? Oh, yeah. Of Intelligence? Oh, no.

    Youse guys never change. As you were! Resume scuffling!
    , @Bardon Kaldian

    Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…
     
    Hahahah...

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/mn-mongolia

    Mongolia: Avg. IQ 101

    GDP per capita: $ 12,551

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/lt-lithuania

    Lithuania: Avg. IQ 91

    GDP per capita: $ 31,935
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…"

    Test costruction; item analysis and selection. It's built in and you can build anything in and or out based on the items selected.

    "What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?"

    What does memorizing numbers have to do with 'intelligence'? What is the mechanism behind it?

    IQ tests are biased by class, not race.

    "IQ test are divided into sub test. Ashkenazi Jews score higher in the verbal test and lower in the spatial test. East Asians score lower in the verbal and score higher in the verbal."

    You can change the outcomes by changing test items.

    "It’s clearly based in the brain, a physical trait, so yes."

    Are all physical traits "genetic"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. j2 says:

    It is very difficult to get your work published in a top journal. It can be easier for some, but mostly it is not anything to wonder if the manuscript gets rejected. I would imagine that a paper from his university has a much better chance to get a careful review than a paper from many other places.

    I have read several of Piffer’s papers. I am not quite convinced of his method. As the new editor if Intelligence had worked on mental retardation, the genetic basis of mental retardation is on a much firmer ground with good mathematical models. Compared to those, maybe Piffer’s method is lacking rigority.

    As for the general claim that races have different IQs, it is not so clear what it means. I looked at some videos with Australian Aborigines. They did not sound like having an IQ 62. Before Europeans came there, these people all spoke 2-3 languages and some much more, as they had so many languages. Is it related to IQ? Hard to say. They get this IQ about 62, so it is measured, but what does it mean is another thing. It is still a valid to question the terms IQ and race in this case.

    The theory, like in Piffer’s work, that the recently found IQ genes from GWAS determine IQ may be wrong. They influence IQ, but it might be that they only decrease IQ with some compensating mutations increasing IQ, but the genetic IQ may be something different, for instance genes that are fixed in the population and do not show in GWAS. There are so many possibilities for a genetic theory of IQ. There are many contradictions so far. I think we are still very far from a correct genetic theory of IQ, so rejecting a manuscript may have reasons other than a SJW editor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Before Europeans came there, these people all spoke 2-3 languages and some much more, as they had so many languages.
     
    First, how large were the vocabularies of these languages? How complex grammatically? How similar were they to each other? And what proof is there of your claim since they weren’t written languages and no census was taken of their speakers?
    , @RaceRealist88
    What novel predictions---novel facts not known before the formulation of his theory---does his theory make? A predicted fact is novel fact for that theory if it was not used in the construction of the theory in question.

    http://www.fitelson.org/290/musgrave.pdf

    So what novel predictions does the theory make?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. bartok says:
    @laguerre

    This comes out of Ben Gurion University Israel.
     
    This is the point, isn't it? He's just a crumby academic out to make some noise, to advance himself. Masters at the unexceptional Durham, and he's still doing his doctorate, not yet finished, at one of the most racist universities around. At his immature stage of research, he shouldn't be claiming to have made world-changing advances. He simply doesn't have the experience. It's more likely that he's just a publicity-seeking prick.

    You may not be interested in la guerre, but la guerre is interested in you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @jilles dykstra
    Unable to comprehend all this fuss.
    Like fascism, nobody has ever defined intelligence.
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.
    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.
    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.
    The disaster is that politics has entered science.
    USSR agriculture showed what can happen.

    Unable to comprehend all this fuss.
    Like fascism, nobody has ever defined intelligence.
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.
    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Well, duh. IQ application is always local and circumstantial. Send a 180 IQ to Outer Mongolia, what’s he gonna do? Shear sheep better?

    Besides, just look at how much better Mexicans do jobs Americans just won’t do. Gotta be those astronomical IQs.

    Unz is just having fun with the local yokels. Let it be. As the day progresses, the heated shouting and generalized scuffling from the “IQ Article du Jour” will keep traffic high, and Ron’s bandwidth costs optimized for volume. Gotta admit, I would do the same. Ya gotta provide something for the dumbass groundlings to fight over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Mexicans do jobs Americans just won’t do"

    Please provide proof of that assertion.
    , @Anon
    Average IQ in Mongolia is 101, a point or 3 higher than most European nations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    The adjective 'forbidden' does not preclude the adjective 'bad'.

    Davide Piffer's science is atrocious. His high correlation between the list of Lynn's IQ with several SNP's (was it 8?)is spurious. No amount of work will prove that it is not so because the sample (even if all 200 or so countries were included) is way too small.

    There are no shortcuts. But cowboys like Piffer still are trying to find one. This is not how science is done. One has to solve the problem of intra-population IQ predictability from SNPs first where samples can be huge before going to inter-population predictability where samples are small. So far SNPs (500 or so of them) can explain circa 7% of variance of IQ and even thousands of them can't explain more than 9% of variance of educational attainment (see Steve Hsu). And Piffer thinks that 8 or so SNPs can explain variance of IQ's among 20 or so countries? An example of wishful thinking and will to power via minds over matter phenomenon. Who taught him? Davide Piffer is in much greater need of a tutor than an advocate defending his right to publish.

    Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious.

    Utu, I don’t think that you are qualified to judge it. I remember how in the thread on Piffer on Steve Hsu blog you clearly demonstrated lack of understanding of a couple of basic concepts in genetics and statistics.

    Truth is, it feels like it should be easy but in reality pointing an unambiguous critical flaw in Piffer’s results is actually very difficult. I think that James Thompson has it right by saying that they seem to represent a puzzle: it shouldn’t work but it seems like it actually does. If true, a serious effort to understand why is likely to reveal something important about genetics. Saying that the results are rubbish but refusing to explain why is atrocious argument and atrocious science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    I don’t think that...Truth is....
     
    Don't you get that correlation he got is spurious and it won't be proven otherwise with his approach? Finding groups of SNPs that correlation with any sequence of random numbers is easy for short sequences. His sequence is short: 20 or so countries. Actually Piffer with Monte Carlo search for SNPS that corrupted with his data better than the ones he picked initially. His science is crap. He is just a confidence men. He thinks his chutzpah will carry him not science and now he will be crying oy vey, I am bing discriminated . I am a new Giordano Bruno.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Meimou
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.

    Whatever IQ is it's the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation...

    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Still?

    1.What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?

    2. Do black children adopted by whites as babies score as high as whites?

    3. Are IQ test baised towards East Asians and against whites?

    4. Do blacks score the sames as mulattoes?

    5. Are IQ test baised against mestizos?

    6. Do mestizos score higher than blacks?

    7. IQ test are divided into sub test. Ashkenazi Jews score higher in the verbal test and lower in the spatial test. East Asians score lower in the verbal and score higher in the verbal.

    Is culture bias to blame?

    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.

    It's clearly based in the brain, a physical trait, so yes.

    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Still?

    1.What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?

    Yes, IQ tests are culturally dependent. I am aware that you cannot be convinced of it, but such is truth before those who cannot believe.

    On a “Look, Stupid” note, in cultures that don’t use numbers as an integral part of social function, it is very difficult for members to acquire the concept, and to memorize numbers in backward order.

    Plus, you forgot (?) that memorization is not a function of intelligence. Of IQ? Oh, yeah. Of Intelligence? Oh, no.

    Youse guys never change. As you were! Resume scuffling!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    On a “Look, Stupid” note, in cultures that don’t use numbers as an integral part of social function, it is very difficult for members to acquire the concept, and to memorize numbers in backward order.

    Plus, you forgot (?) that memorization is not a function of intelligence. Of IQ? Oh, yeah. Of Intelligence? Oh, no.
     
    You conflate intelligence with reproductive success and survival. Further, memory absolutely must be a component of intelligence (if intelligence is defined as a package including ability to recognize patterns, process sense data, etc, obviously one must store and retrieve previous inputs).

    Overall, this article leaves too many unanswered questions. Has this guy developed any new method of statistical analysis? What’s really new here? Has he simply compared new GWAS data to older studies and meta-studies?

    And why wouldn’t indisputable proof of genetic IQ determinism simply result in a new form of Affirmative Action and/or welfare rather than the “acceptance” of different racial outcomes?
    , @Svigor
    I'm willing to forego the corner cases of cultures too stupid and backwards to use numbers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Wally says:
    @str
    Loovelay.

    An IQ of 132 and Piffer STILL conflatin' correlation and causation. As would this author, evidently. Sure, SJW's are lamentably goofy, but they're irrelevant to sound science, of which theah ain't none, here.

    Distressingly, most all the carryin' on at this website about IQ is similar noise. Why so much of it? Confirmation bias, perhaps? Whose?

    This comment brought to you by a guy whose IQ comes in at around 165. Dig: one of the principal impediments to the full expression of IQ is fixity of thinking...

    “This comment brought to you by a guy whose IQ comes in at around 165″

    around 165″? IOW, you’re making it up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Unable to comprehend all this fuss.
    Like fascism, nobody has ever defined intelligence.
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.
    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.
    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.
    The disaster is that politics has entered science.
    USSR agriculture showed what can happen.

    Yet the more “culturally biased” they are the better that blacks do.
    And even then they are the bottom of the heap.

    Please actually read the article, ex.:
    “But blacks do best on the most culturally biased parts of the test (which are the worst measures of intelligence) (see Lynn, above).”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Wally says:
    @manorchurch

    Unable to comprehend all this fuss.
    Like fascism, nobody has ever defined intelligence.
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.
    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.
     
    Well, duh. IQ application is always local and circumstantial. Send a 180 IQ to Outer Mongolia, what's he gonna do? Shear sheep better?

    Besides, just look at how much better Mexicans do jobs Americans just won't do. Gotta be those astronomical IQs.

    Unz is just having fun with the local yokels. Let it be. As the day progresses, the heated shouting and generalized scuffling from the "IQ Article du Jour" will keep traffic high, and Ron's bandwidth costs optimized for volume. Gotta admit, I would do the same. Ya gotta provide something for the dumbass groundlings to fight over.

    “Mexicans do jobs Americans just won’t do”

    Please provide proof of that assertion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hood Canal Gardner
    Ok, I'll bite. Only part of the answer is wage price (ie the right price.) Wally ever tried to hire white faces outside Fresno or Bakersfield in December to pick bollies (unopened cotton bolls) for the going price growers have "agreed" to pay?
    , @Uslabor
    You want proof?

    Stick your tongue in cheek.

    There's your proof.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. phil says:
    @Henry's Cat

    As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a “race-realist” would have expected.
     
    How so?

    On average, Amerindians outscore sub-Saharan Africans on IQ tests, but not on their polygenic score for the alleles highlighted by this Genome-Wide Association Study.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    if (very roughly)
    Africans are AMH
    Caucasians are AMH + Neanderthal
    east Asians are AMH + Neanderthal+ Denisovan

    then couldn't some populations (e.g. Amerindians) have missed out on some of the variants unique to each sub-species (if that's the right word) while having more of one of the others so wouldn't you need to do race-specific GWAS as well as a global one?

    (or maybe they did already but don't want to publish the results?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. phil says:
    @Meimou
    IQ is clearly based on the physical traits of the brain; children who grow up in houses with lead based paint have lower IQs, boxers loses IQ points because of blows to the head, people deprived if oxygen can become retarded because of the damage oxygen deprivation has on the brain.

    IQ is based on the physical traits on the brain, physical traits are largely genetic.

    Rarely are contentious social science assertions “proven” to be true or false

    The genetics of IQ is hard science, it is not social science, and it is only contentious because of politics, not evidence.

    For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment

    "Educational attainment" is not IQ.

    “IQ is based on the physical traits on the brain, physical traits are largely genetic.”

    “The genetics of IQ is hard science, it is not social science, and it is only contentious because of politics, not evidence.”

    “‘Educational attainment’ is not IQ.”

    IQ is certainly related to brain activity, and the brain can be affected by “social” activities (e.g., education) as well as narrowly biological factors (e.g., parasites). Disentangling the separate impacts of genes, the physical environment, and the social environment is difficult in any case. The discussion is indeed especially contentious in light of politics.

    “Educational” attainment is indeed not the same thing as IQ so an attempt to correlate the presence of certain gene variants with educational attainment does not come close to proving that the highlighted genes account for a major part of the variation in IQ scores.

    It is unwise for The Unz Review even to have published this article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    It is unwise for The Unz Review even to have published this article.
     
    Unwise because it oversteps the evidence (and it does IMHO) or unwise because you think the underlying conclusions are wrong?
    , @Meimou
    IQ is certainly related to brain activity, and the brain can be affected by “social” activities (e.g., education) as well as narrowly biological factors (e.g., parasites). Disentangling the separate impacts of genes, the physical environment, and the social environment is difficult in any case. The discussion is indeed especially contentious in light of politics.

    You don't think psychometricans took physical/social environment into account for over 100 years? Do you think they were engaging in mass fraud? None of those things would account for persistent differences among the four races and racial groups within thoses races; thoses who are mixed race score in between their respective races; the IQ gap between American blacks and whites has always been 1 SD.

    Environment would not explain why Ashkenazis would score higher the verbal subtest and East Asians in the spatial. Genetics do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. res says:
    @phil
    Please, SJWs are a cancer, but do not speak of a "proof" that race/IQ differences are genetic. Rarely are contentious social science assertions "proven" to be true or false. For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment. Or, subsequent research may find that other gene variants that are linked to IQ are not distributed across races in the expected way. As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a "race-realist" would have expected.

    As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a “race-realist” would have expected.

    Phil, what do you think of the hypothesis that this is because the GWAS was done on a European population which may have missed alleles which are low frequency in Europeans but higher frequency in Africans? Since Amerindians and Europeans diverged later than Africans diverged from all other groups this issue should be more important for African populations.

    This would be similar to what has been seen with Pygmies and height. See this preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/06/167551

    This excerpt could be read just as well as an argument against Piffer’s results being proof:

    These polygenic scores should not be viewed as phenotypic predictions across populations. For example, the Maasai and Biaka pygmy populations have similar polygenic scores despite having dramatic differences in height.28 Discrepancies between polygenic scores and actual phenotypes may be expected to occur either because of purely environmental influences on phenotype, as well as gene-by-gene and gene-by-environment interactions. We also expect that the accuracy of these scores when viewed as predictions should decay with genetic distance from Europe (where the GWAS were carried out), due to changes in the structure of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between causal variants and tag SNPs picked up in GWAS, and because GWAS are biased toward discovering intermediate frequency variants, which will explain more variance in the region they are mapped in than outside of it. These caveats notwithstanding, the distribution of polygenic scores across populations can still be informative about the history of natural selection on a given phenotype,18 and a number of striking patterns are visible in their distribution. For example, there is a strong gradient in polygenic height scores running from east to west across Eurasia (Figure 1)

    Making the appropriate substitution of height to EA I think this is the most cogent criticism of the issues with Piffer’s work that I have seen (do you know of any better?). And I suspect the “caveats notwithstanding” part is equally applicable.

    I am sure you know this, but to be explicit, these issues are most important with Africans because they have the largest genetic distance from the European populations which are typical for GWAS.

    Here is a graphic showing an example analysis:

    This Coop lab paper is well worth a look, but it is notable that despite looking at 34 complex polygenic traits they do not include any cognitive or education based traits. But for those willing to consider a level of indirection (the references in this iSteve comment might be good for context) the polygenic scores by populations results in Figure 2 for Infant Head Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio might be suggestive.

    This paper is a preprint. I don’t think it is published yet so it will serve as a good example of what is and is not allowed through peer review.

    P.S. It is worth noting that (if I understand correctly) LD differences were an important issue with the early reviewer feedback to Piffer (and IMHO would have been good to mention in the Welton article). Piffer is working on enhancements to his methodology that account for LD decay, but I think the only solution for missing alleles which are important for Africans but not Europeans is for there to be more GWAS done on African populations.

    P.P.S. The Coop lab has an excellent reputation. This blog post from them discusses the issues with GWAS and traits in rigorous detail using a hypothetical tea drinking example: https://gcbias.org/2018/03/14/polygenic-scores-and-tea-drinking/
    Perhaps the best argument I have seen against leaping to conclusions in this area. Much more good stuff at that blog. I need to spend more time reading it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    New concerns raised over value of genome-wide disease studies

    Large analyses dredge up ‘peripheral’ genetic associations that offer little biological insight, researchers say.

    [...]
    – http://www.nature.com/news/new-concerns-raised-over-value-of-genome-wide-disease-studies-1.22152
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetics-of-racial-differences-in-intelligence-updated/#comment-1907009

    The researchers also re-analysed data from GWAS of schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease. They found GWAS hits in DNA regions that are expressed in the particular cells relevant to the disease: neurons for schizophrenia, and immune cells for the two autoimmune diseases. But regions of DNA active in many types of body tissue were just as likely to be hits as those that were active only in neurons or immune cells, the team found. That lends credence to the idea that large GWAS are simply picking up most of the DNA variants that have an influence on gene regulation, and that happen to be active in broad functions of disease-relevant cells, rather than in particular activities linked to illness.

     

    An Expanded View of Complex Traits: From Polygenic to Omnigenic.

    We propose that gene regulatory networks are sufficiently interconnected such that all genes expressed in disease-relevant cells are liable to affect the functions of core disease-related genes and that most heritability can be explained by effects on genes outside core pathways.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28622505

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867417306293-gr1.jpg

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867417306293-gr2.jpg

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867417306293-gr3.jpg


    Eric Topol
    ‏Verified account @EricTopol

    It's time to think omnigenic, rather than polygenic: a refined model for understanding complex traits


    https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/875410215008518144
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. res says:
    @utu
    The adjective 'forbidden' does not preclude the adjective 'bad'.

    Davide Piffer's science is atrocious. His high correlation between the list of Lynn's IQ with several SNP's (was it 8?)is spurious. No amount of work will prove that it is not so because the sample (even if all 200 or so countries were included) is way too small.

    There are no shortcuts. But cowboys like Piffer still are trying to find one. This is not how science is done. One has to solve the problem of intra-population IQ predictability from SNPs first where samples can be huge before going to inter-population predictability where samples are small. So far SNPs (500 or so of them) can explain circa 7% of variance of IQ and even thousands of them can't explain more than 9% of variance of educational attainment (see Steve Hsu). And Piffer thinks that 8 or so SNPs can explain variance of IQ's among 20 or so countries? An example of wishful thinking and will to power via minds over matter phenomenon. Who taught him? Davide Piffer is in much greater need of a tutor than an advocate defending his right to publish.

    Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious.

    What about the science in the Coop lab paper I linked above? Do you think that methodology is usable for EA and IQ? Perhaps you could explain to me how their underlying methodology differs from Piffer’s?

    Utu, as you are well aware from conversations on James Thompson’s blog, perhaps the most interesting thing about Piffer’s work is how well it correlates across successively higher resolution GWAS. The theory that a small set of (the most important) SNPs can indicate selection pressure through their high correlation with phenotypic data is fascinating.

    Regarding % variance explained, do you think Hsu’s work on height explains enough (~40%) to be useful?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Thanks for links to Coop lab. It seems their objections are reasonable.

    Hsu with 40% can give some basis for looking at height between different populations . His polygenic score is linear so averages (frequencies) for distinct populations could be calculated. Hsu used thousands of SNP's. Would you expect that only 8 among them would give high correlation for averages? And if so, would you bet on it that the correlation is casual and not spurious? How would you know the difference? But certainly much better case can be made for height than IQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. res says:
    @Wally
    said:
    "Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious. His high correlation between the list of Lynn’s IQ with several SNP’s (was it 8?)is spurious. No amount of work will prove that it is not so because the sample (even if all 200 or so countries were included) is way too small. ... "

    If that was actually true, then wouldn't it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?

    If that was actually true, then wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?

    Indeed. It is very telling when ad hominem attacks seem to be necessary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. res says:
    @str
    Loovelay.

    An IQ of 132 and Piffer STILL conflatin' correlation and causation. As would this author, evidently. Sure, SJW's are lamentably goofy, but they're irrelevant to sound science, of which theah ain't none, here.

    Distressingly, most all the carryin' on at this website about IQ is similar noise. Why so much of it? Confirmation bias, perhaps? Whose?

    This comment brought to you by a guy whose IQ comes in at around 165. Dig: one of the principal impediments to the full expression of IQ is fixity of thinking...

    Do you consider the Coop lab paper I linked above to represent sound science? Given your IQ of 165 perhaps you could spend some time here explaining in detail what is wrong with it.

    P.S. Asserting an IQ of 165 in your sole comment on unz.com to date is not a good way to establish credibility ; )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. songbird says:
    @str
    Loovelay.

    An IQ of 132 and Piffer STILL conflatin' correlation and causation. As would this author, evidently. Sure, SJW's are lamentably goofy, but they're irrelevant to sound science, of which theah ain't none, here.

    Distressingly, most all the carryin' on at this website about IQ is similar noise. Why so much of it? Confirmation bias, perhaps? Whose?

    This comment brought to you by a guy whose IQ comes in at around 165. Dig: one of the principal impediments to the full expression of IQ is fixity of thinking...

    The article said above 132, meaning he is probably in MENSA or something, not that the author knows his exact IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Exactly. There is a link to substantiate that which gives the group. Unfortunately that link is broken (trailing ]) in the article. Here is a working version: http://gr.iqsociety.org/members/davide-piffer/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. res says:
    @Tyrion 2
    As you found the 'smart' genes by looking at smart people, your argument is no more conclusive than merely pointing out that smart people are not evenly distributed by country.

    Could you elaborate? The difference I see is in phenotypic vs. genotypic characteristics. The interesting part of Piffer’s work is the correlation between the two at a population level. And how that makes it unlikely (but not yet proved) that there is no genetic contribution to those between group differences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Could you elaborate? The difference I see is in phenotypic vs. genotypic characteristics. The interesting part of Piffer’s work is the correlation between the two at a population level. And how that makes it unlikely (but not yet proved) that there is no genetic contribution to those between group differences.
     
    The hereditary component of intelligence is polygenic. Only a fraction of the pertinent genes have been identified.

    The process of identifying them has been biased towards finding those more prevalent among some groups than others, therefore basing one's estimation of hereditary intelligence from the distribution of these genes reflects those biases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. res says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    If genetic research has all sorts of politically correct social scientists freaking out at the idea it can be construed to bear out White Supremacy in intelligence, likely their own lack of intelligence is to fail recognizing there are different kinds of intelligence in Humans.

    Anyone can learn this ‘White’ intelligence to a greater or lesser degree, but how useful is it? After all, only civilization descended from Plato would pursue a planet-wide life threatening degradation of the environment, capitalizing on its thirst ‘to know’, and label the resultant destruction ‘progress.’

    Perhaps other people’s genetics are predisposed to an intelligence, a higher intelligence, the European cultures do not know how to measure.

    If genetic research has all sorts of politically correct social scientists freaking out at the idea it can be construed to bear out White Supremacy in intelligence

    The funny thing is that freak out only exposes the idiocy of PC social scientists who don’t seem to understand the concept of “East Asian” and how that relates to “White Supremacy.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    The funny thing is that freak out only exposes the idiocy of PC social scientists who don’t seem to understand the concept of “East Asian” and how that relates to “White Supremacy.”
     
    Not at all. What it exposes is how the PC commies have bowdlerized the language whenever it reflects poorly on the saintly negroes. ANY word associated strongly enough and long enough with the negro eventually acquires negative connotation. And ONLY two races matter in America. So “white supremacy” is simply another way of saying “negro inferiority” or “negro failure” rather than any serious assertion. This is most obvious with Jews who everyone, absolutely everyone, except Jews themselves, identify as “white”, but also with South Asians who are as dark toned as negroes but never counted amongst them.

    What terrifies (secretly) the non-retarded PC crowd is the notion that negroes truly are irredeemably unintelligent, significantly more violent, and far more fecund than other population groups. That while it appears the American contintental aborigines can at least be tamed and managed productively, the negro cannot. This is a HUGE problem that they simply cannot bear to contemplate and I suspect most “race-realists” have also avoided.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. res says:
    @Joe Hide
    Wow! What's with all the character assassinating commenters? Are they afraid of something the author wrote? Many of their emotional arguments are couched in nebulous statistical terms and virtue signaling. This is not the way to win an argument
    Here's a way...if we wait patiently, gene editing, brain-biochemical manipulation, sperm / egg hyper-selection, hardware and software brain implants, enhanced human-computer network connectivity, etc will increase I.Q.'s dramatically.

    What’s with all the character assassinating commenters?

    When all you’ve got is a hammer…

    It is nice of them to so clearly out themselves as not worth listening to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. res says:
    @phil
    "IQ is based on the physical traits on the brain, physical traits are largely genetic."

    "The genetics of IQ is hard science, it is not social science, and it is only contentious because of politics, not evidence."

    "'Educational attainment' is not IQ."


    IQ is certainly related to brain activity, and the brain can be affected by "social" activities (e.g., education) as well as narrowly biological factors (e.g., parasites). Disentangling the separate impacts of genes, the physical environment, and the social environment is difficult in any case. The discussion is indeed especially contentious in light of politics.

    "Educational" attainment is indeed not the same thing as IQ so an attempt to correlate the presence of certain gene variants with educational attainment does not come close to proving that the highlighted genes account for a major part of the variation in IQ scores.

    It is unwise for The Unz Review even to have published this article.

    It is unwise for The Unz Review even to have published this article.

    Unwise because it oversteps the evidence (and it does IMHO) or unwise because you think the underlying conclusions are wrong?

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    It's just ridiculous to post as a "headline" article that the case for genetically-based racial differences in intelligence has been "proven," and the world is not being allowed to see the "proof." Neil Risch (population geneticist at the University of California-San Francisco) has taken note of Piffer's work, but he is not going to take seriously a claim published under a pseudonym that a proof now exists.
    To me, this makes The Unz Review look like a crackpot website.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. res says:
    @songbird
    The article said above 132, meaning he is probably in MENSA or something, not that the author knows his exact IQ.

    Exactly. There is a link to substantiate that which gives the group. Unfortunately that link is broken (trailing ]) in the article. Here is a working version: http://gr.iqsociety.org/members/davide-piffer/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Who cares about IQ? We can be pretty sure that the i-Phone 18, will include an Internet-connected AI chip with a higher IQ than Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and James Clerk Maxwell combined — higher even than a psychology professor, so then, even the dumbest and duskiest member of the human race will be as well equipped to make a killing on the market, solve a differential equation, or invent a multi-billion-dollar Internet company, as the brightest of today’s Silicon Valley.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @Meimou
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.

    Whatever IQ is it's the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation...

    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Still?

    1.What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?

    2. Do black children adopted by whites as babies score as high as whites?

    3. Are IQ test baised towards East Asians and against whites?

    4. Do blacks score the sames as mulattoes?

    5. Are IQ test baised against mestizos?

    6. Do mestizos score higher than blacks?

    7. IQ test are divided into sub test. Ashkenazi Jews score higher in the verbal test and lower in the spatial test. East Asians score lower in the verbal and score higher in the verbal.

    Is culture bias to blame?

    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.

    It's clearly based in the brain, a physical trait, so yes.

    Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…

    Hahahah…

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/mn-mongolia

    Mongolia: Avg. IQ 101

    GDP per capita: $ 12,551

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/lt-lithuania

    Lithuania: Avg. IQ 91

    GDP per capita: $ 31,935

    Read More
    • Replies: @Meimou
    Ok...

    IQ and RACE are the most predictive attributes when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…

    , @res


    Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…
     
    Hahahah…
     
    Sure there are exceptions. Do you have a better predicting attribute to offer?

    This has an interesting look at IQ and GDP: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

    Anyone interested in these sorts of correlations should check out Heiner Rindermann's recent book discussed here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/cognitive-capitalism-2/
    , @Craken
    I think what you'll find is that IQ levels determine the maximum, not the minimum, of economic success. Shackle East Germany with a command and control economy, and it will lag West Germany. Natural resource wealth aside, the population IQ hierarchy matches up quite well with the maximum achieved by any nation at each level. There are no wealthy (non-oil) countries with sub-90 IQs. High average intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for economic success.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Wally
    "Mexicans do jobs Americans just won’t do"

    Please provide proof of that assertion.

    Ok, I’ll bite. Only part of the answer is wage price (ie the right price.) Wally ever tried to hire white faces outside Fresno or Bakersfield in December to pick bollies (unopened cotton bolls) for the going price growers have “agreed” to pay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Those pickers, who BTW are doomed by machine picking, are pre-approved by 'government'?

    Anecdotes won't cut it.
    Where's the proof that I requested?

    I'm afraid those false thoughts hold no water:

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=upjwWoTPN4PRjAPb1YXoAw&q=jobs+americans+won%27t+do&oq=jobs+americans+won%27t+do&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1340.11130.0.12028.23.23.0.0.0.0.128.2104.17j6.23.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.13.1342...0j46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.69HikyndpkM
    , @notanon
    the price of labor has been lowered by mass immigration to match the cost of living in the countries the workers send their money back to as remittances - it's an arbitrage scam and should be treated as economic treason.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. phil says:
    @res

    It is unwise for The Unz Review even to have published this article.
     
    Unwise because it oversteps the evidence (and it does IMHO) or unwise because you think the underlying conclusions are wrong?

    It’s just ridiculous to post as a “headline” article that the case for genetically-based racial differences in intelligence has been “proven,” and the world is not being allowed to see the “proof.” Neil Risch (population geneticist at the University of California-San Francisco) has taken note of Piffer’s work, but he is not going to take seriously a claim published under a pseudonym that a proof now exists.
    To me, this makes The Unz Review look like a crackpot website.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @res
    I tend to agree with that. It is hard to balance open publishing of controversial ideas with avoiding "crackpottery." Perhaps the best response is commenters calling out rhetorical oversteps like that? As you did.

    Can you elaborate on what form Risch's noticing of Piffer's work has taken?
    , @lavoisier

    To me, this makes The Unz Review look like a crackpot website.
     
    Well, it is seen as a crackpot website already by the great and the good because it publishes ideas that are clearly outside the narrative.

    But no matter. Ideas stand on their own merits, whether considered to be crackpot or not.

    But on this essay I would have to agree with you. I have scarce doubt that there exist genetic differences in the ability to reason between various human subpopulations. Either evolution is true or it is not. I happen to think that Darwin was right.

    But this article implies that the definitive proof for genetic differences in intelligence has been written and it is being suppressed.

    You are right this is a bit overstated.

    But who cares if Unz is considered crackpot by the great and the good?

    The more relevant issue is whether or not what is being published here approximates reality or the truth.

    , @Wally
    Then why then do they refuse to publish 'genetically-based racial differences in intelligence' and let others review it?

    Let the debate begin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Meimou says:
    @phil
    "IQ is based on the physical traits on the brain, physical traits are largely genetic."

    "The genetics of IQ is hard science, it is not social science, and it is only contentious because of politics, not evidence."

    "'Educational attainment' is not IQ."


    IQ is certainly related to brain activity, and the brain can be affected by "social" activities (e.g., education) as well as narrowly biological factors (e.g., parasites). Disentangling the separate impacts of genes, the physical environment, and the social environment is difficult in any case. The discussion is indeed especially contentious in light of politics.

    "Educational" attainment is indeed not the same thing as IQ so an attempt to correlate the presence of certain gene variants with educational attainment does not come close to proving that the highlighted genes account for a major part of the variation in IQ scores.

    It is unwise for The Unz Review even to have published this article.

    IQ is certainly related to brain activity, and the brain can be affected by “social” activities (e.g., education) as well as narrowly biological factors (e.g., parasites). Disentangling the separate impacts of genes, the physical environment, and the social environment is difficult in any case. The discussion is indeed especially contentious in light of politics.

    You don’t think psychometricans took physical/social environment into account for over 100 years? Do you think they were engaging in mass fraud? None of those things would account for persistent differences among the four races and racial groups within thoses races; thoses who are mixed race score in between their respective races; the IQ gap between American blacks and whites has always been 1 SD.

    Environment would not explain why Ashkenazis would score higher the verbal subtest and East Asians in the spatial. Genetics do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    For those who don't follow James Thompson's blog, it is worthwhile to know that (AFAICT) Phil is extremely knowledgeable in this area. It is worth reading what he says carefully and paying close attention to exactly what he does and does not say. For example, this:

    "Educational" attainment is indeed not the same thing as IQ so an attempt to correlate the presence of certain gene variants with educational attainment does not come close to proving that the highlighted genes account for a major part of the variation in IQ scores.
     
    is hard for an objective observer to deny IMO (as an example of close reading, note the word major). And is a good thing for all of us to remember.

    On the other hand, I think it is equally hard to deny that Piffer's work makes it unlikely that there is no genetic contribution to racial differences in IQ scores. The consistency and magnitude of these relationships is very much an open question though.
    , @hyperbola
    Today psychology itself is a fraud invented by a small, racist-supremacist, corrupt sect.

    google( Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the War on the West )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Meimou says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…
     
    Hahahah...

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/mn-mongolia

    Mongolia: Avg. IQ 101

    GDP per capita: $ 12,551

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/lt-lithuania

    Lithuania: Avg. IQ 91

    GDP per capita: $ 31,935

    Ok…

    IQ and RACE are the most predictive attributes when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. George says:

    Does educational achievement mean smart or does it mean the individual is willing to subject themselves to a certain classroom environment for decades? Maybe the gene in question enables you to sit in one place for long hours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    How do "genes ... enable you to sit in one place for long hours"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. res says:
    @phil
    It's just ridiculous to post as a "headline" article that the case for genetically-based racial differences in intelligence has been "proven," and the world is not being allowed to see the "proof." Neil Risch (population geneticist at the University of California-San Francisco) has taken note of Piffer's work, but he is not going to take seriously a claim published under a pseudonym that a proof now exists.
    To me, this makes The Unz Review look like a crackpot website.

    I tend to agree with that. It is hard to balance open publishing of controversial ideas with avoiding “crackpottery.” Perhaps the best response is commenters calling out rhetorical oversteps like that? As you did.

    Can you elaborate on what form Risch’s noticing of Piffer’s work has taken?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. res says:
    @Meimou
    IQ is certainly related to brain activity, and the brain can be affected by “social” activities (e.g., education) as well as narrowly biological factors (e.g., parasites). Disentangling the separate impacts of genes, the physical environment, and the social environment is difficult in any case. The discussion is indeed especially contentious in light of politics.

    You don't think psychometricans took physical/social environment into account for over 100 years? Do you think they were engaging in mass fraud? None of those things would account for persistent differences among the four races and racial groups within thoses races; thoses who are mixed race score in between their respective races; the IQ gap between American blacks and whites has always been 1 SD.

    Environment would not explain why Ashkenazis would score higher the verbal subtest and East Asians in the spatial. Genetics do.

    For those who don’t follow James Thompson’s blog, it is worthwhile to know that (AFAICT) Phil is extremely knowledgeable in this area. It is worth reading what he says carefully and paying close attention to exactly what he does and does not say. For example, this:

    “Educational” attainment is indeed not the same thing as IQ so an attempt to correlate the presence of certain gene variants with educational attainment does not come close to proving that the highlighted genes account for a major part of the variation in IQ scores.

    is hard for an objective observer to deny IMO (as an example of close reading, note the word major). And is a good thing for all of us to remember.

    On the other hand, I think it is equally hard to deny that Piffer’s work makes it unlikely that there is no genetic contribution to racial differences in IQ scores. The consistency and magnitude of these relationships is very much an open question though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. res says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…
     
    Hahahah...

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/mn-mongolia

    Mongolia: Avg. IQ 101

    GDP per capita: $ 12,551

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/lt-lithuania

    Lithuania: Avg. IQ 91

    GDP per capita: $ 31,935

    Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…

    Hahahah…

    Sure there are exceptions. Do you have a better predicting attribute to offer?

    This has an interesting look at IQ and GDP: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

    Anyone interested in these sorts of correlations should check out Heiner Rindermann’s recent book discussed here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/cognitive-capitalism-2/

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Sure there are exceptions. Do you have a better predicting attribute to offer?
     
    Which is chicken, which is egg: social class or IQ? Has the causal relationship between the two really been disentangled?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. lavoisier says: • Website
    @phil
    It's just ridiculous to post as a "headline" article that the case for genetically-based racial differences in intelligence has been "proven," and the world is not being allowed to see the "proof." Neil Risch (population geneticist at the University of California-San Francisco) has taken note of Piffer's work, but he is not going to take seriously a claim published under a pseudonym that a proof now exists.
    To me, this makes The Unz Review look like a crackpot website.

    To me, this makes The Unz Review look like a crackpot website.

    Well, it is seen as a crackpot website already by the great and the good because it publishes ideas that are clearly outside the narrative.

    But no matter. Ideas stand on their own merits, whether considered to be crackpot or not.

    But on this essay I would have to agree with you. I have scarce doubt that there exist genetic differences in the ability to reason between various human subpopulations. Either evolution is true or it is not. I happen to think that Darwin was right.

    But this article implies that the definitive proof for genetic differences in intelligence has been written and it is being suppressed.

    You are right this is a bit overstated.

    But who cares if Unz is considered crackpot by the great and the good?

    The more relevant issue is whether or not what is being published here approximates reality or the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. The paper should be published regardless of who doesn’t like it. Intelligence is clearly largely genetic, as witness pit bulls and Border Collies. Yet something else may be going on. Think the lumiferous ether before Michaelson-Morley.

    Pure-blooded MesoAmerican Indians in Mexico have a mean IQ of 83, yet invented writing, done perhaps three times in all history, as well as the wheel and an exponential-positional number system, better than anything in Europe at the time, and built five-story concrete buildings, one of which I have been in.

    Colombiams have a mean IQ of 84, but run a country with airlines, telecommunications etc and design and build skyscrapers.

    American blacks have a mean IQ of 85, and therefore are capable of inventing writing and number systems as well as running modern cities with internet and so on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "Pure-blooded MesoAmerican Indians in Mexico have a mean IQ of 83, yet invented writing, done perhaps three times in all history, as well as the wheel and an exponential-positional number system, better than anything in Europe at the time, and built five-story concrete buildings, one of which I have been in.
    Colombiams have a mean IQ of 84, but run a country with airlines, telecommunications etc and design and build skyscrapers.
    American blacks have a mean IQ of 85, and therefore are capable of inventing writing and number systems as well as running modern cities with internet and so on
    ."

    No they don't. It's the Europeans around those cultures which do the heavy lifting.

    The cultural Marxists have arrived. LOL

    , @RaceRealist88
    "Intelligence is clearly largely genetic"

    How much is "largely genetic" and how do you parse "genes" from "environment"?

    "yet invented writing, done perhaps three times in all history, as well as the wheel and an exponential-positional number system, better than anything in Europe at the time, and built five-story concrete buildings, one of which I have been in."

    What does old thousdand+ year old civilizational achievement have to do with 'IQ'?

    "Colombiams have a mean IQ of 84, but run a country with airlines, telecommunications etc and design and build skyscrapers."

    Maybe 'IQ' doesn't mean anything? Crazy talk. . .

    "American blacks have a mean IQ of 85, and therefore are capable of inventing writing and number systems as well as running modern cities with internet and so on."

    You're basing this on 'IQ' numbers from today, extrapolating 'IQ' numbers from modern peoples who are the descendants of the peoples who did the accomplishments . . . is this a joke?
    , @TheBoom
    Fred, all those groups mentioned generate very little innovation especially in STEM where the innovation is from groups with higher IQs. The groups you mention are more consumers and adapters than innovators. If all of Latin America and Sub Saharan Africa were removed from history very little would be lost.
    , @utu

    The paper should be published regardless of who doesn’t like it.
     
    Why don't you start Fred's Journal of Yahoo Science and publish it? What do you know about scientific standards? Piffer's paper should have been shot down and it was. It is strange however that some reviewers gave it a pass. This what you get when referees are anonymous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Eagle Eye says:
    @Joe Hide
    Wow! What's with all the character assassinating commenters? Are they afraid of something the author wrote? Many of their emotional arguments are couched in nebulous statistical terms and virtue signaling. This is not the way to win an argument
    Here's a way...if we wait patiently, gene editing, brain-biochemical manipulation, sperm / egg hyper-selection, hardware and software brain implants, enhanced human-computer network connectivity, etc will increase I.Q.'s dramatically.

    gene editing, brain-biochemical manipulation, … , etc will increase I.Q.’s dramatically.

    True in theory. The POLITICAL reality is that gene editing will be used to turn 99% of the population into an array of subordinate castes (jatis, in Hindu terminology), whose sole purpose is to serve and pleasure a small, high-IQ alpha race with its hands on all levers of power.

    The lives of subordinate caste members will be cheap, any alpha may kill, torture or rape them at will, and they will be systematically killed once age reduces their fitness to serve.

    The personalities of subordinate jatis will be programmed to make them serve cheerfully, selflessly and tirelessly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    everything you say *would* happen is already happening right now except through lying about the genetic basis of IQ and using that to get the higher average IQ populations to mix with lower average IQ populations to create the jatis while the people driving the process make sure to avoid it themselves.
    , @Dale
    Brave New World indeed!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. it would be interesting to study the sibling/parents scores of the same persons at the same ages used in the Genome Wide Association Study in test designed in cultural components for each environment in which a data point was used in the paper. Just seems to me not enough has been controlled to make such statements.

    Genomic data is always suspect as to its reliability..
    Is it true that gene product response vs environmental variable is measurable, for any or each of the data points?

    I suspect software will soon be able to express IQ via robotic interface at levels much higher than 200.
    A few weeks to program the test answers and genius by the thousands will be produced.
    It might not take much to image the kinds of papers on the subject the robots might produce?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Tyrion 2 says:
    @res
    Could you elaborate? The difference I see is in phenotypic vs. genotypic characteristics. The interesting part of Piffer's work is the correlation between the two at a population level. And how that makes it unlikely (but not yet proved) that there is no genetic contribution to those between group differences.

    Could you elaborate? The difference I see is in phenotypic vs. genotypic characteristics. The interesting part of Piffer’s work is the correlation between the two at a population level. And how that makes it unlikely (but not yet proved) that there is no genetic contribution to those between group differences.

    The hereditary component of intelligence is polygenic. Only a fraction of the pertinent genes have been identified.

    The process of identifying them has been biased towards finding those more prevalent among some groups than others, therefore basing one’s estimation of hereditary intelligence from the distribution of these genes reflects those biases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Agreed about all of that (your comment 11 seemed different in emphasis to me, perhaps I misread). Which is exactly why it is surprising that Piffer sees such good correlations. Even with his 9 SNP PGS! The resulting hypothesis is that the most easily detected SNPs serve as signals of selection pressure within a population and therefore make a good measure for comparing country level IQs. The statistical averaging is necessary to make that work. I would not expect the simple PGS to have a good predictive result for individuals.
    , @Stan d Mute

    The process of identifying them has been biased towards finding those more prevalent among some groups than others, therefore basing one’s estimation of hereditary intelligence from the distribution of these genes reflects those biases.
     
    You can’t just make that statement in a vacuum.

    Why is it “biased”? Perhaps because the group doing the testing developed written languages and advanced mathematics as well as 100% of the scientific and technological work necessary to create the devices to conduct the tests? And that the lesser tested populations are harder to find near where the testing is currently being done? And that everyone is terrified of this topic because we lack a moral/ethical agreement on how to address the subject of eugenics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res


    Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…
     
    Hahahah…
     
    Sure there are exceptions. Do you have a better predicting attribute to offer?

    This has an interesting look at IQ and GDP: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

    Anyone interested in these sorts of correlations should check out Heiner Rindermann's recent book discussed here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/cognitive-capitalism-2/

    Sure there are exceptions. Do you have a better predicting attribute to offer?

    Which is chicken, which is egg: social class or IQ? Has the causal relationship between the two really been disentangled?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Rindermann tries to disentangle wealth and cognitive ability at the country level. He uses lagged data (1970-2010) to do this.

    I find the results both very interesting and intuitively appealing. In Figure 10.3 on page 232 he lays out his conclusion:
    - Wealth is relevant for the cognitive development of the poor.
    - Cognitive ability is relevant for the wealth development of the rich.

    This is a bit different from your question, but I think it is instructive.

    If you are truly interested in an answer to your question I would recommend reading section 10.1 of Rindermann's book. If for no other reason than to look at his methodology.
    , @RaceRealist88
    Social class causes IQ scores; IQ isn't "genetic".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @j2
    It is very difficult to get your work published in a top journal. It can be easier for some, but mostly it is not anything to wonder if the manuscript gets rejected. I would imagine that a paper from his university has a much better chance to get a careful review than a paper from many other places.

    I have read several of Piffer's papers. I am not quite convinced of his method. As the new editor if Intelligence had worked on mental retardation, the genetic basis of mental retardation is on a much firmer ground with good mathematical models. Compared to those, maybe Piffer's method is lacking rigority.

    As for the general claim that races have different IQs, it is not so clear what it means. I looked at some videos with Australian Aborigines. They did not sound like having an IQ 62. Before Europeans came there, these people all spoke 2-3 languages and some much more, as they had so many languages. Is it related to IQ? Hard to say. They get this IQ about 62, so it is measured, but what does it mean is another thing. It is still a valid to question the terms IQ and race in this case.

    The theory, like in Piffer's work, that the recently found IQ genes from GWAS determine IQ may be wrong. They influence IQ, but it might be that they only decrease IQ with some compensating mutations increasing IQ, but the genetic IQ may be something different, for instance genes that are fixed in the population and do not show in GWAS. There are so many possibilities for a genetic theory of IQ. There are many contradictions so far. I think we are still very far from a correct genetic theory of IQ, so rejecting a manuscript may have reasons other than a SJW editor.

    Before Europeans came there, these people all spoke 2-3 languages and some much more, as they had so many languages.

    First, how large were the vocabularies of these languages? How complex grammatically? How similar were they to each other? And what proof is there of your claim since they weren’t written languages and no census was taken of their speakers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    Proof is only anecdotal:
    'Project aims to halt loss of Aboriginal languages', AFP 26/10/2010
    referred in:
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/australia-tries-to-halt-loss-of-aboriginal-languages/news-story/0d0ccb9745bfbfb81c98f4f0764dbfed
    LORRAINE Injie smiles as she remembers the rich patchwork of Aboriginal languages used during her childhood in Australia's remote Pilbara region.
    "In my community, it was common to speak 10 languages. Speaking three wasn't that impressive," she says.

    The languages belong to 26 language families and many are very different, however it is not possible to say is this Lorraine Injie remembers correctly, nor if those languages were very different. They do speak two languages though, the other is avoidance language, which has the same grammar but different vocabulary, though very small. Actually, they probably did speak several languages since there were only few speakers of each language and hunter-gatherers are not so closed a group as castes in India. In Eurasia hunter-gatherers apparently formed one community exchanging wives between themselves, this follows from ancient DNA studies.

    How well they spoke other languages does not follow from this oral memory. However, please notice that IQ 62 means mental retardation in our culture. It does not imply mental retardation in their culture. This may be because in our culture people, who have this low IQ have genes that decrease IQ, mild mental retardation, while they probably lack both genes increasing IQ and genes lowering IQ. Their population (about 1 million in the continent) was so low that they have a smaller number of mutations than we.

    Hope this answers all your questions. Please, check the aboriginal languages.
    , @Anon
    That IQ of 62 for Australian Aborigines being taken seriously has always seemed to me to be a way for Phil Rushton and Richard Lynn to make fools of themselves but I don't think scepticism about speaking several languages is your strongest point. Your really good point is about the extent of the vocabulary for each language - maybe only a small fraction of the vocabulary of a European language today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Wally says:
    @Hood Canal Gardner
    Ok, I'll bite. Only part of the answer is wage price (ie the right price.) Wally ever tried to hire white faces outside Fresno or Bakersfield in December to pick bollies (unopened cotton bolls) for the going price growers have "agreed" to pay?

    Those pickers, who BTW are doomed by machine picking, are pre-approved by ‘government’?

    Anecdotes won’t cut it.
    Where’s the proof that I requested?

    I’m afraid those false thoughts hold no water:

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=upjwWoTPN4PRjAPb1YXoAw&q=jobs+americans+won%27t+do&oq=jobs+americans+won%27t+do&gs_l=psy-ab.3…1340.11130.0.12028.23.23.0.0.0.0.128.2104.17j6.23.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.13.1342…0j46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.69HikyndpkM

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uslabor
    Pickers are doomed by picking machine?

    Until the power runs out, then we're all pickers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Wally says:
    @phil
    It's just ridiculous to post as a "headline" article that the case for genetically-based racial differences in intelligence has been "proven," and the world is not being allowed to see the "proof." Neil Risch (population geneticist at the University of California-San Francisco) has taken note of Piffer's work, but he is not going to take seriously a claim published under a pseudonym that a proof now exists.
    To me, this makes The Unz Review look like a crackpot website.

    Then why then do they refuse to publish ‘genetically-based racial differences in intelligence’ and let others review it?

    Let the debate begin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. utu says:
    @Wally
    said:
    "Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious. His high correlation between the list of Lynn’s IQ with several SNP’s (was it 8?)is spurious. No amount of work will prove that it is not so because the sample (even if all 200 or so countries were included) is way too small. ... "

    If that was actually true, then wouldn't it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?

    If that was actually true, then wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?

    The triviality of it. The correlation he got is correct but there are millions of combinations of SNPs that will give even better correlation. Actually Piffer via random Monte Carlo search found some of them. The correlation is spurious. It means nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    The correlation is spurious. It means nothing.
     
    We shall see...
    , @Svigor
    Yeah but if that's actually true, then shouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?
    , @Wally
    You dodged my question, which was:

    "... wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Wally says:
    @Frederick V. Reed
    The paper should be published regardless of who doesn't like it. Intelligence is clearly largely genetic, as witness pit bulls and Border Collies. Yet something else may be going on. Think the lumiferous ether before Michaelson-Morley.

    Pure-blooded MesoAmerican Indians in Mexico have a mean IQ of 83, yet invented writing, done perhaps three times in all history, as well as the wheel and an exponential-positional number system, better than anything in Europe at the time, and built five-story concrete buildings, one of which I have been in.

    Colombiams have a mean IQ of 84, but run a country with airlines, telecommunications etc and design and build skyscrapers.

    American blacks have a mean IQ of 85, and therefore are capable of inventing writing and number systems as well as running modern cities with internet and so on.

    said:
    Pure-blooded MesoAmerican Indians in Mexico have a mean IQ of 83, yet invented writing, done perhaps three times in all history, as well as the wheel and an exponential-positional number system, better than anything in Europe at the time, and built five-story concrete buildings, one of which I have been in.
    Colombiams have a mean IQ of 84, but run a country with airlines, telecommunications etc and design and build skyscrapers.
    American blacks have a mean IQ of 85, and therefore are capable of inventing writing and number systems as well as running modern cities with internet and so on
    .”

    No they don’t. It’s the Europeans around those cultures which do the heavy lifting.

    The cultural Marxists have arrived. LOL

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    It would be frankly impossible for Mesoamericans to have been "helped" by Europeans in creating a writing system when Europeans had not yet arrived in the Western Hemisphere. Would you agree?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. utu says:
    @Anonymous

    Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious.
     
    Utu, I don't think that you are qualified to judge it. I remember how in the thread on Piffer on Steve Hsu blog you clearly demonstrated lack of understanding of a couple of basic concepts in genetics and statistics.

    Truth is, it feels like it should be easy but in reality pointing an unambiguous critical flaw in Piffer's results is actually very difficult. I think that James Thompson has it right by saying that they seem to represent a puzzle: it shouldn't work but it seems like it actually does. If true, a serious effort to understand why is likely to reveal something important about genetics. Saying that the results are rubbish but refusing to explain why is atrocious argument and atrocious science.

    I don’t think that…Truth is….

    Don’t you get that correlation he got is spurious and it won’t be proven otherwise with his approach? Finding groups of SNPs that correlation with any sequence of random numbers is easy for short sequences. His sequence is short: 20 or so countries. Actually Piffer with Monte Carlo search for SNPS that corrupted with his data better than the ones he picked initially. His science is crap. He is just a confidence men. He thinks his chutzpah will carry him not science and now he will be crying oy vey, I am bing discriminated . I am a new Giordano Bruno.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Finding groups of SNPs that correlation with any sequence of random numbers is easy for short sequences.
     
    What you studiously ignore is that Piffer did not pick the SNPs. He just extracts them from a variety of GWAS. The consistency of his results should be a clue, but you seem to be intentionally obtuse about this.
    , @Anonymous
    Oh, Utu! Sigh. We've been there and you still don't understand (don't want to?):

    Piffer's correlation cannot be simply spurious. It reproduces nicely on different datasets. That's an essence of cross-validation: if you overfit data to pick some spurious noise, the fit will fail on an independent dataset because the noise--by definition--is going to be completely different there. The datasets in question are of sufficiently different origin that it would be incredibly strange for them to possess the same noise.

    Next, please understand that he does not just search for SNPs to cherry-pick to produce highest correlations. He merely picks strongest signals that repeatedly come up in GWAS on things related to cognitive skills - then uses them to find out what population-level correlations they have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Meimou says:

    Can anyone provide a logical reason why the races would have the same Iq when they evolved in very different environments?

    Different hair
    Different skin
    Different eyes.

    Same brain?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Different hair
    Different skin
    Different eyes.

    Same brain?
     
    I do so wish people would stop even mentioning the utterly superficial and meaningless hair/skin/eye markers. We KNOW how to identify skeletal remains with nearly perfect accuracy into their correct racial category. We KNOW how to identify race with nearly perfect accuracy using nothing but brain MRIs. We KNOW races differ in virtually every observable way and oftentimes differ enough that were they not human we would classify them as different sub-species (or sub-species and breed like with Canis lupus).

    Here’s just the most recent on MRI ID of ethnicity via brain scan. Note they’re able to differentiate between populations within Iran - an order of magnitude finer granulation than continental scale populations like negro/European/East Asian. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/nri/2018/8916035/

    “Skin color”? No, how about “brain structure”!
    , @RaceRealist88
    P1) Natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival.
    P2) Intelligence is important for survival.
    C) Ergo, intelligence should have a low to nonexistent genetic variation in humans.

    And IQ isn't "intelligence".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. utu says:
    @res

    Davide Piffer’s science is atrocious.
     
    What about the science in the Coop lab paper I linked above? Do you think that methodology is usable for EA and IQ? Perhaps you could explain to me how their underlying methodology differs from Piffer's?

    Utu, as you are well aware from conversations on James Thompson's blog, perhaps the most interesting thing about Piffer's work is how well it correlates across successively higher resolution GWAS. The theory that a small set of (the most important) SNPs can indicate selection pressure through their high correlation with phenotypic data is fascinating.

    Regarding % variance explained, do you think Hsu's work on height explains enough (~40%) to be useful?

    Thanks for links to Coop lab. It seems their objections are reasonable.

    Hsu with 40% can give some basis for looking at height between different populations . His polygenic score is linear so averages (frequencies) for distinct populations could be calculated. Hsu used thousands of SNP’s. Would you expect that only 8 among them would give high correlation for averages? And if so, would you bet on it that the correlation is casual and not spurious? How would you know the difference? But certainly much better case can be made for height than IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Would you expect that only 8 among them would give high correlation for averages?
     
    That is a testable question. Piffer's early results for height make this seem likely, but we need Hsu et al.'s PGS to make good comparisons.

    I think a good test of Piffer's methodology would be to use Hsu's methods to create PGS based on different subsets of SNPs (in order of p value in the GWAS say, since that is the order in which discoveries might be made) and then compare how successful those are in correlating with country wide heights.

    Note the importance of picking the SNPs with the strongest signals rather than just a random subset. This is necessary both so the SNPs chosen properly affect selection pressure AND to avoid multiple hypothesis testing issues.

    If the correlations are consistently similar and high I would consider that as good a validation of Piffer's methodology as we are likely to get. To make things really work we need cross-racial GWAS, but if we get good results even without that I think it is strong support.

    And if so, would you bet on it that the correlation is casual and not spurious?
     
    Yes. (causal) Would you bet against that?

    How would you know the difference?
     
    Piffer's Monte Carlo p-value technique seems good for this. But just seeing a number of successively more detailed PGS give similar results would be good enough for me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Logan says:

    Minor nit. This is evidence, not proof, which is sufficient evidence to meet whatever criterion has been decided on as constituting proof.

    Pet peeve of mine is when people will say there is “no evidence” of something. This is almost always untrue, and what they mean is that the evidence isn’t sufficient to constitute proof. Which then itself may or may not be true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. utu says:
    @laguerre

    This comes out of Ben Gurion University Israel.
     
    This is the point, isn't it? He's just a crumby academic out to make some noise, to advance himself. Masters at the unexceptional Durham, and he's still doing his doctorate, not yet finished, at one of the most racist universities around. At his immature stage of research, he shouldn't be claiming to have made world-changing advances. He simply doesn't have the experience. It's more likely that he's just a publicity-seeking prick.

    It’s more likely that he’s just a publicity-seeking prick.

    The man is chutzpah personified.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @manorchurch

    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Still?

    1.What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?
     
    Yes, IQ tests are culturally dependent. I am aware that you cannot be convinced of it, but such is truth before those who cannot believe.

    On a "Look, Stupid" note, in cultures that don't use numbers as an integral part of social function, it is very difficult for members to acquire the concept, and to memorize numbers in backward order.

    Plus, you forgot (?) that memorization is not a function of intelligence. Of IQ? Oh, yeah. Of Intelligence? Oh, no.

    Youse guys never change. As you were! Resume scuffling!

    On a “Look, Stupid” note, in cultures that don’t use numbers as an integral part of social function, it is very difficult for members to acquire the concept, and to memorize numbers in backward order.

    Plus, you forgot (?) that memorization is not a function of intelligence. Of IQ? Oh, yeah. Of Intelligence? Oh, no.

    You conflate intelligence with reproductive success and survival. Further, memory absolutely must be a component of intelligence (if intelligence is defined as a package including ability to recognize patterns, process sense data, etc, obviously one must store and retrieve previous inputs).

    Overall, this article leaves too many unanswered questions. Has this guy developed any new method of statistical analysis? What’s really new here? Has he simply compared new GWAS data to older studies and meta-studies?

    And why wouldn’t indisputable proof of genetic IQ determinism simply result in a new form of Affirmative Action and/or welfare rather than the “acceptance” of different racial outcomes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    You conflate intelligence with reproductive success and survival.
     
    Oh, good lord, don't be ridiculous. Reproductive success is not intelligence. Conflating the two would mean -- oh, cripes, look it up.

    I didn't say "memory"; I said "memorization". Memorization is not a measure of intelligence.

    As for the rest, I agree. The article is beyond superfluous. As for Affirmative Action, it is a political issue and has no intersection with IQ, or intelligence.
    , @Svigor

    And why wouldn’t indisputable proof of genetic IQ determinism simply result in a new form of Affirmative Action and/or welfare rather than the “acceptance” of different racial outcomes?
     
    Whites are assumed culpable for Black failure, and discrimination in non-Whites' favor ("Affirmative Action") is widely thought of as righteous punishment for that guilt. Ergo, HBD weakens the underpinnings of "Affirmative Action." This is manifestly so; if leftist fanatics found some other underpinning more persuasive, they'd have switched to it by now.
    , @notanon
    any genetic based problem can be fixed (over generations) through selective breeding and/or screening

    the irony here is the people who have most to gain from the truth are the populations at the bottom of the IQ pyramid
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @res

    If genetic research has all sorts of politically correct social scientists freaking out at the idea it can be construed to bear out White Supremacy in intelligence
     
    The funny thing is that freak out only exposes the idiocy of PC social scientists who don't seem to understand the concept of "East Asian" and how that relates to "White Supremacy."

    The funny thing is that freak out only exposes the idiocy of PC social scientists who don’t seem to understand the concept of “East Asian” and how that relates to “White Supremacy.”

    Not at all. What it exposes is how the PC commies have bowdlerized the language whenever it reflects poorly on the saintly negroes. ANY word associated strongly enough and long enough with the negro eventually acquires negative connotation. And ONLY two races matter in America. So “white supremacy” is simply another way of saying “negro inferiority” or “negro failure” rather than any serious assertion. This is most obvious with Jews who everyone, absolutely everyone, except Jews themselves, identify as “white”, but also with South Asians who are as dark toned as negroes but never counted amongst them.

    What terrifies (secretly) the non-retarded PC crowd is the notion that negroes truly are irredeemably unintelligent, significantly more violent, and far more fecund than other population groups. That while it appears the American contintental aborigines can at least be tamed and managed productively, the negro cannot. This is a HUGE problem that they simply cannot bear to contemplate and I suspect most “race-realists” have also avoided.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. On this issue, many people have trouble stepping back, thinking clearly and using what I call “CFS” (Common F-king Sense).

    Just because we have a hard time quantifying something that is obvious does not mean that its existence is in doubt. The evidence on this issue is voluminous and overwhelming. In addition, all the evidence is either inconclusive or weighs heavily on the scale of heritable race differences, with the vast majority in the later category. No evidence points in the opposite direction (eg, Blacks Africans having higher IQs).

    Piffer’s work needs to be taken for what it’s worth: another small piece of evidence weighing on one side of the scale. It’s not proof in and of itself.

    We knew the Earth was round before we knew its mass, composition, surface irregularities, etc. Race and intelligence is quite similar. We’re probably still far away from a supercomputer that can analyze non-additive gene combinations, unique genotype by environment interactions, etc. But do we need to get to that point before we can assert race differences in intelligence?

    Reading anthropologist Vincent Sarcih, I wonder if we’ve known races are inherently different as long as we’ve known the Earth is round.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. hyperbola says:
    @Meimou
    IQ is certainly related to brain activity, and the brain can be affected by “social” activities (e.g., education) as well as narrowly biological factors (e.g., parasites). Disentangling the separate impacts of genes, the physical environment, and the social environment is difficult in any case. The discussion is indeed especially contentious in light of politics.

    You don't think psychometricans took physical/social environment into account for over 100 years? Do you think they were engaging in mass fraud? None of those things would account for persistent differences among the four races and racial groups within thoses races; thoses who are mixed race score in between their respective races; the IQ gap between American blacks and whites has always been 1 SD.

    Environment would not explain why Ashkenazis would score higher the verbal subtest and East Asians in the spatial. Genetics do.

    Today psychology itself is a fraud invented by a small, racist-supremacist, corrupt sect.

    google( Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the War on the West )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Wally
    said:
    "Pure-blooded MesoAmerican Indians in Mexico have a mean IQ of 83, yet invented writing, done perhaps three times in all history, as well as the wheel and an exponential-positional number system, better than anything in Europe at the time, and built five-story concrete buildings, one of which I have been in.
    Colombiams have a mean IQ of 84, but run a country with airlines, telecommunications etc and design and build skyscrapers.
    American blacks have a mean IQ of 85, and therefore are capable of inventing writing and number systems as well as running modern cities with internet and so on
    ."

    No they don't. It's the Europeans around those cultures which do the heavy lifting.

    The cultural Marxists have arrived. LOL

    It would be frankly impossible for Mesoamericans to have been “helped” by Europeans in creating a writing system when Europeans had not yet arrived in the Western Hemisphere. Would you agree?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yes, IF they had created a writing system other than the pictorial symbols for the elite who by selection did not have the mentioned "mean IQ of 83".
    Of course, the run of the mill meso-Americans did not, could not design the structures found there.

    And as usual you dodged the rest.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Meimou
    Can anyone provide a logical reason why the races would have the same Iq when they evolved in very different environments?

    Different hair
    Different skin
    Different eyes.

    Same brain?

    Different hair
    Different skin
    Different eyes.

    Same brain?

    I do so wish people would stop even mentioning the utterly superficial and meaningless hair/skin/eye markers. We KNOW how to identify skeletal remains with nearly perfect accuracy into their correct racial category. We KNOW how to identify race with nearly perfect accuracy using nothing but brain MRIs. We KNOW races differ in virtually every observable way and oftentimes differ enough that were they not human we would classify them as different sub-species (or sub-species and breed like with Canis lupus).

    Here’s just the most recent on MRI ID of ethnicity via brain scan. Note they’re able to differentiate between populations within Iran – an order of magnitude finer granulation than continental scale populations like negro/European/East Asian. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/nri/2018/8916035/

    “Skin color”? No, how about “brain structure”!

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Really significant study with a total of 76 individuals. At that sample size it would be stunning if they did not find any differences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Stan d Mute

    On a “Look, Stupid” note, in cultures that don’t use numbers as an integral part of social function, it is very difficult for members to acquire the concept, and to memorize numbers in backward order.

    Plus, you forgot (?) that memorization is not a function of intelligence. Of IQ? Oh, yeah. Of Intelligence? Oh, no.
     
    You conflate intelligence with reproductive success and survival. Further, memory absolutely must be a component of intelligence (if intelligence is defined as a package including ability to recognize patterns, process sense data, etc, obviously one must store and retrieve previous inputs).

    Overall, this article leaves too many unanswered questions. Has this guy developed any new method of statistical analysis? What’s really new here? Has he simply compared new GWAS data to older studies and meta-studies?

    And why wouldn’t indisputable proof of genetic IQ determinism simply result in a new form of Affirmative Action and/or welfare rather than the “acceptance” of different racial outcomes?

    You conflate intelligence with reproductive success and survival.

    Oh, good lord, don’t be ridiculous. Reproductive success is not intelligence. Conflating the two would mean — oh, cripes, look it up.

    I didn’t say “memory”; I said “memorization”. Memorization is not a measure of intelligence.

    As for the rest, I agree. The article is beyond superfluous. As for Affirmative Action, it is a political issue and has no intersection with IQ, or intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. res says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Could you elaborate? The difference I see is in phenotypic vs. genotypic characteristics. The interesting part of Piffer’s work is the correlation between the two at a population level. And how that makes it unlikely (but not yet proved) that there is no genetic contribution to those between group differences.
     
    The hereditary component of intelligence is polygenic. Only a fraction of the pertinent genes have been identified.

    The process of identifying them has been biased towards finding those more prevalent among some groups than others, therefore basing one's estimation of hereditary intelligence from the distribution of these genes reflects those biases.

    Agreed about all of that (your comment 11 seemed different in emphasis to me, perhaps I misread). Which is exactly why it is surprising that Piffer sees such good correlations. Even with his 9 SNP PGS! The resulting hypothesis is that the most easily detected SNPs serve as signals of selection pressure within a population and therefore make a good measure for comparing country level IQs. The statistical averaging is necessary to make that work. I would not expect the simple PGS to have a good predictive result for individuals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Mishra

    Lance Welton is the pen name of a freelance journalist.
     
    Ya gotta admit, it's a tad ironic that the author of this article must remain anonymous.

    (Or--yes--pseudonymous, if you're all spergy and such.)

    (And--yes--one may argue that the word "must" should be replaced with "feels the need to"...)

    (Or–yes–pseudonymous, if you’re all spergy and such.)

    Pu-liece: Since we have no proof yet, that he is really using a pen name, we’d be better cautious and speak of a supposed pseudonymity or some such).

    argue that the word “must” should be replaced with “feels the need to”…)

    This could be a trifle wrong as well, so: In case, this really was a pseudonymic handle, it could (could!) show, that the author “felt the need to”. Or else, it might turn out to be quite different alltogether, such as: The author likes to use – what might to some appear as a pseudonymic handle, but which in reality is (to be ctd. … at infinitum….).

    ( :) )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    Ha! Well, it did say 'pen name'...

    Now tell me your theory about The Saker ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Sure there are exceptions. Do you have a better predicting attribute to offer?
     
    Which is chicken, which is egg: social class or IQ? Has the causal relationship between the two really been disentangled?

    Rindermann tries to disentangle wealth and cognitive ability at the country level. He uses lagged data (1970-2010) to do this.

    I find the results both very interesting and intuitively appealing. In Figure 10.3 on page 232 he lays out his conclusion:
    - Wealth is relevant for the cognitive development of the poor.
    - Cognitive ability is relevant for the wealth development of the rich.

    This is a bit different from your question, but I think it is instructive.

    If you are truly interested in an answer to your question I would recommend reading section 10.1 of Rindermann’s book. If for no other reason than to look at his methodology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Thanks for the informed response. It sounds about right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Tyrion 2

    Could you elaborate? The difference I see is in phenotypic vs. genotypic characteristics. The interesting part of Piffer’s work is the correlation between the two at a population level. And how that makes it unlikely (but not yet proved) that there is no genetic contribution to those between group differences.
     
    The hereditary component of intelligence is polygenic. Only a fraction of the pertinent genes have been identified.

    The process of identifying them has been biased towards finding those more prevalent among some groups than others, therefore basing one's estimation of hereditary intelligence from the distribution of these genes reflects those biases.

    The process of identifying them has been biased towards finding those more prevalent among some groups than others, therefore basing one’s estimation of hereditary intelligence from the distribution of these genes reflects those biases.

    You can’t just make that statement in a vacuum.

    Why is it “biased”? Perhaps because the group doing the testing developed written languages and advanced mathematics as well as 100% of the scientific and technological work necessary to create the devices to conduct the tests? And that the lesser tested populations are harder to find near where the testing is currently being done? And that everyone is terrified of this topic because we lack a moral/ethical agreement on how to address the subject of eugenics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. res says:
    @utu

    If that was actually true, then wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?
     
    The triviality of it. The correlation he got is correct but there are millions of combinations of SNPs that will give even better correlation. Actually Piffer via random Monte Carlo search found some of them. The correlation is spurious. It means nothing.

    The correlation is spurious. It means nothing.

    We shall see…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. A lot of shrieking and virtue signalling in the comments. Because:

    “racial inequality in outcomes will have to be accepted as fair”

    It’s more than that. The stupid people have all manner of extra help, with Head Start, developmemtal delay resources, paying for their food, an entire system geared towards bringing the lowest cohort’s scores up, and all the racial/gender bigotry towards white boys.

    Suppressing the top while teaching to the bottom. In order to level outcomes.

    All a gigantic, collosal counterproductive waste. You cannot admit what an idiotic waste of resources your “virtue” is. It turns virtue into vice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. hyperbola says:
    @llloyd
    This comes out of Ben Gurion University Israel. The worst possible State entity it could come out of. I suspect a Jerusalem agenda here not an Athenian.

    Leading journal “Intelligence” has an impact factor in 2017 of 2.9 – which brings it in at number 2325 in terms of “high quality” journals. “Frontiers in Psychology” has iimpact factor 2.3, which is at number 3580. It seems that this paper is not worth publishing even this low down in the pecking order.

    As for the pre-print site and the “serious citation” claimed for “Mankind Quarterly”, the journal(?) Mankind Quarterly does not even appear in Reuters compendium of impact factors, i.e. seems not to be even recognized as a scientific journal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. res says:
    @utu

    I don’t think that...Truth is....
     
    Don't you get that correlation he got is spurious and it won't be proven otherwise with his approach? Finding groups of SNPs that correlation with any sequence of random numbers is easy for short sequences. His sequence is short: 20 or so countries. Actually Piffer with Monte Carlo search for SNPS that corrupted with his data better than the ones he picked initially. His science is crap. He is just a confidence men. He thinks his chutzpah will carry him not science and now he will be crying oy vey, I am bing discriminated . I am a new Giordano Bruno.

    Finding groups of SNPs that correlation with any sequence of random numbers is easy for short sequences.

    What you studiously ignore is that Piffer did not pick the SNPs. He just extracts them from a variety of GWAS. The consistency of his results should be a clue, but you seem to be intentionally obtuse about this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    What you studiously ignore is that Piffer did not pick the SNPs
     
    He did Monte Carlo search and found others sequences of SNPs that provided even higher correlations. This is what was bound to happen because the system is so undetermined. Anyway, it really does not matter who and how picked the original 8 SNPs. It matters that you can find them randomly for any sequence of random numbers representing some imaginary trait like IQ fairly easily. This is the reason his work sucks. No matter what he does next he won't be able to prove causality. His correlation is spurious.

    No shortcuts. The homework needs to be done first which is to get IQ predictor valid for whole "multi-ethnic" populations This predictor one can validate on huge samples so the issue of spuriousness is take care of. Only then you apply the predictor to ethnic groups using frequencies of SNPs.

    Why are falling for this huckster? Because he is selling what you want even though a better part of you knows it is a hoax.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. hyperbola says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Different hair
    Different skin
    Different eyes.

    Same brain?
     
    I do so wish people would stop even mentioning the utterly superficial and meaningless hair/skin/eye markers. We KNOW how to identify skeletal remains with nearly perfect accuracy into their correct racial category. We KNOW how to identify race with nearly perfect accuracy using nothing but brain MRIs. We KNOW races differ in virtually every observable way and oftentimes differ enough that were they not human we would classify them as different sub-species (or sub-species and breed like with Canis lupus).

    Here’s just the most recent on MRI ID of ethnicity via brain scan. Note they’re able to differentiate between populations within Iran - an order of magnitude finer granulation than continental scale populations like negro/European/East Asian. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/nri/2018/8916035/

    “Skin color”? No, how about “brain structure”!

    Really significant study with a total of 76 individuals. At that sample size it would be stunning if they did not find any differences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. res says:
    @utu
    Thanks for links to Coop lab. It seems their objections are reasonable.

    Hsu with 40% can give some basis for looking at height between different populations . His polygenic score is linear so averages (frequencies) for distinct populations could be calculated. Hsu used thousands of SNP's. Would you expect that only 8 among them would give high correlation for averages? And if so, would you bet on it that the correlation is casual and not spurious? How would you know the difference? But certainly much better case can be made for height than IQ.

    Would you expect that only 8 among them would give high correlation for averages?

    That is a testable question. Piffer’s early results for height make this seem likely, but we need Hsu et al.’s PGS to make good comparisons.

    I think a good test of Piffer’s methodology would be to use Hsu’s methods to create PGS based on different subsets of SNPs (in order of p value in the GWAS say, since that is the order in which discoveries might be made) and then compare how successful those are in correlating with country wide heights.

    Note the importance of picking the SNPs with the strongest signals rather than just a random subset. This is necessary both so the SNPs chosen properly affect selection pressure AND to avoid multiple hypothesis testing issues.

    If the correlations are consistently similar and high I would consider that as good a validation of Piffer’s methodology as we are likely to get. To make things really work we need cross-racial GWAS, but if we get good results even without that I think it is strong support.

    And if so, would you bet on it that the correlation is casual and not spurious?

    Yes. (causal) Would you bet against that?

    How would you know the difference?

    Piffer’s Monte Carlo p-value technique seems good for this. But just seeing a number of successively more detailed PGS give similar results would be good enough for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Piffer’s Monte Carlo p-value technique seems good for this.
     
    This technique only show how difficult or how easy it is to find randomly SNPs that correlate with data. It was relatively easy to find random SNPs that had even higher correlation than the ones Piffer used.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Bennis Mardens
    Twin studies already proved genetic determinism.

    No they didn’t because ‘genetic determinism’ is false; genes don’t “determine” and the EEA is false.

    https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/481747

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Meimou
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.

    Whatever IQ is it's the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation...

    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Still?

    1.What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?

    2. Do black children adopted by whites as babies score as high as whites?

    3. Are IQ test baised towards East Asians and against whites?

    4. Do blacks score the sames as mulattoes?

    5. Are IQ test baised against mestizos?

    6. Do mestizos score higher than blacks?

    7. IQ test are divided into sub test. Ashkenazi Jews score higher in the verbal test and lower in the spatial test. East Asians score lower in the verbal and score higher in the verbal.

    Is culture bias to blame?

    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.

    It's clearly based in the brain, a physical trait, so yes.

    “Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…”

    Test costruction; item analysis and selection. It’s built in and you can build anything in and or out based on the items selected.

    “What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?”

    What does memorizing numbers have to do with ‘intelligence’? What is the mechanism behind it?

    IQ tests are biased by class, not race.

    “IQ test are divided into sub test. Ashkenazi Jews score higher in the verbal test and lower in the spatial test. East Asians score lower in the verbal and score higher in the verbal.”

    You can change the outcomes by changing test items.

    “It’s clearly based in the brain, a physical trait, so yes.”

    Are all physical traits “genetic”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @j2
    It is very difficult to get your work published in a top journal. It can be easier for some, but mostly it is not anything to wonder if the manuscript gets rejected. I would imagine that a paper from his university has a much better chance to get a careful review than a paper from many other places.

    I have read several of Piffer's papers. I am not quite convinced of his method. As the new editor if Intelligence had worked on mental retardation, the genetic basis of mental retardation is on a much firmer ground with good mathematical models. Compared to those, maybe Piffer's method is lacking rigority.

    As for the general claim that races have different IQs, it is not so clear what it means. I looked at some videos with Australian Aborigines. They did not sound like having an IQ 62. Before Europeans came there, these people all spoke 2-3 languages and some much more, as they had so many languages. Is it related to IQ? Hard to say. They get this IQ about 62, so it is measured, but what does it mean is another thing. It is still a valid to question the terms IQ and race in this case.

    The theory, like in Piffer's work, that the recently found IQ genes from GWAS determine IQ may be wrong. They influence IQ, but it might be that they only decrease IQ with some compensating mutations increasing IQ, but the genetic IQ may be something different, for instance genes that are fixed in the population and do not show in GWAS. There are so many possibilities for a genetic theory of IQ. There are many contradictions so far. I think we are still very far from a correct genetic theory of IQ, so rejecting a manuscript may have reasons other than a SJW editor.

    What novel predictions—novel facts not known before the formulation of his theory—does his theory make? A predicted fact is novel fact for that theory if it was not used in the construction of the theory in question.

    http://www.fitelson.org/290/musgrave.pdf

    So what novel predictions does the theory make?

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    Do i correctly understand that you ask me what new predictions Piffer's paper makes? I do not see there a new theory, only a possible verification of the theory that IQ affecting alleles found earlier in GWAS studies explain IQ ratings that are updates to Lynn's earlier estimates by educational achievement results (PISA). The theory that these alleles could explain IQ is of course an assumption in the GWAS studies. A lack of new theory maybe a reason for not accepting the paper.

    I find the results, a very good correlation, a bit doubtful. I have tried to understand why it should be so. Population in Northern Europe was quite low, so there should be fewer mutations. There was a higher population in Southern Europe and Middle East, so more mutations. Most of these mutations decrease IQ as they mostly are recessive mutations and they mostly are harmful. Some can be IQ increasing, e.g. compensating loss by harmful mutations. If so, it might explain why IQ would be lower in the South, but then America. Amerinds moved to America some 15,000 years ago probably with the IQ they have, 87 or so. Then there is a short time for Northern Eurasia to go to 100-105. That is, this theory of IQ affecting alleles does not match that well with time frames and other considerations. The genes for mental retardation in the X chromosome explain why IQ could decrease if population is larger, and (not found yet but necessary) fixed X chromosome IQ increasing alleles could possibly explain gender differences and how IQ increased. Still, I cannot combine these to a real theory and I have not seen such yet.

    So, Piffer does not present a new theory. A theory would be needed. His papers support the present theory, which I do not think explains IQ enough.

    I do not know if I answered your question, did not quite understand what you meant.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @George
    Does educational achievement mean smart or does it mean the individual is willing to subject themselves to a certain classroom environment for decades? Maybe the gene in question enables you to sit in one place for long hours.

    How do “genes … enable you to sit in one place for long hours”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Frederick V. Reed
    The paper should be published regardless of who doesn't like it. Intelligence is clearly largely genetic, as witness pit bulls and Border Collies. Yet something else may be going on. Think the lumiferous ether before Michaelson-Morley.

    Pure-blooded MesoAmerican Indians in Mexico have a mean IQ of 83, yet invented writing, done perhaps three times in all history, as well as the wheel and an exponential-positional number system, better than anything in Europe at the time, and built five-story concrete buildings, one of which I have been in.

    Colombiams have a mean IQ of 84, but run a country with airlines, telecommunications etc and design and build skyscrapers.

    American blacks have a mean IQ of 85, and therefore are capable of inventing writing and number systems as well as running modern cities with internet and so on.

    “Intelligence is clearly largely genetic”

    How much is “largely genetic” and how do you parse “genes” from “environment”?

    “yet invented writing, done perhaps three times in all history, as well as the wheel and an exponential-positional number system, better than anything in Europe at the time, and built five-story concrete buildings, one of which I have been in.”

    What does old thousdand+ year old civilizational achievement have to do with ‘IQ’?

    “Colombiams have a mean IQ of 84, but run a country with airlines, telecommunications etc and design and build skyscrapers.”

    Maybe ‘IQ’ doesn’t mean anything? Crazy talk. . .

    “American blacks have a mean IQ of 85, and therefore are capable of inventing writing and number systems as well as running modern cities with internet and so on.”

    You’re basing this on ‘IQ’ numbers from today, extrapolating ‘IQ’ numbers from modern peoples who are the descendants of the peoples who did the accomplishments . . . is this a joke?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @CanSpeccy

    Sure there are exceptions. Do you have a better predicting attribute to offer?
     
    Which is chicken, which is egg: social class or IQ? Has the causal relationship between the two really been disentangled?

    Social class causes IQ scores; IQ isn’t “genetic”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    In the peer-reviewed journal literature on the matter (e.g., Rindermann 2008, Christainsen 2013), causality runs mostly from IQ to socioeconomic status and not so much in the reverse direction.
    , @phil
    The high heritability of IQ has been well-supported not only by twin and adoption studies (e.g., Polderman's survey), but also by genetic complex-trait analyses (GCTA) (e.g., Deary, Plomin).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Meimou
    Can anyone provide a logical reason why the races would have the same Iq when they evolved in very different environments?

    Different hair
    Different skin
    Different eyes.

    Same brain?

    P1) Natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival.
    P2) Intelligence is important for survival.
    C) Ergo, intelligence should have a low to nonexistent genetic variation in humans.

    And IQ isn’t “intelligence”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    In Western industrialized countries, the correlation between IQ scores and "general intelligence" (as calculated via principal components analysis/factor analysis) is about 0.90. In sub-Saharan Africa, Wicherts calculates the correlation (on Raven's tests) to be 0.55--not as high, but still substantial.
    , @DevilsAdvocate1
    "P1"

    Look around you. If the rate of natural selection is stronger than the rate of genetic variation, then there should be only one organism in this world. The fact that there are many species means that the rate of genetic variation is much stronger than the rate of natural selection.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

    Genes do make you stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. res says:
    @phil
    Please, SJWs are a cancer, but do not speak of a "proof" that race/IQ differences are genetic. Rarely are contentious social science assertions "proven" to be true or false. For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment. Or, subsequent research may find that other gene variants that are linked to IQ are not distributed across races in the expected way. As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a "race-realist" would have expected.

    As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a “race-realist” would have expected.

    As an alternative hypothesis to explain that seeming inconsistency, how about consanguinity? I am reading Rindermann’s book and in Table 10.9 on page 314 there are three regions which have notably high rates of consanguinity.

    Africa (sub-Sahara) 37.5 – e.g. Nigeria 51.2
    North Africa M-East 29.24 – e.g. Egypt 23.89
    Asia (Central-South 30.44 – e.g. India 21.90

    All of these areas are underachievers in the country wide IQ data which is suggestive. Rindermann finds correlations of about 0.6 for consanguinity and cognitive ability.

    I wonder how a two factor model with Piffer’s PGS and consanguinity would do for predicting country IQ?

    From a why does this matter perspective I see some important points:
    1. This provides an explanation for the dramatic underperformance of some countries.
    2. This is an issue which in theory is easily remedied. One generation of outbreeding eliminates the immediate problem in that generation (though there may be ongoing issues if THAT group keeps interbreeding).
    3. Rindermann also finds that consanguinity correlations are lower for the top 5% (i.e. the elites) than for the bottom 5%. This helps explain how a country might have smarter elites than its average IQ might suggest. See Chanda Chisala’s posts for more on this. I need to add this to my list of possible explanations there.

    If anyone is interested in this idea, the conversation is probably better continued in James Thompson’s blog post about Rindermann’s book: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/cognitive-capitalism-2/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Svigor says:

    HBD is literally a Dark Art. This is why I’m a Sith.

    However, her more cerebral friend will present a cleverer argument: Although there is a strong circumstantial case that race differences in IQ are mainly genetic, it hasn’t actually been proven using genetic evidence. And, until that can be done, it is best to remain open-minded, not least because of the awful social consequences if it were proven—which you surely don’t want, unless you’re a “racist.”

    Here’s where I realize I’m dealing with one of the rare intelligent leftists – the kind that, with a good push, will leave leftism.

    “So, what you’re saying is, there’s no proof at all that Whites are to blame for any of Black people’s problems; leftists have falsely accused Whites of ‘breaking’ Blacks, and good people (of all races) can no longer sit by and watch Whites be falsely accused; they must speak out against it. Hey, I respect that. The federal gov’t and multinational corporations don’t, but I do my own thinking.”

    However, in 2016 Detterman stepped down as head of ISIR and was replaced by Richard Haier. With new reviewers and a new editor, it was rejected out of hand.

    How about somebody without a fucking Kraut surname?

    Papuan New Guineans, I can’t help but notice their score…aren’t they the ones Jared Diamond insisted were smarter than Whites? LoL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    Here’s where I realize I’m dealing with one of the rare intelligent leftists – the kind that, with a good push, will leave leftism.
     
    I think this is a critical point - back when I was a Leftist I believed the blank slate thing on trust without ever bothering to think about it but given the historical version of "race realism" i.e. that the races were different and the differences were carved in stone, I can imagine Leftists who knew the truth wanting to deny it cos if the differences were carved in stone then the truth could be used to justify various actions they'd consider immoral...

    however now we know that although those differences are fixed in the present but they can be changed over generations then there is no moral excuse anymore for not telling the truth.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Svigor says:
    @phil
    Please, SJWs are a cancer, but do not speak of a "proof" that race/IQ differences are genetic. Rarely are contentious social science assertions "proven" to be true or false. For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment. Or, subsequent research may find that other gene variants that are linked to IQ are not distributed across races in the expected way. As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a "race-realist" would have expected.

    Please, SJWs are a cancer, but do not speak of a “proof” that race/IQ differences are genetic. Rarely are contentious social science assertions “proven” to be true or false.

    Precisely. Smart people “grade on a curve,” as it were, and lower the bar for “proof” in areas where things are less provable. Otherwise we surrender a useful word for broad contexts, which is worse than pointless (if you aren’t an SJW) – it’s wasteful.

    For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment.

    If conscientiousness is defined-down so far that one is considered highly conscientious because he tries his best on an IQ/scholastic test, we’ve now lost two words from the English language on your behalf.

    Any more fucking requests, snowflake? P.S. I don’t think you’re a “cancer”; don’t be so hard on yourself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Svigor says:
    @utu

    If that was actually true, then wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?
     
    The triviality of it. The correlation he got is correct but there are millions of combinations of SNPs that will give even better correlation. Actually Piffer via random Monte Carlo search found some of them. The correlation is spurious. It means nothing.

    Yeah but if that’s actually true, then shouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    shouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work
     
    No. It does not work like this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Svigor says:
    @manorchurch

    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.

    Still?

    1.What does memorizing numbers backwards have to do with culture?
     
    Yes, IQ tests are culturally dependent. I am aware that you cannot be convinced of it, but such is truth before those who cannot believe.

    On a "Look, Stupid" note, in cultures that don't use numbers as an integral part of social function, it is very difficult for members to acquire the concept, and to memorize numbers in backward order.

    Plus, you forgot (?) that memorization is not a function of intelligence. Of IQ? Oh, yeah. Of Intelligence? Oh, no.

    Youse guys never change. As you were! Resume scuffling!

    I’m willing to forego the corner cases of cultures too stupid and backwards to use numbers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    I’m willing to forego the corner cases of cultures too stupid and backwards to use numbers.
     
    Suit yourself. It remains the case that memorization, or the ability to memorize, is not an intelligence criterion.

    Sorry. Do I know this stuff? Yep, I sure do. You may keep trying if you feel so motivated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Svigor says:
    @Stan d Mute

    On a “Look, Stupid” note, in cultures that don’t use numbers as an integral part of social function, it is very difficult for members to acquire the concept, and to memorize numbers in backward order.

    Plus, you forgot (?) that memorization is not a function of intelligence. Of IQ? Oh, yeah. Of Intelligence? Oh, no.
     
    You conflate intelligence with reproductive success and survival. Further, memory absolutely must be a component of intelligence (if intelligence is defined as a package including ability to recognize patterns, process sense data, etc, obviously one must store and retrieve previous inputs).

    Overall, this article leaves too many unanswered questions. Has this guy developed any new method of statistical analysis? What’s really new here? Has he simply compared new GWAS data to older studies and meta-studies?

    And why wouldn’t indisputable proof of genetic IQ determinism simply result in a new form of Affirmative Action and/or welfare rather than the “acceptance” of different racial outcomes?

    And why wouldn’t indisputable proof of genetic IQ determinism simply result in a new form of Affirmative Action and/or welfare rather than the “acceptance” of different racial outcomes?

    Whites are assumed culpable for Black failure, and discrimination in non-Whites’ favor (“Affirmative Action”) is widely thought of as righteous punishment for that guilt. Ergo, HBD weakens the underpinnings of “Affirmative Action.” This is manifestly so; if leftist fanatics found some other underpinning more persuasive, they’d have switched to it by now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Whites are assumed culpable for Black failure, and discrimination in non-Whites’ favor (“Affirmative Action”) is widely thought of as righteous punishment for that guilt. Ergo, HBD weakens the underpinnings of “Affirmative Action.” This is manifestly so; if leftist fanatics found some other underpinning more persuasive, they’d have switched to it by now.
     
    This “assumption” is predicated on (1) Rousseaun nonsense and (2) Yeshuan universalism both pretty self-evidently debunked by reality. But as presented today (and from inception), AA was ultimately about “fairness” and “closing the Gap.” It was understood as being discriminatory and unfair to whites, but as necessary to remediate past unfairness - it was always understood to have an expiration date.

    My question (which I’ve posed to many PC diehards) is what happens if (when) it’s indisputable that the negroes will never close the Gap due to cognitive incapacity and behavior which is immutable? Will you accept the existence of a permanent underclass or demand permanent subsidy of the negro. In every case, the PC commie has been adamant that it will forever be our responsibility to support them to our standards of living.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Svigor says:

    P.S., conscientiousness does affect things like SAT scores, obviously. My combined score shot up like 100 points for my 2nd go at the SAT, after I did a bit of remedial study. I was an indifferent student, to say the least, so that’s probably an exceptionally big move.

    But these things tend to wash out at the population level. For every striver there’s a slacker. 2, actually, since striving is rewarded. For all the whining Blacks do, you’d think they’d get their shit together and try conscientiousness.

    Unless they think it won’t help much, and happen to be right…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. @Svigor
    I'm willing to forego the corner cases of cultures too stupid and backwards to use numbers.

    I’m willing to forego the corner cases of cultures too stupid and backwards to use numbers.

    Suit yourself. It remains the case that memorization, or the ability to memorize, is not an intelligence criterion.

    Sorry. Do I know this stuff? Yep, I sure do. You may keep trying if you feel so motivated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Sure it is. People who remember nothing score zero on IQ tests.

    Just like the IQ of deafmutes was effectively zero (i.e., their intelligence was moot) until someone came up with a way to teach them literacy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. utu says:
    @Svigor
    Yeah but if that's actually true, then shouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?

    shouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work

    No. It does not work like this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    I see. So, the obvious didn't occur to the experts? How then is it obvious?

    Here, I'll do your work for you; I'm using fallacious logic. Appeals to authority are illogical.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Peter Frost says: • Website

    To all the naysayers in this comments section, I have one simple question. How do you explain the high correlation (0.9) between two very different things:

    1. Mean IQ of a population
    2. Genetic variants that are associated with high educational attainment and are present in that population.

    These are two very different datasets with very different origins. So why the correlation?

    In asking this question, I am NOT:

    - assuming that IQ is an appropriate measure of intelligence. That’s another argument.

    - assuming that these genetic variants are a representative sample of the many genetic variants that influence intelligence in one way or another and which in most cases remain to be discovered. That too is another argument.

    - trying to be impudent or mischievous.

    I simply want an honest answer to an honest question: What is causing this correlation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    "Because [some undiscovered/speculative correlation here]."

    Occam's Razor sez...
    , @manorchurch

    - trying to be impudent or mischievous.

    I simply want an honest answer to an honest question: What is causing this correlation?
     
    Are you sure you're not being mischievous? We all know that correlation is not cause.
    , @Johan Meyer
    I have suggested elsewhere that the sensitivity to lead poisoning (additional blood lead per unit additional exposure) may be genetic, as a result of selective pressure from prior bronze ages (soft metal deposits tend to contain lead; adult lead poisoning results in reduced sperm quality). National average IQ will smooth out variation in lead exposure. Thus variation in national IQ may contain a term that has the factors of mean lead exposure and mean proportional lead uptake, the latter being presumably genetic.

    Such a model allows environmental impact to have a genetic signature, e.g. twin correlations.

    Much lead poisoning will be obscured, when poisoning is sporadic, with mean interdosing time much longer than the biological half-life of lead in the blood, when geometric rather than arithmetic means of blood lead are reported.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. anon[217] • Disclaimer says:

    Right away I could see why this paper was rejected. The author forgot to include the obligatory mention of 110 IQ for Ashkenazi Jews, and hailing it the highest IQ group rather than the East Asians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. phil says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Social class causes IQ scores; IQ isn't "genetic".

    In the peer-reviewed journal literature on the matter (e.g., Rindermann 2008, Christainsen 2013), causality runs mostly from IQ to socioeconomic status and not so much in the reverse direction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. utu says:
    @res

    Finding groups of SNPs that correlation with any sequence of random numbers is easy for short sequences.
     
    What you studiously ignore is that Piffer did not pick the SNPs. He just extracts them from a variety of GWAS. The consistency of his results should be a clue, but you seem to be intentionally obtuse about this.

    What you studiously ignore is that Piffer did not pick the SNPs

    He did Monte Carlo search and found others sequences of SNPs that provided even higher correlations. This is what was bound to happen because the system is so undetermined. Anyway, it really does not matter who and how picked the original 8 SNPs. It matters that you can find them randomly for any sequence of random numbers representing some imaginary trait like IQ fairly easily. This is the reason his work sucks. No matter what he does next he won’t be able to prove causality. His correlation is spurious.

    No shortcuts. The homework needs to be done first which is to get IQ predictor valid for whole “multi-ethnic” populations This predictor one can validate on huge samples so the issue of spuriousness is take care of. Only then you apply the predictor to ethnic groups using frequencies of SNPs.

    Why are falling for this huckster? Because he is selling what you want even though a better part of you knows it is a hoax.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. phil says:
    @RaceRealist88
    P1) Natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival.
    P2) Intelligence is important for survival.
    C) Ergo, intelligence should have a low to nonexistent genetic variation in humans.

    And IQ isn't "intelligence".

    In Western industrialized countries, the correlation between IQ scores and “general intelligence” (as calculated via principal components analysis/factor analysis) is about 0.90. In sub-Saharan Africa, Wicherts calculates the correlation (on Raven’s tests) to be 0.55–not as high, but still substantial.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Wally says:
    @utu

    If that was actually true, then wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?
     
    The triviality of it. The correlation he got is correct but there are millions of combinations of SNPs that will give even better correlation. Actually Piffer via random Monte Carlo search found some of them. The correlation is spurious. It means nothing.

    You dodged my question, which was:

    “… wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Reviewers do not have to demonstrate anything or there is no burden on them to fix the paper. If there is flaw they can reject the paper. Piffer's papers has a fatal flaw.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Svigor says:
    @utu

    shouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work
     
    No. It does not work like this.

    I see. So, the obvious didn’t occur to the experts? How then is it obvious?

    Here, I’ll do your work for you; I’m using fallacious logic. Appeals to authority are illogical.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    I see. So, the obvious didn’t occur to the experts? How then is it obvious?
     
    Egg-ZACKLY!

    You and I are going to get along just fine. ;-)
    , @utu
    If you come to restaurants that requires a dress code in shorts and sandals you do not expect dressing you up.

    In case of refereed papers if there are errors it is author's responsibility to fix them not editors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    It would be frankly impossible for Mesoamericans to have been "helped" by Europeans in creating a writing system when Europeans had not yet arrived in the Western Hemisphere. Would you agree?

    Yes, IF they had created a writing system other than the pictorial symbols for the elite who by selection did not have the mentioned “mean IQ of 83″.
    Of course, the run of the mill meso-Americans did not, could not design the structures found there.

    And as usual you dodged the rest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    I don’t see the distinction between pictorial systems and other writing systems as more or less “advanced.” Chinese is a pictorial system and no one would consider it un-advanced.

    If your point is that the average meso-Americans couldn’t have designed their architecture, then I’d submit that neither could most people today design today’s architecture.

    I didn’t “dodge” the rest; I merely found it unworthy of comment.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Svigor says:
    @manorchurch

    I’m willing to forego the corner cases of cultures too stupid and backwards to use numbers.
     
    Suit yourself. It remains the case that memorization, or the ability to memorize, is not an intelligence criterion.

    Sorry. Do I know this stuff? Yep, I sure do. You may keep trying if you feel so motivated.

    Sure it is. People who remember nothing score zero on IQ tests.

    Just like the IQ of deafmutes was effectively zero (i.e., their intelligence was moot) until someone came up with a way to teach them literacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Sure it is. People who remember nothing score zero on IQ tests.
     
    Unless they memorize the answers. *







    * Aha!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Svigor says:
    @Peter Frost
    To all the naysayers in this comments section, I have one simple question. How do you explain the high correlation (0.9) between two very different things:

    1. Mean IQ of a population
    2. Genetic variants that are associated with high educational attainment and are present in that population.

    These are two very different datasets with very different origins. So why the correlation?

    In asking this question, I am NOT:

    - assuming that IQ is an appropriate measure of intelligence. That's another argument.

    - assuming that these genetic variants are a representative sample of the many genetic variants that influence intelligence in one way or another and which in most cases remain to be discovered. That too is another argument.

    - trying to be impudent or mischievous.

    I simply want an honest answer to an honest question: What is causing this correlation?

    “Because [some undiscovered/speculative correlation here].”

    Occam’s Razor sez…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Svigor says:

    Meant to write whatever the term is for blind deafmutes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Meant to write whatever the term is for blind deafmutes.
     
    The technical term?

    "FUBAR"

    Don't thank me -- that's just the sort of obscure terminology that sticks in my head all the time. It's hell getting it out.

    Or, as my Uncle Otto would exclaim about my Aunt Dotty, "She don't know NUTHIN', Mike. She's blind, deef and dumb!"

    No, I have no idea why he called me 'Mike'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Craken says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Whatever IQ is it’s the most predictive attribute when determining success, health, the wealth of a nation…
     
    Hahahah...

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/mn-mongolia

    Mongolia: Avg. IQ 101

    GDP per capita: $ 12,551

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/lt-lithuania

    Lithuania: Avg. IQ 91

    GDP per capita: $ 31,935

    I think what you’ll find is that IQ levels determine the maximum, not the minimum, of economic success. Shackle East Germany with a command and control economy, and it will lag West Germany. Natural resource wealth aside, the population IQ hierarchy matches up quite well with the maximum achieved by any nation at each level. There are no wealthy (non-oil) countries with sub-90 IQs. High average intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for economic success.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. utu says:
    @res

    Would you expect that only 8 among them would give high correlation for averages?
     
    That is a testable question. Piffer's early results for height make this seem likely, but we need Hsu et al.'s PGS to make good comparisons.

    I think a good test of Piffer's methodology would be to use Hsu's methods to create PGS based on different subsets of SNPs (in order of p value in the GWAS say, since that is the order in which discoveries might be made) and then compare how successful those are in correlating with country wide heights.

    Note the importance of picking the SNPs with the strongest signals rather than just a random subset. This is necessary both so the SNPs chosen properly affect selection pressure AND to avoid multiple hypothesis testing issues.

    If the correlations are consistently similar and high I would consider that as good a validation of Piffer's methodology as we are likely to get. To make things really work we need cross-racial GWAS, but if we get good results even without that I think it is strong support.

    And if so, would you bet on it that the correlation is casual and not spurious?
     
    Yes. (causal) Would you bet against that?

    How would you know the difference?
     
    Piffer's Monte Carlo p-value technique seems good for this. But just seeing a number of successively more detailed PGS give similar results would be good enough for me.

    Piffer’s Monte Carlo p-value technique seems good for this.

    This technique only show how difficult or how easy it is to find randomly SNPs that correlate with data. It was relatively easy to find random SNPs that had even higher correlation than the ones Piffer used.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    While certain Israelis (presumably with substantial ties to Rabin's assassins) have played such a game before (hidden messages in the Torah), there is nothing in principal impossible in what Piffer suggests, especially if genes are modulating sensitivity to environment. Longer sequences (ethnic groups rather than countries) would be an obvious avenue for substantial falsification of the various possibilities that may produce such correlations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Wally
    Yes, IF they had created a writing system other than the pictorial symbols for the elite who by selection did not have the mentioned "mean IQ of 83".
    Of course, the run of the mill meso-Americans did not, could not design the structures found there.

    And as usual you dodged the rest.

    I don’t see the distinction between pictorial systems and other writing systems as more or less “advanced.” Chinese is a pictorial system and no one would consider it un-advanced.

    If your point is that the average meso-Americans couldn’t have designed their architecture, then I’d submit that neither could most people today design today’s architecture.

    I didn’t “dodge” the rest; I merely found it unworthy of comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Chinese and their many types of characters are hardly the same as crude meso-American pictures. Jeeez, no wonder you lose every debate.

    I remind you that the average Euro-white does not have the average meso-American IQ of 83.
    These meso-Americans are not exactly thriving. The vast majority are unemployable in a modern society.

    What you call unworthy of comment really means that you cannot refute them. Never have, never will. No wonder you dodge.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. phil says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Social class causes IQ scores; IQ isn't "genetic".

    The high heritability of IQ has been well-supported not only by twin and adoption studies (e.g., Polderman’s survey), but also by genetic complex-trait analyses (GCTA) (e.g., Deary, Plomin).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Peter Frost
    To all the naysayers in this comments section, I have one simple question. How do you explain the high correlation (0.9) between two very different things:

    1. Mean IQ of a population
    2. Genetic variants that are associated with high educational attainment and are present in that population.

    These are two very different datasets with very different origins. So why the correlation?

    In asking this question, I am NOT:

    - assuming that IQ is an appropriate measure of intelligence. That's another argument.

    - assuming that these genetic variants are a representative sample of the many genetic variants that influence intelligence in one way or another and which in most cases remain to be discovered. That too is another argument.

    - trying to be impudent or mischievous.

    I simply want an honest answer to an honest question: What is causing this correlation?

    - trying to be impudent or mischievous.

    I simply want an honest answer to an honest question: What is causing this correlation?

    Are you sure you’re not being mischievous? We all know that correlation is not cause.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Frost
    "Are you sure you’re not being mischievous?"

    I'm sure. I'm the world's leading expert on my personal motivations. Unlike certain people, I'm keenly interested in understanding how this world works. Can we now please discuss the question I asked?

    "We all know that correlation is not cause."

    I agree. I am not assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Nonetheless, there is some sort of relationship. Can you please explain it to me?

    We have two very different datasets with very different origins:

    1. Mean IQ of a population

    2. The degree to which a population has genetic variants associated with high educational attainment.

    Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Svigor
    Sure it is. People who remember nothing score zero on IQ tests.

    Just like the IQ of deafmutes was effectively zero (i.e., their intelligence was moot) until someone came up with a way to teach them literacy.

    Sure it is. People who remember nothing score zero on IQ tests.

    Unless they memorize the answers. *

    * Aha!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Svigor
    I see. So, the obvious didn't occur to the experts? How then is it obvious?

    Here, I'll do your work for you; I'm using fallacious logic. Appeals to authority are illogical.

    I see. So, the obvious didn’t occur to the experts? How then is it obvious?

    Egg-ZACKLY!

    You and I are going to get along just fine. ;-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Svigor
    Meant to write whatever the term is for blind deafmutes.

    Meant to write whatever the term is for blind deafmutes.

    The technical term?

    “FUBAR”

    Don’t thank me — that’s just the sort of obscure terminology that sticks in my head all the time. It’s hell getting it out.

    Or, as my Uncle Otto would exclaim about my Aunt Dotty, “She don’t know NUTHIN’, Mike. She’s blind, deef and dumb!”

    No, I have no idea why he called me ‘Mike’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res
    Rindermann tries to disentangle wealth and cognitive ability at the country level. He uses lagged data (1970-2010) to do this.

    I find the results both very interesting and intuitively appealing. In Figure 10.3 on page 232 he lays out his conclusion:
    - Wealth is relevant for the cognitive development of the poor.
    - Cognitive ability is relevant for the wealth development of the rich.

    This is a bit different from your question, but I think it is instructive.

    If you are truly interested in an answer to your question I would recommend reading section 10.1 of Rindermann's book. If for no other reason than to look at his methodology.

    Thanks for the informed response. It sounds about right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    I don’t think that...Truth is....
     
    Don't you get that correlation he got is spurious and it won't be proven otherwise with his approach? Finding groups of SNPs that correlation with any sequence of random numbers is easy for short sequences. His sequence is short: 20 or so countries. Actually Piffer with Monte Carlo search for SNPS that corrupted with his data better than the ones he picked initially. His science is crap. He is just a confidence men. He thinks his chutzpah will carry him not science and now he will be crying oy vey, I am bing discriminated . I am a new Giordano Bruno.

    Oh, Utu! Sigh. We’ve been there and you still don’t understand (don’t want to?):

    Piffer’s correlation cannot be simply spurious. It reproduces nicely on different datasets. That’s an essence of cross-validation: if you overfit data to pick some spurious noise, the fit will fail on an independent dataset because the noise–by definition–is going to be completely different there. The datasets in question are of sufficiently different origin that it would be incredibly strange for them to possess the same noise.

    Next, please understand that he does not just search for SNPs to cherry-pick to produce highest correlations. He merely picks strongest signals that repeatedly come up in GWAS on things related to cognitive skills – then uses them to find out what population-level correlations they have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    It does not matter how he picked SNP's whether from GWAS or not. He did also random Monte Carlo search that gave him other SNP's subsets that produced even higher correlation. Why not argue that there were the causal culprit?

    Cross validation or rather validation when you want to eliminate the spuriousness of your initial solution when dealing with undetermined system is something else than what you think. The validation set of data must be separate and independent. You get "validity" of validation when the sets are large. In his case he has a very small set of 20 or so numbers (IQ assigned to countries by Lynn). There is no way of validating his result in this sense. That's why I am saying the situation is hopeless.

    Imagine this: You generate a sequence of random numbers and assign them to countries. The sequence is 20 or so long. Then you do search for SNPs. Let's say you look for 8 of them and calculate polygenic scores and check correlation with the sequence of the random numbers. Within the set of millions of SNPs you are bound to find many, many subsets of 8 that will correlate with your data sequence. The correlation are spurious because the data set is random.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. utu says:
    @Svigor
    I see. So, the obvious didn't occur to the experts? How then is it obvious?

    Here, I'll do your work for you; I'm using fallacious logic. Appeals to authority are illogical.

    If you come to restaurants that requires a dress code in shorts and sandals you do not expect dressing you up.

    In case of refereed papers if there are errors it is author’s responsibility to fix them not editors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Svigor

    And why wouldn’t indisputable proof of genetic IQ determinism simply result in a new form of Affirmative Action and/or welfare rather than the “acceptance” of different racial outcomes?
     
    Whites are assumed culpable for Black failure, and discrimination in non-Whites' favor ("Affirmative Action") is widely thought of as righteous punishment for that guilt. Ergo, HBD weakens the underpinnings of "Affirmative Action." This is manifestly so; if leftist fanatics found some other underpinning more persuasive, they'd have switched to it by now.

    Whites are assumed culpable for Black failure, and discrimination in non-Whites’ favor (“Affirmative Action”) is widely thought of as righteous punishment for that guilt. Ergo, HBD weakens the underpinnings of “Affirmative Action.” This is manifestly so; if leftist fanatics found some other underpinning more persuasive, they’d have switched to it by now.

    This “assumption” is predicated on (1) Rousseaun nonsense and (2) Yeshuan universalism both pretty self-evidently debunked by reality. But as presented today (and from inception), AA was ultimately about “fairness” and “closing the Gap.” It was understood as being discriminatory and unfair to whites, but as necessary to remediate past unfairness – it was always understood to have an expiration date.

    My question (which I’ve posed to many PC diehards) is what happens if (when) it’s indisputable that the negroes will never close the Gap due to cognitive incapacity and behavior which is immutable? Will you accept the existence of a permanent underclass or demand permanent subsidy of the negro. In every case, the PC commie has been adamant that it will forever be our responsibility to support them to our standards of living.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
    Show me a permanent thing and your argument is worth considering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Recently scientists have managed to squeeze out the ability to explain 10% of intelligence variation through genetic analysis. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104

    10% of var explained is nowhere near enough to start making race difference predictions, at least not ones that explain any more than a drop of var, and then get drowned out by other explicative factors.

    The science above falls into the correlation≠causation problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    LoL, could you unpack "making race difference predictions"?

    I ask because the planet Earth is full of great reasons to have long been making "race difference predictions"; we are awash in "race differences," with "race equalities" being rather thin on the ground, save as social constructs.

    The idea is to start explaining the ubiquitous, robust, in-the-most-salient-cases-never-and-nowhere-contradicted race differences; to start explaining why race realism has so much predictive power. That it does is not really in dispute with anyone this side of sputtering leftist useless eaters.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Mishra says:
    @Dieter Kief

    (Or–yes–pseudonymous, if you’re all spergy and such.)
     
    Pu-liece: Since we have no proof yet, that he is really using a pen name, we'd be better cautious and speak of a supposed pseudonymity or some such).

    argue that the word “must” should be replaced with “feels the need to”…)
     
    This could be a trifle wrong as well, so: In case, this really was a pseudonymic handle, it could (could!) show, that the author "felt the need to". Or else, it might turn out to be quite different alltogether, such as: The author likes to use - what might to some appear as a pseudonymic handle, but which in reality is (to be ctd. ... at infinitum....).

    ( :) )

    Ha! Well, it did say ‘pen name’…

    Now tell me your theory about The Saker ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Stan d Mute

    Whites are assumed culpable for Black failure, and discrimination in non-Whites’ favor (“Affirmative Action”) is widely thought of as righteous punishment for that guilt. Ergo, HBD weakens the underpinnings of “Affirmative Action.” This is manifestly so; if leftist fanatics found some other underpinning more persuasive, they’d have switched to it by now.
     
    This “assumption” is predicated on (1) Rousseaun nonsense and (2) Yeshuan universalism both pretty self-evidently debunked by reality. But as presented today (and from inception), AA was ultimately about “fairness” and “closing the Gap.” It was understood as being discriminatory and unfair to whites, but as necessary to remediate past unfairness - it was always understood to have an expiration date.

    My question (which I’ve posed to many PC diehards) is what happens if (when) it’s indisputable that the negroes will never close the Gap due to cognitive incapacity and behavior which is immutable? Will you accept the existence of a permanent underclass or demand permanent subsidy of the negro. In every case, the PC commie has been adamant that it will forever be our responsibility to support them to our standards of living.

    Show me a permanent thing and your argument is worth considering.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. utu says:

    Will you accept the existence of a permanent underclass or demand permanent subsidy of the negro.

    I presume you propose extermination, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. @Peter Frost
    To all the naysayers in this comments section, I have one simple question. How do you explain the high correlation (0.9) between two very different things:

    1. Mean IQ of a population
    2. Genetic variants that are associated with high educational attainment and are present in that population.

    These are two very different datasets with very different origins. So why the correlation?

    In asking this question, I am NOT:

    - assuming that IQ is an appropriate measure of intelligence. That's another argument.

    - assuming that these genetic variants are a representative sample of the many genetic variants that influence intelligence in one way or another and which in most cases remain to be discovered. That too is another argument.

    - trying to be impudent or mischievous.

    I simply want an honest answer to an honest question: What is causing this correlation?

    I have suggested elsewhere that the sensitivity to lead poisoning (additional blood lead per unit additional exposure) may be genetic, as a result of selective pressure from prior bronze ages (soft metal deposits tend to contain lead; adult lead poisoning results in reduced sperm quality). National average IQ will smooth out variation in lead exposure. Thus variation in national IQ may contain a term that has the factors of mean lead exposure and mean proportional lead uptake, the latter being presumably genetic.

    Such a model allows environmental impact to have a genetic signature, e.g. twin correlations.

    Much lead poisoning will be obscured, when poisoning is sporadic, with mean interdosing time much longer than the biological half-life of lead in the blood, when geometric rather than arithmetic means of blood lead are reported.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I don’t see the distinction between pictorial systems and other writing systems as more or less “advanced.” Chinese is a pictorial system and no one would consider it un-advanced.

    If your point is that the average meso-Americans couldn’t have designed their architecture, then I’d submit that neither could most people today design today’s architecture.

    I didn’t “dodge” the rest; I merely found it unworthy of comment.

    Chinese and their many types of characters are hardly the same as crude meso-American pictures. Jeeez, no wonder you lose every debate.

    I remind you that the average Euro-white does not have the average meso-American IQ of 83.
    These meso-Americans are not exactly thriving. The vast majority are unemployable in a modern society.

    What you call unworthy of comment really means that you cannot refute them. Never have, never will. No wonder you dodge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Actually, Chinese began as a "crude" writing style consisting mainly of pictures.

    https://www.brown.edu/about/administration/international-affairs/year-of-china/language-and-cultural-resources/introduction-chinese-characters/introduction-chinese-characters

    Even our own alphabet evolved from a pictographic script. The letter "A," for instance, comes from a picture of a cow. The letter "B" comes from a picture of a house. You get the picture. ;-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Seems to me the point of Unz publishing the article was not to spark a debate on the mechanics of genomic research but to make a point about censorship in scholarly journals. Reminds me of when I submitted a research article on Islam to law reviews. One reviewer advised rejection on the grounds that I had failed to treat feminism in Islam. First, as informed people know-or should know-there is no feminism in Islam. They are as mutually irrelevant as bicycles n fish. Second, the subject of the thesis, which was about the persistence of traditional legal concepts n practices, not modern conceptions, pretty well excluded any discussion of feminism.

    A second reviewer advised rejection on the grounds that I had not used first-hand original medieval Arabic sources in my analysis, though I had used Arabic Quran n Arabic publications of Hadith. This despite the fact that even the most casual perusal of law review journals will quickly find dozens of published articles on Islam by writers using only English language materials. But these articles almost without exception assert the full compatibility of traditional Islam with modern feminism.

    The third “review” was from law review editors themselves n, without challenging any of my facts or analysis, stated simply “we cannot accept your conclusions”. After that, I self-published.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Meimou
    YOne reviewer advised rejection on the grounds that I had failed to treat feminism in Islam.

    It's bad enough that the gatekeepers of science are guarded by scientific fundamentalist who defend establishment beliefs with zeal of devout priest, now we have to deal with GD SJWers.

    Must they have everything?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @utu

    Piffer’s Monte Carlo p-value technique seems good for this.
     
    This technique only show how difficult or how easy it is to find randomly SNPs that correlate with data. It was relatively easy to find random SNPs that had even higher correlation than the ones Piffer used.

    While certain Israelis (presumably with substantial ties to Rabin’s assassins) have played such a game before (hidden messages in the Torah), there is nothing in principal impossible in what Piffer suggests, especially if genes are modulating sensitivity to environment. Longer sequences (ethnic groups rather than countries) would be an obvious avenue for substantial falsification of the various possibilities that may produce such correlations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Dan Wang says:

    Everyone who consumes media in today’s society is surrounded each by his or her own world view bubble. In these unz.com comment section, a lot of people are race realists, and believe that the social justice warriors are trying to deny them the reality. And in denying reality, the social justice warriors are standing in the way of realistic government policies towards education and social performance. I get it, I really do. In a way, race realism is just common sense. It’s like reading a scientific study that says “kids born to rich, successful families do better in life.” How could anyone argue against that? Differences in IQ across groups- how could we possibly deny such obvious truths? In an opaque government system such as China, the kind of information we argue for is a given as common sense. As in- well of course minorities(in china and elsewhere) have less power, and of course they have less power because historically they didn’t occupy wealthy lands, and they don’t occupy wealthy lands because they have historically lost major battles, and so on and so forth. It’s a given because it is common sense. People who underperform tend to underperform because they are less resourceful. Groups of people who underperform because they are less resourceful as a group.

    Now in a democracy such as the US with the degree of journalistic transparency, a lot of truths just can’t be said in public. It’s the equivalent of saying “hey look, that person over there is ugly and stupid.” No sane person would ever say such a thing in public.

    The issue is, race realism is the equivalent of saying an entire group of people is stupid. This will never, ever have any mainstream traction, because it is social suicide in a world where your words are recorded for an eternity. We are social beings, and no matter how uncomfortable the truth, people will avoid bringing attention to it. In the end, being a race realist doesn’t matter, because our society already factors it in to policy at all levels.

    I work at a major technological/science institution in the US, and surrounded by high functioning people with advanced degrees. People are judged by their abilities, and diversity is cherished. This at a glance goes against acknowledging race realism, but in practice, the workplace I am at has its top positions filled almost entirely by whites/asians. The institution and its representatives openly cultivate a culture of acceptance and inclusiveness. There is no talk of race realism. Why should there be? all the top positions are already filled by high IQ people. Sure some of the lower level jobs are filled with other types of minorities, but not where it counts. There is no need to discuss high average IQ in white/asians. There is no reason to bring attention to the demographics of those who hold the key jobs in this institution.

    This gets at the fundamental issue here- The high level institutions in the US are already so meritocratic, it is already functioning factoring into race realist beliefs(i.e. reality). Same goes for the highest performing school districts in my city- high percentages are white/asian. There is always talk of correcting historic inequalities and making school districts more diverse across the country, but those are typically only in big urban school districts, with complex politics.

    While we talk and argue online, the reality on the ground is a lot closer to race realism than anyone is willing to admit. In the end, this discussion doesn’t really matter. By being a race realist, you might be right, but by being right and arguing for spreading this truth, you are bringing attention to a reality that no one in their right mind would say in public.

    Knowing what I know, I still treat everyone I meet with utmost respect and kindness. I go out of my way to help people. Knowing what I know, I won’t be surprised if I see a high performing white/asian, and I will be surprised if I see a high performing other minority in my line of work. Knowing what I know, it doesn’t matter if I am surprised, because if they are high performing, their worth will be shown in their own abilities and character. At the end of the day, those who are highest functioning not only at work but in life, are ones who realize that we need to live together on this planet. Husband and wife, brother and sister, neighbor with neighbor. For things to be better for those who do well, things need to be not so bad for those who aren’t doing well. If you aren’t doing well, you want to be given a fair chance. To remind ourselves of what social justice warriors want, they generally just want to give those less fortunate a chance.

    I have young kids now, and at the playground, I see so much love by parents. I see so much happiness and warmth shared by people of all walks of life. I see kids who naturally play so well together. I can see reality from both sides of the argument- race realists and social justice warriors. If we just let some of these kids play together without introducing to their minds thoughts about average IQ, they might interact with each other and bring richness to each other’s life experiences. When they grow up, chances of success will be heavily skewed by the privileged their parents provided for them, and that will be okay.

    As a race realist in my mind(which is only a small part of my worldview), with a compassionate heart and a desire for a better future, I encourage each of you on here to enrich your own life experiences and pass on wisdom to those around you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That's all well and good, but what happens when our denial of race realism allows for policies that import tens of millions of low-IQ, third-world immigrants? What happens when low performing minorities go from 15% of the population to 50% of the population? How about 80% of the population?

    Ideologies have consequences, and the lack of race realism in public policy has our country well on its way to becoming a cold version of Brazil.

    Finally, look at Germany. After WWII the country came roaring back. What will happen as Germany's low IQ, inbreed Muslim population grows? The religion of equality/race denialism has done more long term damage to Germany than fascism.

    In sum, the religion of equality, of which race denialism is a fundamental competent, is destroying the West. Immigration policy is just one of the many bad results, but is arguably the worst because its effect is practically permanent. Yes, we need to talk about race realism or your grandchildren (if they're lucky) will be living their lives behind gates and bodyguards.

    , @MarkinLA
    In the end, being a race realist doesn’t matter, because our society already factors it in to policy at all levels.

    Yeah, with affirmative action and other minority set asides. Yeah, with endless programs on how to throw more money at (fill in the blank) to close the gap. While it may not affect you and the people around you, it affects a lot of mid-level people.
    , @Okechukwu

    Knowing what I know, I won’t be surprised if I see a high performing white/asian, and I will be surprised if I see a high performing other minority in my line of work.
     
    Yet thousands of Asians are removed every year from US universities for cheating and academic incompetence.

    U.S. COLLEGES EXPELLED AS MANY AS 8,000 CHINESE STUDENTS IN 3 YEARS

    http://www.newsweek.com/us-colleges-expelled-many-8000-chinese-students-3-years-337445

    And in my wife's science lab, which is at a high level academic/scientific institution, the Asians (mostly Chinese) often perform at a level you'd expect from American third graders. They're not only incompetent, they're sloppy and filthy, which is extremely dangerous in a lab that is working with all kinds of very hazardous and potentially lethal materials. Lab administrators even had to put up signs with pictures in order to instruct these Asians on how to use the toilet properly and how to clean up after themselves afterwards. High IQ indeed. LOL.

    The lab made my wife the compliance officer with a mandate to get these Asians to conduct themselves appropriately. She has tried earnestly, but it's hopeless. In fear for her safety I've advised her to have them removed from the institution and deported back to China. That is now pending.

    I get a kick out of the Asians that try to kiss white supremacist ass by jumping on the junk science train. Big hint: they don't want you.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. utu says:
    @Wally
    You dodged my question, which was:

    "... wouldn’t it be demonstrated as such by those who would have reviewed his work in the very journals that have rejected it?"

    Reviewers do not have to demonstrate anything or there is no burden on them to fix the paper. If there is flaw they can reject the paper. Piffer’s papers has a fatal flaw.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    The 'fatal flaw' that you refer to appears to be falsifiability. I was naive, and thought it to be a prerequisite for scientific work. I never thought it could be a fatal flaw.

    The above aside, are you per chance a US definition economic libertarian? You appear to have a solid grasp of statistics, while missing the logical underpinnings. It could also be the North American cultural aversion to application of the modus tollens, which is implied in falsification, thus causing any structure to which the modus tollens might be applied with any real probability, to be rejected out of hand. Such a possibility would suggest that you have a higher IQ than your opponents, as they have not yet recognised the culturally equivalent to apostasy in Saudi Arabiadanger of accidental application of the modus tollens in regards Piffer.

    More to the point, the multiple possibilities with separate falsification without necessary falsification of the whole is exactly what obtains in the case of evolutionary relationships in biology.
    , @Wally
    Pay attention, the article says that the work had been approved, but was still rejected.

    Please actually read the piece.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Vojkan says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Unable to comprehend all this fuss.
    Like fascism, nobody has ever defined intelligence.
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.
    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.
    That intelligence, whatever it is, is, at least partly, hereditary, anyone can see.
    The disaster is that politics has entered science.
    USSR agriculture showed what can happen.

    I don’t get either the obsession with IQ on this site. In my opinion, one’s output in real life matters much more than his alleged intelligence due to his results on some “intelligence” measuring test. In my field, software design and programming, I have worked with people who allegedly scored way above 132 on tests and their output was such rubbish that after review, it was obvious it couldn’t work so I had to redesign and rewrite. So much for the accuracy of IQ tests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Again, it's a statistical thing. It's not about "one," or his output. It's not about you. It's not about anyone you've worked with. It's not about the IQ score of any person you've worked with.

    Does that help?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. BroMagnon says:

    For the answer, look no further than breeds of dogs, which have different temperaments, intelligences, and even innate behaviors regardless of their upbringing. The human races are essentially different breeds – each with tendencies, some more clever, some more violent, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    For the answer, look no further than breeds of dogs,
     
    That's right, but on the other hand, dogs are not human, aren't they?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    (I wish there'd come a time, when people would easily understand, that this is a joke - referring to those absolutely stunning times, when it was being looked upon as racist, because races were not been looked upon as somehting that could have existed - or would ever be able to be allowed to exist at all ... )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Wally
    Chinese and their many types of characters are hardly the same as crude meso-American pictures. Jeeez, no wonder you lose every debate.

    I remind you that the average Euro-white does not have the average meso-American IQ of 83.
    These meso-Americans are not exactly thriving. The vast majority are unemployable in a modern society.

    What you call unworthy of comment really means that you cannot refute them. Never have, never will. No wonder you dodge.

    Actually, Chinese began as a “crude” writing style consisting mainly of pictures.

    https://www.brown.edu/about/administration/international-affairs/year-of-china/language-and-cultural-resources/introduction-chinese-characters/introduction-chinese-characters

    Even our own alphabet evolved from a pictographic script. The letter “A,” for instance, comes from a picture of a cow. The letter “B” comes from a picture of a house. You get the picture. ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    And the silly meso-American pictures went no farther than little pictures, all other languages did.

    Thanks for supporting my point. LOL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. notanon says:

    everyone commenting on this thread believes that different populations have different average intelligence (however that is defined or measured) including continental scale populations aka races.

    however there are two lots of people who want to hide the truth:

    1) people who can’t handle upsetting the lower average IQ populations and/or worry about the political consequences of telling the truth.

    2) the banking mafia and their minions who want a planet of 85 IQ slave-cattle to rule over and are trying to get the higher IQ populations to breed with the lower IQ populations as a form of stealth biological warfare.

    obviously the people in group (2) are simply evil and beyond salvation but for the people in group (1):

    the only way the lower average IQ populations can increase it is by selective breeding and/or genetic screening – the people lying about the genetic basis of IQ want those populations to stay dumb forever – they are evil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. notanon says:
    @phil
    On average, Amerindians outscore sub-Saharan Africans on IQ tests, but not on their polygenic score for the alleles highlighted by this Genome-Wide Association Study.

    if (very roughly)
    Africans are AMH
    Caucasians are AMH + Neanderthal
    east Asians are AMH + Neanderthal+ Denisovan

    then couldn’t some populations (e.g. Amerindians) have missed out on some of the variants unique to each sub-species (if that’s the right word) while having more of one of the others so wouldn’t you need to do race-specific GWAS as well as a global one?

    (or maybe they did already but don’t want to publish the results?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Roughly, except that Amerindians have neanderthal as well (all non Africans, including Papuans, Melanesians, S.E. Asian Negritos and Australian Aborigines) have some neanderthal (about 2%). The only groups that have significant Denisovan are Papuans, Melanesians and Australian Aborigines (about 4-6%), that and some Negrito groups (the more Eastern ones like those in the Philippines) have some Denisovan as well (maybe the same amount as Papuans/Aborigines or a little less). But Andaman Islanders and the Negrito tribes Malaysia have no Denisovan. East Asians and Amerindians have a tiny bit of Denisovan, less than 1% (and of course Caucasians have none)


    "variants unique to each sub-species (if that’s the right word) while having more of one of the others so wouldn’t you need to do race-specific GWAS as well as a global one?"

    The above, however, would likely be true (though it seems likely more from evolutionary divergences between groups rather than the influence of archaic introgression), as different variants might behave somewhat differently in different groups (esp. more divergent ones), and (esp. more divergent) groups might have genes for (/influencing) iq that are not picked up in the GWAS of another group.

    , @Jm8
    Edit:

    "...except that Amerindians have neanderthal as well (all non Africans, including Papuans, Melanesians, Andamanese, S.E. Asian Negritos, Australian Aborigines, etc. have it, at about 2%..."

    , @phil
    Possibly so. It would indeed be nice to have additional, race-specific GWAS. Note that, if your conjecture is correct, it would give additional credence to the idea that there are separate biological races.
    , @phil
    On backwards digits tests (correctly reciting a series of digits in reverse order), people with substantial Amerindian (AI) admixture tend to outscore people of sub-Saharan African (SSA) ancestry, but SSAs tend to outscore AIs on forward digits tests (correctly reciting the series of digits in the original order); AIs seem particularly weak with respect to short-term memory. SSAs tend to be comparatively strong with respect to short-term memory, but not as strong as ethnic Europeans or Northeast Asians.

    It would be amazing if one day the genetic factors involved could be reliably identified.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. notanon says:
    @Hood Canal Gardner
    Ok, I'll bite. Only part of the answer is wage price (ie the right price.) Wally ever tried to hire white faces outside Fresno or Bakersfield in December to pick bollies (unopened cotton bolls) for the going price growers have "agreed" to pay?

    the price of labor has been lowered by mass immigration to match the cost of living in the countries the workers send their money back to as remittances – it’s an arbitrage scam and should be treated as economic treason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch
    Penalties for hiring and housing illegal aliens have existed since 1980. Never been enforced. That is, the law has been clear and enforceable for almost 40 years.

    To wit:

    What Are the Penalties for Hiring an Illegal Immigrant?

    Criminal and civil fines
    Loss of business licenses

    Most fines are broken down to the following:

    First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.
    For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
    Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.
    This does not include “harboring” illegal immigrants, or employing ten or more illegal immigrants in one year. Harboring an illegal immigrant can lead to ten years of prison time.
     
    America is the playground and feudal estate of the wealthy, no more than that. An oligarchic aristocracy of sorts, where aristocrats (the wealthy) are immune to, and protected from the rule of law that defines the lives of the less moneyed. You have fewer political and constitutional rights enforced than any Dark Ages peasant that ever lived.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. notanon says:
    @Eagle Eye

    gene editing, brain-biochemical manipulation, ... , etc will increase I.Q.’s dramatically.
     
    True in theory. The POLITICAL reality is that gene editing will be used to turn 99% of the population into an array of subordinate castes (jatis, in Hindu terminology), whose sole purpose is to serve and pleasure a small, high-IQ alpha race with its hands on all levers of power.

    The lives of subordinate caste members will be cheap, any alpha may kill, torture or rape them at will, and they will be systematically killed once age reduces their fitness to serve.

    The personalities of subordinate jatis will be programmed to make them serve cheerfully, selflessly and tirelessly.

    everything you say *would* happen is already happening right now except through lying about the genetic basis of IQ and using that to get the higher average IQ populations to mix with lower average IQ populations to create the jatis while the people driving the process make sure to avoid it themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @utu
    Reviewers do not have to demonstrate anything or there is no burden on them to fix the paper. If there is flaw they can reject the paper. Piffer's papers has a fatal flaw.

    The ‘fatal flaw’ that you refer to appears to be falsifiability. I was naive, and thought it to be a prerequisite for scientific work. I never thought it could be a fatal flaw.

    The above aside, are you per chance a US definition economic libertarian? You appear to have a solid grasp of statistics, while missing the logical underpinnings. It could also be the North American cultural aversion to application of the modus tollens, which is implied in falsification, thus causing any structure to which the modus tollens might be applied with any real probability, to be rejected out of hand. Such a possibility would suggest that you have a higher IQ than your opponents, as they have not yet recognised the culturally equivalent to apostasy in Saudi Arabiadanger of accidental application of the modus tollens in regards Piffer.

    More to the point, the multiple possibilities with separate falsification without necessary falsification of the whole is exactly what obtains in the case of evolutionary relationships in biology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    @utu
    The ‘fatal flaw’ that you refer to appears to be falsifiability.
     
    Utu is only interested in claiming that anything Pfiffer says is wrong. But, FWIW, there is no problem with falsifiability in his approach. A reasonable dataset for which his PGS returns rubbish numbers
    (e.g., sub-Saharan Blacks scoring higher than Jews and/or Chinese) will be a moment of
    "wait, this thing does not hold up at all to what it claims".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. notanon says:
    @Stan d Mute

    On a “Look, Stupid” note, in cultures that don’t use numbers as an integral part of social function, it is very difficult for members to acquire the concept, and to memorize numbers in backward order.

    Plus, you forgot (?) that memorization is not a function of intelligence. Of IQ? Oh, yeah. Of Intelligence? Oh, no.
     
    You conflate intelligence with reproductive success and survival. Further, memory absolutely must be a component of intelligence (if intelligence is defined as a package including ability to recognize patterns, process sense data, etc, obviously one must store and retrieve previous inputs).

    Overall, this article leaves too many unanswered questions. Has this guy developed any new method of statistical analysis? What’s really new here? Has he simply compared new GWAS data to older studies and meta-studies?

    And why wouldn’t indisputable proof of genetic IQ determinism simply result in a new form of Affirmative Action and/or welfare rather than the “acceptance” of different racial outcomes?

    any genetic based problem can be fixed (over generations) through selective breeding and/or screening

    the irony here is the people who have most to gain from the truth are the populations at the bottom of the IQ pyramid

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    any genetic based problem can be fixed (over generations) through selective breeding and/or screening

    the irony here is the people who have most to gain from the truth are the populations at the bottom of the IQ pyramid
     
    That’s the optimistic view isn’t it? And some evidence it can work might be found in comparing American negroes without white admixture to West Africans who weren’t subjected to the selection processes of ancestors being sold to America rather than simply eaten after capture by rival tribes.

    But improvement of the negro won’t happen in a vacuum if it happens at all. The Chinese are already way ahead of us on this and there is what example in nature of exact equal sub-species or races of any organisms?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @notanon
    the price of labor has been lowered by mass immigration to match the cost of living in the countries the workers send their money back to as remittances - it's an arbitrage scam and should be treated as economic treason.

    Penalties for hiring and housing illegal aliens have existed since 1980. Never been enforced. That is, the law has been clear and enforceable for almost 40 years.

    To wit:

    What Are the Penalties for Hiring an Illegal Immigrant?

    Criminal and civil fines
    Loss of business licenses

    Most fines are broken down to the following:

    First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.
    For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
    Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.
    This does not include “harboring” illegal immigrants, or employing ten or more illegal immigrants in one year. Harboring an illegal immigrant can lead to ten years of prison time.

    America is the playground and feudal estate of the wealthy, no more than that. An oligarchic aristocracy of sorts, where aristocrats (the wealthy) are immune to, and protected from the rule of law that defines the lives of the less moneyed. You have fewer political and constitutional rights enforced than any Dark Ages peasant that ever lived.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @manorchurch

    - trying to be impudent or mischievous.

    I simply want an honest answer to an honest question: What is causing this correlation?
     
    Are you sure you're not being mischievous? We all know that correlation is not cause.

    “Are you sure you’re not being mischievous?”

    I’m sure. I’m the world’s leading expert on my personal motivations. Unlike certain people, I’m keenly interested in understanding how this world works. Can we now please discuss the question I asked?

    “We all know that correlation is not cause.”

    I agree. I am not assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Nonetheless, there is some sort of relationship. Can you please explain it to me?

    We have two very different datasets with very different origins:

    1. Mean IQ of a population

    2. The degree to which a population has genetic variants associated with high educational attainment.

    Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. So Orkney islanders have a high I.Q. Happy, crime free, wealthy and no diversity.
    Who says these don’t align ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?

    Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement).

    Here’s a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren’t there a million more billionaires?

    Here’s another: Why does it look like a broken down old whore like “Stormi Daniels” is going to come away with, oh, maybe a half-mill and her scumbag lawyer the other half? For a BJ and a fuck ten years ago? Why is that? IQ? Educational attainment?

    Why is Kanye West rich? Why is Kim Kardashian, notorious for fucking a chain of niggers a mile long, now worth $400 million? IQ? Educational attainment?

    The list goes on and on. Stop hunting correlation; accept reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    manorchurch, I agree. The arguments here are way out of my skill set, but, yep, I sometimes wonder what the point is. I know a guy I'd judge charitably as dull who earned about $1.5 million dollar over a ten year period (equal to maybe $2.5 mill in a big city) by virtue of being a senior person on two government payrolls at the same time. Someone wanna tell me it was I. Q. that made that possible?

    As your examples show, it's a very big world out there. Race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.
    , @Peter Frost
    "Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement)."

    No, they aren't. Yes, the genetic variants are associated with high educational attainment, but the measurement itself is the frequency of these variants in the population. You seem to be suggesting that the correlation is a methodological artefact. Clearly it isn't.


    "Here’s a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren’t there a million more billionaires?"

    The first part of your question is a bit off. Gates is alleged to have an IQ of 160. Let's drop that claim to a more realistic 150. Approximately .15-.17 percent of the population have an IQ over 150. The U.S. has 323 million people. Therefore, there should be about 500,000 people in that range.

    The U.S. has 585 billionnaires. So why aren't there more? Because access to big bucks depends not only on intelligence but also on social networks and the ability to monopolize power. Yes, intelligence isn't everything, but the existence of those 585 billionnaires would be impossible without a lot of underpaid high IQ nerds who, among other things, enable us to debate each other without even meeting.

    "Why is Kim Kardashian, notorious for f--------, now worth $400 million?"

    She has a great body, and her family have media connections.

    , @Svigor


    Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?
     
    Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement).

    Here’s a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren’t there a million more billionaires?
     
    Bro, do you even statistics?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. notanon says:
    @Svigor
    HBD is literally a Dark Art. This is why I'm a Sith.

    However, her more cerebral friend will present a cleverer argument: Although there is a strong circumstantial case that race differences in IQ are mainly genetic, it hasn’t actually been proven using genetic evidence. And, until that can be done, it is best to remain open-minded, not least because of the awful social consequences if it were proven—which you surely don’t want, unless you’re a “racist.”
     
    Here's where I realize I'm dealing with one of the rare intelligent leftists - the kind that, with a good push, will leave leftism.

    "So, what you're saying is, there's no proof at all that Whites are to blame for any of Black people's problems; leftists have falsely accused Whites of 'breaking' Blacks, and good people (of all races) can no longer sit by and watch Whites be falsely accused; they must speak out against it. Hey, I respect that. The federal gov't and multinational corporations don't, but I do my own thinking."


    However, in 2016 Detterman stepped down as head of ISIR and was replaced by Richard Haier. With new reviewers and a new editor, it was rejected out of hand.
     
    How about somebody without a fucking Kraut surname?

    Papuan New Guineans, I can't help but notice their score...aren't they the ones Jared Diamond insisted were smarter than Whites? LoL.

    Here’s where I realize I’m dealing with one of the rare intelligent leftists – the kind that, with a good push, will leave leftism.

    I think this is a critical point – back when I was a Leftist I believed the blank slate thing on trust without ever bothering to think about it but given the historical version of “race realism” i.e. that the races were different and the differences were carved in stone, I can imagine Leftists who knew the truth wanting to deny it cos if the differences were carved in stone then the truth could be used to justify various actions they’d consider immoral…

    however now we know that although those differences are fixed in the present but they can be changed over generations then there is no moral excuse anymore for not telling the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Michael Kenny
    Brave academics. OK. Why then is the person hiding behind the pen name Lance Welton not brave enough to tell us his real name?

    What’s your argument? Why should he not let what he says stand or fall on its merits or lack thereof? Are you saying that everyone should be brave when discussing matters that can rouse tempers? Will you guarantee him compensation “Michael Kenny” if he suffers from using his real name?
    BTW I have Googled for Michael Kenny. Are you the Cambridge and peripatetic one referred to by Wikipedia? I guess you are not the New Zealand boxer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Wang
    Everyone who consumes media in today's society is surrounded each by his or her own world view bubble. In these unz.com comment section, a lot of people are race realists, and believe that the social justice warriors are trying to deny them the reality. And in denying reality, the social justice warriors are standing in the way of realistic government policies towards education and social performance. I get it, I really do. In a way, race realism is just common sense. It's like reading a scientific study that says "kids born to rich, successful families do better in life." How could anyone argue against that? Differences in IQ across groups- how could we possibly deny such obvious truths? In an opaque government system such as China, the kind of information we argue for is a given as common sense. As in- well of course minorities(in china and elsewhere) have less power, and of course they have less power because historically they didn't occupy wealthy lands, and they don't occupy wealthy lands because they have historically lost major battles, and so on and so forth. It's a given because it is common sense. People who underperform tend to underperform because they are less resourceful. Groups of people who underperform because they are less resourceful as a group.

    Now in a democracy such as the US with the degree of journalistic transparency, a lot of truths just can't be said in public. It's the equivalent of saying "hey look, that person over there is ugly and stupid." No sane person would ever say such a thing in public.

    The issue is, race realism is the equivalent of saying an entire group of people is stupid. This will never, ever have any mainstream traction, because it is social suicide in a world where your words are recorded for an eternity. We are social beings, and no matter how uncomfortable the truth, people will avoid bringing attention to it. In the end, being a race realist doesn't matter, because our society already factors it in to policy at all levels.

    I work at a major technological/science institution in the US, and surrounded by high functioning people with advanced degrees. People are judged by their abilities, and diversity is cherished. This at a glance goes against acknowledging race realism, but in practice, the workplace I am at has its top positions filled almost entirely by whites/asians. The institution and its representatives openly cultivate a culture of acceptance and inclusiveness. There is no talk of race realism. Why should there be? all the top positions are already filled by high IQ people. Sure some of the lower level jobs are filled with other types of minorities, but not where it counts. There is no need to discuss high average IQ in white/asians. There is no reason to bring attention to the demographics of those who hold the key jobs in this institution.

    This gets at the fundamental issue here- The high level institutions in the US are already so meritocratic, it is already functioning factoring into race realist beliefs(i.e. reality). Same goes for the highest performing school districts in my city- high percentages are white/asian. There is always talk of correcting historic inequalities and making school districts more diverse across the country, but those are typically only in big urban school districts, with complex politics.

    While we talk and argue online, the reality on the ground is a lot closer to race realism than anyone is willing to admit. In the end, this discussion doesn't really matter. By being a race realist, you might be right, but by being right and arguing for spreading this truth, you are bringing attention to a reality that no one in their right mind would say in public.

    Knowing what I know, I still treat everyone I meet with utmost respect and kindness. I go out of my way to help people. Knowing what I know, I won't be surprised if I see a high performing white/asian, and I will be surprised if I see a high performing other minority in my line of work. Knowing what I know, it doesn't matter if I am surprised, because if they are high performing, their worth will be shown in their own abilities and character. At the end of the day, those who are highest functioning not only at work but in life, are ones who realize that we need to live together on this planet. Husband and wife, brother and sister, neighbor with neighbor. For things to be better for those who do well, things need to be not so bad for those who aren't doing well. If you aren't doing well, you want to be given a fair chance. To remind ourselves of what social justice warriors want, they generally just want to give those less fortunate a chance.

    I have young kids now, and at the playground, I see so much love by parents. I see so much happiness and warmth shared by people of all walks of life. I see kids who naturally play so well together. I can see reality from both sides of the argument- race realists and social justice warriors. If we just let some of these kids play together without introducing to their minds thoughts about average IQ, they might interact with each other and bring richness to each other's life experiences. When they grow up, chances of success will be heavily skewed by the privileged their parents provided for them, and that will be okay.

    As a race realist in my mind(which is only a small part of my worldview), with a compassionate heart and a desire for a better future, I encourage each of you on here to enrich your own life experiences and pass on wisdom to those around you.

    That’s all well and good, but what happens when our denial of race realism allows for policies that import tens of millions of low-IQ, third-world immigrants? What happens when low performing minorities go from 15% of the population to 50% of the population? How about 80% of the population?

    Ideologies have consequences, and the lack of race realism in public policy has our country well on its way to becoming a cold version of Brazil.

    Finally, look at Germany. After WWII the country came roaring back. What will happen as Germany’s low IQ, inbreed Muslim population grows? The religion of equality/race denialism has done more long term damage to Germany than fascism.

    In sum, the religion of equality, of which race denialism is a fundamental competent, is destroying the West. Immigration policy is just one of the many bad results, but is arguably the worst because its effect is practically permanent. Yes, we need to talk about race realism or your grandchildren (if they’re lucky) will be living their lives behind gates and bodyguards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. j2 says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Before Europeans came there, these people all spoke 2-3 languages and some much more, as they had so many languages.
     
    First, how large were the vocabularies of these languages? How complex grammatically? How similar were they to each other? And what proof is there of your claim since they weren’t written languages and no census was taken of their speakers?

    Proof is only anecdotal:
    ‘Project aims to halt loss of Aboriginal languages’, AFP 26/10/2010
    referred in:

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/australia-tries-to-halt-loss-of-aboriginal-languages/news-story/0d0ccb9745bfbfb81c98f4f0764dbfed

    LORRAINE Injie smiles as she remembers the rich patchwork of Aboriginal languages used during her childhood in Australia’s remote Pilbara region.
    “In my community, it was common to speak 10 languages. Speaking three wasn’t that impressive,” she says.

    The languages belong to 26 language families and many are very different, however it is not possible to say is this Lorraine Injie remembers correctly, nor if those languages were very different. They do speak two languages though, the other is avoidance language, which has the same grammar but different vocabulary, though very small. Actually, they probably did speak several languages since there were only few speakers of each language and hunter-gatherers are not so closed a group as castes in India. In Eurasia hunter-gatherers apparently formed one community exchanging wives between themselves, this follows from ancient DNA studies.

    How well they spoke other languages does not follow from this oral memory. However, please notice that IQ 62 means mental retardation in our culture. It does not imply mental retardation in their culture. This may be because in our culture people, who have this low IQ have genes that decrease IQ, mild mental retardation, while they probably lack both genes increasing IQ and genes lowering IQ. Their population (about 1 million in the continent) was so low that they have a smaller number of mutations than we.

    Hope this answers all your questions. Please, check the aboriginal languages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Meimou
    In my community, it was common to speak 10 languages. Speaking three wasn’t that impressive,” she says.

    I'll be impressed when they master indoor plumbing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Jm8 says:
    @notanon
    if (very roughly)
    Africans are AMH
    Caucasians are AMH + Neanderthal
    east Asians are AMH + Neanderthal+ Denisovan

    then couldn't some populations (e.g. Amerindians) have missed out on some of the variants unique to each sub-species (if that's the right word) while having more of one of the others so wouldn't you need to do race-specific GWAS as well as a global one?

    (or maybe they did already but don't want to publish the results?)

    Roughly, except that Amerindians have neanderthal as well (all non Africans, including Papuans, Melanesians, S.E. Asian Negritos and Australian Aborigines) have some neanderthal (about 2%). The only groups that have significant Denisovan are Papuans, Melanesians and Australian Aborigines (about 4-6%), that and some Negrito groups (the more Eastern ones like those in the Philippines) have some Denisovan as well (maybe the same amount as Papuans/Aborigines or a little less). But Andaman Islanders and the Negrito tribes Malaysia have no Denisovan. East Asians and Amerindians have a tiny bit of Denisovan, less than 1% (and of course Caucasians have none)

    “variants unique to each sub-species (if that’s the right word) while having more of one of the others so wouldn’t you need to do race-specific GWAS as well as a global one?”

    The above, however, would likely be true (though it seems likely more from evolutionary divergences between groups rather than the influence of archaic introgression), as different variants might behave somewhat differently in different groups (esp. more divergent ones), and (esp. more divergent) groups might have genes for (/influencing) iq that are not picked up in the GWAS of another group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Before Europeans came there, these people all spoke 2-3 languages and some much more, as they had so many languages.
     
    First, how large were the vocabularies of these languages? How complex grammatically? How similar were they to each other? And what proof is there of your claim since they weren’t written languages and no census was taken of their speakers?

    That IQ of 62 for Australian Aborigines being taken seriously has always seemed to me to be a way for Phil Rushton and Richard Lynn to make fools of themselves but I don’t think scepticism about speaking several languages is your strongest point. Your really good point is about the extent of the vocabulary for each language – maybe only a small fraction of the vocabulary of a European language today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. MarkinLA says:
    @Dan Wang
    Everyone who consumes media in today's society is surrounded each by his or her own world view bubble. In these unz.com comment section, a lot of people are race realists, and believe that the social justice warriors are trying to deny them the reality. And in denying reality, the social justice warriors are standing in the way of realistic government policies towards education and social performance. I get it, I really do. In a way, race realism is just common sense. It's like reading a scientific study that says "kids born to rich, successful families do better in life." How could anyone argue against that? Differences in IQ across groups- how could we possibly deny such obvious truths? In an opaque government system such as China, the kind of information we argue for is a given as common sense. As in- well of course minorities(in china and elsewhere) have less power, and of course they have less power because historically they didn't occupy wealthy lands, and they don't occupy wealthy lands because they have historically lost major battles, and so on and so forth. It's a given because it is common sense. People who underperform tend to underperform because they are less resourceful. Groups of people who underperform because they are less resourceful as a group.

    Now in a democracy such as the US with the degree of journalistic transparency, a lot of truths just can't be said in public. It's the equivalent of saying "hey look, that person over there is ugly and stupid." No sane person would ever say such a thing in public.

    The issue is, race realism is the equivalent of saying an entire group of people is stupid. This will never, ever have any mainstream traction, because it is social suicide in a world where your words are recorded for an eternity. We are social beings, and no matter how uncomfortable the truth, people will avoid bringing attention to it. In the end, being a race realist doesn't matter, because our society already factors it in to policy at all levels.

    I work at a major technological/science institution in the US, and surrounded by high functioning people with advanced degrees. People are judged by their abilities, and diversity is cherished. This at a glance goes against acknowledging race realism, but in practice, the workplace I am at has its top positions filled almost entirely by whites/asians. The institution and its representatives openly cultivate a culture of acceptance and inclusiveness. There is no talk of race realism. Why should there be? all the top positions are already filled by high IQ people. Sure some of the lower level jobs are filled with other types of minorities, but not where it counts. There is no need to discuss high average IQ in white/asians. There is no reason to bring attention to the demographics of those who hold the key jobs in this institution.

    This gets at the fundamental issue here- The high level institutions in the US are already so meritocratic, it is already functioning factoring into race realist beliefs(i.e. reality). Same goes for the highest performing school districts in my city- high percentages are white/asian. There is always talk of correcting historic inequalities and making school districts more diverse across the country, but those are typically only in big urban school districts, with complex politics.

    While we talk and argue online, the reality on the ground is a lot closer to race realism than anyone is willing to admit. In the end, this discussion doesn't really matter. By being a race realist, you might be right, but by being right and arguing for spreading this truth, you are bringing attention to a reality that no one in their right mind would say in public.

    Knowing what I know, I still treat everyone I meet with utmost respect and kindness. I go out of my way to help people. Knowing what I know, I won't be surprised if I see a high performing white/asian, and I will be surprised if I see a high performing other minority in my line of work. Knowing what I know, it doesn't matter if I am surprised, because if they are high performing, their worth will be shown in their own abilities and character. At the end of the day, those who are highest functioning not only at work but in life, are ones who realize that we need to live together on this planet. Husband and wife, brother and sister, neighbor with neighbor. For things to be better for those who do well, things need to be not so bad for those who aren't doing well. If you aren't doing well, you want to be given a fair chance. To remind ourselves of what social justice warriors want, they generally just want to give those less fortunate a chance.

    I have young kids now, and at the playground, I see so much love by parents. I see so much happiness and warmth shared by people of all walks of life. I see kids who naturally play so well together. I can see reality from both sides of the argument- race realists and social justice warriors. If we just let some of these kids play together without introducing to their minds thoughts about average IQ, they might interact with each other and bring richness to each other's life experiences. When they grow up, chances of success will be heavily skewed by the privileged their parents provided for them, and that will be okay.

    As a race realist in my mind(which is only a small part of my worldview), with a compassionate heart and a desire for a better future, I encourage each of you on here to enrich your own life experiences and pass on wisdom to those around you.

    In the end, being a race realist doesn’t matter, because our society already factors it in to policy at all levels.

    Yeah, with affirmative action and other minority set asides. Yeah, with endless programs on how to throw more money at (fill in the blank) to close the gap. While it may not affect you and the people around you, it affects a lot of mid-level people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Ahh, that deep unfair practice of ensuring that whites: women, same sex practitioners, Hispanics and Asians and foreigners( largely white) by demographic reap the benefit to the tune over 70% of such set asides.


    LOL.

    You bet color is already factored in --

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. j2 says:
    @RaceRealist88
    What novel predictions---novel facts not known before the formulation of his theory---does his theory make? A predicted fact is novel fact for that theory if it was not used in the construction of the theory in question.

    http://www.fitelson.org/290/musgrave.pdf

    So what novel predictions does the theory make?

    Do i correctly understand that you ask me what new predictions Piffer’s paper makes? I do not see there a new theory, only a possible verification of the theory that IQ affecting alleles found earlier in GWAS studies explain IQ ratings that are updates to Lynn’s earlier estimates by educational achievement results (PISA). The theory that these alleles could explain IQ is of course an assumption in the GWAS studies. A lack of new theory maybe a reason for not accepting the paper.

    I find the results, a very good correlation, a bit doubtful. I have tried to understand why it should be so. Population in Northern Europe was quite low, so there should be fewer mutations. There was a higher population in Southern Europe and Middle East, so more mutations. Most of these mutations decrease IQ as they mostly are recessive mutations and they mostly are harmful. Some can be IQ increasing, e.g. compensating loss by harmful mutations. If so, it might explain why IQ would be lower in the South, but then America. Amerinds moved to America some 15,000 years ago probably with the IQ they have, 87 or so. Then there is a short time for Northern Eurasia to go to 100-105. That is, this theory of IQ affecting alleles does not match that well with time frames and other considerations. The genes for mental retardation in the X chromosome explain why IQ could decrease if population is larger, and (not found yet but necessary) fixed X chromosome IQ increasing alleles could possibly explain gender differences and how IQ increased. Still, I cannot combine these to a real theory and I have not seen such yet.

    So, Piffer does not present a new theory. A theory would be needed. His papers support the present theory, which I do not think explains IQ enough.

    I do not know if I answered your question, did not quite understand what you meant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    Then there is a short time for Northern Eurasia to go to 100-105. That is, this theory of IQ affecting alleles does not match that well with time frames and other considerations.
     
    I don't necessarily accept the time argument however if one does even for the sake of argument that might imply the place to look for significant genes might be among the archaics who had spent a lot longer in particular environments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @MarkinLA
    In the end, being a race realist doesn’t matter, because our society already factors it in to policy at all levels.

    Yeah, with affirmative action and other minority set asides. Yeah, with endless programs on how to throw more money at (fill in the blank) to close the gap. While it may not affect you and the people around you, it affects a lot of mid-level people.

    Ahh, that deep unfair practice of ensuring that whites: women, same sex practitioners, Hispanics and Asians and foreigners( largely white) by demographic reap the benefit to the tune over 70% of such set asides.

    LOL.

    You bet color is already factored in –

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. You need to read the original post I was responding to where it was claimed that race realism is already in practice in everything. It sure isn't when it comes to white males.

    Race realism stands for no quotas whatsoever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. JackOH says:
    @manorchurch

    Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?
     
    Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement).

    Here's a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren't there a million more billionaires?

    Here's another: Why does it look like a broken down old whore like "Stormi Daniels" is going to come away with, oh, maybe a half-mill and her scumbag lawyer the other half? For a BJ and a fuck ten years ago? Why is that? IQ? Educational attainment?

    Why is Kanye West rich? Why is Kim Kardashian, notorious for fucking a chain of niggers a mile long, now worth $400 million? IQ? Educational attainment?

    The list goes on and on. Stop hunting correlation; accept reality.

    manorchurch, I agree. The arguments here are way out of my skill set, but, yep, I sometimes wonder what the point is. I know a guy I’d judge charitably as dull who earned about $1.5 million dollar over a ten year period (equal to maybe $2.5 mill in a big city) by virtue of being a senior person on two government payrolls at the same time. Someone wanna tell me it was I. Q. that made that possible?

    As your examples show, it’s a very big world out there. Race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. notanon says:
    @j2
    Do i correctly understand that you ask me what new predictions Piffer's paper makes? I do not see there a new theory, only a possible verification of the theory that IQ affecting alleles found earlier in GWAS studies explain IQ ratings that are updates to Lynn's earlier estimates by educational achievement results (PISA). The theory that these alleles could explain IQ is of course an assumption in the GWAS studies. A lack of new theory maybe a reason for not accepting the paper.

    I find the results, a very good correlation, a bit doubtful. I have tried to understand why it should be so. Population in Northern Europe was quite low, so there should be fewer mutations. There was a higher population in Southern Europe and Middle East, so more mutations. Most of these mutations decrease IQ as they mostly are recessive mutations and they mostly are harmful. Some can be IQ increasing, e.g. compensating loss by harmful mutations. If so, it might explain why IQ would be lower in the South, but then America. Amerinds moved to America some 15,000 years ago probably with the IQ they have, 87 or so. Then there is a short time for Northern Eurasia to go to 100-105. That is, this theory of IQ affecting alleles does not match that well with time frames and other considerations. The genes for mental retardation in the X chromosome explain why IQ could decrease if population is larger, and (not found yet but necessary) fixed X chromosome IQ increasing alleles could possibly explain gender differences and how IQ increased. Still, I cannot combine these to a real theory and I have not seen such yet.

    So, Piffer does not present a new theory. A theory would be needed. His papers support the present theory, which I do not think explains IQ enough.

    I do not know if I answered your question, did not quite understand what you meant.

    Then there is a short time for Northern Eurasia to go to 100-105. That is, this theory of IQ affecting alleles does not match that well with time frames and other considerations.

    I don’t necessarily accept the time argument however if one does even for the sake of argument that might imply the place to look for significant genes might be among the archaics who had spent a lot longer in particular environments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    I also think so. It could be something like this, just random thoughts. Harmful genes are usually recessive and they are purged out of a population in some time but new appear. Advantageous genes accumulate, but autosomal genes do not get fixed since males do not always select the smartest females. X chromosome autosomal genes advantageous for males do get fixed and I think there are genes for Openness for ideas, as it is more common in males points to X. This is the male gender advantage, which appeared in some archaic small population at some time, maybe in Europe as East is not Open in BFF personality traits. Large populations generate lost of mutations, which usually are harmful and sink the average IQ. The Flynn effect may be an advantage of less inbreeding and it will disappear when the population stabilizes and harmful mutations accumulate. Australian Aborigins migrated long ago and as a small population did not get many mutations, the same with other people of this early migration. The present genetic IQ variation is largely caused by autosomal genes, while the basis intelligence and gender differences are in X. Something like this, I do not know. Does it predict something? The Flynn effect is from inbreeding would be testable, also its stopping. Decrease of IQ after agriculture, maybe testable, we know the populations. Gender differences, Mendelian laws should apply if it is in X, maybe testable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. padre says:

    Interesting, how many commentators consider themselves to be experts on genetics!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  157. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @manorchurch

    Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?
     
    Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement).

    Here's a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren't there a million more billionaires?

    Here's another: Why does it look like a broken down old whore like "Stormi Daniels" is going to come away with, oh, maybe a half-mill and her scumbag lawyer the other half? For a BJ and a fuck ten years ago? Why is that? IQ? Educational attainment?

    Why is Kanye West rich? Why is Kim Kardashian, notorious for fucking a chain of niggers a mile long, now worth $400 million? IQ? Educational attainment?

    The list goes on and on. Stop hunting correlation; accept reality.

    “Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement).”

    No, they aren’t. Yes, the genetic variants are associated with high educational attainment, but the measurement itself is the frequency of these variants in the population. You seem to be suggesting that the correlation is a methodological artefact. Clearly it isn’t.

    “Here’s a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren’t there a million more billionaires?”

    The first part of your question is a bit off. Gates is alleged to have an IQ of 160. Let’s drop that claim to a more realistic 150. Approximately .15-.17 percent of the population have an IQ over 150. The U.S. has 323 million people. Therefore, there should be about 500,000 people in that range.

    The U.S. has 585 billionnaires. So why aren’t there more? Because access to big bucks depends not only on intelligence but also on social networks and the ability to monopolize power. Yes, intelligence isn’t everything, but the existence of those 585 billionnaires would be impossible without a lot of underpaid high IQ nerds who, among other things, enable us to debate each other without even meeting.

    “Why is Kim Kardashian, notorious for f——–, now worth $400 million?”

    She has a great body, and her family have media connections.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    No, they aren’t. Yes, the genetic variants are associated with high educational attainment, but the measurement itself is the frequency of these variants in the population. You seem to be suggesting that the correlation is a methodological artefact. Clearly it isn’t.
     
    Clearly it is. The same definitions that construct "IQ" and its parts are used to establish what is "educational achievement". On a Venn diagram, they would all be in the same circle. Perhaps valid within the definition, but not proven as a universality.

    Consider an individual with IQ of 140. He studies, is educated, advances, achieves some sort of certification, and lo and behold, a correlation is observed between his defined IQ and his educational attainment. The factors that measure his success are the same factors that are built-into the IQ test. You have a correlation, but it lacks true real-world universal verifiability.

    Consider another individual with IQ of 140. He studies, finishes sixth grade, and goes into the HVAC trade. After 20 years in the business, he becomes successful and moderately affluent. One day, while tinkering in his workshop, he discovers a combination of refrigerant and compression method that is ten times as efficient as any AC/Heat system discovered previously. He is hailed as the new Edison, and becomes wealthier than Bill Gates.

    What's the correlation matrix now? Taint the same, is it?
    , @Svigor

    The first part of your question is a bit off. Gates is alleged to have an IQ of 160. Let’s drop that claim to a more realistic 150. Approximately .15-.17 percent of the population have an IQ over 150. The U.S. has 323 million people. Therefore, there should be about 500,000 people in that range.

    The U.S. has 585 billionnaires. So why aren’t there more? Because access to big bucks depends not only on intelligence but also on social networks and the ability to monopolize power. Yes, intelligence isn’t everything, but the existence of those 585 billionnaires would be impossible without a lot of underpaid high IQ nerds who, among other things, enable us to debate each other without even meeting.
     

    More to the point, it's pretty silly to try to make statistical arguments out of an anecdotal outlier; the correlation of 0.9 is a statistical observation formed by averaging the results of millions of anecdotes. No one is trying to turn it into an Iron Law of Socioeconomics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. bjondo says:

    What are the IQs of the test makers and the test graders (if still human)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  159. @BroMagnon
    For the answer, look no further than breeds of dogs, which have different temperaments, intelligences, and even innate behaviors regardless of their upbringing. The human races are essentially different breeds - each with tendencies, some more clever, some more violent, etc.

    For the answer, look no further than breeds of dogs,

    That’s right, but on the other hand, dogs are not human, aren’t they?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    (I wish there’d come a time, when people would easily understand, that this is a joke – referring to those absolutely stunning times, when it was being looked upon as racist, because races were not been looked upon as somehting that could have existed – or would ever be able to be allowed to exist at all … )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. j2 says:
    @notanon

    Then there is a short time for Northern Eurasia to go to 100-105. That is, this theory of IQ affecting alleles does not match that well with time frames and other considerations.
     
    I don't necessarily accept the time argument however if one does even for the sake of argument that might imply the place to look for significant genes might be among the archaics who had spent a lot longer in particular environments.

    I also think so. It could be something like this, just random thoughts. Harmful genes are usually recessive and they are purged out of a population in some time but new appear. Advantageous genes accumulate, but autosomal genes do not get fixed since males do not always select the smartest females. X chromosome autosomal genes advantageous for males do get fixed and I think there are genes for Openness for ideas, as it is more common in males points to X. This is the male gender advantage, which appeared in some archaic small population at some time, maybe in Europe as East is not Open in BFF personality traits. Large populations generate lost of mutations, which usually are harmful and sink the average IQ. The Flynn effect may be an advantage of less inbreeding and it will disappear when the population stabilizes and harmful mutations accumulate. Australian Aborigins migrated long ago and as a small population did not get many mutations, the same with other people of this early migration. The present genetic IQ variation is largely caused by autosomal genes, while the basis intelligence and gender differences are in X. Something like this, I do not know. Does it predict something? The Flynn effect is from inbreeding would be testable, also its stopping. Decrease of IQ after agriculture, maybe testable, we know the populations. Gender differences, Mendelian laws should apply if it is in X, maybe testable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Jm8 says:
    @notanon
    if (very roughly)
    Africans are AMH
    Caucasians are AMH + Neanderthal
    east Asians are AMH + Neanderthal+ Denisovan

    then couldn't some populations (e.g. Amerindians) have missed out on some of the variants unique to each sub-species (if that's the right word) while having more of one of the others so wouldn't you need to do race-specific GWAS as well as a global one?

    (or maybe they did already but don't want to publish the results?)

    Edit:

    “…except that Amerindians have neanderthal as well (all non Africans, including Papuans, Melanesians, Andamanese, S.E. Asian Negritos, Australian Aborigines, etc. have it, at about 2%…”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. phil says:
    @notanon
    if (very roughly)
    Africans are AMH
    Caucasians are AMH + Neanderthal
    east Asians are AMH + Neanderthal+ Denisovan

    then couldn't some populations (e.g. Amerindians) have missed out on some of the variants unique to each sub-species (if that's the right word) while having more of one of the others so wouldn't you need to do race-specific GWAS as well as a global one?

    (or maybe they did already but don't want to publish the results?)

    Possibly so. It would indeed be nice to have additional, race-specific GWAS. Note that, if your conjecture is correct, it would give additional credence to the idea that there are separate biological races.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Wally says:
    @utu
    Reviewers do not have to demonstrate anything or there is no burden on them to fix the paper. If there is flaw they can reject the paper. Piffer's papers has a fatal flaw.

    Pay attention, the article says that the work had been approved, but was still rejected.

    Please actually read the piece.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @notanon
    any genetic based problem can be fixed (over generations) through selective breeding and/or screening

    the irony here is the people who have most to gain from the truth are the populations at the bottom of the IQ pyramid

    any genetic based problem can be fixed (over generations) through selective breeding and/or screening

    the irony here is the people who have most to gain from the truth are the populations at the bottom of the IQ pyramid

    That’s the optimistic view isn’t it? And some evidence it can work might be found in comparing American negroes without white admixture to West Africans who weren’t subjected to the selection processes of ancestors being sold to America rather than simply eaten after capture by rival tribes.

    But improvement of the negro won’t happen in a vacuum if it happens at all. The Chinese are already way ahead of us on this and there is what example in nature of exact equal sub-species or races of any organisms?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Actually, Chinese began as a "crude" writing style consisting mainly of pictures.

    https://www.brown.edu/about/administration/international-affairs/year-of-china/language-and-cultural-resources/introduction-chinese-characters/introduction-chinese-characters

    Even our own alphabet evolved from a pictographic script. The letter "A," for instance, comes from a picture of a cow. The letter "B" comes from a picture of a house. You get the picture. ;-)

    And the silly meso-American pictures went no farther than little pictures, all other languages did.

    Thanks for supporting my point. LOL

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Yeah, neither did hieroglyphics. Ultimately they were displaced by more economical forms of writing from outside . The Maya weren’t exposed to outside writing influences like the Egyptians were. Therein lies the difference.

    By the way, it took hundreds of years for Chinese writing to evolve in the manner it did, due to all kinds of external pressures. Maya writing again lacked those pressures.

    Finally, “all other writing systems” is a bit of an overstatement. Most writing systems went nowhere, and most of the extant systems used today come from two sources; Chinese and Phoenician.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Peter Frost
    "Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement)."

    No, they aren't. Yes, the genetic variants are associated with high educational attainment, but the measurement itself is the frequency of these variants in the population. You seem to be suggesting that the correlation is a methodological artefact. Clearly it isn't.


    "Here’s a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren’t there a million more billionaires?"

    The first part of your question is a bit off. Gates is alleged to have an IQ of 160. Let's drop that claim to a more realistic 150. Approximately .15-.17 percent of the population have an IQ over 150. The U.S. has 323 million people. Therefore, there should be about 500,000 people in that range.

    The U.S. has 585 billionnaires. So why aren't there more? Because access to big bucks depends not only on intelligence but also on social networks and the ability to monopolize power. Yes, intelligence isn't everything, but the existence of those 585 billionnaires would be impossible without a lot of underpaid high IQ nerds who, among other things, enable us to debate each other without even meeting.

    "Why is Kim Kardashian, notorious for f--------, now worth $400 million?"

    She has a great body, and her family have media connections.

    No, they aren’t. Yes, the genetic variants are associated with high educational attainment, but the measurement itself is the frequency of these variants in the population. You seem to be suggesting that the correlation is a methodological artefact. Clearly it isn’t.

    Clearly it is. The same definitions that construct “IQ” and its parts are used to establish what is “educational achievement”. On a Venn diagram, they would all be in the same circle. Perhaps valid within the definition, but not proven as a universality.

    Consider an individual with IQ of 140. He studies, is educated, advances, achieves some sort of certification, and lo and behold, a correlation is observed between his defined IQ and his educational attainment. The factors that measure his success are the same factors that are built-into the IQ test. You have a correlation, but it lacks true real-world universal verifiability.

    Consider another individual with IQ of 140. He studies, finishes sixth grade, and goes into the HVAC trade. After 20 years in the business, he becomes successful and moderately affluent. One day, while tinkering in his workshop, he discovers a combination of refrigerant and compression method that is ten times as efficient as any AC/Heat system discovered previously. He is hailed as the new Edison, and becomes wealthier than Bill Gates.

    What’s the correlation matrix now? Taint the same, is it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Frost
    The same definitions that construct “IQ” and its parts are used to establish what is “educational achievement”

    That's not the correlation I was talking about. Yes, IQ and educational attainment are measured using similar concepts, methodology and, very often, the same kind of test. But I was talking about another correlation between two very different datasets:

    1. The incidence of certain genetic variants in a population.

    2. The mean of IQ test results in the same population.

    These two datasets have been produced using different concepts and methodologies. There are very few ways of explaining the high correlation between these datasets. I can think of only two explanations:

    1. Davide Piffer consciously or unconsciously chose genetic variants that would produce such a high correlation. This is unlikely, since other researchers identified those variants.

    2. The two datasets are measuring the same phenomenon. Different human populations differ, on average, in some kind of mental processing, and this mental processing has a genetic basis.

    Not one of the almost 200 comments here has offered an alternate explanation. Instead, the naysayers have focused on the validity of each dataset, e.g., IQ doesn't really measure intelligence. Intelligence isn't all that important. The sample size of the genetic variants is too small. These criticisms are interesting, but none of them can explain Piffer's main finding.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. phil says:
    @notanon
    if (very roughly)
    Africans are AMH
    Caucasians are AMH + Neanderthal
    east Asians are AMH + Neanderthal+ Denisovan

    then couldn't some populations (e.g. Amerindians) have missed out on some of the variants unique to each sub-species (if that's the right word) while having more of one of the others so wouldn't you need to do race-specific GWAS as well as a global one?

    (or maybe they did already but don't want to publish the results?)

    On backwards digits tests (correctly reciting a series of digits in reverse order), people with substantial Amerindian (AI) admixture tend to outscore people of sub-Saharan African (SSA) ancestry, but SSAs tend to outscore AIs on forward digits tests (correctly reciting the series of digits in the original order); AIs seem particularly weak with respect to short-term memory. SSAs tend to be comparatively strong with respect to short-term memory, but not as strong as ethnic Europeans or Northeast Asians.

    It would be amazing if one day the genetic factors involved could be reliably identified.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    yes - odd things like that especially
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johan Meyer
    The 'fatal flaw' that you refer to appears to be falsifiability. I was naive, and thought it to be a prerequisite for scientific work. I never thought it could be a fatal flaw.

    The above aside, are you per chance a US definition economic libertarian? You appear to have a solid grasp of statistics, while missing the logical underpinnings. It could also be the North American cultural aversion to application of the modus tollens, which is implied in falsification, thus causing any structure to which the modus tollens might be applied with any real probability, to be rejected out of hand. Such a possibility would suggest that you have a higher IQ than your opponents, as they have not yet recognised the culturally equivalent to apostasy in Saudi Arabiadanger of accidental application of the modus tollens in regards Piffer.

    More to the point, the multiple possibilities with separate falsification without necessary falsification of the whole is exactly what obtains in the case of evolutionary relationships in biology.


    The ‘fatal flaw’ that you refer to appears to be falsifiability.

    Utu is only interested in claiming that anything Pfiffer says is wrong. But, FWIW, there is no problem with falsifiability in his approach. A reasonable dataset for which his PGS returns rubbish numbers
    (e.g., sub-Saharan Blacks scoring higher than Jews and/or Chinese) will be a moment of
    “wait, this thing does not hold up at all to what it claims”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Wally
    And the silly meso-American pictures went no farther than little pictures, all other languages did.

    Thanks for supporting my point. LOL

    Yeah, neither did hieroglyphics. Ultimately they were displaced by more economical forms of writing from outside . The Maya weren’t exposed to outside writing influences like the Egyptians were. Therein lies the difference.

    By the way, it took hundreds of years for Chinese writing to evolve in the manner it did, due to all kinds of external pressures. Maya writing again lacked those pressures.

    Finally, “all other writing systems” is a bit of an overstatement. Most writing systems went nowhere, and most of the extant systems used today come from two sources; Chinese and Phoenician.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    The pictures represented syllables, i.e. Maya writing was phonetic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Dale says:
    @Eagle Eye

    gene editing, brain-biochemical manipulation, ... , etc will increase I.Q.’s dramatically.
     
    True in theory. The POLITICAL reality is that gene editing will be used to turn 99% of the population into an array of subordinate castes (jatis, in Hindu terminology), whose sole purpose is to serve and pleasure a small, high-IQ alpha race with its hands on all levers of power.

    The lives of subordinate caste members will be cheap, any alpha may kill, torture or rape them at will, and they will be systematically killed once age reduces their fitness to serve.

    The personalities of subordinate jatis will be programmed to make them serve cheerfully, selflessly and tirelessly.

    Brave New World indeed!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. utu says:
    @Anonymous
    Oh, Utu! Sigh. We've been there and you still don't understand (don't want to?):

    Piffer's correlation cannot be simply spurious. It reproduces nicely on different datasets. That's an essence of cross-validation: if you overfit data to pick some spurious noise, the fit will fail on an independent dataset because the noise--by definition--is going to be completely different there. The datasets in question are of sufficiently different origin that it would be incredibly strange for them to possess the same noise.

    Next, please understand that he does not just search for SNPs to cherry-pick to produce highest correlations. He merely picks strongest signals that repeatedly come up in GWAS on things related to cognitive skills - then uses them to find out what population-level correlations they have.

    It does not matter how he picked SNP’s whether from GWAS or not. He did also random Monte Carlo search that gave him other SNP’s subsets that produced even higher correlation. Why not argue that there were the causal culprit?

    Cross validation or rather validation when you want to eliminate the spuriousness of your initial solution when dealing with undetermined system is something else than what you think. The validation set of data must be separate and independent. You get “validity” of validation when the sets are large. In his case he has a very small set of 20 or so numbers (IQ assigned to countries by Lynn). There is no way of validating his result in this sense. That’s why I am saying the situation is hopeless.

    Imagine this: You generate a sequence of random numbers and assign them to countries. The sequence is 20 or so long. Then you do search for SNPs. Let’s say you look for 8 of them and calculate polygenic scores and check correlation with the sequence of the random numbers. Within the set of millions of SNPs you are bound to find many, many subsets of 8 that will correlate with your data sequence. The correlation are spurious because the data set is random.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Why not argue that there were the causal culprit?
     
    Because those were not detected as significant in an EA or IQ GWAS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. notanon says:
    @phil
    On backwards digits tests (correctly reciting a series of digits in reverse order), people with substantial Amerindian (AI) admixture tend to outscore people of sub-Saharan African (SSA) ancestry, but SSAs tend to outscore AIs on forward digits tests (correctly reciting the series of digits in the original order); AIs seem particularly weak with respect to short-term memory. SSAs tend to be comparatively strong with respect to short-term memory, but not as strong as ethnic Europeans or Northeast Asians.

    It would be amazing if one day the genetic factors involved could be reliably identified.

    yes – odd things like that especially

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Svigor says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres
    Recently scientists have managed to squeeze out the ability to explain 10% of intelligence variation through genetic analysis. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104

    10% of var explained is nowhere near enough to start making race difference predictions, at least not ones that explain any more than a drop of var, and then get drowned out by other explicative factors.

    The science above falls into the correlation≠causation problem.

    LoL, could you unpack “making race difference predictions”?

    I ask because the planet Earth is full of great reasons to have long been making “race difference predictions”; we are awash in “race differences,” with “race equalities” being rather thin on the ground, save as social constructs.

    The idea is to start explaining the ubiquitous, robust, in-the-most-salient-cases-never-and-nowhere-contradicted race differences; to start explaining why race realism has so much predictive power. That it does is not really in dispute with anyone this side of sputtering leftist useless eaters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Svigor says:
    @manorchurch

    Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?
     
    Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement).

    Here's a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren't there a million more billionaires?

    Here's another: Why does it look like a broken down old whore like "Stormi Daniels" is going to come away with, oh, maybe a half-mill and her scumbag lawyer the other half? For a BJ and a fuck ten years ago? Why is that? IQ? Educational attainment?

    Why is Kanye West rich? Why is Kim Kardashian, notorious for fucking a chain of niggers a mile long, now worth $400 million? IQ? Educational attainment?

    The list goes on and on. Stop hunting correlation; accept reality.

    Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?

    Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement).

    Here’s a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren’t there a million more billionaires?

    Bro, do you even statistics?

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Bro, do you even statistics?
     
    Sure do, Sis. Odd ones, too. Correlations ain't made nothing new happen yet.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    I say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly.


    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    That in essence is the answer to the correlation question. If correlation is not cause, then what are the factors that impact said relationship.

    2 x 2 is 4

    2 plus 2 is 4

    Two different equations same result. I have no desire to diffuse what has been an interesting exchange.

    Always what is behind genetics is environment/circumstance and that complicates any discussion of what is not a static scientific artifact. Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don't need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.


    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Svigor says:
    @Peter Frost
    "Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement)."

    No, they aren't. Yes, the genetic variants are associated with high educational attainment, but the measurement itself is the frequency of these variants in the population. You seem to be suggesting that the correlation is a methodological artefact. Clearly it isn't.


    "Here’s a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren’t there a million more billionaires?"

    The first part of your question is a bit off. Gates is alleged to have an IQ of 160. Let's drop that claim to a more realistic 150. Approximately .15-.17 percent of the population have an IQ over 150. The U.S. has 323 million people. Therefore, there should be about 500,000 people in that range.

    The U.S. has 585 billionnaires. So why aren't there more? Because access to big bucks depends not only on intelligence but also on social networks and the ability to monopolize power. Yes, intelligence isn't everything, but the existence of those 585 billionnaires would be impossible without a lot of underpaid high IQ nerds who, among other things, enable us to debate each other without even meeting.

    "Why is Kim Kardashian, notorious for f--------, now worth $400 million?"

    She has a great body, and her family have media connections.

    The first part of your question is a bit off. Gates is alleged to have an IQ of 160. Let’s drop that claim to a more realistic 150. Approximately .15-.17 percent of the population have an IQ over 150. The U.S. has 323 million people. Therefore, there should be about 500,000 people in that range.

    The U.S. has 585 billionnaires. So why aren’t there more? Because access to big bucks depends not only on intelligence but also on social networks and the ability to monopolize power. Yes, intelligence isn’t everything, but the existence of those 585 billionnaires would be impossible without a lot of underpaid high IQ nerds who, among other things, enable us to debate each other without even meeting.

    More to the point, it’s pretty silly to try to make statistical arguments out of an anecdotal outlier; the correlation of 0.9 is a statistical observation formed by averaging the results of millions of anecdotes. No one is trying to turn it into an Iron Law of Socioeconomics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Svigor says:
    @Vojkan
    I don't get either the obsession with IQ on this site. In my opinion, one's output in real life matters much more than his alleged intelligence due to his results on some "intelligence" measuring test. In my field, software design and programming, I have worked with people who allegedly scored way above 132 on tests and their output was such rubbish that after review, it was obvious it couldn't work so I had to redesign and rewrite. So much for the accuracy of IQ tests.

    Again, it’s a statistical thing. It’s not about “one,” or his output. It’s not about you. It’s not about anyone you’ve worked with. It’s not about the IQ score of any person you’ve worked with.

    Does that help?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Svigor says:

    I was thinking about the old chestnut, “I know a guy with a high IQ who did something really stupid.” Why is it never, “I know a guy with a low IQ who did something really brilliant”? Partly because anti-IQ-fetishists are misusing the idea of ability. Ability is about potential; the smart guy can always do something stupid; the stupid guy cannot do something brilliant.

    If the regime rewarded it, they’d be talking about how they know a guy with one leg, ergo bipeds are a social construct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  178. @Svigor


    Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?
     
    Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement).

    Here’s a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren’t there a million more billionaires?
     
    Bro, do you even statistics?

    Bro, do you even statistics?

    Sure do, Sis. Odd ones, too. Correlations ain’t made nothing new happen yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Andrew E. Mathis
    Yeah, neither did hieroglyphics. Ultimately they were displaced by more economical forms of writing from outside . The Maya weren’t exposed to outside writing influences like the Egyptians were. Therein lies the difference.

    By the way, it took hundreds of years for Chinese writing to evolve in the manner it did, due to all kinds of external pressures. Maya writing again lacked those pressures.

    Finally, “all other writing systems” is a bit of an overstatement. Most writing systems went nowhere, and most of the extant systems used today come from two sources; Chinese and Phoenician.

    The pictures represented syllables, i.e. Maya writing was phonetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    If that’s true, then it was even more advanced than Chinese writing is today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Johan Meyer
    The pictures represented syllables, i.e. Maya writing was phonetic.

    If that’s true, then it was even more advanced than Chinese writing is today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Ronald Thomas West
    If genetic research has all sorts of politically correct social scientists freaking out at the idea it can be construed to bear out White Supremacy in intelligence, likely their own lack of intelligence is to fail recognizing there are different kinds of intelligence in Humans.

    Anyone can learn this ‘White’ intelligence to a greater or lesser degree, but how useful is it? After all, only civilization descended from Plato would pursue a planet-wide life threatening degradation of the environment, capitalizing on its thirst ‘to know’, and label the resultant destruction ‘progress.’

    Perhaps other people’s genetics are predisposed to an intelligence, a higher intelligence, the European cultures do not know how to measure.

    There are also less intelligent ways of destroying the planet. You can see them in Haiti and where there are less intelligent immigrants in more intelligent societies. You can also see what more intelligent immigrants accomplished in less intelligent societies. Political correctness aside.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. res says:
    @utu
    It does not matter how he picked SNP's whether from GWAS or not. He did also random Monte Carlo search that gave him other SNP's subsets that produced even higher correlation. Why not argue that there were the causal culprit?

    Cross validation or rather validation when you want to eliminate the spuriousness of your initial solution when dealing with undetermined system is something else than what you think. The validation set of data must be separate and independent. You get "validity" of validation when the sets are large. In his case he has a very small set of 20 or so numbers (IQ assigned to countries by Lynn). There is no way of validating his result in this sense. That's why I am saying the situation is hopeless.

    Imagine this: You generate a sequence of random numbers and assign them to countries. The sequence is 20 or so long. Then you do search for SNPs. Let's say you look for 8 of them and calculate polygenic scores and check correlation with the sequence of the random numbers. Within the set of millions of SNPs you are bound to find many, many subsets of 8 that will correlate with your data sequence. The correlation are spurious because the data set is random.

    Why not argue that there were the causal culprit?

    Because those were not detected as significant in an EA or IQ GWAS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    significant in an EA or IQ GWAS
     
    OK, so significant that these 8 Piffer's SNP's can account for 1% of variance? Yet you somehow find it credible that they may explain differences between means ranging from 110 to 75 which is over 2SD of normal IQ range.

    Let's imagine that down the road somebody will find IQ predictor function for the whole world population where these 8 SNPs will be used along with, say 10,000 of other SNPs. Hsu's work indicate that the number of needed SNP's will be huge so 10,000 may be a low estimate.

    Let's write down this predictor function:


    IQ=A*PS_piffer+B*PS_10,000+C
     
    where PS stands for polygenic score.

    Let's denote by [.]_x the average over a subpopulation x, where x is them French, them Hottentots, them Chinese and so on. Then


    [IQ]_x=A*[PS_piffer]_x+B*[PS_10,000]_x+C
     
    Piffer's result is

    Cor([IQ]_x, [PS_piffer]_x]≈0.85
     
    His result will be possible only if (1) [PS_piffer]_x is highly correlated with [PS_10,000]_x or if (2)[PS_10,000]_x≈const, the same const for every subpopulation x.

    It is very hard to speculate what possibly might be the mean of the polygenic score of some unknown yet 10,000 SNP's but apparently you and Piffer seem to be very confident that it will turn out just right: it will either correlate with [PS_piffer]_x or it will be constant.

    Your confidence is nothing else but wishful thinking on your part and pure unmitigated chutzpah on Piffer's part. Faith can move mountains and turn reasonable men into fools. You have repeatedly shown here that you can be very reasonable, sensible and level headed person and unfortunately as a doctrinaire. Don't let the latter define you.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. I am always watching.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  184. Meimou says:
    @Sin City Milla
    Seems to me the point of Unz publishing the article was not to spark a debate on the mechanics of genomic research but to make a point about censorship in scholarly journals. Reminds me of when I submitted a research article on Islam to law reviews. One reviewer advised rejection on the grounds that I had failed to treat feminism in Islam. First, as informed people know-or should know-there is no feminism in Islam. They are as mutually irrelevant as bicycles n fish. Second, the subject of the thesis, which was about the persistence of traditional legal concepts n practices, not modern conceptions, pretty well excluded any discussion of feminism.

    A second reviewer advised rejection on the grounds that I had not used first-hand original medieval Arabic sources in my analysis, though I had used Arabic Quran n Arabic publications of Hadith. This despite the fact that even the most casual perusal of law review journals will quickly find dozens of published articles on Islam by writers using only English language materials. But these articles almost without exception assert the full compatibility of traditional Islam with modern feminism.

    The third "review" was from law review editors themselves n, without challenging any of my facts or analysis, stated simply "we cannot accept your conclusions". After that, I self-published.

    YOne reviewer advised rejection on the grounds that I had failed to treat feminism in Islam.

    It’s bad enough that the gatekeepers of science are guarded by scientific fundamentalist who defend establishment beliefs with zeal of devout priest, now we have to deal with GD SJWers.

    Must they have everything?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Meimou says:
    @j2
    Proof is only anecdotal:
    'Project aims to halt loss of Aboriginal languages', AFP 26/10/2010
    referred in:
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/australia-tries-to-halt-loss-of-aboriginal-languages/news-story/0d0ccb9745bfbfb81c98f4f0764dbfed
    LORRAINE Injie smiles as she remembers the rich patchwork of Aboriginal languages used during her childhood in Australia's remote Pilbara region.
    "In my community, it was common to speak 10 languages. Speaking three wasn't that impressive," she says.

    The languages belong to 26 language families and many are very different, however it is not possible to say is this Lorraine Injie remembers correctly, nor if those languages were very different. They do speak two languages though, the other is avoidance language, which has the same grammar but different vocabulary, though very small. Actually, they probably did speak several languages since there were only few speakers of each language and hunter-gatherers are not so closed a group as castes in India. In Eurasia hunter-gatherers apparently formed one community exchanging wives between themselves, this follows from ancient DNA studies.

    How well they spoke other languages does not follow from this oral memory. However, please notice that IQ 62 means mental retardation in our culture. It does not imply mental retardation in their culture. This may be because in our culture people, who have this low IQ have genes that decrease IQ, mild mental retardation, while they probably lack both genes increasing IQ and genes lowering IQ. Their population (about 1 million in the continent) was so low that they have a smaller number of mutations than we.

    Hope this answers all your questions. Please, check the aboriginal languages.

    In my community, it was common to speak 10 languages. Speaking three wasn’t that impressive,” she says.

    I’ll be impressed when they master indoor plumbing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    "I’ll be impressed when they master indoor plumbing."

    Is that a job for a hunter-gatherer?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Vojkan says:

    I will put it differently. Giving meaningful answers / providing working solutions to questions / problems with no predetermined answers / solutions is a sign of intelligence. A test consisting of questions with predetermined answers is not a scientific measure of intelligence.
    Scientific implies verifiable. Let’s say that theoretically, IQ tests provide a measure of intelligence. How do you verify the value obtained? With another IQ test? Reality is maybe a better checker. How conclusive is the check of reality?
    Scientific implies repeatable. One single person will have different scores at different tests, not seldom with variations over 10% between best and worst. So much for repeatable.
    You want to apply something that is scientifically invalid for a single person to whole races?
    We’re not speaking here of friction or the Coriolis acceleration that alter calculations in mechanics, we are speaking of so many factors that can influence the results of IQ tests that they can’t be neither enumerated nor quantified. IQ tests are not scientific, by any stretch of the meaning of the word science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Let's take two tribes, the 'hunters/gatherers' and the 'farmers. Obviously, the former's environment is intellectually more challenging than the latter's so the 'hunters/gatherers' are likely to score higher on IQ tests. Yet, the 'farmers', while having more time to indulge in contemplation, are also likely to gain longer life expectancy than the 'hunters/gatherers'. Granted, it is a rather extreme and by today's standards unrealistic example, but really, who'd you think is smarter?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Svigor


    Why is there such a high correlation (0.9) between the two?
     
    Because both are measured with the same scale, spectrum and data points. (IQ and educational achievement).

    Here’s a question: If there are a million people in the USA with higher IQs than Gates, Bezos, or Buffett, then why aren’t there a million more billionaires?
     
    Bro, do you even statistics?

    I say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly.

    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    That in essence is the answer to the correlation question. If correlation is not cause, then what are the factors that impact said relationship.

    2 x 2 is 4

    2 plus 2 is 4

    Two different equations same result. I have no desire to diffuse what has been an interesting exchange.

    Always what is behind genetics is environment/circumstance and that complicates any discussion of what is not a static scientific artifact. Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don’t need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.

    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.
     
    1) if IQ is partly genetic then a low average IQ can only be fixed by some form of selective breeding.

    2) if IQ is partly genetic then blaming education gaps on white privilege is mass child abuse.
    , @Vojkan
    As someone who scored above the threshold on a MENSA test, I couldn't agree more with you.
    , @Meimou
    say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly

    It your IQ was low you probably wouldn't be on this site(or The American Conservative) it may be low compared to many of the posters here, but certainly not low.

    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    The ability to deter gratification and conscientious are probably more important than g, but there is overlap bewteen them.

    Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don’t need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.

    Ok, let's measure brain density, the development of the prefrontal cortex, the shape of the brain, glucose uptake...

    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses

    Really? Name one HBD'er who even brings up "superiority".

    The only people who relate "superiority" to IQ are....wait for it....






    ......wait for it.....










    Race deniers/IQ deniers. This would explain why intelligent educated people who accept evolution embrace an idea that completely contradicts it; blacks, whites, yellows could not have adaptedto very different environments and say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly

    It your IQ was low you probably wouldn't be on this site(or The American Conservative) it may be low compared to many of the posters here, but certainly not low.

    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    The ability to deter gratification and conscientious are probably more important than g, but there is overlap bewteen them.

    Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don’t need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.

    Ok, let's measure brain density, the development of the prefrontal cortex, the shape of the brain, glucose uptake...

    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses

    Really? Name one HBD'er who even brings up "superiority".

    The only people who relate "superiority" to IQ are....wait for it....






    ......wait for it.....










    Race deniers/IQ deniers. This would explain why intelligent educated people who accept evolution embrace an idea that completely contradicts it; blacks, whites, yellows could not have adapted to very different environments and turn out to be the same subspecies/race/breed...and yes they are the same thing. RD'ers - some of them - are worried about camps sprouting up. It would be nice if they would just admit that do we came skip the "debate"
    , @Santoculto

    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.
     
    Self confession jimmyous...
    , @Saxon

    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.
     
    As opposed to real or feigned ignorance about the subject in order to institute policies as punitive measures against certain groups, using off-the-wall conspiracy theories about "privilege." Maybe this whole multiracialism thing is a bad idea as it inherently causes conflict, but I guess I'm just a bigot if I think that of it in anything less than glowing terms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. utu says:
    @res

    Why not argue that there were the causal culprit?
     
    Because those were not detected as significant in an EA or IQ GWAS.

    significant in an EA or IQ GWAS

    OK, so significant that these 8 Piffer’s SNP’s can account for 1% of variance? Yet you somehow find it credible that they may explain differences between means ranging from 110 to 75 which is over 2SD of normal IQ range.

    Let’s imagine that down the road somebody will find IQ predictor function for the whole world population where these 8 SNPs will be used along with, say 10,000 of other SNPs. Hsu’s work indicate that the number of needed SNP’s will be huge so 10,000 may be a low estimate.

    Let’s write down this predictor function:

    IQ=A*PS_piffer+B*PS_10,000+C

    where PS stands for polygenic score.

    Let’s denote by [.]_x the average over a subpopulation x, where x is them French, them Hottentots, them Chinese and so on. Then

    [IQ]_x=A*[PS_piffer]_x+B*[PS_10,000]_x+C

    Piffer’s result is

    Cor([IQ]_x, [PS_piffer]_x]≈0.85

    His result will be possible only if (1) [PS_piffer]_x is highly correlated with [PS_10,000]_x or if (2)[PS_10,000]_x≈const, the same const for every subpopulation x.

    It is very hard to speculate what possibly might be the mean of the polygenic score of some unknown yet 10,000 SNP’s but apparently you and Piffer seem to be very confident that it will turn out just right: it will either correlate with [PS_piffer]_x or it will be constant.

    Your confidence is nothing else but wishful thinking on your part and pure unmitigated chutzpah on Piffer’s part. Faith can move mountains and turn reasonable men into fools. You have repeatedly shown here that you can be very reasonable, sensible and level headed person and unfortunately as a doctrinaire. Don’t let the latter define you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    sheep dogs prove that intelligence is genetic - and they proved it beyond any reasonable doubt tens of thousands of years ago - the blank slate is obviously nonsense.

    the only relevant question remaining is what are the precise details.
    , @res
    You asked why. I told you. The rest of your comment is a waste of time.


    Your confidence is nothing else but wishful thinking on your part and pure unmitigated chutzpah on Piffer’s part.
     
    We shall see who is right and who is wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Vojkan says:
    @Vojkan
    I will put it differently. Giving meaningful answers / providing working solutions to questions / problems with no predetermined answers / solutions is a sign of intelligence. A test consisting of questions with predetermined answers is not a scientific measure of intelligence.
    Scientific implies verifiable. Let's say that theoretically, IQ tests provide a measure of intelligence. How do you verify the value obtained? With another IQ test? Reality is maybe a better checker. How conclusive is the check of reality?
    Scientific implies repeatable. One single person will have different scores at different tests, not seldom with variations over 10% between best and worst. So much for repeatable.
    You want to apply something that is scientifically invalid for a single person to whole races?
    We're not speaking here of friction or the Coriolis acceleration that alter calculations in mechanics, we are speaking of so many factors that can influence the results of IQ tests that they can't be neither enumerated nor quantified. IQ tests are not scientific, by any stretch of the meaning of the word science.

    Let’s take two tribes, the ‘hunters/gatherers’ and the ‘farmers. Obviously, the former’s environment is intellectually more challenging than the latter’s so the ‘hunters/gatherers’ are likely to score higher on IQ tests. Yet, the ‘farmers’, while having more time to indulge in contemplation, are also likely to gain longer life expectancy than the ‘hunters/gatherers’. Granted, it is a rather extreme and by today’s standards unrealistic example, but really, who’d you think is smarter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Let’s take two tribes, the ‘hunters/gatherers’ and the ‘farmers. Obviously, the former’s environment is intellectually more challenging than the latter’s
     
    Your first mistake is your assumption -- an assumption for which you have no verifiable evidence. A farm environment is not necessarily less intellectually challenging than a hunter/gatherer environment. You generalize, you assume, you prattle nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. notanon says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly.


    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    That in essence is the answer to the correlation question. If correlation is not cause, then what are the factors that impact said relationship.

    2 x 2 is 4

    2 plus 2 is 4

    Two different equations same result. I have no desire to diffuse what has been an interesting exchange.

    Always what is behind genetics is environment/circumstance and that complicates any discussion of what is not a static scientific artifact. Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don't need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.


    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.

    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    1) if IQ is partly genetic then a low average IQ can only be fixed by some form of selective breeding.

    2) if IQ is partly genetic then blaming education gaps on white privilege is mass child abuse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. notanon says:
    @utu

    significant in an EA or IQ GWAS
     
    OK, so significant that these 8 Piffer's SNP's can account for 1% of variance? Yet you somehow find it credible that they may explain differences between means ranging from 110 to 75 which is over 2SD of normal IQ range.

    Let's imagine that down the road somebody will find IQ predictor function for the whole world population where these 8 SNPs will be used along with, say 10,000 of other SNPs. Hsu's work indicate that the number of needed SNP's will be huge so 10,000 may be a low estimate.

    Let's write down this predictor function:


    IQ=A*PS_piffer+B*PS_10,000+C
     
    where PS stands for polygenic score.

    Let's denote by [.]_x the average over a subpopulation x, where x is them French, them Hottentots, them Chinese and so on. Then


    [IQ]_x=A*[PS_piffer]_x+B*[PS_10,000]_x+C
     
    Piffer's result is

    Cor([IQ]_x, [PS_piffer]_x]≈0.85
     
    His result will be possible only if (1) [PS_piffer]_x is highly correlated with [PS_10,000]_x or if (2)[PS_10,000]_x≈const, the same const for every subpopulation x.

    It is very hard to speculate what possibly might be the mean of the polygenic score of some unknown yet 10,000 SNP's but apparently you and Piffer seem to be very confident that it will turn out just right: it will either correlate with [PS_piffer]_x or it will be constant.

    Your confidence is nothing else but wishful thinking on your part and pure unmitigated chutzpah on Piffer's part. Faith can move mountains and turn reasonable men into fools. You have repeatedly shown here that you can be very reasonable, sensible and level headed person and unfortunately as a doctrinaire. Don't let the latter define you.

    sheep dogs prove that intelligence is genetic – and they proved it beyond any reasonable doubt tens of thousands of years ago – the blank slate is obviously nonsense.

    the only relevant question remaining is what are the precise details.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    sheep dogs prove that intelligence is genetic
     
    Potential intelligence is established by genetics and in utero conditions. Available adult intelligence is a function of genetics, environment, and experience.
    , @utu
    The discussion is not about blank state or no plan state if you haven't noticed or were you too busy competing with your sheep dog for the attention of your sheep. Which one is the most pretty?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Vojkan says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly.


    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    That in essence is the answer to the correlation question. If correlation is not cause, then what are the factors that impact said relationship.

    2 x 2 is 4

    2 plus 2 is 4

    Two different equations same result. I have no desire to diffuse what has been an interesting exchange.

    Always what is behind genetics is environment/circumstance and that complicates any discussion of what is not a static scientific artifact. Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don't need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.


    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.

    As someone who scored above the threshold on a MENSA test, I couldn’t agree more with you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    As someone who scored above the threshold on a MENSA test, I couldn’t agree more with you.
     
    As someone who actually joined MENSA at a tender age, I couldn't agree more that I never before and never since have met such a pack of self-absorbed dipshits. Beyond basic self-indulgence and self-admiration, there was little more than a dismayingly frenzied pursuit of sexual gratification.

    I'm sure that many folks flexing their, um, mental muscles on Unzdotcom are every bit the intellectual elite as Mensans. Just don't move into my neighborhood -- we got rules.
    , @Meimou
    As someone who scored above the threshold on a MENSA test, I couldn’t agree more with you.

    What exactly did you agree with him on? The part about IQ test being nearly irrelevant? The gibberish in the middle?

    Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X

    Tell us something genius. How did the ancestors of , whites, and yellows adapt to different environments and still come out with the same cognitive functions and personalities?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Vojkan
    As someone who scored above the threshold on a MENSA test, I couldn't agree more with you.

    As someone who scored above the threshold on a MENSA test, I couldn’t agree more with you.

    As someone who actually joined MENSA at a tender age, I couldn’t agree more that I never before and never since have met such a pack of self-absorbed dipshits. Beyond basic self-indulgence and self-admiration, there was little more than a dismayingly frenzied pursuit of sexual gratification.

    I’m sure that many folks flexing their, um, mental muscles on Unzdotcom are every bit the intellectual elite as Mensans. Just don’t move into my neighborhood — we got rules.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    You see, people like you are exactly the reason why I refused Mensa's sollicitations to join some 14 years ago. You have just proven that I am right when I say that you folks are nerds with psychological issues from whom nothing good can be expected.
    To be true, Piffer's work appears to be much more nuanced and actually scientifically valid - if one makes abstraction of the IQ thing - than what one whould deduce from the case made by his 'defenders'.

    https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/121/3/121_130731/_html/-char/en
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @manorchurch

    No, they aren’t. Yes, the genetic variants are associated with high educational attainment, but the measurement itself is the frequency of these variants in the population. You seem to be suggesting that the correlation is a methodological artefact. Clearly it isn’t.
     
    Clearly it is. The same definitions that construct "IQ" and its parts are used to establish what is "educational achievement". On a Venn diagram, they would all be in the same circle. Perhaps valid within the definition, but not proven as a universality.

    Consider an individual with IQ of 140. He studies, is educated, advances, achieves some sort of certification, and lo and behold, a correlation is observed between his defined IQ and his educational attainment. The factors that measure his success are the same factors that are built-into the IQ test. You have a correlation, but it lacks true real-world universal verifiability.

    Consider another individual with IQ of 140. He studies, finishes sixth grade, and goes into the HVAC trade. After 20 years in the business, he becomes successful and moderately affluent. One day, while tinkering in his workshop, he discovers a combination of refrigerant and compression method that is ten times as efficient as any AC/Heat system discovered previously. He is hailed as the new Edison, and becomes wealthier than Bill Gates.

    What's the correlation matrix now? Taint the same, is it?

    The same definitions that construct “IQ” and its parts are used to establish what is “educational achievement”

    That’s not the correlation I was talking about. Yes, IQ and educational attainment are measured using similar concepts, methodology and, very often, the same kind of test. But I was talking about another correlation between two very different datasets:

    1. The incidence of certain genetic variants in a population.

    2. The mean of IQ test results in the same population.

    These two datasets have been produced using different concepts and methodologies. There are very few ways of explaining the high correlation between these datasets. I can think of only two explanations:

    1. Davide Piffer consciously or unconsciously chose genetic variants that would produce such a high correlation. This is unlikely, since other researchers identified those variants.

    2. The two datasets are measuring the same phenomenon. Different human populations differ, on average, in some kind of mental processing, and this mental processing has a genetic basis.

    Not one of the almost 200 comments here has offered an alternate explanation. Instead, the naysayers have focused on the validity of each dataset, e.g., IQ doesn’t really measure intelligence. Intelligence isn’t all that important. The sample size of the genetic variants is too small. These criticisms are interesting, but none of them can explain Piffer’s main finding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    But I was talking about another correlation between two very different datasets:

    1. The incidence of certain genetic variants in a population.

    2. The mean of IQ test results in the same population.
     
    Okay, I have no objection. Proceed. ;-)

    Personally, I see DNA identification and correlation as useful to intelligence research in only one respect: what DNA identifiers are clearly producers of enhanced, or perhaps merely different, intelligence?

    IQ doesn’t really measure intelligence. Intelligence isn’t all that important.
     
    It doesn't, and it isn't. It assesses -- poorly -- the efficacy of learned response. It measures some factors, some indicators relevant and/or related to, intelligence. The accuracy of an IQ test in assessing actual usable, applicable intelligence is, maybe, 50%.

    You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion. Many, many years ago, I worked as an assistant for a psychologist employed by NIMH and by Chestnut Lodge -- a prominent institution in the Maryland suburbs that has long since gone astern. She was running a three-year study of IQ and schizophrenia. Interesting, in some respects, not so much in others. She was a certified WAIS administrator (and let's not get into a discussion of whether or not tests claimed to be IQ tests by other research actually ARE IQ tests as administered). Anyway, I assisted for two university terms, during which I handled a whole lotta used IQ tests (they have to be boxed-up and returned after use).

    Take a wild guess at how high I could score on a Wechsler test from the era?

    To shorten the story, I am willing to agree that IQ tests measure many elements of learning and experience, and probably some significant degree of innate ability.
    , @utu

    Not one of the almost 200 comments here has offered an alternate explanation.
     
    I offered an alternative explanation but apparently you did not get it. The correlation is spurious. It means at the moment that it can't be proven that the correlation is causal. There is no way verifying it at this point.

    The fact that Piffer picked the 8 SNP's on the basis of GWAS results that at best suggests that in total these 8 SPN's can explain no more that 1-2% of IQ variance in the population (which was white European) on which GWAS was run does not mean much. (for more details see my previous comment above)

    Furthermore Piffer did a limited Monte Carlo estimate of p-value and found many randomly selected SNPs subsets that produced even higher correlations which means that finding SNPs that correlate with his set of IQ's is relatively easy. I am sure that there are subsets that will produce correlation equal to 1 that Piffer could find if he only run his Monte Carlo search longer.

    One may expect there will be 100's or 1000's of 8 SNP's subsets from among several millions of SNP's that are in genome that will correlate with the IQ set better than 0.85. Should 100's of 1000's of papers be published for one subset each? Everybody and his uncle could get himself paper published if standards were lowered to the point that would make Piffer and his misguided supporters happy.

    The counter arguments based on the validity of IQ sets are irrelevant for other reason than you think. It actually does not matter whether the IQ is IQ or something else because the system is grossly undetermined. If instead of IQ's the countries were assigned numbers form random number generator there is high probability that among millions of SNP's there will be a subset of 8 SNPs that will correlate with this random sequence. Not with every one but with a non negligible fraction of all possible random number sequences. This is because the list of N=20 or 30 countries is negligibly small in comparison to the number of available 8-long SNP's subsets. For one million of possible SNP's there is

    2.4800892865129E+43
     
    possible 8-long subsets which is close to the number of atoms in Earth.

    Your point (2) is wrong until proven otherwise. These two data sets do not measure the same phenomenon! For this reason who ever rejected Piffer paper did the right thing. And it is a shame that he finds misguided advocates trying to get attention for his flawed work.

    Do not cry for Piffer. Piffer is no Giordano Bruno. Waite a minute, on the second thought he might be like Giordano Bruno who actually was a quack and provocateur who got what he asked for.
    , @AaronB
    Hmmmm. Let's assume there is a genetic basis, then.

    What if those genetic variants create higher levels of fear. Then, under certain conditions of instsbility, those populations make much greater efforts, motivated by fear. This raises their mean IQs and educational attainments.

    Fear - higher motivation - higher IQs and educational attainments. (Persistence in problem solving crucial to both)

    Under other conditions, these populations experience less fear, thus less motivation, thus lower IQs.

    So the genetic basis may be only indirectly related to IQ - and be highly contingent, at that.

    Also, what about utus point, that if the sample size is small, it's almost impossible not to find a small set of snps that correlate out of the tens of thousands, but that's true even if we assign random numbers rather than IQ scores?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @notanon
    sheep dogs prove that intelligence is genetic - and they proved it beyond any reasonable doubt tens of thousands of years ago - the blank slate is obviously nonsense.

    the only relevant question remaining is what are the precise details.

    sheep dogs prove that intelligence is genetic

    Potential intelligence is established by genetics and in utero conditions. Available adult intelligence is a function of genetics, environment, and experience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    Potential intelligence is established by...
     
    fair enough
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Vojkan
    Let's take two tribes, the 'hunters/gatherers' and the 'farmers. Obviously, the former's environment is intellectually more challenging than the latter's so the 'hunters/gatherers' are likely to score higher on IQ tests. Yet, the 'farmers', while having more time to indulge in contemplation, are also likely to gain longer life expectancy than the 'hunters/gatherers'. Granted, it is a rather extreme and by today's standards unrealistic example, but really, who'd you think is smarter?

    Let’s take two tribes, the ‘hunters/gatherers’ and the ‘farmers. Obviously, the former’s environment is intellectually more challenging than the latter’s

    Your first mistake is your assumption — an assumption for which you have no verifiable evidence. A farm environment is not necessarily less intellectually challenging than a hunter/gatherer environment. You generalize, you assume, you prattle nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. res says:
    @utu

    significant in an EA or IQ GWAS
     
    OK, so significant that these 8 Piffer's SNP's can account for 1% of variance? Yet you somehow find it credible that they may explain differences between means ranging from 110 to 75 which is over 2SD of normal IQ range.

    Let's imagine that down the road somebody will find IQ predictor function for the whole world population where these 8 SNPs will be used along with, say 10,000 of other SNPs. Hsu's work indicate that the number of needed SNP's will be huge so 10,000 may be a low estimate.

    Let's write down this predictor function:


    IQ=A*PS_piffer+B*PS_10,000+C
     
    where PS stands for polygenic score.

    Let's denote by [.]_x the average over a subpopulation x, where x is them French, them Hottentots, them Chinese and so on. Then


    [IQ]_x=A*[PS_piffer]_x+B*[PS_10,000]_x+C
     
    Piffer's result is

    Cor([IQ]_x, [PS_piffer]_x]≈0.85
     
    His result will be possible only if (1) [PS_piffer]_x is highly correlated with [PS_10,000]_x or if (2)[PS_10,000]_x≈const, the same const for every subpopulation x.

    It is very hard to speculate what possibly might be the mean of the polygenic score of some unknown yet 10,000 SNP's but apparently you and Piffer seem to be very confident that it will turn out just right: it will either correlate with [PS_piffer]_x or it will be constant.

    Your confidence is nothing else but wishful thinking on your part and pure unmitigated chutzpah on Piffer's part. Faith can move mountains and turn reasonable men into fools. You have repeatedly shown here that you can be very reasonable, sensible and level headed person and unfortunately as a doctrinaire. Don't let the latter define you.

    You asked why. I told you. The rest of your comment is a waste of time.

    Your confidence is nothing else but wishful thinking on your part and pure unmitigated chutzpah on Piffer’s part.

    We shall see who is right and who is wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The rest of your comment is a waste of time.. - Which means that you have no counterargument.

    We shall see who is right and who is wrong. - Perhaps we will if we live long enough but in the meantime I am right and you know it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Peter Frost
    The same definitions that construct “IQ” and its parts are used to establish what is “educational achievement”

    That's not the correlation I was talking about. Yes, IQ and educational attainment are measured using similar concepts, methodology and, very often, the same kind of test. But I was talking about another correlation between two very different datasets:

    1. The incidence of certain genetic variants in a population.

    2. The mean of IQ test results in the same population.

    These two datasets have been produced using different concepts and methodologies. There are very few ways of explaining the high correlation between these datasets. I can think of only two explanations:

    1. Davide Piffer consciously or unconsciously chose genetic variants that would produce such a high correlation. This is unlikely, since other researchers identified those variants.

    2. The two datasets are measuring the same phenomenon. Different human populations differ, on average, in some kind of mental processing, and this mental processing has a genetic basis.

    Not one of the almost 200 comments here has offered an alternate explanation. Instead, the naysayers have focused on the validity of each dataset, e.g., IQ doesn't really measure intelligence. Intelligence isn't all that important. The sample size of the genetic variants is too small. These criticisms are interesting, but none of them can explain Piffer's main finding.

    But I was talking about another correlation between two very different datasets:

    1. The incidence of certain genetic variants in a population.

    2. The mean of IQ test results in the same population.

    Okay, I have no objection. Proceed. ;-)

    Personally, I see DNA identification and correlation as useful to intelligence research in only one respect: what DNA identifiers are clearly producers of enhanced, or perhaps merely different, intelligence?

    IQ doesn’t really measure intelligence. Intelligence isn’t all that important.

    It doesn’t, and it isn’t. It assesses — poorly — the efficacy of learned response. It measures some factors, some indicators relevant and/or related to, intelligence. The accuracy of an IQ test in assessing actual usable, applicable intelligence is, maybe, 50%.

    You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion. Many, many years ago, I worked as an assistant for a psychologist employed by NIMH and by Chestnut Lodge — a prominent institution in the Maryland suburbs that has long since gone astern. She was running a three-year study of IQ and schizophrenia. Interesting, in some respects, not so much in others. She was a certified WAIS administrator (and let’s not get into a discussion of whether or not tests claimed to be IQ tests by other research actually ARE IQ tests as administered). Anyway, I assisted for two university terms, during which I handled a whole lotta used IQ tests (they have to be boxed-up and returned after use).

    Take a wild guess at how high I could score on a Wechsler test from the era?

    To shorten the story, I am willing to agree that IQ tests measure many elements of learning and experience, and probably some significant degree of innate ability.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. utu says:
    @Peter Frost
    The same definitions that construct “IQ” and its parts are used to establish what is “educational achievement”

    That's not the correlation I was talking about. Yes, IQ and educational attainment are measured using similar concepts, methodology and, very often, the same kind of test. But I was talking about another correlation between two very different datasets:

    1. The incidence of certain genetic variants in a population.

    2. The mean of IQ test results in the same population.

    These two datasets have been produced using different concepts and methodologies. There are very few ways of explaining the high correlation between these datasets. I can think of only two explanations:

    1. Davide Piffer consciously or unconsciously chose genetic variants that would produce such a high correlation. This is unlikely, since other researchers identified those variants.

    2. The two datasets are measuring the same phenomenon. Different human populations differ, on average, in some kind of mental processing, and this mental processing has a genetic basis.

    Not one of the almost 200 comments here has offered an alternate explanation. Instead, the naysayers have focused on the validity of each dataset, e.g., IQ doesn't really measure intelligence. Intelligence isn't all that important. The sample size of the genetic variants is too small. These criticisms are interesting, but none of them can explain Piffer's main finding.

    Not one of the almost 200 comments here has offered an alternate explanation.

    I offered an alternative explanation but apparently you did not get it. The correlation is spurious. It means at the moment that it can’t be proven that the correlation is causal. There is no way verifying it at this point.

    The fact that Piffer picked the 8 SNP’s on the basis of GWAS results that at best suggests that in total these 8 SPN’s can explain no more that 1-2% of IQ variance in the population (which was white European) on which GWAS was run does not mean much. (for more details see my previous comment above)

    Furthermore Piffer did a limited Monte Carlo estimate of p-value and found many randomly selected SNPs subsets that produced even higher correlations which means that finding SNPs that correlate with his set of IQ’s is relatively easy. I am sure that there are subsets that will produce correlation equal to 1 that Piffer could find if he only run his Monte Carlo search longer.

    One may expect there will be 100′s or 1000′s of 8 SNP’s subsets from among several millions of SNP’s that are in genome that will correlate with the IQ set better than 0.85. Should 100′s of 1000′s of papers be published for one subset each? Everybody and his uncle could get himself paper published if standards were lowered to the point that would make Piffer and his misguided supporters happy.

    The counter arguments based on the validity of IQ sets are irrelevant for other reason than you think. It actually does not matter whether the IQ is IQ or something else because the system is grossly undetermined. If instead of IQ’s the countries were assigned numbers form random number generator there is high probability that among millions of SNP’s there will be a subset of 8 SNPs that will correlate with this random sequence. Not with every one but with a non negligible fraction of all possible random number sequences. This is because the list of N=20 or 30 countries is negligibly small in comparison to the number of available 8-long SNP’s subsets. For one million of possible SNP’s there is

    2.4800892865129E+43

    possible 8-long subsets which is close to the number of atoms in Earth.

    Your point (2) is wrong until proven otherwise. These two data sets do not measure the same phenomenon! For this reason who ever rejected Piffer paper did the right thing. And it is a shame that he finds misguided advocates trying to get attention for his flawed work.

    Do not cry for Piffer. Piffer is no Giordano Bruno. Waite a minute, on the second thought he might be like Giordano Bruno who actually was a quack and provocateur who got what he asked for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Frost
    I offered an alternative explanation but apparently you did not get it. The correlation is spurious. It means at the moment that it can’t be proven that the correlation is causal.

    I wasn't assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, a non-causal relationship is not "spurious."


    The fact that Piffer picked the 8 SNP’s on the basis of GWAS results

    As I understand it (please correct me), Davide did not identify those 8 SNPs. They were identified by other researchers. In fact, this is one reason why research on this topic has proceeded so slowly. One researcher would identify a relationship between a SNP and educational attainment, and then another researcher would fail to replicate the initial finding. So the identification of those 8 SNPs was the outcome of a consensus.

    I'm going by memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong.


    Furthermore Piffer did a limited Monte Carlo estimate of p-value and found many randomly selected SNPs subsets that produced even higher correlations which means that finding SNPs that correlate with his set of IQ’s is relatively easy.


    What are the chances that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a higher correlation than 0.9. Please give me the figure.


    Your point (2) is wrong until proven otherwise.

    There are two possible explanations:

    1) Davide consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs that would produce this kind of correlation;

    2) The correlation is grounded in reality.

    You have intimated that Davide personally selected those SNPs. That was not my understanding. If what you intimate is true, that would be grounds for rejecting his paper.

    You have also put forward a third possibility: there is a high probability that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a correlation of 0.9 or higher. OK. How high is this probability? Please put a number on it.


    Do not cry for Piffer.

    I wasn't crying for Piffer. If what you intimate is true, he got what he deserved. If you are simply using loose language ("Piffer picked the 8 SNP’s"), then you should get what you deserve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. utu says:
    @notanon
    sheep dogs prove that intelligence is genetic - and they proved it beyond any reasonable doubt tens of thousands of years ago - the blank slate is obviously nonsense.

    the only relevant question remaining is what are the precise details.

    The discussion is not about blank state or no plan state if you haven’t noticed or were you too busy competing with your sheep dog for the attention of your sheep. Which one is the most pretty?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. AaronB says:
    @Peter Frost
    The same definitions that construct “IQ” and its parts are used to establish what is “educational achievement”

    That's not the correlation I was talking about. Yes, IQ and educational attainment are measured using similar concepts, methodology and, very often, the same kind of test. But I was talking about another correlation between two very different datasets:

    1. The incidence of certain genetic variants in a population.

    2. The mean of IQ test results in the same population.

    These two datasets have been produced using different concepts and methodologies. There are very few ways of explaining the high correlation between these datasets. I can think of only two explanations:

    1. Davide Piffer consciously or unconsciously chose genetic variants that would produce such a high correlation. This is unlikely, since other researchers identified those variants.

    2. The two datasets are measuring the same phenomenon. Different human populations differ, on average, in some kind of mental processing, and this mental processing has a genetic basis.

    Not one of the almost 200 comments here has offered an alternate explanation. Instead, the naysayers have focused on the validity of each dataset, e.g., IQ doesn't really measure intelligence. Intelligence isn't all that important. The sample size of the genetic variants is too small. These criticisms are interesting, but none of them can explain Piffer's main finding.

    Hmmmm. Let’s assume there is a genetic basis, then.

    What if those genetic variants create higher levels of fear. Then, under certain conditions of instsbility, those populations make much greater efforts, motivated by fear. This raises their mean IQs and educational attainments.

    Fear – higher motivation – higher IQs and educational attainments. (Persistence in problem solving crucial to both)

    Under other conditions, these populations experience less fear, thus less motivation, thus lower IQs.

    So the genetic basis may be only indirectly related to IQ – and be highly contingent, at that.

    Also, what about utus point, that if the sample size is small, it’s almost impossible not to find a small set of snps that correlate out of the tens of thousands, but that’s true even if we assign random numbers rather than IQ scores?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Vojkan says:
    @manorchurch

    As someone who scored above the threshold on a MENSA test, I couldn’t agree more with you.
     
    As someone who actually joined MENSA at a tender age, I couldn't agree more that I never before and never since have met such a pack of self-absorbed dipshits. Beyond basic self-indulgence and self-admiration, there was little more than a dismayingly frenzied pursuit of sexual gratification.

    I'm sure that many folks flexing their, um, mental muscles on Unzdotcom are every bit the intellectual elite as Mensans. Just don't move into my neighborhood -- we got rules.

    You see, people like you are exactly the reason why I refused Mensa’s sollicitations to join some 14 years ago. You have just proven that I am right when I say that you folks are nerds with psychological issues from whom nothing good can be expected.
    To be true, Piffer’s work appears to be much more nuanced and actually scientifically valid – if one makes abstraction of the IQ thing – than what one whould deduce from the case made by his ‘defenders’.

    https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/121/3/121_130731/_html/-char/en

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    You see, people like you are exactly the reason why I refused Mensa’s sollicitations to join some 14 years ago. You have just proven that I am right when I say that you folks are nerds with psychological issues from whom nothing good can be expected.
     
    Hmm.... I was 18 at the time, and abandoned Mensa within 3 months. So, with regard to your unnecessary and egotistical insult, go fuck yourself. As for Piffer, who gives a shit? Obsess at your leisure, dipshit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Vojkan
    You see, people like you are exactly the reason why I refused Mensa's sollicitations to join some 14 years ago. You have just proven that I am right when I say that you folks are nerds with psychological issues from whom nothing good can be expected.
    To be true, Piffer's work appears to be much more nuanced and actually scientifically valid - if one makes abstraction of the IQ thing - than what one whould deduce from the case made by his 'defenders'.

    https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/121/3/121_130731/_html/-char/en

    You see, people like you are exactly the reason why I refused Mensa’s sollicitations to join some 14 years ago. You have just proven that I am right when I say that you folks are nerds with psychological issues from whom nothing good can be expected.

    Hmm…. I was 18 at the time, and abandoned Mensa within 3 months. So, with regard to your unnecessary and egotistical insult, go fuck yourself. As for Piffer, who gives a shit? Obsess at your leisure, dipshit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Excuse me, I thought that Piffer's work was the subject of the article. I must have misread. At least, I made the effort of reading.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Vojkan says:
    @manorchurch

    You see, people like you are exactly the reason why I refused Mensa’s sollicitations to join some 14 years ago. You have just proven that I am right when I say that you folks are nerds with psychological issues from whom nothing good can be expected.
     
    Hmm.... I was 18 at the time, and abandoned Mensa within 3 months. So, with regard to your unnecessary and egotistical insult, go fuck yourself. As for Piffer, who gives a shit? Obsess at your leisure, dipshit.

    Excuse me, I thought that Piffer’s work was the subject of the article. I must have misread. At least, I made the effort of reading.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. j2 says:
    @Meimou
    In my community, it was common to speak 10 languages. Speaking three wasn’t that impressive,” she says.

    I'll be impressed when they master indoor plumbing.

    “I’ll be impressed when they master indoor plumbing.”

    Is that a job for a hunter-gatherer?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. notanon says:
    @manorchurch

    sheep dogs prove that intelligence is genetic
     
    Potential intelligence is established by genetics and in utero conditions. Available adult intelligence is a function of genetics, environment, and experience.

    Potential intelligence is established by…

    fair enough

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Meimou says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly.


    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    That in essence is the answer to the correlation question. If correlation is not cause, then what are the factors that impact said relationship.

    2 x 2 is 4

    2 plus 2 is 4

    Two different equations same result. I have no desire to diffuse what has been an interesting exchange.

    Always what is behind genetics is environment/circumstance and that complicates any discussion of what is not a static scientific artifact. Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don't need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.


    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.

    say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly

    It your IQ was low you probably wouldn’t be on this site(or The American Conservative) it may be low compared to many of the posters here, but certainly not low.

    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    The ability to deter gratification and conscientious are probably more important than g, but there is overlap bewteen them.

    Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don’t need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.

    Ok, let’s measure brain density, the development of the prefrontal cortex, the shape of the brain, glucose uptake…

    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses

    Really? Name one HBD’er who even brings up “superiority”.

    The only people who relate “superiority” to IQ are….wait for it….

    ……wait for it…..

    Race deniers/IQ deniers. This would explain why intelligent educated people who accept evolution embrace an idea that completely contradicts it; blacks, whites, yellows could not have adaptedto very different environments and say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly

    It your IQ was low you probably wouldn’t be on this site(or The American Conservative) it may be low compared to many of the posters here, but certainly not low.

    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    The ability to deter gratification and conscientious are probably more important than g, but there is overlap bewteen them.

    Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don’t need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.

    Ok, let’s measure brain density, the development of the prefrontal cortex, the shape of the brain, glucose uptake…

    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses

    Really? Name one HBD’er who even brings up “superiority”.

    The only people who relate “superiority” to IQ are….wait for it….

    ……wait for it…..

    Race deniers/IQ deniers. This would explain why intelligent educated people who accept evolution embrace an idea that completely contradicts it; blacks, whites, yellows could not have adapted to very different environments and turn out to be the same subspecies/race/breed…and yes they are the same thing. RD’ers – some of them – are worried about camps sprouting up. It would be nice if they would just admit that do we came skip the “debate”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @manorchurch

    Unable to comprehend all this fuss.
    Like fascism, nobody has ever defined intelligence.
    IQ does therefore not measure intelligence, it just measures IQ.
    That IQ tests are culturally biased anyone can understand.
     
    Well, duh. IQ application is always local and circumstantial. Send a 180 IQ to Outer Mongolia, what's he gonna do? Shear sheep better?

    Besides, just look at how much better Mexicans do jobs Americans just won't do. Gotta be those astronomical IQs.

    Unz is just having fun with the local yokels. Let it be. As the day progresses, the heated shouting and generalized scuffling from the "IQ Article du Jour" will keep traffic high, and Ron's bandwidth costs optimized for volume. Gotta admit, I would do the same. Ya gotta provide something for the dumbass groundlings to fight over.

    Average IQ in Mongolia is 101, a point or 3 higher than most European nations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Meimou says:
    @Vojkan
    As someone who scored above the threshold on a MENSA test, I couldn't agree more with you.

    As someone who scored above the threshold on a MENSA test, I couldn’t agree more with you.

    What exactly did you agree with him on? The part about IQ test being nearly irrelevant? The gibberish in the middle?

    Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X

    Tell us something genius. How did the ancestors of , whites, and yellows adapt to different environments and still come out with the same cognitive functions and personalities?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @phil
    Please, SJWs are a cancer, but do not speak of a "proof" that race/IQ differences are genetic. Rarely are contentious social science assertions "proven" to be true or false. For example, the alleles in question may affect conscientiousness rather than intelligence; conscientiousness can affect educational attainment. Or, subsequent research may find that other gene variants that are linked to IQ are not distributed across races in the expected way. As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a "race-realist" would have expected.

    We are not talking about personality traits which affects considerably intelligence-behavior [as a whole], but even if it was the case, certain types of personality traits correlates or even express better certain paths of intelligence than others, for example, introversion versus extroversion. Think more about your actions seems clearly a sign of higher intelligence than act impulsively, as often happen when you are more extroverted than introverted, and in the end of day, subsaharian africans are one of the most extroverted macro human groups while east asians are the least. And i even can bet that there are more introverted people among highly intelligent blacks than in general black pop.

    Based on PURELY COGNITIVE aspects, for example, vocabulary size in mother [or second mother] tongue, again, there are such racial differences.

    On very avg, blacks, at ”least” in entire western hemisphere, do poorly to learn ”properly” european mother tongue’s than white europeans, east asians and whatever non-black group you want, for example, indians in Suriname.

    Instead analyse broadly, these researchers must analyse firstly this ”purely’ cognitive aspects, because a lot of this findings seems will be due to ”personality-confounding” as you said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @EliteCommInc.
    I say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly.


    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    That in essence is the answer to the correlation question. If correlation is not cause, then what are the factors that impact said relationship.

    2 x 2 is 4

    2 plus 2 is 4

    Two different equations same result. I have no desire to diffuse what has been an interesting exchange.

    Always what is behind genetics is environment/circumstance and that complicates any discussion of what is not a static scientific artifact. Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don't need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.


    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.

    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.

    Self confession jimmyous…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @utu

    Not one of the almost 200 comments here has offered an alternate explanation.
     
    I offered an alternative explanation but apparently you did not get it. The correlation is spurious. It means at the moment that it can't be proven that the correlation is causal. There is no way verifying it at this point.

    The fact that Piffer picked the 8 SNP's on the basis of GWAS results that at best suggests that in total these 8 SPN's can explain no more that 1-2% of IQ variance in the population (which was white European) on which GWAS was run does not mean much. (for more details see my previous comment above)

    Furthermore Piffer did a limited Monte Carlo estimate of p-value and found many randomly selected SNPs subsets that produced even higher correlations which means that finding SNPs that correlate with his set of IQ's is relatively easy. I am sure that there are subsets that will produce correlation equal to 1 that Piffer could find if he only run his Monte Carlo search longer.

    One may expect there will be 100's or 1000's of 8 SNP's subsets from among several millions of SNP's that are in genome that will correlate with the IQ set better than 0.85. Should 100's of 1000's of papers be published for one subset each? Everybody and his uncle could get himself paper published if standards were lowered to the point that would make Piffer and his misguided supporters happy.

    The counter arguments based on the validity of IQ sets are irrelevant for other reason than you think. It actually does not matter whether the IQ is IQ or something else because the system is grossly undetermined. If instead of IQ's the countries were assigned numbers form random number generator there is high probability that among millions of SNP's there will be a subset of 8 SNPs that will correlate with this random sequence. Not with every one but with a non negligible fraction of all possible random number sequences. This is because the list of N=20 or 30 countries is negligibly small in comparison to the number of available 8-long SNP's subsets. For one million of possible SNP's there is

    2.4800892865129E+43
     
    possible 8-long subsets which is close to the number of atoms in Earth.

    Your point (2) is wrong until proven otherwise. These two data sets do not measure the same phenomenon! For this reason who ever rejected Piffer paper did the right thing. And it is a shame that he finds misguided advocates trying to get attention for his flawed work.

    Do not cry for Piffer. Piffer is no Giordano Bruno. Waite a minute, on the second thought he might be like Giordano Bruno who actually was a quack and provocateur who got what he asked for.

    I offered an alternative explanation but apparently you did not get it. The correlation is spurious. It means at the moment that it can’t be proven that the correlation is causal.

    I wasn’t assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, a non-causal relationship is not “spurious.”

    The fact that Piffer picked the 8 SNP’s on the basis of GWAS results

    As I understand it (please correct me), Davide did not identify those 8 SNPs. They were identified by other researchers. In fact, this is one reason why research on this topic has proceeded so slowly. One researcher would identify a relationship between a SNP and educational attainment, and then another researcher would fail to replicate the initial finding. So the identification of those 8 SNPs was the outcome of a consensus.

    I’m going by memory, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Furthermore Piffer did a limited Monte Carlo estimate of p-value and found many randomly selected SNPs subsets that produced even higher correlations which means that finding SNPs that correlate with his set of IQ’s is relatively easy.

    What are the chances that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a higher correlation than 0.9. Please give me the figure.

    Your point (2) is wrong until proven otherwise.

    There are two possible explanations:

    1) Davide consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs that would produce this kind of correlation;

    2) The correlation is grounded in reality.

    You have intimated that Davide personally selected those SNPs. That was not my understanding. If what you intimate is true, that would be grounds for rejecting his paper.

    You have also put forward a third possibility: there is a high probability that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a correlation of 0.9 or higher. OK. How high is this probability? Please put a number on it.

    Do not cry for Piffer.

    I wasn’t crying for Piffer. If what you intimate is true, he got what he deserved. If you are simply using loose language (“Piffer picked the 8 SNP’s”), then you should get what you deserve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    What are the chances that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a higher correlation than 0.9. Please give me the figure.
     
    I had to look it up. The info is not in his paper but it was in his supplementary material which I can't find now but I had comment about it last year. Other thing is that he used 9 SNPs not 8 as I was mistakenly writing here. Sorry. Here it is:

    that is, over a total of 819 runs, a correlation coefficient equal to or higher than 0.88 occurred 8 times
     
    This gives you roughly 1 in 100 chance which is pretty high. For this reason I was emphasizing that finding other SNP subsets that will do the job or even better is relatively easy.

    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: "consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs". This suppose to be an objective science where outcome should not matter whether we are testing hypothesis using data selected by human or machine. How Piffer get his SNPs is irrelevant to me.

    Another one: "The correlation is grounded in reality." - What does grounded in reality mean for you? Earlier you stated

    I wasn’t assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, a non-causal relationship is not “spurious.”
     
    I do not want our discussion be wasted on semantic confusion. Correlation is correlation that you calculate from a formula using data from two sets. It is either causal or not. If it is not then it is spurious. The proof that the correlation is causal lays outside the data. Since we do not have anything here besides the data then we must assume that the correlation is spurious. Furthermore Monte Carlo results show that finding such correlations with random search through SNP's data set is relatively easy (1 in 100 trials).

    In a long run in may turn out after all that Piffer was right that the correlation was causal but he won't be vindicated. His bad science can't be vindicated.

    There are 100's of papers that are rejected monthly. Why are we wasting time on Davide Piffer's case? Who is really behind making a big deal out of it and painting him as a martyr unjustly persecuted for the truth. He is an attention seeking shameless whore and a bad loser.
    , @utu
    I found the reference from where I got Piffer's Monte Carlo stats:

    https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201706.0039/v1/download

    Evidence for Recent Polygenic Selection on Educational Attainment and Intelligence Inferred from GWAS Hits: A Replication of Previous Findings Using Recent Data

    The polygenic score computed using the 9 SNPs was highly correlated (r=0.88) to an estimate [2] of average population IQ (fig. 1). A Monte Carlo simulation was run using 818 PS computed from groups of 9 SNPs taken from the random dataset. The average correlation between population IQ and the random polygenic scores was 0.22 (N=818). The slightly positive correlation can be interpreted as an effect of spatial/phylogenetic autocorrelation [8] A Monte Carlo approach was used: the percentile corresponding to a correlation coefficient r=0.88 was found to be 99% (using the 818 random polygenic scores), implying that the result is highly significant. The corrected (and more conservative) calculation of Monte Carlo p value, where p= r+1/n+1 (see Methods) was used, producing p= 0.011 (n= 819, r= 8).
     
    There is 1 in 100 chance of finding 9 SNPs randomly that will correlate at r≥0.88 with countries IQ list he used. One in 100 out of trillion of quadrillions and bazillions.... possibilities is a huge number.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. utu says:
    @res
    You asked why. I told you. The rest of your comment is a waste of time.


    Your confidence is nothing else but wishful thinking on your part and pure unmitigated chutzpah on Piffer’s part.
     
    We shall see who is right and who is wrong.

    The rest of your comment is a waste of time.. – Which means that you have no counterargument.

    We shall see who is right and who is wrong. – Perhaps we will if we live long enough but in the meantime I am right and you know it.

    Read More
    • LOL: res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. utu says:
    @Peter Frost
    I offered an alternative explanation but apparently you did not get it. The correlation is spurious. It means at the moment that it can’t be proven that the correlation is causal.

    I wasn't assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, a non-causal relationship is not "spurious."


    The fact that Piffer picked the 8 SNP’s on the basis of GWAS results

    As I understand it (please correct me), Davide did not identify those 8 SNPs. They were identified by other researchers. In fact, this is one reason why research on this topic has proceeded so slowly. One researcher would identify a relationship between a SNP and educational attainment, and then another researcher would fail to replicate the initial finding. So the identification of those 8 SNPs was the outcome of a consensus.

    I'm going by memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong.


    Furthermore Piffer did a limited Monte Carlo estimate of p-value and found many randomly selected SNPs subsets that produced even higher correlations which means that finding SNPs that correlate with his set of IQ’s is relatively easy.


    What are the chances that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a higher correlation than 0.9. Please give me the figure.


    Your point (2) is wrong until proven otherwise.

    There are two possible explanations:

    1) Davide consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs that would produce this kind of correlation;

    2) The correlation is grounded in reality.

    You have intimated that Davide personally selected those SNPs. That was not my understanding. If what you intimate is true, that would be grounds for rejecting his paper.

    You have also put forward a third possibility: there is a high probability that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a correlation of 0.9 or higher. OK. How high is this probability? Please put a number on it.


    Do not cry for Piffer.

    I wasn't crying for Piffer. If what you intimate is true, he got what he deserved. If you are simply using loose language ("Piffer picked the 8 SNP’s"), then you should get what you deserve.

    What are the chances that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a higher correlation than 0.9. Please give me the figure.

    I had to look it up. The info is not in his paper but it was in his supplementary material which I can’t find now but I had comment about it last year. Other thing is that he used 9 SNPs not 8 as I was mistakenly writing here. Sorry. Here it is:

    that is, over a total of 819 runs, a correlation coefficient equal to or higher than 0.88 occurred 8 times

    This gives you roughly 1 in 100 chance which is pretty high. For this reason I was emphasizing that finding other SNP subsets that will do the job or even better is relatively easy.

    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: “consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs“. This suppose to be an objective science where outcome should not matter whether we are testing hypothesis using data selected by human or machine. How Piffer get his SNPs is irrelevant to me.

    Another one: “The correlation is grounded in reality.” – What does grounded in reality mean for you? Earlier you stated

    I wasn’t assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, a non-causal relationship is not “spurious.”

    I do not want our discussion be wasted on semantic confusion. Correlation is correlation that you calculate from a formula using data from two sets. It is either causal or not. If it is not then it is spurious. The proof that the correlation is causal lays outside the data. Since we do not have anything here besides the data then we must assume that the correlation is spurious. Furthermore Monte Carlo results show that finding such correlations with random search through SNP’s data set is relatively easy (1 in 100 trials).

    In a long run in may turn out after all that Piffer was right that the correlation was causal but he won’t be vindicated. His bad science can’t be vindicated.

    There are 100′s of papers that are rejected monthly. Why are we wasting time on Davide Piffer’s case? Who is really behind making a big deal out of it and painting him as a martyr unjustly persecuted for the truth. He is an attention seeking shameless whore and a bad loser.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Frost
    This gives you roughly 1 in 100 chance which is pretty high.

    A finding is usually considered significant if the probability is less than 5 in 100.


    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: “consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs“.

    You said that he selected the SNPs. He didn't. In fact, they were identified through the work of several researchers. So one cannot presume that he consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs that would prove his hypothesis.


    “The correlation is grounded in reality.” What does grounded in reality mean for you?

    It means that the correlation is real. It is not a fluke. It is not an artefact of the methodology. It exists in the real world.


    Correlation is correlation that you calculate from a formula using data from two sets. It is either causal or not. If it is not then it is spurious.

    There doesn't have to be a cause-and-effect relationship between the two datasets. For instance, there could be a third factor acting on both of them.


    Since we do not have anything here besides the data then we must assume that the correlation is spurious.

    If the probabily of a chance correlation is less than 5%, "we" cannot make that assumption. If "you" wish to make that assumption, feel free to do so.
    , @Anon

    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: “consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs“. This suppose to be an objective science where outcome should not matter whether we are testing hypothesis using data selected by human or machine. How Piffer get his SNPs is irrelevant to me.
     
    That's funny, this reminds me exactly of Revusky's reasoning on Betty Ong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. utu says:
    @Peter Frost
    I offered an alternative explanation but apparently you did not get it. The correlation is spurious. It means at the moment that it can’t be proven that the correlation is causal.

    I wasn't assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, a non-causal relationship is not "spurious."


    The fact that Piffer picked the 8 SNP’s on the basis of GWAS results

    As I understand it (please correct me), Davide did not identify those 8 SNPs. They were identified by other researchers. In fact, this is one reason why research on this topic has proceeded so slowly. One researcher would identify a relationship between a SNP and educational attainment, and then another researcher would fail to replicate the initial finding. So the identification of those 8 SNPs was the outcome of a consensus.

    I'm going by memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong.


    Furthermore Piffer did a limited Monte Carlo estimate of p-value and found many randomly selected SNPs subsets that produced even higher correlations which means that finding SNPs that correlate with his set of IQ’s is relatively easy.


    What are the chances that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a higher correlation than 0.9. Please give me the figure.


    Your point (2) is wrong until proven otherwise.

    There are two possible explanations:

    1) Davide consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs that would produce this kind of correlation;

    2) The correlation is grounded in reality.

    You have intimated that Davide personally selected those SNPs. That was not my understanding. If what you intimate is true, that would be grounds for rejecting his paper.

    You have also put forward a third possibility: there is a high probability that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a correlation of 0.9 or higher. OK. How high is this probability? Please put a number on it.


    Do not cry for Piffer.

    I wasn't crying for Piffer. If what you intimate is true, he got what he deserved. If you are simply using loose language ("Piffer picked the 8 SNP’s"), then you should get what you deserve.

    I found the reference from where I got Piffer’s Monte Carlo stats:

    https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201706.0039/v1/download

    Evidence for Recent Polygenic Selection on Educational Attainment and Intelligence Inferred from GWAS Hits: A Replication of Previous Findings Using Recent Data

    The polygenic score computed using the 9 SNPs was highly correlated (r=0.88) to an estimate [2] of average population IQ (fig. 1). A Monte Carlo simulation was run using 818 PS computed from groups of 9 SNPs taken from the random dataset. The average correlation between population IQ and the random polygenic scores was 0.22 (N=818). The slightly positive correlation can be interpreted as an effect of spatial/phylogenetic autocorrelation [8] A Monte Carlo approach was used: the percentile corresponding to a correlation coefficient r=0.88 was found to be 99% (using the 818 random polygenic scores), implying that the result is highly significant. The corrected (and more conservative) calculation of Monte Carlo p value, where p= r+1/n+1 (see Methods) was used, producing p= 0.011 (n= 819, r= 8).

    There is 1 in 100 chance of finding 9 SNPs randomly that will correlate at r≥0.88 with countries IQ list he used. One in 100 out of trillion of quadrillions and bazillions…. possibilities is a huge number.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. This 15-point black-white difference has been resistant to all attempts at intervention.

    Hmm…I wonder why white nationalist morons have to lie about this kind of stuff. The gap has narrowed over the years according to many sources–including cross-burner Charles Murray. Moreover, the Flynn effect shows that black youth today are smarter than your grandparents (or probably your parents considering how old most of you dimwits are.)

    But, you know, keep circle jerking about the intelligence of other white people instead of actually doing anything useful with what little you’ve been given.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  217. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @utu

    What are the chances that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a higher correlation than 0.9. Please give me the figure.
     
    I had to look it up. The info is not in his paper but it was in his supplementary material which I can't find now but I had comment about it last year. Other thing is that he used 9 SNPs not 8 as I was mistakenly writing here. Sorry. Here it is:

    that is, over a total of 819 runs, a correlation coefficient equal to or higher than 0.88 occurred 8 times
     
    This gives you roughly 1 in 100 chance which is pretty high. For this reason I was emphasizing that finding other SNP subsets that will do the job or even better is relatively easy.

    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: "consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs". This suppose to be an objective science where outcome should not matter whether we are testing hypothesis using data selected by human or machine. How Piffer get his SNPs is irrelevant to me.

    Another one: "The correlation is grounded in reality." - What does grounded in reality mean for you? Earlier you stated

    I wasn’t assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, a non-causal relationship is not “spurious.”
     
    I do not want our discussion be wasted on semantic confusion. Correlation is correlation that you calculate from a formula using data from two sets. It is either causal or not. If it is not then it is spurious. The proof that the correlation is causal lays outside the data. Since we do not have anything here besides the data then we must assume that the correlation is spurious. Furthermore Monte Carlo results show that finding such correlations with random search through SNP's data set is relatively easy (1 in 100 trials).

    In a long run in may turn out after all that Piffer was right that the correlation was causal but he won't be vindicated. His bad science can't be vindicated.

    There are 100's of papers that are rejected monthly. Why are we wasting time on Davide Piffer's case? Who is really behind making a big deal out of it and painting him as a martyr unjustly persecuted for the truth. He is an attention seeking shameless whore and a bad loser.

    This gives you roughly 1 in 100 chance which is pretty high.

    A finding is usually considered significant if the probability is less than 5 in 100.

    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: “consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs“.

    You said that he selected the SNPs. He didn’t. In fact, they were identified through the work of several researchers. So one cannot presume that he consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs that would prove his hypothesis.

    “The correlation is grounded in reality.” What does grounded in reality mean for you?

    It means that the correlation is real. It is not a fluke. It is not an artefact of the methodology. It exists in the real world.

    Correlation is correlation that you calculate from a formula using data from two sets. It is either causal or not. If it is not then it is spurious.

    There doesn’t have to be a cause-and-effect relationship between the two datasets. For instance, there could be a third factor acting on both of them.

    Since we do not have anything here besides the data then we must assume that the correlation is spurious.

    If the probabily of a chance correlation is less than 5%, “we” cannot make that assumption. If “you” wish to make that assumption, feel free to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Oh man, you are so dense. I am sorry I started this conversation with you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Just to clarify how inane this Davide Piffer (of the lofty >132 IQ) is, he seems to be a believer in Uri Geller:

    http://archive.is/Rqat2

    I’m sure the white nationalist ESP club is a manly fun time, but let’s not pretend you guys care about science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Belief in psychic phenomena does not disqualify one for the practice of science, though Piffer's paper has other problems.
    , @Meimou
    I’m sure the white nationalist ESP club is a manly fun time, but let’s not pretend you guys care about science.

    Sigh. Anyone who aknowlages the results of evolution is waycist! Try harder. If we waycist don't care about science, what do we care about? Why are we HBD? Tell us the end game


    No race/iq denier can give me a real answer to this question:

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain? Come on, put this waycist in his place ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. utu says:
    @Peter Frost
    This gives you roughly 1 in 100 chance which is pretty high.

    A finding is usually considered significant if the probability is less than 5 in 100.


    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: “consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs“.

    You said that he selected the SNPs. He didn't. In fact, they were identified through the work of several researchers. So one cannot presume that he consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs that would prove his hypothesis.


    “The correlation is grounded in reality.” What does grounded in reality mean for you?

    It means that the correlation is real. It is not a fluke. It is not an artefact of the methodology. It exists in the real world.


    Correlation is correlation that you calculate from a formula using data from two sets. It is either causal or not. If it is not then it is spurious.

    There doesn't have to be a cause-and-effect relationship between the two datasets. For instance, there could be a third factor acting on both of them.


    Since we do not have anything here besides the data then we must assume that the correlation is spurious.

    If the probabily of a chance correlation is less than 5%, "we" cannot make that assumption. If "you" wish to make that assumption, feel free to do so.

    Oh man, you are so dense. I am sorry I started this conversation with you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    What are the chances that 8 SNPs chosen at random will produce a higher correlation than 0.9. Please give me the figure.
     
    I had to look it up. The info is not in his paper but it was in his supplementary material which I can't find now but I had comment about it last year. Other thing is that he used 9 SNPs not 8 as I was mistakenly writing here. Sorry. Here it is:

    that is, over a total of 819 runs, a correlation coefficient equal to or higher than 0.88 occurred 8 times
     
    This gives you roughly 1 in 100 chance which is pretty high. For this reason I was emphasizing that finding other SNP subsets that will do the job or even better is relatively easy.

    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: "consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs". This suppose to be an objective science where outcome should not matter whether we are testing hypothesis using data selected by human or machine. How Piffer get his SNPs is irrelevant to me.

    Another one: "The correlation is grounded in reality." - What does grounded in reality mean for you? Earlier you stated

    I wasn’t assuming a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, a non-causal relationship is not “spurious.”
     
    I do not want our discussion be wasted on semantic confusion. Correlation is correlation that you calculate from a formula using data from two sets. It is either causal or not. If it is not then it is spurious. The proof that the correlation is causal lays outside the data. Since we do not have anything here besides the data then we must assume that the correlation is spurious. Furthermore Monte Carlo results show that finding such correlations with random search through SNP's data set is relatively easy (1 in 100 trials).

    In a long run in may turn out after all that Piffer was right that the correlation was causal but he won't be vindicated. His bad science can't be vindicated.

    There are 100's of papers that are rejected monthly. Why are we wasting time on Davide Piffer's case? Who is really behind making a big deal out of it and painting him as a martyr unjustly persecuted for the truth. He is an attention seeking shameless whore and a bad loser.

    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: “consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs“. This suppose to be an objective science where outcome should not matter whether we are testing hypothesis using data selected by human or machine. How Piffer get his SNPs is irrelevant to me.

    That’s funny, this reminds me exactly of Revusky’s reasoning on Betty Ong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I do not know where and how but there is no question that Revusky is a very intelligent guy even though he has a fatal flaw.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill TotenWeiss
    Just to clarify how inane this Davide Piffer (of the lofty >132 IQ) is, he seems to be a believer in Uri Geller:

    http://archive.is/Rqat2

    I'm sure the white nationalist ESP club is a manly fun time, but let's not pretend you guys care about science.

    Belief in psychic phenomena does not disqualify one for the practice of science, though Piffer’s paper has other problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Okechukwu says:

    Do these clowns even understand how nature works? Nevermind that IQ is a ridiculous concept that is more a function of learning and acculturation than of raw intelligence, if there is any overlap whatsoever (and there is plenty) then you cannot have discreet differentiation. Should any 80 IQ white guy receive preference over a 130 IQ black guy because of “averages?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What? Did you read the article? It should indeed probably not have been published and other people have made substantive criticisms-- but this is not one of them.
    , @Saxon

    Should any 80 IQ white guy receive preference over a 130 IQ black guy because of “averages?”
     
    Flip the races here and you have the status quo in America, Canada, and many other formerly all-white or supermajority white countries. This is based on faulty assumptions of equal ability which don't exist in reality. Based on the faulty assumption of equality, it is further claimed that any differences in outcome can only be down to oppression, white racism or other such nonsense that none of the claimants can even provide a scrap of evidence for.

    Multiracial countries don't work. The nutcases who are trying to force it to "work" by beating down whites won't accept algorithms judging data stripped of any identifying information for college admissions. Why? Because it lets in way more white men than are currently let in. They claim it's somehow "biased" (how could it be with no identifying information?) but it never occurs to them that they are the biased ones.

    That's how it is, though. Any group that doesn't benefit from a meritocracy will agitate against it, and you see that now with hard left extremists now actually saying that "meritocracy is white supremacy."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu
    Do these clowns even understand how nature works? Nevermind that IQ is a ridiculous concept that is more a function of learning and acculturation than of raw intelligence, if there is any overlap whatsoever (and there is plenty) then you cannot have discreet differentiation. Should any 80 IQ white guy receive preference over a 130 IQ black guy because of "averages?"

    What? Did you read the article? It should indeed probably not have been published and other people have made substantive criticisms– but this is not one of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. utu says:
    @Anon

    I do not understand what distinction you trying to make here: “consciously or unconsciously selected SNPs“. This suppose to be an objective science where outcome should not matter whether we are testing hypothesis using data selected by human or machine. How Piffer get his SNPs is irrelevant to me.
     
    That's funny, this reminds me exactly of Revusky's reasoning on Betty Ong.

    I do not know where and how but there is no question that Revusky is a very intelligent guy even though he has a fatal flaw.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    I do not know where and how but there is no question that Revusky is a very intelligent guy even though he has a fatal flaw.
     
    Yepper. Revusky suffers from classic forest/trees syndrome.
    , @Anon
    The probability of someone randomly selected in America having a name/photo mixup in a high school yearbook is quite small-- I couldn't guess precisely but probably on the order of between 1/100 and 1/1000. So Revusky picked Betty Ong and found that she had this mixup, since the probability of this happening by chance was obviously less than 1/20, though Revusky didn't quantify it, he rejected the null hypothesis that yearbook mixup was due to chance rather than some sort of nefarious action.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Saxon says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I say this as someone with a low IQ, admittedly.


    The point here is very clear that there more powerful factors than IQ to determine where one stands in society.

    That in essence is the answer to the correlation question. If correlation is not cause, then what are the factors that impact said relationship.

    2 x 2 is 4

    2 plus 2 is 4

    Two different equations same result. I have no desire to diffuse what has been an interesting exchange.

    Always what is behind genetics is environment/circumstance and that complicates any discussion of what is not a static scientific artifact. Genetics can be firm determinant as to biology. But IQ is not biology. It is a supposed outcome, which in the west has been designated as X. But a myriad societies don't need or use or even care or even care X so measuring their IQ is always going to yield less than desirable results, in my view.


    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.

    I think the point of the frenetics about IQ is to superiority so as to justify certain practices by some groups, especially when said practices are used as vantages to maintain class and even go as far as justifying abuses.

    As opposed to real or feigned ignorance about the subject in order to institute policies as punitive measures against certain groups, using off-the-wall conspiracy theories about “privilege.” Maybe this whole multiracialism thing is a bad idea as it inherently causes conflict, but I guess I’m just a bigot if I think that of it in anything less than glowing terms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Saxon says:
    @Okechukwu
    Do these clowns even understand how nature works? Nevermind that IQ is a ridiculous concept that is more a function of learning and acculturation than of raw intelligence, if there is any overlap whatsoever (and there is plenty) then you cannot have discreet differentiation. Should any 80 IQ white guy receive preference over a 130 IQ black guy because of "averages?"

    Should any 80 IQ white guy receive preference over a 130 IQ black guy because of “averages?”

    Flip the races here and you have the status quo in America, Canada, and many other formerly all-white or supermajority white countries. This is based on faulty assumptions of equal ability which don’t exist in reality. Based on the faulty assumption of equality, it is further claimed that any differences in outcome can only be down to oppression, white racism or other such nonsense that none of the claimants can even provide a scrap of evidence for.

    Multiracial countries don’t work. The nutcases who are trying to force it to “work” by beating down whites won’t accept algorithms judging data stripped of any identifying information for college admissions. Why? Because it lets in way more white men than are currently let in. They claim it’s somehow “biased” (how could it be with no identifying information?) but it never occurs to them that they are the biased ones.

    That’s how it is, though. Any group that doesn’t benefit from a meritocracy will agitate against it, and you see that now with hard left extremists now actually saying that “meritocracy is white supremacy.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    This is based on faulty assumptions of equal ability which don’t exist in reality.
     
    You do not get to benefit from a presumption of superiority simply because your skin is white. You might in fact be thoroughly inferior to me on a host of metrics. Why are people like you so deathly afraid of individuality and race-neutrality?

    Multiracial countries don’t work.
     
    The lack of non-white immigrants didn't stop Europe from cutting itself to pieces for thousands of years. Empirically, diversity promotes peace, as it sensitizes people to other traditions, making conflict less likely. This happens at a local level, a national level and at a global level. Even within Europe diversity and tolerance has coincided with a period of peace. The British no longer consider the Germans an alien race as they did before, etc.

    That’s how it is, though. Any group that doesn’t benefit from a meritocracy will agitate against it, and you see that now with hard left extremists now actually saying that “meritocracy is white supremacy.”
     
    No, meritocracy isn't white supremacy. But white supremacy is anti-antithetical to meritocracy. White supremacy often puts dumb, lazy and unsuitable people in position over smarter, more capable non-whites. It stifles the potential of tens of millions of people who would otherwise be making positive and perhaps seminal contributions to society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. MarkinLA says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    Ahh, that deep unfair practice of ensuring that whites: women, same sex practitioners, Hispanics and Asians and foreigners( largely white) by demographic reap the benefit to the tune over 70% of such set asides.


    LOL.

    You bet color is already factored in --

    Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. You need to read the original post I was responding to where it was claimed that race realism is already in practice in everything. It sure isn’t when it comes to white males.

    Race realism stands for no quotas whatsoever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @utu
    I do not know where and how but there is no question that Revusky is a very intelligent guy even though he has a fatal flaw.

    I do not know where and how but there is no question that Revusky is a very intelligent guy even though he has a fatal flaw.

    Yepper. Revusky suffers from classic forest/trees syndrome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Meimou says:
    @Bill TotenWeiss
    Just to clarify how inane this Davide Piffer (of the lofty >132 IQ) is, he seems to be a believer in Uri Geller:

    http://archive.is/Rqat2

    I'm sure the white nationalist ESP club is a manly fun time, but let's not pretend you guys care about science.

    I’m sure the white nationalist ESP club is a manly fun time, but let’s not pretend you guys care about science.

    Sigh. Anyone who aknowlages the results of evolution is waycist! Try harder. If we waycist don’t care about science, what do we care about? Why are we HBD? Tell us the end game

    No race/iq denier can give me a real answer to this question:

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain? Come on, put this waycist in his place ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain? Come on, put this waycist in his place ;)
     
    The same way they ended up with 5 fingers, genius.
    , @Pam's Travel

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain?
     
    They aren't the same.

    "By comparing genetic data, the researchers managed to predict with a relatively high degree of accuracy an individual’s genetic ancestry based on the geometry of their cerebral cortex. They found that the differences in cortex shapes between the various ancestries are subtle, but systematic."
    https://www.labnews.co.uk/news/brain-shape-genetic-ancestry-linked-10-08-2015/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    I do not know where and how but there is no question that Revusky is a very intelligent guy even though he has a fatal flaw.

    The probability of someone randomly selected in America having a name/photo mixup in a high school yearbook is quite small– I couldn’t guess precisely but probably on the order of between 1/100 and 1/1000. So Revusky picked Betty Ong and found that she had this mixup, since the probability of this happening by chance was obviously less than 1/20, though Revusky didn’t quantify it, he rejected the null hypothesis that yearbook mixup was due to chance rather than some sort of nefarious action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I do not have problem with this reasoning but I first I would like to get estimates of probabilitie that you assume as (1) 1/100-1/0000 and (2) <1/20. If I were Revusky I would not be resting on laurels of my one time luck and did more digging.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Okechukwu says:
    @Saxon

    Should any 80 IQ white guy receive preference over a 130 IQ black guy because of “averages?”
     
    Flip the races here and you have the status quo in America, Canada, and many other formerly all-white or supermajority white countries. This is based on faulty assumptions of equal ability which don't exist in reality. Based on the faulty assumption of equality, it is further claimed that any differences in outcome can only be down to oppression, white racism or other such nonsense that none of the claimants can even provide a scrap of evidence for.

    Multiracial countries don't work. The nutcases who are trying to force it to "work" by beating down whites won't accept algorithms judging data stripped of any identifying information for college admissions. Why? Because it lets in way more white men than are currently let in. They claim it's somehow "biased" (how could it be with no identifying information?) but it never occurs to them that they are the biased ones.

    That's how it is, though. Any group that doesn't benefit from a meritocracy will agitate against it, and you see that now with hard left extremists now actually saying that "meritocracy is white supremacy."

    This is based on faulty assumptions of equal ability which don’t exist in reality.

    You do not get to benefit from a presumption of superiority simply because your skin is white. You might in fact be thoroughly inferior to me on a host of metrics. Why are people like you so deathly afraid of individuality and race-neutrality?

    Multiracial countries don’t work.

    The lack of non-white immigrants didn’t stop Europe from cutting itself to pieces for thousands of years. Empirically, diversity promotes peace, as it sensitizes people to other traditions, making conflict less likely. This happens at a local level, a national level and at a global level. Even within Europe diversity and tolerance has coincided with a period of peace. The British no longer consider the Germans an alien race as they did before, etc.

    That’s how it is, though. Any group that doesn’t benefit from a meritocracy will agitate against it, and you see that now with hard left extremists now actually saying that “meritocracy is white supremacy.”

    No, meritocracy isn’t white supremacy. But white supremacy is anti-antithetical to meritocracy. White supremacy often puts dumb, lazy and unsuitable people in position over smarter, more capable non-whites. It stifles the potential of tens of millions of people who would otherwise be making positive and perhaps seminal contributions to society.

    Read More
    • LOL: Meimou
    • Troll: Saxon
    • Replies: @Saxon
    Ah yes, diversity is making Europe so peaceful what with the weekly terror attacks, constant low level crime, rape gangs sexually trafficking in indigenous girls becomign an epidemic in Britain and so on. Wow, why can't I hold all of this peace and tolerance. And of course if I complain about any of it, I clearly deserve the gulag or bullet in the back of my head.

    You're actually making an argument for affirmative action somehow being fair (spoilers: it's not, there's no justification for it), proving my thesis that multiracialism DOESN'T WORK since you'll just demand special treatment and use sophistry to justify it, and the only end effect for us, the colonized people is loss of territory to invasives who bloodsuck to death us to out-reproduce us in our own land. This "multiculturalism" is one-way only; blacks and browns flood in, agitate for special cut-outs, exemptions, lowered standards and handouts and our birth rates plummet to below maintenance. How many white people will even be left by the end of century on current trends? Whether I'm superior to inferior to you on any metrics is immaterial. You are not us. Why not make your own countries better if you're so sure you're our equal rather than be rapacious parasites who demand everything from us?

    Also, we never considered the Germans alien people. It was always well-understood that we're from the same origin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Okechukwu says:
    @Meimou
    I’m sure the white nationalist ESP club is a manly fun time, but let’s not pretend you guys care about science.

    Sigh. Anyone who aknowlages the results of evolution is waycist! Try harder. If we waycist don't care about science, what do we care about? Why are we HBD? Tell us the end game


    No race/iq denier can give me a real answer to this question:

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain? Come on, put this waycist in his place ;)

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain? Come on, put this waycist in his place ;)

    The same way they ended up with 5 fingers, genius.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Meimou
    Apparently I'm not a genius cuz I have no idea how you answered my question.
    , @Meimou
    The same way they ended up with 5 fingers, genius.

    Oh I get your point, it took me bit, you made your comment in a non genius way....

    So blacks, whites, and yellows evolved to have 5 fingers so it stands to reason(to you) that they would have the same brain.

    Now I'm a high school dropout and don't know much about this science stuff but if yellows, blacks, whites evolved from the same humanoid, and that humanoid had 5 fingers, blacks, whites, and yellows would have 5 fingers two(heh)..unless they did not evolve from the same root creature.

    They have the same ancestor right? Different breeds of dogs have 5 digits on each paw. Or is it four? I'm not a dog guy...

    I mean, races have different skin and eyes, and the brain is a much more complex organ. Why would it be the same?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Uslabor says:
    @Wally
    "Mexicans do jobs Americans just won’t do"

    Please provide proof of that assertion.

    You want proof?

    Stick your tongue in cheek.

    There’s your proof.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Uslabor says:
    @Wally
    Those pickers, who BTW are doomed by machine picking, are pre-approved by 'government'?

    Anecdotes won't cut it.
    Where's the proof that I requested?

    I'm afraid those false thoughts hold no water:

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=upjwWoTPN4PRjAPb1YXoAw&q=jobs+americans+won%27t+do&oq=jobs+americans+won%27t+do&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1340.11130.0.12028.23.23.0.0.0.0.128.2104.17j6.23.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.13.1342...0j46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.69HikyndpkM

    Pickers are doomed by picking machine?

    Until the power runs out, then we’re all pickers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Meimou says:
    @Okechukwu

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain? Come on, put this waycist in his place ;)
     
    The same way they ended up with 5 fingers, genius.

    Apparently I’m not a genius cuz I have no idea how you answered my question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. utu says:
    @Anon
    The probability of someone randomly selected in America having a name/photo mixup in a high school yearbook is quite small-- I couldn't guess precisely but probably on the order of between 1/100 and 1/1000. So Revusky picked Betty Ong and found that she had this mixup, since the probability of this happening by chance was obviously less than 1/20, though Revusky didn't quantify it, he rejected the null hypothesis that yearbook mixup was due to chance rather than some sort of nefarious action.

    I do not have problem with this reasoning but I first I would like to get estimates of probabilitie that you assume as (1) 1/100-1/0000 and (2) <1/20. If I were Revusky I would not be resting on laurels of my one time luck and did more digging.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Meimou says:
    @Okechukwu

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain? Come on, put this waycist in his place ;)
     
    The same way they ended up with 5 fingers, genius.

    The same way they ended up with 5 fingers, genius.

    Oh I get your point, it took me bit, you made your comment in a non genius way….

    So blacks, whites, and yellows evolved to have 5 fingers so it stands to reason(to you) that they would have the same brain.

    Now I’m a high school dropout and don’t know much about this science stuff but if yellows, blacks, whites evolved from the same humanoid, and that humanoid had 5 fingers, blacks, whites, and yellows would have 5 fingers two(heh)..unless they did not evolve from the same root creature.

    They have the same ancestor right? Different breeds of dogs have 5 digits on each paw. Or is it four? I’m not a dog guy…

    I mean, races have different skin and eyes, and the brain is a much more complex organ. Why would it be the same?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    So blacks, whites, and yellows evolved to have 5 fingers so it stands to reason(to you) that they would have the same brain.
     
    Did blacks, whites and Asians evolve on separate planets?

    Can you cite one single neurosurgeon that can distinguish between black, white Asian brains?

    Can you identify and quantify any meaningful change in the human brain in the last 100,000 years?

    Why is it that we see no group, racial or continental differentiation in the performance and functionality of other complex traits (eyes, heart, liver, language, etc.) but somehow you clowns insist that the brain is the one exception to that natural law (with no evidence, I might add)?


    They have the same ancestor right? Different breeds of dogs have 5 digits on each paw. Or is it four? I’m not a dog guy…
     
    Surely you are new to this debate if you cite dog breeds. Is there someone smarter and more knowledgeable I can talk to?
    , @Okechukwu

    I mean, races have different skin and eyes, and the brain is a much more complex organ. Why would it be the same?
     
    The more complex, the more resistant to change. It's precisely because the brain is a complex organ that its capabilities and potential are uniform throughout humanity. Not everybody needs dark skin, but everybody needs intelligence. You see in nature, it's easier to change something like skin color that is regulated by just a few genes. Biology 101.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. Okechukwu says:
    @Meimou
    The same way they ended up with 5 fingers, genius.

    Oh I get your point, it took me bit, you made your comment in a non genius way....

    So blacks, whites, and yellows evolved to have 5 fingers so it stands to reason(to you) that they would have the same brain.

    Now I'm a high school dropout and don't know much about this science stuff but if yellows, blacks, whites evolved from the same humanoid, and that humanoid had 5 fingers, blacks, whites, and yellows would have 5 fingers two(heh)..unless they did not evolve from the same root creature.

    They have the same ancestor right? Different breeds of dogs have 5 digits on each paw. Or is it four? I'm not a dog guy...

    I mean, races have different skin and eyes, and the brain is a much more complex organ. Why would it be the same?

    So blacks, whites, and yellows evolved to have 5 fingers so it stands to reason(to you) that they would have the same brain.

    Did blacks, whites and Asians evolve on separate planets?

    Can you cite one single neurosurgeon that can distinguish between black, white Asian brains?

    Can you identify and quantify any meaningful change in the human brain in the last 100,000 years?

    Why is it that we see no group, racial or continental differentiation in the performance and functionality of other complex traits (eyes, heart, liver, language, etc.) but somehow you clowns insist that the brain is the one exception to that natural law (with no evidence, I might add)?

    They have the same ancestor right? Different breeds of dogs have 5 digits on each paw. Or is it four? I’m not a dog guy…

    Surely you are new to this debate if you cite dog breeds. Is there someone smarter and more knowledgeable I can talk to?

    Read More
    • LOL: Meimou
    • Replies: @res

    Can you cite one single neurosurgeon that can distinguish between black, white Asian brains?
     
    I don't know about that, but there do appear to be differences: Variability in Frontotemporal Brain Structure: The Importance of Recruitment of African Americans in Neuroscience Research https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

    Our primary finding in analyses of brain subregions was that when compared to Caucasians, African Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes (F 1,68 = 7.50, p = 0.008).
     
    More from that paper. Note the first sentence. If no one does the research it is rather hard to find the results. Funny how that works.

    There is a paucity of research examining racial or ethnic differences in brain structure. Most of the evidence in the available literature is limited to neuroimaging studies which control for racial background. For example, there are differences between Caucasians and Chinese individuals in frontal, parietal, and temporal gyri morphology [5], [6], as well as in white matter anatomy [7], and the authors have speculated that some of these differences may be related to the environmental influence of the subject's native language [6]. There are also racial differences in age-related brain changes, with African-American individuals exhibiting greater aging-related increases than Caucasians in cerebral ventricle volume [8], while race is also associated with hippocampal volume in older individuals with cognitive deficits [9]. More recently, widespread differences in brain structure have been observed between Chinese and Caucasian cohorts [5], a finding particularly important for automated image processing methods which rely on population-specific brain atlases.
     
    Back to you:

    Can you identify and quantify any meaningful change in the human brain in the last 100,000 years?
     
    From the abstract of The evolution of modern human brain shape http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao5961.full

    Our data show that, 300,000 years ago, brain size in early H. sapiens already fell within the range of present-day humans. Brain shape, however, evolved gradually within the H. sapiens lineage, reaching present-day human variation between about 100,000 and 35,000 years ago. This process started only after other key features of craniofacial morphology appeared modern and paralleled the emergence of behavioral modernity as seen from the archeological record. Our findings are consistent with important genetic changes affecting early brain development within the H. sapiens lineage since the origin of the species and before the transition to the Later Stone Age and the Upper Paleolithic that mark full behavioral modernity.
     
    You might need to update 100 kya as your boundary. Figure 3 shows changes between 100 kya and 10 kya.

    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/1/eaao5961/F3.large.jpg

    And more from you:


    with no evidence, I might add
     
    Sorry for bursting your bubble.
    , @ChuckOrloski
    Okechukwu inquired:. "Is there someone smarter and more knowledgeable I can talk to?"

    Hi Okechukuwu,

    Unless Professor MacDonald makes reply, perhaps for now I will suffice?

    Eh hem...

    I will render unto High IQ Lords what is their's, but, but, given choice, I will give PRAISE to The Holy Trinity & to some rare creatures, for one example, Ray McGovern, what is their's.

    Keep the Intelligence Quotient faith! Maybe the "smarter" Maven, Sam Shama, will talk to you. Be well!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. @Meimou
    I’m sure the white nationalist ESP club is a manly fun time, but let’s not pretend you guys care about science.

    Sigh. Anyone who aknowlages the results of evolution is waycist! Try harder. If we waycist don't care about science, what do we care about? Why are we HBD? Tell us the end game


    No race/iq denier can give me a real answer to this question:

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain? Come on, put this waycist in his place ;)

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain?

    They aren’t the same.

    “By comparing genetic data, the researchers managed to predict with a relatively high degree of accuracy an individual’s genetic ancestry based on the geometry of their cerebral cortex. They found that the differences in cortex shapes between the various ancestries are subtle, but systematic.”

    https://www.labnews.co.uk/news/brain-shape-genetic-ancestry-linked-10-08-2015/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    “By comparing genetic data, the researchers managed to predict with a relatively high degree of accuracy an individual’s genetic ancestry based on the geometry of their cerebral cortex. They found that the differences in cortex shapes between the various ancestries are subtle, but systematic.”
     
    Doesn't matter. Your fingers aren't shaped exactly like mine but they work the same. Remember, functionality and performance.

    Also from your link:

    The team discovered that the cortical patterns variation accounted for 47-66% among individuals in their genetic ancestry, depending on the ancestral lineage.

    This makes it more or less random assignment. Then we also have to ask how we establish ancestry for someone like Barack Obama based on cortical patterns.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Okechukwu says:
    @Meimou
    The same way they ended up with 5 fingers, genius.

    Oh I get your point, it took me bit, you made your comment in a non genius way....

    So blacks, whites, and yellows evolved to have 5 fingers so it stands to reason(to you) that they would have the same brain.

    Now I'm a high school dropout and don't know much about this science stuff but if yellows, blacks, whites evolved from the same humanoid, and that humanoid had 5 fingers, blacks, whites, and yellows would have 5 fingers two(heh)..unless they did not evolve from the same root creature.

    They have the same ancestor right? Different breeds of dogs have 5 digits on each paw. Or is it four? I'm not a dog guy...

    I mean, races have different skin and eyes, and the brain is a much more complex organ. Why would it be the same?

    I mean, races have different skin and eyes, and the brain is a much more complex organ. Why would it be the same?

    The more complex, the more resistant to change. It’s precisely because the brain is a complex organ that its capabilities and potential are uniform throughout humanity. Not everybody needs dark skin, but everybody needs intelligence. You see in nature, it’s easier to change something like skin color that is regulated by just a few genes. Biology 101.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    It’s precisely because the brain is a complex organ that its capabilities and potential are uniform throughout humanity. Not everybody needs dark skin, but everybody needs intelligence.
     
    I guess that is why intelligence is also uniform across all people.

    Do you actually believe the things you write?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Okechukwu says:
    @Pam's Travel

    How did blacks, whites, and yellows evolve in different environments and yet end up with the same brain?
     
    They aren't the same.

    "By comparing genetic data, the researchers managed to predict with a relatively high degree of accuracy an individual’s genetic ancestry based on the geometry of their cerebral cortex. They found that the differences in cortex shapes between the various ancestries are subtle, but systematic."
    https://www.labnews.co.uk/news/brain-shape-genetic-ancestry-linked-10-08-2015/

    “By comparing genetic data, the researchers managed to predict with a relatively high degree of accuracy an individual’s genetic ancestry based on the geometry of their cerebral cortex. They found that the differences in cortex shapes between the various ancestries are subtle, but systematic.”

    Doesn’t matter. Your fingers aren’t shaped exactly like mine but they work the same. Remember, functionality and performance.

    Also from your link:

    The team discovered that the cortical patterns variation accounted for 47-66% among individuals in their genetic ancestry, depending on the ancestral lineage.

    This makes it more or less random assignment. Then we also have to ask how we establish ancestry for someone like Barack Obama based on cortical patterns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    You are wasting your time. Your arguments are not good. Most people believe that there is racial difference in intelligence between races and their beliefs are grounded in large body of fragmentary evidence. It does not mean that the true believers are right about IQ and all what it suppose to measure and indicate. If however it would be demonstrated that a genome based predictor function of IQ can be constructed that explain X% of IQ variance and the predictor function could be used to show that there are racial differences in IQ means and std.dev. then the matter will settled and all your arguments will evaporate and will be forgotten.

    The rejected paper by David Piffer does not prove anything so you can relax. His science or what ever it is he does is flawed and he seems to be just a Jewish huckster with lost of chutzpah who can find buyers only among those who already believe in his unproven claim. Take a break, relax and go to Nigeria and do something constructive there so less Nigerians have reasons to go to Europe. Help to prove the greatness of the black race by building a great African country because by increasing the number of African welfare recipients in Europe the meme of the greatness of black race is not going viral any time soon.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Anonymous[385] • Disclaimer says:

    Suppose that liberals accepted that IQ was genetic.

    Liberals would then simply advocate for more interracial marriage and for quotas that promoted Blacks so that they would earn more money, even if not fully deserved.

    Liberals are very inventive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  243. FKA Max says:
    @res

    As matters stand, the findings for Amerindians vs. sub-Saharan Africans are not what a “race-realist” would have expected.
     
    Phil, what do you think of the hypothesis that this is because the GWAS was done on a European population which may have missed alleles which are low frequency in Europeans but higher frequency in Africans? Since Amerindians and Europeans diverged later than Africans diverged from all other groups this issue should be more important for African populations.

    This would be similar to what has been seen with Pygmies and height. See this preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/06/167551

    This excerpt could be read just as well as an argument against Piffer's results being proof:

    These polygenic scores should not be viewed as phenotypic predictions across populations. For example, the Maasai and Biaka pygmy populations have similar polygenic scores despite having dramatic differences in height.28 Discrepancies between polygenic scores and actual phenotypes may be expected to occur either because of purely environmental influences on phenotype, as well as gene-by-gene and gene-by-environment interactions. We also expect that the accuracy of these scores when viewed as predictions should decay with genetic distance from Europe (where the GWAS were carried out), due to changes in the structure of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between causal variants and tag SNPs picked up in GWAS, and because GWAS are biased toward discovering intermediate frequency variants, which will explain more variance in the region they are mapped in than outside of it. These caveats notwithstanding, the distribution of polygenic scores across populations can still be informative about the history of natural selection on a given phenotype,18 and a number of striking patterns are visible in their distribution. For example, there is a strong gradient in polygenic height scores running from east to west across Eurasia (Figure 1)
     
    Making the appropriate substitution of height to EA I think this is the most cogent criticism of the issues with Piffer's work that I have seen (do you know of any better?). And I suspect the "caveats notwithstanding" part is equally applicable.

    I am sure you know this, but to be explicit, these issues are most important with Africans because they have the largest genetic distance from the European populations which are typical for GWAS.

    Here is a graphic showing an example analysis:

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Uq9813v02_Q/WXgL1Bx0qJI/AAAAAAAASqQ/N0OKPmSy-UQ7kceLICw_1SAk5bmxwGZvgCLcBGAs/s640/Screen%2BShot%2B2017-07-25%2Bat%2B11.23.22%2BPM.png

    This Coop lab paper is well worth a look, but it is notable that despite looking at 34 complex polygenic traits they do not include any cognitive or education based traits. But for those willing to consider a level of indirection (the references in this iSteve comment might be good for context) the polygenic scores by populations results in Figure 2 for Infant Head Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio might be suggestive.

    This paper is a preprint. I don't think it is published yet so it will serve as a good example of what is and is not allowed through peer review.

    P.S. It is worth noting that (if I understand correctly) LD differences were an important issue with the early reviewer feedback to Piffer (and IMHO would have been good to mention in the Welton article). Piffer is working on enhancements to his methodology that account for LD decay, but I think the only solution for missing alleles which are important for Africans but not Europeans is for there to be more GWAS done on African populations.

    P.P.S. The Coop lab has an excellent reputation. This blog post from them discusses the issues with GWAS and traits in rigorous detail using a hypothetical tea drinking example: https://gcbias.org/2018/03/14/polygenic-scores-and-tea-drinking/
    Perhaps the best argument I have seen against leaping to conclusions in this area. Much more good stuff at that blog. I need to spend more time reading it.

    New concerns raised over value of genome-wide disease studies

    Large analyses dredge up ‘peripheral’ genetic associations that offer little biological insight, researchers say.

    [...]
    http://www.nature.com/news/new-concerns-raised-over-value-of-genome-wide-disease-studies-1.22152

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetics-of-racial-differences-in-intelligence-updated/#comment-1907009

    The researchers also re-analysed data from GWAS of schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease. They found GWAS hits in DNA regions that are expressed in the particular cells relevant to the disease: neurons for schizophrenia, and immune cells for the two autoimmune diseases. But regions of DNA active in many types of body tissue were just as likely to be hits as those that were active only in neurons or immune cells, the team found. That lends credence to the idea that large GWAS are simply picking up most of the DNA variants that have an influence on gene regulation, and that happen to be active in broad functions of disease-relevant cells, rather than in particular activities linked to illness.

    An Expanded View of Complex Traits: From Polygenic to Omnigenic.

    We propose that gene regulatory networks are sufficiently interconnected such that all genes expressed in disease-relevant cells are liable to affect the functions of core disease-related genes and that most heritability can be explained by effects on genes outside core pathways.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28622505

    Eric Topol
    ‏Verified account @EricTopol

    It’s time to think omnigenic, rather than polygenic: a refined model for understanding complex traits

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    OK, I read the paper

    New concerns raised over value of genome-wide disease studies
    https://www.nature.com/news/new-concerns-raised-over-value-of-genome-wide-disease-studies-1.22152
     
    you linked to. It is interesting but I do not think it changes anything and I suspect there are some misunderstand due to lack of precision. GWAS suppose to identify variants that correlate and in case of binary diseases (sick, not sick) they do identify variants that are not responsible for the mechanism of the disease. But in the case of continuous trait like height all 10,000 variants are necessary to construct the predictor function which won't tell us what is the mechanism how each variant affect the height but nevertheless all of them must be used in the predictor function. The same will go for IQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. utu says:
    @Okechukwu

    “By comparing genetic data, the researchers managed to predict with a relatively high degree of accuracy an individual’s genetic ancestry based on the geometry of their cerebral cortex. They found that the differences in cortex shapes between the various ancestries are subtle, but systematic.”
     
    Doesn't matter. Your fingers aren't shaped exactly like mine but they work the same. Remember, functionality and performance.

    Also from your link:

    The team discovered that the cortical patterns variation accounted for 47-66% among individuals in their genetic ancestry, depending on the ancestral lineage.

    This makes it more or less random assignment. Then we also have to ask how we establish ancestry for someone like Barack Obama based on cortical patterns.

    You are wasting your time. Your arguments are not good. Most people believe that there is racial difference in intelligence between races and their beliefs are grounded in large body of fragmentary evidence. It does not mean that the true believers are right about IQ and all what it suppose to measure and indicate. If however it would be demonstrated that a genome based predictor function of IQ can be constructed that explain X% of IQ variance and the predictor function could be used to show that there are racial differences in IQ means and std.dev. then the matter will settled and all your arguments will evaporate and will be forgotten.

    The rejected paper by David Piffer does not prove anything so you can relax. His science or what ever it is he does is flawed and he seems to be just a Jewish huckster with lost of chutzpah who can find buyers only among those who already believe in his unproven claim. Take a break, relax and go to Nigeria and do something constructive there so less Nigerians have reasons to go to Europe. Help to prove the greatness of the black race by building a great African country because by increasing the number of African welfare recipients in Europe the meme of the greatness of black race is not going viral any time soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    Most people believe that there is racial difference in intelligence between races and their beliefs are grounded in large body of fragmentary evidence
     
    This is wishful thinking on your part. That hasn't been my experience even among whites. If anything, I'm the one that is held to be more intelligent.

    If however it would be demonstrated that a genome based predictor function of IQ can be constructed that explain X% of IQ variance and the predictor function could be used to show that there are racial differences in IQ means and std.dev. then the matter will settled and all your arguments will evaporate and will be forgotten.
     
    IQ is learned. Intelligence is partly heritable but that heritablilty has nothing to do with what we call races. Do you know the staggering number of white idiots on Unz flapping their gums about IQ? Pick any African village and you'll find people innately more intelligent than these Unz posters.

    Take a break, relax and go to Nigeria and do something constructive there so less Nigerians have reasons to go to Europe.
     
    Why don't you work on getting Europeans out of Nigeria? Me, I don't care where anyone lives. I do care about preserving quaint little villages and 300 year old churches.

    Help to prove the greatness of the black race by building a great African country because by increasing the number of African welfare recipients in Europe the meme of the greatness of black race is not going viral any time soon.
     
    I don't want to prove anything. But why don't you demonstrate that you're not a hypocritical troll. Speak out against European exploitation in Africa. I mean they're stealing a lot more than they're giving back in so-called welfare.
    , @Peter Frost
    The rejected paper by David Piffer does not prove anything so you can relax. His science or what ever it is he does is flawed and he seems to be just a Jewish huckster with lost of chutzpah


    I initially thought you were a leftwing nutjob. Guess I was wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    So blacks, whites, and yellows evolved to have 5 fingers so it stands to reason(to you) that they would have the same brain.
     
    Did blacks, whites and Asians evolve on separate planets?

    Can you cite one single neurosurgeon that can distinguish between black, white Asian brains?

    Can you identify and quantify any meaningful change in the human brain in the last 100,000 years?

    Why is it that we see no group, racial or continental differentiation in the performance and functionality of other complex traits (eyes, heart, liver, language, etc.) but somehow you clowns insist that the brain is the one exception to that natural law (with no evidence, I might add)?


    They have the same ancestor right? Different breeds of dogs have 5 digits on each paw. Or is it four? I’m not a dog guy…
     
    Surely you are new to this debate if you cite dog breeds. Is there someone smarter and more knowledgeable I can talk to?

    Can you cite one single neurosurgeon that can distinguish between black, white Asian brains?

    I don’t know about that, but there do appear to be differences: Variability in Frontotemporal Brain Structure: The Importance of Recruitment of African Americans in Neuroscience Research https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

    Our primary finding in analyses of brain subregions was that when compared to Caucasians, African Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes (F 1,68 = 7.50, p = 0.008).

    More from that pa