The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Behavior Genetics"
 All Comments / On "Behavior Genetics"
    Blade Runner had an impact on me, both as a film and because it was an introduction to the writings of Philip K Dick, whose whimsical work was based on wondering what it meant to be human. Are we as individuals merely constructions of fundamental genetic coding mechanisms, which create treasured but probably false memories...
  • @utu
    " It suffices that the selected parents are above average." - Correct!

    Or that, in a still randomly mating population, you have excluded the poor performers in each generation before you allow the others to breed..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    I would qualify your helpful observation by noting that you don't need to choose "parents with the maximum of the desired trait" to keep on improving the stock. It suffices that the selected parents are above average.

    Indeed that overstates the required breeding discipline. Long ago I calculatd that a 100 to 115 imprivement in population IQ could have been achieved in 500 years by simply preventing the under 80 (or 75) IQ people from reproducing. Greg Cochram rejected the implied explanation of Ashkenazi IQ rather crossly but didn't deny the logic of the calculation.

    So you just do any of whatever is required to raise the average each generation. Eating the worst young seems efficient.

    ” It suffices that the selected parents are above average.” – Correct!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Or that, in a still randomly mating population, you have excluded the poor performers in each generation before you allow the others to breed..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    "a third of an IQ point per generation" - Where did you get this number from?

    For the breeder's equation to work (in selective breeding) one must understand what S really is. S is not determined at every step of the selective breeding by the mean of trait of the population at the starting point. The mean keeps changing. It keeps going up. That's why you can beat the regression to the mean with selective breeding process though you must put up with it at each single step. If it wasn't so, there would be no selective breeding. One could write a recursive equation for it.

    What is justification for the ad hoc formula R = (1+m) h^2 S you came up with? Just because you want to beat regression to the mean and get R > S? Guess what, I propose the following formula E=2*mc^2 so we can have more energy from nuclear power plants and at a lower cost. My desire is stronger than yours and even more noble, so I am sure my formula have higher chances to be correct than yours.

    Providing that there is no mutations R < S always! This inequality implies regression to the mean at each step. But in the selective breeding process the mean to which the regression occurs keeps increasing because the mean of offspring's population is higher than the mean of original population. So as long as you keep selecting new parents with a maximum of desired trait in the offspring population you end up beating the regression to the mean in a long run.

    Try to understand how to breed large pumpkins so you may figure out how to breed Jews with large noses.

    I would qualify your helpful observation by noting that you don’t need to choose “parents with the maximum of the desired trait” to keep on improving the stock. It suffices that the selected parents are above average.

    Indeed that overstates the required breeding discipline. Long ago I calculatd that a 100 to 115 imprivement in population IQ could have been achieved in 500 years by simply preventing the under 80 (or 75) IQ people from reproducing. Greg Cochram rejected the implied explanation of Ashkenazi IQ rather crossly but didn’t deny the logic of the calculation.

    So you just do any of whatever is required to raise the average each generation. Eating the worst young seems efficient.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    " It suffices that the selected parents are above average." - Correct!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thanks for your articles.

    I stick by my list of the few faithful film adaptions, I am not wanting to repeat myself, but will leave it to the below.

    Seriously, most strongly I recommend a close reading of A Scanner Darkly, then watch the movie.

    Not perfect, but the closest.

    As a second, read ‘Do Androids’ and consider it against Bladder Runner, have an old pdf of the inermediate stage, enough of a fan to have closely read it all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    "a third of an IQ point per generation" - Where did you get this number from?

    For the breeder's equation to work (in selective breeding) one must understand what S really is. S is not determined at every step of the selective breeding by the mean of trait of the population at the starting point. The mean keeps changing. It keeps going up. That's why you can beat the regression to the mean with selective breeding process though you must put up with it at each single step. If it wasn't so, there would be no selective breeding. One could write a recursive equation for it.

    What is justification for the ad hoc formula R = (1+m) h^2 S you came up with? Just because you want to beat regression to the mean and get R > S? Guess what, I propose the following formula E=2*mc^2 so we can have more energy from nuclear power plants and at a lower cost. My desire is stronger than yours and even more noble, so I am sure my formula have higher chances to be correct than yours.

    Providing that there is no mutations R < S always! This inequality implies regression to the mean at each step. But in the selective breeding process the mean to which the regression occurs keeps increasing because the mean of offspring's population is higher than the mean of original population. So as long as you keep selecting new parents with a maximum of desired trait in the offspring population you end up beating the regression to the mean in a long run.

    Try to understand how to breed large pumpkins so you may figure out how to breed Jews with large noses.

    “”” “a third of an IQ point per generation” – Where did you get this number from? “””
    It is from Cochran’s paper, go read their paper.

    “”” What is justification for the ad hoc formula R = (1+m) h^2 S you came up with? “””
    You brough up Walsh’s paper. It is in their paper. Go read again the paper you youself suggested. It is also in Cochran’s paper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dux.ie
    This is after all a blog on intellegence.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence#.22Natural_History_of_Intelligence.22

    """In a television interview, Cochran said: "...So if [ Jews] (statistically and positively accumulatively net) increased a third of an IQ point per generation, that would almost certainly be enough to make this effect happen." """ With my own emphasis.

    Over a thousand years statistically and consistently positive accumulation, no regression to the mean. If a modified breeder equation R = (1+m) h^2 S is used, then R ge or le S, then regression to the mean R lt S is only one of the possible outcome and it is not the driving force for the above condition, the improvement accumulated over a long time.

    “a third of an IQ point per generation” – Where did you get this number from?

    For the breeder’s equation to work (in selective breeding) one must understand what S really is. S is not determined at every step of the selective breeding by the mean of trait of the population at the starting point. The mean keeps changing. It keeps going up. That’s why you can beat the regression to the mean with selective breeding process though you must put up with it at each single step. If it wasn’t so, there would be no selective breeding. One could write a recursive equation for it.

    What is justification for the ad hoc formula R = (1+m) h^2 S you came up with? Just because you want to beat regression to the mean and get R > S? Guess what, I propose the following formula E=2*mc^2 so we can have more energy from nuclear power plants and at a lower cost. My desire is stronger than yours and even more noble, so I am sure my formula have higher chances to be correct than yours.

    Providing that there is no mutations R < S always! This inequality implies regression to the mean at each step. But in the selective breeding process the mean to which the regression occurs keeps increasing because the mean of offspring's population is higher than the mean of original population. So as long as you keep selecting new parents with a maximum of desired trait in the offspring population you end up beating the regression to the mean in a long run.

    Try to understand how to breed large pumpkins so you may figure out how to breed Jews with large noses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dux.ie
    """ “a third of an IQ point per generation” – Where did you get this number from? """
    It is from Cochran's paper, go read their paper.

    """ What is justification for the ad hoc formula R = (1+m) h^2 S you came up with? """
    You brough up Walsh's paper. It is in their paper. Go read again the paper you youself suggested. It is also in Cochran's paper.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I would qualify your helpful observation by noting that you don't need to choose "parents with the maximum of the desired trait" to keep on improving the stock. It suffices that the selected parents are above average.

    Indeed that overstates the required breeding discipline. Long ago I calculatd that a 100 to 115 imprivement in population IQ could have been achieved in 500 years by simply preventing the under 80 (or 75) IQ people from reproducing. Greg Cochram rejected the implied explanation of Ashkenazi IQ rather crossly but didn't deny the logic of the calculation.

    So you just do any of whatever is required to raise the average each generation. Eating the worst young seems efficient.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    "Only digression from the mean could propel the Ashkenazi Jews’ IQ to much higher than their proto ancient Jews and ancient European ancestors in only a few generations."

    I see you are obsessed with some Jewish IQ Problem. How many generations is a few generations? You have any data on Jewish IQ from antiquity and Middle Ages? Are you sure you understand the regression to the mean in the context of the breeder's equation? Because you know, despite of that regression you can breed 1000 pound pumpkins. So I do not see any reason why you could not breed a Jew with a really big nose.

    This is after all a blog on intellegence.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence#.22Natural_History_of_Intelligence.22

    “””In a television interview, Cochran said: “…So if [ Jews] (statistically and positively accumulatively net) increased a third of an IQ point per generation, that would almost certainly be enough to make this effect happen.” “”” With my own emphasis.

    Over a thousand years statistically and consistently positive accumulation, no regression to the mean. If a modified breeder equation R = (1+m) h^2 S is used, then R ge or le S, then regression to the mean R lt S is only one of the possible outcome and it is not the driving force for the above condition, the improvement accumulated over a long time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "a third of an IQ point per generation" - Where did you get this number from?

    For the breeder's equation to work (in selective breeding) one must understand what S really is. S is not determined at every step of the selective breeding by the mean of trait of the population at the starting point. The mean keeps changing. It keeps going up. That's why you can beat the regression to the mean with selective breeding process though you must put up with it at each single step. If it wasn't so, there would be no selective breeding. One could write a recursive equation for it.

    What is justification for the ad hoc formula R = (1+m) h^2 S you came up with? Just because you want to beat regression to the mean and get R > S? Guess what, I propose the following formula E=2*mc^2 so we can have more energy from nuclear power plants and at a lower cost. My desire is stronger than yours and even more noble, so I am sure my formula have higher chances to be correct than yours.

    Providing that there is no mutations R < S always! This inequality implies regression to the mean at each step. But in the selective breeding process the mean to which the regression occurs keeps increasing because the mean of offspring's population is higher than the mean of original population. So as long as you keep selecting new parents with a maximum of desired trait in the offspring population you end up beating the regression to the mean in a long run.

    Try to understand how to breed large pumpkins so you may figure out how to breed Jews with large noses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    "Only digression from the mean could propel the Ashkenazi Jews’ IQ to much higher than their proto ancient Jews and ancient European ancestors in only a few generations."

    I see you are obsessed with some Jewish IQ Problem. How many generations is a few generations? You have any data on Jewish IQ from antiquity and Middle Ages? Are you sure you understand the regression to the mean in the context of the breeder's equation? Because you know, despite of that regression you can breed 1000 pound pumpkins. So I do not see any reason why you could not breed a Jew with a really big nose.

    Theoretical predictions are fine but at some stage you have to have reality check. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution or that all higher order life are created during the big bang?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dux.ie
    Both Walsh’s and your arguments falls into the trap of Zeno paradoxes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

    Look at the larger picture, only digression from the old population mean causes new phenotype/specie to form. Regression to the mean with statistically one step forward one step back will reduce all living things to a single specie. Only digression from the mean could propel the Ashkenazi Jews’ IQ to much higher than their proto ancient Jews and ancient European ancestors in only a few generations.

    The explanation of Jean Paul Van Bendegem for breaking the Zeno paradoxes seems to be the best. The changes are not infinitely divisible and there is a finite discrete minimum change (allele) which will cause the system to break through the boundaries and once crossed previous assumptions and constraints are most probably no longer valid.

    “Only digression from the mean could propel the Ashkenazi Jews’ IQ to much higher than their proto ancient Jews and ancient European ancestors in only a few generations.”

    I see you are obsessed with some Jewish IQ Problem. How many generations is a few generations? You have any data on Jewish IQ from antiquity and Middle Ages? Are you sure you understand the regression to the mean in the context of the breeder’s equation? Because you know, despite of that regression you can breed 1000 pound pumpkins. So I do not see any reason why you could not breed a Jew with a really big nose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dux.ie
    Theoretical predictions are fine but at some stage you have to have reality check. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution or that all higher order life are created during the big bang?
    , @dux.ie
    This is after all a blog on intellegence.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence#.22Natural_History_of_Intelligence.22

    """In a television interview, Cochran said: "...So if [ Jews] (statistically and positively accumulatively net) increased a third of an IQ point per generation, that would almost certainly be enough to make this effect happen." """ With my own emphasis.

    Over a thousand years statistically and consistently positive accumulation, no regression to the mean. If a modified breeder equation R = (1+m) h^2 S is used, then R ge or le S, then regression to the mean R lt S is only one of the possible outcome and it is not the driving force for the above condition, the improvement accumulated over a long time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Consequences of regression to the mean

    (1) The fact that |R| < |S| implies that standard deviation of any trait within randomly mating population should be shrinking. In the end it should shrink to zero.

    Was it observed? Are grasses on a meadow more alike now than 1000 years ago? Was standard deviation of IQ larger in the past than now?

    (2) Can mean (of a particular trait) of population change? Not according to the breeder's equation providing the heritability is the same when trait is smaller than the mean and when it is larger than the mean.

    Which mean? This is the question about the meaning of the mean that sits in the breeder's equation. Consider the following situation. Let suppose that all people with IQ>100 vanished. Then the mean of the remaining population will be smaller than IQ=100 (say IQ=80) however the breeder's equation will be still working and the regressing to the old mean of IQ=100 will continue, so the actual mean of the population will be increasing. Thus there is an important distinction between the actual (manifested) mean of the given population and the mean that plays the role in the breeder's equation. Let suppose that the mean of IQ=100 that is currently observed is not the mean that plays the role in the breeder's equation. In this case we should observe the regression to the mean that sits in the breeder's equation. What if the mean that sits in the breeder's equation is larger than 100? Then we should observe a drift akin to the Flynn effect.

    If the manifested mean is smaller than the mean (that sits in the breeder's equation) such a population could be called as the one that not realized its potential. Due to the regression to the mean effect the manifested mean of this population will increase.

    For these conclusions the validity of breeder's equation is not important. It suffices to observe that |R| < |S|.

    Both Walsh’s and your arguments falls into the trap of Zeno paradoxes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

    Look at the larger picture, only digression from the old population mean causes new phenotype/specie to form. Regression to the mean with statistically one step forward one step back will reduce all living things to a single specie. Only digression from the mean could propel the Ashkenazi Jews’ IQ to much higher than their proto ancient Jews and ancient European ancestors in only a few generations.

    The explanation of Jean Paul Van Bendegem for breaking the Zeno paradoxes seems to be the best. The changes are not infinitely divisible and there is a finite discrete minimum change (allele) which will cause the system to break through the boundaries and once crossed previous assumptions and constraints are most probably no longer valid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Only digression from the mean could propel the Ashkenazi Jews’ IQ to much higher than their proto ancient Jews and ancient European ancestors in only a few generations."

    I see you are obsessed with some Jewish IQ Problem. How many generations is a few generations? You have any data on Jewish IQ from antiquity and Middle Ages? Are you sure you understand the regression to the mean in the context of the breeder's equation? Because you know, despite of that regression you can breed 1000 pound pumpkins. So I do not see any reason why you could not breed a Jew with a really big nose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @James Thompson
    No sarcasm. Was introduced to Dick's writing by a literary friend, and have had only a glancing exposure to "Do androids dream" so yet another set of readings are now in my metaphorical in-tray for future reading.
    Thanks for your comments.

    My comments #50 and #51 were really meant for you and for dux.ie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Che Guava
    I hope that you are not being sarcarstic, but sense that it is not, read them all (except one of the early non-SF ones, Mary and the Giant, I look forward to reading it).

    Have watched the films that I do not think rubbish many times. BTW, if you have not seen A Scanner Darkly, or read it, I strongly recommend both.

    The movie, rotoscoped, has probably Keanu Reeves' strongest dramatic performance.

    Almost the last for Downey jr. before his Iron Man stupidity. I love him as an actor, but won't pay a cent to see current superhero garbage,

    No sarcasm. Was introduced to Dick’s writing by a literary friend, and have had only a glancing exposure to “Do androids dream” so yet another set of readings are now in my metaphorical in-tray for future reading.
    Thanks for your comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Che Guava
    I hope that you are not being sarcarstic, but sense that it is not, read them all (except one of the early non-SF ones, Mary and the Giant, I look forward to reading it).

    Have watched the films that I do not think rubbish many times. BTW, if you have not seen A Scanner Darkly, or read it, I strongly recommend both.

    The movie, rotoscoped, has probably Keanu Reeves' strongest dramatic performance.

    Almost the last for Downey jr. before his Iron Man stupidity. I love him as an actor, but won't pay a cent to see current superhero garbage,

    No sarcasm. Was introduced to Dick’s writing by a literary friend, and have had only a glancing exposure to “Do androids dream” so yet another set of readings are now in my metaphorical in-tray for future reading.
    Thanks for your comments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    My comments #50 and #51 were really meant for you and for dux.ie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @James Thompson
    I am grateful to you for your far better knowledge of both the books and the films.

    I hope that you are not being sarcarstic, but sense that it is not, read them all (except one of the early non-SF ones, Mary and the Giant, I look forward to reading it).

    Have watched the films that I do not think rubbish many times. BTW, if you have not seen A Scanner Darkly, or read it, I strongly recommend both.

    The movie, rotoscoped, has probably Keanu Reeves’ strongest dramatic performance.

    Almost the last for Downey jr. before his Iron Man stupidity. I love him as an actor, but won’t pay a cent to see current superhero garbage,

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    No sarcasm. Was introduced to Dick's writing by a literary friend, and have had only a glancing exposure to "Do androids dream" so yet another set of readings are now in my metaphorical in-tray for future reading.
    Thanks for your comments.
    , @James Thompson
    No sarcasm. Was introduced to Dick's writing by a literary friend, and have had only a glancing exposure to "Do androids dream" so yet another set of readings are now in my metaphorical in-tray for future reading.
    Thanks for your comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Kiza
    Sorry to say Che, but I have an impression that you misunderstood most of the movie Brazil, for example you say:

    ...late 70s Conservatives meet East Germany
     
    Brazil has been done in the British retro look because:
    1) it is a kind of continuation of Monty Python ("Ducts ....),
    2) because at the time of the making the UK was much more a bureaucratic country than US,
    3) the UK was also the highest surveillance country in Europe, all justified by the IRA terror at the time, and
    4) the retro look is the expected outcome of Thatcherism in Britain of the time.

    I shudder at a mere thought of putting Monty Python style humour of this movie in front of some US background!? It would never work, maybe Gillian even tried.

    The movie's retro look puts a very powerful emphasis on the story and the characters instead of the production design and special effects (typical to SF genre), in which the movie engages only on rare but most significant occasions (dreaming). An additional point is that with the destruction of the middle class in the West, an even worse look is prevailing in some areas - just look at US urban jungles now. I have been to East Germany and I can tell you that nothing there ever looked like Detroit.

    I have been showing Brazil to many of my friends and past girlfriends and observing their reactions. What you call the look of "East Germany" is exactly what turns off most people who are incapable of understanding this movie. It is just not flashy and shiny enough to keep their attention for two hours. There are also people who are too-US (narrow-minded) to understand the subtlety of this British movie paid for by US.

    You are also too judgemental about the Blade Runner, making several valid points but again outside of context.

    You are rather harsh, and none of what you say is relevant to my post to which you are replying. For example, did I say that the mix of Conservative Party ruling types and East German style enforcers with working-class Brit accents was stupid?

    No. Rather, I thought it was brilliant.

    Monty Python was popular in Japan, so of course I caught those references, though they are quite few.

    Your reply is nonsensical since it has nothing to do with my two posts that you lamely try to attack by making your own assumptions to put things I did not say in my mouth.

    You are also too judgemental about the Blade Runner, making several valid points but again outside of context.

    How was anything ‘out of context’?
    I said that I think that it was a great movie. My complaint is only that the mad US eternal copyrights campaign means that nobody over the age of ten will ever see a film of the real Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, if such is ever made.

    My points were how few supposedly PKD-story based movies are good or faithful to the source, and that Ridley Scott is self-confessedly retarded as a reader.

    You can refute neither.

    What you misunderstood is my words having read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, perhaps you may try reading it some time?

    I am enough of a Bladder Runner fan to have bought and read both of the sequels by Kevin Jeter, they are not masterpieces, but he tries to reconcile the film with the short novel, and comes up with many interesting scenes in the process.

    He was uniquely qualified, having lived in the same house with PKD, and having appeared as a character in Valis.

    Bet you didn’t know any of that.

    Meanwhile, youtube and other US sites have absolute permission to steal any content they want from minor players, it is a clearly official US strategy, sometimes called ‘digital crack’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:

    Consequences of regression to the mean

    (1) The fact that |R| < |S| implies that standard deviation of any trait within randomly mating population should be shrinking. In the end it should shrink to zero.

    Was it observed? Are grasses on a meadow more alike now than 1000 years ago? Was standard deviation of IQ larger in the past than now?

    (2) Can mean (of a particular trait) of population change? Not according to the breeder's equation providing the heritability is the same when trait is smaller than the mean and when it is larger than the mean.

    Which mean? This is the question about the meaning of the mean that sits in the breeder’s equation. Consider the following situation. Let suppose that all people with IQ>100 vanished. Then the mean of the remaining population will be smaller than IQ=100 (say IQ=80) however the breeder’s equation will be still working and the regressing to the old mean of IQ=100 will continue, so the actual mean of the population will be increasing. Thus there is an important distinction between the actual (manifested) mean of the given population and the mean that plays the role in the breeder’s equation. Let suppose that the mean of IQ=100 that is currently observed is not the mean that plays the role in the breeder’s equation. In this case we should observe the regression to the mean that sits in the breeder’s equation. What if the mean that sits in the breeder’s equation is larger than 100? Then we should observe a drift akin to the Flynn effect.

    If the manifested mean is smaller than the mean (that sits in the breeder’s equation) such a population could be called as the one that not realized its potential. Due to the regression to the mean effect the manifested mean of this population will increase.

    For these conclusions the validity of breeder’s equation is not important. It suffices to observe that |R| < |S|.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dux.ie
    Both Walsh’s and your arguments falls into the trap of Zeno paradoxes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

    Look at the larger picture, only digression from the old population mean causes new phenotype/specie to form. Regression to the mean with statistically one step forward one step back will reduce all living things to a single specie. Only digression from the mean could propel the Ashkenazi Jews’ IQ to much higher than their proto ancient Jews and ancient European ancestors in only a few generations.

    The explanation of Jean Paul Van Bendegem for breaking the Zeno paradoxes seems to be the best. The changes are not infinitely divisible and there is a finite discrete minimum change (allele) which will cause the system to break through the boundaries and once crossed previous assumptions and constraints are most probably no longer valid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:

    I found the following derivation of the breeder’s equation:

    http://www-liphy.ujf-grenoble.fr/pagesperso/bahram/Evolution/evolution_lectures.pdf

    If we apply a selection function to move the average phenotype by S, the average genotype will move to a lesser extent R. Of course, the average genotype is not measurable, but R is also the shift in the phenotype of the next generation. More precisely,

    if we define

    S= Avg(Zw) – Avg(Zo)
    R= Avg(Z1) – Avg(Zo)

    Then R < S. We can write this inequality as

    R=Sh^2

    where h^2 < 1 is called heritability.

    Thus the equation is made true by a clever (tautological) definition of the heritability. In other words the heritability is what it must be to make the equation true. The heritability in the equation is defined by the breeder equation as a nonnegative smaller than one coefficient that is necessitated by the fact (which is intuitively true) that R < S. There is no independent definition of the heritability for the purpose of this equation. However we know that the breeder's equation often is not true but this can be stated when the heritability is defined independently of the equation. Here various reasons for which the breeder's equation might not be valid are given:

    http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/Nordicpdf/WLChapter04.pdf

    However the most important fact that is more general than the breeder's equation is the inequality

    R < S

    which implicates the "regression towards the mean". More correctly the inequality should be written for absolute values: |R|<|S| so the fact that the regression towards the mean can be Up not only Down is not overlooked. According to this inequality the offspring of short parents will be taller while offspring of tall parents will be shorter (statistically).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Che Guava
    I like the article, Dr. Thompson, but re. Bladerunner and Do Androids, the central theme re. replicants is almost a complete inversion.

    In the novel, the replicants are incapable of empathy. There is a scene where two of them enjoy pulling the legs off a harmless spider to illustrate this.

    Much more, like how in the movie, everwhere except JF Sebastian's place is crowded, the trade in ersatz animals has no explanation.

    Even the title is from Burroughs, not Dick.

    Love Bladerunner, but is a shame that there will never be a film of Do Androids (at least in the lifetimes of anyone over, say, ten, with the insane endless extension of IP rights by the US).

    Ridley Scott has made a few great films, but is an ignoramus as a reader, even boasting of never having read the slim volume that is Do Androids.

    Faithful PKD-based movies:

    A Scanner Darkly
    Screamers
    Impostor (the 40 min version, the feature-length version is rubbish)
    A French one, title something like Barjo, haven't seen it, not SF, have read the novel. Based on Confessions of a Crap Artist, IIRC.

    Fun and close to faithful:

    Total Recall (not the recent one)

    Great but almost totally unfaithful :

    Bladerunner

    Total crap:

    All of the others

    As for all of the others, what a waste. One may be pretty sure that the Bladerunner sequel will be execrable, too.

    I am grateful to you for your far better knowledge of both the books and the films.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I hope that you are not being sarcarstic, but sense that it is not, read them all (except one of the early non-SF ones, Mary and the Giant, I look forward to reading it).

    Have watched the films that I do not think rubbish many times. BTW, if you have not seen A Scanner Darkly, or read it, I strongly recommend both.

    The movie, rotoscoped, has probably Keanu Reeves' strongest dramatic performance.

    Almost the last for Downey jr. before his Iron Man stupidity. I love him as an actor, but won't pay a cent to see current superhero garbage,

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dux.ie
    "If so, which facts does it not cover?"

    The formation of Ashkenazi Jews who are smarter than their proto ancestors of ancient European and ancient Jews. There were no other smarter pop group they could regress up to. That would require h^2 to be greater than one which is hard to exdplain.

    "How should the rule be changed?"

    Copy Einstein's example of inserting a gravitational constant. Thus

    R = w h^2 S

    where w is the Wobegon constant, then H^2 dont necessary have to be greater than one.

    Rather than plugging h^2 value from thin air, the w h^2 value can be obtained from the regression of the pop data. In my case from only the available data the R and S are of different measures of the same charateristic but as R is monotonically related to S I can just regress on log(R) against S and get the w h^2 value.

    hmm. correction. cosmological constant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ivy says:
    @Inquiring Mind

    3) the UK was also the highest surveillance country in Europe, all justified by the IRA terror at the time,
     
    Despite British efforts to keep the IRA terror campaign hush-hush, their "cover" was blown after a spate of "car-jacking" robbery attempts in South Florida that left more than one British tourist dead. This resulted in the British issuing a travel advisory regarding British tourists visiting Florida, suggesting that the gangs targeting foreign tourists driving rental cars made that portion of the U.S. dangerous.

    The then Florida Governor Lawton Chiles retorted, "Oh yeah? What about the IRA bombings "over there"?

    Yes, what about the IRA bombings? The terror attacks in conjunction with the way the authorities responded to them was the subject of "Brazil", although this was not known to most U.S. viewers of the movie. Most of us in the U.S. knew about The Troubles in Northern Ireland, but we didn't make the connection that in addition to their tactical campaign in Northern Ireland, the IRA had a "strategic campaign" of terror in England itself. Heck, I visited London on business in the 1970's during the "if you see something, say something" era, was even stuck in traffic for my departure from London Heathrow where my host asked a police constable about the holdup and was answered tersely "suspect bomb" (what we call a bomb scare), and I still didn't make the connection to "Brazil" until after the Florida governor blabbed.

    Since the 9-11 attacks, the U.S. has taken on the qualities of England depicted in "Brazil", "security theatre", "renditions", the (argued to be) torture interrogations, the normalization of a permanent state of war, and so on. But the film was very much about the British experience with the Northern Ireland War.

    Florida tourists of whatever nationality were easily identifiable when driving rental cars. The state, in its infinite wisdom, for years had all those rental car license plates start with the letter Y. They got a lot of heat from the business community about crime being a downer, so changed their ways.

    All an enterprising local, or IRA guy, had to do was read the license plates and pick a target. After all, how many tourists wanted to travel back to Florida for trial after some BS scam or phony car accident or mugging. Oahu had that reputation for quite a while, too, although at least the return trip was to a nicer place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Kiza
    Sorry to say Che, but I have an impression that you misunderstood most of the movie Brazil, for example you say:

    ...late 70s Conservatives meet East Germany
     
    Brazil has been done in the British retro look because:
    1) it is a kind of continuation of Monty Python ("Ducts ....),
    2) because at the time of the making the UK was much more a bureaucratic country than US,
    3) the UK was also the highest surveillance country in Europe, all justified by the IRA terror at the time, and
    4) the retro look is the expected outcome of Thatcherism in Britain of the time.

    I shudder at a mere thought of putting Monty Python style humour of this movie in front of some US background!? It would never work, maybe Gillian even tried.

    The movie's retro look puts a very powerful emphasis on the story and the characters instead of the production design and special effects (typical to SF genre), in which the movie engages only on rare but most significant occasions (dreaming). An additional point is that with the destruction of the middle class in the West, an even worse look is prevailing in some areas - just look at US urban jungles now. I have been to East Germany and I can tell you that nothing there ever looked like Detroit.

    I have been showing Brazil to many of my friends and past girlfriends and observing their reactions. What you call the look of "East Germany" is exactly what turns off most people who are incapable of understanding this movie. It is just not flashy and shiny enough to keep their attention for two hours. There are also people who are too-US (narrow-minded) to understand the subtlety of this British movie paid for by US.

    You are also too judgemental about the Blade Runner, making several valid points but again outside of context.

    3) the UK was also the highest surveillance country in Europe, all justified by the IRA terror at the time,

    Despite British efforts to keep the IRA terror campaign hush-hush, their “cover” was blown after a spate of “car-jacking” robbery attempts in South Florida that left more than one British tourist dead. This resulted in the British issuing a travel advisory regarding British tourists visiting Florida, suggesting that the gangs targeting foreign tourists driving rental cars made that portion of the U.S. dangerous.

    The then Florida Governor Lawton Chiles retorted, “Oh yeah? What about the IRA bombings “over there”?

    Yes, what about the IRA bombings? The terror attacks in conjunction with the way the authorities responded to them was the subject of “Brazil”, although this was not known to most U.S. viewers of the movie. Most of us in the U.S. knew about The Troubles in Northern Ireland, but we didn’t make the connection that in addition to their tactical campaign in Northern Ireland, the IRA had a “strategic campaign” of terror in England itself. Heck, I visited London on business in the 1970′s during the “if you see something, say something” era, was even stuck in traffic for my departure from London Heathrow where my host asked a police constable about the holdup and was answered tersely “suspect bomb” (what we call a bomb scare), and I still didn’t make the connection to “Brazil” until after the Florida governor blabbed.

    Since the 9-11 attacks, the U.S. has taken on the qualities of England depicted in “Brazil”, “security theatre”, “renditions”, the (argued to be) torture interrogations, the normalization of a permanent state of war, and so on. But the film was very much about the British experience with the Northern Ireland War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Florida tourists of whatever nationality were easily identifiable when driving rental cars. The state, in its infinite wisdom, for years had all those rental car license plates start with the letter Y. They got a lot of heat from the business community about crime being a downer, so changed their ways.

    All an enterprising local, or IRA guy, had to do was read the license plates and pick a target. After all, how many tourists wanted to travel back to Florida for trial after some BS scam or phony car accident or mugging. Oahu had that reputation for quite a while, too, although at least the return trip was to a nicer place.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu

    "Regression to the mean is, well, regressive and well contained. It cannot explains why the Ashkenazi Jew are smarter than both their proto ancestors of ancient Europeans and ancient Jews."
     
    Not exactly. It is regressive for parents who are above the average but not for the parents who are below the average as children of the latter suppose to be smarter than their parents.

    The pull of the regression to the mean is beaten by the process of selective breeding. In selective breeding you accomplish this by changing the mean. So obviously Hardy–Weinberg principle does not apply. You select offspring that exceed parents trait for the next stage of breeding and discard those who were regressed to the mean. Did Jews kill their more stupid children? Or they just did not let them breed so the less intelligent ones had to defect to the gentile population in search of the mates and ceased to be Jews?

    The question how valid is the breeder's equation is another matter.

    But what you and Murray are concerned with most likely has nothing to do with genetics but rather with some kind of Flynn effects.

    “It is regressive for parents who are above the average but not for the parents who are below the average as children of the latter suppose to be smarter than their parents.”

    Not from my empirical data points rather than your hand waving. The particular examples for Atherton and LA city I provided demonstrated these, i.e. for Atherton EduNdx=2.44, NmsNdx=49.08, WobegonNdx=20.11, for LA EduNdx=0.86, NmsNdx=0.09, WobegonNDx=0.11, both are the reverse of what you claimed. And they are not isolated data points, there are 125/212 cases similar to that for Atherton and 52/212 cases similar to that for LA city. Alternatively, the rest of 891 cases with NmsNdx=0 are closer to that for LA with NmsNdx=0.09 rather than NmsNdx=0.9892 demarcation line, the cases similar to that for LA might be 943/1103 cases, the reverse of what you claimed. These are actual empirical data points.

    “But what you and Murray are concerned with most likely has nothing to do with genetics but rather with some kind of Flynn effects.”

    Here is a recent refreed paper that investigated the distribution of allels withlatitudes,

    JPA Gardner and K-J Wei, “The genetic architecture of hybridisation between two
    lineages of greenshell mussels”, Heredity (2015) 114, 344–355.

    See Gardner’s fig 2,

    “Figure 2 Sigmoidal cline plots for the 10 alleles showing greatest change in allele frequency as a function of latitude. In each case, the cline fit is based on data from 12 populations; the HSB population (circle ○) and the BGB population (black triangle ▲) shown for comparison. The hybrid zone is located in the
    areas of steepest gradient of change of allelic frequency. Note the different y axis ranges that are necessary to show detail of the sigmoidal curves.”

    In Gardner’s case the two variables are Gene Freq and latitude. In my cases the two variables are NmxNdx and EduNdx. The Gardner’s scatter plots of the data points are similar to that for mine. Those are also actual empirical data points.

    If the force of regression to the mean is strong, there will simply be one big blob of hybrid zone. If the hybrid zone is so tiny what use is the narrative of regression to the mean in real life situations? Evolution with regression to the mean and natural mutations would be very slow, every time a new phenotype appears their descendents migh be pulled back to the pop mean. Evolution with digression away from the mean could fast-track the process in a few generations, and this could be the process for the formation of the Ashkenazi Jews, the smarts’ descendents getting smarter, rather than being pulled back to the old pop mean and in time they will form a new distinct population group. Thus mentioning regression to the mean and Darwinian evolution might be a bit oxymoronic. It is digression from the mean that forms speciation.

    It is also interesting that the dynamic population model shows both possibly the mechanics of Flynn effects and Woodley’s dumbing down concurrently. Thus it could be that the proper selection of sample is very important.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @James Thompson
    Interesting points, and I will try to respond, though some things are still not clear to me as regards the levels of proof you are looking for.

    "The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms." So, the Breeder's equation aims to do that. If, looking at the data from mouse, and from domestication of foxes, and all other selection studies, one can find a better way of expressing what is happening, then of course the new axiom will replace the old one.

    You say: "In other words this equation is not really valid in general". If so, which facts does it not cover? What contrary findings are the exception to the rule? How should the rule be changed?

    Anyway, here is Greg Cochran's take on it:
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    “If so, which facts does it not cover?”

    The formation of Ashkenazi Jews who are smarter than their proto ancestors of ancient European and ancient Jews. There were no other smarter pop group they could regress up to. That would require h^2 to be greater than one which is hard to exdplain.

    “How should the rule be changed?”

    Copy Einstein’s example of inserting a gravitational constant. Thus

    R = w h^2 S

    where w is the Wobegon constant, then H^2 dont necessary have to be greater than one.

    Rather than plugging h^2 value from thin air, the w h^2 value can be obtained from the regression of the pop data. In my case from only the available data the R and S are of different measures of the same charateristic but as R is monotonically related to S I can just regress on log(R) against S and get the w h^2 value.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dux.ie
    hmm. correction. cosmological constant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Che Guava
    Probably not. I have had a very bad cold and high fever in the last few days, so excuse that, please.

    Still, the only parts that seem relevant to or prophetic for the USA are the behaviour of the special police and treatment of suspects.

    Gilliam is a US person, but it is a very Brit. dystopia. Ruling power is like late 70s Conservatives meet East Germany.

    I also like the way Lowry has a reality breakdown, like a PKD character, at some point. Don't even think it was intentional at first (at least the timing), just something Giiiam liked, that happened by chance in the editing process.

    Where it (the reality breakdown) is is always interesting to me, I think immediately before or after the struggle over one desk in two tiny cubicles.

    I never saw the original US release, with the 'happy ending' , but it is funny that a happy ending was ordered there, the version Gilliam wanted (but a little shorter) was on screen everywhere else it was shown, AFAIK.

    Sorry to say Che, but I have an impression that you misunderstood most of the movie Brazil, for example you say:

    …late 70s Conservatives meet East Germany

    Brazil has been done in the British retro look because:
    1) it is a kind of continuation of Monty Python (“Ducts ….),
    2) because at the time of the making the UK was much more a bureaucratic country than US,
    3) the UK was also the highest surveillance country in Europe, all justified by the IRA terror at the time, and
    4) the retro look is the expected outcome of Thatcherism in Britain of the time.

    I shudder at a mere thought of putting Monty Python style humour of this movie in front of some US background!? It would never work, maybe Gillian even tried.

    The movie’s retro look puts a very powerful emphasis on the story and the characters instead of the production design and special effects (typical to SF genre), in which the movie engages only on rare but most significant occasions (dreaming). An additional point is that with the destruction of the middle class in the West, an even worse look is prevailing in some areas – just look at US urban jungles now. I have been to East Germany and I can tell you that nothing there ever looked like Detroit.

    I have been showing Brazil to many of my friends and past girlfriends and observing their reactions. What you call the look of “East Germany” is exactly what turns off most people who are incapable of understanding this movie. It is just not flashy and shiny enough to keep their attention for two hours. There are also people who are too-US (narrow-minded) to understand the subtlety of this British movie paid for by US.

    You are also too judgemental about the Blade Runner, making several valid points but again outside of context.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    3) the UK was also the highest surveillance country in Europe, all justified by the IRA terror at the time,
     
    Despite British efforts to keep the IRA terror campaign hush-hush, their "cover" was blown after a spate of "car-jacking" robbery attempts in South Florida that left more than one British tourist dead. This resulted in the British issuing a travel advisory regarding British tourists visiting Florida, suggesting that the gangs targeting foreign tourists driving rental cars made that portion of the U.S. dangerous.

    The then Florida Governor Lawton Chiles retorted, "Oh yeah? What about the IRA bombings "over there"?

    Yes, what about the IRA bombings? The terror attacks in conjunction with the way the authorities responded to them was the subject of "Brazil", although this was not known to most U.S. viewers of the movie. Most of us in the U.S. knew about The Troubles in Northern Ireland, but we didn't make the connection that in addition to their tactical campaign in Northern Ireland, the IRA had a "strategic campaign" of terror in England itself. Heck, I visited London on business in the 1970's during the "if you see something, say something" era, was even stuck in traffic for my departure from London Heathrow where my host asked a police constable about the holdup and was answered tersely "suspect bomb" (what we call a bomb scare), and I still didn't make the connection to "Brazil" until after the Florida governor blabbed.

    Since the 9-11 attacks, the U.S. has taken on the qualities of England depicted in "Brazil", "security theatre", "renditions", the (argued to be) torture interrogations, the normalization of a permanent state of war, and so on. But the film was very much about the British experience with the Northern Ireland War.
    , @Che Guava
    You are rather harsh, and none of what you say is relevant to my post to which you are replying. For example, did I say that the mix of Conservative Party ruling types and East German style enforcers with working-class Brit accents was stupid?

    No. Rather, I thought it was brilliant.

    Monty Python was popular in Japan, so of course I caught those references, though they are quite few.

    Your reply is nonsensical since it has nothing to do with my two posts that you lamely try to attack by making your own assumptions to put things I did not say in my mouth.

    You are also too judgemental about the Blade Runner, making several valid points but again outside of context.
     
    How was anything 'out of context'?
    I said that I think that it was a great movie. My complaint is only that the mad US eternal copyrights campaign means that nobody over the age of ten will ever see a film of the real Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, if such is ever made.

    My points were how few supposedly PKD-story based movies are good or faithful to the source, and that Ridley Scott is self-confessedly retarded as a reader.

    You can refute neither.

    What you misunderstood is my words having read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, perhaps you may try reading it some time?

    I am enough of a Bladder Runner fan to have bought and read both of the sequels by Kevin Jeter, they are not masterpieces, but he tries to reconcile the film with the short novel, and comes up with many interesting scenes in the process.

    He was uniquely qualified, having lived in the same house with PKD, and having appeared as a character in Valis.

    Bet you didn't know any of that.

    Meanwhile, youtube and other US sites have absolute permission to steal any content they want from minor players, it is a clearly official US strategy, sometimes called 'digital crack'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    Then why is there a scientific replication crisis.

    Bear in mind that massive scientific community seems a recent phenomenon in human societies. There is time to adjust it.

    Interestingly someone tell me a hard truth about academic teachers in contrast with regular school teachers, specially those on the public schools. “Academic/university teachers are the only ones who can be a horrible teacher and don’t be dispensed”.

    “Capitalistic” logic to the innovation. Academics who not just don’t innovate but also buy evidently wrong and problematic thesis must be go.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I like the article, Dr. Thompson, but re. Bladerunner and Do Androids, the central theme re. replicants is almost a complete inversion.

    In the novel, the replicants are incapable of empathy. There is a scene where two of them enjoy pulling the legs off a harmless spider to illustrate this.

    Much more, like how in the movie, everwhere except JF Sebastian’s place is crowded, the trade in ersatz animals has no explanation.

    Even the title is from Burroughs, not Dick.

    Love Bladerunner, but is a shame that there will never be a film of Do Androids (at least in the lifetimes of anyone over, say, ten, with the insane endless extension of IP rights by the US).

    Ridley Scott has made a few great films, but is an ignoramus as a reader, even boasting of never having read the slim volume that is Do Androids.

    Faithful PKD-based movies:

    A Scanner Darkly
    Screamers
    Impostor (the 40 min version, the feature-length version is rubbish)
    A French one, title something like Barjo, haven’t seen it, not SF, have read the novel. Based on Confessions of a Crap Artist, IIRC.

    Fun and close to faithful:

    Total Recall (not the recent one)

    Great but almost totally unfaithful :

    Bladerunner

    Total crap:

    All of the others

    As for all of the others, what a waste. One may be pretty sure that the Bladerunner sequel will be execrable, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    I am grateful to you for your far better knowledge of both the books and the films.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    "You have a real misunderstanding of Gilliam’s Brazil." - I do?

    Probably not. I have had a very bad cold and high fever in the last few days, so excuse that, please.

    Still, the only parts that seem relevant to or prophetic for the USA are the behaviour of the special police and treatment of suspects.

    Gilliam is a US person, but it is a very Brit. dystopia. Ruling power is like late 70s Conservatives meet East Germany.

    I also like the way Lowry has a reality breakdown, like a PKD character, at some point. Don’t even think it was intentional at first (at least the timing), just something Giiiam liked, that happened by chance in the editing process.

    Where it (the reality breakdown) is is always interesting to me, I think immediately before or after the struggle over one desk in two tiny cubicles.

    I never saw the original US release, with the ‘happy ending’ , but it is funny that a happy ending was ordered there, the version Gilliam wanted (but a little shorter) was on screen everywhere else it was shown, AFAIK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Sorry to say Che, but I have an impression that you misunderstood most of the movie Brazil, for example you say:

    ...late 70s Conservatives meet East Germany
     
    Brazil has been done in the British retro look because:
    1) it is a kind of continuation of Monty Python ("Ducts ....),
    2) because at the time of the making the UK was much more a bureaucratic country than US,
    3) the UK was also the highest surveillance country in Europe, all justified by the IRA terror at the time, and
    4) the retro look is the expected outcome of Thatcherism in Britain of the time.

    I shudder at a mere thought of putting Monty Python style humour of this movie in front of some US background!? It would never work, maybe Gillian even tried.

    The movie's retro look puts a very powerful emphasis on the story and the characters instead of the production design and special effects (typical to SF genre), in which the movie engages only on rare but most significant occasions (dreaming). An additional point is that with the destruction of the middle class in the West, an even worse look is prevailing in some areas - just look at US urban jungles now. I have been to East Germany and I can tell you that nothing there ever looked like Detroit.

    I have been showing Brazil to many of my friends and past girlfriends and observing their reactions. What you call the look of "East Germany" is exactly what turns off most people who are incapable of understanding this movie. It is just not flashy and shiny enough to keep their attention for two hours. There are also people who are too-US (narrow-minded) to understand the subtlety of this British movie paid for by US.

    You are also too judgemental about the Blade Runner, making several valid points but again outside of context.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The mechanism is that higher ability people are more marriageable and have more surviving children, perhaps 4 to less able people’s 2 surviving children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @dux.ie
    The derivation from Khan depended on Hardy-Weinberg principle,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle

    Note the fine print,

    """The Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include mate choice, mutation, selection, genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. Because one or more of these influences are typically present in real populations, the Hardy–Weinberg principle describes an ideal condition against which the effects of these influences can be analyzed."""

    Thus it sounds attrative at the macro level but will it be true at the finer grain level? It is like will a person says that he feels only a slight chill when one of his hand is in a bucket of liquid nitrogen and the other is on a red hot burning coal? What will the real world situation be instead of the ideal genetic combinatronics? Regression to the mean is, well, regressive and well contained. It cannot explains why the Ashkenazi Jew are smarter than both their proto ancestors of ancient Europeans and ancient Jews.

    Murray had said that the US society has increasingly coming apart,

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/the_bell_curve.html

    """Today, that is no longer true. Americans have formed a new lower class and a new upper class that have no precedent in our history."""

    I set out to investigate the academic attainments of the children generation NmsNdx for the town/city region with respect to (mostly) their parent genaration EduNdx both relative to the averages of their relevant peers at the state of California. For the children I used the data of the National Merit Scholarship semi-finalists for California and for the parents the fraction with university degrees from Murray's dataset which was aggregated from the US Census data.

    Such investigation of population dynamics has been carried out since the 1970s and it was one of the active areas where real life chaos theory situations were investigated and conditions other than regression to the mean were found, e.g.

    R.M. May, "Bifurcation and dynamic complexity in ecological systems", Ann NY Acad Sci 316 (1979)

    Interestingly similar results to the above paper where a similar cubic equation proved by May to be chaotic was found. In summary three distinct regions were found with the extreme two regions being running away from the mean rather than regression to the mean were noted, i.e. in one region smarter parent generations have on average children that outperformed tham and the other region with less smart parents whose children generation performed worse than them. Only in the mid region the performance of the children on average was regressing to the mean.

    I constructed the index WobegonNdx=NmsNdx/EduNdx where WobenNdx gt 1 means that the children out-performed their parent generation.

    NmsNdx le 0.9892 : WobegonDrop (runaway); cases=52
    0.9892 lt NmsNdx le 2.1907 : WobegonMix (regressive); cases=35
    NmsNdx gt 2.1907 : WobegonSurge (runaway); cases=125

    There are another 891 CA towns/cities which do not produce any NmsSF and presumingly in the WobegonDrop region. Thus regression to the mean only occurs in 35/1103 towns/cities while the rest are assortative runaways from the mean. These are the latent driving forces that result in the society to be coming apart as noted by Murray. And they might be the forces that drive Darwinian evolution.

    Some particular result, in the city of Atherton, the socio-econmic percentile is at 99.99%, median income at $250K, EduNdx at 2.44 times higher than state average, it would seem to be very hard for the children to perform much better than that but still on average for the children generation the NmsNdx is at 49.08, giving the WobegonNdx=NmsNdx/EduNdx=20.11.
    On the other hand for the Los Angeles city, SESpctl=38.0%, IncK=$55.22K, WobegonNdx=0.09/0.86=0.11 . More data in the later part of https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/neurodiversity/#comments

    “Regression to the mean is, well, regressive and well contained. It cannot explains why the Ashkenazi Jew are smarter than both their proto ancestors of ancient Europeans and ancient Jews.”

    Not exactly. It is regressive for parents who are above the average but not for the parents who are below the average as children of the latter suppose to be smarter than their parents.

    The pull of the regression to the mean is beaten by the process of selective breeding. In selective breeding you accomplish this by changing the mean. So obviously Hardy–Weinberg principle does not apply. You select offspring that exceed parents trait for the next stage of breeding and discard those who were regressed to the mean. Did Jews kill their more stupid children? Or they just did not let them breed so the less intelligent ones had to defect to the gentile population in search of the mates and ceased to be Jews?

    The question how valid is the breeder’s equation is another matter.

    But what you and Murray are concerned with most likely has nothing to do with genetics but rather with some kind of Flynn effects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dux.ie
    "It is regressive for parents who are above the average but not for the parents who are below the average as children of the latter suppose to be smarter than their parents."

    Not from my empirical data points rather than your hand waving. The particular examples for Atherton and LA city I provided demonstrated these, i.e. for Atherton EduNdx=2.44, NmsNdx=49.08, WobegonNdx=20.11, for LA EduNdx=0.86, NmsNdx=0.09, WobegonNDx=0.11, both are the reverse of what you claimed. And they are not isolated data points, there are 125/212 cases similar to that for Atherton and 52/212 cases similar to that for LA city. Alternatively, the rest of 891 cases with NmsNdx=0 are closer to that for LA with NmsNdx=0.09 rather than NmsNdx=0.9892 demarcation line, the cases similar to that for LA might be 943/1103 cases, the reverse of what you claimed. These are actual empirical data points.

    "But what you and Murray are concerned with most likely has nothing to do with genetics but rather with some kind of Flynn effects."

    Here is a recent refreed paper that investigated the distribution of allels withlatitudes,

    JPA Gardner and K-J Wei, "The genetic architecture of hybridisation between two
    lineages of greenshell mussels", Heredity (2015) 114, 344–355.

    See Gardner's fig 2,

    "Figure 2 Sigmoidal cline plots for the 10 alleles showing greatest change in allele frequency as a function of latitude. In each case, the cline fit is based on data from 12 populations; the HSB population (circle ○) and the BGB population (black triangle ▲) shown for comparison. The hybrid zone is located in the
    areas of steepest gradient of change of allelic frequency. Note the different y axis ranges that are necessary to show detail of the sigmoidal curves."

    In Gardner's case the two variables are Gene Freq and latitude. In my cases the two variables are NmxNdx and EduNdx. The Gardner's scatter plots of the data points are similar to that for mine. Those are also actual empirical data points.

    If the force of regression to the mean is strong, there will simply be one big blob of hybrid zone. If the hybrid zone is so tiny what use is the narrative of regression to the mean in real life situations? Evolution with regression to the mean and natural mutations would be very slow, every time a new phenotype appears their descendents migh be pulled back to the pop mean. Evolution with digression away from the mean could fast-track the process in a few generations, and this could be the process for the formation of the Ashkenazi Jews, the smarts' descendents getting smarter, rather than being pulled back to the old pop mean and in time they will form a new distinct population group. Thus mentioning regression to the mean and Darwinian evolution might be a bit oxymoronic. It is digression from the mean that forms speciation.

    It is also interesting that the dynamic population model shows both possibly the mechanics of Flynn effects and Woodley's dumbing down concurrently. Thus it could be that the proper selection of sample is very important.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @James Thompson
    Interesting points, and I will try to respond, though some things are still not clear to me as regards the levels of proof you are looking for.

    "The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms." So, the Breeder's equation aims to do that. If, looking at the data from mouse, and from domestication of foxes, and all other selection studies, one can find a better way of expressing what is happening, then of course the new axiom will replace the old one.

    You say: "In other words this equation is not really valid in general". If so, which facts does it not cover? What contrary findings are the exception to the rule? How should the rule be changed?

    Anyway, here is Greg Cochran's take on it:
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    I saw the Greg Cochran’s piece before and I was wondering where he gets his stuff from. Take a look at the first two paragraphs. First he introduces the breeder’s equation and then in the next he states that if both parents have IQ=120 and if population mean in 110 and if heritability is 0.5 then on average children’s IQ will be 110. How one suppose to get it form the breeder’s equation? This way?

    10=X=(120-100)*0.5 and then 100+X=110 is mean children IQ? But is it really true? Was it verified? Any paper that compares IQ of parents and children? Obviously the result will depend on heritability, so heritability must be established from other studies than parents–>children IQ’s.

    The purpose of selecting breeding is to beat the pull of the regression to the mean. And how is it done? By changing the mean, i.e, by discarding offsprings that lower the mean and breeding the offspring that have higher mean than parents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    While the form of the breeder's equation : R=S*h^2 is simple and straightforward, its theoretical derivation does not exist in a general case. In other word this equation is not really valid in general While I do not know the story of this equation, I presume it was derived empirically, though I wonder how the actual breeders came up with the definition of heritability to be the ratio of variances when they were at it. The breeder's formula can be proven in simple cases of Mendelian genetics just like Khan (*) did in the linked by you page.

    You have brought up the equation in your article and you clearly stated that the “the findings are a brilliant example of the breeder’s equation in action”. I was wondering why because the curves in Fig. 1 as I wrote before do not illustrate nor validate the breeder's equation. The curves illustrates the breeding outcome in this particular experiment but one can't find in the graph neither S nor h^2. So I wondered why you wanted to beef up your article with the statement that is nebulous at best if not just plainly misleading. Why this insistence on the breeder's equation? Perhaps the following quote may hint the answer to this question:


    this particular equation [the breeder's equation] is the closest that mathematical evolutionary genetics ever gets to justifying the verbal theory of Darwinism.
    http://www.molevol.org/cdblog/theory_vs_theory
     
    (*) BTW, Khan's proof of the breeder's equation is not really satisfying. He finds a formula linking R with S (R=k*S) and then points out to the proportionality coefficient (k) as being the heritability. However he doesn't demonstrate that it actually is heritability. Perhaps I need to study it some more.

    Interesting points, and I will try to respond, though some things are still not clear to me as regards the levels of proof you are looking for.

    “The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.” So, the Breeder’s equation aims to do that. If, looking at the data from mouse, and from domestication of foxes, and all other selection studies, one can find a better way of expressing what is happening, then of course the new axiom will replace the old one.

    You say: “In other words this equation is not really valid in general”. If so, which facts does it not cover? What contrary findings are the exception to the rule? How should the rule be changed?

    Anyway, here is Greg Cochran’s take on it:

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I saw the Greg Cochran's piece before and I was wondering where he gets his stuff from. Take a look at the first two paragraphs. First he introduces the breeder's equation and then in the next he states that if both parents have IQ=120 and if population mean in 110 and if heritability is 0.5 then on average children's IQ will be 110. How one suppose to get it form the breeder's equation? This way?

    10=X=(120-100)*0.5 and then 100+X=110 is mean children IQ? But is it really true? Was it verified? Any paper that compares IQ of parents and children? Obviously the result will depend on heritability, so heritability must be established from other studies than parents-->children IQ's.

    The purpose of selecting breeding is to beat the pull of the regression to the mean. And how is it done? By changing the mean, i.e, by discarding offsprings that lower the mean and breeding the offspring that have higher mean than parents.
    , @dux.ie
    "If so, which facts does it not cover?"

    The formation of Ashkenazi Jews who are smarter than their proto ancestors of ancient European and ancient Jews. There were no other smarter pop group they could regress up to. That would require h^2 to be greater than one which is hard to exdplain.

    "How should the rule be changed?"

    Copy Einstein's example of inserting a gravitational constant. Thus

    R = w h^2 S

    where w is the Wobegon constant, then H^2 dont necessary have to be greater than one.

    Rather than plugging h^2 value from thin air, the w h^2 value can be obtained from the regression of the pop data. In my case from only the available data the R and S are of different measures of the same charateristic but as R is monotonically related to S I can just regress on log(R) against S and get the w h^2 value.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    While the form of the breeder's equation : R=S*h^2 is simple and straightforward, its theoretical derivation does not exist in a general case. In other word this equation is not really valid in general While I do not know the story of this equation, I presume it was derived empirically, though I wonder how the actual breeders came up with the definition of heritability to be the ratio of variances when they were at it. The breeder's formula can be proven in simple cases of Mendelian genetics just like Khan (*) did in the linked by you page.

    You have brought up the equation in your article and you clearly stated that the “the findings are a brilliant example of the breeder’s equation in action”. I was wondering why because the curves in Fig. 1 as I wrote before do not illustrate nor validate the breeder's equation. The curves illustrates the breeding outcome in this particular experiment but one can't find in the graph neither S nor h^2. So I wondered why you wanted to beef up your article with the statement that is nebulous at best if not just plainly misleading. Why this insistence on the breeder's equation? Perhaps the following quote may hint the answer to this question:


    this particular equation [the breeder's equation] is the closest that mathematical evolutionary genetics ever gets to justifying the verbal theory of Darwinism.
    http://www.molevol.org/cdblog/theory_vs_theory
     
    (*) BTW, Khan's proof of the breeder's equation is not really satisfying. He finds a formula linking R with S (R=k*S) and then points out to the proportionality coefficient (k) as being the heritability. However he doesn't demonstrate that it actually is heritability. Perhaps I need to study it some more.

    The derivation from Khan depended on Hardy-Weinberg principle,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle

    Note the fine print,

    “””The Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include mate choice, mutation, selection, genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. Because one or more of these influences are typically present in real populations, the Hardy–Weinberg principle describes an ideal condition against which the effects of these influences can be analyzed.”””

    Thus it sounds attrative at the macro level but will it be true at the finer grain level? It is like will a person says that he feels only a slight chill when one of his hand is in a bucket of liquid nitrogen and the other is on a red hot burning coal? What will the real world situation be instead of the ideal genetic combinatronics? Regression to the mean is, well, regressive and well contained. It cannot explains why the Ashkenazi Jew are smarter than both their proto ancestors of ancient Europeans and ancient Jews.

    Murray had said that the US society has increasingly coming apart,

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/the_bell_curve.html

    “””Today, that is no longer true. Americans have formed a new lower class and a new upper class that have no precedent in our history.”””

    I set out to investigate the academic attainments of the children generation NmsNdx for the town/city region with respect to (mostly) their parent genaration EduNdx both relative to the averages of their relevant peers at the state of California. For the children I used the data of the National Merit Scholarship semi-finalists for California and for the parents the fraction with university degrees from Murray’s dataset which was aggregated from the US Census data.

    Such investigation of population dynamics has been carried out since the 1970s and it was one of the active areas where real life chaos theory situations were investigated and conditions other than regression to the mean were found, e.g.

    R.M. May, “Bifurcation and dynamic complexity in ecological systems”, Ann NY Acad Sci 316 (1979)

    Interestingly similar results to the above paper where a similar cubic equation proved by May to be chaotic was found. In summary three distinct regions were found with the extreme two regions being running away from the mean rather than regression to the mean were noted, i.e. in one region smarter parent generations have on average children that outperformed tham and the other region with less smart parents whose children generation performed worse than them. Only in the mid region the performance of the children on average was regressing to the mean.

    I constructed the index WobegonNdx=NmsNdx/EduNdx where WobenNdx gt 1 means that the children out-performed their parent generation.

    NmsNdx le 0.9892 : WobegonDrop (runaway); cases=52
    0.9892 lt NmsNdx le 2.1907 : WobegonMix (regressive); cases=35
    NmsNdx gt 2.1907 : WobegonSurge (runaway); cases=125

    There are another 891 CA towns/cities which do not produce any NmsSF and presumingly in the WobegonDrop region. Thus regression to the mean only occurs in 35/1103 towns/cities while the rest are assortative runaways from the mean. These are the latent driving forces that result in the society to be coming apart as noted by Murray. And they might be the forces that drive Darwinian evolution.

    Some particular result, in the city of Atherton, the socio-econmic percentile is at 99.99%, median income at $250K, EduNdx at 2.44 times higher than state average, it would seem to be very hard for the children to perform much better than that but still on average for the children generation the NmsNdx is at 49.08, giving the WobegonNdx=NmsNdx/EduNdx=20.11.
    On the other hand for the Los Angeles city, SESpctl=38.0%, IncK=$55.22K, WobegonNdx=0.09/0.86=0.11 . More data in the later part of https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/neurodiversity/#comments

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    "Regression to the mean is, well, regressive and well contained. It cannot explains why the Ashkenazi Jew are smarter than both their proto ancestors of ancient Europeans and ancient Jews."
     
    Not exactly. It is regressive for parents who are above the average but not for the parents who are below the average as children of the latter suppose to be smarter than their parents.

    The pull of the regression to the mean is beaten by the process of selective breeding. In selective breeding you accomplish this by changing the mean. So obviously Hardy–Weinberg principle does not apply. You select offspring that exceed parents trait for the next stage of breeding and discard those who were regressed to the mean. Did Jews kill their more stupid children? Or they just did not let them breed so the less intelligent ones had to defect to the gentile population in search of the mates and ceased to be Jews?

    The question how valid is the breeder's equation is another matter.

    But what you and Murray are concerned with most likely has nothing to do with genetics but rather with some kind of Flynn effects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Most scientists and academics are just replicators, a life replicating the same boring stuff they learned...

    Then why is there a scientific replication crisis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Bear in mind that massive scientific community seems a recent phenomenon in human societies. There is time to adjust it.

    Interestingly someone tell me a hard truth about academic teachers in contrast with regular school teachers, specially those on the public schools. "Academic/university teachers are the only ones who can be a horrible teacher and don't be dispensed".

    "Capitalistic" logic to the innovation. Academics who not just don't innovate but also buy evidently wrong and problematic thesis must be go.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peripatetic commenter
    The graph in finding 3 is both amazing and informative.

    I have thought for quite a while now that culture selects its people, and it is notable that Christianity has been extant in Europe for more than 60 generations, and Islam in its region for more than 40 generations. It seems likely that each of those has selected the respective populations.

    You mean that people who don’t fit in end up emigrating? And hence culture also shapes genetics and hence we have a cultural-genetic complex that is far more viscous than either part alone?

    Fascinating!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @James Thompson
    Did not mean to argue that the breeder's equation must equal a slope, and as far as I can see never said that.

    Illuminating the workings of the breeder's equation is a deeper matter, what I claimed was merely that: "the findings are a brilliant example of the breeder’s equation in action" and this was but one example.

    In action, you can see that the effects vary somewhat from generation to generation, though a slope has emerged. This could be due to measurement variability in the open field test (it will not perfectly capture fearlessnes) but also gives an indication that selecting the most fearless mice for breeding the next generation is not perfectly correlated with fearlessness in the progeny.

    One presumes that under even severe selection there is some regression to the mean.

    While the form of the breeder’s equation : R=S*h^2 is simple and straightforward, its theoretical derivation does not exist in a general case. In other word this equation is not really valid in general While I do not know the story of this equation, I presume it was derived empirically, though I wonder how the actual breeders came up with the definition of heritability to be the ratio of variances when they were at it. The breeder’s formula can be proven in simple cases of Mendelian genetics just like Khan (*) did in the linked by you page.

    You have brought up the equation in your article and you clearly stated that the “the findings are a brilliant example of the breeder’s equation in action”. I was wondering why because the curves in Fig. 1 as I wrote before do not illustrate nor validate the breeder’s equation. The curves illustrates the breeding outcome in this particular experiment but one can’t find in the graph neither S nor h^2. So I wondered why you wanted to beef up your article with the statement that is nebulous at best if not just plainly misleading. Why this insistence on the breeder’s equation? Perhaps the following quote may hint the answer to this question:

    this particular equation [the breeder's equation] is the closest that mathematical evolutionary genetics ever gets to justifying the verbal theory of Darwinism.

    http://www.molevol.org/cdblog/theory_vs_theory

    (*) BTW, Khan’s proof of the breeder’s equation is not really satisfying. He finds a formula linking R with S (R=k*S) and then points out to the proportionality coefficient (k) as being the heritability. However he doesn’t demonstrate that it actually is heritability. Perhaps I need to study it some more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dux.ie
    The derivation from Khan depended on Hardy-Weinberg principle,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle

    Note the fine print,

    """The Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include mate choice, mutation, selection, genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. Because one or more of these influences are typically present in real populations, the Hardy–Weinberg principle describes an ideal condition against which the effects of these influences can be analyzed."""

    Thus it sounds attrative at the macro level but will it be true at the finer grain level? It is like will a person says that he feels only a slight chill when one of his hand is in a bucket of liquid nitrogen and the other is on a red hot burning coal? What will the real world situation be instead of the ideal genetic combinatronics? Regression to the mean is, well, regressive and well contained. It cannot explains why the Ashkenazi Jew are smarter than both their proto ancestors of ancient Europeans and ancient Jews.

    Murray had said that the US society has increasingly coming apart,

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/the_bell_curve.html

    """Today, that is no longer true. Americans have formed a new lower class and a new upper class that have no precedent in our history."""

    I set out to investigate the academic attainments of the children generation NmsNdx for the town/city region with respect to (mostly) their parent genaration EduNdx both relative to the averages of their relevant peers at the state of California. For the children I used the data of the National Merit Scholarship semi-finalists for California and for the parents the fraction with university degrees from Murray's dataset which was aggregated from the US Census data.

    Such investigation of population dynamics has been carried out since the 1970s and it was one of the active areas where real life chaos theory situations were investigated and conditions other than regression to the mean were found, e.g.

    R.M. May, "Bifurcation and dynamic complexity in ecological systems", Ann NY Acad Sci 316 (1979)

    Interestingly similar results to the above paper where a similar cubic equation proved by May to be chaotic was found. In summary three distinct regions were found with the extreme two regions being running away from the mean rather than regression to the mean were noted, i.e. in one region smarter parent generations have on average children that outperformed tham and the other region with less smart parents whose children generation performed worse than them. Only in the mid region the performance of the children on average was regressing to the mean.

    I constructed the index WobegonNdx=NmsNdx/EduNdx where WobenNdx gt 1 means that the children out-performed their parent generation.

    NmsNdx le 0.9892 : WobegonDrop (runaway); cases=52
    0.9892 lt NmsNdx le 2.1907 : WobegonMix (regressive); cases=35
    NmsNdx gt 2.1907 : WobegonSurge (runaway); cases=125

    There are another 891 CA towns/cities which do not produce any NmsSF and presumingly in the WobegonDrop region. Thus regression to the mean only occurs in 35/1103 towns/cities while the rest are assortative runaways from the mean. These are the latent driving forces that result in the society to be coming apart as noted by Murray. And they might be the forces that drive Darwinian evolution.

    Some particular result, in the city of Atherton, the socio-econmic percentile is at 99.99%, median income at $250K, EduNdx at 2.44 times higher than state average, it would seem to be very hard for the children to perform much better than that but still on average for the children generation the NmsNdx is at 49.08, giving the WobegonNdx=NmsNdx/EduNdx=20.11.
    On the other hand for the Los Angeles city, SESpctl=38.0%, IncK=$55.22K, WobegonNdx=0.09/0.86=0.11 . More data in the later part of https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/neurodiversity/#comments
    , @James Thompson
    Interesting points, and I will try to respond, though some things are still not clear to me as regards the levels of proof you are looking for.

    "The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms." So, the Breeder's equation aims to do that. If, looking at the data from mouse, and from domestication of foxes, and all other selection studies, one can find a better way of expressing what is happening, then of course the new axiom will replace the old one.

    You say: "In other words this equation is not really valid in general". If so, which facts does it not cover? What contrary findings are the exception to the rule? How should the rule be changed?

    Anyway, here is Greg Cochran's take on it:
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dearieme
    Tell me, doc, does any of this work shed light on Tolstoy's remark "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"?

    maybe

    if happiness is being in the middle 64% of all the various bell curves and unhappiness is caused by one of the many different extremes

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • But Batty’s trying to be like an artist, yet he knows he can’t live the ten thousand hours that it takes to nail it. A tragic lament that so often turns violent, alas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Thank you for your response. I like Khan's derivation of the breeder's equation for a simple case. But I still need to think about it. Anyway, for a simple case of heritability and selection he seems to derive S, R and h^2 independently and then shows that they fulfill the breeder's equation: R=S*h^2.

    As far as the Fig.1 is concerned, it is not a brilliant example of breeder's equations at work. The graphs are consistent with the breeder's equation but they do not illuminate the working of the breeder's equation. The graphs show that the ordinate changes by approx. the same amount of ∆Y (it could be R) at each generation which leads to relatively constant slope. The breeder's equation tells us that R is proportional to S and h^2 in one step. It does not tell us that in the next step S and h^2 or their product will remain the same. You can have a curve w/o a constant slope that at each step obeys the breeder's equation. The fact that the slope was constant in this case has nothing to do with the breeder's equation, I think.

    Did not mean to argue that the breeder’s equation must equal a slope, and as far as I can see never said that.

    Illuminating the workings of the breeder’s equation is a deeper matter, what I claimed was merely that: “the findings are a brilliant example of the breeder’s equation in action” and this was but one example.

    In action, you can see that the effects vary somewhat from generation to generation, though a slope has emerged. This could be due to measurement variability in the open field test (it will not perfectly capture fearlessnes) but also gives an indication that selecting the most fearless mice for breeding the next generation is not perfectly correlated with fearlessness in the progeny.

    One presumes that under even severe selection there is some regression to the mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    While the form of the breeder's equation : R=S*h^2 is simple and straightforward, its theoretical derivation does not exist in a general case. In other word this equation is not really valid in general While I do not know the story of this equation, I presume it was derived empirically, though I wonder how the actual breeders came up with the definition of heritability to be the ratio of variances when they were at it. The breeder's formula can be proven in simple cases of Mendelian genetics just like Khan (*) did in the linked by you page.

    You have brought up the equation in your article and you clearly stated that the “the findings are a brilliant example of the breeder’s equation in action”. I was wondering why because the curves in Fig. 1 as I wrote before do not illustrate nor validate the breeder's equation. The curves illustrates the breeding outcome in this particular experiment but one can't find in the graph neither S nor h^2. So I wondered why you wanted to beef up your article with the statement that is nebulous at best if not just plainly misleading. Why this insistence on the breeder's equation? Perhaps the following quote may hint the answer to this question:


    this particular equation [the breeder's equation] is the closest that mathematical evolutionary genetics ever gets to justifying the verbal theory of Darwinism.
    http://www.molevol.org/cdblog/theory_vs_theory
     
    (*) BTW, Khan's proof of the breeder's equation is not really satisfying. He finds a formula linking R with S (R=k*S) and then points out to the proportionality coefficient (k) as being the heritability. However he doesn't demonstrate that it actually is heritability. Perhaps I need to study it some more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • damn, I seriously hope I don’t turn into my father. that would give me depression.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @James Thompson
    The graph shows the effect of selective breeding over 30 generations. The ordinate is the behaviour under selection (fearfulness versus fearlessness under stress) and the abscissa is the scores at each generation of selection.
    The breeder's equation shows the slope obtained under the three conditions.
    The control condition is flat: no selection is taking place.
    The selection conditions are almost mirror images, and the slopes represent the end effect of strong selection and high heritability. These are population statistics. One does not need to know how the genes do this, merely that it is possible, as the results demonstrate.


    A detailed example of the equation in action is given by Razib Khan

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2007/05/breeding-the-breeders-equation/#.WL2uyfnyg2w

    Thank you for your response. I like Khan’s derivation of the breeder’s equation for a simple case. But I still need to think about it. Anyway, for a simple case of heritability and selection he seems to derive S, R and h^2 independently and then shows that they fulfill the breeder’s equation: R=S*h^2.

    As far as the Fig.1 is concerned, it is not a brilliant example of breeder’s equations at work. The graphs are consistent with the breeder’s equation but they do not illuminate the working of the breeder’s equation. The graphs show that the ordinate changes by approx. the same amount of ∆Y (it could be R) at each generation which leads to relatively constant slope. The breeder’s equation tells us that R is proportional to S and h^2 in one step. It does not tell us that in the next step S and h^2 or their product will remain the same. You can have a curve w/o a constant slope that at each step obeys the breeder’s equation. The fact that the slope was constant in this case has nothing to do with the breeder’s equation, I think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Did not mean to argue that the breeder's equation must equal a slope, and as far as I can see never said that.

    Illuminating the workings of the breeder's equation is a deeper matter, what I claimed was merely that: "the findings are a brilliant example of the breeder’s equation in action" and this was but one example.

    In action, you can see that the effects vary somewhat from generation to generation, though a slope has emerged. This could be due to measurement variability in the open field test (it will not perfectly capture fearlessnes) but also gives an indication that selecting the most fearless mice for breeding the next generation is not perfectly correlated with fearlessness in the progeny.

    One presumes that under even severe selection there is some regression to the mean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Che Guava
    I wrote a good and succinct reply to Thompson. Then hitting the wrong buttons, it vanished.

    You have a real misunderstanding of Gilliam's Brazil.

    Between that and the near-contemporary remake of 1984, I much prefer Brasil.

    However, Gilliam says the concept started on a grey day on the shores of Wales.

    It is wonderful dystopian fiction,

    the worse thing about it is the US woman.

    It is a shame that she was at the centre for a while, always those parts are irritating.

    “You have a real misunderstanding of Gilliam’s Brazil.” – I do?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Probably not. I have had a very bad cold and high fever in the last few days, so excuse that, please.

    Still, the only parts that seem relevant to or prophetic for the USA are the behaviour of the special police and treatment of suspects.

    Gilliam is a US person, but it is a very Brit. dystopia. Ruling power is like late 70s Conservatives meet East Germany.

    I also like the way Lowry has a reality breakdown, like a PKD character, at some point. Don't even think it was intentional at first (at least the timing), just something Giiiam liked, that happened by chance in the editing process.

    Where it (the reality breakdown) is is always interesting to me, I think immediately before or after the struggle over one desk in two tiny cubicles.

    I never saw the original US release, with the 'happy ending' , but it is funny that a happy ending was ordered there, the version Gilliam wanted (but a little shorter) was on screen everywhere else it was shown, AFAIK.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    When I saw Terry Gillian’s Brazil in the 1980's I knew the US was undergoing the Brazilification but in more ways than one: (1) becoming like the dystopian totalitarian Brazil with decrepit infrastructure from the movie and (2) the real Brazil of corrupt police, society stratification, gated communities, shrinking middle class, unresolved race issues... with never ending carnival signifying alleged everlasting freedoms, liberties and happiness.

    I wrote a good and succinct reply to Thompson. Then hitting the wrong buttons, it vanished.

    You have a real misunderstanding of Gilliam’s Brazil.

    Between that and the near-contemporary remake of 1984, I much prefer Brasil.

    However, Gilliam says the concept started on a grey day on the shores of Wales.

    It is wonderful dystopian fiction,

    the worse thing about it is the US woman.

    It is a shame that she was at the centre for a while, always those parts are irritating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "You have a real misunderstanding of Gilliam’s Brazil." - I do?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu

    "the findings are a brilliant example of the breeder’s equation in action"
     
    I am curious how the breeder's formula is manifested in the Fig.1. How are R, S and h^2 in relation to the abscissa and the ordinate axis of the graph? What does the slope of the curves represent?

    The graph shows the effect of selective breeding over 30 generations. The ordinate is the behaviour under selection (fearfulness versus fearlessness under stress) and the abscissa is the scores at each generation of selection.
    The breeder’s equation shows the slope obtained under the three conditions.
    The control condition is flat: no selection is taking place.
    The selection conditions are almost mirror images, and the slopes represent the end effect of strong selection and high heritability. These are population statistics. One does not need to know how the genes do this, merely that it is possible, as the results demonstrate.

    A detailed example of the equation in action is given by Razib Khan

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2007/05/breeding-the-breeders-equation/#.WL2uyfnyg2w

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Thank you for your response. I like Khan's derivation of the breeder's equation for a simple case. But I still need to think about it. Anyway, for a simple case of heritability and selection he seems to derive S, R and h^2 independently and then shows that they fulfill the breeder's equation: R=S*h^2.

    As far as the Fig.1 is concerned, it is not a brilliant example of breeder's equations at work. The graphs are consistent with the breeder's equation but they do not illuminate the working of the breeder's equation. The graphs show that the ordinate changes by approx. the same amount of ∆Y (it could be R) at each generation which leads to relatively constant slope. The breeder's equation tells us that R is proportional to S and h^2 in one step. It does not tell us that in the next step S and h^2 or their product will remain the same. You can have a curve w/o a constant slope that at each step obeys the breeder's equation. The fact that the slope was constant in this case has nothing to do with the breeder's equation, I think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Pericles
    Most interesting article, though there is some jargon that makes me scratch my head. For instance 'genetic mediation' and (perhaps shamefully) 'age-to-age'? Should I just read the Plomin thing?

    Regarding 7, 8: Could one say that this is because we are also evolved to raise our offspring in effective, perhaps idiosyncratic, ways?

    Yes, best to read the article, but “genetic mediation” means that an association between one behaviour and another, or one behaviour and another factor has some genetic influences in common. So, the genetic factor mediates the relationship between one variable and another.

    Regarding 7 and 8, my interpretation is that genetic factors push us in certain directions, such as establishing places to study, habits of learning and so on which have been considered part of the environment (as if they occurred by chance) but are in fact genetically driven nest building characteristics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:
    @Kiza
    This is not very important and it us not about the core value of this article, but Blade Runner is my second best movie of all time, after Terry Gillian's Brazil (a political satire on the totalitarian society which has already come true). Blade Runner is so special for the reason that you mention in this article - Philip K. Dick examination of what makes us human and if that could be replicated. The screen cap of Rutger Hauer in one of the most striking movie scenes ever still brings the same feeling of wonderment as when I saw this movie the first time. Is it a sense of reality (which does not go away when we stop believing in it), combined with awareness of own mortality which makes us human?

    Dr Thompson, a brilliant introduction to an excellent article, thank you.

    When I saw Terry Gillian’s Brazil in the 1980′s I knew the US was undergoing the Brazilification but in more ways than one: (1) becoming like the dystopian totalitarian Brazil with decrepit infrastructure from the movie and (2) the real Brazil of corrupt police, society stratification, gated communities, shrinking middle class, unresolved race issues… with never ending carnival signifying alleged everlasting freedoms, liberties and happiness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I wrote a good and succinct reply to Thompson. Then hitting the wrong buttons, it vanished.

    You have a real misunderstanding of Gilliam's Brazil.

    Between that and the near-contemporary remake of 1984, I much prefer Brasil.

    However, Gilliam says the concept started on a grey day on the shores of Wales.

    It is wonderful dystopian fiction,

    the worse thing about it is the US woman.

    It is a shame that she was at the centre for a while, always those parts are irritating.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Most scientists and academics are just replicators, a life replicating the same boring stuff they learned…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Then why is there a scientific replication crisis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • utu says:

    “the findings are a brilliant example of the breeder’s equation in action”

    I am curious how the breeder’s formula is manifested in the Fig.1. How are R, S and h^2 in relation to the abscissa and the ordinate axis of the graph? What does the slope of the curves represent?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    The graph shows the effect of selective breeding over 30 generations. The ordinate is the behaviour under selection (fearfulness versus fearlessness under stress) and the abscissa is the scores at each generation of selection.
    The breeder's equation shows the slope obtained under the three conditions.
    The control condition is flat: no selection is taking place.
    The selection conditions are almost mirror images, and the slopes represent the end effect of strong selection and high heritability. These are population statistics. One does not need to know how the genes do this, merely that it is possible, as the results demonstrate.


    A detailed example of the equation in action is given by Razib Khan

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2007/05/breeding-the-breeders-equation/#.WL2uyfnyg2w
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Most interesting article, though there is some jargon that makes me scratch my head. For instance ‘genetic mediation’ and (perhaps shamefully) ‘age-to-age’? Should I just read the Plomin thing?

    Regarding 7, 8: Could one say that this is because we are also evolved to raise our offspring in effective, perhaps idiosyncratic, ways?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Yes, best to read the article, but "genetic mediation" means that an association between one behaviour and another, or one behaviour and another factor has some genetic influences in common. So, the genetic factor mediates the relationship between one variable and another.

    Regarding 7 and 8, my interpretation is that genetic factors push us in certain directions, such as establishing places to study, habits of learning and so on which have been considered part of the environment (as if they occurred by chance) but are in fact genetically driven nest building characteristics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dearieme
    Tell me, doc, does any of this work shed light on Tolstoy's remark "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"?

    Not true, but it seems that every happy child got there in his own unique way!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is not very important and it us not about the core value of this article, but Blade Runner is my second best movie of all time, after Terry Gillian’s Brazil (a political satire on the totalitarian society which has already come true). Blade Runner is so special for the reason that you mention in this article – Philip K. Dick examination of what makes us human and if that could be replicated. The screen cap of Rutger Hauer in one of the most striking movie scenes ever still brings the same feeling of wonderment as when I saw this movie the first time. Is it a sense of reality (which does not go away when we stop believing in it), combined with awareness of own mortality which makes us human?

    Dr Thompson, a brilliant introduction to an excellent article, thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    When I saw Terry Gillian’s Brazil in the 1980's I knew the US was undergoing the Brazilification but in more ways than one: (1) becoming like the dystopian totalitarian Brazil with decrepit infrastructure from the movie and (2) the real Brazil of corrupt police, society stratification, gated communities, shrinking middle class, unresolved race issues... with never ending carnival signifying alleged everlasting freedoms, liberties and happiness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • To discover that these people want to run governments and school systems (and often succeed in doing so) is scary.

    Annoying as H3ll, too.

    No doubt parasitism has significant genetic components. How do we, as a society, ethically breed those traits out?

    Equally crucial, how do we “debreed” (pun intended) gullibility?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dearieme
    Does happiness run in families? If so, how much of it is a genetic trait, how much caused by "environment"?

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetic-story-jumps-ahead

    Also, put “Bad Blood” in the search bar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This essay is a direct attack against the counter-factual world inhabited by neo-Liberals and Progressives.

    For them, there are no such things as race, gender … or genetics for that matter. Indeed, there are no such things as families, societies or nations, just individuals pursuing their private pleasures in a solipsistic world without consequences. All personal choices are equal; all personal traits are fluid. Therefore, by definition, there cannot be any criteria to discern or compare differences in value between anyone’s fluid choices.

    If you are a 30-year old cisgendered, 6′ 3″ White male who believes he is a 7-year old Chinese trans female, who is to dispute his choices? If it feels right (for him), it IS right … and it IS real. Otherwise, why would he feel so strongly about it?

    To discover that these people want to run governments and school systems (and often succeed in doing so) is scary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Readers see also my:

    The Behavioral Genetics Page

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It is important to reiterate that the message is not that family experiences are unimportant, but rather that the salient experiences that affect children’s development are specific to each child in the family, not general to all children in the family.

    Presumably this would be a reason for the relative significance of birth order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @James Thompson
    No, it does not. All families have ancestors.

    An aphorism is not upon oath.
    It does not have to be true, it just has to sound true.

    Searching to make it true, I can think of two possible routes, neither of them anything to do with genetics. One approach is to say that a family will be happy only if it satisfies n requirements, and that even n-1 will cast it into despair. In that sense the happy family will just be happy, the unhappy family will be vexed by the one or many missing ingredients. In that line of argument, everything has to be right before anything can be right.

    The other line of argument has nothing to do with families per se. It seems that memory for bad events is better than memory for good events. Presumably, bad events are traumatic and have to be remembered so that they can be avoided in future, for survival's sake. So, we will have a tendency to unhappiness which will always be linked to a specific event.

    Does happiness run in families? If so, how much of it is a genetic trait, how much caused by “environment”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetic-story-jumps-ahead

    Also, put "Bad Blood" in the search bar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @arandombraziliandude
    Probably because unhappiness comes in many forms and variety, and happiness come just from a few things, yeah, unhappy families are different in their problems (but, still problems), but happy ones share the same qualities.

    Sorry for the bad grammar.

    “Sorry for the bad grammar.” Not at all; better than my Portuguese grammar, I’ll bet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dearieme
    Tell me, doc, does any of this work shed light on Tolstoy's remark "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"?

    No, it does not. All families have ancestors.

    An aphorism is not upon oath.
    It does not have to be true, it just has to sound true.

    Searching to make it true, I can think of two possible routes, neither of them anything to do with genetics. One approach is to say that a family will be happy only if it satisfies n requirements, and that even n-1 will cast it into despair. In that sense the happy family will just be happy, the unhappy family will be vexed by the one or many missing ingredients. In that line of argument, everything has to be right before anything can be right.

    The other line of argument has nothing to do with families per se. It seems that memory for bad events is better than memory for good events. Presumably, bad events are traumatic and have to be remembered so that they can be avoided in future, for survival’s sake. So, we will have a tendency to unhappiness which will always be linked to a specific event.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Does happiness run in families? If so, how much of it is a genetic trait, how much caused by "environment"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So when you pick your husband/wife, choose someone who is smart and has the same moral sense that you do, so that you will have children that you can love without pain ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dearieme
    Tell me, doc, does any of this work shed light on Tolstoy's remark "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"?

    Probably because unhappiness comes in many forms and variety, and happiness come just from a few things, yeah, unhappy families are different in their problems (but, still problems), but happy ones share the same qualities.

    Sorry for the bad grammar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Sorry for the bad grammar." Not at all; better than my Portuguese grammar, I'll bet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The graph in finding 3 is both amazing and informative.

    I have thought for quite a while now that culture selects its people, and it is notable that Christianity has been extant in Europe for more than 60 generations, and Islam in its region for more than 40 generations. It seems likely that each of those has selected the respective populations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You mean that people who don't fit in end up emigrating? And hence culture also shapes genetics and hence we have a cultural-genetic complex that is far more viscous than either part alone?

    Fascinating!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Tell me, doc, does any of this work shed light on Tolstoy’s remark “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @arandombraziliandude
    Probably because unhappiness comes in many forms and variety, and happiness come just from a few things, yeah, unhappy families are different in their problems (but, still problems), but happy ones share the same qualities.

    Sorry for the bad grammar.
    , @James Thompson
    No, it does not. All families have ancestors.

    An aphorism is not upon oath.
    It does not have to be true, it just has to sound true.

    Searching to make it true, I can think of two possible routes, neither of them anything to do with genetics. One approach is to say that a family will be happy only if it satisfies n requirements, and that even n-1 will cast it into despair. In that sense the happy family will just be happy, the unhappy family will be vexed by the one or many missing ingredients. In that line of argument, everything has to be right before anything can be right.

    The other line of argument has nothing to do with families per se. It seems that memory for bad events is better than memory for good events. Presumably, bad events are traumatic and have to be remembered so that they can be avoided in future, for survival's sake. So, we will have a tendency to unhappiness which will always be linked to a specific event.
    , @pyrrhus
    Not true, but it seems that every happy child got there in his own unique way!
    , @anon
    maybe

    if happiness is being in the middle 64% of all the various bell curves and unhappiness is caused by one of the many different extremes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • EH says:

    Excellent article, all things everybody should know, some of which I didn’t know and the rest I had not seen put so clearly and succinctly.

    This should be the first article to offer when trying to explain the importance of genetics to those who have always been told that environment is all that matters.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Diversity Heretic
    Was it P.J. O'Rourke who observed that "We slowly turn into our parents?"

    No, it was his father.

    Read More
    • LOL: Whoever
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Was it P.J. O’Rourke who observed that “We slowly turn into our parents?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    No, it was his father.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • As one might expect, the piece that I co-authored with Brian Boutwell, Heritability and why Parents (but not Parenting) Matter, has stirred up some irritation and even anger. Part of this is simply due to the mildly hyperbolic nature of the title. Obviously on some level parents matter a great deal. What we were attempting...
  • @JayMan

    You are not likely to get an answer. It is difficult to explain how a people lose their religious gene or their anti-gay gene in 2-3 generations.
     
    I wrote a whole post on it:

    The Rise of Universalism

    I read your post again. I had read it when you first put it up.

    I agree that “runaway” universalism is a serious problem.

    IMO, people have in-group out-group behavior. The manner in which they define the group is cultural.

    IMO, you don’t explain how Germans could be the very embodiment of non-universalism and 1-2 generations later they are the poster people for runaway universalism. And no, I don’t think Germania’s Seed explains it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    You are not likely to get an answer. It is difficult to explain how a people lose their religious gene or their anti-gay gene in 2-3 generations.

    You are not likely to get an answer. It is difficult to explain how a people lose their religious gene or their anti-gay gene in 2-3 generations.

    I wrote a whole post on it:

    The Rise of Universalism

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I read your post again. I had read it when you first put it up.

    I agree that “runaway” universalism is a serious problem.

    IMO, people have in-group out-group behavior. The manner in which they define the group is cultural.

    IMO, you don’t explain how Germans could be the very embodiment of non-universalism and 1-2 generations later they are the poster people for runaway universalism. And no, I don’t think Germania’s Seed explains it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Miguel Madeira

    All of this becomes easier to conceptualize if you apply Occam’s Razor: what if the environment simply doesn’t shape who we turn out to be at all (content-dependent aspects like language and dress excepted)?
     
    If it was the case, it was impossible to have, for example, cultural change - but there is cultural change (example: the europeans are much less religious today than some centuries ago ), what I imagine if is only possible if there is some kind of environmental influence.

    If it was the case, it was impossible to have, for example, cultural change – but there is cultural change (example: the europeans are much less religious today than some centuries ago )

    Change over the course of centuries could be (and usually is) evolutionary in nature. This is as given by the breeder’s equation.

    Shorter-term changes (over the course of years or decades) are indeed “environmental” in nature, mostly due to changes in technological possibilities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    ” In some ways Mao was right that a true solution toward fixing social ills is a “cultural revolution.”
    The 1960′s was the closest the US ever came to a cultural revolution. White middle class kids who didn’t have to serve in the military, rebelled , mostly briefly, against their parental culture. The antiwar movement grew among this class of youth/students as the draft started to encroach onto the campuses.
    You had the civil rights movement that began nonviolently but was met by violence. This spawned the various “power” movements by people of color.
    The “new age” began with many young people assessing the religions that they were born into and many people disassociated themselves with them. Eastern religions became the destination for many.
    The call came from Timmy Leary to “Turn on, tune in, drop out”. Many young people began to seek chemical enlightenment, melting away the old culture.
    Music and art reflected all this and some of the effect can still be seen today.
    Like the song, the beat went on, bombs got more powerful, astronauts were walking on the moon, technology advanced by the week.
    The tv show “Leave it to Beaver” is a kind of pre-cultural revolution example. Ward and June would most likely have lost Wally in Vietnam and Beaver would have been arrested at many antiwar demonstrations, only to get expelled from college! Compare that to the ,say, the ’90s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    You are not likely to get an answer. It is difficult to explain how a people lose their religious gene or their anti-gay gene in 2-3 generations.

    Yep. I’m pretty sure Jayman wouldn’t have been able to predict many things we see today. It’s quite likely he’d be preaching “there will be absolutely no or maybe little change in X and Y area” and call everyone who disagreed a moron.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TM

    To my knowledge in the past 15 years there has not been much support for this thesis, suggesting to me that we’re still at a loss to explain non-shared environment.
     
    To someone like myself who is not knowledgeable about new social science literature, can you explain whether this is because there is an absence of evidence (maybe not been studied well), or if there is evidence actually contradicting the peer group hypothesis?

    I remember when that re-evaluation (by Chetty et al.) of the "Moving to Opportunity" data came out a few months back, I thought it was pretty good evidence of peer group effects. Basically, you had adults and older children who showed no changes in income and other life outcomes when the first data were reported; but then when they looked back at younger children (at the time of moving), there was clearly an effect to better life outcomes. I know you are talking about personality, and life outcomes are not that exactly, but I feel that the former has to have an effect of the latter; and either way it just seems that the timing of when moving has an effect argues for peer effects over anything else, but maybe I'm jumping to that conclusion.

    Raj Chetty’s analysis of where kids grew up versus how they are doing relative to their parents today is pretty useful for thinking about this question. It suggests to me that decisions parents make about where to bring up their kids can turn out to be very important to their kids’ welfare. You want your kids to imprint on a landscape as children that will be economically prosperous for them when they adults. (Similarly, it would be great idea for you to buy a home that will have gone up a lot in value by the time your children inherit it from you.)

    Unfortunately, that turns out to be hard to predict.

    One thing I noticed from Raj Chetty’s county-level analysis is that kids who were living in rural counties in upper Great Plains in the 1990s tended to do well economically in 2011-2012.

    One reason for that is that the lightly populated North Central states had a long economic boom driven by Chinese demand for raw materials.

    But another reason is that not many outsiders wanted to move to places like the Dakotas because they’re cold in winter and strike many people as bleak-looking. A character in a Jay McInerney novel laments: “There’s nothing to see and nothing to keep you from seeing it.” So workers who had imprinted on the Great Plains as youths and thus find them appealing as young adults benefited from the limited influx of outsiders, which led to higher wages for working class people.

    In contrast, the places that did terrible in Chetty’s analysis, such as the Carolinas, tend to be relatively appealing to the eye to many people, with a moderate climate not too different from most climates in the eastern half of the United States. So the Carolinas got a big influx of workers, which kept down incomes due to supply and demand.

    But it doesn’t necessarily mean that parents can be expected to accurately choose what would be a good place for their kids to have grown up. It’s very hard to predict local economic conditions a couple of decade from now.

    I mean, a few places in Chetty’s study are clearly cursed long-term, such as the worst county in the U.S. in his study: It’s a good lesson to avoid exposing your children to the tragic Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Have them imprint on some place else.

    But a lot of Chetty’s other results are pretty random: e.g., the worst county as of 2011-12 for working class white kids to have lived in during the late 1990s is the Myrtle Beach golf resort region in South Carolina adjoining the North Carolina border. That’s because golf went out of fashion in the 2000s.

    But if working class parents could accurately predict long term economic trends like the booming golf resort industry of the 1990s suddenly withering in the 2000s, they wouldn’t be working class, they’d be hedge fund zillionaires.

    I think that’s a pretty important philosophy of science issue. We talk all the time about “science” as involving accurate predictions. But making accurate predictions about markets tend to be inherently harder than making accurate predictions about nature, because other people are trying to outpredict you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    You are not likely to get an answer. It is difficult to explain how a people lose their religious gene or their anti-gay gene in 2-3 generations.

    There is no Christian gene, but there are genes that pre-dispose people to mystical and transcendent experiences. Someone with those genes born in the Prarie states circa 1820 would likely join the Pentecostal revival. The same person born in Oslo circa 1990 would embrace ghosts and psychics:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/world/europe/for-many-norwegians-ghosts-fill-a-void.html?referer=&_r=0

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Miguel Madeira

    All of this becomes easier to conceptualize if you apply Occam’s Razor: what if the environment simply doesn’t shape who we turn out to be at all (content-dependent aspects like language and dress excepted)?
     
    If it was the case, it was impossible to have, for example, cultural change - but there is cultural change (example: the europeans are much less religious today than some centuries ago ), what I imagine if is only possible if there is some kind of environmental influence.

    You are not likely to get an answer. It is difficult to explain how a people lose their religious gene or their anti-gay gene in 2-3 generations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    There is no Christian gene, but there are genes that pre-dispose people to mystical and transcendent experiences. Someone with those genes born in the Prarie states circa 1820 would likely join the Pentecostal revival. The same person born in Oslo circa 1990 would embrace ghosts and psychics:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/world/europe/for-many-norwegians-ghosts-fill-a-void.html?referer=&_r=0
    , @someguy
    Yep. I'm pretty sure Jayman wouldn't have been able to predict many things we see today. It's quite likely he'd be preaching "there will be absolutely no or maybe little change in X and Y area" and call everyone who disagreed a moron.
    , @JayMan

    You are not likely to get an answer. It is difficult to explain how a people lose their religious gene or their anti-gay gene in 2-3 generations.
     
    I wrote a whole post on it:

    The Rise of Universalism
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    For example, what kind of landscape you live in around puberty seems to sometimes have long term effects upon what kind of landscape and climate you feel most at home in as an adult.
     
    It would seem that these things would turn up in the shared environment if they matter. However, they don't.

    Do people much study who grows up to be happiest as a City Mouse or a Country Mouse? I know there has been a little bit of research done on imprinting on landscapes, but it seems like a pretty obscure topic that doesn’t seem to have caught fire.

    It’s probably approachable from twins-raised-apart studies.

    The general topic of Homesickness was much indulged among 19th Century America, but in 20th Century America you were supposed to just get over it. These days people don’t put up quite as much with with constant relocations the way they did in the middle of the 20th Century, but there’s not as much of an organized awareness of homesickness as there was in the 19th Century. (See historian Susan J. Mat’s 2011 book “Homesickness” for more.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    But this suggests that if 2 parents wanted to influence the unshared environment of their children in this way, they could if only by raising their children in India and respecting local norms.
     
    I meant by nutritional deprivation. In India, there is a tendency to favor first-borns. Physically depriving your children can have serious effects.

    If parents are willing to work hard enough, can they influence either the shared or unshared environments of their children, or is that really and truly largely determined by the societies (cultures) in which they live?
     
    All of this becomes easier to conceptualize if you apply Occam's Razor: what if the environment simply doesn't shape who we turn out to be at all (content-dependent aspects like language and dress excepted)?

    Obviously (I think), we can attribute the Polgars’ success in chess to what their father did.
     
    Not so obviously, after all.

    All of this becomes easier to conceptualize if you apply Occam’s Razor: what if the environment simply doesn’t shape who we turn out to be at all (content-dependent aspects like language and dress excepted)?

    If it was the case, it was impossible to have, for example, cultural change – but there is cultural change (example: the europeans are much less religious today than some centuries ago ), what I imagine if is only possible if there is some kind of environmental influence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You are not likely to get an answer. It is difficult to explain how a people lose their religious gene or their anti-gay gene in 2-3 generations.
    , @JayMan

    If it was the case, it was impossible to have, for example, cultural change – but there is cultural change (example: the europeans are much less religious today than some centuries ago )
     
    Change over the course of centuries could be (and usually is) evolutionary in nature. This is as given by the breeder's equation.

    Shorter-term changes (over the course of years or decades) are indeed "environmental" in nature, mostly due to changes in technological possibilities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Lots of personality measures seem like very noisy measurements to me. I would think that part of doing this kind of research should involve an attempt to get an estimate of the measurement error, so that it can be removed from the non-shared error component of the variance decomposition. Is that the case? Do twin-studiers do this?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    If the heritability of homeschooling isn’t associated with parental influence, then it shouldn’t be confounding.
     
    When you restrict your sample by a heritable factor, you make some of the heredity term (falsely) appear as environment, both shared and unshared.

    The non-homeschooling tendency would presumably be heritable as well. So unless we assumed that there was nothing to the tendency other than whether or not one would homeschool one’s own kids, it would seem that the tendency would also be associated with the capacity for parental influence. Or at least the appearance of this capacity, which would still have to be explained. Why would the mere appearance of such expensive activity with no practical value evolve in the first place?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @marcel proust
    But this suggests that if 2 parents wanted to influence the unshared environment of their children in this way, they could if only by raising their children in India and respecting local norms. I am not being facetious. I am trying to understand the implications of your statements. If parents are willing to work hard enough, can they influence either the shared or unshared environments of their children, or is that really and truly largely determined by the societies (cultures) in which they live? This is not so much a question about what is, as it is about what is possible for people to do.

    An example: Obviously (I think), we can attribute the Polgars' success in chess to what their father did. I think that you are saying (and I hope you will correct me here, if need be) that according to pretty much all the evidence, both their important personality traits and their being in some more general sense successful (in life) are largely independent of the father's choices (beyond providing a nurturing home that allowed them to largely realize their potential in some activity, not necessarily chess).

    But this suggests that if 2 parents wanted to influence the unshared environment of their children in this way, they could if only by raising their children in India and respecting local norms.

    I meant by nutritional deprivation. In India, there is a tendency to favor first-borns. Physically depriving your children can have serious effects.

    If parents are willing to work hard enough, can they influence either the shared or unshared environments of their children, or is that really and truly largely determined by the societies (cultures) in which they live?

    All of this becomes easier to conceptualize if you apply Occam’s Razor: what if the environment simply doesn’t shape who we turn out to be at all (content-dependent aspects like language and dress excepted)?

    Obviously (I think), we can attribute the Polgars’ success in chess to what their father did.

    Not so obviously, after all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miguel Madeira

    All of this becomes easier to conceptualize if you apply Occam’s Razor: what if the environment simply doesn’t shape who we turn out to be at all (content-dependent aspects like language and dress excepted)?
     
    If it was the case, it was impossible to have, for example, cultural change - but there is cultural change (example: the europeans are much less religious today than some centuries ago ), what I imagine if is only possible if there is some kind of environmental influence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill M
    If the heritability of homeschooling isn't associated with parental influence, then it shouldn't be confounding.

    If the heritability of homeschooling isn’t associated with parental influence, then it shouldn’t be confounding.

    When you restrict your sample by a heritable factor, you make some of the heredity term (falsely) appear as environment, both shared and unshared.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill M
    The non-homeschooling tendency would presumably be heritable as well. So unless we assumed that there was nothing to the tendency other than whether or not one would homeschool one's own kids, it would seem that the tendency would also be associated with the capacity for parental influence. Or at least the appearance of this capacity, which would still have to be explained. Why would the mere appearance of such expensive activity with no practical value evolve in the first place?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill M
    There aren't any personality traits that are sufficient for an Inuit, or any other type of person, from surviving and reproducing in the Arctic without certain skills and knowledge.

    People, ”culture” SERVES individual constellations of personality traits, culture was created to serve ”us”, nurture our existential and vital necessities, tend to works like a mirror.

    The evolution of culture tend to be synchronized with bio-cognitive evolution, to be sustained at long term and even improved. Inuit personality traits were being selected OR they already had almost this traits and just transferred this ”primitive’ wisdom from asia to north america.

    People must need have both personality type, intrinsic motivation (or lack of divergent intrinsic motivation) and cognitive level to learn ”certain skills and knowledge”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @marcel proust
    I do not understand. Suppose all parents showed strong favoritism toward their own first-born, over their younger children. Are you saying that this would not show up in the unshared environment (perhaps indicating that I don't understand the term properly)? Or perhaps that even though it might, all the available evidence to date indicates that it does not (or would not, since presumably not all parents behave this way currently)?

    I do not understand. Suppose all parents showed strong favoritism toward their own first-born, over their younger children. Are you saying that this would not show up in the unshared environment (perhaps indicating that I don’t understand the term properly)?

    I think that “all parents showed strong …” is not even needed to create apparent non-shared environment effects; even if some parents prefer the first-born, other parents the youngest, other parents the blonde, other parents the children more similar to some deceased acenstor, etc, etc., this will appear in the non-shared environment, no? (I think that, in practice, the “non-shared environment” is every individual difference that can’t explained by another explanation, a kind of “residual” – I am correct?)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • As you note, it is easy to mess up your kids by beating, starving, etc. So there are examples that people see in every day lives of parents making a difference.

    But on the positive side of the effects, I think it fairly quickly becomes a Red Queens race with the easies, or most obvious, improvements already being made. At that point you are tinkering around the edges and the influence of other variables on that front edge cohort will have a large impact on what are fairly small differences in child rearing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Perhaps it’s in the nature of many people because the capacity for nurture had an effect on fitness in the past.
     
    Knowledge and skills are important to pass down, but that's far and away from changing personality. You can lead a horse to water and all...

    There aren’t any personality traits that are sufficient for an Inuit, or any other type of person, from surviving and reproducing in the Arctic without certain skills and knowledge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    People, ''culture'' SERVES individual constellations of personality traits, culture was created to serve ''us'', nurture our existential and vital necessities, tend to works like a mirror.

    The evolution of culture tend to be synchronized with bio-cognitive evolution, to be sustained at long term and even improved. Inuit personality traits were being selected OR they already had almost this traits and just transferred this ''primitive' wisdom from asia to north america.

    People must need have both personality type, intrinsic motivation (or lack of divergent intrinsic motivation) and cognitive level to learn ''certain skills and knowledge''.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    If it were also associated with the tendency to transmit and be receptive to parental influence
     
    Or a tendency to appear that way, anyway.

    The apple really doesn't fall far from the tree.

    If the heritability of homeschooling isn’t associated with parental influence, then it shouldn’t be confounding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    If the heritability of homeschooling isn’t associated with parental influence, then it shouldn’t be confounding.
     
    When you restrict your sample by a heritable factor, you make some of the heredity term (falsely) appear as environment, both shared and unshared.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    I do not understand. Suppose all parents showed strong favoritism toward their own first-born, over their younger children.
     
    Whether or not parents do this, it doesn't seem to matter much, because there are no visible birth order effects in Western countries.

    In India, on the other hand...

    But this suggests that if 2 parents wanted to influence the unshared environment of their children in this way, they could if only by raising their children in India and respecting local norms. I am not being facetious. I am trying to understand the implications of your statements. If parents are willing to work hard enough, can they influence either the shared or unshared environments of their children, or is that really and truly largely determined by the societies (cultures) in which they live? This is not so much a question about what is, as it is about what is possible for people to do.

    An example: Obviously (I think), we can attribute the Polgars’ success in chess to what their father did. I think that you are saying (and I hope you will correct me here, if need be) that according to pretty much all the evidence, both their important personality traits and their being in some more general sense successful (in life) are largely independent of the father’s choices (beyond providing a nurturing home that allowed them to largely realize their potential in some activity, not necessarily chess).

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    But this suggests that if 2 parents wanted to influence the unshared environment of their children in this way, they could if only by raising their children in India and respecting local norms.
     
    I meant by nutritional deprivation. In India, there is a tendency to favor first-borns. Physically depriving your children can have serious effects.

    If parents are willing to work hard enough, can they influence either the shared or unshared environments of their children, or is that really and truly largely determined by the societies (cultures) in which they live?
     
    All of this becomes easier to conceptualize if you apply Occam's Razor: what if the environment simply doesn't shape who we turn out to be at all (content-dependent aspects like language and dress excepted)?

    Obviously (I think), we can attribute the Polgars’ success in chess to what their father did.
     
    Not so obviously, after all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The "nurture assumption" is basically the idea that parents really, really, matter in affecting variation in individual outcomes in their children. Judith Rich Harris famously wrote a book length critique, The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, which was published in 1999. I've argued that the Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate...
  • Good article. Of course some parents are going to make a deeper impression than others. For better or worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • As one might expect, the piece that I co-authored with Brian Boutwell, Heritability and why Parents (but not Parenting) Matter, has stirred up some irritation and even anger. Part of this is simply due to the mildly hyperbolic nature of the title. Obviously on some level parents matter a great deal. What we were attempting...
  • What’s the evolutionary function of that belief? If the values parents teach their kids don’t matter, why should we have evolved a tendency to instill values and the beliefs that rationalize this practice?

    That’s probably something that’s along for the ride. But people have to remember, even in the West, in pre-modern times, 50% of children didn’t live to see their 18th birthday. By far parents’ biggest job was keeping their children alive, which was no trivial task. Various beliefs that motivated parents to invest in their children would have been selected for for that reason if no other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @marcel proust
    I do not understand. Suppose all parents showed strong favoritism toward their own first-born, over their younger children. Are you saying that this would not show up in the unshared environment (perhaps indicating that I don't understand the term properly)? Or perhaps that even though it might, all the available evidence to date indicates that it does not (or would not, since presumably not all parents behave this way currently)?

    I do not understand. Suppose all parents showed strong favoritism toward their own first-born, over their younger children.

    Whether or not parents do this, it doesn’t seem to matter much, because there are no visible birth order effects in Western countries.

    In India, on the other hand…

    Read More
    • Replies: @marcel proust
    But this suggests that if 2 parents wanted to influence the unshared environment of their children in this way, they could if only by raising their children in India and respecting local norms. I am not being facetious. I am trying to understand the implications of your statements. If parents are willing to work hard enough, can they influence either the shared or unshared environments of their children, or is that really and truly largely determined by the societies (cultures) in which they live? This is not so much a question about what is, as it is about what is possible for people to do.

    An example: Obviously (I think), we can attribute the Polgars' success in chess to what their father did. I think that you are saying (and I hope you will correct me here, if need be) that according to pretty much all the evidence, both their important personality traits and their being in some more general sense successful (in life) are largely independent of the father's choices (beyond providing a nurturing home that allowed them to largely realize their potential in some activity, not necessarily chess).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill M

    People believe in nurture because it’s their nature to believe so. Reason and science won’t necessarily sway minds (future post).
     
    Perhaps it's in the nature of many people because the capacity for nurture had an effect on fitness in the past. For example, many of the Inuit adaptations to the Arctic such as hunting skills and technical artefacts are cultural. Inuit children aren't born with such knowledge and skills, but have to learn them from their parents. In that environment, nurture would be essential and the quality of memes transmitted from parent to child would be very important.

    Perhaps it’s in the nature of many people because the capacity for nurture had an effect on fitness in the past.

    Knowledge and skills are important to pass down, but that’s far and away from changing personality. You can lead a horse to water and all…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill M
    There aren't any personality traits that are sufficient for an Inuit, or any other type of person, from surviving and reproducing in the Arctic without certain skills and knowledge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill M
    Presumably if being a homeschooler is heritable, it would just mean that one's children would also be likely to homeschool (or not) their own kids. If it were also associated with the tendency to transmit and be receptive to parental influence, wouldn't that imply that parental influence is a genuine phenomenon, otherwise why would the capacity for it develop?

    If it were also associated with the tendency to transmit and be receptive to parental influence

    Or a tendency to appear that way, anyway.

    The apple really doesn’t fall far from the tree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill M
    If the heritability of homeschooling isn't associated with parental influence, then it shouldn't be confounding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I have been riding a free shuttle bus after work. Twice, I have ridden it with 2 Chinese American boys and one of each of their Chinese parents. The boys are handsome, bright creatures and about a year or 2 apart in age. They could not be more different. One of them is extremely self confident and the other one is a whiny baby from hell, always throwing fits and tantrums. Today they rode with their mother instead of their father. The whiny boy was in her lap the entire trip. He was actually less whiny with her because she accommodates him more than his father who demands that he make accomodations. Last week the whiny boy was upset that his brother had control of some small collectable toys that he had acquired in class. He was throwing fits fit to beat the band. The father split the toys evenly between the boys which was fine with the non whiny boy. One of the toys was a tiny, 2 part scissor. The father split the scissors and gave each boy a piece. “Now it’s a knife!”, the confident boy said. ” Wha, wha”, the other boy cried, stamping his feet. Everyone on the shuttle was laughing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    The parental effect is captured in the shared environment. I am going to pick a nit here. If I have a favorite child and consistently express that, that presumably contributes toward the unshared environment. To the extent that I don’t favor one child (or have the feeling but do not express it noticeably), that reduces the degree of unshared environment, and thus its importance. So parents do have some control over “unshared environment.”
     
    It don't fly. In order for this to work, there can be no systematic variation between one set of parents vs. any other set. There are going to be things parents do across the board to all their children, and if this mattered, it'd turn up in the shared environment. It does not.

    Topping it off, there are birth order effects, which are also nonexistent. Hard to reconcile that one.

    People believe in nurture because it's their nature to believe so. Reason and science won't necessarily sway minds (future post).

    People believe in nurture because it’s their nature to believe so.

    What’s the evolutionary function of that belief? If the values parents teach their kids don’t matter, why should we have evolved a tendency to instill values and the beliefs that rationalize this practice?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    The parental effect is captured in the shared environment. I am going to pick a nit here. If I have a favorite child and consistently express that, that presumably contributes toward the unshared environment. To the extent that I don’t favor one child (or have the feeling but do not express it noticeably), that reduces the degree of unshared environment, and thus its importance. So parents do have some control over “unshared environment.”
     
    It don't fly. In order for this to work, there can be no systematic variation between one set of parents vs. any other set. There are going to be things parents do across the board to all their children, and if this mattered, it'd turn up in the shared environment. It does not.

    Topping it off, there are birth order effects, which are also nonexistent. Hard to reconcile that one.

    People believe in nurture because it's their nature to believe so. Reason and science won't necessarily sway minds (future post).

    I do not understand. Suppose all parents showed strong favoritism toward their own first-born, over their younger children. Are you saying that this would not show up in the unshared environment (perhaps indicating that I don’t understand the term properly)? Or perhaps that even though it might, all the available evidence to date indicates that it does not (or would not, since presumably not all parents behave this way currently)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I do not understand. Suppose all parents showed strong favoritism toward their own first-born, over their younger children.
     
    Whether or not parents do this, it doesn't seem to matter much, because there are no visible birth order effects in Western countries.

    In India, on the other hand...
    , @Miguel Madeira

    I do not understand. Suppose all parents showed strong favoritism toward their own first-born, over their younger children. Are you saying that this would not show up in the unshared environment (perhaps indicating that I don’t understand the term properly)?
     
    I think that "all parents showed strong ..." is not even needed to create apparent non-shared environment effects; even if some parents prefer the first-born, other parents the youngest, other parents the blonde, other parents the children more similar to some deceased acenstor, etc, etc., this will appear in the non-shared environment, no? (I think that, in practice, the "non-shared environment" is every individual difference that can't explained by another explanation, a kind of "residual" - I am correct?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The "nurture assumption" is basically the idea that parents really, really, matter in affecting variation in individual outcomes in their children. Judith Rich Harris famously wrote a book length critique, The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, which was published in 1999. I've argued that the Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate...
  • @Razib Khan
    yes. but dominance variance. i am probably the one who put pop and indiv level, because heritability statistic has somewhat different implications at the pop vs. individual level (the correlation in height btwn siblings is 0.50, way lower than a 80 or 90 percent heritability might lead people to believe at the popultaion level).

    thanks. just read up on it. dominance deviations versus dominance genetic effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • As one might expect, the piece that I co-authored with Brian Boutwell, Heritability and why Parents (but not Parenting) Matter, has stirred up some irritation and even anger. Part of this is simply due to the mildly hyperbolic nature of the title. Obviously on some level parents matter a great deal. What we were attempting...
  • @JayMan

    The parental effect is captured in the shared environment. I am going to pick a nit here. If I have a favorite child and consistently express that, that presumably contributes toward the unshared environment. To the extent that I don’t favor one child (or have the feeling but do not express it noticeably), that reduces the degree of unshared environment, and thus its importance. So parents do have some control over “unshared environment.”
     
    It don't fly. In order for this to work, there can be no systematic variation between one set of parents vs. any other set. There are going to be things parents do across the board to all their children, and if this mattered, it'd turn up in the shared environment. It does not.

    Topping it off, there are birth order effects, which are also nonexistent. Hard to reconcile that one.

    People believe in nurture because it's their nature to believe so. Reason and science won't necessarily sway minds (future post).

    People believe in nurture because it’s their nature to believe so. Reason and science won’t necessarily sway minds (future post).

    Perhaps it’s in the nature of many people because the capacity for nurture had an effect on fitness in the past. For example, many of the Inuit adaptations to the Arctic such as hunting skills and technical artefacts are cultural. Inuit children aren’t born with such knowledge and skills, but have to learn them from their parents. In that environment, nurture would be essential and the quality of memes transmitted from parent to child would be very important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Perhaps it’s in the nature of many people because the capacity for nurture had an effect on fitness in the past.
     
    Knowledge and skills are important to pass down, but that's far and away from changing personality. You can lead a horse to water and all...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    It might be worth to compare varying levels of “parental influence” on home schooled children vis a vis normal schooled children.
     
    You could only do this with adopted children or reared-apart twins. Since being a homeschooler is heritable, you'd be confounding genetic effects for environment if you used standard twin studies. This is flaw with most G x E studies.

    Presumably if being a homeschooler is heritable, it would just mean that one’s children would also be likely to homeschool (or not) their own kids. If it were also associated with the tendency to transmit and be receptive to parental influence, wouldn’t that imply that parental influence is a genuine phenomenon, otherwise why would the capacity for it develop?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    If it were also associated with the tendency to transmit and be receptive to parental influence
     
    Or a tendency to appear that way, anyway.

    The apple really doesn't fall far from the tree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Zachary Latif
    It might be worth to compare varying levels of "parental influence" on home schooled children vis a vis normal schooled children. That would determine whether it is the setup of our modern society (the schooling system etc) or is it an innate evolutionary trait (children want to be au fait within their peer group)..

    It might be worth to compare varying levels of “parental influence” on home schooled children vis a vis normal schooled children.

    You could only do this with adopted children or reared-apart twins. Since being a homeschooler is heritable, you’d be confounding genetic effects for environment if you used standard twin studies. This is flaw with most G x E studies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill M
    Presumably if being a homeschooler is heritable, it would just mean that one's children would also be likely to homeschool (or not) their own kids. If it were also associated with the tendency to transmit and be receptive to parental influence, wouldn't that imply that parental influence is a genuine phenomenon, otherwise why would the capacity for it develop?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @marcel proust
    The parental effect is captured in the shared environment. I am going to pick a nit here. If I have a favorite child and consistently express that, that presumably contributes toward the unshared environment. To the extent that I don't favor one child (or have the feeling but do not express it noticeably), that reduces the degree of unshared environment, and thus its importance. So parents do have some control over "unshared environment."


    You know, if one set of parents does this (i.e., reduces the degree of unshared environment), they may think they're sick ... And if two set of parents, two set of parents do it, in harmony, they may think they're both cultists and they won't take either of them. And three sets of parents do it, three, can you imagine, three pairs of people having kids, reducing the degree of unshared environment and having some more. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty pairs of parents a generation...

    Sorry, got carried away there: I started channeling Arlo Guthrie. The point (besides pure silliness) is that this of course will not show up in the %age of variation unless many are behaving this way.

    The parental effect is captured in the shared environment. I am going to pick a nit here. If I have a favorite child and consistently express that, that presumably contributes toward the unshared environment. To the extent that I don’t favor one child (or have the feeling but do not express it noticeably), that reduces the degree of unshared environment, and thus its importance. So parents do have some control over “unshared environment.”

    It don’t fly. In order for this to work, there can be no systematic variation between one set of parents vs. any other set. There are going to be things parents do across the board to all their children, and if this mattered, it’d turn up in the shared environment. It does not.

    Topping it off, there are birth order effects, which are also nonexistent. Hard to reconcile that one.

    People believe in nurture because it’s their nature to believe so. Reason and science won’t necessarily sway minds (future post).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill M

    People believe in nurture because it’s their nature to believe so. Reason and science won’t necessarily sway minds (future post).
     
    Perhaps it's in the nature of many people because the capacity for nurture had an effect on fitness in the past. For example, many of the Inuit adaptations to the Arctic such as hunting skills and technical artefacts are cultural. Inuit children aren't born with such knowledge and skills, but have to learn them from their parents. In that environment, nurture would be essential and the quality of memes transmitted from parent to child would be very important.
    , @marcel proust
    I do not understand. Suppose all parents showed strong favoritism toward their own first-born, over their younger children. Are you saying that this would not show up in the unshared environment (perhaps indicating that I don't understand the term properly)? Or perhaps that even though it might, all the available evidence to date indicates that it does not (or would not, since presumably not all parents behave this way currently)?
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    People believe in nurture because it’s their nature to believe so.
     
    What's the evolutionary function of that belief? If the values parents teach their kids don't matter, why should we have evolved a tendency to instill values and the beliefs that rationalize this practice?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.