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 "breeder\'s equation"
 All Comments / On "breeder\'s equation"
    It seems few understand regression to the mean and how and why it works. Most people (and by most people, I mean most scholars – i.e., the people who should know better) have a vague understanding that it has something to do with IQ. They seem to have the impression it means that the children...
  • @BeyondTheRim
    Wouldn't assortative mating show itself in certain college populations such as the creation of traditional Black colleges creating an environment where higher IQ than average students tending to marry within the population and then sending their children to the same colleges create sustained increase in average IQ for the group? That would be a strong argument for certain types of environments supporting increased IQ, since assortative mating can be an environmental factor.

    The genetic impact of assortative mating is to decrease the non-additive genetic variance and increase the additive variance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Wouldn’t assortative mating show itself in certain college populations such as the creation of traditional Black colleges creating an environment where higher IQ than average students tending to marry within the population and then sending their children to the same colleges create sustained increase in average IQ for the group? That would be a strong argument for certain types of environments supporting increased IQ, since assortative mating can be an environmental factor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    The genetic impact of assortative mating is to decrease the non-additive genetic variance and increase the additive variance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Regression to the means happens due to unassortative mating. Regression to the mean is a statistical phenomenon not a biological one, there is no evidence IQ regresses towards the mean, it happens because highly intelligent and wealthy men marry attractive but less intelligent women, i see it everywhere around me. If mating is 100% assortative there will be NO regression. What happens is very simple, a man is born with a high IQ, his IQ puts him in a high status job, he marries a very attractive woman, with an above average IQ but not as high as his, and his offspring regress back to the mean of he and his wife’s IQ level. I’ll guarantee that since women don’t marry attractive and less intelligent men, that most offspring of very high IQ women don’t regress to the mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jayman,

    I still have a question of your article regression to the mean. I accept the breeder equation to be correct if the model underlying it is accepted, but that may not be the case. You answered before, which was kind, I hope you answer still to this one. Let us take a selected population, say by an IQ test we discard
    half, all below 100. The accepted half has the mean sigma*sqrt(2/pi), where sigma is the standard deviation. Thus, with mean 100 and sigma=15, the mean is about 12. The variance is Var(1-2/pi),
    where Var=sigma*sigma. Clearly, the selection has reduced the variance, while if we measure SD
    from the higher part, it will seem to be 15 and there will be twice as many over any level, like 150,
    than in the general population. Then the regression to the mean reduces the mean for one generation,
    and we get the mean to 110. Hope this reminds you of the US Ashkenazi. Terman has twice as many Ashkenazi over 150 than non-Jewish whites and Lynn estimated the average to be 110, while before it was measured to about 12. Now the question.

    The distribution is truncated normal distribution with below 100 cut off. It cannot stay like that. For each pair of parents, the mean of the children is the mean of the parents, but is the distribution of
    the children IQ normal with SD=15, or is it more probably so that for very high IQ, or very low IQ,
    the distribution is skewed, because if genetic IQ is polygenic characteristics and both parents have
    the good or the bad genes, the offspring cannot have too wide a range, there is nothing to cause
    high variation. If so, the distribution is skewed, and therefore the average may actually not be the
    mean of the average of the parents, but there may be exactly what you tried to deny, regression
    to the mean over several generations.

    To say is again. Your breeder equation is correct, provided that the model under it is correct. If
    at the high and low ends of the distribition, the variance of IQ, or any property, is skewed, because
    the property is polygenic and there is nothing to vary if both parents have all good or bad, then there is a push to the center because of this distribution and it is not true that the average of the children is the average of the parents.

    hope I made this question clear enough. thanks for your previous answers, think if this is the case with the Ashkenazi.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @J2
    Thanks for this answer. It is good enough. The simple formula actually is not the "real" formula,
    since it does not take everything into account (women are supposed to have a narrower IQ distribution, parents also should have IQ composed of these parts etc.) but let it be. Rushton and Jensen use a
    simpler formula, let it be. I guess this field is still too far from having any really correct formulas for anything.

    By the way, I read this your article of ivy collage admissions and the endless discussion of Jewish
    overrepresentation. Quite a discussion, so I will not continue this discussion any longer. Must be hard being a blogger.

    I guess this field is still too far from having any really correct formulas for anything.

    The breeder’s equation is correct. You’re asking it do something it can’t do. Within families, there will be individual variation about the predicted mean. That is, you can’t perfectly predict individual IQs from it, only probabilities.

    By the way, I read this your article of ivy collage admissions and the endless discussion of Jewish
    overrepresentation.

    That wasn’t by me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thanks for this answer. It is good enough. The simple formula actually is not the “real” formula,
    since it does not take everything into account (women are supposed to have a narrower IQ distribution, parents also should have IQ composed of these parts etc.) but let it be. Rushton and Jensen use a
    simpler formula, let it be. I guess this field is still too far from having any really correct formulas for anything.

    By the way, I read this your article of ivy collage admissions and the endless discussion of Jewish
    overrepresentation. Quite a discussion, so I will not continue this discussion any longer. Must be hard being a blogger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I guess this field is still too far from having any really correct formulas for anything.
     
    The breeder's equation is correct. You're asking it do something it can't do. Within families, there will be individual variation about the predicted mean. That is, you can't perfectly predict individual IQs from it, only probabilities.

    By the way, I read this your article of ivy collage admissions and the endless discussion of Jewish
    overrepresentation.
     
    That wasn't by me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @J2
    Or let me present the question in a clearer way. Assume fathers/parents IQ is 2SD (130), son has
    3.6 SD (about 155). Does it mean that father/parents additive IQ heritage is 142 and non-additive
    heritage or environment lowered it to 130? This is because if additive is additive, there should not
    be any distribution any more. Genes are inherited. The reasons for distribution are A,B,C,D, not
    so that each or them has a distribution. Thus, father additive IQ 130 is inherited as son IQ od about
    118. Then comes max 50% other effects, which do not raise son's IQ to 155. So, father's real additive
    IQ is higher than 130. Is this what you mean?

    Or as I suspect, none of these is what you mean, because this is pseudoscience and one cannot make
    calculations with these half ready theories. If one does, very soon one can get to contradictions. Maybe
    this is what you mean?

    Anyway, I read your article and finally did not understand anything of regression to the mean.

    The components are A, D, C, and E

    A = additive heredity
    D = non-additive heredity
    C = Shared (common) environment
    E = Unique (or non-shared) evironment

    Assume fathers/parents IQ is 2SD (130), son has
    3.6 SD (about 155).

    The breeder’s equation, when applied to individuals, gives you probabilities. For parents of combined average of a trait +2σ, their offspring are expected to average (0.6 • 2 = +1.2)σ for the trait. But they will be normally distributed about that average (assuming a large number of offspring).

    But this is assuming you know nothing about the parents’s family background. It is how far the parents are off from their families’ averages that matters.

    The contribution of A,D, and E to a trait varies from family to family. Some families have very little non-additive genetics behind a given trait, while others have a lot. The values I used is for the population as a whole. In short, there’s a lot that goes into trait prediction for a given individual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In Rushton,Jensen 30 year of studies Section 9 (in the web) there is a more simple and maybe
    better verified version of regression to the mean. Assuming that an individual has IQ equal group mean+x, then full sibling (or parent-child) has IQ close to group mean=x/2. Using this one would
    calculate, group mean=100, son IQ 155, thus father IQ is close to 100=55/2, which is quite fine.
    Rushton, Jenkins claim the relation is linear and works from IQ 50 to 150, so there is no need to
    make the more compilated calculation with A,B,C,D, which probably works less well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Or let me present the question in a clearer way. Assume fathers/parents IQ is 2SD (130), son has
    3.6 SD (about 155). Does it mean that father/parents additive IQ heritage is 142 and non-additive
    heritage or environment lowered it to 130? This is because if additive is additive, there should not
    be any distribution any more. Genes are inherited. The reasons for distribution are A,B,C,D, not
    so that each or them has a distribution. Thus, father additive IQ 130 is inherited as son IQ od about
    118. Then comes max 50% other effects, which do not raise son’s IQ to 155. So, father’s real additive
    IQ is higher than 130. Is this what you mean?

    Or as I suspect, none of these is what you mean, because this is pseudoscience and one cannot make
    calculations with these half ready theories. If one does, very soon one can get to contradictions. Maybe
    this is what you mean?

    Anyway, I read your article and finally did not understand anything of regression to the mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    The components are A, D, C, and E

    A = additive heredity
    D = non-additive heredity
    C = Shared (common) environment
    E = Unique (or non-shared) evironment


    Assume fathers/parents IQ is 2SD (130), son has
    3.6 SD (about 155).
     
    The breeder's equation, when applied to individuals, gives you probabilities. For parents of combined average of a trait +2σ, their offspring are expected to average (0.6 • 2 = +1.2)σ for the trait. But they will be normally distributed about that average (assuming a large number of offspring).

    But this is assuming you know nothing about the parents's family background. It is how far the parents are off from their families' averages that matters.

    The contribution of A,D, and E to a trait varies from family to family. Some families have very little non-additive genetics behind a given trait, while others have a lot. The values I used is for the population as a whole. In short, there's a lot that goes into trait prediction for a given individual.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Is there not some inheritance of luck also, that is, the parents of IQ 130 are probably better off than average and give a better environment
     
    Shared environment is taken into account. But as I noted, the effect of shared environment (C in the ADCE system) is zero, so it doesn't matter.

    I can’t believe you actually answered to a discussion from 2015!!! That’s very good and probably rare. So I have to comment in some way, I guess.

    Assume the father (or the average or the parents) has IQ 130 and the son has IQ 155 (I know such a
    case), so the son inherited 118 points by additive heritance of IQ and 37 point, that is 67% of his IQ
    (about 3.6 SD) from non-additive heritance and nonshared environment. But you say nonshared environment is typically 20-30% and non-additive heritance is 10-20%, together 30-50%, somewhat
    smaller than 67%. Is it so that the numbers you give are means and they still have some variance, or
    can one count with them as constants and at the end assign some confidence to the result, such as:
    in this case the son should have IQ 100+x, where x<=18+0.5x with probability y (y=?). To simplify,
    x<=36 with probability y, and consequently x can be 155 with some probability y2. Is this what you
    mean?

    But there is another error here: in this calculation that follows your example the father has 130 in
    additive heritance, since 0.6 of 130 is inherited, but actually the father has 130 as a sum of all his
    three IQ components A,B,D (as C=0). So one could calculate as above only in the case of an average
    father, where B and D are zero. Is this also as you mean it?

    If you do not care to answer, do not do it, who cares anyway. I already was impressed finding an answer to my first comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @J2
    Is there not some inheritance of luck also, that is, the parents of IQ 130 are probably better off than average and give a better environment, so the breeder equation should not only take the genetic inheritance, set here to 0.6, but inverited environment set to something, like 0.2 maybe. If so, the prediction from two parents is better than from four grandparents.

    Is there not some inheritance of luck also, that is, the parents of IQ 130 are probably better off than average and give a better environment

    Shared environment is taken into account. But as I noted, the effect of shared environment (C in the ADCE system) is zero, so it doesn’t matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J2
    I can't believe you actually answered to a discussion from 2015!!! That's very good and probably rare. So I have to comment in some way, I guess.

    Assume the father (or the average or the parents) has IQ 130 and the son has IQ 155 (I know such a
    case), so the son inherited 118 points by additive heritance of IQ and 37 point, that is 67% of his IQ
    (about 3.6 SD) from non-additive heritance and nonshared environment. But you say nonshared environment is typically 20-30% and non-additive heritance is 10-20%, together 30-50%, somewhat
    smaller than 67%. Is it so that the numbers you give are means and they still have some variance, or
    can one count with them as constants and at the end assign some confidence to the result, such as:
    in this case the son should have IQ 100+x, where x<=18+0.5x with probability y (y=?). To simplify,
    x<=36 with probability y, and consequently x can be 155 with some probability y2. Is this what you
    mean?

    But there is another error here: in this calculation that follows your example the father has 130 in
    additive heritance, since 0.6 of 130 is inherited, but actually the father has 130 as a sum of all his
    three IQ components A,B,D (as C=0). So one could calculate as above only in the case of an average
    father, where B and D are zero. Is this also as you mean it?

    If you do not care to answer, do not do it, who cares anyway. I already was impressed finding an answer to my first comment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Something’s gone wrong here. 0.6 • (2 – 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (0.6667)σ = 0.4σ; by my calculation the second family should have children with mean IQ 126 (= 120 + 0.4*15). Then, 0.6 • (0.6667 – 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (-0.6667)σ = -0.4σ, 6 points again, but… that makes the figure of mean child IQ 114 correct, which disagrees with the calculation for the middle family.
     
    Yup, you're right. I screwed up my math. I'll fix it.

    Regression to the mean in genetics can be viewed as a direct effect, caused by genes that were suppressed by dominant genes coming to the fore in later generations (in individuals that didn’t inherit the dominant genes that suppressed them), but it can also be viewed as a sampling effect, where dominant genes mask stuff that’s really there and make that stuff hard to sample. It all depends on your perspective.
     
    Among other things (particularly, E). Basically, "luck" is everything other than additive genetics.

    I’ve been wondering about that one-time-only population regression after a selective step. Regression to the mean is a tool for predicting one outcome given a related outcome, and we can straightforwardly predict a child’s IQ (even a distribution for it) from the parents’ IQ. Taking from the example above, we’d predict that the children of 2 130 IQ parents of unknown background would have a normal IQ distribution centered around 118. If the parents were perfect predictors, the children should all have IQ 130
     
    Umm, meiosis? Have we forgotten what sex does?

    One-time-only population regression seems to me to be equivalent to the statement that knowing a child’s four grandparents gives you exactly as much predictive power as knowing their two parents. This is hard to swallow; grandparents should be worse predictors than parents — and in fact in the domain of genetics specifically we can observe that, while every child receives exactly half of each parent’s genome, the contribution from each grandparent varies!
     
    Actually, grandparents (the average of all four, that is) are better predictors than parents, because they tell you about family background. They control for the "luck" that expressed itself in the parents (non-additive genetics, developmental noise, etc.).

    Is there not some inheritance of luck also, that is, the parents of IQ 130 are probably better off than average and give a better environment, so the breeder equation should not only take the genetic inheritance, set here to 0.6, but inverited environment set to something, like 0.2 maybe. If so, the prediction from two parents is better than from four grandparents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Is there not some inheritance of luck also, that is, the parents of IQ 130 are probably better off than average and give a better environment
     
    Shared environment is taken into account. But as I noted, the effect of shared environment (C in the ADCE system) is zero, so it doesn't matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Hand waving away a whole new area of scientific study? You do realize that they have done DIRECT experiments that prove transgenerational epigenetics right?
     
    Maybe it's time for me to write an epigenetics (shitting on such) post?

    Steven Pinker has this to say on epigenetics:

    Molecular biologists have appropriated the term “gene” to refer to stretches of DNA that code for a protein. Unfortunately, this sense differs from the one used in population genetics, behavioral genetics, and evolutionary theory, namely any information carrier that is transmissible across generations and has sustained effects on the phenotype. This includes any aspect of DNA that can affect gene expression, and is closer to what is meant by “innate” than genes in the molecular biologists’ narrow sense. The confusion between the two leads to innumerable red herrings in discussions of our makeup, such as the banality that the expression of genes (in the sense of protein-coding stretches of DNA) is regulated by signals from the environment. How else could it be? The alternative is that every cell synthesizes every protein all the time! The epigenetics bubble inflated by the science media is based on a similar confusion.

    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25337

    If you haven’t picked that book up yet, I recommend it JayMan. It’s a great read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    Ok, I contacted Peter Frost and also found a link to Greg Cochran and you are correct it seems. That would be enough to explain Aschenazi IQ right there then, wouldn't it, assuming differential birth and survival rates for the merchant/scholar class and perhaps some out migration on the part of the poorest, least successful members of these endogenous communities (schtetls) in Eastern Europe?

    Basic application of the breeder’s equation, as well as the fact that it’s what we see across the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    That second generation will in turn marry people with similar IQs. And their children will likewise be closer still to the population mean. Eventually, several generations later, the descendants of that original couple will have a mean IQ that matches the population mean.
     
    Frost is wrong here. That second generation will only regress if they choose mates from lower average IQ population. When assortative mating is perfect, there is no regression. Look at Gregory Clark's work.

    Ok, I contacted Peter Frost and also found a link to Greg Cochran and you are correct it seems. That would be enough to explain Aschenazi IQ right there then, wouldn’t it, assuming differential birth and survival rates for the merchant/scholar class and perhaps some out migration on the part of the poorest, least successful members of these endogenous communities (schtetls) in Eastern Europe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Basic application of the breeder's equation, as well as the fact that it's what we see across the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    Evo and Proud begs to disagree on 3rd generation resetting of mean:

    Regression to the mean is something else. It happens because of genetic change. For instance, a man with above-average IQ will likely marry a woman with above-average IQ. But only part of their above-averageness is genetic. The rest is due to favorable circumstances. Or simply luck. So their children's IQ will likely be a bit closer to the mean of the overall population. That second generation will in turn marry people with similar IQs. And their children will likewise be closer still to the population mean. Eventually, several generations later, the descendants of that original couple will have a mean IQ that matches the population mean.

    I'd like to see more plain english confirmations of Jayman's position on this important point. If Jayman is right it would be HUGE. But I am dubious.

    That second generation will in turn marry people with similar IQs. And their children will likewise be closer still to the population mean. Eventually, several generations later, the descendants of that original couple will have a mean IQ that matches the population mean.

    Frost is wrong here. That second generation will only regress if they choose mates from lower average IQ population. When assortative mating is perfect, there is no regression. Look at Gregory Clark’s work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    Ok, I contacted Peter Frost and also found a link to Greg Cochran and you are correct it seems. That would be enough to explain Aschenazi IQ right there then, wouldn't it, assuming differential birth and survival rates for the merchant/scholar class and perhaps some out migration on the part of the poorest, least successful members of these endogenous communities (schtetls) in Eastern Europe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Evo and Proud begs to disagree on 3rd generation resetting of mean:

    Regression to the mean is something else. It happens because of genetic change. For instance, a man with above-average IQ will likely marry a woman with above-average IQ. But only part of their above-averageness is genetic. The rest is due to favorable circumstances. Or simply luck. So their children’s IQ will likely be a bit closer to the mean of the overall population. That second generation will in turn marry people with similar IQs. And their children will likewise be closer still to the population mean. Eventually, several generations later, the descendants of that original couple will have a mean IQ that matches the population mean.

    I’d like to see more plain english confirmations of Jayman’s position on this important point. If Jayman is right it would be HUGE. But I am dubious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    That second generation will in turn marry people with similar IQs. And their children will likewise be closer still to the population mean. Eventually, several generations later, the descendants of that original couple will have a mean IQ that matches the population mean.
     
    Frost is wrong here. That second generation will only regress if they choose mates from lower average IQ population. When assortative mating is perfect, there is no regression. Look at Gregory Clark's work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] things I’ve heard in the black-white IQ debate. Hey Chanda, there is something called Regression to the Mean (nice post Jayman), which throws your theory out of the […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Regression to the mean happens mainly when some individuals born comparatively more-evolved than its population. They tend to be the first of a novel genetic combinations.

    No, not quite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Regression to the mean happens mainly when some individuals born comparatively more-evolved than its population. They tend to be the first of a novel genetic combinations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    No, not quite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @MEH 0910
    OT: Bringing Up Genius

    Before Laszlo Polgár conceived his children, before he even met his wife, he knew he was going to raise geniuses. He’d started to write a book about it. He saw it moves ahead.

    By their first meeting, a dinner and walk around Budapest in 1965, Laszlo told Klara, his future bride, how his kids’ education would go. He had studied the lives of geniuses and divined a pattern: an adult singularly focused on the child’s success. He’d raise the kids outside school, with intense devotion to a subject, though he wasn’t sure what. "Every healthy child," as he liked to say, "is a potential genius." Genetics and talent would be no obstacle. And he’d do it with great love.
     
    H/T: Arts & Letters Daily

    Interesting how they are a Hungarian Jewish family.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Polgar#Personal_life

    There are at least four caveats here.

    1) There was self-selection in the case of László Polgár, he needed to be highly intelligent to even conceive of the idea, and to try to raise his children to become great chess players (as opposed to, say, great swimmers or whatever)
    2) There was self-selection in the case of the wife, Klára. Many women would have opposed or obstructed his plan.
    3) There was self-selection on the level of the story: we only here about the successful one. There might be a few other families who also planned to raise their kids to be geniuses, but didn’t succeed.
    4) The three Polgár sisters’ chess skills are nowhere near each other. Judit Polgár (the youngest of the three) was the strongest female player of all time, Zsuzsanna (Susan) Polgár (the oldest of the three) is a Grandmaster, whereas Zsófia (Sofia) Polgár (the middle sister) is only a Woman Grandmaster. The point is not to belittle the latter title (I’d be proud of my daughter if she achieved that), but simply that they are not nearly all on the same level, in spite of having received the same education and upbringing.

    Read More
    • Agree: MEH 0910
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Great post. Yes, you could have added the fact it’s a sampling effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • OT: Bringing Up Genius

    Before Laszlo Polgár conceived his children, before he even met his wife, he knew he was going to raise geniuses. He’d started to write a book about it. He saw it moves ahead.

    By their first meeting, a dinner and walk around Budapest in 1965, Laszlo told Klara, his future bride, how his kids’ education would go. He had studied the lives of geniuses and divined a pattern: an adult singularly focused on the child’s success. He’d raise the kids outside school, with intense devotion to a subject, though he wasn’t sure what. “Every healthy child,” as he liked to say, “is a potential genius.” Genetics and talent would be no obstacle. And he’d do it with great love.

    H/T: Arts & Letters Daily

    Interesting how they are a Hungarian Jewish family.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Polgar#Personal_life

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    There are at least four caveats here.

    1) There was self-selection in the case of László Polgár, he needed to be highly intelligent to even conceive of the idea, and to try to raise his children to become great chess players (as opposed to, say, great swimmers or whatever)
    2) There was self-selection in the case of the wife, Klára. Many women would have opposed or obstructed his plan.
    3) There was self-selection on the level of the story: we only here about the successful one. There might be a few other families who also planned to raise their kids to be geniuses, but didn't succeed.
    4) The three Polgár sisters' chess skills are nowhere near each other. Judit Polgár (the youngest of the three) was the strongest female player of all time, Zsuzsanna (Susan) Polgár (the oldest of the three) is a Grandmaster, whereas Zsófia (Sofia) Polgár (the middle sister) is only a Woman Grandmaster. The point is not to belittle the latter title (I'd be proud of my daughter if she achieved that), but simply that they are not nearly all on the same level, in spite of having received the same education and upbringing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Gerdes
    I don't think you really give a fair treatment of regression to the mean. A good theoretical model of regression to the mean is that given continuous unimodal symmetric independent random variables A, X, X' with X, X' identically distributed and m = A + X > E[A + X] then E[A + X'| A+ X = m] if m < E[A+X]) . In other words if we have some underlying ability (true IQ etc.. etc..) A and some noisy measurement of A then the result of that measurement is an overestimate of how extreme A is.

    If we think of genetic outcomes as the result of some heritable component A and non-heritable component X (the effect of enviornment and lucky combinations of genes that aren't practically heritable) then this tells us that if mates are selected to share the same heritable component A then we should expect their offspring to be less smart. This DOES continue indefinitely in the following sense. If your ancestors IQs were m1, m2 ... mk and the average m of m1...mk is greater than E[A + X] then your expected IQ conditional on your ancestors having IQs m1...mk is less than m. In other words part of the reason your ancestors are smarter than average is probably luck so you probably won't be as smart.

    This isn't incompatible with any kind of selection pressure. Just because each generation is likely to be more average than their ancestors doesn't mean they become arbitrarily average. The size of the regression to the mean effect reduces as you condition on more trials.

    In other words if your parents are geniuses you have good reason to think a great deal of that is probably luck and you will be much less smart than they are. If both your parents and grandparents are geniuses then the family intelligence is probably partly luck so you will be somewhat less smart. If the last 10 generations of your family have an average IQ of 121 that is probably only slightly due to luck so you should expect your IQ to be only slightly less than 121.

    Of course using this model in genetic can be a bit tricky since deciding what A is to measure and what does and doesn't go into the heritable component isn't obvious (nor a perfect model).

    This DOES continue indefinitely in the following sense. If your ancestors IQs were m1, m2 … mk and the average m of m1…mk is greater than E[A + X] then your expected IQ conditional on your ancestors having IQs m1…mk is less than m. In other words part of the reason your ancestors are smarter than average is probably luck so you probably won’t be as smart.

    That depends on the family, which was my point. Some families are much smarter than average than others. Assortative mating can brings such families together, stalling regression.

    This isn’t incompatible with any kind of selection pressure. Just because each generation is likely to be more average than their ancestors doesn’t mean they become arbitrarily average. The size of the regression to the mean effect reduces as you condition on more trials.

    You’re confusion regression considered for individuals with regression considered for populations. When considering a population, after the first regression in the second generation, you’ve changed the average. That is what stalls regression to the mean in subsequent generations.

    If the last 10 generations of your family have an average IQ of 121 that is probably only slightly due to luck so you should expect your IQ to be only slightly less than 121.

    Exactly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I don’t think you really give a fair treatment of regression to the mean. A good theoretical model of regression to the mean is that given continuous unimodal symmetric independent random variables A, X, X’ with X, X’ identically distributed and m = A + X > E[A + X] then E[A + X'| A+ X = m] if m < E[A+X]) . In other words if we have some underlying ability (true IQ etc.. etc..) A and some noisy measurement of A then the result of that measurement is an overestimate of how extreme A is.

    If we think of genetic outcomes as the result of some heritable component A and non-heritable component X (the effect of enviornment and lucky combinations of genes that aren't practically heritable) then this tells us that if mates are selected to share the same heritable component A then we should expect their offspring to be less smart. This DOES continue indefinitely in the following sense. If your ancestors IQs were m1, m2 … mk and the average m of m1…mk is greater than E[A + X] then your expected IQ conditional on your ancestors having IQs m1…mk is less than m. In other words part of the reason your ancestors are smarter than average is probably luck so you probably won't be as smart.

    This isn't incompatible with any kind of selection pressure. Just because each generation is likely to be more average than their ancestors doesn't mean they become arbitrarily average. The size of the regression to the mean effect reduces as you condition on more trials.

    In other words if your parents are geniuses you have good reason to think a great deal of that is probably luck and you will be much less smart than they are. If both your parents and grandparents are geniuses then the family intelligence is probably partly luck so you will be somewhat less smart. If the last 10 generations of your family have an average IQ of 121 that is probably only slightly due to luck so you should expect your IQ to be only slightly less than 121.

    Of course using this model in genetic can be a bit tricky since deciding what A is to measure and what does and doesn't go into the heritable component isn't obvious (nor a perfect model).

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    This DOES continue indefinitely in the following sense. If your ancestors IQs were m1, m2 … mk and the average m of m1…mk is greater than E[A + X] then your expected IQ conditional on your ancestors having IQs m1…mk is less than m. In other words part of the reason your ancestors are smarter than average is probably luck so you probably won't be as smart.
     
    That depends on the family, which was my point. Some families are much smarter than average than others. Assortative mating can brings such families together, stalling regression.

    This isn't incompatible with any kind of selection pressure. Just because each generation is likely to be more average than their ancestors doesn't mean they become arbitrarily average. The size of the regression to the mean effect reduces as you condition on more trials.
     
    You're confusion regression considered for individuals with regression considered for populations. When considering a population, after the first regression in the second generation, you've changed the average. That is what stalls regression to the mean in subsequent generations.

    If the last 10 generations of your family have an average IQ of 121 that is probably only slightly due to luck so you should expect your IQ to be only slightly less than 121.
     
    Exactly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean Last
    I don't see how any of the assumptions of this model hold up.

    First, there is the idea that shared environment explains roughly nothing in terms of IQ variance. Many researchers who make this claim refer back to McGue's 1993 review. However, Kaplan 2012 showed that this review was deeply flawed, especially with respect to its calculation of C. Specifically, Kaplan notes that McGue's data most straightforwardly implied a C of -.06, an impossibility. Rather than finding this data to be problematic, McGue simply subtracted .06 from E to arrive at 0.00 for C. Kaplan was also able to show that the problem lied with elderly samples: if you restrict McGue's sample to only include twins below the age of 60 you get a mean C value of .17. This is consistent with more contemporary studies, such as Hartworth et al. 2011 and Kendler et al. 2015, both of which showed significant effects for shared environment. Hartworth et al. is especially note worth because its sample size was dramatically larger than McGue's was. Over all, contemporary intelligence research does not support the idea that C is zero for adults. (And, of course, it never supported this idea for children. This is especially note worth since regression to the mean studies often involve children or adolescents.)

    Secondly, the assumption that E is random is counter intuitive and, so far as I know, not backed up by any significant evidence. There is no obvious reason to suppose that parents are totally unable to transmit non-shared environmental abnormalities that they experience to their children.

    Lastly, D is certainly not random. If your parents posses some genetic feature which has a non additive impact on a trait you will be more likely than the general population to also posses that genetic feature. The fact that it isn't assured doesn't change the fact that the probability will be greater than average.

    However, Kaplan 2012 showed that this review was deeply flawed

    It’s Jonathan Kaplan, that’s your problem. He’s hardly the most objective voice (by the way, if you read this comment, and claim that was ad hominem, you have failed).

    Specifically, Kaplan notes that McGue’s data most straightforwardly implied a C of -.06, an impossibility.

    What could push the shared environment term to the negative in a standard twin study? Hmmm…

    if you restrict McGue’s sample to only include twins below the age of 60 you get a mean C value of .17. This is consistent with more contemporary studies, such as Hartworth et al. 2011 and Kendler et al. 2015

    Why don’t we try this?

    More Behavioral Genetic Facts

    As for the Kendler study, Swedish adoption during that time wasn’t exactly random. Hence, seeing a tiny “effect” isn’t unexpected.

    That said, see this:

    Even if the C term for IQ in adults was nonzero (which it’s not), if the effect of E term is clearly not “real”, then neither can the C term.

    Secondly, the assumption that E is random is counter intuitive and, so far as I know, not backed up by any significant evidence.

    See above.

    Lastly, D is certainly not random. If your parents posses some genetic feature which has a non additive impact on a trait you will be more likely than the general population to also posses that genetic feature.

    Then that would make it additive, right (i.e., A not D)? Think of non-additive heritability like Tetris pieces. The exact effect of each piece depends on the context, but most pieces have a net positive or net negative impact.

    Note to you and other commenters: there are over 200 posts of mine here, and they tend to be arranged and linked to in a way that should make them easy to find (if not easy to find, please let me know). Before claiming in a comment that some claim of mine is “not backed up by any significant evidence,” try reading around first.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I don’t see how any of the assumptions of this model hold up.

    First, there is the idea that shared environment explains roughly nothing in terms of IQ variance. Many researchers who make this claim refer back to McGue’s 1993 review. However, Kaplan 2012 showed that this review was deeply flawed, especially with respect to its calculation of C. Specifically, Kaplan notes that McGue’s data most straightforwardly implied a C of -.06, an impossibility. Rather than finding this data to be problematic, McGue simply subtracted .06 from E to arrive at 0.00 for C. Kaplan was also able to show that the problem lied with elderly samples: if you restrict McGue’s sample to only include twins below the age of 60 you get a mean C value of .17. This is consistent with more contemporary studies, such as Hartworth et al. 2011 and Kendler et al. 2015, both of which showed significant effects for shared environment. Hartworth et al. is especially note worth because its sample size was dramatically larger than McGue’s was. Over all, contemporary intelligence research does not support the idea that C is zero for adults. (And, of course, it never supported this idea for children. This is especially note worth since regression to the mean studies often involve children or adolescents.)

    Secondly, the assumption that E is random is counter intuitive and, so far as I know, not backed up by any significant evidence. There is no obvious reason to suppose that parents are totally unable to transmit non-shared environmental abnormalities that they experience to their children.

    Lastly, D is certainly not random. If your parents posses some genetic feature which has a non additive impact on a trait you will be more likely than the general population to also posses that genetic feature. The fact that it isn’t assured doesn’t change the fact that the probability will be greater than average.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    However, Kaplan 2012 showed that this review was deeply flawed
     
    It's Jonathan Kaplan, that's your problem. He's hardly the most objective voice (by the way, if you read this comment, and claim that was ad hominem, you have failed).

    Specifically, Kaplan notes that McGue’s data most straightforwardly implied a C of -.06, an impossibility.
     
    What could push the shared environment term to the negative in a standard twin study? Hmmm...

    if you restrict McGue’s sample to only include twins below the age of 60 you get a mean C value of .17. This is consistent with more contemporary studies, such as Hartworth et al. 2011 and Kendler et al. 2015
     
    Why don't we try this?

    More Behavioral Genetic Facts

    As for the Kendler study, Swedish adoption during that time wasn't exactly random. Hence, seeing a tiny "effect" isn't unexpected.

    That said, see this:

    https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/662219828887973889

    Even if the C term for IQ in adults was nonzero (which it's not), if the effect of E term is clearly not "real", then neither can the C term.


    Secondly, the assumption that E is random is counter intuitive and, so far as I know, not backed up by any significant evidence.
     
    See above.

    Lastly, D is certainly not random. If your parents posses some genetic feature which has a non additive impact on a trait you will be more likely than the general population to also posses that genetic feature.
     
    Then that would make it additive, right (i.e., A not D)? Think of non-additive heritability like Tetris pieces. The exact effect of each piece depends on the context, but most pieces have a net positive or net negative impact.

    Note to you and other commenters: there are over 200 posts of mine here, and they tend to be arranged and linked to in a way that should make them easy to find (if not easy to find, please let me know). Before claiming in a comment that some claim of mine is "not backed up by any significant evidence," try reading around first.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nicely done, JayMan. My explanation here.

    And yes, please do devote a post to tossing & goring overblown claims for epigenetics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JohnM
    This whole discussion is shot through with misunderstanding of H2. The concept has no applicability to individuals. A group can have a mean weight, while the individuals of it have a weight. A group can have a mean H2 for some trait, but no individual has an H2.

    So if H2 for some desirable trait T is .8 it is no more likely that a individual will inherit T than if the H2 is .3.

    So if H2 for some desirable trait T is .8 it is no more likely that a individual will inherit T than if the H2 is .3.

    For the individuals, the breeder’s equation only tells you probabilities for expected children. It can’t do much more than that thanks to the statistics of small numbers issue, among other things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • thanks ive been wondering about that. even without accounting for proles probably having more children one third is not a trifle contribution ide imagine they also are keeping the blue blood from turning green.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This whole discussion is shot through with misunderstanding of H2. The concept has no applicability to individuals. A group can have a mean weight, while the individuals of it have a weight. A group can have a mean H2 for some trait, but no individual has an H2.

    So if H2 for some desirable trait T is .8 it is no more likely that a individual will inherit T than if the H2 is .3.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    So if H2 for some desirable trait T is .8 it is no more likely that a individual will inherit T than if the H2 is .3.
     
    For the individuals, the breeder's equation only tells you probabilities for expected children. It can't do much more than that thanks to the statistics of small numbers issue, among other things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    True but wouldn't proles contribute at least as many high IQ university students as the elites?
    { Say elites produce 100% high IQ students and all go to university, and proles produce 1 out of 100 of the prole population with a plus 130 IQ and they all go to university, and prole pop is is 100x the elite population of over 130 IQ} I chose >130 IQ because i think that's the 1%, adjust if im off.
    So now we have an equal number of stabilized high IQ elite children and regression prone prole High IQ children at university together. Even without any further mating proles have doubled the number of the nations high IQ quotient. Further assuming the elites can and want to still mate only with their class, and the prole university kids all marry out of the prole elites group to average prole mates. The proles will continue to add as many cognitive elites every year as the elites do.
    BUT what I think will/ does actually happen is elites have a much harder time identifying each other at university and very little interest in perpetuating a class division and so in reality they are mating as often with high IQ proles as high IQ elites.
    Now if you agree with me so far the question I am not informed enough to answer is how much regression are the elites picking up and how much are the proles losing in these mixed mating's what is the net gain or loss in the next generation as measure against a pure bred model.
    I would think if it is even a wash its still quite a gain because the elite pool is growing but it could be there's a increase in breadth and a loss of height to be considered, but I suspect the diminishing odds of of super high IQs in the long run benefit more from larger pools than more concentrated input.

    True but wouldn’t proles contribute at least as many high IQ university students as the elites?
    { Say elites produce 100% high IQ students and all go to university, and proles produce 1 out of 100 of the prole population with a plus 130 IQ and they all go to university, and prole pop is is 100x the elite population of over 130 IQ} I chose >130 IQ because i think that’s the 1%, adjust if im off.

    Let’s figure it out.

    A simple model for estimating this is to cut the normal distribution. By this definition, “prole” = IQ < 115, "elite" = IQ 115+

    (This is of course not proper, but it's close enough for this purpose).

    "Proles" are 84% of the White population while "elites" are 16%.

    Using the formula for a truncated normal distribution, the mean IQ of the “prole” side is 95.7, while the mean of the “elite” side is 123.

    For the next generation (assuming there’s no change in the relative proportions of each), allowing for regression (assuming an additive heritability of IQ of 0.6), the mean IQ of the prole side will be 97.4 and the mean IQ of the elite side will be 114. Each is still 84% and 16% of the total population, respectively.

    The fraction of those IQ 130 coming from the “prole” side will be 1.5% of all proles. The fraction of those coming from the elites will be 14% of all elites.

    So:

    “Elite” share of 130+ = 64%
    “Prole” share of 130+ = 36%

    Two thirds of the high IQ children will originate from the elite class under this model.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    Well, I re-read "All human behaviour is heritable", and C!=0 for:

    #. Asocial behaviour (.09 for adults)
    #. Conservatism (yes in females above 20 years old)
    #. RWA (0-0.16 in adults)
    #. Religiousness (0.2-0.4)
    #. Psychological interests (0.08-0.12)

    I'd say that this still opens a possibility that for some psychological traits C is non zero.

    And I still don't get twin studies :( (why you can estimate C from difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins. I would understand that if you would have monozygotic and dizygotic twins sharing the same environment - i.e. from the same family, but I do not get how the formulas can work if they do not share the environment, even if averaged over large number of different twins and environments :( )

    Well, I re-read “All human behaviour is heritable”, and C!=0 for:

    That was a summary of behavioral genetic literature way back when Bouchard reviewed it. Newer, larger studies confirm that C=0 for all those traits:

    The Son Becomes The Father

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • First you need define specifically what is “mean”. Where begin where finish the mean.
    In my opinion and specially for this iq-context, mean is unlikely to be a single number but a spectrum where majority of people fit. Just look for bell curve that illustrates this post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Langley
    It should be "towards the mean."

    I want to second this. The reason to prefer this wording is that it doesn’t suggest that the regression is always complete or will be at some point in later generations. “regression to the mean” makes these misunderstandings more common I think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    Damn, I waited too long with edit. Sorry Jayman for the additional post.

    With twin studies, for example I wonder what would be the impact of more similarity of MZ than DZ twins. MZ twins will have similar interests and will create more similar environments than DZ twins.

    Jayman, please remove my previous post. If I understand correctly, the problem I had with twins making environment more similar would result in inflation of C estimation, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    Well, I re-read "All human behaviour is heritable", and C!=0 for:

    #. Asocial behaviour (.09 for adults)
    #. Conservatism (yes in females above 20 years old)
    #. RWA (0-0.16 in adults)
    #. Religiousness (0.2-0.4)
    #. Psychological interests (0.08-0.12)

    I'd say that this still opens a possibility that for some psychological traits C is non zero.

    And I still don't get twin studies :( (why you can estimate C from difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins. I would understand that if you would have monozygotic and dizygotic twins sharing the same environment - i.e. from the same family, but I do not get how the formulas can work if they do not share the environment, even if averaged over large number of different twins and environments :( )

    Damn, I waited too long with edit. Sorry Jayman for the additional post.

    With twin studies, for example I wonder what would be the impact of more similarity of MZ than DZ twins. MZ twins will have similar interests and will create more similar environments than DZ twins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Jayman, please remove my previous post. If I understand correctly, the problem I had with twins making environment more similar would result in inflation of C estimation, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    You didn’t express this degree of certainty when responding to Aaron Gross: “Except that for the shared environment, the fact of the matter is we have reason to believe that zero means zero. See: Apples, Oranges, and Lesbians: The Nurture Assumption Just Will Not Die.”

    I’ll read your piece before commenting on interactions; here I only seek clarification as to which position expresses your real degree of confidence. I doubt the degree of confidence you expressed in reply to me can be justified, when an informed and objective commenter like Ron Unz has concluded that there must be some undiscovered error behind the c = 0 conclusion. [Why isn't c = 0 for height - to interject a question of my own.
     

    If you haven't read my relevant pieces on the matter, why are you commenting now? Hint, hint. Last warning.

    C = 0 for height, by the way. Don't confuse the shared environment with secular changes.

    Well, I re-read “All human behaviour is heritable”, and C!=0 for:

    #. Asocial behaviour (.09 for adults)
    #. Conservatism (yes in females above 20 years old)
    #. RWA (0-0.16 in adults)
    #. Religiousness (0.2-0.4)
    #. Psychological interests (0.08-0.12)

    I’d say that this still opens a possibility that for some psychological traits C is non zero.

    And I still don’t get twin studies :( (why you can estimate C from difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins. I would understand that if you would have monozygotic and dizygotic twins sharing the same environment – i.e. from the same family, but I do not get how the formulas can work if they do not share the environment, even if averaged over large number of different twins and environments :( )

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Damn, I waited too long with edit. Sorry Jayman for the additional post.

    With twin studies, for example I wonder what would be the impact of more similarity of MZ than DZ twins. MZ twins will have similar interests and will create more similar environments than DZ twins.
    , @JayMan

    Well, I re-read “All human behaviour is heritable”, and C!=0 for:
     
    That was a summary of behavioral genetic literature way back when Bouchard reviewed it. Newer, larger studies confirm that C=0 for all those traits:

    The Son Becomes The Father

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond

    Look, measure after measure (see my above comment) finds that C = 0. This is an empirical matter. And the case is closed.
     
    You didn't express this degree of certainty when responding to Aaron Gross: "Except that for the shared environment, the fact of the matter is we have reason to believe that zero means zero. See: Apples, Oranges, and Lesbians: The Nurture Assumption Just Will Not Die."

    I'll read your piece before commenting on interactions; here I only seek clarification as to which position expresses your real degree of confidence. I doubt the degree of confidence you expressed in reply to me can be justified, when an informed and objective commenter like Ron Unz has concluded that there must be some undiscovered error behind the c = 0 conclusion. [Why isn't c = 0 for height - to interject a question of my own.]

    On the other hand, if the heritability studies only "give us reason to believe," other evidence might give us greater reason to believe otherwise. Speaking now only hypothetically.

    Pointing out that the issue is "empirical" is ... I don't know .. a bit demagogic. Of course it's empirical. What else might it be? Logical? Metaphysical? But heritability studies aren't the only relevant empirical evidence, good scientists don't ignore evidence that hasn't been scientifically verified.

    You didn’t express this degree of certainty when responding to Aaron Gross: “Except that for the shared environment, the fact of the matter is we have reason to believe that zero means zero. See: Apples, Oranges, and Lesbians: The Nurture Assumption Just Will Not Die.”

    I’ll read your piece before commenting on interactions; here I only seek clarification as to which position expresses your real degree of confidence. I doubt the degree of confidence you expressed in reply to me can be justified, when an informed and objective commenter like Ron Unz has concluded that there must be some undiscovered error behind the c = 0 conclusion. [Why isn’t c = 0 for height – to interject a question of my own.

    If you haven’t read my relevant pieces on the matter, why are you commenting now? Hint, hint. Last warning.

    C = 0 for height, by the way. Don’t confuse the shared environment with secular changes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Well, I re-read "All human behaviour is heritable", and C!=0 for:

    #. Asocial behaviour (.09 for adults)
    #. Conservatism (yes in females above 20 years old)
    #. RWA (0-0.16 in adults)
    #. Religiousness (0.2-0.4)
    #. Psychological interests (0.08-0.12)

    I'd say that this still opens a possibility that for some psychological traits C is non zero.

    And I still don't get twin studies :( (why you can estimate C from difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins. I would understand that if you would have monozygotic and dizygotic twins sharing the same environment - i.e. from the same family, but I do not get how the formulas can work if they do not share the environment, even if averaged over large number of different twins and environments :( )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Aaron Gross
    I read your article you linked to, and I don't see what it has to do with my point. It says that if the additive effects are negligible, in practice we can expect that the interactive effects will be negligible as well (though they don't have to be), because it would be surprising for the mechanism to exactly balance out additively.

    I agree, but that doesn't apply to my point. If there's a (currently) rare treatment, then because it's rare, we would expect the overall shared-environment effect to be negligible, even if the treatment had a strong effect.

    Re your reply that a change in means over time "means nothing for behavioral genetic studies": Well, it's a type of environmental effect that's totally invisible to the kind of studies your talking about. That says only that the studies themselves are limited, nothing wrong with that. But it also says that many people (including you, but you're in good company) interpret the findings of the studies wrongly, by drawing conclusions that go far beyond what the data imply. By the way, there are plenty of people who have pointed this out, I'm not claiming any originality here.

    I read your article you linked to, and I don’t see what it has to do with my point. It says that if the additive effects are negligible, in practice we can expect that the interactive effects will be negligible as well (though they don’t have to be), because it would be surprising for the mechanism to exactly balance out additively.

    I agree, but that doesn’t apply to my point. If there’s a (currently) rare treatment, then because it’s rare, we would expect the overall shared-environment effect to be negligible, even if the treatment had a strong effect.

    Holding out hope a little too much, aren’t we?

    OK let’s say that this is real. The moral? The vast majority of parents don’t need to be concerned with it, because it’s so rare it won’t matter to most.

    Re your reply that a change in means over time “means nothing for behavioral genetic studies”: Well, it’s a type of environmental effect that’s totally invisible to the kind of studies your talking about.

    No, not if they include several generations and/or are extended twin studies.

    Why do people insist on grasping at straws? Go get cigarettes and drinks, this one has flatlined.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    But it’s not just new effects that can cause a big change between cohorts. For instance, suppose hypothetically that playing a certain obscure work by Mozart to infants greatly increases their IQs. If only a minuscule number of parents currently play that music, then the shared environmental effect will be negligible. But if everyone started playing that music, then there might be a huge difference between cohorts.

    This goes back to a statistical or logical fallacy that lots of people make, including famous people like Judith Rich Harris. All variances – those explained by genes, shared environment, etc. – are averages. It’s a fallacy to say, “The shared environment effect is negligible, therefore none of the shared environments today have a strong effect on the trait.” But that’s exactly what some people say or imply.
     

    Except that for the shared environment, the fact of the matter is we have reason to believe that zero means zero. See: Apples, Oranges, and Lesbians: The Nurture Assumption Just Will Not Die

    Finally, your statement seems wrong for a much more general reason. While for a given cohort the mean is fixed, between cohorts the mean is changing. You have no way of knowing a priori what effects a change in the mean will have.
     
    We know it means nothing for behavioral genetic studies.

    I read your article you linked to, and I don’t see what it has to do with my point. It says that if the additive effects are negligible, in practice we can expect that the interactive effects will be negligible as well (though they don’t have to be), because it would be surprising for the mechanism to exactly balance out additively.

    I agree, but that doesn’t apply to my point. If there’s a (currently) rare treatment, then because it’s rare, we would expect the overall shared-environment effect to be negligible, even if the treatment had a strong effect.

    Re your reply that a change in means over time “means nothing for behavioral genetic studies”: Well, it’s a type of environmental effect that’s totally invisible to the kind of studies your talking about. That says only that the studies themselves are limited, nothing wrong with that. But it also says that many people (including you, but you’re in good company) interpret the findings of the studies wrongly, by drawing conclusions that go far beyond what the data imply. By the way, there are plenty of people who have pointed this out, I’m not claiming any originality here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I read your article you linked to, and I don’t see what it has to do with my point. It says that if the additive effects are negligible, in practice we can expect that the interactive effects will be negligible as well (though they don’t have to be), because it would be surprising for the mechanism to exactly balance out additively.

    I agree, but that doesn’t apply to my point. If there’s a (currently) rare treatment, then because it’s rare, we would expect the overall shared-environment effect to be negligible, even if the treatment had a strong effect.
     

    Holding out hope a little too much, aren't we?

    OK let's say that this is real. The moral? The vast majority of parents don't need to be concerned with it, because it's so rare it won't matter to most.


    Re your reply that a change in means over time “means nothing for behavioral genetic studies”: Well, it’s a type of environmental effect that’s totally invisible to the kind of studies your talking about.
     
    No, not if they include several generations and/or are extended twin studies.

    Why do people insist on grasping at straws? Go get cigarettes and drinks, this one has flatlined.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    The outcome that C = 0 approaches being a reductio ad absurdum.

    We won’t know that the common environmental variance has no effect for major life outcomes until you explain away the reasons the claim seems patently ridiculous.
     

    Look, measure after measure (see my above comment) finds that C = 0. This is an empirical matter. And the case is closed.

    And if shared-environment effects IQ across birth cohorts (as by nutrition in advanced countries), what's the plausibility that there will be no effect within cohorts?
     
    You know, this is an interesting point. If the shared environment has no effect within cohorts (and there's a whole lot of variation between families), then that greatly narrows down the type of environmental effects that could lead to observed differences between cohorts.

    if the gene/common environment interaction differs from the gene/unique environment interaction.
     
    Don't pin your hopes on interactions. It just don't fly.

    Look, measure after measure (see my above comment) finds that C = 0. This is an empirical matter. And the case is closed.

    You didn’t express this degree of certainty when responding to Aaron Gross: “Except that for the shared environment, the fact of the matter is we have reason to believe that zero means zero. See: Apples, Oranges, and Lesbians: The Nurture Assumption Just Will Not Die.”

    I’ll read your piece before commenting on interactions; here I only seek clarification as to which position expresses your real degree of confidence. I doubt the degree of confidence you expressed in reply to me can be justified, when an informed and objective commenter like Ron Unz has concluded that there must be some undiscovered error behind the c = 0 conclusion. [Why isn't c = 0 for height - to interject a question of my own.]

    On the other hand, if the heritability studies only “give us reason to believe,” other evidence might give us greater reason to believe otherwise. Speaking now only hypothetically.

    Pointing out that the issue is “empirical” is … I don’t know .. a bit demagogic. Of course it’s empirical. What else might it be? Logical? Metaphysical? But heritability studies aren’t the only relevant empirical evidence, good scientists don’t ignore evidence that hasn’t been scientifically verified.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    You didn’t express this degree of certainty when responding to Aaron Gross: “Except that for the shared environment, the fact of the matter is we have reason to believe that zero means zero. See: Apples, Oranges, and Lesbians: The Nurture Assumption Just Will Not Die.”

    I’ll read your piece before commenting on interactions; here I only seek clarification as to which position expresses your real degree of confidence. I doubt the degree of confidence you expressed in reply to me can be justified, when an informed and objective commenter like Ron Unz has concluded that there must be some undiscovered error behind the c = 0 conclusion. [Why isn't c = 0 for height - to interject a question of my own.
     

    If you haven't read my relevant pieces on the matter, why are you commenting now? Hint, hint. Last warning.

    C = 0 for height, by the way. Don't confuse the shared environment with secular changes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ok, about supposed nazi experiment, is very very likely to be a BS. ;)

    But the rest is right, is not??

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

    I have been arguing against cognitive elitism in the reactophere on the basis that in addition to other benefits proles are a larger producer of high IQ people than elites are partly because of regression [which i now understand a bit better } but mostly because greater numbers
     
    I'm not sure that's true.

    In general, assortative mating stalls regression. That's how castes (or near castes) form.

    True but wouldn’t proles contribute at least as many high IQ university students as the elites?
    { Say elites produce 100% high IQ students and all go to university, and proles produce 1 out of 100 of the prole population with a plus 130 IQ and they all go to university, and prole pop is is 100x the elite population of over 130 IQ} I chose >130 IQ because i think that’s the 1%, adjust if im off.
    So now we have an equal number of stabilized high IQ elite children and regression prone prole High IQ children at university together. Even without any further mating proles have doubled the number of the nations high IQ quotient. Further assuming the elites can and want to still mate only with their class, and the prole university kids all marry out of the prole elites group to average prole mates. The proles will continue to add as many cognitive elites every year as the elites do.
    BUT what I think will/ does actually happen is elites have a much harder time identifying each other at university and very little interest in perpetuating a class division and so in reality they are mating as often with high IQ proles as high IQ elites.
    Now if you agree with me so far the question I am not informed enough to answer is how much regression are the elites picking up and how much are the proles losing in these mixed mating’s what is the net gain or loss in the next generation as measure against a pure bred model.
    I would think if it is even a wash its still quite a gain because the elite pool is growing but it could be there’s a increase in breadth and a loss of height to be considered, but I suspect the diminishing odds of of super high IQs in the long run benefit more from larger pools than more concentrated input.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    True but wouldn’t proles contribute at least as many high IQ university students as the elites?
    { Say elites produce 100% high IQ students and all go to university, and proles produce 1 out of 100 of the prole population with a plus 130 IQ and they all go to university, and prole pop is is 100x the elite population of over 130 IQ} I chose >130 IQ because i think that’s the 1%, adjust if im off.
     
    Let's figure it out.

    A simple model for estimating this is to cut the normal distribution. By this definition, "prole" = IQ < 115, "elite" = IQ 115+

    (This is of course not proper, but it's close enough for this purpose).

    "Proles" are 84% of the White population while "elites" are 16%.

    Using the formula for a truncated normal distribution, the mean IQ of the "prole" side is 95.7, while the mean of the "elite" side is 123.

    For the next generation (assuming there's no change in the relative proportions of each), allowing for regression (assuming an additive heritability of IQ of 0.6), the mean IQ of the prole side will be 97.4 and the mean IQ of the elite side will be 114. Each is still 84% and 16% of the total population, respectively.

    The fraction of those IQ 130 coming from the "prole" side will be 1.5% of all proles. The fraction of those coming from the elites will be 14% of all elites.

    So:

    "Elite" share of 130+ = 64%
    "Prole" share of 130+ = 36%

    Two thirds of the high IQ children will originate from the elite class under this model.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    I'd prefer that you would rather write a detailed explanation on methodology behind twin studies. For example, after reading both Hanscombe, Trzaskowski et al article (about heritability in UK twins) and wikipedia articles on twin studies, I feel dumber than before.

    I mean I understand that you prefer not to answer to question you think are stupid, or your first reaction to someone writing "I feel dumber than before" may be "maybe it's because you are dumb", but still quite a lot of readers would gain a lot from simple (simplified?) explanation of the twin studies models.

    No, no please I want to see this great shitting refutation of epigenetics.

    …Please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Hand waving away a whole new area of scientific study? You do realize that they have done DIRECT experiments that prove transgenerational epigenetics right?
     
    Maybe it's time for me to write an epigenetics (shitting on such) post?

    I’d prefer that you would rather write a detailed explanation on methodology behind twin studies. For example, after reading both Hanscombe, Trzaskowski et al article (about heritability in UK twins) and wikipedia articles on twin studies, I feel dumber than before.

    I mean I understand that you prefer not to answer to question you think are stupid, or your first reaction to someone writing “I feel dumber than before” may be “maybe it’s because you are dumb”, but still quite a lot of readers would gain a lot from simple (simplified?) explanation of the twin studies models.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hitler
    No, no please I want to see this great shitting refutation of epigenetics.

    ...Please.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think we also have look for regression to the mean as individual proportion of favorable biological variables that produce a set of intelligence phenotypes spectrum. Everyone inherited a certain favorable proportion if intelligence(s) is(are) polygenic.

    Would be interesting look for families with only sons and with only girls. Are there significant trends between couples of different sex ratio among their children?

    I don’t know if it’s correct to say but we will go try…

    Regression to the mean metaphorically speaking is like you threw a little quantity of red paint into a bucket with blue paint. The red color will appear occasionally, if you mix the paint.

    The more red ink in the bucket you play, the greater will be your quantitative presence.

    Another metaphor. Duplication of a cell. Do you have a population ” with ” average IQ of 90. So the smartest begin to interbreed, we think they decided to found a divergent worship where they secretly only those who score 3 digits in IQ can participate.

    Initially, there will be many cases of regression to the mean, by logic, because you have many individuals with unfavorable mutational load for greater intelligence who are getting married to each other. Then, over time, going with progressive segregation those with (contextually, i mean intelligence) favorable mutational load and over time, it will occur to fixation / prevalence of these favorable genes.

    First we have the emergence of a genetic insularity within a larger gene pool. Then over time, you have the separation of this deviant group until the moment they are not as related as before.

    Let’s assume that you ‘have’ a iq 130 within a community where the average IQ is 90.

    First, you’re likely to marry within this community, especially if the community is inbreeding,

    Second, you will have trouble finding a spouse with the same average IQ than you,

    Third, it is likely that you will have low genetic load for greater intelligence, especially if you’re a cognitive outlier within your family (one Lisa Simpson), because, high levels of inbreeding tend to depress ” intelligence ” (or type of intelligence that tends to be related to IQ and fluid moral intelligence, if it exists),

    Room, you also need to know if the spouse to choose comes from a family with greater intelligence. Generally, families tend to cluster by social class,

    Fifth, it is possible to conclude that heredity vary with its age. So, the older you are, the better the chances to pass mutant genes, which may or may not depress intelligence (this should also be investigated more hard). Having children too soon also may cause problems or reduce the biologic potential of its progeny.

    I’m very curious about the Nazi experiment in a city in southern Brazil (and Argentina) where, it seems, an hour to the other, began to be born twins in a large percentage. If this was really true or if there were an excessive history of twins in this city.

    It seems that there is an inheritance hierarchy, as did the experiment (quasi-unethical, but valid, not to cause suffering to the ” animal ”) with the mouse, it just got smarter.

    Maybe you can make a recessive gene or even of polygenic nature, in a dominant gene. Anyway, I’m not a geneticist, just curious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Hand waving away a whole new area of scientific study? You do realize that they have done DIRECT experiments that prove transgenerational epigenetics right?
     
    Maybe it's time for me to write an epigenetics (shitting on such) post?

    Please do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Aaron Gross

    You know, this is an interesting point. If the shared environment has no effect within cohorts (and there’s a whole lot of variation between families), then that greatly narrows down the type of environmental effects that could lead to observed differences between cohorts.
     
    That doesn't seem right. First of all, any new environment will by definition not have affected the variation within the previous cohort, although maybe that's what you meant by "greatly narrows."

    But it's not just new effects that can cause a big change between cohorts. For instance, suppose hypothetically that playing a certain obscure work by Mozart to infants greatly increases their IQs. If only a minuscule number of parents currently play that music, then the shared environmental effect will be negligible. But if everyone started playing that music, then there might be a huge difference between cohorts.

    This goes back to a statistical or logical fallacy that lots of people make, including famous people like Judith Rich Harris. All variances - those explained by genes, shared environment, etc. - are averages. It's a fallacy to say, "The shared environment effect is negligible, therefore none of the shared environments today have a strong effect on the trait." But that's exactly what some people say or imply.

    Finally, your statement seems wrong for a much more general reason. While for a given cohort the mean is fixed, between cohorts the mean is changing. You have no way of knowing a priori what effects a change in the mean will have.

    But it’s not just new effects that can cause a big change between cohorts. For instance, suppose hypothetically that playing a certain obscure work by Mozart to infants greatly increases their IQs. If only a minuscule number of parents currently play that music, then the shared environmental effect will be negligible. But if everyone started playing that music, then there might be a huge difference between cohorts.

    This goes back to a statistical or logical fallacy that lots of people make, including famous people like Judith Rich Harris. All variances – those explained by genes, shared environment, etc. – are averages. It’s a fallacy to say, “The shared environment effect is negligible, therefore none of the shared environments today have a strong effect on the trait.” But that’s exactly what some people say or imply.

    Except that for the shared environment, the fact of the matter is we have reason to believe that zero means zero. See: Apples, Oranges, and Lesbians: The Nurture Assumption Just Will Not Die

    Finally, your statement seems wrong for a much more general reason. While for a given cohort the mean is fixed, between cohorts the mean is changing. You have no way of knowing a priori what effects a change in the mean will have.

    We know it means nothing for behavioral genetic studies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    I read your article you linked to, and I don't see what it has to do with my point. It says that if the additive effects are negligible, in practice we can expect that the interactive effects will be negligible as well (though they don't have to be), because it would be surprising for the mechanism to exactly balance out additively.

    I agree, but that doesn't apply to my point. If there's a (currently) rare treatment, then because it's rare, we would expect the overall shared-environment effect to be negligible, even if the treatment had a strong effect.

    Re your reply that a change in means over time "means nothing for behavioral genetic studies": Well, it's a type of environmental effect that's totally invisible to the kind of studies your talking about. That says only that the studies themselves are limited, nothing wrong with that. But it also says that many people (including you, but you're in good company) interpret the findings of the studies wrongly, by drawing conclusions that go far beyond what the data imply. By the way, there are plenty of people who have pointed this out, I'm not claiming any originality here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Hitler
    Hand waving away a whole new area of scientific study? You do realize that they have done DIRECT experiments that prove transgenerational epigenetics right?

    Hand waving away a whole new area of scientific study? You do realize that they have done DIRECT experiments that prove transgenerational epigenetics right?

    Maybe it’s time for me to write an epigenetics (shitting on such) post?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hitler
    Please do.
    , @szopen
    I'd prefer that you would rather write a detailed explanation on methodology behind twin studies. For example, after reading both Hanscombe, Trzaskowski et al article (about heritability in UK twins) and wikipedia articles on twin studies, I feel dumber than before.

    I mean I understand that you prefer not to answer to question you think are stupid, or your first reaction to someone writing "I feel dumber than before" may be "maybe it's because you are dumb", but still quite a lot of readers would gain a lot from simple (simplified?) explanation of the twin studies models.
    , @RaceRealist88
    Steven Pinker has this to say on epigenetics:

    Molecular biologists have appropriated the term "gene" to refer to stretches of DNA that code for a protein. Unfortunately, this sense differs from the one used in population genetics, behavioral genetics, and evolutionary theory, namely any information carrier that is transmissible across generations and has sustained effects on the phenotype. This includes any aspect of DNA that can affect gene expression, and is closer to what is meant by "innate" than genes in the molecular biologists' narrow sense. The confusion between the two leads to innumerable red herrings in discussions of our makeup, such as the banality that the expression of genes (in the sense of protein-coding stretches of DNA) is regulated by signals from the environment. How else could it be? The alternative is that every cell synthesizes every protein all the time! The epigenetics bubble inflated by the science media is based on a similar confusion.
     


    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25337

    If you haven't picked that book up yet, I recommend it JayMan. It's a great read.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    May I ask you to turn your attention to a Hbd matter which is perhaps not an order of magnitude less important than IQ but rarely treated as a normally distributed characteristic?

    I refer to the number of hours sleep different individuals need and the approximate inverse number of constructive hours work they can put in each day.

    My starting point is countless articles and interviews telling us that we need (as adults) 7.5 or 8 hours sleep for various restorative and other housekeeping functions and that, ever since Thomas Edison became famous for only needing four hours sleep Western civilization has been infected with chronic sleep deficits. Well, maybe, but.....

    It seems clear that our hours of sleep allow a great many different functions to occur from recharging some endocrine/hormone supplies or their glandular sources to arranging and consolidating memories to repairing muscle fibre damage and much more.

    Presumably these processes are controlled by a large number of genes plus epigenesis and there is no reason to suppose that their identity and efficacy wouldn't be distributed normally in much the same way as genes for IQ and other mental characteristics. A point which I have not heard raised but which seems prima facie correct is that there would be only a loose connection - if any - between genes for one restorative function and another. Thus there is no reason to suppose that the clever person who was blessed with being able to use his brain effectively for 17 hours a day (and become Chief Justice let us suppose) is necessarily going to be able to keep his cardio-vascular system healthy without another two hours sleep.

    My guess is that the healthy adult's requirement is on average about 7.5 hours and that the SD is about 50 minutes. Have you an opinion on this, even evidence? And do you know of anything bearing on my hypothesis that not all sleep's functions would be performed equally effectively in the average individual? It could certainly help explain the collapse in health of some people whose brains had achieved great things although it is my experience that the imagination and lateral thinking which I really enjoy tends to fail me when I am forced to push myself without sleep to keep on exerting expertise in some reasonably testing situation in which one can perform satisfactorily because of practice and experience.

    My guess is that the healthy adult’s requirement is on average about 7.5 hours and that the SD is about 50 minutes. Have you an opinion on this, even evidence?

    Probably something like that. Yes, there is great variation in the minimum amount of sleep individuals need to function normally.

    No idea about group variation in such.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ren
    I think the point so many miss is that this is for averages for sufficiently large groups. We can all tell anecdotes about friends who are average height but their son is 6'5" or some such.

    Regression to the mean is generally true and true for sufficiently large groups. There are outliers.

    So, Joe is the smartest from his family and Susie the smartest of her family. If they have ten kids, the average of those kids will regress toward the mean, but any given child could be quite far from the mean.

    I think the point so many miss is that this is for averages for sufficiently large groups. We can all tell anecdotes about friends who are average height but their son is 6’5″ or some such.

    Regression to the mean is generally true and true for sufficiently large groups. There are outliers.

    Yup. For individuals, the breeder’s equation only helps you predict probabilities. Statistics of small numbers is very much in play.

    Something I almost added to the post, but I (correctly) figured someone would mention it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Regression to the mean in statistics in general is not a causal effect or process. It is a sampling effect.
     
    Quite correct. I almost put a section on that in my post, but I decided not too. Feel free to explain it in more details for the readers.

    One very easy way to see that it’s not a causal effect or process is to remember that it goes both forwards and backwards in time. For instance, just as our children regress towards the mean compared to us, our parents regress towards the mean compared to us as well. I think that fact can give people a better intuitive understanding of regression toward the mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    The outcome that C = 0 approaches being a reductio ad absurdum.

    We won’t know that the common environmental variance has no effect for major life outcomes until you explain away the reasons the claim seems patently ridiculous.
     

    Look, measure after measure (see my above comment) finds that C = 0. This is an empirical matter. And the case is closed.

    And if shared-environment effects IQ across birth cohorts (as by nutrition in advanced countries), what's the plausibility that there will be no effect within cohorts?
     
    You know, this is an interesting point. If the shared environment has no effect within cohorts (and there's a whole lot of variation between families), then that greatly narrows down the type of environmental effects that could lead to observed differences between cohorts.

    if the gene/common environment interaction differs from the gene/unique environment interaction.
     
    Don't pin your hopes on interactions. It just don't fly.

    You know, this is an interesting point. If the shared environment has no effect within cohorts (and there’s a whole lot of variation between families), then that greatly narrows down the type of environmental effects that could lead to observed differences between cohorts.

    That doesn’t seem right. First of all, any new environment will by definition not have affected the variation within the previous cohort, although maybe that’s what you meant by “greatly narrows.”

    But it’s not just new effects that can cause a big change between cohorts. For instance, suppose hypothetically that playing a certain obscure work by Mozart to infants greatly increases their IQs. If only a minuscule number of parents currently play that music, then the shared environmental effect will be negligible. But if everyone started playing that music, then there might be a huge difference between cohorts.

    This goes back to a statistical or logical fallacy that lots of people make, including famous people like Judith Rich Harris. All variances – those explained by genes, shared environment, etc. – are averages. It’s a fallacy to say, “The shared environment effect is negligible, therefore none of the shared environments today have a strong effect on the trait.” But that’s exactly what some people say or imply.

    Finally, your statement seems wrong for a much more general reason. While for a given cohort the mean is fixed, between cohorts the mean is changing. You have no way of knowing a priori what effects a change in the mean will have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    But it’s not just new effects that can cause a big change between cohorts. For instance, suppose hypothetically that playing a certain obscure work by Mozart to infants greatly increases their IQs. If only a minuscule number of parents currently play that music, then the shared environmental effect will be negligible. But if everyone started playing that music, then there might be a huge difference between cohorts.

    This goes back to a statistical or logical fallacy that lots of people make, including famous people like Judith Rich Harris. All variances – those explained by genes, shared environment, etc. – are averages. It’s a fallacy to say, “The shared environment effect is negligible, therefore none of the shared environments today have a strong effect on the trait.” But that’s exactly what some people say or imply.
     

    Except that for the shared environment, the fact of the matter is we have reason to believe that zero means zero. See: Apples, Oranges, and Lesbians: The Nurture Assumption Just Will Not Die

    Finally, your statement seems wrong for a much more general reason. While for a given cohort the mean is fixed, between cohorts the mean is changing. You have no way of knowing a priori what effects a change in the mean will have.
     
    We know it means nothing for behavioral genetic studies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    Sorry but that is not all you need to know. Science marches on.
    Want to be up to date? Check out Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.
     
    Wrong place to bring up that bullshit, buddy (unless you're being facetious):

    https://youtu.be/w3310KWlDXg

    Hand waving away a whole new area of scientific study? You do realize that they have done DIRECT experiments that prove transgenerational epigenetics right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Hand waving away a whole new area of scientific study? You do realize that they have done DIRECT experiments that prove transgenerational epigenetics right?
     
    Maybe it's time for me to write an epigenetics (shitting on such) post?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    I have been arguing against cognitive elitism in the reactophere on the basis that in addition to other benefits proles are a larger producer of high IQ people than elites are partly because of regression [which i now understand a bit better } but mostly because greater numbers
     
    I'm not sure that's true.

    In general, assortative mating stalls regression. That's how castes (or near castes) form.

    May I ask you to turn your attention to a Hbd matter which is perhaps not an order of magnitude less important than IQ but rarely treated as a normally distributed characteristic?

    I refer to the number of hours sleep different individuals need and the approximate inverse number of constructive hours work they can put in each day.

    My starting point is countless articles and interviews telling us that we need (as adults) 7.5 or 8 hours sleep for various restorative and other housekeeping functions and that, ever since Thomas Edison became famous for only needing four hours sleep Western civilization has been infected with chronic sleep deficits. Well, maybe, but…..

    It seems clear that our hours of sleep allow a great many different functions to occur from recharging some endocrine/hormone supplies or their glandular sources to arranging and consolidating memories to repairing muscle fibre damage and much more.

    Presumably these processes are controlled by a large number of genes plus epigenesis and there is no reason to suppose that their identity and efficacy wouldn’t be distributed normally in much the same way as genes for IQ and other mental characteristics. A point which I have not heard raised but which seems prima facie correct is that there would be only a loose connection – if any – between genes for one restorative function and another. Thus there is no reason to suppose that the clever person who was blessed with being able to use his brain effectively for 17 hours a day (and become Chief Justice let us suppose) is necessarily going to be able to keep his cardio-vascular system healthy without another two hours sleep.

    My guess is that the healthy adult’s requirement is on average about 7.5 hours and that the SD is about 50 minutes. Have you an opinion on this, even evidence? And do you know of anything bearing on my hypothesis that not all sleep’s functions would be performed equally effectively in the average individual? It could certainly help explain the collapse in health of some people whose brains had achieved great things although it is my experience that the imagination and lateral thinking which I really enjoy tends to fail me when I am forced to push myself without sleep to keep on exerting expertise in some reasonably testing situation in which one can perform satisfactorily because of practice and experience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    My guess is that the healthy adult’s requirement is on average about 7.5 hours and that the SD is about 50 minutes. Have you an opinion on this, even evidence?
     
    Probably something like that. Yes, there is great variation in the minimum amount of sleep individuals need to function normally.

    No idea about group variation in such.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think the point so many miss is that this is for averages for sufficiently large groups. We can all tell anecdotes about friends who are average height but their son is 6’5″ or some such.

    Regression to the mean is generally true and true for sufficiently large groups. There are outliers.

    So, Joe is the smartest from his family and Susie the smartest of her family. If they have ten kids, the average of those kids will regress toward the mean, but any given child could be quite far from the mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I think the point so many miss is that this is for averages for sufficiently large groups. We can all tell anecdotes about friends who are average height but their son is 6’5″ or some such.

    Regression to the mean is generally true and true for sufficiently large groups. There are outliers.
     

    Yup. For individuals, the breeder's equation only helps you predict probabilities. Statistics of small numbers is very much in play.

    Something I almost added to the post, but I (correctly) figured someone would mention it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • For populations, the equation works similarly. Hence, if a group of people with a mean IQ of 130 (who come from population with a mean IQ of 100) go off somewhere and have children, the next generation will have a mean IQ of 118. Now here’s the part that gives a lot of people trouble: the children of the children of this group, the third generation, will also have a mean IQ of 118. Why? Because the initial event changed the mean.

    Isn’t it important to stress here that the first two individuals “come from population about which we know nothing more than that the entire population has a mean IQ of 100″? In particular, you have to be ignorant about their parent’s IQ. That would help people’s “trouble” with the statistics of the next generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It should be “towards the mean.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
    I want to second this. The reason to prefer this wording is that it doesn't suggest that the regression is always complete or will be at some point in later generations. "regression to the mean" makes these misunderstandings more common I think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Jay
    I have been arguing against cognitive elitism in the reactophere on the basis that in addition to other benefits proles are a larger producer of high IQ people than elites are partly because of regression [which i now understand a bit better } but mostly because greater numbers and since these prole sired high IQs will meet and mate at university etc they will soon stabilize and improve their trait. can you calculate if this is true and to what degree. say for whites in the US or europe. my view is considered lefty which im not but you as a liberal might enjoy liberalizing the far right a bit

    I have been arguing against cognitive elitism in the reactophere on the basis that in addition to other benefits proles are a larger producer of high IQ people than elites are partly because of regression [which i now understand a bit better } but mostly because greater numbers

    I’m not sure that’s true.

    In general, assortative mating stalls regression. That’s how castes (or near castes) form.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    May I ask you to turn your attention to a Hbd matter which is perhaps not an order of magnitude less important than IQ but rarely treated as a normally distributed characteristic?

    I refer to the number of hours sleep different individuals need and the approximate inverse number of constructive hours work they can put in each day.

    My starting point is countless articles and interviews telling us that we need (as adults) 7.5 or 8 hours sleep for various restorative and other housekeeping functions and that, ever since Thomas Edison became famous for only needing four hours sleep Western civilization has been infected with chronic sleep deficits. Well, maybe, but.....

    It seems clear that our hours of sleep allow a great many different functions to occur from recharging some endocrine/hormone supplies or their glandular sources to arranging and consolidating memories to repairing muscle fibre damage and much more.

    Presumably these processes are controlled by a large number of genes plus epigenesis and there is no reason to suppose that their identity and efficacy wouldn't be distributed normally in much the same way as genes for IQ and other mental characteristics. A point which I have not heard raised but which seems prima facie correct is that there would be only a loose connection - if any - between genes for one restorative function and another. Thus there is no reason to suppose that the clever person who was blessed with being able to use his brain effectively for 17 hours a day (and become Chief Justice let us suppose) is necessarily going to be able to keep his cardio-vascular system healthy without another two hours sleep.

    My guess is that the healthy adult's requirement is on average about 7.5 hours and that the SD is about 50 minutes. Have you an opinion on this, even evidence? And do you know of anything bearing on my hypothesis that not all sleep's functions would be performed equally effectively in the average individual? It could certainly help explain the collapse in health of some people whose brains had achieved great things although it is my experience that the imagination and lateral thinking which I really enjoy tends to fail me when I am forced to push myself without sleep to keep on exerting expertise in some reasonably testing situation in which one can perform satisfactorily because of practice and experience.

    , @Anonymous
    True but wouldn't proles contribute at least as many high IQ university students as the elites?
    { Say elites produce 100% high IQ students and all go to university, and proles produce 1 out of 100 of the prole population with a plus 130 IQ and they all go to university, and prole pop is is 100x the elite population of over 130 IQ} I chose >130 IQ because i think that's the 1%, adjust if im off.
    So now we have an equal number of stabilized high IQ elite children and regression prone prole High IQ children at university together. Even without any further mating proles have doubled the number of the nations high IQ quotient. Further assuming the elites can and want to still mate only with their class, and the prole university kids all marry out of the prole elites group to average prole mates. The proles will continue to add as many cognitive elites every year as the elites do.
    BUT what I think will/ does actually happen is elites have a much harder time identifying each other at university and very little interest in perpetuating a class division and so in reality they are mating as often with high IQ proles as high IQ elites.
    Now if you agree with me so far the question I am not informed enough to answer is how much regression are the elites picking up and how much are the proles losing in these mixed mating's what is the net gain or loss in the next generation as measure against a pure bred model.
    I would think if it is even a wash its still quite a gain because the elite pool is growing but it could be there's a increase in breadth and a loss of height to be considered, but I suspect the diminishing odds of of super high IQs in the long run benefit more from larger pools than more concentrated input.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Hipster
    Lets imagine two people having a kid who are both mixed race.

    The father half white and half black. The mother is half Korean and half Ashkenazi Jew.

    Would it be appropriate to just average these populations?

    So if African American mean IQ is 85 and white is 100, take for the father's mean 92.5. And if Ashkenazi mean IQ is 110 and Korean 105, take for the mother's populational mean 107.5. Then average those two numbers out to 100, and expect 100 to be the mean that their kids would regress to?

    Lets imagine two people having a kid who are both mixed race.

    The father half white and half black. The mother is half Korean and half Ashkenazi Jew.

    Would it be appropriate to just average these populations?

    If you knew nothing about their respective family backgrounds, yes. If you do, that changes a lot.

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

    How do we know that C is 0?
     
    Read all about it:

    The Son Becomes The Father

    Jay
    I have been arguing against cognitive elitism in the reactophere on the basis that in addition to other benefits proles are a larger producer of high IQ people than elites are partly because of regression [which i now understand a bit better } but mostly because greater numbers and since these prole sired high IQs will meet and mate at university etc they will soon stabilize and improve their trait. can you calculate if this is true and to what degree. say for whites in the US or europe. my view is considered lefty which im not but you as a liberal might enjoy liberalizing the far right a bit

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I have been arguing against cognitive elitism in the reactophere on the basis that in addition to other benefits proles are a larger producer of high IQ people than elites are partly because of regression [which i now understand a bit better } but mostly because greater numbers
     
    I'm not sure that's true.

    In general, assortative mating stalls regression. That's how castes (or near castes) form.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dc.sunsets
    Food for thought; it reinforces my view that seeking a mate from "a good family" is among the best ways for sons and daughters to "marry lucky." Why anyone would ignore this, given its logical connection to happiness in life, is inscrutable.

    Does your position shed any light on women who succumb to the current fad of producing children with people whose genetic contribution is probably down-market? This seems like entering Life's Casino while yearning for Bad Luck.

    IQ is not everything. An extreme high share of german women have children with westafrican males. Those kids might on average become uni professors quite seldom, but popular culture, professional sports, etc. have a high demand for half-black kids, who are because of that in fact on average more successful than white german kids

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • For start to understand regression to mean you just need look for people around.

    Family, friends, etc

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Lets imagine two people having a kid who are both mixed race.

    The father half white and half black. The mother is half Korean and half Ashkenazi Jew.

    Would it be appropriate to just average these populations?

    So if African American mean IQ is 85 and white is 100, take for the father’s mean 92.5. And if Ashkenazi mean IQ is 110 and Korean 105, take for the mother’s populational mean 107.5. Then average those two numbers out to 100, and expect 100 to be the mean that their kids would regress to?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Lets imagine two people having a kid who are both mixed race.

    The father half white and half black. The mother is half Korean and half Ashkenazi Jew.

    Would it be appropriate to just average these populations?
     

    If you knew nothing about their respective family backgrounds, yes. If you do, that changes a lot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @candid_observer
    Generally the relevant group for determining these population means will be those groups across which a fair amount of breeding takes place. Obviously, the qualitative term "a fair amount of breeding" can be replaced by a quantitative one.

    But, for example, there has been very little such breeding between any groups in SubSaharan Africa and those in Europe. Between countries in Europe, there's been more such breeding, although it may be fair in many cases to treat each nationality as mostly a distinct group for these purposes -- but, on still another hand, there may be relatively little difference on the relevant trait (such as IQ) in any case, for various obvious reasons (either both nationalities derived their IQs importantly from common ancestors, and/or they were subjected to very similar selection pressures.)

    candid observer #17,

    As long as we are speaking about the breeder’s equation, we certainly have to look for groups with a tendency to inbreed. But even then it’s questionable if “academics” or “white race” or “Detroiters” would be the group of our choice. Of all three groups we can assume that they in a way tend to inbreed, but their “mean” would be completely different.

    Even more so, if we are speaking about mathematical “regression to the mean” (I didn’t understand if Jayman looks at the “breeder’s equation” (or rather its outcome) as a variant of the mathematical regression or something completely different which only accidentally is subsumized under the same term).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stogumber
    There's something I've never understood. We can build categories or collectives of all kinds. For example, we can look at the child of parents as part of the population of American academics or of the white race or of the inhabitants of Detroit. Now I understand that "regression to the mean" means here, above all, regression to the mean of the parents A and B, and "regression to the mean of this or that collective" is only a comprehensive way to speak about all regressions of all individuals comprehended to the mean of their parents.
    I also see that "regression to the mean of the population X" is a necessary concept as long as our contrahent Forces it upon us to speak about the future of this or that population. But it seems to be rather nonsensical if we aren't forced to speak about this or that population.

    At an individual level all probabilities are zero or one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nice article. We could talk about regression to the mean with professional athletes, and everybody would immediately get it, there would be no argument. But toss in intelligence as the example of luck evening out in the next generation and some folks get confused and positively cranky. Anyway keep up the good work Jayman.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan

    The outcome that C = 0 approaches being a reductio ad absurdum.

    We won’t know that the common environmental variance has no effect for major life outcomes until you explain away the reasons the claim seems patently ridiculous.
     

    Look, measure after measure (see my above comment) finds that C = 0. This is an empirical matter. And the case is closed.

    And if shared-environment effects IQ across birth cohorts (as by nutrition in advanced countries), what's the plausibility that there will be no effect within cohorts?
     
    You know, this is an interesting point. If the shared environment has no effect within cohorts (and there's a whole lot of variation between families), then that greatly narrows down the type of environmental effects that could lead to observed differences between cohorts.

    if the gene/common environment interaction differs from the gene/unique environment interaction.
     
    Don't pin your hopes on interactions. It just don't fly.

    What do you think about the claim that adoption studies are not really representative, because foster parents are selected, i.e. they do not show the whole variation possible within a population? I know you were very critical of this guy who claimed shared environment influence was higher when he researched poor families, but I can’t remember you have ever addressed this point (that parents in adoption studies are selected group with limited variability of environments).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There is a regression to the intellectual mean by three out of four offspring – but one in four offspring gets the best genes of both parents. This does not work for Newton and Darwin grate intellects – but it does for most others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    The outcome that C = 0 approaches being a reductio ad absurdum.

    We won't know that the common environmental variance has no effect for major life outcomes until you explain away the reasons the claim seems patently ridiculous. [For instance, that members of a species that is unique in the amount of long-term care it requires somehow is indifferent to the quality of that care. And if shared-environment effects IQ across birth cohorts (as by nutrition in advanced countries), what's the plausibility that there will be no effect within cohorts?]

    There seems to be a place where heritability calculations can go wrong: if the gene/common environment interaction differs from the gene/unique environment interaction. A recent exchange in Criminology suggests to me that the dispute comes down to a burden of proof argument regarding the equality or inequality of these components.

    The outcome that C = 0 approaches being a reductio ad absurdum.

    We won’t know that the common environmental variance has no effect for major life outcomes until you explain away the reasons the claim seems patently ridiculous.

    Look, measure after measure (see my above comment) finds that C = 0. This is an empirical matter. And the case is closed.

    And if shared-environment effects IQ across birth cohorts (as by nutrition in advanced countries), what’s the plausibility that there will be no effect within cohorts?

    You know, this is an interesting point. If the shared environment has no effect within cohorts (and there’s a whole lot of variation between families), then that greatly narrows down the type of environmental effects that could lead to observed differences between cohorts.

    if the gene/common environment interaction differs from the gene/unique environment interaction.

    Don’t pin your hopes on interactions. It just don’t fly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    What do you think about the claim that adoption studies are not really representative, because foster parents are selected, i.e. they do not show the whole variation possible within a population? I know you were very critical of this guy who claimed shared environment influence was higher when he researched poor families, but I can't remember you have ever addressed this point (that parents in adoption studies are selected group with limited variability of environments).
    , @Aaron Gross

    You know, this is an interesting point. If the shared environment has no effect within cohorts (and there’s a whole lot of variation between families), then that greatly narrows down the type of environmental effects that could lead to observed differences between cohorts.
     
    That doesn't seem right. First of all, any new environment will by definition not have affected the variation within the previous cohort, although maybe that's what you meant by "greatly narrows."

    But it's not just new effects that can cause a big change between cohorts. For instance, suppose hypothetically that playing a certain obscure work by Mozart to infants greatly increases their IQs. If only a minuscule number of parents currently play that music, then the shared environmental effect will be negligible. But if everyone started playing that music, then there might be a huge difference between cohorts.

    This goes back to a statistical or logical fallacy that lots of people make, including famous people like Judith Rich Harris. All variances - those explained by genes, shared environment, etc. - are averages. It's a fallacy to say, "The shared environment effect is negligible, therefore none of the shared environments today have a strong effect on the trait." But that's exactly what some people say or imply.

    Finally, your statement seems wrong for a much more general reason. While for a given cohort the mean is fixed, between cohorts the mean is changing. You have no way of knowing a priori what effects a change in the mean will have.

    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    Look, measure after measure (see my above comment) finds that C = 0. This is an empirical matter. And the case is closed.
     
    You didn't express this degree of certainty when responding to Aaron Gross: "Except that for the shared environment, the fact of the matter is we have reason to believe that zero means zero. See: Apples, Oranges, and Lesbians: The Nurture Assumption Just Will Not Die."

    I'll read your piece before commenting on interactions; here I only seek clarification as to which position expresses your real degree of confidence. I doubt the degree of confidence you expressed in reply to me can be justified, when an informed and objective commenter like Ron Unz has concluded that there must be some undiscovered error behind the c = 0 conclusion. [Why isn't c = 0 for height - to interject a question of my own.]

    On the other hand, if the heritability studies only "give us reason to believe," other evidence might give us greater reason to believe otherwise. Speaking now only hypothetically.

    Pointing out that the issue is "empirical" is ... I don't know .. a bit demagogic. Of course it's empirical. What else might it be? Logical? Metaphysical? But heritability studies aren't the only relevant empirical evidence, good scientists don't ignore evidence that hasn't been scientifically verified.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stogumber
    There's something I've never understood. We can build categories or collectives of all kinds. For example, we can look at the child of parents as part of the population of American academics or of the white race or of the inhabitants of Detroit. Now I understand that "regression to the mean" means here, above all, regression to the mean of the parents A and B, and "regression to the mean of this or that collective" is only a comprehensive way to speak about all regressions of all individuals comprehended to the mean of their parents.
    I also see that "regression to the mean of the population X" is a necessary concept as long as our contrahent Forces it upon us to speak about the future of this or that population. But it seems to be rather nonsensical if we aren't forced to speak about this or that population.

    Generally the relevant group for determining these population means will be those groups across which a fair amount of breeding takes place. Obviously, the qualitative term “a fair amount of breeding” can be replaced by a quantitative one.

    But, for example, there has been very little such breeding between any groups in SubSaharan Africa and those in Europe. Between countries in Europe, there’s been more such breeding, although it may be fair in many cases to treat each nationality as mostly a distinct group for these purposes — but, on still another hand, there may be relatively little difference on the relevant trait (such as IQ) in any case, for various obvious reasons (either both nationalities derived their IQs importantly from common ancestors, and/or they were subjected to very similar selection pressures.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stogumber
    candid observer #17,

    As long as we are speaking about the breeder's equation, we certainly have to look for groups with a tendency to inbreed. But even then it's questionable if "academics" or "white race" or "Detroiters" would be the group of our choice. Of all three groups we can assume that they in a way tend to inbreed, but their "mean" would be completely different.

    Even more so, if we are speaking about mathematical "regression to the mean" (I didn't understand if Jayman looks at the "breeder's equation" (or rather its outcome) as a variant of the mathematical regression or something completely different which only accidentally is subsumized under the same term).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The outcome that C = 0 approaches being a reductio ad absurdum.

    We won’t know that the common environmental variance has no effect for major life outcomes until you explain away the reasons the claim seems patently ridiculous. [For instance, that members of a species that is unique in the amount of long-term care it requires somehow is indifferent to the quality of that care. And if shared-environment effects IQ across birth cohorts (as by nutrition in advanced countries), what's the plausibility that there will be no effect within cohorts?]

    There seems to be a place where heritability calculations can go wrong: if the gene/common environment interaction differs from the gene/unique environment interaction. A recent exchange in Criminology suggests to me that the dispute comes down to a burden of proof argument regarding the equality or inequality of these components.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    The outcome that C = 0 approaches being a reductio ad absurdum.

    We won’t know that the common environmental variance has no effect for major life outcomes until you explain away the reasons the claim seems patently ridiculous.
     

    Look, measure after measure (see my above comment) finds that C = 0. This is an empirical matter. And the case is closed.

    And if shared-environment effects IQ across birth cohorts (as by nutrition in advanced countries), what's the plausibility that there will be no effect within cohorts?
     
    You know, this is an interesting point. If the shared environment has no effect within cohorts (and there's a whole lot of variation between families), then that greatly narrows down the type of environmental effects that could lead to observed differences between cohorts.

    if the gene/common environment interaction differs from the gene/unique environment interaction.
     
    Don't pin your hopes on interactions. It just don't fly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There’s something I’ve never understood. We can build categories or collectives of all kinds. For example, we can look at the child of parents as part of the population of American academics or of the white race or of the inhabitants of Detroit. Now I understand that “regression to the mean” means here, above all, regression to the mean of the parents A and B, and “regression to the mean of this or that collective” is only a comprehensive way to speak about all regressions of all individuals comprehended to the mean of their parents.
    I also see that “regression to the mean of the population X” is a necessary concept as long as our contrahent Forces it upon us to speak about the future of this or that population. But it seems to be rather nonsensical if we aren’t forced to speak about this or that population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Generally the relevant group for determining these population means will be those groups across which a fair amount of breeding takes place. Obviously, the qualitative term "a fair amount of breeding" can be replaced by a quantitative one.

    But, for example, there has been very little such breeding between any groups in SubSaharan Africa and those in Europe. Between countries in Europe, there's been more such breeding, although it may be fair in many cases to treat each nationality as mostly a distinct group for these purposes -- but, on still another hand, there may be relatively little difference on the relevant trait (such as IQ) in any case, for various obvious reasons (either both nationalities derived their IQs importantly from common ancestors, and/or they were subjected to very similar selection pressures.)

    , @Jim
    At an individual level all probabilities are zero or one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dc.sunsets
    Food for thought; it reinforces my view that seeking a mate from "a good family" is among the best ways for sons and daughters to "marry lucky." Why anyone would ignore this, given its logical connection to happiness in life, is inscrutable.

    Does your position shed any light on women who succumb to the current fad of producing children with people whose genetic contribution is probably down-market? This seems like entering Life's Casino while yearning for Bad Luck.

    Does your position shed any light on women who succumb to the current fad of producing children with people whose genetic contribution is probably down-market? This seems like entering Life’s Casino while yearning for Bad Luck.

    Is that actually what’s happening?

    See Idiocracy Can Wait?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Food for thought; it reinforces my view that seeking a mate from “a good family” is among the best ways for sons and daughters to “marry lucky.” Why anyone would ignore this, given its logical connection to happiness in life, is inscrutable.

    Does your position shed any light on women who succumb to the current fad of producing children with people whose genetic contribution is probably down-market? This seems like entering Life’s Casino while yearning for Bad Luck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Does your position shed any light on women who succumb to the current fad of producing children with people whose genetic contribution is probably down-market? This seems like entering Life’s Casino while yearning for Bad Luck.
     
    Is that actually what's happening?

    See Idiocracy Can Wait?

    , @Erik Sieven
    IQ is not everything. An extreme high share of german women have children with westafrican males. Those kids might on average become uni professors quite seldom, but popular culture, professional sports, etc. have a high demand for half-black kids, who are because of that in fact on average more successful than white german kids
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @aeolius
    Sorry but that is not all you need to know. Science marches on.
    Want to be up to date? Check out Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. (Easily done on Wiki. More intellectually honest checking out references).
    Basically Lemark was at least a little correct. Responses to the environment can be inherited outside the schoolbook notions of neoDarwinism.
    And of course any organism who figures out how to do this has a great Darwinian advantage.

    Sorry but that is not all you need to know. Science marches on.
    Want to be up to date? Check out Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.

    Wrong place to bring up that bullshit, buddy (unless you’re being facetious):

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hitler
    Hand waving away a whole new area of scientific study? You do realize that they have done DIRECT experiments that prove transgenerational epigenetics right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jamie_NYC
    Sorry, I still don't understand it. The children get the genes only from their parents - why is the wider population relevant?

    Let us say that the trait is completely genetically determined, that it is influenced by, say, 10 genes, each of which has two alleles (A1 and B1, ... A10 and B10), and each of which counts equally, As giving you higher individual, and Bs shorter. This will give you a Binomial distribution which is approximated by Normal one you plotted.

    The more As one has in the genome, the stronger trait one exhibits - if this was height, person with 10 A alleles will be super tall, with 10 Bs super short, etc. In this case, is there a reversion to the mean? I don't see it... the total genome of the man+woman pair will have, say 16 As and 4 Bs (their average height is 8As out of 10), so the children will be very tall, on average, although an unlucky runt may inherit 4 Bs (and 6 As) and be only slightly taller than average. There is no mean reversion, no?

    Let us say that the trait is completely genetically determined, that it is influenced by, say, 10 genes, each of which has two alleles (A1 and B1, … A10 and B10), and each of which counts equally, As giving you higher individual, and Bs shorter. This will give you a Binomial distribution which is approximated by Normal one you plotted.

    The more As one has in the genome, the stronger trait one exhibits – if this was height, person with 10 A alleles will be super tall, with 10 Bs super short, etc. In this case, is there a reversion to the mean? I don’t see it… the total genome of the man+woman pair will have, say 16 As and 4 Bs (their average height is 8As out of 10), so the children will be very tall, on average, although an unlucky runt may inherit 4 Bs (and 6 As) and be only slightly taller than average. There is no mean reversion, no?

    In that case, the phenotype would be completely determined by additive heredity (A = 100%, D, C, and E would all = 0). There would be no “luck” to go away. In that case, there would be no regression.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sorry but that is not all you need to know. Science marches on.
    Want to be up to date? Check out Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. (Easily done on Wiki. More intellectually honest checking out references).
    Basically Lemark was at least a little correct. Responses to the environment can be inherited outside the schoolbook notions of neoDarwinism.
    And of course any organism who figures out how to do this has a great Darwinian advantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Sorry but that is not all you need to know. Science marches on.
    Want to be up to date? Check out Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.
     
    Wrong place to bring up that bullshit, buddy (unless you're being facetious):

    https://youtu.be/w3310KWlDXg

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

    I’m aware that parents aren’t perfect predictors. Obviously, meiosis is a large part of why. I don’t see the relevance to “if the parents were perfect predictors”, though.

    Actually, grandparents (the average of all four, that is) are better predictors than parents

    Can you point me to a good citation for this, or a good multigenerational data set?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sorry, I still don’t understand it. The children get the genes only from their parents – why is the wider population relevant?

    Let us say that the trait is completely genetically determined, that it is influenced by, say, 10 genes, each of which has two alleles (A1 and B1, … A10 and B10), and each of which counts equally, As giving you higher individual, and Bs shorter. This will give you a Binomial distribution which is approximated by Normal one you plotted.

    The more As one has in the genome, the stronger trait one exhibits – if this was height, person with 10 A alleles will be super tall, with 10 Bs super short, etc. In this case, is there a reversion to the mean? I don’t see it… the total genome of the man+woman pair will have, say 16 As and 4 Bs (their average height is 8As out of 10), so the children will be very tall, on average, although an unlucky runt may inherit 4 Bs (and 6 As) and be only slightly taller than average. There is no mean reversion, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Let us say that the trait is completely genetically determined, that it is influenced by, say, 10 genes, each of which has two alleles (A1 and B1, … A10 and B10), and each of which counts equally, As giving you higher individual, and Bs shorter. This will give you a Binomial distribution which is approximated by Normal one you plotted.

    The more As one has in the genome, the stronger trait one exhibits – if this was height, person with 10 A alleles will be super tall, with 10 Bs super short, etc. In this case, is there a reversion to the mean? I don’t see it… the total genome of the man+woman pair will have, say 16 As and 4 Bs (their average height is 8As out of 10), so the children will be very tall, on average, although an unlucky runt may inherit 4 Bs (and 6 As) and be only slightly taller than average. There is no mean reversion, no?
     

    In that case, the phenotype would be completely determined by additive heredity (A = 100%, D, C, and E would all = 0). There would be no "luck" to go away. In that case, there would be no regression.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous

    If two parents (let’s say White Americans) are +2σ for a trait, let’s say IQ, or 130, and we give the additive heritability of IQ to be about 0.6, we can expect their children to collectively have an average IQ of

    0.6 • +2 = +1.2σ

    …or 118. Now, this was assuming that their families had a mean IQ of 100. If their families had a different mean IQ, lets say 120 (+1.333σ), the breeder’s equation would give

    0.6 • (2 – 1.333)σ = +0.6667σ

    …or a mean IQ of 125 for the children. (That’s because it’s +0.6667σ plus the family mean IQ of +1.333σ.)

    What’s better, here’s another illustration. Let’s say the parents’ families have a mean IQ of 120, but the parents themselves have IQs of 110. Given the breeder’s equation,

    0.6 • (+0.6667 – 1.333)σ = –0.6667σ

    …for a mean IQ of 114 for their children (family mean IQ of +1.333σ minus 0.6667σ).
     
    Something's gone wrong here. 0.6 • (2 - 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (0.6667)σ = 0.4σ; by my calculation the second family should have children with mean IQ 126 (= 120 + 0.4*15). Then, 0.6 • (0.6667 - 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (-0.6667)σ = -0.4σ, 6 points again, but... that makes the figure of mean child IQ 114 correct, which disagrees with the calculation for the middle family.

    Regression to the mean in genetics can be viewed as a direct effect, caused by genes that were suppressed by dominant genes coming to the fore in later generations (in individuals that didn't inherit the dominant genes that suppressed them), but it can also be viewed as a sampling effect, where dominant genes mask stuff that's really there and make that stuff hard to sample. It all depends on your perspective.

    I've been wondering about that one-time-only population regression after a selective step. Regression to the mean is a tool for predicting one outcome given a related outcome, and we can straightforwardly predict a child's IQ (even a distribution for it) from the parents' IQ. Taking from the example above, we'd predict that the children of 2 130 IQ parents of unknown background would have a normal IQ distribution centered around 118. If the parents were perfect predictors, the children should all have IQ 130 (exactly equal, not normally distributed around), but they're not and they won't. I believe (?) it's standard to think of regression to the mean as reflecting the fact that the parents aren't perfect predictors.

    One-time-only population regression seems to me to be equivalent to the statement that knowing a child's four grandparents gives you exactly as much predictive power as knowing their two parents. This is hard to swallow; grandparents should be worse predictors than parents -- and in fact in the domain of genetics specifically we can observe that, while every child receives exactly half of each parent's genome, the contribution from each grandparent varies!

    Is there a multi-generational data set I could look at for something easy like height that illustrates total-grandparent-knowledge being just as good as total-parent-knowledge?

    Something’s gone wrong here. 0.6 • (2 – 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (0.6667)σ = 0.4σ; by my calculation the second family should have children with mean IQ 126 (= 120 + 0.4*15). Then, 0.6 • (0.6667 – 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (-0.6667)σ = -0.4σ, 6 points again, but… that makes the figure of mean child IQ 114 correct, which disagrees with the calculation for the middle family.

    Yup, you’re right. I screwed up my math. I’ll fix it.

    Regression to the mean in genetics can be viewed as a direct effect, caused by genes that were suppressed by dominant genes coming to the fore in later generations (in individuals that didn’t inherit the dominant genes that suppressed them), but it can also be viewed as a sampling effect, where dominant genes mask stuff that’s really there and make that stuff hard to sample. It all depends on your perspective.

    Among other things (particularly, E). Basically, “luck” is everything other than additive genetics.

    I’ve been wondering about that one-time-only population regression after a selective step. Regression to the mean is a tool for predicting one outcome given a related outcome, and we can straightforwardly predict a child’s IQ (even a distribution for it) from the parents’ IQ. Taking from the example above, we’d predict that the children of 2 130 IQ parents of unknown background would have a normal IQ distribution centered around 118. If the parents were perfect predictors, the children should all have IQ 130

    Umm, meiosis? Have we forgotten what sex does?

    One-time-only population regression seems to me to be equivalent to the statement that knowing a child’s four grandparents gives you exactly as much predictive power as knowing their two parents. This is hard to swallow; grandparents should be worse predictors than parents — and in fact in the domain of genetics specifically we can observe that, while every child receives exactly half of each parent’s genome, the contribution from each grandparent varies!

    Actually, grandparents (the average of all four, that is) are better predictors than parents, because they tell you about family background. They control for the “luck” that expressed itself in the parents (non-additive genetics, developmental noise, etc.).

    Read More
    • Replies: @J2
    Is there not some inheritance of luck also, that is, the parents of IQ 130 are probably better off than average and give a better environment, so the breeder equation should not only take the genetic inheritance, set here to 0.6, but inverited environment set to something, like 0.2 maybe. If so, the prediction from two parents is better than from four grandparents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If two parents (let’s say White Americans) are +2σ for a trait, let’s say IQ, or 130, and we give the additive heritability of IQ to be about 0.6, we can expect their children to collectively have an average IQ of

    0.6 • +2 = +1.2σ

    …or 118. Now, this was assuming that their families had a mean IQ of 100. If their families had a different mean IQ, lets say 120 (+1.333σ), the breeder’s equation would give

    0.6 • (2 – 1.333)σ = +0.6667σ

    …or a mean IQ of 125 for the children. (That’s because it’s +0.6667σ plus the family mean IQ of +1.333σ.)

    What’s better, here’s another illustration. Let’s say the parents’ families have a mean IQ of 120, but the parents themselves have IQs of 110. Given the breeder’s equation,

    0.6 • (+0.6667 – 1.333)σ = –0.6667σ

    …for a mean IQ of 114 for their children (family mean IQ of +1.333σ minus 0.6667σ).

    Something’s gone wrong here. 0.6 • (2 – 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (0.6667)σ = 0.4σ; by my calculation the second family should have children with mean IQ 126 (= 120 + 0.4*15). Then, 0.6 • (0.6667 – 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (-0.6667)σ = -0.4σ, 6 points again, but… that makes the figure of mean child IQ 114 correct, which disagrees with the calculation for the middle family.

    Regression to the mean in genetics can be viewed as a direct effect, caused by genes that were suppressed by dominant genes coming to the fore in later generations (in individuals that didn’t inherit the dominant genes that suppressed them), but it can also be viewed as a sampling effect, where dominant genes mask stuff that’s really there and make that stuff hard to sample. It all depends on your perspective.

    I’ve been wondering about that one-time-only population regression after a selective step. Regression to the mean is a tool for predicting one outcome given a related outcome, and we can straightforwardly predict a child’s IQ (even a distribution for it) from the parents’ IQ. Taking from the example above, we’d predict that the children of 2 130 IQ parents of unknown background would have a normal IQ distribution centered around 118. If the parents were perfect predictors, the children should all have IQ 130 (exactly equal, not normally distributed around), but they’re not and they won’t. I believe (?) it’s standard to think of regression to the mean as reflecting the fact that the parents aren’t perfect predictors.

    One-time-only population regression seems to me to be equivalent to the statement that knowing a child’s four grandparents gives you exactly as much predictive power as knowing their two parents. This is hard to swallow; grandparents should be worse predictors than parents — and in fact in the domain of genetics specifically we can observe that, while every child receives exactly half of each parent’s genome, the contribution from each grandparent varies!

    Is there a multi-generational data set I could look at for something easy like height that illustrates total-grandparent-knowledge being just as good as total-parent-knowledge?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Something’s gone wrong here. 0.6 • (2 – 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (0.6667)σ = 0.4σ; by my calculation the second family should have children with mean IQ 126 (= 120 + 0.4*15). Then, 0.6 • (0.6667 – 1.3333)σ = 0.6 • (-0.6667)σ = -0.4σ, 6 points again, but… that makes the figure of mean child IQ 114 correct, which disagrees with the calculation for the middle family.
     
    Yup, you're right. I screwed up my math. I'll fix it.

    Regression to the mean in genetics can be viewed as a direct effect, caused by genes that were suppressed by dominant genes coming to the fore in later generations (in individuals that didn’t inherit the dominant genes that suppressed them), but it can also be viewed as a sampling effect, where dominant genes mask stuff that’s really there and make that stuff hard to sample. It all depends on your perspective.
     
    Among other things (particularly, E). Basically, "luck" is everything other than additive genetics.

    I’ve been wondering about that one-time-only population regression after a selective step. Regression to the mean is a tool for predicting one outcome given a related outcome, and we can straightforwardly predict a child’s IQ (even a distribution for it) from the parents’ IQ. Taking from the example above, we’d predict that the children of 2 130 IQ parents of unknown background would have a normal IQ distribution centered around 118. If the parents were perfect predictors, the children should all have IQ 130
     
    Umm, meiosis? Have we forgotten what sex does?

    One-time-only population regression seems to me to be equivalent to the statement that knowing a child’s four grandparents gives you exactly as much predictive power as knowing their two parents. This is hard to swallow; grandparents should be worse predictors than parents — and in fact in the domain of genetics specifically we can observe that, while every child receives exactly half of each parent’s genome, the contribution from each grandparent varies!
     
    Actually, grandparents (the average of all four, that is) are better predictors than parents, because they tell you about family background. They control for the "luck" that expressed itself in the parents (non-additive genetics, developmental noise, etc.).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ”as improper as that metaphor is”

    just because you want. ;)

    metaphor is much more understandable or didatic because you are putting abstract specific ”things” in the familiar ”things” via logical association.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jim
    Regression to the mean in statistics in general is not a causal effect or process. It is a sampling effect.

    Regression to the mean in statistics in general is not a causal effect or process. It is a sampling effect.

    Quite correct. I almost put a section on that in my post, but I decided not too. Feel free to explain it in more details for the readers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    One very easy way to see that it's not a causal effect or process is to remember that it goes both forwards and backwards in time. For instance, just as our children regress towards the mean compared to us, our parents regress towards the mean compared to us as well. I think that fact can give people a better intuitive understanding of regression toward the mean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Me in 2015
    How do we know that C is 0?

    How do we know that C is 0?

    Read all about it:

    The Son Becomes The Father

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jay
    I have been arguing against cognitive elitism in the reactophere on the basis that in addition to other benefits proles are a larger producer of high IQ people than elites are partly because of regression [which i now understand a bit better } but mostly because greater numbers and since these prole sired high IQs will meet and mate at university etc they will soon stabilize and improve their trait. can you calculate if this is true and to what degree. say for whites in the US or europe. my view is considered lefty which im not but you as a liberal might enjoy liberalizing the far right a bit
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Regression to the mean in statistics in general is not a causal effect or process. It is a sampling effect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Regression to the mean in statistics in general is not a causal effect or process. It is a sampling effect.
     
    Quite correct. I almost put a section on that in my post, but I decided not too. Feel free to explain it in more details for the readers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • How do we know that C is 0?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    How do we know that C is 0?
     
    Read all about it:

    The Son Becomes The Father

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.