The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Dalton Conley's "The Genome Factor"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Dalton Conley is a professor of sociology, now at Princeton, who decided a number of years ago to take seriously the influence of genetics on society, so he also recently picked up a second Ph.D., this one in biology. He has a recent book out, The Genome Factor, that is a tough read but has some pretty mindwarping studies. From the Princeton PR department:

Conley harnesses tools of social science, genomics to answer lifelong questions

Michael Hotchkiss, Office of Communications
May 17, 2017 3:01 p.m.

Dalton Conley, Princeton’s Henry Putnam University Professor in Sociology, examines the complicated ways genes and environment interact to affect who moves up — and down — the socioeconomic ladder.

Dalton Conley was just a kid in 1970s New York, but lessons about race and class came quickly.

He was one of the only white kids among his friends amid the predominantly African American and Latino public housing projects on the Lower East Side. At his local elementary school, there were segregated classes for African American, Latino and Chinese students, but no obvious fit for him. Later, at another school in a more affluent part of the city, he was surrounded by other white students but found himself lost amid their wealth.

Questions about the importance of race and class crystalized when his friend Jerome was struck by a stray bullet while walking down the street and paralyzed for life at age 13.

“That event haunted me for the rest of my life, and really, really drove me to ask the questions that I ask in my day job,” Conley said in a 2015 TEDx talk at the University of North Carolina. “Why did he end up getting shot and I ended up getting to go to college? Why was I so much more advantaged than my neighbors for the most part?”

The search for answers has driven Conley, Princeton’s Henry Putnam University Professor in Sociology, to combine the power of new genetic tools with traditional social science in research that goes beyond the nature versus nurture debate to focus on how genes and environment interact to shape life outcomes.

“In my mind, it’s all very much trying to get at the same big question of how social status and health get transmitted from parents to children,” Conley said. “I’m like a dog trying to get at the marrow of a bone, focusing on different factors and methodological questions to find the answer.”

The Genome Factor: What the Social Genomics Revolution Reveals about Ourselves, Our History & the Future by Dalton Conley & Jason Fletcher
Conley’s new book, co-written by Jason Fletcher of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explores the latest findings from the intersection of genomics and social sciences. …

In “The Starting Gate: Birth Weight and Life Chances” (University of California Press, 2003), Conley and co-authors Kate Strully and Neil Bennett examined the example of birth weight — which is often accompanied by social risk factors such as minority racial status, low education, young maternal age and low income — to highlight the challenges of sorting through biological and social factors that affect life outcomes.

The research in those books and other work Conley conducted to that point used the traditional tools of social science, such as surveys and natural experiments. But he couldn’t be sure that the factors he identified as related to outcomes were the keys or if they were masking some other, unknown influencer. One of the most likely hidden variables: genetics.

So Conley went back to school, earning a second Ph.D., in genomics, from New York University in 2014. Now, taking advantages of recent advances in human genotyping, he uses polygenic scores that distill information from across the genome to measure an individual’s genetic predisposition for a certain characteristic, such as above-average height or autism. The scores vary in their predictive ability but offer important evidence to add to work on social influences for the same factors.

For example, Conley and colleagues used polygenic scores to find that genes began to play a greater role in the height and body mass index of Americans over the 20th century, while their significance decreased in educational outcomes and occurrence of heart disease. The findings were published last year in the journal Scientific Reports.

“We’re all responding differently to environmental influences and shocks happening to us all the time in society, but we haven’t had any idea who was going to respond how,” Conley said. “Now we’re uncovering the genetic tools needed to answer those questions.”

Conley’s work on gene-environment interaction represents an important advance, said Sara McLanahan, the William S. Tod Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs and director of the Center for Research on Child Wellbeing.

“This work on gene-environment interaction is exciting because it goes beyond the old debate of nature versus nurture, and it brings in potentially a much more powerful role of the social environment,” said McLanahan, whose research has examined policies aimed at improving the education and health of children. “By understanding how a person’s genes interact with their environment, we’re really going to be able to tailor social interventions much more effectively.”

For example, an intervention might be a change in the way children are taught to read. On average, the change might have only a small impact on children’s performance. But by including information on children’s genetics, researchers might learn that children with certain genotypes benefit greatly from the intervention while others don’t benefit at all.

“The average effect we’ve been measuring may be a huge underestimate of the potential power of an intervention for the kids who are genetically suited for it,” McLanahan said.

He’s also using a polygenic score for predicting IQ to begin to empirically test a number of Richard J. Herrnstein’s predictions for the historically course of American society that he first made in his semi-legendary 1971 Atlantic article “I.Q.,” such as that people would assortatively mate more on IQ over time. (This article provided much of the theoretical impetus for The Bell Curve 23 years later.) Conley has access to a bunch of genetic studies with data on Americans of different ages, so he can calculate whether old married couples are less similar on IQ (as predicted by polygenic scores for IQ) than younger married couples, as Herrnstein guessed.

One of the weirder promises of genetic research for the human sciences is that you may in the future be able to reconstruct the answer to questions that people forgot to ask in the past.

For example, if you have DNA from old people, or even, as Svante Paabo and David Reich showed, from dead people, you can, increasingly, estimate what their genes made their phenotypes like.

Conley’s initial findings do not support Herrnstein’s famous assumptions:

We deploy those data from the Health and Retirement Study in order to test the core series of propositions offered by Herrnstein and Murray in 1994. First, we ask whether the effect of genotype is increasing in predictive power across birth cohorts in the middle twentieth century. Second, we ask whether assortative mating on relevant genotypes is increasing across the same time period. Finally, we ask whether educational genotypes are increasingly predictive of fertility (number ever born [NEB]) in tandem with the rising (negative) association of educational outcomes and NEB.

Herrnstein’s toy model of how America must have worked in the past is plausible and therefore has been influential (most famously on Murray, of course). Herrnstein’s father was a house painter while Herrnstein himself was a Harvard professor, so he assumed that before the SAT there must have been more house painters who could have been Harvard professors but now the system is more efficient at identifying genetic potential.

But, it would be nice to have new ways to test the Herrnstein Assumptions. Herrnstein’s view of what the educational, occupational, and marriage markets in small town America must have like when the Herrnsteins were still in Hungary is stylized.

C0nley’s strategy, jaw-dropping in a sociologist, is to look not for overlooked sociological data, that Herrnstein would assume has some correlation with underlying genes, but to look directly for the genetic data in old people.

The answers to these questions are mostly no; while molecular genetic markers can predict educational attainment, we find little evidence for the proposition that we are becoming increasingly genetically stratified.

A big question, of course, is whether it’s too early in the study of the genetics of IQ for what Conley is trying to do (the polygenic scores Conley are using only account for a tenth or so of IQ variation).

But what he’s attempting is pretty spectacular and deserves discussion.

 
Hide 56 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. res says:

    Your take sounds encouraging, but this Amazon review seems to have a rather different (but still thoughtful) perspective: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/REVQ54HMLJD6R/&ASIN=0691164746

    I become nervous when the only people with access to data about controversial subjects seem to have an axe to grind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. songbird says:

    I think assortative mating just makes sense intuitively, though it might be handicapped a little by society becoming more diverse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    I think diversity would enhance assortative mating. especially in the presence of unequal outcomes. The various classes mix across racial lines, especially in the intermediary period until there is an identitarian backlash (if such a thing does happen). The lower classes especially do so, and whatever statistical genetic advantage they may have from being a member of a previously well mixed people which would make a Mozart come out of a peasant, that advantage would be lost from the subsequent mixing.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    Surely the biggest driver of an increase in assortative mating is the increase in full time female employment in higher-level jobs.

    This does however have the defect that such women are statistically likely to have fewer children. Doctors were once (only 35 years back in the UK) mostly male and married nurses. Now who are the women doctors (a majority of med school intake here) going to marry?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anonymous[972] • Disclaimer says:

    He has a recent book … that is a tough read

    A good tactic to prevent trouble when what you’re saying is “probematic”: put it above the reading level of the affirmative action professors in “studies” departments. On the other hand, if one smart proffessor reads it and labels you as a Nazi, you have no easy way to deny it, since you can’t cite clear paragraphs from your book in your defense. On the third hand, The Bell Curve was pellucide as possible in its prose style, yet it didn’t help Murray.

    He’s also using a polygenic score for predicting IQ to begin to empirically test …

    Is this basically what Piffer is doing?

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/piffers-equation-further-updated/

    http://www.unz.com/article/this-will-not-stand-academic-establishment-suppresses-italian-anthropologists-proof-that-race-iq-differences-are-genetic-for-now/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Piffer and Racimo (separately) are using polygenic scores to predict IQ, but they are looking at it at the racial group level, while Herrnstein's hypotheses about assortative marriage concerned white Americans.

    Piffer and Racimo figure that if there was selection on the, say, 10% that we know about, then there was likely selection on the rest. That is a pretty heroic assumption, but it's not obvious how to falsify it just on the theoretical level.

    Conley might be making a similar assumption for his different problem or maybe not. This is complicated stuff.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Anon[972] • Disclaimer says:

    Steven Pinker favorably blurbed it.

    On the other hand, this guy on Amazon (ex-telecom guy interested in Marxisma and genetics, from his reviews) thinks it’s biased towards standard social science:

    Social scientists have mostly ignored the incoming tsunami of the social genomics revolution. But the genomic telescope has been invented; it’s not going to go away. A more sophisticated strategy is deployed in “The Genome Factor” by Conley and Fletcher. The authors are sociologists by profession but investigate the social science implications of genomic surveys. They had a choice – to go with the trend of such research to supersede the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) – or to find ever more intricate arguments to preserve it.

    In choosing the latter approach, their strategy is to freely accept the theoretical results of population genetics and the empirical data of GWAS (genome-wide association studies) where this does not threaten blank-slatism. They then labour to find fault in every study which might cast it into doubt while feeding plenty of slack to the many purported environment-only explanations of race and gender differences. You will see plenty of uncritical space given to: continuing discrimination and poor institutions (pp. 107 ff.); subconscious bias, priming and stereotype threat (appendix 5).

    In chapter 4, the authors address the claims of Herrnstein and Murray’s seminal 1994 book, ‘The Bell Curve’. The three theses they wish to ‘take seriously’ are (to summarise): (i) increasing genetic stratification due to cognitive meritocracy; (ii) increasing assortative mating for intelligence; (iii) cognitive dysgenics via reduced fertility in the cognitive elite.

    They announce, to their evident satisfaction, that none of these theses is born out by the evidence. But how convinced should we be by their arguments? The answer is, not very. There are many confounding variables – particular the massive changes in education and employment practices over the decades relevant to analysis – as Conley and Fletcher themselves spell out. In some cases the phenotypic attributes measured do, in fact, accord with Herrnstein and Murray’s theses but the authors rapidly draw our attention to their underlying genetic correlates, as derived from GWAS.

    Here they find no such trends. But unfortunately, we do not yet know the genetic markers for the relevant cognitive traits. Instead, the genomic indicator the authors use is the incredibly noisy ‘polygenic score’ (PGS). All we can really conclude is that the effects are small, and that as far as Herrnstein and Murray’s proposed theses are concerned, it’s too early to be sure.

    Chapter 6, ‘The Wealth of Nations’, engages with Ashraf and Galor’s ‘Goldilocks’ hypothesis of correlations between degrees of genetic diversity (too much in Africa?) and higher income and growth. Yet the correlations are poor (p. 124). I wish they had engaged with work such as Garett Jones’ ‘Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own’, which focuses on ideas that country differences in IQ and size of the ‘smart fraction’ have something to do with it. Jones finds remarkably high correlations. But you can see the dangers.

    So this is a book with an agenda although I think it’s subconscious bias. The authors take too much pleasure in ‘refuting’ challenges to the core doctrines of the SSSM to make me think they’re just doing so to protect their positions.

    There are things to learn from this book. As critics they look for every conceivable flaw in twin and GWAS studies – this is socially useful. They also explain various techniques such as GWAS well, although the book is too technical and too dry for both the general public and mainstream social science academics.

    In all, I regard this book as a missed opportunity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "as far as Herrnstein and Murray’s proposed theses are concerned, it’s too early to be sure."

    But, even if it's too early, it's pretty interesting to be trying to do genetic tests of Herrnstein's old assumptions about the trajectory of American social history.

    In general, it's pretty eye-opening to realize that if you get old people to spit into a test tube now, you might someday be able to ask questions about their genes when they were young that haven't even occurred to you yet.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Hugh says:

    It would seem that you would need at least a couple of generations for the effects of assortative mating to show up in statistical studies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @Anonymous

    He has a recent book ... that is a tough read
     
    A good tactic to prevent trouble when what you're saying is "probematic": put it above the reading level of the affirmative action professors in "studies" departments. On the other hand, if one smart proffessor reads it and labels you as a Nazi, you have no easy way to deny it, since you can't cite clear paragraphs from your book in your defense. On the third hand, The Bell Curve was pellucide as possible in its prose style, yet it didn't help Murray.

    He’s also using a polygenic score for predicting IQ to begin to empirically test ...
     
    Is this basically what Piffer is doing?

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/piffers-equation-further-updated/
    http://www.unz.com/article/this-will-not-stand-academic-establishment-suppresses-italian-anthropologists-proof-that-race-iq-differences-are-genetic-for-now/

    Piffer and Racimo (separately) are using polygenic scores to predict IQ, but they are looking at it at the racial group level, while Herrnstein’s hypotheses about assortative marriage concerned white Americans.

    Piffer and Racimo figure that if there was selection on the, say, 10% that we know about, then there was likely selection on the rest. That is a pretty heroic assumption, but it’s not obvious how to falsify it just on the theoretical level.

    Conley might be making a similar assumption for his different problem or maybe not. This is complicated stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I got the impression that what Piffer is doing is to search out particular genes associated with intelligence that themselves are associated with other particular genes associated with intelligence.

    The idea is that although there are thousands of intelligence-related genes, they cluster tightly or not so tightly in groups, and if you can find a representative member of a cluster, or even a sort of controller gene in a cluster of genes, you can look just to those couple of dozen genes and predict the states of thousands of genes.

    He's doing this statistically, and not by understanding the actual mechanism.

    The crazy thing is that he claims a 0.9 correlation, which is very, very strong, weirdly strong, and the correlation is to Lynne-style country level IQ estimates, which nobody really feels are that rock solid, even supporters of Lynne and of the concept of country IQ. Given that the country IQ data is so ... preliminary, the 0.9 correlation is really ... puzzling. You'd expect a 0.5 correlation, maybe, and then as Piffer's gene selection and as country IQ data both improve, a gradual increase, to maybe 0.7 or 0.8., at which point things would level off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Whiskey says: • Website

    There’s a line in the Youtube Red Series “Cobra Kai” by some character, a nerdy kid who is the friend of one of the younger leads as he and his newly taught Karate buddy talk about their practice SAT test. The nerd says that the buddy has it made, as his new found fighting prowess got him a girlfriend, while he will remain a virgin forever unless he makes good enough scores to get sky high SAT results with a scholarship to a great school and makes great grades there to get a good job and grinds away through his twenties to finally getting enough money and power to attract a woman. Thus he’s got more on the line with his test than his buddy.

    SOME screenwriter has been reading Roissy.

    And moreover, that leads to an interesting speculation. When someone follows that path, i.e. deferred and deferred and deferred gratification, the temptation is not to just buy the first cheap, hard used Corolla on offer but to go out and buy the nicest, hottest Corvette or Mustang GT or whatever because that person has been riding the bus or urine-soaked LA Metro (apparently a total mess, over-run by homeless and gangs where every seat is soaked in urine and most of the cars and stations filled with poop). Someone who reaches that level of power is likely if a man to want a hotter chick than the carousel riding lawyer gal — both will have the same level of N partners but one will be easier on the eyes and ears.

    For dudes in finance, law, Hollywood, any place but Nerd Central Silicon Valley there are no shortage of hotter but lower IQ women able to Alpha chase. Even Zuck with his billions had to settle for a woman who is not very attractive and obviously hates being around him. Ditto Bill Gates. So men who are around real power over people who are not nerdy are not going to be lacking for women competing over them, and men prefer looks over credentials.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Who are you to blather about the wives other people, people you will never meet marry? Have you ever looked at Gates and Zuckerberg?

    Priscilla Zuckerberg is somewhat more attractive than her husband. Melinda is average pretty but Bill Gates is very very ugly.

    You need to expand your social circle. Maybe go to church, they are free and all over the place. Take a look at the couples. Do you work? Look at the spouses of the people with whom you work.

    Where did you get the idea the LA metro buses are covered in pee and poop? I doubt you’ve ever been near a LA bus.

    From your comments about women, I doubt you have any contact with real women at all. I believe you spend your time looking at actresses and models, all made up, hair styled, carefully lighted and photographed and think they are average and real live woman are ugly in comparison.

    Come to Los Angeles and hang out in downtown Malibu, especially the playground and around the schools AM and right after school and you will see plenty of well known actresses with their kids. Stay a few weeks and go to dance or excercise classes and health clubs. You will see more actresses.

    You won’t be able to recognize them however, because they aren’t made up hairstyled dressed and lighted as they are in the pictures you pursue.
    , @songbird

    There’s a line in the Youtube Red Series “Cobra Kai” by some character, a nerdy kid who is the friend of one of the younger leads as he and his newly taught Karate buddy talk about their practice SAT test.
     
    Kind of sounds like a paid advertisement. I did not take the practice test because I realized there was no point in taking it, as they already take your highest score. I was quite surprised by the number in my class who did though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Anon
    Steven Pinker favorably blurbed it.

    On the other hand, this guy on Amazon (ex-telecom guy interested in Marxisma and genetics, from his reviews) thinks it's biased towards standard social science:

    Social scientists have mostly ignored the incoming tsunami of the social genomics revolution. But the genomic telescope has been invented; it's not going to go away. A more sophisticated strategy is deployed in "The Genome Factor" by Conley and Fletcher. The authors are sociologists by profession but investigate the social science implications of genomic surveys. They had a choice - to go with the trend of such research to supersede the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) - or to find ever more intricate arguments to preserve it.

    In choosing the latter approach, their strategy is to freely accept the theoretical results of population genetics and the empirical data of GWAS (genome-wide association studies) where this does not threaten blank-slatism. They then labour to find fault in every study which might cast it into doubt while feeding plenty of slack to the many purported environment-only explanations of race and gender differences. You will see plenty of uncritical space given to: continuing discrimination and poor institutions (pp. 107 ff.); subconscious bias, priming and stereotype threat (appendix 5).

    In chapter 4, the authors address the claims of Herrnstein and Murray's seminal 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve'. The three theses they wish to 'take seriously' are (to summarise): (i) increasing genetic stratification due to cognitive meritocracy; (ii) increasing assortative mating for intelligence; (iii) cognitive dysgenics via reduced fertility in the cognitive elite.

    They announce, to their evident satisfaction, that none of these theses is born out by the evidence. But how convinced should we be by their arguments? The answer is, not very. There are many confounding variables - particular the massive changes in education and employment practices over the decades relevant to analysis - as Conley and Fletcher themselves spell out. In some cases the phenotypic attributes measured do, in fact, accord with Herrnstein and Murray's theses but the authors rapidly draw our attention to their underlying genetic correlates, as derived from GWAS.

    Here they find no such trends. But unfortunately, we do not yet know the genetic markers for the relevant cognitive traits. Instead, the genomic indicator the authors use is the incredibly noisy 'polygenic score' (PGS). All we can really conclude is that the effects are small, and that as far as Herrnstein and Murray's proposed theses are concerned, it's too early to be sure.

    Chapter 6, 'The Wealth of Nations', engages with Ashraf and Galor's 'Goldilocks' hypothesis of correlations between degrees of genetic diversity (too much in Africa?) and higher income and growth. Yet the correlations are poor (p. 124). I wish they had engaged with work such as Garett Jones' 'Hive Mind: How Your Nation's IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own', which focuses on ideas that country differences in IQ and size of the 'smart fraction' have something to do with it. Jones finds remarkably high correlations. But you can see the dangers.

    So this is a book with an agenda although I think it's subconscious bias. The authors take too much pleasure in 'refuting' challenges to the core doctrines of the SSSM to make me think they're just doing so to protect their positions.

    There are things to learn from this book. As critics they look for every conceivable flaw in twin and GWAS studies - this is socially useful. They also explain various techniques such as GWAS well, although the book is too technical and too dry for both the general public and mainstream social science academics.

    In all, I regard this book as a missed opportunity.
     

    “as far as Herrnstein and Murray’s proposed theses are concerned, it’s too early to be sure.”

    But, even if it’s too early, it’s pretty interesting to be trying to do genetic tests of Herrnstein’s old assumptions about the trajectory of American social history.

    In general, it’s pretty eye-opening to realize that if you get old people to spit into a test tube now, you might someday be able to ask questions about their genes when they were young that haven’t even occurred to you yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Like finding why my grandma was not a serial killer.
    , @hyperbola
    This "study" is another example of sociology as a pseudo-science. That the "results" are meaningless and/or fraudulent can be deduced from the statements above.

    For example, Conley and colleagues used polygenic scores to find that genes began to play a greater role in the height and body mass index of Americans over the 20th century, while their significance decreased in educational outcomes and occurrence of heart disease. The findings were published last year in the journal Scientific Reports.
     
    Amazing how "evolution" changes genetic makeup in less than a century! Or, if you like it better, amazing how "social environment" changes so much in less than a century that the infludence of genes is changed in a major way!

    As for old people spitting into test tubes, the possibilities for epigenetic rubbish from sociologists seem limitless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @Whiskey
    There's a line in the Youtube Red Series "Cobra Kai" by some character, a nerdy kid who is the friend of one of the younger leads as he and his newly taught Karate buddy talk about their practice SAT test. The nerd says that the buddy has it made, as his new found fighting prowess got him a girlfriend, while he will remain a virgin forever unless he makes good enough scores to get sky high SAT results with a scholarship to a great school and makes great grades there to get a good job and grinds away through his twenties to finally getting enough money and power to attract a woman. Thus he's got more on the line with his test than his buddy.

    SOME screenwriter has been reading Roissy.

    And moreover, that leads to an interesting speculation. When someone follows that path, i.e. deferred and deferred and deferred gratification, the temptation is not to just buy the first cheap, hard used Corolla on offer but to go out and buy the nicest, hottest Corvette or Mustang GT or whatever because that person has been riding the bus or urine-soaked LA Metro (apparently a total mess, over-run by homeless and gangs where every seat is soaked in urine and most of the cars and stations filled with poop). Someone who reaches that level of power is likely if a man to want a hotter chick than the carousel riding lawyer gal -- both will have the same level of N partners but one will be easier on the eyes and ears.

    For dudes in finance, law, Hollywood, any place but Nerd Central Silicon Valley there are no shortage of hotter but lower IQ women able to Alpha chase. Even Zuck with his billions had to settle for a woman who is not very attractive and obviously hates being around him. Ditto Bill Gates. So men who are around real power over people who are not nerdy are not going to be lacking for women competing over them, and men prefer looks over credentials.

    Who are you to blather about the wives other people, people you will never meet marry? Have you ever looked at Gates and Zuckerberg?

    Priscilla Zuckerberg is somewhat more attractive than her husband. Melinda is average pretty but Bill Gates is very very ugly.

    You need to expand your social circle. Maybe go to church, they are free and all over the place. Take a look at the couples. Do you work? Look at the spouses of the people with whom you work.

    Where did you get the idea the LA metro buses are covered in pee and poop? I doubt you’ve ever been near a LA bus.

    From your comments about women, I doubt you have any contact with real women at all. I believe you spend your time looking at actresses and models, all made up, hair styled, carefully lighted and photographed and think they are average and real live woman are ugly in comparison.

    Come to Los Angeles and hang out in downtown Malibu, especially the playground and around the schools AM and right after school and you will see plenty of well known actresses with their kids. Stay a few weeks and go to dance or excercise classes and health clubs. You will see more actresses.

    You won’t be able to recognize them however, because they aren’t made up hairstyled dressed and lighted as they are in the pictures you pursue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    lol so you are another woman Whisky has managed to piss off.
    , @AndrewR
    Lmao! Do any Priscilla Zuckerbergs even exist? If you're referring to the wife of the Facebook CEO, her surname is Chan. Zuck is such a cucked fool that, despite having been among the world's most desirable bachelors, he married a very homely woman who wouldn't even take his name (or, perhaps even worse, whom he didn't want taking his name).
    , @Charles Pewitt
    Don't forget the fact that all these Hollywood broads have had their noses carved up like a Thanksgiving Day turkey.

    Blake Lively had a lovely slab of a nose, but she had it carved up to make more Hollywood loot. Megan Fox and Michelle Pfeiffer had their noses reconfigured too! Sad!

    I was so very proud of that Blake Lively woman for battling that shark off the coast of Mexico in The Shallows. It was a cheapo popcorn munching movie that was great fun. Special effects guy had the Shark jump out of the water and re-adjust its jaws to get a better bite of a surfer. Fun!

    It broke my heart to discover that everybody in Hollywood, including dogs and Irishmen such as the late Peter O'Toole, have had their noses redone by doctors and surgeons. Horrible scamps said that O'Toole's nose job and heavy makeup should have been enough to change the name of Lawrence of Arabia to Florence of Arabia.

    White Women and how they think and vote will be of concern until such time as we get a new William the Conqueror to start running the American Empire.

    Candidates must go gut level when dealing with White Women. Trumpy did it on the immigration issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Clyde says:
    @Anon
    Who are you to blather about the wives other people, people you will never meet marry? Have you ever looked at Gates and Zuckerberg?

    Priscilla Zuckerberg is somewhat more attractive than her husband. Melinda is average pretty but Bill Gates is very very ugly.

    You need to expand your social circle. Maybe go to church, they are free and all over the place. Take a look at the couples. Do you work? Look at the spouses of the people with whom you work.

    Where did you get the idea the LA metro buses are covered in pee and poop? I doubt you’ve ever been near a LA bus.

    From your comments about women, I doubt you have any contact with real women at all. I believe you spend your time looking at actresses and models, all made up, hair styled, carefully lighted and photographed and think they are average and real live woman are ugly in comparison.

    Come to Los Angeles and hang out in downtown Malibu, especially the playground and around the schools AM and right after school and you will see plenty of well known actresses with their kids. Stay a few weeks and go to dance or excercise classes and health clubs. You will see more actresses.

    You won’t be able to recognize them however, because they aren’t made up hairstyled dressed and lighted as they are in the pictures you pursue.

    lol so you are another woman Whisky has managed to piss off.

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

    He’s also using a polygenic score for predicting IQ

    This sounded interesting sso I decided to do the reality check. I found one of his papers (2015):

    Polygenic Influence on Educational Attainment

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2332858415599972

    Samples are small (n<1000). Separate for European American and separate for African American. Educational attainment correlation with polygenic score: r=0.18 (EA) and r=0.11 (AA).
    Correlations are low implying that only 4% (EA) and 1% (AA) of variance is explained.

    Their conclusion reflects this:

    At this point, we attempt to answer a key question: What is the relevance of such genetics research to education research? At the present time, the predictive power of the polygenic score is clearly too weak to have “clinical” value, and we are skeptical that even increased predictive power would make the score useful as the basis for intervention.

    It is interesting that they do not expect to get polygenic score do much better job than just 15% of variance explained once more genetic variants are discovered by GWAS:

    Twin studies estimate that approximately 40% of the variation in educational attainment is attributable to genetic factors (e.g., Branigan, McCallum, & Freese, 2013). The SSGAC estimates that the variance in educational attainment explained by the associated polygenic score will grow as GWAS sample size increases; Rietveld et al. (2013) estimate that 15% of the variance in attainment might be predicted with a polygenic score derived from a GWAS on 1 million respondents.

    Too bad that the conclusion was not in abstract and I had too search the whole paper to find out that their work was futile as I expected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I admire the work you put in, but why bother?

    He’s a sociology professor, therefore he is a liar and his research and product are lies

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. utu says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "as far as Herrnstein and Murray’s proposed theses are concerned, it’s too early to be sure."

    But, even if it's too early, it's pretty interesting to be trying to do genetic tests of Herrnstein's old assumptions about the trajectory of American social history.

    In general, it's pretty eye-opening to realize that if you get old people to spit into a test tube now, you might someday be able to ask questions about their genes when they were young that haven't even occurred to you yet.

    Like finding why my grandma was not a serial killer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anon[972] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Piffer and Racimo (separately) are using polygenic scores to predict IQ, but they are looking at it at the racial group level, while Herrnstein's hypotheses about assortative marriage concerned white Americans.

    Piffer and Racimo figure that if there was selection on the, say, 10% that we know about, then there was likely selection on the rest. That is a pretty heroic assumption, but it's not obvious how to falsify it just on the theoretical level.

    Conley might be making a similar assumption for his different problem or maybe not. This is complicated stuff.

    I got the impression that what Piffer is doing is to search out particular genes associated with intelligence that themselves are associated with other particular genes associated with intelligence.

    The idea is that although there are thousands of intelligence-related genes, they cluster tightly or not so tightly in groups, and if you can find a representative member of a cluster, or even a sort of controller gene in a cluster of genes, you can look just to those couple of dozen genes and predict the states of thousands of genes.

    He’s doing this statistically, and not by understanding the actual mechanism.

    The crazy thing is that he claims a 0.9 correlation, which is very, very strong, weirdly strong, and the correlation is to Lynne-style country level IQ estimates, which nobody really feels are that rock solid, even supporters of Lynne and of the concept of country IQ. Given that the country IQ data is so … preliminary, the 0.9 correlation is really … puzzling. You’d expect a 0.5 correlation, maybe, and then as Piffer’s gene selection and as country IQ data both improve, a gradual increase, to maybe 0.7 or 0.8., at which point things would level off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000
    > The crazy thing is that he claims a 0.9 correlation, which is very, very strong, weirdly strong, and the correlation is to Lynne-style country level IQ estimates...

    This is an important and under appreciated observation. Often there is a Gold Standard measurement that serves as a stand-in for the “thing”itself. These data can be quite reliable, e.g. height-as-recorded for a subject’s True Height. There will be some variances (with shoes on, transcription errors), but reliability is very high. Then there are things like the Gleason Score as a proxy for prostate cancer that will become clinically significant in the future — a measure that’s known to correlate quite weakly with the “thing” of interest.

    In a situation like that (and the one Anon[972] is commenting on here), after a point, a new standard will actually correlate worse with the current Gold Standard, to the extent its correlation with the “thing of interest” is superior. So “weird” is a good description of a very high correlation in such circumstances.
    , @utu

    The crazy thing is that he claims a 0.9 correlation, which is very, very strong, weirdly strong, and the correlation is to Lynne-style country level IQ estimates, which nobody really feels are that rock solid
     
    The correlation is entirely spurious. You could replace IQ's in the list with random numbers and you will find subsets of SNPs that will correlate with them. This is so because the system is very strongly undetermined: the list of countries is short while there are millions of SNPs. Actually Piffer found that there is 1 in 100 chance of finding random subset of 9 SNPs that correlate with the IQ list even better than the original 9 SNPs.

    You are reaction was correct: weirdly strong. Piffer is a huckster.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. jim jones says:

    The MSM are all saying that EA3 shows the effect of genes on intelligence is trivial:

    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/6/15739590/genome-wide-studies

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Questions about the importance of race and class crystalized when his friend Jerome was struck by a stray bullet while walking down the street and paralyzed for life at age 13.

    “That event haunted me for the rest of my life, and really, really drove me to ask the questions that I ask in my day job,” Conley said in a 2015 TEDx talk at the University of North Carolina. “Why did he end up getting shot and I ended up getting to go to college?

    I find this passage a bit strange.

    The implied argument seems to be that people who dwell among one of society’s outcast groups—whether by virtue of belonging to an excluded racial minority or by reason of poverty, a bad upbringing, underachievement, low intelligence, criminality, poor hygiene or whatever—are thereby more likely to inhabit bad neighborhoods where the stray bullets fly, and consequently have an increased likelihood of ending up paralyzed for life. And since (it is assumed) one’s genetic heritage contributes to the production of the aforementioned factors, it is possible to use polygenetic studies to predict the probability of one becoming the victim of random violence. Ever attentive for a practical application, another expert helpfully adds that such predictions could form the basis of targeted “interventions” designed to help at-risk individuals avoid the worst aspects of their genetic fate.

    I’m sorry, but this seems like a rather long way to go in order to establish a tenuous and not particularly illuminating connection, which is then followed by an unconvincing sales pitch. These are precisely the kind of conditions that generate boondoggles like Theranos. The entire biotech-medical-pharmaceutical complex seems to be caught up in a style of thinking that proceeds from vast data-mining through statistical analysis and product-cycle development designed to attract investment, all of it driven by hopium-like paeans to the humanitarian ends their research will supposedly serve, the final result of which is only to allow the principal players to line their pockets while virtue-signalling their avowed commitment to science and progress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Everything is a racket.
    , @Nicholas Stix
    A giveaway is the use of dramatic but inappropriate anecdotes. I have nothing against powerful anecdotes, which are simply individual cases, but they have to support one's argument.

    Conley asks a rhetorical question, regarding his maimed friend, “Why was I so much more advantaged than my neighbors for the most part?”

    Certain propagandists like to say, “There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.” Actually, there are many stupid questions, and Conley’s was moronic.

    It’s not really a question at all, but a rhetorical strategy meant to both virtue signal and deceive.

    Virtue signal: ‘Although I grew up poor, I too feel patronizing pity for the same black trash for which the rich people I seek to hobnob with feel patronizing pity.’

    (Keep in mind: Most of Conley’s black neighbors in such an area were bound to be criminals.)

    Deception: Conley was not at all advantaged over his black neighbors.

    If you’re white and male and grow up among blacks, you have nothing but disadvantages. Unless you’re really big, or famous as a terror in a fight, anyone can casually walk up to you and violate your person.

    Actually, this even happens to really big whites. My old American Enterprise editor, Karl Zinsmeister, who is at least 6’4,” wrote 20 years ago of being casually sucker-punched by a black stranger some years earlier, when he was painting his fence in D.C.

    If Conley had been honest, he’d have been written off as a “racist” by the same white phonies who write me off as a racist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. anon[358] • Disclaimer says:

    This study was a big deal because while we’ve known intelligence is largely heritable….

    while we’ve denied intelligence is largely heritable

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Barxist says:

    It seems that the change in the influence of genes on educational attainment over time is non-linear. From Conley & Domingue’s paper:

    In panel B of Table 3, we examine the interaction between the PGS and birth year. Here, we find that it is at the lower end of the distribution (high school graduation) where the effect of the PGS is declining—a finding that is in line with maximally maintained inequality theory (see Discussion section). Indeed, at the highest educational transition—from college completion to graduate school—we find that the effect of genetics is increasing in younger birth cohorts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. dearieme says:

    A university publicity man writes “He was one of the only white kids among his friends …”

    No, you arsehole, it’s “He was one of the few white kids among his friends …”

    Princesston, eh?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. AndrewR says:
    @Anon
    Who are you to blather about the wives other people, people you will never meet marry? Have you ever looked at Gates and Zuckerberg?

    Priscilla Zuckerberg is somewhat more attractive than her husband. Melinda is average pretty but Bill Gates is very very ugly.

    You need to expand your social circle. Maybe go to church, they are free and all over the place. Take a look at the couples. Do you work? Look at the spouses of the people with whom you work.

    Where did you get the idea the LA metro buses are covered in pee and poop? I doubt you’ve ever been near a LA bus.

    From your comments about women, I doubt you have any contact with real women at all. I believe you spend your time looking at actresses and models, all made up, hair styled, carefully lighted and photographed and think they are average and real live woman are ugly in comparison.

    Come to Los Angeles and hang out in downtown Malibu, especially the playground and around the schools AM and right after school and you will see plenty of well known actresses with their kids. Stay a few weeks and go to dance or excercise classes and health clubs. You will see more actresses.

    You won’t be able to recognize them however, because they aren’t made up hairstyled dressed and lighted as they are in the pictures you pursue.

    Lmao! Do any Priscilla Zuckerbergs even exist? If you’re referring to the wife of the Facebook CEO, her surname is Chan. Zuck is such a cucked fool that, despite having been among the world’s most desirable bachelors, he married a very homely woman who wouldn’t even take his name (or, perhaps even worse, whom he didn’t want taking his name).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. There are some aspects of his story that don’t ring true to me. I am 14 years his senior but have an almost identical background (grew up on in NYC’s LES then hung with the rich kids later on at a private school on the UES). First I find it highly unlikely that he grew up in a public housing project. Second I’m not buying that his school segregated students by race. And don’t get me started on the term “stray bullet”. That is complete and utter BS. Ever notice how stray bullets always end up right between the eyes of the victim? It’s a cop-out term for an overloaded municipal LE and judicial system that doesn’t have the resources to investigate every serious crime, including homicide. It seems stray bullets only exist in bad urban environments. I’m always astonished when major metropolitan newspapers use this term signifying that there is no need to determine the perp. It’s of course assumed that the perp has no agency so what’s the point in prosecution? Any of you got “stray bullets” in your neighborhoods?

    The guy also seems to be a bit “different”. Did you catch the names of his kids? From Wikipedia: “He has two children from a previous marriage: a daughter named E and a son named Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles Jeremijenko-Conley.[13][14].”

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    daughter named E and a son named Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles Jeremijenko-Conley
     
    Clear indication something is wrong there.
    , @songbird

    don’t get me started on the term “stray bullet”
     
    Years ago, I remember seeing a segment on some TV show like 60 Minutes where a hip-hop guy returned to his old neighborhood and said something about sneakers hanging from power lines representing a spot where someone was killed. I laughed because it was so ridiculously false as I myself had seen many sneakers on power lines outside of the ghetto.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. ic1000 says:
    @Anon
    I got the impression that what Piffer is doing is to search out particular genes associated with intelligence that themselves are associated with other particular genes associated with intelligence.

    The idea is that although there are thousands of intelligence-related genes, they cluster tightly or not so tightly in groups, and if you can find a representative member of a cluster, or even a sort of controller gene in a cluster of genes, you can look just to those couple of dozen genes and predict the states of thousands of genes.

    He's doing this statistically, and not by understanding the actual mechanism.

    The crazy thing is that he claims a 0.9 correlation, which is very, very strong, weirdly strong, and the correlation is to Lynne-style country level IQ estimates, which nobody really feels are that rock solid, even supporters of Lynne and of the concept of country IQ. Given that the country IQ data is so ... preliminary, the 0.9 correlation is really ... puzzling. You'd expect a 0.5 correlation, maybe, and then as Piffer's gene selection and as country IQ data both improve, a gradual increase, to maybe 0.7 or 0.8., at which point things would level off.

    > The crazy thing is that he claims a 0.9 correlation, which is very, very strong, weirdly strong, and the correlation is to Lynne-style country level IQ estimates…

    This is an important and under appreciated observation. Often there is a Gold Standard measurement that serves as a stand-in for the “thing”itself. These data can be quite reliable, e.g. height-as-recorded for a subject’s True Height. There will be some variances (with shoes on, transcription errors), but reliability is very high. Then there are things like the Gleason Score as a proxy for prostate cancer that will become clinically significant in the future — a measure that’s known to correlate quite weakly with the “thing” of interest.

    In a situation like that (and the one Anon[972] is commenting on here), after a point, a new standard will actually correlate worse with the current Gold Standard, to the extent its correlation with the “thing of interest” is superior. So “weird” is a good description of a very high correlation in such circumstances.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Anon
    Who are you to blather about the wives other people, people you will never meet marry? Have you ever looked at Gates and Zuckerberg?

    Priscilla Zuckerberg is somewhat more attractive than her husband. Melinda is average pretty but Bill Gates is very very ugly.

    You need to expand your social circle. Maybe go to church, they are free and all over the place. Take a look at the couples. Do you work? Look at the spouses of the people with whom you work.

    Where did you get the idea the LA metro buses are covered in pee and poop? I doubt you’ve ever been near a LA bus.

    From your comments about women, I doubt you have any contact with real women at all. I believe you spend your time looking at actresses and models, all made up, hair styled, carefully lighted and photographed and think they are average and real live woman are ugly in comparison.

    Come to Los Angeles and hang out in downtown Malibu, especially the playground and around the schools AM and right after school and you will see plenty of well known actresses with their kids. Stay a few weeks and go to dance or excercise classes and health clubs. You will see more actresses.

    You won’t be able to recognize them however, because they aren’t made up hairstyled dressed and lighted as they are in the pictures you pursue.

    Don’t forget the fact that all these Hollywood broads have had their noses carved up like a Thanksgiving Day turkey.

    Blake Lively had a lovely slab of a nose, but she had it carved up to make more Hollywood loot. Megan Fox and Michelle Pfeiffer had their noses reconfigured too! Sad!

    I was so very proud of that Blake Lively woman for battling that shark off the coast of Mexico in The Shallows. It was a cheapo popcorn munching movie that was great fun. Special effects guy had the Shark jump out of the water and re-adjust its jaws to get a better bite of a surfer. Fun!

    It broke my heart to discover that everybody in Hollywood, including dogs and Irishmen such as the late Peter O’Toole, have had their noses redone by doctors and surgeons. Horrible scamps said that O’Toole’s nose job and heavy makeup should have been enough to change the name of Lawrence of Arabia to Florence of Arabia.

    White Women and how they think and vote will be of concern until such time as we get a new William the Conqueror to start running the American Empire.

    Candidates must go gut level when dealing with White Women. Trumpy did it on the immigration issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Intelligent Dasein

    Questions about the importance of race and class crystalized when his friend Jerome was struck by a stray bullet while walking down the street and paralyzed for life at age 13.

    “That event haunted me for the rest of my life, and really, really drove me to ask the questions that I ask in my day job,” Conley said in a 2015 TEDx talk at the University of North Carolina. “Why did he end up getting shot and I ended up getting to go to college?
     
    I find this passage a bit strange.

    The implied argument seems to be that people who dwell among one of society's outcast groups---whether by virtue of belonging to an excluded racial minority or by reason of poverty, a bad upbringing, underachievement, low intelligence, criminality, poor hygiene or whatever---are thereby more likely to inhabit bad neighborhoods where the stray bullets fly, and consequently have an increased likelihood of ending up paralyzed for life. And since (it is assumed) one's genetic heritage contributes to the production of the aforementioned factors, it is possible to use polygenetic studies to predict the probability of one becoming the victim of random violence. Ever attentive for a practical application, another expert helpfully adds that such predictions could form the basis of targeted "interventions" designed to help at-risk individuals avoid the worst aspects of their genetic fate.

    I'm sorry, but this seems like a rather long way to go in order to establish a tenuous and not particularly illuminating connection, which is then followed by an unconvincing sales pitch. These are precisely the kind of conditions that generate boondoggles like Theranos. The entire biotech-medical-pharmaceutical complex seems to be caught up in a style of thinking that proceeds from vast data-mining through statistical analysis and product-cycle development designed to attract investment, all of it driven by hopium-like paeans to the humanitarian ends their research will supposedly serve, the final result of which is only to allow the principal players to line their pockets while virtue-signalling their avowed commitment to science and progress.

    Everything is a racket.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. hyperbola says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "as far as Herrnstein and Murray’s proposed theses are concerned, it’s too early to be sure."

    But, even if it's too early, it's pretty interesting to be trying to do genetic tests of Herrnstein's old assumptions about the trajectory of American social history.

    In general, it's pretty eye-opening to realize that if you get old people to spit into a test tube now, you might someday be able to ask questions about their genes when they were young that haven't even occurred to you yet.

    This “study” is another example of sociology as a pseudo-science. That the “results” are meaningless and/or fraudulent can be deduced from the statements above.

    For example, Conley and colleagues used polygenic scores to find that genes began to play a greater role in the height and body mass index of Americans over the 20th century, while their significance decreased in educational outcomes and occurrence of heart disease. The findings were published last year in the journal Scientific Reports.

    Amazing how “evolution” changes genetic makeup in less than a century! Or, if you like it better, amazing how “social environment” changes so much in less than a century that the infludence of genes is changed in a major way!

    As for old people spitting into test tubes, the possibilities for epigenetic rubbish from sociologists seem limitless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. MEH 0910 says:

    Stalkers, twins, and the case of the missing heritability | Dalton Conley | TEDxUNC

    Published on Apr 9, 2015
    In his TEDxUNC 2015 talk, Dalton Conley’s story explores what we need to succeed and what assembly is required in order to do well in school or the workplace. He discusses his research that focuses on the factors that allow some people to succeed while others, perhaps even in the same family, fail.

    Dalton Conley is a New York University professor of Sociology and a leading researcher with a focus on racial inequalities, measurements of class, and how health and biology affect – and are affected by – social position. His work was inspired by his own childhood, growing up as the “lone white kid” among the black gangs of New York’s Lower East Side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. utu says:
    @Anon
    I got the impression that what Piffer is doing is to search out particular genes associated with intelligence that themselves are associated with other particular genes associated with intelligence.

    The idea is that although there are thousands of intelligence-related genes, they cluster tightly or not so tightly in groups, and if you can find a representative member of a cluster, or even a sort of controller gene in a cluster of genes, you can look just to those couple of dozen genes and predict the states of thousands of genes.

    He's doing this statistically, and not by understanding the actual mechanism.

    The crazy thing is that he claims a 0.9 correlation, which is very, very strong, weirdly strong, and the correlation is to Lynne-style country level IQ estimates, which nobody really feels are that rock solid, even supporters of Lynne and of the concept of country IQ. Given that the country IQ data is so ... preliminary, the 0.9 correlation is really ... puzzling. You'd expect a 0.5 correlation, maybe, and then as Piffer's gene selection and as country IQ data both improve, a gradual increase, to maybe 0.7 or 0.8., at which point things would level off.

    The crazy thing is that he claims a 0.9 correlation, which is very, very strong, weirdly strong, and the correlation is to Lynne-style country level IQ estimates, which nobody really feels are that rock solid

    The correlation is entirely spurious. You could replace IQ’s in the list with random numbers and you will find subsets of SNPs that will correlate with them. This is so because the system is very strongly undetermined: the list of countries is short while there are millions of SNPs. Actually Piffer found that there is 1 in 100 chance of finding random subset of 9 SNPs that correlate with the IQ list even better than the original 9 SNPs.

    You are reaction was correct: weirdly strong. Piffer is a huckster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Conley claims segregated classes for blacks Hispanics and Chinese in a NYC public school in the 197os?

    Sounds like those 40 year old White grievance studies profs that claim they and some black friends were denied admission to the local swimming pool because the friends were black. Or their black school mates had to ride in the back of the bus in 1990.

    Yes folks, some grievance studies profs claim that sort of thing

    It could have been language separation for immigrants who didn’t know English. Blacks in regular English and Chinese and Hispanics in English learner classes. It may have been some fad of not teaching immigrant kids English.

    Still, I highly doubt there were racially segregated classes.

    He’s a liberal and even worse, teaches sociology. I don’t believe a word he says or any of his research.

    Read More
    • Replies: @the Supreme Gentleman
    Fun fact: according to Wikipedia, Conley went to Stuyvesant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    He’s also using a polygenic score for predicting IQ
     
    This sounded interesting sso I decided to do the reality check. I found one of his papers (2015):

    Polygenic Influence on Educational Attainment
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2332858415599972
     
    Samples are small (n<1000). Separate for European American and separate for African American. Educational attainment correlation with polygenic score: r=0.18 (EA) and r=0.11 (AA).
    Correlations are low implying that only 4% (EA) and 1% (AA) of variance is explained.

    Their conclusion reflects this:


    At this point, we attempt to answer a key question: What is the relevance of such genetics research to education research? At the present time, the predictive power of the polygenic score is clearly too weak to have “clinical” value, and we are skeptical that even increased predictive power would make the score useful as the basis for intervention.
     
    It is interesting that they do not expect to get polygenic score do much better job than just 15% of variance explained once more genetic variants are discovered by GWAS:

    Twin studies estimate that approximately 40% of the variation in educational attainment is attributable to genetic factors (e.g., Branigan, McCallum, & Freese, 2013). The SSGAC estimates that the variance in educational attainment explained by the associated polygenic score will grow as GWAS sample size increases; Rietveld et al. (2013) estimate that 15% of the variance in attainment might be predicted with a polygenic score derived from a GWAS on 1 million respondents.
     
    Too bad that the conclusion was not in abstract and I had too search the whole paper to find out that their work was futile as I expected.

    I admire the work you put in, but why bother?

    He’s a sociology professor, therefore he is a liar and his research and product are lies

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Why a liar? In this case he looked at polygenic score and found it was useless which is what any reasonable person would have predicted because polygenic scores so far at best could explain only 7% of IQ variance.
    , @John Cunningham
    All of sociology can be expressed in two propositions:
    1. Poverty exists.
    2. AmeriKKKa suxx.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Anon
    Conley claims segregated classes for blacks Hispanics and Chinese in a NYC public school in the 197os?

    Sounds like those 40 year old White grievance studies profs that claim they and some black friends were denied admission to the local swimming pool because the friends were black. Or their black school mates had to ride in the back of the bus in 1990.

    Yes folks, some grievance studies profs claim that sort of thing

    It could have been language separation for immigrants who didn’t know English. Blacks in regular English and Chinese and Hispanics in English learner classes. It may have been some fad of not teaching immigrant kids English.

    Still, I highly doubt there were racially segregated classes.

    He’s a liberal and even worse, teaches sociology. I don’t believe a word he says or any of his research.

    Fun fact: according to Wikipedia, Conley went to Stuyvesant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. utu says:
    @Anon
    I admire the work you put in, but why bother?

    He’s a sociology professor, therefore he is a liar and his research and product are lies

    Why a liar? In this case he looked at polygenic score and found it was useless which is what any reasonable person would have predicted because polygenic scores so far at best could explain only 7% of IQ variance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. utu says:
    @Rohirrimborn
    There are some aspects of his story that don't ring true to me. I am 14 years his senior but have an almost identical background (grew up on in NYC's LES then hung with the rich kids later on at a private school on the UES). First I find it highly unlikely that he grew up in a public housing project. Second I'm not buying that his school segregated students by race. And don't get me started on the term "stray bullet". That is complete and utter BS. Ever notice how stray bullets always end up right between the eyes of the victim? It's a cop-out term for an overloaded municipal LE and judicial system that doesn't have the resources to investigate every serious crime, including homicide. It seems stray bullets only exist in bad urban environments. I'm always astonished when major metropolitan newspapers use this term signifying that there is no need to determine the perp. It's of course assumed that the perp has no agency so what's the point in prosecution? Any of you got "stray bullets" in your neighborhoods?

    The guy also seems to be a bit "different". Did you catch the names of his kids? From Wikipedia: "He has two children from a previous marriage: a daughter named E and a son named Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles Jeremijenko-Conley.[13][14]."

    daughter named E and a son named Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles Jeremijenko-Conley

    Clear indication something is wrong there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    E's interests include dancing, hugging, and hydration.
    , @MEH 0910
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/books/review/dalton-conleys-parentology.html

    Yeah. That guy has written a book on parenting.

    His name is Dalton Conley, and he’s a sociologist at New York University who’s taken his own fatherhood, put it in the blender with his professional interest in scientific inquiry, and produced “Parentology.” He characterizes his technique as the opposite of everything uptight, including “old-world parenting; traditional parenting; textbook parenting; tiger mothering; bringing up bébé.” He’s not into that ponderous, prescriptive stuff. His brand, he says, is more like “jazz parenting,” an “improvisational approach.”

    Conley describes himself as a “freak” whose parenting decisions are based on “flexibility and fluidity, attention to (often counterintuitive, myth-busting) research. . . . Trial and error. Hypothesis revision and more experimentation about what works. In other words, the scientific method.” He lets his children curse at him; he tells them they’re in special education classes because of the better student-­teacher ratio; they camp out around a hot plate while their apartment is renovated. He is a wild and crazy guy.

    Except that he has also spent his career “studying traditional measures of socioeconomic success” and is therefore not interested in any “hippy-dippy perspective where all I want for them is to be quote-unquote ‘happy.’ ” Conley has “long been obsessed with societal ‘merit badges’ . . . little markers that I was on the right path to please my elders. And my hopes for my kids were no different.”

    Research suggests that “having a weird name makes you more likely to have impulse control,” and that impulse control is “even more important than I.Q. in predicting socioeconomic success, marital stability, and even staying out of prison.” So Conley names his firstborn daughter E and his younger son Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles.
    ......

    “Parentology” finds some ballast in its final third, when — sadly enough — Conley’s carefully calibrated (but totally improvisational) approach to family falls apart: He and his wife divorce; Yo is given a diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder and is put on medication. I don’t mean to suggest that these events are gratifying — merely that they force Conley to calm down a bit, to acknowledge the possibility that nature may have played just as much of a role as his social science experiments.

    “If my kids’ chances in life are largely determined by the DNA that their mother and I have passed on, all my math drilling and insistence on reading may have been of little added value,” he writes, comforting himself by noting, “On the other hand, all the things I did to mess them up probably won’t actually matter all that much in the end either.”
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anon[115] • Disclaimer says:

    “Amazing how “evolution” changes genetic makeup in less than a century!

    Not really. I don’t think what you quoted even used the word “evolution.” Even if implied, it certainly wasn’t used with the same connotation you think it was. Evolution as “general change” isn’t the same as evolution as “change in allelic frequency.”

    “Or, if you like it better, amazing how “social environment” changes so much in less than a century that the infludence of genes is changed in a major way!”

    Well, living conditions have indeed changed quite drastically. If I barely water a tall-growing tree, it would not be surprising to later find that it didn’t grow very much. If I then start watering it everyday, it grows somewhat taller relatively quickly. What’s controversial about that observation?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. J.Ross says: • Website
    @utu

    daughter named E and a son named Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles Jeremijenko-Conley
     
    Clear indication something is wrong there.

    E’s interests include dancing, hugging, and hydration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. MEH 0910 says:
    @utu

    daughter named E and a son named Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles Jeremijenko-Conley
     
    Clear indication something is wrong there.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/books/review/dalton-conleys-parentology.html

    Yeah. That guy has written a book on parenting.

    His name is Dalton Conley, and he’s a sociologist at New York University who’s taken his own fatherhood, put it in the blender with his professional interest in scientific inquiry, and produced “Parentology.” He characterizes his technique as the opposite of everything uptight, including “old-world parenting; traditional parenting; textbook parenting; tiger mothering; bringing up bébé.” He’s not into that ponderous, prescriptive stuff. His brand, he says, is more like “jazz parenting,” an “improvisational approach.”

    Conley describes himself as a “freak” whose parenting decisions are based on “flexibility and fluidity, attention to (often counterintuitive, myth-busting) research. . . . Trial and error. Hypothesis revision and more experimentation about what works. In other words, the scientific method.” He lets his children curse at him; he tells them they’re in special education classes because of the better student-­teacher ratio; they camp out around a hot plate while their apartment is renovated. He is a wild and crazy guy.

    Except that he has also spent his career “studying traditional measures of socioeconomic success” and is therefore not interested in any “hippy-dippy perspective where all I want for them is to be quote-unquote ‘happy.’ ” Conley has “long been obsessed with societal ‘merit badges’ . . . little markers that I was on the right path to please my elders. And my hopes for my kids were no different.”

    Research suggests that “having a weird name makes you more likely to have impulse control,” and that impulse control is “even more important than I.Q. in predicting socioeconomic success, marital stability, and even staying out of prison.” So Conley names his firstborn daughter E and his younger son Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles.
    ……

    “Parentology” finds some ballast in its final third, when — sadly enough — Conley’s carefully calibrated (but totally improvisational) approach to family falls apart: He and his wife divorce; Yo is given a diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder and is put on medication. I don’t mean to suggest that these events are gratifying — merely that they force Conley to calm down a bit, to acknowledge the possibility that nature may have played just as much of a role as his social science experiments.

    “If my kids’ chances in life are largely determined by the DNA that their mother and I have passed on, all my math drilling and insistence on reading may have been of little added value,” he writes, comforting himself by noting, “On the other hand, all the things I did to mess them up probably won’t actually matter all that much in the end either.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitchell Porter
    His ex-wife is renowned in her own way, as an artist working with technology, and I mean stuff like cloned trees and repurposed robot dogs. Thanks to common Australian connections, I've met her a few times. Their experiments in "parentology" remind me of the "lovenomics" of another Australian-American couple, the economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson.
    , @utu

    Research suggests that “having a weird name makes you more likely to have impulse control,” and that impulse control is “even more important than I.Q. in predicting socioeconomic success, marital stability, and even staying out of prison.”
     
    Weird names do not seem to work for Blacks.
    , @Nicholas Stix
    NYU professorship + edginess = big book deals.

    I am so glad I married a rigid, authoritarian daughter of a very smart, hard-working father, may he rest in peace.

    No jazz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. What if changes in education policy over the same time period are masking the effects of Herrnstein’s hypotheses?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Romanian says: • Website
    @songbird
    I think assortative mating just makes sense intuitively, though it might be handicapped a little by society becoming more diverse.

    I think diversity would enhance assortative mating. especially in the presence of unequal outcomes. The various classes mix across racial lines, especially in the intermediary period until there is an identitarian backlash (if such a thing does happen). The lower classes especially do so, and whatever statistical genetic advantage they may have from being a member of a previously well mixed people which would make a Mozart come out of a peasant, that advantage would be lost from the subsequent mixing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Anon
    I admire the work you put in, but why bother?

    He’s a sociology professor, therefore he is a liar and his research and product are lies

    All of sociology can be expressed in two propositions:
    1. Poverty exists.
    2. AmeriKKKa suxx.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. songbird says:
    @Whiskey
    There's a line in the Youtube Red Series "Cobra Kai" by some character, a nerdy kid who is the friend of one of the younger leads as he and his newly taught Karate buddy talk about their practice SAT test. The nerd says that the buddy has it made, as his new found fighting prowess got him a girlfriend, while he will remain a virgin forever unless he makes good enough scores to get sky high SAT results with a scholarship to a great school and makes great grades there to get a good job and grinds away through his twenties to finally getting enough money and power to attract a woman. Thus he's got more on the line with his test than his buddy.

    SOME screenwriter has been reading Roissy.

    And moreover, that leads to an interesting speculation. When someone follows that path, i.e. deferred and deferred and deferred gratification, the temptation is not to just buy the first cheap, hard used Corolla on offer but to go out and buy the nicest, hottest Corvette or Mustang GT or whatever because that person has been riding the bus or urine-soaked LA Metro (apparently a total mess, over-run by homeless and gangs where every seat is soaked in urine and most of the cars and stations filled with poop). Someone who reaches that level of power is likely if a man to want a hotter chick than the carousel riding lawyer gal -- both will have the same level of N partners but one will be easier on the eyes and ears.

    For dudes in finance, law, Hollywood, any place but Nerd Central Silicon Valley there are no shortage of hotter but lower IQ women able to Alpha chase. Even Zuck with his billions had to settle for a woman who is not very attractive and obviously hates being around him. Ditto Bill Gates. So men who are around real power over people who are not nerdy are not going to be lacking for women competing over them, and men prefer looks over credentials.

    There’s a line in the Youtube Red Series “Cobra Kai” by some character, a nerdy kid who is the friend of one of the younger leads as he and his newly taught Karate buddy talk about their practice SAT test.

    Kind of sounds like a paid advertisement. I did not take the practice test because I realized there was no point in taking it, as they already take your highest score. I was quite surprised by the number in my class who did though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    People take the PSAT because it’s free, sometimes mandatory, and enables one to compete for scholarships.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. songbird says:
    @Rohirrimborn
    There are some aspects of his story that don't ring true to me. I am 14 years his senior but have an almost identical background (grew up on in NYC's LES then hung with the rich kids later on at a private school on the UES). First I find it highly unlikely that he grew up in a public housing project. Second I'm not buying that his school segregated students by race. And don't get me started on the term "stray bullet". That is complete and utter BS. Ever notice how stray bullets always end up right between the eyes of the victim? It's a cop-out term for an overloaded municipal LE and judicial system that doesn't have the resources to investigate every serious crime, including homicide. It seems stray bullets only exist in bad urban environments. I'm always astonished when major metropolitan newspapers use this term signifying that there is no need to determine the perp. It's of course assumed that the perp has no agency so what's the point in prosecution? Any of you got "stray bullets" in your neighborhoods?

    The guy also seems to be a bit "different". Did you catch the names of his kids? From Wikipedia: "He has two children from a previous marriage: a daughter named E and a son named Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles Jeremijenko-Conley.[13][14]."

    don’t get me started on the term “stray bullet”

    Years ago, I remember seeing a segment on some TV show like 60 Minutes where a hip-hop guy returned to his old neighborhood and said something about sneakers hanging from power lines representing a spot where someone was killed. I laughed because it was so ridiculously false as I myself had seen many sneakers on power lines outside of the ghetto.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @MEH 0910
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/books/review/dalton-conleys-parentology.html

    Yeah. That guy has written a book on parenting.

    His name is Dalton Conley, and he’s a sociologist at New York University who’s taken his own fatherhood, put it in the blender with his professional interest in scientific inquiry, and produced “Parentology.” He characterizes his technique as the opposite of everything uptight, including “old-world parenting; traditional parenting; textbook parenting; tiger mothering; bringing up bébé.” He’s not into that ponderous, prescriptive stuff. His brand, he says, is more like “jazz parenting,” an “improvisational approach.”

    Conley describes himself as a “freak” whose parenting decisions are based on “flexibility and fluidity, attention to (often counterintuitive, myth-busting) research. . . . Trial and error. Hypothesis revision and more experimentation about what works. In other words, the scientific method.” He lets his children curse at him; he tells them they’re in special education classes because of the better student-­teacher ratio; they camp out around a hot plate while their apartment is renovated. He is a wild and crazy guy.

    Except that he has also spent his career “studying traditional measures of socioeconomic success” and is therefore not interested in any “hippy-dippy perspective where all I want for them is to be quote-unquote ‘happy.’ ” Conley has “long been obsessed with societal ‘merit badges’ . . . little markers that I was on the right path to please my elders. And my hopes for my kids were no different.”

    Research suggests that “having a weird name makes you more likely to have impulse control,” and that impulse control is “even more important than I.Q. in predicting socioeconomic success, marital stability, and even staying out of prison.” So Conley names his firstborn daughter E and his younger son Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles.
    ......

    “Parentology” finds some ballast in its final third, when — sadly enough — Conley’s carefully calibrated (but totally improvisational) approach to family falls apart: He and his wife divorce; Yo is given a diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder and is put on medication. I don’t mean to suggest that these events are gratifying — merely that they force Conley to calm down a bit, to acknowledge the possibility that nature may have played just as much of a role as his social science experiments.

    “If my kids’ chances in life are largely determined by the DNA that their mother and I have passed on, all my math drilling and insistence on reading may have been of little added value,” he writes, comforting himself by noting, “On the other hand, all the things I did to mess them up probably won’t actually matter all that much in the end either.”
     

    His ex-wife is renowned in her own way, as an artist working with technology, and I mean stuff like cloned trees and repurposed robot dogs. Thanks to common Australian connections, I’ve met her a few times. Their experiments in “parentology” remind me of the “lovenomics” of another Australian-American couple, the economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

    C0nley’s strategy, jaw-dropping in a sociologist, is to look not for overlooked sociological data, that Herrnstein would assume has some correlation with underlying genes, but to look directly for the genetic data in old people.

    To look at IQ and life outcomes across generations, one could look at the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study along with the NLSY ’79 and ’97.

    The WLS has IQ scores in high school for a sample of people who graduated in the late 1950s and has followed them up through today. Sure, it’s for one state but it should be comparable to the rest of the Midwest region in the NLSY.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks. Here's the home page for the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study of Wisconsin high school graduates of the class of 1957 out through 2011. They have both survey data and genome data.

    https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/wlsresearch/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Anon

    C0nley’s strategy, jaw-dropping in a sociologist, is to look not for overlooked sociological data, that Herrnstein would assume has some correlation with underlying genes, but to look directly for the genetic data in old people.
     
    To look at IQ and life outcomes across generations, one could look at the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study along with the NLSY '79 and '97.

    The WLS has IQ scores in high school for a sample of people who graduated in the late 1950s and has followed them up through today. Sure, it's for one state but it should be comparable to the rest of the Midwest region in the NLSY.

    Thanks. Here’s the home page for the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study of Wisconsin high school graduates of the class of 1957 out through 2011. They have both survey data and genome data.

    https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/wlsresearch/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. It’s nice some sociologists are looking at some gene data but the real problem is the Sisyphian approach taken by sociologists: Pick a dependent variable of interest, find the most predictive combination of variables in accord with some hypothesis, publish a paper and then let people squabble over correlation, causation, methodology, and so on — as the rock rolls back down the mountain to where the nonsense starts all over again.

    If you want to keep the rock from rolling all the way back down, you need to have some way of bringing models together into a unified model and then testing a model of not just one dependent variable but all variables at once. This means you need to have a unified social model that new models get tacked onto so as to improve overall predictive power.

    Of course now you have deal with “over fitting” the data — meaning that you have to start measuring the complexity of your model. This is known as applying Ockham’s Razor in a principled manner.

    Fortunately, we know exactly how to apply Ockham’s Razor in a principled manner and it’s called Algorithmic Information Theory aka Solomonoff Induction. Just ask sociologists to throw all their data in a big data repository and the unified model that produces the smallest compressed representation, without loss, including the model coded as an algorithm, is the most plausible model of social causation.

    Throw genomic data in there if you want but, really, that is gratuitous in a situation where we’re dealing with a “science” that has no control groups to tease out causation and a government that’s not about to permit assortative migration so people can consent to various experiments of their preference, aka “Laboratory of the States”.

    Unfortunately, into this execrable situation, Dalton Conley’s Ivy League colleague, Jonathan Haidt, has greased the rock with his essay “The Pursuit of Parsimony”. Haidt is perfectly positioned to do this since he has mindshare not only with folks that harbor a deep terror of genuine progress in the social sciences, but well intentioned people who have that rare combination of bravery to broach human biodiversity, literacy in statistical methods and a substantial following.

    Haidt is truly despicable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Chainsaw1 says:

    “Among the diverse, yet interconnected, findings: racial categories recognized today aren’t supported by the real genetic differences among humans based on their ancestry.”

    No differences? Just pick an example, lactase persistence gene as identified by the SNP rs4988235_T, frequency: EUR (European) 50.8%, EAS (EastAsian) 0%. Are the authors openly pea brain liars?? See the distribution chart, CEU (Central European), CHB (Beijing Chinese), JPT (Japanese).

    https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs4988235

    “rs4988235 is one of two SNPs that is associated with the primary haplotype associated with hypolactasia, more commonly known as lactose intolerance in European Caucasian populations. … geno: (C;C), likely to be lactose intolerant as an adult; geno:(C;T), likely to be able to digest milk as an adult; geno:(T;T), can digest milk.”

    Further more, the relative frequencies of the allele rs4988235_T positively correlated to the average OECD PISA scores for the European countries,

    PISA3 = +119.7*rs498 +409.3; Rsq=0.4779; p=1.046e-07

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Dr. Doom says:

    The Sociology of DNA: I Have a Bad Feeling About This or Can’t we come up with environmental excuses to stop this racist science?
    By Doctor Reverend Lawyer Token Hire Kang.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. utu says:
    @MEH 0910
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/books/review/dalton-conleys-parentology.html

    Yeah. That guy has written a book on parenting.

    His name is Dalton Conley, and he’s a sociologist at New York University who’s taken his own fatherhood, put it in the blender with his professional interest in scientific inquiry, and produced “Parentology.” He characterizes his technique as the opposite of everything uptight, including “old-world parenting; traditional parenting; textbook parenting; tiger mothering; bringing up bébé.” He’s not into that ponderous, prescriptive stuff. His brand, he says, is more like “jazz parenting,” an “improvisational approach.”

    Conley describes himself as a “freak” whose parenting decisions are based on “flexibility and fluidity, attention to (often counterintuitive, myth-busting) research. . . . Trial and error. Hypothesis revision and more experimentation about what works. In other words, the scientific method.” He lets his children curse at him; he tells them they’re in special education classes because of the better student-­teacher ratio; they camp out around a hot plate while their apartment is renovated. He is a wild and crazy guy.

    Except that he has also spent his career “studying traditional measures of socioeconomic success” and is therefore not interested in any “hippy-dippy perspective where all I want for them is to be quote-unquote ‘happy.’ ” Conley has “long been obsessed with societal ‘merit badges’ . . . little markers that I was on the right path to please my elders. And my hopes for my kids were no different.”

    Research suggests that “having a weird name makes you more likely to have impulse control,” and that impulse control is “even more important than I.Q. in predicting socioeconomic success, marital stability, and even staying out of prison.” So Conley names his firstborn daughter E and his younger son Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles.
    ......

    “Parentology” finds some ballast in its final third, when — sadly enough — Conley’s carefully calibrated (but totally improvisational) approach to family falls apart: He and his wife divorce; Yo is given a diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder and is put on medication. I don’t mean to suggest that these events are gratifying — merely that they force Conley to calm down a bit, to acknowledge the possibility that nature may have played just as much of a role as his social science experiments.

    “If my kids’ chances in life are largely determined by the DNA that their mother and I have passed on, all my math drilling and insistence on reading may have been of little added value,” he writes, comforting himself by noting, “On the other hand, all the things I did to mess them up probably won’t actually matter all that much in the end either.”
     

    Research suggests that “having a weird name makes you more likely to have impulse control,” and that impulse control is “even more important than I.Q. in predicting socioeconomic success, marital stability, and even staying out of prison.”

    Weird names do not seem to work for Blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I have a theory that career military men tend to have odd names, like the West Virginian hero of three wars Basil Plumley, which sounds like a Wodehouse character.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_L._Plumley

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @utu

    Research suggests that “having a weird name makes you more likely to have impulse control,” and that impulse control is “even more important than I.Q. in predicting socioeconomic success, marital stability, and even staying out of prison.”
     
    Weird names do not seem to work for Blacks.

    I have a theory that career military men tend to have odd names, like the West Virginian hero of three wars Basil Plumley, which sounds like a Wodehouse character.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_L._Plumley

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Presumably the last name is something neither parent nor child had any control over. So putting that aside, Basil may not have been so weird in 1920, and there may have been a Basil somewhere in the family tree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Yak-15 says:
    @songbird

    There’s a line in the Youtube Red Series “Cobra Kai” by some character, a nerdy kid who is the friend of one of the younger leads as he and his newly taught Karate buddy talk about their practice SAT test.
     
    Kind of sounds like a paid advertisement. I did not take the practice test because I realized there was no point in taking it, as they already take your highest score. I was quite surprised by the number in my class who did though.

    People take the PSAT because it’s free, sometimes mandatory, and enables one to compete for scholarships.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Definitely wasn't free in my school. Cheaper probably, but definitely not free.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anon[193] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I have a theory that career military men tend to have odd names, like the West Virginian hero of three wars Basil Plumley, which sounds like a Wodehouse character.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_L._Plumley

    Presumably the last name is something neither parent nor child had any control over. So putting that aside, Basil may not have been so weird in 1920, and there may have been a Basil somewhere in the family tree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    My great uncle Basil was born about 1900. No one in the family considered it odd.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. songbird says:
    @Yak-15
    People take the PSAT because it’s free, sometimes mandatory, and enables one to compete for scholarships.

    Definitely wasn’t free in my school. Cheaper probably, but definitely not free.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Intelligent Dasein

    Questions about the importance of race and class crystalized when his friend Jerome was struck by a stray bullet while walking down the street and paralyzed for life at age 13.

    “That event haunted me for the rest of my life, and really, really drove me to ask the questions that I ask in my day job,” Conley said in a 2015 TEDx talk at the University of North Carolina. “Why did he end up getting shot and I ended up getting to go to college?
     
    I find this passage a bit strange.

    The implied argument seems to be that people who dwell among one of society's outcast groups---whether by virtue of belonging to an excluded racial minority or by reason of poverty, a bad upbringing, underachievement, low intelligence, criminality, poor hygiene or whatever---are thereby more likely to inhabit bad neighborhoods where the stray bullets fly, and consequently have an increased likelihood of ending up paralyzed for life. And since (it is assumed) one's genetic heritage contributes to the production of the aforementioned factors, it is possible to use polygenetic studies to predict the probability of one becoming the victim of random violence. Ever attentive for a practical application, another expert helpfully adds that such predictions could form the basis of targeted "interventions" designed to help at-risk individuals avoid the worst aspects of their genetic fate.

    I'm sorry, but this seems like a rather long way to go in order to establish a tenuous and not particularly illuminating connection, which is then followed by an unconvincing sales pitch. These are precisely the kind of conditions that generate boondoggles like Theranos. The entire biotech-medical-pharmaceutical complex seems to be caught up in a style of thinking that proceeds from vast data-mining through statistical analysis and product-cycle development designed to attract investment, all of it driven by hopium-like paeans to the humanitarian ends their research will supposedly serve, the final result of which is only to allow the principal players to line their pockets while virtue-signalling their avowed commitment to science and progress.

    A giveaway is the use of dramatic but inappropriate anecdotes. I have nothing against powerful anecdotes, which are simply individual cases, but they have to support one’s argument.

    Conley asks a rhetorical question, regarding his maimed friend, “Why was I so much more advantaged than my neighbors for the most part?”

    Certain propagandists like to say, “There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.” Actually, there are many stupid questions, and Conley’s was moronic.

    It’s not really a question at all, but a rhetorical strategy meant to both virtue signal and deceive.

    Virtue signal: ‘Although I grew up poor, I too feel patronizing pity for the same black trash for which the rich people I seek to hobnob with feel patronizing pity.’

    (Keep in mind: Most of Conley’s black neighbors in such an area were bound to be criminals.)

    Deception: Conley was not at all advantaged over his black neighbors.

    If you’re white and male and grow up among blacks, you have nothing but disadvantages. Unless you’re really big, or famous as a terror in a fight, anyone can casually walk up to you and violate your person.

    Actually, this even happens to really big whites. My old American Enterprise editor, Karl Zinsmeister, who is at least 6’4,” wrote 20 years ago of being casually sucker-punched by a black stranger some years earlier, when he was painting his fence in D.C.

    If Conley had been honest, he’d have been written off as a “racist” by the same white phonies who write me off as a racist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @MEH 0910
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/books/review/dalton-conleys-parentology.html

    Yeah. That guy has written a book on parenting.

    His name is Dalton Conley, and he’s a sociologist at New York University who’s taken his own fatherhood, put it in the blender with his professional interest in scientific inquiry, and produced “Parentology.” He characterizes his technique as the opposite of everything uptight, including “old-world parenting; traditional parenting; textbook parenting; tiger mothering; bringing up bébé.” He’s not into that ponderous, prescriptive stuff. His brand, he says, is more like “jazz parenting,” an “improvisational approach.”

    Conley describes himself as a “freak” whose parenting decisions are based on “flexibility and fluidity, attention to (often counterintuitive, myth-busting) research. . . . Trial and error. Hypothesis revision and more experimentation about what works. In other words, the scientific method.” He lets his children curse at him; he tells them they’re in special education classes because of the better student-­teacher ratio; they camp out around a hot plate while their apartment is renovated. He is a wild and crazy guy.

    Except that he has also spent his career “studying traditional measures of socioeconomic success” and is therefore not interested in any “hippy-dippy perspective where all I want for them is to be quote-unquote ‘happy.’ ” Conley has “long been obsessed with societal ‘merit badges’ . . . little markers that I was on the right path to please my elders. And my hopes for my kids were no different.”

    Research suggests that “having a weird name makes you more likely to have impulse control,” and that impulse control is “even more important than I.Q. in predicting socioeconomic success, marital stability, and even staying out of prison.” So Conley names his firstborn daughter E and his younger son Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles.
    ......

    “Parentology” finds some ballast in its final third, when — sadly enough — Conley’s carefully calibrated (but totally improvisational) approach to family falls apart: He and his wife divorce; Yo is given a diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder and is put on medication. I don’t mean to suggest that these events are gratifying — merely that they force Conley to calm down a bit, to acknowledge the possibility that nature may have played just as much of a role as his social science experiments.

    “If my kids’ chances in life are largely determined by the DNA that their mother and I have passed on, all my math drilling and insistence on reading may have been of little added value,” he writes, comforting himself by noting, “On the other hand, all the things I did to mess them up probably won’t actually matter all that much in the end either.”
     

    NYU professorship + edginess = big book deals.

    I am so glad I married a rigid, authoritarian daughter of a very smart, hard-working father, may he rest in peace.

    No jazz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    Sorry--where did get the idea he was at NYU, as opposed to Princeton?

    Oh, he was at NYU for years, both as a prof, and a student.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Nicholas Stix
    NYU professorship + edginess = big book deals.

    I am so glad I married a rigid, authoritarian daughter of a very smart, hard-working father, may he rest in peace.

    No jazz.

    Sorry–where did get the idea he was at NYU, as opposed to Princeton?

    Oh, he was at NYU for years, both as a prof, and a student.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @songbird
    I think assortative mating just makes sense intuitively, though it might be handicapped a little by society becoming more diverse.

    Surely the biggest driver of an increase in assortative mating is the increase in full time female employment in higher-level jobs.

    This does however have the defect that such women are statistically likely to have fewer children. Doctors were once (only 35 years back in the UK) mostly male and married nurses. Now who are the women doctors (a majority of med school intake here) going to marry?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. For example, Conley and colleagues used polygenic scores to find that genes began to play a greater role in the height and body mass index of Americans over the 20th century, while their significance decreased in educational outcomes and occurrence of heart disease.

    Does the last part possibly indicate much more about the trends in education in the 20th century than it says about genes?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. MBlanc46 says:
    @Anon
    Presumably the last name is something neither parent nor child had any control over. So putting that aside, Basil may not have been so weird in 1920, and there may have been a Basil somewhere in the family tree.

    My great uncle Basil was born about 1900. No one in the family considered it odd.

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored