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

From The Telegraph:

DNA tests can predict intelligence, scientists show for first time

Genes linked with problem-solving powers were linked to how well brain cells communicated

Sarah Knapton, science editor
12 MARCH 2018 • 5:52PM

Intelligence could be measured with a swab of saliva, or drop of blood, after scientists showed for the first time that a person’s IQ can be predicted just by studying their DNA.

Not sure this is “the first time” because it’s of course a question of how much IQ can be predicted.

In the largest ever study looking at the genetic basis for intelligence, researchers at the University of Edinburgh and Harvard University discovered hundreds of new genes linked to brain power.

Now by studying the genetic data from more than 240,000 people, scientists have found 538 genes which are linked to intelligence. …

Dr David Hill, of the University of Edinburgh’s Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology (CCACE) who led the research, said: “Our study identified a large number of genes linked to intelligence. “We were also able to predict intelligence in another group using only their DNA.” …

But the new research suggests that intelligent people are biologically fitter.

In that they live longer, etc. Presumably, a lot of IQ variation is less due to having genes that are better, on paper, at generating higher IQ and instead are due to having fewer important genes that are broken due to unfortunate mutations (which may have negative consequences for both brain and body).

Here’s an analogy: a Jaguar is designed to have a higher maximum speed than a Toyota when everything is working right, but both cars’ speeds are zero when they are in the shop being fixed, and the Jaguar tends to be broken more.

The team also found that genes linked with problem-solving powers were associated with the process by which neurons carry signals from one place to another in the brain.

“We have shown is [sic] that two biological processes neurogenesis, the process by which new brain cells are created, and myelination of the central nervous system are associated with intelligence differences,” added Dr Hill.

I recall Ed Miller pointing to myelination back in the 1990s.

The study’s principal investigator, Professor Ian Deary, also from CCACE, said: “We know that environments and genes both contribute to the differences we observe in people’s intelligence. …

The research was published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.

The full paper is here:

A combined analysis of genetically correlated traits identifies 187 loci and a role for neurogenesis and myelination in intelligence

W. D. Hill, R. E. Marioni, O. Maghzian, S. J. Ritchie, S. P. Hagenaars, A. M. McIntosh, C. R. Gale, G. Davies & I. J. Deary

Molecular Psychiatry (2018)
doi:10.1038/s41380-017-0001-5

Published online:
11 January 2018
Abstract

Intelligence, or general cognitive function, is phenotypically and genetically correlated with many traits, including a wide range of physical, and mental health variables. Education is strongly genetically correlated with intelligence (r g  = 0.70). We used these findings as foundations for our use of a novel approach—multi-trait analysis of genome-wide association studies (MTAG; Turley et al. 2017)—to combine two large genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of education and intelligence, increasing statistical power and resulting in the largest GWAS of intelligence yet reported. Our study had four goals: first, to facilitate the discovery of new genetic loci associated with intelligence; second, to add to our understanding of the biology of intelligence differences; third, to examine whether combining genetically correlated traits in this way produces results consistent with the primary phenotype of intelligence; and, finally, to test how well this new meta-analytic data sample on intelligence predicts phenotypic intelligence in an independent sample. By combining datasets using MTAG, our functional sample size increased from 199,242 participants to 248,482. We found 187 independent loci associated with intelligence, implicating 538 genes, using both SNP-based and gene-based GWAS. We found evidence that neurogenesis and myelination—as well as genes expressed in the synapse, and those involved in the regulation of the nervous system—may explain some of the biological differences in intelligence. The results of our combined analysis demonstrated the same pattern of genetic correlations as those from previous GWASs of intelligence, providing support for the meta-analysis of these genetically-related phenotypes.

 
Hide 87 CommentsLeave a Comment
87 Comments to "DNA and IQ"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. OT HOUSE WRAPS UP COLLUSION INVESTIGATION WITHOUT LOCATING A SINGLE TIN OF CAVIAR
    MUELLER WILL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO COMMIT LOW-ENERGY SEDITION

    https://apnews.com/dc7c4ec1be104801aefd46313fadb01b/Draft-GOP-report:-No-coordination-between-Trump-and-Russia

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have completed a draft report concluding there was no collusion or coordination between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia, a finding that is sure to please the White House and enrage panel Democrats.

    After a yearlong investigation, Texas Rep. Mike Conaway announced Monday that the committee has finished interviewing witnesses and will share the report with Democrats on Tuesday. Conaway is the Republican leading the House probe, one of several investigations on Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    While Steve was genetically speaking
    His neurons his neurons were seeking.
    I scrolled down to the students
    For insight with prudence
    To learn that a tin wasn't leaking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. As someone who carries an extremely rare mutation that kills you when homozygous, I fully endorse the idea that intelligence is substantially boosted by the myelation that being heterozygous causes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Autism may look a good candidate to heterozygotic version of higher intelligence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. #StatuaryRape

    Gorilla Statue Removed After Complaints It Was ‘Racially Insensitive’

    February 28, 2018
    …CORSICANA (CBSDFW.COM) – A statue of a gorilla, and prime attraction for kids at the Community Park playground in Corsicana was removed by the city.

    A spokesperson for the city said some community members found the gorilla offensive – racially insensitive — in some form, and requested its removal from the park.

    Part of a playful, circus-theme, the man-made gorilla held his ground for 19 years. It was in a cage, since it wasn’t reinforced and could fall over if kids climbed on it.

    But now, in his absence, memorials and growing crowds at sit-ins fill the void. A protestor sits in the cage, refusing to move until the gorilla is returned.

    A Facebook page called ” In Memory Of Dobby” was started in memoriam of the gorilla. Fans shared their memories and posted pics, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. How to trigger racists in 3 words:

    French Adoption Study

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIinyYwmB04

    The n of that study is under 50
    , @pyrrhus
    A large number of actual scientific studies have shown that environment has virtually no effect on IQ. Socioeconomic status does, however, have an significant effect on success in life, given the power of the connected to favor their own relatives...
    , @Pat Boyle
    Chimpanzees have races and so do gorillas, but humans are claimed to be creatures above the natural world for whom there are no races only 'social constructs'. This is some vaguely Victorian quasi-religious doctrine. Similarly everyone everywhere has always recognized that some people are more able mentally than others, yet we are served up this fantasy that its all a mistake and an illusion and that all people are equally clever.

    Why would anyone believe this crap? Just so no one will call you a racist? There is a simple remedy.

    I used to call myself a race realist. But I'm too tired for all the BS now. I'm a racist. I of course mean the term racist denotatively - races are real and they have different attributes, Somehow everyone uses the term racist connotatively - meaning being like Hitler or Bull Connor or some other disagreeable guy.

    It's time to sink the euphemism of "Race Realist". We need plain speech and the acceptance of the obvious. There's nothing wrong with being a racist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Brain cells play a role in cognition? So the brain does more than cool the blood?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    That can't be. My teachers were positive that intelligence was just environmental, smart kids being smart because their parents read them bedtime stories and buy expensive toys and s*ite. They would never lie to us, right?
    , @Silva
    Those damn Sea Peoples and their crazy theories, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Classical Liberal
    How to trigger racists in 3 words:

    French Adoption Study

    https://youtu.be/tE9jiPyLYZA

    The n of that study is under 50

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But it's a helpful study, as I pointed out 12 years ago:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/french-adoption-iq-study/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. “… it’s of course a question of how much IQ can be predicted.”

    So it only gives a rough guide to IQ, but it’s a lot better than nothing. Happily, there’s already a non-invasive test that’s free, widely used and has the same capabilities (and limitations).

    Look at the person’s skin colour.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anonym
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. @DFH
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIinyYwmB04

    The n of that study is under 50

    But it’s a helpful study, as I pointed out 12 years ago:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/french-adoption-iq-study/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. I think 23andme have an option to estimate traits from two parents. Soon you could estimate IQ of your child. I see a new dating site: 23andyou.

    Read More
    • Agree: NickG
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. How can anybody believe there is such a thing as a IQ test?

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.

    I find it astonishing that yourace realists constantly bang on about how intelligence is so important, and yet none have seemed to notice that a rather disconcerting number of their followers tend to struggle when writing a sentence that involves the correct use of the words “there”, “their” and the contraction “they’re”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Hah, that was one of your better parodies! I’m impressed with the way you slipped in “tribemans” in place of the real word “tribesman”, and you ran together the words you and race. Those are subtle and actually hard to catch on a casual reading.
    Nicely done TD. It’s as I keep telling you, your impersonations of a Left Wing imbecile are way more cutting when you keep these little postings short and sweet.
    , @Foreign Expert
    tribesmans ---> persons who identify as tribal
    , @Jack D

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.
     
    And if you include a camel, the camel will outlast both humans, therefore proving that camels are more intelligent than humans. QED.

    Actually the very definition of intelligence is the ability to deal with NOVEL situations. Of course the tribemans knows what to do in the desert where he lives but put the smart guy and the tribemans in the Arctic or on a boat in the middle of the ocean and let's see who does better.
    , @Brutusale
    Yeah, this from the grammarian pimping A Wrinkle OF Time in another thread!

    Are there tesseracts in Wakanda?
    , @Gary in Gramercy
    Who are you, and what have you done with our Duck? The real Tiny doesn't know from contractions.
    , @TheJester
    Years ago I worked in a university physics lab. One Saturday a Black youth working as a janitor approached me and asked me how to use a telephone. He wanted to make a call. I sorted that out for him. (Yes, I was incredulous that a person his age did not know how to use a telephone.)

    Then, in appreciation, the youth returned with a handful of soft drinks. He said he knew how to break into vending machines ... and I should just let him know if I wanted more. I told him it was wrong to steal and that he should return the drinks to the machine.

    The lesson: Yes, different people have different learned skills. I knew how to use a telephone and function in a university physics lab. The youth knew how to clean classrooms and break into vending machines. Somehow, though, I don't think that different exposures to different learned experiences explain it all.

    Regardless, this is a popular notion with all of the benefits of being politically correct. The latest copy of Popular Science, in its in-depth discussion about IQ, states that the measured differences between European and sub-Saharan African IQs are due to higher pathogen loads and lower levels of education in Africa. Equalize health and education in Europe and Africa and there will eventually be no measurable difference.

    The article even references the Flynn Effect to make its case. European IQs increased over time (the Flynn Effect) due to improved health and education. Africa will experience the same with improved health and education until it is at a par with Europe with respect to IQ.

    QED ... and the end of human evolution and its impact on human beings in different physical environments (I guess).
    , @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    I know you are a troll, but will pretend you're not :

    Do you believe surviving in Sahara is only a matter of raw intelligence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    If you were an ethnographer and you found two populations that differed on some cultural or psychological trait, like ethnocentrism or IQ, would the more parsimonious assumption be that the difference is caused by genetics or by culture*?

    Generally speaking, the longer that the two populations have been separated by time and space, the more plausible the genetic explanation becomes because genetic differences require numerous generations to accrue, whereas culture can be changed much more rapidly, and, in cases of cross adoption, is changed in just one generation.

    It seems to me that if you’re looking to explain the IQ gap between Black Africans and Europeans**, genetics is much more plausible than it is to explaining the difference between, say, White Gentiles and Jews, or Germans and Poles, given that the latter populations have not experienced isolation for remotely the same duration and degree.

    Also, apparently Lynn claimed that the IQ of Ashkenazis in Israel is only 103. Given that Ashkenazis in Israel have IQs that are comparable to Gentiles in the West, and given that Ashkenazis take “gentilic” jobs in Israel comparable to Gentiles in the West (carpenter, etc), perhaps the explanation for high Jewish IQ in the diaspora is a cultural proclivity for “the professions.”***

    Question: Do Jews go into the professions at a high rate because they have high genetic IQs, or do they score high on IQ tests because they have a culture of going into the professions? Or some of both in a self-reinforcing manner?

    * With the usual caveats that culture and genetics are not entirely independent variables.

    ** Furthermore, we’ve done cross-adoption studies that reinforce the genetic argument for Black White IQ differences. Double futhermore, Blacks have lower IQs than Whites everywhere, esp. the countries where they are the Majority. Jews have high IQs everwhere, except Israel where they are the majority (Ashkanazis the plurality) — but, Ashkenazis in Israel only have mediocre IQs. Triple furthermore, Blacks have smaller brains than Whites, and the small amount of data we have on Jewish brain size suggests that their brains are no larger than Gentiles, and probably slightly smaller.

    *** They likely still benefit in IQ for their proclivity for the professions even in Israel, however. Even in Israel Ashkenazis dominate in the professions, but they aren’t able to dominate to the same degree they do in the diaspora due to their large numbers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "Lynn claimed that the IQ of Ashkenazis in Israel is only 103"

    Lower than Chinese and South Koreans? Sure, that passes the smell test.
    , @gcochran
    I have Lynn's book in front of me [ The Chosen People] . His estimate of averagee Ashkenazi IQ in Israel is 110.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. The Guardian will still point out that nobody has discovered THE gene for intelligence.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Pericles

    The Guardian will still point out that nobody has discovered THE gene for intelligence.

     

    It's certainly not here at The Guardian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. This is proof that Progs strongly associate Gorillas with Africans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Yes, it is. I was waiting for someone else to say what everybody was thinking. ;-)
    , @Reg Cæsar

    This is proof that Progs strongly associate Gorillas with Africans.

     

    I strongly associate progs with howler monkeys.

    https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/dn28380-1_1200.gif

    https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/the-loudest-monkeys-have-the-smallest-testicles-study-20151023-gkgt3k.html

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kb7eew/the-louder-the-monkey-the-smaller-its-balls-study-finds-42361364663309
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Heh…..you spelled “tribemens” whyle you be gibbon pipo shit bout’n spellin

    Lendorb “teh grammir notzee” Pittswilliam

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @Tiny Duck
    How can anybody believe there is such a thing as a IQ test?

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.

    I find it astonishing that yourace realists constantly bang on about how intelligence is so important, and yet none have seemed to notice that a rather disconcerting number of their followers tend to struggle when writing a sentence that involves the correct use of the words "there", "their" and the contraction "they're".

    Hah, that was one of your better parodies! I’m impressed with the way you slipped in “tribemans” in place of the real word “tribesman”, and you ran together the words you and race. Those are subtle and actually hard to catch on a casual reading.
    Nicely done TD. It’s as I keep telling you, your impersonations of a Left Wing imbecile are way more cutting when you keep these little postings short and sweet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    The guy could easily be on the college circuit. SNL is not an impossibility.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. And this is news to whom?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Intelligence, or general cognitive function, is phenotypically and genetically correlated with many traits, including a wide range of physical, and mental health variables. Education is strongly genetically correlated with intelligence (r g  = 0.70).

    They started with reification and semantic confusion. What intelligence is supposed to be? The only measure they have are some IQ test scores. Why do we consider that IQ test scores measure some intelligence? Because IQ test scores correlate among others with education attainment. IQ test scores are not considered a measure intelligence because of the letter I in IQ unless it was pronounced ex cathedra somewhere in the IQ-Land.

    Now where is the beef?

    Third, we used our meta-analytic GWAS data to predict almost 7% of the variation in intelligence in one of three independent samples. The range of similar estimates across the three independent samples was 3.6 to 6.8%.

    7% is something but not much. Why do they use variation rather than variance?

    Question: If one can explain only 7% of variance of the trait of intelligence with genes how one can prove that the genetic correlation (rg) between trait of intelligence and trait of education is as high 0.7 (70%). It might be that correlation between intelligence and education is very high but how do you know that it is genetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Not my world so sorry if this is a dumb question, but are researchers slowly increasing the % of intelligence predicted by genes?

    I mean, is the 7% more than in past studies? Are scientists bit by bit uncovering genes responsible for intelligence, so maybe in a couple of years it's 10% and a decade from now it's 20%?

    Regardless, how does anybody remain refute that genetics play a role in intelligence with studies like this? Do they argue that "Yes, genes matter, but the environment turns them on or off so it's still only the environment that matters."?

    Finally, at what point will scientists have enough known IQ genes to start looking at their variability across population groups or are we already there but no one wants to ride that horse?
    , @Lot
    They have 7% of variation. That suggests the estimate they would provide for someone with a 145 IQ would likely be 103. In other words, not much fun and disappointing compared to all the other things that can be predicted pretty well from a genome.
    , @Santoculto
    IQ don't correlate with education, it's based on/extracted from what school teach, it's obvious that IQ will correlate with education, lol.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Classical Liberal
    How to trigger racists in 3 words:

    French Adoption Study

    https://youtu.be/tE9jiPyLYZA

    A large number of actual scientific studies have shown that environment has virtually no effect on IQ. Socioeconomic status does, however, have an significant effect on success in life, given the power of the connected to favor their own relatives…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Tyrion 2
    As someone who carries an extremely rare mutation that kills you when homozygous, I fully endorse the idea that intelligence is substantially boosted by the myelation that being heterozygous causes.

    Autism may look a good candidate to heterozygotic version of higher intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @utu

    Intelligence, or general cognitive function, is phenotypically and genetically correlated with many traits, including a wide range of physical, and mental health variables. Education is strongly genetically correlated with intelligence (r g  = 0.70).
     
    They started with reification and semantic confusion. What intelligence is supposed to be? The only measure they have are some IQ test scores. Why do we consider that IQ test scores measure some intelligence? Because IQ test scores correlate among others with education attainment. IQ test scores are not considered a measure intelligence because of the letter I in IQ unless it was pronounced ex cathedra somewhere in the IQ-Land.

    Now where is the beef?

    Third, we used our meta-analytic GWAS data to predict almost 7% of the variation in intelligence in one of three independent samples. The range of similar estimates across the three independent samples was 3.6 to 6.8%.
     
    7% is something but not much. Why do they use variation rather than variance?

    Question: If one can explain only 7% of variance of the trait of intelligence with genes how one can prove that the genetic correlation (rg) between trait of intelligence and trait of education is as high 0.7 (70%). It might be that correlation between intelligence and education is very high but how do you know that it is genetic.

    Not my world so sorry if this is a dumb question, but are researchers slowly increasing the % of intelligence predicted by genes?

    I mean, is the 7% more than in past studies? Are scientists bit by bit uncovering genes responsible for intelligence, so maybe in a couple of years it’s 10% and a decade from now it’s 20%?

    Regardless, how does anybody remain refute that genetics play a role in intelligence with studies like this? Do they argue that “Yes, genes matter, but the environment turns them on or off so it’s still only the environment that matters.”?

    Finally, at what point will scientists have enough known IQ genes to start looking at their variability across population groups or are we already there but no one wants to ride that horse?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Stephen Hsu sounded very positive about closing the heritability gap and he got some results with height but I haven't heard news about IQ. But if IQ heritability is indeed high (like 50%) then in principle a predictor function based on the sequence of many SNP's should be possible. But it will take thousands of SNPs while in this paper they had <200. Hsu wants to by pass the painstaking search for suspects with GWAS and use the brute force fit using all available (millions) SNPs. In my opinion he will face the problem of overfitting which means including false positives. The problem mathematically is not unique. There are many solutions. It is mathematically complicated problem both conceptually and in execution. Your dependent variable (IQ) is continuous and your independent is discrete (the sequence of SNPs). How to construct a function that maps one onto the other? In fact there are infinite numbers of such functions. So one should look among the simplest. But are the simplest that actually represent the mechanism how genes affect the trait? And the simples is just a linear combination of SNPs where you mathematize SNPs as 0, 1 or 2. That's is what Hsu did with height. Turning SNPs to numbers already poses a problem because the effect from 0 to 1 may not necessarily be the same as effect from 1 to 2 in the real world but that is what this mathematization imposes on the linear model.
    , @Peter Johnson
    Genome-wide Association Studies (GWAS) are expensive and require very large teams of researchers. Studying (or even mentioning in an "incorrect" way) genetic differences across races associated with intelligence is explicitly (in Europe) or implicitly (in North America) forbidden in grant-funded GWAS research. Virtually all GWAS research is grant-funded. So it is very difficult to make that type of research analysis happen. Some empirical results slip through the censorship process when they are found tangentially in other research investigations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. So now we have the long awaited intelligence genes (after being repeatedly told “but you haven’t proved that intelligence is genetic”). We only have to see if these genes have the same frequency among the different races and is the end (or at least the beginning of the end) of racial denialism

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. The GWAS results are a bust for actually predicting IQ from genome. I ran the numbers for an earlier paper, and they best they will do is provide low-conviction IQ estimates for nearly everyone in the 97-103 range.

    Not the fault of the researchers, just the fact that even the biggest IQ genes are still mostly worth just .3 or .4 points.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Additionally, both neurogenesis and myelination can be exogenously induced as well(to some extent, as per the research into BDNF), so in many ways, its a refutation of a "hard HBD" position. It also, to some extent, unfortunately points favorably toward mechanical rather than biological singularity since it does seem like machines have much more clearly defined processes of greater scale.
    , @Pericles
    Not to be that guy, but what happens if they run the predictor on a black genome?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Anon
    If you were an ethnographer and you found two populations that differed on some cultural or psychological trait, like ethnocentrism or IQ, would the more parsimonious assumption be that the difference is caused by genetics or by culture*?

    Generally speaking, the longer that the two populations have been separated by time and space, the more plausible the genetic explanation becomes because genetic differences require numerous generations to accrue, whereas culture can be changed much more rapidly, and, in cases of cross adoption, is changed in just one generation.

    It seems to me that if you're looking to explain the IQ gap between Black Africans and Europeans**, genetics is much more plausible than it is to explaining the difference between, say, White Gentiles and Jews, or Germans and Poles, given that the latter populations have not experienced isolation for remotely the same duration and degree.

    Also, apparently Lynn claimed that the IQ of Ashkenazis in Israel is only 103. Given that Ashkenazis in Israel have IQs that are comparable to Gentiles in the West, and given that Ashkenazis take "gentilic" jobs in Israel comparable to Gentiles in the West (carpenter, etc), perhaps the explanation for high Jewish IQ in the diaspora is a cultural proclivity for "the professions."***

    Question: Do Jews go into the professions at a high rate because they have high genetic IQs, or do they score high on IQ tests because they have a culture of going into the professions? Or some of both in a self-reinforcing manner?

    * With the usual caveats that culture and genetics are not entirely independent variables.

    ** Furthermore, we've done cross-adoption studies that reinforce the genetic argument for Black White IQ differences. Double futhermore, Blacks have lower IQs than Whites everywhere, esp. the countries where they are the Majority. Jews have high IQs everwhere, except Israel where they are the majority (Ashkanazis the plurality) -- but, Ashkenazis in Israel only have mediocre IQs. Triple furthermore, Blacks have smaller brains than Whites, and the small amount of data we have on Jewish brain size suggests that their brains are no larger than Gentiles, and probably slightly smaller.

    *** They likely still benefit in IQ for their proclivity for the professions even in Israel, however. Even in Israel Ashkenazis dominate in the professions, but they aren't able to dominate to the same degree they do in the diaspora due to their large numbers.

    “Lynn claimed that the IQ of Ashkenazis in Israel is only 103″

    Lower than Chinese and South Koreans? Sure, that passes the smell test.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Quantitative but not verbal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @utu

    Intelligence, or general cognitive function, is phenotypically and genetically correlated with many traits, including a wide range of physical, and mental health variables. Education is strongly genetically correlated with intelligence (r g  = 0.70).
     
    They started with reification and semantic confusion. What intelligence is supposed to be? The only measure they have are some IQ test scores. Why do we consider that IQ test scores measure some intelligence? Because IQ test scores correlate among others with education attainment. IQ test scores are not considered a measure intelligence because of the letter I in IQ unless it was pronounced ex cathedra somewhere in the IQ-Land.

    Now where is the beef?

    Third, we used our meta-analytic GWAS data to predict almost 7% of the variation in intelligence in one of three independent samples. The range of similar estimates across the three independent samples was 3.6 to 6.8%.
     
    7% is something but not much. Why do they use variation rather than variance?

    Question: If one can explain only 7% of variance of the trait of intelligence with genes how one can prove that the genetic correlation (rg) between trait of intelligence and trait of education is as high 0.7 (70%). It might be that correlation between intelligence and education is very high but how do you know that it is genetic.

    They have 7% of variation. That suggests the estimate they would provide for someone with a 145 IQ would likely be 103. In other words, not much fun and disappointing compared to all the other things that can be predicted pretty well from a genome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    At best the 1-sigma error would be ± 14.4655 which is not much better than ±15 when you have no genetic information.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    utu:

    I’m not sure what they mean by saying that 7% of IQ can be explained with their genetic study. Presumably they tried to find people that grew up in the same/similar environments, or they somehow controlled for environmental factors. (I’m too lazy to read the study) This 7% will for sure go up as our genetic understanding improves, because IQ is much more than 7% genetic when people grow up in the same environment. (It’s probably over 70% in the same environment)

    I think that with identical twins raised apart, it’s like 80% (or maybe higher?).

    Say you have two cultivar of sunflower and you want to see how tall they grow. If you grow them in a controlled environment, with the same soil, sun, air and water, what percent of the difference between the height of the plants is due to their genetic differences? Probably pretty high, like over 70%. Now say you find them growing in the wild, in highly variable conditions, what percent of the difference is due to genetics? Probably way lower, maybe less than 50%. (One gets more sun, or more water due to being adjacent to a hill, etc.)

    So these are two fundamentally different questions: Given the same environment what percent of IQ is genetic? Probably over 80%. Given vastly different environments, like 2nd century hunter gatherer, vs. adopted and raised in a big city by wealthy parents in the 21st century, it’s probably less than 50%, but it depends on how different the environments are. In very heterogeneous environments, you can get genetics down below 10% for anything. Just, starve or poison half the population, and raise the othe half perfectly.

    The question is: How variable is the environment in modern western countries? (All kids go to public schools or better, get enough nutrition, etc) Is it good enough that we can consider environmental factors negligible, as if the children were plants raised in laboratory conditions and we’re trying to study what their genetic potential is? Or, more like wild plants, where one gets constant sun and the other is always in shade. Given that identical twins raised apart have very similar IQs, it seems as if environment is, normally not a huge factor in developed countries: assuming you limit your study to upper middle class SWPL homes, who are typically the people who adopt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    The question is: How variable is the environment in modern western countries?
     
    Heritability is not some absolute universal quantity. It depends on environment. Different societies may have different heritabilities for the same trait. In every society there will be some correlation between genes and environment. I can imagine that there are two groups that are (good genes and good environment) and (bad genes and bad environment) to which good-bad and bad-good combinations gravitate. Mobility will have something to do with it. In a society that has (good, good) and (bad, bad) groups very large heritability will be high and in society where groups (good,bad) and (bad, good) are large heritability will be low.

    Anyway, IMO the estimates of heritability from twin studies are iffy. The only way to find out is by genetic predictor function. How much variance it can explain? So far they do not seem to be closing the heritability gap. So it is possible that on some traits like IQ heritability from twin studies is overestimated. 7% is nothing to write home about though apparently good enough for The Telegraph.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Lot
    "Lynn claimed that the IQ of Ashkenazis in Israel is only 103"

    Lower than Chinese and South Koreans? Sure, that passes the smell test.

    Quantitative but not verbal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Ashkenazi math and verbal advantage is the same 1 SD over US/UK general white samples. You may be thinking of spacial reasoning, e.g., mental rotation of 3D objects, where there is no strong evidence of a difference with US/UK whites. If you are curious about the gap by narrow area, the giant tests in the US in the 50s break it down, you can find the articles on Google Scholar. Though your first academic article on the topic should be our fellow isteve commentator Greg Cochran's.

    I could believe the guys who went to Israel were a tad dimmer than those who went to the Anglosphere, but we have no well documented examples of a closely related ethnicity with a huge IQ gap like Lynn once suggested. And mean regression would cut any IQ preference effect pretty quickly. But the bulk of US Ashkenazi arrived before Israel was created, and when the US was the overwhelming favorite immigrantion destination, so I do not think we really got especially smart Ashkenazi. If anything, the smartest Ashkenazi circa 1900 likely went to Berlin/Vienna/Prague/Budapest, not the USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @utu

    Intelligence, or general cognitive function, is phenotypically and genetically correlated with many traits, including a wide range of physical, and mental health variables. Education is strongly genetically correlated with intelligence (r g  = 0.70).
     
    They started with reification and semantic confusion. What intelligence is supposed to be? The only measure they have are some IQ test scores. Why do we consider that IQ test scores measure some intelligence? Because IQ test scores correlate among others with education attainment. IQ test scores are not considered a measure intelligence because of the letter I in IQ unless it was pronounced ex cathedra somewhere in the IQ-Land.

    Now where is the beef?

    Third, we used our meta-analytic GWAS data to predict almost 7% of the variation in intelligence in one of three independent samples. The range of similar estimates across the three independent samples was 3.6 to 6.8%.
     
    7% is something but not much. Why do they use variation rather than variance?

    Question: If one can explain only 7% of variance of the trait of intelligence with genes how one can prove that the genetic correlation (rg) between trait of intelligence and trait of education is as high 0.7 (70%). It might be that correlation between intelligence and education is very high but how do you know that it is genetic.

    IQ don’t correlate with education, it’s based on/extracted from what school teach, it’s obvious that IQ will correlate with education, lol.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Lot
    The GWAS results are a bust for actually predicting IQ from genome. I ran the numbers for an earlier paper, and they best they will do is provide low-conviction IQ estimates for nearly everyone in the 97-103 range.

    Not the fault of the researchers, just the fact that even the biggest IQ genes are still mostly worth just .3 or .4 points.

    Additionally, both neurogenesis and myelination can be exogenously induced as well(to some extent, as per the research into BDNF), so in many ways, its a refutation of a “hard HBD” position. It also, to some extent, unfortunately points favorably toward mechanical rather than biological singularity since it does seem like machines have much more clearly defined processes of greater scale.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    People want a pill solution, IMO, because it doesn't involve the deep ethical questions that gene-editing would. I doubt if one is really possible though. 5 IQ points maybe, not 15 or 30. 5 would make a difference, but not solve all the troubles of the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @J.Ross
    OT HOUSE WRAPS UP COLLUSION INVESTIGATION WITHOUT LOCATING A SINGLE TIN OF CAVIAR
    MUELLER WILL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO COMMIT LOW-ENERGY SEDITION
    https://apnews.com/dc7c4ec1be104801aefd46313fadb01b/Draft-GOP-report:-No-coordination-between-Trump-and-Russia

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have completed a draft report concluding there was no collusion or coordination between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia, a finding that is sure to please the White House and enrage panel Democrats.

    After a yearlong investigation, Texas Rep. Mike Conaway announced Monday that the committee has finished interviewing witnesses and will share the report with Democrats on Tuesday. Conaway is the Republican leading the House probe, one of several investigations on Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.
     

    While Steve was genetically speaking
    His neurons his neurons were seeking.
    I scrolled down to the students
    For insight with prudence
    To learn that a tin wasn’t leaking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @james wilson
    This is proof that Progs strongly associate Gorillas with Africans.

    Yes, it is. I was waiting for someone else to say what everybody was thinking. ;-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Here’s an analogy: a Jaguar is designed to have a higher maximum speed than a Toyota when everything is working right, but both cars’ speeds are zero when they are in the shop being fixed, and the Jaguar tends to be broken more.

    I don’t think that analogy holds up because if a human “motor” is not running at all then you are dead.

    It is more like this – you have two Jaguars that leave the factory that should have similar speed and acceleration, but in one of them the workers were drunk or having an industrial action that day and they switched up the spark plug wires for cylinders #2 and 4 so that car doesn’t run on all cylinders and is a lot slower. Except in humans no one knows how to fix the wiring once it leaves the factory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Brain cells play a role in cognition? So the brain does more than cool the blood?

    That can’t be. My teachers were positive that intelligence was just environmental, smart kids being smart because their parents read them bedtime stories and buy expensive toys and s*ite. They would never lie to us, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. IQ is like the colour blue. Sure, it’s on a spectrum. Sure, tests give different results: a detector tuned for greenish blue might miss purplish blue. And sure, it’s a matter of opinion where blue ends and teal starts. But none of this means that blue isn’t actually a thing.

    As for @10 Tiny Duck: are you serious? Put an African tribesman in the city, and an intelligent dude from the city in the Sahara, and give them a few days training in how to a) survive, and b) stay out of prison. See how your little thought experiment does then.

    Or let’s take a real-world example. Let’s compare how native Australians and European settlers managed in the Australian climate. Hint: one of the two groups built cities supporting millions of people, the other one didn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @Tiny Duck
    How can anybody believe there is such a thing as a IQ test?

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.

    I find it astonishing that yourace realists constantly bang on about how intelligence is so important, and yet none have seemed to notice that a rather disconcerting number of their followers tend to struggle when writing a sentence that involves the correct use of the words "there", "their" and the contraction "they're".

    tribesmans —> persons who identify as tribal

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Yes, the use of "man" is noninclusive and does not consider the gender fluidity of colored bodies who exist as a group of perfect empathy and is completely respectful of the anatomy of their differently bodied fellows.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. But the new research suggests that intelligent people are biologically fitter.

    H.L. Mencken noted from the sociology of the evolution debate in the 1920′s that the lower orders resent their more intelligent betters because the latter’s intelligence allows them to “get more out of life.” That would seem to signal something about the intelligent men’s greater biological fitness relative to the world’s dullards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. “researchers at the University of Edinburgh and Harvard University discovered hundreds of new genes linked to brain power.”

    Are these genes new?; i.e., are they genes that have never existed before? Or have these genes been around since Neanderthal times but have only recently been discovered?

    It seems likely that what is new is not the genes or their discovery but rather the discovery of their association with intelligence (link to brain power).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @Foreign Expert
    tribesmans ---> persons who identify as tribal

    Yes, the use of “man” is noninclusive and does not consider the gender fluidity of colored bodies who exist as a group of perfect empathy and is completely respectful of the anatomy of their differently bodied fellows.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @james wilson
    This is proof that Progs strongly associate Gorillas with Africans.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Tiny Duck
    How can anybody believe there is such a thing as a IQ test?

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.

    I find it astonishing that yourace realists constantly bang on about how intelligence is so important, and yet none have seemed to notice that a rather disconcerting number of their followers tend to struggle when writing a sentence that involves the correct use of the words "there", "their" and the contraction "they're".

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.

    And if you include a camel, the camel will outlast both humans, therefore proving that camels are more intelligent than humans. QED.

    Actually the very definition of intelligence is the ability to deal with NOVEL situations. Of course the tribemans knows what to do in the desert where he lives but put the smart guy and the tribemans in the Arctic or on a boat in the middle of the ocean and let’s see who does better.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke, Realist
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Daniel Chieh
    Additionally, both neurogenesis and myelination can be exogenously induced as well(to some extent, as per the research into BDNF), so in many ways, its a refutation of a "hard HBD" position. It also, to some extent, unfortunately points favorably toward mechanical rather than biological singularity since it does seem like machines have much more clearly defined processes of greater scale.

    People want a pill solution, IMO, because it doesn’t involve the deep ethical questions that gene-editing would. I doubt if one is really possible though. 5 IQ points maybe, not 15 or 30. 5 would make a difference, but not solve all the troubles of the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Probably not, I agree, though we already have coffee which is a pretty potent nootropic and its substantially more consumed by Caucasians and Asians than those of African descent. Even in the existence of the "smart pill", there are obviously other challenges when dealing with a mindset that thinks that wealth comes from a magic rock that fell from the sky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Put a tribal person on carrier deck during launch and see how fast they kill themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Lot
    They have 7% of variation. That suggests the estimate they would provide for someone with a 145 IQ would likely be 103. In other words, not much fun and disappointing compared to all the other things that can be predicted pretty well from a genome.

    At best the 1-sigma error would be ± 14.4655 which is not much better than ±15 when you have no genetic information.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Not my world so sorry if this is a dumb question, but are researchers slowly increasing the % of intelligence predicted by genes?

    I mean, is the 7% more than in past studies? Are scientists bit by bit uncovering genes responsible for intelligence, so maybe in a couple of years it's 10% and a decade from now it's 20%?

    Regardless, how does anybody remain refute that genetics play a role in intelligence with studies like this? Do they argue that "Yes, genes matter, but the environment turns them on or off so it's still only the environment that matters."?

    Finally, at what point will scientists have enough known IQ genes to start looking at their variability across population groups or are we already there but no one wants to ride that horse?

    Stephen Hsu sounded very positive about closing the heritability gap and he got some results with height but I haven’t heard news about IQ. But if IQ heritability is indeed high (like 50%) then in principle a predictor function based on the sequence of many SNP’s should be possible. But it will take thousands of SNPs while in this paper they had <200. Hsu wants to by pass the painstaking search for suspects with GWAS and use the brute force fit using all available (millions) SNPs. In my opinion he will face the problem of overfitting which means including false positives. The problem mathematically is not unique. There are many solutions. It is mathematically complicated problem both conceptually and in execution. Your dependent variable (IQ) is continuous and your independent is discrete (the sequence of SNPs). How to construct a function that maps one onto the other? In fact there are infinite numbers of such functions. So one should look among the simplest. But are the simplest that actually represent the mechanism how genes affect the trait? And the simples is just a linear combination of SNPs where you mathematize SNPs as 0, 1 or 2. That's is what Hsu did with height. Turning SNPs to numbers already poses a problem because the effect from 0 to 1 may not necessarily be the same as effect from 1 to 2 in the real world but that is what this mathematization imposes on the linear model.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Anon
    utu:

    I'm not sure what they mean by saying that 7% of IQ can be explained with their genetic study. Presumably they tried to find people that grew up in the same/similar environments, or they somehow controlled for environmental factors. (I'm too lazy to read the study) This 7% will for sure go up as our genetic understanding improves, because IQ is much more than 7% genetic when people grow up in the same environment. (It's probably over 70% in the same environment)

    I think that with identical twins raised apart, it's like 80% (or maybe higher?).

    Say you have two cultivar of sunflower and you want to see how tall they grow. If you grow them in a controlled environment, with the same soil, sun, air and water, what percent of the difference between the height of the plants is due to their genetic differences? Probably pretty high, like over 70%. Now say you find them growing in the wild, in highly variable conditions, what percent of the difference is due to genetics? Probably way lower, maybe less than 50%. (One gets more sun, or more water due to being adjacent to a hill, etc.)

    So these are two fundamentally different questions: Given the same environment what percent of IQ is genetic? Probably over 80%. Given vastly different environments, like 2nd century hunter gatherer, vs. adopted and raised in a big city by wealthy parents in the 21st century, it's probably less than 50%, but it depends on how different the environments are. In very heterogeneous environments, you can get genetics down below 10% for anything. Just, starve or poison half the population, and raise the othe half perfectly.

    The question is: How variable is the environment in modern western countries? (All kids go to public schools or better, get enough nutrition, etc) Is it good enough that we can consider environmental factors negligible, as if the children were plants raised in laboratory conditions and we're trying to study what their genetic potential is? Or, more like wild plants, where one gets constant sun and the other is always in shade. Given that identical twins raised apart have very similar IQs, it seems as if environment is, normally not a huge factor in developed countries: assuming you limit your study to upper middle class SWPL homes, who are typically the people who adopt.

    The question is: How variable is the environment in modern western countries?

    Heritability is not some absolute universal quantity. It depends on environment. Different societies may have different heritabilities for the same trait. In every society there will be some correlation between genes and environment. I can imagine that there are two groups that are (good genes and good environment) and (bad genes and bad environment) to which good-bad and bad-good combinations gravitate. Mobility will have something to do with it. In a society that has (good, good) and (bad, bad) groups very large heritability will be high and in society where groups (good,bad) and (bad, good) are large heritability will be low.

    Anyway, IMO the estimates of heritability from twin studies are iffy. The only way to find out is by genetic predictor function. How much variance it can explain? So far they do not seem to be closing the heritability gap. So it is possible that on some traits like IQ heritability from twin studies is overestimated. 7% is nothing to write home about though apparently good enough for The Telegraph.

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

    In Letta Holingworth’s study of IQ in children, she observed that there was a fundamental difference between boys that were savants, that is, had extraordinary mental skills at one specific area but were average to below average in other, and boys who did extremely well on tests of *general* intelligence.

    The boys who were savants tended to be smaller in both height and weight compared to average boys, tended to have poor health and a tendency to get a lot of infections, and they also tended to be “funny looking” with poor facial and body symmetry. Many of them were actually below average on most things outside the narrow mental skill they excelled at, and were mildly retarded.

    The boys with extremely high general intelligence, defined as those with a ratio IQ of 150+, conversely, tended to be bigger than average boys, and had superior facial and body symmetry than average. They were also ranked by other children as being more attractive and desirable and socially dominant. They were also more emotionally mature for their age as well. Hollingworth referred to them as “little gentlemen”, not necessarily because of their manners, but because they were like men in boy’s bodies. They also showed very little developmental problems in terms of health, such as asthma, sinusistis, allergies, etc.

    Two things are known about people with extremely high general intelligence, that could give clues about the physiological basis of it: first, they have superior facial symmetry and proportions compared to average people, and secondly, they have superior ability to recover from injuries and all sorts of physical ailments. Symmetry and proportions indicates sound development with all cells of the body working well, and the ability to recover from injury that high IQ men have also seem to apply to their brain: they seem to experience significantly less cognitive decline with age than average people, and they recover faster and better from things like strokes and concussions. The sound proportionality of function and superior brain-repair ability, thus, appear to be the basis of general intelligence. The proportionality of function between brain cells results in less “errors” in data-transmission in the brain, and the superior ability to create, repair and reinforce both the brain cells and the connections enhances the efficiency of communication between neurons. These two factors translate into higher “G”, which is just power of data-processing, and is applicable to any mental function, from solving an equation to understanding the workings of a combustion engine to predicting how people will behave in any given situation.

    The most remarkable characteristic of men with very high general intelligence is their extraordinary longevity. They tend to live a lot longer than regular guys. In fact, an IQ above 140 is the single greatest predictor of longevity in men. In women, the connection is weaker. Of course, the amazing longevity of very high IQ men is, in part, the result of high IQ men taking better care of their health: it is unlikely, for instance, that a very high IQ man will take up cigarette smoking because he is aware of the 40 diseases that tobacco smoking causes. Likewise, he likely won’t eat lots of red meat, eggs and butterfat because he will be aware of the strong link between saturated fat intake and the development of atherosclerosis. However, even when you adjust for things like tobacco and alcohol use, saturated fat intake, etc, high IQ men still live a lot ,longer than average.

    It seems that this ability to repair body and brain, which high IQ men have t0 a great degree, allows them to repair ageing damage as well much more effectively. It seems to be an ability to repair both body and DNA, which is evident in that very high IQ men have a much lower incidence in all types of cancer. So it is an overall ability to repair damage to the body which, when it comes to the brain, makes it more powerful at processing data. In the body and DNA, this superior repair-ability results in much longer lifespans and a decreased incidence in all sorts of cancer.

    Also, the fact that general intelligence correlates so strongly with facial symmetry and proportions indicates general intelligence, unlike freakish specific mental traits, is the result of billions of years of added evolution and not of recent mutations. Recent mutations tend to make facial features less symmetrical and proportional.

    Unfortunately, because general intelligence appears to be something that correlates so strongly with overall excellency of bodily functions, it won’t be something easy to genetically engineer. It is probably the result of not even hundreds, but possibly thousands of genes, with each contributing fractions of IQ points, and each affecting each other pleiotropically. So if you tweak an intelligence gene up, it might actually result in lower intelligence as that gene might have unforseen negative effects on other genes. Trying to genetically engineer asociety where everyone has very high general intelligence will require many, many centuries of really hardcore genetic engineering. It is something that is vastly beyond our current scientific capabilities For at least many decades and most likely centuries, differences in general intelligence will continue to be a blight on human society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jim jones
    Saturated fat has no connection to heart disease:

    https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/saturated-fats-and-heart-disease-link-unproven/
    , @Santoculto
    And know this gentlemen is working for a third world war, beautifool...

    Interesting how contrasting this people tend to be in relation to many historical geniuses...

    If creativity tend to be a heterozygotic version of mental disorder so by logic highly creative people would be more prone to have higher genetic load than average people.

    , @stillCARealist
    My high IQ father-in-law smoked for 50 years and lived to age 90. He was also addicted to Reece's peanut butter cups.

    My own grandfather, an admiral in the navy, was drunk or nearly drunk every evening of his non-active-duty life. Lived to 92.

    Plenty of smart men drink and smoke and eat crap... and live a long time.
    , @utu

    it is unlikely, for instance, that a very high IQ man will take up cigarette smoking because he is aware of the 40 diseases that tobacco smoking causes. Likewise, he likely won’t eat lots of red meat, eggs and butterfat because he will be aware of the strong link between saturated fat intake and the development of atherosclerosis.
     
    It does not take much brain to learn that smoking is bad and and some foods in excess are bad. If indeed it was true that high IQ peoples are less likely to smoke IQ itself can't be the causal factor.
    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    I read your comment, one 0f the most interesting that I have seen here at iSteve, with great interest.

    Given the high level of reasoning, clearly based on knowledge, demontrated throughout your comment, I was somewhat jolted by paragraph 7:

    "Also, the fact that general intelligence correlates so strongly with facial symmetry and proportions indicates general intelligence, unlike freakish specific mental traits, is the result of billions of years of added evolution and not of recent mutations. Recent mutations tend to make facial features less symmetrical and proportional."

    The scientific community seems to have agreed upon an age of about 13.7 billion years as the age of the Cosmos and about 4.6 billion years as the age of planet Earth. Bipedalism in apes dates to about 4 million years and the appearance of the genus Homo to about 2.8 million years.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @MichiganMom
    OT but tangential -

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/from-the-editor-race-racism-history/

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bispora
    Hi Steve,

    Take a look at this:
    "There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label (Elizabeth Kolbert)"

    National Geographic, 2018...

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Anon
    If you were an ethnographer and you found two populations that differed on some cultural or psychological trait, like ethnocentrism or IQ, would the more parsimonious assumption be that the difference is caused by genetics or by culture*?

    Generally speaking, the longer that the two populations have been separated by time and space, the more plausible the genetic explanation becomes because genetic differences require numerous generations to accrue, whereas culture can be changed much more rapidly, and, in cases of cross adoption, is changed in just one generation.

    It seems to me that if you're looking to explain the IQ gap between Black Africans and Europeans**, genetics is much more plausible than it is to explaining the difference between, say, White Gentiles and Jews, or Germans and Poles, given that the latter populations have not experienced isolation for remotely the same duration and degree.

    Also, apparently Lynn claimed that the IQ of Ashkenazis in Israel is only 103. Given that Ashkenazis in Israel have IQs that are comparable to Gentiles in the West, and given that Ashkenazis take "gentilic" jobs in Israel comparable to Gentiles in the West (carpenter, etc), perhaps the explanation for high Jewish IQ in the diaspora is a cultural proclivity for "the professions."***

    Question: Do Jews go into the professions at a high rate because they have high genetic IQs, or do they score high on IQ tests because they have a culture of going into the professions? Or some of both in a self-reinforcing manner?

    * With the usual caveats that culture and genetics are not entirely independent variables.

    ** Furthermore, we've done cross-adoption studies that reinforce the genetic argument for Black White IQ differences. Double futhermore, Blacks have lower IQs than Whites everywhere, esp. the countries where they are the Majority. Jews have high IQs everwhere, except Israel where they are the majority (Ashkanazis the plurality) -- but, Ashkenazis in Israel only have mediocre IQs. Triple furthermore, Blacks have smaller brains than Whites, and the small amount of data we have on Jewish brain size suggests that their brains are no larger than Gentiles, and probably slightly smaller.

    *** They likely still benefit in IQ for their proclivity for the professions even in Israel, however. Even in Israel Ashkenazis dominate in the professions, but they aren't able to dominate to the same degree they do in the diaspora due to their large numbers.

    I have Lynn’s book in front of me [ The Chosen People] . His estimate of averagee Ashkenazi IQ in Israel is 110.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Lynn's figures on based are norming the English population to 100. His estimate of US IQ is 98.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Anonymous
    In Letta Holingworth's study of IQ in children, she observed that there was a fundamental difference between boys that were savants, that is, had extraordinary mental skills at one specific area but were average to below average in other, and boys who did extremely well on tests of *general* intelligence.

    The boys who were savants tended to be smaller in both height and weight compared to average boys, tended to have poor health and a tendency to get a lot of infections, and they also tended to be "funny looking" with poor facial and body symmetry. Many of them were actually below average on most things outside the narrow mental skill they excelled at, and were mildly retarded.

    The boys with extremely high general intelligence, defined as those with a ratio IQ of 150+, conversely, tended to be bigger than average boys, and had superior facial and body symmetry than average. They were also ranked by other children as being more attractive and desirable and socially dominant. They were also more emotionally mature for their age as well. Hollingworth referred to them as "little gentlemen", not necessarily because of their manners, but because they were like men in boy's bodies. They also showed very little developmental problems in terms of health, such as asthma, sinusistis, allergies, etc.

    Two things are known about people with extremely high general intelligence, that could give clues about the physiological basis of it: first, they have superior facial symmetry and proportions compared to average people, and secondly, they have superior ability to recover from injuries and all sorts of physical ailments. Symmetry and proportions indicates sound development with all cells of the body working well, and the ability to recover from injury that high IQ men have also seem to apply to their brain: they seem to experience significantly less cognitive decline with age than average people, and they recover faster and better from things like strokes and concussions. The sound proportionality of function and superior brain-repair ability, thus, appear to be the basis of general intelligence. The proportionality of function between brain cells results in less "errors" in data-transmission in the brain, and the superior ability to create, repair and reinforce both the brain cells and the connections enhances the efficiency of communication between neurons. These two factors translate into higher "G", which is just power of data-processing, and is applicable to any mental function, from solving an equation to understanding the workings of a combustion engine to predicting how people will behave in any given situation.

    The most remarkable characteristic of men with very high general intelligence is their extraordinary longevity. They tend to live a lot longer than regular guys. In fact, an IQ above 140 is the single greatest predictor of longevity in men. In women, the connection is weaker. Of course, the amazing longevity of very high IQ men is, in part, the result of high IQ men taking better care of their health: it is unlikely, for instance, that a very high IQ man will take up cigarette smoking because he is aware of the 40 diseases that tobacco smoking causes. Likewise, he likely won't eat lots of red meat, eggs and butterfat because he will be aware of the strong link between saturated fat intake and the development of atherosclerosis. However, even when you adjust for things like tobacco and alcohol use, saturated fat intake, etc, high IQ men still live a lot ,longer than average.

    It seems that this ability to repair body and brain, which high IQ men have t0 a great degree, allows them to repair ageing damage as well much more effectively. It seems to be an ability to repair both body and DNA, which is evident in that very high IQ men have a much lower incidence in all types of cancer. So it is an overall ability to repair damage to the body which, when it comes to the brain, makes it more powerful at processing data. In the body and DNA, this superior repair-ability results in much longer lifespans and a decreased incidence in all sorts of cancer.

    Also, the fact that general intelligence correlates so strongly with facial symmetry and proportions indicates general intelligence, unlike freakish specific mental traits, is the result of billions of years of added evolution and not of recent mutations. Recent mutations tend to make facial features less symmetrical and proportional.

    Unfortunately, because general intelligence appears to be something that correlates so strongly with overall excellency of bodily functions, it won't be something easy to genetically engineer. It is probably the result of not even hundreds, but possibly thousands of genes, with each contributing fractions of IQ points, and each affecting each other pleiotropically. So if you tweak an intelligence gene up, it might actually result in lower intelligence as that gene might have unforseen negative effects on other genes. Trying to genetically engineer asociety where everyone has very high general intelligence will require many, many centuries of really hardcore genetic engineering. It is something that is vastly beyond our current scientific capabilities For at least many decades and most likely centuries, differences in general intelligence will continue to be a blight on human society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    True.
    , @Anonymous
    Yes, it does. The result of decades of cross-studies has conclusively demonstrated that saturated fats, especially the saturated fatty acid, palmitic acid(found in red meat, eggs and milk fat), is strongly linked to the development of atherosclerosis. Here is the official position of the American Heart Association: https://healthyforgood.heart.org/eat-smart/articles/saturated-fats
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @jim jones
    Saturated fat has no connection to heart disease:

    https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/saturated-fats-and-heart-disease-link-unproven/

    True.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    gcochran,

    Hmm, perhaps the 103 figure is from one of Lynn’s other books? It appears it might be from Lynn’s “Race Differences Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis”

    Or, perhaps these figures were erroneous quoted. (I don’t own the book, and cannot check.)


    Here is says:

    So Lynn uses population percentages (40% Ashkenazi, 40% Oriental, 20% Arab), results from one direct study of Israeli Arab IQ (86), and knowledge from several Israeli studies that indicate that Ashkenazi Jews score 12 points higher than Oriental Jews, to give indirect weighted estimates of 91 for the IQ of Oriental Jews and 103 for Ashkenazi Jews in Israel


    Here’s a page where it shows in a table Lynn as estimating “103.5 Ashkenazi Jews in Israel”


    Also pumpkinperson refers to 103 figure (It appears uncited, but I assume using the Lynn figure).

    Unlike Northwest Europeans and East Asians, Ashkenazi Jews score higher in the United States than they do in their home country, and not just by a little, but by half a standard deviation (IQ 110 vs 103).

    The Chosen People is a later book (published 2011, instead of 2006) and would probably take precedence. I’d love to see the original studies Lynn drew on to formulate his estimates in both these books.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @dearieme
    The Guardian will still point out that nobody has discovered THE gene for intelligence.

    The Guardian will still point out that nobody has discovered THE gene for intelligence.

    It’s certainly not here at The Guardian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    I accept the challenge. Googling Polly Toynbee +gene +intelligence turned up this drollery:

    'Despite the non-emergence of an “intelligence gene” and the predominant importance of environment over heredity ...' which was here
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/11/eugenics-toby-young-tim-farron-gay-sex

    You owe me a pint, eh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Lot
    The GWAS results are a bust for actually predicting IQ from genome. I ran the numbers for an earlier paper, and they best they will do is provide low-conviction IQ estimates for nearly everyone in the 97-103 range.

    Not the fault of the researchers, just the fact that even the biggest IQ genes are still mostly worth just .3 or .4 points.

    Not to be that guy, but what happens if they run the predictor on a black genome?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. A question that has fascinated me is; if all genes that influence IQ are present in their positive format, what would the resulting IQ be? Said differently what is the maximum human IQ possible? Obviously the chance of getting more and more unmanipulated ‘IQ genes’ in the positive format decreases as the number of influential genes increases. But if the total number of influential genes were known it should someday be possible to manipulate the genes into their positive format.
    What would that IQ be?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Your equation is about extrapolation. The predictor function is constructed on the basis of large sample obviously one may ask what IQ the function predicts if all SNPs included in the function act in one direction. This is easy to calculate. There were no humans in the sample who had such genotype. Is the predictor function valid outside the range of the sample on which it was built?

    One way to simulate this problem is to construct the predictor function on sample from which everybody over 140 IQ was excluded and see how well the function will predict these high IQ cases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.

    Hi Steve,

    Take a look at this:
    “There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It’s a Made-Up Label (Elizabeth Kolbert)”

    National Geographic, 2018…

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Thanks for taking over for James Thompson on items like this after he was neutered, but I still hope for his return to form.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @Classical Liberal
    How to trigger racists in 3 words:

    French Adoption Study

    https://youtu.be/tE9jiPyLYZA

    Chimpanzees have races and so do gorillas, but humans are claimed to be creatures above the natural world for whom there are no races only ‘social constructs’. This is some vaguely Victorian quasi-religious doctrine. Similarly everyone everywhere has always recognized that some people are more able mentally than others, yet we are served up this fantasy that its all a mistake and an illusion and that all people are equally clever.

    Why would anyone believe this crap? Just so no one will call you a racist? There is a simple remedy.

    I used to call myself a race realist. But I’m too tired for all the BS now. I’m a racist. I of course mean the term racist denotatively – races are real and they have different attributes, Somehow everyone uses the term racist connotatively – meaning being like Hitler or Bull Connor or some other disagreeable guy.

    It’s time to sink the euphemism of “Race Realist”. We need plain speech and the acceptance of the obvious. There’s nothing wrong with being a racist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I just tell people that I believe in the Theory of Evolution, i.e. that I'm an Darwinist.

    However, fair warning, people really don't like it when you point out that their views on race run contary to their views on evolutions and that when it comes to race, they are basically creationists. I mean, they really don't like it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Tiny Duck
    How can anybody believe there is such a thing as a IQ test?

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.

    I find it astonishing that yourace realists constantly bang on about how intelligence is so important, and yet none have seemed to notice that a rather disconcerting number of their followers tend to struggle when writing a sentence that involves the correct use of the words "there", "their" and the contraction "they're".

    Yeah, this from the grammarian pimping A Wrinkle OF Time in another thread!

    Are there tesseracts in Wakanda?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Not my world so sorry if this is a dumb question, but are researchers slowly increasing the % of intelligence predicted by genes?

    I mean, is the 7% more than in past studies? Are scientists bit by bit uncovering genes responsible for intelligence, so maybe in a couple of years it's 10% and a decade from now it's 20%?

    Regardless, how does anybody remain refute that genetics play a role in intelligence with studies like this? Do they argue that "Yes, genes matter, but the environment turns them on or off so it's still only the environment that matters."?

    Finally, at what point will scientists have enough known IQ genes to start looking at their variability across population groups or are we already there but no one wants to ride that horse?

    Genome-wide Association Studies (GWAS) are expensive and require very large teams of researchers. Studying (or even mentioning in an “incorrect” way) genetic differences across races associated with intelligence is explicitly (in Europe) or implicitly (in North America) forbidden in grant-funded GWAS research. Virtually all GWAS research is grant-funded. So it is very difficult to make that type of research analysis happen. Some empirical results slip through the censorship process when they are found tangentially in other research investigations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Brain cells play a role in cognition? So the brain does more than cool the blood?

    Those damn Sea Peoples and their crazy theories, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Anonymous
    In Letta Holingworth's study of IQ in children, she observed that there was a fundamental difference between boys that were savants, that is, had extraordinary mental skills at one specific area but were average to below average in other, and boys who did extremely well on tests of *general* intelligence.

    The boys who were savants tended to be smaller in both height and weight compared to average boys, tended to have poor health and a tendency to get a lot of infections, and they also tended to be "funny looking" with poor facial and body symmetry. Many of them were actually below average on most things outside the narrow mental skill they excelled at, and were mildly retarded.

    The boys with extremely high general intelligence, defined as those with a ratio IQ of 150+, conversely, tended to be bigger than average boys, and had superior facial and body symmetry than average. They were also ranked by other children as being more attractive and desirable and socially dominant. They were also more emotionally mature for their age as well. Hollingworth referred to them as "little gentlemen", not necessarily because of their manners, but because they were like men in boy's bodies. They also showed very little developmental problems in terms of health, such as asthma, sinusistis, allergies, etc.

    Two things are known about people with extremely high general intelligence, that could give clues about the physiological basis of it: first, they have superior facial symmetry and proportions compared to average people, and secondly, they have superior ability to recover from injuries and all sorts of physical ailments. Symmetry and proportions indicates sound development with all cells of the body working well, and the ability to recover from injury that high IQ men have also seem to apply to their brain: they seem to experience significantly less cognitive decline with age than average people, and they recover faster and better from things like strokes and concussions. The sound proportionality of function and superior brain-repair ability, thus, appear to be the basis of general intelligence. The proportionality of function between brain cells results in less "errors" in data-transmission in the brain, and the superior ability to create, repair and reinforce both the brain cells and the connections enhances the efficiency of communication between neurons. These two factors translate into higher "G", which is just power of data-processing, and is applicable to any mental function, from solving an equation to understanding the workings of a combustion engine to predicting how people will behave in any given situation.

    The most remarkable characteristic of men with very high general intelligence is their extraordinary longevity. They tend to live a lot longer than regular guys. In fact, an IQ above 140 is the single greatest predictor of longevity in men. In women, the connection is weaker. Of course, the amazing longevity of very high IQ men is, in part, the result of high IQ men taking better care of their health: it is unlikely, for instance, that a very high IQ man will take up cigarette smoking because he is aware of the 40 diseases that tobacco smoking causes. Likewise, he likely won't eat lots of red meat, eggs and butterfat because he will be aware of the strong link between saturated fat intake and the development of atherosclerosis. However, even when you adjust for things like tobacco and alcohol use, saturated fat intake, etc, high IQ men still live a lot ,longer than average.

    It seems that this ability to repair body and brain, which high IQ men have t0 a great degree, allows them to repair ageing damage as well much more effectively. It seems to be an ability to repair both body and DNA, which is evident in that very high IQ men have a much lower incidence in all types of cancer. So it is an overall ability to repair damage to the body which, when it comes to the brain, makes it more powerful at processing data. In the body and DNA, this superior repair-ability results in much longer lifespans and a decreased incidence in all sorts of cancer.

    Also, the fact that general intelligence correlates so strongly with facial symmetry and proportions indicates general intelligence, unlike freakish specific mental traits, is the result of billions of years of added evolution and not of recent mutations. Recent mutations tend to make facial features less symmetrical and proportional.

    Unfortunately, because general intelligence appears to be something that correlates so strongly with overall excellency of bodily functions, it won't be something easy to genetically engineer. It is probably the result of not even hundreds, but possibly thousands of genes, with each contributing fractions of IQ points, and each affecting each other pleiotropically. So if you tweak an intelligence gene up, it might actually result in lower intelligence as that gene might have unforseen negative effects on other genes. Trying to genetically engineer asociety where everyone has very high general intelligence will require many, many centuries of really hardcore genetic engineering. It is something that is vastly beyond our current scientific capabilities For at least many decades and most likely centuries, differences in general intelligence will continue to be a blight on human society.

    And know this gentlemen is working for a third world war, beautifool…

    Interesting how contrasting this people tend to be in relation to many historical geniuses…

    If creativity tend to be a heterozygotic version of mental disorder so by logic highly creative people would be more prone to have higher genetic load than average people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Pat Boyle
    Chimpanzees have races and so do gorillas, but humans are claimed to be creatures above the natural world for whom there are no races only 'social constructs'. This is some vaguely Victorian quasi-religious doctrine. Similarly everyone everywhere has always recognized that some people are more able mentally than others, yet we are served up this fantasy that its all a mistake and an illusion and that all people are equally clever.

    Why would anyone believe this crap? Just so no one will call you a racist? There is a simple remedy.

    I used to call myself a race realist. But I'm too tired for all the BS now. I'm a racist. I of course mean the term racist denotatively - races are real and they have different attributes, Somehow everyone uses the term racist connotatively - meaning being like Hitler or Bull Connor or some other disagreeable guy.

    It's time to sink the euphemism of "Race Realist". We need plain speech and the acceptance of the obvious. There's nothing wrong with being a racist.

    I just tell people that I believe in the Theory of Evolution, i.e. that I’m an Darwinist.

    However, fair warning, people really don’t like it when you point out that their views on race run contary to their views on evolutions and that when it comes to race, they are basically creationists. I mean, they really don’t like it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    I don't actually point out anything to anyone. I don't presume to correct the ideas of those around me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Santoculto
    Quantitative but not verbal.

    Ashkenazi math and verbal advantage is the same 1 SD over US/UK general white samples. You may be thinking of spacial reasoning, e.g., mental rotation of 3D objects, where there is no strong evidence of a difference with US/UK whites. If you are curious about the gap by narrow area, the giant tests in the US in the 50s break it down, you can find the articles on Google Scholar. Though your first academic article on the topic should be our fellow isteve commentator Greg Cochran’s.

    I could believe the guys who went to Israel were a tad dimmer than those who went to the Anglosphere, but we have no well documented examples of a closely related ethnicity with a huge IQ gap like Lynn once suggested. And mean regression would cut any IQ preference effect pretty quickly. But the bulk of US Ashkenazi arrived before Israel was created, and when the US was the overwhelming favorite immigrantion destination, so I do not think we really got especially smart Ashkenazi. If anything, the smartest Ashkenazi circa 1900 likely went to Berlin/Vienna/Prague/Budapest, not the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I'm talking about quantitative or 'general' IQ. They can ''have'' a IQ around 103 but a verbal near to 110, what usually happen with them in (((Western))).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I just tell people that I believe in the Theory of Evolution, i.e. that I'm an Darwinist.

    However, fair warning, people really don't like it when you point out that their views on race run contary to their views on evolutions and that when it comes to race, they are basically creationists. I mean, they really don't like it.

    I don’t actually point out anything to anyone. I don’t presume to correct the ideas of those around me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    "Point out" was probably too strong a phrase. No one likes people getting in their grill about things.

    What happens with me is that in the course of a political discussion or talk about wider country issues (which I generally do my very best to avoid) someone will ask me me if I'm a Republican or a Democratic - which shows you that I keep my cards close to the vest. I'll murmur something about not really liking either party, which usually ends the discussion, but occassionally someone will push me on my beliefs, correctly figuring that I have to believe in something.

    I say that I believe both parties have an incorrect fundamental belief about the world which often leads them to very bad policy prescriptions and thus I don't like either party. Bit by bit if they press, a somewhat watered-down version of my beliefs come out. (I'm not going to advertise my beliefs, but I'm not going to lie about them either.) Naturally, they are horrified, so in my defense, I point out the contradiction in their own beliefs to show them that they agree with me except when it comes to humans.

    So my intention is less about correcting others than it is to get them off my back.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Tiny Duck
    How can anybody believe there is such a thing as a IQ test?

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.

    I find it astonishing that yourace realists constantly bang on about how intelligence is so important, and yet none have seemed to notice that a rather disconcerting number of their followers tend to struggle when writing a sentence that involves the correct use of the words "there", "their" and the contraction "they're".

    Who are you, and what have you done with our Duck? The real Tiny doesn’t know from contractions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Lot
    Ashkenazi math and verbal advantage is the same 1 SD over US/UK general white samples. You may be thinking of spacial reasoning, e.g., mental rotation of 3D objects, where there is no strong evidence of a difference with US/UK whites. If you are curious about the gap by narrow area, the giant tests in the US in the 50s break it down, you can find the articles on Google Scholar. Though your first academic article on the topic should be our fellow isteve commentator Greg Cochran's.

    I could believe the guys who went to Israel were a tad dimmer than those who went to the Anglosphere, but we have no well documented examples of a closely related ethnicity with a huge IQ gap like Lynn once suggested. And mean regression would cut any IQ preference effect pretty quickly. But the bulk of US Ashkenazi arrived before Israel was created, and when the US was the overwhelming favorite immigrantion destination, so I do not think we really got especially smart Ashkenazi. If anything, the smartest Ashkenazi circa 1900 likely went to Berlin/Vienna/Prague/Budapest, not the USA.

    I’m talking about quantitative or ‘general’ IQ. They can ”have” a IQ around 103 but a verbal near to 110, what usually happen with them in (((Western))).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @songbird
    People want a pill solution, IMO, because it doesn't involve the deep ethical questions that gene-editing would. I doubt if one is really possible though. 5 IQ points maybe, not 15 or 30. 5 would make a difference, but not solve all the troubles of the world.

    Probably not, I agree, though we already have coffee which is a pretty potent nootropic and its substantially more consumed by Caucasians and Asians than those of African descent. Even in the existence of the “smart pill”, there are obviously other challenges when dealing with a mindset that thinks that wealth comes from a magic rock that fell from the sky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jim jones
    Saturated fat has no connection to heart disease:

    https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/saturated-fats-and-heart-disease-link-unproven/

    Yes, it does. The result of decades of cross-studies has conclusively demonstrated that saturated fats, especially the saturated fatty acid, palmitic acid(found in red meat, eggs and milk fat), is strongly linked to the development of atherosclerosis. Here is the official position of the American Heart Association: https://healthyforgood.heart.org/eat-smart/articles/saturated-fats

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Pat Boyle
    I don't actually point out anything to anyone. I don't presume to correct the ideas of those around me.

    “Point out” was probably too strong a phrase. No one likes people getting in their grill about things.

    What happens with me is that in the course of a political discussion or talk about wider country issues (which I generally do my very best to avoid) someone will ask me me if I’m a Republican or a Democratic – which shows you that I keep my cards close to the vest. I’ll murmur something about not really liking either party, which usually ends the discussion, but occassionally someone will push me on my beliefs, correctly figuring that I have to believe in something.

    I say that I believe both parties have an incorrect fundamental belief about the world which often leads them to very bad policy prescriptions and thus I don’t like either party. Bit by bit if they press, a somewhat watered-down version of my beliefs come out. (I’m not going to advertise my beliefs, but I’m not going to lie about them either.) Naturally, they are horrified, so in my defense, I point out the contradiction in their own beliefs to show them that they agree with me except when it comes to humans.

    So my intention is less about correcting others than it is to get them off my back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Tiny Duck
    How can anybody believe there is such a thing as a IQ test?

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.

    I find it astonishing that yourace realists constantly bang on about how intelligence is so important, and yet none have seemed to notice that a rather disconcerting number of their followers tend to struggle when writing a sentence that involves the correct use of the words "there", "their" and the contraction "they're".

    Years ago I worked in a university physics lab. One Saturday a Black youth working as a janitor approached me and asked me how to use a telephone. He wanted to make a call. I sorted that out for him. (Yes, I was incredulous that a person his age did not know how to use a telephone.)

    Then, in appreciation, the youth returned with a handful of soft drinks. He said he knew how to break into vending machines … and I should just let him know if I wanted more. I told him it was wrong to steal and that he should return the drinks to the machine.

    The lesson: Yes, different people have different learned skills. I knew how to use a telephone and function in a university physics lab. The youth knew how to clean classrooms and break into vending machines. Somehow, though, I don’t think that different exposures to different learned experiences explain it all.

    Regardless, this is a popular notion with all of the benefits of being politically correct. The latest copy of Popular Science, in its in-depth discussion about IQ, states that the measured differences between European and sub-Saharan African IQs are due to higher pathogen loads and lower levels of education in Africa. Equalize health and education in Europe and Africa and there will eventually be no measurable difference.

    The article even references the Flynn Effect to make its case. European IQs increased over time (the Flynn Effect) due to improved health and education. Africa will experience the same with improved health and education until it is at a par with Europe with respect to IQ.

    QED … and the end of human evolution and its impact on human beings in different physical environments (I guess).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Anonymous
    In Letta Holingworth's study of IQ in children, she observed that there was a fundamental difference between boys that were savants, that is, had extraordinary mental skills at one specific area but were average to below average in other, and boys who did extremely well on tests of *general* intelligence.

    The boys who were savants tended to be smaller in both height and weight compared to average boys, tended to have poor health and a tendency to get a lot of infections, and they also tended to be "funny looking" with poor facial and body symmetry. Many of them were actually below average on most things outside the narrow mental skill they excelled at, and were mildly retarded.

    The boys with extremely high general intelligence, defined as those with a ratio IQ of 150+, conversely, tended to be bigger than average boys, and had superior facial and body symmetry than average. They were also ranked by other children as being more attractive and desirable and socially dominant. They were also more emotionally mature for their age as well. Hollingworth referred to them as "little gentlemen", not necessarily because of their manners, but because they were like men in boy's bodies. They also showed very little developmental problems in terms of health, such as asthma, sinusistis, allergies, etc.

    Two things are known about people with extremely high general intelligence, that could give clues about the physiological basis of it: first, they have superior facial symmetry and proportions compared to average people, and secondly, they have superior ability to recover from injuries and all sorts of physical ailments. Symmetry and proportions indicates sound development with all cells of the body working well, and the ability to recover from injury that high IQ men have also seem to apply to their brain: they seem to experience significantly less cognitive decline with age than average people, and they recover faster and better from things like strokes and concussions. The sound proportionality of function and superior brain-repair ability, thus, appear to be the basis of general intelligence. The proportionality of function between brain cells results in less "errors" in data-transmission in the brain, and the superior ability to create, repair and reinforce both the brain cells and the connections enhances the efficiency of communication between neurons. These two factors translate into higher "G", which is just power of data-processing, and is applicable to any mental function, from solving an equation to understanding the workings of a combustion engine to predicting how people will behave in any given situation.

    The most remarkable characteristic of men with very high general intelligence is their extraordinary longevity. They tend to live a lot longer than regular guys. In fact, an IQ above 140 is the single greatest predictor of longevity in men. In women, the connection is weaker. Of course, the amazing longevity of very high IQ men is, in part, the result of high IQ men taking better care of their health: it is unlikely, for instance, that a very high IQ man will take up cigarette smoking because he is aware of the 40 diseases that tobacco smoking causes. Likewise, he likely won't eat lots of red meat, eggs and butterfat because he will be aware of the strong link between saturated fat intake and the development of atherosclerosis. However, even when you adjust for things like tobacco and alcohol use, saturated fat intake, etc, high IQ men still live a lot ,longer than average.

    It seems that this ability to repair body and brain, which high IQ men have t0 a great degree, allows them to repair ageing damage as well much more effectively. It seems to be an ability to repair both body and DNA, which is evident in that very high IQ men have a much lower incidence in all types of cancer. So it is an overall ability to repair damage to the body which, when it comes to the brain, makes it more powerful at processing data. In the body and DNA, this superior repair-ability results in much longer lifespans and a decreased incidence in all sorts of cancer.

    Also, the fact that general intelligence correlates so strongly with facial symmetry and proportions indicates general intelligence, unlike freakish specific mental traits, is the result of billions of years of added evolution and not of recent mutations. Recent mutations tend to make facial features less symmetrical and proportional.

    Unfortunately, because general intelligence appears to be something that correlates so strongly with overall excellency of bodily functions, it won't be something easy to genetically engineer. It is probably the result of not even hundreds, but possibly thousands of genes, with each contributing fractions of IQ points, and each affecting each other pleiotropically. So if you tweak an intelligence gene up, it might actually result in lower intelligence as that gene might have unforseen negative effects on other genes. Trying to genetically engineer asociety where everyone has very high general intelligence will require many, many centuries of really hardcore genetic engineering. It is something that is vastly beyond our current scientific capabilities For at least many decades and most likely centuries, differences in general intelligence will continue to be a blight on human society.

    My high IQ father-in-law smoked for 50 years and lived to age 90. He was also addicted to Reece’s peanut butter cups.

    My own grandfather, an admiral in the navy, was drunk or nearly drunk every evening of his non-active-duty life. Lived to 92.

    Plenty of smart men drink and smoke and eat crap… and live a long time.

    Read More
    • Agree: jim jones
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Realist
    A question that has fascinated me is; if all genes that influence IQ are present in their positive format, what would the resulting IQ be? Said differently what is the maximum human IQ possible? Obviously the chance of getting more and more unmanipulated 'IQ genes' in the positive format decreases as the number of influential genes increases. But if the total number of influential genes were known it should someday be possible to manipulate the genes into their positive format.
    What would that IQ be?

    Your equation is about extrapolation. The predictor function is constructed on the basis of large sample obviously one may ask what IQ the function predicts if all SNPs included in the function act in one direction. This is easy to calculate. There were no humans in the sample who had such genotype. Is the predictor function valid outside the range of the sample on which it was built?

    One way to simulate this problem is to construct the predictor function on sample from which everybody over 140 IQ was excluded and see how well the function will predict these high IQ cases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist

    Your equation is about extrapolation. The predictor function is constructed on the basis of large sample obviously one may ask what IQ the function predicts if all SNPs included in the function act in one direction.
     
    That is correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Pericles

    The Guardian will still point out that nobody has discovered THE gene for intelligence.

     

    It's certainly not here at The Guardian.

    I accept the challenge. Googling Polly Toynbee +gene +intelligence turned up this drollery:

    ‘Despite the non-emergence of an “intelligence gene” and the predominant importance of environment over heredity …’ which was here

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/11/eugenics-toby-young-tim-farron-gay-sex

    You owe me a pint, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles

    ‘Despite the non-emergence of an “intelligence gene” and the predominant importance of environment over heredity …’
     
    Well, that would be no intelligence gene then. If there ever was one around, someone at The Guardian's offices likely let it out the backdoor to run free, freeee. And I bet that'd be bloody Toynbee.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Anonymous
    In Letta Holingworth's study of IQ in children, she observed that there was a fundamental difference between boys that were savants, that is, had extraordinary mental skills at one specific area but were average to below average in other, and boys who did extremely well on tests of *general* intelligence.

    The boys who were savants tended to be smaller in both height and weight compared to average boys, tended to have poor health and a tendency to get a lot of infections, and they also tended to be "funny looking" with poor facial and body symmetry. Many of them were actually below average on most things outside the narrow mental skill they excelled at, and were mildly retarded.

    The boys with extremely high general intelligence, defined as those with a ratio IQ of 150+, conversely, tended to be bigger than average boys, and had superior facial and body symmetry than average. They were also ranked by other children as being more attractive and desirable and socially dominant. They were also more emotionally mature for their age as well. Hollingworth referred to them as "little gentlemen", not necessarily because of their manners, but because they were like men in boy's bodies. They also showed very little developmental problems in terms of health, such as asthma, sinusistis, allergies, etc.

    Two things are known about people with extremely high general intelligence, that could give clues about the physiological basis of it: first, they have superior facial symmetry and proportions compared to average people, and secondly, they have superior ability to recover from injuries and all sorts of physical ailments. Symmetry and proportions indicates sound development with all cells of the body working well, and the ability to recover from injury that high IQ men have also seem to apply to their brain: they seem to experience significantly less cognitive decline with age than average people, and they recover faster and better from things like strokes and concussions. The sound proportionality of function and superior brain-repair ability, thus, appear to be the basis of general intelligence. The proportionality of function between brain cells results in less "errors" in data-transmission in the brain, and the superior ability to create, repair and reinforce both the brain cells and the connections enhances the efficiency of communication between neurons. These two factors translate into higher "G", which is just power of data-processing, and is applicable to any mental function, from solving an equation to understanding the workings of a combustion engine to predicting how people will behave in any given situation.

    The most remarkable characteristic of men with very high general intelligence is their extraordinary longevity. They tend to live a lot longer than regular guys. In fact, an IQ above 140 is the single greatest predictor of longevity in men. In women, the connection is weaker. Of course, the amazing longevity of very high IQ men is, in part, the result of high IQ men taking better care of their health: it is unlikely, for instance, that a very high IQ man will take up cigarette smoking because he is aware of the 40 diseases that tobacco smoking causes. Likewise, he likely won't eat lots of red meat, eggs and butterfat because he will be aware of the strong link between saturated fat intake and the development of atherosclerosis. However, even when you adjust for things like tobacco and alcohol use, saturated fat intake, etc, high IQ men still live a lot ,longer than average.

    It seems that this ability to repair body and brain, which high IQ men have t0 a great degree, allows them to repair ageing damage as well much more effectively. It seems to be an ability to repair both body and DNA, which is evident in that very high IQ men have a much lower incidence in all types of cancer. So it is an overall ability to repair damage to the body which, when it comes to the brain, makes it more powerful at processing data. In the body and DNA, this superior repair-ability results in much longer lifespans and a decreased incidence in all sorts of cancer.

    Also, the fact that general intelligence correlates so strongly with facial symmetry and proportions indicates general intelligence, unlike freakish specific mental traits, is the result of billions of years of added evolution and not of recent mutations. Recent mutations tend to make facial features less symmetrical and proportional.

    Unfortunately, because general intelligence appears to be something that correlates so strongly with overall excellency of bodily functions, it won't be something easy to genetically engineer. It is probably the result of not even hundreds, but possibly thousands of genes, with each contributing fractions of IQ points, and each affecting each other pleiotropically. So if you tweak an intelligence gene up, it might actually result in lower intelligence as that gene might have unforseen negative effects on other genes. Trying to genetically engineer asociety where everyone has very high general intelligence will require many, many centuries of really hardcore genetic engineering. It is something that is vastly beyond our current scientific capabilities For at least many decades and most likely centuries, differences in general intelligence will continue to be a blight on human society.

    it is unlikely, for instance, that a very high IQ man will take up cigarette smoking because he is aware of the 40 diseases that tobacco smoking causes. Likewise, he likely won’t eat lots of red meat, eggs and butterfat because he will be aware of the strong link between saturated fat intake and the development of atherosclerosis.

    It does not take much brain to learn that smoking is bad and and some foods in excess are bad. If indeed it was true that high IQ peoples are less likely to smoke IQ itself can’t be the causal factor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. “Socioeconomic status does, however, have an significant effect on success in life, given the power of the connected to favor their own relatives…”

    Not as much as you seem to think. Studies of adoptees find that their incomes as adults are not strongly correlated with the incomes of their adoptive parents. However, the correlation between the incomes of parents and biological children IS rather high–more so because the parents gave them genes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. @Anonymous
    In Letta Holingworth's study of IQ in children, she observed that there was a fundamental difference between boys that were savants, that is, had extraordinary mental skills at one specific area but were average to below average in other, and boys who did extremely well on tests of *general* intelligence.

    The boys who were savants tended to be smaller in both height and weight compared to average boys, tended to have poor health and a tendency to get a lot of infections, and they also tended to be "funny looking" with poor facial and body symmetry. Many of them were actually below average on most things outside the narrow mental skill they excelled at, and were mildly retarded.

    The boys with extremely high general intelligence, defined as those with a ratio IQ of 150+, conversely, tended to be bigger than average boys, and had superior facial and body symmetry than average. They were also ranked by other children as being more attractive and desirable and socially dominant. They were also more emotionally mature for their age as well. Hollingworth referred to them as "little gentlemen", not necessarily because of their manners, but because they were like men in boy's bodies. They also showed very little developmental problems in terms of health, such as asthma, sinusistis, allergies, etc.

    Two things are known about people with extremely high general intelligence, that could give clues about the physiological basis of it: first, they have superior facial symmetry and proportions compared to average people, and secondly, they have superior ability to recover from injuries and all sorts of physical ailments. Symmetry and proportions indicates sound development with all cells of the body working well, and the ability to recover from injury that high IQ men have also seem to apply to their brain: they seem to experience significantly less cognitive decline with age than average people, and they recover faster and better from things like strokes and concussions. The sound proportionality of function and superior brain-repair ability, thus, appear to be the basis of general intelligence. The proportionality of function between brain cells results in less "errors" in data-transmission in the brain, and the superior ability to create, repair and reinforce both the brain cells and the connections enhances the efficiency of communication between neurons. These two factors translate into higher "G", which is just power of data-processing, and is applicable to any mental function, from solving an equation to understanding the workings of a combustion engine to predicting how people will behave in any given situation.

    The most remarkable characteristic of men with very high general intelligence is their extraordinary longevity. They tend to live a lot longer than regular guys. In fact, an IQ above 140 is the single greatest predictor of longevity in men. In women, the connection is weaker. Of course, the amazing longevity of very high IQ men is, in part, the result of high IQ men taking better care of their health: it is unlikely, for instance, that a very high IQ man will take up cigarette smoking because he is aware of the 40 diseases that tobacco smoking causes. Likewise, he likely won't eat lots of red meat, eggs and butterfat because he will be aware of the strong link between saturated fat intake and the development of atherosclerosis. However, even when you adjust for things like tobacco and alcohol use, saturated fat intake, etc, high IQ men still live a lot ,longer than average.

    It seems that this ability to repair body and brain, which high IQ men have t0 a great degree, allows them to repair ageing damage as well much more effectively. It seems to be an ability to repair both body and DNA, which is evident in that very high IQ men have a much lower incidence in all types of cancer. So it is an overall ability to repair damage to the body which, when it comes to the brain, makes it more powerful at processing data. In the body and DNA, this superior repair-ability results in much longer lifespans and a decreased incidence in all sorts of cancer.

    Also, the fact that general intelligence correlates so strongly with facial symmetry and proportions indicates general intelligence, unlike freakish specific mental traits, is the result of billions of years of added evolution and not of recent mutations. Recent mutations tend to make facial features less symmetrical and proportional.

    Unfortunately, because general intelligence appears to be something that correlates so strongly with overall excellency of bodily functions, it won't be something easy to genetically engineer. It is probably the result of not even hundreds, but possibly thousands of genes, with each contributing fractions of IQ points, and each affecting each other pleiotropically. So if you tweak an intelligence gene up, it might actually result in lower intelligence as that gene might have unforseen negative effects on other genes. Trying to genetically engineer asociety where everyone has very high general intelligence will require many, many centuries of really hardcore genetic engineering. It is something that is vastly beyond our current scientific capabilities For at least many decades and most likely centuries, differences in general intelligence will continue to be a blight on human society.

    I read your comment, one 0f the most interesting that I have seen here at iSteve, with great interest.

    Given the high level of reasoning, clearly based on knowledge, demontrated throughout your comment, I was somewhat jolted by paragraph 7:

    “Also, the fact that general intelligence correlates so strongly with facial symmetry and proportions indicates general intelligence, unlike freakish specific mental traits, is the result of billions of years of added evolution and not of recent mutations. Recent mutations tend to make facial features less symmetrical and proportional.”

    The scientific community seems to have agreed upon an age of about 13.7 billion years as the age of the Cosmos and about 4.6 billion years as the age of planet Earth. Bipedalism in apes dates to about 4 million years and the appearance of the genus Homo to about 2.8 million years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What I meant is that general intelligence is the result of the cumulative evolution that has happened since the first life form, most likely an anaerobic bacteria living next to some deep ocean vent, arose some 3.5 billion years ago. The human brain, especially the high-level mental faculties that distinguish us from animals, is the result of *all* that evolution. Like Darwin said, the difference between organisms on Earth, from the simplest bacteria to the brains of geniuses, is the result of a difference in complexity and not a difference in structure. The "basics" of our bodies were settled and selected for over a billion years ago, and the functioning of our neurons is not innately different from that of the first nerve cell that appeared some 600 million years ago. We just have a lot more, and they have diversified to perform more functions. Same principles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @dearieme
    I accept the challenge. Googling Polly Toynbee +gene +intelligence turned up this drollery:

    'Despite the non-emergence of an “intelligence gene” and the predominant importance of environment over heredity ...' which was here
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/11/eugenics-toby-young-tim-farron-gay-sex

    You owe me a pint, eh?

    ‘Despite the non-emergence of an “intelligence gene” and the predominant importance of environment over heredity …’

    Well, that would be no intelligence gene then. If there ever was one around, someone at The Guardian’s offices likely let it out the backdoor to run free, freeee. And I bet that’d be bloody Toynbee.

    Read More
    • LOL: JMcG
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    My impression is that separate data for Ashkenazi IQ in Israel in non-existent. None of the IQ tests done in Israel separated the Ashkenazi from the Mizrahi and Sephardi (though most of them did (effectively/mostly) exclude or separately record the Arab population, it appears?)

    This forces researchers (Lynn) to estimate Israeli Ashkenazi IQ using 1) gross Israeli (Jewish) IQ 2) diaspora Ashkenazi IQ 3) estimates for Arab & Sephardi/Misrahi Jewish IQ 4) population percentages of the various groups. This seems like a very crude method. I don’t know what induced Lynn to raise his Ashkenazi Israeli IQ estimate from 103 in 2006 *1* to 110 in 2011 *2*, (as he appears to have done) as I’ve not read either book, and I don’t have access to his data. Maybe someone does know. (Was it based on additional studies in Israel that were conducted and/or came to Lynn’s attention in the interim?)

    It should be noted that even if there existed a representative sample of self-identified Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, there would still be claims that this data is not representative of the broader Jewish community due to 1) sample bias due to lower IQ Ashkenazis moving to Israel and the more ambitious moving abroad 2) “Ashkenazi” Israelis being adulterated with Russian Goy blood (hehe). There’s likely, at least a little, truth to both these claims. Thus, if a sample of Israeli Ashkenazis demonstrated IQs lower than (say) 107, and you attempted to use it to support the hypothesis that “Jews score high on IQ tests due to a culture of going into ‘the professions’ – a privilege they have more in the diaspora than they have in Israel” skeptics would still oppose this on the grounds that the Israeli Ashkenazi IQ is not representative of the diaspora, which is, to at least a small degree, likely true.

    I’ll go back to an original point: I’d guess that the more parsimonious explanation for psychological differences between groups, esp., those who are genetically close, like Jews and White Gentiles, is culture and not genetics. Now, if Jews and Gentiles had be isolated for over 50,000 years, as Blacks and Whites have been; if there were data showing that Jews have larger brains than Gentiles*3* (the limited data suggests the opposite) as there is with Asians to Whites and Whites to Blacks; or if there were cross-adoption studies, as there is with Whites and Blacks, then the genetic explanation is more substantiated. None of these things exist for Whites and Jews*4*, so the assumption I’d use is the same as I’d use to explain IQ differences between the British and Irish, or Germans and Poles: It’s more parsimonious to assume it’s cultural or socioeconomic, or some other aspect of nurture and not nature.

    It would be nice if there were 1) cross-adoption studies for Jews and Gentiles and 2) a representative IQ study of the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Israel, that also asked about non-Jewish ancestors/converts and 3) a quality study of Ashkenazi brain size in comparison to White Gentiles. Then the nature nurture question could be answered.

    *1* Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis

    *2* The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement

    *3* There’s this book by Maurice Fishberg “The Jews: A Study of Race and Environment” which is discussed by pumpkinperson. Maybe someone can appraise it. My impression is: Small and limited, and while it suggests Jews to have smaller brains (both in absolute terms and yet still in proportion to their smaller body sizes), due to the size of the study and the its perhaps “convenience sample” nature, it’s perhaps not representative.

    *4* However, there is the intriguing observation by Cochran et al. that Ashkenazis have a higher rate of Tay-Sachs and other diseases that are (shown/hypothesized?) to boost IQ in heterozygotes.
    I seem to recall that the Irish are also predisposed to Tay-Sachs, though to a somewhat lower degree than Ashkenazis.
    Here are two links:

    “French Canadians and the Cajun community of Louisiana have an occurrence similar to the Ashkenazi Jews.” No Citation given?


    “This says: General Pop: 1/250, Jews: 1/25, Irish “could be as high as 1/50″”

    P.S. if you read this, and you’re going to BTFO me on any point, please be nice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    I don’t know what induced Lynn to raise his Ashkenazi Israeli IQ estimate from 103 in 2006 to 110 in 2011
     
    Let me guess. A phone call? Or he could move Israel closer to his GDP vs. IQ curve?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @utu
    Your equation is about extrapolation. The predictor function is constructed on the basis of large sample obviously one may ask what IQ the function predicts if all SNPs included in the function act in one direction. This is easy to calculate. There were no humans in the sample who had such genotype. Is the predictor function valid outside the range of the sample on which it was built?

    One way to simulate this problem is to construct the predictor function on sample from which everybody over 140 IQ was excluded and see how well the function will predict these high IQ cases.

    Your equation is about extrapolation. The predictor function is constructed on the basis of large sample obviously one may ask what IQ the function predicts if all SNPs included in the function act in one direction.

    That is correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @gcochran
    I have Lynn's book in front of me [ The Chosen People] . His estimate of averagee Ashkenazi IQ in Israel is 110.

    Lynn’s figures on based are norming the English population to 100. His estimate of US IQ is 98.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Anon
    My impression is that separate data for Ashkenazi IQ in Israel in non-existent. None of the IQ tests done in Israel separated the Ashkenazi from the Mizrahi and Sephardi (though most of them did (effectively/mostly) exclude or separately record the Arab population, it appears?)

    This forces researchers (Lynn) to estimate Israeli Ashkenazi IQ using 1) gross Israeli (Jewish) IQ 2) diaspora Ashkenazi IQ 3) estimates for Arab & Sephardi/Misrahi Jewish IQ 4) population percentages of the various groups. This seems like a very crude method. I don't know what induced Lynn to raise his Ashkenazi Israeli IQ estimate from 103 in 2006 *1* to 110 in 2011 *2*, (as he appears to have done) as I've not read either book, and I don't have access to his data. Maybe someone does know. (Was it based on additional studies in Israel that were conducted and/or came to Lynn's attention in the interim?)

    It should be noted that even if there existed a representative sample of self-identified Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, there would still be claims that this data is not representative of the broader Jewish community due to 1) sample bias due to lower IQ Ashkenazis moving to Israel and the more ambitious moving abroad 2) "Ashkenazi" Israelis being adulterated with Russian Goy blood (hehe). There's likely, at least a little, truth to both these claims. Thus, if a sample of Israeli Ashkenazis demonstrated IQs lower than (say) 107, and you attempted to use it to support the hypothesis that "Jews score high on IQ tests due to a culture of going into 'the professions' - a privilege they have more in the diaspora than they have in Israel" skeptics would still oppose this on the grounds that the Israeli Ashkenazi IQ is not representative of the diaspora, which is, to at least a small degree, likely true.

    I'll go back to an original point: I'd guess that the more parsimonious explanation for psychological differences between groups, esp., those who are genetically close, like Jews and White Gentiles, is culture and not genetics. Now, if Jews and Gentiles had be isolated for over 50,000 years, as Blacks and Whites have been; if there were data showing that Jews have larger brains than Gentiles*3* (the limited data suggests the opposite) as there is with Asians to Whites and Whites to Blacks; or if there were cross-adoption studies, as there is with Whites and Blacks, then the genetic explanation is more substantiated. None of these things exist for Whites and Jews*4*, so the assumption I'd use is the same as I'd use to explain IQ differences between the British and Irish, or Germans and Poles: It's more parsimonious to assume it's cultural or socioeconomic, or some other aspect of nurture and not nature.

    It would be nice if there were 1) cross-adoption studies for Jews and Gentiles and 2) a representative IQ study of the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Israel, that also asked about non-Jewish ancestors/converts and 3) a quality study of Ashkenazi brain size in comparison to White Gentiles. Then the nature nurture question could be answered.

    *1* Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis

    *2* The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement

    *3* There's this book by Maurice Fishberg "The Jews: A Study of Race and Environment" which is discussed by pumpkinperson. Maybe someone can appraise it. My impression is: Small and limited, and while it suggests Jews to have smaller brains (both in absolute terms and yet still in proportion to their smaller body sizes), due to the size of the study and the its perhaps "convenience sample" nature, it's perhaps not representative.

    *4* However, there is the intriguing observation by Cochran et al. that Ashkenazis have a higher rate of Tay-Sachs and other diseases that are (shown/hypothesized?) to boost IQ in heterozygotes.
    I seem to recall that the Irish are also predisposed to Tay-Sachs, though to a somewhat lower degree than Ashkenazis.
    Here are two links:

    "French Canadians and the Cajun community of Louisiana have an occurrence similar to the Ashkenazi Jews." No Citation given?


    "This says: General Pop: 1/250, Jews: 1/25, Irish "could be as high as 1/50""


    P.S. if you read this, and you're going to BTFO me on any point, please be nice.

    I don’t know what induced Lynn to raise his Ashkenazi Israeli IQ estimate from 103 in 2006 to 110 in 2011

    Let me guess. A phone call? Or he could move Israel closer to his GDP vs. IQ curve?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. “DNA and” is a palindrome.

    “Qi DNA and IQ” is another.

    What is “qi”? Why, it’s “ch’i” in the metric Pinyin system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Are the elements of the green word other than the ring (the i and the cross-piece, with exaggerated serifs, of the Q) meant to resemble a human assuming certain posture advocated by a certain Austrian Jew to allow for the free flowing of a certain energy during a certain activity? Or am I just reading too much into it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. What is “clickbait” in French?

    We edge out Canada and are even with Mongolia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)
    I read your comment, one 0f the most interesting that I have seen here at iSteve, with great interest.

    Given the high level of reasoning, clearly based on knowledge, demontrated throughout your comment, I was somewhat jolted by paragraph 7:

    "Also, the fact that general intelligence correlates so strongly with facial symmetry and proportions indicates general intelligence, unlike freakish specific mental traits, is the result of billions of years of added evolution and not of recent mutations. Recent mutations tend to make facial features less symmetrical and proportional."

    The scientific community seems to have agreed upon an age of about 13.7 billion years as the age of the Cosmos and about 4.6 billion years as the age of planet Earth. Bipedalism in apes dates to about 4 million years and the appearance of the genus Homo to about 2.8 million years.

    What I meant is that general intelligence is the result of the cumulative evolution that has happened since the first life form, most likely an anaerobic bacteria living next to some deep ocean vent, arose some 3.5 billion years ago. The human brain, especially the high-level mental faculties that distinguish us from animals, is the result of *all* that evolution. Like Darwin said, the difference between organisms on Earth, from the simplest bacteria to the brains of geniuses, is the result of a difference in complexity and not a difference in structure. The “basics” of our bodies were settled and selected for over a billion years ago, and the functioning of our neurons is not innately different from that of the first nerve cell that appeared some 600 million years ago. We just have a lot more, and they have diversified to perform more functions. Same principles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Tiny Duck
    How can anybody believe there is such a thing as a IQ test?

    Lets take the smartest person you know and put him in the Sahara desert and put in one tribemans who lives there, who do you think will survive.

    I find it astonishing that yourace realists constantly bang on about how intelligence is so important, and yet none have seemed to notice that a rather disconcerting number of their followers tend to struggle when writing a sentence that involves the correct use of the words "there", "their" and the contraction "they're".

    I know you are a troll, but will pretend you’re not :

    Do you believe surviving in Sahara is only a matter of raw intelligence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Reg Cæsar
    "DNA and" is a palindrome.

    "Qi DNA and IQ" is another.

    What is "qi"? Why, it's "ch'i" in the metric Pinyin system.

    https://qi-teas.com/images/logos/1/qi-teas-logo.png

    https://static.wixstatic.com/media/328e6d_81ac390343f947ed8f8f82e71ec7f1b2.jpg

    Are the elements of the green word other than the ring (the i and the cross-piece, with exaggerated serifs, of the Q) meant to resemble a human assuming certain posture advocated by a certain Austrian Jew to allow for the free flowing of a certain energy during a certain activity? Or am I just reading too much into it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Alfa158
    Hah, that was one of your better parodies! I’m impressed with the way you slipped in “tribemans” in place of the real word “tribesman”, and you ran together the words you and race. Those are subtle and actually hard to catch on a casual reading.
    Nicely done TD. It’s as I keep telling you, your impersonations of a Left Wing imbecile are way more cutting when you keep these little postings short and sweet.

    The guy could easily be on the college circuit. SNL is not an impossibility.

    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 major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored