The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Yet Another Breakthrough Study of Genes for Intelligence
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

A preprint from bioRxiv:

GWAS meta-analysis (N=279,930) identifies new genes and functional links to intelligence

Posted September 6, 2017

Jeanne E. Savage, …

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed

Intelligence is highly heritable and a major determinant of human health and well-being. Recent genome-wide meta-analyses have identified 24 genomic loci linked to intelligence, but much about its genetic underpinnings remains to be discovered. Here, we present the largest genetic association study of intelligence to date (N=279,930),

And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …

identifying 206 genomic loci (191 novel) and implicating 1,041 genes (963 novel) via positional mapping, expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) mapping, chromatin interaction mapping, and gene-based association analysis. We find enrichment of genetic effects in conserved and coding regions and identify 89 nonsynonymous exonic variants. Associated genes are strongly expressed in the brain and specifically in striatal medium spiny neurons and cortical and hippocampal pyramidal neurons. Gene-set analyses implicate pathways related to neurogenesis, neuron differentiation and synaptic structure. We confirm previous strong genetic correlations with several neuropsychiatric disorders, and Mendelian Randomization results suggest protective effects of intelligence for Alzheimer’s dementia and ADHD, and bidirectional causation with strong pleiotropy for schizophrenia. These results are a major step forward in understanding the neurobiology of intelligence as well as genetically associated neuropsychiatric traits.

 
    []
  1. And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …

    Large number of researches analyzing huge samples of data on ~20,000 human genes, each merrily p hacking away looking for correlation after correlation after correlation, it seems incredibly naive to put much stock in this sort of thing at this point.

    I know people like to think that there’s disciplines like social psychology and then real sciences like genetics, but so many of the arguments against those softer disciplines apply here as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vinteuil
    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. "Show us the genes!" they cried - i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. "What non-question-begging reason," they will demand to know, "do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?"

    ...To which question there is no possible answer.
    , @Lot
    The rate of false positives can be calculated, so what is the issue?

    It is certainly disappointing compared to what we might have expected 15 years ago.
    , @utu

    Missing heritability: is the gap closing? An analysis of 32 complex traits in the Lifelines Cohort Study.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28401901
     
    It still does not look good. For height they can explain less than 50% heritability with 10's of thousands of SNPs. One would think that it should be simple. You can define it and you can measure it w/o controversy unlike in case of intelligence.

    On average, the variance explained by the weighted GRSs (genetic risks scores) accounted for only 10.7% of the common-SNP heritability of the 32 traits. These results indicate that GRSs may not yet be ready for accurate personalized prediction of complex disease traits limiting widespread adoption in clinical practice.
     
    , @Mark P Miller
    Do you know what the p values in this study even were? There's a huge difference between 0.05 and 0.00005, i.e. the former is much more hackable.
    , @hyperbola
    Yep. And this same article already had over 100 comments on UNZ several weeks ago. Not sure why it is being repeated again.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-99-steps-of-intelligence-hunters/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/yet-another-breakthrough-study-of-genes-for-intelligence/#comment-1997543
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. One Tribe says:

    … all irrelevant to any discussion about “race”, without generational perseverance, which is not available in rigorous valid, reliable empirical research evidence.

    Your trajectory is one from a particular place, consistent with presenting indicators in the societal awareness of racial superiority.
    There is a clear pattern towards an affiliation claiming scientific proof of racial intelligence superiority. This would only be propaganda, and you attempt to lay foundations for this lie with your articles.
    You work for ‘them’, and you know it.

    There is no such thing as ‘race’ …

    from a generational persistence perspective, three generations turnover could completely eradicate ‘the perfect storm’ of any postulated (even if provable at an individual level) racial intelligence normative differentiation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    from a generational persistence perspective, three generations turnover could completely eradicate ‘the perfect storm’ of any postulated (even if provable at an individual level) racial intelligence normative differentiation.
     
    Are you aware of R = H^2 * S?

    Three generations implies some enormous selection, akin to killing off half their population.
    , @Emblematic
    Are you black? Your writing style has the kind of over-ripe verbosity made famous by 'black intellectuals'.
    , @Desiderius
    Cool story bro.

    Sucks that you paid all that money for a liberal arts education and got stuck with that mess instead. Luckily for you, there's still time to make something of your life.
  3. Anon says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Once this is all mapped and once a method is created to genetically boost IQ, the very people who denied the genetic basis of IQ will say that everyone has a right to be boosted genetically in IQ.

    Today.

    “Blacks don’t lower IQ.”

    Tomorrow.

    “Blacks have a right to have their IQ’s boosted.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seneca
    I agree with you that this is probably what will happen.

    The left will never relinquish the belief that people other than Whites need to have some special treatment to compensate for alleged past wrongs (or alleged current wrongs like the spurious fictitious "White privilege").

    This is and will continue to be to the detriment of White children who will suffer through no fault of their own.
    , @SimpleSong
    I think they would if it were possible, but economically this just won't be possible. To do CRISPR on one gene for one baby is going to be insanely expensive--think about how much IVF costs, then add to that the cost of CRISPR and the fact that the failure rate for IVF likely increases after a modification. Then think about the cost of doing CRISPR on thousands of genes that have been identified and what that does to failure rates, off target modifications, etc.

    The results that show there are thousands of genes that make small contributions to intelligence indicate to me that there is little chance of widespread genetic modification for higher intelligence--changing them all is going to be nigh impossible. GATTACA style selection of embryos pre-implantation, along with CRISPR to repair maybe one or two isolated genes that cause frank disease is more likely.

    Cheapest and easiest way to increase population intelligence is to just have smart people get it on, and actually probably the most effective way as well.

    Also, rememeber that if you did do this, you would basically be making blacks have a white baby with dark skin and kinky hair. Change those thousands of genes and he or she is not going to be into rap music. Brahms, more like.
  4. anonguy says:

    The relationship to schizophrenia is interesting and correlates with my own anecdotal evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Which relationship are you expecting? The abstract is a bit vague, but the genetic correlation for schizophrenia is negative. From page 9:

    Confirming previous reports5,6, we observed negative genetic correlations (Online methods) with ADHD (rg=−0.36, P=1.97×10-24), depressive symptoms (rg=−0.27, P=5.77×10-10), Alzheimer’s disease (rg=−0.26, P=5.77×10-10), and schizophrenia (rg=−0.22, P=2.58×10-18) and positive correlations with EA (rg=0.70, P<1×10-200) and longevity (rg=0.43, P=4.91×10-8) (Supplementary Table 18; Supplementary Figure 9).
     
    I'm not quite sure how to interpret the language in the abstract.
  5. syonredux says:

    TN Coates has decided that Trump is America’s first White President:

    IT IS INSUFFICIENT TO STATE the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.

    How evil is Trump? He’s basically Sauron….

    To Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the very core of his power. In this, Trump is not singular. But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/?utm_source=atlfb

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    After the obese smoker girl died of a heart attack in Charlottesville, a shitlib acquaintance messaged me on FB after I posted something about that memorable day. He didn't have any actual argument, of course, but he did have a book to recommend, and it was none other than Ta-negenius Coates'. I replied "I've read enough of his work to know I wouldn't read his book unless I was getting paid at least a dollar/page."

    He immediately blocked me lol
  6. res says:

    And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …

    Any news regarding just how big?

    Read More
  7. Tiny Duck says:

    Tenehsi Coates DESTROYS any “good” reason for voting for or supporting Donald Trump.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/

    If you do not hate Trump and what he stands for then you are a racist cur

    Read More
    • Troll: Guy de Champlagne
    • Replies: @fish

    Gozer the Traveller, he will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb!


    - Leonard Pitts
     
    , @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Actually, I am a race realist (to you that means a racist) cur. How does calling me names change science?
    , @Vinteuil
    TD, for once you've provided a public service. That Tennessee Coates article to which you link is a priceless example of the sort of prose one can expect from the hopelessly clueless, under-talented & over-praised, black lackeys of the over-class.

    "It is insufficient to state the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit."

    I mean, seriously - what can one say?

    My favorite bit is: "the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them."

    May God send him an editor, asap.
    , @Milo Minderbinder
    But what does Leonard Pitts say?
    , @Desiderius

    Tenehsi Coates DESTROYS any “good” reason for voting for or supporting Donald Trump.
     
    He tried to, but Trump made his saving throw.
    , @Mark P Miller
    Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
  8. res says:
    @anonguy
    The relationship to schizophrenia is interesting and correlates with my own anecdotal evidence.

    Which relationship are you expecting? The abstract is a bit vague, but the genetic correlation for schizophrenia is negative. From page 9:

    Confirming previous reports5,6, we observed negative genetic correlations (Online methods) with ADHD (rg=−0.36, P=1.97×10-24), depressive symptoms (rg=−0.27, P=5.77×10-10), Alzheimer’s disease (rg=−0.26, P=5.77×10-10), and schizophrenia (rg=−0.22, P=2.58×10-18) and positive correlations with EA (rg=0.70, P<1×10-200) and longevity (rg=0.43, P=4.91×10-8) (Supplementary Table 18; Supplementary Figure 9).

    I’m not quite sure how to interpret the language in the abstract.

    Read More
  9. Vinteuil says:
    @Guy de Champlagne

    And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …
     
    Large number of researches analyzing huge samples of data on ~20,000 human genes, each merrily p hacking away looking for correlation after correlation after correlation, it seems incredibly naive to put much stock in this sort of thing at this point.

    I know people like to think that there's disciplines like social psychology and then real sciences like genetics, but so many of the arguments against those softer disciplines apply here as well.

    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. “Show us the genes!” they cried – i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. “What non-question-begging reason,” they will demand to know, “do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?”

    …To which question there is no possible answer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    You're behind the times. All they need to do is call you a racist. Only a racist would be interested in finding out if evolution affected the human brain.
    , @Guy de Champlagne
    You didn't address my point though. I don't deny the likelihood of there being genes that influence intelligence. My point is that even cutting edge genetic analysis techniques are too crude to identify them and not just prone but essentially guaranteed to produce false positives. These techniques are equally incapable of identifying the genes responsible for other traits that combine the effects of multiple genes and poorly understood epigenetic processes.
    , @songbird
    Technically, as far as genetic evidence goes, beyond degrees of relation, it should be sufficient evidence that there are different alleles expressed in the brain, and that these alleles have different population frequencies. This has been known for a few years now.

    What we are approaching now is a DNA IQ test, and since liberals have been skeptical of regular IQ tests, despite them being fairly reliable and predictive, I don't really see that changing. Lewontin was literally a Marxist geneticist. He identified as a Marxist.

    What may get the ball finally rolling is people genetically selecting or even engineering their children. The world is a big place, and I expect someone to eventually do it. And once they do, it will be pretty hard to ignore the genetic basis of IQ.
    , @anonguy

    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. “Show us the genes!” they cried – i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. “What non-question-begging reason,” they will demand to know, “do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?”

    …To which question there is no possible answer.
     
    Dude, that is so August, 2017, don't you know time has moved on?

    Seriously, though, I've been now seeing criticisms of scientism, which is making any decisions about the human condition based upon scientific arguments.

    It is an artifact of Western Civ, and to apply it unthinkingly, or perhaps unfeelingly would be more descriptive of the critics intent, is cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

    So making science based arguments themselves help identify whose team one is upon.

    Anyhow, it isn't in the future, it is ongoing now. It is now held to be an "ism" and that usually isn't a good sign.
    , @Lot

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.
     
    Yeah but the 437 authors are writing very opaquely.

    I want papers on these most vital issues to above the quality the early Richard Lynn/Unz's sloppy use of stats. But beware of what you want, now I get the rigorous but poorly explained style we see in both this PDF and many others in this topic like it.

    This topic is screaming for a good review article from one of our old crimethink masters: Linda G, Greg C., Steve P., Steve S., Charles M.

    I have tried a bit today and in prior months to translate the findings to plain English, but the topic is partly beyond me.
    , @AndrewR
    Wow I was quickly proven right

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MouthyBuddha/status/905918746421800961
  10. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Tenehsi Coates DESTROYS any "good" reason for voting for or supporting Donald Trump.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/


    If you do not hate Trump and what he stands for then you are a racist cur

    Gozer the Traveller, he will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb!

    - Leonard Pitts

    Read More
  11. @Tiny Duck
    Tenehsi Coates DESTROYS any "good" reason for voting for or supporting Donald Trump.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/


    If you do not hate Trump and what he stands for then you are a racist cur

    Actually, I am a race realist (to you that means a racist) cur. How does calling me names change science?

    Read More
  12. Vinteuil says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Tenehsi Coates DESTROYS any "good" reason for voting for or supporting Donald Trump.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/


    If you do not hate Trump and what he stands for then you are a racist cur

    TD, for once you’ve provided a public service. That Tennessee Coates article to which you link is a priceless example of the sort of prose one can expect from the hopelessly clueless, under-talented & over-praised, black lackeys of the over-class.

    “It is insufficient to state the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.”

    I mean, seriously – what can one say?

    My favorite bit is: “the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them.”

    May God send him an editor, asap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sayless
    "May God send him an editor, asap."

    Vinteuil, Wassamattah U?

    Haven't you ever seen heirlooms with blood on them cooking up tailwinds?

    Come on!

    , @Pericles

    My favorite bit is: “the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them.”

     

    Thass some kind of cracka voodoo, fam.
  13. AndrewR says:
    @syonredux
    TN Coates has decided that Trump is America's first White President:

    IT IS INSUFFICIENT TO STATE the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.
     
    How evil is Trump? He's basically Sauron....

    To Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the very core of his power. In this, Trump is not singular. But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies.
     
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/?utm_source=atlfb

    After the obese smoker girl died of a heart attack in Charlottesville, a shitlib acquaintance messaged me on FB after I posted something about that memorable day. He didn’t have any actual argument, of course, but he did have a book to recommend, and it was none other than Ta-negenius Coates’. I replied “I’ve read enough of his work to know I wouldn’t read his book unless I was getting paid at least a dollar/page.”

    He immediately blocked me lol

    Read More
  14. AndrewR says:
    @Vinteuil
    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. "Show us the genes!" they cried - i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. "What non-question-begging reason," they will demand to know, "do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?"

    ...To which question there is no possible answer.

    You’re behind the times. All they need to do is call you a racist. Only a racist would be interested in finding out if evolution affected the human brain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @San Fernando Curt
    Only a heretic would want to disprove the sun's orbit around the Earth.

    "Intelligence is highly heritable..."
     
    That line alone makes this abstract genuine breakthrough in the world of scientific publishing today.
  15. @Vinteuil
    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. "Show us the genes!" they cried - i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. "What non-question-begging reason," they will demand to know, "do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?"

    ...To which question there is no possible answer.

    You didn’t address my point though. I don’t deny the likelihood of there being genes that influence intelligence. My point is that even cutting edge genetic analysis techniques are too crude to identify them and not just prone but essentially guaranteed to produce false positives. These techniques are equally incapable of identifying the genes responsible for other traits that combine the effects of multiple genes and poorly understood epigenetic processes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    You're wrong: Bonferroni correction.
    , @O'Really
    Would you say the same about similar genetic studies of height, or Crohn's disease, or adiponectin levels? Or are these genetic techniques only too crude when applied above the neck?
    , @SimpleSong
    Someone has already mentioned Bonferroni correction, let me just expand on what's being argued about here and give my two cents. Please forgive that this is a gross simplification:

    The traditional way of doing a controlled experiment in medicine/biology is to make some observations, calculate the odds that they would happen by chance, and if it is less than 5% (1 in twenty), decide that it can't be a coincidence and there really is a relationship. The problem with this is if you slice your data 20 different ways or so, even if your data is actually is totally random crud with no true relationships, etc., you would expect to get one false positive, simply due to chance.

    This plays out in several ways: suppose 20 researchers at 20 different institutions do some experiment that is actually just baloney. 19 of them get negative results and put the results in a drawer and forget about it, because no one wants to publish a negative result. The one that gets a positive result writes it up and sends it to a journal, the methodology actually was sound, no misconduct--just a fluke. It is (appropriately) published and no one bothers to replicate, and voila! the literature is now crapified. This is what has happened to the social 'science' literature.

    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.

    Looking at genetic correlations is obviously susceptible to this, since these studies look at way more than 20 genes. However, unlike our social science friends, for the most part these guys are not morons and they make corrections for the fact that they are looking at multiple genes. A crude way is Bonferroni correction--just divide 5% by the number of tests. If you're looking at 2 genes, for example, standard of proof is now 2.5%, at 10 genes, 0.5%, etc. Bonferroni actually overshoots and will cause some false negatives so often other techniques are used, but you get the idea.

    Bottom line, assuming they didn't completely screw up the stats, this is not likely to be false positive.
  16. Seneca says:
    @Anon
    Once this is all mapped and once a method is created to genetically boost IQ, the very people who denied the genetic basis of IQ will say that everyone has a right to be boosted genetically in IQ.

    Today.

    "Blacks don't lower IQ."

    Tomorrow.

    "Blacks have a right to have their IQ's boosted."

    I agree with you that this is probably what will happen.

    The left will never relinquish the belief that people other than Whites need to have some special treatment to compensate for alleged past wrongs (or alleged current wrongs like the spurious fictitious “White privilege”).

    This is and will continue to be to the detriment of White children who will suffer through no fault of their own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    We have been shown the punishment delivered to those who strive to be God, yet we persevere. Can we not understand?
  17. @Tiny Duck
    Tenehsi Coates DESTROYS any "good" reason for voting for or supporting Donald Trump.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/


    If you do not hate Trump and what he stands for then you are a racist cur

    But what does Leonard Pitts say?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I sometimes wonder if TD is actually Pitts, or a close relative of him.
  18. gcochran says:
    @Guy de Champlagne
    You didn't address my point though. I don't deny the likelihood of there being genes that influence intelligence. My point is that even cutting edge genetic analysis techniques are too crude to identify them and not just prone but essentially guaranteed to produce false positives. These techniques are equally incapable of identifying the genes responsible for other traits that combine the effects of multiple genes and poorly understood epigenetic processes.

    You’re wrong: Bonferroni correction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Guy de Champlagne
    First of all, does this article use Bonferroni correction and all the other best standards and practices? The full pdf doesn't contain the word correction.

    And second of all what are the chances that the best standards and practices of such a young disciple aren't hiding some major conceptual error that may end up taking years or even decades to be identified and addressed?
  19. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    So glad we still have the freedom to read and share this info.

    But the super elite scum are racing to shut down free inquiry, free thought, free movement, free society. They want the China system worldwide.

    The astounding scientific breakthroughs of the next fifty years can either benefit the world or benefit the tiny super elite. The scum are talking about forming a breakaway civilization. Speciation.

    They are throttling the internet platforms and bringing them under a global regime far removed from the First Amendment. We must not allow it. Demonetization marches on on YouTube and twitter is using every dirty trick in the code book to marginalize crimethink.

    Plan now for your future counter action once the hammer comes down on the free speech internet.

    Read More
  20. Lot says:

    When I looked up all the IQ genes ID’d in an earlier study on my own genome, my implied IQ based on the data was exactly in line with the overall population. I also did not have any of the Ashkenazi brain genes. (Even if I had every single one of the non-Ash higher IQ variants, my IQ would only be about 3pts above average.). In other words, the last time I checked one of these big studies, it was not of much use.

    23andme does say I have much lower Alzheimer’s risk than normal. So right now we can better predict relative intelligence at 80 than 30.

    Read More
  21. Lot says:
    @Guy de Champlagne

    And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …
     
    Large number of researches analyzing huge samples of data on ~20,000 human genes, each merrily p hacking away looking for correlation after correlation after correlation, it seems incredibly naive to put much stock in this sort of thing at this point.

    I know people like to think that there's disciplines like social psychology and then real sciences like genetics, but so many of the arguments against those softer disciplines apply here as well.

    The rate of false positives can be calculated, so what is the issue?

    It is certainly disappointing compared to what we might have expected 15 years ago.

    Read More
  22. Lot says:

    I wonder if the ADHD and depression correlation is overstated by the fact that higher IQ cope better so, given the same symptoms, are less likely to be diagnosed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alice
    Lot, yes, that's an interesting idea. But it's giving them too much credit.

    I wondered how they ascertained all of their twin studies co-morbidity issues myself. If you were diagnosed with ADHD as a child does that diagnosis stick to this data forever? How about depressive episodes? At least with schizophrenia it means they've had a full blown attack to be diagnosed, so the data should be tagged. But I don't know that anyone understands their models well enough to really trusts these correlations.
  23. @One Tribe
    ... all irrelevant to any discussion about "race", without generational perseverance, which is not available in rigorous valid, reliable empirical research evidence.

    Your trajectory is one from a particular place, consistent with presenting indicators in the societal awareness of racial superiority.
    There is a clear pattern towards an affiliation claiming scientific proof of racial intelligence superiority. This would only be propaganda, and you attempt to lay foundations for this lie with your articles.
    You work for 'them', and you know it.


    There is no such thing as 'race' ...
     
    from a generational persistence perspective, three generations turnover could completely eradicate 'the perfect storm' of any postulated (even if provable at an individual level) racial intelligence normative differentiation.

    from a generational persistence perspective, three generations turnover could completely eradicate ‘the perfect storm’ of any postulated (even if provable at an individual level) racial intelligence normative differentiation.

    Are you aware of R = H^2 * S?

    Three generations implies some enormous selection, akin to killing off half their population.

    Read More
  24. @One Tribe
    ... all irrelevant to any discussion about "race", without generational perseverance, which is not available in rigorous valid, reliable empirical research evidence.

    Your trajectory is one from a particular place, consistent with presenting indicators in the societal awareness of racial superiority.
    There is a clear pattern towards an affiliation claiming scientific proof of racial intelligence superiority. This would only be propaganda, and you attempt to lay foundations for this lie with your articles.
    You work for 'them', and you know it.


    There is no such thing as 'race' ...
     
    from a generational persistence perspective, three generations turnover could completely eradicate 'the perfect storm' of any postulated (even if provable at an individual level) racial intelligence normative differentiation.

    Are you black? Your writing style has the kind of over-ripe verbosity made famous by ‘black intellectuals’.

    Read More
  25. Lot says:

    I wish these authors, here and in other papers, would translate their results into estimated IQ point change per gene variant.

    A quick look makes me think the results are expressed in IQ SD. God forbid they take once sentence to say so.

    Most of the numbers are around .015, or about a fifth of an IQ point. I should not have to read the whole paper carefully to be sure.

    I also think that is right because that is in line with prior studies after accounting for the fact this one is much bigger so will be able to detect genes will smaller effects.

    In any case, if someone has an hour and a 23andme account, what is you estimated IQ based on this paper?

    I think this is all right, but it is a great chance for anti-Lotters to prove me wrong.

    Read More
  26. O'Really says:
    @Guy de Champlagne
    You didn't address my point though. I don't deny the likelihood of there being genes that influence intelligence. My point is that even cutting edge genetic analysis techniques are too crude to identify them and not just prone but essentially guaranteed to produce false positives. These techniques are equally incapable of identifying the genes responsible for other traits that combine the effects of multiple genes and poorly understood epigenetic processes.

    Would you say the same about similar genetic studies of height, or Crohn’s disease, or adiponectin levels? Or are these genetic techniques only too crude when applied above the neck?

    Read More
  27. Lot says:
    @Emblematic
    Are you black? Your writing style has the kind of over-ripe verbosity made famous by 'black intellectuals'.

    Can I both agree and LOL?

    Read More
  28. @Guy de Champlagne
    You didn't address my point though. I don't deny the likelihood of there being genes that influence intelligence. My point is that even cutting edge genetic analysis techniques are too crude to identify them and not just prone but essentially guaranteed to produce false positives. These techniques are equally incapable of identifying the genes responsible for other traits that combine the effects of multiple genes and poorly understood epigenetic processes.

    Someone has already mentioned Bonferroni correction, let me just expand on what’s being argued about here and give my two cents. Please forgive that this is a gross simplification:

    The traditional way of doing a controlled experiment in medicine/biology is to make some observations, calculate the odds that they would happen by chance, and if it is less than 5% (1 in twenty), decide that it can’t be a coincidence and there really is a relationship. The problem with this is if you slice your data 20 different ways or so, even if your data is actually is totally random crud with no true relationships, etc., you would expect to get one false positive, simply due to chance.

    This plays out in several ways: suppose 20 researchers at 20 different institutions do some experiment that is actually just baloney. 19 of them get negative results and put the results in a drawer and forget about it, because no one wants to publish a negative result. The one that gets a positive result writes it up and sends it to a journal, the methodology actually was sound, no misconduct–just a fluke. It is (appropriately) published and no one bothers to replicate, and voila! the literature is now crapified. This is what has happened to the social ‘science’ literature.

    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.

    Looking at genetic correlations is obviously susceptible to this, since these studies look at way more than 20 genes. However, unlike our social science friends, for the most part these guys are not morons and they make corrections for the fact that they are looking at multiple genes. A crude way is Bonferroni correction–just divide 5% by the number of tests. If you’re looking at 2 genes, for example, standard of proof is now 2.5%, at 10 genes, 0.5%, etc. Bonferroni actually overshoots and will cause some false negatives so often other techniques are used, but you get the idea.

    Bottom line, assuming they didn’t completely screw up the stats, this is not likely to be false positive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Guy de Champlagne

    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.
     
    It's hardly extreme stupidity. It's perfectly understandable to think that you've just discovered some meaningful way to analyze the data after a bunch of dead ends. And then it's human nature to come up with some story of how the analysis that yielded a sufficiently low p value has a rationality to it while all the other ones didn't.

    Bottom line, assuming they didn’t completely screw up the stats, this is not likely to be false positive.
     
    But, what reason is there to assume that even the best standards are capable of producing anything other than informed speculation? If it's such a mature field with stable and rational set of statistical practices, then where's the track record of established findings?
    , @utu
    for the most part these guys are not morons and they make corrections for the fact that they are looking at multiple genes

    I hope so and I presume that's why they push for larger sample sizes:

    And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …
     
    On small sample you can more easily find multiple genes combination that will give you 100% correlation with the given trait In fact with any random number sequence. So the large sample size is necessary to exclude false positives.

    Now the question is how big the sample needs to be if you start with 100's of thousands of SNPs? What if two sets of SNPs gives you the same correlation? Which set is the causative one? To exclude them you will need even bigger sample. There might be not enough people on Earth to do it. The number of possible combination is beyond our ability to ever calculate it. There are over 10^24000 combinations of 10,000 long subsets (of SNPs) in the set of 1 million (SNPs). So if they happen to find say k=10,000 SNPs that explain 50% of IQ variance it does not mean that there are no almost countless other combinations of SNPs that explain even more variance. But you will not be able to find them unless you are lucky because there is no computing power available in this universe to do it.
  29. Lot says:

    I don’t have time to do the full search, but I had to check if I have the biggest dummy variant the study identified, an A on rs13107325. Good news, C/C.

    Read More
  30. @gcochran
    You're wrong: Bonferroni correction.

    First of all, does this article use Bonferroni correction and all the other best standards and practices? The full pdf doesn’t contain the word correction.

    And second of all what are the chances that the best standards and practices of such a young disciple aren’t hiding some major conceptual error that may end up taking years or even decades to be identified and addressed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    They all use it, and they don't publish unless it replicates in another sample.
    , @Lot
    If they were picking up noise then their hits would not be strongly concentrated around genes known to be associated with the brain.

    I am thinking you did not actually read the paper.
  31. Lot says:
    @Milo Minderbinder
    But what does Leonard Pitts say?

    I sometimes wonder if TD is actually Pitts, or a close relative of him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sayless
    "I sometimes wonder if TD is actually Pitts"

    I think Tiny Duck is one of Steve Sailer's alters. Tiny, and donut, and possibly Priss Factor.

    Steve contains multitudes.

    I will take a Damitol and so to bed.

  32. @SimpleSong
    Someone has already mentioned Bonferroni correction, let me just expand on what's being argued about here and give my two cents. Please forgive that this is a gross simplification:

    The traditional way of doing a controlled experiment in medicine/biology is to make some observations, calculate the odds that they would happen by chance, and if it is less than 5% (1 in twenty), decide that it can't be a coincidence and there really is a relationship. The problem with this is if you slice your data 20 different ways or so, even if your data is actually is totally random crud with no true relationships, etc., you would expect to get one false positive, simply due to chance.

    This plays out in several ways: suppose 20 researchers at 20 different institutions do some experiment that is actually just baloney. 19 of them get negative results and put the results in a drawer and forget about it, because no one wants to publish a negative result. The one that gets a positive result writes it up and sends it to a journal, the methodology actually was sound, no misconduct--just a fluke. It is (appropriately) published and no one bothers to replicate, and voila! the literature is now crapified. This is what has happened to the social 'science' literature.

    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.

    Looking at genetic correlations is obviously susceptible to this, since these studies look at way more than 20 genes. However, unlike our social science friends, for the most part these guys are not morons and they make corrections for the fact that they are looking at multiple genes. A crude way is Bonferroni correction--just divide 5% by the number of tests. If you're looking at 2 genes, for example, standard of proof is now 2.5%, at 10 genes, 0.5%, etc. Bonferroni actually overshoots and will cause some false negatives so often other techniques are used, but you get the idea.

    Bottom line, assuming they didn't completely screw up the stats, this is not likely to be false positive.

    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.

    It’s hardly extreme stupidity. It’s perfectly understandable to think that you’ve just discovered some meaningful way to analyze the data after a bunch of dead ends. And then it’s human nature to come up with some story of how the analysis that yielded a sufficiently low p value has a rationality to it while all the other ones didn’t.

    Bottom line, assuming they didn’t completely screw up the stats, this is not likely to be false positive.

    But, what reason is there to assume that even the best standards are capable of producing anything other than informed speculation? If it’s such a mature field with stable and rational set of statistical practices, then where’s the track record of established findings?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimpleSong

    But, what reason is there to assume that even the best standards are capable of producing anything other than informed speculation? If it’s such a mature field with stable and rational set of statistical practices, then where’s the track record of established findings?
     
    Uh...you realize this type of work makes testable predictions, right? Take 1000 babies. Sequence their genomes. Predict their IQ at 18. Put this prediction in a drawer. Follow up when they are 18. Measure their IQ. Take the predicted IQs out of the drawer. Plot predicted IQ versus measured IQ. Is it a blob? Then this is baloney. Is it a line? Then this is real. This type of work is no more pseudoscience than physics and chemistry--they both make testable predictions. We don't know yet if it will hold up, but it is very much science, not philosophy or metaphysics.


    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.
     
    It’s hardly extreme stupidity. It’s perfectly understandable to think that you’ve just discovered some meaningful way to analyze the data after a bunch of dead ends. And then it’s human nature to come up with some story of how the analysis that yielded a sufficiently low p value has a rationality to it while all the other ones didn’t.
     
    Sorry, no, not acceptable. When a student comes to me with some correlation after fishing around a data set for a month, my response is: great! Now gather a new set of data and run the same test. If it is real, you will get the same results. If it is not real, then there is a 19/20 chance it doesn't replicate. This is taught in high school stats. A grad student should not make this mistake, ever, much less someone who claims to do science for a living.
  33. utu says:
    @Guy de Champlagne

    And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …
     
    Large number of researches analyzing huge samples of data on ~20,000 human genes, each merrily p hacking away looking for correlation after correlation after correlation, it seems incredibly naive to put much stock in this sort of thing at this point.

    I know people like to think that there's disciplines like social psychology and then real sciences like genetics, but so many of the arguments against those softer disciplines apply here as well.

    Missing heritability: is the gap closing? An analysis of 32 complex traits in the Lifelines Cohort Study.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28401901

    It still does not look good. For height they can explain less than 50% heritability with 10′s of thousands of SNPs. One would think that it should be simple. You can define it and you can measure it w/o controversy unlike in case of intelligence.

    On average, the variance explained by the weighted GRSs (genetic risks scores) accounted for only 10.7% of the common-SNP heritability of the 32 traits. These results indicate that GRSs may not yet be ready for accurate personalized prediction of complex disease traits limiting widespread adoption in clinical practice.

    Read More
  34. gcochran says:
    @Guy de Champlagne
    First of all, does this article use Bonferroni correction and all the other best standards and practices? The full pdf doesn't contain the word correction.

    And second of all what are the chances that the best standards and practices of such a young disciple aren't hiding some major conceptual error that may end up taking years or even decades to be identified and addressed?

    They all use it, and they don’t publish unless it replicates in another sample.

    Read More
  35. Lot says:
    @Guy de Champlagne
    First of all, does this article use Bonferroni correction and all the other best standards and practices? The full pdf doesn't contain the word correction.

    And second of all what are the chances that the best standards and practices of such a young disciple aren't hiding some major conceptual error that may end up taking years or even decades to be identified and addressed?

    If they were picking up noise then their hits would not be strongly concentrated around genes known to be associated with the brain.

    I am thinking you did not actually read the paper.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Guy De Champlaigne
    I'm not claiming to be able to understand the paper. I don't understand economic models or alchemy either but it's still obvious they're nonsense.
  36. @Anon
    Once this is all mapped and once a method is created to genetically boost IQ, the very people who denied the genetic basis of IQ will say that everyone has a right to be boosted genetically in IQ.

    Today.

    "Blacks don't lower IQ."

    Tomorrow.

    "Blacks have a right to have their IQ's boosted."

    I think they would if it were possible, but economically this just won’t be possible. To do CRISPR on one gene for one baby is going to be insanely expensive–think about how much IVF costs, then add to that the cost of CRISPR and the fact that the failure rate for IVF likely increases after a modification. Then think about the cost of doing CRISPR on thousands of genes that have been identified and what that does to failure rates, off target modifications, etc.

    The results that show there are thousands of genes that make small contributions to intelligence indicate to me that there is little chance of widespread genetic modification for higher intelligence–changing them all is going to be nigh impossible. GATTACA style selection of embryos pre-implantation, along with CRISPR to repair maybe one or two isolated genes that cause frank disease is more likely.

    Cheapest and easiest way to increase population intelligence is to just have smart people get it on, and actually probably the most effective way as well.

    Also, rememeber that if you did do this, you would basically be making blacks have a white baby with dark skin and kinky hair. Change those thousands of genes and he or she is not going to be into rap music. Brahms, more like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Brahms Cleaver?
    , @Anon
    I think they would if it were possible, but economically this just won’t be possible. To do CRISPR on one gene for one baby is going to be insanely expensive–think about how much IVF costs

    The first time decoding the DNA was expensive as hell. But now it's cheap and available to any person for $200.

    For now, bio-engineering is expensive. In the future, it might become cheap, especially as AI are programmed to do it all.

    If civilization survives, future babies will be made this way.

    There will be a computerized glass panel. Would-be-father will press his thumb on part of the glass and imprint part of DNA, and then the would-be-mother will do the same.
    And then the AI will combine the genes of father and mother and offer many possibilities of those combinations. (After all, same man and same woman have different kids every time they procreate.) And then, the computer will offer 'bio-photo-shopping' so that the basic kid will be altered with addition of outsider genes. So, if the man wants the kid to look more like Sean Connery, the kid will be Connerized with additional genes. So, the father's looks are 'improved' by Connery looks. And if the kid is a girl, the parents can add some genes to give her the Patricia Neal look in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Kid will be Nealized. (For the negress babies, their looks can be improved with additions of Diana Ross or Rihanna synthetic genes.)
    Also, the basic IQ can be boosted with Newtonization.

    And then the result will be allowed to grow in an aquarium and turn into a baby, to be milked by artificial robot nanny.

    Currently, with so many freaks in transhumanism, the impression is that genetic-technology will lead to divergence. People turning into grotesque freaks and mutants in the future. But actually, most people will choose the Ideal. I mean most guys, if given a choice between having a son that looks like Sean Connery or Johnny Rotten, is gonna go with Connery. Most women, if given a choice between having a girl who looks like Patricia Neal or Jeanine Garofalo, is gonna go with Neal(or Donna Reed, so wonderful in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE).

    So, it will be the great convergence than the great divergence.
    , @Anonymous
    The most beneficial form of eugenics is to filter out the bottom of the pool first. Simply get the bottom decile to not breed, defined by IQ, ability to function in society, propensity for crime, however. Bribe them, coerce them, cajole them, do whatever it takes short of outright brutality.

    A program to encourage high performing men to contribute to a sperm bank would be somewhat useful, on the theory that if people need AI, it should be from the men whose genes we really want spread the most. There was such a program for Nobel prize winners once. I would probably look for astronauts, Navy SEALs, a few selected white athletes, men with high IQs and proven discipline capacity along with excellent vision and aerobic capacity. But this would not be nearly as effective as defertilizing the dregs.
  37. sayless says:
    @Vinteuil
    TD, for once you've provided a public service. That Tennessee Coates article to which you link is a priceless example of the sort of prose one can expect from the hopelessly clueless, under-talented & over-praised, black lackeys of the over-class.

    "It is insufficient to state the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit."

    I mean, seriously - what can one say?

    My favorite bit is: "the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them."

    May God send him an editor, asap.

    “May God send him an editor, asap.”

    Vinteuil, Wassamattah U?

    Haven’t you ever seen heirlooms with blood on them cooking up tailwinds?

    Come on!

    Read More
  38. utu says:
    @SimpleSong
    Someone has already mentioned Bonferroni correction, let me just expand on what's being argued about here and give my two cents. Please forgive that this is a gross simplification:

    The traditional way of doing a controlled experiment in medicine/biology is to make some observations, calculate the odds that they would happen by chance, and if it is less than 5% (1 in twenty), decide that it can't be a coincidence and there really is a relationship. The problem with this is if you slice your data 20 different ways or so, even if your data is actually is totally random crud with no true relationships, etc., you would expect to get one false positive, simply due to chance.

    This plays out in several ways: suppose 20 researchers at 20 different institutions do some experiment that is actually just baloney. 19 of them get negative results and put the results in a drawer and forget about it, because no one wants to publish a negative result. The one that gets a positive result writes it up and sends it to a journal, the methodology actually was sound, no misconduct--just a fluke. It is (appropriately) published and no one bothers to replicate, and voila! the literature is now crapified. This is what has happened to the social 'science' literature.

    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.

    Looking at genetic correlations is obviously susceptible to this, since these studies look at way more than 20 genes. However, unlike our social science friends, for the most part these guys are not morons and they make corrections for the fact that they are looking at multiple genes. A crude way is Bonferroni correction--just divide 5% by the number of tests. If you're looking at 2 genes, for example, standard of proof is now 2.5%, at 10 genes, 0.5%, etc. Bonferroni actually overshoots and will cause some false negatives so often other techniques are used, but you get the idea.

    Bottom line, assuming they didn't completely screw up the stats, this is not likely to be false positive.

    for the most part these guys are not morons and they make corrections for the fact that they are looking at multiple genes

    I hope so and I presume that’s why they push for larger sample sizes:

    And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …

    On small sample you can more easily find multiple genes combination that will give you 100% correlation with the given trait In fact with any random number sequence. So the large sample size is necessary to exclude false positives.

    Now the question is how big the sample needs to be if you start with 100′s of thousands of SNPs? What if two sets of SNPs gives you the same correlation? Which set is the causative one? To exclude them you will need even bigger sample. There might be not enough people on Earth to do it. The number of possible combination is beyond our ability to ever calculate it. There are over 10^24000 combinations of 10,000 long subsets (of SNPs) in the set of 1 million (SNPs). So if they happen to find say k=10,000 SNPs that explain 50% of IQ variance it does not mean that there are no almost countless other combinations of SNPs that explain even more variance. But you will not be able to find them unless you are lucky because there is no computing power available in this universe to do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    A good point. Finding relationships between single genes and height or IQ or whatever is technically feasible but if there is a non-linearity when combining genes that's a different story; it may not be possible to get large enough sample sizes. That is, gene A boosts trait X by 5%, gene B boosts trait X by 5%, but A + B boosts trait X by 30% instead of 10% -- may not be possible to definitively suss that out: the number of combinations is staggering.

    However couldn't you get at this using twin studies? For example, if twin studies suggest 85% heritability of some trait, while population based analyses of single genes suggest 50% heritability, then wouldn't that imply the missing 35% is due to particular gene combinations?
  39. sayless says:
    @Lot
    I sometimes wonder if TD is actually Pitts, or a close relative of him.

    “I sometimes wonder if TD is actually Pitts”

    I think Tiny Duck is one of Steve Sailer’s alters. Tiny, and donut, and possibly Priss Factor.

    Steve contains multitudes.

    I will take a Damitol and so to bed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I don't think Steve has alts, but those would be the least likely.
  40. @Guy de Champlagne

    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.
     
    It's hardly extreme stupidity. It's perfectly understandable to think that you've just discovered some meaningful way to analyze the data after a bunch of dead ends. And then it's human nature to come up with some story of how the analysis that yielded a sufficiently low p value has a rationality to it while all the other ones didn't.

    Bottom line, assuming they didn’t completely screw up the stats, this is not likely to be false positive.
     
    But, what reason is there to assume that even the best standards are capable of producing anything other than informed speculation? If it's such a mature field with stable and rational set of statistical practices, then where's the track record of established findings?

    But, what reason is there to assume that even the best standards are capable of producing anything other than informed speculation? If it’s such a mature field with stable and rational set of statistical practices, then where’s the track record of established findings?

    Uh…you realize this type of work makes testable predictions, right? Take 1000 babies. Sequence their genomes. Predict their IQ at 18. Put this prediction in a drawer. Follow up when they are 18. Measure their IQ. Take the predicted IQs out of the drawer. Plot predicted IQ versus measured IQ. Is it a blob? Then this is baloney. Is it a line? Then this is real. This type of work is no more pseudoscience than physics and chemistry–they both make testable predictions. We don’t know yet if it will hold up, but it is very much science, not philosophy or metaphysics.

    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.

    It’s hardly extreme stupidity. It’s perfectly understandable to think that you’ve just discovered some meaningful way to analyze the data after a bunch of dead ends. And then it’s human nature to come up with some story of how the analysis that yielded a sufficiently low p value has a rationality to it while all the other ones didn’t.

    Sorry, no, not acceptable. When a student comes to me with some correlation after fishing around a data set for a month, my response is: great! Now gather a new set of data and run the same test. If it is real, you will get the same results. If it is not real, then there is a 19/20 chance it doesn’t replicate. This is taught in high school stats. A grad student should not make this mistake, ever, much less someone who claims to do science for a living.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Guy De Champlaigne
    No you're wrong about the prediction. You could predict IQ by picking genes that don't have anything directly to do with intelligence but just correlate with genetic and epigenetic factors that do. So that's not a test at all.

    And even if that experiment could confirm results like this it proves my point because it couldn't have been done yet (as you admit). Something is not validated by the fact that it could be tested, only if it passes those tests. Social psychology can be falsified too, that doesn't make it accurate in and of itself because it so often ends up getting falsified.


    As for your last point I should have said that it is ignorant of a scientist to make those sorts of mistakes but not stupid. My point is that very intelligent people can make these sorts of conceptual errors for years before the flaws in their thinking get identified and addressed collectively.

  41. Alice says:
    @Lot
    I wonder if the ADHD and depression correlation is overstated by the fact that higher IQ cope better so, given the same symptoms, are less likely to be diagnosed.

    Lot, yes, that’s an interesting idea. But it’s giving them too much credit.

    I wondered how they ascertained all of their twin studies co-morbidity issues myself. If you were diagnosed with ADHD as a child does that diagnosis stick to this data forever? How about depressive episodes? At least with schizophrenia it means they’ve had a full blown attack to be diagnosed, so the data should be tagged. But I don’t know that anyone understands their models well enough to really trusts these correlations.

    Read More
  42. songbird says:
    @Vinteuil
    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. "Show us the genes!" they cried - i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. "What non-question-begging reason," they will demand to know, "do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?"

    ...To which question there is no possible answer.

    Technically, as far as genetic evidence goes, beyond degrees of relation, it should be sufficient evidence that there are different alleles expressed in the brain, and that these alleles have different population frequencies. This has been known for a few years now.

    What we are approaching now is a DNA IQ test, and since liberals have been skeptical of regular IQ tests, despite them being fairly reliable and predictive, I don’t really see that changing. Lewontin was literally a Marxist geneticist. He identified as a Marxist.

    What may get the ball finally rolling is people genetically selecting or even engineering their children. The world is a big place, and I expect someone to eventually do it. And once they do, it will be pretty hard to ignore the genetic basis of IQ.

    Read More
  43. @Seneca
    I agree with you that this is probably what will happen.

    The left will never relinquish the belief that people other than Whites need to have some special treatment to compensate for alleged past wrongs (or alleged current wrongs like the spurious fictitious "White privilege").

    This is and will continue to be to the detriment of White children who will suffer through no fault of their own.

    We have been shown the punishment delivered to those who strive to be God, yet we persevere. Can we not understand?

    Read More
  44. They singled out one SNP in particular: “Convergent evidence of strong association (Z=9.74) and the highest observed probability of a deleterious protein effect (CADD13 score=34) was found for rs13107325. This missense mutation (MAF=0.065) in SLC39A8 was the lead SNP in locus 71 and the ancestral allele C was associated with higher intelligence scores.”

    According to this SNP, Europeans would be the dumbest. They have the highest proportion of the T allele. It is almost absent in other populations.

    https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs13107325

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That is a very interesting SNP. This paper might cast some light (from your link): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26006263
    Recent Positive Selection Drives the Expansion of a Schizophrenia Risk Nonsynonymous Variant at SLC39A8 in Europeans.

    Abstract:

    Natural selection has played important roles in optimizing complex human adaptations. However, schizophrenia poses an evolutionary paradox during human evolution, as the illness has strongly negative effects on fitness, but persists with a prevalence of ~0.5% across global populations. Recent studies have identified numerous risk variations in diverse populations, which might be able to explain the stable and high rate of schizophrenia morbidity in different cultures and regions, but the questions about why the risk alleles derived and maintained in human gene pool still remain unsolved. Here, we studied the evolutionary pattern of a schizophrenia risk variant rs13107325 (P < 5.0 × 10(-8) in Europeans) in the SLC39A8 gene. We found the SNP is monomorphic in Asians and Africans with risk (derived) T-allele totally absent, and further evolutionary analyses showed the T-allele has experienced recent positive selection in Europeans. Subsequent exploratory analyses implicated that the colder environment in Europe was the likely selective pressures, ie, when modern humans migrated "out of Africa" and moved to Europe mainland (a colder and cooler continent than Africa), new alleles derived due to positive selection and protected humans from risk of hypertension and also helped them adapt to the cold environment. The hypothesis was supported by our pleiotropic analyses with hypertension and energy intake as well as obesity in Europeans. Our data thus provides an intriguing example to illustrate a possible mechanism for maintaining schizophrenia risk alleles in the human gene pool, and further supported that schizophrenia is likely a product caused by pleiotropic effect during human evolution.

     

    Worldwide allele frequencies:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4681542/bin/schbul_sbv070_f0001.jpg
  45. @SimpleSong
    I think they would if it were possible, but economically this just won't be possible. To do CRISPR on one gene for one baby is going to be insanely expensive--think about how much IVF costs, then add to that the cost of CRISPR and the fact that the failure rate for IVF likely increases after a modification. Then think about the cost of doing CRISPR on thousands of genes that have been identified and what that does to failure rates, off target modifications, etc.

    The results that show there are thousands of genes that make small contributions to intelligence indicate to me that there is little chance of widespread genetic modification for higher intelligence--changing them all is going to be nigh impossible. GATTACA style selection of embryos pre-implantation, along with CRISPR to repair maybe one or two isolated genes that cause frank disease is more likely.

    Cheapest and easiest way to increase population intelligence is to just have smart people get it on, and actually probably the most effective way as well.

    Also, rememeber that if you did do this, you would basically be making blacks have a white baby with dark skin and kinky hair. Change those thousands of genes and he or she is not going to be into rap music. Brahms, more like.

    Brahms Cleaver?

    Read More
  46. anonguy says:
    @Vinteuil
    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. "Show us the genes!" they cried - i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. "What non-question-begging reason," they will demand to know, "do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?"

    ...To which question there is no possible answer.

    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. “Show us the genes!” they cried – i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. “What non-question-begging reason,” they will demand to know, “do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?”

    …To which question there is no possible answer.

    Dude, that is so August, 2017, don’t you know time has moved on?

    Seriously, though, I’ve been now seeing criticisms of scientism, which is making any decisions about the human condition based upon scientific arguments.

    It is an artifact of Western Civ, and to apply it unthinkingly, or perhaps unfeelingly would be more descriptive of the critics intent, is cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

    So making science based arguments themselves help identify whose team one is upon.

    Anyhow, it isn’t in the future, it is ongoing now. It is now held to be an “ism” and that usually isn’t a good sign.

    Read More
  47. @One Tribe
    ... all irrelevant to any discussion about "race", without generational perseverance, which is not available in rigorous valid, reliable empirical research evidence.

    Your trajectory is one from a particular place, consistent with presenting indicators in the societal awareness of racial superiority.
    There is a clear pattern towards an affiliation claiming scientific proof of racial intelligence superiority. This would only be propaganda, and you attempt to lay foundations for this lie with your articles.
    You work for 'them', and you know it.


    There is no such thing as 'race' ...
     
    from a generational persistence perspective, three generations turnover could completely eradicate 'the perfect storm' of any postulated (even if provable at an individual level) racial intelligence normative differentiation.

    Cool story bro.

    Sucks that you paid all that money for a liberal arts education and got stuck with that mess instead. Luckily for you, there’s still time to make something of your life.

    Read More
  48. @Tiny Duck
    Tenehsi Coates DESTROYS any "good" reason for voting for or supporting Donald Trump.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/


    If you do not hate Trump and what he stands for then you are a racist cur

    Tenehsi Coates DESTROYS any “good” reason for voting for or supporting Donald Trump.

    He tried to, but Trump made his saving throw.

    Read More
  49. Lot says:
    @sayless
    "I sometimes wonder if TD is actually Pitts"

    I think Tiny Duck is one of Steve Sailer's alters. Tiny, and donut, and possibly Priss Factor.

    Steve contains multitudes.

    I will take a Damitol and so to bed.

    I don’t think Steve has alts, but those would be the least likely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sayless
    I was just making a joke.
    , @Jack Hanson
    I am Steve Sailer's gay Nazi bodybuilder alter ego.
  50. Anon says: • Website • Disclaimer
    @SimpleSong
    I think they would if it were possible, but economically this just won't be possible. To do CRISPR on one gene for one baby is going to be insanely expensive--think about how much IVF costs, then add to that the cost of CRISPR and the fact that the failure rate for IVF likely increases after a modification. Then think about the cost of doing CRISPR on thousands of genes that have been identified and what that does to failure rates, off target modifications, etc.

    The results that show there are thousands of genes that make small contributions to intelligence indicate to me that there is little chance of widespread genetic modification for higher intelligence--changing them all is going to be nigh impossible. GATTACA style selection of embryos pre-implantation, along with CRISPR to repair maybe one or two isolated genes that cause frank disease is more likely.

    Cheapest and easiest way to increase population intelligence is to just have smart people get it on, and actually probably the most effective way as well.

    Also, rememeber that if you did do this, you would basically be making blacks have a white baby with dark skin and kinky hair. Change those thousands of genes and he or she is not going to be into rap music. Brahms, more like.

    I think they would if it were possible, but economically this just won’t be possible. To do CRISPR on one gene for one baby is going to be insanely expensive–think about how much IVF costs

    The first time decoding the DNA was expensive as hell. But now it’s cheap and available to any person for $200.

    For now, bio-engineering is expensive. In the future, it might become cheap, especially as AI are programmed to do it all.

    If civilization survives, future babies will be made this way.

    There will be a computerized glass panel. Would-be-father will press his thumb on part of the glass and imprint part of DNA, and then the would-be-mother will do the same.
    And then the AI will combine the genes of father and mother and offer many possibilities of those combinations. (After all, same man and same woman have different kids every time they procreate.) And then, the computer will offer ‘bio-photo-shopping’ so that the basic kid will be altered with addition of outsider genes. So, if the man wants the kid to look more like Sean Connery, the kid will be Connerized with additional genes. So, the father’s looks are ‘improved’ by Connery looks. And if the kid is a girl, the parents can add some genes to give her the Patricia Neal look in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Kid will be Nealized. (For the negress babies, their looks can be improved with additions of Diana Ross or Rihanna synthetic genes.)
    Also, the basic IQ can be boosted with Newtonization.

    And then the result will be allowed to grow in an aquarium and turn into a baby, to be milked by artificial robot nanny.

    Currently, with so many freaks in transhumanism, the impression is that genetic-technology will lead to divergence. People turning into grotesque freaks and mutants in the future. But actually, most people will choose the Ideal. I mean most guys, if given a choice between having a son that looks like Sean Connery or Johnny Rotten, is gonna go with Connery. Most women, if given a choice between having a girl who looks like Patricia Neal or Jeanine Garofalo, is gonna go with Neal(or Donna Reed, so wonderful in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE).

    So, it will be the great convergence than the great divergence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimpleSong

    The first time decoding the DNA was expensive as hell. But now it’s cheap and available to any person for $200.

    For now, bio-engineering is expensive. In the future, it might become cheap, especially as AI are programmed to do it all.

    If civilization survives, future babies will be made this way.
     
    Key word is might. DNA sequencing has gotten quite cheap but that won't be the primary driver of cost. No matter what, this will involve some sort of IVF treatment. IVF is pretty mature technology and it is no longer on the steep part of the cost reduction curve. Currently it's around 20K a round. And doesn't always work. And probably would work less frequently if you start genetically modifying the embryos before implanting them.

    Doing IVF requires lots of visits with fairly expensive professionals: around 8 hours of an OB-GYNs time (spread over months), 8 hours of a nurse's time, 8 hours of various tech's time, an hour of an anesthesiologists time, etc. Lots of time with expensive professionals, that doesn't scale well, hard to make it cheaper. Before even accounting for overhead, equipment, and supplies, we've already run up over 5K in labor costs. I suppose you could try to replace the OB with a cheap tech but IVF is not free of risk. People have bled to death, gotten terrible abdominal infections, etc.

    Lots of medical procedures are quite bloated in cost and could be done for less, but because most people pay for IVF out of pocket and are price sensitive it's already fairly lean.

    For the extremely well off, this might all be reasonable and worth it. And for people who carry a genetic disease, likely a necessity. The average person, I'm not sure. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it will be common if the economics don't pencil out. Remember we went to the moon in '69 and have never been back because there was no money in it.

    This stuff is pie in the sky at this point. For the foreseeable future, if you want a smarter populace, easy: encourage smart people to breed. It's also much more fun than doctor's visits and injecting yourself with hormones and having engorged ovaries for a week.
  51. res says:
    @Grace Jones
    They singled out one SNP in particular: "Convergent evidence of strong association (Z=9.74) and the highest observed probability of a deleterious protein effect (CADD13 score=34) was found for rs13107325. This missense mutation (MAF=0.065) in SLC39A8 was the lead SNP in locus 71 and the ancestral allele C was associated with higher intelligence scores."

    According to this SNP, Europeans would be the dumbest. They have the highest proportion of the T allele. It is almost absent in other populations.
    https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs13107325

    That is a very interesting SNP. This paper might cast some light (from your link): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26006263
    Recent Positive Selection Drives the Expansion of a Schizophrenia Risk Nonsynonymous Variant at SLC39A8 in Europeans.

    Abstract:

    Natural selection has played important roles in optimizing complex human adaptations. However, schizophrenia poses an evolutionary paradox during human evolution, as the illness has strongly negative effects on fitness, but persists with a prevalence of ~0.5% across global populations. Recent studies have identified numerous risk variations in diverse populations, which might be able to explain the stable and high rate of schizophrenia morbidity in different cultures and regions, but the questions about why the risk alleles derived and maintained in human gene pool still remain unsolved. Here, we studied the evolutionary pattern of a schizophrenia risk variant rs13107325 (P < 5.0 × 10(-8) in Europeans) in the SLC39A8 gene. We found the SNP is monomorphic in Asians and Africans with risk (derived) T-allele totally absent, and further evolutionary analyses showed the T-allele has experienced recent positive selection in Europeans. Subsequent exploratory analyses implicated that the colder environment in Europe was the likely selective pressures, ie, when modern humans migrated "out of Africa" and moved to Europe mainland (a colder and cooler continent than Africa), new alleles derived due to positive selection and protected humans from risk of hypertension and also helped them adapt to the cold environment. The hypothesis was supported by our pleiotropic analyses with hypertension and energy intake as well as obesity in Europeans. Our data thus provides an intriguing example to illustrate a possible mechanism for maintaining schizophrenia risk alleles in the human gene pool, and further supported that schizophrenia is likely a product caused by pleiotropic effect during human evolution.

    Worldwide allele frequencies:

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy
    Great article, thanks for posting.

    IMO, schizophrenia is like sickle cell, its recessive form confers advantage but when fully expressed it doesn't.

    That is why it has endured since time immemorial. Probably something similar with migraines, which also have existed since forever.

    Look up aura only migraines, basically migraines with all the symptoms except pain, just some mild visual effects.

    It would be interesting to see if aura only migraines correlate with some mental advantage.

    They still view it as negative side effect, pleitropic, but I think that is just efficiency. Pleitropic effect would eventually get extinguished but is increasing instead. So it is obviously not maladaptive pleitropism.

    Genes are amazingly efficient, read about forward/reverse coding for starters

    , @Grace Jones
    But the derived allele is most common in the warmer, Mediterranean parts of Europe, not the colder north. And why would they be more in need of protection against hypertension than anyone else?
  52. sayless says:
    @Lot
    I don't think Steve has alts, but those would be the least likely.

    I was just making a joke.

    Read More
  53. Lot says:
    @Vinteuil
    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. "Show us the genes!" they cried - i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. "What non-question-begging reason," they will demand to know, "do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?"

    ...To which question there is no possible answer.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    Yeah but the 437 authors are writing very opaquely.

    I want papers on these most vital issues to above the quality the early Richard Lynn/Unz’s sloppy use of stats. But beware of what you want, now I get the rigorous but poorly explained style we see in both this PDF and many others in this topic like it.

    This topic is screaming for a good review article from one of our old crimethink masters: Linda G, Greg C., Steve P., Steve S., Charles M.

    I have tried a bit today and in prior months to translate the findings to plain English, but the topic is partly beyond me.

    Read More
  54. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I noticed the fat paragraph of author names listed on the study. Sounds like they’re getting reading to play, “We’re going to overwhelm you with our numbers,” against the IQ-is-all-nurture crowd in academia.

    Read More
  55. utu says:

    Yeah but the 437 authors are writing very opaquely. – because there is not that much to write. It is mostly obfuscation of the hollowness of the results.

    Linda G, Greg C., Steve P., Steve S., Charles M. – with a possible exception of C. the math of the problem is beyond them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    If we're going to play this game, I suspect Steve H. will cover this soon, and his math is OK.
  56. @AndrewR
    You're behind the times. All they need to do is call you a racist. Only a racist would be interested in finding out if evolution affected the human brain.

    Only a heretic would want to disprove the sun’s orbit around the Earth.

    “Intelligence is highly heritable…”

    That line alone makes this abstract genuine breakthrough in the world of scientific publishing today.

    Read More
  57. @utu
    for the most part these guys are not morons and they make corrections for the fact that they are looking at multiple genes

    I hope so and I presume that's why they push for larger sample sizes:

    And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …
     
    On small sample you can more easily find multiple genes combination that will give you 100% correlation with the given trait In fact with any random number sequence. So the large sample size is necessary to exclude false positives.

    Now the question is how big the sample needs to be if you start with 100's of thousands of SNPs? What if two sets of SNPs gives you the same correlation? Which set is the causative one? To exclude them you will need even bigger sample. There might be not enough people on Earth to do it. The number of possible combination is beyond our ability to ever calculate it. There are over 10^24000 combinations of 10,000 long subsets (of SNPs) in the set of 1 million (SNPs). So if they happen to find say k=10,000 SNPs that explain 50% of IQ variance it does not mean that there are no almost countless other combinations of SNPs that explain even more variance. But you will not be able to find them unless you are lucky because there is no computing power available in this universe to do it.

    A good point. Finding relationships between single genes and height or IQ or whatever is technically feasible but if there is a non-linearity when combining genes that’s a different story; it may not be possible to get large enough sample sizes. That is, gene A boosts trait X by 5%, gene B boosts trait X by 5%, but A + B boosts trait X by 30% instead of 10% — may not be possible to definitively suss that out: the number of combinations is staggering.

    However couldn’t you get at this using twin studies? For example, if twin studies suggest 85% heritability of some trait, while population based analyses of single genes suggest 50% heritability, then wouldn’t that imply the missing 35% is due to particular gene combinations?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    My point was that even w/o non-linearity it might be impossible. My concern is the overfitting problem as the greatest danger. Here I consider constructing a test.

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-99-steps-of-intelligence-hunters/#comment-1985101

    I do not see how you can use heritability from twin studies except that it makes you aware you have a missing heritability gap which also might be attributed to a hidden flaw of twin studies.
  58. epebble says:

    On an interesting topic see https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/07/new-artificial-intelligence-can-tell-whether-youre-gay-or-straight-from-a-photograph

    When we reach a day when technology can do this for intelligence, the social impacts will be huge.

    Is it illegal for an employer to ask a picture for hiring?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    https://gabfiles.blob.core.windows.net/image/59b2a4d5721a5.jpeg
  59. @Anon
    I think they would if it were possible, but economically this just won’t be possible. To do CRISPR on one gene for one baby is going to be insanely expensive–think about how much IVF costs

    The first time decoding the DNA was expensive as hell. But now it's cheap and available to any person for $200.

    For now, bio-engineering is expensive. In the future, it might become cheap, especially as AI are programmed to do it all.

    If civilization survives, future babies will be made this way.

    There will be a computerized glass panel. Would-be-father will press his thumb on part of the glass and imprint part of DNA, and then the would-be-mother will do the same.
    And then the AI will combine the genes of father and mother and offer many possibilities of those combinations. (After all, same man and same woman have different kids every time they procreate.) And then, the computer will offer 'bio-photo-shopping' so that the basic kid will be altered with addition of outsider genes. So, if the man wants the kid to look more like Sean Connery, the kid will be Connerized with additional genes. So, the father's looks are 'improved' by Connery looks. And if the kid is a girl, the parents can add some genes to give her the Patricia Neal look in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Kid will be Nealized. (For the negress babies, their looks can be improved with additions of Diana Ross or Rihanna synthetic genes.)
    Also, the basic IQ can be boosted with Newtonization.

    And then the result will be allowed to grow in an aquarium and turn into a baby, to be milked by artificial robot nanny.

    Currently, with so many freaks in transhumanism, the impression is that genetic-technology will lead to divergence. People turning into grotesque freaks and mutants in the future. But actually, most people will choose the Ideal. I mean most guys, if given a choice between having a son that looks like Sean Connery or Johnny Rotten, is gonna go with Connery. Most women, if given a choice between having a girl who looks like Patricia Neal or Jeanine Garofalo, is gonna go with Neal(or Donna Reed, so wonderful in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE).

    So, it will be the great convergence than the great divergence.

    The first time decoding the DNA was expensive as hell. But now it’s cheap and available to any person for $200.

    For now, bio-engineering is expensive. In the future, it might become cheap, especially as AI are programmed to do it all.

    If civilization survives, future babies will be made this way.

    Key word is might. DNA sequencing has gotten quite cheap but that won’t be the primary driver of cost. No matter what, this will involve some sort of IVF treatment. IVF is pretty mature technology and it is no longer on the steep part of the cost reduction curve. Currently it’s around 20K a round. And doesn’t always work. And probably would work less frequently if you start genetically modifying the embryos before implanting them.

    Doing IVF requires lots of visits with fairly expensive professionals: around 8 hours of an OB-GYNs time (spread over months), 8 hours of a nurse’s time, 8 hours of various tech’s time, an hour of an anesthesiologists time, etc. Lots of time with expensive professionals, that doesn’t scale well, hard to make it cheaper. Before even accounting for overhead, equipment, and supplies, we’ve already run up over 5K in labor costs. I suppose you could try to replace the OB with a cheap tech but IVF is not free of risk. People have bled to death, gotten terrible abdominal infections, etc.

    Lots of medical procedures are quite bloated in cost and could be done for less, but because most people pay for IVF out of pocket and are price sensitive it’s already fairly lean.

    For the extremely well off, this might all be reasonable and worth it. And for people who carry a genetic disease, likely a necessity. The average person, I’m not sure. Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it will be common if the economics don’t pencil out. Remember we went to the moon in ’69 and have never been back because there was no money in it.

    This stuff is pie in the sky at this point. For the foreseeable future, if you want a smarter populace, easy: encourage smart people to breed. It’s also much more fun than doctor’s visits and injecting yourself with hormones and having engorged ovaries for a week.

    Read More
  60. anonguy says:
    @res
    That is a very interesting SNP. This paper might cast some light (from your link): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26006263
    Recent Positive Selection Drives the Expansion of a Schizophrenia Risk Nonsynonymous Variant at SLC39A8 in Europeans.

    Abstract:

    Natural selection has played important roles in optimizing complex human adaptations. However, schizophrenia poses an evolutionary paradox during human evolution, as the illness has strongly negative effects on fitness, but persists with a prevalence of ~0.5% across global populations. Recent studies have identified numerous risk variations in diverse populations, which might be able to explain the stable and high rate of schizophrenia morbidity in different cultures and regions, but the questions about why the risk alleles derived and maintained in human gene pool still remain unsolved. Here, we studied the evolutionary pattern of a schizophrenia risk variant rs13107325 (P < 5.0 × 10(-8) in Europeans) in the SLC39A8 gene. We found the SNP is monomorphic in Asians and Africans with risk (derived) T-allele totally absent, and further evolutionary analyses showed the T-allele has experienced recent positive selection in Europeans. Subsequent exploratory analyses implicated that the colder environment in Europe was the likely selective pressures, ie, when modern humans migrated "out of Africa" and moved to Europe mainland (a colder and cooler continent than Africa), new alleles derived due to positive selection and protected humans from risk of hypertension and also helped them adapt to the cold environment. The hypothesis was supported by our pleiotropic analyses with hypertension and energy intake as well as obesity in Europeans. Our data thus provides an intriguing example to illustrate a possible mechanism for maintaining schizophrenia risk alleles in the human gene pool, and further supported that schizophrenia is likely a product caused by pleiotropic effect during human evolution.

     

    Worldwide allele frequencies:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4681542/bin/schbul_sbv070_f0001.jpg

    Great article, thanks for posting.

    IMO, schizophrenia is like sickle cell, its recessive form confers advantage but when fully expressed it doesn’t.

    That is why it has endured since time immemorial. Probably something similar with migraines, which also have existed since forever.

    Look up aura only migraines, basically migraines with all the symptoms except pain, just some mild visual effects.

    It would be interesting to see if aura only migraines correlate with some mental advantage.

    They still view it as negative side effect, pleitropic, but I think that is just efficiency. Pleitropic effect would eventually get extinguished but is increasing instead. So it is obviously not maladaptive pleitropism.

    Genes are amazingly efficient, read about forward/reverse coding for starters

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    IMO, schizophrenia is like sickle cell, its recessive form confers advantage but when fully expressed it doesn’t.
     
    If you are interested in that idea (as I am, and I agree with you) I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Adam-Eve-Schizophrenia-Humanity/dp/055299930X

    Speculative, but fascinating.

    Not sure if you are aware of Eysenck's work looking at Psychoticism and Creativity, but I find that similarly interesting: http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/porzio.html

    One thing that is fun about the latter paper is how nicely the responses (at the bottom) cover the ignore, laugh, fight, assign credit elsewhere spectrum.

    P.S. Aura only migraines were new to me. Interesting. Thanks.
    , @Grace Jones
    It hasn't "endured since time immemorial." And it's confined to a subset of one out-of-Africa race, not the other, nor is it found in Africans.
  61. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SimpleSong
    I think they would if it were possible, but economically this just won't be possible. To do CRISPR on one gene for one baby is going to be insanely expensive--think about how much IVF costs, then add to that the cost of CRISPR and the fact that the failure rate for IVF likely increases after a modification. Then think about the cost of doing CRISPR on thousands of genes that have been identified and what that does to failure rates, off target modifications, etc.

    The results that show there are thousands of genes that make small contributions to intelligence indicate to me that there is little chance of widespread genetic modification for higher intelligence--changing them all is going to be nigh impossible. GATTACA style selection of embryos pre-implantation, along with CRISPR to repair maybe one or two isolated genes that cause frank disease is more likely.

    Cheapest and easiest way to increase population intelligence is to just have smart people get it on, and actually probably the most effective way as well.

    Also, rememeber that if you did do this, you would basically be making blacks have a white baby with dark skin and kinky hair. Change those thousands of genes and he or she is not going to be into rap music. Brahms, more like.

    The most beneficial form of eugenics is to filter out the bottom of the pool first. Simply get the bottom decile to not breed, defined by IQ, ability to function in society, propensity for crime, however. Bribe them, coerce them, cajole them, do whatever it takes short of outright brutality.

    A program to encourage high performing men to contribute to a sperm bank would be somewhat useful, on the theory that if people need AI, it should be from the men whose genes we really want spread the most. There was such a program for Nobel prize winners once. I would probably look for astronauts, Navy SEALs, a few selected white athletes, men with high IQs and proven discipline capacity along with excellent vision and aerobic capacity. But this would not be nearly as effective as defertilizing the dregs.

    Read More
  62. G Pinfold says:
    @utu
    Yeah but the 437 authors are writing very opaquely. - because there is not that much to write. It is mostly obfuscation of the hollowness of the results.

    Linda G, Greg C., Steve P., Steve S., Charles M. - with a possible exception of C. the math of the problem is beyond them.

    If we’re going to play this game, I suspect Steve H. will cover this soon, and his math is OK.

    Read More
  63. Pericles says:
    @Vinteuil
    TD, for once you've provided a public service. That Tennessee Coates article to which you link is a priceless example of the sort of prose one can expect from the hopelessly clueless, under-talented & over-praised, black lackeys of the over-class.

    "It is insufficient to state the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit."

    I mean, seriously - what can one say?

    My favorite bit is: "the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them."

    May God send him an editor, asap.

    My favorite bit is: “the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them.”

    Thass some kind of cracka voodoo, fam.

    Read More
  64. AndrewR says:
    @Vinteuil
    It used to be, when the HBD folk pointed to things like twin studies as evidence for the heritability of intelligence, the anti-HBD folk would demand a higher standard of proof. "Show us the genes!" they cried - i.e., show us particular genes that are correlated with intelligence.

    Now that studies are finding correlations between particular genes & intelligence, they begin raising the bar still higher.

    In the end, I expect that the anti-HBD folk will embrace full-blown Humean skepticism before they will admit that the weight of the evidence is against them. "What non-question-begging reason," they will demand to know, "do we have to believe in the uniformity of nature?"

    ...To which question there is no possible answer.
    Read More
  65. utu says:
    @SimpleSong
    A good point. Finding relationships between single genes and height or IQ or whatever is technically feasible but if there is a non-linearity when combining genes that's a different story; it may not be possible to get large enough sample sizes. That is, gene A boosts trait X by 5%, gene B boosts trait X by 5%, but A + B boosts trait X by 30% instead of 10% -- may not be possible to definitively suss that out: the number of combinations is staggering.

    However couldn't you get at this using twin studies? For example, if twin studies suggest 85% heritability of some trait, while population based analyses of single genes suggest 50% heritability, then wouldn't that imply the missing 35% is due to particular gene combinations?

    My point was that even w/o non-linearity it might be impossible. My concern is the overfitting problem as the greatest danger. Here I consider constructing a test.

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-99-steps-of-intelligence-hunters/#comment-1985101

    I do not see how you can use heritability from twin studies except that it makes you aware you have a missing heritability gap which also might be attributed to a hidden flaw of twin studies.

    Read More
  66. utu says:
    @G Pinfold
    If we're going to play this game, I suspect Steve H. will cover this soon, and his math is OK.

    Good. But who is H.?

    Read More
  67. @Lot
    If they were picking up noise then their hits would not be strongly concentrated around genes known to be associated with the brain.

    I am thinking you did not actually read the paper.

    I’m not claiming to be able to understand the paper. I don’t understand economic models or alchemy either but it’s still obvious they’re nonsense.

    Read More
  68. @SimpleSong

    But, what reason is there to assume that even the best standards are capable of producing anything other than informed speculation? If it’s such a mature field with stable and rational set of statistical practices, then where’s the track record of established findings?
     
    Uh...you realize this type of work makes testable predictions, right? Take 1000 babies. Sequence their genomes. Predict their IQ at 18. Put this prediction in a drawer. Follow up when they are 18. Measure their IQ. Take the predicted IQs out of the drawer. Plot predicted IQ versus measured IQ. Is it a blob? Then this is baloney. Is it a line? Then this is real. This type of work is no more pseudoscience than physics and chemistry--they both make testable predictions. We don't know yet if it will hold up, but it is very much science, not philosophy or metaphysics.


    Alternatively, someone can take a data set, slice it 20 different ways, and get 1 positive result, and not mention the 19 negatives, only the one positive. That is either extreme malice or extreme stupidity, usually the latter.
     
    It’s hardly extreme stupidity. It’s perfectly understandable to think that you’ve just discovered some meaningful way to analyze the data after a bunch of dead ends. And then it’s human nature to come up with some story of how the analysis that yielded a sufficiently low p value has a rationality to it while all the other ones didn’t.
     
    Sorry, no, not acceptable. When a student comes to me with some correlation after fishing around a data set for a month, my response is: great! Now gather a new set of data and run the same test. If it is real, you will get the same results. If it is not real, then there is a 19/20 chance it doesn't replicate. This is taught in high school stats. A grad student should not make this mistake, ever, much less someone who claims to do science for a living.

    No you’re wrong about the prediction. You could predict IQ by picking genes that don’t have anything directly to do with intelligence but just correlate with genetic and epigenetic factors that do. So that’s not a test at all.

    And even if that experiment could confirm results like this it proves my point because it couldn’t have been done yet (as you admit). Something is not validated by the fact that it could be tested, only if it passes those tests. Social psychology can be falsified too, that doesn’t make it accurate in and of itself because it so often ends up getting falsified.

    As for your last point I should have said that it is ignorant of a scientist to make those sorts of mistakes but not stupid. My point is that very intelligent people can make these sorts of conceptual errors for years before the flaws in their thinking get identified and addressed collectively.

    Read More
  69. @Guy de Champlagne

    And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …
     
    Large number of researches analyzing huge samples of data on ~20,000 human genes, each merrily p hacking away looking for correlation after correlation after correlation, it seems incredibly naive to put much stock in this sort of thing at this point.

    I know people like to think that there's disciplines like social psychology and then real sciences like genetics, but so many of the arguments against those softer disciplines apply here as well.

    Do you know what the p values in this study even were? There’s a huge difference between 0.05 and 0.00005, i.e. the former is much more hackable.

    Read More
  70. @Tiny Duck
    Tenehsi Coates DESTROYS any "good" reason for voting for or supporting Donald Trump.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/


    If you do not hate Trump and what he stands for then you are a racist cur

    Coming from you, I’ll take that as a compliment.

    Read More
  71. @epebble
    On an interesting topic see https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/07/new-artificial-intelligence-can-tell-whether-youre-gay-or-straight-from-a-photograph

    When we reach a day when technology can do this for intelligence, the social impacts will be huge.

    Is it illegal for an employer to ask a picture for hiring?

    Read More
  72. @Lot
    I don't think Steve has alts, but those would be the least likely.

    I am Steve Sailer’s gay Nazi bodybuilder alter ego.

    Read More
  73. hyperbola says:
    @Guy de Champlagne

    And there are studies coming with even bigger sample sizes …
     
    Large number of researches analyzing huge samples of data on ~20,000 human genes, each merrily p hacking away looking for correlation after correlation after correlation, it seems incredibly naive to put much stock in this sort of thing at this point.

    I know people like to think that there's disciplines like social psychology and then real sciences like genetics, but so many of the arguments against those softer disciplines apply here as well.

    Yep. And this same article already had over 100 comments on UNZ several weeks ago. Not sure why it is being repeated again.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-99-steps-of-intelligence-hunters/

    Read More
  74. res says:
    @anonguy
    Great article, thanks for posting.

    IMO, schizophrenia is like sickle cell, its recessive form confers advantage but when fully expressed it doesn't.

    That is why it has endured since time immemorial. Probably something similar with migraines, which also have existed since forever.

    Look up aura only migraines, basically migraines with all the symptoms except pain, just some mild visual effects.

    It would be interesting to see if aura only migraines correlate with some mental advantage.

    They still view it as negative side effect, pleitropic, but I think that is just efficiency. Pleitropic effect would eventually get extinguished but is increasing instead. So it is obviously not maladaptive pleitropism.

    Genes are amazingly efficient, read about forward/reverse coding for starters

    IMO, schizophrenia is like sickle cell, its recessive form confers advantage but when fully expressed it doesn’t.

    If you are interested in that idea (as I am, and I agree with you) I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Adam-Eve-Schizophrenia-Humanity/dp/055299930X

    Speculative, but fascinating.

    Not sure if you are aware of Eysenck’s work looking at Psychoticism and Creativity, but I find that similarly interesting: http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/porzio.html

    One thing that is fun about the latter paper is how nicely the responses (at the bottom) cover the ignore, laugh, fight, assign credit elsewhere spectrum.

    P.S. Aura only migraines were new to me. Interesting. Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Bicameral Mind is kind of forgotten but it is interesting work.
  75. utu says:
    @res

    IMO, schizophrenia is like sickle cell, its recessive form confers advantage but when fully expressed it doesn’t.
     
    If you are interested in that idea (as I am, and I agree with you) I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Adam-Eve-Schizophrenia-Humanity/dp/055299930X

    Speculative, but fascinating.

    Not sure if you are aware of Eysenck's work looking at Psychoticism and Creativity, but I find that similarly interesting: http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/porzio.html

    One thing that is fun about the latter paper is how nicely the responses (at the bottom) cover the ignore, laugh, fight, assign credit elsewhere spectrum.

    P.S. Aura only migraines were new to me. Interesting. Thanks.

    Bicameral Mind is kind of forgotten but it is interesting work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks. I have that on my mental list to read (and own a copy) but have never gotten around to it.
  76. res says:
    @utu
    Bicameral Mind is kind of forgotten but it is interesting work.

    Thanks. I have that on my mental list to read (and own a copy) but have never gotten around to it.

    Read More
  77. @res
    That is a very interesting SNP. This paper might cast some light (from your link): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26006263
    Recent Positive Selection Drives the Expansion of a Schizophrenia Risk Nonsynonymous Variant at SLC39A8 in Europeans.

    Abstract:

    Natural selection has played important roles in optimizing complex human adaptations. However, schizophrenia poses an evolutionary paradox during human evolution, as the illness has strongly negative effects on fitness, but persists with a prevalence of ~0.5% across global populations. Recent studies have identified numerous risk variations in diverse populations, which might be able to explain the stable and high rate of schizophrenia morbidity in different cultures and regions, but the questions about why the risk alleles derived and maintained in human gene pool still remain unsolved. Here, we studied the evolutionary pattern of a schizophrenia risk variant rs13107325 (P < 5.0 × 10(-8) in Europeans) in the SLC39A8 gene. We found the SNP is monomorphic in Asians and Africans with risk (derived) T-allele totally absent, and further evolutionary analyses showed the T-allele has experienced recent positive selection in Europeans. Subsequent exploratory analyses implicated that the colder environment in Europe was the likely selective pressures, ie, when modern humans migrated "out of Africa" and moved to Europe mainland (a colder and cooler continent than Africa), new alleles derived due to positive selection and protected humans from risk of hypertension and also helped them adapt to the cold environment. The hypothesis was supported by our pleiotropic analyses with hypertension and energy intake as well as obesity in Europeans. Our data thus provides an intriguing example to illustrate a possible mechanism for maintaining schizophrenia risk alleles in the human gene pool, and further supported that schizophrenia is likely a product caused by pleiotropic effect during human evolution.

     

    Worldwide allele frequencies:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4681542/bin/schbul_sbv070_f0001.jpg

    But the derived allele is most common in the warmer, Mediterranean parts of Europe, not the colder north. And why would they be more in need of protection against hypertension than anyone else?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Those are good points. I did not think much of the "protection from hypertension" idea (they did note that happened later, but still). How much did that matter in a world of short lifespans? But I found the cold adaptation plausible until taking a closer look at those allele frequencies. Perhaps a Goldilocks explanation of helpful in temperate (rather than tropical) environments but dysfunctional in challenging environments further north? But if that was so why no gene flow to the east at similar latitude?

    An interesting question.
  78. @anonguy
    Great article, thanks for posting.

    IMO, schizophrenia is like sickle cell, its recessive form confers advantage but when fully expressed it doesn't.

    That is why it has endured since time immemorial. Probably something similar with migraines, which also have existed since forever.

    Look up aura only migraines, basically migraines with all the symptoms except pain, just some mild visual effects.

    It would be interesting to see if aura only migraines correlate with some mental advantage.

    They still view it as negative side effect, pleitropic, but I think that is just efficiency. Pleitropic effect would eventually get extinguished but is increasing instead. So it is obviously not maladaptive pleitropism.

    Genes are amazingly efficient, read about forward/reverse coding for starters

    It hasn’t “endured since time immemorial.” And it’s confined to a subset of one out-of-Africa race, not the other, nor is it found in Africans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    This allele, yes. Schizophrenia as a whole, no.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_schizophrenia
    DALY for schizophrenia per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004 - darker higher

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Schizophrenia_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2004.svg/450px-Schizophrenia_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2004.svg.png

  79. res says:
    @Grace Jones
    But the derived allele is most common in the warmer, Mediterranean parts of Europe, not the colder north. And why would they be more in need of protection against hypertension than anyone else?

    Those are good points. I did not think much of the “protection from hypertension” idea (they did note that happened later, but still). How much did that matter in a world of short lifespans? But I found the cold adaptation plausible until taking a closer look at those allele frequencies. Perhaps a Goldilocks explanation of helpful in temperate (rather than tropical) environments but dysfunctional in challenging environments further north? But if that was so why no gene flow to the east at similar latitude?

    An interesting question.

    Read More
  80. res says:
    @Grace Jones
    It hasn't "endured since time immemorial." And it's confined to a subset of one out-of-Africa race, not the other, nor is it found in Africans.

    This allele, yes. Schizophrenia as a whole, no.

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

    DALY for schizophrenia per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004 – darker higher

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grace Jones
    The allele hasn’t “endured since time immemorial.” And it’s confined to a subset of one out-of-Africa race, not the other, nor is it found in Africans.

    "Schizophrenia" is just recent modern psycho-jargon. There aren't objective biological criteria by which it is defined. As a label it has gone into and out of fashion. Also note that the allele is more common in Egypt and Tunisia than in sub-Saharan Africa.
  81. @res
    This allele, yes. Schizophrenia as a whole, no.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_schizophrenia
    DALY for schizophrenia per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004 - darker higher

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Schizophrenia_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2004.svg/450px-Schizophrenia_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2004.svg.png

    The allele hasn’t “endured since time immemorial.” And it’s confined to a subset of one out-of-Africa race, not the other, nor is it found in Africans.

    “Schizophrenia” is just recent modern psycho-jargon. There aren’t objective biological criteria by which it is defined. As a label it has gone into and out of fashion. Also note that the allele is more common in Egypt and Tunisia than in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    You read me backwards. I agreed with you (hence "Yes" to that part of your comment) about the allele (it is recent and localized). Schizophrenia on the other hand has been around for a long time and appears at similar prevalence worldwide. Agreed about the label being subject to fashion though. The symptoms do seem consistent over history AFAICT.
  82. res says:
    @Grace Jones
    The allele hasn’t “endured since time immemorial.” And it’s confined to a subset of one out-of-Africa race, not the other, nor is it found in Africans.

    "Schizophrenia" is just recent modern psycho-jargon. There aren't objective biological criteria by which it is defined. As a label it has gone into and out of fashion. Also note that the allele is more common in Egypt and Tunisia than in sub-Saharan Africa.

    You read me backwards. I agreed with you (hence “Yes” to that part of your comment) about the allele (it is recent and localized). Schizophrenia on the other hand has been around for a long time and appears at similar prevalence worldwide. Agreed about the label being subject to fashion though. The symptoms do seem consistent over history AFAICT.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored