The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Boost Your IQ
Stay even longer at school?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Mozart effect

Although it is popular for people to claim that they don’t know what intelligence is, most people show an interest in boosting their intelligence. Funny, that. These schemes come around every few years: getting babies in the womb to listen to Mozart, taking vitamins and concentration enhancing drugs, counting backwards in the N back procedure: that sort of thing. Doug Detterman, founder editor of Intelligence, who waded through 50 years of this moonshine, said that he was not against finding something, but simply had to note that on close examination all these schemes had turned out to be a disappointment. Many techniques produce some effects, but few generalize and persist.

A common thread in this wishful thinking is that the procedures should be easy and fast: 20 training sessions, a couple of months of practice, that sort of thing. Unlikely. However, a stronger case has been made for that boring activity: staying longer at school. Whenever people intend to waste their time boosting their intelligence with the latest training technique, I tell them to learn something useful like statistics, experimental methods, genetics, computer programming, maths, game theory, physics and even history and philosophy. I don’t for a moment imagine it will boost their intellects, merely give them some content and some tools for thinking. On that note, Tony Flew’s “Thinking about thinking” Fontana, 1975, is a good start.

However, could studying difficult subjects boost intelligence? I looked at this argument some time ago, and came to the conclusion that it probably boosted intelligence by 0.6 IQ points. I was a bit doubtful about it doing any more than that, because we did not have a long data series which would put the matter beyond dispute. I did not accept the authors’ estimate of an enormous 3.7 IQ points per year gain, simply because of a lack of historical data. That is to say, if the Norwegian schooling reform really boosts IQ, then the long data series before and after the reform would show a sustained upward tick in the national intelligence. I haven’t been able to find those data, though they may exist. I give my argument in the link below. You will see that in that post I cover a paper on this topic by Stuart Ritchie and colleagues, of which more below.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/school

However, the caravan moves on, and now we have two papers saying that schooling boosts intelligence. You wait ages for a bus, and then two come along.

Raising IQ among school-aged children: Five meta-analyses and a review of randomized controlled trials. John Protzko. Developmental Review, 46, 2017, 81-101.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229716300144

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0273229716300144/1-s2.0-S0273229716300144-main.pdf?_tid=74e7277c-c88f-11e7-9942-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1510590592_fb8b50199aaa5060ed5acd9c0c3d3186

There have been 36 RCTs attempting to raise IQ in school-aged children. Nutrient supplementation includes multivitamins, iron, iodine, and zinc. Training includes EF and reasoning training, and learning a musical instrument. We meta-analyze this literature to provide a best-evidence summary to date. Multivitamin & iodine supplementation, and learning a musical instrument, raise IQ.

Abstract
In this paper, we examine nearly every available randomized controlled trial that attempts to raise IQ in children from once they begin kindergarten until pre-adolescence. We use meta-analytic procedures when there are more than three studies employing similar methods, reviewing individual interventions when too few replications are available for a quantitative analysis. All studies included in this synthesis are on non-clinical populations. This yields five fixed-effects meta-analyses on the roles of dietary supplementation with multivitamins, iron, and iodine, as well as executive function training, and learning to play a musical instrument. We find that supplementing a deficient child with multivitamins raises their IQ, supplementing a deficient child with iodine raises their IQ, and learning to play a musical instrument raises a child’s IQ. The role of iron, and executive function training are unreliable in their estimates. We also subject each meta-analytic result to a series of robustness checks. In each meta-analysis, we discuss probable causal mechanisms for how each of these procedures raises intelligence. Though each meta-analysis includes a moderate to small number of studies (< 19 effect sizes), our purpose is to highlight the best available evidence and encourage the continued experimentation in each of these fields.

The author is looking at controlled trials on which individuals are given intelligence tests before and after programs which are at least two weeks long, in children aged 5 through to pre-adolescence, looking at effect sizes at immediate post-test. No follow-ups are mentioned, not even 6 months later, the usual minimum for a clinical intervention.

The multivitamin study produces such a small effect that it is silly to test it for significance. Protzko says that there was “an incredibly small but significant effect of taking multivitamins on IQ (g = 0.097, 95%CI = 0.006to 0.187; see Fig. 1). The abstract says: “We find that supplementing a deficient child with multivitamins raises their IQ,” which I think exaggerates what was found, which was incredibly small. Furthermore, only 3 of the 17 studies have more than 100 people in the active treatment condition, and that is rather small even for a controlled trial.

Iodine supplementation shows a half a standard deviation gain, but the author is rightly cautious about the papers, saying it only works for iodine deficient children, and also the effect goes down from g 0.5 to g 0.3 when one outlier study is removed. Still a sizeable effect for the target population, though not something which will have general application.

Under “environmental changes” or what I would call experimental enrichment studies, there were no effects for balance and coordination exercises, home academic support as part of the Abecedarian project (bang goes one theory about family environments), reasoning training (rejected because it is too much like “teaching to the test”), executive function training (a slight effect, marred by publication bias) and finally music lessons.

We found that teaching a child a musical instrument raises their IQ by over a third of a standard deviation (g= 0.421, 95%CI = 0.196 to 0.646; see Fig. 5). In addition, there was no evidence for heterogeneity in this sample (Q(5) 4.68,p> 0.466;I2= 0%)

The author links this, speculatively, to rhythm perception and discrimination. However, sample sizes are small, ranging from 10 to 32 children in the training condition.

In his general discussion the author makes a case for the effects of education on intelligence, whilst conceding that because most of the studies are on poor children there is a range restriction which may affect the wider applicability of the results.

He concludes:

Studies supplementing inadequate diets with multivitamins raised IQ. Studies remediating mild iodine deficiency raised IQ. Studies involving teaching a musical instrument raised IQ. After correcting for range restriction, this corresponded to an increase of 4 IQ points in the population.

My conclusion is that Protzko has made a reasonable case, in a carefully argued paper, but everything he reports is about immediate effects, and before coming to any conclusions it would be good to know whether the effects last more than 6 months.

The second paper is:

How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. EDUCATION AND INTELLIGENCE METAANALYSIS. 2017
Stuart J. Ritchie & Elliot M. Tucker-Drob.

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Education-Intelligence%20Meta-Analysis%2007Nov1

Intelligence test scores and educational duration are positively correlated. This correlation can be interpreted in two ways: students with greater propensity for intelligence go on to complete more education, or a longer education increases intelligence. We meta-analysed three categories of quasi-experimental studies of educational effects on intelligence: those estimating education-intelligence associations after controlling for earlier intelligence, those using compulsory schooling policy changes as instrumental variables, and those using regression-discontinuity designs on school-entry age cut offs. Across 142 effect sizes from 42 data sets involving over 600,000 participants, we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities, of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education. Moderator analyses indicated that the effects persisted across the lifespan, and were present on all broad categories of cognitive ability studied. Education appears to be the most consistent, robust, and durable method yet to be identified for raising intelligence.

As you would expect from these two researchers, their analysis is highly detailed and sophisticated. They lay out the strengths and weaknesses of their three key approaches thus:

Each research design had its own strengths and weaknesses. The Control Prior Intelligence design produced precise, long-range estimates of the educational effect, and took into account the full range of educational variation. However, this approach did not employ a specific instrument for introducing differences in educational duration, and instead capitalized on naturally-occurring variation, which is itself multi-determined. Moreover, because the early and outcome tests were rarely identical (and because the early ability tests likely contained measurement error),the control for pre-existing ability levels was likely only partial.

The Policy Change design produced causal estimates across very large, population-based datasets. However, estimates from this approach were relatively imprecise, as is typical of instrumental variable analyses. Furthermore, because the policies used as instruments typically only increased educational duration for the subset of individuals who would have otherwise have attended school at the pre-existing minimum compulsory level, this design should be interpreted as producing a “Local Average Treatment Effect” that might not generalize across the full educational range(Morgan & Winship, 2015).

The School Age Cutoff design produced the largest number of estimates across a wide range of cognitive abilities, but was restricted to comparisons across adjacent school years. In this design, the critical causal estimate is based on comparing test scores in a given grade to a counterfactual formed by extrapolating within-grade age trends beyond the cutoff dates. This approach is powerful, but the key assumption—that the age trend extrapolates—is difficult to test. Moreover, although this approach produced notably large effect size estimates, we did not identify any School Age Cutoff studies that tested whether these effects persisted into adulthood. These estimates should thus be regarded with caution.

In three separate unconditional random-effects meta-analytic models (one for each study design), we estimated the effect of one additional year of education on cognitive outcomes. For all three study designs, there was a significant effect of one additional year of education. For Control Prior Intelligence, the effect was 1.197 IQ points (SE = 0.203, p= 3.84×10-09); for Policy Change, it was 2.056 IQ points (SE = 0.583, p= 4.23×10-04); and for School Age Cutoff, it was 5.229 IQ points (SE = 0.530, p= 6.33×10-23). An overall model including all estimates from all three designs found an average effect size of 3.394IQ points for one year of education (SE = 0.503, p= 1.55×10-11).

Ritchie education table 1

Ritchie education control prior IQ

To my mind, the “Control Prior Intelligence” design is the best design, as the name suggests. It is the only one where the publication-bias funnel plot is funnel shaped. Yes, there is a confound (brighter kids may stay longer at school), but the error term feels much smaller than in the other two approaches. 1 IQ point gain seems credible, and it could be zero, if brighter students stay on for more education. My money is on Control Prior Intelligence as the best estimate of how much school boosts intelligence.

I would be more positive about the Policy Change results if there was a long-term follow-up. If extending years of schooling really works, Norweigians should be permanently brighter now by 2 to 4 IQ points (depending on how many extra school years) compared to when they had shorter, unreformed teaching. I doubt this, but data must decide the issue, not my surmises. There may not be a Hawthorne Effect (never was one) due to the extension of school years, but fake reforms of education may temporarily lift the morale of bored teachers, thus causing an upward blip in results which soon fades. Worth checking (and then if necessary doing another reform of some sort)!

As to School Age Cutoff, 5 IQ points per year is extraordinary. The authors are rightly cautious about this category. It would suggest that backwardness could be eradicated if slow learners were to be kept at school for another 3 years. I know that the authors do not make that assumption, but others will do so. If the data are correct, the policy implication stares us in the face.

The authors conclude:

The results reported here indicate strong, consistent evidence for effects of education on intelligence. Although the effects—on the order of a few IQ points for a year of education—might be considered small, at the societal level they are potentially of great consequence. A crucial next step will be to uncover the mechanisms of these educational effects on intelligence, in order to inform educational policy and practice.

These two papers strengthen the view that intelligence can be boosted, at least up till about age 18.

Education might be boosting intelligence. Even if not, I doubt it will be doing much harm, unless those who have tired of education are compelled to remain at school when there is work waiting for them, because work has intellectual demands to it, which should also, if these findings are correct, boost intelligence. (Worth testing to see if prior intelligence is boosted by a lifetime of supposedly cognitively demanding occupations). The authors refer to this general possibility as “downstream social processes”. It might also be prudent, in terms of boosting national intelligence, to prohibit retirement.

There is a case for education: whatever your abilities, you will have learned some skills and some facts. That is not to be sniffed at, even if you have learned nothing more than the correct way of sniffing snuff.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: IQ, Nutrition 
Hide 181 CommentsLeave a Comment
181 Comments to "Boost Your IQ"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. What are your thoughts on n-back Dr. Thompson? I see mixed reviews and meta analyses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Seems to generate an increase in that sort of skill, but does not generalize to other intellectual tasks. It seems to have most impact on low ability students

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/how-to-boost-your-iq_26
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/creative-memories
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/become-instant-expert-on-intelligence/?highlight=N-back
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jthompson/boost-your-iq/#comment-2077657
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @RaceRealist88
    What are your thoughts on n-back Dr. Thompson? I see mixed reviews and meta analyses.

    Seems to generate an increase in that sort of skill, but does not generalize to other intellectual tasks. It seems to have most impact on low ability students

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/how-to-boost-your-iq_26

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/creative-memories

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/become-instant-expert-on-intelligence/?highlight=N-back

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Whatever the efficiency of this N-back test, g loadings decrease after practice. In other words, we can outsmart "g".

    In the present research two studies are used to investigate the relation between g loading of tests and practice (test-retest) and coaching (active teaching) effects. The data on practice do not support the hypothesis that the higher a test’s g loading, the less susceptible it is to preparation, but the data on coaching support the hypothesis. There is evidence that practice and coaching reduce the g-loadedness of a collection of tests. The implications of these results for predictive validity, practical usability of the tests, the relevance of traditional intelligence taxonomies, and for future research are discussed.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2389.00182/full
     
    That can't be ignored since it really challenges the reality of "g" as a biological phenomenon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. The Z Blog says: • Website

    This is an interesting topic, but I wonder if it is better to flip the telescope around. Can we find ways to decrease intelligence, outside of brain trauma or starvation? In other words, are their conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time? If so, what are those conditions?

    What’s promising about this approach is we already have a lot of data from very good sources. The National Institutes of Health do long term IQ testing on people in NIH funded treatment protocols. They test the patients before the treatment, every three to six months during the treatment, and then after the treatment. They also use a range of tests. Even better, they have data from young children through adults.

    It would be interesting if IQ researchers could tap into this data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Brain trauma doesn't always decrease IQ, most TBI cases show a slight decrease but still in the normal range.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/17/traumatic-brain-injury-and-iq/

    Numerous studies on this matter.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Lead poisoning decreases IQ; there's also pretty good evidence that aging causes loss of working memory, which is correlated to intelligence. Alzheimer's, of course, causes progressive and increasingly significant loss of function.
    , @EH
    I have written elsewhere, and probably on Dr. Thompson's old blog, about evidence that inert* narcotic gasses (e.g. xenon or high-pressure nitrogen) reversibly decrease IQ, or at least reduce performance on more highly g-loaded tasks more than simpler tasks. Low blood sugar also works, so insulin can temporarily reduce IQ in most people, but I haven't looked into it; it would be unpleasant, more dangerous and take much longer to reverse.

    If we could determine how much reduction in capacity had been achieved with a given gas mixture with a less g-loaded task such as choice reaction time, then this would allow using moderate difficulty questions to test very high abilities more accurately without having to validate extremely hard questions (which are often even harder to write and to measure their difficulty accurately than they are to answer).

    *Why inert oil-soluble gasses can be narcotic is well explained by Heimburg's soliton model of neural transmission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_model_in_neuroscience

    , @Anonymous

    In other words, are their [sic] conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time?
     
    Yes, it happens to entire societies. Simply import more stupid people, preferably by the tens of millions. Works wonders!
    , @Anonymous
    Fluoride reduces IQ:

    http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
    , @neprof
    Hip-hop culture, rap music,and weed is the road to idiocracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @The Z Blog
    This is an interesting topic, but I wonder if it is better to flip the telescope around. Can we find ways to decrease intelligence, outside of brain trauma or starvation? In other words, are their conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time? If so, what are those conditions?

    What's promising about this approach is we already have a lot of data from very good sources. The National Institutes of Health do long term IQ testing on people in NIH funded treatment protocols. They test the patients before the treatment, every three to six months during the treatment, and then after the treatment. They also use a range of tests. Even better, they have data from young children through adults.

    It would be interesting if IQ researchers could tap into this data.

    Brain trauma doesn’t always decrease IQ, most TBI cases show a slight decrease but still in the normal range.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/17/traumatic-brain-injury-and-iq/

    Numerous studies on this matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    Brain trauma doesn’t always decrease IQ, most TBI cases show a slight decrease but still in the normal range.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/17/traumatic-brain-injury-and-iq/

    Numerous studies on this matter.

     

    On the contrary, the papers show that in general "severe" TBI causes a decrease in IQ of roughly half a standard deviation. And I wonder why the figure at the top compares IQ of blacks and whites. That belongs in another discussion.

    I wish someone would do a study of the effects of nootropics such as piracetam on TBI. These drugs anecdotally can help reverse damage from ischemia or hypoxia that can result from it.

    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00190008
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. utu says:

    Few days ago I read the paper on the Norwegian study:

    Brinch, C. N., & Galloway, T. A. (2012). Schooling in adolescence raises IQ scores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 425-430

    Military recruits took the same IQ test at the age of 19. The beauty of the study is that many recruits who had different school programs were tested simultaneously in the same year.

    The Figure 1 in the paper shows the S-shape curve demonstrating that the ∆IQ change effect persists for several years after the school reform.

    Nobody claims that the ∆IQ/year effect is cumulative and can be applied to any school year. Extra N years of schooling does not imply that IQ test scores are higher by N*(∆Q/year). Nevertheless this effect is not spurious, is real and is large and clearly can’t be easily explained away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Link to that paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/425.abstract

    Here is the excerpt describing that paper from the Ritchie meta-analysis:

    The second design, “Policy Change,” relies on changes in educational duration that are, by all accounts, exogenous to the characteristics of the individuals. An example of this design is the study by Brinch & Galloway (2012), who used large-scale data from a 1960s educational reform in Norway. This reform increased compulsory education by two years; critically, it was staggered across municipalities in the country. This allowed the researchers to estimate the effect of an additional year of school on a later intelligence test, taken by males at entry to military service as part of Norway’s universal military draft. Under the assumption that the policy change only affected intelligence via increasing years of schooling, the authors used an instrumental variables analysis to estimate the effect of one year of schooling on intelligence at approximately 3.7 points on a standard IQ scale (mean = 100, SD = 15 in the population).
     
    OSF home page for the Ritchie paper: https://osf.io/qn2f9/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. FKA Max says: • Website

    Mr. Thompson,

    have you commented on this study, yet?

    Myopia and Cognitive Performance: Results From the Gutenberg Health Study

    http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2565722 Mirshahi et al. (2016)

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1857667

    An association was identified between the performance in the TOL and the level of education: the total years of education were associated with increased cognitive performance (r = 0.28; P < 0.001).

    Consequently, cognitive ability, which may have a significant genetic component, appears to be less directly related to myopia and may be associated with myopia primarily through its impacts on level of education.

    Considered in isolation both educational level and intelligence were correlated to myopic refraction. However, in a linear mixed model, years spent in education significantly predicted myopia (β = -0.14; t = -7.55; P < 0.001), whereas cognitive performance did not (β = -0.017; t = -1.26; P = 0.207). There was a significant effect of age on the spherical equivalent (β = 0.049; t = 9.89; P < 0.001).

    “To put it crudely, myopia is not the ophthalmic sign of intelligence, rather it marks the striver”, says Alireza Mirshahi. http://www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=1100

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Interesting. I will have to take more time to work through it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Factorize says:

    They found another 30% of educational attainment?
    It is in the genes that you don’t inherit?
    Remarkable!

    Would this have been chalked up to the environment in previous eras?
    Might they be able to do a genetic study of adoptive parents and see how this
    contributes to the IQ of their adopted children?

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/14/219261

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. yet another poor showing by dr snobson. how low must one’s IQ be to believe that psychology is a science?

    he gives his wife pleonasms.

    sad!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Always a unsubstantiated argument isn't Nuttella*

    ''Heidegger effect''...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @The Z Blog
    This is an interesting topic, but I wonder if it is better to flip the telescope around. Can we find ways to decrease intelligence, outside of brain trauma or starvation? In other words, are their conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time? If so, what are those conditions?

    What's promising about this approach is we already have a lot of data from very good sources. The National Institutes of Health do long term IQ testing on people in NIH funded treatment protocols. They test the patients before the treatment, every three to six months during the treatment, and then after the treatment. They also use a range of tests. Even better, they have data from young children through adults.

    It would be interesting if IQ researchers could tap into this data.

    Lead poisoning decreases IQ; there’s also pretty good evidence that aging causes loss of working memory, which is correlated to intelligence. Alzheimer’s, of course, causes progressive and increasingly significant loss of function.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Z Blog
    Sure, and chopping off a person's head lowers their IQ too. I'm talking about things that lower intelligence, without causing physical damage, killing the person or, like lead poisoning, preventing them from developing fully. I'm assuming you are referring Kevin Drum's arguments about lead and violence.

    If we can take a healthy person with a 110 IQ and reduce their IQ to 110, even temporarily, while maintaining their physical health, it could reveal how to do the opposite. I'm skeptical of both sides of this, by the way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. EH says:
    @The Z Blog
    This is an interesting topic, but I wonder if it is better to flip the telescope around. Can we find ways to decrease intelligence, outside of brain trauma or starvation? In other words, are their conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time? If so, what are those conditions?

    What's promising about this approach is we already have a lot of data from very good sources. The National Institutes of Health do long term IQ testing on people in NIH funded treatment protocols. They test the patients before the treatment, every three to six months during the treatment, and then after the treatment. They also use a range of tests. Even better, they have data from young children through adults.

    It would be interesting if IQ researchers could tap into this data.

    I have written elsewhere, and probably on Dr. Thompson’s old blog, about evidence that inert* narcotic gasses (e.g. xenon or high-pressure nitrogen) reversibly decrease IQ, or at least reduce performance on more highly g-loaded tasks more than simpler tasks. Low blood sugar also works, so insulin can temporarily reduce IQ in most people, but I haven’t looked into it; it would be unpleasant, more dangerous and take much longer to reverse.

    If we could determine how much reduction in capacity had been achieved with a given gas mixture with a less g-loaded task such as choice reaction time, then this would allow using moderate difficulty questions to test very high abilities more accurately without having to validate extremely hard questions (which are often even harder to write and to measure their difficulty accurately than they are to answer).

    *Why inert oil-soluble gasses can be narcotic is well explained by Heimburg’s soliton model of neural transmission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_model_in_neuroscience

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @James Thompson
    Seems to generate an increase in that sort of skill, but does not generalize to other intellectual tasks. It seems to have most impact on low ability students

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/how-to-boost-your-iq_26
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/creative-memories
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/become-instant-expert-on-intelligence/?highlight=N-back

    Whatever the efficiency of this N-back test, g loadings decrease after practice. In other words, we can outsmart “g”.

    In the present research two studies are used to investigate the relation between g loading of tests and practice (test-retest) and coaching (active teaching) effects. The data on practice do not support the hypothesis that the higher a test’s g loading, the less susceptible it is to preparation, but the data on coaching support the hypothesis. There is evidence that practice and coaching reduce the g-loadedness of a collection of tests. The implications of these results for predictive validity, practical usability of the tests, the relevance of traditional intelligence taxonomies, and for future research are discussed.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2389.00182/full

    That can’t be ignored since it really challenges the reality of “g” as a biological phenomenon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    More on practice effects

    https://www.speechandlanguage.com/clinical-cafe/practice-effects
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Afrosapiens
    Whatever the efficiency of this N-back test, g loadings decrease after practice. In other words, we can outsmart "g".

    In the present research two studies are used to investigate the relation between g loading of tests and practice (test-retest) and coaching (active teaching) effects. The data on practice do not support the hypothesis that the higher a test’s g loading, the less susceptible it is to preparation, but the data on coaching support the hypothesis. There is evidence that practice and coaching reduce the g-loadedness of a collection of tests. The implications of these results for predictive validity, practical usability of the tests, the relevance of traditional intelligence taxonomies, and for future research are discussed.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2389.00182/full
     
    That can't be ignored since it really challenges the reality of "g" as a biological phenomenon.
    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Practice makes perfect

    http://www.eknowledge.com/images/repeat1.jpg

    Source: http://www.allstartoday.com/index.php/thesis/5985/

    Nearly one-half of all students retake the SAT I
    and a slightly larger proportion of females retest
    than males. Results from retesting on the SAT I indi-
    cate that 4 percent of students find a score increase
    of 100 or more points on the verbal or math tests
    and that, on average, higher-ability students take
    the SAT two or three times.
    Males retesting twice or
    three times averaged a score increase of 20.6 points
    versus 16.2 for females. The extent of score change is
    related to a student’s initial score. Students who
    choose to retake the SAT I more than once may differ
    in meaningful ways from those who do not.
    - https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchnote-1998-5-score-change-retaking-sat.pdf

    https://ddcolrs.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/fullscreen-capture-2102017-90751-pm-bmp.jpg

    Source: https://ddcolrs.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/east-asian-advantage-for-sat-testing/

    A new study has found that East Asian American students (those whose families come from China, Japan or Korea) are significantly more likely than other Asian Americans and members of all other racial or ethnic groups to take SAT preparation courses, and to benefit from such extra coaching.
    - https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/19/study-finds-east-asian-americans-gain-most-sat-courses

    They are probably also the group that is referred to as ``higher-ability students'' above. More test prep, plus taking the test two or three times, logically translates into higher scores. The same applies to IQ tests, in my opinion:

    An Insider’s Guide to Boosting Your Kid’s IQ


    Rick Rosner and I were friends in high school in Boulder, Colo., in the late 1970s. [...]
    His test scores place him among the smartest people on earth, and he attributes his high scores to habits he’s followed for decades. With diligent practice, says Rick, anyone can “pop their IQ up by at least 25 points, at least in terms of test scores.” A 25-point boost can make a huge difference in your kid’s education. Cash-strapped public school systems place the highest-scoring kids in special programs that offer excellent education programs with the best teachers. For instance, Rick says, “North Hollywood High has a ‘highly gifted magnet’ program and you need a 150 IQ to get in there.” (A 150 score is higher than 99.9% of test takers).

    With two kids of my own, I thought I should ask Rick for some IQ-boosting tips. Here’s what he told me:

    1. Take practice tests. It’s the number one away to improve scores. IQ tests are meant to be given cold, so the primary way to do better on them is be familiar with the kinds of questions asked and how they are presented.

    Find out what kind of test your kid will be given in school, and go online and download as many practice tests as you can. When your kid is taking the official test, says Rick, “it will be harder to trip them out.”

    The same principles can be used to improve SAT scores, which universities place great importance on when considering college applications. “The SAT functions more or less like an IQ test.” He warns that SAT prep classes are of limited value. “Yeah, you can take the prep class and your score might go up 20 points on a scale that runs up to 1,600, so it’s negligible. The way to kick ass on the SAT is to practice like crazy. Take at least 30 practice tests. Ideally more than that. Use official ones, because the ones from other companies are crap.”

    Rick gave his daughter lots of practice SAT tests while she was still in middle school. She won a prestigious national scholarship awarded to just 30 students a year, providing winners with a full ride to the private high school of their choice.

     

    - http://blog.credit.com/2014/09/insiders-guide-to-boosting-your-kids-iq-97115/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. dearieme says:

    Should schoolteachers be getting more intelligent throughout their careers? I mean, if being taught is a Good Thing, is teaching a Good Thing too? Or might that apply only to people teaching clever students in e.g. the more demanding subjects at university?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    It would only help insofar as the difficulty kept increasing and probably has an upper limit. As a former schoolteacher myself, I don't know if teaching made me smarter - but it certainly forced me to learn a lot about patience.

    I would say that anything that tried to improve intelligence is probably best designed to focus on a certain specific area, such as working memory, and seeing if that has transfer effects elsewhere. Some things such as fitness do seem to improve memory, as the brain is a biological entity that uses oxygen like everything else in the body.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/regular-exercise-changes-brain-improve-memory-thinking-skills-201404097110

    And obesity is correlated with less than healthy brains.

    http://www.trekdesk.com/mental-healthnervous-system/98-obesity-decreases-brain-size

    All of this should be fairly logical, IMO.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Afrosapiens
    More on practice effects

    https://www.speechandlanguage.com/clinical-cafe/practice-effects

    Practice makes perfect

    Source: http://www.allstartoday.com/index.php/thesis/5985/

    Nearly one-half of all students retake the SAT I
    and a slightly larger proportion of females retest
    than males. Results from retesting on the SAT I indi-
    cate that 4 percent of students find a score increase
    of 100 or more points on the verbal or math tests
    and that, on average, higher-ability students take
    the SAT two or three times.
    Males retesting twice or
    three times averaged a score increase of 20.6 points
    versus 16.2 for females. The extent of score change is
    related to a student’s initial score. Students who
    choose to retake the SAT I more than once may differ
    in meaningful ways from those who do not.
    https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchnote-1998-5-score-change-retaking-sat.pdf

    Source: https://ddcolrs.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/east-asian-advantage-for-sat-testing/

    A new study has found that East Asian American students (those whose families come from China, Japan or Korea) are significantly more likely than other Asian Americans and members of all other racial or ethnic groups to take SAT preparation courses, and to benefit from such extra coaching.
    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/19/study-finds-east-asian-americans-gain-most-sat-courses

    They are probably also the group that is referred to as “higher-ability students” above. More test prep, plus taking the test two or three times, logically translates into higher scores. The same applies to IQ tests, in my opinion:

    An Insider’s Guide to Boosting Your Kid’s IQ

    [MORE]

    Rick Rosner and I were friends in high school in Boulder, Colo., in the late 1970s. [...]
    His test scores place him among the smartest people on earth, and he attributes his high scores to habits he’s followed for decades. With diligent practice, says Rick, anyone can “pop their IQ up by at least 25 points, at least in terms of test scores.” A 25-point boost can make a huge difference in your kid’s education. Cash-strapped public school systems place the highest-scoring kids in special programs that offer excellent education programs with the best teachers. For instance, Rick says, “North Hollywood High has a ‘highly gifted magnet’ program and you need a 150 IQ to get in there.” (A 150 score is higher than 99.9% of test takers).

    With two kids of my own, I thought I should ask Rick for some IQ-boosting tips. Here’s what he told me:

    1. Take practice tests. It’s the number one away to improve scores. IQ tests are meant to be given cold, so the primary way to do better on them is be familiar with the kinds of questions asked and how they are presented.

    Find out what kind of test your kid will be given in school, and go online and download as many practice tests as you can. When your kid is taking the official test, says Rick, “it will be harder to trip them out.”

    The same principles can be used to improve SAT scores, which universities place great importance on when considering college applications. “The SAT functions more or less like an IQ test.” He warns that SAT prep classes are of limited value. “Yeah, you can take the prep class and your score might go up 20 points on a scale that runs up to 1,600, so it’s negligible. The way to kick ass on the SAT is to practice like crazy. Take at least 30 practice tests. Ideally more than that. Use official ones, because the ones from other companies are crap.”

    Rick gave his daughter lots of practice SAT tests while she was still in middle school. She won a prestigious national scholarship awarded to just 30 students a year, providing winners with a full ride to the private high school of their choice.

    http://blog.credit.com/2014/09/insiders-guide-to-boosting-your-kids-iq-97115/

    Read More
    • Agree: Afrosapiens
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Jin Li, professor of education at Brown University https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jili and author of Cultural Foundations of Learning, asserts that Asian parents tend to believe more in nurture than in nature, or in other words, they value effort over ability. - p.149 Beyond the Tiger Mom: East-West Parenting for the Global Age By Maya Thiagarajan

    Building and using a social network: Nurture for low-income Chinese American adolescents' learning
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23259137_Building_and_using_a_social_network_Nurture_for_low-income_Chinese_American_adolescents%27_learning
    The average grade point average (GPA) for
    these low-income students was 3.27 with a range of 4.23 to 2.09; 21 (66%)
    students had above a 3.0 GPA and 11 (34%) below it. Yet, regardless of their
    achievement level, 95% of the children indicated that education was the
    highest value to their families. Education was seen as the only way to a good
    life, conveying a clear sense that learning is nonquestionable and nonnego-
    tiable to them. The only path to successful learning was, as 78% of the stu-
    dents revealed, to work hard. If that did not lead to the desired results, then
    the child needed to work harder. Even for highly achieving students, their
    parents encouraged them to be even better, as the highest achieving student,
    Karen, shared: “. . . if you’re number 1, she [my mom] wants you to be even
    better than number 1 [meaning continuous self-improvement regardless
    of achievement].” These findings confirmed previous research done on
    middle-class families (Li, 2003b), thus providing support for our prediction
    that the cultural mandate holds true for both middle- and low-income fam-
    ilies. Our hypothesis was further confirmed that immigration to the United
    States does not decrease the cultural mandate and familial willingness to
    carry the mandate out (Li, 2005).

    , @James Thompson
    Teaching to the test boosts test scores. To show it boost ability, one would have to do followup studies, say of later academic and real life achievements, and then see whether the original score, or the test practice higher score was the more accurate predictor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    Practice makes perfect

    http://www.eknowledge.com/images/repeat1.jpg

    Source: http://www.allstartoday.com/index.php/thesis/5985/

    Nearly one-half of all students retake the SAT I
    and a slightly larger proportion of females retest
    than males. Results from retesting on the SAT I indi-
    cate that 4 percent of students find a score increase
    of 100 or more points on the verbal or math tests
    and that, on average, higher-ability students take
    the SAT two or three times.
    Males retesting twice or
    three times averaged a score increase of 20.6 points
    versus 16.2 for females. The extent of score change is
    related to a student’s initial score. Students who
    choose to retake the SAT I more than once may differ
    in meaningful ways from those who do not.
    - https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchnote-1998-5-score-change-retaking-sat.pdf

    https://ddcolrs.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/fullscreen-capture-2102017-90751-pm-bmp.jpg

    Source: https://ddcolrs.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/east-asian-advantage-for-sat-testing/

    A new study has found that East Asian American students (those whose families come from China, Japan or Korea) are significantly more likely than other Asian Americans and members of all other racial or ethnic groups to take SAT preparation courses, and to benefit from such extra coaching.
    - https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/19/study-finds-east-asian-americans-gain-most-sat-courses

    They are probably also the group that is referred to as ``higher-ability students'' above. More test prep, plus taking the test two or three times, logically translates into higher scores. The same applies to IQ tests, in my opinion:

    An Insider’s Guide to Boosting Your Kid’s IQ


    Rick Rosner and I were friends in high school in Boulder, Colo., in the late 1970s. [...]
    His test scores place him among the smartest people on earth, and he attributes his high scores to habits he’s followed for decades. With diligent practice, says Rick, anyone can “pop their IQ up by at least 25 points, at least in terms of test scores.” A 25-point boost can make a huge difference in your kid’s education. Cash-strapped public school systems place the highest-scoring kids in special programs that offer excellent education programs with the best teachers. For instance, Rick says, “North Hollywood High has a ‘highly gifted magnet’ program and you need a 150 IQ to get in there.” (A 150 score is higher than 99.9% of test takers).

    With two kids of my own, I thought I should ask Rick for some IQ-boosting tips. Here’s what he told me:

    1. Take practice tests. It’s the number one away to improve scores. IQ tests are meant to be given cold, so the primary way to do better on them is be familiar with the kinds of questions asked and how they are presented.

    Find out what kind of test your kid will be given in school, and go online and download as many practice tests as you can. When your kid is taking the official test, says Rick, “it will be harder to trip them out.”

    The same principles can be used to improve SAT scores, which universities place great importance on when considering college applications. “The SAT functions more or less like an IQ test.” He warns that SAT prep classes are of limited value. “Yeah, you can take the prep class and your score might go up 20 points on a scale that runs up to 1,600, so it’s negligible. The way to kick ass on the SAT is to practice like crazy. Take at least 30 practice tests. Ideally more than that. Use official ones, because the ones from other companies are crap.”

    Rick gave his daughter lots of practice SAT tests while she was still in middle school. She won a prestigious national scholarship awarded to just 30 students a year, providing winners with a full ride to the private high school of their choice.

     

    - http://blog.credit.com/2014/09/insiders-guide-to-boosting-your-kids-iq-97115/

    Jin Li, professor of education at Brown University https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jili and author of Cultural Foundations of Learning, asserts that Asian parents tend to believe more in nurture than in nature, or in other words, they value effort over ability. – p.149 Beyond the Tiger Mom: East-West Parenting for the Global Age By Maya Thiagarajan

    Building and using a social network: Nurture for low-income Chinese American adolescents’ learning

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23259137_Building_and_using_a_social_network_Nurture_for_low-income_Chinese_American_adolescents%27_learning

    The average grade point average (GPA) for
    these low-income students was 3.27 with a range of 4.23 to 2.09; 21 (66%)
    students had above a 3.0 GPA and 11 (34%) below it. Yet, regardless of their
    achievement level, 95% of the children indicated that education was the
    highest value to their families. Education was seen as the only way to a good
    life, conveying a clear sense that learning is nonquestionable and nonnego-
    tiable to them. The only path to successful learning was, as 78% of the stu-
    dents revealed, to work hard. If that did not lead to the desired results, then
    the child needed to work harder. Even for highly achieving students, their
    parents encouraged them to be even better, as the highest achieving student,
    Karen, shared: “. . . if you’re number 1, she [my mom] wants you to be even
    better than number 1 [meaning continuous self-improvement regardless
    of achievement].” These findings confirmed previous research done on
    middle-class families (Li, 2003b), thus providing support for our prediction
    that the cultural mandate holds true for both middle- and low-income fam-
    ilies. Our hypothesis was further confirmed that immigration to the United
    States does not decrease the cultural mandate and familial willingness to
    carry the mandate out (Li, 2005).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Developing the habit of hard work helps you a lot in life even if you're not very brainy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @dearieme
    Should schoolteachers be getting more intelligent throughout their careers? I mean, if being taught is a Good Thing, is teaching a Good Thing too? Or might that apply only to people teaching clever students in e.g. the more demanding subjects at university?

    It would only help insofar as the difficulty kept increasing and probably has an upper limit. As a former schoolteacher myself, I don’t know if teaching made me smarter – but it certainly forced me to learn a lot about patience.

    I would say that anything that tried to improve intelligence is probably best designed to focus on a certain specific area, such as working memory, and seeing if that has transfer effects elsewhere. Some things such as fitness do seem to improve memory, as the brain is a biological entity that uses oxygen like everything else in the body.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/regular-exercise-changes-brain-improve-memory-thinking-skills-201404097110

    And obesity is correlated with less than healthy brains.

    http://www.trekdesk.com/mental-healthnervous-system/98-obesity-decreases-brain-size

    All of this should be fairly logical, IMO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "it certainly forced me to learn a lot about patience." That's something: patience is a virtue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @The Z Blog
    This is an interesting topic, but I wonder if it is better to flip the telescope around. Can we find ways to decrease intelligence, outside of brain trauma or starvation? In other words, are their conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time? If so, what are those conditions?

    What's promising about this approach is we already have a lot of data from very good sources. The National Institutes of Health do long term IQ testing on people in NIH funded treatment protocols. They test the patients before the treatment, every three to six months during the treatment, and then after the treatment. They also use a range of tests. Even better, they have data from young children through adults.

    It would be interesting if IQ researchers could tap into this data.

    In other words, are their [sic] conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time?

    Yes, it happens to entire societies. Simply import more stupid people, preferably by the tens of millions. Works wonders!

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhiteWolf
    If that doesn't work you could make "diversity" the state religion and then even the university educated part of the population will be stupid.

    As for increasing IQ with a longer stay at school I doubt it will help. Brighter kids stay at school longer and any IQ tests will reflect that.

    I think the obsession with IQ is wrong as well. Not everyone is going to be bright. Given equal education the less bright kids will still be less bright even if extra schooling raised their IQ. Better to find a persons natural talents and develop them instead. A cookie cutter approach to education robs a lot of people of true fulfilment in life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I used to work in the Académie Française, but it didn’t do me any good at all,
    And I once worked in the library in the Prado in Madrid, but it didn’t teach me nothing, I recall,

    And the Library of Congress you’d have thought would hold some key,
    But it didn’t, and neither did the Bodleian Library.

    In the British Museum I hoped to find some clue.
    I worked there from nine till six, read every volume through,

    But it didn’t teach me nothing about life’s mystery.
    I just kept getting older, and it got more difficult to see,

    Till, eventually, me eyes went and me arthritis got bad,
    And so now I’m cleaning up in here, but I can’t be really sad,

    ‘Cause, you see, I feel that life’s a game. You sometimes win or lose,
    [you can look up the final line of this one ;) ]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Cundalini says:

    Learn to play the piano.
    Up to grade five is sufficient.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. J2 says:

    Just based on some kind of intuition, I believe that education does improve IQ as measured in IQ tests. To a lesser extent, but still firmly, I think education raises that what we commonly call intelligence.
    This is not to say that IQ of a given individual can be changed much. Those, who have high IQ, will have high IQ in tests made decades later, and the score will not change very much, as is known. This is true, yet it has to be admitted that those, who score high in IQ tests, tend to learn new things, and therefore their IQ score is not unconnected to learning. It seems to be that education does raise the real intelligence, that is what we today mean by intelligence, which is not the same what people in the stone age would have to called intelligence (related to the ability to stay alive).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. By “IQ increased x points” are we talking about g, or g plus learned stuff?

    Wouldn’t you need pre and post heavily g loaded tests to draw any meaningful conclusions?

    And when you say that 3 more years of education may fix the problem, are you proposing that black kids stay in high school through the 15th grade, and then they’ll be getting the same SAT scores as white kids? And maybe we could kick Asian kids out of school after 10th or 11th grade to help pay for 13th through 15th grade classes for black kids, while further equalizing SAT scores?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. … and now we have two papers saying that schooling boosts intelligence.

    Now that’s funny. Schooling as it generally exists in the US today is primarily for brainwashing but the various schools also function as make-work and affirmation programs for otherwise useless people, most of whom are exceptionally dim-witted, arrogant, and permanently ignorant as well and it doesn’t take much intelligence to figure that out.

    The concept has been understood for some time.

    [Annually] our university heads as a rule pray only for the greatest possible number of freshmen to squeeze money from, and do not care whether they are educated or not, provided they are sleek, well groomed, and good-looking, and in one word, men of means.

    Philosophasters innocent of the arts become Masters of Arts, and those are made wise by order who are endowed with no wisdom, and have no qualifications for a degree save a desire for it.

    Theologasters, if they can but pay, have enough learning and to spare, and proceed to the very highest degrees. Hence it comes that such a pack of vile buffoons, ignoramuses wandering in the twilight of learning, ghosts of clergymen, itinerant quacks, dolts, clods, asses, mere cattle …

    - Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholoy (1621), Part 1,Sect.2, Mem.3. Subs 15. Pg. 201 Burton

    https://archive.org/stream/anatomyofmelanch00burt#page/200/mode/2up/search/university

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @jorge videla (BGI volunteer)
    yet another poor showing by dr snobson. how low must one's IQ be to believe that psychology is a science?

    he gives his wife pleonasms.

    sad!

    Always a unsubstantiated argument isn’t Nuttella*

    ”Heidegger effect”…

    Read More
    • Replies: @jorge videla (BGI volunteer)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQgAhEB5OF4
    , @jorge videla (BGI volunteer)
    https://memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4674686.jpg

    Sincerely,
    BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab
    Building No.11│Beishan Industrial Zone│Yantian District│Shenzhen 518083│China  
    认知基因组学 │ www.cog-genomics.org │contact@cog-genomics.org 
    ST-RM, BGI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPQE3GfkrOo
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. For this people ”lower’ ”intelligence”, aka, cognitive skills, are complete defects or a sin… They are dehumanizing this people, just like when the same pseudo-scientist types tried to change the sexuality of some people…

    No have a ”higher” intelligence is ok folks!! I can tell them that it’s ok!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Isn’t 0.6 points approaching insignificant statistical noise in samples this size?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Brain trauma doesn't always decrease IQ, most TBI cases show a slight decrease but still in the normal range.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/17/traumatic-brain-injury-and-iq/

    Numerous studies on this matter.

    Brain trauma doesn’t always decrease IQ, most TBI cases show a slight decrease but still in the normal range.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/17/traumatic-brain-injury-and-iq/

    Numerous studies on this matter.

    On the contrary, the papers show that in general “severe” TBI causes a decrease in IQ of roughly half a standard deviation. And I wonder why the figure at the top compares IQ of blacks and whites. That belongs in another discussion.

    I wish someone would do a study of the effects of nootropics such as piracetam on TBI. These drugs anecdotally can help reverse damage from ischemia or hypoxia that can result from it.

    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00190008

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "On the contrary, the papers show that in general “severe” TBI causes a decrease in IQ of roughly half a standard deviation. And I wonder why the figure at the top compares IQ of blacks and whites. That belongs in another discussion"

    Still in the normal range. Read Bigler 1995 and Wood and Rutterford 2006 I believe.

    IQ scores are forced to fit a normal curve due to how the tests are constructed. I don't believe most physiological/performance traits lie on a bell curve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Hu Mi Yu

    Brain trauma doesn’t always decrease IQ, most TBI cases show a slight decrease but still in the normal range.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/17/traumatic-brain-injury-and-iq/

    Numerous studies on this matter.

     

    On the contrary, the papers show that in general "severe" TBI causes a decrease in IQ of roughly half a standard deviation. And I wonder why the figure at the top compares IQ of blacks and whites. That belongs in another discussion.

    I wish someone would do a study of the effects of nootropics such as piracetam on TBI. These drugs anecdotally can help reverse damage from ischemia or hypoxia that can result from it.

    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00190008

    “On the contrary, the papers show that in general “severe” TBI causes a decrease in IQ of roughly half a standard deviation. And I wonder why the figure at the top compares IQ of blacks and whites. That belongs in another discussion”

    Still in the normal range. Read Bigler 1995 and Wood and Rutterford 2006 I believe.

    IQ scores are forced to fit a normal curve due to how the tests are constructed. I don’t believe most physiological/performance traits lie on a bell curve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Would you please elaborate on your idea that most "physioological/performance measures" don't lie on a Bell Curve - and what the causal eĺements fpr this would be. I first read "psychological" and thought of conformity and peer group. As to performance I note as obvious that training and practice in particular areas must have a major effect.
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    Still in the normal range. Read Bigler 1995 and Wood and Rutterford 2006 I believe.
     
    Yes, but a drop of 1/2 SD is a significant injury. Being just inside the normal range is a handicap IMO.

    IQ scores are forced to fit a normal curve due to how the tests are constructed. I don’t believe most physiological/performance traits lie on a bell curve.

     

    Agree completely. Abuse of statistics is commonplace in soft sciences including psychology.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Intelligence, which is directly related to the ability to learn, is an inherited trait.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Joe Hide says:

    To Mr. Thompson,
    Thank You for another thoughtful, well written, and evidence backed article.
    I have been a Natural Healer for decades with thousands of cases. The most valuable and lasting course of treatment is to get patients to replace bad habits with good ones. Bad habits are hard to quickly replace with good ones… BUT … if done gradually over months and years, it’s easy. I find muscle weaknesses relating to the person’s pain complaint/area, have them do ONLY 3 repetitions of a simple non-painful exercise every day until next visit. They are always better then ( I’m good at this only because I’ve been doing it like forever!). Then I examine and make the simple easy exercise a little more complicated. Every visit the easier habit is replaced with a slightly harder one. In time they are locked into daily this positive habit and then spontaneously start adding other better habits on their own. Really dumb people become less dumb, average, then smart. This may take years for most people. Also, this will never be researched properly by most scientists because it requires so much time, so much work on my (Or their) part, there’s no money in it, and doesn’t fit well in their pre-existing academic world view. Given, this is a very simplified explanation, but thinking habits like physical ones, usually can change with an introduction of easy thoughts that gradually become more difficult over time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    That rings true to me though without experience to back it up. Maybe, given its time consuming unremunerative nature we ought to take our cue from our ape cousins and arrange the mental equivalent of defleaing as a communal activity. BTW can you recommend some good online self-help sites embodying your kind of expertise?
    , @CanSpeccy
    What you say is interesting. I have some experience, details of which I will not enter into, of making a habit of changing a habit, and I therefore, see the potential you speak of to change habits of thought in ways that increase what is commonly understood to be intelligence.

    In fact, is that not essentially the basis of Norman-Vincent-Peale's "power of positive thinking" that aided Donald Trump on his journey to the White House?

    And is that not essentially the key to good education: inculcating habits of disciplined, logical, broad-ranging and constructive thinking, with observable consequences for an individual's capability in any field of endeavor?

    That being the case, the relationship between learning to think effectively, i.e., receiving a good education, and IQ seems a critical question for the IQists. If there is no relationship, then clearly IQ does not measure important mental qualities that contribute to real world success including, for example, winning Nobel Prizes. If there is a relationship, then IQ is not nearly so genetically determined as the IQist establishment currently maintains.

    , @utu
    I used to teach/tutor individual high school students to prepare for polytechnic university entrance exams in math. It was usually for 6-8 months prior to entrance exams for 1-3 hours per week with lots of homework. The students came from motivated families who had aspirations for their children and financial ability to pay for my service. Some students were not motivated at all and considered themselves to be unable to learn math. In the end they all learned and all passed the exams. However it was more teaching them math than teaching them for the exam, though I paid a lot of attention to how to classify mathematical problems and which template was most suitable in each category.

    I am pretty sure I could teach anybody to pass Raven matrices tests close to 100% level. I would start with Venn diagrams. Adding, multiplying and subtracting sets and then techniques of housekeeping partial solutions.

    I am not surprised that Raven matrices tests were particularly susceptible to the Flynn effect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Wade says:

    Dr Thompson,

    It would suggest that backwardness could be eradicated if slow learners were to be kept at school for another 3 years.

    That statement confused me since I thought most people considered “slow learner” synonymous with “lower IQ.” Are the two not necessarily identical in meaning? I suppose so: you could have a person with a relatively high IQ on paper but who learns slowly in school due to Dyslexia or ADHD. But is that the sort of thing that line refers to?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Learning speed is an integral part of general ability, so I certainly meant them to be inter-changeable when making that remark. "Slow learning" may seem a euphemism for "low ability" but both share a common root.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @FKA Max
    Mr. Thompson,

    have you commented on this study, yet?

    Myopia and Cognitive Performance: Results From the Gutenberg Health Study

    http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2565722 Mirshahi et al. (2016)
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1857667

    An association was identified between the performance in the TOL and the level of education: the total years of education were associated with increased cognitive performance (r = 0.28; P < 0.001).

    Consequently, cognitive ability, which may have a significant genetic component, appears to be less directly related to myopia and may be associated with myopia primarily through its impacts on level of education.

    http://iovs.arvojournals.org/data/Journals/IOVS/935768/m_iovs_57_13.coverfig.gif

    http://iovs.arvojournals.org/data/Journals/IOVS/935768/m_i1552-5783-57-13-5230-t01.png

    http://iovs.arvojournals.org/data/Journals/IOVS/935768/m_i1552-5783-57-13-5230-f02.png

    Considered in isolation both educational level and intelligence were correlated to myopic refraction. However, in a linear mixed model, years spent in education significantly predicted myopia (β = -0.14; t = -7.55; P < 0.001), whereas cognitive performance did not (β = -0.017; t = -1.26; P = 0.207). There was a significant effect of age on the spherical equivalent (β = 0.049; t = 9.89; P < 0.001).

    “To put it crudely, myopia is not the ophthalmic sign of intelligence, rather it marks the striver”, says Alireza Mirshahi. - http://www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=1100

    Interesting. I will have to take more time to work through it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. The Z Blog says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh
    Lead poisoning decreases IQ; there's also pretty good evidence that aging causes loss of working memory, which is correlated to intelligence. Alzheimer's, of course, causes progressive and increasingly significant loss of function.

    Sure, and chopping off a person’s head lowers their IQ too. I’m talking about things that lower intelligence, without causing physical damage, killing the person or, like lead poisoning, preventing them from developing fully. I’m assuming you are referring Kevin Drum’s arguments about lead and violence.

    If we can take a healthy person with a 110 IQ and reduce their IQ to 110, even temporarily, while maintaining their physical health, it could reveal how to do the opposite. I’m skeptical of both sides of this, by the way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Sure, and chopping off a person’s head lowers their IQ too.
     
    But the threat of doing so may have quite the reverse effect. As Sam Johnson remarked of the outstanding sermon preached by a clergyman sentenced to capital punishment for passing a dud cheque: “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I recommend Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain for some considerations on that: problem solving, neural growth, hormones influencing such, etc. I don't agree with CanSpeccy on everything, but one thing he mentioned before was that intelligence is a blend of various factors and I've become increasingly convinced toward that in my research.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @FKA Max
    Practice makes perfect

    http://www.eknowledge.com/images/repeat1.jpg

    Source: http://www.allstartoday.com/index.php/thesis/5985/

    Nearly one-half of all students retake the SAT I
    and a slightly larger proportion of females retest
    than males. Results from retesting on the SAT I indi-
    cate that 4 percent of students find a score increase
    of 100 or more points on the verbal or math tests
    and that, on average, higher-ability students take
    the SAT two or three times.
    Males retesting twice or
    three times averaged a score increase of 20.6 points
    versus 16.2 for females. The extent of score change is
    related to a student’s initial score. Students who
    choose to retake the SAT I more than once may differ
    in meaningful ways from those who do not.
    - https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchnote-1998-5-score-change-retaking-sat.pdf

    https://ddcolrs.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/fullscreen-capture-2102017-90751-pm-bmp.jpg

    Source: https://ddcolrs.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/east-asian-advantage-for-sat-testing/

    A new study has found that East Asian American students (those whose families come from China, Japan or Korea) are significantly more likely than other Asian Americans and members of all other racial or ethnic groups to take SAT preparation courses, and to benefit from such extra coaching.
    - https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/19/study-finds-east-asian-americans-gain-most-sat-courses

    They are probably also the group that is referred to as ``higher-ability students'' above. More test prep, plus taking the test two or three times, logically translates into higher scores. The same applies to IQ tests, in my opinion:

    An Insider’s Guide to Boosting Your Kid’s IQ


    Rick Rosner and I were friends in high school in Boulder, Colo., in the late 1970s. [...]
    His test scores place him among the smartest people on earth, and he attributes his high scores to habits he’s followed for decades. With diligent practice, says Rick, anyone can “pop their IQ up by at least 25 points, at least in terms of test scores.” A 25-point boost can make a huge difference in your kid’s education. Cash-strapped public school systems place the highest-scoring kids in special programs that offer excellent education programs with the best teachers. For instance, Rick says, “North Hollywood High has a ‘highly gifted magnet’ program and you need a 150 IQ to get in there.” (A 150 score is higher than 99.9% of test takers).

    With two kids of my own, I thought I should ask Rick for some IQ-boosting tips. Here’s what he told me:

    1. Take practice tests. It’s the number one away to improve scores. IQ tests are meant to be given cold, so the primary way to do better on them is be familiar with the kinds of questions asked and how they are presented.

    Find out what kind of test your kid will be given in school, and go online and download as many practice tests as you can. When your kid is taking the official test, says Rick, “it will be harder to trip them out.”

    The same principles can be used to improve SAT scores, which universities place great importance on when considering college applications. “The SAT functions more or less like an IQ test.” He warns that SAT prep classes are of limited value. “Yeah, you can take the prep class and your score might go up 20 points on a scale that runs up to 1,600, so it’s negligible. The way to kick ass on the SAT is to practice like crazy. Take at least 30 practice tests. Ideally more than that. Use official ones, because the ones from other companies are crap.”

    Rick gave his daughter lots of practice SAT tests while she was still in middle school. She won a prestigious national scholarship awarded to just 30 students a year, providing winners with a full ride to the private high school of their choice.

     

    - http://blog.credit.com/2014/09/insiders-guide-to-boosting-your-kids-iq-97115/

    Teaching to the test boosts test scores. To show it boost ability, one would have to do followup studies, say of later academic and real life achievements, and then see whether the original score, or the test practice higher score was the more accurate predictor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Teaching to the test boosts test scores. To show it boost ability, one would have to do followup studies, say of later academic and real life achievements, and then see whether the original score, or the test practice higher score was the more accurate predictor.
     
    I think no one thinks practice effects boost ability, the main question is whether IQ reflects any independent ability at all.

    It's hard to think of another biologically rooted ability that one can improve to such a magnitude by simply retesting every two or three weeks. Retesting won't do a thing for visual acuity or singing ability, progress in athletic performance requires much more intensive practice over much more time, and of course, measuring someone's height over and over won't make them grow up.

    I think retesting should be a more used procedure. First there is regression to the mean, a basic statistical phenomenon causing measurements to become more accurate once random extreme values are diluted in the average from various measurements. Also, retesting could help find a ceiling to these practice effects which could reflect a biological limit after which an individual can't make any gain.

    I understand that IQ testing is a lucrative business, but practice effects are a huge flaw and it's well acknowledged by test designers, no other discipline would accept something like that. Yet it seems little effort has been made to eliminate them or to explain their biological basis.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Wade
    Dr Thompson,

    It would suggest that backwardness could be eradicated if slow learners were to be kept at school for another 3 years.
     
    That statement confused me since I thought most people considered "slow learner" synonymous with "lower IQ." Are the two not necessarily identical in meaning? I suppose so: you could have a person with a relatively high IQ on paper but who learns slowly in school due to Dyslexia or ADHD. But is that the sort of thing that line refers to?

    Learning speed is an integral part of general ability, so I certainly meant them to be inter-changeable when making that remark. “Slow learning” may seem a euphemism for “low ability” but both share a common root.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    There is a difference between

    SLOW BUT learning

    and

    NO learning...

    A difference betwen someone who have more time to learn something more complex but learn, and someone who simply no have capacity to reach this specific levels of complexity...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. hyperbola says:

    Sounds like more wanking. BUT, since none of the links to the articles work and/or the articles are behind a pay-wall, the nature of the wanking is not open to investigation by most readers of UNZ.

    What is evident is that this kind of group-think is now promoted and sponsored by certain small sects who know what is best for the majority of us. It doesn’t surprise me that a sect operation like Elsevier publishes these kind of articles.

    In the shadow of the Nazis, this young executive dared to publish the work of Jewish scientists

    https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    The author of the first paper seems to be a spectacularly unsuccessful psychologist!
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/protzko

    His only funding seems to come from a foundation (Fetzer Foundation) that was also a major donor to the highly corrupt Clinton Foundation - along with groups such as these
    Haim Saban and The Saban Family Foundation
    The Wasserman Foundation
    Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
    Open Society Institute
    The Rockefeller Foundation
    James R. Murdoch .............

    Protzko has presented other work in the field such as this:

    The Heritability of Cognitive Ability Across the Lifespan: A Meta-Analysis of Twins Studies
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2679002

    BUT, only as an abstract of a "working paper" with no peer review (in 2015 - seems a failure?)
    , @hyperbola
    One would think that James Thompson should provide links that work to sites where the articles in question can be read (no pay-walls). The Protzko article can be found in full here as a preprint that is apparently in press.

    Raising IQ among school-aged children: Five meta-analyses and a review of randomized controlled trials
    http://www.johnprotzko.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Protzko-2017-Raising-IQ-among-school-aged-children.pdf


    It is instructive to glance at the figures - e.g. Fig. 4 is the basis of the claim that "executive training" can improve IQ. The "scatter" of the various "tests" used in the meta-analysis suggests this is indeed wanking. Indeed Plotzko himself more or less admits as much:

    Overall, more work is needed in training school-aged children on executive functions to see if it reliably raises their intelligence, especially at the latent level due to concerns over the specific posttests used. Results from adults suggest executive function training may increase visual mental rotation skills but not underlying intelligence at the latent level (e.g. Colomet al., 2013).
    Finally, it is becoming clearer that executive function training may not be an unconditional causal effect; meaning, the effects may be moderated by such factors as personality (Schwaighofer et al., 2015; in adults) or temperament (StuderLuethi, Bauer, & Perrig, 2015; in children). If this turns out to be true across experiments, we will not be able to make claims about whether executive function training is effective. The truth may be more complicated.
     
    , @RaceRealist88
    "BUT, since none of the links to the articles work and/or the articles are behind a pay-wall,"

    Sci hub is your friend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Although it is popular for people to claim that they don’t know what intelligence is, most people show an interest in boosting their intelligence.

    Or the IQist’s creed: Only we can assess intelligence, dummy, and remember, your dumbness is incurable.

    In reality, people have a perfectly clear idea of what intelligence is and have no difficulty in recognizing it when they see it: clever dog, clever girl, whatever. If a kid plays the Moonlight Sonata without fault at the age of ten, we say that’s clever. Likewise, solving Rubik’s cube in a minute, solving the Times crossword puzzle in ten minutes, or finding you car in the parking lot at the airport in less than half an hour. None of these things, however, is necessarily well related to your IQ, which is why the IQist are so insistent that you don’t know what intelligence is. It is also why intelligence testing fails to identify future Nobel Prize winners in physics.

    As for most people having an interest in boosting their intelligence, that is nonsense too. People are interested in boosting their skill at whatever they do, motor mechanics, cookery, or quantum mechanics, but boosting brainpower by eating more fish, iron or broccoli is only for cranks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @botazefa

    In reality, people have a perfectly clear idea of what intelligence is and have no difficulty in recognizing it when they see it: clever dog, clever girl, whatever. If a kid plays the Moonlight Sonata without fault at the age of ten, we say that’s clever. Likewise, solving Rubik’s cube in a minute, solving the Times crossword puzzle in ten minutes, or finding you car in the parking lot at the airport in less than half an hour. None of these things, however, is necessarily well related to your IQ,
     
    Why aren't those things correlated with IQ? The parking lot one seems heavily g-loaded to me. I think IQ researchers would acknowledge these are related to g.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @The Z Blog
    Sure, and chopping off a person's head lowers their IQ too. I'm talking about things that lower intelligence, without causing physical damage, killing the person or, like lead poisoning, preventing them from developing fully. I'm assuming you are referring Kevin Drum's arguments about lead and violence.

    If we can take a healthy person with a 110 IQ and reduce their IQ to 110, even temporarily, while maintaining their physical health, it could reveal how to do the opposite. I'm skeptical of both sides of this, by the way.

    Sure, and chopping off a person’s head lowers their IQ too.

    But the threat of doing so may have quite the reverse effect. As Sam Johnson remarked of the outstanding sermon preached by a clergyman sentenced to capital punishment for passing a dud cheque: “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. hyperbola says:
    @hyperbola
    Sounds like more wanking. BUT, since none of the links to the articles work and/or the articles are behind a pay-wall, the nature of the wanking is not open to investigation by most readers of UNZ.

    What is evident is that this kind of group-think is now promoted and sponsored by certain small sects who know what is best for the majority of us. It doesn't surprise me that a sect operation like Elsevier publishes these kind of articles.

    In the shadow of the Nazis, this young executive dared to publish the work of Jewish scientists
    https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists

    The author of the first paper seems to be a spectacularly unsuccessful psychologist!

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/protzko

    His only funding seems to come from a foundation (Fetzer Foundation) that was also a major donor to the highly corrupt Clinton Foundation – along with groups such as these
    Haim Saban and The Saban Family Foundation
    The Wasserman Foundation
    Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
    Open Society Institute
    The Rockefeller Foundation
    James R. Murdoch ………….

    Protzko has presented other work in the field such as this:

    The Heritability of Cognitive Ability Across the Lifespan: A Meta-Analysis of Twins Studies

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2679002

    BUT, only as an abstract of a “working paper” with no peer review (in 2015 – seems a failure?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    What do you think of studies that Coca-Cola funds that show that soda doesn't cause obesity? The latest joke I saw was a twin study they funded. Does anyone really trust big food? You're telling me that drinking extra kcal you don't need *doesn't* induce extra weight gain?

    If you believe that, please buy my properties on the moon. They're cheap.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. hyperbola says:
    @hyperbola
    Sounds like more wanking. BUT, since none of the links to the articles work and/or the articles are behind a pay-wall, the nature of the wanking is not open to investigation by most readers of UNZ.

    What is evident is that this kind of group-think is now promoted and sponsored by certain small sects who know what is best for the majority of us. It doesn't surprise me that a sect operation like Elsevier publishes these kind of articles.

    In the shadow of the Nazis, this young executive dared to publish the work of Jewish scientists
    https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists

    One would think that James Thompson should provide links that work to sites where the articles in question can be read (no pay-walls). The Protzko article can be found in full here as a preprint that is apparently in press.

    Raising IQ among school-aged children: Five meta-analyses and a review of randomized controlled trials

    http://www.johnprotzko.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Protzko-2017-Raising-IQ-among-school-aged-children.pdf

    It is instructive to glance at the figures – e.g. Fig. 4 is the basis of the claim that “executive training” can improve IQ. The “scatter” of the various “tests” used in the meta-analysis suggests this is indeed wanking. Indeed Plotzko himself more or less admits as much:

    Overall, more work is needed in training school-aged children on executive functions to see if it reliably raises their intelligence, especially at the latent level due to concerns over the specific posttests used. Results from adults suggest executive function training may increase visual mental rotation skills but not underlying intelligence at the latent level (e.g. Colomet al., 2013).
    Finally, it is becoming clearer that executive function training may not be an unconditional causal effect; meaning, the effects may be moderated by such factors as personality (Schwaighofer et al., 2015; in adults) or temperament (StuderLuethi, Bauer, & Perrig, 2015; in children). If this turns out to be true across experiments, we will not be able to make claims about whether executive function training is effective. The truth may be more complicated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. dearieme says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    It would only help insofar as the difficulty kept increasing and probably has an upper limit. As a former schoolteacher myself, I don't know if teaching made me smarter - but it certainly forced me to learn a lot about patience.

    I would say that anything that tried to improve intelligence is probably best designed to focus on a certain specific area, such as working memory, and seeing if that has transfer effects elsewhere. Some things such as fitness do seem to improve memory, as the brain is a biological entity that uses oxygen like everything else in the body.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/regular-exercise-changes-brain-improve-memory-thinking-skills-201404097110

    And obesity is correlated with less than healthy brains.

    http://www.trekdesk.com/mental-healthnervous-system/98-obesity-decreases-brain-size

    All of this should be fairly logical, IMO.

    “it certainly forced me to learn a lot about patience.” That’s something: patience is a virtue.

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

    On that note, Tony Flew’s “Thinking about thinking” Fontana, 1975, is a good start.

    Thanks for the book recommendation! I just ordered a copy from the UK (it seems to be much more common there). Only two Amazon (US+UK) reviews, but both are encouraging: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-About-Antony-Flew/dp/0006861628
    I assume the 1975 and 1989 editions are the same?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Don't know. Only have the 1975 edition to hand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. botazefa says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Although it is popular for people to claim that they don’t know what intelligence is, most people show an interest in boosting their intelligence.
     
    Or the IQist's creed: Only we can assess intelligence, dummy, and remember, your dumbness is incurable.

    In reality, people have a perfectly clear idea of what intelligence is and have no difficulty in recognizing it when they see it: clever dog, clever girl, whatever. If a kid plays the Moonlight Sonata without fault at the age of ten, we say that's clever. Likewise, solving Rubik's cube in a minute, solving the Times crossword puzzle in ten minutes, or finding you car in the parking lot at the airport in less than half an hour. None of these things, however, is necessarily well related to your IQ, which is why the IQist are so insistent that you don't know what intelligence is. It is also why intelligence testing fails to identify future Nobel Prize winners in physics.

    As for most people having an interest in boosting their intelligence, that is nonsense too. People are interested in boosting their skill at whatever they do, motor mechanics, cookery, or quantum mechanics, but boosting brainpower by eating more fish, iron or broccoli is only for cranks.

    In reality, people have a perfectly clear idea of what intelligence is and have no difficulty in recognizing it when they see it: clever dog, clever girl, whatever. If a kid plays the Moonlight Sonata without fault at the age of ten, we say that’s clever. Likewise, solving Rubik’s cube in a minute, solving the Times crossword puzzle in ten minutes, or finding you car in the parking lot at the airport in less than half an hour. None of these things, however, is necessarily well related to your IQ,

    Why aren’t those things correlated with IQ? The parking lot one seems heavily g-loaded to me. I think IQ researchers would acknowledge these are related to g.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Possibly just throwing this out – but if a society is aging overall due to inverted age pyramid, shouldn’t we expect to see some IQ loss if cognitive decline is associated with loss of IQ as well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    Possibly just throwing this out – but if a society is aging overall due to inverted age pyramid, shouldn’t we expect to see some IQ loss if cognitive decline is associated with loss of IQ as well?
     
    Except that high-IQ types tend to live longer, so the reverse could be the case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @hyperbola
    Sounds like more wanking. BUT, since none of the links to the articles work and/or the articles are behind a pay-wall, the nature of the wanking is not open to investigation by most readers of UNZ.

    What is evident is that this kind of group-think is now promoted and sponsored by certain small sects who know what is best for the majority of us. It doesn't surprise me that a sect operation like Elsevier publishes these kind of articles.

    In the shadow of the Nazis, this young executive dared to publish the work of Jewish scientists
    https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists

    “BUT, since none of the links to the articles work and/or the articles are behind a pay-wall,”

    Sci hub is your friend.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @hyperbola
    The author of the first paper seems to be a spectacularly unsuccessful psychologist!
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/protzko

    His only funding seems to come from a foundation (Fetzer Foundation) that was also a major donor to the highly corrupt Clinton Foundation - along with groups such as these
    Haim Saban and The Saban Family Foundation
    The Wasserman Foundation
    Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
    Open Society Institute
    The Rockefeller Foundation
    James R. Murdoch .............

    Protzko has presented other work in the field such as this:

    The Heritability of Cognitive Ability Across the Lifespan: A Meta-Analysis of Twins Studies
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2679002

    BUT, only as an abstract of a "working paper" with no peer review (in 2015 - seems a failure?)

    What do you think of studies that Coca-Cola funds that show that soda doesn’t cause obesity? The latest joke I saw was a twin study they funded. Does anyone really trust big food? You’re telling me that drinking extra kcal you don’t need *doesn’t* induce extra weight gain?

    If you believe that, please buy my properties on the moon. They’re cheap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "You’re telling me that drinking extra kcal you don’t need *doesn’t* induce extra weight gain": it needn't if all it did was replace an equivalent number of kcal consumed in some other way.
    , @hyperbola
    You should trust "big food" about as much as "big pharma".

    Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/

    Frankly I begin to think that it is time that we had some real capitalism (competition) instead of what Adam Smith described as mercantilism (governments owned by companies and making laws solely for companies). Perhaps we need to radically reduce the size of "big" companies to the point that as individual companies they do not have the economic power to implement mercantilism. Maybe something like: no company can have more than 10,000 employees, and no company can own another company?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @RaceRealist88
    "On the contrary, the papers show that in general “severe” TBI causes a decrease in IQ of roughly half a standard deviation. And I wonder why the figure at the top compares IQ of blacks and whites. That belongs in another discussion"

    Still in the normal range. Read Bigler 1995 and Wood and Rutterford 2006 I believe.

    IQ scores are forced to fit a normal curve due to how the tests are constructed. I don't believe most physiological/performance traits lie on a bell curve.

    Would you please elaborate on your idea that most “physioological/performance measures” don’t lie on a Bell Curve – and what the causal eĺements fpr this would be. I first read “psychological” and thought of conformity and peer group. As to performance I note as obvious that training and practice in particular areas must have a major effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Joe Hide
    To Mr. Thompson,
    Thank You for another thoughtful, well written, and evidence backed article.
    I have been a Natural Healer for decades with thousands of cases. The most valuable and lasting course of treatment is to get patients to replace bad habits with good ones. Bad habits are hard to quickly replace with good ones... BUT ... if done gradually over months and years, it's easy. I find muscle weaknesses relating to the person's pain complaint/area, have them do ONLY 3 repetitions of a simple non-painful exercise every day until next visit. They are always better then ( I'm good at this only because I've been doing it like forever!). Then I examine and make the simple easy exercise a little more complicated. Every visit the easier habit is replaced with a slightly harder one. In time they are locked into daily this positive habit and then spontaneously start adding other better habits on their own. Really dumb people become less dumb, average, then smart. This may take years for most people. Also, this will never be researched properly by most scientists because it requires so much time, so much work on my (Or their) part, there's no money in it, and doesn't fit well in their pre-existing academic world view. Given, this is a very simplified explanation, but thinking habits like physical ones, usually can change with an introduction of easy thoughts that gradually become more difficult over time.

    That rings true to me though without experience to back it up. Maybe, given its time consuming unremunerative nature we ought to take our cue from our ape cousins and arrange the mental equivalent of defleaing as a communal activity. BTW can you recommend some good online self-help sites embodying your kind of expertise?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. res says:
    @utu
    Few days ago I read the paper on the Norwegian study:

    Brinch, C. N., & Galloway, T. A. (2012). Schooling in adolescence raises IQ scores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 425-430
     
    Military recruits took the same IQ test at the age of 19. The beauty of the study is that many recruits who had different school programs were tested simultaneously in the same year.

    The Figure 1 in the paper shows the S-shape curve demonstrating that the ∆IQ change effect persists for several years after the school reform.

    Nobody claims that the ∆IQ/year effect is cumulative and can be applied to any school year. Extra N years of schooling does not imply that IQ test scores are higher by N*(∆Q/year). Nevertheless this effect is not spurious, is real and is large and clearly can't be easily explained away.

    Link to that paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/425.abstract

    Here is the excerpt describing that paper from the Ritchie meta-analysis:

    The second design, “Policy Change,” relies on changes in educational duration that are, by all accounts, exogenous to the characteristics of the individuals. An example of this design is the study by Brinch & Galloway (2012), who used large-scale data from a 1960s educational reform in Norway. This reform increased compulsory education by two years; critically, it was staggered across municipalities in the country. This allowed the researchers to estimate the effect of an additional year of school on a later intelligence test, taken by males at entry to military service as part of Norway’s universal military draft. Under the assumption that the policy change only affected intelligence via increasing years of schooling, the authors used an instrumental variables analysis to estimate the effect of one year of schooling on intelligence at approximately 3.7 points on a standard IQ scale (mean = 100, SD = 15 in the population).

    OSF home page for the Ritchie paper: https://osf.io/qn2f9/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @James Thompson
    Teaching to the test boosts test scores. To show it boost ability, one would have to do followup studies, say of later academic and real life achievements, and then see whether the original score, or the test practice higher score was the more accurate predictor.

    Teaching to the test boosts test scores. To show it boost ability, one would have to do followup studies, say of later academic and real life achievements, and then see whether the original score, or the test practice higher score was the more accurate predictor.

    I think no one thinks practice effects boost ability, the main question is whether IQ reflects any independent ability at all.

    It’s hard to think of another biologically rooted ability that one can improve to such a magnitude by simply retesting every two or three weeks. Retesting won’t do a thing for visual acuity or singing ability, progress in athletic performance requires much more intensive practice over much more time, and of course, measuring someone’s height over and over won’t make them grow up.

    I think retesting should be a more used procedure. First there is regression to the mean, a basic statistical phenomenon causing measurements to become more accurate once random extreme values are diluted in the average from various measurements. Also, retesting could help find a ceiling to these practice effects which could reflect a biological limit after which an individual can’t make any gain.

    I understand that IQ testing is a lucrative business, but practice effects are a huge flaw and it’s well acknowledged by test designers, no other discipline would accept something like that. Yet it seems little effort has been made to eliminate them or to explain their biological basis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    On the contrary, the Wechsler manuals remind users that at least 6 months should elapse between testings, and preferably a year. Test-retest statistics have long been studied. There is also a literature on memory testing re-test effects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "On the contrary, the papers show that in general “severe” TBI causes a decrease in IQ of roughly half a standard deviation. And I wonder why the figure at the top compares IQ of blacks and whites. That belongs in another discussion"

    Still in the normal range. Read Bigler 1995 and Wood and Rutterford 2006 I believe.

    IQ scores are forced to fit a normal curve due to how the tests are constructed. I don't believe most physiological/performance traits lie on a bell curve.

    Still in the normal range. Read Bigler 1995 and Wood and Rutterford 2006 I believe.

    Yes, but a drop of 1/2 SD is a significant injury. Being just inside the normal range is a handicap IMO.

    IQ scores are forced to fit a normal curve due to how the tests are constructed. I don’t believe most physiological/performance traits lie on a bell curve.

    Agree completely. Abuse of statistics is commonplace in soft sciences including psychology.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Possibly just throwing this out - but if a society is aging overall due to inverted age pyramid, shouldn't we expect to see some IQ loss if cognitive decline is associated with loss of IQ as well?

    Possibly just throwing this out – but if a society is aging overall due to inverted age pyramid, shouldn’t we expect to see some IQ loss if cognitive decline is associated with loss of IQ as well?

    Except that high-IQ types tend to live longer, so the reverse could be the case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. dearieme says:
    @RaceRealist88
    What do you think of studies that Coca-Cola funds that show that soda doesn't cause obesity? The latest joke I saw was a twin study they funded. Does anyone really trust big food? You're telling me that drinking extra kcal you don't need *doesn't* induce extra weight gain?

    If you believe that, please buy my properties on the moon. They're cheap.

    “You’re telling me that drinking extra kcal you don’t need *doesn’t* induce extra weight gain”: it needn’t if all it did was replace an equivalent number of kcal consumed in some other way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Joe Hide
    To Mr. Thompson,
    Thank You for another thoughtful, well written, and evidence backed article.
    I have been a Natural Healer for decades with thousands of cases. The most valuable and lasting course of treatment is to get patients to replace bad habits with good ones. Bad habits are hard to quickly replace with good ones... BUT ... if done gradually over months and years, it's easy. I find muscle weaknesses relating to the person's pain complaint/area, have them do ONLY 3 repetitions of a simple non-painful exercise every day until next visit. They are always better then ( I'm good at this only because I've been doing it like forever!). Then I examine and make the simple easy exercise a little more complicated. Every visit the easier habit is replaced with a slightly harder one. In time they are locked into daily this positive habit and then spontaneously start adding other better habits on their own. Really dumb people become less dumb, average, then smart. This may take years for most people. Also, this will never be researched properly by most scientists because it requires so much time, so much work on my (Or their) part, there's no money in it, and doesn't fit well in their pre-existing academic world view. Given, this is a very simplified explanation, but thinking habits like physical ones, usually can change with an introduction of easy thoughts that gradually become more difficult over time.

    What you say is interesting. I have some experience, details of which I will not enter into, of making a habit of changing a habit, and I therefore, see the potential you speak of to change habits of thought in ways that increase what is commonly understood to be intelligence.

    In fact, is that not essentially the basis of Norman-Vincent-Peale’s “power of positive thinking” that aided Donald Trump on his journey to the White House?

    And is that not essentially the key to good education: inculcating habits of disciplined, logical, broad-ranging and constructive thinking, with observable consequences for an individual’s capability in any field of endeavor?

    That being the case, the relationship between learning to think effectively, i.e., receiving a good education, and IQ seems a critical question for the IQists. If there is no relationship, then clearly IQ does not measure important mental qualities that contribute to real world success including, for example, winning Nobel Prizes. If there is a relationship, then IQ is not nearly so genetically determined as the IQist establishment currently maintains.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @James Thompson
    Learning speed is an integral part of general ability, so I certainly meant them to be inter-changeable when making that remark. "Slow learning" may seem a euphemism for "low ability" but both share a common root.

    There is a difference between

    SLOW BUT learning

    and

    NO learning…

    A difference betwen someone who have more time to learn something more complex but learn, and someone who simply no have capacity to reach this specific levels of complexity…

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

    On that note, Tony Flew’s “Thinking about thinking” Fontana, 1975, is a good start.
     
    Thanks for the book recommendation! I just ordered a copy from the UK (it seems to be much more common there). Only two Amazon (US+UK) reviews, but both are encouraging: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-About-Antony-Flew/dp/0006861628
    I assume the 1975 and 1989 editions are the same?

    Don’t know. Only have the 1975 edition to hand.

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

    Teaching to the test boosts test scores. To show it boost ability, one would have to do followup studies, say of later academic and real life achievements, and then see whether the original score, or the test practice higher score was the more accurate predictor.
     
    I think no one thinks practice effects boost ability, the main question is whether IQ reflects any independent ability at all.

    It's hard to think of another biologically rooted ability that one can improve to such a magnitude by simply retesting every two or three weeks. Retesting won't do a thing for visual acuity or singing ability, progress in athletic performance requires much more intensive practice over much more time, and of course, measuring someone's height over and over won't make them grow up.

    I think retesting should be a more used procedure. First there is regression to the mean, a basic statistical phenomenon causing measurements to become more accurate once random extreme values are diluted in the average from various measurements. Also, retesting could help find a ceiling to these practice effects which could reflect a biological limit after which an individual can't make any gain.

    I understand that IQ testing is a lucrative business, but practice effects are a huge flaw and it's well acknowledged by test designers, no other discipline would accept something like that. Yet it seems little effort has been made to eliminate them or to explain their biological basis.

    On the contrary, the Wechsler manuals remind users that at least 6 months should elapse between testings, and preferably a year. Test-retest statistics have long been studied. There is also a literature on memory testing re-test effects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    I said:

    I understand that IQ testing is a lucrative business, but practice effects are a huge flaw and it’s well acknowledged by test designers, no other discipline would accept something like that. Yet it seems little effort has been made to eliminate them or to explain their biological basis.
     
    practice effects have been studied/described, not explained. That's very important to make claims about which measurement is representative of someone's intellect. If someone's IQ is half a SD higher two or three weeks after a first test, or even one year after, one must ask what it means biologically. How can an ability improve by such a magnitude, with so little practice and yet be described as largely fixed at the same time?

    You see, if I manage to increase my running endurance by one SD over one year (it'd be impossible after two weeks), doctors would have no issue finding cardio-vascular and respiratory variables that changed accordingly. And of course, there would be no debate as to whether my ability has improved or the difference comes from the chronometers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. utu says:
    @Joe Hide
    To Mr. Thompson,
    Thank You for another thoughtful, well written, and evidence backed article.
    I have been a Natural Healer for decades with thousands of cases. The most valuable and lasting course of treatment is to get patients to replace bad habits with good ones. Bad habits are hard to quickly replace with good ones... BUT ... if done gradually over months and years, it's easy. I find muscle weaknesses relating to the person's pain complaint/area, have them do ONLY 3 repetitions of a simple non-painful exercise every day until next visit. They are always better then ( I'm good at this only because I've been doing it like forever!). Then I examine and make the simple easy exercise a little more complicated. Every visit the easier habit is replaced with a slightly harder one. In time they are locked into daily this positive habit and then spontaneously start adding other better habits on their own. Really dumb people become less dumb, average, then smart. This may take years for most people. Also, this will never be researched properly by most scientists because it requires so much time, so much work on my (Or their) part, there's no money in it, and doesn't fit well in their pre-existing academic world view. Given, this is a very simplified explanation, but thinking habits like physical ones, usually can change with an introduction of easy thoughts that gradually become more difficult over time.

    I used to teach/tutor individual high school students to prepare for polytechnic university entrance exams in math. It was usually for 6-8 months prior to entrance exams for 1-3 hours per week with lots of homework. The students came from motivated families who had aspirations for their children and financial ability to pay for my service. Some students were not motivated at all and considered themselves to be unable to learn math. In the end they all learned and all passed the exams. However it was more teaching them math than teaching them for the exam, though I paid a lot of attention to how to classify mathematical problems and which template was most suitable in each category.

    I am pretty sure I could teach anybody to pass Raven matrices tests close to 100% level. I would start with Venn diagrams. Adding, multiplying and subtracting sets and then techniques of housekeeping partial solutions.

    I am not surprised that Raven matrices tests were particularly susceptible to the Flynn effect.

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

    Are PhD’s necessarily smarter than a college dropout like Bill Gates? I don’t know. There is such a thing as too much education. In some disciplines it even retards the brain, like in many social “sciences”, where it seems the longer you study the less able you are to think for yourself. I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I’m convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I’m convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.
     
    I disagree. STEM people make bad thinkers in my opinion. Their world view is self-centered, they lack inter-personal skills and have low exposure to most forms of high culture and philosophy. Most of them are unable of relativist thought, they can't figure out the individual stories behind the aggregate statistics and can't understand any idea that can't be reduced to a mathematical equation.
    , @utu
    I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I’m convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts

    This is only a testament to your convictions and not actual experiences. You are making two mistakes. First you mistake the unknown known for the known known. And the second by broadcasting it here you turned what better would have remained unknown into the known (widely).
    , @Anon
    My family is loaded with people with STEM backgrounds, and they're all hard-core liberals. They reject any data that indicates there's a racial correlation with IQ, they believe the liberal newspapers on global warming and never look at the dubious science behind it, and they accept anything the liberal media tells them about Trump as gospel truth without examining the facts of the case. They were all science majors, and they spent all their college years absorbing science facts.

    But they did not learn how to think. They don't go any farther than looking at the surface of anything. They don't know how to reason and ponder ideas and examine data that makes them psychologically uncomfortable. The sciences never make anyone feel uncomfortable (unless you have a problem with science itself), because the sciences are filled with unemotional facts. STEM graduates are never taught how to challenge their own intellectual complacency. They are some of the most arrogant people I've ever met, and often believe the last so-called expert they listened to on topics outside their specialty, even if the 'expert' is dead wrong. They're quite gullible in their own way because they were never taught how to reason.

    I'm the one member of my family with a liberal arts degree. I was forced to think for my degree and ponder ideas of all sorts, including unpalatable ones. One of the most important parts of a classical education is learning how to intellectually wrestle with tough ideas and let your reason lead you on in situations in which your emotions blanch. That why you still reach truth. I started out as a good liberal because I was raised that way, but gradually thought myself into a conservative position over the years because it's plain that a liberal philosophy taken to its logical extreme is leading us to a societal disaster. This is because I was taught to think and reason and never try to convince myself that a lot of nonsense is true just because it's pleasant to think and confirms my own biases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @James Thompson
    On the contrary, the Wechsler manuals remind users that at least 6 months should elapse between testings, and preferably a year. Test-retest statistics have long been studied. There is also a literature on memory testing re-test effects.

    I said:

    I understand that IQ testing is a lucrative business, but practice effects are a huge flaw and it’s well acknowledged by test designers, no other discipline would accept something like that. Yet it seems little effort has been made to eliminate them or to explain their biological basis.

    practice effects have been studied/described, not explained. That’s very important to make claims about which measurement is representative of someone’s intellect. If someone’s IQ is half a SD higher two or three weeks after a first test, or even one year after, one must ask what it means biologically. How can an ability improve by such a magnitude, with so little practice and yet be described as largely fixed at the same time?

    You see, if I manage to increase my running endurance by one SD over one year (it’d be impossible after two weeks), doctors would have no issue finding cardio-vascular and respiratory variables that changed accordingly. And of course, there would be no debate as to whether my ability has improved or the difference comes from the chronometers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    The aim is to test how people solve problems they have not seen before. Good tests of learning speed can take up to 12 months. (See the US Army training data described by Gottfredson). IQ tests are a short cut in learning-speed terms. They can be destroyed by publishing the tests. So can exams. There is no such boosting effect on athletic performance when the Olympic rules are published.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Anonymous
    Are PhD's necessarily smarter than a college dropout like Bill Gates? I don't know. There is such a thing as too much education. In some disciplines it even retards the brain, like in many social "sciences", where it seems the longer you study the less able you are to think for yourself. I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I'm convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.

    I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I’m convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.

    I disagree. STEM people make bad thinkers in my opinion. Their world view is self-centered, they lack inter-personal skills and have low exposure to most forms of high culture and philosophy. Most of them are unable of relativist thought, they can’t figure out the individual stories behind the aggregate statistics and can’t understand any idea that can’t be reduced to a mathematical equation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    That doesn't apply to health professionals, who tend to lean liberal.

    http://images.dailykos.com/images/130311/lightbox/md-graph.jpg?1424435860

    Interestingly, the political divide between specialties is basically an income one, which makes sense since conservative thought is tied to selfishness. Otherwise, doctors tend to be driven by altruistic ideals and deal with a varied public with which they develop their interpersonal skills and their empathy.
    , @res

    Their world view is self-centered
     
    Best.Line.Ever (given that it came from Afrosapiens) I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself. Let's hear about that bastion of a lack of self-centeredness that is the legal profession.

    You not understanding quantitative arguments does not make the people using them bad thinkers.

    Just for fun try typing "lawyer self-ce" into Google and see what auto completions you are offered (even better click on the appropriate one you see). Then try the same with engineer.
    , @EH
    Do please carry on. One seldom sees the essence of such a pathological worldview expressed in such a revealing way.
    , @jbwilson24
    "Are PhD’s necessarily smarter than a college dropout like Bill Gates?...There is such a thing as too much education."

    I hazily recall research performed back in the 2000s that focused on discipline-specific knowledge of graduate students. The upshot, if I recall, was that PhD students actually suffer deterioration of core skills from the undergraduate curriculum. I dimly recall a study or two that talked also about general problem solving and critical thinking, with the conclusion that too much time in PhD programs might be detrimental. If I had time I would search the literature.

    "STEM people make bad thinkers in my opinion. Their world view is self-centered, they lack inter-personal skills and have low exposure to most forms of high culture and philosophy. "

    My personal experience bears this out, as a PhD in STEM who also is fully qualified in the humanities. When I teach law students with a STEM background, they typically wax eloquently about how the sciences teach you to think rigorously, before failing miserably to write a basic legal memo or short essay.

    In truth, one only obtains decent exposure to deductive reasoning in a few selected disciplines (e.g., philosophy, pure mathematics). For inductive reasoning, one has probability theory and statistics. Law and political science tend to focus on policy argumentation and analogical reasoning.

    The only STEM grads I encounter who have reasonably wide education are physicists, together with the odd pure mathematician. Statisticians, electrical engineers, biochemists, and computer science types (my own discipline) are often poorly rounded dullards, particularly the asians who flock to these fields in search of good jobs. The nerdy white and jewish students can be a little more lively, but they often have an overly generous assessment of their knowledge of the humanities.

    I particularly detest it when I see STEM types laughing at philosophy graduates. Sure, the modern academy has been infested with cultural marxism. However, 20 years ago you could find rigorous programs. I recall studying far more difficult material (e.g., paraconsistent logic, model theory, computability, foundations of mathematics) through analytic philosophy honors courses than I encountered in the computer science curriculum. The reading load was heavier, and with oral examinations and essays the prospects of cheating were non-existent. Most of the east asian 'super students' would find that their habits of plagiarism, group work and purchasing essays were of questionable utility.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Afrosapiens

    I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I’m convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.
     
    I disagree. STEM people make bad thinkers in my opinion. Their world view is self-centered, they lack inter-personal skills and have low exposure to most forms of high culture and philosophy. Most of them are unable of relativist thought, they can't figure out the individual stories behind the aggregate statistics and can't understand any idea that can't be reduced to a mathematical equation.

    That doesn’t apply to health professionals, who tend to lean liberal.

    http://images.dailykos.com/images/130311/lightbox/md-graph.jpg?1424435860

    Interestingly, the political divide between specialties is basically an income one, which makes sense since conservative thought is tied to selfishness. Otherwise, doctors tend to be driven by altruistic ideals and deal with a varied public with which they develop their interpersonal skills and their empathy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Assistant Village Idiot
    Except conservatives give more of their own money than liberals. Almost 50% more. More even if disregarding religious giving. They give more blood and volunteer their time more, too. See "Who Really Cares" by ex-liberal Arthur C. Brooks.

    I have worked in a psychiatric hospital with overwhelmingly liberal staff for 40 years. They will tell you that they are more giving and caring than other people. In fact, they tell it to each other all the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I’m convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.
     
    I disagree. STEM people make bad thinkers in my opinion. Their world view is self-centered, they lack inter-personal skills and have low exposure to most forms of high culture and philosophy. Most of them are unable of relativist thought, they can't figure out the individual stories behind the aggregate statistics and can't understand any idea that can't be reduced to a mathematical equation.

    Their world view is self-centered

    Best.Line.Ever (given that it came from Afrosapiens) I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself. Let’s hear about that bastion of a lack of self-centeredness that is the legal profession.

    You not understanding quantitative arguments does not make the people using them bad thinkers.

    Just for fun try typing “lawyer self-ce” into Google and see what auto completions you are offered (even better click on the appropriate one you see). Then try the same with engineer.

    Read More
    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Best.Line.Ever (given that it came from Afrosapiens) I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself. Let’s hear about that bastion of a lack of self-centeredness that is the legal profession.
     
    Don't be ridiculous, you know there is a difference between lawyers in the movies and lawyers in real life, right? Many lawyers work to defend the weak, the oppressed, children, prosecutors work for the common good, others are just here to help people making the most of the laws and happen to make good money in the process, you can criticize this, but it's the best protection we have against anarchy.

    So yeah, the legal professions serve the common good, including the intellectual property rights that make innovations economically viable.

    You not understanding quantitative arguments does not make the people using them bad thinkers.
     
    I fully understand them, better than you. I also understand that numbers alone can't tell the whole story as far as we're talking about human lives and dynamics.

    Just for fun try typing “lawyer self-ce” into Google and see what auto completions you are offered (even better click on the appropriate one you see). Then try the same with engineer.
     
    LOL! Are you really this dumb?

    if you type "lawyer self-ce", what do you expect to see? "self-century"? "self-centigrade"? "self-censorship"? You're a clown.

    Just typing "lawyer+self" offers "self introduction", "self evaluation", "self-employed", "self-representation"...

    SMH!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. utu says:
    @Anonymous
    Are PhD's necessarily smarter than a college dropout like Bill Gates? I don't know. There is such a thing as too much education. In some disciplines it even retards the brain, like in many social "sciences", where it seems the longer you study the less able you are to think for yourself. I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I'm convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.

    I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I’m convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts

    This is only a testament to your convictions and not actual experiences. You are making two mistakes. First you mistake the unknown known for the known known. And the second by broadcasting it here you turned what better would have remained unknown into the known (widely).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @FKA Max
    Jin Li, professor of education at Brown University https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jili and author of Cultural Foundations of Learning, asserts that Asian parents tend to believe more in nurture than in nature, or in other words, they value effort over ability. - p.149 Beyond the Tiger Mom: East-West Parenting for the Global Age By Maya Thiagarajan

    Building and using a social network: Nurture for low-income Chinese American adolescents' learning
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23259137_Building_and_using_a_social_network_Nurture_for_low-income_Chinese_American_adolescents%27_learning
    The average grade point average (GPA) for
    these low-income students was 3.27 with a range of 4.23 to 2.09; 21 (66%)
    students had above a 3.0 GPA and 11 (34%) below it. Yet, regardless of their
    achievement level, 95% of the children indicated that education was the
    highest value to their families. Education was seen as the only way to a good
    life, conveying a clear sense that learning is nonquestionable and nonnego-
    tiable to them. The only path to successful learning was, as 78% of the stu-
    dents revealed, to work hard. If that did not lead to the desired results, then
    the child needed to work harder. Even for highly achieving students, their
    parents encouraged them to be even better, as the highest achieving student,
    Karen, shared: “. . . if you’re number 1, she [my mom] wants you to be even
    better than number 1 [meaning continuous self-improvement regardless
    of achievement].” These findings confirmed previous research done on
    middle-class families (Li, 2003b), thus providing support for our prediction
    that the cultural mandate holds true for both middle- and low-income fam-
    ilies. Our hypothesis was further confirmed that immigration to the United
    States does not decrease the cultural mandate and familial willingness to
    carry the mandate out (Li, 2005).

    Developing the habit of hard work helps you a lot in life even if you’re not very brainy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. EH says:
    @Afrosapiens

    I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I’m convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.
     
    I disagree. STEM people make bad thinkers in my opinion. Their world view is self-centered, they lack inter-personal skills and have low exposure to most forms of high culture and philosophy. Most of them are unable of relativist thought, they can't figure out the individual stories behind the aggregate statistics and can't understand any idea that can't be reduced to a mathematical equation.

    Do please carry on. One seldom sees the essence of such a pathological worldview expressed in such a revealing way.

    Read More
    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Do please carry on. One seldom sees the essence of such a pathological worldview expressed in such a revealing way.
     
    I'd gladly carry on if you could elaborate on your points of disagreement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Afrosapiens

    I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I’m convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.
     
    I disagree. STEM people make bad thinkers in my opinion. Their world view is self-centered, they lack inter-personal skills and have low exposure to most forms of high culture and philosophy. Most of them are unable of relativist thought, they can't figure out the individual stories behind the aggregate statistics and can't understand any idea that can't be reduced to a mathematical equation.

    “Are PhD’s necessarily smarter than a college dropout like Bill Gates?…There is such a thing as too much education.”

    I hazily recall research performed back in the 2000s that focused on discipline-specific knowledge of graduate students. The upshot, if I recall, was that PhD students actually suffer deterioration of core skills from the undergraduate curriculum. I dimly recall a study or two that talked also about general problem solving and critical thinking, with the conclusion that too much time in PhD programs might be detrimental. If I had time I would search the literature.

    “STEM people make bad thinkers in my opinion. Their world view is self-centered, they lack inter-personal skills and have low exposure to most forms of high culture and philosophy. ”

    My personal experience bears this out, as a PhD in STEM who also is fully qualified in the humanities. When I teach law students with a STEM background, they typically wax eloquently about how the sciences teach you to think rigorously, before failing miserably to write a basic legal memo or short essay.

    In truth, one only obtains decent exposure to deductive reasoning in a few selected disciplines (e.g., philosophy, pure mathematics). For inductive reasoning, one has probability theory and statistics. Law and political science tend to focus on policy argumentation and analogical reasoning.

    The only STEM grads I encounter who have reasonably wide education are physicists, together with the odd pure mathematician. Statisticians, electrical engineers, biochemists, and computer science types (my own discipline) are often poorly rounded dullards, particularly the asians who flock to these fields in search of good jobs. The nerdy white and jewish students can be a little more lively, but they often have an overly generous assessment of their knowledge of the humanities.

    I particularly detest it when I see STEM types laughing at philosophy graduates. Sure, the modern academy has been infested with cultural marxism. However, 20 years ago you could find rigorous programs. I recall studying far more difficult material (e.g., paraconsistent logic, model theory, computability, foundations of mathematics) through analytic philosophy honors courses than I encountered in the computer science curriculum. The reading load was heavier, and with oral examinations and essays the prospects of cheating were non-existent. Most of the east asian ‘super students’ would find that their habits of plagiarism, group work and purchasing essays were of questionable utility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I pretty much agree with your assessment of students of various disciplines. I would like to add another dimension. During the beginning of the ferment in Soviet block in late 1970s and 1980s it was mostly the students and faculty of physics and mathematics department who were the most engaged in risky dissident political activities. The ones who were the most sluggish, conformists, cowardly and apparently pro regime were lawyers, economists and medical doctors.

    computer science types (my own discipline) are often poorly rounded dullards - Oh yes. In old times they used to have good background in mathematics at least but nowadays many computer programers are mathematical ignoramuses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Are PhD's necessarily smarter than a college dropout like Bill Gates? I don't know. There is such a thing as too much education. In some disciplines it even retards the brain, like in many social "sciences", where it seems the longer you study the less able you are to think for yourself. I have a BS in Computer Science from a state flagship, and I'm convinced I can out think any PhD in liberal arts esp. in Education or Grievance Studies(gender studies, African studies, Latino studies), even those from HYPSM.

    My family is loaded with people with STEM backgrounds, and they’re all hard-core liberals. They reject any data that indicates there’s a racial correlation with IQ, they believe the liberal newspapers on global warming and never look at the dubious science behind it, and they accept anything the liberal media tells them about Trump as gospel truth without examining the facts of the case. They were all science majors, and they spent all their college years absorbing science facts.

    But they did not learn how to think. They don’t go any farther than looking at the surface of anything. They don’t know how to reason and ponder ideas and examine data that makes them psychologically uncomfortable. The sciences never make anyone feel uncomfortable (unless you have a problem with science itself), because the sciences are filled with unemotional facts. STEM graduates are never taught how to challenge their own intellectual complacency. They are some of the most arrogant people I’ve ever met, and often believe the last so-called expert they listened to on topics outside their specialty, even if the ‘expert’ is dead wrong. They’re quite gullible in their own way because they were never taught how to reason.

    I’m the one member of my family with a liberal arts degree. I was forced to think for my degree and ponder ideas of all sorts, including unpalatable ones. One of the most important parts of a classical education is learning how to intellectually wrestle with tough ideas and let your reason lead you on in situations in which your emotions blanch. That why you still reach truth. I started out as a good liberal because I was raised that way, but gradually thought myself into a conservative position over the years because it’s plain that a liberal philosophy taken to its logical extreme is leading us to a societal disaster. This is because I was taught to think and reason and never try to convince myself that a lot of nonsense is true just because it’s pleasant to think and confirms my own biases.

    Read More
    • LOL: Afrosapiens
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Re: Scientists

    They’re quite gullible in their own way because they were never taught how to reason.
     
    This may be true of many, which is surely explained at least in part, by the fact that in the sciences, math, etc., one is taught mostly uncontroversial facts, and so the student comes to accept that what authority dispenses is generally true to the best of anyone's knowledge. A student of the humanities, however, must come to grips with the realities of human emotion, ambition, greed, cruelty, deceit, etc. Thus, if half competently taught, a student of the humanities will likely have a better understanding of political and social realities than a STEM grad.

    At one time, when universities were self-governing communities of scholars, not gigantic, money-seeking, credentialing machines run by venal, time-serving, politically correct, and generally deplorable bureaucrats, many in the STEM field interacted significantly with colleagues in other fields and held the world of the arts, literature and philosophy in high esteem. Some in the humanities, especially in the fields of math and philosophy were well informed about the sciences. But today, when the humanities are dominated by Commies, anti-white racists, and haters of free speech, the academy has become collection of largely separate intellectual worlds where ignorance of anything but a narrow field is the rule, not the exception: a narrowness intensified by the kind of contempt that people such as Afrosapiens expresses for all those who fail to accept his anti-intellectual, and self-serving view of the world. Naturally, STEM grads tend to have no time for that or, therefore, for the academic world from which people with such views derive.

    , @Anon
    My family has almost pure engineering background, but politically are all over the place. I think it is not related to principled, thought-through positions, but mainly because of (probably unconscious) self-interest. The one who is married, well-to-do and lives in Texas is conservative. The one who is married and well-to-do but is expecting a high level position is a leftist gig is, unsurprisingly, atheist and liberal. 

    Most of us don't have the inclination, time or talent to begin by answering first questions and build a life from there. That would be a 'principled' position and would help lessen contradictions. (By First Questions I mean stuff like why is there something instead of nothing, what is a man, how then can he live in a group, how should he live in a group, etc.). So we usually absorb from our environment those sort of answers, and have a 'filter' through which we approach reality. 

    The two most important ones, imo,  are whether God is --and how He is-- or is not, and what gives meaning to our lives. A Christian, for example, will see life as a gift from a loving God, and will accept the existence of a natural law that tells him how life should be lived. He will then move within a certain 'family of ideas' (faith, hope and charity, faith/good actions, life as sacred, etc) An atheist will move in another framework (life as competition for scarce resources, in group/out group, or maybe life as a source of pleasure and a flight from suffering, abortion/euthanasia, etc.) A Communist will think individual lives are not important per se, what is important is the right political system, and so on.

    Different mental filters, different life results. The better filters allow us to grasp reality better, to "think better". That is the old-fashioned concept of "right reason": thought in accordance to nature, to reality. This problem of right reason can be observed when people start talking about policy issues (how then shall we live?), for what is doable by the State depends on what we think a man is. What is desirable for the State to do depends on the same. If a man is man by biology, for example, then no amount of social engineering can make him a woman. No policies should be set in motion for Bruce Jenner et al.

    But then, we are social creatures (that is my 'filter' at least!) and very susceptible to collective thought. And as we now live in a rather sociopathic, hedonistic society, it is much more difficult to achieve right reason, no matter our IQ or college major.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @res

    Their world view is self-centered
     
    Best.Line.Ever (given that it came from Afrosapiens) I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself. Let's hear about that bastion of a lack of self-centeredness that is the legal profession.

    You not understanding quantitative arguments does not make the people using them bad thinkers.

    Just for fun try typing "lawyer self-ce" into Google and see what auto completions you are offered (even better click on the appropriate one you see). Then try the same with engineer.

    Best.Line.Ever (given that it came from Afrosapiens) I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself. Let’s hear about that bastion of a lack of self-centeredness that is the legal profession.

    Don’t be ridiculous, you know there is a difference between lawyers in the movies and lawyers in real life, right? Many lawyers work to defend the weak, the oppressed, children, prosecutors work for the common good, others are just here to help people making the most of the laws and happen to make good money in the process, you can criticize this, but it’s the best protection we have against anarchy.

    So yeah, the legal professions serve the common good, including the intellectual property rights that make innovations economically viable.

    You not understanding quantitative arguments does not make the people using them bad thinkers.

    I fully understand them, better than you. I also understand that numbers alone can’t tell the whole story as far as we’re talking about human lives and dynamics.

    Just for fun try typing “lawyer self-ce” into Google and see what auto completions you are offered (even better click on the appropriate one you see). Then try the same with engineer.

    LOL! Are you really this dumb?

    if you type “lawyer self-ce”, what do you expect to see? “self-century”? “self-centigrade”? “self-censorship”? You’re a clown.

    Just typing “lawyer+self” offers “self introduction”, “self evaluation”, “self-employed”, “self-representation”…

    SMH!

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Might want to check out this comment:

    There was a lawyer, an engineer and a politician…
    Why do professional paths to the top vary so much?
    Apr 16th 2009

    http://www.economist.com/node/13496638
    [...]
    These are the results of a British survey of the most and least psychopathic professions/professionals; CEOs and lawyers take the top spots for most psychopathic professions/professionals. No wonder the politics and politicians in the U.S. are so corrupt, around 20% are business people and a staggering 50% are lawyers:
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2077270

    https://cdn.gulosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CIR048.gif

    https://www.nature.com/scientificamericanmind/journal/v23/n6/images/scientificamericanmind0113-36-I5.jpg

    Surprise! What jobs have the highest number of psychopaths?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7jD92fjQqs

    Dr. Kevin Dutton, Research Psychologist-Oxford University, joins Thom Hartmann. When you hear the word psychopath - what do you think of? Probably some brutal serial killer that was out of his mind - right? But - what if I told you that psychopaths that can function at extremely high levels - and succeed in all levels of society? If you think that psychopathic tendencies and success have nothing in common - then everything you know is wrong!
    , @res

    LOL! Are you really this dumb?

    if you type “lawyer self-ce”, what do you expect to see? “self-century”? “self-centigrade”? “self-censorship”? You’re a clown.

     

    You apparently missed the "Then try the same with engineer." (which you even quoted) Idiot.

    As far as you understanding quantitative arguments better than I do, just take a look at your keen interpretation of Z-score signs two threads ago. You certainly are the gift that keeps on giving as far as laughs go.

    So when are you going to admit you were wrong about the Z-score signs in that other thread? You realize that you never being able to admit when you are wrong means that no one can trust a single word you say, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @EH
    Do please carry on. One seldom sees the essence of such a pathological worldview expressed in such a revealing way.

    Do please carry on. One seldom sees the essence of such a pathological worldview expressed in such a revealing way.

    I’d gladly carry on if you could elaborate on your points of disagreement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @The Z Blog
    This is an interesting topic, but I wonder if it is better to flip the telescope around. Can we find ways to decrease intelligence, outside of brain trauma or starvation? In other words, are their conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time? If so, what are those conditions?

    What's promising about this approach is we already have a lot of data from very good sources. The National Institutes of Health do long term IQ testing on people in NIH funded treatment protocols. They test the patients before the treatment, every three to six months during the treatment, and then after the treatment. They also use a range of tests. Even better, they have data from young children through adults.

    It would be interesting if IQ researchers could tap into this data.
    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Thirty-two studies out of fifty-three were in China, some in Mexico and Iran. "Fluoride lowers IQ." Then give a link showing more than half the studies were in China with high levels of fluoride. It doesn't occur in America. You cited a whole bunch of third world countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Factorize says:

    res, are you already on the newest release from biorxiv under Educational Attainment?
    (Quantifying the impact of rare and ultra-rare coding variation across the phenotypic spectrum)

    They took 100,000 exome scans and looked for rare and ultra rare variants in certain genes.
    These variants were detrimental and they helped explain 2 months less of EA and 0.2 cm of height etc.

    If you download Table 4 you can see all the genes that lowered phenotypes. EA in column z has 287 genes though there are several columns with EA included (e.g. BO). Perhaps you could explain that.

    (Don’t tell Afro or Oke, I think they might find some interesting items to buttress their line of argumentation.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    res, are you already on the newest release from biorxiv under Educational Attainment?
     
    I was not. Thanks.

    One thing about their rare variants is that they specifically selected protein truncating variants (PTVs). From another paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537935/
    "Genetic variants predicted to shorten the coding sequence of genes – termed protein-truncating variants (PTVs) – are typically expected to have large effects on gene function."

    Basically they picked variants that are most likely to be extremely harmful. Which is sensible if you are looking for large effects. This along with their rarity does explain why these variants are much more likely to be detrimental.

    If you download Table 4 you can see all the genes that lowered phenotypes. EA in column z has 287 genes though there are several columns with EA included (e.g. BO). Perhaps you could explain that.
     
    I am not seeing the same thing. I added a total row (sum) for each column and in column Z I get 204.

    It looks to me like column B0 is the result of this process described in the paper (column heading is "Years_of_education_depict_5", column Z is "Years_of_education_distance"):

    We used DEPICT22 to link genome-wide significant hits to candidate genes (Supplementary Table 10 and Supplementary Notes)

     

    AFAICT Each EA column has a suffix which indicates which method was used to identify the relevant genes. Column Z's is "distance".

    It seems to me like an overly simplistic summary of this paper could be: "it is easy to break the human brain." See Figure 2 where EA has the largest (in SD) effect in panel a and panel b looks like a catalog of things that would cause problems in school.

    One thing I think worth mentioning is that even though these variants have large effects I don't think any one of them is likely to explain much variance given their rarity (not sure about the aggregate % variance).

    P.S. While looking for that paper I also ran across https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/14/218883
    Both of these papers also look at a variety of standard blood test measures which is of interest to me.
    , @Afrosapiens

    (Don’t tell Afro or Oke, I think they might find some interesting items to buttress their line of argumentation.)
     
    You must be talking about that:

    We began by focusing our analysis on PTVs that occur in a set of 3,172 PTV-intolerant (PI) genes (Supplementary Table 4 reports all gene sets used in this study). Our motivation for focusing on the PI-PTVs was two-fold. First, this gene class was identified through an unbiased approach that leveraged the observed frequency distribution in ExAC 4 without relying on information from model organisms or in vitro experiments. Second, PI-PTVs have been shown to associate with early onset neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders, and are likely to result in reproductively disadvantageous phenotypes 56,7. To focus on those variants that are most likely to be subject to purifying selection, we considered only rare (allele frequency < 0.1%) and ultra-rare (observed in less than 1 in 201,176 individuals) variants (Supplementary Materials).

    After excluding participants diagnosed with a psychiatric or neurodevelopmental disorder, we observed an average of 7.72 and 0.30 rare PTVs per individual, across all genes and in PI genes respectively (Figure 1a); one or more ultra-rare PI-PTV was observed in 11% of the individuals. The number and frequency of rare variants differs across populations, reflecting the degree of selection compounded by recent demography, including bottlenecks, split times, and migration between populations 8. The ratio of deleterious to neutral alleles per individual increases as humans migrated out of Africa, consistent with less efficient negative selection against deleterious variants and serial founder effects that reduce the effective population size 9. Conditional on a variant being ultra-rare, we observe a higher ratio of PTV to synonymous variants (Figure 1b); recently arisen ultra-rare variants have had less time to be purged by negative selection, which is further magnified in populations that have undergone a recent bottleneck. For example, we observed a higher ratio among Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish populations as compared to non-Finnish Europeans, reflecting the more recent population-specific bottlenecks 10,11.

    I told you so... But don't worry, as our friend bomag likes to say: it doesn't mean what the authors think it means. LOL.

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

    How much of this is due to greater exposure to difficult vocabulary during schooling? You’re more likely to be exposed to more challenging vocabulary in school than in the workplace.

    2 equivalently intelligent people, one of whom spends their 20s working at say an accounting firm doing spreadsheets all day, while the other goes to grad school sitting in seminars with professors and reading difficult texts, may end up with different levels of vocabulary knowledge which gets reflected in different IQ scores.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anon
    My family is loaded with people with STEM backgrounds, and they're all hard-core liberals. They reject any data that indicates there's a racial correlation with IQ, they believe the liberal newspapers on global warming and never look at the dubious science behind it, and they accept anything the liberal media tells them about Trump as gospel truth without examining the facts of the case. They were all science majors, and they spent all their college years absorbing science facts.

    But they did not learn how to think. They don't go any farther than looking at the surface of anything. They don't know how to reason and ponder ideas and examine data that makes them psychologically uncomfortable. The sciences never make anyone feel uncomfortable (unless you have a problem with science itself), because the sciences are filled with unemotional facts. STEM graduates are never taught how to challenge their own intellectual complacency. They are some of the most arrogant people I've ever met, and often believe the last so-called expert they listened to on topics outside their specialty, even if the 'expert' is dead wrong. They're quite gullible in their own way because they were never taught how to reason.

    I'm the one member of my family with a liberal arts degree. I was forced to think for my degree and ponder ideas of all sorts, including unpalatable ones. One of the most important parts of a classical education is learning how to intellectually wrestle with tough ideas and let your reason lead you on in situations in which your emotions blanch. That why you still reach truth. I started out as a good liberal because I was raised that way, but gradually thought myself into a conservative position over the years because it's plain that a liberal philosophy taken to its logical extreme is leading us to a societal disaster. This is because I was taught to think and reason and never try to convince myself that a lot of nonsense is true just because it's pleasant to think and confirms my own biases.

    Re: Scientists

    They’re quite gullible in their own way because they were never taught how to reason.

    This may be true of many, which is surely explained at least in part, by the fact that in the sciences, math, etc., one is taught mostly uncontroversial facts, and so the student comes to accept that what authority dispenses is generally true to the best of anyone’s knowledge. A student of the humanities, however, must come to grips with the realities of human emotion, ambition, greed, cruelty, deceit, etc. Thus, if half competently taught, a student of the humanities will likely have a better understanding of political and social realities than a STEM grad.

    At one time, when universities were self-governing communities of scholars, not gigantic, money-seeking, credentialing machines run by venal, time-serving, politically correct, and generally deplorable bureaucrats, many in the STEM field interacted significantly with colleagues in other fields and held the world of the arts, literature and philosophy in high esteem. Some in the humanities, especially in the fields of math and philosophy were well informed about the sciences. But today, when the humanities are dominated by Commies, anti-white racists, and haters of free speech, the academy has become collection of largely separate intellectual worlds where ignorance of anything but a narrow field is the rule, not the exception: a narrowness intensified by the kind of contempt that people such as Afrosapiens expresses for all those who fail to accept his anti-intellectual, and self-serving view of the world. Naturally, STEM grads tend to have no time for that or, therefore, for the academic world from which people with such views derive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. neprof says:
    @The Z Blog
    This is an interesting topic, but I wonder if it is better to flip the telescope around. Can we find ways to decrease intelligence, outside of brain trauma or starvation? In other words, are their conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time? If so, what are those conditions?

    What's promising about this approach is we already have a lot of data from very good sources. The National Institutes of Health do long term IQ testing on people in NIH funded treatment protocols. They test the patients before the treatment, every three to six months during the treatment, and then after the treatment. They also use a range of tests. Even better, they have data from young children through adults.

    It would be interesting if IQ researchers could tap into this data.

    Hip-hop culture, rap music,and weed is the road to idiocracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Anonymous
    Fluoride reduces IQ:

    http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

    Thirty-two studies out of fifty-three were in China, some in Mexico and Iran. “Fluoride lowers IQ.” Then give a link showing more than half the studies were in China with high levels of fluoride. It doesn’t occur in America. You cited a whole bunch of third world countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    "IQ reductions have been significantly associated with fluoride levels of just 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L (Sudhir 2009);"
     
    https://www.livescience.com/37123-fluoridation.html

    Fluoride is added to public water supplies at an average concentration of about 1 part per million (1 ppm) or 1 milligram per liter, or slightly below.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Afrosapiens

    Best.Line.Ever (given that it came from Afrosapiens) I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself. Let’s hear about that bastion of a lack of self-centeredness that is the legal profession.
     
    Don't be ridiculous, you know there is a difference between lawyers in the movies and lawyers in real life, right? Many lawyers work to defend the weak, the oppressed, children, prosecutors work for the common good, others are just here to help people making the most of the laws and happen to make good money in the process, you can criticize this, but it's the best protection we have against anarchy.

    So yeah, the legal professions serve the common good, including the intellectual property rights that make innovations economically viable.

    You not understanding quantitative arguments does not make the people using them bad thinkers.
     
    I fully understand them, better than you. I also understand that numbers alone can't tell the whole story as far as we're talking about human lives and dynamics.

    Just for fun try typing “lawyer self-ce” into Google and see what auto completions you are offered (even better click on the appropriate one you see). Then try the same with engineer.
     
    LOL! Are you really this dumb?

    if you type "lawyer self-ce", what do you expect to see? "self-century"? "self-centigrade"? "self-censorship"? You're a clown.

    Just typing "lawyer+self" offers "self introduction", "self evaluation", "self-employed", "self-representation"...

    SMH!

    Might want to check out this comment:

    There was a lawyer, an engineer and a politician…
    Why do professional paths to the top vary so much?
    Apr 16th 2009

    http://www.economist.com/node/13496638

    [...]
    These are the results of a British survey of the most and least psychopathic professions/professionals; CEOs and lawyers take the top spots for most psychopathic professions/professionals. No wonder the politics and politicians in the U.S. are so corrupt, around 20% are business people and a staggering 50% are lawyers:

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2077270

    Surprise! What jobs have the highest number of psychopaths?

    Dr. Kevin Dutton, Research Psychologist-Oxford University, joins Thom Hartmann. When you hear the word psychopath – what do you think of? Probably some brutal serial killer that was out of his mind – right? But – what if I told you that psychopaths that can function at extremely high levels – and succeed in all levels of society? If you think that psychopathic tendencies and success have nothing in common – then everything you know is wrong!

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Addendum:

    The 113th Congress is in session. But, who are they?

    Lawyers, mostly.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2080627

    Engineers (65%) are much more trusted than lawyers (18%):

    Nursing Is Seen As The Most Ethical Profession in America; Congress Members, Least

    https://www.healthpopuli.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Gallup-Honesty-and-Ethics-in-Professions-Nurses-Pharmacists-Docs-2016.png
    , @Afrosapiens

    No wonder the politics and politicians in the U.S. are so corrupt, around 20% are business people and a staggering 50% are lawyers
     
    Your charts are interesting, but hardly tell anything about corruption. The US, with 70% of its elite with a supposedly psychopathic professional background is a lot less corrupt than both China, Brazil, India, Egypt and South Korea.

    That China has few lawyers climbing to the top makes sense since rule of law is a foreign concept there, and of all the governments in the comparison, the PRC is without an ounce of doubt the one that behaves in the most psychopathic way.

    I think lawyers and business people make good politicians. Economists, doctors, diplomats, scholars and teachers are also people I like to see in high functions. Engineering, the military and civil service aren't careers that provide adequate skills, experiences and insights to run a government properly in my opinion.

    The second list makes sense, police officers apart, the most "psychopathic" professions are the most competitive careers, these professionals aren't insane, they're battlers. As far as police officers are concerned, stories in the news regularly remind us that many cops are basically bullies/klansmen in uniform. No surprise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @RaceRealist88
    Thirty-two studies out of fifty-three were in China, some in Mexico and Iran. "Fluoride lowers IQ." Then give a link showing more than half the studies were in China with high levels of fluoride. It doesn't occur in America. You cited a whole bunch of third world countries.

    “IQ reductions have been significantly associated with fluoride levels of just 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L (Sudhir 2009);”

    https://www.livescience.com/37123-fluoridation.html

    Fluoride is added to public water supplies at an average concentration of about 1 part per million (1 ppm) or 1 milligram per liter, or slightly below.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. The best way to boost your IQ is to stop watching television.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. utu says:
    @jbwilson24
    "Are PhD’s necessarily smarter than a college dropout like Bill Gates?...There is such a thing as too much education."

    I hazily recall research performed back in the 2000s that focused on discipline-specific knowledge of graduate students. The upshot, if I recall, was that PhD students actually suffer deterioration of core skills from the undergraduate curriculum. I dimly recall a study or two that talked also about general problem solving and critical thinking, with the conclusion that too much time in PhD programs might be detrimental. If I had time I would search the literature.

    "STEM people make bad thinkers in my opinion. Their world view is self-centered, they lack inter-personal skills and have low exposure to most forms of high culture and philosophy. "

    My personal experience bears this out, as a PhD in STEM who also is fully qualified in the humanities. When I teach law students with a STEM background, they typically wax eloquently about how the sciences teach you to think rigorously, before failing miserably to write a basic legal memo or short essay.

    In truth, one only obtains decent exposure to deductive reasoning in a few selected disciplines (e.g., philosophy, pure mathematics). For inductive reasoning, one has probability theory and statistics. Law and political science tend to focus on policy argumentation and analogical reasoning.

    The only STEM grads I encounter who have reasonably wide education are physicists, together with the odd pure mathematician. Statisticians, electrical engineers, biochemists, and computer science types (my own discipline) are often poorly rounded dullards, particularly the asians who flock to these fields in search of good jobs. The nerdy white and jewish students can be a little more lively, but they often have an overly generous assessment of their knowledge of the humanities.

    I particularly detest it when I see STEM types laughing at philosophy graduates. Sure, the modern academy has been infested with cultural marxism. However, 20 years ago you could find rigorous programs. I recall studying far more difficult material (e.g., paraconsistent logic, model theory, computability, foundations of mathematics) through analytic philosophy honors courses than I encountered in the computer science curriculum. The reading load was heavier, and with oral examinations and essays the prospects of cheating were non-existent. Most of the east asian 'super students' would find that their habits of plagiarism, group work and purchasing essays were of questionable utility.

    I pretty much agree with your assessment of students of various disciplines. I would like to add another dimension. During the beginning of the ferment in Soviet block in late 1970s and 1980s it was mostly the students and faculty of physics and mathematics department who were the most engaged in risky dissident political activities. The ones who were the most sluggish, conformists, cowardly and apparently pro regime were lawyers, economists and medical doctors.

    computer science types (my own discipline) are often poorly rounded dullards – Oh yes. In old times they used to have good background in mathematics at least but nowadays many computer programers are mathematical ignoramuses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. WhiteWolf says:
    @Anonymous

    In other words, are their [sic] conditions in a modern western society, in which people get dumber over time?
     
    Yes, it happens to entire societies. Simply import more stupid people, preferably by the tens of millions. Works wonders!

    If that doesn’t work you could make “diversity” the state religion and then even the university educated part of the population will be stupid.

    As for increasing IQ with a longer stay at school I doubt it will help. Brighter kids stay at school longer and any IQ tests will reflect that.

    I think the obsession with IQ is wrong as well. Not everyone is going to be bright. Given equal education the less bright kids will still be less bright even if extra schooling raised their IQ. Better to find a persons natural talents and develop them instead. A cookie cutter approach to education robs a lot of people of true fulfilment in life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Afrosapiens
    I said:

    I understand that IQ testing is a lucrative business, but practice effects are a huge flaw and it’s well acknowledged by test designers, no other discipline would accept something like that. Yet it seems little effort has been made to eliminate them or to explain their biological basis.
     
    practice effects have been studied/described, not explained. That's very important to make claims about which measurement is representative of someone's intellect. If someone's IQ is half a SD higher two or three weeks after a first test, or even one year after, one must ask what it means biologically. How can an ability improve by such a magnitude, with so little practice and yet be described as largely fixed at the same time?

    You see, if I manage to increase my running endurance by one SD over one year (it'd be impossible after two weeks), doctors would have no issue finding cardio-vascular and respiratory variables that changed accordingly. And of course, there would be no debate as to whether my ability has improved or the difference comes from the chronometers.

    The aim is to test how people solve problems they have not seen before. Good tests of learning speed can take up to 12 months. (See the US Army training data described by Gottfredson). IQ tests are a short cut in learning-speed terms. They can be destroyed by publishing the tests. So can exams. There is no such boosting effect on athletic performance when the Olympic rules are published.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    The aim is to test how people solve problems they have not seen before.
     
    They may not have seen these very problems before but completed various tasks that caused indirect practice effects. Either way, what is the aim of IQ tests? Solving problems, or solving novel problems only? In the latter case, IQ tests would only assess how familiar with those types of tasks people are.

    IQ tests are a short cut in learning-speed terms. They can be destroyed by publishing the tests. So can exams.
     
    That's not the same, publishing exams destroys them because people will seek to intensively study their content and memorize the answers. On the contrary, practice effects on IQ tests are caused by just seeing the items without awareness of which are the right answers.

    There is no such boosting effect on athletic performance when the Olympic rules are published.
     
    Of course, so what are we supposed to conclude from that? That cognitive and athletic abilities aren't comparable contrary to the narrative that the IQ business pushes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    Might want to check out this comment:

    There was a lawyer, an engineer and a politician…
    Why do professional paths to the top vary so much?
    Apr 16th 2009

    http://www.economist.com/node/13496638
    [...]
    These are the results of a British survey of the most and least psychopathic professions/professionals; CEOs and lawyers take the top spots for most psychopathic professions/professionals. No wonder the politics and politicians in the U.S. are so corrupt, around 20% are business people and a staggering 50% are lawyers:
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2077270

    https://cdn.gulosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CIR048.gif

    https://www.nature.com/scientificamericanmind/journal/v23/n6/images/scientificamericanmind0113-36-I5.jpg

    Surprise! What jobs have the highest number of psychopaths?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7jD92fjQqs

    Dr. Kevin Dutton, Research Psychologist-Oxford University, joins Thom Hartmann. When you hear the word psychopath - what do you think of? Probably some brutal serial killer that was out of his mind - right? But - what if I told you that psychopaths that can function at extremely high levels - and succeed in all levels of society? If you think that psychopathic tendencies and success have nothing in common - then everything you know is wrong!

    Addendum:

    The 113th Congress is in session. But, who are they?

    Lawyers, mostly.

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2080627

    Engineers (65%) are much more trusted than lawyers (18%):

    Nursing Is Seen As The Most Ethical Profession in America; Congress Members, Least

    Read More
    • Replies: @Assistant Village Idiot
    The Republicans will occasionally put up someone who has scientific training, but not often. The Democrats, never.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    Best.Line.Ever (given that it came from Afrosapiens) I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself. Let’s hear about that bastion of a lack of self-centeredness that is the legal profession.
     
    Don't be ridiculous, you know there is a difference between lawyers in the movies and lawyers in real life, right? Many lawyers work to defend the weak, the oppressed, children, prosecutors work for the common good, others are just here to help people making the most of the laws and happen to make good money in the process, you can criticize this, but it's the best protection we have against anarchy.

    So yeah, the legal professions serve the common good, including the intellectual property rights that make innovations economically viable.

    You not understanding quantitative arguments does not make the people using them bad thinkers.
     
    I fully understand them, better than you. I also understand that numbers alone can't tell the whole story as far as we're talking about human lives and dynamics.

    Just for fun try typing “lawyer self-ce” into Google and see what auto completions you are offered (even better click on the appropriate one you see). Then try the same with engineer.
     
    LOL! Are you really this dumb?

    if you type "lawyer self-ce", what do you expect to see? "self-century"? "self-centigrade"? "self-censorship"? You're a clown.

    Just typing "lawyer+self" offers "self introduction", "self evaluation", "self-employed", "self-representation"...

    SMH!

    LOL! Are you really this dumb?

    if you type “lawyer self-ce”, what do you expect to see? “self-century”? “self-centigrade”? “self-censorship”? You’re a clown.

    You apparently missed the “Then try the same with engineer.” (which you even quoted) Idiot.

    As far as you understanding quantitative arguments better than I do, just take a look at your keen interpretation of Z-score signs two threads ago. You certainly are the gift that keeps on giving as far as laughs go.

    So when are you going to admit you were wrong about the Z-score signs in that other thread? You realize that you never being able to admit when you are wrong means that no one can trust a single word you say, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. res says:
    @Factorize
    res, are you already on the newest release from biorxiv under Educational Attainment?
    (Quantifying the impact of rare and ultra-rare coding variation across the phenotypic spectrum)

    They took 100,000 exome scans and looked for rare and ultra rare variants in certain genes.
    These variants were detrimental and they helped explain 2 months less of EA and 0.2 cm of height etc.

    If you download Table 4 you can see all the genes that lowered phenotypes. EA in column z has 287 genes though there are several columns with EA included (e.g. BO). Perhaps you could explain that.

    (Don't tell Afro or Oke, I think they might find some interesting items to buttress their line of argumentation.)

    res, are you already on the newest release from biorxiv under Educational Attainment?

    I was not. Thanks.

    One thing about their rare variants is that they specifically selected protein truncating variants (PTVs). From another paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537935/
    “Genetic variants predicted to shorten the coding sequence of genes – termed protein-truncating variants (PTVs) – are typically expected to have large effects on gene function.”

    Basically they picked variants that are most likely to be extremely harmful. Which is sensible if you are looking for large effects. This along with their rarity does explain why these variants are much more likely to be detrimental.

    If you download Table 4 you can see all the genes that lowered phenotypes. EA in column z has 287 genes though there are several columns with EA included (e.g. BO). Perhaps you could explain that.

    I am not seeing the same thing. I added a total row (sum) for each column and in column Z I get 204.

    It looks to me like column B0 is the result of this process described in the paper (column heading is “Years_of_education_depict_5″, column Z is “Years_of_education_distance”):

    We used DEPICT22 to link genome-wide significant hits to candidate genes (Supplementary Table 10 and Supplementary Notes)

    AFAICT Each EA column has a suffix which indicates which method was used to identify the relevant genes. Column Z’s is “distance”.

    It seems to me like an overly simplistic summary of this paper could be: “it is easy to break the human brain.” See Figure 2 where EA has the largest (in SD) effect in panel a and panel b looks like a catalog of things that would cause problems in school.

    One thing I think worth mentioning is that even though these variants have large effects I don’t think any one of them is likely to explain much variance given their rarity (not sure about the aggregate % variance).

    P.S. While looking for that paper I also ran across https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/14/218883
    Both of these papers also look at a variety of standard blood test measures which is of interest to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Thank you for replying.
    This article adds more insight into the genetic foundations of several phenotypes.

    Um, res, how might one go about finding these SNPs?
    They have the genes listed, though I am not sure what one might do to find the actual SNPs.

    I have went to dbsnp and they have a way to do bulk SNP batches into vcf files.
    Just not sure how one could do something like that and find all the SNPs mentioned in the paper.
    Why do these papers not disclose this information?
    It is very difficult to understand why current science is obscuring their published results.


    This could be very useful information for people to be provided with.
    As you say, it might not explain a great deal of the overall variance, though for people
    with these variants it could matter a great deal and have considerable importance
    for how their lives and the lives of their children will unfold.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. hyperbola says:
    @RaceRealist88
    What do you think of studies that Coca-Cola funds that show that soda doesn't cause obesity? The latest joke I saw was a twin study they funded. Does anyone really trust big food? You're telling me that drinking extra kcal you don't need *doesn't* induce extra weight gain?

    If you believe that, please buy my properties on the moon. They're cheap.

    You should trust “big food” about as much as “big pharma”.

    Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/

    Frankly I begin to think that it is time that we had some real capitalism (competition) instead of what Adam Smith described as mercantilism (governments owned by companies and making laws solely for companies). Perhaps we need to radically reduce the size of “big” companies to the point that as individual companies they do not have the economic power to implement mercantilism. Maybe something like: no company can have more than 10,000 employees, and no company can own another company?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    My family is loaded with people with STEM backgrounds, and they're all hard-core liberals. They reject any data that indicates there's a racial correlation with IQ, they believe the liberal newspapers on global warming and never look at the dubious science behind it, and they accept anything the liberal media tells them about Trump as gospel truth without examining the facts of the case. They were all science majors, and they spent all their college years absorbing science facts.

    But they did not learn how to think. They don't go any farther than looking at the surface of anything. They don't know how to reason and ponder ideas and examine data that makes them psychologically uncomfortable. The sciences never make anyone feel uncomfortable (unless you have a problem with science itself), because the sciences are filled with unemotional facts. STEM graduates are never taught how to challenge their own intellectual complacency. They are some of the most arrogant people I've ever met, and often believe the last so-called expert they listened to on topics outside their specialty, even if the 'expert' is dead wrong. They're quite gullible in their own way because they were never taught how to reason.

    I'm the one member of my family with a liberal arts degree. I was forced to think for my degree and ponder ideas of all sorts, including unpalatable ones. One of the most important parts of a classical education is learning how to intellectually wrestle with tough ideas and let your reason lead you on in situations in which your emotions blanch. That why you still reach truth. I started out as a good liberal because I was raised that way, but gradually thought myself into a conservative position over the years because it's plain that a liberal philosophy taken to its logical extreme is leading us to a societal disaster. This is because I was taught to think and reason and never try to convince myself that a lot of nonsense is true just because it's pleasant to think and confirms my own biases.

    My family has almost pure engineering background, but politically are all over the place. I think it is not related to principled, thought-through positions, but mainly because of (probably unconscious) self-interest. The one who is married, well-to-do and lives in Texas is conservative. The one who is married and well-to-do but is expecting a high level position is a leftist gig is, unsurprisingly, atheist and liberal. 

    Most of us don’t have the inclination, time or talent to begin by answering first questions and build a life from there. That would be a ‘principled’ position and would help lessen contradictions. (By First Questions I mean stuff like why is there something instead of nothing, what is a man, how then can he live in a group, how should he live in a group, etc.). So we usually absorb from our environment those sort of answers, and have a ‘filter’ through which we approach reality. 

    The two most important ones, imo,  are whether God is –and how He is– or is not, and what gives meaning to our lives. A Christian, for example, will see life as a gift from a loving God, and will accept the existence of a natural law that tells him how life should be lived. He will then move within a certain ‘family of ideas’ (faith, hope and charity, faith/good actions, life as sacred, etc) An atheist will move in another framework (life as competition for scarce resources, in group/out group, or maybe life as a source of pleasure and a flight from suffering, abortion/euthanasia, etc.) A Communist will think individual lives are not important per se, what is important is the right political system, and so on.

    Different mental filters, different life results. The better filters allow us to grasp reality better, to “think better”. That is the old-fashioned concept of “right reason”: thought in accordance to nature, to reality. This problem of right reason can be observed when people start talking about policy issues (how then shall we live?), for what is doable by the State depends on what we think a man is. What is desirable for the State to do depends on the same. If a man is man by biology, for example, then no amount of social engineering can make him a woman. No policies should be set in motion for Bruce Jenner et al.

    But then, we are social creatures (that is my ‘filter’ at least!) and very susceptible to collective thought. And as we now live in a rather sociopathic, hedonistic society, it is much more difficult to achieve right reason, no matter our IQ or college major.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Factorize says:
    @res

    res, are you already on the newest release from biorxiv under Educational Attainment?
     
    I was not. Thanks.

    One thing about their rare variants is that they specifically selected protein truncating variants (PTVs). From another paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537935/
    "Genetic variants predicted to shorten the coding sequence of genes – termed protein-truncating variants (PTVs) – are typically expected to have large effects on gene function."

    Basically they picked variants that are most likely to be extremely harmful. Which is sensible if you are looking for large effects. This along with their rarity does explain why these variants are much more likely to be detrimental.

    If you download Table 4 you can see all the genes that lowered phenotypes. EA in column z has 287 genes though there are several columns with EA included (e.g. BO). Perhaps you could explain that.
     
    I am not seeing the same thing. I added a total row (sum) for each column and in column Z I get 204.

    It looks to me like column B0 is the result of this process described in the paper (column heading is "Years_of_education_depict_5", column Z is "Years_of_education_distance"):

    We used DEPICT22 to link genome-wide significant hits to candidate genes (Supplementary Table 10 and Supplementary Notes)

     

    AFAICT Each EA column has a suffix which indicates which method was used to identify the relevant genes. Column Z's is "distance".

    It seems to me like an overly simplistic summary of this paper could be: "it is easy to break the human brain." See Figure 2 where EA has the largest (in SD) effect in panel a and panel b looks like a catalog of things that would cause problems in school.

    One thing I think worth mentioning is that even though these variants have large effects I don't think any one of them is likely to explain much variance given their rarity (not sure about the aggregate % variance).

    P.S. While looking for that paper I also ran across https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/14/218883
    Both of these papers also look at a variety of standard blood test measures which is of interest to me.

    Thank you for replying.
    This article adds more insight into the genetic foundations of several phenotypes.

    Um, res, how might one go about finding these SNPs?
    They have the genes listed, though I am not sure what one might do to find the actual SNPs.

    I have went to dbsnp and they have a way to do bulk SNP batches into vcf files.
    Just not sure how one could do something like that and find all the SNPs mentioned in the paper.
    Why do these papers not disclose this information?
    It is very difficult to understand why current science is obscuring their published results.

    This could be very useful information for people to be provided with.
    As you say, it might not explain a great deal of the overall variance, though for people
    with these variants it could matter a great deal and have considerable importance
    for how their lives and the lives of their children will unfold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Um, res, how might one go about finding these SNPs?
     
    I am trying to answer that very question (the programmatic batch version, dbSNP and GGV are good for one at a time) for myself right now. I haven't sorted it out yet, but am thinking I will be able to do it with R. If you (or anyone else) run across any good methods please let me know.

    The approach would be to pull all the SNPs from a supplementary spreadsheet then read that into R and go through the list programmatically to get the individual SNP information.

    Not sure how to do the last part yet. The hard way would be to scrape dbSNP pages, but there has to be a better approach.

    Perhaps something like: https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/data/annotation/html/SNPlocs.Hsapiens.dbSNP144.GRCh37.html
    or https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/rsnps/versions/0.1.6/topics/NCBI_snp_query
    or http://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/biomaRt.html

    I also want to find a way to get 1000 Genomes population frequencies. Some discussion of that from five years ago: https://support.bioconductor.org/p/46961/
    I would think there is a better approach by now.


    Why do these papers not disclose this information?
    It is very difficult to understand why current science is obscuring their published results.
     
    IMHO they are becoming much better about this (not always though). You just have to dig into the supplementary material. It is convenient that the supplementary material is sometimes available even when the paper is paywalled.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @FKA Max
    Might want to check out this comment:

    There was a lawyer, an engineer and a politician…
    Why do professional paths to the top vary so much?
    Apr 16th 2009

    http://www.economist.com/node/13496638
    [...]
    These are the results of a British survey of the most and least psychopathic professions/professionals; CEOs and lawyers take the top spots for most psychopathic professions/professionals. No wonder the politics and politicians in the U.S. are so corrupt, around 20% are business people and a staggering 50% are lawyers:
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2077270

    https://cdn.gulosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CIR048.gif

    https://www.nature.com/scientificamericanmind/journal/v23/n6/images/scientificamericanmind0113-36-I5.jpg

    Surprise! What jobs have the highest number of psychopaths?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7jD92fjQqs

    Dr. Kevin Dutton, Research Psychologist-Oxford University, joins Thom Hartmann. When you hear the word psychopath - what do you think of? Probably some brutal serial killer that was out of his mind - right? But - what if I told you that psychopaths that can function at extremely high levels - and succeed in all levels of society? If you think that psychopathic tendencies and success have nothing in common - then everything you know is wrong!

    No wonder the politics and politicians in the U.S. are so corrupt, around 20% are business people and a staggering 50% are lawyers

    Your charts are interesting, but hardly tell anything about corruption. The US, with 70% of its elite with a supposedly psychopathic professional background is a lot less corrupt than both China, Brazil, India, Egypt and South Korea.

    That China has few lawyers climbing to the top makes sense since rule of law is a foreign concept there, and of all the governments in the comparison, the PRC is without an ounce of doubt the one that behaves in the most psychopathic way.

    I think lawyers and business people make good politicians. Economists, doctors, diplomats, scholars and teachers are also people I like to see in high functions. Engineering, the military and civil service aren’t careers that provide adequate skills, experiences and insights to run a government properly in my opinion.

    The second list makes sense, police officers apart, the most “psychopathic” professions are the most competitive careers, these professionals aren’t insane, they’re battlers. As far as police officers are concerned, stories in the news regularly remind us that many cops are basically bullies/klansmen in uniform. No surprise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    Your charts are interesting, but hardly tell anything about corruption. The US, with 70% of its elite with a supposedly psychopathic professional background is a lot less corrupt than both China, Brazil, India, Egypt and South Korea.

    That China has few lawyers climbing to the top makes sense since rule of law is a foreign concept there, and of all the governments in the comparison, the PRC is without an ounce of doubt the one that behaves in the most psychopathic way.
     

    Another, maybe less obvious form of corruption is income/wealth inequality and the U.S. is not doing well in this department compared to other Western nations, and even compared to countries like Egypt and South Korea:

    The U.S. is the prime example of this type of a high-IQ-population/workforce-with-a-medicore-IQ-corrupt-greedy-nepotistic-elite society/nation among the high GDP per capita, industrialized, First World nations of the West, as its Gini Index rank/score shows/demonstrates:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/2014_Gini_Index_World_Map%2C_income_inequality_distribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg/2000px-2014_Gini_Index_World_Map%2C_income_inequality_distribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg.png

    Source: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2072872

    In a prior comment I attributed most of the increase in income/wealth inequality in the United States to the intensification of Financialization, and this is still, in my opinion, the most significant factor and contributor in this dynamic and to this negative trend.

    The Gini Index score of the United States has been steadily going up in tandem with the intensification of Financialization: - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2073341

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/NYUGDPFinancialShare.jpg/350px-NYUGDPFinancialShare.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Gini_since_WWII.svg/720px-Gini_since_WWII.svg.png

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Gini_coefficients_of_income_distributions

    However, I just came across another highly interesting graph:

    What Percentage of Americans are Attorneys?


    The increase seems pretty inexorable starting around 1970, doesn’t it?

    For grins and giggles, here’s snide graph on which I will make no comment:
     

    https://angrybearblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/attorneys-as-a-pct-of-US-pop-v-Growth-in-Real-GDP-per-capita-20170322a1.jpg

    Source: https://angrybearblog.com/2017/03/what-percentage-of-americans-are-attorneys.html

    I generally agree with you on China. It would be, however, interesting to see how China -- if its leadership kept the current elites' professional/educational background composition (a plurality of engineers) -- would fare in terms of levels of corruption and income/wealth inequality, if it were a democracy.

    Good article on the topic by ``the US Presidential candidate of the Transhu​m​anist Party'' Zoltan Istvan:

    There Is an Alternative to Lawyers Running the Country

    Imagine for a moment if the US government was run by a cross-section of people.



    Either way, with human or computer lawyers, there's simply too much red tape created by the legal profession in politics. When asked earlier this year to comment on the large amount of lawyers entering the 114th US Congress (213 in total of 535 places), Cornell Law School's Josh Chafetz told The National Law Journal, "I suppose my only real thought would be that that's probably too many lawyers—especially when you consider that the president is a lawyer and all of our judges are lawyers. To have a government that is so overwhelmingly dominated by people with a common training risks shutting out other ways of thinking about what our politics could be."
    [...]
    "With almost 1.3 million lawyers—more by far than any other country, and more as a percentage of the national population than almost all others—the United States is choking on litigation, regulation, and disputation," says Jeff Jacob​y, a Boston Globe columnist with a law degree. "Everything is grist for the lawyers' mills. Anyone can be sued for anything, no matter how absurd or egregious. And everyone knows how expensive and overwhelming a legal assault can be. The rule of law is essential to a free and orderly society, but too much law and lawyering makes democratic self-rule impossible, and common sense legally precarious."
     
    - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wnjk5m/less-lawyers
    , @FKA Max
    From my latest comment in the other thread, which might interest you. Check out the astonishing and eye-opening stats and graphs there:

    This is another amazing figure. Close to 8% (!) of the people living and working in the District of Columbia are lawyers, when lawyers only make up about ~0.40% of the U.S. population
    [...]
    In my opinion, lawyers are the main “technicians/managers” and the most skillful “optimizers” of Financialization
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2082825

    Currently, about 88% of lawyers in the U.S. are non-Hispanic whites (this Atlantic article puts the figure at 81% https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/diversity-jobs-professions-america/396632/ ). So, circa 7% of the population of D.C. are non-Hispanic white lawyers.

    In 2015 about 35% of the population of D.C. was non-Hispanic white: https://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/city/Nbr_prof_city.html

    Which means that about 20% of non-Hispanic whites in D.C. are lawyers.

    Since about 65% of lawyers in the U.S. are male and 35% are female, this means 4.55 % of the D.C. population are non-Hispanic white, male lawyers.

    Half of the 35% non-Hispanic white population is male, which is 17.5%.

    So about 26% or roughly 1 in 4 non-Hispanic white males in D.C. is a lawyer!, if my calculations are correct.

    I tried to find religious demographics for the U.S. lawyer population, but was not able to. It would be interesting to see how many of them are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

    This is all I could find:

    And of course, it is a necessary consequence of the great over-representation of Jews in our trade that all other ethnic groups are under-represented. Because a group that is only 2% of the population occupies something like 25% or more of the top law partnerships, that means that white protestants are under-represented by close to 25% as against their share of the population, and white Catholics (such as yours truly) are under-represented by even more. Asians? According to Wikipedia they are now 4.8% of the population, and according to The American Lawyer they are about 6% of big law firm associates and 1.6% of partners. Is this discrimination, reverse discrimination, or just what happens as people seek work that suits them? And then there are ethnic groups that have virtually no representation at all in these big firm partnerships. Middle-Eastern muslims come to mind.
     
    - http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2014/6/5/is-lack-of-diversity-at-big-law-firms-a-crisis

    https://www.practicepanther.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-USA-ABA-Lawyer-attorney-demographics-statistics.png

    Source: https://www.practicepanther.com/2016-us-lawyer-demographics/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Factorize
    res, are you already on the newest release from biorxiv under Educational Attainment?
    (Quantifying the impact of rare and ultra-rare coding variation across the phenotypic spectrum)

    They took 100,000 exome scans and looked for rare and ultra rare variants in certain genes.
    These variants were detrimental and they helped explain 2 months less of EA and 0.2 cm of height etc.

    If you download Table 4 you can see all the genes that lowered phenotypes. EA in column z has 287 genes though there are several columns with EA included (e.g. BO). Perhaps you could explain that.

    (Don't tell Afro or Oke, I think they might find some interesting items to buttress their line of argumentation.)

    (Don’t tell Afro or Oke, I think they might find some interesting items to buttress their line of argumentation.)

    You must be talking about that:

    We began by focusing our analysis on PTVs that occur in a set of 3,172 PTV-intolerant (PI) genes (Supplementary Table 4 reports all gene sets used in this study). Our motivation for focusing on the PI-PTVs was two-fold. First, this gene class was identified through an unbiased approach that leveraged the observed frequency distribution in ExAC 4 without relying on information from model organisms or in vitro experiments. Second, PI-PTVs have been shown to associate with early onset neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders, and are likely to result in reproductively disadvantageous phenotypes 56,7. To focus on those variants that are most likely to be subject to purifying selection, we considered only rare (allele frequency < 0.1%) and ultra-rare (observed in less than 1 in 201,176 individuals) variants (Supplementary Materials).

    After excluding participants diagnosed with a psychiatric or neurodevelopmental disorder, we observed an average of 7.72 and 0.30 rare PTVs per individual, across all genes and in PI genes respectively (Figure 1a); one or more ultra-rare PI-PTV was observed in 11% of the individuals. The number and frequency of rare variants differs across populations, reflecting the degree of selection compounded by recent demography, including bottlenecks, split times, and migration between populations 8. The ratio of deleterious to neutral alleles per individual increases as humans migrated out of Africa, consistent with less efficient negative selection against deleterious variants and serial founder effects that reduce the effective population size 9. Conditional on a variant being ultra-rare, we observe a higher ratio of PTV to synonymous variants (Figure 1b); recently arisen ultra-rare variants have had less time to be purged by negative selection, which is further magnified in populations that have undergone a recent bottleneck. For example, we observed a higher ratio among Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish populations as compared to non-Finnish Europeans, reflecting the more recent population-specific bottlenecks 10,11.

    I told you so… But don’t worry, as our friend bomag likes to say: it doesn’t mean what the authors think it means. LOL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. res says:
    @Factorize
    Thank you for replying.
    This article adds more insight into the genetic foundations of several phenotypes.

    Um, res, how might one go about finding these SNPs?
    They have the genes listed, though I am not sure what one might do to find the actual SNPs.

    I have went to dbsnp and they have a way to do bulk SNP batches into vcf files.
    Just not sure how one could do something like that and find all the SNPs mentioned in the paper.
    Why do these papers not disclose this information?
    It is very difficult to understand why current science is obscuring their published results.


    This could be very useful information for people to be provided with.
    As you say, it might not explain a great deal of the overall variance, though for people
    with these variants it could matter a great deal and have considerable importance
    for how their lives and the lives of their children will unfold.

    Um, res, how might one go about finding these SNPs?

    I am trying to answer that very question (the programmatic batch version, dbSNP and GGV are good for one at a time) for myself right now. I haven’t sorted it out yet, but am thinking I will be able to do it with R. If you (or anyone else) run across any good methods please let me know.

    The approach would be to pull all the SNPs from a supplementary spreadsheet then read that into R and go through the list programmatically to get the individual SNP information.

    Not sure how to do the last part yet. The hard way would be to scrape dbSNP pages, but there has to be a better approach.

    Perhaps something like: https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/data/annotation/html/SNPlocs.Hsapiens.dbSNP144.GRCh37.html
    or https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/rsnps/versions/0.1.6/topics/NCBI_snp_query
    or http://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/biomaRt.html

    I also want to find a way to get 1000 Genomes population frequencies. Some discussion of that from five years ago: https://support.bioconductor.org/p/46961/
    I would think there is a better approach by now.

    Why do these papers not disclose this information?
    It is very difficult to understand why current science is obscuring their published results.

    IMHO they are becoming much better about this (not always though). You just have to dig into the supplementary material. It is convenient that the supplementary material is sometimes available even when the paper is paywalled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Could try going to dbsnp putting in an rs number for one of the genes, click on geneview, click on GRCh37p13, click on <0.001 in exact, download the SNPs and then do a batch submit with these SNPs.

    As soon as we can figure this one out, we should upload to Snpedia.
    , @Factorize
    https://macarthurlab.org/lof/

    Manuscript and data, click third "here"
    This was a list of lof found in 2010.

    Still not sure how to do this for the genes that are in the recent paper.
    Very frustrating that full disclosure is not required in the article.

    Are we really supposed to reverse engineer it?
    How is not giving the results considered to be Science?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @The Z Blog
    Sure, and chopping off a person's head lowers their IQ too. I'm talking about things that lower intelligence, without causing physical damage, killing the person or, like lead poisoning, preventing them from developing fully. I'm assuming you are referring Kevin Drum's arguments about lead and violence.

    If we can take a healthy person with a 110 IQ and reduce their IQ to 110, even temporarily, while maintaining their physical health, it could reveal how to do the opposite. I'm skeptical of both sides of this, by the way.

    I recommend Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain for some considerations on that: problem solving, neural growth, hormones influencing such, etc. I don’t agree with CanSpeccy on everything, but one thing he mentioned before was that intelligence is a blend of various factors and I’ve become increasingly convinced toward that in my research.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. You apparently missed the “Then try the same with engineer.” (which you even quoted) Idiot.

    No I didn’t miss that part. I found “self-centerend” for neither profession.

    So when are you going to admit you were wrong about the Z-score signs in that other thread? You realize that you never being able to admit when you are wrong means that no one can trust a single word you say, right?

    Firstly I’m right, as always. Secondly, logic is something that flies over your head and I’m not seeking to be trusted by people of your kind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I found “self-centerend” for neither profession.
     
    Well, that's not surprising. Did you see "self-centered" by any chance? I am curious what other people see given that I did my experiments with Google in a Chrome incognito window.

    Firstly I’m right, as always.
     
    The best thing about statements like this is that no one is always right so everyone can tell just how full of BS you are. Thanks for making that clear.

    Secondly, logic is something that flies over your head and I’m not seeking to be trusted by people of your kind.
     
    What exactly is my kind, pray tell?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @James Thompson
    The aim is to test how people solve problems they have not seen before. Good tests of learning speed can take up to 12 months. (See the US Army training data described by Gottfredson). IQ tests are a short cut in learning-speed terms. They can be destroyed by publishing the tests. So can exams. There is no such boosting effect on athletic performance when the Olympic rules are published.

    The aim is to test how people solve problems they have not seen before.

    They may not have seen these very problems before but completed various tasks that caused indirect practice effects. Either way, what is the aim of IQ tests? Solving problems, or solving novel problems only? In the latter case, IQ tests would only assess how familiar with those types of tasks people are.

    IQ tests are a short cut in learning-speed terms. They can be destroyed by publishing the tests. So can exams.

    That’s not the same, publishing exams destroys them because people will seek to intensively study their content and memorize the answers. On the contrary, practice effects on IQ tests are caused by just seeing the items without awareness of which are the right answers.

    There is no such boosting effect on athletic performance when the Olympic rules are published.

    Of course, so what are we supposed to conclude from that? That cognitive and athletic abilities aren’t comparable contrary to the narrative that the IQ business pushes.

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

    I think one aspect that non-statisticians seem confused about is the concept of statistical significance, which simply means that at a given degree of confidence (another concept) the difference found in a (random) sample is present in the population (if all the items/people were studied, which is called a census). Whether the difference is large enough to be useful in some sense is immaterial to the statistician.

    The degree of confidence is never 100% unless a census is undertaken. Usually, the degree of confidence aimed for is 95%, meaning that if we were to take 100 samples of the population, we would find the result in 95 of the samples.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. Factorize says:
    @res

    Um, res, how might one go about finding these SNPs?
     
    I am trying to answer that very question (the programmatic batch version, dbSNP and GGV are good for one at a time) for myself right now. I haven't sorted it out yet, but am thinking I will be able to do it with R. If you (or anyone else) run across any good methods please let me know.

    The approach would be to pull all the SNPs from a supplementary spreadsheet then read that into R and go through the list programmatically to get the individual SNP information.

    Not sure how to do the last part yet. The hard way would be to scrape dbSNP pages, but there has to be a better approach.

    Perhaps something like: https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/data/annotation/html/SNPlocs.Hsapiens.dbSNP144.GRCh37.html
    or https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/rsnps/versions/0.1.6/topics/NCBI_snp_query
    or http://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/biomaRt.html

    I also want to find a way to get 1000 Genomes population frequencies. Some discussion of that from five years ago: https://support.bioconductor.org/p/46961/
    I would think there is a better approach by now.


    Why do these papers not disclose this information?
    It is very difficult to understand why current science is obscuring their published results.
     
    IMHO they are becoming much better about this (not always though). You just have to dig into the supplementary material. It is convenient that the supplementary material is sometimes available even when the paper is paywalled.

    Could try going to dbsnp putting in an rs number for one of the genes, click on geneview, click on GRCh37p13, click on <0.001 in exact, download the SNPs and then do a batch submit with these SNPs.

    As soon as we can figure this one out, we should upload to Snpedia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    You apparently missed the “Then try the same with engineer.” (which you even quoted) Idiot.
     
    No I didn't miss that part. I found "self-centerend" for neither profession.

    So when are you going to admit you were wrong about the Z-score signs in that other thread? You realize that you never being able to admit when you are wrong means that no one can trust a single word you say, right?
     
    Firstly I'm right, as always. Secondly, logic is something that flies over your head and I'm not seeking to be trusted by people of your kind.

    I found “self-centerend” for neither profession.

    Well, that’s not surprising. Did you see “self-centered” by any chance? I am curious what other people see given that I did my experiments with Google in a Chrome incognito window.

    Firstly I’m right, as always.

    The best thing about statements like this is that no one is always right so everyone can tell just how full of BS you are. Thanks for making that clear.

    Secondly, logic is something that flies over your head and I’m not seeking to be trusted by people of your kind.

    What exactly is my kind, pray tell?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Well, that’s not surprising. Did you see “self-centered” by any chance? I am curious what other people see given that I did my experiments with Google in a Chrome incognito window.
     
    LMAO! You're using incognito windows like a teen hiding his porn browsing activity. Cringey.

    The best thing about statements like this is that no one is always right so everyone can tell just how full of BS you are.
     
    I'm always right, like every lawyer.

    What exactly is my kind, pray tell?
     
    Racist loser who uses Chrome incognito.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Factorize says:
    @res

    Um, res, how might one go about finding these SNPs?
     
    I am trying to answer that very question (the programmatic batch version, dbSNP and GGV are good for one at a time) for myself right now. I haven't sorted it out yet, but am thinking I will be able to do it with R. If you (or anyone else) run across any good methods please let me know.

    The approach would be to pull all the SNPs from a supplementary spreadsheet then read that into R and go through the list programmatically to get the individual SNP information.

    Not sure how to do the last part yet. The hard way would be to scrape dbSNP pages, but there has to be a better approach.

    Perhaps something like: https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/data/annotation/html/SNPlocs.Hsapiens.dbSNP144.GRCh37.html
    or https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/rsnps/versions/0.1.6/topics/NCBI_snp_query
    or http://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/biomaRt.html

    I also want to find a way to get 1000 Genomes population frequencies. Some discussion of that from five years ago: https://support.bioconductor.org/p/46961/
    I would think there is a better approach by now.


    Why do these papers not disclose this information?
    It is very difficult to understand why current science is obscuring their published results.
     
    IMHO they are becoming much better about this (not always though). You just have to dig into the supplementary material. It is convenient that the supplementary material is sometimes available even when the paper is paywalled.

    https://macarthurlab.org/lof/

    Manuscript and data, click third “here”
    This was a list of lof found in 2010.

    Still not sure how to do this for the genes that are in the recent paper.
    Very frustrating that full disclosure is not required in the article.

    Are we really supposed to reverse engineer it?
    How is not giving the results considered to be Science?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    One way to find them might be to go to the gene view page on dbsnp as above and then zoom out to a chromosome wide level. You could then select the LOFs (i,e. stop loss, frameshift, splice site, ...).

    This would give 10,000 for Chromosome 22. Then select <0.001 in Exact, down to 140.
    Then search by genes.
    Yet, perhaps the new paper is actually doing an even better job than dbsnp.
    , @res
    That link is a good example of what you can do, and perhaps a good model to follow (e.g. their field summary). Though there are quite a few blank fields. Doing a database join on that file with another SNP list by rsID might be a good start at what we are looking for (depends on # of SNPs which appear in both).

    I don't think it is the job of the researchers to spoon feed us all of the associated data (e.g. 1000 Genomes SNP frequencies), but I do think it is reasonable to desire them to present their own results in a usable format. Mostly we just need rsIDs and significance/effect size data. Spreadsheets are much better than text tables for doing further analysis.

    Which paper are you talking about again? We have discussed a few and most have SNP lists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Afrosapiens

    No wonder the politics and politicians in the U.S. are so corrupt, around 20% are business people and a staggering 50% are lawyers
     
    Your charts are interesting, but hardly tell anything about corruption. The US, with 70% of its elite with a supposedly psychopathic professional background is a lot less corrupt than both China, Brazil, India, Egypt and South Korea.

    That China has few lawyers climbing to the top makes sense since rule of law is a foreign concept there, and of all the governments in the comparison, the PRC is without an ounce of doubt the one that behaves in the most psychopathic way.

    I think lawyers and business people make good politicians. Economists, doctors, diplomats, scholars and teachers are also people I like to see in high functions. Engineering, the military and civil service aren't careers that provide adequate skills, experiences and insights to run a government properly in my opinion.

    The second list makes sense, police officers apart, the most "psychopathic" professions are the most competitive careers, these professionals aren't insane, they're battlers. As far as police officers are concerned, stories in the news regularly remind us that many cops are basically bullies/klansmen in uniform. No surprise.

    Your charts are interesting, but hardly tell anything about corruption. The US, with 70% of its elite with a supposedly psychopathic professional background is a lot less corrupt than both China, Brazil, India, Egypt and South Korea.

    That China has few lawyers climbing to the top makes sense since rule of law is a foreign concept there, and of all the governments in the comparison, the PRC is without an ounce of doubt the one that behaves in the most psychopathic way.

    Another, maybe less obvious form of corruption is income/wealth inequality and the U.S. is not doing well in this department compared to other Western nations, and even compared to countries like Egypt and South Korea:

    The U.S. is the prime example of this type of a high-IQ-population/workforce-with-a-medicore-IQ-corrupt-greedy-nepotistic-elite society/nation among the high GDP per capita, industrialized, First World nations of the West, as its Gini Index rank/score shows/demonstrates:

    Source: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2072872

    In a prior comment I attributed most of the increase in income/wealth inequality in the United States to the intensification of Financialization, and this is still, in my opinion, the most significant factor and contributor in this dynamic and to this negative trend.

    The Gini Index score of the United States has been steadily going up in tandem with the intensification of Financialization: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2073341

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Gini_coefficients_of_income_distributions

    However, I just came across another highly interesting graph:

    What Percentage of Americans are Attorneys?

    The increase seems pretty inexorable starting around 1970, doesn’t it?

    For grins and giggles, here’s snide graph on which I will make no comment:

    Source: https://angrybearblog.com/2017/03/what-percentage-of-americans-are-attorneys.html

    I generally agree with you on China. It would be, however, interesting to see how China — if its leadership kept the current elites’ professional/educational background composition (a plurality of engineers) — would fare in terms of levels of corruption and income/wealth inequality, if it were a democracy.

    Good article on the topic by “the US Presidential candidate of the Transhu​m​anist Party” Zoltan Istvan:

    There Is an Alternative to Lawyers Running the Country

    Imagine for a moment if the US government was run by a cross-section of people.

    Either way, with human or computer lawyers, there’s simply too much red tape created by the legal profession in politics. When asked earlier this year to comment on the large amount of lawyers entering the 114th US Congress (213 in total of 535 places), Cornell Law School’s Josh Chafetz told The National Law Journal, “I suppose my only real thought would be that that’s probably too many lawyers—especially when you consider that the president is a lawyer and all of our judges are lawyers. To have a government that is so overwhelmingly dominated by people with a common training risks shutting out other ways of thinking about what our politics could be.
    [...]
    “With almost 1.3 million lawyers—more by far than any other country, and more as a percentage of the national population than almost all others—the United States is choking on litigation, regulation, and disputation,” says Jeff Jacob​y, a Boston Globe columnist with a law degree. “Everything is grist for the lawyers’ mills. Anyone can be sued for anything, no matter how absurd or egregious. And everyone knows how expensive and overwhelming a legal assault can be. The rule of law is essential to a free and orderly society, but too much law and lawyering makes democratic self-rule impossible, and common sense legally precarious.

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wnjk5m/less-lawyers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Factorize says:
    @Factorize
    https://macarthurlab.org/lof/

    Manuscript and data, click third "here"
    This was a list of lof found in 2010.

    Still not sure how to do this for the genes that are in the recent paper.
    Very frustrating that full disclosure is not required in the article.

    Are we really supposed to reverse engineer it?
    How is not giving the results considered to be Science?

    One way to find them might be to go to the gene view page on dbsnp as above and then zoom out to a chromosome wide level. You could then select the LOFs (i,e. stop loss, frameshift, splice site, …).

    This would give 10,000 for Chromosome 22. Then select <0.001 in Exact, down to 140.
    Then search by genes.
    Yet, perhaps the new paper is actually doing an even better job than dbsnp.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. res says:
    @Factorize
    https://macarthurlab.org/lof/

    Manuscript and data, click third "here"
    This was a list of lof found in 2010.

    Still not sure how to do this for the genes that are in the recent paper.
    Very frustrating that full disclosure is not required in the article.

    Are we really supposed to reverse engineer it?
    How is not giving the results considered to be Science?

    That link is a good example of what you can do, and perhaps a good model to follow (e.g. their field summary). Though there are quite a few blank fields. Doing a database join on that file with another SNP list by rsID might be a good start at what we are looking for (depends on # of SNPs which appear in both).

    I don’t think it is the job of the researchers to spoon feed us all of the associated data (e.g. 1000 Genomes SNP frequencies), but I do think it is reasonable to desire them to present their own results in a usable format. Mostly we just need rsIDs and significance/effect size data. Spreadsheets are much better than text tables for doing further analysis.

    Which paper are you talking about again? We have discussed a few and most have SNP lists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    res, were you able to make any forward progress with finding the SNPs in the biorxiv article?
    Why were the SNP not identified and included in the article?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Factorize says:

    res, I do not see the SNPs for the biorxiv article anywhere.

    This is hard to imagine.
    How is that even science to publish the results and not provide the SNPs?

    Are we supposed to just believe them?
    The standards of science are slipping.

    Articles that merely hint at what the research has found might need to
    be withheld from publication until such findings are produced.

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

    Education might be boosting intelligence. Even if not, I doubt it will be doing much harm, unless those who have tired of education are compelled to remain at school when there is work waiting for them, because work has intellectual demands to it, which should also, if these findings are correct, boost intelligence. (Worth testing to see if prior intelligence is boosted by a lifetime of supposedly cognitively demanding occupations).

    Bingo. This is why the stated 1-5 IQ gain makes no sense – at all.

    Some people leave school, find a brainless job, and never read a book afterwards. Others will not only find a challenging, intellectually stimulating work but also use their spare time to learn more. Many UNZ readers are doing just that regularly, I’m sure. That’s education.

    So this theory simply can’t be true since we’re talking about 25-year-old graduates boosting their IQ score by 50-250 points by the time they’re 75. Ridiculous. If that was even remotely true (50 points), the superior, old bookworm geezer caste would visibly run intellectual circles around everyone else since the dawn of man and everyone would be in awe. We’d sing songs about them while trying to hide our women – in vain.

    I do suspect that IQ can be boosted through lifelong study but the IQ gain is probably less than 0.1 per year which is easily countered by natural decay and environmental poisoning. I certainly don’t feel more intelligent than 10 years ago.

    Frankly, these theories reek of SJW politics. If the newly arrived, self-exploding goat herders in Europe can be taught IQ - there’s nothing to worry about and we can all join hands and embrace the globalist rapture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. The standards of science are slipping.

    It’a preprint, nigga…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    I'm surprised about Figure 1B.

    Africans have the lowest frequency of the rare and ultra-rare variants.
    While the Finns and others have very high rates of these variants.

    It is almost as though the people who left African were the least favored.
    This would make sense as the most highly connected would probably
    want to remain at the center of humanity. Similar situation when the
    new world was settled: the people who left were not those at the top
    of the power pyramid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Factorize says:
    @Afrosapiens

    The standards of science are slipping.
     
    It'a preprint, nigga...

    I’m surprised about Figure 1B.

    Africans have the lowest frequency of the rare and ultra-rare variants.
    While the Finns and others have very high rates of these variants.

    It is almost as though the people who left African were the least favored.
    This would make sense as the most highly connected would probably
    want to remain at the center of humanity. Similar situation when the
    new world was settled: the people who left were not those at the top
    of the power pyramid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    They explain it by the population bottlenecks different groups have encountered:

    The number and frequency of rare variants differs across populations, reflecting the degree of selection compounded by recent demography, including bottlenecks, split times, and migration between populations 8. The ratio of deleterious to neutral alleles per individual increases as humans migrated out of Africa, consistent with negative selection against deleterious variants and serial founder effects that reduce the effective population size 9. Conditional on a variant being ultra-rare, we observe a higher ratio of PTV to synonymous variants (Figure 1b); recently arisen ultra-rare variants have had less time to be purged by negative selection, which is further magnified in populations that have undergone a recent bottleneck. For example, we observed a higher ratio among Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish populations as compared to non-Finnish Europeans, reflecting the more recent population-specific bottlenecks 10,11.
     
    Here is a graphic showing effective population sizes for the 1000 Genomes populations over time. From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/
    If the include does not work look for Figure 2.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/bin/821fig2.jpg

    The Ashkenazi Jewish bottleneck was even greater. This page quotes an effective population of 330 about 700 years ago: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/11/exponential-growth-of-ashkenazi-jews-following-medieval-population-bottleneck/

    For the Finns this article gives an effective population of 1,000 for 100 generations ago at the founding: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714001517
    , @Afrosapiens
    Early humans were hunter-gatherer nomads. The people who left Africa weren't aware that they moved to a new continent.

    I can speculate that the least efficient groups had to move out, but it isn't enough. Arabia and India are closer to East Africa than West Africa, and people migrated over very long distances within Africa.

    Genetic bottlenecks and drift are enough to explain genetic load in non-Africans in my opinion. And since it made purifying selection weaker, it's normal that Africans are advantaged. HBD is dead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Research into IQ is a great thing. But the captivity of education by what Bill Bennett calls “The Blob” is a horrific thing.

    The education establishment:
    denigrates logical, rational thought;
    ridicules useful memory work;
    strives to prevent analytical thought;
    neglects individual work.

    Instead they foster emotionalism over reason.
    They glorify group work and group think.
    Not teaching, instead mind arson.
    Their products are human lemmings, easily stampeded by TPTB when desired. This is a feature not a bug.

    Check out the blog InvisibleSerfsCollar dot com.
    Read the book “Credentialed to Destroy” by Robin Eubanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. @Santoculto
    Always a unsubstantiated argument isn't Nuttella*

    ''Heidegger effect''...

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Santoculto
    Always a unsubstantiated argument isn't Nuttella*

    ''Heidegger effect''...

    Sincerely,
    BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab
    Building No.11│Beishan Industrial Zone│Yantian District│Shenzhen 518083│China  
    认知基因组学 │ www.cog-genomics.org │contact@cog-genomics.org 
    ST-RM, BGI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPQE3GfkrOo

    Read More
    • Troll: Daniel Chieh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. res says:
    @Factorize
    I'm surprised about Figure 1B.

    Africans have the lowest frequency of the rare and ultra-rare variants.
    While the Finns and others have very high rates of these variants.

    It is almost as though the people who left African were the least favored.
    This would make sense as the most highly connected would probably
    want to remain at the center of humanity. Similar situation when the
    new world was settled: the people who left were not those at the top
    of the power pyramid.

    They explain it by the population bottlenecks different groups have encountered:

    The number and frequency of rare variants differs across populations, reflecting the degree of selection compounded by recent demography, including bottlenecks, split times, and migration between populations 8. The ratio of deleterious to neutral alleles per individual increases as humans migrated out of Africa, consistent with negative selection against deleterious variants and serial founder effects that reduce the effective population size 9. Conditional on a variant being ultra-rare, we observe a higher ratio of PTV to synonymous variants (Figure 1b); recently arisen ultra-rare variants have had less time to be purged by negative selection, which is further magnified in populations that have undergone a recent bottleneck. For example, we observed a higher ratio among Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish populations as compared to non-Finnish Europeans, reflecting the more recent population-specific bottlenecks 10,11.

    Here is a graphic showing effective population sizes for the 1000 Genomes populations over time. From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/
    If the include does not work look for Figure 2.

    The Ashkenazi Jewish bottleneck was even greater. This page quotes an effective population of 330 about 700 years ago: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/11/exponential-growth-of-ashkenazi-jews-following-medieval-population-bottleneck/

    For the Finns this article gives an effective population of 1,000 for 100 generations ago at the founding: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714001517

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    res, thank you for confirming that for me. I thought perhaps there might be an error somewhere.

    Figure 1B is the opposite of what I had expected. If rare and ultra variants are typically detrimental, I was unsure why Finns and Ashkenazim (both high IQ groups) had so many while Africans (not usually understood to constitute a high IQ group) had so few.

    Especially since for high IQ to happen many things need to go right and few things can go wrong: like a sprinter; to be a high performance sprinter everything needs to click.
    , @Middle aged vet . . .
    Maybe it has Nothing to do with bottlenecks, my friend. Every once in a while a few very intelligent people experience angelic inspiration, and that makes all the difference. We are not talking young Einstein slogging through dreary days pondering the cosmological theories of Mach and then getting lucky to meet someone with just the right knowledge of the then-young vector calculus, and joining in on the resulting window of mathematical opportunities at (let's say) the level of a really good Harvard freshman in a really hard math course, and ultimately getting his picture on postage stamps, not that anyone cares. Not at all. That was, if not - to be fair - expected, not - to be accurate - surprising. NO, that was not angelic inspiration, that was just science chugging along in it usual way, where accuracy gets a little clearer after all the bumpy muddy roads of even the most naturally intelligent of the grinders, like even Einstein, have done their truck-driver best. The only reason that one group of people is not marginally more clueless than another group - and all groups are fairly clueless, getting things right is a low-scoring game, year in, year out - beyond nutrition and a seasoning of Aspergerite suffering in the gene pool - is the miraculously aesthetic (if one is a materialist) or angelic (if one understands how, as Umberto Eco used to say, between cigarettes) inspiration that accords the humble young adult (and once in a while the rare older adult) in his or her thoughts with the much much much less humble but still, sometimes, measurable or describable world we assume we live in. (OK, tell me I don't know what I am talking about - but if I don't, maybe this was a good pastiche) (accords with, for non-English speakers, is a phrase used to explain how two complicated mechanisms perform a function together without going off the rails - in this case, the human mind (one mechanism) and the solvable problems of the natural world (considered in their totality as one other mechanism)). As Don Colacho humbly said, the rain it raineth every day... no, that was someone else. Don Colacho said something about order and disorder that is relevant .... "order is a deception but disorder is not a solution"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Factorize says:
    @res
    They explain it by the population bottlenecks different groups have encountered:

    The number and frequency of rare variants differs across populations, reflecting the degree of selection compounded by recent demography, including bottlenecks, split times, and migration between populations 8. The ratio of deleterious to neutral alleles per individual increases as humans migrated out of Africa, consistent with negative selection against deleterious variants and serial founder effects that reduce the effective population size 9. Conditional on a variant being ultra-rare, we observe a higher ratio of PTV to synonymous variants (Figure 1b); recently arisen ultra-rare variants have had less time to be purged by negative selection, which is further magnified in populations that have undergone a recent bottleneck. For example, we observed a higher ratio among Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish populations as compared to non-Finnish Europeans, reflecting the more recent population-specific bottlenecks 10,11.
     
    Here is a graphic showing effective population sizes for the 1000 Genomes populations over time. From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/
    If the include does not work look for Figure 2.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/bin/821fig2.jpg

    The Ashkenazi Jewish bottleneck was even greater. This page quotes an effective population of 330 about 700 years ago: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/11/exponential-growth-of-ashkenazi-jews-following-medieval-population-bottleneck/

    For the Finns this article gives an effective population of 1,000 for 100 generations ago at the founding: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714001517

    res, thank you for confirming that for me. I thought perhaps there might be an error somewhere.

    Figure 1B is the opposite of what I had expected. If rare and ultra variants are typically detrimental, I was unsure why Finns and Ashkenazim (both high IQ groups) had so many while Africans (not usually understood to constitute a high IQ group) had so few.

    Especially since for high IQ to happen many things need to go right and few things can go wrong: like a sprinter; to be a high performance sprinter everything needs to click.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Figure 1B is the opposite of what I had expected. If rare and ultra variants are typically detrimental, I was unsure why Finns and Ashkenazim (both high IQ groups) had so many while Africans (not usually understood to constitute a high IQ group) had so few.

    Especially since for high IQ to happen many things need to go right and few things can go wrong: like a sprinter; to be a high performance sprinter everything needs to click.
     
    Keep in mind that environment matters a lot. I also expect that you understand that this study makes HBD myths null and void.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "like a sprinter; to be a high performance sprinter everything needs to click."

    Something is seriously wrong with this analogy...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @res
    They explain it by the population bottlenecks different groups have encountered:

    The number and frequency of rare variants differs across populations, reflecting the degree of selection compounded by recent demography, including bottlenecks, split times, and migration between populations 8. The ratio of deleterious to neutral alleles per individual increases as humans migrated out of Africa, consistent with negative selection against deleterious variants and serial founder effects that reduce the effective population size 9. Conditional on a variant being ultra-rare, we observe a higher ratio of PTV to synonymous variants (Figure 1b); recently arisen ultra-rare variants have had less time to be purged by negative selection, which is further magnified in populations that have undergone a recent bottleneck. For example, we observed a higher ratio among Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish populations as compared to non-Finnish Europeans, reflecting the more recent population-specific bottlenecks 10,11.
     
    Here is a graphic showing effective population sizes for the 1000 Genomes populations over time. From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/
    If the include does not work look for Figure 2.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/bin/821fig2.jpg

    The Ashkenazi Jewish bottleneck was even greater. This page quotes an effective population of 330 about 700 years ago: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/11/exponential-growth-of-ashkenazi-jews-following-medieval-population-bottleneck/

    For the Finns this article gives an effective population of 1,000 for 100 generations ago at the founding: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714001517

    Maybe it has Nothing to do with bottlenecks, my friend. Every once in a while a few very intelligent people experience angelic inspiration, and that makes all the difference. We are not talking young Einstein slogging through dreary days pondering the cosmological theories of Mach and then getting lucky to meet someone with just the right knowledge of the then-young vector calculus, and joining in on the resulting window of mathematical opportunities at (let’s say) the level of a really good Harvard freshman in a really hard math course, and ultimately getting his picture on postage stamps, not that anyone cares. Not at all. That was, if not – to be fair – expected, not – to be accurate – surprising. NO, that was not angelic inspiration, that was just science chugging along in it usual way, where accuracy gets a little clearer after all the bumpy muddy roads of even the most naturally intelligent of the grinders, like even Einstein, have done their truck-driver best. The only reason that one group of people is not marginally more clueless than another group – and all groups are fairly clueless, getting things right is a low-scoring game, year in, year out – beyond nutrition and a seasoning of Aspergerite suffering in the gene pool – is the miraculously aesthetic (if one is a materialist) or angelic (if one understands how, as Umberto Eco used to say, between cigarettes) inspiration that accords the humble young adult (and once in a while the rare older adult) in his or her thoughts with the much much much less humble but still, sometimes, measurable or describable world we assume we live in. (OK, tell me I don’t know what I am talking about – but if I don’t, maybe this was a good pastiche) (accords with, for non-English speakers, is a phrase used to explain how two complicated mechanisms perform a function together without going off the rails – in this case, the human mind (one mechanism) and the solvable problems of the natural world (considered in their totality as one other mechanism)). As Don Colacho humbly said, the rain it raineth every day… no, that was someone else. Don Colacho said something about order and disorder that is relevant …. “order is a deception but disorder is not a solution”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. dux.ie says:

    Intelligence is defined to have two components,

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

    “””Fluid intelligence or fluid reasoning is the capacity to reason and solve novel problems, independent of any knowledge from the past.”””

    However, it is hard to write a large set of ‘novel problems’ in practice and some of the problems might have close resemblence such that repeat testees might be able to ‘learn’ from past tests.

    “””Crystallized intelligence is the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. It does not equate to memory, but it does rely on accessing information from long-term memory. Crystallized intelligence is one’s lifetime of intellectual achievement, as demonstrated largely through one’s vocabulary and general knowledge. This improves somewhat with age, as experiences tend to expand one’s knowledge. (And extra tuitions or hardworkings.)”””

    There are many proxies for IQ tests with various emphasis.

    PISA Maths tends to test the application of mathematical knowledge to solve problems set in real-world contexts. While others like TIMSS, SAT, ACT tend to test classroom contents. There is a different PISA test on “Creative Problem Solving” CPS (which measures students’ capacity to respond to non-routine situations in order to achieve their potential as constructive and reflective citizens) from a different testing body supervised by OECD,

    http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2012-results-skills-for-life-volume-v_9789264208070-en

    which shows close relationship with the standard PISA test results. This had exposed the many lies told about rote learning of the high performing countries from the whinging lusers.

    Interestingly there were seperate CPS data for crystallized IQ knowledge acquisition, knowledge utilization and the composite scores. The ability to utilize knowledge is positively correlated to the PISA Maths scores,

    CPSUti=+0.169183*Math12-38.5015; # n=41; Rsq=0.8327; p=2.477e-17 ***;

    A plot of the data is here http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=epeou1&s=9
    (on a no registration site which might have some sick pop-ups).

    The ability to acquire knowledge is also positively correlated to the PISA Maths scores,

    CPSAcq=+0.213487*Math12-61.0042; # n=41; Rsq=0.8514; p=0 ***;

    and the plot here http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14y0qjq&s=9

    The CPS composite scores

    CPS=+0.901012*Math12+49.495; # n=41; Rsq=0.853; p=0 ***;

    and the plot here http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=20uabz5&s=9

    The relative ability of CPSuti and CPSacq

    CPSuti=+1.20861*CPSacq-10.1257; # n=41; Rsq=0.938; p=0 ***;

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=29p7x4z&s=9

    It can be seen that the high performing countries have much better knowledge acquisition rate, either through more hardworking or through innate ability. This give them extra competitive advantage (positive outliers further to the right) even when their knowledge utilization rates are already much better than the rest.

    There are also tests for handling vague problems where the students interactively have to know which questions to ask to get a full picture of the problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. @Factorize
    res, thank you for confirming that for me. I thought perhaps there might be an error somewhere.

    Figure 1B is the opposite of what I had expected. If rare and ultra variants are typically detrimental, I was unsure why Finns and Ashkenazim (both high IQ groups) had so many while Africans (not usually understood to constitute a high IQ group) had so few.

    Especially since for high IQ to happen many things need to go right and few things can go wrong: like a sprinter; to be a high performance sprinter everything needs to click.

    Figure 1B is the opposite of what I had expected. If rare and ultra variants are typically detrimental, I was unsure why Finns and Ashkenazim (both high IQ groups) had so many while Africans (not usually understood to constitute a high IQ group) had so few.

    Especially since for high IQ to happen many things need to go right and few things can go wrong: like a sprinter; to be a high performance sprinter everything needs to click.

    Keep in mind that environment matters a lot. I also expect that you understand that this study makes HBD myths null and void.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Factorize
    res, thank you for confirming that for me. I thought perhaps there might be an error somewhere.

    Figure 1B is the opposite of what I had expected. If rare and ultra variants are typically detrimental, I was unsure why Finns and Ashkenazim (both high IQ groups) had so many while Africans (not usually understood to constitute a high IQ group) had so few.

    Especially since for high IQ to happen many things need to go right and few things can go wrong: like a sprinter; to be a high performance sprinter everything needs to click.

    “like a sprinter; to be a high performance sprinter everything needs to click.”

    Something is seriously wrong with this analogy…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Race, should I replace click with snap?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Factorize says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "like a sprinter; to be a high performance sprinter everything needs to click."

    Something is seriously wrong with this analogy...

    Race, should I replace click with snap?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Athletic performance is a real and measurable variable. We know how and why people are better than others, athletically speaking. We don’t know anything about what makes people have different IQ scores than others. No it’s not this imaginary ‘g’.

    There is “no theory of individual intelligence differences, not in the same way chemistry and physics have theories.”—Ian Dreary

    All those correlates with ‘g’ show is that the mind is part of the body taking the IQ test. It doesn’t show any causation, etc.

    Most of HBD is based off correlations. HBDers don’t realize that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. @Factorize
    I'm surprised about Figure 1B.

    Africans have the lowest frequency of the rare and ultra-rare variants.
    While the Finns and others have very high rates of these variants.

    It is almost as though the people who left African were the least favored.
    This would make sense as the most highly connected would probably
    want to remain at the center of humanity. Similar situation when the
    new world was settled: the people who left were not those at the top
    of the power pyramid.

    Early humans were hunter-gatherer nomads. The people who left Africa weren’t aware that they moved to a new continent.

    I can speculate that the least efficient groups had to move out, but it isn’t enough. Arabia and India are closer to East Africa than West Africa, and people migrated over very long distances within Africa.

    Genetic bottlenecks and drift are enough to explain genetic load in non-Africans in my opinion. And since it made purifying selection weaker, it’s normal that Africans are advantaged. HBD is dead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    I had not expected this. My original narrative was that those who left Africa might have been more adventurous and perhaps of higher ability. In the journey to new lands various cognitive challenges would have arisen that would have exerted a selective force towards those with higher g.

    In light of this new research, an alternative narrative could be that those leaving Africa were the less favored and less socially and politically entrenched. Leaving Africa at that time must have felt like an excommunication. Whatever existed of human civilization would have been almost entirely concentrated in Africa. Africa would have been THE happening place. All the dot.coms and institutes of higher learning would have been there. By comparison the frontier must have felt barren. In some places of the world, it still does.

    For those migrating out of Africa, near family mating would become almost inevitable. There is evidence that early peoples were aware of the dangers of family members intermarrying, though in small bands of people there often would seem to be few other options. There might have been a sense that the purging of deleterious alleles was impossible; people just made do as best they could. Yet, within the African context, society would be more fully formed and such selection against certain alleles would be more possible.

    These pieces of contrary evidence usually fall from the sky without warning which then a just so workaround to fit everything back into place again. Even the 1500 IQ idea was like finding a sea shell on the sea shore. Would be so much better if we could be a few more steps ahead of these finds and not a few steps behind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Afrosapiens
    That doesn't apply to health professionals, who tend to lean liberal.

    http://images.dailykos.com/images/130311/lightbox/md-graph.jpg?1424435860

    Interestingly, the political divide between specialties is basically an income one, which makes sense since conservative thought is tied to selfishness. Otherwise, doctors tend to be driven by altruistic ideals and deal with a varied public with which they develop their interpersonal skills and their empathy.

    Except conservatives give more of their own money than liberals. Almost 50% more. More even if disregarding religious giving. They give more blood and volunteer their time more, too. See “Who Really Cares” by ex-liberal Arthur C. Brooks.

    I have worked in a psychiatric hospital with overwhelmingly liberal staff for 40 years. They will tell you that they are more giving and caring than other people. In fact, they tell it to each other all the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Except conservatives give more of their own money than liberals. Almost 50% more. More even if disregarding religious giving. They give more blood and volunteer their time more, too. See “Who Really Cares” by ex-liberal Arthur C. Brooks.
     
    That's because of tax deductions that one gets for donating to a charity. Adjusting for income, I'm 100% sure liberals donate more, to less personal causes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Factorize says:
    @Afrosapiens
    Early humans were hunter-gatherer nomads. The people who left Africa weren't aware that they moved to a new continent.

    I can speculate that the least efficient groups had to move out, but it isn't enough. Arabia and India are closer to East Africa than West Africa, and people migrated over very long distances within Africa.

    Genetic bottlenecks and drift are enough to explain genetic load in non-Africans in my opinion. And since it made purifying selection weaker, it's normal that Africans are advantaged. HBD is dead.

    I had not expected this. My original narrative was that those who left Africa might have been more adventurous and perhaps of higher ability. In the journey to new lands various cognitive challenges would have arisen that would have exerted a selective force towards those with higher g.

    In light of this new research, an alternative narrative could be that those leaving Africa were the less favored and less socially and politically entrenched. Leaving Africa at that time must have felt like an excommunication. Whatever existed of human civilization would have been almost entirely concentrated in Africa. Africa would have been THE happening place. All the dot.coms and institutes of higher learning would have been there. By comparison the frontier must have felt barren. In some places of the world, it still does.

    For those migrating out of Africa, near family mating would become almost inevitable. There is evidence that early peoples were aware of the dangers of family members intermarrying, though in small bands of people there often would seem to be few other options. There might have been a sense that the purging of deleterious alleles was impossible; people just made do as best they could. Yet, within the African context, society would be more fully formed and such selection against certain alleles would be more possible.

    These pieces of contrary evidence usually fall from the sky without warning which then a just so workaround to fit everything back into place again. Even the 1500 IQ idea was like finding a sea shell on the sea shore. Would be so much better if we could be a few more steps ahead of these finds and not a few steps behind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I had not expected this. My original narrative was that those who left Africa might have been more adventurous and perhaps of higher ability. In the journey to new lands various cognitive challenges would have arisen that would have exerted a selective force towards those with higher g.

    In light of this new research, an alternative narrative could be that those leaving Africa were the less favored and less socially and politically entrenched. Leaving Africa at that time must have felt like an excommunication.

    Your nonsense about journey and excommunication

    Nobody who was there what now we call Africa knew they were in Africa or anywhere. People were going left or right back and forth. Some were going West, some were going East, North or South. Some where going in circles clock wise and some counter clock wise. Some ended up against the ocean, some against a river, some against mountains. Some stayed and some moved along the river. It was more of a Brownian motion than any journey that you can imagine. Nobody had any map to know where they were and where they were going. They did not have destination, they did not have plans. Some were escaping and some were chasing something or looking for something. But certainly they did not have passports nor American Express cards "In the journey to new lands " and certainly they had no idea they were making a journey. They did not keep diaries and did not take selfies. They did not have any sense where they had been or where were they coming from.

    Your nonsense on diversity

    If the totality of people in Africa had a given genetic diversity it meant that there were many families and groups that different from each other. Any subset that is spatially limited will have smaller diversity than the total set. This is the reason why the genetic diversity of people who ended up away from Africa is smaller that the total diversity of Africans. It does not mean that genetic diversity of Norwegian is smaller than diversity of Pygmy or some tribe in Nigeria. The great diversity of Africa only means that there more tribes and sub races that can hate each other more than Swedes can hate Norwegians because they are more different form each other than Swedes and Norwegians. The only thing they have in common is their dark skin and few other physical features which does not prevent Hutus form killing Tutsis. In term of genes responsible for skin color they are no more diverse than Europeans or Asians. Inter-racial differences account for 80% of total diversity on skin color department which means that intra-racial differences are small.

    Nonsense of taking pride from diversity

    Lots of ignorant Blacks and Africans take a misguided pride in the genetic diversity of Africa. They are not aware that genetic diversity is not defined on individual level. Neither Afrosapience nor you can claim having greater genetic diversity. Because you and him have none. Greater diversity of Africa means that if some plague is going to come as a result of dancing with dead corpses in Madagascar or eating humans in Botswana for some medical purposes that is going to wipe out a lot of people it is possible it will wipe out all Nigerians and Kenyans but there might be a chance that Pygmy will survive because they are sufficiently more different from Nigerians and Kenyans. Only in this sense some Africans may survive. It does not mean that Afrosapience will survive.

    But there are some genes that Europeans are more diverse. For instance c. 10% of Europeans have mutation that makes them resistant to HIV infections while no African has it. This means that African have zero diversity 0*(1-0)=0 while Europeans 0.1*(1-0.1)=0.09.

    Intelligence and diversity nonsense

    On another tread one African took great pride form greater genetic diversity of Africa "deducing" from it that Africans necessarily must be more intelligent. Maximum diversity for a given gene occurs when it is distributed 50/50 in population. If there are some genes responsible for intelligence and Africa has the highest diversity with resect to these genes this means that African intelligence on average is average because 50% will have the genes and 50% will not have the right genes. If on the other hand some population is less diverse and has the distribution 30/70 it will be on average less intelligent than Africa. But population with the same lower diversity but distribution 70/30 will have higher intelligence eon average the Africa. Are Asians or Europeans 30/70 or 70/30? One day we will not for sure but in the meantime there is zero evidence that Africans are smarter than Europeans or Asians.

    Pride for not having Neanderthal genes

    Yes, I met some Blacks for whom the fact of not having Neanderthal genes gives them some sense of superiority. I wonder how widely this meme is spread among AA Blacks and Africans?
    , @Afrosapiens
    I think you're interpreting the whole thing with your modern eyes.

    Early human migrations weren't like colonial enterprises, it took tens of thousands of years for humans to settle the planet, no human would have died in a very different place from where they were born. They were not like trekkers migrating over long distances on purpose, they were just nomads seizing hunting and gathering opportunities. Also, it's probable that they copied some survival strategies from neanderthals and denisovans, which made things easier.

    They had no maps, no awareness of landforms, they were moving in random directions, which lead some to leave Africa to Arabia and then the rest of Eurasia and the Americas, others moved to Western Africa, by chance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Afrosapiens

    No wonder the politics and politicians in the U.S. are so corrupt, around 20% are business people and a staggering 50% are lawyers
     
    Your charts are interesting, but hardly tell anything about corruption. The US, with 70% of its elite with a supposedly psychopathic professional background is a lot less corrupt than both China, Brazil, India, Egypt and South Korea.

    That China has few lawyers climbing to the top makes sense since rule of law is a foreign concept there, and of all the governments in the comparison, the PRC is without an ounce of doubt the one that behaves in the most psychopathic way.

    I think lawyers and business people make good politicians. Economists, doctors, diplomats, scholars and teachers are also people I like to see in high functions. Engineering, the military and civil service aren't careers that provide adequate skills, experiences and insights to run a government properly in my opinion.

    The second list makes sense, police officers apart, the most "psychopathic" professions are the most competitive careers, these professionals aren't insane, they're battlers. As far as police officers are concerned, stories in the news regularly remind us that many cops are basically bullies/klansmen in uniform. No surprise.

    From my latest comment in the other thread, which might interest you. Check out the astonishing and eye-opening stats and graphs there:

    This is another amazing figure. Close to 8% (!) of the people living and working in the District of Columbia are lawyers, when lawyers only make up about ~0.40% of the U.S. population
    [...]
    In my opinion, lawyers are the main “technicians/managers” and the most skillful “optimizers” of Financialization

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2082825

    Currently, about 88% of lawyers in the U.S. are non-Hispanic whites (this Atlantic article puts the figure at 81% https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/diversity-jobs-professions-america/396632/ ). So, circa 7% of the population of D.C. are non-Hispanic white lawyers.

    In 2015 about 35% of the population of D.C. was non-Hispanic white: https://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/city/Nbr_prof_city.html

    Which means that about 20% of non-Hispanic whites in D.C. are lawyers.

    Since about 65% of lawyers in the U.S. are male and 35% are female, this means 4.55 % of the D.C. population are non-Hispanic white, male lawyers.

    Half of the 35% non-Hispanic white population is male, which is 17.5%.

    So about 26% or roughly 1 in 4 non-Hispanic white males in D.C. is a lawyer!, if my calculations are correct.

    I tried to find religious demographics for the U.S. lawyer population, but was not able to. It would be interesting to see how many of them are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

    This is all I could find:

    And of course, it is a necessary consequence of the great over-representation of Jews in our trade that all other ethnic groups are under-represented. Because a group that is only 2% of the population occupies something like 25% or more of the top law partnerships, that means that white protestants are under-represented by close to 25% as against their share of the population, and white Catholics (such as yours truly) are under-represented by even more. Asians? According to Wikipedia they are now 4.8% of the population, and according to The American Lawyer they are about 6% of big law firm associates and 1.6% of partners. Is this discrimination, reverse discrimination, or just what happens as people seek work that suits them? And then there are ethnic groups that have virtually no representation at all in these big firm partnerships. Middle-Eastern muslims come to mind.

    http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2014/6/5/is-lack-of-diversity-at-big-law-firms-a-crisis

    Source: https://www.practicepanther.com/2016-us-lawyer-demographics/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    I doubt the supremacy of lawyers over American policies causes the inequalities. The reason why America never adopted European/Canadian-style of welfare state and social-democracy is racism. A large share of the whites oppose social programs for fear that it benefits blacks and immigrants. Race struggle took over class struggle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. utu says:
    @Factorize
    I had not expected this. My original narrative was that those who left Africa might have been more adventurous and perhaps of higher ability. In the journey to new lands various cognitive challenges would have arisen that would have exerted a selective force towards those with higher g.

    In light of this new research, an alternative narrative could be that those leaving Africa were the less favored and less socially and politically entrenched. Leaving Africa at that time must have felt like an excommunication. Whatever existed of human civilization would have been almost entirely concentrated in Africa. Africa would have been THE happening place. All the dot.coms and institutes of higher learning would have been there. By comparison the frontier must have felt barren. In some places of the world, it still does.

    For those migrating out of Africa, near family mating would become almost inevitable. There is evidence that early peoples were aware of the dangers of family members intermarrying, though in small bands of people there often would seem to be few other options. There might have been a sense that the purging of deleterious alleles was impossible; people just made do as best they could. Yet, within the African context, society would be more fully formed and such selection against certain alleles would be more possible.

    These pieces of contrary evidence usually fall from the sky without warning which then a just so workaround to fit everything back into place again. Even the 1500 IQ idea was like finding a sea shell on the sea shore. Would be so much better if we could be a few more steps ahead of these finds and not a few steps behind.

    I had not expected this. My original narrative was that those who left Africa might have been more adventurous and perhaps of higher ability. In the journey to new lands various cognitive challenges would have arisen that would have exerted a selective force towards those with higher g.

    In light of this new research, an alternative narrative could be that those leaving Africa were the less favored and less socially and politically entrenched. Leaving Africa at that time must have felt like an excommunication.

    Your nonsense about journey and excommunication

    Nobody who was there what now we call Africa knew they were in Africa or anywhere. People were going left or right back and forth. Some were going West, some were going East, North or South. Some where going in circles clock wise and some counter clock wise. Some ended up against the ocean, some against a river, some against mountains. Some stayed and some moved along the river. It was more of a Brownian motion than any journey that you can imagine. Nobody had any map to know where they were and where they were going. They did not have destination, they did not have plans. Some were escaping and some were chasing something or looking for something. But certainly they did not have passports nor American Express cards “In the journey to new lands ” and certainly they had no idea they were making a journey. They did not keep diaries and did not take selfies. They did not have any sense where they had been or where were they coming from.

    Your nonsense on diversity

    If the totality of people in Africa had a given genetic diversity it meant that there were many families and groups that different from each other. Any subset that is spatially limited will have smaller diversity than the total set. This is the reason why the genetic diversity of people who ended up away from Africa is smaller that the total diversity of Africans. It does not mean that genetic diversity of Norwegian is smaller than diversity of Pygmy or some tribe in Nigeria. The great diversity of Africa only means that there more tribes and sub races that can hate each other more than Swedes can hate Norwegians because they are more different form each other than Swedes and Norwegians. The only thing they have in common is their dark skin and few other physical features which does not prevent Hutus form killing Tutsis. In term of genes responsible for skin color they are no more diverse than Europeans or Asians. Inter-racial differences account for 80% of total diversity on skin color department which means that intra-racial differences are small.

    Nonsense of taking pride from diversity

    Lots of ignorant Blacks and Africans take a misguided pride in the genetic diversity of Africa. They are not aware that genetic diversity is not defined on individual level. Neither Afrosapience nor you can claim having greater genetic diversity. Because you and him have none. Greater diversity of Africa means that if some plague is going to come as a result of dancing with dead corpses in Madagascar or eating humans in Botswana for some medical purposes that is going to wipe out a lot of people it is possible it will wipe out all Nigerians and Kenyans but there might be a chance that Pygmy will survive because they are sufficiently more different from Nigerians and Kenyans. Only in this sense some Africans may survive. It does not mean that Afrosapience will survive.

    But there are some genes that Europeans are more diverse. For instance c. 10% of Europeans have mutation that makes them resistant to HIV infections while no African has it. This means that African have zero diversity 0*(1-0)=0 while Europeans 0.1*(1-0.1)=0.09.

    Intelligence and diversity nonsense

    On another tread one African took great pride form greater genetic diversity of Africa “deducing” from it that Africans necessarily must be more intelligent. Maximum diversity for a given gene occurs when it is distributed 50/50 in population. If there are some genes responsible for intelligence and Africa has the highest diversity with resect to these genes this means that African intelligence on average is average because 50% will have the genes and 50% will not have the right genes. If on the other hand some population is less diverse and has the distribution 30/70 it will be on average less intelligent than Africa. But population with the same lower diversity but distribution 70/30 will have higher intelligence eon average the Africa. Are Asians or Europeans 30/70 or 70/30? One day we will not for sure but in the meantime there is zero evidence that Africans are smarter than Europeans or Asians.

    Pride for not having Neanderthal genes

    Yes, I met some Blacks for whom the fact of not having Neanderthal genes gives them some sense of superiority. I wonder how widely this meme is spread among AA Blacks and Africans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Diversity means that there are more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans. It also means that Africans are more often heterozygote, which protects against harmful recessive alleles.
    , @Okechukwu

    The great diversity of Africa only means that there more tribes and sub races that can hate each other more than Swedes can hate Norwegians because they are more different form each other than Swedes and Norwegians.
     
    But nobody has butchered each other more than than the relatively inbred and bottlenecked Europeans.

    In term of genes responsible for skin color they are no more diverse than Europeans or Asians.
     
    That's incorrect. I have very dark (almost black) and very light (almost white) people in my immediate family. And, of course, a wide spectrum in between. I have more skin color diversity in my family alone than exists in all of white Europe.

    Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126724

    And,

    Most people associate Africans with dark skin. But different groups of people in Africa have almost every skin color on the planet, from deepest black in the Dinka of South Sudan to beige in the San of South Africa. Now, researchers have discovered a handful of new gene variants responsible for this palette of tones.

    The study, published online this week in Science, traces the evolution of these genes and how they traveled around the world. While the dark skin of some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Africa, gene variants from Eurasia also seem to have made their way back to Africa. And surprisingly, some of the mutations responsible for lighter skin in Europeans turn out to have an ancient African origin.

    https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/scientist-discover-skin-color-diversity-in-ancient-africa.1285576/

    But there are some genes that Europeans are more diverse. For instance c. 10% of Europeans have mutation that makes them resistant to HIV infections while no African has it.
     
    That's incorrect.

    In South Africa, a rare group of children unknowingly find themselves resistant to the effects of HIV.
    Even without antiretroviral treatment, they will never develop AIDS, or so scientists believe.
    Unlike adults and other children who succumb to the virus if not treated -- enabling it to attack their immune cells and weakening their immunity to disease -- these kids harbor huge amounts of HIV within their blood but remain unscathed.


    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/health/rare-children-resistant-to-aids-through-built-in-defense-system/index.html

    On another tread one African took great pride form greater genetic diversity of Africa “deducing” from it that Africans necessarily must be more intelligent.
     
    What I've said is that I believe the smartest people will be found in Africa. It's an entirely defensible hypothesis that dovetails nicely with the greater genetic diversity in there.
    , @Factorize
    utu, Exactly!

    Such was the confusion that existed with humans after leaving Africa for tens of thousands of years.
    The humans that left Africa were essentially exiles.
    They had been evicted from the Promised Land.

    The vast void that they confronted once leaving would have felt infinite.
    The one organizing force would have been to diffuse to lower density
    as would occur with Brownian motion. Such random low density particles
    do not congeal into anything more interesting. Neither did humans for tens of
    thousands of years.

    Your depiction of the random Brownian motion of the first humans Out of Africa was very compelling for me. I think that such a description has substantial explanatory power for much
    of how human history has unfolded over the last 100,000 or more years.

    As humans gradually journeyed out of Africa, there would have been this enormous almost endless landscape to fill. Just imagine what it must have been like! Whenever any population density arose some of the people would likely have decided to pack up and move on. Such an environment would have made almost any sense of community or the state essentially impossible. There are many barren polar regions of the world that have never managed to establish any meaningful social cohesion.

    Consider what happens on a crowded bus. As soon as someone gets off, someone standing will take the seat. Once everyone standing is seated people will start moving as far away from others as they can. Something similar would have happened with humans over the last many tens of thousands of years.

    Under such a scenario it is not surprising in the least that we only see the emergence of any meaningful degree of social organization starting about 10,000 years ago. For all the arguments about genetics and the environment on this blog, the fundamental requirement that was needed to begin the process of humanization was likely density/order. This is a testable idea as genetic samples from humans 5000-20000 years ago have been found.

    Yet with Africa a meaningful density effect has probably been operating for upwards of 50,000 years. There should exist deep cultural traditions that have developed possibly over the span of
    tens of thousands of years. Leaving such a homeland for the barrens must have been difficult.

    Even if the migrants themselves were not entirely aware of this, from the bird’s eye view of history, we can say that leaving Africa has significant drawbacks. Africa has its dangers though think of all the entirely novel dangers that would be encountered when leaving and think of leaving what would have been the center of human culture and technology. Encountering other humanoids with possibly higher cognitive ability would have been one such surprise faced by those leaving Africa.

    {On the scale of these many tens of thousands of years genetics would not have been the main limiting factor but the environment. The problem time and time again in psychometrics is that by only looking at a very brief interval of time the powerful role of the environment can be ignored which then transfers the load to genetics. This would all to obvious if one were to jump into a time machine and go back in time 1000 or 10000 years. As we move to an idealized future of a constant environment everything could be loaded on genetics.}

    This makes me think of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. In that book the author suggests that what we understand as human consciousness (Theory of Mind) emerges only relatively recently perhaps 3000 years ago. If the nature of human contact has been as limited as the above discussion suggests then such a recent emergence of humanness might not be so
    far fetched. In fact when first contact was made with some isolated human populations even a few centuries ago one might have observed such an absence of a Theory of Mind in these peoples.

    Many on this blog are likely not big fans of big government or the deep state, though imagine what life would be like without it. Before about 5000 years ago, there are no constructions of collective human effort that can be found. It took humans almost 50,000 years to get it together! It is only after we organized and systematized our world that we have been able to make any forward progress.
    I suppose, though that the counter argument would be that the state is not so much an instrument of progress as a parasite living off the benefits that accrue from human civilization.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Assistant Village Idiot
    Except conservatives give more of their own money than liberals. Almost 50% more. More even if disregarding religious giving. They give more blood and volunteer their time more, too. See "Who Really Cares" by ex-liberal Arthur C. Brooks.

    I have worked in a psychiatric hospital with overwhelmingly liberal staff for 40 years. They will tell you that they are more giving and caring than other people. In fact, they tell it to each other all the time.

    Except conservatives give more of their own money than liberals. Almost 50% more. More even if disregarding religious giving. They give more blood and volunteer their time more, too. See “Who Really Cares” by ex-liberal Arthur C. Brooks.

    That’s because of tax deductions that one gets for donating to a charity. Adjusting for income, I’m 100% sure liberals donate more, to less personal causes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Factorize
    I had not expected this. My original narrative was that those who left Africa might have been more adventurous and perhaps of higher ability. In the journey to new lands various cognitive challenges would have arisen that would have exerted a selective force towards those with higher g.

    In light of this new research, an alternative narrative could be that those leaving Africa were the less favored and less socially and politically entrenched. Leaving Africa at that time must have felt like an excommunication. Whatever existed of human civilization would have been almost entirely concentrated in Africa. Africa would have been THE happening place. All the dot.coms and institutes of higher learning would have been there. By comparison the frontier must have felt barren. In some places of the world, it still does.

    For those migrating out of Africa, near family mating would become almost inevitable. There is evidence that early peoples were aware of the dangers of family members intermarrying, though in small bands of people there often would seem to be few other options. There might have been a sense that the purging of deleterious alleles was impossible; people just made do as best they could. Yet, within the African context, society would be more fully formed and such selection against certain alleles would be more possible.

    These pieces of contrary evidence usually fall from the sky without warning which then a just so workaround to fit everything back into place again. Even the 1500 IQ idea was like finding a sea shell on the sea shore. Would be so much better if we could be a few more steps ahead of these finds and not a few steps behind.

    I think you’re interpreting the whole thing with your modern eyes.

    Early human migrations weren’t like colonial enterprises, it took tens of thousands of years for humans to settle the planet, no human would have died in a very different place from where they were born. They were not like trekkers migrating over long distances on purpose, they were just nomads seizing hunting and gathering opportunities. Also, it’s probable that they copied some survival strategies from neanderthals and denisovans, which made things easier.

    They had no maps, no awareness of landforms, they were moving in random directions, which lead some to leave Africa to Arabia and then the rest of Eurasia and the Americas, others moved to Western Africa, by chance.

    Read More
    • Agree: Okechukwu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @FKA Max
    From my latest comment in the other thread, which might interest you. Check out the astonishing and eye-opening stats and graphs there:

    This is another amazing figure. Close to 8% (!) of the people living and working in the District of Columbia are lawyers, when lawyers only make up about ~0.40% of the U.S. population
    [...]
    In my opinion, lawyers are the main “technicians/managers” and the most skillful “optimizers” of Financialization
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2082825

    Currently, about 88% of lawyers in the U.S. are non-Hispanic whites (this Atlantic article puts the figure at 81% https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/diversity-jobs-professions-america/396632/ ). So, circa 7% of the population of D.C. are non-Hispanic white lawyers.

    In 2015 about 35% of the population of D.C. was non-Hispanic white: https://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/city/Nbr_prof_city.html

    Which means that about 20% of non-Hispanic whites in D.C. are lawyers.

    Since about 65% of lawyers in the U.S. are male and 35% are female, this means 4.55 % of the D.C. population are non-Hispanic white, male lawyers.

    Half of the 35% non-Hispanic white population is male, which is 17.5%.

    So about 26% or roughly 1 in 4 non-Hispanic white males in D.C. is a lawyer!, if my calculations are correct.

    I tried to find religious demographics for the U.S. lawyer population, but was not able to. It would be interesting to see how many of them are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

    This is all I could find:

    And of course, it is a necessary consequence of the great over-representation of Jews in our trade that all other ethnic groups are under-represented. Because a group that is only 2% of the population occupies something like 25% or more of the top law partnerships, that means that white protestants are under-represented by close to 25% as against their share of the population, and white Catholics (such as yours truly) are under-represented by even more. Asians? According to Wikipedia they are now 4.8% of the population, and according to The American Lawyer they are about 6% of big law firm associates and 1.6% of partners. Is this discrimination, reverse discrimination, or just what happens as people seek work that suits them? And then there are ethnic groups that have virtually no representation at all in these big firm partnerships. Middle-Eastern muslims come to mind.
     
    - http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2014/6/5/is-lack-of-diversity-at-big-law-firms-a-crisis

    https://www.practicepanther.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-USA-ABA-Lawyer-attorney-demographics-statistics.png

    Source: https://www.practicepanther.com/2016-us-lawyer-demographics/

    I doubt the supremacy of lawyers over American policies causes the inequalities. The reason why America never adopted European/Canadian-style of welfare state and social-democracy is racism. A large share of the whites oppose social programs for fear that it benefits blacks and immigrants. Race struggle took over class struggle.

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

    I found “self-centerend” for neither profession.
     
    Well, that's not surprising. Did you see "self-centered" by any chance? I am curious what other people see given that I did my experiments with Google in a Chrome incognito window.

    Firstly I’m right, as always.
     
    The best thing about statements like this is that no one is always right so everyone can tell just how full of BS you are. Thanks for making that clear.

    Secondly, logic is something that flies over your head and I’m not seeking to be trusted by people of your kind.
     
    What exactly is my kind, pray tell?

    Well, that’s not surprising. Did you see “self-centered” by any chance? I am curious what other people see given that I did my experiments with Google in a Chrome incognito window.

    LMAO! You’re using incognito windows like a teen hiding his porn browsing activity. Cringey.

    The best thing about statements like this is that no one is always right so everyone can tell just how full of BS you are.

    I’m always right, like every lawyer.

    What exactly is my kind, pray tell?

    Racist loser who uses Chrome incognito.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I use an incognito window for the search completion test (not for my typical browsing) because Google customizes its completion results. That way I get a result that is more likely to be representative of what others see. Idiot.

    I’m always right, like every lawyer.
     
    That sentence is almost true. Every lawyer is not always right, just like you. I suppose I should realize that anyone who would write a sentence like yours is an idiot who does not deserve to be taken seriously.

    I am still waiting for a substantive response to my argument in the other thread where I clearly show you were wrong about your contention "Allele 1 is always deleterious": http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2074519

    Given that I supplied you with a link to the full text for the paper underlying my argument (as you requested) I am surprised not to see a response.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @utu
    I had not expected this. My original narrative was that those who left Africa might have been more adventurous and perhaps of higher ability. In the journey to new lands various cognitive challenges would have arisen that would have exerted a selective force towards those with higher g.

    In light of this new research, an alternative narrative could be that those leaving Africa were the less favored and less socially and politically entrenched. Leaving Africa at that time must have felt like an excommunication.

    Your nonsense about journey and excommunication

    Nobody who was there what now we call Africa knew they were in Africa or anywhere. People were going left or right back and forth. Some were going West, some were going East, North or South. Some where going in circles clock wise and some counter clock wise. Some ended up against the ocean, some against a river, some against mountains. Some stayed and some moved along the river. It was more of a Brownian motion than any journey that you can imagine. Nobody had any map to know where they were and where they were going. They did not have destination, they did not have plans. Some were escaping and some were chasing something or looking for something. But certainly they did not have passports nor American Express cards "In the journey to new lands " and certainly they had no idea they were making a journey. They did not keep diaries and did not take selfies. They did not have any sense where they had been or where were they coming from.

    Your nonsense on diversity

    If the totality of people in Africa had a given genetic diversity it meant that there were many families and groups that different from each other. Any subset that is spatially limited will have smaller diversity than the total set. This is the reason why the genetic diversity of people who ended up away from Africa is smaller that the total diversity of Africans. It does not mean that genetic diversity of Norwegian is smaller than diversity of Pygmy or some tribe in Nigeria. The great diversity of Africa only means that there more tribes and sub races that can hate each other more than Swedes can hate Norwegians because they are more different form each other than Swedes and Norwegians. The only thing they have in common is their dark skin and few other physical features which does not prevent Hutus form killing Tutsis. In term of genes responsible for skin color they are no more diverse than Europeans or Asians. Inter-racial differences account for 80% of total diversity on skin color department which means that intra-racial differences are small.

    Nonsense of taking pride from diversity

    Lots of ignorant Blacks and Africans take a misguided pride in the genetic diversity of Africa. They are not aware that genetic diversity is not defined on individual level. Neither Afrosapience nor you can claim having greater genetic diversity. Because you and him have none. Greater diversity of Africa means that if some plague is going to come as a result of dancing with dead corpses in Madagascar or eating humans in Botswana for some medical purposes that is going to wipe out a lot of people it is possible it will wipe out all Nigerians and Kenyans but there might be a chance that Pygmy will survive because they are sufficiently more different from Nigerians and Kenyans. Only in this sense some Africans may survive. It does not mean that Afrosapience will survive.

    But there are some genes that Europeans are more diverse. For instance c. 10% of Europeans have mutation that makes them resistant to HIV infections while no African has it. This means that African have zero diversity 0*(1-0)=0 while Europeans 0.1*(1-0.1)=0.09.

    Intelligence and diversity nonsense

    On another tread one African took great pride form greater genetic diversity of Africa "deducing" from it that Africans necessarily must be more intelligent. Maximum diversity for a given gene occurs when it is distributed 50/50 in population. If there are some genes responsible for intelligence and Africa has the highest diversity with resect to these genes this means that African intelligence on average is average because 50% will have the genes and 50% will not have the right genes. If on the other hand some population is less diverse and has the distribution 30/70 it will be on average less intelligent than Africa. But population with the same lower diversity but distribution 70/30 will have higher intelligence eon average the Africa. Are Asians or Europeans 30/70 or 70/30? One day we will not for sure but in the meantime there is zero evidence that Africans are smarter than Europeans or Asians.

    Pride for not having Neanderthal genes

    Yes, I met some Blacks for whom the fact of not having Neanderthal genes gives them some sense of superiority. I wonder how widely this meme is spread among AA Blacks and Africans?

    Diversity means that there are more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans. It also means that Africans are more often heterozygote, which protects against harmful recessive alleles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    If heterozygosity is so important then I guess Dominicans, Equatorial Guineans, Costa Ricans, and Brazilians (but not Haitians) must be the master race. See Table 1 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38094802_The_Genetic_Structure_of_Populations_from_Haiti_and_Jamaica_Reflect_Divergent_Demographic_Histories

    I imagine Santoculto will be pleased to learn this. Maybe you are underestimating him.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Diversity ... It also means that Africans are more often heterozygote, which protects against harmful recessive alleles.
     
    Not so.

    Africans are diverse because their social and political arrangements have, until very recent times, been organized on a tribal basis.

    Africa, the least urbanized continent, has a population comprising many relatively homogeneous inbreeding groups, which are less, not more, heterzygous than the population of the European and North American cities now filled with immigrants from throughout the world.

    Thus most Africans still possess a genetic constitution representative of a tribe, rather than a continental or transcontinental outbred population.

    Belonging to inbreeding tribes, i.e., races (although I know you don't understand the meaning of the word race) Africans must have a lower heterozygosity, and hence a lower genetic load, than the increasingly mongrel populations of Europe and the Americas.

    Inbreeding limits the frequency of detrimental genes, i.e., the genetic load, because detrimental genes occur more frequently in the homozygous condition and are eliminated due to mortality or reproductive failure.

    Outbreeding increases the genetic load because detrimental recessive genes are more likely to be masked by good alleles. However, that means that the genetic load in outbreeding populations increases over time. Outbreeding populations thus go through a period of hybrid vigor, evident in the early stages of urbanization first in Europe, then the Americas, Japan, the Asian Tigers, now China and in the future, presumably, Africa.

    A downside to outbreeding is that desirable gene groupings, resulting from various selective pressures, e.g., sexual selection, get broken up. That, I assume, explains at least in part the generally lumpy appearance of so many North Americans, unlike many Africans who are in the many diverse tribal ways, often attractive people (like Canada's indigenous peoples — except when junk food and booze get them, when they become as obese as any American).

    A further downside to outbreeding is that the hybrid vigor that characterizes outbreeding populations initially, gradually fades, leaving a population lacking either unique local adaptation or unusual energy, but possessing a higher genetic load than the inbred populations from which it has been derived.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @FKA Max
    Addendum:

    The 113th Congress is in session. But, who are they?

    Lawyers, mostly.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/china-and-the-us-comparing-leadership-selection/#comment-2080627

    Engineers (65%) are much more trusted than lawyers (18%):

    Nursing Is Seen As The Most Ethical Profession in America; Congress Members, Least

    https://www.healthpopuli.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Gallup-Honesty-and-Ethics-in-Professions-Nurses-Pharmacists-Docs-2016.png

    The Republicans will occasionally put up someone who has scientific training, but not often. The Democrats, never.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    Well, that’s not surprising. Did you see “self-centered” by any chance? I am curious what other people see given that I did my experiments with Google in a Chrome incognito window.
     
    LMAO! You're using incognito windows like a teen hiding his porn browsing activity. Cringey.

    The best thing about statements like this is that no one is always right so everyone can tell just how full of BS you are.
     
    I'm always right, like every lawyer.

    What exactly is my kind, pray tell?
     
    Racist loser who uses Chrome incognito.

    I use an incognito window for the search completion test (not for my typical browsing) because Google customizes its completion results. That way I get a result that is more likely to be representative of what others see. Idiot.

    I’m always right, like every lawyer.

    That sentence is almost true. Every lawyer is not always right, just like you. I suppose I should realize that anyone who would write a sentence like yours is an idiot who does not deserve to be taken seriously.

    I am still waiting for a substantive response to my argument in the other thread where I clearly show you were wrong about your contention “Allele 1 is always deleterious”: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2074519

    Given that I supplied you with a link to the full text for the paper underlying my argument (as you requested) I am surprised not to see a response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Look, I have wasted enough time with you and your cold winters fantasy tales. The evidence that Africans have less genetic load, cognition genes included, is here and all we have to do is to deal with the facts whether we like it or not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. res says:
    @Afrosapiens
    Diversity means that there are more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans. It also means that Africans are more often heterozygote, which protects against harmful recessive alleles.

    If heterozygosity is so important then I guess Dominicans, Equatorial Guineans, Costa Ricans, and Brazilians (but not Haitians) must be the master race. See Table 1 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38094802_The_Genetic_Structure_of_Populations_from_Haiti_and_Jamaica_Reflect_Divergent_Demographic_Histories

    I imagine Santoculto will be pleased to learn this. Maybe you are underestimating him.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    I don't give a damn.
    , @utu
    Some people want to be proud of something. I do not think that pride is a necessary ingredient for a human soul that everybody needs. Happy well adjusted people do not need pride. They don't feel it nor are even aware of it. In fact pride is a toxic ingredient. After all superbia (pride) is the seventh mortal sin for a good reason.

    From the psychological angle one can see that pride serves to compensate or mask some perceived deficits in other areas. Actually when did the BS "I am proud to be American/African/... or of my son or of my dad...." start? When I was growing up in Europe utterances using this pattern were completely unknown. Did it come from the special education classes to make the special kids feel good? Is that where Blacks are getting it from?

    Anyway, I felt kind of sorry as well as embarrassed for the Black guy I met who felt proud that he did not have Neanderthal genes unlike me. Likewise I should feel sorry for A-something or O-something when they clearly derive some degree of pride from the fact that Africa has larger genetic diversity than Europe or Asia. It is interesting because it is clearly an expression of continental nationalism if not chauvinism. Continental pride. What about galactic pride?

    What is the common denominator of Africa to them? If Africa is so diverse A-something or O-something might be more distant from each other than say from some southern Europeans in some genetic respects. So, the common denominator must be the external phenotype, i.e, being black. And this you get from people who will fight you tooth and nail that race does not exist. And then you hear this: "more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans."

    At least they have something to be proud of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @res
    If heterozygosity is so important then I guess Dominicans, Equatorial Guineans, Costa Ricans, and Brazilians (but not Haitians) must be the master race. See Table 1 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38094802_The_Genetic_Structure_of_Populations_from_Haiti_and_Jamaica_Reflect_Divergent_Demographic_Histories

    I imagine Santoculto will be pleased to learn this. Maybe you are underestimating him.

    I don’t give a damn.

    Read More
    • LOL: res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @res
    I use an incognito window for the search completion test (not for my typical browsing) because Google customizes its completion results. That way I get a result that is more likely to be representative of what others see. Idiot.

    I’m always right, like every lawyer.
     
    That sentence is almost true. Every lawyer is not always right, just like you. I suppose I should realize that anyone who would write a sentence like yours is an idiot who does not deserve to be taken seriously.

    I am still waiting for a substantive response to my argument in the other thread where I clearly show you were wrong about your contention "Allele 1 is always deleterious": http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2074519

    Given that I supplied you with a link to the full text for the paper underlying my argument (as you requested) I am surprised not to see a response.

    Look, I have wasted enough time with you and your cold winters fantasy tales. The evidence that Africans have less genetic load, cognition genes included, is here and all we have to do is to deal with the facts whether we like it or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    So no response to that paper I gave you in response to your request. Now we know what you do when you are wrong. Run away...Run away...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPELc1wEvk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. utu says:
    @res
    If heterozygosity is so important then I guess Dominicans, Equatorial Guineans, Costa Ricans, and Brazilians (but not Haitians) must be the master race. See Table 1 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38094802_The_Genetic_Structure_of_Populations_from_Haiti_and_Jamaica_Reflect_Divergent_Demographic_Histories

    I imagine Santoculto will be pleased to learn this. Maybe you are underestimating him.

    Some people want to be proud of something. I do not think that pride is a necessary ingredient for a human soul that everybody needs. Happy well adjusted people do not need pride. They don’t feel it nor are even aware of it. In fact pride is a toxic ingredient. After all superbia (pride) is the seventh mortal sin for a good reason.

    From the psychological angle one can see that pride serves to compensate or mask some perceived deficits in other areas. Actually when did the BS “I am proud to be American/African/… or of my son or of my dad….” start? When I was growing up in Europe utterances using this pattern were completely unknown. Did it come from the special education classes to make the special kids feel good? Is that where Blacks are getting it from?

    Anyway, I felt kind of sorry as well as embarrassed for the Black guy I met who felt proud that he did not have Neanderthal genes unlike me. Likewise I should feel sorry for A-something or O-something when they clearly derive some degree of pride from the fact that Africa has larger genetic diversity than Europe or Asia. It is interesting because it is clearly an expression of continental nationalism if not chauvinism. Continental pride. What about galactic pride?

    What is the common denominator of Africa to them? If Africa is so diverse A-something or O-something might be more distant from each other than say from some southern Europeans in some genetic respects. So, the common denominator must be the external phenotype, i.e, being black. And this you get from people who will fight you tooth and nail that race does not exist. And then you hear this: “more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans.”

    At least they have something to be proud of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    res brought up the master-race strawman out of saltiness. He pathetically missed his target because no matter who is genetically advantaged, I do not believe in genetic determinism.

    Now I can't deny that all these proofs that genes are on my side are extremely delightful to see, because they backfire right on the face of those who made up all sorts of stories to prove our genetic inferiority. Bad karma.

    That said, knowing how the far-right can't stand the idea of black success and knowing the price Jews have paid for topping the social hierarchy makes me think that these guys would use these genetic advantages against us after running out of stories to discredit them.
    , @Okechukwu

    From the psychological angle one can see that pride serves to compensate or mask some perceived deficits in other areas. Actually when did the BS “I am proud to be American/African/… or of my son or of my dad….” start? When I was growing up in Europe utterances using this pattern were completely unknown. Did it come from the special education classes to make the special kids feel good? Is that where Blacks are getting it from?
     
    Of course Europeans aren't proud of being white. The idea of whiteness is a recent and primarily American construct. But you sure as hell have always been proud of your various tribes, nationalities, ethnicities and religious traditions. In fact you've cut each other to pieces for thousands of years over those distinctions.

    Similarly, black conscientiousness is an alien concept in Africa with the exception of those areas where white supremacists constructed a caste system with themselves on top. Obviously, you could never have black power fist pumpers like Stephen Biko or Nelson Mandela in Nigeria.


    And this you get from people who will fight you tooth and nail that race does not exist. And then you hear this: “more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans.”
     
    I don't care if race is real or not. You can have all the races you want. Knock yourself out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. dux.ie says:

    Cont: Creative Problem Solving and Extra Tuitions

    There are also tests for handling vague problems where the students interactively have to know which questions to ask to get a full picture of the problems. To quote from the report,

    The assessment uses simulated real-life problem situations – such as an unfamiliar vending machine, or a malfunctioning electronic device – to measure students’ reasoning skills, their ability to regulate problem-solving processes, and their willingness to do so. These problem-solving skills are key to success in all pursuits, and can be developed in school through curricular subjects.

    So how valid were those lusers’ assertions that those PISA scores high performing countries were based on memory and rote learning? Can memory and rote learning solve non-traditional problems? Here are the results of “creative problem solving’ involving user directed interactions with the computers on vague and ill-defined problems with respect to their standard PISA scores,

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=f28yyo&s=9

    Quotation from the report,

    Results show that students in Singapore and Korea, followed by students in Japan, score higher in problem solving than students in all other participating countries and economies.

    Next come the question of ‘off-school lessons’, i.e. after school tuitions. This topic can be a major study by itself, but here only the relative results are shown. The general results for creative problem solving on static and vague interactive problems are the same. Thus only the results of interactively solving the ill defined problems are shown here. The extreme cases considered were from PISA 2009 the percentages of students in each country who have more than 4 hours of off-school Maths lessons per week. There was no data for Singapore.

    Rank %TuteGt4 Country
    1 22.3 Tunisia
    2 19.9 Korea
    3 19.4 Greece
    4 18.8 Turkey
    5 17.8 Israel

    11 9.0 Macao_China
    12 8.7 HongKong_China
    13 8.7 ChineseTaipei
    14 7.4 Mexico
    18 6.3 UnitedStates
    25 5.1 OECDav ***
    26 5.0 Denmark
    4.8 US White ??
    28 4.7 Canada
    35 4.1 Germany
    40 3.2 Australia
    44 2.8 Japan
    48 2.6 France
    55 1.8 UnitedKingdom
    58 0.9 Finland

    First beside Korea at rank 2 with 19.9%, the values for the rest of East Asians were quite moderate with Japanese at a low value of 2.8%. US at 6.3% was above OECDaverage and not that much below the Chinese and far higher than that for UK at 1.8%.

    Now in real life students normally will stop having extra tuitions if they are not effective. Thus it is normally because of poor performance that requires tuition, otherwise there could be the interpretation of extra tuitions dumbing down the students. In the main the plot supported this reasoning.

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=25stpuc&s=9

    From the plot it become clear there might not be much values for Koreans, Turks, Isrealis, HongKongers, Macaoists and Taiwaneses to have too much extra tuitions, they were more or less locked into arm races which they could not jump out and without much value addition. Japanese with little extra tuitions was performing better than them. Elsewhere in the PISA report asserted that most of the East Asians gained their knowledge during regular school hours. The data have to be extracted from the questionaires dataset and this might not worth the effort. The relationship TuteGt4 and CPS scores is statistically significant only when those outliers are removed.

    TuteGt4=-0.0253429*CPS+16.2215; # n=32; Rsq=0.3759; p=0.0001911 ***

    So why are all those whinges when extra tuitions do not seem to have conferred much extra advantages?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. res says:
    @Afrosapiens
    Look, I have wasted enough time with you and your cold winters fantasy tales. The evidence that Africans have less genetic load, cognition genes included, is here and all we have to do is to deal with the facts whether we like it or not.

    So no response to that paper I gave you in response to your request. Now we know what you do when you are wrong. Run away…Run away…

    Read More
    • Troll: Afrosapiens
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Factorize says:

    1 point? All these enormous resources invested into raising intelligence and we wind up talking about 1 IQ point? How many trillions of dollars of year does this cost?

    Of course, with genetic enhancement it is already clear that we could increase human IQ over 1000 points, and the intelligence increasing benefits would continue generation after generation for eternity. Cost estimates for increasing IQ by 10-20 points already appear to be within range of middle income families in developed nations. When the technology is introduced the IQ gap between nations with economic resources and those without could become (at least temporarily) overwhelming.

    If increasing intelligence through genetic enhancement is thought of being so morally reprehensible, then why do we spend all those trillions of dollars a year and spend all those decades of our lives learning in order to increase our IQs?

    Is there research into the possibility of increasing intelligence past adolescence or early adulthood? From what I understand the literature suggests that brain development continues perhaps into the mid-20s, though I would think that life-long brain development is a possibility.

    The evidence that learning helps prevent dementia has been accumulating for some time.
    Enriched environment as a technique to positively change neuroanatomy has been ongoing for a very long time. Fair enough there might be a distinction between such learning influencing psychometric g and overall psychological well-being/presence of dementia/brain health, though for many of advanced age, preventing dementia would be of greater concern than maximizing g.
    This would change the entire discussion away from what perhaps can’t be done to what can be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. Factorize says:
    @res
    That link is a good example of what you can do, and perhaps a good model to follow (e.g. their field summary). Though there are quite a few blank fields. Doing a database join on that file with another SNP list by rsID might be a good start at what we are looking for (depends on # of SNPs which appear in both).

    I don't think it is the job of the researchers to spoon feed us all of the associated data (e.g. 1000 Genomes SNP frequencies), but I do think it is reasonable to desire them to present their own results in a usable format. Mostly we just need rsIDs and significance/effect size data. Spreadsheets are much better than text tables for doing further analysis.

    Which paper are you talking about again? We have discussed a few and most have SNP lists.

    res, were you able to make any forward progress with finding the SNPs in the biorxiv article?
    Why were the SNP not identified and included in the article?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I have not figured it out. My best guess is that because they were looking at rare and ultra-rare variants that truncated proteins a number of those variants aren't commonly known SNPs so they chose to identify them differently.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @utu
    Some people want to be proud of something. I do not think that pride is a necessary ingredient for a human soul that everybody needs. Happy well adjusted people do not need pride. They don't feel it nor are even aware of it. In fact pride is a toxic ingredient. After all superbia (pride) is the seventh mortal sin for a good reason.

    From the psychological angle one can see that pride serves to compensate or mask some perceived deficits in other areas. Actually when did the BS "I am proud to be American/African/... or of my son or of my dad...." start? When I was growing up in Europe utterances using this pattern were completely unknown. Did it come from the special education classes to make the special kids feel good? Is that where Blacks are getting it from?

    Anyway, I felt kind of sorry as well as embarrassed for the Black guy I met who felt proud that he did not have Neanderthal genes unlike me. Likewise I should feel sorry for A-something or O-something when they clearly derive some degree of pride from the fact that Africa has larger genetic diversity than Europe or Asia. It is interesting because it is clearly an expression of continental nationalism if not chauvinism. Continental pride. What about galactic pride?

    What is the common denominator of Africa to them? If Africa is so diverse A-something or O-something might be more distant from each other than say from some southern Europeans in some genetic respects. So, the common denominator must be the external phenotype, i.e, being black. And this you get from people who will fight you tooth and nail that race does not exist. And then you hear this: "more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans."

    At least they have something to be proud of.

    res brought up the master-race strawman out of saltiness. He pathetically missed his target because no matter who is genetically advantaged, I do not believe in genetic determinism.

    Now I can’t deny that all these proofs that genes are on my side are extremely delightful to see, because they backfire right on the face of those who made up all sorts of stories to prove our genetic inferiority. Bad karma.

    That said, knowing how the far-right can’t stand the idea of black success and knowing the price Jews have paid for topping the social hierarchy makes me think that these guys would use these genetic advantages against us after running out of stories to discredit them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. res says:
    @Factorize
    res, were you able to make any forward progress with finding the SNPs in the biorxiv article?
    Why were the SNP not identified and included in the article?

    I have not figured it out. My best guess is that because they were looking at rare and ultra-rare variants that truncated proteins a number of those variants aren’t commonly known SNPs so they chose to identify them differently.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Okechukwu says:
    @utu
    Some people want to be proud of something. I do not think that pride is a necessary ingredient for a human soul that everybody needs. Happy well adjusted people do not need pride. They don't feel it nor are even aware of it. In fact pride is a toxic ingredient. After all superbia (pride) is the seventh mortal sin for a good reason.

    From the psychological angle one can see that pride serves to compensate or mask some perceived deficits in other areas. Actually when did the BS "I am proud to be American/African/... or of my son or of my dad...." start? When I was growing up in Europe utterances using this pattern were completely unknown. Did it come from the special education classes to make the special kids feel good? Is that where Blacks are getting it from?

    Anyway, I felt kind of sorry as well as embarrassed for the Black guy I met who felt proud that he did not have Neanderthal genes unlike me. Likewise I should feel sorry for A-something or O-something when they clearly derive some degree of pride from the fact that Africa has larger genetic diversity than Europe or Asia. It is interesting because it is clearly an expression of continental nationalism if not chauvinism. Continental pride. What about galactic pride?

    What is the common denominator of Africa to them? If Africa is so diverse A-something or O-something might be more distant from each other than say from some southern Europeans in some genetic respects. So, the common denominator must be the external phenotype, i.e, being black. And this you get from people who will fight you tooth and nail that race does not exist. And then you hear this: "more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans."

    At least they have something to be proud of.

    From the psychological angle one can see that pride serves to compensate or mask some perceived deficits in other areas. Actually when did the BS “I am proud to be American/African/… or of my son or of my dad….” start? When I was growing up in Europe utterances using this pattern were completely unknown. Did it come from the special education classes to make the special kids feel good? Is that where Blacks are getting it from?

    Of course Europeans aren’t proud of being white. The idea of whiteness is a recent and primarily American construct. But you sure as hell have always been proud of your various tribes, nationalities, ethnicities and religious traditions. In fact you’ve cut each other to pieces for thousands of years over those distinctions.

    Similarly, black conscientiousness is an alien concept in Africa with the exception of those areas where white supremacists constructed a caste system with themselves on top. Obviously, you could never have black power fist pumpers like Stephen Biko or Nelson Mandela in Nigeria.

    And this you get from people who will fight you tooth and nail that race does not exist. And then you hear this: “more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans.”

    I don’t care if race is real or not. You can have all the races you want. Knock yourself out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Okechukwu says:
    @utu
    I had not expected this. My original narrative was that those who left Africa might have been more adventurous and perhaps of higher ability. In the journey to new lands various cognitive challenges would have arisen that would have exerted a selective force towards those with higher g.

    In light of this new research, an alternative narrative could be that those leaving Africa were the less favored and less socially and politically entrenched. Leaving Africa at that time must have felt like an excommunication.

    Your nonsense about journey and excommunication

    Nobody who was there what now we call Africa knew they were in Africa or anywhere. People were going left or right back and forth. Some were going West, some were going East, North or South. Some where going in circles clock wise and some counter clock wise. Some ended up against the ocean, some against a river, some against mountains. Some stayed and some moved along the river. It was more of a Brownian motion than any journey that you can imagine. Nobody had any map to know where they were and where they were going. They did not have destination, they did not have plans. Some were escaping and some were chasing something or looking for something. But certainly they did not have passports nor American Express cards "In the journey to new lands " and certainly they had no idea they were making a journey. They did not keep diaries and did not take selfies. They did not have any sense where they had been or where were they coming from.

    Your nonsense on diversity

    If the totality of people in Africa had a given genetic diversity it meant that there were many families and groups that different from each other. Any subset that is spatially limited will have smaller diversity than the total set. This is the reason why the genetic diversity of people who ended up away from Africa is smaller that the total diversity of Africans. It does not mean that genetic diversity of Norwegian is smaller than diversity of Pygmy or some tribe in Nigeria. The great diversity of Africa only means that there more tribes and sub races that can hate each other more than Swedes can hate Norwegians because they are more different form each other than Swedes and Norwegians. The only thing they have in common is their dark skin and few other physical features which does not prevent Hutus form killing Tutsis. In term of genes responsible for skin color they are no more diverse than Europeans or Asians. Inter-racial differences account for 80% of total diversity on skin color department which means that intra-racial differences are small.

    Nonsense of taking pride from diversity

    Lots of ignorant Blacks and Africans take a misguided pride in the genetic diversity of Africa. They are not aware that genetic diversity is not defined on individual level. Neither Afrosapience nor you can claim having greater genetic diversity. Because you and him have none. Greater diversity of Africa means that if some plague is going to come as a result of dancing with dead corpses in Madagascar or eating humans in Botswana for some medical purposes that is going to wipe out a lot of people it is possible it will wipe out all Nigerians and Kenyans but there might be a chance that Pygmy will survive because they are sufficiently more different from Nigerians and Kenyans. Only in this sense some Africans may survive. It does not mean that Afrosapience will survive.

    But there are some genes that Europeans are more diverse. For instance c. 10% of Europeans have mutation that makes them resistant to HIV infections while no African has it. This means that African have zero diversity 0*(1-0)=0 while Europeans 0.1*(1-0.1)=0.09.

    Intelligence and diversity nonsense

    On another tread one African took great pride form greater genetic diversity of Africa "deducing" from it that Africans necessarily must be more intelligent. Maximum diversity for a given gene occurs when it is distributed 50/50 in population. If there are some genes responsible for intelligence and Africa has the highest diversity with resect to these genes this means that African intelligence on average is average because 50% will have the genes and 50% will not have the right genes. If on the other hand some population is less diverse and has the distribution 30/70 it will be on average less intelligent than Africa. But population with the same lower diversity but distribution 70/30 will have higher intelligence eon average the Africa. Are Asians or Europeans 30/70 or 70/30? One day we will not for sure but in the meantime there is zero evidence that Africans are smarter than Europeans or Asians.

    Pride for not having Neanderthal genes

    Yes, I met some Blacks for whom the fact of not having Neanderthal genes gives them some sense of superiority. I wonder how widely this meme is spread among AA Blacks and Africans?

    The great diversity of Africa only means that there more tribes and sub races that can hate each other more than Swedes can hate Norwegians because they are more different form each other than Swedes and Norwegians.

    But nobody has butchered each other more than than the relatively inbred and bottlenecked Europeans.

    In term of genes responsible for skin color they are no more diverse than Europeans or Asians.

    That’s incorrect. I have very dark (almost black) and very light (almost white) people in my immediate family. And, of course, a wide spectrum in between. I have more skin color diversity in my family alone than exists in all of white Europe.

    Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126724

    And,

    Most people associate Africans with dark skin. But different groups of people in Africa have almost every skin color on the planet, from deepest black in the Dinka of South Sudan to beige in the San of South Africa. Now, researchers have discovered a handful of new gene variants responsible for this palette of tones.

    The study, published online this week in Science, traces the evolution of these genes and how they traveled around the world. While the dark skin of some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Africa, gene variants from Eurasia also seem to have made their way back to Africa. And surprisingly, some of the mutations responsible for lighter skin in Europeans turn out to have an ancient African origin.

    https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/scientist-discover-skin-color-diversity-in-ancient-africa.1285576/

    But there are some genes that Europeans are more diverse. For instance c. 10% of Europeans have mutation that makes them resistant to HIV infections while no African has it.

    That’s incorrect.

    In South Africa, a rare group of children unknowingly find themselves resistant to the effects of HIV.
    Even without antiretroviral treatment, they will never develop AIDS, or so scientists believe.
    Unlike adults and other children who succumb to the virus if not treated — enabling it to attack their immune cells and weakening their immunity to disease — these kids harbor huge amounts of HIV within their blood but remain unscathed.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/health/rare-children-resistant-to-aids-through-built-in-defense-system/index.html

    On another tread one African took great pride form greater genetic diversity of Africa “deducing” from it that Africans necessarily must be more intelligent.

    What I’ve said is that I believe the smartest people will be found in Africa. It’s an entirely defensible hypothesis that dovetails nicely with the greater genetic diversity in there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    What I’ve said is that I believe the smartest people will be found in Africa. It’s an entirely defensible hypothesis that dovetails nicely with the greater genetic diversity in there.
     
    This is my hypothesis, excerpts:

    Taller people have on average bigger/wider arteries, and thus on average better-blood-supplied brains, in my opinion
    [...]
    But you forgot to factor in Bergmann’s Rule in your analysis, which, in my opinion, would predict racial differences in IQ/intelligence caused by climate/temperature via bigger/wider arteries in taller/bigger human beings who live far away from the equator http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185 , which translates, as I stated above into “better-blood-supplied brains,” i.e., higher intelligence.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1850648

    There are also differences between the heights of the different Nilotic peoples/tribes, plus the population of that group is not huge either; I am not exactly sure but I think it is maybe around 20 to 25 million(?), and again, their height is mostly due to their long limbs, so I am not sure their arteries would as big/wide as an equally tall, but bigger/heavier, Nordic person’s ones; which would explain their on average lower intelligence compared to Northern Europeans, despite their tallness
    [...]
    Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1851599
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Afrosapiens
    Diversity means that there are more variants which are unique to Africans than to non-Africans. It also means that Africans are more often heterozygote, which protects against harmful recessive alleles.

    Diversity … It also means that Africans are more often heterozygote, which protects against harmful recessive alleles.

    Not so.

    Africans are diverse because their social and political arrangements have, until very recent times, been organized on a tribal basis.

    Africa, the least urbanized continent, has a population comprising many relatively homogeneous inbreeding groups, which are less, not more, heterzygous than the population of the European and North American cities now filled with immigrants from throughout the world.

    Thus most Africans still possess a genetic constitution representative of a tribe, rather than a continental or transcontinental outbred population.

    Belonging to inbreeding tribes, i.e., races (although I know you don’t understand the meaning of the word race) Africans must have a lower heterozygosity, and hence a lower genetic load, than the increasingly mongrel populations of Europe and the Americas.

    Inbreeding limits the frequency of detrimental genes, i.e., the genetic load, because detrimental genes occur more frequently in the homozygous condition and are eliminated due to mortality or reproductive failure.

    Outbreeding increases the genetic load because detrimental recessive genes are more likely to be masked by good alleles. However, that means that the genetic load in outbreeding populations increases over time. Outbreeding populations thus go through a period of hybrid vigor, evident in the early stages of urbanization first in Europe, then the Americas, Japan, the Asian Tigers, now China and in the future, presumably, Africa.

    A downside to outbreeding is that desirable gene groupings, resulting from various selective pressures, e.g., sexual selection, get broken up. That, I assume, explains at least in part the generally lumpy appearance of so many North Americans, unlike many Africans who are in the many diverse tribal ways, often attractive people (like Canada’s indigenous peoples — except when junk food and booze get them, when they become as obese as any American).

    A further downside to outbreeding is that the hybrid vigor that characterizes outbreeding populations initially, gradually fades, leaving a population lacking either unique local adaptation or unusual energy, but possessing a higher genetic load than the inbred populations from which it has been derived.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Interesting comment.

    Inbreeding limits the frequency of detrimental genes, i.e., the genetic load, because detrimental genes occur more frequently in the homozygous condition and are eliminated due to mortality or reproductive failure.
     
    What you do make of the following:


    Inbreeding and risk of late onset complex disease

    http://jmg.bmj.com/content/40/12/925.full

    The impact of inbreeding on reproduction, childhood mortality, and Mendelian disorders is well documented.2,3 In contrast, very little has been published on the effects of inbreeding on late onset diseases. This is despite the fact that inbreeding may have a greater influence on late onset traits than on traits that are subject to early selection.6,7 This study shows an important effect of inbreeding on several genetically complex late onset diseases which are of major public health importance.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/gnxp/middle-eastern-populations-have-higher-recessive-disease-load/#comment-1515804

    Characterization of Greater Middle Eastern genetic variation for enhanced disease gene discovery

    Here we generated a whole-exome GME variome from 1,111 unrelated subjects. We detected substantial diversity and admixture in continental and subregional populations, corresponding to several ancient founder populations with little evidence of bottlenecks. Measured consanguinity rates were an order of magnitude above those in other sampled populations, and the GME population exhibited an increased burden of runs of homozygosity (ROHs) but showed no evidence for reduced burden of deleterious variation due to classically theorized 'genetic purging'.
    - https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3592

    Middle Eastern Populations Have Higher Recessive Disease Load

    For me this was the most interesting, and sad, result:

    Despite millennia of elevated rates of consanguinity in the GME, we detected no evidence for purging of recessive alleles. Instead, we detected large, rare homozygous blocks, distinct from the small homozygous blocks found in other populations, supporting the occurrence of recent consanguineous matings and allowing the identification of genes harboring putatively high-impact homozygous variants in healthy humans from this population.
    [...]
    The theory is simple. If you have inbreeding, you bring together deleterious recessive alleles, and so they get exposed to selection. In this way you can purge the segregating genetic load. It works with plants. But humans, and complex animals in general, are not plants. More precisely the authors “compared the distributions of derived allele frequencies (DAFs) in GME and 1000 Genomes Project populations.” If the load was being purged the frequency of deleterious alleles should be lower in the inbreeding populations. It wasn’t.

    Middle Easterners should stop marrying cousins to reduce the disease load. But that’s just a recommendation. Some of these nations, like Qatar, have a lot of money to throw at Mendelian diseases. Perhaps they’ll use preimplantation genetic diagnosis? I don’t know.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/gnxp/middle-eastern-populations-have-higher-recessive-disease-load/
    , @Afrosapiens
    Whatever!

    Heterozygosity decreases with distance from Africa:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wrj4xP9VGaE/V-2gqS1yuzI/AAAAAAAADXk/bnTQ0A1WS3MYsJP4w_luHZ5Dq9p4JCCyACLcB/s1600/admixture.png

    Heterozygote advantage:

    A heterozygote advantage describes the case in which the heterozygous genotype has a higher relative fitness than either the homozygous dominant or homozygous recessive genotype. The specific case of heterozygote advantage due to a single locus is known as overdominance.[1][2] In more general terms, overdominance is a condition in genetics where the phenotype of the heterozygote lies outside of the phenotypical range of both homozygote parents, and heterozygous individuals have a higher fitness than homozygous individuals.

    Polymorphism can be maintained by selection favoring the heterozygote, and this mechanism is used to explain the occurrence of some kinds of genetic variability. A common example is the case where the heterozygote conveys both advantages and disadvantages, while both homozygotes convey a disadvantage. A well-established case of heterozygote advantage is that of the gene involved in sickle cell anaemia.

    Often, the advantages and disadvantages conveyed are rather complicated, because more than one gene may influence a given trait or morph. Major genes almost always have multiple effects (pleiotropism), which can simultaneously convey separate advantageous traits and disadvantageous traits upon the same organism. In this instance, the state of the organism's environment will provide selection, with a net effect either favoring or working in opposition to the gene, until an environmentally determined equilibrium is reached.

    Heterozygote advantage is a major underlying mechanism for heterosis, or "hybrid vigor", which is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. Previous research, comparing measures of dominance, overdominance and epistasis (mostly in plants), found that the majority of cases of heterozygote advantage were due to complementation (or dominance), the masking of deleterious recessive alleles by wild-type alleles, as discussed in the articles Heterosis and Complementation (genetics), but there were also findings of overdominance, especially in rice.[2] More recent research, however, has established that there is also an epigenetic contribution to heterozygote advantage, primarily as determined in plants,[3][4] though also reported in mice.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage
    , @utu
    Good that you are trying to clarify the confusion sown by the semi-educated with the heterozygosity fetish. Let me add this:

    Genetic diversity and heterozygosity are not the same things unless the population is in the Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium. Two populations may have the same genetic diversities but different heterozygosities because of, say different levels of inbreeding. This is fairly simple to see when only two alleles are considered. In cases of many alleles it is more complicated. It is possible to have a population with higher heterozygosity that has lower allelic richness which is the average number of alleles per locus. Which of the two population is more genetically diverse?

    For two alleles locus the highest genetic diversity occurs when p=q=0.5 regardless whether there is high or low heterozygosity. The measure of genetic diversity is 2pq which also is the frequency of heterozygosity in Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium. For three alleles the highest diversity occurs when p=q=r=1/3. Then the measure of genetic diversity is 2pq+2pr+2qr.

    Population that is less genetically diverse, i..e, p≠q may have higher heterozygosity than population that is maximally diverse, i.e, p=q.

    Then there is a difference of between the actual and expected heterozygosity. Not always heterozygosity is measured directly. Rather it is estimated from frequencies p and q and expressed as 2pq that presupposes the Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium.

    The bottom line is that the highest genetic diversity is reached when alleles are distributed uniformly, i.e., when they have the same frequencies of occurrence. In less diverse populations that are below the maximum diversity one allele will have larger frequency than others. If it happens that this more frequent allele is beneficial, this population will have an advantage over the population that has maximum genetic diversity where this beneficial allele has the same frequency as the non beneficial alleles. In other words high genetic diversity does not imply advantage.

    If there are genes that are responsible for intelligence, the least genetically diverse population that maximizes the frequencies of these genes will have the highest average intelligence. The average intelligence of the most genetically diverse population will be merely average.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. FKA Max says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    Diversity ... It also means that Africans are more often heterozygote, which protects against harmful recessive alleles.
     
    Not so.

    Africans are diverse because their social and political arrangements have, until very recent times, been organized on a tribal basis.

    Africa, the least urbanized continent, has a population comprising many relatively homogeneous inbreeding groups, which are less, not more, heterzygous than the population of the European and North American cities now filled with immigrants from throughout the world.

    Thus most Africans still possess a genetic constitution representative of a tribe, rather than a continental or transcontinental outbred population.

    Belonging to inbreeding tribes, i.e., races (although I know you don't understand the meaning of the word race) Africans must have a lower heterozygosity, and hence a lower genetic load, than the increasingly mongrel populations of Europe and the Americas.

    Inbreeding limits the frequency of detrimental genes, i.e., the genetic load, because detrimental genes occur more frequently in the homozygous condition and are eliminated due to mortality or reproductive failure.

    Outbreeding increases the genetic load because detrimental recessive genes are more likely to be masked by good alleles. However, that means that the genetic load in outbreeding populations increases over time. Outbreeding populations thus go through a period of hybrid vigor, evident in the early stages of urbanization first in Europe, then the Americas, Japan, the Asian Tigers, now China and in the future, presumably, Africa.

    A downside to outbreeding is that desirable gene groupings, resulting from various selective pressures, e.g., sexual selection, get broken up. That, I assume, explains at least in part the generally lumpy appearance of so many North Americans, unlike many Africans who are in the many diverse tribal ways, often attractive people (like Canada's indigenous peoples — except when junk food and booze get them, when they become as obese as any American).

    A further downside to outbreeding is that the hybrid vigor that characterizes outbreeding populations initially, gradually fades, leaving a population lacking either unique local adaptation or unusual energy, but possessing a higher genetic load than the inbred populations from which it has been derived.

    Interesting comment.

    Inbreeding limits the frequency of detrimental genes, i.e., the genetic load, because detrimental genes occur more frequently in the homozygous condition and are eliminated due to mortality or reproductive failure.

    What you do make of the following:

    Inbreeding and risk of late onset complex disease

    http://jmg.bmj.com/content/40/12/925.full

    The impact of inbreeding on reproduction, childhood mortality, and Mendelian disorders is well documented.2,3 In contrast, very little has been published on the effects of inbreeding on late onset diseases. This is despite the fact that inbreeding may have a greater influence on late onset traits than on traits that are subject to early selection.6,7 This study shows an important effect of inbreeding on several genetically complex late onset diseases which are of major public health importance.

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/middle-eastern-populations-have-higher-recessive-disease-load/#comment-1515804

    Characterization of Greater Middle Eastern genetic variation for enhanced disease gene discovery

    Here we generated a whole-exome GME variome from 1,111 unrelated subjects. We detected substantial diversity and admixture in continental and subregional populations, corresponding to several ancient founder populations with little evidence of bottlenecks. Measured consanguinity rates were an order of magnitude above those in other sampled populations, and the GME population exhibited an increased burden of runs of homozygosity (ROHs) but showed no evidence for reduced burden of deleterious variation due to classically theorized ‘genetic purging’.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3592

    Middle Eastern Populations Have Higher Recessive Disease Load

    For me this was the most interesting, and sad, result:

    Despite millennia of elevated rates of consanguinity in the GME, we detected no evidence for purging of recessive alleles. Instead, we detected large, rare homozygous blocks, distinct from the small homozygous blocks found in other populations, supporting the occurrence of recent consanguineous matings and allowing the identification of genes harboring putatively high-impact homozygous variants in healthy humans from this population.
    [...]
    The theory is simple. If you have inbreeding, you bring together deleterious recessive alleles, and so they get exposed to selection. In this way you can purge the segregating genetic load. It works with plants. But humans, and complex animals in general, are not plants. More precisely the authors “compared the distributions of derived allele frequencies (DAFs) in GME and 1000 Genomes Project populations.” If the load was being purged the frequency of deleterious alleles should be lower in the inbreeding populations. It wasn’t.

    Middle Easterners should stop marrying cousins to reduce the disease load. But that’s just a recommendation. Some of these nations, like Qatar, have a lot of money to throw at Mendelian diseases. Perhaps they’ll use preimplantation genetic diagnosis? I don’t know.

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/middle-eastern-populations-have-higher-recessive-disease-load/

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

    Diversity ... It also means that Africans are more often heterozygote, which protects against harmful recessive alleles.
     
    Not so.

    Africans are diverse because their social and political arrangements have, until very recent times, been organized on a tribal basis.

    Africa, the least urbanized continent, has a population comprising many relatively homogeneous inbreeding groups, which are less, not more, heterzygous than the population of the European and North American cities now filled with immigrants from throughout the world.

    Thus most Africans still possess a genetic constitution representative of a tribe, rather than a continental or transcontinental outbred population.

    Belonging to inbreeding tribes, i.e., races (although I know you don't understand the meaning of the word race) Africans must have a lower heterozygosity, and hence a lower genetic load, than the increasingly mongrel populations of Europe and the Americas.

    Inbreeding limits the frequency of detrimental genes, i.e., the genetic load, because detrimental genes occur more frequently in the homozygous condition and are eliminated due to mortality or reproductive failure.

    Outbreeding increases the genetic load because detrimental recessive genes are more likely to be masked by good alleles. However, that means that the genetic load in outbreeding populations increases over time. Outbreeding populations thus go through a period of hybrid vigor, evident in the early stages of urbanization first in Europe, then the Americas, Japan, the Asian Tigers, now China and in the future, presumably, Africa.

    A downside to outbreeding is that desirable gene groupings, resulting from various selective pressures, e.g., sexual selection, get broken up. That, I assume, explains at least in part the generally lumpy appearance of so many North Americans, unlike many Africans who are in the many diverse tribal ways, often attractive people (like Canada's indigenous peoples — except when junk food and booze get them, when they become as obese as any American).

    A further downside to outbreeding is that the hybrid vigor that characterizes outbreeding populations initially, gradually fades, leaving a population lacking either unique local adaptation or unusual energy, but possessing a higher genetic load than the inbred populations from which it has been derived.

    Whatever!

    Heterozygosity decreases with distance from Africa:

    Heterozygote advantage:

    A heterozygote advantage describes the case in which the heterozygous genotype has a higher relative fitness than either the homozygous dominant or homozygous recessive genotype. The specific case of heterozygote advantage due to a single locus is known as overdominance.[1][2] In more general terms, overdominance is a condition in genetics where the phenotype of the heterozygote lies outside of the phenotypical range of both homozygote parents, and heterozygous individuals have a higher fitness than homozygous individuals.

    Polymorphism can be maintained by selection favoring the heterozygote, and this mechanism is used to explain the occurrence of some kinds of genetic variability. A common example is the case where the heterozygote conveys both advantages and disadvantages, while both homozygotes convey a disadvantage. A well-established case of heterozygote advantage is that of the gene involved in sickle cell anaemia.

    Often, the advantages and disadvantages conveyed are rather complicated, because more than one gene may influence a given trait or morph. Major genes almost always have multiple effects (pleiotropism), which can simultaneously convey separate advantageous traits and disadvantageous traits upon the same organism. In this instance, the state of the organism’s environment will provide selection, with a net effect either favoring or working in opposition to the gene, until an environmentally determined equilibrium is reached.

    Heterozygote advantage is a major underlying mechanism for heterosis, or “hybrid vigor”, which is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. Previous research, comparing measures of dominance, overdominance and epistasis (mostly in plants), found that the majority of cases of heterozygote advantage were due to complementation (or dominance), the masking of deleterious recessive alleles by wild-type alleles, as discussed in the articles Heterosis and Complementation (genetics), but there were also findings of overdominance, especially in rice.[2] More recent research, however, has established that there is also an epigenetic contribution to heterozygote advantage, primarily as determined in plants,[3][4] though also reported in mice.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    You might want to have a look at this paper:

    Genomic Patterns of Homozygosity in Worldwide Human Populations

    Per-individual total lengths of class A and class B ROH that reflect LD patterns are lowest in populations from Africa, rising in a stepwise fashion in successive continental groups and having relatively similar values within continents. This finding can be explained as a consequence of a serial-migration model outward from Africa; each migration decreases effective population size, generating LD, reducing haplotype diversity, and increasing the probability that identical copies of the same long haplotype will pair together in the same individual. The per-individual total lengths of class C ROH, which result largely from inbreeding, do not follow such a pattern and are instead most frequent in populations where isolation and consanguineous unions are more common. The different continental patterns observed for different ROH classes therefore reflect the distinct forces generating ROH of different sizes.
    - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415543/

    runs of homozygosity again

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/runs-of-homozygosity-again/

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/genomic-patterns-of-homozygosity-in-worldwide-human-populations-figure-s4-highlighted-by-h-chick.jpg

    cousin marriage in sub-saharan africa

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/cousin-marriage-in-sub-saharan-africa/
    , @CanSpeccy
    You'd do well to stick to the law, Afro.

    Because Africans have the greatest diversity of any continental indigenous population, it doesn't make them highly heterozygous.

    It is outbreeding among formerly inbreeding populations that results in to high heterozygosity. So yes, where Africans from all over the continent get together and interbreed you have high heterozygosity. Presumably that's what you have in Liberia, and the African-American community.

    But most Africans are still visibly members of distinct tribes. That's why some guys with origins in West Africa run very fast, but only for a short distance, whereas some guys with origins in East Africans can run only rather slowly but for many miles without much sign of stress. And that, of course, barely touches the vast morphological and physiological diversity of Africa's tribes.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Re: Measured consanguinity rates were an order of magnitude above those in other sampled populations, and the GME population exhibited an increased burden of runs of homozygosity (ROHs) but showed no evidence for reduced burden of deleterious variation due to classically theorized ‘genetic purging’.
     
    I seem to remember receiving an A (or maybe it was an A minus — memory is said to be untrustworthy on such details) for an essay I wrote, God knows how long ago, that dealt with this question. What I concluded, based on some rough and ready calculations, was that inbreeding does not purge lethal recessive genes entirely, although it must obviously keep the frequency in check since the homozygote is, well, lethal.

    But when you go from a pattern of inbreeding to one of outbreeding, the number of lethal or deleterious (L/D) recessive genes in the population will increase, since each population has its own unique collection of deleterious genes. However, the probability of having any particular L/D gene out of the combined set will be reduced. Hence the risk that any particular fertilized egg will be heterozygous for an L/D gene will be less than was the case when inbreeding dominated. Thus, the intensity of purging of L/D genes will diminish, and the frequency of all L/D genes, i.e., the genetic load, will inexorably rise.

    The Passenger pigeon, of which there were several billions in North America prior to the arrival of the white man, was highly genetically homogeneous. That, it has been postulated, was the reason it failed to survive the presence of men with guns. It had one genetically determined mode of existence, with no options to survive a change in environment. Humanity, under the whip of the globalist elite seems headed the way of the Passenger pigeon: genetic uniformity through global migration and racial mongrelization.

    To mention the undesirability of the ongoing globalist project for the genocide of national groups (particularly the Europeans) is, of course taboo, and will generate a paeon of contemptuous ridicule and hate speech from brainwashed biological illiterates.

    , @jorge videla (BGI volunteer)
    Non potrò mai perdonare afrochamberlain per avermi dato herpes, hiv e sifilide.

    ---Paul VI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Afrosapiens
    Whatever!

    Heterozygosity decreases with distance from Africa:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wrj4xP9VGaE/V-2gqS1yuzI/AAAAAAAADXk/bnTQ0A1WS3MYsJP4w_luHZ5Dq9p4JCCyACLcB/s1600/admixture.png

    Heterozygote advantage:

    A heterozygote advantage describes the case in which the heterozygous genotype has a higher relative fitness than either the homozygous dominant or homozygous recessive genotype. The specific case of heterozygote advantage due to a single locus is known as overdominance.[1][2] In more general terms, overdominance is a condition in genetics where the phenotype of the heterozygote lies outside of the phenotypical range of both homozygote parents, and heterozygous individuals have a higher fitness than homozygous individuals.

    Polymorphism can be maintained by selection favoring the heterozygote, and this mechanism is used to explain the occurrence of some kinds of genetic variability. A common example is the case where the heterozygote conveys both advantages and disadvantages, while both homozygotes convey a disadvantage. A well-established case of heterozygote advantage is that of the gene involved in sickle cell anaemia.

    Often, the advantages and disadvantages conveyed are rather complicated, because more than one gene may influence a given trait or morph. Major genes almost always have multiple effects (pleiotropism), which can simultaneously convey separate advantageous traits and disadvantageous traits upon the same organism. In this instance, the state of the organism's environment will provide selection, with a net effect either favoring or working in opposition to the gene, until an environmentally determined equilibrium is reached.

    Heterozygote advantage is a major underlying mechanism for heterosis, or "hybrid vigor", which is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. Previous research, comparing measures of dominance, overdominance and epistasis (mostly in plants), found that the majority of cases of heterozygote advantage were due to complementation (or dominance), the masking of deleterious recessive alleles by wild-type alleles, as discussed in the articles Heterosis and Complementation (genetics), but there were also findings of overdominance, especially in rice.[2] More recent research, however, has established that there is also an epigenetic contribution to heterozygote advantage, primarily as determined in plants,[3][4] though also reported in mice.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage

    You might want to have a look at this paper:

    Genomic Patterns of Homozygosity in Worldwide Human Populations

    Per-individual total lengths of class A and class B ROH that reflect LD patterns are lowest in populations from Africa, rising in a stepwise fashion in successive continental groups and having relatively similar values within continents. This finding can be explained as a consequence of a serial-migration model outward from Africa; each migration decreases effective population size, generating LD, reducing haplotype diversity, and increasing the probability that identical copies of the same long haplotype will pair together in the same individual. The per-individual total lengths of class C ROH, which result largely from inbreeding, do not follow such a pattern and are instead most frequent in populations where isolation and consanguineous unions are more common. The different continental patterns observed for different ROH classes therefore reflect the distinct forces generating ROH of different sizes.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415543/

    runs of homozygosity again

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/runs-of-homozygosity-again/

    cousin marriage in sub-saharan africa

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/cousin-marriage-in-sub-saharan-africa/

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Some more details on how to read the data:

    runs of homozygosity and inbreeding (and outbreeding)


    inbreeding with close relatives — like marrying your first- or second-cousins (consanguineous matings) — leads to long roh since you share so much of your dna with your closest family members. endogamous mating — just mating within your population but not your close cousins — also leads to roh, but not ones as long as mating with your close relatives. you share dna with others in your population (say your clan or your ethnic group), but not so much of exactly the same dna or genes in certain stretches as with your closer relatives. a population will little genetic diversity, but that does not inbreed, will have lots of short roh — they share a lot of stretches of dna in common, but all of the outbreeding shuffles up the genomes within the population.

    so that’s:

    – long roh [is C] = inbreeding, probably consanguineous (first-/second-cousin matings)
    – medium roh [is B] = endogmaous mating within a population
    – short roh [is A] = little genetic diversity in the population probably from an event like a population bottleneck

    i’m oversimplifying, but that’s the gist of it.
     

    - https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/runs-of-homozygosity-and-inbreeding-and-outbreeding/

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/genomic-patterns-of-homozygosity-in-worldwide-human-populations-figure-s3-highlighted-by-h-chick.jpg

    the interesting thing in the first chart above (Fig. S3 – Mean ROH Length for Each of the Three Size Classes in Each Population), is that the han chinese have lower means of roh length in all of the size classes compared to the other populations i’ve highlighted. in the previous study, the researchers found that east asians had similar means to europeans for all roh lengths. i found this surprising since, from what i’ve read, the han chinese have been inbreeding for a longer period of time than europeans. what might be confounding the results though, once again, is the fact that nw europeans (the outbreeders extraordinaire) are not really included in either of these studies apart from a handful of french samples.

    See above comment for Fig. S4:

    if you look at the second chart (Fig. S4 – Total Number of ROH in Individual Genomes), however, you’ll see that, overall, the han chinese have more short, medium and long roh totally in individual genomes than any of the other three populations i’ve highlighted. both the bedouins and the pashtuns have greater numbers/wider total spread of long roh than the italians, but the han chinese have a much greater total number of long roh than any of the other three groups — three or four times as many.

    but they’re, on average, shorter long roh don’t forget. (confusing, eh?!)

    perhaps this is what you get when you have — as the chinese have had — a pretty good-sized effective population size for such a long time. there have been a LOT of han chinese for — wow — millennia.

    Source: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/runs-of-homozygosity-again/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Afrosapiens
    Whatever!

    Heterozygosity decreases with distance from Africa:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wrj4xP9VGaE/V-2gqS1yuzI/AAAAAAAADXk/bnTQ0A1WS3MYsJP4w_luHZ5Dq9p4JCCyACLcB/s1600/admixture.png

    Heterozygote advantage:

    A heterozygote advantage describes the case in which the heterozygous genotype has a higher relative fitness than either the homozygous dominant or homozygous recessive genotype. The specific case of heterozygote advantage due to a single locus is known as overdominance.[1][2] In more general terms, overdominance is a condition in genetics where the phenotype of the heterozygote lies outside of the phenotypical range of both homozygote parents, and heterozygous individuals have a higher fitness than homozygous individuals.

    Polymorphism can be maintained by selection favoring the heterozygote, and this mechanism is used to explain the occurrence of some kinds of genetic variability. A common example is the case where the heterozygote conveys both advantages and disadvantages, while both homozygotes convey a disadvantage. A well-established case of heterozygote advantage is that of the gene involved in sickle cell anaemia.

    Often, the advantages and disadvantages conveyed are rather complicated, because more than one gene may influence a given trait or morph. Major genes almost always have multiple effects (pleiotropism), which can simultaneously convey separate advantageous traits and disadvantageous traits upon the same organism. In this instance, the state of the organism's environment will provide selection, with a net effect either favoring or working in opposition to the gene, until an environmentally determined equilibrium is reached.

    Heterozygote advantage is a major underlying mechanism for heterosis, or "hybrid vigor", which is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. Previous research, comparing measures of dominance, overdominance and epistasis (mostly in plants), found that the majority of cases of heterozygote advantage were due to complementation (or dominance), the masking of deleterious recessive alleles by wild-type alleles, as discussed in the articles Heterosis and Complementation (genetics), but there were also findings of overdominance, especially in rice.[2] More recent research, however, has established that there is also an epigenetic contribution to heterozygote advantage, primarily as determined in plants,[3][4] though also reported in mice.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage

    You’d do well to stick to the law, Afro.

    Because Africans have the greatest diversity of any continental indigenous population, it doesn’t make them highly heterozygous.

    It is outbreeding among formerly inbreeding populations that results in to high heterozygosity. So yes, where Africans from all over the continent get together and interbreed you have high heterozygosity. Presumably that’s what you have in Liberia, and the African-American community.

    But most Africans are still visibly members of distinct tribes. That’s why some guys with origins in West Africa run very fast, but only for a short distance, whereas some guys with origins in East Africans can run only rather slowly but for many miles without much sign of stress. And that, of course, barely touches the vast morphological and physiological diversity of Africa’s tribes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Afrosapiens
    Whatever!

    Heterozygosity decreases with distance from Africa:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wrj4xP9VGaE/V-2gqS1yuzI/AAAAAAAADXk/bnTQ0A1WS3MYsJP4w_luHZ5Dq9p4JCCyACLcB/s1600/admixture.png

    Heterozygote advantage:

    A heterozygote advantage describes the case in which the heterozygous genotype has a higher relative fitness than either the homozygous dominant or homozygous recessive genotype. The specific case of heterozygote advantage due to a single locus is known as overdominance.[1][2] In more general terms, overdominance is a condition in genetics where the phenotype of the heterozygote lies outside of the phenotypical range of both homozygote parents, and heterozygous individuals have a higher fitness than homozygous individuals.

    Polymorphism can be maintained by selection favoring the heterozygote, and this mechanism is used to explain the occurrence of some kinds of genetic variability. A common example is the case where the heterozygote conveys both advantages and disadvantages, while both homozygotes convey a disadvantage. A well-established case of heterozygote advantage is that of the gene involved in sickle cell anaemia.

    Often, the advantages and disadvantages conveyed are rather complicated, because more than one gene may influence a given trait or morph. Major genes almost always have multiple effects (pleiotropism), which can simultaneously convey separate advantageous traits and disadvantageous traits upon the same organism. In this instance, the state of the organism's environment will provide selection, with a net effect either favoring or working in opposition to the gene, until an environmentally determined equilibrium is reached.

    Heterozygote advantage is a major underlying mechanism for heterosis, or "hybrid vigor", which is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. Previous research, comparing measures of dominance, overdominance and epistasis (mostly in plants), found that the majority of cases of heterozygote advantage were due to complementation (or dominance), the masking of deleterious recessive alleles by wild-type alleles, as discussed in the articles Heterosis and Complementation (genetics), but there were also findings of overdominance, especially in rice.[2] More recent research, however, has established that there is also an epigenetic contribution to heterozygote advantage, primarily as determined in plants,[3][4] though also reported in mice.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage

    Re: Measured consanguinity rates were an order of magnitude above those in other sampled populations, and the GME population exhibited an increased burden of runs of homozygosity (ROHs) but showed no evidence for reduced burden of deleterious variation due to classically theorized ‘genetic purging’.

    I seem to remember receiving an A (or maybe it was an A minus — memory is said to be untrustworthy on such details) for an essay I wrote, God knows how long ago, that dealt with this question. What I concluded, based on some rough and ready calculations, was that inbreeding does not purge lethal recessive genes entirely, although it must obviously keep the frequency in check since the homozygote is, well, lethal.

    But when you go from a pattern of inbreeding to one of outbreeding, the number of lethal or deleterious (L/D) recessive genes in the population will increase, since each population has its own unique collection of deleterious genes. However, the probability of having any particular L/D gene out of the combined set will be reduced. Hence the risk that any particular fertilized egg will be heterozygous for an L/D gene will be less than was the case when inbreeding dominated. Thus, the intensity of purging of L/D genes will diminish, and the frequency of all L/D genes, i.e., the genetic load, will inexorably rise.

    The Passenger pigeon, of which there were several billions in North America prior to the arrival of the white man, was highly genetically homogeneous. That, it has been postulated, was the reason it failed to survive the presence of men with guns. It had one genetically determined mode of existence, with no options to survive a change in environment. Humanity, under the whip of the globalist elite seems headed the way of the Passenger pigeon: genetic uniformity through global migration and racial mongrelization.

    To mention the undesirability of the ongoing globalist project for the genocide of national groups (particularly the Europeans) is, of course taboo, and will generate a paeon of contemptuous ridicule and hate speech from brainwashed biological illiterates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    Thus, the intensity of purging of L/D genes will diminish, and the frequency of all L/D genes, i.e., the genetic load, will inexorably rise.
     
    Highly interesting paper:

    Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/


    Sexual selection presumably continues to play some role in human evolution, although cosmetic surgery, acquisition of wealth, and other factors may relax this as well. For example, although it has been argued that female choice for healthy males may aid in reducing the mutation load (Whitlock and Agrawal 2009), the strength of such reinforcement would also be diminished in human populations where suboptimal male phenotypes are hidden by various medical procedures.
    [...]
    Clearly, the issues here are highly complicated, and it is by no means even certain that traits that are beneficial in an absolute sense (e.g., exceptional physical or mental attributes) are the ones currently being promoted by natural or sexual selection.

    Thus, without any compelling counterarguments at this time, it remains difficult to escape the conclusion that numerous physical and psychological attributes are likely to slowly deteriorate in technologically advanced societies, with notable changes in average preintervention phenotypes expected on a timescale of a few generations, i.e., 100 years, in societies where medical care is widely applied. In the United States, the incidences of a variety of afflictions including autism, male infertility, asthma, immune-system disorders, diabetes, etc., already exhibit increases exceeding the expected rate.
     
    PURGING THE GENOME WITH SEXUAL SELECTION: REDUCING MUTATION LOAD THROUGH SELECTION ON MALES

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00558.x/abstract

    Another way of reducing mutational load in a gene pool would be for high-mutational-load individuals, voluntarily, to choose not to have any offspring.

    Is this perhaps what the Hajnal line is all about? Are the females and males not getting married and/or not reproducing within the Hajnal line higher in mutational load than the average person, and in order to purge their mutational load from the population gene pool they, voluntarily(?), decide(d) not to reproduce?

    A Higher Mutational Burden in Females Supports a “Female Protective Model” in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

    As previously observed,24,33 ascertainment for ASD is associated with lower IQs in females. This difference is more pronounced for PIQ than for VIQ, which also confirms previous observations24,33 (Table S5). Regression analyses showed that PIQ (and to a lesser extent, VIQ) is associated with CNV burden (and SNV burden in males only) (Tables S4 and S5). PIQ could thus be considered a clinical marker of this increased mutational burden in females. However, the increased CNV and SNV burden in females with ND remains after correction for IQ, suggesting that other phenotypes are associated with this excess burden (Tables S4 and S5).
     
    - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951938/

    West of this line, the average age of marriage for women was 23 or more,[3] men 26, spouses were relatively close in age,[4] a substantial number of women married for the first time in their thirties and forties, and 10% to 20% of adults never married.[5][6][7] East of the line, the mean age of both sexes at marriage was earlier, spousal age disparity was greater and marriage more nearly universal.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line#Overview

    Were and are these women marrying very late in life -- likely not reproducing -- and the 10% to 20% of adults who never married, within the Hajnal line, carrying higher mutational loads than the average Western European?

    Were and are these individuals, due to their higher IQs, doing a conscious service and sacrifice for their nations and fellow citizens, family members, etc. by voluntarily choosing not to reproduce?

    Is this the secret behind Western Europeans' success and higher IQs?

    big summary post on the hajnal line

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

    the distribution of average national iqs also seems to be related to the hajnal line — in general, higher average national iqs are found inside the hajnal line rather than outside of it (h/t jayman for this map! — hajnal line added by me)
    :

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/jaymans-map-hajnal-line.jpg

    perhaps thanks to the distribution of average iqs (although i don’t think that iq is the whole story), maybe we shouldn’t be surprised to find the highest concentrations of human accomplishment in europe distributed like this, i.e. falling mostly within the hajnal line (h/t charles murray for the map! — hajnal line added by me):

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/charles-murray-human-accomplishment-map-european-core-hajnal-line.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Africans are not [more] INDIVIDUALLY diverse**

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  148. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    You might want to have a look at this paper:

    Genomic Patterns of Homozygosity in Worldwide Human Populations

    Per-individual total lengths of class A and class B ROH that reflect LD patterns are lowest in populations from Africa, rising in a stepwise fashion in successive continental groups and having relatively similar values within continents. This finding can be explained as a consequence of a serial-migration model outward from Africa; each migration decreases effective population size, generating LD, reducing haplotype diversity, and increasing the probability that identical copies of the same long haplotype will pair together in the same individual. The per-individual total lengths of class C ROH, which result largely from inbreeding, do not follow such a pattern and are instead most frequent in populations where isolation and consanguineous unions are more common. The different continental patterns observed for different ROH classes therefore reflect the distinct forces generating ROH of different sizes.
    - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415543/

    runs of homozygosity again

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/runs-of-homozygosity-again/

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/genomic-patterns-of-homozygosity-in-worldwide-human-populations-figure-s4-highlighted-by-h-chick.jpg

    cousin marriage in sub-saharan africa

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/cousin-marriage-in-sub-saharan-africa/

    Some more details on how to read the data:

    runs of homozygosity and inbreeding (and outbreeding)

    inbreeding with close relatives — like marrying your first- or second-cousins (consanguineous matings) — leads to long roh since you share so much of your dna with your closest family members. endogamous mating — just mating within your population but not your close cousins — also leads to roh, but not ones as long as mating with your close relatives. you share dna with others in your population (say your clan or your ethnic group), but not so much of exactly the same dna or genes in certain stretches as with your closer relatives. a population will little genetic diversity, but that does not inbreed, will have lots of short roh — they share a lot of stretches of dna in common, but all of the outbreeding shuffles up the genomes within the population.

    so that’s:

    – long roh [is C] = inbreeding, probably consanguineous (first-/second-cousin matings)
    – medium roh [is B] = endogmaous mating within a population
    – short roh [is A] = little genetic diversity in the population probably from an event like a population bottleneck

    i’m oversimplifying, but that’s the gist of it.

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/runs-of-homozygosity-and-inbreeding-and-outbreeding/


    the interesting thing in the first chart above (Fig. S3 – Mean ROH Length for Each of the Three Size Classes in Each Population), is that the han chinese have lower means of roh length in all of the size classes compared to the other populations i’ve highlighted. in the previous study, the researchers found that east asians had similar means to europeans for all roh lengths. i found this surprising since, from what i’ve read, the han chinese have been inbreeding for a longer period of time than europeans. what might be confounding the results though, once again, is the fact that nw europeans (the outbreeders extraordinaire) are not really included in either of these studies apart from a handful of french samples.

    See above comment for Fig. S4:

    if you look at the second chart (Fig. S4 – Total Number of ROH in Individual Genomes), however, you’ll see that, overall, the han chinese have more short, medium and long roh totally in individual genomes than any of the other three populations i’ve highlighted. both the bedouins and the pashtuns have greater numbers/wider total spread of long roh than the italians, but the han chinese have a much greater total number of long roh than any of the other three groups — three or four times as many.

    but they’re, on average, shorter long roh don’t forget. (confusing, eh?!)

    perhaps this is what you get when you have — as the chinese have had — a pretty good-sized effective population size for such a long time. there have been a LOT of han chinese for — wow — millennia.

    Source: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/runs-of-homozygosity-again/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Factorize says:
    @utu
    I had not expected this. My original narrative was that those who left Africa might have been more adventurous and perhaps of higher ability. In the journey to new lands various cognitive challenges would have arisen that would have exerted a selective force towards those with higher g.

    In light of this new research, an alternative narrative could be that those leaving Africa were the less favored and less socially and politically entrenched. Leaving Africa at that time must have felt like an excommunication.

    Your nonsense about journey and excommunication

    Nobody who was there what now we call Africa knew they were in Africa or anywhere. People were going left or right back and forth. Some were going West, some were going East, North or South. Some where going in circles clock wise and some counter clock wise. Some ended up against the ocean, some against a river, some against mountains. Some stayed and some moved along the river. It was more of a Brownian motion than any journey that you can imagine. Nobody had any map to know where they were and where they were going. They did not have destination, they did not have plans. Some were escaping and some were chasing something or looking for something. But certainly they did not have passports nor American Express cards "In the journey to new lands " and certainly they had no idea they were making a journey. They did not keep diaries and did not take selfies. They did not have any sense where they had been or where were they coming from.

    Your nonsense on diversity

    If the totality of people in Africa had a given genetic diversity it meant that there were many families and groups that different from each other. Any subset that is spatially limited will have smaller diversity than the total set. This is the reason why the genetic diversity of people who ended up away from Africa is smaller that the total diversity of Africans. It does not mean that genetic diversity of Norwegian is smaller than diversity of Pygmy or some tribe in Nigeria. The great diversity of Africa only means that there more tribes and sub races that can hate each other more than Swedes can hate Norwegians because they are more different form each other than Swedes and Norwegians. The only thing they have in common is their dark skin and few other physical features which does not prevent Hutus form killing Tutsis. In term of genes responsible for skin color they are no more diverse than Europeans or Asians. Inter-racial differences account for 80% of total diversity on skin color department which means that intra-racial differences are small.

    Nonsense of taking pride from diversity

    Lots of ignorant Blacks and Africans take a misguided pride in the genetic diversity of Africa. They are not aware that genetic diversity is not defined on individual level. Neither Afrosapience nor you can claim having greater genetic diversity. Because you and him have none. Greater diversity of Africa means that if some plague is going to come as a result of dancing with dead corpses in Madagascar or eating humans in Botswana for some medical purposes that is going to wipe out a lot of people it is possible it will wipe out all Nigerians and Kenyans but there might be a chance that Pygmy will survive because they are sufficiently more different from Nigerians and Kenyans. Only in this sense some Africans may survive. It does not mean that Afrosapience will survive.

    But there are some genes that Europeans are more diverse. For instance c. 10% of Europeans have mutation that makes them resistant to HIV infections while no African has it. This means that African have zero diversity 0*(1-0)=0 while Europeans 0.1*(1-0.1)=0.09.

    Intelligence and diversity nonsense

    On another tread one African took great pride form greater genetic diversity of Africa "deducing" from it that Africans necessarily must be more intelligent. Maximum diversity for a given gene occurs when it is distributed 50/50 in population. If there are some genes responsible for intelligence and Africa has the highest diversity with resect to these genes this means that African intelligence on average is average because 50% will have the genes and 50% will not have the right genes. If on the other hand some population is less diverse and has the distribution 30/70 it will be on average less intelligent than Africa. But population with the same lower diversity but distribution 70/30 will have higher intelligence eon average the Africa. Are Asians or Europeans 30/70 or 70/30? One day we will not for sure but in the meantime there is zero evidence that Africans are smarter than Europeans or Asians.

    Pride for not having Neanderthal genes

    Yes, I met some Blacks for whom the fact of not having Neanderthal genes gives them some sense of superiority. I wonder how widely this meme is spread among AA Blacks and Africans?

    utu, Exactly!

    Such was the confusion that existed with humans after leaving Africa for tens of thousands of years.
    The humans that left Africa were essentially exiles.
    They had been evicted from the Promised Land.

    The vast void that they confronted once leaving would have felt infinite.
    The one organizing force would have been to diffuse to lower density
    as would occur with Brownian motion. Such random low density particles
    do not congeal into anything more interesting. Neither did humans for tens of
    thousands of years.

    Your depiction of the random Brownian motion of the first humans Out of Africa was very compelling for me. I think that such a description has substantial explanatory power for much
    of how human history has unfolded over the last 100,000 or more years.

    As humans gradually journeyed out of Africa, there would have been this enormous almost endless landscape to fill. Just imagine what it must have been like! Whenever any population density arose some of the people would likely have decided to pack up and move on. Such an environment would have made almost any sense of community or the state essentially impossible. There are many barren polar regions of the world that have never managed to establish any meaningful social cohesion.

    Consider what happens on a crowded bus. As soon as someone gets off, someone standing will take the seat. Once everyone standing is seated people will start moving as far away from others as they can. Something similar would have happened with humans over the last many tens of thousands of years.

    Under such a scenario it is not surprising in the least that we only see the emergence of any meaningful degree of social organization starting about 10,000 years ago. For all the arguments about genetics and the environment on this blog, the fundamental requirement that was needed to begin the process of humanization was likely density/order. This is a testable idea as genetic samples from humans 5000-20000 years ago have been found.

    Yet with Africa a meaningful density effect has probably been operating for upwards of 50,000 years. There should exist deep cultural traditions that have developed possibly over the span of
    tens of thousands of years. Leaving such a homeland for the barrens must have been difficult.

    Even if the migrants themselves were not entirely aware of this, from the bird’s eye view of history, we can say that leaving Africa has significant drawbacks. Africa has its dangers though think of all the entirely novel dangers that would be encountered when leaving and think of leaving what would have been the center of human culture and technology. Encountering other humanoids with possibly higher cognitive ability would have been one such surprise faced by those leaving Africa.

    {On the scale of these many tens of thousands of years genetics would not have been the main limiting factor but the environment. The problem time and time again in psychometrics is that by only looking at a very brief interval of time the powerful role of the environment can be ignored which then transfers the load to genetics. This would all to obvious if one were to jump into a time machine and go back in time 1000 or 10000 years. As we move to an idealized future of a constant environment everything could be loaded on genetics.}

    This makes me think of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. In that book the author suggests that what we understand as human consciousness (Theory of Mind) emerges only relatively recently perhaps 3000 years ago. If the nature of human contact has been as limited as the above discussion suggests then such a recent emergence of humanness might not be so
    far fetched. In fact when first contact was made with some isolated human populations even a few centuries ago one might have observed such an absence of a Theory of Mind in these peoples.

    Many on this blog are likely not big fans of big government or the deep state, though imagine what life would be like without it. Before about 5000 years ago, there are no constructions of collective human effort that can be found. It took humans almost 50,000 years to get it together! It is only after we organized and systematized our world that we have been able to make any forward progress.
    I suppose, though that the counter argument would be that the state is not so much an instrument of progress as a parasite living off the benefits that accrue from human civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    They had been evicted from the Promised Land

    You keep getting your metaphors wrong. If anything they got evicted from the Eden and they went to the Promised Land. The ones who remained in the Eden did so because they remained ignorant, they did not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. utu says:
    @Factorize
    utu, Exactly!

    Such was the confusion that existed with humans after leaving Africa for tens of thousands of years.
    The humans that left Africa were essentially exiles.
    They had been evicted from the Promised Land.

    The vast void that they confronted once leaving would have felt infinite.
    The one organizing force would have been to diffuse to lower density
    as would occur with Brownian motion. Such random low density particles
    do not congeal into anything more interesting. Neither did humans for tens of
    thousands of years.

    Your depiction of the random Brownian motion of the first humans Out of Africa was very compelling for me. I think that such a description has substantial explanatory power for much
    of how human history has unfolded over the last 100,000 or more years.

    As humans gradually journeyed out of Africa, there would have been this enormous almost endless landscape to fill. Just imagine what it must have been like! Whenever any population density arose some of the people would likely have decided to pack up and move on. Such an environment would have made almost any sense of community or the state essentially impossible. There are many barren polar regions of the world that have never managed to establish any meaningful social cohesion.

    Consider what happens on a crowded bus. As soon as someone gets off, someone standing will take the seat. Once everyone standing is seated people will start moving as far away from others as they can. Something similar would have happened with humans over the last many tens of thousands of years.

    Under such a scenario it is not surprising in the least that we only see the emergence of any meaningful degree of social organization starting about 10,000 years ago. For all the arguments about genetics and the environment on this blog, the fundamental requirement that was needed to begin the process of humanization was likely density/order. This is a testable idea as genetic samples from humans 5000-20000 years ago have been found.

    Yet with Africa a meaningful density effect has probably been operating for upwards of 50,000 years. There should exist deep cultural traditions that have developed possibly over the span of
    tens of thousands of years. Leaving such a homeland for the barrens must have been difficult.

    Even if the migrants themselves were not entirely aware of this, from the bird’s eye view of history, we can say that leaving Africa has significant drawbacks. Africa has its dangers though think of all the entirely novel dangers that would be encountered when leaving and think of leaving what would have been the center of human culture and technology. Encountering other humanoids with possibly higher cognitive ability would have been one such surprise faced by those leaving Africa.

    {On the scale of these many tens of thousands of years genetics would not have been the main limiting factor but the environment. The problem time and time again in psychometrics is that by only looking at a very brief interval of time the powerful role of the environment can be ignored which then transfers the load to genetics. This would all to obvious if one were to jump into a time machine and go back in time 1000 or 10000 years. As we move to an idealized future of a constant environment everything could be loaded on genetics.}

    This makes me think of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. In that book the author suggests that what we understand as human consciousness (Theory of Mind) emerges only relatively recently perhaps 3000 years ago. If the nature of human contact has been as limited as the above discussion suggests then such a recent emergence of humanness might not be so
    far fetched. In fact when first contact was made with some isolated human populations even a few centuries ago one might have observed such an absence of a Theory of Mind in these peoples.

    Many on this blog are likely not big fans of big government or the deep state, though imagine what life would be like without it. Before about 5000 years ago, there are no constructions of collective human effort that can be found. It took humans almost 50,000 years to get it together! It is only after we organized and systematized our world that we have been able to make any forward progress.
    I suppose, though that the counter argument would be that the state is not so much an instrument of progress as a parasite living off the benefits that accrue from human civilization.

    They had been evicted from the Promised Land

    You keep getting your metaphors wrong. If anything they got evicted from the Eden and they went to the Promised Land. The ones who remained in the Eden did so because they remained ignorant, they did not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    utu, I think I am onto something here.

    Afro talked about me using the fallacy of Modern retrospection. Those on this blog are better than I am at naming the fallacies of argumentation, though I think the true fallacy at play here is the 21st Century New Age Presumption Fallacy. This fallacy would claim that people 1,000 years, 10,000 years or 50,000 years ago were mostly just like us. The Origins of Consciousness book that I noted above proposed that people even into the era of recorded history were still making the transition to a modern conception of consciousness.

    The idea that I am suggesting is that at the time when people first began exploring out of Africa some conception of consciousness was emerging in Africa. Developing such a sense of consciousness would be greatly helped by the presence of other people. In the modern world people living on a deserted island who at least had a television could at least have some conception of what modern living is all about. They could see all the nice people with their 4 car garages, 2500 square feet houses with central HVAC and hi-speed WIFI. You don't need a community anymore to teach you what life is all about though way way back modeling behavior by what others in your tribe were doing was the only instruction manual for living.

    What opportunities for ongoing learning would have been available to the peoples of the 30,000 years ago living in some desolute barren void outside of Africa? Population densities for most of this New World must have been near zero.

    Therefore, if I were to be transported back to that time I would want to head to Africa because that would have clearly been the center of human civilization. I have a near omniscient perspective to make this assessment and my best estimate would be that I would head back to the homeland (as long as my human rights as a nerd were fully respected. I would have done my best to have floated a Quantum computer IPO and made a few billion). Admittedly there would not have been much to work with, though there would at least have been something. For at least the next tens of thousands of years there would be essentially nothing remarkable to report in any other area of the world.

    In fact it is truly very startling to realize that it is only now- at this very moment- after tens of thousands of years of that China has finally clicked into gear and is about to crank it up and super-turbo charge human civilization. This in spite of the fact that it has been understood by many for as long as perhaps over a century that China had the inherent psychometric potential to make this happen. Tragically, North Korea with the same raw potential has not been able to transition into behaving in a likewise constructive manner. Building nuclear ICBMs instead of building a modern economy is such an overwhelmingly misguided policy choice.

    With the extremely low population densities that could be supported in all of the Nations of the North, there simply was nearly none of the elements necessary to spark a revolution of any kind (scientific, literary, or otherwise). It can thus be hardly surprising that some of the first glimpses of an emergence of human civilization was at the very doorstep of the exit route from Africa.

    For all the tens of thousands of years before, humans had been entirely unable to create any meaningful level of social organization. If I had lived in some empire to the North and East of the Levant and there were had been some effort to conscript me to build a pyramid or fight in an army then I would have went on a vacation someplace farther afield to the North and East.

    It looks like what might have happened is that those who used this strategy eventually were corralled by geography into India and China. Nonetheless a strategy of simply moving along instead of dealing with the demands of other people would have nearly stopped any coalescing of group behavior. Human behavior and most of human civilization behaved very much like Brownian motion. Such random diffusion seeking behavior stopped the emergence of anything that we would understand as modern for tens of thousands of years. In fact it has only been over the span of the last few centuries since the Industrial Revolution, that a clearly obvious technological phase transition has occurred.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. FKA Max says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    Re: Measured consanguinity rates were an order of magnitude above those in other sampled populations, and the GME population exhibited an increased burden of runs of homozygosity (ROHs) but showed no evidence for reduced burden of deleterious variation due to classically theorized ‘genetic purging’.
     
    I seem to remember receiving an A (or maybe it was an A minus — memory is said to be untrustworthy on such details) for an essay I wrote, God knows how long ago, that dealt with this question. What I concluded, based on some rough and ready calculations, was that inbreeding does not purge lethal recessive genes entirely, although it must obviously keep the frequency in check since the homozygote is, well, lethal.

    But when you go from a pattern of inbreeding to one of outbreeding, the number of lethal or deleterious (L/D) recessive genes in the population will increase, since each population has its own unique collection of deleterious genes. However, the probability of having any particular L/D gene out of the combined set will be reduced. Hence the risk that any particular fertilized egg will be heterozygous for an L/D gene will be less than was the case when inbreeding dominated. Thus, the intensity of purging of L/D genes will diminish, and the frequency of all L/D genes, i.e., the genetic load, will inexorably rise.

    The Passenger pigeon, of which there were several billions in North America prior to the arrival of the white man, was highly genetically homogeneous. That, it has been postulated, was the reason it failed to survive the presence of men with guns. It had one genetically determined mode of existence, with no options to survive a change in environment. Humanity, under the whip of the globalist elite seems headed the way of the Passenger pigeon: genetic uniformity through global migration and racial mongrelization.

    To mention the undesirability of the ongoing globalist project for the genocide of national groups (particularly the Europeans) is, of course taboo, and will generate a paeon of contemptuous ridicule and hate speech from brainwashed biological illiterates.

    Thus, the intensity of purging of L/D genes will diminish, and the frequency of all L/D genes, i.e., the genetic load, will inexorably rise.

    Highly interesting paper:

    Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/

    Sexual selection presumably continues to play some role in human evolution, although cosmetic surgery, acquisition of wealth, and other factors may relax this as well. For example, although it has been argued that female choice for healthy males may aid in reducing the mutation load (Whitlock and Agrawal 2009), the strength of such reinforcement would also be diminished in human populations where suboptimal male phenotypes are hidden by various medical procedures.
    [...]
    Clearly, the issues here are highly complicated, and it is by no means even certain that traits that are beneficial in an absolute sense (e.g., exceptional physical or mental attributes) are the ones currently being promoted by natural or sexual selection.

    Thus, without any compelling counterarguments at this time, it remains difficult to escape the conclusion that numerous physical and psychological attributes are likely to slowly deteriorate in technologically advanced societies, with notable changes in average preintervention phenotypes expected on a timescale of a few generations, i.e., 100 years, in societies where medical care is widely applied. In the United States, the incidences of a variety of afflictions including autism, male infertility, asthma, immune-system disorders, diabetes, etc., already exhibit increases exceeding the expected rate.

    PURGING THE GENOME WITH SEXUAL SELECTION: REDUCING MUTATION LOAD THROUGH SELECTION ON MALES

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00558.x/abstract

    Another way of reducing mutational load in a gene pool would be for high-mutational-load individuals, voluntarily, to choose not to have any offspring.

    Is this perhaps what the Hajnal line is all about? Are the females and males not getting married and/or not reproducing within the Hajnal line higher in mutational load than the average person, and in order to purge their mutational load from the population gene pool they, voluntarily(?), decide(d) not to reproduce?

    A Higher Mutational Burden in Females Supports a “Female Protective Model” in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

    As previously observed,24,33 ascertainment for ASD is associated with lower IQs in females. This difference is more pronounced for PIQ than for VIQ, which also confirms previous observations24,33 (Table S5). Regression analyses showed that PIQ (and to a lesser extent, VIQ) is associated with CNV burden (and SNV burden in males only) (Tables S4 and S5). PIQ could thus be considered a clinical marker of this increased mutational burden in females. However, the increased CNV and SNV burden in females with ND remains after correction for IQ, suggesting that other phenotypes are associated with this excess burden (Tables S4 and S5).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951938/

    West of this line, the average age of marriage for women was 23 or more,[3] men 26, spouses were relatively close in age,[4] a substantial number of women married for the first time in their thirties and forties, and 10% to 20% of adults never married.[5][6][7] East of the line, the mean age of both sexes at marriage was earlier, spousal age disparity was greater and marriage more nearly universal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line#Overview

    Were and are these women marrying very late in life — likely not reproducing — and the 10% to 20% of adults who never married, within the Hajnal line, carrying higher mutational loads than the average Western European?

    Were and are these individuals, due to their higher IQs, doing a conscious service and sacrifice for their nations and fellow citizens, family members, etc. by voluntarily choosing not to reproduce?

    Is this the secret behind Western Europeans’ success and higher IQs?

    big summary post on the hajnal line

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/


    the distribution of average national iqs also seems to be related to the hajnal line — in general, higher average national iqs are found inside the hajnal line rather than outside of it (h/t jayman for this map! — hajnal line added by me)
    :

    perhaps thanks to the distribution of average iqs (although i don’t think that iq is the whole story), maybe we shouldn’t be surprised to find the highest concentrations of human accomplishment in europe distributed like this, i.e. falling mostly within the hajnal line (h/t charles murray for the map! — hajnal line added by me):

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    ... although it has been argued that female choice for healthy males may aid in reducing the mutation load (Whitlock and Agrawal 2009), the strength of such reinforcement would also be diminished in human populations where suboptimal male phenotypes are hidden by various medical procedures.
     
    For which reason the Fabian socialist, novelist, friend of FDR and Joe Stalin, and advocate of Eugenics, had a contempt for people with false teeth, corrective eyeglasses, etc.

    Dr. Marie Stopes, the British advocate of birth control and a eugenicist, disinherited her son for marrying a woman who wore glasses.

    If alive today, I suppose they'd want to sterilize people who use a pocket calculator.

    Another way of reducing mutational load in a gene pool would be for high-mutational-load individuals, voluntarily, to choose not to have any offspring.
     
    One approach would be to have a restricted right to reproduce, which would be transferable among family members. Thus, someone with a gene for some genetic defect could pass their license to reproduce to a sibling free of the defective gene. The sibling might then pass back the child for adoption. That way, family relationships among the generations would be maintained, but serious genetic defects would be minimized.

    In general, however, economic well-being is perhaps as good a measure of fitness (for existence in the environment in the current stage of economic development) is wealth (even though there are many wealthy people who should have been strangled at birth and many paupers of exceptional intellectual or moral worth). That being the case, tax laws etc. should be designed to raise the fertility of the most economically successful individuals, while inhibiting welfare-based reproduction. As this is the opposite of current policy in seemingly all Western nations, which suggests that societal collapse looms, due to genetic decline.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Diversity ... It also means that Africans are more often heterozygote, which protects against harmful recessive alleles.
     
    Not so.

    Africans are diverse because their social and political arrangements have, until very recent times, been organized on a tribal basis.

    Africa, the least urbanized continent, has a population comprising many relatively homogeneous inbreeding groups, which are less, not more, heterzygous than the population of the European and North American cities now filled with immigrants from throughout the world.

    Thus most Africans still possess a genetic constitution representative of a tribe, rather than a continental or transcontinental outbred population.

    Belonging to inbreeding tribes, i.e., races (although I know you don't understand the meaning of the word race) Africans must have a lower heterozygosity, and hence a lower genetic load, than the increasingly mongrel populations of Europe and the Americas.

    Inbreeding limits the frequency of detrimental genes, i.e., the genetic load, because detrimental genes occur more frequently in the homozygous condition and are eliminated due to mortality or reproductive failure.

    Outbreeding increases the genetic load because detrimental recessive genes are more likely to be masked by good alleles. However, that means that the genetic load in outbreeding populations increases over time. Outbreeding populations thus go through a period of hybrid vigor, evident in the early stages of urbanization first in Europe, then the Americas, Japan, the Asian Tigers, now China and in the future, presumably, Africa.

    A downside to outbreeding is that desirable gene groupings, resulting from various selective pressures, e.g., sexual selection, get broken up. That, I assume, explains at least in part the generally lumpy appearance of so many North Americans, unlike many Africans who are in the many diverse tribal ways, often attractive people (like Canada's indigenous peoples — except when junk food and booze get them, when they become as obese as any American).

    A further downside to outbreeding is that the hybrid vigor that characterizes outbreeding populations initially, gradually fades, leaving a population lacking either unique local adaptation or unusual energy, but possessing a higher genetic load than the inbred populations from which it has been derived.

    Good that you are trying to clarify the confusion sown by the semi-educated with the heterozygosity fetish. Let me add this:

    Genetic diversity and heterozygosity are not the same things unless the population is in the Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium. Two populations may have the same genetic diversities but different heterozygosities because of, say different levels of inbreeding. This is fairly simple to see when only two alleles are considered. In cases of many alleles it is more complicated. It is possible to have a population with higher heterozygosity that has lower allelic richness which is the average number of alleles per locus. Which of the two population is more genetically diverse?

    For two alleles locus the highest genetic diversity occurs when p=q=0.5 regardless whether there is high or low heterozygosity. The measure of genetic diversity is 2pq which also is the frequency of heterozygosity in Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium. For three alleles the highest diversity occurs when p=q=r=1/3. Then the measure of genetic diversity is 2pq+2pr+2qr.

    Population that is less genetically diverse, i..e, p≠q may have higher heterozygosity than population that is maximally diverse, i.e, p=q.

    Then there is a difference of between the actual and expected heterozygosity. Not always heterozygosity is measured directly. Rather it is estimated from frequencies p and q and expressed as 2pq that presupposes the Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium.

    The bottom line is that the highest genetic diversity is reached when alleles are distributed uniformly, i.e., when they have the same frequencies of occurrence. In less diverse populations that are below the maximum diversity one allele will have larger frequency than others. If it happens that this more frequent allele is beneficial, this population will have an advantage over the population that has maximum genetic diversity where this beneficial allele has the same frequency as the non beneficial alleles. In other words high genetic diversity does not imply advantage.

    If there are genes that are responsible for intelligence, the least genetically diverse population that maximizes the frequencies of these genes will have the highest average intelligence. The average intelligence of the most genetically diverse population will be merely average.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The bottom line is that the highest genetic diversity is reached when alleles are distributed uniformly, i.e., when they have the same frequencies of occurrence.
     
    One could define genetic diversity that way. But what is normally understood by the term would be measured by the diversity of alleles.

    Rozanne, the Afghan wife of Alexander the Great, likely had green eyes, in which case, Alexander likely thought a valuable addition to the diversity of his genetic line.

    , @res
    Weinberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Factorize says:
    @utu
    They had been evicted from the Promised Land

    You keep getting your metaphors wrong. If anything they got evicted from the Eden and they went to the Promised Land. The ones who remained in the Eden did so because they remained ignorant, they did not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.

    utu, I think I am onto something here.

    Afro talked about me using the fallacy of Modern retrospection. Those on this blog are better than I am at naming the fallacies of argumentation, though I think the true fallacy at play here is the 21st Century New Age Presumption Fallacy. This fallacy would claim that people 1,000 years, 10,000 years or 50,000 years ago were mostly just like us. The Origins of Consciousness book that I noted above proposed that people even into the era of recorded history were still making the transition to a modern conception of consciousness.

    The idea that I am suggesting is that at the time when people first began exploring out of Africa some conception of consciousness was emerging in Africa. Developing such a sense of consciousness would be greatly helped by the presence of other people. In the modern world people living on a deserted island who at least had a television could at least have some conception of what modern living is all about. They could see all the nice people with their 4 car garages, 2500 square feet houses with central HVAC and hi-speed WIFI. You don’t need a community anymore to teach you what life is all about though way way back modeling behavior by what others in your tribe were doing was the only instruction manual for living.

    What opportunities for ongoing learning would have been available to the peoples of the 30,000 years ago living in some desolute barren void outside of Africa? Population densities for most of this New World must have been near zero.

    Therefore, if I were to be transported back to that time I would want to head to Africa because that would have clearly been the center of human civilization. I have a near omniscient perspective to make this assessment and my best estimate would be that I would head back to the homeland (as long as my human rights as a nerd were fully respected. I would have done my best to have floated a Quantum computer IPO and made a few billion). Admittedly there would not have been much to work with, though there would at least have been something. For at least the next tens of thousands of years there would be essentially nothing remarkable to report in any other area of the world.

    In fact it is truly very startling to realize that it is only now- at this very moment- after tens of thousands of years of that China has finally clicked into gear and is about to crank it up and super-turbo charge human civilization. This in spite of the fact that it has been understood by many for as long as perhaps over a century that China had the inherent psychometric potential to make this happen. Tragically, North Korea with the same raw potential has not been able to transition into behaving in a likewise constructive manner. Building nuclear ICBMs instead of building a modern economy is such an overwhelmingly misguided policy choice.

    With the extremely low population densities that could be supported in all of the Nations of the North, there simply was nearly none of the elements necessary to spark a revolution of any kind (scientific, literary, or otherwise). It can thus be hardly surprising that some of the first glimpses of an emergence of human civilization was at the very doorstep of the exit route from Africa.

    For all the tens of thousands of years before, humans had been entirely unable to create any meaningful level of social organization. If I had lived in some empire to the North and East of the Levant and there were had been some effort to conscript me to build a pyramid or fight in an army then I would have went on a vacation someplace farther afield to the North and East.

    It looks like what might have happened is that those who used this strategy eventually were corralled by geography into India and China. Nonetheless a strategy of simply moving along instead of dealing with the demands of other people would have nearly stopped any coalescing of group behavior. Human behavior and most of human civilization behaved very much like Brownian motion. Such random diffusion seeking behavior stopped the emergence of anything that we would understand as modern for tens of thousands of years. In fact it has only been over the span of the last few centuries since the Industrial Revolution, that a clearly obvious technological phase transition has occurred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    How old are you? Do you have any formal education?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    Thus, the intensity of purging of L/D genes will diminish, and the frequency of all L/D genes, i.e., the genetic load, will inexorably rise.
     
    Highly interesting paper:

    Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/


    Sexual selection presumably continues to play some role in human evolution, although cosmetic surgery, acquisition of wealth, and other factors may relax this as well. For example, although it has been argued that female choice for healthy males may aid in reducing the mutation load (Whitlock and Agrawal 2009), the strength of such reinforcement would also be diminished in human populations where suboptimal male phenotypes are hidden by various medical procedures.
    [...]
    Clearly, the issues here are highly complicated, and it is by no means even certain that traits that are beneficial in an absolute sense (e.g., exceptional physical or mental attributes) are the ones currently being promoted by natural or sexual selection.

    Thus, without any compelling counterarguments at this time, it remains difficult to escape the conclusion that numerous physical and psychological attributes are likely to slowly deteriorate in technologically advanced societies, with notable changes in average preintervention phenotypes expected on a timescale of a few generations, i.e., 100 years, in societies where medical care is widely applied. In the United States, the incidences of a variety of afflictions including autism, male infertility, asthma, immune-system disorders, diabetes, etc., already exhibit increases exceeding the expected rate.
     
    PURGING THE GENOME WITH SEXUAL SELECTION: REDUCING MUTATION LOAD THROUGH SELECTION ON MALES

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00558.x/abstract

    Another way of reducing mutational load in a gene pool would be for high-mutational-load individuals, voluntarily, to choose not to have any offspring.

    Is this perhaps what the Hajnal line is all about? Are the females and males not getting married and/or not reproducing within the Hajnal line higher in mutational load than the average person, and in order to purge their mutational load from the population gene pool they, voluntarily(?), decide(d) not to reproduce?

    A Higher Mutational Burden in Females Supports a “Female Protective Model” in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

    As previously observed,24,33 ascertainment for ASD is associated with lower IQs in females. This difference is more pronounced for PIQ than for VIQ, which also confirms previous observations24,33 (Table S5). Regression analyses showed that PIQ (and to a lesser extent, VIQ) is associated with CNV burden (and SNV burden in males only) (Tables S4 and S5). PIQ could thus be considered a clinical marker of this increased mutational burden in females. However, the increased CNV and SNV burden in females with ND remains after correction for IQ, suggesting that other phenotypes are associated with this excess burden (Tables S4 and S5).
     
    - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951938/

    West of this line, the average age of marriage for women was 23 or more,[3] men 26, spouses were relatively close in age,[4] a substantial number of women married for the first time in their thirties and forties, and 10% to 20% of adults never married.[5][6][7] East of the line, the mean age of both sexes at marriage was earlier, spousal age disparity was greater and marriage more nearly universal.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line#Overview

    Were and are these women marrying very late in life -- likely not reproducing -- and the 10% to 20% of adults who never married, within the Hajnal line, carrying higher mutational loads than the average Western European?

    Were and are these individuals, due to their higher IQs, doing a conscious service and sacrifice for their nations and fellow citizens, family members, etc. by voluntarily choosing not to reproduce?

    Is this the secret behind Western Europeans' success and higher IQs?

    big summary post on the hajnal line

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

    the distribution of average national iqs also seems to be related to the hajnal line — in general, higher average national iqs are found inside the hajnal line rather than outside of it (h/t jayman for this map! — hajnal line added by me)
    :

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/jaymans-map-hajnal-line.jpg

    perhaps thanks to the distribution of average iqs (although i don’t think that iq is the whole story), maybe we shouldn’t be surprised to find the highest concentrations of human accomplishment in europe distributed like this, i.e. falling mostly within the hajnal line (h/t charles murray for the map! — hajnal line added by me):

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/charles-murray-human-accomplishment-map-european-core-hajnal-line.png

    … although it has been argued that female choice for healthy males may aid in reducing the mutation load (Whitlock and Agrawal 2009), the strength of such reinforcement would also be diminished in human populations where suboptimal male phenotypes are hidden by various medical procedures.

    For which reason the Fabian socialist, novelist, friend of FDR and Joe Stalin, and advocate of Eugenics, had a contempt for people with false teeth, corrective eyeglasses, etc.

    Dr. Marie Stopes, the British advocate of birth control and a eugenicist, disinherited her son for marrying a woman who wore glasses.

    If alive today, I suppose they’d want to sterilize people who use a pocket calculator.

    Another way of reducing mutational load in a gene pool would be for high-mutational-load individuals, voluntarily, to choose not to have any offspring.

    One approach would be to have a restricted right to reproduce, which would be transferable among family members. Thus, someone with a gene for some genetic defect could pass their license to reproduce to a sibling free of the defective gene. The sibling might then pass back the child for adoption. That way, family relationships among the generations would be maintained, but serious genetic defects would be minimized.

    In general, however, economic well-being is perhaps as good a measure of fitness (for existence in the environment in the current stage of economic development) is wealth (even though there are many wealthy people who should have been strangled at birth and many paupers of exceptional intellectual or moral worth). That being the case, tax laws etc. should be designed to raise the fertility of the most economically successful individuals, while inhibiting welfare-based reproduction. As this is the opposite of current policy in seemingly all Western nations, which suggests that societal collapse looms, due to genetic decline.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    Good that you are trying to clarify the confusion sown by the semi-educated with the heterozygosity fetish. Let me add this:

    Genetic diversity and heterozygosity are not the same things unless the population is in the Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium. Two populations may have the same genetic diversities but different heterozygosities because of, say different levels of inbreeding. This is fairly simple to see when only two alleles are considered. In cases of many alleles it is more complicated. It is possible to have a population with higher heterozygosity that has lower allelic richness which is the average number of alleles per locus. Which of the two population is more genetically diverse?

    For two alleles locus the highest genetic diversity occurs when p=q=0.5 regardless whether there is high or low heterozygosity. The measure of genetic diversity is 2pq which also is the frequency of heterozygosity in Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium. For three alleles the highest diversity occurs when p=q=r=1/3. Then the measure of genetic diversity is 2pq+2pr+2qr.

    Population that is less genetically diverse, i..e, p≠q may have higher heterozygosity than population that is maximally diverse, i.e, p=q.

    Then there is a difference of between the actual and expected heterozygosity. Not always heterozygosity is measured directly. Rather it is estimated from frequencies p and q and expressed as 2pq that presupposes the Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium.

    The bottom line is that the highest genetic diversity is reached when alleles are distributed uniformly, i.e., when they have the same frequencies of occurrence. In less diverse populations that are below the maximum diversity one allele will have larger frequency than others. If it happens that this more frequent allele is beneficial, this population will have an advantage over the population that has maximum genetic diversity where this beneficial allele has the same frequency as the non beneficial alleles. In other words high genetic diversity does not imply advantage.

    If there are genes that are responsible for intelligence, the least genetically diverse population that maximizes the frequencies of these genes will have the highest average intelligence. The average intelligence of the most genetically diverse population will be merely average.

    The bottom line is that the highest genetic diversity is reached when alleles are distributed uniformly, i.e., when they have the same frequencies of occurrence.

    One could define genetic diversity that way. But what is normally understood by the term would be measured by the diversity of alleles.

    Rozanne, the Afghan wife of Alexander the Great, likely had green eyes, in which case, Alexander likely thought a valuable addition to the diversity of his genetic line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    is normally understood by the term would be measured by the diversity of alleles

    And the formula 2pq+2pr+2qr+... captures this and thus it is used to define and measure genetic diversity. Population is most diverse when alleles are uniformly distribute and more uniformly distributed alleles lead to greater diversity.

    When there are 2 alleles the maximum diversity is when p=q=1/2 and the diversity is 2pq=2*0.5*0.5=0.5. When there are 3 alleles then the maximum diversity is when p=q=r=1/3 and the diversity is 2pq+2pr+2qr=0.67. And when there are 4 alleles the maximum diversity is when p=q=r=t=1/4 and the diversity will be 0.75.

    The general formula for the maximum diversity is (n-1)/n where n is the number of alleles.

    Obviously it possible to have one population with 2 alleles to be more diverse than a population with three alleles if the three alleles are not uniformly distribute, say, the third allele has frequency r=0.05 only.

    Note: The genetic diversity for one locus is defined as the average genetic distance of population to itself. The genetic distance is the average of all distances between all pairs of individual. The distance between individuals is defined with Hamming metric, i.e., if two individuals have the same allele the distance is zero and when they do not, the distance is one. In case of two alleles the Hamming metric is equivalent to variance. For more than two alleles variance can't be define uniquely and thus it is not used as the measure of diversity. The definition of the fixation index Fst that was used by Lewontin is based on the Hamming metric. The question is how to define diversity when there several loci? The diversity for each locus is calculated separately and then they are averaged over all loci. Other approach is to generalize the Hamming metric. If two individuals differ at one locus their distance is 1 and when they differ at two loci their distance is 2 and so on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. utu says:
    @Factorize
    utu, I think I am onto something here.

    Afro talked about me using the fallacy of Modern retrospection. Those on this blog are better than I am at naming the fallacies of argumentation, though I think the true fallacy at play here is the 21st Century New Age Presumption Fallacy. This fallacy would claim that people 1,000 years, 10,000 years or 50,000 years ago were mostly just like us. The Origins of Consciousness book that I noted above proposed that people even into the era of recorded history were still making the transition to a modern conception of consciousness.

    The idea that I am suggesting is that at the time when people first began exploring out of Africa some conception of consciousness was emerging in Africa. Developing such a sense of consciousness would be greatly helped by the presence of other people. In the modern world people living on a deserted island who at least had a television could at least have some conception of what modern living is all about. They could see all the nice people with their 4 car garages, 2500 square feet houses with central HVAC and hi-speed WIFI. You don't need a community anymore to teach you what life is all about though way way back modeling behavior by what others in your tribe were doing was the only instruction manual for living.

    What opportunities for ongoing learning would have been available to the peoples of the 30,000 years ago living in some desolute barren void outside of Africa? Population densities for most of this New World must have been near zero.

    Therefore, if I were to be transported back to that time I would want to head to Africa because that would have clearly been the center of human civilization. I have a near omniscient perspective to make this assessment and my best estimate would be that I would head back to the homeland (as long as my human rights as a nerd were fully respected. I would have done my best to have floated a Quantum computer IPO and made a few billion). Admittedly there would not have been much to work with, though there would at least have been something. For at least the next tens of thousands of years there would be essentially nothing remarkable to report in any other area of the world.

    In fact it is truly very startling to realize that it is only now- at this very moment- after tens of thousands of years of that China has finally clicked into gear and is about to crank it up and super-turbo charge human civilization. This in spite of the fact that it has been understood by many for as long as perhaps over a century that China had the inherent psychometric potential to make this happen. Tragically, North Korea with the same raw potential has not been able to transition into behaving in a likewise constructive manner. Building nuclear ICBMs instead of building a modern economy is such an overwhelmingly misguided policy choice.

    With the extremely low population densities that could be supported in all of the Nations of the North, there simply was nearly none of the elements necessary to spark a revolution of any kind (scientific, literary, or otherwise). It can thus be hardly surprising that some of the first glimpses of an emergence of human civilization was at the very doorstep of the exit route from Africa.

    For all the tens of thousands of years before, humans had been entirely unable to create any meaningful level of social organization. If I had lived in some empire to the North and East of the Levant and there were had been some effort to conscript me to build a pyramid or fight in an army then I would have went on a vacation someplace farther afield to the North and East.

    It looks like what might have happened is that those who used this strategy eventually were corralled by geography into India and China. Nonetheless a strategy of simply moving along instead of dealing with the demands of other people would have nearly stopped any coalescing of group behavior. Human behavior and most of human civilization behaved very much like Brownian motion. Such random diffusion seeking behavior stopped the emergence of anything that we would understand as modern for tens of thousands of years. In fact it has only been over the span of the last few centuries since the Industrial Revolution, that a clearly obvious technological phase transition has occurred.

    How old are you? Do you have any formal education?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    utu, let's address ideas and questions of the person.

    Yes, you are quite correct that my above comments are quite abysmal. I realize that I am skating on thin ice, though just as it is with discussion about race when you never talk of certain things then you can live your whole life without developing a minimal competency in a subject. On other subjects I could and have formulated much more sophisticated opinions. I have as yet not taken a course in cognitive anthropology.

    However, as I now read up on the development of human civilization, it appears that my broad outline is not entirely misplaced. For about 1 million of humanoid existence there apparently was almost a complete absence of any sort of technological development. Highly skilled anthropologists would be required to differentiate a stone tool made by an ape like human, a homo erectus or a homo habillis separated in time by hundreds of thousands of years. This phase of human development called the paleolithic lasted until about 10,000 years.

    A new stone age then emerged in which small bands of hunter gathers were replaced by larger groups of settled farmers. This neolithic age continued until about 5,000 years ago. Some of these neolithic peoples apparently were still present 300 to 500 years ago when European explorers embarked upon their world voyages.

    As hard as it is to believe this is the truth of human cultural development. This outline of humanity is quite consistent with my attempt to trace back the broad outline of the human story from Africa all those tens of thousands of years ago. The near absence of any organized community until the start of the neolithic age is exactly what I had anticipated. Before this time the descriptions that I have read talk of nomadic hunter gatherers organized in bands of perhaps 20 to 30 people without property of any particular value. It would have been an age of an essentially classless society without wealth or probably nearly any form of elaborate legal system.

    It is only when we reach the Neolithic that some sense of a settled community with tangible property and probably the gradual emergence of a state can we talk of a type of humanity that would be at all recognizable to us now. The Neolithic Age ends perhaps only 5 thousand years ago and we have finally moved toward a conception of reality that would feel even vaguely plausible as an alternative lifestyle for modern people.

    My description in the earlier posts was not entirely off the mark. However, those who might have visions of the past in which there were even more than a very basic understanding of technology much further back than 4 or 5 thousand years would be much more off target.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The bottom line is that the highest genetic diversity is reached when alleles are distributed uniformly, i.e., when they have the same frequencies of occurrence.
     
    One could define genetic diversity that way. But what is normally understood by the term would be measured by the diversity of alleles.

    Rozanne, the Afghan wife of Alexander the Great, likely had green eyes, in which case, Alexander likely thought a valuable addition to the diversity of his genetic line.

    is normally understood by the term would be measured by the diversity of alleles

    And the formula 2pq+2pr+2qr+… captures this and thus it is used to define and measure genetic diversity. Population is most diverse when alleles are uniformly distribute and more uniformly distributed alleles lead to greater diversity.

    When there are 2 alleles the maximum diversity is when p=q=1/2 and the diversity is 2pq=2*0.5*0.5=0.5. When there are 3 alleles then the maximum diversity is when p=q=r=1/3 and the diversity is 2pq+2pr+2qr=0.67. And when there are 4 alleles the maximum diversity is when p=q=r=t=1/4 and the diversity will be 0.75.

    The general formula for the maximum diversity is (n-1)/n where n is the number of alleles.

    Obviously it possible to have one population with 2 alleles to be more diverse than a population with three alleles if the three alleles are not uniformly distribute, say, the third allele has frequency r=0.05 only.

    Note: The genetic diversity for one locus is defined as the average genetic distance of population to itself. The genetic distance is the average of all distances between all pairs of individual. The distance between individuals is defined with Hamming metric, i.e., if two individuals have the same allele the distance is zero and when they do not, the distance is one. In case of two alleles the Hamming metric is equivalent to variance. For more than two alleles variance can’t be define uniquely and thus it is not used as the measure of diversity. The definition of the fixation index Fst that was used by Lewontin is based on the Hamming metric. The question is how to define diversity when there several loci? The diversity for each locus is calculated separately and then they are averaged over all loci. Other approach is to generalize the Hamming metric. If two individuals differ at one locus their distance is 1 and when they differ at two loci their distance is 2 and so on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Why have we made genetic diversity so complex?
    When I used this term before I only meant that the relatively small group who left Africa only contained a small subset of the variants that were present in the African population at that time.

    I was not thinking in terms of genetic diversity as referring to frequencies of individual genotypes in the way that it is now being described.

    The outstanding question that should be of interest to many on this blog is what might this diversity (which has possibly as yet not been fully explored) reveal to us about variants related to traits and illnesses that are not present in non-African populations? It does not seem far-fetched that Africans might have variants that increase or decrease intelligence which current GWAS have not unveiled as a result of mostly studying European populations.

    Africa has something we value and want.
    We should be nice and answer these questions so that everyone can gain from such knowledge.

    Perhaps the conception of 1500 IQ humans will be found to be an underestimate of human potential.
    With the as yet uncharacterized potential of the African genome it is entirely possible that we could max out with 2000 IQ humans. Yeah!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Factorize says:
    @utu
    How old are you? Do you have any formal education?

    utu, let’s address ideas and questions of the person.

    Yes, you are quite correct that my above comments are quite abysmal. I realize that I am skating on thin ice, though just as it is with discussion about race when you never talk of certain things then you can live your whole life without developing a minimal competency in a subject. On other subjects I could and have formulated much more sophisticated opinions. I have as yet not taken a course in cognitive anthropology.

    However, as I now read up on the development of human civilization, it appears that my broad outline is not entirely misplaced. For about 1 million of humanoid existence there apparently was almost a complete absence of any sort of technological development. Highly skilled anthropologists would be required to differentiate a stone tool made by an ape like human, a homo erectus or a homo habillis separated in time by hundreds of thousands of years. This phase of human development called the paleolithic lasted until about 10,000 years.

    A new stone age then emerged in which small bands of hunter gathers were replaced by larger groups of settled farmers. This neolithic age continued until about 5,000 years ago. Some of these neolithic peoples apparently were still present 300 to 500 years ago when European explorers embarked upon their world voyages.

    As hard as it is to believe this is the truth of human cultural development. This outline of humanity is quite consistent with my attempt to trace back the broad outline of the human story from Africa all those tens of thousands of years ago. The near absence of any organized community until the start of the neolithic age is exactly what I had anticipated. Before this time the descriptions that I have read talk of nomadic hunter gatherers organized in bands of perhaps 20 to 30 people without property of any particular value. It would have been an age of an essentially classless society without wealth or probably nearly any form of elaborate legal system.

    It is only when we reach the Neolithic that some sense of a settled community with tangible property and probably the gradual emergence of a state can we talk of a type of humanity that would be at all recognizable to us now. The Neolithic Age ends perhaps only 5 thousand years ago and we have finally moved toward a conception of reality that would feel even vaguely plausible as an alternative lifestyle for modern people.

    My description in the earlier posts was not entirely off the mark. However, those who might have visions of the past in which there were even more than a very basic understanding of technology much further back than 4 or 5 thousand years would be much more off target.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    My comments about the broad outline of human cognitive development as we left Africa appears to have been more accurate than I would have at first understood. It does seem as though at least a moderate amount of human density was required before anything resembling modern human behavior could emerge. This only happened about 10,000 years ago after the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution occurred? Before that human psychology was mostly dictated by Brownian motion?

    Very interesting this demographic perspective appears to have research credibility.
    As the below article notes, the upper paleolithic transition (transition to a modern human psychology first emerged in Africa perhaps as long as 100,000 years earlier than elsewhere in the world. Article suggests to me that demography might not only have created the brief flourishing of humanity Katanda DRC 90 kya and other sites possibly back as far 160 kya, but perhaps also caused them to fade as populations shifted for various reasons.
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5932/1298.full

    I would have loved to have been there to try and have created the conditions necessary for such forerunners of human civilization to have succeeded all those years ago. Anyone else disappointed that the meandering path of demography possibly prevented us from being 160,000 years more advanced technologically than we are now? Think of how much that would be worth! The technology that would be possible 160,000 years from now should be infinite!

    "By setting the UP transition in Europe at 45 ka (1, 2), we can infer the critical effective population size, and therefore density, necessary for the accumulation of markers of modern behavior. ... The median effective population size estimate in Europe at ~45 ka is 2905 [with 95% highest posterior density interval of 280.4 to 15,933.9], giving an effective population density of ~3.2714 × 10−4km−2. The time at which this density would have been reached in sub-Saharan Africa (estimated area ~24.270 million km2) is ~101 ka." Wow! Reading' em and weep. Y'all have nothing better than a pair of nothing? I think this pot is mine.

    Interesting to ask when/if first nation populations in North and South America would have made this UP transition. Also whether certain populations in living memory would be understood to have not made this transition, perhaps some still haven't.

    One should also consider that the genetic samples that were recently analyzed for IQ SNPs suggest that humans 5000 years ago might have been in the range of 85-95 genoIQ. Considering their demonstrated level of ability, even after humans achieved basic level of "huamnness" even yet more density would help us achieve higher levels of ability ( see article related to alpha, beta, effective population size and ability levels).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Factorize says:
    @utu
    is normally understood by the term would be measured by the diversity of alleles

    And the formula 2pq+2pr+2qr+... captures this and thus it is used to define and measure genetic diversity. Population is most diverse when alleles are uniformly distribute and more uniformly distributed alleles lead to greater diversity.

    When there are 2 alleles the maximum diversity is when p=q=1/2 and the diversity is 2pq=2*0.5*0.5=0.5. When there are 3 alleles then the maximum diversity is when p=q=r=1/3 and the diversity is 2pq+2pr+2qr=0.67. And when there are 4 alleles the maximum diversity is when p=q=r=t=1/4 and the diversity will be 0.75.

    The general formula for the maximum diversity is (n-1)/n where n is the number of alleles.

    Obviously it possible to have one population with 2 alleles to be more diverse than a population with three alleles if the three alleles are not uniformly distribute, say, the third allele has frequency r=0.05 only.

    Note: The genetic diversity for one locus is defined as the average genetic distance of population to itself. The genetic distance is the average of all distances between all pairs of individual. The distance between individuals is defined with Hamming metric, i.e., if two individuals have the same allele the distance is zero and when they do not, the distance is one. In case of two alleles the Hamming metric is equivalent to variance. For more than two alleles variance can't be define uniquely and thus it is not used as the measure of diversity. The definition of the fixation index Fst that was used by Lewontin is based on the Hamming metric. The question is how to define diversity when there several loci? The diversity for each locus is calculated separately and then they are averaged over all loci. Other approach is to generalize the Hamming metric. If two individuals differ at one locus their distance is 1 and when they differ at two loci their distance is 2 and so on.

    Why have we made genetic diversity so complex?
    When I used this term before I only meant that the relatively small group who left Africa only contained a small subset of the variants that were present in the African population at that time.

    I was not thinking in terms of genetic diversity as referring to frequencies of individual genotypes in the way that it is now being described.

    The outstanding question that should be of interest to many on this blog is what might this diversity (which has possibly as yet not been fully explored) reveal to us about variants related to traits and illnesses that are not present in non-African populations? It does not seem far-fetched that Africans might have variants that increase or decrease intelligence which current GWAS have not unveiled as a result of mostly studying European populations.

    Africa has something we value and want.
    We should be nice and answer these questions so that everyone can gain from such knowledge.

    Perhaps the conception of 1500 IQ humans will be found to be an underestimate of human potential.
    With the as yet uncharacterized potential of the African genome it is entirely possible that we could max out with 2000 IQ humans. Yeah!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    With the as yet uncharacterized potential of the African genome it is entirely possible that we could max out with 2000 IQ humans. Yeah!!!
     
    ''Genetic diversity'' alone can't be used to increase intelligence without related-genes and most of this genetic diversity among africans are not ''cognitive'' but due their physical adaptation.

    Just like we have a genetic diversity of [skin, eyes, hair] colors among europeans, not exactly because this characteristic, i believe we also will have higher cognitive genetic diversity among them than among east asians and sapienss...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    The great diversity of Africa only means that there more tribes and sub races that can hate each other more than Swedes can hate Norwegians because they are more different form each other than Swedes and Norwegians.
     
    But nobody has butchered each other more than than the relatively inbred and bottlenecked Europeans.

    In term of genes responsible for skin color they are no more diverse than Europeans or Asians.
     
    That's incorrect. I have very dark (almost black) and very light (almost white) people in my immediate family. And, of course, a wide spectrum in between. I have more skin color diversity in my family alone than exists in all of white Europe.

    Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126724

    And,

    Most people associate Africans with dark skin. But different groups of people in Africa have almost every skin color on the planet, from deepest black in the Dinka of South Sudan to beige in the San of South Africa. Now, researchers have discovered a handful of new gene variants responsible for this palette of tones.

    The study, published online this week in Science, traces the evolution of these genes and how they traveled around the world. While the dark skin of some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Africa, gene variants from Eurasia also seem to have made their way back to Africa. And surprisingly, some of the mutations responsible for lighter skin in Europeans turn out to have an ancient African origin.

    https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/scientist-discover-skin-color-diversity-in-ancient-africa.1285576/

    But there are some genes that Europeans are more diverse. For instance c. 10% of Europeans have mutation that makes them resistant to HIV infections while no African has it.
     
    That's incorrect.

    In South Africa, a rare group of children unknowingly find themselves resistant to the effects of HIV.
    Even without antiretroviral treatment, they will never develop AIDS, or so scientists believe.
    Unlike adults and other children who succumb to the virus if not treated -- enabling it to attack their immune cells and weakening their immunity to disease -- these kids harbor huge amounts of HIV within their blood but remain unscathed.


    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/health/rare-children-resistant-to-aids-through-built-in-defense-system/index.html

    On another tread one African took great pride form greater genetic diversity of Africa “deducing” from it that Africans necessarily must be more intelligent.
     
    What I've said is that I believe the smartest people will be found in Africa. It's an entirely defensible hypothesis that dovetails nicely with the greater genetic diversity in there.

    What I’ve said is that I believe the smartest people will be found in Africa. It’s an entirely defensible hypothesis that dovetails nicely with the greater genetic diversity in there.

    This is my hypothesis, excerpts:

    Taller people have on average bigger/wider arteries, and thus on average better-blood-supplied brains, in my opinion
    [...]
    But you forgot to factor in Bergmann’s Rule in your analysis, which, in my opinion, would predict racial differences in IQ/intelligence caused by climate/temperature via bigger/wider arteries in taller/bigger human beings who live far away from the equator http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185 , which translates, as I stated above into “better-blood-supplied brains,” i.e., higher intelligence.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1850648

    There are also differences between the heights of the different Nilotic peoples/tribes, plus the population of that group is not huge either; I am not exactly sure but I think it is maybe around 20 to 25 million(?), and again, their height is mostly due to their long limbs, so I am not sure their arteries would as big/wide as an equally tall, but bigger/heavier, Nordic person’s ones; which would explain their on average lower intelligence compared to Northern Europeans, despite their tallness
    [...]
    Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1851599

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Blood-Guzzling Brain Key To Evolution Of Human Intelligence

    https://www.popsci.com/blood-guzzling-brain-key-to-evolution-human-intelligence

    By calculating how blood supply to the brains of human ancestors changed over time, the researchers were able to show that the human brain not only evolved to become larger, but also more blood-thirsty. And the need for blood outpaced the volume increase of the brain itself.

    "Brain size has increased about 350% over human evolution, but we found that blood flow to the brain increased an amazing 600%," project leader Roger Seymour, from the University of Adelaide, said in a statement. "We believe this is possibly related to the brain's need to satisfy increasingly energetic connections between nerve cells that allowed the evolution of complex thinking and learning."
     
    Two holes at the base of the human skull allow arteries to shuttle blood from the heart to the brain. The diameters of the holes correspond to the size and blood-carrying capacity of the arteries. By tracking the changes in the size of those holes in human ancestors, the researchers were able to track the evolution of human intelligence.

    Human skulls, showing the location of two openings for the internal carotid arteries that supply the cerebrum of the brain almost entirely.

    https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/1000_1x_/public/images/2016/08/skull_human.jpg

    Cerebral blood flow rate in relation to estimated geological age in 12 hominin species.

    https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/1000_1x_/public/images/2016/08/brain_blood_flow_chart.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    What I’ve said is that I believe the smartest people will be found in Africa. It’s an entirely defensible hypothesis that dovetails nicely with the greater genetic diversity in there.
     
    This is my hypothesis, excerpts:

    Taller people have on average bigger/wider arteries, and thus on average better-blood-supplied brains, in my opinion
    [...]
    But you forgot to factor in Bergmann’s Rule in your analysis, which, in my opinion, would predict racial differences in IQ/intelligence caused by climate/temperature via bigger/wider arteries in taller/bigger human beings who live far away from the equator http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185 , which translates, as I stated above into “better-blood-supplied brains,” i.e., higher intelligence.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1850648

    There are also differences between the heights of the different Nilotic peoples/tribes, plus the population of that group is not huge either; I am not exactly sure but I think it is maybe around 20 to 25 million(?), and again, their height is mostly due to their long limbs, so I am not sure their arteries would as big/wide as an equally tall, but bigger/heavier, Nordic person’s ones; which would explain their on average lower intelligence compared to Northern Europeans, despite their tallness
    [...]
    Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1851599

    Blood-Guzzling Brain Key To Evolution Of Human Intelligence

    https://www.popsci.com/blood-guzzling-brain-key-to-evolution-human-intelligence

    By calculating how blood supply to the brains of human ancestors changed over time, the researchers were able to show that the human brain not only evolved to become larger, but also more blood-thirsty. And the need for blood outpaced the volume increase of the brain itself.

    “Brain size has increased about 350% over human evolution, but we found that blood flow to the brain increased an amazing 600%,” project leader Roger Seymour, from the University of Adelaide, said in a statement. “We believe this is possibly related to the brain’s need to satisfy increasingly energetic connections between nerve cells that allowed the evolution of complex thinking and learning.”

    Two holes at the base of the human skull allow arteries to shuttle blood from the heart to the brain. The diameters of the holes correspond to the size and blood-carrying capacity of the arteries. By tracking the changes in the size of those holes in human ancestors, the researchers were able to track the evolution of human intelligence.

    Human skulls, showing the location of two openings for the internal carotid arteries that supply the cerebrum of the brain almost entirely.

    Cerebral blood flow rate in relation to estimated geological age in 12 hominin species.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. res says:
    @utu
    Good that you are trying to clarify the confusion sown by the semi-educated with the heterozygosity fetish. Let me add this:

    Genetic diversity and heterozygosity are not the same things unless the population is in the Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium. Two populations may have the same genetic diversities but different heterozygosities because of, say different levels of inbreeding. This is fairly simple to see when only two alleles are considered. In cases of many alleles it is more complicated. It is possible to have a population with higher heterozygosity that has lower allelic richness which is the average number of alleles per locus. Which of the two population is more genetically diverse?

    For two alleles locus the highest genetic diversity occurs when p=q=0.5 regardless whether there is high or low heterozygosity. The measure of genetic diversity is 2pq which also is the frequency of heterozygosity in Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium. For three alleles the highest diversity occurs when p=q=r=1/3. Then the measure of genetic diversity is 2pq+2pr+2qr.

    Population that is less genetically diverse, i..e, p≠q may have higher heterozygosity than population that is maximally diverse, i.e, p=q.

    Then there is a difference of between the actual and expected heterozygosity. Not always heterozygosity is measured directly. Rather it is estimated from frequencies p and q and expressed as 2pq that presupposes the Hardy-Weinstein equilibrium.

    The bottom line is that the highest genetic diversity is reached when alleles are distributed uniformly, i.e., when they have the same frequencies of occurrence. In less diverse populations that are below the maximum diversity one allele will have larger frequency than others. If it happens that this more frequent allele is beneficial, this population will have an advantage over the population that has maximum genetic diversity where this beneficial allele has the same frequency as the non beneficial alleles. In other words high genetic diversity does not imply advantage.

    If there are genes that are responsible for intelligence, the least genetically diverse population that maximizes the frequencies of these genes will have the highest average intelligence. The average intelligence of the most genetically diverse population will be merely average.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Factorize
    Why have we made genetic diversity so complex?
    When I used this term before I only meant that the relatively small group who left Africa only contained a small subset of the variants that were present in the African population at that time.

    I was not thinking in terms of genetic diversity as referring to frequencies of individual genotypes in the way that it is now being described.

    The outstanding question that should be of interest to many on this blog is what might this diversity (which has possibly as yet not been fully explored) reveal to us about variants related to traits and illnesses that are not present in non-African populations? It does not seem far-fetched that Africans might have variants that increase or decrease intelligence which current GWAS have not unveiled as a result of mostly studying European populations.

    Africa has something we value and want.
    We should be nice and answer these questions so that everyone can gain from such knowledge.

    Perhaps the conception of 1500 IQ humans will be found to be an underestimate of human potential.
    With the as yet uncharacterized potential of the African genome it is entirely possible that we could max out with 2000 IQ humans. Yeah!!!

    With the as yet uncharacterized potential of the African genome it is entirely possible that we could max out with 2000 IQ humans. Yeah!!!

    ”Genetic diversity” alone can’t be used to increase intelligence without related-genes and most of this genetic diversity among africans are not ”cognitive” but due their physical adaptation.

    Just like we have a genetic diversity of [skin, eyes, hair] colors among europeans, not exactly because this characteristic, i believe we also will have higher cognitive genetic diversity among them than among east asians and sapienss…

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

    The conversation has been so fixated on identifying and developing high g that cognitive reserve has been almost entirely ignored. g might be a biologically fixed property of the brain, though the research over the last century or two has been clear that the brain itself has neuroanatomical plasticity. This plasticity appears to allow for learning new subjects as a strategy for avoiding dementia.

    While cognitive interventions with the intent of changing psychometric g might be futile, cognitive interventions with the intent of changing the risk of dementia would not be futile. Why has this line of argument not been more prominent in discussion of school leaving age?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  165. wootendw says:

    Choline supplements boost my memory and concentration and failing to take choline causes a decline. Choline may not work for everyone but there is no reason people shouldn’t experiment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Is this an empirical observation or have you used any metrics to test working memory?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @wootendw
    Choline supplements boost my memory and concentration and failing to take choline causes a decline. Choline may not work for everyone but there is no reason people shouldn't experiment.

    Is this an empirical observation or have you used any metrics to test working memory?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Factorize says:
    @Factorize
    utu, let's address ideas and questions of the person.

    Yes, you are quite correct that my above comments are quite abysmal. I realize that I am skating on thin ice, though just as it is with discussion about race when you never talk of certain things then you can live your whole life without developing a minimal competency in a subject. On other subjects I could and have formulated much more sophisticated opinions. I have as yet not taken a course in cognitive anthropology.

    However, as I now read up on the development of human civilization, it appears that my broad outline is not entirely misplaced. For about 1 million of humanoid existence there apparently was almost a complete absence of any sort of technological development. Highly skilled anthropologists would be required to differentiate a stone tool made by an ape like human, a homo erectus or a homo habillis separated in time by hundreds of thousands of years. This phase of human development called the paleolithic lasted until about 10,000 years.

    A new stone age then emerged in which small bands of hunter gathers were replaced by larger groups of settled farmers. This neolithic age continued until about 5,000 years ago. Some of these neolithic peoples apparently were still present 300 to 500 years ago when European explorers embarked upon their world voyages.

    As hard as it is to believe this is the truth of human cultural development. This outline of humanity is quite consistent with my attempt to trace back the broad outline of the human story from Africa all those tens of thousands of years ago. The near absence of any organized community until the start of the neolithic age is exactly what I had anticipated. Before this time the descriptions that I have read talk of nomadic hunter gatherers organized in bands of perhaps 20 to 30 people without property of any particular value. It would have been an age of an essentially classless society without wealth or probably nearly any form of elaborate legal system.

    It is only when we reach the Neolithic that some sense of a settled community with tangible property and probably the gradual emergence of a state can we talk of a type of humanity that would be at all recognizable to us now. The Neolithic Age ends perhaps only 5 thousand years ago and we have finally moved toward a conception of reality that would feel even vaguely plausible as an alternative lifestyle for modern people.

    My description in the earlier posts was not entirely off the mark. However, those who might have visions of the past in which there were even more than a very basic understanding of technology much further back than 4 or 5 thousand years would be much more off target.

    My comments about the broad outline of human cognitive development as we left Africa appears to have been more accurate than I would have at first understood. It does seem as though at least a moderate amount of human density was required before anything resembling modern human behavior could emerge. This only happened about 10,000 years ago after the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution occurred? Before that human psychology was mostly dictated by Brownian motion?

    Very interesting this demographic perspective appears to have research credibility.
    As the below article notes, the upper paleolithic transition (transition to a modern human psychology first emerged in Africa perhaps as long as 100,000 years earlier than elsewhere in the world. Article suggests to me that demography might not only have created the brief flourishing of humanity Katanda DRC 90 kya and other sites possibly back as far 160 kya, but perhaps also caused them to fade as populations shifted for various reasons.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5932/1298.full

    I would have loved to have been there to try and have created the conditions necessary for such forerunners of human civilization to have succeeded all those years ago. Anyone else disappointed that the meandering path of demography possibly prevented us from being 160,000 years more advanced technologically than we are now? Think of how much that would be worth! The technology that would be possible 160,000 years from now should be infinite!

    “By setting the UP transition in Europe at 45 ka (1, 2), we can infer the critical effective population size, and therefore density, necessary for the accumulation of markers of modern behavior. … The median effective population size estimate in Europe at ~45 ka is 2905 [with 95% highest posterior density interval of 280.4 to 15,933.9], giving an effective population density of ~3.2714 × 10−4km−2. The time at which this density would have been reached in sub-Saharan Africa (estimated area ~24.270 million km2) is ~101 ka.” Wow! Reading’ em and weep. Y’all have nothing better than a pair of nothing? I think this pot is mine.

    Interesting to ask when/if first nation populations in North and South America would have made this UP transition. Also whether certain populations in living memory would be understood to have not made this transition, perhaps some still haven’t.

    One should also consider that the genetic samples that were recently analyzed for IQ SNPs suggest that humans 5000 years ago might have been in the range of 85-95 genoIQ. Considering their demonstrated level of ability, even after humans achieved basic level of “huamnness” even yet more density would help us achieve higher levels of ability ( see article related to alpha, beta, effective population size and ability levels).

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

    Also consider how the neolithic human population likely impacted on human development as suggested in the model above. Notice that human population 7-8 thousand years ago could be almost static for 2 -3 thousand years at a time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. Factorize says:

    We can only hope that Oke and Afro are on vacation or something. Bit tricky to spin this one our way.

    “These [i.e., modern behavioral traits] are thought to first appear soon after the initial expansions of AMH [anatomically modern humans] into the regions but only become widespread later on, ~30 ka and ~20 ka, if not later, in south Asia and Australia, respectively.

    In Africa, … there is strong evidence for the sporadic appearance of many markers of modern behavior at multiple sites as early as 70 to 90 ka, and possibly as far back as 160 ka.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  170. utu says:

    Boost Your IQ

    I want to return to the original subject. Some studies definitively show that IQ scores increase ∆IQ/year. Should it be surprising? Only within the IQist cult that misrepresent many results of studies and suppresses or de-emphasizes inconvenient results.

    Look at the most important tenet of IQist cult beliefs: IQ test scores are stable. It is claimed that tests resets correlation is circa 0.9. It is claimed (Scottish) studies that adolescence-old age IQ test scores correlate at circa 0.8. What do numbers 0.8 or 0.9 mean?

    Correlation 0.9 implies that 32% scores differ by more than ±6.5 IQ points
    Correlation 0.8 implies that 32% scores differ by more than ±9.0 IQ points

    Furthermore correlation is not sensitive to linear scaling errors so in reality the numbers ±6.5 and ±9.0 will be even larger due to offset errors.

    The number 4/year from the Norwegian study no longer looks like particularly large because IQ test scores are not as stable as we are made to believe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    utu, what do you think? Pretty amazing?

    I have wondered for some time what the explanation for the emergence and the disappearance of early examples of human modernism such as at Blombos Cave might be. It looks like demography is a strong contender. This is the launching force of modern human behavior and it has nothing to do with genetics or any of the other usual suspects. The article went on to note that this same force has explanatory power in explaining why when Europeans arrived in Tasmania a few centuries ago their technology base had somehow managed to have went in reverse over the last 10,000 years . Their culture had devolved more than anywhere else on the planet!

    Surely, others might have some comment on this? This is an important piece of how humans became modern. This allows us to go beyond the confines of psychometric thinking.

    Africa was 130 ka ahead of Asia and over 100 ka ahead of Europe? This is very startling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Factorize says:
    @utu
    Boost Your IQ

    I want to return to the original subject. Some studies definitively show that IQ scores increase ∆IQ/year. Should it be surprising? Only within the IQist cult that misrepresent many results of studies and suppresses or de-emphasizes inconvenient results.

    Look at the most important tenet of IQist cult beliefs: IQ test scores are stable. It is claimed that tests resets correlation is circa 0.9. It is claimed (Scottish) studies that adolescence-old age IQ test scores correlate at circa 0.8. What do numbers 0.8 or 0.9 mean?

    Correlation 0.9 implies that 32% scores differ by more than ±6.5 IQ points
    Correlation 0.8 implies that 32% scores differ by more than ±9.0 IQ points

    Furthermore correlation is not sensitive to linear scaling errors so in reality the numbers ±6.5 and ±9.0 will be even larger due to offset errors.

    The number 4/year from the Norwegian study no longer looks like particularly large because IQ test scores are not as stable as we are made to believe.

    utu, what do you think? Pretty amazing?

    I have wondered for some time what the explanation for the emergence and the disappearance of early examples of human modernism such as at Blombos Cave might be. It looks like demography is a strong contender. This is the launching force of modern human behavior and it has nothing to do with genetics or any of the other usual suspects. The article went on to note that this same force has explanatory power in explaining why when Europeans arrived in Tasmania a few centuries ago their technology base had somehow managed to have went in reverse over the last 10,000 years . Their culture had devolved more than anywhere else on the planet!

    Surely, others might have some comment on this? This is an important piece of how humans became modern. This allows us to go beyond the confines of psychometric thinking.

    Africa was 130 ka ahead of Asia and over 100 ka ahead of Europe? This is very startling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I have wondered for some time

    How long exactly? One day, week, month? Did the process of wondering involve analytical thinking or it was just pure wondering? Did you try to enhance the wondering experience with pot? Are you smoking now?
    , @Factorize
    These two simulations show the power of demography to enhance skill level in the community.
    The left hand panel shows a high density landscape, the right a low density.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2009/06/04/324.5932.1298.DC1/1170165movs1.gif

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2009/06/04/324.5932.1298.DC1/1170165movs2.gif
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Afrosapiens
    Whatever!

    Heterozygosity decreases with distance from Africa:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wrj4xP9VGaE/V-2gqS1yuzI/AAAAAAAADXk/bnTQ0A1WS3MYsJP4w_luHZ5Dq9p4JCCyACLcB/s1600/admixture.png

    Heterozygote advantage:

    A heterozygote advantage describes the case in which the heterozygous genotype has a higher relative fitness than either the homozygous dominant or homozygous recessive genotype. The specific case of heterozygote advantage due to a single locus is known as overdominance.[1][2] In more general terms, overdominance is a condition in genetics where the phenotype of the heterozygote lies outside of the phenotypical range of both homozygote parents, and heterozygous individuals have a higher fitness than homozygous individuals.

    Polymorphism can be maintained by selection favoring the heterozygote, and this mechanism is used to explain the occurrence of some kinds of genetic variability. A common example is the case where the heterozygote conveys both advantages and disadvantages, while both homozygotes convey a disadvantage. A well-established case of heterozygote advantage is that of the gene involved in sickle cell anaemia.

    Often, the advantages and disadvantages conveyed are rather complicated, because more than one gene may influence a given trait or morph. Major genes almost always have multiple effects (pleiotropism), which can simultaneously convey separate advantageous traits and disadvantageous traits upon the same organism. In this instance, the state of the organism's environment will provide selection, with a net effect either favoring or working in opposition to the gene, until an environmentally determined equilibrium is reached.

    Heterozygote advantage is a major underlying mechanism for heterosis, or "hybrid vigor", which is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. Previous research, comparing measures of dominance, overdominance and epistasis (mostly in plants), found that the majority of cases of heterozygote advantage were due to complementation (or dominance), the masking of deleterious recessive alleles by wild-type alleles, as discussed in the articles Heterosis and Complementation (genetics), but there were also findings of overdominance, especially in rice.[2] More recent research, however, has established that there is also an epigenetic contribution to heterozygote advantage, primarily as determined in plants,[3][4] though also reported in mice.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage

    Non potrò mai perdonare afrochamberlain per avermi dato herpes, hiv e sifilide.

    —Paul VI

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. afrochamberlain ammette di avere sessato 100 donne all’età di 24 anni, eppure si aspetta perdono. triste!

    —Pius X

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. Factorize says:

    Over 300 EA SNPs (Table 1).
    Have these been published before?

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/11/20/222265.DC1/222265-1.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for the link. What approach do you use to track the literature (i.e. this paper just came out)?

    Could double check with earlier SNP lists? The IQ study we have been talking about has a table showing overlaps with previous studies.

    Here is the top level link (with full text) to the paper for the supplement you link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/20/222265
    Leveraging polygenic functional enrichment to improve GWAS power

    Paper abstract:

    Functional genomics data has the potential to increase GWAS power by identifying SNPs that have a higher prior probability of association. Here, we introduce a method that leverages polygenic functional enrichment to incorporate coding, conserved, regulatory and LD-related genomic annotations into association analyses. We show via simulations with real genotypes that the method, Functionally Informed Novel Discovery Of Risk loci (FINDOR), correctly controls the false-positive rate at null loci and attains a 9-38% increase in the number of independent associations detected at causal loci, depending on trait polygenicity and sample size. We applied FINDOR to 27 independent complex traits and diseases from the interim UK Biobank release (average N=130K). Averaged across traits, we attained a 13% increase in genome-wide significant loci detected (including a 20% increase for disease traits) compared to unweighted raw p-values that do not use functional data. We replicated the novel loci in independent UK Biobank and non-UK Biobank data, yielding a highly statistically significant replication slope (0.66-0.69) in each case. Finally, we applied FINDOR to the full UK Biobank release (average N=416K), attaining smaller relative improvements (consistent with simulations) but larger absolute improvements, detecting an additional 583 GWAS loci. In conclusion, leveraging functional enrichment using our method robustly increases GWAS power.
     
    The supplementary table 6 spreadsheet has the SNP lists for all of the traits covered (14000 total, 322 for EA in the 459K version): https://www.biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/67685/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/222265-2.xlsx
    The table basically only contains trait, rsID, and p-value so would be helpful to cross reference with other data sources.

    I am in the middle of putting together a new computer right now so:
    1. I'm too busy (and my compute environment is too much in flux) to really engage with this data right now.
    2. I will be more likely to engage with this type of data in the near future than in the recent past. ; )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. utu says:
    @Factorize
    utu, what do you think? Pretty amazing?

    I have wondered for some time what the explanation for the emergence and the disappearance of early examples of human modernism such as at Blombos Cave might be. It looks like demography is a strong contender. This is the launching force of modern human behavior and it has nothing to do with genetics or any of the other usual suspects. The article went on to note that this same force has explanatory power in explaining why when Europeans arrived in Tasmania a few centuries ago their technology base had somehow managed to have went in reverse over the last 10,000 years . Their culture had devolved more than anywhere else on the planet!

    Surely, others might have some comment on this? This is an important piece of how humans became modern. This allows us to go beyond the confines of psychometric thinking.

    Africa was 130 ka ahead of Asia and over 100 ka ahead of Europe? This is very startling.

    I have wondered for some time

    How long exactly? One day, week, month? Did the process of wondering involve analytical thinking or it was just pure wondering? Did you try to enhance the wondering experience with pot? Are you smoking now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Thank you for commenting, utu.

    Your comment gives me an opportunity to more fully describe my thought process. Several years ago I was exposed to the idea that several African sites had been uncovered which suggested that humans had demonstrated behavioral modernity approximately 70 kya, yet the evidence pointed to this behavior only being maintained for a short period of time before disappearing at these locations. I have always thought this to be an immense tragedy.

    Humans had achieved humanness and then lost this for 100,000 years or more? I thought perhaps early humans might not have seen any great advantage to human style cognition. Yet, imagine what our life might be right now if they had maintained this cognitive after it first emerged possibly even as long as 150,000 to 200,000 years ago. This would have meant that those who ventured out of Africa would have already been equipped with the basic human cognitive tool kit.

    It is difficult to imagine, though, there are some hints that Japan still engaged in Hunter gatherer behavior as recently as 2,000 years ago.

    Tasmania actually was found to have regressed to a Neolithic lifestyle when European explorers arrived two centuries ago.

    So much human potential has been lost while humans have become human.

    The article that I cited which develops the density and migration demographic model has substantial ability to explain a number of questions related to the timing and geographical unfolding of human civilization.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. res says:
    @Factorize
    Over 300 EA SNPs (Table 1).
    Have these been published before?

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/11/20/222265.DC1/222265-1.pdf

    Thanks for the link. What approach do you use to track the literature (i.e. this paper just came out)?

    Could double check with earlier SNP lists? The IQ study we have been talking about has a table showing overlaps with previous studies.

    Here is the top level link (with full text) to the paper for the supplement you link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/20/222265
    Leveraging polygenic functional enrichment to improve GWAS power

    Paper abstract:

    Functional genomics data has the potential to increase GWAS power by identifying SNPs that have a higher prior probability of association. Here, we introduce a method that leverages polygenic functional enrichment to incorporate coding, conserved, regulatory and LD-related genomic annotations into association analyses. We show via simulations with real genotypes that the method, Functionally Informed Novel Discovery Of Risk loci (FINDOR), correctly controls the false-positive rate at null loci and attains a 9-38% increase in the number of independent associations detected at causal loci, depending on trait polygenicity and sample size. We applied FINDOR to 27 independent complex traits and diseases from the interim UK Biobank release (average N=130K). Averaged across traits, we attained a 13% increase in genome-wide significant loci detected (including a 20% increase for disease traits) compared to unweighted raw p-values that do not use functional data. We replicated the novel loci in independent UK Biobank and non-UK Biobank data, yielding a highly statistically significant replication slope (0.66-0.69) in each case. Finally, we applied FINDOR to the full UK Biobank release (average N=416K), attaining smaller relative improvements (consistent with simulations) but larger absolute improvements, detecting an additional 583 GWAS loci. In conclusion, leveraging functional enrichment using our method robustly increases GWAS power.

    The supplementary table 6 spreadsheet has the SNP lists for all of the traits covered (14000 total, 322 for EA in the 459K version): https://www.biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/67685/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/222265-2.xlsx
    The table basically only contains trait, rsID, and p-value so would be helpful to cross reference with other data sources.

    I am in the middle of putting together a new computer right now so:
    1. I’m too busy (and my compute environment is too much in flux) to really engage with this data right now.
    2. I will be more likely to engage with this type of data in the near future than in the recent past. ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    res, this is so frustrating!

    Another recent article did not provide the rsnumbers at all.
    This article provides the rsnumbers, though does not seem to provide a reference for where these rses
    are sourced. Not only that but they do not provide the magnitude nor direction of the effects. Of course for the snps that discovered in this new research no other source could help us determine the magnitude nor direction. HMM!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Factorize says:
    @res
    Thanks for the link. What approach do you use to track the literature (i.e. this paper just came out)?

    Could double check with earlier SNP lists? The IQ study we have been talking about has a table showing overlaps with previous studies.

    Here is the top level link (with full text) to the paper for the supplement you link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/20/222265
    Leveraging polygenic functional enrichment to improve GWAS power

    Paper abstract:

    Functional genomics data has the potential to increase GWAS power by identifying SNPs that have a higher prior probability of association. Here, we introduce a method that leverages polygenic functional enrichment to incorporate coding, conserved, regulatory and LD-related genomic annotations into association analyses. We show via simulations with real genotypes that the method, Functionally Informed Novel Discovery Of Risk loci (FINDOR), correctly controls the false-positive rate at null loci and attains a 9-38% increase in the number of independent associations detected at causal loci, depending on trait polygenicity and sample size. We applied FINDOR to 27 independent complex traits and diseases from the interim UK Biobank release (average N=130K). Averaged across traits, we attained a 13% increase in genome-wide significant loci detected (including a 20% increase for disease traits) compared to unweighted raw p-values that do not use functional data. We replicated the novel loci in independent UK Biobank and non-UK Biobank data, yielding a highly statistically significant replication slope (0.66-0.69) in each case. Finally, we applied FINDOR to the full UK Biobank release (average N=416K), attaining smaller relative improvements (consistent with simulations) but larger absolute improvements, detecting an additional 583 GWAS loci. In conclusion, leveraging functional enrichment using our method robustly increases GWAS power.
     
    The supplementary table 6 spreadsheet has the SNP lists for all of the traits covered (14000 total, 322 for EA in the 459K version): https://www.biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/67685/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/222265-2.xlsx
    The table basically only contains trait, rsID, and p-value so would be helpful to cross reference with other data sources.

    I am in the middle of putting together a new computer right now so:
    1. I'm too busy (and my compute environment is too much in flux) to really engage with this data right now.
    2. I will be more likely to engage with this type of data in the near future than in the recent past. ; )

    res, this is so frustrating!

    Another recent article did not provide the rsnumbers at all.
    This article provides the rsnumbers, though does not seem to provide a reference for where these rses
    are sourced. Not only that but they do not provide the magnitude nor direction of the effects. Of course for the snps that discovered in this new research no other source could help us determine the magnitude nor direction. HMM!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Factorize says:
    @Factorize
    utu, what do you think? Pretty amazing?

    I have wondered for some time what the explanation for the emergence and the disappearance of early examples of human modernism such as at Blombos Cave might be. It looks like demography is a strong contender. This is the launching force of modern human behavior and it has nothing to do with genetics or any of the other usual suspects. The article went on to note that this same force has explanatory power in explaining why when Europeans arrived in Tasmania a few centuries ago their technology base had somehow managed to have went in reverse over the last 10,000 years . Their culture had devolved more than anywhere else on the planet!

    Surely, others might have some comment on this? This is an important piece of how humans became modern. This allows us to go beyond the confines of psychometric thinking.

    Africa was 130 ka ahead of Asia and over 100 ka ahead of Europe? This is very startling.

    These two simulations show the power of demography to enhance skill level in the community.
    The left hand panel shows a high density landscape, the right a low density.

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

    Second time series actually shows high standard deviation of migratory activity on left and low on right.

    “These subpopulations are connected by Gaussian random-walk migratory activity, with standard deviation MSD, such that the mean global migration rate approximates the subpopulation density D”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  180. Factorize says:

    Racial identity more important than ability?
    Harvard lawsuit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. Factorize says:
    @utu
    I have wondered for some time

    How long exactly? One day, week, month? Did the process of wondering involve analytical thinking or it was just pure wondering? Did you try to enhance the wondering experience with pot? Are you smoking now?

    Thank you for commenting, utu.

    Your comment gives me an opportunity to more fully describe my thought process. Several years ago I was exposed to the idea that several African sites had been uncovered which suggested that humans had demonstrated behavioral modernity approximately 70 kya, yet the evidence pointed to this behavior only being maintained for a short period of time before disappearing at these locations. I have always thought this to be an immense tragedy.

    Humans had achieved humanness and then lost this for 100,000 years or more? I thought perhaps early humans might not have seen any great advantage to human style cognition. Yet, imagine what our life might be right now if they had maintained this cognitive after it first emerged possibly even as long as 150,000 to 200,000 years ago. This would have meant that those who ventured out of Africa would have already been equipped with the basic human cognitive tool kit.

    It is difficult to imagine, though, there are some hints that Japan still engaged in Hunter gatherer behavior as recently as 2,000 years ago.

    Tasmania actually was found to have regressed to a Neolithic lifestyle when European explorers arrived two centuries ago.

    So much human potential has been lost while humans have become human.

    The article that I cited which develops the density and migration demographic model has substantial ability to explain a number of questions related to the timing and geographical unfolding of human civilization.

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

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS