The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Thompson ArchiveBlogview
Even More Genes for Intelligence
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Intelligent tissues

The intelligence gene hunters have been stepping up their activities, and keep coming back with more trophies. Danielle Posthuma and colleagues are at it again, studying very large samples and finding further novel genes which load on brain tissues. I hope someone somewhere is keeping track of the overall picture, perhaps in a control room with multiple screens, like the NASA control centre of old, tracking the orbit of each SNP as it hoves into sight.

This is all very good, but it makes life difficult for mere commentators. When starting to write my comments I chose the working title “More genes for intelligence”. When trying to save it my Word program told me, somewhat severely, that I already had a document of that name. So, perhaps this note will have to read “Even more genes for intelligence.

This was the position in May: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v49/n7/full/ng.3869.html

Briefly, in a study of 78,308 individuals Sniekers et al. said:

We identify 336 associated SNPs (METAL P < 5 × 10−8) in 18 genomic loci, of which 15 are new. Around half of the SNPs are located inside a gene, implicating 22 genes, of which 11 are new findings. Gene-based analyses identified an additional 30 genes (MAGMA P < 2.73 × 10−6), of which all but one had not been implicated previously. We show that the identified genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue, and pathway analysis indicates the involvement of genes regulating cell development (MAGMA competitive P = 3.5 × 10−6). Despite the well-known difference in twin-based heritability for intelligence in childhood (0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation (rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10−29). These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence.

So, where are we in September?

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/06/184853.1

GWAS meta-analysis (N=279,930) identifies new genes and functional links to intelligence. Savage et al. say:

Intelligence is highly heritable and a major determinant of human health and well-being. Recent genome-wide meta-analyses have identified 24 genomic loci linked to intelligence, but much about its genetic underpinnings remains to be discovered. Here, we present the largest genetic association study of intelligence to date (N=279,930), identifying 206 genomic loci (191 novel) and implicating 1,041 genes (963 novel) via positional mapping, expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) mapping, chromatin interaction mapping, and gene-based association analysis. We find enrichment of genetic effects in conserved and coding regions and identify 89 nonsynonymous exonic variants. Associated genes are strongly expressed in the brain and specifically in striatal medium spiny neurons and cortical and hippocampal pyramidal neurons. Gene-set analyses implicate pathways related to neurogenesis, neuron differentiation and synaptic structure. We confirm previous strong genetic correlations with several neuropsychiatric disorders, and Mendelian Randomization results suggest protective effects of intelligence for Alzheimer’s dementia and ADHD, and bidirectional causation with strong pleiotropy for schizophrenia. These results are a major step forward in understanding the neurobiology of intelligence as well as genetically associated neuro-psychiatric traits.

What is all this about?

As you know, I try to understand these procedures by analogy with code breaking. The actual DNA code comes all wrapped up, so it needs to be broken apart, shattered into pieces and then assembled again to reveal its underlying sequence. This involves some assumptions, but the mapping of the code is all about finding where everything is located, ideally precisely where it is in the sequence of base pairs. However, this approach loses the packaging information, so researchers pay attention to genetic linkage, the tendency of DNA sequences that are close together on a chromosome to be inherited together. Call this the packaging information. Guilt by association. Of course, this code is very complicated, but at least it has been road tested for millennia. This may account for many sections being conserved, on the sensible basis one does not tamper with the instructions on which life depends, even though some of those instruction may be redundant.

There are many techniques being used, and this paper describes the results of each in supplementary sections. Positional mapping means that genetic variants are linked to a gene when they are physically located inside that gene. Expression quantitative trait locus mapping (eQTL) links a genetic variant to a gene when that variant changes the expression of that gene. The variant is not necessarily located inside the gene. Chromatin interaction mapping links genetic variants to genes by looking at the 3D organization of chromosomes, which may allow remote genetic variants to influence a gene when they become close through DNA folding. Exonic variants are the parts which code for proteins, whereas introns do not. (Consider introns to be intervening sequences and exons to be expressed sequences). One day someone will write a user’s manual for all this research, though it will have to be updated every few months.

In gene-set analysis using the GWGAS results, six Gene Ontology gene-sets were significantly associated with intelligence: neurogenesis (Beta=0.153), neuron differentiation (Beta=0.178), central nervous system neuron differentiation (Beta=0.398), regulation of nervous system development (Beta=0.187), positive regulation of nervous system development (Beta=0.242), and regulation of synapse structure or activity(Beta=0.153). Conditional analysis indicated that there were three independent associations, for the neurogenesis, central nervous system neuron differentiation, and regulation of synapse structure or activity processes, which together accounted for the associations of the other three sets. Linking gene-based P-values to tissue-specific gene-sets, we observed strong associations across various brain areas (as shown in the figure), most strongly with the cortex (P=5.12×10-9), and specifically frontal cortex (P=4.94×10-9). In brain single-cell expression gene-set analyses, we found significant associations of striatal medium spiny neurons (P=1.47×10-13) and pyramidal neurons in the CA1 hippocampal (P=4×10-11) and cortical somatosensory regions (P=3×10-9).

Using polygenic score prediction we show that the current results explain up to 5.4% of the variance in four independent samples.

Our results also suggested a protective effect of intelligence on ADHD (OR=0.46) and Alzheimer’s disease (OR=0.66). In line with a positive genetic correlation, we observed that intelligence was associated with higher risk of autism (OR=1.47). There was evidence of a bidirectional association between intelligence and schizophrenia including a strong protective effect of intelligence on schizophrenia (OR=0.58), and a relatively smaller reverse effect (bxy= −0.195), with additional evidence for pleiotropy.

Once more the gene hunters are finding features of the genetic code which appear to be the building blocks of what makes brains intelligent. As has been found in most previous studies, these aspects are also related to important psychiatric disorders, opening up new lines of research. Despite the very healthy sample size, such association studies can only capture part of the variance, in my view because so much remains to be understood as to how the code leads to the proteins which lead to the tissues and their functions and capabilities.

Once the association studies get to the Hsu boundary (1 million) as will shortly be reported on by James Lee, we will be able to see how far association studies can get, given that we do not have any secret code book available for capture.

Finally, to follow my analogy, the code-breakers can now report:

After taking down lots of their messages, we can read about 5% of the enemy code. They are sending resources to the brain. This boosts their intelligence and protects them from attention deficit and dementing disorders, and also gives them some protection against schizophrenia, but leaves them with a liability to autism. We will crack the rest of the code in due course. However, if you could capture their code book, it would speed things up.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Genomics, IQ 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. res says:

    Once the association studies get to the Hsu boundary (1 million) as will shortly be reported on by James Lee, we will be able to see how far association studies can get,

    Thanks for this! Any idea of the time frame they are expecting?

    Notice how conspicuous the pituitary is as the most important non-CNS tissue. Just like in http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-99-steps-of-intelligence-hunters/
    I did not see lymphocytes as prominent in that paper (they were in this one). I wonder what is going on there.

    The new trend seems to be genetic metastudies to get to the large sample sizes (both this and the link above). Has anybody compiled a list of the major underlying studies involved and which are incorporated in each metastudy? I don’t have a sense of which of these large samples are and are not overlapping. The indirection also makes it harder to evaluate methods–just how uniform are the methods between the substudies involved?

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    It wouldn't surprise me at all if more immune genes were implicated.

    At the very least, there would be be ties to barrier function and probably imflammation. For example, psoriasis is known to have deeper inflammatory effects than just the skin. Several autoimmune diseases are associated with measurable CNS effects, like oligoclonal bands, even the ones that don't make a person crazy.

    Also, if I recall, it was recently discovered that the lymphatic system actually does connect to the brain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jthompson/even-more-genes-for-intelligence/#comment-1998545
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. lauris71 says:

    The upper limit of GWAS methodology seems to be somewhere near 10% of genetic variance at maximum.
    On the one hand the larger and larger cohort sizes increase the number of relevant associations. But one the other hand individual effect sizes become even smaller and smaller.
    Interactions could give us the remaining part, but they increase the search space by the power of interacting markers. The number of individual markers is currently in millions, even two part interactions increase it to trillions. We will quickly hit the upper limit of cohort size (7 billion) for any reasoable power.
    Actually we, even now, know a lot about what makes people more or less intelligent (or at least we have pretty informed guess about it). These are genes regulating brain organogenesis in fetal development. Hundreds to thousands individual genes, cross regulated by a web of transcription factors, which are themselves regulated by each other. This protein-protein, protein-DNA, RNA-DNA, RNA-protein etc. interaction network holds all the clues. Well-developed (high g) brain is a result of certain fine balance between all component of this network. Individual mutations alter its components – but without the picture of a network it is near impossible to find out, which combinations of mutations result in the optimal performance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    The upper limit of GWAS methodology seems to be somewhere near 10% of genetic variance at maximum.
     
    Could you elaborate on your basis for this estimate?

    Interactions could give us the remaining part, but they increase the search space by the power of interacting markers. The number of individual markers is currently in millions, even two part interactions increase it to trillions. We will quickly hit the upper limit of cohort size (7 billion) for any reasoable power.
     
    The compressed sensing methodology might provide a solution to this.

    but without the picture of a network it is near impossible to find out, which combinations of mutations result in the optimal performance.
     
    True, but knowing that narrow sense heritability only includes additive genetic variance: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/estimating-trait-heritability-46889
    gives us a good baseline to estimate the importance of dominance and gene-gene interactions relative to the additive importance.
    , @songbird
    Maybe there would be too many confounding factors, but I've wondered if studying the DNA and brains of different species would be revealing. Just by correlating EQ or reaction time. Some of human variation likely exists in different species. Almost certainly chimps, but possibly even mice and rats. Some dogs certainly seem smarter than other dogs.

    It would obviously be much more labor intensive, but the ability to be much more invasive might have benefits.
  3. Assume that the James Lee paper will not be long coming out, because he was completing data collection in July. I have just asked him.
    Yes, I noted the pituitary result, but in the end deleted my questions about it.
    There is probably overlap in studies, hence my wish to have some central tracing mechanism to see how the papers and the samples overlap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Assume that the James Lee paper will not be long coming out, because he was completing data collection in July. I have just asked him.
     
    That is exciting! Thanks! I assume they will be using the compressed sensing methodology as well as the more conventional approaches?

    Yes, I noted the pituitary result, but in the end deleted my questions about it.
     
    I had a feeling you included the graphic for that reason. The pituitary really leaps out. Thanks for including that graphic. I missed it in my skim of the paper.

    There is probably overlap in studies, hence my wish to have some central tracing mechanism to see how the papers and the samples overlap.
     
    That would be great. Is anyone working on it? I initially read your tracking comment above as more about the results (SNPs) but imagine you meant both. Both would be valuable as would connecting the two to check which studies can be considered replications and which are using the same data (I think that was your point?).

    There are interesting methodology issues (e.g. data snooping concerns) with how the studies are aggregated and which constitute replications. Hopefully your central tracing mechanism could capture that as well. It would be interesting to compile a list of all the SNPs detected and their p values across all studies along with which study was used for initial discovery of that SNP.

    Interesting times!
  4. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Assume that the James Lee paper will not be long coming out, because he was completing data collection in July. I have just asked him.
    Yes, I noted the pituitary result, but in the end deleted my questions about it.
    There is probably overlap in studies, hence my wish to have some central tracing mechanism to see how the papers and the samples overlap.

    Assume that the James Lee paper will not be long coming out, because he was completing data collection in July. I have just asked him.

    That is exciting! Thanks! I assume they will be using the compressed sensing methodology as well as the more conventional approaches?

    Yes, I noted the pituitary result, but in the end deleted my questions about it.

    I had a feeling you included the graphic for that reason. The pituitary really leaps out. Thanks for including that graphic. I missed it in my skim of the paper.

    There is probably overlap in studies, hence my wish to have some central tracing mechanism to see how the papers and the samples overlap.

    That would be great. Is anyone working on it? I initially read your tracking comment above as more about the results (SNPs) but imagine you meant both. Both would be valuable as would connecting the two to check which studies can be considered replications and which are using the same data (I think that was your point?).

    There are interesting methodology issues (e.g. data snooping concerns) with how the studies are aggregated and which constitute replications. Hopefully your central tracing mechanism could capture that as well. It would be interesting to compile a list of all the SNPs detected and their p values across all studies along with which study was used for initial discovery of that SNP.

    Interesting times!

    Read More
  5. res says:
    @lauris71
    The upper limit of GWAS methodology seems to be somewhere near 10% of genetic variance at maximum.
    On the one hand the larger and larger cohort sizes increase the number of relevant associations. But one the other hand individual effect sizes become even smaller and smaller.
    Interactions could give us the remaining part, but they increase the search space by the power of interacting markers. The number of individual markers is currently in millions, even two part interactions increase it to trillions. We will quickly hit the upper limit of cohort size (7 billion) for any reasoable power.
    Actually we, even now, know a lot about what makes people more or less intelligent (or at least we have pretty informed guess about it). These are genes regulating brain organogenesis in fetal development. Hundreds to thousands individual genes, cross regulated by a web of transcription factors, which are themselves regulated by each other. This protein-protein, protein-DNA, RNA-DNA, RNA-protein etc. interaction network holds all the clues. Well-developed (high g) brain is a result of certain fine balance between all component of this network. Individual mutations alter its components - but without the picture of a network it is near impossible to find out, which combinations of mutations result in the optimal performance.

    The upper limit of GWAS methodology seems to be somewhere near 10% of genetic variance at maximum.

    Could you elaborate on your basis for this estimate?

    Interactions could give us the remaining part, but they increase the search space by the power of interacting markers. The number of individual markers is currently in millions, even two part interactions increase it to trillions. We will quickly hit the upper limit of cohort size (7 billion) for any reasoable power.

    The compressed sensing methodology might provide a solution to this.

    but without the picture of a network it is near impossible to find out, which combinations of mutations result in the optimal performance.

    True, but knowing that narrow sense heritability only includes additive genetic variance: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/estimating-trait-heritability-46889
    gives us a good baseline to estimate the importance of dominance and gene-gene interactions relative to the additive importance.

    Read More
  6. Call this the packaging information. Guilt by association. Of course, this code is very complicated, but at least it has been road tested for millennia.

    I really like your prose style here. High and low. A bumpy road. A fun ride!

    Read More
  7. songbird says:
    @res

    Once the association studies get to the Hsu boundary (1 million) as will shortly be reported on by James Lee, we will be able to see how far association studies can get,
     
    Thanks for this! Any idea of the time frame they are expecting?

    Notice how conspicuous the pituitary is as the most important non-CNS tissue. Just like in http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-99-steps-of-intelligence-hunters/
    I did not see lymphocytes as prominent in that paper (they were in this one). I wonder what is going on there.

    The new trend seems to be genetic metastudies to get to the large sample sizes (both this and the link above). Has anybody compiled a list of the major underlying studies involved and which are incorporated in each metastudy? I don't have a sense of which of these large samples are and are not overlapping. The indirection also makes it harder to evaluate methods--just how uniform are the methods between the substudies involved?

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if more immune genes were implicated.

    At the very least, there would be be ties to barrier function and probably imflammation. For example, psoriasis is known to have deeper inflammatory effects than just the skin. Several autoimmune diseases are associated with measurable CNS effects, like oligoclonal bands, even the ones that don’t make a person crazy.

    Also, if I recall, it was recently discovered that the lymphatic system actually does connect to the brain.

    Read More
  8. songbird says:
    @lauris71
    The upper limit of GWAS methodology seems to be somewhere near 10% of genetic variance at maximum.
    On the one hand the larger and larger cohort sizes increase the number of relevant associations. But one the other hand individual effect sizes become even smaller and smaller.
    Interactions could give us the remaining part, but they increase the search space by the power of interacting markers. The number of individual markers is currently in millions, even two part interactions increase it to trillions. We will quickly hit the upper limit of cohort size (7 billion) for any reasoable power.
    Actually we, even now, know a lot about what makes people more or less intelligent (or at least we have pretty informed guess about it). These are genes regulating brain organogenesis in fetal development. Hundreds to thousands individual genes, cross regulated by a web of transcription factors, which are themselves regulated by each other. This protein-protein, protein-DNA, RNA-DNA, RNA-protein etc. interaction network holds all the clues. Well-developed (high g) brain is a result of certain fine balance between all component of this network. Individual mutations alter its components - but without the picture of a network it is near impossible to find out, which combinations of mutations result in the optimal performance.

    Maybe there would be too many confounding factors, but I’ve wondered if studying the DNA and brains of different species would be revealing. Just by correlating EQ or reaction time. Some of human variation likely exists in different species. Almost certainly chimps, but possibly even mice and rats. Some dogs certainly seem smarter than other dogs.

    It would obviously be much more labor intensive, but the ability to be much more invasive might have benefits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Some first steps on the cognitive aspect here http://www.unz.com/jthompson/dognitive-ability-in-university-level
  9. @songbird
    Maybe there would be too many confounding factors, but I've wondered if studying the DNA and brains of different species would be revealing. Just by correlating EQ or reaction time. Some of human variation likely exists in different species. Almost certainly chimps, but possibly even mice and rats. Some dogs certainly seem smarter than other dogs.

    It would obviously be much more labor intensive, but the ability to be much more invasive might have benefits.

    Some first steps on the cognitive aspect here http://www.unz.com/jthompson/dognitive-ability-in-university-level

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Wow, thanks! That was really fascinating. I'd never thought of lot of those ideas, from some factors being less confounding in dogs to the seemingly obvious idea that measuring variation in the intelligence of animals would be a good counterpoint to the idea that g is a measure of acculturation. Of course, nowadays it seems some people also have sensitivity when discussing how dogs vary in their behaviors.

    Another path that I think might be revealing would be the genetic study of wild animals which seem to have undergone natural selection in urban and suburban environments, particularly how some seem to be getting larger brains while some seem to be getting smaller ones.
  10. songbird says:
    @James Thompson
    Some first steps on the cognitive aspect here http://www.unz.com/jthompson/dognitive-ability-in-university-level

    Wow, thanks! That was really fascinating. I’d never thought of lot of those ideas, from some factors being less confounding in dogs to the seemingly obvious idea that measuring variation in the intelligence of animals would be a good counterpoint to the idea that g is a measure of acculturation. Of course, nowadays it seems some people also have sensitivity when discussing how dogs vary in their behaviors.

    Another path that I think might be revealing would be the genetic study of wild animals which seem to have undergone natural selection in urban and suburban environments, particularly how some seem to be getting larger brains while some seem to be getting smaller ones.

    Read More
  11. Factorize says:

    Is this now the end of the Race IQ debate?
    How is a 1 SD IQ difference between groups now relevant, when the optimized
    results from the 246 SNPs in the article would add 10 SD?

    On page 20 of the below url, a million person sample size of Educational Attainment is suggested to explain 60% of the associated variance in the trait. This research is now ready for publication? This will have truly profound effects on human society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    1 SD below is very relevant as most of them will think that they are already 'equally smart' and do not think the results are real. They think that they can get equal rewards no matter what you do.
    , @One Tribe

    Heading towards FALSE race-intelligence associations.
     
    I have written about this before.
    Please see blurb on it the Myth of Race, here https://urblurb.wordpress.com/2017/08/23/the-myth-of-race/ .

    It is fine to equate an individual person's genes to their traits, i.e. intelligence.
    But those genes are very, very likely NOT traceable backwards to ancestry, nor forwards to descendants.
    The only pervasive (i.e. traceable) genes are Y-chromosome in men (go unchallenged from fathers to sons), and mitochondrial DNA, (transferred from mothers to ALL children).

    Genes which may (or may not) correlate with intelligence might not even be transmitted to direct offspring, let alone further down the line of descendants.

    I write this because the pattern of these 'scientific discoveries', while drawing in discussion, often at a technical level, is consistent with a pattern of social perception management leading to differentiating intelligence by 'race' (I write again, there is no such thing as 'race' beyond paternal lineage Y-chromosome and maternal lineage mitochondrial DNA). This false program to yield a false outcome suggesting that one race or another is more intelligent that another race is pure propaganda supporting a culture of entitlement.
  12. Factorize says:

    Here’s the url.

    http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/08/11/175406.full.pdf

    With the figure at the top of this blog, one wonders whether an IQ vaccine might be possible
    to vaccinate everyone against the sillys. Also how might the pituitary gland be modified to enhance IQ?

    Read More
  13. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Factorize
    Is this now the end of the Race IQ debate?
    How is a 1 SD IQ difference between groups now relevant, when the optimized
    results from the 246 SNPs in the article would add 10 SD?

    On page 20 of the below url, a million person sample size of Educational Attainment is suggested to explain 60% of the associated variance in the trait. This research is now ready for publication? This will have truly profound effects on human society.

    1 SD below is very relevant as most of them will think that they are already ‘equally smart’ and do not think the results are real. They think that they can get equal rewards no matter what you do.

    Read More
  14. Factorize says:

    Thank you for your reply anon.

    I have been running the numbers on the 246 SNPs.
    If you have a spread sheet, you could review my observations.

    Copy and paste the betas for the 246 SNP results from Supplementary Table 5 into a spread sheet, order these betas, and sum the positive ones and double them. This would be the beta score that one would have if one were to avoid all the negative beta SNPs and have a double favorable genotype for all the positive beta SNPs. This perfect polygenic score for intelligence for these 246 SNPs is 5 SD.
    Can anyone confirm that these betas used SD and not IQ points?

    The expected value from these SNPs when considering a random allocation based on the SNP frequencies only gives 0.137 SD. The inter-group differences here might be 10% which amounts to 0.0137 SD. In comparison to the perfect score these differences are tiny. Any technology such as genetic selection CRISPR, PGD, and others which moved humans closer to the optimal would result in dramatic changes in IQ in all population groups.

    Humans are greatly below their genetic IQ potential for IQ. Considering how large the difference is between all human groups and the optimal it might be more appropriate to concentrate more on the inter-group difference between all humans and the optimal result.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I am assuming you have seen Steve Hsu's blog, for example (but much more on this idea at the blog): http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2016/08/greg-cochran-on-james-millers-future.html
    and/or this article: http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming
    If not you should really check them out.

    Regarding your SNP Table S5 Beta analysis. First, which betas are you using? I see betas for the individual cohorts, but not for the whole study. I'm not sure exactly what to make of them (e.g. different cohorts with different signs for beta for the same SNP), but I am guessing the individual cohort betas are subject to large errors (notice the p values) and your analysis is being dominated by statistical noise.
  15. res says:
    @Factorize
    Thank you for your reply anon.

    I have been running the numbers on the 246 SNPs.
    If you have a spread sheet, you could review my observations.

    Copy and paste the betas for the 246 SNP results from Supplementary Table 5 into a spread sheet, order these betas, and sum the positive ones and double them. This would be the beta score that one would have if one were to avoid all the negative beta SNPs and have a double favorable genotype for all the positive beta SNPs. This perfect polygenic score for intelligence for these 246 SNPs is 5 SD.
    Can anyone confirm that these betas used SD and not IQ points?

    The expected value from these SNPs when considering a random allocation based on the SNP frequencies only gives 0.137 SD. The inter-group differences here might be 10% which amounts to 0.0137 SD. In comparison to the perfect score these differences are tiny. Any technology such as genetic selection CRISPR, PGD, and others which moved humans closer to the optimal would result in dramatic changes in IQ in all population groups.

    Humans are greatly below their genetic IQ potential for IQ. Considering how large the difference is between all human groups and the optimal it might be more appropriate to concentrate more on the inter-group difference between all humans and the optimal result.

    I am assuming you have seen Steve Hsu’s blog, for example (but much more on this idea at the blog): http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2016/08/greg-cochran-on-james-millers-future.html
    and/or this article: http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming
    If not you should really check them out.

    Regarding your SNP Table S5 Beta analysis. First, which betas are you using? I see betas for the individual cohorts, but not for the whole study. I’m not sure exactly what to make of them (e.g. different cohorts with different signs for beta for the same SNP), but I am guessing the individual cohort betas are subject to large errors (notice the p values) and your analysis is being dominated by statistical noise.

    Read More
  16. res says:

    Finally digging into the supplementary material I ran across this:

    1.1.7 High IQ / Health and Retirement Study (HiQ/HRS)
    This study used an extreme sampling design to compare individuals with high intelligence with unascertained population controls23. The HiQ sample included individuals with exceptionally high IQ (top 0.03% of the IQ distribution) that were identified by the Duke University Talent Identification Program (TIP)

    I see now that was mentioned in the paper, but I did not see many details. Back to the Supp discussion of the HiQ/HRS sample,

    Further, when excluding this sample from the meta-analysis, 78% of SNPs from the full meta-analysis retain a genome-wide significant (GWS; P<1×10-8) association and all retain at least suggestive significance (P<5×10-5)

    They downplay it, but does anyone else find it incredible that a 9,410 (but only 1,238 in the TIP cohort!) person sample increases the number of SNPs detected by a ~300,ooo person meta analysis by a quarter?! I found this especially interesting after looking at the p values for the ORs of the HiQ/HRS cohort in Table S5. The p values are fairly large so the sample did not indicate much by itself (right?) but it gains superpowers when combined with the other cohorts? It would be interesting to compare cohort effectiveness for each group by doing a similar hold out analysis (IMHO that could be very helpful for optimizing study designs of the individual studies in the future). The HiQ/HRS cohort was an outlier for LD intercept (can anyone more fully explain the implications of that) which I think was why the hold out analysis was done for it.

    Dr. Thompson, do you know if James Lee is using the BGI Study sample? That seems like it could be useful in a similar fashion, but the IQ threshold was lower (more like 3 SD rather than 4) and the IQ measurement was much less rigorous. Also, the last I heard the BGI genotyping was only done at 4x coverage which I think is an important limitation.

    Supplementary Table 18 is interesting. Genetic correlations with 38 traits. Some of these were mentioned in the paper, but two I did not see there caught my eye: Number of Children (rg = -0.212) and Age of First Birth (rg = 0.458). The latter was the largest correlation except for EA at rg = 0.703 (these three are probably not a coincidence ; ). More evidence for the dysgenic IQ trend idea.

    Read More
  17. Factorize says:

    Tomorrow is the anniversary of 911.

    Tomorrow would be a very opportune occasion to call for an emergency international meeting of a broad range of world leaders to discuss the consequences of the possible emergence of a super intelligent humanoid species created through the use of genetic engineering.

    The technology to substantially increase IQ across all human populations has arrived.

    This issue has been ignored for several years, though continuing to do so now that IQ SNPs are being found in substantial numbers, large online genotyping databases have been assembled, CRISPR is maturing and PGD is available will pose an ever increasingly severe security risk to humanity.

    Mainstream media need to begin to fulfill their societal role of informing the populace about the issue of genetic enhancement of IQ. Continuing to discuss issues that relate to underlying psychometric g (i.e., everything) without reference to the potential for a large increase in such g is disingenuous.

    The unz blogs continue under an assumption that a person’s genetics is fixed and that the future will be very much like the past. This is clearly untrue. An editorial stance across the blogs should now apply such that acknowledgement is made in blog content and comments that a near term shift in a wide spectrum of human traits subject to genetic influence is likely approaching. Those involved in the IQ debates who might self-identify as Racial Realists or Class Realists or Age Realists or Gender Realists need to be made aware that in light of the current developments in genetic science such labels now have a current meaning diametrically opposite to that of their original meanings.

    Read More
  18. Factorize says:

    res, thank you very much for your comment and these very informative urls!

    Are you aware of any earlier references in science fiction or otherwise that predicted human superintelligence based upon the highly polygenic nature of human traits?

    Apparently it has been well understood for a long time among breeders that extreme traits are achievable. It is very difficult for me to understand why this idea has not been brought to light more clearly in the scientific literature or scifi. IQ GWAS results from 10 years ago complained about the inability to detect SNPs due to their small effect sizes without recognizing the greater the number of SNPs the more of the phenotype that is unobserved and the greater the potential there exists to create even more extreme traits.

    In a paper by RA Fisher from 1918, the idea of extreme phenotypes is lurking unstated. I find it remarkable to consider how 20th Century history might have unfolded differently if this idea had been appreciated at the time. Even now, the power of this concept itself to redefine the trajectory of humanity’s development is considerable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I don't really know any scifi references for polygenic superintelligence (anyone else?). This link talks about superintelligence stories, but I think all have other causes: http://io9.gizmodo.com/10-most-important-science-fiction-books-about-superinte-1659512795
    I liked #5 Ted Chiang's "Understand." I was surprised not to see Flowers for Algernon (a favorite of mine) in that list (but see comments).

    This whole idea triggers the post-WWII revulsion against eugenics which many feel. I suspect that is why it languished until the genetics started to be understood.

    Do you have a reference for that 1918 RA Fisher paper? Even better would be also having an excerpt highlighting the extreme phenotypes connection.

    P.S. Given this conversation definitely spend some time looking around Steve Hsu's blog. There are many posts on diverse topics so using tags (e.g. genetics, genomics, iq) and/or searches can help greatly.
  19. res says:
    @Factorize
    res, thank you very much for your comment and these very informative urls!

    Are you aware of any earlier references in science fiction or otherwise that predicted human superintelligence based upon the highly polygenic nature of human traits?

    Apparently it has been well understood for a long time among breeders that extreme traits are achievable. It is very difficult for me to understand why this idea has not been brought to light more clearly in the scientific literature or scifi. IQ GWAS results from 10 years ago complained about the inability to detect SNPs due to their small effect sizes without recognizing the greater the number of SNPs the more of the phenotype that is unobserved and the greater the potential there exists to create even more extreme traits.

    In a paper by RA Fisher from 1918, the idea of extreme phenotypes is lurking unstated. I find it remarkable to consider how 20th Century history might have unfolded differently if this idea had been appreciated at the time. Even now, the power of this concept itself to redefine the trajectory of humanity's development is considerable.

    I don’t really know any scifi references for polygenic superintelligence (anyone else?). This link talks about superintelligence stories, but I think all have other causes: http://io9.gizmodo.com/10-most-important-science-fiction-books-about-superinte-1659512795
    I liked #5 Ted Chiang’s “Understand.” I was surprised not to see Flowers for Algernon (a favorite of mine) in that list (but see comments).

    This whole idea triggers the post-WWII revulsion against eugenics which many feel. I suspect that is why it languished until the genetics started to be understood.

    Do you have a reference for that 1918 RA Fisher paper? Even better would be also having an excerpt highlighting the extreme phenotypes connection.

    P.S. Given this conversation definitely spend some time looking around Steve Hsu’s blog. There are many posts on diverse topics so using tags (e.g. genetics, genomics, iq) and/or searches can help greatly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    The only thing I can think of is Star Trek. They never implicitly used the word "polygenic", but they did use the word eugenics multiple times in reference to super intelligence.

    Superior ability breeds superior ambition.
    -Spock, TOS, "Space Seed"

    There was also a plot in the series DS9 involving eugenics and super intelligence. What is kind of odd is that it was implicitly said that it was banned and that parents were jailed for the process, even if the motivation was remedial. One character was born severely retarded, but underwent a genetic resequencing process and eventually became a brilliant medical doctor. This was considered a great breach of ethics.

    The reasoning that was given for it being illegal was something along the lines of if one person did it everyone would do it, which is exactly why I don't think it would be illegal. It is easy to see a scenario where it becomes common in one country and the competitive threat changes the mentality in other countries, even easier when you extend it to other planets. No to mention the idea that aliens would probably naturally have different mental abilities, which would create its own impetus. Or that increasingly complex technology would require a higher IQ.
  20. Factorize says:

    res, thank you for all of your great suggestions.

    “The simplest hypothesis, and the one which we shall examine, is that such features as stature are
    determined by a large number of Mendelian factors, and that the large variance among children of
    the same parent is due to the segregation of those factors in respect to which the parents are
    heterozygous.” (page 2 of the pdf below)

    I did not fully understand the rest of the paper, though at other points he also appears near to the next step of realizing that such a polygenic inheritance would imply extreme trait phenotypes. If anyone could suggest another place where Fisher was close to discovering the connection please post it. This was his master’s thesis. I am not entirely clear how much of this paper is truly original, though I am very impressed with it. Would the average master’s thesis of today be of such high caliber?

    The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inherit-ance.· By R. A. Fisher, B.A.

    http://www.indiana.edu/~curtweb/L567/readings/Fisher1918.pdf

    The fact that the collective intelligence of humanity throughout all of our history has been until recently unable to clearly articulate and effectively respond to the polygenic potential of the normally distributed positive and negative effects of very small size on IQ that would then lead to a super intelligent genius humanoid species is an intellectual fail of epic proportions.

    It is very difficult to understand: Can humanity as a species truly be this stupid?
    What else might have eluded our attention?

    Furthermore, breeders have been well aware for decades that extreme trait phenotypes are possible. Why weren’t any of us twigged when we saw those 1200 pound pumpkins? A species with nearly 10 billion people that couldn’t piece this one together much before genetic superintelligence actually occurred certainly needs cognitive enhancement. I am unable to find anything in scifi that specifically predicted this result. This would be better called science fact (scifa?) than science fiction because the underlying science is neither fanciful nor entirely outside of human awareness (i.e., breeding of extreme phenotypes such as dogs).

    I can only imagine what might have happened if Fisher had had a flash of insight in 1918. This idea is so simple that even in that era it could have been explained and a scientific project initiated. The big recurring problem that we have faced is that scientific ideas have been entirely misunderstood and/or co-opted for political objectives. When the misguided political policies lead to ruin, somehow objective science is accorded the blame.

    What is now very clear is that if the genetic science of 1918 had possessed the insight about polygenic traits that exists in 2017, the entire narrative about eugenics and race would have flipped: instead of eugenicists being branded as racist, the anti-eugenicists would be so labeled. If CRISPRing of any human population is all that is required to manifest superintelligent humans, then how is the objective science of genetics racist?

    With this new discovery, racists will now be the ones insisting that the environment is the pivotal determinant of IQ. For what if intelligence were truly more significantly environmental as has been argued by some for over a century? What technology on the horizon could be imagined that could create the proper environment for the emergence of super-intelligence to emerge? How long will disadvantaged groups have to wait for enriching of their environment to result in their acquiring genius level intelligence? Eugenics offers a path of least resistance to higher intelligence levels for everyone on a near term time horizon.

    Read More
  21. Factorize says:

    res, I started off with the Zscore in Column L. I thought this would be a scaling of the Meta Beta.
    Using the Meta Beta gives the biggest N and the best numerical estimate for the IQ effect.

    This appears to have been a good call. Online references have the formula Zscore= Effect / STD ERR
    Other sources note that STD ERR is proportional to N**0.5. The N here is about 280,000 giving STD ERR as roughly 530. This number might be on the high side as not all of the samples in the cohorts were actually used. Also STD Error in some contexts is also proportional to qp**0.5, so 530 is likely too high and a number closer to 300 might be about right. However, when using the largest sample, UKts the average was actually 150.

    My first estimate of the scaling factor simply looked at the ratios of the Zscore to those of the Cogent Betas. These ratios averaged about 350, though some were very high. The Cogent cohort had few effect sizes that did not correspond to that of the Zscore with regards to sign.

    When I calculate the expected value of the polygenic score across all the 246 SNPs using only the Zscore scale I receive a value of 28.8. This should be what an average person would receive for these SNPs using Zscores. Scaling down to IQ standard deviations using a 300 conversion factor gives 0.1 SD and a 530 conversion factor gives 0.05 SD. Therefore on these 246 SNPs the average person derives roughly a 1 IQ point marginal benefit.

    A simple sum of all the positive Zscore gives 810 doubled equals 1620 divided by 300 gives 5 Standard deviations. Those people who hit all homogeneous positives and no negatives would derive a marginal benefit from these 246 SNPs of 5 SD or 75 IQ points.

    The zScore= Beta/ STD Err is a very handy trick throughout the paper. For example, later they give bxy values and SE. Simply dividing the bxy by the SE gives a zscore that can be then checked in the normal distribution.

    I noticed what seems as if it could be a mistake in Table 5. In Column Q the first effect sign appears to correspond to most of the the signs in the same row of the beta Cogent cohort in Column R.Yet the largest sample which is the UKts which is the second to last GWAS cohort provided (column BD) does not correspond to the signs second from last in Column Q. Over 100 of these are not congruent. However, when you compare the signs of the Zscores and the betas for UKts, every single one of them is correct. Guess that’s why they call it a pre-print.

    The strength of the statistical evidence for the SNPs is impressive. The column M p-value for each
    of the SNPs is quite better than genome wide significant, some by a wide margin. Many of the lead SNPs are accompanied by large numbers of independently genome wide significant SNPs.

    The Effect Direction in Column Q shows a level of agreement across the individual studies; some of which had very low sample sizes, were from different populations and even used different intelligence measures. 229 of the 246 had the same sign in the EA replication (p~10-48). The science being used here is finally solid enough that one can have a reasonable confidence in it.

    It was not long ago that none of these SNPs would have a chance of replicating. The entire result was often just noise. In this new era of Mega GWAS we are moving toward all signal.

    Read More
  22. Factorize says:

    res, this is a great find about the effect of the High IQ sample. Would be interesting to see what would happen to the results if random samples of the same size were removed from the GWAS as you mentioned. Probably not much. 25% is more than I would have guessed. This likely illustrates the idea that there are many routes to mediocrity though only one route to genius.

    Other GWAS have also used extremely IQ to increase power.

    I look forward to how this idea might be used as the genetics of IQ puzzle begins to fill in. If there are a known number of small effect size SNPs, and a very high IQ person were found to have a polygenic score deficit given the SNPs found, then at some point the pathways to high IQ for this person would become highly restricted which should make it easier to complete the jigsaw puzzle.

    One of the bigger concerns that I have now for traits is with autism. Autism seems to have a significant positive correlation to IQ. Is this correlation causal? Are we now about to genetically engineer humans that are autistic? Also would be interesting to see what might happen if those at risk for schizophrenia were given a cognitive boost. Might they become a generation of people with an adaptive counterpoint to normal perception?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    25% is more than I would have guessed. This likely illustrates the idea that there are many routes to mediocrity though only one route to genius.
     
    My best guess is that part of the effect was from oversampling high IQ Jews. Due to differing means I would expect a much higher proportion of Jews at +4SD and up and they are only a small proportion of the other study populations AFAICT (usual population percentage).

    I was not sure how to interpret this (from supp):

    The HiQ/HRS was unusual among the meta-analysis cohorts in that it used a case-control design with samples recruited from two quite different populations, and it is possible that this influenced how well the LD reference population was matched and thus inflated the intercept. However, we note that there was no evidence of inflation in a similar analysis with this sample using hard-called genotypes23.

     

    Reference 23 is the HiQ/HRS study paper itself: https://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2017121a.html
    Note that Dr. Thompson posted about that back in July: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-genetics-of-genius/
    Only 3 SNPs achieved genome wide significance and those did not replicate with other GWAS! So this study was much more powerful in the context of the meta-study than it was on its own.

    From the meta-study paper itself we see:

    We performed a genome wide meta-analysis of 16 independent cohorts totaling 279,930 participants of European ancestry and 9,398,186 genetic variants passing quality control (Online Methods; Supplementary Table 1; Supplementary Figure 1). All genome-wide analyses were corrected for cohort-specific ancestry and covariates (Supplementary Information).
     
    From the supp we see (referring to only the UK Biobank sample):

    For the current GWAS, we only included individuals of European ancestry, defined by projecting ancestry principal components from the 1000 Genomes reference populations4 onto the called genotypes available in UK Biobank, and grouping individuals into their closest ancestral population identified by the minimum Mahalanobis distance from the projected principal component scores5. We excluded subjects with a Mahalanobis distance > 6 S.D. from their
    empirically assigned population.

     

    I assume this would exclude the non-European continental races, but I don't know about Ashkenazi Jews. There are a variety of other approaches described to exclude non-European ancestry in the other cohorts. For HiQ in particular we see:

    In total, 1,238 high-IQ individuals of Caucasian descent were genotyped and passed quality control.
     
    Which I think it is safe to conclude included Jews. Though they do also filter for "outlying ancestry."

    I took a quick look for some Torsion Dystonia SNPs: https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Torsion_dystonia
    in Table S5 but did not see any. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Ashkenazi IQ genetics could take a look and see if there any suggestive SNPs in Table S5?

    There could be a more generic explanation though. And I would be interested in hearing any ideas. I don't think it is "one route to genius" given that the result was to find many more SNPs. I think increasing the sampling of a somewhat genetically distinct population would be a more likely explanation for that. (and would it also increase the LD intercept as was observed?)

    One methodological question. Does anyone know how the data from the different cohorts was combined? Was it just combining the genotype and IQ data? I am curious because the HiQ/HRS was a methodological outlier in being a case-control study and in Table S5 the results were expressed as odds ratios rather than betas.

    P.S. Table S5 lists 246 independent lead SNPs. I am not sure which set of SNPs was meant by the 78% retain significance when HiQ/HRS is excluded comment, but if it was these 246 then that implies 246 * 0.22 = 54 SNPs were detected only by including HiQ/HRS. 54 >> 3 and if you look at the graphic in Dr. Thompson's HiQ/HRS post the discovery threshold would have to decrease greatly to include that many SNPs.

    P.P.S. More on LD intercept: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n3/full/ng.3211.html
  23. res says:
    @Factorize
    res, this is a great find about the effect of the High IQ sample. Would be interesting to see what would happen to the results if random samples of the same size were removed from the GWAS as you mentioned. Probably not much. 25% is more than I would have guessed. This likely illustrates the idea that there are many routes to mediocrity though only one route to genius.

    Other GWAS have also used extremely IQ to increase power.

    I look forward to how this idea might be used as the genetics of IQ puzzle begins to fill in. If there are a known number of small effect size SNPs, and a very high IQ person were found to have a polygenic score deficit given the SNPs found, then at some point the pathways to high IQ for this person would become highly restricted which should make it easier to complete the jigsaw puzzle.

    One of the bigger concerns that I have now for traits is with autism. Autism seems to have a significant positive correlation to IQ. Is this correlation causal? Are we now about to genetically engineer humans that are autistic? Also would be interesting to see what might happen if those at risk for schizophrenia were given a cognitive boost. Might they become a generation of people with an adaptive counterpoint to normal perception?

    25% is more than I would have guessed. This likely illustrates the idea that there are many routes to mediocrity though only one route to genius.

    My best guess is that part of the effect was from oversampling high IQ Jews. Due to differing means I would expect a much higher proportion of Jews at +4SD and up and they are only a small proportion of the other study populations AFAICT (usual population percentage).

    I was not sure how to interpret this (from supp):

    The HiQ/HRS was unusual among the meta-analysis cohorts in that it used a case-control design with samples recruited from two quite different populations, and it is possible that this influenced how well the LD reference population was matched and thus inflated the intercept. However, we note that there was no evidence of inflation in a similar analysis with this sample using hard-called genotypes23.

    Reference 23 is the HiQ/HRS study paper itself: https://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2017121a.html
    Note that Dr. Thompson posted about that back in July: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-genetics-of-genius/
    Only 3 SNPs achieved genome wide significance and those did not replicate with other GWAS! So this study was much more powerful in the context of the meta-study than it was on its own.

    From the meta-study paper itself we see:

    We performed a genome wide meta-analysis of 16 independent cohorts totaling 279,930 participants of European ancestry and 9,398,186 genetic variants passing quality control (Online Methods; Supplementary Table 1; Supplementary Figure 1). All genome-wide analyses were corrected for cohort-specific ancestry and covariates (Supplementary Information).

    From the supp we see (referring to only the UK Biobank sample):

    For the current GWAS, we only included individuals of European ancestry, defined by projecting ancestry principal components from the 1000 Genomes reference populations4 onto the called genotypes available in UK Biobank, and grouping individuals into their closest ancestral population identified by the minimum Mahalanobis distance from the projected principal component scores5. We excluded subjects with a Mahalanobis distance > 6 S.D. from their
    empirically assigned population.

    I assume this would exclude the non-European continental races, but I don’t know about Ashkenazi Jews. There are a variety of other approaches described to exclude non-European ancestry in the other cohorts. For HiQ in particular we see:

    In total, 1,238 high-IQ individuals of Caucasian descent were genotyped and passed quality control.

    Which I think it is safe to conclude included Jews. Though they do also filter for “outlying ancestry.”

    I took a quick look for some Torsion Dystonia SNPs: https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Torsion_dystonia
    in Table S5 but did not see any. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Ashkenazi IQ genetics could take a look and see if there any suggestive SNPs in Table S5?

    There could be a more generic explanation though. And I would be interested in hearing any ideas. I don’t think it is “one route to genius” given that the result was to find many more SNPs. I think increasing the sampling of a somewhat genetically distinct population would be a more likely explanation for that. (and would it also increase the LD intercept as was observed?)

    One methodological question. Does anyone know how the data from the different cohorts was combined? Was it just combining the genotype and IQ data? I am curious because the HiQ/HRS was a methodological outlier in being a case-control study and in Table S5 the results were expressed as odds ratios rather than betas.

    P.S. Table S5 lists 246 independent lead SNPs. I am not sure which set of SNPs was meant by the 78% retain significance when HiQ/HRS is excluded comment, but if it was these 246 then that implies 246 * 0.22 = 54 SNPs were detected only by including HiQ/HRS. 54 >> 3 and if you look at the graphic in Dr. Thompson’s HiQ/HRS post the discovery threshold would have to decrease greatly to include that many SNPs.

    P.P.S. More on LD intercept: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n3/full/ng.3211.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Hope to do a short note on how samples are combined, and the consequences for how much detailed analysis can be done.
  24. songbird says:
    @res
    I don't really know any scifi references for polygenic superintelligence (anyone else?). This link talks about superintelligence stories, but I think all have other causes: http://io9.gizmodo.com/10-most-important-science-fiction-books-about-superinte-1659512795
    I liked #5 Ted Chiang's "Understand." I was surprised not to see Flowers for Algernon (a favorite of mine) in that list (but see comments).

    This whole idea triggers the post-WWII revulsion against eugenics which many feel. I suspect that is why it languished until the genetics started to be understood.

    Do you have a reference for that 1918 RA Fisher paper? Even better would be also having an excerpt highlighting the extreme phenotypes connection.

    P.S. Given this conversation definitely spend some time looking around Steve Hsu's blog. There are many posts on diverse topics so using tags (e.g. genetics, genomics, iq) and/or searches can help greatly.

    The only thing I can think of is Star Trek. They never implicitly used the word “polygenic”, but they did use the word eugenics multiple times in reference to super intelligence.

    Superior ability breeds superior ambition.
    -Spock, TOS, “Space Seed”

    There was also a plot in the series DS9 involving eugenics and super intelligence. What is kind of odd is that it was implicitly said that it was banned and that parents were jailed for the process, even if the motivation was remedial. One character was born severely retarded, but underwent a genetic resequencing process and eventually became a brilliant medical doctor. This was considered a great breach of ethics.

    The reasoning that was given for it being illegal was something along the lines of if one person did it everyone would do it, which is exactly why I don’t think it would be illegal. It is easy to see a scenario where it becomes common in one country and the competitive threat changes the mentality in other countries, even easier when you extend it to other planets. No to mention the idea that aliens would probably naturally have different mental abilities, which would create its own impetus. Or that increasingly complex technology would require a higher IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    If I recall, the reason was that enhancing intelligence will always also enhance ambition, aggressiveness and the urge for domination. The Augments were like dogs upgraded to wolves, they got stronger and smarter than dogs, but also more dangerous, and supposedly those traits always went together. There was a later Star Trek DS9 episode featuring a group of people who had been illegally genetically engineered by their parents,and the Federation had to keep the offspring securely locked up to prevent them from doing any harm.
    This seemed to be a simplified hyper-Darwinian theory of human nature positing that enhanced humans would be going more ferociously at the whole survival of the fittest game.
    The evidence of humans who are naturally extremely intelligent does not seem to support that. None of the Isaac Newtons, Rene Descartes etc. have ever shown any impulse to be the next Genghis Khan.
    Of course that ban would only work in a universe with no aliens. If there are aliens with capabilities greater than humans then it would be necessary to catch-up or fall. This is similar to what will happen even in our human world if one nation like China learns how to enhance intelligence and everyone else doesn't because of ethical concerns.
  25. @res

    25% is more than I would have guessed. This likely illustrates the idea that there are many routes to mediocrity though only one route to genius.
     
    My best guess is that part of the effect was from oversampling high IQ Jews. Due to differing means I would expect a much higher proportion of Jews at +4SD and up and they are only a small proportion of the other study populations AFAICT (usual population percentage).

    I was not sure how to interpret this (from supp):

    The HiQ/HRS was unusual among the meta-analysis cohorts in that it used a case-control design with samples recruited from two quite different populations, and it is possible that this influenced how well the LD reference population was matched and thus inflated the intercept. However, we note that there was no evidence of inflation in a similar analysis with this sample using hard-called genotypes23.

     

    Reference 23 is the HiQ/HRS study paper itself: https://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2017121a.html
    Note that Dr. Thompson posted about that back in July: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-genetics-of-genius/
    Only 3 SNPs achieved genome wide significance and those did not replicate with other GWAS! So this study was much more powerful in the context of the meta-study than it was on its own.

    From the meta-study paper itself we see:

    We performed a genome wide meta-analysis of 16 independent cohorts totaling 279,930 participants of European ancestry and 9,398,186 genetic variants passing quality control (Online Methods; Supplementary Table 1; Supplementary Figure 1). All genome-wide analyses were corrected for cohort-specific ancestry and covariates (Supplementary Information).
     
    From the supp we see (referring to only the UK Biobank sample):

    For the current GWAS, we only included individuals of European ancestry, defined by projecting ancestry principal components from the 1000 Genomes reference populations4 onto the called genotypes available in UK Biobank, and grouping individuals into their closest ancestral population identified by the minimum Mahalanobis distance from the projected principal component scores5. We excluded subjects with a Mahalanobis distance > 6 S.D. from their
    empirically assigned population.

     

    I assume this would exclude the non-European continental races, but I don't know about Ashkenazi Jews. There are a variety of other approaches described to exclude non-European ancestry in the other cohorts. For HiQ in particular we see:

    In total, 1,238 high-IQ individuals of Caucasian descent were genotyped and passed quality control.
     
    Which I think it is safe to conclude included Jews. Though they do also filter for "outlying ancestry."

    I took a quick look for some Torsion Dystonia SNPs: https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Torsion_dystonia
    in Table S5 but did not see any. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Ashkenazi IQ genetics could take a look and see if there any suggestive SNPs in Table S5?

    There could be a more generic explanation though. And I would be interested in hearing any ideas. I don't think it is "one route to genius" given that the result was to find many more SNPs. I think increasing the sampling of a somewhat genetically distinct population would be a more likely explanation for that. (and would it also increase the LD intercept as was observed?)

    One methodological question. Does anyone know how the data from the different cohorts was combined? Was it just combining the genotype and IQ data? I am curious because the HiQ/HRS was a methodological outlier in being a case-control study and in Table S5 the results were expressed as odds ratios rather than betas.

    P.S. Table S5 lists 246 independent lead SNPs. I am not sure which set of SNPs was meant by the 78% retain significance when HiQ/HRS is excluded comment, but if it was these 246 then that implies 246 * 0.22 = 54 SNPs were detected only by including HiQ/HRS. 54 >> 3 and if you look at the graphic in Dr. Thompson's HiQ/HRS post the discovery threshold would have to decrease greatly to include that many SNPs.

    P.P.S. More on LD intercept: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n3/full/ng.3211.html

    Hope to do a short note on how samples are combined, and the consequences for how much detailed analysis can be done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That would be great! I would appreciate it if you could cover how that differs for certain methodologies (e.g. case-control, if it does differ). A clear explanation about the tradeoffs involved in terms of both different individual study methodologies as well as the techniques used to combine them would be very helpful.

    There has been some recent work discussing different techniques for combining GWAS summary level statistics, but I don't have a sense of current best practices (nor even which exact method was used in the paper underlying your current post, though perhaps I just missed that). For example: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/11/175406

    Another example: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/04/penalized-regression-from-summary.html
    Given that post from Steve Hsu I was wondering if James Lee will be using a technique like that in his upcoming large sample meta-study. Given that Hsu's compressed sensing approach uses L1-penalized regression: https://gigascience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13742-015-0081-6
    it seems they are pushing in that direction.
  26. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Hope to do a short note on how samples are combined, and the consequences for how much detailed analysis can be done.

    That would be great! I would appreciate it if you could cover how that differs for certain methodologies (e.g. case-control, if it does differ). A clear explanation about the tradeoffs involved in terms of both different individual study methodologies as well as the techniques used to combine them would be very helpful.

    There has been some recent work discussing different techniques for combining GWAS summary level statistics, but I don’t have a sense of current best practices (nor even which exact method was used in the paper underlying your current post, though perhaps I just missed that). For example: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/11/175406

    Another example: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/04/penalized-regression-from-summary.html
    Given that post from Steve Hsu I was wondering if James Lee will be using a technique like that in his upcoming large sample meta-study. Given that Hsu’s compressed sensing approach uses L1-penalized regression: https://gigascience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13742-015-0081-6
    it seems they are pushing in that direction.

    Read More
  27. @res
    That would be great! I would appreciate it if you could cover how that differs for certain methodologies (e.g. case-control, if it does differ). A clear explanation about the tradeoffs involved in terms of both different individual study methodologies as well as the techniques used to combine them would be very helpful.

    There has been some recent work discussing different techniques for combining GWAS summary level statistics, but I don't have a sense of current best practices (nor even which exact method was used in the paper underlying your current post, though perhaps I just missed that). For example: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/11/175406

    Another example: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/04/penalized-regression-from-summary.html
    Given that post from Steve Hsu I was wondering if James Lee will be using a technique like that in his upcoming large sample meta-study. Given that Hsu's compressed sensing approach uses L1-penalized regression: https://gigascience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13742-015-0081-6
    it seems they are pushing in that direction.

    I think you have written my note for me!

    Read More
  28. Factorize says:

    This might help.

    The different cohorts provide the p-values required to push SNPs into genome wide significance.
    This is very clear when looking at Table 5 ordered by the p-value column of the largest cohort
    UKB-ts. The HiQ/HRS cohort gives needed p-power to many of the last 50 SNPs in this ordered column.

    In Supplementary Table 5, go to column BE (i.e., P UKB-ts) and order ascending. Notice that the first 50 or so SNPs in this ordered column using only the UKB-ts have achieved genome wide significance. However, as you move down the column, these p-values continue to decrease until they reach E-03. The last 50 of the SNPs need a p- boost!

    Many of the p-values from the HiQ/HRS cohort can provide this needed p- lift especially considering that this cohort includes 9,410 (the second largest after UKB and Cogent) and is highly selected for High IQ. It is not merely the size of the HiQ/HRS cohort that determines its power to push SNPs to significance, but also the distribution of the p-values. These p-values range over almost 7 orders of magnitude. Notice how many of the p-values for the last few elements of the now reordered column BI are in the range of E-4, E-3 and E-2.

    Almost all the 3 columns (BE, BG, BI) [BG is another large sample from the UKB] of the last 50 SNPs’ p-values’ exponents add up to at least -8. This gives a rough guide to the genome wide significance for the SNP. Thinking in this way gives insight into how the different cohorts combine their p- power for each of the different SNPs and push a SNP to genome significance.

    Not all of the last 50 SNPs might need (or even receive) the p-boost from the HiQ/HRS cohort because in Column Q it can now be seen that some of the SNPs in the last 50 rows are in high agreement about the direction of the effect and would all be pulling in the same direction anyway.

    However, other SNPs with lower p-values (in the first of the 200 ordered rows) would also need a p-boost from the HiQ/HRS cohort, if the other cohorts did not provide it. For example, rs11999669
    needs a p-lift (UKts p-value 7.2 E-05), none of the other cohorts offer much help, though the HiQ/HRS cohort has a p-value 6.5E-04 which would push this SNP to significance. By working through the table in this way you could develop a rough idea of where the different cohorts are filling in the p-gaps.

    Using a similar approach you could find SNPs that need a p-push from the other cohorts. Consider
    rs76608582 (SNP number 200 column A). This SNP is ranked 12th highest of the p-values ordered using the p-values of UKts. This one needs help. At a p-value of 9.6E-04, what is its path to genome significance? There is a no call from HiQ/HRS. The HiQ/HRS can offer no help to one of the most disadvantaged of these SNPs. UKwb assists with a p-value of 1.2E-03, Cogent 6.7E-03, and SRS 9.9E-03. It is clear that if the Cogent or SRS cohorts were removed from the sample that it would not have been genome significant. This rs only hit a p Meta of 2.55E-08 (column M).

    The different cohorts are able to fill in gaps as the cohorts have widely different p-values for different SNPs. Sample size is not critically important in being able to push SNPs over the top. The NESCOG sample only has an N=252. Yet, even with this small sample size some of its p-values are as low as E-3. With such low p-values for these SNPs it is possible that even this sample might be able to push SNPs to genome significance.

    The ability of the removal of the HiQ/HRS cohort to decrease by one quarter the number of genome significant SNPs should, thus, not be unexpected.

    Read More
  29. Factorize says:

    This is the age of open science. Tax payers fund most scientific research and at some level they are the rightful owners of the intellectual product produced. At some time in the near future, the entire scientific literature might be open access.

    Given the above, where are the full results for all the SNPs genotyped in this latest GWAS? This is important information to have disclosed.

    The next 1000 SNPs on the list are likely highly enriched with true IQ SNPs. For the SNPs close to the cut off other groups using even modest sample sizes could claim a genome wide hit. This would avoid the unnecessary tendency of bigness to claim all the success.

    Furthermore, perhaps the last million of the SNPs would be so highly unlikely to have any measurable effect on IQ that they could be excluded from future GWAS. Progressively removing the lowest ranked SNPs would mean that fewer and fewer comparisons would be required to achieve genome significance for a SNP.

    Fuller disclosure would help accelerate the run to the finish line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thank you for your very helpful and detailed comments. I am talking to some researchers on these issues. We are very far away from having the "control room" of my imagination. I entirely take the point that we need to have better understanding of the samples, and what they contribute to the overall picture. My note, in preparation, will not be able to cover all these points, but on your last matter, we certainly need open access. I fear that this will be opposed for a while, but we will get there in the end.
  30. LauraMR says:

    The “race IQ debate” is about race not about IQ and it will rage on until delusional notions of race are replaced for scientific ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Population genetics and brain function is an appropriate phrasing for what people colloquially call race and intelligence/IQ.

    The questions will be answered when GWAS uncover the genetic architecture of variation in brain function in all populations, which in my opinion is not going to happen soon nor will replicate the high heritability that's estimated from twin studies.


    @res

    Now I see how you react to something that you want to see happen, getting over-excited from the tiniest GWAS hits. Contrast this to your reaction to the proofs that Nigeria was more the huts and slums.
  31. @Factorize
    This is the age of open science. Tax payers fund most scientific research and at some level they are the rightful owners of the intellectual product produced. At some time in the near future, the entire scientific literature might be open access.

    Given the above, where are the full results for all the SNPs genotyped in this latest GWAS? This is important information to have disclosed.

    The next 1000 SNPs on the list are likely highly enriched with true IQ SNPs. For the SNPs close to the cut off other groups using even modest sample sizes could claim a genome wide hit. This would avoid the unnecessary tendency of bigness to claim all the success.

    Furthermore, perhaps the last million of the SNPs would be so highly unlikely to have any measurable effect on IQ that they could be excluded from future GWAS. Progressively removing the lowest ranked SNPs would mean that fewer and fewer comparisons would be required to achieve genome significance for a SNP.

    Fuller disclosure would help accelerate the run to the finish line.

    Thank you for your very helpful and detailed comments. I am talking to some researchers on these issues. We are very far away from having the “control room” of my imagination. I entirely take the point that we need to have better understanding of the samples, and what they contribute to the overall picture. My note, in preparation, will not be able to cover all these points, but on your last matter, we certainly need open access. I fear that this will be opposed for a while, but we will get there in the end.

    Read More
  32. @LauraMR
    The "race IQ debate" is about race not about IQ and it will rage on until delusional notions of race are replaced for scientific ones.

    Population genetics and brain function is an appropriate phrasing for what people colloquially call race and intelligence/IQ.

    The questions will be answered when GWAS uncover the genetic architecture of variation in brain function in all populations, which in my opinion is not going to happen soon nor will replicate the high heritability that’s estimated from twin studies.

    Now I see how you react to something that you want to see happen, getting over-excited from the tiniest GWAS hits. Contrast this to your reaction to the proofs that Nigeria was more the huts and slums.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    The last paragraph was directed to res. I wrote @res, it seems it's been deleted.
    , @res

    Now I see how you react to something that you want to see happen, getting over-excited from the tiniest GWAS hits. Contrast this to your reaction to the proofs that Nigeria was more the huts and slums.
     
    Nope, not personal at all ; )

    I am excited by the latest GWAS results for IQ (and intelligence is a [the?] primary topic of this blog, with the genetics of IQ being an important subtopic). IMHO this latest study validated the utility of the case-control study method in this context (which the original study paper itself did not do, again IMHO). I have been wondering how that technique would work since I first heard about the BGI study. Hard to believe that was over six years ago! These recent meta-studies are also the first that achieve sample sizes near those that simulations indicate will be sufficient to completely solve the genetic architecture of IQ (within the study population) using compressed sensing. And James Lee's upcoming study should be even more emphatically within that range. There is a good chance I will be disappointed in that happening so soon, but who knows?

    "Nigeria was more the huts and slums" is quite the strawman. There is a long way between that and "Nigeria can manufacture nuclear submarines." My issue with the Nigerian success stories (and assertions like the hypothetical "can manufacture") is that every time I take a closer look I am disappointed given the hype. Either the first satellite lasts 18 months rather than the planned five years, or the space program can't launch locally because of lack of infrastructure, or things are on hold because the oil price has declined, or it turns out that the collaborators are doing all of the hard work, or ...

    The boy who cried wolf syndrome is a problem.

    Come on Afrosapiens, you can do better than that. After all, you are the self-anointed smartest person at Pumpkin Person's blog.
    , @LauraMR
    Colloquially, yes, formally, no. Proper definitions of race are still to be developed. IQ research, in contrast, is solid, interesting, and promising. Thus my comment. Mixing the two, race and IQ, is a recipe for disaster.
  33. @Afrosapiens
    Population genetics and brain function is an appropriate phrasing for what people colloquially call race and intelligence/IQ.

    The questions will be answered when GWAS uncover the genetic architecture of variation in brain function in all populations, which in my opinion is not going to happen soon nor will replicate the high heritability that's estimated from twin studies.


    @res

    Now I see how you react to something that you want to see happen, getting over-excited from the tiniest GWAS hits. Contrast this to your reaction to the proofs that Nigeria was more the huts and slums.

    The last paragraph was directed to res. I wrote , it seems it’s been deleted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    If you view page source you can see it. You used the at sign which the software here appears to treat as a special character. Following are your username with and without the at sign (you can check in the page source). Both show up in comment preview (but the at version disappears on posting and when I edit an already posted comment, strange, after my first edit all three appear, let's see what the final behavior is).

    Afrosapiens
    @Afrosapiens

    And here is a backslash escaped version:

    \@Afrosapiens

    And if you want to get fancy use a link:

    @Afrosapiens

  34. res says:
    @Afrosapiens
    Population genetics and brain function is an appropriate phrasing for what people colloquially call race and intelligence/IQ.

    The questions will be answered when GWAS uncover the genetic architecture of variation in brain function in all populations, which in my opinion is not going to happen soon nor will replicate the high heritability that's estimated from twin studies.


    @res

    Now I see how you react to something that you want to see happen, getting over-excited from the tiniest GWAS hits. Contrast this to your reaction to the proofs that Nigeria was more the huts and slums.

    Now I see how you react to something that you want to see happen, getting over-excited from the tiniest GWAS hits. Contrast this to your reaction to the proofs that Nigeria was more the huts and slums.

    Nope, not personal at all ; )

    I am excited by the latest GWAS results for IQ (and intelligence is a [the?] primary topic of this blog, with the genetics of IQ being an important subtopic). IMHO this latest study validated the utility of the case-control study method in this context (which the original study paper itself did not do, again IMHO). I have been wondering how that technique would work since I first heard about the BGI study. Hard to believe that was over six years ago! These recent meta-studies are also the first that achieve sample sizes near those that simulations indicate will be sufficient to completely solve the genetic architecture of IQ (within the study population) using compressed sensing. And James Lee’s upcoming study should be even more emphatically within that range. There is a good chance I will be disappointed in that happening so soon, but who knows?

    “Nigeria was more the huts and slums” is quite the strawman. There is a long way between that and “Nigeria can manufacture nuclear submarines.” My issue with the Nigerian success stories (and assertions like the hypothetical “can manufacture”) is that every time I take a closer look I am disappointed given the hype. Either the first satellite lasts 18 months rather than the planned five years, or the space program can’t launch locally because of lack of infrastructure, or things are on hold because the oil price has declined, or it turns out that the collaborators are doing all of the hard work, or …

    The boy who cried wolf syndrome is a problem.

    Come on Afrosapiens, you can do better than that. After all, you are the self-anointed smartest person at Pumpkin Person’s blog.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    I am excited by the latest GWAS results for IQ (and intelligence is a [the?] primary topic of this blog, with the genetics of IQ being an important subtopic).
     
    Which is why I asked Dr. Thompson's thoughts on my article.

    There is a good chance I will be disappointed in that happening so soon, but who knows?
     
    Seing how irrational and lacking arguments you were when you dismissed my article that just showed that differences in education seemed to better explain country differences in IQ and other variables, I can tell that you don't need to wait for such validation of a method to have form opinions on race and IQ. You're far from agnostic or open to alternative explanations (that you call making excuses). That's a fact that you can't deny.

    “Nigeria was more the huts and slums” is quite the strawman.
     
    Not at all, you did everything to imply that Nigeria did not deserve full credit for whatever modern activities that are going on there. And not only you did that, you did that as if the nuances that could be expressed concerning Nigeria's technological advances were specific to Africa and that any advanced reason for which things weren't as good as you think they could be were just excuses.

    If you don't get so emotional about it, it all makes sense: they have foreign partnerships as all developing countries have had when they started their high tech programs, they have failures like I think all scientific adventures had in their infancy, budget constraints reduce funding for a while, the infrastructure is not as developed... and so on. But be aware that in a country with 190 million inhabitants, a Gaussian distribution predicts that hundreds of thousands of people have IQs over 120, even if the median is in the 70s. Not to mention that brain drain has driven a huge number of qualified professionals out of the country. It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Anyway, these 300,000 or so IQ120+ population are well enough for all kinds of spectacular technological projects to come to fruition if these projects are economically and politically pertinent.

    Come on Afrosapiens, you can do better than that. After all, you are the self-anointed smartest person at Pumpkin Person’s blog.
     
    There is no problem with my argumentation, it's flawless, objective and well informed. The only problem is you not accepting things that do not fit your subjective worldview. And yes of course I'm the smartest at Pumpkin Person's blog, which I a agree is not an exceptional achievement given the level there. I doubt you could say the same about yourself, there are some economically literate guys there ;-).
  35. One Tribe says:
    @Factorize
    Is this now the end of the Race IQ debate?
    How is a 1 SD IQ difference between groups now relevant, when the optimized
    results from the 246 SNPs in the article would add 10 SD?

    On page 20 of the below url, a million person sample size of Educational Attainment is suggested to explain 60% of the associated variance in the trait. This research is now ready for publication? This will have truly profound effects on human society.

    Heading towards FALSE race-intelligence associations.

    I have written about this before.
    Please see blurb on it the Myth of Race, here https://urblurb.wordpress.com/2017/08/23/the-myth-of-race/ .

    It is fine to equate an individual person’s genes to their traits, i.e. intelligence.
    But those genes are very, very likely NOT traceable backwards to ancestry, nor forwards to descendants.
    The only pervasive (i.e. traceable) genes are Y-chromosome in men (go unchallenged from fathers to sons), and mitochondrial DNA, (transferred from mothers to ALL children).

    Genes which may (or may not) correlate with intelligence might not even be transmitted to direct offspring, let alone further down the line of descendants.

    I write this because the pattern of these ‘scientific discoveries’, while drawing in discussion, often at a technical level, is consistent with a pattern of social perception management leading to differentiating intelligence by ‘race’ (I write again, there is no such thing as ‘race’ beyond paternal lineage Y-chromosome and maternal lineage mitochondrial DNA). This false program to yield a false outcome suggesting that one race or another is more intelligent that another race is pure propaganda supporting a culture of entitlement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    "It is fine to equate an individual person’s genes to their traits, i.e. intelligence.
    But those genes are very, very likely NOT traceable backwards to ancestry, nor forwards to descendants."
    "Genes which may (or may not) correlate with intelligence might not even be transmitted to direct offspring, let alone further down the line of descendants."

    OK got it, your message is that genes are transmitted to descendants, except for the genes for intelligence. I guess they just sort of randomly drop themselves in there?
  36. nickels says:

    But how does it work, i.e. how do these particular genes result in the expression of a brain with higher intelligence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    The answer is very much incomplete at this point, but the graphic at the very top of this page gives a good clue by showing the relevant tissues.
  37. res says:
    @nickels
    But how does it work, i.e. how do these particular genes result in the expression of a brain with higher intelligence?

    The answer is very much incomplete at this point, but the graphic at the very top of this page gives a good clue by showing the relevant tissues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Ok, thanks.

    Forgive the ignorance-- so everyone has the genes, but, somehow certain values (sequences) correlate more highly with intelligence? As opposed to mutated versions?

    Is it a sort of on/off correspondence, i.e. there is a right, working gene and then mutated versions that don't work?

    Or is it more that the value of the gene somehow tunes intelligence, i.e. intelligence scales with the changing sequence?
  38. res says:
    @Afrosapiens
    The last paragraph was directed to res. I wrote @res, it seems it's been deleted.

    If you view page source you can see it. You used the at sign which the software here appears to treat as a special character. Following are your username with and without the at sign (you can check in the page source). Both show up in comment preview (but the at version disappears on posting and when I edit an already posted comment, strange, after my first edit all three appear, let’s see what the final behavior is).

    Afrosapiens

    And here is a backslash escaped version:

    \

    And if you want to get fancy use a link:

    Read More
  39. Alfa158 says:
    @One Tribe

    Heading towards FALSE race-intelligence associations.
     
    I have written about this before.
    Please see blurb on it the Myth of Race, here https://urblurb.wordpress.com/2017/08/23/the-myth-of-race/ .

    It is fine to equate an individual person's genes to their traits, i.e. intelligence.
    But those genes are very, very likely NOT traceable backwards to ancestry, nor forwards to descendants.
    The only pervasive (i.e. traceable) genes are Y-chromosome in men (go unchallenged from fathers to sons), and mitochondrial DNA, (transferred from mothers to ALL children).

    Genes which may (or may not) correlate with intelligence might not even be transmitted to direct offspring, let alone further down the line of descendants.

    I write this because the pattern of these 'scientific discoveries', while drawing in discussion, often at a technical level, is consistent with a pattern of social perception management leading to differentiating intelligence by 'race' (I write again, there is no such thing as 'race' beyond paternal lineage Y-chromosome and maternal lineage mitochondrial DNA). This false program to yield a false outcome suggesting that one race or another is more intelligent that another race is pure propaganda supporting a culture of entitlement.

    “It is fine to equate an individual person’s genes to their traits, i.e. intelligence.
    But those genes are very, very likely NOT traceable backwards to ancestry, nor forwards to descendants.”
    “Genes which may (or may not) correlate with intelligence might not even be transmitted to direct offspring, let alone further down the line of descendants.”

    OK got it, your message is that genes are transmitted to descendants, except for the genes for intelligence. I guess they just sort of randomly drop themselves in there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @One Tribe
    alfa (is it?)
    your comment reads like shill and/or bot.

    of course a subset of genes are passed from both parents to offspring.
    but second and third generations may not have much in common with the original pairing, there is no evidence of genetic multi-generational persistence for genes (supposedly) identified to correlate with intelligence.

    You write like a bot/shill with a target outcome, regardless of rational arrival. your comment to me seems like designed ignorance.
    no need to respond with more rhetorical flourish; however, I would not mind reading your response to multi-generational genetic persistence for these supposed intelligence correlated markers.
  40. Alfa158 says:
    @songbird
    The only thing I can think of is Star Trek. They never implicitly used the word "polygenic", but they did use the word eugenics multiple times in reference to super intelligence.

    Superior ability breeds superior ambition.
    -Spock, TOS, "Space Seed"

    There was also a plot in the series DS9 involving eugenics and super intelligence. What is kind of odd is that it was implicitly said that it was banned and that parents were jailed for the process, even if the motivation was remedial. One character was born severely retarded, but underwent a genetic resequencing process and eventually became a brilliant medical doctor. This was considered a great breach of ethics.

    The reasoning that was given for it being illegal was something along the lines of if one person did it everyone would do it, which is exactly why I don't think it would be illegal. It is easy to see a scenario where it becomes common in one country and the competitive threat changes the mentality in other countries, even easier when you extend it to other planets. No to mention the idea that aliens would probably naturally have different mental abilities, which would create its own impetus. Or that increasingly complex technology would require a higher IQ.

    If I recall, the reason was that enhancing intelligence will always also enhance ambition, aggressiveness and the urge for domination. The Augments were like dogs upgraded to wolves, they got stronger and smarter than dogs, but also more dangerous, and supposedly those traits always went together. There was a later Star Trek DS9 episode featuring a group of people who had been illegally genetically engineered by their parents,and the Federation had to keep the offspring securely locked up to prevent them from doing any harm.
    This seemed to be a simplified hyper-Darwinian theory of human nature positing that enhanced humans would be going more ferociously at the whole survival of the fittest game.
    The evidence of humans who are naturally extremely intelligent does not seem to support that. None of the Isaac Newtons, Rene Descartes etc. have ever shown any impulse to be the next Genghis Khan.
    Of course that ban would only work in a universe with no aliens. If there are aliens with capabilities greater than humans then it would be necessary to catch-up or fall. This is similar to what will happen even in our human world if one nation like China learns how to enhance intelligence and everyone else doesn’t because of ethical concerns.

    Read More
  41. @res

    Now I see how you react to something that you want to see happen, getting over-excited from the tiniest GWAS hits. Contrast this to your reaction to the proofs that Nigeria was more the huts and slums.
     
    Nope, not personal at all ; )

    I am excited by the latest GWAS results for IQ (and intelligence is a [the?] primary topic of this blog, with the genetics of IQ being an important subtopic). IMHO this latest study validated the utility of the case-control study method in this context (which the original study paper itself did not do, again IMHO). I have been wondering how that technique would work since I first heard about the BGI study. Hard to believe that was over six years ago! These recent meta-studies are also the first that achieve sample sizes near those that simulations indicate will be sufficient to completely solve the genetic architecture of IQ (within the study population) using compressed sensing. And James Lee's upcoming study should be even more emphatically within that range. There is a good chance I will be disappointed in that happening so soon, but who knows?

    "Nigeria was more the huts and slums" is quite the strawman. There is a long way between that and "Nigeria can manufacture nuclear submarines." My issue with the Nigerian success stories (and assertions like the hypothetical "can manufacture") is that every time I take a closer look I am disappointed given the hype. Either the first satellite lasts 18 months rather than the planned five years, or the space program can't launch locally because of lack of infrastructure, or things are on hold because the oil price has declined, or it turns out that the collaborators are doing all of the hard work, or ...

    The boy who cried wolf syndrome is a problem.

    Come on Afrosapiens, you can do better than that. After all, you are the self-anointed smartest person at Pumpkin Person's blog.

    I am excited by the latest GWAS results for IQ (and intelligence is a [the?] primary topic of this blog, with the genetics of IQ being an important subtopic).

    Which is why I asked Dr. Thompson’s thoughts on my article.

    There is a good chance I will be disappointed in that happening so soon, but who knows?

    Seing how irrational and lacking arguments you were when you dismissed my article that just showed that differences in education seemed to better explain country differences in IQ and other variables, I can tell that you don’t need to wait for such validation of a method to have form opinions on race and IQ. You’re far from agnostic or open to alternative explanations (that you call making excuses). That’s a fact that you can’t deny.

    “Nigeria was more the huts and slums” is quite the strawman.

    Not at all, you did everything to imply that Nigeria did not deserve full credit for whatever modern activities that are going on there. And not only you did that, you did that as if the nuances that could be expressed concerning Nigeria’s technological advances were specific to Africa and that any advanced reason for which things weren’t as good as you think they could be were just excuses.

    If you don’t get so emotional about it, it all makes sense: they have foreign partnerships as all developing countries have had when they started their high tech programs, they have failures like I think all scientific adventures had in their infancy, budget constraints reduce funding for a while, the infrastructure is not as developed… and so on. But be aware that in a country with 190 million inhabitants, a Gaussian distribution predicts that hundreds of thousands of people have IQs over 120, even if the median is in the 70s. Not to mention that brain drain has driven a huge number of qualified professionals out of the country. It’s not an excuse, it’s a fact. Anyway, these 300,000 or so IQ120+ population are well enough for all kinds of spectacular technological projects to come to fruition if these projects are economically and politically pertinent.

    Come on Afrosapiens, you can do better than that. After all, you are the self-anointed smartest person at Pumpkin Person’s blog.

    There is no problem with my argumentation, it’s flawless, objective and well informed. The only problem is you not accepting things that do not fit your subjective worldview. And yes of course I’m the smartest at Pumpkin Person’s blog, which I a agree is not an exceptional achievement given the level there. I doubt you could say the same about yourself, there are some economically literate guys there ;-).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Seing how irrational and lacking arguments you were when you dismissed my article

     

    LOL! And it is clear you are not including typos when talking about your flawless argumentation.


    “Nigeria was more the huts and slums” is quite the strawman.
     
    Not at all, you did everything to imply that Nigeria did not deserve full credit for whatever modern activities that are going on there. And not only you did that, you did that as if the nuances that could be expressed concerning Nigeria’s technological advances were specific to Africa and that any advanced reason for which things weren’t as good as you think they could be were just excuses.

     

    That you consider "huts and slums" equivalent to my statements (nice false equivalency! even allowing your misrepresentation of my statements) says all that needs to be said about your "flawless" argumentation.

    Anyway, these 300,000 or so IQ120+ population are well enough for all kinds of spectacular technological projects to come to fruition if these projects are economically and politically pertinent.
     
    You are making two assumptions I question:
    1. The IQ SD in Nigeria is at least 15.
    2. The brain drain of selective Nigerian emigration has not appreciably reduced the cohort with IQ120+.

    I guess if Nigeria ever manages to get its testing act together enough to make accurate IQ estimates of its citizens possible we could have a real answer to this conjecture. But I am sure there is a excuse reason that is not possible.

    And yes of course I’m the smartest at Pumpkin Person’s blog, which I a agree is not an exceptional achievement given the level there. I doubt you could say the same about yourself, there are some economically literate guys there ;-).
     
    Pumpkin had an SAT score poll. I have a good idea of how I stand over there.

    You estimating "Swank and Videla are around 120" helped refine my estimate for you. Thanks. As did your using 120+ as a threshold here. You understand that 130 is only top 2% in the US, right?

    It is funny how some people think if they repeat something often enough (e.g. my alleged irrationality, economic illiteracy, and lack of arguments) it will magically become true. Remember, ad hominem attacks are a marker of someone who is losing the reasoned argument part of the conversation.

    But remember everyone, Afrosapiens is not taking my failure to bow down before the awesomeness that is Nigeria personally and I am the emotional one here. How was that Nigeria-South Korea economic growth comparison looking again? But wait, that can't be fair since one country has almost 10x the land area of the other and rich oil resources to boot (oops, wrong set of excuses).
    , @FKA Max
    Mr. Thompson replied back to you:

    Sorry that I have been so slow to respond here. I certainly saw your questions, and other matters intervened, as they so often do. This is brief note drawing attention to some comments I wrote on the complex relationship between extra years of schooling and ability. I am unsure about the claimed effects, but there is certainly supportive evidence. On the Norway school natural experiment, I would want to see a longer run of data, and do not want to rely on the “difference in difference” measure.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/school/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-2003769

    Submitted yet, or are you still working on it?

    I have been trying to promote it ;-)

    I also highly recommend this recent research:

    Mr. Thompson,

    Would you like to check out my worldwide IQ estimates based on official UNO education data?

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/

    – http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-1995375
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/why-do-british-jews-live-5-or-6-years-longer/#comment-2000233

    https://notpolitcallycorrect.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/average.jpg
  42. One Tribe says:
    @Alfa158
    "It is fine to equate an individual person’s genes to their traits, i.e. intelligence.
    But those genes are very, very likely NOT traceable backwards to ancestry, nor forwards to descendants."
    "Genes which may (or may not) correlate with intelligence might not even be transmitted to direct offspring, let alone further down the line of descendants."

    OK got it, your message is that genes are transmitted to descendants, except for the genes for intelligence. I guess they just sort of randomly drop themselves in there?

    alfa (is it?)
    your comment reads like shill and/or bot.

    of course a subset of genes are passed from both parents to offspring.
    but second and third generations may not have much in common with the original pairing, there is no evidence of genetic multi-generational persistence for genes (supposedly) identified to correlate with intelligence.

    You write like a bot/shill with a target outcome, regardless of rational arrival. your comment to me seems like designed ignorance.
    no need to respond with more rhetorical flourish; however, I would not mind reading your response to multi-generational genetic persistence for these supposed intelligence correlated markers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Evidence so far suggests that intelligence appears to be determined partially by environmental influences and partially by a complex combination of genes. Certainly, the particular combination of genes that create exceptional intelligence are not packetized so that they are transmitted from generation to generation intact, and therefore can't they can't be traced as such. Einstein's children did not have his mental abilities because as the genetic materials are passed from generation to generation which ones are combined from each parent to create the new zygote varies, so two people do not produce the same identical child and the traits of one person will not persist in precisely that form through their descendants.

    My question was pretty simple. You wrote:
    "But those genes are very, very likely NOT traceable backwards to ancestry, nor forwards to descendants."
    Obviously those genes came from the person's ancestry. Please clarify, are you saying that the genes came from ancestors but it would be impossible to identify and trace them back through those ancestors?
    The evidence for multi-generational persistence of genes correlated for intelligence is the fact that these genes still exist after multi-generations ,just not necessarily in exactly the same constellation if you will.

    BTW, by "rational arrival" did you mean "rational process"?
  43. nickels says:
    @res
    The answer is very much incomplete at this point, but the graphic at the very top of this page gives a good clue by showing the relevant tissues.

    Ok, thanks.

    Forgive the ignorance– so everyone has the genes, but, somehow certain values (sequences) correlate more highly with intelligence? As opposed to mutated versions?

    Is it a sort of on/off correspondence, i.e. there is a right, working gene and then mutated versions that don’t work?

    Or is it more that the value of the gene somehow tunes intelligence, i.e. intelligence scales with the changing sequence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Is it a sort of on/off correspondence, i.e. there is a right, working gene and then mutated versions that don’t work?
     
    I think that is a reasonable first order way to look at it, but the reality is more complicated and still poorly understood in detail. One issue is whether or not alleles (versions in your terminology) that lower IQ might have positive effects in other areas. Sickle cell trait is the canonical non-IQ example of this.

    It is worth noting that the on/off idea corresponds pretty well with additive genetics which appears to be the majority component of the genetic effect on IQ.
  44. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    I am excited by the latest GWAS results for IQ (and intelligence is a [the?] primary topic of this blog, with the genetics of IQ being an important subtopic).
     
    Which is why I asked Dr. Thompson's thoughts on my article.

    There is a good chance I will be disappointed in that happening so soon, but who knows?
     
    Seing how irrational and lacking arguments you were when you dismissed my article that just showed that differences in education seemed to better explain country differences in IQ and other variables, I can tell that you don't need to wait for such validation of a method to have form opinions on race and IQ. You're far from agnostic or open to alternative explanations (that you call making excuses). That's a fact that you can't deny.

    “Nigeria was more the huts and slums” is quite the strawman.
     
    Not at all, you did everything to imply that Nigeria did not deserve full credit for whatever modern activities that are going on there. And not only you did that, you did that as if the nuances that could be expressed concerning Nigeria's technological advances were specific to Africa and that any advanced reason for which things weren't as good as you think they could be were just excuses.

    If you don't get so emotional about it, it all makes sense: they have foreign partnerships as all developing countries have had when they started their high tech programs, they have failures like I think all scientific adventures had in their infancy, budget constraints reduce funding for a while, the infrastructure is not as developed... and so on. But be aware that in a country with 190 million inhabitants, a Gaussian distribution predicts that hundreds of thousands of people have IQs over 120, even if the median is in the 70s. Not to mention that brain drain has driven a huge number of qualified professionals out of the country. It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Anyway, these 300,000 or so IQ120+ population are well enough for all kinds of spectacular technological projects to come to fruition if these projects are economically and politically pertinent.

    Come on Afrosapiens, you can do better than that. After all, you are the self-anointed smartest person at Pumpkin Person’s blog.
     
    There is no problem with my argumentation, it's flawless, objective and well informed. The only problem is you not accepting things that do not fit your subjective worldview. And yes of course I'm the smartest at Pumpkin Person's blog, which I a agree is not an exceptional achievement given the level there. I doubt you could say the same about yourself, there are some economically literate guys there ;-).

    Seing how irrational and lacking arguments you were when you dismissed my article

    LOL! And it is clear you are not including typos when talking about your flawless argumentation.

    “Nigeria was more the huts and slums” is quite the strawman.

    Not at all, you did everything to imply that Nigeria did not deserve full credit for whatever modern activities that are going on there. And not only you did that, you did that as if the nuances that could be expressed concerning Nigeria’s technological advances were specific to Africa and that any advanced reason for which things weren’t as good as you think they could be were just excuses.

    That you consider “huts and slums” equivalent to my statements (nice false equivalency! even allowing your misrepresentation of my statements) says all that needs to be said about your “flawless” argumentation.

    Anyway, these 300,000 or so IQ120+ population are well enough for all kinds of spectacular technological projects to come to fruition if these projects are economically and politically pertinent.

    You are making two assumptions I question:
    1. The IQ SD in Nigeria is at least 15.
    2. The brain drain of selective Nigerian emigration has not appreciably reduced the cohort with IQ120+.

    I guess if Nigeria ever manages to get its testing act together enough to make accurate IQ estimates of its citizens possible we could have a real answer to this conjecture. But I am sure there is a excuse reason that is not possible.

    And yes of course I’m the smartest at Pumpkin Person’s blog, which I a agree is not an exceptional achievement given the level there. I doubt you could say the same about yourself, there are some economically literate guys there ;-).

    Pumpkin had an SAT score poll. I have a good idea of how I stand over there.

    You estimating “Swank and Videla are around 120″ helped refine my estimate for you. Thanks. As did your using 120+ as a threshold here. You understand that 130 is only top 2% in the US, right?

    It is funny how some people think if they repeat something often enough (e.g. my alleged irrationality, economic illiteracy, and lack of arguments) it will magically become true. Remember, ad hominem attacks are a marker of someone who is losing the reasoned argument part of the conversation.

    But remember everyone, Afrosapiens is not taking my failure to bow down before the awesomeness that is Nigeria personally and I am the emotional one here. How was that Nigeria-South Korea economic growth comparison looking again? But wait, that can’t be fair since one country has almost 10x the land area of the other and rich oil resources to boot (oops, wrong set of excuses).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    LOL! And it is clear you are not including typos when talking about your flawless argumentation.
     
    I include them.

    That you consider “huts and slums” equivalent to my statements (nice false equivalency! even allowing your misrepresentation of my statements) says all that needs to be said about your “flawless” argumentation.
     
    Please, it's obvious that you can't objectively appreciate anything that Nigeria or any other African country does to rise above huts and slums.

    You are making two assumptions I question:
    1. The IQ SD in Nigeria is at least 15.
    2. The brain drain of selective Nigerian emigration has not appreciably reduced the cohort with IQ120+.
     
    On the SD, yes 15 is the SD that's commonly found in the samples used in African IQ estimates. assuming that these sample are only representative of some segments of the population, and seeing that there are very large differences between samples of different socio-economic background, I'd assume that taking the whole social spectrum into account would probably give a larger SD than 15. A highly unequal society encompasses a larger range of environments.

    As for brain drain:

    1- Nigeria's emigration rate is very low.

    2- Nigerians overseas do well, but not extremely well, nothing indicating that intellectually high performing population is reduced to the point that Nigeria can't have several Forbes billionaires and companies, a spatial program with experts warning authorities about the necessary infrastructure requirements, an indigenous car manufacturer that produces and conceives motor vehicles locally, a appreciably developed service sector, and many other things that will not meet your respectability requirements.

    I guess if Nigeria ever manages to get its testing act together enough to make accurate IQ estimates of its citizens possible we could have a real answer to this conjecture.
     
    I'd like to see other countries doing such things, China for instance. I'd really like it because the socio-economic outcomes really don't fit the supposed average IQ there.

    But I am sure there is a excuse reason that is not possible.
     
    Maybe it's just pointless?

    Pumpkin had an SAT score poll. I have a good idea of how I stand over there.
     
    Lol, the sole fact that you rely on an internet poll tells exactly where you stand.

    You estimating “Swank and Videla are around 120″ helped refine my estimate for you. Thanks. As did your using 120+ as a threshold here. You understand that 130 is only top 2% in the US, right?
     
    Yeah, and 120 is something between 10% and 8%. They make the cut.

    It is funny how some people think if they repeat something often enough (e.g. my alleged irrationality, economic illiteracy, and lack of arguments) it will magically become true. Remember, ad hominem attacks are a marker of someone who is losing the reasoned argument part of the conversation.
     
    You decide to take it as an attack because you don't want to face the fact that your understanding of economics is poor. Making this stuff a personal issue. Again.

    But remember everyone, Afrosapiens is not taking my failure to bow down before the awesomeness that is Nigeria personally and I am the emotional one here. How was that Nigeria-South Korea economic growth comparison looking again? But wait, that can’t be fair since one country has almost 10x the land area of the other and rich oil resources to boot (oops, wrong set of excuses).
     
    More ignorance. First, I must credit you for this theory that there is a causal correlation between country size and GDP per capita. Secondly, I must inform you that Nigeria's oil has been the reason of the civil war there and subsequent corrupt dictatorial regimes: that's called resource curse and comes with the associated Dutch disease: when resource exports increase exchange rates and lower the competitiveness of other exports. These are facts, not excuses. And please don't ridicule yourself by bringing up tiny Gulf Emirates to the comparison.

    But since we're talking about Korea, let's compare Nigeria and North Korea, and let's try not to make excuses.
  45. res says:
    @nickels
    Ok, thanks.

    Forgive the ignorance-- so everyone has the genes, but, somehow certain values (sequences) correlate more highly with intelligence? As opposed to mutated versions?

    Is it a sort of on/off correspondence, i.e. there is a right, working gene and then mutated versions that don't work?

    Or is it more that the value of the gene somehow tunes intelligence, i.e. intelligence scales with the changing sequence?

    Is it a sort of on/off correspondence, i.e. there is a right, working gene and then mutated versions that don’t work?

    I think that is a reasonable first order way to look at it, but the reality is more complicated and still poorly understood in detail. One issue is whether or not alleles (versions in your terminology) that lower IQ might have positive effects in other areas. Sickle cell trait is the canonical non-IQ example of this.

    It is worth noting that the on/off idea corresponds pretty well with additive genetics which appears to be the majority component of the genetic effect on IQ.

    Read More
  46. Factorize says:

    I am trying to understand the lay of the land.

    Is the UK really heading for the gold medal podium for genetic GWAS?

    They already appear to have this locked because they have shown strong leadership and have posted a string of successful GWAS with the
    UKB. Everyone appears to be lagging so far behind that perhaps it will be an all UK sweep.

    By the time others finally step up with their million sample GWAS the race will be over.

    Where is America? Where are the USA! chants? Where is China? Did not some Middle Eastern nations fund large DNA projects?

    I am quite surprised by how much of a lead the UK has in the genetics race. How long before a large UKB style dataset is ready in America?

    Read More
  47. LauraMR says:
    @Afrosapiens
    Population genetics and brain function is an appropriate phrasing for what people colloquially call race and intelligence/IQ.

    The questions will be answered when GWAS uncover the genetic architecture of variation in brain function in all populations, which in my opinion is not going to happen soon nor will replicate the high heritability that's estimated from twin studies.


    @res

    Now I see how you react to something that you want to see happen, getting over-excited from the tiniest GWAS hits. Contrast this to your reaction to the proofs that Nigeria was more the huts and slums.

    Colloquially, yes, formally, no. Proper definitions of race are still to be developed. IQ research, in contrast, is solid, interesting, and promising. Thus my comment. Mixing the two, race and IQ, is a recipe for disaster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    I find very little to disagree with in your comment, except maybe the solidity of IQ research. I was simply elaborating on the meaning of race and IQ mainly as far as the hereditarian side of the debate is concerned. The hypothesis, I mean, the expectation or the wish that population genetics affect the global distribution of genetic potential for intelligence and that it is reflected in the different averages of what we usually call races. It's a recipe for disaster, for them most likely.

    Because the effect size of the GWAS hits is way too low for any of them to result in survival and reproductive advantages that make them eligible to natural selection. Even worse, out-of-Africa bottlenecks have reduced genetic diversity and effective population size, thus making purifying selection weaker out of Africa.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440.full
  48. @res

    Seing how irrational and lacking arguments you were when you dismissed my article

     

    LOL! And it is clear you are not including typos when talking about your flawless argumentation.


    “Nigeria was more the huts and slums” is quite the strawman.
     
    Not at all, you did everything to imply that Nigeria did not deserve full credit for whatever modern activities that are going on there. And not only you did that, you did that as if the nuances that could be expressed concerning Nigeria’s technological advances were specific to Africa and that any advanced reason for which things weren’t as good as you think they could be were just excuses.

     

    That you consider "huts and slums" equivalent to my statements (nice false equivalency! even allowing your misrepresentation of my statements) says all that needs to be said about your "flawless" argumentation.

    Anyway, these 300,000 or so IQ120+ population are well enough for all kinds of spectacular technological projects to come to fruition if these projects are economically and politically pertinent.
     
    You are making two assumptions I question:
    1. The IQ SD in Nigeria is at least 15.
    2. The brain drain of selective Nigerian emigration has not appreciably reduced the cohort with IQ120+.

    I guess if Nigeria ever manages to get its testing act together enough to make accurate IQ estimates of its citizens possible we could have a real answer to this conjecture. But I am sure there is a excuse reason that is not possible.

    And yes of course I’m the smartest at Pumpkin Person’s blog, which I a agree is not an exceptional achievement given the level there. I doubt you could say the same about yourself, there are some economically literate guys there ;-).
     
    Pumpkin had an SAT score poll. I have a good idea of how I stand over there.

    You estimating "Swank and Videla are around 120" helped refine my estimate for you. Thanks. As did your using 120+ as a threshold here. You understand that 130 is only top 2% in the US, right?

    It is funny how some people think if they repeat something often enough (e.g. my alleged irrationality, economic illiteracy, and lack of arguments) it will magically become true. Remember, ad hominem attacks are a marker of someone who is losing the reasoned argument part of the conversation.

    But remember everyone, Afrosapiens is not taking my failure to bow down before the awesomeness that is Nigeria personally and I am the emotional one here. How was that Nigeria-South Korea economic growth comparison looking again? But wait, that can't be fair since one country has almost 10x the land area of the other and rich oil resources to boot (oops, wrong set of excuses).

    LOL! And it is clear you are not including typos when talking about your flawless argumentation.

    I include them.

    That you consider “huts and slums” equivalent to my statements (nice false equivalency! even allowing your misrepresentation of my statements) says all that needs to be said about your “flawless” argumentation.

    Please, it’s obvious that you can’t objectively appreciate anything that Nigeria or any other African country does to rise above huts and slums.

    You are making two assumptions I question:
    1. The IQ SD in Nigeria is at least 15.
    2. The brain drain of selective Nigerian emigration has not appreciably reduced the cohort with IQ120+.

    On the SD, yes 15 is the SD that’s commonly found in the samples used in African IQ estimates. assuming that these sample are only representative of some segments of the population, and seeing that there are very large differences between samples of different socio-economic background, I’d assume that taking the whole social spectrum into account would probably give a larger SD than 15. A highly unequal society encompasses a larger range of environments.

    As for brain drain:

    1- Nigeria’s emigration rate is very low.

    2- Nigerians overseas do well, but not extremely well, nothing indicating that intellectually high performing population is reduced to the point that Nigeria can’t have several Forbes billionaires and companies, a spatial program with experts warning authorities about the necessary infrastructure requirements, an indigenous car manufacturer that produces and conceives motor vehicles locally, a appreciably developed service sector, and many other things that will not meet your respectability requirements.

    I guess if Nigeria ever manages to get its testing act together enough to make accurate IQ estimates of its citizens possible we could have a real answer to this conjecture.

    I’d like to see other countries doing such things, China for instance. I’d really like it because the socio-economic outcomes really don’t fit the supposed average IQ there.

    But I am sure there is a excuse reason that is not possible.

    Maybe it’s just pointless?

    Pumpkin had an SAT score poll. I have a good idea of how I stand over there.

    Lol, the sole fact that you rely on an internet poll tells exactly where you stand.

    You estimating “Swank and Videla are around 120″ helped refine my estimate for you. Thanks. As did your using 120+ as a threshold here. You understand that 130 is only top 2% in the US, right?

    Yeah, and 120 is something between 10% and 8%. They make the cut.

    It is funny how some people think if they repeat something often enough (e.g. my alleged irrationality, economic illiteracy, and lack of arguments) it will magically become true. Remember, ad hominem attacks are a marker of someone who is losing the reasoned argument part of the conversation.

    You decide to take it as an attack because you don’t want to face the fact that your understanding of economics is poor. Making this stuff a personal issue. Again.

    But remember everyone, Afrosapiens is not taking my failure to bow down before the awesomeness that is Nigeria personally and I am the emotional one here. How was that Nigeria-South Korea economic growth comparison looking again? But wait, that can’t be fair since one country has almost 10x the land area of the other and rich oil resources to boot (oops, wrong set of excuses).

    More ignorance. First, I must credit you for this theory that there is a causal correlation between country size and GDP per capita. Secondly, I must inform you that Nigeria’s oil has been the reason of the civil war there and subsequent corrupt dictatorial regimes: that’s called resource curse and comes with the associated Dutch disease: when resource exports increase exchange rates and lower the competitiveness of other exports. These are facts, not excuses. And please don’t ridicule yourself by bringing up tiny Gulf Emirates to the comparison.

    But since we’re talking about Korea, let’s compare Nigeria and North Korea, and let’s try not to make excuses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    1- Nigeria’s emigration rate is very low.
     
    Reference? But that's not what matters. What matters is what proportion of that IQ120+ group is emigrating.

    Looking at the brain drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    we see a consistent emigration rate from Nigeria of about 10% for the highest skilled group for five year intervals from 1980 to the present. The emigration rate for the low and medium skilled group is very low (< 1%), but those aren't the people we are concerned about here. Here are their definitions for skill levels:

    Educational categories. We distinguish three levels of education: primary (low
    skilled: includes lower secondary, primary and no schooling); secondary (medium skilled: high-school leaving certificate or equivalent) and tertiary education (high skilled: higher than high-school leaving certificate or equivalent).
     
    I would like to understand better how those emigration rates are calculated. I am assuming they represent the total emigration for the five year interval, but don't see that stated clearly anywhere.

    Given the trend by education level I'd guess the emigration rate is even higher for those with a college degree or better. But we don't have the data to check.

    Back to you:

    But since we’re talking about Korea, let’s compare Nigeria and North Korea, and let’s try not to make excuses.
     
    North Korea is terrible. Terrible governance will do that. But even so it manages to beat out about a dozen African countries: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
    Nigeria is much better than that group (~3-4x or more) though.
    Remember, mediocre people/countries compare themselves to the worst and thump their chests.
  49. FKA Max says:
    @Afrosapiens

    I am excited by the latest GWAS results for IQ (and intelligence is a [the?] primary topic of this blog, with the genetics of IQ being an important subtopic).
     
    Which is why I asked Dr. Thompson's thoughts on my article.

    There is a good chance I will be disappointed in that happening so soon, but who knows?
     
    Seing how irrational and lacking arguments you were when you dismissed my article that just showed that differences in education seemed to better explain country differences in IQ and other variables, I can tell that you don't need to wait for such validation of a method to have form opinions on race and IQ. You're far from agnostic or open to alternative explanations (that you call making excuses). That's a fact that you can't deny.

    “Nigeria was more the huts and slums” is quite the strawman.
     
    Not at all, you did everything to imply that Nigeria did not deserve full credit for whatever modern activities that are going on there. And not only you did that, you did that as if the nuances that could be expressed concerning Nigeria's technological advances were specific to Africa and that any advanced reason for which things weren't as good as you think they could be were just excuses.

    If you don't get so emotional about it, it all makes sense: they have foreign partnerships as all developing countries have had when they started their high tech programs, they have failures like I think all scientific adventures had in their infancy, budget constraints reduce funding for a while, the infrastructure is not as developed... and so on. But be aware that in a country with 190 million inhabitants, a Gaussian distribution predicts that hundreds of thousands of people have IQs over 120, even if the median is in the 70s. Not to mention that brain drain has driven a huge number of qualified professionals out of the country. It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Anyway, these 300,000 or so IQ120+ population are well enough for all kinds of spectacular technological projects to come to fruition if these projects are economically and politically pertinent.

    Come on Afrosapiens, you can do better than that. After all, you are the self-anointed smartest person at Pumpkin Person’s blog.
     
    There is no problem with my argumentation, it's flawless, objective and well informed. The only problem is you not accepting things that do not fit your subjective worldview. And yes of course I'm the smartest at Pumpkin Person's blog, which I a agree is not an exceptional achievement given the level there. I doubt you could say the same about yourself, there are some economically literate guys there ;-).

    Mr. Thompson replied back to you:

    Sorry that I have been so slow to respond here. I certainly saw your questions, and other matters intervened, as they so often do. This is brief note drawing attention to some comments I wrote on the complex relationship between extra years of schooling and ability. I am unsure about the claimed effects, but there is certainly supportive evidence. On the Norway school natural experiment, I would want to see a longer run of data, and do not want to rely on the “difference in difference” measure.

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

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-2003769

    Submitted yet, or are you still working on it?

    I have been trying to promote it ;-)

    I also highly recommend this recent research:

    Mr. Thompson,

    Would you like to check out my worldwide IQ estimates based on official UNO education data?

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-1995375

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/why-do-british-jews-live-5-or-6-years-longer/#comment-2000233

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Thanks for telling me about Mr. Thompson's reply. And thanks for promoting that piece as well

    Yes I'm working on an update on my article, I'm waiting for the weekend to engage in those time-consuming conversations.
  50. Factorize says:

    I am motivated to post to this blog because I am currently enrolled in an economic development course and I have just been green lighted to write a thesis on intelligence and development.

    It seems that nearly the entire economic development community avoids any discussion of IQ. One of the most popular development books of the last 20 years only it mentioned so as to label anyone seeing a connection between IQ and race as racist. And yet…

    There are extremely serious development challenges facing many developing nations. Psychometric insights could be of great value to help guide these nations towards higher standard of living.

    I would welcome any suggestions from this thread that might help me with my thesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    This post from Dr. Thompson: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/county-iqs-and-their-consequences/
    David Becker's data at https://www.researchgate.net/project/Worlds-IQ
    Also see the previous comment thread at http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans
    and Afrosapiens' link: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/

    Please post about what you find.

    P.S. Be careful what you write. You don't want to destroy your career before you graduate. See Jason Richwine for example.
    , @FKA Max
    Also have a look at this, which might be of interest to you and could be helpful in your work:

    Personally, I believe that the MAOA gene is more important and has more of an effect on the functioning or non-functioning of a society than “just” IQ. It just happens to be, that many of the lower-IQ societies also happen to have a higher number of low-activity MAOA carriers, and most IQ researchers do not control for that, and attribute all those nations’ “shortcomings” just to IQ, when the “real” explanation is a combination of lack of impulse control (low-activity MAOA) and (low) IQ, IMO
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-1998635

    This New York Times article from 1983 illustrates well how fragile the social order in China is
    [...]
    Currently, 55 types of crime are punishable by death in China according to Wikipedia
    [...]
    There is not that much difference between Western and Asian IQs, but the difference in the frequency of the low(er)-activity MAOA (3R) allele between those two races is quite significant, and I posit the reason why Western/White societies are less corrupt, etc. than Asian societies
    [...]
    What many naive Westerners, who have not done any research into these matters, don’t understand is, that in order to maintain the social order and civilization in general in societies and regions of the world that contain and are inhabited by large groups of low-activity MAOA carriers, it requires harsh and swift punishments for even minor crimes to deter potential criminals, otherwise these societies and regions would drown in chaos and violence.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-1999230


    If we are looking at running countries/governments instead of businesses/banks now, the picture changes. Too much aggression and risk-taking is not healthy and destabilizing for a country/government, whereas it can be highly profitable for a business or a bank/hedge fund to take even high risks, if they are rational/calculated.
    [...]
    “Worrier pacifist” are probably the best suited to run countries and governments due to their above-average intelligence and tendency to avoid risk and aggression
    [...]
    Northern Europeans are the group with the highest percentage of “worrier pacifists” (35.75%), followed by Ashkenazi Jews (20%), and Africans and East Asians have the lowest percentage (13.5%) of “worrier pacifists” in their populations.
    [...]
    African and East Asian countries and governments likely can highly benefit from hiring and consulting with Northern Europeans on how to run their countries and governments with less corruption, waste, etc.
    [...]
    In summary it seems that “double warriors” are best suited for the private sector and “worrier pacifists” and “warrior pacifists” excel in the public sector.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetics-of-racial-differences-in-intelligence-updated/#comment-1904499
  51. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    LOL! And it is clear you are not including typos when talking about your flawless argumentation.
     
    I include them.

    That you consider “huts and slums” equivalent to my statements (nice false equivalency! even allowing your misrepresentation of my statements) says all that needs to be said about your “flawless” argumentation.
     
    Please, it's obvious that you can't objectively appreciate anything that Nigeria or any other African country does to rise above huts and slums.

    You are making two assumptions I question:
    1. The IQ SD in Nigeria is at least 15.
    2. The brain drain of selective Nigerian emigration has not appreciably reduced the cohort with IQ120+.
     
    On the SD, yes 15 is the SD that's commonly found in the samples used in African IQ estimates. assuming that these sample are only representative of some segments of the population, and seeing that there are very large differences between samples of different socio-economic background, I'd assume that taking the whole social spectrum into account would probably give a larger SD than 15. A highly unequal society encompasses a larger range of environments.

    As for brain drain:

    1- Nigeria's emigration rate is very low.

    2- Nigerians overseas do well, but not extremely well, nothing indicating that intellectually high performing population is reduced to the point that Nigeria can't have several Forbes billionaires and companies, a spatial program with experts warning authorities about the necessary infrastructure requirements, an indigenous car manufacturer that produces and conceives motor vehicles locally, a appreciably developed service sector, and many other things that will not meet your respectability requirements.

    I guess if Nigeria ever manages to get its testing act together enough to make accurate IQ estimates of its citizens possible we could have a real answer to this conjecture.
     
    I'd like to see other countries doing such things, China for instance. I'd really like it because the socio-economic outcomes really don't fit the supposed average IQ there.

    But I am sure there is a excuse reason that is not possible.
     
    Maybe it's just pointless?

    Pumpkin had an SAT score poll. I have a good idea of how I stand over there.
     
    Lol, the sole fact that you rely on an internet poll tells exactly where you stand.

    You estimating “Swank and Videla are around 120″ helped refine my estimate for you. Thanks. As did your using 120+ as a threshold here. You understand that 130 is only top 2% in the US, right?
     
    Yeah, and 120 is something between 10% and 8%. They make the cut.

    It is funny how some people think if they repeat something often enough (e.g. my alleged irrationality, economic illiteracy, and lack of arguments) it will magically become true. Remember, ad hominem attacks are a marker of someone who is losing the reasoned argument part of the conversation.
     
    You decide to take it as an attack because you don't want to face the fact that your understanding of economics is poor. Making this stuff a personal issue. Again.

    But remember everyone, Afrosapiens is not taking my failure to bow down before the awesomeness that is Nigeria personally and I am the emotional one here. How was that Nigeria-South Korea economic growth comparison looking again? But wait, that can’t be fair since one country has almost 10x the land area of the other and rich oil resources to boot (oops, wrong set of excuses).
     
    More ignorance. First, I must credit you for this theory that there is a causal correlation between country size and GDP per capita. Secondly, I must inform you that Nigeria's oil has been the reason of the civil war there and subsequent corrupt dictatorial regimes: that's called resource curse and comes with the associated Dutch disease: when resource exports increase exchange rates and lower the competitiveness of other exports. These are facts, not excuses. And please don't ridicule yourself by bringing up tiny Gulf Emirates to the comparison.

    But since we're talking about Korea, let's compare Nigeria and North Korea, and let's try not to make excuses.

    1- Nigeria’s emigration rate is very low.

    Reference? But that’s not what matters. What matters is what proportion of that IQ120+ group is emigrating.

    Looking at the brain drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    we see a consistent emigration rate from Nigeria of about 10% for the highest skilled group for five year intervals from 1980 to the present. The emigration rate for the low and medium skilled group is very low (< 1%), but those aren't the people we are concerned about here. Here are their definitions for skill levels:

    Educational categories. We distinguish three levels of education: primary (low
    skilled: includes lower secondary, primary and no schooling); secondary (medium skilled: high-school leaving certificate or equivalent) and tertiary education (high skilled: higher than high-school leaving certificate or equivalent).

    I would like to understand better how those emigration rates are calculated. I am assuming they represent the total emigration for the five year interval, but don’t see that stated clearly anywhere.

    Given the trend by education level I’d guess the emigration rate is even higher for those with a college degree or better. But we don’t have the data to check.

    Back to you:

    But since we’re talking about Korea, let’s compare Nigeria and North Korea, and let’s try not to make excuses.

    North Korea is terrible. Terrible governance will do that. But even so it manages to beat out about a dozen African countries: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
    Nigeria is much better than that group (~3-4x or more) though.
    Remember, mediocre people/countries compare themselves to the worst and thump their chests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Reference? But that’s not what matters. What matters is what proportion of that IQ120+ group is emigrating.
     
    Yeah, reference, I can actually reference everything I say, and with official sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate (based on World Bank data)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population#UN_2015_report:_Emigrant_Population

    Nigeria's emigrant population as a share of national population is just 0.59% one of the lowest in the world.

    Given the trend by education level I’d guess the emigration rate is even higher for those with a college degree or better. But we don’t have the data to check.
     
    Probably, but that's unlikely enough to deprive a country of its skilled workforce to the extent that they could not staff several government-sponsored high tech projects. Especially since they have the financial power to convince expatriated specialists to come back to work on large scale scientific ventures.

    North Korea is terrible. Terrible governance will do that. But even so it manages to beat out about a dozen African countries:
     
    Thanks for the data that I knew long before you did but what do you know about governance in this dozen African countries?

    Remember, mediocre people/countries compare themselves to the worst and thump their chests.
     
    This reasoning is the exact reason why you're embarrassing yourself in this conversation. Your trying to measuring up to me is doomed to fail because you don't have my knowledge and my intelligence. For this reason, any of your pseudo-arguments will sink, so you will get triggered and you will try to shift the focus on personal matters/hidden motivations peripheral stuff... Now meditate on that:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Competence_Hierarchy_adapted_from_Noel_Burch_by_Igor_Kokcharov.svg/440px-Competence_Hierarchy_adapted_from_Noel_Burch_by_Igor_Kokcharov.svg.png

    Look at the bottom, obviously.
  52. res says:
    @Factorize
    I am motivated to post to this blog because I am currently enrolled in an economic development course and I have just been green lighted to write a thesis on intelligence and development.

    It seems that nearly the entire economic development community avoids any discussion of IQ. One of the most popular development books of the last 20 years only it mentioned so as to label anyone seeing a connection between IQ and race as racist. And yet...

    There are extremely serious development challenges facing many developing nations. Psychometric insights could be of great value to help guide these nations towards higher standard of living.

    I would welcome any suggestions from this thread that might help me with my thesis.

    This post from Dr. Thompson: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/county-iqs-and-their-consequences/
    David Becker’s data at https://www.researchgate.net/project/Worlds-IQ
    Also see the previous comment thread at http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans
    and Afrosapiens’ link: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/

    Please post about what you find.

    P.S. Be careful what you write. You don’t want to destroy your career before you graduate. See Jason Richwine for example.

    Read More
  53. FKA Max says:
    @Factorize
    I am motivated to post to this blog because I am currently enrolled in an economic development course and I have just been green lighted to write a thesis on intelligence and development.

    It seems that nearly the entire economic development community avoids any discussion of IQ. One of the most popular development books of the last 20 years only it mentioned so as to label anyone seeing a connection between IQ and race as racist. And yet...

    There are extremely serious development challenges facing many developing nations. Psychometric insights could be of great value to help guide these nations towards higher standard of living.

    I would welcome any suggestions from this thread that might help me with my thesis.

    Also have a look at this, which might be of interest to you and could be helpful in your work:

    Personally, I believe that the MAOA gene is more important and has more of an effect on the functioning or non-functioning of a society than “just” IQ. It just happens to be, that many of the lower-IQ societies also happen to have a higher number of low-activity MAOA carriers, and most IQ researchers do not control for that, and attribute all those nations’ “shortcomings” just to IQ, when the “real” explanation is a combination of lack of impulse control (low-activity MAOA) and (low) IQ, IMO

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-1998635

    [MORE]

    This New York Times article from 1983 illustrates well how fragile the social order in China is
    [...]
    Currently, 55 types of crime are punishable by death in China according to Wikipedia
    [...]
    There is not that much difference between Western and Asian IQs, but the difference in the frequency of the low(er)-activity MAOA (3R) allele between those two races is quite significant, and I posit the reason why Western/White societies are less corrupt, etc. than Asian societies
    [...]
    What many naive Westerners, who have not done any research into these matters, don’t understand is, that in order to maintain the social order and civilization in general in societies and regions of the world that contain and are inhabited by large groups of low-activity MAOA carriers, it requires harsh and swift punishments for even minor crimes to deter potential criminals, otherwise these societies and regions would drown in chaos and violence.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-1999230

    If we are looking at running countries/governments instead of businesses/banks now, the picture changes. Too much aggression and risk-taking is not healthy and destabilizing for a country/government, whereas it can be highly profitable for a business or a bank/hedge fund to take even high risks, if they are rational/calculated.
    [...]
    “Worrier pacifist” are probably the best suited to run countries and governments due to their above-average intelligence and tendency to avoid risk and aggression
    [...]
    Northern Europeans are the group with the highest percentage of “worrier pacifists” (35.75%), followed by Ashkenazi Jews (20%), and Africans and East Asians have the lowest percentage (13.5%) of “worrier pacifists” in their populations.
    [...]
    African and East Asian countries and governments likely can highly benefit from hiring and consulting with Northern Europeans on how to run their countries and governments with less corruption, waste, etc.
    [...]
    In summary it seems that “double warriors” are best suited for the private sector and “worrier pacifists” and “warrior pacifists” excel in the public sector.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetics-of-racial-differences-in-intelligence-updated/#comment-1904499

    Read More
  54. @LauraMR
    Colloquially, yes, formally, no. Proper definitions of race are still to be developed. IQ research, in contrast, is solid, interesting, and promising. Thus my comment. Mixing the two, race and IQ, is a recipe for disaster.

    I find very little to disagree with in your comment, except maybe the solidity of IQ research. I was simply elaborating on the meaning of race and IQ mainly as far as the hereditarian side of the debate is concerned. The hypothesis, I mean, the expectation or the wish that population genetics affect the global distribution of genetic potential for intelligence and that it is reflected in the different averages of what we usually call races. It’s a recipe for disaster, for them most likely.

    Because the effect size of the GWAS hits is way too low for any of them to result in survival and reproductive advantages that make them eligible to natural selection. Even worse, out-of-Africa bottlenecks have reduced genetic diversity and effective population size, thus making purifying selection weaker out of Africa.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440.full

    Read More
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    Interesting comments.

    I fear, however, that the disaster is for us more than them since we are the ones making an issue of it.

    And, not without irony, making an issue of it is just plain stupid.
  55. @FKA Max
    Mr. Thompson replied back to you:

    Sorry that I have been so slow to respond here. I certainly saw your questions, and other matters intervened, as they so often do. This is brief note drawing attention to some comments I wrote on the complex relationship between extra years of schooling and ability. I am unsure about the claimed effects, but there is certainly supportive evidence. On the Norway school natural experiment, I would want to see a longer run of data, and do not want to rely on the “difference in difference” measure.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/school/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-2003769

    Submitted yet, or are you still working on it?

    I have been trying to promote it ;-)

    I also highly recommend this recent research:

    Mr. Thompson,

    Would you like to check out my worldwide IQ estimates based on official UNO education data?

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/

    – http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligent-lifespans/#comment-1995375
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/why-do-british-jews-live-5-or-6-years-longer/#comment-2000233

    https://notpolitcallycorrect.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/average.jpg

    Thanks for telling me about Mr. Thompson’s reply. And thanks for promoting that piece as well

    Yes I’m working on an update on my article, I’m waiting for the weekend to engage in those time-consuming conversations.

    Read More
  56. @res

    1- Nigeria’s emigration rate is very low.
     
    Reference? But that's not what matters. What matters is what proportion of that IQ120+ group is emigrating.

    Looking at the brain drain data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    we see a consistent emigration rate from Nigeria of about 10% for the highest skilled group for five year intervals from 1980 to the present. The emigration rate for the low and medium skilled group is very low (< 1%), but those aren't the people we are concerned about here. Here are their definitions for skill levels:

    Educational categories. We distinguish three levels of education: primary (low
    skilled: includes lower secondary, primary and no schooling); secondary (medium skilled: high-school leaving certificate or equivalent) and tertiary education (high skilled: higher than high-school leaving certificate or equivalent).
     
    I would like to understand better how those emigration rates are calculated. I am assuming they represent the total emigration for the five year interval, but don't see that stated clearly anywhere.

    Given the trend by education level I'd guess the emigration rate is even higher for those with a college degree or better. But we don't have the data to check.

    Back to you:

    But since we’re talking about Korea, let’s compare Nigeria and North Korea, and let’s try not to make excuses.
     
    North Korea is terrible. Terrible governance will do that. But even so it manages to beat out about a dozen African countries: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
    Nigeria is much better than that group (~3-4x or more) though.
    Remember, mediocre people/countries compare themselves to the worst and thump their chests.

    Reference? But that’s not what matters. What matters is what proportion of that IQ120+ group is emigrating.

    Yeah, reference, I can actually reference everything I say, and with official sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate (based on World Bank data)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population#UN_2015_report:_Emigrant_Population

    Nigeria’s emigrant population as a share of national population is just 0.59% one of the lowest in the world.

    Given the trend by education level I’d guess the emigration rate is even higher for those with a college degree or better. But we don’t have the data to check.

    Probably, but that’s unlikely enough to deprive a country of its skilled workforce to the extent that they could not staff several government-sponsored high tech projects. Especially since they have the financial power to convince expatriated specialists to come back to work on large scale scientific ventures.

    North Korea is terrible. Terrible governance will do that. But even so it manages to beat out about a dozen African countries:

    Thanks for the data that I knew long before you did but what do you know about governance in this dozen African countries?

    Remember, mediocre people/countries compare themselves to the worst and thump their chests.

    This reasoning is the exact reason why you’re embarrassing yourself in this conversation. Your trying to measuring up to me is doomed to fail because you don’t have my knowledge and my intelligence. For this reason, any of your pseudo-arguments will sink, so you will get triggered and you will try to shift the focus on personal matters/hidden motivations peripheral stuff… Now meditate on that:

    Look at the bottom, obviously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Yeah, reference, I can actually reference everything I say, and with official sources.
     
    Thanks. It's nicer not to have to ask though. But I suppose that attitude goes along with what seems like essentially: yeah, infrastructure. Or "can manufacture" if only we wanted to.

    Looking at your data (first link) it indicates the five year emigration rate is 0.178% which is 3x below the brain drain 2010 number of 0.61%. Not sure what is causing the discrepancy.

    Your data (second link) shows ~1 million (~0.6%) Nigerians abroad. If that is distributed among IQ levels then it is irrelevant. However, if it is concentrated among the higher IQ Nigerians (as the brain drain data indicates) then that is 3 times the size of your +120IQ group and could have a serious impact on that group.

    My understanding is the brain drain data is based on the incoming immigration statistics of 20 OECD countries. I tend to trust that data. I looked at the World Bank data at their site and don't see what method and underlying data were used for it.

    I notice that you don't even bother to address the brain drain data ~10% (actually 12% in 2010) five year emigration rate for the Nigerian high skilled group. Failure to engage with relevant evidence is NOT a sign of an argument's strength!

    Probably, but that’s unlikely enough to deprive a country of its skilled workforce to the extent that they could not staff several government-sponsored high tech projects. Especially since they have the financial power to convince expatriated specialists to come back to work on large scale scientific ventures.
     
    Perhaps. The question I see is whether the remaining skilled workforce is large enough to execute the large scale scientific ventures as well as all of the day to day tasks which go into making a country of 168M people (half the US!) functional, not to mention developing such a country. What kind of IQ do you think is necessary to do the high level planning for day to day operation (e.g. maintenance) of large scale infrastructure projects? For example, the Nigerian power grid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_energy_supply_crisis
    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.

    I think this graphic is more relevant and gives a pretty good clue to what is happening in our conversation:
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/1/16/Dunning_kruger.png

    As a meta-comment, notice which graphic is based on real research and which is based on some handwaving interpretation of how the world works. See any quantitative information in that fancy multicolored pyramid? (tee hee, that pyramid makes for a funny multi-leveled analogy with African development)

    P.S. If you insist on trying to elevate yourself above me (notice that I am NOT simply doing the reverse, I am arguing for an equal standing in this conversation, your continuous denigration of my abilities is offensive but quite funny given what I suspect the reality is--see graphic above) then perhaps you can tell me which way you think Pumpkin's SAT poll errs? Does it over or under estimate the intelligence of commenters there?
  57. Alfa158 says:
    @One Tribe
    alfa (is it?)
    your comment reads like shill and/or bot.

    of course a subset of genes are passed from both parents to offspring.
    but second and third generations may not have much in common with the original pairing, there is no evidence of genetic multi-generational persistence for genes (supposedly) identified to correlate with intelligence.

    You write like a bot/shill with a target outcome, regardless of rational arrival. your comment to me seems like designed ignorance.
    no need to respond with more rhetorical flourish; however, I would not mind reading your response to multi-generational genetic persistence for these supposed intelligence correlated markers.

    Evidence so far suggests that intelligence appears to be determined partially by environmental influences and partially by a complex combination of genes. Certainly, the particular combination of genes that create exceptional intelligence are not packetized so that they are transmitted from generation to generation intact, and therefore can’t they can’t be traced as such. Einstein’s children did not have his mental abilities because as the genetic materials are passed from generation to generation which ones are combined from each parent to create the new zygote varies, so two people do not produce the same identical child and the traits of one person will not persist in precisely that form through their descendants.

    My question was pretty simple. You wrote:
    “But those genes are very, very likely NOT traceable backwards to ancestry, nor forwards to descendants.”
    Obviously those genes came from the person’s ancestry. Please clarify, are you saying that the genes came from ancestors but it would be impossible to identify and trace them back through those ancestors?
    The evidence for multi-generational persistence of genes correlated for intelligence is the fact that these genes still exist after multi-generations ,just not necessarily in exactly the same constellation if you will.

    BTW, by “rational arrival” did you mean “rational process”?

    Read More
  58. Factorize says:

    Thank you for the links res.

    Having access to these non-formal references will help me consider ideas that might not be possible to publish.

    Development Economics has a strong focus on finding practical strategies to improve the quality of life of disadvantaged peoples.
    I think psychometrics offers such an opportunity.

    For example, Afrosapiens is on a productive line of thought considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa. From a development perspective, the question becomes: What strategies could be used to identify, nurture, concentrate and reproduce this high IQ?

    While Africa is the ancestral home of humanity, it was still a surprise that the high IQ SNPs that have been found are also present there. To me this speaks to more a lack of a selective force for g over the time scale of tens of thousands of years. Recent research has found positive selection for I in Europe over the last 5 thousand years partly due to a complexity cycle. My guess would be that Africa has not experienced this force in the same way. My suspicion is that Africa could face substantial challenges as it tries to respond to the cognitive revolution. Psychometrics offers at least a way to assess risks posed by dangers such as HIV for those of different g levels and possibly offer guidance on how to mitigate these risks.

    One puzzle I have been considering is: Why did the Roman Empire collapse? From the IQ perspective these early empires can be seen as a fantastic incubator of g. By creating this centripetal force for g throughout a large part of human civilization, such empires much have derived a great advantage. Today America must also reap a large g benefit from being at the center of a global Empire. If China were to choose to stay on the hermit path then it might forrgo such gains. Could anyone suggest a g reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire? Could this be understood as a victory for higher IQ Asians, i.e. the Huns?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Thank you for the links res.
     
    My pleasure. I look forward to hearing more about your work in the future.

    Afrosapiens is on a productive line of thought considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa. From a development perspective, the question becomes: What strategies could be used to identify, nurture, concentrate and reproduce this high IQ?
     
    I agree. There are a number of reasons I wish the Biafran War (aka Nigerian Civil War) had turned out differently, but the most selfish is I would really like to see what a nation of Igbos could achieve. I think that would go a long way towards disproving the overly simplistic skin color determines population IQ idea. And if so, the how and why follow on questions are fascinating.

    it was still a surprise that the high IQ SNPs that have been found are also present there. To me this speaks to more a lack of a selective force for g over the time scale of tens of thousands of years.
     
    The big difference seems to be in allele frequencies. The explanations I have seen for the predominance of ancestral variations over new mutations center around the relatively low rate of beneficial mutations and the ability of selection to exploit existing genetic variation. Can anyone recommend a good reference covering this?

    Could anyone suggest a g reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire?
     
    Lead in the water supply, wine, vessels, etc. is an intermittently popular (partial at best IMHO) explanation. That explanation generally relies on IQ as a mediator variable. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html
  59. Factorize says:

    Alfa158,

    I wonder what might happen if a single chromosome were to accumulate a large number of
    positive IQ alleles, followed by inbreeding. Individual SNPs might have very small effect sizes, though individual chromosomes would house hundreds of such SNPs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    I'm not a professional in this field, my degrees were in Physics and that was many decades ago, but to the limited extent I am able to follow these research reports and discussions of them, it sounds like the genes are scattered over a lot of different chromosomes, so there is a lot of churning and mixing through the course of heredity. Looking again at the history of great geniuses, you see that they tend to come from smart families, but I am not aware of any examples where a great mind had any descendants who happened to inherit this single chromosome with a large number of positive IQ alleles and manifested the same extreme levels of intelligence. To go back to my illustration of Einstein, none of his offspring have turned out to be Nobel Prize level intellects.
    We are probably still a ways from accurately mapping how this works. Perhaps we'll eventually break through with one of these large scale research like the Beijing Institute genome project. They are collecting DNA samples from as many very bright people as possible from all ethnic groups, races and countries and sequencing their genetic code. The operating theory is that by massively analyzing the code of many disparate people, who have only the trait of intelligence in common, they can isolate what makes them smart.
    At this point we are still working with the first clues.
    , @res
    Remember that chromosomes are not inherited as atomic units: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination
  60. Factorize says:

    The methodology behind National IQ measures is a concern for me.

    Have there ever been attempts to measure national IQs using a hidden virtual approach? For example a computer game that probed g could be included free with purchase and the results reported back to a central server or perhaps email or web site visits could be computer analyzed.

    There could be a range of other ways of assessing IQ without attracting notice. For some nations, it could be possible to assemble psychometric profiles of tens of millions people and develop highly sophisticated intelligence models for populations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Google searches already do this.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/your-google-iq
  61. anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Predicting IQ from ‘years of schooling’”

    That is the most stupid idea I have seen. Many countries have the practice of of letting ‘very gifted’ students to skip one or more grades. That model will classify them as stupid. People spending 6 years doing a 4 years course must be very smart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Years of schooling = highest grade attained, regardless of skipped and repeated grades. Idiot.
  62. @Factorize
    The methodology behind National IQ measures is a concern for me.

    Have there ever been attempts to measure national IQs using a hidden virtual approach? For example a computer game that probed g could be included free with purchase and the results reported back to a central server or perhaps email or web site visits could be computer analyzed.

    There could be a range of other ways of assessing IQ without attracting notice. For some nations, it could be possible to assemble psychometric profiles of tens of millions people and develop highly sophisticated intelligence models for populations.

    Google searches already do this.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/your-google-iq

    Read More
  63. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    Reference? But that’s not what matters. What matters is what proportion of that IQ120+ group is emigrating.
     
    Yeah, reference, I can actually reference everything I say, and with official sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate (based on World Bank data)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population#UN_2015_report:_Emigrant_Population

    Nigeria's emigrant population as a share of national population is just 0.59% one of the lowest in the world.

    Given the trend by education level I’d guess the emigration rate is even higher for those with a college degree or better. But we don’t have the data to check.
     
    Probably, but that's unlikely enough to deprive a country of its skilled workforce to the extent that they could not staff several government-sponsored high tech projects. Especially since they have the financial power to convince expatriated specialists to come back to work on large scale scientific ventures.

    North Korea is terrible. Terrible governance will do that. But even so it manages to beat out about a dozen African countries:
     
    Thanks for the data that I knew long before you did but what do you know about governance in this dozen African countries?

    Remember, mediocre people/countries compare themselves to the worst and thump their chests.
     
    This reasoning is the exact reason why you're embarrassing yourself in this conversation. Your trying to measuring up to me is doomed to fail because you don't have my knowledge and my intelligence. For this reason, any of your pseudo-arguments will sink, so you will get triggered and you will try to shift the focus on personal matters/hidden motivations peripheral stuff... Now meditate on that:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Competence_Hierarchy_adapted_from_Noel_Burch_by_Igor_Kokcharov.svg/440px-Competence_Hierarchy_adapted_from_Noel_Burch_by_Igor_Kokcharov.svg.png

    Look at the bottom, obviously.

    Yeah, reference, I can actually reference everything I say, and with official sources.

    Thanks. It’s nicer not to have to ask though. But I suppose that attitude goes along with what seems like essentially: yeah, infrastructure. Or “can manufacture” if only we wanted to.

    Looking at your data (first link) it indicates the five year emigration rate is 0.178% which is 3x below the brain drain 2010 number of 0.61%. Not sure what is causing the discrepancy.

    Your data (second link) shows ~1 million (~0.6%) Nigerians abroad. If that is distributed among IQ levels then it is irrelevant. However, if it is concentrated among the higher IQ Nigerians (as the brain drain data indicates) then that is 3 times the size of your +120IQ group and could have a serious impact on that group.

    My understanding is the brain drain data is based on the incoming immigration statistics of 20 OECD countries. I tend to trust that data. I looked at the World Bank data at their site and don’t see what method and underlying data were used for it.

    I notice that you don’t even bother to address the brain drain data ~10% (actually 12% in 2010) five year emigration rate for the Nigerian high skilled group. Failure to engage with relevant evidence is NOT a sign of an argument’s strength!

    Probably, but that’s unlikely enough to deprive a country of its skilled workforce to the extent that they could not staff several government-sponsored high tech projects. Especially since they have the financial power to convince expatriated specialists to come back to work on large scale scientific ventures.

    Perhaps. The question I see is whether the remaining skilled workforce is large enough to execute the large scale scientific ventures as well as all of the day to day tasks which go into making a country of 168M people (half the US!) functional, not to mention developing such a country. What kind of IQ do you think is necessary to do the high level planning for day to day operation (e.g. maintenance) of large scale infrastructure projects? For example, the Nigerian power grid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_energy_supply_crisis
    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.

    I think this graphic is more relevant and gives a pretty good clue to what is happening in our conversation:

    As a meta-comment, notice which graphic is based on real research and which is based on some handwaving interpretation of how the world works. See any quantitative information in that fancy multicolored pyramid? (tee hee, that pyramid makes for a funny multi-leveled analogy with African development)

    P.S. If you insist on trying to elevate yourself above me (notice that I am NOT simply doing the reverse, I am arguing for an equal standing in this conversation, your continuous denigration of my abilities is offensive but quite funny given what I suspect the reality is–see graphic above) then perhaps you can tell me which way you think Pumpkin’s SAT poll errs? Does it over or under estimate the intelligence of commenters there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Thanks. It’s nicer not to have to ask though. But I suppose that attitude goes along with what seems like essentially: yeah, infrastructure. Or “can manufacture” if only we wanted to.
     
    You're triggered, again. You'll need a thicker skin to debate with me, because I'm not the type of person that will be nice to you. And no, it has nothing to do with the technical ability/pertinence match that determines the viability of any type of project. See oil exploration for instance, there are still immense reserves further away off shore at the bottom of the oceans. The technical ability to dig wells there is here, but this is very expensive and oil prices are way too low for such projects to be profitable.

    Looking at your data (first link) it indicates the five year emigration rate is 0.178% which is 3x below the brain drain 2010 number of 0.61%. Not sure what is causing the discrepancy.
     
    It's the average annual rate over five years, plus net migration rate = immigration - emigration.

    I notice that you don’t even bother to address the brain drain data ~10% (actually 12% in 2010) five year emigration rate for the Nigerian high skilled group. Failure to engage with relevant evidence is NOT a sign of an argument’s strength!
     
    Because I don't care, see I'm not trying to make excuses like "all of Nigeria's skilled population is overseas, so they can't do this and that". You however seem determined to prove yourself that for whatever reason (brain drain in this case) Nigeria doesn't have the potential to rise above huts and slums in a way you deem respectable.

    Perhaps. The question I see is whether the remaining skilled workforce is large enough to execute the large scale scientific ventures as well as all of the day to day tasks which go into making a country of 168M people (half the US!) functional, not to mention developing such a country. What kind of IQ do you think is necessary to do the high level planning for day to day operation (e.g. maintenance) of large scale infrastructure projects? For example, the Nigerian power grid:
     
    If you only knew how common these issues are all over the developing world. The issue here is not technical ability again. The first thing is lack of money to fund and maintain infrastructure (poor countries have low tax bases and government revenues) and things are made worse by corruption, money commonly disappears in the administrative maze. On top of that, nepotism is rampant in countries like Nigeria, so the management is not only incompetent but not even concerned about what happens to the infrastructure under their responsibility. But there are countries where things are done well, Botswana for instance has just 2,000,000 inhabitants and top infrastructure, Nigeria obviously has several times the amount of competent personnel to maintain similar infrastructure. What makes the difference between the two countries is that Nigeria is very corrupt and the administration doesn't hire managers based on competence. It's true for Nigeria, India, Venezuela, Russia, or even Italy. Things don't magically build and maintain themselves just because there are the necessary skills in the workforce.

    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.
     
    There is no such thing.

    I think this graphic is more relevant and gives a pretty good clue to what is happening in our conversation:
     
    Oh yeah, it's relevant, if we talk about you and your arguments. See, I don't even want to mention that I graduated from Europe's top business school because you fail to grasp the most basic high school economics concept, hence your economic illiteracy. Your arguments are improvised, illogical, un-informed, near-sighted. You're incompetent in short: wrong intuitions, wrong analyses. Why are you trying to argue otherwise unless you're making it a personal issue?

    As a meta-comment, notice which graphic is based on real research and which is based on some handwaving interpretation of how the world works. See any quantitative information in that fancy multicolored pyramid? (tee hee, that pyramid makes for a funny multi-leveled analogy with African development)
     
    Lol, typical STEM guy who believes everything can be reduced to numbers. The hierarchy of competence is well acknowledged in education and training sciences and perfectly describes the process of skill/knowledge acquisition. Here we've been talking about economics, a topic on which you're on the level zero, at this level, you rely on wrong intuitions and you're not even aware of what you don't know and that you need to know to make a good analysis, it shows in all of your arguments.

    If you insist on trying to elevate yourself above me (notice that I am NOT simply doing the reverse, I am arguing for an equal standing in this conversation, your continuous denigration of my abilities is offensive but quite funny given what I suspect the reality is–see graphic above) then perhaps you can tell me which way you think Pumpkin’s SAT poll errs? Does it over or under estimate the intelligence of commenters there?

     

    I'm not trying to elevate myself, I'm obviously and objectively above you on the topics we discuss. Don't take it personally, buy some economics books, or take some classes and get back to me when you've learned the basic concepts. I wouldn't take it personally if we were talking about electrical engineering and you dominated me, it'd be normal and contrary to you I'd simply acknowledge that it's not something I'm knowledgeable about enough to discuss with you.

    On Pumpkin's blog poll, this thing is just worthless, the poll has been taken by far more people than the number of regular commenters who hardly reach the number of ten. Then taking self-selection into account, the results are just un-informative.
  64. res says:
    @Factorize
    Thank you for the links res.

    Having access to these non-formal references will help me consider ideas that might not be possible to publish.

    Development Economics has a strong focus on finding practical strategies to improve the quality of life of disadvantaged peoples.
    I think psychometrics offers such an opportunity.

    For example, Afrosapiens is on a productive line of thought considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa. From a development perspective, the question becomes: What strategies could be used to identify, nurture, concentrate and reproduce this high IQ?

    While Africa is the ancestral home of humanity, it was still a surprise that the high IQ SNPs that have been found are also present there. To me this speaks to more a lack of a selective force for g over the time scale of tens of thousands of years. Recent research has found positive selection for I in Europe over the last 5 thousand years partly due to a complexity cycle. My guess would be that Africa has not experienced this force in the same way. My suspicion is that Africa could face substantial challenges as it tries to respond to the cognitive revolution. Psychometrics offers at least a way to assess risks posed by dangers such as HIV for those of different g levels and possibly offer guidance on how to mitigate these risks.

    One puzzle I have been considering is: Why did the Roman Empire collapse? From the IQ perspective these early empires can be seen as a fantastic incubator of g. By creating this centripetal force for g throughout a large part of human civilization, such empires much have derived a great advantage. Today America must also reap a large g benefit from being at the center of a global Empire. If China were to choose to stay on the hermit path then it might forrgo such gains. Could anyone suggest a g reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire? Could this be understood as a victory for higher IQ Asians, i.e. the Huns?

    Thank you for the links res.

    My pleasure. I look forward to hearing more about your work in the future.

    Afrosapiens is on a productive line of thought considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa. From a development perspective, the question becomes: What strategies could be used to identify, nurture, concentrate and reproduce this high IQ?

    I agree. There are a number of reasons I wish the Biafran War (aka Nigerian Civil War) had turned out differently, but the most selfish is I would really like to see what a nation of Igbos could achieve. I think that would go a long way towards disproving the overly simplistic skin color determines population IQ idea. And if so, the how and why follow on questions are fascinating.

    it was still a surprise that the high IQ SNPs that have been found are also present there. To me this speaks to more a lack of a selective force for g over the time scale of tens of thousands of years.

    The big difference seems to be in allele frequencies. The explanations I have seen for the predominance of ancestral variations over new mutations center around the relatively low rate of beneficial mutations and the ability of selection to exploit existing genetic variation. Can anyone recommend a good reference covering this?

    Could anyone suggest a g reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire?

    Lead in the water supply, wine, vessels, etc. is an intermittently popular (partial at best IMHO) explanation. That explanation generally relies on IQ as a mediator variable. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "I think that would go a long way towards disproving the overly simplistic skin color determines population IQ idea."

    It doesn't. Razib Khan addressed this.
    , @Pete22
    "... considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa".

    "...I agree. There are a number of reasons I wish the Biafran War (aka Nigerian Civil War) had turned out differently, but the most selfish is I would really like to see what a nation of Igbos could achieve".

    Lol. Luckily, he and you can only get away with hopes and wishes, standing in for even conjecture, in internet comment sections.

    Well, assuming that you aren't speaking to any group whose jobs are facilitated or threatened by the far left.

    Good luck getting around the sticky issue of brain architecture, mediated in-part by endocrine profile but also skull shape. Smaller frontal lobes are smaller.

    Prediction: newly mixed race African-Northerners will be held as a before ignored people of pure African descent in the future, newly discovered as relatively intelligent Africans. History, and in the future genetic history, will have a funny way of rewriting itself in the hands of people with sociopolitical agendas that stand in for hypotheses. Science indeed.
  65. @res

    Thank you for the links res.
     
    My pleasure. I look forward to hearing more about your work in the future.

    Afrosapiens is on a productive line of thought considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa. From a development perspective, the question becomes: What strategies could be used to identify, nurture, concentrate and reproduce this high IQ?
     
    I agree. There are a number of reasons I wish the Biafran War (aka Nigerian Civil War) had turned out differently, but the most selfish is I would really like to see what a nation of Igbos could achieve. I think that would go a long way towards disproving the overly simplistic skin color determines population IQ idea. And if so, the how and why follow on questions are fascinating.

    it was still a surprise that the high IQ SNPs that have been found are also present there. To me this speaks to more a lack of a selective force for g over the time scale of tens of thousands of years.
     
    The big difference seems to be in allele frequencies. The explanations I have seen for the predominance of ancestral variations over new mutations center around the relatively low rate of beneficial mutations and the ability of selection to exploit existing genetic variation. Can anyone recommend a good reference covering this?

    Could anyone suggest a g reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire?
     
    Lead in the water supply, wine, vessels, etc. is an intermittently popular (partial at best IMHO) explanation. That explanation generally relies on IQ as a mediator variable. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html

    “I think that would go a long way towards disproving the overly simplistic skin color determines population IQ idea.”

    It doesn’t. Razib Khan addressed this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Do you have a link? There is an important difference between "determines" and "correlates highly with". I chose my words carefully.
  66. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "I think that would go a long way towards disproving the overly simplistic skin color determines population IQ idea."

    It doesn't. Razib Khan addressed this.

    Do you have a link? There is an important difference between “determines” and “correlates highly with”. I chose my words carefully.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    we know the genetic architecture of pigmentation. that is, we know all the genes (~10, usually less than 6 in pairwise between population comparisons). skin color varies via a small number of large effect trait loci. in contrast, I.Q. varies by a huge number of small effect loci. so logically the correlation is obviously just a correlation. to give you an example, SLC45A2 explains 25-40% of the variance between africans and europeans.

    long story short: it’s stupid to keep repeating the correlation between skin color and I.Q. as if it’s a novel genetic story. it’s not. i hope don’t have to keep repeating this for too many years.

    http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2011/12/skin-color-and-desirable-traits.html?showComment=1323237742022#c4456747326487257693

    Of course they correlate. Is it causal? No. Jensen also addressed Templer and Arikawa 2006.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDA1LjA0LjAwMw==/10.1016%40j.intell.2005.04.003.pdf

  67. @res
    Do you have a link? There is an important difference between "determines" and "correlates highly with". I chose my words carefully.

    we know the genetic architecture of pigmentation. that is, we know all the genes (~10, usually less than 6 in pairwise between population comparisons). skin color varies via a small number of large effect trait loci. in contrast, I.Q. varies by a huge number of small effect loci. so logically the correlation is obviously just a correlation. to give you an example, SLC45A2 explains 25-40% of the variance between africans and europeans.

    long story short: it’s stupid to keep repeating the correlation between skin color and I.Q. as if it’s a novel genetic story. it’s not. i hope don’t have to keep repeating this for too many years.

    http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2011/12/skin-color-and-desirable-traits.html?showComment=1323237742022#c4456747326487257693

    Of course they correlate. Is it causal? No. Jensen also addressed Templer and Arikawa 2006.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDA1LjA0LjAwMw==/10.1016%40j.intell.2005.04.003.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I misunderstood the point of your comment 66. Thanks for clarifying. I think we are in agreement. But I do think the point you, Razib, Jensen, etc. are making is stronger for individuals than for groups and stronger for skin color than for racial visible phenotype as a whole. A high average measured Igbo IQ would emphatically refute the apparent correlation between African visible phenotype for a group and that group's IQ.
  68. @anon
    "Predicting IQ from 'years of schooling'"

    That is the most stupid idea I have seen. Many countries have the practice of of letting 'very gifted' students to skip one or more grades. That model will classify them as stupid. People spending 6 years doing a 4 years course must be very smart.

    Years of schooling = highest grade attained, regardless of skipped and repeated grades. Idiot.

    Read More
  69. Alfa158 says:
    @Factorize
    Alfa158,

    I wonder what might happen if a single chromosome were to accumulate a large number of
    positive IQ alleles, followed by inbreeding. Individual SNPs might have very small effect sizes, though individual chromosomes would house hundreds of such SNPs.

    I’m not a professional in this field, my degrees were in Physics and that was many decades ago, but to the limited extent I am able to follow these research reports and discussions of them, it sounds like the genes are scattered over a lot of different chromosomes, so there is a lot of churning and mixing through the course of heredity. Looking again at the history of great geniuses, you see that they tend to come from smart families, but I am not aware of any examples where a great mind had any descendants who happened to inherit this single chromosome with a large number of positive IQ alleles and manifested the same extreme levels of intelligence. To go back to my illustration of Einstein, none of his offspring have turned out to be Nobel Prize level intellects.
    We are probably still a ways from accurately mapping how this works. Perhaps we’ll eventually break through with one of these large scale research like the Beijing Institute genome project. They are collecting DNA samples from as many very bright people as possible from all ethnic groups, races and countries and sequencing their genetic code. The operating theory is that by massively analyzing the code of many disparate people, who have only the trait of intelligence in common, they can isolate what makes them smart.
    At this point we are still working with the first clues.

    Read More
  70. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    we know the genetic architecture of pigmentation. that is, we know all the genes (~10, usually less than 6 in pairwise between population comparisons). skin color varies via a small number of large effect trait loci. in contrast, I.Q. varies by a huge number of small effect loci. so logically the correlation is obviously just a correlation. to give you an example, SLC45A2 explains 25-40% of the variance between africans and europeans.

    long story short: it’s stupid to keep repeating the correlation between skin color and I.Q. as if it’s a novel genetic story. it’s not. i hope don’t have to keep repeating this for too many years.

    http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2011/12/skin-color-and-desirable-traits.html?showComment=1323237742022#c4456747326487257693

    Of course they correlate. Is it causal? No. Jensen also addressed Templer and Arikawa 2006.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDA1LjA0LjAwMw==/10.1016%40j.intell.2005.04.003.pdf

    I misunderstood the point of your comment 66. Thanks for clarifying. I think we are in agreement. But I do think the point you, Razib, Jensen, etc. are making is stronger for individuals than for groups and stronger for skin color than for racial visible phenotype as a whole. A high average measured Igbo IQ would emphatically refute the apparent correlation between African visible phenotype for a group and that group’s IQ.

    Read More
  71. res says:
    @Factorize
    Alfa158,

    I wonder what might happen if a single chromosome were to accumulate a large number of
    positive IQ alleles, followed by inbreeding. Individual SNPs might have very small effect sizes, though individual chromosomes would house hundreds of such SNPs.

    Remember that chromosomes are not inherited as atomic units: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination

    Read More
  72. @res

    Yeah, reference, I can actually reference everything I say, and with official sources.
     
    Thanks. It's nicer not to have to ask though. But I suppose that attitude goes along with what seems like essentially: yeah, infrastructure. Or "can manufacture" if only we wanted to.

    Looking at your data (first link) it indicates the five year emigration rate is 0.178% which is 3x below the brain drain 2010 number of 0.61%. Not sure what is causing the discrepancy.

    Your data (second link) shows ~1 million (~0.6%) Nigerians abroad. If that is distributed among IQ levels then it is irrelevant. However, if it is concentrated among the higher IQ Nigerians (as the brain drain data indicates) then that is 3 times the size of your +120IQ group and could have a serious impact on that group.

    My understanding is the brain drain data is based on the incoming immigration statistics of 20 OECD countries. I tend to trust that data. I looked at the World Bank data at their site and don't see what method and underlying data were used for it.

    I notice that you don't even bother to address the brain drain data ~10% (actually 12% in 2010) five year emigration rate for the Nigerian high skilled group. Failure to engage with relevant evidence is NOT a sign of an argument's strength!

    Probably, but that’s unlikely enough to deprive a country of its skilled workforce to the extent that they could not staff several government-sponsored high tech projects. Especially since they have the financial power to convince expatriated specialists to come back to work on large scale scientific ventures.
     
    Perhaps. The question I see is whether the remaining skilled workforce is large enough to execute the large scale scientific ventures as well as all of the day to day tasks which go into making a country of 168M people (half the US!) functional, not to mention developing such a country. What kind of IQ do you think is necessary to do the high level planning for day to day operation (e.g. maintenance) of large scale infrastructure projects? For example, the Nigerian power grid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_energy_supply_crisis
    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.

    I think this graphic is more relevant and gives a pretty good clue to what is happening in our conversation:
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/1/16/Dunning_kruger.png

    As a meta-comment, notice which graphic is based on real research and which is based on some handwaving interpretation of how the world works. See any quantitative information in that fancy multicolored pyramid? (tee hee, that pyramid makes for a funny multi-leveled analogy with African development)

    P.S. If you insist on trying to elevate yourself above me (notice that I am NOT simply doing the reverse, I am arguing for an equal standing in this conversation, your continuous denigration of my abilities is offensive but quite funny given what I suspect the reality is--see graphic above) then perhaps you can tell me which way you think Pumpkin's SAT poll errs? Does it over or under estimate the intelligence of commenters there?

    Thanks. It’s nicer not to have to ask though. But I suppose that attitude goes along with what seems like essentially: yeah, infrastructure. Or “can manufacture” if only we wanted to.

    You’re triggered, again. You’ll need a thicker skin to debate with me, because I’m not the type of person that will be nice to you. And no, it has nothing to do with the technical ability/pertinence match that determines the viability of any type of project. See oil exploration for instance, there are still immense reserves further away off shore at the bottom of the oceans. The technical ability to dig wells there is here, but this is very expensive and oil prices are way too low for such projects to be profitable.

    Looking at your data (first link) it indicates the five year emigration rate is 0.178% which is 3x below the brain drain 2010 number of 0.61%. Not sure what is causing the discrepancy.

    It’s the average annual rate over five years, plus net migration rate = immigration – emigration.

    I notice that you don’t even bother to address the brain drain data ~10% (actually 12% in 2010) five year emigration rate for the Nigerian high skilled group. Failure to engage with relevant evidence is NOT a sign of an argument’s strength!

    Because I don’t care, see I’m not trying to make excuses like “all of Nigeria’s skilled population is overseas, so they can’t do this and that”. You however seem determined to prove yourself that for whatever reason (brain drain in this case) Nigeria doesn’t have the potential to rise above huts and slums in a way you deem respectable.

    Perhaps. The question I see is whether the remaining skilled workforce is large enough to execute the large scale scientific ventures as well as all of the day to day tasks which go into making a country of 168M people (half the US!) functional, not to mention developing such a country. What kind of IQ do you think is necessary to do the high level planning for day to day operation (e.g. maintenance) of large scale infrastructure projects? For example, the Nigerian power grid:

    If you only knew how common these issues are all over the developing world. The issue here is not technical ability again. The first thing is lack of money to fund and maintain infrastructure (poor countries have low tax bases and government revenues) and things are made worse by corruption, money commonly disappears in the administrative maze. On top of that, nepotism is rampant in countries like Nigeria, so the management is not only incompetent but not even concerned about what happens to the infrastructure under their responsibility. But there are countries where things are done well, Botswana for instance has just 2,000,000 inhabitants and top infrastructure, Nigeria obviously has several times the amount of competent personnel to maintain similar infrastructure. What makes the difference between the two countries is that Nigeria is very corrupt and the administration doesn’t hire managers based on competence. It’s true for Nigeria, India, Venezuela, Russia, or even Italy. Things don’t magically build and maintain themselves just because there are the necessary skills in the workforce.

    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.

    There is no such thing.

    I think this graphic is more relevant and gives a pretty good clue to what is happening in our conversation:

    Oh yeah, it’s relevant, if we talk about you and your arguments. See, I don’t even want to mention that I graduated from Europe’s top business school because you fail to grasp the most basic high school economics concept, hence your economic illiteracy. Your arguments are improvised, illogical, un-informed, near-sighted. You’re incompetent in short: wrong intuitions, wrong analyses. Why are you trying to argue otherwise unless you’re making it a personal issue?

    As a meta-comment, notice which graphic is based on real research and which is based on some handwaving interpretation of how the world works. See any quantitative information in that fancy multicolored pyramid? (tee hee, that pyramid makes for a funny multi-leveled analogy with African development)

    Lol, typical STEM guy who believes everything can be reduced to numbers. The hierarchy of competence is well acknowledged in education and training sciences and perfectly describes the process of skill/knowledge acquisition. Here we’ve been talking about economics, a topic on which you’re on the level zero, at this level, you rely on wrong intuitions and you’re not even aware of what you don’t know and that you need to know to make a good analysis, it shows in all of your arguments.

    If you insist on trying to elevate yourself above me (notice that I am NOT simply doing the reverse, I am arguing for an equal standing in this conversation, your continuous denigration of my abilities is offensive but quite funny given what I suspect the reality is–see graphic above) then perhaps you can tell me which way you think Pumpkin’s SAT poll errs? Does it over or under estimate the intelligence of commenters there?

    I’m not trying to elevate myself, I’m obviously and objectively above you on the topics we discuss. Don’t take it personally, buy some economics books, or take some classes and get back to me when you’ve learned the basic concepts. I wouldn’t take it personally if we were talking about electrical engineering and you dominated me, it’d be normal and contrary to you I’d simply acknowledge that it’s not something I’m knowledgeable about enough to discuss with you.

    On Pumpkin’s blog poll, this thing is just worthless, the poll has been taken by far more people than the number of regular commenters who hardly reach the number of ten. Then taking self-selection into account, the results are just un-informative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Only a thousand words on that one. Yet I'm the one who is triggered and for whom this is personal. LOL!


    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.

     

    There is no such thing.
     
    Slam me for being a STEM type if you like, but that comment makes abundantly clear how little you know about engineering. IMHO it also helps explain why Nigeria has such poor infrastructure.

    Kind of funny read in the light of this:

    I’d simply acknowledge that it’s not something I’m knowledgeable about enough to discuss with you.
     
    P.S. Do you really not realize how much you are projecting here?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Have you informed yourself about and factored into your analyses the fact that genetic diversity in Africa is orders of magnitude greater than in the whole of the rest of the world? (I think I saw somewhere that diversity amongst Khoi San alone exceeded that in Eurasia). Without getting diverted on to questions about whether all "junk DNA" is really junk, can it not be said that there is scope for many castes and sub castes of extended families with hugely different genomes that might generate big differences in cognitive ability just as we know there are huge differences between Kalenjin middle distance runners and West African sprinters? Have any of the testers and the collectors of test results come anywhere close to giving a reliable picture of the spectra of cognitive abiĺity in Africa?
  73. The issue is what you can do and will do. There should be no other test.

    The world is short handed. The only test should be performance, and IQ is irrelevant to that.

    The politicians want to stop performance measures because it put them to the lie, they want to see any differences caused by religiously flavored prejudices: ah the oppressed!

    What fun!

    Read More
  74. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    Thanks. It’s nicer not to have to ask though. But I suppose that attitude goes along with what seems like essentially: yeah, infrastructure. Or “can manufacture” if only we wanted to.
     
    You're triggered, again. You'll need a thicker skin to debate with me, because I'm not the type of person that will be nice to you. And no, it has nothing to do with the technical ability/pertinence match that determines the viability of any type of project. See oil exploration for instance, there are still immense reserves further away off shore at the bottom of the oceans. The technical ability to dig wells there is here, but this is very expensive and oil prices are way too low for such projects to be profitable.

    Looking at your data (first link) it indicates the five year emigration rate is 0.178% which is 3x below the brain drain 2010 number of 0.61%. Not sure what is causing the discrepancy.
     
    It's the average annual rate over five years, plus net migration rate = immigration - emigration.

    I notice that you don’t even bother to address the brain drain data ~10% (actually 12% in 2010) five year emigration rate for the Nigerian high skilled group. Failure to engage with relevant evidence is NOT a sign of an argument’s strength!
     
    Because I don't care, see I'm not trying to make excuses like "all of Nigeria's skilled population is overseas, so they can't do this and that". You however seem determined to prove yourself that for whatever reason (brain drain in this case) Nigeria doesn't have the potential to rise above huts and slums in a way you deem respectable.

    Perhaps. The question I see is whether the remaining skilled workforce is large enough to execute the large scale scientific ventures as well as all of the day to day tasks which go into making a country of 168M people (half the US!) functional, not to mention developing such a country. What kind of IQ do you think is necessary to do the high level planning for day to day operation (e.g. maintenance) of large scale infrastructure projects? For example, the Nigerian power grid:
     
    If you only knew how common these issues are all over the developing world. The issue here is not technical ability again. The first thing is lack of money to fund and maintain infrastructure (poor countries have low tax bases and government revenues) and things are made worse by corruption, money commonly disappears in the administrative maze. On top of that, nepotism is rampant in countries like Nigeria, so the management is not only incompetent but not even concerned about what happens to the infrastructure under their responsibility. But there are countries where things are done well, Botswana for instance has just 2,000,000 inhabitants and top infrastructure, Nigeria obviously has several times the amount of competent personnel to maintain similar infrastructure. What makes the difference between the two countries is that Nigeria is very corrupt and the administration doesn't hire managers based on competence. It's true for Nigeria, India, Venezuela, Russia, or even Italy. Things don't magically build and maintain themselves just because there are the necessary skills in the workforce.

    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.
     
    There is no such thing.

    I think this graphic is more relevant and gives a pretty good clue to what is happening in our conversation:
     
    Oh yeah, it's relevant, if we talk about you and your arguments. See, I don't even want to mention that I graduated from Europe's top business school because you fail to grasp the most basic high school economics concept, hence your economic illiteracy. Your arguments are improvised, illogical, un-informed, near-sighted. You're incompetent in short: wrong intuitions, wrong analyses. Why are you trying to argue otherwise unless you're making it a personal issue?

    As a meta-comment, notice which graphic is based on real research and which is based on some handwaving interpretation of how the world works. See any quantitative information in that fancy multicolored pyramid? (tee hee, that pyramid makes for a funny multi-leveled analogy with African development)
     
    Lol, typical STEM guy who believes everything can be reduced to numbers. The hierarchy of competence is well acknowledged in education and training sciences and perfectly describes the process of skill/knowledge acquisition. Here we've been talking about economics, a topic on which you're on the level zero, at this level, you rely on wrong intuitions and you're not even aware of what you don't know and that you need to know to make a good analysis, it shows in all of your arguments.

    If you insist on trying to elevate yourself above me (notice that I am NOT simply doing the reverse, I am arguing for an equal standing in this conversation, your continuous denigration of my abilities is offensive but quite funny given what I suspect the reality is–see graphic above) then perhaps you can tell me which way you think Pumpkin’s SAT poll errs? Does it over or under estimate the intelligence of commenters there?

     

    I'm not trying to elevate myself, I'm obviously and objectively above you on the topics we discuss. Don't take it personally, buy some economics books, or take some classes and get back to me when you've learned the basic concepts. I wouldn't take it personally if we were talking about electrical engineering and you dominated me, it'd be normal and contrary to you I'd simply acknowledge that it's not something I'm knowledgeable about enough to discuss with you.

    On Pumpkin's blog poll, this thing is just worthless, the poll has been taken by far more people than the number of regular commenters who hardly reach the number of ten. Then taking self-selection into account, the results are just un-informative.

    Only a thousand words on that one. Yet I’m the one who is triggered and for whom this is personal. LOL!

    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.

    There is no such thing.

    Slam me for being a STEM type if you like, but that comment makes abundantly clear how little you know about engineering. IMHO it also helps explain why Nigeria has such poor infrastructure.

    Kind of funny read in the light of this:

    I’d simply acknowledge that it’s not something I’m knowledgeable about enough to discuss with you.

    P.S. Do you really not realize how much you are projecting here?

    Read More
  75. Only a thousand words on that one. Yet I’m the one who is triggered and for whom this is personal. LOL!

    You shouldn’t laugh at the fact that I address all your points and therefore, quote a large part of your replies. Which is another reason why you’re triggered and you make it a personal issue.

    Slam me for being a STEM type if you like, but that comment makes abundantly clear how little you know about engineering. IMHO it also helps explain why Nigeria has such poor infrastructure.

    What is this IQ? Can you be factual and specific Mr. Engineer?

    Kind of funny read in the light of this:

    I’d simply acknowledge that it’s not something I’m knowledgeable about enough to discuss with you.

    P.S. Do you really not realize how much you are projecting here?

    No projection at all, I don’t discuss things in which I’m incompetent. Follow my example instead of laughing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    What is this IQ? Can you be factual and specific Mr. Engineer?
     
    Yup. Here we see a quote of 122 for the average IQ of civil and industrial engineers: https://www.electronicproducts.com/News/Engineer_vs_engineer_Who_has_the_higher_IQ.aspx

    So Nigeria better save some of those +120IQ people for its infrastructure project engineering (and maintenance, it is unwise to forget about maintenance, e.g. for capital city airport runways). Make sure not all of them work on the space program (or law). And remember, average is average and you probably want at least a few of even higher ability around if you like having projects that succeed in the first place and continue to work over the long term. I suppose that would be the ~20,000 Nigerians with an IQ over 135--at least the ones that have not emigrated yet. I hope Nigeria is using those rare birds wisely. That's not many people available to create and maintain high quality infrastructure for a country of 186 million people. Not to mention handling key needs like a space program.

    And as far as you addressing all of my points...there really is no response better than LOL!

    Though I do understand better from seeing your comment in another thread. You have "addressed" many of my points by restating them incorrectly.
  76. Factorize says:

    Alfa158, thank you for your reply.

    Yes, I thought about how the chromosomes would recombine as well, though I was thinking about how certain high IQ haploblocks might be shared. Have large scale haploblock GWAS been done for IQ? My idea was that for some inbred high IQ groups such haploblocks might provide a genetic explanation for their intelligence. IQ might turn out to be all about rolling 10,000 dice of very small effects, or perhaps there are blocks of SNPs that have accumulated good combinations. For purposes of illustration, consider a large extended family with offspring (first generation) that has essentially the same genomes (clones). When these offspring partner up, assortative mating for IQ will drive the slightly smarter couples together. The other offspring from the first generation will be similar in IQ to their parents. Now in the next round of mating the difference in IQ has increased between those offspring in the first generation that had slightly higher IQ and those that did not and different breeding populations might emerge.

    With a highly similar genetic background due to inbreeding and large families it is easier to ratchet up the IQ level from generation to generation. The recent research has found that only a few hundred SNP flips separate average and genius IQ.

    It is not surprising that Einstein’s descendants have not been Nobel prize winners. As an analogy, consider Einstein as a lottery winner. When the random process of recombination occurred, he hit the jackpot. Now some might erroneously assume that all Einstein would need to do to produce an offspring of similar intellectual ability to his own would be for him to have married another lottery winner. How could you lose? They both hit the jackpot, ergo, their children should also be lottery winners. This is clearly incorrect, though many still place faith in such a lottery strategy.

    Of interest to my above argument, Einstein married his cousin. This reproductive strategy, while it probably would not produce many successive generations of lottery winners, might still keep the genetic combinations that could then produce another high intellect. For example, what would happen if the Einstein cousins were then to intermarry? Given the current manifestation of genetic technology, even with low tech genetic engineering it might now be possible to create someone with genetics very similar to that of Einstein using a simple strategy.

    Read More
  77. LauraMR says:
    @Afrosapiens
    I find very little to disagree with in your comment, except maybe the solidity of IQ research. I was simply elaborating on the meaning of race and IQ mainly as far as the hereditarian side of the debate is concerned. The hypothesis, I mean, the expectation or the wish that population genetics affect the global distribution of genetic potential for intelligence and that it is reflected in the different averages of what we usually call races. It's a recipe for disaster, for them most likely.

    Because the effect size of the GWAS hits is way too low for any of them to result in survival and reproductive advantages that make them eligible to natural selection. Even worse, out-of-Africa bottlenecks have reduced genetic diversity and effective population size, thus making purifying selection weaker out of Africa.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440.full

    Interesting comments.

    I fear, however, that the disaster is for us more than them since we are the ones making an issue of it.

    And, not without irony, making an issue of it is just plain stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    And, not without irony, making an issue of it is just plain stupid.
     
    Lol, yeah. In my case, I think their opinions are worthless. Their "science" has existed for 100 years and it has no findings, not even been able to find a consensus on the definition of intelligence and what IQ tests measure... But I just like to be a contrarian, so let's contradict.
  78. Factorize says:

    Dr. Thompson, thank you for the National IQ link.

    I am surprised how hapless several aspects of intelligence genetics research has been.

    The published National IQ research has been criticized (probably correctly) for methodological issues (such as substituting a nation’s IQ with that of a neighboring nation etc.). In the world of today there are so many possible data points that could be used to estimate a population’s typical cognitive ability surreptitiously that are being ignored. One could look at purchase choices (e.g. what was a person’s ranking on buying a gene chip test), reaction times at an ATM, typing speed on a web page; it’s endless. This could be a real world, real time IQ test for a nation or a computer’s IP address. Why isn’t more of this variety of research being published?

    Why is the genetics community not disclosing full data sets? How do they justify this? Are they intending to IPO their taxpayer funded research? They are behaving as though they were monopolists when they should be freely disclosing their results into publicly accessible databases. Not doing so simply means that taxpayers will have to pay much more of their money to find answers. There are no obviously valid reasons why full disclosure is not occurring. Providing full information on a full set of 8 million SNPs would pose no more privacy concerns than would providing 246 SNPs. This behavior is very misguided.

    Open science should now be the assumed default. The argument that closed science occupies higher ground because of a dinosaur effect is hollow. There are also large samples that have been kept on the shelf. The FBI’s CODIS has 15.5 DNA samples from the criminal justice system, and the UK has 5 million. Developing a highly accurate estimation of g for those in controlled environments should be highly achievable.

    The research into the genetics of high intelligence has in some respects not exemplified high intelligence.

    Read More
  79. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    Only a thousand words on that one. Yet I’m the one who is triggered and for whom this is personal. LOL!
     
    You shouldn't laugh at the fact that I address all your points and therefore, quote a large part of your replies. Which is another reason why you're triggered and you make it a personal issue.

    Slam me for being a STEM type if you like, but that comment makes abundantly clear how little you know about engineering. IMHO it also helps explain why Nigeria has such poor infrastructure.
     
    What is this IQ? Can you be factual and specific Mr. Engineer?

    Kind of funny read in the light of this:

    I’d simply acknowledge that it’s not something I’m knowledgeable about enough to discuss with you.
     
    P.S. Do you really not realize how much you are projecting here?
     
    No projection at all, I don't discuss things in which I'm incompetent. Follow my example instead of laughing.

    What is this IQ? Can you be factual and specific Mr. Engineer?

    Yup. Here we see a quote of 122 for the average IQ of civil and industrial engineers: https://www.electronicproducts.com/News/Engineer_vs_engineer_Who_has_the_higher_IQ.aspx

    So Nigeria better save some of those +120IQ people for its infrastructure project engineering (and maintenance, it is unwise to forget about maintenance, e.g. for capital city airport runways). Make sure not all of them work on the space program (or law). And remember, average is average and you probably want at least a few of even higher ability around if you like having projects that succeed in the first place and continue to work over the long term. I suppose that would be the ~20,000 Nigerians with an IQ over 135–at least the ones that have not emigrated yet. I hope Nigeria is using those rare birds wisely. That’s not many people available to create and maintain high quality infrastructure for a country of 186 million people. Not to mention handling key needs like a space program.

    And as far as you addressing all of my points…there really is no response better than LOL!

    Though I do understand better from seeing your comment in another thread. You have “addressed” many of my points by restating them incorrectly.

    Read More
  80. @LauraMR
    Interesting comments.

    I fear, however, that the disaster is for us more than them since we are the ones making an issue of it.

    And, not without irony, making an issue of it is just plain stupid.

    And, not without irony, making an issue of it is just plain stupid.

    Lol, yeah. In my case, I think their opinions are worthless. Their “science” has existed for 100 years and it has no findings, not even been able to find a consensus on the definition of intelligence and what IQ tests measure… But I just like to be a contrarian, so let’s contradict.

    Read More
  81. anon says: • Disclaimer

    “‘years of schooling’==’highest grade attained’” ? facinating one track mind.

    Then you think you are smarter than Gates and Zuckerberg who dropped out from universities ?

    Your model also has inherently built in bias against the least developed countries where many of the students have to drop out from school to work to support the families or there are not enough schools to admit them.

    Strange schizo combination of SJWs’ idea of increasing IQ by simply extending the school years and then simultaneously prejudices against the least developed countries. The contradiction just exposes your ulterior motives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Then you think you are smarter than Gates and Zuckerberg who dropped out from universities ?
     
    Do you think anecdotes like that have any statistical relevance? Tell me how many college dropouts become multi-billionaires?

    Your model also has inherently built in bias against the least developed countries where many of the students have to drop out from school to work to support the families or there are not enough schools to admit them.
     
    No, because I don't equate IQ with intelligence. My opinion is that education increases test performance because it increases test-taking skills through familiarity with the process and some logical aspects of it (this is the main theory about the Flynn effect). Besides this, IQ tells very little more than how good you are at IQ tests.

    Strange schizo combination of SJWs’ idea of increasing IQ by simply extending the school years and then simultaneously prejudices against the least developed countries. The contradiction just exposes your ulterior motives.
     
    hahahaha! Fill me in on the motivation part.
  82. Yup. Here we see a quote of 122 for the average IQ of civil and industrial engineers: https://www.electronicproducts.com/News/Engineer_vs_engineer_Who_has_the_higher_IQ.aspx

    So Nigeria better save some of those +120IQ people for its infrastructure project engineering (and maintenance, it is unwise to forget about maintenance, e.g. for capital city airport runways). Make sure not all of them work on the space program (or law). And remember, average is average and you probably want at least a few of even higher ability around if you like having projects that succeed in the first place and continue to work over the long term. I suppose that would be the ~20,000 Nigerians with an IQ over 135–at least the ones that have not emigrated yet. I hope Nigeria is using those rare birds wisely. That’s not many people available to create and maintain high quality infrastructure for a country of 186 million people. Not to mention handling key needs like a space program.

    I don’t want to disturb you while you’re fantasizing but you talked about a “necessary” IQ, which is a threshold, not an average. Let me quote you:

    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.

    So I’ll ask this question again, what is this necessary IQ under which one can’t be a competent engineer?

    And as far as you addressing all of my points…there really is no response better than LOL!

    You have nothing to laugh about, unless you’re laughing of yourself, which is not a good way to learn either.

    Though I do understand better from seeing your comment in another thread. You have “addressed” many of my points by restating them incorrectly.

    No, sorry, you still don’t understand. You’d make more progress if you didn’t have such a confrontational approach to the topic.

    Read More
  83. @anon
    "'years of schooling'=='highest grade attained'" ? facinating one track mind.

    Then you think you are smarter than Gates and Zuckerberg who dropped out from universities ?

    Your model also has inherently built in bias against the least developed countries where many of the students have to drop out from school to work to support the families or there are not enough schools to admit them.

    Strange schizo combination of SJWs' idea of increasing IQ by simply extending the school years and then simultaneously prejudices against the least developed countries. The contradiction just exposes your ulterior motives.

    Then you think you are smarter than Gates and Zuckerberg who dropped out from universities ?

    Do you think anecdotes like that have any statistical relevance? Tell me how many college dropouts become multi-billionaires?

    Your model also has inherently built in bias against the least developed countries where many of the students have to drop out from school to work to support the families or there are not enough schools to admit them.

    No, because I don’t equate IQ with intelligence. My opinion is that education increases test performance because it increases test-taking skills through familiarity with the process and some logical aspects of it (this is the main theory about the Flynn effect). Besides this, IQ tells very little more than how good you are at IQ tests.

    Strange schizo combination of SJWs’ idea of increasing IQ by simply extending the school years and then simultaneously prejudices against the least developed countries. The contradiction just exposes your ulterior motives.

    hahahaha! Fill me in on the motivation part.

    Read More
  84. @Afrosapiens

    Thanks. It’s nicer not to have to ask though. But I suppose that attitude goes along with what seems like essentially: yeah, infrastructure. Or “can manufacture” if only we wanted to.
     
    You're triggered, again. You'll need a thicker skin to debate with me, because I'm not the type of person that will be nice to you. And no, it has nothing to do with the technical ability/pertinence match that determines the viability of any type of project. See oil exploration for instance, there are still immense reserves further away off shore at the bottom of the oceans. The technical ability to dig wells there is here, but this is very expensive and oil prices are way too low for such projects to be profitable.

    Looking at your data (first link) it indicates the five year emigration rate is 0.178% which is 3x below the brain drain 2010 number of 0.61%. Not sure what is causing the discrepancy.
     
    It's the average annual rate over five years, plus net migration rate = immigration - emigration.

    I notice that you don’t even bother to address the brain drain data ~10% (actually 12% in 2010) five year emigration rate for the Nigerian high skilled group. Failure to engage with relevant evidence is NOT a sign of an argument’s strength!
     
    Because I don't care, see I'm not trying to make excuses like "all of Nigeria's skilled population is overseas, so they can't do this and that". You however seem determined to prove yourself that for whatever reason (brain drain in this case) Nigeria doesn't have the potential to rise above huts and slums in a way you deem respectable.

    Perhaps. The question I see is whether the remaining skilled workforce is large enough to execute the large scale scientific ventures as well as all of the day to day tasks which go into making a country of 168M people (half the US!) functional, not to mention developing such a country. What kind of IQ do you think is necessary to do the high level planning for day to day operation (e.g. maintenance) of large scale infrastructure projects? For example, the Nigerian power grid:
     
    If you only knew how common these issues are all over the developing world. The issue here is not technical ability again. The first thing is lack of money to fund and maintain infrastructure (poor countries have low tax bases and government revenues) and things are made worse by corruption, money commonly disappears in the administrative maze. On top of that, nepotism is rampant in countries like Nigeria, so the management is not only incompetent but not even concerned about what happens to the infrastructure under their responsibility. But there are countries where things are done well, Botswana for instance has just 2,000,000 inhabitants and top infrastructure, Nigeria obviously has several times the amount of competent personnel to maintain similar infrastructure. What makes the difference between the two countries is that Nigeria is very corrupt and the administration doesn't hire managers based on competence. It's true for Nigeria, India, Venezuela, Russia, or even Italy. Things don't magically build and maintain themselves just because there are the necessary skills in the workforce.

    Then there is the IQ necessary for advance planning (quantity, siting, dependencies, etc.) and construction of those infrastructure projects.
     
    There is no such thing.

    I think this graphic is more relevant and gives a pretty good clue to what is happening in our conversation:
     
    Oh yeah, it's relevant, if we talk about you and your arguments. See, I don't even want to mention that I graduated from Europe's top business school because you fail to grasp the most basic high school economics concept, hence your economic illiteracy. Your arguments are improvised, illogical, un-informed, near-sighted. You're incompetent in short: wrong intuitions, wrong analyses. Why are you trying to argue otherwise unless you're making it a personal issue?

    As a meta-comment, notice which graphic is based on real research and which is based on some handwaving interpretation of how the world works. See any quantitative information in that fancy multicolored pyramid? (tee hee, that pyramid makes for a funny multi-leveled analogy with African development)
     
    Lol, typical STEM guy who believes everything can be reduced to numbers. The hierarchy of competence is well acknowledged in education and training sciences and perfectly describes the process of skill/knowledge acquisition. Here we've been talking about economics, a topic on which you're on the level zero, at this level, you rely on wrong intuitions and you're not even aware of what you don't know and that you need to know to make a good analysis, it shows in all of your arguments.

    If you insist on trying to elevate yourself above me (notice that I am NOT simply doing the reverse, I am arguing for an equal standing in this conversation, your continuous denigration of my abilities is offensive but quite funny given what I suspect the reality is–see graphic above) then perhaps you can tell me which way you think Pumpkin’s SAT poll errs? Does it over or under estimate the intelligence of commenters there?

     

    I'm not trying to elevate myself, I'm obviously and objectively above you on the topics we discuss. Don't take it personally, buy some economics books, or take some classes and get back to me when you've learned the basic concepts. I wouldn't take it personally if we were talking about electrical engineering and you dominated me, it'd be normal and contrary to you I'd simply acknowledge that it's not something I'm knowledgeable about enough to discuss with you.

    On Pumpkin's blog poll, this thing is just worthless, the poll has been taken by far more people than the number of regular commenters who hardly reach the number of ten. Then taking self-selection into account, the results are just un-informative.

    Have you informed yourself about and factored into your analyses the fact that genetic diversity in Africa is orders of magnitude greater than in the whole of the rest of the world? (I think I saw somewhere that diversity amongst Khoi San alone exceeded that in Eurasia). Without getting diverted on to questions about whether all “junk DNA” is really junk, can it not be said that there is scope for many castes and sub castes of extended families with hugely different genomes that might generate big differences in cognitive ability just as we know there are huge differences between Kalenjin middle distance runners and West African sprinters? Have any of the testers and the collectors of test results come anywhere close to giving a reliable picture of the spectra of cognitive abiĺity in Africa?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    These are good questions that you're asking and I'm well aware that genetic diversity is higher in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And the phenotypic diversity is about just as huge. We find the shortest and the tallest populations on earth, skin color goes from caramel to blueish black, body types vary a lot. So from a genetic point of view alone, we should not expect IQ averages restricted to a few points around 70 with small SDs unless we admit that those number are either unrepresentative or severely depressed by environment. Natural selection could explain Lynn's data, except that there is no scenario that makes sense and that is backed by genetic and archaeological evidence.

    Just like you, I'd be cautious about calling "junk DNA" the parts of the genome whose function is yet unknown. But yeah, logically, whatever the mean IQ on which we agree, the SD should be much higher in African populations and in should become smaller the farther from Africa we go.

    Apart from increasing the expected SD, Africa's genetic diversity implies a very high rate of heterozygoty, and although the genetic variance on IQ is additive, this level of genetic diversity is supposed to make any case of inbreeding significantly less harmful in Africa than in the rest of the world if some Mendelian disorders or anomalies indeed decrease IQ. The other fact is that genetic load is lower in Africa due to stronger purifying selection there, which means beneficial alleles affecting IQ or any other traits can be selected with smaller effect sizes than out of Africa.

    These are my thoughts on the implications of Africa's genetic diversity. I can tell Lynn did not give it a single thought when he made up his data along traditional, genetically irrelevant, racial lines.
  85. Factorize says:

    Wizard, this is an important observation that you have added to the discussion.

    Non-African populations only have a fraction of the genetic diversity that exists in Africa. Should not this mean that there might exist in Africa intelligence increasing variants that exist no where else in the world?

    Large IQ GWAS from several African populations might help humanity better understand the genetics of intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Those extra intelligence increasing variants have no doubt appeared in comparatively large numbers in Africa. More people meant more mutations. But they never got selected for in the African environment so as to become fixed in the extended family group's genome. Contrast say the Kalenjin running ability. When they were a *small* group of cattle herders in lean times it is easy to understand why only the few who had both speed and stamina survived.
  86. @Wizard of Oz
    Have you informed yourself about and factored into your analyses the fact that genetic diversity in Africa is orders of magnitude greater than in the whole of the rest of the world? (I think I saw somewhere that diversity amongst Khoi San alone exceeded that in Eurasia). Without getting diverted on to questions about whether all "junk DNA" is really junk, can it not be said that there is scope for many castes and sub castes of extended families with hugely different genomes that might generate big differences in cognitive ability just as we know there are huge differences between Kalenjin middle distance runners and West African sprinters? Have any of the testers and the collectors of test results come anywhere close to giving a reliable picture of the spectra of cognitive abiĺity in Africa?

    These are good questions that you’re asking and I’m well aware that genetic diversity is higher in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And the phenotypic diversity is about just as huge. We find the shortest and the tallest populations on earth, skin color goes from caramel to blueish black, body types vary a lot. So from a genetic point of view alone, we should not expect IQ averages restricted to a few points around 70 with small SDs unless we admit that those number are either unrepresentative or severely depressed by environment. Natural selection could explain Lynn’s data, except that there is no scenario that makes sense and that is backed by genetic and archaeological evidence.

    Just like you, I’d be cautious about calling “junk DNA” the parts of the genome whose function is yet unknown. But yeah, logically, whatever the mean IQ on which we agree, the SD should be much higher in African populations and in should become smaller the farther from Africa we go.

    Apart from increasing the expected SD, Africa’s genetic diversity implies a very high rate of heterozygoty, and although the genetic variance on IQ is additive, this level of genetic diversity is supposed to make any case of inbreeding significantly less harmful in Africa than in the rest of the world if some Mendelian disorders or anomalies indeed decrease IQ. The other fact is that genetic load is lower in Africa due to stronger purifying selection there, which means beneficial alleles affecting IQ or any other traits can be selected with smaller effect sizes than out of Africa.

    These are my thoughts on the implications of Africa’s genetic diversity. I can tell Lynn did not give it a single thought when he made up his data along traditional, genetically irrelevant, racial lines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You make me wish I had done undergraduate and business school statistics more recently or done a refreshee!. On tbe run I merely pick up as interesting your observstion that increased genetic diversity should mean an increased sd. Can you elabodate or provide links?

    It seems intuitively right and is consistent with what might otherwise be outliers at Chess etc. but I see a problem. If the overall Flynn adjusted African IQ average was 90 but sd 20 the +3 sd person has an IQ above the NW European 3 sd person which is maybe not impossible but 2 sds below average takes one down to 50 which does strike me as absurd.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    "the SD should be much higher in African populations [sic, plural]". I am not sure that I agree.

    To start with African populations could surely be multiple largely intrabreeding populations each with a small or modest SD I say in reliance on logic and little confidence in my mathematical statistics.

    Also, the hugely varied DNA might actually not be very relevant to the particular quality one is aiming to measire. Test question, what would the potentially amazingly positive alleles for cognitive functions hsve done for the sd if they had never got fixed by natural selection finding them essential or highly conducive to survival in Africa? I can see why the Gaussian curves mightn't have quite the same shape as those of Eurasians with a tiny handful of IQ 190 people produced by mere chance in vast populations. But highet SD? I am not sure.
    , @Pete22
    Your logic is flawed because your non-argument asks us to assume a wide enough diversity in skull shape on the African continent, as well as a wide enough diversity in other biological metrics, which seem to be required for the average intelligence of a group to rise.

    That's what is implied in your appeal to diversity, and what is omitted as overt speech in your rationalization. Any intelligent person would pick that up, which is why your rationalization is meant only for those who would not.

    However, such conforming metrics have never been accounted for in your "diverse" African groups.

    You use the language of science, but your logic is African. It's not challenging; it's just noise in an otherwise relatively clear signal. Which is a general metaphor that characterizes our experience with your brains in our bargain to take care of your group in our society.

    As far as Lynn is concerned, your argument, and those like yours, take on the quality of a three year old throwing food at an adult scientist.
  87. @Afrosapiens
    These are good questions that you're asking and I'm well aware that genetic diversity is higher in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And the phenotypic diversity is about just as huge. We find the shortest and the tallest populations on earth, skin color goes from caramel to blueish black, body types vary a lot. So from a genetic point of view alone, we should not expect IQ averages restricted to a few points around 70 with small SDs unless we admit that those number are either unrepresentative or severely depressed by environment. Natural selection could explain Lynn's data, except that there is no scenario that makes sense and that is backed by genetic and archaeological evidence.

    Just like you, I'd be cautious about calling "junk DNA" the parts of the genome whose function is yet unknown. But yeah, logically, whatever the mean IQ on which we agree, the SD should be much higher in African populations and in should become smaller the farther from Africa we go.

    Apart from increasing the expected SD, Africa's genetic diversity implies a very high rate of heterozygoty, and although the genetic variance on IQ is additive, this level of genetic diversity is supposed to make any case of inbreeding significantly less harmful in Africa than in the rest of the world if some Mendelian disorders or anomalies indeed decrease IQ. The other fact is that genetic load is lower in Africa due to stronger purifying selection there, which means beneficial alleles affecting IQ or any other traits can be selected with smaller effect sizes than out of Africa.

    These are my thoughts on the implications of Africa's genetic diversity. I can tell Lynn did not give it a single thought when he made up his data along traditional, genetically irrelevant, racial lines.

    You make me wish I had done undergraduate and business school statistics more recently or done a refreshee!. On tbe run I merely pick up as interesting your observstion that increased genetic diversity should mean an increased sd. Can you elabodate or provide links?

    It seems intuitively right and is consistent with what might otherwise be outliers at Chess etc. but I see a problem. If the overall Flynn adjusted African IQ average was 90 but sd 20 the +3 sd person has an IQ above the NW European 3 sd person which is maybe not impossible but 2 sds below average takes one down to 50 which does strike me as absurd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    No, I don't have links, I'm thinking intuitively too and in comparison with other phenotypes for which variation is higher in Africa than elsewhere. I'm also thinking about the large differences in IQ reported for African samples.

    On natural selection, there is no proof that intelligence genes have been more selected out of Africa. All we know is that purifying selection has been stronger in Africa and that genetic drift caused less genetic load there. So maybe IQ genes follow the same pattern, or maybe not.
  88. Factorize says:

    This is what I had in mind!

    Photo ID IQ testing? You could IQ type large samples of people from different nations, regions … by simply trolling the internet. Perhaps they could reMeta GWAS including both EA and photo AD. It might improve accuracy.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/guardian-face-reading-ai-will-be-able-to-detect-your-politics-and-iq-professor-says/#comments

    Read More
  89. @Factorize
    Wizard, this is an important observation that you have added to the discussion.

    Non-African populations only have a fraction of the genetic diversity that exists in Africa. Should not this mean that there might exist in Africa intelligence increasing variants that exist no where else in the world?

    Large IQ GWAS from several African populations might help humanity better understand the genetics of intelligence.

    Those extra intelligence increasing variants have no doubt appeared in comparatively large numbers in Africa. More people meant more mutations. But they never got selected for in the African environment so as to become fixed in the extended family group’s genome. Contrast say the Kalenjin running ability. When they were a *small* group of cattle herders in lean times it is easy to understand why only the few who had both speed and stamina survived.

    Read More
  90. Factorize says:

    Wizard, that is a very keen insight.

    African only IQ SNPs should have arisen … but would have been lost to genetic drift because of a lack of selection.

    Not finding such SNPs in African populations would provide evidence for a lack of selection and provide insight to the genetic forces that have shaped their current today psychometric profile.

    Read More
  91. @Afrosapiens
    These are good questions that you're asking and I'm well aware that genetic diversity is higher in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And the phenotypic diversity is about just as huge. We find the shortest and the tallest populations on earth, skin color goes from caramel to blueish black, body types vary a lot. So from a genetic point of view alone, we should not expect IQ averages restricted to a few points around 70 with small SDs unless we admit that those number are either unrepresentative or severely depressed by environment. Natural selection could explain Lynn's data, except that there is no scenario that makes sense and that is backed by genetic and archaeological evidence.

    Just like you, I'd be cautious about calling "junk DNA" the parts of the genome whose function is yet unknown. But yeah, logically, whatever the mean IQ on which we agree, the SD should be much higher in African populations and in should become smaller the farther from Africa we go.

    Apart from increasing the expected SD, Africa's genetic diversity implies a very high rate of heterozygoty, and although the genetic variance on IQ is additive, this level of genetic diversity is supposed to make any case of inbreeding significantly less harmful in Africa than in the rest of the world if some Mendelian disorders or anomalies indeed decrease IQ. The other fact is that genetic load is lower in Africa due to stronger purifying selection there, which means beneficial alleles affecting IQ or any other traits can be selected with smaller effect sizes than out of Africa.

    These are my thoughts on the implications of Africa's genetic diversity. I can tell Lynn did not give it a single thought when he made up his data along traditional, genetically irrelevant, racial lines.

    “the SD should be much higher in African populations [sic, plural]“. I am not sure that I agree.

    To start with African populations could surely be multiple largely intrabreeding populations each with a small or modest SD I say in reliance on logic and little confidence in my mathematical statistics.

    Also, the hugely varied DNA might actually not be very relevant to the particular quality one is aiming to measire. Test question, what would the potentially amazingly positive alleles for cognitive functions hsve done for the sd if they had never got fixed by natural selection finding them essential or highly conducive to survival in Africa? I can see why the Gaussian curves mightn’t have quite the same shape as those of Eurasians with a tiny handful of IQ 190 people produced by mere chance in vast populations. But highet SD? I am not sure.

    Read More
  92. Pete22 says:
    @res

    Thank you for the links res.
     
    My pleasure. I look forward to hearing more about your work in the future.

    Afrosapiens is on a productive line of thought considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa. From a development perspective, the question becomes: What strategies could be used to identify, nurture, concentrate and reproduce this high IQ?
     
    I agree. There are a number of reasons I wish the Biafran War (aka Nigerian Civil War) had turned out differently, but the most selfish is I would really like to see what a nation of Igbos could achieve. I think that would go a long way towards disproving the overly simplistic skin color determines population IQ idea. And if so, the how and why follow on questions are fascinating.

    it was still a surprise that the high IQ SNPs that have been found are also present there. To me this speaks to more a lack of a selective force for g over the time scale of tens of thousands of years.
     
    The big difference seems to be in allele frequencies. The explanations I have seen for the predominance of ancestral variations over new mutations center around the relatively low rate of beneficial mutations and the ability of selection to exploit existing genetic variation. Can anyone recommend a good reference covering this?

    Could anyone suggest a g reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire?
     
    Lead in the water supply, wine, vessels, etc. is an intermittently popular (partial at best IMHO) explanation. That explanation generally relies on IQ as a mediator variable. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html

    “… considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa”.

    “…I agree. There are a number of reasons I wish the Biafran War (aka Nigerian Civil War) had turned out differently, but the most selfish is I would really like to see what a nation of Igbos could achieve”.

    Lol. Luckily, he and you can only get away with hopes and wishes, standing in for even conjecture, in internet comment sections.

    Well, assuming that you aren’t speaking to any group whose jobs are facilitated or threatened by the far left.

    Good luck getting around the sticky issue of brain architecture, mediated in-part by endocrine profile but also skull shape. Smaller frontal lobes are smaller.

    Prediction: newly mixed race African-Northerners will be held as a before ignored people of pure African descent in the future, newly discovered as relatively intelligent Africans. History, and in the future genetic history, will have a funny way of rewriting itself in the hands of people with sociopolitical agendas that stand in for hypotheses. Science indeed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    “… considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa”.

    “…I agree. There are a number of reasons I wish the Biafran War (aka Nigerian Civil War) had turned out differently, but the most selfish is I would really like to see what a nation of Igbos could achieve”.

    Lol. Luckily, he and you can only get away with hopes and wishes, standing in for even conjecture, in internet comment sections.
     
    I consider it a good sign I am close to correct when I am receiving criticism from opposite sides. And thank you for quoting my actual words. That is a significant improvement on many of the responses I get.

    Well, assuming that you aren’t speaking to any group whose jobs are facilitated or threatened by the far left.
     
    I suspect you and I agree a fair bit on this, but this thread is really not the place to explore that.
  93. Pete22 says:
    @Afrosapiens
    These are good questions that you're asking and I'm well aware that genetic diversity is higher in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And the phenotypic diversity is about just as huge. We find the shortest and the tallest populations on earth, skin color goes from caramel to blueish black, body types vary a lot. So from a genetic point of view alone, we should not expect IQ averages restricted to a few points around 70 with small SDs unless we admit that those number are either unrepresentative or severely depressed by environment. Natural selection could explain Lynn's data, except that there is no scenario that makes sense and that is backed by genetic and archaeological evidence.

    Just like you, I'd be cautious about calling "junk DNA" the parts of the genome whose function is yet unknown. But yeah, logically, whatever the mean IQ on which we agree, the SD should be much higher in African populations and in should become smaller the farther from Africa we go.

    Apart from increasing the expected SD, Africa's genetic diversity implies a very high rate of heterozygoty, and although the genetic variance on IQ is additive, this level of genetic diversity is supposed to make any case of inbreeding significantly less harmful in Africa than in the rest of the world if some Mendelian disorders or anomalies indeed decrease IQ. The other fact is that genetic load is lower in Africa due to stronger purifying selection there, which means beneficial alleles affecting IQ or any other traits can be selected with smaller effect sizes than out of Africa.

    These are my thoughts on the implications of Africa's genetic diversity. I can tell Lynn did not give it a single thought when he made up his data along traditional, genetically irrelevant, racial lines.

    Your logic is flawed because your non-argument asks us to assume a wide enough diversity in skull shape on the African continent, as well as a wide enough diversity in other biological metrics, which seem to be required for the average intelligence of a group to rise.

    That’s what is implied in your appeal to diversity, and what is omitted as overt speech in your rationalization. Any intelligent person would pick that up, which is why your rationalization is meant only for those who would not.

    However, such conforming metrics have never been accounted for in your “diverse” African groups.

    You use the language of science, but your logic is African. It’s not challenging; it’s just noise in an otherwise relatively clear signal. Which is a general metaphor that characterizes our experience with your brains in our bargain to take care of your group in our society.

    As far as Lynn is concerned, your argument, and those like yours, take on the quality of a three year old throwing food at an adult scientist.

    Read More
    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Thanks for your compelling arguments.
    , @res
    To be clear given my recent frequent use of LOL as a disparagement of Afrosapiens, that LOL was sincere affirming laughter at Pete22's final sentence. Thanks for the chuckle.
  94. @Wizard of Oz
    You make me wish I had done undergraduate and business school statistics more recently or done a refreshee!. On tbe run I merely pick up as interesting your observstion that increased genetic diversity should mean an increased sd. Can you elabodate or provide links?

    It seems intuitively right and is consistent with what might otherwise be outliers at Chess etc. but I see a problem. If the overall Flynn adjusted African IQ average was 90 but sd 20 the +3 sd person has an IQ above the NW European 3 sd person which is maybe not impossible but 2 sds below average takes one down to 50 which does strike me as absurd.

    No, I don’t have links, I’m thinking intuitively too and in comparison with other phenotypes for which variation is higher in Africa than elsewhere. I’m also thinking about the large differences in IQ reported for African samples.

    On natural selection, there is no proof that intelligence genes have been more selected out of Africa. All we know is that purifying selection has been stronger in Africa and that genetic drift caused less genetic load there. So maybe IQ genes follow the same pattern, or maybe not.

    Read More
  95. @Pete22
    Your logic is flawed because your non-argument asks us to assume a wide enough diversity in skull shape on the African continent, as well as a wide enough diversity in other biological metrics, which seem to be required for the average intelligence of a group to rise.

    That's what is implied in your appeal to diversity, and what is omitted as overt speech in your rationalization. Any intelligent person would pick that up, which is why your rationalization is meant only for those who would not.

    However, such conforming metrics have never been accounted for in your "diverse" African groups.

    You use the language of science, but your logic is African. It's not challenging; it's just noise in an otherwise relatively clear signal. Which is a general metaphor that characterizes our experience with your brains in our bargain to take care of your group in our society.

    As far as Lynn is concerned, your argument, and those like yours, take on the quality of a three year old throwing food at an adult scientist.

    Thanks for your compelling arguments.

    Read More
  96. res says:
    @Pete22
    "... considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa".

    "...I agree. There are a number of reasons I wish the Biafran War (aka Nigerian Civil War) had turned out differently, but the most selfish is I would really like to see what a nation of Igbos could achieve".

    Lol. Luckily, he and you can only get away with hopes and wishes, standing in for even conjecture, in internet comment sections.

    Well, assuming that you aren't speaking to any group whose jobs are facilitated or threatened by the far left.

    Good luck getting around the sticky issue of brain architecture, mediated in-part by endocrine profile but also skull shape. Smaller frontal lobes are smaller.

    Prediction: newly mixed race African-Northerners will be held as a before ignored people of pure African descent in the future, newly discovered as relatively intelligent Africans. History, and in the future genetic history, will have a funny way of rewriting itself in the hands of people with sociopolitical agendas that stand in for hypotheses. Science indeed.

    “… considering that high g must exist somewhere in Africa”.

    “…I agree. There are a number of reasons I wish the Biafran War (aka Nigerian Civil War) had turned out differently, but the most selfish is I would really like to see what a nation of Igbos could achieve”.

    Lol. Luckily, he and you can only get away with hopes and wishes, standing in for even conjecture, in internet comment sections.

    I consider it a good sign I am close to correct when I am receiving criticism from opposite sides. And thank you for quoting my actual words. That is a significant improvement on many of the responses I get.

    Well, assuming that you aren’t speaking to any group whose jobs are facilitated or threatened by the far left.

    I suspect you and I agree a fair bit on this, but this thread is really not the place to explore that.

    Read More
  97. res says:
    @Pete22
    Your logic is flawed because your non-argument asks us to assume a wide enough diversity in skull shape on the African continent, as well as a wide enough diversity in other biological metrics, which seem to be required for the average intelligence of a group to rise.

    That's what is implied in your appeal to diversity, and what is omitted as overt speech in your rationalization. Any intelligent person would pick that up, which is why your rationalization is meant only for those who would not.

    However, such conforming metrics have never been accounted for in your "diverse" African groups.

    You use the language of science, but your logic is African. It's not challenging; it's just noise in an otherwise relatively clear signal. Which is a general metaphor that characterizes our experience with your brains in our bargain to take care of your group in our society.

    As far as Lynn is concerned, your argument, and those like yours, take on the quality of a three year old throwing food at an adult scientist.

    To be clear given my recent frequent use of LOL as a disparagement of Afrosapiens, that LOL was sincere affirming laughter at Pete22′s final sentence. Thanks for the chuckle.

    Read More
  98. Factorize says:

    Pete22, there can be no doubt that high g exists in Africa.

    Rolling 10,000 dice 1.25 billion times guarantees it. The environment that exists there obscures this truth. Creating a selective system that identified and reproduced this potential would be of great value.

    From what I now understand, the selective forces encountered by those who left Africa accounts for current group IQ differences. Recent DNA research has found that even during the last 5,000, the complexity force of modern Western living is driving changes to higher IQ.

    Even more to the point, current IQ GWAS results have profound implications for human intelligence.

    The current observed human phenotype for intelligence is only 1 percent of maximum. Arguing about differences in g of 2 or less SDs that have been noticed for over a century no longer is of much relevance; the technology that would allow adding 5-10 SDs is emerging.

    Will it really be necessary for people to chant slogans or walk around with signs or T-shirts that read: “I have 0 SD IQ: I am better than you” ? Wouldn’t that be pathetic? A Zero and proud of it? (Especially when you realize that people who have positive double digit IQs are now on the horizon).

    I have found the possibility of 100 SD IQ humans very invigorating over the last 2 weeks. We are now rapidly moving to a much more intelligent world in which IQ differences between individuals and groups will narrow. We can move away from a 0 SD IQ world and towards a 0 h2 one.

    Read More
  99. Factorize says:

    Pete22, African diversity is another unavoidable fact.

    At some time in the future the world research community might run the GWAS that unlocks this diversity. This diversity is certainly a global treasure. Variants in the deep ancestry of Africa might be of considerable importance to help us unlock the full genome. For example, how is it that APOE epsilon 4 does not appear to increase the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia in Africans?

    Also considering the pleiotropic nature of other IQ variants, what IQ and other variants might exist in Africa, but no where else? It is true that diversity might by itself not lead to higher observed phenotype values, though once this diversity in traits such as IQ were discovered everyone could benefit from such knowledge through CRISPR.

    Read More
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