The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Piffer Kicks Against the Pricks
Replies to a reviewer and to blog commentators
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Before posting up Piffer’s paper, I sent it to a reviewer, someone who works in intelligence research. I explained that many geneticists were dismissive about Piffer’s work on group intelligence, and asked for a critical opinion. Here is that opinion, and Piffer’s replies. Piffer also includes responses to the main themes which came out of the blog commentaries.

Intelligence Researcher: Piffer’s work is one of the most important directions that the molecular genetics of human intelligence is taking right now. Overall, his work is valuable and should be supported. If he uses comparisons between races to get from associations to causal variants, perhaps he can work with some of the leading genomics outfits on this.

The context is somewhat like this: We already have reproducible molecular genetic results about Herrnstein’s meritocracy hypothesis. There are differences in education/IQ polygenic scores between social classes, and within families the children with higher polygenic scores are more likely than those with lower polygenic scores to be upwardly mobile. Herrnstein’s claim that genetics drives social stratification and social mobility is therefore proven definitively, at the molecular level.

In the case of dysgenics, we have some studies already showing that lower polygenic scores lead to higher fertility. This result is not 100% consistent, but we expect the effect only in those populations that actually have substantial dysgenic fertility. We do not yet have studies where, for example, average polygenic scores of representative populations from the 19th century are compared with their present-day descendants to show dysgenics on a time scale of several generations. Woodley of Menie has already produced a very preliminary study showing eugenic fertility on the time scale of the last 3000 years in Europe. This whole field of molecular eugenics and dysgenics in the recent past using ancient DNA needs more work, especially because it is of enormous importance for our understanding of macro-historical trends. Did polygenic scores rise in Europe but decline in the Middle East during the last 2000 years?

What Piffer is doing now is tackling the third major question, which is race differences that have evolved on a time scale of up to 60,000 years (roughly, the time since the African exodus of modern humans). Work on this question is not as far advanced as work on the other questions, and what Piffer has done so far is only the first step in the journey to solving this problem. The reason why progress on this question is so slow is in part political, but there are also scientific obstacles to overcome. One big limitation so far is that all the genome-wide association studies that were done for IQ or education used subjects of European origin.

Piffer: My phylogenetic/spatial analysis is informative regarding the population differences in contemporary populations, and it also sheds light on the selection pressure of the last 60ky. I agree that comparing populations across time would yield a direct test of the directional selection hypothesis and provide a more fine-grained analysis across time. Unfortunately this approach is subject to the issue of LD decay as well, albeit to a much smaller extent, at least within a 10ky period. Woodley and Piffer showed eugenic fertility since the Bronze Age in Europe but ours was a very preliminary study, limited in sample size and in the number of genetic markers. In my next project I would like to combine the much larger knowledge derived from the recent EDU and intelligence GWAS with the huge progress that was made in ancient genomics during the last few years. Reich’s lab has on online database which is constantly updated with new additions to the ancient genomes samples.

Intelligence Researcher: The GWAS hits that we have from these studies are genetic variants that are statistically associated with IQ or education, but most of them are not the causes for variations in these outcomes. There are causal variants all over the genome, in hundreds of different genes. Each of these variations originated as a new mutation some time in the past, sometimes fairly recently, say, 10,000 or 20,000 years ago. In other cases it originated much earlier, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Whenever a new mutation pops up, it pops up in a place on one of the chromosomes that already has a collection of variants in variable sites left and right of the mutation. So, we have not only the new causal variant, but also a whole swarm of non-causal, random variants spread over hundreds of thousands of base pairs left and right of the new mutation. All these are said to be genetically linked because they are transmitted together simply because they are physically close together on the chromosome. Over time, genetic linkage slowly decays because there is crossing-over in meiosis, but even after 100,000 years there still is a lot of linkage disequilibrium (non-random association) over about 100,000 base pairs left and right of the causal variant.

And here we have a problem when studying race differences. If a new causal variant originated after the African exodus about 60,000 years ago, chances are it will still be restricted to part of the world population. Its present-day distribution will reflect the place of its origin more than the selective pressures that have acted on it. A gene can have different causal variants that originated in different races as a result of different, independent mutations. Another possibility is that the association between a causal variant and the swarm of non-causal variants nearby can be different in different races as the result of ancient population bottlenecks, even when the races share the causal variant through common descent.

Piffer: It is true that most of the GWAS hits are not causal variants per se, but they are proxies, so to say, (“tag” SNPs in technical jargon). I think this problem is exaggerated, both on theoretical and empirical grounds and often leads to sweeping claims that reduced accuracy equals zero accuracy. It would be like dismissing surveys or polls out of hand because they are proxies for the entire populations and even the most perfectly random sampling is not representative of the population it is drawn from because of statistical uncertainty.

First of all, one has to prove empirically that a GWAS carried out on Europeans actually would lead to an over-estimate of the European PGS. If one cannot show this, at least they have to say why they expect to find this result. I see no reason why this should be the case, and none of the critics so far have suggested why European GWAS should lead to a bias in favour, rather than against European populations, and why East Asians should be favored even more.

They also have to show why GWAS’ of other traits show a different pattern, with East Asians switching from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy for the height alleles, for example, and Africans moving up to above average values, in accord with stereotypes and statistics on human stature.

GWAS can also pick up population specific variants that are actually trait-decreasing (“detrimental” if the trait is socially desirable or leads to enhanced fitness). For example, a recent GWAS (Asgari et al., 2019) carried out on Peruvians found an allele that is absent from non-American populations and this allele actually decreases height by almost an inch!

Population specific variants are probably more likely to be detrimental because they are recent mutations and purifying selection has not had the time to eliminate them from the gene pool. This would actually lead to a bias against the reference (in most cases European) population. When we compute PGS we flip the frequency of the alleles so if the trait-decreasing allele has frequency X, the trait-increasing allele has frequency 1-X. So if there is a population specific allele with negative effect and 5% frequency, the positive effect allele will have frequency 95% in the reference population, and 100% in the other populations. So this would actually lead to an inflation of the non-reference population score if the population-specific variants tend on average to be detrimental.

Ultimately this question can be settled empirically, and a way of doing so would be to calculate PGS using only alleles that are present at say 1%-99% frequency in all the studied populations (a simple list-wise deletion command with this threshold in R would work). Conversely, the alleles that are present only among Europeans can be counted to determine whether there are more among them with positive or negative effect, and this index would give an estimate of the GWAS bias. Removing the non African specific SNPs would also create a level playing ground, by discarding the possible advantage that non-Africans get from more a possible over-representation of beneficial mutations among population specific variants. Whether this over-representation is higher or lower than what we found for non Africans is unknown, but for the sake of parsimony we assume it is the same.

An example can illustrate the logic behind this methodology: suppose I want to measure the height of two people to determine who is taller, and I cannot use the same tape for measuring both people. Moreover, they live in different countries so I cannot put them next to one another. I know that John is 185cm tall, but the tape I use for measuring Jack is shorter than the one I used to measure John and only measures Jack up to his shoulder. Instead of declaring that I cannot determine who is taller, I take Jack’s measure up to his shoulder, and I measure John again but this time I also measure him up to his shoulder instead of the tip of his head. I then compare their shoulder height, and find that Jack’s shoulder height is 150, whereas John’s shoulder height is 165. I determine than John is taller. Since John is 15 cm taller than Jack at shoulder height, it is highly probable that he will actually be taller than Jack. Only if Jack had a disproportionately long neck or large head, this would not be the case. By this analogy, Africans would have to possess a disproportionate amount of native intelligence-enhancing alleles to offset the polygenic score difference that we found at the variants they share with Europeans.

I have posted a preliminary analysis ( https://rpubs.com/Daxide/488754 ) by computing polygenic scores without those putatively Eurasian-specific/non-African origin SNPs, and found that 1) 80% of the SNPs are common and 20% are putatively non-African in origin; 2) The PGS computed using only the common SNPs has the same correlation with population IQ as the full PGS, that is r=0.88; 3) The Black-White gap is slightly reduced by 0.11%, from 2.43% to 2.32%, whilst the East-Asian gap is slightly increased.

Figures 1 and 2 show the full and the “common” PGS (after removal of non-African origin SNPs).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Only with trans-ethnic GWAS we will have a full grasp of diverging selective forces and we will be able to compute more accurate polygenic scores, but this is not going to happen anytime soon because the bulk of GWAS efforts are still focused on Europeans.

Piffer on commentaries: I would like to add a note here to address some criticism from readers on this forum. The reference to Dunkel et al. could mislead some readers. It refers to their estimate of phenotypic IQ (110) and in no way to their method of PGS calculation. Their estimate is drawn from an unsystematic review of other studies and can be considered a best guess. The PGS for Jews was calculated just like for the other populations, in a manner totally independent from Dunkel et al’s work. I am sorry if some readers might have been misled and I wish I had made this clearer in the paper.

Intelligence Researcher: The result of this is that polygenic scores that were constructed for Europeans may have poor prediction in distantly related races. I would especially expect that this applies for comparisons between Africans and non-Africans. This is a main criticism of Piffer’s conclusions, and he has to acknowledge that this is indeed something that needs extensive future work.

For now, Piffer can try to look for data sets where a few thousand non-Europeans have been genotyped with DNA microarrays and their IQ or educational attainment determined. When races are compared, the polygenic scores should be computed only from those GWAS hits that have directionally consistent effects in the races that are being compared.

Today, the strongest evidence we have for genetic race differences is for the Ashkenazim. Curtis Dunkel found a higher polygenic score for Jews than Gentiles in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, and in his last paper Piffer finds in one of the genomics data bases that the Ashkenazi sample had the highest polygenic score of any group in that data base. In this case the results are likely to be meaningful because the Ashkenazim are genetically so similar to other Europeans that problems with different linkage phase etc. are extremely unlikely. It is almost like comparing different social classes in the same country.

The final goal is of course to find the causal variants, separately for each race, and use only these for calculation of the polygenic scores. Piffer tends to focus on the SNPs with the largest effects, and I think he is right to do this because these are most likely to be either causal themselves or to be in very close linkage with the causal variant. In presenting his research, Piffer should emphasize that association studies in non-Europeans are needed not only to compare races, but to find the causal variants based on possibly different linkage phase in different races.

Piffer: I have discussed this issue extensively in my paper so I will be brief here. When I used the set of highly likely causal variants as determined by Lee et al., the PGS’ correlation with IQ is 0.8 and actually increases the Black-White gap.

It has been my plan for a while to compute polygenic scores using only the alleles that have consistent effect in Blacks and Whites and I should do this soon. This constitutes progress towards a universally valid PGS, although it leaves the population-specific variants bias unanswered. That bias can be addressed as I have shown before, or more accurately with trans-ethnic GWAS.

Intelligence Researcher: Another thing Piffer should consider for presentation of his results is that not every GWAS hit has the highest allele frequencies for the high-IQ allele in the populations with higher IQ. Many times it’s the opposite, with the (in Europeans) high-IQ variant being most common in low-IQ populations. This can have many different reasons, and as far as I understand, perhaps 55% of the GWAS hits vary with population IQ as expected, and 45% are opposite. Sometimes, this leads to messy results when one particular association study happens to produce a non-predictive polygenic score or one that predicts in the wrong direction. When presenting his results, Piffer should emphasize this.

There is a huge amount of genetic variation in the species, and only a bit of this is reflected as phenotypic race differences. Of course we are dealing here mainly with non-causal variants that are merely in linkage disequilibrium with causal ones, but still. It gives us the idea that most likely also the causal variants have this very messy pattern of sometimes going with the phenotypic population average and sometimes against it.

Piffer: Empirically, this question can be answered by carrying out a version of the Monte Carlo simulation I presented in my paper, but instead of using the correlation coefficient as a continuous variable (the distribution of the correlation coefficients of each SNP with population IQ), use a dichotomous variable, counting the number of SNPs whose correlation with IQ is positive or negative.

It is true that there is huge variation in the species and many of the associations we see go against the simple pattern defined by phenotypic differences, but this is expected under a polygenic model. Each SNP only has a small effect on the trait, and often selection for a trait alone is not enough to counter the effects of random drift. Also, there is a great amount of genetic correlation between apparently unrelated traits that is simply due to their physical location on the chromosomes, and opposite selection pressures on genetically related traits decreases the net selection coefficient on the outcome phenotype.

Another important factor is that most of the SNPs are actually proxies and this will further confuse the picture. This is why I selected only the GWAS significant hits to obtain a set closer to the causal SNPs, and with the method of correlated vectors I showed that the SNPs with lower significance also have lower correlation with population IQ. If tag SNPs were driving the correlation between PGS and IQ, the opposite pattern would have emerged (i.e. less significant SNPs would have stronger correlation with population IQ).

Let me also clarify two issues that keep being brought up.

1) Lee et al. report a 80% reduction in accuracy for predicting educational attainment among Blacks. Yet their analysis is shallow because they try this only with a single PGS and they don’t try using different significance cut-offs to see how SNP significance affects the trans-ethnic accuracy. Their sample is also problematic because it comes from a low-status, older cohort of African Americans where the heritability of IQ was very low. Some colleagues are working on another sample of African Americans and found that the reduction is much less and the scores retain about 50% validity for Blacks, and that this is even higher for more significant or putatively causal SNPs.

2) Individual prediction is different from group-level prediction. Even if the polygenic score predicts only 10% of the variance in intelligence between individuals, the between-population accuracy can be much higher. This is because natural selection acts homogeneously across the genome, and genes with the same function will be subject to the same selective pressures. Thus, we can safely assume that when future GWAS will discover more SNP-IQ associations, they will conform to the same pattern, because they have been subject to the same selective pressures. A similar principle is used in the social sciences, where scales to measure personality traits or even IQ consist of a handful of items. The skeptic would argue that in order to measure someone’s intelligence one needs to administer an infinite number of items to assess every possible cognitive domain under every possible psychological state. Nevermind that Alice scored 160 on the WAIS, if she took another test she could turn out to be retard. The skeptic would also argue that in order to assess whether someone is an introvert or an extravert, a scale comprising only 10 questions is not sufficient, because the 11th or 12th or Nth question might change the score and flip the individual’s psychological profile. If we follow this line of reasoning, we should discard all of psychology.

The analogy can also be extended to science in general. Scientific studies select samples from the population, because for practical reason it is not possible to study every individual from a population. Inferences from the sample to the population are then drawn. Similarly, GWAS studies produce a sample of SNPs, and I showed that this sample was large enough to yield a very strong predictive power, which survived traditional tests of significance. The call for larger samples in science is a healthy approach, but arguing that a study is not valid because it fails to include some individuals (or some SNPs, in this specific instance) would kill the entire field of statistics on the spot, and bring down with it almost all the studies in the biological and social sciences.

I think that Newton’s laws of reasoning should be reminded to readers who like to posit far-fetched scenarios, which supposedly undermine my arguments. I would like to remind that all these remain speculations not based on empirical evidence and until evidence that disproves my thesis is brought forward, the scenario I depicted in my paper remains the most likely. I would like to conclude with rules 2, 3, 4, which are especially relevant here:

Rule 2) Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.

Rule 3) The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

Rule 4) In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Davide Piffer, Genomics, GWAS, IQ 
Hide 312 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. res says:

    Regarding

    1) Lee et al. report a 80% reduction in accuracy for predicting educational attainment among Blacks. Yet their analysis is shallow because they try this only with a single PGS and they don’t try using different significance cut-offs to see how SNP significance affects the trans-ethnic accuracy. Their sample is also problematic because it comes from a low-status, older cohort of African Americans where the heritability of IQ was very low. Some colleagues are working on another sample of African Americans and found that the reduction is much less and the scores retain about 50% validity for Blacks, and that this is even higher for more significant or putatively causal SNPs.

    I think someone needs to look into how the population structure controls are being done here. In the other thread I excerpted Lee et al. on their out of sample prediction approach. They corrected for the first 10 PCs of the population (it was unclear to me which set of population PCs they used, UKBB, the other study, or ?).

    I think it would be valuable to do the following:

    – Compute the PGS scores for each PC being corrected for. A good first step for this would be to compute the PGS of all the UKBB PCs which I believe are included in the dataset (do they give the SNP loadings?). It would be even more interesting to look at the 1000 Genomes PCs since they cover a more diverse population. Just looking at the first 3 or so (commonly seen in plots showing the relation of the continental races) might be extremely illuminating.

    – Compute the amount of variance explained by the PC correction in the out of sample predictions. In sample would be interesting as well, but I am not holding my breath that anyone will actually publish that.

    • Replies: @res
  2. res says:
    @res

    I thought about this some more and I think it would be useful to compare the raw PCs with derived versions accounting for GWAS SNPs. So look at how much the PCs are related to the GWAS SNPs. Some ideas.

    1. For judging variance explained rerun the prediction, only instead of correcting for the PCs correct for the PCs with any SNPs found in the GWAS removed. This seems like a much more sensible approach to me. It is harder though, because studies now seem to come with the PCs precomputed (e.g. UKBB).

    It would also be interesting to compare the amount of variance explained by the raw PCs with the amount of variance explained by the PCs with relevant SNPs excluded. Remember, we are looking to eliminate “chopstick genes,” not actual genetic variation between populations in the trait under study. Still though, it would be interesting to see how much signal remains in the PCs without the GWAS SNPs.

    2. Compare the magnitude of the trait and non-trait components for each PC. I am guessing the trait related components will be relatively small, but it would be an interesting experiment.

    3. Do population analysis (e.g. PC plotting) for PCs containing only the trait, non-trait, or both SNPs. It would be interesting to see if there are any systematic differences. For a variety of traits. Given that the trait-specific components are likely to be small, it would probably be enough to just compare those to the original PCs.

    • Replies: @res
  3. res says:
    @res

    One more variation on this theme. This one might be the most obvious. Run a PCA using only the PGS SNPs (1000 Genomes data probably best for this). 1,271 SNPs seems like enough to get a fair amount of signal. It would be interesting to see how closely the PGS SNP PC plots match the full PCA. Looking at the SNP components of each PC (or the weighted vector direction between two races) would be a good way to get an estimate of the size and causes (relevant SNPs and their importance) of group differences.

    • Replies: @Merculinus
  4. Okechukwu says:

    Before posting up Piffer’s paper, I sent it to a reviewer, someone who works in intelligence research.

    LMAO. An “intelligence researcher” who shall remain anonymous because he knows Piffer is a quack and he doesn’t want the absurd pseudoscience he is co-signing to be associated with his real identity.

    Yeah, we’re just supposed to take Dr. Thompson’s word that he has engaged a credible “intelligence researcher” when he himself isn’t credible. Something tells me Thompson didn’t contact Joseph Graves or Richard Nisbett or Eric Turkheimer. These are real researchers. But they don’t say what Thompson would like to hear so obviously his inquiries will be confined to the Pioneer Fund contingent.

    The white nationalists who promote all this junk still cannot answer this simple question: As you can NEVER discern someone’s intelligence through the race or ethnicity he exhibits optically, what’s the point? Well, there is none. It’s pointless.

    • LOL: res, ic1000
    • Replies: @jb
    , @res
    , @brutus101
    , @mikemikev
  5. jb says:
    @Okechukwu

    As you can NEVER discern someone’s intelligence through the race or ethnicity he exhibits optically, what’s the point?

    There is no point for individuals, but it matters a lot for public policy. In particular, we are told constantly that racism is the only possible explanation for the poor social and economic performance of blacks relative to whites (and Asians of course, but we must never speak of that!), and that therefore blacks are owed affirmative action and other racial preferences until they catch up. But if it’s true that blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites (and Asians…), then that offers an alternative explanation that undercuts the case for racial preferences.

    So, have you finally received a satisfactory answer to your question?

    • Replies: @HallParvey
  6. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    The white nationalists who promote all this junk still cannot answer this simple question: As you can NEVER discern someone’s intelligence through the race or ethnicity he exhibits optically, what’s the point? Well, there is none. It’s pointless.

    Only in your fantasies don’t you get an answer to that question. Some reasons.

    – To help evaluate whether disparate outcomes in group results is partially caused by differences in average group ability.

    – To better understand why different countries succeed and fail.

    – To better understand how much of group differences are caused by genes and environment so we can better target and evaluate the results of interventions.

    And I am not a white nationalist. FWIW my views are something like what Steve Sailer calls “citizenism.”

    Though the way some recent immigrants and their descendants (like you, apparently) are doing their best to wreck the US is making me reconsider my stance in this regard. You have been quite clear in other threads regarding how you feel about the white Americans whose ancestors largely built the US.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @Okechukwu
  7. Okechukwu says:

    There is no point for individuals, but it matters a lot for public policy. In particular, we are told constantly that racism is the only possible explanation for the poor social and economic performance of blacks relative to whites (and Asians of course, but we must never speak of that!),

    See, the thing is, if you reach into a bag of possible causes and pick out the least plausible one (genetic inferiority in intelligence), then one would have to ask why someone so stupid is commenting on this topic. Black people in America historically have demonstrated so much fucking genius in the face of withering racism, that only a true imbecile would question their intelligence.

    But if it’s true that blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites (and Asians…), then that offers an alternative explanation that undercuts the case for racial preferences.

    Until you can prove that fantasy with hard, irrefutable evidence (in other words, not pseudoscience), do keep your mouth shut. And do not dismiss the possibility it is indeed black people that have a genetic advantage in intelligence.

    So, have you finally received a satisfactory answer to your question?

    Nope. Once again, since you cannot tell how intelligent anyone is based on outward appearance, what’s the point? Do you want to discriminate against the black kid who is smarter than every white kid in his school? Do you want white and Asian morons to receive preference over smart blacks? What exactly do you want?

  8. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    You’re too dumb to debate with, Res. Sorry.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
  9. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Pretty funny. Again, I leave it up everyone else to take a look at my and Okechukwu’s respective comments and decide for yourself which comments (and commenters) are dumb.

    I suppose I should take it as a compliment that he has finally realized he is unable to debate me and has to take refuge in calling me dumb and running away from actual debate. Pathetic. What a coward.

    • Agree: BengaliCanadianDude
    • Replies: @eah
    , @Alfa158
  10. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    – To help evaluate whether disparate outcomes in group results is partially caused by differences in average group ability.

    – To better understand why different countries succeed and fail.

    – To better understand how much of group differences are caused by genes and environment so we can better target and evaluate the results of interventions.

    This is not directed at Res. He’s really stupid and will never get it. This is for any intelligent persons on the thread.

    The above bullet points by Res demonstrate how utterly stupid he is.

    He wants to evaluate disparate outcomes on the basis of genetic differences in intelligence while ignoring other more plausible explanations. Anyone with a scintilla of historical perspective will note that different groups have had different outcomes at different points in history, while their genetics remained constant. But not Res. He wants to freeze time in the present and consign certain groups to a permanent state of inferiority. Nevermind that nothing in the universe remains the same and that groups that are on the bottom now will one day be on top — as history has shown. It’s inevitable in the fullness of time.

    Then Res wants to attribute the success and failure of countries to group differences in innate intelligence. You don’t even have to look at history (are Ancient Egypt or Ancient Greece still here?), the present day makes a mockery of this notion. This idea of Res’ represents stupidity taken to its outer limits. Shit, not too long ago Ireland collapsed and virtually depopulated over a mere potato fungus. Now Ireland is a successful nation.

    Then Res wants to “target” unproven, fraudulent and laughably pseudoscientific “differences.” Res’ references and citations all aim to promote a white nationalist agenda. These are the “studies” he wants to form the backbone of his targeting campaign. Stuff that would get hissed, booed or laughed out of any scientific conference in the real world. Stuff that has no resonance in any country on earth. Res cannot point to any credible educational or research institution anywhere in the world that advocates his ridiculous pseudoscience. Not one. Res cannot cite any curricula in any educational institution in any country on earth that teaches racial differences in innate intelligence. But we’re supposed to give a wide birth to his nonsense regardless.

    Though the way some recent immigrants and their descendants (like you, apparently) are doing their best to wreck the US is making me reconsider my stance in this regard.

    People like Res are the ones trying to wreck the US. This wicked ideology that he seemingly has devoted his retirement years to has been flagged as a grave threat to national security, and a major gateway drug toward the white nationalist radicalization that leads to domestic acts of terror (dozens of people have been killed). This is the law enforcement consensus.

    You have been quite clear in other threads regarding how you feel about the white Americans whose ancestors largely built the US.

    Res is a clown. We all know that white nationalists consider as “anti-white” anyone who does not espouse twisted white nationalist views, including other white people. Or anyone who challenges their delusional orthodoxy. Res’ people probably arrived in the USA from Poland or Bulgaria sometime in the 20th century. Yet he claims he built the country while dismissing the contributions of the black people who’ve been here from the beginning.

    • LOL: res
  11. Those polite Mormons are really kicking it, aren’t they? Since all of these IQ studies dig way back into the past, even dredging up Neanderthal relations, I wonder if there is a correlation between the multiple wives of Mormons in past eras and the high IQs of the staid, monogamous, contemporary Mormon communities. It would annoy feminist researchers if true, something that is always funny.

  12. Factorize says:

    Whoa! That would be VERY interesting! The intelligence reviewer above mentioned reconstructing the psychometric profile of past societies using recovered DNA. What would be even more interesting and more complete would be using DNA samples from people today to reconstruct the Genomes of societies from the 19th Century etc. . Gedmatch has the Lazarus feature to do this for close relatives. It would be fascinating if a similar Lazarus app could be used for an entire population. Would need a largish supercomputer, though.

  13. why are trolls allowed to post for years on this site. it really discredits the entire enterprise that they haven’t been banned permanently.

    instead of hearing from the smart guys on what they think, half the thread is posts from these morons, who seem to stick around for years, saying the same stupid stuff ad nauseum.

    • Replies: @Gordo
  14. @Okechukwu

    You still don’t understand the difference between the attitude toward groups and toward individuals.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  15. brutus101 says:
    @Okechukwu

    > As you can NEVER discern someone’s intelligence through the race or ethnicity he exhibits optically, what’s the point? Well, there is none. It’s pointless.

    Pointless?? Like wasting USD$773 Million not knowing you cannot squeeze blood out of stone? Some people just do not learn. New York city spent USD$773 Million trying to improve the standard test scores of the Black and Hispanic students. What did they achieve?

    https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2019/04/05/renewal-school-rand-report-nyc/

    The report, prepared by the RAND Corporation, is the most rigorous study to date on the effectiveness of the mayor’s turnaround program, which cost $773 million and has been widely criticized for producing disappointing results. The city recently announced the program will not continue.

    First some bright spots: The turnaround program resulted in students attending school more often. Renewal boosted daily attendance by 1.5 percentage points (big deal) and led to a 5 percentage point reduction in chronic absenteeism, defined as missing 10 percent or more of the school year. The initiative also led students to accumulate more credits in high school, a sign that students were more poised to graduate on time.

    But many of the report’s findings are not as positive, often pointing to only slight improvements that were not statistically significant. The program did not produce clear effects on graduation rates or test scores. Worse, the program slightly raised high school dropout rates. (What???) And the researchers, looking at variables such as curriculum, “high expectations,” and teacher teams and leadership, did not find any clear positive effects on instruction or school culture.

    What are the consequences? No more spare cash. Ya, not the fault of the NYC Mayor, blame it on the NY State Governor. Everybody suffer.

    https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2019/02/07/198885/

    “De Blasio unveils preliminary budget calling for cuts, few new initiatives”

    “This time, de Blasio said Cuomo’s funding proposal lacks about $300 million New York City schools require next year.”

    If only USD$773 Million was not wasted …

    • Replies: @Anon
  16. eah says:
    @res

    I leave it up everyone else

    “LOL” (sorry) — I’ll take your word for it; I have the person on ‘Ignore’ — look, some people who comment here are simply not worth engaging — however frustrating that might be at times, given their asinine views and/or demeanor (also perhaps your desire to prevail/be acknowledged as right) — it took me a while to realize that — it took even longer for me to start using the ‘Ignore’ feature (seemed a little gay to me; still does really) — but you may want to consider making use of it, and using your time more wisely.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  17. Willem says:
    @Okechukwu

    Thompson, somehow, is always missing the point that class may explain all the associations between race and IQ. Commenters like Res do too. I wonder why.

    If Thompson and his followers were real researchers they should find this alternative explanation (that race=class) at least interesting, I would think. But they do not. Thompson is silent about the issue, commenters like Res start to rage.

    But the moment you start to stratify race by class, all the associations dissapear. Here is Vicente Navarro who shows that in terms of mortality race=class

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PII0140-6736(90)92846-A/fulltext

    And here is Ray Chetty who shows that in terms of IQ (inventions) race=class

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w24062

    I find it suspicious that Thompson never lets class into his possible explanations as why race=class. It is like the Church that would not allow the ideas of Copernicus or Gallileo that the Earth orbits around the sun and not otherwise and that they burnt Giordano Bruno on the stake for saying that the Universe is infinitely large. In short: saying that race=class is heresy according to researchers who are all into race (i.e. Racists). This is a pity, as, if they would be able to see that race=class, they could do something useful, like advocating that class structures should be amended as they lead to unfairness (i.e. Socialists). But they do not, and therefore cannot change anything about the situation that black people are the inferior race. It is Nature, they say, which is only true if you ignore Nurture.

    Of course, there is always the opportunity for Thompson or Piffer, the ‘intelligent reviewer’ etc, and commenters like Res, to scientifically refute the observations of Navarro or Chetty. But I am not holding my breath..

    Then there is also this

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Davide_Piffer

  18. @res

    This is a good idea, conceptually virtually identical to what Piffer did by regressing the PGS pairwise differences on Fst distances.

    • Replies: @res
  19. eugyppius says:
    @Okechukwu

    Okechukwu up in here, undermining the environmentalist edifice one vacuous textwall at a time.

  20. @Okechukwu

    This is not directed at Res.

    Yes, it’s quite clear that you are fearfully avoiding direct debate with them.

    He’s really stupid and will never get it. This is for any intelligent persons on the thread.

    Ad hominem strike #1

    The above bullet points by Res demonstrate how utterly stupid he is.

    Ad hominem strike #2

    He wants to evaluate disparate outcomes on the basis of genetic differences in intelligence while ignoring other more plausible explanations.

    He seems to have a general interest in the pursuit of knowledge, I don’t see anything unreasonable about his goals. In fact, his intentions seem less biased towards white nationalism than your hysterics here betray your own to be blatantly hostile to white nationalism.

    What exactly are more plausible explanations? You’ve neatly (but not surprisingly) avoided providing any.

    Anyone with a scintilla of historical perspective will note that different groups have had different outcomes at different points in history, while their genetics remained constant.

    I don’t recall Res or anyone else stating that genetics are the singular influencing factor, only that they are a factor. Nor would I agree with the statement that genetics ever remain constant.

    Nevermind that nothing in the universe remains the same and that groups that are on the bottom now will one day be on top — as history has shown.

    Except genetics, according to you. History shows that things change, but in no way shows that groups on the bottom will one day be on top. In so far as I can see, blacks seems to consistently be the bottom of the evolutionary totem pole at any given time in history. And I don’t see any evidence of that changing. If anything, the horizon seems to indicate a severe population explosion in Africa in the coming century that threatens to lower much, if not all of the world’s IQ to the point where even today’s achievements will become unsustainable.

    But for the sake of argument, what evidence do you have which shows blacks ever were or will one day be on top?

    You don’t even have to look at history (are Ancient Egypt or Ancient Greece still here?

    Intelligence and infallibility are not one in the same. Just because a group is smarter and therefore more advanced does not mean that it is incapable of making mistakes or falling prey to destructive ideas or machinations. So, what’s your point, exactly?

    Then Res wants to “target” unproven, fraudulent and laughably pseudoscientific “differences.” Res’ references and citations all aim to promote a white nationalist agenda.

    Are your (not coincidentally unprovided) citations and references anymore objective? Most mainstream science considers the study of race and IQ to be heresy of the highest order. As such, they reject, under the coercive threat of the Church of Political Correctness, any notion that time and space have had the same evolutionary impact on human biodiversity that it had on… every other living thing on the planet. In this regard, establishment science is even more guilty of denying science than the most radical Christian fundamentalists. Bashing ignorant evolution-denying Bible-thumpers in one breath, and then denying evolution in the holy name of equality in the very next.

    These are the “studies” he wants to form the backbone of his targeting campaign.

    No, it’s your decidedly ignorant rhetoric and desperate effort to avoid substantiating any of it with anything of scientific substance. That much is painfully clear. You’re not citing any actual studies, you’re not singling out the pseudoscientific aspects of Res’ references, and your not providing any counter argument other than name calling.

    This looks to be par for the course leftist preaching. Avoid the topic, avoid debate, slander the opposition and tell others what to think rather than addressing the content itself.

    You’ve made yourself look like an utter fool.

    People like Res are the ones trying to wreck the US. This wicked ideology that he seemingly has devoted his retirement years to has been flagged as a grave threat to national security, and a major gateway drug toward the white nationalist radicalization that leads to domestic acts of terror (dozens of people have been killed). This is the law enforcement consensus.

    Dozens, my God! Meanwhile what % of murders every year are committed by the black demographics that represent only ~13-14% of the US population? Half. The US is in a death spiral, thanks in no small part to the ‘Brazilification’ of it’s demographics. Demography is destiny, after all. The IQ drops, the prosperity drops, the social cohesion drops, the poverty rises, the violence rises. It’s a predictable transition. As our demographics change, so too does the cultural and therefore political landscape. From what it was (white, 1st world) to what it will be (brown, 3rd world).

    [MORE]

    Furthermore, the US was founded on white nationalism. Full stop. One needs to look no further than the founding immigration policy to realize that. It’s hardly a wicked ideology. Ethnic nationalism is the backbone of almost every nation. Do you see Mexico rushing to ‘enrich’ itself with the supposed ‘strength’ of diversity? Why not? Should they not be eager to empower themselves through the mass importation of Arabs and Somalis?

    What exactly is the tangible benefit of diversity in your eyes? What epic accomplishment does it empower us to achieve that would otherwise be woefully out of our reach?

    In so far as I can see, it’s only tangible strength is akin to that of a nuclear bomb: unilaterally destructive might. It’s a warhead of a cultural variety. A genocidal weapon.

    Frankly, even if diversity did provide an actual benefit, I, like the entire world outside of the declining Western Civilization (including the nations these low IQ, high birth rate hordes of 3rd worlders are pouring in from) wouldn’t want anything to do with the concept of diversity. A nation isn’t a corporation. It’s bottom line isn’t supposed to be measured in financial earnings. It’s supposed to be about preserving heritage and culture and ensuring a peaceful and prosperous future “for ourselves and our posterity”.

    And that’s hardly wicked. You just label it as such because you don’t want whites to remember what the surrounding world never forgot. That it’s perfectly okay to love and desire to preserve and protect your own people. Past, present and future.

    Res is a clown. We all know that white nationalists consider as “anti-white” anyone who does not espouse twisted white nationalist views, including other white people. Or anyone who challenges their delusional orthodoxy. Res’ people probably arrived in the USA from Poland or Bulgaria sometime in the 20th century. Yet he claims he built the country while dismissing the contributions of the black people who’ve been here from the beginning.

    And that’s ad hominem strike #3. Projection is endemic to the ‘progressive’ left. And your pandering will get you nowhere, as it’s clear that you’re in no position to state what ‘we all know’. White nationalists consider anyone who denies whites the right to preserve their own existence as anti-white because that’s exactly what the uniquely anti-white double standard is indicative of. For example, no one dares deny Jews that right. That would be antisemitic.

    Who the hell are you to spout baseless conjecture about Res’ ancestral origins? What is the point of a comment like that if not to underscore how raving mad you are in your efforts to rail against those evil whites who have the audacity to desire to preserve their own existence?

    And honestly, what valuable contributions have those blacks made? A plow horse is not the architect of a farm any more than slaves were the creators of any aspect of American success. They were tools. And according to a many historical accounts, not very reliable ones either. If they’ve been instrumental in any part of America, it would be it’s post-war decline in culture and social unity, leading up to the present day. I won’t say all blacks are worthless. They’re not. There are some exceptional blacks out there. But on the civilizational scale, the rule is dictated by the impact of the majority, not the exception to the majority. There are not enough exceptional blacks to accomplish anything significant enough to outweigh the cost, in both blood and treasure, that they represent. Not in their dozens of nations back on a continent rich with untapped wealth, not in America where they are privileged with favorable racial discrimination practices like Affirmative Action, and not anywhere else. Broadly speaking, blacks have contributed nothing of significant value to any civilization, their own included. I don’t see any cotton skyscrapers, do you?

    As a final note, my goals and those of many of my fellow white nationalists out there don’t really rely at all on any revelations that may come from studying race and IQ. Ultimately, I want to ensure a future of peace and prosperity for whites regardless of their intelligence relative to blacks or anyone else. I am no more ashamed of not concerning myself with black prosperity in that desire than the Chinese are. At the end of the day, white history represents a widespread ending to black slavery, while black history represents both the beginning and ongoing continuation of it. There are more black slaves in Africa today than there were at any one time in America. Slavery is reprehensible, to be sure, but why should that bother me now, knowing that Whites have done more for blacks in just the last 50 years than blacks have ever done for anyone, including themselves, in the entire history of their race? These blacks today know nothing more about being slaves than I personally know about owning slaves. But it’s not stopping them from becoming an ever greater threat to my explicitly and unabashedly white nationalist goals of ensuring a future for those I consider to be my own people. To that end, I want blacks sent back to Africa. Where they can finally be free from racist whitey and whitey can be free from their eternal contempt for us. I’d even support reparation efforts, provided it was coupled with repatriation. Half the crime was ‘ripping them away from their homeland’ after all. Gotta right those wrongs.

    So you see, there isn’t much of a white nationalist agenda being served by exploring race and IQ because white nationalism isn’t white supremacy. Nor do studies like this usually attribute the highest IQ to Europeans anyway. Studies like this are simply the pursuit of knowledge.

    The only real reason to be offended by or hostile to Race/IQ science is if you’re a diversity true believer. One who prays at the Cultural Marxist altar of Political Correctness and in turn forsakes even the most basic degree of historical literacy, which readily notes that diversity has not ever, in the past, present or projected future, resulted in a greater degree of peace, prosperity or social cohesion. In fact, it always breeds the opposite outcome. Just as it is today.

  21. Jay James says:

    How reasonable is it that there are intelligence enhancing alleles among Sub-Saharan Africans and intelligence decreasing alleles among East Asians?

    Genetics isn’t my strong suit, but does it work that way for the say the genes for height?

  22. dearieme says:

    Can we just move on? How about Neanderthals and Denisovans, or the midget men from Indonesia: the Hobbit and the new one (does it have a nickname yet?)?

  23. @Willem

    This idea is based on the unwarranted assumption that class is environmentally determined and genes have no impact on it. Look up: https://abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-sociologists-fallacy/

    • Agree: eah
  24. A primer for the casual reader on polygenic score and genome-wide association study (GWA study, or GWAS):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study

  25. Anon[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @brutus101

    New York city spent USD$773 Million trying to improve the standard test scores of the Black and Hispanic students. What did they achieve?

    And you think that figure were entirely real costs that really went into what they did. Or don’t you?

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  26. @eah

    The ignore feature is useful. Consider time management. There are 1000’s of comments made at UR per day. Most people do not have time to read even a quarter of them. Assigning the ignore feature to the commenters who make repetitive and or inflammatory comments allows one to more easily and efficiently view other comments of merit.

    Also – when in public, do most people take time to engage every street corner lunatic wearing a “The End is Near” sign upon their otherwise naked body? Doubtful. Unz harbors many of the equivalent of those types. Why waste time and energy even scrolling past them?

    Okiedokie has never once that I have seen made a comment remotely resembling coherence or objectiveness. He went on ignore a long time ago.

  27. @Okechukwu

    Nobody’s stopping you from being the smartest guy in the room, capable of starting the next Microsoft or selling stock in a new private satellite launching firm. Nobody’s stopping you from opening an academic academy that caters exclusively to people whose appearance and behavior parallel yours. No books are prohibited you. The knowledge is freely available.

    Leave us alone. Or return to where you would be around almost exclusively those who share your ancestry. It’s that simple. Otherwise, you reveal yourself as just another grifter.

  28. @jb

    In particular, we are told constantly that racism is the only possible explanation for the poor social and economic performance of blacks relative to whites

    And just who is it that tells us that? Hmmmm?

    Big Bird?
    The Cookie Monster?
    Demopublicans?
    Jesus?
    All the above?

  29. @Willem

    Do you then distrust/reject the College Board’s data on SAT performance broken down by race and class (parental income or education attainment?)
    http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm

    Whenever data is interdicted (and the CB stopped publishing the raw aggregates) Occam’s Razor suggests that the reason is to avoid embarrassing conclusions.

    I suppose you could argue that SAT performance is irrelevant….

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  30. @Anon

    Answer: Kansas City Schools funding fiasco.
    https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-298.pdf

    It isn’t about per-pupil spending, tax rates or school facilities.

    • Replies: @eah
  31. res says:
    @Willem

    always missing the point that class may explain all the associations between race and IQ. Commenters like Res do too. I wonder why.

    I don’t ignore the point. I just dismiss it because of data like this:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/2008-sat-scores-by-race-by-income/

    Class certainly matters, but it is clearly not the entire cause. And as Merculinus notes, genes (including IQ genes presumably) have an impact on class.

    As far as:

    Of course, there is always the opportunity for Thompson or Piffer, the ‘intelligent reviewer’ etc, and commenters like Res, to scientifically refute the observations of Navarro or Chetty. But I am not holding my breath..

    Navarro (DOI 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92846-A at libgen) looks at mortality, so says little about race and IQ. But again note that genes impact class so there very well may be a systematic racial difference as a partial cause.

    Also note that mortality is linked to IQ:
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/
    and Navarro failed to control for that. So perhaps the racial IQ gap is a partial cause of the mortality gap. In fact, I would say Navarro’s choice of class metrics (e.g. education) makes that likely.

    On one of the few occasions (in 1986) that the US government collected information on mortality rates (for heart and cerebrovascular disease) by class, the results showed that, by whatever indicators of class one might choose (level ofeducation, income, or occupation), mortality rates are related to social class.

    Chetty’s paper is more relevant, but first let’s note their comment from the abstract (emphasis mine).

    Using deidentified data on 1.2 million inventors from patent records linked to tax records, we first show that children’s chances of becoming inventors vary sharply with characteristics at birth, such as their race, gender, and parents’ socioeconomic class. For example, children from high-income (top 1%) families are ten times as likely to become inventors as those from below-median income families. These gaps persist even among children with similar math test scores in early childhood – which are highly predictive of innovation rates – suggesting that the gaps may be driven by differences in environment rather than abilities to innovate. We then directly establish the importance of environment by showing that exposure to innovation during childhood has significant causal effects on children’s propensities to invent.

    Chetty expands on that in pp. 4-5 of the paper. So he seems to be saying that inventions != IQ (while you asserted they are equivalent). But let’s look at some details (page 16).

    The second set of bars in Figure II plot the resulting innovation rates. Controlling for income differences does not eliminate the racial and ethnic gaps, but changes their magnitudes. The Black-white gap falls by a factor of 2 (from 1.1/1000 to 0.6/1000). The white-Asian gap widens from 1.7/1000 to 2.6/1000 when we reweight by income, as Asian parents in NYC public schools have lower incomes on average than white parents. The Hispanic-white gap remains essentially unchanged

    So, contrary to your assertions, we see the B-W innovation gap is only partially explained by class (remember, you said “all” in your very first sentence).

    So not only are innovations an imperfect proxy for IQ, but the B-W gap in innovations is only partially explained by class.

    P.S. Feel free to take a breath now. Not refutation of their work, but refutation of your attempt to use it to debunk the Race-IQ connection.

  32. res says:
    @Merculinus

    Good point. I think being able to treat the differences as vectors (using PCA) would add to understanding. The causes of IQ differences are not just distance, but distance of a specific form (direction in PC space).

  33. Gordo says:
    @prime noticer

    why are trolls allowed to post for years on this site. it really discredits the entire enterprise that they haven’t been banned permanently.

    instead of hearing from the smart guys on what they think, half the thread is posts from these morons, who seem to stick around for years, saying the same stupid stuff ad nauseum.

    Ban anyone who doesn’t put capitals at the beginning of sentences.

  34. Alfa158 says:
    @res

    I think we can all accurately make an identification of OK as African even when the identification is not “based on outward appearance”. The magical thinking, fractured logic, outraged sense of unearned self-importance and reliance on wishful thinking is all we need without even looking at the name.
    As the South African student genius triumphantly declared in that famous video; “if the White Man’s science is so great, how come it has no explanation for how a witch doctor can bring a lightning bolt down out of a blue sky onto an enemy many miles away?”

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
  35. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    Joseph Graves

    LOL. This is the moron that dismisses GWAS hits if they’re under 0.25 Fst because of “Wright’s threshold”. “Wright’s threshold” of 0.25 of course referring to the level of overall differentiation which could be considered “very great”, and having nothing to do with GWAS. The man is an utter clown and can only get published in postmodernist social studies journals.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  36. “Lower polygenic scores lead to higher fertility”. This trend appears to be true. It is ominous.

    https://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/Full-Woman/At-37–she-has-given-birth-to-38-children-/689842-3899976-xff7xc/index.html

    • Replies: @mark green
    , @eah
  37. eah says:

    “class”

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  38. eah says:

  39. @mark green

    This link should work better. (37-year-old African woman with 38 children)

    https://au.news.yahoo.com/uganda-woman-aged-37-has-38-children-35182889.html

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
  40. eah says:
    @mark green

  41. EugeneGur says:

    There are differences in education/IQ polygenic scores between social classes, and within families the children with higher polygenic scores are more likely than those with lower polygenic scores to be upwardly mobile.

    What an idiotic claim! For the upward mobility in the modern society, education/IQ polygenic scores matters a lot less than a few millions (billions preferred) in the bank. The individual qualities other than intelligence or even opposed to intelligence such as the ability to sell himself at a profit or a total lack of moral scruples count a lot towards the upward mobility.

    For example, by all normal human measures of intelligence, Trump is a complete moron. And yet he has been quite successful in his own way and certainly belongs to the upper social strata. This is not the only example – just take a look at the US Congress.

    Herrnstein’s claim that genetics drives social stratification and social mobility is therefore proven definitively, at the molecular level.

    Another idiotic statement. Even assuming there is a correlation between the upward social mobility and genetic traits, it’s not the same as causality. A scientist should be well aware of that. Furthermore, there is really no way to prove a causal connection like that. The discussion “nature versus nurture” has been going on for centuries for a reason: there is no way to separate the two unless we start genetically engineering human beings and raise them in incubators for experimental purposes.

    • Replies: @res
  42. Okechukwu says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    You still don’t understand the difference between the attitude toward groups and toward individuals.

    What does that even mean?

    What do you want to tell the black kid who is smarter than all his white classmates?

    Who determined these groupings? Based on what? Are you going by Pioneer Fund “findings?”

    What makes you think anyone is ever going to let you people make policy or stunt the prospects of real human beings on the basis of fraudulent pseudoscience? It’s never going to happen.

    I’ve been to real scientific conferences. Nobody would even have the balls to present any of this junk — not because it’s taboo, but because it’s fake.

    Btw, do you want to be presumed to be a child molester or a mass shooter? Those are also groups.

    • LOL: res
  43. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Piffer’s claims are based on two assumptions:

    First, that IQ test scores measure intelligence as that term is defined by dictionaries and is generally understood;

    Second, that differences in national IQ test scores are associated with differences in the frequency of certain gene variants.

    The first is false as anyone who gives the matter intelligent thought will understand.

    The second is absurd given that national IQ test scores are not fixed but can change by as much as 20 points in a generation, as in Ireland, according the Ron Unz’s data, or as happened in the United States over the course of the Twentieth Century.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @EugeneGur
    , @Wizard of Oz
  44. res says:
    @EugeneGur

    There are differences in education/IQ polygenic scores between social classes, and within families the children with higher polygenic scores are more likely than those with lower polygenic scores to be upwardly mobile.

    What an idiotic claim! For the upward mobility in the modern society, education/IQ polygenic scores matters a lot less than a few millions (billions preferred) in the bank.

    Which part of “within families” did you fail to understand? Or are you contending that differential wealth is what is causing those within family variations for the children with higher polygenic scores? If so, how?

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  45. j2 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy, I agree with both your points. Piffer’s plots are nothing more than Lynn-Vanhanen plots: there is today a correlation between IQ scores and ethnic groups, mostly IQ is higher in developed countries and in countries where doing well in the school is demanded from children, and that’s about as much as can be said of IQ differences between countries.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  46. I spent some time on the GWAS website. And the kind of analysis here of abstract cognitive constructs is speculative.

    The sight itself makes that observation about genes related to actual chemical/biological constructs where genetic cause and effect are measurable and visible can be speculative and difficult to prove. Making the leap to cognitive abstraction would have even tougher hurdles to fact.

    In general sure biology determines everything. That’s like saying genes genes determine whether someone has a heart, of course. How that heart functions is also determined by genes. But genes don’t explain why heart disease happens in some and not in others or the types of diseases of the heart in all cases or even most cases. Genes respond to environment, food, exercise . . . even defective genetics can be shifted by a change in environment.

    So I think the fundamental research on how the brain is supposed to operate is required before tackling this abstract construct as it is currently tackled. And then proceed to whether those tested have systems that operate as the system is designed to operate — normally – if a normal can be established.

  47. I think there is a straw man here.

    The argument about race does not in any way deny genetics. It says that to be human there is one genetic coding. Withing that coding exists variations, but said variations do not change the fact of being human. They are in effect benign traits, skin color, eye color, etc. Acknowledging the human race as distinct from all other races is not race denial-ism. It’s a simple conclusive measurable fact.

  48. @Willem

    If you would kindly put “class” into the search bar for my posts, there are 8 pages of relevant posts, which I hope you will enjoy reading.

    • Replies: @Willem
  49. Okechukwu says:
    @mikemikev

    LOL. This is the moron that dismisses GWAS hits if they’re under 0.25 Fst because of “Wright’s threshold”. “Wright’s threshold” of 0.25 of course referring to the level of overall differentiation which could be considered “very great”, and having nothing to do with GWAS. The man is an utter clown and can only get published in postmodernist social studies journals.

    You do realize that Graves is a distinguished evolutionary biologist/geneticist while you are a notorious racist troll and clueless neophyte, right?

    Let’s let Dr. Graves speak for himself via an E-mail he sent to Egalitarian Jay (a brilliant intellect and writer, btw):

    From: [email protected]
    To: Egalitarianjay
    Subject: RE: Rushton’s Life History Variables
    Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:47:43 -0400

    Dear EgalitarianJay,

    Sewall Wright’s determination of subspecies value at FST = 0.250 was not arbitrary. It was based on the idea that at this value there was a significant probability of fixation of different alleles in subpopulations. So for example, if subpopulation 1 had the A1 allele at frequency 1.00; subpopulation 2 would have the A2 allele at frequency 1.00. The problem here is with the biological/population genetic meaning of subspecies versus the naturalist meaning of subspecies. For the population geneticist, the subspecies concept refers to a certain amount of genetic divergence, related to the process of allopatric speciation (speciation by cessation of gene flow).

    For the naturalist, they name subspecies first, before any measurements of genetic variation are taken. This explains how you could have a list of subspecies as given at the link. Thus “naturalists” could name human subspecies or biological races first, then examine the amount of genetic divergence between them. The simple facts are that humans have very little genetic divergence between our worldwide populations FST ~ 0.110. We have had sufficient gene flow throughout our brief evolutionary history. We cannot name human races based on physical features either (principle of discordance). Chimps have more genetic divergence between their populations, than exists within the entire human species.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Joseph L. Graves Jr.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/joseph-graves-lies-on-race-repeated-here-regularly.541670/

    I’m actually someone who didn’t care one way or the other about the existence of biological races. That is, until recently. You see, recently I saw the ultrasound of the perfect (in the words of all the doctors and nurses) fetus I created with my white wife. Obviously, it’s exactly what nature intended. Therefore race does not exist biologically.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Colin Wright
  50. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @j2

    It was your comment on the earlier thread that prompted the realization that the claimed causal link between national IQ test score and certain gene variants was nonsense.

    And consistent with my first point, I think we should adhere to Utu’s rule to talk only of IQ test scores, not IQ’s, since IQ tests do not provide a valid measure of intelligence as that term is generally understood. What IQ tests measure is skill at IQ tests and, more generally, for academic work with its heavy emphasis on the practiced use of words and numbers.

    IQ is higher in developed countries and in countries where doing well in the school is demanded from children

    Yes, and the IQ test scores of Jewish kids who have their Jewish mothers to propel them in their studies is especially elevated, as is the case with Asian kids who have their Tiger Moms, God bless them.

    None of which is to deny that differences in mental attributes among the nations of the Earth must certainly exist, unless we are to assume that the brain for some reason is the one organ of the body that is resistant to differentiation through natural selection under diverse environmental and cultural conditions and as a consequence of genetic drift.

    One day, perhaps, the psychologists will abandon IQ-ism as they abandoned other nonsense such as Fraudianism and behaviorism, and acknowledge the many forms of human intelligence of which they are currently oblivious.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @j2
  51. Okechukwu says:
    @eah

    Here’s another dumbass that conflates sociological products with biological ones.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  52. Anonymous[173] • Disclaimer says:

    The main problem here is that some researchers are too nonchalant about using questionable, non-standardised, low sample size, derived-from-education-or-wealth-or-whatever IQ guesstimates in their formulas instead of raw “g”.

    The formula should be simple: A (genetics) + B (environment) = C (raw, real IQ)

    Get a raw, real IQ first (basically, culture-neutral “g”) for every country where that data was measured in the past hundred years and you’ll have a leg to stand on. Avoid all other “C” guesstimates because guesstimates are not science when hard data is available.

    TL;DR: get a good, precise, weight scale before trying to measure the causes of obesity.

  53. Okechukwu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    None of which is to deny that differences in mental attributes among the nations of the Earth must certainly exist, unless we are to assume that the brain for some reason is the one organ of the body that is resistant to differentiation through natural selection under diverse environmental and cultural conditions and as a consequence of genetic drift.

    The differences are individual, not group based. This is not even debatable. There is tremendous overlap in intelligence between human groups and tremendous variation in intelligence within human groups.

    There is no earthly environment that didn’t call for intelligence. That’s why intelligence is not differentiated between different populations of humans. You could take young children from hunter-gatherer tribes, bring them to a western country and within a few years they will have assimilated all the technology and mastered the language. They could go to Harvard or Oxford, become engineers or scientists. This is because all human brains are the same.

    Also, no human organs are differentiated from group and group in terms of their functionality and efficacy. They’re all the same whether the person is in the Congo or in Sweden. The brain, being the most complex organ, is actually the most resistant to differentiation.

  54. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    Holy shit what is this word salad? There’s a “significant” probability of fixation of some random allele at 0.25 Fst, therefore you can just toss any association under 0.25 in a GWAS? That makes exactly no sense. The man is babbling like “booked on phonics”. And I feel sorry for your wife.

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  55. j2 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “None of which is to deny that differences in mental attributes among the nations of the Earth must certainly exist, unless we are to assume that the brain for some reason is the one organ of the body that is resistant to differentiation through natural selection under diverse environmental and cultural conditions and as a consequence of genetic drift.”

    This is certainly so, though I have only lived in four countries and in all those the people were mostly White and could not notice any difference in the average intelligence, but as a Finn I could immediately notice a difference in the average personality. Finns are a bit different from Indo-Europeans and Americans are a bit different from Europeans. I have traveled a lot and there is now an average cognitive difference also if we go outside Europe, but I have met quite intelligent people from all those countries, so it is hard to say how fixed these differences are. Not completely fixed, that is for sure.

    IQ tests are suitable to what it is meant for: to check if a child can manage in the school, but does any school actually use them? At least in my time the school did not make IQ tests. There were entry exams and for passing to the next class there was the the school notes for the year. The Finnish army, likd many armies, makes an IQ test for selecting conscript officers and under-officers, but IQ does not matter that much, basically they want leadership capability. It does not correlate so well with IQ, at least with a very high IQ. In work interviews I was once tested with an IQ test, but that was just one from ten workplaces. I do not think that their test was better than the selection in the university by referees who evaluated publications.

    So, from that one can conclude that IQ tests are pretty much useless anywhere in practical life, and nobody goes on telling his IQ, so nobody knows them. So what is the fuzz about them, just to make some people feel sad that their national IQ is a few points lower. Such that Piffer does is useless as the national IQ does not stop the government making its decisions, and it is these decisions which develop the country or not. It looks like it is just some meme for different supremacists to feel better. I think country personality would be a much more useful concept than national IQ, as traveling or moving to a country you would experience the personality difference. But when moving to a country you only experience personal IQs of the people you know and that very much depends on what people you have as close friends.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @CanSpeccy
  56. eah says:

    Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line…Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.

    Liberia: independent since around the time CA became a state — Whites are not allowed to be citizens (look it up) — ought to be Wakanda by now — let’s see what the CIA World Factbook has to say about the economy of Wakanda Liberia:

    Liberia is a low-income country that relies heavily on foreign assistance and remittances from the diaspora. It is richly endowed with water, mineral resources, forests, and a climate favorable to agriculture.

    Fazit: the country has solid economic potential, but the people living there have not been able to make use of it.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  57. Anonymous[305] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    The Finnish army, like many armies, makes an IQ test for selecting conscript officers and under-officers, but IQ does not matter that much, basically they want leadership capability.

    That’s just wrong. Any sane enforcement agency will do both an IQ test and a psychological test. IQ is raw potential and ability to grow while the psychological preferences are flavour. Psychological “leadership capability” is worse-tan-useless without sufficient IQ.

    Our world today is on the brink of annihilation because it’s run – at the highest, decision making level – by mediocrities. Wake up.

    • Replies: @j2
  58. Oooops, 4 minutes got away from me.

    But that simple fact does not in any way deny other realities. Realities such as skin color, eye color, weight size, and the myriad of genetic variance that inhabits the human race. The issue is whether genetics bends to environment, environment bends to genetics or whether any interaction exists at all. Here the argument is intelligence is soley the consequence of genetic code. And more to the point that said genetic code has in some manner mutated among certain populations, there’s not even evidence of mutation. There is evidence of genetic defect, in which the code does not operate as intended. Those are abnormalities. It’s the kind of argument one thinks that the same sex practitioners would come up with to justify their choice of abnormal behavior. Human physical desire is normal, but whether some mutation causes less than 5% of the population to orient that desire toward members of their own gender/sex is another matter and questionable.

    Claiming a genetics for certain asian populations against all others ignores a vast array of environmental factors that are the norm for certain closed environments. That’s what evidence really points to, that smaller enclaved populations who engage in certain practices, thoughts, etc. place a higher demand on the cognitive expectations one associates with IQ.

    Even in the mutation contend, the reference to environmental or some outside force that caused the speculated mutation whatever that is key and in fact fundamental as indicated by the researcher making that case.

  59. Okechukwu says:
    @eah

    Your cherrypicking aside, none of that is relevant to the matter of human intelligence. A very significant percentage of Liberians are smarter than you and everyone you know.

    Keep in mind that while ancient European barbarians were eating each other in their caves there were contemporaneous sophisticated civilizations elsewhere. It doesn’t mean anything.

    You also make a mistake common to dumb white racists. You don’t understand the distinction between wealth and income. A “poor” white person might actually be quite wealthy in terms of family holdings built up over generations when black people couldn’t even use a water fountain. Moreover, a high income does not innoculate black people from the effects of racism.

  60. Potato says:

    Herrnstein’s claim that genetics drives social stratification and social mobility is therefore proven definitively, at the molecular level.

    I’m sorry but what? The current polygenic scores predict *some* of the variation. They don’t definitively prove that genetics is what causes social stratification and social mobility definitively. This is simply wrong. It is not proven on a “molecular level” https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/605006v1

    The current up to date research suggests that when you use polygenic prediction for individuals *within* the same family, the variance explained by polygenic scores decreases by atleast 50%.

    • Replies: @utu
  61. EugeneGur says:
    @res

    There are differences in education/IQ polygenic scores between social classes, and within families the children with higher polygenic scores are more likely than those with lower polygenic scores to be upwardly mobile.

    The second part of the sentence is tied with the first, the first being used as the foundation/argument/explanation for the second.

    Essentially, what is says or, at least, implies is “They are the upper classes because they have higher education/IQ polygenic scores”. The next sentence as you can see reinforces the message (“genetics drives social stratification and social mobility”). This so obviously BS I don’t know how anyone can entertain the notion for a moment.

    What part of “between social classes” don’t you understand?

    • Replies: @res
  62. EugeneGur says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Finally, an intelligent comment. Both your points are spot on.

    Several decades ago, women’s IQ was significantly lower than that of men. Since it couldn’t be attributed to genetics and, anyway, there was no GWAS at that time, the fact was put down to hormones or “natural destiny to bear children”, or equally absurd notions.

    Now, if anything, it’s higher across the West in many non-Western countries, and what are we to do? This is as very good proof that the IQ measure, elementary as it is and has minimal relationship with the human intelligence, is largely cultural, anyway.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @j2
    , @James Thompson
  63. utu says:
    @Potato

    the variance explained by polygenic scores decreases by at least 50%

    This approximately sounds true as far as what they have found on 2,366 dizygotic twins sample. The question is 50% of what? 50% number catches ones attention but it also misleads because it hides the fact that the predictive ability of polygenic scores they used was very poor, in fact close to irrelevancy level. The polygenic scores they used could explain circa 4% of IQ test score trait or EA trait in Selzam et al. paper. So basically we are dealing with the difference between predictive ability of near zero and predictive ability even nearer zero.

    But I agree with you that Herrnstein’s claim (if he really claimed it) is a hyped BS. BTW, I have a theory of Herrnstein’s role in cementing the meme of Jewish IQ via Charles Murray book. While Murray was not exactly a stooge, he was a big boy and knew what he was doing, but his book’s job was to drive and solidify the meme of Jewish cognitive superiority in order to justify Jewish ascendance and dominance. There was no other purpose behind this book except that “Juden , Juden über alles.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  64. Anonymous[305] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    “Juden , Juden über alles.”

    Which is always a giant red flag.

    In my experience – every time a jew or a shabbos goy claimed something about the jews – it turned out to be a naked lie.

    Every, single, time.

  65. @Alfa158

    Okechukwe is Black African lol

  66. @mark green

    What in tarnation……38 children?

  67. res says:
    @EugeneGur

    No. The second clause is separate from the first. And gives a clear example (within family) where your social class difference explanation does not apply. The difference is best explained by the polygenic score differences between siblings.

    Here it is again. This is clear.

    within families the children with higher polygenic scores are more likely than those with lower polygenic scores to be upwardly mobile

  68. @dc.sunsets

    ‘Do you then distrust/reject the College Board’s data on SAT performance broken down by race and class (parental income or education attainment?)
    http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm’

    The implications of this become even more spectacular if one considers that as one moves up the scale of educational achievement, the blacks in question are more likely to be ‘black.’ That is, while I’d guess blacks with no high school are about 80% black genetically, ‘blacks’ with a graduate degree must be about 25% black on average, genetically.

  69. @Okechukwu

    ‘You see, recently I saw the ultrasound of the perfect (in the words of all the doctors and nurses) fetus I created with my white wife. Obviously, it’s exactly what nature intended. Therefore race does not exist biologically.’

    One could obtain identical results crossing a Doberman Pinscher and a Laborador Retriever. This does not demonstrate that there are no differences between Doberman Pinschers and Laborador Retrievers.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  70. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @j2

    It looks like it [measuring so-called IQ’s] is just some meme for different supremacists to feel better.

    It is a probably that, but it is certainly something much worse, too. It is bad science, which should have no more place in the university than chiropractic or naturopathy.

    It is basically a scam that is made possible by the fact that education develops skill in the use of words and numbers and the diagrammatic representation of ideas and data all of which not only raises IQ test scores, but the capacity for further education. It is the correlated effects of education on IQ test scores and the potential for further education that is the basis of the IQ-ists scam. Look, they say, see: IQ test scores predict scholastic aptitude. Well of course they do, since they are a reflection of past scholastic performance.

    • LOL: eah
    • Replies: @annamaria
  71. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @EugeneGur

    Now, if anything, it’s higher {women’s IQ relative to men’s IQ] across the West in many non-Western countries, and what are we to do? This is as very good proof that the IQ measure, elementary as it is and has minimal relationship with the human intelligence, is largely cultural, anyway.

    A good example of the environmental contribution to IQ test scores. Action in response to the demand for more girls’ education has raised girls’ IQ test scores, as it has also raised girls’ level of scholastic achievement. It is education that has caused the rise in IQ est scores. But their business being a scam, the IQists claim the reverse.

    Of course there is a genetic basis to differences in educability, which will be reflected in differences in IQ test score. But no one who gives the matter any thought can claim that academic attainment is the result purely of genetics, since it is obviously the result of many factors including innate talents, temperament, the quality of teaching, the subjects taught, etc.

    Thus, while we applaud the successful scholar and attribute to him intelligence, at least of a sort, we do not automatically assume that someone who failed to achieve the university entrance requirement despite attendance at an expensive private schools — Winston Churchill, for example — is necessarily unintelligent. But when that lack of scholastic attainment in the manipulation of words, or numbers, or diagrammatic puzzles is translated into an IQ test score, the world is supposed to conclude that the fellow is a fool. This is obviously an imposition on a gullible public and a cruel hoax on those the IQ-ists have managed to label with their fake measure of intelligence.

  72. Endless pseudo-intellectual blabbering about trying desperately to stuff the square peg of the data into the round empty hole of the writer’s prejudices.

  73. Just for your information, “trolls” are not people who say things you don’t like.

    “Trolls” are paid operatives of certain institutions, countries, agencies, ethnic groups, etc. and they follow a predictable guidebook of strategies.

    If you keep misunderstanding this simple fact, maybe it’s because you’re the troll.

  74. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    You need to find people of your level to feel comfortable. This forum is obviously too much for you, considering your inability to control your abusive language.

    It could help if you try to think about scientific facts having nothing to do with political correctness. Of course, you are free to create a politically correct system of “scientific” beliefs, but, please, don’t try to force this “science” upon honest researchers.

    Moreover, nobody prevents you and your family from shining in sub-Saharan Africa. Considering your rather aggressive determination and the knowledge of native African culture, perhaps you should do a research in IQ among sub-Saharan Africans. When done competently, such research will become a real contribution to this discussion.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  75. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    “The differences are individual, not group based. This is not even debatable. … all human brains are the same.”
    — Do you realize that this discussion is about knew discoveries re the genetic makeup of humankind? Or you already know everything and don’t need any stinking new discoveries?
    Magical thinking indeed.

  76. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    “This is because all human brains are the same.”

    — Don’t be so unreasonably triumphal. Here are some basics: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23696-6

  77. Willem says:
    @James Thompson

    Thanks for that, but I don’t know how to find those 8 papers between all the other papers. Which one of those papers do you consider the best, that is which paper puts the hypothesis that race is or is not class most rigourously to the test? Could you give me link?

    I will look into that one and will give an honest reply.

    • Replies: @Willem
  78. Willem says:
    @Willem

    I found the button now that you referred to in your comment to me. Still, reading 8 posts and commenting on all of them, is too much. Could you give me your best post where the issue of class is discussed?

    Perhaps it is this one: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/does-class-of-origin-matter/

    Or are there even better ones on the issue?

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  79. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    They also do a leadership test. They do many tests and if instead of conscripts we talk about staff officers, they are measured in many ways, with the main focus on leadership. I am sure they know what they are doing. I only mentioned that there is an IQ test, but it is just one measure among others. Yes, IQ of army commanders must be sufficient, but very high IQ people are not for those jobs, they should go to research. People with very high IQ do not like hierarchical systems that much.They have rebel spirits and in the army you follow orders.

  80. j2 says:
    @EugeneGur

    “Now, if anything, it’s higher across the West in many non-Western countries, and what are we to do? This is as very good proof that the IQ measure, elementary as it is and has minimal relationship with the human intelligence, is largely cultural, anyway.”

    Yes, it is largely like that. When women were uneducated, they were more stupid because of that, but it was believed to be inherent in them, that they could not even learn to drive a car, there was such a time not long ago. When Finland has Swedish speaking upper class, Finns were thought to be much more stupid, which at that time was correct as they were uneducated, but it was seen as a racial difference between Aryans and Mongol-hybrids. There are some gender/racial differences of course, but a group IQ is historically mainly reflecting the environment.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  81. JoeyRook says:

    It’s simple: some brains work better than others.

  82. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy, are you sure you know the format of IQ tests?
    You insist (erroneously) that it is the “use of words and numbers and the diagrammatic representation of ideas and data” that rise IQ scores and the scores “are a reflection of past scholastic performance.” Here is an example of IQ test:

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Factorize
  83. Anonymous[305] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    it was believed to be inherent in them, that they could not even learn to drive a car

    That’s still true, though.

  84. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    You insist (erroneously) that it is the “use of words and numbers and the diagrammatic representation of ideas and data” that rise IQ scores and the scores “are a reflection of past scholastic performance.” Here is an example of IQ test:

    Your video confirms my point (at least the first 20 seconds of it, which is all I watched). The solutions shown to the test questions entails the application of language, including the the language of numbers, as a mechanism for logical analysis.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  85. utu says:

    Neither the Intelligence Researcher nor Davide Piffer add anything new so my comment from the previous note remains in force

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/piffer-rides-again/#comment-3187121

    The bottom line is there is no reason to think that Piffer result is not spurious. At this point there is no reason to even believe that the heritability gap will be closed. Piffer’s result bets against low probability that the remaining SNPs that are not included in his PGS produce averages that are constant across 26 countries he selected. The validity of Piffers result hinges on a hidden assumption that the polygenic score of remaining SNPs (which can be 100’s of 1000’s of them) produce the same averages for different populations (countries, ethnic groups, races). This assumption remains a postulate that has not been proven and there are no indications that it could or should be true.

    Mr. Chutzpah is good for true-believers and wishful thinkers like J. Thompson, res and yourself who subscribe to the confirmation bias epistemology of Richard Lynn. You have to face it that you with your Mr. Chutzpah are at the level of cargo cult science. You think that if you mimic some scientific behaviors like calculation of P-Value and adorn it with scientific jargon that you are actually doing a science. You are on the level Melanesians who are building a plane using bamboo sticks in a hope that this ritual will cause materialization of boxes with cans of Spam. You even create a journal ‘psych’ that is a part of this cargo cult to bring the cargo cult mimetic behavior to even higher level so more people can be fooled. No Spam for Davide Piffer.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Merculinus
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @j2
  86. res says:
    @utu

    The bottom line is there is no reason to think that Piffer result is not spurious.

    This is just wrong. The various replications demonstrated are a very good reason to believe there is something real here.

    Mr. Chutzpah is good for true-believers and wishful thinkers like J. Thompson, res and yourself who subscribe to the confirmation bias epistemology of Richard Lynn. You have to face it that you with your Mr. Chutzpah are at the level of cargo cult science.

    When you don’t have anything else, there is always name-calling.

    Still waiting for an explanation of why Piffer would get results like this. It is an awfully big coincidence (see p-values) if there is not a real effect underlying those results.

    • Replies: @Merculinus
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @utu
  87. @utu

    Stupid^2
    This is tantamount to saying “Electoral poll results bet against low probability that the remaining people that are not included in his poll produce averages that are similar to the existing poll” .
    Or “”Study results bet against low probability that the remaining people that are not included in his sample produce averages that are similar to the existing sample” . You can say this about any study in science!
    How ridiculous!

    • Replies: @utu
  88. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    You even create a journal ‘psych’ that is a part of this cargo cult to bring the cargo cult mimetic behavior to even higher level so more people can be fooled.

    And a very badly published journal, at that. As a new, supposedly scholarly journal, they were fortunate enough, among their first dozen or so contributions, to get at least one contribution by a distinguished scholar. But they were too useless even to proof read and copy edit the text, failing to fix the spelling error on the last line of Page 36, or the awkward construction of the following sentence. As for the typography, it is absolutely crap. And in other papers the, for example, Piffer’s paper, the illustrations and are not decently sized, while the lettering of the figures is an ugly mish-mash of type styles and sizes.

    And apparently it is the publisher`s policy to invite applications for editorships. LOL. In the old days when there were standards in science publishing, editors were understood to be the top guys in the field. Now, apparently, the journals are to be edited by the self-selected climbers. Yuck.

    • Replies: @utu
  89. @res

    As I said, what these idiots are saying is tantamount to this: “Study results bet against low probability that the remaining people that are not included in his sample produce averages that are similar to the existing sample” . Iterate their logic over all scientific studies and you’ve destroyed science!

  90. @Willem

    There are 8 pages of posts, not 8 posts. The one you have selected deals with one aspect, namely whether IQ results or class of origin is the better predictor of class of attainment. Have a look at the general discussion and the patterns of results in order to consider the status of class as an explanatory variable, as opposed to it being merely the consequence of prior levels of ability.

    • Replies: @Willem
  91. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    The various replications demonstrated are a very good reason to believe there is something real here.

    How can there be anything “real here,” when we know that the variation in IQ test scores that are supposed to have been shown to be genetically determined are not so determined and may change by as much as 20 points in a generation, as in the case of the Irish, according to Ron Unz, and as we know was the case with Americans during the course of the twentieth century?

  92. j2 says:
    @utu

    One further argument to support that Piffer’s correlation is spurious is to look at genetic outliers in Europe and to notice that the rather large genetic difference is not causing a similar IQ difference.

    Consider Finnish Saami. They are rather far from other Europeans, even from Finns. Yet their IQ is practically the same as that of Finns. James Thomson in some post referred to information that the Saami may be one point lower than Finns, but that means nothing: there are only few of them and they are in Lapland, so we should expect that the place may have such a very small negative effect. Thus, why is there no larger difference if IQ is so genetic?

    The simple reason is that Saami go to the same school as Finns and live in the same culture, so if group IQ is mainly culture based, there should not be any difference. Well, there is no difference.

    But it is not only Saami. Have you noticed that Basques or Sardinians would much differ in IQ from the other people in those cultures? I guess not, but they do differ genetically.

    Yes, it is possible that they could have intermixed and got the genes that increase IQ and they would have been selected exactly the same way as in non-outliers in Europe, but why exactly should this be so? All of the outliers lived in their closed societies until recent times and today are in the same culture, have the same schools and have the same IQ as their surroundings.

  93. @EugeneGur

    In what decade was it show that women’s intelligence was lower than men’s. Any links to the relevant paper?

  94. Factorize says:
    @annamaria

    Behold the unz.com IQ Challenge! Try the tests below and let’s see who is the IQ Champion! Call me an IQist: My money is on res. Nevertheless, the poster with the highest score will have bragging rights.

    The first test is the US army’s ASVAB/AFQT possibly related all the way back to the original alpha/beta tests from WW1 and WW2. The AFQT consists of the Arithmetic Reasoning, Word Knowledge, Paragraph Completion, and Mathematics Knowledge subtests. I got “Tantalize” wrong on the Word Knowledge sub-test, so I guess a military career is out for me. Oh, well!

    This test is geared for testees in the 18-23 age group, so it is intended for those with a high school level education. I found the General Science subtest probably the most difficult: some of the questions that they asked were quite obscure. https://asvabpracticetestonline.com/

    I am very impressed with this test. It is one of the best online IQ tests that I have found. It reaches towards the right edge of the intelligence distribution unlike many of the other online tests that I have taken. One presumes that these lower quality tests reporting perfect scores are not valid. https://iqhaven.com/

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  95. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/piffer-rides-again/#comment-3180982
    […]obscure journal such as ‘psych’ that so far has published total of 10 papers out of which three have Emil O. Kierkegard as author/co-author and two are by Richard Lynn. Only one paper comes from a respectable author which is James Flynn […]

    All 1o papers so far accumulated a total of 3 citations of which one goes to Flynn and two go to Piffer of which one was by an un-affiliated individual called Miller in Mankind Quarterly that as wiki has it

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly
    [Mankind Quarterly] has been described as a “cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment” and a “white supremacist journal”,[1] “scientific racism’s keepers of the flame”,[2] a journal with a “racist orientation” and an “infamous racist journal”,[3] and a “journal of ‘scientific racism’”.

  96. utu says:
    @Merculinus

    Try to work on your analogies. They have to have a minimal semblance of isomorphic similarity to what you are trying to refute.

    Piffer’s correlation is spurious until proven otherwise. In fact if the heritability gap is not closed using a genetic predictor function the hypothesis that IQ test score is a trait with a significant genetic component will have to be abandoned and various criticisms against the twin studies deriving high heritability (50-70%) will have to be accepted like for example that MZ twins are treated in life differently than DZ twins and thus the Falconer’s formula is not applicable and thus it grossly overestimates heritability.

    So far there is no signs that the gap is being closed. Lee got only 3.9% (with 1,200 SNPs) and Hsu 9% (with 10,000 SNPs). Lee also claimed 11% for a polygenic score of 1 million SNPs. It does not look good for the IQists. Piffer’s pseudo-science is a sign of their desperation.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @annamaria
  97. Okechukwu says:
    @Colin Wright

    One could obtain identical results crossing a Doberman Pinscher and a Laborador Retriever. This does not demonstrate that there are no differences between Doberman Pinschers and Laborador Retrievers.

    Yeah, I’ll stay up nights worrying about this. LOL.

    Where do they find you clowns?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  98. Okechukwu says:
    @annamaria

    This one here is a true believer. Sort of a female Res and probably just as dumb.

    I won’t even waste my time trying to engage her. I’d have better luck trying to reason with an ISIS jihadi.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  99. utu says:
    @res

    The various replications demonstrated are a very good reason to believe there is something real here.

    Replications of Piffer (he actually replicated himself) are not confirmation of anything. There is a good reason to believe that the high heritability (50-70%) derived from twin studies is false because a genetic predictor function of IQ test scores so far has not been found. 3.9% of Lee (1,200 SNPs) and 9% of Hsu (10,000 SNPs) is not closing the gap. If IQ test score as a trait has only 9% of genetic signal in terms of variance then there is no point anybody should bother with the IQism. The IQism is dead at the moment. It can be resurrected only if IQ test scores can be predicted by genes on 50-70% level.

    Not ad hominem. It was descriptive. You are a retard. This is also descriptive.

    • Replies: @Potato
  100. Potato says:
    @utu

    Keep in mind that there might not be necessarily anything ‘wrong’ with twin studies, it’s just that people dont understand what *heritability* actually means. It does not mean genetic causation. It also does not have anything to do with how malleable a particular trait is. Lots of infectious diseases are fairly heritable, yet get a vaccine – boom, no infection.

    Myopia, nearsightedness is very heritable (about 75%..) So clearly, this should be impossible : https://imgur.com/a/EubVj6y. A very heritable trait going from 20% incidence, to 80% incidence. Go back even further in history, and there is practically no myopia at all. (Hunter gatherers, etc). There is only heritability in a specific context, specific time and place. So is myopia ‘genetic’ or ‘environmental’. Well, in reality it is neither. It doesn’t really make sense to separate ‘environmental’ and ‘genetic’ factors, because they are so interlinked. But again, such nuance is typically lost with HBD’ers.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @utu
  101. @Factorize

    According to Charles Murray in a TV interview, Muhammad Ali’s U.S. Army IQ test was only 78. Yet Ali became a multimillionaire many times over in his long life, even after leaving the boxing ring, and was arguably the most famous pugilist of the 20th century.

    For those who wish to denounce IQ tests as racists and or irrelevant in predicting financial success in real life, why not simply cite the case of Muhammad Ali?

    Furthermore, I don’t think Ali was an exception. I am willing to be condemned as a racist by claiming that all the famous black and brown multimillionaire athletes of today if you tested them, would also have a similar low IQ as Ali’s, or just above room temperature.

    So why don’t the anti-HBDers and IQ-Test deniers ever cite the case of Ali? It would be a knock-out blow, as they say.

    I suspect they don’t do it because Ali and all the incongruously low-IQ black and brown millionaire athletes of today don’t make any sense if you don’t understand the JQ, and the last thing they want to do is to lead you to the JQ.

    If it isn’t a known fact, it ought to be: all the professional sports leagues are owned and controlled by Jews. And if you can place a bet on the event in Las Vegas, you can be damn sure the outcome and score can be rigged, too.

    In a rigged Jewish world, IQ has absolutely ZERO influence in predicting financial success.

    Ali’s championship fight with Sonny Liston in 1964 was ostensibly rigged and the rematch in 1965 (Liston was knocked out in less than 2 minutes of the first round) is perhaps the most notorious and blatant dive in boxing history. 

    In reality, Ali became rich and famous because he was chosen by the Chosenites. His low-IQ was just high enough to convincingly read and execute the kosher scripts written for him.

    Muhammad Ali vs Sonny Liston I & II – Highlights (Ali Becomes World Champion & Phantom Punch Fight!)

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  102. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Absolutely — the participants were asked to recognize the difference between one stripe, two stripes, and three stripes. This is, in your opinion, “a reflection of past scholastic performance.” Surely a “bad practice” of the openly racist leaning.

    Do you also object the use of the same kind if testing for the neuropsychological evaluation of people with cognitive deficit?

  103. Okechukwu says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    According to Charles Murray in a TV interview, Muhammad Ali’s U.S. Army IQ test was only 78

    And yet Muhammad Ali was a super genius in terms of actual intelligence.

    You don’t advance IQism with this citation. It only proves that the IQ concept doesn’t capture real intelligence. Ali was smart. Very, very smart. The highest level smart.

    Ali was much more intelligent than Charles Murray could ever hope to be. Nobody ever called Murray a genius.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  104. AaronB says:
    @Potato

    But again, such nuance is typically lost with HBD’ers.

    Nuance and HBD do not mix.

    A very heritable trait going from 20% incidence, to 80% incidence

    Populations change their character in a generation or two frequently. Germans going from being the land of poets and thinkers to militarist, etc.

    Countless examples.

    But again, nuance and HBD do not mix.

  105. annamaria says:
    @annamaria

    You see done expertly)m became offended by a suggestion to conduct a competent research in IQ among sub-Saharan Africans (which will make a valuable contribution to this discussion).

    Or was it the statement that scientific facts having nothing to do with political correctness?

    Generally, on this forum, Israelis are the most abusive towards female commenters. Now there is a competition from Africa.

    Just a reminder: the human brains are different and they work differently. For example, https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32328

  106. annamaria says:
    @annamaria

    Correcting a typo: “the same kind of testing”

  107. Willem says:
    @James Thompson

    8 pages, that is impressive. Does any of the 8 pages contest that race is or is not similar to class?

    In this article: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/does-class-of-origin-matter/

    you conclude that ‘Attained social class is of course a consequence of skill and application’

    You conclude this based on 2 articles

    One article is from Sweden (one of the most -, if not the most socialist country in the world), where they still found differences between class and good occupation at age 40. They also found that higher education led to better jobs, but they did not stratify class by education. Which is a pity, because when they would have, they could have tested if people of the same education but different class would have equal opportunity to have a good job. I would not be surprised if they would have found such an outcome, as this is Sweden, where mobility is good. In countries like the US or England, even the Netherlands, things are different.

    The second study shows a correlation between IQ and health. The correlation is, as the authors show, confounded by class, but this is not what you conclude for unclear reasons.

    Now I could read 8 pages of posts about how you define class and whether it is or is not similar to race, but that is… a bit much. Perhaps we could do something different, less time consuming?

    In the post I refer to above you say that: ‘Formerly, I had always believed that class of origin had a big effect on people.’

    Question: what made you change your mind? Which study or what situation changed your world view? Can you explain?

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @notanon
  108. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    That was intended for Okechukwu, not for CanSpeccy

    You seem as become offended by a suggestion to conduct a competent research in IQ among sub-Saharan Africans (which could make a valuable contribution to this discussion).

    Or was it the statement that scientific facts have nothing to do with political correctness?

    Generally, on this forum, Israelis are the most abusive towards female commenters. Now there is a competition from Africa.

    Just a reminder: the human brains are different and they work differently. For example, https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32328

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  109. CanSpeccy says:
    @annamaria

    Surely a “bad practice” of the openly racist leaning.

    Whether that’s a question or a statement, I’m sorry but I don’t understand it.

    Do you also object the use of the same kind if testing for the neuropsychological evaluation of people with cognitive deficit?

    I did not say that I objected to it. My concern is only with the interpretation of the results. Specifically, I reject the inference that differences are primarily an expression of genetically determined differences in intelligence.

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @annamaria
  110. @Okechukwu

    ‘Yeah, I’ll stay up nights worrying about this. LOL.

    Where do they find you clowns?

    You really don’t have a brain, do you?

    Are you black?

  111. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Do you object the interpretations of WAIS?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  112. Okechukwu says:
    @annamaria

    You seem as become offended by a suggestion to conduct a competent research in IQ among sub-Saharan Africans (which could make a valuable contribution to this discussion).

    No one cares. Your IQ obsession doesn’t travel well, even within the United States. When have you ever turned on American television and heard anyone going on and on about IQ? It’s a non-issue.

    I’ve traveled to scientific conferences around the world. I’ve met Nobel Laureates in the biological sciences. I’m here to report to you all that real scientists have never even heard of IQism, HBD, race-realism, etc. Furthermore, the idea that some “races” are smarter or dumber would be anathema to real scientists. They don’t even believe that race exists biologically so why would they ever embrace your holy grail of racial hierarchies in intelligence?

    Generally, on this forum, Israelis are the most abusive towards female commenters. Now there is a competition from Africa.

    Funny how a white supremacist female is trying to play the gender card, even when it is entirely unwarranted. Don’t be a hypocrite, snowflake.

    Just a reminder: the human brains are different and they work differently. For example, https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32328

    Here we go. The Res-like stupidity rears its ugly head.

    Human fingers are different too, superficially, but they all work the same. That is to say, broadly speaking, and in the ways that count, human fingers are all the same. Capiche?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Wizard of Oz
  113. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Also, what if the fine-grained differences in cortical architecture are determined by genetic component? “Diffusion markers of dendritic density and arborization in gray matter predict differences in intelligence”
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04268-8
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04268-8/figures/4

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Okechukwu
  114. CanSpeccy says:
    @annamaria

    what if the fine-grained differences in cortical architecture are determined by genetic component?

    I haven’t the slightest idea.

    But what has that got to do with the claim that national differences in IQ test score reflect innate differences in intelligence? Nothing whatever, so far as I can see.

    • Replies: @j2
  115. Mark G. says:
    @Okechukwu

    Ali was a great boxer but I don’t know if “super genius” applies. He told people he would never get brain injury from boxing. His personal doctor saw signs of brain injury in Ali as early as 1971 and told him he needed to quit boxing. He spent the next six years trying to talk Ali into quitting. Finally, in 1977, he refused to continue to be Ali’s doctor because Ali wouldn’t follow his medical advice. Studies on Ali in the seventies showed his speech slowing markedly over time. In the eighties Ali started showing signs of Parkinson’s disease and the numerous blows Ali had received to the head may have contributed to the development of that. People can be super smart in one area while being super dumb in other areas.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Okechukwu
  116. Okechukwu says:
    @annamaria

    Also, what if the fine-grained differences in cortical architecture are determined by genetic component? “Diffusion markers blah blah blah

    There is still going to be that black kid that is smarter than all the white kids, which puts the lie to whatever it is you are trying to claim here.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  117. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    They don’t even believe that race exists biologically

    Don’t be absurd. Of course any biologist worthy of the title knows that there are distinct races of mankind as of most other species too.

    A race is an interbreeding population that, for whatever reason, has long been more or less genetically isolated from other populations of the same species and has in consequence become observably distinct from other races of that species (e.g., in morphology, physiology, anatomy…).

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  118. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Do you object the interpretations of WAIS?

    What interpretation?

    • Replies: @annamaria
  119. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Mark G.

    Ali was a very smart guy. It was a tragedy that he suffered brain injury. Now if the first black president of the US had been someone like that …

  120. Okechukwu says:
    @Mark G.

    Ali’s problems were pride and a very strong chin. Because he was so prideful and had such a strong chin, he took a lot of punishment. But Ali’s intelligence is undisputed.

  121. Okechukwu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    A race is an interbreeding population that, for whatever reason, has long been more or less genetically isolated from other populations of the same species and has in consequence become observably distinct from other races of that species (e.g., in morphology, physiology, anatomy…).

    If that’s your criteria you’d better get ready for thousands of races, and 80% of them will be in Africa.

    If you want to delineate race in the minutia, you can find different races within your extended family.

    How can race exist when the races in the US are different from the races in Brazil or South Africa or Europe? For example, it’s odd to an American that Indians and Pakistanis are “Asian” in England. In America, Asians don’t have round eyes.

    How can race exist in the context of the American one drop rule? The racial classification of mulatto doesn’t exist in the United States. It’s just Black. In Brazil there is sort of a reverse one drop rule. With sufficient white admixture in Brazil, you become white.

    An idea of race even changes with time. In America, not all who are white now were white 100 years ago.

    Race simply doesn’t exist biologically. It’s more or less arbitrary. The scientists are correct.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @mikemikev
  122. @Okechukwu

    Set aside race as a biological reality, or not. Do you not recognise that there are still, and were very obviously until after WW2, millions of people belonging to extended families who have interbred to the exclusion of any significant outbreeding for many hundreds and often many thousands of years?
    Of course you know that so you know that these extended families exhibit traits and ranges of the expression of traits that are a product of natural selection of gene variants that together determine (though we don’t forget epigenetics) the expression of a number of characteristics caused by numerous genes acting together. We are reminded of that when we note colour of skin, eyes or hair, wavy, crinkly or straight hair, ability to thrive at high altitudes, ability to digest lactose. Would you have any trouble distinguishing someone of three generations of Hutu breeding from Tutsi? And then we can’t help notice that not all extended families within those more extended families are identical in, especially, their useful abilities of mind and body. Wherever their are castes, as in India and Africa (I have just looked up the Wikipedia article on castes in Africa which astonished me by describing its prevalence in some 15 countries) and you can’t point to hundreds or thousands of years of malnutrition can you doubt that there has been no selection for intellect amongst those confined for dozens of generations to the most menial work. (Is it btw pure chance, unaffected by genetic selection, that Srinivasa Ramanujan was a Brahmin?).

    We know for sure that Eurasians and therefore Amerindians went on evolving from genetically very limited groups of out of Africa humans that had to survive much more cognitively testing conditions than anyone in tropical Africa – apart perhaps from diseases which were then totally unrelated in outcome to cognitive ability. What is more, though its relevance to IQ is as yet unknown, we know that only out of Africa humans had and have genes from Neanderthals and Denisovans.

    So, come in now with your interviews with scientists you have talked to who aren’t interested in H-bd. Are they saying anything relevant about all of that?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  123. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    Race simply doesn’t exist biologically.

    No, and as some famous personage remarked: “when I use a word it means just what I want it to mean, neither more nor less.”

    Perhaps more useful the IQ tests would be some test of basic rationality. But it is probably too late for that. We seem to have entered the post-scientific age, when, apparently, even Nobel prize winners in biology spout biological nonsense.

  124. Okechukwu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Set aside race as a biological reality, or not. Do you not recognise that there are still, and were very obviously until after WW2, millions of people belonging to extended families who have interbred to the exclusion of any significant outbreeding for many hundreds and often many thousands of years?

    But that doesn’t fit the three races paradigm, does it?

    Do you understand the glacial pace at which differentiation in complex traits occurs? Humans were apart maybe 40,000 years. That’s simply not enough time. Proto humans and Neanderthals were apart anywhere from a half million to a million years. That would appear to be the minimum time required for meaningful differentiation to occur. How meaningful? Nobody knows. Was Neanderthal really that much dumber than humans? We know both species could breed an produce viable offspring.

    We know for sure that Eurasians and therefore Amerindians went on evolving from genetically very limited groups of out of Africa humans that had to survive much more cognitively testing conditions than anyone in tropical Africa

    Since when is a relatively easy TEMPERATE environment like Eurasia more cognitively challenging than hot jungles or arid savannahs? In what fantasyland is that the case? Absent the severe cognitive challenge of the African environment, humans wouldn’t exist.

    So, come in now with your interviews with scientists you have talked to who aren’t interested in H-bd. Are they saying anything relevant about all of that?

    Do you think I’m going to mention HBD to real scientists and look like an idiot? HBD is an attempt to scientize racism. That’s why every HBD site on the Internet is overrun with racists. So why would I be so daft as to bring up a thoroughly unscientific idea which only exists as an (failed) attempt to mask racism? The scientists wouldn’t know what it was anyway.

  125. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Do you understand the glacial pace at which differentiation in complex traits occurs? Humans were apart maybe 40,000 years. That’s simply not enough time.

    What do you consider a complex trait? Anyone who is interested in counter evidence (Okechukwu is uninterested in any evidence, he is all about making unsupported assertions, and insults) might want to take a look at this page and the associated book.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

    Lactose tolerance is a good simple counterexample.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  126. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    But you did not want to have this black child as your child. You have been boasting about having a white wife. You are funny, Okechukwu.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  127. brutus101 says:
    @Willem

    > class may explain all the associations between race and IQ

    When you mention “Class” you have to be specific. Presumably you are not referring to “Class by Birth” as that is genetic. Thus that remain the “Socio-Economic Class”. Lets see what happen when buckets load of money are poured into those economically needy schools.

    The New York city “Renewal Program” involved pouring USD$773 Million into 50 “borderlined” schools for 5 years, i.e. on average USD$ 3.09 Million per school per year over on top of the usual school budgets. The reason for the “Renewal Program” is that very few Black and Hispanic students were selected into the “Elite8” special high schools by the objective “SHSAT” standard test and the cause is alleged to be the socio-economic status of the students and school. The money goes into providing special remedia teachers, education psychologists, school counsellors, career advisors, school equipments and facilities, special test prep classes, free nutritious lunch, longer school hours, mentors, etc, etc.

    As these are “borderlined” schools some might have been closed down during that period and had been replaced by some other schools. I can only obtain data on 24 schools from the NYTimes feeder school data. Although there could be many fringe objectives, the unsaid main target is how many of those students can get into the “Elite8”. The tester number weighted average percentage of Black and Hispanic students in the 24 schools is 95.96%. Not all students had judged themselves to be academically strong enough to sit for the SHSAT. For the 24 “Renewal” schools with data, the number of SHSAT testers per school for 2018 ranges from 0 to 45, totalled 270 testers, thus the estimated number of testers for the 50 “Renewal” schools is 563. The number of students from the 24 “Renewal” schools selected by the objective SHSAT for the Elite8 for 2018? Big fat zero.

    MinTested|AvgTested|MaxTested|Nschool|SumTested|EstSumTested|AvgPctHisBla
    7|16.88|45|24|270|563.0|95.96

    Some might claim that there are other fringe benefits. The independent RAND report showed that there were incrementally less than 2 percentage points drop in the school absentism rate, no change in SHSAT scores or graduation rate and increases in school drop out rate (!!) in those “Renewal Schools”.

    Now compare the SES of the Black and Hispanic students with the other populations. The New York city Open Data Portal has lots of publicly open dataset. NYC has set the poverty threshold below which the students can qualify for free lunch and that poverty level can serve as a good proxy for socio-economic status SES.

    From the data the estimated percentage poverty for the main population groups are White 55.12%, Black 79.89%, Hispanic 80.88% and AsianAmerican 70.10%. There is significant difference between the White and Asian students (55.12% vs 70.10%). There is slight difference between the Black and Asian student population (79.89% vs 70.10%). Many of the NYC AsianAmerican students are first generation immigrants different from the legacy AsianAmerican from the westcoast.

    EstPctPoverty PctDemog PctTested PctElite DemogRep TestedRep Population
    55.12 14.76 18.20 26.50 1.80 1.46 White
    79.89 26.06 19.90 4.10 0.16 0.21 Black
    80.88 40.62 24.10 6.30 0.16 0.26 Hispanic
    70.10 16.08 30.70 51.70 3.22 1.68 Asian

    The New York city public school Asian American students demographic percentage is 16% while that for White is 14.76% (richer Whites can afford the private schools). Yet with the much lower White EstPctPoverty of 55.12% compare to that for the AsianAmerican of 70.10%, the percentage of AsianAmerican students in the Elite8 special high school based on the objective SHSAT common assessment is 51.70% compare to that for White of 26.50%. The White Elite Demographic Representation (PctELite/PctDemog) is 1.80 while that for AsianAmerican is 3.22 . SES difference cannot explain that.

    On the other hand, Black students EstPctPoverty is 79.89%, PctDemog is 26.06% and PctElite is 4.10%, i.e. the DemogRep is 0.16. The Black students on average have less than 10 percentage point higher in EstPctPoverty/SES yet the DemogRep is at 0.16 compare to that for the AsianAmerican at 3.22. SES difference cannot explain that large difference in DemogRep.

    The New York city politicians who bought the spins on the effects of SES on academic performance and sunk USD$773 Million to level the playing fields for Black and Hispanic for zilch result are either totally gullible ignorant suckers or that was the harbinger of things to come for USA from the demographic reversal and the rise of the future dominant Black and Brown powers.

    Since the change on SES did not produce any results the NYC politicians wanted by fiat dictated that 20% of the Elite8 slots will be allocated by them. Imagine the teachers in the Elite8 have to concurrently dealing with students of IQ 145+ with those with IQ70- with absentism measured in absent days per week and unable to keep up with the lessons. The NYC Independent Budget Office had studied the proposal and determined that none of those students allocated to the Elite8 by fiat will have Math proficiency levels 3 and 4 that will have the potential to be college ready.

    https://e.infogram.com/_/1j1XXW7d7PfwRseFWBzh?src=embed#async_embed

    None of the 500 Lowest-Scoring Students in Math Would Be Proficient If Admissions Plan Was Fully Phased In for Incoming Students to Specialized High Schools in 2017-2018

  128. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Interpretations of the neuropsychological test known as Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS).

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  129. j2 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy, could I ask you to read this short argument of mine. I had a very long and useless discussion in the other thread with two people who never understood the argument, but you most probably will. I would ask utu, but I once asked him to read one of my arguments, he did not understand it and got angry, so I have to ask you. It explains in a very simple way what is the problem with Piffer’s method: the GWAS of IQ is simply a predictor of IQ, so the predictor reflects also the degree how much you have admixture from different subpopulations as these subpopulations differ in IQ. That is, the predictor is exactly what a predictor should be. But when you sum over the subpopulation variance of the measured property, you get exactly the predictor of belonging to a subpopulation.

    Here is the argument, it is very short and I wrote it to be very clear and easy:

    GWAS is done on two stages: discovery and prediction. Discovery selects the SNPs and prediction assigns the weights. Assume that discovery is correctly done and each selected SNP has an effect on the property that is to be predicted, in this case the IQ.

    Let there be a number of subpopulations and let the subpopulation averages for the measured property differ to some extent. Then we do prediction to get the PGS. This prediction sets the weights to the SNPs.

    Step 1) Set initially the variation of the measured property to zero in each subpopulation and do the prediction. The result is that your PGS is only a predictor of belonging to each subpopulation. Assuming that these subpopulations differ in the frequences of the used SNPs, you get a predictor that predicts to which subpopulation you should belong: it predicts the subpopulation where the subpopulation average IQ is your measured IQ.

    Step 2) Next, restore the variation of the measured subpopulations, make again the prediction stage, so you get a PGS that will not only predict to what subpopulation you belong but also predicts your IQ within subpopulations, not only between them, so your predictor seems to work quite well as a predictor of IQ.

    Now, do as Piffer and calculate subpopulation averages for the PGS. What should you get if you sum over the subpopulation variation in Step 2? You should get the same result as in Step 1. That is, summing over the subpopulation variation you reduce your PGS to be the PGS of Step 1.

    Therefore the mystery in Piffer’s results is not why countries fall so nicely into a line in a plot of country average IQ versus PGS. It is why they do not exactly fall to the line. The correlation Piffer found is a mathematical necessity, It says nothing more.

    Best regards and thanks in advance for carefully reading and understanding it, j2

  130. mikemikev says:
    @utu

    “It does not look good for the IQists”

    You mean we don’t yet have a mathematical proof of the bleeding obvious? What do you people have? Nothing.

  131. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    “Race simply doesn’t exist biologically.”

    Think of it as endpoints of a continuum.

    http://faculty.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html

    You see people can tend towards the White end, or the Negroid end, and we can operationalise that like we operationalise a spectrum. It’s really a no brainer. But pretend you’re not a Negroid because Negroids “don’t exist” if that makes you feel better. Your SJW wisdom that “wow race doesn’t even exist” is very popular after all. Most people are fucking stupid.

  132. @Willem

    Yes. If you will read what I have written about social class, you will see the basis on which I have changed my opinion. I have set out my reasoning. Whether you read what I have written is up to you.

    Currently, I think that a major feature of class of attainment is individual differences, that is, intellectual and personality differences largely driven by genetic differences. This is where polygenic risk scores come in as a putative cause. The accuracy of this view is an empirical matter, which will be evaluated as research results keep coming in. It proposes a falsifiable hypothesis: PGS is a better predictor than class of origin.

    Of course, there are social forces which can impede the flowering of those abilities. Restrictions based on sex, class, religion and political parties all have their noxious effects. However, removing those impediments does not lead to equal outcomes. It allows them to flourish, and to fairly allow people to differ in their attainments. Hence, open and liberal societies, which strive to remove barriers to advancement, often produce societies in which income and wealth and intellectual interests and achievements vary widely, even more so than in closed societies.

    The open society has its enemies. With more time, I will read Popper again.

  133. annamaria says:
    @utu

    ” It does not look good for the IQists. Piffer’s pseudo-science is a sign of their desperation.”

    — And what is your opinion of the IQ tests run with the victims of stroke and other patients suffering cognitive impairments due either to brain damage or congenital cognitive problems? According to your wide brush, these neuropsychological tests are pseudo-science.

    It seems that you expect an immediate silver bullet from cognitive sciences whereas any scientific research demands tremendous patience and formidable knowledge and dedication. Moreover, today scientific research also requires courage, considering the ongoing witch-hunt on the politically incorrect researchers in various fields of study. The situation reminds of the stalinist Soviet Union where the only “safe” fields were math and physics.
    https://theconversation.com/the-tragic-story-of-soviet-genetics-shows-the-folly-of-political-meddling-in-science-72580
    https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/1983-627-5-Berg.pdf

    The story of genetics in the Soviet Union serves as a classical instance of the struggle for intellectual freedom in the face of abuses of power. It is a tragic story full of wild purges, imprisonments and deaths.

  134. @j2

    By all means, please stop making a fool of yourself!
    You didn’t read the paper where the author controls for genome-wide genetic distances between the 26 populations when computing the correlation between IQ and PGS? If what you say was right, the correlation between PGS and IQ should disappear after taking into account genome-wide genetic distances (Fst). But it’s unaffected.

    • Replies: @j2
  135. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Interpretations of the neuropsychological test known as Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS).

    Yes, I know what WAIS stands for. But what is this interpretation of WAIS that you want me to comment on?

    Since the WAIS is an “intelligence scale,” it must give a result that is supposed to represent the testee’s intelligence. Whether it gives a result that is in some way different from so-called IQ tests, I don’t know. But if it does, then that calls in question the whole intelligence testing business doesn’t it. If it does not, then the WAIS is open to the same criticism, indeed ridicule, to which other IQ tests are subject.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  136. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @j2

    J2, it would be a mistake for me to comment on the statistical aspects of Piffer’s paper.

    I attended statistics classes for graduate students given by an eminent scientists who spoke rapidly, wrote the key points on the chalkboard in a tiny hand, and then wiped out what he had just written to make way for more of the same. After several weeks of frustrated incomprehension, I stopped attending. I could have read the book, I suppose, but frankly, statistics never had charm for me.

    Fortunately, there are usually more ways than one to skin a cat and I focused on experimental designs yielding results that required in their evaluation little more than an understanding of means, standard deviations and linear regression. In view of today’s general realization that statistics are widely misused or abused in biological research resulting more often than not in false conclusions, I feel my approach to have been vindicated.

    But I do suspect you have a point as it is consistent with my own argument as stated at #44.

    • Replies: @j2
  137. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You mean, the tests on the difference in intelligence between a neurologically intact person and a person with FTD should be open to ridicule?
    I do not want to sound abusive, but do you also believe that the intelligence of individuals with Down Syndrome is unrelated to genetics?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @annamaria
  138. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    I do not want to sound abusive

    You sound merely idiotic. If you could frame an intelligent question we might get somewhere. But you are all wiggle waggle and never can be categorical.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @annamaria
  139. j2 says:
    @Merculinus

    “If what you say was right, the correlation between PGS and IQ should disappear after taking into account genome-wide genetic distances (Fst). But it’s unaffected.”

    No, it would not.

  140. j2 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “J2, it would be a mistake for me to comment on the statistical aspects of Piffer’s paper. ”

    OK, thanks. I guess I am the only professional mathematician in this thread, so I cannot ask for somebody to check my logic.

    Merculinus has already written an incorrect reply that this problem should disappear if Fst distances between subpopulations are removed and that it does not disappear. He mixes this problem with another different problem.

    Whites from North Europe and South Europe do have slightly different genes. Therefore there were differences in SNP frequences for the SNPs that have been selected in the discovery phase. Therefore they get different PGS scores and the prediction stage sets the weights for the SNPs in such a way that the PGS predicts IQ. The subpopulations have different average IQs. Summing over the subpopulation in taking the country average can be moved from being the last operation to being the first operation as the range of this summation is not a function of any other parameters. Therefore, the result of Piffer’s calculation is exactly the same as if he had first taken the country averages and then done the prediction stage. It means, his summed country PGS scores are a predictor of IQ created from average IQs of different countries. Naturally the plot of country score of PGS vs country average IQ is a straight line: that is what the predictor was created to give.

    What Merculinus thinks is Fst distances, that is, are the populations sufficiently close in order that the discovery stage is valid: do they have the same SNPs. These populations are indeed sufficiently close and one can use the same SNPs. This is a problem of the discovery stage, not the one I mean.

    I had to explain to Merculinus six times the problem in including Ashkenazi Jews in the prediction stage of both Dunkin et al and Piffer and he still misunderstood it and started claiming that it is fine if Ashkenazi Jews were not in the discovery stage (the problem is exactly if they were in the prediction stage, as they were). This time also Merculinus mixes up things and does not at all understand the problem. It is very clear that his mathematical capabilities are not good enough for this task. He is simply wrong.

    • Replies: @Merculinus
    , @CanSpeccy
  141. @j2

    Too bad that there are no clear differences between Northern and Southern Europeans in the sample. Only between sub-populations. I see this ranking in PGS: Finns (Northern European); Toscani Italian (Southern European); Utah Whites (Northern European); British (Northern European); Iberian (Southern European).
    There is no clear north/south gradient, apart from the Finns who were a tiny minority of the sample anyway.

    And how have you proven that the prediction stage affected the results? Piffer used unweighted PGS, that is, the results were independent of the weights assigned to SNPs by the prediction stage.
    The weighted SNPs were simply almost identical in the pattern they produced.
    I am sorry but you’re a genetic ignoramus.

    • Replies: @j2
  142. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @j2

    But setting aside the arcane (to me) statistical argument, it would seem that the matter can be viewed thus:

    Each population has a characteristic SNP frequency profile. If, relative to the other populations, Population J has a high mean IQ test score and a high frequency of SNPs x, y, and z, then there will likely be, over all populations, a correlation between population mean IQ test score and population frequency of SNPs x, y and z. However, unless it is shown that the relationship between the frequency of SNP’s x, y, and z and IQ test score holds up within, as well as among, populations, the claim of a causal correlation between population frequency of SNPs x, y and z and population mean IQ test score is unwarranted. All that such a correlation shows is that the population with the high mean IQ test score has a high frequency of SNP’s x, y and z, which may have no effect on intelligence but could be related to the function of, say, the vermiform appendix.

    Probably that is not your argument, but it seems to be an argument that needs to be disposed of if Piffer is to be taken seriously (something which I think impossible for the reason I stated at #44.

    • Replies: @j2
  143. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    10,000 years ago the selective breeding of sheep dogs proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligence is genetic and hereditary.

  144. notanon says:
    @Willem

    what class are sheepdogs?

    would sending pitbulls to private school make them more intelligent?

  145. annamaria says:
    @annamaria

    Well, if you insist: Do you believe that the intelligence of individuals with Down Syndrome is unrelated to genetics?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  146. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    10,000 years ago the selective breeding of sheep dogs proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligence is genetic and hereditary.

    Obviously. But what is your point.

    • Replies: @notanon
  147. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Well, if you insist:
    — Do you believe that the intelligence of individuals with Down Syndrome is unrelated to genetics?

    And specifically on WAIS tests:
    — Are you ready to ridicule the tests that address the differences in intelligence between a neurologically intact person and a person with FTD/Alzheimer? — What would be your tools of choice to identify the differences?

  148. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Do you believe that the intelligence of individuals with Down Syndrome is unrelated to genetics?

    Well of course not. But what is your point? Your question seems to be a complete non sequitur.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  149. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    the only valid criticism of IQ research is constructive criticism aimed at improving the methodology.

  150. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    My point was, you need to be more careful with your statements.
    For example, you have stated:

    Piffer’s claims are based on two assumptions:

    First, that IQ test scores measure intelligence as that term is defined by dictionaries and is generally understood;

    Second, that differences in national IQ test scores are associated with differences in the frequency of certain gene variants.

    The first is false as anyone who gives the matter intelligent thought will understand.

    The second is absurd given that national IQ test scores are not fixed but can change by as much as 20 points in a generation, as in Ireland, according the Ron Unz’s data, or as happened in the United States over the course of the Twentieth Century.

    At the same time you have dressed up Mr. Okechukwu: “Of course any biologist worthy of the title knows that there are distinct races of mankind as of most other species too.”

    Then you posted this statement:

    IQ test scores predict scholastic aptitude. Well of course they do, since they are a reflection of past scholastic performance.

    And by this statement you effectively rejected the idea of general intelligence and its two components — fluid intelligence (Gf, the inborn component) and crystallized intelligence (Gc, that reflects interaction with environment).

    Long before IQ tests, people knew that some families produced smart kids whereas other families produce stupid kids. The IQ tests simply allow for the finer measurements of the differences. (The tests will surely continue evolving, as this characteristic for real science). If you believe what you wrote for Mr. Okechukwu, then it is hard to imagine that you do not understand that the genetic factor affects the differences in fluid intelligence on a global scale.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  151. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Look, since you seem to be having difficulty framing a sensible question, allow me to assist you in understanding what is at issue.

    Piffer makes three assertions, explicitly or implicitly.

    First, IQ test scores, i.e., a single number assigned to you or any other individual, is a final and conclusive measure of your, or that other person’s, intelligence.

    The implication of that is that if your IQ is, say, 100 and mine is 101 then I’m am in every respect at least slightly smarter than you.

    You may be happy with that conclusion, but it is obviously inconsistent with reality, where we find people who are brilliant at math and hardly articulate, and others who are gifted verbally but mathematically incompetent. And one could give many other examples illustrating the point that one number cannot represent the complex phenomenon of human intelligence. Moreover, there are many facets of what is understood to constitute intelligence that are not tested for in anyway by the main so-called IQ tests. Therefore, so-called IQ tests do not measure intelligence as the term is generally understood. That is not to claim that no intelligence is required to score well on a so-called IQ test, just that there is much more to intelligence that what is tested for by a so-called IQ test.

    Second, that observed differences in national mean IQ test scores are genetically determined.

    This is obviously inconsistent with the large and sometimes rapid changes in national mean IQ test scores, as for example, in the case of Ireland where national mean IQ test score rose from around 80 to 100 within a generation, according to Ron Unz’s data, a time scale far too short for there to have been significant changes in national gene variant frequencies. Similar large changes in mean IQ tyest score been observed in most developed countries over a longer period of time. This in no way validates the claim that differences in national mean IQ test scores are genetically determined, although there may be a genetic component to such differences.

    Third, that differences in national mean IQ tests scores are accounted for by national differences in the frequency of specific identified gene variants (SNPs).

    This is the tricky part of the argument, which I dealt at #143, where I demonstrated in a way that no one has refuted, the probable invalidity of Piffer’s claim.

    Now may I suggest that you just think about this a bit rather than coming right back with some trollish thing about dogs’s intelligence or some such irrelevance.

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @notanon
    , @notanon
  152. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    And where have you found in my posts “dogs’s intelligence or some such irrelevance?”

    On the other hand, I did find instances of insulting language in your posts, which makes one question your intelligence (no question that you have bad manners). Moreover, considering some of your pronouncements, you have a rather vague knowledge of IQ tests, that is, you are not qualified to make authoritative claims re the tests.

    It is your time to think about the measured and informed post #150 — “the only valid criticism of IQ research is constructive criticism aimed at improving the methodology.”

  153. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    some trollish thing about dogs’s intelligence or some such irrelevance

    selectively breeding sheepdogs for intelligence proves it’s hereditary.

    if it’s hereditary it’s genetic.

    if it’s genetic then it will be the result of specific genes and/or combinations of genes.

    obviously.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  154. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Second, that observed differences in national mean IQ test scores are genetically determined.

    This is obviously inconsistent with the large and sometimes rapid changes in national mean IQ test scores, as for example, in the case of Ireland where national mean IQ test score rose from around 80 to 100 within a generation, according to Ron Unz’s data, a time scale far too short for there to have been significant changes in national gene variant frequencies.

    not inconsistent – just means there must be other factors that are being missed e.g. in the Finnish case mentioned in the previous thread where Finland started putting extra iodine in the diet in between their tested IQ going up.

    the thing is IQ tests don’t need to prove intelligence is hereditary, sheepdogs proved it millenia ago, so using criticisms of IQ tests to deny that intelligence is hereditary is attacking a straw man.

    given that intelligence being hereditary was proved beyond a reasonable doubt thousands of years ago the only valid criticism of IQ tests is they are not accurate enough with suggestions of how they could be made more accurate.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  155. j2 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “Probably that is not your argument, but it seems to be an argument that needs to be disposed of if Piffer is to be taken seriously (something which I think impossible for the reason I stated at #44.”

    Than you CanSpeccy. What you formulate is one way of saying the same argument I made.

    Another way of saying it is that the correlation between the country PGS values and the country IQ values does not depend on the predictive power of the SNPs that are used in the PGS. Piffer’s correlation only reflects the fact that the SNPs predict the country and the prediction for the IQ is the average IQ of the predicted country. This explains the problem utu sees in Piffer’s results: how can Piffer get a so good correlation between countries when the PGS does not predict IQ of individuals except for a small degree. The reason is that the correlation between countries is a direct result of how the PGS was trained, it is not a research result, it is a mathematical consequence of the method.

    Notice that a good GWAS predictor does indeed use the country information: just from knowing that I am a Finn you can make a rough estimation of my IQ by taking the average IQ of the country. Naturally, such averages are very rough, but if you take many Finns and average them, as Piffer does, then it is exact: for an average Finn you would give the average Finnish IQ.

    The supporting evidence that Piffer’s correlation is simply a mathematical consequence of taking the country averages are:
    – Piffer’s correlation is better than what should come from the GWAS prediction value, as utu wrote
    – Piffer’s correlation is not accepted by most IQ researchers, thus a strong claim that genes determined country IQs is in contradiction with what is known, which I think is what CanSpeccy said. There are many examples why country IQs are not strongly determined by genes, like that country IQs change and European outliers who are rather far genetically have similar IQ as the main population,
    – The real genetic score of Ashkenazi Jews should be closer to Italians and Middle East populations as that is their origin. Some difference was caused by the selection to move to the USA and by the death toll in the holocaust, but those did not completely change their genes. Thus, the PGS score that they get in Dunkel et al and in Piffer is a mathematical result of their IQ/achievements.

    There are conspiracy people, like Merculinus and res, who think that main stream science is discarding Piffer’s results because of some conspiracy. They are discarded because Piffer’s correlation does not seem correct. I accept that Piffer and probably also Dunkel did not make false results on purpose. They just did not understand the mathematical reason that causes the correlation. Merculinus still does not understand it. But I cannot think the same of “et al” in Dunkel et al. Some of the “et al”must have been senior scientists, who should know. If I, as an outsider, can spot the problem by just scanning the papers briefly, the senior scientists must have noticed it. Therefore, they did it on purpose as a part of the agenda, which utu nicely expressed as “über alles”. That is the essence here, and that is real. The conspiracy theoreticians are Merculinus and res, who imagine that malicious scientists, like j2, just discard Piffer’s results without any reason. There is a reason to discard them.

    • Replies: @res
    , @mikemikev
  156. brutus101 says:
    @Willem

    > Thompson, somehow, is always missing the point that class may explain all the associations between race and IQ.

    Like in the TV series “Yes Minister”, how can you run a proper Junior High School JHS with all these students running around. The NYC open data portal has 2427 JHS-Year data on the selection results for the Elite8 special high school from the objective common assessment SHSAT. The regression of the PctOffer for the various JHS comes out with statistically significant negative coefficients for all the ethnicities.

    PctOffer = +163.4 -0.38*PctPoverty -1.22*PctWhite -1.26*PctBlack -1.34*PctHispanic -0.92*PctAsian

    The effect size (coeff) for PctPoverty is very much smaller than that for ethnicities. One percentage point increases in PctPoverty will decrease PctOffer by 0.38% where as 1 percentage point increases in PctBlack will decrease PctOffer by 1.26%. Only those gullible ignorant suckers will assert that socio-economic status is the dominant factor and may explain all the academic performance, and sunk USD$773 Million into that fallacy with no real positive results.

    If in the virtual utopian world with no students the offer rate will be 163%. Fantastic. However if the JHS is 0% PctPoverty and 100% White, Black, Hispanic and Asian respectively, the PctOffer respectively will be 41.19%, 37.06%, 29.10% and 71.56%. If 1 percentage point Asian students is replaced by 1 percentage point Black the offer rate will drop by 0.35%. Thus the NYC mayor has to dictate the R strategy to mandate 20% of the Elite8 slots be allocated at his pleasure.

    ======
    lm(formula = PctOffer ~ PctPoverty + PctWhite + PctBlack + PctHispanic + PctAsian)

    Coefficients:
    Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
    (Intercept) 163.3797 13.0833 12.488 < 2e-16 ***
    PctPoverty -0.3833 0.0212 -18.075 < 2e-16 ***
    PctWhite -1.2219 0.1379 -8.859 < 2e-16 ***
    PctBlack -1.2632 0.1446 -8.735 < 2e-16 ***
    PctHispanic -1.3428 0.1409 -9.527 < 2e-16 ***
    PctAsian -0.9182 0.1422 -6.456 1.3e-10 ***

    Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

    Residual standard error: 13.09 on 2421 degrees of freedom
    Multiple R-squared: 0.4605, Adjusted R-squared: 0.4594
    F-statistic: 413.3 on 5 and 2421 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16

    • Replies: @res
  157. j2 says:
    @Merculinus

    “Too bad that there are no clear differences between Northern and Southern Europeans in the sample. Only between sub-populations. I see this ranking in PGS: Finns (Northern European); Toscani Italian (Southern European); Utah Whites (Northern European); British (Northern European); Iberian (Southern European).”

    What ethnic correlation each PGS shows depends on what sample it was and what were the educational achievement criteria used. Lee et al (2018) PGS had the prediction stage using two American samples. In the USA people of European ancestry live in the same society, go to the same schools, we do not see any North-South IQ gradient. In Europe you may see a gradient even in a country, such as between North and South Italy. These gradients mainly have environmental origin, and in Italy the gradient has decreased in recent years. As Piffer used IQ measures from other studies and PGS scores predicted using certain Lee et al educational achievement criteria, you do not get a complete match. You get a match between announced country average IQ and the educational achievement scores. Piffer includes populations that were (probably) not used in prediction. That they also fall more or less in a line does not directly follow from the prediction stage. However, the research methodology has an error. Populations with different average IQs must be measured separately and later the PGS formulas must be combined in case one wants to compare country averages. It can be done, but Piffer used a PGS which cannot be used for such a purpose. The PGS that Piffer used can very well be used for other purposes.

    So, there is a serious methodological error in Piffer and Dunkin et al. Methodological errors are fatal as they invalidate the claims of the papers. That does not mean that the claims are necessarily false, only that they are not shown true.

    I suggest another part to Thomson’s series: Piffer rideas again, Piffer kicks against bricks. The name should be Piffer fails, science prevails.

    To annemaria: I do not think CanSpeccy, utu, me, or most commenters here question the demonstrated fact that intelligence is largely genetic. It is also likely that there are differences between subpopulations in any traits. There are even physical differences between human populations, e.g. Khoi-san women have slightly different external sexual organs, as many early explorers (men, naturally) reported. But the differences in IQ are so far a research topic. What CanSpeccy, utu, me and other question is the results of Piffer. His correlation is too strong to match with what else we know. You should not go supporting that result too strongly. It very well may be false, even though your observations that intelligence is largely genetic and there are differences in different populations are true.

    I would end this my contribution to this thread by a motto: in science, it is better to have intelligence than to have studied intelligence.

    • Replies: @res
    , @annamaria
  158. @Okechukwu

    Your grasp of logical argument seems so tenuous I wonder whether there is anything to be said for asking what your point about the three races paradigm is. It would be a pity to leave you in a worse state of confusion than you already are.

    The rest of your comment seems entirely premised on your profound ignorance of the rate at which mutations can occur, mutant alleles can become prevalent, even fixed, in mammals (and other genera) and of actual experiments which demonstrate it like the Soviet experiment with foxes which produced a domesticated version in about 50 years.

    True there appears to be enormous genetic variety in Africa, much of it not in junk DNA, but you should concentrate on getting right the likely selective pressures of people who had to learn to cooperate and to hunt and perhaps cultivate plants, and make warm clothes, to survive in Ice Age Eurasia.

  159. @CanSpeccy

    I suggest that your rejection of Piffer’s alleged equation of IQ and intelligence goes too far (and gives to much comfort to our African commenter’s desperate obfuscations). The neurological attributes which characteristically contribute to high IQ scores are evidently not enough as you will know I believe when I say that the first unkind thing I eventually found myself saying about two much younger siblings was that they were the living proof that very high IQ was compatible with complete foolishness. But…. does it not seem likely that high IQ scores do point to high grade neurological attributes such as large working memory and high speed processing (including measurable reaction times). If so it would appear to be well worth measuring IQs for some purposes and it would be almost impossible to argue against the conclusion that Group A’s 25,000 randomly selected people with normally distributed average IQ of 110 would be more valuable to us as taxpaying fellow citizens, scientists and other professionals than Group B’s 25,000 with average IQ of 90.
    From which it follows I think that Australia’s, and maybe Canada’s immigration policies are good for their countries futures in so far as they ensure an average immigrant IQ above 100.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  160. @Okechukwu

    It may be foolish to ask someone who can posit “all human brains are the same” which is about as fatuously stupid as saying “all dogs brains are the same” but I would be intrigued if you could substantiate your statement
    “The brain, being the most complex organ, is actually the most resistant to differentiation”. Meaning? Reasoning? Evidence?.

    BTW how do you explain the physical differences between say Kalenjin highlanders who win marathons and West Africans who win sprints?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  161. @Okechukwu

    Your grasp of logical argument seems so tenuous I wonder whether there is anything to be said for asking what your point about the three races paradigm is. It would be a pity to leave you in a worse state of confusion than you already are.

    The rest of your comment seems entirely premised on your profound ignorance of the rate at which mutations can occur, mutant alleles can become prevalent, even fixed, in mammals (and other genera) and of actual experiments which demonstrate it like the Soviet experiment with foxes which produced a domesticated version in about 50 years.

    True there appears to be enormous genetic variety in Africa, much of it not in junk DNA, but you should concentrate on getting right the likely selective pressures of people who had to learn to cooperate and to hunt and perhaps cultivate plants, and make warm clothes, to survive in Ice Age Eurasia.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  162. res says:
    @j2

    There are conspiracy people, like Merculinus and res

    The conspiracy theoreticians are Merculinus and res

    That is rich coming from someone who writes things like:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/03/27/i-was-asked-so-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-the-conspiracy/
    from this comment:
    http://www.unz.com/ldinh/america-as-religion/#comment-3182743

    Project much?

    P.S. For anyone here who is unaware of what “gaslighting” means, this is worth a quick read:
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting
    Any resemblance to comments and commenters here is completely coincidental, of course.

  163. res says:
    @brutus101

    Thanks for that. Can you give a more direct link or citation to your data source? I looked for it and found
    https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Education/2017-2018-SHSAT-Admissions-Test-Offers-By-Sending-/vsgi-eeb5
    which looks similar, but has no racial composition data (did you get that from elsewhere?).

    In addition, that data uses “0-5” for cases where there were 5 or fewer offers (I assume for privacy). Did your data have the same issue? If so, how did you deal with it?

    Also see this page for some data by Elite8 school:
    https://admissionsquad.org/blog/2018/8/1/shsat-results-by-race-2018-vs-2017

    P.S. It would be interesting to add average SHSAT test score for the JHS to your regression. Could you try that?

    • Replies: @brutus101
  164. res says:
    @j2

    What ethnic correlation each PGS shows depends on what sample it was and what were the educational achievement criteria used. Lee et al (2018) PGS had the prediction stage using two American samples.

    This is why Piffer’s results have replicated with such a wide variety of study results. They all must have the same flaw. Got it.

    • Replies: @j2
  165. mikemikev says:
    @j2

    Another way of saying it is that the correlation between the country PGS values and the country IQ values does not depend on the predictive power of the SNPs that are used in the PGS. Piffer’s correlation only reflects the fact that the SNPs predict the country and the prediction for the IQ is the average IQ of the predicted country.

    Do the SNPs predict the country? How did you work that out?

    • Replies: @res
  166. mikemikev says:
    @j2

    Step 1) Set initially the variation of the measured property to zero in each subpopulation and do the prediction.

    Do they do that?

  167. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Beliefs about IQ are like beliefs about global warming inasmuch as a balanced position will assure you of derision and abuse from both sides of the house.

    My view is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence as that term is generally understood and as it is defined by a good dictionary. That, however, is not to deny that intelligence of a kind is required to score well on an IQ test, but merely to assert that there is much more to intelligence that what is measured by an IQ test.

    The IQ-ist, by whom I mean psychologists on the make, have in my view, been misleading to the point of serious professional misconduct in representing what it is that their so-called intelligence tests measure. Indeed, I maintain that the use of the terms IQ and IQ-test should be prohibited under the Mislabeling of Professional Services Act or some such statute.

    That is not to say that assessing a person’s suitability for employment, immigration or whatever by means of tests of competence is not a legitimate practice. It is only to say that one should assess competence with relevant tests and be honest as to the scope and reliability of such tests. In dealing with this issue, the academic community has, in my view, a sound approach. They give students grades by subject and leave it to the world to decide whether a student’s grade in history or mathematics is due to innate ability or mere hard work, since it absolutely doesn’t matter to any but those intent on a Fascistic program of human categorization by genetic worth.

    • Replies: @res
  168. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    so using criticisms of IQ tests to deny that intelligence is hereditary is attacking a straw man

    Yes, and using the claim that I deny that intelligence has a hereditary component is also a straw man and a lie.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @notanon
  169. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    Does anyone have a guess as to the combined IQ of annamaria and notanon?

    • Replies: @notanon
  170. res says:
    @mikemikev

    I think he is referring to an issue known colloquially as the “chopsticks gene.” See this Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/4000662

    BTW, anyone paying attention probably noticed that the article was written in 2000. This is a well known and important to deal with issue. But also note that genetic distance is important (e.g. Fst), not just “two different groups.”

    Anyone who is truly interested in this issue as it relates to these papers (and not just using it as a FUD stick to beat others with) should search for “population stratification” on the internet and also look at the Supplementary Material for Lee et al. 2018

    Here is an example of measures they took before including studies in their meta-analysis.

    1.7. Additional Diagnostics
    After applying the filters described in the previous section, we conducted several additional diagnostic checks before clearing a cohort-level results file for inclusion in the meta-analysis.
    The first four of these diagnostics are graphical and summarized below.
    Allele Frequency Plots (AF Plots): We looked for errors in allele frequencies and strand orientations by visually inspecting a plot of the sample allele frequency of filtered SNPs against the frequency in the 1000 Genomes phase 1 version 3 European panel3.
    P value vs Z-statistic Plots (PZ Plots): We verified that the reported P values are consistent with the P values implied by the coefficient estimates and standard errors in the results file.
    Quantile-Quantile Plots (QQ Plots): We visually inspected the cohort-level QQ plots to look for evidence of unaccounted-for stratification.
    Predicted vs Reported Standard-Error Plots (PRS Plots): We investigated if the standard errors reported in the files are approximately consistent with the reported sample size, allele frequency, and phenotype distribution. For a random subset of 500,000 SNPs, we also plotted the predicted standard errors against the actual standard errors reported by the cohort.
    We generated the above four plots for each new results file and inspected them for anomalies. Potential issues were discussed with cohort-level analysts and sometimes resulted in re-uploading of results. We also used bivariate LD score regression to verify that the estimated genetic correlations between all large cohorts (defined as N > 10,000) were large and positive.
    All of our final analyses are based on results files that pass all the diagnostic tests described above.

    I would say this one is most relevant for the population stratification issue:

    Quantile-Quantile Plots (QQ Plots): We visually inspected the cohort-level QQ plots to look for evidence of unaccounted-for stratification.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  171. mikemikev says:
    @res

    But then those genes wouldn’t predict within groups.

    • Replies: @res
  172. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Beliefs about IQ are like beliefs about global warming inasmuch as a balanced position will assure you of derision and abuse from both sides of the house.

    We agree on that. We just disagree on which particular people hold balanced positions ; )

    Your last paragraph is fairly sensible. The big issue I have is when screening for unrealized ability is desirable.

    Some examples.

    A friend of mine was detected as being exceptionally smart by the Swedish compulsory military service tests (kind of like those “useless” Finnish tests j2 goes on about, I imagine). That resulted in him getting a highly technical job in the military followed by a successful high tech career in the US.

    When “hard work” just does not cut it. If you want to screen for exceptional math ability at a young age, I suspect IQ tests would work better than grades in arithmetic. (Is there any research on questions like this?)

    Screening at early ages. Similar to the previous example, only more generalized. I was detected in kindergarten when my school “achievements” were if anything negative due to an inability to sit still. Tests at that age aren’t completely reliable, but they can be very useful for identifying people who might benefit from more accelerated or enriched material. Thus giving them a chance to demonstrate their potential.

    Screening for unrealized ability in later school. There is a trope about the very smart and unchallenged student who does poorly. It is real. Sometimes this is due to incurably poor work habits, but sometimes all that is required is to challenge them properly. In the US there are a fair number of stories of people like that who were helped by the SAT to get into college (which they might not have otherwise). Thus giving them the chance to gain the accomplishments in college and work which are the better and more important measures (as CanSpeccy emphasizes).

    P.S. Everyone, please remember that your experiences are not the only relevant cases. This seems to be a particular problem with academics who see the inadequacy of tests for detecting the best of the people they hire and work with. An already highly selected (by among other things, tests over the years) group.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  173. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    But it now occurs to me why Annamaria and Notanon are confused, and hence talk nonsense, about intelligence and genetics.

    They confuse genetic potential for genetic determination.

    Genes establish the potential for intelligence and every other feature of the organism, but environment determines the degree to which those potentialities are made manifest.

    If Wolfgang Theophilus Mozart’s father had been the manager of a glue factory rather than a crackpot musician who sacrificed his own professional career to the task of turning his son as a musical prodigy, we never would have known that musical genius could rise to a height such as this.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @res
    , @notanon
  174. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @mikemikev

    How facile to say “how facile.”

  175. res says:
    @mikemikev

    But then those genes wouldn’t predict within groups.

    Assuming you mean between groups? (within = look at members of a group, between = compare the groups)

    Only if you assume at least one of the following:
    1. The underlying genetic architecture of intelligence is different between groups.
    2. The SNPs being detected are not related to the actual causal genetics the same in the different groups.

    One or both of these is likely true for some of the SNPs but unlikely for all (or even most) IMHO.

    Again, what is amazing about Piffer’s work is how strong (and consistently) the result appears.

    I would expect the genetic architecture of intelligence to be largely the same between groups (much less variation in the last 40-100k years than the millions of years before that) even if there may be some new variants (i.e. 1. above should not matter much). To be clear, the architecture is roughly the same, but much of the present day variation will occur between groups which evolved in different environments more recently. As an analogy consider building brick walls where some groups developed better bricks.

    I would have expected 2. to be more important (because of differing Linkage Disequilibrium between groups). But for some reason this does not appear to be the case.

    P.S. It’s different, but also worth noting the issue of causal genetic variation present in some groups, but not in the study population. This is why European height PGS overpredict Pygmy height (also see Piffer’s Peruvian example).

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @CanSpeccy
  176. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy, you are better than your comments 170 and 174. I seem to remember you being annoyed when someone cast aspersions on your IQ like your comment 170. And comment 174 is ironic in coming so close to your comment 169 where you accuse someone else (in fact, one of the same people) of strawmanning you.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  177. mikemikev says:
    @res

    Assuming you mean between groups?

    No, within groups. If the SNPs were just identifying race as a proxy for IQ, they wouldn’t predict variation within races, but they do.

    • Replies: @res
  178. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Yes, and using the claim that I deny that intelligence has a hereditary component is also a straw man and a lie.

    i’m saying your acceptance that intelligence is at least partly hereditary makes the rest of your position inconsistent.

    you accept the premise but also say

    First, that IQ test scores measure intelligence as that term is defined by dictionaries and is generally understood;

    Second, that differences in national IQ test scores are associated with differences in the frequency of certain gene variants.

    The first is false as anyone who gives the matter intelligent thought will understand.

    The second is absurd given that national IQ test scores are not fixed but can change by as much as 20 points in a generation, as in Ireland, according the Ron Unz’s data, or as happened in the United States over the course of the Twentieth Century.

    1) we’ve known intelligence is hereditary for millenia

    2) we’ve known genes are the mechanism for hereditary traits since whenever it was

    ergo the presence or absence of genes or combinations of genes is the *default* assumption as to the mechanism.

    the onus is on the people who want to disprove it.

    given that default assumption quibbles over the accuracy of IQ tests are simply quibbles over the accuracy and apparent anomalies in IQ testing have no relevance to the core premise.

    can change by as much as 20 points in a generation, as in Ireland

    i think you’re probably just mad about Lynn’s original score for Ireland (which i agree was probably related to unrepresentative sampling) but the IQ data is patchy because some people want to deny the obvious truth and the IQ data being patchy is not an argument against the obvious truth that dog breeding already proved intelligence is hereditary and can be selected for.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  179. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    1. The underlying genetic architecture of intelligence is different between groups.

    What if there is no well defined “genetic architecture of intelligence”? How could that be? Well, we know that neurological resources are readily reassigned from one function to another. For example, if a sighted person wears a blindfold for a few days, the resources of the visual cortex are increasingly reassigned to the analysis of sound and other sensory inputs.

    Thus, the neurological resources of the kid with a parent intent on creating a musical prodigy will be allocated in greater abundance to processing musical data than had his parent been a circus acrobat intent on raising another member of the troupe.

    The implication is that, in comparing national IQ means, one is using a single scale to measure qualitatively different features of the mind, giving rise to essentially meaningless results.

    • Replies: @res
    , @AaronB
  180. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    i take ad hominems as evidence of a direct hit so i’ll repeat what caused it

    selectively breeding sheepdogs for intelligence proves it’s hereditary.

    if it’s hereditary it’s genetic.

    if it’s genetic then it will be the result of specific genes and/or combinations of genes.

    obviously.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  181. res says:
    @mikemikev

    Thanks. I went back and reread your comment 166 (and the included quote) and think I see what you meant now.

    Perhaps it would be good to point out that country is a discrete variable (with quite a few values) and IQ is continuous? There is no reason the SNP prediction for countries would just happen to vary in the same way as their IQs. And if it did, by chance or tautology, then why would that variable predict within group IQs.

    In other words, why do the country IQs (for a number of countries) vary so closely with Piffer’s SNP scores? What common feature of the countries allows predicting their IQs so well with only the single degree of freedom of the PGS?

  182. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Genes establish the potential for intelligence and every other feature of the organism, but environment determines the degree to which those potentialities are made manifest.

    right hence why apparent anomalies in national average IQ tests taken at different times or in different regions don’t refute the core premise at all as we already know at least one major biological environmental factor, iodine, that is a major factor in this.

  183. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Screening for unrealized ability in later school. There is a trope about the very smart and unchallenged student who does poorly. It is real… etc.

    This seems such a 19th century point of view. The idea that a kid could have a hidden talent, that the school system entirely overlooks unless it is revealed by some special testing to be applied just once or twice in the course of a twelve to twenty-year school career.

    This approach derives from the idea that kids should go through grade school in lockstep, an idea that no doubt made sense in a world where investment in education was minimal and the world of work rarely required more than a basic knowledge of the three R’s. But today, why are we still stuck with this ridiculous approach?

    Mikemikev is contemptuous of the notion that the education of Mozart can tell us anything about the basis of human intellectual achievement. But the effectiveness of one-on-one tutoring adapted to the learning pace and potentialities of the individual is universally recognized by the elite, and the schools that cater to the elite. Thus almost two-thirds of Britain’s prime ministers were educated at just three elite schools, Eton, Harrow and Westminster. Others were educated at home by tutors. At all of those elite British schools, education is basically one-on-one, which means students advance as rapidly as they are capable and difficulties are immediately recognized and remedial action taken.

    The implication of this is that using advanced technology, education in the 21st century can and should be delivered with the effectiveness of one-on-one tutoring according to the potentialities of the child and the objective that the training is supposed to achieve. And I would say that the nation or nations that develop such educational systems first will emerge as the dominant world powers within a generation.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @mikemikev
    , @res
  184. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    What do you consider a complex trait?

    Typo. I meant complex organs, of which the brain is the most complex. Complex organs are all the same throughout humanity.

    (Okechukwu is uninterested in any evidence, he is all about making unsupported assertions, and insults)

    This is projection on your part. Me, I’m all about facts, evidence, science and empiricism. I’m not a supremacist or an HBDer or an IQist or someone with a racial ax you grind. You are all these things. Therefore, facts or evidence won’t ever move you since you are driven by ideology. That’s why people like you fall apart and get fucked up the ass in debates whenever you stray from your echo-chambers. I mean, y0ur stupidity is actually getting tepid support on this thread. This is because Unz is an echo-chamber. Outside of it, in the real world, you would get absolutely pilloried.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
  185. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    What if there is no well defined “genetic architecture of intelligence”? How could that be? Well, we know that neurological resources are readily reassigned from one function to another. For example, if a sighted person wears a blindfold for a few days, the resources of the visual cortex are increasingly reassigned to the analysis of sound and other sensory inputs.

    Think of the “genetic architecture of intelligence” as the blueprint and the developmental environment as the construction materials (nutrition) and methods (e.g. sensory input).

    Given similar environments then similar blueprints should result in similar outcomes. And systematic differences (e.g. add a room here, use a different material there) should result in systematic differences in outcomes.

    Your idea that IQ is meaningless simply does not hold up under even cursory analysis. Nor does the corresponding idea (both of these are strawmen IMHO) that the single number that is IQ describes the totality of someone’s intellect .

    Do you honestly believe “IQ is meaningless” is a balanced position? (hopefully it is obvious that the quotes are intended to demarcate an idea summarizing your final paragraph and not an actual quote, but this thread has devolved enough that I expect no benefit of the doubt and feel a need to be explicit)

    P.S. Some imprecision in the analogy above. Perhaps better to render it as the “genetic architecture of intelligence” is the conventions of blueprints (and how the construction industry turns them into buildings) and the individual genotype is a particular instance of a blueprint.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  186. Okechukwu says:
    @annamaria

    But you did not want to have this black child as your child. You have been boasting about having a white wife. You are funny, Okechukwu.

    Too stupid to respond to.

  187. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    CanSpeccy, you are better than your comments 170 and 174.

    Res, don’t talk rubbish. My point at #174 is that neither you, nor Annamaria, nor most IQ-ist seem to grasp, namely, that intelligence is not genetically determined though it has a genetic basis.

    So let me repeat what I said at #174 for your further consideration:

    [IQ-ists] confuse genetic potential for genetic determination.

    Genes establish the potential for intelligence and every other feature of the organism, but environment determines the degree to which those potentialities are made manifest.

    If Wolfgang Theophilus Mozart’s father had been the manager of a glue factory rather than a crackpot musician who sacrificed his own professional career to the task of turning his son as a musical prodigy, we never would have known that musical genius could rise to a height such as this.

    If you think that is incorrect, and specifically, if you think intelligence is genetically determined with little scope for very large environmental modification, then let’s hear your argument, not your nannyish scolding.

    • Replies: @res
  188. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    so i’ll repeat what caused it

    And as with the first time around, you fail to make the point that intelligence is genetically determined.

    Yes, intelligence is genetically potentiated. But even a sheep dog needs training. Furthermore, a trained dog outperforms an untrained dog, whatever the genetic endowment of the untrained dog.

    But if you want to say an illiterate, innumerate fool raised in isolation in a cage, like Tsar Ivan V of Russia, may be more intelligent than a professor of mathematics because the illiterate, innumerate fool has some rare genes that would support high intellectual ability had they been allowed to express themselves in a more favorable environment, then say so explicitly, and thereby reveal that your understanding of intelligence inconsistent with the common acceptation of the term.

    Moreover, you have to acknowledge that you have no means of assessing this superior “intelligence” which consists in nothing but a genetic potentiality about which you know virtually nothing.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @notanon
  189. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Intelligent comment.

    Organisms are adaptive. They allocate resources.

    Evolution could have selected for an organism that allocates neurological resources to develop skills appropriate to the environment rather than organisms with a “set” skill.

    This is much more consistent with the historical record of constant flux and change, where warlike nations become pacifist, etc.

    I think we are beginning to develop a new paradigm – a vision of man as a flexible being that is more in line with history and observed realities than the human being as “set” for eternity paradigm that res and Thompson champion.

    The two poles of debate today – blank slatism and HBD, portray man as infinitely flexible or completely determined.

    Neither position is tenable obviously.

    The new emerging paradigm must chart a middle course – a group may exhibit particular traits without these traits being it’s immutable “essence”.

    Acknowledging such a nuanced reality will make mainstream discourse much more amenable to accepting the reality of particular groups being dysfunctional rather than blaming white racism, while giving those groups an optimistic vision to work towards.

    And – the new paradigm won’t have all these pesky discrepancies and stubborn facts that don’t add up to deal with, since it isn’t a one sided view, but takes into account all aspects of the phenomenon.

    But the champions of the old paradigm – mostly old men anyhow – must die off before the new more intelligent paradigm can fully replace it.

    • Agree: CanSpeccy
  190. mikemikev says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Mikemikev is contemptuous of the notion that the education of Mozart can tell us anything about the basis of human intellectual achievement.

    No I’m not. Nobody is claiming IQ is the only thing responsible for achievement. If you think that you’re woefully unfamiliar with what your opponents are actually saying. You’re bashing a tired and facile determinist strawman. It isn’t worth bothering with.

  191. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You are on a roll.

    This ties into my point that “motivation” has a dramatic and unquantifiable impact on crystallized performance.

    Aside from being raised in a cage with no opportunity, levels of motivation may differ between individuals and groups based on a complex interplay of social, historical, and psychological factors.

    And in fact, we see groups and individuals differ dramatically on levels of apathy. Countries lose focus, then regain it, etc.

    So we may single out at least two factors that dramatically affect crystallized performance – opportunity, not to be understood in a simplistic fashion but as encompassing a whole range of factors spread out over a lifetime, including the opportunity to develop ones innate ability (not just opportunity at that moment).

    And “motivation” – also, not to be understood simplistically but as dependent on a range of factors stretching out over time.

    I must continually caution against simplistic interpretations because IQists are so prone to one dimensional thinking.

    For these and more reasons, assessing innate talent is simply too complex. Too many unquantifiable factors involved. One can only asses crystallized performance.

    And that opens up a whole other can of worms – IQ tests do not correlate well to many kinds of crystallized performance, do are inadequate on those grounds.

    Layers upon layers.

    In the end, only very modest and limited claims can be made about IQ – mostly in line with the intentions of its inventor, that it’s only really useful for detecting severe deficiencies within – and not between – populations (Africans with retarded score are perfectly normal)

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  192. j2 says:
    @res

    “This is why Piffer’s results have replicated with such a wide variety of study results. They all must have the same flaw. Got it.”

    Of course Piffer’s results replicate. It you calculate what he did, you get the same result as he did. The problem is that the PGS cannot be used to calculation of country PGS scores for countries that were in the prediction sample. If you, like Piffer, make this error and calculate these country scores, you get the results what Piffer did. Get it?

    The reason why these results replicate is that when you sum PGS that is calculated from a sample with several genetically different subpopulations with different average IQs, you always get a predictor of an average person’s IQ based on his SNP markers. These markers, in the summed PGS, predict the subpopulation where the average person belongs to and output the average educational achievement of the subpopulation. Get it?

    Except for some people, who have checked Piffer’s results, very few researchers have calculated country averages for PGS for each country. Most researchers know that the comparison of PGS values between populations may not be scientifically correct, so they do not do it. See this text by one author of the Dunkel et al paper:
    http://rpubs.com/Jonatan/jewish_pgs
    “Note that the comparison of PGS values between populations may not be an approach that works scientifically, as indicated by research such as this paper. Hopefully this question will be explored further in the coming years.”

    In fact, only Piffer and Dunkel et al seem to have done the error. People, who have checked that Piffer have calculated the PGS correctly, have actually not done this error. They have simply checked that the PGS indeed does give those scores, as it does. They have not investigated if the usage of that particular PGS is scientifically correct for calculating scores for every population.

    Notice that you can used the PGS of Lee et al (2018) for calculating e.g. difference between European origin people in the sample and some non-European population, but then you have to remember the Fst distance: the SNPs may not be the same.

    I will still add to this comment, which will absolutely be my last on this thread, a brief answer to Merculinus. The stated that Piffer did not use weights. The prediction stage sets weights, but weights need not be real numbers. They can be reals, integers or binaries, and typically they are signed. That Piffer’s results for unsigned binary weights were almost the same than for signed binary weights has only two explanations: either there were only few negative binary weights (-1), or his correlation has nothing to do with the effect these SNPs have to educational achievement as it is rather irrelevant if the SNP raises or lowers IQ. If this is the case, then his correlation comes from the predictor identifying the subpopulation and giving the subpopulation average, i.e., just the one that I suggested it seems to be.

    Hope this explains everything. I will not continue this discussion further. It makes no sense to discuss mathematical aspects of averaging PGS values with non-mathematicians.

    Good luck to you res and to Merculinus.

    • Replies: @res
  193. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Yes, intelligence is genetically potentiated.

    agreed.

    on a separate note i’ve been trying to google when Ireland started adding iodine to cattle feed so it got into the milk but so far no luck.

    in Britain it started in the 1930s.

    https://www.ukiodine.org/iodine-in-the-uk/

    although i found there was some research done in Ireland in the 1940s into the level of iodine in the soil (generally deficient except in regions where seaweed was used as fertiliser) which may have precipitated it.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @res
  194. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    This seems such a 19th century point of view. The idea that a kid could have a hidden talent, that the school system entirely overlooks unless it is revealed by some special testing to be applied just once or twice in the course of a twelve to twenty-year school career.

    Perhaps (though I would say more early to mid-20th century). But it is an empirical question and I have seen enough anecdotal evidence to believe it matters.

    Interesting that your response was so weak and that was the only one of my four examples you even engaged with.

  195. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    I meant complex organs, of which the brain is the most complex. Complex organs are all the same throughout humanity.

    No. For example: Variation in human brains may facilitate evolutionary change toward a limited range of phenotypes
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3658611/

    Individual variation is the foundation for evolutionary change, but little is known about the nature of normal variation between brains. Phylogenetic variation across mammalian brains is characterized by high inter-correlations in brain region volumes, distinct allometric scaling for each brain region and the relative independence in olfactory and limbic structures volumes from the rest of the brain. Previous work examining brain variation in individuals of some domesticated species showed that these three features of phylogenetic variation were mirrored in individual variation. We extend this analysis to the human brain and 10 of its subdivisions (e.g., isocortex, hippocampus) by using magnetic resonance imaging scans of 90 human brains ranging between 16 to 25 years of age. Human brain variation resembles both the individual variation seen in other species, and variation observed across mammalian species. That is, the relative differences in the slopes of each brain region compared to medulla size within humans and between mammals are concordant, and limbic structures scale with relative independence from other brain regions. This non-random pattern of variation suggests that developmental programs channel the variation available for selection.

    Back to you (though the change in tone and intellectual level makes it obvious):

    This is projection on your part. Me, I’m all about facts, evidence, science and empiricism.

    Except for the part about you seldom presenting any evidence (who exactly is presenting evidence in our interaction right now?) and on the few occasions where you do it frequently fails to withstand scrutiny.

    As for the rest, our respective comments speak for themselves (quite loudly and eloquently IMHO).

  196. Okechukwu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Your grasp of logical argument seems so tenuous I wonder whether there is anything to be said for asking what your point about the three races paradigm is.

    Well, dummy, you can have one human race or you can have thousands, and 80% of them will be in Africa. What you cannot have if 3 or 4 races. That’s scientifically untenable.

    It’s funny how you idiots shout from the rooftops that you are into human genetic diversity and the preservation of distinct human groupings. Yet at the same time, you insist, for ideological reasons, that there are only 3 or 4 races. HBDers aren’t smart enough to recognize that their junk “science” is actually anti-HBD.

    The rest of your comment seems entirely premised on your profound ignorance of the rate at which mutations can occur, mutant alleles can become prevalent, even fixed, in mammals (and other genera) and of actual experiments which demonstrate it like the Soviet experiment with foxes which produced a domesticated version in about 50 years.

    Okay, demonstrate to me how these fantasy cold-weather enhanced positive mutations are manifested in actual fact. Speaking of the (former) USSR, here’s someone with an equatorial derived brain who isn’t deprived of whatever mutations you claim are exclusive to Eurasia:

    Young Nigerian Of Igbo Extraction Sets Academic Record In Russia

    Ifesinachi Nelson Ezeh, a 26-year-old Nigerian, has dazzled Russia with his brilliance. The Nsukka, Enugu State-born student finished his Master’s degree in Agronomy at Saint Petersburg State Agrarian University, graduating with a Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 5.0 – the highest Russia has ever recorded.

    https://therepublicannews.net/2016/06/30/young-nigerian-of-igbo-extraction-set-academic-record-in-russia/comment-page-1/

    So what happened, bruh? As you can see, this Igbo guy has all the mutations he needs. That is to say, his tropical equatorial background certainly did not preclude the activation of intelligence-enhancing mutations. In fact quite the contrary.

    but you should concentrate on getting right the likely selective pressures of people who had to learn to cooperate and to hunt and perhaps cultivate plants, and make warm clothes, to survive in Ice Age Eurasia.

    So your mighty cold weather enhanced brain came up with the silly ideas that Africans didn’t hunt cooperatively (something most mammals can do), cultivate crops or produce garments suitable to a given environment?

    Well, of course Africans hunted cooperatively as every single human group everywhere on earth did and San Bushmen still do today.

    Of course Africans cultivated plants. Jesus, man, you’re on the Internet. You might use it to infuse that cold weather brain of yours with knowledge rather than using it to write nonsense.

    And, hey, Southern Africa and parts of East Africa can get pretty cold, it even snows in parts. As a consequence, Africans wore clothing suitable to those environments. I know your mighty cold weather brain told you that it takes genius to cover yourself in animal fur. But actually, it doesn’t. Any caveman could do it and they did. What happens is humans adjust to their environment. That’s why even today, white people wear skimpy clothing on a hot day in Los Angeles.

    Oh, and your mighty cold weather brain is confused on this ice age matter. No, people didn’t literally live on the ice, rather they lived in salubrious locales. Moreover, Homo erectus and Neanderthal lived very successfully through the Pleistocene. And those weren’t no geniuses.

    What’s more, it was better to be cold than hot. You had a measure of control in the cold (staying in caves, building fires, wearing animal fur). In the heat, you were helpless. Plus in the cold you have abundant supplies of fresh water. Animals were preserved where they died, affording scavenging opportunities. And entire caves could be turned into crude refrigerators or the permafrost could act as primitive freezers.

    Finally, allow me to share with you this map. Notice which areas areTEMPERATE!

    Notice ALL OF EURASIA is in the temperate zone.

    Now, let’s examine the definition of temperate:

    Having a climate intermediate between tropical and polar; moderate or mild in temperature

    My dude, pay attention to the words moderate and mild. Surely you know what those words mean.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @res
    , @annamaria
  197. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    How many times do I have to tell you that I don’t “think intelligence is genetically determined with little scope for very large environmental modification” or whatever rough equivalent you come up with on a given day? Applied to me that is most definitely a strawman.

    What I do think is that in a typical population those environmental effects account for less than 30% of variation in measured IQ (100% – heritability). So a population’s genetics explain the majority of within cohort (variation across time and space may be larger, e.g. Flynn effect, countries with terrible environments) variation in IQ.

    In addition, as anyone with a brain (and a disinclination to construct strawmen) knows, I agree it is not possible to capture all of human intelligence with the single number of IQ. What you can capture with that single number is a substantial portion of the variation in intelligence between people giving us the ability not only to predict with useful accuracy present behavior, but also to make useful predictions of how children are likely to perform decades later as adults.

    That you fail to see the power (and intellectual wonder) of that is sad. Try doing the same with something like athletic ability.

    Why someone as smart as you persists in creating endless simplistic strawmen baffles me. I’d like to think you are capable of making better arguments.

  198. annamaria says:
    @j2

    Well, the focus of our discussion with CanSpeccy was the IQ tests. CanSpeccy believes that IQ tests are “scum” and deserve “ridicule.”

    Here is my question for you, j2. — What kind of tests have you been using for a behavioral part of your research in the neurobiological and genetic correlates of human intelligence? Take your time.

    • Replies: @j2
  199. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    i’ve been trying to google when Ireland started adding iodine to cattle feed so it got into the milk but so far no luck.

    It’s a good line of inquiry. Keep at it. But keep an eye out for other “deficiencies”nutritional, economic or cultural that may impact IQ test performance.

  200. res says:
    @notanon

    i’ve been trying to google when Ireland started adding iodine to cattle feed so it got into the milk but so far no luck.

    They were changing it between 12 mg/day and 60 mg/d around 2017 (looks like they raised it then lowered it again)
    https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/dairy/dairy-advice/dairy-processors-report-benefit-of-reduced-iodine-levels-in-feed-36458998.html

    I wasn’t able to find when they started either.

    • Replies: @notanon
  201. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    Well, dummy, you can have one human race or you can have thousands

    You can have any number of races depending on how coarse or fine you operationalise the variation.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  202. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    What you cannot have if 3 or 4 races. That’s scientifically untenable.

    See the interactive 3D PCA plots at http://bwlewis.github.io/1000_genomes_examples/PCA_overview.html

    The data exhibit obvious groups, and those groups correspond to ethnicities. The above plot colors the data by “Superpopulation”, a designation of each subject’s reported racial heritage. The superpopulations correspond very well to the latent clusters “discovered” in the data by PCA.

    There are four discrete groups and one group of admixed Americans. It is interesting how little variation there is in the East Asian and European populations relative to the African and South Asian populations.

    So much for you being “all about facts, evidence, science and empiricism.” (boy am I going to get some good mileage out of that one)

    P.S. Note that the link is to a Github project with R code if anyone wants to try to replicate it.

  203. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Given similar environments then similar blueprints should result in similar outcomes.

    A blueprint is not a useful analogy for a genome. A blueprint has only one material manifestation. A genome is a complex program, that can unfold in spectacularly different ways according to what may in some cases be slight differences in environmental influences. So, no, I don’t accept that “given similar environments similar blueprints should give similar outcomes.”

    Your idea that IQ is meaningless simply does not hold up under even cursory analysis.

    I have never said IQ was meaningless. What I have said is that IQ test scores do not measure intelligence as that word is generally understood. Further, I have said that (a) intelligence is a complex attribute of mind that cannot be measured by a single number such as an IQ test score, and (b) that intelligence in those of normal and healthy genetic inheritance is largely dependent on education, which may be through schooling at Eton and Oxford, or by learning to make — and kill antelopes with — a blowpipe and poisoned arrow.

    What I have said is that IQ tests reflect skill in the use of words, numbers and diagrammatic illustration. These are the skills that traditional education develops and achievement in which may, therefore, indicate the potential for achievement the realm of the intellect. I say “may indicate” because of the spectacular and well-known (to readers of Unz.com comments) counter examples.

    • Replies: @res
  204. res says:
    @j2

    Of course Piffer’s results replicate. It you calculate what he did, you get the same result as he did. The problem is that the PGS cannot be used to calculation of country PGS scores for countries that were in the prediction sample.

    So you don’t realize that over the preceding several years Piffer has seen similar results with multiple different sets of SNPs from different studies. As well as multiple prediction samples.

    It is good to know just how little you understand the work you are criticizing.

    this comment, which will absolutely be my last on this thread

    Thank you. Much appreciated. (Anyone want to place a bet over whether or not j2 sticks to that?)

    • Replies: @Merculinus
  205. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    I must continually caution against simplistic interpretations because IQists are so prone to one dimensional thinking.

    Yes, with their one-number evaluation of the human intellect, the IQ-ist is utterly committed to the one-dimensional view. The poor thing is even more tragically restricted in view that an inhabitant of Flatland.

    • Replies: @utu
  206. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    Mr. Okechukwu, this forum is not a village in your beloved Africa. Mind your manners. You have been behaving like a petulant and not particularly bright teenager from a troubled family.

    Nobody forces you to live among white people. This is your choice. As for your rudeness and self-aggrandizement, you need stop thinking of your race as a victim.

    It is nice that you extoll the achievements of some Africans; good for them. You also need to be more respectful to scientific scholarship. Sciences are not a contest in political correctness.

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  207. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    1) we’ve known intelligence is hereditary for millenia

    Based on what? Oh, yes, the Babylonian IQ-ists!

    But still you seem unable to grasp the difference between a genetic potentiality that is subject to greater or less (generally greater) environmental modification, and the phenotypic manifestation.

    Let me introduce you to a secret axiom of biology:

    Genes X Environment = Phenotype.

    So no, intelligence is not hereditary, if by that you mean genetically determined. Neither is intelligence environmental, if by that you mean environmentally determined. Intelligence and every other phenotypic trait is determined by an interaction between an unfolding and multi-pathed genomic instruction set and the prevailing environmental conditions.

    What that means is that if you had been a student of Socrates you would have been more likely to have written something along the lines of Plato’s Symposium than if you’d been educated at an inner city school in a rough part of Chicago.

    • Replies: @notanon
  208. @res

    East Asians and Africans were not in prediction sample, yet the PGS used by Piffer works for them too. How come?

    I bet he won’t stick to the promise he made (about his comment being his last on this thread). He’s a proven liar and conspiracy theorist.

    • Replies: @notanon
  209. notanon says:
    @res

    yes like the Finland example it would be interesting to know when it started and then compare that date with the dates (and age of participants) of the IQ test data from before and after there was a big jump (if there was a big jump).

  210. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    A blueprint has only one material manifestation.

    Yes, because all building practices, contractors, tradesmen, and materials are exactly the same. Got it.

    Understood that there is more scope for variation in the adaptive process that is human development. I still think the analogy is useful.

    So, no, I don’t accept that “given similar environments similar blueprints should give similar outcomes.”

    Your choice. I think 70% heritability has something relevant to say about that though.

    I have never said IQ was meaningless.

    I should have realized that even with my disclaimer you would go motte and bailey on me. I’ll just let everyone compare my restatement (IQ is meaningless) to your original statement (below) and to the statement in your most recent comment (use the link, longer than I want to excerpt).

    The implication is that, in comparing national IQ means, one is using a single scale to measure qualitatively different features of the mind, giving rise to essentially meaningless results.

  211. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Based on what? Oh, yes, the Babylonian IQ-ists!

    sheep dogs

    But still you seem unable to grasp the difference between a genetic potentiality that is subject to greater or less (generally greater) environmental modification, and the phenotypic manifestation.

    nope, i’m fine with “genetic potentiality” – the exact proportions of genetic vs environmental can be worked out over time.

    my argument is with blank slatists who deny the genetic aspect.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  212. Okechukwu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It may be foolish to ask someone who can posit “all human brains are the same” which is about as fatuously stupid as saying “all dogs brains are the same” but I would be intrigued if you could substantiate your statement
    “The brain, being the most complex organ, is actually the most resistant to differentiation”. Meaning? Reasoning? Evidence?.

    The human brain was formed in the crucible of the harsh and unforgiving African environment. There has been no appreciable change in the modern human brain since modern humans started dispersing in and out of Africa. Except perhaps humans may have gotten somewhat dumber.

    I posited that we could take young children from any society on earth no matter how “primitive,” rear them in a western country and they could assimilate everything and excel as students and in their careers as adults in whatever intellectually rigorous occupation they chose to pursue. Now, why is that? Duh…It’s because all human brains are the same.

    When scientists (real scientists) talk about the human brain, the conversation is always entirely race-neutral. Why? Duh…because all modern human brains are the same. Can you identify just one single credible scientist anywhere in the world who can segregate human brains by race? And I don’t mean quack psychologists who actually aren’t real scientists. I mean neurologists, anthropologists, geneticists and pathologists.

    Our brains are made of the same stuff, despite DNA differences

    Our brains are all made of the same stuff. Despite individual and ethnic genetic diversity, our prefrontal cortex shows a consistent molecular architecture. For example, overall differences in the genetic code (“genetic distance”) between African -Americans (AA) and caucasians (cauc) showed no effect on their overall difference in expressed transcripts (“transcriptional distance”).Joel Kleinman, M.D., Ph.D., NIMH Clinical Brain Disorders Branch

    Despite vast differences in the genetic code across individuals and ethnicities, the human brain shows a “consistent molecular architecture,” say researchers supported by the National Institutes of Health. The finding is from a pair of studies that have created databases revealing when and where genes turn on and off in multiple brain regions through development.

    “Our study shows how 650,000 common genetic variations that make each of us a unique person may influence the ebb and flow of 24,000 genes in the most distinctly human part of our brain as we grow and age,” explained Joel Kleinman, M.D., Ph.D., of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Clinical Brain Disorders Branch.

    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/our-brains-are-made-same-stuff-despite-dna-differences

    Dumb white nationalists and idiot HBDer’s generally have no inkling of how human intelligence works. There’s no natural law that puts human intelligence on a permanent uninterrupted upward trajectory. Indeed, there are some indications that humans may have gotten dumber rather than smarter. Just because they weren’t flying around in airplanes and using computers doesn’t mean they weren’t smarter back then:

    The Human Brain Has been Getting Smaller Since the Stone Age

    It’s something of a well-known secret among anthropologists: Based on measurements of skulls, the average brain volume of Homo sapiens has reportedly decreased by roughly 10 percent in the past 40,000 years. This reduction is a reversal of the trend of cranial expansion, which had been occurring in human evolution for millions of years prior (see chapter 17).

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/04/08/human-brains-have-shrunk-since-the-stone-age/#.XNCakY5KhPY

    Boskop Man of South Africa was probably a genius on average, with a brain that was 30% larger than ours.

    What Happened to the Hominids Who May Have Been Smarter Than Us?

    Two neuroscientists say that a now-extinct race of humans had big eyes, child-like faces, and an average intelligence of around 150, making them geniuses among Homo sapiens.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us

    • Replies: @res
    , @Wizard of Oz
  213. j2 says:
    @annamaria

    “Here is my question for you, j2. — What kind of tests have you been using for a behavioral part of your research in the neurobiological and genetic correlates of human intelligence? Take your time”

    I decided not to comment any more in this thread where you have people like res and Merculinus, but as you are a woman, common politeness requires that I answer to you, but only this one time in this thread.

    While this area is not in my central research field, I have done some behavioral tests, which can be considered to measure neurobiological correlates of human intelligence. I did not measure genetic correlates as they were not relevant to the study area. The tests were of customer behavior in telecommunication services. Some tests I made myself, collecting and analyzing data of customer clicks. Other tests I made with two psychologists, I was the leader of the subtask and participated in the measurements. There were tests with test persons, we videoed the behavior and interviewed them, changed configurations, recorded their actions in the service application. All of these tests included reaction/response times, which are neurobiological measures, and especially cognitive aspects, as services must be easily usable and also for less intelligent people, so there was the intelligence aspect. The only genes of the customers that had importance in these studies were if they had the Y-chromosome or not, that is, we did look at the gender differences. This research was done to EURESCOM in the 1990ies. The results were published in the project reports (not public), some results were in EURESCOM conferences, but those were also only for participating organizations, so I will not give you references to these studies. Anyway, they would not interest you.

    From your question to me, annamaria, it looks like you think I certainly have not done any behavioral tests. Well, not quite so. I have done some. You know, other people have also done something, not only you and your friends.

    • Replies: @res
  214. notanon says:
    @Merculinus

    He’s a proven liar and conspiracy theorist.

    i think people who were recently colonized (more or less) get upset if their colonizers (Swedes in this case) were tested as higher IQ than them (at some point in time if not now).

    once you know the motivation it’s not that big a deal imo.

    (i think it’s helpful to understand the list of reasons people have for wanting to deny this stuff as not all of it comes from a blank slatist direction)

  215. Okechukwu says:
    @mikemikev

    You can have any number of races depending on how coarse or fine you operationalise the variation.

    A surprising good comment. Pithy, to the point and true.

  216. Okechukwu says:
    @notanon

    sheep dogs

    First of all, dogs are man-made things. It is better to examine wolves, a naturally occurring species and the ancestor to dogs. The wolf experience is much more analogous to the human one.

    If, for example, you want to consider whether different habitats have an impact on intelligence one way or the other, look to wolves. I believe the answer to that question is no. You can also examine what impact, if any, genetic drift has had on wolf populations. If it didn’t happen with wolves, it probably didn’t happen with humans either.

    Secondly, just because a dog is more willing to be compliant with human demands doesn’t mean it’s more intelligent than one that is less willing. What artificial selection has altered most in dogs has been their temperament and disposition, not their intelligence.

    That’s not to say that you can’t reduce or enhance intelligence via selective breeding. You can if that is your objective. We could easily create a race of very stupid humans simply by breeding the mentally retarded or developmentally disabled. Selectively breeding very intelligent humans, however, would be a great deal more difficult.

    Btw, I haven’t seen any list that puts sheepdogs in the top 5 in dog intelligence.

    • Replies: @notanon
  217. notanon says:
    @Okechukwu

    First of all, dogs are man-made things.

    quite

  218. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    I’m curious, does your wife (molecular biology PhD circa 2017) help you with your comments like this? The contrast between your typical comments and your (at least somewhat, see below) biology literate comments is dramatic (e.g. both formatting and content).

    Regarding your first link, I took a look at the papers underlying that article (you do that when you read a popular article, right? it’s good to get information from the original source). This one:
    http://hbatlas.org/files/nature10523.pdf
    has an interesting bit on sex differences in the transcriptome. But did not have much on race (e.g. the lead article graphic). That was in the other paper:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3510670/

    That graphic clearly shows the larger genetic distances between African American and Caucasian genomes (note the gap around 340-350k differing alleles except for a small number of cases which I suspect are heavily admixed AAs), but the article chooses to emphasize the similar transcriptome differences. It is clear the paper authors do not consider this the final word though.

    This dramatic lack of association between genetic distance and transcriptome distance across our sample is a surprising result that requires further interrogation.

    Regarding your second link. The decrease in brain size is interesting. I wonder what drove that. It is worth noting that it appears the brain change behind the “Human Revolution”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Revolution_(human_origins)
    was functional rather than size based. I don’t think humans with larger brains before that point are even comparable intellectually to humans after that point–larger brains or not.

    And since we have decided brain size is an important metric and 10% is a big change, I think it is worth noting that this paper linked at that Discover blog post:
    https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/203138%20
    indicates that European brains (1362 cc) are 8% larger than African brains (1276 cc).

    Regarding your third link, the response from John Hawks gives a good idea of how seriously to take the Discover article (and is linked at the start of the article to make clear the theory is speculative).
    http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/return-amazing-boskops-lynch-granger-2009.html

    The portrayal of “Boskops” in the Discover excerpt is so out of line with anthropology of the last forty years, that I am amazed the magazine printed it.

    Much more at the link for anyone inclined to take that Discover article seriously. IMO linking to that article was an own goal just indicating that you did not read the full article carefully.

    P.S. That first link is a fun trip back to when Okechukwu and CanSpeccy did not get along as well as they seem to now.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  219. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    One dimensional world is incapable of imagining and comprehending 2-dimensional world.

    Edwin Abbott Abbott, “Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions ” (1884)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
    On New Year’s Eve, the Square dreams about a visit to a one-dimensional world (Lineland) inhabited by “lustrous points”. These points are unable to see the Square as anything other than a set of points on a line. Thus, the Square attempts to convince the realm’s monarch of a second dimension; but is unable to do so. In the end, the monarch of Lineland tries to kill A Square rather than tolerate his nonsense any further.

    From the safety of Spaceland, they are able to observe the leaders of Flatland secretly acknowledging the existence of the sphere and prescribing the silencing of anyone found preaching the truth of Spaceland and the third dimension. After this proclamation is made, many witnesses are massacred or imprisoned (according to caste), including A Square’s brother, B.

    After the Square’s mind is opened to new dimensions, he tries to convince the Sphere of the theoretical possibility of the existence of a fourth (and fifth, and sixth …) spatial dimension; but the Sphere returns his student to Flatland in disgrace.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  220. res says:
    @j2

    I decided not to comment any more in this thread where you have people like res and Merculinus, but as you are a woman, common politeness requires that I answer to you, but only this one time in this thread.

    That was a creative way to eat your cake and have it too. Well done.

    Now we get to see how much willpower you have ; )

    • Replies: @Merculinus
  221. @Okechukwu

    Well thanks for a bit of fun reading. But, as res has already noted, Discover wasn’t putting it weight behind the authors’ speculations and the linked reviewer did say this:

    “The portrayal of “Boskops” in the Discover excerpt is so out of line with anthropology of the last forty years, that I am amazed the magazine printed it. I am unaware of any credible biological anthropologist or archaeologist who would confirm their description of the “Boskopoids,” except as an obsolete category from the history of anthropology.”

    Of course one of the possibilities that you imply but don’t emphasise is that a big brained hominid may have existed who may, or may not, have been able to score high on an IQ test but still failed to establish its lineage for any one of a number of reasons, including linked genetic problems, disadvantage of large head at birth, interbreeding that had negative aspects, lack of opportunity to use high IQ to advantage…. maybe even back then the smart were breeding dysgenically as seems to be the case in all modern nations and castes within nations.

    In sum, thanks for some interesting reading but it doesn’t even begin to persuade me that modern Europe’s grandchildren will be better off letting in a low skill stream of African immigrants.

  222. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    I’m curious, does your wife (molecular biology PhD circa 2017) help you with your comments blah blah blah

    I am very literate in biology without requiring assistance from my wife. In fact, your own competency is in pseudo-biology, as you have demonstrated amply throughout your posting career on Unz.

    That graphic clearly shows the larger genetic distances between African American and Caucasian genomes (note the gap around 340-350k differing alleles except for a small number of cases which I suspect are heavily admixed AAs) blah blah blah

    So what Res? How is any of this supposed to refute what I posted about human brains? You see why it’s pointless and enervating to engage you in debate? You have absolutely no interest in conversing honestly. You are like the T-1000 in Terminator, programmed to promote and defend HBD pseudoscience and nothing (and I mean nothing) will stop you from accomplishing your mission.

    It is worth noting that it appears the brain change behind the “Human Revolution”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Revolution_(human_origins)
    was functional rather than size based.

    That’s true of Neanderthal but not of Boskop. Boskop was Homo sapien.

    indicates that European brains (1362 cc) are 8% larger than African brains (1276 cc).

    Didn’t Afrosapiens thoroughly and completely debunk this nonsense? Europeans do not have larger brains than Black Africans. Shall I recount my experience at a hat shop in an all-white town where they didn’t have a hat large enough for my head? The same thing happened in Germany.

    Here we have a prime example of someone who allegedly is into human variation but yet thinks it’s possible to assign a uniform brain size and cranial morphology to the most genetically diverse humans on the planet.

    Much more at the link for anyone inclined to take that Discover article seriously. IMO linking to that article was an own goal just indicating that you did not read the full article carefully.

    None of us were there, Res. You’re not a paleo-anthropologist like the experts who published those findings. They are rather more credible than you. Discover Magazine and the authors of that piece are also vastly more credible than Res, Unz Review keyboard pseudoscientist.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
  223. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    In the end, the monarch of Lineland tries to kill A Square rather than tolerate his nonsense any further.

    A prophetic warning, surely, that critics of IQ-ism should note.

  224. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Didn’t Afrosapiens thoroughly and completely debunk this nonsense?

    Nope. Care to give a reference to where you think that happened?

    That’s true of Neanderthal but not of Boskop. Boskop was Homo sapien.

    Wrong. You need to work on your reading comprehension. The page I linked clearly says that change resulted in the affected Homo Sapiens displacing the Neanderthals. And goes on to say the change happened earlier in Africa.

    I’m not sure how trustworthy RationalWiki is on topics other than HBD (where they are terrible), but here is what they have to say about Boskop Man:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Boskop_Man

    Europeans do not have larger brains than Black Africans.

    You did notice that I gave a reference to a research paper (which was linked from the article you recommended), right?

    Shall I recount my experience at a hat shop in an all-white town where they didn’t have a hat large enough for my head?

    Sure. Because as we all know, anecdote is proof. Though I can believe you have a big head (at least in a metaphorical sense). Too bad you don’t seem to have the big brain to match.

    You’re not a paleo-anthropologist like the experts who published those findings. They are rather more credible than you.

    And John Hawks is more credible on this than either of us (and I think more credible than those authors as well). Which is why Discover magazine added a disclaimer and linked to his response. Which I guess you missed and/or failed to read. Even after I explicitly pointed it out.

    Pro tip: vet your references more carefully before trying to pass them by me. I check references.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  225. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    Nope. Care to give a reference to where you think that happened?

    You’d just love that, wouldn’t you? Look for it yourself. Afrosapiens thoroughly debunked this idea of black people having smaller brains and so did I. I believe we were debating that idiot in Poland (can’t think of his name).

    But forget about us. I yield my time to acclaimed scholar and three-time Nobel Prize nominee Phillip V. Tobias:

    A critical review is given of those factors which may be accompanied by variations in brain weight, viz. sex, body size, age of death, nutritional state in early life, source of the sample, occupational group, cause of death, lapse of time after death, temperature after death, anatomical level of severance, presence or absence of cerebrospinal fluid, of meninges, and of blood-vessels. Valid comparisons between the brain-weight of human populations should take all, or several, of these variables into account; however, published studies have not done so, despite claims to the contrary. The ideal sample is from subjects who have died suddenly without prior disease: while three such samples are on record for Europeans, none has been recorded for Negroes. The brain-weight of healthy Negroes is not known. Most published interracial comparisons are invalid. The histological, chemical and functional counterparts of big and small brains in modern man are not known. Published interracial comparisons of thickness of the cerebral cortex and, particularly, of its supragranular layer, are technically invalid: there is no acceptable proof that the cortex of Negroes is thinner in whole, or in any layer, than that of Europeans. It is concluded that vast claims have been based on insubstantial evidence.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/17752856_Brain-size_grey_matter_and_race-fact_or_fiction

    Ouch! I bet you didn’t really want to hear that, huh Res? Because you’re not actually interested in the truth.

    But wait, there’s more. Dr. Tobias isn’t done with you yet.

    Three time Nobel nominated anthropologist Philip Tobias (1970), compared 7 racial and national groups in a study on brain size/weight, in which he reported that the brain size of American blacks was larger than any white group, (which included American, English and French whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample (who had the largest brains of any of the groups measured), and American blacks were estimated to have some 200 million more neurons than American whites, and brains that were reported to be 54g heavier (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et al. 1990). Gould (1981, 1996) discovered upon recalculating Morton’s highly suspicious brain size data that the blacks in his sample were on average larger in brain volume than whites. Morton included in his sample of blacks more females than he included in the white sample. For example, in his analysis of Hottentotts (black tribe from South Africa) all measured crania were of females; the Englishmen were all mature men. Morton had also eliminated especially large brains from the African group and especially small brains from the European group (Gould, 1981, 1996). After correcting these biases and errors, it was shown that the black sample actually had larger brains than did the white sample (ibid).

    Interestingly, during the time periods in which the samples for the above mentioned studies were gathered, anthropomorphic research shows that blacks were on average physically smaller (in stature) than whites, lived in inferior environments and received poorer nutrition (e.g. Alan, 2006). Indicating that in spite of these environmental disadvantages, relatively lower anthropomorphic measurements and poorer nutritional intake, blacks still demonstrated larger brain volume. Tobias (1970) discusses factors which influence brain weight; in this discussion he includes nutrition. Tobias (1970) also discusses the sampling problems one may encounter with fresh brains. He argued that lack of standardization in sampling procedures often means that studies of brain weight of different races by different investigators may not be comparable, and therefore most comparisons are not reliable. These were all issues he kept in close consideration while conducting his own investigations into “racial” differences in brain size (in which American whites were actually found to have “smaller” brains than American blacks).

    Friedrich Tiedemann (a famous 17th century craniometrist) noted that many anthropologists in his time simply chose the smallest-brained African ‘skull’ they could find and then published a single drawing as “proof” of what every (Caucasian) observer already “knew” in any case! Tiedemann would produce the largest compilation of cranial data ever assembled, with all items based entirely on his own measurements of skulls representing all races. From his extensive tables, Tiedemann concluded that no differences in brain sizes can distinguish human races (See Gould, 1999). In some instances the favor was in the direction of blacks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACraniometry

    Wrong. You need to work on your reading comprehension. The page I linked clearly says that change resulted in the affected Homo Sapiens displacing the Neanderthals. And goes on to say the change happened earlier in Africa.

    In other words, modern humans.

    I’m not sure how trustworthy RationalWiki is on topics other than HBD (where they are terrible), but here is what they have to say about Boskop Man:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Boskop_Man

    You can’t have it both ways Res. If Rational Wiki is trustworthy with respect to Boskop Man then surely they are trustworthy with respect to your boy Dr. Thompson: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Thompson

    They basically describe Dr. Thompson as a racist clown without a shred of scienctific integrity.

    I don’t have an attatchment to Boskop Man. It’s just an interesting theory. As stated, I’m not an ideologue, I go where the science leads. So I readily accept Rational Wiki’s indictments of both Boskop Man and Dr. Thompson.

    You did notice that I gave a reference to a research paper (which was linked from the article you recommended), right?

    Res, I have never seen you provide a refererence that could survive even superficial scrutiny. NEVER! You think your references are valid because you are a delusional, brainwashed individual whose plight is exacerbated further by a not inconsiderable dearth of brain power. It’s kind of ironic, given your obsession with the topic of intelligence, and your aching desire, come hell or high water, to establish racial hieirarchies in same.

    For all honest, impartial readers here, please note that Res’ citation regarding racial brain size (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/203138%20) doesn’t say what the liar claims it says.

    Sure. Because as we all know, anecdote is proof. Though I can believe you have a big head (at least in a metaphorical sense). Too bad you don’t seem to have the big brain to match.

    Res, rather than relying on your spurious “studies” go to Google images and peruse pics of black and white people together. That should disabuse you of your misapprehensions.

    And John Hawks is more credible on this than either of us (and I think more credible than those authors as well). Which is why Discover magazine added a disclaimer and linked to his response. Which I guess you missed and/or failed to read. Even after I explicitly pointed it out.

    It’s interesting how you have laser-focused on this one item I wrote in passing. And in so doing, you have reaffirmed your unprincipled and unscrupulous debating style. I wrote paragraph after paragraph of exquisitely argued takes, debating that other clown Wizard of Oz right under the table. But you choose to nitpick this Boskop Man thing, while ignoring virtually everything else I wrote. This kind of fraudulent conduct is why you have the reputation you have, Res.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @mikemikev
    , @res
  226. brutus101 says:
    @res

    The are four years of SHSAT offer data,

    2015-2016_SHSAT_Admissions_Test_Offers_By_Sending_School.tsv
    2016-2017_SHSAT_Admissions_Test_Offers_By_Sending_School.tsv
    2017-2018_SHSAT_Admissions_Test_Offers_By_Sending_School.tsv
    2018-2019_SHSAT_Admissions_Test_Offers_By_Sending_School.tsv

    They are joined with the ethno-demographic data which also has the PctPoverty data

    2013-2018_Demographic_Snapshot_School.csv

    > data uses “0-5” for cases

    Like last year NYTimes analysis I assumed them to be 0 and dropped those uncertain cases from the dataset. I am showing the brighter more optimistic picture. Finer grain data are not available. Inferring indirectly, for the year 2017-18 there are 1844 schools, 463 with PctBlack > 50%, out of which only 3/463 of those schools have Noffer > 5. I had dropped the 460 Black majority non-performing schools (460/463=99.25%) from the dataset because of the fuzziness of the data and concentrate on the better Black students in other mixed schools with Noffer > 5. In comparison for the AsianAmerican majority schools the dropped ratio is 24/95 (25%). Very much more Black and Hispanic non performing schools are dropped from the analysis than that for White and Asian. The optimistic picture is still not good for Black and Hispanic. It will be worse if they are included.

    Though they put in fuzzy data to hide the worst performing schools, they also announce the 50 “Renewal Schools” for the USD$ 773 Million injection, presumably for the 50 worst performing schools with average PctHispBlack=96%, some of which had been closed down. There were reports of guardians pulling the students out once they knew that the schools were tagged as the “Renewal Schools”, even though the 270 SHSAT testers for 2018 from the 24 known schools with data, on average the equiv of USD$ 824,000 per SHSAT tester (grade6 to grade8) had been invested. Nearly the million dollar “poor” student. None of them received any Elite8 slots, more even dropped out from school than before (RAND report). Very few poor White or Asian American students have that privilege.

    > It would be interesting to add average SHSAT test score

    Did not find large set of SHSAT scores for many JHS. Though the SHSAT scores can be estimated from the number of offers, putting them in to predict PctOffer is circular logic.

    • Replies: @res
  227. @res

    Yup. He’s written again on this thread. I won the bet, and I won at debunking all his conspiracy theories about genetics!

  228. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    A critical review is given of those factors which may be accompanied by variations in brain weight, viz. sex, body size, age of death, nutritional state in early life, source of the sample, occupational group, cause of death, lapse of time after death, temperature after death, anatomical level of severance, presence or absence of cerebrospinal fluid, of meninges, and of blood-vessels. Valid comparisons between the brain-weight of human populations should take all, or several, of these variables into account; however, published studies have not done so, despite claims to the contrary.

    So every study finds blacks have small brains, but we’re supposed to imagine that the racist surgeons drained all of the black brains of fluid and severed them higher and cleaned them off more, in every study.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  229. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    Three time Nobel nominated anthropologist Philip Tobias (1970), compared 7 racial and national groups in a study on brain size/weight, in which he reported that the brain size of American blacks was larger than any white group, (which included American, English and French whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample (who had the largest brains of any of the groups measured), and American blacks were estimated to have some 200 million more neurons than American whites, and brains that were reported to be 54g heavier (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et al. 1990).

    Cherry picking. Egregious, but very Boasian.

  230. res says:
    @brutus101

    Thank you very much for your detailed reply!

    Thanks for describing the 0-5 situation. I hadn’t realized the June 29, 2018 NYT article:
    See Where New York City’s Elite High Schools Get Their Students
    dropped the 0-5 offers group. Looking more closely at the way they drew their map (special handling for “Fewer than six offers”) and expanding the data view to all schools makes it clear you are correct though.

    Your additional points were depressing.

    Did not find large set of SHSAT scores for many JHS.

    How about using the elaprof and mathprof fields from the 2018_DOE_Middle_School_Directory.csv file as an ability proxy? Maybe not though, just looked closer and they only have 483 schools, and only 223 with data for those fields.

    What a marvelous exercise in obfuscation.

  231. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Nope. Care to give a reference to where you think that happened?

    You’d just love that, wouldn’t you? Look for it yourself. Afrosapiens thoroughly debunked this idea of black people having smaller brains and so did I. I believe we were debating that idiot in Poland (can’t think of his name).

    I’d love to see what you considered to be that “debunking.” I’m pretty sure it would be underwhelming.

    It is up to you to support your assertions. Absent evidence I take that statement for exactly what it is worth. Nothing.

    Dr. Tobias’ paper linked by Okechukwu was published in 1970. I present more recent data below which invalidates the point Dr. Tobias made of: “The ideal sample is from subjects who have died suddenly without prior disease: while three such samples are on record for Europeans, none has been recorded for Negroes. The brain-weight of healthy Negroes is not known. Most published interracial comparisons are invalid.”

    My reference below used brain imaging data. That technology was unavailable in 1970.

    So we see that Okechukwu manages yet again to use a reasonable underlying paper in a context where it is not valid (here because it is outdated).

    You can’t have it both ways Res. If Rational Wiki is trustworthy with respect to Boskop Man then surely they are trustworthy with respect to your boy Dr. Thompson

    That’s a fair point. So I’ll skip the RationalWiki reference and find something better. I was having trouble finding papers until I realized I needed to look further back since the Boskop man as a race idea was debunked so long ago. Here is a paper from 1958: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2795854
    The whole thing is available on Libgen, but I’ll give an excerpt (brief because no OCR AFAICT).

    It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation (because of paucity of data) in 1923, and was apparent as speculation in 1947, is inexcusable to maintain in 1958.

    Back to Okechukwu (though as noted before, the change in tone and intellectual level makes the transition obvious)

    Res, I have never seen you provide a refererence that could survive even superficial scrutiny. NEVER!

    Now that is some serious projection. I have provided hundreds of references in blog comments here. Perhaps you could provide say five that demonstrate your point? After that we will talk about “NEVER!”

    And notice that I have rebutted multiple references (or their usage, as just above) Okechukwu used in this thread alone.

    For all honest, impartial readers here, please note that Res’ citation regarding racial brain size (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/203138%20) doesn’t say what the liar claims it says.

    And he goes for the jugular because he doesn’t realize that some people (unlike him) look at the entire paper rather than just the abstract (when I said I follow references I meant I follow them). Here is my original statement:

    And since we have decided brain size is an important metric and 10% is a big change, I think it is worth noting that this paper linked at that Discover blog post:
    https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/203138%20
    indicates that European brains (1362 cc) are 8% larger than African brains (1276 cc).

    My data came from Table 2 of that paper. The 8% was my own calculation. I normally don’t like giving direct links to Libgen papers, but since I have been called a liar I think I need to make clear who the liar really is.
    http://booksdl.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.2307%2F2742800&downloadname=

    I invite anyone here to take a look at that paper and check what I have asserted. I would appreciate independent confirmation given that my integrity has been called into question.

    That is what refutation of the central point looks like.

    Okechukwu, you owe me an apology. I realize I won’t get one, but it helps to make clear the kind of person Okechukwu is.

    Back to Okechukwu (see note above about tone and intellectual level).

    Res, rather than relying on your spurious “studies” go to Google images and peruse pics of black and white people together. That should disabuse you of your misapprehensions.

    Random pics on the internet are better evidence than peer reviewed research papers. Another key tenet of Okenomics elucidated.

    Since Okechukwu likes images I’ll provide one. Here is a graphic (Figure 1) from
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/

    Here is the caption: “Mean brain weight for 4-year age periods in various subgroups. Brain weight is plotted at midpoint of each age period (e.g., the point at age 6 years represents the average for subjects between 4 and 8 years; White men, open triangles; Black men, solid triangles; White women, open squares; Black women, solid squares). Differences in brain weights among various groups become apparent at age 6 years. (From Ho et al., 1980, p. 636, Figure 2.)”

    Note the source: The International Journal of Neuroscience.

    It’s interesting how you have laser-focused on this one item I wrote in passing. And in so doing, you have reaffirmed your unprincipled and unscrupulous debating style. I wrote paragraph after paragraph of exquisitely argued takes, debating that other clown Wizard of Oz right under the table. But you choose to nitpick this Boskop Man thing, while ignoring virtually everything else I wrote. This kind of fraudulent conduct is why you have the reputation you have, Res.

    Ah. Okechukwu finally figured out Boskop man was a terrible example to bring up. It is fun to watch for the exact point where that happens and he goes from uncritically doubling down on his original statement (comment 225) to disavowing it (comment 228). It is a real pattern. Okechukwu’s comments are much more fun when you look for and notice things like that. Usually it takes longer than an interval of three comments to happen though.

    BTW, my original response in comment 221 carefully responded to all three links Okechukwu gave. I laser focused on Boskop man when he doubled down on it in comment 225.

    The last part of that quote is simply lies and baseless ad hominems. (but anyone who has the slightest experience dealing with Okechukwu probably realized that already)

    P.S. I hope this comprehensive refutation of Okechukwu’s comment 228 makes clear the kind of person we are dealing with here. Please realize that when I “LOL” a comment of Okechukwu’s it is not just lashing out (like when he “Trolls” me). It means his comment really is laughable. If anyone is ever bothered because I “LOL” him without responding further please ask me to elaborate. That usually means I did not feel like wasting the time, but it is good to be willing to back up things like that.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @Okechukwu
  232. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Hey, you guys, may I introduce you to a product that we have just brought to market and which should be of great interest to you all.

    The product is the CCIP gauge, or Cranial Circumference Intelligence Proxy Gauge, price US$99.00 plus shipping.

    The product is like a tape measure, and just as easy to use, but the really clever innovative feature is that it’s marked, not in inches or centimeters, but in IQ points.

    With this simple and easy to operate instrument you can dispense with the time-consuming and expensive administration of intelligence tests, review of university transcripts, interviews or what have you, and make a simple unambiguous measurement, as a basis for hiring the talent you need to staff your psychology department, aircraft manufacturing company, or whatever.

    Please note that all orders must be prepaid.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @res
  233. @res

    Thanks for link to Beals paper. Well researched and written, and the critiques (bar one) are also of good quality. Pleasure to read.

    • Replies: @res
  234. res says:
    @James Thompson

    Thank you. I just realized the Beals paper is also available at:
    http://syslearn.oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf
    So no need to get it from Libgen.

    The paper gets a brief mention in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Biogeographic_variation
    Given what is said there, it is fun to contrast that section with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Race

    It will be an interesting experiment to see if anything is scrubbed now that I have called it out, so let’s reproduce that section here to make it easy to check that.

    Biogeographic variation
    Average cranial capacity in humans varies significantly depending on geographic ancestry in humans, in the range of 1,200 to 1,450 cm3 between populations. Larger cranial volume is associated with climatic region, the largest averages being found in populations of Siberia and the Arctic. For this reason, Beals et al. (1984) proposed that the primary reason for the variation is climatic adaptation, favoring large round heads in colder climates because they conserve heat and slender heads in warm climates closer to the equator (see Bergmann’s rule and Allen’s rule).[10]

    Google Scholar shows 360 citations of that paper to date.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  235. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Does it come with conversion tables providing correlations between brain size and wealth, gpa, sat score, and other important real world metrics?

    This way, banks can dispense with credit checks and asset disclosure, schools won’t need to provide transcripts or administer the SAT – it will revolutionize the market!

    And only a very modest level of accuracy is needed – say 40% – for this to completely replace all other methods of testing.

    Where do I send money?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  236. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Good one.

    But since it’s a linear scale, and we all know it is 100% accurate and that single dimension is the only thing that matters, I’ll stick with the regular tape measure and just rely on the ordering. Since I can buy one of those for about $1.50: https://www.amazon.com/Singer-00218-Tape-Measure-1/dp/B000B7Q9FM
    I think you will have trouble with your pricing.

    [MORE]

    Obligatory /sarc in case someone is dense enough to take this seriously.

    On a more serious note (and actually semi on topic with Piffer’s work) this is another case where I think statistical averaging across a group probably makes the group average brain size measurement much more useful than individual measurements. The latter being much noisier because we are using an imperfect proxy for intelligence.

    P.S. If someone really was interested in trying to use brain size as a metric, it might be better to use encephelization quotient instead:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
    Which is a better predictor is an empirical question. Has anybody ever tried it?

  237. mikemikev says:
    @res

    It’s interesting the South Chinese have significantly bigger crania (craniums?) than South Asians on the same latitude, and also higher IQs. I guess most of the variation is thermoregulatory, but a portion of it is brainpower.

  238. Okechukwu says:
    @mikemikev

    So every study finds blacks have small brains,

    Cite one credible study.

    No one real is going to devote time and resources to studying something so obviously silly. The only people interested are racists, supremacists, HBD morons and the like. And you’re not going to get any credible information from such people.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  239. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    I’d love to see what you considered to be that “debunking.” I’m pretty sure it would be underwhelming.

    I don’t want to waste too much time on this. It’s beyond silly. There’s no credible evidence of a correlation between brain size and intelligence. Einstein’s brain was smaller than the average size your canon attributes to the brains of black people.

    Moreover, in your stupidity, you are implying that if we take a thousand black people with large brains and a thousand white people with small brains, the black cohort is going to be smarter. Typically, you racist pseudoscience buffs can be counted on to debunk yourselves. You have done so here.

    For anyone interested (Res has no interest in facts), this is Afrosapiens’ thorough debunking of this idea:

    Despite the common hereditarian claim that Sub-Saharan Africans average smaller cranial capacities than Eurasians due to the warmer climates of tropical Africa, the few studies that I’ve come across regarding West Africa paint a significantly different picture. In a 2011 sample of North-Eastern Nigerian adults likely of Kanuri ethnicity, the reported average cranial capacity was 1424cc for males and 1331cc for females, which makes a total average of 1378cc. In a 2013 sample of 527 Igbos aged 14-20 from Anambra State (Southeastern Nigeria), the reported cranial capacities were 1411cc for males and 1443cc for females and a combined average of 1427cc. In another study of Southeastern Nigerians (year 2011), the reported values were closer to those usually claimed with an average of 1310cc among Edos, 1273cc among Igbos and 1256cc among Urhobos.

    Although these are only a few studies on West African cranial characteristics, they at least have the merit of being recent (less than 10 years old) and drawn from actual measurements on living persons contrary to Beals et al.’s 1984 reference study in which the West African values are inferred from simplistic climatic variables in the absence of actual skulls from the region. I have often shown these high cranial capacity West African samples as a refutation of the cold winter theory of brain size differences. And whereas hereditarian debaters have commonly dismissed them as meaningless exceptions to the rule, there is no scientific rule with unexplainable exceptions.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/author/afrosapiens/

    Dr. Tobias’ paper linked by Okechukwu was published in 1970.

    And Beals is from 1984. And your entire philosophy is from the 18th century.

    What exactly has changed in the human brain and cranial morphology since 1970?

    My reference below used brain imaging data.

    Who conducted the study? When? Where? Why? How? Sample size, age of subjects, sex, infirmities, education level, diet, lifestyle, economic status, etc.

    Do you even understand how REAL science is done, Res? Let’s have this information. That’s how we in the real world judge the credibility of something. The days of you idiots sitting around in your dungeons making shit up are over. We now understand that people are getting killed because of your pernicious ideology. So you will no longer be ignored hoping you go away. You will be challenged. Every. Single. Time.

    And the question that comes to mind is, who the hell is going to go around allegedly imaging the brains of different races? Somebody with an agenda, I would suppose.

    http://booksdl.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.2307%2F2742800&downloadname=

    Your link doesn’t work. Not that it even matters. If you’re promoting it it’s bound to be garbage.

    Okechukwu, you owe me an apology.

    You’re not exactly receiving plaudits and pats on the back here, even though you keep soliciting affirmation. We are in your crib, this den of racist pseudoscience and yet no one is coming to support you despite your pleadings. Take a hint.

    Random pics on the internet are better evidence than peer reviewed research papers. Another key tenet of Okenomics elucidated.

    Yes. Random pics and natural experiments are superior to spurious “research papers.” Isn’t the problem you clowns keep running into the fact that reality is always at variance with your “studies?” Isn’t that the entire reason for this latest and failed attempt by Dr. Thompson to clarify Piffer’s work — because of all the objections pertaining to its disconnection from reality?

    And, btw, which “peers” reviewed which papers? Do you think that the actual scientific community would ever accept, for example, a review of Piffer by this so-called intelligence researcher, or a review by Dr. Thompson? Of course not. Pseudoscientific charlatans favorably reviewing other pseudoscientific charlatans is meaningless and of no value.

    Here is the caption: “Mean brain weight for 4-year age periods in various subgroups. Brain weight is plotted at midpoint of each age period (e.g., the point at age 6 years represents the average for subjects between 4 and 8 years blah blah blah

    J.P. Rushton? Seriously? Fuck outta here.

    I hope this comprehensive refutation of Okechukwu’s comment

    LMAO. Keep pleading for affirmation, Res. None seems to be forthcoming. I’m sure you’re dumb enough and delusional enough to think you’re actually refuting me. But it’s interesting that even here in your own house, a cesspool of fake science and HBD stupidity, no one seems to agree.

    Oh, and here is a quote from Beals:

    The implication is that any effort to attribute racial or cognitive significance to brain size is probably meaningless unless the effect of climate is controlled. For example, the endocranial volumes of Europeans and Africans differ little from what one would expect given the difference in their respective winters.

    http://syslearn.oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

    You and Thompson are doing what you people do best — twisting, misrepresenting and corrupting information to suit your racist agenda.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
    , @James Thompson
  240. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    This way, banks can dispense with credit checks and asset disclosure, schools won’t need to provide transcripts or administer the SAT – it will revolutionize the market!

    Absolutely. And this feature comes in the form of a vinyl-coated, waterproof chart, which like Boeing’s angle of attack disagree warning light, comes as an added cost extra, price $59,99.

    Payment should be made in cash to me personally, via PO Box No. 437096, Toronto, Canada.

  241. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    OK. I went and looked at that Afrosapiens page.

    First thing I encounter, the first link is broken (permanently, not exceeded number of connections). Happily, there is an archive version at
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160405112725/http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/jas/0000/22741-22741.pdf DOI 10.3923/jas.2011
    It turns out here is how they measured brain volume: “Linear measurements of cranial length, width, height and head circumference were undertaken and their cranial capacities calculated.”
    Come back to me when they use a better measurement technique or measure multiple groups using the same technique.

    The second link is: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c382/8917c3d306b4d4bd2d64c8c8e40287f7051c.pdf
    Same type of issue with measuring technique: “Maximum head width was
    measured using spreading caliper. Auricular height was measured using auricular head spanner. Maximum head height was measured using measuring tape.”
    (CanSpeccy, looks like you might have a potential customer)

    The third link seems to be erroneously a copy of the second link. I’d really like to see that paper, given that its measurements were much more in line with what other researchers see: “the reported values were closer to those usually claimed with an average of 1310cc among Edos, 1273cc among Igbos and 1256cc among Urhobos”

    I would like to know where Afrosapiens got “contrary to Beals et al.’s 1984 reference study in which the West African values are inferred from simplistic climatic variables in the absence of actual skulls from the region.” because looking at Figure 1 in Beals I see about 10 different African populations specified (out of 122 total). I have to consider his statement in error unless I see better substantiation.

    I suspect the inferring he is concerned about was done to convert discrete population data into the Figure 3 map.

    So as far as I can tell that page is up to the usual standards of scholarship I see from you (and Afrosapiens) and is far from constituting a “debunking” of anything except for Afrosapiens’ competence.

    Dr. Tobias’ paper linked by Okechukwu was published in 1970.

    And Beals is from 1984. And your entire philosophy is from the 18th century.

    What exactly has changed in the human brain and cranial morphology since 1970?

    Are you really this stupid? I said exactly what has changed. Brain imaging technology was not available in 1970. Which means we now have even better means of measuring brain volume (but I guess Nigerians in the 2010s still don’t have access to them based on those Afrosapiens links above). And those measurements have been done.

    Who conducted the study? When? Where? Why? How? Sample size, age of subjects, sex, infirmities, education level, diet, lifestyle, economic status, etc.

    I linked the paper. Look at it yourself. I am spoon feeding you references. Do you want me to pre-chew them for you too?

    Your link doesn’t work. Not that it even matters. If you’re promoting it it’s bound to be garbage.

    One of the reasons I don’t like linking Libgen. It limits the number of connections. But since you found the other link I gave I don’t see that it matters.

    J.P. Rushton? Seriously? Fuck outta here.

    Idiot. Rushton was quoting from another study (which was cited in the caption I included). Here is the link to it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893659
    No Rushton in sight on that one. So much for your ad hominem fallacy.

    Is that really the best you have?

    P.S. Note how Okechukwu did not say a word about about Boskop man in that comment. He really did figure out how foolish it was to bring that up (it just took some help because he was apparently unable to read the disclaimer at the top of the article he linked by himself). Also no words about my alleged lie. He has such a gracious way of admitting when he has wrongly libeled someone.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  242. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    You’ve had plenty of studies linked right here and you’re a liar and a troll. So only racists would be interested in racial variation, racists being people who are interested in racial variation. Quite the fait accompli. I’m sure it’s not just mindless name calling.

  243. @Okechukwu

    Brain volume and intelligence: The moderating role of intelligence measurement quality
    Gilles E. Gignac and Timothy C. Bates

    Intelligence, 2017, vol. 64, issue C, 18-29

    Abstract: A substantial amount of empirical research has estimated the association between brain volume and intelligence. The most recent meta-analysis (Pietschnig, Penke, Wicherts, Zeiler, & Voracek, 2015) reported a correlation of .24 between brain volume and intelligence – notably lower than previous meta-analytic estimates. This headline meta-analytic result was based on a mixture of samples (healthy and clinical) and sample correlations not corrected for range restriction. Additionally, the role of IQ assessment quality was not considered. Finally, evidential value of the literature was not formally evaluated. Based on the results of our meta-analysis of the Pietschnig et al.’s sample data, the corrected correlation between brain volume and intelligence in healthy adult samples was r=.31 (k=32; N=1758). Furthermore, the quality of intelligence measurement was found to moderate the effect between brain volume and intelligence (b=.08, p=.028). Investigations that used ‘fair’, ‘good’, and ‘excellent’ measures of intelligence yielded corrected brain volume and intelligence correlations of .23 (k=9; N=547), .32 (k=10; N=646), and .39 (k=13; N=565), respectively. The Henmi/Copas adjusted confidence intervals, the p-uniform results, and the p-curve results failed to suggest evidence of publication bias and/or p-hacking. The results were interpreted to suggest that the association between in vivo brain volume and intelligence is arguably best characterised as r≈.40. Researchers are encouraged to consider intelligence measurement quality in future meta-analyses, based on the guidelines provided in this investigation.

    • Replies: @res
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @Okechukwu
  244. res says:
    @James Thompson

    Thanks. Interesting paper.

    The observations about differing correlation between adults and children (more in the paper) were interesting:

    For example, the brain volume and intelligence corrected correlation for adult males was estimated at r = .38, whereas the same correlation for male children was estimated at r = .22. McDaniel (2005) did not speculate as to why the effects may have been larger for adults in comparison to children. It is suggested here that both incomplete neurophysiological maturation and individual differences in the rate of maturation explain some of the increase in the magnitude of the brain volume and intelligence correlation from childhood to adulthood.

    I like the selection of graphics they provided. Forrest plots are pretty common now (and very useful IMHO), but I don’t recall seeing outlier diagnostics being shown that frequently.

    The Figure 4 p-value plot was new to me (is it common?). It seems fairly convincing, but one thing I did not understand: what exactly was the alternative hypothesis? Is it simply that the correlation coefficient is non-zero or does it propose a specific value for the true correlation? I don’t see how you can compute this without assuming a correlation. At least that is how traditional power analysis works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(statistics)

    Power analysis can be used to calculate the minimum sample size required so that one can be reasonably likely to detect an effect of a given size. For example: “how many times do I need to toss a coin to conclude it is rigged by a certain amount?”[1]

    Does anyone know why the Figure 3B funnel plot is centered at 0 while the others are centered at the estimated correlation coefficient?

    On another note, has anybody explored what other measurable variables might add to the predictive power of cranial volume on IQ? Are there any useful physiological “good brain functioning” metrics? Perhaps something like Neural Conduction Velocity? Or associations with something like fasting blood sugar (etc.!)?

    P.S. Link to Pietschnig et al. (2015) , the meta-analysis underlying this paper:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341500250X

    Excerpt from the abstract relevant to other conversations in this thread:

    Nowadays, modern non-invasive measures of in vivo brain volume (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) make it possible to reliably assess associations with IQ.

    Section 2 has a longer discussion of different types of measurement of brain volume.

    2. Surrogate measures of brain volume and intelligence

    Even though an association between brain volume and intelligence had been hypothesized early on, for long there was a lack of good in vivo measures of brain volume. As a first attempt to quantify the association between brain volume and intelligence, Galton (1888) used linear external head measures (height, breadth, depth) as a proxy for brain size and achievements at universities as a measure for cognitive abilities. The introduction of intelligence tests allowed assessment of cognitive abilities by means of standardized measures, but investigations still had to rely on crude markers of brain volume (e.g., head circumference; Murdoch and Sullivan, 1923). Such external measures have later been criticized as yielding inaccurate estimates of inner skull capacity (intracranial volume, ICV; Simmons, 1942). However, recent studies that compared head circumference with ICV assessed precisely in vivo using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in large samples showed that head circumference provides a reasonable estimate of ICV, with correlations of .62 for men and .56 for women (Booth et al., 2015, Wolf et al., 2003). Head circumference is actually a commonly used surrogate for brain volume measurement, e.g., in epidemiological cohort studies. However, expectably the correlation between head circumference and IQ is weaker than the correlation between ICV and IQ (Booth et al., 2015; MacLullich et al., 2002), and even though it tends to be positive, it is not as reliable as some reviews suggest (Rushton and Ankney, 1996, 2000, 2009).

    • Replies: @annamaria
  245. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    The most recent meta-analysis (Pietschnig, Penke, Wicherts, Zeiler, & Voracek, 2015) reported a correlation of .24 between brain volume and intelligence

    Based on the results of our meta-analysis of the Pietschnig et al.’s sample data, the corrected correlation between brain volume and intelligence in healthy adult samples was r=.31

    Investigations that used ‘fair’, ‘good’, and ‘excellent’ measures of intelligence yielded corrected brain volume and intelligence correlations of .23 (k=9; N=547), .32 (k=10; N=646), and .39 (k=13; N=565), respectively

    So brain volume has been estimated to account for 5% (i.e., 0.24 sup 2 = 0.058) and 9.6% (i.e., 0.31 sup 2 = 0.096), or with some cherry picking 15% (0.39 sup 2 = 0.15) of the variation in IQ test score.

    Given that brain volume is correlated with both height and socio-economic status (SES), and given that SES is correlated with quality of both nutrition and education, and given that nutrition affects stature and thus, by inference, brain volume, and that both nutrition and education influence IQ test scores, these findings do not seem very interesting in relation to the question of what determines differences in national IQ test scores.

    However, these data may be of sociological significance. In particular, they suggest that if every child were fed like a scion of a member of the House of Lords and attended Eton and Oxford, the average height and intelligence of an Englishman would be at least slightly enhanced.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  246. mikemikev says:
    @CanSpeccy

    How do you go from a correlation to “accounting for variation”? I’ve seen that before (e.g. Wicherts) and I never understood it.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @res
    , @utu
  247. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @mikemikev

    How do you go from a correlation to “accounting for variation”? I’ve seen that before (e.g. Wicherts) and I never understood it.

    The square of a linear correlation coefficient, r, i.e., r squared, aka, the coefficient of determination, indicates the proportion of variance in the dependent variable (e.g., IQ test score) that is accounted for by variation in the independent variable (e.g., cranial capacity).

    So if r, in the example cited, is 0.224, then r squared is 0.05, which means that 5% of the variation in IQ test score is associated with variation in cranial capacity, which in turn means that most of the variation in IQ test score, i.e., 95% of it, is associated with variation in some factor or factors other than cranial capacity.

    But note that a positive value of r in a regression analysis does not mean that the relationship between the variables is statistically significant, i.e., reliably reproducible. Further, it does not mean that the relationship, even if statistically significant, is causal. For example, if socio-economic status (SES) is causally related to both nutrition and quality of education, and if nutrition is causally related to cranial capacity, and quality of education is related to IQ test score, then cranial capacity and IQ test score will be statistically, but not causally, related to one another, their mutual relationship being due to their causal relationship with SES.

    • Agree: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @res
    , @mikemikev
  248. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    We’re done, Res. You’re simply too dumb and delusional to converse with.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
  249. res says:
    @mikemikev

    “accounting for variation” is referring to percentage of variance in the data explained. For linear regression that is the square of the correlation coefficient.

    This explanation is brief but a bit cryptic IMHO:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explained_variation#Linear_regression

    Much more detail at
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination

    I think a visual comparison of correlation coefficients can be helpful as well:
    https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/pearson-correlation-coefficient-statistical-guide.php

  250. Factorize says:

    The latest infoproc post cites an article that careful carefully predicts what is now (or soon will be) achievable with embryo selection for height and IQ. While at first glance the article might reassure those who believe the technology will not be disruptive over the near term (suggested that only a 3 IQ gain per generation is now readily obtainable), I found the research alarming, nonetheless, because it appeared that the actual potential was significantly obscured.

    https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2019/05/embryo-screening-polygenic-traits-and.html
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/05/05/626846.full.pdf

    Before addressing the article, I think that we all need to sit back and consider the implications of this research. Take a deep breath and relax. It should now be abundantly clear to all those with psychometric awareness that the world is drifting towards a Cognitive Singularity. It is hardly even worthwhile arguing this point. Research has clearly demonstrated that even a single IQ point average gain in populations can result in emergent behaviors such as formation of cities, use of money etc. . When people are smarter, their behavior clearly changes. There is no precedent for a change of 10-20 IQ points gains over a single generation. It is not unreasonable to expect that such a gain would result in a 10 fold change in the rate of technological innovation. As a guess, we are likely to see about a 100 IQ gain over the next century (this is likely an underestimate). It is difficult to imagine how profoundly different such a world would be from that of today.

    We should contemplate the world that is clearly approaching in which some people will compulsively and to the maximum possible extent and with the use of their full financial resources embrace genetic enhancement technology. The article suggests that a 10-15 IQ point average enhancement per generation would be within range for these people. No human population currently has such a massive advantage over Greenwich mean. There are several other potential enhancers that should also be noted. A considerable amount of the so called “environmental” contribution to IQ has recently been shown to be related to the genes that children did not receive from their parents. Since the genetics of the parents is known before the embryos are selected, an even more accurate prediction of the future IQ of the children could be determined. There is also mention of more than 50% of the variation in human cognitive ability being related to variants with 0.1% frequency. These casual variants should be within reach of identification by GWAS. CRISPR could then be used to profoundly enhance human IQ. Genetic enhancement will
    also allow for organizing the human genome in such a way that regression to the mean is no longer possible. Those who choose to maximally enhance their cognitive germline will achieve essentially an eternal advantage in a way that is currently not possible to emulate. Intense mate selection could add additional genetic enhancement potential.

    We should also contemplate the great mass of humanity who likely will not embrace genetic enhancement technology (for various, economic, social, political, psychometric, ethical, egalitarian, humanitarian, social justice and other considerations). The differences that will likely emerge between groups will be too large to pretend away. It will be all the more difficult to ignore as a prospective prediction can be made and will most likely be verified by real world practice. The heated and at times acrimonious debate about the genetic underpinnings of intelligence will cease. What new hobby will we find?

    Such a divided world is disturbing in ways that are not captured in the world of today. Average psychometric differences that exist today likely will be seen as small as compared to what will be possible with genetic enhancement. Adding 10-15 or more IQ points per generation will quickly create profound intelligence differences. Discussion should begin in order that our communities do not become a world of dystopian psychometric divisions. Those who might find such a world enchanting will be given ever opportunity to live in it. However, I will be on the first plane out if this is the intended future in my country. If all that some people want to be is better than others, then they could be given such an opportunity simply by having all but the most intellectually disabled remain.

    Recently, it was discovered that some people would spend millions of dollars in order to cheat their children’s way into college. What happens when in the future, people spend millions of dollars and apply all of their other resources to genetically enhance the IQ of their children? The article assumed that embryo selection would be at an intensity of 1 in 10. However, the figure in the article showed that marginal gains continued even at 50 to 1 selection. Those who want to highlight the article’s claim that perhaps only a 3 point IQ gain is now reasonable, need to read through the rest of the article. The IQ prediction was based on 4% variance explained; quadrupling the variance explained to 16% would given a 6 IQ point gain. The phase transition research found that at a calculatable sample size all of the additive variance in IQ would be revealed.

    Height has been a great model phenotype to help show us what will be possible with other traits such as IQ when the sample sizes in the GWAS are large enough. A great advantage of analyzing height is that we can see the analysis without reflexively engaging in nature nurture arguments as with IQ. The article shows what happens when a PGS predictor for height is used in large families.
    figure 5b shows the result. For whatever reason the authors try to downplay this figure by saying “Oh, only 7 of 28 were the tallest, not impressive”, though a more careful scrutiny finds that it is in fact quite striking. Yes, only 7 of 28 with the highest PGS were the tallest in the family, but 11 of 28 were the second tallest. Only 4 of 28 of the children with the highest PGS in each family could be thought of as short relative to the family mean. This is remarkable. Are we moving to a world in which being average is near the bottom of the distribution? Now change the phenotype from height to intelligence and consider the future of societies.

    The most eye opening statement in the article for me was that more than 50% of the variation of cognitive ability has been found in rare SNPs not captured by today’s gene chips. One might expect that rare variation at the 0.1% frequency level would be much easier to identify than the common SNPs found to date which can have sometimes hundreds of neighboring SNPs that also tag a locus. If this rare variation could be unlocked and CRISPR applied, we are no longer discussing 3 IQ point enhancement. Pulling a number purely out of a hat, optimizing all this variation would result in gains on the order of 300 IQ points. The Cognitive Singularity is within question approaching. I encourage others on the thread to give this careful contemplation and urge you to engage in constructive dialogue of psychometric science.

  251. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    We’re done, Res. You’re simply too dumb and delusional to converse with.

    Time to revisit another “debate” with Okechukwu.
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/genes-explain-higher-jewish-iq/#comment-3022640
    With the same outcome.

    Run away, run away!

    P.S. Hopefully the relative dumbness of the respective comments by me and Okechukwu above is obvious to all.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  252. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Further, it does not mean that the relationship, even if statistically significant, is causal. For example, if socio-economic status (SES) is causally related to both nutrition and quality of education, and if nutrition is causally related to cranial capacity, and quality of education is related to IQ test score, then cranial capacity and IQ test score will be statistically, but not causally, related to one another, their mutual relationship being due to their causal relationship with SES.

    Or perhaps there are multiple causal chains like:

    SES -> Good nutrition -> larger brain -> higher IQ
    SES -> Good nutrition -> better functioning brain (e.g. nerve myelination) -> higher IQ
    Good genes -> larger brain -> higher IQ
    Good genes -> better functioning brain (e.g. nerve myelination) -> higher IQ

    And of course the one environmentalists seem to always forget about:

    Good genes (parents) -> SES

  253. utu says:
    @mikemikev

    I never understood it – You are in a good company. 75% of psyshometricians do not understand it either though in a broader sense psyshometricians are not really a good company.

    __Free tutorial__

    Two variables X and Y with Mean(Y)=Mean(X)=0. This does not limit generality. You can always subtract means form variables before you proceed.

    The question is how much the variable X explains variable (or data) Y.

    Calculate the slope of the least square linear (LSQ) fit : A=Cov(Y,X)/Var(X) (* see footnote)

    (Note that the intercept of the LSQ fit is zero because we set means to be zero)

    The LSQ fit implies that Var(Y-AX) (variance of residuals) is minimal! Calculate (expand) this variance using variance definition and properties:

    Var(Y-AX)=Var(Y)+A*A*Var(X) – 2A*Cov(Y,X)

    Replace A with Cov(Y,X)/Var(X)

    Var(Y-AX)=Var(Y)+Cov(Y,X)*Cov(Y,X)/Var(X) – 2Cov(Y,X)*Cov(Y,X)/Var(X)

    Group and divide both sides by Var(Y)

    Var(Y-AX)/Var(Y)=1-Cov(Y,X)*Cov(Y,X)/Var(X)/Var(Y)

    Note that Cov(Y,X)*Cov(Y,X)/Var(X)/Var(Y) is square of correlation: R^2

    Now you can write: R^2=1-Var(Y-AX)/Var(Y)

    Note that Var(Y-AX)/Var(Y) are residuals as fraction of Var(Y), i.e., this is the unexplained part of data Y by variable X. Thus R^2 is explained part of data Y by variable X as a fraction of variance of data Y.

    _______________
    (*) The formula A=Cov(Y,X)/Var(X) is easily obtained from formula for sum of squared residuals:

    Res=SUM(Y-AX)^2. which you differentiate d/dA and set the result to zero as you want to find A that minimizes the residuals, i.e., dRes/dA=0 which give you equation 0=SUM[(Y-AX)*X]=SUM(Y*X-AX*X) from which A=SUM(Y*X)/SUM(X*X)=Cov(Y,X)/Var(X)

  254. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    Keep dreaming.

    Your self-delusion is obviously of infinite scale. No reasonable person who reads our exchanges will come away thinking that I am afraid to debate you. I don’t want to squander my time and energy debating someone too dumb, too delusional and too invested (for whatever reason) in the cult of racist pseudoscience.

    Res, you have the fanaticism and closed-mindedness of a hardline Islamic extremist. You cannot tolerate any notion or idea beyond the confines of your canon. You will never admit to being wrong. You will never find value in any opposing argument. You will never accept hard facts that are staring you in the face if those hard facts contravene your ideology. You cannot be reasoned with. You are literally a wall of stupidity and an apparent retiree with time on his hands and nothing better to do than troll here.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
  255. Okechukwu says:
    @James Thompson

    It’s confirmation that the correlation is weak.

    I do appreciate that this little snippet lacks dogmatism and self-righteous certitude. It’s appropriately laden with caveats and disclaimers.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  256. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    So much for being done. How about you just try addressing even one of my points in comment 244 then? I am particularly interested in how Afrosapiens came up with the idea that Beals had no African skull data. Can you support that?

    Regarding this:

    You will never find value in any opposing argument.

    I refer you to this exchange in my comment 234:

    You can’t have it both ways Res. If Rational Wiki is trustworthy with respect to Boskop Man then surely they are trustworthy with respect to your boy Dr. Thompson

    That’s a fair point. So I’ll skip the RationalWiki reference and find something better. I was having trouble finding papers until I realized I needed to look further back since the Boskop man as a race idea was debunked so long ago. Here is a paper from 1958: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2795854

    Now how about you show me somewhere you found value in an argument of mine. Or were you just projecting?

    As for the rest of your comment, that extended session of projection and ad hominems is unworthy of response. Beyond a LOL which I will add as soon as I finish this comment.

  257. utu says:
    @Potato

    I understand your points and it is true that lots of people do not get what heritability actually is. The definition of heritability is ambiguous in the first place. Usually it presupposes that a variance of some trait in a population can be partitioned into a sum of variances of genes and environment. But there can be cases when this is not true and the effects of genes and environments can’t be disentangled into a sum of two functions.

    Actually the only correct way of looking at heritability is by finding a functions that predicts the trait. So if in a population with a trait T(G,E) then one can decompose it uniquely into three functions: T(G,E)=f(G)+g(E)+h(G,E). The uniqueness is established as follows:

    (1) Find 1-dimensional functions f(G) that minimizes the rms norm ||T(G,E)-f(G)|| for all possible G.
    (2) Find 1-dimensional functions g(E) that minimizes the rms norm ||T(G,E)-g(E)|| for all possible E.
    (3) Define h(G,E)=h(G,E)- f(G)-g(E) as a residual that can’t be further disentangled.

    This implies the following property: If variance Var[T(G,E)]=1 then Var[f(G)]+Var[g(E)]≤1. Furthermore covariances of h(G,E) with f(G) or g(E) can be negative.

    In practice we may find only an estimate of f(G) function using polygenic scores. We can’t find g(E) function as the environment E can’t really be mathematized.

    In case when variance of h(G,E) is non-zero we can’t define heritability as it is commonly (mis)understood. If we defined heritability as Var[f(G)] then the ‘environmentality’ Var[g(E)] does not necessarily complement it to 100%.

    As far as I know nobody has figured out what twin based heritability means if h(G,E) is non-zero because everybody implicitly assumes that h(G,E)=0. Sometimes they look at cases of non-zero covariance Cov(G,E) but this deals only with the stratification issues of the data set and not the inherent inability to disentangle the G and E functional components

    The most important objection to the twin studies based heritability via the Falconer’s formula that uses correlations of MZ and DZ twins is that the MZ twins evoke more similar environmental responses than DZ twins which leads to the overestimation of heritability. There are not many MZ twins raised apart to get a better estimate. Ideally if n-clones were created and given to many different (culturally) families only then we could estimate the variance Var[f(G)].

    As there is no significant progress in finding polygenic scores that would predicts education attainment or IQ anywhere near what the twin studies postulate I am becoming to side with the critics of the twin studies.
    _________

    If we agree that heritability is given as Var[f(G)] one can easily imagine genetically identical societies where heritability for the same trait are different. Furthermore the mean and variance of the same trait distributions will be different even if genetic makeup of two societies is the same.

  258. @Okechukwu

    Forgive me, but I was responding to you on a matter of fact. In comment 242 you said:

    I don’t want to waste too much time on this. It’s beyond silly. There’s no credible evidence of a correlation between brain size and intelligence. Einstein’s brain was smaller than the average size your canon attributes to the brains of black people.

    It was for that reason that I directed you to a recent paper showing that in fact there is credible evidence of a correlation between brain size and intelligence. Now you say, having read that paper:

    It’s confirmation that the correlation is weak.

    But you claimed: “There’s no credible evidence of a correlation between brain size and intelligence”

    The evidence shows that there is such a correlation, between 0.31 and 0.4 depending on assumptions about the quality of the assessments. This is useful for predictive purposes. You denied that a correlation existed.

    You and I are supposed to be searching for the truth. Do you accept that there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Okechukwu
  259. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    This is useful for predictive purposes.

    Can you cite an example where brain size predicted anything that was useful, for example in recruiting psychology professors, or selecting people for positions of leadership in the military or political worlds?

    Off hand, the only example I can think of is the effort manifest in comments here by people who are presumably not African to establish that Africans are mentally inferior to other human groups because they have very slightly smaller heads. This might be “useful” inasmuch as human society is organized hierarchically and the hierarchy is maintained by indoctrination of the inferior ranks with a belief in, and hence acceptance of, their own inferiority.

    Problem is, the only African here seems resistant to the propaganda.

  260. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    In this context, how does this study of Caucasian versus African brains fit the presumption of African inferiority? In particular, the primary finding that, “in analyses of brain subregions … that when compared to Caucasians, African Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes (F 1,68 = 7.50, p = 0.008).”

    • Replies: @res
  261. mikemikev says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I think I was getting confused by thinking “explained” or “accounted for” variance meant some kind of causality. There’s a good introduction here:

    https://assessingpsyche.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/two-visualizations-for-explaining-variance-explained/

    • Replies: @res
  262. res says:
    @mikemikev

    That is a very good primer with some terrific visualizations. Thanks! I plan to use it the next time someone asks me about percent variance explained.

  263. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    In particular, the primary finding that, “in analyses of brain subregions … that when compared to Caucasians, African Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes (F 1,68 = 7.50, p = 0.008).”

    From within the paper:

    After controlling for age, sex, and education level, the African-American population exhibited smaller total cerebral volume than Caucasians (Table 2), although there were no statistically significant differences in total gray matter, total white matter, or ventricular CSF volumes. In models examining specific brain regions, the only statistically significant difference was that African-Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes than Caucasians. However, when regional ratios were examined (regional volume/total cerebral volume), the African-American cohort exhibited greater ratios for the right amygdala and bilaterally for the OFC (Table 2).

    Those knowledgeable in brain anatomy might notice that Total Cerebrum does not appear in that list. That might be because in Table 2 it has the lowest p-value (< 0.0001) and shows a substantial (100 cc) difference (just not in a PC direction). "GM+WM/CSF Ratio" has the next smallest p-value at 0.0004. Given that it is also not mentioned, no prizes for guessing the direction of the difference. Also notice that Total Gray Matter showed a 38 cc difference and just missed statistical significance.

    Caucasian (N = 44) African-American (N = 25) F value p value
    Total Cerebrum 1178.3 (115.0) 1076.0 (67.9) 17.92 <0.0001
    GM+WM/CSF Ratio 667.3 (81.8) 629.8 (54.8) 13.77 0.0004

    Total Gray Matter 665.2 (81.7) 627.2 (54.5) 3.13 0.0816

    Orbitofrontal Cortex, L 6.8 (1.9) 7.8 (1.7) 7.50 0.0080

    CanSpeccy, you at least should know that when it comes to topics subject to the dictates of political correctness it is critically important to read the paper rather than just looking at the abstract.

    The OFC finding is interesting: https://neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/know-your-brain-orbitofrontal-cortex
    but the volume difference is only 1 cc and the function of that area seems uncertain.

    In contrast, a 100 cc difference in the Cerebrum seems much more important:
    http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer//genpsycerebrum.html

    As far as “primary findings” go, here is a direct quote from the body (I realize the abstract says what you claimed) of the paper:

    Our primary finding is that when compared to Caucasians, an African-American cohort exhibited smaller cerebral volumes but larger absolute left OFC volumes.

    P.S. Also worth noting the study demographics in Table 1. The Caucasians averaged 11 years older and had a larger percentage of females. Both of those would tend to decrease brain size. Although the paper says those variables were controlled for and the researchers took a separate look eliminating older Caucasians.

  264. mikemikev says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Africans are mentally inferior to other human groups because they have very slightly smaller heads

    If only our policies were informed by this fact.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  265. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @mikemikev

    You misquote me.

    I referred to:

    the effort manifest in comments here by people who are presumably not African to establish that Africans are mentally inferior to other human groups because they have very slightly smaller heads

    As for you statement:

    If only our policies were informed by this fact.

    Which policies are you referring to?

  266. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    an example where brain size predicted anything that was useful

    If correlation was indeed r=0.4 it means 20% of variance SD^2=15*15 would be explained which gives you a predictive power at 95% confidence level (2-sigma) of ±26.8 IQ points instead of ±30 IQ Points if you did not have brain size information. (2-sigma= 2*sqrt[(1-0.2)*15*15]). So the answer to your question is NO!

    But the r=0.4 value is exaggerated. This (2015) paper

    http://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/Pietschnig%20et%20al_in_press_-_Meta-analysis_brain_volume_intelligence.pdf
    Meta-analysis of associations between human brain volume and intelligence differences: How strong are they and what do they mean?

    show much lower correlations:

    First, brain volume was significantly positively associated with all three investigated intelligence domains (full-scale IQ, performance IQ, verbal IQ). In all, 6%, 4%, and 4% of variance respectively. (p.14)

    6% is r=0.24

    They also did see difference between man and women in terms of correlation unlike some earlier studies.

    Furthermore they do not correct for attenuation and restricted range which IQist like to resort to to boost their results:

    we did not apply range restriction corrections for sample attenuation in the present meta-analysis which might have led to a slight underestimation of overall effects. We decided not to apply corrections because for a majority of the included samples standard deviations for test performance were not reported. Therefore, correcting for range restriction would have required us to interpolate estimates for these studies based on a comparatively small number of reported parameters, thus introducing further uncertainty rather than allowing us to assess a hypothesized true value.

    However they still relied on r values from the studies they used in this meta analysis which may or may not have been corrected for attention or restricted range.

    Anyway, it is a waste of time until somebody is able to look at specific areas of brain that really matter.

    The problem is that people who do these type of studies are self-recruited from the true believers while the reasonable skeptics are too often revolted by it and thus avoid it. So the field ends up being peopled with shady characters like Kikegaard, Becker and Piffer under auspices of Richard Lynn and James Thompson. They are painting themselves into a corner. Fortunately it seems (I hope) that most people who do GWAS have high integrity thought there are true believers among them as well like Plomin.

  267. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Anyway, it is a waste of time until somebody is able to look at specific areas of brain that really matter.

    Yes, and almost certainly what matters more than how many brain cells one has or how large those cells are, is how those cells are connected, which in turn will depend on the inputs those cells have received as the result of the environmental stimuli to which the individual has been exposed, including the stimulus known as education.

    It is the case, apparently, that malnutrition, especially protein deficiency during the early post-natal period, has a negative effect on brain volume and intelligence, insofar as intelligence is reflected in IQ test scores. Presumably, therefore, poor people raised in the slums of such places as Dhaka, Mumbai, Lagos, and Buenos Aires tend to be undersized, with smaller than normal brains. With a deficit in brain volume combined with a poor education, these impoverished people likely have low IQ tests scores, but that would be no basis for assuming the cause of their cognitive limitations to be solely, or even in any degree, due to race or genetics.

    Res of course, says that if you are that poor you must be dumb due to bad genes, but as my ancestors only three generations back were dirt poor and malnourished, yet within two generations had raised themselves to a condition of relative success and prosperity, I don’t buy that.

    • Replies: @res
  268. Okechukwu says:
    @James Thompson

    It was for that reason that I directed you to a recent paper showing that in fact there is credible evidence of a correlation between brain size and intelligence

    You’re never going to have a correlation coefficient equal to zero no matter what variables you plug in. It could be that red hair has a similar relationship with intelligence, if not stronger.

    Actually, the relationship is not with intelligence but with IQ. IQ is not intrinsic intelligence. Nevertheless, whatever IQ measures, the correlation with brain size is weak. There are much stronger correlates with IQ independent of brain size. Education, for example.

    Schooling in adolescence raises IQ scores

    Although some scholars maintain that education has little effect on intelligence quotient (IQ) scores, others claim that IQ scores are indeed malleable, primarily through intervention in early childhood. The causal effect of education on IQ at later ages is often difficult to uncover because analyses based on observational data are plagued by problems of reverse causation and self-selection into further education. We exploit a reform that increased compulsory schooling from 7 to 9 y in Norway in the 1960s to estimate the effect of education on IQ. We find that this schooling reform, which primarily affected education in the middle teenage years, had a substantial effect on IQ scores measured at the age of 19 y.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258640/

    You and I are supposed to be searching for the truth. Do you accept that there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence?

    There is a correlation between every conceivable variable and intelligence. Like brain size most will be weak and coincidental. Here you should apply the essential maxim that correlation does not imply causation.

    It’s pretty obvious that the world isn’t organized around an understanding that people with larger brains are smarter. Nobody ever considers head size, and by extension brain size, in evaluating the potential for intelligence. If this idea had any merit the world would be awash in calipers, tape measures and MRI’s with a view toward finding the people with the largest brains. Headhunting, as it were. But we don’t see any of that, do we?

    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @James Thompson
  269. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Res of course, says that if you are that poor you must be dumb due to bad genes

    Gotta love the strawmen.

    Are you still smarting after learning how ill considered your comment 263 was? Maybe next time you will look at the paper as well as the abstract.

  270. mikemikev says:

    I like to imagine that tiny brained chimps are just as smart as everyone else. It makes me feel happy and special.

  271. AaronB says:

    I have to say that the whole head size thing is a good example of how childish the IQists are.

    Childish and obvious.

    Really a good example of how they think.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Okechukwu
  272. AaronB says:
    @Okechukwu

    It’s pretty obvious that the world isn’t organized around an understanding that people with larger brains are smarter

    Good point.

    Lol, it took the glories of modern IQ science to bring us to that point.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  273. res says:
    @AaronB

    I have to say that the whole head size thing is a good example of how childish the IQists are.

    Childish and obvious.

    Really a good example of how they think.

    Remember that it was Okechukwu who first brought up brain size in this thread in comment 215.

    With a foolish reference to discredited Boskop man.

    And then followed it up in comment 225 with a reference to his own head size and difficulty finding a hat.

    Normally after seeing a comment like yours I’d ask if you have anything substantive to say, but since I am responding to AaronB that isn’t really necessary since I know nothing like that will be forthcoming.

    P.S. Your own comments provide excellent examples of how you think (or not).

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  274. mikemikev says:
    @AaronB

    It is obvious, and nobody claimed otherwise. More idiotic strawman. The reason brain size matters is because it indicates heritability of brain power, and that is something that society is organised around, or should be at least if society wasn’t run by virtue-signalling useful-idiots and hostile, lying, anti-white racial-Marxist lunatics.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  275. Okechukwu says:
    @AaronB

    Childish and obvious.

    Really a good example of how they think.

    Indeed. And there’s always an ulterior motive, a hidden agenda behind all the nonsense. Brain size like IQ and like intelligence varies tremendously within all populations. Yet imbeciles like Res are fixated exclusively on black brain size. Untold millions of black people have larger brains than untold millions of whites and Asians? Doesn’t matter to dumb-dumb Res and his fellow travelers. After all, they are not interested in honest scientific inquiry. Rather they are trying to promote a very insidious agenda. An agenda, of course, that doesn’t play well in the wider world where people actually think and reason, no matter how assiduously they try to insinuate their canon into that wider world.

    In the real world, the following question would be posed of the traffickers of this junk:

    Okay, I understand you have an interest in brain size as it relates to intelligence, but why must you racialize it?

    Of course, IQists and race “science” devotees like Res and Dr. Thompson will regurgitate a standard talking point in an attempt to overcome this objection. They’ll say it’s all about averages. But the problem is, this ridiculous deflection only works in their circle-jerks and echo-chambers where the audience is dumb (very dumb), delusional (very delusional) and indoctrinated (very much indoctrinated).

    In actuality, the alleged averages are always fraudulent fabrications borne of this unremitting desire these people have to create a global caste system with black people at the very bottom. In reality, no one knows what the averages of anything truly are — be it IQ, brain size, innate intelligence or what have you. Furthermore, to the extent that there are hierarchies in these factors, no one knows which race is actually on top and which one is on the bottom. No one cares because in the real world we recognize that the within race variation and between race overlap in these attributes makes the question moot and pointless.

    As a consequence, no one real and credible is going to go around the world measuring heads and doing MRI’s on a truly global scale with a vast sample size. No one real and credible is going to produce a truly culturally and linguistically neutral/inclusive IQ tests and then go around the world testing folks. Let’s see, for example, how Res and Dr. Thompson would fare on an IQ test in the Zulu language, administered by Zulu speakers, and steeped in Zulu cultural references. They probably wouldn’t score up to 20. These are the kinds of experiments we would have to do if we took this topic seriously enough to seriously investigate it. The research and investigation would under the auspices of a world body like the UN. It certainly wouldn’t be left to Pioneer Fund grantees and various other quacks and charlatans. Dr. Thompson and his colleagues would definitely not be invited to participate.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @res
  276. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    this ridiculous deflection

    Yup

  277. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @mikemikev

    More idiotic strawman.

    how sad indeed is the lot of the IQist, beset by idiots and makers of strawmen.

    The reason brain size matters is because it indicates heritability of brain power

    An assertion that tells something about the brain power of the IQists, if not the size of their heads.

  278. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    Let’s see, for example, how Res and Dr. Thompson would fare on an IQ test in the Zulu language, administered by Zulu speakers, and steeped in Zulu cultural references.

    Attaboy. Go gett em.

    But there’s another question here. Why does Unz promote this stuff? And not only denigration of African intelligence, but broad-brush anti-Semitism, not just criticism of the state of Israel, or particular Jews such as America’s Israel firsters, but blanket condemnation.

    Very strange — coming from a Jew. I wish Unz would address the issue.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Okechukwu
  279. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Yet imbeciles like Res are fixated exclusively on black brain size.

    Let’s revisit Okechukwu’s comment 215 (the first brain size comment in this thread):

    Boskop Man of South Africa was probably a genius on average, with a brain that was 30% larger than ours.

    And his comment 225:

    Europeans do not have larger brains than Black Africans. Shall I recount my experience at a hat shop in an all-white town where they didn’t have a hat large enough for my head? The same thing happened in Germany.

    Who exactly is fixated here? And who exactly is racializing (and personalizing) the brain size issue?

    I am not particularly perturbed by the idea that Asians may have bigger brains or higher IQs than whites on average. Why is Okechukwu so defensive about acknowledging the average white/black differences in these areas? Perhaps he is lacking in self (or group) confidence?

    And while I am here, let’s revisit my comment 259.

    So much for being done. How about you just try addressing even one of my points in comment 244 then? I am particularly interested in how Afrosapiens came up with the idea that Beals had no African skull data. Can you support that?

    One way I know I am in a conversation with Okechukwu. I can keep recycling my old comments because he so seldom actually addresses any of my points.

    P.S. I do confess to bringing the brain size issue up when the opportunity presents (like after Okechukwu’s Boskop man comment, see my comment 221) because I know it annoys him. But the big difference here is one of us has a belief supported by research.

    P.P.S. In case anyone has not realized it yet, I consider Okechukwu’s “Troll”s and ad hominems a validation at this point. “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made”

  280. notanon says:

    if you are that poor you must be dumb due to bad genes

    yes (mostly)

    the solution to poverty is genetically uplifting stupid people.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  281. @Okechukwu

    There is no earthly environment that didn’t call for intelligence. That’s why intelligence is not differentiated between different populations of humans. You could take young children from hunter-gatherer tribes, bring them to a western country and within a few years they will have assimilated all the technology and mastered the language. They could go to Harvard or Oxford, become engineers or scientists. This is because all human brains are the same.

    How do you…oh, never mind anymore. Maybe science really is a White thing.

  282. @Okechukwu

    It is possible that there is an intelligence boosting effect of education, and that there is also a correlation of -3 to .4 between head size and intelligence.

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

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

  283. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Contentious threads at the Unz Review definitely make for strange bedfellows. I have to remember that and not be too quick to judge people by the company they keep.

  284. Okechukwu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But there’s another question here. Why does Unz promote this stuff? And not only denigration of African intelligence, but broad-brush anti-Semitism, not just criticism of the state of Israel, or particular Jews such as America’s Israel firsters, but blanket condemnation.

    You’re right. The vitriol directed Jews is arguably worse than that which is directed at Africans, albeit Jews are credited with a duplicitous Machiavelliane intelligence. Some of the anti-Semitism seem ripped verbatim from the manifestos of the Synagogue shooters.

    This environment is not without its consequences. Nowadays synagogues are monitored diligently by police. And during Shabbat service, police presence increases.

  285. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    the solution to poverty is genetically uplifting stupid people.

    Wasn’t necessary in my family.

    My Father’s grandmother was the child of Highland Scots, booted from their ancestral home to make way for sheep. They were some of the more fortunate of the victims of the Highland clearances. They were able to resettle in the English Midlands, rather than being sent in former slave ships to the wilds of Canada’s barren East coast. They gained employment as factory operatives. Nevertheless, they were dirt poor, and during the Crimean war subsisted chiefly on bread and tea.

    At the age of 12, my father’s grandmother lost her mother and thereafter raised her siblings, while working a day job in a hat factory. Among the children and grandchildren of that brood were a grammar school headmaster, a Booker Prize winning novelist, a fellow who made a living traveling both Britain and America giving recitations of Charles Dickens, a WW2 RAF pilot, and the Managing Director of one of Britain’s largest corporations.

  286. annamaria says:
    @res

    Thank you for your expert comments.
    Here is a relevant paper that you might find interesting: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04268-8
    “Diffusion markers of dendritic density and arborization in gray matter predict differences in intelligence,” by Genç et al, 2018

    Previous research has demonstrated that individuals with higher intelligence are more likely to have larger gray matter volume in brain areas predominantly located in parieto-frontal regions. These findings were usually interpreted to mean that individuals with more cortical brain volume possess more neurons and thus exhibit more computational capacity during reasoning. In addition, neuroimaging studies have shown that intelligent individuals, despite their larger brains, tend to exhibit lower rates of brain activity during reasoning. However, the microstructural architecture underlying both observations remains unclear. By combining advanced multi-shell diffusion tensor imaging with a culture-fair matrix-reasoning test, we found that higher intelligence in healthy individuals is related to lower values of dendritic density and arborization. These results suggest that the neuronal circuitry associated with higher intelligence is organized in a sparse and efficient manner, fostering more directed information processing and less cortical activity during reasoning.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04268-8/figures/4

    Perturbations of synaptic and dendritic growth and pruning have grave consequences with regard to cognitive performance. For example, reduced synaptic pruning results in an excess of synapses, which is associated with pathologies characterized by low intelligence including Down’s syndrome.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  287. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You need to abstract from the victimhood card.

    Forgive me for labeling, but you cannot help yourself but pursuing a politically correct path.

    Since when all scientific endeavors were determined by “usefulness?” Who are you to decide what is useful and what is not, particularly when your education does not appear as being of the highest quality?

    First you have rejected IQ as ridiculous. Then you informed the reader that your study (where you were not the first author, obviously) did use IQ measurement.

    Now you are inventing a politically correct yet ignorant idea that sciences conform to some hierarchy that “is maintained by indoctrination of the inferior ranks with a belief in, and hence acceptance of, their own inferiority.” Whom are you trying to indoctrinate on this forum?

    If you feel that your group does not show superior results, why don’t you try to be an outlier? Nobody pushes you to do science. But if you for some reason entered the field, try to be respectful towards scientific research and its reliance on expertise (accumulated knowledge and the talent for using the knowledge efficiently) and the data.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  288. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Since when all scientific endeavors were determined by “usefulness?”

    Dear Annamaria, you are a muddle-headed nincompoop. It was James Thompson who raised the issue of the usefulness for predictive purposes of correlations between brain size and IQ test scores. I then asked for what purpose such predictiveness would be useful.

    Then you say:

    First you have rejected IQ as ridiculous.

    Nonsense. IQ is far worse than ridiculous. It is a tool ideally suited to the implementation of a Fascist state.
    As for:

    Then you informed the reader that your study (where you were not the first author, obviously) did use IQ measurement.

    Now, I am sorry to see, you are hallucinating. I spoke of no study of mine of which I was first, second, third or ninety-ninth author.

    But I have to say that as one of the multitude of Unz trolls, you are not bad.

  289. mikemikev says:
    @CanSpeccy

    What’s wrong with fascism?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  290. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    My apologies: It was j2 who has suddenly revealed that his study used IQ test.

    As for you, CanSpeccy, you simply informed the readers that IQ is “basically a scam” and a “tool ideally suited to the implementation of a Fascist state.”

    Why such a personal anguish?

    You seems as prone to becoming a useful informant with your denunciation of this forum that “not only denigration of African intelligence, but broad-brush anti-Semitism, not just criticism of the state of Israel, or particular Jews such as America’s Israel firsters, but blanket condemnation.”

    What’s your agenda here? Ron Unz is a truly courageous man — in addition to his superb intelligence and business acumen — who has been standing against the powerful and highly corruptive influence of the Lobby.

    Here come two anonymous commenters, CanSpeccy and Okechukwu, two PC warriors promoting the special intelligence of African people and showing their solidarity with zionists and Israel-firsters. Looks like a manifestation of a deep-seated conformism coming from observations of the Lobby power.

    Neah, science is not for you two. Too dangerous.

    Moreover, what are you doing on this forum? There are tons of mass media sources of zionist propaganda, but you loiter here, on the intellectualy-charching Unz forum. Relax and rejoin the mass media where you can be speared of “denigration of African intelligence” [inconvenient scientific facts] and where you will certainly be protected from “broad-brush anti-Semitism” [the facts of the Lobby’s pernicious influence].

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Okechukwu
  291. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Enjoy: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14190/ilhan-omar-gaza-rockets
    by Alan M. Dershowitz:

    Israel is celebrating its 71st year of independence. No nation has contributed so much to humankind in so short a period of time. No nation faced with threats compared to those faced by Israel has ever had a better record of human rights, compliance with the rule of law…

    Comment section: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-10/dershowitz-damns-ilhan-omars-ignorance-and-bigotry-gaza-rockets

    The UN calls Gaza “Occupied Palestinian Territory”. The fact that Israel has pulled the prison guards out to the boundary of the prison doesn’t change that it is still a prison!

  292. If you have the time, you may see my response at comment #312 on the thread “Piffer Rides Again”, and follow the preceding arguments.

    The Piffer model appears to have failed on a fundamental level. This is nuanced as it is opposed to a technical level.

  293. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @mikemikev

    What’s wrong with fascism?

    To an IQ-ist? Probably nothing.

  294. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Here come two anonymous commenters, CanSpeccy and Okechukwu, two PC warriors promoting the special intelligence of African people and showing their solidarity with zionists and Israel-firsters.

    Oh my! Annamaria. How can I describe you other than as a flibbertigibbet. You grasp nothing except by the wrong end.

    Contrary to your bizarre assumption, I have no particular view about African people and their intelligence. Africans are said to score poorly on so-called IQ tests. I accept that as a fact. Only someone very confused could have assumed that I thought otherwise. As for Zionists and Israel-Firsters, they can all go to Hell so far as I am concerned. My interest is with my own nation, which is neither Zion nor is it located in Africa.

  295. mikemikev says:
    @CanSpeccy

    My interest is with my own nation

    That’s the definition of fascism.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  296. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @mikemikev

    That’s the definition of fascism.

    Balls.

  297. Okechukwu says:
    @annamaria

    Neah, science is not for you two. Too dangerous.

    Pssst…Annamaria, there’s no science going on here.

    It’s probably hopeless, but I want to make you understand the distinction between pseudo-“science” and normative, actual science. You seem to be under the misapprehension that ridiculous fake science of the sort circulated all over Unz constitutes the cutting edge of real science. You’re not alone, obviously, this idiocy is pervasive throughout Unz. Res is also acutely afflicted with the misconception that fake science is real science, as are many other denizens here, even including featured contributors like Thompson, Sailer, Jayman, Karlin, etc.

    To further your understanding, I will tell you a tale of two subreddits. The first subreddit (r/science) is all about real science. You won’t find anyone there trying to push racist agendas under the guise of science. This subreddit has a vast and active community of 21.4 million members.

    Then there is the fake science subreddit (r/HBD). This is a virtual ghost town of only 2,600 members. What’s more, at least half the commenters go there to excoriate the racist pseudoscience this subreddit is trying to advance. But guess where Unz articles are cross-posted. You got it, they’re cross-posted on this fake science subreddit. You’ll find Sailer’s stuff there, and Thompson’s stuff and Anatoly Karlin’s stuff. The entire Unz rogues gallery of fake science proliferators are found there.

    So it would appear that these Unz contributors know that they are promulgating fake science. After all, that’s why they studiously avoid real science communities even on the Internet. Nevermind the real world at scientific conferences and such, where they would never have the balls to show their faces. But even on the Internet, they’re cowards.

    I know that due to a toxic mix of stupidity, ignorance, racism, supremacism and delusions, true believers like you and Res really do believe this stuff to the very core of your beings and in the deepest recesses of your hearts. But it appears the people publishing this junk as major contributors here aren’t willing to stand, fight and defend their works. Hence they will only publish in circle-jerks and echo-chambers.

    Well, you may say that the moderators and the communities would never allow these Unz contributors on their sites. First of all, I don’t believe the Unz contributors have the courage to even try, because they know they are pushing fake junk. Secondly, given that Unz pseudoscience as represented by this Piffer “study” is on par with flat earthism and creationism, it is appropriate, indeed compulsory, to censure it and censor it in order to protect and promote scientific integrity. If the Unz stuff were real and valid, it would be untouchable such that it could be defended effectively in any forum on earth, online or offline. And it’s producers and promoters wouldn’t have to hide in the darkest, seediest corners of the Internet.

  298. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    A good assessment.

    If the Unz stuff were real and valid, it would be untouchable such that it could be defended effectively in any forum on earth

    Which is why it is defended here by trolls.

  299. Okechukwu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Africans are said to score poorly on so-called IQ tests.

    Of course, these people can never indicate who conducted these tests, who was tested, when, where, how, sample size, etc. The tests either never happened, or happened with such egregious scientific malpractice as to render the results worthless. Sometimes it’s a sample size of a few illiterate and malnourished village kids. Other times the data is massaged with high scores thrown out. Other times it’s retarded Spanish children used as proxies for Africans. And other times the numbers are simply fabricated out of thin air against the backdrop of the so-called researcher’s deeply-held biases and presumptions.

    It is not by accident that these alleged African IQ numbers are never quoted or published in any credible media or scientific institution in any country on earth. Not even in countries that have never heard of political correctness. That’s because these media organs and scientific institutions do things like fact-checking and due diligence. And it wouldn’t take much fact-checking and due diligence to figure out that the African IQ numbers are fraudulent.

    Media and scientific institutions around the world are not idiot trolls like Res and Annamaria who lap this stuff up. You’ll even see Res and some other morons quoting these fake African IQ numbers and posting the obviously fake “world IQ map” like it’s the gospel truth. You don’t even need anything more than below-average intelligence to appreciate the fraudulence of this data that claims that perfectly functional Africans have lower IQ’s than drooling retards who can’t even brush their own teeth or wipe their own asses. Yet Res believes it and appears willing to defend it to the death. That’s one of the reasons I have assessed Res to be a really, really, REALLY stupid individual.

    Dr. Thompson in one of his other articles tried to suggest that Nigerian primary and secondary school children had retardation-level IQ’s. Little did he know that these same Nigerian students do immigrate to the United States, and in the United States they tend to out-perform their white American counterparts. Globalization and the free movement of people have pretty much destroyed the capacity of these to spread their garbage. Their “data” are always revealed to be fraudulent when juxtaposed against reality.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  300. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    Now this is a story of some real fake science:

    “The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences”
    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap2.pdf

  301. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “Contrary to your bizarre assumption, I have no particular view about African people and their intelligence.”

    CanSpeccy accusations towards the Unz Review: “not only denigration of African intelligence, but broad-brush anti-Semitism…”

    — Not only you do not have courage, you also do not have a decent character.

    If you hate and disrespect this forum so much, why do you frequent the site? This is a wrong forum for you. Particularly because you are a PC-warrior (conformist). As such, you are not able to appreciate the courage of either Dr. Thompson or Ron Unz.

  302. annamaria says:
    @James Thompson

    Thank you! Of course, your article was the source.
    Thank you for your research and wonderful educational papers.

  303. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    Yes, obviously Africans aren’t all retarded, or they could not survive. Yet we are supposed to believe that, for example, the San people of the Kalahari have an imbecile level of intelligence (mean IQ of 53). To believe such rubbish is simply nuts.

    Having lived under different physical and social conditions to Europeans and Asians for thousands of years, one might well expect Africans to be a little different from the other groups in mentality. I would expect, in fact, them to be somewhat similar to my Scottish Highland forebears who lived a tribal life, engaging in only the most primitive agriculture, living in sod huts, amusing themselves with singing and dancing, and engaging in intermittent warfare with neighboring tribes. But we of Scotch descent are by no means stupid, any more than I would expect Africans to be.

    What most interests me about this debate is to discover what motivates it. For the psychology professionals, being in a position to grade the intelligence of humanity is, I suppose, a power trip. And for some of the followers, the satisfaction of being told of their own racial superiority, whatever their personal limitations, is likely a factor. But perhaps dopiness explains more than one might expect.

  304. mikemikev says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Yes, obviously Africans aren’t all retarded, or they could not survive.

    Rats are able to survive, why shouldn’t Africans?

  305. Okechukwu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Yet we are supposed to believe that, for example, the San people of the Kalahari have an imbecile level of intelligence (mean IQ of 53). To believe such rubbish is simply nuts.

    At some point, we have to call people who believe these things what they are. They are stupid. Anybody who believes that San people are mentally retarded are themselves stupid. Nobody else on earth believes San people are retarded other than IQists and HBDers. Even the Boer settlers of South Africa, who weren’t exactly liberals or racial egalitarians, didn’t believe the San were retarded.

    Having lived under different physical and social conditions to Europeans and Asians for thousands of years, one might well expect Africans to be a little different from the other groups in mentality.

    Yes. The keyword is mentality as opposed to genomically. Whatever relatively minor differences exist genetically are not going to be expressed at the level of human culture. But you will still have the likes of Dr. Thompson, Piffer and Res trying desperately to cram the square peg of genetics into the round hole of culture.

    I would expect, in fact, them to be somewhat similar to my Scottish Highland forebears who lived a tribal life

    Very true. It’s quite remarkable how similar tribal cultures were across the globe. One of the reasons there are so many so-called lost tribes of Isreal in every corner of the world is due to the uncanny if coincidental similarities in ancient customs, traditions, burial rites, religious practices and so on.

    But we of Scotch descent are by no means stupid, any more than I would expect Africans to be.

    Human societies are shaped by the culture they practice. And as AaronB points out, cultures change, sometimes very quickly and very dramatically. One of the things I admire about Western culture is the emphasis on future generations and the total willingness to sacrifice for them. In Africa and in many other developing regions, there is a great deal of elder worship. Parents are venerated. Grandparents are sacrosanct. Aunts, uncles and other elders are given so much attention and respect and are such a focus of time and resources that the younger generations suffer as a result. Oftentimes, fathers and mothers are running around so much trying to meet the needs of their parents that they can’t meet those of their children. And, naturally, they will expect the same of their own children, creating an endless cycle that tends to retard societal progress.

    This is probably an ethic vestigial of ancient tribal life when elders by dint of their experience were the most important people in society. The West has moved on from the debilitating effects of elder worship, perhaps going too far in the other direction with old folks being dumped and forgotten in nursing homes and such. But I think it’s still better than what they have in Africa and elsewhere.

    What most interests me about this debate is to discover what motivates it. For the psychology professionals,

    It’s a noxious mix of stupidity plus fear of the unknown, fear of encroaching change and fear of declining privilege. Interestingly, historical anti-Scottish Highlander propaganda tracts read very much like some of the material put out by today’s IQists and HBDers about Africans and African-Americans.

    And for some of the followers, the satisfaction of being told of their own racial superiority, whatever their personal limitations, is likely a factor.

    Most of them are American, a country whose founding myths are all about individualism, individual action and self-reliance. Collectivism is supposed to be a Marxist thing, or even an Eastern (Asian) thing. But now these guys are all collectivists if it means they can arrange society and the world according to their delusions, and insinuate themselves atop the pyramid as winners even as they are actually losers. This longed-for world order has no chance of actualizing, but they cling to it regardless, becoming increasingly agitated the further this dream recedes from their grasp.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  306. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    A good summing up.

    … historical anti-Scottish Highlander propaganda tracts read very much like some of the material put out by today’s IQists and HBDers about Africans and African-Americans.

    They began by despising us and but ended by imitating us:

  307. @Okechukwu

    Ahhh, so real science is real because millions of average IQ normies “fucking love science” but those who question the narrative are the fakers.

    Got it.

  308. @CanSpeccy

    Yes, obviously Africans aren’t all retarded, or they could not survive. Yet we are supposed to believe that, for example, the San people of the Kalahari have an imbecile level of intelligence (mean IQ of 53). To believe such rubbish is simply nuts.

    Oh boy. You are a science denier as well. You are denying the science of St Darwin the Evolutionist.

    The San people, as with the Australian Aborigines, have lived for many thousands of years in an environment that does not require great intelligence. However, they were well adapted to the environments they lived in.

    However, they have great difficulty living in the complex environments foisted on them by other peoples, and that is reflected in their performance on IQ tests.

    It has largely been that way for a long time. Think of how Homo sapiens replaced Homo erectus.

    So have some groups of Homo sapiens replaced other groups.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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