I’m with Israel. Those Israelis are smart cookies, and we ought to support the smart. The Mohammedans are a bunch of brain-dead religious fanatic nut cases trapped in the dark ages. Time to raze the whole Gaza Strip to the ground, Israel – go to it. Any surviving towel-heads can be exported to Ukraine. Give all of Palestine to Israel.

For once, someone here has drawn what I think is a surprising conclusion from the coup attempt, namely that it has revealed the real core of Western values.

The “Western values” – long sought in vain but finally revealed!

The whole thing is a disgrace to the USA, from the Capitol police lying about the officer being hit by a fire extinguisher & the bear spray to the continued cover-up and obvious lies about the so-called “insurrection” to the physical assault/hospitalization/permanent physical damage and long-term torture of those arrested. They encouraged rioters to burn down our cities and to murder innocents across our nation all last summer, spent 4 years “resisting” and doing far worse things than anything done on Jan 6. These are the dark days in the USA and those currently in charge will go down in history alongside the other totalitarian regimes that they are trying to emulate. Evil rules over our land , alongside their satanic supporters.
Release the footage, stop the censorship, let freedom ring.

Thanks to the author. This article was balm to my soul. I have been writing about Chile for years, mostly for myself and most of those times with tears in my eyes. Never daring to say out loud everything I lived and learned there for 6 years.

I have been talking about the downfall of Chile for a decade and I have been regarded as a hysterical woman. I have no PhD, masters degree on politics or economics, all I have is my common sense to rely on and I´m happy to say today it never failed me.

I am venezuelan, was living in Europe for several years before moving to Chile in 2011 (turning 24) with the idea that I was in a new paradise and I could grow and make a life there. Soon I realized it was all a lie, I had made the worst mistake of my life, I traded a life in Europe and Australia where I already had a path and opportunities for what?? Everything in Chile was and still is fake!

Chileans are nice? Yes, I agree, my father and all his family are chileans who ran away to Venezuela during Pinochet.

But I could add to this article the questioning of “the nice” people, like everyone in the rest of the world we are/can be born being inherently good and are shaped by our enviroment, so what are the consequences of a neoliberal system on a society´s mental health?

Back then I came to realize how this entire society was (still is) damage at a very deep level. The author here says: Chileans have a great hesitancy to question authority, or challenge power. This hesitancy is built into the culture, and is now working against them.”

It is true!!!!! And its sad! Really sad!

When you see how they allow abuse from other people in every area of their lives, whether it´s their boss, mother, father, children, brothers, anyone, there is no doubt that politicians will take advantage too.

I have never allowed people to step over me and I don´t manipulate nor abuse other people, this very normal, good, human behavior got me in a lot of trouble with chileans, they are not used to people telling them to their faces what the limits are, and they are not capable of putting limits for themselves!!! It´s as if they love to live in a constant cycle of abuse where they are victims and also perpetrators.

Speaking +3 languages, having work experience in different continents all withing the Hotel and Restaurant industry, I ended up working for minimum wage at the biggest casino in Viña del Mar.
My experience, knowledge and problem solving alone was beyond half of the staff there and I was quickly recognized by my superiors and diminished by my peers.

You see… If managers like you then “you are like them, you have money, you are rich, therefore a bad abusive person” This is what every chilean mind thinks.

Money = Power = Rich = Bad, abusers (Weones culiaos)
No Money = No Power = Poor = Good, honorable (Weones buena tela)

I was a problem for a chilean mind: I play the piano, I speak fluent french and I skied in the French Alps, I had been in too many countries for their likes, that meant I was rich and bad. So far from the truth…

In the mean time, I scaled faster than anyone working there for years, I was 25 and in charge of 120 people. They were all so afraid of me, just because I had the “Manager post” and could fire them.

I´m a super empath but I still had to work my way into their hearts and earn their trust. Soon they were looking forward to spend more time with me only because I smiled and I was focused on team work and support more than money results. Either way, I always got my results always putting humans at the center of the work.

All this inner work to confront my superiors, defend the people I was in charge and try to build a life in Chile hiding who I really was because I wasn´t accepted in the society took a heavy toll on me, I ended up like most of chileans, needing therapy. I was questioning what kind of life that was, was it worth living?

Is it really worth to have a clean, neat country on the surface but a broken society all in the name of economic growth?

Since 2011 I wondered why people didn´t say anything about what was going on, prices in the supermarket where higher than France with a quarter of the salary! I was shocked the first time I went to get groceries and the first red flag that something really wrong was going on there. Flash-forward 10 years and the situation is still the same.

I was ready to leave in 2013 but I too fell in love, I endured another 4 years and in 2017 left the country desperately. My husband and I lived in Huechuraba, a middle class neighborhood in the North of Santiago, the day I started hearing about ” a burglar breaking into houses near by” or “a shooting near the mall” I said to him: “We are moving from here and out of the country, because this is how the downfall in Caracas started and I won´t go through this again, people move neighborhoods in the hope that things will be better until thiefs and murderers arrive and then what? move again to a “better” neighborhood?”

I was shocked and happy when in 2019 there were (finally!!!) riots, but I also agree with the author, nothing will change, they think a new constitution will make things better when there will only be new people giving orders in favor of a small new group.

The people, the entire society has to change first, but they really don´t care about change, as long as they have enough money to buy meat and chorizo for their weekend ritual “asado” that´s all they need, want and expect from life…

There is no future for growth in Chile under this conditions, you can make money, yes, but we humans need more than money to really prosper and live fulfilled lives.

I feel a lot of compassion for chileans who are very ignorant of whats going on in the country, I feel compassion for all those Venezuelans, and other South Americans who looking for opportunities have landed in this mess…

The title from The Buffalo News: “Surge in gun violence disproportionately hits Buffalo’s Black residents” is passive language from the standpoint of the black residents. As if they are not doing anything, but are victims of a outside force (gun violence) they cannot control. This is the type of language used to shift blame and is a hallmark of the subversive voice dominating Western Civilization.

i need to know who you are. enjoy your comments. do you have twitter etc to establish contact
pbuy [peace be unto you]

The more mentions of jews the merrier. It’s impossible to explain the goings on in the west without use of the j word any more than one can explain the motion of planets without bringing up gravity. Those who don’t like it can suck it and go to any of a number of msm disinformation for suckers establishments. You’re definitely spoilt for choice.

What average IQ had afro-americans? 83-85? NW Europeans are outbreeding with this people.

What average IQ had England Pakistanis? 85? NW Europeans are outbreeding with these people.

If NW Europeans had an edge above the rest, they will quickly lose it. In fact, they are marked for extinction.

The key here is: IQ is a tool for survival. There are others. But the end goal, is survival. Like always. And the combinations of characteristics of NW Europeans don’t seems stable for survival in long term as a coherent group.

Inbreeding is good in some degree. High IQ and high in-group tribalism in Ashkenazi Jews is an example. And, in the graphic, Catholic Europe had the best balance between religion-rationalism, tribalism-individualism.

And…. it’s ironic that low IQ Southerns Europeans are a problem, when NW Europeans are out breeding with people with IQ below 70.

It’s seems that the characteristics that make NW Europeans so bright are going to be the cause of their perdition. Bad luck.

Sorry for the mistakes. Low IQ Southern European here.

If you’re preforming a genetic association study, then you should not simply assume that self-identification will produce genetically homogenous populations. This much has been proven over and over again.
However, their questionnaire does little to try to actually estimate admixture. I’m willing to wager that you’d get a pretty good admixture estimate (correlation) if you asked a panel of judges to estimate admixture based on photos. Alternatively, you could combine skin color reflectometry measurements with a number of qualitative assessments of physical features to build a pretty good metric of African admixture.

Lynn’s IQ data, taken at face value, suggests an average IQ difference between NE Asians living in the US and NE Asia — with higher scores in NE Asia. 
 
Just something to factor into the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

no ethical issues with chimp-mouse chimeras

so small selective pressures on individual loci (even if the selective pressure on the phenotype itself might be strong). 
 
is that conclusion solid? i haven’t seen any theory or data speaking to that.

p-ter and fly – what you’re saying is all true, but in this case it seems like an overly generous interpretation — “I even wonder if there are genes really associated with ‘cognitive performance.’” 
 
perhaps Quintana-Murci was speaking in terms of the current state of our knowledge — “I even wonder if there are genes [known to be] associated with ‘cognitive performance.’” but this seems unlikely given the context, given that the message was delivered by email, and given the use of quotes around cognitive performance. it just seemed like more uninformed obscurantism to me.

“There is not evidence at all of any population differences in genes associated with neurological development or cognitive performance,” wrote study author Lluis Quintana-Murci in an email. “In addition, I even wonder if there are genes really associated with ‘cognitive performance.’” 
 
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/regional-variat.html

unlikely but not impossible that the signal in the 5′ UTR is due to microRNA binding 
 
In animals, microRNAs (miRNAs) bind to the 3′ UTRs of their target mRNAs and interfere with translation, although the exact mechanism of inhibition of protein synthesis remains unclear. Functional miRNA-binding sites in the coding regions or 5′ UTRs of endogenous mRNAs have not been identified. 
 
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/23/9667 
 
but it still probably has something to do with the regulation of expression

http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin32/hsda?harcsda+gss06
“scitest4” was the earlier version of that question
in 2006 it’s “evolved”
the other variables of interest:
racecomb
religion
degree
god
region
partyid
or the other science knowledge questions:
HOTCORE SCI KNOWLEDGE: THE CENTER OF EARTH IS VERY HOT
RADIOACT SCI KNOWLEDGE:ALL RADIOACTIVITY IS MAN-MADE
BOYORGRL SCI KNOWLEDGE:FATHER GENE DECIDES SEX OF BABY
LASERS SCI KNOWLEDGE:LASERS WORK BY FOCUSING SOUND WAVES
ELECTRON SCI KNOWLEDGE:ELECTRONS ARE SMALLER THAN ATOMS
VIRUSES SCI KNOWLEDGE:ANTIVIOTICS KILL VIRUSES AS WELL AS BACTERIA
BIGBANG SCI KNOWLEDGE:THE UNIVERSE BEGAN WITH A HUGE EXPLOSION
CONDRIFT SCI KNOWLEDGE:THE CONTINENTS HAVE BEEN MOVING
EVOLVED SCI KNOWLEDGE:HUMAN BEINGS DEVELOPED FROM ANIMALS
EARTHSUN SCI KNOWLEDGE:THE EARTH GOES AROUND THE SUN
SOLARREV SCI KNOWLEDGE:HOW LONG THE EARTH GOES AROUND THE SUN

http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin32/hsda?harcsda+gss06

JuJuby wrote: The maximin rule does allow people to maximize their expected utility so long as any increase in theoir utility is justified by an increase in the utility of the least well-off.  
 
In my mind, I was making the same point as PhysicistDave when he wrote: Prima facie, it seems to make more sense not to accept the maximin criterion but rather to accept some sort of expected value criterion. After all, in real life, that is what everyone does ? otherwise, we would spend our entire lives frantically trying to avoid quite unlikely catastrophes and would make ourselves utterly miserable (better live a few hundred feet underground, just in case a meteorite hits your humble abode!). 
 
Imagine that the distribution of life outcomes has a long thin left tail. In the Original Position, you’d only be willing to dedicate so much of societies resources to insuring a floor of life outcomes, which practically means allowing for more of a left tail than maximin would allow. The reasoning is analogous to the way we don’t all drive around in $250k tank-like cars (to avoid traffic fatalities). We don’t concentrate on the worst possible (but improbable) outcomes, but rather the integrated risk. Consider two alternative outcomes from the Original Position: (1) a distribution of utility with a floor at -2SD or (2) a nearly identical distribution of utility shifted far to the right but a few people have really terrible lives. The expected value is higher in situation #2 whereas the maximin criteria calls for #1.

You don’t need to ascribe variation in talents to genetic factors in order to sustain Rawls’ assumption about the distribution of talents. Rather, what gets you there is fact that people’s talents are largely outside of their control (or anyone else’s control). Variance in talent could be entirely attributable to stochastic processes and the same argument would hold. 
 
The blank slate / SSSM hypothesis is that people’s talents (and life outcomes) are controllable by environmental manipulation.

I’ve been a Rawlsian since Herrnstein and Murray laid out the case so completely in The Bell Curve. Can’t find the quote right now, but they point this obvious connection themselves at some point. 
 
Here’s a more recent quote along those lines: 
Rushton and Jensen (2005) make no recommendations for specific policies and correctly argue that the hereditarian hypothesis implies none in particular. For example, proof that the Black?White IQ gap is partly genetic could, depending on one?s goals, be used to justify banning all racial preferences in employment and college admissions or, from a Rawlsian perspective (that genetic advantages are undeserved and unfair), require substantial and permanent racial preferences. 
source 
 
However, I’m not convinced that maximizing the minimum is the optimal solution in the original position. Instead you’d maximize your expected utility – whatever the hell that really implies.

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w12466

“but in the end scholarship will falsify the idea that the koran was always as it is” 
 
Aren’t we asserting the result before the experiment/evidence?

well, a GWAS conducted by current methods starts with the hypothesis that there are common variants of moderately large effect size that contribute to common variation in a trait. it’s a rather broad hypothesis, but one which is being tested with every GWAS. 
 
moreover, at the end of the GWAS, you hopefully end up with many more hypotheses to test. 
 
however, i think the point being made is that in an era of high-throughput biology, it’s scope and scale of a reasonable, testable hypothesis needs to be reconsidered.

For the untutored, what does phased and unphased refer to? Where is the best primer? 
 
Consider diploid SNP genotypes measured at locations #1 through #5 along a single chromosome for a single individual: 
 
Locus 1 – AA 
Locus 2 – AG 
Locus 3 – CC 
Locus 4 – GT 
Locus 5 – TT 
 
Based on that (unphased) data alone, you can’t tell what the genotype along each chromosome is. There are four (phased) possibilities: 
 
AACGT 
AGCTT 
 
AGCGT 
AACTT 
 
AACTT 
AGCGT 
 
AGCTT 
AACGT 
 
You can determine this experimentally by sequencing across the region. You can deduce with some accuracy which phase is most likely given enough samples of unrelated individuals from the population. Or given the genotypes from related individuals, you can make a even more accurate estimate of which phase is correct.

I would think that selective forces changed dramatically during the last 50-200 years (varying by population). In that case, what once was under powerful selection could now be nearly neutral.

a quick check of Wikipedia shows what H&M really wrote:

In a discussion of the future political outcomes of an intellectually stratified society, they stated that they “fear that a new kind of conservatism is becoming the dominant ideology of the affluent – not in the social tradition of an Edmund Burke or in the economic tradition of an Adam Smith but ‘conservatism’ along Latin American lines, where to be conservative has often meant doing whatever is necessary to preserve the mansions on the hills from the menace of the slums below” (p. 518). Moreover, they fear that increasing welfare will create a “custodial state” in “a high-tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority of the nation’s population.” They also predict increasing totalitarianism: “It is difficult to imagine the United States preserving its heritage of individualism, equal rights before the law, free people running their own lives, once it is accepted that a significant part of the population must be made permanent wards of the states” (p. 526).

in 1994 Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in “The Bell Curve,” notoriously proposed that Americans with the lowest I.Q.s be sequestered in a “high-tech” version of an Indian reservation, “while the rest of America tries to go about its business.”

“proposed” and “argued against” are so close in meaning that its easy to get them confused

1: Pediatrics. 2003 Jan;111(1):e39-44. 
 
Maternal supplementation with very-long-chain n-3 fatty acids during pregnancy 
and lactation augments children’s IQ at 4 years of age. 
 
Helland IB, Smith L, Saarem K, Saugstad OD, Drevon CA. 
 
Institute for Nutrition Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Peter Möller, 
avd Orkla, ASA, Oslo, Norway. ingrid.hella[email protected] 
 
OBJECTIVES: Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6 n-3) and arachidonic acid (AA; 20:4 
n-6) are important for development of the central nervous system in mammals. 
There is a growth spurt in the human brain during the last trimester of pregnancy 
and the first postnatal months, with a large increase in the cerebral content of  
AA and DHA. The fetus and the newborn infant depend on maternal supply of DHA and 
AA. Our hypothesis was that maternal intake of DHA during pregnancy and lactation 
is marginal and that high intake of this fatty acid would benefit the child. We 
examined the effect of supplementing pregnant and lactating women with 
very-long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs; cod liver oil) on mental  
development of the children, compared with maternal supplementation with 
long-chain n-6 PUFAs (corn oil). METHODS: The study was randomized and 
double-blinded. Pregnant women were recruited in week 18 of pregnancy to take 10  
mL of cod liver oil or corn oil until 3 months after delivery. The cod liver oil  
contained 1183 mg/10 mL DHA, 803 mg/10 mL eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5 n-3), and a 
total of 2494 mg/10 mL summation operator n-3 PUFAs. The corn oil contained 4747  
mg/10 mL linoleic acid (18:2 n-6) and 92 mg/10 mL alpha-linolenic acid (18:3 
n-3). The amount of fat-soluble vitamins was identical in the 2 oils (117 micro 
g/mL vitamin A, 1 micro g/mL vitamin D, and 1.4 mg/mL dl-alpha-tocopherol). A 
total of 590 pregnant women were recruited to the study, and 341 mothers took 
part in the study until giving birth. All infants of these women were scheduled 
for assessment of cognitive function at 6 and 9 months of age, and 262 complied 
with the request. As part of the protocol, 135 subjects from this population were 
invited for intelligence testing with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children 
(K-ABC) at 4 years of age. Of the 135 invited children, 90 came for assessment. 
Six children did not complete the examination. The K-ABC is a measure of 
intelligence and achievement designed for children aged 2.5 years through 12.5 
years. This multisubtest battery comprises 4 scales: Sequential Processing, 
Simultaneous Processing, Achievement (not used in the present study), and 
Nonverbal Abilities. The Sequential Processing and Simultaneous Processing scales 
are hypothesized to reflect the child’s style of problem solving and information  
processing. Scores from these 2 scales are combined to form a Mental Processing 
Composite, which serves as the measure of intelligence in the K-ABC. RESULTS: We  
received dietary information from 76 infants (41 in the cod liver oil group and 
35 in the corn oil group), documenting that all of them were breastfed at 3 
months of age. Children who were born to mothers who had taken cod liver oil (n = 
48) during pregnancy and lactation scored higher on the Mental Processing 
Composite of the K-ABC at 4 years of age as compared with children whose mothers  
had taken corn oil (n = 36; 106.4 [7.4] vs 102.3 [11.3]). The Mental Processing 
Composite score correlated significantly with head circumference at birth (r = 
0.23), but no relation was found with birth weight or gestational length. The 
children’s mental processing scores at 4 years of age correlated significantly 
with maternal intake of DHA and eicosapentaenoic acid during pregnancy. In a 
multiple regression model, maternal intake of DHA during pregnancy was the only 
variable of statistical significance for the children’s mental processing scores  
at 4 years of age. CONCLUSION: Maternal intake of very-long-chain n-3 PUFAs 
during pregnancy and lactation may be favorable for later mental development of 
children. 
 
PMID: 12509593 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

This is what I take away as the most important point from Jason’s original post and the NYTimes article — to date, the representation of the science in the media has been tightly controlled by the likes of Dr. Feldman’s “ready response teams”. These scientists and others of similar dispositions have controlled and distorted the presentation of the scientific research in the media, favoring their preferred views. This is an unacceptable short-cutting of the way normal science is practiced and disseminated. However the science actually turns out in the end, we need free, open and civil debate.

Your link in your blogroll for Ali is eteraz.org-I believe you meant to link to his personal blog at eteraz.wordpress.com

One guy framed it as 30 / 70 vs. 70 / 30, and 60/40 vs. 40/60 would probably capture most people. 
 
The increase in h2 and decrease in c2 with age, combined the tendency to oversample younger twins, confounds any such summary statistic. The 30% values are coming from young children and the 70% values are coming from adults.

I can’t speak for Bouchard and McGue but Kamin (1974) made the claim and was favorably quoted ad nauseum after that.

let’s start with this… 
 
a small excerpt from a large text 
Bouchard and McGue (2003) 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/neu.10160 
 
An informative place to begin the discussion of studies of genetic influence on g is a recent reanalysis, by Devlin et al. (1997a), of a slight update of kinship correlations for IQ originally summarized and published by Bouchard and McGue (1981). Devlin has written critically of the behavioral genetic literature (Devlin et al., 1995, 1997b), so that we may expect him to report a conservative estimate of genetic influence. The most important findings in their article are that: the broad heritability of IQ is about 50% (additive variance = .34, nonadditive genetic variance = .15); twin maternal (i.e., in utero) effects account for 20%, and sibling maternal effects account for 5% of IQ variance; and shared environmental factors account for 17% of IQ variance. As McGue (1997) notes in an accompanying commentary, the result of this article is to center the debate on whether IQ is 50 or 70% heritable. This is a remarkable shift from the previous view, asserted by numerous critics, that the heritability of IQ is near zero. 
 
While we regularly use modeling in our own work, we would like to repeat the caveat we placed at the end of our original presentation. ?Although the data clearly suggest the operation of environmental effects, we found no evidence for two factors sometimes thought to be important?sex-role effects and maternal effects. That the data support the inference of partial genetic determination for IQ is indisputable: that they are informative about the precise strength of this effect is dubious. Certainly the large amount of unexplained variability within degrees of relationship, while not precluding attempts to model the data, suggests that such models should be interpreted cautiously? (Bouchard and McGue, 1981, p 1058). 
 
Given the need for cautious interpretation, it is especially noteworthy that the Devlin et al. (1997a) estimate of 49% for the heritability of IQ is in close agreement with the estimate of 51% reported by Chipuer et al. (1990) and the estimates of 47 and 58% reported by Loehlin (1989), who fit different although clearly converging models to the IQ correlations. Where the different analyses disagree is in terms of apportioning environmental, and not genetic, effects. Devlin et al. (1997a) conclude that the prenatal envi- ronment exerts a significant influence on IQ, increasing the IQ similarity of twins over other relative pairings. In contrast, Chipuer et al. and Loehlin conclude that the postnatal rather than the prenatal environment is most important. 
 
The Devlin et al. (1997a) conclusion that the prenatal environment contributes to twin IQ similarity is especially remarkable given the existence of an extensive empirical literature on prenatal effects. Price (1950), in a comprehensive review published over 50 years ago, argued that almost all MZ twin prenatal effects produced differences rather than similarities. As of 1950 the literature on the topic was so large that the entire bibliography was not published. It was finally published in 1978 with an additional 260 references. At that time Price reiterated his earlier conclusion (Price, 1978). Research subsequent to the 1978 review largely reinforces Price?s hypothesis (Bryan, 1993; Macdonald et al., 1993; Hall and Lopez-Rangel, 1996; see also Martin et al., 1997, box 2; Machin, 1996). 
 
Consideration of features of kinship similarity for IQ not incorporated into the analyses reported by Devlin et al. and the other modelers can help to further elucidate the nature of environmental influences on IQ. In particular, kinship correlations for IQ vary with age and failure to take this into account may have resulted in an overestimate of maternal environmental effects. For example, the kinship that provides the most direct test for postnatal environmental effects is the correlation between nonbiologically related, reared-together (i.e., adoptive) siblings (unrelated together or URTs). Devlin et al. did not include this kinship in the analysis they report ?because the observed correlations are extremely variable? (p. 469). In fact, and as shown in Figure 3, a major contributor to the heterogeneity in the adoptive sibling correlation is the age of the sample. The childhood data are from Burks (1928), Freeman et al. (1928), Leahy (1935), Skodak (1950), Scarr and Weinberg (1977), and Horn et al. (1979). The adult data are from Scarr and Weinberg (1978), Teasdale and Owen (1984), Scarr et al. (1993), Loehlin et al. (1997), and Segal (2000). The adoptive siblings assessed in childhood or adolescence, when they were presumably still living together, had an average IQ correlation of .26, suggesting that common rearing accounts for 26% of IQ variance. 
 
The adoptive sibling pairs assessed in adulthood, however, had an average IQ correlation of only .04, suggesting that common rearing effects do not endure once the siblings no longer live together. Importantly, failure to observe significant IQ similarity in adult adoptive sibling pairs does not appear to be a consequence of biased sample selection. Teasdale and Owen (1984) reported an IQ correlation of .02 for 24 pairs of adopted, adult brothers obtained through Danish conscription board files. Because evaluation for conscription is mandatory for Danish males (regardless of medical status), and because the researchers had access to the complete Danish adoption register, this sample can be considered one of the most, if not the most, representative adoption study in the literature. While the representativeness of the sample does not solve the problem of restriction of range, it certainly makes it less salient. 
 
Twin studies also suggest that genetic and environmental contributions to IQ vary with age. Wilson (1978) was one of the first to explore changes in kinship correlations for IQ in a longitudinal study, and his findings are shown in Figure 4. Prior to age 2, the phenotypic assessments used in this study are best characterized as indicies of mental development, and not IQ. The content of these mental development assessments is quite different from the, primarily verbal, content of the IQ tests used in the later years. In any case, if we use the Falconer formula 2(rmz rdz) as an estimate of genetic influence we see that in the early months there is minimal genetic influence but that by the age of 1 genetic factors begin to express themselves and they get much larger from 4 years of age and on. The same influences are expressing themselves in the sib-twin and midparent-offspring correlations. These longitudinal data thus suggest that with age, genetic factors increase while environmental factors decrease in importance. 
 
Building on the work by Wilson, McGue et al. (1993) plotted twin IQ correlations by age. The IQ variance estimates derived from comparing the agespecific MZ and DZ correlations are shown in Figure 5. 
 
Again we see the growing expression of genetic influence and decreasing manifestation of shared environmental influence. Not shown in Figure 5 is the extreme paucity of adult twins in studies of IQ?the younger twins swamp the data base. It is far easier to recruit twins in school settings than it is to recruit adult twins and bring them to a laboratory. Nevertheless, these data are highly consistent with the URT data and also suggest that heritability is contingent on age. 
 
Recent longitudinal family and adoption data from the Texas Adoption Project (TAP) and Colorado Adoption Project (CAP) confirm these findings. In the TAP, researchers reported that estimates of IQ heritability increased (from .38 to .78) while estimates of shared environmental influence decreased (from .19 to .00) as the adopted children in the families aged from adolescence to young adulthood (Loehlin et al., 1997). A notable
feature of TAP is that test reliability was incorporated into the model so that parameter estimates refer to true score rather than observed score variance. In CAP (Plomin et al., 1997), parent-offspring IQ correlations (weighted average for mothers and fathers) for adoptive and control (matched biological) families were assessed at 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, and 16 years of age. These findings are shown in Figure 6. The correlations are modest and in about the same range for both types of families until about age 5, after which they diverge dramatically, with the adoptive family correlations reaching an asymptote of zero at age 12. Model fitting to the data yielded a heritability estimate of .56, an environmental transmission value of .01, an assortative mating value of .21, and a genotype-environment correlation of .01. A very similar trend, of adopted children becoming more similar to their biological than their adoptive parents over time, was reported by Honzik (1957). 
 
Boomsma et al. (1999) have recently published estimates of heritability and shared environmental influence for IQ by age (5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 27 years of age) from a sample of Dutch twins. To these estimates we add data extending the Dutch sample to age 50 that were kindly provided to us by Prof. Boomsma (see also Posthuma et al., 2002a, Figure 12.1). The results are shown in Figure 7. 
 
Interestingly, the heritability of general cognitive ability may decline in late life. McClearn et al. (1997) reported estimates of heritability and shared environmental influence in a sample of 117 twins age 80 years or older. For the first principal component of the seven cognitive tests, an index of g, heritability was estimated at .62 (95% CI, .29?.73), and shared environment was estimated at .11 (95% CI, .00?.47). If a short form of the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale was used to estimate g, heritability was estimated at .55 (95% CI, .19?.76), and shared environment was estimated at .20 (95% CI, .00?.47). The influence of shared environment could have been dropped from the model in both instances as indicated by the confidence intervals. McGue and Christensen (2001) recently replicated McClearn et al.?s findings by reporting a heritability estimate of .54 (95% CI, .27?.63) for a general cognitive ability measure, in a sample of Danish twins 75 years and older. These heritability estimates are a bit lower than in younger adult data (Plomin et al., 1994), and suggest that heritability decreases in older cohorts. This conclusion is also supported by longitudinal studies of older twins (Finkel et al., 1995, 1998). 
 
In summary, twin, adoption, and longitudinal family studies of IQ all converge on the conclusion that genetic factors increase while shared environmental factors decrease in importance with age, at least until middle age. Summary estimates of heritability from Devlin et al. (1997a), Chipuer et al. (1990), and Loehlin (1989) all fail to take these age effects into account.

libel

what cochran said. 
 
however, i don’t see any mention of “inbreed” in his works: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?freetext=inbreed

I don’t trust rationality even if I can master it. There’s just too much room for self-deception. It’s just much easier to trust one’s intuition. Of course, it has to be good intuition. Some people are naturally intuitive, but I think that most can improve their intuition through reading a lot of literature critically, doing one’s own experiments and research (it’s amazing how much people BS), deciding the right answer through “feeling it out” after the preliminary research is done, and then testing to see if one’s right. With 10 years or so of doing this, one’s intuition dramatically increases. Taking truth seriously helps in avoiding self-deception. Thinking that there is a truth out there also helps. It drives the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge. When everything becomes a matter of preference (Post-Modernism), people get lazy in acquiring knowledge and wisdom. 
 
Emotional intuition is harder, but more valuable. Having great emotional intuition doesn’t necessarily mean you are sociable, but it certainly helps. The great thing about emotional intuition is that you begin to read people accurately. Discernment of other people’s character becomes easy and amazingly accurate. 
 
The post mentioned that religious people are less intelligent. I beg to differ. What is intelligence? Education? A study that evaluates all different types of intelligence, not just the knowledge and superficial logic that comes with a college degree, is very difficult. How do you weight the different kinds? How do you test them? Also, who are you comparing? Working class religious to working class agnostic/atheist (the common denominator being a mid to low level formal education)? suspect these studies compare people with more education to those with less. It’s also no secret that most working class people are religious. Religion then becomes irrelevant. I would like to see a study done between religous people in academia, and non religous people in academia. I suspect the results would be different.