The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
More IQ Genes?
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A reader writes:

The new paper by Piffer (PDF downloadable here), or at least the first part, is fairly memorable. Correlations between national average IQs and the top seven alleles aren’t bad. Piffer and his partner are able to show that other alleles that track with the known IQ alleles across populations are overrepresented in Craig Venter and James D. Watson (who are smart guys, I presume), who have had their genomes published. …

The research will get stronger if they use the other approximately 60 alleles listed in the recent study. It would be even better if they used all of the numbers about the millions of SNPs from that large study by Rietveld et al. Nonetheless, it’s really getting pretty obvious that there are sizable genetic population differences more or less following the phenotypes, although lots of details remain to be scoped out more clearly.

Here’s the abstract:

Detecting “polygenes” using signals of polygenic selection. Tools for increasing the power of GWAS.

Piffer, Davide
Gilfoyle, Bertram

Abstract
Comparison of allele frequency patterns across many loci has recently been used to identify selective pressure on polygenic traits such as height and IQ. In this paper, we used one such approach based on principal components analysis, and analyzed GWAS hits from recent studies whose effect on intelligence has been replicated. The component scores had very strong correlations with estimates of country/population IQ (r around 0.8-0.9). To further validate this approach, we tested the prediction that the alleles positively correlated to the principal component (PC) are overrepresented among highly intelligent individuals. James Watson and Craig Venter both meet this requirement and have their genomes freely available online. We found an overrepresentation (compared to the 1000 Genomes CEU sample) of alleles correlated with our PC in Watson and Venter’s genomes, suggesting that our PCs could represent a genuine signal of selection pressure on intelligence across many genes. We found that among the alleles correlated with our PCs, there is a higher ratio of derived:ancestral alleles compared to SNPs uncorrelated to the PC. This is in accord with the increase of human intelligence during hominin evolution.

 
Hide 16 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/16/democrats-now-have-a-51-percent-chance-of-holding-the-senate/

    More reason to end the GOP

    Even with border meltdown, Dems have 51% chance of retaining issues.

    They got the young, colored, and social values vote. As homo-stuff is the main moral value of many people, they will vote Dem on that issue alone.
    Dems also have all the big money from big cities. And Eskimo support in media.

    And to top it off…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388098/congressional-report-foreign-born-population-could-rise-60-million-people-within-ten

    Nothing can be done about the tide now… unless secession becomes the new thing.

    • Replies: @Fritz Pettyjohn
    @Priss Factor

    R's can win with one message. ... Secure the border. It addresses illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, and fear of infectious diseases like Ebola.
    People want it, and know the D's won't do it.

  2. “They got the young, colored, and social values vote. As homo-stuff is the main moral value of many people, they will vote Dem on that issue alone.”

    Don’t forget that most Union workers also vote Democrat as well as most single mothers and most of the underclass who live below the poverty line. There is a long list of demographic groups in the country that vote majority Democrat. Yet the list of demographic groups in the country that vote majority Republican is much smaller.

    It’s been all downhill for the GOP since George W. Bush was in the oval office. The conspiracy theorist in me would say W. is a secret liberal who infiltrated the GOP to permanently destroy the party and make sure it never wins another presidential election again after he left office.

  3. The left has called James D. Watson a racist, even though he has Sub Saharan African admixture. But according to left wing logic, people with Sub Saharan African blood are not capable of being racist. But than again that did not stop them from calling George Zimmerman a racist even though he also has Sub Saharan African admixture.

    Maybe there is a minimum Sub Saharan African admixture requirement in order to be exempt from being called a racist instead of just any drop of SSA blood will do.

    Or maybe the “not capable of being racist” logic only applies to people of Sub Saharan African descent who actually self identify themselves as Black and not to those of SSA that do not self identify themselves as Black.

    Either way the left sure is bipolar on the issue of the one drop rule and race in general. They pick and choose when to use the one drop rule to classify someone as Black or not. They are cafeteria one droppers.

    George Zimmerman is “White” but Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP is “Black”, even though Benjamin is even more light skin than Zimmerman. Both of them have White fathers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jefferson

    James D. Watson probably doesn't have any signficant African admixture. The deCODE genetics test he took years ago had problems (too few markers, overconfidence in assignment of certain markers to different population origin when there is relatively little difference in distribution between comparison populations, limited population reference library, etc.).

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @dixie
    @Jefferson

    "Pseudologia fantastica"
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1988.tb05068.x/abstract

  4. DEMOGRAPHICS IS DESTINY!

  5. @Jefferson
    The left has called James D. Watson a racist, even though he has Sub Saharan African admixture. But according to left wing logic, people with Sub Saharan African blood are not capable of being racist. But than again that did not stop them from calling George Zimmerman a racist even though he also has Sub Saharan African admixture.

    Maybe there is a minimum Sub Saharan African admixture requirement in order to be exempt from being called a racist instead of just any drop of SSA blood will do.

    Or maybe the "not capable of being racist" logic only applies to people of Sub Saharan African descent who actually self identify themselves as Black and not to those of SSA that do not self identify themselves as Black.

    Either way the left sure is bipolar on the issue of the one drop rule and race in general. They pick and choose when to use the one drop rule to classify someone as Black or not. They are cafeteria one droppers.

    George Zimmerman is "White" but Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP is "Black", even though Benjamin is even more light skin than Zimmerman. Both of them have White fathers.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @dixie

    James D. Watson probably doesn’t have any signficant African admixture. The deCODE genetics test he took years ago had problems (too few markers, overconfidence in assignment of certain markers to different population origin when there is relatively little difference in distribution between comparison populations, limited population reference library, etc.).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Right. Watson's memoir Avoid Boring People has much information on his ancestors, including photos. His paternal ancestors were wealthy, socially prominent northern midwestern Republicans (e.g., his uncle was chairman of the Yale Physics Department in the 1940s -- I truly doubt he was a secret mulatto). His maternal grandparents were born in Scotland and Ireland. The Decode press release was almost certainly wrong.

  6. @Anonymous
    @Jefferson

    James D. Watson probably doesn't have any signficant African admixture. The deCODE genetics test he took years ago had problems (too few markers, overconfidence in assignment of certain markers to different population origin when there is relatively little difference in distribution between comparison populations, limited population reference library, etc.).

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Right. Watson’s memoir Avoid Boring People has much information on his ancestors, including photos. His paternal ancestors were wealthy, socially prominent northern midwestern Republicans (e.g., his uncle was chairman of the Yale Physics Department in the 1940s — I truly doubt he was a secret mulatto). His maternal grandparents were born in Scotland and Ireland. The Decode press release was almost certainly wrong.

  7. @Jefferson
    The left has called James D. Watson a racist, even though he has Sub Saharan African admixture. But according to left wing logic, people with Sub Saharan African blood are not capable of being racist. But than again that did not stop them from calling George Zimmerman a racist even though he also has Sub Saharan African admixture.

    Maybe there is a minimum Sub Saharan African admixture requirement in order to be exempt from being called a racist instead of just any drop of SSA blood will do.

    Or maybe the "not capable of being racist" logic only applies to people of Sub Saharan African descent who actually self identify themselves as Black and not to those of SSA that do not self identify themselves as Black.

    Either way the left sure is bipolar on the issue of the one drop rule and race in general. They pick and choose when to use the one drop rule to classify someone as Black or not. They are cafeteria one droppers.

    George Zimmerman is "White" but Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP is "Black", even though Benjamin is even more light skin than Zimmerman. Both of them have White fathers.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @dixie

  8. ” I truly doubt he was a secret mulatto)”

    A secret Mulatto is an oxymoron because if a Multiracial person has a Caucasian looking phenotype, she or he is way less than 50 percent Sub Saharan African genetically.

    True Mulatos in the genetic sense tend to look like Henry Louis Gates Jr. who really is 50 percent Sub Saharan African, which he found out after taking a DNA test.

  9. Speaking of IQ genes: did anyone else get into that BGI Cognitive Genomics study? I’ve yet to receive the email that sends me to download my genome which was what they said I would get out of it being in the study. Anyone get theirs or know what’s up?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonononononymous

    I got in, and they received my sample over a year ago. The website says they're on the 'Whole-genome sequencing' stage, but it has shown that same status for about a year. I don't have any idea how long it is supposed to take, so maybe this is reasonable. They've also been completely unresponsive by e-mail, multiple times.

  10. @Priss Factor
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/16/democrats-now-have-a-51-percent-chance-of-holding-the-senate/

    More reason to end the GOP

    Even with border meltdown, Dems have 51% chance of retaining issues.

    They got the young, colored, and social values vote. As homo-stuff is the main moral value of many people, they will vote Dem on that issue alone.
    Dems also have all the big money from big cities. And Eskimo support in media.

    And to top it off...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388098/congressional-report-foreign-born-population-could-rise-60-million-people-within-ten

    Nothing can be done about the tide now... unless secession becomes the new thing.

    Replies: @Fritz Pettyjohn

    R’s can win with one message. … Secure the border. It addresses illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, and fear of infectious diseases like Ebola.
    People want it, and know the D’s won’t do it.

  11. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonononononymous
    Speaking of IQ genes: did anyone else get into that BGI Cognitive Genomics study? I've yet to receive the email that sends me to download my genome which was what they said I would get out of it being in the study. Anyone get theirs or know what's up?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I got in, and they received my sample over a year ago. The website says they’re on the ‘Whole-genome sequencing’ stage, but it has shown that same status for about a year. I don’t have any idea how long it is supposed to take, so maybe this is reasonable. They’ve also been completely unresponsive by e-mail, multiple times.

  12. Im not confident that there is anything here yet, but it was a brilliant idea by Piffer.

    We have tried five genomes and the three we had really good reference populations to compare against worked well.

    It was a b-word to get anyone to publish the pre-print even. Wondering whether that was due to me using a pseudonym, us using the Venter Watson genomes to estimate their IQs (rude?) or just the awkward racial implications.

  13. We should get other knowledgeable people to comment and critique. Razib, Cochran or Harpending perhaps? I’m in comp.sci./mol.bi. hence worthless and Piffer might be too enamoured with his baby to view it critically.

    We have a forum at openpsych. Comment there: http://www.openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=160

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Bertram Gilfoyle

    Anything related to IQ and genes is very complicated and beyond my ability to critically evaluate, which is why I try to use question marks in blog post times on the subject. I rely on professional scientist readers to recommend papers that seem, in their judgment, fairly reliable before I post on them.

    , @Vladimir
    @Bertram Gilfoyle

    James Watson reported that his IQ is only in the 120-125 range. That's above average, but below the genius threshold. His partner Crick's IQ was reported in the range of 115.

  14. @Bertram Gilfoyle
    We should get other knowledgeable people to comment and critique. Razib, Cochran or Harpending perhaps? I'm in comp.sci./mol.bi. hence worthless and Piffer might be too enamoured with his baby to view it critically.

    We have a forum at openpsych. Comment there: http://www.openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=160

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Vladimir

    Anything related to IQ and genes is very complicated and beyond my ability to critically evaluate, which is why I try to use question marks in blog post times on the subject. I rely on professional scientist readers to recommend papers that seem, in their judgment, fairly reliable before I post on them.

  15. @Bertram Gilfoyle
    We should get other knowledgeable people to comment and critique. Razib, Cochran or Harpending perhaps? I'm in comp.sci./mol.bi. hence worthless and Piffer might be too enamoured with his baby to view it critically.

    We have a forum at openpsych. Comment there: http://www.openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=160

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Vladimir

    James Watson reported that his IQ is only in the 120-125 range. That’s above average, but below the genius threshold. His partner Crick’s IQ was reported in the range of 115.

  16. In the Rietveld paper they pruned 927 SNPs for linkage to get 69 independent SNPs from the education study and controlled for several principal components, etc.

    The top three IQ SNPs each have R^2 of ~0.0002, while using all 69 SNPs weighted by their measured IQ coefficients, gives R^2 of 0.002-0.004. That’s 10-20 times as great as one alone, and 3-7 times as great as the top 3 SNPs combined.

    Why not just see what the 69 SNP polygenic score predicts about different populations, as it has been used to predict IQ among individuals?

    I looked at a score constructed from the top 30 SNPs and the results were quite interesting, and different from using only the alleles in the paper linked above.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS