6 ms·

> In pretty much every study within group differences are far and away more massive that between group differences. You are perpetuating what’s known as Lewont

> In pretty much every study within group differences are far and away more massive that between group differences. You are perpetuating what’s known as Lewontin’s fallacy. This claim is extremely narrowly true: clustering on a 1-dimensional fixation index is insufficient to reliably mechanically classify race. If you don’t know what that means, stop trying to use this claim in your arguments. Here’s what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean that there aren’t significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups. These differences can include intelligence (and 30 years of twin studies suggests they probably do).

godelzilla 6y ago
You are perpetuating the pseudo-science known as "race science".
- centimeter 6y ago
  I posted multiple clear, specific, and falsifiable claims. Feel free to address them. Or you can keep posting snarky quips completely devoid of concrete information - up to you. You can label (factual) statements with whatever emotionally connoted phrase you want; it has no bearing on whether they’re correct.
joshuamorton 6y ago
> Here’s what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean that there aren’t significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic group But it does mean that we don't have any evidence for this claim. > (and 30 years of twin studies suggests they probably do). This would be a great place for a citation. I'm wondering how a twin study is going to show the effects of genetics on intelligence. As GP suggests, twin studies show differences in intelligence between even identical twins raised in the same household, so Amy conclusions from whatever study you're referencing would need to show statistically significant variation controlling for the noise.
- centimeter 6y ago
  > This would be a great place for a citation. If you actually care, just google it. There are dozens of great large-n metastudies. Chances are you don’t care (mostly based on the fact that you clearly haven’t googled it already), so I have to be jealous of my time - sorry. > would need to show statistically significant variation controlling for the noise. Obviously g-factor researchers have thought of this. Current best estimates place 60-80% of human intelligence variance as being genetically heritable.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I've been able to find evidence that disagrees with you, but not evidence that agrees with you. Since you've made very specific claims that most contrary evidence is invalid because it is not multvariate. It would have taken you less time to post a single link than to write your response, so I don't buy the time excuse. > Obviously g-factor researchers have thought of this. Current best estimates place 60-80% I'm aware. You claimed that twin studies (which control for race by comparing between people of the same race and are usually limited to small sample sizes) have revealed racial ethnic differences in g controlling for the environmental factors. This claim is questionable on its face. Your heritability claim is much less contentious, but heritability of g and race correlation of g, controlling for environmental factors, are very different claims.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ This took me literally 10 seconds to find. Adult intelligence is ~80% heritable. There is >1stddev difference in mean intelligence between many ethnic groups. (Do you need me to provide a citation for this as well, or can you google it this time?) Do the math. What should your bayes factor be on this being environmental? You can also find studies that specifically try to find environmental causal factors on intelligence - the effect sizes for identifiable factors (like poverty, or other common scapegoats) are laughably small. Once again, feel free to google this. I’m sorry if I come across as hostile by asking you to look things up, but usually when people demand citations for things that A) they should already know if they’re debating about this and B) are easy to find, I have to assume they’re trying to waste my time and/or arguing from bad faith.

godelzilla 6y ago

You are perpetuating the pseudo-science known as "race science".

centimeter 6y ago
I posted multiple clear, specific, and falsifiable claims. Feel free to address them. Or you can keep posting snarky quips completely devoid of concrete information - up to you. You can label (factual) statements with whatever emotionally connoted phrase you want; it has no bearing on whether they’re correct.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> Here’s what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean that there aren’t significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic group But it does mean that we don't have any evidence for this claim. > (and 30 years of twin studies suggests they probably do). This would be a great place for a citation. I'm wondering how a twin study is going to show the effects of genetics on intelligence. As GP suggests, twin studies show differences in intelligence between even identical twins raised in the same household, so Amy conclusions from whatever study you're referencing would need to show statistically significant variation controlling for the noise.

centimeter 6y ago
> This would be a great place for a citation. If you actually care, just google it. There are dozens of great large-n metastudies. Chances are you don’t care (mostly based on the fact that you clearly haven’t googled it already), so I have to be jealous of my time - sorry. > would need to show statistically significant variation controlling for the noise. Obviously g-factor researchers have thought of this. Current best estimates place 60-80% of human intelligence variance as being genetically heritable.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I've been able to find evidence that disagrees with you, but not evidence that agrees with you. Since you've made very specific claims that most contrary evidence is invalid because it is not multvariate. It would have taken you less time to post a single link than to write your response, so I don't buy the time excuse. > Obviously g-factor researchers have thought of this. Current best estimates place 60-80% I'm aware. You claimed that twin studies (which control for race by comparing between people of the same race and are usually limited to small sample sizes) have revealed racial ethnic differences in g controlling for the environmental factors. This claim is questionable on its face. Your heritability claim is much less contentious, but heritability of g and race correlation of g, controlling for environmental factors, are very different claims.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ This took me literally 10 seconds to find. Adult intelligence is ~80% heritable. There is >1stddev difference in mean intelligence between many ethnic groups. (Do you need me to provide a citation for this as well, or can you google it this time?) Do the math. What should your bayes factor be on this being environmental? You can also find studies that specifically try to find environmental causal factors on intelligence - the effect sizes for identifiable factors (like poverty, or other common scapegoats) are laughably small. Once again, feel free to google this. I’m sorry if I come across as hostile by asking you to look things up, but usually when people demand citations for things that A) they should already know if they’re debating about this and B) are easy to find, I have to assume they’re trying to waste my time and/or arguing from bad faith.