5 ms·

Lol; what I thought. Do you just make up things you put in quotes? That’s not what those characters are meant for. The “long, rambling blog post” outlines a nu

Lol; what I thought. Do you just make up things you put in quotes? That’s not what those characters are meant for. The “long, rambling blog post” outlines a number of pieces of evidence that say it’s highly unlikely there are meaningful differences, and because of population stratification, stuff like GWAS (that Hsu uses) can’t give us a lot of info. Look, if you have questions or doubts about these criticisms, you can ask and people will take those questions seriously. Ewan Birney is a world class geneticist that leads Europe’s leading institute on the subject. He’s writing a blog post for lay people to help them understand the complexities. What you wrote in response just shows how blinded you are in just discounting other arguments. Look, I don’t know who you are; you can look me up (https://www.octant.bio/biosri https://www.octant.bio/biosri).. but maybe when most experts in a field are saying one thing, and one person on the fringe is saying another... you at least owe it to yourself to understand the dominant viewpoint. It’s easy to find my email, or Ewan’s or many other researchers that take a lot of time answering questions. Quantitative genetics is complicated and in that blog post he’s trying to break down the major ways people get this stuff wrong; including Hsu. But in general, most on this site thus far have a viewpoint that is set in stone, hold their nose, and think an entire community is really stupid and politically correct. Anyways, if you are not a layperson I apologize and as a researcher, you can always just publish your findings, and the community and I can learn from them.

ciarannolan 6y ago
>Do you just make up things you put in quotes? That’s not what those characters are meant for. The two "quotes" in my comment: >>[...] that essentially says "yeah there's probably genetic differences related to IQ among groups of humans but..." [...] English isn't my first language, but it's crystal clear that this isn't a direct quote but is a summary of my thoughts on their argument. >>[...] "a vocal fringe of race pseudoscience". If you read your own link you would know that this is a direct quote. But please, continue to educate me on punctuation. >What you wrote in response just shows how blinded you are in just discounting other arguments. That's rich coming from someone who started their comment with "Lol; what I thought." And someone who started their first reply to my original comment by questioning my sincerity. >But in general, most on this site thus far have a viewpoint that is set in stone, hold their nose, and think an entire community is really stupid and politically correct. Where could they possibly get that idea? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585765) Finally, what was the point of trying to flex your credentials? You spent an entire comment reinforcing the idea that academics like you "have a viewpoint that is set in stone, hold their nose, and think an entire community is really stupid and politically correct."
- skosuri 6y ago
  So again, you have no substantive questions/comments on the criticisms brought up in the blog post other than to call it long and rambling. Nothing on how common variants associated with intelligence don't segregate substantially across populations. Nothing on the poor accounting for population stratification; nothing on lack of replication on populations outside the regressions; nothing on effect sizes; nothing on IQ test score changes over time that are too short for genetic changes... anyways, the flex is because you now know who I am and what I research. If you have serious questions about the above topics... the same topics for why most people don't take Hsu seriously, feel free to email them to me. In the meantime, I am laughing because you were anything but sincere.
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    >So again, you have no substantive questions/comments on the criticisms brought up in the blog post other than to call it long and rambling. And you have no reply to my criticisms of your sarcastic, ad hominem filled reply. >>You spent an entire comment reinforcing the idea that academics like you "have a viewpoint that is set in stone, hold their nose, and think an entire community is really stupid and politically correct." Look in the mirror once in a while.
    - skosuri 6y ago
      Sorry, didn't actually see any scientific criticisms or questions in any of your replies; just your "sincere" request for more information, which I gave you. You just don't seem interested in learning more.
      - ciarannolan 6y ago
        There weren't any. I am criticizing the nasty tone you took from the outset in assuming I am not sincere, which is wrong. I'm not a biologist, so I obviously could have missed something in that blog post. But, I shared my impression of it nonetheless, since this is a board for discussion. I know what it's like to achieve an extremely high level of expertise in a narrow field; I've done it myself. It forever blinds you to the way a novice sees the same field. If you've ever wondered why there's increasing skepticism of academia, you should read your comments again. They are nasty, sarcastic, and dismissive. I'll paste this one more time because I think you need to seriously consider that you are exhibiting exactly the behavior that you're accusing others of: >[...] have a viewpoint that is set in stone, hold their nose, and think an entire community is really stupid and politically correct.
tomp 6y ago
Hey, I saw you posted a few comments saying that it's highly unlikely that there are "meaningful" differences. So even if we leave the "obvious" differences between populations like skin color aside as not "meaningful", do you have any sources that explain (or if you want to yourself) the "obvious" or "well-known" differences between groups, such as Dutch height, Ashkenazi intelligence or Kalenjin running endurance? Sincere question, I'm genuinely curious as I can't think of any other obvious explanation than "genetic group differences" (and it's kind-of hard to Google for).
- skosuri 6y ago
  First. I’d say read the blog post I linked to above. To answer your question on the “well-known” differences; they definitely are real and genetic. It’s just that IQ and most measures of intelligence look nothing like those traits. The common variants that are tagged in GWAS for IQ are also not different from a variant distribution standpoint. Again, the blog lays this out. There are thousands of papers on this topic. Good books to read are David Reich’s book (which does enter this more touchy territory) and ‘She has her mothers laugh’ for a more general reading. Ewan’s blog in general is also really good as well. In terms of papers, there are a bunch of recent ones that are quite good. Will need more time to post but they tend to be covered by Ewan.
  - tomp 6y ago
    I read the article: http://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer.html http://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscienc... I don't quite understand what the point is. The main crux of it seems to be "argument by obfuscation", a lot of deferral to (scientific) authority and a lot of "sophiscated" words (hoping that the reader will also defer to authority). The author seems to argue something like: we can't know this because (1) genetics are complicated, (2) we don't have enough data, (3) the data that we do have is hard to understand, and (4) even if we could draw conclusions from the data, we couldn't generalize them on other populations. This seems like a coop-out - I'm 100% that in the future, we'll have more data, and we'll have better tools to understand the data, so whatever conclusions we make, will be that much more certain. Also, part of the author's argument seems to be "there wasn't significant evolutionary pressure on these traits". So what? Obviously there are differences in traits that have no evolutionary pressure (e.g. why do SE Asians have slanted eyes? was there some evolutionary pressure for that?), there's lack of differences even when there is evolutionary pressure (e.g. female sex selection seems to prefer height, yet non-Dutch Europeans and SE Asians are smaller; in addition, the latter haven't developed ability to digest milk after infancy, despite presumably the same evolutionary pressures); finally, there's traits that do conform to evolutionary pressure, including all of the ones I highlight above (tall Dutch, smart Jews, fast Kenyans). Either different populations face different evolutionary pressures so have developed different traits, or all populations face the same evolutionary pressures and some have failed to develop some traits. In any case, it's more than possible that there are population-wide differences even in heritable IQ, and we just can't confirm or deny that yet (we already know there are "sub-population-wide" differences, e.g. Ashkenazi Jews). Part of the authors argument is also that because most studies are done on Europeans, they can't be generalized. Again, irrelevant. The examples I pointed out are "within population" - Kalenjin run faster than other Kenyans, Dutch are taller than other Europeans, Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than other Europeans and other Jews. The author also argues that it's somehow invalid to exclude recent "immigrants" when studying a population. Why? Obviously if I study Ashkenazi Jew IQ, I'd exclude other (non-Jewish) Europeans, as well as non-Ashkenazi Jews (e.g. Sephardi) and those who are not genetically Ashkenazi Jews (e.g. people who recently converted to the religion). I can't see how that would be "unscientific". > it is virtually inconceivable that the primary determinant of racial categories – that is skin colour – is strongly associated with the genetic architecture that relates to intelligence. The author either lacks imagination, or his/her imagination is stifled by political correctness. We know this claim is false, as "race" is associated with height (Europeans are on average taller than SE Asians - and I looked up Japan specifically, a first-world country, so don't "nutrition" me), which is also a complex trait. To conclude, there's only 3 possible answers to the question of "Why are Ashkenazi Jews smarter?": (1) They aren't. (2) It's (mostly) genetic. and (3) It's mostly not genetic (nutrition, culture, etc.). I don't see the author's incoherent rambling (you can see that I've become more and more disappointed by the article as I read it) arguing in either of these directions, in particular I don't see any argument to dismiss (2), except a few weak sauce non-arguments that I criticize above. I also don't see anything against Steve Hsu's argument, which is basically that IQ & height are at least partially genetic, we'll soon be able to predict them from genes, then we'll be able to use it in embryo selection. Therefore, I'm going to summarily dismiss your argument and disregard other sources you suggest, unless you can come up with a short counterargument to (2) above that doesn't fail in the silly ways as this article does. Edit: This isn't to say that I'm not open to other explanations... Maybe Kalenjin just are training better. Maybe Ashkenazi just are rearing their children better. Maybe the Dutch are eating the right food that makes them grow taller. But I find that unlikely (their secrets would have gotten out already) and in any case, I'm mainly just saying that we can't dismiss either explanation.

ciarannolan 6y ago

>Do you just make up things you put in quotes? That’s not what those characters are meant for. The two "quotes" in my comment: >>[...] that essentially says "yeah there's probably genetic differences related to IQ among groups of humans but..." [...] English isn't my first language, but it's crystal clear that this isn't a direct quote but is a summary of my thoughts on their argument. >>[...] "a vocal fringe of race pseudoscience". If you read your own link you would know that this is a direct quote. But please, continue to educate me on punctuation. >What you wrote in response just shows how blinded you are in just discounting other arguments. That's rich coming from someone who started their comment with "Lol; what I thought." And someone who started their first reply to my original comment by questioning my sincerity. >But in general, most on this site thus far have a viewpoint that is set in stone, hold their nose, and think an entire community is really stupid and politically correct. Where could they possibly get that idea? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585765) Finally, what was the point of trying to flex your credentials? You spent an entire comment reinforcing the idea that academics like you "have a viewpoint that is set in stone, hold their nose, and think an entire community is really stupid and politically correct."

skosuri 6y ago
So again, you have no substantive questions/comments on the criticisms brought up in the blog post other than to call it long and rambling. Nothing on how common variants associated with intelligence don't segregate substantially across populations. Nothing on the poor accounting for population stratification; nothing on lack of replication on populations outside the regressions; nothing on effect sizes; nothing on IQ test score changes over time that are too short for genetic changes... anyways, the flex is because you now know who I am and what I research. If you have serious questions about the above topics... the same topics for why most people don't take Hsu seriously, feel free to email them to me. In the meantime, I am laughing because you were anything but sincere.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  >So again, you have no substantive questions/comments on the criticisms brought up in the blog post other than to call it long and rambling. And you have no reply to my criticisms of your sarcastic, ad hominem filled reply. >>You spent an entire comment reinforcing the idea that academics like you "have a viewpoint that is set in stone, hold their nose, and think an entire community is really stupid and politically correct." Look in the mirror once in a while.
  - skosuri 6y ago
    Sorry, didn't actually see any scientific criticisms or questions in any of your replies; just your "sincere" request for more information, which I gave you. You just don't seem interested in learning more.
    - ciarannolan 6y ago
      There weren't any. I am criticizing the nasty tone you took from the outset in assuming I am not sincere, which is wrong. I'm not a biologist, so I obviously could have missed something in that blog post. But, I shared my impression of it nonetheless, since this is a board for discussion. I know what it's like to achieve an extremely high level of expertise in a narrow field; I've done it myself. It forever blinds you to the way a novice sees the same field. If you've ever wondered why there's increasing skepticism of academia, you should read your comments again. They are nasty, sarcastic, and dismissive. I'll paste this one more time because I think you need to seriously consider that you are exhibiting exactly the behavior that you're accusing others of: >[...] have a viewpoint that is set in stone, hold their nose, and think an entire community is really stupid and politically correct.

tomp 6y ago

Hey, I saw you posted a few comments saying that it's highly unlikely that there are "meaningful" differences. So even if we leave the "obvious" differences between populations like skin color aside as not "meaningful", do you have any sources that explain (or if you want to yourself) the "obvious" or "well-known" differences between groups, such as Dutch height, Ashkenazi intelligence or Kalenjin running endurance? Sincere question, I'm genuinely curious as I can't think of any other obvious explanation than "genetic group differences" (and it's kind-of hard to Google for).

skosuri 6y ago
First. I’d say read the blog post I linked to above. To answer your question on the “well-known” differences; they definitely are real and genetic. It’s just that IQ and most measures of intelligence look nothing like those traits. The common variants that are tagged in GWAS for IQ are also not different from a variant distribution standpoint. Again, the blog lays this out. There are thousands of papers on this topic. Good books to read are David Reich’s book (which does enter this more touchy territory) and ‘She has her mothers laugh’ for a more general reading. Ewan’s blog in general is also really good as well. In terms of papers, there are a bunch of recent ones that are quite good. Will need more time to post but they tend to be covered by Ewan.
- tomp 6y ago
  I read the article: http://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer.html http://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscienc... I don't quite understand what the point is. The main crux of it seems to be "argument by obfuscation", a lot of deferral to (scientific) authority and a lot of "sophiscated" words (hoping that the reader will also defer to authority). The author seems to argue something like: we can't know this because (1) genetics are complicated, (2) we don't have enough data, (3) the data that we do have is hard to understand, and (4) even if we could draw conclusions from the data, we couldn't generalize them on other populations. This seems like a coop-out - I'm 100% that in the future, we'll have more data, and we'll have better tools to understand the data, so whatever conclusions we make, will be that much more certain. Also, part of the author's argument seems to be "there wasn't significant evolutionary pressure on these traits". So what? Obviously there are differences in traits that have no evolutionary pressure (e.g. why do SE Asians have slanted eyes? was there some evolutionary pressure for that?), there's lack of differences even when there is evolutionary pressure (e.g. female sex selection seems to prefer height, yet non-Dutch Europeans and SE Asians are smaller; in addition, the latter haven't developed ability to digest milk after infancy, despite presumably the same evolutionary pressures); finally, there's traits that do conform to evolutionary pressure, including all of the ones I highlight above (tall Dutch, smart Jews, fast Kenyans). Either different populations face different evolutionary pressures so have developed different traits, or all populations face the same evolutionary pressures and some have failed to develop some traits. In any case, it's more than possible that there are population-wide differences even in heritable IQ, and we just can't confirm or deny that yet (we already know there are "sub-population-wide" differences, e.g. Ashkenazi Jews). Part of the authors argument is also that because most studies are done on Europeans, they can't be generalized. Again, irrelevant. The examples I pointed out are "within population" - Kalenjin run faster than other Kenyans, Dutch are taller than other Europeans, Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than other Europeans and other Jews. The author also argues that it's somehow invalid to exclude recent "immigrants" when studying a population. Why? Obviously if I study Ashkenazi Jew IQ, I'd exclude other (non-Jewish) Europeans, as well as non-Ashkenazi Jews (e.g. Sephardi) and those who are not genetically Ashkenazi Jews (e.g. people who recently converted to the religion). I can't see how that would be "unscientific". > it is virtually inconceivable that the primary determinant of racial categories – that is skin colour – is strongly associated with the genetic architecture that relates to intelligence. The author either lacks imagination, or his/her imagination is stifled by political correctness. We know this claim is false, as "race" is associated with height (Europeans are on average taller than SE Asians - and I looked up Japan specifically, a first-world country, so don't "nutrition" me), which is also a complex trait. To conclude, there's only 3 possible answers to the question of "Why are Ashkenazi Jews smarter?": (1) They aren't. (2) It's (mostly) genetic. and (3) It's mostly not genetic (nutrition, culture, etc.). I don't see the author's incoherent rambling (you can see that I've become more and more disappointed by the article as I read it) arguing in either of these directions, in particular I don't see any argument to dismiss (2), except a few weak sauce non-arguments that I criticize above. I also don't see anything against Steve Hsu's argument, which is basically that IQ & height are at least partially genetic, we'll soon be able to predict them from genes, then we'll be able to use it in embryo selection. Therefore, I'm going to summarily dismiss your argument and disregard other sources you suggest, unless you can come up with a short counterargument to (2) above that doesn't fail in the silly ways as this article does. Edit: This isn't to say that I'm not open to other explanations... Maybe Kalenjin just are training better. Maybe Ashkenazi just are rearing their children better. Maybe the Dutch are eating the right food that makes them grow taller. But I find that unlikely (their secrets would have gotten out already) and in any case, I'm mainly just saying that we can't dismiss either explanation.