4 ms·

> 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 (

> 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.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I never asked you to cite intelligence heritability. Like I said, I agree that intelligence is at least partially heritable. I asked specifically for you to justify the original claim, that there are phenotypic differences between ethnic groups that include intelligence, as supported by twin studies. That's a very specific and as far as I know very unfounded claim.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      As I explained - look at the percent of variance that’s heritable. Now look at the measured difference in population intelligence. Now tell me - what’s the probability of that being environmental, based on the fraction of intelligence variability that can’t be attributed to genetics? A fermi estimate is fine - you’ll end up close to zero anyway. You shouldn’t need a document to spell this out for you in excruciating detail. Edit: to humor the question: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jense... The conclusions in this paper should have been expected give the explanation I already gave.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Rushton is perhaps not the person you want to cite if you want to disassociate yourself from scientific racism. And that paper, which I'm familiar with, doesn't address many of the modern criticisms of such theories that are based on the idea of "g" being socially constructed/influenced in the first place. (nor does it actually do much, if anything, to support the original claim you made: not all of their conclusions are phenotypic in nature, at a minimum, sections 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 can be explained culturally despite what the paper says). I'd suggest "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability", or "Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called “X”-factors", which notes as a semi-conclusion that we know of environmental factors that have clear and demonstrable causal effect on IQ. We know of no specific genes that have this effect. So concluding that a bunch of individual genes have small effects is actually less supported than the similar claim that a bunch of individual societal/environmental factors have impact. Both of these are more recent than the paper you cite, and could be seen as academic responses to perceived flaws.

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.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I never asked you to cite intelligence heritability. Like I said, I agree that intelligence is at least partially heritable. I asked specifically for you to justify the original claim, that there are phenotypic differences between ethnic groups that include intelligence, as supported by twin studies. That's a very specific and as far as I know very unfounded claim.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    As I explained - look at the percent of variance that’s heritable. Now look at the measured difference in population intelligence. Now tell me - what’s the probability of that being environmental, based on the fraction of intelligence variability that can’t be attributed to genetics? A fermi estimate is fine - you’ll end up close to zero anyway. You shouldn’t need a document to spell this out for you in excruciating detail. Edit: to humor the question: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jense... The conclusions in this paper should have been expected give the explanation I already gave.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Rushton is perhaps not the person you want to cite if you want to disassociate yourself from scientific racism. And that paper, which I'm familiar with, doesn't address many of the modern criticisms of such theories that are based on the idea of "g" being socially constructed/influenced in the first place. (nor does it actually do much, if anything, to support the original claim you made: not all of their conclusions are phenotypic in nature, at a minimum, sections 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 can be explained culturally despite what the paper says). I'd suggest "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability", or "Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called “X”-factors", which notes as a semi-conclusion that we know of environmental factors that have clear and demonstrable causal effect on IQ. We know of no specific genes that have this effect. So concluding that a bunch of individual genes have small effects is actually less supported than the similar claim that a bunch of individual societal/environmental factors have impact. Both of these are more recent than the paper you cite, and could be seen as academic responses to perceived flaws.