3 ms·

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 i

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.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      > 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. What an absurd claim! This is specifically the hypothesis that the last several decades of twin studies is designed to test. You are either ignorant of this body of research or you are being disingenuous. We can distinguish between these two cases because adopted twins and siblings have highly correlated genetic factors and weakly correlated environmental factors. I notice that you keep avoiding the absurd improbability of environmental factors mediating bulk racial differences given the magnitude of population-level differences and the relatively small fraction of variance attributable to environment - but you seem desperate not to acknowledge the latter.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > We can distinguish between these two cases because adopted twins and siblings have highly correlated genetic factors and weakly correlated environmental factors. We can't, and the papers I cite give a highly coherent explanation for this, a phenomena called cultural filtering. Like I said, I suggest you go and actually read recent papers instead of relying on a survey paper from fifteen years ago that relies on actual research older than many of the professors publishing this stuff today. It's not worth having this conversation is you're unrolling to engage with modern research, and it'll just devolve into an ideological flamewar, which dang prefers us not to have. So again please read some modern research. Or don't, but don't claim this stuff is settled when your are a decade out of date.

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.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > 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. What an absurd claim! This is specifically the hypothesis that the last several decades of twin studies is designed to test. You are either ignorant of this body of research or you are being disingenuous. We can distinguish between these two cases because adopted twins and siblings have highly correlated genetic factors and weakly correlated environmental factors. I notice that you keep avoiding the absurd improbability of environmental factors mediating bulk racial differences given the magnitude of population-level differences and the relatively small fraction of variance attributable to environment - but you seem desperate not to acknowledge the latter.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > We can distinguish between these two cases because adopted twins and siblings have highly correlated genetic factors and weakly correlated environmental factors. We can't, and the papers I cite give a highly coherent explanation for this, a phenomena called cultural filtering. Like I said, I suggest you go and actually read recent papers instead of relying on a survey paper from fifteen years ago that relies on actual research older than many of the professors publishing this stuff today. It's not worth having this conversation is you're unrolling to engage with modern research, and it'll just devolve into an ideological flamewar, which dang prefers us not to have. So again please read some modern research. Or don't, but don't claim this stuff is settled when your are a decade out of date.