4 ms·

> 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/enviro

> 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 Or don't, but don't claim this stuff is settled when your are a decade out of date.
- centimeter 6y ago
  I looked at the things you "cited" (i.e. name dropped without linking). "Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called “X”-factors": A) no non-paywalled sources, so I'm suspicious if you even read it B) written by a philosophy professor, not a scientist, with no scientific background C) the argument of this paper, as far as I can tell from the abstract, is "the pure-environmental hypothesis is nonfalsifiable", i.e. completely useless I would critique it more if I could actually read it. "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability" - this isn't actually a paper, it's just a section in some article. Where did you even find this? It barely shows up on the internet - your comment is the third result. In any case, it A) doesn't seem to support your claim, and B) doesn't strike me as especially compelling research - they're just summarizing some thoughts about the Flynn effect. This further increases my confidence that you are arguing in bad faith. > the papers I cite give a highly coherent explanation for this, a phenomena called cultural filtering. I can't find this term anywhere in these papers (or elsewhere).
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > no non-paywalled sources, so I'm suspicious if you even read it I have access to many paywalled articles. > "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability" - this isn't actually a paper, it's just a section in some article. Ah you're right, I meant to cite that section of the larger article, but the wider article is rather well cited. > phenomena called cultural filtering tl;dr: The idea is that culture magnifies any underlying genetics. The example given is two siblings/twins separated at birth, both are taller than average. As a result, they both end up playing basketball and being better than average as children, and as a result attend basketball camps. They both get good training and end up as college basketball players. The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying differences. And whether different culture(s) can magnify these differences in different ways.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      > The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying differences. This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes. It also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups".
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes. It also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups". Of course it does: if the only concrete support for phenotypic differences is based on twin data (or similar), and that data is subject to magnification due to cultural factors, the underlying phenotypic impact is smaller.
        centimeter 6y ago
        That's not what "phenotypic" means. Phenotypic environment includes any "cultural amplification" or similar factors. Almost all genetic competitions are subject to some sort of king effect, e.g. hypergamy and concomitant GMV in non-monogamous species. We still consider the results of these effects to be phenotypic.

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.

centimeter 6y ago
I looked at the things you "cited" (i.e. name dropped without linking). "Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called “X”-factors": A) no non-paywalled sources, so I'm suspicious if you even read it B) written by a philosophy professor, not a scientist, with no scientific background C) the argument of this paper, as far as I can tell from the abstract, is "the pure-environmental hypothesis is nonfalsifiable", i.e. completely useless I would critique it more if I could actually read it. "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability" - this isn't actually a paper, it's just a section in some article. Where did you even find this? It barely shows up on the internet - your comment is the third result. In any case, it A) doesn't seem to support your claim, and B) doesn't strike me as especially compelling research - they're just summarizing some thoughts about the Flynn effect. This further increases my confidence that you are arguing in bad faith. > the papers I cite give a highly coherent explanation for this, a phenomena called cultural filtering. I can't find this term anywhere in these papers (or elsewhere).
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > no non-paywalled sources, so I'm suspicious if you even read it I have access to many paywalled articles. > "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability" - this isn't actually a paper, it's just a section in some article. Ah you're right, I meant to cite that section of the larger article, but the wider article is rather well cited. > phenomena called cultural filtering tl;dr: The idea is that culture magnifies any underlying genetics. The example given is two siblings/twins separated at birth, both are taller than average. As a result, they both end up playing basketball and being better than average as children, and as a result attend basketball camps. They both get good training and end up as college basketball players. The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying differences. And whether different culture(s) can magnify these differences in different ways.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying differences. This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes. It also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups".
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes. It also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups". Of course it does: if the only concrete support for phenotypic differences is based on twin data (or similar), and that data is subject to magnification due to cultural factors, the underlying phenotypic impact is smaller.
      - centimeter 6y ago
        That's not what "phenotypic" means. Phenotypic environment includes any "cultural amplification" or similar factors. Almost all genetic competitions are subject to some sort of king effect, e.g. hypergamy and concomitant GMV in non-monogamous species. We still consider the results of these effects to be phenotypic.