• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Watson: Blacks less intelligent than whites


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#91 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 15 December 2007 - 02:31 AM

I'm curious to know why it's always the Black/White intellectual dicotamy that is referenced. How about the fact that Orientals and Jews both score higher on IQ tests than everyone else. Judeo-Orientals are smarter than both Whites and Blacks. Why not talk about this fact?

LOL. Funny enough, the chinese are called the jews of the orient.
I think the fact that they both score higher in IQ tests might be cultural, not genetic. Both cultures strive for education
and place great importance on it. They both also excel in business and in fact the fashion industry in Hong Kong
is a great example of that. I've worked in it, and found it very amusing and impressive that the Chinese
had all learned to understand yiddish (which they also kept a secret),
while the jews never bothered to learn chinese. You can imagine the edge that gave
them at the bargaining table.
This was confided to me by a chinese contractor I became friends with.
Now who do you think is smarter?
I really think this issue of racial/genetic intelligence is not only misguided, but lends itself to
allow for some very twisted concepts of selective breeding to flourish with some kind of justification in scientific fact.
We've seen this excuse used before and I am afraid it is rearing it's ugly head again.
AFAIC intelligence is as influenced by culture, economics and education as any inherited genetics. Using genetics alone is just an
excuse to foster racism under the guise of science.
Just my two cents.


#92

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 15 December 2007 - 06:28 AM

I'm curious to know why it's always the Black/White intellectual dicotamy that is referenced. How about the fact that Orientals and Jews both score higher on IQ tests than everyone else. Judeo-Orientals are smarter than both Whites and Blacks. Why not talk about this fact?


I'm curious what you mean by the word "always" since most articles that I've read on the subject do indeed discuss this observation at length - including the Rushton/Jensen article I cited earlier. If you are referring to Watson's comment in particular, then I assume this either because he is a senile racist cracker who can't stand to admit the possibility that Asians may have a higher average IQ than Caucasians, or maybe it's just because he is - for no apparent reason - not quite so gloomy about the long-term prosperity of Asian countries as compared to African countries.

#93 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 15 December 2007 - 06:58 AM

I'm curious to know why it's always the Black/White intellectual dicotamy that is referenced. How about the fact that Orientals and Jews both score higher on IQ tests than everyone else. Judeo-Orientals are smarter than both Whites and Blacks. Why not talk about this fact?

I've seen a claim (in the latest New Yorker) that these IQ differences (Jews and Asians vs Europeans) are based on faulty samples, but even if that's not the case, I think these don't get talked about because they are not such politically toxic concepts. In America, the majority group is Gentiles of European extraction. They are apparently secure enough in their present position (or too stupid) that they are not concerned that they are in the middle of the pack, group IQ-wise. Asians and Jews certainly aren't going to complain about it. If anything, they'd probably prefer to minimize the fact. Both of these groups are successful, so there's not really much to talk about. It is kind of interesting that you don't find people arguing about how you can't scientifically define a "Jew" or an "Asian" or a "European", or claiming that IQ tests are culturally biased against majority European Gentiles.
  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#94 mag1

  • Guest
  • 957 posts
  • 128
  • Location:virtual

Posted 24 February 2018 - 02:54 AM

I wanted to revive this discussion not to renew old animosities but to provide a new perspective.

I have struggled with this question for a long time and the answer that I had arrived at was not the answer that conformed to my values.

Yet, the answer that I have now thought of finally has found a new way forward, while at the same time 

avoiding mental reservations of the truth.

 

Hopefully this post will help others out there who might also be struggling with this difficult topic and will give them an acceptable answer to

this thorny question.

 

What is this new answer?

 

In the 21st Century, the differences in average IQ that exist between groups are of little to no consequence when compared to the optimal 

intelligence that will be achieved by genetic selection/editing.

 

The maximal difference in average IQ between human populations is perhaps 40 points.

However, it is now understood that maximal IQ is roughly 1500.

 

This implies that all existing humans relative to optimal IQ are profoundly mentally disabled.

The science behind this assertion is solidly verified in the literature.

For those interested please consult the threads below:

 

http://www.longecity...crispr-editing/
http://www.longecity...00-iq-imminent/
http://www.longecity...00-iq-imminent/

 

 

Additional argumentation about the minimal and now easily achievable IQ enhancement of a mere standard deviation or two is just so much squabbling over

nothing of any real importance. Simply selecting the embryo with the highest IQ polygenic score would yield a standard deviation increase in IQ.

 

There is no human population that has an average IQ 1 SD above Greenwich mean 100.

With more intense embryo selection additional standard deviations of IQ increase would be achievable.

Clearly as this is more widely understood in the community the economic value of marginal IQ will be strongly diminished.

 

 

 


Edited by mag1, 24 February 2018 - 03:40 AM.


#95 Keizo

  • Guest
  • 411 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 04 March 2018 - 01:00 PM

 

I'm curious to know why it's always the Black/White intellectual dicotamy that is referenced. How about the fact that Orientals and Jews both score higher on IQ tests than everyone else. Judeo-Orientals are smarter than both Whites and Blacks. Why not talk about this fact?

I've seen a claim (in the latest New Yorker) that these IQ differences (Jews and Asians vs Europeans) are based on faulty samples, but even if that's not the case, I think these don't get talked about because they are not such politically toxic concepts. In America, the majority group is Gentiles of European extraction. They are apparently secure enough in their present position (or too stupid) that they are not concerned that they are in the middle of the pack, group IQ-wise. Asians and Jews certainly aren't going to complain about it. If anything, they'd probably prefer to minimize the fact. Both of these groups are successful, so there's not really much to talk about. It is kind of interesting that you don't find people arguing about how you can't scientifically define a "Jew" or an "Asian" or a "European", or claiming that IQ tests are culturally biased against majority European Gentiles.

 

I imagine one reason why it is framed in black v white is because whites are so interested in guilt. Thinking about religion, I am told it is only Christianity (or specifically protestantism) which has such a deep obsession with guilt and sin. Some of the cultural tendencies I've seen expressed by European people here in Sweden but also in the US seem very odd to me, the more I think about it. For example people stating in various ways how they abhor money and how it is associated with almost entirely bad things  "If I looked for a long-term sexual partner I would not look for money, it only gets in the way, being poor is better for love", "X only married him because of the money, disgusting!" , "X is so rich, he must be a psychopath!"  A person wanting to become a medical doctor asked on a forum some questions and he said he "had no real interest in medicine, but the money seems good" and various replies painted the dichotomy for him that money and being interested in medicine were incompatible and telling him he probably was  real bad person not fit to become a M.D.

Sure money is associated with its problems but so many statements I've encountered lack balance and seem retarded from a point of view. 

 

A friend told me many altruistic behaviors might be explained by "The handicap principle". Basically they can be seen as forms of bragging to show what great qualities the individual has. Simply talking about it might not qualify, but Europeans have more than talked about how great poorer people are. It seems to me Europeans have a more developed altruism (or whatever you want to call it). Various brown people don't seem to have the same qualms or dis-interest in complaining about inequality of one type or the other. If e.g. the US was majority black I could imagine there would be quite a lot more negativity directed towards Jews and Asians in general discourse.

 

 

mag1 I think there exists a general reality stemming from life being competitive. People like to compare what they have with their neighbor, rather than what improvement they might have made or will make. This relative comparison in the present is very much the important thing determining an individuals success compared to others in the present. When people can afford to complain they will, because it might benefit them.  Being happy about massive IQ increases might make parents or leaders happy but from the perspective of the child if everyone has those improvements it doesn't necessarily give anyone a competitive advantage over each other within that group of enhanced people. Also if raising IQ would be more of a multiplying effect rather than an additive effect, then equality seems an unlikely destination. Anyway I share your sentiments quite a bit, and I'm not really concerned about combating inequality anywhere except in so far as it might destabilize a society, I think it would be great if many people became more intelligent (and even if, inevitably, not every sub-population had the same chance to receive any improvement).


Edited by Keizo, 04 March 2018 - 01:04 PM.


#96 mag1

  • Guest
  • 957 posts
  • 128
  • Location:virtual

Posted 04 March 2018 - 08:55 PM

keizo, thank you for replying.

 

I really want to talk this one out online, though everyone seems so fixated on their scripted internal dialogue about IQ that they do not want

to actually discuss the state of the science as it exists now.

 

The entire discussion on this thread has revolved around group differences that are typically very small (usually at most a few SD of IQ). For white

populations, their average group difference to high IQ groups is less than 1 SD. With the current science, such small variances will simply no longer have

relevance in the near future (indeed with best technology, it is not even relevant today). Hopefully, those with high IQ will now recognize that it will soon

be more worthy of embarrassment than pride to disclose an intelligence that is only in the single digits measured in SD.

 

My perception now of different genetic groups has already shifted to an ancestry agnostic perspective. The entire perspective that

ancestry is correlated with IQ simply will not remain valid as the science that is known is applied. It would be sensible for others to also begin

a mental journey in which they try and unlearn paired associations that will no longer be true. The assumptions that people have made in the past

on this thread (obviously before the recent research results) should not continue to be assumed. 

 

The 21st Century is different.

 

Yet, I am afraid that you are absolutely correct about your assessment that humans are hardwired to compete. This need for psychological dominance

is of such importance that even if everyone could be made vastly better off, it is entirely possible that many would view this as a defeat because

the marginal value of success would then approach 0. The relative advantage measured in utility would likely disappear.

 

In order for there to be competition there needs to be a motivation to compete. Up until this point in the development of our species, this has not been

an overly difficult condition to meet. With a world overflowing with wealth and intelligence, the potential for an existential necessity for competition would

be non-existent. This removal of marginal value of success in the world of the future would seem to be one of the main reasons why the Genetic Singularity has not already occurred: the elites are actively working against it. The science is very clear and has been available for a Change the World Visionary Project for many years, though has stayed on the launch pad. It has been known for at least 4 years that 1500 IQ is possible and the exact investment in GWAS that would be needed to achieve this.

 

Why was a moon landing project not announced 5 years ago?

A current cost estimate to launch the Genetic Singularity (i.e., optimized human IQ of 1500) is only about $1 billion.

 

Clearly this would be an overwhelmingly fantastic investment.

 

per capita income = 5.64 * 10^(0.034414*IQ)

 

Therefore, someone with an IQ of 1500 should earn roughly:

$2.3564632678869468336497682459437 e+52 per year

 

With a current world population of roughly 7.6 billion this gives a Global Domestic Product of :

$1.7924161609344190833550156264743 e+62

 

Instead of a world of an $e+62 order of magnitude economy the most recent statistics indicate a Global Domestic Product of:

$78 trillion (i.e. $78 e+9)

 

I will not speak for others on this thread, though I find it more than slightly irritating that I am being denied

$748.07386225613261193497839173459 tredecillions (i.e., $7.5... e+44) per second

 

largely because those earning the somewhat meager income of $1M per year want to retain their relative utility advantage over

others.

 

It should be self-apparently obvious how irrational such behavior is, though likely the only way path to the World of the Genetic Singularity

is to initiate a global mass psychotherapy project to help those who insist upon retaining whatever minimal and transient genetic advantage they might

now have to learn to appreciate (through intense psychotherapy) how much more wealth (in absolute terms) they could have if they accepted optimized IQ.

 

However, this would probably push the cost of the Project well past $1 billion; money well spent, I say.


Edited by mag1, 04 March 2018 - 09:27 PM.


#97 hydrus

  • Guest
  • 97 posts
  • 5
  • Location:None

Posted 11 March 2018 - 10:01 PM

al this nonsense is based on the idea that intelligence can only be defined in 1 way, IQ=Intelligence and it can be reliably measured. Of course all of this is not true.

 

if the racial differences in IQ were so obvious why did one of the fathers of the race and IQ hypothesis, eugenicist Burton resort to inventing his data, that is it was based on fraud. Another famous IQ and race researcher was found to be involved in scientific fraud too, not in intelligence research though.

 

people readily accept the idea simply because a few academics said so, without knowing about publication bias, confirmation bias and general lemming like and fraudulent behaviour that is extremely common in psychology research,

 

most likely IQ measures certain cognitive functions that do have some correlations with academic success, income etc. but it is not unlikely that a lot of the data is collected and interpreted in certain ways to get a certain desirable result.

 

IQ is almost certainly not 1:1 reflection of intelligence whatever that means. Correlation yes. Cognitive functioning is way to complex to be easily measured.

 

According to the IQ theorists a person with an IQ of 110 will always become better in any field than a person with an IQ of 100 if they spend the same amount of time studying. So it is the only quantity that exists and that matters. 

 

That is really unrelated to the real world where people will have certain talents a few fields and little in others.

 


Edited by hydrus, 11 March 2018 - 10:04 PM.


#98 mag1

  • Guest
  • 957 posts
  • 128
  • Location:virtual

Posted 12 March 2018 - 03:09 AM

hydrus, thank you for your reply.

I am interested in hearing the opinions that others might have on this topic.

 

The IQ question has been floating around out there for about a century and we never seemed to gain much traction.

For a science, it sure did not seem to converge quickly to undeniable truth (at least in the public imagination).

 

However, with the latest generation of GWAS it appears that many are throwing in the towel and stopping the debate.

How can there be a meaningful debate when the science now seems so unequivocal?

 

With these GWAS, they create an operational definition of intelligence broadly accepted and measurable by the psychometric community.

They then take genetic samples from 100,000+ people and look for SNPs that might contribute to this defined trait from among a million

genotyped SNPs on gene chips and millions more that are imputed.

 

They then find hundreds of variants that have genome wide significance after strongly correcting for multiple comparisons.

These SNPs have tiny effect sizes yet are statistically significant.

 

These SNPs are then combined into a polygenic score and they have predictive power related to intelligence, income and other meaningful social variables.

 

I have in the past argued against the correlational style of psychometric research that arrived at similar conclusions. I was just not convinced by

the evidence which lacked any genetic proof. However, I am now very unsure how this current research could be reasonably rebutted.

 

If intelligence cannot be measured, then how is it that they were able to find genetic variants that explain 0.1% of the variance in IQ? 

There is no obvious weakness in this chain of logic that connects the measured phenotype to the genotype and then back to the phenotype.

If any link in the chain was wrong, then no predictive power could be expected.

 

The GWAS research is entirely agnostic to causation and it was all done without reference to a specific social context or

meant to favor any particular group.

 

There are other conceptions of intelligence that are possible. Yet, psychometric research has managed to create a definition of IQ

that is coherent and measurable. The GWAS have found genetic variants that used this definition and predicted outcomes

based on polygenic scores. I think the science has become solid enough that  QED would now be appropriate.


Edited by mag1, 12 March 2018 - 03:13 AM.


#99 hydrus

  • Guest
  • 97 posts
  • 5
  • Location:None

Posted 12 March 2018 - 10:12 AM

 

If intelligence cannot be measured, then how is it that they were able to find genetic variants that explain 0.1% of the variance in IQ? 

 

 

How do you know what IQ tests measure?. It measures something which is the called IQ score which is an abstract concept that can not be seen or measured directly in the real world and that was invented by humans. It is not something like height or weight.

 

You do not know what this is. You find it correlates with  certain genes. You still not know what it is.

 

Since the IQ test was at least in part designed by eugenicists who believed they were part of a superior race, it is also well possible that the tests contain a certain racial bias.  

 

An  example of bias: when it was found that females would score higher than males on certain tasks, the test was altered in a way so they got an equal score. The researchers thought it would be impossible that a female could be more intelligent than a male.

 

If a black had scored higher on certain tasks, a non-black eugenicist surely would have altered the test in a way that made sure a black could not score higher because if that happened the test must have been defunct according to their worldview.

 

Neuroscience does not have a good understanding of the human brain yet even today, do really believe a few racists already figured it all out many years ago?

 


Edited by hydrus, 12 March 2018 - 10:58 AM.

  • Ill informed x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#100 hydrus

  • Guest
  • 97 posts
  • 5
  • Location:None

Posted 12 March 2018 - 01:46 PM

 
These SNPs are then combined into a polygenic score and they have predictive power related to intelligence, income and other meaningful social variables.

 

 I do not doubt that genes can be linked to various attributes and illnesses. Predictive power does not mean that the attributes are entirely determined by genes.

 

You write they are related to intelligence. You mean they are related to IQ scores. No one has ever proven that IQ=Intelligence. It is in fact not possible to prove this.. You can use IQ as a predictor of economic or academic success and it is reasonable to assume that these are related to intelligence. You can show that IQ scores are related to various attributes but that does not mean IQ and intelligence are exactly the same. Likely they correlate but are not identical.

 

 

If intelligence cannot be measured, then how is it that they were able to find genetic variants that explain 0.1% of the variance in IQ? 

 

 

IQ can be measured. We do not know if IQ is equal to intelligence.

 

psychometric research has managed to create a definition of IQ that is coherent and measurable.

 

 

You can create a definition of everything you want and measure it. That itself does not prove that your definition is the only one or the best.

 

I can for example state that the most important predictor of male attractiveness is height or perhaps a few other variables.

 

Then i can define attractiveness=height and have a measurable definition of male attractiveness.

 

I can then prove statistically that females attraction to males correlate with the attractiveness scores that I have defined and it is a reasonable conclusion.

 

I can then show that attractiveness can be inherited, height is heritable and attractiveness is due to superior genes which could be a reasonable assumption.

 

It is a coherent model. The only flaw would be to assume my attractiveness scores are exactly the same as the concept of  attractiveness which is more vague and unclear in the real world. The problem is not that the model is not valid or not useful the problem is that you start to assume that your model entirely reflects what is going on in the real world, that is it is as real or even better than the real world.

 

What you have is an useful tool, perhaps a crude useful tool and you make an ideology or a religion out of it. That is the problem.

 

To give a more practical example. Historically IQ tests had been used to determine career choices. 

 

This was based on the ideas: IQ is exactly the same as intelligence, aptitude is solely determined by IQ and there are no other relevant factors involved.

 

Basically all the information that you needed to know could be expressed in a number. 

 

In reality, that is the real world not the theoretical abstract world of IQ theory this is flawed.

 

Even if IQ were exactly the same as intelligence it seems unlikely that career success depends only on intelligence even in intellectual fields.

 

Work ethic, pleasure derived from work, social functioning, motivation could be equally important. These attributes were neglected by the IQ purists, since they were not part of the ideology of the superior/inferior human as identified by IQ scores.

 

We see the same tempting idea trying to explain the misery of the 3rd world. You can express all the misery and problems of society in a simple 3 or 2 digit number, how convenient.

 

This is not the first time this happens in the world of psychometric testing. The Rorschach test was once believed to be an all powerful test which could tell a stranger virtually everything about you including your secret sexual orientation. It was a once useful test which might have been able to help diagnose schizophrenia but it became a religion and did more harm than good.


Edited by hydrus, 12 March 2018 - 02:32 PM.


#101 A941

  • Guest
  • 1,024 posts
  • 50
  • Location:Austria

Posted 22 March 2018 - 02:32 AM

Over the years I have changed my views on thes things, some conclusions make me very uneasy and unhappy, but we can not deny facts because we dont like them and because the pc police wants us to shut up, cause this will not help us make peoples lives better.

 

If we agree that evolution is happening and that lifeforms evolve to survive in a certain environment, and we agree that humans from different regions differ in many aspects BUT inteligence, then this is close to religious dogma.

 



#102 hydrus

  • Guest
  • 97 posts
  • 5
  • Location:None

Posted 22 March 2018 - 08:53 AM

i think the main problem is that people still believe in social sciences(such as psychology). They think because it contains the word "science" it must be science and therefore it must be true. While this is politcally incorrect to say, a lot in the social sciences is just a bunch of academics talking smart in order to advance their careers and have something to spend their time. Psychology is one of the worst and unscientific fields in general. No one should blindly trust any psychology research. The rate of fraud and publication bias is high and most concepts that were supposed to be scientifically proven eventually got discredited.
 
Real sciences are physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine. These fields are connected as physics can explain chemistry, chemistry can explain biology and biology can explain medicine. The laws discovered by psychology can rarely be explained by medicine, biology or physics. It pretty much exists in a vacuum detached from the real world.
 
Psychology can rarely prove something what they can do is to show correlations. For example, I can prove the amygdala exists and study it by obverving it under the microscope in the real world. In psychology you can not directly obverse what you claim to measure. The g factor can not be seen under the microscope when analyzing brain slices. It has never been observed in the real world.
 
Since behaviour is brain activity, psychology is the attempt to study brain function,  without studying the brain and without integrating it in a larger framework of chemistry and biology.
 
if you are cynical you could say psychology is a field on an isolated island, made up of a variety of non-connected hypotheses that have not been discredited yet.
 
a few examples of very popular theories from history.
 
- psychoanlysis - fraud
 
- behaviorism - mostly untrue claims that have been discredited
 
- recovered memory therapy - based on fiction
 
- rorschach test - mostly fiction
 
 

Edited by hydrus, 22 March 2018 - 09:47 AM.


#103 jroseland

  • Guest
  • 800 posts
  • 84
  • Location:Europe

Posted 31 March 2018 - 09:21 PM

This subject is the ultimate inconvenient truth (especially to political progressives!)

 

A really robust discussion on the topic...

 

 



#104 mag1

  • Guest
  • 957 posts
  • 128
  • Location:virtual

Posted 31 March 2018 - 11:38 PM

Thank you for replying everyone!

 

jroseland, yes I do not see how the counter-argument can continue to be made.

There is a clear anti-science ethos that has been added to the debate.

 

Science is objective; it tells you what is not what you want to be true. 

If I were given a choice, then I would choose for there to be no cognitive differences between groups of people.

Yet, I do not have this choice to make and simply pretending that such differences do not exist would seem

to be highly misguided.

 

I do find it highly unexpected that so much of the argument seems to be stuck at the level of school yard taunts.

There are some very intelligent people involved in these discussions. It is fairly easy to parrot the party line now

that GWAS studies have conclusively demonstrated that psychometric science has been correct over the last

century. However, many of the top thinkers were able to deduce these results without complete knowledge.

I find that very impressive.

 

Nonetheless the ongoing placement of the focus of the discussion on group differences seems highly misguided.

From Greenwich standard 100 IQ, there is no group with even a 1 SD advantage. This is tiny. There are thought

to be 100 SD of IQ that could be selected for. When is the conversation finally going to change from agonizing over

IQ differences of typically less than 10 points and start talking about the potential to start adding hundreds of points?

I am at a total loss for why the conversation continues to be focused on the wrong question.

 

The ssgac is expected to publish an Educational Attainment GWAS very soon that should essentially end the discussion.

They found 3000 genome wide significant SNPs for EA.

 

I do not expect that most people fully understand how quickly this is moving forward.

It is entirely possible that the human genome could essentially unlock this year.

Of note the initial results for the upcoming Nature Genetics article were actually first presented 8 months ago in Norway.

So, the article really should be understood as describing the state of the art as it existed last year.

 

I am not sure how many of the deep state crowd are on our this forum, though I would tend to think that whatever deep state

that might exist is probably centuries ahead of us on the genome. Whatever is being published in the scientific literature

is probably very far behind the technology frontier. I think that if I were a devious type, I'd have genotyped millions of

prisoners and have had them psychometrically tested. A GWAS such as that would surely unlock the IQome. It would also be fairly

cost effective. Understanding the genetics of IQ is simply too critically important for national security and the economy not

to have been fully characterized. I would be surprised and quite disappointed if something along this line had not been done.

 

In the interests of Open Science here are the SNP list that has been uploaded to the web.

I am not sure whether this list is legit, though on first glance it seems at least plausible.

 

It is pretty startling to realize that this list is one of the best glimpses that humans have ever

had into what makes some people more intelligent than others. Note that much of the variation reported

occurs at common (not uncommon) variants and the effect sizes individually are super tiny.

The biggest one was about 0.1 SD. Of course they were using a SNP array, so they really were only

going to find common variants, though the fact that so much is common has important implications for

the genetic enhancement wave that is now rapidly approaching. 

 

https://drive.google...ZwIRiSHVK-/view


Edited by mag1, 31 March 2018 - 11:54 PM.

  • Well Written x 1

#105 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 01 April 2018 - 02:09 AM

"...there is no group with even a 1 SD advantage.'

 

Actually, there is a group whose mean IQ may approach 115: Azhkanazi Jews.



#106 mag1

  • Guest
  • 957 posts
  • 128
  • Location:virtual

Posted 01 April 2018 - 03:08 AM

Thanks Diaboli.

 

Facts do often get in the way of a good argument.

You are right that they are typically reported to be near the 1 SD mark.

That was what I was actually going for; 1 SD is the upper limit and we are now well past that limit with these new SNPs.

 

If I had been given omniscient power to choose the mating behavior of humans over the last several thousands years, then even 

using only basic genetic concepts (i.e., without access to genotypes), I am sure that I could recreate an endless number of

prospectively declared world outcomes. For example, making Sub-Saharan Africa a region of extremely high IQ etc..

 

However, I am not sure whether I could replicate the Ashkenazi psychometric experience. It is quite unique. How could a group

emerge only within a few centuries with such high IQ? There are a range of obvious explanations, though I would still not be sure

whether I could pull it off. Perhaps a reasonable partial explanation is that a certain amount of luck can be involved. However,

replicating the Asian experience would be easy.

 

I added up all the positive betas and doubled them. The sum was 37 SD. We are already at 650 IQ and this is only getting started.

650 IQ would require CRISPR. I am also working the numbers to see what p2, 2pq and q2 would tell us about IQ using population

allele frequencies.

 

For the positives I have:  p2*beta*2 = 12.4 SD,    2pq*beta = 2* 2.97     = 5.94 SD , and q2* beta*2 = 12.84 SD

For the negatives I have: p2*beta*2 = -10.07 SD, 2pq*beta = 2* (-2.78) = -5.56 SD and q2* beta *2 = -11.9 SD

 

I had to play a little with the numbers to jiggle them into range. Yet, I now have 0.88 SD which is not too bad.

This should be the expected total for the PGS for these 2945 EA SNP in humans.

The range that has been reported in various human population for these SNPs is -0.3 to 0.7.

What I did was summed the p2 12.4 for the positives and the q2 -11.9 for the negatives and then the 2pq for both.

 

This is the only way I can see that the numbers could work.

So, if you hit 2 positives then you would use p2, if you hit two negatives you would use q2.

It is not yet completely clear what they have done with these numbers, so we will have to wait for the article to be

published to figure out how they actually calculated things with the given alleles and frequencies.

 

I am also trying to figure out what would happen if you were to select optimized genotypes for a gamete by simply 

selecting the set of chromosomes in a genome with the highest PGS. This would be technology that should be

doable over the near term.

 

So, 650 IQ through CRISPR is already on the table with only a fraction of Educational Attainment ascertained.

I think those who are not some level concerned about such a future simply are not paying close enough attention.

 



#107 hydrus

  • Guest
  • 97 posts
  • 5
  • Location:None

Posted 01 April 2018 - 08:26 AM

Thank you for replying everyone!

 

jroseland, yes I do not see how the counter-argument can continue to be made.

There is a clear anti-science ethos that has been added to the debate.

 

Science is objective; it tells you what is not what you want to be true. 

 

 

 

Psychology is not a hard science often it is hardly any science! It is not objective at all. With a lot of statistical tools and lack of proper control groups you can show what you want to show and the opposite of it. Publication bias in psychology is extreme, they only show what they want to show and you never see the studies that contradict the status quo.

 

Then looking at published research you conclude it must be true because everyone replicated it.

 

Even in medicine which is far more scientific most published research is wrong. Psychology is far worse.

 

If this was all so clear the founders of Intelligence/race research would not have had to produce fraudulent data.

 

you can present and arrange your data as you please and then insist it is statistically significant and numbers never lie. The debate is really limited by all what is not known and is highly ideological. Social sciences give you the illusion of understanding things that are too complex and chaotic to be really understood well.

 

if you want to understand intelligence and genes you need to understand the brain first and how it works. This is something that is done by neuroscience or medicine. Playing with statistics and psychometric testing will not get you very far.

 

People who think only p values and sample size count are the first ones to be fooled by bad science.

 

one has to question why some people are so motivated to show differences in intelligence of races and what they have to gain from it? 

 

there will not be an IQ singularity or Ai singularity anytime soon this will not help you transcend in a higher state of being. Transhumanism will be limited by biological understanding not just computing power. IQ singularity will be limited by understanding of biology.

 

our best bet is to focus on biology which is more grounded in the sciences and has a more solid foundation.

 

 

 

 


Edited by hydrus, 01 April 2018 - 09:20 AM.

  • Informative x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#108 mag1

  • Guest
  • 957 posts
  • 128
  • Location:virtual

Posted 01 April 2018 - 04:31 PM

Hydrus, I do have a level of sympathy with your stance.

 

When I was first introduced to psychology and other "social sciences" I really did not know what to make of them.

A cigar being related to a phallus is some great insight into human psychology?

I ran away screaming as fast as I could from this insanity.

 

I would have loved to have gone to a school where math/comp sci was the only language accepted.  

Words are a great mystery to me.

 

I was also not entirely comfortable with psychometrics.

Intelligence is at least partly genetic, but we are not quite sure which part.

This was not overly convincing to me.

 

However, the latest wave of GWAS research over the last 10 years has me

firmly in the Amen corner.

 

There is now waves of mathematicians entering genetic research.

Typically when you start to see something math up you know that the real science has started.

 

As you said much of the till now published psychology research literature was a great waste of

trees. There is a certain inherent truth in numbers that words lack. Sure some people can fool others

and sometimes themselves with bad quantitative analysis, though given the caliber of quant that is now being

done, I no longer accept that we are still in a pre-science era for genetics and IQ research.

 

Intelligence has been given an operational definition.

Massive GWAS are done using this operational definition and SNPs of very small effects are found.

These SNPs are genome wide significant and they replicate in other samples. 

 

The logic is now tightening up.

I do not see as much hand waving anymore.

 

It can no longer be plausibly argued that the operational definition does not correspond to the SNPs.

If any old invalid definition were to be used for intelligence, then significant SNP results would not emerge.

GIGO.

 

For example, if the intelligence test used a cognitive test with little if any g loading without time limits etc. 

then SNPs would not be found. Intelligence GWAS research is measuring something;

clearly it is because significant results are being found and are being replicated.

 

This of course leaves the question: What is it that is being measured?

Does operationally defined intelligence relate to what we understand to be real world intelligence?

 

Spearman's original research from 1904 sheds some light on this. When they simply asked teachers

to rank their students according to their perception of the students' intelligence, the g factor emerged.

This is fairly startling. From the vantage point of a teacher it would be quite clear what the rank of their

students would be. If you want to have a very good psychometric assessment of your IQ, probably

one of the best places to turn to would be senior level high school teachers. Possibly not so much

at the university level because it is no longer as uniform an environment.

 

It is quite strange that so many people would instead turn to the internet or even

a professional psychologist for such an assessment. A valid IQ test really only relates to finding your relative

ranking within your peer group within your particular environment. The idea that IQ tests would be normalized at

a larger level (say a national level) is essentially nonsensical. Who knows what environmental variables might

differ at such a scale? I do not understand why the same description used in heritability (... for a given population

at a given time") was not ported to intelligence.

 

In some recent research from the Nordic nations, they found that 50 years ago some students were as much as 10 miles away from

their school. As this factor has changed through time the PGS for Educational Attainment has changed. Bascially,

those children who had the genes for walking 10 miles to school probably achieved higher EA. Yet, this is entirely unrelated

to actual cognitive ability.


Edited by mag1, 01 April 2018 - 04:44 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users