Archive for the ‘Psychometics’ Category

Seriously. Read it.

Behavior Genetics (Impact Factor: 2.61). 03/2014; DOI: 10.1007/s10519-014-9646-x

Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT I argue that the g factor meets the fundamental criteria of a scientific construct more fully than any other conception of intelligence. I briefly discuss the evidence regarding the relationship of brain size to intelligence. A review of a large body of evidence demonstrates that there is a g factor in a wide range of species and that, in the species studied, it relates to brain size and is heritable. These findings suggest that many species have evolved a general-purpose mechanism (a general biological intelligence) for dealing with the environments in which they evolved. In spite of numerous studies with considerable statistical power, we know of very few genes that influence g and the effects are very small. Nevertheless, g appears to be highly polygenic. Given the complexity of the human brain, it is not surprising that that one of its primary faculties-intelligence-is best explained by the near infinitesimal model of quantitative genetics.

Genes, Evolution and Intelligence

This book is very popsci and can be read in 1 day for any reasonably fast reader. It doesnt contain much new information to anyone who has read a few books on the topic. As can be seen below, it has a lot of nonsense/errors since clearly the author is not used to this area of science. It is not recommended except as a light introduction to people with political problems with these facts.

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7a48b9a42d89294ca1ade9f76e26a63c

www.goodreads.com/book/show/18667960-a-troublesome-inheritance?from_search=true

 

But  a  drawback  o f  the  system  is  its  occasional  drift  toward
extreme  conservatism.  Researchers  get  attached  to  the  view  of their
field  they  grew  up  with  and,  as  they  grow  older,  they  may  gain  the
influence  to thwart change.  For  50  years  after it was  first proposed,
leading geophysicists  strenuously resisted the idea that the continents
have  drifted  across  the  face  of  the  globe.  “Knowledge  advances,
funeral  by funeral,”  the economist Paul  Samuelson  once  observed.

 

Wrong quote origin. en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

>A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

 

-

Academics, who are obsessed with intelligence, fear the discovery
of  a  gene  that  will  prove  one  major  race  is  more  intelligent  than
another.  But  that  is  unlikely  to  happen  anytime  soon.  Although
intelligence has a genetic basis, no genetic variants that enhance intel­
ligence  have  yet  been  found.  The  reason,  almost  certainly,  is  that
there  are  a  great  many  such  genes,  each  of  which  has  too  small  an
effect  to  be  detectable  with  present  methods.8  If  researchers  should
one  day  find  a  gene  that  enhances  intelligence  in  East  Asians,  say,
they can  hardly argue on that  basis that East Asians are more  intelli­
gent than other races, because hundreds of similar genes remain to be
discovered  in  Europeans  and  Africans.
Even  if  all  the  intelligence-enhancing  variants  in  each  race  had
been identified, no one would try to compute intelligence on the basis
of genetic  information:  it would  be  far easier  just to  apply  an  intelli­
gence test.  But IQ  tests already  exist, for what  they may  be  worth.

 

We have found a number of SNPs already. And we have already begun counting them in racial groups. See e.g.: openpsych.net/OBG/2014/05/opposite-selection-pressures-on-stature-and-intelligence-across-human-populations/

 

-

 

It s social behavior that is of relevance for understanding pivotal—
and otherwise imperfectly explained— events in history and econom­
ics.  Although  the  emotional  and  intellectual  differences  between  the
world’s peoples  as  individuals are slight enough,  even a  small  shift in
social  behavior  can  generate  a  very  different  kind  of society.  Tribal
societies, for instance, are organized on the basis of kinship and differ
from  modern  states  chiefly  in  that  people’s  radius  of trust  does  not
extend too far beyond the family and tribe.  But in this small variation
is  rooted  the  vast  difference  in  political  and  economic  structures
between tribal and modern societies. Variations in another genetically
based behavior, the readiness to punish those who violate social rules,
may explain why  some societies  are  more conformist than others.

 

See: www.goodreads.com/book/show/3026168-the-expanding-circle

 

-

 

The  lure  of  Galton’s  eugenics  was  his  belief  that  society  would
be  better  off  if  the  intellectually  eminent  could  be  encouraged  to
have  more  children.  W hat  scholar  could  disagree  with  that?  More
of  a  good  thing  must  surely  be  better.  In  fact  it  is  far  from  certain
that  this  would  be  a  desirable  outcome.  Intellectuals  as  a  class  are
notoriously  prone  to  fine-sounding  theoretical  schemes  that  lead
to  catastrophe,  such  as  Social  Darwinism,  Marxism  or  indeed
eugenics.
By  analogy  with  animal  breeding,  people  could  no  doubt  be
bred,  if it were ethically acceptable, so  as to  enhance  specific desired
traits.  But  it  is  impossible  to  know  what  traits would  benefit  society
as a whole. The eugenics program, however reasonable it might seem,
was  basically incoherent.

 

Obviously wrong.

 

-

 

The  principal  organizer  of  the  new  eugenics  movement  was
Charles  Davenport.  He  earned  a  doctorate  in  biology  from  Harvard
and  taught  zoology  at  Harvard,  the  University  of  Chicago,  and  the
Brooklyn  Institute  of  Arts  and  Sciences  Biological  Laboratory  at
Cold  Spring  Harbor  on  Long  Island.  Davenport’s  views  on  eugenics
were  motivated  by  disdain  for  races  other  than  his  own:  “Can  we
build a  wall high  enough around this country so as to keep  out these
cheaper  races,  or will  it  be  a  feeble  dam  .  .  .  leaving it to  our  descen­
dants to abandon  the country to the  blacks,  browns  and  yellows and
seek  an  asylum in New  Zealand?”  he wrote.9

 

Well, about that… In this century europeans will be <50% in the US. I wonder if the sociologists will then stop talking about minority, as if that somehow makes a difference.

 

-

 

One  of  the  most  dramatic  experiments  on  the  genetic  control  of
aggression was performed by the Soviet scientist Dmitriy Belyaev. From
the same population of Siberian gray rats he developed two strains, one
highly sociable  and  the  other  brimming with  aggression.  For  the tame
rats, the parents of each generation were chosen simply by the criterion
of how well they tolerated  human presence.  For the  ferocious  rats, the
criterion  was  how adversely they reacted  to people.  After many gener­
ations of breeding,  the  first strain was  now so tame that when visitors
entered  the  room  where  the  rats  were  caged,  the  animals  would  press
their  snouts  through  the  bars to  be  petted.  The  other  strain  could  not
have  been  more  different.  The  rats  would  hurl  themselves  screaming
toward  the  intruder,  thudding  ferociously  against  the  bars  of  their
cage.12

 

Didnt know this one. The ref is:

N icholas  Wade,  “N ice  R a ts,  N asty  R a ts:  Maybe  I t ’s  All  in  the  G en es,”
N ew  York  Tim es, Ju ly  2 5 ,  2 0 0 6 ,  www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/
25 ra ts.h tm l?p a g ew a n ted = a ll& _ r=0  (accessed  Sept.  2 5 ,  2 0 1 3 )

 

-

 

Rodents and humans use many of the same genes and  brain regions
to control  aggression.  Experiments with  mice  have  shown that a  large
number of genes are involved in the trait, and the same is certainly true
of  people.  Comparisons  of  identical  twins  raised  together  and  sepa­
rately  show  that  aggression  is  heritable.  Genes  account  for  between
3 7%  and 72%  of the heritability, the variation  of the trait in a  popula­
tion, according to various studies.  But very few of the genes that under­
lie  aggression  have  yet  been  identified,  in  part  because  when  many
genes control  a  behavior,  each  has  so  small  an  effect  that  it  is  hard  to
detect.  Most  research  has  focused  on  genes  that  promote  aggression
rather than those at the other end of the  behavioral  spectrum.

 

This sentence is nonsensical.

 

-

 

Standing  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  economists’  working  assumption
that  people  the  world  over  are  interchangeable  units  is  the  idea  that
national  disparities  in  wealth  arise  from  differences  in  intelligence.
The possibility should  not be  dismissed  out of hand:  where  individu­
als are concerned,  IQ  scores do correlate,  on average,  with economic
success, so  it is not unreasonable to inquire if the same  might  be true
of countries.

 

Marked sentence is nonsensical.

 

-

 

Turning to economic indicators, they find that national  IQ scores
have an extremely high correlation  (83%)  with economic growth  per
capita  and  also  associate  strongly  with  the  rate  of economic  growth
between  1950  and  1 9 9 0  (64%  correlation).44

 

More conceptual confusion.

 

-

 

And  indeed  with  Lynn  and  Vanhanen’s correlations,  it  is  hard to
know  which  way  the  arrow  of  causality  may  be  pointing,  whether
higher  IQ  makes  a  nation  wealthier  or  whether  a  wealthier  nation
enables  its  citizens  to  do  better  on  IQ  tests.  The  writer  Roy  Unz  has
pointed out from  Lynn and Vanhanen’s own data examples  in  which
IQ  scores  increase  10  or more points  in  a generation  when  a  popula­
tion  becomes  richer,  showing  clearly  that  wealth  can  raise  IQ
scores  significantly.  East  German  children  averaged  90  in  1 9 6 7  but
99  in  1984.  In  West  Germany,  which  has  essentially the  same  popu­
lation,  averages  range  from  99  to  107.  This  17  point  range  in  the
German  population,  from  90  to  107,  was  evidently  caused  by  the
alleviation  of poverty,  not genetics.

 

Ron Unz, the cherry picker. conservativetimes.org/?p=11790

 

-

 

East  Asia  is  a  vast counterexample to the  Lynn/Vanhanen  thesis.
The  populations  of China, Japan  and Korea  have consistently  higher
IQs  than  those  of Europe  and  the  United  States,  but  their  societies,
despite  their  many  virtues,  are  not  obviously  more  successful  than
those of Europe and  its outposts. Intelligence can’t hurt, but it doesn’t
seem  a  clear  arbiter  of  a  population’s  economic  success.  W hat  is  it
then  that determines  the  wealth  or poverty of nations?

 

No. But it does disprove the claim that IQs are just GDPs. The oil states have low IQs and had that both before and after they got rich on oil, and will have in the future when they run out of oil again. Money cannot buy u intelligence (yet).

 

-

 

From  about  9 0 0  a d   to  1700  a d ,  Ashkenazim  were  concentrated
in  a  few  professions,  notably  moneylending  and  later  ta x  farming
(give  the prince  his  money  up  front,  then  extract the  taxes  due  from
his  subjects).  Because  of  the  strong  heritability  of  intelligence,  the
Utah team calculates that 20 generations, a mere 5 0 0 years, would be
sufficient for Ashkenazim to have developed an  extra  16 points of IQ
above that of Europeans. The Utah team assumes that the heritability
of  intelligence  is  0 .8 ,  meaning  that  8 0 %  of the  variance,  the  spread
between high and low values in a population, is due to genetics. If the
parents of each generation have an  IQ of just  1  point above the mean,
then  average  IQ  increases  by  0 .8 %  per  generation.  If  the  average
human  generation  time  in  the  Middle Ages was  2 5  years,  then  in  20
human  generations,  or  5 0 0  years,  Ashkenazi  IQ  would  increase  by
2 0  x  0.8  =  16  IQ  points.

 

More conceptual confusion. One cannot use % on IQs becus IQs are not ratio scale and hence division makes no sense. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_measurement#Comparison

openpsych.net/ODP/2014/05/educational-attainment-income-use-of-social-benefits-crime-rate-and-the-general-socioeconomic-factor-among-71-immmigrant-groups-in-denmark/

www.goodreads.com/book/show/2404700.The_IQ_Controversy_the_Media_and_Public_Policy

The I. Q. Controversy The Media and Public Policy Stanley Rothman 323p_0887381510

 

I read this becus i want to do a follow-up study like this. Both analyzing media output and doing another expert survey.

 

 

I had been thinking about using PCA on political questions to see any obvious underlying structure. Basically, I want to do OKC questions style. Gather lots of questions, have lots of ppl answer them. Do PCA, see what results are.

Political perspective was assessed in two ways. First, respondents stated their agreement or disagreement with a series of six political statements. The statements dealing with U.S. economic exploitation, the fairness of the private enterprise system, affirmative action, the desirability of socialism, alienation caused by the structure of society, and the propriety of extramarital sexual relations. Responses to these statements were discovered, in a previous investigation incorporating many more such statements, to load highly on a factor representing overall political perspective.6o Agreement was assessed on a 4- point scale, where I was “Strongly agree” and 4 was “Strongly disagree.” For four of the six statements, the mean response is approximately at indifference. Respondents are somewhat more likely to disagree that “The United States would be better off if it moved toward socialism” and that “The structure of our society causes most people to feel alienated.” The second measure of political perspective asked experts to indicate their global political perspective on a 7-point scale, where I was “Very liberal” and 7 was “Very conservative.” Mean self-assessment on this scale is 3.19 (s.d.: 1.28, r.r.:95.6%), putting this expert population slightly to the left of center.

Factor analysis of responses to the six statements and the global rating reveal that all questions, with the exception of the statement about extramarital affairs, load highly on a single factor (i.e., are highly correlated). The five statements and the global rating were therefore normalized and combined to form a political perspective supervariable. It is this variable that is used as a measure of overall political perspective. Note that the liberal position on the five included statements (e.9., belief in socialism, affirmative action, economic exploitation) can all be characterized as placing a higher value on equality of outcome than on economic efficiency.

This tactic has been used before, even if only on a limited set of political opinions.

-

While few would argue that intelligence and aptitude test scores do nor affect self-esteem and motivation, the magnitude of this influence is difficult to measure. There have been many reports of significant positive correlations between test scores and self-concept, motivation, or expectancy, but causality remains ambiguous.rs rhe evidence seems to indicate, however, that the influence of test scores on these affective variables is probably not large. (Causation in the opposite direction may not be very significant either, as the correlation may reflect the influence of a third variable, students’actual level ofability and success in school.) Brim and his associates found that high school students tended to greatly overestimate their own intelligence, as measured by test scores. This was particularly true of students with low scores. Fifty percent of students thought their scores were too low relative to their actual level of ability, while 45 percent thought their scores were accurate. only 7 percent ofthe students reported lowering their self-estimates of intelligence as a result of their test scores, while 24 percent raised their estimates.16

Dunning Kruger, but much earlier.

Reference 16 is: Orville G. Brim, Jr., ‘American Attitudes Towards Intelligence Tests,” American Psychologrsl 20 (1965):125-130; Brim et al. 17. Goslin, p. 133

openpsych.net/ODP/2014/04/criminality-among-norwegian-immigrant-populations/

Abstract
A previous study found that criminality among immigrant groups in Denmark was highly predictable by their countries of origin’s prevalence of Muslims, IQ, GDP and height. This study replicates the study for Norway with similar results.

Keywords: Crime, national IQ, group differences, country of origin

Download paper.
Forum thread and supplementary material.

Abstract
Criminality rates and fertility vary wildly among Danish immigrant populations by their country of origin. Correlational and regression analyses show that these are very predictable (R’s about .85 and .5) at the group level with national IQ, Islam belief, GDP and height as predictors.

Published in our new journal for psychology.

openpsych.net/index.php/diff/article/view/7

Peer review is here: openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=2&action=lastpost

I have long had an idea that one needs to be able to generate problems for IQ batteries automatically.

Some things are very easy to generate. Digit spans just require the computer to generate random numbers one at a time and ask the user to input them again.

Others are harder to generate. So far I have figured out how to generate two of the harder ones: 1) vocabulary test, 2) number series tests.

Vocab test

First, one needs a list of words by their frequency.  Such lists can be found for most languages. They can also be generated quickly by taking a large body of text and analyzing it. E.g. download a book, like Harry Potter, and count the occurrences of every word. Then sort the list.

The difficulty of the problem is the rank on the frequency list. The more uncommon words are harder. For testing, one will choose a word at random from the interval 100-1000 most common words, 1000-1500 most common, 1500-2000 most common etc. until one gets to perhaps words in the 30k range, which are pretty rare. Or just how far the one wants to go.

Second, one needs a dictionary with meanings of words. There are lots of online ones for this purpose, e.g. Wiktionary.

To generate a problem, choose N random words in the difficulty category. Get all their definitions from the dictionary. Now u have N words and N definitions. There are multiple ways to do it. One simple way is to select one word at random, and then ask the user to select the correct meaning from the N available.

To make things harder, one can only choose words from the same grammatical category (noun, verb, adverb, adjective).

One can do this for any language where one can find a minable online dictionary and a frequency list (or just make one).

Number series test

Everybody knows these problems. E.g.: list = [1,2,3,4,?] Next number is 5, ofc. list = [1,3,6,10,?] next is 15.

I have succeeded in finding an analytic solution to one kind of these problems, the additive ones at any depth.

Take the second series above. The analysis is to find the difference between any two adjacent numbers. Repeat this all the way down.

For the above, it goes: [[1, 3, 6, 10], [2, 3, 4], [1, 1], [0]]. 3-1=2, 6-3=3, 10-6=4. Then do it for the result too. 3-2=1, 4-3=1. 1-1=0.

When one finds a line with the same number repeated, it means that one has found the depth for this type of problem. The above problem is a 3rd level problem because the repetition is at the third level. For the first problem above: [[1, 2, 3, 4], [1, 1, 1], [0, 0], [0]]. The depth is 2. For the ultra easy, the depth is 1: [[3, 3, 3, 3], [0, 0, 0], [0, 0], [0]].

From this, I have worked out which information is necessary to generate these from the bottom. One needs: 1) the length of the series, 2) the depth of the repetition, 3) the initial numbers each level. For instance, let’s say we choose the seeds [4,5,6], the depth 3 and the length 5. Then we get.

4,x,x,x,x

5,x,x,x

6,x,x

Since we know the depth is 3, we know that the initial must be repeated:

4,x,x,x,x

5,x,x,x

6,6,6

Then we can calculate the bold x above. It’s 5+6=11:

4,x,x,x,x

5,11,x,x

6,6,6

Then we can calculate the next bold x. It’s 6+11. And so on.

4,9,20,37,50

5,11,17,23

6,6,6

The final problem is then: 4, 9, 20, 37, ? with correct answer 50.

The problems can be made at an arbitrary difficulty level:

What is the next number? [-6, -5, -13, -20, -6, ?] (length = 6, depth = 5).

If you didn’t solve it, here’s the analysis: [[-6, -5, -13, -20, -6, 59], [1, -8, -7, 14, 65], [-9, 1, 21, 51], [10, 20, 30], [10, 10]]

They can be made impossibly hard to anyone not familiar with this analysis:

What is the next number? [-6, -15, -16, -10, 12, 51, 97, 126, 82, -171]

Further, one can vary the number range of the random numbers. Negative numbers are harder to think about, and it’s even worse when they cross back and forth around 0. The above problem is really hard. I doubt many could solve it even given unlimited time if they didn’t know the analysis.

The code is here: algorithm

I would have uploaded it to Github, but apparently finding out how to upload files to GitHub was harder than figuring out how to disable the filetype security on my WordPress blog. Fail.

From reddit www.reddit.com/r/Khan/comments/1znhcx/khan_academy_gets_rare_partnership_to_close/

Me:

Test prepping does not work very well, so it’s a minor issue. SAT and ACT tests are mainly tests of g and one cannot train g.

Him:

That’s a common misconception, but they’re not general intelligence tests. SAT and ACT test very specific material that can be studied, so test prep actually makes a huge difference in scores.

Me:

No. Try these: pss.sagepub.com/content/15/6/373.short infoproc.blogspot.dk/2012/02/test-preparation-and-sat-scores.html

Him:

I’m a little too tired to look up studies and pick apart the methodology, so I’m just going to make a couple general points. First and foremost, why are the writers of the sat revising the test to make it less susceptible to test preparation (by their own admission) if it’s not affected by test preparation? Why change it at all if it’s an accurate test of general intelligence? Why is family income so strongly correlated to sat scores if the test score can’t be affected by other factors? Why would so many elite colleges be turning sat optional if the score actually represented human intelligence? Are native English speakers naturally smarter than not native speakers since native speakers have higher average scores?

Me:

I’m a little too tired to look up studies and pick apart the methodology, so I’m just going to make a couple general points. First and foremost, why are the writers of the sat revising the test to make it less susceptible to test preparation (by their own admission) if it’s not affected by test preparation? Why change it at all if it’s an accurate test of general intelligence?

Maybe because people like you think like this.

Why is family income so strongly correlated to sat scores if the test score can’t be affected by other factors?

Because high g parents have high g children and high g parents earn more money. Common cause.

You should drop the straw man. I did not say that it was not affected by other causes.

Why would so many elite colleges be turning sat optional if the score actually represented human intelligence?

For political reasons? To easier meet racial quotas?

Are native English speakers naturally smarter than not native speakers since native speakers have higher average scores?

If you use a verbal test on non-natives then you get biased results. That’s why one uses non-verbal tests instead.

Here’s a study for ACT. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000487

But really, that SAT/ACT are mostly measures of g has been known for decades.

There’s a replication here for the 2004 study: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906000869

Him:

Maybe because people like you think like this.

Not sure what you mean. People with relevant expertise?

You should drop the straw man. I did not say that it was not affected by other causes

It’s not a straw man, I’m challenging an assumption necessary to your argument. You predicated your claim that sat scores can’t be changed by prep on the (dubious) premise that the sat is a test of general intelligence, thereby assuming that tests of g can’t be improved by prep. I’m demonstrating that the scores can be affected by other factors, and positing that a test that can be affected by myriad other factors can be influenced by targeted practice.

All of this boils down to the simple truth that I know for a fact that students’ scores improve with practice. It doesn’t matter how many tangentially related studies you cite, I’ve seen the unequivocal reality hands on. I’m working with 3 students right now. One has gone up 200 points on the sat, one has gone up 300, and the last has gone up 4 points on the act.

I really gotta ask, have you ever taken either test? What did you get? It’s hard for me to imagine that someone who knows the question types actually thinks the sat tests human intelligence. (I won’t go so far as to say that about the act, but it’s still on material that can be practiced)

Me:

It’s not a straw man, I’m challenging an assumption necessary to your argument. You predicated your claim that sat scores can’t be changed by prep on the (dubious) premise that the sat is a test of general intelligence, thereby assuming that tests of g can’t be improved by prep. I’m demonstrating that the scores can be affected by other factors, and positing that a test that can be affected by myriad other factors can be influenced by targeted practice.

It is a strawman. I did not claim that one can’t train SAT scores. I specifically said one could, but not much.

One can improve IQ scores (manifest variable) but not g (latent variable). See: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000778

All of this boils down to the simple truth that I know for a fact that students’ scores improve with practice. It doesn’t matter how many tangentially related studies you cite, I’ve seen the unequivocal reality hands on. I’m working with 3 students right now. One has gone up 200 points on the sat, one has gone up 300, and the last has gone up 4 points on the act.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Him:

You’re the only one here talking about g. This is an article about the SAT, not g.

And are you really claiming that the universal consensus of everyone exposed to test prep is simply anecdotal evidence that you, a dilettante, can see right through? Again, ETS, the writers of the SAT, have just stated that it’s too influenced by test preparation. You know more about it than they do?

Me:

You’re the only one here talking about g. This is an article about the SAT, not g.

You’ve also been talking about it above.

And are you really claiming that the universal consensus of everyone exposed to test prep is simply anecdotal evidence that you, a dilettante, can see right through? Again, ETS, the writers of the SAT, have just stated that it’s too influenced by test preparation. You know more about it than they do?

No evidence for any universal consensus presented. One can see that this isn’t so on Wikipedia as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#Preparations

I already stated one can increase SAT scores by training, but not much.

Following the systematic review mentioned indirectly on Wikipedia: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00812.x/abstract

The mean gains on V and M were 24 and 33 points. Compare this to the published standard deviations of the subtests of around 114-118, you can see that this training did not do much. About .25 SD increase. Equivalent of 3.75 IQ points (SD15).

media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-2013.pdf

Him:

The Wiley link above is the most recent article you’ve mentioned, and it still implies that data quality in the field is poor. And while I would dispute that the figures they give would be accurate for my work, they still called the gains from test preparation significant. From the article:

“As long as coaching remains inaccessible to some students, we urge universities to reconsider the weight given to SAT scores in the undergraduate admissions process. We challenge the designers of the SAT to redesign the examination to eliminate the possibility of score gains from coaching. Finally, we call for researchers to increase the production of high-quality data in this field to ensure accurate estimates of coaching’s effects are made available to all.”

And I gotta come back to this. Have you ever even seen an SAT?

At this point it seems like he had given up trying to argue, and merely wanted to talk about other stuff.

One can recap it in terms of references given:

Me – 9

Him – 0

From reddit www.reddit.com/r/genetics/comments/1z1tli/design_your_own_baby_a_genetic_ethics_dilemma/cfqrlol

Zorander22 writes:

1) I would wager a guess that most people are capable of far more than they’re current employment situations might indicate. The idea that machines are taking over increasingly complex tasks is an important one… which, depending on how wealth gets distributed, could ensure an easy future for many people, rather than spelling the doom of humanity. If machines and computers end up being able to do increasingly complex tasks without limit, it seems like they would soon outstrip people, even with substantial eugenics programs or genetic engineering in place.

2) People are still under selection processes. Many of these likely happen before birth (wombs and women may have built-in systems to stop supporting fetuses if there are signs there may be serious genetic problems). People are still dying in a non-random manner… and moreover, people are having children in a non-random matter, so sexual selection may play an important role. While there may be trends regarding intelligence and birth rates, it is likely that there are many other factors influencing birth rates and the success of offspring. Low intelligence may increase birth rates through poor implementation of birth control methods or planning, but there could be other hidden effects with high intelligence leading to more resources available for raising more children. As birth control gets easier to implement, you might soon see more intelligent people having more kids on average than less intelligent people.

What we are undergoing right now is an expansion in the variability within our gene pool. We have a huge number of organisms with new mutations cropping up. Far from being a bad thing, this variability is one of the key ingredients for evolution to take place – evolution doesn’t happen consistently throughout time, it often happens in response to changed environmental factors. For some organisms to have better success due to a changing environment, there needs to be a large amount of variability within the population, so that there are lots of phenotypes expressed, some of which will perform better than others. This increase in our genetic variability will serve us well if there’s ever a dramatic change in our environment.

-

Deleetdk writes:

I would wager a guess that most people are capable of far more than they’re current employment situations might indicate.

No. This is a core belief of educational romanticism which Charles Murray talks about[1] .

More yes, not “far more”. There are limits. The primary area, I think, where talent is not using used is with the gifted children. There is an extreme lack of gifted programs in many countries. Khan Academy is changing this. The future is bright in this area. :)

The idea that machines are taking over increasingly complex tasks is an important one… which, depending on how wealth gets distributed, could ensure an easy future for many people, rather than spelling the doom of humanity.

Let’s say we’re 30 years into the future and no eugenics has been used for g. Now, maybe 30% of the working age population is leeching (e.g. via a basic income policy[2] ), which raises taxes further for the working part of the population. Keep also in mind that people are having fewer children, so the non-working age population is also much larger (subreplacement fertility[3] is a huge economic problem in the near future). Let’s say that in total 30% of the population is working, while the rest is leeching. Why would the workers pay so much of their income? Keep in mind that crypto-currencies will make it more or less impossible to effectively force them if they don’t want to. Do you think this is a bright future? I don’t. One solution would be artificial wombs[4] , but that technology might not be ready yet by then. I don’t know.

If machines and computers end up being able to do increasingly complex tasks without limit, it seems like they would soon outstrip people, even with substantial eugenics programs or genetic engineering in place.

Yes, nonbiological computers will eventually outperform biological computers no matter how much we use eugenics for g. My idea is that we need to get MUCH smarter before allowing this to happen. I think we can make it work, but the world population needs to improve, say, 5 SD in g first.

People are still under selection processes. Many of these likely happen before birth (wombs and women may have built-in systems to stop supporting fetuses if there are signs there may be serious genetic problems). People are still dying in a non-random manner…

Yes, but this selection force is very weak compared to the constant influx of de novo mutations. Welfare systems without eugenics are unstable, since they lead directly to dysgenics that will sooner or later make the welfare system economically untenable.

people are having children in a non-random matter, so sexual selection may play an important role.

I agree. This selection force is likely to be stronger in the future due to increased assortative mating from online dating like OKCupid[5] (this is an interesting research question: do people who met over netdating show stronger assortative mating than those who didn’t? AFAIK, no one knows!). This might itself increase dysgenics for g though. It depends on how fertility is a function of g. If the effect is multiplicative rather than additive, then bright people will have a very low fertility indeed. I currently don’t know the answer to this question.

While there may be trends regarding intelligence and birth rates, it is likely that there are many other factors influencing birth rates and the success of offspring. Low intelligence may increase birth rates through poor implementation of birth control methods or planning, but there could be other hidden effects with high intelligence leading to more resources available for raising more children. As birth control gets easier to implement, you might soon see more intelligent people having more kids on average than less intelligent people.

No. The trend has been going for 100 years or more. This is no change in the future for this trend. See: Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (Richard Lynn)[6] . PDF[7] .

What we are undergoing right now is an expansion in the variability within our gene pool. We have a huge number of organisms with new mutations cropping up. Far from being a bad thing, this variability is one of the key ingredients for evolution to take place – evolution doesn’t happen consistently throughout time, it often happens in response to changed environmental factors. For some organisms to have better success due to a changing environment, there needs to be a large amount of variability within the population, so that there are lots of phenotypes expressed, some of which will perform better than others. This increase in our genetic variability will serve us well if there’s ever a dramatic change in our environment.

Agreed about the variation (due to increased assortative mating which increases variation). Some evolution is more or less constant, selection for polygenic traits (height, g, weight, personality, etc.) is probably more or less constant and not ‘punctuated’ (in Gouldian sense).

There is plenty of variation currently in the human gene pools for evolution of more g. See also Steve Hsu on genetics of g[8] .

www.goodreads.com/book/show/786753.Educability_And_Group_Differences

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=501f355b6e474bdc0b7f3130dc3bf9c0&open=0

 

Why read a book from 1973? 41 years old? Well, it was a good read indeed! It is interesting how much of the evidence for racial differences were in place already in 1973, and it has more or less only become stronger since then. Basically, the book is a shorter and less technical (but not that much!) version of his major book The g Factor.

 

 

This distinction between the individual and the particular gene

pool from which the unique combination forming his genotype

was derived extends beyond his family to the racial group with

which he is identified and to the social status into which he is

born. You are not your race; you are not your group. You are you.

That is, if you are talking genetics. If you are talking sociology or

politics, that may be another matter. You may be psychologically

tied to and influenced by whatever groups you happen to identify

with. If you are either elated or depressed about yourself because

of such identification, don’t attribute this to genetics. It in fact

contradicts this kind of typology which compels so many persons

to identify with various groups as if the statistical attributes of

the group determined their own characteristics. Racism and social

elitism fundamentally arise from identification of individuals with

their genetic ancestry; they ignore individuality in favor of group

characteristics; they emphasize pride in group characteristics, not

individual accomplishment; they are more concerned with who

belongs to what, and with head-counting and percentages and

quotas than with respecting the characteristics of individuals in

their own right. This kind of thinking is contradicted by genetics;

it is anti-Mendelian. And even if you profess to abhor racism and

social elitism and are joined in battle against them, you can only

remain in a miserable quandary if at the same time you continue

to think, explicitly or implicitly, in terms of non-genetic or anti-

genetic theories of human differences. Wrong theories exact their

own penalties from those who believe them. Unfortunately, among

many of my critics and among many students I repeatedly en­

counter lines of argument which reveal disturbing thought-blocks

to distinguishing individuals from statistical characteristics (usually

the mean) of the groups with which they are historically or socially

identified. I know professors, for example, who cannot bring

themselves to discuss racial group differences when any persons

from different racial groups are present, and the fact that I am

able to do so perhaps makes me appear insensitive in their eyes.

I was once bothered by this too. I got over it as I studied more

genetics and came more and more to appreciate its real implications.

 

Well written! I had the same idea, namely that what unites racists and ‘antiracists’ is their collectivism, their focus on the properties of groups instead of individuals.

 

-

 

The important distinction between the individual and the

populationmust always be kept clearly in mind in any discussion

of racial differences in mental abilities or any behavioral charac­

teristics. Whenever we select a person for some special educa­

tional purpose, whether for special instruction in a grade-school

class for children with learning problems, or for a ‘gifted’ class

with an advanced curriculum, or for college attendance, or for

admission to graduate training or a professional school, we are

selecting an individual, and we are selecting him and dealing

with him as an individual for reasons of his individuality.

Similarly, when we employ someone, or promote someone in

his occupation, or give some special award or honor to someone

for his accomplishments, we are doing this to an individual.

The variables of social class, race, and national origin are

correlated so imperfectly with any of the valid criteria on which

the above decisions should depend, or, for that matter, with any

behavioral characteristic, that these background factors are irre­

levant as a basis for dealing with individuals – as students, as

employees, as neighbors. Furthermore, since, as far as we know,

the full range of human talents is represented in all the major

races of man and in all socioeconomic levels, it is unjust to allow

the mere fact of an individual’s racial or social background to

affect the treatment accorded to him. All persons rightfully must

be regarded on the basis of their individual qualities and merits,

and all social, educational, and economic institutions must have

built into them the mechanisms for insuring and maximizing

the treatment of persons according to their individual behavior.

 

As written by a true racist, or something…

 

-

 

A common misconception often arises in connection with standards

such as the following from an article by Dreeben (1969): ‘First,

genetic forces and environmental forces operate on two distinct

dimensions of time. Genetic effects are established when an ovum

is fertilized – at one moment in time; environmental effects extend

over time.’ This is often erroneously believed to mean that although

individuals may be endowed with different genotypes at the moment

of conception, all change and differentiation that take place

thereafter are the result of environmental forces. But this interpreta­

tion overlooks the fact that the genes exert a continuing influence

on developmental processes. Many genetic effects are manifested

phenotypically only in later stages of development. As an obvious

example, patterns of baldness are genetically determined but do

not show up until middle age. Behavioral characteristics associated

with maturational processes, like mental development, variously

manifest genetic effects increasingly as the individual grows from

infant to adult. This is clearly seen in the gradually increasing

degree of correlation between the mental abilities of parents and

their biological children from infancy to late adolescence, which

occurs even when the children have never had contact with their

biological parents after infancy and have been reared by adoptive

or foster parents (e.g., Honzik, 1957). Under a normal range of

environmental conditions, an individual’s phenotypic IQ, from

infancy to maturity, converges toward its genotypic value.

 

So, it was known that heritability increases already in 1957 (or 1973). I thought it entered common knowledge in 1994 with McGue M, Bouchard TJ, Jr, Iacono WG, Lykken DT. 1993. Behavior genetics of cognitive ability: A life-span perspective.

 

-

 

Probably the best evidence for the threshold hypothesis would

be the finding of significantly higher heritability in groups that

are above average in SES and environmental advantages than in

groups of low SES.13 No one has ever done this systematically.

The gifted children in Terman’s study came mostly from the

higher SES levels and unquestionably had considerably better

than average environmental advantages for intellectual develop­

ment. The mean IQ of their siblings was 123 and the correlation

between the IQs of the gifted and their siblings, estimated from

the sibling regression, is 0-44, which, when corrected for attenu­

ation, is close to the genetically predicted sibling correlations of

0*5 (with random mating) or 0-6 (with an assortative mating

coefficient of 0-5), and does not differ much from sibling correla­

tions reported in the general literature. The gifted group as adults

were, on the average, of higher SES than their own parents. Thus

the offspring of the gifted probably enjoyed even greater environ­

mental advantages. The narrow heritability of IQ in this group,

estimated from the midparent-midchild regression, is 0-85. This

is significantly higher than the best estimate of narrow’ heritability

(0*71) given by Jinks and Fulker (1970, p. 342) on the basis of

Burt’s data, which includes a wride range of SES in the English

population. It is also higher than the midparent-midchild correla­

tion (0-69 + 0-03) found in a largely rural population sample in

Vermont in 1920, with environmental advantages presumably

much below those provided by the Terman gifted and their

spouses (Jones, 1928, p. 69). These heritability findings, then, are

consistent with the threshold hypothesis. But the total evidence

for the hypothesis must still be regarded as quite ambiguous. A

clear finding of an appreciable difference between h2 in the Negro

and white populations, however, would be consistent with the

hypothesis depicted in Figures 7*5 and 7*6. It could mean, in

effect, that the scale of environmental effects differs for the bulk

of the two populations and not simply that the two populations are

distributed about different means on the same additive (i.e., equal

interval) scale of environments. So now we must examine what

meager evidence exists on the estimation of h2 in Negro populations.

 

With all the talk about h2 x SES interactions, Jensen was there 40 years ago too. :p

 

-

 

A statistical test could be applied to determine if the lesser

variance of the Negro IQ distribution is an artifact of the scale or

a ‘fact of nature’. One would determine, for both Negro and white

population samples, separately and together, whether there is any

significant correlation (both linear and non-linear relationships

should be sought) between family means (based on fraternal twins

or siblings7) and within-family variances. Since the total variance

( V T) of a subpopulation is comprised of the between-families

variance ( VB) plus within-families variance ( V w), we should

determine if two subpopulations which differ in VT differ in VB

or Vw or in both. If they differ only in VB, this suggests a ‘fact of

nature’ rather than an artifact of scale, and this interpretation is

strengthened if it is found that there is no significant correlation

between family means and within-family variances. A correlation

between within-family variances and family means suggests a

scale artifact which might be eliminated by a transformation of

the scale. These tests, however, would not be worthwhile unless

performed on quite large and representative samples of the sub­

populations in question. If it is found that the most adequate scale

from all these standpoints shows marked differences in IQ variance

for Negroes and whites, and if the heritabilities of IQ were either

closely comparable in both populations, or smaller in the Negro

population, the genetic uniformity hypothesis would be very

untenable. It would indicate less genetic variance in the Negro

population. (The results could, of course, go in the opposite

direction, but the evidence based on the existing scales of mental

ability indicates less variance in the Negro samples.) Smaller

variance, with the consequence of a lesser proportion of the

subpopulation having higher values on the intellectual ability

scale, even if the mean were the same as in the general population,

would have important social consequences for the subpopulation

with the lower variance in terms of the proportion of its members

who are able to compete successfully in those endeavors in which

proficiency is most highly correlated with intellectual ability.

J. B. S. Haldane (1965, pp. xcii-xciii) noted that ‘For cultural

achievements high variability may be more important than a high

average. . . . When we say the ancient Greeks were great mathe­

maticians we are in fact thinking of about 20 men. We know

nothing about the average Greeks in this respect.’

 

Why should two populations have different genetic variances?

Differences in gene frequencies and in the degree of assortative

mating are the chief causes.8 A difference in gene frequencies for

a given characteristic will cause different means and variances,

although if the number of gene loci is large, the difference in

variances will be relatively less than the difference in means. If

the genetic means in both populations are equal, the most likely

explanation of unequal genetic variances is differences in degree

of assortative mating. That is, the tendency for like to mate with

like with respect to a particular trait. It is known that there is a

high degree of assortative mating for intelligence in the white

population. (There are no published studies of assortative mating

for intelligence in non-white populations.) Assortative mating

increases the total genetic variance in the population; it also

increases the between-families variance relative to within-families

variance. Some 15 to 20 percent of the total variance in the white

population is attributable to assortative mating for intelligence.

Assortative mating per se has no effect on the mean, so if both the

genetic means andvariances differ between two populations, we

can suspect differences in gene frequencies as well as differences

in assortative mating.

 

This is interesting. Especially if the assortative mating might be increased due to internet dating. This could have big social implications. With IQ 100, SD 15, 2.3% are >130. But if we increased variance 10% cuz of stronger assortative mating, it wud be 3.45% above. The effects are huge when we get farther out. Ofc, on the other hand, it will also give me imbeciles. Im willing to take the trade. :p

 

As for the unequal variances between races with africans having less. This seems implausible in the light of the fact that africans have higher variance in all genes. So, it wud be odd if they had lower variance in the g-genes.

 

-

 

Since variation in skin pigmentation, because of its social-

environmental consequences, is controlled in this research design,

any direct biochemical connection between degree of skin pig­

mentation and intelligence must be either ruled out or, if such a

relationship is established, its consequences for the present design

must be assessed. The possibility of a biochemical connection

between skin pigmentation and intelligence is not totally unlikely

in view of the biochemical relation between melanins, which are

responsible for pigmentation, and some of the neural transmitter

substances in the brain. The skin and the cerebral cortex both arise

from the ectoderm in the development of the embryo and share

some of the same biochemical processes.

 

And it now makes sense that Jensen later wrote his comment in: Jensen, Arthur R. “Comments on correlations of IQ with skin color and geographic–demographic variables.” Intelligence 34.2 (2006): 128-131.

 

Templer and Arikawa emphasize that they regard skin color only as a climatic variable, a multigenerational reflection of climatic history. And this may well be theoretically adequate for their present purpose. But we should not let it mislead us to dismiss completely other possible, and presently causal, connections between skin color and IQ—an idea the authors, perhaps too cautiously, called “absurd.” This stance overlooks the probability of the genetic phenomenon of pleiotropy acting as at least a partial cause of the IQ × skin color correlation in present day populations. (Pleiotropy is the condition of a single gene having two or more phenotypically quite different effects. For example a single gene could affect both IQ and skin color.)

 

-

 

But the whole notion of equating for SES, in the first place,

involves what has been called the ‘sociologist’s fallacy’. This fallacy

is seen in full bloom in one sociologist’s criticism of studies of

Negro-white IQ differences which equated the groups for SES

or other environmental factors: ‘Actually in most of the studies he

[Jensen, 1969a] reports on, the most important environmental

variable, the IQ of the parent, has not been equated at all’

(Stinchcombe, 1969, p. 516). Apart from the strictly environmental

effect of parental IQ ,1 it is obvious that, since IQ variance contains

a large genetic component, equating groups for parental IQ means

equating them for genetic factors more than for environmental

factors. The same is true, though to a lesser degree, when we

equate for SES. When typical Negro children are equated with

white children on some index of SES, one is comparing a majority

of the Negro population with some lower fraction of the white

population.2 The white comparison group, therefore, is not

genetically representative of the entire white population but is

genotypically (as well as environmentally) lower by some sub­

stantial degree. Thus, if one supposes one is equating only for

environmental influences, equating on SES equates too much.The

method would be a proper control of environmental factors if all

children had been placed in their SES categories completely at

random, in the nature of a true experiment. But as it is, SES

classification is more a result than a cause of IQ variance.

 

quite possibly the first formulation of the sociologists fallacy.

 

-

 

Data on two white populations show that fetal loss (Fx genera­

tion) in matings of the parental generation ( P J increases

cumulatively by approximately 2-5 percent to 3 percent with

each additional country of birth in the great-grandparental

generation (Px). A dependent relation shows that increased fetal

loss is also related to greater distances between birthplaces of

mates within the Px generation. Conversely, low fetal loss is

encountered with a small number of countries in the background

and shorter distance between birthplaces. It is suggested that a

large number of countries of birth represents a larger number

of Mendelian gene pools and that with increased mixture of

these gene pools, fetal loss increases proportionately. An animal

model is cited in support of this contention, (p. 24)

 

Never heard of this effect! It somewhat offsets hybrid vigor.