Premise is false - gap has closed a lot, and differs by gender as to
how much (it has closed a huge amount between black women and white
women, and to a lesser extent between black men and white men). That it
differs by gender is a huge problem for genetic-origins theories, as men
and women of the same supposed lineage shouldn’t differ in their
inter-group convergence.
This further reinforces my impression that none of these people have
studied anything that takes the problems of causal inference seriously.
It’s invariably “well, gee, we stuck everything we could think of on the
right hand side of the equation, so guess that settles it!”.
I love how triggered they get when you mention their claim about "genetics" has no, well, genetics to back them up. It ranges from [uuuuh you can breed pigs for fat so IQ works the same](https://twitter.com/snugbugondrugs/status/1254957318355275777) to [waaah why do you place the bar so high?](https://twitter.com/snugbugondrugs/status/1253454405023739906) Yeah dude, how dare we ask for a genetic explanation for your claim about genetic determinism? Maybe it's because you know fuck all about genetics and couldn't blast your own ass in a GO database even with two hands and a map?
Reminds me that Rushton & co's response to the Flynn Effect was basically "IQ is real and measures general intelligence - except when it implies that general intelligence is rising faster than can be accounted for by genes, in which case they're a hopelessly noisy measure producing a statistical artifact"
*g* is a pretty huge handwave to begin with. "All these things correlate, so there must be some master factor to explain them all, and that must coincide with our intuitive, implicit understanding of intelligence."
Yeah, it's worth linking cosmo shalizis [critique](http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html) again. It seems like doing the factor analysis over and over again on correlated data will always lead to a top factor, so even if the number of factors and model layers are [wildly different](http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html) you can take them both to be evidence of g because they've got one factor at the top. Which is fine if you're purely treating g as a statistical summary or construct, but it's fuck-all proof of anything biological.
> cosmo shalizis critique again
---
> I will push extra hard, once again, Clark Glymour's [paper on *The Bell Curve*](http://apophenia.wdfiles.com/local--files/start/glymour_1998_bell_curve.pdf), which patiently explains why these tools are just not up to the job of causal inference. (Maybe more than two people will follow that link this time.) They do not, of course, become reliable when used by the righteous, and Glymour was issuing such warnings long before Herrnstein and Murray's book appeared to trouble our counsels. The conclusions people reach with such methods may be right and may be wrong, but you basically can't tell which from their reports, *because their methods are unreliable.*
That reminds me of the recently proposed 'general psychopathology factor' which correlates with the 'general personality disorder factor' which correlates with the 'general personality factor'. Psychologists are wild.
I mean we are talking about the same ppl that think the big 5 are real and exist in the brain.
it's an embarassment and shows how inbred specific disciplines can get.
This is a strawman. Are you stuck in the 1930s when Spearman first hypothesized g being a causal (genetic) entity and ignoring [new](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608001591) [research](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/) that [proved](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912002607) him right?
With your banned alts, evil clone of Marxbro
E: tbf, you seem to be somebody else, but just as you can summon Marxbro by misquoting communist literature three times in a row. There is at least one pro iq rules, non-whites drool, person who makes alts (iirc this person even got banned by the reddit admins at least once) over and over again to argue about iq.
Ah yes, "new research" in some shit journals no one cares about. How about actual solid evidence like neurological data, genetic mechanisms, any kind of developmental model? You know, hard physical stuff that points at anything other than *g* being a purely imaginary construct that exists only in the eyes of psychologists? How come Jensen and his clique have so much trouble publishing in a real journal? Hell even PNAS will do lol
>The biggest journals concerning IQ are "shit" and nobody cares about them
Yep. Outside your psychology bubble no one cares about that shit.
>Several recent reports have shown that g is also correlated with a variety of neural mechanisms, such as glucose metabolism (Haier, 2003), cortical development (Shaw et al., 2006), and biochemical activity (Jung et al., 2005), along with the identification of promising endophenotypes for intelligence such as working memory and processing speed (van Leeuwen, van den Berg, Hoekstra, & Boomsma, 2007) These studies allow us to assume that it is now reasonable to consider g to be a physiological or biological, genetic entity
g is also correlated with being alive and healthy, what a nice finding. Leaving aside the fact that *a bunch of positive correlations does not prove the existence of a causal latent variable*. Do you know what "genetic mechanism" means? Do you seriously imagine this getting through a real journal? You people have no idea do you.
>Again, Intelligence is the largest journal concerning well... intelligence.
With a whooping impact factor of...2.8. The largest journal. With known fraudsters like Lynn in their editorial board. Not a self-citation ring or predatory industry at all, no sir.
EDIT: shit I just realized *Intelligence* is the journal that actually accepted the hilarious Kanazawa "the Earth is flat" paper three weeks after its submission. Lol imagine expecting to be taken seriously after pulling that shit. "Intelligence experts" who "know how genetics work", eh?
>Nobody cares about psychology outside of psychology? Damn... Ok then?
No one cares as long as psychologists masturbate in their corner. When they do bring up genetics on the other hand, they are to be held in the same standards of rigor as other geneticists, and so far they have failed miserably. They are far more present on twitter whining about censorship than they are in actual genetics conferences defending their findings.
>It shows g is a genetic entity
If g is a "genetic entity" then the very concept of "genetic entity" is utterly meaningless, as meaningless as the concept of "being alive" being a genetic entity. Hell, your use of the word *entity* shows that you can't even point out what it actually *is* and what's its physical representation.
>That's not what those correlations necessarily prove, but I already proved g is a causal latent variable.
No you didn't. No genetic mechanism, no neurological data, no developmental model. Where are the genes, where are the pathways? In other words, where's your independent data that cross-validates the black box model you have come up with in your first approach? You know, the way *literally every biological problem is solved*?
>It did.
*Intelligence* isn't a real journal.
>You can keep crying about it, but none of this deals with any of my claims about the journal. Accept the fact that intelligence experts completely disagree with you. Don't be scared buddy.
No one cares about "intelligence experts". Whenever you guys stray off your field you get utterly destroyed every time like Kanazawa did. Just keep munching that Pioneer Fund money and stop bothering real scientists.
are you at least willing to acknowledge that richard lynn is a fraudulent hack, for poking through studies and [literally picking the lowest IQ scores for africans](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo&feature=youtu.be&t=4249)? If you aren't I'm going to assume you're beyond reason.
hahaha, you just can't do it, can you? Can't even admit that a single "intelligence researcher" may be full of shit, even one as blatantly incompetent/fraudulent as richard lynn. there goes your thin veneer of rational truthseeking
He was not *somewhat wrong*, he was a fraudster. Your refusal to admit it shows you're not motivated by the good faith you pretend to profess and aren't worth engaging further.
Keep handwaving the *deliberate forging* of data he did. That's not just error, that's *fraud*. It just keeps showing how truly committed you are to science.
>you merely try to deny the validity of these fields
That's right, it is my opinion and the opinion of people way more eminent than me that these fields are bust and the people in there are grifters. Of course the majority of the community doesn't even have an opinion since they haven't heard of it in the first place.
>For complex behavioral traits in the human species, an experiment of nature (twinning) and an experiment of nurture (adoption) are widely used to assess the net effect of genes and environments.
Oh cool another textbook by a psychologist grifter posing as a genetics expert. Oh cool he apparently still believes in the last-century nature/nurture paradigm. And to put the cherry on the cake he still buys into adoption studies. So, still no mechanism showing genetic determinism? Hell, still no gene expression model? That's just what I wanted to know.
>The studies I posted specifically prove g is a genetic, causal entity and what is your argument against them?
Dude you seriously believe "correlating with a bunch of traits" is the mark of a genetic entity. idk what to say
>You'd like it not to be, but science doesn't work that way. Sorry bud.
Your field is a self-citation ring and you know it. You guys don't publish in real journals because you can't. You guys don't venture outside your field because professors and reviewers keep destroying you whenever you do. You resort to online shitposting to push your views because you have no relevance in the broader scientific community. Your field includes hacks like Murray who can't do "matrix algebra", Kirkegaard who has literally no credentials, Lynn who forges data and Kazanawa who assumes the Earth is flat. The only reason you guys aren't considered a laughing stock is that people in the community go "literally who" whenever the names come up.
>You don't, because you disagree with them, due to your bias. A reasonable person however, seeks intelligence experts to tell them about intelligence. I'll wait until you can make an argument though, not just "no".
It's not just me, it's literally everyone in popgen or neurosci. When your field fails to interface with other fields it's a red flag for that field being bust.
> That's right, it is my opinion and the opinion of people way more eminent than me that these fields are bust and the people in there are grifters. Of course the majority of the community doesn't even have an opinion since they haven't heard of it in the first place.
Nonsensical gibberish. Intelligence experts/BG say racial differences in intelligence are genetic, and they are the most suited to answer this question, just like they answered the question of how genetic individual differences are.
> Oh cool another textbook by a psychologist grifter posing as a genetics expert. Oh cool he apparently still believes in the last-century nature/nurture paradigm. And to put the cherry on the cake he still buys into adoption studies. So, still no mechanism showing genetic determinism? Hell, still no gene expression model? That's just what I wanted to know.
Where is the evidence for this magical paradigm that says heritability estimates are invalid? Thanks for admitting you disagree with the basic textbook, almost like you don't know what you're talking about.
> Your field is a self-citation ring and you know it. You guys don't publish in real journals because you can't. You guys don't venture outside your field because professors and reviewers keep destroying you whenever you do. You resort to online shitposting to push your views because you have no relevance in the broader scientific community.
This is akin to a child crying when you take his toy. Your toy was taken by le evil intelligence experts and you're crying. Again, how about you make an argument?
> Your field includes hacks like Murray who can't do "matrix algebra"
False.
> Kirkegaard who has literally no credentials,
You don't need necessarily need "credentials" in the specific field to be a scientist.
> Lynn who forges data
false
> Kazanawa who assumes the Earth is flat.
Who?
> It's not just me, it's literally everyone in popgen or neurosci. When your field fails to interface with other fields it's a red flag for that field being bust.
I already provided you with a neuroscience book about IQ. Might providing some evidence for your bogus claims? I know it might be hard for you to do it, but try your best. Do you have nightmares at night about evil behavioural geneticists?
>Intelligence experts/BG say racial differences in intelligence are genetic, and they are the most suited to answer this question
No they aren't. As far as *genetics* are concerned the experts are *geneticists*, it's that simple. Hell, even the concept of race as understood by Americans doesn't make sense from a popgen point of view.
>Where is the evidence for this magical paradigm that says heritability estimates are invalid? Thanks for admitting you disagree with the basic textbook, almost like you don't know what you're talking about.
Heritability estimates being valid has little to do with the presence of a mechanism inducing genetic determinism.
>This is akin to a child crying when you take his toy. Your toy was taken by le evil intelligence experts and you're crying. Again, how about you make an argument?
Ah, the old "you're just mad" retort. Where are your high profile papers, though? Where are the talks? How come no one in any field that deals with popgen no one's heard of you? Why do the few professors that have disagree unanimously? Exactly who do you think you're fooling?
>False
He can't, by his own admission. He even said it was different from "linear algebra" lmao
>You don't need necessarily need "credentials" in the specific field to be a scientist.
You don't, but they do help establish credibility. What *doesn't*, on the other hand, is making up your own journals so you can publish in them.
>false
Lynn recorded the average IQ of an African country using results from a class of mentally disabled children in Spain. He'd also "infer" IQ where no data was present by taking the average "national IQ" from neighboring countries. He'd routinely exclude results where black people scored equally as high or higher than whites. That's outright fraud and you aren't getting away with it. I'm all for discussing the specifics of how modern genetics actually work in the modern world and what it takes to truly show genetic determinism but if you aren't willing to admit that Lynn is a fraudster, it shows you are blatantly arguing in bad faith and I am not continuing this discussion.
>I already provided you with a neuroscience book about IQ.
A *psychology* book talking about neuroscience. Psychologists are apparently fond of talking about stuff outside their field.
> No they aren't. As far as genetics are concerned the experts are geneticists, it's that simple. Hell, even the concept of race as understood by Americans doesn't make sense from a popgen point of view.
Behavioural geneticists*
> Heritability estimates being valid has little to do with the presence of a mechanism inducing genetic determinism.
muh genetic determinism
> You don't, but they do help establish credibility. What doesn't, on the other hand, is making up your own journals so you can publish in them.
Yes, yes. Intelligence is a "made up" journal. Keep crying.
> He can't, by his own admission. He even said it was different from "linear algebra" lmao
?
> Lynn recorded the average IQ of an African country using results from a class of mentally disabled children in Spain. He'd also "infer" IQ where no data was present by taking the average "national IQ" from neighboring countries.
This is the shit I have to deal with. Debunked criticisms from a decade ago. Estimating IQ based on neighbouring countries is reliable (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608000202)
African IQ is 75, not 80 or 70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912003741
You would know if you actually cared about science that the latest national IQ database shows African IQ to be 75, and the scores have been redone. You don't care about science, only about politics though.
Lynn didn't bias the national IQ scores towards Europeans. He biased African scores down and Asian scores up. You can learn about it in the latest revision here: https://viewoniq.org/?p=91
> A psychology book talking about neuroscience. Psychologists are apparently fond of talking about stuff outside their field.
It's both a psychology book and a neuroscience book, since it deals with the neuroscience of Intelligence. You're handwaving evidence that proves you wrong, like a child, and can't prove what you say is right. You just keep walking in circles.
>Behavioural geneticists*
Don't use the word "geneticist" or "genetics" then, if your field is oh so different. It has nothing to do with genes.
>muh genetic determinism
No argument, no mechanism, no explanation, no clue.
>Yes, yes. Intelligence is a "made up" journal. Keep crying.
I didn't say Kirkegaard made up *Intelligence*? Wtf are you on? Try to keep up, are you saying he didn't found OpenPsych and doesn't "publish" there despite being part of the editorial board? Are you also going to handwave away this?
>Estimating IQ based on neighbouring countries is reliable
Lmao listen to yourself. Dude literally makes up data with the dumbest imaginable extrapolation and you defend it. How do you expect to be taken seriously? Hell you cite a paper from *Intelligence* that argues "you can do that, actually", how do you expect people to take that journal seriously? (You didn't even specifically address the other cases of fraud he was guilty of and are just handwaving things away.)
This is so, so dumb. In any other field if someone were caught doing this they'd be considered a clown, but not for *Intelligence*, not for *intelligence researchers*. I can't believe I have to argue that no, you don't just make up data in a country by taking the average of neighbouring countries, no matter what correlations say. When "prominent" people in your field can't even pass basic methodological standards that any undergrad would know, that's how we know your field is a joke.
>Don't use the word "geneticist" or "genetics" then, if your field is oh so different. It has nothing to do with genes.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural\_genetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics)
\> No argument, no mechanism, no explanation, no clue.
I have made several arguments, and dealt with all your non-arguments. You can keep crying about "find the genes" but I already gave you a textbook to read.
\> I didn't say Kirkegaard made up *Intelligence*? Wtf are you on? Try to keep up, are you saying he didn't found OpenPsych and doesn't "publish" there despite being part of the editorial board? Are you also going to handwave away this?
He also publishes in Intelligence. Why would I care about OpenPsych? Why are you crying about it?
\> Lmao listen to yourself. Dude literally makes up data with the dumbest imaginable extrapolation and you defend it. How do you expect to be taken seriously? Hell you cite a paper from *Intelligence* that argues "you can do that, actually", how do you expect people to take that journal seriously? (You didn't even specifically address the other cases of fraud he was guilty of and are just handwaving things away.)
Do you not know how science works buddy? You are taking a pseudoscientific "it's wrong because I say so, and the data you posted is wrong" approach. Keep crying, but I have proved my claim that estimating national IQ based on neighbouring countries is a valid method and yields correlations of .9
\> This is so, so dumb. In any other field if someone were caught doing this they'd be considered a clown, but not for *Intelligence*, not for *intelligence researchers*. I can't believe I have to argue that no, you don't just make up data in a country by taking the average of neighbouring countries, no matter what correlations say. When "prominent" people in your field can't even pass basic methodological standards that any undergrad would know, that's how we know your field is a joke.
It's not "making up data". It's a method that was empirically proved to be reliable. What's your response to the paper? Is crying "no, you're wrong. I just know it" and mentioning the magical fields that ignore basic correlations all you can do?
>I have made several arguments, and dealt with all your non-arguments.
You have repeatedly ignored everything I've said and just kept asserting "it's genetic, it's genetic" without a shred of knowledge about genetics. I have repeatedly explained what it takes in the field of genetics to prove something is "genetic" but you're apparently too good for that field.
>He also publishes in Intelligence. Why would I care about OpenPsych? Why are you crying about it?
Try to keep up dude. How does making up your own journal so you can publish in them reflect on your integrity as a scientist? How come every single prominent figure in your clique is a fraud, a grifter or a clown?
>Do you not know how science works buddy? You are taking a pseudoscientific "it's wrong because I say so, and the data you posted is wrong" approach. Keep crying, but I have proved my claim that estimating national IQ based on neighbouring countries is a valid method and yields correlations of .9
That's not *data*. That's making things up. Just because there are some correlations *in some cases* (not taking into account the very spuriousness of "national IQ" or the nontransitive nature of correlation) doesn't mean you get to extrapolate instead of collecting data. People in biology know it too well - extrapolations and inferred estimations aren't worth much without a ready confirmation in the form of hard, concrete data. And you have the *sheer chutzpah* to lecture me about how science works?
>It's a method that was empirically proved to be reliable. What's your response to the paper? Is crying "no, you're wrong. I just know it" and mentioning the magical fields that ignore basic correlations all you can do?
"If I keep saying my opponents are crying maybe that'll prove them wrong"
> You have repeatedly ignored everything I've said and just kept asserting "it's genetic, it's genetic" without a shred of knowledge about genetics. I have repeatedly explained what it takes in the field of genetics to prove something is "genetic" but you're apparently too good for that field.
3rd time I tell you to learn what ACE models are.
> Try to keep up dude. How does making up your own journal so you can publish in them reflect on your integrity as a scientist? How come every single prominent figure in your clique is a fraud, a grifter or a clown?
Publishing in your own journal = fraud according to you. Yeah sorry bud cry to someone else about the evil BG.
> That's not data. That's making things up. Just because there are some correlations in some cases (not taking into account the very spuriousness of "national IQ" or the nontransitive nature of correlation) doesn't mean you get to extrapolate instead of collecting data.
That is data. National IQ data was compared with estimates from neighbouring countries and it was found out the estimates were reliable. You're strawmanning, since nobody said to extrapolate instead of collecting data. It's called an estimate for a reason.
> "If I keep saying my opponents are crying maybe that'll prove them wrong"
If you prove them wrong like I did and they keep crying like you are, sure.
I really want to ask you something. If you really believe in g as a casual entity, then how do you explain Flynn's finding?
\> "They compared the Wechsler subtests scores of typical subjects with those who suffered from iodine deficiency, prenatal cocaine exposure, fetal alcohol syndrome, and traumatic brain injury. The typical subjects were higher on every subtest. However, the magnitude of their advantages by subtest had zero correlation with the size of the subtest g loadings ."
Also, there is another theory that explains the positive manifold by Conway and Kovacs. ([https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54063547e4b0feb6e5dbcfd8/t/592335a215d5db4c79bf0f72/1495479745215/KovacsConwayfull+%281%29.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54063547e4b0feb6e5dbcfd8/t/592335a215d5db4c79bf0f72/1495479745215/KovacsConwayfull+%281%29.pdf))
How is iodine deficiency, prenatal cocaine exposure, fetal alcohol syndrome and traumatic brain injury not affecting g significantly evidence g isn't causal? g only correlates with genetic phenomenon like heritability, inbreeding depression and dysgenic fertility as far as we know.
I've never heard of process overlap theory, but it seems to be very similar to the Thomsonite and Mutualism model, so it's subject to similar criticisms. Interesting, needs more research.
Well, you guys like to argue that IQ gains from education (Like the studies by Ritchie et al) are not real gains, because they are not g gains. But by this logic, traumatic brain injury doesn't make you dumber, because they are not g damages either.
As for POT, you can read the commentaries on the paper I linked. The thing is, AFAIK both the g and POT theories are unfalsifiable and unprovable via psychometric means.
Flynn effect is a gain in narrow abilities (likely due to life history speed changing) and a result of bias (measurement invariance doesn't hold).
I don't consider narrow abilities to be important. Most don't due to their lack of validity (most of the predictive validity of IQ comes from g). Plus, racial differences are partly on g. It's really not an issue that brain damage doesn't impact g. It goes in line with g being highly genetic and not impacted by environmental factors (that we know of). This doesn't tell us about if g is causal or not though.
> As for POT, you can read the commentaries on the paper I linked. The thing is, AFAIK both the g and POT theories are unfalsifiable and unprovable via psychometric means.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0VDoaXaIou8SE1uNHlITE9vSTQ/edit
and https://mh19871004.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/genetic-and-environmental-influences-on-general-cognitive-ability-is-g-a-valid-latent-construct-panizzon-2014.pdf
use twin designs and find evidence for a causal g. I wouldn't say unfalsifiable, but it would be hard via psychometrics.
By educational gains, I don't mean the Flynn effect. See the study by Ritchie(2017). Flynn effect is on all abilities. I mean, since all abilities correlate, it's obvious that the common factor is going to be the best predictor(Though there's some research in Hungarian that inductive reasoning is a better predictor of standardized tests than the Raven).
I mean, my English abilities/skills(writing,listening,reading,speaking) are correlated, and I could pull out a general factor out, and it would explain more of the variance in my ability to live in the UK for example, than any narrow English ability. But that is because in the UK i would need to use all of my narrow abilities, and since they are correlated, the general factor would have a big predictive power. However it's not the "general english factor" that is causing my narrow abilities, It's the other way around. They are only correlated because I practiced them for roughly the same amount of time.
"Not impacted by enviromental factors". For people suffering from HGH deficiency, treatment significantly improves IQ points, AND academic performance, but those aren't g gains either(just like educational gains).If these gains are hollow, they why does it increase academic performance?
BTW sorry for my english, I'm really rusty.
Flynn effect (and education) is on narrow abilities, not g. I'd like to see the Hungarian study, and if it accounts for g. I know of some studies that simply take an IQ subtest and compare it with g or the total score, so it includes g since subtests measure g. That's obviously not how it should be done.
\> I mean, like my English abilities/skills(writing,listening,reading,speaking) are correlated, and I could pull out a general factor out, and it would explain more of the variance in my ability to live in the UK for example, than any narrow English ability.
Well, g is responsible for 50% of the variance in IQ tests, and if g decreases, predictive validity of IQ also decreases.
\> However it's not the "general english factor" that is causing my narrow abilities, It's the other way around.
Sure this works in theory, but it's obviously different from g and what we're talking about. I'm referring to the predictive validity of g, not necessarily if g is caused or causes. g is responsible for most of the predictive validity of IQ. Narrow abilities (accounting for g) less so, so a gain in narrow abilities isn't very important.
\> For people suffering from HGH deficiency, treatment significantly improves IQ points, AND academic performance, but those aren't g gains either(just like educational gains).If these gains are hollow, they why does it increase academic performance?
Specific abilities can increase (or more likely be increased by) academic performance. I'd have to see the study though.
[http://www.edu.u-szeged.hu/\~csapo/publ/1997\_Csapo\_InductiveReasoning.pdf](http://www.edu.u-szeged.hu/~csapo/publ/1997_Csapo_InductiveReasoning.pdf)
There is another study by the same guy, but it's Hungarian only. The important finding in it is, that better schools increase inductive thinking more, than worse schools, EVEN CONTROLLING FOR PRIOR SCORES(before school), so it's not only because smarter kids go to better schools. the gains in SD are almost the same as the gains in the competency tests(controlling for previous scores) caused by better schools. The competency tests are like the SAT(verbal and math) and everybody takes them in grade 6,8, and 10. The gains are only measured for comptetency tests comparing grade 8 and 10, and kids change schools after grade 8. So it's only 2 years of difference.This researcher also has a book(only Hungarian) and does an experiment. He trained kids on inductive reasoning, measured raven, and exam scores before and after. The treatment group improved in every subject, however I can't remember if they improved in raven or not. I will try to find it.
I might be wrong, but consider the following: Let's say X has an IQ of 120, he goes to uni, at the end of uni he has an IQ of 130. From the 130 IQ stat, if you do not know his previous IQ test results, the calculated g factor would be higher, than the calculated g factor would be before university, even though the gains are not on g. Now, since the non g gains are showing up as g, It makes it look like the predictive power is on g, even though it is not, therefore heavily inflating it.
About the HGH thing: There are a few studies, however these are medical studies, not psychometrical ones, so I don't know about their quality.
Also, I forgot to mention a very interesting finding, which contradicts the Wilson effect(increasing heritability wrt age). The differences between the kids of college educated parents and non college educated parents STABILIZE AT AGE 13. The difference doesn't grow after that(in inductive reasoning). So inductive reasoning is different from g.
[https://imgur.com/a/u9DGfer](https://imgur.com/a/u9DGfer)
>3rd time I tell you to learn what ACE models are.
Yeah and I did tell you to learn about epistasis and differential gene expression. See how they fuck up your precious additive models.
>Publishing in your own journal = fraud according to you. Yeah sorry bud cry to someone else about the evil BG.
You're right, publishing in your own journal because you got rejected everywhere else isn't fraud. It's just clownesque levels of pathetic. Kirkegaard is a clown, Lynn is a fraud. Try to keep up.
>That is data. National IQ data was compared with estimates from neighbouring countries and it was found out the estimates were reliable.
"I'm not extrapolating, I'm estimating! Totally not the same thing!"
>If you prove them wrong like I did and they keep crying like you are, sure.
All you proved is your general ignorance of anything related to genetics.
>you merely try to deny the validity of these fields.
Ah yes, race realist, defenders of all fields of study especially their greatest ally, social sciences
It's an impressive epicycle because then they can claim the BW IQ gap is on g with little or no evidence, and point to all sorts of environmental inequalities and claim they don't affect g. It's a perfect scam
Little or no evidence? Spearman's Weak Hypothesis is an empirical fact, through lots of direct, and indirect evidence ([1](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615000549), [2](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijsa.12081)). If a factor can't be proven to impact with g significantly, it can't then explain the gap (g only correlates with genetic phenomenon/endophenotypes as far as we know).
See [Metzen 2012](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/metzen-2010.pdf):
>*Concerning the \[question\] of the many hypothesized causes of group differences in intelligence the only two that have been shown to have a strong positive correlation with the cognitive complexity of subtests are heritability (te Nijenhuis & Jongeneel-Grimen, 2007; te Nijenhuis & Franssen, 2010) and various physical characteristics of the brain (see te Nijenhuis & Jongeneel-Grimen, 2007, for a review). Other hypothesized environmental causes of group differences in intelligence show negligible correlations with cognitive complexity, for example, cocaine and alcohol abuse (te Nijenhuis, van Bloois, & Geutjes, 2009), or even strong to very strong negative correlations with cognitive complexity, for example, headstart programs and adoption (te Nijenhuis & Grimen, 2007). These findings in combination are suggestive of a substantial genetic and a weak environmental component in group differences.*
> Spearman's Weak Hypothesis is an empirical fact
No it isn't, there's mixed to no support for it, the bi-factor approach isn't clearly better than MG-CFA though it's possible e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000779, The McDaniel study provides nothing of value on the question as spreaman's hypothesis needs psychometric support not some weak quasi-experiment.
Metzen is wrong, MCV is trash and completely incapable of commenting on Spearman's hypothesis. Wicherts and others have shown this. It's significant that studies that actual look at genetic data directly don't show support for a large genetic gap, leave the shitty methods of te Nijenhuis at the door.
Also important to note the weak hypothesis is poorly defined and barelyscientific since it claims something as vague as the difference is "mainly" due to g whatever that means
> No it isn't
Yes, it is. You haven't provided any evidence it isn't, and I have provided conclusive evidence it is. If you actually read the study it specifically mentions Murray and Johnson on page 94.
> needs psychometric support not some weak quasi-experiment.
This is a nice cope to avoid the fact that this prediction of Spearman's hypothesis (gap changes with g saturation) is fully met.
> MCV is trash and completely incapable of commenting on Spearman's hypothesis.
I didn't post Metzen to comment on Spearman's hypothesis, but on different environmental variables. Follow what I say. Metzen is right, and you have not provided any argument for why he is not. What are you going to post? Wicherts' comments on item-level MCV?
> Yes, it is. You haven't provided any evidence it isn't, and I have provided conclusive evidence it is. If you actually read the study it specifically mentions Murray and Johnson on page 94.
The best studies on the question, Dolan and Lubke et al don't find support with MG-CFA and higher-order factor models, most studies that do find support use the worthless MCV. That paper doesn't really engage with Murray and Johnson's argument, it mentions it and claims there is a theory for a bi-factor model. It is still not clear at all that bi-factor models are more appropriate than the higher order models. This is far from being an "empirical fact"
Metzen's claims don't matter because the method is trash. The correlations with heritability don't matter http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.9619&rep=rep1&type=pdf none of it matters because it's absolutely abysmal science.
\> The best studies on the question, Dolan and Lubke et al don't find support with MG-CFA and higher-order factor models,
Dolan and Lubke were underpowered, and Spearman's hypothesis holds under MG-CFA ([https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918304161](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918304161))
\> most studies that do find support use the worthless MCV.
MCV isn't "worthless". It's unreliable (meta-analysis solves this) and item level MCV can wield spurious results in terms of group differences. Both of these are solved.
\> [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.9619&rep=rep1&type=pdf](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.9619&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
Lmao exactly what I predicted. Wichert's criticisms about item level MCV. How about you learn my argument and the fact that this criticism applies to item level MCV (which can be converted to IRT.
FSIQ is rising (though some \[most?\] of it is due to bias between cohorts). g is also [likely decreasing](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5f59/24fbb272161e15d40db347b4e330c979ac25.pdf), and how is this a handwave when it proves what R&J sought to prove, which is that the B-W gap and the FLynn effect are qualitatively different?
You are strawmanning R&J. They didn't claim this out of thin air. FLynn effect was found out to be qualitatively different from the Black-White IQ gap since... 1999 (?) by Rushton and since then these results have been extensively replicated. There is no response needed for the FLynn effect (Nicholson's syllogism). Due to [measurement invariance not holding between generations](https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2004-wicherts.pdf), bias (statistical artifact) is a cause of the FLynn effect, and the other most likely cause is [life history](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691615577701).
If you are referring to the Dickens and Flynn model, due to the FLynn effect and the B-W IQ gap (and heritability) being different phenomenon, it has no evidence, it's just a hypothesis proven wrong by endophenotypes not correlating with environments.
>Premise is false - gap has closed a lot, and differs by gender as to how much (it has closed a huge amount between black women and white women, and to a lesser extent between black men and white men). That it differs by gender is a huge problem for genetic-origins theories, as men and women of the same supposed lineage shouldn't differ in their inter-group convergence.
Yeah I reminder that racer "realist" deny that, like I wad reading a post that said that the IQ of black and whites haven't been closing, unfortunately I can't show you it since he deleted all his comments.
I love how confident you are in these posts despite not knowing what heritability even measures. Heritability can be high within two populations and the differences between said populations could be entirely environmental.
Read Ned Block.
It could. Who said it can't? A high within group heritability makes between group heritability more likely, and tells us what must be needed for the gap to be environmental (hint: it's unlikely).
I didn’t say that you said it can’t. It’s just that you have no basis for the claim you made. And no a high within group heritability does not make that conclusion more likely. That’s just a blatant lie.
What do you think is needed for the gap to be environmental and how do these heritability estimates elucidate such information?
Working in biology it sounds fucking rich that psychologists seem
able to handwave away and control for “environmental variables” when
people I know have trouble replicating results from literal clones
growing in literally the same exact conditions
This.
I feel like high school doesn't do enough to convey just how unbelievably complex biology is. I'm studying pharmacology, and I still get surprised at just how 'uncooperative' experimental animals can be.
It's like, you were literally designed for this! I have your genome on file! I can point to the exact genes my lab supervisor edited to make you perfect for this experiment, so WHY THE FUCK AREN'T YOU RESPONDING TO THIS DRUG WHEN ALL OF YOUR LITERAL CLONE BROTHERS ARE?
it just be like that sometimes
Me: We've done everything exactly as we need to prevent the sample from expressing the protein. You can't just express it anyway!
My Yeast: haha ribosome go brrrrrrr
As a recovering STEMLORD (im sorry), the official line on biology is that it isn't in STEM and not a real science. (Unless I need biology for an argument, and then it is a rock solid piece of science which cannot be disputed).
There prob is a joke in this about (!)cats somewhere.
That's high-level STEMlordism. ("Physics or stamp collecting.") Your average STEMlord thinks women are bad at math because men threw spears 50,000 years ago is hard science.
Meanwhile nobody talks about how university level CS is in large parts just a vocational school.
E: before people feel the need to correct me, I know that people have been saying this a lot.
Yeah but some kinds of geologists can make lots of money, which is the super secret actual criteria for being accepted into the elite STEM brotherhood.
I don’t exactly work in any field but if in anything I do philosophy of science and FUCK ME if in anything it’s psychologists who just fuck me off
Their study design is consistently just fucking garbage with strong conclusions drawn from weak results
At least economists have the self-respect to pretend that the mathematical sophistication backs them up
Psychologists? Not so much
And they’re treated in some quarters as the scions in the background showing everyone else up
Funniest thing is the rationalists who think that social science is all bunkum due to bad design, replication crisis, etc. with the sole exception of IQ research, which is hard science and makes you a science denier if you are anyway skeptical.
EXACTLY
You get these headline results that are actually just the headers for a newspaper opinion column saying “smart people are smart, but you’re dumb”
The worst one is the shit Lee Jussim does, where he writes the headline first and works backwards to the conclusion “my p-hacked shit is important”
They don't seem to get that "it's the best research in the field" is more of a striking blow against the entire field than it is a vindication of their claim lol
When psychologists send their people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing fabricated data. They're bringing low statistical power. They're not replicating experiments. And some, I assume, are good people.
No it was below [u/stairway-to-kevin](https://www.reddit.com/u/stairway-to-kevin/) 's post and it was by [u/rayzneck](https://www.reddit.com/u/rayzneck/)
“I can’t read the study, but here is my opinion on it” is the scientific version of the perennial Reddit favorites:
1. “I Am Not A ~~Finnish~~ Lawyer, But” followed by legal advice or legal opinions or
2. “I Am Not A Doctor, But” followed by medical advice or detailed and specific diagnoses
No not really. Population mean is 100, but they're looking at mean distances of two different subpopulations, which form normal distributions of their own. Presumably expressed in terms of population standard deviation.
Isn’t an IQ test normalized to a population so the gap is always
going to be constant? In other words, your always being tested against
your own population and the results are fit into a set probability
distribution.
No. Unless the gap remains the same in terms of standard deviation.
IQ scores are normalised such that the mean is 100 points, and the standard deviation is 15 points. If you perform 1s.d. above the mean, you score 115 - for example.
Even if the gap stays the same in absolute terms - it could appear to increase if the s.d. decreases. Or any other combination of effects - I don't personally know which is happening, because when I don't think IQ is a good measure anyway - I'm not really going to keep up with it.
Working in biology it sounds fucking rich that psychologists seem able to handwave away and control for “environmental variables” when people I know have trouble replicating results from literal clones growing in literally the same exact conditions
IQ tests are awesome. They test your ability to take IQ tests. Which is awesome.
This is where I got the idea for my flair from
btw
Wait a second, are we supposed to be sneering at /u/stairway-to-kevin who is a noted friend of SneerClub or at the replies to him?
[deleted]
If it was genetic would we even expect it to stay constant?
Because it’s based on a FUCKING NORMAL DISTRIBUTION YOU FUCKING DUMBASS
*Adjusts test so the distribution remains constant
“Hmm curious that no normies can explain why the distribution remains constant”
Isn’t an IQ test normalized to a population so the gap is always going to be constant? In other words, your always being tested against your own population and the results are fit into a set probability distribution.