The Impact of Genetic Heritability on Intelligence: Fact or Fiction?

[Nereid]

Sorry to say that, as reported in the link you posted Nachtwolf, the Minnesota and German studies only very weakly support Jensen's (and hitssquad's, and yours, and Apollo's, and Adam's?) assertion.

By far the biggest problem is the conflating of 'unknown' with 'random'; a second (but still large) problem is identifying the adopted children as 'black' or 'white'

{bold blue text is from http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000692/ [/color]}

Nachtwolf: To give a more specific analysis:
{the adoption study has several flaws[/color]}
Nachtwolf: Certainly. Scarr & Weinberg admit that no study is perfect.

A study with flaws is not unusual; a study which is accepted without a serious attempt to estimate the potential size of systematic errors is worthless.

{Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites.[/color]}
Nachtwolf: Maybe not.

Ignoring a leading alternative hypothesis is intellectual dishonesty (at least). Translation of Nachtwolf's comment?: I don't care what the alternative hypotheses are, I know I'm right, and won't countenance any dissenting interpretations.

{The IQ of parents of adopted children was unknown.[/color]}
Nachtwolf: Indeed.

Er, did you realize that this is, in fact, fatal to your case?

{The mean age of adopted infants also differed between treatment groups.[/color]}
Nachtwolf: Just so.
{And most fundamentally, the parents of children were not selected randomly from the population. Infants of parents of varying socioeconomic status and race might give children up for adoption, or have them taken into care, for very different reasons.[/color]}
Nachtwolf: Quite true.

IIRC, you, hitssquad or Jensen actually stated that this was quite important. Unless these differences are well accounted for, it's likely the study's results say little or nothing wrt your key assertions.

Nachtwolf: But:

We don't know whether maternal effects were involved - they are a "possibility."

We don't know whether the parents were unusually high or low for IQ - their IQs are "unknown."

We don't know what effect, if any, the (unspecified) mean age difference would have had.

We don't know whether it's true that parents give up kids for different reasons, only that they "might." And we don't know whether this could have any effect - we're just expected to assume that it could.

Hmm, and the Minnesota study is the landmark study which most clearly makes the hereditarian IQ case??

If Nachtwolf's comments are indicative of how the scientific method is applied in IQ studies, I can only say that there would clearly be prima facie grounds for ignoring the entire field as serious science. Fortunately, reading through the papers in the link I originally posted, I conclude that few of the professionals are so cavalier as Nachtwolf appears to be.

Nachtwolf: But Jensen brings up real, solid points which mitigate the results and interpretation of the German study:

The black fathers of the German kids were smarter than average. This isn't a possibility - it's what we know.

Those are confounding factors which need to be taken into account; they are not reasons to dismiss the German study out of hand (or, if they are, there are equally good reasons for dismissing the Minnesota study).

Nachtwolf: Heterosis probably boosted the IQ scores - this isn't just a guess; you can see heterosis showing up in Scarr & Weinberg's study, too.

And there were no fully black kids for comparison, just half-black children - there's no speculation about this, as they all had white mothers.

I couldn't believe this when I first read it, and I'm still find it hard to believe Nachtwolf was serious when he wrote it. Jensen himself cites studies which show that groups of 'blacks', geographically, have a 'white' ancestry which ranges from (IIRC) 4% to 40%; he also makes it very clear that within groups of people (such as 'Californian blacks') there is considerable variation in the degree of 'white' ancestry. Further, though he didn't dwell on this (I wonder why not?), the same thing can undoubtedly be said of 'whites' (even for the German mothers; for example, what is their 'Roma' ancestry?).

Yet, without at least some reliable data on the 'blackness' and 'whiteness' of the parents, any conclusions about the 'racial' hereditability of IQ are meaningless. And it's even worse when so much about the parents is 'unknown' (esp in the Minnesota study).

Nachtwolf: So while there's room for doubt, and probably good reason to do a better follow-up study, the mitigating points brought up to explain the Scarr & Weinberg study are generally... well... vaporous, while the mitigating points brought up against the German Study have some actual substance to them.

Translation: Nachtwolf doesn't really understand his own case, how hereditability works, why analysis of systematic errors and confounding factors is important, and so on.

Accuracy and attention to detail: 1
Natchwolf: 0

 

[selfAdjoint]

{Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites.}

Nereid, the Minnesota study was not about finding reasons why blacks have lower IQ than whites. It was about the degree in which IQ and a lot of other variables were inherited, based on on comparison studies of mono- and dizygotic twins raised together and apart. This was a perfectly sound research topic, as they had data available to do a much better study than had ever been done before, and Science published the results in a leading article. Are there possibly other factors? Surely, and let there be other studies to examine them.

The lack of data on the parents of the adopted children limits the scope of the study but does not invalidate the results that it found. If you will look at it honestly you will see that the attempts to characterize it as unsound by raising all sorts of other potential causes that it might have studied but didn't for are themselves flawed by a parti pris desire to hit it with any club avilable.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
{Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites.}

Nereid, the Minnesota study was not about finding reasons why blacks have lower IQ than whites. It was about the degree in which IQ and a lot of other variables were inherited, based on on comparison studies of mono- and dizygotic twins raised together and apart. This was a perfectly sound research topic, as they had data available to do a much better study than had ever been done before, and Science published the results in a leading article. Are there possibly other factors? Surely, and let there be other studies to examine them.

The lack of data on the parents of the adopted children limits the scope of the study but does not invalidate the results that it found. If you will look at it honestly you will see that the attempts to characterize it as unsound by raising all sorts of other potential causes that it might have studied but didn't for are themselves flawed by a parti pris desire to hit it with any club avilable.

Careful...again, correlation doesn't equal causation. Let's not get them confused, shall we?

 

[Nereid]

Context, as Russ is known to have said, is important

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
{Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites.}

Nereid, the Minnesota study was not about finding reasons why blacks have lower IQ than whites. It was about the degree in which IQ and a lot of other variables were inherited, based on on comparison studies of mono- and dizygotic twins raised together and apart. This was a perfectly sound research topic, as they had data available to do a much better study than had ever been done before, and Science published the results in a leading article. Are there possibly other factors? Surely, and let there be other studies to examine them.

The lack of data on the parents of the adopted children limits the scope of the study but does not invalidate the results that it found. If you will look at it honestly you will see that the attempts to characterize it as unsound by raising all sorts of other potential causes that it might have studied but didn't for are themselves flawed by a parti pris desire to hit it with any club available.

The context:

Nereid, quoting B. Raymond:
"... Jensen dismisses data from a racial admixture study in Germany which found no significant or consistent differences in IQ with race, because parental IQ was unknown, and because white and black fathers were not randomly sampled, two faults shared with the Minnesota adoption study. The absence of differences in the German study is also consistent with a maternal effects hypothesis, since the mothers were all white.[/color]"

and
"Jensen's "default hypothesis" is that differences in white and black IQ scores are made up of genetic and environmental effects and that environmental effects are often small relative to genetic effects (e.g. pp. 177-175, 475, 476, 489). These conclusions seem best supported by estimates of heritability [...] and from the Minnesota transracial adoption study. This adoption study has several flaws. Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites. The IQ of parents of adopted children was unknown. The mean age of adopted infants also differed between treatment groups. And most fundamentally, the parents of children were not selected randomly from the population. Infants of parents of varying socioeconomic status and race might give children up for adoption, or have them taken into care, for very different reasons.[/color]"

Nereid: "Would you [Nachtwolf] care to counterpose the Minnesota transracial adoption study with the German study?"

Nachtwolf gave a link to a webpage as an answer to this question; my response was based on this webpage's characterisation of the Minnesota study; Nachtwolf did not post a link to a paper published in Science.

So, the context is 'black/white' differences in IQ scores, the extent to which the Minnesota study supports Jensen's default hypothesis (Nachtwolf's assertion?) while the German study is irrelevant to the same assertion.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So, the context is 'black/white' differences in IQ scores, the extent to which the Minnesota study supports Jensen's default hypothesis (Nachtwolf's assertion?) while the German study is irrelevant to the same assertion.

Sure. But then you pass from the fact that the Minnesota test doesn't support the conclusions from the German study to attacking the Minnesota study (or quoting somebody who does) because it wasn't designed to do that.

 

[Nachtwolf]

A study with flaws is not unusual; a study which is accepted without a serious attempt to estimate the potential size of systematic errors is worthless.

This is an epistemological error. All study results have a margin for error, and the margin for error is never calculable, only, as you admit, estimable. This study was, quite clearly, better than the German study, in that it had fewer known problems. To call it "worthless" because it had a margin for error is juvenile.

Er, did you realize that this is, in fact, fatal to your case?

Did you not realize that, absent specific knowledge about the IQs of the mothers, we can assume that the law of averages would smooth out wrinkles and ensure that they were representative of their population? You are familiar with the law of averages? Right? God, it's so boring refuting your posts. Why do I perpetually feel like I'm taking an otherwise bright and intelligent person and having to explain the obvious? I can't believe I actually bothered replying to you. Especially when Zero's around:

correlation doesn't equal causation.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what selfAdjoint just said, Zero.

Let's not get them confused, shall we?

God forbid that you should become confused, hahaha!

If you will look at it honestly you will see that the attempts to characterize it as unsound by raising all sorts of other potential causes that it might have studied but didn't for are themselves flawed by a parti pris desire to hit it with any club avilable.

You know, the thing that's interesting to me, selfAdjoint, is that the Minnesota study was carried out by two people who both believed very firmly in the environmental hypothesis. I can't help but feel some sympathy for them, who had to suffer these attacks by people in their own camp, and at the same time be ridiculed by the Jensenists for their refusal to come around. I think that's why my sympathy stops, however - unlike Jensen, who started out as an environmentalist but then had the flexibility and honesty to change his position, trading his comfortable life for endless controversy and armed guards, Scarr and Weinberg clung to the security of familiar, safe beliefs. Ultimately, it's exactly this kind of cowardice which results in honest researchers like Jensen being forced to hire bodyguards. You're familiar with the Snyderman & Rothman poll, right? If the 45% who thought Jensen was right would all stand up and admit it, we might actually be able to have meaningful public dialogues on this subject and take all the mystery and vehemence out of it.


--Mark

 

[Evo]

The Minnesota Twin study was largely funded by the Pioneer Fund.

Some of the Pioneer Fund's largest grants have gone to a well-known--and well-respected--study of twins at the University of Minnesota.

If you are not familiar with the Pioneer Fund, here is an exerpt from an article in the Phoenix New Times. It's a very long article, so I am showing just the Pioneer Fund info below to save reading through all of it.

------------
One of those testifying on behalf of lowering immigration levels was a man named Harry Hamilton Laughlin. An advocate of eugenics--a philosophy, then growing in popularity, which seeks to improve the human race through selective breeding--Laughlin cited Goddard's results and argued that the genetic "inadequacy" of eastern and southern Europeans would negatively affect "the germ plasm of the future American population."

Laughlin was one of several experts who helped convince Congress to severely clamp down on immigration in 1924. For the next 40 years--Beck's "Golden Era of Immigration"--immigrating to the U.S. from eastern Europe became very difficult; for Asians it became nearly impossible.

"For years, [Laughlin] successfully lobbied to maintain the restrictions, which eventually blocked an escape route for Jews fleeing the Nazis," Newsday reported in 1994. "In 1922, Laughlin wrote and lobbied for a law that forced the sterilization of tens of thousands of 'unfit' U.S. citizens, including the insane, the homeless and the blind."

Similar laws were later passed in Nazi Germany, where Laughlin was lauded. In 1936, the University of Heidelberg awarded Laughlin an honorary degree. Laughlin, in turn, asked the American Eugenics Society to offer Adolf Hitler an honorary membership.

The next year, five New York millionaires created a private foundation with an endowment of $5 million. One of those men was Wickliffe P. Draper, a textile tycoon who advocated sending American blacks to Africa.

The millionaires named their creation the Pioneer Fund and charged it with backing research in heredity, eugenics and "race betterment." Harry Laughlin became its first president.

He died four years later, however, and until the 1950s, the fund remained largely inactive. Partly, that may have been a result of the severe blow eugenics suffered as the truth about Nazi atrocities came to light. In 1950, the United Nations made its famous declaration in the wake of the Holocaust that "Mankind is one."

Eugenicists and researchers in hereditary intelligence were all but driven underground

The Pioneer Fund persevered, however, and became increasingly active through the 1950s. It was the fund's opposition to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to integrate public schools which attracted its current president, New York lawyer Harry F. Weyher, who assumed the job in 1958.

Since then, the Pioneer Fund has doled out money to people such as Roger Pearson, a British ex-patriate living in Georgia who, in 1958, founded the Northern League to promote "the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations."

"Early recruits," reports the London-based Independent, "included Hans Gunther, who was awarded a Goethe medal in 1941 for his work on Nordic racial philosophy, Ernest Sevier Cox, an American leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Dr. Wilhelm Kusserow, a former SS Untersturmfuhrer."

Between 1981 and 1991 alone (payments continued at least through 1994), Pearson received $568,000 from the Pioneer Fund to publish Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to "race science."

In the 1970s, reports the Independent, Mankind Quarterly's editorial advisers included Otmar, Baron Von Verscheur, who had served as director of the genetics and eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute during World War II. While at the institute, the baron recommended one of his students, Joseph Mengele, for a post as doctor at Auschwitz.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1997-12-25/feature.html/1/index.html

<edit to add this is not about the Minnesota Transracial Study performed by Scarr after the first twin study>

 

[Nachtwolf]

Oh my God, you've found them out, Evo. And here we all thought that Scarr & Weinberg were actually liberals and bioegaletarians, based on the way they interpreted their own results as being, you know, supportive of the environmentalist position, but now we know they were really just a - a pack of Nazis! Oh my God, the Nazis, they're everywhere! It's a giant Nazi conspiracy funded by Pioneer, aaaaah!


--Mark

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Oh my God, you've found them out, Evo. And here we all thought that Scarr & Weinberg were actually liberals and bioegaletarians, based on the way they interpreted their own results as being, you know, supportive of the environmentalist position, but now we know they were really just a - a pack of Nazis! Oh my God, the Nazis, they're everywhere! It's a giant Nazi conspiracy funded by Pioneer, aaaaah!


--Mark

You make it so easy. And you don't even realize it, which makes it even funnier.

I was thinking today, wouldn't it be sad if Nachtwolf stopped posting, we wouldn't have anyone to toy with anymore. You do amuse us.

 

[Nachtwolf]

I'm sorry - amidst all the smilies and irrelevant trivia involving Pioneer, I must have lost track of your point.

--Mark

 

[Evo]

The number of smilies were intentional. I have you figured out.

Sensitive about the Pioneer Fund, huh?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Evo
The number of smilies were intentional. I have you figured out.

Sensitive about the Pioneer Fund, huh?

I would be too...those guys are nutter Nazi-types, after all. It sort of bursts that "we're really not racist" angle when all the research is paid for by racists.

 

[GlamGein]

the problem with all of these posts is that all the authors believe the propaganda about race. There is no biological distiction between the "races". Our society decides to catagorize "races" based upon a few obvious distinctions, such as skin color, hair type, etc., but there are many other genetic and phenotpyic characteristics that society does not count. Genetically, it is inaccurate to assume that a white guy is more closely related to some other white guy he meets walking down the street than the to the black guy he meets walking down the street.

 

[Adam]

There is no biological distiction between the "races".

Skin colour isn't a matter of biology? Wow. You learn something new every day...

Sorry, but there are biological differences between people which clearly identify large sections of the population according to where the larger number of their ancestors come from. These differences fill books. Coroners use these books every day, all around the world, to help identify partially decomposed corpses. For example, they check differences in skull shape and size, differences in the teeth and limb length, et cetera. This is not "racist propaganda". This is reality. Deal with it.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Skin colour isn't a matter of biology? Wow. You learn something new every day...

Hahaha! Well some people learn new things. Others are bioegalitarians and Ismalic fundamentalists.

This is not "racist propaganda". This is reality. Deal with it.

They are. Denial is their way of dealing with it. Of course, denial doesn't help to stop or slow current dysgenic trends - which, by the way, appear to be hitting blacks harder than whites, at least in the United States, ho hum, no pressure - but it makes them feel better. Their only real problem, Adam, is meanies like you who keep insisting on the unpleasant truth. Hey maybe you should be nice to them and nod along with them; just chant "Race is a social construct" and "Diversity is our strength" and see if that doesn't make them feel better. I know it makes me feel better! As any bioegalitarian will tell you, chanting is easier than thinking. And it's more fun, too! See - the problem with all of these posts is that all the authors believe the propaganda about race. There is no biological distiction between the races. There is only one God and Mohammed is His prophet. Praise Allah!


--Mark

 

[Adam]

Well, I'm not saying any group is better than another. I don't really care about that stuff. I know Carl Lewis is/was (Is he still alive?) a far better athlete than me. I know Colin Powell makes more money than me, and served in the military longer than me. I know Professor Wang from NEC who did that infamous FTL experiment a few years ago is far more educated than me in terms of science. I know John Howard makes more money, has more experience and knowledge in politics. I know the Dalai Lama is probably more spiritually sorted-out with himself than I am, like he knows his definite beliefs and is focused on a path. On the other hand, I know in which ways I am far superior to many other people, at least according to my own beliefs about what makes someone "good" or "bad".

But the fact is, people are different. I can run better than that guy in the wheelchair. I have lighter skin than Carl Lewis. I'm taller than the Dalai Lama. I'm younger than John Howard. People do have physical differences. Many of these are genetic. Deal with it.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Well, I'm not saying any group is better than another.

I know; I'm not saying that either, and I'm quite explicit about that here:

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Race

But the fact that we reject the idea of a Herrenfolk doesn't matter. Bioegalitarians can't even tolerate the idea that race might make any difference at all. Our insistence on the obvious is completely anathema to the delusional worldview they espouse, and their knee-jerk hysteria and irrational devotion to their programming is quite entertaining for people like myself!

People do have physical differences. Many of these are genetic. Deal with it.

Yes, well some of us deal with it by trying to help everyone end up with a decent set of genes. I think it's very sad that some people end up retarded or schizophrenic or with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, and I'd like to reduce the frequencies of these genes in order to make life better for everyone and preserve my own culture - but of course bioegalitarians like GlamGein are certain that this a vile heresy and evidence of a perverse and villainous cast of mind.

Perhaps the most humorous thing of all is that GlamGein and his ilk can't even figure out how to actually oppose us. (Hey GlamGain, how many kids do you plan on having?) They don't realize that their values are being slowly eradicated by current reproductive patterns. If present trends persist, the only ones left around will be descended from criminals (heritaility: 60%), welfare recipients, religious fundamentalists (heritability: 45%), and brilliant eugenists. If bioegalitarians want to perpetuate their mythological worldview, they need to have children to carry it forward. But criminals, welfare addicts, and religious fundamentalists have no use for bioegalitarianism, and it is unlikely that my own offspring will be weak-minded enough to fall prey to such delusions.


--Mark

P.S. Information on heritability can be found at

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Heritability

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
If present trends persist, the only ones left around will be descended from criminals (heritaility: 60%) [...]. But criminals, [...] have no use for bioegalitarianism, and it is unlikely that my own offspring will be weak-minded enough to fall prey to such delusions.

Given the immense damage
http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/more-reports/RL31866.pdf recently caused, and the scale of their crimes, I guess Mark will be promoting research into the hereditability of high-SES* criminalilty, and will shortly announce a major revision of his disgenics proposals. Let's all hope that Mark doesn't have too many ancestors who committed wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, consipiracy, obstruction of justice, money laundering, tax fraud, insider trading, grand larceny, ... even if they weren't caught

*there's no doubt of these folks' SES, at least until they were caught; I wonder about their IQ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

*there's no doubt of these folks' SES, at least until they were caught; I wonder about their IQ?

The well known correlation between IQ and income fails at the highest income levels. Access to the highest levels of income seems to depend on other factors than (g-loaded) intelligence.

 

[mee]

On idiot

Actually the word "moron" originally was a medical classification used in psychology for people with mild mental retardation of a mental age between 7-12 years of age generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. It's original use did not have the negative connotations currently associated with it.

The term "idiot" was originally a medical classification used in pyschology to describe a person with profound mental retardation, usually with a mental age below 3 years and generally unable to learn connected speech.

The term "retard" has always been used by uneducated people as a slur against people with mental handicaps.

So to be correct, I'd have to say you are a moron as opposed to an idiot, but I would never stoop to calling you a "retard".

Actually, I believe the word idiot was originally a greek word used in ancient greece to refer to a nonprofessional person. I believe this might mean one with no skills for a profession.

 

[Angel Loupe]

Iq

I believe IQ is 50% inherited & 50% determined by how each individual responds to its environment. I base this on a personal example. I come from a long line of extremely gifted people. All have documented IQ's of above 150. I was raised by a different birth parent and this truth was not revealed to me until my teenage years. Although I had the potential at a young age to fill the shoes I was supposed to wear, the combination of a traumatic childhood and a devastating revelation took a toll on me, and I fell short as an adult. However, it is still obvious that my genetics gave me a higher disposition of intelligence, since those around me growing up were all around 120 IQ, and I still maintained a higher sense of intelligence, but emotionally, I accepted my family and strived to belong (fit in, so to speak), and I believe that deterred my development. This is only applicable to myself, but the longer I live, the more I believe that it holds true across the board.

 

[Concept]

Everybody accepts that genes play a role in intelligence. No one believes in 100% enviormentalism. The problem is people who fail to grasp flexibility of gene expression. How much intelligence is heritable vs. enviormental isn't an exactly quantifiable percentage where one side necessarily plays a measurably larger role than the other.

 

[BlackVision]

IQ is about 80% genetic, 20% environment. These figures can accurately be drawn by studying identical twins raised in different environments.


"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htm

 

[Concept]

If it was 80% unchangably genetic, that would mean there should be NO people who exhibited a larger than 20% difference. If its the average, that means there are people who show a larger than 20% difference.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's actually the reduction in variance caused by similar or identical genetics. So of the variance in IQ between individuals, 80% of it would be expected to go away if they were identical twins.

And I am surprised to see these 80%, 85% figures; since about 1970 figures more like 60% - 70% have been most frequently quoted.

 

[BlackVision]

If it was 80% unchangably genetic, that would mean there should be NO people who exhibited a larger than 20% difference. If its the average, that means there are people who show a larger than 20% difference.

Ok FIRST, you have the balance the genetics before doing any comparision. Since one person has different genes than another person, of course the gap between 2 people can and will be greater than 20%. But when you compare people with SAME GENES, aka identical twins, the gap is within 20%.

 

[BlackVision]

And I am surprised to see these 80%, 85% figures; since about 1970 figures more like 60% - 70% have been most frequently quoted.

I've heard the 70% figure as well. Never 60% though. To be on the safe side, let's say roughly 70-80%.

 

[Concept]

Ok FIRST, you have the balance the genetics before doing any comparision. Since one person has different genes than another person, of course the gap between 2 people can and will be greater than 20%. But when you compare people with SAME GENES, aka identical twins, the gap is within 20%.

yes, I was talking about the idential twins. Do you have the exact statistics of the study? The part quoted says they "tend" to be about 80% the same.

 

[Concept]

haha, I just re-read the article noticed you quoted the part about twins raised together.

The quirky cases strengthen our sense of the power of nature, but they don't provide enough data to make a scientific case. "There probably are genetic influences on almost all facets of human behavior," Bouchard says today, "but the emphasis on the idiosyncratic characteristics is misleading. On average, identical twins raised separately are about 50 percent similar -- and that defeats the widespread belief that identical twins are carbon copies. Obviously, they are not. Each is a unique individual in his or her own right."

 

[BlackVision]

haha, I just re-read the article noticed you quoted the part about twins raised together.

Well you're wrong but at least you're trying.

Bouchard's collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves's research, scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50 percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.

Evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness.

 

[BlackVision]

On average, identical twins raised separately are about 50 percent similar -- and that defeats the widespread belief that identical twins are carbon copies. Obviously, they are not. Each is a unique individual in his or her own right."

50 percent similar to behavior. NOT IQ. Other behaviors are more dependent on environment than IQ is. IQ is almost fully genetic.

You should study this more in depth. There are hundreds of articles on it. All the numbers I've seen come out to be 70% or 80% for twins raised separately for IQ.

 

[BlackVision]

But if that article wasn't good enough for you, here you go.

"Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation."

Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html

"Particularly noteworthy are the heritabilities of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart"

Source: http://danny.oz.au/communities/anthro-l/debates/race-iq/

"Monozygotic Twins raised apart had a 74% correlation in IQ. Adopted childs had a 20% correlation in IQ"

Source: http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectures/scides/sem992/unit4311/Lecture5.html

 

[Concept]

Do you even read the entire sites you're posting? The last one specifically cites adoption studies showing that black children adopted into white families show little IQ variation from whites and studies showing that improving the conditions of disadvantaged children raises their IQ signifigantly.

In addition, it isn't surprising that identical twins show a higher correlation in IQ. Like I said, everyone accepts that genetics play a role in determining intelligence. My problem is that people attempt to quantify exactly how much enviornment vs. heredity plays a role, and don't regard flexibility of gene expression at all. There have been studies showing that enviorment influences the extent to which genes are expressed. Even if it were shown exactly how much genetics determine intelligence, that wouldn't indicate that enviorment wouldn't be able to change it. (see: height)

 

[hitssquad]

Process vs outcome - the two PF worldviews clash yet again

Do you even read the entire sites you're posting? The last one specifically cites adoption studies showing that black children adopted into white families show little IQ variation from whites and studies showing that improving the conditions of disadvantaged children raises their IQ signifigantly.

It was the notes for a lecture purposefully contrasting "hereditarians" and "environmentalists." Inconsistent studies are cited throughout that web page to show that different scientists have different views on IQ heredity.

everyone accepts that genetics play a role in determining intelligence.

In terms of heredity, that statement does not make sense.

people attempt to quantify exactly how much enviornment vs. heredity plays a role

In terms of heredity, that statement also does not make sense.

There have been studies showing that enviorment influences the extent to which genes are expressed.

Again, in terms of heredity, that statement does not make sense.

Even if it were shown exactly how much genetics determine intelligence, that wouldn't indicate that enviorment wouldn't be able to change it.

Yet again, in terms of heredity, that statement does not make sense.

 

[Concept]

how do these statements not make sense?

and studies do consistently show that changes in enviorment with the specific intent to improve ones conditions can raise IQ.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040303/01

 

[Evo]

Well you're wrong but at least you're trying.

Bouchard's collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves's research, scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50 percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.

Evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness.

Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things.

Bouchard's twin study was primarily funded by the Pioneer Fund, a racist/eugenics organization. Bouchard to date has received 1.8 million dollars from the Pioneer fund.

"The failure of Bouchard and his colleagues in the Minnesota
Twin Study to participate in the peer review process is an
extreme example of circumventing the scientific process and using
the media for public relations. "

"Finally, Bouchard and McGue simply pooled the samples from
very different tests and from tests which gave extraordinarily
divergent results. For instance, one test of siblings gave an
I.Q. correlation of 10 percent, while another test gave a
correlation of 90 percent. Bouchard and McGue simply averaged the
two to give a correlation of 50 percent. "

"The first New York Times report about the Minnesota Twin
study quoted Bouchard as saying, "I'm going to beg, borrow, and
steal" to pursue the twin study. In fact, Bouchard has solicited
money from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation with racist and radical
right-wing connections. the University of Minnesota has received
grants from the fund for Bouchard's twin study. But the Pioneer
Fund is best known for its support of research purporting the
inferiority of blacks."

"Once headed by directors such as the Chairman of the House
Committee on UnAmerican Activities, Representative Francis E.
Walter, and Mississippi Senator James O. Eastland, the fund has
long subsidized research and publication of the works of
scientific racists, including William Shockley and Arthur Jensen,
Jensen served on the scientific advisory board of the German Neo-
Nazi journal Newe Anthropologie. (SeeBarry Mehler's article "The
New Eugenics" in the May/June 1983 issue of _Science for the
People_.)"

"Bouchard, in his grant application to the Pioneer Fund,
noted that the National Science Foundation has repeatedly refused
funding for his study and has made numerous criticisms of his
method. Bouchard has claimed that the NSF and the National
Institutes of Health are packed with left liberals who deny him
funds on ideological grounds."

http://www.textfiles.com/conspiracy/twins.txt

Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html

Your source is a racist/eugenics website. Super. As a matter of fact, all of your links contain publications by known racists/eugenicists and many have connections to the Pioneer Fund. Phillipe Rushton is currently president of the Pioneer Fund.

 

[BlackVision]

You know deciding to attack the funding of a research, rather than the merits of the research, makes your case extraordinarily weak.

But you want to know the truth about the Pioneer Fund? Here you go:

"A related example is the charge that The Bell Curve is based on "tainted sources." Charles Lane introduced this theme with an article in the New Republic and then a much longer one in the New York Review of Books. In the latter piece, he proclaimed that "No fewer than seventeen researchers cited in the bibliography of The Bell Curve have contributed to Mankind Quarterly, a notorious journal of `racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race." Lane also discovered that we cited thirteen scholars who had received grants from the Pioneer Fund, established and run (he alleged) by men who were Nazi sympathizers, eugenicists, and advocates of white racial superiority. Leon Kamin, a vociferous critic of IQ in all its manifestations, took up the same argument at length in his review of The Bell Curve in Scientific American.

Never mind that The Bell Curve draws its evidence from more than 1,000 sources. Never mind that among the scholars in Lane's short list are some of the most respected psychologists of our time, and that the "tainted sources" consist overwhelmingly of articles that were published in respected and refereed journals. Never mind that the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today's Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to the relationship between Henry Ford and today's Ford Foundation."


And Washington Post is an extremely liberal newspaper. You honestly think they'll post an article supporting neo-nazis? Trying to start invalid conspiracies is the best way to avoid the truth.

By the way, I think you need to learn what it means to be racist or have a racial superiority complex. IQ researches, REGARDLESS of who does the study, whether a white guy, black guy, whatever, anyways comes up with the same researches. To call the Bell Curve, "racist" cause Murray and Herrnstein reaches a conclusion that Jews and Asians had higher IQs makes absolutely no sense. J Rushton that reaches the exact same conclusion. To call him a racist, again makes no sense. Since when does a racist, like to promote 2 groups above their own?

 

[Nereid]

I wonder whether BlackVision has any relationship to Nachtwolf?

In any case, surely a more significant scientific test of genetic component of IQ would be identical twins raised apart, from 'birth', in very different environments?

For example, one twin raised in white middle America, the other in rural Africa (or by a Saudi prince, or a worker's family in Lanzhou, ...). How else can we 'control' for variations in 'mother tongue', 'child raising practices' (esp from very early ages), diet, birth order (IIRC, this makes a big difference in SAT scores in the US; who knows how it affects the IQs of kids growing up with Mongolian cattle nomads?), peer groups, ...

Oh, and it would be nice if the results of such 'twin studies' were published in peer-review journals (and not funded by the Pioneer Fund).

 

[Evo]

You know deciding to attack the funding of a research, rather than the merits of the research, makes your case extraordinarily weak.

If you had read my post, you would have realized that I was criticizing the lack of scientific peer review. Perhaps you should read a post before making inaccurate assumptions.

But you want to know the truth about the Pioneer Fund? Here you go:

Here's the truth about the Pioneer Fund.

The Pioneer Fund persevered, however, and became increasingly active through the 1950s. It was the fund's opposition to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to integrate public schools which attracted its previous president, New York lawyer Harry F. Weyher, who assumed the job in 1958.

Since then, the Pioneer Fund has doled out money to people such as Roger Pearson, a British ex-patriate living in Georgia who, in 1958, founded the Northern League to promote "the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations."

"Early recruits," reports the London-based Independent, "included Hans Gunther, who was awarded a Goethe medal in 1941 for his work on Nordic racial philosophy, Ernest Sevier Cox, an American leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Dr. Wilhelm Kusserow, a former SS Untersturmfuhrer."

Between 1981 and 1991 alone (payments continued at least through 1994), Pearson received $568,000 from the Pioneer Fund to publish Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to "race science."

In the 1970s, reports the Independent, Mankind Quarterly's editorial advisers included Otmar, Baron Von Verscheur, who had served as director of the genetics and eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute during World War II. While at the institute, the baron recommended one of his students, Joseph Mengele, for a post as doctor at Auschwitz.

The Pioneer Fund has also paid for research by various scientists looking for proof of a connection between heredity and IQ scores, and IQ score difference between races.

Some of the Pioneer Fund's largest grants have gone to a well-known--and well-respected--study of twins at the University of Minnesota.

But the fund has also given more than $500,000 to Phillipe Rushton, a Canadian professor who asserts that brain size and intelligence are greater in Asians than whites, who in turn have larger brains and more intelligence than blacks. He also argues that penis size shows a similar, but reverse, correlation, and claims that the larger penises of blacks is an indication of greater promiscuity--a conclusion he based on interviewing 50 black students at the university where he teaches--and proof that blacks are less evolved. In 1989, police investigated Rushton under Canadian hate-propaganda laws but did not charge him.

And Washingpost Post is an extremely liberal newspaper. You honestly think they'll post an article supporting neo-nazis? Trying to start invalid conspiracies is the best way to avoid the truth.

I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post.

By the way, I think you need to learn what it means to be racist or have a racial superiority complex. IQ researches, REGARDLESS of who does the study, whether a white guy, black guy, whatever, anyways comes up with the same researches. To call the Bell Curve, "racist" cause Murray and Herrnstein reaches a conclusion that Jews and Asians had higher IQs makes absolutely no sense. ?

I haven't mentioned the Bell Curve. But it is a well known fact that the authors are racist, now that you mention it.

J Rushton that reaches the exact same conclusion. To call him a racist, again makes no sense. Since when does a racist, like to promote 2 groups above their own?

When it suits their purpose of slandering a particular race.

 

[BlackVision]

If you had read my post, you would have realized that I was criticizing the lack of scientific peer review. Perhaps you should read a post before making inaccurate assumptions.

80 years of scientific consistent scientific research is quite hard to refute. Which is why it's yet to succesfully be done.

Here's the truth about the Pioneer Fund.

The Pioneer Fund persevered, however, and became increasingly active through the 1950s. It was the fund's opposition to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to integrate public schools which attracted its previous president, New York lawyer Harry F. Weyher, who assumed the job in 1958.

Since then, the Pioneer Fund has doled out money to people such as Roger Pearson, a British ex-patriate living in Georgia who, in 1958, founded the Northern League to promote "the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations."

"Early recruits," reports the London-based Independent, "included Hans Gunther, who was awarded a Goethe medal in 1941 for his work on Nordic racial philosophy, Ernest Sevier Cox, an American leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Dr. Wilhelm Kusserow, a former SS Untersturmfuhrer."

Between 1981 and 1991 alone (payments continued at least through 1994), Pearson received $568,000 from the Pioneer Fund to publish Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to "race science."

In the 1970s, reports the Independent, Mankind Quarterly's editorial advisers included Otmar, Baron Von Verscheur, who had served as director of the genetics and eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute during World War II. While at the institute, the baron recommended one of his students, Joseph Mengele, for a post as doctor at Auschwitz.

The Pioneer Fund has also paid for research by various scientists looking for proof of a connection between heredity and IQ scores, and IQ score difference between races.

Some of the Pioneer Fund's largest grants have gone to a well-known--and well-respected--study of twins at the University of Minnesota.

But the fund has also given more than $500,000 to Phillipe Rushton, a Canadian professor who asserts that brain size and intelligence are greater in Asians than whites, who in turn have larger brains and more intelligence than blacks. He also argues that penis size shows a similar, but reverse, correlation, and claims that the larger penises of blacks is an indication of greater promiscuity--a conclusion he based on interviewing 50 black students at the university where he teaches--and proof that blacks are less evolved. In 1989, police investigated Rushton under Canadian hate-propaganda laws but did not charge him.

Read what I posted about the Pioneer Fund again. And once again, where one get his research money is a weak argument. You want to refute a research, you refute it's facts, it's data, it's statistics, it's conclusions. If this is your primarily focus, there is no debate.

I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post.

My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted.

I haven't mentioned the Bell Curve. But it is a well known fact that the authors are racist, now that you mention it.

Right cause simply using fundamental mainstream science on a taboo subject makes it racist. All scientists I'm sure will agree that Siamese cats are the smartest cat. Perhaps these scientists are cat racists against other cats too aye.

When it suits their purpose of slandering a particular race.

It couldn't simply have to do with using science or finding the truth huh. The fact remains, concluding 2 groups above your own DOES NOT make one a racist.

So the only way that someone isn't racist is if they perfectly agree with you on racial matters? Oh that's just great. Forget science. Forget research. Let's just create happy answers to live in our oh so delusional politically correct world where feelings have become more important than the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of science.

 

[Evo]

I wonder whether BlackVision has any relationship to Nachtwolf?

I was thinking the same thing!

 

[Concept]

I like how BV just totally ignored my post.

 

[Evo]

80 years of scientific consistent scientific research is quite hard to refute. Which is why it's yet to succesfully be done.


Read what I posted about the Pioneer Fund again. And once again, where one get his research money is a weak argument. You want to refute a research, you refute it's facts, it's data, it's statistics, it's conclusions. If this is your primarily focus, there is no debate.

Hmmm, here is my opening statement "Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things." Bouchard's statistics, data and conclusions have all been questioned and Bouchard has failed to provide documentation (which he promised) which could validate his study.

My article on IQ heritability WAS from the Washington Post. YOU were stating that my sources were tainted.

WRONG. You really cannot read, can you? Here it is again, so you may read it. Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackVision
Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html

Your source is a racist/eugenics website. Super. As a matter of fact, all of your links contain publications by known racists/eugenicists and many have connections to the Pioneer Fund. Phillipe Rushton is currently president of the Pioneer Fund. If you had reading comprehension skills, you would note first that I was referring to the source of the mugu.com website and the rest of the LINKS you posted. I never referred to your post.

Right cause simply using fundamental mainstream science on a taboo subject makes it racist. All scientists I'm sure will agree that Siamese cats are the smartest cat. Perhaps these scientists are cat racists against other cats too aye.

Getting silly now?

It couldn't simply have to do with using science or finding the truth huh. The fact remains, concluding 2 groups above your own DOES NOT make one a racist.

I never said it did. It's all the other facts that make them racists.

So the only way that someone isn't racist is if they perfectly agree with you on racial matters? Oh that's just great. Forget science. Forget research. Let's just create happy answers to live in our oh so delusional politically correct world where feelings have become more important than the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of science.

It is about the science, and VALID research, not the skewed and biased "studies" that you post.

Would you like the facts about the study that concluded that whites and Asians had larger brain sizes? Oh please ask me to post it.

 

[BlackVision]

Hmmm, here is my opening statement "Bouchard's study is not considered to have valid scientific merit due to the lack of peer review, among other things." Bouchard's statistics, data and conclusions have all been questioned and Bouchard has failed to provide documentation (which he promised) which could validate his study.

Again 80 years of research by psychologists. This isn't one study. These are hundreds of studies done for the past 80 years. Ever since IQ tests have been invented. Quit singling out one single person.

WRONG. You really cannot read, can you? Here it is again, so you may read it. Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackVision
Source: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...hard-twins.html

Wow YOU can't read can you? Let me repost my first source.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm

Your source is a racist/eugenics website. Super. As a matter of fact, all of your links contain publications by known racists/eugenicists and many have connections to the Pioneer Fund. Phillipe Rushton is currently president of the Pioneer Fund. If you had reading comprehension skills, you would note first that I was referring to the source of the mugu.com website and the rest of the LINKS you posted. I never referred to your post.

And these sites make it racist? How? Cause it doesn't agree with your illogical state of mind? But want me to post the article from "Wall Street Journal" Here. I'd like to you try and attempt and say Wall Street Journal is racist.

Mainstream Science on Intelligence
The Wall Street Journal
December 13, 1994

Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered
opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence.
Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly
supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers
on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical
consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is
to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the
research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully
described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in
intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other
things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think
abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from
experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or
test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability
for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of
things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests
measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms,
reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do
not measure creativity, character personality, or other important
differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure
the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific
cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use
shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal
concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

4. The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be
represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal
curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are
either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ
130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the
same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the
threshold for mental retardation).

5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or
other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ
scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of
race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well
can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

6. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little
understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural
transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the
brain, uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The
bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often
differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The
bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered
somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and
Hispanics) ale centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell
curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different
subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and
blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100
the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered.

Getting silly now?

No I would say you are.

I never said it did. It's all the other facts that make them racists.

Point out these "facts" No more Pioneer Fund either.

It is about the science, and VALID research, not the skewed and biased "studies" that you post.

Alright if you're honestly about the science, let's try this with a open mind. Would you be willing to accept that thousands of years of evolution in various locations in the world, has allowed slight differences in various abilities of both mental and physical characteristics of the human races. I'm not exactly referring to IQ or the Bell Curve, but would you be willing to conclude that some variation exists in between races in both physical and mental characteristics.

Would you like the facts about the study that concluded that whites and Asians had larger brain sizes? Oh please ask me to post it.

Post if you wish.

 

[BlackVision]

I like how BV just totally ignored my post.

Would you like to me to copy and paste my previous responses?

The world purpose of an IQ test is be culturally unbias. It's by definition suppose to measure natural intelligence. If it was bias toward higher education, toward a culture, that would defeat the whole purpose of IQ test now wouldn't it? And would be considered invalid by all psychologists. Since psychologists and geneticists alike seem overwhelmingly in support of such tests, the validity of such tests are strongly upheld.

Especially matrices IQ test. Let me show you what a matrix IQ test looks like.

http://nicologic.free.fr/MatrixA.htm

You honestly think education would have any major impact on your ability to take this test?

 

[BlackVision]

how do these statements not make sense?

and studies do consistently show that changes in enviorment with the specific intent to improve ones conditions can raise IQ.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040303/01

Ok would you like to point out where in this article it even mentions IQ?

Power law governs gene expression
Proportional dynamics illustrates commonality of gene expression levels in all organisms | By Cathy Holding



With an ever-increasing number of genomes available for analysis, there has been a shift in emphasis away from the study of single genes and a greater attempt to understand gene expression at the network or systems level. A report in the March 1 PNAS shows that power laws—a universal mathematical dynamic—govern the process.

Hiroki Ueda and colleagues at the Center for Developmental Biology describe the mathematical principle underlying observed levels of gene expression. They used information from public databases of whole genome sequences and from their own microarray analyses. Proportional dynamics, also known as “rich-travel-more,” showed that power law levels of gene expression were observed not only in different organisms, but also within discrete organs or at specific developmental times in the same organism (PNAS, DOI:10.1073/pnas.0306244101, March 1, 2004).

The team examined how genes change their expression in different conditions and observed that highly expressed genes change more, while genes expressed infrequently change less. “It's proportional; the magnitude of change are proportional to their expression levels,” said Ueda. “I also found [that] proportional dynamics can reproduce the complex pattern of distribution in gene expression levels—called power law distribution.”

Ueda said he was surprised to find Escherichia coli and humans are governed by the same simple mechanism. “I am glad to have found a simple and universal mechanism that exists in all systems of life,” he told The Scientist.

Plotting the distribution of different gene expression levels against the expression hierarchy of those genes results in a straight line. “I unexpectedly found that distribution of gene expression were heterogeneous and governed by the power law of minus 2 exponent,” he told The Scientist in an E-mail.

Yutaka Suzuki, research scientist at the Institute of Medical Science Human Genome Center explained, “In every case, you can see the straight line in the scattering plot. The basic concept is that such a kind of law is conserved between cell types and organisms in many kinds of context.”

Suzuki, who was not involved in the study, explained that it is the ratio of minus 2 that is conserved. “That's the universal observation, that's the point of this manuscript,” he said.

Lada Adamic, a power law expert in the Information Dynamics Laboratory at Hewlett-Packard, told The Scientist that although she was not a biologist, she would almost expect this observation because these distributions are extremely common. “As long as you have like a multiplicative process—which is what this is, this proportional process—you're going to end up with a distribution like that,” she said.

Adamic, who was not involved in the study, said that the same distribution was actually observed by Yule in 1913 when he was looking at the abundance of species in different genera. “So that's kind of like a biological thing,” she said. “The problem with power laws is that people keep kind of rediscovering them.”

“I myself have heard that this behavior of a system is very universal, [but] this is the first groundwork for this kind of analysis as I believe it. For biological systems, this is a first, so in that sense at least I think this is significant,” Suzuki said.

Ueda said that in the future, statistical analysis utilizing this “proportional” dynamics would be useful for the analysis of microarray data in any organism. “Statistical analysis based on “proportional” dynamics can be applied to the search for the significantly changed genes in two conditions,” he said in an E-mail. “We are preparing the manuscript on this type of application.”

 

[Evo]

Again 80 years of research by psychologists. This isn't one study. These are hundreds of studies done for the past 80 years. Ever since IQ tests have been invented. Quit singling out one single person.

You were the one that posted Bouchard as an impeccable source, not me. I was responding to your piece on him. Why do you keep bringing up other things you have posted that I did not respond to?

Wow YOU can't read can you? Let me repost my first source.

"These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness."

"identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...wins/twins2.htm [/QUOTE'You are a DIM bulb. I did not post anything concerning this. If you say that it rains daily in the Sahara, and I reply saying "no, that's not correct", why would you then keep saying "but it snows in Iceland". I'm not discussing Iceland, I'm discussing the Sahara. Understand?

And these sites make it racist? How? Cause it doesn't agree with your illogical state of mind? But want me to post the article from "Wall Street Journal" Here. I'd like to you try and attempt and say Wall Street Journal is racist.

What are you rambling about? You think something is true just because of where something is repeated? Are you really that naive?

I never said it did. It's all the other facts that make them racists.

Point out these "facts" No more Pioneer Fund either.

I will gladly point them out. I will do so later tonight when I have a bit more time. Sorry, the Pioneer Fund is closely tied to and in many cases responsible for the studies you hold as the truth. There is no way to exclude them.

Alright if you're honestly about the science, let's try this with a open mind. Would you be willing to accept that thousands of years of evolution in various locations in the world, has allowed slight differences in various abilities of both mental and physical characteristics of the human races. I'm not exactly referring to IQ or the Bell Curve, but would you be willing to conclude that some variation exists in between races in both physical and mental characteristics.

I agree that there are physical differences caused by climate, nutrition, etc... I do not agree that there are mental differences.

Post if you wish.

The study are you referring to that shows that Asians have larger size brains than Africans is the unscientific, biased & debunked study by Rushton, that won't fly.

Funny that the reason the African brain size was significantly smaller was due to the grossly disproportionate sampling of PYGMIES.

"This paper
contains the geographical means widely cited by Rushton, namely
that the mean cranial volume for 26 Asian societies was 1380 cc,
the mean volume for 10 European societies was 1362, and the mean
for 10 African societies was 1276. Notably, the African sample
contained 5 groups that are characterized by exceptionally small
body size (2 pygmy groups and 2 bushman groups). Indeed the Akka
pygmies (representing 1/10 of the whole African sample) had the
smallest cranial volume ever found in extant humans (1085 cc)."

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/dann...-1994/0088.html

All of you eugenicists have this tiny database of skewed information that you draw from. Do you have any idea how many times everything you have posted has previously been posted here and debunked?

 

[Concept]

Would you like to me to copy and paste my previous responses?

The world purpose of an IQ test is be culturally unbias. It's by definition suppose to measure natural intelligence. If it was bias toward higher education, toward a culture, that would defeat the whole purpose of IQ test now wouldn't it? And would be considered invalid by all psychologists. Since psychologists and geneticists alike seem overwhelmingly in support of such tests, the validity of such tests are strongly upheld.

Especially matrices IQ test. Let me show you what a matrix IQ test looks like.

http://nicologic.free.fr/MatrixA.htm

You honestly think education would have any major impact on your ability to take this test?

then how exactly do you explain studies that consistently show that improving education and improving conditions increases IQ? Second of all, no one says IQ tests measure nothing. They were invented to indentify children who needed extra help, the person who created them specifically warned against an inherentist interpetation of the results. Third of all, implying the majority of psychologists agree that IQ is inherent is simply false. The existence of g is highly debatable, because it is merely one mathematical interpetation of IQ test results.

also, I posted the article because it talks about how enviornment influences gene expression. Thinking it doesn't influence IQ is a huge assumption.

 

[BlackVision]

You were the one that posted Bouchard as an impeccable source, not me. I was responding to your piece on him. Why do you keep bringing up other things you have posted that I did not respond to?

Cause YOU are the one fixating on him. Trying to remove credibility of 80 years of psychology research from one person. Do you think there aren't hundreds of others that did their own researches that didn't draw the same conclusion as he did? Again, what is your fixation with him?

What are you rambling about? You think something is true just because of where something is repeated? Are you really that naive?

Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are by no measures a racist propaganda news source. Nor would they ever attempt to advocate any racism. For them to run the stories, does show credibility.

I will gladly point them out. I will do so later tonight when I have a bit more time. Sorry, the Pioneer Fund is closely tied to and in many cases responsible for the studies you hold as the truth. There is no way to exclude them.

Perhaps focusing on refuting statistics and datas rather than where the money trail goes. Even if Hitler himself donated $10 million to fund the project, that itself certainly doesn't discredit any findings now does it.

I agree that there are physical differences caused by climate, nutrition, etc... I do not agree that there are mental differences.

See this is where PC mentality fails you and clouds your ability to use proper science. What makes you think nature is bias toward physical differences but doesn't lay a figure on mental attributes. Are you also going to state there are no mental differences between one group of cats and other? One group of birds and another? One group of dogs and another? One group of fish and another?

Since when does mother nature ignore mental attributes. Since when does mental attributes become completely distanced from evolution. How does thousands of years of evolution not create even a single shred of mental differences? You may have to learn the basics of evolution first before we attempt to discuss this further.

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/dann...-1994/0088.html

Can you fix this link? It doesn't seem to work.

Do you have any idea how many times everything you have posted has previously been posted here and debunked?

Debunked? Really? Hmm. So nobody here shares the same viewpoint I have? Why do I find that hard to believe.

 

[BlackVision]

then how exactly do you explain studies that consistently show that improving education and improving conditions increases IQ? Second of all, no one says IQ tests measure nothing. They were invented to indentify children who needed extra help, the person who created them specifically warned against an inherentist interpetation of the results. Third of all, implying the majority of psychologists agree that IQ is inherent is simply false. The existence of g is highly debatable, because it is merely one mathematical interpetation of IQ test results.

IQ tests are approximately 70-80% genetic. I'm quite sure no one will say that it's completely genetic. That being said, better environments will have slight improvements in IQ. But by no means can someone jump from an IQ of 100 to an IQ of 130 regardless of environment. No environment in the world will give someone Einstein like IQ level. Genetics is the predominating factor.

also, I posted the article because it talks about how enviornment influences gene expression. Thinking it doesn't influence IQ is a huge assumption.

Well perhaps you need to find an article that directly relates to IQ. That would have far more weight.