The paper says "In reality for most traits, including IQ, it is not only unclear that genetic variation explains differences between populations, it is also unlikely." This is a claim about ignorance (it is unclear) and also a claim to know something (it is unlikely). ...
-
-
Replying to @ovjocm @ewanbirney and
The text after that makes a good case about things being unclear, and does a good job of explaining why. But I am not grasping the argument for the proposition "for most traits it is unlikely that genetic variation explains differences between populations" ...
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @ovjocm @ewanbirney and
Maybe I am confused because the required background, the arguments that it is unclear, and the argument that it is unlikely are all interspersed. Or maybe I was just reading too fast. Can anyone briefly summarise the argument that it is unlikely without the other stuff?
4 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @ovjocm @ewanbirney and
Here is an example to chew on that isn't IQ. If you look at the 100 meter dash, at least 24 of the 25 fastest runners are black, last I counted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres#All-time_top_25_men … The odd one had a common name and there were too many plausible matches. So the claim would be that ....
5 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @ovjocm @ewanbirney and
either being able to run 100m fast is a simple trait like skin color, or it is carried by many genes and with the right environment and upbringing people of other races, such as the Han (Chinese), would be able to run 100m just as fast. Have I correctly understood your claim?
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @ovjocm @ewanbirney and
The alternative hypothesis that I am presently believing is that being able to run 100m fast is a trait carried on many genes that was selected for in Western Africa harder than elsewhere in the world.
3 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @ovjocm @JenniferRaff and
Using the olympics/competitions to assess continuous trait genetics is ... not good study design to say the least. There’s likely that there is a genetic component but it really doesn’t say much about this argument about IQ/EA genetics
7 replies 2 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @ewanbirney @ovjocm and
Note that that that's a potential genetic component between individuals, not groups or nations. Olympic medals are second only to nobel prizes as a really bad starting point for thinking about human genetics..
4 replies 4 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @aylwyn_scally @ewanbirney and
Can you explain why what is perhaps the world's most widely competed at athletic event, the men's 100 meter dash, is "a really bad starting point for thinking about human genetics"?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres …
1 reply 4 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @aylwyn_scally and
If you want to understand genetic effects you need to (a) genotype enough people to be sure you can find significant signals (b) measure genotype and phenotype well and (c) ensure or convince yourself that genotype information is random wrt to genetics. All three are bad here.
5 replies 5 retweets 11 likes
Right, just like you couldn't breed horses for speed until you sequenced the horse genome
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.