For a discussion of this with a different country, see Vietnam http://humanvarieties.org/2014/06/19/hvgiq-vietnam/ … Cuba http://humanvarieties.org/2013/01/31/hvgiq-cuba/ …pic.twitter.com/P8HP5vLuUW
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
you didn't even read to the end of the abstract, did you?
-
-
yeah. to the extent it discusses differential back-migration, it says it's not important
-
but i wouldn't call it rigorous. take a high-dimensional system, reduce to way too few dimensions, do a correlational analysis on a few extra dimensions that aren't isolated by any obvious symmetries, find significance, put some very specific causal interpretations on it
-
to the extent that one buys their story: there's nothing genetic about it; they're analyzing county-level productivity, not individual performance; they're specifically including collective effects that can't be reduced to individual level ones;…
-
Yes, I get it. You have high standards for stuff you don't like. Priors and all that. But as far as this kind of research goes, that paper is pretty rigorous. Fixed effects, tracing ancestry movement across time. About as good as it gets without genomic data. Take it or leave it.
-
Now, it would be very nice to get a large genomics dataset and do admixture analysis for sub-European differences, and relate these to IQ/SES. 23andme etc. have this kind of data, but hard to get from them. I tried with their state-data but lack of power.https://openpsych.net/paper/8
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.