Emil O W Kirkegaard

I did this ~2 years ago & shared w/ a handful of people I know privately. I didn't publish it b/c I didn't see the point and that's not my style. Nonetheless, I still reliably know the frequencies vary systematically & that there is population structure within this data.

How can it not be your style to share "findings" with the community? I can't discuss data you have not disclosed. However, it's certain that you don't have the relevant material to conclude anything about whatever you used.

Because it's highly politically inflammatory and many people argue it's hard to interpret. In and of itself it's merely suggestive. Not worth the headache.

I don't think I'm supposed to believe anything you say. I could just suspect you were unable to find your desired patterns so you didn't publish. Which is common in psychology.

You seem to want to have it both ways. If you want to argue it's hard to interpret, despite the fact it correlates quite well, fine, but then why argue this silly point? It's easy to verify for yourself.

No, because I'd need Asian GWAS, African GWAS, Latin American GWAS. Then I'd need to know the role of each involved locus, ascertain signals of selection (don't even need polygenic scores) just need to see different patterns of enrichment at loci.

Then I could say, this gene regulates this biomarker causing these populations to score differently. And I would then show that there are signals of selection that I would translate into a selection coefficient to show how strong or week, how long it took to have this pattern.

And with that, I could hypothesize about precise selective mechanisms that I could date and tie to differences in cultural/natural change. And others could verify it.