U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
I've been seeing this kind of response to my paper from would-be critics claiming I show 20% of the racial IQ gap is genetic and claiming it supports race science (and that I am a race scientist). While this criticism is obviously in bad faith I want to address any ambiguity herepic.twitter.com/jQonhvv6oU
What the results in my paper show is that the *maximum* amount of variance in IQ possibly due to genetic variation is 12-18% depending on what heritability estimate is used. What it does is provide a ceiling for the contribution of genes. There's reasons to expect it to be less
This method makes some assumptions that are not likely to hold: 1. That variance among populations is solely due to additive genetic effects 2. That the efficacy of the SNPs used in the GWAS for predicting our phenotype is not dependent on environment or variable by ancestry.
Violation of these assumptions (which is almost guaranteed) artificially inflates the genetic component of the among group variation, which would overstate the importance of the effect of genes on among group differences.
Another important factor is there is no reason that these genetic factors only or even mostly benefit Europeans over Africans. It's equally likely to benefit either. The assumption that genetic factors can't favor Black populations has been long criticized https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html …
There are several scenarios where genetic and phenotypic differences between populations can be at odds. see https://academic.oup.com/emph/article/2019/1/26/5262222 …pic.twitter.com/iNG2dKLDfF
The reason this result is important is it successful changes expectations for how genes contribute to group differences. Hereditarians have often claimed the contribution is 50% or more, now we have evidence the most genes can contribute is much smaller.
The result is similar to Richard Lewontin's Apportionment of Human Diversity paper in 1972 (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14 …) both in value and in that it should shift our expectation away to genetics supporting or explaining race differences, in this case specifically for IQ.
Mistake to imply it's *only* 20 %: rare yet unrecognized genetic variants explain most of the differences *within* group, & many variants undoubtedly differ between groups, besides. Your paper's just one of the many greatly flawed ones to come from environmentalists.
Rare variants don’t represent the majority of heretability usually it’s 20% or less, but out also doesn’t matter because I extrapolate the Fst to all narrow sene estimated by methods that would capture rare variants (family-based methods) & they are unlikely to behave differently
Just to clarify - you found <20% of *race diffs* in IQ to be genetic. Race completely aside, did your analysis indicate what % of IQ is associated with genetics? (I did read the paper, but some of the technical details are over my head)
yeah so σ^2_genes/σ^2_IQ is <20% for African and European pops.^ for that calculation I assume reported heritability estimates are valid so I did the calculation once with h^2=0.35 and h^2=0.5 based on a lit review and some discretion over assumptions of studies/methods
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
