New Egal args

Constantly rehashing the same arguments and always trying to inhabit pure critique.
>You guys have to prove your position to oh absurd and faorly mercurial standards, but we don't have to prove our whacky egalitarian position that we only apply to humans

I will begin with an argument which is ackshully good, as far as I can tell, that genes association's with iq are just correlation and not causation. They dont prove a physiological connection. It is incomplete data. What they dont mentions the same goes for them, even moreso. They can't explain much of the gap, the most is a potential 5 points explains by education, at most. and this is with environmental factors behind the gaps prioritized to be found or corrected. There is a difference between not having a complete explanation (heritability estimates and genes needing to be connected better) because we lack the scientific capability but are making progress, and not having an explanation to complete despite more money and political will. Remember they have ses, implicit bias, and stereotype threat and cant make the magic happen despite it being easier to study. There is a difference between not yet having the ability to complete your argument and contriving new explanations which fail at any real world application (SES, stereotype threat, implicit bias)

This is asking for evidence that likely does not yet exist. Genetics is a very young science and the chemistry a play here is very difficult to measure in living human subjects, especially with a concept as abstract as IQ. They are saying that "okay you found a genetic correlation between certain base pairs and IQ, but unless I see a correlation between the volume of a related, expressed protein and IQ I will dismiss your entire argument as having not proven causation." The absurdity of this is in how nitpicky it is. We do not yet even know how many genes code for hair colour. Nor have we met this standard for any other trait sans things like testosterone where we understand the bodily process really well so can easily Trac the protein sequencing back.
Imagine taking a quiz in grade-school biology about Mendel's work. These morons would have to answer every question with "Mendel was a pseudo-scientist who didn't demonstrate anything because he never found the genes."
The old goalpost was "find the genes", now it is "find the genes in a deterministic manner" Both are wrong. So will argue you new new do tjis to find the genes, but that is still demanding you find the genes

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/science/52-genes-human-intelligence.html
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/40-more-intelligence-genes-found

And above all, you dont need to find the genes to infer genetic influence. This is tacking on a further requirement to an already ridiculous demand, that being the old "find the genes" argument blank slatists would try. If that was fallacious, so is this. Not only do we have to find the genes according to this argument, but what proteins that gene encodes and how variations in that encoding manifests in any difference we're talking about. Molecular genetics is young and relatively unrefined, so if you want to deny these differences it makes sense to haunt this field as the above example demonstrates.
Simply finding an association, and screening out randomness giving one a false positive (which GWAS studies do), is enough to rebuke blank slatist assumptions about where IQ comes from.

All their arguments are new stonewalls, a very god in the gaps style argumentation. This is the newest stonewall. "Okay you found the genes but you need a causal connection to say they ackshully rebuke blank slatism" I'd be more sympathetic to this view if it was the lone type of evidence rebuking blank slatism, but they are not, this is extra credit. Blank Slatism is not being overwhelmingly vindicated elsewhere.


Very much inside baseball, and often is just overly technical. And the professionals never use them. I get the impression they were fabricated recklessly because thy know the standard excuses arent working any longer. So they think that catching a rando off-guard by going outside their experience is significant

Epigenetics
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/the-genetics-of-epigenetics/
Clearest example of the God of the Gaps stuff

Selective Migration
(Basically an SES argument in disguise)
Ultimately it is weird to use selective migration as an argument to explain disparities in one geographic area but discount that selective ancestral pressures could account for the disparities we see in geographically delineated population groups
Literacy only common way to test (https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/)

Rural China, East Asia being lower

Whining about Piffer (and lynn)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001087
Tests for internal validity by seeing if randomness got a similar result, it didnt

Height
The difference is we try to fix IQ gaps, and nothing

Denying IQ by citing its limits
https://www.nature.com/articles/6800418
Like with race this is just to disarm use of a term which is perfectly useful and certainly not giving us something better. All we need is to say it matters and we cant make it work. It isnt like IQ is all that will vary anyway, the point is to establish sameness isnt possible

They say we lack a theory of intelligence so can't certainly say how genes affect it, Ian Deary disagrees. He agrees we lack a theory but still studies its inheritance. We also lack a theory of athleticism or human behavior but still say genes play a role.

Linking this
http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
Just lol

Well, it could be true Chinese samples are weighted toward urban centers which inflates the score but Hong Kong was measured too. And Korea, Japan. Which dont have that geographic disparity.

Quote-mining researchers (like Deary saying intelligence doesnt have a theory for it, when Deary has worked on papers finding it can still be inherited)
https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201185
I can quote-mine Flynn saying to Murray he doubts the gap (B-W, US) will close

Denying IQ in the above way.
We dont have a theory for athleticism either but we can still say genes contribute because they affect attributes which in turn form what we call athleticism
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/explaining-human-mathematical-ability-three-evolutionary-hypotheses/

Education:
https://psyarxiv.com/kymhp/
Well, high int funnels people into education and blacks attend college more. And black women get degrees
just noting these new silver bullets look like pewter to me. And seem unfalsifiable since you can always say blacks just didnt work hard enough tbh

Issues with international scores
They are probably right, just gotta point me in direction of better data rather than purely whine about particular limitations of certain studies

Weirdly denying race, just to attaq the term when really all we need is an identifiably different population
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/
The differences arent just superficial, they are so obvious that superficiality denotes them
Pretty sure human races have more genetic distance than dog breeds, despite the latter being artificial in most cases
And haplogroups correlated with race lol
Race does denote ancestry well enough (proxy for ancestry) that self-report matches it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Race

Adoption studies.
This uses a lot of low n studies, typical for egalitarian presenting adoption studies (or analysis in this case)
http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/1/htm

Subtest heritability
The authors' own explanation precludes how blank statist try using this, that this is "cultural" but driven by higher aptitude
Only this (actually the author's doctoral dissertation apparently) contradicts the standard idea that race gaps are highest on abstract culture-free test questions which are the most g-loaded and have the highest heritability (ie the variance with the most genetic influence). I question this because culture-loaded tests consistently see higher Black scores and the acknowledgement of this is like canon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_in_Mental_Testing  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_bias  (ctrl-f culture for more I guess)
And really I dont see it (the study) even mentioned as a challenge since its publication in SciAm
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797613493292
And the citations are weird
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/citedby/10.1177/0956797613493292
Only 2 seem relevant to this discussion, and even then not really
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300812?via%3Dihub
This one reaffirms the old ideas, but for chimpanzees (ctrl-f Kan)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615000495?via%3Dihub
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4437459/  (full text)
They do say it mirrors humans and other animals, and that the findings of the first article still show heritability to be highest on the most G-loaded (which seems to contradict SciAm's interpretation https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-heritability-of-intelligence-not-what-you-think/ unless G isnt on abstract culture-free questions which really just adds to confusion)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Group_similarities_and_differences
And the same author finds the the old pattern in Japan, and with Russian kids
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/the-correlation-between-g-loadings-and-heritability-in-russia/066774DD7A4799FC2130BF13175D6269

Interesting
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615000422?via%3Dihub

https://archive.is/rwt3x
Nobody is talking about judging individuals by their group averages, duh. The question is if multiracial societies can work out and why we are taking white lands away and putting white kids on the hook for its success?
Find the genes it looks like
Arguments presented against race are political looking to me...and lewontin's fallacy thrown in
Muh epigenetics
The verbal reasoning G isnt really relevant, G-loadedness have higher gaps
Steady rise? Firstly, Rushton & Jensen, Murray, SAT scores, and studies looking at Headstart say no. https://medium.com/@houstoneuler/the-cherry-picked-science-in-voxs-charles-murray-article-bd534a9c4476
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x/abstract
As does Roth et al

3 points according to data from the tests individually, in children http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000895, strung together rather than using SAT data which is more standardized and easier to get than this patchwork job (and tests them at a better age)... Studies stop in like the early 00s, and data covers the 70s-80s largely (when we cared about lead). After that, much less but a new generation coming in
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/22/changes-in-the-american-black-white-iq-gap-1916-2016/
Many tests dont show a significant narrowing and the SATs dont at all. More average white kids take that too
Income and education convergence happened earlier (and later) than the bulk of changes in IQ (60s and 70s)
The rise in black SAT scores (and fall in white SAT scores) suggests desegregation
And it aint closin' no more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Flynn_effect_and_the_closing_gap
And this article thinks stereotype threat is real, and under education it could only explain part
And just defers to the same clowns (Nisbett, Hunt, and Mackintosh over and over), who literally just raise the bar over and over
And defends the shitty adoption studies with shitty n's as if they matter
http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf
And Flynn who cites the Sam shotty afoption studies with 23 kids or eyferth in hisnGuardian article and is a huge socialist
Moreover, the article suggests the narrowing disproves any genetic basis for it. Which is a quantum leap. Would surely require disentangling selective differences between the black-white community such as the higher abortion rate in the blacks. If even that.

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/22/the-black-white-iq-gap/
ctrl-f Dickens

The trend of transracial adoption: larger n's, later in life testing tend to support hereditarianism
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/transracial-adoption-and-the-black-white-iq-gap/

And if you think the people who consistently stonewall and mob research on this will be prove right, you're a fucking joke

Ultimately this comes down to comparing p values
http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/what-a-p-value-tells-you-about-statistical-data/
https://archive.is/WlaWl
Genome wide significance p-values matter
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015269
They can even be lower according to this paper