Does Science Always Self-Correct?

@philokalia said
Pinker believes IQ tests are valid.

IQ tests show different races have different IQs. Radically so.

The results of IQ are mostly inherited biological traits...

Therefore, what would Pinker believe?

And, of course, we know why he doesn't say it.

your quote didn't mention race at all.

Comparing siblings and twins is of course a powerful method but between groups the number of confounding variables becomes enormous. Related to human behavior, the term "heritability" is misleading, since it leaves out the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors, and does not address the extent to which that trait is genetically determined. You don't just inherit your genes, you inherit your environment. Absent a mechanism, environmental factors are possibly just as likely to explain the correlation. And from what I've seen in the article I posted, many of the "trait loci" are located in long tracts of intergenic (non-coding) DNA and as far as anyone knows these regions do not do anything biologically.

So if you can correlate 30% of IQ to heritability, how much of that is environmental?

@wildgrass said
your quote didn't mention race at all.

Comparing siblings and twins is of course a powerful method but between groups the number of confounding variables becomes enormous. Related to human behavior, the term "heritability" is misleading, since it leaves out the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors, and does not address the extent to which that trait is ...[text shortened]... ly.

So if you can correlate 30% of IQ to heritability, how much of that is environmental?

It doesn't need to mention race.

The elephant in the room is the massive disparity in IQs that show up in a very diverse range of IQ tests.

What is relevant is that the intelligence factors are very, very much rooted in our genetics.

The results come out roughly the same no matter what is measured or how it is measured. Identical twins reared apart are highly similar; identical twins reared together are more similar than fraternal twins reared together; biological siblings are far more similar than adoptive siblings. (1,2,3,10,19,21) All this translates into substantial heritability values, generally between .25 and .75. A conventional summary is that about half the variation in intelligence, personality, and life outcomes is heritable – a correlate or an indirect product of the genes. It's hard to be much more precise than that, because heritability values vary within this range for a number of reasons. (21)

You say "absent a mechanism," but the mechanism is clearly polygenetic influence. Our DNA influences our cognitive ability just as how our DNA influences our height and our athletic ability.

In the quote immediately after he says that the correlation can be as high as .80.

Thatd only leave room for a small amount of environmental factors. Factors that are also far less relevant in the Era of free education for all.

@philokalia said
It doesn't need to mention race.

The elephant in the room is the massive disparity in IQs that show up in a very diverse range of IQ tests.

What is relevant is that the intelligence factors are very, very much rooted in our genetics.

[quote] The results come out roughly the same no matter what is measured or how it is measured. Identical twins reared apart are h ...[text shortened]... environmental factors. Factors that are also far less relevant in the Era of free education for all.

The mechanism would demonstrate how genetic variation leads to IQ differences. Otherwise its all just correlative with multiple interpretations.

In the article from earlier, they did a comprehensive analysis of what you're talking about.

More than 10% of the variance in intelligence can be predicted by multi-polygenic scores derived from GWAS of both intelligence and years of education. This accounts for more than 20% of the 50% heritability of intelligence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985927/

I'm still not sure you've articulated what you would like 'science' to correct?

One would think that the elephant in the room is actually quite clear at this point, friend:

The disparity in IQs by ethnic group and race are thus inherited, meaning the notion that we are born as blank slates that are cognitively equal does not have a scientific basis.

Or would you disagree with that still?

The career of James Watson has been utterly decimated because of this sort of belief, hasn't it?

The late Philippe Rushton faced the exact same issues.

You do not hear anyone really advancing this kind of perspective in 2019 -- and Pinker has not come out and said it.

@philokalia said
One would think that the elephant in the room is actually quite clear at this point, friend:

The disparity in IQs by ethnic group and race are thus inherited, meaning the notion that we are born as blank slates that are cognitively equal does not have a scientific basis.

Or would you disagree with that still?

The career of James Watson has been utterly decimated ...[text shortened]... anyone really advancing this kind of perspective in 2019 -- and Pinker has not come out and said it.

I agree, in principle, that societies remain uncomfortable about trait heritability, and unclear about what it actually means. But it's not a scientific problem. I think science is studying this as it should. Correlations are deceiving without analyzing the genetic information and defining mechanisms. You can't tell how fast a car goes based on color or model. Put a Honda Civic on the autobahn and a Ferrari in LA traffic and measure top speed. As I mentioned earlier, heritability incorporates both genetics and environment into a single number. Twin studies are uninformative when comparing between groups.

I'll add another name to your list: Larry Summers. As an economist, he had run the numbers and decided that men work harder than women, on average. He used this fact to determine that explained the gender gap in science, that men commit to their careers more than women. Obviously, that's where he erred. Not on the factual information, but on interpretation. He failed to notice that dozens of his audience members (and thousands worldwide) were successful women who dedicated their entire lives to science and worked 80+ hours a week and spend less time with their families than would be ideal. That fact beats the demographics.

Watson's in a whole other world. With zero evidence beyond personal opinion, he said Africa (like, the entire continent) was doomed because of inferior "innate intelligence." For the guy who discovered DNA, he betrayed the scientific method.

@wildgrass said
I agree, in principle, that societies remain uncomfortable about trait heritability, and unclear about what it actually means. But it's not a scientific problem. I think science is studying this as it should. Correlations are deceiving without analyzing the genetic information and defining mechanisms. You can't tell how fast a car goes based on color or model. Put a Honda C ...[text shortened]... f inferior "innate intelligence." For the guy who discovered DNA, he betrayed the scientific method.

I'll add another name to your list: Larry Summers. As an economist, he had run the numbers and decided that men work harder than women, on average. He used this fact to determine that explained the gender gap in science, that men commit to their careers more than women. Obviously, that's where he erred. Not on the factual information, but on interpretation. He failed to notice that dozens of his audience members (and thousands worldwide) were successful women who dedicated their entire lives to science and worked 80+ hours a week and spend less time with their families than would be ideal. That fact beats the demographics.

Wait, were his numbers actually correct otherwise?

If they were, how can someone call themselves a scientist or an objective person if they then dismiss empirical data because it sits a bit uncomfortable with them..?

For instance, they say that Asian people have a generally higher IQ than white people.

I accept that even though I am white, and so is my significant other. I accept that my child would, statistically, perhaps have a lower IQ than their Asian classmates...

is that pleasant?

No.

But it is reality, and part of being mature is accepting reality.

Are you suggesting that science needs to censor itself to accommodate other people's comfort zones?

Watson's in a whole other world. With zero evidence beyond personal opinion, he said Africa (like, the entire continent) was doomed because of inferior "innate intelligence." For the guy who discovered DNA, he betrayed the scientific method.

If he believes that the IQs of Africans are consistently significantly lower than those of other races, which has been shown out across a lot of tests, he is not basing it on nothing.

The accuracy of such a statement, though, is still being appraised, right.

@philokalia said
[quote]I'll add another name to your list: Larry Summers. As an economist, he had run the numbers and decided that men work harder than women, on average. He used this fact to determine that explained the gender gap in science, that men commit to their careers more than women. Obviously, that's where he erred. Not on the factual information, but on interpretation. He faile ...[text shortened]... basing it on nothing.

The accuracy of such a statement, though, is still being appraised, right.

Your pleasantries and beliefs and leaps of logic are non-scientific. I'll look at data if you have it.

Summers data was factual, as I already said in the earlier post and you quoted. No need for the follow up question. His interpretation of that data was completely wrong.

@wildgrass said
Your pleasantries and beliefs and leaps of logic are non-scientific. I'll look at data if you have it.

Summers data was factual, as I already said in the earlier post and you quoted. No need for the follow up question. His interpretation of that data was completely wrong.

So what was the correct interpretation of the data?

That the reason that women work less hard at work is not their own fault, but rather, the fault of the environment or some such?

You're getting a bit tightlipped, and you also did not respond to the latter part of the post.

@philokalia said
So what was the correct interpretation of the data?

That the reason that women work less hard at work is not their own fault, but rather, the fault of the environment or some such?

You're getting a bit tightlipped, and you also did not respond to the latter part of the post.

Not tight lipped just waiting for causative data rather than conjecture. It makes no sense that skin melanocytes confer intelligence.

@wildgrass said
Not tight lipped just waiting for causative data rather than conjecture. It makes no sense that skin melanocytes confer intelligence.

Stating the reasoning in an unflattering way shows us exactly where your loyalties lie.

The argument is that the cognitive differences between groups results from the gene pools of those particular groups, which does not have anything to do with the genes relevant to skin.

But yeah, be obtuse.

If you don't like something, pretend the question itself is invalid and don't comment.

... And ignore the comment I also made about women, now.

What, we can only get you to talk about one thing per post?

Ok, I'm new here so I guess I have to throw my 2 cents in.

Bad form: "Those folks in Africa sure don't get math and sciences"
Good form: "Man, those African Americans sure play great basketball"

[whistling]…

@earl-of-trumps said
Ok, I'm new here so I guess I have to throw my 2 cents in.

Bad form: "Those folks in Africa sure don't get math and sciences"
Good form: "Man, those African Americans sure play great basketball"

[whistling]…

Just to catch you up, we're still waiting on the evidence.....

@wildgrass said
Just to catch you up, we're still waiting on the evidence.....

Thanks. Evidence to exactly what?

@earl-of-trumps said
Thanks. Evidence to exactly what?

Hopefully philokalia can explain. It's about reading through the lines or something.

@wildgrass
Non-coding DNA form a series of switches which activate and deactivate genes and have significance roughly as an instruction manual for the chemistry set that is the coding DNA. I'm way of my field, and don't understand this well, but junk DNA isn't junk.

@philokalia
There is an enzyme called transposase which allows genes to be moved around. During neural development the DNA one inherits is shuffled around more than in any other cells except the ones that produce anti-bodies. So the central nervous system is the part of the body least constrained by genetics.

My source for both these claims is a lecture given by Robert Sapolsky about 9 years ago as part of a course on biological behaviour. I'll find the relevant segments later and post the video and the time into, but don't have time just now.