I remember that some years ago a technology based on DNA was found to be extremely useful in identifying criminals. But it was too useful -- it identified too many criminals who were black -- and its use was discontinued for that reason (sorry, I can't remember details about it).
The point is that you are right. I suspect that many new genetic technologies never even become known to the public at all, because people are aware that they and their developers will be called racist.
Unfortunately in the west, doing research into intelligence and genes will become harder and harder. Thing will get worse, not better. The only way this field will make progress is when the Singaporean/Taiwanese/Chinese biobanks become as good as the UK biobanks. Singapore and Taiwan have national single payer health insurance. So they can track people's diseases over time (a crucial requirement in keeping the biobank up to date). China's biobank will be awesome when it gets up and running. Competition will spur innovation.
If you seek to change the world, you must first understand it. The single biggest barrier to understanding the world is one’s own preconceived notions.
Well thought out commentary. Admittedly I don’t particularly care if one group or another are “left out”. That’s their problem, I care about my group. I suspect that when this”gap” becomes admitted—or rather polygenetic scoring becomes accepted as the *tool* to bring about true racial equality, funds will be expended to close any gaps in polygenetic scoring between the races. The funding of such is really not significant.
I also suspect that when progressives become aware of the problem of ethnic portability of polygenic scores, it will cause some cognitive dissonance between the dogma that "race is just a social construct" and the reality that it has a genetic basis.
Won't selection just move the entire distribution to the right, assuming mass adoption? Or does the expected gain from selection differ based on where you start in the distribution? If it just shifts the entire distribution right, the differences will remain and lofty goals of equality will remain unrealized.
I largely disagree with your point on general intelligence by ancestor group on epigenetic grounds. A recent Lancet Article found that African groups in North Africa showed some of the highest levels of vitamin D deficiency on the planet- amongst populations who spend much of their day outside in sunshine and receive exercise far in excess of the average Westerner.
Meta-analysis of vitamin D deficiency and lower IQ are inconclusive, but vitamin D deficiency is strongly correlated with low birth weight, premature birth, pre-eclampsia and maternal death in childhood, but many of these studies on vitamin D deficiency and IQ likely mistakenly excluded these factors from their multivariate analysis (although it may well be the case that these factors are still at least somewhat genetic in some groups, rather than fully epigenetic).
You are no doubt aware of the Flynn effect and the fact that racial IQ gaps have closed. It may well be that a large portion of the remaining gap is due to strong differences in vitamin D deficiency by ancestor group, and could be remedied by something as banal as maternal and childhood vitamin D supplementation.
On a related note, have you heard of duplicons? I became quite excited when I read about them. It might be the case that any humans and their other close relatives experience mutations, duplicons could empower a far faster rate of 'emergent utility' as sex selection and survival optimises other areas of the genome, in order to maximise the benefits of new positive mutations.
I understand your desire to defend environmental hypotheses to explain group differences in IQ. But none of this is relevant. Even if there were no phenotypic differences between ethnic groups (which is false), there are genotypic differences. That’s why you need ethnically diverse genetic datasets to generate useable polygenic risk scores for different groups.
I’m not just making this up. Everyone in the field knows it, which is why those new biobanks are being created. The only point I’m making is that if they don’t include IQ testing in these new datasets, those ethnic groups won’t be able to use PRS to guide embryo selection.
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023Liked by Jonathan Anomaly
I didn't mean to suggest that phenotypic differences didn't exist- merely that some of the issues they create might be more easily remediable than previously thought. I understand the reluctance over environmental factors. The field has suffered from so many wild goose chases and fictions it's unreal. The span of educational quality amounts to no more than 4 points of difference, and socio-economics is only indirectly a factor unless it influences diet- the Guatemala showed that sugar as a substitute for more nutritious foods in early childhood, amounted to about 8 points in cognitive development, as well as the associated impulse control issues leading to worse life decision.
Vitamin D deficiency is like diet in that it directly influences oxygen absorption to the blood and hence to the brain. I'm sure you're aware that vastly improved cardiovascular function is about the only deliberate thing which can increase IQ, and then only modestly. This is likely to have a stronger effect during childhood development.
The other thing I wanted to ask was did you have any polygenic GWAS, look exclusively at IQ rather than educational outcomes and only look at Western populations of various ancestor groups? Any study which looks at educational outcomes as a substitute or an intermediary step to IQ is innately flawed and has to be thrown out. Jenson advocates tend to assume that conditions must be different for the same ancestors groups across different Western countries. This simply isn't true, or is only true to a very small degree. In education in particular, where terrible ideas tend to spread across the porous borders of the realm of ideas like a virus, the impact has been awful, for some groups more than others. Please link any GWAS studies on IQ you might have.
The one exception is the UK, and specifically London. The roots of the change stem from Northern Ireland, where differences in education outcomes between Northern Irish Catholics and Northern Irish Protestants was a huge embarrassment for the Progressive Educational Establishment for nearly two decades. The Catholics more traditional (and strict) education, backed up by a higher rate of fathers in the community, meant the demographic which was socioeconomically and socially underprivileged was significantly outperforming the cohort which was more affluent and grew up in better environments.
The literature on the subject is scant. Government and educational bureaucracies in particular, don't advertise their failures. But when it came time to address what were once abysmal educational outcomes for some minority groups in London, you can bet your bottom dollar they deployed all the lessons learned from Northern Ireland. Apparently it is OK to have traditional education and strict schools, provided the goal is to raise the academic outcomes of minority students (as well as the white peers lucky enough to be living in the same geographical area).
Back in Northern Ireland, the educational effect was so strong it reversed the socio-economics of Catholics and Protestants. Where once Protestants lived in leafy suburbs and Catholics lived in council houses, the Catholics are now affluent and the Protestants are poor. Of course, the Left is now blaming the difference in educational outcomes on socio-economics!
On the subject of IVF, have they managed to resolve some of the problems with the technology? It was my understanding that the technology can activate redundant genes, causing defects- or am I wrong?
To your first question, yes: I don't want to get into too many details, but they exist for some biobanks.
Interesting comments about Ireland, which I didn't know anything about.
To your second question, no: there's no evidence I'm aware of that IVF results in genetic mutations or defects. There are a few older studies that showed women who use IVF had children with slightly worse outcomes than those who don't, but the consensus is that this is a function of the fact that women who use IVF tend to be older and have other health issues compared to those who don't. That will change, of course, when people start doing elective IVF in order to take advantage of polygenic testing.
That's interesting. I had heard that Down's Syndrome was more common for older women- it's interesting to find out that this is a general genetic problem.
My other point would be that if vitamin D deficiency is a significant factor in determining IQ, then it would appear in the genetics. It probably effects all populations to a degree, given that almost all people are vitamin D deficient. It would just affect some populations more than others. In other words, the inability to synthesise, absorb or preserve vitamin D already appears in the data, both at the genetic and polygenic layers.
Let's not forget that white skin and fairer hair only emerged as a result of the fact that women in more northerly climes couldn't bring babies to term as frequently or healthily without this benign adaption. It also seems to have conferred a redundant advantage with only came to the fore when civilisation advanced beyond the Roman/Greek stage.
I remember that some years ago a technology based on DNA was found to be extremely useful in identifying criminals. But it was too useful -- it identified too many criminals who were black -- and its use was discontinued for that reason (sorry, I can't remember details about it).
The point is that you are right. I suspect that many new genetic technologies never even become known to the public at all, because people are aware that they and their developers will be called racist.
Unfortunately in the west, doing research into intelligence and genes will become harder and harder. Thing will get worse, not better. The only way this field will make progress is when the Singaporean/Taiwanese/Chinese biobanks become as good as the UK biobanks. Singapore and Taiwan have national single payer health insurance. So they can track people's diseases over time (a crucial requirement in keeping the biobank up to date). China's biobank will be awesome when it gets up and running. Competition will spur innovation.
If you seek to change the world, you must first understand it. The single biggest barrier to understanding the world is one’s own preconceived notions.
Well thought out commentary. Admittedly I don’t particularly care if one group or another are “left out”. That’s their problem, I care about my group. I suspect that when this”gap” becomes admitted—or rather polygenetic scoring becomes accepted as the *tool* to bring about true racial equality, funds will be expended to close any gaps in polygenetic scoring between the races. The funding of such is really not significant.
I also suspect that when progressives become aware of the problem of ethnic portability of polygenic scores, it will cause some cognitive dissonance between the dogma that "race is just a social construct" and the reality that it has a genetic basis.
Won't selection just move the entire distribution to the right, assuming mass adoption? Or does the expected gain from selection differ based on where you start in the distribution? If it just shifts the entire distribution right, the differences will remain and lofty goals of equality will remain unrealized.
Social justice (smart): Let's expand data collection to other ethnic groups at scale in order to remove any intelligence gap if such do exist.
Social justice (actually existing): *autistic screeching*
I largely disagree with your point on general intelligence by ancestor group on epigenetic grounds. A recent Lancet Article found that African groups in North Africa showed some of the highest levels of vitamin D deficiency on the planet- amongst populations who spend much of their day outside in sunshine and receive exercise far in excess of the average Westerner.
Meta-analysis of vitamin D deficiency and lower IQ are inconclusive, but vitamin D deficiency is strongly correlated with low birth weight, premature birth, pre-eclampsia and maternal death in childhood, but many of these studies on vitamin D deficiency and IQ likely mistakenly excluded these factors from their multivariate analysis (although it may well be the case that these factors are still at least somewhat genetic in some groups, rather than fully epigenetic).
You are no doubt aware of the Flynn effect and the fact that racial IQ gaps have closed. It may well be that a large portion of the remaining gap is due to strong differences in vitamin D deficiency by ancestor group, and could be remedied by something as banal as maternal and childhood vitamin D supplementation.
On a related note, have you heard of duplicons? I became quite excited when I read about them. It might be the case that any humans and their other close relatives experience mutations, duplicons could empower a far faster rate of 'emergent utility' as sex selection and survival optimises other areas of the genome, in order to maximise the benefits of new positive mutations.
I understand your desire to defend environmental hypotheses to explain group differences in IQ. But none of this is relevant. Even if there were no phenotypic differences between ethnic groups (which is false), there are genotypic differences. That’s why you need ethnically diverse genetic datasets to generate useable polygenic risk scores for different groups.
I’m not just making this up. Everyone in the field knows it, which is why those new biobanks are being created. The only point I’m making is that if they don’t include IQ testing in these new datasets, those ethnic groups won’t be able to use PRS to guide embryo selection.
I didn't mean to suggest that phenotypic differences didn't exist- merely that some of the issues they create might be more easily remediable than previously thought. I understand the reluctance over environmental factors. The field has suffered from so many wild goose chases and fictions it's unreal. The span of educational quality amounts to no more than 4 points of difference, and socio-economics is only indirectly a factor unless it influences diet- the Guatemala showed that sugar as a substitute for more nutritious foods in early childhood, amounted to about 8 points in cognitive development, as well as the associated impulse control issues leading to worse life decision.
Vitamin D deficiency is like diet in that it directly influences oxygen absorption to the blood and hence to the brain. I'm sure you're aware that vastly improved cardiovascular function is about the only deliberate thing which can increase IQ, and then only modestly. This is likely to have a stronger effect during childhood development.
The other thing I wanted to ask was did you have any polygenic GWAS, look exclusively at IQ rather than educational outcomes and only look at Western populations of various ancestor groups? Any study which looks at educational outcomes as a substitute or an intermediary step to IQ is innately flawed and has to be thrown out. Jenson advocates tend to assume that conditions must be different for the same ancestors groups across different Western countries. This simply isn't true, or is only true to a very small degree. In education in particular, where terrible ideas tend to spread across the porous borders of the realm of ideas like a virus, the impact has been awful, for some groups more than others. Please link any GWAS studies on IQ you might have.
The one exception is the UK, and specifically London. The roots of the change stem from Northern Ireland, where differences in education outcomes between Northern Irish Catholics and Northern Irish Protestants was a huge embarrassment for the Progressive Educational Establishment for nearly two decades. The Catholics more traditional (and strict) education, backed up by a higher rate of fathers in the community, meant the demographic which was socioeconomically and socially underprivileged was significantly outperforming the cohort which was more affluent and grew up in better environments.
The literature on the subject is scant. Government and educational bureaucracies in particular, don't advertise their failures. But when it came time to address what were once abysmal educational outcomes for some minority groups in London, you can bet your bottom dollar they deployed all the lessons learned from Northern Ireland. Apparently it is OK to have traditional education and strict schools, provided the goal is to raise the academic outcomes of minority students (as well as the white peers lucky enough to be living in the same geographical area).
Back in Northern Ireland, the educational effect was so strong it reversed the socio-economics of Catholics and Protestants. Where once Protestants lived in leafy suburbs and Catholics lived in council houses, the Catholics are now affluent and the Protestants are poor. Of course, the Left is now blaming the difference in educational outcomes on socio-economics!
On the subject of IVF, have they managed to resolve some of the problems with the technology? It was my understanding that the technology can activate redundant genes, causing defects- or am I wrong?
To your first question, yes: I don't want to get into too many details, but they exist for some biobanks.
Interesting comments about Ireland, which I didn't know anything about.
To your second question, no: there's no evidence I'm aware of that IVF results in genetic mutations or defects. There are a few older studies that showed women who use IVF had children with slightly worse outcomes than those who don't, but the consensus is that this is a function of the fact that women who use IVF tend to be older and have other health issues compared to those who don't. That will change, of course, when people start doing elective IVF in order to take advantage of polygenic testing.
That's interesting. I had heard that Down's Syndrome was more common for older women- it's interesting to find out that this is a general genetic problem.
My other point would be that if vitamin D deficiency is a significant factor in determining IQ, then it would appear in the genetics. It probably effects all populations to a degree, given that almost all people are vitamin D deficient. It would just affect some populations more than others. In other words, the inability to synthesise, absorb or preserve vitamin D already appears in the data, both at the genetic and polygenic layers.
Let's not forget that white skin and fairer hair only emerged as a result of the fact that women in more northerly climes couldn't bring babies to term as frequently or healthily without this benign adaption. It also seems to have conferred a redundant advantage with only came to the fore when civilisation advanced beyond the Roman/Greek stage.