If there are dysgenic or eugenic trends, then it is easy to see why populations must differ in average. Plus, he thinks that opens a door for eugenism. Those are the main reasons of Adam's unhappiness.
Reading your study synopsis, a thought comes to mind—what is meant by “immigrants”? I say this because in the last stages of the Republic, the influx of slaves from newly conquered Gaul and other provinces was huge. I’ve read as much as 40% of the population in Italy were slaves. Indeed, Octavian was much beloved because he passed a law requiring farmers to *hire* a percentage of Roman citizens as vs all slaves. Not sure how this changes findings, but it could sure account for a quick injection of foreign DNA into a population.
If Romans in the Roman Republic averaged a PGS of around 1, and after the fall of the empire they hovered around or just above 0, then what would their estimated IQ be in these different eras?
A PGS of 1 = 110 IQ, and a PGS of 0 = 100 IQ, correct?
Are you sure the polygenic scores might not be skewed based on modern populations? My thought process is, that because there was an influx in Eastern DNA during the Imperial period, and modern Easterners are lower IQ, then there might be certain genes associated with lower IQ today by virtue of being associated with the Near East, but not actually have any direct relation to IQ. But, I could be wrong. I'm no expert on Polygenic scores
We need to dig out all the skeletons from all the graveyards to acquire all the genomic data we can from previous time periods. Archaeological genomics is the most promising novel field out there for understanding the evolution of human civilizations, I think, because of the amount of potential data out there in the form of human remains across tens of thousands of years, especially recent remains from the last millennium. We have the ability to do smth that couldn't even be imagined just a decade ago. This is going to be really fun and will make many Adam Rutherfords even more angry than they were before.
I know way too little about genetics, so please excuse (or better cure!) my ignorance. Does the Z score represent the expression of the gene in question relative to a modern population (which would have an score of zero)?
Yes, Z is a normal distributed variable with mean 0 and standard deviation 1 (for the population that was used to calculate it). If you want to translate the numbers to IQ, 0 means 100 and 1 means 115.
There are, of course, many reasons why you can not really use a PGS on a different population (here they differ both in time and race).
If there are dysgenic or eugenic trends, then it is easy to see why populations must differ in average. Plus, he thinks that opens a door for eugenism. Those are the main reasons of Adam's unhappiness.
Reading your study synopsis, a thought comes to mind—what is meant by “immigrants”? I say this because in the last stages of the Republic, the influx of slaves from newly conquered Gaul and other provinces was huge. I’ve read as much as 40% of the population in Italy were slaves. Indeed, Octavian was much beloved because he passed a law requiring farmers to *hire* a percentage of Roman citizens as vs all slaves. Not sure how this changes findings, but it could sure account for a quick injection of foreign DNA into a population.
Yes, that's what is meant. If you read the source paper, you can see they discuss the changing ancestry. Razib Khan also has good writings on the genomics of ancient Rome. https://razib.substack.com/p/they-came-they-saw-they-left-no-trace
If Romans in the Roman Republic averaged a PGS of around 1, and after the fall of the empire they hovered around or just above 0, then what would their estimated IQ be in these different eras?
A PGS of 1 = 110 IQ, and a PGS of 0 = 100 IQ, correct?
1 is 115 IQ
The scaling of PGS to IQ is not obvious with such data.
Are you sure the polygenic scores might not be skewed based on modern populations? My thought process is, that because there was an influx in Eastern DNA during the Imperial period, and modern Easterners are lower IQ, then there might be certain genes associated with lower IQ today by virtue of being associated with the Near East, but not actually have any direct relation to IQ. But, I could be wrong. I'm no expert on Polygenic scores
How were the z scores normed?
Was this study pre-registered?
Did you ever see this Emil?
https://woolyai.substack.com/p/comments-on-kirkegaards-smart-fraction
You need more human samples to confirm the theory but it seems you're going in the good direction
We need to dig out all the skeletons from all the graveyards to acquire all the genomic data we can from previous time periods. Archaeological genomics is the most promising novel field out there for understanding the evolution of human civilizations, I think, because of the amount of potential data out there in the form of human remains across tens of thousands of years, especially recent remains from the last millennium. We have the ability to do smth that couldn't even be imagined just a decade ago. This is going to be really fun and will make many Adam Rutherfords even more angry than they were before.
I know way too little about genetics, so please excuse (or better cure!) my ignorance. Does the Z score represent the expression of the gene in question relative to a modern population (which would have an score of zero)?
Yes, Z is a normal distributed variable with mean 0 and standard deviation 1 (for the population that was used to calculate it). If you want to translate the numbers to IQ, 0 means 100 and 1 means 115.
There are, of course, many reasons why you can not really use a PGS on a different population (here they differ both in time and race).