Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023Liked by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
Repeated sentence in the last paragraph. "Note that randomness in the justice system deflates the heritability estimates (true value 50%, observed at 0% bias is about 40%). Note that randomness in the justice system deflates the heritability estimates." Also, "We can also show that adding a chance element to this doesn't effect matters." Should be affect. Feel free to delete this, obviously.
Heritability studies, being family studies, of course examine the causes of variations within groups only--within Whites only or within Blacks only. Somehow you can be a PhD student at Harvard and still know nothing more than a typical normie about heritability studies. The topic of statistics is expansive, and maybe you get only a brief glimpse of heritability study methods until and through grad school. I would like to blame affirmative action, but speaking so confidently and so wrongly about a topic you know almost nothing about seems to follow mainly from being on the safe side of the debate. Nobody except the deplorables will hold you accountable.
I genuinely hope someone shares this for him. Ego plus education sometimes makes people think they are intelligent, when really they just passed the right classes and need to leave it at that.
Carr is tellingly inconsistent. In his Twitter example of a normal distribution, he employes height and explains the variation entirely in terms of multiple genetic loci. Yet for intelligence, differences across ethnic groups, which if plotted using geographic sampling of indigenous = pre-1500 populations, would undoubtedly show a quasi-normal distribution, cannot have a genetic basis.
When the phenotype has a social nature (so it is endogenous, as economists say, that is affected by individual choices) then there are additional difficulties, because the response at equilibrium of different groups may differ, depending on beliefs people have on the parameters and on the behavior of others. This consideration applies to criminal behavior, or discipline in school, or effort in career building.
This general consideration produces another argument to be considered. Economists analyze this issue under the heading of statistical discrimination. (I consider these issues in my next post in Aporia Magazine).
Sad, but your conclusion wrt Kareem Carr was what I came to simply from the reading of the first Twitter exchange. This is an old pattern often seen with mediocrities—especially in the academic field. Self promotion and over confidence seems another “inheritable” that of the race.
What would the heritability be for the whole population, Whites and Blacks?
Repeated sentence in the last paragraph. "Note that randomness in the justice system deflates the heritability estimates (true value 50%, observed at 0% bias is about 40%). Note that randomness in the justice system deflates the heritability estimates." Also, "We can also show that adding a chance element to this doesn't effect matters." Should be affect. Feel free to delete this, obviously.
The ad hominem attack is not a good look, Emil. If you think he's wrong, say so. That's enough.
Heritability studies, being family studies, of course examine the causes of variations within groups only--within Whites only or within Blacks only. Somehow you can be a PhD student at Harvard and still know nothing more than a typical normie about heritability studies. The topic of statistics is expansive, and maybe you get only a brief glimpse of heritability study methods until and through grad school. I would like to blame affirmative action, but speaking so confidently and so wrongly about a topic you know almost nothing about seems to follow mainly from being on the safe side of the debate. Nobody except the deplorables will hold you accountable.
I genuinely hope someone shares this for him. Ego plus education sometimes makes people think they are intelligent, when really they just passed the right classes and need to leave it at that.
Carr is tellingly inconsistent. In his Twitter example of a normal distribution, he employes height and explains the variation entirely in terms of multiple genetic loci. Yet for intelligence, differences across ethnic groups, which if plotted using geographic sampling of indigenous = pre-1500 populations, would undoubtedly show a quasi-normal distribution, cannot have a genetic basis.
https://twitter.com/kareem_carr/status/1651999301571162142
When the phenotype has a social nature (so it is endogenous, as economists say, that is affected by individual choices) then there are additional difficulties, because the response at equilibrium of different groups may differ, depending on beliefs people have on the parameters and on the behavior of others. This consideration applies to criminal behavior, or discipline in school, or effort in career building.
This general consideration produces another argument to be considered. Economists analyze this issue under the heading of statistical discrimination. (I consider these issues in my next post in Aporia Magazine).
Sad, but your conclusion wrt Kareem Carr was what I came to simply from the reading of the first Twitter exchange. This is an old pattern often seen with mediocrities—especially in the academic field. Self promotion and over confidence seems another “inheritable” that of the race.