I'm wondering if your finding that the MRI model for predicting IQ is better across races than within races because it's figuring out how to predict race from the MRI isn't evidence for a bit of social constructionist Nurture Effect. E.g., if you look at just the structure of the brain within each racial group, the model would predict this kid's IQ would be 85. But when the model looks across races and hence it figures out this kid is likely black, then it lowers his prediction to 80. Or whatever.
It's kind of like if you were making an AI model to find the best basketball player based on physical traits and you find a black kid with fairly white physical traits (e.g., arms aren't that long, torso is long relative to legs, can't jump that high), but then it turns out that if you let the model know the kid is black, then it raises its prediction, perhaps because there are other physical advantages blacks have at basketball that the model doesn't know about. Or perhaps because African-Americans tend to have more experience playing basketball because they don't waste their time growing up playing baseball or golf or tennis or swimming. They love basketball. So, contemporary African-Americans tend to be smart about basketball due to their huge time investment in the game.
Conversely, if the IQ model figures out the kid is black, well, he's probably playing more basketball than reading books and doing other things that might have a modest positive effect on IQ.
As you laid out in your basketball analogy, it could be either environmental or genetic effects that the model is inferring from the extra categorical information of race. This study can't shed light on which is causing the racial differences.
While this paper doesn't directly address whether brain differences are due to genetic or environmental differences., what it does do is provide even further proof that intellegence is due to the physical properties of the brain rather than magic--which indirectly lends credence to heriditarianism.
This explains crime rates, and who to hire and not hire.
It also shows the obvious, hard living results in higher intelligence, and easy living is very easy for anyone.
When food is everywhere as in warmer climates, survival is simple enough for even the low IQ.
When food is scarce as in cold climates, only smart thinking permits survival.
I'm calling for increase in global warming taxes so we can get these smarter people out of their polluting cars, and back into the bushes were they belong.
And lets Vaccinate the high IQs so we can depopulate them, for the good of everyone.
Asking out of ignorance, How this explain the high IQ of Singapore and the Chinese and Japanese? Or maybe these are hard climates compared to some tropical / other global south ones.
Fascinating, although way beyond my statistical knowledge.
I do have one question: you say Hispanics are largely of European descent.
But most Hispanics here in the southwest are mestizo - meaning, significant amerindian heritage, apparently (based on appearance) often a pretty high percentage of their ancestry.
So I'd ask: where did you get the Hispanic sample?
Inuit's low IQ is odd with largest brain and coldest climate.
《Boucher et al. (2009, Table 1) measured the IQ of a group of
Inuit people with a mean age of 34.75y from Nunavik. A mean SPM-raw score of 35.25 was calculated which had to be converted to a mean APM-raw score of 5.73, which is at the 2.03rd GBR-P
and equivalent to an uncor. IQ of 69.30 and a cor. IQ of 68.46 after
How do you know that your sample of whites is higher class, and blacks "lower" class? Isn't that extending personal bias into it. Why not just let the results stand as they are. Did you shop for more intelligent whites and less intelligent blacks? No? You simply took a sampling. A sampling is just that a sampling! Why is further explanation called for? The comment on the sample of blacks being a higher percentage of "lower class" I find annoying, or should I say excuse giving. If results had been reversed would you have referred to the white figure as "a sampling"! If we are going to have equity, then let's have actual equity for a change, an let the chips fall where they may.
I looked at the detailed demographics of either this ABCD database or the Philadelphia one that Emil has worked on and the white families skewed more upper middle class than the national average for whites (e.g., 40% of parents had a postgraduate degree), while the black families were more underclass than the national average.
Itsy_bitsy: You ask several questions here yet for each, you also suggest answers, refute those answers with rationale, then give suggestive commentary. Isn’t this line of rhetorical questioning exactly what you might claim to desire to eliminate from discourse (assuming you might also mean “equality” rather than “equity”)? Maybe you can re-frame your questions in a bit more unbiased way since it’s this unbiasing that you strive to achieve?
Looks like Steve Sailor (an adopted child with post graduate degrees) took your troll bait as an opportunity to answer the question he might have wanted to see asked .. one where he could define social class as educational attainment. Honestly, I’d rather see that correlation than financial (or racial) anyway. But really, that’s still funny now, particularly given todays educational establishment. Incentives matter. And if you believe in IQ, it makes sense that IQ and educational attainment should be correlated, perhaps even if what’s being taught is not that smart at all. Maybe he’s just talking about old people?
Thanks. Most impressive.
I'm wondering if your finding that the MRI model for predicting IQ is better across races than within races because it's figuring out how to predict race from the MRI isn't evidence for a bit of social constructionist Nurture Effect. E.g., if you look at just the structure of the brain within each racial group, the model would predict this kid's IQ would be 85. But when the model looks across races and hence it figures out this kid is likely black, then it lowers his prediction to 80. Or whatever.
It's kind of like if you were making an AI model to find the best basketball player based on physical traits and you find a black kid with fairly white physical traits (e.g., arms aren't that long, torso is long relative to legs, can't jump that high), but then it turns out that if you let the model know the kid is black, then it raises its prediction, perhaps because there are other physical advantages blacks have at basketball that the model doesn't know about. Or perhaps because African-Americans tend to have more experience playing basketball because they don't waste their time growing up playing baseball or golf or tennis or swimming. They love basketball. So, contemporary African-Americans tend to be smart about basketball due to their huge time investment in the game.
Conversely, if the IQ model figures out the kid is black, well, he's probably playing more basketball than reading books and doing other things that might have a modest positive effect on IQ.
What do you think?
As you laid out in your basketball analogy, it could be either environmental or genetic effects that the model is inferring from the extra categorical information of race. This study can't shed light on which is causing the racial differences.
While this paper doesn't directly address whether brain differences are due to genetic or environmental differences., what it does do is provide even further proof that intellegence is due to the physical properties of the brain rather than magic--which indirectly lends credence to heriditarianism.
This explains crime rates, and who to hire and not hire.
It also shows the obvious, hard living results in higher intelligence, and easy living is very easy for anyone.
When food is everywhere as in warmer climates, survival is simple enough for even the low IQ.
When food is scarce as in cold climates, only smart thinking permits survival.
I'm calling for increase in global warming taxes so we can get these smarter people out of their polluting cars, and back into the bushes were they belong.
And lets Vaccinate the high IQs so we can depopulate them, for the good of everyone.
#Vax whitey
Asking out of ignorance, How this explain the high IQ of Singapore and the Chinese and Japanese? Or maybe these are hard climates compared to some tropical / other global south ones.
Fascinating, although way beyond my statistical knowledge.
I do have one question: you say Hispanics are largely of European descent.
But most Hispanics here in the southwest are mestizo - meaning, significant amerindian heritage, apparently (based on appearance) often a pretty high percentage of their ancestry.
So I'd ask: where did you get the Hispanic sample?
Live and get along with what you have, and don't take advantage of others. Easier said than done.
You should really be marketing an offshoot of this to hospitals for use in rehab'ing stroke victims.
Inuit's low IQ is odd with largest brain and coldest climate.
《Boucher et al. (2009, Table 1) measured the IQ of a group of
Inuit people with a mean age of 34.75y from Nunavik. A mean SPM-raw score of 35.25 was calculated which had to be converted to a mean APM-raw score of 5.73, which is at the 2.03rd GBR-P
and equivalent to an uncor. IQ of 69.30 and a cor. IQ of 68.46 after
reduced by 0.84 for FE-correction.》
Outliers do exist. You may want cold for high IQ, but too extreme means inverse relationship.
This of often the case with stuff. A hot bath is good, too hot is death. You want the right medium. Middle path.
I don't believe the hispanic numbers are that high...
How do you know that your sample of whites is higher class, and blacks "lower" class? Isn't that extending personal bias into it. Why not just let the results stand as they are. Did you shop for more intelligent whites and less intelligent blacks? No? You simply took a sampling. A sampling is just that a sampling! Why is further explanation called for? The comment on the sample of blacks being a higher percentage of "lower class" I find annoying, or should I say excuse giving. If results had been reversed would you have referred to the white figure as "a sampling"! If we are going to have equity, then let's have actual equity for a change, an let the chips fall where they may.
I looked at the detailed demographics of either this ABCD database or the Philadelphia one that Emil has worked on and the white families skewed more upper middle class than the national average for whites (e.g., 40% of parents had a postgraduate degree), while the black families were more underclass than the national average.
Itsy_bitsy: You ask several questions here yet for each, you also suggest answers, refute those answers with rationale, then give suggestive commentary. Isn’t this line of rhetorical questioning exactly what you might claim to desire to eliminate from discourse (assuming you might also mean “equality” rather than “equity”)? Maybe you can re-frame your questions in a bit more unbiased way since it’s this unbiasing that you strive to achieve?
Looks like Steve Sailor (an adopted child with post graduate degrees) took your troll bait as an opportunity to answer the question he might have wanted to see asked .. one where he could define social class as educational attainment. Honestly, I’d rather see that correlation than financial (or racial) anyway. But really, that’s still funny now, particularly given todays educational establishment. Incentives matter. And if you believe in IQ, it makes sense that IQ and educational attainment should be correlated, perhaps even if what’s being taught is not that smart at all. Maybe he’s just talking about old people?