(1) To get the supplemental .txt files to display correctly, open them in e.g. Excel or OpenOffice-Calc, and choose "tab" (and make sure "space" is *not* selected) as the separator (like so: https://ibb.co/p610NZdv); it'll display as a spreadsheet, with everything nicely tabulated therein.
--------------------------
(2) I have sometimes seen people of a certain stripe deny that there is any censorship of genetic data, *in re* heritability (esp. inter-racial) of cognitive traits; have you—meaning our esteemed host, Hr. E.K. (...or, for that matter, anyone else with relevant input!)—written, or encountered, any useful resource(s) on the topic?
(I've encountered many different sources reporting that this sort of censorship absolutely does obtain—we see it here, again: viz., bullshit "ethics restrictions"—but it'd be nice to have a more complete picture.)
Veterans as a whole are suspicious of anything involving the govt having access to their genomic sequencing. This would trigger many veterans mh issues. Trust me i've been one for 30 plus years and my data was included in the original data set of the MVP when it came into existence. Maybe not such a good idea although I do see the utility in it and as a professional I understand but most veterans wouldnt or couldnt. I really enjoy your analysis of this. This is one of the few places online where I can actually talk about things like this from a research and practical perspective. Im lucky to have the unique perspective of being a retired clinical psychologist and now a researcher and scientist myself. Sometimes I think my absolute true calling still it's very helpful to have the kinds of professional experiences I had in order to be more full informed. Thanks for the update.
I've had to do this many, many times, for various papers in which the data is poorly formatted or not amenable to further analysis---in fact... maybe I ought to make a little post about the tips & tricks I've had to learn over many hours of such struggle, heh (e.g., Claude does way better than any other LLM, in my experience, at extracting & re-tabulating data from PDFs; ChatGPT is presently superior in most other respects, but there's no contest when it comes to "get this data out of this file & into another format please")---but in this case, there's no need: the .txt files display correctly if you open them in Excel or OpenOffice Calc with "tab" (& only tab!) selected as the separator.
The original paper clearly made heavy use of AI writing. The section in prior GWASes has that distinctly ‘generated’ tone, which also explains the mixup between Savage and Hu 2025. I’m not opposed to AI writing in principle but it does make me question the reliability or dedication of the authors if they weren’t able to correct such obvious errors, or reword the AI output to be less stiff.
“We could not analyse EA and cognitive traits because of ethics restrictions”. It would be nice to know which asshole blocked this research."
- when using abbreviations, please explain what they stand for at least once. I do not know what
"EA" means in this sentence.
In my field - medicine - there are over 2,000 abbreviations (no one knows exactly how many), many having different meanings depending on which specialty is using them.
People who work in a given area tend to assume everyone knows what the abbreviations commonly used in that area mean, but that's a fallacious assumption.
Looks like shared biological architecture for "cognitive capacity". EF looks like the implementation layer, could be a bottleneck for general ability. IQ tests reduce general EF demands, bottleneck can be bypassed. In more real-world settings, IQ might not become fully visible if there is low EF level. The question for IQ-realist (general) education: How much (and how) can we improve executive function?
(1) To get the supplemental .txt files to display correctly, open them in e.g. Excel or OpenOffice-Calc, and choose "tab" (and make sure "space" is *not* selected) as the separator (like so: https://ibb.co/p610NZdv); it'll display as a spreadsheet, with everything nicely tabulated therein.
--------------------------
(2) I have sometimes seen people of a certain stripe deny that there is any censorship of genetic data, *in re* heritability (esp. inter-racial) of cognitive traits; have you—meaning our esteemed host, Hr. E.K. (...or, for that matter, anyone else with relevant input!)—written, or encountered, any useful resource(s) on the topic?
(I've encountered many different sources reporting that this sort of censorship absolutely does obtain—we see it here, again: viz., bullshit "ethics restrictions"—but it'd be nice to have a more complete picture.)
Veterans as a whole are suspicious of anything involving the govt having access to their genomic sequencing. This would trigger many veterans mh issues. Trust me i've been one for 30 plus years and my data was included in the original data set of the MVP when it came into existence. Maybe not such a good idea although I do see the utility in it and as a professional I understand but most veterans wouldnt or couldnt. I really enjoy your analysis of this. This is one of the few places online where I can actually talk about things like this from a research and practical perspective. Im lucky to have the unique perspective of being a retired clinical psychologist and now a researcher and scientist myself. Sometimes I think my absolute true calling still it's very helpful to have the kinds of professional experiences I had in order to be more full informed. Thanks for the update.
Your favourite llm should be able to recreate the tables from the txt files
I've had to do this many, many times, for various papers in which the data is poorly formatted or not amenable to further analysis---in fact... maybe I ought to make a little post about the tips & tricks I've had to learn over many hours of such struggle, heh (e.g., Claude does way better than any other LLM, in my experience, at extracting & re-tabulating data from PDFs; ChatGPT is presently superior in most other respects, but there's no contest when it comes to "get this data out of this file & into another format please")---but in this case, there's no need: the .txt files display correctly if you open them in Excel or OpenOffice Calc with "tab" (& only tab!) selected as the separator.
The original paper clearly made heavy use of AI writing. The section in prior GWASes has that distinctly ‘generated’ tone, which also explains the mixup between Savage and Hu 2025. I’m not opposed to AI writing in principle but it does make me question the reliability or dedication of the authors if they weren’t able to correct such obvious errors, or reword the AI output to be less stiff.
“We could not analyse EA and cognitive traits because of ethics restrictions”. It would be nice to know which asshole blocked this research."
- when using abbreviations, please explain what they stand for at least once. I do not know what
"EA" means in this sentence.
In my field - medicine - there are over 2,000 abbreviations (no one knows exactly how many), many having different meanings depending on which specialty is using them.
People who work in a given area tend to assume everyone knows what the abbreviations commonly used in that area mean, but that's a fallacious assumption.
My guess is Educational Attainment
Guessing proves my point.
Agreed. I’m not a fan of abbreviations that only appear once. First use should always be accompanied by what it abbreviates.
Amen
Emil, thanks for the update on the recent research on genomic prediction of cognitive ability
"It would be nice to know which asshole blocked this research."
And an asshole they truly are. One can pretty accurately surmise what the finding was.
Looks like shared biological architecture for "cognitive capacity". EF looks like the implementation layer, could be a bottleneck for general ability. IQ tests reduce general EF demands, bottleneck can be bypassed. In more real-world settings, IQ might not become fully visible if there is low EF level. The question for IQ-realist (general) education: How much (and how) can we improve executive function?