Truly and I wholeheartedly mean it when I say bravo to you for taking upon the most honorable duty of taking a fat dump on Sasha Gusev and his mystical pseudo-analytic voodoo bogus, only thing that could make it better is if you were able to literally shit on his face
According to my interpretation, GWAS is probably still missing a lot of heritability across the board. The fact that similar heritability for height and IQ has not been found means that IQ probably is not as heritable as height.
"Advances in GWAS methodology will probably lead to higher heritability estimates for IQ, but it is virtually certain that they will be much lower than those derived from twin/adoption studies. GWAS are already measuring the influence of millions of gene variants. GWAS have already found a moderately strong heritability for height of 45%. There is every reason to believe that if twin/adoption studies were correct about IQ heritability, GWAS would have found higher heritability by now."
The study you reference finds a large heritability difference between height and IQ just as the others have, supporting my view and Gusev's.
I read the article but you're just trying to blow smoke into everyone's eyes in order to obscure the fact that these GWAS studies consistently find IQ is lower than height heritability and distract them from the most likely explanation for that fact.
The test used in the UKB only has a moderate correlation with g. It’s like saying the heritability of SAT scores is lower than g. You can find the test here.
Apologies if I am missing something but didn't you fail to adress the main points of this article? That is that the heritability of intelligence remains the same once one extracts g out of IQ (what we are really looking for) and that the heritability of height is suspiciously low
Your hypothesis that IQ is not roughly as heritable as height might be true, but it wouldn’t be true for the reason that Sasha Gusev mentioned (cultural confounding) because his evidence for this (a difference between direct and population SNP chip estimates) did not replicate.
Sasha also pointed to the difference in heritability as evidence for his thesis. “I’m quite certain that 45% is larger than 5% though perhaps the race scientists will come up with some new math to debunk this.” He was right about the Howe et al. study. You are right that the Tan et al. study is apparently not showing that the population-based measure is more environmentally confounded than the family-based measure. We should look at future GWAS making the same comparison and see whether the pattern is more like that seen in Howe et al. or Tan et al. Also, we should keep in mind that GWAS are quite difficult to interpret.
1. Even if you don’t believe in g, that’s just a bias in favor easier to find genetic effects. I don’t think that’s enough to overturn twin study literature.
2. If you do believe in g theory, and that IQ tests are trying to imperfectly measure some latent measure of intelligence, then this doesn’t follow. Correcting for measurement error seems to close the gap between height and IQ.
Truly and I wholeheartedly mean it when I say bravo to you for taking upon the most honorable duty of taking a fat dump on Sasha Gusev and his mystical pseudo-analytic voodoo bogus, only thing that could make it better is if you were able to literally shit on his face
According to my interpretation, GWAS is probably still missing a lot of heritability across the board. The fact that similar heritability for height and IQ has not been found means that IQ probably is not as heritable as height.
"Advances in GWAS methodology will probably lead to higher heritability estimates for IQ, but it is virtually certain that they will be much lower than those derived from twin/adoption studies. GWAS are already measuring the influence of millions of gene variants. GWAS have already found a moderately strong heritability for height of 45%. There is every reason to believe that if twin/adoption studies were correct about IQ heritability, GWAS would have found higher heritability by now."
The study you reference finds a large heritability difference between height and IQ just as the others have, supporting my view and Gusev's.
https://open.substack.com/pub/eclecticinquiries/p/twin-studies-exaggerate-iq-heritability?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Free lifetime paysub to first commenter to correctly explain why this guy didn't read the article ^
I read the article but you're just trying to blow smoke into everyone's eyes in order to obscure the fact that these GWAS studies consistently find IQ is lower than height heritability and distract them from the most likely explanation for that fact.
You did not read the article, you show no awareness of my argument that the general intelligence SNP h^2 is the same as the height SNP h^2.
The test used in the UKB only has a moderate correlation with g. It’s like saying the heritability of SAT scores is lower than g. You can find the test here.
https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/ukb/docs/FluidIntelligence.pdf
It’s literally a 2 minute test with a test-retest reliability of 0.55 compared to over 0.9+ for WAIS FSIQ.
Apologies if I am missing something but didn't you fail to adress the main points of this article? That is that the heritability of intelligence remains the same once one extracts g out of IQ (what we are really looking for) and that the heritability of height is suspiciously low
Your hypothesis that IQ is not roughly as heritable as height might be true, but it wouldn’t be true for the reason that Sasha Gusev mentioned (cultural confounding) because his evidence for this (a difference between direct and population SNP chip estimates) did not replicate.
Sasha also pointed to the difference in heritability as evidence for his thesis. “I’m quite certain that 45% is larger than 5% though perhaps the race scientists will come up with some new math to debunk this.” He was right about the Howe et al. study. You are right that the Tan et al. study is apparently not showing that the population-based measure is more environmentally confounded than the family-based measure. We should look at future GWAS making the same comparison and see whether the pattern is more like that seen in Howe et al. or Tan et al. Also, we should keep in mind that GWAS are quite difficult to interpret.
https://open.substack.com/pub/theinfinitesimal/p/no-intelligence-is-not-like-height?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
1. Even if you don’t believe in g, that’s just a bias in favor easier to find genetic effects. I don’t think that’s enough to overturn twin study literature.
2. If you do believe in g theory, and that IQ tests are trying to imperfectly measure some latent measure of intelligence, then this doesn’t follow. Correcting for measurement error seems to close the gap between height and IQ.
*in favor of