Naronic,
I see that your level on this topic as lower than I expected from when I read this thread for the first time. I can beat even when I'm sleeping. I'm disappointed.
You said : "Firstly the Flynn effect doesn't mean nothing because you think it’s secular and fails to raise a statistical artifact to your satisfaction"
And I ask : what's the point of repeating an argument I crashed once in my previous interventions ? What's the use ? This is not a reply.
You said :"G simply comes from the stipulation that people whom are good at one test tend to be good at them all, and vice versa, and it’s relevance only goes as far as it’s correlations and estimates."
In my previous comment, I cited this paper. No comment from you.
You said : "measurement in-variance (which we've already discussed can't explain 20 point jumps in IQ)"
As usual, you're being ridiculous. FE gains vanish entirely when using IRT scores to remove item bias. I told you before to read it.
You spew : "Another area which you seem not to get me (as shown by you linking to Sesardic's paper) is how heritablility works."
It's a fantastic argument. Also, I bet I know how heritability works, much better than you do (as shown by you linking to Ted Block's paper).
You said : "It's why 'heritability' tends to become unpredictable when SES comes into play with a lot of different studies reporting a lot of different heritabilities at both sides of the spectrum, as well as why it tends to 'increase with age'."
At the same time, evidence does not support this hypothesis. I said it in my very first intervention on this thread. But you still continue ignoring my comments.
For the increasing IQ heritability with age, as your entire previous paragraph suggests, you rely on G*E correlation. I pointed out to this article. No reply, as usual. GxE correlation as accounting for increasing heritability is not the only hypothesized model, and as such is unlikely to be tenable. See also Brant 2013 comment on it, in the discussion section.
You said : "Me citing ned block 'worries' you because it's old (sigh),"
But I never said it. Learn to read. Simply. The problems with Block is that some genetic analyses were not available at that time. So yes, you must learn to read, as evidenced here and there, if you people here want to see why I said his level of comprehension on this topic is weak.
You said : "This paper in question finding that some genes can account for 1% of variation in IQ."
So, that's why in their paper, the authors write :
Only 1% (approximately) of the variance was explained in the prediction analysis due to the individual SNP effects being very small and therefore estimated with much error, which detracts to a great extent from the accuracy (8–11%) of the prediction equation. Our finding that 40–50% of phenotypic variation is explained by all SNPs is fully consistent with the low precision of a predictor based upon a discovery sample of ~3500 individuals; estimation of the SNPs’ effects is different from prediction accuracy.
Also, from Chabris (2012) :
Following Davies et al. (2011), we then dropped individuals whose relatedness exceeded .025. Davies et al. reported that the approximately 550,000 SNPs in their data could jointly explain 40% of the variation in crystalized g (N = 3,254) and 51% of the variation in fluid g (N = 3,181). We applied the same procedure in our analysis of data from the STR sample in Study 3 and estimated that the approximately 630,000 SNPs in our data jointly accounted for 47% of the variance in g (p < .02), thus confirming the findings of Davies et al. (2011) in an independent sample. These and our other results, together with the failure to date of whole-genome association studies to find genes associated with g, are consistent with the view that g is a highly polygenic trait on which common genetic variants individually have only small effects.
From Plomin (2013) :
We found that DNA markers tagged by the array accounted for .66 of the estimated heritability, reaffirming that cognitive abilities are heritable.
GCTA has been used to estimate heritability as captured by genotyping arrays for height (Yang et al., 2010), weight (Yang, Manolio, et al., 2011), psychiatric and other medical disorders (Lee et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2011; Lubke et al., 2012), and personality (Vinkhuyzen, Pedersen, et al., 2012). GCTA was first applied to cognitive ability in a study of 3,500 unrelated adults, which yielded heritability estimates of .40 and .51 for crystallized and fluid intelligence, respectively (Davies et al., 2011). The GCTA estimate for general cognitive ability was .47 in a meta-analysis across three studies involving nearly 10,000 adults (Chabris et al., 2012) and .48 in a study of nearly 2 thousand 11-year-old children (Deary et al., 2012).
The GCTA results from these initial studies appear to account for a substantial portion of the heritability of general cognitive ability found in twin studies, which, as mentioned earlier, meta-analyses have found to be about .50.
You said : "you need to step your game up and stop giving me stupid non-responses and claiming a logistical high road you're not on."
I reply : speak for yourself. I commented nearly all these, as well the link you give here again. But no answers coming from you.
You said : "(highly unlikely given the studies that you ignored)"
I ignored nothing. You ignore everything. I told you not to rely on small samples, and provide instead a large review or meta-analysis that look for moderators. Yes, you're the one being silly.
You said : "It's not about G being unitary or not."
It is. Moronic replies won't get you anywhere. Hampshire rebuttal is entirely based on the hypothesis that g is biologically unitary, which needs not to be the case in fact. They ignore Jensen's work, like you ignore my replies. I provided my response to Hampshire in my first long intervention, and here again you make repeat it 2 times more, so 3 times in total.
So then, Naronic, it's the last time I reply to you. I already said I won't reply to you until you come up with answers. You are really stubborn. So that was my last reply. Thanks for nothing.
If people here want to debate with him, for what it worths, I won't be here to reply.
