Race Realism Is Not Bullshit (Response to @holy’s Post)

[Crusile]

Post in thread 'Race Realism Is Not Bullshit (Response to @holy’s Post)'
https://looksmax.org/threads/race-r...-response-to-holys-post.1278238/post-18942495

85% heritability is much higher than twin studies

 

[Archimedes]

But it’s not, and ur retarded. Genetics are far more complicated than that whether it be looks or intelligence, a super smart guy can have a dumb son, a super handsome guy can have an ugly son. It happens, iq is not purely “genetic”.

You haven't heard of genetic recombination or that people carry gene variants yet are lecturing me about genetics, lol. Its like saying sickle cell anemia isn't genetic because you can give birth to a child with it even if you don't have it. I'm sure you'll find some retarded reason to not understand the analogy.

Your looks analogy is great because it literally proves my point--looks, like intelligence, is basically completely genetic assuming basic needs are met. I also never denied that environment influences IQ, but its still largely genetic. As I said, environmental influences have a pronounced effect when you are younger but people will regress to the mean as they age--longitudinal studies prove this.

 

[widdi]

85% heritability is much higher than twin studies

So the best available method by far (using entire census data of hundreds of thousands of people) shows an even higher estimate? It’s almost like the bias is actually against genetic effects

 

[widdi]

You haven't heard of genetic recombination or that people carry gene variants yet are lecturing me about genetics, lol. Its like saying sickle cell anemia isn't genetic because you can give birth to a child with it even if you don't have it. I'm sure you'll find some retarded reason to not understand the analogy.

Your looks analogy is great because it literally proves my point--looks, like intelligence, is basically completely genetic assuming basic needs are met. I also never denied that environment influences IQ, but its still largely genetic. As I said, environmental influences have a pronounced effect when you are younger but people will regress to the mean as they age--longitudinal studies prove this.

Yup. When you are young, the environment is thrust upon you by your parents and other authority figures. When you grow up, your genes play a much bigger role in the friends you chose, the self destructive behaviors you do, etc. You begin to choose your own environment in accordance with your genetics.

 

[Crusile]

So the best available method by far (using entire census data of hundreds of thousands of people) shows an even higher estimate? It’s almost like the bias is actually against genetic effects

Those are non-genetic heritability estimates

 

[widdi]

Those are non-genetic heritability estimates

Is animal domestication also non genetic because they don’t go and individually look at the genes JFL

 

[Crusile]

Is animal domestication also non genetic because they don’t go and individually look at the genes JFL

how do they differentiate cultural vs genetic transmission? they dont/cant. its a non-genetic heritability estimate.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4491976 Study designs where they attempt to control for non-genetic transmission have much lower heritability estimates (30%).

 

[widdi]

how do they differentiate cultural vs genetic transmission? they dont/cant. its a non-genetic heritability estimate.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4491976 Study designs where they attempt to control for non-genetic transmission have much lower heritability estimates (30%).

Pedigree mixed models differentiate cultural and genetic transmission by looking at edge cases on the kinship continuum (eg comparing outcomes from half sibling pairs vs full sibling pairs, adoptive siblings vs biological siblings). You can also isolate vertical transmission by looking at the correlation of outcomes between grandchild-grandparent pairs and similarly related once removed siblings. You basically create a matrix of relatedness and use REML to reduce it to the genotypic and phenotypic components.

 

[Crusile]

Pedigree mixed models differentiate cultural and genetic transmission by looking at edge cases on the kinship continuum (eg comparing outcomes from half sibling pairs vs full sibling pairs, adoptive siblings vs biological siblings). You can also isolate vertical transmission by looking at the correlation of outcomes between grandchild-grandparent pairs and similarly related once removed siblings. You basically create a matrix of relatedness and use REML to reduce it to the genotypic and phenotypic components.

That study has the same false shared environment assumption as twin studies, and its inflated estimate hasnt been replicated by other pedigree studies. You choose the most inflated(80%) p-hacked study and said its the same estimate has the most inflated twin study estimates (80%) = twin studies replicate. lool. xD

Most pedigree studies have lower estimates than twin studies btw

 

[widdi]

That study has the same false shared environment assumption as twin studies, and its inflated estimate hasnt been replicated by other pedigree studies. You choose the most inflated(80%) p-hacked study and said its the same estimate has the most inflated twin study estimates (80%) = twin studies replicate. lool. xD

Most pedigree studies have lower estimates than twin studies btw

They don't wtf do you know how pedigree mixed models work? ur literally just making shit up atp. also stop spamming p-hack when you don't know what it is. You can't p hack a heritability estimate from a pedigree mixed model because theres no subgroup analysis where you can selectively exclude people. its looking at ALL variance within a census.

 

[Crusile]

They don't wtf do you know how pedigree mixed models work? ur literally just making shit up atp. also stop spamming p-hack when you don't know what it is. You can't p hack a heritability estimate from a pedigree mixed model because theres no subgroup analysis where you can selectively exclude people. its looking at ALL variance within a census.

They don't what?

Third, as we have used only biological parentage data in
our analysis (parentage on paper) we have not taken into
account whether sibling pairs and half-sibling pairs actually share
the same home environment, nor whether cousins share the
same household (could be true for some families), nor whether
nonrelated children share the same household. We were therefore
not able to estimate non-genetic variance that is shared due to
being brought up in the same home environment. If ignored,
this variance, as far as it is not related to the covariates that
we used in the analysis, ended up in the heritability estimate.
This may have led to an overestimation of heritability. Note
however, that the shared environmental component was rather
small (8 and 16%, respectively) in both the de Zeeuw et al.
(2016) and the Schwabe et al. (2016) studies that looked at the
same birth cohort. Applying this to the results of this article,
this would decrease heritability from 94% (that includes shared
environmental variance) to around 77–85%, which would mean
that the result is not at odds with the results found by earlier twin
studies.

Their estimates are in-line with p-hacked twin studies that have failed to replicated. Given lack of replication and overinflated estimate, the study is likely p-hacked. I don't think you understand what p-hacking implies

 

[widdi]

They don't what?

Their estimates are in-line with p-hacked twin studies that have failed to replicated. Given lack of replication and overinflated estimate, the study is likely p-hacked. I don't think you understand what p-hacking implies

The EEA in twin studies is a specific assumption that says that people do not treat identical twins more similarly than fraternal twins in a way that biases outcomes. Twin studies don’t have the problem of not being able to measure shared environment. It’s not the same problem. They literally corrected for the environmental confounding you mentioned to get the estimate that’s in line with twin studies.

 

[Crusile]

The EEA in twin studies is a specific assumption that says that people do not treat identical twins more similarly than fraternal twins in a way that biases outcomes. Twin studies don’t have the problem of not being able to measure shared environment. It’s not the same problem. They literally corrected for the environmental confounding you mentioned to get the estimate that’s in line with twin studies.

It's impossible to measure the unique shared environment of identical twins.

Real shared environment and cultural transmission can't be fully accounted for with made up estimates of shared environments. They are assuming everything that can't be measured as shared environment is genetic transmission when it could be cultural transmission because the two are indistinguishable. That's why I said it's a non-genetic heritibility estimate.

They get an obviously inflated estimate in-line with p-hacked twin studies which aren't replaciated by currently acceptn twin study estimates, and aren't replicated by other less bias higher power pedigree and family studies.

 

[widdi]

It's impossible to measure the unique shared environment of identical twins.

In the ACE model:

A (genetics) =2×(rMZ−rDZ)

C (shared environemnt) = rMZ−A

This is the excess similarity from what you'd predict based on genetics

E (non shared environment) =1−(A+C)

This is the residual variance

This is how twin studies measure shared environment

Pedigree models can't do this because they are looking at kinship differentials from people that don't necessarily share the same environment. That's why they had to do the correction. But they are better in that you don't have problems with EEA assumption violations. All designs have flaws, but the fact that both these results converge despite having different flaws is important. Its more parsimonious to assume that these flaws are trivial because of this.

 

[Crusile]

In the ACE model:

A (genetics) =2×(rMZ−rDZ)

C (shared environemnt) = rMZ−A

This is the excess similarity from what you'd predict based on genetics

E (non shared environment) =1−(A+C)

This is the residual variance

This is how twin studies measure shared environment

Pedigree models can't do this because they are looking at kinship differentials from people that don't necessarily share the same environment. That's why they had to do the correction. But they are better in that you don't have problems with EEA assumption violations. All designs have flaws, but the fact that both these results converge despite having different flaws is important. Its more parsimonious to assume that these flaws are trivial because of this.

On the Origins of Socio-Economic Inequalities: Evidence from Twin Families

We propose a twin family model linking twins with their spouses and children to quantify the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors in explain

papers.ssrn.com

Exploiting an education reform differentially affecting parents, we find no evidence of gene-environment interactions. While we find some assortative mating based on genetic factors, differentially shared environments are key: they explain half of the variance in years of schooling, whereas genetic factors explain only nine percent. We find similar percentages for earnings, income, and wealth. Decomposing intergenerational elasticities reveals that shared environments explain 50% for earnings, 60% for income, 70% for wealth, and 80% for schooling. Family environments are more important than previously understood.

You can get much different estimates by changing your assumptions of shared environment as shown in this study.

Btw the 0.85 h2 estimate does not converge with accepted twin studies estimates (0.50-0.60). It converges with provenly p-hacked twin studies with non replicated estimates.

 

[widdi]

On the Origins of Socio-Economic Inequalities: Evidence from Twin Families

We propose a twin family model linking twins with their spouses and children to quantify the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors in explain

papers.ssrn.com

You can get much different estimates by changing your assumptions of shared environment as shown in this study.

Btw the 0.85 h2 estimate does not converge with accepted twin studies estimates (0.50-0.60). It converges with provenly p-hacked twin studies with non replicated estimates.

they just ignored all the assumptions that bias heritability downwards in their final result.

One example

"Comparing Panels A and B in Figure 1, we see that allowing for assortative mating leads to an insignificantly higher percentage of heritability compared with the CTD (41% and 34%,respectively), and a lower percentage of educational inequality attributed to shared environments compared with the CTD (18% and 24%, respectively)."

Also their starting heritaiblity of 34% was artificially low in the first place

.8-.85 is exactly what you get after you control for the wilson effect and measurement error

 

[Crusile]

they just ignored all the assumptions that bias heritability downwards in their final result.

One example

"Comparing Panels A and B in Figure 1, we see that allowing for assortative mating leads to an insignificantly higher percentage of heritability compared with the CTD (41% and 34%,respectively), and a lower percentage of educational inequality attributed to shared environments compared with the CTD (18% and 24%, respectively)."

Also their starting heritaiblity of 34% was artificially low in the first place

.8-.85 is exactly what you get after you control for the wilson effect and measurement error

The specific cause of the wilson effect is environment(through rGE). MZ twins converge in looks while DZ twins stray apart. This is a unique shared ENVIORMENTAL phenomenon of identical humans, MZ twins copy each other more, and DZ twins copy each other less. If MZ twins copy each other because they have the same genes, is that genetically caused? No, its (specifically) environmentally caused.

The wilson effect doesnt even exist in every twin data set. why because it's a non-genetically caused phenomenon

Nature-Nurture Interplay: Evidence from Molecular Genetic and Pedigree Data in Korean American Adoptees

In a sample of Korean adoptees who have been quasi-randomly assigned to US adoptive families and who have been genotyped, we examine the influences and interpla

papers.ssrn.com

Since the wilson effect didnt exist in this data set, it didnt have to be controlled for, allowing for a unconfounded heritability estimate that converges with snp h2 estimates (0.30) LOL

 

[Crusile]

Estimates of heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3285

The maximum upper range for heritability is 50%. 85% heritability is nonsense why are you arguing for it? You could just say 50% and 50% is enough lawl.

I am arguing for 0%-30% fyi but there's no lower bound for something that doesnt exist (iq)