Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

  1. #1

    Default What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    I mean other than to justify discrimination in a modern revival of Eugenics and racial essentialism.

    Genetics research is touted on this board regularly as conveniently proving everything from "black people" are more violent, to "black people" are stupid. People quote studies being conducted right now by reputable scientists into the link between genetic phenotypes and every single kind of complex human behavior. Anyone who disagrees with the premise and conclusion of such studies is merely anti-science, while the actual social sciences are derided as "soft" and now that we have genetic PROOF pretty much obsolete.

    It's not just this board, it is pop science outlets everywhere like Science magazine which popularize and widely circulate these theories as if they were landmark discoveries into the explanation of "human nature". Editor of the magazine and noted voice on the subject Nicholas Wade recently came out with a book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History.

    Human evolution… has proceeded vigorously within the past 30,000 years and almost certainly tough (though very recent evolution is hard to measure) throughout the historical period and up to present day. It would be of the greatest interest to know how people have evolved in recent times and to reconstruct the fingerprint of natural selection as it is molded and reworked the genetic clay. Any degree of evolution in social behavior found to have taken place during historical times could help explain significant features of today’s world.

    But the exploration and discussion of these issues is complicated by the fact of race. Ever since the first modern humans dispersed from the ancestral homelands in northeast Africa some 50,000 years ago, the population on each continent have evolved largely independently of one another as each adapted to its own regional environment. Under these various local pressures, there developed the major races of humankind, those of Africans, East Asians, and Europeans, as well as other smaller groups.

    Because of these divisions in the human population, anyone interested in recent human evolution is almost inevitably studying human races, whether they wish to or not. Scientific inquiry thus runs into potential conflict with the public policy interest of not generating possibly invidious comparisons that might foment racism.
    This is from his introduction, and like most of the nature articles sprinkled throughout there are “PC” appeasing quotations indicating that he does not think his findings support racism, and acknowledging that certain social and cultural factors can also come into play in a limited way (but of course the genetic findings are still significant and represent monumental breakthroughs).

    Oh so you don’t want to foment racism (this seems a rather begrudged clarification), then what purpose are you conducting your research for? Because it sure seems to me that they are reviving the turn of the 20th century claim that races evolved significantly once separated from one another and that this effectively determined everything about their aptitude, intelligence and personalities as well as explaining the dominance of the all supreme white man. Defenders of recent evolution theories regarding race and an array of supposed “social evolutions” they have supposedly identified refuse to accept criticism that their research ignores vital sociocultural factors. They have disregarded a hundred years of social science (which debunked these theories the first time around) because they can show with varying degrees of accuracy some correlation between certain genetic markers and “social outcomes” (despite their generally limited observations of populations and the often shallow nature of their definition of both behaviors and “races” for research purposes).

    Genetic research is great and all, but before everyone jumps on the ethnocentric worldview affirming bandwagon because someone conducted a study finding "your race" to be the smartest and most attractive or that some other race was more likely to exhibit violent behavior, homosexuality, or pedophilia maybe open a history book and see what jumping to such conclusions did for the dawn of the last century’s leaders in the field of scientific racism.


    http://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-In...925811&sr=1-52

  2. #2
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    I for one affirm that the entire human race is filled with idiots, and that this is partly genetic in origin.

    ... In all seriousness though, yes, "scientific" racism seems to be having a bit of a revival, in a while I'm sure it will subside again, and a little while after that, I'm sure it will resurface yet again. The need to belittle people and make "clever" interpretations of statistics mixed with vague and entirely fit to purpose categorisations, in the effort to mask internal insecurities, is as base a human trait as any other, so I doubt it will go away any time soon. I've taken to just ignoring it.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; November 14, 2014 at 08:49 PM.

  3. #3

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by tarvu View Post
    Defenders of recent evolution theories regarding race and an array of supposed “social evolutions” they have supposedly identified refuse to accept criticism that their research ignores vital sociocultural factors.
    You are apparently not familiar with dual inheritance theory. Physical anthropology is now termed biocultural anthropology in most universities. Sociocultural anthropologists rarely get involved in anything which could be considered science these days, many no longer even maintain the pretense of being scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by tarvu View Post
    They have disregarded a hundred years of social science (which debunked these theories the first time around) because they can show with varying degrees of accuracy some correlation between certain genetic markers and “social outcomes” (despite their generally limited observations of populations and the often shallow nature of their definition of both behaviors and “races” for research purposes).
    Hmm... the social sciences (so to speak) are dominated by post-structuralism, postmodernism, etc., which seek to undermine the philosophical assumptions on which science is based. Ecofeminism, for example, is not science. Whether one finds these philosophies valid or not is irrelevant to the fact that they and their methodologies exist outside science. Maybe more importantly you're creating a strawman here, because correlation is not the only tool of genetic research, far from it. For example: Heritability: Introduction

    What sort of blind spot do you have that you can't see any practical applications for understanding the mechanisms behind human behavior?

    EDIT: This is a much more important book: The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution

    Full text here: http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wo...harpending.pdf
    Last edited by sumskilz; November 17, 2014 at 03:58 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  4. #4
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    What practical application is there for predicting danger signs in biocultural communities/indviduals? I can't believe you actually meant that literally: how about solving major social problems in multiethnic societies in which certain ethnic minorities are subject to massively higher crime rates, incarceration rates, and various mental and physical health issues?

    What I guess you meant is, are the practical applications really going to be worth it considering the amount of ammunition we are giving to white supremacists. Well, yes, not least because despite the headline grabbing 'racist' stories about the prevalance of the 'warrior gene' in black people and such like, biocultural studies is a massively and increasingly diverse field with implications far beyond intelligence and crime, and for white people just as much as other races. There was this recent study in Finland which obviously concerns white people almost exclusively, there are studies regarding sports, there are studies regarding the economic implications of alcohol and lactose intolerance in a rising China, there is an upcoming study I have had access to investigating the prevalance of obesity in many indigenous South Americans...

    And besides, even if you cherry pick examples which appear negative to black people and then claim they show the entire field of research is 'racist', it's not science's fault if American/Caribbeans of West African descent happen to have high instance of certain genes, and it's certainly not going to help black people if we ignore the reasons for their plight and try to combat their social problems with current methods which are blatantly not working.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  5. #5
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by tarvu View Post
    I mean other than to justify discrimination in a modern revival of Eugenics and racial essentialism.
    Most science does not have an immediate practical application. The pursuit of knowledge and truth is its own reward.
    Ethnic groups did diverge to a degree when they were in isolation (and inbreeding), adaptation to differing environments made this essential for survival. Isolation of genetic groups is decreasing, inbreeding is decreasing and genetic diversity is being shared globally in ways that were unimaginable 200 years ago.

    So what if as of now, this kind of research gives ammunition to white supremacists and that is a risk that could literally cause harm to people, so obviously care needs to be taken.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  6. #6

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by tarvu View Post
    I mean other than to justify discrimination in a modern revival of Eugenics and racial essentialism.

    Genetics research is touted on this board regularly as conveniently proving everything from "black people" are more violent, to "black people" are stupid.

    <snip>
    Anybody making that one can usually have that same one turned around on them with a different skin tone and different negative qualities. What's your point? That research can be used for politics? We knew this a long time ago. Get with the times.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  7. #7
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    Anybody making that one can usually have that same one turned around on them with a different skin tone and different negative qualities. What's your point? That research can be used for politics? We knew this a long time ago. Get with the times.
    I think his main point is we shouldn't be publishing research if it is going to have negative implications for certain demographics.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  8. #8
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,931

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Everything? Genetic research could help design better humans in every ways


    Why would it have anything to do with race?

  9. #9
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    Everything? Genetic research could help design better humans in every ways


    Why would it have anything to do with race?
    For rational people it won't have anything to do with race, the problem is that very few people are primarily rational, and a great many are very much irrational. Another problem stems from the fact that a great quantity of this science isn't science at all but instead cherry picked statistics with a veneer of correlation thrown in to justify presupposed conclusions...

  10. #10
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    Genetic research could help design better humans in every ways
    Define what "better" here means.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  11. #11

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    Another problem stems from the fact that a great quantity of this science isn't science at all but instead cherry picked statistics with a veneer of correlation thrown in to justify presupposed conclusions...
    Really? That's quite a claim. Give some examples from this "great quantity" and explain why they specifically aren't science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  12. #12
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Really? That's quite a claim. Give some examples from this "great quantity" and explain why they specifically aren't science.
    I've discussed in great detail many of such reports before, I'm in no mood to do so again. Feel free to sift through my replies and comments on my profile and I'm sure you'll find some examples.

  13. #13

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    I've discussed in great detail many of such reports before, I'm in no mood to do so again. Feel free to sift through my replies and comments on my profile and I'm sure you'll find some examples.
    I looked, but I couldn't find anything that remotely backs up the claim you've just made.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  14. #14
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I looked, but I couldn't find anything that remotely backs up the claim you've just made.
    Well look harder then, I've had some notable discussions with Phier for one on the subject of genetic heritability (generally of IQ) in which similar studies were brought up and discussed, on at least two occasions. I have no intention of repeating the same discussions again, find it or don't, the conversation is not worth enough to me personally to find it myself and even if it was I frankly lack the time, so take that how you will. If it helps at all, I'm fairly sure the conversations were also in the Athenaeum.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; November 19, 2014 at 09:15 PM.

  15. #15
    Elfdude's Avatar Tribunus
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    7,335

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    The problem with this thread is that there's a dualistic use of the information that genetics influencing social behavior can accomplish. For example, when partnered with genetic engineering it allows us o create a new generation which is smarter, kinder, more compassionate, more tolerant, and etc.

  16. #16

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    Well look harder then, I've had some notable discussions with Phier for one on the subject of genetic heritability (generally of IQ) in which similar studies were brought up and discussed, on at least two occasions. I have no intention of repeating the same discussions again, find it or don't, the conversation is not worth enough to me personally to find it myself and even if it was I frankly lack the time, so take that how you will. If it helps at all, I'm fairly sure the conversations were also in the Athenaeum.
    I saw some of that, but you've made a much bigger claim in this thread that I really don't you can backup. For contentious studies to get past peer-review and actually get published, the scientific reasoning has to be fairly solid.

    Whenever people argue against the considerable genetic basis of IQ, they usually start by demonstrating their ignorance about how heritability is calculated. Heritability estimates are based on measuring the portion of existing variance that can only be attributed to genetics. In a hypothetical world where everyone is treated exactly the same and has the same experiences available to them, heritability estimates would near 100% because the only thing that could account for differences in the population would be genetics. So when someone starts talking about all the factors that could account for different individual or population IQs that are not genetic - nutrition, economics, education, etc., they are inadvertently offering evidence for greater genetic determinism regarding IQ. The fact that the heritability of adult IQ is fairly consistently coming out at about 80% in recent studies, despite economic differences and so forth, only demonstrates just what a large role genetics plays in the outcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  17. #17
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I saw some of that, but you've made a much bigger claim in this thread that I really don't you can backup. For contentious studies to get past peer-review and actually get published, the scientific reasoning has to be fairly solid.

    Whenever people argue against the considerable genetic basis of IQ, they usually start by demonstrating their ignorance about how heritability is calculated. Heritability estimates are based on measuring the portion of existing variance that can only be attributed to genetics. In a hypothetical world where everyone is treated exactly the same and has the same experiences available to them, heritability estimates would near 100% because the only thing that could account for differences in the population would be genetics. So when someone starts talking about all the factors that could account for different individual or population IQs that are not genetic - nutrition, economics, education, etc., they are inadvertently offering evidence for greater genetic determinism regarding IQ. The fact that the heritability of adult IQ is fairly consistently coming out at about 80% in recent studies, despite economic differences and so forth, only demonstrates just what a large role genetics plays in the outcome.
    You'll have to forgive me but that sentence doesn't seem to follow from the one preceding it; stating external factors that can effect IQ does not reinforce the view of greater genetic heritability. That 80% estimate that you've stated is a correlative relationship of IQ cross-generationally, not a measure of genetic heritability. I've never seen a single study that's stated more than a heritability of about 50% that's even made a serious effort to take full account of environmental factors.

    As regards the consistency of IQ itself, there is also a great deal of evidence against that as well, such as the Flynn effect and the gradual increase of IQ's within genetically identical population groups both over time and with increasing levels of development. Further to this, there is also the subject of IQ as a measurement, and of its fallibility as a be all and end all measurement of intelligence, with the existence of a great many environmental factors undermining the concept of it having anything to do with the individual at all, such as the average 15 point increase through simply having taken the test for a second time.

    As for the studies involving heritability, the peer review process does not guarantee that all factors have been successfully accounted for, generally some effort will have been made to do so but the studies themselves often make the point of stating that they have been based upon assumptions and procedures that can not fully account for all factors: this is inevitable when the nature of both genetics and intelligence are not even fully understood in their own right, let alone the full range of factors affecting them. Journal articles and so on from a few years ago for instance may certainly have been peer reviewed, and yet made no mention at all of epi-genetics since it was not yet known that that mechanism in question even existed. When both subjects, particularly intelligence and IQ, are as shaky as they are, then any attempt to find causative relationships between them is almost guaranteed from the outset to filter down to interpretation and discussion far more than the direct numerical evidence itself, peer review is not enough to prevent this. Further, psychological factors involved in these studies are often never even accounted for at all, if a person feels under additional pressure because they feel that they are taking part in a test upon which those that are similar to them will be judged, such as race or nationality for instance, then that will depress their results even if all measurable and calculable causative variables have been accounted for in regards to the environment itself. I've seen a grand total of one study that even mentioned it among peer reviewed sources, and that was on the subject of that psychological effect itself, so it seems to me that the peer review process on this subject is far from stringent.

    Many of the 1800's journals of the importance of skull shape with intelligence were peer reviewed as well, for all the difference it made to scientific validity... I imagine a significant reason for this is that if there is a significant enough sub-culture within a field of science, that they will simply peer review each others work and essentially cycle material around themselves, meaning that bias within any given subject and the undermining of due scientific process is entirely possible even with peer review, a process that is quite clear looking at the history of contentious subjects generally, and in many cases even of mainstream subjects wherein the author has a sizeable network to draw upon. I find it interesting occasionally to look at specifically who has peer reviewed a specific paper and noting how it is inevitably another, similar author that has either written a similar paper before saying the same thing or who appears to have had some kind of working relationship with the author in question, Jenson, Rushton, et al, all come to mind.

    On top of all this of course is that I have yet to see a paper on genetics itself that actually supports the idea of genetic heritability of IQ, you'll note that the main proponents of the idea are indeed not geneticists, but psychologists, invariably masquerading to the general public as geneticists with titles that refer specifically to genetics, whilst glossing over the fact that the authors have no qualification in the field of genetics at all. In doing so they evade the requirement to actually have their papers peer reviewed by actual geneticists that inevitably make the point of showing them that there are in fact no specific genes tied to IQ that is apparent in any one population group more than any other. The best study I've seen that actually delves into genetics itself is one that found epi-genetic differences between population groups in the U.S. specifically, with no underlying genetic variation of note at all. As far as I'm concerned the only reliable way of actually determining any genetic heritability is not through the field of psychology, but through that of genetics, and in the field of genetics, the current mainstream view (indeed the only view of which I'm aware) is that there is no genetic basis for variability in IQ across population groups.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; November 20, 2014 at 12:27 PM.

  18. #18

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    You are apparently not familiar with dual inheritance theory. Physical anthropology is now termed biocultural anthropology in most universities. Sociocultural anthropologists rarely get involved in anything which could be considered science these days, many no longer even maintain the pretense of being scientists.

    Hmm... the social sciences (so to speak) are dominated by post-structuralism, postmodernism, etc., which seek to undermine the philosophical assumptions on which science is based. Ecofeminism, for example, is not science. Whether one finds these philosophies valid or not is irrelevant to the fact that they and their methodologies exist outside science. Maybe more importantly you're creating a strawman here, because correlation is not the only tool of genetic research, far from it. For example: Heritability: Introduction

    What sort of blind spot do you have that you can't see any practical applications for understanding the mechanisms behind human behavior?

    EDIT: This is a much more important book: The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution

    Full text here: http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wo...harpending.pdf
    Social sciences aren't science and undermine the philosophical assumptions on which science is based? Only if you are basing your understanding on biased and myopic research, which of course you are (that's literally all you bring to discussions). You cannot have a discussion on human behavior that is entirely based on biology and heritability, I'm sorry but the Social Science is definitely necessary.

    Heritability, correlation none of these have been demonstrated in areas of significant human behavior to be pointed to as deterministic and they all (even your little bible there) acknowledge "environmental factors", in other words the entire work of social science in the past 100 years.

    The problem is people like you and others ignore the great context of all relevant social science, and focus instead on "breakthrough" discoveries in correlations between being BLACK and being prone to violence. You specifically as you are the one I was referring to in my OP in your bringing up such studies when deciding how societies ought to properly and scientifically discriminate against dark skinned peoples, you first ignore that racial identity cannot be identified through genetic means (if you understood basics of genetics and heritability you would know that you cannot with 100% accuracy trace your heredity outside of your mother's direct line which is genetically and biologically speaking pretty ing insignificant), and then you second attempt a chasmatic leap using isolated and infantile research into the correlation between certain genes and propensity for violence to make the generalization that an entire (region, skin color, people who happen to have a certain genetic marker) are more prone to violence.

  19. #19

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    You'll have to forgive me but that sentence doesn't seem to follow from the one preceding it; stating external factors that can effect IQ does not reinforce the view of greater genetic heritability.
    If the allele frequency in a particular population is fixed, then the genetic contribution to ultimate IQ outcomes is fixed. Since heritability is a measure of the total genetic portion of the existing diversity within a population, the more non-genetic factors that contribute to diversity of outcomes that exist, the smaller the relative percentage genetic factors contribute, and thus the smaller the measured heritability will be. Thus stating all the non-genetic factors of an attribute that has been measured to be highly heritable only reinforces just how robust the effect of genetics is on the outcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    That 80% estimate that you've stated is a correlative relationship of IQ cross-generationally, not a measure of genetic heritability. I've never seen a single study that's stated more than a heritability of about 50% that's even made a serious effort to take full account of environmental factors.
    This just demonstrates your ignorance of methodology yet again. Individual environmental factors need not be accounted for at all because environment is a complicated and abstract thing – it is everything that is not genetic. Consider the difference of IQ correlation between monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs – .86 for MZ pairs and .60 for DZ pairs. The issue is that these correlations are the result of both genes and shared environment. It is the difference between them that can only be accounted for by genetics (or so the thinking has gone). So the MZ twins sharing 100% or their DNA rather than an average of 50% of their DNA resulted in an additional correlation of .26 with the same level of environment sharing. Thus the thinking was that if 50% of genetics accounts for .26 of the correlation then doubling that will get you the total heritability of .52, this is how a lot of those old studies arrived at 50% heritability, but anyone who understands how genes actually function will know that this is way too low, because sharing one allele at a particular locus only sometimes results in the same phenotype whereas sharing two alleles at the same locus almost always results in the same phenotype. The phenotypic similarity of MZ twins is actually much higher than twice that of the DZ twins, and so much more complicated calculations are needed.

    A meta-analysis found the heritability of adult IQ to be about .85
    http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/4/148

    American Psychological Association states heritability of post-adolescent IQ to be .75
    http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doi...3-066X.51.2.77

    This study found a heritability estimate of about .80
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01067188

    Not to mention that MZ twins raised separately still have the same IQ correlation, while the adult IQ of adoptive siblings correlate no more than the IQ of strangers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    As regards the consistency of IQ itself, there is also a great deal of evidence against that as well, such as the Flynn effect and the gradual increase of IQ's within genetically identical population groups both over time and with increasing levels of development.
    Well the Flynn effect seems to be coming to a halt in developed countries (probably because there is a genetic range which limits the ultimate outcomes): http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/Linke...asdale2008.pdf

    Also many of the nurture over nature claims based on child IQ tests are pretty useless since environment can really effect how well children test, but ultimately the heritability of adult IQ is much more robust.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    On top of all this of course is that I have yet to see a paper on genetics itself that actually supports the idea of genetic heritability of IQ
    Then you haven’t been paying attention: Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic

    That study seems to have confirmed that at least 40-51% of intelligence (you can see how that was defined) can be attributed to the 549,692 common SNPs they tested. Keep in mind that there are actually 10 million SNPs in the human genome, so their result is not inconsistent with the much higher statistical estimates of heritability (which geneticists also recognize and employ by the way).

    Quote Originally Posted by tarvu View Post
    Social sciences aren't science and undermine the philosophical assumptions on which science is based?
    I said post-structuralism, postmodernism, etc., seek to undermine the philosophical assumptions on which science is based. These philosophies have become tremendously influential within the social sciences, resulting in the work of many in the social sciences becoming even less related to science. There is outright science denial common within some fields of the social sciences. Nevertheless, there are still social scientists who engage in scientific research. My work involves both the social and hard sciences.

    Quote Originally Posted by tarvu View Post
    if you understood basics of genetics and heritability you would know that you cannot with 100% accuracy trace your heredity outside of your mother's direct line which is genetically and biologically speaking pretty ing insignificant
    It’s great that you expound such ignorance with such confidence. You appear to be completely unaware of autosomal DNA principle component analysis and IBD mapping. Though it’s surprising to me that you have heard of mitochondrial haplogroups but not Y-chromosomal haplogroups. Actually, the population origin of specific segments of DNA can be associated with specific populations with a high degree of accuracy.

    For example: Two English genomes...

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In other words, you are so absurdly wrong:

    The genetic structure of human populations is important in population genetics, forensics and medicine. Using genome-wide scans and individuals with all four grandparents born in the same settlement, we here demonstrate remarkable geographical structure across 8–30 km in three different parts of rural Europe. After excluding close kin and inbreeding, village of origin could still be predicted correctly on the basis of genetic data for 89–100% of individuals.
    Genes predict village of origin in rural Europe

    The rest of your post is just strawman nonsense.
    Last edited by sumskilz; November 21, 2014 at 05:56 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  20. #20
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: What practical application is there for genetic research into social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    If the allele frequency in a particular population is fixed, then the genetic contribution to ultimate IQ outcomes is fixed. Since heritability is a measure of the total genetic portion of the existing diversity within a population, the more non-genetic factors that contribute to diversity of outcomes that exist, the smaller the relative percentage genetic factors contribute, and thus the smaller the measured heritability will be. Thus stating all the non-genetic factors of an attribute that has been measured to be highly heritable only reinforces just how robust the effect of genetics is on the outcome.

    This just demonstrates your ignorance of methodology yet again. Individual environmental factors need not be accounted for at all because environment is a complicated and abstract thing – it is everything that is not genetic. Consider the difference of IQ correlation between monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs – .86 for MZ pairs and .60 for DZ pairs. The issue is that these correlations are the result of both genes and shared environment. It is the difference between them that can only be accounted for by genetics (or so the thinking has gone). So the MZ twins sharing 100% or their DNA rather than an average of 50% of their DNA resulted in an additional correlation of .26 with the same level of environment sharing. Thus the thinking was that if 50% of genetics accounts for .26 of the correlation then doubling that will get you the total heritability of .52, this is how a lot of those old studies arrived at 50% heritability, but anyone who understands how genes actually function will know that this is way too low, because sharing one allele at a particular locus only sometimes results in the same phenotype whereas sharing two alleles at the same locus almost always results in the same phenotype. The phenotypic similarity of MZ twins is actually much higher than twice that of the DZ twins, and so much more complicated calculations are needed.

    A meta-analysis found the heritability of adult IQ to be about .85
    http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/4/148

    American Psychological Association states heritability of post-adolescent IQ to be .75
    http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doi...3-066X.51.2.77

    This study found a heritability estimate of about .80
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01067188

    Not to mention that MZ twins raised separately still have the same IQ correlation, while the adult IQ of adoptive siblings correlate no more than the IQ of strangers.

    Well the Flynn effect seems to be coming to a halt in developed countries (probably because there is a genetic range which limits the ultimate outcomes): http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/Linke...asdale2008.pdf

    Also many of the nurture over nature claims based on child IQ tests are pretty useless since environment can really effect how well children test, but ultimately the heritability of adult IQ is much more robust.

    Then you haven’t been paying attention: Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic

    That study seems to have confirmed that at least 40-51% of intelligence (you can see how that was defined) can be attributed to the 549,692 common SNPs they tested. Keep in mind that there are actually 10 million SNPs in the human genome, so their result is not inconsistent with the much higher statistical estimates of heritability (which geneticists also recognize and employ by the way).
    Your first point is only true if heritability remains high despite environmental factors, while there are studies that suggest heritability of 80%, they are the minority and exist on the extreme upper fringe of the estimates.

    Heritability in the Genomic Era - Concepts and Misconceptions; Visscher, et al; 2008

    As for the determination of heritability, taking account of environmental factors is necessary. Taking statistical results from twins that have been brought up in identical examples is a statistically significant error if such cases are disproportionally likely. What's more the determination of IQ scores themselves, as a measurement, are clearly not tied entirely to cognitive ability but share a significant correlation with culture, reflecting societal demands as much as anything else, so the same applies to entire population groups as well. Those results that state correlation when such factors have been accounted for are, by contrast, significant; I would have to question the level of bias of anyone that would state otherwise and that they are all equally valid. The fact that not all environmental factors can be accounted for or rendered statistically insignificant is a measure of the inaccuracy of the methodology, not a validation of a complete disregard for taking account of relevant variables.

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...hat-you-think/

    As for Falconer's formula, while it may be an underestimate, dependent upon whether it is a proper determinant for either narrow sense or broad sense heritability, there is no consensus as to which it ought to be applied to and while other, often times empirical equations, have been used to achieve numbers higher than 52%, the extent to which they do so appears more to do with the overall view point of the person using the equation than anything to do with intelligence itself or its heritability. What's more, when accounting for the fact that IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence as stated before, an estimate of 50% seems far closer to reality than any that assumes the complete absence of environmental factors in the measurement of IQ itself.

    As for the Flynn effect, it is natural to assume that it is slowing due to reaching a genetic threshold, but it is equally convincing to consider that it may have more to do with the increase in relative social and economic conditions, which for the majority of the population in many countries such as the U.S., has also been slowing. The Flynn effect correlates most closely to the standard of living in which a person lives and to the economic opportunities apparent, thus it is not unexpected that almost flat real income gains, combined with minimal progress in social institutions, should lead to a relative slowdown in the Flynn effect such as in the U.S. Aside from all this, even if the Flynn effect stopped completely and had reached a genetic threshold, it would still be significant, as the living conditions of all those living in the world, and indeed, in any given area, are not identical. If a population group is living disproportionately in areas dominated by sectors and industries with lower added value, the circumstances are more similar to that of previous decades, meaning that the Flynn effect would likely still be in effect even if it had slowed for the majority of the population.

    Indeed this can be seen worldwide, with underprivileged minorities in every country, regardless of ethnic origin, and inclusive of those that are genetically identical to their higher caste compatriots, showing very similar deficiencies in standards of IQ testing and of academic outcomes; the complete lack of differences in aggregate heritability between those groups in many cases shows at the very least the vast potential for the environment and social climate to wreak havoc on any attempt at interpreting heritability of IQ, and of its effect on the measurement of such. Indeed, extrapolated further, it can be seen that even in relatively homogeneous population groups, that those with fewer economic opportunities score significantly worse. A study conducted that measured the IQ's of orphans for instance exhibited an average increase of 35 IQ points after a year of being adopted by middle class families in circumstances that rewarded academic ability. Of those that were returned, IQ scores fell back almost to their original values (a loss of 25 points) after a year, while the scores remained relatively flat for those whose improved environment was maintained, falling back by approximately 5 points by late adolescence. I sadly no longer have access to the source in question, and will link it if I should find it. The source below does however mention a similar study conducted on the children of soldiers stationed in Germany, and is worth a read in its own right:

    http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/r...telligence.pdf

    Regarding the unsuitability of childhood test scores, I agree. A notable effect of this is that it does somewhat undermine the evidence posted above, and partially explains the large differences involved. Had the test been undertaken on adults, the variation would likely be vastly lower; the maintenance of a 20 IQ gap by late adolescence does however show that the findings of said study is still meaningful, even if somewhat less so than if it were carried on into early adulthood.

    As for that genetic study, you assume that they arbitrarily chose their SNP tests instead of pre-screening them via focused selection toward those that would be likely to have an effect on IQ. The fact that there exist another 9.5 million SNP's is thus almost irrelevant, as their contribution is likely to fall exponentially closer to zero the wider they extend their range of testing. Might it fall above 52%? Probably, does the existence of another 9.5 million SNP's act as any evidence at all that it ought to approach 80%? Not even slightly.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; November 21, 2014 at 06:41 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •