@Duxide

What is the correlation/IQ prediction adding 3 of the latest alleles? Including the one that is more common among Africans?

The first 3 don't replicate that well from what I have seen. Which is the 4th allele you speak of? Where was it found?

Either way both GCTA and GWAS are simply imagining the effect size and function then assuming the correlation is causation. All can still be falsified with evidence to the contrary. Also so few have been found, 3 replicate somewhat and pretty much all in one Northern European ethnic group.

@Duxide

What is the correlation adding 3 of the latest alleles? Including the one that is more common among Africans?

The first 3 don't replicate that well from what I have seen. Which is the 4th allele you speak of? Where was it found?

Either way both GCTA and GWAS are simply imagining the effect size and function then assuming the correlation is causation. All can be falsified with evidence to the contrary.

The other 3 alleles were not replicated hence I didn't use them. I used only replicated alleles. For info on the SNPs sources you'll have to wait until I publish my paper.

@Duxide

What is the correlation adding 3 of the latest alleles? Including the one that is more common among Africans?

The first 3 don't replicate that well from what I have seen. Which is the 4th allele you speak of? Where was it found?

Either way both GCTA and GWAS are simply imagining the effect size and function then assuming the correlation is causation. All can be falsified with evidence to the contrary.

The other 3 alleles were not replicated hence I didn't use them. I used only replicated alleles. For info on the SNPs sources you'll have to wait until I publish my paper.

Ok but which is the 4th allele you are using?

@ Chuck.

I cant promise any graphs but I will try to find more UK and Dutch data when I have time. Dutch data is what I am really after.

@Duxide

What is the correlation adding 3 of the latest alleles? Including the one that is more common among Africans?

The first 3 don't replicate that well from what I have seen. Which is the 4th allele you speak of? Where was it found?

Either way both GCTA and GWAS are simply imagining the effect size and function then assuming the correlation is causation. All can be falsified with evidence to the contrary.

The other 3 alleles were not replicated hence I didn't use them. I used only replicated alleles. For info on the SNPs sources you'll have to wait until I publish my paper.

Ok but which is the 4th allele you are using?

rs236330

@ Duxide.

Thanks. Can you also tell me in which papers the rs236330 genes replicated/originated? Is it these two, having trouble opening the sup files.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/#SD1
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v19/n2/full/mp2012184a.html

@ Duxide.

Thanks. Can you also tell me in which papers the rs236330 genes replicated/originated? Is it these two, having trouble opening the sup files.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/#SD1
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v19/n2/full/mp2012184a.html

Yes it's these two.

Thanks Duxide.

Some data on twins and epigenetics.

http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/5/2/347

Thanks Duxide.
Some data on twins and epigenetics.
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/5/2/347

What does this have to do with general intelligence? I referred you to a discussion which you obviously did not read.

[Edit: One can biometrically model variance due to epigenetics. If proponents of IQ-epigenetics want to show that Var(Epi) is non-trivial they should try to show it. As it is, we know that directly estimated additive (GCTA), non-shared environmental (MZ twin discordance), shared environmental (unrelated sib reared together), and error variance can, in conjunction, account for almost all of the IQ variance. The only significant role that epigenetics has to play with respect to IQ (g) is an adversarial rhetorical one.]

Thanks Duxide.
Some data on twins and epigenetics.
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/5/2/347

What does this have to do with general intelligence? I referred you to a discussion which you obviously did not read.

[Edit: One can biometrically model variance due to epigenetics. If proponents of IQ-epigenetics want to show that Var(Epi) is non-trivial they should try to show it. As it is, we know that directly estimated additive (GCTA), non-shared environmental (MZ twin discordance), shared environmental (unrelated sib reared together), and error variance can, in conjunction, account for almost all of the IQ variance. The only significant role that epigenetics has to play with respect to IQ (g) is an adversarial rhetorical one.]

Twin, GCTA and GWAS are all based on assumptions, GCTA and GWAS literally imagine an effect size because there are apparently many genes with so small effect that you have to make it up to find it. Also you have to assume that they are even having an effect in the first place.

Please I am not trying to say that its not possible or that traditional studies cannot account for the variation even ALL OF IT, but you have an alternate now with direct chemical and biological evidence of heritible chemical changes to genes and resulting in changes to phenotypes. There is literally more detectable chemical/biological interactions with epigenetics than there are genetic ones without assuming.

Also I read your link long time ago, before I even started posting on this website.

You know what I will seize to post anything about epigentics in this thread as it will derail it.

You know what I will [cease] to post anything about epigentics in this thread as it will derail it.

You can open up a new thread on the topic.

Piffer also, in the above link estimates UK Telegu IQ at 88 , UK Sri Lankan at 81, Baghdad Bengali at 85, and Texas Gujarati at 93,. These seem questionable considering (significantly higher) South Asian IQ and gsce performance in the UK, and socioeconomic levels and known IQ data(e.g.:Richwine) from the US. I believe immigrant South Asian Pisa scores are also higher, though low in India.

Correction; I misread the spreadsheet, which gives some higher S. Asian estimates.
Still, Immigrant S, Asian scores esp. the Texas Gujarati do seem low in light of Indian (1st and second generation) performance in the US esp. given immigrant selection.

The final analysis (with genotypic intelligence and impact of socioeconomic factors) is published here: https://thewinnower.com/papers/estimating-the-genotypic-intelligence-of-populations-and-assessing-the-impact-of-socioeconomic-factors-and-migrations

Is it possible to estimate the Sri Lankan UK and Indian Telugu UK GCSE scores from the main groups they are put in?

If they score near or above the white Europeans you can directly falsify the predictions of two of Piffers populations. It seems highly likely that this is the case.

EDIT:
From what I gather, Asians in the UK mainly refer to South Asians, Sri Lankans identify as other Asians. Other Asians and Indians do better than white Brits in the main GCSE including maths and English as of 2012/2013. Also considering that peasants from Bangladesh do similarly well as other Asians, it makes it even more likely that both Sri Lankans and Indian Telugu do at least similar to white Brits, most likely better.

Found something.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG_Poverty138_PovertyEducationMigrantChildren_0.pdf

According to this Sri Lankans in 2003 did really well in 5+GSCE A-C. Second only to the Chinese!.

There are some other interesting things too with a better break down by ethnicity.

Also I am not 100% sure about the data point and samples. Should be good though.

They don't do well in DK though. Selective migration for one or both countries, sampling error?

Well part of them were well educated, the other part are refugees. In Denmark, its only refugees I think. So part of it could be selection, but nobody really knows Sri Lanka's actual genotypic average IQ. The country isn't doing too bad for its 79 average. 88 is the estimate from the 4 genes by Piffer for UK Tamils IRRC, not for all Sri Lankans.

Both groups in Piffers polygenic score in the UK are within groups that do exceptionally well, with no sign of them doing badly anywhere and groups like Bangladeshis who cannot be selected enough to account for d have substantially closed the gap. So you can make a educated guess cant you?

I highly doubt that they do worse than white Brits.

Also I don't know about sampling error thats why I said so. Its from the department of education though so most likely its good enough.

Found something.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG_Poverty138_PovertyEducationMigrantChildren_0.pdf

According to this Sri Lankans in 2003 did really well in 5+GSCE A-C. Second only to the Chinese!.

There are some other interesting things too with a better break down by ethnicity.

Also I am not 100% sure about the data point and samples. Should be good though.

Sometimes it's better to look at a broader range of data. Marta De Philippis looked at the correlation between the scores of ~ 30,000 immigrants across dozens of countries and three waves of tests and found that nation of origin cognitive ability scores correlated with second generation emigrant scores at about 0.40 (Table 5 model 2 in the attached). This is similar to what I had found using a cruder method. This is consistent with the position that half of the global variance has a genealogical basis, allowing for certain corrections. The percent is a population level one, of course -- so it doesn't invalidate the point which you are making which concerns specific populations.

@Chuck.

Thanks for more info.

The reliability of SNP's when re: africans is uncertain.

"Interpretation of SNP countings are difficult due to differential linkage disequilibrium patterns across populations."


https://thewinnower.com/papers/2735-polygenic-scores-genetic-engineering-validity-of-gwas-results-across-major-racial-groups-and-the-piffer-method


"...Two reviews found substantial cross-validity for the Eurasian population (Europeans and East Asians), and less for Africans (usually African Americans) (23,24). The first review only relied on SNPs with p<α and found weaker results. This is expected because using only these is a threshold effect, as discussed earlier.

The second review (from 2013; 299 included GWAS) found much stronger results, probably because it included more SNPs and because they also adjusted for statistical power. Doing so, they found that: ~100% of SNPs replicate in other European samples when accounting for statistical power, ~80% in East Asian samples but only ~10% in the African American sample (not adjusted for statistical power, which was ~60% on average). There were fairly few GWAS for AAs however, so some caution is needed in interpreting the number. Still, this throws some doubt on the usefulness of GWAS results from Europeans or Asians used on African samples (or reversely)."

"7. POOR AFRICAN-EURASIAN CROSS-VALIDITY AND THE PIFFER METHOD

The findings related to the relatively poor, but non-zero cross-validity of GWAS betas between European and African samples throw some doubt on the SNP evidence found by Piffer in his studies of the population/country IQ and cognitive ability SNP factors (29). If the betas for the SNPs identified in European sample GWAS do not work well as predictors for Africans, they would be equally unsuitable for estimating mean genotypic cognitive ability from SNP frequencies. Thus, further research is needed to more precisely estimate the cross-racial validity of GWAS betas, especially with regards to African vs. Eurasian samples."

I said I wouldn't post any more about epigenetics in this topic, but I changed my mind.

They are attacking the entire genetic model of heritability studies and these additive SNP correlations, with epigenetics as their main proof against it. They are getting published on major scientific journals now and also being cited by potential reviewers of the work here.

Heres a correspondence.
Attack:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12060/full
Defence:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12059/abstract

The defence failed by the way, since they try to play off epigenetics as GxE and rGE, which it isn't.

I knew this was coming, you are lucky they don't have the silver bullet... yet.