Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evol-psych] Re: J. Philippe Rushton RIP

Expand Messages
  • Leif Ekblad
    Ralph, Neurodiversity is a concept that describes a number of DSM diagnoses (usually ASD, ADHD, Dyslexia and some others) in terms of human diversity rather
    Message 1 of 200 , Oct 13, 2012
      Ralph,
       
      Neurodiversity is a concept that describes a number of DSM diagnoses (usually ASD, ADHD, Dyslexia and some others) in terms of human diversity rather than as a disorder. Neurotypical then is the typical function of the majority. It is neurodiversity that I suspect directly relate to Hn ancestry, while the majority traits are from Hs originating in Africa or south Asia. In particular, there is a group of traits in neurodiversity that I call "Aspie talent", that quite likely are loaded on g. I describe the traits like this:
       
      "This group contains intellectually related Aspie traits. Typical traits are related to
      interests (e.g. having strong interests; hyper focusing; having periods of contemplation;
      collecting information; good long term memory related to interests; figuring out how
      things work; making connections between things; strong-willed; stubborn). Other traits
      are related to information processing (e.g. noticing details; finding patterns; unusual
      imagination; solving problems in unusual ways; unique ideas). Some people have special
      talents (e.g. numbers; language; computers; music)."
       
      As the "Aspie talent" group is only on of 6 correlated groups (the others being compulsion, social, communication, hunting and perception), neurodiversity is a much broader concept than g.
       
      When it comes to reaction times, one could possibly suspect these to differ in the neurodiversity population for a number of reasons:
      1. Many primarily think and process information non-verbally, and thus have shorter paths for processing nonverbal information, and longer paths for producing speech and similar
      2. The hunting traits, with close-combat hunting in the neurodiversity population, might have evolved faster reaction times to certain things, that we might measure.
       
      BTW, 23andme has a "Neanderthal ancestry estimator" which gives people a percent of Hn ancestry. I found with a material of about 160 individuals (out of 130,000), that had filled out their 23andme percentage, that their score correlated 0.12 with score for neurodiversity factor (p < 0.03). Although their estimator cannot describe the genetic background of much of neurodiversity, there still seem to be a relation. It is just not the SNPs they use that codes for most of neurodiversity.
       
      Leif Ekblad
       

       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:03 PM
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: J. Philippe Rushton RIP

      Leif, that is a really interesting theory, but it will require locating either all of the QTL's on Neandertal/ Denisovan DNA which can be identified as impacting "intelligence", or other genetic components other than FOXP2. Can you explain more about what you mean by "neurodiversity/neurotypical" features? I assume this refers to some conglomerate of overall neocortical size, maturation schedules, organization of white fiber tracts, etc? The G factor surely exists, but hasn't been adequately (as yet) explained with regard to underlying neurological factors, although reaction time (per Jensen's recent book) would surely include things such as myelination, fiber thicknesses, and neurotransmitters. I rather believe that in time we will know what G includes.

      Interesting ideas about verbal/nonverbal testing, and Hn ancestry.


      Best,

      Ralph

      On 10/10/2012 6:03 AM, Leif wrote:
       

      My position is a little different on this. I do not doubt that there are differences in mean IQ between groups. Neither do I doubt that within group differences are larger than between group differences.

      My theory is that G factor doesn't really exist, but instead is a crippled version of the neurodiversity / neurotypical factors that in my data explains 70% of the variance. The thing is, you can take some of the traits (for instance, suspected IQ traits) from the neurodiversity/neurotypical factors, isolate them, and get a factor from factor-analysis that is consistent. Then you can change the meaning of IQ tests (for instance from nonverbal to verbal), and still get reasonable consistence. That's because all these traits are correlated. What the IQ researchers have missed is that the scope of traits that are correlated is much larger than just educational traits.

      In this theory, what IQ really measures is some peculiar combination of Hs/Hn ancestry that we value as intelligence, that changes over time depending on cultural values. Since Africans lack Hn ancestry, they get lower scores when some of the traits involved in IQ are loaded on Hn ancestry. It is also possible to change the IQ gap between Africans and non-Africans by making IQ-tests that loads lesser on Hn ancestry, for instance by making them verbal instead of nonverbal. However, this also means the tests will become less meaningful since there is virtually no variation without Hn ancestry.

      It should be mentioned here that it is the racial means that are different, because there is a different mix of Hs vs Hn traits in different populations. At the individual level, an African with a certain Hs / Hn mix is identical in IQ (and other respects) to an European or Asian with the same mix. Therefore, the racial differences cannot be applied to individuals in a population. It is not racial group that primarily determines IQ, but your ancestral Hs and Hn DNA, and which mixes of this DNA we currently favor.

      I argued this with Rushton, especially in relation to his IQ-map that closely resembles probable Hn ancestry. The north-south cline is not due to life-history, but to interbreeding with Neanderhal and Denisovan. The life-history connection is instead much older, and related to Eurasian vs African Homo erectus. And that makes a lot more sense since these traits require time to evolve.

      Leif Ekblad

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Don Zimmerman" <dwzimm@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, ralph holloway <rlh2@> wrote:
      >
      > > Just to be clear, Don, this is your earlier statement that I was
      > > reacting to:
      > > "DWZ:
      > > Those are good points. However, we should realize that not all critics
      > > who dismiss the ideas of "race realists" do so because of Political
      > > Correctness or crude political invective. On the contrary, quite a large
      > > number of responsible and generally fair-minded psychologists and
      > > scientists in other disciplines have opposed the "race realist"
      > > position, citing research data and marshaling theoretical arguments that
      > > have nothing to do with politics. My guess is that more truly unbiased
      > > researchers dismiss it than accept it."
      > >
      > > I'd be grateful if you could provide some evidence because almost all of
      > > the opposition has been PC and without cogent theoretical arguments, and
      > > research data controverting the data that Rushton and other "race
      > > realists" have provided. I'd like to pursue this because I have
      > > repeatedly demanded that my students counter Rushton's arguments with
      > > facts and better arguments (with facts), and I haven't seen any
      > > marshaled thus far.
      > > I do this for a reason: most students confronted with his data and ideas
      > > tend to be appalled by it, and reject all of it as simply "racist". My
      > > goal is to get them to ask why there is no solid factual data to
      > > contradict those ideas, and ponder where science begins and where it ends
      >
      >
      > DWZ:
      > To put it another way, I do not doubt the accuracy of the race-realist data, but rather the theoretical interpretation of the data. I firmly believed over 50 years ago that there are differences of around 15 IQ points in scores of blacks and whites and have not changed my mind since. I used to teach about those findings in university courses and express agreement with them (and nobody to my knowledge ever called me a racist). I can remember reading about such data in books by Terman and others in high school long before so-called "race realism" appeared on the scene. However, at that time I questioned the interpretation of those findings on the part of many people, and still do.
      >
      > So I suspect that the blanket dismissal of writings by Rushton and others as nothing more than racism, etc, is indeed to a large extent a knee-jerk reaction by people who have already made up their minds. That is hardly surprising. I wonder how many people immediately dismissed Darwin before bothering to examine his ideas.
      >
      > My view is that the controversy has not been properly FRAMED. I say: Do not question the existence of "intelligence" differences among various groups. They are clear and undeniable. Lets not waste time trying to deny objective facts. What should be doubted is the conception of "intelligence" as a fixed, unchanging, Platonic essence or attribute existing inside the head, without environmental determinants, which is often assumed and not subjected to critical analysis during the course of debates about group differences.
      >
      > Best regards,
      >
      > Donald W. Zimmerman
      > Vancouver, BC, Canada
      > dwzimm@...
      > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
      >
      > .
      >


    • jacob mack
       Thank you and also I need to correct a minor typo meant to say = 80%:) is not shown to be so. ________________________________ From: clarence_sonny_williams
      Message 200 of 200 , Oct 29, 2012

         Thank you and also I need to correct a minor typo meant to say >= 80%:) is not shown to be so.

        From: clarence_sonny_williams <clarencew@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 8:40 AM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The neurological basis of g

         
        Jacob,

        Yes, you have done very well in establishing your case and providing
        scientific evidence.

        Many of the rest of us have done so as well, but Hibbsa/Brad feels like
        he must assume the role of gadfly and forever ask the same thing. Just
        swat him away like you do all the other annoying insects by telling him
        to read your previous posts wherein you provided evidence to contradict
        the absolutely inane blathering of RAF and Bee.

        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, jacob mack <jcbmack@...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > I submitted the links to contradictory data already and I discussed
        some of the flaws of the research that states genes have such a high %
        involvement in intelligence levels. There are of course many others.
        <=80% intelligence is far too high in a representative sample is just
        plain false.
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: hibbsa hibbsa@...
        > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:39 PM
        > Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The neurological basis of g
        >
        >
        > >1.) Analyze data that shows a contradiction to the findings that Bee
        and perhaps, you seem to support.
        > It would really help move things on, if you were to provideÂ
        the contradictory data. Then I will join you in challenging Bee to
        explain whether it has been dealt with and if not why not. And I'm sure
        Bee won't mind in the least being challenged with actual data. So
        let's go to the next stage with you providing the contradictory
        data? Â
        >
        >
        <snip>


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.