While I agree with the notion that hight IQ people may be more "valuable" to a society when considering their greater potential contributions to fields like science, medicine and technology, having spent a lifetime in academia surrounded by high IQ folks, I can say that many of them are among the most unethical, amoral and fascistic scumbags you'll find anywhere. If you want to know what living in a high IQ society would feel like, image being ruled over with an iron fist by the faculty senate of your friendly neighborhood university.
Academics (i.e., people who never want to leave school) might not be representative of the high-IQ population. Also, many of them are not actually so intelligent.
found this comment on a video it's by Kevin Byrd attacking Uber soy on race and IQ in the comment he tries to defend Lawton from Kevin Bird
This is some embarrassing flailing. I document several misrepresentations and inaccuracies in your video. The claims about the cause of the Flynn effect decline and the relationship of g-loaded IQ subtests and culture were just two direct refutations. You seem very confused about the fact 84% of genes are expressed somewhere in the brain at some point during development. This has no implication for racial differences unless you can specifically identify expression differences between races and their relationship to IQ. This research has not and likely cannot be done and the genetic data I presented shows there is no evidence of substantial genetic differences between races for genes associated with intelligence when you correct for biases in GWAS
I engage with your references the whole time, and bring up studies that address the crucial weaknesses in your cited work. It's a literature review based on some of the latest genetic studies and on economic papers that correct for the shoddy statistical analyses used in much of the IQ literature. It isn't the "sociologist's fallacy to show that accounting for these socioeconomic differences reduces the gaps since there is strong evidence and historical documentation that these socioeconomic differences between races are not genetic themselves and again no evidence from that genetics contributes to these racial gaps. Bringing up the Coleman report is irrelevant when I present papers from this decade (not half a century ago) showing that data from 4 million students pointing toward economic inequality and segregation as driving the majority of achievement test score gap in schools. You should update your references to the proper century.
Now addressing the rest of your tantrum in order
1. Yes, correlational research is weak and needs either experimental validation or more robust methods to infer causality.
2. They are fundamentally interactions, they are not separable as genetic or environmental and they show that phenotypes can
change in different environments. 3. Laughing does not refute my own published researcher showing that genes associated with intelligence do not show the patterns that would be present if natural selection were acting to make Europeans more intelligent than Africans.
4. Your evidence for dysgenics relies on faulty genetic methods prone to false-positives and from researchers with no credibility
or expertise.
5. The sibling study on the Flynn effect is precisely the kind of well-designed study that can distinguish genetic from environmental causes and it unambiguously supports environment and precludes genetic causes.
6. Fst between dog breeds are much larger than between human populations. The paper I cited references 3-5% for human races and 27% for dogs using comparable genetic markers.
7. The distinction between within-and between group heritability is a fundamental aspect of that statistical method. Also the
data I presented did show school districts where there are no racial test score gaps, a closing racial test score gap for national standardized tests, and IQ tests which show no racial gap.
8.I have to once again stress that the "g" in g-factor is not referencing genetics. genetics and the g-factor are largely unrelated
thing. Also, the study about education and gender inequality is not "unknown" and uses data from three well known large studies with representative samples sizes. 9. The Ritchie and Tucker-Drob paper does not show a fade-out effect from these education gains. At least read what you try and
criticize.
10. I cited papers that controlled for income and wealth and they accounted for nearly the entire gap in academic performance. 11. That paper 1 cited is literally the main reference in your own review paper, along with a large single-cohort study of 18,000 people showing a correlation of 0.27, which the authors settle on as the most likely value.
The problem here is you don't understand genetics or evolution or how these methods work, while I do. This is also the issue between intelligence "experts" and actual geneticists and evolutionary biologists. The GWAS work cited is extremely flawed, this has been argued to death in the literature and I directly tested it in my paper and showed it produced false-positive results.
Finally, none of the work I cited failed to replicate and Richard Lewontin was one of the most influential evolutionary biologists of the late 20th century and Lewontin's fallacy is a complete misnomer
AI automation seems like it will mostly automate lower skilled white collar workers, rather than blue collar workers, since robotics hasn't kept up with software improvements.
While I agree with the notion that hight IQ people may be more "valuable" to a society when considering their greater potential contributions to fields like science, medicine and technology, having spent a lifetime in academia surrounded by high IQ folks, I can say that many of them are among the most unethical, amoral and fascistic scumbags you'll find anywhere. If you want to know what living in a high IQ society would feel like, image being ruled over with an iron fist by the faculty senate of your friendly neighborhood university.
Academics (i.e., people who never want to leave school) might not be representative of the high-IQ population. Also, many of them are not actually so intelligent.
found this comment on a video it's by Kevin Byrd attacking Uber soy on race and IQ in the comment he tries to defend Lawton from Kevin Bird
This is some embarrassing flailing. I document several misrepresentations and inaccuracies in your video. The claims about the cause of the Flynn effect decline and the relationship of g-loaded IQ subtests and culture were just two direct refutations. You seem very confused about the fact 84% of genes are expressed somewhere in the brain at some point during development. This has no implication for racial differences unless you can specifically identify expression differences between races and their relationship to IQ. This research has not and likely cannot be done and the genetic data I presented shows there is no evidence of substantial genetic differences between races for genes associated with intelligence when you correct for biases in GWAS
I engage with your references the whole time, and bring up studies that address the crucial weaknesses in your cited work. It's a literature review based on some of the latest genetic studies and on economic papers that correct for the shoddy statistical analyses used in much of the IQ literature. It isn't the "sociologist's fallacy to show that accounting for these socioeconomic differences reduces the gaps since there is strong evidence and historical documentation that these socioeconomic differences between races are not genetic themselves and again no evidence from that genetics contributes to these racial gaps. Bringing up the Coleman report is irrelevant when I present papers from this decade (not half a century ago) showing that data from 4 million students pointing toward economic inequality and segregation as driving the majority of achievement test score gap in schools. You should update your references to the proper century.
Now addressing the rest of your tantrum in order
1. Yes, correlational research is weak and needs either experimental validation or more robust methods to infer causality.
2. They are fundamentally interactions, they are not separable as genetic or environmental and they show that phenotypes can
change in different environments. 3. Laughing does not refute my own published researcher showing that genes associated with intelligence do not show the patterns that would be present if natural selection were acting to make Europeans more intelligent than Africans.
4. Your evidence for dysgenics relies on faulty genetic methods prone to false-positives and from researchers with no credibility
or expertise.
5. The sibling study on the Flynn effect is precisely the kind of well-designed study that can distinguish genetic from environmental causes and it unambiguously supports environment and precludes genetic causes.
6. Fst between dog breeds are much larger than between human populations. The paper I cited references 3-5% for human races and 27% for dogs using comparable genetic markers.
7. The distinction between within-and between group heritability is a fundamental aspect of that statistical method. Also the
data I presented did show school districts where there are no racial test score gaps, a closing racial test score gap for national standardized tests, and IQ tests which show no racial gap.
8.I have to once again stress that the "g" in g-factor is not referencing genetics. genetics and the g-factor are largely unrelated
thing. Also, the study about education and gender inequality is not "unknown" and uses data from three well known large studies with representative samples sizes. 9. The Ritchie and Tucker-Drob paper does not show a fade-out effect from these education gains. At least read what you try and
criticize.
10. I cited papers that controlled for income and wealth and they accounted for nearly the entire gap in academic performance. 11. That paper 1 cited is literally the main reference in your own review paper, along with a large single-cohort study of 18,000 people showing a correlation of 0.27, which the authors settle on as the most likely value.
The problem here is you don't understand genetics or evolution or how these methods work, while I do. This is also the issue between intelligence "experts" and actual geneticists and evolutionary biologists. The GWAS work cited is extremely flawed, this has been argued to death in the literature and I directly tested it in my paper and showed it produced false-positive results.
Finally, none of the work I cited failed to replicate and Richard Lewontin was one of the most influential evolutionary biologists of the late 20th century and Lewontin's fallacy is a complete misnomer
(https://onlinelibrary wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bies.202100204)
The root moral question: do people with higher IQs WANT to have any economic use for people with lower IQs?
We've lost the luxury of having no choice but to need them, thanks to mechanization & automation.
We're loosing the rat race to increase demand faster than productivity.
AI automation seems like it will mostly automate lower skilled white collar workers, rather than blue collar workers, since robotics hasn't kept up with software improvements.