"interracial marriages are less stable. The risk of marital dissolution among mixed marriages is about 1.21 times that of (or 21% higher than) non-mixed endogamous marriages"
"adolescents who are involved in interracial relationships are more likely to terminate their relationships than their counterparts involved in intraracial relationships even after we adjust for individual, relationship and social network factors"
"Interracial marriage is associated with increases in severe distress for Native American men, white women, and for Hispanic men and women married to non-white spouses, compared to endogamous members of the same groups"
"exogamous marriages are in general 24% more likely to end in divorce than endogamous marriages, but there is substantial variation across racial groups. Intermarriages with a Caucasian wife are the least Stable."
How robust are cross-population signatures of polygenic adaptation in humans?
These selection tests are difficult to get right. My guess is that we will have to wait a few years for trans-ethnic sequence based polygenic models ('GWAS') to get it right.
'Beware the hate groups! [proceeds to cite the most important hate group of all, journalists]'
Curiously, did not include the most important trait: intelligence or its social correlates (education, income etc.). Not that I think these conditions would likely reveal much if they can't even find clear evidence for obvious case of height.
"GRAF-pop correctly determined populations for more than 98% of European and 97% of Asian and African American subjects. The prediction accuracy for South Asian subjects is also greater than 98%, but the number of subjects is small."
"We used genotype data of 2,504 individuals from 1000 Genomes as a test for GRAF-pop. For HapMap defined “super populations” EUR, AFR, EAS, SAS, the accuracies are greater than 99%"
"The super population AFR includes two admixed populations from Americas: ASW (Americans of African ancestry) and ACB (African Caribbeans). If we exclude these two populations from AFR, then the prediction precision of GRAF-pop in non-admixed continental populations is 100%."
"Armed with this learning “Rosetta Stone,” we revisit various well-known results, showing, inter alia, that learning differences between most- and least-developed countries are larger than existing estimates suggest."
So, it's another item linking study. The idea is to find items that have been reused across these tests, and thus one can link the scores with some math tricks. Coverage looks like this.
The results look pretty much like every other such ranking.
Tracking intelligence's evolution over time from genomes of fossils? Check!
On divergent selection, also confirmed in modern studies.
Variants associated with intelligence show more variation than random ones, or even matched ones (e.g. on MAF in discovery population, or derived-status).
So there is a new Dunning-Kruger paper out by Gignac and Zajenkowski. It goes like this:
Dunning Kruger pattern is trivial given 1) people overestimate themselves, and 2) self-estimate x criterion value is r < 1.00. I agree, I wrote that years ago.
So they collect some new data, typical weird format students self-rating and Raven's test. Looks like the usual deal.
A nice twist is that they realize the DK claim is a test for heteroscedasticity (what? inconstant variance). Well, I recently spent a lot of time thinking about this and they posted their data on OSF, so all is good, time for re-analysis!