Thread by @PaoloShirasi

[THREAD]

A VERY BASIC INTRODUCTION TO THE HEREDITARIAN POSITION ON RACE AND IQ.

PART 16: The Hereditarian Explanation — GWAS/PGS and Group Differences

This might be a good time to revisit GWAS, an advance in genomics which has identified the *specific* genetic variants associated with IQ and then had these variants' IQ-predictive values quantified by polygenic risk scoring (PGS or PRS).

Background:

https://twitter.com/PaoloShirasi/status/1551576350602960896

GWAS is going to revolutionize how scientists do research into race and intelligence.

Ultimately, as more genetic variants become associated with IQ, predictive models (such as PGS) improve, and sample sizes become even larger and more diverse, scientists may be able to use these tools to settle the race and IQ debate once and for all.

If gene variants associated with IQ significantly vary between groups (as we already know they do between individuals) — e.g., certain of these genes have a higher frequency in some races than others — then this would support a genetic hypothesis for race IQ gaps.

A hereditarian's view: “[GWAS/PRS] lets us expect that it is only a matter of time before geographically differentiated patterned distributions of coupled gene variants will be identified to further support the existence of biologically based individual and group differences.”

“Populations differ in frequency of SNPs... associated with intelligence, in types of y-DNA chromosomal haplogroups and in genetic distance measures.... [research] results will most likely [defeat] ...claims of gene-free population non-variance for [IQ].”

At least one researcher (Davide Piffer) has already attempted to use PGS (with a novel approach) to predict group intelligence. However, many researchers, including some sympathetic to the hereditarian position, appear to believe that such efforts may be premature.

Whether premature or not, Piffer found “population differences in PGS which correlated with estimates of average population IQ and students performance on standardized tests,” exactly what you would predict with a genetic explanation for race IQ gaps.

Another 2019 study also shows exactly what a hereditarian model would predict: “Genetic correlations computed using GWAS summary statistics are very similar to phenotypic correlations."

In other words, those observable characteristics (like race and measured IQ) that scientifically correlate well, also genetically correlate well.

Part of the problem that early PRS investigators are having is that there are fewer genetic data on persons of African descent. The medical research establishment, which uses GWAS/PGS to conduct important research has become particularly vocal about this problem.

The attenuation of predictive power when blacks are PGS subjects is fairly significant — up to 85% in one large, rigorous study on genes and educational attainment. (But of course this attenuation also supports the argument of meaningful genetic differences between races.)

Another (and possibly more important) problem for IQ researchers is the expectation that those institutions which possess the genetic data necessary to conduct investigations into race and IQ may be unwilling to release them because of the sensitive nature of the research.

I'll be discussing the political and cultural context of intelligence research in some detail in later threads. Suffice to say for now that pressure from left-wing activists has successfully impeded much of the investigation into the subject since the 1960s.

SOURCES:

nature.com/articles/s4158…

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/…

mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/…