I wrote about how population stratification in genetic analyses led to a decade of false findings and almost certainly continues to bias emerging results. But we are starting to have statistical tools to sniff it out. A 🧵:
First, stratification = genetic structure + environmental structure. If two populations have some genetic variation (e.g. due to drift) and differing environmental influences on a trait, that will induce a false/non-causal correlation between genes and the trait.
When such false correlations are further aggregated into polygenic scores, they can accumulate into very large *apparent* genetic differences between even closely related populations. And these false differences will mirror the environment: environment looking like genes.
This is a good example of how pointless a lot of the "data oriented" conversations on X are. DataRepublican, a DOGE analyst, makes a bold claim that 0/60,000 sampled government contracts had outlays < potential award ...
Judd Legum, a journalist, points out that having outlays lower than the potential award amount happens frequently, explains why, and highlights a number of specific examples. Seems like a pretty basic error, should be easy to acknowledge right?
Wrong. DataRepublican first responds with a bizarre claim that they hadn't sampled enough contracts because "hard drive overheated", but that the methodology is sound. Then notes in passing that there was a bug, but follows it up with a brand *new* analysis.
So it turns out the person running this account and accusing mainstream behavioral geneticists of fraud was actually one of the authors of the discredited Pesta at al. paper that was being criticized. Pretending to be an objective third party so they could sling mud.
FWIW I don't have a problem with anon accounts and enjoy interacting with many on here. I understand that people may want to partition their on-line/IRL lives. But setting up a sock puppet persona so you can aggro out on colleagues that disagree with you is pathetic.
And using a pseudonym so you can self-cite and email your own preprints to other researchers for them to cite is just sad.
It's been interesting seeing Murray become an Ibram X. Kendi figure but for the right. Everyone knows his "analyses" in Human Diversity -- like comparing non-causal allele frequencies between populations -- are completely bogus. Razib knows this too.
But Murray says the things that are politically correct and pleasing to that audience's ego so he regularly gets trotted out for softball interviews and never needs to exhibit any rigor.
This happens over and over. Here's AEI hosting a debate between Murray and Princeton Professor Dalton Conley. Conley explains that the claims made by Murray about genetic differences are unsupported by the data and often gross misinterpretations.
This thread and especially the underlying LessWrong post are a good demonstration of the IQ super-baby conspiracy theory that seems to be gripping Silicon Valley. Here's how it works ...
First, claim that we already have the knowledge of how DNA affects college graduation rates but no one is interested in applying it. This is false, we almost never know *which* genetic variant is actually causal nor *how* it actually influences the associated trait.
This is also a challenge the field is very interested in understanding, including large-scale NIH-funded consortia efforts like IGVF (). Claiming that we already have the knowledge also undermines such efforts.genome.gov/Funded-Program…
How population stratification makes environments look like genes. A short 🧵:
Start with two populations undergoing neutral drift but with no frequency differences on the alleles that influence the trait (i.e. no genetically causal population differences).
Generate a phenotype that differs slightly between the populations for entirely non-genetic reasons (i.e. a difference in the environmental means). Drift + environmental differences = population stratification.