Big G differences: less input or smaller (g)s?

More thoughts on National IQs and HBD

1. IQ (g) differences between individuals can represent either:

(a) environmentally produced biological differences
(b) gene-environmentally produced biological differences
(c) genetically produced biological differences*

2. The Big G differences between Nations (i.e national IQs) can represent either:

(a) “the means of individuals within those nations”
(b) “the levels of intelligence of the nations themselves (of institutions like rational bureaucracies, universities, etc.” (Rindermann, 2007)

Roughly, individual differences in IQ (g) represent differences in the abilities to process information. Given the same input, an individual with a lower IQ (g) will produce a lower output (in the same amount of time). National differences in IQ (G) either represent differences in the aggregated capacity of the individuals or differences in the national institutions which generate the input.

Hereditarians need to show that 2a) is true and that 2a) results from 1c). Establishing 2a) is the first step. Is there evidence that the Big G differences represent aggregated individual IQ (g) differences?

——-

*h^2 = is broad heritability. Which includes additive variance, dominance variance, epistatic variance, and variance due to assortive mating [V(G)=V(A)+V(D)+V(EP)+V(AM)]. Technically, additive variance, or narrow heritability, is only hereditiarian (i.e breeds true). But from the perspective of behavioral “hereditarians,” it doesn’t matter if the difference is due to total genetic variance, V(G) or additive variance (Jensen, 1973; Sesardic, 2005). This is a moot point since non-additive variance effect plays an insignificant role in IQ (g).

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Big G differences: less input or smaller (g)s?

  1. “Hereditarians need to show that 2a) is true and that 2a) results from 1c). Establishing 2a) is the first step. Is there evidence that the Big G differences represent aggregated individual IQ (g) differences?”

    I would have thought that ‘hereditarianism’ was a plausible hypotheses, the mainstream, accepted for many decades by the best-informed, most eminent scientists of their day due to its explanatory power and because it fits a great mass of available data and survived numerous tests; only suppressed (never refuted) due to the changing political climate.

    http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2008/09/pioneering-studies-of-iq.html

    Those who oppose ‘hereditarianism’ on scientific grounds need to 1. provide reasonably-clear contradictory instances, examples which refute the hypotheses (warning – there aren’t any!); and 2. provide a comparably plausible and simple-enough-to-test alternative hypotheses.

    Otherwise the hereditarian hypothesis stands by right, surely?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s