Don’t look

Don’t look here or here or take a look here and here in this paper or read this or this if you are a big fan of Acemogluism.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Don’t look

  1. Rohmer says:

    Interestingly, Peru’s overwhelmingly mestizo International Math Olympiad team has performed respectably over the last decade. Much better than Spain’s, as well as a number of other European countries.

    You can view their pictures at the link above. I was surprised by the number of brown/indio faces.

    Particularly impressive has been Raúl Arturo Chávez Sarmiento, who became the second youngest person ever to win a medal at the IMO (after Terence Tao). He went on the win silver and gold medals in later years. He has a mathematician and a physicist for siblings as well.

    I’ve also noticed a disproportionate number of mestizo faces among Chile’s IMO team (I’ve always felt that Chile’s “whiteness” has been overstated), although Chile has only sporadically participated in the competition.

  2. B.B. says:

    OT: I’d be interested to get your opinion on Jonathan Michael Kaplan’s article in the latest issue of Biology & Philosophy:

    Race, IQ, and the Search for Statistical Signals Associated with So-called “X”-Factors: Environments, Racism, and the “Hereditarian Hypothesis”

    • Julian says:

      Kaplan also might want to read Steve Hsu’s comments on how you could get evidence of differential selection on a quantitative trait:

      “he results were reported on the blog Genetic Inference, based on a talk at Biology of Genomes 2011.

      A few comments:

      1. Although known alleles for height only account for 5-10% of variance (out of the expected 80-90%), it is very plausible that loci of smaller effect or MAF (minor allele frequency) account for the “missing heritability”. We still lack sufficient statistics to detect most of the individual loci of this type, but it’s a matter of time. See beautiful paper from Visscher’s group. The results described below suggest that loci just below the (arbitrary) significance threshold currently in use might also be height associated. There is a whole distribution of loci with smaller effect sizes and MAF that are just waiting to be discovered — we have only found the tip of the iceberg.

      2. Even with only a fraction of total additive variance identified, one can still make estimates of breeding value for groups by simply computing the prevalence of known associated loci in each group. How indicative these (large effect/MAF) loci are of the actual breeding values can’t be answered a priori, but I would bet they are a good indicator, and this seems to be the case for height.

      3. If the results on selection hold up this will be clear evidence for differential selection between groups of a quantitative trait (as opposed to lactose or altitude tolerance, which are controlled by small sets of loci). We may soon be able to conclude that there has been enough evolutionary time for selection to work within European populations on a trait that is controlled by hundreds (probably thousands) of loci.

      4. With luck we might get to this level of analysis for g in the next 5-10 years. (I originally wrote 3-5 years but one of my more sober collaborators convinced me that would be quite unlikely!)”

      • Bait says:

        Average height per population has been changing. Even if you find traits that are heritable the average difference between groups of those traits can be entirely environmental because environment affects the genes themselves.

        • Chuck says:

          What you mean to say is that even if within populations traits are highly heritable, differences between populations (or random individuals, for that matter) could be completely environmental. Well, of course. And this is why the racial nature-nurture debate is still ongoing. Yet in this specific case, numerous convergent lines of evidence point to highly heritable between group differences.

    • Chuck says:

      Sorry, my alter ego has been busy with other stuff.

      As for Kaplan’s piece, it’s silly. The overall issue being addressed is that:
      (a) The Black-White gap is transmitted inter-generationally; it is inherited in the broadest sense.
      (b) This means that it’s due to some combination of shared environmental factors (which are common to both populations and shared within families), shared genetic factors (which are common to both populations and shared within families), environmental x-(or unique) factors (which are unique to one population and shared within families), or, for symmetry’s sake, genetic x-factors (which are unique to one population and shared within families).
      (c) The problem with shared environmental factors is that the correlation between shared environment and IQ in the Black and White populations is relatively low; here, for example, was our unpublished HV meta-analysis: Unfortunately, we haven’t had time to publish let alone post on this:
      (d) Kaplan is trying to resurrect an x-factor explanation, which posits that group differences are due to factors unique to one or the other population; basically, “environment” has a different meaning between groups.
      (e) Contrary Kaplan, this hypothesis is utterly testable; two methods have been proposed:

      Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Flannery, D. J. (1994). No more than skin deep: Ethnic and racial similarity in developmental process. Psychological Review, 101(3), 396.

      Lubke, G. H., Dolan, C. V., Kelderman, H., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2003). On the relationship between sources of within-and between-group differences and measurement invariance in the common factor model. Intelligence, 31(6), 543-566.

      To the extent Lubke et al.’s logic follows, their method is more powerful because environment, in general, is treated as a variable, where with Rowe et al.’s method specific environmental factors are. With Rowe et al.’s, one can always posit some yet untested variables, which is what Kaplan does in part.

      (f) With regards to statistical significance, Kaplan’s argument suffers from two flaws:

      (1) one can use meta-analysis to overcome the problem of sample size
      (2) smaller sample sizes can be used to test for practical significance and rule out x-factors of modest effect; one would then have to posit numerous micro-factors — which Kaplan does.

      Of course, one can always argue …. but such arguments become less plausible; it’s like maintaining that there’s a monster in Loch Ness; the plausibility decreases the more one fails to find one; of course, the monster could always reside in some yet searched location

      As for Kaplan’s claim that a hereditarian hypothesis is untestable because heritability is estimated based on sibs who share the same race, this is incorrect; one can use biometric decomposition of mean differences or, now, between group Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis as used in Trzaskowski et al. (2014). GCTA overcomes within/between group heritability problem. Moreover, one can use admixture mapping as is done in medical genetics.

  3. Julian says:

    That Kaplan paper seems to not appreciate the Lewontin Fallacy or the problems with the stereotype threat literature Wicherts found.

    Kaplan seems to think the stress of racism is to blame, but seems unaware that East Asians outscore whites, plus data on brain size, admixture, score differences controlling for SES etc.etc.

    Plus, this quotation is remarkable. It’s a shame Jensen isn’t alive to respond.

    “Again, it is important to stress that given what is now being learned about maternal imprinting and epigenetic changes associated with stress, eliminating the effects of racism should be recognized as a multi-generational project; even if, magically, racism were to vanish tomorrow, social-economic resources were redistributed completely equally, and all newborns randomly distributed across the population, it would very likely still be at least several generations before the full effects of racism were eliminated!”

    • Bait says:

      “Kaplan seems to think the stress of racism is to blame, but seems unaware that East Asians outscore whites, plus data on brain size, admixture, score differences controlling for SES etc.etc.”

      Black identity is imposed on black people(by everyone). Black peoples identity, who they think they are in this world is almost entirely determined by racism. Thats a constant never ending environmental condition that affects the brain, throughout generations. Its severe and extreme for black people especially.

      The bottom line of stereotype threat and motivation which undeniably affects IQ and SAT is simple. Its that an idea, a thought from outside(environment) put into your head can make a big difference in how you perform on the tests.

      Brain size is affected by environment. It can even change by doing mundane things like playing video games. It can definitely be affected by what you eat too. Just go check, its all there. Same goes for average height of populations and body size.

      Every single measurement in this entire argument even the genes themselves are affected by environment.

      I doubt the average difference between groups is even 5% genetic.

      • Chuck says:

        I don’t know what you mean by racism; in the U.S. we have massive institutional discrimination for Blacks; it’s called, euphemistically, “disparate impact” and “affirmative action” and “anti-discrimination”. As for so-said market place discrimination, this has been well investigated; blacks receive equal to better returns on their “human capital” (i.e., IQ). It doesn’t exist. As for “Black culture”, it has been found for 50 years now that Blacks are generally more motivated to succeed than Whites; this is called the “Attitude-Achievement Paradox”. In general, as for “environmental conditions”, if environment is the cause of the IQ differences, then it is. However, if genetics is, then genotypic IQ is the cause of environmental differences — as in extended genotype. Stereotype threat types of explanations are untenable for simply psychometric reasons; the intelligence difference is real, as determined by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis; it’s not a function of psychometric bias; also the gap shows up on tests, in proportion to cognitive loadedness, most people don’t know these index intelligence e.g, trainability and situational judgement tests — ergo no stereotypes. Moreover, IQ varies in proportion to European ancestry in the self defined U.S. Black population; Are “Blacks” aware of this; are there stereotypes that whiter Blacks are smarter?

        Generally, there is no possible way that the African-European American gap is not, in part, congenital. Zero. Zip. None. This puts things in a different light. Instead of society racistly holding Blacks down, we have society racistly attempting to lift them up.

        • Bait says:

          “it has been found for 50 years now that Blacks are generally more motivated to succeed than Whites”

          Nonsense. You think going and asking black people how motivated they are in some test proves that? Please, it depends on what they are motivated in doing and what they think they can do, what the world tells them they are supposed to be motivated to do. They can be motivated to succeed but the environment puts in their mind based on what race they are what they should be motivated in doing. What is a black thing to do, a white thing to do. It’s extremely prevalent in blacks. That whole thing could be just making up for being deeply unmotivated and or insecure.

          I grew up with blacks and around black culture. On average they are purposefully lazy, being late is seen as showing it to the man, in fact everything is, and they are constantly brainwashed to think so because nobody blames them thanks to racism, instead they blame racism. Not being good at maths and science is almost a good thing because its seen as a white/Asian thing. Thats why there are things like being an OREO. Being a nerd is seen as acting white/Asian. How much more of an environmental impact do you want? That whole identity is based off of race and racism. The whole thought process that leads to that sort of thinking is based on race and racism. A black person is literally born with a huge chip on their shoulder thanks to the very idea of race.

          “Stereotype threat types of explanations are untenable for simply psychometric reasons”

          Nonsense. Every single test can be affected by what you think of yourself and what you have experienced. Even little puzzles, avoiding obstacles. All of those things can be affected by even some problem you had the morning before with your girlfriend.

          “Situational judgment”, “trainability” are not affected by who and what you think you are? Are you kidding me?

          “Moreover, IQ varies in proportion to European ancestry in the self defined U.S. Black population; Are “Blacks” aware of this; are there stereotypes that whiter Blacks are smarter?”

          Yes there are such stereotypes, but its not seen as being smarter, its seen as acting white, thanks again to racism. Also on top of all of that “whiter blacks” are treated better by blacks, whites and everyone on average. They get more chances simply by looks alone. Some of those self identified blacks are “mixed” so they would on average have the two most important brain development stages, prenatal and infancy exposed to a better environment. They would also have better epigenetics on average.

          “Generally, there is no possible way that the African-European American gap is not, in part, congenital. Zero. Zip. None. ”

          Wishful thinking. Its entirely possible its 0% genetic because everything that is different on average is affected on average by environment. Everything.

          “Instead of society racistly holding Blacks down, we have society racistly attempting to lift them up.”

          Pfft. The way they are attempting to “lift” them up is even worse than just leaving them alone. The way blacks are helped is by putting no blame on them as individuals. Not treating them as individuals, perpetuating race and their racial identity constantly.

          I’m not saying that temporary average gap isn’t part genetic but it can be entirely 100% environment.

          • Chuck says:


            We’ll play a game. You offer, one at a time, an environmental explanation for the intelligence gap, and I’ll explain the error. So, for example:

            1. Stereotype Threat: Stereotype threat (ST) is a form a psychometric bias; as a result, it induces measurement noninvariance, meaning that the between group differences has a different meaning that the within group difference. In all published analyses, the B-W gap has been found to be measure invariant. Ergo, the gap is not due to ST. Also, I discussed this at length here:

            The magnitude of the gap correlates strongly with the general intelligence loadings of a test which correlates strongly with the predictive validity of the test; and the gap can be found on job simulation “test” which merely test how well individuals can perform job related tasks. What ST proponents effectively have to argue is that cognitive tests are psychometrically biased against Blacks, yet Blacks just happen to underperformed — for some unidentified reason — as if the tests were not based. And they happen to underperformed on “tests” that are nothing like the typical cognitive ones. And that this strange synchronicity just happens to be ubiquitous.

            See also here. Stereotype threat hypothesis is lame; it was first proposed in the 60s (under a different name), shot down, and then recycled in the 90s; that’s the pattern with environmental explanations; debunked and then recycled a decade or three latter.

            2. Motivation: See e.g., Downey, D. B., Ainsworth, J. W., & Qian, Z. (2009). Rethinking the attitude-achievement paradox among blacks. Sociology of Education, 82(1), 1-19.

            Given blacks’ current socioeconomic disadvantages, coupled with their historically oppressed relationship with whites, most scholars would expect blacks to express pessimistic attitudes toward schooling. But they do not. This puzzle was evident as far back as the 1966 Coleman report, which concluded that blacks “give a picture of students who report high interest in academic achievement, but whose reported interest is not translated through effective action into achievement” (Coleman et al. 1966:320). Others have had difficulty understanding black students’ optimistic educational expectations. Studying a sample of black and white high school boys from Indiana, Kerckhoff and Campbell (1977:24) wrote: “The expectations of the white boys seem clearly to be based on their past school experience as well as their ability and social background, but there is little understandable basis for the expectations of the blacks.” This pattern is also evident among researchers who have used ethnographic methods. For example, through observations of black students in a Stockton, California, high school, Ogbu (1989:102) identified what he called the “paradox of high educational aspirations but low academic performance.

            See the authors’ table 2. Measured motivation is at least as predictive for Blacks as for Whites. If society is so racist, then why does progressive academia and the media continually recycle untenable explanations? Also, if blacks are “lazy” why do they have conscientious scores no less than Whites?

          • Rouge says:

            Please some study by people who don’t know black people asking them how motivated they are is retarded. Ask any kid who is stereotyped to not be good at something about how motivated they are to work. They will say they are very motivated to overcome it, but that entire process of being stereotyped is a big drain on them and I promise they start to accept it at some point. Some black kid saying he is motivated or acting as if he/she is doesn’t mean that they are. Its most likely a result of stress and anxiety from being stereotyped.

            I went to school with them man, for my whole school career. Your little studies are a joke. Black people might say they are motivated to learn but they are not. Those kids are on average much less self confident in school, in themselves and are not sure what they want even and its all thanks to racism. Some of them do get out of it buts its a lot harder. Its a constant overbearing thing that uses up part of their minds from when they are little kids. White kids and Asians do not generally have that as much as black kids. The system perpetuates it still.

            When I went to school, not caring about work was seen as a good thing. I have enough proof of blacks not being motivated. When you grow up with them are friends with them. When they know you personally then you will see. Not some fool with a questionare sitting in the corner writing down little observations.

          • Meng Hu says:

            Concerning the african paradox, what do you think about that ?

            Racial differences in narcissistic tendencies
            Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Marion T. Wallace

            Importantly, the heightened levels of narcissism reported by Black individuals were primarily limited to the measures of narcissism that capture the somewhat less pathological elements of the construct. For example, the largest differences were observed for the measures capturing self-absorption and grandiosity with smaller differences emerging for measures that assessed feelings of entitlement or a willingness to exploit others. This pattern may be explained by the fact that the aspects of narcissism that emphasize self-aggrandizement, feelings of entitlement, and a willingness to exploit others are at the very heart of individualistic cultures and the possession of these qualities may be especially important for stigmatized minority group members who feel devalued by broader society because they may experience difficulty obtaining affirmation from external sources (see Foster et al., 2003, or Twenge & Crocker, 2002, for similar arguments). This explanation is consistent with the observation that Black individuals reported lower scores on the Contingent Self-Esteem subscale of the PNI than White individuals. The reluctance of Black individuals to base their feelings of self-worth on the approval of others may be helpful in some respects (e.g., maintaining and enhancing their self-esteem) but it may also lead to negative consequences associated with a lack of attention to social feedback (e.g., less motivation, dismissal of suggestions for improvement following failure; Zeigler-Hill, 2007). Taken together, these results suggest that the heightened levels of narcissism reported by Black individuals may serve as a self-protective mechanism to buffer them from the deleterious consequences of racism.

            From this paragraph, I deduct that blacks, through “self-enhancement” process, can answer the “motivation” items by over-stating their true level of motivation. It’s a strong assumption but it is worth testing.

            By the way, I don’t understand the following graph.

            In what way does it refute the Acemoglu model ?

          • Meng Hu says:

            Bait :

            “I grew up with blacks and around black culture. On average they are purposefully lazy”

            The problem with the internet is how people can easily lie. i have seen lot of people saying blacks are lazy, and also lot of people saying blacks are not lazy. Someone must be telling lies. It’s funny how the internet works. The internet is also replete with people having problems with self-esteem, and they use the internet to show to the others how smart they look like. Note the “look like”. They don’t prove it, they just want to get others having this impression : “See? Mine is bigger than yours”. These people can be easily detected, they are those incapable of substantiating their argumentation, and they merely say “wrong it’s wrong, false it’s false”. It’s not difficult to detect someone who is intelligent and someone who is not. Anyway, I don’t care about personal opinions. That worths nothing.

            The way your present your environmental hypothesis is self-dedeating. It looks as if it can’t be tested. If you can’t test an hypothesis, it is by definition irrefutable, and thus has no scientific meaning, and should not be considered even further. You’re just discrediting yourself.

            “Its entirely possible its 0% genetic because everything that is different on average is affected on average by environment”

            Jensen (1973) made a strong case against that.

            Besides, you don’t seem to understand the implication of measurement non-invariance. Wicherts says it may have problems for the ST theory because when B-W IQ difference is usually measurement invariant (MI), the black-white gap resulting from ST experiments shows violation of MI. This means, contra your assumption, that ST effect can be detected statistically.

    • Chuck says:


      Interesting, early race theorists like Buffon posited something akin to epigenetics.

    • B.B. says:

      Julian says:
      That Kaplan paper seems to not appreciate… the problems with the stereotype threat literature Wicherts found.

      I guess you are referring to Wicherts & Cor de Haan’s presentation at the 2009 ISIR conference about black stereotype threat being exaggerated by publication bias. The thing is that the actual paper itself was never published. For years it was listed as “under review” in Wicherts’ CV, but around November last year any reference to the paper was deleted, which I’d guess indicates that some fatal flaw was found in the paper during the review process. Of course, somebody could just send an email to Wicherts to ask about it if they are so inclined.

      Something else on the matter of stereotype threat I’ve been wondering about, are individual differences in the magnitude of stereotype threat mediated by genetics? Considering the first law of behavioral genetics, I’d guess that would be the case, though I don’t think anyone has directly tested this. One might be able to dig up some indirect evidence through looking up studies that link stereotype threat to personality variables that do have known heritability estimates. Attempts to minimize the role genetics plays in individual differences in IQ through stereotype threat would be undermined if it is shown that stereotype threat isn’t a purely environmental variable.

      • Chuck says:

        The meta-analytic effects found by ST proponents themselves are small — and dubious.

        • szopeno says:

          Jensen in the “g-factor” wrote that he himself does not understand why introduce new term for an effect which was long-known in psychometry. If you introduce a stressing factor n any test, the people with lower abilities will respond with lowered scored. That is, IF blacks have lower abilities, THEN by this well-known law, IF you will introduce any stressing factor, THEN their scores SHOULD be lowered.

          And as for Kaplan’s paper, I find his claim “hereditarian theories cannot be proven” (in short) ridiculous. In my country methodology of science is mandatory for anyone aspiring to PhD. The first thing they teached me is that no theory can be “proven”. What you can do is to try to disprove this theory, and consider it well-established if it resists continual efforts to disprove. By this measure, environmental hypothesis should be long dumped, and hereditarian hypothesis should be established default theory.

      • Meng Hu says:


        One year and half by now I asked Wicherts about this meta-analysis, and he told me the reviewers are very slow at processing it. So, if he told me the truth, it means something else is happening about why it is not published yet, despite 5 years of late.

  4. szopeno says:

    Ah, another thing: Serfs constituted large part of Polish and Russian population. The serfs lived in absolute poverty and were slaves in almost anything short of name. Even in XX century people descending from serfs were subjected to prejudictions (is there such a word) and were considered naturally dumb. In early Poland there were even theories about serfs descending from other kind of people than nobles. Even today “wieśniak” is derogatory term and people from villages are often laughed at in schools and presented in unflattering terms in movies, dramas, popular books and so on.

    Yet, while there is some gap between rural and urban populations of Poland, and between Polish and say German population, this gap is nothing even close to 1SD. Why?

    Another thing: Kaplan pays a lot of attention to the fact that Nisbett found the gap between whites and blacks narrowing. Even ignoring Rushton-Nisbett discussion of this, the fact is that the shortening of the gap in the future means nothing about whether currently the gap is partially genetic in the origin, as the future populations of blacks and whites are likely to be different. For one thing, there is quite significant intermarriage between both populations; and though selection on IQ probably would not produce noticeable effects within one generation, it may change totally even the direction of the gap in the long term
    (i.e. it is possible, at least theoretically conceivable, that in distant future blacks would be genetically smarter than whites; moreover, it is not just possible but very likely that nowadays there may be some black populations which are “genetically smarter” than some white populations (and obviously, some blacks which may be “geneticaly smarter” than vast majority of whites)).

    • Chuck says:

      Thanks for the comments. I agree with everything which you have written. As for the slavery argument, our Thomas Jefferson offered a rebuttal two and a half centuries ago: Quote:

      “We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the condition of their slaves was much more deplorable than that of the blacks on the continent of America. The two sexes were confined in separate apartments, because to raise a child cost the master more than to buy one. Cato, for a very restricted indulgence to his slaves in this particular, took from them a certain price. But in this country the slaves multiply as fast as the free inhabitants. Their situation and manners place the commerce between the two sexes almost without restraint. — The same Cato, on a principle of economy, always sold his sick and superannuated slaves. He gives it as a standing precept to a master visiting his farm, to sell his old oxen, old waggons, old tools, old and diseased servants, and every thing else become useless. `Vendat boves vetulos, plaustrum vetus, ferramenta vetera, servum senem, servum morbosum, & si quid aliud supersit vendat.’ Cato de re rusticâ. c. 2. The American slaves cannot enumerate this among the injuries and insults they receive. It was the common practice to expose in the island Suet. Claud of Aesculapius, in the Tyber, diseased slaves, whose cure was like to become tedious. The Emperor Claudius, by an edict, gave freedom to such of them as should recover, and first declared, that if any person chose to kill rather than to expose them, it should be deemed homicide. The exposing them is a crime of which no instance has existed with us; and were it to be followed by death, it would be punished capitally. We are told of a certain Vedius Pollio, who, in the presence of Augustus, would have given a slave as food to his fish, for having broken a glass. With the Romans, the regular method of taking the evidence of their slaves was under torture. Here it has been thought better never to resort to their evidence. When a master was murdered, all his slaves, in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death. Here punishment falls on the guilty only, and as precise proof is required against him as against a freeman. Yet notwithstanding these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled too in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their master’s children. Epictetus, Terence, and Phaedrus, were slaves. But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but nature, which has produced the distinction. — Whether further observation will or will not verify the conjecture, that nature has been less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head, I believe that in those of the heart she will be found to have done them justice.”

      In section IV-L of the following article, we discussed some of the supporting lines of evidence for a hereditarian IQ-hypothesis: This issue could presently be resolved using a number of modern techniques such as admixture mapping and between population GCTA. But there is a defacto embargo on such studies. As such, we will have to await for enough IQ alleles to be found so that the distribution of these in different populations can be compared. This will be done in the next couple of years.

      • Rouge says:

        Those Roman slaves were released and they were treated well after that.

        Black people were enslaved then treated badly afterwards. A black person even after being free will have big trouble from outside simply because of the way they look. Epictetus, Terence, and Phaedrus did not have that. Did they have people against them gaining an education even? When they walked somewhere were they ridiculed, scoffed at, segregated, made to feel alone, sad, lowered self esteem simply for being born? That happened to black people, it still does.

        Epictetus owner allowed him to study whilst being a slave, then released him. After he was released did the ruling system go against him simply for looking a certain way?

        Terence was also educated by his owner, then freed.

        Pheadrus was already born to a wealthy family. No info showing he was a slave.

        Black people especially African Americans have had it far worse. They weren’t were ruined, their entire identity is based off a racist idea created by a “white” guy. Who they are was thanks to racism. Those serfs, Roman slaves, Jews. They don’t have that.

  5. szopeno says:

    BTW, can you recommend some titles on gender differences in variability and scores from 2013 onwards? I have read a lot of older literature, but I am out of sync with the newest papers, and google.scholar produced few thousands titles for “gender differences in iq” (even when I restricted the date range to 2014 solely.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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