Christians sag, Muslims rise, Jews ever constant

Yes, I know that Google N-gram is not a perfect window on the world, but in the English literature over the last two centuries reference to Christian has fallen, to Muslim has risen, and to Jew is ever constant. Interesting to know which of those mentions was positive or negative.

Something happened around 1920 to boost Muslim, very probably the Balfour letter of 2 November 1917. Pretty easy to fit dates to the subsequent rise of the words, but odd that creation of state of Israel has no influence on the mentions of Jews. At this point you can see the battle of civilisations, with a Muslim rise and a Christian fall (and perhaps a more recent Christian renewing of vows).

Let’s look at it a slightly different way:

As mentions of Israel rise, so do mentions of Muslim and Islamic.

Now we need a pointless variable which goes in a different direction, which then gives us sufficient material for a book. Terrorism turns out to be a lagging variable for Islamic. Atheism barely registers. Coexistence little better. Murder has the same frequency as Muslim, and Islamic rises to that level till all three are indistinguishable by 2008. A good story to be made out of that, no doubt. Weapons behave similarly.  After trying a few words which contributed nothing more, I recalled a conversation I had in King Henry VIII’s wine cellar with a colleague who had done long service in researching military psychology. Call him Simon. The venue is in the deep bowels of the Ministry of Defence building, and is one of the last remnants of Whitehall Palace, and conducive to reflection.  Talking to Simon about trauma reactions in the military he interrupted me, saying of something I had just said: “Ah, that’s a word that doesn’t get used any more”.

Have a look at the final picture:

   Judging people by the content of their character. Quaint.

The puzzle of falling French intelligence

In June I reported on the work of Edward Dutton and Richard Lynn in “A negative Flynn Effect in France, 1999 to 2008–9” Intelligence 51 (2015) 67–70.

http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/is-france-sinking-even-further.html

I wrote that they had looked at a small but probably representative sample used by the Wechsler team in their 2011 French standardisation of the adult form of their general intelligence test. They say: The results of the French WAIS III (1999) and the French WAIS IV (2008–9) are compared based on a sample of 79 subjects aged between 30 years and 63 years who took both tests in 2008–2009. It is shown that between 1999 and 2008–9 the French Full Scale IQ declined by 3.8 points.

If true, this is a substantial drop in ability. The authors did not furnish an explanation, though they considered a few possibilities. In my comments I suggested a couple of reasons (apart from small sample size) that the results might not be as solid as imagined, but still felt that there had very probably been a drop in ability.

Now the paper has been looked at by Michael Woodley and Curtis Dunkel who examine causal explanations in more detail.

Michael A. Woodley of Menie and  Curtis S. Dunkel. In France, are secular IQ losses biologically caused? A comment on Dutton and Lynn (2015) Intelligence, Volume 53, November–December 2015, Pages 81–85 doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.009

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZS1hPOHMyUGpOVVk/view?usp=sharing

The authors say: Dutton and Lynn report secular declines in Fullscale IQ evaluated using WAIS of four points a decade in France between the years 1999 and 2008–9. It is posited that the trend may have a partially biological cause, stemming from dysgenic fertility and, to a lesser extent, replacement migration. Given that these, and other biological phenomena are associated with the Jensen effect, it is expected that if they are the principal causes of the IQ decline then the secular change should also be associated with the Jensen effect. Furthermore if it can be demonstrated that the vectors of secular IQ decline, g loadings and the vectors of other biological indicators share variance, then the case for biological causation will be strengthened. Using the method of correlated vectors and error disattenuation, the secular IQ declines are shown to be associated with a high-magnitude Jensen effect (ρ = .833). A multi-vector common factor comprised of the vector of g loadings along with the vectors of three biological variables (subtest heritabilities, dysgenic fertilities and simple visual reaction times) was found to load substantially on the secular IQ decline vector (λ = .723). These findings indicate that the French secular IQ loss likely has a primarily biological cause.

How do the authors come to this conclusion?

It has been observed, with a few of exceptions, that variables which associate with IQ subtests to a greater extent, when the measure is more g loaded, tend to be biological (i.e. pertaining to genetic and physiological factors) and include factors such as population, race and species-level differences in cognitive ability ( Fernandes et al., 2014, Rushton, 1999 and Rushton and Jensen, 2010), subtest heritabilities ( Woodley of Menie, Fernandes, & Hopkins, 2015) and inbreeding depression effects ( Rushton, 1999 and Rushton and Jensen, 2010). Collectively these have been termed ‘Jensen effects’ ( Rushton, 1998).

Factors that exhibit the opposite tendency, i.e. associate with less g loaded abilities to a greater extent (and are in consequence ‘anti-Jensen effects’), are typically environmental or cultural in origin, such as IQ gains accrued via retesting ( te Nijenhuis, van Vianen, & van der Flier, 2007), gains accruing from the adoption of low IQ children into high IQ homes ( te Nijenhuis, Jongeneel-Grimen, & Armstrong, 2015), those accruing from intensive educational interventions ( te Nijenhuis, Jongeneel-Grimen, & Kirkegaard, 2014) and the Flynn effect ( te Nijenhuis & van der Flier, 2013).

First, they correlate the vector of French secular IQ decline magnitudes with the vector of subtest g loadings from the French standardization of the WAIS-III. This is the method of correlated vectors. They also correct for measurement errors.

Second, they construct a multi-vector common factor using the vector of the secular IQ declines and subtest g loadings along with the vectors of various biological indicators, including subtest heritabilities, Subtest-fertility (dysgenic) correlations and simple visual reaction time-subtest correlations.

The raw vector correlation is 0.38 and the corrected estimate 0.833. The corrections are reasonable, but the authors are clear that there is no way to get round the smallness of the sample, so I see this as just an indication of the underlying trend.

This adds in the dysgenics estimates and simple reaction time results, and the reliabilities, to give a much fuller and more intriguing picture.

Finally, they show the correlations of the vectors and bring the whole thing together:

Crucially, the loadings for g, heritability and secular IQ declines are all positive.

The authors say: The French secular IQ declines are associated with modest and large-magnitude (based on Cohen, 1988; small = .1 to .29, modest = .3 to .49, large = .5 to 1)¹ Jensen effects when both the French WAIS-III normalization g loadings and the meta-analytic manual g loadings from Kan (2011) are used (r = .38 and .658 respectively; the two sets of g loadings exhibit a large-magnitude correlation: r = .626, N = 9 subtests). When corrected for four sources of error, the vector correlation between the French WAIS-III g loadings and secular IQ declines increases to .833 indicating a high-magnitude Jensen effect.

They concede that there is high measurement error, and they and the original authors agree on this point.

The results of the multi-vector analysis are consistent with Rushton's (1999) prediction that the vectors of biological variables and also g loadings should cluster with one another, forming a biological nexus. All loadings of the multi-vector common factor on its components are of large magnitude (λ = .505 to .854). The loading of the vector of secular IQ decline (λ = .723) indicates an association between this variable and other biological variables, which supports the speculation advanced in Dutton and Lynn (2015)concerning possible biological causes of the French IQ decline.

Replacement migration in France involving populations exhibiting lower means of IQ and higher rates of total fertility, such as Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians and Roma (Čvorić, 2014 and Lynn and Vanhanen, 2012) may be increasing the rate of secular losses at the level of g, consistent with speculations advanced in Dutton and Lynn (2015), however the additional loss in g due to this process is anticipated to be very small. Based on a simulation, Nyborg (2012) estimates that in Denmark, replacement migration may be reducing heritable g by .28 points per decade, which would increase the overall loss in gto 1.51 points per decade ( Woodley of Menie, 2015), this still being only 37.75% of the loss observed in the French cohort.

Another possible contributing factor is the so-called “brain drain” (De Rugy, 2012), which involves high-g French individuals emigrating to countries that offer more competitive salaries and better working conditions. Thus human capital flight between 1999 and 2008–9, especially among the younger demographic, may have contributed to the French secular IQ decline, however the precise impact of the effect is difficult to determine.

Brain drain is certainly a possibility: the “South Kensington effect” of French emigres clustering round the Lycée français Charles de Gaulle is a result of London hosting roughly 270,000 French. The number is less significant than the fact of them being highly qualified and entrepreneurial, a real smart fraction.

Now the authors’ approach should be used to look at the more recent paper by Jakob Pietschnig and Georg Gittler on an equivalent fall in intelligence in Austria and Germany. Will they find the same result?

http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/deutschland-uber-alles-dann-unter-allen.html

It is a minor point, but authors reporting falls in intelligence sometimes describe it as “a negative Flynn Effect”. Whilst technically true, this somewhat underplays what is going on. If you strip out from the apparently rising scores that portion which is due to measurement error (changes in material, in scoring, in standardisation and possibly in student guessing) then the rest is assumed to be due to better environments: education, health and prosperity. The original assumption was that once everyone was on a level playing field of externally provided good circumstances, then intellects would reach a plateau of high functioning, but a plateau nonetheless. Jim Flynn said he was always surprised at how long the effect was continuing. He felt that once the deficits in living circumstances had been corrected, it would stop. However, as far as I know, no-one apart from those looking at dysgenics had predicted that intelligence would fall. I think we should refer to falling intelligence as Falling Intelligence. Either that, or follow Charles Murray in calling it the Woodley Effect

The work by Woodley and Dunkel serves as a general method of estimating the biological component in intellectual decline, a key explanatory component of the Woodley Effect. It should be tested widely.

 

Does affirmative action cause mental illness in black and Hispanic students?

A reader asks me to comment on a post with the above headline, so this is a quick note with a few thoughts. The link is given below, and that itself links to a New York Times article, which I reproduce in case you want to start with that article.

http://linkis.com/americanthinker.com/ezFVv

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/with-diversity-comes-intensity-in-amherst-free-speech-debate.html?_r=1

The true answer is that I have absolutely no idea whether affirmative action causes mental illness in black and Hispanic students. Of course, I have many ideas which have been generated by the question, but I can’t answer it because many of the parts required for a good answer are not available to me, and I don’t want to hunt them down at the moment. For example, I would have to research affirmative action generally, its prevalence in US colleges, its prevalence in the colleges currently experiencing protests versus those not protesting, college SAT entrance score requirements, some base rates of mental illness in college student by race, and general US college dropout rates. The protesting students may have excellent grades, and I cannot determine whether they gained entry through affirmative action just by looking at them, though I can gain some impression of their abilities and character by watching the videos of their protests. Those brief glimpses of behaviour may not be representative, but they can be very informative.

The plausibility of the thesis (affirmative action causes mental illness in its beneficiaries)  is only moderately in its favour, because psychology leads easily to ad hoc explanations, of which the most popular would be: placed in a college where the course content reveals them to be clearly less able than Asian and White students, Black and Hispanic student feel demoralized, depressed and resentful. They attribute their personal failings to institutional shortcomings, and (like many weak students everywhere) complain: “I’m bright but the exam was unfair/I wasn’t taught properly”. Before jumping to that conclusion (which may be right, but is not proved right just by being plausible) it is more important to have a knowledge of the territory. Here are some general findings in the UK, simply to show my thought processes. Dropout rates in British universities are closely related to university quality: better universities have lower dropout rates. That is not surprising: they get much brighter students, far more capable of completing a university course.

You need, on average, 608 UCAS points to get into the University of Cambridge, making it the most competitive university in the UK. Understandably, only 0.35% of students drop out.

Only about 1% drop out of the Russell Group, either because their school exam marks flattered them and they lack ability, or more likely because of psychological problems: loneliness, home-sickness, anxiety and depression.

Lesser institution have higher dropout rates, roughly 15%. They get less able students, and probably offer them less personal attention. Also, the degrees they confer will themselves confer relatively little occupational advantage, so dropping out may be sensible if there are jobs available. Someone who gets three years of job experience may do better than those who hang on attempting to be studious. There are also differences according to the courses taken, with prized medical education places having a low dropout.

College life is great but has drawbacks. Losing parental and school peer support is one aspect, but there is also the unsettling change for many that they move from being top of the class to being close to the bottom of the university. At a real university you will find many persons brighter than yourself, and many, many persons more knowledgeable than yourself. Unsettling. (I still haven’t got over the shock of finding that other students had read Franz Kafka, and some had made notes about his writings). Finding yourself not as precious as you thought you were can be depressing. If you were let in on some sort of racial, religious or sociological quota you may struggle to compete with those judged only on ability and accomplishments. If the gap between the quota entrants and the others is big, they will be seen a queue-jumpers. That will be true on average, however hurtful.

College attendance aside, lower intelligence is related to more psychological disturbance anyway, so weaker colleges will have more students with those sorts of problems.

Does college life cause mental illness? Well, only in the sense that life imposes demands on people, and strain develops if external stress is not met with inner resilience or elasticity. Colleges are intellectually demanding, but also empowering. Learning makes you better able to understand life, and slightly better able to understand yourself. You achieve the beginnings of mastery of some basic techniques, and begin to correct your many mistakes. Compared with struggling to find and keep a job, college life is relatively easy, and much easier than bringing up children.

 

Psychologists haven’t actually got a Young’s Modulus for human beings because, ahem, Psychology is a young science, and has been for a century, but the general predictors of psychological breakdown are known: being a woman is one of the most important, but being neurotic, less intelligent and less well educated are also important, as are life-events, better known as the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, bringing strains and grievous losses.

My opinion is that college entrance should be based on academic ability. Standardised testing is the best way of determining this: well-validated general intelligence tests and cognitively demanding scholastic ability tests. g-loaded is best. Anyone who gets in on another basis (including Daddy paying for a University Library) will experience some strain because they cannot keep up with the others, though the stresses will be much less than working as a nurse in a busy hospital ward. Colleges don’t cause mental illness, but vulnerable students may find them taxing. Taking good care of students is both kind and wise, because suicide is a preventable risk.

So, full confession now, when Keele University students had a protest in the sixties I did not participate, even though I was a victim of their “no women in the bedroom after 6 pm rule”. This was not surprising, because virtually nobody took part except the usual suspects, looked at with mild amusement by the majority. The university authorities were benign if paternalistic, and the protestors were seen as far too self-important. They submitted a list of mild suggestions and cleaned up the offices before leaving, to the great satisfaction of their Class Comrades in the Revolution, the university cleaning ladies.

But now, in the spirit of the time, how about my feelings about the current US University protests, as seen in a few videos? 

Wow, what bad manners!

US academics: Lefty and Liberal because of high IQ?

 

There is a long academic tradition of regarding opponents as mentally disturbed. Such condemnatory revelation is done more in sorrow than malevolence, the investigators would have us believe. Academia has looked long and hard at Right wingers and pronounced them a pretty odd bunch, suffering from something called The Authoritarian Personality. Fascists is the more usual appellation, and their horrible opinions are calibrated on the F scale. What do Right wing academics say about Lefties? Not much, because there are few Right wing academics in social psychology.

One interpretation popular among Lefties is that the brighter you are, the more likely you are to be a Leftie. At the higher levels of intellect you see things as they really are: Socialist. There is a fair bit of data to support this position. The alternative explanation is that the brightest people want to run things and make money, and regard academia as a boring waste of time. Bright people look at the bitter way academics argue, all the more petulantly and virulently in obscure matters because “the stakes are so low” and escape into the real world. Very bright people tend to the Right, and in their pursuit of power and wealth simply don’t care what academics chatter about, because their mutterings don’t make any difference. The Brightest have left college to compete for the glittering prizes, and the lefties are the social incompetents who remain perpetual students, striking absurd postures about world events over which they have no influence.

At this point you might like to look at a previous post which sets out the general thesis that the Left gather together the very brightest people and the dullest, thus joining together in a U shaped curve the clever idealists who really believe in Leftism and the dull ones who only sign up because they are the beneficiaries. This last group are not bright, but know what is good for them.

http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/are-lefties-clever-or-just-grasping.html

Then go through the comments, and note that on 3rd October 2014 Noah Carl writes in to say: My reading of the literature is somewhat different to Solon's. I am currently working on a critical comment piece, which I intend to submit as a response.

Here, after the usual paper-journal delay, is Noah Carl’s interesting paper: Can intelligence explain the overrepresentation of liberals and leftists in American academia? Intelligence Volume 53, November–December 2015, Pages 181–193  doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.10.008

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZVl9kOE5jMU90a1U/view?usp=sharing

The author says: It is well known that individuals with so-called liberal or leftist views are overrepresented in American academia. By bringing together data on American academics, the general population and a high-IQ population, the present study investigates how much of this overrepresentation can be explained by intelligence. It finds that intelligence can account for most of the disparity between academics and the general population on the issues of abortion, homosexuality and traditional gender roles. By contrast, it finds that intelligence cannot account for any of the disparity between academics and the general population on the issue of income inequality. But for methodological reasons, this finding is tentative. Furthermore, the paper finds that intelligence may account for less than half of the disparity on liberal versus conservative ideology, and much less than half the disparity on Democrat versus Republican identity. Following the analysis, eight alternative explanations for liberal and leftist overrepresentation are reviewed.

Overrepresentation of liberals and Democrats appears to be largest in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts (particularly sociology, anthropology and the performing arts), and appears to be smallest in economics, business, computer science, engineering and military science. For example, the ratio of liberal to conservative English literature professors may be as high as 28:1, while the ratio of Democrat to Republican sociology professors may be as high as 44:1 . Overrepresentation in the physical sciences, the biological sciences and mathematics appears to be intermediate, though still considerable.

After reviewing the political affiliations of American law professors, Lindgren (2015) concluded that, “By some measures, in 1997 the most underrepresented racially defined groups were Non-Hispanic white Republicans and non-Hispanic white Protestants”. ” Similarly, when the psychologist Jonathan Haidt asked attendees at the 2011 meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology to indicate their political affiliations via a show of hands, he counted only 3 conservatives and only 12 libertarians, but approximately 800 liberals (Duarte et al., 2014). The 23rd annual Commencement Speakers Survey carried out by Young America's Foundation documented a ratio of six liberal speakers for every one conservative speaker among the top 100 universities. And notably in 2014, invitations to at least six prominent commencement speakers' were met with protests on campus from liberal or leftist student groups, leading to the cancellation of four.(Strauss, 2014; Chotiner, 2014). It is important to keep in mind that American academia has probably not always been so skewed toward liberalism and leftism. Duarte et al., (2014) compiled historical figures on academic psychologists' partisan affiliations, which indicate that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans may have been as low as 2:1 or even parity in the 1920s.

High intelligence may explain Leftism for the following reasons: Academic advancement requires very high intelligence, and since few individuals with conservative or rightist views possess very high intelligence, such individuals are comparatively scarce within the academy. At present, there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence for this hypothesis. Numerous studies have found that individuals with higher intelligence to be more socially liberal on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, working women, free speech and marijuana legalisation.

Americans with higher intelligence are apparently more likely to identify as liberal on a liberal/conservatism scale. And compared to Americans with only high intelligence, those with the highest intelligence are more likely to identify as Democrat, more likely to support welfare for the poor, and more likely to favour affirmative action for minorities. In addition, scholarly elites such as Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners and Putnam fellows have donated to the Democratic Party far more often than they have donated to the Republican Party. However, there is also some circumstantial evidence against the hypothesis. In particular, several studies have found that individuals with higher intelligence tend to be more economically rightist in areas such as redistribution of income and government control of the economy.

Method: Fig. 1 illustrates the method used for assessing how much of the overrepresentation of liberals and leftists in American academia can be explained by intelligence. I first bring together data on the political beliefs of three separate populations: academics, the general population, and a high-IQ population. I then calculate the proportion of each population that identifies with various political positions (e.g., thinking of oneself as a liberal, supporting the Democratic Party). The extent of overrepresentation for any particular position is simply the percentage point difference between academics and the general population (i.e., the total length of the right-hand bar in Fig. 1). And the fraction of this overrepresentation that can be explained by intelligence is simply the percentage-point difference between the high-IQ population and the general population divided by the percentage-point difference between academics and the general population (i.e., the grey portion of the right-hand bar divided by the total length of the bar). In the hypothetical case of Fig. 1, there is a 10 percentage-point gap between academics and the general population of which 50% (i.e., 5 percentage points) can be explained by intelligence.

This is a crude variance estimate method, but at least is clear in how it is being calculated, and seems reasonable.

I define the high-IQ population as the roughly 4% of GSS respondents who scored 10 out of 10 in the vocabulary test. Note that a score of 10 equates to a mean IQ of ~128, which is just under two standard deviations above the population mean. This is in line with estimates for the average IQ of academics that have been reported in the literature, though it may understate the intelligence of academics in the physical sciences, whilst possibly overstating the intelligence of academics in the social sciences and humanities (see Dutton & Lynn, 2014). Gibson and Light (1967) tested 148 male academics at Cambridge University, and reported a mean IQ of ~128 among physicists, and of ~122 among social scientists.

So, given that method, here are some of the political views showing what proportion of those viewpoints might be accounted for by intelligence.

Here, in tabular form, are the striking differences between academics, the general public, and high IQ people.

 

I have summarised Noah’s possible explanations very briefly, but the paper is particularly interesting on the more detailed arguments:

1 Self selection: Academics may be more Open to Experience in personality.

2 Self selection: Academics less interested in making money and raising children.

3 Self selection: scholars can cope with ambiguity, conservatives not.

4 After self selection, social pressure strengthens group think.

5 Self selection: Academics have weedy, feeble physiques, were probably fearful and bullied, hence want restorative “justice”.

6 Academics become more liberal through groupthink.

7 Academics have low pay relative to their educational level compared with independent professionals, resent them, want equality of influence.

8 Academics discriminate against any candidate with right wing inclinations.

Personally, I see all these as boiling down to two factors: self selection and social pressure.

Noah concludes: Intelligence can account for most of the disparity between academics and the general population on the issues of abortion, homosexuality and traditional gender roles. By contrast, intelligence cannot account for any of the disparity between academics and the general population on the issue of income inequality. Furthermore, intelligence may account for less than half of the disparity on liberal versus conservative ideology, and much less than half the disparity on Democrat versus Republican identity. Possible explanations for the remaining overrepresentation comprise: self-selection on personality, interests, cognitive style or preferences; social homophily and political typing; self-selection on strength and stature; individual conformity; status inconsistency; and discrimination.

In sum, this paper shows that intelligence is a large part of the answer, but not all of it. The paper also shows the very clear difference in political and social attitudes between academia and society as a whole. It does a great service in showing this yawning chasm of attitudes.

If you evaluate arguments by questioning the motives of the proponents (does the Left do this more frequently than the Right?) then academia is so biased that its findings should be set aside. Nothing these apparatchiks “find” can be trusted. They are Lefties, espousing Leftie causes, and they are a burden on the public purse. On the other hand, if all these disciplines have strong methods and a respect for facts, then the standard procedures of empirical science should prove sufficient to reveal errors in research, so science should self correct. On this, possibly too optimistic reading, there is no need to pack academia with Right wing scholars (and such affirmative action should be anathema to them anyway) because the truth will out in the end. In conclusion, we have to examine arguments regardless of motives, and seek to improve the accuracy and soundness of research. A topic for a blog, I think.

 

 

Does social class affect intelligence only in America?

 

Paper publications impose delays on thought. In compensation, these laggard luminaries of lackadaisical journals claim that the final result is of a much higher standard, polished as the texts are by the sparkling minds of anonymous reviewers. Perhaps so.

On 13 December 2014 I reported from the ISIR conference: In a very big meta-analysis Tim Bates showed that social class interacts with intelligence to some extent in US samples, but not in other parts of the world. It suggests that the much quoted Turkheimer (2003) is something of an outlier in the US funnel plot, but there is a US/rest of world difference, though hard to be sure why, possibly less supportive welfare environment for poor Americans.

Only now in late November 2015 has that paper made its way through the review process, with the the result that I can report to you that in the published paper Elliot Tucker-Drob and Timothy Bates say :

A core hypothesis in developmental theory predicts that genetic influences on intelligence and academic achievement are suppressed under conditions of socioeconomic privation and more fully realized under conditions of socioeconomic advantage: a Gene × Childhood Socioeconomic Status (SES) interaction. Tests of this hypothesis have produced apparently inconsistent results. We performed a meta-analysis of tests of Gene × SES interaction on intelligence and academic-achievement test scores, allowing for stratification by nation (United States vs. non-United States), and we conducted rigorous tests for publication bias and between-studies heterogeneity. In U.S. studies, we found clear support for moderately sized Gene × SES effects. In studies from Western Europe and Australia, where social policies ensure more uniform access to high-quality education and health care, Gene × SES effects were zero or reversed.

Large Cross-National Differences  in Gene × Socioeconomic Status  Interaction on Intelligence. Psychological Science (2015)  1 –12  DOI: 10.1177/0956797615612727

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZUE9kQ2NMSnBmVGs/view?usp=sharing

This is an elegant paper, and worth the long wait I have been complaining about. It takes up the Scarr-Salapatek (1971) hypothesis: “IQ scores within advantaged groups will show larger proportions of genetic variance and smaller proportions of environmental variance than IQ scores for disadvantaged groups. Environmental disadvantage is predicated [sic] to reduce the genotype-phenotype correlation in lower-class groups” (p. 1286).

The author’s meta-analysis data set consisted of 43 effect sizes from a total of 24,926 pairs of twins and siblings (approximately 50,000 individuals) participating in 14 independent studies. Data were relatively evenly split across U.S. (18 effect sizes, 8 studies, 10,831 twin or sibling pairs) and non-U.S. (Western Europe and Australia; 25 effect sizes, 6 studies, 14,095 twin or sibling pairs) samples.

Here is the funnel plot of results, with black dots being the US and the red dots the rest:

It is pretty clear that US studies find effects which others do not. So, in the US only, here is the picture:

As you realise, the analysis of variance depends on the circumstances being measured. The authors are probably right to surmise that the US versus The Rest is due to more generous welfare in the rather rich selection of The Rest countries. For example, I doubt we have good data for Brazil or Mexico, but those should show a greater SES effect on g, which would strengthen the interpretation being advanced in this paper.

The authors say:  First, studies from the United States supported a moderately sized Gene × SES interaction on intelligence and academic achievement (a′ = .074; Fig. 1). Second, in studies conducted outside the United States (in Western Europe and Australia), the best estimate for Gene × SES magnitude was very slightly negative and not significantly different from zero. Third, the difference in the estimated magnitude of the Gene × SES effect between the U.S. and the non-U.S. studies was itself significant.

There were no other moderating variables, and no publication bias.

We also replicated the well-established phenomenon that genetic influences on intelligence increase and shared environmental influences on intelligence decrease with childhood age. [] Genes account for considerably more variation in intelligence at both higher ages and in higher U.S. socioeconomic contexts. Indeed, both phenomena may reflect a process of increased and accumulated effects of gene-environment transactions with the increased opportunity that comes with both social class and age.

The results indicate that Gene × SES effects are not uniform but can rather take positive, zero, and even negative values depending on factors that differ at the national level. The finding that low SES was associated with attenuated genetic influence on intelligence in the United States resolves an important debate. The finding that this interaction is observed only in the United States, together with the novel discovery here that the effect may even reverse in sign (The Netherlands), suggests that further research on between-nations variability in the effects of family SES on cognitive development is particularly important. Candidate mechanisms that might underlie such variability include national differences in how concepts of letter and number that underpin literacy and numeracy are imparted, educational quality more broadly, medical and educational access, and macrosocietal characteristics, such as upward social mobility and income support.

This is a very neat result, from a very detailed and carefully argued paper.

As an amusing corollary, as the political Left celebrates the spread of welfare states and seeks to improve social provision in the US, the political Right can take comfort from the proof that, once people have a level playing field of generous benefits, then breeding counts more than ever before.

(I know that the historical picture since 1870 probably favours social spending; that removing benefits would probably have deleterious effects and some good ones; that we may be already detecting dysgenic effects caused by welfare; and that we haven’t identified the candidate mechanisms, but there is amusement in noting how social policies have unintended consequences).

Third Blog Birthday

 

 

As is traditional on this blog, the cake shows only one candle, the ironic rite of passage preferred by patrons of a local restaurant who note birthdays with minimal fuss. Orbit completed, precise ages not seemly to disclose.

Having already described, in a previous post, why I blog, this anniversary is about you, the reader. 

Here are the places where readers live:

Top Ten countries

United States              317,722

United Kingdom          63,992

Germany                      27,603

Ukraine                         18,792

France                           18,731

Canada                          17,130

Russia                            13,954

Australia                        13,775

Finland                           4,310

Spain                               2,912

 

Top Ten Posts

Are girls too normal? Sex differences in intelligence 8 Sep 2013, 24 comments 8284

Gone with the Wind 20 May 2015, 38 comments                                                6109

The 7 tribes of intellect 2 Dec 2013, 59 comments                                                4762

Income, brain, race, and a big gap 31 Mar 2015, 32 comments                          4550

Give me a child until he is seven, 20 May 2013, 6 comments                             4317

Do women find bright men sexy? 18 Sep 2015, 27 comments                             4137

Flynn effect as a retesting, rule-based gain 2 Nov 2013, 14 comments               3481

Chanda Chisala: An African Hereditarian? 7 Jul 2015, 19 comments                3479

“It’s the people, stupid”: review of Wade 14 May 2014, 30 comments               2970

Intelligence in 2000 words 9 Dec 2013, 14 comments                                        2963

 

The most read post “Are girls too normal” is about sex differences in the variance of intelligence, a matter which was well known in the 1960s but which is news today, probably due to poor psychology teaching. My sole contribution was to depict the differences in a simpler way.

Hot on its heels is the more recent “Gone with the Wind”, which is a case of a snappy title bringing attention to the soberly entitled “Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies”, though that paper was already being widely read from conventional sources.

“The 7 tribes of intellect” keeps going strong.

“Income, brain, race and a big gap” is in fourth place, and is notable for going on to generate a good debate with the author of the paper I was criticising, leading many new readers to go back to have a look at it, before going on to read the author’s reply and my rejoinder. The sudden spike in interest, leading to 4,729 readers in one day was due to a mention by Steven Pinker, for which many thanks. All authors are invited to reply to posts, and it is great when they do so.

Referring URLs  and sites

URLs:

Google                      15,200

Unz + iSteve              3,950

HBD Chick                 2,808

Marginal Revolution 1,350

Websites

Twitter                       42,647

Google                       34,566

Unz                              6,722         

Reddit                          4,897

HBD Chick                  3,602

iSteve                           2,557

feedly                           2,254

facebook                      2,232

 

As you would expect on this blog, here is a cautionary note about metrics. I have used “pageviews” throughout, as the common currency of blogs. I am aware that some of those page views are very brief: a new reader sees some numbers and a graph on the page and quickly decides to read something else. Average time on a page is 4 minutes. Remember, this is much better data than we have for bookshelves. Right now I can look at some books on my shelves and note that I have read only a few pages, and some almost none.

My readers, or unique page viewers, are 50% new visitors 50% returning visitors. Mostly men, there is a peak for young adults.

 

Their interests are news and politics and education. What I would like to know is how many of you are teaching or studying psychology.

Twitter

Twitter is taking on a life of its own. Formerly I used it simply to announce each post, and to propagate some aphorisms to tempt people to read the blog. I have a mere 1457 followers (I came to the party late), tweet sparingly (4 tweets per day), but still get roughly 323,000 impressions every 28 days, which is 11,200 impressions a day. I get 110 re-tweets per 100 tweets. I have delusional expectations about any tweet composed in the early dawn, but nonetheless get attention with 30 tweets a month garnering more than a thousand impressions (one with 10,751) almost enough to make me feel I should drop the blog and tweet all day.

Top at 58 re-tweets is a graph showing effect sizes for early intervention studies. Next at 32 re-tweets are two aphorisms, as are most of the other top nine depicted.

 

79% of my Twitter followers are male.

Blog supporters

My blog readers vary from experts in the field (though they almost never post up comments) to recent voyagers into these cognitive waters, (who ask questions and welcome references). I receive a steady stream of papers and books, and welcome those, even if it often takes me time to post something about them. Keep them coming.

Thank you to all of you who have loyally re-tweeted my tweets about each blog post, which is specially kind when done by celebrated bloggers like HBDChick, Jayman, iSteve and others, all of whom have their own blogs to tend to. Commendations, mentions and re-tweets by figures like Steve Sailer,  Charles Murray and Steven Pinker greatly assist me. 

Now we are 3

On the first blog birthday I said : Finally, I can claim that in one year 71,701 readers have given my words a look, as opposed to the modal 6 if I had published a paper. (At that stage I had 199 Twitter followers.)

On the second blog birthday I said: At the end of two years I have written 418 posts, which is 4 a week, come rain or shine. Page views all time history at the end of two years: 313,753 (At that stage I had 597 Twitter followers).

On this, the third blog birthday, there are a total of  627 posts, I have an all time total of 657,875 readers.

Thank you, all of you.

If you have any ideas to help me reach more researchers and students, please let me know. (In particular, I would like to be read by university teachers writing psychology text books). As a matter of general preference, I seek readers who understand the basic rules of evidence based arguments, and prefer focussed discussion, with references. They are doubtful, cautious, helpful, open-minded but easily startled. Approach them carefully, with a gentle recommendation that they might like to take a brief look at these pages. Perhaps.

Why I blog: Small particles of knowledge

 

I started this blog three years ago because I wanted to justify to myself having paid to go to a conference in San Antonio in 2012, and thought I should let other psychologists know something about the papers presented there. Usually, I stay at home in my study.

I continued blogging because I often found myself muttering during news items about the psychological variables which had been left out, often regarding intelligence differences, or failures to follow correct methods, or errors in argument.

The largest reason for blogging is even more personal. My self-evaluation is that I am primarily a translator, bridging a gap between researchers and readers.

The issue was best described by Samuel Johnson:

"The greater part of students are not born with abilities to construct systems, or advance knowledge; nor can have any hope beyond that of becoming intelligent hearers in the schools of art, of being able to comprehend what others discover, and to remember what others teach. Even those to whom Providence hath allotted greater strength of understanding can expect only to improve a single science. In every other part of learning they must be content to follow opinions which they are not able to examine; and, even in that which they claim as peculiarly their own, can seldom add more than some small particle of knowledge to the hereditary stock devolved to them from ancient times, the collective labour of a thousand intellects."
Johnson: Rambler #121 (May 14, 1751)

The great man did not need to spell out that his intellect was superior to many of the best and brightest with whom he conversed (or gored and tossed, as Boswell lamented). He knew he had a great faculty of mind, and enjoyed it, while retaining his humility.

My aim is to be an intelligent hearer, able to comprehend what others discover; able to describe their findings clearly, mostly in commendation though sometimes with detailed reservations; and thus to add a small particle of knowledge to the collective labour of a thousand intellects.

Are your feelings easily hurt?

 

If so, you are probably also a worrier, moody, irritable, nervous, fed-up, tense, lonely and guilty. In a word: Neurotic.

I have a distant and mature understanding of such propensities. Not that I am a worrier, of course, but simply that, very occasionally, I find myself worrying about things which may never happen, and becoming gloomy and anxious as a result. Only every now and then. I would explain it further and give more lurid examples, but why tempt Fate? Neurosis is bad enough without Nemesis.

So, how do we explain what makes people like us neurotic? Many people (myself included) are tempted to look back at their childhoods, identifying events which were painful and which would make just about everyone worry if life was worth living. Losing one’s keys, for example.

Perhaps the cluster of anxious or “vigilant” attitudes to life have a genetic component.

Genome-wide analysis of over 106,000 individuals identifies 9 neuroticism-associated loci

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/11/20/032417.full.pdf

The authors say:

We report a genome-wide association study of neuroticism in 91,370 participants
of the UK Biobank cohort and a combined meta-analysis which includes a further 7,197 participants  from the Generation Scotland Scottish Family Health Study (GS:SFHS) and 8,687 participants from a Queensland Institute of Medical Research (QIMR) cohort.  All participants were assessed using the  same neuroticism instrument, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R-S) Short Form’s Neuroticism scale.  We found a SNP-based heritability estimate for neuroticism of approximately 15% (SE = 0.7%).  Meta-analysis identified 9 novel loci associated with neuroticism.  The strongest evidence for association was at a locus on chromosome 8 (p = 1.28x10-15) spanning 4 Mb and containing at least 36 genes.  Other associated loci included genes of interest on chromosome 1
(GRIK3, glutamate receptor ionotropic kainate 3), chromosome 4 (KLHL2, Kelch-like protein 2), chromosome 17 (CRHR1, corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor 1 and MAPT, microtubule associated protein Tau), and on chromosome 18 (CELF4, CUGBP elav-like family member 4).  We found no evidence for genetic differences in the common allelic architecture of neuroticism by sex. 
By comparing our findings with those of the Psychiatric Genetics Consortia, we identified a large genetic correlation between neuroticism and MDD (0.64) and a smaller genetic correlation with schizophrenia (0.22) but not with bipolar disorder.  Polygenic scores derived from the primary UK Biobank sample captured about 1% of the variance in trait liability to neuroticism. Overall, our findings confirm a polygenic basis for neuroticism and substantial shared genetic architecture
between neuroticism and MDD (major depressive disorder).  The identification of 9 new neuroticism-associated loci will drive forward future work on the neurobiology of neuroticism and related phenotypes.
 

As you all know, individual differences in neuroticism are highly stable across the life course and being neurotic is associated with considerable public health and economic costs, premature mortality, and a range of negative emotional states and psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, substance misuse, personality disorders and schizophrenia, so it is an important aspect of personality and may also explain the some of the causes of psychiatric disorders.

Mean neuroticism scores were lower for men than for women (men mean EPQ-R-S = 3.58, SD = 3.19; women mean EPQ-R-S = 4.58, SD = 3.26; p = 0.001).  Principal component analysis of the 12 EPQ-R-S items showed that all items loaded highly on a single component, and the internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) coefficient was
0.84.

Women worry much more than men. Crudely speaking, 28% more. Although only 1 man in 10 is totally phlegmatic and stable, they are twice as common as totally phlegmatic and stable women. Remember this when things go bump in the night. The authors found no evidence for genetic differences in the common allelic architecture of neuroticism by sex, suggesting to me that they have more of the same rather than something different.

Comment

A very good paper with a large sample and a clear result, which identifies 9 loci of interest where only 1 had been shown in previous research.

So, we have a first step, and future work may well push up the variance in neuroticism accounted for by the genome. There is still plenty scope for much of neuroticism to be caused by unfeeling parents, boarding schools, war zones other than boarding schools, sudden noises, and the smell of steak in passageways.

IQ and ISIS

If you ever needed an illustration of the vast yawning gap between the mainstream narrative about disaffected Muslims travelling from Europe to join ISIS and discussions conducted in the better informed parts of the blogosphere, here is an illustrative example. We start with a post by Steve Sailer.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/why-does-belgium-have-such-angry-muslims/

Steve takes up a discussion on Marginal Revolution, where a commentator known as dux.ie does an interesting calculation: PISA scores for first and second generation immigrants are compared to the PISA scores for Europeans,  and the gap with the second generation is plotted against the number of people who have left Europe to join ISIS.

First, while mainstream media revolves round named journalists, who are indeed trying to make a name for themselves by establishing bylines, the blogosphere is a mixture of named and anonymous contributors, with a preponderance of the latter. Presumably they think  their comments will draw hostility and even sanctions against them, possibly losing their jobs. It happens.

Second, while mainstream accounts are historical, political, and cultural in their primary focus, and likely to discuss Muslim enclaves in terms of poverty, unemployment and cultural disaffection; blogosphere accounts cover those, but also include cognitive and scholastic ability and other behavioural measures like levels of violence in their countries of origin.

Third, mainstream accounts are usually mostly news reportage, with some general political and economic content and opinion. Blogosphere discussions tend to dig up data sources and more detailed publications. The big difference between mainstream reportage and blogs is that the latter tend to give links to data sets. Perhaps we should always distinguish between linked and unlinked reportage, or just set aside any discursive account which does not give references.

In that spirit, here is some background reading, with references:

http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/will-cognitive-capitalism-migrate-with.html

The IQ estimates in this post are drawn from PISA and the (rough) estimates of numbers of jihadis from:

http://icsr.info/2015/01/foreign-fighter-total-syriairaq-now-exceeds-20000-surpasses-afghanistan-conflict-1980s/

However, this is a very rough estimate because a) who knows for sure how many would-be jihadis have made this journey? and b) the numbers are being compared with total populations in each country, rather than Muslim populations in each country. Digging up those numbers would give us a better estimate of the conversion rate from moderate to militant Muslim beliefs and actions. With more time we could compare PISA intelligence estimates with actual national IQ measures, but at least PISA gives a common yardstick, and is more readily accepted.

 

You will see that the light blue line of Jihadi numbers per million corresponds quite well with the darker blue discontinuous line for the Gap between natives and 2nd generation immigrants. At the top of the graph you can see the purple line which gives the IQ for natives. Remember, this is not a time graph, but a country graph, so the only time element is the difference between 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, which will partly reflect the individual immigration patterns of each nation.

The number of nations for which we have fairly reliable jihadi estimates (11) is too small for detailed statistical analysis, but the implication is that ISIS membership is a second generation effect. Crude correlation coefficients are: ISIS membership and 1st generation immigrant IQ r= –0.24 (n.s.), ISIS and 2nd generation immigrant IQ r= –0.78 (p<.01)  ISIS and gap between 2nd generation immigrant and native IQs r=-0.84 (p<.01). Just as a check, correlation between ISIS and native IQ is r= 0.12 (n.s.).

In some ways the most interesting data are the simplest: second generation ability has dropped from first generation by 2.7 points in Belgium, 4.54 points in England, and 2.5 points in Portugal. The overall results for the 11 countries are:

First generation immigrants    89.04

Second generation immigrants 90.91

Natives                                       97.85

On average there is a 7 IQ point deficit between second generation immigrants and natives. This is highly significant. If jobs are given on ability alone, then there will be a big reduction in the number of immigrants obtaining cognitively demanding occupations which, because of the rarity of high ability, tend to be high status and well paid. “Small differences in means are great at the extremes”.

For example, using Emil’s visualiser, we can see the real life implications of the natives being IQ98 and the second generation immigrants being IQ91

http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/emil-visualises.html

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects

The natives, (painted blue like the ancient Saxons) will have 3.5 times more bright citizens (IQ130) than the immigrants (coded red). Immigrants will be rarely found in the top universities and most prestigious professional occupations. If Europe as a whole demands a Greenwich Mean IQ of 93 for any proper, paid occupation (probably a reasonable estimate of what is required in a non-subsidised occupation), then 63% of the natives will be in employment, but only 45% of the immigrants. Finally, if we look at very low level jobs, which result in compensatory payments from the taxpayer, say those reserved for those below IQ85 then 19% of the natives will be in this unfavoured category, but a substantial 34% of the immigrant group.

If European societies feel that, through embarrassment, they cannot talk about ability, then the only interpretation of different outcomes (all people being judged equal in ability as a matter of principle) is that the immigrant group have been subject to a massive injustice due to native prejudice. In point of fact they are imposing a significant cost on the natives, but if IQ cannot be discussed, and the possibility of a substantial genetic component in intelligence can never even be contemplated, on pain of banishment, then Europe has created a fertile soil for resentment, envy and hatred, while remaining mute about its contribution.

In the spirit of the blogosphere, I should point out that all these figures should be looked at again, and replaced with better estimates wherever possible. We certainly need better estimates of Muslim numbers in each European country, particularly for young men. The causal hypothesis that IQ is a major factor should be compared with other testable hypotheses. So, can we please get some blogosphere data checkers to work on this material, and come back with corrections and improvements?

If you post as Anonymous, try to add a number or imaginary name so I can distinguish one Anon from another Anon. I don’t know which particular unknown person you are.

Fun and contentment (plus death and IQ)

Just to give you an indication as to how the citizens of Edinburgh entertain themselves when not hosting the Festival, here is the St Andrew’s day lecture, which will be given by Pat Rabbitt, and will be worth hearing.

The 2015 special invited St Andrews Day seminar will be given by Professor Patrick Rabbitt of Oxford University. The talk will be held at 5pm on 24th November in room F21 of the Department of Psychology, 7 George Square. A drinks reception will follow the talk.
Seminar title:
"Death, intelligence, fun and contentment in old age"
Abstract:
"Many large and reliable longitudinal studies now allow us to explore the relationships between how the extent to which we can keep our wits about us in old age, our past and present health, our nearness to death, the pleasure we get from hobbies, interests and social life and our general level of contentment interact and determine each other. The talk will discuss how the results of analyses completed this year illustrate these relationships."
You do not need to register for this talk. All are welcome to attend.
Tel: 0131 650 4639

www.ccace.ed.ac.uk