Obviously racial effects go under this category as well.
I think you meant “obviously racial effects could go under this category as well.” It’s not the case that we live in a society where only members of particular races are allowed to work at all, and that this forces a correlation.
It covers anything visible. So a high heritability is compatible with genetics being a cause of competence, and/or prejudice against visible genetic characteristics being important (“Our results indicate that we either live in a meritocracy or a hive of prejudice!”).
There’s a natural experiment that can distinguish between the “colorism” theory and the “heritability” theory. Can you think of what it could be?
(I’ll link it in about ~5 hours.)
But is it possible that IQ itself is in part a positional good?
The easiest way we can look at this sort of thing is comparing individual returns to IQ on income and national returns to IQ on income. If IQ is used mostly for absolute improvements, the latter will be larger than the former; if it is used mostly for predatory purposes, the former will be larger than the latter.
(Hive Mind is the recent book that details the data. As I recall, the latter is about twice the size of the former, i.e. IQ does actually cause absolute improvements in wealth)
I think you meant “obviously racial effects could go under this category as well.
I meant “the category of things this situation could apply to”. I’ve changed the phrasing to make things clearer.
There’s a natural experiment that can distinguish between the “colorism” theory and the “heritability” theory. Can you think of what it could be?
I can think of many potential ones, but not sure what you have in mind (I also suspect the distinction varies from place to place or time to time).
If IQ is used mostly for absolute improvements, the latter will be larger than the former;
That is the case. However, I don’t have a good explanation as to why the effect is larger. There seems to be something else going on here, and I’m not sure what (saw a talk by some expert guy in that field, that boiled down to him not being sure why either).
I can think of many potential ones, but not sure what you have in mind (I also suspect the distinction varies from place to place or time to time).
If there are heritable differences between races, mixed-race people should have scores that proportionally track their ancestry. This gives you, among African Americans and Hispanics in general, a correlation between skin color and intelligence, because more European ancestry will mean lighter skin. We can reverse that relationship to suggest that lighter skin color means more European ancestry. Except among siblings—there, which sibling is lighter or darker is random and not related to overall degree of European ancestry.
(Siblings do vary in their genetic inheritance—that’s why they’re not twins—but because intelligence is highly polygenic and skin color is only mildly polygenic (determined by about 7 genes), knowing that one sibling has lighter skin tells you almost nothing about whether they’re more or less European than another sibling.)
So one can consider a sample of mixed-race people (which almost all non-recent immigrant African Americans in the US are) and compare the within-family and the between-family relationship between skin color and intelligence / social outcomes.
What I’ve seen on this thinks the evidence is inconclusive but favors the heritability theory (that it’s the genetic effect, rather than the visual effect, that drives intelligence and outcomes).
There seems to be something else going on here, and I’m not sure what (saw a talk by some expert guy in that field, that boiled down to him not being sure why either).
This seems to me like it’s likely explained by a handful of factors like the following:
People don’t capture all of the gains they produce, but those gains do show up somewhere.
Similarly with the benefits of catastrophe avoidance. If smarter people get into fewer accidents, that both reduces their insurance premiums (if insurance companies are able to detect and use that info) and everyone else’s insurance premiums, because they’re less likely to get rammed.
Grrrrr.… Ok, I’m definitely shifting to the “the field is complicated and the results are uncertain” meta-position on genetics. Still on the “genes are pretty important” side, but no longer willing to rule out environmental explanations (even shared environment is important, apparently, when comparing between countries).
This seems to me like it’s likely explained by a handful of factors like the following:
Yes, explanations aren’t hard to find. But I would be at least a little bit wary of jumping straight on to “obviously all the economics waffle about externalities and public goods is wrong”. Even with those explanations, this means there are other factors influencing country IQ vs country wealth, implying that we can’t use that comparison to tell us strong facts about the importance of IQ in outcomes.
Grrrrr.… Ok, I’m definitely shifting to the “the field is complicated and the results are uncertain” meta-position on genetics.
I think this is mostly a “small sample size” thing, like with international IQ comparisons. (This specific thing was a case of “the level of A and B are both individually significant, but the difference between A and B isn’t significant,” as I recall.)
I think you meant “obviously racial effects could go under this category as well.” It’s not the case that we live in a society where only members of particular races are allowed to work at all, and that this forces a correlation.
There’s a natural experiment that can distinguish between the “colorism” theory and the “heritability” theory. Can you think of what it could be?
(I’ll link it in about ~5 hours.)
The easiest way we can look at this sort of thing is comparing individual returns to IQ on income and national returns to IQ on income. If IQ is used mostly for absolute improvements, the latter will be larger than the former; if it is used mostly for predatory purposes, the former will be larger than the latter.
(Hive Mind is the recent book that details the data. As I recall, the latter is about twice the size of the former, i.e. IQ does actually cause absolute improvements in wealth)
PS: But I may have overemphasised IQ. The main point is that “heredity” vs “environment” are not categories which say what we think they do.
I meant “the category of things this situation could apply to”. I’ve changed the phrasing to make things clearer.
I can think of many potential ones, but not sure what you have in mind (I also suspect the distinction varies from place to place or time to time).
That is the case. However, I don’t have a good explanation as to why the effect is larger. There seems to be something else going on here, and I’m not sure what (saw a talk by some expert guy in that field, that boiled down to him not being sure why either).
If there are heritable differences between races, mixed-race people should have scores that proportionally track their ancestry. This gives you, among African Americans and Hispanics in general, a correlation between skin color and intelligence, because more European ancestry will mean lighter skin. We can reverse that relationship to suggest that lighter skin color means more European ancestry. Except among siblings—there, which sibling is lighter or darker is random and not related to overall degree of European ancestry.
(Siblings do vary in their genetic inheritance—that’s why they’re not twins—but because intelligence is highly polygenic and skin color is only mildly polygenic (determined by about 7 genes), knowing that one sibling has lighter skin tells you almost nothing about whether they’re more or less European than another sibling.)
So one can consider a sample of mixed-race people (which almost all non-recent immigrant African Americans in the US are) and compare the within-family and the between-family relationship between skin color and intelligence / social outcomes.
What I’ve seen on this thinks the evidence is inconclusive but favors the heritability theory (that it’s the genetic effect, rather than the visual effect, that drives intelligence and outcomes).
This seems to me like it’s likely explained by a handful of factors like the following:
People don’t capture all of the gains they produce, but those gains do show up somewhere.
Similarly with the benefits of catastrophe avoidance. If smarter people get into fewer accidents, that both reduces their insurance premiums (if insurance companies are able to detect and use that info) and everyone else’s insurance premiums, because they’re less likely to get rammed.
Grrrrr.… Ok, I’m definitely shifting to the “the field is complicated and the results are uncertain” meta-position on genetics. Still on the “genes are pretty important” side, but no longer willing to rule out environmental explanations (even shared environment is important, apparently, when comparing between countries).
Yes, explanations aren’t hard to find. But I would be at least a little bit wary of jumping straight on to “obviously all the economics waffle about externalities and public goods is wrong”. Even with those explanations, this means there are other factors influencing country IQ vs country wealth, implying that we can’t use that comparison to tell us strong facts about the importance of IQ in outcomes.
I think this is mostly a “small sample size” thing, like with international IQ comparisons. (This specific thing was a case of “the level of A and B are both individually significant, but the difference between A and B isn’t significant,” as I recall.)