tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post4511649351497889728..comments2024-03-14T09:50:44.315+00:00Comments on Psychological comments: Income, brain, race: Prof Kimberly Noble repliesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-69595355559504996342015-04-19T20:41:48.161+01:002015-04-19T20:41:48.161+01:00In the data, surface is more highly correlated to ...In the data, surface is more highly correlated to WM than is brain size. You could run the partial correlation and see if size has incremental validity, I guess.Emil OW Kirkegaardhttp://emilkirkegaard.dknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-31695866676516494952015-04-19T18:36:46.980+01:002015-04-19T18:36:46.980+01:00Yes, GAF gives you the full picture, in historical...Yes, GAF gives you the full picture, in historical detail. Self-report usually matches that very closely, but cannot date how far back genes from other groups make their arrival.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-1188450772999559172015-04-19T10:31:42.086+01:002015-04-19T10:31:42.086+01:00I think it's pretty funny that GAF is called a...I think it's pretty funny that GAF is called a proxy for "race". I would have thought it was the other way around. Data on race are usually based on appearance or self-report, relying on a presumption is that appearance and self-report reflect ancestry (albeit imperfectly, due to, e.g., arbitrary classification of people with mixed ancestry). Therefore, I would say that race is a convenient proxy for ancestry, but GAF is a direct measure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-21516099877880804242015-04-18T14:55:14.470+01:002015-04-18T14:55:14.470+01:00I would advise Professors Noble and Sowell to care...I would advise Professors Noble and Sowell to carefully read the work of Professor William Kremen of UCSD. Kremen and colleagues have shown that brain surface area is probably what accounts for the link between brain size and IQ. Also they found that variation in brain surface area is extremely highly heritable (90% or more) and that shared environment accounts only for 0 to 5%.<br /><br />http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/10/2313.full.pdf+html<br /><br />Galtonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11542550046419854091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-14706625632059727712015-04-17T21:38:41.959+01:002015-04-17T21:38:41.959+01:00Sometimes it's no use saying that a data set i...Sometimes it's no use saying that a data set is the best available. The question about data isn't about relative standards, but about absolute. Are they good enough to be useful in testing a hypothesis, or at least in helping you formulate a hypothesis? Are they capable of distinguishing cause and effect, avoiding problems from confounding, and so forth? If not they are best binned rather than published. Perhaps some Social Science would best be published in The Journal of Inadequate Data.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-46246044947996944042015-04-17T21:30:29.693+01:002015-04-17T21:30:29.693+01:00GAF is a social construct.GAF is a social construct.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-71468149638306840122015-04-17T20:41:12.145+01:002015-04-17T20:41:12.145+01:00James, please ask her about the following.
In ord...James, please ask her about the following.<br /><br />In order to obtain the result that got all the publicity the researchers had to correct for racial differences in brain size. The single largest effect (larger than the poverty result), and the most statistically significant, is the association of cortical surface area with African ancestry.<br /><br />.25 increase in African ancestry is roughly equivalent to reduction in income by $77k (from mean of ~$100k), in terms of effect on brain surface area. (See Table 1.)<br /><br />Strange that all the people who wrote or blogged about this article failed to notice this. It stands out like a flashing red light in the paper, if you read with comprehension.<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.3983.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com