Individual differences arise from very small net differences (due to the CLT), and so you only need small changes in allele frequencies to also produce group differences on the order of individual differences. Take a look at my calculations and simulations in http://www.gwern.net/Embryo%20selection#limits-to-iterated-selection making concrete the issue of how much absolute genetic difference translates to observed relative differences; it's not much, and it would take a very small average difference to produce group differences like we see
Again, absent selection pressures, and given that genetic drift is responsible, we should see the same kinds of variability on a more localized scale; we should see African subpopulations (given the large number of distinct genetic populations) with higher IQs than white people.
'Majority'? I don't think even the Black Plague killed a majority of the European population, if that's what you mean. And no. Only a few occasions doesn't create much of a selection pressure, compared to constant disease and parasite load over deca-millennia. Try the breeder's equation on the impact of a few dozen selection events killing 1/3 of the population versus say 10,000 selection events killing 10% of the population.
The worst occurrence did, yes. But assuming this is the case, we should expect black populations to have higher disease resistance relative to white populations; is this the case?
'Pretty similar' is not nearly enough, and again, you can't neglect genetic drift and selection pressures. It's a fact that human populations do not experience significant gene flow and so genetic drift will be operating.
Except we're not talking about one white population and one black population, but dozens of each.
Because if you're going to claim that HBD is irrelevant and futile and has no policy or real-world implications, I assume you must have been reading extensively about HBD to understand all the threads that go into it, which will lead you to those writers frequently.
Ah. No. After the first few just-so stories based on armchair philosophy while deliberately ignoring half the studies out there in a deeply conflicted field of study, I got bored with the topic.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Anyone else worried about Peter Thiel's support for Donald Trump discrediting Thiel in a lot of people's eyes, and MIRI and AI safety/risk research in general by association?
I think it's more likely to go the other way. There are FAR more people who pay attention to Trump and normal republican politics than are currently paying attention to Thiel and AI risk. A small fraction of these being interested in Thiel and looking into AI risk is probably going to outweigh any losses.