I have some questions on increasing IQ and regression to the mean

I was browsing the alternative Hypothesis and came across this
>thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/03/15/first-worldism-part-5-the-european-revolution/

Why did the European IQ not regress to the mean? I'm sorry but I know very little about how IQ works, I know that it's largely heritable and that you can't simply increase say Black or Arab IQ by simply taking the top 10% of their population and making them out breed(out-breed?) the rest as the IQ would regress to the mean. Now this is where I'm quite confused, why did this not happen to whites? Since the same happened there as well, i.e. the top dogs out breeding the bottom people. Would this only work if a lower IQ group got the top 10% to out breed the bottom for a very long time over multiple generations or is there something else going on here? I know this is a very complex subject and I'm sorry for being so obtuse, but I don't really know where else to ask this. Another thing that came to mind was, if this is the case and Darlingern whites are mainly a product of the elites of a 1000 years ago, then what was the behavior of bottom barrel whites like back then? Comparable to Darlingern Nigs?

Another doubt I had was, when Ryan says "top 35.4%" is he referring to the top 35.4% of the 1st generation that was taken as the starting point for the research or the top 35.4% of each generation? If it's the latter then we would all be born to a very small section of people yes? Another question I had was that, is this why the Germans are so intelligent? Considering the Thirty years war reduced the male population by half in Germany and the overall population by 40%?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War#Casualties_and_disease

And the Black death having had similar effect on the whole of Europe itself?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death#Death_toll

I suppose in similar vein the Chinese with their history of constant war and mass death could have had a similar effect on the population and hence their IQs are higher? I know they cheat a lot but there's no arguing that they're better than Nigs and Arabs.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
Many of them are in China.

So what gives here? Is the only way to increase IQ of a group to kill of the bottom? And if this is the case then why does regression to the mean not occur here?
Once again, my apologies, I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject

Attached: Intergenerational Mobility Suffolk.png (557x326, 35.72K)

Other urls found in this thread:

humanvarieties.org/2017/07/01/measurement-error-regression-to-the-mean-and-group-differences/
study.com/academy/lesson/additive-alleles-the-additive-gene-effect.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
longevityreporter.org/blog/2015/9/8/where-do-new-genes-come-from
learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance
genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0626-0
westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/back-by-popular-demand/#comment-68225
westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/epigenetics/
harvardmagazine.com/2017/05/is-epigenetics-inherited
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

IQ regression happens because nonadditive genetic effects don't get passed down to the next generation the same. So when talking about a person, your best guess for the nonadditive genetic effects are going to be that group's average. Why? Because the average person of that group regresses to the average of that group… Because they're the average of that group…

That being said - remember, the top class of Europeans DID NOT just pass have nonadditive genes passed down – additive genes did too. So what boosted the European population was that additive genetic effects, while nonadditive genetic effects probably stayed the same. Hence why they didn't regress all the way back: additive genes were passed down too.
No, you can do that. That is one way to boost IQ (it's just not worth our resources to because those resources can go to whites).
It wouldn't regress all the way, but it would regress one half (1/2) back between the parental IQ and the population's mean. This is because only nonadditive genetic effects are lost; however, addtive effects are passed down. And it would only regress back one generation, as there's now a new racial mean that is between the old racial mean and the average parental population's IQ.
Having the top 10% outbreed the whole population would make the new population mean the average of the top 10%. For example, let's say the top 10% has an average IQ of 130. Well, having the top 10% of the population outbreed and replace the overall population would then make the new population's IQ mean 130 since they're now the average person of the population. And this can happen to any population, giving the selection pressures to do so.
Cognitively? Probably like negros. But that doesn't mean you act like negros. They could have been nice people who were just dull, or could have been passive dull people, or just dull and normal people but dull. There's no telling, really… But if I recall correctly, they found bows and arrows and hatchets in Germany from 30k years ago or something… So It's not like they were spear chuckers.
No clue. Read the paper the writer cites.
Depends on how big the population is, really. 34% of 1 million is 340k, while 34% of 100k is 34k… See how the percentage of the population doesn't actually tell me the population size? Anyhow, it's probably yes, we are born from a small group.
Scientists, engineers, big brainers, etc don't go and fight. High average, average, and dull average do: so this leaves big brainers behind to breed while lower tier people die out.
Kill them? No. You only need the top to outbreed the bottom. Like, as long as the top people have a higher rate of birth, your population's mean will go up.

Read these… (Been awhile since I've talked about genetics, biology, blah, and the whole circle jerk. So maybe got some shit wrong or didn't explain it well.)
(Too lazy to get a link, so here's the title.)

Regression to the mean: Black-White Difference: Evidence from the NLSY:

Murray, 1999. The Secular Increase in IQ and Longitudinal Changes in the Magnitude of the Black-White Difference: Evidence from the NLSY

Thirty Years of Research in Racial congitive ability (or some shit) by Phillip Rushton and Arthur Jensen (skip to regression to mean section).

humanvarieties.org/2017/07/01/measurement-error-regression-to-the-mean-and-group-differences/

*That being said - remember, the top class of Europeans DID NOT just have have nonadditive genes passed down – additive genes passed down too.

I wrote this section retarded like.

That being said - remember, the top class of Europeans DID NOT just have have nonadditive genes passed down – they too had additive genes passed down also. So what boosted the European population was that additive genetic effects were passed down. However, nonadditive genetic effects probably regressed back to the overall European mean. Hence why they didn't regress all the way back: additive genes were passed down and not just nonadditive genes.

Aka, intelligence is made up of additive genes and nonadditive genes.
Regression to the mean happens because nonadditive genetic effects do not get passed down to your kids.
Additive genetic effects do.
Since nonadditive do not get passed down, the best guest for what effect those genes will have will be the population's mean nonaddtive genetic effects.
Additive effects stay the same each generation.
Europeans got smarter because the top class passed down the additive genetic effect.
They did not pass down the nonaddtive genetic effect.
So they did regress to the mean on the nonaddtive genetic effects.
But the additive genetic effects were enough to boost the overall mean IQ, creating a new population mean.

First of all thank you for these wonderful posts, they have blown my mind, I had no idea about all this stuff.

When it comes to additive genes, is it like a +1 to the gene set or something? Wikipedia says that there are 19,000-20,000 genes in the human genome, I'm guessing these additive genes are those that get newly added and compounded? I read up on additive and non-additive genes a bit, and I read that it's possible to have shades of skin color due the genes being additive, this explains why the mulattoes have skin color that's in between the color of the parents skin(white and black mix resulting in a lightly shaded black of sorts).

>study.com/academy/lesson/additive-alleles-the-additive-gene-effect.html
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

So I'm guessing IQ works in the same way? That there isn't 1 gene that says you will have a high IQ, rather multiple genes that say +10 IQ, +5 IQ and so on, and they collectively add up to 100 IQ? Continuing on this, I came across information that said that additive genes combined(don't know if I'm using the right terminology) with non additive Dominant genes can have a double effect. So is this how low IQ parents give birth to smart kids? The additive genes combined with the non additive dominant gene resulting in an IQ higher than their parents?

Why is being cut in half specifically? Why not 30% or 40%? Is there something governing this?

Lastly as I understand it,(correct me if I'm wrong) these additive genes, they act in some sort of compounding manner? Each collectively adding to the other? Then where do the genes actually come from? Is there a source of additive genes or something that creates/controls it? Then how do mutations tie into this?

Sorry for asking so many questions, this is all very intriguing and new to me.

Attached: Skin color additive genes.png (350x504, 163.35K)

Reported for not even trying.

Additive—————
-works with other genes to build up the whole trait (no masking of another other genes: polygenetic; will always get expressed)
Think of it like as like a bunch of genes that add and build up all together to make a trait. Example is skin color: the genes all add up together to form your skin color, and each little gene just adds a bit of melanin until they all get added up together to form the final product of skin color.

Non-additive——–
- epistatic affect; can mask the expression of an entire gene and DOES NOT work together to build up an entire trait; Can dominate over another gene and mask its expression or stop from full expression/decide to what amount a gene gets expressed.
Think of like your organs: a gene that makes your heart bigger will need to interact and tell the gene that shapes your lungs to express a smaller lung gene so there's room for both. So, nonadditive genes interact with one another. So, like, let's say you have gene A and gene A is a nonadditive gene: well, gene A can tell gene B to not express itself at all, or to express itself like 1/8 of its strength or only express itself 1/50 of its strength and so on. But then nonadditive gene C can interact with both gene B and A and make them double in their expression/phenotypic effect or make sure both genes A and B are not expressed at all so Gene D can be expressed fully.
Addtive genes don't interact with one another and just do their basic function no matter what. So in this case, if you have gene A, it doesn't matter what gene B or C does, gene A will always be expressed as just a normal gene A because it's additive and therefore no interaction with other genes; and with that, Gene B and C will be expressed fully too with no say from gene A as B and C are too both additive.

Yeah, there's 19k-20k genes. How many are addtive and nonadditive? Don't know. It can switch too because nonaddtive genes can be selected against and additive genes can be selected for and both passed down at different rates by random. Just depends on the person and what they happen to get. What is the average for humans? I don't know, haven't looked it up. Usually we break it down by trait. Like we know for the heritability of intelligence, it's .5 additive genes and .3 nonaddtive genes, with .2 being unique environment.
Don't know what you mean here.

That would be correct. As for as I'm aware of, skin color is just an additive trait.

That would be correct, intelligence is a polygenic trait: meaning that the trait isn't just formed off of one gene, but multiple genes that build up to fully make the trait. The heritability of intelligence being .5 additive and .3 nonaddtive, this means that .5 of the genes are genes that go 'Gene A = 10+ IQ points; Gene B = 50+ IQ points; Gene C = 20+ IQ points and all add up to make a phenotype of 80 IQ points. Then there's that .3 nonadditive genes, they're like 'Gene X = 2+ IQ points when alone and on its own… but wait you have Gene Y too, so now Gene X gets a boost from Gene Y. So you get a 2+ IQ points from Gene X now because it interacted with Gene Y to become a whole new genetic effect, so from Gene X you really get 4+ IQ points now. And since you now have Genes X and Y interacting, this will also stop Gene Z from giving -3 IQ points because X and Y Genes work together to suppress Gene Z.
So again, addictive genes all add up together and do their simple function no matter what other genes there are in the whole genome. Nonadditive genes interact and work together depending on what genes are present in the whole genome (or what genes are present relative to that trait).
Yeah, they don't mean the additive and nonaddtive genes combined as in interacting with one another. They mean combined as in in total to make up the whole trait. But at the end of the day they do combine to fully make up the trait itself. Just not combine as in interact. But yeah, dumb parents can have a smart kid by either a) passing on good addtive genes; or b) that kid getting a nonaddtive effect that makes him smart. And yes, nonadditive genes can cause a double effect of genes because Gene A could interact with Gene B to give Gene B a double boost. Could also interact to make Gene B make you retarded too.
Because that's the heritability of intelligence. Since only additive effects get passed down, and addtive genes make up .5 of the genes for the heritability of intelligence, that means .5 of intelligence trait gets passed down, while the .3 of nonadditive genes are basically random since we don't know how they're gonna interact with one another and the other .2 is unique environment, and you can't pass down unique environment to your kids.
But like, for height, let's say that height is .3 additive and .5 nonadditive and .2 unique environment: how much would we expect regression? Well, .7 since only .3 of the genes we know will have the same effect in the next generation for sure due to being additive; while .5 is nonaddtive so your best guess for their effect is the population's mean nonaddtive effect or just random; and .2 being environmental factors you can't pass down. So instead for height it wouldn't be regression of 1/2 of the way between the parents and the population's mean, but .7 of the way between the parents and the population's mean. So basically whatever is not additive genetic effects, the rest will regress.
If you mean compound as in all add up together to build the trait without suppressing or changing one another's expression, then yes.
They come from selection; if a gene is highly selected for, it will keep expressing itself as its been always a plus to have it. While genes that are nonaddtive are more depending on what other genes you have because it's not always good to have a gene that wants to express itself all the time.
Yeah, like any other gene, selection for or against controls it and ultimately decides its fate within the genome and what it does.
Mutations are just copying errors from one generation to the next; they create new genes and these new genes have different kinds of phenotypic traits; once expressed as a new phenotype, these mutations are put to the test and selection for or against them begins. But most mutations do nothing.

Text was too long just so doing multiple post.

Whatcha slidin Moshe?