> GxE interaction
Throughout the history of GxE research, the question of whether or not GxE effects are separable from genetic and environmental main effects has been asked on many occasions. The answer is yes (though it is not necessarily intuitive); GxE effects are meaningfully and actually separable from genetic and environmental effects. Plomin and colleagues explained this elegantly in 1977, making the point that “interactionism,” which they define as the idea that “environmental and genetic threads in the fabric of behavior are so tightly interwoven that they are indistinguishable,” is simply false at the population level. To be clear, it is true that — for an individual — genetic effects cannot be expressed in the absence of an environmental context just as environmental effects necessarily manifest themselves in the context of an organism’s genome. However, at a population level,it is possible to distinguish genetic from environmental effects.
and Burt and Simons vs Wright et al on how heritability estimates are accurate, and GxE research is flawed and doesn't replicate.
I hope you're not arguing for interactionism, which states genetic and environmental effects can't be distinguished on a population level.
> of brain development does not assume that genes and environment are simply additive
Intelligence is 44% additive. and 27% non-additive (this explains why GCTA underestimate it's heritability). Non-additive heritability provides an extra mechanism by which races could be genetically different in intelligence, i.e gene complexes which are unique to Asians or europeans yield epistatic effects which boost IQ.
> One is that heritability is variance within a population.
And heritability is similar in blacks and whites (disproving Variable Environments theories). Between group heritability is also a thing.
> Importantly, as skin color is a big environmental factor, it is impossible for us to cleanly separate children from their environment. Even if adopted into a white community, black kids will still be treated as black kids.
I know of this ad hoc reasoning. This is mentioned by Scarr in MTRAS, which I did not use for this reason, but nothing of what I said is contradicted by this.
> As a more general objection, the IQ gap does not hold up under a cross-cultural comparison. Based on the UK Millenium Cohort Study, we have the following IQs for 5-year olds across ethnic groups:
This shows you didn't read the OP, which specifically mentions the Wilson effect and how gaps are expected to be lower at lower ages. To cite UK data is also lacking to say the least, because blacks are selected by immigration,failed replications, etc. I know there's a meta-analysis coming out on this soon, and it's not pretty for environmentalists.
> Remember that in science, we cannot just require on observations that may result in spurious correlations, we need a testable theory.
If no evolutionary psychology theory exists, this doesn't invalidate all other research which proves the Hereditarian hypothesis. The Hereditarian Hypothesis can be tested for through many, many ways and it comes out on top as seen in OP.
> These time spans are the blink of an eye in an evolutionary context.
And you can use the breeder's equation to show if selection could happen fast enough or not. I see this all the time. People just arbitrarily claim this.
> a model that explains how solving differential equations better improves reproductive fitness.
g (which is not just solving differential equations) is in fact correlated with general fitness. see here, here, here, here, here and here.
> Kevin Mitchell ("Wiring the Brain") in this Guardian article
Ah, the Guardian. Rated a 3/9 by intelligence experts. See a response here