tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post6028612920431717871..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Science 102: epidemiology vs. controlled studiesRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-29017255325465781822007-11-07T20:12:00.000-08:002007-11-07T20:12:00.000-08:00To follow up - among other things, the paper devot...To follow up - among other things, the paper devotes a full page to exposing faults of the Dickens & Flynn model, and does so convingly. Mingroni then goes on to present his case for heterosis, which he argues could explain not only the IQ paradox, but also similar unresolved paradoxes (genetics vs. environment) in trends such as height, myopia, etc. The arguments are surprising and compelling, denis biderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02662743799740973736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-91313862728378361252007-11-07T18:30:00.000-08:002007-11-07T18:30:00.000-08:00Don, thanks for that interesting link. That articl...Don, thanks for that interesting link. That article is interesting in and of itself, but after reading it I was able to find one that I find yet more interesting.<BR/><BR/>In July 2007, Psychological Review published <A HREF="http://content.apa.org/journals/rev/114/3/806" REL="nofollow">this paper</A> by Michael Mingroni, who makes reference to the Dickens & Flynn model described in the article denis biderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02662743799740973736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-40251734001311598222007-11-06T21:15:00.000-08:002007-11-06T21:15:00.000-08:00Ron, I've been enjoying your series on science and...Ron, I've been enjoying your series on science and race and IQ. (My favorite part of this blog post was the white-flesh salmon. I knew about the flamingos, but not about the salmon!)<BR/><BR/>Just thought, on the whole genetics vs. environment for intelligence, you might enjoy these <A HREF="http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/05/james-r-flynn/Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-25145838662372447532007-11-05T20:22:00.000-08:002007-11-05T20:22:00.000-08:00What would be interesting to know is whether the 1...What would be interesting to know is whether the 10% with a different version of the gene - the ones for whom breastfeeding does not affect IQ - are... stupider.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the reason why breastfeeding doesn't improve the IQ of those children is because they don't have the gene to break down the fatty acids from milk in the first place, so they can't take advantage of that extra nutrient. denis biderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02662743799740973736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-65974665944968539202007-11-05T20:16:00.000-08:002007-11-05T20:16:00.000-08:00Here's an interesting article on BBC News:Gene 'li...Here's an interesting article on BBC News:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7075511.stm" REL="nofollow">Gene 'links breastfeeding to IQ'</A><BR/><BR/><I>A single gene influences whether breastfeeding improves a child's intelligence, say London researchers. <BR/><BR/>Children with one version of the FADS2 gene scored seven points higher in IQ tests if they were breastfed. <BR/><denis biderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02662743799740973736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-26820717403279825692007-11-05T14:00:00.000-08:002007-11-05T14:00:00.000-08:00Not true. A good epidemiological study would attem...Not true. A good epidemiological study would attempt to include flamingos from diverse populations to eliminate confounding factors, including diet. Even if the first studies did not include flamingos that do not eat shrimp, if there are hundreds of flamingo studies in various places over decades, some should include flamingos that do not eat shrimp - even if the only such flamingos are zoo-bred.denis biderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02662743799740973736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-83049156769141659672007-11-05T11:38:00.000-08:002007-11-05T11:38:00.000-08:00I know that only the strongest results that are co...<I>I know that only the strongest results that are consistent across different studies can be relied upon. And I think that, what we were arguing about before, is an example of such a strong and consistent result.</I><BR/><BR/>You've completely missed the point. It doesn't matter how strong and consistent the epidemiological data is. Epidemiological data alone can <I>never</I> prove causality (Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719368822663798864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-23905260945307874472007-11-05T11:07:00.000-08:002007-11-05T11:07:00.000-08:00Good points, and interesting factoid about flaming...Good points, and interesting factoid about flamingos. I had heard the one about salmon. (I believe the EU has begun to limit the amount of artificial coloring that can be added to their diet. Supposedly it has been found to harm eyesight.)<BR/><BR/>However, you didn't write much I didn't already know about the pitfalls of epidemiological-type studies. I know they're weak and prone to chance denis biderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02662743799740973736noreply@blogger.com