aardvark2
1yr ago
Incidentally, how do heritability estimates discriminate between genes that "causally" influence height
They don't. Heritability refers to given population in given environment. Gene effect depends on environment (you don't need gene to make vitamin C it your environment has excess of it) and even on frequency of it in population. In a food scarce environment gene which increases bone growth might as well have smaller effect than genes which allow to get more food. So of course simple linear regression, which GWAS is, wouldn't tell about many things.
So if you run a GWAS identifying N promising genes for affecting height on US citizens, you couldn't use that to reliably increase the height of European babies?
Because junk food mainly affects width and not height, this is unlikely to be a problem. And it's not that Europe is free or junk food too.
aardvark2
1yr ago
The problem is not with frequent variants with small effects, but, as OP states, with rare variants.
Rare variants are often rare because they are harmful (novel mutations not tested by selection).
Variant with 50% frequency probably doesn't affect trait studied either way. Rare variant probably would be bad.
But GWAS will assume that rare variant has zero effect. And, since GWAS is currently done with tag SNPs it will miss any novel mutational load.
aardvark2
1yr ago
Funny things is, it appears Ancient Egyptians had darker skin than modern Egyptians but less Sub-Saharan African admixture. Apparently in last millenia people in Egypt were racist towards visible traits but otherwise fine mixing.
aardvark2
1yr ago
aardvark2
1yr ago
Why larger animals need larger brains to get same intelligence?
In 1960s, Harry J Jerison collected and plotted data on brain size-body size on log scale. He also calculated different fit lines for mammals, birds and reptiles, and they have different slopes, though often slope 2/3 is used for convenience.
While difference between reptile slope and bird slope is probably insignificant, between birds and mammals probably is (about 0.580 vs 0.72 IIRC).
Extrapolating from this data, a 70kg bird might have same intelligence as human with only 400g brain instead of 1400g. A card which birds dinosaurs didn't get to put good use for.
aardvark2
1yr ago
-
not all birds fly, and anyway birds have slop similar to those of reptiles.
-
larger bodies have about same number of components as smaller ones, and very easily large animal might have less degrees of freedom than small (horse vs. rat or even snake). Snakes are small brained despite having more degrees of freedom than any mammal. And the only parts which larger bodies have more complex are gastrointestinal tract and lungs, are not individiually controlled by brain.
aardvark2
1yr ago
these behaviours and preferences can and will be disposed of when your child will fare equally well regardless
This will take time, and probably we will enter next phase of Malthusian cycle before these self-enforcing behaviors drop.
aardvark2
1yr ago
'Components' is an artificial category.
Are separate muscles and bones artifical categories?
If you need to sense with the same precision on 1 mm^2 of skin and on 5 mm^2
The premise is false.
you can compress the data or whatever
If you send intensity and location of averaged spot, then it's slow-growing O(log(Area))
aardvark2
1yr ago
imagine comparing transistor density to chip speed, or transistor number to chip speed
???
There are wide classes of "Embarrassingly parallel" tasks where relationship is nearly linear
aardvark2
1yr ago
There is another problem with 1, why would that pressure also lead to better mass/compute scaling, rather than uniform shrinking? Smaller slope is advantageous to large birds and disadvantageous to small ones (which are vast majority of bird species) which need to have bulkier brains than similarly small mammals.
Basically, he's right except he translator added "one day" and "comrade". (an example where translations go longer and feature meanings which original didn't have)
The word is допереключаешься.
-ся is the reflective suffix/ending (offtopic: cringe spelling, compare e.g. Polish cognate is written się, more letters and diacritic, so it must be better)
-аешь is the ending for verb 2nd person singular. The future time rather than present is obtained by that complete word is a finite verb by virtue of its first prefix
ключ is the root for key/switch. Needs both prefix and ending to become a verb (some nouns don't need a prefix to become a noun, but this does).
пере- is prefix, one of many which could produce switching verbs; unlike English "switch on" Russian uses prefixes
до ???
PROFIT
I don't know much about Quechua but I think Quechua has more grammatical categories for intent and completness of information, apparently Incas liked Quechua so much so they shifted from their native language to Quechua.
No idea, my command of English isn't that good, I helped with what I could.Maybe "you continue switching [and something happens] to you"
Yes, fixed that, s/than future/than present/
aardvark2
1yr ago
Russian law makes father of multiple children exempt from draft, so if these auth-right going to have trad-level TFR instead of 1.2 there's no problem
aardvark2
1yr ago
When Germany invaded Poland, what Red Army should have done? If they wouldn't have occupied Eastern parts, Germany would occupy all territory of Poland.
I want to whine about weakly upvoted comment https://www.themotte.org/post/109/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/15573?context=8#context
In a strictly genetic sense, the Mongols may be one of the most successful people groups in history; in terms of their culture, society, and way of life, they are largely extinct
The Mongol culture didn't spread because the premise (genetic success) is BS. Mongol conquests were due to better generals, discipline and ability to recruit non-Mongols into their war machine. They routinely beat numerically superior armies.
p.s:
So it's a very bad example of thesis 'genetic success doesn't imply cultural success', rather it's evidence in another direction.
Another thing I have with this that it looks poster is Western supermacist and imagines Mongols aka dumb zerg being strong only with their number.
aardvark2
1yr ago
Oh. How much HBD debate spoils us xD
His premise was that Mongols were successful in darwinian sense (more copies of their genes) not that their genes conferred some advantage.
Yes, I understand that correctly. However this their genes prevailed is totally made up. Which is what i'm concerned about (and maybe due to reasons why author made it up totally false premise).
aardvark2
1yr ago
Yes, there was a pre-invasion plan between Germany and USSR. I don't think it included "Germans attack on 1 sep, then Germans urge Soviets to attack and Soviets reluctantly attack on 17 sep". Germany was more strong enough to beat Poland alone, didn't need Soviet help to do so and began to advance on territories which were planned be go to Soviet zone.
Was the Katyn massacre also part of the Soviet 4D chess
What does this have to do with this? This Soviet atrocity happened on RFSFR proper soil when invasion of Poland was finished
aardvark2
1yr ago
No, overweight men earn more than slim men
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8468324/
are few fat 'STEM people', particularly in physics and math, compared to other areas (the stereotypical fat feminist).
Feminists control minds. Physics and math men are near bottom of ladder and full of incels.
aardvark2
1yr ago
It looks to me that 26+ bar has smallest confidence interval, so i doubt your explanation.
Poland thinks they could have been like Russia, but better and without despotic Asiatic excesses.
Napoleon was in Moscow for a month, Poles occupied Moscow for 2 years!
More options
Context Copy link