I tried posting on Steve’s blog but apparently it was deleted. I commend Steve on his efforts with such an endeavour, certainly more of these types of studies will be carried out in the near future to better reinforces the genetic associations with intelligence, as it is intuitively obvious. The subject of intelligence is rather important and I felt compelled to post my comments since I detect a slight incongruence with the title of the study which seems to be on “intelligence” and the screening for the cohort sought which seems to be based on scholastic achievement; What is also stated in the video clip is that the subject are selected for intelligence above the stochastic mean as follows > 3SD to > 4SD in math The study is named “Gene-Trait Association Study of intelligence”. The accepted operational definition (really, up to this point the only definition that makes any sense) of intelligence is essentially the g-factor and tests which “load” on g are best measures of “intelligence”. [[Tests]] Since the tests or competitions stated as the requirements will screen for the cohort on the desired “intelligence” range then the tests itself are important and by definition should be acceptable measures of g but not only that, be able to measure g at > 3SD. Let’s look at the SATs. If you look at the study carried out by Detterman & Frey on the SATs post and pre 1994 the result of the regression analyses are 2 equations to convert SAT scores to IQ (for both pre and post 1994). You will notice several things; i. The Authors used test subjects who sat for both the ASVAB and the SAT (pre-1994) and carried out a regression analysis. They determined the correlations of about 0.82 with the IQ test and also derived an equation to convert the SAT scores to IQ. ii. The Authors administered the RAPM to subjects who sat for the SAT (post-1994) and carried out a regression analysis. They determined the correlations of about 0.483 which was a bit low due to range restriction, but corrected it the inclusion of other subjects and ended up with r= 0.72. The authors then derived equation 2 to convert the SAT scores to IQ. Point 1: g-factor In both studies no factor analyses were carried out on the SAT test items to extract 1st order factors (e.g. from the math-only items) or 2nd order factors (e.g. between the math and verbal items) before extracting a higher order facto. So, the g-load of the test is inferred by correlations to standardized IQ tests (Ravens and ASVAB) and is indirect. Point 2: ceiling Eq. 2 (after 1994) = 0.095 x SAT-M + 0.003 X SAT-V + 50.24 = 0.095 x 800 + 0.003 X 800 + 50.24= 128.64 Std Error = 9.79 so the ceiling is 138.4. 3SD = IQ 145 The re-centered SAT does not have enough ceiling. In fact even American Mensa which has a relatively low cut-off of 2SD does not accept the SAT. Point 3: math If you look at equation 2, the SAT-V hardly loads on g at all as the c
More....

i rather believe the curiosity involved in developing to a highly advanced life form is strong enough to keep us from retreating to a fantasy world indefinitely.

I don't want to defend Gladwell, so I'm not going to here, but on the other hand, the meme concept has gotten way to much play than it deserves. Dawkins, Dennett, et al. use this concept as an explanatory device--and were there such a thing, it would be greatfully explanatory!!--but then cite it's explanatory power as it that were proof for its existence.  
 
Before I believe in memes, I want a meme advocate to explain this: how are memes individuated?  
 
Example: Is the meme for a wheel also the meme for a circle, or cylinder? Is the meme for paternalism the same as a meme against maternalism? Or are they only contraries? Is the meme for authority the same as the meme for rulership? Is the meme for football the same as a meme for Sport? Does the meme for an act of commission entail a meme for omission? 
 
Surely if something is heritable, it must be a natural kind, and for any thing to be a natural kind it must have clear criteria for individuation, so until someone provides sufficient individuation criteria for memes, the concept is not all that more sophisticated than 'here be dragons!', ie. 'here be something we can't explain in the least'.....

I'll ask a small favor. Nice work on combining the spread out stats, but could you give them in a spreadsheet format instead of Bar Charts? I don't know why but looking at the data in spreadsheets (with error included) always makes it easier for me to digest than bar charts. 
 
Again, good job, I just hate bar charts.

After reading the first one earlier today I stocked up on alcohol-based handgel. Yes I know many consider it to make no real difference but I attend a University for pre-graduate studies and the idea of the student body making me sick grosses me out.

Eric, 
 
If one goes by Atkins', less than 20 g is low. They don't suggest this low level for more than a week or two. After that it's about < 80 g. Of course, this is dependent on your own metabolism. 
 
My experience with low carb dieting is that it works, you have energy and you can satisfy hunger with a low amount of food (which is what I believe causes the weight loss to a large degree) but I always have trouble concentrating and have headaches. In short, I always feel I have had too much coffee, which is why I'm off it as I pursue graduate studies.

So are you declaring yourself secular right or are you setting it up as you have sympathies to them and wish to engage? 
 
I don't know exactly what you "are" politically but, since you stated you were leaning towards Obama, I did not see you as "right" 
 
Not that no right people voted for O but, I would guess, that McCain would be the preferred candidate for non-religious righties.

really, if Martin slumps over on his desk of a heart attack or stroke while writing one of the last books are thousands of fanboys (and girls) the world over really going to cry out "No, now well never know how it ends!" instead of being sad that a good man and author has died?

I hate this attitude that some fans take (and it isn't only Science Fiction fans; see Anne Rice) that the Author "owes" them and "owes" it to them to finish the series on their time frame and under their own story desires. It causes the authors to protect themselves from and eventually despise their own fans.

Of course, to be fair, I really don't care if he/she/it does exist.

I'm "conservative" (well, more right-wing) and am not 100% sure God(s) exists.

Well, with the new President-Elect I expect to have my daily ration of Vodka. Too bad I gave up drinking a while ago.

Hmm, my experience as a "Scotch-Irish" runs counter to the "order of preference" hypothesis.

Didn't say it was you. That's what prompted the question. Heck, I thought you did all that kind of reading online, can't see you reading a pile of magazines.

Never knew you were interested in trendy magazines or the trendy magazine business. I guess Wired makes sense but it's still a trendy magazine.

Several reasons, but here's one: sometimes dads don't run away, they just die. And when father is "absent" because he gets struck by lightning instead of because of a genetically dysfunctional personality, the kids turn out just fine. 
 
Wow, I don't know where to begin. 
 
1 - A Dad dying is (as someone noted above) not identical to a Dad leaving. If Dad leaves the kids are left with a social stigma, an unanswered question of why Dad left ("Did he leave because of me?") and a Mom who is likely to be f*cked up herself because of the abandonment. If a Father gets "struck by lightning" those things aren't likely to happen and in fact the kids and Mom might hold his memory to a level he never earned in life. 
 
2. How do we know that if the electric Dad hadn't been playing Golf in a rainstorm that he wouldn't have ditched the Mom and Kids and therefore had the "bad genes"? 
 
3. In your unscientific example do you account for Dads who died because of irresponsible acts? Like Drinking and driving, drug overdose, shot in a robbery? Those guys should have had "bad genes" and should have passed them on to kids who themselves act irresponsibly. 
 
All in all, Jason made an extremely ill thought out comment and he should write a more careful post to clarify his position.

There's also the possibility that, in 1st-world countries, things are too sanitary. Maybe having a few pathogens in your life is good for you? 
 
I'd say a few. But, of course, unless you lived in a high-tech computer chip making clean lab, you won't live in a germ-free environment.

She once recieved a blessing from a fanatical, anti-semitic preacher  
 
Your talking about Obama and a 25-year close relationship, right? Oh, he wasn't just anti-semitic, he was racist and anti-american. 
 
I get it now.

It's fun to watch the angry and unhinged supporters of one candidate who think we're heading for a fascist state go after the angry angry unhinged supporters of the other candidate who think we are headed for a facist state.

What amazes me is how many of the so-called "Brights" have fallen for grossly incorrect email and internet rumors. They aren't even fact-checking any longer, they just want to believe that people like Palin is a nashing-at-the-bit, creationist, crypto-nazi. And these brights aren't people sitting in their pajamas and working from home, they're people like Soledad O'brien working for the media.

 
I think Obama is an agnostic. 
 
Maybe, but he does have to keep up appearances and he did attend church so maybe he likes the traditions without being a true believer.

 
Interesting how the Republicans have not come from particularly distinguished universities compared to the Democrats. 
 
I think in Palin's case she went to a state university due her large middle class family's lack of money for college. But to the partisans working for Obama it's because she's to stupid for the Ivy League 
 
And TGGP, I also don't get the Nuremberg reference. To those who have watched her speeches she does like to "take the gloves off" and a lot of what she's said about Obama is demonstrably true. The only disturbing thing in that article was a supporter of hers calling a black man a boy; but we've seen stupid rudeness on the part of Obama (how he treated Hilary and calling a female reporter "Dear") and his followers (a CNN reporter who supports him stated that it was a sign of racism to vote against Barak)

I don't know if it's fair to say the McCain will be another Bush. Yes there are overlaps but McCain is his own man, with his own style, and has disagreed with Bush on major things (the Surge?) 
 
Besides, with an ex-moslem reputation, the moslems might see us differently from enemies of allah to brotherhood of men, then we dont have to send our sons and daughters to war. 
 
I don't think this is either fair (Obama has stated he has always been Christian and I haven't seen credible evidence to not believe him) nor accurate. The Muslims who we have trouble with that he have to send our sons and daughter to war aren't going to suddenly like us if we elect someone who is seen as an apostate Muslim, the violent extremists tend to not like that.

I don't know if I'd agree that both candidates are "bad", I'd agree with the commenter who said they're about average. 
 
McCain is basically a good man with thorough leadership qualities, but his time was 2000. He's also not going to win because of the Dole factor, too old. 
 
Obama seems good but is an unknown factor. We really don't know much about him. Also, it might be his youth, inexperience and stress of the trail but his endless gaffes and past associations are bothersome. 
 
Not saying I wouldn't vote for Obama; I won't for him now. For my mind he should go back to Illinois and become Governor for at least a term so we can judge him better.