I don't see any direct evidence that the Flynn effect and shared environmental effects (C in the ACE model) have the same impact on g and other factors. In fact, it's not clear that the the Flynn effect and shared environmental effects are at all related. Nonetheless, it's an interesting research question.

let's assume that's a graph of the age of RO1 recipients, not all NIH funding. 
 
what it indicates is (among many things) that RO1s go to profs, not post-docs or grad students; that the age of becoming a prof is increasing as post docs lengthen; that the amount of time after becoming a prof before getting a grant is increasing; that the amount of data you need to support a grant application is increasing; etc. 
 
this trend has serious consequences for creativity in science.

re: mortality 
 
most animal species have similar looking mortality curves. the difference between them, of course, is that some live on average 1000x longer than others. nonetheless, you see a similar degree of variability in mortality. this holds for both outbred species and _inbred model organisms_. this observation seems to suggest that within species genetic variability doesn't contribute much to the within species mortality variability. so, i think "stochastic molecular events within the body" are probably a very big influence on mortality. 
 
i'd also think you could attribute a lot of the residual variance to pathogens. 
 
re: personal genomics. the heritability of most common complex diseases is middling at best -- psychiatric diseases excepted. that's a theoretic upper limit on what you can predict from genomes alone.

Arguably, another mistake that Shenk, Flynn, and others are making is that they don't take g seriously enough. If g is overwhelming what gives an IQ score its predictive validity, and if it's impractical to environmentally boost g in adults, then there's not much more to be said about radically improving people's abilities. That's where Flynn's notion of cognitive training for non-g factors hits up against how seriously you take the evidence for the importance of g across tasks. Maybe you can train people to think more abstractly and yet you'd predict that that won't do them much good in solving real world problems because it's g that matters rather than the style of the test questions. 
 
For example, consider: 
 
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/pilots-and-g-force.html 
 
The psychometric expert said something that seemed puzzling to me. He said that the General Factor of intelligence completely dominated job performance as a pilot to such an extent that it really wasn't worthwhile to give multiple intelligences tests of specific piloting skills, such as the one George W. Bush took in 1968 to measure his 3-d visualization skills. 
... 
My source said that he recommended getting rid of flying-specific tests for admission to pilot-training, but the brass wouldn't go along with it because they insisted their had to be pilot-specific skills separate from the g Factor.

no IQ GWAS of sufficient size has been published to say with any confidence what the genetic structure of the trait is. however, if you were betting you'd guess that it'll be like height. that said, there's been considerable progress on identifying height loci with meta-analyses. 
 
given that all complex traits appear to be highly "multigenic" this isn't a particular problem for IQ. the intersection of genetic architecture and the power of selection would be interesting to discuss.

1. i added the paper's figures to the post 
 
2. in that old post i wrote: 
 
Update: Although there are only four values, the sub-80 national IQs are outliers, all with positive residuals. While this is hardly informative, it trends in the direction of casting doubt on the validity of sub-80 national IQ values. 
 
in other words, the achievement test scores predicted a higher average IQ for those populations than Lynn's estimates. given how well they two variables correlate for IQs > 80, it stood to reason that the sub 80 IQ scores were underestimates. 
 
wicherts et al. shows this is greater detail as part of their analysis.

see: 
 
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/03/validity-of-national-iq.php 
 
based on all of the data i've seen, my best guess is that average IQ of African blacks in the worth environments really is ~70, but that absent the worst environmental effects the average IQ of African blacks is ~80.

To shift the topic slightly, it's worth pointing out that experimental verification is the key to deciding whether the CHH hypothesis is correct -- it really could be incorrect. It's not enough to decide that the hypothesis is offensive as Professor Neil Risch did. And Risch and R. Brian Ferguson are incorrect that the hypothesis can't be tested. It's also not enough to point out that the hypothesis is consistent with the available data. 
 
Considering that (1) good examples of hybrid vigor are few and far between and (2) that few if any variants have been conclusively associated with IQ differences, this should be a very high priority line of research. The question to the scientific community is whether we collectively have the integrity to examine this hypothesis. If not, then it speaks very badly about the state of the human sciences.

what's the definition of genetic behavioralism? just curious. 
 
re: seem more liberal in politics and concentrated on opposing bible-beaters? 
 
what's the point of arguing with non-expert creationists? my ire is reserved for people with enough education and training that they can be held accountable for the stupid stuff they write.

NERD

how do you assay political disposition?

is there any doubt that neaderthals were light skinned?

has anyone seen a strong attempt to use gene expression variation to predict phenotype variation outside of tumors? like for example diabetes? not with beta cell RNA extracts, but with say white blood cells as the tissue? 
 
for example, has wtccc started testing gene expression from their subjects?

Spike your goalpost complaint is off base. On average men have a more negative attitude towards homosexuality than women, men attend theater less than women, etc. It's all one and the same finding. The composition of theater workforces and details of the attendance of theater, however, is not my real concern. Theater was used as an analogy to the expected effect of non-zero magnitude and negative direction that homosexual marriage will have on the view of marriage in general among heterosexual men. Given the low level of actual homosexual marriage, I can't know what will actually happen and I doubt that social science research could parse out that effect with any certainty. However, in general I'm sticking by the maxim that any social change of this magnitude is likely to have unintended effects, and I'd wager that this will be one of them.

yeah, i'd accept it as self-evident that if there was less concern about homosexuality, then there'd be no secular-right opposition to gay marriage. but we don't live in that world. the solution is to make more people tolerant of homosexuality and then gay marriage will come along with lower opposition.

spike, the actual % of gays in the theater has no necessary relationship with the effect of the perception of the theater being 'gay' on theater attendance. however, check the gss. if you do a multiple logistic regression on attitudes towards homosexuality (pro vs. con), you'll find that attitudes towards drama is a better predictor than education or even gender. 
 
toto, i think you're underestimating the magnitude of anti-gay bias among men. and i resent your suggestion that i have prejudices towards gays. i used to be strongly in favor of gay marriage until i realized that it was hasty to ignore the possibility of negative consequences. nontheless i voted against prop 8 because at that point i thought it was just cruel.

Jason, interesting that you use homosexual marriage as an example. While I think the overall weight of the argument favors homosexual marriage, there is a secular argument against that doesn't strike me as religiously motivated nonsense. Consider by analogy the effect of the involvement of homosexual men in theater. The institution is now shunned by heterosexual men seemingly because of the association with homosexuality. It stands to reason that a similar transformation of the notion of marriage might occur. 
 
There are, of course, further secular right positions that aim to promote marriage in the context of male-female relationships. While these views too are associated with religion on a population-wide level, I see a defensible secular right position here as well. 
 
BTW, I said the overall weight of the debate favors allowing marriage equality. My reasoning is that marriage is seemingly already dieing in Europe absent the influence of homosexuals, so it seems inevitable.

Another project people should be aware of: 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE 
http://www.genome.gov/10005107 
 
Goal is to identify all of the functional elements in the genome.

Bob_R - nice call on the Bayesian analysis, but how far does that get you? 
 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/

for everyone with poor reading comprehension like myself, that's the mitochondrial genome, not the nuclear genome!