Test of Heritability and (Shared/non-Shared) Environmentality of g Using the Method of Correlated Vectors

http://humanvarieties.org/2013/07/05/hollow-flynn-effect-in-two-developing-countries-and-a-further-test-of-the-debatable-bl

(Kees-Jan Kan 2011) The nature of nurture: the role of gene-environment interplay in the development of intelligen

Table 3.6 Loadings on the first principal factor ('g loadings') of the Wechslers Intelligence Scale for Children (WIS
WISC subtests
reliability
wisc us wisc-r us wisc-iii us wisc-iii uk wisc-iii nl
Vocabulary
0.89
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.78
0.78
Information
0.85
0.79
0.79
0.80
0.76
0.75
Comprehension
0.78
0.69
0.72
0.70
0.65
0.65
Similarities
0.82
0.72
0.79
0.80
0.78
0.75
Arithmetic
0.79
0.67
0.64
0.70
0.60
0.69
Picture Completion
0.77
0.49
0.58
0.60
0.50
0.49
Picture Arrangement
0.74
0.58
0.56
0.52
0.42
0.50
Block Design
0.85
0.59
0.67
0.66
0.54
0.57
Coding
0.70
0.44
0.40
0.33
0.26
0.34
Digit Span
0.74
0.51
0.45
0.45
0.42
0.43
Object Assembly
0.70
0.47
0.56
0.58
0.40
0.47
Mazes (Rushton 1999)
0.72
0.40
0.32
N (Rushton 1999)
4848.00 2200.00

Note : Kan (2011) has not reported the g-loadings or the reliability for Mazes, so they have been taken from Rushton (1999
Secular gains in IQ not related to the g factor and inbreeding depression - unlike Black-White differences: A reply to Flynn.

Table 3.7 Loadings on the first principal factor ('g loadings') of the Wechslers Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) subt
WAIS subtests
reliability
wais-r wais-r us wais-iii us wais-iii nl
Vocabulary
0.94
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.87
Information
0.91
0.86
0.84
0.84
0.86
Comprehension
0.83
0.80
0.80
0.82
0.82
Similarities
0.85
0.79
0.80
0.84
0.85
Arithmetic
0.86
0.77
0.74
0.72
0.73
Picture Completion
0.81
0.73
0.67
0.60
0.52
Picture Arrangement
0.71
0.69
0.62
0.64
0.58
Block Design
0.87
0.73
0.67
0.64
0.64
Digit Symbol (Coding)
0.83
0.58
0.58
0.51
0.53
Digit Span
0.83
0.63
0.60
0.52
0.56
Object Assembly
0.71
0.52
0.55
0.58
0.55
References :
http://dare.uva.nl/document/347464

(Rushton 1989) Japanese Inbreeding Depression Scores: Predictors of Cognitive Differences Between Blacks and

Table 1 Inbreeding Depression Scores on WISC from Japan, and Black-White Difference Scores and Test Reliabilit

WISC subtests
Vocabulary
Information
Comprehension
Similarities

Reliability Reliability Sample1 Sample2 Sample3 Sample4 Sample5

Kan Rushton 2173.00
570.00
646.00 1237.00
172.00
0.89
0.86
0.88
0.67
0.78
0.90
0.53
0.85
0.85
0.81
0.69
0.93
1.01
0.54
0.78
0.77
0.94
0.80
0.65
0.65
0.47
0.82
0.81
0.79
0.53
0.84
0.82
0.67

Arithmetic
Picture Completion
Picture Arrangement
Block Design
Coding
Digit Span
Object Assembly
Mazes

0.79
0.77
0.74
0.85
0.70
0.74
0.70

0.77
0.77
0.73
0.85
0.72
0.70
0.72

0.61
0.79
0.77
0.93
0.47
0.31
0.82
0.69

0.48
0.61
0.65
0.73
0.39
0.12
0.64
0.59

0.63
0.63
0.76
0.96
0.50

0.68
0.65
0.79
0.89
0.46

0.81
0.83

0.82
0.81

0.43
0.41
0.38
0.80
0.07
0.15
0.66

Rushton (1989) has not displayed the BW gap for Digit Span in Sample 1 (Jensen & Reynolds, 1982, Table 1), 2 (Reynold

Sample Sizes
Age
WAIS subtests
Vocabulary
Information
Comprehension
Similarities
Arithmetic
Picture Completion
Picture Arrangement
Block Design
Digit Symbol (coding)
Digit Span
Object Assembly

Rijsdijk et al. (2002)

194.00
16.00
H
C
0.720
0.040
0.760
0.000
0.560
0.150
0.530
0.050
0.650
0.020
0.270
0.150
0.360
0.100
0.690
0.000
0.480
0.000
0.610
0.010
0.490
0.010

E
0.240
0.240
0.290
0.420
0.330
0.580
0.540
0.310
0.520
0.380
0.510

C+E
0.280
0.240
0.440
0.470
0.350
0.730
0.640
0.310
0.520
0.390
0.520

Friedman et al. (2008) Appendix C

Sample Sizes
293.00
Age
17.00
A
WAIS subtests
g-loading
broad
general
Vocabulary
0.79
0.38
0.76
Information
0.81
0.23
0.76
Comprehension
0.63
0.52
0.76
Similarities
0.56
0.40
0.76
Arithmetric
0.70
0.21
0.76
Picture completion
0.29
0.22
0.76
Pict Arrangement
0.30
0.15
0.76
Block Design
0.55
0.63
0.76
Digit Symbol (Coding)
0.38
0.93
0.76
Digit Span
0.32
0.62
0.76
Object Assembly
0.40
0.55
0.76

Tambs et al. (1984)

80.00
41.00
H
C
0.860
0.000
0.590
0.260
0.790
0.000
0.730
0.000
0.670
0.000
0.330
0.110
0.580
0.000
0.540
0.150
0.490
0.280
0.510
0.100
0.500
0.210

A
broad
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.40
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.46
0.40
0.90

A
specific
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.05

E
0.130
0.260
0.210
0.270
0.330
0.560
0.420
0.310
0.230
0.390
0.290

C
general
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

N-weighed (uncorrected for unreliability)

WAIS subtests
Vocabulary
Information
Comprehension
Similarities
Arithmetric
Picture completion
Pict Arrangement
Block Design
Digit Symbol (Coding)
Digit Span
Object Assembly

H
0.690
0.628
0.535
0.477
0.617
0.235
0.390
0.608
0.480
0.482
0.450

C
0.123
0.186
0.134
0.094
0.068
0.169
0.044
0.064
0.122
0.096
0.097

E
0.177
0.208
0.323
0.443
0.320
0.637
0.587
0.318
0.386
0.429
0.470

C+E
0.300
0.394
0.458
0.537
0.388
0.806
0.631
0.382
0.508
0.525
0.567

Corr with g-WAIS

Corr with g(c)-WAIS

0.595
0.501

0.303
0.235

-0.644
-0.530

-0.644
-0.466

N-weighed (corrected for unrel

reliability
0.943
0.910
0.830
0.850
0.860
0.810
0.713
0.868
0.827
0.830
0.708

0.525
0.450

Sample Sizes
Rijsdijk et al. (2002) Tambs et al. (1984) Block (1968)
Vocabulary
194.00
80.00
120.00
Information
194.00
80.00
120.00
Comprehension
194.00
80.00
120.00
Similarities
194.00
80.00
120.00
Arithmetric
194.00
80.00
120.00
Picture completion
194.00
80.00
120.00
Pict Arrangement
194.00
80.00
120.00
Block Design
194.00
80.00
120.00
Digit Symbol (Coding)
194.00
80.00
120.00
Digit Span
194.00
80.00
120.00
Object Assembly
194.00
80.00
120.00
PMA Reliability
Vector correlations
Rijsdijk et al. (2002)
h2*h2
c2*c2

Correlation with :
Rijsdijk et al. (2002)
Tambs et al. (1984)
Friedman et al. (2008)
Block (1968)
Johnson et al. (2007)
Totality of samples
Sample Sizes
Age
WISC subtests
Vocabulary
Information
Comprehension
Similarities
Arithmetic
Picture Completion
Pict Arrangement

0.553
0.855
0.743
0.787
0.951

-0.523
-0.087
*
*
0.199

0.640
0.844
*
*
0.914

DZ
0.420
0.380
0.430
0.290
0.280
0.420
0.250

105.00
8.00
H
0.720
0.820
0.440
0.940
0.800
0.000
0.160

Segal (1985)
MZ
0.780
0.790
0.650
0.760
0.680
0.320
0.330

e2*e2

Tambs et al. (1984)

h2*h2
c2*c2
0.553
-0.523
0.564
0.587
0.575
0.696

H
0.711
0.659
0.587
0.518
0.665
0.262
0.462
0.653
0.528
0.529
0.535

0.355
*
*
0.413

Johnson et al. (2007)

126.00
126.00
126.00
126.00
126.00
126.00
126.00
126.00
126.00
126.00
126.00

e2*e2
0.640
0.802
*
*
0.821

Friedman et al. (2008)

h2*h2
0.855
0.564
0.717
0.602
0.945
Owen & Sines 1970

C
0.060
-0.030
0.210
-0.180
-0.120
0.320
0.170

E
0.220
0.210
0.350
0.240
0.320
0.680
0.670

C+E
0.280
0.180
0.560
0.060
0.200
1.000
0.840

MZ
0.840
0.750
0.440
0.790
0.790
0.600
0.690

Block Design
Coding
Digit Span
Object Assembly

0.610
0.680

0.190
0.400

0.840
0.560

-0.230
0.120

0.390
0.320

0.160
0.440

0.540

0.200

0.680

-0.140

0.460

0.320

0.620
0.760
0.440
0.870

Sample Sizes
Age
WISC subtests
Vocabulary
Information
Comprehension
Similarities
Arithmetic
Picture Completion
Pict Arrangement
Block Design
Coding
Digit Span
Object Assembly
Mazes

Jacobs et al. (2001)

451.00
11.00
DZ
0.46
0.49
0.33
0.22
0.34
0.16
0.42
0.34
0.39
0.38
0.39
0.13

H
0.620
0.400
0.360
0.560
0.640
0.400
0.060
0.660
0.560
0.200
0.340
0.540

using MZ
C
0.150
0.290
0.150
-0.060
0.020
-0.040
0.390
0.010
0.110
0.280
0.220
-0.140

E
0.230
0.310
0.490
0.500
0.340
0.640
0.550
0.330
0.330
0.520
0.440
0.600

C+E
0.380
0.600
0.640
0.440
0.360
0.600
0.940
0.340
0.440
0.800
0.660
0.460

Sample Sizes
Age
WISC subtests
Vocabulary
Information
Comprehension
Similarities
Arithmetic
Picture Completion
Pict Arrangement
Block Design
Coding
Digit Span
Object Assembly

LaBuda et al. (1987)

MZ
0.77
0.69
0.51
0.50
0.66
0.36
0.45
0.67
0.67
0.48
0.56
0.40

H
0.51
0.54
0.29
0.33
0.43
0.25
0.26
0.24
0.47
0.44
0.15

DC-MZ
0.70
0.69
0.55
0.50
0.49
0.22
0.53
0.74
0.65
0.56
0.54
0.32

C
0.10
0.17
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.10
0.14
0.43
0.26
0.14
0.29

143.00
12.00
E
0.39
0.29
0.64
0.54
0.53
0.65
0.60
0.33
0.27
0.42
0.56

Williams (1975)
C+E
0.49
0.46
0.72
0.68
0.57
0.75
0.74
0.76
0.53
0.56
0.85

N-weighed (uncorrected for unreliability)

WISC subtests
Vocabulary
Information
Comprehension
Similarities
Arithmetic
Picture Completion
Pict Arrangement
Block Design
Coding
Digit Span
Object Assembly
Mazes

H
0.579
0.437
0.381
0.462
0.468
0.125
0.342
0.466
0.483
0.276
0.308
0.540

C
0.163
0.272
0.161
0.069
0.135
0.174
0.107
0.189
0.178
0.239
0.220
-0.040

E
0.253
0.273
0.446
0.459
0.395
0.676
0.524
0.331
0.346
0.469
0.443
0.600

C+E
0.416
0.545
0.606
0.529
0.530
0.851
0.631
0.519
0.524
0.708
0.664
0.560

H
0.53
0.25
0.26
0.36
0.45
-0.12
0.07
0.34
0.56
0.13
0.02
N-weighed (corrected for unreliability)
reliability
0.886
0.852
0.776
0.822
0.792
0.772
0.740
0.854
0.697
0.740
0.698
0.720

H
0.615
0.473
0.432
0.510
0.526
0.143
0.398
0.504
0.579
0.321
0.369
0.636

Corr with g-WISC

Corr with g(c)-WISC

0.477
0.440

Sample Sizes
Vocabulary
Information
Comprehension
Similarities
Arithmetric
Picture completion
Pict Arrangement
Block Design
Coding
Digit Span
Object Assembly

Correlation with :
Luo et al. (1994)
Segal (1985)
Owen & Sines (1970)
Jacobs et al. (2001)
LaBuda et al. (1987)
Williams (1975)
Totality of samples

-0.183
-0.208

-0.400
-0.353

Segal (1985)
105.00
105.00
105.00
105.00
105.00
105.00
105.00
105.00
105.00
105.00
105.00
PMA Reliability
Vector correlations
Luo et al. (1994)
h2*h2
c2*c2
-0.127
-0.148
-0.150
-0.232
-0.109
0.125

-0.519
0.008
-0.241
0.411
*
0.465

-0.501
-0.465
Owen & Sines (1970)
42.00
42.00
42.00
42.00
42.00
42.00
42.00
42.00
42.00
42.00
42.00

Segal (1985)
e2*e2
h2*h2
c2*c2
-0.127
-0.519
0.765
0.334
-0.002
0.045
0.821
0.658
0.171
0.470
0.359
-0.486
*
0.644
*
0.876
0.756
-0.023

0.371
0.340
Luo et al. (1994)
283.00
283.00
283.00
283.00
283.00
283.00
283.00
283.00
283.00
283.00
283.00

Owen & Sines (1970)

e2*e2
h2*h2
0.765
-0.148
-0.002
0.328
0.737
-0.018
0.596
0.001
*
0.075
0.825
0.119

References :

Block, J. B. (1968). Hereditary components in the performance of twins on the WAIS.

Williams, F. (1975). Family resemblance in abilities: The Wechsler Scales.
Tambs, Sundet, Magnus (1984). Heritability Analysis of the WAIS Subtests: A Study of Twins.
Segal Nancy L. (1985). Monozygotic and Dizygotic Twins: A Comparative Analysis of Mental Ability Profiles.
Rijsdijk et al. (2002). Application of Hierarchical Genetic Models to Raven and WAIS Subtests: A Dutch Twin Study.
Owen David R., Sines Jacob O., (1970). Heritability of personality in children.
Luo, D., Petrill, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. (1994). An exploration of genetic g: Hierarchical factor analysis of cognitive data f
Jacobs, Van Gestel, Derom, Thiery, Vernon, Derom, & Vlietinck, (2001). Heritability estimates of intelligence in twins: effec
LaBuda, DeFries, & Fulker (1987). Genetic and environmental covariance structures among WISC-R subtests: A twin stud
Friedman, Miyake, Young, DeFries, Corley, Hewitt (2008). Individual Differences in Executive Functions Are Almost Entirely
Johnson Wendy et al. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on the Verbal-Perceptual-Image Rotation (VPR) mode

Applied formulas for :

(T stands for 'reared Together')
Heritability
Shared environment
Unique environment
(A stands for 'reared Apart')

H = 2(rMZT - rDZT)
c = rDZT-( h) or c = (2*rDZT)-rMZT or c = rMZT-H or c = 1-(H+E)
e = 1-rMZT

Heritability
Environmentality

H = rMZA or H = 2*rDZA or H 2*(rMZA - rDZA)

e = 1-rMZA

References :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability
J. Philippe Rushton, Trudy Ann Bons, Yoon-Mi Hur (2008) The genetics and evolution of the general factor of perso
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2008%20gen%20evo%20JRP.pdf

To simplify, it is assumed that monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs share 100 percent of their genes, while dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs
When the twins are reared together, they are assumed to share environmental influences.
Thus, the comparison of MZ and DZ twin similarities and differences allows for the estimation of genetic and environmenta
The total genetic variance (h, broad heritability) can be estimated as 2*(MZr - DZr), i.e., doubling the difference between th
the shared environmental influences that make family members similar to one another can be estimated by MZr - h;
and the non-shared environmental influences that are experienced uniquely and make family members different from one
Further, the genetic variance can be separated into additive (A) and non-additive (allelic interaction) or dominance (D) com
i.e., by D = h - 2DZr and A = h - D (because non-additive genetic variance lowers correlations between direct line relative

Rushton, Ann Bons, Vernon, & vorovi (2007). Genetic and environmental contributions to population group differ

To simplify, it is assumed that monozygotic (MZ) twins share 100% of their genes, while dizygotic (DZ) twins share only 50%
When the twins are reared together, they are assumed to share environmental influences, but when reared apart, they are
Heritabilities and environmentalities are then estimated from these twin similarities and differences (Plomin et al. 2001; Bo
In Study 1, the twins were reared together (MZT/DZT). Heritability was estimated by 2(MZTrDZTr), i.e. doubling the diffe
and two environmentalities were estimated: shared family effects by MZTr-heritability
and non-shared family effects by |MZT1-MZT2|, i.e. the sum of all the MZT pair differences, with the differences between
In Study 2, the twins were reared apart (MZA/DZA). Four heritability estimates were calculated: (i) 2(MZArDZAr), i.e. dou
(ii) the MZAr itself, (iii) 2DZAr, and (iv) the average of the three. Environmentality was estimated by |MZA1MZA2|, the s
Formula for n-weight :
(sample-size*value)+(sample-size*value)/(sum of all the sample-sizes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_arithmetic_mean
Example :
(20*0.80)+(30*0.90)/(20+30)=0.86

od of Correlated Vectors

My SPSS file can be requested at mh19870410@gmail.com

d-a-further-test-of-the-debatable-black-white-genetic-differences/

y in the development of intelligence

elligence Scale for Children (WISC) subtests

g correct g
0.8020
0.8520
0.7780
0.8429
0.6820
0.7742
0.7680
0.8471
0.6600
0.7416
0.5320
0.6055
0.5160
0.5998
0.6060
0.6558
0.3540
0.4241
0.4520
0.5254
0.4960
0.5937
0.3750
0.4420

ave been taken from Rushton (1999)

White differences: A reply to Flynn.

ult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) subtests

g correct g
0.8775
0.9039
0.8500
0.8910
0.8100
0.8891
0.8200
0.8894
0.7400
0.7980
0.6300
0.7000
0.6325
0.7493
0.6700
0.7193
0.5500
0.6049
0.5775
0.6339
0.5500
0.6539

Table 6 Differences Between Mean Scores Earned by Whites and Blacks on the 11 W
Kaufman (1988)
N= 1880.00
reliability
BW
BW(c)
0.94
0.90
0.927
0.91
0.78
0.818
0.83
0.82
0.900
0.85
0.72
0.781
0.86
0.84
0.906
0.81
0.74
0.822
0.71
0.52
0.616
0.87
1.04
1.117
0.83
0.60
0.660
0.83
0.51
0.560
0.71
0.74
0.880

Differences Between Blacks and Whites

erence Scores and Test Reliabilities on WISC-R from the United States
BW
0.834
0.854
0.793
0.769

BW(c)
Kan
0.886
0.925
0.900
0.848

BW(c)
Rushton
0.900
0.926
0.903
0.855

Reference : Reynolds & Gutkin, 1981, Table 1 (Excel formula for ca

WISC subtests
Black M Black SD
Vocabulary
7.94
2.70
Information
8.19
2.60
Comprehension
7.87
2.56
Similarities
8.01
2.90

0.609
0.697
0.746
0.895
0.448
0.263
0.792
0.729

0.684
0.794
0.867
0.969
0.536
0.306
0.947

0.694
0.795
0.873
0.971
0.528

Arithmetic
Picture Completion
Picture Arrangement
Block Design
Coding
Digit Span
Object Assembly
Mazes

0.946
0.860

8.66
8.19
8.20
7.78
8.89
9.28
7.99
8.47

2.74
3.00
3.00
2.70
2.94
3.16
2.97
3.23

eynolds, 1982, Table 1), 2 (Reynolds & Gutkin, 1981, Table 1) and 5 (Naglieri & Jensen, 1987, Table 1) so it has been added here.

C+E
0.130
0.520
0.210
0.270
0.330
0.670
0.420
0.460
0.510
0.490
0.500

Block 1968
120.00
16.00
H
0.680
0.740
0.550
0.450
0.640
0.330
0.430
0.570
0.510
0.350
0.260

C
broad
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.34
0.00

C
specific
0.05
0.14
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.09

MZA
0.680
0.570
0.480
0.590
0.620
0.330
0.490
0.610
0.380
0.650
0.550

E
general
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

Johnson et al. (2007)

126.00
43.00
DZA
H(1)
0.410
0.680
0.640
0.570
0.300
0.480
0.520
0.590
0.260
0.620
0.180
0.330
0.220
0.490
0.370
0.610
0.380
0.380
0.310
0.650
-0.060
0.550

E
broad
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.26
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.39
0.26
0.10

E
specifc
0.11
0.15
0.32
0.47
0.29
0.69
0.66
0.28
0.00
0.37
0.46

H(2)
0.540
-0.140
0.360
0.140
0.720
0.300
0.540
0.480
0.000
0.680
1.220

H(3)
0.820
1.280
0.600
1.040
0.520
0.360
0.440
0.740
0.760
0.620
-0.120

H (avg)
0.680
0.570
0.480
0.590
0.620
0.330
0.490
0.610
0.380
0.650
0.550

A
total
0.632
0.531
0.467
0.336
0.570
0.107
0.299
0.587
0.508
0.372
0.444

C
total
0.211
0.289
0.160
0.149
0.118
0.198
0.019
0.084
0.160
0.152
0.124

E
total
0.148
0.173
0.377
0.505
0.311
0.697
0.664
0.326
0.340
0.472
0.493

C+E
total
0.360
0.462
0.537
0.655
0.429
0.894
0.683
0.409
0.500
0.624
0.617

N-weighed (corrected for unreliability)

C
0.127
0.195
0.147
0.102
0.073
0.188
0.052
0.069
0.134
0.106
0.115

E
0.183
0.218
0.355
0.480
0.345
0.708
0.696
0.342
0.425
0.471
0.559

C+E
0.309
0.413
0.502
0.583
0.418
0.896
0.748
0.411
0.559
0.576
0.674

0.231
0.175

-0.658
-0.534

-0.600
-0.490

Standardized N-weighted correct for unreliability

TOTAL
1.020
1.072
1.090
1.100
1.084
1.158
1.210
1.063
1.087
1.106
1.209

Johnson et al. (2007)Friedman et al. (2008)

293.00
293.00
293.00
293.00
293.00
293.00
293.00
293.00
293.00
293.00
293.00

Friedman et al. (2008)

c2*c2
-0.087
0.355
*
*
0.917
Owen & Sines 1970
DZ
0.810
0.560
0.660
0.420
0.490
0.590
0.040

H
0.697
0.615
0.539
0.470
0.614
0.226
0.382
0.614
0.486
0.479
0.442

C
0.124
0.182
0.135
0.093
0.067
0.162
0.043
0.065
0.124
0.095
0.095

E
0.179
0.203
0.326
0.437
0.319
0.612
0.575
0.321
0.391
0.426
0.463

C+E
0.303
0.385
0.461
0.530
0.386
0.774
0.618
0.386
0.514
0.521
0.558

0.583
0.487

0.315
0.244

-0.661
-0.546

-0.583
-0.487

Jensen effects
Individual correlations with (uncorrected) g-loadings
WAIS
Rijsdijk et al. (2002)
Tambs et al. (1984)
Friedman et al. (2008)
Block (1968)
Johnson et al. (2007)

g*h2
0.560
0.789
0.367
0.744
0.417

g*c2
0.139
-0.437
0.477

g*e2
-0.755
-0.518
-0.560

283.00
9.00
E
0.290
0.280
0.350
0.440
0.400
0.590
0.500

C+E
0.460
0.740
0.540
0.680
0.810
0.750
0.590

Block (196Johnson et al. (2007)

h2*h2
h2*h2
0.743
0.787
0.587
0.575
0.717
0.602
*
0.365
*
0.365
0.986
0.812
0.747

e2*e2
0.844
0.802

42.00
10.00
H
0.060
0.380
-0.440
0.740
0.600
0.020
1.300

Luo et al. (1994)

C
0.780
0.370
0.880
0.050
0.190
0.580
-0.610

E
0.160
0.250
0.560
0.210
0.210
0.400
0.310

C+E
0.940
0.620
1.440
0.260
0.400
0.980
-0.300

H
0.540
0.260
0.450
0.320
0.190
0.250
0.410

C
0.170
0.460
0.190
0.240
0.410
0.160
0.090

0.580
0.240
0.330
0.540

H
0.480
0.400
0.440
0.560
0.300
0.120
0.220
0.800
0.520
0.360
0.300
0.380

0.080
1.040
0.220
0.660

using DC-MZ
C
0.220
0.290
0.110
-0.060
0.190
0.100
0.310
-0.060
0.130
0.200
0.240
-0.060

100.00
10.00

0.540
-0.280
0.220
0.210

0.380
0.240
0.560
0.130

0.920
-0.040
0.780
0.340

E
0.300
0.310
0.450
0.500
0.510
0.780
0.470
0.260
0.350
0.440
0.460
0.680

C+E
0.520
0.600
0.560
0.440
0.700
0.880
0.780
0.200
0.480
0.640
0.700
0.620

H
0.580
0.440
0.460
0.470
0.490
0.090
0.340
0.700
0.610
0.340
0.210
0.300

0.470
0.430
0.370
0.200

ACE best fitting model

C
E
0.130
0.180
0.230
0.260
0.090
0.460
0.000
0.510
0.040
0.330
0.120
0.680
0.160
0.500
0.000
0.300
0.050
0.320
0.190
0.470
0.290
0.480
0.000
0.580

0.350
0.440
0.480
0.350

0.820
0.870
0.850
0.550

C+E Total var.

0.310
0.890
0.490
0.930
0.550
1.010
0.510
0.980
0.370
0.860
0.795
0.890
0.660
1.000
0.300
1.000
0.440
0.980
0.660
1.000
0.770
0.980
0.580
0.880

Jensen effects
Individual correlations with (uncorrected) g-loadings
WISC
Luo et al. (1994)
Segal (1985)
Owen & Sines (1970)
Jacobs (2001) MZ
Jacobs 2001 DC-MZ
Jacobs et al. (2001)
LaBuda et al. (1987)
Williams (1975)

ed (corrected for unreliability)

C
0.174
0.295
0.182
0.077
0.152
0.198
0.125
0.204
0.214
0.278
0.264
-0.048

0.170
0.130
0.150
0.450

E
0.269
0.296
0.506
0.507
0.444
0.770
0.609
0.358
0.414
0.546
0.530
0.707

g*h2
0.444
0.496
-0.382
0.379
0.234
0.329
0.287
0.294

g*c2
-0.066
-0.285
0.513
-0.196
-0.111
-0.113
-0.336

g*e2
-0.572
-0.589
-0.229
-0.353
-0.205
-0.330
0.020

g*c2+e2
-0.447
-0.496
0.382
-0.379
-0.234
-0.329
-0.273

Standardized N-weighted correct for unreliability

C+E
0.442
0.590
0.688
0.583
0.595
0.968
0.733
0.562
0.628
0.824
0.794
0.659

TOTAL
1.057
1.064
1.120
1.093
1.122
1.111
1.132
1.066
1.207
1.144
1.163
1.296

H
0.582
0.445
0.386
0.466
0.469
0.128
0.352
0.473
0.480
0.280
0.317
0.491

C
0.164
0.277
0.163
0.070
0.135
0.178
0.110
0.191
0.177
0.243
0.227
-0.037

E
0.254
0.278
0.451
0.463
0.396
0.693
0.538
0.336
0.343
0.477
0.456
0.546

C+E
0.418
0.555
0.614
0.534
0.531
0.872
0.648
0.527
0.520
0.720
0.683
0.509

-0.295
-0.312

-0.477
-0.427

Luo et al. (1994)

Owen & Sines (1970)

c2*c2
0.008
0.045
0.001
-0.108
*
0.300

-0.599
-0.558

0.487
0.451

-0.181
-0.204

-0.396
-0.350

-0.487
-0.451

Jacobs et al. (2001)

451.00
451.00
451.00
451.00
451.00
451.00
451.00
451.00
451.00
451.00
451.00

LaBuda et al. (1987)

143.00
143.00
143.00
143.00
143.00
143.00
143.00
143.00
143.00
143.00
143.00

Williams (1975)
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00

Jacobs et al. (2001)

e2*e2
h2*h2
c2*c2
0.334
-0.150
-0.241
0.328
0.658
0.171
-0.018
0.001
0.318
0.212
0.502
-0.060
*
0.926
*
0.385
0.797
0.667

LaBuda et al. (1987)

h2*h2
c2*c2
-0.232
0.411
0.359
-0.486
0.001
-0.108
0.502
-0.060

Williams (1975)
h2*h2
-0.109
0.644
0.075
0.926
0.622

e2*e2
0.821
0.737
0.318
0.770
*
0.984

0.622
0.525

*
0.306

e2*e2
0.470
0.596
0.212
0.770
*
0.784

0.927

ental Ability Profiles.

btests: A Dutch Twin Study.

al factor analysis of cognitive data from the Western Reserve Twin Project.
mates of intelligence in twins: effect of chorion type.
mong WISC-R subtests: A twin study.
cutive Functions Are Almost Entirely Genetic in Origin.
eptual-Image Rotation (VPR) model of the structure of mental abilities in the Minnesota study of twins reared apart.

c = rMZT-H or c = 1-(H+E)

ion of the general factor of personality

enes, while dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs share, on average, only 50 percent of their genes.

mation of genetic and environmental influences (Bouchard & McGue, 2003; Falconer, 1989; Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 200
, doubling the difference between the MZ and DZ similarities;
can be estimated by MZr - h;
amily members different from one another by 1 - MZr.
interaction) or dominance (D) components,
elations between direct line relatives such as DZ twins).

utions to population group differences on the Raven's Progressive Matrices estimated from twins reared together and apart.

dizygotic (DZ) twins share only 50%.

es, but when reared apart, they are not.
differences (Plomin et al. 2001; Bouchard & McGue 2003).
(MZTrDZTr), i.e. doubling the difference between the MZT and DZT similarities,

nces, with the differences between the twins assumed to be due to the environment.
culated: (i) 2(MZArDZAr), i.e. doubling the difference between the MZA and DZA similarities,
estimated by |MZA1MZA2|, the sum of all the MZA pair differences.

at mh19870410@gmail.com

by Whites and Blacks on the 11 WAIS-R Subtests

1981, Table 1 (Excel formula for calculating the d gap)

White M White SD
N (*2)
BW d
9.90
3.12
285.00
0.67
10.02
2.74
285.00
0.69
10.09
2.97
285.00
0.80
9.54
2.83
285.00
0.53

10.00
10.02
10.14
9.78
10.06
9.66
9.94
10.29

1) so it has been added here.

2.82
3.00
2.97
2.81
3.11
3.10
3.08
2.94

285.00
285.00
285.00
285.00
285.00
285.00
285.00
285.00

0.48
0.61
0.65
0.73
0.39
0.12
0.64
0.59

rect for unreliability

TOTAL
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

Jensen effects
Individual correlations with (corrected) g-loadings
g*c2+e2
-0.566
-0.684
-0.428

g*h2
0.447
0.797
0.274
0.655
0.366

g*c2
0.248
-0.511
0.368

g*e2
-0.667
-0.466
-0.431

g*c2+e2
-0.452
-0.699
-0.330

H
0.652
0.473
0.455
0.480
0.570
0.101
0.340
0.700
0.622
0.340
0.214
0.341

Standardized
C
0.146
0.247
0.089
0.000
0.047
0.135
0.160
0.000
0.051
0.190
0.296
0.000

E
0.202
0.280
0.455
0.520
0.384
0.764
0.500
0.300
0.327
0.470
0.490
0.659

C+E Total var.

0.348
1.000
0.527
1.000
0.545
1.000
0.520
1.000
0.430
1.000
0.899
1.000
0.660
1.000
0.300
1.000
0.378
1.000
0.660
1.000
0.786
1.000
0.659
1.000

Jensen effects
Individual correlations with (corrected) g-loadings
g*h2
0.480
0.478
-0.368
0.334
0.181
0.273
0.242
0.253

rect for unreliability

TOTAL
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

g*c2
-0.112
-0.276
0.496
-0.181
-0.089
-0.086
-0.376

g*e2
-0.558
-0.567
-0.227
-0.301
-0.157
-0.279
0.095

g*c2+e2
-0.483
-0.478
0.368
-0.334
-0.181
-0.273
-0.226

Williams (1975)

Williams (1975)

s reared apart.

DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001).

wins reared together and apart.