You are viewing squid314

Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz - More IQ studies: the quagmire thickens [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Scott

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

More IQ studies: the quagmire thickens [Dec. 24th, 2012|05:57 am]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
[Tags|, ]

In response to some of the things I wrote on genetics, especially the Biodeterminist's Guide to Parenting, many people gave me fascinating links. Among others, Gilbert of Last Conformer linked me to Cosma Shalizi on heritability of IQ, and a Facebook friend of xuenay linked me to this and this on non-shared environment.

And the fun part was that both articles contradicted my previous position, only in opposite directions.

My previous position, and scientific consensus a few years ago, was that variation in IQ is 50% genetic and 50% "non-shared environmental". Everyone knows what genetics are, but "non-shared environment" is the result of studies where they compare identical twins, fraternal twins, siblings, and unrelated people raised either together or apart. What they find is that approximately 0% of variation in IQ (or anything else!) is due to your parents and family and house ("shared environment") - this is the take-home point of The Nurture Assumption. The remaining 50% of variance isn't genetic or due to household environment, so without really having any idea what it is we call it "non-shared environment". People (especially me) assumed that this was things like what teachers you had at school, what friends you made, that study abroad experience in France your summer of sophomore year, et cetera.

So in the process of demolishing that, let's start with Shalizi. His article was 100% statistics, something I'm terrible at, so I had trouble following, but I gather his main point is that current estimates of the heritability of IQ, mostly produced from twin studies, show several signs of being overestimates. He gives a few reasons:

1. "Identical twins raised apart" may be raised "apart" in the same town, or even go to the same school. This means that of course they would be more similar than two randomly selected members of the population even for reasons totally other than genetics.

2. There are interactions and correlations between genes and the environment. For example, social class is an environmental factor, but we might expect people in certain social classes to have different frequencies of certain genes. And a gene that causes some small effect (like makes you slightly better at math) could then have an environmental effect out of all proportion (and so you get selected for the Math Gifted program and are taught math much more intensively).

3. Statistics things I'm not confident I understand well enough to write about. Apparently "heteroskedasticity" is a word now? Whatever they are, Cosma seems to demolish most heredity studies pretty thoroughly, and he gives a strong impression of being the smartest person in the world.

So he concludes that because of these points we can't even be sure that any of IQ is heritable. This might seem like an overreaction, but his numbers are sound (he points out, for example, that correcting twin studies for location can drop the IQ correlation from .8 to about .2) So who knows, maybe genetics is 0 and it's all just nonshared environment?

Except then comes the Turkheimer study, which shows quite conclusively that none of it is the usual type of non-shared environment we might expect.

Seriously. They look at all the different plausible sources of non-shared environment: birth order, parent behavior, friends, teachers, so on, so forth, and they all come out so close to zero as to make no difference. They claim that some of it might be gene-environment interactions, which I take to mean something like one child having a gene that makes her respond well to strict parenting, and another child having a gene that makes her respond badly to strict parenting, and then strict parenting appears to have no effect even though it actually caused two opposing effects. To me this seems like a stretch.

So none of it is heredity, none of it is shared environment, and none of it is non-shared environment. Maybe there are invisible gremlins who take IQ points out of a little bag and put them into people's heads? Or what?

Maybe it's not quite that bad. Both Shalizi's research and research from elsewhere on the Internet provides some tools we can use to build back some of heredity and nonshared environment (shared environment still seems pretty much screwed).

First, Shalizi notes that identical twins raised apart were still in the womb at the same time. If you read Biodeterminists' Guide, you know that's a big deal. He cites a study saying it could explain up to 20% of variance. That variance would look genetic on first glance, since the twins were raised apart and so supposedly not exposed to the same environmental factors, but it could actually be a part of non-shared (if you're not a twin) or shared (if you are) environment.

Second, a lot of studies might be confused because heritability of IQ is different in different conditions. Shalizi points to numbers saying it can be as low as 0 for poor people and as high as 0.8 for rich people. This makes sense. Suppose (this is my own interpretation, not Dr. Shalizi's) that everyone had a natural potential determined by genetics, but that various harmful factors like the ones in the Biodeterminist's Guide could knock off points. In that case, if you're poor and exposed to many such factors, the number of environmental factors you were exposed to would be the main source of variance, and if you're rich and sheltered from such factors, your genetic potential would be more important.

Likewise (this was in a link of Shalizi's rather than the paper itself) heritability of IQ is different at different ages. That is, to the weak degree you can even measure IQ in a three year old it's not very heritable, but if you measure the person again at 30 it will correspond with parents' scores better. That makes sense; at 3 you would expect. It might be possible to pull out actual heredity numbers in specific cases that don't fail statistically as bad as some of the others.

Third, other sources suggest that school might not be as unimportant a factor as the behavioral geneticists seem to think. There are a few papers showing 4 or 5 point lasting IQ gains for people who get very intensive early interventions (usually putting the children of mentally disabled people into a special school - and no, this isn't just regression to the mean, they had a control group). Shalizi even posts a claim from a book called Genetic Diversity and Human Equality, which claimed "an experiment on ghetto children whose mothers had IQs of below 70. Some of these children received special care and training, while others were a control group. Four years after the training period the IQs of the former averaged 127 and those of the latter 90, a spectacular difference of 37 points." I don't have the book (it's page 14-15 if any of you do) but if Shalizi believes that I might have to revoke his "apparently the smartest person in the world" status.

Fourth, Molenaar et al find us our invisible gremlins. They say that chaotic developmental factors may have butterfly-effect type downstream actions on large-scale features, like intelligence. So two million steps later, the direction one neuron started growing in the womb might randomly grant or cost you several IQ points and change your personality. This could explain some of the rest of non-shared environment.

And even though Cosma is very impressive and I'm reluctant to critique an essay I don't fully understand, I can't agree that we know nothing. For example, studies directly comparing identical vs. fraternal twins in the same household should escape many (though not all) of the problems he finds with twin adoption studies, but these reinforce the conventional wisdom. Genetic factors become more apparent with age and status, which seems more consistent with them being real effects than signs of a poorly run experiment (it also significantly raises Cosma's "best estimate" of .34 for certain cases that we probably care about disproportionately). Because shared environment is so minimal, it's hard to argue that it's a big confounder. And other tests for other cognitive abilities don't show the same amount of heredity in twin study, which means either IQ is uniquely confounding or highly heritable.

Overall I respect his statistical purist point of view that our current statistics aren't good enough to be very confident in the heredity of IQ, while also respecting everyone else in the field who says their best guess is around 0.5.

Right now if I had to guess, I would say within group variance in IQ is due 30 - 50% to genetics, 20% to in utero environment, and the remaining 30 - 50% some combination of chaotic factors and schooling/social development. If I wanted to hedge my bets maybe I'd add that the schooling/social development factor is higher during childhood, and the genetic factor is higher during adulthood.

Between groups is a totally different kettle of fish, and I'm much more skeptical of the idea that there are significant genetic between-group differences than I was yesterday, although I'm sure once West Hunter makes their next good point I'll switch right back. But that's a different post.

And for either kind of variance if you told me it was actually the gremlins I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

(I also read Cosma's other essay on g. It made sense and was convincing, but I'm less interested in it from an "oh my, what real neurological concept does this correspond to" perspective and more interested in the fact that IQ tests are clearly measuring something and we can use that to find things out about this mysterious idea of "intelligence" even if it turns out to be something else entirely.)
linkReply

Comments:
Page 1 of 20
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] >>
From: danarmak
2012-12-24 03:50 pm (UTC)

(Link)

> identical twins raised apart were still in the womb at the same time.

This made me think: since the womb environment is important, how is the environment of a womb shared with a twin different from that of a womb all to yourself? How do we know that twin studies are a good guide to non-twin IQ in the first place?
From: (Anonymous)
2012-12-24 04:26 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Interesting thought. Quick, someone do twin vs triplet studies! (Assuming the effect is linear... )
[User Picture]From: Pablo Stafforini
2012-12-24 04:27 pm (UTC)

(Link)

You note that Shalizi gives the impression of being an extremely bright fellow. You should also note that he has a clear political agenda and is cognitively motivated to find arguments and evidence against the hereditarian position. The conjunction of these two facts provides, I think, a good reason for discounting the evidential force of his apparently sound arguments. If the facts didn't support his case, he would probably still be able to come up with persuasive arguments for the same conclusion.
[User Picture]From: squid314
2012-12-24 11:25 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Yeah, I'd like to do that, but his arguments seem pretty good (also, everyone in this field seems motivated by an ideological agenda, so it doesn't really change his position relative to anyone else). Did you read the piece? Find any particular holes in them?
[User Picture]From: James D Miller
2012-12-24 05:32 pm (UTC)

womb comptition

(Link)

Twins sharing a womb compete for resources meaning that being in the same womb could increase the variance of IQs between twins. Correcting for this resource conflict effect would cause us to increase our estimate of the genetic component of IQ variance in the general population.
From: danarmak
2012-12-24 06:41 pm (UTC)

Re: womb comptition

(Link)

By that logic, if the total resource pool is bounded, twins should have lower IQ than the general population. Which would be another reason twin IQ would not be a good guide to IQ in general.
[User Picture]From: pktechgirl
2012-12-24 07:54 pm (UTC)

(Link)

This doesn't control for all in utero effects, but shared placenta identical twins are more similar to each other than separate placenta identical twins, to a statistically significant degree.

Edited at 2012-12-25 03:28 am (UTC)
[User Picture]From: cakoluchiam
2012-12-24 09:31 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Speaking of shared environmental factors, even though I really hate when people are overly PC with their terminology, I still flinched at your use of the word "retarded". Is that still a technical term, or is there a concise way of expressing the same affliction without using the R word as a descriptor? Even something as simple as "persons with retardation" as opposed to "retarded people", that is, treating it as a separate condition inflicted on a person rather than a measure of that person's identity, can go a long way along the PC scale (at least, that's what I've gathered re: persons with disabilities).
[User Picture]From: squid314
2012-12-24 11:38 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Retarded is a technical term for people with IQ under 70 accepted by for example the ICD. I am wary of replacing it for a few reasons. First, kind of annoying that scientists have to change their language in deference to the public misusing it. Second, euphemism treadmill - I expect the public to misuse the next one just as much. Third, the main candidate for replacement, "mentally disabled", seems especially bad in that if it gets euphemism treadmilled to "stupid person I don't like" the same way "retarded" did, then all of a sudden all disabled people are caught up in its halo.

"Person with retardation" is worse in a few ways. First, it confirms that this is a Bad Thing. When there's something that's not Bad, we don't pussyfoot around it - when I say "blond person", no one corrects it to "person with blondness", so the very fact that I'm trying it is suggesting they must be an inferior person who needs protection from their qualities in a way that just describing them with a technical term isn't. Second, it makes it sound like retardation is a separate "thing"; this might sort of make sense in conditions where it's due to a specific disease, but in a lot of cases they just have really low IQ. Imagine reworking "short person" to "person with shortness". All of a sudden it's like they have an affliction. Third, I can't immediately think of any evidence for the belief that [adjective] [noun] is a way of saying that the noun is more fundamentally adjective than [noun] with [adjective] is; this seems to just be an affectation used in situations like this one?

Nevertheless, I've changed it to "mentally disabled" in order to avoid a fight.

Edited at 2012-12-24 11:41 pm (UTC)
From: deiseach
2012-12-24 09:59 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Eh. The older I get, the more I incline towards the idea that IQ tests don't actually measure intelligence, they just measure how well you do on tests. And certainly there are tricks and shortcuts and rules for answering questions that, once you know (or have been taught them) mean you score higher. I've done it myself; taken a test where I didn't know the particular knack for a certain question, then later on when I run into that question again, I know the 'rule' for solving it and so I do better on test no. 2 rather than test no. 1 not because I have had a sudden boost in intelligence but because I know the trick.

Look, if you want smart kids, then your best bet is to have them born to well-off parents who can provide a stable family life, proper nutrition, good schools and enrichment activities out the wazoo, and where there is a family background of having had good nutrition, stable homes, good schools and plenty of extra-curricular activities.

You might be the world's greatest composer of music for the harpsichord, but if your life options are a minimum wage job in a box factory and you've never even seen a harpsichord, then your talents are going to go unrecognised.
[User Picture]From: xuenay
2012-12-25 07:43 am (UTC)

(Link)

Yes, you can learn to do IQ tests better and thus get a higher score... but that's not really a good argument against them, given that they still give valid results if you haven't had practice. If you aren't trained on them, they correlate pretty reliably with various life outcomes, but if you get an inflated score on a test because you've practiced, your inflated score no longer correlates with life outcomes.

Which is exactly what we'd expect to happen if they did measure some real talent, given that your performance on anything is a combination of talent + practice and it's impossible to create a meaningful test where practice gave no additional gain. As long as you haven't had any extra practice, the test measures solely talent and is reliable; and then when you get more practice, the test starts becoming increasingly unreliable.

Though that's assuming that we're talking about an IQ test in the style of Raven's matrices, which is a purely abstract test of a kind that a person likely haven't encountered before. The picture gets somewhat more complicated if we're talking about something like a "define this word" problem, where you will already have gained practice on the problem domain from your daily life. But it looks like smarter people tend to both learn the meanings of words faster, and to also like spending more time doing stuff like reading that will increase their vocabulary... so performance on such a test will still correlate with intelligence when age and culture is controlled for, though there will be considerably more noise in the results. Which is probably a big part of the reason why tests like Raven's matrices are considered much better measures of intelligence.
From: (Anonymous)
2012-12-26 02:05 am (UTC)

dk

(Link)

The book you want is probably not Dobzhansky's "Genetic Diversity and Human Equality," but his source, Heber's "Rehabilitation of Families at Risk for Mental Retardation" project (n=40). I don't know what 1968 document Dobzhansky cites, but here is a 250 page version from 1972:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED087142
From: (Anonymous)
2012-12-26 03:04 am (UTC)

dk

(Link)

I think it is important to ask yourself why you care about heritability and assess each piece of evidence in light of each reason you might care. reasons to care: designing methods of parenting and schooling; eugenics; genetic engineering.

In particular, why you care about heritability determines whether you care about narrow or broad heritability.

Maternal effects are pessimistic for each of those three goals, at least as phrased. If maternal effects turn out to be eating licorice while pregnant, that's an easy effect to exploit; but if they are about malnutrition at an early age, that's hard to discover and hard to fix.

A common implicit argument that Shalizi only implicitly addresses is that "identifiable environment explains no variance, therefore IQ is not malleable." Proportion of variation only address why the currently existing population varies, not what might cause it to vary in the future. Iodine supplementation is a powerful intervention, but most populations either use it everywhere or nowhere, so it explains little of the variance within those populations. That Heber has a magic touch endowing 37 points of IQ is compatible with high heritability because he has only touched 20 kids.

But if Heber says that he did it by following standard advice, he is simply mistaken. Heritability and its complement, the variance due to environment, do tell us about the power of common environmental differences. If it is true that shared environment has no effect, then Bryan Caplan is correct.
[User Picture]From: roryokane
2012-12-26 09:27 am (UTC)

(Link)

In the paragraph about heritability of IQ at different ages, this sentence is incomplete:

That makes sense; at 3 you would expect.
[User Picture]From: torekp
2012-12-30 03:45 pm (UTC)

(Link)

"I'm ... more interested in the fact that IQ tests are clearly measuring something and we can use that to find things out about this mysterious idea of 'intelligence' even if it turns out to be something else entirely."

Well said. But you could say it even better if your ontology condoned mereological promiscuity, and its parallel for properties. In other words, let's just call this thing "intelligence" even if it isn't a basic, tidily encapsulated causal nexus in neurology or cognitive psychology. So what if it's an amalgam? A pencil is an amalgam of wood, graphite, metal, and rubber, and you don't need the concept "pencil" to do science, but that doesn't mean there are no such things as pencils.

Edited at 2012-12-30 03:55 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
2013-01-04 12:49 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Heber's results are very dubious, because he went to prison for embezzling much of the funds of that very expensive IQ study. Moreover, at age 14 the treatment group's advantage had narrowed to 10 points, and even that difference probably did not represent real gains because there was no difference in school achievement between the treatment and control groups. There are other problems with this study, including the fact that Heber never subjected his interpretations or data to peer review. There's a Wikipedia article on this study under the name Milwaukee Project.

Fetal effects are unlikely to a be a source of twin similarity in IQ. It's more likely that they are a source of twin dissimilarity, i.e., non-shared environmental variance, because twins compete for resources in the womb.

The argument that there are substantial gene-environment interaction or correlation effects that inflate IQ heritability estimates is now essentially dead due to studies like Davies et al. in Mol Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;16(10):996-1005.
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:35 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

jhjsv [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] kkpvvf http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk fskrp [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] vdfktl http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk regtx [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] ogwboi http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk xbkn [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] iwljyc http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk zuxdd [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry bags[/url] wqqgyn http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com yfjit [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry outlet[/url] nnteiu http://www.onlinecelinebags.com mvem
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:35 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

riswn [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry bags[/url] cpnyyz http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk kxlmy [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] dihidu http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk bfmuw [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] wpsclh http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk pxki [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry bags[/url] gkgofa http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk xlxaf [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry handbags[/url] byiwbm http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com dyhgf [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry outlet online[/url] ukhija http://www.onlinecelinebags.com pjpy
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:35 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

pstpd [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] wefdkl http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk pzkxx [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] hfjvft http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk azszn [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] sjrsuz http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk kxrf [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] mqzvnj http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk kftxk [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry bags[/url] voylmn http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com xelep [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry outlet online[/url] xyoxew http://www.onlinecelinebags.com kwnn
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:35 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

uwaoe [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] dehhky http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk ldyrc [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] amgxuq http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk cfbyi [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] wfqltk http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk lhht [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] ylefkx http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk ddyzq [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry outlet[/url] nvjtbs http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com dmtws [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry bags[/url] ufevwq http://www.onlinecelinebags.com psru
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:35 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

mgoxs [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] euphhg http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk fcwvm [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] cmttwa http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk rifil [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] pwmtxy http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk ypqu [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] tclavd http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk hojvw [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry outlet[/url] lklykc http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com xjlnd [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry outlet[/url] sjadds http://www.onlinecelinebags.com stmv
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:35 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

osqjy [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] jjsqtb http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk gzgdm [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry sale[/url] owzfae http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk twvox [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry bags[/url] ersnpy http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk dfbf [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] drrums http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk chwfv [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry outlet[/url] cywcfx http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com bkpth [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry bags[/url] kfhtub http://www.onlinecelinebags.com flyy
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:36 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

zlobs [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] oukzmm http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk iwteu [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] zxjaze http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk nqfvv [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] geltwr http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk xpmd [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] zkefhi http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk mlwzl [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry bags[/url] etcqdf http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com mvilk [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry outlet online[/url] gqcuae http://www.onlinecelinebags.com kxkg
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:37 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

kkpby [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry bags[/url] oruodg http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk rzpuf [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] dkzrqi http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk wyxxy [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] ukucpp http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk wzsk [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry bags[/url] lgognr http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk fnsla [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry bags[/url] nzzwnt http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com fjsme [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry outlet[/url] czqids http://www.onlinecelinebags.com mgen
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:42 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

munmu [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] xrmioo http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk zpsto [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry sale[/url] fovgqy http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk pozxv [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry bags[/url] wtizdw http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk rgoq [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] dxentw http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk hfgps [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry bags[/url] zkhfrh http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com haebk [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry outlet online[/url] ytkodz http://www.onlinecelinebags.com jtqn
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:42 am (UTC)

where can i buy cheap louis vuitton outlet online

(Link)

dytdr [url=http://www.salelouisvuitton-no1.com]authentic louis vuitton[/url] uiayij http://www.salelouisvuitton-no1.com zktbs [url=http://www.get-louisvuittonoutlet.com]cheap louis vuitton[/url] zhougd http://www.get-louisvuittonoutlet.com uacho [url=http://www.pick-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton bags[/url] gkdnuu http://www.pick-louisvuittonoutlet.com skre [url=http://www.foxlouisvuitton.com]louis vuitton sale[/url] krocnb http://www.foxlouisvuitton.com fudqr [url=http://www.lo-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton bags[/url] clccai http://www.lo-louisvuittonoutlet.com cursl [url=http://www.locheaplouisvuitton.com]louis vuitton sale[/url] mtsnov http://www.locheaplouisvuitton.com imed
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:42 am (UTC)

where can i buy cheap louis vuitton outlet online

(Link)

coimb [url=http://www.salelouisvuitton-no1.com]louis vuitton outlet[/url] nwitsb http://www.salelouisvuitton-no1.com gujms [url=http://www.get-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton bags[/url] whvcvc http://www.get-louisvuittonoutlet.com ugjfi [url=http://www.pick-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton handbags[/url] sumfbt http://www.pick-louisvuittonoutlet.com nezn [url=http://www.foxlouisvuitton.com]louis vuitton sale[/url] xwsndb http://www.foxlouisvuitton.com ujyeu [url=http://www.lo-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton bags[/url] aitamt http://www.lo-louisvuittonoutlet.com yauoi [url=http://www.locheaplouisvuitton.com]louis vuitton sale[/url] ofgtdh http://www.locheaplouisvuitton.com cicc
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:42 am (UTC)

where can i buy cheap louis vuitton outlet online

(Link)

xchgb [url=http://www.salelouisvuitton-no1.com]louis vuitton handbags[/url] fyhgsq http://www.salelouisvuitton-no1.com thmuu [url=http://www.get-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton bags[/url] xyvjvl http://www.get-louisvuittonoutlet.com ebvhc [url=http://www.pick-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton handbags[/url] fslovy http://www.pick-louisvuittonoutlet.com iqqk [url=http://www.foxlouisvuitton.com]louis vuitton sale[/url] rvgaio http://www.foxlouisvuitton.com rxpyu [url=http://www.lo-louisvuittonoutlet.com]louis vuitton bags[/url] wobwxa http://www.lo-louisvuittonoutlet.com btmtp [url=http://www.locheaplouisvuitton.com]louis vuitton outlet[/url] iodseu http://www.locheaplouisvuitton.com janb
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:44 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

fttvr [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry handbags[/url] fwsmjy http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk sjenb [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry sale[/url] ryptfr http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk fheso [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry bags[/url] pcjoeh http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk cahs [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] pauygt http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk dpbda [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry bags[/url] mtaypl http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com hiobl [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry outlet[/url] mqoykh http://www.onlinecelinebags.com vqsn
From: (Anonymous)
2013-02-06 07:45 am (UTC)

you can buy cheap mulberry bags uk sale here

(Link)

ozudf [url=http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] vysezy http://www.im-mulberrybags.co.uk swlnk [url=http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] qznlad http://www.im-mulberryoutlet.co.uk kepyc [url=http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk]mulberry bags[/url] nkdxhr http://www.pay-mulberrybags.co.uk mpfy [url=http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk]mulberry outlet[/url] pdltwq http://www.online-mulberry.co.uk izdla [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]mulberry handbags[/url] uewyzf http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com nledb [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]mulberry outlet online[/url] sbevkm http://www.onlinecelinebags.com csrz
Page 1 of 20
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] >>