Whites are more intelligent than blacks

[The Atheist]

Or so says Nobel Prize winner, Dr James Watson.

Apparently, this has been an unpopular statement.

Link (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10470596&pnum=0)

This type of statement seems to severely upset some people. If true, how is it racist? I'm offering no opinion here, but Watson is not the first to make this link, and in every case, the proponents are classed as racist immediately and that's the end of it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Or so says Nobel Prize winner, Dr James Watson.

Apparently, this has been an unpopular statement.

Link (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10470596&pnum=0)

This type of statement seems to severely upset some people. If true, how is it racist? I'm offering no opinion here, but Watson is not the first to make this link, and in every case, the proponents are classed as racist immediately and that's the end of it.

Asserting it without evidence is racist. I might say, "White people are less moral," and that could -concievably- be a statement of fact, but not if it's just my opinion.

[cloudshipsrule]

There are distinct physiological differences among blacks and caucasians that are more than skin deep. (Muscle structure for one.) There are even differences in muscle structure within the black race, which is why we see certain countries excel in certain running sports. Where an individual came from, as far as ancestry, has a very large impact on how that person develops both mentally and physically.

It's not surprising that there would be differences in the capacity to learn or reason among different races, but I can guarantee there are blacks who are smarter than anyone on this board who happens to be caucasion.

One can't make a broad generalization and be correct.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's not surprising that there would be differences in the capacity to learn or reason among different races, but I can guarantee there are blacks who are smarter than anyone on this board who happens to be caucasion.


Do you have any evidence to support the opinion that there are such neurological differences?

[cloudshipsrule]

Do you have any evidence to support the opinion that there are such neurological differences?

If you think every race has the exact same capacity to learn and reason I think you are incorrect.

Do you think there are physiological differences that are more than skin color among different races?

[CFLarsen]

Two articles on IQ:

IQ: The Democratically Purified Racism (http://skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/iq1.htm)
After the ideas in the book The Bell Curve were thoroughly debunked a couple of years ago, almost everybody seems to agree that even if black people considered as a group may be less intelligent than the rest of humanity, the genes are not to blame! The most recent publications used as textbooks declare that the average score of these children is by no means inferior – as you would expect if ‘black genes’ were dumber than other people’s genes.

How Intelligent is the Average IQ test designer? (http://skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/iq2.htm)
This article is an adaptation from a Danish article published in the on-line magazine Para-nyt (Para News), the website of the Danish skeptics. It was mainly inspired by the controversy surrounding the Danish IQ psychologist Helmuth Nyborg, an admirer of Jensen, Herrnstein and Murray. Every two or three years Nyborg appears in the Danish media with his sensational ideas, only to disappear again and be forgotten. There may be good reasons for that.

[ImaginalDisc]

If you think every race has the exact same capacity to learn and reason I think you are incorrect.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Do you think there are physiological differences that are more than skin color among different races?

"More than skin color" does not equate to specific neurological differences pretaining to learning.

[GroundStrength]

Careful if you post any thoughts in this thread other than Dr. watson is a racist. You will be called a racist yourself.

Don't even think about taking an objective look. Racisim fist, thought never.



P.S. I think that what Dr. Watson is a stupid thing to say without evidence to back it up.

[cloudshipsrule]

"More than skin color" does not equate to specific neurological differences pretaining to learning.

That's a good way to avoid the question. There are physiological differences among different races, and the brain is part of human physiology. Why would it be any different than a leg muscle in terms of inherent capacity to grow or be used? It's not surprising to me that there may be differences in intelligence among different races, and notice I haven't said one race is better than another. Distinct differences make life interesting.

[The Atheist]

Asserting it without evidence is racist. I might say, "White people are less moral," and that could -concievably- be a statement of fact, but not if it's just my opinion.

How about academic achievement records of white v black where populations of blacks have been long-established (or even pre-date white men)?

How do black v white compare in:

USA
New Zealand
Australia
England
France

Is that the kind of evidence you mean?

[cloudshipsrule]

How about academic achievement records of white v black where populations of blacks have been long-established (or even pre-date white men)?

Could environment play a larger role than anything genetic?

[The Atheist]

Careful if you post any thoughts in this thread other than Dr. watson is a racist. You will be called a racist yourself.

Don't even think about taking an objective look. Racisim fist, thought never.



P.S. I think that what Dr. Watson is a stupid thing to say without evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure he's without evidence, it's more a question of whether the evidence is in fact evidence to support his hypothesis. He could equally point to crime statistics as IQ and claim white superiority. Might even be right.

[ImaginalDisc]

How about academic achievement records of white v black where populations of blacks have been long-established (or even pre-date white men)?

How do black v white compare in:

USA
New Zealand
Australia
England
France

Is that the kind of evidence you mean?

No. Study after study show that the only factor which is consistently correlated with academic achievement is socio-economic status. Since blacks tend to be from lower socio-economic brackets, it's easy to see why someone might form such a faulty conclusion.

Students in the same brackets and at the same level of acculturation don't have statistically significant differences in academic achievement. There are differences in IQ scores (the test is subject to criticism, but that's a tangent) between ethnic groups, and differences in academic achievement between ethnic groups, but those aren't controlled for socio-economic status - it should come as no surprise that there are propertionately more poor black kids than poor white kids.

ETA: A good source. (http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol72003/stockton.pdf) Peculiar to the U.S., however.

Gotta run to an exam. Summary: SES disadvantaged kids start out with lesser ability than richer kids right away, they get shuffled to worse schools, and the problems keep compounding from there on.

[headscratcher4]

As we can tell with the Obama/Cheney kinship...there are very few pure anything anymore...white and black, as I understand it, i.e. race, is an increasingly outdated concept either because the genetic differences are so small as to be essentially meaningless, or because of the creep of mongralization of all races, especially in a society such as the U.S. Just a thought.

[The Atheist]

Could environment play a larger role than anything genetic?

That's what Imaginal Disc is proposing, but which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are they less smart because they grew up in lower soico-economic groups? Or did they grow up in lower socio-economic groups because their parents were less smart and can't get decent jobs?

[cloudshipsrule]

As we can tell with the Obama/Cheney kinship...there are very few pure anything anymore...white and black, as I understand it, i.e. race, is an increasingly outdated concept either because the genetic differences are so small as to be essentially meaningless, or because of the creep of mongralization of all races, especially in a society such as the U.S. Just a thought.

This is true. The only way to get an accurate assessment would be to test isolated tribes of people in Brazil who haven't mixed with any other race for centuries, isolated villages in Africa who haven't mixed, and distinct caucasion bloodlines elsewhere to eliminate the possiblity of 'contamination' of the specimen.

[headscratcher4]

This is true. The only way to get an accurate assessment would be to test isolated tribes of people in Brazil who haven't mixed with any other race for centuries, isolated villages in Africa who haven't mixed, and distinct caucasion bloodlines elsewhere to eliminate the possiblity of 'contamination' of the specimen.

You forgot crackers from the hollars of West Virginia.

[sinclairmcevoy]

There are distinct physiological differences among blacks and caucasians that are more than skin deep. (Muscle structure for one.) There are even differences in muscle structure within the black race, which is why we see certain countries excel in certain running sports. Where an individual came from, as far as ancestry, has a very large impact on how that person develops both mentally and physically.

It's not surprising that there would be differences in the capacity to learn or reason among different races, but I can guarantee there are blacks who are smarter than anyone on this board who happens to be caucasion.

One can't make a broad generalization and be correct. That's a pretty broad generalization, how can you guarantee that?

[cloudshipsrule]

You forgot crackers from the hollars of West Virginia.

No, they're included in the 'distinct bloodlines elsewhere' group.

That's a pretty broad generalization, how can you guarantee that?

I can't. I'm just generalizing.

[JoeEllison]

You forgot crackers from the hollars of West Virginia.

That's kind of a racist comment there, isn't it?

[jimtron]

The Atheist: Could you define precisely the characteristics of the "black" race? Some say race is a social construct. I know how to tell the difference between Chris Rock and George W. Bush, but I'm not sure it's so easy to define a race. But since you started this thread, please strictly define what you mean by "blacks."

eta:
If true, how is it racist?

From Wikipedia:

Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that members of one "race" are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other "races."

I'm skeptical that your titular claim is true, but even if it was, it would be racist by definition.

[JoeEllison]

BTW, "I know they'll call me a racist" isn't a legitimate preemptive defense for later racist comments.

You have to wonder though... since The Bell Curve and other such "research" was funded by racists, dismissed by most experts, and generally debunked, isn't using it as evidence kind of a decent sign that someone is racist and/or ignorant? I mean, if someone quoted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we'd pretty quickly label them as antisemitic and/or an idiot, wouldn't we?

[GroundStrength]

BTW, "I know they'll call me a racist" isn't a legitimate preemptive defense for later racist comments.

You have to wonder though... since The Bell Curve and other such "research" was funded by racists, dismissed by most experts, and generally debunked, isn't using it as evidence kind of a decent sign that someone is racist and/or ignorant? I mean, if someone quoted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we'd pretty quickly label them as antisemitic and/or an idiot, wouldn't we?

You would.

[slingblade]

What, exactly, is the biological correlation between my melanin content and my intelligence? Biological only, please. Not social, cultural, or any other -al. Just show me the connection between innate intelligence and melanin content of the skin.


Do I get Bonus Smartie Points if I happen to have multiple concentrated areas of melalnin (moles and freckles) on my skin as well? Or are those "stupid bumps?"

[JoeEllison]

What, exactly, is the biological correlation between my melanin content and my intelligence? Biological only, please. Not social, cultural, or any other -al. Just show me the connection between innate intelligence and melanin content of the skin.


Do I get Bonus Smartie Points if I happen to have multiple concentrated areas of melalnin (moles and freckles) on my skin as well? Or are those "stupid bumps?"

It depends on whether or not you are a redhead, and more importantly on whether or not you're name is Lindsay Lohan.

[ImaginalDisc]

BTW, "I know they'll call me a racist" isn't a legitimate preemptive defense for later racist comments.

You have to wonder though... since The Bell Curve and other such "research" was funded by racists, dismissed by most experts, and generally debunked, isn't using it as evidence kind of a decent sign that someone is racist and/or ignorant? I mean, if someone quoted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we'd pretty quickly label them as antisemitic and/or an idiot, wouldn't we?

Unless they're Bpesta22. This subject comes up often, actually.

[ImaginalDisc]

That's what Imaginal Disc is proposing, but which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are they less smart because they grew up in lower soico-economic groups? Or did they grow up in lower socio-economic groups because their parents were less smart and can't get decent jobs?

Firstly, it's "ImaginalDisc."

Secondly, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that black children grew up in disadvantaged households because of 300 years of herditary slavery, during which time they could have been murdered for reading a book, followed by a century of institutional racism.

Just a thought.

[dudalb]

Looks as though Watson is following in the footsteps of Willam Shockley,another Nobel Prize Winner who made a fool of himself with "proving" that Blacks have inferior intelligence.

[sinclairmcevoy]

Herditary? Sorry. Nothing useful to say.:rolleyes:

[Puppycow]

From Wikipedia:

Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that members of one "race" are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other "races."

I'm skeptical that your titular claim is true, but even if it was, it would be racist by definition.

So you are saying that sometimes political correctness trumps scientific correctness? I can understand this point of view and I think it might even be correct in situations like this. Even if he thinks the evidence supports this claim, he probably shouldn't have said it, at least not in such a provocative way. I can think of plenty of social and political reasons not to entertain such theories, even if I can't think of a purely scientific one.

OTOH, "reality is what doesn't change just because you stop believing it."

[JoeEllison]

Firstly, it's "ImaginalDisc."

Secondly, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that black children grew up in disadvantaged households because of 500 years of herditary slavery, during which time they could have been murdered for reading a book, followed by a century of institutional racism.

Just a thought.

I'm sure some would say that they deserved slavery because they were too stupid and lazy to get out of it, and that they continue to deserve whatever hey get, because if they were more worthy no one would be racist against them. You know, they whole "screw them, I got mine, they need to get over it" school of social "justice".:rolleyes:

[jimtron]

So you are saying that sometimes political correctness trumps scientific correctness?

No. I'm not talking about political correctness.


I can understand this point of view and I think it might even be correct in situations like this. Even if he thinks the evidence supports this claim, he probably shouldn't have said it, at least not in such a provocative way. I can think of plenty of social and political reasons not to entertain such theories, even if I can't think of a purely scientific one.

OTOH, "reality is what doesn't change just because you stop believing it."My point is if you say that "blacks" are more intelligent than "whites," that by definition is racist, even if it's true and supported by science. Racism is belief that one race is better than another (basically, if I'm not mistaken). So to say that one race is smarter than another is racist, whether the claim is backed up by evidence or not.

I'm all for free speech, but I do have to wonder why it would be useful to determine which "races" are most intelligent, or most ethical, or whatever. What do we do with that information (if we can agree on what "black" and "white" mean, and agree on any evidence of superior traits)? What use is it?

What if a parent talked to her children about which of her kids were smartest, or best looking? What purpose would this serve?

If we didn't already have huge problems in this world with race, maybe it might be useful to do this kind of research. But considering that millions have been murdered or tortured or discriminated against based on their race or ethnicity, and this continues today, maybe there's more productive research that could be done?

Should we study whether Jews are more greedy, or otherwise inferior to non-Jews?

[hodgy]

I'm sure some would say that they deserved slavery because they were too stupid and lazy to get out of it, and that they continue to deserve whatever hey get, because if they were more worthy no one would be racist against them. You know, they whole "screw them, I got mine, they need to get over it" school of social "justice".:rolleyes:

I don't think many normal people would say that.

I think that US persons of African origin (probably descended from slaves) should be glad that their ancestors were taken to the New World. Why hold a grudge when you're lifestyle is infinitely better than your typical counterpart in Africa?

We can all claim a moral superiority over our forebears but in your case your circumstances are fortuitious, not unfortunate.

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't think many normal people would say that.

I think that US persons of African origin (probably descended from slaves) should be glad that their ancestors were taken to the New World. Why hold a grudge when you're lifestyle is infinitely better than your typical counterpart in Africa?

We can all claim a moral superiority over our forebears but in your case your circumstances are fortuitious, not unfortunate.

:eye-poppi

:jaw-dropp

:mad:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There is no biological basis for the social construction of race.

Black children adopted by White parents tend to have above average intelligence scores.

Generalizations are stupid.

But my god, his comments are just too stupid to claim that it wasn't racist. I might have defended him a little, but actually reading all of his statements makes me think that he is just clinging to archaic beliefs.

Though I suppose that Asians are the superior race to Whites :rolleyes: .

[The Atheist]

The Atheist: Could you define precisely the characteristics of the "black" race? Some say race is a social construct. I know how to tell the difference between Chris Rock and George W. Bush, but I'm not sure it's so easy to define a race. But since you started this thread, please strictly define what you mean by "blacks."

I wouldn't have a clue how to define it beyond ancestry. That's probably a reasonable place to start - if one's ancestry is largely, or totally African, Maori, Indian, etc. Obviously, the lines are somewhat blurred nowadays and may not even be relevant. It could be that blacks with white heritage are less intelligent.

From Wikipedia:

Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that members of one "race" are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other "races."

I'm skeptical that your titular claim is true, but even if it was, it would be racist by definition.

Like you, I have no idea whether the idea is correct, but the definition you use wouldn't quite fit if the idea were proven correct, because it wouldn't be a belief, it would be a fact.

[The Atheist]

There is no biological basis for the social construction of race.

So, East Africans aren't better at long-distance running and West Africans aren't better at sprinting than other racial groups?

(Holy crap, that would be racist if I believed that!)

[JoeEllison]

:eye-poppi

:jaw-dropp

:mad:

Yeah... because words can't really express, can they?:covereyes

[JoeEllison]

So, East Africans aren't better at long-distance running and West Africans aren't better at sprinting than other racial groups?

(Holy crap, that would be racist if I believed that!)

What, you mean like a random guy off the street?

[jimtron]

I wouldn't have a clue how to define it beyond ancestry. That's probably a reasonable place to start - if one's ancestry is largely, or totally African, Maori, Indian, etc. Obviously, the lines are somewhat blurred nowadays and may not even be relevant. It could be that blacks with white heritage are less intelligent.If we only have a vague definition of what it is to be "black," then the statement made in the title of this thread is meaningless, no?

eta: Also, we'll need to define "intelligence," and determine who gets to figure out how that should be tested. Anyone?

[Foster Zygote]

I've noticed the term "race" being thrown about quite a bit. Does anyone know where I could look up information on the specific and consistent definition of "race" in anthropology?

[EGarrett]

So, East Africans aren't better at long-distance running and West Africans aren't better at sprinting than other racial groups?

(Holy crap, that would be racist if I believed that!)That's not racist at all. You're talking about a region of origin, not a racial group. People from different regions can have different environmental adaptations...after all, why do you think you can't drink the water when you travel to certain countries?

I've of course, discussed this issue in several threads over the last few years. And made a post with my personal definition. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91814)

BTW, I understand that you're just starting this topic for discussion. Evidence from other threads indicates that you're quite fair-minded on this issue and not racist.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Intellectuals have been trotting out these types of statements for the backhanded purpose of supporting eugenics for years.

Nothing new here.

[The Atheist]

What, you mean like a random guy off the street?

I have no idea what you mean here, Joe, can you explain?

If we only have a vague definition of what it is to be "black," then the statement made in the title of this thread is meaningless, no?

eta: Also, we'll need to define "intelligence," and determine who gets to figure out how that should be tested. Anyone?

Yes, we could get bogged down in that, but let's assume that if people can tell that Brad Pitt is white while Denzel Washington is black, that we can infer what Watson means. Otherwise, we'll be back at the White House finding out what "sexual relations" mean in Arkansas. (I always thought it was synonymous with "cousin")

That's not racist at all. You're talking about a region of origin, not a racial group. People from different regions can have different environmental adaptations...after all, why do you think you can't drink the water when you travel to certain countries?

That's how I see it, but others may feel differently.

I've of course, discussed this issue in several threads over the last few years. And made a post with my personal definition. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91814)

I'll try to check it out, cheers.

BTW, I understand that you're just starting this topic for discussion. Evidence from other threads indicates that you're quite fair-minded on this issue and not racist.

Thanks. That's so reasonable that I take back the last three bad things I've said about you! Highly impressive honesty from someone I've been harsh with - I shall endeavour to return the same respect.

[The Atheist]

Intellectuals have been trotting out these types of statements for the backhanded purpose of supporting eugenics for years.

Nothing new here.

Should probably shut down this forum then, eh?

Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, dowsing, cables, ghosts, CT, UFO, psychic, telekinesis; been there, done that, bye!

I always wonder why people comment that something isn't worth commenting on.

[Puppycow]

I'm all for free speech, but I do have to wonder why it would be useful to determine which "races" are most intelligent, or most ethical, or whatever. What do we do with that information (if we can agree on what "black" and "white" mean, and agree on any evidence of superior traits)? What use is it?

What if a parent talked to her children about which of her kids were smartest, or best looking? What purpose would this serve?

If we didn't already have huge problems in this world with race, maybe it might be useful to do this kind of research. But considering that millions have been murdered or tortured or discriminated against based on their race or ethnicity, and this continues today, maybe there's more productive research that could be done?

Should we study whether Jews are more greedy, or otherwise inferior to non-Jews?

OK. I think we're basically in agreement then. It's probably better not to go down this road. Maybe I didn't articulate it well. These are the sorts of "political and social reasons" I was thinking of.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Should probably shut down this forum then, eh?

Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, dowsing, cables, ghosts, CT, UFO, psychic, telekinesis; been there, done that, bye!

I always wonder why people comment that something isn't worth commenting on.

I was not implying that this topic should not be commented on. Sorry if it came across that way.

I have enjoyed reading this topic thus far. I thought my comment could expand the talk. Sometimes I forget that inflection is not carried well in text; or at least within my meager writing abilities.

[Cain]

I think Steven Pinker has written that non-identical distribution curves modeling intelligence for different races ("races") is one of the more "dangerous" ideas lurking out there. Charles Murray has also made some chummy comments about Pinker. Murray also had a piece in COMMENTARY not long ago arguing that Ashkenazi Jews are naturally further along on the bell curve (and remember, simply shifting the curve slightly in either direction means the effects are magnified at the tail ends).

All of this stuff sounds like classic racist ******** to me. I don't see how blacks can be seen as not as smart. Someone once utterly devastated that lie by pointing out the percentage of blacks who voted for Ronald Reagan. In any case, what are the moral/political implications? Is it OK, then, if the income gap never closes between blacks and whites? Is the admissions process to elite schools even more questionable ("Double racism against whites I tells ya!")?

We just need a study showing Asians are smarter than whites so then all the white Republicans will bitch and complain about another reason more jobs are going overseas.

[Ysidro]

I've noticed the term "race" being thrown about quite a bit. Does anyone know where I could look up information on the specific and consistent definition of "race" in anthropology?

You mean the definition that doesn't exist? That one?

[Gurdur]

I was not implying that this topic should not be commented on. Sorry if it came across that way.

Actually, I quite liked your smack-down. It was only 3/4 right, but it was a nice smack-down.

You may have looney ideas on some things, but by gawd, sometimes you get it so right.

~ Gurdur, the proletarian intellectual

[gtc]

There are genetic differences in physical capabilities - I could never play in the NBA not matter how much training I undertook. Furthermore, your likelihood of displaying a particular physical capability varies according to the area where your ancestors where from.

Is it correct to say that this regional distribution is due to:
the particular set of genes that were brought to the region; and
the differing environmental pressures in that area?


If so, how extreme an environment is needed to select for intelligence and how benign an environment is needed to make intelligence superfluous?

[bpesta22]

I don't usually hang out in social issues, but I'm here all week if anyone needs me.

We've hashed this argument perhaps a dozen times here throughout the years. It likely wouldn't be productive for me to participate in a 10 page thread re-arguing the same issues.

I seen a half dozen claims here that completely mis-characterize the science. It's scares me when even skeptics drop the ball, but such is the study of race and IQ.

but if anyone wants to discuss a more narrow subset of the topic, two things that stuck me:

1) what data show that blacks adopted to white parents have higher IQ's?

2) which experts have thoroughly debunked the Bell Curve and how come the majority of scientists who research this specific area aren't aware of this debunking?

[jimtron]

Yes, we could get bogged down in that, but let's assume that if people can tell that Brad Pitt is white while Denzel Washington is black, that we can infer what Watson means.

I think we do need to get bogged down in defining "black" and "white" in racial terms. Yes, we'd all agree that Pitt is white and Washington is black. But some people look more racially ambiguous. And what if Pitt has black ancestors, or Washington white ones? Are they then mixed race, instead of white or black? And if that's the case, aren't most of us likely mixed race?

Please define
The black race:

The white race:

Intelligence:

Who should determine how to measure intelligence:

2) which experts have thoroughly debunked the Bell Curve and how come the majority of scientists who research this specific area aren't aware of this debunking?

I don't know if it's been "thoroughly debunked" or not, but Stephen Jay Gould for one has criticized it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms).

[ImaginalDisc]

There are genetic differences in physical capabilities - I could never play in the NBA not matter how much training I undertook. Furthermore, your likelihood of displaying a particular physical capability varies according to the area where your ancestors where from.

If by that you mean you're too short, are you at least 5'5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Boykins)"? There have been players even shorter.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Tiger woods?

Woods made his remarks on "Oprah," when he was asked if it bothered him to be called an African-American. "It does," he said. "Growing up, I came up with this name: I'm a 'Cablinasian.'" As in Caucasian-black-Indian-Asian. Woods has a black father (or to be precise, if I am interpreting Woods' reported ancestry correctly, a half-black, one-quarter American Indian, one-quarter white father) and a Thai mother (or, with the same caveat, a half-Thai, half-Chinese mother). "I'm just who I am," Woods told Oprah Winfrey, "whoever you see in front of you."

What Race is his baby?

http://nonstriker.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/tiger-woods-baby-10.jpg

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't usually hang out in social issues, but I'm here all week if anyone needs me.

We've hashed this argument perhaps a dozen times here throughout the years. It likely wouldn't be productive for me to participate in a 10 page thread re-arguing the same issues.

I seen a half dozen claims here that completely mis-characterize the science. It's scares me when even skeptics drop the ball, but such is the study of race and IQ.

but if anyone wants to discuss a more narrow subset of the topic, two things that stuck me:

1) what data show that blacks adopted to white parents have higher IQ's?

2) which experts have thoroughly debunked the Bell Curve and how come the majority of scientists who research this specific area aren't aware of this debunking?

Nice attempt to reverse the proper order of science. Where is the evidence to support claims of racial differences in IQ? Where is the rigorous definition of race? Where are the studies showing that IQ tests are accurate measures of intelligence rather than education and acculturation?

Where is your evidence? Without evidence to show a difference, we should accept the null hypothesis; there is no differences.

[Damien Evans]

How about academic achievement records of white v black where populations of blacks have been long-established (or even pre-date white men)?

How do black v white compare in:

USA
New Zealand
Australia
England
France

Is that the kind of evidence you mean?

Best not to use Australia as an example. We haven't historically given many opportunities to aboriginals.

[Gurdur]

There are certainly genetic differences in many physical capabilities, but by no means all such physical differences. And intelligence is one of those things that is simply not so variable genetically in humans.

Want to know what will make the greatest difference to a person's IQ, assuming they were born relatively healthy and not subject to any grevious genetic disease?

Being born and raised as a small child in a richly stimulating enviroment, where the child can move around lots and can play with all sorts of interesting toys and things of differing natures. That by far plays a HUGE role in determining what that person's IQ will be in later life.

IOW, put that child in a deprived, close-set, ugly urban enviroment, and they will likely develop much dumber than they could have. Put that child in a hostile, poverty-stricken, rural enviroment surrounded by depressed, deprived, constricting adults, and the same thing will happen.

Now, ethnic groups and their differences have been subject to a huge amount of research. What are the results? Well, we know that some ethnic groups have more sweat glands of a particular type than others (just as men have many more of them than women). So that's a genetic difference. But does anything of this apply to intelligence?

Let's look at it from another angle. Every racist ponce and his dog likes to pontificate about so-called "racial" differences, and one of the examples very commonly brought up is that of East African runners. Well, now; are East Africans such good runners? Well, the actual truth is, East Africans are actually as a group not very good at running. so how come some East Africans get a leg up in the Olympics? Turns out they come from particular ethnic groups (and minor ones in East Africa) with a predispostion to greater height and less body weight, and even more importantly, the individuals concerned ran every day for long distances from early childhood on, and often doing that at high altitudes (round the Mt.Meru and Mt.Kilimanjaro areas, or the Nguru mountains), which is incredibly important (high-altitude training) --- which simply isn't all that common in East Africa (just as great height is not all that common in East Africa either; in fact stockiness is much more usual by far there).

So, you know, pontificating about East Africans as a group is a dangerous business. How about Gurkhas instead? They're often bloody good at running either downhill or uphill carrying large heavy backpacks, they're often very bloody slow at running sprints on level ground. Genetic difference? No. It's simply that long stretches of level ground are very hard to come by where they live in and near Nepal, so they simply don't get the practice.

So back to intelligence. Despite all the research, and there has been TONS of it, there simply have not been found to be any significant differences in IQ between ethnic groups once all other variables have been taken out. The famous book The Bell Curve is one of the most extensively debunked pieces of crap in history; it is a load of garbage, and the scientific debunking has been extremely thorough and extensive indeed.

So: back to so-called "races". Are East Africans a "race"? Well, kiss my arse, they're not. East Africans comprise 5 very different large ethnic groups, and a whole horde of smaller ethnic differentiations. But every racist ponce and his dog thinks he can tell what a "race" is, simply by looking at melanin or something, or maybe by examining the entrails of chickens, which would make even more sense.

Now, I realise all this information, and the extremely complex scientific background to it all, is completely foreign to the nature of a bulletin board, where every single poseur and his dog thinks they can sum up the world in a few sentences written on the back of a beer-coaster by a barfly. So I expect this all to be fully ignored. But hey. If anyone tries telling you that there are "racial" differences to intelligence, simply tell them they are full of **** and they don't have the slightest foggiest clue of what they are talking about.

Thank-you for your attention.
~ Gurdur, the extremely pissed-off Aussie.

[Puppycow]

There is no biological basis for the social construction of race.

This is one of those things I hear but have trouble taking seriously as a skeptic. It strikes me as more of an ideology than a scientific theory.

What about this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/health/04heart.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/R/Race&oref=slogin)
Two rival teams of scientists have discovered a common genetic variation that increases the risk of heart disease up to 60 percent in people of European descent.

The scientists say they hope a test for the variant can be developed to enable doctors to assess patients at risk more accurately and to recommend early interventions like cholesterol-lowering statins and methods to reduce blood pressure. Heart disease is the leading cause of death worldwide.

The genetic variant is so common that some 50 percent of people in European populations carry one copy of it, and about 20 percent of people have inherited two copies, one from each parent. It is much less prevalent in people of African descent, the scientists said.

[Gurdur]

...1) what data show that blacks adopted to white parents have higher IQ's?
Define "blacks", please. Immediately. Give me a scientific definition.
2) which experts have thoroughly debunked the Bell Curve
Quite a lot. How about we wait for you to define your terms first, before we go onto that.P
and how come the majority of scientists who research this specific area aren't aware of this debunking?
This is simply total ************. Do you have any scientific cites to back up this assertion of yours? Anything at all? Please go on.

[Gurdur]

This is one of those things I hear but have trouble taking seriously as a skeptic. It strikes me as more of an ideology than a scientific theory.

No, it simply means you have not grasped the difference between the scientific distinctions of ethnic groups, and the pop definitions of "races". Guess what? There's a huge difference.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now, I realise all this information, and the extremely complex scientific background to it all, is completely foreign to the nature of a bulletin board, where every single poseur and his dog thinks they can sum up the world in a few sentences written on the back of a beer-coaster by a barfly.

Hey, how did you get to know me so well after only a few posts?





Seriously; well put together thoughts, and well understood. Kudos!

[The Atheist]

I don't usually hang out in social issues, but I'm here all week if anyone needs me....

but if anyone wants to discuss a more narrow subset of the topic, two things that stuck me:

1) what data show that blacks adopted to white parents have higher IQ's?

2) which experts have thoroughly debunked the Bell Curve and how come the majority of scientists who research this specific area aren't aware of this debunking?Yep, I'd be keen to continue down those lines. Go ahead.

I think we do need to get bogged down in defining "black" and "white" in racial terms. Yes, we'd all agree that Pitt is white and Washington is black. But some people look more racially ambiguous. And what if Pitt has black ancestors, or Washington white ones? Are they then mixed race, instead of white or black? And if that's the case, aren't most of us likely mixed race?

Well, you're personally quite welcome to get bogged down in descriptions, but I'm happy with sticking to what I said - if you're of mainly black heritage, you're probably black.

Tiger woods?


What Race is his baby?

No idea, but his chick is all BABE.

Best not to use Australia as an example. We haven't historically given many opportunities to aboriginals.

I know, I thought I'd be cheeky and stick them in.

Thank-you for your attention.
~ Gurdur, the extremely pissed-off Aussie.

Most welcome.

It was, however, a fairly lengthy rant without resorting to actually presenting evidence. Should we just believe you? Seems to me that Watson is being dismissed through lack of evidence, why should your opinion be different?

[Gurdur]

....It was, however, a fairly lengthy rant without resorting to actually presenting evidence.
Wrong. It presented you and others with different ways of examining things. If anyone missed that, they should re-read my long post.

I could try summing up all the different scientific studies into ethnic IQ differences. It would be far far longer than an average PhD dissertation, and wouldn't get read here in full even if I posted it. I could waste all that time bringing the evidence to the table, as it were; I could also cheesegrater my wrists off till I bled to death, which strikes me as being less work, more fun and more fulfilling.
Should we just believe you?
You could do worse.
*shrug*
Or go into science, notably physiopsychology, and do a LOT of study on differences. Takes a few years, mind you.
Seems to me that Watson is being dismissed through lack of evidence,
Really? I disagree.
why should your opinion be different?
The **** I care? If there's one thing that has been well and truly drummed into my thick head, it's that bulletin board threads very rarely make much difference to anything.

[jimtron]

Well, you're personally quite welcome to get bogged down in descriptions, but I'm happy with sticking to what I said - if you're of mainly black heritage, you're probably black.

I don't buy it--too vague. What do you mean by "mainly"? 100%, 60%? "Probably" black? Don't you agree it's impossible to strictly define people by their race?

Did you respond to my questions about intelligence and how to measure it/define it? If so I missed it.

[jsfisher]

Just out of interest, does anyone know how large a difference there is supposed to be between those of African decent and others in intelligence? Is it 15 IQ points or 0.15 points?

[Redtail]

I think we do need to get bogged down in defining "black" and "white" in racial terms. Yes, we'd all agree that Pitt is white and Washington is black. But some people look more racially ambiguous. And what if Pitt has black ancestors, or Washington white ones? Are they then mixed race, instead of white or black? And if that's the case, aren't most of us likely mixed race?

Please define
The black race:

Thank you.

The white race:
Thank you.

Intelligence:
Thank you! Dr. Watson "discovered" the double helix. No small feat. My Dad built our house. (He had help with the wiring and plumbing.) I pretty sure Dad couldn't figure out the double helix but could Dr Watson build a house? Fix a broken window? Change the oil in his car?

[/quote]

What Race is his baby?

http://nonstriker.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/tiger-woods-baby-10.jpg


Again thank you.
That's me in my avatar. What race am I?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just out of interest, does anyone know how large a difference there is supposed to be between those of African decent and others in intelligence? Is it 15 IQ points or 0.15 points?

The stumbling block is determining what defines African decent in particular or race in general.

Then we shall move on to the stumbling block of defining IQ and also what "tests" are applicable.

After this; we as a society, will determine which characteristics we should promote and which we should abolish.

Than the determination of how to abolish the undesirable characteristics.

[ConspiRaider]

Just out of interest, does anyone know how large a difference there is supposed to be between those of African decent and others in intelligence? Is it 15 IQ points or 0.15 points?
Neither, and nor. We're all of African descent. My ancestors were from South-Central Grassy Arid Plain, and they were born on the wrong side of the Giant Sloth tracks to boot.

Chrissakes I can't even believe this. Don't people LIVE anymore? I've been in NUMEROUS multi-"racial" groupings of folks throughout my adult life, and one glaring truth blares out of that experience: No such thing as racially superior intelligence. Absolute horse dump.

"Childrens do learn." That, from our "white", Yale and Harvard "educated" Leader Of The Free World. Holy friggin' Toledo...

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This game was played at the turn of the century. The populous rejected it then and now we have these ideas surreptitiously imprinted in our minds. This game is still played today for the same reasons as 100 years ago; it has just been given other names.

Truth in advertising:

Population control of the undesirables (eugenics)

Tribe warfare (divide and conquer)

Tribe conflict (class, race, sex, nationality)

Whatever it takes to fool most of the people most of the time.

[money]

Just out of interest, does anyone know how large a difference there is supposed to be between those of African decent and others in intelligence? Is it 15 IQ points or 0.15 points?

It didn't say in the linked article, but 15 points is the standard deviation of an
IQ test. I'm sure it's a tiny amount, if at all.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Holy friggin' Toledo...

Do people really say that?

:)

[ConspiRaider]

Do people really say that?

:)
Normal people say Holy Toledo, but look at the author of this reply...

[jimtron]

That's me in my avatar. What race am I?

Human.

[Redtail]

Human.

There ya go.:D

[Damien Evans]

Thank you.

Thank you.


Thank you! Dr. Watson "discovered" the double helix. No small feat. My Dad built our house. (He had help with the wiring and plumbing.) I pretty sure Dad couldn't figure out the double helix but could Dr Watson build a house? Fix a broken window? Change the oil in his car?





Again thank you.
That's me in my avatar. What race am I?

You have an afro. You are clearly black.;)

[ConspiRaider]

Again thank you.
That's me in my avatar. What race am I?

You have an afro. You are clearly black.;)
Wrong. That's a Hawai'ian shirt. Clearly he is Polynesian.

[JoeEllison]

That's me in my avatar. What race am I?

Spider-Pig?

[bpesta22]

It didn't say in the linked article, but 15 points is the standard deviation of an
IQ test. I'm sure it's a tiny amount, if at all.

It is a 15 point difference on traditional IQ tests / 1 standard deviation, which makes the effect size 1.0.

For reference, statisticians (non-IQ researchers) have generally accepted that an effect size of:

.2 is small
.4 is moderate
.6 is large.

So, 1.0 is so big statisticians don't have a standard label for it, and the implications at the *group* level are stunning:

84.13% of blacks score 100 (average) or lower. Only 2.28% score 115 or higher (this is about the threshold printed in the wonderlic manuals for success in white collar jobs). Only 0.13% score 130 or higher (I suspect an IQ like this is needed to be, say, a rocket scientist, or perhaps an engineer).

Whites are over-represented 16.5 to 1 over blacks for all people with IQs of 130+

6.4 to one for all people with IQs of 115+

Race probably means nothing for any single person re his/her IQ. Aggregate the effects across millions of different-race people and you might get many of the social problems we seem to have today.

[ConspiRaider]

It is a 15 point difference on traditional IQ tests / 1 standard deviation, which makes the effect size 1.0.

For reference, statisticians (non-IQ researchers) have generally accepted that an effect size of:

.2 is small
.4 is moderate
.6 is large.

So, 1.0 is so big statisticians don't have a standard label for it, and the implications at the *group* level are stunning:

84.13% of blacks score 100 (average) or lower. Only 2.28% score 115 or higher (this is about the threshold printed in the wonderlic manuals for success in white collar jobs). Only 0.13% score 130 or higher (I suspect an IQ like this is needed to be, say, a rocket scientist, or perhaps an engineer).

Whites are over-represented 16.5 to 1 over blacks for all people with IQs of 130+

6.4 to one for all people with IQs of 115+

Race probably means nothing for any single person re his/her IQ. Aggregate the effects across millions of different-race people and you might get many of the social problems we seem to have today.
How's come they didn't mention that whites took the test 3 times, and their score was an aggregate?

You seem to be implying that because of general "racial dumbness" amongst "blacks", we get many of the social problems seen today.

Think maybe ya got that baby BACKWARDS?!? BECAUSE I THINK THAT! Ever seen some of the schools in black neighborhoods in America? Look for those that are unheated in winter, for example. Or where teachers have to kick in their own cash to buy textbooks and general supplies. If you do not provide children with an environment and habit of learning and incessant curiousity - there's a damned good chance that the learning habit will atrophy, to an extent.

[Redtail]

Spider-Pig?

Oh I see. Because I'm a "Black man" I gotta like pork!??!

Ok you got a point there. IF a pig is gonna get by me it better be dressed like tofu.

Then again that's a southern thing...:boggled:

[The Atheist]

The **** I care? If there's one thing that has been well and truly drummed into my thick head, it's that bulletin board threads very rarely make much difference to anything.

Ever wonder why you di it then?

I don't buy it--too vague. What do you mean by "mainly"? 100%, 60%? "Probably" black? Don't you agree it's impossible to strictly define people by their race?

Did you respond to my questions about intelligence and how to measure it/define it? If so I missed it.

I'm leaving bpesta to look after the intelligence side - he's an expert.

But I don't agree that it's impossible to identify people by race. To some degree, self-identity applies, as is the case in NZ. As long as you can prove Maori blood in any amount and identify with the Maori culture, you're officially recognised as Maori, if you so desire. Lots of people do desire just that thanks to the enormous financial advantages of doing so.

I'm just not going to try to be specific on something which I have admitted has a blurred distinction. I can show 500 years of pure-bred English slum-dwelling mongrel in my blood. The kids my wife & I sponsor are children in a Kenyan village project.

I'm white, they're black. That's probably as clear as a distinction can be without invoking the Royal Family. Tiger Woods, the line is so indistinct as to be impossible to attempt classification. He himself says "Cablanasian", I think. Fine by me. I'm white, those kids I mentioned are black and Tiger's Cablanasian.

That's me in my avatar. What race am I?

Hell, I thought it was Clarence Williams III. If it's not, then I have no idea. Do you identify with or classify yourself as a particular race?

"Childrens do learn." That, from our "white", Yale and Harvard "educated" Leader Of The Free World. Holy friggin' Toledo...

Someone even has that in their sig line - something about Dubbya forever exploding the myth of racial intellectual superiority.

[bpesta22]

Define "blacks", please. Immediately. Give me a scientific definition.

Quite a lot. How about we wait for you to define your terms first, before we go onto that.P

This is simply total ************. Do you have any scientific cites to back up this assertion of yours? Anything at all? Please go on.

Defining race: I see two ways to do it conveniently. I can look at my subjects and make a determination, or I can ask them-- what race are you / check a box.

I suppose we could draw subject's blood (some studies have done that). I'm not at all expert on the biology of it, but from what I remember reading, there are specific blood groups (not the standard, A, B, O) that measure % of african ancestry fairly accurately.

Yes, race is a fuzzy concept. Is it biological / social / cultural or some combo thereof? I dunno what the mix is. I do think race is at some level biological, because there are striking differences in physical appearance on average across members of different races (and because anthropologists can accurately ID race from bones / skulls, etc).

Be careful here too, it's naive to think that unless something is measured with perfect precision (reliability) it's worthless.

Is there error in classification when one uses self reports ("check the box indicating your race"). Sure. But that error by definition limits how well the variable, race, can correlate with any other variable. Were this classification completely invalid, race could not correlate with anything-- impossible statistically.

But, when doing the research, race (even the cheesey check-the-box manifest variable supposedly measuring the invisible latent trait, race) correlates strongly with many things, specifically IQ. The correlations are strong, and have existed in the literature for 100 years or so.

But, really, NO think is measured with perfect precision. As long as some of the variance in the "test" is reliable, though, the variable can still have scientific and psychological meaning, and still can be studied as "good science".

Jensen and Rushton (article I cited last time we did this) offer a semi-precise definition of race. If you're interested, I can point you to their article.


Bell Curve: Read the literature going back to the APA task force article by Neisser et al (written as the state of the art summary of the science in direct response to the controversy created by the BC).

Browse through titles and abstracts for publications in Intelligence (the premiere journal in this field). You will see lots of articles on race differences believed to be real; lots on the importance of IQ as a predictor of success. None on IQ being biased. Very few showing that anything else explains variance when IQ is factored out. Many showing that IQ causes SES and not vice versa.

Essentially, everything the bell curve claimed (except perhaps the genetic link) exists in great abundance in the literature for the last 100 years. There was no debunking. People outside the field might feel better sleeping with gould under their pillow, but it's kinda ostrich like.



I have an anecdote on how blind reviewers for intelligence react when you even cite gould's mismeasure.

My point: A solid number of IQ researchers-- those who've devoted their adult lives to studying it-- have accepted the BC as good science and added it to the arsenal of knowledge we have re intelligence.

[Redtail]

Hell, I thought it was Clarence Williams III. If it's not, then I have no idea. Do you identify with or classify yourself as a particular race?



... You couldn't say Ron O'Neil? (Priest from Superfly) Sigh...

Race? No. I list myself as Black, White, Indian, (For the PC folks West African, Scottish, Ogala Lakota)

Culture? I tend to say Black but then again with Frank Sinatra, and KISS on my MP3 player that could be debated.

[bpesta22]

How's come they didn't mention that whites took the test 3 times, and their score was an aggregate?

You seem to be implying that because of general "racial dumbness" amongst "blacks", we get many of the social problems seen today.

Think maybe ya got that baby BACKWARDS?!? BECAUSE I THINK THAT! Ever seen some of the schools in black neighborhoods in America? Look for those that are unheated in winter, for example. Or where teachers have to kick in their own cash to buy textbooks and general supplies. If you do not provide children with an environment and habit of learning and incessant curiousity - there's a damned good chance that the learning habit will atrophy, to an extent.

Not following the first point, perhaps my OP mislead you. I was just using the bell curve / z scores to show the consequences of the fact that the black IQ mean is 85, which is one SD below the white mean of 100.

I'm not sure where "taking the test 3 times" is coming from?

Last comment you made: I think many social problems are caused by people (black, white, any race color age or national origin) who unfortunately were born with low cognitive ability.

Is it possible that cognitive ability could shape/cause the type of environment you live in, and not vice versa?

[ConspiRaider]

I have an anecdote on how blind reviewers for intelligence react when you even cite gould's mismeasure.

My point: A solid number of IQ researchers-- those who've devoted their adult lives to studying it-- have accepted the BC as good science and added it to the arsenal of knowledge we have re intelligence.
Let's cut immediately to the chase. Experience is the BEST teacher, always has been.

Do you socialize, at all, with people from diverse ethnic groups? Do you work with black people, for example? Have any as friends? Go to school with, church with, whatever with? From that ground-level approach (as opposed to a perch high up the ivory tower), what is YOUR assessment as to intelligence variance between ethnic groups? Dont' hide behind a study. Do you think "blacks" are "dumber"?

[ConspiRaider]

I'm not sure where "taking the test 3 times" is coming from?

Last comment you made: I think many social problems are caused by people (black, white, any race color age or national origin) who unfortunately were born with low cognitive ability.

Is it possible that cognitive ability could shape/cause the type of environment you live in, and not vice versa?
I was being sarcastic on the first comment. Standard operating procedure, for me.

However, your second comment. Nope. You'd have to hit this from many angles to dash your "low cognitive ability" theory, but one is the astounding uniformity in our DNA (as homo sapiens sapiens). Get yourself into paleo-anthropology, species origin, the out-of-Africa concept and so forth. In our current form, we are only about 60 to 80 thousand years old as a subspecies of homo sapiens (current thinking. This is science, so could change). That's just one angle. We are extremely young as a subspecies. New kids on the block. And that makes us, essentially, identical twins. Just has not even been time to get sectioned off into varying brain setups. Our brains are, for all intents and purposes, the same physically.

[bpesta22]

Let's cut immediately to the chase. Experience is the BEST teacher, always has been.

Do you socialize, at all, with people from diverse ethnic groups? Do you work with black people, for example? Have any as friends? Go to school with, church with, whatever with? From that ground-level approach (as opposed to a perch high up the ivory tower), what is YOUR assessment as to intelligence variance between ethnic groups? Dont' hide behind a study. Do you think "blacks" are "dumber"?

I've taught something like 110 different course sections at a large, diverse, urban university. I've been exposed to many many non white people, both as my students and as colleagues.

"blacks are dumber" is a loaded question. It implies that every black person is dumb and every white person is smart. This is inane. As I said above, there are millions of blacks smarter than 10s of millions of whites in the USA alone. So, are blacks dumber-- no. Do blacks as a group average lower on IQ tests than whites as a group (due neither to environmental factors-- or those studied so far-- nor test bias). Yes.

[bpesta22]

CR

Recent books and journal articles address how the difference could be genetic even though the time span from out of africa is tiny, in an evolutionary sense.

Find me a really dumb white person and then a really smart one. Would their astounding uniformity of dna make it impossible (in your worldview) for any of the intelligence difference here to be caused by genes?

[jimtron]

But I don't agree that it's impossible to identify people by race. To some degree, self-identity applies, as is the case in NZ. As long as you can prove Maori blood in any amount and identify with the Maori culture, you're officially recognised as Maori, if you so desire. Lots of people do desire just that thanks to the enormous financial advantages of doing so.

I'm just not going to try to be specific on something which I have admitted has a blurred distinction. I can show 500 years of pure-bred English slum-dwelling mongrel in my blood. The kids my wife & I sponsor are children in a Kenyan village project.

I'm white, they're black. That's probably as clear as a distinction can be without invoking the Royal Family. Tiger Woods, the line is so indistinct as to be impossible to attempt classification. He himself says "Cablanasian", I think. Fine by me. I'm white, those kids I mentioned are black and Tiger's Cablanasian.

It sounds like you're saying race is a subjective perception. Can you objectively define the "black" race? If so, please do. If it's subjective, and a "blurred distinction," then how can anyone know if one race is smarter than another?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The stumbling block is determining what defines African decent in particular or race in general.

Then we shall move on to the stumbling block of defining IQ and also what "tests" are applicable.

After this; we as a society, will determine which characteristics we should promote and which we should abolish.

Than the determination of how to abolish the undesirable characteristics.

How long until step three?

[ConspiRaider]

CR

Recent books and journal articles address how the difference could be genetic even though the time span from out of africa is tiny, in an evolutionary sense.

Find me a really dumb white person and then a really smart one. Would their astounding uniformity of dna make it impossible (in your worldview) for any of the intelligence difference here to be caused by genes?
Then how could there be smart black people? How do you account for that?

I got a book on my shelf called In Contempt, by Christopher Darden. Lawyer. On the OJ prosecution team. Well-written book. How could he do that?

Got another book on my shelf called Beyond Uhura, by Nichelle Nichols. Actress, singer. Another damned well-written book. How? She shouldn't be able to do that! Hell, most WHITE people can't write a book, so how could a black person do that?

It's not genetic. Get that in your head. It's social, cultural, if there is this alleged disparity at all. Has nothing to do with the makeup of the brain, or the ability of the brain's owner to process information, adapt and learn. Complex learning is a habit, patterns for which are best formed early in life. If a culture deprives a child of the necessary stimuli to start tipping the first few dominos leading to complex processing - then yes. Arrested cognition can be a result. But even that can be handled, reversed. It's just harder, takes longer.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Then how could there be smart black people? How do you account for that?

I got a book on my shelf called In Contempt, by Christopher Darden. Lawyer. On the OJ prosecution team. Well-written book. How could he do that?

Got another book on my shelf called Beyond Uhura, by Nichelle Nichols. Actress, singer. Another damned well-written book. How? She shouldn't be able to do that! Hell, most WHITE people can't write a book, so how could a black person do that?

It's not genetic. Get that in your head. It's social, cultural, if there is this alleged disparity at all. Has nothing to do with the makeup of the brain, or the ability of the brain's owner to process information, adapt and learn. Complex learning is a habit, patterns for which are best formed early in life. If a culture deprives a child of the necessary stimuli to start tipping the first few dominos leading to complex processing - then yes. Arrested cognition can be a result. But even that can be handled, reversed. It's just harder, takes longer.

It is genetic to some extent.

I have known many dumb people that had the greatest backgrounds and home lives as children. I have known many smart people that had horrible childhoods.

[ConspiRaider]

It is genetic to some extent.

I have known many dumb people that had the greatest backgrounds and home lives as children. I have known many smart people that had horrible childhoods.
Yes, physical variances in the setup of the brain are genetic. You get it from you mom and pop. It's not something that I have ever seen concentrated within a single ethnic group, though. And I live and work in an exceedingly ethnically diverse city - Los Angeles.

[ConspiRaider]

I've taught something like 110 different course sections at a large, diverse, urban university. I've been exposed to many many non white people, both as my students and as colleagues.

"blacks are dumber" is a loaded question. It implies that every black person is dumb and every white person is smart. This is inane. As I said above, there are millions of blacks smarter than 10s of millions of whites in the USA alone. So, are blacks dumber-- no. Do blacks as a group average lower on IQ tests than whites as a group (due neither to environmental factors-- or those studied so far-- nor test bias). Yes.
(bolding mine)

Okay, that answers my question. Therefore, since we agree that blacks are (of course) not dumber - then we must conclude that the IQ test is an inadequate and ineffective tool for rating human intelligence. Correct? In other words, it matters not in the least that blacks - or any ethnic group, for that matter - might score lower on such a flawed testing mechanism as compared to other ethnic groups. No bearing on intelligence assessment of that ethnic group.

[Hokulele]

Defining race: I see two ways to do it conveniently. I can look at my subjects and make a determination, or I can ask them-- what race are you / check a box.


Like Redtail, I am of mixed race. When questioned, I could just as easily tell people I am white as I am asian. Which self-identity is correct? The true answer would be neither, but the way the US of A is currently structured, I am constantly told I am asian, not white. If I went to Japan however, I would be told I am not asian. Two of my cousins have a black father and a white mother and grew up on the east coast. They are most often told they are black, and so that is how they tend to self-identify.

To me, this implies that a self-identification method is highly skewed by a social environment, and could throw your determinations off quite a bit if it is indeed genetic differences you are looking for as opposed to sociological. Have you considered this in your work?

[skeptifem]

This type of statement seems to severely upset some people. If true, how is it racist?

check the definition of racism. it would still be racist if true, racism would be an accurate representation of reality in that case.

[Wolfman]

It is a basic fact that there are racial differences that go way beyond skin color. Give a qualified forensic anthropologist a skull, and they can quite reliably tell you, based on the structure of the skull (with no skin to indicate race) what the race of the individual is. Not with 100% reliability, but with very high reliability. Other examples have been cited here.

So, I would not consider it impossible that different races would have different average levels of intelligence (while still allowing for some individuals to greatly exceed that average). Or even more likely, that they would develop different kinds of intelligence.

However, I thought I would go straight to the source, and see what Dr. Watson himself was saying...and in my opinion, his comments go well into the realm of racism. Here are a few of his most relevant quotes:
“I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa...all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”He told the paper he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”The latter comment is, in my opinion, the most damning. I have worked with plenty of black employees. Not only that, my brother and sister are both black (adopted as babies). And I've seen nothing whatsoever in my dealings with either black employees, or my siblings, to indicate a different level of intelligence, or any sort of behavior/traits that would make them "less equal" in any manner whatsoever.

So, I see two issues here.

One, the politicization of any topic that seeks to engage in serious academic discussions of racial differences, shouting down or condemning anyone who mentions that there are clear biological differences between different groups.

And two, the issue of whether or not Watson is a racist.

In regards to the first, I'm 100% in favor of free speech, and of condemning those who seek to deny or silence truth in the name of political correctness; in regards to the second, I consider Watson to be a demonstrable racist, holding opinions that go far beyond "scientific fact" and well into the realm of bigotry and prejudice. As such, I do not think that he should be used as an example -- either pro or con -- in a discussion about these larger issues.

[jimtron]

“I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa...all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”

What if some folks from Africa produced an intelligence test--based on what one needs to know to survive and thrive in an African country. I wonder how well I would do on it--I'm a "white" American. I'm guessing not so hot.

[Gurdur]

It is a basic fact that there are racial differences that go way beyond skin color. Give a qualified forensic anthropologist a skull, and they can quite reliably tell you, based on the structure of the skull (with no skin to indicate race) what the race of the individual is. Not with 100% reliability, but with very high reliability. Other examples have been cited here.

Ignoring the use of the word "race" here:
Oddly enough, healthy (i.e. non-pathological) human skull shape differences play very little significant role indeed in:

1) determining brain-to-body-weight ratio.

2) determining cortical folding, or ratio of cerebral ventricles to brain matter.

3) determining how that brain is trained and used.

Which was a previous point I made way before in my long, long post; intelligence, which is muchly determined by the three factors I named among others (though factor {1} actually often plays a surprisingly small part in humans), is simply not determined in the same way as skull shape, or melanin differentiation, or sweat-gland-number differentiation.

Arguments from various bodily physical differences really simply do not usually apply at all to intelligence. It's a whole new different kettle of fish, and it's bogus to try applying such other physical differences to intelligence.

Add to that that the range of genetic difference within Homo sapiens sapiens is actually very small, in comparison to say dogs or frogs. There simply isn't all that much genetic room to make a difference in with humans; pretty much all significant differences are actually results of pathologies and not normal deviation from a mean at all.

[Wolfman]

Ignoring the use of the word "race" here:
Oddly enough, healthy (i.e. non-pathological) human skull shape differences play very little significant role indeed in:

1) determining brain-to-body-weight ratio.

2) determining cortical folding, or ratio of cerebral ventricles to brain matter.

3) determining how that brain is trained and used.

Which was a previous point I made way before in my long, long post; intelligence, which is muchly determined by the three factors I named among others (though factor {1} actually often plays a surprisingly small part in humans), is simply not determined in the same way as skull shape, or melanin differentiation, or sweat-gland-number differentiation.

Arguments from various bodily physical differences really simply do not usually apply at all to intelligence. It's a whole new different kettle of fish, and it's bogus to try applying such other physical differences to intelligence.

Add to that that the range of genetic difference within Homo sapiens sapiens is actually very small, in comparison to say dogs or frogs. There simply isn't all that much genetic room to make a difference in with humans; pretty much all significant differences are actually results of pathologies and not normal deviation from a mean at all.
To clarify:

I was not stating that it is or is not valid to conclude that there are differences in intelligence between different distinct genetic populations; I was pointing out only that other clear biological differences exist (way beyond the issue of skin color), and that it should be valid to consider the hypothesis that such differences could exist, and to engage in study to see if such differences do in fact exist.

What should not be done is censorship in the name of political correctness that either A) assumes without benefit of real scientific research that there are no differences or B) acknowledges there may be differences, but condemns as racist any attempt to study the issue in a scientific manner.

[Flo]

That's not racist at all. You're talking about a region of origin, not a racial group. People from different regions can have different environmental adaptations...after all, why do you think you can't drink the water when you travel to certain countries?

Minor derail: Africans who spend more than a few months in Europe do get sick from the water whenever they do return home ...

[Gurdur]

.....What should not be done is censorship in the name of political correctness that either A) assumes without benefit of real scientific research that there are no differences or B) acknowledges there may be differences, but condemns as racist any attempt to study the issue in a scientific manner.

Since none of that seems to be happening at all, that seems IMvHO to be rather irrelevant.

Scientists very often investigate differences between ethnic groups. People are discussing this on this thread. I have not seen any such appeals to PC here. So it seems rather a red herring.

[Soapy Sam]

When the dust has settled, let's be honest. We all know some folk are smarter than others, define it as you choose. That there is a variation in the average of smartness within a population comes as no surprise. That such a variation might exist between populations is likewise, hardly surprising.
If actual Africans, in actual Africa, have a lower average than ex Africans outside Africa- which includes you & me, whitey, my guess would be that it's nutrition related .

I'd like to see comparative data on well fed Africans compared with hungry Africans, and well educated, well fed Africans compared with hungry ones. I would expect to see that average move some. And I'd also like a clearer picture of the spread. I know damn well there are a lot of folk in Africa a sight smarter than me, and I'm not a complete moron.
(For the record, the smartest person I ever met came from a hill village in Kashmir. He was the only man I ever met I'd call a genius. He was a bit scary, to be honest.)

[Gurdur]

....I'd like to see comparative data

No worries, I actually would be happy to compile and, very importantly, honestly analyse and judge all such data in comparison, methodologies, basic premises and the like.

Now, if you will just fork out the cash for what I estimate to be a full-time job at a high rate of pay for at least one person for at least 2 years, together with all other costs, I'll start organizing it in a jiffy. Ta muchly!

[Wolfman]

I have not seen any such appeals to PC here. So it seems rather a red herring.
Add to that that the range of genetic difference within Homo sapiens sapiens is actually very small, in comparison to say dogs or frogs. There simply isn't all that much genetic room to make a difference in with humans; pretty much all significant differences are actually results of pathologies and not normal deviation from a mean at all.
Actually, you yourself have limited meaningful discussion to what you consider to be "significant differences", without anywhere that I can see defining what those "significant differences" are.

For myself, I might consider height differences between pygmies and the Dutch -- which have very significant deviations from the mean -- to be quite significant. Differences which are almost entirely genetic (raise a pygmy in Holland, he'll still turn out very short). That is only one of many different examples that I could give.

My problem is that your argument can actually be used to support a very PC agenda -- one where someone such as yourself defines in advance what you consider "significant differences" to be, and then condemn/deny any research that falls outside those categories (I'm not saying that's what you're doing, just pointing out that the vagueness of your claim opens it up to such abuse).

Furthermore, even if I accept your premise that "pretty much all significant differences are actually results of pathologies", that does not in any manner, shape, or form lead to the logical conclusion that therefore, differences in intelligence are actually results of pathologies. It would still be necessary to do actual scientific research, examine the evidence, and draw conclusions from that.

I am, quite frankly, not quite clear what position it is that you are arguing for here, and so am not making any conclusions about what you think/believe on the issue; only pointing out the lack of clarity in your own criteria and definitions being used here. What would you consider to be a "significant difference" in the context of your statement quoted above? And do you feel that adequate, concrete research has been done to be able to draw authoritative conclusions as to whether or not there are "significant differences" in intelligence based on one's race (or whatever other term you wish to use), rather than individual pathologies?

[usefkl05]

Hi all,

I'm not a physician nor a psychologist... I haven't done research on this field. But I'm aware that some ethnic groups are more prone than others to get certain deceases, etc. even if they live under the same environment; stuff like diabetes and some blood problems come to mind.

If that's so, and if the brain is part of the human body, which I'm sure it is, then it wouldn't be terribly surprising that there might be some differences in the brains of different ethnic groups as well. Please note I'm saying "differences", not "smarter" or "dumber".

Also, it's come to my mind a few times that I can think of many developed countries in the world where the population is mostly white (but not all white majority countries are rich). On the other hand, I can't think of any developed country where the population is mostly black, even if they have plenty of oil reserves. Well, maybe South Africa might be considered as relatively developed, but this is a special case.

Andy

[Michael C]

Essentially, everything the bell curve claimed (except perhaps the genetic link) exists in great abundance in the literature for the last 100 years. There was no debunking. People outside the field might feel better sleeping with gould under their pillow, but it's kinda ostrich like. (my bolding)

It's not racist to say that blacks score on average less than whites in intelligence tests. What is racist is to assert that this difference is genetic.

Let's compare this with another situation. When the results of the first PISA study (a world-wide test of the scholastic performance of 15 year-olds) came out in 2001, there was great consternation in Germany, where I live. Finnish children had the best scores and Germany was near the bottom of the list. Of all the articles I've read on this, not one proposed that the cause of the difference was genetic. Most writers were convinced that the differing school systems were responsible, although some put more stress on family environment. Nowhere did I see something like "Finns are more intelligent than Germans - it's genetic". Although there is just as much (or as little) reason to treat "Finns" and "Germans" as separate races as there is to treat "Whites" and "Blacks", nobody here falls into this trap.

The fact that blacks have a lower score than whites in intelligence tests should be taken seriously. Since, as far as we know, there is no genetic difference between blacks and whites, the implications are evident: the difference in test scores arises because blacks are, on average, getting less opportunities to develop their minds than whites are. Other posters on this thread have already given possible reasons for this: social environment, level of education, nutrition and health may all play roles. The bottom line: Blacks are still suffering from discrimination, on many levels. Dr. Watson's remarks only add to this discrimination.

[Ivor the Engineer]

(my bolding)

It's not racist to say that blacks score on average less than whites in intelligence tests. What is racist is to assert that this difference is genetic.

<snip>

Why is it racist?

How about this statement:

"It's not racist to say that blacks on average have higher incidence of heart disease than whites in clinical tests. What is racist is to assert that this difference is genetic."

Is that racist?

Being racist (or prejudiced) is treating a person based on a wide generalization from a narrow characteristic they share with others, as opposed to their unique flaws and abilities.

BTW, from twin studies it appears IQ is 50% genetic, 50% environment. So being all PC and saying environment is the dominating factor is going against the evidence (that I have seen to date).

[Michael C]

Why is it racist?

How about this statement:

"It's not racist to say that blacks on average have higher incidence of heart disease than whites in clinical tests. What is racist is to assert that this difference is genetic."

Is that racist?

The term racism, as is noted in the Wikipedia article, has different and sometimes hotly disputed definitions, but the most common and widely accepted one is the belief that members of one "race" are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other "races". Intelligence is clearly something that is used as a measure of superiority or inferiority, so the assertion that one race is genetically more intelligent than another is racist.

Incidence of heart disease is not usually used to define superiority or inferiority, so your example would not normally be considered racist.

BTW, from twin studies it appears IQ is 50% genetic, 50% environment. So being all PC and saying environment is the dominating factor is going against the evidence (that I have seen to date).

I don't know if the 50/50 figure is widely accepted, but let's assume it's true. We have two facts:

A. Whites score higher than blacks in a certain kind of IQ test.

B. Intelligence, as defined by this test, comes 50% from genes and 50% from environmental influence.

Can we deduce that the reason for the difference in scores is 50% genetic and 50% environmental? No, we can't. It could be that:

1. Blacks and whites have exactly the same environmental influences and the reason for the difference in IQ is solely genetic.

or

2. Blacks and whites have no basic genetic differences and the reason for the difference in IQ is solely environmental.

or

3. The reason for the difference in IQ is a combination of genetic and environmental factors, in proportions that are not necessarily 50/50.

Given that there is no documented genetic difference between blacks and whites, whereas there are clearly documented differences in environmental influences, the logical conclusion is that reason 2 is the most likely.

[chocolatepossum]

The term racism, as is noted in the Wikipedia article, has different and sometimes hotly disputed definitions, but the most common and widely accepted one is the belief that members of one "race" are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other "races". Intelligence is clearly something that is used as a measure of superiority or inferiority, so the assertion that one race is genetically more intelligent than another is racist.

Incidence of heart disease is not usually used to define superiority or inferiority, so your example would not normally be considered racist.


I disagree. To say that one person is superior to another is a value judgement. To say that on person scores higher on an IQ test is a simple statement of fact. If we allow the latter kind of judgement to be deemed racist, then we will have to choose between censoring people for speaking the truth, or allowing racism.

Physical prowess is also sometimes used as a measure of superiority or inferiority. Is it racist to say members of one race can, on average, run faster than members of another? The same goes for height. Is it racist to say that members of race A tend to be shorter than members of race B?

[chocolatepossum]

Given that there is no documented genetic difference between blacks and whites, whereas there are clearly documented differences in environmental influences, the logical conclusion is that reason 2 is the most likely.

Surely this is not the case? I'm sure there are certain genes "black people" tend to share more than "white" people. To take an obvious example, what about the genes determining skin colour?

(ETA Bolding)

[boooeee]

1) what data show that blacks adopted to white parents have higher IQ's?


I think this was probably the study being referred to: Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study).

Unfortunately, the results of the study have two competing interpretations.

On the one hand, the average IQ score of black children adopted by white parents (at Age 7) was 97. Since this is closer to the white person average of 100 and not the black person average of 85, this lead the researchers to conclude that the IQ discrepancy between whites and blacks was environmental and not genetic.

However, the conclusion drawn by another set of researchers said the genetic hypothesis could not be ruled out. According to the data, average IQ scores were highest for adopted children with two white biological parents. The next highest were for adopted children with one white and one black biological parent. The lowest was for adopted children with two black biological parents. There is a chart in the linked Wiki article for those that are interested. I'm not sure what to make of the study.

[billydkid]

The notion of race is obsolete, useless and harmful and the sooner we grow up and let it go the better.

[bpesta22]

Then how could there be smart black people? How do you account for that?

I got a book on my shelf called In Contempt, by Christopher Darden. Lawyer. On the OJ prosecution team. Well-written book. How could he do that?

Got another book on my shelf called Beyond Uhura, by Nichelle Nichols. Actress, singer. Another damned well-written book. How? She shouldn't be able to do that! Hell, most WHITE people can't write a book, so how could a black person do that?

It's not genetic. Get that in your head. It's social, cultural, if there is this alleged disparity at all. Has nothing to do with the makeup of the brain, or the ability of the brain's owner to process information, adapt and learn. Complex learning is a habit, patterns for which are best formed early in life. If a culture deprives a child of the necessary stimuli to start tipping the first few dominos leading to complex processing - then yes. Arrested cognition can be a result. But even that can be handled, reversed. It's just harder, takes longer.



I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here again because the comments make no sense.

Look at the top left image:

http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~david/handouts/sdt/ROC.gif

The left distribution is blacks with a mean iq of 85 and the right is whites with a mean iq of 100.

Isn't it self evident that there are millions of cases where blacks are smart and blacks are smarter than whites.

What does citing black authors have to do with anything I've claimed? Seems like a strawman.

[chocolatepossum]

Do blacks as a group average lower on IQ tests than whites as a group (due neither to environmental factors-- or those studied so far-- nor test bias). Yes.

Could you tell me what environmental factors have been studied so far, and how they have been ruled out as possible contributors to the disparity between black and white IQs?

[cloudshipsrule]

Could you tell me what environmental factors have been studied so far, and how they have been ruled out as possible contributors to the disparity between black and white IQs?

Certainly environmental factors can be attributed to molding many of the differences we see today, including skin color. This can also be used to explain differences in muscle structure. Surely it plays a role in intelligence, whether we're talking environmental factors during the last 50 years or the last 500 years. Both are a factor.

[bpesta22]

Could you tell me what environmental factors have been studied so far, and how they have been ruled out as possible contributors to the disparity between black and white IQs?

APA task force article from 1995-- dated, but it should give you an idea. Note too that many throw the baby out with the bathwater by automatically dismissing peer-reviewed science just because the author is jensen or rushton or murray. Can't do that here as this article was commissioned by the APA and approved as their official statement on the topic.


It has been suggested that various aspects of the way tests are formulated and administered may put African Americans at an disadvantage. The language of testing is a standard form of English with which some Blacks may not be familiar; specific vocabulary items are often unfamiliar to Black children; the tests are often given by White examiners rather than by more familiar Black teachers; African Americans may not be motivated to work hard on tests that so clearly reflect White values; the time demands of some tests may be alien to Black culture. (Similar suggestions have been made in connection with the test performance of Hispanic Americans, e.g., Rodriguez, 1992.) Many of these suggestions are plausible, and such mechanisms may play a role in particular cases. Controlled studies have shown, however, that none of them contributes substantially to the Black/White differential under discussion here (Jensen, 1980; Reynolds 82 Brown, 1984; for a different view see Helms, 1992). Moreover, efforts to devise reliable and valid tests that would minimize disadvantages of this kind have been unsuccessful.

***

From an educational point of view, the chief function of mental tests is as predictors (Section 2). Intelligence tests predict school performance fairly well, at least in American schools as they are now constituted. Similarly, achievement tests are fairly good predictors of performance in college and postgraduate settings. Considered in this light, the relevant question is whether the tests have a "predictive bias" against Blacks, Such a bias would exist if African-American performance on the criterion variables (school achievement, college GPA, etc.) were systematically higher than the same subjects' test scores would predict. This is not the case. The actual regression lines (which show the mean criterion performance for individuals who got various scores on the predictor) for Blacks do not lie above those for Whites; there is even a slight tendency in the other direction (Jensen, 1980; Reynolds &:Brown, 1984). Considered as predictors of future performance, the tests do not seem to be biased against African Americans.

***

Several specific environmental/cultural explanations of those differences have been proposed. All of them refer to the general life situation in which contemporary African Americans find themselves, but that situation can be described in several different ways. The simplest such hypothesis can be framed in economic terms. On the average, Blacks have lower incomes than Whites; a much higher proportion of them are poor. It is plausible to suppose that many inevitable aspects of poverty, such as poor nutrition, frequently inadequate prenatal care, and lack of intellectual resources, have negative effects on children's developing intelligence. Indeed, the correlation between "socio-economic status" (SES) and scores on intelligence tests is well known (White, 1982).

Several considerations suggest that this cannot be the whole explanation. For one thing, the Black/White differential in test scores is not eliminated when groups or individuals are matched for SES (Loehlin et al, 1975). Moreover, the data reviewed in Section 4 suggest that excluding extreme conditions, nutrition and other biological factors that may vary with SES account for relatively little of the variance in such scores. Finally the (relatively weak) relationship between test scores and income is much more complex than a simple SES hypothesis would suggest. The living conditions of children result in part from the accomplishments of their parents: if the skills measured by psychometric tests actually matter for those accomplishments. intelligence is affecting SES rather than the other way around. We do not know the magnitude of these various effects in various populations, but it is clear that no model in which 'SES" directly determines "IQ" will do.

[bpesta22]

BTW, these are the experts in the field, sanctioned by the APA, for an article written in direct response to the controversy of the Bell Curve.

This is the APA's response to the Bell curve.

Anyone care to show me how they debunked and thoroughly discredited the Bell Curve here? Except for the genetics aspect, the article reads like support for (together with an apology) the bell curve. Note too that appropriately, gould's wacky strawmen are cited nowhere in the article.

[technoextreme]

Tiger woods?



What Race is his baby?

http://nonstriker.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/tiger-woods-baby-10.jpg
Heh... I gave up caring about race long ago after I mistook an Italian for an African America and lived with an Irish-Indian who I thought was a WASP. As a kid I used to draw Martin Luther King Jr. purple and think my tan grandpa was black.:)

[Luciana]

If actual Africans, in actual Africa, have a lower average than ex Africans outside Africa- which includes you & me, whitey, my guess would be that it's nutrition related .

I'd like to see comparative data on well fed Africans compared with hungry Africans, and well educated, well fed Africans compared with hungry ones. I would expect to see that average move some. And I'd also like a clearer picture of the spread.

Before I accepted that the difference in the IQ scores is genetic, I'd like to see tests like that, also.

And such a test would have to take in consideration the heritage of the test subjects. That's because the ill-effects of malnutrition may last a few generations even if the offspring is well-fed. One of the reasons is that low-IQ people tend to be less educated - that's true even in developed countries - and we know that education correlates strongly to income. We also know that education levels tend to be "passed on" to next generations. So even if the subsequent generations are well-fed, they might still suffer the consequences of the low-IQ/poorly educated ascendent who might not have provided-
a) an adequate nutrition (I had a cleaning lady who fed Ramen Noodles to her kids, and she thought that was fine because they had the Vegetables type of powder-sauce. And she could have paid for better nutrition, she had the income for that, but she wouldn't, and she thought that everything we tried to teach her about nutrition was "nonsense").
b) incentive to to ask, to question, to experiment with new things.
c) incentive to pursue formal education, thus leading to smaller income and perhaps a slip back to malnutrition.

Also, what is the developmental effect on a fetus of a malnourished mother even if the child later receives proper nourishment?

So the question is - how many generations would be necessary to factor out the nutrition aspect in the determination of intelligence?

If you compare a white kid and a black kid, both coming from middle-class families dating back to three generations, would you find any significant difference in IQ? I'd really like to know that.

[jsfisher]

It didn't say in the linked article, but 15 points is the standard deviation of an IQ test. I'm sure it's a tiny amount, if at all.

The part I bolded was my assumption as well. I'm just wondering how much of this ado -- on both sides -- is all about a numerically meaningless difference.

[Gurdur]

Actually, you yourself have limited meaningful discussion to what you consider to be "significant differences", without anywhere that I can see defining what those "significant differences" are.
But your charge still remains irrelevant.
My problem is that your argument can actually be used to support a very PC agenda
Wrong, and since it wasn't, still very irrelevant. Red herrings are SUCH a waste of time.
-- one where someone such as yourself defines in advance what you consider "significant differences" to be,
My apologies for actually having done real science and moreover psychophysiology postgrad? Naaaaw, bugger that.
I'm not saying that's what you're doing,
Just as well.
I am, quite frankly, not quite clear what position it is that you are arguing for here,
A practical conclusion involving assigned values once all the important science has been briefly illuminated, combined with trying to get over to people new and more scientific ways of looking at the issue. That would have been bloody clear if my posts were read well.

End of that. Misuse of the word "race" is bloody stupid and bloody unscientific. If you want to argue differently, use some bloody good scientific cites. Or do some proper psychophysiology, postgrad, or physiopsychology, or physiological psychology (programs slightly different in emphasis), dealing with Homo sapiens sapiens. I'm not interested in any further silly red herrings.

[bpesta22]

The part I bolded was my assumption as well. I'm just wondering how much of this ado -- on both sides -- is all about a numerically meaningless difference.

Assuming I'm not on your ignore list ;)

It is a 15 point difference on traditional IQ tests / 1 standard deviation, which makes the effect size 1.0.

For reference, statisticians (non-IQ researchers) have generally accepted that an effect size of:

.2 is small
.4 is moderate
.6 is large.

So, 1.0 is so big statisticians don't have a standard label for it, and the implications at the *group* level are stunning:

84.13% of blacks score 100 (average) or lower. Only 2.28% score 115 or higher (this is about the threshold printed in the wonderlic manuals for success in white collar jobs). Only 0.13% score 130 or higher (I suspect an IQ like this is needed to be, say, a rocket scientist, or perhaps an engineer).

Whites are over-represented 16.5 to 1 over blacks for all people with IQs of 130+

6.4 to one for all people with IQs of 115+

[Gurdur]

.......Also, what is the developmental effect on a fetus of a malnourished mother even if the child later receives proper nourishment?
Pretty damn bad. Much depends on what contaminants the expectant mother eats -- IOW, not just malnutrition is a problem, but also extremely important is what the gravid mother eats to fill her stomach in place of real food.

Much also depends on the exact nature of the malnutrition -- just which dietry parts are missing.

You COULD send a PM to the poster fls; she's fairly cluey.

So the question is - how many generations would be necessary to factor out the nutrition aspect in the determination of intelligence?
Sometimes only one, sometimes as many as three, depending (see just above).

If you compare a white kid and a black kid, both coming from middle-class families dating back to three generations, would you find any significant difference in IQ? I'd really like to know that.
Add in a few more variables, such as infant rich enviroment and lack of discrimination for those 3 generations (because surrounding, depressed, constricting adults are bad news for a baby, see my very earlier looooong post), and no study has shown any difference.

Best bet: look up IQ studies of "black" children from long-term wealthy "black" families from New Orleans, USA; IIRC, New Orleans is where there was quite a "black aristocracy" going back over 3 generations and more.

Next best bet: look up, for a reverse, IQ studies for "white" Redlegs of Barbados and nearby islands.

Lots of fun then doing those comparisons, I'll betcha anything. ;)

[jsfisher]

Assuming I'm not on your ignore list ;) ...

Nope. I saw your post after the one I quoted. It was most interesting.

This thread has exploded rather quickly.

[bpesta22]

the black white gap actually gets bigger as income levels go up. The IQ difference between two poor kids (one white; one black) is smaller than the difference between two rich kids (one white; one black).

[JJM 777]

Apparently, this has been an unpopular statement.
Not quite so unpopular as would be mentioning any differences between men and women...

[JoeEllison]

Aren't there also studies that also show that people who are exposed to a larger vocabulary by their parents as children have improved language skills as they grow up?

The less obvious effects of slavery and poverty seem very strongly to affect African-Americans to the extent that it seems incredibly foolish to claim a genetic component with any certainty. To claim a specific number for the difference in IQ scores, and then link it to genetics is even more foolish.

[The Atheist]

Bpesta: Thanks for the information to date.

Obviously, the interpretation of the data will be questioned, but at least it is some physical evidence and I'm pretty sure that it's the only example of actual evidence so far.

Nope. I saw your post after the one I quoted. It was most interesting.

This thread has exploded rather quickly.

Why do you say that?

So far, it seems to be quite a lot less confrontational than I would have expected. Let's hope that continues.

Not quite so unpopular as would be mentioning any differences between men and women...

Anytime - that one's easy. Shall I start a thread on that as well?

[bpesta22]

Aren't there also studies that also show that people who are exposed to a larger vocabulary by their parents as children have improved language skills as they grow up?

The less obvious effects of slavery and poverty seem very strongly to affect African-Americans to the extent that it seems incredibly foolish to claim a genetic component with any certainty. To claim a specific number for the difference in IQ scores, and then link it to genetics is even more foolish.

Probably, the problem is vocab is a really good measure of g, so which way does the causality go: Smart people get big vocabs, or big vocabs make you smart (or, harvard makes people smart versus smart people go to harvard, etc)?

If you posit the latter, why does vocab correlate with the ECTS (inspection time / reaction time). Why should studying up on vocab make you smarter on traditional paper and pencil IQ tests, and also faster on reaction time and IT-- judging which of two rapidly presented lines is longer.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This is one of those things I hear but have trouble taking seriously as a skeptic. It strikes me as more of an ideology than a scientific theory.

What about this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/health/04heart.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/R/Race&oref=slogin)

Not to single you out, but my god, this thread is devoid of skepticism and critical thinking.

Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Race (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-x.htm)

The most relevant to this thread are:

1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

3. Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

Read more here (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01.htm).

[bpesta22]

I asked this before in another thread-- dont remember the answer. If race is only skin deep, how come forensics can ID race from bones?

Wouldn't that make race deeper than skin deep and at least bone deep?

[bpesta22]

And, even if the vast majority of genetic material is the same across races, so what. I remember the oft touted similarity our dna to that of chimps. Obviously, though, we differ significantly from them.

[uruk]

Well by William's argument Asians are more intelligent than Caucasians If you go by testing.
I wonder how he feels about that?

Also I am half Mexican and half Caucasian. So that means I have a desire to take over the world but I'm too lazy to do it.


I can't wait till all the races become mixed via mixed marriges and the whole thing becomes moot.
Although I'm sure we'll find something else to predjudice each other for.

[Michael C]

I disagree. To say that one person is superior to another is a value judgement. To say that on person scores higher on an IQ test is a simple statement of fact. If we allow the latter kind of judgement to be deemed racist, then we will have to choose between censoring people for speaking the truth, or allowing racism.

Firstly, it is clear that the difference in IQ scores is being used as a value judgement by the "Bell Curve" adherents and by Dr. James Watson. Secondly, what they are doing is not just "speaking the truth". They are giving their own interpretation of the available data. In this case, the interpretation is racist.

[Soapy Sam]

I can't wait till all the races become mixed via mixed marriges and the whole thing becomes moot.
Although I'm sure we'll find something else to predjudice each other for.

-uruk.

Objectivist swine!

[Michael C]

And, even if the vast majority of genetic material is the same across races, so what. I remember the oft touted similarity our dna to that of chimps. Obviously, though, we differ significantly from them.

You're confusing two different things here. All humans share the same genome, meaning the set of chromosomes together with the number and sequence of genes on each chromosome. Differences between different humans (eye colour, hair colour, nose width, whatever) are caused by differences in individual genes, but neither the number of chromosomes nor the number of genes on each chromosome changes. The chimp genome is similar, but not identical, to the human one: notably chimps have one more chromosome than humans do.

[uruk]

I can't wait till all the races become mixed via mixed marriges and the whole thing becomes moot.
Although I'm sure we'll find something else to predjudice each other for.

-uruk.

Objectivist swine!

Northern hemispherical hooligan!!!

[uruk]

And, even if the vast majority of genetic material is the same across races, so what. I remember the oft touted similarity our dna to that of chimps. Obviously, though, we differ significantly from them.

well, I often throw feces at people.



Not necessarily my own.

[Michael C]

Not to single you out, but my god, this thread is devoid of skepticism and critical thinking.

Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Race (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-x.htm)

Read more here (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01.htm).

Thanks for these links. Another good article can be found here: Confusions About Human Races (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/). The author explains in some detail why the idea of "race" has been abandoned as a biological category, but still continues to be used because of political and cultural pressures.

[jsfisher]

...
This thread has exploded rather quickly.

Why do you say that?

So far, it seems to be quite a lot less confrontational than I would have expected. Let's hope that continues.

From the last time I'd checked the thread it had grown by two pages. I meant "exploded" in the "grew quickly" sense, nothing more.

I agree, too, that there has been less confrontation than I would have predicted. That's a good thing.

[The Atheist]

Well by William's argument Asians are more intelligent than Caucasians If you go by testing.
I wonder how he feels about that?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd find it easy to accept.

Also I am half Mexican and half Caucasian. So that means I have a desire to take over the world but I'm too lazy to do it.

Pah! Try being English - we think we've already taken over the world and expect everyone else to look after it for us.

I can't wait till all the races become mixed via mixed marriges and the whole thing becomes moot.
Although I'm sure we'll find something else to predjudice each other for.

"What we need is a great big melting pot,..."

Thanks for these links. Another good article can be found here: Confusions About Human Races (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/). The author explains in some detail why the idea of "race" has been abandoned as a biological category, but still continues to be used because of political and cultural pressures.

No. The only problem there is whether "biological category" has any meaning here and it doesn't. Nobody's disputing that people are all people, but as already noted here, there is enormous data that some races are more susceptible to certain diseases than others, so science indeed does use racial distinctions. Medical science, anyway.

[bpesta22]

You're confusing two different things here. All humans share the same genome, meaning the set of chromosomes together with the number and sequence of genes on each chromosome. Differences between different humans (eye colour, hair colour, nose width, whatever) are caused by differences in individual genes, but neither the number of chromosomes nor the number of genes on each chromosome changes. The chimp genome is similar, but not identical, to the human one: notably chimps have one more chromosome than humans do.

Thanks for the clarification; I concede the point.

[Hokulele]

I asked this before in another thread-- dont remember the answer. If race is only skin deep, how come forensics can ID race from bones?

Wouldn't that make race deeper than skin deep and at least bone deep?


Does anyone have a link with data as to how often the forensic ID's are correct or not? I have seen this point brought up before, but with no support as to exactly how accurate this ID method is. If the person is never actually identified, a racial tag may be incorrect, and no one will ever know.

[ConspiRaider]

Like Redtail, I am of mixed race. When questioned, I could just as easily tell people I am white as I am asian. Which self-identity is correct? The true answer would be neither, but the way the US of A is currently structured, I am constantly told I am asian, not white. If I went to Japan however, I would be told I am not asian. Two of my cousins have a black father and a white mother and grew up on the east coast. They are most often told they are black, and so that is how they tend to self-identify.

DARN IT!

Sheez, H. You ruined everything. After Mitt Romney the Mormon became the Prez and allowed us men-types to have like BEAUCOUP wiferinos - you'd a been all mine! (Okay, fractionally mine).

But now with this mongrel stuff what would our kiddies look like? I'm pure white (Polish, Slovenian, Slavic, German, KitchenSinkian) and I'll be DAMNED iffn I'll dilute that up. DARN! I'd already picked out my Maid of Honor!!! SHEEZ!

[Darth Rotor]

Tiger woods?



What Race is his baby?


According to Tiger, Cablanasian. That's his neolgism, and his descriptive of his own ethnicity. Insofar as social class, he has gone from middle class to "bloody rich" on the strength of his talent.

He's not just a good golfer, he's got a keen eye for a number of other matters. His taste in women is, of course, exquisite.

DR

[Undesired Walrus]

I can't wait till all the races become mixed via mixed marriges and the whole thing becomes moot.
Although I'm sure we'll find something else to predjudice each other for.

That'll be bloody boring.

[technoextreme]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd find it easy to accept.

Nope. I don't. I've met plenty of smart asians. I've met plenty of dumb asians. I've met plenty of normal asians. I think the vast majority of them come from the stereotypical "asian" family but from what I've seen it doesn't work all the time.
Also I am half Mexican and half Caucasian. So that means I have a desire to take over the world but I'm too lazy to do it.

Yeah so. I'm part Polish, German, and quite possibly Russian. Two thirds of my nationality tried taking over the world at any given momement and the other third didn't even exisist as a country at some points.

[plumjam]

I wonder whether white male genetics professors are genetically predisposed to tactlessness :rolleyes:

[ImaginalDisc]

I wonder whether white male genetics professors are genetically predisposed to tactlessness :rolleyes:

Did you just say something witty and topical?








In this universe, does Spock wear a beard?

[uruk]

That'll be bloody boring.

Well we could still predjudice each other according to our IQs.
There could be IQ riots. But then you'd have problems where the less intelligent people would forget to show up or show up at the wrong place or time.

And all the protest chants wouldn't make sense and the signs would be misspelled.

Yea, your right. it would be boring.

[ImaginalDisc]

And all the protest chants wouldn't make sense and the signs would be misspelled.

Yea, your right. it would be boring.

Irony.

[slingblade]

Did you just say something witty and topical?








In this universe, does Spock wear a beard?

Nope, and Sulu still has Teh Ghey.


:D

[uruk]

I wonder how Williams would explain people such as Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Vivien Thomas?

A poplar log in the ebony woodpile?

[uruk]

Irony.

Quite ironic.

[athon]

Thanks for these links. Another good article can be found here: Confusions About Human Races (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/). The author explains in some detail why the idea of "race" has been abandoned as a biological category, but still continues to be used because of political and cultural pressures.

It's easy to understand why we constantly like to categorise into races. Visually, we find patterns in physiology and make associations between that and the cultural behaviour of those we see it in. We then assume a strong system of rules to be governing it. The problem is, however, that it is impossible to draw distinct lines anywhere. So defining a race is no more significant than defining a small community who share family traits; both are arbitrary categories of variation in gene pools correlated with a geographical population. Today, it's even more difficult to analyse the relationships between one's familial geographic heritage, genetics and culture, given the large scale movement of populations over large distances.

This is further muddied when 'race' is reduced to single or several phenotypes, such as an amount of pigmentation or curliness of hair. Go further and try to discuss how these qualities correlate with rather vague notions such as 'intelligence', and then associate this with a good measure of connotation that some traits are better than others outside of any context, and it's easy to see why 'whites are more intelligent than blacks' is not only a ridiculous comment, it's about as useless as it gets. It's not even worth discussing such a statement.

Suggesting that there is a correlation between individuals who express a given gene or gene matrix and an associated aspect of intelligence, for instance, is about as close as one can get to making a valuable statement about 'race' and intellect.

Athon

[slingblade]

I asked this before in another thread-- dont remember the answer. If race is only skin deep, how come forensics can ID race from bones?

Wouldn't that make race deeper than skin deep and at least bone deep?

No. The point is that one's perceived race is based only on physical differences, be they bone or skin or shape of nose.

These physical differences, in and of themselves, may determine if a certain skeletal type belongs to a category we've labeled as a race. But they do not determine whether the people who share them are born lazy or industrious, clean or dirty, prone to rape, prone to use drugs or drink, likely to have children while still in their teens, likely to commit crime, or likely to graduate from Yale, regardless of other, extraneous factors.

The color of your skin does not correlate with the number of synaptic connections in your brain. The width of your nose does not indicate a predilection at birth for fried chicken and welfare checks. The epicanthic fold of your eyes does not guarantee a genius in mathematics.

These are all artifacts imposed on you by your family, society, and culture as a result of stereotypes that have become associated with certain physical characteristics. But they have no biological basis. How can a simple physical trait indicate a mental or social ability or the lack thereof?

How does my straight-hair gene make me smarter? How does his curly-hair gene make him lazy? How does her black-hair gene make her poor?

It's nonsense. Dominant groups of people with superior technology catalogued the physical differences they saw in the people they subjugated. They then ascribed negative tendencies to that catalogue. Being dominant, they could do that, you see. They had only their peers to answer to, and their peers weren't arguing much, at first. The benefits, after all, were enourmous.

It was morally correct to treat blacks as animals, because the [pseudo]science of the time said they were little better than animals; maybe only a few steps removed.

At the same time, it was right to force Indian children into white-styled boarding schools and remake them into whites (though lower-class whites, domestics and farm hands), because pseudo-science said they were "almost" white, so it was charitable to "help" them reach their potential.

At first it was right to relegate the Chinese and other Asian peoples to certain areas of town, or the outskirts, because they were dirty, noisy, and their food smelled funny. Later, it became acceptable to envy them and fear their intelligence, because the science of WWII told us they were naturally devious, conniving, and treacherous. We feared they were contriving to take over the country by beating us at science, tech, and maths. Or by buying it all, one piece at a time.

Of course, now we know the country will not be beaten with a chopstick, but with a churro.

Certain physical characteristics have been catalogued and labeled as belonging to one "race" or another. It has been further speculated that belonging to one of these races says something inherent about your mind; something you don't choose, but genetically just are.

Do you really buy that?




Really?

[Ivor the Engineer]

No. The point is that one's perceived race is based only on physical differences, be they bone or skin or shape of nose.

These physical differences, in and of themselves, may determine if a certain skeletal type belongs to a category we've labeled as a race. But they do not determine whether the people who share them are born lazy or industrious, clean or dirty, prone to rape, prone to use drugs or drink, likely to have children while still in their teens, likely to commit crime, or likely to graduate from Yale, regardless of other, extraneous factors.

The color of your skin does not correlate with the number of synaptic connections in your brain. The width of your nose does not indicate a predilection at birth for fried chicken and welfare checks. The epicanthic fold of your eyes does not guarantee a genius in mathematics.

These are all artifacts imposed on you by your family, society, and culture as a result of stereotypes that have become associated with certain physical characteristics. But they have no biological basis. How can a simple physical trait indicate a mental or social ability or the lack thereof?

How does my straight-hair gene make me smarter? How does his curly-hair gene make him lazy? How does her black-hair gene make her poor?

It's nonsense. Dominant groups of people with superior technology catalogued the physical differences they saw in the people they subjugated. They then ascribed negative tendencies to that catalogue. Being dominant, they could do that, you see. They had only their peers to answer to, and their peers weren't arguing much, at first. The benefits, after all, were enourmous.

It was morally correct to treat blacks as animals, because the [pseudo]science of the time said they were little better than animals; maybe only a few steps removed.

At the same time, it was right to force Indian children into white-styled boarding schools and remake them into whites (though lower-class whites, domestics and farm hands), because pseudo-science said they were "almost" white, so it was charitable to "help" them reach their potential.

At first it was right to relegate the Chinese and other Asian peoples to certain areas of town, or the outskirts, because they were dirty, noisy, and their food smelled funny. Later, it became acceptable to envy them and fear their intelligence, because the science of WWII told us they were naturally devious, conniving, and treacherous. We feared they were contriving to take over the country by beating us at science, tech, and maths. Or by buying it all, one piece at a time.

Of course, now we know the country will not be beaten with a chopstick, but with a churro.

Certain physical characteristics have been catalogued and labeled as belonging to one "race" or another. It has been further speculated that belonging to one of these races says something inherent about your mind; something you don't choose, but genetically just are.

Do you really buy that?




Really?

You mean like having dodgy genes being related to Tourette's syndrome or stuttering?

That physical features can, in a very general way, indicate your genetic heritage? That I believe that many of my genetically determined physical characteristics limit what my mind and body can do, including my intelligence?

Yes, I do.

Do you really believe that if you'd worked harder you could have been as smart as Einstein?

[chocolatepossum]

The color of your skin does not correlate with the number of synaptic connections in your brain. The width of your nose does not indicate a predilection at birth for fried chicken and welfare checks. The epicanthic fold of your eyes does not guarantee a genius in mathematics.

These are all artifacts imposed on you by your family, society, and culture as a result of stereotypes that have become associated with certain physical characteristics. But they have no biological basis. How can a simple physical trait indicate a mental or social ability or the lack thereof?


I don't think I agree with what you're saying. As I understand it, our cultural notions of different "races" roughly correspond to different, geographically grouped (although not isolated) populations. Inhabitants of different regions have, for the most part of our history, bred with each other much more frequently than with people from other regions. This, coupled with the different environmental pressures in different regions means that there are a number of genetic traits that are likely to be present in people whose ancestors evolved in a region x as opposed to elsewhere. Some of these traits are highly visible (skin colour) whereas some of them are not (susceptibility to sickle cell anaemia). It is reasonable, is it not, to suspect that if a person has a visible trait restricted to descendants of inhabitants of region x ,they might also have a non-visible trait known to be very common among inhabitants of region x ?

This is why, in theory I see nothing implausible in the proposition that members of one race might have higher mean IQs than members of another. Although the lines we draw between races are fairly arbitrary and those lines do not denote any sharp dividing line between types, there are legitimate generalisations that can be made about the members of those groups.

The fact that humans have a tendency to want to ascribe negative characteristics to those that see as of another race should make us cautious when looking into this area, but it does not invalidate the idea that there might be some useful knowledge to be gained by looking at the genetic differences between populations.

The Skeptics' Guide podcast recently discussed the biological basis of race. Here are some quotes that I nicked from their message board

Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.

When it finally becomes feasible and available, individual genetic assessment of relevant genes will probably prove more useful than race in medical decision making...In the meantime, ethnicity or race may in some cases provide useful information in biomedical contexts, just as other categories, such as gender or age, do.

(Originally from this article in Nature http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html ).

[Gurdur]

And, even if the vast majority of genetic material is the same across races, so what...

Well, at least you're making your agenda much more clearer. Nice of you to drop trying to use science as a disguise, and just as well, given your ************ statements before.

[Soapy Sam]

Northern hemispherical hooligan!!!
And proud of it.
Seriously, I've often noted that human populations have a tendency to polarise into two groups (us & them) for the flimsiest of cultural reasons- often religion. While destructive, this has the effect of limiting cross-group interbreeding ("mixed marriage") . Where I live a mixed marriage was between Catholic and Protestant. How's that for crazy? Thankfully , it seems to be fading lately.

But think Darwin. Geographical isolation also stops interbreeding with the "mainline" and often leads to selection, even speciation in a reduced gene pool.

Is cultural isolation doing the same for humans, now we have bypassed all geographical boundaries?


I wonder whether white male genetics professors are genetically predisposed to tactlessness :rolleyes:

A quote from John Sulston's book "The Common Thread"-
"When Craig (Venter) announced at a public briefing on genome research for the US Senator Pete Domenici in July 1991 that the patents had been filed, Watson burst out that the move was "sheer lunacy" and said he would be "horrified" if it were true that random bits of sequence could be patented. He argued that there was no invention involved, asserting that the automation of sequencing meant that the work could be done by "virtually any monkey" - a typically unguarded remark (my italics) that was probably more insulting to Craig and his colleagues than was intended."
-from J. Sulston and G.Ferry, "The Invisible Thread" Corgi edition 2003, p.105

Watson has a long history of provocative and abrasive remarks. I suspect, character wise, he has something in common with a certain Mr. James Randi.
Incidentally, for anyone interested in the history of the Human Genome Project, Sulston's book is a must.

[Gurdur]

....Watson has a long history of provocative and abrasive remarks. I suspect, character wise, he has something in common with a certain Mr. James Randi.

A very dubious assertion indeed. There is a huge difference between simply being provocative, and being really stupidly and racistly provocative. Watson's remarks on black employees are a very good illustration of the second, and bear no relationship whatsover to how Randi is.

[Puppycow]

Predictably, Dr. Watson is now backtracking under a storm of criticism (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/science/19watson.html?ref=science)

He has issued an apology including this:
“I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

[Gurdur]

“I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said."


Total dipwad. Try "malignant stupidity + an idiotic arrogance" as the most likely explanation.

"There is no scientific basis for such a belief.”


Well, d'oh.

[Soapy Sam]

A very dubious assertion indeed. There is a huge difference between simply being provocative, and being really stupidly and racistly provocative. Watson's remarks on black employees are a very good illustration of the second, and bear no relationship whatsover to how Randi is.

I absolutely agree that I never knew Randi to make a remark that might be construed as racist in any sense. That's not at all what I meant.

In terms of impulsiveness and a tendency to be dismissive of other views, I have long felt the two men seemd similar. This is from reading writings both by and about them. Anyway, it's a side issue to the thread.

Argument from authority, however respectable the authority, is valid only within the field of knowledge of the authority.

What makes this situation serious is that the issue as framed by Watson appears to be genetics and he is popularly known as an authority in that field, so there will be a tendency among those so predisposed to accept it , and quote him as an authority.
So we need to see his evidence.

There are two different issues of importance here-
1. Does JW have evidence to support his statement? Is he in any way factually correct?
2. Was the comment calculatedly offensive or just a thoughtless gaffe by an elderly scientist ?

I recall in a number of items over the last thirty years reading of Watson getting carried away in argument and saying things he probably regretted later. If he now follows the remark up with considered observation, then we'll know, one way or the other.

Like Paul said, it can't end happily.

Just saw post 164. I guess we go for option 2(b) and hope he thinks a bit more carefully in future.

As you say. D'oh!


Hmm-"Dr. Watson is in England to promote his new book, “Avoid Boring People: Lessons From a Life in Science” (Knopf)"
No. Surely not?

[Gurdur]

.....In terms of impulsiveness and a tendency to be dismissive of other views, I have long felt the two men seemd similar.
I'm suggesting Randi is far less worse by several orders of magnitude than Watson, to the point where they occupy different categories.
What makes this situation serious is that the issue as framed by Watson appears to be genetics and he is popularly known as an authority in that field,
Watson suffers from three different diseases.

Sometimes German is much better for expression than English, and the Germans have a useful word that is very apt here. The word is "Fachidiot", from the combination of Fach (meaning "scientific discipline" in this context), and the recognisable word Idiot.
.
The word describes those who are immensely skilled in their own tiny area, but are complete idiots in anything outside that area.
.
Now take genetics. Genetics is not one single field, genetics is not one single scientific discpline in actual practice by any means.
.
Genetics subdivides up into a hundred and one different fields, and anyone specialising in any one of those fields will often have only passing knowledge of the rest. And that's only in genetics! It gets much, much worse than that: for example, Watson is no expert on comparing say chromosonal ethnic differences as they apply to significant, meaningful differences between ethnic groups; that kind of field needs not only knowledge of chromosonal testing and comparison, but it also needs a very high grade of knowledge in completely different fields, in the fields tackling whatever is being compared -- say in IQ, advanced physiological psychology. And Watson knows ****-all about that field.

Take another example: owing to the vagaries of German postgrad education, I can make very informed remarks about proton transportation movement over the cell membrane of a chloroplast, in part of the photosynthesis cycle. Does that make me an expert on plants? You can bet your bottom dollar that that doesn't make me an expert on plants. Don't get me wrong; some of my best friends are plants, but they all look the same to me and I can't tell them apart. ;)
I don't even know much about photosynthesis itself. Bugger all, really. Not at all my field; my field was cognition (and only certain areas in that) in humans, not bloody green things with leaves. But I can talk for hours on proton transportation over chloroplasts and cell membranes. Not of much use, is it? Same thing with Watson; he can talk for years on DNA structure. Does that make him a genuine overall expert on "genetics overall"? No *********** way. Watson is just such a good example of such a Fachidiot.

.
The next disease Watson suffers from is achievement and power, and their ego-inflation. He reached a pinnacle early, with a great deal of help from a woman long dead, who by virtue of being dead didn't manage to co-score in getting the Nobel Prize for the DNA structure discovery, and he's had those laurels ever since -- and he uses them to justify the rest of himself and his horrid, torrid, little prejudices. Kind of like saying that if I win the Nobel Prize on say discovering why the Earth's core's movement moves in precisely the way it does, then I can then use that to denounce rhubarb as a food for everyone. Because I just so *********** hate rhubarb.

.
The next disease Watson suffers from is an extremely common one. We all tend to have values; and values are learnt extremely early in life. They can be changed; we can change our values. But it is incredibly hard and long work to effectively change one's values, and one tends to keep whatever prejudices one has from early on. Watson obviously never was forced to really tackle his little prejudices, and therefore felt free to indulge in them.


....so there will be a tendency among those so predisposed to accept it , and quote him as an authority.
Oh, that's already very obvious from this thread alone. Tons of examples of people trying to justify their prejudices by making half-assed, ignorant appeals to "science".
1. Does JW have evidence to support his statement? Is he in any way factually correct?
No. And no. See his remark on black employees. Just so typical of a wanker.
2. Was the comment calculatedly offensive or just a thoughtless gaffe by an elderly scientist ?
Not calculatedly offensive, just the remarks of a self-righteous and arrogant person wanting to indulge in their prejudices.
Like Paul said, it can't end happily.
My little heart bleeds for Watson. I have no sympathy for dip****s.

[Soapy Sam]

Fachidiot I shall remember.
nb- I agree wholly on this. that's why I stressed appears to be genetics.
Soo... what's the German for "wanker"? I've sometimes thought the word had a German look . (probably confusion with Wankel)

[Gurdur]

Fachidiot I shall remember.
Soo... what's the German for "wanker"? I've sometimes thought the word had a German look . (probably confusion with Wankel)

Noooo, it's purely English.

The equivalent word in German (context-dependent) is *******.

[Kirk]

Thank you! Dr. Watson "discovered" the double helix. No small feat. My Dad built our house. (He had help with the wiring and plumbing.) I pretty sure Dad couldn't figure out the double helix but could Dr Watson build a house? Fix a broken window? Change the oil in his car?



Are you seriously comparing building a house and changing oil (things that can be done by countless members of this planet and that have had instructions in place to perform) to discovering the double helix?!?!

Really?

No, really?

[Gurdur]

Are you seriously comparing building a house and changing oil (things that can be done by countless members of this planet and that have had instructions in place to perform) to discovering the double helix?!?! Really? No, really?


Way to work really hard at deliberately missing the point. How boring.

[Kirk]

The point is invalid. Compare discovering something of historical significance to make a point that people are "differently smart". Comparing simple tasks to an incredible discovery is asinine.

[uruk]

And proud of it.
Seriously, I've often noted that human populations have a tendency to polarise into two groups (us & them) for the flimsiest of cultural reasons- often religion. While destructive, this has the effect of limiting cross-group interbreeding ("mixed marriage") . Where I live a mixed marriage was between Catholic and Protestant. How's that for crazy? Thankfully , it seems to be fading lately.

But think Darwin. Geographical isolation also stops interbreeding with the "mainline" and often leads to selection, even speciation in a reduced gene pool.

Is cultural isolation doing the same for humans, now we have bypassed all geographical boundaries?


Well now that I have all the knee jerk responses out of my system, I can see the line of thinking around William's statements.

If genetic traits are common to groups in a social-geographic region such as general physiological body types, skin color, genetic disposition to deseases and soforth. And intelligence or IQ can be linked to genes. Then a geographic cultual group would share a common level of intelligence due to the genetic build up of thier group. And if that level of intellegence varies from group to group, then you could make a statement like William's.

But of course there are issues with that assesments. Namely the definition of intelligence and how it can be applied to a group of individuals. How do you define smart and smarter, and to what areas of thinking and abilities do you apply it to?

When I am teaching computer concepts to my students I find that some get it really quickly and others don't But that depends on how I present the material to my students. I find that if I change the approach to how I present the information, the "slower" students pick it up just as fast as the "smarter" students do. It was just a matter of identifying the approach that the individual required to grasp the concept.

I tend to look at it as competencies. Some individuals are really adept or exibit a "talent" for certain things but not necessarily all things. Einstien really had a grasp of what he was good at, physics. But he did not handle other areas of his life so well. So do you say he was smarter than others? Well when it came to certain areas of his life I'd definitly say yes. But in other areas I would say he was not quite so smart.

I also wonder if it is true that If a stupid man and a stupid woman had a child would that child necessarily be stupid? I've seen some incidences where that was not the case.

I think that "levels of intelligence" is determined geneticaly on the individual level and not the geographical social level.

[Gurdur]

The point is invalid. ...Comparing simple tasks to an incredible discovery is asinine.

Wrong. It's strawmanning and deliberately missing the point that's asinine.

But by all means, try again. Today I actually enjoy this.

[bpesta22]

I
My little heart bleeds for Watson. I have no sympathy for dip****s.

You must have severe problems with self-empathy then. :boxedin:

[Gurdur]

You must have severe problems with self-empathy then. :boxedin:

No worries, bpesta, no worries at all, I see you still can't come up with any scientific definition of "blacks", and so of course your whole attempted argument fell flat on its horrid little face right from the word go. And oh dearie me, so few people seem to want to agree with your little agenda. And of course you never came up with any proof at all of genuine scientists not knowing of the rebuttals of The Bell Curve, so I guess you must be feeling all frustrated and stuff, dear oh dear.

And now you're reduced to this kind of tactic. Well, I must admit I did like the laugh it gave me.
;)

[Kirk]

Wrong. It's strawmanning and deliberately missing the point that's asinine.

But by all means, try again. Today I actually enjoy this.

Do you always take a tact of acting superior to make your angry points? Does this work for you in your everyday life? I believe my point was made and spot on. If you feel that comparison was a good argument so be it.

[Kirk]

On a side note, I hear a lot of clamoring, any time the Bell Curve is mentioned, about how it is rubbish and been dissproved. Can anyone explain who and how it has been disproved? It would seem (by reading this thread) that it has only been disproved because people that don't like the results say it is. But maybe I have missed some well researched information that has indeed discredited the results...

[slingblade]

Fine. I have officially closed my mind to the notion that the level of melanin pigmentation in one's skin has a direct correlation to how intelligent that person is.

I hate to do that; I prefer a mind open to possibility, but frankly, I simply don't see what the color of your skin has to do with your brain's capabilities.

When I see proof that the darker your skin, the stupider you are, I'll reopen my mind to it.

[Gurdur]

Do you always take a tact of acting superior to make your angry points?
No, I only do it with those who deliberately miss points. :)
Does this work for you in your everyday life?
You can bet your ass it does. I'm far more forceful and blunt in real life. :)
I believe my point was made and spot on.
Your self-assessment is erroneous, as self-assessments often are.

On a side note, I hear a lot of clamoring, any time the Bell Curve is mentioned, about how it is rubbished and been dissproved. Can anyone explain who and how it has been disproved? It would seem that it has only been disproved because people that don't like the results say it is. But maybe I have missed some well researched information that has indeed discredited the results...
Try reading Stephen Jay Gould on it for a start. Obviously you missed that. Then try reading the Wiki article on The Bell Curve and start following the links. Then do a MEDLINE or PSYINDEX search on papers on it.

I get the idea you're an amateur at all of this. :)

[bpesta22]

On a side note, I hear a lot of clamoring, any time the Bell Curve is mentioned, about how it is rubbish and been dissproved. Can anyone explain who and how it has been disproved? It would seem (by reading this thread) that it has only been disproved because people that don't like the results say it is. But maybe I have missed some well researched information that has indeed discredited the results...

Somewhere in this thread I posted info on the APA task force article / reaction to the bell curve.

I challenged someone to show me how what the APA said even remotely debunks the BC.

I guess the consensus article published and endorsed by the association representing the whole field of psychology wasn't good enough.

[Gurdur]

Somewhere in this thread I posted info on the APA task force article / reaction to the bell curve.

And yet you still can't come up with a scientific definition of "black", let alone your other claims. Dearie me.

[Kirk]

While Stephen Jay Gould book is interesting it would seem to be far from disproving the results that the Bell Curve acheived. Rather it seems to argue more against the premise of IQ in general...

[Gurdur]

While Stephen Jay Gould book is interesting it would seem to be far from disproving the results that the Bell Curve acheived. Rather it seems to argue more against the premise of IQ in general...

Then you haven't read it too well at all, since he devoted a lot of attention to disproving the methodology of the results. Kinda ****s the results up when they're the product of a flawed set of studies.

So you still want to claim you haven't read any refutations? Cherry-pick much? Ignore much?

[bpesta22]

Then you haven't read it too well at all, since he devoted a lot of attention to disproving the methodology of the results. Kinda ****s the results up when they're the product of a flawed set of studies.

So you still want to claim you haven't read any refutations? Cherry-pick much? Ignore much?

You expose your ignorance by citing Gould as an authoritative source re anything intelligence.

[bpesta22]

I've defined race in other threads re this topic. My definition comes from r&j 2005:

Some have argued that the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudo
question because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions (Tate &
Audette, 2001). However, we believe these constructs are meaningful because the
empirical findings documented in this article have been confirmed across cultures
and methodologies for decades. The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate
their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks
(Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan
Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Eu-
rope; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from
Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza,
1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Al-
though he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum
237
RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY
Page 4
likelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially
supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to
population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are
individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and
measures.
The hereditarian position originated in the work of Charles Darwin (1859,
1871) and then was elaborated by his cousin Sir Francis Galton (1869, 1883).
Based on research models used in behavioral genetics, this view contends that

[Kirk]

And yet you still can't come up with a scientific definition of "black", let alone your other claims. Dearie me.

If there is a genetic marker that distinguishes groups of people (races) from each other, would not the marker be the definition of black or white or even subsets between them? It is certain that particular ethnic groups are far more susceptible to certain disease (e.g. sickle cell anemia). What is used to determine that link?

Now to be somewhat offensive... Are we not much like dogs. Dogs have breeds (races) and certain breeds have different abilities for running, jumping, intelligence, swimming, hunting, etc... Mixed breeds soften these differences. Races of humans, while not nearly as different, could seemingly work on a similar continuum?

[Gurdur]

I've defined race in other threads re this topic. My definition comes from r&j 2005:

You have made a horribly formatted post with incomplete attribution. Try again.

You expose your ignorance by citing Gould as an authoritative source re anything intelligence.

You've demonstrated your dishonesty, since I did not cite him as an authoritative source on intelligence.

If you want to claim differently, quote me. You are lying. I cited Gould as a good start, and he actually does quite a good job. But it's only a start, and there's tons more to say to it.

When you're ready to stop lying, of course.

If there is a genetic marker that distinguishes groups of people (races) from each other,


Bang! Your argument is dead already from the start. No such thing as "races" in genetic markers in modern science. Try ethnic groups instead, far more complex. You look ever more the amateur.

What is used to determine that link?

Now I'm amused. You don't actually know, yet you want to lecture us about race and genetics? And claim you have read no refutations of The Bell Curve data?
:p
Goodness.

Now to be somewhat offensive... Are we not much like dogs.

No. Strangely enough, humans are Homo sapiens sapiens, a breed of primates, and are genetically very, very different to dogs. In many different ways. Genetic plasticity in dogs is far higher than in humans.

Mind you, I covered exactly this point in full waaaay before in this thread; I guess you're in the habit of not reading anything that might disturb your views.

Dogs have breeds (races) and certain breeds have different abilities for running, jumping, intelligence, swimming, hunting, etc... Mixed breeds soften these differences. Races of humans, while not nearly as different, could seemingly work on a similar continuum?
Nope. See waaaay previous post of mine. In this thread.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I haven't read through the entire thread so I'm sorry if this has been said before but I find it darkly funny that the man who discovered the structure of DNA doesn't know that race is a social construct with no biological basis whatsoever.

"White people?"? "Black people"? Doctor, they don't exist!

[Gurdur]

I'll also add, for the benefit of lurkers, that bpesta for all his claims about his claims, has only yet cited one paper on a definition of race (and couldn't even give proper attribution for that) in answer to being challanged on that point -- and as all in the know know, one paper does not science make. And he couldn't even get a good definition up out of that even.

Cheers.

[Gurdur]

....but I find it darkly funny that the man who discovered the structure of DNA doesn't know that race is a social construct with no biological basis whatsoever.

"White people?"? "Black people"? Doctor, they don't exist!


Some people don't want to know. Instead, they will pretend humans are dogs.

Can't think why they don't pretend humans are lemmings instead. Would make just as much sense.

[Kirk]

Some people don't want to know. Instead, they will pretend humans are dogs.

Can't think why they don't pretend humans are lemmings instead. Would make just as much sense.

You seem to be merely an angry person with a strong agenda incapable of rational discourse... Both sides can make good arguments here that can lead to informative discussion but you seem to have no other purpose than to be rude, insulting and completely disinterested in discussion. If you feel so strongly that you need to be this smug why enter the discussion at all? I am asking questions and attempting to learn useful information. It is too bad that you represent yourself in such a manner as I suspect that you could have a lot of intelligent and thought provoking information to share. Instead, you only come off as a jerk. Oh well.

[Gurdur]

You seem to be merely an angry person with a strong agenda incapable of rational discourse...
Wrong again, but I guess you're a creature of habit. Now be a good little boy and deal with all the concrete points I have made throughout this thread, and read all the references I've given you. Educate yourself, learn something. Off you go now.

but you seem to have no other purpose than to be rude, insulting and completely disinterested in discussion.


I guess you have no interest in the concrete points I have made, or maybe you simply don't understand the term "genetic plasticity".

Why am I so unsurprised? ;)

[Kirk]

Wrong again, but I guess you're a creature of habit. Now be a good little boy and deal with all the concrete points I have made throughout this thread, and read all the references I've given you. Educate yourself, learn something. Off you go now.




I guess you have no interest in the concrete points I have made, or maybe you simply don't understand the term "genetic plasticity".

Why am I so unsurprised? ;)

Thanks for your clever insight. Have a nice day.

[Gurdur]

Thanks for your clever insight. Have a nice day.


Just stop trying to be clever and aggro, it's not working for you. Now go re-read Gould properly; once you've done that, read the Wiki entry on The Bell Curve, read all its links, once you've done all that and learnt why humans are not dogs too, come back and I'll give you some advanced references on human intelligence, cognition, and genetic plasticity vis-á-vis intelligence in humans.

Because I'm a very nice, generous bloke. :)

[Kirk]

Just stop trying to be clever and aggro, it's not working for you. Now go re-read Gould properly; once you've done that, read the Wiki entry on The Bell Curve, read all its links, once you've done all that and learnt why humans are not dogs too, come back and I'll give you some advanced references on human intelligence, cognition, and genetic plasticity vis-á-vis intelligence in humans.

Because I'm a very nice, generous bloke. :)

I would have thought that someone with such self-proclaimed intellectual prowess would be able to convey their ideas in much more sophisticated and conversational manner. While I go brush up on my Bell Curve pros and cons you might want to take a gander at a communicating with other humans manual.

[ConspiRaider]

Now to be somewhat offensive... Are we not much like dogs. Dogs have breeds (races) and certain breeds have different abilities for running, jumping, intelligence, swimming, hunting, etc... Mixed breeds soften these differences. Races of humans, while not nearly as different, could seemingly work on a similar continuum?
I tested this last week, by trying to lick my own genitals - and was unable to do so. Yay! I'm still a person!

So basically you're providing an explanation why white guys like me can't dance? I was not bred for dancing, ergo, girls must spend 6 weeks with their toes in traction, when I'm damned fool enough to try?

[slingblade]

You seem to be merely an angry person with a strong agenda incapable of rational discourse... Both sides can make good arguments here that can lead to informative discussion but you seem to have no other purpose than to be rude, insulting and completely disinterested in discussion. If you feel so strongly that you need to be this smug why enter the discussion at all? I am asking questions and attempting to learn useful information. It is too bad that you represent yourself in such a manner as I suspect that you could have a lot of intelligent and thought provoking information to share. Instead, you only come off as a jerk. Oh well.

Which observations add nothing to the discussion, but constitute a personal attack.

Bluntly put: being pissed off doesn't negate the argument.

Gads.

[Kirk]

I tested this last week, by trying to lick my own genitals - and was unable to do so. Yay! I'm still a person!

So basically you're providing an explanation why white guys like me can't dance? I was not bred for dancing, ergo, girls must spend 6 weeks with their toes in traction, when I'm damned fool enough to try?

Simply drawing an analogy that our concept of races might be similar to breeds. Why does it seem so far fetched that there can be both physical and intellectual differences between races.

For clarity, by NO MEANS do I support treating people differently because of their race. Everyone should be judged on their individual merits. I am a White Man that can dance! That doesn't mean that all white men are good dancers. The Bell Curve seems to explain a lot of socially difficult questions with a rather simple explanation. I don't know that it is entirely correct but it does offer data compelling enough to consider.

In the end, there are some that will refute evidence that suggests racial differences when it comes to intelligence no matter how overwhelming and those who will accept any evidence as solid no matter how poorly it was achieved. I am somewhere in the middle albeit I tend to lean more toward the evidence that points to differences. I am not emotionally involved in this issue nor could I care less if it suggested that my race/ethnicity ranked at the bottom for average. My race/ethnicities average cannot discourage me because I am who I am, strengths and weaknesses. However, it is interesting to know.

[bpesta22]

Simply drawing an analogy that our concept of races might be similar to breeds. Why does it seem so far fetched that there can be both physical and intellectual differences between races.

For clarity, by NO MEANS do I support treating people differently because of their race. Everyone should be judged on their individual merits. I am a White Man that can dance! That doesn't mean that all white men are good dancers. The Bell Curve seems to explain a lot of socially difficult questions with a rather simple explanation. I don't know that it is entirely correct but it does offer data compelling enough to consider.

In the end, there are some that will refute evidence that suggests racial differences when it comes to intelligence no matter how overwhelming and those who will accept any evidence as solid no matter how poorly it was achieved. I am somewhere in the middle albeit I tend to lean more toward the evidence that points to differences. I am not emotionally involved in this issue nor could I care less if it suggested that my race/ethnicity ranked at the bottom for average. My race/ethnicities average cannot discourage me because I am who I am, strengths and weaknesses. However, it is interesting to know.

Face it you're a dogist spouting dogism. What's next; you gonna suggest they have their own schools?

[Undesired Walrus]

I wonder what the increase in

'Now, Some of my best friends are black but...'

has been on the internet in the last few days?

[Darth Rotor]

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

The hypothesis on a genetic input to intelligence as measured by IQ tests was explored in the above paper. I read it a couple of years ago, and found the implication almost underwhelming. Apparently, this paper was most controversial. I am not sure why, as the authors admitted that they didn't have all the answers, and other research was certainly needed on the topic to answer some of the open holes.

In a nutshell, their findings point to (but I don't think it is fair to say proved) a

nurture <-> nature

dynamic feedback look that was peculiar to both social setting and genetic markers that they could, and can, trace. Without this societal stovepipe, I think that "regression to the mean" tends to take over. (We are on the edge of my understanding of this topic.)

From the abstract:

This paper elaborates the hypothesis that the unique demography and sociology of
Ashkenazim in medieval Europe selected for intelligence. Ashkenazi literacy, economic
specialization, and closure to inward gene flow led to a social environment in which there
was high fitness payoff to intelligence, specifically verbal and mathematical intelligence
but not spatial ability. As with any regime of strong directional selection on a quantitative
trait, genetic variants that were otherwise fitness reducing rose in frequency.

In particular we propose that the well-known clusters of Ashkenazi genetic diseases, the sphingolipid cluster and the DNA repair cluster in particular, increase intelligence in heterozygotes
If their hypothesis has legs, it points to an almost "duh" conclusion:

Its nurture and nature in combination, with other factors yet to be studied, and neither in isolation. I found most interesting their discussion of why, or why not, the IQ test was a sound measure, which topic alone does not seem to be completely agreed in behavioral circles.

Another point raised has already been mentioned in this thread discussion, that of how mixed most genetic pools are, to the point that isolating intelligence (and if valid, as measured by IQ tests) by uniquely traceable demographic groups. As they point out, the rarity of such a group for study is one obstacle to this hypothesis having much more room for exploration.
Since strong selection for IQ seems to be unusual in humans (few populations have had most members performing high-complexity jobs) and since near-total reproductive isolation is also unusual, the Ashkenazim may be the only extant human population with polymorphic frequencies of IQ-boosting disease mutations, although another place to look for a similar phenomenon is in India. In particular the Parsi are an endogamous group with high levels of economic achievement, a history of long distance trading, business, and management, and who suffer high prevalences of Parkinson disease, breast cancer, and tremor disorders, diseases not present in their neighbors (see “The UNESCO Parsi Zoroastrian Project”, http://www.unescoparzor.com).
Depending on how far any work along this line can go, the challenge with mapping intelligence to DNA (or a dynamic DNA to environment model) may be over before it gets much further, due to the number of generations of relative isolation necessary to establish the tags, or genetic markers.

This puts the entire thread discussion into something along the lines Gurdur pointed to, which is "we don't really know."

The red herring that pigmentation is a marker, as noted by a few of the posters, seems to overlook that pigmentation is one of a variety of markers available to a researcher, in hopes of finding a reliable "tag" of commonality between generations. As noted by other posters, the mixing of populations over the centuries renders the relative pigmentation far less reliable a marker than some of the genetic disorders. I am not sure where sickle cell comes in for blacks, but IIRC, that was only common in some sub groups of the descendants of West African slaves brought to the Americas, not a universal trait tied solely to equatorial pigmentation.

DR

[Raskolnikov123]

Some have argued that the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudo
question because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions (Tate &
Audette, 2001). However, we believe these constructs are meaningful because the
empirical findings documented in this article have been confirmed across cultures
and methodologies for decades. The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate
their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks
(Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan
Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Eu-
rope; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from
Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza,
1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Al-
though he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum
237


This is close to a functional, operational definition of "race" that could be used to scientifically test claims about differences between races about intelligence. But I see two problems with it:

1) It isn't quite operationalized enough. How far back do I have to track my ancestors before I can calculate "most"? Obviously back more than 2-300 years, or descendents of african slaves would be lumped together with european colonists and native americans as some north american race. But probably less than 10-15000 years, or native americans would be lumped as asian, which no one does. Can you specify the appropriate time frame that should be used? For instance, if more than 50% of your direct ancestors who were alive 1000 years ago came from subsaharan Africa, you are of the black race. Does that suffice?

2) Please show me that any of the studies that you have cited to describe intelligence differences based on race actually *used* anything close to the racial definition you described above. I would bet money that pretty much all of them used self-identification, which is a social categorization, not a genetic or ancestral one.

The latter is the big problem I see with racial studies. Sure, its perfectly possible to sort people into genetic groups based on either gene sequences or historical origins in a certain geographic area, and call these groups "races".

But that has little in common with how races are defined in practice. No one runs Barack Obama's DNA, or traces all of his ancestors back 200 years to call him black. His dad was from Kenya, and he has dark skin. He's black. That's about all there is to it.

Most Americans don't know that "black" is used much less restrictively in other countries. In England, people from the subcontinent are "black", even though genetically they are closer to Europeans than to sub-saharan Africans.

How can a rigorous scientific study be done on such shaky foundations, and then claim that the differences found are *genetic* rather than social or environmental?

Find my a study where "black" isn't *defined* based on social factors rather than genetic or geographic ones, and we can at least talk about the subject at hand.

[Raskolnikov123]

I have a similar problem with your repeated claim that forensic anthropologists can identify the race of a skull. I have not seen this claim before, and would be gratified for a citation. I would like to know, for instance what definition of race they used to determine whether they were right or wrong? I somehow doubt they traced the body's ancestry back 40 generations and tallied continental origins.

Just to be clear, there *are* statistical correlations between social racial identification and certain physical traits. There are also correlations between physical traits and ancestral origins. There are also correlations between ancestral origins and genetic relationships. There are also correlations between genetic relationships and intelligence.

But thats an awfully tenuous chain of correlations to take measurements from only the two extreme ends of the chain, and baldly claim that the explanation is genetic without presenting evidence.

[Raskolnikov123]

As for Murray and the Bell Curve, the debate confuses a lot of issues. Murray's argument was a mix of fairly safe scientific claims (measured IQ differences between "races"), more dubious scientific claims (the extent to which IQ was inherited and that IQ wasn't very malleable), and policy proposals.

Any discussion about whether the book was or wasn't debunked has to be pretty specific about what specific claim in the book is being discussed.

[bpesta22]

This is close to a functional, operational definition of "race" that could be used to scientifically test claims about differences between races about intelligence. But I see two problems with it:

1) It isn't quite operationalized enough. How far back do I have to track my ancestors before I can calculate "most"? Obviously back more than 2-300 years, or descendents of african slaves would be lumped together with european colonists and native americans as some north american race. But probably less than 10-15000 years, or native americans would be lumped as asian, which no one does. Can you specify the appropriate time frame that should be used? For instance, if more than 50% of your direct ancestors who were alive 1000 years ago came from subsaharan Africa, you are of the black race. Does that suffice?

2) Please show me that any of the studies that you have cited to describe intelligence differences based on race actually *used* anything close to the racial definition you described above. I would bet money that pretty much all of them used self-identification, which is a social categorization, not a genetic or ancestral one.

The latter is the big problem I see with racial studies. Sure, its perfectly possible to sort people into genetic groups based on either gene sequences or historical origins in a certain geographic area, and call these groups "races".

But that has little in common with how races are defined in practice. No one runs Barack Obama's DNA, or traces all of his ancestors back 200 years to call him black. His dad was from Kenya, and he has dark skin. He's black. That's about all there is to it.

Most American don't know that "black" is used much less restrictively in other countries. In England, people from the subcontinent are "black", even though genetically they are closer to Europeans than to sub-saharan Africans.

How can a rigorous scientific study be done on such shaky foundations, and then claim that the differences found are *genetic* rather than social or environmental?

Find my a study where "black" isn't *defined* based on social factors rather than genetic or geographic ones, and we can at least talk about the subject at hand.

Ras, thanks for your comments. One thing that strikes me in debating this topic so often here: So many smart posters argue that race is obviously only a social construct and that anyone entertaining otherwise is woefully mislead and foolish. I'm just as struck by the opposite conclusion. That race is a biological construct first is fairly obvious to me (note that claiming race is biological is not equivalent to claiming that 100% of the IQ gap is genetic-- I'm not doing that here).

I also think that many of the criticisms re how race is measured come from people who obviously don't have experience doing research / were not trained as (at least) social scientists. Just a little bit of r&m should show that these criticisms can't be the answer to the puzzle.

One likes to have perfectly reliable and valid measures / classifications for groups, especially when those groups are independent variables in research. But R and V are not all or nothing, and most (I'd bet) studies are done with less than perfect R&V in how they've coded and identified their groups under study. So what. Discarding the study because the IV was not perfectly manipulated is indeed throwing the baby out.

Reliability ranges from 0 (there's absolutely no consistency to how people are being classified) to 1 (perfect consistency). I'd guess the R of race studies using self report is pretty near 1 or at least well over the threshold of .6 needed to experimental research (I don't see too many people changing how they answer: check the box that best indicates your race" from day to day).

Regarding validity, I suspect that were we to take the time and follow up self reports with blood tests, the correlation between self reports of race and blood group analysis would be very strong but not perfect. So, the self reported measure of race is strongly correlated with biological differences across race. Not perfectly so, but certainly well enough to study the construct scientifically.

So, I do think self-reports are valid (again, not perfectly so) indicators of the biological construct race. In fact, I've said before-- line up randomly selected people and I will code their race just by looking at them. Do blood group analysis. I'd bet my accuracy level would be well above chance levels and certainly high enough to manipulate my classifications in research with enough statistical power to detect differences between races if they indeed existed.

And that's the key. Using self-reports versus some biological maker weakens the power of my study to detect differences between races.
But if that's a problem the prediction is squarely this: The races won't show differences. They do, however-- strong ones replicated in 100s (maybe 1000s) of studies over 100 years.

Then one has to worry about a related construct -- internal validity. Are the results do (in this context) to biological versus environmental factors. This is far more difficult, and we've debated the evidence for and against that here many times. What I've seen for 20 years now is no evidence that anything environmental is causing the difference; strong evidence that IQ in general is determined by genes; weaker evidence that some part (not all) of the gap seems genetic. So that's where I'm at: Again, I think the differences are real and not entirely due to environmental factors. That's the best I can concluded at this time.

Gotta go to a wedding rehearsal so wont be available for an immediate reply.

In closing, I really think people demand too much when they insist that unless our classifications are perfectly accurate, they have no scientific utility. When researchers study gender, do they check in the subjects' pants, or just have it be self-reported? What about those that study religious preference-- should they speak with the minister first before daring to run the data? Sexual orientation, political preference, etc, etc.

A common ploy in research that gets published in top journals is to just split the data at the median (all above become the high group, all below become the low group). This is less than ideal and a much weaker manipulation-- I think-- than having people self report race. Yet, even the weak manipulation can be powerful enough to show significant differences across groups. I think people are here are missing this.


B

[bpesta22]

I have a similar problem with your repeated claim that forensic anthropologists can identify the race of a skull. I have not seen this claim before, and would be gratified for a citation. I would like to know, for instance what definition of race they used to determine whether they were right or wrong? I somehow doubt they traced the body's ancestry back 40 generations and tallied continental origins.

Just to be clear, there *are* statistical correlations between social racial identification and certain physical traits. There are also correlations between physical traits and ancestral origins. There are also correlations between ancestral origins and genetic relationships. There are also correlations between genetic relationships and intelligence.

But thats an awfully tenuous chain of correlations to take measurements from only the two extreme ends of the chain, and baldly claim that the explanation is genetic without presenting evidence.

I agree. Read the rushton and jensen article I cited. It examines the evidence along 13 different lines of research precisely for these reasons.

[Redtail]

Are you seriously comparing building a house and changing oil (things that can be done by countless members of this planet and that have had instructions in place to perform) to discovering the double helix?!?!

Really?

No, really?

Nope. I'm pointing out that perception of intelligence is relative.

[Redtail]

The point is invalid. Compare discovering something of historical significance to make a point that people are "differently smart". Comparing simple tasks to an incredible discovery is asinine.

Funny how things are simple until you try to do it.

[jimtron]

That race is a biological construct first is fairly obvious to me (note that claiming race is biological is not equivalent to claiming that 100% of the IQ gap is genetic-- I'm not doing that here).

I don't know what you mean by biological construct. Please elaborate regarding the biology of race (see last sentence below).

When researchers study gender, do they check in the subjects' pants, or just have it be self-reported? What about those that study religious preference-- should they speak with the minister first before daring to run the data? Sexual orientation, political preference, etc, etc.Do you really think gender and religious affiliation are analogous to race in this context? Firstly, gender is with few exceptions, a cut and dried issue. It's a simple thing to determine a person's gender, and it's scientific. With race it's much more ambiguous and subjective, and many here would say, unscientific (it's a social construct; there aren't strict, unique biological traits for each "race."

As for religion, it's certainly a social construct (unless you're a believer), and there's no scientific way to prove what religion someone is.

If race is more than a social construct, then someone please define the unique biological traits of each race, or at least the "white" and "black" races. And don't forget to address the mixed race issue (if one has ancestors of more than one "race").

[Hokulele]

So, I do think self-reports are valid (again, not perfectly so) indicators of the biological construct race. In fact, I've said before-- line up randomly selected people and I will code their race just by looking at them. Do blood group analysis. I'd bet my accuracy level would be well above chance levels and certainly high enough to manipulate my classifications in research with enough statistical power to detect differences between races if they indeed existed.


Did you read my previous post on this topic? I did mention that even self-identification is subject to societal pressure. My example is that in the USA, I am considered Asian, but in most of Asia, I am considered white (I am mixed race). The other example is the one Raskolnikov123 brought up regarding how Europeans do not consider black to mean only sub-saharan African origin. The person may self-identify differently depending on the society they are part of, which can throw off identity.

[Raskolnikov123]

Ras, thanks for your comments. One thing that strikes me in debating this topic so often here: So many smart posters argue that race is obviously only a social construct and that anyone entertaining otherwise is woefully mislead and foolish. I'm just as struck by the opposite conclusion. That race is a biological construct first is fairly obvious to me (note that claiming race is biological is not equivalent to claiming that 100% of the IQ gap is genetic-- I'm not doing that here).

I think most of these debates result in people talking past each other. As such, I think you miss my point here. Yes, there are aggregate physical differences between those who self-identify as white and black in America. But these differences are an inseperable mix of the biological and social.

They are biological in the sense that those self identified as black (at least in the US, not so in England) have a higher likelihood of ancestral descent from western Africa.

But the fact that we key on on those particular distinctions (skin color, nose shape, etc.) and call it "race" is a social construct. I can similarly key on redheads and guess that they have a higher likelihood of coming from Ireland. Or Blondes from Scandanavia. Or people with weak chins from England. Or a lot of chest hair and bulbous noses from the Med. But we don't call those groups races. The distinctions we draw as to what constitutes a race and what doesn't is arbitrary.

The fact that the black/white difference in the US actually *does* hone in on two groups that actually do have quite a bit of historic separation (Africans and Europeans) is solely because of a deliberate practice of slavery. If Slavers had grabbed New Guinea highlanders, Dravidians from India, Australian aborigines, and the Negritos of the Indian ocean, and brought them over as slaves, Americans would *also* probably call them all black, but many of those groups would *actually* be more closely related to those of European ancestry than they were to each other.

That is one sense in which race is social, not biological. Our racial definitions key in skin color, which isn't a very accurate method of actually measuring genetic relationships when you take the human race as a whole, not just the two groups that have the highest difference in shade (lily white northern europeans and west/southern africans).

The focus on skin color also leads to other inaccuracies, where skin color defines race even if actual genetic relationships lean the other way. Tiger Woods is the perfect example, more asiatic in ancestry than african, but the amount of melanin in his skin gets him usually labelled black. This is a wild card in a lot of racial identification, and it annoys the bejesus out of me when it gets ignored. Since you do know statistics, think of it as yet one more increase in the error term surrounding the daisy chain of correlative links between social identification, physicial features, ancestral origin, genetic relationships, and intelligence.

I also think that many of the criticisms re how race is measured come from people who obviously don't have experience doing research / were not trained as (at least) social scientists. Just a little bit of r&m should show that these criticisms can't be the answer to the puzzle.


I am a trained and experienced social researcher, so i don't have that problem. But I know the limits of my data. Yes, racial categories are useful in addressing social disparities and impacts in the US. Lots of indisputably social categories can be as well.

But I would be similarly wary of ascribing a hypothetical difference in the intelligence differences between protestants and catholics as genetic, without evidence. Genetic claims require either pretty strong controls (identical twins studies, for instance), or actual genetic evidence.

One likes to have perfectly reliable and valid measures / classifications for groups, especially when those groups are independent variables in research. But R and V are not all or nothing, and most (I'd bet) studies are done with less than perfect R&V in how they've coded and identified their groups under study. So what. Discarding the study because the IV was not perfectly manipulated is indeed throwing the baby out.

Reliability ranges from 0 (there's absolutely no consistency to how people are being classified) to 1 (perfect consistency). I'd guess the R of race studies using self report is pretty near 1 or at least well over the threshold of .6 needed to experimental research (I don't see too many people changing how they answer: check the box that best indicates your race" from day to day).

But I would argue that the racial categories described are only reliable within our current *social* context. Yep, ask a black American today what race he is, and he will check "black". Go to Nigeria 400 years ago, and ask an Ibo tribesman what race that same person is, and he will look at your funny. Ask a New Guinea Highlander what race he is, and I have no idea what answer you would get. Ask a white American what race a subcontinental Indian is, and they will probably be flummoxed, as they haven't thought about it. Ask a white Brit, and he will say "black".

Regarding validity, I suspect that were we to take the time and follow up self reports with blood tests, the correlation between self reports of race and blood group analysis would be very strong but not perfect. So, the self reported measure of race is strongly correlated with biological differences across race. Not perfectly so, but certainly well enough to study the construct scientifically.


But that's a guess on your part. I am less convinced than you are. Yes, I would expect to see some noticeable grouping that would have some positive correlation with self-identified racial categorization, but I don't think the r value would be nearly as high as you think, having seen some geographic maps of blood groupings. When you couple the loose correlation there with all of the other loose correlations in our daisy chain, and the end result starts looking damned tenuous, IMO.

And that's the key. Using self-reports versus some biological maker weakens the power of my study to detect differences between races.
But if that's a problem the prediction is squarely this: The races won't show differences. They do, however-- strong ones replicated in 100s (maybe 1000s) of studies over 100 years.


No, thats wrong. You are assuming the alternative is that the categorizations are essentially random. But I am instead saying that there is an extremely strong social component. As such, an alternative explanation for a difference between the group could obviously be social. Can we think of any important social difference between those who would identify as blacks and whites in America over the past 400 years?

Then one has to worry about a related construct -- internal validity. Are the results do (in this context) to biological versus environmental factors. This is far more difficult, and we've debated the evidence for and against that here many times. What I've seen for 20 years now is no evidence that anything environmental is causing the difference; strong evidence that IQ in general is determined by genes; weaker evidence that some part (not all) of the gap seems genetic. So that's where I'm at: Again, I think the differences are real and not entirely due to environmental factors. That's the best I can concluded at this time.


I think you may have missed some of the evidence. One of the most noticeable changes in IQ stats over time in the past 100 years has been the big improvement of IQ scores when you don't renormalize them. People today would test a lot higher on IQ tests that were administered 100 years ago. Google the Flynn Effect, which has been measured to be as much as 20 points, exceeding the difference you see between blacks and whites today.

If it isn't environmental, I suppose I could do what you do with regard to race and guess that the difference must be genetic. We have evolved to be 20% smarter in the past 100 years.

No, I don't find that plausible either.

Another challenge to your view is that black IQ scores have risen quite a bit in the last 20-30 years.

I find it more likely that there is something wrong with the way we are measuring the environmental impact on IQ.

In closing, I really think people demand too much when they insist that unless our classifications are perfectly accurate, they have no scientific utility. When researchers study gender, do they check in the subjects' pants, or just have it be self-reported? What about those that study religious preference-- should they speak with the minister first before daring to run the data? Sexual orientation, political preference, etc, etc.


I don't think I am demanding such an unreasonably high standard. If I want to estimate the percentage of a certain religion, I only have a few error terms to worry about. Sampling error, question interpretation error, and the rate of deliberate falsification. I don't think those will add up to a ton for a mainstream faith like Catholicism.

But with race and IQ, we are talking about a lot more error terms.

Error in the extent to which self-identification accurately assesses ancestral origins. Barack Obama, Halle Berry, etc.

Error in the extent to which knowledge of ancestral origins accurately measures genetic relationships. Rape was common by white slaveholders, and its pretty easy to visually identify an American descendant of an Angolan slave brought over 300 years ago, from a modern day Angolan. The American is usually a lot a paler. This is a major source of genetic error in simply lumping American blacks together with modern day Africans as one race.

Error in the extent to which genetic relationships based in an ancestral homeland actually resulted in differences in intelligence.

Error in the extent to which other influences on intelligence can be controlled for by the researcher.


Error in the extent to which IQ accurately measures intelligence (I am always reminded of an old Monty Python (?) sketch when germans and penguins were proven to have the same IQ because both tested the same when questions were asked in English).

Many of those error terms are pretty friggin big. Multiply them together, and I think you have a hell of a lot more noise than signal.

[jsfisher]

Just stop trying to be clever and aggro, it's not working for you.

"Physician, heal thyself."

Gurdur, seriously, have you considered trying to communicate rather than antagonize? Sure, you have a view at odds with his, but ridicule is not, in general, a persuasive argument.

Because I'm a very nice, generous bloke. :)

Evidence?

[athon]

I've defined race in other threads re this topic. My definition comes from r&j 2005:

To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks
(Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan
Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Eu-
rope; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from
Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza,
1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Al-
though he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum
237


My problem with using broad geographical areas for grouping genetic similarities as a 'race' is that this is hardly a reliable, static concept over time. Groups move, there are variances and instances of gene flow across time and various features which 'blur' out from a geographical location. For how long must there have been a group in one area before it can be declared the same 'race'? While the Sahara might make a good visual boundary, and gene flow across it might be limited, does this impediment to gene flow translate into anything significant enough to create a defined line for 'race'? Population geneticists often run into similar problems of defining the parameters of their populations.

It's difficult enough to map out the genetic relations between small family groups, let alone make generalisations about a continent's population. So while I have no problem with somebody using a group of genes to provide a correlation between phylogeny and intelligence, I have big reservations using geographical locations for markers of intelligence.

Athon

[athon]

I think most of these debates result in people talking past each other. As such, I think you miss my point here. Yes, there are aggregate physical differences between those who self-identify as white and black in America. But these differences are an inseperable mix of the biological and social.

Ras, thanks for the input. It reflects more or less what I've learned in the social and cultural research I've done, and then some.

Cheers,

Athon

[bpesta22]

Did you read my previous post on this topic? I did mention that even self-identification is subject to societal pressure. My example is that in the USA, I am considered Asian, but in most of Asia, I am considered white (I am mixed race). The other example is the one Raskolnikov123 brought up regarding how Europeans do not consider black to mean only sub-saharan African origin. The person may self-identify differently depending on the society they are part of, which can throw off identity.

I dont remember if I read it-- sorry. Again, though, if race were so poorly defined, and existed only as a social construct, why such consistent results (now across cultures worldwide) re race and IQ. Why does coding people by skin color produce replicated consistent results over 100 years worth of research?

I'm not talking about simple correlations between race group and IQ, but converging evidence across a wide variety of research paradigms in psych.

Just one example, If race is a social construct and there are no biological causes driving IQ differences then explain this well replicated pattern of data:

Subjects sit in front of an array containing eight light bulbs. They hold their index finger on a home key. On each trial, three of the lights-- at random-- turn on. The task is to consider the three lit lights, and touch the one that's farthest away from the other two.

Two RT values are calculated: CT and MT. CT is the time between the lights going on and the subject lifting his finger off the home key. It represents how long the brain takes to make it's decision on which light is farther away. MT is the time from when the subject lifts his finger until when he touches the light. MT represents only motor speed / response execution. The brain already knows what light bulb it wants to touch, and now the finger is executing the command.

CT correlates as strongly with IQ as IQ does with GPA. MT correlates zero with IQ.

Blacks are faster on MT and slower on CT. Whites, just the opposite.

What social / environmental thing explains this? How is it possible that societal differences across invalid "race categories" make one poorly defined group faster to touch the bulb but slower to lift the finger from the home key in the same trial's worth of data (all of which takes less than 1 second)?

I have data, published now, where I group people based on self-identified race. All subjects do two tasks. In one, three letters appear (SAS). The task is to simply indicate which position the A appears in, as fast and as accurately as possible. The vast majority of people I've ran on this can do the task with high accuracy under 1/2 seconds per trial.

The second task shows two lines on a computer screen. The lines are presented real brief, and the subject just has to indicate which line is longer. The measure is how brief the lines can be flashed where one can still tell which line is longer. The vast majority of subjects can do this with lines flashed (and even masked thereafter to make it more difficult) for only 100 ms. Some subjects can still do it with IT's of 15 MS-- about twice as fast as an eye blink.

These are not tasks that depend on motivation. I've done enough RT studies to know that if you're trying to show a 15 ms effect as being significant, you better have properly defined IV's, and some pretty good controls in place.

The two tasks produce moderate to large race differences. And, the race differences on these tasks completely mediate the race difference on a paper and pencil IQ test.

Even within races, people slow on these tasks score low on IQ tests and vice versa.

Alone, this seems like compelling evidence of something biological differing across the two groups. I see no semi-parsimonious social explanation that can account for the data pattern. Add to this a dozen other independent lines of research netting the same conclusions and perhaps you can forgive me for thinking the difference is biological even if I can't define race biologically (which could be due to ignorance versus their being no real definition-- as far as I know, we can measure gravity with precision but don't really know what it is).

The science here-- even if it's wrong-- is sophisticated. We're not looking at differences on a vocab test made in the USA and ran on sub saharan africans, and then claiming eureka, whites are superior.

I think when one looks at the totality of the evidence (no one here seems willing to do that) the conclusions I'm making are scientifically warranted if not inescapable.

We can posit all kinds of possible explanations for why groups differ in mean IQ. Those explanations though got to explain the specific data patterns that are well replicated in the literature. If you can find a social one that does so, you could easily make a name for yourself in the field. Good luck!

[bpesta22]

RS-- more in a bit, but you should note that the Flynn effect is losing its muster as the sacred cow of something/anything in the environment that seems to affect IQ.

Browse through this year's abstracts in the journal, Intelligence. Quite a few articles are coming out showing no flynn effect, and even reverse flynn effects. Others have convincing data showing that the effect is not a g (general intelligence) effect, but something else. IQ scores might be rising, but intelligence (g) doesn't seem to be.

Of course, there's no scientific consensus (so I suspect you can still find pro Flynn effect articles out there). Only time will tell which side is right, but it's clear the Flynn effect is not the slam dunk for the environment that it was claimed to be.

[bpesta22]

Some converging evidence for biological differences across race groups (admitting I personally don’t know the biological definition of race, but submitting that these data can’t exist if race was not in part biological). As said above, I think we can measure things reliably and validly even if we don’t have a complete theoretical understanding of them (we’ve been doing it with IQ for over 100 years).

From Rushton and Jensen, 2005:

1) Global mean differences in IQ: East Asians score higher than whites—both in the USA and in Asia.

Asian group mean is 106; 100 for whites; 85 for blacks. “100s of studies on millions of people confirm the three-way racial pattern”

**The patterns also exist on culture fair IQ tests, and on reaction time tasks.

**The difference appear as early as three (black / white) or six (white / Asian) years of age.



2) IQ tests are not biased: IQ tests meet neither the legal nor psychometric definition of bias. This conclusion is so well documented that even the American court system recognizes the validity (i.e. job relatedness) of IQ tests, even though blacks score lower on them.



3) Evidence for the spearman hypothesis: This predicts that the magnitude of the black-white difference on any cognitive test will correspond to how g-loaded that test is (i.e., how well the test measures the general factor of intelligence, in addition to whatever specific ability the test is supposed to measure). For example, race differences on digit span backwards are twice as large as that for digit span forward (with the backwards task being about twice as g loaded).

From the article: “Jensen (1998b, pp. 369–379) summarized 17 independent data sets of nearly 45,000 Blacks and 245,000 Whites derived from 149 psychometric tests and found that the g loadings consistently predicted the magnitude of the mean Black–White group difference (r.62). This was borne out even among 3-year-olds administered eight subtests of the Stanford–Binet in which the rank correlation between g loadings and the mean Black–White group differences was .71 .”



4) Twin studies / factor structure studies:

Osborne’s (1980) Georgia Twin Study compared 123 Black and 304 White pairs of 12- to 18-year-old twins drawn from schools in Georgia, Kentucky, and Indiana, given the Basic Test Battery, along with smaller subsets of twins given the Primary Mental Abilities test and the Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence test.

Osborne found heritabilities of about 50% for both Blacks and Whites, all significantly different from zero but not from each other. (The heritabilities of the Basic, Primary, and Cattell tests were, respectively, for Whites, 0.61, 0.37, and 0.71, and for Blacks, 0.75, 0.42, and 0.19; Osborne, 1980)



5) Same factor structure across races:

The factor structure of cognitive ability is nearly identical for Blacks and for Whites, as was found in the studies by Owen (1992) and Rushton and Skuy (2000; Rushton et al., 2002, 2003) comparing Africans, East Indians, and Whites on the item structures of tests
described in Section 3. There was no “Factor X” specific to race.

The hereditarian model predicts race differences will be greater on those subtests that are more heritable within races, whereas culture-only theory predicts they will be greater on
subtests that are more culturally malleable (i.e., those with lower heritabilities) on which races should grow apart as a result of dissimilar experiences.

Analyses of several independent data sets support the genetic hypothesis. Nichols (1972, cited in Jensen, 1973, pp. 116–117) was the first to apply differential heritabilities in the study of racial-group differences. He estimated the heritability of 13 tests from 543 pairs of 7-year-old siblings, including an equal number of Blacks and Whites, and found a .67 correlation between the heritability of a test and the magnitude of the Black–White group difference on that test. Subsequently, Jensen (1973, pp. 103–119) calculated the environmentality of a test (defined as the degree to which sibling correlations departed from the pure genetic expectation of 0.50) in Black and in White children and found it was inversely related to the magnitude of the Black–White group difference (r
–.70); that is, the more environmentally influenced a test, the less pronounced its Black–White group difference.



6) Inbreeding depression and IQ scores.

Inbreeding depression occurs in offspring who receive the same harmful recessive genes from each of their closely related parents. Rushton found a positive correlation between inbreeding depression scores calculated from 1,854 cousin-marriages in Japan and the magnitude of the mean Black–White group difference in the United States on the same 11 Wechsler tests (.48). This contradicts
culture-only theory, which predicts that mean differences between Blacks and Whites should be greater on those subtests most affected by the environment (i.e., those showing the lowest amount of inbreeding depression). We know of no nongenetic explanation for the relation between inbreeding depression scores from Japan and mean Black–White group differences in the United States.


7) Brain size differences across race

Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size.


I’ll stop here for now as I doubt anyone will read this (I felt compelled to post it nonetheless). If anyone appreciates the above, let me know and I will try to summarize the relevant parts of the rest of the article (this is only roughly the first 1/3 of it)

I want to end with a link to Table 3 on page 265 showing other race differences. I think a social-only view of race might have a hard time explaining why these patterns emerge. I wonder if the biology of race couldn’t be partly defined by the group differences on the maturational factors.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

All of the above suggest—at least to me—that race has a biological component that’s more than just whatever genes code for skin color. If I can’t tell you what those components are does that mean they cant exist and can’t be at least partially responsible for race differences on IQ scores?


p.s. I realize not all of the 7 points above directly address the issue of biology and race. Some of the earlier ones are lead ins to the rest of the article, which I planned on summarizing in full, but ran out of steam.

[bpesta22]

I never claimed to be a genticist, but I found this in the R&J article:

On the basis of existing surveys, an individual’s racial group can be determined by testing his or her DNA at 100 random sites along the genome, or at 30 specifically chosen ones. Even different ethnic groups within a race can be distinguished using some 50 specifically chosen sites.


Sure seems like a biological / genetic test of race.

Anyone familiar with what they're getting at here?

p 262.

[JoeEllison]

It would probably be better not to quote racists"controversial people" like Rushton and Jensen when discussing topics like these... I'm just saying...

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Ugh, are we seriously going back to brain size determining intelligence?

Even after you confess to not knowing a biological definition of race.

And you seem to conflate race and ethnicity.

And I'm going to sleep.

[JoeEllison]

Ugh, are we seriously going back to brain size determining intelligence?

Even after you confess to not knowing a biological definition of race.

And you seem to conflate race and ethnicity.

And I'm going to sleep.

Don't worry... it will be the same nonsense when you wake up! :D

[Whack01]

Two RT values are calculated: CT and MT. CT is the time between the lights going on and the subject lifting his finger off the home key. It represents how long the brain takes to make it's decision on which light is farther away. MT is the time from when the subject lifts his finger until when he touches the light. MT represents only motor speed / response execution. The brain already knows what light bulb it wants to touch, and now the finger is executing the command.





I don't quite follow how that should determine intelligence? I mean seriously consider the physics of this. If a person possess the logic to trivially determine whether or not something is true or false, why should it take longer for the signals to transmit in one subject to the next if the underlying chemical mechanism driving the logic is the same? That is to say the task is so trivial that the experiment should be testing the speed of the chemical reaction and not the logical power of the mind. In which case any difference would indicate a verifiable chemical difference wouldn't it? (which is relatively easy to test for via conventional means)

Also the most efficient algorithm for an individual to achieve CT time is probably not to wait till they have identified the bulb, but to start moving slightly before identifying it. I'm not a biologist (my degree is in Comp Sci), but if I were you I'd at least try to somehow monitor the signals being passed to the arm muscles, so that I could check for increased activity just prior to the bulb going on.

[athon]

I never claimed to be a genticist, but I found this in the R&J article:

On the basis of existing surveys, an individual’s racial group can be determined by testing his or her DNA at 100 random sites along the genome, or at 30 specifically chosen ones. Even different ethnic groups within a race can be distinguished using some 50 specifically chosen sites.


Sure seems like a biological / genetic test of race.

Anyone familiar with what they're getting at here?

p 262.

I can't find the paper, so can you tell us their success at determining a 'race'? Are they using the 'geographical location' descriptor for a definition? What of borderline populations which sit close the the border zones of two geographical locations?

I can accept that if somebody possess a gene or collection of genes it is possible to identify a geographical ancestory (your family lineage can be traced through position X about Y generations ago). I can also accept that such genes can influence a range of phenological characteristics associated with what we collectively call intelligence. Yet it is done no justice by calling this a 'racial difference' for a number of reasons.

You might think this is pedantic, but the language used to describe the phenomena is significant in providing details of how it works, where to look next and how this information could possibly be useful. 'Race' is a dud term which hasn't been seen as useful by population biologists for a long, long time. And the only rebuttal many people seem to have is 'but it's obvious that there are black people and Asian people and white people...' as if that provides an answer.

Athon

[Raskolnikov123]

I dont remember if I read it-- sorry. Again, though, if race were so poorly defined, and existed only as a social construct, why such consistent results (now across cultures worldwide) re race and IQ. Why does coding people by skin color produce replicated consistent results over 100 years worth of research?

I'm not talking about simple correlations between race group and IQ, but converging evidence across a wide variety of research paradigms in psych.

Just one example, If race is a social construct and there are no biological causes driving IQ differences then explain this well replicated pattern of data:

Subjects sit in front of an array containing eight light bulbs. They hold their index finger on a home key. On each trial, three of the lights-- at random-- turn on. The task is to consider the three lit lights, and touch the one that's farthest away from the other two.

Two RT values are calculated: CT and MT. CT is the time between the lights going on and the subject lifting his finger off the home key. It represents how long the brain takes to make it's decision on which light is farther away. MT is the time from when the subject lifts his finger until when he touches the light. MT represents only motor speed / response execution. The brain already knows what light bulb it wants to touch, and now the finger is executing the command.

CT correlates as strongly with IQ as IQ does with GPA. MT correlates zero with IQ.

Blacks are faster on MT and slower on CT. Whites, just the opposite.

What social / environmental thing explains this? How is it possible that societal differences across invalid "race categories" make one poorly defined group faster to touch the bulb but slower to lift the finger from the home key in the same trial's worth of data (all of which takes less than 1 second)?



1) I am not making the claim that there is no genetic link between a hypothetical population group defined by common ancestry/geography, and intelligence. I am instead claiming that none of the studies you cite actually do that. They instead use rough proxies, such as social identification.

2) The results you describe are incapable of distinguishing between a genetic explanation and a social one. Imagine if one group took a visible physical identifier, such as hair color, skin color, and eye color, and used that visual marker to enslave, dehumanize, deny education, provide inferior health care, and socially ostracize another group for the next 400 years. Now further imagine that this social attitude and uncommon national origins meant that this socially persecuted group never became fully culturally integrated, speaking a different dialect, and raised in an environment with somewhat different attitudes toward what was important to learn. For example, no sense wasting time studying science, as they aren't ever going to let you rise above being a bellhop anyway. Do you not consider it possible that such a social environment could effect something like neurological response time? After all, a good share of the nervous system wasn't constructed until after the brain was influenced by its social environment.

The whole question of genetic differences in intelligence between races is errant nonsense if you can't even define race biologically.


We can posit all kinds of possible explanations for why groups differ in mean IQ. Those explanations though got to explain the specific data patterns that are well replicated in the literature. If you can find a social one that does so, you could easily make a name for yourself in the field. Good luck!


Yeah, but its simple question begging of the highest order to say that since you can't easily control for social factors (good luck conducting a randomized double blind trial that allocates babies of different races to different families), it must be genetics.

[Raskolnikov123]

I want to end with a link to Table 3 on page 265 showing other race differences. I think a social-only view of race might have a hard time explaining why these patterns emerge. I wonder if the biology of race couldn’t be partly defined by the group differences on the maturational factors.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...sen30years.pdf (http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf)

All of the above suggest—at least to me—that race has a biological component that’s more than just whatever genes code for skin color. If I can’t tell you what those components are does that mean they cant exist and can’t be at least partially responsible for race differences on IQ scores?

I have been suspecting that these studies you were citing were limited to American blacks. The link you point to confirms just that. Yeah, if I want to understand whether there is a genetic component to race, I am going to grab as my sample a group that was selected primarily from the west coast of Africa, and then interbred systematically with the population group I am comparing them to. That same group is then socioeconomically stepped on for 400 years. The comparison group will also consist of a sample primarily drawn from northwestern europe, not randomly, but by self-selection for ambition, or by being kicked out of the mother country. I will now look at the differences between the two groups and generalize them to all people of European and subsaharan African descent.

And you wonder why these claims get laughed off the stage.

[Raskolnikov123]

I never claimed to be a genticist, but I found this in the R&J article:

On the basis of existing surveys, an individual’s racial group can be determined by testing his or her DNA at 100 random sites along the genome, or at 30 specifically chosen ones. Even different ethnic groups within a race can be distinguished using some 50 specifically chosen sites.


Sure seems like a biological / genetic test of race.

Anyone familiar with what they're getting at here?



They don't specify the accuracy of the determination. The rate of false positives and false negatives. A lecturer I once heard claimed it was pretty high, but his wording didn't break out false positives and negatives. He said 60% accuracy, but my reaction was that I can get 80% accuracy by just guessing "white" in the US, so I think he probably wasn't clear.

And I will bet you money that the methodologies used are based on populations in the US. This is extremely relevant. It is one thing to use a genetic test that with high accuracy can sift out those of west african ancestry from those of european ancestry in a population pool that is known to contain people from both continents.

It is quite another to say that you can use these genes to define the two groups as "races". With sufficient sophistication, I have little doubt that genetic testing could sort out people from England from those in Italy, with accuracy exceeding chance. It doesn't mean the groups are "races".

Remember, to say that race is a social construct is not to say that different population groups do not have differences. Clearly they do. Whats arbitrary and social is the level at which these differences are determined to be relevant (why skin color and not height), and the level at which the population groups themselves are aggregated (English/Germanic/IndoEuropean/Caucasian - why is the last one a race but the others arent).

[jimtron]

Blacks are faster on MT and slower on CT. Whites, just the opposite.

Please define "blacks" and "whites."

[Raskolnikov123]

Let me be clear. I do not consider it nonsense to look at differences between American racial groups. As a social category, race is extremely important, and is at the root of a wide variety of American social and economic problems. Psychological studies that dig into such questions can be very valuable.

But its nonsense when take the reality of these differences and use them to prove either:

1) that the concept of race itself therefore has biological meaning. Thats like insisting that different birth rates between Catholics and Protestants prove that Catholics and Protestants are different racial groups, and that racial groups therefore must exist.

2) that the differences between the races in America has any relevance whatsoever on a comparison between population groups defined as those of European descent and those of subsaharan African descent. It should be frigging obvious that the sampling problems and the potential for omitted variable bias are huge.

3) I also think the question of intelligence differences between population grups is a bad question to even try to answer right now. Just because science can potentially answer certain questions doesn't mean it should. Look up Dr. Mengele for examples. The vast majority of the population knows that this is just an ugly can of worms, and therefore wonders at the motives of those who persist in digging anyway. Yes, I am presumptive in speaking for this "vast majority".

[Tokenconservative]

Or so says Nobel Prize winner, Dr James Watson.

Apparently, this has been an unpopular statement.

This type of statement seems to severely upset some people. If true, how is it racist? I'm offering no opinion here, but Watson is not the first to make this link, and in every case, the proponents are classed as racist immediately and that's the end of it.

It appears to be unpopular?

No! You don't say!!

LOL.

Indeed. Anytime anyone attempts an HONEST scientific look at such differences (if any) they are of course shouted down as a "racist" or "sexist" or whatever.

Look at how research into the differences between the male human animal and the female human animal have gone nearly completely away. Just try and mention things like the very real physiological and yes, mental differences between men and wymyn and see what happens.

Let's say, for example, you are the president of an Ivy League university and you make note of the FACT that fewer women go into the maths and sciences than do men.

I hope you have one of those CIA cyanide-capsule-molars...you'll need it!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Let me be clear. I do not consider it nonsense to look at differences between American racial groups. As a social category, race is extremely important, and is at the root of a wide variety of American social and economic problems. Psychological studies that dig into such questions can be very valuable.

But its nonsense when take the reality of these differences and use them to prove either:

1) that the concept of race itself therefore has biological meaning. Thats like insisting that different birth rates between Catholics and Protestants prove that Catholics and Protestants are different racial groups, and that racial groups therefore must exist.

2) that the differences between the races in America has any relevance whatsoever on a comparison between population groups defined as those of European descent and those of subsaharan African descent. It should be frigging obvious that the sampling problems and the potential for omitted variable bias are huge.

3) I also think the question of intelligence differences between population grups is a bad question to even try to answer right now. Just because science can potentially answer certain questions doesn't mean it should. Look up Dr. Mengele for examples. The vast majority of the population knows that this is just an ugly can of worms, and therefore wonders at the motives of those who persist in digging anyway. Yes, I am presumptive in speaking for this "vast majority".


Hmm...so are you saying that those with subsaharan genetic strains are not in fact, physically different from those with say, Nordic strains?

Tokie

[bpesta22]

Ugh, are we seriously going back to brain size determining intelligence?

Even after you confess to not knowing a biological definition of race.

And you seem to conflate race and ethnicity.

And I'm going to sleep.

I dunno if it's this thread or one of the others, but I mention the standard tactic of marginalizing the whole field / ignoring research evidence because it was written by rushton or jensen or murray, etc.

As skeptics, is that judging books by covers?

I note that the article I cite was published in an A journal of the APA.

Why would they publish such racist nonsense?

Also as skeptics, shouldn't we rely on scientific evidence? Though I've never claimed brain size determines IQ, there are now lots of published articles showing that indeed brain size correlates with IQ.

Even a recent meta-analyses. These too are published in peer-reviewed articles. It's easy to dismiss them when you don't read them, but I guess the peer-reviewers and journal editors reached at least the conclusion that they merited publication.

In fact, the evidence now that brain size correlates with IQ is compelling. That "skeptics" here dismiss it without even looking at it makes me yawn too.

[bpesta22]

I don't quite follow how that should determine intelligence? I mean seriously consider the physics of this. If a person possess the logic to trivially determine whether or not something is true or false, why should it take longer for the signals to transmit in one subject to the next if the underlying chemical mechanism driving the logic is the same? That is to say the task is so trivial that the experiment should be testing the speed of the chemical reaction and not the logical power of the mind. In which case any difference would indicate a verifiable chemical difference wouldn't it? (which is relatively easy to test for via conventional means)

Also the most efficient algorithm for an individual to achieve CT time is probably not to wait till they have identified the bulb, but to start moving slightly before identifying it. I'm not a biologist (my degree is in Comp Sci), but if I were you I'd at least try to somehow monitor the signals being passed to the arm muscles, so that I could check for increased activity just prior to the bulb going on.

That's the beauty of it. Explain the data. Why should some trivial cognitive process completely mediate race differences on standardized IQ tests?

Why should judging the length of rapidly presented lines correlate as strongly with g as some subsections (e.g., vocab and math) on IQ tests correlate with each other?

The idea is that general intelligence is some combo of very basic cognitive processes-- neural efficiency; myelenization, speed of processing and working memory / attentional capacity.

These processes are so basic that they influence everything cognitive we do (which then offers a parsimonious account of the positive manifold).

Jensen-- the racist-- has data showing a moderate correlation between the speed with which single neurons in the brain fire and global iq. There are also correlations in the literature for IQ and neuro-psych processes (glucose uptake and other fancy smancy stuff neuroscientists use to measure brain function) and IQ.

Also, your comments re CT and MT perhaps being invalid (i.e., CT might not really be the time the brain needs to make a decision and MT might not be just response execution) are empirical questions. If we have CT and MT defined wrong, how is it possible to get the consistent and non-intuitive pattern of data that we get in this task (replicated over and over again). Why should MT-- a pure motor response-- correlate zero with IQ, but CT correlate strongly and mediate differences with other IV's, if indeed these are mislabeled?

[bpesta22]

I have been suspecting that these studies you were citing were limited to American blacks. The link you point to confirms just that. Yeah, if I want to understand whether there is a genetic component to race, I am going to grab as my sample a group that was selected primarily from the west coast of Africa, and then interbred systematically with the population group I am comparing them to. That same group is then socioeconomically stepped on for 400 years. The comparison group will also consist of a sample primarily drawn from northwestern europe, not randomly, but by self-selection for ambition, or by being kicked out of the mother country. I will now look at the differences between the two groups and generalize them to all people of European and subsaharan African descent.

And you wonder why these claims get laughed off the stage.

This is ********. Read the article. The number of citations on studies done on blacks in africa is overwhelming.

The racists, rushton, lynn and others actually spent time over there testing 10s of thousands of non american blacks.

I summarized a bit of the article above because no one here seems to want to do their homework and read one article on the topic (not singling you out, but someone needs to read the article besides me).

[technoextreme]

It appears to be unpopular?

No! You don't say!!

LOL.

Indeed. Anytime anyone attempts an HONEST scientific look at such differences (if any) they are of course shouted down as a "racist" or "sexist" or whatever.

Look at how research into the differences between the male human animal and the female human animal have gone nearly completely away. Just try and mention things like the very real physiological and yes, mental differences between men and wymyn and see what happens.

Let's say, for example, you are the president of an Ivy League university and you make note of the FACT that fewer women go into the maths and sciences than do men.

I hope you have one of those CIA cyanide-capsule-molars...you'll need it!

Tokie
First nothing he said was valid science. It was just random unsubstantiated crap. Second of all the president of Harvard got fired for make a random unsubstantiated comment. It's funny how you forget the people in the room who were citing studies that said he was wrong. Not only that but he was also under heat for
'Here was this economist lecturing pompously [to] this room full of the country's most accomplished scholars on women's issues in science and engineering, and he kept saying things we had refuted in the first half of the day," said Denton, the outgoing dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington.

[bpesta22]

I'll be at a wedding all day today. I will concede all points I've made in this thread to any poster now who hasn't spent a few minutes reading the article. You win!

To those who won't read it because jensen and rushton wrote it. You lose. There's no skeptical defense of dismissing something you haven't read.

To those with the claus-like repetition of asking me to define black and white, note that I did so. If you think the definition's invalid, well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but don't pretend like I'm avoiding your probing questions.

If anyone disagrees with me that we can measure something with precision even if we don't have a complete theoretical understanding of what that is, then we've reached the end of the discussion here too. You win (but ponder whether the hard sciences measure things with precision even without complete theoretical understanding of what's being measured)!

We're at the stage now in this thread where to avoid strawmen we either read and discuss what the article says or go our separate ways.

It's a review article, too, so I don't think it's putting eggs in one basket. It summarizes 30 years of research on the issue, and it's recent-- 2005. It's what skeptics need to debunk to have a non-gould like impact on the field.

[technoextreme]

To those who won't read it because jensen and rushton wrote it. You lose. There's no skeptical defense of dismissing something you haven't read.

To those with the claus-like repetition of asking me to define black and white, note that I did so. If you think the definition's invalid, well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but don't pretend like I'm avoiding your probing questions.
Wait is this the same Rushton that used Penthouse as a scientific source? If so that pretty much counts as a basis to dismiss anything he writes.

[bpesta22]

Wait is this the same Rushton that used Penthouse as a scientific source? If so that pretty much counts as a basis to dismiss anything he writes.

I think he did though I haven't read much on it.

Others don't seem to share your view -- specifically the editors / agents of the APA. Not only do they read his stuff, they send it out for critical evaluation re peer review, and then even decide to publish it in the best journals thereafter.

He should be an easy target then for us skeptics?

[Raskolnikov123]

This is ********. Read the article. The number of citations on studies done on blacks in africa is overwhelming.

The racists, rushton, lynn and others actually spent time over there testing 10s of thousands of non american blacks.

I summarized a bit of the article above because no one here seems to want to do their homework and read one article on the topic (not singling you out, but someone needs to read the article besides me).


I am going by what the article itself *says*...

"
Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks
and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A
meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed
it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT; N 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination
(GRE; N 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings
(N 0.5 million) and in the military (N 0.4 million). Because test scores are
the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter,
1998), these group differences have important societal outcomes (R. A. Gordon,
1997; Gottfredson, 1997).
The question that still remains is whether the cause of group differences in
average IQ is purely social, economic, and cultural or whether genetic factors are
also involved."

Given that this is in the introduction, it strongly implies that this premise was fundamental to their research, and the intro mentions no other basis for the differential. Reading further, I do see other studies cited that are rooted in Africa. Fair point. I still think there are strong socio-economic/environmental control issues there as well. The authors' handwaving over the problem of bias is extremely unconvincing. The results are robust because they predict future job success? Nonsense, as the job success is in the same economy in which the measure is taking place. A strong downward bias in the testing wouldn't reveal itself in poor economic performance at the top.

Look at it this way, imagine two different countries. In both, the average IQ is 70. But in country A the lower result compared to the rest of the world is a testing artifact. In country B, the population is actually a lot dumber. In *both* countries, you would *still* expect the highest IQ performers to have the highest job performance. As such, the fact that the higher IQs *do* have better job performance tells you absolutely nothing about whether the test is biased.

The fact that the authors make such a colossal interpretive error is extremely telling.

Another one I have already called to your attention, but I didn't realize your racial definition came from this article. They can *define* race any way they want, but it does jack to solve the definitional problem if the studies in their meta analysis don't define race the same way. This sort of definitional/coding problem is a big one in any meta analysis or lit survey, and they don't even tackle the issue.

I also think there is a huge failing in the evidence and your thinking where you don't even bother to look at IQ differentials *within* "racial" groups to get a good idea of the extent to which IQ can be a function of socio-economics and the environment. West Virginians test quite a bit lower than people from Massachusetts on IQ tests. Is that a genetic racial difference, and proof that West Virginians are a different race from Bostonians?

Or how about the way immigrant groups to the US saw their IQs skyrocket after a couple of generations?

So no, I am not going to read the whole article. The shell game they play over racial definitions and their interpretive problems deep six any trust I have for the quality of their research. I would have to double check any citations they give before I would believe them anyway, and I frankly don't have the time.

[Raskolnikov123]

To those with the claus-like repetition of asking me to define black and white, note that I did so. If you think the definition's invalid, well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but don't pretend like I'm avoiding your probing questions.


You miss the point. Show me that any of the studies mentioned have actually *used* the definition you provided. There should be a nice section in their research methodology where they specify how far many generations back they tallied ancestors for geographic origins.


If anyone disagrees with me that we can measure something with precision even if we don't have a complete theoretical understanding of what that is, then we've reached the end of the discussion here too. You win (but ponder whether the hard sciences measure things with precision even without complete theoretical understanding of what's being measured)!


This also misses the point. Its obviously easy to measure something when I don't know what it is. Grab a random substance off a chemistry shelf, and hand it to me. I can measure its weight and volume and temperature with extreme precision, without having a clue what is. This is a transparent straw man.

The problem is that:

1) "race" itself is poorly defined. I can talk about subsaharan african population groups easily. Similarly I can talk about European population groups. But then we start running into major sampling problems. Why are the Asian IQ tests mentioned in your link in heavily industrialized and westernized Hong Kong, rather than rural Myanmar? Why are the "white" samples in places like the US, Britain, and Ireland, not rural Kazazhstan, Armenia, and Bulgaria? Do these sampling problems really escape the notice of the researchers? If I want to test racial differences in IQ, and I grab one sample from Hong Kong, one from England, and one from Johannesburg, and claim the results can be generalized to each "race", and *then* claim that the difference itself proves that races exist, does nothing faulty about that methodology jump out at you?

2) The studies that supposedly prove your point don't use the operational definition of races that you say they use. They, and you, are playing a shell game.

Define your terms, and then actually use that definition in your scientific investigation. This is pretty friggin basic science, but it seems to escape your racial researchers.

[technoextreme]

I think he did though I haven't read much on it.

Others don't seem to share your view -- specifically the editors / agents of the APA. Not only do they read his stuff, they send it out for critical evaluation re peer review, and then even decide to publish it in the best journals thereafter.

He should be an easy target then for us skeptics?
[Rule 10]. Plenty of people hold my view. He's been attacked multiple times.

[Raskolnikov123]

I also think you too blithely dismiss the problems the Flynn effect presents. The APA statement that you liked citing earlier has this to say about it.

"
Perhaps the most striking of all environmental effects is the steady worldwide rise in intelligence test performance. Although many psychometricians had noted these gains, it was James Flynn (1984, 1987) who first described them systematically. His analysis shows that performance has been going up ever since testing began. The "Flynn Effect" is now very well documented, not only in the United States but in many other technologically advanced countries. The average gain is about three IQ points per decade; more than a full standard deviation since, say, 1940.
Although it is simplest to describe the gains as increases in population IQ, this is not exactly what happens. Most intelligence tests are "re-standardized" from time to time, in part to keep up with these very gains. As part of this process the mean score of the new standardization sample is typically set to 100 again, so the increase more or less disappears from view. In this context, the Flynn effect means that if twenty years have passed since the last time the test was standardized, people who now score 100 on the new version would probably average about 106 on the old one.
The sheer extent of these increases is remarkable, and the rate of gain may even be increasing. The scores of nineteen-year-olds in the Netherlands, for example, went up more than 8 points—over half a standard deviation-between 1972 and 1982. What's more, the largest gains appear on the types of tests that were specifically designed to be free of cultural influence (Flynn, 1987). One of these is Raven's Progressive Matrices, an untimed non-verbal test that many psychometricians regard as a good measure of g.
These steady gains in intelligence test performance have not always been accompanied by corresponding gains in school achievement. Indeed, the relation between intelligence and achievement test scores can be complex. This is especially true for the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), in part because the ability range of the students who take the SAT has broadened over time. That change explains some portion, but not all, of the prolonged decline in SAT scores that took place from the mid nineteen-sixties to the early eighties, even as IQ scores were continuing to rise(Flynn, 1984). Meanwhile, however, other more representative measures show that school achievement levels have held steady or in some cases actually increased [Hermstein & Murray, 1994). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), for example, shows that the average reading and math achievement of American 13- and l7-year-olds improved somewhat from the early nineteen-seventies to 1990 (Grissmer, Kirby, Berends & Williamson, 1994). An analysis of these data by ethnic group, reported in Section 5, shows that this small overall increase actually reflects very substantial gains by Blacks and Latinos combined with little or no gain by Whites.
The consistent IQ gains documented by Flynn seem much too large to result from simple increases in test sophistication. Their cause is presently unknown, but three interpretations deserve our consideration. Perhaps the most plausible of these is based on the striking cultural differences between successive generations. Daily life and occupational experience both seem more "complex" (Kohn & Schooler, 1973) today than in the time of our parents and grandparents. The population is increasingly urbanized; television exposes us to more information and more perspectives on more topics than ever before; children stay in school longer; almost everyone seems to be encountering new forms of experience. These changes in the complexity of life may have produced corresponding changes in complexity of mind, and hence in certain psychometric abilities.
A different hypothesis attributes the gains to modern improvements in nutrition. Lynn (1990) points out that large nutritionally-based increases in height have occurred during the same period as the IQ gains: perhaps there have been increases in brain size as well. As we have seen, however, the effects of nutrition on intelligence are themselves not firmly established.
The third interpretation addresses the very definition of intelligence. Flynn himself believes that real intelligence—whatever it may be—cannot have increased as much as these data would suggest. Consider, for example, the number of individuals who have IQ scores of 140 or more. (This is slightly above the cutoff used by L.M. Terman (1925) in his famous longitudinal study of "genius.") In 1952 only 0.38% of Dutch test takers had IQs over 140; in 1982, scored by the same norms, 9. 12% exceeded this figure! Judging by these criteria, the Netherlands should now be experiencing "...a cultural renaissance too great to be overlooked" (Flynn, 1987, p.187). So too should France, Norway, the United States, and many other countries. Because Flynn (1987) finds this conclusion implausibie or absurd, he argues that what has risen cannot be intelligence itself but only a minor sort of "abstract problem solving ability." The issue remains unresolved."

------------------------

These wild swings should give you pause. If IQ can change that much in just a few decades, and have gains concentrated on lower IQ groups, and minority groups in particular, it should be a strong indication that we don't understand the environmental and social impacts on intelligence, or on IQ measurement itself, very well. This seems to be the APA's stance.

[jimtron]

bpesta22 said: To those with the claus-like repetition of asking me to define black and white, note that I did so. If you think the definition's invalid, well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but don't pretend like I'm avoiding your probing questions.and:

Yes, race is a fuzzy concept. Is it biological / social / cultural or some combo thereof? I dunno what the mix is. I do think race is at some level biological, because there are striking differences in physical appearance on average across members of different races (and because anthropologists can accurately ID race from bones / skulls, etc).If race is a "fuzzy concept," how can we compare races? We're putting the cart before the horse here.


Raskolnikov123 (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=11943) said:
Define your terms, and then actually use that definition in your scientific investigation. This is pretty friggin basic science, but it seems to escape your racial researchersI agree. Saying whites are more intelligent than black is bad science if you can't strictly define "white" and "black."

[Raskolnikov123]

One last comment for the day. I think Bpesta is making a huge mistake when he shrugs off the definitional problem, as I hoping some of the above examples show.

A problem I see in a huge number of racial studies is that they implicitly *assume* the validity of race as something real, and there is almost explicitly racist question-begging in the way this is implemented in their studies. Want to determine IQ differences based on race? Don't bother to define race, and it doesn't matter who we grab for our sample. White Britons and black South Africans are evidently representative of their respective racial groups. Assuming the representativeness of such an unrandomly selected sample is about as racist as you can get - assuming that people of the races in question are all alike.

Bpesta obviously knows something about statistical research methodology. So maybe he can try to justify such a horrific sampling methodology, if the populations in questions are indeed all subsaharan Africians and all Europeans.

Name a single social study that would be taken seriously if for my population group of all people of European descent, I grabbed a couple hundred Lapplanders.

[jimtron]

I agree with the above post.

AFAIK, no one on this thread or anywhere has been able to strictly define race. If I'm wrong, please inform me.

Does anyone here think that we can scientifically compare the intelligence of "blacks" and "whites" without first defining "black" and "white" (not to mention the problem of defining intelligence)?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I agree with the above post.

AFAIK, no one on this thread or anywhere has been able to strictly define race. If I'm wrong, please inform me.

Does anyone here think that we can scientifically compare the intelligence of "blacks" and "whites" without first defining "black" and "white" (not to mention the problem of defining intelligence)?

Ugggh, I stated these were the problems with the talk many pages ago.

I also presented the talks next step beyond the corner when these terms were agreed upon (not defined).

:confused:

[jimtron]

Ugggh, I stated these were the problems with the talk many pages ago.
Me too, on the first page of this thread (#21 and 40).

I also presented the talks next step beyond the corner when these terms were agreed upon (not defined).

When were the terms agreed upon (could you please point to a specific post number(s)?

I've read much of this thread, but not every word of it. If someone believes that we can make a scientific comparison of races without defining race, could you please:

a) explain how that could be accomplished

or

b) point to the post in this thread that explains how that could be accomplised

[JEROME DA GNOME]

When were the terms agreed upon (could you please point to a specific post number(s)?



No terms have been agreed upon in this thread. I just presented the next step after the terms which can not be defined are agreed upon.

Jerome said:

The stumbling block is determining what defines African decent in particular or race in general.

Then we shall move on to the stumbling block of defining IQ and also what "tests" are applicable.

After this; we as a society, will determine which characteristics we should promote and which we should abolish.

Than the determination of how to abolish the undesirable characteristics.

[jimtron]

Jerome said:

The stumbling block is determining what defines African decent in particular or race in general.

Then we shall move on to the stumbling block of defining IQ and also what "tests" are applicable.

After this; we as a society, will determine which characteristics we should promote and which we should abolish.

Than the determination of how to abolish the undesirable characteristics.

Ah, yes I remember the above quote--well played.

Stumbling block one and two need to be overcome--does anyone here believe these have been solved?

[athon]

When were the terms agreed upon (could you please point to a specific post number(s)?

No definition was 'agreed upon', but for the purposes of discussion Pesta did indicate this as a definition:


I've defined race in other threads re this topic. My definition comes from r&j 2005:

To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks
(Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan
Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Eu-
rope; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from
Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza,
1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Al-
though he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum
237

Although he dismisses criticism as something of an 'agree to disagree' when it comes to demonstrating that defining race as such is meaningless and arbitrary.

Saying it's a Clausian move to debate definition might be true if it was in an effort to digress and muddy the discussion. But as this definition is at the very core of the matter, I don't feel it is pedantic at all.

I've read much of this thread, but not every word of it. If someone believes that we can make a scientific comparison of races without defining race, could you please:

a) explain how that could be accomplished

or

b) point to the post in this thread that explains how that could be accomplised

To be fair, he has provided a definition based on large geographical areas. 'Blacks', as such, indicate a Sub-saharan descent, whites are from Europe etc.

Athon