Can the Black-White racial IQ gap in the US be environmentally explained?

[CannyDan]

Relevant pit thread

[El_Kabong]

Relevant Pit thread.

[Chuck11]

Originally Posted by astro

You're constructing a number of weak strawmen that no one is positing as part of the arguments here. Why you feel the need to do for anything other than your own amusement is a mystery.



Lots of things go into environmental factors including potential dysfunctional and self harming behaviors by black culture. No one here is claiming it's 100% bad white men. You seem to be positively itching to embrace this manufactured notion so you can knock it down.




While certain types of institutional racism and racism in commerce have been outlawed it is a hard fact that a significant number of white people have strongly racist attitudes with respect to black people, and this includes a number of upper income cohorts. Not all this racism is expressed in the same way, and many white people may be racist in their private opinions without going out of their way to oppress or interfere with black people living their lives as free citizens. A lot of white people tolerate blacks, but privately disparage their intelligence, worth ethic, moral underpinnings, etc. etc. They are basically considered as borderline sub-humans.

I'm not wondering about this issue, as a conservative looking white man I see and hear it all the time in private conversations. This is pure reality. Are you contending this is not the case in the US? Do you think the fact that there are extensive legal protections against overt racism obviates the impact of the aforesaid racist attitudes?

Originally Posted by astro

You're constructing a number of weak strawmen that no one is positing as part of the arguments here.

I merely juxtaposed two extreme positions, one held by yourself and another held by NDD to illustrate the importance of the topic at hand. You argue that society is suffuse with racism and that this contributes substantially to the differential, no? And NDD argues the reverse, no? And these differing positions have different social implications, no? What are the strawmen that I am hoisting up?

While certain types of institutional racism and racism in commerce have been outlawed it is a hard fact that a significant number of white people have strongly racist attitudes with respect to black people, and this includes a number of upper income cohorts. Not all this racism is expressed in the same way, and many white people may be racist in their private opinions without going out of their way to oppress or interfere with black people living their lives as free citizens. A lot of white people tolerate blacks, but privately disparage their intelligence, worth ethic, moral underpinnings, etc. etc. They are basically considered as borderline sub-humans. Do you think the fact that there are extensive legal protections against overt racism obviates the impact of the aforesaid racist attitudes?

If the above is a hard fact, you should be able to provide some citations. I would appreciate if you could so that I can get an idea of what you're referring to. As for data, you can refer to this discussion of the General Social Survey results:

"Beginning in 1977, survey particpants were asked: "On the average, blacks have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people. Do you think these differences are because most blacks have less in-born ability to learn?"

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2010...sible-hbd.html
(The GSS can be analysed online so you can check the results for yourself.)

This finding has been duplicated elsewhere -- but these surveys are in person so that could have an effect on responses, given the current PC taboos -- taboos the existence of which seemingly contradict your claim. It would be interesting to see a survey that asked if "most blacks are less intelligent, " as that is an established fact. As it is, I'm not aware of the supposed people who go "out of their way to oppress or interfere with black people living their lives as free citizens" -- unless you mean racialists who defend their right, if not legal, of free association, which includes their right to not associate with people of other races. If you could, give some contemporaneous examples of the people you mean, we will discuss them if they are relevant.

As for attitude towards Blacks, I am again not sure what you mean. Blacks are less intelligent (and more criminal), on average; I fail to see how recognizing that disparages them. More generally and importantly, I fail to see how these supposed attitudes per se could cause a gap, if that's what you are implying. Let's suppose that despite enacting policies to discriminate for Blacks (e.g., affirmative action), rearranging society to accommodate Blacks (e.g., Busing, tax credits, Head start), making taboo discussion of IQ differences (refer yourself to "The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy"), publicly covering up Black pathologies (e.g., the media and crime reporting), publicly disavowing racism and even White racial identity, and so on, White people think, in secret, badly about Blacks; how possibly could that translate into an intelligence gap. We are not dealing with some mythological "stereotype threat"; the reality of latent ability differences has been established. If they arise environmentally, they must through environmental influences that have a causal impact on IQ. What are the causal mechanisms that you are proposing?

[Chuck11]

Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0

No. Many Africans brought trade skills with them - rice growing and the management of dikes, carpentry, blacksmithing and iron work, cattle husbandry.

On the other hand, many more Africans were prevented from using and maintaining skills they had brought with them because they forced to do brute physical labor only, and were prevented from passing their skills on to their children.

My specific claim was that the mean human capital of Blacks, with regards to technical skills (e.g., carpenters, tailors, seemstresses, mechanics) increased
from the time in Africa to the time in the US. I'll find a cite when I get a chance. If you have one that contradicts the claim, let's have it.

[Chuck11]

Originally Posted by astro

no stable family structures, being bought and sold like animals, and being denied access to almost any level of intellectual self improvement is simply not enough time for the cultural deprivation argument to stand?

As with everyone else here, you are failing to attend to the particularities of the differential. The factor which depresses the Black IQ relative to the White is no less active at the far right end of the curve than at the far left end. (What cultural deprivations are Blacks with an IQ of 130 or 145 facing?

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

They're better off? At any given time, in the USA blacks have a 1/10 change of being under some kind of correctional supervision (obv. inc. prison) and almost 50% of black males of being disenfranchised because of a conviction.

But then non-Hispanic blacks do make up 40% of the prison population. Hey, at least they get healthcare. Maybe even some kind of work. Possibly a little education.

Is it the fault of whites that so many blacks are in prison?

Because I expect you to answer that it is, I would like for you to explain why it is.

[Chuck11]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Is it the fault of whites that so many blacks are in prison?

Because I expect you to answer that it is, I would like for you to explain why it is.

racism* --> ? --> sensory informational deprivation --> ? -->
mean difference in g --> population level amplification --> crime rate differences

*A particularly pernicious form of this is the refusal to accept fault, especially when accompanied by alternative causal hypotheses

Seems obvious to me.

[PBear42]

Originally Posted by Chuck11

You mentioned marriage and school segregation. As for the former, miscegenation, I see nothing wrong with outlawing it, despite my own racial infidelity. So I don't see that as a naughty thing, per se. I do fail to see how depriving Blacks of White spouses could have environmentally caused the gap.

Sorry to be obtuse, but your position here isn't clear. Are you okay with banning interracial marriages or opposed?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Chuck11

As it is, mixed race kids preform intermediate to monoracial kids. You can see this in recent nationally representative samples. So nothing has changed in this regards in the last 225 years.

This comment is jaw-droppingly stupid.

Virtually all African-Americans are "mixed race" and few are "monoracial".

There's no evidence that the studies authors did anything to ensure that the blacks they classified as "monoracial" really were "monoracial."

[Chuck11]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Virtually all African-Americans are "mixed race" and few are "monoracial". There's no evidence that the studies authors did anything to ensure that the blacks they classified as "monoracial" really were "monoracial."

This reply is mind-stunningly inane. Individuals who have one self-identifying White parent and one self-identifying Black parent perform, on average, intermediate to individuals who have two self-identifying White parents and two self-identifying Black parents. The same can be said for individuals who report having one self-identifying White parent and one self-identifying Black parent. And for individuals who are other-identified, by observation, as having one Black parent and one White parent. And for individuals who simply identify as mixed-race. As for those individuals who identify as African-American, those who have physical characteristics more in common with unmixed Black west Africans perform inferior to those who have have physically characteristics more in common with unmixed White Europeans. I've listed numerous sources which you can check if you wish. Now, what would be your explanation for the above phenomena?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Chuck11

This reply is mind-stunningly inane. Individuals who have one self-identifying White parent and one self-identifying Black parent perform, on average, intermediate to individuals who have two self-identifying White parents and two self-identifying Black parents. The same can be said for individuals who report having one self-identifying White parent and one self-identifying Black parent. And for individuals who are other-identified, by observation, as having one Black parent and one White parent. And for individuals who simply identify as mixed-race. As for those individuals who identify as African-American, those who have physical characteristics more in common with unmixed Black west Africans perform inferior to those who have have physically characteristics more in common with unmixed White Europeans. I've listed numerous sources which you can check if you wish. Now, what would be your explanation for the above phenomena?

That you are making an unsupportable claim on the off chance that no one calls you on it?

In all the thousands of posts on this topic, I have never seen anyone provide any support for this claim, so I would presume that it originated with someone who is not even as smart as Rushton or Jensen.

(For one thing, the notion that there is even a sufficiently large number of people who have one parent with only European ancestry and one parent with only sub-Saharan African ancestry to have actually been collected into a population subjected to such tests is ludicrous. Is this more of Lynn's imaginary IQ computations?)

[Belowjob2.0]

Originally Posted by Chuck11

This reply is mind-stunningly inane. Individuals who have one self-identifying White parent and one self-identifying Black parent perform, on average, intermediate to individuals who have two self-identifying White parents and two self-identifying Black parents. The same can be said for individuals who report having one self-identifying White parent and one self-identifying Black parent. And for individuals who are other-identified, by observation, as having one Black parent and one White parent. And for individuals who simply identify as mixed-race. As for those individuals who identify as African-American, those who have physical characteristics more in common with unmixed Black west Africans perform inferior to those who have have physically characteristics more in common with unmixed White Europeans. I've listed numerous sources which you can check if you wish. Now, what would be your explanation for the above phenomena?

Self-identification doesn't tell us much about genetics. You're going to have to abandon all of your claims based on data derived from self-identification. Way too much noised to be reliable. Sorry.

[Chuck11]

Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0

Self-identification doesn't tell us much about genetics. You're going to have to abandon all of your claims based on data derived from self-identification. Way too much noised to be reliable. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0

Self-identification doesn't tell us much about genetics. You're going to have to abandon all of your claims based on data derived from self-identification. Way too much noised to be reliable. Sorry.

Nonsense. To the extent that our index of race is unreliable, the association between genetic and IQ differences will be attenuated. This should be obvious. Noise works against, not for, a genetic hypothesis. As such, results in support are that much more robust. Imagine, for example, a transracial adoption study in which “Black” children were adopted by White parents. To the extent that the “Black” children were really misidentified White children, the results will have been biased against, not for, a genetic hypothesis, which predicts that the adopted Blacks will perform unlike adopted Whites.

Refer to Jensen's discussion of this in "FUZZY BOUNDARY OF RACIAL CLASSIFICATION ATTENUATES IQ DIFFERENCE"

In regards to your comment about self-identification, what tells us about genetics is the
correspondence between the data and the predictions of a genetic hypothesis. Such a hypothesis predicts that the offspring of a Black and a White individual will perform intermediate to the offspring of two White and two Blacks individuals. To the extent that self-identification or other-identification is a less then perfect index of being Black or being White, as noted above, the results will be biased against a genetic hypothesis.

That all said, the degree to which self-identification corresponds to socially defined race and genetically based race is an empirical question which has already been answered. This has been pointed out a dozen times already. So on multiple levels your response fails: (1) self-identified race reliably predicts other identified and genetic based race and (2) unreliability works against a genetic hypothesis, making supporting results more robust.

[Belowjob2.0]

In regards to your comment about self-identification, what tells us about genetics is the
correspondence between the data and the predictions of a genetic hypothesis. Such a hypothesis predicts that the offspring of a Black and a White individual will perform intermediate to the offspring of two White and two Blacks individuals. To the extent that self-identification or other-identification is a less then perfect index of being Black or being White, as noted above, the results will be biased against a genetic hypothesis.

No. Mixing two populations may result in the expression of traits that are intermediate between the two groups, or the expression of traits that are stronger or weaker than in either parent group. Mixing, in effect, creates a new population which may differ significantly from either parent group.

Nonsense. To the extent that our index of race is unreliable, the association between genetic and IQ differences will be attenuated. This should be obvious. Noise works against, not for, a genetic hypothesis. As such, results in support are that much more robust. Imagine, for example, a transracial adoption study in which “Black” children were adopted by White parents. To the extent that the “Black” children were really misidentified White children, the results will have been biased against, not for, a genetic hypothesis, which predicts that the adopted Blacks will perform unlike adopted Whites.

Where you get into trouble here is that you take politically defined categories, like black and white, which have varied over time here in the US, and try to map them on to genetic differences in population. Unfortunately, the genetic differences have no meaning without the a priori political definitions - in fact the genetic differences would not exist without the political definitions. Without extensive social engineering, black Americans would have disappeared as a distinct minority group generations ago, the way that the descendants of African slaves disappeared in Mexico and in Argentina.


The Invention of the Color Line

It's understandable that you don't want the US thesis to collapse the way the others have, but I'm afraid this one's doomed too. Basically, there is no test score gap between self-identified blacks with majority European ancestry, and self-identified blacks of majority African ancestry.

Intro to Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap (Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 1998) :

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38568440/rawdata/jencks01.pdf

http://backintyme.wordpress.com/arti...6kl3c2f2au-21/

It Lacks a “Racial” Genetic Component

The U.S. Black/White test-score gap lacks a “racial” genetic component. The gap is not “racially” genetic, not even a little. This is not to say that the ability to get high scores is not hereditary. It is. Dumb parents have dumb kids and vice-versa. But no hereditary component correlates with U.S. endogamous group membership. Two forces have made heredity the most thoroughly studied hypothesis regarding the gap.

First, Americans are taught from infancy to conceptualize their unique endogamous color line as being biologically based; that Blacks are genetically different from Whites in a sense deeper than superficial appearance. Every American who studies the gap must first overcome this distorting intellectual lens.

Second, every few decades since the early 1800s has seen another book arguing that Afro-Americans are genetically inferior (the most recent being The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray). Each such revival captures the U.S. imagination and so each must be overcome. Among the many replicable facts disproving a genetic component are:

No gap appears between the scores of unassimilated first-generation immigrant grade-school children from sub-Saharan Africa and those of White children.
No gap appears between the test scores of unassimilated first-generation British West Indian immigrant grade-school children of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry and those of White children.
No gap appears between the test scores of unassimilated first-generation Latin American immigrant grade-school children of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry and those of White children.
Although there is a slight correlation between the gap and sub-Saharan features (skin tone, hair texture, etc.), there is no correlation between the gap and actual sub-Saharan DNA genetic admixture markers. (There is a difference between ethnicity and genetic admixture in the United States. The former depends on a few superficial appearance genes. The latter depends on actual ancestry. Millions of ethnically White Americans have detectable genetic admixture from African slave ancestors. They do not show a gap. Millions of ethnically Black Americans lack sub-Saharan genetic markers. They do. The gap follows self-identity, not genes.)
No gap appears between the test scores of Black grade-school children raised by two White adoptive parents and those of White children. (Until adolescence, when their mental skills plunge to the same level as Black children raised by Black parents.)
Grade-school children of a White mother and Black father show a slightly less severe test-score gap.
Grade-school children of a Black mother and White father show the same test-score gap as children with two Black parents.
In England, Afro-descent children of British West Indian immigrants show a temporary gap that lasts only until they acculturate. See the newspaper article here.

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0

Intro to Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap (Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 1998) :

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38568440/rawdata/jencks01.pdf

This paper seems directly on point, but the version you linked to is very blurry and difficult to read; do you have a different link?

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

This paper seems directly on point, but the version you linked to is very blurry and difficult to read; do you have a different link?

Follow-up question: the paper says:

"we have accumulated a fair amount of indirect evidence since 1970. Most of it suggests that whether children live in a "black" or "white" environment has far more impact on their test performance than the number of Africans or Europeans in their family tree."

The footnote to this comment leads to Chapter 3, which isn't included in the link. Can you list the papers that lead to this conclusion?

Also, the paper states:

"almost all psychologists now agree that intelligence tests measure developed rather than innate abilities"

This contradicts my understanding of the consensus about intelligence tests; would it be possible to provide a cite/link to a paper supporting this conclusion (I don't see any cites in the linked paper).

I also see the following (quote marks, but it's a paraphrase): "mixed race children who lived with a white mother scored 11 points higher than mixed-race children who lived with a black mother. The black-white IQ gap at the time was 15 points"

And I notice from the footnote that the mixed-race children who grew up with a white mother (and liven in a 2-parent household) had an average IQ of 104.7.

That study right there seems to absolutely and completely destroy the "genetic" argument.

[Evil Economist]

I'm going through this thread to understand the arguments, and to argue the facts rather than just going to the pit and calling people racist d********s, so please forgive the multiple posts.

Chuck11 has blog discussing the race/performance gap. A substantial part of the blog is devoted to a discussion of the book "Understanding Human History". I noticed that the book was published by the National Policy Institute.

I see the following discussion of this fine institution on Wikipedia:

The National Policy Institute is an American think tank based in Whitefish, Montana. It describes itself as the right's answer to the Southern Poverty Law Center.[citation needed]

The Institute's authors have produced a series of reports on affirmative action, race and conservatism, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and its first annual report, The State of White America-2007.

In September of 2011, NPI hosted its first national conference, entitled "Towards a New Nationalism," at the Ronald Reagan Building. Speakers included Richard Spencer, Keith Preston, Byron Roth, Alex Kurtagic, Tomislav Sunic, Jared Taylor and his associate Sam Dickson, a lawyer who has represented the Ku Klux Klan .

MSNBC reported that Andrews voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 US Presidential Election in order, he said, to help destroy the Republican Party so that it can be reborn into a party that will support the "interests of white people".[1]

Interesting.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Chuck11

In regards to your comment about self-identification, what tells us about genetics is the
correspondence between the data and the predictions of a genetic hypothesis. Such a hypothesis predicts that the offspring of a Black and a White individual will perform intermediate to the offspring of two White and two Blacks individuals. To the extent that self-identification or other-identification is a less then perfect index of being Black or being White, as noted above, the results will be biased against a genetic hypothesis.

Your reasoning is absurd.

As I said, the overwhelming majority of African-Americans, or, to use your term "blacks" are of, to use your terminology, "mixed" as opposed to "monoracial".

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of African-Americans who are clearly "mixed" have two parents who identify as "black" rather than one parent who identifies as "black" and one who identifies as "white".

For example, anyone with a functioning brain and working eyes can see that Will Smith, Vanessa Williams, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are of "mixed" ancestry yet all of them had two "black" parents not one parent who was "white" and one who was "black".

For that matter, Walter White, the former leader of the NAACP(not to be confused with the character from Breaking Bad) was light-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed and looked far more like a Nazi stormtrooper than Adolph Hitler, yet both of his parents identified themselves and were viewed by the community as a whole as "black".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ncis_White.jpg

[Randvek]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

For example, anyone with a functioning brain and working eyes can see that Will Smith, Vanessa Williams, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are of "mixed" ancestry yet all of them had two "black" parents not one parent who was "white" and one who was "black".

There's a reason why "half-black" Obama looks a whole lot like people we consider fully "black;" excepting people who just got off the boat from Africa, there aren't really any "blacks" at all in America.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Randvek

There's a reason why "half-black" Obama looks a whole lot like people we consider fully "black;" excepting people who just got off the boat from Africa, there aren't really any "blacks" at all in America.

Agreed. Race is a myth and while "black" and "white" may be useful cultural terms they're not scientific and they're not terribly meaningful biologically.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Agreed. Race is a myth and while "black" and "white" may be useful cultural terms they're not scientific and they're not terribly meaningful biologically.

Wow. There have been so many debate threads on this. Try engaging some of those arguments before making inane comments that "race is a myth". Just as race in other species is a myth too I'm sure

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

I also see the following (quote marks, but it's a paraphrase): "mixed race children who lived with a white mother scored 11 points higher than mixed-race children who lived with a black mother. The black-white IQ gap at the time was 15 points"

And I notice from the footnote that the mixed-race children who grew up with a white mother (and liven in a 2-parent household) had an average IQ of 104.7.

That study right there seems to absolutely and completely destroy the "genetic" argument.

I don't think you can resolve the issue either way on the basis of adoption studies to date. They appear to offer support for both genetic and environmental factors.

So there are many good reasons to doubt cultural explanations a priori, but a more direct test is available. One possible way to control for distinct ethnic values is simply to raise the children of higher or lower scoring racial backgrounds in another ethnocultural environment of purportedly different values. If ethnic differences are caused by ethnically different parents, as asserted by gene-disparaging psychologists such as Richard Nisbett, then such a test should settle the issue. The transracial adoption data we have so far doesn't appear to support Nisbett.

One longitudinal study, the only one of its kind, of black children raised in white homes, showed that by highschool these adoptees scored no differently on IQ tests than African-Americans raised by their biological parents. Meanwhile three studies of Asians [1] raised in white families showed higher than average test scores. A problem with these latter three papers of Asian adoptees is that they didn't use control samples of white adoptees. Did the Asian children just score higher because adoptees in general score higher?

A newer study published in the American Journal of Orthopsyciatry allows us to compare adopted white children with, at least small samples of, transracially adopted Asian children to try and answer this question. An advantage of this study is that it used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health which means it was able to compare developmentally mature adoptees in grades 7-12, instead of children at ages like 4 or 6 when differences are less stable. Comparing 350 white adoptees with 24 Asian transracial adoptees, and (a mere) 8 black transracial adoptees, the authors found differences on a number of different dimensions that went in the same direction they usually do, despite the controlled ethnic upbringing (lower scores mean better grades, less learning problems, less delinquency, and more self-esteem):

++++++++++++++++++++Asian Adoptees+++White Adoptees++Black Adoptees
Grades+++++++++++++++1.72 (A-)+++++++++++2.25 (B+)+++++++++2.67 (B-)
Learning problems+++++++1.06++++++++++++++1.12+++++++++++++1.34
Delinquency++++++++++++0.16+++++++++++++0.20++++++++++++++0.25
Self-esteem++++++++++++2.07+++++++++++++1.96++++++++++++++1.78

The small sample sizes cry out for a larger replication (along with the Scarr adoption study which only had 21 black children, but had the advantage of an additional 55 black-white mixed race children who fell in between the white and black children on all academic variables), and other aspects of this study are not compatible with other published studies (i.e. contrary to the Moore study, also used as cultural evidence by Nisbett, it also showed that adopted black children raised in black households performed similarly, even somewhat better than, the transracially adopted black children in this study). But still the differing levels of performance of the transracially adopted black and Asian in this study are compatible with other adoption experiments which show similar results, and casts further doubt on the theory that ethnic differences are due to differences in upbringing unique to separate American ethnic groups (further evidence for this was also demonstrated with another method by Rowe and Flannery who found no unique correlation patterns in the developmental data of different ethnic groups).

[Belowjob2.0]

Originally Posted by Chen019

Wow. There have been so many debate threads on this. Try engaging some of those arguments before making inane comments that "race is a myth". Just as race in other species is a myth too I'm sure

False analogy. All modern humans belong to the same subspecies. We're all one race, in biological terms.

[Belowjob2.0]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

This paper seems directly on point, but the version you linked to is very blurry and difficult to read; do you have a different link?

backintyme.com/rawdata/jencks01.doc

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Chen019

I don't think you can resolve the issue either way on the basis of adoption studies to date. They appear to offer support for both genetic and environmental factors.

The entire block you posted appears to be from some guy's blog.

The Wiki link you posted has the following statement:

In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: ... The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions.
...

Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: "[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers. The Black-Black group, of course, all had Black mothers. In the Black-White group, virtually all of the birth mothers were White (66 of 68). Willerman and his colleagues found that in interracial couples it made a difference whether the mother was Black or White: The children obtained higher IQs if she was White. They suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one

So, agreed, the study didn't clarify anything. But that's not good news for the "genetic" team; doesn't this mean that the evidence for a genetic explanation is precisely....nothing?

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0

backintyme.com/rawdata/jencks01.doc

Appreciate it, but this seems to be a Word document containing fuzzy pictures of the initial report.

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

So, agreed, the study didn't clarify anything. But that's not good news for the "genetic" team; doesn't this mean that the evidence for a genetic explanation is precisely....nothing?

Doing a bit of research, I find the following from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study's author (discussing The Bell Curve):

Tellingly, the authors fail to address evidence from our study of IQ and African ancestry within a large sample of black adolescents that contradicts the hypothesis that IQ and race are closely correlated. All of the children in our study were socially classified as black but differed individually in their proportion of African ancestry. We found no relationship between blood group and serum protein markers of African ancestry and cognitive test scores. If more African ancestry is not related to lower scores among socially-classified blacks, then African ancestry can hardly be an explanation for IQ differences between black and white groups. The authors also fail to address evidence for lower heritability of IQ scores within a large sample of black identical and fraternal twins, which suggests that environments are less equally distributed among blacks than among whites.

Let's take a look at the money portion of that quote again:

We found no relationship between blood group and serum protein markers of African ancestry and cognitive test scores.

Whoops, that sounds like another nail in the coffin for the "genetic" team.

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

Whoops, that sounds like another nail in the coffin for the "genetic" team.

I'm surprised to read all this back and forth over issues that seem like they've been decided. How can anyone question that a portion of intelligence is genetically inherited? (Besides being demonstrated in a lot of studies, it's just common sense. Why would that one aspect of human beings be immune from genetics, while height, hair color, muscle composition, propensity to mental illness, etc. etc. etc. always have a genetic component?)

And if you accept evolution, then you have to accept the likelihood that groups of people with similar genetic heritage are going to vary in terms of their genetic component of intelligence. And it need not be natural selection--there are things like founders' effects that could lead to variations (I think some people call this "synthetic evolution.) So, just by way of example, the first six families that decide to go strike out and settle in Asia just might happened to have been above-average in intelligence. Then, everyone related to them, ends up, on average, being above-average in intelligence.

Do any of the fervent anti-racists (I assume that's how they see themselves) dispute that aspect of evolution?

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

I'm surprised to read all this back and forth over issues that seem like they've been decided. How can anyone question that a portion of intelligence is genetically inherited? (Besides being demonstrated in a lot of studies, it's just common sense. Why would that one aspect of human beings be immune from genetics, while height, hair color, muscle composition, propensity to mental illness, etc. etc. etc. always have a genetic component?)

And if you accept evolution, then you have to accept the likelihood that groups of people with similar genetic heritage are going to vary in terms of their genetic component of intelligence. And it need not be natural selection--there are things like founders' effects that could lead to variations (I think some people call this "synthetic evolution.) So, just by way of example, the first six families that decide to go strike out and settle in Asia just might happened to have been above-average in intelligence. Then, everyone related to them, ends up, on average, being above-average in intelligence.

Do any of the fervent anti-racists (I assume that's how they see themselves) dispute that aspect of evolution?

Yeah, you missed the point.

Let's look at your post here:

you have to accept the likelihood that groups of people with similar genetic heritage are going to vary in terms of their genetic component of intelligence

OK, fine. Now, here's the money question: Do all people with black skin have "similar genetic heritage"?

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

Do all people with black skin have "similar genetic heritage"?

Of course not, but people with West-African genetic heritage do, just like people of South-Asian genetic heritage do, etc.

(And then you get to the whole issue of genetic clustering and Lewontin's fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Huma...ientific_paper))

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

Of course not, but people with West-African genetic heritage do, just like people of South-Asian genetic heritage do, etc.

OK, so you accept that there are people with black skin who have different genetic heritages than other people who also have black skin?

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

OK, so you accept that there are people with black skin who have different genetic heritages than other people who also have black skin?

Again, of course. I'm more familiar with these sorts of arguments when it comes to running ability. I think the conclusion there is that people of West African descent are more different than East Africans than European whites are from either group (and this shows up in World Record results: West Africans are best adapted for sprinting, European Whites for Middle Distances, and East-Africans for Distance).

I'm just arguing that in the name of "equality" you don't become a "liberal creationist" and deny either the results of well-designed studies or basic tenets of evolution. (And I don't have the data in front of me, but in all the things I've read, one thing that's clear is that Asians clearly outperform everyone else on whatever it is that intelligence tests measure. This held true most strikingly in a study of South Asian orphans, some significant percentage of who had to be hospitalized for malnutrition, but then later outperformed European whites in intelligence tests.)

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

Again, of course.

Excellent, so if people with black skin have different genetic backgrounds, then the argument that:

groups of people with similar genetic heritage are going to vary in terms of their genetic component of intelligence

simply cannot be applied to people with black skin, correct?

That is, we would not expect "people with black skin" to "vary in terms of their genetic component of intelligence" because people with black skin do not form a group of "people with similar genetic heritage."

Welcome to the club; you are now an "anti-racist".

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

Welcome to the club; you are now an "anti-racist".

"

Sure, but I'm actually open to the idea that "African-Americans" share a unique genetic heritage, even if there has been some miscegenation.

[bldysabba]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

I'm surprised to read all this back and forth over issues that seem like they've been decided. How can anyone question that a portion of intelligence is genetically inherited? (Besides being demonstrated in a lot of studies, it's just common sense. Why would that one aspect of human beings be immune from genetics, while height, hair color, muscle composition, propensity to mental illness, etc. etc. etc. always have a genetic component?)

And if you accept evolution, then you have to accept the likelihood that groups of people with similar genetic heritage are going to vary in terms of their genetic component of intelligence. And it need not be natural selection--there are things like founders' effects that could lead to variations (I think some people call this "synthetic evolution.) So, just by way of example, the first six families that decide to go strike out and settle in Asia just might happened to have been above-average in intelligence. Then, everyone related to them, ends up, on average, being above-average in intelligence.

Do any of the fervent anti-racists (I assume that's how they see themselves) dispute that aspect of evolution?

I agree it's quite ridiculous to deny that intelligence has a genetic component to it. So ridiculous in fact, that I doubt anyone here is saying that. My guess is that they're merely stating that there's no evidence this genetic component varies significantly across races. Or that races exist in the first place. That's the usual argument in these threads

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

"

Sure, but I'm actually open to the idea that "African-Americans" share a unique genetic heritage, even if there has been some miscegenation.

So, you now think that all American people with black skin "share a common genetic heritage"?

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by bldysabba

My guess is that they're merely stating that there's no evidence this genetic component varies significantly across races.

But why wouldn't it? There's variation in every other genetic component of what goes into making humans, human. (And like it or not, there is clustering of genetic markers in people who share a geographical origin; again, as you'd expect from principles of evolution.)

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

So, you now think that all American people with black skin "share a common genetic heritage"?

To be more precise, all Americans descended from slaves share some genetic heritage.

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

To be more precise, all Americans descended from slaves share some genetic heritage.

Is that a) 100% of Americans with black skin, b) 0% of Americans with black skin, or c) 23% of Americans with black skin?

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

Is that a) 100% of Americans with black skin, b) 0% of Americans with black skin, or c) 23% of Americans with black skin?

Gee, I misplaced the study I did on that...

But my sense is that most Americans with black skin color are descended from West Africans who survived forced transport in slave ships and then were able to survive generations of slavery.

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

Gee, I misplaced the study I did on that...

But my sense is that most Americans with black skin color are descended from West Africans who survived forced transport in slave ships and then were able to survive generations of slavery.

Ok, that seems like a factual claim which you should be able to support once you get access to the internet. I'll leave that question open.

Let's just move on to my next question: if you believe that "most Americans with black skin color" "share a common genetic heritage", and I'll assume that you will also say that "Americans with black skin color" score lower than Americans with white skin color on IQ tests, and the difference is due to genetics....shouldn't it be the case that the difference in IQ tests must increase with the "proportion of African ancestry" in the "Americans with black skin color"?

[NojNoj]

I'm actually not familiar with the studies about American blacks and IQ tests, so would rather not comment on how rigorous they were or whatever.

But I think your hypothesis is complicated by the nature of genetics. Who did the inter-breed with, who exactly comprises the population being studied, etc.

Take American Jews and Tai-sachs (sp?) disease. I've read Ashekenazi Jews have somewhere between 40 to 60% of their genes that could be traced back to the mid-east (i.e., biblical times). The other percentage is made up of genes coming from whatever host country they were living in. So American Jews are a hodge-podge of genes from different nationalities, but as a group, they still have Tai-Sachs, while a German or Russian who didn't interbreed with Jews doesn't. (I.e., it's not like there's a spectrum of chances of getting Tai-Sachs)

I think Genetics is too much of a mystery to say there's "X%" chance depending on "y%" European vs. West-African blood.

Of course, if you were a motivated racist and eager to show a difference, I suppose a better study would be to compare some homogenous group of West-Africans with a homogenous group of Iclanders.

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

I'm actually not familiar with the studies about American blacks and IQ tests, so would rather not comment on how rigorous they were or whatever.

But I think your hypothesis is complicated by the nature of genetics. Who did the inter-breed with, who exactly comprises the population being studied, etc.

This kind of sounds to me like you are saying that American people with black skin don't "share a common genetic heritage." So, we would not expect "American people with black skin" to "vary in terms of their genetic component of intelligence" because people with black skin do not form a group of "people with similar genetic heritage."

Welcome to the club; you are now an "anti-racist".

[NojNoj]

I guess I'm saying is I'm not motivated enough by this issue to go searching around the internet to unearth exactly what percent of Americans with black skin share a common genetic heritage...

I'll stick to saying "Asians are smarter than everyone else." I read it somewhere....

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

I'll stick to saying "Asians are smarter than everyone else." I read it somewhere....

Careful; if you do that, people will start asking difficult questions like: Do all Asians have a "similar genetic heritage"?

[Weirdering]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

Ok, that seems like a factual claim which you should be able to support once you get access to the internet. I'll leave that question open.

Let's just move on to my next question: if you believe that "most Americans with black skin color" "share a common genetic heritage", and I'll assume that you will also say that "Americans with black skin color" score lower than Americans with white skin color on IQ tests, and the difference is due to genetics....shouldn't it be the case that the difference in IQ tests must increase with the "proportion of African ancestry" in the "Americans with black skin color"?

Most Americans with black skin color are of African descent. Most Americans of African descent share a common genetic heritage, that being West-African.

[monavis]

Originally Posted by Chuck11

It's well know that there's a Black-White racial differences in intelligence and that this difference explains a large portion of the much discussed racial "disparities." For example, Black psychologist Ronald Fryer recently replicated the findings of Neal and Johnson (1996) and Murray and Herrnstein (1994) in his 2010 article "Racial Inequality in the 21st Century: The Declining Significance of Discrimination. What is not well known is the cause of the difference; though, frequently it's blamed on purported ubiquitous White racism. Given the situation, specifically the moral imputations, we are forced to ask: Is a complete environmental explanation, consistent with the facts on the ground, possible? I recently re-outlined the background facts here and for the sake of brevity provided an abridged summary:



Can anyone explain the differences environmentally in a way consistent with the data?

I don't think it is an IQ gap, just the opertunity to have good food etc. growing up, and the way some people think of it. All so called races have high and low IQ people. Judging people by their color is a low IQ way of looking at it!There is just one race and that is the human race.

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Weirdering

Most Americans with black skin color are of African descent. Most Americans of African descent share a common genetic heritage, that being West-African.

If you say so it must be so, I guess. Don't bother supporting your claim or anything; you said it and that's good enough for me.

[Weirdering]

At least when talking about race in the US, that should probably be considered general knowledge. Are you looking for exact numbers of ancestry proportions from a genome study, or numbers from a history of African slaves and immigrants to the US?

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Weirdering

At least when talking about race in the US, that should probably be considered general knowledge. Are you looking for exact numbers of ancestry proportions from a genome study, or numbers from a history of African slaves and immigrants to the US?

Of course it's general knowledge to you and me. It's just that some of those guys over there are all skeptical and shit. Maybe you and me can find some sort of study showing:

"Most Americans with black skin color are of African descent. Most Americans of African descent share a common genetic heritage, that being West-African. "

You know, just to satisfy those guys.