My understanding is that in Africa there are 5 different ancestral clusters, Madagascar 1.7%, Afro-Asiatic 17%, Niger Congo 76%, Khoasian, .01%, and Niho Saharian 5%. So while there is considerable ethnic diversity in Africa, most Africans are from one sub group and almost all Africans in America before 30 years ago were from the same sub group.
We don’t have it all but we do have some of it. See this recent study that showed group differences in polygenic scores predicted differences in cognitive ability between Jews and Catholics and Lutherans.
Harpending? In 2019? Hah. Pretty much demolished years ago. Reich also kicked that to the kerb. (this is in reference to Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence)
If it were found that a historically disadvantaged and stigmatized group (let’s say, African Americans) possesses alleles conferring high intelligence, what would the policy implications of that be?
Because I think such a finding could be used to support more programs devoted to addressing inequality. More AA, more anti-poverty programs, and even a serious discussion of reparations could be justified.
But something tells me most conservatives would poo-poo this idea.
Why do I say that? Because we know poverty and environmental stress have a profound impact on cognitive ability. And we know that right now we could make people smarter just by strengthening the safety net and doing a better job with environment regulation. But conservatives don’t want to do this because OMG LAZY LEECHES TAKIN MUH MONEY.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
“Polygenic score” is not the genes for high or low intelligence. Not even close.
One of the authors of the polygenic score study between Jews, Lutherans and Catholics has an FAQ on his website in which he defends his methods, and what conclusions he thinks should be drawn, and IMO it’s worth a read.
He defends only using 53 samples by citing analyses that a lot of neurosciences studies only use around 50 (this is one of the meta analyses), but the problem is that these analyses say that the low sample sizes is a problem and hurts the reliability of studies. So it may be true that this study is as good as other studies that aren’t reliable enough.
Also from the FAQ, it appears that all the data he used to analyze was on people who lived in Wisconsin. I’m not a neuroscientist or psychologist but this seems like it massively undermines the purpose of the study. If he’s looking for polygenes, which are coincidental groups of other genes that are associated with new effects - if you only look in one region, for all you know you’re catching a group that has combos of these genes just in that region. He explains that he verified that Wisconsin Jews don’t earn atypical amounts of money but doesn’t explain any other problems with this.
He also states generally that his study should not be taken as proof positive that Ashkenazi Jews (or just Jews) have genetic intelligence advantages attached to their ethnicity, it should just be taken as one small step to promote more rigorous research:
People can’t see genes.
pg proudly proclaims a non-Ashkenazi heritage.
Not yet. In the bright world of the future, instant DNA analysis of a skin flake will reveal one’s genetic background. Alas, varied DNA analysis systems will still return divergent results (complicated by gene-hacking) so we’ll get to chose those that support our biases.
I predict race-baiting will fairly soon go the way of angels-on-a-pin counts. (How many angels can sit on a pinhead? Measure angel’s arse a and pinhead area p. N=p/a.) Med-tech advances will let us manipulate our genomes. People will reprogram themselves to mimic their pets, media stars, athletes, angels, non-stigmatized groups, and odd freaks. Select your new face, race, gender, and species. Add brain implants, too.
The “looming crisis in human genetics” will be our evolution into a hive-mind. Trust me.
Potentially yes, but even here it’s more nuanced.
Even in this hypothetical where we know group A is more intelligent than group B (and I would argue we are not there, even in the case of the ashkenazi jews), policies like affirmative action might still make sense, as long as we are not expecting the numbers to be equal. e.g. it might be the case that green people being under-represented in science is both due to culture, discrimination, wealth of parents etc and that they have slightly lower scientific aptitude on average, and an AA policy might aim at improving opportunities for greens while never claiming they should be proportionally represented compared to purples.
(Although AA is of course debateable whether or not this hypothetical were true. I tend to believe giving some students extra assistance and encouragement is a better way to go about it than lowering entrance requirements.)
But anyway, I agree with your point.
Perhaps there is something that people can see that gives them a clue as to what the genes are.
The policy implications would probably be to have more affirmative action in college admissions and high intelligence job recruitment. Addressing inequality and poverty would seem to be an inefficient way to target the intelligent portion and I don’t think we know how to do that. I don’t see how reparations would help.
You seem to think we have a good idea how to reduce poverty and environmental stress in a cost effective way that we are not already using. Reducing air pollution would seem to be an effective way to increase intelligence generally but emissions are already going down so fast that it may not be cost effective to spend a huge amount on it due to the law of diminishing returns.
Guaranteed housing, food, and healthcare would make great strides in both reducing poverty and making it more dignified. What are you talking, we don’t know how to address poverty? We most certainly know how to do it because there are existing models we could follow. There just hasn’t been enough political will in this country to do it because a huge chunk of the population still clings to Fair World mythology, where smart poor people can always rise above their situations as long as they yank on their bootstraps hard enough.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
If I had to actually move to the region where the test is being conducted, and I only wanted to test a single population in a single region, then I would want go to where there is a large enough population of people with sickle cell trait to be worthwhile. But then I wouldn’t go just off the skin color of the population, I’d want to go after actual data on the prevalence of sickle cell trait.
I might actually want the most diverse population possible, from a socioeconomic standpoint, so I might actually NOT want to go to Alabama if there was a more diverse population of people with sickle cell trait in Vermont.
But I get it. The second someone jumps to “I guess I’d go where we know there’s a correlation between something that is obvious vs something that is not” that justifies categorizing people by race does… something to bolster your position?
Okay, I guess the question mark means I don’t actually get it. As I see it, in all circumstances, we would want the most granular information available to make decisions on. The nature of each individual would be best, then broader categories relating to gender, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, and—what I guess you’re getting towards—this thing called “race” if we had to. But that the government currently records race as if its useful (and please don’t mistake what I’m saying for saying “I’m colorblind”—I get that race is seen as a thing and that it informs people’s decisions and I shouldn’t pretend that things are other than what they are) does not mean that the government should continue to do so.
Is the prevalence of sickle cell trait in various areas known or at least reasonably well estimated by the government? If no, then maybe it should be. Because that seems like it would be of use if the government is interested in sponsoring national programs to combat common health and social issues. I would say the same about crime statistics, communicable disease, literacy, and a whole host of other issues.
We should not hobble ourselves to race—perhaps the least granular of all our categories apart from gender—just because no one wants to bother to figure out what’s actually going on with the population.
So I say again, if I have to arrange a localized study on sickle cell, I want to do it in an area where people are most likely (relative to others) to have it, but while also allowing for me to control for other factors to the extent possible. What I would like to do that is with, say, CDC statistics on where sickle cell trait is most common, and then match it with a bunch of other data from other government departments to get the most representative population possible.
If I can’t do that, but I can figure out who self describes as black or of African ancestry (however much recent African ancestry they may have and from whatever part of Africa their ancestors may have been from) then there is a problem with the system. Because of all the data the government could have gathered, somehow it omitted the useful data and went with pseudo-sociological nonsense passed on by our racialist ancestors who were obsessed with notions of race and purity when they probably should have been worrying about something else. Like how to treat those who developed sickle cell anemia.
Repeat after me: “Phenotype is not genotype”.
Hares and rabbits look remarkably similar, yet not only are they not the same species, they’re not even the same genus.
And yet you can tell the difference between most hares and rabbits by looking because hares are larger, have longer ears, and have black marks on their fur.
A person can visually distinguish Nigerians, Kenyans, South Africans, and the descent of American slaves from each other. Doesn’t stop you and everyone else from lumping all these disparate people into one racial category, does it?
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Do you believe there are genetic differences between Nigerians, Kenyans, South Africans, and descendants of American slaves, and that this is the reason people are able to visually distinguish between them?
Their own biases and the made-up race boxes that go with them ? Sure.
Also, what there aren’t - and this is directly relevant to the subject - are sufficient genetic similarities to assume that they can be grouped together.
Who are you quoting?