# Are there any proven hereditary psychological differences (intelligence or other) between "races"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 17, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771 "2010-03-17T17:20:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/101 "2010-03-20T22:34:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And, therefore, at least unless and until a great deal more is known than is known now and the whole subject is not so purely speculative, no good reasons to take any supposed differences between “races” into account when deciding whether to establish racially-discriminatory immigration policies, or whether to fund “Head Start” programs for inner-city children, etc. Except it’s not purely speculative. Group differences have been noted since testing began and no one has figured out a way of eliminating them. For instance, is there any evidence that group differences between Ashkenazi Jews and other european groups have converged? > [@](#): > > IQ within populations has changed considerably over the years. Look at Holland for an example of a population in which IQ changed dramatically in a short amount of time. Look at the Flynn Effect. There’s also the matter that blacks IQ scores can change depending on what race gives the IQ test and the perceived racial bias of the test administrator. The fact that Ainu who consistently score low in IQ tests in Japan (where they are discriminated against) score much higher after moving to the states, where they face no racial discrimination. The problem with the Flynn effect is that it appears to be qualitatively different to the B-W gap (Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 247–255). > [@](#): > > A thorough study of the Flynn Effect’s factorial basis has shown that increases in common factors cannot account for the entirety of the secular increase (Wicherts et al., 2005). Much as in the case of stereotype threat, the score changes constituting the Flynn Effect reflect measurement bias to some extent. ‘‘It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect is qualitatively different from the nature of [black–white] differences in the United States” (p. 531). Also, gaps have reduced from 1.5 stdv during the first half of the 20th century, but the narrowing has stagnated. As Lee notes: > [@](#): > > A similar picture emerges from the NAEP results; the black–white difference has narrowed substantially, but stagnation since the mid-1980s still leaves gaps ranging from .70 to 1.05 standard deviations (Gottfredson, 2005). > > Of course, an environmentally induced shrinkage of the black– white IQ difference does not necessarily imply that the remainder is also environmental in origin. Since this remainder is factorially dissimilar to ongoing secular trends and has proven resistant to change, any pronouncements regarding its causes and future status must be treated with skepticism. ’ Review of intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count’ James Lee, Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 247–255 Also, a recent meta analysis of the stereotype threat explanation has show widespread publication bias. > [@](#): > > “Numerous laboratory experiments have been conducted to show that African Americans’ cognitive test performance suffers under stereotype threat, i.e., the fear of confirming negative stereotypes concerning one’s group. A meta-analysis of 55 published and unpublished studies of this effect shows clear signs of publication bias.” Stereotype threat and the cognitive test performance of African Americans, by Jelte M. Wicherts & Cor de Haan University of Amsterdam [http://www.isironline.org/meeting/pdfs/program2009.pdf](http://www.isironline.org/meeting/pdfs/program2009.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/102 "2010-03-20T22:37:14Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > While you may not agree with my position, characterizing it as a baseless strawman because differences “HAVE NOT BEEN RELIABLY SHOWN to exist” is nonsense. I’m afraid you didn’t understand my statement. Your “baseless strawman” that I was talking about is your repeated and unsubstantiated claim that those of us who disagree with you are arguing that innate racial differences “CANNOT POSSIBLY” exist. Everybody in this debate, AFAICT, is perfectly willing to concur that innate racial differences MAY POSSIBLY exist. But the fact is that so far, such differences have not been reliably SHOWN to exist. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > I submit that the onus for showing that group differences are not innate is on you and not me Nope. You’re the one making the claim, you’re the one who needs to substantiate it: it’s not up to me to show that it’s **not** true. You don’t get to evade the responsibility of properly substantiating the claim with **conclusive** evidence by appealing to a lot of **inconclusive** evidence (such as studies controlling for only a few environmental factors when looking at SAT scores, for example). _No amount of inconclusive evidence will add up to conclusive evidence._ So far, all the evidence you’ve produced about measured racial differences in outcomes could be explained **either** by innate genetic factors **or** by environmental factors, or by some combination thereof. Piling up more and more such evidence doesn’t advance your position in the slightest: rather, it leaves us right where we started, with the recognition that measured racial differences might be due to genetic differences or to environmental differences or to both, but we don’t know which. Sorry to offend you with comparisons to blatant kookery like creationism and moon-landing-hoax theories, but the fact is that you are adopting precisely their characteristic style of argument: 1. You start out with a hypothesis that seems to you intuitively reasonable and manifestly true. 2. You interpret all evidence that doesn’t actually contradict your hypothesis as evidence that definitively supports your hypothesis. 3. You interpret all sustained objections to your arguments as indications of bad faith and/or ideological prejudice on the part of those who disagree with you. 4. When others point out that you haven’t convincingly shown that your claims are true, you retort that it’s their responsibility to show that your claims are **not** true. 5. Finally, you retreat into your original subjective confidence in the intuitive reasonableness and manifest truth of your hypothesis, and comfort yourself with prophecies that the day will come when The Truth Will Be Revealed and you will be able to gleefully rejoice in the discomfiture of your adversaries. This may be a satisfying emotional exercise for you, but it does not qualify as a rational debate. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/103 "2010-03-20T22:40:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And, therefore, at least unless and until a great deal more is known than is known now and the whole subject is not so purely speculative, no good reasons to take any supposed differences between “races” into account when deciding whether to establish racially-discriminatory immigration policies, or whether to fund “Head Start” programs for inner-city children, etc. Except it’s not speculative. Group differences have been noted since testing began and no one has figured out a way of eliminating them. For instance, is there any evidence that group differences between Ashkenazi Jews and other european groups have converged? > [@](#): > > IQ within populations has changed considerably over the years. Look at Holland for an example of a population in which IQ changed dramatically in a short amount of time. Look at the Flynn Effect. There’s also the matter that blacks IQ scores can change depending on what race gives the IQ test and the perceived racial bias of the test administrator. The fact that Ainu who consistently score low in IQ tests in Japan (where they are discriminated against) score much higher after moving to the states, where they face no racial discrimination. The problem with the Flynn effect is that it appears to be qualitatively different to the B-W gap. > [@](#): > > A thorough study of the Flynn Effect’s factorial basis has shown that increases in common factors cannot account for the entirety of the secular increase (Wicherts et al., 2005). Much as in the case of stereotype threat, the score changes constituting the Flynn Effect reflect measurement bias to > some extent. ‘‘It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect > is qualitatively different from the nature of [black–white] differences > in the United States” (p. 531). Also, gaps have reduced from 1.5 stdv during the first half of the 20th century, but the narrowing has stagnated. As Lee notes: > [@](#): > > A similar picture emerges from the NAEP results; the black–white difference has narrowed substantially, but stagnation since the mid-1980s > still leaves gaps ranging from .70 to 1.05 standard deviations (Gottfredson, > 2005). > > Of course, an environmentally induced shrinkage of the black– > white IQ difference does not necessarily imply that the remainder > is also environmental in origin. Since this remainder is factorially > dissimilar to ongoing secular trends and has proven resistant to > change, any pronouncements regarding its causes and future status > must be treated with skepticism. ’ Review of intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count’ James Lee, Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 247–255 Also, a recent meta analysis of the stereotype threat explanation has show widespread publication bias. > [@](#): > > “Numerous laboratory experiments have been conducted to show that African Americans’ cognitive test performance suffers under stereotype threat, i.e., the fear of confirming negative stereotypes concerning one’s group. A meta-analysis of 55 published and unpublished studies of this effect shows clear signs of publication bias.” Stereotype threat and the cognitive test performance of African Americans, by Jelte M. Wicherts & Cor de Haan University of Amsterdam [http://www.isironline.org/meeting/pdfs/program2009.pdf](http://www.isironline.org/meeting/pdfs/program2009.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/104 "2010-03-20T23:07:41Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > I did say blacks are far hungrier to reach the NBA than whites. I think this is evidenced by the amount of time spent playing basketball and developing individual skill. No I do not have a cite for this. [Cite](http://www.america.gov/st/sports-english/2008/April/20080401120426zjsredna0.8432886.html): > [@](#): > > Currently, about 60 percent of Division I college players and 75 percent of NBA players are African Americans. They provide role models for black inner-city kids, who practice very hard to improve themselves, while using the game as a means of self-expression. They are very hungry to succeed and they dream big […] > > A recent study of black youths ages 13-18 found that 70 percent expected to play in the NBA, where in 2007 the minimum salary was $427,163 and the average salary was $5.2 million. Each year, 40,000 African-American boys will play high school basketball, but only 35 will make the NBA. I don’t think **Chief Pedant** can realistically argue that 70 percent of white American teenage boys expect to play in the NBA. This article provides some useful historical background on the cultural and social factors influencing basketball participation, and illustrates how absurd it is to claim that these influences are in any way “normalized” across racial categories in American society. > [@](#): > > Basketball started out as a college sport, but quickly became very popular in the urban slums among children of eastern and southern European immigrants because it fit in well with their environment, needing little space or expense. Social reformers advocated the sport to improve players’ health, morals and character, and also to Americanize them, teaching such important values as self-sacrifice, teamwork, quick thinking and hard work. > > Until the 1950s, the top basketball players were mainly second-generation inner city youth, primarily Jews who used the sport to get college scholarships. Basketball was considered the “Jewish sport,” much like basketball later became the “African-American sport.” Jews were very prominent in the late 1930s and early 1940s, making up nearly 50 percent of players of the professional American Basketball League, based in the Eastern states. > > However, the Jewish prominence on the court began to slide after World War II, as Jewish families became more successful and moved out of the inner city. […] > > The primary sport for African Americans at this time was baseball, and in 1947 Jackie Robinson became the first black player in the major leagues. Baseball attracted many of the finest African-American athletes of that day. Pro basketball then was a minor sport. The National Basketball Association was created in 1949 […] > > By the 1960s, colleges in the North dramatically increased their recruitment of black players, drawn heavily from poor urban neighborhoods […] > > Black youth growing up in the inner city idolized these athletic pioneers, and, increasingly, the most talented athletes focused their attention on basketball instead of baseball. […] > > Today, the neighborhood playground is a heaven for inner-city youths, where they can exercise control and establish their reputations as “performers” as well as athletes. The playground provides a community where they learn social skills, creativity and cultural identity. They learn the rules of the game and the social conventions of the playground court, where such feats as making a good move, a difficult shot or a prodigious block and impressing the fans often are more important than winning. In these discussions, several of us have pointed out to **Chief Pedant** several times that Jews used to be heavily overrepresented among white American basketball players, whereas now they’re significantly underrepresented in basketball even when only white players are considered. We’ve asked him to explain to us what happened to the “innate Jewish superiority” in basketball skills relative to other whites, and AFAIK he’s never managed to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/105 "2010-03-20T23:24:58Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Interest in **playing** a sport is a vastly different thing than interest in **watching** a sport. By that reasoning, given the huge following of NASCAR, every kid must want to grow up to be a race car driver. Well, in some broad sense, “Yes,” although “every” is an exaggeration, which I assume you threw in for rhetorical effect. In a subculture in which NASCAR is hugely popular, it is likely that a child with talent and propensity for that pursuit will be specifically encouraged by his social structure and family, and should he (“she” if her name is Danica 😉 ) be successful in that pursuit, it’s unlikely that substitute pursuits would be encouraged as alternatives. Those alternatives would be encouraged only when the primary pursuit does not prove a successful venue–i.e. the individual isn’t able to perform at a top-tier level. This is why it’s important to understand that, in the case of basketball, although it may be true that a larger percentage of blacks pursue it (though not, I’d guess, a larger absolute number because of the population size differences) even if they are not a top-tier player, at the highest level of performance, white basketball stars aren’t giving up basketball until and unless they are unsuccessful at it. The interest in the sport on the part of a wide white fan base ensures that every young white boy showing real talent is given the greatest opportunity (and certainly, on average, a greater average opportunity than a black kid) to develop his maximum potential, giving up basketball only when it’s clear that potential is not good enough. In the black community it’s may be more likely that a whole second-tier of athletes continues to play basketball instead of switching to lacrosse, but that does not change the reasoning behind suggesting that there is disproportionate representation: The pool of white athletes with a desire to pursue basketball as a primary pursuit is much larger than that of black athletes, and their opportunity to have any innate potential maximized is much larger–precisely because the broad interest in basketball exists in the white community and the resources to effect potential maximization also exist to a greater extent than in the black community. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/106 "2010-03-20T23:32:36Z")
by **CP** : I call bullshit on Stereotype threat as an explanation for observed differences in performance. > [@kingbighair](#): > > Your opinion is noted. You were kind enough not to request a cite, but as an example: _“The authors document that this research is widely misinterpreted in both popular and scholarly publications as showing that eliminating stereotype threat eliminates the African American-White difference in test performance. In fact, scores were statistically adjusted for differences in students’ prior SAT performance, and thus, Steele and Aronson’s findings actually showed that absent stereotype threat, the two groups differ to the degree that would be expected based on differences in prior SAT scores. The authors caution against interpreting the Steele and Aronson experiment as evidence that stereotype threat is the primary cause of African American-White differences in test performance.”_ > **[APA PsycNet](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-10043-001)** I might encourage reading the full text of the cite. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/107 "2010-03-20T23:51:54Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But the fact is that so far, such differences have not been reliably SHOWN to exist. > > Nope. You’re the one making the claim, you’re the one who needs to substantiate it: it’s not up to me to show that it’s **not** true. You don’t get to evade the responsibility of properly substantiating the claim with **conclusive** evidence by appealing to a lot of **inconclusive** evidence (such as studies controlling for only a few environmental factors when looking at SAT scores, for example). Seriously, can you articulate what kind of research study and what level of normalizations would be acceptable that does not require observable parallel universes where we get to play God iterating through trillions of combinatorial outcomes? If one normalizes for 10 factors, then you can always criticize that he didn’t account for an additional 5. If he normalizes for 100 factors, then you can criticize that they are 100 of the “wrong” factors (the “color of the pet dish” as you put it.) Looks like a no-win situation. No matter how massive the study or how many socioeconomic/environmental factors are controlled, there’s always a gap left for criticism because it’s not a complete parallel universe. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/108 "2010-03-20T23:59:24Z")
Just in terms of other psychological differences there is a summary of the various research here. Again, African Americans are noted to have higher self esteem than euro americans. Other interesting studies include those showing differences in the behaviour of Chinese new borns and european new borns by Dan Freedman, and later by Jerome Kagan (page 48-49). Rushton, J. P. (1999). Ethnic differences in temperament. In Y.-T. Lee, C. R. McCauley, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Personality and person perception across cultures (pp. 45-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. > **[Ethnic%20Diffs%20in%20Temperament%201999.pdf](https://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/wp-content/pdf/Ethnic%20Diffs%20in%20Temperament%201999.pdf)** > > 782.44 KB There is also a discussion of Kagan’s work here - excerpt from ‘Born That Way’ by William Wright: > [@](#): > > "Shaken, perhaps [by the results of the Guatemalan study], but Kagan, like the rest of the psychological profession , continued to believe in the environment as the most important molder of personality. His epiphany came fifteen years later, when he was working in Boston on a longitudinal study of infants, observing them from seven to twenty-nine months, with the aim of assessing the effectiveness of day-care. The group was made up of fifty-three Chinese-American infants and sixty-three Caucasian children. Part of the entire group had from the age of four months attended an experimental day-care center set-up for the study, part had attended other day-care centers, and part had been raised at home. > > In the course of the experiment, Kagan noticed something unanticipated. The Chinese children, little more than babies, whether attending day-care or raised at home, were consistently more fearful and inhibited than the Caucasians. The differences were obvious. The Chinese children stayed close to their mothers and were quiet and generally apprehensive, while the Caucasians were talkative, active, and “prone to laughter”. These characteristics were confirmed by the mothers as typical of their children’s behavior at home as well. In addition, the researchers discovered that the Chinese tots had less variable heart rates than the Caucasians. Kagan could not avoid the clear evidence of an innate difference between the two groups of infants. It is ironic that this scientist’s conversion to a biological-genetic view came along the lines of racial differences. Kagan was a political liberal who only three years earlier had been one of the most vociferous critics of Arthur Jensen’s theories on the heritability of IQ, theories that he and most everyone else denounced as racist. Now he was publishing his observation of fundamental personality differences between racial groups. When we conversed in Harvard office many years later, I asked Kagan if there had been an uproar similar to the one Jensen provoked. > > He smiled. “We got no flak on the Chinese paper All the reports of the book were about our day-care findings. Everyone ignored the fact that the Chinese children were different. I think it was because they were Asians, and Asians do well. If they would have been black we probably would have gotten flak.” > > Asked if it was dismaying for him, an unwavering liberal, to observe inherent racial differences, Kagan snapped, “Nature doesn’t care what we want.” More reflectively, he added, “I wasn’t so much dismayed at my observations of the Chinese kids. . .I was a little bit saddened to see the power of biology.” [http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000519.html](http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000519.html) ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/109 "2010-03-20T23:59:28Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I’m afraid you didn’t understand my statement. Your “baseless strawman” that I was talking about is your repeated and unsubstantiated claim that those of us who disagree with you are arguing that innate racial differences “CANNOT POSSIBLY” exist. > > Everybody in this debate, AFAICT, is perfectly willing to concur that innate racial differences MAY POSSIBLY exist. But the fact is that so far, such differences have not been reliably SHOWN to exist. > Nope. You’re the one making the claim, you’re the one who needs to substantiate it: it’s not up to me to show that it’s **not** true. You don’t get to evade the responsibility of properly substantiating the claim with **conclusive** evidence by appealing to a lot of **inconclusive** evidence (such as studies controlling for only a few environmental factors when looking at SAT scores, for example). > > _No amount of inconclusive evidence will add up to conclusive evidence._ So far, all the evidence you’ve produced about measured racial differences in outcomes could be explained **either** by innate genetic factors **or** by environmental factors, or by some combination thereof. > > Piling up more and more such evidence doesn’t advance your position in the slightest: rather, it leaves us right where we started, with the recognition that measured racial differences might be due to genetic differences or to environmental differences or to both, but we don’t know which. > Sorry to offend you with comparisons to blatant kookery like creationism and moon-landing-hoax theories, but the fact is that you are adopting precisely their characteristic style of argument: > > 1. You start out with a hypothesis that seems to you intuitively reasonable and manifestly true. > > 2. You interpret all evidence that doesn’t actually contradict your hypothesis as evidence that definitively supports your hypothesis. > > 3. You interpret all sustained objections to your arguments as indications of bad faith and/or ideological prejudice on the part of those who disagree with you. > > 4. When others point out that you haven’t convincingly shown that your claims are true, you retort that it’s their responsibility to show that your claims are **not** true. > > 5. Finally, you retreat into your original subjective confidence in the intuitive reasonableness and manifest truth of your hypothesis, and comfort yourself with prophecies that the day will come when The Truth Will Be Revealed and you will be able to gleefully rejoice in the discomfiture of your adversaries. > > This may be a satisfying emotional exercise for you, but it does not qualify as a rational debate. I have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever characterized the opposing arguments you post here as taking the position that innate differences “cannot possibly” exist, despite your implied attribution of that to me by using quotes. I have taken the position that there is no evidence for that, and that there is evidence that nature is what accounts for many of our differing outcomes despite all efforts to eliminate them. I have not argued that nurturing differences do not play a role in outcomes; only that innate differences create an immutable maximum potential realization across groups. I have given evidence that differences exist, that many studies exist which are contrary to the claim that income level, parental education, stereotype threat and equalizing opportunity are explanations for those differences. I have pointed out repeatedly that no examples in the entire world exist which support a contention that various racial groups are innately equal. In particular, the world of higher academia in this country has been completely stymied in its effort to produce anything close to equal outcomes in quantitative fields for particular groups. You, on the other hand, have not presented a single shred of evidence that the differing performance levels of racial groups can be eliminated by nurture. Not one. Yet you persist in claiming, arbitrarily, that additional proof is necessary for my arguments to rise above the level of “kookery.” Your choice, and as I mentioned, a popular and feel good one. I am not interested in fighting that, but the pretense that my position should be distilled into the statements you make above, and that my arguments are on par with creationists speaks of desperation and rhetorical distraction in the hope that readers will overlook the complete absence of evidence for your position that there is no reasonable level of evidence suggesting nature over nurture. It is you who have not offered a single iota of evidence that what you wish might be a good alternatively acceptable explanation–nurturing–is correct. And as I have also pointed out, you are left without such evidence despite billions of dollars, thousands of programs and millions of good intentions having been spent on pursuing the hypothesis that any and every explanation except innate potential might explain the differing outcomes we see among groups (including, but not limited to, the vague category of “race”). ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/110 "2010-03-21T00:25:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And that’s what this whole debate is really all **about,** isn’t it? That is, any public or intellectual interest in this purely scientific question is not, for the most part, purely scientific. _The Bell Curve_ certainly was not written as a purely scientific exercise. Well, Jensen was asked by Harvard Educational Review to look at the effectiveness of Head Start. Today you get similar questions because educational policy is to close achievement gaps. Of course if the genetic influences on academic achievement are differentially distributed across these groups, then this policy is not grounded in reality. It would be better to focus on lifting the achievement of all students so they reach their **individual** potential. > [@](#): > > The ultimate goal of federal officials is to exert pressure on L.A. Unified and other school districts to close the achievement gap that separates white, Asian and higher-income students from low-income, black and Latino students. > **[Federal agency to investigate L.A. schools](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-mar-10-la-me-lausd10-2010mar10-story.html)** > > Federal agency to investigate L.A. schools ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/111 "2010-03-21T00:43:43Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > I have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever characterized the opposing arguments you post here as taking the position that innate differences “cannot possibly” exist Sure you have, right in this very thread, repeatedly, even after the inaccuracy of such characterizations has been explicitly pointed out to you: > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > Bullocks on me for thinking there could possibly be anything innately different among the capabilities of those groups […] > [@Kimstu](#): > > The illogical bollocks in your thinking isn’t the notion that there COULD POSSIBLY be anything innately different among the capabilities of different racial groups; that’s a perfectly reasonable possible hypothesis to consider. > > The bollocks is in your imagining that there’s any **reliable scientific evidence unambiguously supporting** the hypothesis that such differences **actually exist**. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > And yet, the donkey of real outcomes brays in the backyard despite all protests that those outcomes cannot possibly exist. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Seriously, **Chief** , you need to recognize that nobody is saying that innate racial differences CANNOT POSSIBLY exist. That’s a strawman that you keep waving around to distract attention from the inconvenient fact that innate racial differences HAVE NOT BEEN RELIABLY SHOWN to exist. I’m glad that you’ve apparently given up on that strawman now, but it’s no use pretending that you weren’t using that strawman previously. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > You, on the other hand, have not presented a single shred of evidence that the differing performance levels of racial groups can be eliminated by nurture. Not one. Of course I haven’t, because _I’m not arguing for that hypothesis_. Being a reasonable person with respect for scientific method and rational argument, I don’t claim to know whether performance differences between racial groups are due to innate genetic factors or to environmental factors or to varying combinations of the two. At present, neither hypothesis has been conclusively demonstrated by scientific studies, and I think both hypotheses would be intrinsically very difficult to demonstrate conclusively. All I’m doing is pointing out that your claims about the level of scientific support for the hypothesis you’re advocating are wildly exaggerated, and that many of your arguments (like the ones about normalization of environmental factors for basketball participation across racial groups) are subjective, arbitrary, and ill-informed. Just because I observe that your attempts to support your preferred hypothesis are pretty much total crap doesn’t mean that I think that your hypothesis **itself** must therefore be **wrong**. Nor does the crappiness of your arguments in favor of your preferred hypothesis constitute a valid argument in favor of the **opposing** hypothesis. In short, as I said, on the subject of race and intelligence we’re currently left pretty much where we started: with the recognition that measured racial differences might be due to genetic differences or to environmental differences or to both, but we don’t know which. > [@Ruminator](#): > > If one normalizes for 10 factors, then you can always criticize that he didn’t account for an additional 5. Well, if you want to study an incredibly complex bio-socio-cultural phenomenon that has zillions of confounding factors in it, then you need to recognize that it’s going to be very difficult to construct an adequately controlled experiment, and that people are going to criticize your attempts to draw reliable inferences from inadequately controlled experiments. I sympathize with your frustration at the fact that this particular emperor is very tough to make clothes for, but that doesn’t mean you get to blame **me** for pointing out that the emperor still hasn’t been successfully clothed. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/112 "2010-03-21T01:08:04Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, if you want to study an incredibly complex bio-socio-cultural phenomenon that has zillions of confounding factors in it, then you need to recognize that it’s going to be very difficult to construct an adequately controlled experiment, and that people are going to criticize your attempts to draw reliable inferences from inadequately controlled experiments. > > I sympathize with your frustration at the fact that this particular emperor is very tough to make clothes for, but that doesn’t mean you get to blame **me** for pointing out that the emperor still hasn’t been successfully clothed. On a purely theoretical level, I agree with you. But that’s part of the problem. We (society) don’t just shoot the breeze about this topic theoretically. We spend **real money** on various social programs that don’t work. The temporary experiments to equalize society morph into special-interest factions. So on one hand, the level of empirical proof has not been established to prove genetics – but at the same time, we don’t require the same level of proof of socioeconomics to continue funding social programs. It’s like having one’s cake and eating it too! ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/113 "2010-03-21T01:34:49Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > So on one hand, the level of empirical proof has not been established to prove genetics – but at the same time, we don’t require the same level of proof of socioeconomics to continue funding social programs. Yup, which is why I would argue that we should not fund social programs _specifically to achieve a particular comparative outcome_. That is, if black students, say, on average have lower academic performance and consequently inferior career opportunities compared to students of other races, it makes sense to treat that as a warning flag for possible environmental disadvantages, and to study the situation for the presence of environmental disadvantages. Then if we find evidence of environmental disadvantages, it makes sense to fund some programs to ameliorate them, and watch the results to see if average performance improves. What doesn’t make sense is to adopt as our _a priori_ goal the achievement of a situation in which all performance levels are equal across racial categories. Because if we don’t even know whether that situation is theoretically achievable, then we have no way of knowing how much we should commit to achieving it. And to be fair, I think that most “uplift” efforts in social programs these days have pretty much relinquished idealized targets of absolute equality in favor of concentrating on amelioration of specific disadvantages. I certainly think that’s a more productive approach. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/114 "2010-03-21T01:35:27Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > by **CP** : > I call bullshit on Stereotype threat as an explanation for observed differences in performance. > > You were kind enough not to request a cite, but as an example: > > _“The authors document that this research is widely misinterpreted in both popular and scholarly publications as showing that eliminating stereotype threat eliminates the African American-White difference in test performance. In fact, scores were statistically adjusted for differences in students’ prior SAT performance, and thus, Steele and Aronson’s findings actually showed that absent stereotype threat, the two groups differ to the degree that would be expected based on differences in prior SAT scores. The authors caution against interpreting the Steele and Aronson experiment as evidence that stereotype threat is the primary cause of African American-White differences in test performance.”_ > [APA PsycNet](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/59/1/7/) > > I might encourage reading the full text of the cite. Thank you for that. It was an interesting read. Is this the part you wanted me to notice? > [@](#): > > We reiterate that nothing we report here is intended as criticism of Steele and Aronson’s (1995) original research or as a challenge to the concept of stereotype threat as an important phenomenon with relevance to testing settings. Steele and Aronson clearly showed that imposing and eliminating stereotype threat can, in laboratory settings, affect the test performance of both African American and White students, and other researchers have extended this to other groups (e.g., gender, age). This is important in that it highlights the fact that test scores can be influenced by factors other than the examinee’s true level of skill and achievement. Looks to me that the whole point of this is not to show that stereotype threat does not exist, but that we should not think stereotype threat is the only reason for differences. I think that is a pretty reasonable position and I agree. I guess I am not sure why you think this supports your argument that stereotype threat does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/115 "2010-03-21T01:48:21Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > , if black students, say, on average have lower academic performance and consequently inferior career opportunities compared to students of other races, it makes sense to treat that as a warning flag for possible environmental disadvantages, and to study the situation for the presence of environmental disadvantages. Then if we find evidence of environmental disadvantages, it makes sense to fund some programs to ameliorate them, Nope, this is inconsistent. You’re not using your own standards of proof to justify the social program funding. You haven’t accounted for the “zillion” genetic factors. There is “_no evidence_” of environmental disadvantages until genetics is fully explained away. See how the reverse logic can also be applied? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/116 "2010-03-21T02:04:50Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > You’re not using your own standards of proof to justify the social program funding. Well sure, justifying the funding of social programs doesn’t use the same proof standards as conclusively demonstrating a scientific theory. I thought that was the very point I was making. That’s why I don’t think we should specify an empirically untestable assertion (like “funding education enrichment programs will equalize SAT scores across racial groups”) as the goal of a program; rather, we should specify something empirically testable like “funding this education enrichment program will improve SAT scores of underperforming groups”. That way, we don’t have to know with scientific certainty exactly what factors contribute exactly how much to performance differentials. It’s very true that if we require scientific levels of theoretical certainty to justify spending, we’ll never be justified in spending anything at all. We couldn’t spend for new nuclear weapons development, for example, because we couldn’t conclusively prove how much they’ll increase the deterrent effect on possible attackers. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/117 "2010-03-21T02:17:20Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Also, a recent meta analysis of the stereotype threat explanation has show widespread publication bias. > > Stereotype threat and the cognitive test performance of African Americans, by Jelte M. Wicherts & Cor de Haan University of Amsterdam > > [http://www.isironline.org/meeting/pdfs/program2009.pdf](http://www.isironline.org/meeting/pdfs/program2009.pdf) That study is unpublished and not peer reviewed (what is the point of that link?). Furthermore, it is a survey of the media and is not experimental. Do you have any studies that actually test stereotype threat and find it to be invalid? I ran a PsychINFO search and found a whole bunch confirming it. I admit they can be wrong, but it is up to you to show it. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/118 "2010-03-21T02:26:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > , we should specify something empirically testable like “funding this education enrichment program will improve SAT scores of underperforming groups”. That way, we don’t have to know with scientific certainty exactly what factors contribute exactly how much to performance differentials. I think the phrase, _“don’t have to know… exactly what factors contribute”_ is being coy. We all know the factors the programs are trying to compensate for is “nurture” and not “nature.” > [@](#): > > It’s very true that if we require scientific levels of theoretical certainty to justify spending, we’ll never be justified in spending anything at all. We couldn’t spend for new nuclear weapons development, for example, That’s not what my emphasis on reverse logic is saying. I’m saying that the social program funding starts with a priori assumption of socioeconomic disadvantage as the primary cause. They don’t write the legislation with wording saying it’s a temporary experiment (e.g. limited to 25 years) with genuine scientific open-mindedness of accepting the possible outcomes – GOOD or BAD. No, if the outcomes are bad, then it means the _not enough money_ was spent, or that the program was _poorly executed_. That entire a priori mindset is insistently maintained throughout. This is a much lower standard of proof than the “nature” proponents are subjected to. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/119 "2010-03-21T02:43:03Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > I’m saying that the social program funding starts with a priori assumption of socioeconomic disadvantage as the primary cause. Why does it have to start with the assumption that it’s the _primary_ cause to the exclusion of all else? Everyone including Murray and Hernstein, Rushton, et al agrees that socioeconomic disadvantage is a very significant factor in the testing disparity. Since it’s a very significant factor and the sort of factor that lends itself to easily-designed social programs, it’s not hard to see why such programs would be funded. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771/120 "2010-03-21T02:54:35Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > I’m saying that the social program funding starts with a priori assumption of socioeconomic disadvantage as the primary cause. No; as **Gorsnak** pointed out, the issue of how to identify the **primary** cause of outcome differences across racial groups is irrelevant. To justify social program funding to help underperforming groups, all we need is good reason to think that some environmental factor addressed by the program (whether it’s socioeconomic disadvantage or something else) is a significant **contributing** cause. I quite agree with you that if a certain social program has produced no detectable improvement after a long time, we shouldn’t go on funding it just out of blindly stubborn conviction that it’s bound to work eventually. But that’s very different from saying that we require scientific certainty about the impact of a particular program before we’ll even **try** funding it. > [@Ruminator](#): > > We all know the factors the programs are trying to compensate for is “nurture” and not “nature.” Well, sure, because at present nurture factors are the only influences that can be addressed by any post-conception intervention program. Just because we can’t alter genetic factors after an individual has been conceived doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to compensate for other kinds of factors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-proven-hereditary-psychological-differences-intelligence-or-other-between-races/532771.md?page=7)