This difference in effects in childhood/adolescence are absent with same-race parents. And such a difference when the parents are of a different race are exactly what we would expect from a culturally and societally influenced trait.
Cite?
Then why should white immigrants be viewed as representative?
And you still haven’t addressed the study that demonstrates that degree of admixture is not correlated to test scores, as one would expect if genetics were involved in the test-score gap.
Huh? We’re talking about contemporary, unassimilated 1st generation immigrant children.
I’m starting to think Hector St Claire lives on Mars or has access to some fantastic drugs. He usually sounds like he is experiencing a totally different reality from the people he is talking to.
This is the heritage of your argument. The Nazis loved this racist science bullshit and you have been loudly making this argument for most of the last decade. Own it and face your forebears, you disgusting coward.
Calling people genetically inferior? Check. Comparing them to vermin? Check. See, you’re a natural! Just work on your goosestep.
Is that what I said it said, you illiterate fuck?
Says who?
Yet the equally as selected (self- is immaterial) slave-descended African-Americans (and Jamaicans) are somehow magically representative of the entire continent of Africa to scientific racists…
I’m not sure precisely what you mean. As a rule, for a large number of cognitive and behavioural traits, heritability increases with age. Here’s a good summary:
To take a non-IQ related example: heritability of religiosity is high among adults (50%, similar to the estimates that I trust for IQ), but much lower for children and teens. This is because children are more behaviourally malleable, if they’re told to go to church they do, but when they get to be adults and make their own decisions, that’s when you start to see how heritable the trait actually is.
Thankfully none of the above apply to me.
Unless you are going to fetch out that idiotic study for “African admixture” that you used in the past (feel free to post it again for a laugh; was it the one that used skin color or blood types to determine “African admixture”?) and use some kind of Jamaican immigrant isolated study in a subpopulation that has no evidence whatsoever it’s a cross section of a source population, your idea of “evidence” is pretty weak.
I have no disagreement at all with a contention that any given population will have a different skillset than any other given population, though.
I’m pretty sure it would not be difficult to find a group of sharp subsaharans at the top of their source population getting the hell out of africa and finding themselves besting some sort of peanut-head caucasion demographic in some other country.
This has little to do with the notion of “average” skillset at the race level, though (other than the fact that, when we find differences and adjust for nurture, the residual difference is genetic, regardless of which population ranks how).
Seriously?
Check out some of the cites here, especially the Suryanarayana et al., 2011 one which estimates Indian IQ might be as low as mid-70s.
Again, I think any results from extremely backward, malnourished and disease-ridden parts of the world (like India, and like much of sub-Saharan Africa) are dubious and don’t tell you much about inherent potential, or about genetics. Still, right now, test scores for Indians are exceedingly low.
Chief Pedant Ron Unz makes a big deal out of how certain European populations (Ireland, Poland, East Germany, Serbs) have seen quite large gains in IQ over the last couple generations- what do you make of that? He thinks urbanization, much more than ending poverty per se, causes increases in IQ. It’s the key point in his argument that the Black/White gap is mostly not genetic in origin, though he doesn’t rule out some genetic influences.
Also, what do you make of the fact that one of the ‘whitest’ countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Ethiopia, also has one of the lowest scores on IQ tests?
Here’s the study (for the third time in the last dozen or so posts). And no, it doesn’t use skin color or blood types – it uses genetic markers, specifically blood group loci.
To reiterate: rates of African admixture do not correlate to lower test scores.
Awfully convenient that a study that happens to mostly shoot down the “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” assertion just so happens to be “idiotic”, in your eyes. Are these researchers “cockroaches” too?
Of course, no study yet has successfully managed to “adjust for nurture”. I’ve suggested an experiment that might do so, but they would be rather difficult and costly.
Based on Richard Lynn’s “research”? That’s a laugh. Lynn’s “estimates” on IQ in various countries have been totally discredited – in some countries, he “estimated” the IQ scores based on a single study of a few dozen children that weren’t even from that country. Lynn’s crap ‘data’ was mostly just made up.
Is this based on Lynn’s made-up data? If so, you should completely discard it from any argument you make.
Richard Lynn estimated the IQ of the entire country of Equatorial Guinea by looking at a single study of 48 (yes, forty-eight) school-age children. And in most countries he estimated, he didn’t even have a single study to look at at all.
That’s my personal favorite of all of the arguments. “Entire countries are completely retarded!” When you add that to “But that’s not some sort of value statement or anything” it gets hilarious.
First, those effects are shown to be quite limited unless we are talking about truly starving people, crackheads, drunks, and the like.
But it seems unlikely we’d find a strong distribution of that crowd within the wealthy and educated black families whose privileged children barely score what uneducated and poverty stricken white kids score (and those white kids in turn underscore asians).
So it’s not a very satisfying hypothesis.
Putative alternate explanations include a wealth gap (difficult to believe that blacks with incomes over 200k/year are wealthier than whites with incomes under 20k a year), lousy parental education (but surely better than whites in those pitifully low income groups), and so on. See graphs 5 and 6 here for some '96 data on parental education and test results.
Despite fairly intense efforts, the gap is not closing. See here.
Here is another graph of scores versus SES
But you can look up this data on your own if you like; there’s lots of it, and the pattern is consistent across the US and the world (where you can find data reported by race).
Check out the 2011 citation I mentioned (you need to scroll down), it extrapolates IQ from test scores and is independent of Richard Lynn.
I’m unable to access that link – it’s blocked by a firewall (or something).
