# At what level is racialism accepted in the scientific community? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 10, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257 "2014-08-10T18:55:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/181 "2014-08-18T12:38:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The consensus, as you well know, is that there is no good data that suggests (and therefore no good reason to believe) that black people have inferior genes for intelligence. Provide a cite, specially regarding “no good data” (not to be confused with ‘no support from population genetics’, whatever that means). We have been discussing two major data points: A survey in which psychometricians and behavioral geneticists were asked if they felt that the Black-White IQ difference had a genetic component. A letter in which population geneticists said that population genetics provides "no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures”. The latter only discusses supposed “population genetic” non-evidence. It’s problematic, among other reasons, because Wade himself was dismissive of genetic IQ differences. Here is what he said on the topic: > [@](#): > > Standing in sharp contrast to the economists’ working assumption that people the world over are interchangeable units is the idea that national disparities in wealth arise from differences in intelligence. The possibility should not be dismissed out of hand: where individuals are concerned, IQ scores do correlate, on average, with economic success, so it is not unreasonable to inquire if the same might be true of countries. > > The global IQ/wealth thesis is connected with the interminable debate about black and white IQ differences in the United States, but it involves somewhat different issues and builds more on that part of the evidence about which both sides agree. > > The two camps in the IQ debate are known as hereditarians and environmentalists. Both sides generally agree that when IQ tests are administered in the United States, European Americans score 100 (by definition—their scores are normalized to 100), Asian Americans score 105 and African Americans score 85 to 90. The African American score is noticeably lower than the European score (15 points, or one standard deviation, say the hereditarians; 10 points, say the environmentalists). So much is agreed. The controversy arises in interpreting the gap between the European and African American scores. The hereditarians say the difference in scores is due 50% to environmental reasons and 50% to genetics, although they sometimes change the mix to 20% environment and 80% heredity. The environmentalists assert that the entire gap is due to environmental impediments and that if these were removed, the gap would ultimately disappear altogether. > > The heritability of intelligence, the measure which the two sides interpret so differently, does not refer, as easily might be supposed, to the extent to which intelligence is governed by the genes. It refers to the variation in intelligence within a population, and specifically to the extent to which this variation is genetic. A trait could be under complete genetic control, but if there were no variation in the population, its heritability would be zero. Intelligence is almost certainly under genetic influence but none of the responsible alleles has yet been identified with any certainty, probably because each makes too minute a contribution to show up with present methods. > > The two sides in the IQ debate are not so terribly far apart on the facts, given that both sides agree that environmental factors are involved. The hereditarians concede that if an adjustment is made for socioeconomic status, with which IQ score is correlated, then African American scores would rise 5 points, to 90. That is not so much greater than the gap that separates Asian Americans from European Americans, about which no one seems to be bothered. > > Why, then, is the debate so heated? The acrimony arises because the two positions lead to different policy choices. The hereditarians say that since the IQ gap is substantially innate, the Head Start early education program has failed, as was predicted by Arthur Jensen in 1969, and so will similar interventions. The environmentalists deny this, saying the gap in educational attainment is closing, and that it is the racist nature of society that impedes African American advancement. > > That issue needn’t be resolved here. The question of global IQ is a somewhat less fraught issue and is of considerable evolutionary interest because intelligence reflects evolutionary changes in the brain and behavior. > > The principal proponents of the global IQ/wealth thesis are Richard Lynn, a psychologist at the University of Ulster, and Tatu Vanhanen, a political scientist at the University of Tampere in Finland. They have gathered data from around the world and worked out the correlation between intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, and various criteria of economic success, such as gross national product per capita. Their findings are published in two books, IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002) and IQ and Global Inequality (2006). > > The world’s average IQ, they report, is 90. Broken down by race, the IQ of East Asian nations is 105, the European score is 99, and sub-Saharan Africa’s is 67.43 The authors note that the sub-Saharan African score would be considerably higher but for malnutrition and ill health. > > Lynn and Vanhanen argue that IQ scores must be measuring something significant because IQ correlates well with measures of educational attainment. The scores are indeed strongly associated, they say, with what economists call human capital, which includes training and education. > > Turning to economic indicators, they find that national IQ scores have an extremely high correlation (83%) with economic growth per capita and also associate strongly with the rate of economic growth between 1950 and 1990 (64% correlation).44 > > “Our argument is that differences in the average mental abilities of populations measured by national IQ provides the most powerful, although not complete, theoretical and empirical explanation for many types of inequalities in human conditions,” Lynn and Vanhanen conclude.45 It follows from this conclusion that not much can be done to reduce inequities in national wealth. “The gap between rich and poor countries can be expected to persist as far as it corresponds to differences in national IQs,” they say.46 > > It may seem intuitively plausible that a more intelligent population might garner more wealth than a less intelligent one. But intelligence is a quality of individuals, not of societies. A society of strong men might easily be defeated by weaker men if the weaklings are more cohesive and fight harder. Like strength, the property of individual intelligence does not necessarily transfer from individuals to the society of which they are par > > And indeed with Lynn and Vanhanen’s correlations, it is hard to know which way the arrow of causality may be pointing, whether higher IQ makes a nation wealthier or whether a wealthier nation enables its citizens to do better on IQ tests. The writer Roy Unz has pointed out from Lynn and Vanhanen’s own data examples in which IQ scores increase 10 or more points in a generation when a population becomes richer, showing clearly that wealth can raise IQ scores significantly. East German children averaged 90 in 1967 but 99 in 1984. In West Germany, which has essentially the same population, averages range from 99 to 107. This 17 point range in the German population, from 90 to 107, was evidently caused by the alleviation of poverty, not genetics. > > There is a 10 to 15 point difference in IQ scores between the richer and poorer countries of Europe, yet these differences disappear when the inhabitants migrate to the United States, so the differences are evidently an environmental effect, not a genetic one. If European IQ scores can vary so widely across different decades and locations, it is hard to be sure that any other ethnic differences are innate rather than environmental. Lynn and Vanhanen’s book “constituted a game-ending own-goal against their IQ-determinist side,” Unz concluded, but “neither of the competing ideological teams ever noticed.” > > Lynn and Vanhanen do in fact acknowledge the role of wealth in enhancing IQ scores. But the difficulty of quantifying the IQ-enhancing effect of wealth seriously weakens the ability of IQ scores to explain wealth. More generally, it may be hazardous to compare the IQ scores of different races if allowance is not made for differences in wealth, nutrition and other factors that influence IQ. > > East Asia is a vast counterexample to the Lynn/Vanhanen thesis. The populations of China, Japan and Korea have consistently higher IQs than those of Europe and the United States, but their societies, despite their many virtues, are not obviously more successful than those of Europe and its outposts. Intelligence can’t hurt, but it doesn’t seem a clear arbiter of a population’s economic success. What is it then that determines the wealth or poverty of nations Depending on how you read it, either Wade didn’t speculate about genetic IQ differences (he just noted the speculations of others and critiqued them in passing) or he speculated about both the existence and non-existence of such differences (he noted the hypothesis and wrote dismissively of it). Thus, saying that the “population genetic” evidence doesn’t support his speculations says precisely nothing on the matter! Again, I will request a clarification later as the statement is not at all clear. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/182 "2014-08-18T12:43:20Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Provide a cite, specially regarding “no good data” (not to be confused with ‘no support from population genetics’, whatever that means). How can I cite “no good data”? I’ve described, many times, what would count as “good data” that supports the “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” hypothesized answer to the question of the test score gap: find all the genes responsible for high and low intelligence and find their relative prevalence in various ppopulations. Data about test scores does nothing to answer the question of why the test score gap exists. Showing that there are some genetic differences between populations does nothing to annswer the question of why the test score gap exists. If you think the answer is “black people’s genes for intelligence are inferior”, then you need to actually _find all the genes for intelligence_, as just a first step. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/183 "2014-08-18T12:51:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The consensus, as you well know, is that there is no good data that suggests (and therefore no good reason to believe) that black people have inferior genes for intelligence. Given the high heritability of IQ, it’s statistically probable that arbitrary subpopulational differences have a genetic component. The math pertaining to individual differences in given [here](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-008-9129-7#page-1). As such, the behavioral genetic _default_ is that group differences are partially heritable. They might not be – it’s easy to think of examples in which group differences are fully environmental – but not being partially heritable is not the default position. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/184 "2014-08-18T12:59:14Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Given the high heritability of IQ, it’s statistically probable that arbitrary subpopulational differences have a genetic component. The math pertaining to individual differences in given [here](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-008-9129-7#page-1). As such, the behavioral genetic _default_ is that group differences are partially heritable. They might not be – it’s easy to think of examples in which group differences are fully environmental – but not being partially heritable is not the default position. Even if this is accepted (and it’s not), it tells us nothing about black people’s genes. Test scores tell us nothing about genes. The only thing that tells about the genes for intelligence of black people is _data about the genes for intelligence in black people_. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/185 "2014-08-18T13:11:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > How can I cite “no good data”? As you claimed that there was a consensus, I was expecting a link to a survey… > [@](#): > > I’ve described, many times, what would count as “good data” that supports the “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” hypothesized answer to the question of the test score gap: find all the genes responsible for high and low intelligence and find their relative prevalence in various ppopulations. …but then you idiosyncratically defined “good data”. By this definition there also is “no good evidence” that the differences are in part due to environmental factors. After all, no one has determined all of the environmental influences on intelligence. How then could we possibly know how all of the factors stack up? Except, when it comes to genes _we can know_ since if there was selection for IQ, it would have exerted itself across the genome. Thus, gene frequencies would correlate. Thus, to establish that there were regional differences in selective pressure for IQ (or other polygenic traits), one merely has to establish that there are correlated allelic differences. As GC recently noted: > [@](#): > > Actually, there is some evidence in on that question. The big education GWAS study last year found three replicable SNPs that influence educational performance. Here is their distribution: > > SNP Effective Allele Sign Yoruba Japan China Europe > rs9320913 A + 0.181 0.326 0.419 0.508 > rs11584700 A – 0.958 0.633 0.700 0.758 > rs4851266 T + 0.042 0.455 0.578 0.358 > > Three could be coincidence. Drift or linkage could pull the frequency of a given SNP in a different direction from the general trend caused by selection. **If you had 17 out of 20, or 40 out of 50, you’d have a bulletproof case.** So, no one doesn’t need all of the genes. Only a heap is needed. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/186 "2014-08-18T13:17:44Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > …but then you idiosyncratically defined “good data”. By this definition there also is “no good evidence” that the differences are in part due to environmental factors. Sure there is. Socio-economic factors play a role, even if they are not the whole story. Richer black kids score higher than poorer black kids. Further, there has been a study (conveniently ignored by your side) that tried to find a direct correlation between percentage of African genetic ancestry and test scores among self-identified African Americans. There was zero correlation – the “blacker” black people scored no lower than the ones with less African ancestry. It’s an older study, but the methodology was fine… your side seems way, way too cowardly and/or lazy to try and replicate it with more modern techniques. > [@](#): > > After all, no one has determined all of the environmental influences on intelligence. How then could we possibly know how all of the factors stack up? We don’t. > [@](#): > > So, no one doesn’t need all of the genes. So far, we have pretty much none of them. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/187 "2014-08-18T13:22:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Even if this is accepted (and it’s not), it tells us nothing about black people’s genes. Test scores tell us nothing about genes. The only thing that tells about the genes for intelligence of black people is _data about the genes for intelligence in black people_. The “data about the genes for intelligence in black [and White] people” allows us to make a probabilistic statement, given that nothing else is known about the groups in question except that they differ in latent ability. The point was that the behavioral genetic default – i.e., what is assumed in absence of evidence – isn’t no genes. Recall, you reasoned that in absence of evidence we should assume pure environmentality. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/188 "2014-08-18T13:26:12Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > The “data about the genes for intelligence in black [and White] people” allows us to make a probabilistic statement, given that nothing else is known about the groups in question except that they differ in latent ability. We don’t have such data, so we can make no statements about it. > [@](#): > > Recall, you reasoned that in absence of evidence we should assume pure environmentality. I made no such statement. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/189 "2014-08-18T13:35:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Further, there has been a study (conveniently ignored by your side) that tried to find a direct correlation between percentage of African genetic ancestry and test scores among self-identified African Americans. There was zero correlation – the “blacker” black people scored no lower than the ones with less African ancestry. It’s an older study, but the methodology was fine… your side seems way, way too cowardly and/or lazy to try and replicate it with more modern techniques. There were two studies and neither had the statistical power to either confirm or disconfirm a genetic hypothesis. So no, the methodologies were not fine. See [here](http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/a-genetic-hypothesis-was-not-tested.pdf). It has been confirmed, however, that education, income, and occupational status correlate with African genetic ancestry in the AA population. Regarding IQ, the reason results haven’t been published is simply because no one wants to publish them. The data is there e.g., > [@](#): > > Background: To leverage genome-wide data from several cohorts so as to identify genetic determinants of age-related cognitive decline among olderAfrican- American (AA) people.Methods:We examined genome-wide genotyping data for 4,426 unrelated older AA subjects who had at least two repeated > measures of cognition from six (CHAP, IIDP, ROS, MAP, MARS, and WHICAP) prospective community-based studies.We compared them to 2,703 unrelated > non-Hispanic European Americans (EAs) from the ROS, MAP and CHAP studies. Within each cohort, individual cognitive tests were combined > to form an aggregate measure of global cognition. We used linear mixed effects models to characterize individual paths of change in cognition, controlling > for age, sex and education as fixed effects. After quality control, imputation was performed using the 1000 Genomes Project Phase I combined > reference panels of EA and AA ancestry. Common variants were meta-analyzed across cohorts using weighted fixed-effect models. HAPMIX software > was used to estimate ancestry at each locus, and MIXSCORE software was used to test whether individuals with faster or slower rates of global cognitive > decline had a proportion of ancestry different from the genome average. > > Raj, T., Chibnik, L., McCabe, C., Stranger, B., Barnes, L. L., Weir, D., … & De Jager, P. (2013). Genome-wide association study and admixture mapping of age-related cognitive decline in African-Americans. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, 9(4), P678-P679. Why don’t you write the authors and request the ancestry x IQ results. They should have looked at them when doing the analysis. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/190 "2014-08-18T13:45:32Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > There were two studies and neither had the statistical power to either confirm or disconfirm a genetic hypothesis. So no, the methodologies were not fine. Says one guy. Not convinced by one guy, though one or two studies are never enough. Conveniently (and lazily), your side hasn’t tried to do the study again with modern methods. > [@](#): > > It has been confirmed, however, that education, income, and occupational status correlate with African Ancestry in the AA population. Regarding IQ, the reason results haven’t been published is simply because no one wants to publish them. How convenient for the “blacks are dumber” side. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you write the authors and ask them to publish the ancestry x IQ results. They would have looked at them when doing the analysis. More excuses for why your side has no data on the genes. They just didn’t publish it… maybe they were too busy? Or afraid of conspiracies? Maybe they didn’t want tons of money and exposure from making a scientific breakthrough? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/191 "2014-08-18T13:48:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We don’t have such data, so we can make no statements about it. We have data on the heritability of IQ in the Black and White populations. I was merely saying that this allows for a probablistic know-nothing-else statement. I cited the Tal (2009) paper regarding probabilistic inferences and heritability. > [@](#): > > I made no such statement. Indeed. I misread the original. I respectfully withdraw the claim. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/192 "2014-08-18T13:58:35Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > We have data on the heritability of IQ in the Black and White populations. I was merely saying that this allows for a probablistic know-nothing-else statement. I cited the Tal (2009) paper regarding probabilistic inferences and heritability. It sounds like you’re not saying much at all. Why, then, are you so eager to resurrect 19th century ideas about the intelligence of black people that were responsible for so much evil and suffering? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/193 "2014-08-18T14:25:56Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Says one guy. Not convinced by one guy, though one or two studies are never enough. IQ obviously correlates with EU Ancestry in the AA population. We know this because it correlates with self reported EU ancestry and with skin color in the same population and because individuals with one black and one white parent perform intermediate to those with two black or two white and since some of these inds go onto ID as “Black”. Also, since education, income, and occupational status correlate with IQ in the AA population, and since they correlate with EU genetic ancestry, one would expect IQ too likewise. So a raw correlation wouldn’t tell us much. Rather, one would want to see if the IQ- genetic ancestry correlation was driving rather than being driven by the others. > [@](#): > > Conveniently (and lazily), your side hasn’t tried to do the study again with modern methods. A while back Murray tried to organize a research team to resolve this issue. Hereditarians signed up but he couldn’t get environmentalists on board and so dropped the issue, reasoning that no one would trust the results. He discussed his attempt in a yahoo evolutionary psychology message thread; I’ll look for it when I get a chance. I agree that it was foolish to not go ahead with the study, if in fact he could have done it. > [@](#): > > More excuses for why yur side has no data on the genes. They just didn’t publish it… maybe they were too busy? Or afraid of conspiracies? Maybe they didn’t want tons of money and exposure from making a scientific breakthrough? If I could get my hands on a good data set I would pay someone to do it. But it’s all IRB locked up. Generally, racial hereditarians e.g., Rowe (2005), Rushton and Jensen (2005), Murray (2005) have stated that their position could be falsified using admixture mapping – but, apparently, no one wants to try it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/194 "2014-08-18T14:33:45Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > IQ obviously correlates with EU Ancestry in the AA population. Cite that self-identified African Americans with higher levels of european ancestry score higher on IQ tests? > [@](#): > > If I could get my hands on a good data set I would pay someone to do it. But it’s all IRB locked up. Generally, racial hereditarians e.g., Rowe (2005), Rushton and Jensen (2005), Murray (2005) have stated that their position could be falsified using admixture mapping – but, apparently, no one wants to try it. Again, very convenient – they could do it themselves, of course. Good scientists are supposed to try and falsify their conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/195 "2014-08-18T14:43:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It sounds like you’re not saying much at all. Why, then, are you so eager to resurrect 19th century ideas about the intelligence of black people that were responsible for so much evil and suffering? Blacks (in the U.S. at least) are intellectually “inferior”; the question is why. The differential and its antecedents are currently blamed on evil White people. Since the true cause is uncertain (2014 intelligence survey!) the issue should be investigated and resolved. I’ve looked into the matter for about four years and haven’t found any piece of evidence that seriously contradicts a modest hereditarian model. Thus, I’ve concluded that either the nutty cultural marxists who see discrimination everywhere or the nutty racialists who see a Cathedral conspiracy are correct. Either race or racism. Either way the issue is sociopolitically interesting _to me_. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/196 "2014-08-18T14:51:37Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Blacks (in the U.S. at least) are intellectually “inferior” At least you openly admit your racist opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/197 "2014-08-18T14:57:16Z")
I have a question for those who know more about genetics. How does epigenetics play into all of this? My impression is that we are in the early stages of understanding epigenetic phenomena, but that we believe at least some of the differences in inherited traits is due not to different genes but to different experiences of recent ancestors. So, for example, if someone’s grandparent experienced a famine they may process insulin differently–not because they have different genes, but because the actual mechanism of expression is changed epigenetically. If all of that is correct, it seems like an error to conflate heritability and genes. Even if a trait is shown to be heritable, the cause could be epigenetic rather than genetic. Doesn’t it seem entirely plausible that brutally oppressing a population of people will cause several generations of their descendants to express genes (the same genes everyone else has) in different ways, if the epigenetic hypothesis is true? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/198 "2014-08-18T14:58:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Cite that self-identified African Americans with higher levels of european ancestry score higher on IQ tests? (Edits. Sorry, it’s late. I’ll continue another time.) I said “self reported ancestry”. I did some analyses myself – though I haven’t got around to publishing (in an open psych journal, of course). The primary sources (e.g., Add Health, NLSY79, NLSY97) are publicly accessible so you can verify if you want. > **[More than Just “Colorism”: Part 1.](https://humanvarieties.org/2013/02/02/more-than-just-colorism-part-1/)** > > The meaning of a Jensen Effect on the Color Effect Dalliard showed that IQ correlates with color in both the American Black and Hispanic populations (a color effect) and, importantly, that the IQ-c… > **[Self-reported white ancestry among US blacks : A Jensen effect](https://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/27/self-reported-white-ancestry-among-us-blacks-a-jensen-effect/)** > > In an earlier article, I have shown that the magnitude of sibling correlations among NLSY-ASVAB subtests correlates with the magnitude of g-loadings, but moderately with the magnitude of black-whit… > **[Skin Color is Not Driving the Relationship Between Racial Admixture and IQ](https://humanvarieties.org/2013/02/09/skin-color-is-not-driving-the-relationship-between-racial-admixture-and-iq/)** > > Some variables in the Add Health and the NLSY97 allow us to investigate the relationship of skin color with IQ and racial ancestry with IQ (AHPVT scores and ASVAB scores) among the US black populat… > [@](#): > > Again, very convenient – they could do it themselves, of course. Good scientists are supposed to try and falsify their conclusions. I guess – except that IRBs won’t grant approval, so the type of data isn’t available. Of course, a hereditarian could collect data on their own. I think that’s where the intellectual laziness comes in. For example, one could use SAT scores and 23andME admixture results. The thing is it would be hard to get critics to believe. When you use national data, on the other hand, the raw data isn’t suspect. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/199 "2014-08-18T15:03:27Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > I said “self reported ancestry”. Sounds about as useful as “self reported intelligence” would be. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/200 "2014-08-18T15:43:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I have a question for those who know more about genetics. How does epigenetics play into all of this? My impression is that we are in the early stages of understanding epigenetic phenomena, but that we believe at least some of the differences in inherited traits is due not to different genes but to different experiences of recent ancestors. So, for example, if someone’s grandparent experienced a famine they may process insulin differently–not because they have different genes, but because the actual mechanism of expression is changed epigenetically. > > If all of that is correct, it seems like an error to conflate heritability and genes. Even if a trait is shown to be heritable, the cause could be epigenetic rather than genetic. Doesn’t it seem entirely plausible that brutally oppressing a population of people will cause several generations of their descendants to express genes (the same genes everyone else has) in different ways, if the epigenetic hypothesis is true? The related question is: where does this hypothesis fall in terms of the “racist scum” scale? Because suppose you bought into this, you would be then saying that the genetic differences are not inherent to the group, in the sense that it could change back relatively quickly in future generations (as compared to evolution), but would still be saying that the genetic differences are inherent to the current members of the group. Is that acceptable from a PC standpoint? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257.md?page=11)