Yes, yes, yes. I’m the wandering hereditarian. By day I search the net for interesting arguments, at night I look for data to test these.
I remember that discussion clearly. You agreed with my reasoning. And I agreed that the results were inconclusive due to a lack of statistical power. This is why I was surprised that you challenged the math above, having accepted it prior.
The point was that the results did not contradict a genetic hypothesis. Do you disagree? Iiandyiiii was the one that brought the study up, not me. Explain the issue to him.
I take it then that the example which you apparently find the most powerful is that teachers who have elite black students shit on them while embracing white sharecroppers. Or perhaps you have other examples of alternate explanations you find equally powerful to that one?
The fantasy at work here is that the nurturing deck is so heavily stacked against black children from elite families that their academic and psychometric perfermances should not be expected to be above that of poverty-stricken whites and asians.
It’s a comfortable fantasy. It lets a cacophony of “racist racist racist/ancestral oppression” drown out a more careful consideration of fact.
But it remains a fantasy, as does equalizing average performance gaps driven by average gene frequency gaps.
There are nigh-infinite possibilities. Less motivated to study, lower self-esteem and self-confidence, less motivated to put effort into tests, more likely to skip/miss class, more likely to get into trouble, treated differently by teachers, treated differently by peers, encouraged to focus on athletics rather than academics, and a million others, are all possibilities here.
Considering US history, this strikes me as not surprising at all.
The “fantasy” is the one that makes conclusions about the genes for high and low intelligence of black people without knowing anything at all about the genes for high and low intelligence of black people.
Is it the case, then, that you think some genes have been exempted from evolution over the past 50,000 years?
I would venture to say that nearly every large gene has some base variant from 50 kya, and it will take us a long time to figure out which of those variants have substantial meaning and which are trivial. But in general, replication is not so perfect that we are exactly now what we were at the starting point of anatomically modern humans.
Do you think Eric Wang’s analysis is wrong that 1800 genes, including neurobiologic ones have been driven by “Darwinian selection” to high degrees of clustering?
Do you think it will be shown to be wrong that there was introgression of Neandertal and Denisovan genes into a penetration of 1-4% (and higher, for some lineages) in non-african populations?
As to SES and educational opportunity, the data accumulated represents hundreds of thousands of students over many many years, and is very consistent year to year and across settings. Educationally, it is also very consistent when students are exposed to similar academic curriculae longitudinally. For example, black college entrance exams are woefully lower when adjusted for SES; black medical college admission scores are woefully lower; black post-medical school licensing scores are woefully lower; and black passing rates for specialty certification pass rates are woefully lower. While one could argue that it’s just not possible to catch up, that would have to apply only to a race grouping of black, since it is not the case with other race groups.
So you are back to the argument that iiandyiiii loves: there is something so special about the black experience that similar educational opportunity cannot overcome it. And if you want to throw in his recent “maybe teachers shit on black students” idea, you are left with an implication that, on average, the higher academic world does this. But if there is one part of society absolutely determined to overcome past biases, it’s the academic world. So I am not convinced.
Finally, if two twins named Jim and Jack have a disparate result under the same general circumstance, it may be chance. If 2 million twins have a disparate result, and on average Jim dies substantially more often than does Jack, it’s not chance alone driving that.
As I have pointed out repeatedly in other threads, what is at stake here is social policy, and in particular, race-alone based preferences for the academic opportunity of our black students. However well-intentioned, you and iiandiii are slowly killing that opportunity for them, and hurting the black middle class with it.
Race-based AA is being strangled in the courts, and support for it is dying in the broader public. It’s dying because public opinion has shifted to the idea that opportunity-alone should be the criterion by which students are selected. The cream of black students come from high-background families. When we finally stamp out the “racialists,” who say that it is scientifically ridiculous to expect disparate races whose source populations have had tens of thousands of years of evolution and relative isolation driving them apart, to have similar outcomes simply because they were given similar opportunity, we will stamp out support for race-alone AA preferences.
And we will stamp out 40 years of progress for the black middle class.
If you could point out where, in the entire world, the pattern is substantially different, I would be reassured that I am over-pessimistic at how non-egalitarian mother nature is. Racialist, even.
So, just off the top of your head, the average high-background black student is lazier, less secure about his ego, more timid and more easily distracted…etc etc etc, when compared with poverty stricken whites and asians from uneducated families.
What a load of crock, and insulting to boot.
In your fantasy, nature is egalitarian so it can’t be genes. And a high-background black student cannot figure out he should put an education first unless he is NBA-level talented for basketball.
You have been reading way too much of…something…unless you are just pulling these out your A$$.
May I recommend getting out into the better schools in this country, and having a little more first-hand experience with high-performing black students and higher academia? It would still be anecdotal, but you might be surprised at how un-lazy and dedicated they are, and how much their teachers want to be part of the solution.
No elevated European ancestry in a sample of gifted black children (Witty & Jenkins, 1936)
No association between ancestry-informative blood-group markers and IQ (Loehlin, Vandenberg, & Osborne, 1973)
No association between ancestry-informative blood-group markers and IQ (Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, & Barker, 1978)
All three studies found the same result–no genetic basis for racial IQ differences. No study has ever been done that has found a genetic basis for racial IQ differences. It’s a simple enough test to do–the studies could be replicated. But then I guess we’d just have 4 studies with the same result that certain people would have to ignore.
Don’t know why you keep on with this straw man. Obviously it can be overcome, and very often is. It’s just more difficult, hence the skewed statistics.
Your insistence that if we only went back to the ideas about black intelligence of the 1800s, things would be better for black people, is still not convincing.
If it’s dying, the idea that black people have inferior intelligence will kill it much, much faster than the idea that opportunity is unequal in society. Your ideas are much, much more dangerous for AA than mine – most people who support AA do not believe black people have inferior genes for intelligence.
No, that’s not my argument. Not surprising that you continue to misunderstand it, considering that you’ve misunderstood nearly everything that demonstrates the weakness of your arguments.
No, this bullshit strawman from your own mind is not my fantasy.
Not sure who you’re talking to, because I certainly haven’t said this. King of the Hay People indeed.
You’re the one who has cast aspersions on black students, by claiming that they’re less intelligent. I’ve simply stated that there are considerable obstacles that black students face, that white students do not. And these obstacles may affect black students in a variety of ways – those students who overcome these obstacles are exceptional indeed!
We can go through these one at a time and see how much of the difference they could possible account for.For example, Blacks show higher academic motivation, higher self esteem, and higher self confidence than whites, they also are encouraged more by their parents in regards to school, and they prep more for tests like the SAT. For academic motivation, see here for example: Rethinking the Attitude-Achievement Paradox Among Blacks
Just name a hypothesis one at a time and I will look into it and try to make some estimate of the amount of the difference that can be explained. Based on the ones I mentioned above, you’re in the hole.
I already pointed out how (3) is consistent with a genetic hypothesis. (2) is also, for the most part, as noted here:
But contrary to Mackenzie (1984), Herskovits’ national sample showed, as noted by Loehlin et al., higher than expected rates of White ancestry. Thus the results would have supported a genetic hypothesis if they had enough statistical power. Alas.
But worry not, one can replicate the study using the nationally representative NLSY 79, NLSY 97, and HSLS 2009 which asked parents about their ancestry/race! And in fact this was done – but you didn’t care for the method, even though you have no problem with Jenkins’. Using the latter study as a standard – since you cited it as evidence – why don’t you criticize the ones I cited.
So, two of these studies showed results not inconsistent with a genetic hypothesis. And then we have a bunch of others curiously ignored by you. 1.2.3. 4.5. Plus themore recent studies replicating the findng that skin color predicts IQ in the AA population. And the mixed race individuals perform intermediately. Plus the genomic studies showing the linear relation between EU ancestry and eucation ect. in the AA population.
Always interesting to read your and Chief Pedant’s cites; which for some reason never quite seem to say what you claim they say.
For example, you say:
But for some reason the cite itself says:
That’s not even fucking close!
Whereas the cite itself says:
Number of times the words “IQ” or “intelligence” appear in your cite: zero. Whoops.
I don’t have access to either of those cites, so based on my experience with you, I will not accept that they say what you claim they say. In fact, I will not accept any cite from you that doesn’t have the original paper in full, so don’t bother linking to any more.
It’s slightly sad that you come in here claiming that the evidence supports a genetic basis for race IQ differences, and your own cites that you claim support you are telling you that there’s no evidence for that. Makes me wonder how you developed your beliefs, that are so at odds with the papers you cite.
I will say that the paper did have an interesting discussion of the Eyferth Study:
I’ll add that to the list of papers that uniformly and universally conclude that there is no genetic basis for IQ differences among the races. For those keeping score, that’s 100% of all papers that show this.
Not a single one of these cites has the full paper. Once again, based on the fact that you have repeatedly been less than truthful about what your cites actually say, I will not accept these “cites” as evidence. Full paper or nothing–I simply don’t trust you to accurately represent what the papers actually say.
For those keeping score, not a single one of Chuck11’s cites actually supported his position.
These are laughably farcical, but if you find them encouraging, have at.
The Scarr study, for example, draws from groups already at the bottom of the barrel (for example, children enticed with a snack for participating), uses blood groups and skin color as a proxy for relative admixture, uses very limited number, and comes to an inconclusive conclusion.
Against this is the very stark real world data: Children from wealthy and educated black families cannot even outscore poverty stricken whites and asians from undereducated families on academic performance exams.
But yeah; of course it can’t be a difference in genes just because these race groups were–on average–separated by a major migration point, introgression of a whole other set of genes in one group and not the other, and subject to evolutionary pressures for selection of genes. And of course, there’s no evidence that genes are involved just because 1800 genes among those groups can be shown to have been driven to penetrance high enough to cluster through positive selection pressures. And of course it can’t be genes just because all sorts of ordinary genes, incidentally discovered and analyzed by frequency, such as MCPH1 haplogroup variant D, DARC complex, or ACTN3 vary remarkably in frequency by race. And of course it can’t be genes just because all sorts of basic physiology such as bone density, male creatine kinase averages, or age of onset at menarche differs among races. And of course it can’t be genes just because “trivial” characteristics such as average appearance genes or disease genes, differ by those groups.
“Differences in genetic endowment contribute substantially to individual differences…
The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.
It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense and social sensitivity; there are surely others. Despite the importance of these abilities we know very little about them: how they develop, what factors influence that development, how they are related to more traditional measures.”
Love that! Genetic endowment contributes substantially to individual differences.
Black white (and asian) differences are well studied, and are not because of socioeconomic or caste/culture biases of the means for testing.
But…and pay attention, Public:
There is certainly no such support (a little bit of wordsmithing referring, I presume, to “direct empirical support”) for a genetic interpretation.
It’s just a puzzlement. A total puzzlement. And it’s gonna stay a puzzlement because it’s pretty obvious that it can’t possibly be a difference driven by genes.
Yeah, it’s weird that actual researchers in the field who have actual degrees take the studies seriously, but some guy on the internet who’s obsessed with “black genes” thinks they’re farcical. What do you suppose could account for the difference in attitude?
Uh, yeah, you seem surprised that genetic endowment contributes substantially to individual differences. Do you suppose anyone is arguing against that? Do you understand the difference between “individual” and “race”? Would a dictionary help?
Also, I note that your cite says “There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation [for the differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites]”
Ummm…so your own cite says you’re wrong? That seems to happen a lot with you.
No. There’s no standard, accepted measure of motivation, self-esteem, self-confidence, etc.
I’m not “in the hole” (except perhaps in the Caddyshack sense), but okay. I hypothesize that the experience of being black in America includes many obstacles to achievement (academic and otherwise) that non-black people do not face, including things like media depictions, role models, day-to-day racism, law enforcement bias, lowered expectations, peer pressure, home environment, and many, many other factors, including ones that, most likely, no one has thought of. These obstacles depress achievement in a variety of ways, doing things like (sometimes) decreasing motivation, increasing distractions, lowering self-esteem and self confidence, differing treatment by teachers and peers, differing focus, and a million other ways, including ways we probably haven’t thought of.
It’s “laughably farcical” how you keep bringing this up as if it’s somehow a bombshell. No one denies this – this is the fucking problem we’re trying to explain. The question is “why does the gap, including a gap once SES is taken into account, exist?”. The existence of the gap when SES is controlled for says absolutely nothing, besides that SES is not the whole story, about what causes the gap. It provides no evidence whatsoever that genes are the answer.
So stop bringing up this thing that nobody denies. It offers nothing to this conversation.
Who has said it can’t be genes? If all you’re saying is “maybe it’s genes”, then go right ahead. None of this provides any data whatsoever about the genes for intelligence of black people, nor does anything else you’ve offered, but if you just want to muse and hypothesize, do so to your heart’s content.
Yep. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. No such support. Thank you for posting this.
Which no one denies. Keep building up those straw men – you knock 'em down so well.
You presume… HAHAHAHAHA! Of course you presume an interpretation that doesn’t blow up your assertion, despite the very direct wording that does. Of course you do. What a surprise!
Answers:
Q1: 50 years of research into the extent to which actual genes vary among populations, actual genetic clustering by race, human migration patterns creating broad divisions and isolation, and no closing of outcome performance differences despite the most intense efforts–including controlling for SES and educational opportunity, which was the “obvious” reason advanced in the last century until it crapped out as an explanation.
Q2: It takes very careful and contorted wordsmithing to happily accept that genes drive differences among individuals but not between groups.
Q3: That wording is carefully wordsmithed so that it refers to “empirical evidence,” (meaning, I think, identification of every actual neurophysiologic gene and its function), versus the obvious deduction: Since caste/culture and SES opportunity aren’t explanations, we should just decide the gaps are a mystery. Hopefully some undiscovered secret variable that suddenly explains this stubbornly persistent pattern across the entire world and every political system–but doesn’t need genes as its foundation.
The efforts have not been “intense”. They’ve been feeble, and only for a few paltry decades.
No it doesn’t. Different groups can be treated very differently in society.
No it’s not. It’s very directly and blatantly stated. The “wordsmithed” is your spin and fantasy.
This pattern is not “stubbornly persistent” – it’s only existed for a few decades of decent testing, and the testing has only been in a few parts of the world (and a few political systems).
Nearly all of your assertions are just totally false.
