# Can the Black-White racial IQ gap in the US be environmentally explained? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2012, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877 "2012-07-01T04:56:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/301 "2012-07-19T08:06:06Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Globally, national IQs correlates with color. This is an established fact. No it fucking well isn’t. Lynn is a discredited liar and you are disingenuous for still posting him as a cite for … anything, really. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/302 "2012-07-19T08:09:46Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Dozens of studies, now, have validated L and V’s national IQs (given a margin or error). […]Here is some cutting edge research from Black Africa. […]_Using previously published IQ data for 113 nations (Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T., (2006)_. :dubious: ---
**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:** [July 19, 2012, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/303 "2012-07-19T11:09:19Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Are black people a race: No. It’s not even debatable. All (and I do mean **all** ) the legitimate genetic evidence says they aren’t, and anyone arguing otherwise is just ignorant. It’s a common misconception that blacks must be considered a genetically distinct race in order for there to be genetically-based differences between race groups. The strategy here is to get rid of the idea that “race” is a genetic construct. If it’s not, then it’s assumed there cannot be performance differences between “race” groups that have genetics as the underpinning for the performance differences. This is an incorrect assumption. Suppose, for instance, that I have a society where self-identification with height has driven two broad categories: the Tall and the Short. These groups–on average–have different appearances, and the Talls have some social advantages for whatever reason. Perhaps it’s easier for the Talls to gain public office or corporate leadership jobs because the social construct places a default bias against the short folks. As well, their geneset drives success in certain athletic areas. They dominate basketball, for instance. Still, it’s fundamentally a social construct; the groups are not defined against any arbitrary standard, and a 5’ 9" guy can self-identify with Tall if he so chooses. There might even be times when a Short was born into a Tall clan and is much more comfortable self-identifying with Talls. Finally, although there is a broad tendency for Talls and Shorts to associate with one another, there’s plenty of overlap. Now we are going to measure performance in basketball. The Talls win. They win because their genes underpin their performance ability. Yet the Talls–even though their differences from the Shorts are genetically-based–are not a Race. There isn’t a good or practical way to lump the Shorts genetically. Except for the absence of the Tall geneset for most of the Self-identified Shorts, the Shorts turn out to be incredibly diverse, from at least 7 different fairly distinct populations. The Talls are also from several different populations. And further complicating things, there is one population of Shorts with Tall geneset admixture that’s actually taller than many Talls; they just happen to self-identify as Shorts because of the social construct. Still, that self-identification with the Shorts means that, once they self-identify, their self-identified group has a lower average on basketball performance than the group of self-identified Talls, and the reason underpinning that difference is genetic, even though there is no Tall or Short race. When we talk about genetically based differences among Self-Identified Race/Ethniciy (SIRE) groups, it is not necessary to sharply define those groups genetically and it is not necessary for the populations which make up each group to be a single population or otherwise internally related with one another. It is only necessary that a given geneset be more prevalent within one SIRE group than the other. As a more practical example, if I am a SIRE group of white, I am vastly more likely to have fine blond straight hair than if I am a SIRE group of black, even though I still might not be very likely to have fine blond hair at all, and even though many populations might make up the white SIRE group. In short, SIRE groups are self-identified but differences can still be genetically-based, and eliminating “race” as a genetically-definable group does not eliminate a genetic basis for differences. I hope this helps you be able to think through this. Given how rudimentary our knowledge of genes is, the only way you can decide if performance outcomes are environmental (nurturing) or genetic (nature) is to eliminate the nurturing variables and see if performance differences remain. To date no elimination of nurturing variables has equalized performance differences among SIRE groups. Wealthy blacks still underperform poverty-stricken whites on the SAT. 8 years of specialized help and identical academic exposure do not equalize Medical License exam scores between blacks and whites. Well-coached, privileged whites still underperform socially-disadvantaged blacks in basketball…on and on through dozens of examples. To date there is not a single quantifiable area of which I am aware where these two SIRE groups perform equally even when nurturing is not only normalized, but favors the wrong group. You may not consider this powerful evidence, and of course that’s why the debate keeps strolling along, but for many of us it is quite strong evidence. In any case, you should probably take the “there’s no such thing as genetically-defined race” off your list of counter-racism arguments. ---
**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:** [July 19, 2012, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/304 "2012-07-19T12:37:10Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Ya, I am going to cite them. You can huff and puff all you want but you can’t blow them away. Dozens of studies, now, have validated L and V’s national IQs (given a margin or error). And dozens of researchers are now working with them or have worked with them. [Here](http://www2.ku.edu/~kuwpaper/2010Papers/201206.pdf) is some cutting edge research from Black Africa. This “cutting edge” research contains _no new IQ data at all_, not the results of a single test. It takes old data, like the crap data from Lynn, and compares it to various economic and institutional data. It gives _zero data_ on the IQs of African countries. > [@](#): > > Let’s see what your arguments are: > > (1) Claim 1: Some national IQs as estimated by L&V were initially estimated from the IQs of neighboring counties. > > But… > > (a) Whether the method of estimating IQs was justified was investigated in the paper below. It was found to be so: > > \*\*Gelade, 2008. The Geography of IQ > > This paper examines the distribution of national IQ in geographical space. When the heritability of IQ and its dependence on eco-social factors are considered from a global perspective, they suggest that the IQs of neighboring countries should be similar. Using previously published IQ data for 113 nations (Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T., (2006). IQ and global inequality. Athens, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.) the relationship between geographical location and national IQ is formally tested using spatial statistics. It is found that as predicted, nations that are geographical neighbors have more similar IQs than nations that are far apart. National IQ varies strikingly with position around the globe; the relationship between location and national IQ is even stronger than the relationship between location and national average temperature. **The findings suggest that Lynn & Vanhanen’s national IQ measures are reliable and adequately representative, and that their procedures for estimating missing national IQ scores from the scores of nearby nations are defensible.** (Contains 1 table.)\*\* There’s no link here for me to analyze, but what you posted also gives _no new IQ data at all_. Just more defense of Lynn’s crap data- saying that because the limited amount of existing data (even when it was a single IQ test of 40 school children) between neighboring countries was similar it validates his estimates. Saying that a whole country, even a poor one, with schools, hospitals, factories, etc, has a mean IQ in the _60s or 70s_ (mental retardation level) is a pretty extraordinary claim… and a single test (as is the case for most of these countries) of a small group is hardly strong enough evidence for this claim. > [@](#): > > (b) In the most recent data set (2012), there is IQ data for every nation with a population \> 50,00. And the correlation between the estimated IQs and the newly found national IQs is greater than 0.9. Where is this data? There’s no link or cite that shows this. > [@](#): > > (c) And L&V are not the only ones who have made national IQ estimates. In fact, the term “National IQ” comes from the German psychologist [Heiner Rindermann](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.634/abstract). L & V’s IQs strongly correlate with the other estimates (\>.9), based on the covariance of international assessment tests. I’m not going to pay for this article, but from the abstract, it suggests that this psychologist examined the results of other sorts of achievement tests and they correlated with IQ tests in the countries that had good data for both. Considering the paltry IQ data available for most African countries, I’d be interested to see how comprehensive the data for any other sort of achievement test is. > [@](#): > > (d) Most importantly, the studies on the correlation between skin color and National IQ typically analyzed the relation between estimated National IQs and determined National IQs separately (See, for example, Templer and Arikawa (2006). The correlations have been found to be statistically indistinguishable, confirming point (a). There’s no link here to evaluate. And considering how terrible the data for “National IQ” that has been shown is, any “correlation” using this data is highly suspect. > [@](#): > > (2) Claim 2: Some of the national IQs were based on dated sample. > > But… > > (a) Whether this produced a confounding effect has already been investigated. > (See, for example, [Lynn and Meisenberg (2010)](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/national-iqs-calculated-and-validated.pdf). Again, _zero new IQ data_ here. Lynn looks at educational statistics and says they correlate with his earlier crap data and estimates, and says “see, my made-up IQ data is good, then”. So basically he says kids’ math and reading scores = IQ. This is ridiculous- why doesn’t Lynn just bring a small team of psychologists to Africa, bring a bunch of IQ tests (and the necessary translators) and _actually get data on IQs_? If he’s so damn interested in IQs for different countries, he should go _do science._ > [@](#): > > (b) And more recent data has coming, generally confirming the initial estimates. For example, in the paper below, you can see a list of all of the studies published pertaining to North Africa. Compare the most recent to the earliest scores for yourself. > > Al-Shahomee, 2012. [A standardisation of the Standard Progressive Matrices for adults in Libya](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/a-standardisation-of-the-standard-progressive-matrices-for-adults-in-libya.pdf) Wow, some actual IQ data. So I’m supposed to be surprised that Lynn’s “National IQs” for countries that actually had more than a single IQ sample are better? Ok- yes, Lynn actually had decent data for a small number of the countries he looked at. For most African countries it was crap data or made up, but yes, for some countries he had decent data. Note that this data said that those with more education had higher IQs, as did urban folks vs rural folks. And note that this data said nothing and made no claims about genetics. So some actual science was done- and it said _nothing about race or ethnicity and a genetic tie to intelligence._ I’m not able to analyze the quality or consistency of the individual IQ tests. > [@](#): > > (3) Claim 3. Some of the National IQs are based on unrepresentative samples. > > But… > > (a) Many of the National IQs are based on national standardization samples, as you can see in the study cited above. And other are validated by international test results, which are themselves nationally representative (refer back to Lynn and Meisenberg (2010)), So the problem is with poor data for a subset of countries. > > And a lot of that “poor” data, _now_, is from studies like [this](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289612000797). Ok, so (from the abstract- I’m not paying for the article) they gave 50 Balinese people, kids and adults, the Standard Progressive Matrices (which is _not_ an IQ test, but rather a test for the somewhat controversial and unfalsifiable g factor) and from that “estimated” the IQ for the whole country. Perhaps this is interesting data, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with this discussion- especially considering how tiny the sample is. > [@](#): > > (b) But, restricting consideration to countries for which there is national standardization data and/ or for which there is international tests data, my point about a correlation between skin color and IQ would hold. For all European and most middle Eastern countries there is such data. And not only has IQ been found to correlate with color between these nations but it has been found to correlate likewise with [haplogroups](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/intelligence-and-the-wealth-of-nations-genetics-matter-but-there-is-still-much-room-to-reduce-inequalities.pdf), even after controlling for a host of developmental factors. > > nuff said. So you’re admitting there is not such data for most African countries. And you’re saying that because IQ data correlates with skin color between European and Middle Eastern countries, then African countries are even stupider- be3cause they’re darker. For one thing, correlation does not equal causation- even if IQ between countries correlates with certain genetic haplogroups (or skin color), that’s not close to sufficient evidence to say that those haplogroups have anything to do with intelligence… _especially when there’s insufficient data on the group you’re making claims about_! Here’s the last paragraph of your final link: “Whether intelligence is or not determined by genetic factors is far from being completely solved. The data analysis of this section points out that genetic matters and that even in the best possible case, the different genetic endowments will generate some inequality in cognitive abilities, education and the well being of people. However, there is still a long way to convincingly prove that link. Independently of that, what is true is that human beings may be different in their characteristics but are equal in terms of dignity and the respect that everyone deserves.” Poor grammar aside, no one is denying this article’s claim that genetics has something to do with intelligence. But there’s far from enough evidence to conclude that some “races” or ethnicities have a lower or higher genetic potential for intelligence, on average, than others. This is the sort of data that would show this: genetic researchers finally nail down the specific alleles (or most of them) that are responsible for intelligence. Then they do extensive genetic testing of different populations throughout the world, along with IQ tests. If they show that those populations with higher (or lower) amounts of these alleles get higher or lower IQ test scores, and that individuals within populations with higher (or lower) amounts of these alleles also get higher or lower IQ test scores, then they’ve actually got evidence linking different populations with different genetic tendencies towards intelligence. But we don’t have this data. Until we do, there’s no support for the hypothesis that any specific populations have a lower genetic tendency for intelligence than any other. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/305 "2012-07-19T13:52:48Z")
> [@Weirdering](#): > > I don’t think this is true. I believe it’s referred to as Lewontin’s Fallacy. It occurs when you look at frequency differences on areas of the genome individually instead of together. When comparing things, a clearer picture of differences will emerge as you add more areas to look at, instead of looking at just one. Lewontin’s fallacy [isn’t a fallacy:](http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/) > [@](#): > > Imagine that some nuclear nightmare wiped out the entire human race apart from one small population – say, the Masai tribe in East Africa. Almost all the genetic variation that exists in the world today would still be present in that one small group. That is a dramatic way of expressing the results of a landmark analysis conducted by the geneticist Richard Lewontin in 1972. Lewontin showed that virtually the entire range of human differences – 85 per cent – occurred between individuals within single populations. A further 7 per cent differentiated between populations within a race. Only 8 per cent of total variation distinguished what we call the major races. > > Since 1972 other researchers have confirmed that 85 per cent of variation exists within a population. The results of a 2002 study by Noah Rosenberg and his colleagues were even more striking. They showed that differences among individuals account for a staggering 93-95 percent of all genetic variation. About 2 per cent is taken up by differences between populations within a race. And race accounts for just 3-5 per cent of all human difference. The study also found that almost half of the alleles appeared in every major population in the world. Only 7.4 per cent of alleles were exclusive to one region, and such alleles tended to be very rare. Rosenberg’s study is the largest of its kind and hence the figures are likely to be the most accurate. > [@](#): > > what we popularly call races are generally least suited to genetic research. That is because the degree of biological relatedness in Continental groups is barely greater than in a randomly chosen group of people. That is what we mean when we say that just 4 per cent of total human variation exists between the major Continental groups. Races are, however, socially significant and a major way by which we divide up our societies. It may make social sense, therefore, for researchers and clinicians to use race as the basis by which they divide up the population. > [@](#): > > Even the staunchest advocates of racial science despaired of establishing race as a real, physical entity. Every ‘scientific’ measure of racial type, from headform to blood group, was shown to be changeable and not exclusive to any one group. As racial scientists searched desperately for more and more trivial manifestations of race, the biologist WJ Solas noted, apparently without a hint of irony, that ‘it is on the degree of curliness or twist in the hair that the most fundamental divisions in the human race are based.’ > > Today, as numerous genetic studies reveal, we can clearly define differences between populations. But the significance of such differences no longer seems clear. Race only appears to have any validity if we are willing to be deliberately vague as to what constitutes a race, and what racial differences mean ---
**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:** [July 19, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/306 "2012-07-19T19:57:02Z")
Another misconception about population differences is that total variation is particularly significant within a given species when grouping them out into categories. It isn’t. It may be that only a handful of genes are special enough to drive performance differences. Suppose there were a single geneset that drove brain size; if you don’t have that geneset you have microcephaly but if you have that geneset you have a normal brain. You now have two groupings: microcephalics and normal brains, and the difference related to those two genesets is profound. It doesn’t matter if there are tremendous amounts of other variations in brains in both groups unless those variations drive performance differences. It’s simply not a persuasive argument against genetically based differences among groups to argue that there are no races (see my post above) or that all this variation exists out there, so hey we must all be pretty much the same. What drives group differences in performance potential are prevalences for particularly valuable genesets, not the total amount of variations. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/307 "2012-07-20T19:11:06Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Monavis, > > Globally, national IQs correlates with color. This is an established fact. Refer to table 18, [here,](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/national-iqs-a-review-of-their-educational-cognitive-economic-political-demographic-sociological-epidemiological-geographic-and-climatic-correlates.pdf) for a list of references.) This correlation is found within continents (e.g., Europe, Asia, African, and the Americans) and it is found between continents. The reason for this correlation is unclear; there are a number of plausible genetic and environmental explanations. For example, from a genetic perspective, cold climates could have led to selection for both higher IQ and fairer skin; or, conversely, warmer climates could have led to selection for less fair skin and also led to increased mutant load, which depresses IQ. Whatever the cause, the correlation between color and national IQ within Europe undermines your claim. Regardless, color need not correlate with IQ among Whites for the color-IQ correlation among African-Americans to be relevant. Our discussion here is restricted to the general intelligence differences between European and African Americans. The latter population, as noted, is substantially admixed. As a result, in this population, color correlated with African ancestry at .44. According to a genetic hypothesis, IQ should also correlate with African Ancestry (at ~ 0.20, were there a genetic difference in IQ of 1 SD), so one would predict a correlation between IQ and color, were this hypothesis correct. And one finds that such a correlation exists. So this is consistent with a genetic hypothesis and inconsistent with the set of environmental hypotheses that can not account for the IQ-color difference in the African American population. What is your explanation for why darker African Americans are less intelligent that lighter African Americans? > > As for your statement, “There are different cultures but only one Race,” unqualified, it’s false. (As discussed, there are numerous race concepts and by some (e.g., breeding populations) there are clearly human races.) The statement is also problematic, as, at least by the zoological concept, there can not be only one race. A species can only have zero or two or more races. So what you would have to mean is that there is only one existent race of Homo Sapiens. The claim would then be that Neandertals and other archaic humans formed the other races. But since present human populations are admixed with archaic populations, we would all be mixed race, by this formulation. And since human populations are admixed differently (some populations being more admixed with a given archaic population), modern populations would necessarily differ racially. Right? So one way or another, we are going to get our racial differences. But most importantly, your point is irrelevant to the topic. If you wish, we could identify Black and White Americans as “cultures” as opposed to “ethnic groups” or “races.” The topic question stands nonetheless. (There are all [sorts of genetic differences](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/10/27/rspb.2009.1650.full) between all sorts of “cultures.”) Again the topic question is, “Can the Black-White racial IQ gap in the US be environmentally explained?” What’s your explanation? I admit I am not ananthropologist, but it has been my experience knowing people of different colors to be very much the same, except in some of their cultures,some based on their religious out look, some how they were raised etc. I am not an authority and it is just my own experiences. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/308 "2012-07-23T22:16:13Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Lewontin’s fallacy [isn’t a fallacy:](http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/) > [@Evil\_Economist](#): > More fallacies – > [@](#): > > That is a dramatic way of expressing the results of a landmark analysis conducted by the geneticist Richard Lewontin in 1972. Lewontin showed that virtually the entire range of human differences – 85 per cent – occurred between individuals within single populations. A further 7 per cent differentiated between populations within a race. Only 8 per cent of total variation distinguished what we call the major races. The author here is being disingenuous. “Race” in the above context refers to continental groupings. The magnitude of the difference between these races depends on the type of genetic variance that you are analyzing and the method that you are using. See [here](http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/regional-ancestry-adjusted.png), for example. The more relevant magnitude would be the magnitude of the variance in the type of markers that are likely to be associated with intelligence. SNPs [probably are](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21826061) and the between race FST for SNPs is 0.12. See the supplemental section [here](http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v40/n3/extref/ng.78-S1.pdf); note also the standard deviations. So, for starters, the author of the above is low balling the magnitude of the differences. The next problem is that she, like so many others, fails to take into account diploidity. To quote [Sarich and Miele](http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861): > [@](#): > > Yet the world had to wait until 2002 for someone to explain the basic problems with Lewontin’s famous 15 percent. It was Henry Harpending replying to a question from Frank Salter. Lewontin had noted that 85 percent of the genetic variability was among individuals within populations, and only an additional 15 percent was added when individuals in different populations were compared. However, this analysis omits a third level of variability—the within-individual one. The point is that we are diploid organisms, getting one set of chromosomes from one parent and a second from the other. To the extent that your mother and father are not especially closely related, then, those two sets of chromosomes will come close to being a random sample of the chromosomes in your population. And the sets present in some randomly chosen member of yours will also be about as different from your two sets as they are from one another. So how much of the variability will be distributed where? > > ``` > First is the 15 percent that is interpopulational. The other 85 percent will then split half and half (42.5 percent) between the intra- and interindividual within-population comparisons. The increase in variability in between-population comparisons is thus 15 percent against the 42.5 percent that is between-individual within-population. Thus, 15/42.5 = 32.5 percent, a much more impressive and, more important, more legitimate value than 15 percent. > > ``` Basically, almost half of the human genetic variance is within individuals. This needs to be factored out if you are going to compare the variance between individuals of the same population to that between individuals of distant populations. Doing so, the between individual within population variance to the between individual between population variance would be, for SNPs, 44 to 12 or 72 to 28. Now, this isn’t particularly meaningful until you transform the within/between population variance into a metric that allows you to compare it to the phenotypic difference, for example, standard deviations. By the [total law of variance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_total_variance), we have: between trait variance = a(b)/w = y = 2(sqrt(y)) = z a=within group trait variance b=between group genetic variance w= within group genetic variance y= between group trait variance z=between group trait difference between trait variance = 225(.28)/(.72) =87.5 = 2(sqrt(87.5)) = 18= 1.2 SD of genetic difference in SNPs This is utterly consistent with the genetic hypothesis proposed – and it smokes out the deeper fallacy in the authors argument, a fallacy which constitutes a numerical claim shell game. The apparently small geneotypic differences are, in fact, no smaller then the large phenotypic ones under discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/309 "2012-07-23T22:40:21Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I admit I am not ananthropologist, but it has been my experience knowing people of different colors to be very much the same, except in some of their cultures,some based on their religious out look, some how they were raised etc. I am not an authority and it is just my own experiences. The differences under discussion aren’t monstrous. (They are no more massive than the average difference between random individuals). They are, nonetheless, [well established](http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/roth-et-al-2001.pdf) and, more importantly, they can explain the various social outcome differences, the existence of which is why this topic is being discussed. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/310 "2012-07-23T23:28:43Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > They are, nonetheless, [well established](http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/roth-et-al-2001.pdf) and, more importantly, they can explain the various social outcome differences, the existence of which is why this topic is being discussed. Back with more woo? The only thing that is well establishd, based on the linked article, is that folks in the psychometric field like to talk about it. While a meta-analysis may provide a direction in which future researchers might want to go, the analysis presented shows little more than that skewed studies tend to give similarly skewed results on the statistical level. Like your “nuff said” silliness, earlier, where you cited Rindermann as a supporter of “national intelligence”, (which, as a believer in the imaginary _g_, is not surprising), while carefully not noting his numerous criticisms and cautions regarding various unsuccessful attempts to discover it or that he never actually supported Lynn and where you cited Lynn pretending that he had found more evidence to support his original invented conclusions, this post is a strong assertion that really provides nothing more than evidence that other people share your beliefs while also sharing your paltry lack of science to back up those beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/311 "2012-07-24T03:12:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Back with more woo? > > The only thing that is well establishd, based on the linked article, is that folks in the psychometric field like to talk about it. While a meta-analysis may provide a direction in which future researchers might want to go, the analysis presented shows little more than that skewed studies tend to give similarly skewed results on the statistical level. Facepalm. Speaking about g, [did you notice this article](http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/spearmans-hypothesis-is-a-model-for-understanding-alternative-g-tests.pdf)? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/312 "2012-07-24T03:55:45Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Speaking about g, [did you notice this article](http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/spearmans-hypothesis-is-a-model-for-understanding-alternative-g-tests.pdf)? Whooopeee! One more believer in _g_ trying to prove that his version is superior to those attempted before. I still have not seen any “_g_” equivalent in athletic performance. I suspect that that would be due to the ways in which an attempt to manufacture one would be so transparently invented. Measuring “intelligence” is easier to hide behind arcane buzzwords, (and easier for practitioners to convince themselves they are doing something worthwhile despite the holes in their beliefs). That humans like to put names and ranks on things, even when they are not legitimately ranked, is no surprise. That people who have bought into ranking things will continue to write papers demonstrating ways in which they have tried to rank things is no surprise. That human tendency, however, is simply a circular argument. People make up tests to find “_g_” and then proclaim that they have found “_g_” based on those test results. _::: shrug :::_ ---
**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:** [July 24, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/313 "2012-07-24T15:28:56Z")
Surely the most powerful argument for average intellect differences among populations is to look at their outcomes when given the same nurturing…the folks who want to argue we’re pretty much all the same have to devote an awful lot of energy to an awful lot of explanations for why the same rank order for SIRE groups seems to happen for the same skillsets in every political structure; every geographic location; every cultural history. Some asian kid is gonna win the spelling bee and the maths challenge, and the lowest performing academic category is going to be overrepresented by blacks no matter how much money was thrown at them…it just never changes, anywhere in the world. But we still hold onto this notion that the cream only rises to the top in sports, and not academics; that blacks are successful in sports because they’ve surmounted the challenges but are weak academically because they could not surmount them. We want nature to be a certain way and we contort our analysis of the world to support what we hope to be true. It’s the Religion of Equality, and we look at everything through our predetermined confirmation bias. I think it will always be argued that nurturing cannot be normalized, and that intellect cannot be adequately quantified. I have come to the conclusion personally that this is probably a good thing. It lets us pretend the world around us is more equal than it is; that nature is fairer than she is; and that society needs to improve its obvious disparities (which of course it does). Some of us will truck along more or less quietly and observe that the same populations always end up with average superior or inferior outcomes. What we need to remind ourselves is that our primary obligation to our fellow man is to promote fairness and to bend over backward stamping out inequality of opportunity. Whether those of Inuit ancestry will be proportionately populating the NBA can remain a matter of idle speculation on message boards, and perhaps it does make a better world to pretend they might be the next big thing on the 100 meter dash scene–straight dope on the topic be damned. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/314 "2012-07-24T17:37:56Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Surely the most powerful argument for average intellect differences among populations is to look at their outcomes when given the same nurturing…the folks who want to argue we’re pretty much all the same have to devote an awful lot of energy to an awful lot of explanations for why the same rank order for SIRE groups seems to happen for the same skillsets in every political structure; every geographic location; every cultural history. 100 years ago it was pretty different. “Asians” and Jews were not at the top, and the Irish and Italian would have been heavily represented at the bottom. Why are the “outcomes” back then irrelevent to genetics, but the “outcomes” NOW just happen to perfectly match genetic tendencies? > [@](#): > > Some asian kid is gonna win the spelling bee and the maths challenge, and the lowest performing academic category is going to be overrepresented by blacks no matter how much money was thrown at them…it just never changes, anywhere in the world. Except of course that it has changed a TON in the world, everywhere in the world. In the past it was way different. > [@](#): > > We want nature to be a certain way and we contort our analysis of the world to support what we hope to be true. It’s the Religion of Equality, and we look at everything through our predetermined confirmation bias. No, we just reject explanations that are based on poor or no evidence. There is no evidence that certain “races” or ethnic groups have a genetic tendency or genetic potential for higher or lower intelligence. > [@](#): > > Whether those of Inuit ancestry will be proportionately populating the NBA can remain a matter of idle speculation on message boards, and perhaps it does make a better world to pretend they might be the next big thing on the 100 meter dash scene–straight dope on the topic be damned. So “outcomes”, athletically and intellectually (or economically), just happen to match genetic potential/tendencies NOW- and in the past did not. Or Jews used to be genetically more gifted at basketball, and “Asians” and the Irish used to be genetically dumber, etc., and their genetics changed a whole bunch in the last 75 years. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/315 "2012-07-25T14:58:42Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > We thought that you [might be](http://board.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15226227&postcount=14) interested in [this paper](http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-11-08.pdf). Chuck11, You apparently forgot to respond to my request so I’ll ask again. Are you attempting to insult my mother? If so is it because of her “race” or because she’s a teacher? Also, if you want your snarky posts to be more effective, I’d recommend making them more clear. Anyway, please explain. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877/316 "2012-09-12T20:11:13Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Chuck11, > > You apparently forgot to respond to my request so I’ll ask again. > > Are you attempting to insult my mother? > > If so is it because of her “race” or because she’s a teacher? > > Also, if you want your snarky posts to be more effective, I’d recommend making them more clear. > > Anyway, please explain. > > Thanks. Back. Don’t get your knickers in a knot over this. No insult was meant. Just thought you’d be interested in the teach scores. Guess not. Anyways, I found some good African data, if you’re interested. Confirms Lynn’s estimates. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-black-white-racial-iq-gap-in-the-us-be-environmentally-explained/626877.md?page=15)