You can refer to the original paper here. Refer also to Jensen’s technical discussion of it in the G-factor (1998). And to Edward Reed’s discussion of it:
Reed (1997) The Genetic Hypothesis: It Was Not Tested but It Could Have Been
This is yet another one of those often cited studies which, on closer inspection, provides no support for an environmental hypothesis. But yet is continually recycled. It’s amazing.
“We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension.”
Early childhood experience only explained 13% of the variance in IQ scores by age 17. And the biracial kids had earlier placements than the White kids, so early placement or adoptive experience could not explain that difference. Whatever the case, in my discussion I merely noted that this study was consistent with a genetic hypothesis and argued that it, along with other findings, suggested that the gap could not be explained by home environmental factors. I don’t put much weight on single studies.
This is a moronic point. As for “people of color” in general there could be a pleiotropic effect between IQ and skin color, causally leading people with darker skin to have, on average, lower IQs. Alternatively, convergent evolutionary could have selected for lower IQ and darker skin, leading dark people in general to have lower IQs. Alternatively, the darker people in the US could be an unrepresentative sub sample,with respect to IQ, of the dark people in the world. Perhaps only the low IQ coloreds are here. There are a numbers of possible reasons for why “people of color” in the US could be genetically less intelligent than people who lack color. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We are restricting our claims to African Americans, who are defined in terms of genealogy.
Given the IQ difference, the existence of which is established, not judging people by the color of their skin leads to “disparate impact.” Their are laws against this, which require discrimination on the basis of color. Do you consider this to be justified? In terms of IQ, the variance between to within Blacks and Whites is 20% to 80%. So yes, it’s recognized that all “races have high and low IQ people” and that the difference between is not great.
And yet when I look at your study I see the following: “The author argues that this error nullifies the negative finding of the studies, and leaves open the question of whether definitive tests of the genetic hypothesis are possible.”
So you’ve quoted a paper stating that it might not be possible to link genetics to IQ at all. And it’s especially curious that you would quote this paper immediately after trying to calculate the effects of genetics on IQ(while making a bunch of obvious errors). You have contradicted yourself within one post.
When Dobzhansky used the word race in the 1920s through 1950s, he was usually describing what we would now call populations and when he did refer to the older understanding of the three or five races, he was simply employing the terminology of the times, before Cavalli-Sforza demonstrated that there was no legitimate scientific support for such broad classifications. The word race too often is used in bait-and-switch tactics where someone gets an agreement that a relatively small, localized population has a trait, using the word race to identify that population, then falls back on nonsense claims about “Caucasians” or “Negroids” when such extremely large groups of populations simply fail to have sufficient coherence to justify lumping them together.
If you’re going to posit a genetic cause for IQ differences between blacks and whites, you’re going to have to explain why that gap is disappearing. My suggestion: genetic mutations affecting all black people that will inexorably lead to flying, invulnerable blacks.
A google search gives me 338 hits, so I’m not the only one who uses it. Race is a generic term. “Zoological” modifies it. “Zoological race” specifically refers to the race concept in zoology. There are other race concepts in biology, such as ecotype and breeding population. And there are other biologically based races concepts in anthropology, such as Brues’ race concept, which is still cited now and them. My point was that even if there are no “zoological races” there still would be “biological” ones. Precision is important in these discussions.
Dude, 338 Google hits is basically non-existent, considering more than 75% of those hits are referring to completely unrelated stuff like actual footraces or just spamming word aggregations.
