Let me just say that this is as perfect a demonstration as anyone could hope for of the care with which you read your own cites.
The topic of this thread is “Can the Black-White racial IQ gap in the US be environmentally explained?” If you have explanations to offer, offer them. So far you have demonstrated that you have nothing to contribute to this thread. More empty calories. To reply to your obnoxious, imbecilic comments:
(1) I have been clear that this thread is not about the zoological status of human populations. That’s irrelevant to the topic.
(2) Nothing I have cited contradicts anything that I have said. Generally, you seem to have a problem with either logic or comprehension. I can’t tell which. This is pretty simple. Let’s take an example. Imagine that I cited Pythagoras in support of mathematical point, made during on discussion on the nature of Being, in which I disagreed with Pythagoras’ ontology. Would I have contradicted myself? By your bizarre hermeneutics, I guess so. By nearly everyone else’s no. Because Pythagoras was being cited in support of a point on math not ontology.
Specifically, I cited a paper by a botanist and a philosopher in which it was argued that there are races in a sense other than the zoological one of geographic subspecies; this was in support of my statement that the non existence of zoological races would not entail the non existence of biological races; the paper supported my statement in that the authors presented a case for non zoological but nonetheless biological human races; this evidenced the existence of such concepts; that the authors did not agree with my position on zoological races is irrelevant; what was relevant in the context of the citation was their discussion of human races qua ecotypes. In response to your pestering, I then cited a paper by the late intellectual giant Ernst Mayr who pointed out that by his geographic subspecies concept, which is widely used in zoology, there are human races I could just as well have cited others prominent figures (e.g., Vincent Sarich, George Gill, etc.) but I chose not to. As for Mayr’s position on the race IQ debate, what Mayr thought about that was irrelevant to the point about zoological races; he was being cited in support of zoological races, not IQ differences; this makes sense as he was a biologist not a behavioral geneticist or psychometrian – though contrary to your assertion, he was open to the idea of genetic IQ differences between races.)
-
As for the Scarr et al. results, they are essentially meaningless. As noted the correlation found was no different from that predicted by a genetic hypothesis. This was found to be statistically insignificant, which means that the study was unable to test a genetic hypothesis, because it lacked the statistical power to reject the null (i.e., for any magnitude of genetic differences given the intervals in question the study could not statistically significant results.)
-
As evidence of genetic differences, I pointed to the results of structural equation modeling studies. For example:
"Academic Achievement in Blacks and Whites: Are the Developmental Processes Similar?
Genetic and environmental influences on academic achievement were investigated in four groups of siblings: (1) White full siblings, (2) White half-siblings, (3) Black full siblings, and (4) Black half-siblings. Our expectation was that the variances and covariances among three achievement tests would have the same structure across the four groups. This expectation was confirmed by a quantitative genetic model that imposed equal factor loadings across groups. This best fitting mode1 had two factors: a Genetic factor representing genetic variation and a Shared Environment factor representing environmental differences among families. Reading recognition, reading comprehension, and mathematics tests all loaded on the Genetic factor, but primarily mathematics loaded on the Shared Environment factor. The quantitative genetic model was next fit to the achievement test means. Its successful fit suggested that the genetic and environmental influences involved in producing individual variation were the same as those producing the group-mean differences. In this sample, genes accounted for 66% to 74% of the observed group difference in verbal achievement and 36% of the difference in mathematics achievement. Shared environment accounted for the remainder, 34% to 26% of the difference in verbal achievement and 64% of that in mathematics achievement"
If you have an environmental explanation for these results that fits with the other known facts, I would like to hear it.
- But the topic of this thread is: “Can the Black-White racial IQ gap in the US be environmentally explained?” (Not: “Does the evidence prove or strongly support a genetic hypothesis for the Black -White IQ difference?” ). So I am requesting explanations that fit the data. Not a debate on whether the evidence necessarily indicates genetic differences.
I purposely cited the Free dictionary’s derisive definition of Jensenism to remind you of whom Mayr was referring to, when Mayr said, “In a class I gave last year we devoted…” As it is, there’s a non pejorative sense of Jensenism, used by Jensen and this admirers, which accurately describes what Mayr was commenting on, so my statement was not incorrect.
You seem to lack a more than superficial understanding of this topic; I’m would hazard that that’s what is leading to your misunderstandings.
I don’t care to waste time on these mickey mouse back-and-forths. So I will restrict my replies to comments that are more or less on topic. All other comments will be replied to with a link to this one.
I know many people of other so called races and if one lookd deep enough we are not any different from one another. There is good and bad in all people, their skin is not the cause it is prejudice, mostly from people who never had enough contact with people of other skin colors or ecucation.
You missed the “I say good day to you, sir!” finish of a really good bann.
I don’t know what you mean by, “if one lookd deep enough we are not any different from one another.” If one looks deep enough one will see a plethora of genetic differences. The magnitude of these differences is consistent with the magnitude of the phenotypic differences under discussion. As such, your statement is incorrect, both technically and practically. As for “good and bad people,” what relevance is that to the topic on hand? When you say, “their skin is not the cause it is prejudice,” are you stating that in reference to the IQ differences or about something else? If something else, you are off topic.
What I am asking for here are specific environmental explanations (that are consistent with the larger body of research) for a specific phenotypic difference. I am open to the idea that there are such explanations. I just have not been able to think of any that fit the totality of the evidence well. (Personally, I don’t make much about IQ differences, per se; I’m not the brightest lightbulb in the bunch myself as should be obvious; the issue here, though, is the etiology of outcome disparities, the proximate cause of which are general intelligence difference.)
Not all so called white people are the same,so color has little to do with Intelligence,Color is the result of where people lived, those in warm climates stayed dark skinned for the most part, while those of lighter skin survived in colder temperatures..There are different cultures but only one Race. We all have a common ancestor.
Are not most “black” people in the USA in fact of mixed african-caucasian stock?
This would certainly affect any arguments put forth about race based intelligence.
Wrong. Completely wrong.
Listen, there are two possible explanations of the results gap: environmental or genetic (or a mix of the two). Got it? two explanations. If you have a third, come out with it.
Now there’s a huge problem with the genetic explanation; there’s no such thing as a black race. That pretty much destroys any genetic-based argument you want to make. In fact, I would say that the absolute first step in making a genetic argument is demonstrating that you can treat black people as a discrete race, and if you can’t do that than the environmental explanation is the only one that works.
An environmental explanation doesn’t require you to consider all black people as belonging to a single race, it just requires to believe that black people in this country are systematically (but not necessarily overtly) discriminated against, treated as less capable (even if only on a subconscious level), etc. Well, that’s consistent with what I’ve seen, so it’s completely believable to me.
Now, you’ve been getting killed on the race discussion, so I can’t blame you for trying to exclude it. I mean, you yourself linked to a paper that said that black people weren’t an ecotype.But you don’t get to exclude this topic from discussion just because it destroys your argument. Well, I guess you can try, and you have, so props to you, but I’m not going to play along.
Chuck11: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Chuck11: Because it’s devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Chuck11: Good call!
Does this paper discuss WHG or BHG differences?
Here are some plants growing on rich soil; on average they grow to 6ft in height.
Here are some identical plants growing on poor soil. On average they grow to 3ft in height.
A biologist comes along and starts doing studies:
- On average, heriditary explains the same percentage of the height difference from mean in both groups (shorter than average plants will have shorter than average offspring, and the reverse)
- On average plants in group A are taller than plants in group B.
- The amount of sun they receive is the same.
So, our biologist publishes a paper proclaming that plants in group A are genetically superior to the plants in group B.
He’s absolutely fucking wrong, but you could find all sorts of evidence that sure seems to support his conclusion.
Ummmm…how do I explain this.
Let me try: The red balls are either in Jar A or Jar B. Showing they’re not in Jar A is the same as showing they are in Jar B.
Do you need a hug?
Sure, this seems like a completely believable explanation. Much more believable than you not checking your cite thoroughly.
Wait, not completely believable..the other thing.
Black people in this country range from 99% to 1% European heritage, with an average of 18% European heritage.
How did I miss this gem in my first pass-through?
Monavis,
Globally, national IQs correlates with color. This is an established fact. Refer to table 18, here, 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 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?
Has Chuck’s account been hacked by Brazzy?
Offered without comment.
This is the most ridiculous claim that I have every heard. You’re arguing that for there to be mean genetic differences between populations called races the populations must represent “discrete races,” right?
And you maintain that Blacks and Whites in the US are not “discrete races,” right?
So it necessarily follows that no differences between them can be genetically conditioned, right? In fact, there can be no mean genetic differences between them, right?
So if I demonstrated that there are any mean genetic differences, you must either concede that Blacks and Whites in the US do represent “discrete races” or that it’s not necessary for population called races to be “discrete races” for there to be mean genetic differences between them, right?
Let me ask, by your understanding, for there to be mean genetic differences between any two groups, must the two groups be “genetically discrete”? So, for example, must “tall” and “short” people represent genetically “discrete groups” for the mean height difference to be partially genetically conditioned?
More Mickey Mouse games, eh?
Explain.