Right – they controlled for “nurture” in one of the only possible ways – only testing people identified and culturally/societally treated as “black”. Among black people, African ancestry has nothing to do with intelligence test scores. That’s a pretty strong indication that African ancestry may have nothing to do with intelligence test scores with wider populations as well.
It’s evidence against any particular theory that postulates that the African gene pool is more likely to contain genes for lower intelligence than non-African gene pools. That includes pretty much any “blacks are dumber due to genes” hypothesis that I know of. Most such assertions that I’ve heard are some variation of "there are certain genes for smartness and genes for lower intelligence, and the genes for smartness are more likely to be found in non-African gene pools than African gene pools (and therefore more likely to be found in an individual with no African ancestry than a person with some African ancestry), while the genes for lower intelligence are more likely to be found in African gene pools are more likely to be found in African gene pools than non-African gene pools (and therefore more likely to be found in an individual with African ancestry than a person with no African ancestry).
I’m aware of this hypothesis. Until we actually have the genes for high and low intelligence, and their likelihood of being present in various populations, I remain unconvinced. When society is as profoundly as unequal as ours, I don’t believe test scores can tell us anything at all useful about genetics, when comparing groups with very different historical and present treatment in society.
You need to really stop and think about what you’re suggesting. Describe exactly your theory of how the “one drop” rule works. Explain exactly how it would impact the 20%/80% or 60%/40% results. You may find this a helpful exercise.
it would seem you are not educated in the science… an book review about education testing and an article from a journal of education are not science and do not tell us about the biological science of genetics or the human populations.
it does indeed tell us when we compare with the data of the europeans, like the united kingdom as already presented that the americans have a deep running sociological issue and complexes around the peoples of obvious recent african descent… but so do the discussions here.
it is easy there is the conclusion already held and then there is finding a way to make sure the archaic idea behind the conclusion is defended by ad hoc responses.
When you want to lecture and talk down to others, be sure and fucking check your grammar before posting. Because otherwise you look as stupid as you actually are.
oh dommage, I made a mistake in the fourth language I speak. I am very humiliated.
nevertheless, it is less humiliation to feel than not being able to tell the difference between the biological sciences and the subject of educational testing, or to make postings that show that one has not understood the fundamental sciences behind the discussion and is just relying on sloganeering.
From what I can tell, both of these sources seem to conclude that non-genetic explanations are far more likely than genetic explanations for the test-score gap.
I can understand why an internet know-it-all would not bother to take some time to read anything, especially if it’s directly related to the argument at hand, but you take the cake for being ignorant.
‘The Shape of the River,’’ was written William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, which of course are names you don’t recognize. These authors are former presidents of Princeton and Harvard Universities, which means unlike you, they are educated and science based people, and the book has an extensive science based bibliography, it is about the science, but some idiot like you just ignores it all, and continues to act smarter than actual smart people.
It compares a self-selected group of immigrants to native-born populations, it relies heavily on anecdotal data, and it misunderstands basic concepts like regression to the mean to make specious points.
OK. Let’s assume that there are a bunch of genes which code for intelligence, numbered A-Z. Let’s assume that there are a bunch of genes, any of which can individually deactivate all 26 of those genes, numbered 1-10, which are clustered in a particular population.
In this case, a member of a population which has all of 1-10 will not express particularly differently than someone who has just 1. Only someone with none of the 10 deactivate-all genes will show intelligence above their population group.
Of course, there’s no evidence that intelligence works this way. But given what we know of simple attributes like eye color and how they’re influenced by multiple overlapping genetic factors, I don’t see any reason to assume that the above scenario is necessarily impossible.
…Hmm. Now here would be an interesting follow-up to that study; what happens when they do it again, only they cast a really wide net, test everyone’s blood samples, and include people with significant African ancestry who don’t identify as black? If we could divide people into four cohorts, of non-African-ancestry-non-black-identification, mixed-ancestry-non-black-identification, mixed-ancestry-black-identification, and African-ancestry-black-identification, and show that the first two and the second two groups had distinctly similar scores, and that the second and third groups had distinctly different scores, that would be a stake through the heart of the genetic difference theory.
It was pretty good for the most part, but ruined IMO by the “I’m not going to read your response” ending. That type of fingers-in-the-ears wimpiness undermines the force of the attack.
Yes, in fact, that is the definition of racism. To even think a subset of humans could be different, in any way, because of genetic differences, that is the basis of racism.
It’s why people hate racist. A racist believes breeding matters, and that not everybody is created equaal, and that some genetic lines of people are better than others. The Japanese were awful about this, they actually thought they were superior, because of their superior race, and even taught different people had evolved (descended) from different kinds of apes. (I heard it, so it has to be true)
Same for every other racist group, they believe God created them special, and all others are inferior, or worse. God loves the pure race, and despises the rest.
If there was any scientific evidence to support this, it would also be racist.
I disagree. Following your logic, pointing out any differences, benign as they may be, would constitute racism, and make a statement racist and the speaker a racist.
Pointing out a scientific fact, like, “Blacks have more melanin in their skin”, is a race-based observation. It is racial, yes, but suggests nothing about the superiority or inferiority of any race.
I can see how the word could be used as you suggest, but that is stretching it. At the same time it muddies up the primary meaning of the word, in which there is a value judgement attached.
I also find this definition of racism to be rather unhelpful. Suppose that in 30 years, there is absolutely 100% settled science that rigorously inarguably proves that there are some real but very minor differences in average cognitive abilities between different racial groups… so minor that they’re trivial compared to individual variance and the effect of nurture. Is someone who accepts this settled science as true but never judges anyone by their race in any way, accepting and valuing each individual for their individual strengths and weaknesses, a racist? If so, I think the word ceases to be useful.
But claims about inherent genetic intelligence are a lot more than “nothing” about the superiority or inferiority of any race. That’s why, in my mind, such claims are racist, no matter who makes them, and no matter why.
I think it’s possible, in some hypothetical science-fiction universe, that such a claim might not be racist. But in the real world, in the present, the claims are racist.
So at least for me, when someone makes such a claim (and I have the energy and inclination), I will try to look skeptically but as objectively as I can at the evidence they cite, and then give my view about the claim. So far, when doing this, I haven’t found a single version of this claim (the “blacks are inherently genetically less intelligent on average” claim) that I don’t easily and very straight-forwardly consider racist. And I’m fine with calling them (the claims, not necessarily the people that make the claims) that.
This is, I think, an important distinction. The core of racism, to me, is judging people solely by their race. If, as you say, there is in the future some scientific consensus about differences in “intelligence” between some races, I would not call someone “racist” for agreeing with that, but I would call him racist if he looks at someone in the “less intelligent on average” racial group and assumes the guy is stupid solely based on his membership in that racial group.
Otherwise, the term loses it’s negative meaning, and then we have to come up with a new term that does carry the negative connotation.
As it is, the term “racist” has an inherent, negative connotation to it. If you want to separate that connotation, then we lose an important way of calling out people who are, really do think that race = destiny.
Do you really mean “solely” here? I think judging people partially by their race is also pretty clearly racist (like “he’s one of the good ones” and “a great guy for a [racial slur]”).
I bring this up because I think there’s a lot of people who actually believe that having a black friend (or even a black spouse or black adopted child) means they aren’t and can’t be racist – that racism is “I want to kill/enslave/hurt black people”, and anything short of that is not racist.