Why by populations? And what do you mean by “equivalent in potential”? Consider other possible ways of measurement: genetic disposition for musical talent, mathematics, athletics, art, performance art, etc.
Chief Pedant, all you’ve done is do exactly what I’ve said you would do, which is to point to transitory political, economic or social factors as evidence of something innate. Your stuff has been responded to many times on this board, but I’ll just ask a clarifying question for one portion here:
Are you including Indians in “Asian countries”?
I’ll also tackle this:
What would you like me to look at? Per-capita GDP? Democratization? Economic systems? What? Because these are again, all transitory conditions. If I were to assume that Africans had superior intelligence (which given our current understanding of human genetics and brain development is an equally plausible assumption to start out with), then my analysis of why a country like the Congo has its problems becomes very different, doesn’t it? You’re the one starting out with a priori assumptions here, and you are the one selectively picking transitory data to mold your hypothesis. That’s not science.
The only way to figure this out 100% would be to take a bunch of babies from different races and raise them in the exact same environment with the exact same exposure to everything (chemicals, food, human interaction, education) and then measure their progress on a wide variety of test skills for the first 18 years of their life. And then we’d have to repeat the experiment while changing different parameters to see if they have differing effects on intelligence. Of course, we can’t do that, because it’s unethical. So, we’re left with trying to do science by examining and researching brain development and the human genome. And until scientists can point to a set of genes that determine intelligence and figure out under what conditions those genes express themselves, what we’re left with is nothing but speculation.
Ah, what the hell, I’ll tackle this too:
I haven’t read these studies, so I’m going to take your description of these at face value. Even if these are true (and they may well be), they don’t tell us anything about genetically-based factors for intelligence, which is what the claim is here. We know very well that human brain development is affected by environmental factors in the womb and childhood (by environmental, I mean chemical/hormonal exposure) and by early socialization and interaction. Pointing at these studies is evidence that something is different, and even if we can control for “opportunity” as you’ve claimed, you still haven’t given any indication that you controlled for early socialization or environmental (chemical/hormonal) exposure. It’s not valid science to extrapolate from these descriptions to a genetic indication of anything.
Also here’s a much more in depth paper by that same author worked on.
The Educational Pipeline for Health Care Professionals: Understanding the Source of Racial Differences
The interesting thing is the biggest factor seems to be socioeconomic conditions. When those are corrected for a black kid is more likely then a white kid to go on to higher education.
Growing up poor, though not black, I can see why that would make a big impact.
Wow. I don’t even… just wow.
No one is saying that though; the major contention is that the the studies these chaps keep pointing to do not support that view.
In practice there are plenty of black groups who are unfortunately genetically stupider than other white groups, no one disputes that. It may even be the case that most black groups are stupider than most white groups (it would explain a lot).
But when we talk about “blacks” and “whites” to assign labels to these groups we are basically giving them social labels that just aren’t backed up in the genome. So either we misunderstand genetics to such an extent that DNA isn’t the primary mechanism of genetic transfer, or we’re entering pseudoscience. And if it’s pseudoscience it’s a reasonable assumption that the interpretation is ipso facto racist.
Blacks are stupider is just wrong.
See, I agree with even sven. 100%. However, Rand Rover raises a legitimate question, that deserves a legitimate answer.
It’s racist because given all of the complex cultural and socio-economic factors that exist globally for black people, it is baffling how a person could hypothesize that the reason black people might do less well (on average) on a white-person-designed test of intelligence is because they’re just dumber, and not because of external factors.
You’re right, Rand Rover, that ‘intelligence’, like skin color, body shape, and all sorts of other things are likely to be different. If there’s a group of people who all have different skin than me, why can’t their brains be different as well? It’s just another part of the body, and it’s very clear that groups of people have developed physiological differences. Of course the mind probably has differences.
But, until you can define intelligence in a meaningful and objective way (doubtful), and until you can measure intelligence in a meaningful and objective way (also doubtful), and until you can do both of those things in a way that isn’t colored by the expectations of the socially dominant race (damned near impossible), all talk of racial intelligence is nothing but speculation, and there is no good reason to assume any race is dumber than any other.
I understand all the posts above about the many different genetic groups and “who’s black and who’s white anyway?” blah blah blah. However, it’s all meaningless. As long as a study identifies how it defines the different genetic groups to which the study applies, then we can take a look at that and factor it into our reaction to the study. It’s ridiculous to say “oh, a guy writing a news article about a scientific study said the word ‘black,’ so that means the study is invalid and doesn’t mean anything.”
“Meaningful and objective” when you say it means “acceptable to me,” so I am confident that you will never think those things are defined in a meaningful and objective way.
But no one will ever decide how to measure IQ. Even today psychologists debate it.
even svevn mentioned knowing people in Cameroon. She said a lot of them a wealth of practical knowledge–sewing and building and so on–things that most of us in the western world really wouldn’t be able to do. They have a long oral history and have a great sense of humor. It was pointed out that this doesn’t have anything to do with IQ. But what we decide is IQ is relatively arbitrary. Another culture could have a completely different measure of it. I mean, I know we can recognize Einstein was a genius. But when we look at a group of people whose achievements we don’t know, how can we really decide it? We have an IQ test, but what does that really mean? Does the IQ test what it says it tests, and does what it tests correlate with intelligence?
From where I’m sat, only somebody with a racist agenda would even want to know if “blacks” were genetically, or mentally inferior, and these people would likely ignore any “patterns” that disproved their pet theory.
Well, wait a minute. Sure it means ‘acceptable to me.’ But then, it’s the same for you. If you’re satisfied that intelligence as defined and measured by IQ is meaningful, then good for you. If you feel that IQ adequately tells you how smart a person is, then that’s fine. But when we use words like smart, or intelligent, we often mean different things depending on context, and who and how we’re talking about something, and so, in my opinion, talking about how ‘smart’ a person is is a loaded comment, and measuring how ‘smart’ someone is is equally loaded with the biases brought into the hypothesis and the test.
Yep. Chief Pedant, Chen, and athelas come in to all threads about blacks and push, so desperately, their hopes and desires that black people be regarded as less than.
Hell, athelas even plagiarizes just to try to win.
Somehow, this isn’t “being a jerk.” No idea how that works.
I’ll try to take these various points one by one…
No one is suggesting the total number of black doctors is not related to various socioeconomic factors. What is true, though, is that of black students who do matriculate into college and have exactly the same preparatory opportunity as whites, MCAT scores taken during the senior year are abysmally lower despite the same preparation. Four years on after medical school, licensing exam tests post-med school are also abysmally lower (again, despite the same preparation); this is one of the factors cited for the lack of blacks in subspecialties since residency programs tend to offer spots to high-performers.
In short, 8 years on after participating in the same educational track, the scores of black students still represent a huge gap from whites and asians.
There is trivial, if any, support for the position that human brain development is affected by the environmental and chemical and early socialization interactions you mention here. In fact, any number of studies suggest the largest disparities develop at puberty and beyond. It is a canard to pretend that Biafran-like conditions somehow stunt the development of the average US citizen, black or white. It is certainly true that intelligence and environment co-vary; smarter people make smarter choices, white or black. It’s not true that there is any evidence environmental factors have somehow stunted the intelligence of blacks in America.
Genetically-based potential for all of the things you describe does vary by population.
I would be careful using the phrase “not backed up by the genome.” I have suggested elsewhere that, as the genome gets unraveled, we will be more able to readily parse out which genes govern what.
The complaint is commonly made that, since “blacks” comprise a genetically diverse group, it makes no sense to group them. I’m actually OK with that; the dilemma is that in our society, they tend to want to group themselves. The idea of race-based affirmative action, for instance (which I support, btw) requires assigning oneself to a group. It’s a straw man to pretend we need a “black” marker for the group defined as “black.” What is at issue is whether or not gene prevalences vary between two groups; not whether or not a particular group is tightly defined. All tall people vary from all short people genetically, even if those two groups are otherwise completely unrelated.
And the presence of genetic diversity within a group does not mean that group differences cannot be genetic in nature. Despite their diversity, as a group blacks have many genes which are more prevalent among blacks. The distribution of MCPH1 haplogroup D is an example of a gene which is found in two different distribution prevalences; sub-saharan and non-sub-saharan.
Fine; it’s racist. But at hand is not a question of whether or not something is “racist.” At hand is a question of whether or not something is correct.
There are smart breeds of dogs. There are dumb breeds of dogs. There are fast breeds; slow breeds; big breeds. They are all dogs. For the most part, where dogs are different, the difference lies in their genes.
So it is with humans.
In the world of animal husbandry, where the scientists don’t have to mess with being called names, pretty much every single trait–including intelligence–is considered genetic.
Folks unwilling to entertain that this is equally true for humans use vague terms like “complex socioeconomic factors” to hide behind. Such “socio-economic factors” are relatively easily normalized for, and yet differences persist. Clinging to a belief that they cannot be normalized for is driven by an a priori distaste for the fact that mother nature is not fair. It is not driven by any data whatsoever, and for those who wish to posit “complex socio-economic factors” I ask a simple question (which to date has been ignored here):
Why do wealthy black children and black children of highly educated parents underscore desperately poor white children and white children from families where the parents did not finish high school on the SAT?
The evidence stares you in the face, for humans and other animals. You accept it for other animals, but not for humans, and the reason you find excuses is very charitable. It is, however, without a shred of scientific support.