Indeed. As an absolute monarchist through hereditary primogeniture and a strict cultural conservative, although big state leftist politically — “we are all socialists now.” —, I tend the entire other way.
I’m sure we’ve had this discussion previously, but as you note there are significant differences between the two groups, the chief one being that Jewish groups did not have their cultural identities obliterated. Jews didn’t have children taken away from their parents at birth, and husbands and wives separated and given new names (sometimes repeatedly). Jews tended to be skilled migrants rather than unskilled (and unwilling) ones, and thus were able to carve out an economic niche. And while Jews also faced significant persecution and social exclusion it was nothing compared to the levels faced by blacks (and of course Jews could often ‘pass’ without notice). Yes, it’s been 150 years but given the previous 200 years and the various ‘issues’ which have continued to affect the community it’s not surprising that things are the way they are.
Which is not to say that there aren’t many other factors to consider but those are a few of the biggies.
You are reaching for environmental explanations that are more comforting. The reason black nigerian immigrants that come to the US do better than the host black population is not because their culture is intact, or at least not all/most of it. It’s because that is not some random sample of the african population. People that immigrate to the US via plane or Visa are typically selected from the cream of the crop of foreign populations. THAT is the stronger signal.
With the slave trade there was no such selection of the most talented. It was a crap shoot of whoever got captured and sent on those awful voyages across the Atlantic.
I am considered a “race realist” here, but I do not even think this is specifically about “race”
A random sample of 100 white people living in Manhattan will almost certainly have a higher average iq than a random sample of white people living in Mississippi. Same race, different populations, of which the Manhattan bunch are more selected from people with more in demand skills to be able to afford that rats nest of density and cost.
There was a professor who talked about a more neutral example in the UK by looking at lineages and surnames as a signal of a transference of social mobility. Spoiler Alert. The descendants of high status surnames from generations ago tended to remain more high status than not over the ages. It takes a long time for that signal to go back into noise. Adopted Children are more similar in outcome to their birth parents than the adopted parents.
Most people on these boards, and likely you yourself will reject this because we do not have large hadron collider like precision of this correlative evidence out to a hundred decimal places, but the points still stand. IQ is largely genetically influenced, and populations differ. And worse, we know precious little about how to normalize that between groups.
Do not despair because you are black. So am I, mostly, The consequence of all of this is not that there are not any black people with higher iqs, it’s that there are not as many. People ought to still be judged on an individual basis and not on any average group characteristics.
And if that is not enough, we WILL fix this, while most people will turn a blind eye to the consequences of genetics and iq and pretend it’s not a thing that is doled out unequally between groups, there are some who know what is up and are cataloging the numerous gene combinations that contribute to greater aptitude. We will solve this issue, and raise the rest of humanity who were not so gifted.
Somehow I don’t think that this sentiment, which comes across to me as “we don’t think all black people are intellectually inferior, just most!”, would be very comforting.
Maybe we aren’t talking about the same thing.
OK, with you so far.
OK, but nobody asserts that average IQ isn’t affected by environment. And you are almost certainly correct that the rise in average black IQ is caused by greater access to education and opportunity.
But suppose you have two groups A and B who differ in their performance on average on, say, X. X is controlled both by genetics, and environment. A scores ten points higher than B on tests that measure X.
So you intervene with all kinds of cultural and environmental encouragements to raise X. And you raise the average score for group A by three points, and the average score for B by ten points. You’ve narrowed the gap - but it persists, just smaller. You have **not **proven that X is only controlled by environment.
It could, if cultural attitude is the only factor causing the gap. If the gap persists, then that is evidence that cultural attitude is not the only factor behind the gap.
Synaptic pruning, if it occurs and if it is the reason for the gap, would be the result of environment. Again, no one argues that environment does not affect IQ. The question remains, if the gap persists when (to the extent possible) one holds the environment constant, what is the cause for the gap?
Well, here we are.
[ul][li]You have mentioned “g” a couple of times. Could you define the term as you are using it, to be sure we are all on the same page?[/li][li]Do you have any clear evidence for your theory of synaptic pruning? [/ul]IOW allow me to take your GD cherry - cite?[/li]
But in any case, welcome again to our merry band of adventurers here on the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
I think ignoring the race realists in this thread, who’ve had nearly infinite opportunities to argue and provide citations for their beliefs, would be a great idea. Race realists, maybe try shutting up for once. Or just go find any of the infinite threads you’ve contributed to on this tired fucking topic and make a new post. Or just for shits and giggles try arguing the other side of the debate.
I tend to take any argument relying on finely-differentiated analysis of IQ data with a large grain of salt given the extreme fuzziness around our current understanding of intelligence and what IQ actually measures.
Also, this:
is a very weak argument. It’s true that those with the wherewithal or other ability to wilfully emigrate are more likely to be people who have their shit together than those captured and shipped overseas against their will, yes, but to handwave away the effects of forcible enslavement, torture, and the destruction of families for something like ten generations in favour of a highly speculative theory around average IQ is to tempt William of Ockham to climb out of his grave and slap you silly.
This seem Lamarckian. Do you mean it to be?
Culture and society are Lamarckian, in this sense, I think. If it’s different aspects of culture and society that are the cause of disparities like this, then it would be expected that these would carry forward, to some degree, from generation to generation.
Indeed. I don’t think genetics are relevant to the disparity in outcomes at all, or at the very least are trivial compared to other factors, so there’s not much that is Lamarckian in that sense.
Profound cultural disruptions, however, can and do have very long-term effects, particularly when reinforced over subsequent generations (as has been the case in America). That’s not Lamarckism; that’s history.
Correct, there is nothing comforting about the statement, which says nothing about whether it is true or false. I’m not comfortable with it, I think that is a large chunk of why certain groups are more stigmatized, you go into elite places in the western world and you see fewer black people. It’s not honest to suggest it’s just a good ole white boys club, there are plenty of asians, indians, high skilled immigrants. How many people have encountered a Hatian doctor? How many Hatians are in the US vs the general black population?
People see greater or lesser representation of certain groups/races in elite spaces as datapoints that there is something lesser about certain groups. We should not think in those terms, should not think in terms of superior/inferior man when it comes to aptitude, but we absolutely do. Intelligence is the one trait where virtually everyone thinks it makes you better. Given that, and given my view that such intelligence is doled out unequally between both individuals and populations and will continue to cause group disparities that CANNOT BE completely closed through environmental factors without making it obvious that there is still some key differences between groups that require some herculean effort to get them to parity, I want us to just solve the issue. Figure out what genes are influencing what, and alter humanity. I want the baseline average intelligence for all groups to be high enough to the point where the differences between one population and another is not so visible, where the efforts of one group and another are performed on a more level road. Usually my liberal allies only presume that level road can ever really be related to environmental and societal factors. But that is a fantasy. And instead of assuming fantasies are the entire reality, we need to get to work.
So I am fine with not discussing this openly if it has negative societal affects and because we can’t do anything about it now, but we need to open the flood gates of research to tackling this problem for the people that are in a position to do something about it.
This deserves another thread (except that the subject has been beaten beyond all recognition on this board, including a few threads in which we’ve already both taken part, IIRC), so I’ll just say that I very, very strongly disagree that the facts and evidence point in the direction you suggest.
“g” or general intelligence is defined as the abstract measurement derived from how much high scores in one category correlate to high scores in another; in other words, someone who does well in the pattern recognition or non-verbal portion of the IQ test (one of the most g-loaded methods there is) will likely score well on other portions of the test, such as mathematics. The strength of this correlation would be an example of generalized intelligence. A direct quote from wikipedia’s definition (scholarly papers, scientific journals and wikipedia (as long as multiple sources confirm it’s statements) are acceptable sources for this debate, no blogs): * It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual’s performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person’s performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test, and composite scores (“IQ scores”) based on many tests are frequently regarded as estimates of individuals’ standing on the g factor.[1] The terms IQ, general intelligence, general cognitive ability, general mental ability, or simply intelligence are often used interchangeably to refer to this common core shared by cognitive tests.[2]*
So now that we've defined the *g* factor let's go over my claims one by one before I address your final question :)
-
The IQ Gap has narrowed: In addition to wikipedia, this review builds a case for the narrowing of the gap, and page three of this harvard paper supports their findings:
http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/nisbett2012int.pdf
http://www.agi.harvard.edu/projects/FactsonAchievementGaps.pdf
One more source: The Black-White Test Score Gap: Why It Persists and What Can Be Done | Brookings
All of the above make statements that the IQ gap has narrowed by 1/3, 0.33 deviations, 25%, or 4-5 points, which would suggest that the average is now 89-90.
As for the reasons, poverty rates and the factors associated with it (lead exposure for example) have decreased over the years in the black community, therefore this decrease is a plausible explanation for why some of the gap has been eliminated. -
Exposure to intellectual stimulation corrects for another 5 points or more by reducing the effect size of anti-educational cultural attitudes:
The infamous Minnesota Study measuring the IQs of black children adopted by white families produced gains of 6 points at age 7, after correcting for the Flynn Effect; though by age 17, gains had faded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
Two smaller scale studies (one which produced permanent gains), found also that the environment raised childhood IQ. The Elise Moore study, though the sample was arguably unrepresentative of the black average, showed that black children adopted by white parents compared to black parents scored about 16 points higher. Despite the non-representative sample, this study offers some quantification of the massive difference in cultural parenting style between blacks and whites, even when it comes to parents who are above the average of their population. It draws questions about to what extent such a huge difference could apply to the overall gap between general populations.
APA PsycNet
The Abecedarian intervention produced a permanent gain of 5-6 points, as well as improved academic performance and life outcomes; the difference between the abecedarian intervention and many other interventions being that the abecedarian intervention started earlier, and lasted longer.
http://evidencebasedprograms.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Do-Early-Intervention-Programs-Really-Work7.pdf
Some criticism of the results point to the appearance of a difference from an extremely early age, which naturally makes it reasonable to suspect that controlling for mother’s IQ could eliminate the appearance of gains. However, a follow-up publication points out that mother’s IQ for both the program group and the control group were near exactly the same; a difference of 1 point, not statistically significant. http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/early_education/pdfs/Besharov_ECE%20assessments_The_Abecedarian_Project.pdf
There were other methodical questions to be raised regarding the abecedarian study (including sample size), however it nonetheless provides more evidence to suggest that culture can be addressed as suppressor of IQ in the case of african americans.
Other interventions, head start included, have produced massive immediate gains, which as you know fade out over time.
If you’ve been following the debate with the intensity and attention to detail as most hereditarians have, you probably know about these studies, their results and their criticisms. Until recently, the notion that the fadeout seen in both adoption and intervention studies was due to false gains (failure to raise general intelligence) was not challenged; I too saw little evidence that the reported gains were in any way representative of any real increase in cognitive ability; that was until I read Protzko’s write up: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=942094068073003098089099113090115086034008059068089043102126102104084006073091125076103052038060105029109000066064120123101018052078027028048090125019004093114005029095043064103096124072090005074083021085098028118023003122074008113029086008091090097067&EXT=pdf
*Protzko also references findings by other researchers that interventions can at times produce permanent improvements for academic achievement. *
Protzko indeed demonstrates that even though a change in the environment might raise general intelligence, once subjects return to their original environment, those gains fade. If his conclusions are justifiable, we must question whether or not it was right to discredit the gains demonstrated by earlier studies simply because the effects were not permanent; arguably, a great deal of the hereditarian position is based on the belief that environment cannot truly affect the g factor; that includes gains made by adoption and intervention studies; so if g can be raised by the environment, why the instability we see with these gains? Well, that’s where my theory regarding synaptic pruning and it’s relationship with IQ comes in:
Modern theories regarding human intelligence revolve around the notion that intelligence at one age is directly responsible for intelligence at another, and that children with higher general intelligence will by default select into environments of high cognitive stimulation, therefore raising their IQ; this is commonly referred to as the **Dickens and Flynn** model, in relation the gene-environment interaction:
A quote from wikipedia’s page ‘The Heritability of IQ’:
“Dickens and Flynn (2001) argued that the “heritability” figure includes both a direct effect of the genotype on IQ and also indirect effects where the genotype changes the environment, in turn affecting IQ. That is, those with a higher IQ tend to seek out stimulating environments that further increase IQ. The direct effect can initially have been very small but feedback loops can create large differences in IQ. In their model an environmental stimulus can have a very large effect on IQ, even in adults, but this effect also decays over time unless the stimulus continues.”
Hereditarians have hypothesized that because the gains we see with interventions and adoption studies do not represent real increased intelligence, the black children are unable to select correctly, and thus they fall behind. But if the environment can raise g after all, as Protzko suggests, we must then look for other reasons; perhaps, as I suggest: black children are prevented from making this selection, therefore the progress they make during these interventions (as well as any positive impact that educated adoptive parents might have) is lost gradually, via synaptic pruning.
Synaptic pruning is a necessary, natural phenomenon by which the brain rids itself of neglected or rarely used synapses:
“Synaptic pruning or axon pruning is the process of synapse elimination that occurs between early childhood and the onset of puberty in many mammals, including humans.[1] Pruning starts near the time of birth and is completed by the time of sexual maturation in humans.[2] At birth, the human brain consists of approximately 86 (± 8) billion neurons.[3][not in citation given] The infant brain will increase in size by a factor of up to 5 by adulthood. Two factors contribute to this growth: the growth of synaptic connections between neurons, and the myelination of nerve fibers; the total number of neurons, however, remains the same.[4] Pruning is influenced by environmental factors and is widely thought to represent learning.[4] After adolescence, the volume of the synaptic connections decreases again due to synaptic pruning.[4]”
As stated in the above quoted from paragraph, it occurs primarily between early childhood and the beginning of adolescence, before occurring once more after adolescence and then ceasing; this is the same pattern we see with the fadeout effect and to a lesser degree, all IQ losses reported between the childhood of an individual and the beginning of adulthood. Perhaps it is not that the genes associated with IQ are weak in childhood and strong in adulthood, but instead that there are fewer environmental factors to discourage children within the average range from selecting into stimulating environments, and that there are more or less of these discouraging factors depending on cultural background and/or socio-economic status. In other words; culture A is more likely to encourage stimulating environmental selection, culture B is more welcoming of randomized selection, and culture C directly discourages stimulating environmental selection.
As a person ages, teachers, peers, and popular culture become more important than home environment and parental values; stereotypes about the cognitive abilities of black students might make teachers less likely to suggest advanced courses or stimulating programs; peers who associate certain activities with "whiteness" will bully and mock those who participate in said activities; black parents with lower standards for their children will be more likely to accept mediocre grades, and with black scientists and intellectuals receiving less of the praise media attention than their rapper and athlete counterparts, it isn't surprising that the positive effects of parental values or an intervention would slowly fade over time.
It's worth noting that the head start program often produces permanent IQ gains for white participants and not for black participants; I believe this occurs not because the gains are only real for white children, but because there is nothing to prevent or dissuade white children from continuing to challenge themselves intellectually and therefore maintaining their improved scores.
Overall, if poverty as a factor has already been corrected over time, and the average black IQ is now 90, I provide evidence to suggest that we can stand to gain at least 6 points or more if attitudes begin to change :dubious:. The gains at age 7 weren't as large in the minnesota study, but it also suffered significant flaws: blood lead levels were much higher for black children then than they are now, the black children were adopted later, and prenatal care was likely sub-par.
Lastly, I don't think there are any clear solutions to this dilemma at the moment; at the very least, I've sought to provide simple evidence that the gaps we're seeing don't necessarily represent the extent of black cognitive ability. Nevertheless, we have some pretty solid reasons to believe that the environment has significant effects on academic achievement and social behaviors, which should draw questions about the relevance of a mere 10-11 point gap, even if we can't reduce it down to 5 or nothing by changing culture; especially due to the overlapping of the bell curves. If we have reason to believe that we can increase the average to at least 95, close achievement gaps and reduce crime, the IQ debate should be closed for good. There's also a recent paper which addresses the gap between asians and whites; though I myself have not had the time to read over it yet. It is clear to me that the debate is far from closed, though it's very easy for one to believe that it is (on both sides) without further examination.
As for why a teenaged black girl would be so "interested" in this; I have personal investment in this topic due to the way discovering it upon accident negatively affected my psychology; sort of put a damper on my exploration of psychology as a topic, honestly; because it really is everywhere. Eventually, one becomes curious about the validity of the opponent's claims. Human psychology is a subject which fascinates me, one which I plan to major in in years to come, and perhaps even publish my theory about synaptic pruning, as no one else seems to have made the connection yet. I'm willing to learn from others, though; and I recognize my own fallibility 100%.
I think this is exactly wrong. African-American culture is probably closer to Scottish culture than to any one culture on the African continent.
If anything, African-American culture is indigenous to the Americas - in the sense that it was created there, and did not exist in any real sense beforehand.
It appears to me - correct me if I am wrong - that you are arguing an either-or between heredity and environment. I think that is not correct - IQ is affected by both environment, and heredity.
That may well be the case. But the synaptic pruning to which you refer is directed by environment.
It depends on what the IQ debate is debating. I agree that a 10 point gap is probably not the best we can do, and further changes to the environment could narrow the gap. But even if we could that, it would not address the idea that IQ is entirely culturally malleable if a gap persisted.
If that’s what you mean.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, you are in fact entirely incorrect; and you seem to misunderstand the definition of heredity in this context. Heritability is not the measure of how much of a trait is attributable to genes; it is the measure of to what degree variation within a specific population is due to genes. Black and white americans can have similar within group heritability figures while having completely different averages. I am aware that IQ is influenced by both genes and environment; that’s what I’ve been saying all along; the gap can still be mainly environmental without overriding the established fact that human intelligence is both inherited and environmentally influenced. I’ve explained how this is possible, in detail.
My pain points:
-
Individual intelligence is mostly genetic, but that says nothing about gaps between groups.
-
IQ and intelligence are not necessarily the same thing; environmental factors driven by synaptic pruning or other may cause some individuals and/or groups to perform below their genetic potential.
-
It is possible that most or all of the gap between blacks and whites is due to the inability of american blacks to continuously access cognitively stimulating environments; childhood IQs diminish to the established average via synaptic pruning. The inability to access is attributed to rebellion against “white” academia, racism, and lack of role models in academia; these factors together create a feedback loop, driving each other.
-
Gains resulting from intervention and adoption studies represent real g, so they can no longer be discredited.
-
The true genetic potential of black americans is likely higher than 90, based on the evidence presented in my previous post.
It’s been nice debating with you, I hope I got my point across.
That’s a distinction that doesn’t affect the debate.
That could be true. Or the difference in average might be due to genes, or a combination of genes and environment.
Sure, it can be. Nothing of what you have presented so far demonstrates that it is. As the socioeconomic status of blacks rises, on average, their average IQ rises as well. If a gap persists, even between blacks and non-blacks at a given socioeconomic level, then that is evidence of some other factor besides socioeconomics.
It does if there are average differences in genetics between groups.
Yes, environmental factors can affect IQ. No one doubts that. Genetics, however, acts as a limiting factor - you can have an IQ lower than you would have, had you been raised in an enriched environment by parents determined to push you as far as you would go. But you can’t have a higher one - no amount of tutoring will make a genius from an average genetic genotype.
Again, yes, it’s possible. It has not been demonstrated.
They don’t need to be discredited. Again, no one doubts that IQ cannot be affected by environment.
Again, perhaps so. But there is no way to measure genetic potential vs. observed performance.
Likewise. Again, welcome to the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sorry, but thus far all you’ve done is dismiss all of my points with the same non-argument over and over again; you clearly haven’t bothered to analyze any of my sources or the connections between them and my conclusions. You have demonstrated a relative inability to debate constructively, and unless you provide sources for your conclusions (which are the same ones from before we even began this discussion) then I’m afraid this debate must come to a close. I have provided plenty of evidence for each and every one of my conclusions without exception. It’s your job to either demonstrate that those conclusions are incorrect (you haven’t) or concede your defeat. A hereditarian once told me that covering your ears and screaming doesn’t change the opponent’s case. Don’t disappoint me now. It could, but it’s not does not count as an argument. Unless you can demonstrate why I’m wrong, simply saying that I am does nothing. Manipulating my evidence to fit your own conclusions is not an argument either. Find your own evidence.
And please, stop deliberately misrepresenting my case; never once have I argued that intelligence as a trait is entirely under the control of environment or genes. I stated early on that intellectual differences between individuals (you and me, for example) were due mainly to genes. Heritability studies tell us this. That has absolutely nothing to do with two entirely different populations under the control of differing factors to differing degrees of intensity, which is why such heritability figures don’t tell us anything about the gap; if you have any scientific integrity at all, then you know that this very much is an important distinction to make; especially since the majority of hereditarian arguments point to heritability to support their conclusions; what do you not understand about that?