Both of these assertions are incorrect. Differences between individuals appear for the same reasons as differences between groups - a combination of environment and heredity - not “mainly to genes”. And this has very much to do with differences between groups, which are equally subject to those combined factors.
Your conclusions don’t follow from your premises.
Regards,
Shodan
Wrong. Research the measure of heritability and it’s uses (and not from freelance blogs) and then come back once you’re educated. High heritability within group does NOT explain any differences between groups. This is a well-known fact. Even seasoned hereditarians acknowledge this to be true. Heritability varies for different traits that are equally genetic, and sometimes differs from population to population. It doesn’t measure how genetic a trait is. In order to say that blacks and whites are subjected to the same factors, you have to prove that there is nothing different about being black in america in comparison to being white in america. I’ll wait. History tells us otherwise. Obviously being a historically discriminated minority produces unique situational factors and cultural differences. Your premise is based on the unsupported assumption that factors will always be the same for all groups, and that the same factors will always affect different groups with the same intensity. This is just false. There is no research to support the statement that “differences between groups” have the same sources as differences between individuals. If there was, the debate would be over and we would’ve even be discussing this… It doesn’t seem like you desire a debate; it seems you’ve made up your mind and will not accept any contradictory evidence.
The article from the scientific american explains how even a highly genetic trait such as height can have much lower heritability in nations like china, where income inequality is rampant:
Heritability is not a fixed number and it is never applied to more than one population at a time because that is not it’s purpose; it is the statistical ratio of genetic influence on variance within a given population VS. environmental influence. It’s not even relevant to comparing groups. Seriously dude, learn about it before you enter a debate about it.
You’re wrong. ^
No, I’m not.
You claimed that
This is false. The intellectual differences between you and me are not due mainly to genes; they are due to differences between us both in our genetic makeup and our environment.
If one group has poor nutrition in childhood and winds up on average to be an inch shorter than another group that has good nutrition, a heritability study will not show that the difference between the two groups is mainly due to genes, because it isn’t - it’s due to environmental factors.
Then why did you bring it up as if it were relevant to comparing groups? It has, in other words, no relevance to the discussion, and you are arguing on irrelevancies.
Regards,
Shodan
I bring it up to offer exposure to contrary arguments, so as not to seem biased; heritability estimates for IQ are a key component of the hereditarian debate; not mine. My point is that they tell us nothing about differences between groups; that comment about you and me by the way was sarcasm. Sorry for the ad hominem quip, I just got frustrated with you. Where you’re wrong is when you insist that heritability measures within a group inform us about genetic contribution to the trait itself, and that by acknowledging the high heritability of IQ and then arguing that the gap is environmental I am contradicting myself; I am not. Differences between populations are not accounted for by heritability, because that’s not it’s purpose as a statistical measure. You asserted that group differences are a mix of genetics and environment just like individual differences. This is another unsupported assumption because while within a population genes may account for the majority of variance, the environment of said population (let’s call it population A) can still be so vastly different from population B as to cause a difference in the average phenotypical expression of the trait. So while genotypical potential might be the same, and heritability measures similar, the gap can still be majority environmentally produced. Heritability again, tells us how much of variation in a specific population is due to genes vs environment. If blacks and whites have similar heritability measures, all that means is that within those populations, the environment from individual to individual does not differ as much as genes. It doesn’t mean that these groups as a whole do not differ greatly in terms of environment. So while one black person’s environment may be similar to the environment of another black person, it doesn’t follow that their environment would also be the same as the average white person’s, because these are two completely different populations, with different levels of poverty, malnutrition, lead exposure, and different cultural values and experiences. What you misunderstand about my tactics is that I introduce my points while at the same time addressing criticisms and refuting counter-arguments. That’s why I bring up heritability; because the high heritability of IQ within the white population is so often used by racialists to support conclusions about the gap.
Your fallacy was committed here
The application of heritability figures to the IQ debate is not my argument; it is a common argument of hereditarians which I have addressed and refuted, yet you continue to argue that it must have some relevance to between group differences, as you did above ^
Groups are not “equally subject to those combined factors”. As I explained, while the environment within a population may by homogenous, causing genes to account for the majority of variation, that doesn’t mean that the two homogenous environments aren’t extremely different when compared to each other.
There are two minorly compelling pieces of evidence to support your statement that genes contribute to differences between groups; one being that blacks and whites regress to different means, and the other being that 14 alleles that influence intelligence in whites were found at differing frequencies within the black population; however, together these alleles accounted for less than 1% of the gap; and it is not demonstrable that the gradual regression of IQ is an entirely genetic mechanism to begin with. It’s entirely plausible that black youths today have fewer incentives to overcome the depressive factors that their parents did. There are no figures on the childhood IQs of blacks with educated parents, except for the adoption study in which blacks were adopted by other blacks and scored far above 100. This suggests to me that the regression seen in blood related blacks may not begin until the introduction of non-home enviroment. At the very least, genes have a minimal contribution to the differences. My argument is that most of the gap is accounted for by differences in access to cognitively nurturing environments in childhood, and the ability to continue selecting for the correct environments to prevent the pruning of beneficial synapses. Earlier in the debate you stated that “if the gap persists once socioeconomic status is accounted for, it suggests the influence of another factor”. This is correct, however irrelevant. It was never my argument that the entire gap is accounted for by SES. I know this is not true; the gap has already closed by 5 points, likely because of increased economic wellbeing. I suggest that most of the gap is accounted for by socioeconomic status and culture combined.
Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that I have never made such a claim. In fact I have repeatedly mentioned that they are irrelevant.
I don’t know what this means. If you mean that a given population is homogenous, meaning they share similar genotypes, say so. Yes, their average genotype can differ from some other group’s. So can their environment. If the two populations differ in some measurable way, that means that either their average genotype is causing the difference, the environment is causing the difference, or both are causing the difference. Genes and/or environments are causing the difference.
But yes, you compare the environments. The more similar the environments, or the more the difference disappears as the environments converge, the more likely it is that the difference is caused by environment. The more persistent any gap is when the environments converge, the more likely that genes (or some factor other than environment) is causing the gap.
Regards,
Shodan
<Full disclosure to the OP: I am firmly on the side that average differences in genes is a major driver for average differences in outcomes when comparing populations where it can be shown that average differences in gene frequencies exist for the populations being compared>
If I could reach across the internet and reassure you of one thing about your OP, it would be this: You don’t have to give a rat’s ass whether outcome differences are Nature (genetic) or Nurture (environmental). With the exception of how to establish social policies (such as making sure all groups have a shot at sharing in the largess of whatever we can build together), it’s pointless to worry very much about gene pool differences. Our job as a society is to make sure we break down every environmental barrier, and lift up every individual to meet the maximum potential Nature has given them. We cannot (yet) fix Nature. We can fix Nurture.
Your thread began with some comments about crime and seems to have taken a tack (as so many of these threads do) toward whether or not IQ differences among race groups exist because gene differences exist. Every one of those words I just used–IQ; race groups; gene differences–have so many nuances that a simple message board with everyone chiming in all at once is not the best forum to parse them out. FWIW, and it may not be worth much, here’s my take.
IQ measurements. Let this one go, along with the Flynn effect, or any other attempt to compare quantified intelligence measurements at a population level (especially of g) across time periods. Way too mushy to be helpful. Flynn’s work puts average black IQ’s in the gutter back in the 50s, and none of this idiotic idea that IQ tests show we are becoming more intelligent as a species fits with things like (equally quantified) SAT scores over time. Flynn himself argued that IQ tests (Ravens matrices in particular) obviously did not measure “intelligence.” If they did, either past societies would be totally dysfunctional, or ours would be full of enlightened geniuses. Read one of his early papers here; p. 187 ff in particular. Measuring “intelligence” changes of populations across time–or even across cultures–is fraught w/ stickiness and is not going to help either side in the Nature/Nurture debate. An IQ test has its place, perhaps, but given the variability and vicissitudes of application at a population level, I am not inclined to be particularly persuaded about what it means for group averages.
Race groups. LOL. Just. LOL. Let these go, too. 
If you want to understand the possible contribution of genes to outcome differences at a group level, ignore “race” and instead focus on how we modern humans managed to show up, evolve, and distribute ourselves. I am startled at how often someone utterly clueless about how modern populations came to be, weighs in with an opinion about whether or not average gene frequency differences might be at play in the average outcomes we see. So if you do decide to explore whether or not gene differences might drive outcomes, first educate yourself on the history of man. That way, whatever decisions you make are driven by knowledge of what Nature did, and not some kind of construct based on what Nature should have done had she followed our social construct of fairness.
Gene differences. After learning about how we came to be and how we distributed ourselves across the planet, make some decisions about how you want to parse out population groups for comparison–assuming that you are determined to figure out to what extent genes might be at play. Are you a lumper? A splitter? How are you going to normalize for Nurture?
If none of this seems worthwhile, then I suggest a simpler approach. Stop worrying about genes. We are not responsible for our genes, and there is no accomplishment in having ones that underpin success for any given outcome. So maybe the best thing to do is to recognize that, for any given individual, determining the relative contribution of their personal gene set to their success is…kind of unimportant. What is important is figuring out to maximize their potential. What is important is making sure we drive fairness in nurturing, and create policy which attempts to ameliorate whatever genetically-driven differences Mother Nature decided to throw at us.
And I kind of think the same thing can be said at a population level for any group you wish to define as a group…
In medical diagnosis, there’s a saying: “If you hear hoofbeats, think horse, not zebra.” Consider the ubiquitous before the rare, unless the rare is known to be common where you are.
Tribal oppression and class oppression are known and common. Differences in nutrition, in local culture, in education affecting personal development both physical and mental–all these have been identified.
By contrast, genetic difference in mental development between human populations is* highly *speculative at best. But the idea has been used to reinforce oppression that arose historically in other ways, making it more on the level of astrology than the level of real social science.
Well…except for the part that when we look at every other measurable parameter, ranging from physiology to frequency of highly penetrated genes (suggesting those genes DO something) to appearance to…well; you get it–
When we look at THAT, every measurable parameter differs among populations, including genes known to affect neurophysiology. For example, look up MCPH1 Haplogroup D penetration and frequency difference between african and non-african populations…
Then one notices that average outcomes differ among populations for all kinds of skillsets, ranging from physical ones to neurologic ones.
So one easy question to ask: Why should the brain be excepted from differences that exist for every other area?
Seems to me what is highly speculative is that Mother Nature has exempted brain differences from evolving while permitting musculoskeletal/skin/renal/cardiovascular/respiratory/etc etc etc evolution among populations. But I will accept that it is highly popular to suggest that any average brain differences is “highly speculative.”
Hmmmm… :dubious:
Whether true or not, this tells us nothing about any particular groups or how they compare to other groups in any particular supposedly group-genetically-influenced characteristic.
Closing the wealth/income only closes the wealth/income gap and only tells you how much of the difference was due to wealth/income. It does nothing to remove the effects of privilege, institutional racism, unconscious bias and even flat out racism.
I’m open to the notion that the median genetic potential of one race might be higher than another race but aside from small subsets of the population (AKA Jews) I don’t really see how one race would select for IQ any more than the other races. At least not enough to create the sort of gaps that people are talking about.
In what way was IQ more important for procreation in Europe than Africa? Or do you think that these sort of genetic differences in IQ could be the result of coincidence?
I am talking mostly about comparing different groups at the same socio-economic level with each other. If they are at the same level, the difference cannot be due to income. It must be due to some factor that does not cause disparities in income, but does cause disparities in outcome on whatever is being measured.
Or genetic drift, which is another important source for genetic variations in populations. If it is caused by mutation, then yes, mutations are random. I don’t know if that’s what you mean by “coincidence”.
Regards,
Shodan