# Has the nature-nurture issue been definitely settled in favor of nature? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 9, 2008, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152 "2008-10-09T13:03:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/41 "2008-10-10T01:25:29Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > the pure Nurture stance is one of pure ideology although still accepted by large portions of academia in the social sciences and also in the public mind. Cite for the claim that the “pure Nurture stance” is “accepted by large portions of academia in the social sciences”? Because I’ve never encountered a social scientist who actually advocates that genetic factors have **no** influence on individual abilities or behavior. Nor have I seen any serious academic publications that claim to support that position. I would think that if this idea is really as prevalent in academia as you suggest, it would be prominent in the research literature. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/42 "2008-10-10T01:49:22Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > Surely an alien choosing his basketball team after learning all about earth’s various populations would not limit his selection to Sweden. Nor would he head to Haiti to field his Jeopardy team. Neither of these statements means that any given Haitian is dumber than a Swede or that any given Swede would get his ass kicked by a Haitian on the basketball court. It just means that the contribution of nature in general creates measurable differences between populations. Now you seem to be conflating “race”, “genetically distinct population”, and “nationality”. Superficial racial characteristics are not a reliable guide to genetic descent, and even if they were, they don’t necessarily correlate with nationality. I’m somewhat taken aback by the silliness of implying that Haiti, a struggling Third World nation which until the early 19th century was an imperial plantation colony run on slave labor and which is currently plagued with desperate poverty and violent political unrest, is an unlikely source of _Jeopardy!_ contestants **primarily on account of genetic factors**. Um, we’d have to control for a hell of a lot of fairly significant non-genetic influences before we could confidently assert any such conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/43 "2008-10-10T03:11:04Z")
Not another planet, but something very much like it. A right leaning, openly racialist intellectual subculture. By no means the dominant view, but having some sympathizers in mainstream science and media. Slate journalist William Saletan, for example. Derbyshire and the Gene Expression guys believe that scientists are on the cusp of discovering the racial-genetic basis for IQ, proof once and for all that people of African ancestry are inherently genetically inferior. This has become something bordering on an article of faith for them, a kind of Holy Grail. They were thrilled when geneticist Bruce Lahn found a gene which influenced brain size. There was a great deal of speculation about the political and social consequences when it would be proven that black Africans were largely missing the gene, and Eurasians had it in abundance. It wasn’t proven. It turned out that the recently Stone Aged New Guineans had the gene in abundance, whereas the Han Chinese were largely missing it. The GNXP guys held out hope for a while that this was the proof they wanted, but a lot of neutral observers just laughed. “The big brain gene makes cannibals really smart!” Now Jared Diamond has written that the New Guinea highlanders were the smartest people he’d ever met, but the GNXP guys see Diamond as their arch enemy. The actual trends in scientific research are, surprise, towards greater complexity. The human brain, in particular, is one of the most complex phenomena in the known universe. In spite of this, it seems obvious, at least to members of the subculture, that some ethnic groups are genetically inferior to others.There must then be a conspiracy holding back the “good news”. That’s the root of their anti Obama fear. That he will somehow keep the GNXP guys from reaching the promised land where they will be vindicated, all their claims proven beyond doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/44 "2008-10-10T03:43:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Cite for the claim that the “pure Nurture stance” is “accepted by large portions of academia in the social sciences”? > > Because I’ve never encountered a social scientist who actually advocates that genetic factors have **no** influence on individual abilities or behavior. Nor have I seen any serious academic publications that claim to support that position. I would think that if this idea is really as prevalent in academia as you suggest, it would be prominent in the research literature. Most of the people who are working directly on research about the nature/nuture divide have accepted the role of genetics, I was more talking about people who’s interest in this is only tangential and have not kept up with the debate since the 70s. In particular, the idea of _tabula rasa_ is still prevalent in anthropology departments and the recent Larry Summers flap showed just how deeply cultural determinism is still rooted. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/45 "2008-10-10T04:14:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In this regard, [there are some grounds to suspect Tom Wolfe of bullshit.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=278544) Hardly. That the research of you and three other people was unable to find the existence of an obscure company that failed pre-internet boom by doing a quick google search or two is not enough evidence to suggest that a research journalist with a 40 year reputation made something up. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/46 "2008-10-10T04:17:26Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > It wasn’t proven. It turned out that the recently Stone Aged New Guineans had the gene in abundance, whereas the Han Chinese were largely missing it. The GNXP guys held out hope for a while that this was the proof they wanted, but a lot of neutral observers just laughed. “The big brain gene makes cannibals really smart!” Now Jared Diamond has written that the New Guinea highlanders were the smartest people he’d ever met, but the GNXP guys see Diamond as their arch enemy. Cannibals, are they? Say, maybe their intelligence comes from **eating** brains. Hmmmmmm . . . ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/47 "2008-10-10T04:21:29Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hardly. That the research of you and three other people was unable to find the existence of an obscure company that failed pre-internet boom by doing a quick google search or two is not enough evidence to suggest that a research journalist with a 40 year reputation made something up. Well, just for purposes of this discussion, let’s define “bullshit” broadly enough to include “gullibility.” That’s the only form of intellectual dishonesty of which I would seriously suspect Wolfe, here. But, really, I’m absolutely sure that, despite these purported sociocultural prejudices suppressing it, we would have heard a lot more about this “IQ Cap” by now if it really worked. After all, scientific research goes on in many countries at once and not all such countries have our racial politics. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/48 "2008-10-10T06:13:06Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I have a couple questions. > > 1. Would it be possible to simply tell us where we could read these “many many twin studies” for ourselves? I only ask because the twin studies have been mentioned many times before, but for some reason, on one has ever been able to tell me exactly where I should look if I want to read them for myself. (I read part of Pinker’s book some time ago, and I recall that he declared the case to be closed many times but didn’t offer too many citations to back it up.) > > 2. Isn’t it about time that the Nature-sayers stopped relying on indirect evidence like twin studies, and instead showed us some actual genes? Consider, for example, an article in this month’s Scientific America about the largest ever study of intelligence among children. The researchers looked at genetic analysis for 7,000 children and found: > > - Only 6 DNA segments have any correlation with intelligence. > - Those six account for roughly one percent of intelligence. > - It may just be statistical random noise, and it’s quite possible that no DNA has any effect on intelligence. > - Among those 6 DNA segments, three aren’t even genes, but are in the non-coding portions of the chromosomes. > > So how does this fit in with the claim that “most of the variation between individuals is genetic in nature”? > > (And yes, to state the obvious, I think Derbyshire’s article has about as much intellectual rigor as something that you’d read in The National Review. To start off with, he claims that _The Bell Curve_ is a “masterpiece”. Presumably he’ll be next be saying that _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ is the standard-b earer in its field.) Well I do not have _The Blank Slate_ in front of me but it was quite well cited. A quick Google comes up with some easily however. [This one of Russian twinships](http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16564762) is quite representative. > [@](#): > > … a simple genetic model, including additive genetic and nonshared environmental effects, provided the adequate and most parsimonious description of verbal, performance and full-scale IQ data. Additive genetic influences accounted for approximately the same amount of variance in verbal, performance and full-scale IQ data-86%, 84% and 89%, respectively. The results are consistent with the reports from the majority of studies, suggesting an increased heritability and decreased shared environmental influences on IQ variability in adulthood compared to childhood. Heck, even [brain structure](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520) seems to be largely herditable. Please note: none of these studies support a claim that environmental impoverishment does not have a negative effect on IQ. (Whatever IQ actually measures.) In fact, impoverished environments do appear to prevent the development of [genetic potential.](http://txtwriter.com/onscience/Articles/intelligence.html) > [@](#): > > In November of 2003, researchers reported an analysis of twin data from a study carried out in the late 1960s. The National Collaborative Prenatal Project, funded by the National Institutes of Health, enrolled nearly 50,000 pregnant women, most of them black and quite poor, in several major U.S. cities. Researchers collected abundant data, and gave the children I.Q. tests seven years later. Although not designed to study twins, this study was so big that many twins were born, 623 births. Seven years later, 320 of these pairs were located and given I.Q. tests. This thus constitutes a huge “twin study,” the first ever conducted of I.Q. among the poor. > > When the data were analyzed, the results were unlike any ever reported. The heritability of I.Q. was different in different environments! The influence of genes on I.Q. was far less in conditions of poverty, where environmental limitations seem to block the expression of genetic potential. Specifically, for families of high socioeconomic status, H = 0.72, much as reported in previous studies, but for families raised in poverty, H = 0.10. The lower a child’s socioeconomic status, the less impact genes had on I.Q. So nuture has an effect. A rose planted in poor and arid soil will not grow to smell so sweet. As to finding single genes that correlate with a complex trait like what gets called intelligence … I think not. Complex traits are often the products of multiple genes interacting in complex ways. We also have solid evidence that diabetes, and hypertension, and heart disease, and depression, and many other conditions are heavily genetically predisposed states - yet we have found few single genes that correlate with any of them in a meaningful way. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/49 "2008-10-10T08:41:28Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Were it not for the social and political ramifications of race-based differences, they would long ago have been accepted and ignored. > Please note that my conclusion is not the conclusion of the authors, and read the article if you would like an alternate conclusion. I do not agree with their conclusion of why this is so (blacks don’t take the right preparatory courses) but as I mentioned, there is always a proffered explanation in every study of why what common sense seems to say: “There is a difference” – is wrong rather than simply presenting data which prove that nature is not a factor. [/SIZE] I largely agree. For political reasons, various people have gotten very good at constructing [epicycles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle#Slang_for_Bad_Science). ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/50 "2008-10-10T09:56:35Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you may be conflating “race” with “genetically distinct population”. Superficial racial categories don’t reliably correlate with closeness of genetic kinship. In other words, two randomly chosen dark-skinned, dark-haired people who both look “typically black” may well be more closely related, genetically, to some light-skinned blond “typically white” persons than they are to each other. > Sorry, but that’s not “correcting for nurture”, unless you’re defining “nurture” very narrowly to mean “family income level”. And as noted above, race is not a reliable indicator of genetic descent… > > Now you seem to be conflating “race”, “genetically distinct population”, and “nationality”. > > Superficial racial characteristics are not a reliable guide to genetic descent, and even if they were, they don’t necessarily correlate with nationality. There is a common misperception that because “race” is not easily defined against a genetic marker, or because it’s not a “reliable” guide to genetic descent, it’s simply irrelevant to create a race cohort for comparison studies. To the extent that race is purely cultural, there is in fact enough of a germ of truth in this for the argument to be superficially persuasive. But it’s wrong. It is true that race is not a perfect proxy for a genetic grouping or nationality. It’s equally true that what was once a more “reliable guide to genetic descent” has become less reliable as modern populations have become increasingly mobile and intermixed. But it begs reality to pretend that there is not a substantial, practical, everyday cohort of “race” that reflects genetic ancestry. To the extent that an averageable phenotypic expression reflects that typical ancestry, differences will emerge that reflect genes and not culture. The dilemma for those who want to pretend that race does not exist as a proxy for a genetic cohort is to explain away broad everyday obvious differences. The easiest one for me to put forward is our NBA. While an anthropologist somewhere might advance the notion that there is no such thing as “race” the little guy in the stands looks out on the court and says, “hmmm…” most of 'em sure look black to me, and the overall pool from which they are chosen has about 5 times as many non-blacks. Are you sure there’s no difference? C’mon…" There is a second argument advanced against the use of “black” as a race: Because the “black race” is so diverse, it’s silly to use it as a cohort, particularly if a comparison cohort has less total genetic diversity. This is an equally specious argument if the quality being compared reflects a genetic expression versus nurture alone. When the issue is genetically-based potential, only the genes underlying that particular phenotypic expression need be differently distributed between two groups for the two groups to be considered different cohorts. I could have two cohorts of dogs, for instance. One is all mutts. One is all greyhounds. The mutts are more genetically diverse but the greyhounds have greater speed, on average, despite being a less genetically diverse cohort, despite the fact that mutts can’t be easily defined by ancestry and despite the fact that the mutts may be substantially superior in many other areas. If we argue that racial differences are nurture, we bump up against several other problems. The first is the universality of the differences. It’s not as if this race mixture over here resulted in one race coming up short, and that mix over there resulted in a different race holding the short straw. The race-based successes in mixed populations are surprisingly universal, across all countries, all political systems and all histories. The second problem is that nurture does not seem to correct for the average differences. See my example above, but here is a second one: Medical College Admission Tests. Nearly 30 years ago I first sat on a medical school admissions committee. We fought then–and I am confident the fight continues now across nearly all our institutions of higher learning–to provide opportunity to underrepresented minorities. The struggle we had was the relatively abysmal standardized test scores. Medicine requires a great deal of regurgitated facts, and these scores were a good proxy for that ability. Unfortunately, the racial differences in these scores are staggering. At a college entrance level, SAT scores might be held to reflect preparation, opportunity, culture, and so on. But four years later they reflect the ability to take a standardized test based on common preparatory work and common college opportunity. As a matter of fact, many universities then (and now) bent over backward trying to get their underprivileged students prepared for medical school admission. In 25 years, what has happened to that gap? Notice the scores for 2004: [http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/mcatgparaceeth.htm](http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/mcatgparaceeth.htm) These are huge differences, minimally ameliorated from college admission differences despite four years of much more equivalent opportunity in getting prepared. While assorted contortions to explain away nature as a fundamental contributor makes us feel warmer and fuzzier, those explanations simply collapse when held up to the cold lens of reality. 30 years ago we’d get a kid who bailed from Vietnam on a boat and by the time he got through college he’d have made up the lost ground. We’d spend hours trying to decide if we should squeeze in a black student with marginal MCATS because those marginal MCAT scores were in spite of an extra year of study, intense hard academic preparation and multiple added-help. There ARE differences in nature between human cohorts. Those cohorts CAN be grouped many ways, and the common cohorts of race DO seem to reflect underlying genetic differences. As I said in my last post, and have said many times elsewhere: so what? Let’s move on. I admit a marked discomfort arguing these points. Were I in academia, it would be political and career suicide. Were I in a public forum, the nuances of the arguments would be rapidly overtaken by angry rebuttals that cloud the core points. In private interactions, it’s seldom a comfortable topic. None of that detracts from what is the straight dope. Ultimately we are better served teaching respect for an individual and teaching that any cohort differences based on any groupings–race, gender or curly toes—do not reflect the potential of the individual. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/51 "2008-10-10T13:12:56Z")
[So You Think You Understand the Black / White Test Score Gap](http://backintyme.com/essays/?p=39) by Frank Sweet > [@](#): > > The U.S. Black/White Test-Score Gap Lacks a Genetic Component. > > It is not genetic, not even a little. Two forces have made heredity the most thoroughly studied hypothesis regarding the gap. First, Americans are taught from infancy to conceptualize their unique endogamous color line as being biologically based; that Blacks are genetically different from Whites in a sense deeper than superficial appearance. Every American who studies the gap must first overcome this distorting intellectual lens. Second, every few decades since the early 1800s has seen another book arguing that Afro-Americans are genetically inferior (the most recent being The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray). Each such revival captures the U.S. imagination and so each must be overcome. Among the many replicable facts disproving a genetic component are: > > ``` > * * The gap does not appear in unassimilated first-generation immigrant grade-school children from sub-Saharan Africa. > * * The gap does not appear in unassimilated first-generation British West Indian immigrant grade-school children of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry. > * * The gap does not appear in unassimilated first-generation Latin American immigrant grade-school children of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry. > * * Although there is a slight correlation between the gap and sub-Saharan features (skin-tone, hair texture, etc.), there is no correlation between the gap and actual African genetic admixture. (There is a difference between ethnicity and genetic admixture in the United States. The former depends on a few superficial appearance genes. The latter depends on actual ancestry. Millions of ethnically White Americans have up to 20 percent genetic admixture from African slave ancestors. They do not exhibit the gap. Millions of ethnically Black Americans lack sub-Saharan genetic markers. They do. The gap follows self-identity, not genes.) > * * Black grade-school children raised by two White adoptive parents exhibit no gap at all. (That is, not until adolescence, when their mental skills plunge to the same level as Black children raised by Black parents.) > * * Grade-school children of a White mother and Black father have a slightly less severe gap. > * * Grade-school children of a Black mother and White father have the same gap as children with two Black parents. > * * Afro-descent children of British West Indian immigrants to England exhibit a temporary gap that lasts only until they acculturate. See the newspaper article here. > > ``` More to come. The initial disclaimers seem to disqualify the rest of Chief Pedant’s argument. Maybe he’s willing to accept science done based on “common sense” as opposed to rigorous, testable definitions. I’m not. Does anyone except Chief Pedant defines “nurture” as graduate level education? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/52 "2008-10-10T13:47:00Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > While assorted contortions to explain away nature as a fundamental contributor makes us feel warmer and fuzzier, those explanations simply collapse when held up to the cold lens of reality. 30 years ago we’d get a kid who bailed from Vietnam on a boat and by the time he got through college he’d have made up the lost ground. We’d spend hours trying to decide if we should squeeze in a black student with marginal MCATS because those marginal MCAT scores were in spite of an extra year of study, intense hard academic preparation and multiple added-help. > > There ARE differences in nature between human cohorts. Those cohorts CAN be grouped many ways, and the common cohorts of race DO seem to reflect underlying genetic differences. This still doesn’t come anywhere close to proving the point that you’re trying to make. Yes, it is perfectly true that there are, on average, systemic differences in academic performance between black American students and white American students (and between white American students and Asian-American students). In other words, there certainly ARE differences, on average, between ethnic/racial groups as currently constituted. **But ethnic/racial groups are constructed PARTLY on the basis of genetic kinship and PARTLY on the basis of shared culture.** We simply have no studies of academic performance across racial/ethnic groups that truly control for differences in “nurture”. A Vietnamese boat kid and an American black kid are different in **many** ways other than their genetic background, and you simply have not shown any evidence to confirm that the genetic background is really what makes the difference in their academic experience. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/53 "2008-10-10T13:58:45Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > In particular, the idea of tabula rasa is still prevalent in anthropology departments I’m still waiting for a cite for that claim, rather than just a repetition of it. > [@Shalmanese](#): > > and the recent Larry Summers flap showed just how deeply cultural determinism is still rooted. No, it doesn’t. As I noted in post #32, the idea that the anger directed at Summers was caused by the mere fact that he dared to suggest there might be biologically determined differences between men and women is a myth. Rather, Summers was condemned for pulling unsupported arguments out of his ass and implying that his hearers ought to be prepared to concede that they were likely true, while ignoring the complexities of the science which make all such conclusions still extremely speculative. I don’t know of anybody who objected to the Summers speech who actually believes in a pure _tabula rasa_ theory, in which genetic factors have absolutely no role in determining abilities or achievements. I’ll be happy to look at whatever cites you provide in support of that claim. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/54 "2008-10-10T15:04:06Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > In case you haven’t noticed, there is a bit of a taboo against hypothesizing or arguing that natural mental abilities are not distributed evenly among races or ethnic groups. > [@Lonesome Polecat](#): > > Well, there’s obviously intense political pressure to conform to liberal orthodoxy in racial matters, and liberal dogma insists that there is no important genetic difference between the races. […] > Obviously there are many people in the academic world who want the subject to be off-limits. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > Were it not for the social and political ramifications of race-based differences, they would long ago have been accepted and ignored. > [@Shalmanese](#): > > […] the pure Nurture stance is one of pure ideology although still accepted by large portions of academia in the social sciences and also in the public mind. I’m calling all of you guys out for a cite. I know of precisely **zero** serious academics, in whatever field, who object to claims of innate biological differences in intelligence/ability between races _based on nothing but an egalitarian ideological assumption that such differences cannot or should not exist_. I do know of plenty of serious academics who tend to think that such claims are crap, **but that’s because there are at present no valid studies supporting them**. As far as I can tell, all attempts to date to argue in favor of “scientific racism” (i.e., claims that there are measurable innate biological differences in intelligence/ability between different racial/ethnic groups), as **Belowjob** and others have pointed out, are based on crappy studies, sloppy reasoning, and/or misinterpretation of data. I don’t think there is anything wrong in principle with scientifically studying the effect of genetic influences on mental functioning, and I don’t know of any other academics who are in principle opposed to that concept either. But I see no reason why academics should be expected to tolerate crappy science in the name of “freedom of inquiry”, nor why they should be accused of “liberal orthodoxy” or “liberal dogma” or deference to a “taboo” when they point out that the science is crappy. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/55 "2008-10-10T15:21:57Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The dilemma for those who want to pretend that race does not exist as a proxy for a genetic cohort is to explain away broad everyday obvious differences. The easiest one for me to put forward is our NBA. While an anthropologist somewhere might advance the notion that there is no such thing as “race” the little guy in the stands looks out on the court and says, “hmmm…” most of 'em sure look black to me, and the overall pool from which they are chosen has about 5 times as many non-blacks. Are you sure there’s no difference? C’mon…" > > There is a second argument advanced against the use of “black” as a race: Because the “black race” is so diverse, it’s silly to use it as a cohort, particularly if a comparison cohort has less total genetic diversity. This is an equally specious argument if the quality being compared reflects a genetic expression versus nurture alone. When the issue is genetically-based potential, only the genes underlying that particular phenotypic expression need be differently distributed between two groups for the two groups to be considered different cohorts. I could have two cohorts of dogs, for instance. One is all mutts. One is all greyhounds. The mutts are more genetically diverse but the greyhounds have greater speed, on average, despite being a less genetically diverse cohort, despite the fact that mutts can’t be easily defined by ancestry and despite the fact that the mutts may be substantially superior in many other areas. Of course, the fact that that predominance of black athletes in the NBA includes very few men with ancestry rooted in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, South Africa, or even Angola, might suggest to someone who looks beyond simple skin color that the observed correlation is based on a population of people of West African ancestry and not some sub-Saharan “race.” I’m not sure what your claim regarding cohorts actually does for the discussion. Greyhounds have been specifically and artificially bred for speed. Making mutts a cohort simply menas that if you compare a specifically selected group and compare it against all others (artifically claiming that “all others” is a cohort), then you can make an effective comparison–but only to point out that breeding greyhounds for speed has been successful; it really says nothing about the mutts. Beyond that, the rejection of using “black” or “sub-Saharan African” as a “race” is not that the continent is filled with millions of people of indeterminate ancestry that appears to have been shaken, not stirred; the observation is that Africa has a large number of unique genetic populations that are equal or greater in age and coherence than other populations in the world. If someone compared Europeans to Africans with regards to height and tried to establish some scientific point, they would be laughed out of the room. Swedes and Maasai and Pygmies and Greeks make any such comparison useless as a scientific investigation, yet somehow it is acceptable to bundle the multiple populations of Sub-Saharan Africa into one clump and discuss issues of their “race.” If someone examines different black populations, I am willing to look at the results, and it could be very relevant to a Nature vs Nurture discussion. I see no point, however, to making it a “racial” issue (aside from the culturally determined localized usage). Regarding the OP: From what I have seen, Nature (inheritance) plays a primary role in establishing intelligence at an individual level. I really doubt that it comes close to 100%, although I could well believe that it is greater than 50%. Determining what intelligence actually is, however, would seem to be more problematic. I have seen nothing that persuades me that _g_ exists in the real world–particularly when plotted on a line or a two dimensional graph–however we might discover a scientifically useful definition of intelligence sooner or later. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/56 "2008-10-10T16:05:21Z")
For sake of clarity, I will define the “egalitarian hypothesis” as the idea that natural mental abilities are distributed perfectly evenly among all racial/ethnic groups. What’s fascinating to me is the kind of evidence which egalitarians are willing to accept as competent to support or confirm or prove the egalitarian hypothesis. For example: > [@](#): > > - > - Afro-descent children of British West Indian immigrants to England exhibit a temporary gap that lasts only until they acculturate. See the newspaper article here. Read the actual article. It doesn’t say that at all. Meanwhile, if there was another article stating that black/white test score gaps persisted despite efforts to give extra help to the black students, I doubt that egalitarians would accept it as evidence undermining the egalitarian hypothesis. It looks to me like the egalitarians have two standards. One standard for evidence or arguments which suppport their position, and another standard evidene or arguments which undermine their position. > [@](#): > > I’m calling all of you guys out for a cite. Watson. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/57 "2008-10-10T16:28:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I’m calling all of you guys out for a cite. > > I know of precisely **zero** serious academics, in whatever field, who object to claims of innate biological differences in intelligence/ability between races _based on nothing but an egalitarian ideological assumption that such differences cannot or should not exist_. That’s a very open-ended demand, Kimstu. How can I possibly prove that any specific academic bases his opposition to such studies solely on ideology? And if I somehow manage to do that, are you then going to insist that he wasn’t a “serious” academic? What metric are we supposed to use? No matter what standard you apply to such judgments, there will always be a fairly high degree of subjectivity to it which can be used as a superficially plausible excuse to dismiss any examples offered. It’s like trying to prove political bias in the media to someone who clearly doesn’t want it proven in the first place. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I do know of plenty of serious academics who tend to think that such claims are crap, **but that’s because there are at present no valid studies supporting them**. Ah, I see. We know the studies aren’t valid because serious academics reject them, and serious academics reject them because they aren’t valid. What’s more, any academic who doesn’t reject the studies must not be a serious academic. Neat. There’s a lot more subjectivity to all this than you seem to believe. ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/58 "2008-10-10T17:17:46Z")
I don’t think the nature-nurture debate can ever be decided in favor of one or the other. They are not really in opposition to each other, rather they play off each other in fairly complex ways. Was nurture over-emphasized in past? I’d say yes, but now there is starting to be an over-emphasis on nature. One thing I’d like to point out is that neither on it’s own can produce a functioning organism. Our genes always play out in the context of an environment (which corresponds to nurture, in the false dichotomy of nature vs nurture) and without genes our environment doesn’t have a living creature to act on. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/59 "2008-10-10T18:27:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Meanwhile, if there was another article stating that black/white test score gaps persisted despite efforts to give extra help to the black students, I doubt that egalitarians would accept it as evidence undermining the egalitarian hypothesis. How would it be undermining the egalitarian hypothesis? It would simply be showing that **one** “nurture” factor (amount of help received when preparing for the test) was not responsible for the test score gap. It would show nothing at all about the influence of the ninety-five gajillion **other** nurture factors that the study **didn’t** control for. This is exactly the kind of sloppy thinking that so irritates the “egalitarians”. Advocates of race-based genetic differences see evidence that one or two particular nurture factors in ethnic/racial groups don’t determine intelligence and achievement, and forthwith jump to the conclusion, “Aha, race-linked differences in intelligence and achievement must be genetic! Or at least, this is evidence in favor of the theory that they’re genetic!” Nice try, Einstein, but that’s not so. Excluding **one** or a **few** individual nurture factors doesn’t tell you jack shit about the influence of **all** nurture factors as compared to genetic ones. Nurture and its interactions with genetic factors are a fiendishly complicated phenomenon, and you can’t rely on half-assed “common sense” inferences from incomplete results to draw valid conclusions about them. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/60 "2008-10-10T18:44:15Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Watson. Nice try again, but **tomndebb** already pointed out the flaws in using the case of Watson as an example of “liberal dogma” determining positions on race studies: > [@tomndebb](#): > > […] the separate (and not really vehement) negative reaction within the scientific community is based on the fact that he has participated in zero studies of the issue andin this case made some fairly stupid off-hand remarks just before he addressed an audience at a museum. He is also (despite his reputation in the popular (not the scientific) press), not highly regarded within the scientific community. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > No matter what standard you apply to such judgments, there will always be a fairly high degree of subjectivity to it which can be used as a superficially plausible excuse to dismiss any examples offered. Well, that’s rather convenient: you don’t have to bother finding a cite for your claim because I’ll always be able to find some disingenuous way to dismiss the cite as invalid or unconvincing so I won’t have to challenge my liberal dogma. Tsk tsk, shame on disingenuous liberal-dogmatic little me! But wouldn’t it be worth it, just to fight some ignorance among readers of this thread who are less despicably disingenuous and liberal-dogmatic than I am? Come on, **LP** , take one for the team. Show me a serious, quantitative argument defending some study that purports to find conclusive evidence for the importance of race-linked genetic factors in determining measured intelligence difference among racial groups, and rebutting criticisms of its methodology by the “egalitarian” crowd. Then when I come up with a “superficially plausible excuse” to the effect that that argument is actually crap, you can say “I told you you would find some excuse to dismiss it!” and taunt me with my disingenuousness. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152.md?page=4)