# How would we best deal with real genetic intelligence differences between groups in society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2015, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606 "2015-01-12T04:48:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**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:** [January 19, 2015, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/141 "2015-01-19T01:42:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’ll have to cite, unless you’re being sarcastic. > > What harsh treatment? If black people of African descent had a genetic advantage for sprinting, then one would expect the best sprinters to come from the place with the most dense and varied African genepool. Is it just coincidence that most of them come from either a tiny island country that _just so happens_ to have a cultural obsession with sprinting, or a huge country with probably the best athletic infrastructure in the world? > > If I meet anyone expressing this hope, I’ll let them know about your straw man, oh King of the Hay People. Read monstro’s post to which I was replying and you’ll get it…don’t know about King of the Hay People for me, but I can tell you who is Queen of the Straw Clutching to your and LHOD’s Kingship of the same title… :rolleyes: by monstro: _“If it pleases the audience, I’ll add an additional line of evidence. Multiple studies have shown that the expression of Gene X is extremely sensitive to environmental factors, particularly those of early childhood. Mice who carried Gene X and who were subjected to harsh stimuli during the first five days of birth were found to perform only half as well on learning tests as mice without Gene X but who were raised under ideal conditions. But Gene X mice who were raised under ideal conditions performed twice as well as their control counterparts.”_ ---
**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:** [January 19, 2015, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/142 "2015-01-19T01:51:01Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I really like this hypothetical, for the record. And I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if something like it turned out to be true. I like fantasizing as well, although I try not to make the mistake of also thinking my fantasies might just come true. It’s so unfair that reality steps in. But I completely understand the need to have various hypotheticals to distract the really difficult issue: 1. There is a reason to expect that blacks and eurasians have different gene pools 2. Markedly different average performance outcomes are observed 3. These outcomes differences are observed in every nation across every political boundary, in white/asian/black majority situations 4. Correcting for SES does not eliminate the performance outcome differences 5. Some outcomes (academic exams and quantitative sciences, e.g.) always have asians disproportionately at the top. Some outcomes (power sprinting sports, e.g.) always have blacks at the top. This is true even though an academically poor white might still have the NBA or power sprinting as a backup profession were he good enough to perform. 6. Physiologic average differences are observed among these groups 7. Gene frequency differences are observed among these groups ---
**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:** [January 19, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/143 "2015-01-19T02:06:37Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. Indians don’t group with East Asians under _any_ meaningful, genetically based grouping scheme, so your use of the term ‘asians’ is ludicrous. South Asians are (mostly) a mixture of two ancestral racial groups, one of which was probably related to Persians and other West Eurasians, and the other of which was a distinct group related to modern day Andamanese. Neither of them was particularly close to East Asians. I recommend additional reading about how the world was peopled by early groups out of africa. There may have been real early groups that traveled along the coast and got to australia–another story–but most of modern India is peopled by mtDNA R, N and U haplogroup lines. These lines converge about 50kya, from early out of africa lines shortly after the L3/M-N split. They are lines similar to the ones we see in europe, other parts of asia, and the modern middle eastern groups. If we look at various genetic markers, we’ll see a broad average difference between sub-saharan african lines and eurasian lines in general. Denisovan and Neandertal genetic introgression into eurasian lines are examples of one kind of difference. It’s thought that the geographic gate out of africa opened and closed over the years accounting for this broad sub-saharan versus eurasian grouping split. ---
**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:** [January 19, 2015, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/144 "2015-01-19T02:19:30Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. Power sprinting is a much easier trait to identify and explain than intelligence. This is not to say it’s any more heritable- as we know, the heritability of intelligence is quite high, although less so than height- but it’s easier to make strong statements about sprinting ability than about intelligence. I lapse into shorthand occasionally, but on average try to avoid using “intelligence” instead of “academic performance” or STEM sciences or whatever. The brain is an interesting thing, as is evolution. Evolution is all about reproductive advantage and makes no claim that g is a better quality than mathematical calculation, or vision, or color perception or sound processing or aggression or muscle power or endurance or…well; you get it. If it’s true that groups have evolved disparately over the last 70kya, it is also true that an “intelligence” test developed by one of those groups is a somewhat farcical way to decide that group is somehow superior to a different group. Clearly the “intelligence” test is measuring something germane to the population which developed it, and within whose milieu the quality being measured is important. Worse (as is the case with western culture) if the culture creating the test becomes the dominant culture aspired to across the world, you never even get some other test which would measure brain qualities not related to “intelligence.” It’s kind of a cultural quirk that “intelligence” has become so dominant as a desired quality, when you think about it. You are right that power sprinting is easier to measure. The reason I bring it up is that many people are resistant to the idea that anything could possibly have a different average outcome across race groups with average gene frequencies as the cause. It’s a nice easy proof that these groups have been separated long enough for it to be reasonable that their gene pools differ. And then the question becomes, “Why would brain function be immune to evolution?” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/145 "2015-01-19T02:37:26Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I lapse into shorthand occasionally, but on average try to avoid using “intelligence” instead of “academic performance” or STEM sciences or whatever. The brain is an interesting thing, as is evolution. Evolution is all about reproductive advantage and makes no claim that g is a better quality than mathematical calculation, or vision, or color perception or sound processing or aggression or muscle power or endurance or…well; you get it. > > If it’s true that groups have evolved disparately over the last 70kya, it is also true that an “intelligence” test developed by one of those groups is a somewhat farcical way to decide that group is somehow superior to a different group. Clearly the “intelligence” test is measuring something germane to the population which developed it, and within whose milieu the quality being measured is important. Worse (as is the case with western culture) if the culture creating the test becomes the dominant culture aspired to across the world, you never even get some other test which would measure brain qualities not related to “intelligence.” > > It’s kind of a cultural quirk that “intelligence” has become so dominant as a desired quality, when you think about it. > > You are right that power sprinting is easier to measure. The reason I bring it up is that many people are resistant to the idea that anything could possibly have a different average outcome across race groups with average gene frequencies as the cause. It’s a nice easy proof that these groups have been separated long enough for it to be reasonable that their gene pools differ. > > And then the question becomes, “Why would brain function be immune to evolution?” The brain is not immune to evolution. But why do you insist that outcomes **NOW** , whether in sprinting, academic test scores, or other outcomes, are special and represent some perfect representation of a genetic hierarchy for various characteristics? Different groups have been at the top and bottom of society (and things like athletics) at various times in history – pretty much every group has been at the top at some time and place, and every group has been at the bottom. Why would we single out any time and place as perfectly representative of some sort of natural genetic hierarchy, such that all other times and places were affected and arrange by various characteristics of society? I don’t believe **NOW** is special – I think the same circumstances that put the Irish (or the Chinese, or Jews, etc.) at the bottom, at a certain time and place, or the Nubians (or Spanish, or Arabs, or Mongols, or Greeks, etc.) at the top, at a certain time and place, are still occurring today to varying degrees. I see today as a normal part of history, not separate and immune to the biases, tragedies, bigotries, and other unfortunate qualities of every other period in history. I see nothing special about **NOW** , except that we happen to live in it. I don’t trust any outcomes now any more than outcomes in the past, when we’re talking about massive and spread out populations, as actually representative of any useful information about genetics. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/146 "2015-01-19T03:43:24Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I recommend additional reading about how the world was peopled by early groups out of africa. > > There may have been real early groups that traveled along the coast and got to australia–another story–but most of modern India is peopled by mtDNA R, N and U haplogroup lines. These lines converge about 50kya, from early out of africa lines shortly after the L3/M-N split. They are lines similar to the ones we see in europe, other parts of asia, and the modern middle eastern groups. > > If we look at various genetic markers, we’ll see a broad average difference between sub-saharan african lines and eurasian lines in general. Denisovan and Neandertal genetic introgression into eurasian lines are examples of one kind of difference. It’s thought that the geographic gate out of africa opened and closed over the years accounting for this broad sub-saharan versus eurasian grouping split. I’m not sure where, buried in any of that, is a response to my comment. Again, “Indians do not group with East Asians under any meaningful metric”. (With the exception of a bit of Southeast Asian ancestry among Bengalis and other people in the northeast). The term “Asian” is useless in this context. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/147 "2015-01-19T10:47:43Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The results would be ignored or mocked because people are conditioned to see blacks as innately inferior. Any science that refutes this–and in fact, supports that blacks would actually be superior if not for environmental factors–would be too radical to be accepted without a big fight. Wait a minute. Your hypothetical was about how scientists would react, not “people”. My first thought is: OK, then prove it. But that’s the thing about hypotheticals-- they can’t be proven. Which tell us just how useful they are in a debate. But my second thought is… Look at the folks in this thread. A small minority are arguing against nurture and most people are arguing in favor. So yeah, some “people” would have a difficult time accepting your hypothetical (flaws and all, 🙂 ), but scientists? You’re making the same argument, but in the other direction, that the racialists in this thread are making-- that scientists are too biased to look at the data objectively. I disagree. But since you’re the one making the assertion, I guess it’s up to you to prove it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/148 "2015-01-19T12:11:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Then let’s assume it correlates highly with success, in addition to high test scores. And **ywtf** says I’m fighting the hypothetical. You just changed it completely! The key point of the hypothetical was that the measured results did NOT conform with the results that the genetics would have predicted. Anyway, I seem to be the only one interested in discussing this hypothetical, and apparently I don’t “get it”, so I’ll just let it go [let it GO, LET IT GOOO!!]. If anyone else wants to take the discussion further, please do. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/149 "2015-01-19T13:41:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wait a minute. Your hypothetical was about how scientists would react, not “people”. WTF. The hypothetical has ALWAYS been about how “people” would react. Like, the people in this thread. And your fighting the hypothetical is exactly what **LHoD** predicted. You accepted the premise of the original hypothetical quite easily. When it’s flipped, suddenly we’ve got to entertain 21 questions from you. > [@](#): > > My first thought is: OK, then prove it. We don’t have to prove anything. You just did it for us. > [@](#): > > But that’s the thing about hypotheticals-- they can’t be proven. Which tell us just how useful they are in a debate. Hypotheticals are useful in uncovering double standards. > [@](#): > > But my second thought is… Look at the folks in this thread. A small minority are arguing against nurture and most people are arguing in favor. So yeah, some “people” would have a difficult time accepting your hypothetical (flaws and all, 🙂 ), but scientists? You’re making the same argument, but in the other direction, that the racialists in this thread are making-- that scientists are too biased to look at the data objectively. I disagree. But since you’re the one making the assertion, I guess it’s up to you to prove it. You’re living in a totally different reality than I am. After the original hypothesis was posted, people couldn’t WAIT to post. Even if it was just to say what had already been said. “Ah, if black people–I mean, this unnamed minority group–was found to have a lower IQ, then no more Affirmative Action! Yay us–I mean, society!” But when I posted the flip-side hypothetical–one that was a lot more fleshed-out than the original, by the way–we get a day of crickets, followed by you challenging the evidence and **Chief Pedant** spouting his usual nonsense. Four posters ( **iiandyiiii** , **LHoD** , **ywtf** , and myself) beefed up the hypothetical to help you out, but STILL no one wants to run with it and answer the questions I posed. I played the OP’s game. It sure would be nice for the OP to play mine, _at the very fucking least_. This board doesn’t disappoint, I’ll say that. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/150 "2015-01-19T15:56:57Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I like fantasizing as well, although I try not to make the mistake of also thinking my fantasies might just come true. > > It’s so unfair that reality steps in. > > But I completely understand the need to have various hypotheticals to distract the really difficult issue: > > 1. There is a reason to expect that blacks and eurasians have different gene pools > 2. Markedly different average performance outcomes are observed > 3. These outcomes differences are observed in every nation across every political boundary, in white/asian/black majority situations > 4. Correcting for SES does not eliminate the performance outcome differences > 5. Some outcomes (academic exams and quantitative sciences, e.g.) always have asians disproportionately at the top. Some outcomes (power sprinting sports, e.g.) always have blacks at the top. This is true even though an academically poor white might still have the NBA or power sprinting as a backup profession were he good enough to perform. > 6. Physiologic average differences are observed among these groups > 7. Gene frequency differences are observed among these groups Your claim isn’t ‘reality’, it’s a hypothesis to explain reality, with not a whole lot of real evidence for or against it. Don’t confuse the observed reality with one possible explanation for it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/151 "2015-01-19T23:01:17Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Because AA is there to counter prejudices that lead to discrimination and also correct disparities resulting from past discrimination. It’s not all about ensuring equitable outcomes. > > Even if it was determined that blacks are less likely to have smart genes than whites, that doesn’t mean their aggregate profile makes it okay to discriminate individuals. Genetics can’t also explain away hundreds of years of oppression that kept people out of schools and well-paying professions. Men collectively are more likely to be violent than women and women are more likely to be physically weak, and yet gender discrimination is still unlawful in the workplace, right? I’d expect AA to still apply to females pursuing STEM fields, even if it was discovered that men are naturally better in math. AA is not about countering prejudice, its about changing outcomes. Its putting your thumb on the scales to counter the historical effects of slavery and segregation. If it was the centuries of oppression alone that kept blacks out of good schools and well paying professions then you wouldn’t have so many immigrant groups prospering. And WTF does strength and violent tendencies have to do with STEM fields? IQ has a direct link with admission to good schools and getting good jobs. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Do you have some cites for these “top school” behaviours? Acceptance of American blacks into top tier schools is on the decline as those schools have turned increasingly to other sources of blacks in order to get their race-based diversity without over-diluting their academic pool with low performers. Most top schools already recognize that there are marked performance differences among self-identified races that cannot be effaced by accounting for SES. Top schools have much higher test score standards for asians; less so for whites, and a marked drop in standards for blacks from all SES deciles and all sources. Because of the paucity of high-scoring blacks in lower SES deciles, successful black applicants tend to be from high SES backgrounds. In recent years some concern has been raised that this means successful black applicants to top tier schools are increasingly from immigrant african and west indian black families instead of black US families with enslaved American ancestries. See p 177 [here.](http://www.tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-CarnevaleStrivers.pdf). Underneath all the modeling of statistics, top schools are desperate to get top students, and no matter their lip service to “opportunity” they think top students get top standardized scores. These authors say that current top schools only draw 1/3 of their black students from the US pool. > > They also suggest (on the same page) that the value of selected preferences based on their modeling between asians and blacks is 450 SAT points. That is, if you want to use their model of how the differences roll out in practice, you add 310 points to the black kid’s SAT scores, and you subtract 140 from the asian kid’s scores. (In fairness, they don’t suggest applying this totally mechanically, but that’s the idea of their data modeling.) > > Top schools keep their admissions processes very close to their chests when it comes to race preferences, and for good reason given that you cannot eliminate a race-alone preference by adjusting for SES. There are way too many whites and way way too many asians with lousy SES backgrounds and much much higher scores than blacks from top SES deciles. Top schools dislike a Texas-style top 10% approach because the top ten percent of students from all-black schools woefully underperform in quantitative tracks such as STEM fields, and you leave the best black candidates behind since they are from the better schools (even though their scores are not as high as their better-school white and asian peers). > > As to genes, I don’t think we are going to find (non-controversial) “real genetic differences in intelligence” real soon. We are not going to fund research with that blunt a goal. Genetics study is going to tell us the effect of any given gene, and our understanding of evolution and migration is going to show us that there is good reason to think we have different gene pools. It will become obvious that average gene pools are at play, but I don’t see it getting bluntly stated any time soon. > > But our social history has been to try and efface the effect of genes where possible for any large-scale effects. As I’ve pointed out before, we have double standards for sex differences driven by genes, and we put them in place precisely because we recognize that there is a greater value in opportunity for all, and that we don’t choose our genes. > > The cornerstone of race-alone AA has been a recognition that a difference exists. Why that difference exists is apparently the subject of discussion only for “racialists” and “racists”. The rest of polite society has no intention of allowing for any publicly-expressed opinion other than that there must be non-genetic factors which we haven’t exactly put our finger on. The public party line is that we need AA until differences in race-based performance are erased, as long as that takes–at least, for academics and jobs; not necessarily football, basketball or power sprinting. > > I agree with that approach to AA. The genetics makes for interesting scientific debate in a private setting. Publicly, we need to not mention genes, and we need a race-based double standard for all large-scale areas where outcomes continue to be stubbornly resistant to the idea that SES (or some other vague nurturing variable) alone is what separates performance outcomes. I don’t have a cite but it doesn’t seem like you are arguing that my assertion is incorrect. I disagree. If we get to the point where all the socioeconomic differences between groups of people are reflective of differences in ability then I don’t see why we need to equalize anything. The problem is that it is still pretty clear that racial prejudice and discrimination affects outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/152 "2015-01-19T23:05:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 🙂 > > Except where I live, Indians are very high achievers, academically, too. :eek: ---
**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:** [January 19, 2015, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/153 "2015-01-19T23:57:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The brain is not immune to evolution. But why do you insist that outcomes **NOW** , whether in sprinting, academic test scores, or other outcomes, are special and represent some perfect representation of a genetic hierarchy for various characteristics? Different groups have been at the top and bottom of society (and things like athletics) at various times in history – pretty much every group has been at the top at some time and place, and every group has been at the bottom. Why would we single out any time and place as perfectly representative of some sort of natural genetic hierarchy, such that all other times and places were affected and arrange by various characteristics of society? > > I don’t believe **NOW** is special – I think the same circumstances that put the Irish (or the Chinese, or Jews, etc.) at the bottom, at a certain time and place, or the Nubians (or Spanish, or Arabs, or Mongols, or Greeks, etc.) at the top, at a certain time and place, are still occurring today to varying degrees. I see today as a normal part of history, not separate and immune to the biases, tragedies, bigotries, and other unfortunate qualities of every other period in history. > > I see nothing special about **NOW** , except that we happen to live in it. I don’t trust any outcomes now any more than outcomes in the past, when we’re talking about massive and spread out populations, as actually representative of any useful information about genetics. Got it. Any day now the Hebrew league will rise again to conquer basketball and the Inuit will have their turn at the hundred meter Olympic records while the Mbuti staff CERN. Yep. It’s all circumstance. ---
**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:** [January 19, 2015, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/154 "2015-01-19T23:59:04Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Your claim isn’t ‘reality’, it’s a hypothesis to explain reality, with not a whole lot of real evidence for or against it. Don’t confuse the observed reality with one possible explanation for it. Perhaps you would like to mention which of my “hypotheses” are hypothetical… ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/155 "2015-01-20T00:08:50Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Got it. > > Any day now the Hebrew league will rise again to conquer basketball and the Inuit will have their turn at the hundred meter Olympic records while the Mbuti staff CERN. > > Yep. It’s all circumstance. In human history? Yep, pretty much all circumstance. Nubians conquering Egypt – circumstance. Mongols conquering all the way to Europe – circumstance. And so it was for pretty much everything. Now isn’t special. And basketball isn’t intelligence, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/156 "2015-01-20T01:18:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > AA is not about countering prejudice, its about changing outcomes. Its putting your thumb on the scales to counter the historical effects of slavery and segregation. It’s time for me to say cite. According to this [cite](http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/affirmative_action.aspx), which references West’s Encyclopedia of American law, Affirmative Action is: > [@](#): > > Employment programs required by federal statutes and regulations designed to remedy discriminatory practices in hiring minority group members; i.e.,\*\* positive steps designed to eliminate existing and continuing discrimination, to remedy lingering effects of past discrimination, and to create systems and procedures to prevent future discrimination\*\*; commonly based on population percentages of minority groups in a particular area. Factors considered are race, color, sex, creed, and age. Seems like your entire argument hinges upon a misconception. If Affirmative Action exists to counter existing discrimination, that need will still exist even if it is determined that there are intellectual differences between the races. > [@](#): > > If it was the centuries of oppression alone that kept blacks out of good schools and well paying professions then you wouldn’t have so many immigrant groups prospering. As has been repeated ad nauseum in every thread about this subject, immigrants aren’t comparable to non-immigrants. Immigrants distinguish themselves by having the resources, the qualifications, the support system, and the desire to come over here. To ignore this is as asinine as comparing ex-pat Americans living in India to the untouchables living in the slums of India. > [@](#): > > And WTF does strength and violent tendencies have to do with STEM fields? IQ has a direct link with admission to good schools and getting good jobs. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I’m saying that the existence of group-level genetic differences doesn’t mean an individual within a particular group can’t be as good or better than most others in another group. So withholding the benefit of AA for a person like this–who undoubtedly would be subject to discrimination because of idiots who don’t understand statistics–would be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/157 "2015-01-20T03:34:29Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > … > > I disagree. If we get to the point where all the socioeconomic differences between groups of people are reflective of differences in ability then I don’t see why we need to equalize anything. The problem is that it is still pretty clear that racial prejudice and discrimination affects outcomes. I don’t think we need to equalize things like admissions or quotas in jobs, but I do think there would be cause to equalize things like income and healthcare expenses and retirement. And here no mention needs to be made about groups or race. Just on an individual level, some people are going to get the short end of the genetic stick in life. So what should we do with such people? Hold spaces in college for them and pretend they are in the same league? Hold job positions open in more lucrative fields so that we can pretend the other people they displaced were not more deserving? I think those solutions are the wrong direction to take. We should focus instead on shoring up the income and healthcare costs and retirement costs on the back end for such people. There you preserve the ability of a meritocracy to select the best people in the work force and colleges, but smooth out the raw effects of the fact that people are not born into this world with equal abilities. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/158 "2015-01-20T03:48:11Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > … > > Are you being deliberately obtuse? I’m saying that the existence of group-level genetic differences doesn’t mean an individual within a particular group can’t be as good or better than most others in another group. So withholding the benefit of AA for a person like this–who undoubtedly would be subject to discrimination because of idiots who don’t understand statistics–would be wrong. I’m not sure AA is needed for people who have the stats to compete on their own. In my experience, people want to give others who are less well represented the benefit of the doubt. I think companies like google and yahoo and apple would LOVE to hire more black and hispanic programmers. The bigger form of negative discrimination seems to occur in the private/personal sector where such programs do not and cannot reach. Who you associate with, and who chooses to associate with you might be colored by the perceptions of the larger group. This is something no amount of policy can assert away, because group perceptions that take hold in the minds of men are often based on empirical observation. Like the over representation of asians on colleges, that data point can’t be asserted away because it’s based on what people SEE. I have the same feelings over radical muslims, if there is a terrorist attack I expect the participant to be some crazy muslim because of the empirical observations that trouble seems to stem from that group more than others. The only way to guard against this on a personal level is to try to treat everyone as an individual. But you will get people who will judge you based on negative perceptions of the group you belong to. It’s not fair, and I’m not sure what the answer to that issue is, but I think it is a real effect. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/159 "2015-01-20T12:34:53Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > I’m not sure AA is needed for people who have the stats to compete on their own. In my experience, people want to give others who are less well represented the benefit of the doubt. I think companies like google and yahoo and apple would LOVE to hire more black and hispanic programmers. Google and yahoo aren’t representative of all employers. In my experience, there are plenty of businesses that could care less about minorities. Not just in hiring, but with promotions. If AA is not needed for minorities who have the ability to compete on their own, then the same applies to non-minorities. So are why are concerned so much about AA? I think it does more good than harm because it at least pushes back against centuries of unfair treatment and increases opportunities for people who otherwise would be shut out due to social barriers they inherited. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606/160 "2015-01-21T03:57:26Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Google and yahoo aren’t representative of all employers. In my experience, there are plenty of businesses that could care less about minorities. Not just in hiring, but with promotions. > > If AA is not needed for minorities who have the ability to compete on their own, then the same applies to non-minorities. So are why are concerned so much about AA? I think it does more good than harm because it at least pushes back against centuries of unfair treatment and increases opportunities for people who otherwise would be shut out due to social barriers they inherited. The only thing I’m certain AA does for underrepresented minorities is increase the stigma associated with their presence. Did the black student get in because of his grades or because of AA? Did the black guy get hired because he was the best guy for the job or because his employers were trying to fill some quota? These questions place a cloud over the legitimacy of the black students/employees place. Now you might say who cares, who cares what people think, so long as they get in the school or get the job they are better off. If they got the edge because they were selected among similarly qualified peers, that’s probably true. But if they were less qualified than the peers, then you are doing nothing but placing them at a competitive disadvantage. It would be better to have them sorted where they fit in better based on their own resume/test scores/grades. I don’t agree with much of what Thomas Sowell says politically, but one anecdote struck a nerve. He was teaching a course at some college, I think it might have been UCLA. And at the end a student came up to him and said he didn’t expect to enjoy the class, but that he did and learned a great deal. The implication was that because Sowell was a black professor he did not expect as much from HIM. Decades of affirmative action there did nothing but give the impression that if you see a black person in such a position, there is a good chance the reason they are there is because they got a leg up, a pity parade to place some stools for the poor little cripples to step onto so they can actually compete with the big boys. Before AA the converse was true. If you saw a black professor in the 50s, with all the REAL WORLD visible racism and constraints on their abilities to get ahead, the natural impression would more likely be that they were impressive in both intellect and character. AA magnifies the stigmas against under represented minorities when applied in the field. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-we-best-deal-with-real-genetic-intelligence-differences-between-groups-in-society/709606.md?page=9)