“Tyranny of genetic lotto”? “cognitive training weights”?
Are you h+, Velocity?
What’s Velocity got to do with it? You’re quoting Salvor. Unless I’m missing something here.
:smack: You’re right, got him confused with the OP. Question stands, but for Salvor, not the OP…
And that’s my second head-smack of the day here, so I’m probably calling it a night.
It’s not helpful to worry if genetically-driven differences among self-identified race groups is “racist” or not. A label doesn’t make an idea more, or less, scientifically valid.
Most of the anxiety around physical differences is really a reflection that, if there are genetically-driven disparate outcomes for athletic skillsets, then perhaps outcomes for other skillsets such as a mathematical ability, are also genetically driven (in the sense that genes establish a maximum potential upon which the effect of nurture is layered).
For sports such as sprinting, there is very good evidence for average differences in gene variants for successful athletes (for example, in the representation frequency of alleles for some muscle types). And from an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. Populations whose self-identification creates a group with a high proportion of (recent) west african ancestry gene variants have a gene pool which is at least 70,000 years removed from a population whose self-identification creates a group with a high proportion of european or asian ancestry.
If you studied US blacks v US whites, for example, you would find different ratios of genes which drive bone strength (and resistance to fracture); muscle mass; muscle type; creatine kinase; fat proportion; armspan/height ratio; and any number of other average differences. This reflects 70,000+ years of evolutionary separation for the pools of genes which have an average representation in those self-identified populations. And of course, for the most part the european and asian population also have a few percent of genes from even more archaic lines such as Neanderthal lineages which antedate anatomically modern humans another few hundred thousand years. It makes sense that if one population has higher frequency of advantageous genes, they would be over-represented. And of course, with blacks in many sports, this is exactly what happened once those sports were opened up to them and once the sports became pinnacle careers worth pursuing.
But humans are complex. There isn’t “a” sports gene. There isn’t “a” brain gene. Race is a fairly crude grouping, genetically, with even the out-of-africa splitting point blurred over the last few thousand years, especially along the horn of africa. And frankly, the traits we value are often driven by culture. In a western culture, traits for certain cognitive skills seem highly valued. Therefore even hinting that they might differ because of evolutionary differences in separated populations is quite a sensitive topic, ferociously resisted by most academicians themselves. We prefer to try and find non-genetic explanations for why highly privileged blacks (for example) score so poorly on standardized exams that their scores average barely on par with underprivileged whites.
Given that most individuals who crow on about that sort of data often have suspect motives, perhaps that’s a good thing. 
The evidence that average differences of neurobiologically-based skillsets is driven by average differences in frequency of gene variants is indirect, but it is not trivial.
- Evolution diverges separated populations
- Many populations are separated by tens of thousands of years
- Where those populations are separated, nearly every variable that can be studied shows differences driven by genes (disease; physical appearance; physiologic characteristics)
- Many genes with unknown significance nevertheless show high penetration differences among race-based populations, and the penetration has been shown to be secondary to Darwinian selection v say, population bottlenecks
- Some major population groupings such as non-africans, have a much higher percentage of genes from archaic lines such as Denisovan or Neanderthal that were introduced post-africa, so those populations don’t even have the same starting pool of genes from the genetic common ancestor of anatomically modern humans 200K years ago
- For athletic abilities, many genes that are reasonably in play for skills outcomes such as sprinting and power-speed sports can be shown to have disparately-frequent representation in source populations. There is no reason to suppose that genes in play for neurobiological functions are somehow exempted.
- Nurturing variables studied to date do not account for observed outcome differences in academic skillsets, including commonly-advanced ones such as socioeconomic status
- Every study looking at various mechanisms to measure neurobiologically-based skillsets among self-identified races always shows differences, and always in the same direction. This is true across cultures; political systems; and time.
- Genes involved in neurobiology are not exempt from evolutionary forces
- Indirect evidence from pragmatic observations of outcomes when nurturing is better-balanced supports putative skillset differences for both physical and neurobiological skillsets. For example, when sports were opened up to blacks, they excelled in power-sprint sports where the career reward is high-enough to assure the principle drop-out reason for the starting pool is abandonment based on lack of success (v cultural reasons). When higher academia was better opened for blacks, the observed outcome was much better success (as measured, e.g., by PhDs) in non-quantified fields such as social sciences versus quantified fields such as mathematics.
Every one of these points is, in itself, a long and parsable debate. None by itself is conclusive. Perhaps coaches and social scientists are color-blind, and mathematical professors are bigots.
But we know gene variants affect neurobiological skillsets. We know that our biology creates a maximum performance ability when nurture is optimized. We know that gene pools for widely separated populations diverge.
There is far more reasons to make an assumption that observed skillsets are disparate because of genes than to make the assumption that they are disparate in spite of genes. Genes are not the only variable. This is not nature OR nurture. But the evidence is robust that disparate frequency of gene variants underpin disparate observed outcomes among self-identified populations where the self-identification reasonably correlates with ancestral source pools that have been separated by human migration patterns, and have been exposed to Darwinian drivers.
I am not sure we are inclined to study this much, since nearly every paper that addresses the issue does so with the caveat–expressed or implied–that the topic is “sensitive.” But of course it would not be sensitive if scientists actually thought no differences would be found.
Like they say, the plural of anecdote is not data, and I don’t believe you’ve presented any evidence in your list, not even of the indirect kind. Just several versions of It seems plausible to me or I don’t see why not.
Now, my guess would be similar to yours: that there are genes that affect neurological function and such genes would differ in prevalence between different populations.
Finding such genes is definitely something of interest to science.
However, trying to match up to “race” ISTM must be motivated by this desire to prejudge people in some broad way based on appearances. Because the reality is bound to be much more nuanced; we already know that there must be a great deal of overlap, there are lots of different populations (particularly in Africa), plus there are many different neurological attributes we could measure.
Throw in that it’s indisputable that factors like educational quality and motivation in themselves make much more of an apparent difference that aptitude, and I think it’s pointless to try to find such average differences.
With all respect, I do not think that finding gene-driven differences for neurobiological function differences among self-identified races is of interest to scientists, who fall more on the side of wishing the topic would go away and they could just get back to science.
Example one: Rushton Jensen et al
Example two: Bruce Lahn and MCPH1 haplogroup D variation penetration into non-african populations
Most researchers are very hesitant to do anything but dance around a potentially career-killing move, assuming that at the bare minimum it is “sensitive.”
Here’s some typical verbiage:
“We consider in detail a practical concern about a highly polarized research topic.Is it ever ethical to assess population-group (racial or ethnic) differences in intelligence (for example,recent projects described in REF.5)? It is easier to set aside such difficult and distasteful questions. In reviewing the neurobiological bases of intelligence it is not necessary,on scientific grounds,to consider race. Most of the variance in intelligence is within racial groups not between them,and the causes of individual differences are relatively tractable with available methods,whereas the causes of racial differences are not. Although the topic of race differences is only a minor area within the field of intelligence research,it has had a disproportionately large (and strongly negative) impact on the public perception of intelligence research…”
Obviously, were science leading us to proof that there are NO differences, the topic would be eagerly pursued so it could simply be set aside. But all science is leading in the OPPOSITE direction. Genes drive our potential, and gene variant frequencies cluster by population. Evolution diverges. Therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that there ARE genetically-driven neurobiological outcome differences among human populations which have been separated.
Since one of those (socially-driven) population types is a self-identified “race” that happens to correlate with gene variant clustering because of ancestral source populations, it’s overwhelmingly likely that gene variant frequency differences are a factor in driving neurobiological outcome differences just the way they drive physical outcome differences for certain sports.
Perhaps I was not clear enough in my last post.
A) Finding the genetic correlates of various neurological attributes is absolutely of interest to science.
B) Finding populations that have a high prevalence of a particular neurological attribute is somewhat of interest, mostly as a means to A).
C) Trying to match genes or attributes to “races” is not very useful at all. You have the problem right away in defining race, and then you will have a much weaker signal to noise than B).
For “race” at a group level, self-identification correlates well enough with source populations that make up a gene pool. For an individual, it’s a stupid assumption that self-identification defines much of anything, genetically.
For neither situation do you have to “define race.” You just have to have self-identified cohorts that, as an average, reflect disparate gene variant frequencies.
For example, if we let people self-define as “black” or “white,” and we had at least several hundred people in each group, we could show all sorts of gene-driven differences ranging from appearance to frequency of Neanderthal genes. No definition required b/c w/ a large enough group, folks like Barack Obama would represent only a small minority.
I guess I remain unconvinced that a researcher who finds a genetic advantage for a neurobiological function is likely to publish it if the gene variant is disparately distributed across race-based populations–and especially so since the Bruce Lahn fiasco. Hard to prove, though.
Doesn’t make sense: the proportion of people who are mixed or whatever will not be affected by the size of the group.
A researcher who finds a “genetic advantage for a neurobiological function”, as you put it, would be world famous overnight. It would be a huge deal finding an unequivocally “smart gene” in and of itself.
Trying to find a difference in prevalence of that gene in different populations would be a completely useless sideshow. And of course, note that finding a smart gene wouldn’t mean that there are not other genes that have a comparable or even greater effect, but the bigots would never see it that way (unless we found a smart gene that seemed to have greatest prevalence among one or more “black” populations…)
A cytosine for thymine substitution in HMGA is thought to give slightly more than 1% advantage in IQ…
I don’t share your assertion that it would be completely useless to find different prevalences for “smart” genes among populations. Politically unpopular, of course.
But I think that science marches on, and exactly that sort of finding will happen. For example, as the 10,000+ Neanderthal haplotypes are unraveled for function, some of them will emerge as being significant for neurobiological function. To the extent that any are well penetrated, inference will be taken that they are advantageous.
It won’t be some bigot with a nefarious motive proving some populations have genetically-driven skillsets superior to others. It will just be science, marching onward, letting the consequences fall where they may.
It really requires an extraordinary act of faith–to the point of creationist level naivete–to think the populations of the world have been given a genetic egalitarianism by Nature.
Or science may find something else. Your certainty of what will be found does not mean it will be found (not that I’ve seen or heard any Doper advocacy for “generic egalitarianism”).
The Link Between Neanderthal DNA and Depression Risk
It would be wrong to assume that a gene with deep penetrance must confer advantage. The human genome is riddled with genes that are neither beneficial or harmful, at least in terms of fitness. And I don’t think we would ever enough information to know that an allele that increases processing speed has been selected because of this particular trait.
We’ll never know enough to state the standards of many people here, but when computers crunch the numbers and map out vast statistical models of human genotype and and phenotype, the nudges from certain frequencies of genes spread out over the consistent phenotype of hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people will point in certain directions. For good or ill.
I liken it to a card counting system, I’ve never card counted but was talking to a guy who had. He said one system was to simply assign a +1 or -1 value to every card that shows up, once you get enough accumulation in a particular direction, the odds of the cards in your favor get stronger and stronger. The same likely works for genes and gene combinations that confer cognitive advantages.
Some are more positive (+1/+2/+3/+n), some are more negative (-1/-2/-3/-n), but the more of them that exist whether we can ever identify them all or understand them all or NOT (I’m sorry to break it to some of you people, but our ignorance of the details is no shield from the effects), the more the higher accumulation of positive genes/gene combos give people a cognitive advantage… or not. This has no reason to be constant between individuals, and the obvious follow up to that, since genes are heritable, there is NO logical reason to expect these combinations to have constant averages between different populations.
It is precisely because intelligence is not a binary on/off switch that the accumulated pluses and minuses have statistical relevance.
Now again, statistical relevance and likelihood is not a kind of “proof” many here would EVER accept, but that is because of their own flawed standards of evidence and desire to tilt reality towards what they wish the world to be rather than what it is. Or at the very least, throw doubt on the evidence of the way they wish the world were not.
You can’t actually prove your claim, so you resort rhetorical diversion. “I hate to break it to you people,” and other such foolishness. At least you’re willing to admit that the evidence you need will probably never exist.
Actually, the empirical evidence for low IQ’s among subsaharan Africans (as opposed to highly admixed black Americans) is quite weak these days:
The test score gap is showing itself more and more to be a local phenomenon specific to black Americans of antebellum ancestry. Out of all the different gene pools - population groups that are considered black, black Americans are the group most mixed with European ancestry. The author of the articles linked above thinks that this is the problem - inferior white genes are holding black Americans back.
I’m skeptical of his idea, of course, but it’s just as plausible as claims made by hereditarians here and elsewhere.
But again, what kind of conclusion do you think is likely?
As you say, there are probably lots of genes associated with neurological function. And many might convey an advantage in one situation, and a disadvantage in another. And given what we know about “race” it’s unlikely we’ll find any such gene that the vast majority of one race have and the vast majority of another do not.
So, ISTM wholly inappropriate to try to compress down such a nuanced reality into “This race smarter than that race”. Plus, like I say, it depends on the arbitrary choice of which neurological functions we consider more important.
There’s no scientific reason for doing this. It’s purely something people want to say, so they can then look at every member of group X and make a prejudgement.
I noticed this recent writeup as well, and the titling. It seems the author was anxious to convey some sort of notion that Neanderthal genes might be bad.
But the way evolution works is generally to retain penetrance for advantageous genes. So this idea about modern “depression” prevalence as a ghost of Neanderthal genes is a bit of a headline grab and a subtle, unsupported spin…it’s highly unlikely that genes with deep penetrance are net negative for reproductive advantage. What happens more commonly is that whatever disadvantage we think that gene has turns out to be offset by something advantageous, leading to high penetrance.
What it does tell us–if true–is that at least some of the Neanderthal genome affects neurobiologic function. In any case, it is an entire source of genes generally disproportionately represented in non-africans due to the history of human migration.
What’s holding the whites and asians back?
What’s holding sub-saharans back?
Let me guess…“centuries of repression…” Oh; wait a minute…why does the same group always get repressed…why is the same rank order for various skillsets–physical or neurobiological–always the same across civilizations, across time and across political boundaries?
“Just as plausible…” LOL
Yes, to the first paragraph.
No, to the second. I don’t know what “people” want. There are certainly plenty of them who want to feel superior, sure, because of who they chose as parents. A shining accomplishment.
The reason the topic is of interest scientifically is that we want to create a just and fair society where, to the extent possible, everyone has a shot at success. As humans, we self-identify with groups which have disparate average genetic pools and differential average success outcomes. If those differential outcomes are driven by nature, we can make an argument for changing social structure to accommodate that, much as we find ways to accommodate women in certain careers (a fireman, say).
Nature is not fair. But we don’t have to be slaves to nature, or let nature decide which group ends up being slaves. We can do better than that. Equally, we can decide that for sports, the outcome is not so horrible that we are going to create AA for jumping white men. We are cognitively advanced enough to make arbitrary choices.
But the only thing that is going to drive good choices is an understanding of science, and genetics. Without that, U Texas Fisher is never going to go away no matter what SCOTUS decides. We need to understand what genetics do, accept it, and just move on.
It is?
I’m not going to defend that article, which sounds like absolute nonsense, but there’s no need to make over the top blanket statements.