I’m not making any conclusions – just suggesting that we know for a fact that genes can be the same with different test scores, indicating that genetic differences aren’t required to explain such test score differences. There could be many possible explanations.
His rhetoric in the podcast (and other interviews) suggests that he’s pretty sure genes are part of the explanation. If he merely thinks it’s “highly likely”, I think his judgement is still way, way off. Why would the gap being linked to genes be highly likely when we know virtually nothing about the genetics behind it?
Of course the other point I was making, and/if it was not clear, is that since there are so many it is really a stretch to assume that most of them are not present in all “races”. It is more likely that **how **the connections and what are the environmental reasons for their activation or connections to each other are one big reason for the differences among humans. I do not see much about a “race” difference in this effort, as usual some racialists just get the wrong conclusions.
The best white sprinters today are faster than Jesse Owens. The best female sprinters today might even be faster than Owens. Does that mean the gaps in running times between blacks and whites, and women and men, are not related to genetic differences? Seriously?
Keep going, they specifically discuss the Flynn effect in the podcast!
Jews were relatively mildly overrepresented in the NBA when it had de facto limits on black players. Black players now dominate the sport under more or less of a meritocracy to a far greater extent than Jews ever did. And moreover anyone who is an actual fan of the NBA (particularly) knows that players with a certain range of skills, within the myriad skills which can succeed in this complex and fascinating game, are virtually all of African descent. This debate has been had here before, ‘how about Steve Nash (Dirk Nowitzski, John Stockton, almost any star Caucasian player US or international)?’ when those players are obviously not of the same particular set of strengths as the bulk of players of African descent in a given year’s NBA All Star Game. There are exceptional cases of excellent ‘white’ NBA players whose skill sets actually resemble those of most exceptional black NBA players, but it’s quite rare; there are more cases of exceptional black players with a prototypically ‘white’ skill set, there are an increasing number of big stars of ‘very’ mixed race even compared to African Americans in general. Enough exceptions IOW to knock over a straw man which says race is the absolute determinant, but the NBA is IMO a poor place to look for an argument that group genetics don’t explain anything.
The most you can say of the NBA in this regard is that differences of this kind related to race among extremely gifted individuals are simply not important in public policy terms. If genetic factors may partially explain stats of player identity in the NBA…so what? AFAIC.
It’s not as easy to ‘so what’ when it comes to stuff like Silicon Valley prestige positions, etc. Which is not to say the answer is the same there, kudo’s to those on the generally PC side of the argument admitting they don’t know the answer, which I don’t either. But in some cases real public policies are crafted assuming the answer is known.
How about because it’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligence (more precisely, the potential for intelligence) is heritable? Twin studies (with both identical and fraternal twins) prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. And this, again, is discussed by Murray on the podcast.
Do you have a cite for that claim about women? As for genes for sprinting, that will take genetic evidence, just like the other claims. The vast majority of top sprinters are “black”, but few of them are from West Africa, supposedly the bastion of these sprinting genes, and thus most top sprinters likely have a mix of African, European, and native American ancestry. It may be African genes, or some mix of genetic ancestry (maybe being 70% African, 20% European, and 10% Carib is the perfect mix to maximize the chances of top sprinting genes, or something like that), or some fluke of nutrition (particularly in Jamaica, unless anyone is suggesting that Jamaican genes are special) or environment that is responsible.
When, and what do they say?
That says nothing about comparisons between groups, especially when there are so many environmental/cultural/societal differences between these groups.
Why is that likely ?
Solar fusion has effects. Does that mean that fusion must be part of the answer?
Is it continuing to shrink? I was under the impression it was shrinking but stalled after a certain point. If it is continuing to shrink that would be a good thing.
Genes (alleles) have effects on human traits.
QFT, in fact the biggest point the scientific racists always have a propensity to miss…
Must be the genes… 
Top athletes mean nothing genetically, by definition they do not represent an average.
1940s Irish and 2010s Irish have pretty much the same genes. Yet their IQ test scores are very, very different. What’s the explanation? Undoubtedly a whole lot about their environment, society, and culture has changed – the two groups live in very different conditions and are treated very differently by their societies.
We know that. To jump to the conclusion that therefore *all *human traits are influenced to a measurable degree and that this degree varies measurably over populations characterized by skin-shade differences does not follow.
Here’s an example of a report that shows it’s still shrinking, even if it’s quite slow:
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2017/01/educational-achievement-gap-economy-race-research/512879/
Also, I expect epigenetic changes.
There are gaps in running times between blacks and whites? That’s news to me. It’s true that the very best sprinters are descended from a few West African groups, and the very best marathoners are descended from a few East African groups, but that’s not remotely the same thing. East Africans are generally mediocre sprinters, West Africans are generally mediocre marathoners, and North Africans are dominant at neither discipline.
So why are you talking about “blacks” and “whites”?
I was wrong about Jesse Owens and the women’s 100m world record, although I did say I wasn’t sure about that. Owens ran a 10.2 in 1936; the women’s world record is, strangely, still held by Florence Griffith-Joyner, who ran a 10.49 at the 1988 Olympics. But 100 years ago, the men’s world record was still 10.6. 10.4 was not achieved until the 1920s.
So we could just as easily say that if we compared women today (or actually in the late 1980s) with men in the early 20th century, women are faster. Hopefully no one seriously asserts that men do not have an inborn greater potential for running speed. Therefore this other argument about IQs in the 1950s is equally spurious.
As for what they said about the Flynn effect, you’ll just have to listen for yourself!
The descendants of American slaves tend to be mainly of West African stock.
West African immigrants (specifically Nigerians) are the most educated out of all ethnic groups in the US.
African immigrants in general are wealthier than their native-born black counterparts.
Damuri Ajashi, you might be especially interested in this: Second-generation Americans from Africa and the Caribbean are much more likely to be accepted to gifted schools/programs than the descendants of American slaves, despite the latter’s higher amount of European admixture.