# Once again, a pitting of our local pseudo-scientific racialists **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 5, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184 "2013-01-05T19:21:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**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 9, 2013, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/281 "2013-01-09T21:41:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I can’t PROVE that the IQ is the result of genetic differences between blacks and whites but I do have evidence that there is a heritable IQ gap between the population that defines themselves as black and the population that defines itself as white. The test score gap is the problem for which an explanation is sought. The gap in itself is not evidence of anything except for the existence of a gap. There is no evidence that different genetics of different populations is the best explanation. > [@](#): > > There have been enough peer reviewed studies over time that have controlled for environmental factors (obviously there are some factors that canot be controlled, like stereotype threat and the psychological effects of racism and racist expectations) that you almost have to believe that America is as racist a country today as it was almost a century ago to believe that there isn’t a genetic component to the IQ gap. This is an opinion statement- I don’t believe this is true. > [@](#): > > How would YOU test it? Find the genes (no, I don’t think it’s just one) responsible for high intelligence, determine the relative likelihood of people from different populations having these genes (or whatever fraction of them), and test it by showing a strong correlation between the presence of these genes and intelligence (by an agreed upon measure). Some have suggested eliminating all “nurture” factors, but I can’t think of a way (short of some “biosphere” experiment that I’ve outlined in the GD threads) of doing this. > [@](#): > > Or is your position not disprovable until we can identify the IQ gene (which almost certainly doesn’t exist as a discrete gene, which makes you wonder if there is such a thing as g)? No, it’s almost certainly not just one gene. My position is just that there is no reason to believe that the test-score gap (or other disparate outcomes) are best explained by different genetics. > [@](#): > > Because you are emphasizing the uncertainty that exists in ALL statistical analysis and saying, well that means we just don’t know enough to be able to say either way. We know enough to say that SOME of the gap is LIKELY caused by heritable factors. The studies your post seems to be dismissing are statistically sound and point to non-environmental factors being a likely factor in the IQ gap. No. Disparate outcomes exist- and these threads are generally focused on the gaps in educational (or aptitude) test-scores. I’m not denying they exist. We certainly do not know enough to say that some of the gap is likely caused by heritable factors (for populations). And I don’t believe I’m dismissing any statistically sound studies that point to non-environmental factors. Part of this is because “environmental factors” (or “nurture”) is so broad that it covers every possible factor other than genetics- and generally the only ones that can be statistically eliminated are the easily quantifiable ones- income, parental education, etc. There are plenty that are not easily quantifiable- including the ones that researcher Frank Sweet favors as the best explanation for the gap (he favors a combination of lesser parenting skills, reduced teacher expectations, and an “oppositional culture” peer pressure). > [@](#): > > Isn’t it more like someone saying that green parrots lay more eggs and as proof showing a statistical analysis that shows green parrots lay more eggs than red or yellow parrots under similar circumstances even if they aren’t able to identify the gene that would cause the higher rate. Then you’re trying to solve a different problem. If you have statistical analyses that show that the green ones have more eggs in their nests, then comes the question/problem “Why do the green parrot nests have more eggs?”- but without genetic analysis, any genetic hypothesis has no evidence (because it could be any number of non-genetic reasons). > [@](#): > > I think that the staistical data provides enough evidence that the burden shifts to the other side to prove the flaw in the analysis, not merely state that all statistical analysis comes with some uncertainty. You keep referring to “statistical data”, but I don’t know of any statistical data that points to a genetic explanation. I have a feeling you’re just referring to lots of statistical data that shows that the gap exists (and that it can’t be wholly explained by things like parental income, parental education, etc)- and while that’s useful if it eliminates other hypotheses, it’s not actually evidence in support of the genetic explanation. > [@](#): > > I don’t know about the “in large part” language otherwise, yeah, we can no more PROVE that there is a genetic difference than we can PROVE that smoking causes lung cancer (and tobacco companies hid behind this inability to “PROVE” the causal link for decades). But we have enough statistical analysis that its hard to explain it any other way. The smoking-cancer comparison is bad on many levels- chiefly because it has nothing to do with genetics (broadly speaking). There is data that shows the inadequacy of certain other hypotheses (like the “income hypothesis” or the “parental education hypothesis”) to explain the test-score gap, but there is no data in support of the genetic explanation. Until there is, there’s no reason to believe it’s the best explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/282 "2013-01-09T21:51:55Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > . . . This seems like a logical error. If something is more correlated to one factor than to another, that does not imply that it’s not also tied to the second factor. I don’t think anything I said quite falls into that category. I was talking about relative cases of things being correlated to many other things. > [@](#): > > This seems self-refuting. Because it’s fairly obvious that the height of children is highly correlated to the heights of their parents. (It also seems to be pretty accepted that some populations are taller than others - Dutch are pretty tall IIRC - but this is not my primary point.) Yes; there is a correlation between parents’ height and children’s height. But there is still a lot of variation. ( **Brazil84** sneered at me, imagining that I believed that tall people never had short kids!) The thing is that intelligence seems to be far more polygenetic, and thus the correlation between parents’ intelligence and offspring intelligence is weaker than the height correlation is. And, again, I’ll repeat my caveat: until someone who knows this stuff for real comes along, I’m just saying stuff I learned in undergraduate courses. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/283 "2013-01-09T22:03:53Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am not an expert but you seem to be confusing the notions of evidence versus proof. Statistical evidence is still evidence, isn’t it? > > .. > How would YOU test it? Or is your position not disprovable until we can identify the IQ gene (which almost certainly doesn’t exist as a discrete gene, which makes you wonder if there is such a thing as g)? The obvious way to test it is to apply IQ tests for a large number of people with African heritage (but who all self-identify as black), and then graph average IQ against percentage of European heritage. If IQ has a genetic component, and if Europeans have a different base IQ than Africans, then the graph will have a positive slope. This test has been done. The graph was flat. The racists never mention this. Of course, it’s not that simple. We’d need to control for skin color (perhaps darker-skinned blacks face more racism than lighter-skinned blacks), education, family background, etc. It would be an involved process, but the test could certainly be done again, perhaps as a PhD thesis. It might be difficult to get funding. The study that I discussed above was funded by a racist organization; they hired a completely impartial scientist to perform the test, and she gave them results which they probably didn’t like, so they never funded another similar study. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/284 "2013-01-09T22:49:36Z")
nm Not worth the electrons. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/285 "2013-01-09T23:12:54Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > FWIW I do not engage with this poster due to his refusal to answer reasonable questions about his position. I engage with the above poster mostly to point and laugh at what he thinks is “reasonable”. But yay! I’m in the club! My screenname is apparently enshrined on a blog somewhere that no one reads or cares about! ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/286 "2013-01-10T00:21:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I don’t think anything I said quite falls into that category. I was talking about relative cases of things being correlated to many other things. The same principle applies. > [@](#): > > Yes; there is a correlation between parents’ height and children’s height. But there is still a lot of variation. ( **Brazil84** sneered at me, imagining that I believed that tall people never had short kids!) The thing is that intelligence seems to be far more polygenetic, and thus the correlation between parents’ intelligence and offspring intelligence is weaker than the height correlation is. OK, but your own example (height) argues against your case. And here too, I think the same thing applies. It’s important to remember in all these discussions that the battle is over relatively small differences. > [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > The obvious way to test it is to apply IQ tests for a large number of people with African heritage (but who all self-identify as black), and then graph average IQ against percentage of European heritage. If IQ has a genetic component, and if Europeans have a different base IQ than Africans, then the graph will have a positive slope. > > This test has been done. > > The graph was flat. This seems reasonable. Do you have a link for this? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/287 "2013-01-10T00:42:10Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This seems reasonable. > > Do you have a link for this? Here you go: [Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population. Sandra Scarr, Andrew J. Pakstis, Solomon H. Katz, William B. Barker](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00273154?LI=true#). Isn’t it amusing that only one study (that I am aware of) has ever directly tested the genetic components of black/white IQ differences, yet the “race realists” seem not to know about it? How much do you want to bet that if it had reached the opposite conclusion that they would fall over each other to quote it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_In_Black)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/288 "2013-01-10T01:01:44Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > So what university do you work at? He works at the university of Fuckshissistereverynight. Same as the rest of the “racially enlightened” dipshits. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/289 "2013-01-10T01:15:41Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Here you go: [Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population. Sandra Scarr, Andrew J. Pakstis, Solomon H. Katz, William B. Barker](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00273154?LI=true#). > > Isn’t it amusing that only one study (that I am aware of) has ever directly tested the genetic components of black/white IQ differences, yet the “race realists” seem not to know about it? How much do you want to bet that if it had reached the opposite conclusion that they would fall over each other to quote it. Thanks for the cite. On poking around a bit, I see some quibbling with that study, on two grounds. 1. The methodology that study used to determine ancestry [has been criticized](http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1997-02239-020). 2. It’s been suggested that historically whites who mated with blacks might have had lower IQs than random whites. I have no clue about the first. Not much more about the second either - it sounds like something that makes sense, but then Thomas Jefferson was a pretty bright guy. Really depends on who exactly were the predominent whites mating with blacks, wealthy plantation owners or poor white hicks? In any event, it’s certainly a worthy cite. Have you put this to Chief Pedant et al or are you just speculating that they have nothing to say about it because they didn’t bring it up on their own? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/290 "2013-01-10T01:17:26Z")
> [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](#): > > He works at the university of Fuckshissistereverynight. Same as the rest of the “racially enlightened” dipshits. I understand they have a longstanding football rivalry with Sisterfuck A&M. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/291 "2013-01-10T01:25:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In any event, it’s certainly a worthy cite. Have you put this to Chief Pedant et al or are you just speculating that they have nothing to say about it because they didn’t bring it up on their own? To ask the question is to answer it.. You are constantly trying to avoid why is it that CP and the brazil nut are doing here, the best question is why is it that you forget to check the OP and why they are being pitted, so forget about defending them with JAQs. and nits. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/292 "2013-01-10T03:46:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > To ask the question is to answer it.. > > You are constantly trying to avoid why is it that CP and the brazil nut are doing here, the best question is why is it that you forget to check the OP and why they are being pitted, so forget about defending them with JAQs. and nits. I’ve seen the OP and other posts along these lines, and I disagree with them. As above, I myself am rather skeptical of the evidence in favor of a genetic difference. This is largely because I tend to be skeptical of the ability of these studies to separate out the impact of cultural and socio-economic factors, which are pervasive, but I’m also somewhat skeptical of the accuracy of IQ tests (and similar tests) in measuring intelligence. But that said, ISTM that those arguing in favor of genetic differences are arguing in good faith, and are not being completely unreasonable. And to the contrary, I think much of the vehemence with which they’re being attacked is over the top and many of the arguments are misleading, and are likely driven in large part by PC considerations. [For this reason most of my arguments in this thread tend to be challenges to the anti-racialists, despite my own position being more or less “it’s unknown and possibly unknowable”, IOW somewhere in the middle.] I think CP is conducting himself very well under these circumstances, and he seems very educated on these matters, and I believe if valid points are raised that he would address them forthrightly. So I think if there are valid points being raised, as Evil Economist did, that it would be more productive to raise them with CP et al directly and see what they have to say, rather than just raising them with people who don’t hold to that position as evidence that the opposition are racists. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/293 "2013-01-10T04:38:54Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > I’m not sure I get what you are saying. I understand that people in Denmark may have lighter skin than people living nearer the equator or at higher elevation because of selection pressure for Vitamin D, but when Danish people move to different latitude they retain those genetic traits and will only very slowly lose them over thousands of years if they are subject to different selection pressure. How is “climatic variation” different than a “population”? The point being that the observed difference, in this case, is inferred to be due to selective pressure. There are many examples of traits that vary from group to group, where the genetic basis of the trait is known, and a selective pressure driving differences in gene frequencies can be inferred. What would be the selective pressure to be extra-smart in some places but not others? > [@fumster](#): > > I know enough about genetics to know I don’t know much at all, but it is my understanding that not all genetic traits come about from natural selection. If a group of organisms is isolated into two groups they will drift apart from each other even if the environment for each group is the same. One could end up with curly hair and the other with straight hair even without there being a survival advantage for one form of hair over another. All genetic variation comes from mutation. All traits have a genetic component (there is no nature-nurture debate; it’s always nature and nurture). For two populations to show this drifting apart, the traits cannot be under selection. They are neutral with respect to reproductive success and alleles of the genes are able to randomly drift toward fixation. Do you think intelligence, the trait we are concerned with, is neutral with respect to reproductive success? > [@fumster](#): > > When I visit a University and see it full of Jewish, Indian, and Chinese students it doesn’t exactly make me feel like I’m a member of the master race. Thankfully, universities are microcosms of the whole world we live in. Where I last did research, Americans dominated, and the next two representative groups were Chinese and Australians. I’m not sure any of that says anything about ethnic groups and intelligence. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I find this argument particularly unconvincing. There’s probably more that we don’t know than we do know about why some genes tend to be more common in one place than another, and much of what we think we know is speculative. When I doubt, I doubt with the support of data that can be backed up by citation and my experiences. What are you doubting with? It sure looks like nothing. > [@brazil84](#): > > Well consider that every allele has to originate somewhere and there’s no reason to assume there’s been enough time for higher intelligence alleles to make it to every last corner of the globe. How many completely different alleles of the same gene arose in completely different places to take advantage of lactose into adulthood? 4? How about for conferring malaria resistance? More than 4? How man times did these alleles appear in populations throughout the globe but were never selected for and disappeared due to random processes? 1000s? 1000000s? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because you are emphasizing the uncertainty that exists in ALL statistical analysis and saying, well that means we just don’t know enough to be able to say either way. We know enough to say that SOME of the gap is LIKELY caused by heritable factors. The studies your post seems to be dismissing are statistically sound and point to non-environmental factors being a likely factor in the IQ gap. I am not emphasizing statistical uncertainty at all. Not in the slightest bit. This is a problem in the design of the study for the question it is shoe-horned into addressing. They simply could not control for all environmental differences between growing up and being black in the USA and growing up and being white in the USA. They at best showed that parenting may not be important. They could not control for culture, school environment, friends, gestational environment, etc. All of the factors I just listed are known to affect or correlate with IQ. They simply do not, and cannot point to non-environmental factors being a likely factor in the IQ gap. So they’re statistical analyses were great. They’re attempts to control for what variables they could needs replication, and they did not control and could never control for how our culture reacts toward people with black skin and white skin. Quit trying to imbue something into this study that is not there. Anyways, to all you scientific racists, keep your bullshit pseudogenetics coming. I know you can’t understand the responses but I enjoy reminding myself of the things I used to be adept at. I also like the fact that all the racists have left is that they “conduct themselves well” and “are arguing in good faith”. Too bad facts and knowledge don’t go along with it or is completely perverted by your racist agenda. ---
**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:** [January 10, 2013, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/294 "2013-01-10T04:52:51Z")
Clearly, the Irish are inherently genetically deficient. (It’s a joke, now, but there was a time when people in both Britain and the US believed it.) > **[Race, IQ, and Wealth](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/race-iq-and-wealth/)** > > What the facts tell us about a taboo subject > [@](#): > > Even this rather low Irish IQ figure is quite misleading, since it was derived by averaging two separately reported Irish samples. The earlier of these, taken in 1972, involved nearly 3,500 Irish schoolchildren and is one of the largest European samples found anywhere in Lynn/Vanhanen, while the other, taken in 1979, involved just 75 Irish adults and is one of the smallest. The mean IQ of the large group was 87, while that of the tiny group was 98, and the Lynn/Vanhanen figure was obtained by combining these results through straight, unweighted averaging, which seems a doubtful approach. Indeed, a sample of 75 adults is so small it perhaps should simply be excluded on statistical grounds, given the high likelihood that it was drawn from a single location and is therefore unrepresentative of its nation as a whole. > > **So we are left with strong evidence that in the early 1970s, the Irish IQ averaged 87, the lowest figure anywhere in Europe and a full standard deviation below than that of Irish-Americans, a value which would seem to place a substantial fraction of Ireland’s population on the edge of clinical mental retardation**. bm > **[Unz on Race/IQ: The Entire Series and Debate | Ron Unz – Writings and...](http://www.ronunz.org/2012/10/10/unz-on-raceiq-the-entire-series-and-debate/)** ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/295 "2013-01-10T06:01:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why is the claim extraordinary? Because it has been so often disproven, and proven both laughable and evil besides, that at this point it is like making a claim for [Lamarckism](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lamarckism) or [Lysenkoism](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lysenkoism): No, it’s not logically impossible, but extraordinary proof is reasonably required. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/296 "2013-01-10T06:29:39Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Thankfully, universities are microcosms of the whole world we live in. Where I last did research, Americans dominated, and the next two representative groups were Chinese and Australians. I’m not sure any of that says anything about ethnic groups and intelligence. “Americans” is not an ethnic group. In American universities Jewish Americans and Asian Americans (which in America generally means Chinese and Japanese) are vastly over represented. In the case of Asian Americans it has gotten to the point that there is [controversy](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/19/fears-of-an-asian-quota-in-the-ivy-league/statistics-indicate-an-ivy-league-asian-quota)regarding informal admission quotas at elite universities. > [@](#): > > The point being that the observed difference, in this case, is inferred to be due to selective pressure. There are many examples of traits that vary from group to group, where the genetic basis of the trait is known, and a selective pressure driving differences in gene frequencies can be inferred. What would be the selective pressure to be extra-smart in some places but not others? I don’t believe there needs to be a selection pressure for intelligence. It could be the byproduct of another trait for which there is selection pressure. Presumably there is no selection pressure for red hair, but it is associated with skin pigmentation for which there is selection pressure. Hell, maybe it’s like High School and there is selection pressure \*against \*being extra smart. 🙂 Anyway, I’m not sure why I’m even engaging in this thread. I hope there isn’t a racial/population/genetic basis for intelligence: there are a hell of a lot more Chinese and Indians than there are pasty Scots. It’s just that there is a difference between saying there is no evidence for something (or even evidence that contradicts it) vs saying that there can be no way that intelligence could be associated with particular populations. The latter seems to be a pendulum swing too far. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/297 "2013-01-10T06:57:33Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > I don’t believe there needs to be a selection pressure for intelligence. It could be the byproduct of another trait for which there is selection pressure. I find this fascinating. It’s like saying cheetahs run fast as a byproduct of another trait. I guess its a possibility but given the cost of our brains I just don’t take it very seriously. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/298 "2013-01-10T07:34:19Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I find this fascinating. It’s like saying cheetahs run fast as a byproduct of another trait. I guess its a possibility but given the cost of our brains I just don’t take it very seriously. No, it’s not like that at all. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/299 "2013-01-10T09:23:33Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > The simplest explanation is that things like crime, poverty, and life expectancy are a function of both environment and genes. fumster, do you agree with brazil84 that poverty, crime and life expectancy are a function of environment and genes? Do you think that Chinese and Indian people have a genetic potential for higher intelligence than others? If so, why have they been unable to shape their environment to exploit such a potential? As for intelligence: I suppose the analogy you want to make is to the chin, which according to Gould and Lewontin was a juncture between two different structures conferring a selection advantage. In this case, a “general cognitive ability” would be the composite of different types of cognitive ability. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/300 "2013-01-10T10:02:09Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > ( **Brazil84** sneered at me, imagining that I believed that tall people never had short kids!) :shrug: That was essentially the implication of what you were saying. I don’t think you believe that tall people never have short children. Instead, you just didn’t think through the implications of your argument and now you are trying to pretend you made a different argument from the one you actually made. > [@](#): > > The thing is that intelligence seems to be far more polygenetic, and thus the correlation between parents’ intelligence and offspring intelligence is weaker than the height correlation is. I’m skeptical of these claims. Can you provide a cite? Also, why is it that being “far more polygenetic” would make a trait less susceptible to variation from group to group? Unless you can answer that question, you are simply engaged in a lame attempt at special pleading. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184.md?page=16)