# Practical end to the intelligence debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2007, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308 "2007-10-19T16:37:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2007, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/81 "2007-10-21T22:06:23Z")
I keep feeling that a number of people in this thread need “Correlation does not equal causation” tattooed on their foreheads. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2007, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/82 "2007-10-21T22:07:01Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] Rest assured that whatever opinions I have about your racism or lack thereof (and other things in the mental arena) were solidified some time ago, so I really wasn’t interested in doing any of the above. But thanks for complying with my request. [/QUOTE] This is close enough to a hostile personal observation that you should probably refrain from repeating this sort of statement. OTOH, **Malacandra** , speculating about the motives of one’s adversaries tends to invite this sort of response, so avoiding that behavior would also be wise. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Anaglyph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Anaglyph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaglyph)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/83 "2007-10-22T06:32:04Z")
> [@](#): > > …researchers Franck Prugnolle, Andrea Manica, and François Balloux of the University of Cambridge show that geographic distance from East Africa along ancient colonization routes is an excellent predictor for the genetic diversity of present human populations, with those farther from Ethiopia being characterized by lower genetic variability. This result implies that information regarding the geographic coordinates of present populations alone is sufficient for predicting their genetic diversity. This finding adds compelling evidence for the RAO model. Such a relationship between location and genetic diversity is indeed only compatible with an African origin of modern humans and subsequent spread throughout the world, accompanied by a progressive loss of neutral genetic diversity as new areas were colonized. The loss of genetic diversity along colonization routes is smooth, with no obvious genetic discontinuity, thus suggesting that humans cannot be accurately classified in discrete ethnic groups or races on a genetic basis. [cite](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050310103042.htm) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/84 "2007-10-22T11:48:40Z")
**Anaglyph** , I’m not ure what point you are making. They are describing the results of the founder effect (or a similar process), in which some larger groups have less diversity than others depending on how much genetic diversity was present at the time that one group split from a larger population. This confirms the “Out of Africa” theory of human evolution and expansion, as Africa has the most genetic diversity of any geographic region and the Americas have the least, with Asia, Oceania, and Europe having varying levels of diversity between Africa and the Americas. However, less diverse is not the same as having no diversity, so we still find individual populations in every part of the globe. I’m not sure how that bears on the discussion in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/85 "2007-10-22T13:07:35Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] There is certainly no racial component to sickle cell anemia. It should be the "poster child disease’ for arguments in which a false belief in race is confused with genetics. It is endemic in much of Africa **and** in portions of Europe adjacent to the Mediterranean where malaria is prevalent. A similar mutation that provides the same anti-malarial benefits with the corresponding problems for people born to two carriers extends from the neighborhood of Jordan adjacent to the sickle-cell region of Lebanon, across the ancient Fertile Cerescent and into India. Many Africans have absolutely no susceptibility to sickle-cell, (specifically those in regions where malaria is not prevalent). It is simply an accident of history that far more blacks were imported to the U.S. from Equatorial Africa (where sickle-cell is prevalent) than whites immigrated from Malta, Greece, and coastal Asia Minor, so in the U.S. it has the reputation as a “black” disease even though race, _per se_, has no association with it. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but all research on diseases or conditions that may be more common in certain racial populations is racist in intent, and therefore illegitimate. So, according to the standards of **pizzabrat** ’s OP, you are a racist and your motivation is only to show that blacks are inferior. And all the research that went into discovering the interaction between malarial resistance and sickle cell should never have been allowed. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/86 "2007-10-22T14:17:43Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] This is close enough to a hostile personal observation that you should probably refrain from repeating this sort of statement. OTOH, **Malacandra** , speculating about the motives of one’s adversaries tends to invite this sort of response, so avoiding that behavior would also be wise. [/Moderating] [/QUOTE] Duly noted. Also, I am choosing to believe that **'face** ’s remark was intended to convey that she concedes me to be free of racism and possessed of amazing intelligence and powers of reasoning. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/87 "2007-10-22T14:31:02Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] There is certainly no racial component to sickle cell anemia. [/QUOTE] None at all? "Comparison of red-cell phenotypes in the three study groups (the patients with sickle cell anemia, the patients with other forms of anemia, and the blood donors) revealed statistically significant differences between the patients with sickle cell anemia and the donors but not between the patients with other forms of anemia and the donors. \*\*These differences are most likely racial. \*\*We conclude that alloimmunization is a common, clinically serious problem in sickle cell anemia and that it is partly due to racial differences between the blood-donor and recipient populations. " [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/23/1617](http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/23/1617) The two very well-known diseases **of blacks** that are the point of departure for this presentation are sickle cell anemia and the hemolytic anemia of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G-6-PD) deficiency. > **[Read](https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/5237/chapter/8?page_hash=211)** > > Read chapter 7 Are Genetic Factors Involved in Racial and Ethnic Differences in Late-Life Health?: Older Americans, even the oldest, can now expect to liv... “ **Sickle cell disease is much more common in certain ethnic groups** , affecting approximately one out of every 500 African Americans.” > **[Sickle cell disease: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia](https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000527.htm)** > > Sickle cell disease is a disorder passed down through families. The red blood cells that are normally shaped like a disk take on a sickle or crescent shape. Red blood cells carry oxygen throughout the Sickle cell anemia affects approximately 70,000 Americans, \*\*almost exclusively those with African ancestry. \*\* [http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/textbook/humev/humev\_8.html](http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/textbook/humev/humev_8.html) Sickle-cell anemia is suspected based on an individual’s ethnic or **racial** background, and on the symptoms of anemia. [http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/80/Sickle-cell-anemia.html](http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/80/Sickle-cell-anemia.html) (Emphasis added, for all the good it will do.) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/88 "2007-10-22T15:48:42Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] None at all? [/quote] None at all if we are looking at a biological and not a sociological categorazation of “race.” [QUOTE=Shodan] Sickle cell anemia affects approximately 70,000 Americans, \*\*almost exclusively those with African ancestry. \*\* [/quote] What does this call to mind? Oh, yeah: > [@tomndebb](#): > > It is simply an accident of history that far more blacks were imported to the U.S. from Equatorial Africa (where sickle-cell is prevalent) than whites immigrated from Malta, Greece, and coastal Asia Minor, so in the U.S. it has the reputation as a “black” disease even though biological “race,” per se, has no association with it. The practice of medicine is not merely biological; it contains strong cultural and social components. When addressing the issues of diagnosis **in the U.S.** , doctors will, indeed, use the social category of race to help in identifying populations at risk. Since, of the relatively few\* Maltese, Lebanese, Greeks, and Turks who have immigrated to the U.S., even fewer are from the specific regions susceptible to sickle cell, their numbers are miniscule when compared to the descendants of Africans who carry that gene, and it makes sense to alert doctors to the prevalence of the disease in the social category of “race.” This has no effect on the reality of any purported biological race–which is the topic under discussion. * * * - The total number of Greeks and Turks, (who would have included Lebanese and Syrians up until the early twentieth century) who are recorded as having immigrated to the U.S. was fewer than two million people. Currently, ([2000 census](http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFactsCharIteration)), the number of people identifying themselves as having specific ancestry: Greek, 1,200,000; Turk, 118,000; Lebanese, 440,000; Syrian, 143,000; Maltese, 40,000. These numbers added together fall short of two million, fewer than the 2,274,000 blacks listed for just New York City–and many of the Greeks, Turks, and Syrians will have come from the regions of their countries where sickle cell is not endemic, while the overwhelming majority of blacks will have been brought from regions where it is endemic. (Italians, of course, provided several millions of immigrants to the U.S., but the numbers from the specific locale in Sicily where sickle cell is prevalent were much lower and not easily discovered.) [QUOTE=Shodan] (Emphasis added, for all the good it will do.) [/quote] Right. (You are aware that the word race has different meanings in different contexts. right? That the social category of race can legitmately be used to identify people who will suffer discrimination based on appearance that has nothing to do with their genetic relatedness?) ---
**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:** [October 22, 2007, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/89 "2007-10-22T15:53:01Z")
Two observations that are related to this topic: Observation 1: Biologists with expertise in the subject of human beings and their relationships to one another seem to largely agree that there is no scientific basis for race based on conclusions they draw from population-based genetic studies. But certain laymen have a hard time accepting these conclusions, and often make accusations that a PC agenda is afoot, even though most of these conclusions have been vetted through a peer-review process that requires that cited evidence holds up to scrutiny. Observation 2: Folks like Watson–who may have expertise in one area of science (e.g. biochemistry) but not in genetics or human populations–have asserted that one race is intellectually inferior than another or others. But certain laymen seem to accept these conclusions as scientifically sound, or at least plausible enough to defend at length. This despite the fact that these assertions rarely if ever are accompanied with strong scientific support. In the rare instances that they are accompanied with data (as was the case with _The Bell Curve_), this data is usually published outside of peer review and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. But it is accepted nonetheless. Question:\*\* Is the perceived overlap (quite substantial overlap, I might add) between these two groups of laymen a product of my imagination? \*\*If not, what is it that makes them skeptical that racial groups are not signficantly different from one another, while accepting of theories that proclaim a genetic explanation behind racial disparties? If this is a hijack, **pizzabrat** , let me know. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/90 "2007-10-22T22:54:42Z")
Now you know the answer **you with the face**. Human nature is to believe that which conforms to our established beliefs and to discount that which goes against it. I think Douglas Adams referred to it as “The Somebody Else’s Problem Field” … the natural predisposition to ignore that which you weren’t expecting to see. I’m sure that there is some more academic name for it, but the essence is basic nature hardwired into our brains. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/91 "2007-10-22T23:06:38Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] I’m sure that there is some more academic name for it, but the essence is basic nature hardwired into our brains. [/QUOTE] I should think that would be [confirmation bias](http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/criticalthinking/hcf.confirmation.html). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/92 "2007-10-22T23:10:11Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > When addressing the issues of diagnosis in the U.S., doctors will, indeed, use the social category of race to help in identifying populations at risk. IOW, there is a racial component, and what you claimed earlier was wrong. Funnily enough, I see discussions about “the hemolytic anemia of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G-6-PD) deficiency” as more biological than social, but that’s just me. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [October 22, 2007, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/93 "2007-10-22T23:34:04Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] Human nature is to believe that which conforms to our established beliefs and to discount that which goes against it. [/quote] I agree with everything you wrote. This indeed is a natural tendency. It’s not scientific but it’s natural. The sun really looks like it revolves around the Earth. It really really does. But it doesn’t. It took a really long time to convince people of that, because folks were wedded to the notion of a Earth-centric universe. The idea made them feel special. I think we’re seeing the same thing with race. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2007, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/94 "2007-10-23T02:47:37Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] IOW, there is a racial component, and what you claimed earlier was wrong. Funnily enough, I see discussions about “the hemolytic anemia of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G-6-PD) deficiency” as more biological than social, but that’s just me. [/QUOTE] Well, you have the last bit right: it is just you. [Combined erythrocyte glucosephosphate isomerase (GPI) and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency in an italian family](http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7468163788518x5/) [Heterogeneity of “Mediterranean type” glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency in Spain and description of two new variants associated with favism](http://www.springerlink.com/content/q148273016l27625/) [Acute chest syndrome in sickle-cell traitTwo case reports in persons of Mediterranean origin and review of the literature.](http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0953620504000950) [Sickle Cell Thalassemia in Greece. Identification and Contribution of the Interacting β-Thalassemia Gene](http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1990.tb24346.x) [THE GEOGRAPHY OF SICKLE CELL DISEASE: OPPORTUNITIES FOR UNDERSTANDING ITS DIVERSITY](http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/143/rev9239.html) > [@](#): > > The sickle cell gene is now known to be widespread, reaching its highest incidence in equatorial Africa, but occurring also in parts of Sicily and Southern Italy, Northern Greece, Southern Turkey, the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, especially the Eastern Province, and much of Central India (Figure 1). This distribution is determined by the occurrence of the sickle cell mutation and its selection by falciparum malaria. * * * In Europe, they treat Europeans for sickle cell. In the U.S., where few (but not no) people of European descent have carried the gene, it is treated as a disease of the (socially defined) so-called black “race.” You are really not doing your argument any good when you equivocate, using the word “race” in different ways and pretending it is all the same thing, but if that is how you want to present yourself, go ahead. The original discussion was in regards to testing the imagined black “race” for intelligence based on an odd belief in the biological unity of all the many diverse populations of sub-Saharan Africa. Your original claim that we should examine the black “race” for sickle cell as a more neutral arena than intelligence displays my original point, since sickle cell appears in groups associated with both black and white “races.” Your later facetious claim that we should not investigate sickle cell is silly on the face of it, because the study and treatment of sickle cell is based on the biological reality of a person’s blood, not on whether or not they have been arbitrarily assigned to some imagined race. Regardless whether the person is from the Congo or Greece, they still have the same blood condition. The fact that “black” carriers of the condition in the U.S. far outnumber “white” carriers simply indicates in the U.S. that doctors should pay particular attention to patients of Equatorial African origin–coincidentally, the group that is, for reasons of history, pretty much congruent with the group called black or African-American–although it is unlikely that the doctors will find sickle cell in patients who have immigrated from South Africa who would also be identified as black. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2007, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/95 "2007-10-23T03:28:19Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] I should think that would be [confirmation bias](http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/criticalthinking/hcf.confirmation.html). [/QUOTE] Thanks. And what is the name for the kind of nerd who can remember what Douglas Adams called something but not “confirmation bias”? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2007, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/96 "2007-10-23T10:20:50Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] \ The original discussion was in regards to testing the imagined black “race” for intelligence based on an odd belief in the biological unity of all the many diverse populations of sub-Saharan Africa. \ [/QUOTE] If this was in the OP, I missed it. Are you referring to the discussions upthread, or the OP’s use of the term “black?” While it is true that diverse genetically distinct populations are represented under the term “black” I took the OP to be referring to what is essentially a self-defined grouping–regardless of genetic population definition–that as a group scores less well on IQ tests. That the metagroup “black” is itself composed of multiple genetic populations doesn’t change the point of the OP, does it? The fact that a “race” may be difficult to define genetically wouldn’t change the results of the observation. For example, if “myopic” people were found to score above average on IQ tests, the fact that they represent multiple gene pools would not, of itself, mean the correlation was wrong. There would be similar discussions around who is myopic, and how the definition should be drawn, but in general there would be a consensus around “myopic” and in general the self-description as well as the objective external categorization of myopia would be accurate. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2007, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/97 "2007-10-23T11:44:11Z")
Is there a difference between “self-defined” blacks and the “black race.” Aside from sidebar issues of the percent of white or Indian ancestry in the U.S. population identified as “black,” I don’t see any distinctions. Certainly, when J. Phillipe Rushton or Arthur Jensen (or James Watson or William Shocklry) have discussed “black” intelligence, it has been in the context of a perceived black race. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2007, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/98 "2007-10-23T12:18:10Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] Thanks. And what is the name for the kind of nerd who can remember what Douglas Adams called something but not “confirmation bias”? [/QUOTE] I should think that would be “hoopy frood”. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![zahara2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/53a042/32.png) [@zahara2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zahara2)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2007, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/99 "2007-10-23T14:21:27Z")
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant] If this was in the OP, I missed it. Are you referring to the discussions upthread, or the OP’s use of the term “black?” While it is true that diverse genetically distinct populations are represented under the term “black” I took the OP to be referring to what is essentially a self-defined grouping–regardless of genetic population definition–that as a group scores less well on IQ tests. That the metagroup “black” is itself composed of multiple genetic populations doesn’t change the point of the OP, does it? The fact that a “race” may be difficult to define genetically wouldn’t change the results of the observation. For example, if “myopic” people were found to score above average on IQ tests, the fact that they represent multiple gene pools would not, of itself, mean the correlation was wrong. There would be similar discussions around who is myopic, and how the definition should be drawn, but in general there would be a consensus around “myopic” and in general the self-description as well as the objective external categorization of myopia would be accurate. [/QUOTE] Seeing the breakdown of IQ within African regions, then countries, then urban areas/areas with high technology infrastructure would probably assist with the explanation of “race” and IQ as it relates to those who associate it with genes rather than social categories. Not all europeans have high IQs, I’m betting those who live in less developed areas are generally below average. ie. certain areas of rural sicily, russia, or the caucauses. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2007, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308/100 "2007-10-23T16:28:10Z")
[QUOTE=zahara2] \ I’m betting those who live in less developed areas are generally below average. ie. certain areas of rural sicily, russia, or the caucauses. [/QUOTE] I would guess this to be true also. Even within just the state of Illinois this is true. I’ve worked in rural areas and suburban areas. My casual observation is that the kids who do well in school in rural areas gravitate toward higher education and eventually toward the city. This leaves behind a culturally and genetically different population, even within the same “race” category, because it’s fairly unusual to migrate from suburbia back to rural communities. To whatever extent standardized test results are influenced by culture and genes, you’d expect to see a difference. Performance on standardized tests correlates with wealth along with most other categories, and of course rural areas tend to be less wealthy–at least in terms of ordeinary income. The debate of course is whether wealth is a cause or effect of better performance. In any case, for the most part here in Illinois, higher standardized test results correlate well with wealth, upscale urban neighborhoods (more precisely, usually suburban), and racial category. You could look at this list: [http://www.isbe.net/research/pdfs/ACT\_0103.pdf](http://www.isbe.net/research/pdfs/ACT_0103.pdf) and without knowing anything else, predict those factors by looking at test results (and percent taking the test in the first place). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-end-to-the-intelligence-debate/423308.md?page=6)