Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.
The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast “a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural).”

The paper, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors’ reply.

“Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause,” write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

Has it already been a week since the last, “Black people are stupid” thread? Maybe we can just have a sub-forum to make it easier to manage.

The paper’s primary author, J Phillippe Rushton, is quite well known.

The co-author has an equally colorful background; at 88, he might be forgiven. The brain does tend to shrink with age.

I’ll have to check out the paper tomorrow–along with the four responses published with it. One is supportive, the other three are critical.

by Professor J. Philippe Rushton, of the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N

Is race real? Do the races differ in behavior as well as in body? Are such views just the result of white racism? Modern science shows a three-way pattern of race differences in both physical traits and behavior. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole. Whites fall in the middle, but closer to Orientals than to Blacks…

Race differences start in the womb. Blacks are born earlier and grow quicker than Whites and Orientals. The three-way race pattern occurs in milestones such as sexual maturity, family stability, crime rates, and population growth…

Race differences exist in sexual behavior. The races differ in how often they like to have sexual intercourse. This affects rates of sexually transmitted diseases. On all the counts, Orientals are the least sexually active, Blacks the most, and Whites are in between. The races also differ in the number of twins and multiple births, in hormone levels, in sexual attitudes, and even in their sexual anatomy…

IQ tests measure intelligence and predict real life success. The races differ in brain size and on IQ tests. On average Orientals have the largest brains and highest IQs. Blacks average the lowest, and Whites fall in between. The brain size differences explain the IQ differences both within groups and between groups…

A number of studies show that race differences are caused by both genes and environment. Heritabilities, cross-race adoptions, genetic weights, and regression-to-the-average all tell the same story. Cross-race adoptions give some of the best proof that the genes cause race differences in IQ. Growing up in a middle-class White home does not lower the average IQ for Orientals nor raise it for Blacks…

The latest theory of human origins – Out-of-Africa – provides the final piece to the puzzle. It explains why r-K theory accounts for race differences in body, brain, and behavior. As races moved out of Africa they evolved away from r-type behaviors and toward K-type. Moving out of Africa meant increasing brain size and IQ, but lowering reproduction, aggression and sexual activity.

I heard it’s cause they’re just so good at it. (bolding mine)

There is no such thing as general intelligence. The person who is a whiz at math but inept with people is a stereotype. The person good with people but inept with the written word is legendary. The man of faith who cannot grasp science is common. The scientist who can’t understand sport is archetypical.

IQ tests measure nothing but the ability of a person to take an IQ test.

Although I agree with Professor Rushton on the nature of racial differences, I disagree somewhat with his explanation of why they evolved. He thinks a colder climate for those who left Africa 50,000 to 70,000 made the difference. However, agriculture and the earliest civilizations originated in the Near East, which has a fairly hot climate. Also Neanderthals lived for several hundred thousand years in Europe during several ice ages. They seem to have been significantly less intelligent than the modern humans who evolved in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

I believe a better explanation for the evolution of racial differences can be found in The 10,000 Year Explosion, which I reviewed here:

A weakness of The 10,000 Year Explosion is that it does not explain why Orientals have evolved further than white Gentiles. Agriculture and civilization began later in the Far East than in the Near East. An entire chapter is dedicated to the superior average intelligence of Ashkenazic Jews.

I attribute the greater evolution of Orientals to the Imperial Exam System that existed in China for two thousand years, and to the fact that the Far East never experienced a dark age, similar to what happened in most of Europe when the Western Roman Empire fell.

I still do not understand why the Japanese and South Koreans have higher average IQs than the Chinese.


It’s just fascinating how racial “science” always just happens to “prove” that popular prejudices & stereotypes happen to be true. Oddly enough unlike, say, medicine or physics it never seems to come up with any surprises. I wonder why…

The U.S. military has been committed to intelligence testing since the First World War. Increasingly employers are giving prospective applicants mental aptitude tests. To get my last two jobs I had to pass three tests. The growing popularity of mental aptitude testing would not be happening if the tests were not accurate predictors of performance.

That tells me enough about the authors right there.

Stereotypes are frequently, if not usually, over generalizations of what is really true. Even those who hate Jews and Orientals do not claim that they are stupid.

Racial stereotypes, and racial classifications themselves are fads. They change from place to place and time to time. You are arguing in favor of the objective reality of arbitrary stereotypes about arbitrary groups of people.

New Deal Democrat is there any new paper/study/etc you’ve came across, since your last thread, that you want to share/discuss with the SDMB? or is this thread just a regularly scheduled preaching of your misguided beliefs: “water still wet, news at 11”

Nono orcenio, it’s “water actually black, liberal conspiracy fools people into thinking it is transparent… Fox news at 11”.

@OP: Consider reading “The Mismeasure of Man” by Gould.

Indeed. Even if the studies the OP is citing are true, I’m not sure why I should care. What does he expect us to do with this information? Call for segregation? Racial extermination? Race-based sterilization? What’s the endgame?

Long, long ago, the US decided to enter WWI. The Army got the best psychologist (or whatever) to come in as a colonel to develop advanced IQ tests to ensure the new soldiers were assigned to tasks they could handle.

The tests were very scientific. They came in several languages for immigrants, and even had a version for those who were illiterate.

The Army administered the test to thousands of new recruits. The results occupied the test’s designer for years afterwards. Eventually he came to some shocking conclusions. Northern Europeans outscored Southern and Eastern Europeans by a wide margin. In fact the average intelligence of a newly-arrived Italian was something like the fifth grade level.

This caused a scandal in Congress and the public. How could people so stupid become citizens of a republic?

The test results helped drive Congress to limit the number of people allowed in from Italy and Spain and promote new arrivals from the UK and Germany.

Now we look at this wonderful test and laugh. It is culturally biased all to heck. It was administered by untrained NCOs in primitive conditions. All in all, it was crap.

But very impressive crap when printed on the letterhead of America’s best universities.

As I said, IQ tests only measure how you do on IQ tests.

When I looked at a 19th century map of the world and saw areas labeled as civilized, semi-civilized and and uncivilized I giggled a little bit. Then I noticed how closely that map resembled a modern one labeling areas as 1st world and 3rd world and I didn’t think it was as funny. The more things change…

The test
I had no idea 7-up was a card game!
Guess I’m not made out to be a dough-boy…:frowning:

I wonder if the OP can explain what an ‘Oriental’ is. I am reasonably bright, but I’m afraid I cannot.

What is a ‘Black’?

You see, if we are perhaps looking at genetics, someone just might see that there is a problem here.

It’s also worth noting that the size of someone brain is not connected to their ability to think, like any tools, its the way it is used that counts most.

The labelling of a time period as ‘The Dark ages’ is entirely arbitrary, as is the labelling of national groupings such as Huns, and Barbarians. It is arbitrary because this is only a construct for scholars who define civilisation as Greco-Roman - so of course anything that is not Greco-Roman must somehow be deficient in some way.Of course since China cannot be put into this little box, the it follows that China did not have a ‘Dark Age’

The Greco-Roman construct is something that came to us through the non-scientific education system, the same system that looks down upon scientific studies because it is ‘useful’ rather than ‘liberal’ education.

I somehow doubt the OP is going to have the intellectual ammo to deal with such arguments so there is no need to go into any great analysis - but he should know this, that I have only touched on some of the deficiencies in your posts and if you want something substantial, I can demolish you very easily.

I detect a certain number of Galtonesque flaws here, I seriously doubt the OP has a slightest clue what I mean.

Yes, even those who hate them. Not you of course, right?