# Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2012, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236 "2012-05-27T12:28:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/221 "2012-05-31T18:11:57Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The point I have made is that racial differences in IQ can evolve quickly. No, that is the point that you have completely, utterly, and totally failed to make, despite hundreds of attempts. Let’s be clear here. From a purely scientific, biological point of view, the following statements are most likely true, meaning that I think most biologists would accept them without demanding proof: -there are at least some genetic differences between racial groups, even if they are no more than those responsible for the superficial phenotypic differences. -it is likely that some of the variation in intelligence amongst human beings is at least partially genetic in nature. -the causes of the full variation in intelligence are likely to be numerous and varied, including socioeconomic variation and cultural pressures. Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that every word you have said in this thread is the gospel truth. I can’t be more generous than that. Even accepting that, what has not ever been proven - indeed, what you have completely failed to provide ANY evidence for, are these statements: -The observed differences in intelligence between racial groups are genetic in nature. That is, the influence of genetic variation overwhelms the effects of other non-genetic factors. And this, I think, is the most important one: -The genetic variation underlying the variation in intelligence levels segregates with and correlates to the genetic variation underlying phenotypic racial differences. In other words, you have in no way even tried to provide evidence that the differences you claim to see everywhere you look is genetic in nature. And even if it IS genetic, you have no evidence at ALL that those genetic differences are confined within racial lines. Now, from a scientist’s point of view, here’s what you would need to do. Start delving into any of the many published databases of genetic variation. The HapMap project would be a good place to start, as they have mapped millions of SNPs across a wide range of ethnic populations. You would need to do a genome-wide association study to identify specific genetic changes that correlate to higher or lower intelligence (we’ll ignore, for the moment, the overlooked fact that no one takes IQ tests at all seriously in the biological world). These changes are unlikely to be causative, but they would identify regions of interest within the genome that could be studied more in-depth. Once you’ve found a few dozen candidate genes that may be influencing intelligence, you’d have to investigate what those genes do, and where and when they’re expressed, hoping that they’d at least be important in the brain. Once you’ve identified specific alleles of specific genes, you’d have to then do some population genetics to show that those alleles segregate within racial lines. Until and unless that work is done (and, to be clear, I suspect it would fall apart completely somewhere along the way, showing that those associations do not exist), NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN. We don’t know anything for sure, and _you don’t either_. You can point to your little studies all you want, but none of them show anything more than correlation - and as people keep showing, the majority don’t even do that much. You cannot dissect out correlation from causation without experimental evidence that simply does not exist. ---
**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:** [May 31, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/222 "2012-05-31T18:35:50Z")
Great to have a working biologist here, thanks **Smeghead**. What is really sad is that many of the “examples” NDD is referring are applicable to health matters, not intelligence; on top of that many of the researchers NDD uses as cites already explained, many times even in the cites themselves, how their research should not be used for societal problems. And virtually all do not support the recommend “solutions” that some like NDD think that they are getting when they misrepresent that research. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/223 "2012-05-31T18:55:19Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > No, that is the point that you have completely, utterly, and totally failed to make, despite hundreds of attempts. […] Will you marry me ? If not, will this most beautiful of verbal smackdowns marry me ? ---
**Author:** ![Rhaegar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Rhaegar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhaegar)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/224 "2012-05-31T19:07:50Z")
Seriously? In the first place, the IQ test in general is probably not a very good test for assessing intelligence as it can be affected by education level, language barriers, environment, etc. Any study which bases its conclusions on IQ testing must be taken with a grain of salt. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/225 "2012-05-31T19:15:34Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Two thousand years ago Jews did not give evidence of superior intelligence. Two thousand years ago, the observations of the planets did not give evidence that proved that heliocentrism was more correct than geocentrism. In any case, your posts on this thread are Exhibit A in rebuttal to the proposition that belief necessarily implies fact. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/226 "2012-05-31T19:18:25Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The Jōmon period lasted from about 14,000 until 300 BC. The first signs of civilization and stable living patterns appeared around 14,000 BC with the Jōmon culture, characterized by a Mesolithic to Neolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer lifestyle of wood stilt house and pit dwellings and a rudimentary form of agriculture. > [History of Japan - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan#Ancient_Japan) > > The author uses the word “civilization” differently than I do Evidently so, given that the author’s statements directly undercut your claim: > [@](#): > > The first signs of civilization and stable living patterns appeared around 14,000 BC with the Jōmon culture, characterized by a Mesolithic to Neolithic semi-sedentary **hunter-gatherer lifestyle** of wood stilt house and pit dwellings and **a rudimentary form of** agriculture. We’re talking about people who, until relatively recently, were primarily hunter-gatherers – the sort of people your thesis predicts would be mired in stupidity for lack of proper evolutionary driving forces. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/227 "2012-05-31T19:23:18Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > It is not unusual for a theory not to explain all of the relevant facts. It is, hoever, unusual for a theory with pretensions of intellectual seriousness to have no answer for a obvious and fatally undercutting observation. > [@](#): > > A possible explanation for higher average IQs in Japan and South Korea than in Europe is that most of Europe entered a dark age after the fall of the Roman Empire, while Japan and South Korea did not. You’re now claiming that a mere five centuries is sufficient for your alleged genetic effects (or the pizza’s free!). > [@](#): > > Another explanation is that in Roman Catholic countries the priesthood was a means of upward social mobility for peasant boys. However, they were forbidden to have children. Five centuries _and_ an effect applicable to only a minority of the populaton. Hokay… ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/228 "2012-05-31T19:31:11Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The point I have made is that racial differences in IQ can evolve quickly. Oh, and I forgot to mention that once again, you have totally failed to respond to any of the criticisms I made back in post #189. This is a classic tactic of the pseudoscientist: always remain on the offensive. When someone shows that you are wrong about something, do not respond. Simply ignore it and move on to a different argument. Keep throwing out different fallacious arguments, forcing your opponents to respond to point after point after point, while you blissfully rise above it all, not allowing any of their “logic” or “facts” to penetrate. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/229 "2012-05-31T19:38:47Z")
Also known as a Gish Gallop. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/230 "2012-05-31T19:57:42Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/231 "2012-05-31T20:33:34Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > [http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm](http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm) You’ve linked to this page at least twice in this thread. Do you have any other cites that corroborate this evidence? Forgetting for the moment about how well IQ tests measure intelligence in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/232 "2012-05-31T20:42:38Z")
> [@Rhaegar](#): > > Seriously? In the first place, the IQ test in general is probably not a very good test for assessing intelligence as it can be affected by education level, language barriers, environment, etc. Any study which bases its conclusions on IQ testing must be taken with a grain of salt. This is not an accurate statement. It appears to be based on a dramatic misunderstanding of the meaning and measurement of IQ. If it were true, everyone would have a low IQ in Kindergarten and dramatically higher IQs after finishing high school or college. This isn’t the case. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/233 "2012-05-31T20:46:35Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The average IQ is Germany is 102. > > [http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm](http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm) > > This is still lower than the 112 average for the Ashkenazim. Since the measurement of IQ relies on reference to norms, this makes no sense. Can you point me to the source for the transnational cross cultural norms by which I might convert raw scores to world-referenced scaled scores? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/234 "2012-05-31T21:13:48Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Even if that were true, which I highly doubt, that would only make the ethnic Chinese smarter. Although probably only the Mandchus, since they were the ruling class - the majority of Chinese were still lowly peasants even at the heights of Celestial Bureaucracy. > But you assert that ALL “Orientals” are smarter. Wait, no, only those with epicanthic folds for some reason - did they select for that in the exams back at the Jade Palace, too ? In any event, you can’t point to social policies in China as a background reason for this supposedly pan-Asian genetic trait. The imperial exam and confucian ideals were shared by South Korea, Japan and Vietnam. These are also the only cultures taht historically used chopsticks. > [@MrDibble](#): > > The Imperial Exam system had fuck-all to do with IQ as measured in IQ tests - and little to do with any functional intelligence except in so far as memory is a component of intelligence. I think you underestimate the sophistication of the imperial exams. They were more than rote memorization. > [@Ludovic](#): > > Yeah it’s not like everyone in the Far East was given the Imperial Exam, and those that didn’t pass were sterilized. If that were the case, then I would expect Imperial Exam-taking to be genetically improved over 80 generation. Not necessarily general intelligence, mind you. Just the sort of intelligence that will let you pass an Imperial Exam (which was IIRC mostly rote memorization with only a modicum of creativity and analysis.) I’m TELLING you its the chopsticks. Using chopsticks improves your smart gene so your kids will be smart. Thats why Asian-American kids who can’t use chopsticks still do well on the SATs. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Still haven’t addressed the problem of how you get from Chinese-specific social policies to pan-Asian genetic traits. It seems like an important gap. The Imperial exam was mimicked in South Korea, Japan and Vietnam. But that was secondary to chopsticks. Chopstick use is obviously the most important factor in improving IQ, most Ashkenazi Jews I know use chopsticks. > [@MrDibble](#): > > …and theirs was superior to every other contemporaneous culture’s philosophy and art…how, exactly? Certainly wasn’t superior to the Indian, or they wouldn’t have adopted Buddhism overwhelmingly over their local religions. Well, India doesn’t make many Buddhists anymore just like Cupertino California doesn’t make many iPhones anymore. > [@Fuji](#): > > And yet the Germans, who were winning a third of all Nobel prizes in the first couple decades of the 20th century, were as recently as [Julius Caesar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples#Economy), a predominantly pastoralist, semi-nomadic people: So when they got rid of all the Jews, did that improve or diminish their average IQ? Maybe they all took the impreial exam. > [@Kobal2](#): > > There’s nothing obvious about it at all. The whole system was notoriously corrupt, for one thing. And since Imperial China was very much a caste society, and an ethnically discriminating one at that, it’s sort of a given that the poor and the undercastes had fewer chances to get a pass than the sons of bureaucrats - or the sons of friends of the examinator. For a time, horseriding was an element of the impreial exam (the purpose was to limit the imperial exam to classes that could ride horses (peasants could not), the pretext was that government officials would have to be able to travel quickly and lead local military). It wasn’t always the meritocracy that we might have hoped. Oh yeah and test preparation was not only more necessary for the imperial exam than any modern day exam it was financially beyond the reach of all but the very rich. Less propserous mandarins taughts their children themselves. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The point I have made is that racial differences in IQ can evolve quickly. Maybe we can administer the imperial exam to blacks. that’ll make em smart (I still think that you’d get better results if you forced them to eat with chopsticks). > [@Smeghead](#): > > No, that is the point that you have completely, utterly, and totally failed to make, despite hundreds of attempts. > > Let’s be clear here. From a purely scientific, biological point of view, the following statements are most likely true, meaning that I think most biologists would accept them without demanding proof: > -there are at least some genetic differences between racial groups, even if they are no more than those responsible for the superficial phenotypic differences. > -it is likely that some of the variation in intelligence amongst human beings is at least partially genetic in nature. > -the causes of the full variation in intelligence are likely to be numerous and varied, including socioeconomic variation and cultural pressures. > > Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that every word you have said in this thread is the gospel truth. I can’t be more generous than that. Even accepting that, what has not ever been proven - indeed, what you have completely failed to provide ANY evidence for, are these statements: > -The observed differences in intelligence between racial groups are genetic in nature. That is, the influence of genetic variation overwhelms the effects of other non-genetic factors. > And this, I think, is the most important one: > -The genetic variation underlying the variation in intelligence levels segregates with and correlates to the genetic variation underlying phenotypic racial differences. > > In other words, you have in no way even tried to provide evidence that the differences you claim to see everywhere you look is genetic in nature. And even if it IS genetic, you have no evidence at ALL that those genetic differences are confined within racial lines. > > Now, from a scientist’s point of view, here’s what you would need to do. Start delving into any of the many published databases of genetic variation. The HapMap project would be a good place to start, as they have mapped millions of SNPs across a wide range of ethnic populations. You would need to do a genome-wide association study to identify specific genetic changes that correlate to higher or lower intelligence (we’ll ignore, for the moment, the overlooked fact that no one takes IQ tests at all seriously in the biological world). These changes are unlikely to be causative, but they would identify regions of interest within the genome that could be studied more in-depth. > > Once you’ve found a few dozen candidate genes that may be influencing intelligence, you’d have to investigate what those genes do, and where and when they’re expressed, hoping that they’d at least be important in the brain. Once you’ve identified specific alleles of specific genes, you’d have to then do some population genetics to show that those alleles segregate within racial lines. > > Until and unless that work is done (and, to be clear, I suspect it would fall apart completely somewhere along the way, showing that those associations do not exist), NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN. We don’t know anything for sure, and _you don’t either_. You can point to your little studies all you want, but none of them show anything more than correlation - and as people keep showing, the majority don’t even do that much. You cannot dissect out correlation from causation without experimental evidence that simply does not exist. You would do well on the Imperial Exam. You can have many wives. Can you use chopsticks? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/235 "2012-05-31T21:19:40Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > No, that is the point that you have completely, utterly, and totally failed to make, despite hundreds of attempts. I have not made hundreds of attempts. What I have pointed out is that during the Roman Empire Jews were not considered to be of superior intelligence, but now the Ashkenazim very clearly are. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/236 "2012-05-31T21:23:36Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > In order: > > Animal breeders are working with population sizes that are many orders of magnitude smaller than the human population of China at the time. Small population size = much faster rate of evolution. Artificial breeders are also able to impose selective pressure on their animals that is vastly stronger than anything found in natural selection. You are simply wrong. In a large population there are more mutations, consequently there are more beneficial mutations. These spread to more organisms. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/237 "2012-05-31T21:25:22Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Jews’ IQ: as the entire topic of debate here is whether or not there is a genetic basis to IQ, this cannot be used as supporting evidence, as it has not been shown to be the case. Are you arguing that the average IQ for an Ashkenazi Jew is not 112? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/238 "2012-05-31T21:29:25Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Blue eyes: even if we accept your numbers as true, which we will because I don’t care enough to research it, ten thousand years is a LOT different from two thousand years. > > . Blue eyes are caused by one allele. This one allele spread through Europe and parts of northern Africa and the Near East in about six thousand years. High and low intelligence is caused by many alleles. If one favorable allele can spread so quickly, the many alleles that make up superior can collectively spread much faster. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/239 "2012-05-31T21:32:25Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The Jōmon period lasted from about 14,000 until 300 BC. The first signs of civilization and stable living patterns appeared around 14,000 BC with the Jōmon culture, characterized by a Mesolithic to Neolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer lifestyle of wood stilt house and pit dwellings and a rudimentary form of agriculture. > [History of Japan - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan#Ancient_Japan) > > The author uses the word “civilization” differently than I do, but it is clear that agriculture is much older in Japan than in sub Saharan Africa. The Jōmon were not ethnically the same as modern Japanese. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/240 "2012-05-31T21:46:44Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > My explanation for the superior intelligence of the Chinese is the imperial exam system. That’s practically Lamarckian, that is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=13)