# 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:** 15
**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:** [June 1, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/281 "2012-06-01T20:34:02Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > What percentage of the population was taking the exam? How many more children did they have than average? The exam was taken by more people than you might think. The Imperial exam wasn’t just for governors and high ranking imperial court positions. At times it was also for military commissions and civil service positions. It’s cultural effect is probably more important than any gene selection effect it had, but there was probably at least some selection effect. Malcolm McDowell attributes it to the intellectual demands of rice farming. I think my theory on chopsticks is every bit as robust as the imperial exam or rice farming theories in explaining the “oriental” IQ advantage, I’ve heard theories on the development of music and intelligence in different societies. > [@](#): > > Poor spacial memory and lack of planning does not stop the average human in an agricultural society from reproducing, but would in a H/G one. Fun fact: There are some areas of IQ tests that sub-saharan Africans outperform their white counterparts, I think spatial memory was one of them. > [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > Profitable conclusions? Every time I have heard this line of reasoning, the conclusion they are trying to reach is “and THATS why we should get rid of affirmative action” > [@Strassia](#): > > So? What does that have to do with how many people took the imperial exam in medieval China? Your argument is that the fact that the social success of a very small minority of Han Chinese over the last 1000-2000 years somehow translates into increased intelligence for all “oriental” (or perhaps just the Chinese). At times, the test was pretty widely subscribed. > [@](#): > > The problem is for this to be the case you need to show that those that did well on the exam had higher than normal IQs, that they had greater reproductive success, and that those genes spread throughout the population. Despite widelty held beliefs, these tests were much more than exercises in rote memorization (although a great memory was a prerequisite as it is in most study). There was frequently a lot of cultural bias in these exams that favored the children of privelege but it was fairly g loaded for the time. > [@](#): > > a)Living better lives does not necessary improve reproductive fitness. Some of those government officials you talk about were required to be eunuchs, others were celibate, and others had high (lethal) turn over rates. Yeah, but I bet they had more suriviving children than most folks. > [@](#): > > b)The percentage of merchants, financiers, government officials, artists and so on was so low for most of that period that there is no way they could have exerted that much pressure. If high IQ was completely useless to 98% of the population, then it is not really something that you expect to be selected. I think it was probably taken by a lot more than 2% of the population (the passage rate was probably less tahn 2%) but the number was still pretty small. Still, if you see that the ONLY reliable path to socioeconomic mobility was through these tests and every province had examples of poor peasants who achieved great success and political power through the exam, it probably makes intelligence an attractive trait in a mate. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Of course, the fact that wealth with its attendant better health and living conditions is a pretty good predictor of falling birth rates does call into question that untested hypothesis. Back then, I think wealth probably meant lower child mortality rates rather than lower birth rates, or do you think that smart people have smaller penii, its not like they had the pill back then. > [@Kobal2](#): > > BTW, because I missed your post earlier: thanks, **Damuri Ashaji** , for your precisions and clarifications re: the Imperial exam. Fascinating stuff - I should really get to know Chinese history better. Would you have any recommendations for accessible books on the subject ? You could start with the wiki on “imperial exam” but it is pretty short considering the huge impact it had on Chinese civilization. The problem with discussing the imperial exam is that over almost 2000 years it has has changed and then changed back umpteen times. Sometimes is was merely a veneer of meritocracy to add legitimacy to what was in essence European style feudalism, at other times it was a real meritocracy that sought to harvest the most capable talents from throughout the empire and at other times it was cash and carry, you could effectively bribe your way to a better score and could bribe your way from the local exam which would qualify you for higher level exams all the way to a ministerial position if your family had enough money. But, when it was truly meritocratic, great pains were taken to maintain the integrity of the exam and the anonymity of the test taker. Pains were taken to try and minimize the advantages of wealth, power and position (you still needed to be wealthy enough that you could afford to support a son that studied all day rather than work in the field). There were several levels of exam. Sometimes there would be local exams (sometimes the local magistrate recommended people to the district level exams) to determine who would go to district which in turn would determine who could take the provincial level until you finally got to the capital and took the exam in the courtyard of the palace. Passage rate at the district level was probably close to 1 or 2%. Passing the exam at that level made usually you eligible for some government positions (and sometimes made you eligible for a lifetime pension), but the vast majority of folks that passed the district level exam did not secure a government position. Passing the provincial level exam probably got you a government position but the compeititon was stiff. You were frequently an old man before you passed that test. Passing the capital test was a big fucking deal and secured your family’s position for two or three generations. Folklore is full of stories about itinerant scholars who passed the exam at the district level and went around doing very virtuous things (sometimes they were real horndogs). A lot of Asian families claim descent from a long line of successful imperial exam candidates. Its probably not true but after a couple of world wars and cultural revolutions, you can’t really prove otherwise. This examination culture persists today in China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/282 "2012-06-01T20:43:03Z")
> [@Ramanujan](#): > > [this is demonstrably false](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox). the more success people have, the fewer children they tend to have (disregarding a terribly small amount of, say, royals). I don’t think that became true until much later in history. Birth control was usually limited to the rythm method and abortifacients. I would guess taht the fertility rate was probably not that different across the spectrum and that welathier folks had lower miscarriage rates and lower child mortality rates resulting in higher number of children surviving to adulthood. that’s just a guess but your link doesn’t seem to be particularly relevant to discussions about reproduction rates before modern history. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/283 "2012-06-01T21:06:41Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Also, we’re having a baby tomorrow, so I’m going to have more important stuff to do for a while than come bang my head against the brick wall of racist ignorance. Just FTR, I’ve found your posts in this thread enlightening, so thanks for posting them. Congratulations on your baby. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/284 "2012-06-01T21:28:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You could start with the wiki on “imperial exam” but it is pretty short considering the huge impact it had on Chinese civilization. The problem with discussing the imperial exam is that over almost 2000 years it has has changed and then changed back umpteen times. Yes, I realized that much - I meant books on the subject of Chinese history :o. Sorry for the confusion, my phrasing wasn’t clear. Thanks for the further elucidating on the exam all the same ! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/285 "2012-06-01T21:44:01Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > If I am mistaken in my assertion that a large gene pool evolves faster than a small gene pool, why have animals in isolated areas of the world like Australia evolved less rapidly than in places like Asia? Actually, rapid evolution tends to occur more frequently in isolated locations. When the pool is larger, individual mutations are more likely to be overwhelmed by the larger pool and individual changes are less likely to confer relative advantage. (Thus the reference to the Galapagos: the finches that arrived there were isolates from the Americas. In the more restricted environment, a small change could provide a significant change in the ability to survive, resulting in the greater survival of specific mutations, leading to greater speciation. On the other hand, birds back on the mainland that underwent morphological changes would have continued to interbreed with the rest of the population, causing their individual changes to be re-absorbed into the general population and lost. In the same way, your purported Manchu superiority would never have spread to the general population, (particularly to Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Burma–that you still avoid discussing–and Mongolia). Either the increasingly intelligent population would have become increasingly inbred, finally separating from the general population entirely, or those with superior intelligence would have interbred with the surrounding population to the extent that their traits would have simply been re-absorbed and lost. As to your claim that the reverse is true, I doubt that it has ever happened and I have certainly never seen any claim that it was true in Australia. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/286 "2012-06-02T05:31:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think my theory on chopsticks is every bit as robust as the imperial exam or rice farming theories in explaining the “oriental” IQ advantage, I’ve heard theories on the development of music and intelligence in different societies. Music? Traditional Chinese music is exquisite – but it was still always crap compared to the crudest of Western tonal music, even in the Middle Ages. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/287 "2012-06-02T09:47:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, rapid evolution tends to occur more frequently in isolated locations. When the pool is larger, individual mutations are more likely to be overwhelmed by the larger pool and individual changes are less likely to confer relative advantage. The reason this is not true is that favorable mutations spread, while unfavorable mutations die out. A large gene pool will have more favorable mutations. These will spread, giving their possessors’ greater ability to survive and reproduce. This assumes that other conditions are equal. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/288 "2012-06-02T09:59:08Z")
Beneficial genes do not get absorbed or overwhelmed in a large gene pool; they spread because they give those who have them survival value. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/289 "2012-06-02T10:19:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Um, excuse me ? You are very much mistaken, sir. Do you see any Nazis around ? I am not in Illinois 🙂 > [@](#): > > There you go. Clearly the Jew gene is more evolved than the Nazi one. I did say “were” - for a while there, Jews were pretty extinct in Western Europe. They came back, of course. Maybe the marsupials are just biding their time…koalas always looked like they were up to something. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/290 "2012-06-02T10:21:47Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Also, we’re having a baby tomorrow Good luck! We had a new daughter 3 weeks ago. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/291 "2012-06-02T10:40:36Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I did say “were” - for a while there, Jews were pretty extinct in Western Europe. They came back, of course. _loss for words_ _bright idea !_ Do you see any any Nazis around ? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/292 "2012-06-02T14:42:09Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The reason this is not true is that favorable mutations spread, while unfavorable mutations die out. A large gene pool will have more favorable mutations. These will spread, giving their possessors’ greater ability to survive and reproduce. > > This assumes that other conditions are equal. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Beneficial genes do not get absorbed or overwhelmed in a large gene pool; they spread because they give those who have them survival value. You are wrong. I can’t say any more than that. You’re completely, totally, utterly wrong. Any actual biologist would see this and burst out laughing. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You should stop acting like you do, because you’re embarrassing yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/293 "2012-06-02T15:44:29Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Good luck! We had a new daughter 3 weeks ago. “Had”? ☹ Be more careful next time, then! ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/294 "2012-06-02T15:49:48Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Yes, I realized that much - I meant books on the subject of Chinese history :o. Sorry for the confusion, my phrasing wasn’t clear. > > Thanks for the further elucidating on the exam all the same ! NP, almost everything I know on the subject is hearsay, I never studied the subject. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Music? Traditional Chinese music is exquisite – but it was still always crap compared to the crudest of Western tonal music, even in the Middle Ages. So you think the chopstick theory is better too? 😃 > [@MrDibble](#): > > Good luck! We had a new daughter 3 weeks ago. Congo Rats to both of you. ---
**Author:** ![zagloba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/977dab/32.png) [@zagloba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zagloba)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/295 "2012-06-02T15:58:07Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > You are wrong. I can’t say any more than that. You’re completely, totally, utterly wrong. Any actual biologist would see this and burst out laughing. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You should stop acting like you do, because you’re embarrassing yourself. Hell, I’ve only got a certificate in bioinformatics and I’m quite amused. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/296 "2012-06-02T16:49:41Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > You are wrong. I can’t say any more than that. You’re completely, totally, utterly wrong. Any actual biologist would see this and burst out laughing. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You should stop acting like you do, because you’re embarrassing yourself. You do not strengthen a weak argument by yelling it louder. It should be obvious that in a large gene pool there will be more beneficial mutations than in a small gene pool. Because harmful mutations are bred out of the gene pool, while beneficial mutations spread, a large gene pool evolves faster than a small gene pool, other things being equal. The out of Africa theory of human evolution is substantiated by fossil and DNA evidence. According to it modern humans evolved in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Neanderthals existed out of Africa, but they did not evolve as fast because there were fewer of them. Then from 50,000 to 70,000 one hundred to several hundred modern humans left Africa. Initially there was a smaller gene pool of them than those who remained in Africa. However, whites and Orientals began agriculture 10,000 to 8,000 years ago respectively. They began civilization 5,000 to 4,000 years ago, while humans in Africa remained paleolithic. Because agriculture and civilization exert different population pressures than hunting and gathering whites and Orientals began to evolve faster than Negroes in Africa. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/297 "2012-06-02T16:59:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > In the same way, your purported Manchu superiority would never have spread to the general population, (particularly to Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Burma–that you still avoid discussing–and Mongolia). I have explained the superior average intelligence of Koreans and Japanese by the absence of a dark age there similar to what happened in the West after the fall of the Roman Empire, and to the absence of a priesthood that for many hundreds of years attracted talented poor boys in Europe and forbade them to have children. Now if you look at this chart of IQs you see that Hong Kong tops the list. Taiwan, Singapore, and China exceed the U.S., although China average lower than Hong Kong and Singapore with their large Chines populations, Korea, and Japan. [http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm](http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm) I am confident that as the standard of living and quality of education improve in China the average IQ there will improve also. Standard of living and quality of education are not irrelevant to IQ scores, but biology is clearly more important. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/298 "2012-06-02T17:04:29Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think that became true until much later in history. Birth control was usually limited to the rythm method and abortifacients. I would guess taht the fertility rate was probably not that different across the spectrum and that welathier folks had lower miscarriage rates and lower child mortality rates resulting in higher number of children surviving to adulthood. > > that’s just a guess but your link doesn’t seem to be particularly relevant to discussions about reproduction rates before modern history. The authors of The 10,000 Explosion refer to a study that indicates that for hundreds of years the upper class in England was more prolific than the serf and peasant classes, which on the average produced fewer than two children who survived and reproduced. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/299 "2012-06-02T17:09:17Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > I have decided that it is completely pointless to continue to attempt to engage with you. I may continue to correct your egregiously incorrect representations of biological science for the sake of anyone more impressionable who may be reading, but as far as argument is concerned, I wash my hands of you. You may continue to wallow in your own ignorance without molestation from me. It looks like you continue to molest: > [@Smeghead](#): > > It just occurred to me that if I were to answer Black, it might make NDD’s head explode. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/300 "2012-06-02T17:23:58Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > It should be obvious that in a large gene pool there will be more beneficial mutations than in a small gene pool. Because harmful mutations are bred out of the gene pool, while beneficial mutations spread, a large gene pool evolves faster than a small gene pool, other things being equal. Considering that “blacks” (sub-Saharan Africans) have a far larger gene pool than the rest of humanity combined, does this mean that they have “evolved faster”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=16)