# 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:** 23
**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 6, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/441 "2012-06-06T20:06:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You failed to answer these questions (except for the first) for No Child Left Behind. Did minority students have equal access to it? What data do you have to support this? > > I’m not going to go further into this, because it’s absurd that a single, controversial political program (that many think is a complete failure) could demonstrate anything as complicated as genetic correlation between race (which you’ve failed to define, due to greater genetic diversity in Africa) and intelligence. No Child Left Behind was initially popular. It only became controversial when it was obvious that it was failing. It was failing because the goals were impossible. Among the goals were that every student become “proficient.” Somewhere I read that proficiency meant that every student would become a B average student. Without grade inflation that cannot be achieved. Another goal was that every student would graduate from high school. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/442 "2012-06-06T21:39:29Z")
No Child Left Behind was generally assinine, I give you that. Using its failures as evidence for your thesis is…is…I lack the vocabulary. I guess I’ll have to settle for ‘stupid’. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/443 "2012-06-06T23:33:23Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > No Child Left Behind was initially popular. It only became controversial when it was obvious that it was failing. This is nonsense. Educators have been decrying the idiocy of the law since it was enacted. True, folks outside of the profession only realized how ridiculous it was a few years after educators (and after statisticians, of course), but to say it only became controversial later is a misreading of history. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/444 "2012-06-06T23:34:30Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This is nonsense. Educators have been decrying the idiocy of the law since it was enacted. True, folks outside of the profession only realized how ridiculous it was a few years after educators (and after statisticians, of course), but to say it only became controversial later is a misreading of history. How would educators have written it? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/445 "2012-06-07T15:14:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How would educators have written it? There’s not one answer to that question, unfortunately. If I were writing it, however, I’d look very hard for some way to put parents on the hook for their children’s education. I’m not sure how to do that without leading to ways to game the system, but IME the primary difference between a child who thrives in school and a child who flounders is whether I have a working phone number for the parent [to put it in only slightly oversimplified terms]. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/446 "2012-06-08T04:31:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And they generally had fewer children. You’re just making all this up- there’s no data that supports the contention that the most successful in medieval Chinese society had more descendants than the “peasants”. Read earlier in the thread for more discussion on this. As Hsu [reports](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2011/08/demography-and-fast-evolution.html): > [@](#): > > The excerpt below is from a review of Greg Clark’s book. The review is mostly negative about Clark’s big picture conclusions, but does provide some interesting historical information. Note, the reviewer does not seem to understand population genetics (see discussion further below). > > \*The comparison of Beijing nobility and Liaoning peasants is drawn from Lee and Wang’s (1999) survey of Chinese demography, which, in turn, is based on a very detailed investigation of population in Liaoning by Lee and Campbell (1997). In Liaoning, all men had military obligations and were enumerated in the so-called banner roles, which described their families in detail. Individuals’ occupations were also noted, so that fertility can be compared across occupational groups. High status, high income occupations had the most surviving sons: for instance, soldiers aged 46–50 had on average 2.57 surviving sons, artisans had 2.42 sons, and officials had 2.17 sons. In contrast, men aged 46–50 who were commoners had only 1.55 sons on average. \*The references cited are > > Lee, James Z., and Cameron D. Campbell. 1997. Fate and Fortune in Rural China: Social Organization and Population Behavior in Liaoning 1774–1873. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. > > Lee, James Z., and Feng Wang. 1999. One Quarter of Humanity: Malthusian Mythology and Chinese Realities, 1700–2000. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. > > So we have at least two documented cases of the descendants of the rich replacing the poor over an extended period of time. My guess is that this kind of population dynamics was quite common in the past. (Today we see the opposite pattern!) Could this type of natural selection lead to changes in quantitative, heritable traits over a relatively short period of time? > > Consider the following simple model, where X is a heritable trait such as intelligence or conscientiousness or even height. Suppose that X has narrow sense heritability of one half. Divide the population into 3 groups: > > Group 1 bottom 1/6 in X; \< 1 SD below average > Group 2 middle 2/3 in X; between -1 and +1 SD > Group 3 highest 1/6 in X; \> 1 SD above average > > Suppose that Group 3 has a reproductive rate which is 10% higher than Group 2, whereas Group 1 reproduces at a 10% lower rate than Group 2. A relatively weak correlation between X and material wealth could produce this effect, given the demographic data above (the rich outreproduced the poor almost 2 to 1!). Now we can calculate the change in population mean for X over a single generation. In units of SDs, the mean changes by roughly 1/6 ( .1 + .1) 1/2 or about .02 SD. (I assumed assortative mating by group.) Thus it would take roughly 50 generations, or 1k years, under such conditions for the population to experience a 1 SD shift in X. > > If you weaken the correlation between X and reproduction rate, or relax the assortative mating assumption, you get a longer timescale. But it’s certainly plausible that 10,000 years is more than enough for this kind of evolution. For example, we might expect that the advent of agriculture over such timescales changed humans significantly from their previous hunter gatherer ancestors. > > This model is overly simple, and the assumptions are speculative. Nevertheless, it addresses some deep questions about human evolution: How fast did it happen? How different are we from humans who lived a few or ten thousand years ago? Did different populations experience different selection pressures? Amazingly, we may be able to answer some of these questions in the near future. Also, see Ron Unz [recent comments](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2011/02/sociobiological-implications-of.html) regarding his ‘Preliminary notes on the possible sociobiological implications of the rural Chinese economy’: > [@](#): > > (B) The idea is a very simple one, and I’d actually gotten it a couple of years earlier when I was taking a seminar on the rural Chinese political economy back at UCLA. Chinese society had several fairly unique characteristics which together probably caused the evolution of high Chinese intelligence. > > (1) For many centuries and to some extent for a couple of millenia, Chinese peasants lived close to their Malthusian limits. The orderly, stable, and advanced nature of Chinese society meant that food supply and poverty were usually the limiting factor on population, rather than wars, general violence, or plagues. > > (2) Chinese rural life was remarkably sophisticated in its financial and business arrangements, vastly more complex and legalistic than anything you would find among European peasants let alone those in Africa or elsewhere. Hence there was obviously huge selective pressure for those able to prosper under a system of such (relative) financial complexity. > > (3) Virtually all Chinese were on an equal legal footing, with none of the feudal or caste legal districtions you would find in Europe or India. Successful poor peasants who acquired wealth became the complete social equals of rich peasants or landlords. Rich peasants or landlords who lost their wealth became no different from all other poor peasants. > > (4) In each generation only the relatively affluent could afford to marry, e.g. have parents wealthy enough to afford to buy them wives. The poor couldn’t obtain wives for their children, hence didn’t have grandchildren. > > (5) The unique Chinese custom of “fenjia” meant that land, i.e. wealth, was equally divided among all sons. Since the wealthy tended to have several surviving children, those children automatically started life much poorer than their parents, and needed to reacquire wealth through their own ability. Because of this system, rural Chinese society exhibited an absolutely massive and continual degree of downward social mobility, perhaps unprecedented in human history. Each generation, a good fraction of the poor disappeared from the gene-pool, while the wealthy generally became poor. The richest slice of the population could afford multiple wives and numerous children, but due to fenjia this just tended to impoverish their families to a compensating extent. > > (6) The smartest children of the wealthy often received specialized education in hopes they might pass imperial exams and thereby join the “gentry,” which might greatly increase the future economic prospects for themselves and their close relatives. So there was indeed some “pull at the top” but I think the genetic impact was pretty small compared to the “push from the bottom.” > > (7) Overall, the model is pretty similar I think to what that Clark fellow wrote about England. However, I think the degree of genetic pressure in each generation was enormously greater, fenjia caused automatic downward mobility each generation, and I think the system remained in place for several times longer than the few centuries Clark claims for England. So you’d expect the results to be much greater. > > (8) One very important difference with the Cochran-Harpending model for the Ashk Jews of Eastern Europe is that the selective pressure was multifaceted. Ashk Jews merely needed to be smart and make money in order to become selectively advantaged. However, the selective pressure on Chinese peasants pushed in lots of different directions simultaneously. Peasants needed to be smart and have good business-sense, but they were also being selected on the basis of physical endurance, robustness, diligence, discipline, energy-consumption, and lots of other things. So selection for intelligence couldn’t come too much at the expense of other vital traits, hence took place much more slowly. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/447 "2012-06-08T13:57:48Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Read earlier in the thread for more discussion on this. As Hsu [reports](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2011/08/demography-and-fast-evolution.html): None of which actually proves any sort of point. 1. **NDD** was positing broad scale changes over the course of a few hundred years, rather than 10000. 2. Number of sons is nice and all and it’s certainly _correlated_ with how genes spread, but it doesn’t show that such genes actually did spread. Nor that if there were any “intelligence” genes, that those were selected for once they were dispersed in the population. 3. The article itself shows the results for a current sub-population (not even the general Chinese population) and runs a model assuming those numbers hold across a broad society and back thousands of years in time. 4. As the Hsu himself noted, “the model is overly simple, and the assumptions are speculative”. ---
**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 8, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/448 "2012-06-08T14:38:07Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > 1. As the Hsu himself noted, “the model is overly simple, and the assumptions are speculative”. That does not mean that the central argument is invalid. Because genes matter it is important to figure out what kind of people tend to have the largest number of children who survive and reproduce. Hsu’s articles were convincing in explaining how for many centuries those with more intelligence in China tended to be more prolific. Those who dislike a theory will scrutinize it for any discrepancy, and use the discrepancy to reject the whole theory. One needs to be willing to look at the big picture. ---
**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 8, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/449 "2012-06-08T14:39:56Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > None of which actually proves any sort of point. > > 1. **NDD** was positing broad scale changes over the course of a few hundred years, rather than 10000. I explained that the imperial exam system, to which I credit the higher average IQs of Chinese, lasted for two thousand years. ---
**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 8, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/450 "2012-06-08T14:42:30Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > 1. Number of sons is nice and all and it’s certainly _correlated_ with how genes spread, but it doesn’t show that such genes actually did spread. Nor that if there were any “intelligence” genes, that those were selected for once they were dispersed in the population. Beneficial genes do not get dispersed and absorbed. They spread because they enhance the ability of those who possess them to survive and reproduce children who in turn survive and reproduce. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/451 "2012-06-08T14:56:12Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Beneficial genes do not get dispersed and absorbed. They spread because they enhance the ability of those who possess them to survive and reproduce children who in turn survive and reproduce. [We have already noted how this claim is simply false](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15126485#post15126485) in very large populations with regression to the mean. Your ability to repeat claims that have been debunked while ignoring the evidence against such claims in the hope that the rest of us will accept them on the second or third (or tenth) pass is still utterly unpersuasive. ---
**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 8, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/452 "2012-06-08T14:56:27Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I explained that the imperial exam system, to which I credit the higher average IQs of Chinese, lasted for two thousand years. Oh, go smoke a stick of dynamite, why don’t you. At this point, you’re not just a tiresome idiot, you are in fact a liar. You’ve already been told a dozen times: - the exam did not last 2.000 years, it was in use for a little over 1.300 at best - it wasn’t always a test of “smarts”, and at times was severely crooked - it cannot explain the higher average IQ of Chinese, because it wasn’t a selective eugenics breeding program. Not even close to one. These are ground facts. Not emotional appeals, not complicated science you can’t understand because you lack the scholarly background, not preferences. Facts. Historical facts you can look up _any fuck where_. And yet you keep reiterating those lies of yours. You’re not fooling anyone, liar. ---
**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 8, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/453 "2012-06-08T14:56:32Z")
> [@Who\_me\_1](#): > > I’m sorry, I just can’t take seriously anyone who insists on calling Asians Orientals… On several occasions I have explained why I use the term “Oriental.” “Asians” can refer to Caucasians like Arabs, or east Indians. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/454 "2012-06-08T14:59:34Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Oh, go smoke a stick of dynamite, why don’t you. At this point, you’re not just a tiresome idiot, you are in fact a liar. > . . . > And yet you keep reiterating those lies of yours. You’re not fooling anyone, liar. I don’t care how frustrated you are, direct insults, wishing death on another poster, and direct accusations of lying are all prohibited in this forum. This is a Warning to refrain from such actions. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/455 "2012-06-08T15:03:01Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Beneficial genes do not get dispersed and absorbed. They spread because they enhance the ability of those who possess them to survive and reproduce children who in turn survive and reproduce. Having recently attended my 20 year reunion I can assure you that IQ is in no way correlated with successful reproduction rates in white Americans. ---
**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 8, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/456 "2012-06-08T15:03:19Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Oh, go smoke a stick of dynamite, why don’t you. At this point, you’re not just a tiresome idiot, you are in fact a liar. > > You’ve already been told a dozen times: > > - the exam did not last 2.000 years, it was in use for a little over 1.300 at best > - it wasn’t always a test of “smarts”, and at times was severely crooked > - it cannot explain the higher average IQ of Chinese, because it wasn’t a selective eugenics breeding program. Not even close to one. > > These are ground facts. Not emotional appeals, not complicated science you can’t understand because you lack the scholarly background, not preferences. Facts. Historical facts you can look up _any fuck where_. > > And yet you keep reiterating those lies of yours. You’re not fooling anyone, liar. Established in 605 during the Sui Dynasty, the system was used only on a small scale during the Tang Dynasty. Under the Song dynasty the emperors expanded the examinations and the government school system in order to counter the influence of military aristocrats, increasing the number of those who passed the exams to more than four to five times that of the Tang. Thus the system played a key role in the emergence of the scholar-officials, who came to dominate society. Under the Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty, the system contributed to the narrowness of intellectual life and the autocratic power of the emperor. The system continued with some modifications until its 1905. > **[Imperial examination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination)** > > The imperial examination was a civil service examination system in Imperial China administered for the purpose of selecting candidates for the state bureaucracy. The concept of choosing bureaucrats by merit rather than by birth started early in Chinese history, but using written examinations as a tool of selection started in earnest during the Sui dynasty (581–618), then into the Tang dynasty (618–907). The system became dominant during the Song dynasty (960–1279) and lasted for almost a mille It looks like you are right about one thing. Nevertheless, 1,300 years is plenty of time for the imperial exam system to have had a beneficial effect on the biological quality of the Chinese nation. Your invective is sufficient evidence of how much you want to disbelieve the importance of genetics in making some individuals superior to others, some nations superior to others, and some races superior to others. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/457 "2012-06-08T15:04:01Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > On several occasions I have explained why I use the term “Oriental.” “Asians” can refer to Caucasians like Arabs, or east Indians. Of course, the use of “Oriental” allows you to play games with your own assertions, as well. You claim, on the one hand, that there are “three” races," then you shift the claims around to talking about some imaginary “Oriental” population (the one with epicanthic folds) in an effort to limit the discussion to a much smaller sub group than your original claim about there being three “races.” You duck and weave and still fail to persuade. ---
**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 8, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/458 "2012-06-08T15:06:01Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Having recently attended my 20 year reunion I can assure you that IQ is in no way correlated with successful reproduction rates in white Americans. What matters is that during most of human evolution individuals who were most intelligent tended to have the largest number of descendants in every subsequent generation. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/459 "2012-06-08T15:06:56Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > That does not mean that the central argument is invalid. But it doesn’t prove it, either. You seem to continue to misunderstand this fundamental point. Whether or not an argument is valid, you still have to provide proof of it. While I understand you _think_ you have proof, you don’t actually have any. And pet theories are fine to have, but you actually have to prove them. Believable scenarios don’t constitute proof. Your example of the Imperial Exam is a perfect example. While it is a (wildly implausible, actually) possible scenario, you haven’t shown any evidence it changes underlying genetics. Just a supposition that it does. That’s fine as a starting point, but it hardly provides any actual evidence. In any case, the thread is itself titled “Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic”. But you contradict yourself elsewhere when trying to explain a difference over the course of a single century: > [@SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1067): > > The criminal justice system was harsher then. Also, the family structure was stronger. So, apparently, “race differences” are largely genetic, except when they’re not. Care to explain the contradiction? Are race differences largely genetic or are there cases where social and economic factors overwhelm them (meaning race differences are largely NOT genetic in those cases)? They are mutually contradictory positions, yet you seem to take them both simultaneously. Your argument style is basically that of a gish gallop. Further, it’s tiresome when you don’t even respond to any arguments you have no answer for. We’ve repeatedly stated that there’s no genetic basis for grouping a portion of humanity into various races. You disagree and requested what would be accepted as the evidence for such divisions. It was provided, yet you did not provide any answer. Here’s the example: > [@SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/998): > > What would you accept as genetic evidence? If you cannot or will not answer that question you are impossible to reason with. > [@SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1002): > > The definition of “race” you use is genetically invalid. But populations do have validity in genetics- so this is the evidence that I would accept: > > First, an identification of all the genes that are involved in intelligence (or at least the most important genes) and propensity for criminality, and exactly how these genes are involved (which ones of them are active when “turned on” or combined with specific other genes, and so on), and how they relate to environment and upbringing. Then detailed, broad genetic testing of various populations (not races), showing that certain populations have significantly varying numbers of these genes. Then detailed, broad surveys and testing that shows that the previous analyses have predictive power. You’ve made several posts since then, but NONE answering this question. So, you have your definition as to what provides genetic evidence, but you have presented no such evidence. Care to do so now? ---
**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 8, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/460 "2012-06-08T15:11:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I don’t care how frustrated you are, direct insults, wishing death on another poster, and direct accusations of lying are all prohibited in this forum. > > This is a Warning to refrain from such actions. > > [/Moderating] Apologies, I thought this was the Pit thread for some reason. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=24)