# 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:** 25
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/481 "2012-06-08T20:42:03Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Every professor I am aware of who argues that racial differences are largely genetic is either tenured or retired. I have been told privately by college professors that presenting an original and well documented argument in favor of intrinsic racial differences is a bad career move for a graduate student who is competing for a faculty position. Frankly, I am not sure that relying on the anonymous testimony of one or two guys who cannot even get tenure at Liberty University is all that persuasive. 😉 (And now we are into the realm of the Conspiracy Theory, where vast sinister forces are suppressing The Truth. We already have one poster who pops up all the time with fairly silly stuff from various universities that does not actually say what he claims it means about scientific explorations of race. So people are doing the “research.” I doubt that you have actually heard your claim from genuine college professors, but there are a lot of poorly accredited colleges out there, so I suppose it is possible.) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/482 "2012-06-09T01:03:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > [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. Have you read this comment by [Cochran,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13720084&postcount=56), reproduced in part here? > [@](#): > > In the book, we 're talking about adaptive evolution. Sewall Wright thought that was more likely to happen in small, isolated populations - his ‘shifting balance’ theory - while Fisher thought that adaptive evolution would move faster in large populations, since a large population will have more beneficial mutations. I’d say that the evidence favors Fisher. This faster evolution in large populations has been repeatedly demonstrated in selection experiments: adaptation to an environmental change goes a lot faster in large populations: you don’t have to wait so long for a favorable mutation. > > The idea that a favorable mutation can somehow be ‘diluted out’ is just wrong. > > Here’s how it works. Imagine a situation in which the environment has changed, so that a population is no longer well-matched to that environment. Changes that would improve fitness are now possible. For example, suppose that some human population starts raising cattle. They start out lactose intolerant - they stop making lactose around age five - and so cannot easily and completely digest milk as adults. > This is the default human pattern. > > This population probably does use cow’s milk, but in a somewhat limited and inefficient way. Kids can drink it, and some probably do, for example if they lose their mother. Adults probably make cheese or yogurt out of it, but in so doing lose about a third of the food value. > > Imagine someone with a mutation that leaves lactase production turned on indefinitely. Presto, he can drink milk as an adult. He can use a common food far more efficiently than other people. His fitness is higher: maybe as much as 10% higher, when we consider how fast lactose-tolerance mutations have spread. > > Most likely this beneficial mutation does not spread. Imagine that he has two children: there’s a 25% chance that neither has a copy, which would end the story. Even if it survives the first generation, there are many ways in which it can be lost in later generations - at least up to a point. But its frequency does not just drift randomly (usually hitting zero and disappearing) as would be the case with a new allele with no advantage. If it survives at all, its frequency tends to increase, because of that 10% advantage. If it survives drift, it will become more and more common, eventually becoming immune to drift. After that it spreads. In a well-mixed population, the frequency grows exponentially. In a spatially spread-out population, its spreads as a nonlinear wave (Fisher-Kolmogorov wave) with a propagation speed proportional to the square root of the selective advantage. > Such an allele is either lost early or will spread widely. The probability of that spread is calculable. If the selective advantage is s (10% in this case), the chance of success is 2s. So you’d have to have about 5 lactose-tolerance mutations, on average, before one would take off. > > This has happened, several times. The European lactose tolerance mutation is the oldest: it probably originated something like 8-10 thousands years ago, and is now found in Europe (especially northern Europe), in north India, and at lower frequencies in North Africa and even in the Fulani, just south of the the Sahara. > And of course in populations that originated from those places. > > The Bedouin have their own mutation that roughly dates back to the domestication of the camel, and several pastoral groups in Africa (Nilotic and Cushitic groups) have their own versions. The Tutsi have a Nilotic mutation and about 90% of them are lactose tolerant. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/483 "2012-06-09T02:01:07Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Apologies, I thought this was the Pit thread for some reason. Nevertheless, I must applaud you for the Tex Avery-ish “go smoke a stick of dynamite.” ---
**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 9, 2012, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/484 "2012-06-09T02:22:39Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > [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. Regression to the mean works for characteristics that are caused by many genes, such as intelligence, talent in a specific sport, or height. Exceptional qualities are often dependent on recessive genes that do not match in the children. Nevertheless, the genes do not go away. A recessive gene for superior intelligence may not be matched in the child, but it may be matched in the grandchild or great grandchild, giving the benefit. Thus over time a recessive gene for intelligence is likely to be spread throughout the gene pool. The children of professional athletes are likely to get A’s in gym class, but most do not become professional athletes. * * * IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages–Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100. [http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id\_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a](http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a) ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/485 "2012-06-09T02:30:30Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Regression to the mean works for characteristics that are caused by many genes, such as intelligence, talent in a specific sport, or height. Exceptional qualities are often dependent on recessive genes that do not match in the children. Nevertheless, the genes do not go away. A recessive gene for superior intelligence may not be matched in the child, but it may be matched in the grandchild or great grandchild, giving the benefit. Thus over time a recessive gene for intelligence is likely to be spread throughout the gene pool. > > The children of professional athletes are likely to get A’s in gym class, but most do not become professional athletes. > > * * * > > IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages–Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100. > [http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id\_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a](http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a) Please define “black” and “white” since you apparently don’t believe that Barack Obama is “black” but “half-black” and “half-white”. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/486 "2012-06-09T02:46:37Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Have you read this comment by [Cochran,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13720084&postcount=56), reproduced in part here? Yeah. It is an opinion that is not even supported by its own examples. Lactose tolerance is given as a widespread mutation occurring in large populations. Then all the examples, (note there are several, not just a single one spreading across the world), all occur in smaller populations with relative isolation at the point of origin. Not persuasive. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Regression to the mean works for characteristics that are caused by many genes, such as intelligence, talent in a specific sport, or height. Exceptional qualities are often dependent on recessive genes that do not match in the children. Nevertheless, the genes do not go away. A recessive gene for superior intelligence may not be matched in the child, but it may be matched in the grandchild or great grandchild, giving the benefit. Thus over time a recessive gene for intelligence is likely to be spread throughout the gene pool. Who says the genes do not go away? Some do not; some do. Your original argument was that they were selected for better survivability. Now you are backpedaling, saying they just go recessive and are not selected. That could be true, of course, but then entire constellations of mutations, (necessary for your “many genes” increasing intelligence), would require a catastrophic change of environment, (with a serious die off and a renewed founder effect), in order to spread though an entire population. The only die-off we see among your “Orientals” is the plague that ravaged the cities where the purportedly more intelligent people were living, leaving the less intelligent farmers across the countryside to re-populate. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/487 "2012-06-09T02:54:05Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages–Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100. > [http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id\_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a](http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a) And, again with the utter nonsense that the median IQ of black people both has real meaning and is set at 85. Most people testing at 85 should not be allowed to drive cars and they certainly cannot operate machinery or count change or order stock. The notion that half of the black population of the U.S. is not functional is ludicrous, yet Rushton, Jensen, and others continue to propagate that nonsense and you, instead of seeing how ridiculous it is, simply swallow it whole because it fits your own odd beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/488 "2012-06-09T03:03:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And, again with the utter nonsense that the median IQ of black people both has real meaning and is set at 85. Most people testing at 85 should not be allowed to drive cars and they certainly cannot operate machinery or count change or order stock. The notion that half of the black population of the U.S. is not functional is ludicrous, yet Rushton, Jensen, and others continue to propagate that nonsense and you, instead of seeing how ridiculous it is, simply swallow it whole because it fits your own odd beliefs. True, and yet he doesn’t agree with their beliefs regarding how small the penises of white men are. It appears that his beliefs have more to so with being self-serving than based on anything remotely resembling logic. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/489 "2012-06-09T05:02:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And, again with the utter nonsense that the median IQ of black people both has real meaning and is set at 85. Most people testing at 85 should not be allowed to drive cars and they certainly cannot operate machinery or count change or order stock. The notion that half of the black population of the U.S. is not functional is ludicrous, yet Rushton, Jensen, and others continue to propagate that nonsense and you, instead of seeing how ridiculous it is, simply swallow it whole because it fits your own odd beliefs. Not true. People scoring 85 can drive cars. They are functional. What it does suggest that you’re going to see some achievement gaps in academic outcomes and representation in certain fields requiring high level academic credentials. Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Implications [of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005cognitivediversity.pdf). Pages 517-554 in C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology. New York: Wiley. If you think that data is just made up see some of the industrial and organizational psychology literature in this Amy Wax [paper.](http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3413&context=wmlr) Or [Pesta, B., & Poznanski, P. (2008). Black-White differences on IQ and grades: The mediating role of elementary cognitive tasks. Intelligence, 36, 323-329.](http://www.csuohio.edu/business/academics/mlr/documents/Pesta_08_intell_race_iq.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/490 "2012-06-09T05:30:06Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Not true. People scoring 85 can drive cars. They are functional. What it does suggest that you’re going to see some achievement gaps in academic outcomes and representation in certain fields requiring high level academic credentials. Even if you would let a person with a purported IQ of 85 drive a car, (I would not let the few I know do so), you are cleverly dodging the point that the claim of the racialists is that half of all black people are not even that smart. It is still just hooey rooted in xenophobia expressed as racism. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/491 "2012-06-09T05:45:36Z")
Actually, I just noticed that they are claiming a mean IQ of 85 rather than a median IQ of 85. This makes even less sense, but I guess they need to massage the numbers in some way. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/492 "2012-06-10T03:08:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Even if you would let a person with a purported IQ of 85 drive a car, (I would not let the few I know do so), you are cleverly dodging the point that the claim of the racialists is that half of all black people are not even that smart.. I provided you a number of references in my [previous post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15148927&postcount=489) from educational, occupational and industrial psychology. Now you’re just attacking the motives of Wax & co rather than addressing the data. @ **New Deal Democrat** , have you read this paper [Haplogroups as evolutionary markers of cognitive ability](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/haprinderm.pdf)?It appears to offer some tentative support for evolutionary factors as one of the causes in the group differences documented. I note that they address the recent evolutionary changes outlined by Hawks & co on page 9. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/493 "2012-06-10T05:18:01Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I have said that there are three major races: whites, Negroes, and Orientals. Forgive me for coming in late to this party, and it’s probably already been covered, but I’m sure it’s easy to answer, so I’ll just ask this question: What is the criteria for assigning an individual to one of those three races? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/494 "2012-06-10T05:21:36Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Again, probably a dumb question that everyone else is already clear on the answer, but in the interest of educating me, can you please provide some specific examples of “exceptional” genes so I understand? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/495 "2012-06-10T05:49:58Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I provided you a number of references in my [previous post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15148927&postcount=489) from educational, occupational and industrial psychology. Now you’re just attacking the motives of Wax & co rather than addressing the data. You provided references from Rushton, Jensen, and Gottfredson, and a couple of others. It was exactly this point that persuaded me that Jensen was a crank over twenty years ago. I used to pay attention to Jensen. He does a lot of neat manipulation of numbers. However, when he comes out and makes a claim for his numbers that can only mean that half of an entire population is not capable of buying their own groceries or making rent and car payments, then he has demonstrated that his numbers are bullshit. Somehow, in Jensen’s world, (and that of Rushton and Gottfredson), a person with an IQ below 85–who would be living in group home or an institution if that person were white–is simply a fine example of a “typical” low performing black person who gets along fine in the world with their lack of intelligence, doing things that a white person of comparable IQ would be incapable of doing. It makes no sense in the real world–and indicates his scoring of intelligence is pretty much imaginary–and I see no reason to accept such ridiculous claims. ---
**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 10, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/496 "2012-06-10T13:31:58Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Forgive me for coming in late to this party, and it’s probably already been covered, but I’m sure it’s easy to answer, so I’ll just ask this question: > > What is the criteria for assigning an individual to one of those three races? Cosmetic differences are most obvious, but DNA differences are most 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 10, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/497 "2012-06-10T15:41:19Z")
The New York Times November 20, 2006 When President Bush signed his sweeping education law a year into his presidency, it set 2014 as the deadline by which schools were to close the test-score gaps between minority and white students that have persisted since standardized testing began… Despite concerted efforts by educators, the test-score gaps are so large that, on average, African-American and Hispanic students in high school can read and do arithmetic at only the average level of whites in junior high school… One ethnic minority, Asians, generally fares as well as or better than whites… “Closing the achievement gap is at the heart of No Child Left Behind and must continue to be our focus in renewing the act next year,” Mr. Kennedy said in a statement… Across California, however, achievement gaps have not narrowed, and in some cases they have widened since 2001. > **[Schools Slow in Closing Gaps Between Races (Published 2006)](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/education/20gap.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5070&en=e1b56aad3e0f9451&ex=1165035600)** > > As Congress prepares to consider renewing the No Child Left Behind law next year, studies show that disparities in test scores continue. ---
**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 10, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/498 "2012-06-10T16:33:55Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Across California, however, achievement gaps have not narrowed, and in some cases they have widened since 2001. > [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/education/20gap.html?pagewanted=1&\_r=1&ei=5070&en=e1b56aad3e0f9451&ex=1165035600](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/education/20gap.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5070&en=e1b56aad3e0f9451&ex=1165035600) Once more, nobody denies this. What we deny is that it’s due to genetic differences between black and white people, for reasons offered above. Why would you offer evidence of points everyone agrees on, instead of answering the clear questions people have asked of you? For example, when someone asks you the criteria for assigning people to different races, your answer is a complete non-answer: to paraphrase, you suggest you’d use phenotype and genotype to assign. Well, those two categories comprise pretty much every feature of an organism, so you could not possibly be any vaguer than that except by referring to supernatural features of organisms. What **specific** phenotypic features would help assign someone to a specific race? What **specific** genes would help assign someone to a specific race? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/499 "2012-06-10T17:14:28Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Cosmetic differences are most obvious, but DNA differences are most important. So, cosmetic differences which have been shown to not correlate well with genetics, and DNA which shows exactly the opposite of what you claim? Perfect, I think you’ve managed to completely cut out your own legs from underneath yourself. ---
**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 10, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/500 "2012-06-10T19:36:18Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > So, cosmetic differences which have been shown to not correlate well with genetics, and DNA which shows exactly the opposite of what you claim? Perfect, I think you’ve managed to completely cut out your own legs from underneath yourself. I think it’s like one of those Japanese samurai flicks. He won’t notice until he takes five steps. PS: **NDD** , take the fucking steps already ! You should have grokked this by now, 500 posts in, telling you the same basic shit over and over. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=26)