# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/621 "2012-06-20T23:47:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I did not say environment, (although your claim that it cannot be environment is spurious), I simply noted that it is tautological. Kids in the same families tend to do about the same. > > You did not simply quote the article. You drew the conclusion that “genetic differences” were linked to “race differences.” > > So, what, in your own words, do you think that study demonstrated? A link. The link is the statistical relationship between the Black-White gap and the Full-Half Sib variance and co-varianc. That’s a non-tautology. It’s something that needs to be accounted for. ---
**Author:** ![Gezmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Gezmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gezmo)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/622 "2012-06-20T23:57:39Z")
I’m not sure which side of the story is true. I have criticisms for both sides of the story, but I’m leaning toward the side that believes IQ and race are not genetically related. My criticisms for those who believe sub-Saharan Africans have lower IQ’s: There are many different groups south of the Saharan desert in Africa. They are not homogeneous. There are the Khoisan in south-western Africa, there are East Africans in the horn of Africa, there are the descendants of the Kushite people, there are pygmies in central Congo, and there are immigrants from China, India, and Europe. So, I’m not sure which one the OP is referring to. As for African Americans, most them have ancestry that originates from the Ivory Coast of West Africa. They also have European ancestry mixed in too. If there were genetic differences in IQ, it could also be a product of slaver due to their breeding practices, since slaves were bred for physical strength, not intelligence. If Jewish people have genetically high intelligence, then it should also mean Africans in the horn of Africa should have high intelligence too, since they are classified as Semitic people by anthropologists. Differences in the shape and size of brains, as well as other body parts may not be genetic. Your mother’s living conditions can affect you physical traits before you are even borne. All humans were once an egg that developed into a fetus. The quality of your mother’s eggs, and your father’s sperm also affect your physical features. Factors such as stress, drugs, and nutrition have affects on the developing fetus. So adopting a baby that was already flawed before he/she was borne may not help his/her IQ that much. The adoption studies should’ve done a more careful examination of the mother, and father. Anther one is that IQ tests may not test your over all intelligence, but rather test how well your mind could function in a modern, industrialized academic society. Perhaps people with lower IQ score have better mental functioning in areas that are not tested. Such as creativity, music, motor skills, and the ability to use less emphasided senses. As stated earlier, your upbringing affects your IQ too. My criticism against those who believe that all races have eqaul intelligence: For one, people adapt to different environments over time due to natural, and artificial selection. The exam culture in China made it so that men who scored poorly will be much less likely to have a wife, and pass on their genes. Another factor is the gene pool of a population. People who are genetically isolated are more likely to be inbred, and have deformities. A low intelligence level, and a weak immune system are two of the many possible deformities they can develop. ---
**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 21, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/623 "2012-06-21T00:23:47Z")
> [@Gezmo](#): > > If Jewish people have genetically high intelligence, then it should also mean Africans in the horn of Africa should have high intelligence too, since they are classified as Semitic people by anthropologists. The superior intelligence of the Ashkenazim is usually explained by population pressures that began among Jews living in the Holy Roman Empire around 800 AD. Non Ashkenazi Jews have lower IQ averages. Arabs have lower averages still. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/624 "2012-06-21T00:24:12Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > When I do an internet search for: UK + “academic performance” + black + white > every website I find agrees with this one: > > Bradley and Taylor (2004) use pooled cross sectional data between 1992 and > 1998 for England and Wales to investigate the determinants of educational > attainment at the age of 16 across different ethnic groups. Their data allows > them to consider the following ethnic categorisations: white, Afro-Caribbeans, > Bangladeshi/Pakistani, Indian, Other. Looking first at the raw data, they observe > the following order of relative performance (highest performance first): Other, > Indian, white, Bangladeshi/Pakistani, Afro-Caribbean. While there is a general > improvement in performance between 1992-1998, the ranking remains > unchanged. > [http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper105.pdf](http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper105.pdf) In table 3 you see a non-significant difference between Black Africans and Whites by Keystone 4 (around age 18). Black Caribbeans, who most closely resemble US Blacks, only perform 1/3 of a SD below Whites. The first part is the most problematic for a global genetic hypothesis of any appreciable magnitude. As I’ve noted before, Black Africans can only be immigrant selected so much and their offspring should regress halfway towards the population mean. If the Black-African, White difference is zero SD, to get a genetic difference of 1 SD, you have to either argue that these achievement tests are poor measures of general intelligence (conveniently reversing a popular claim) or argue that Black-Africans are super-duper selected by a super duper improbable 2 SD in g. They would have to be the top 2.2 percentile from around Africa! Hard to reconcile that with reality (e.g., the large numbers of refugees.) Now it’s worse than I’ve let on – I just haven’t bother commenting further on this disaster (called race realism). Suffice it to say that you (and I) wisely comment under pseudonyms. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/625 "2012-06-21T00:33:58Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > To clarify my position – I would maintain that (a) all sub-Saharan Black Africans can be grouped into a single geographic race called “Negroids.” This population is defined primarily by mean morphological differentiation relative to other populations (e.g., dental patterns) and geography as per custom with zoological delineation. This is not true, so it is of no utility. > [@](#): > > And (b) that it is plausible that Negroids have, on average – if you averaged theoretical IQ allelic scores by populations by numbers, non trivially lower genetically conditioned IQs than some other geographic races (e.g., Caucasoids and Mongoloids.) The categories make no sense genetically and not even morphological. ---
**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 21, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/626 "2012-06-21T00:34:58Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > To clarify my position – I would maintain that (a) all sub-Saharan Black Africans can be grouped into a single geographic race called “Negroids.” This population is defined primarily by mean morphological differentiation relative to other populations (e.g., dental patterns) and geography as per custom with zoological delineation. Ok. But your “Negroids” cannot be a race that is defined by genetics or ancestry- [this phylogenetic tree](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/fig_tab/nature08976_F3.html), showing the most recent common ancestors of various population samples by mitochondrial DNA, shows several sub-Saharan African populations that have more recent common ancestors with Eurasians than with other sub-Saharan African populations. For example, the Bamileke of Cameroon are more closely related to white Europeans and Asians than to the Kikuyu of Kenya. And there are many other examples of “black” populations that are closer to whites and Asians than to other “blacks”. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I have already explained how I distinguish between the races, but you may not have read my previous explanation. > > The three major races are Negroes, Caucasians, and Mongoloids. In addition, there are additional smaller races that do not easily fit into one of these three categories, such as Australian Aborigines. It may well be that the Bushmen of southern Africa are another one of these races. Four thousand years ago the ancestors of the Bushmen occupied much of Africa, but they were displaced by Negroes who developed iron tools and weapons. I have read that the Bushmen are most similar to the modern humans who evolved 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. This may mean that one has to further back in time to find a common male and female ancestor of all of them. You’ve explained it, and I’ve explained why I think this fails. Some of your “Negro” populations are closer to your “Caucasians” and “Mongoloids” than to other “Negro” populations- and not just “bushmen”- see the phylogenetic tree I’ve referenced so many times. Your three races are not based on genetics or ancestry, because some populations of race A are closer to races B and C than to other populations in race A. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/627 "2012-06-21T00:37:21Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > A link. The link is the statistical relationship between the Black-White gap and the Full-Half Sib variance and co-varianc. That’s a non-tautology. It’s something that needs to be accounted for. Why? If you have no actual point, just say so. Kids in the same families tend to have the same traits, partly by genetic input from at least one parent and partly from living in the same environment. That the authors of the study tried to show that that obvious fact can be demonstrated among the children of people living in poverty seems trivial. What is so special about this study that makes you pretend that it has a bearing on this discussion? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/628 "2012-06-21T00:49:26Z")
> [@Gezmo](#): > > I’m not sure which side of the story is true. I have criticisms for both sides of the story, but I’m leaning toward the side that believes IQ and race are not genetically related. I wrote a few posts that you might be interested in. [Is (global) “race realism” still tenable?](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/is-global-race-realism-still-tenable/) [More evidence: UK math and reading achievement gaps](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/more-evidence-uk-math-and-reading-achievement-gaps/) [A gaping hole in the Master’s evolutionary theory](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/a-gaping-hole-in-the-masters-evolutionary-theory/) [Race, class, and cognition in the UK](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/race-class-and-cognition-in-the-uk/) [Race gaps in Holland and the fading reality of race](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/holland-white-black-gap/) It’s notable that racial hereditarians have been unable to explain the UK results. I even offered [to pay](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/data-please/) to find supporting counter-evidence. When I emailed a coupe of notable race realists they replied that they didn’t believe the results (which were collected by the UK Department of Education) and that the tests (which were shown to strongly correlate with g) were biased in favor of Blacks – It was pretty incredible. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/629 "2012-06-21T01:06:09Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > This is not true, so it is of no utility. > The categories make no sense genetically and not even morphological. You don’t know what you’re talking about. As for genetics: [http://abc102.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/unrooted-phylogenic-tree.png](http://abc102.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/unrooted-phylogenic-tree.png) McEvoy, et al., 2010. Whole-genome genetic diversity in a sample of Australians with deep Aboriginal ancestry As for morphology, see for example, [here](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ancestral-dental-traits-in-recent-sub-saharan-africans-and-the-origins-of-modern-humans1.pdf). Read: Multivariate analysis shows that you can correctly assign individuals to geographic races with a high enough hit rate for them to qualify as zoological races. Concerning zoological races: "The keys here are (1) subspecies are populations, **geographic segments of a species** , not morphs co-occurring with other variants, and (2) **they differ from each other on average, not absolutely**. **The so-called 75% rule** , which I have used above, is only a rule-of-thumb, but it becomes rather meaningless to single out populations in which much less than this proportion is distinctive. Unlike species, subspecies have no whatness. They share genes with other subspecies of the same species, so their interrelationships are genetically reticulate. In some taxonomic schools of thought they have no place at all, though it seems to me that it is useful to focus on populations that differ as whole but not absolutely. (Groves, 2002. The What, Why and How of Primate Taxonomy) ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/630 "2012-06-21T01:17:56Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > They do not go to jail, but it can be bad for their careers. For saying that women tend to have less mathematical aptitude than men Lawrence Summers had to step down as President of Harvard. > > For saying, “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really” James Watson had to step down form his position as director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island. > > This is what Charles Murray has had to say about it: “The Orwellian disinformation about innate group differences is not wholly the media’s fault. Many academics who are familiar with the state of knowledge are afraid to go on the record. Talking publicly can dry up research funding for senior professors and can cost assistant professors their jobs.” > [The Inequality Taboo, by Charles Murray](http://www.bible-researcher.com/murray1.html) Ok, once again it seems you are the kind of person that would consult an urologist to cure a skin condition, how hard it is to understand that Charles Murray was never an expert of what we are discussing? [http://climatecrocks.com/2011/03/02/potholer-meet-the-scientists/](http://climatecrocks.com/2011/03/02/potholer-meet-the-scientists/) (This example mostly deals with climate change deniers but the examples of why experts have to be consulted and not a political pundit is relevant) As it happens the experts in the field also had evidence to show how off base the \*\*opinion \*\*of scientists that are not involved in current research are. > **[Why James Watson shouldn't be advising anyone anyone about science |...](https://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/02/12/why-james-watson-shouldnt-be-a)** > > Cognitive Daily readers know that we generally shy away from political issues on our blog. The goal of this blog is to show readers what science is all about, through the example of the fantastic research being done cognitive psychology. > But when... > [@](#): > > Time and time again, Watson has made the mistake of judging people by their surface qualities and the shallowest social stereotypes, instead of seeking the detailed information that would allow him to come to a thoughtful conclusion. Time and time again, he has been given a pass because of his impressive scientific resume. But now that we see that these acts are not isolated incidents, but parts of a pattern of unreasoned and bigoted behavior, should they not, too, be incorporated into our judgment of him? > > Watson is the only scientist advising Seed’s Board, and yet his attitude toward the science of human genetics and intelligence is cavalier, arrogant, and thoughtless. In an environment that values deliberation, transparency, and reasoned analysis of the available data, he offers trite generalizations tainted by generations of social conditioning. > [@](#): > > There are those who suggest that Watson’s remarks should be a springboard for true scientific discussion on the heritability and racial differences in IQ, but we say, enough is enough. These aren’t new arguments, and the discussion isn’t productive, especially when what counts for “discussion” are bigoted remarks to a newspaper reporter. We don’t think James Watson should be anyone’s science adviser — and we especially don’t think he should be advising those responsible for the system hosting our blog. ---
**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 21, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/631 "2012-06-21T01:28:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’ve explained it, and I’ve explained why I think this fails. Some of your “Negro” populations are closer to your “Caucasians” and “Mongoloids” than to other “Negro” populations- and not just “bushmen”- see the phylogenetic tree I’ve referenced so many times. Your three races are not based on genetics or ancestry, because some populations of race A are closer to races B and C than to other populations in race A. What matters is that whites of European descent, Ashkenazi Jews, and Orientals on the average perform and behave better than everyone else in the world. This can easily be explained by considering population pressures lasting for hundreds and thousands of years. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/632 "2012-06-21T01:29:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Ok. But your “Negroids” cannot be a race that is defined by genetics or ancestry Well, yes they can. For example, the ancestors of my Negroids are primarily people who inhabited SS Africa 10 thousand years ago. The ancestors of my Mongoloids and Caucasoid are people who primarily did not. Negroids are also more genetically similar to other Negroids than not, where genetic similarity is determined by simultaneously looking at an indefinite but very large number of loci. (What you are saying is that if we look at some snips of DNA (e.g., MtDNA) some Negroids will be more similar to some Mongoloids. What I am saying is that if you do a PCA using the whole genome, no Negroids will ever be found to be more genetically similar to a non-Negroids than to a Negroid). ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/633 "2012-06-21T01:39:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > What did Watson say that was remotely inaccurate? The screed you quoted is a great example of New Deal’s point. Again **What did Watson say that was remotely inaccurate?** ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/634 "2012-06-21T01:42:34Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The evidence that races differ in average intelligence and that this _is_ genetic consists of persistent patterns. Members of some racial groups tend to perform better on all the tests of mental aptitude and academic achievement than members of other racial groups. The burden of proof, therefore, is on those who maintain that the races are genetically equal. > > * * * > > Description of Burden of Proof > > Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: > > Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. > Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X… > > Examples of Burden of Proof > > Bill: “I think that some people have psychic powers.” > Jill: “What is your proof?” > Bill: “No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.” > > “You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.” > [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html) [Yes, burden of proof.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) > [@](#): > > Null hypothesis > > If someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it. > > The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis. > > If they have considerable and well-tested evidence, the burden of proof may reasonably be considered to be on the person claiming that the evidence does not hold. [Null hypothesis:](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis) > [@](#): > > **Null hypothesis** > > The **null hypothesis** (H0) is a statistical and scientific tool used to help test hypotheses. It is usually refers to a default state that is considered true until disproved. Think of it as the “killjoy hypothesis.” > > e.g.: > > **Blood pressure lowering drug X:** that drug X is not effective in lowering blood pressure. > > The null hypothesis is considered true until sufficiently strong evidence is presented that it is not true. > > **Pseudoscience** > > This can be applied more broadly, particularly when dealing with pseudoscience: > > - **Homeopathy:** that water prepared by dilution and succussion is indistinguishable in its medical effects from water that has not. > - **Nanobots:** that matter at nanoscale does not behave as hypothesised by Drexler. > - **Cryonics:** that information in the brain is not sufficiently preserved by the freezing process. > > The burden of proof is presently on the person advocating the idea to present convincing evidence which would disprove the null hypothesis. Were that to happen the burden of proof would fall to the person against the idea who would have to refute or explain the evidence. > > **Science** > > The following cases are examples where sufficient evidence has been presented and the null hypothesis can be regarded as disproved. > > - **Climate change:** that human influence has not changed Earth’s climate. > - **Evolution:** that species are not changed by natural selection to fit an ecological niche. > > Given that the null hypothesis has been disproved it now falls to those who would wish to deny the evidence for global warming or evolution to present their counter-arguments. The burden of proof is on them. You do **not** have “considerable and well-tested evidence” for your position here. Therefore, the null hypothesis in this case is, “There are no significant genetically determined differences in IQ, nor in intelligence otherwise defined, between different “racial”/ethnic/population groups.” Therefore **you** have the burden of proof. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/635 "2012-06-21T01:54:07Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > What did Watson say that was remotely inaccurate? > > The screed you quoted is a great example of New Deal’s point. > > Again **What did Watson say that was remotely inaccurate?** > **[Focus: Disgrace: How a giant of science was brought low](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/21/race.research)** > > Nobel Prize winner James Watson has flown home to America with the taunts of his critics ringing in his ears. But should he have been shunned after his explosive remarks on race? > [@](#): > > But the fall of Jim Watson goes beyond mere personal tragedy. It also raises key issues of immediate concern. The first is simple: is there any evidence there are major differences in the intellectual potential of races? The second is more complex: how should we react when a scientist of Watson’s standing makes such provocative remarks? > > In the first case, most scientists have quickly jumped into the furore to dismantle the idea that significant intellectual differences exist between Africans and others. ‘Defining intelligence is complex and there are many forms of intelligence, not all of which are captured by IQ tests,’ said the Oxford neurologist Colin Blakemore. ‘In any case, it would be as unethical to organise society around some numerical indicator of difference as it would to do so on the basis of skin colour.’ > > Other scientists point out that our species is so young - Homo sapiens emerged from its African homeland only 100,000 years ago - that it simply has not had time to evolve any significant differences in intellectual capacity as its various groups of people have spread round the globe and settled in different regions. Only the most superficial differences - notably skin colour - separate the world’s different population groupings. Underneath that skin, people are remarkably alike. > > This argument does not reject the idea that notable variations in intellect exist between individuals, but it stresses that these differences exist within racial groups, not between them. Judging a man or woman by the colour of their skin will get you nowhere, in other words. As Craig Venter, who pioneered much of America’s work in decoding the human genome, put it: ‘There is no basis in scientific fact or in the human gene code for the notion that skin colour will be predictive of intelligence.’ ---
**Author:** ![Gezmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Gezmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gezmo)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/636 "2012-06-21T01:59:28Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > What matters is that whites of European descent, Ashkenazi Jews, and Orientals on the average perform and behave better than everyone else in the world. This can easily be explained by considering population pressures lasting for hundreds and thousands of years. What do you mean by Oriental? Are you saying that Vietnamese, Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians, are all the same? Are Caucasians in Europe smarter than Caucasians in the Middle East? You forgot which place developed civilization before the other did. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/637 "2012-06-21T02:07:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Why? > > If you have no actual point, just say so. Kids in the same families tend to have the same traits, partly by genetic input from at least one parent and partly from living in the same environment. That the authors of the study tried to show that that obvious fact can be demonstrated among the children of people living in poverty seems trivial. What is so special about this study that makes you pretend that it has a bearing on this discussion? What are you talking about? Again, the authors (a) used biometric analysis to determine the within population heritabilities and then used (b) SEM to determine the between population heritabilities. Both are well accepted methodologies. At very least they (1) demonstrated a robust correlation between the Black-White difference and within population heritability estimates. At very most they (2) demonstrated that the gap is partially genetically conditioned. (1) was all that I was claiming, because I thought that you and others would object on account of the SEM assumption (a). (1), as it is, is non-trivial. Which is why environmentalists (e.g., James Flynn) have bent over backwards in attempting to explain it. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/638 "2012-06-21T02:37:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Disgrace: How a giant of science was brought low | Race | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/21/race.research) Here’s what Watson said: “I’m inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” Neither of these statements are incorrect, uninformed, or unfounded. There is no reason to assume that different populations evolved the same intellectual capacities; and international testing does show that Africans in Africa are intellectually inferior. The issue is causality not reality – are the shitty environments depressing African IQ (e.g., disease burden, nutrition) or do genetically low IQ Africans make shitty environments? As for the quoted, no evidence is provided in counter to the massive amount showing global phenotypic IQ difference. And then a fallacious point is made about genetic similarity. (The amount of IQ difference that hereditarians propose is commensurate with the known amount of genetic difference.[Here](https://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/screen-shot-2012-03-22-at-5-54-24-pm.png) are the means and SDs for the average between race/population genetic variance. Compare that in Standard deviations to the amount genetic IQ variance proposed by hereditarians. Here is a breakdown of [recent genetic differentiation](http://abc102.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/level-of-population-differentiation.png) by trait. Superficial indeed.) ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/639 "2012-06-21T02:50:37Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > I wrote a few posts that you might be interested in. > > [Is (global) “race realism” still tenable?](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/is-global-race-realism-still-tenable/) > > [More evidence: UK math and reading achievement gaps](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/more-evidence-uk-math-and-reading-achievement-gaps/) > > [A gaping hole in the Master’s evolutionary theory](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/a-gaping-hole-in-the-masters-evolutionary-theory/) > > [Race, class, and cognition in the UK](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/race-class-and-cognition-in-the-uk/) > > [Race gaps in Holland and the fading reality of race](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/holland-white-black-gap/) > > It’s notable that racial hereditarians have been unable to explain the UK results. I even offered [to pay](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/data-please/) to find supporting counter-evidence. When I emailed > a coupe of notable race realists they replied that they didn’t believe the results (which were collected by the UK Department of Education) and that the tests (which were shown to strongly correlate with g) were biased in favor of Blacks – It was pretty incredible. So, what’s your overall position with regard to New Deal Democrat’s claims. The data doesn’t seem to support them in a global context. Do you think these claims only apply to the situation in the US? ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/640 "2012-06-21T03:32:31Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Here’s what Watson said: > > “I’m inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” > > “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” > > Neither of these statements are incorrect, uninformed, or unfounded. There is no reason to assume that different populations evolved the same intellectual capacities As pointed before, you do like to use medical research focused on diseases to claim that it apples to intelligence, that is not the point of the research and there is no mention or races: > **[Different level of population differentiation among human genes - BMC Ecology...](https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-16)** > > Background During the colonization of the world, after dispersal out of African, modern humans encountered changeable environments and substantial phenotypic variations that involve diverse behaviors, lifestyles and cultures, were generated among the... And as it was also pointed before it is a straw man to claim that many of the ones discussing or me assume that all have equal powers or reason, most experts agree that the reasons you think that are causing that difference is wrong, there is no good genetic support in reality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=33)