So how do you explain the lack of an achievement gap in the UK and Germany?
It’s only “dangerous” to answer the question with pseudoscientific thinking, obvious racial bias (like calling some “savages”), and terrible or non-existent data. And the “danger” is generally to be mocked relentlessly. In the scientific fields, the “danger” is the same as for anyone who does bad science. It should be risky for the career of a scientist for him to do bad science.
Lynn isn’t disrespected because he “dared to answer the question truthfully”; it’s because he made up data and came to ridiculous conclusions based on the tiny amount of data he did have.
I haven’t followed this discussion at length, so I don’t know what the various discussants have claimed. But I am aware of what academic hereditarians do. They claim: Determining the cause is important; a partial genetic hypothesis is probable (or, at very least, not improbable); such a hypothesis should be investigated using more genetically informative techniques, such as through admixture mapping. Hereditarians, at least the academic type, are rather nuanced (e.g., M&H in The Bell Curve: “It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences” – not exactly an assertion of absolute proof.) Compare this degree of nuance to that held by your garden variety environmentalist.
The study cited does no such hand waving. In fact, it builds off of a previous one which investigated whether there were unique influences affecting the US Black population. The conclusion was that there were none.
As for “Black” performance in other countries, I’ve looked through all of the results that I could find and have concluded that they are ambiguous for a host of reasons. Here wasone of my discussions on the UK Black-White IQ difference. One problem is that “Blacks” in other counties are not representative samples of “Blacks” in the US. For example, Blacks in the UK are immigrant selected African and West Indian individuals of largely Black African descent. See here, for example. As such, one shouldn’t expect them to perform equivalently to non selected populations. And it’s not clear to me that the unselected populations from which they hailed, particularly in the case of “Blacks” from the massively genetically diverse place called Africa, are genetically equivalent to African Americans. There are other issues too and if you want we can discuss them.
No offense, but it’s pretty much the first post, and it’s completely reasonable that people are responding directly to the OP, who makes a claim for direct genetic evidence that doesn’t exist.
I’m not particularly interested in getting into the minutiae of how much intelligence is inherited and how much can be correlated with the “race”, which you seem to be using in a different way than the OP (again, check the OP, who defines “blacks” much differently than you do).
Your particular argument, while not as good as you seem to think it is, is infinitely better than the OPs, which is completely unsupported.
Again, read the OP. According to the OPs “theory”, “blacks” from sub-Saharan Africa are not particularly genetically diverse and can be grouped into a single genetic race, which includes immigrants to Europe. And, according to the OP, those same immigrants should also be scoring less well and be more prone to criminal behavior, due entirely to genetics.
You’re muddying the waters a bit by introducing a different definition of “race” than the one under discussion. It’s fine if you have a different definition, but it has little bearing on the OPs definition and irrational, unsupported conclusions (and, in fact, the stuff you bring up actually contradicts the OP in several particulars).
No offense intended, but, as you admit, you haven’t been keeping up with the thread, and the stuff you bring up is, at best, tangentially related to OPs theory on racially based intelligence.
Could you clarify your comment with regards to race and genes. One can discuss congenital race differences in IQ just as one can discuss congenital class difference in IQ.
Basically, the only “evidence” presented for intelligence/criminality difference between the “races” is evidence for the achievement gap (in education, crime rates, etc). But this is not evidence for anything genetic- it’s just evidence of an achievement gap.
The other issue is that the use of “race” does not make sense- if there’s supposed to be something genetic about one “race”, then you would expect the race to be a coherent, discrete group, genetically speaking. But “blacks” (or sub-Saharan Africans) are not- there are many black populations which are farther from other black populations then they are from white and Asian populations, genetically.
It would be like saying that people who live between longitude X and longitude Y have a genetic tendency towards lower intelligence- even if there is a similar “achievement gap”, it doesn’t make sense, because this group is not coherent or discrete with regards to genetics.
What they did was determine the within population heritability through classic biometric analysis (specifically comparing phenotypic relatedness to genotypic
relatedness (i.e., full-sibs, half sibs) and then use structural equation modeling to compare the between group difference to the within group difference. I’m not sure what your criticism is. You seem to be lashing out against classic biometric analysis. But this is a widely used and accepted methodology for determining the influence of genes and environment. You might as well as attack the scientific method while you’re at it.
Thanks for the reply. I would say that while hereditarians have not provided what we might call “direct evidence” of genetic differences, they have provided a good deal of evidence against the alternatives. As such, it’s incorrect to say that “the only “evidence” presented …is evidence for the achievement gap.” For example, they have shown that the magnitude of the difference correlates with heritability estimates and that the difference is largely a difference in general intelligence. Facts like these don’t, of course, prove that the hereditarian hypothesis is true; rather, they disprove common alternatives. And this increases the prior probability that a partial genetic hypothesis is correct.
I don’t understand why you think that racial groups need to be “coherent, discrete groups, genetically speaking” for mean differences to be genetically conditioned. Would you make the same case for differences in skin color? Would you argue that the heritability of the between race difference in skin color is zero because the populations in question represent fuzzy sets? This criticism is really odd because Hereditarians make similar IQ arguments about class differences (e.g., The Bell Curve) which are clearly conceptualized as fuzzy sets. Would you ague that the class differences in IQ has no genetic basis?
Try: people who live between latitude X and latitude Y have a greater genetic tendency towards darker pigmentation than people who live between latitude W and latitude X.
I am not lashing out at the study. I noted that you drew a conclusion from it that it does not support. Other than that, it seems to be a routine study that shows that people in the same families tend to get the same results on tests, regardless what “race” they are labelled as long as they are poor. :::shrug:::
Could you provide some evidence in support there being no achievement gap in Germany? I’m only aware of one methodologically flawed study which was conducted half a century ago and which showed that offspring of both US White and Black soldiers under-preform offspring of German natives. As for the UK, are there studies based on representative samples of African-Americans or their offspring?
To the contrary, the Negro race is more genetically diverse than non Negroes. This does not mean that Negroes vary more in abilities. i.e., it is not true that a higher percentage of Negroes are both geniuses and mentally retarded than whites and Orientals. What it does mean is that one usually needs to go back more generations to find a common ancestor between a two Negroes chosen at random than between two whites, or two Orientals.
This can be explained by the out of Africa theory. 100,000 to 200,000 years ago modern humans evolved in Africa, while more primitive humans lived elsewhere. 50,000 to 70,000 years ago 100 to several hundred of these modern humans left Africa. This seems to have been a one time migration. They may have left behind as many as 10,000 modern humans. It was not until much later, probably with the beginning of agriculture ten thousand years ago, that the descendants of these migrants from Africa began to evolve faster than the modern humans left in Africa.
Where agriculture was not developed, as in Australia, genetic differentiation continued, but the development of higher intelligence did not happen.
Ok, good. You accept this point. That’s a nice first step.
Now, did you or did you not try to group ALL sub-Saharan Africans into a single genetic race and make claims that as such, they are more prone to criminal behavior and lower intelligence than the other racial groups you defined?
And that this extended to immigrant groups too, such as the ones Chuck11 claimed may have been of higher average intelligence than the white native groups among which they settled?
You must be lashing out at either the author’s methodology or conclusion – as I was merely citing the latter:
Family environment wouldn’t explain the sib minus half-sib correlation. And this is still a critique of the biometric methodology.
Because the OP is positing that there is something genetically different about “blacks” with regards to intelligence then other populations (suggesting that “blacks” perhaps either have a tendency lack certain genes for high intelligence or have a tendency towards having certain genes for lower intelligence). This doesn’t make sense to me that “blacks” as a group would have some tendency (for intelligence- skin color is a bad example because skin color is essentially the determining factor for these non-genetic “races”) that others lack- because many of the “black” populations are closer to the others (whites and Asians) than to other “black” populations. Perhaps there is a logical way to explain this, but there’s zero evidence for any such explanation.
Keep in mind that I’m just talking about the OP’s classification scheme (his “three races”).
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.
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.”
(And that is not even getting into the whole issue that the study was performed only on American subjects, so the whole issue of “race” is misleading as none of the black participants were of a pure “race” and it is very likely that many of the “white” participants also had “mixed” ancestry, given the socioecoomic group from which the participants were exclusively drawn.)
So, what, in your own words, do you think that study demonstrated?
Give me an example of someone who answered a question truthfully and publically that wasn’t politically correct in the last 30 years and went to jail or was blacklisted.
Hyperbole. :mad:
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.
The three major races can be divided into sub races. The most important of these are the European whites, the Ashkenazim, and the Orientals. These have higher average IQs than all of the other groups. Orientals have higher average IQs than white European Gentiles. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any sub race.
These groups also usually have lower crime rates than the other human categories. Although the Egyptians have a low crime rate, they have lower IQs on the average than European whites. I have difficulty understanding why, because civilization began in Egypt long before it spread to Europe.
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. 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.) But it seems obvious that any genetic differences will not be uniform as the environmental pressures which typically are said to select for IQ and differentiationally impact races, are very difference across SS Africa.
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.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/murray1.html