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.
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.
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.
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.
This is not true, so it is of no utility.
The categories make no sense genetically and not even morphological.
Ok. But your “Negroids” cannot be a race that is defined by genetics or ancestry- this phylogenetic tree, 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”.
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.
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?
I wrote a few posts that you might be interested in.
Is (global) “race realism” still tenable?
More evidence: UK math and reading achievement gaps
A gaping hole in the Master’s evolutionary theory
Race, class, and cognition in the UK
Race gaps in Holland and the fading reality of race
It’s notable that racial hereditarians have been unable to explain the UK results. I even offered to pay 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.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
As for genetics:
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.
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)
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/
(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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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 by trait. Superficial indeed.)
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?
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:
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.