# Race is non-existent **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100 "2012-12-05T18:28:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/561 "2013-02-01T17:27:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There’s [evidence that the gap has shrunk](http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf). In addition, I believe that the efforts, in general, have been weak and half-hearted- they’ve been largely politically motivated, with all the problems of the political process, rather then with “pure” motives. Sorry, just to be clear, I’m talking about actual test score gaps like SAT and so on; not IQ tests. Most of the data I’ve seen say these sorts of score differentials have leveled off and remained fairly persistent and constant for the last 15 years or so. An example would be[MCAT scores.](https://www.aamc.org/download/161696/data/table19.pdf) Note, for example, existing black/asian gaps (22 v 29 for applicants). ---
**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:** [February 1, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/562 "2013-02-01T18:33:33Z")
It largely comes down to this: **CP** , you believe that there is something special about now as compared to various points in the past- such that past IQ disparities (discussed [here](http://www.ronunz.org/2012/08/05/unz-on-raceiq-response-to-lynn-and-nyborg/), for example) tell us little or nothing about genetics (and indeed many past disparities have since disappeared), but current disparities somehow manage to perfectly (or close enough) reflect the a sort of genetic hierarchy of intelligence. So basically, you’re saying we’ve _finally_ managed to equalize opportunity (and other “nurture” characteristics)- so any disparity that is left can only be due to inherent genetic differences. I think that’s completely false- it’s unscientific and there’s no evidence for it. You just handwave that nurture is normalized- but I don’t buy it. How could it be normalized when we know teachers have lower expectations for black children (just as an example)? Or that job applications with identical qualifications, but black-sounding names get thrown away in favor of the white-sounding names? Moreover, the proponents of the genetic hypothesis that are referred to most often, like Rushton and Jensen, [have a history of ignoring data that disagrees with their favored conclusions](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_dilettante/2007/12/dissecting_the_iq_debate.single.html) ([in addition to being funded by and showing support for white supremacist causes](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2005/10/moral_courage.single.html)). I don’t see any reason to believe that the same sorts of factors that caused a big difference in the past between, say, Northern and Southern Italian test scores, or Austrian and Croatian test scores, or Irish and British test scores, do not still operate, to some degree or another, today. I think Flynn’s supposition, that the fact that black test scores today match white test scores from around 50-60 years ago indicates that the environment for black intellectual development matches the development for whites from 50-60 years ago, is reasonable. I think it’s very possible that there are many factors at work- in addition to ones mentioned before, stress could be a significant cause- it’s known that [high levels of stress can reduce intellectual performance for children](http://www.pnas.org/content/106/16/6545.full.pdf+html), so if it is shown that black children, on average, suffer from higher levels of stress then non-white children then that’s another reasonable cause. In short, the data for the genetic explanation is no more convincing now then it was 100 years ago. Maybe you’ll find the genes in the next 20 years. Or maybe the gap will continue to shrink, and disappear in the next 50 years or so. But until there’s actual genetic evidence, it’s foolish to support the genetic explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/563 "2013-02-01T21:50:21Z")
I don’t think I have anything very useful to say about IQ scores. They are well outside my area of interest and expertise. I will readily admit I don’t understand the whole Flynn argument about why IQ scores are rising. I gather his fundamental approach is to argue they are rising for everybody, but rising disproportionately faster for blacks. Therefore IQ scores must be environmentally determined, and we can sort of decide that at some absolute level of SES, we get an average IQ of X; if blacks are now at the SES level whites were at 50 years ago, they will therefore have the average IQ that correlates with that SES level. This does not seem to be consistent with the easily-defended studies that show markedly disparate performances on standardized testing controlling for the same SES levels. How would one explain the dismal performance of wealthy and educated blacks on SATs if their SES status should have conferred upon them high IQs? There’s another thing: Flynn seems to have ridiculously low numbers for black IQs–especially for young adult blacks and for black IQs of years past. From your paper, P 9: _“Black IQs decline relative to whites with age, indeed, the decline amounts to 11 points between 4 and 24. Despite this, black gains on whites over this 30-year period are close to 5.5 IQ points for all ages below 25. Figure 3 shows that in 2002, the mean IQ of blacks ranged from 95.5 at age 4 to 84.5 at age 24; and in 1972, from 90 to 79. It puts blacks aged 15 in 2002 at 88.8.”_ The paper you cite does not give the actual figure illustrations (at least when I access it in Chrome) and so it’s a bit hard for me to follow. But the numbers for the mean black adult IQ of 84.5 in 2002, and 79 in 1972 ? (!!) Come on. Really? The average black IQ in the US in 1972 was 79, and it’s 84.5 now? Anything below 85 is sort of borderline intellectual functioning, isn’t it? As an average for a whole population? Am I misreading something here? Those numbers fail a sniff test for me. I have lots of stuff on real-world outcome tests, which do show a gap, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen any real world test scores or skillset exam that would correlate with an average IQ gap of 21 points (!) in 1971, or even 15 points today. Maybe I just don’t understand IQ tests. (Call me someone in the 85 range, I guess.) ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/564 "2013-02-02T11:46:54Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > ([in addition to being funded by and showing support for white supremacist causes](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2005/10/moral_courage.single.html)). As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s especially useful to use ad homen attacks. If the research itself stinks, correct it with good research. Some people–even on this Board :eek: – label every non-egalitarian as a “white supremacist,” either closet or public. 😉 It isn’t very productive, in my view, to attack researchers based on an opinion of their funding sources (after all, which grant are you going to apply for to get funding for research showing intelligence differences by populations?), or on an unpopular conclusion, such as genetic basis for outcome differences? That sort of approach degenerates pretty fast, which is why ad hominem attacks are typically discouraged here and elsewhere. I think you’d be surprised what many researchers on population genetics really think about intelligence and genetics. But you need to catch them in off-camera moments, so to speak, over a beer. [Here’s an example](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313) which I won’t bother to place in a quote for display, as I don’t think it’s relevant to the data. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/565 "2013-02-02T13:57:16Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s especially useful to use ad homen attacks. If the research itself stinks, correct it with good research. Some people–even on this Board :eek: – label every non-egalitarian as a “white supremacist,” either closet or public. 😉 Nope, you are even wrong on that, it is not only one researcher that has pointed out how unreliable they are by their own data. But first we have too look at how you are even wrong on your use of what is an ad hominem: [http://pactiss.org/2008/06/03/how-to-properly-use-ad-hominem-attacks/](http://pactiss.org/2008/06/03/how-to-properly-use-ad-hominem-attacks/) > [@](#): > > Fair Use > What types of ad hominems might then be justified? Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on. And it is spot on. [http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/rushton.htm](http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/rushton.htm) > [@](#): > > Looking into the Pioneer Fund is much like peeking inside one of those ornate Russian dolls. > > Take the top off the outer doll and there’s another inside that looks identical. Take the top off that one and there’s yet another waiting. Repeat as necessary. > > For an organization that’s obsessed with issues of genetic superiority, it’s surprising how much inbreeding exists between the Pioneer Fund’s grant recipients. > > Consider Race, Evolution and Behavior: Special Abridged Edition. > > Check just inside the front cover and you’ll find two pages of academic acclaim for the booklet. > > At first glance, it looks like a ringing endorsement for Rushton and his views. > > But check closer. Smell something fishy? > > According to Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, “this brilliant book is the most impressive theory-based study … of the psychological and behavioural differences between the major racial groups that I have encountered in the world literature on this subject.” > > High praise, indeed. > > But wait a second. Jensen just happens to be an even larger recipient of money from the Pioneer Fund than Rushton, which is no easy task. > > Jensen’s research on blacks and low IQ scores has been attacked for being just as racially sensitive and pseudoscientific as Rushton’s work. > > In a 1994 article that touched on eugenics and sterilization, Jensen was quoted in the magazine Newsday as saying, “Which is worse, to deprive someone of having a child, or to deprive the child of having a decent set of parents?” > > Perhaps it’s not surprising to learn that Rushton has reciprocated with a flattering review of a 1998 book written by Jensen. Rushton describes Jensen’s career as “brilliant” and the book as “awesome” and “monumental.” > > Or how about this praise from Professor Hans Eysenck of the University of London: “Professor Rushton is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his work.” > > Put aside for a second the fact that Rushton does almost no original research of his own and that critics have attacked his “rigour” because he uses the bits of old data that support his hypothesis while ignoring those bits that aren’t as flattering. > [@](#): > > But to some academics who have attempted to untangle Rushton’s work, there’s a bigger question than whether or not a scientist received money from an organization like the Pioneer Fund. > > “Scientists can sometimes be incredibly arrogant,” said Dr. Fred Weizmann, "because they think they are exempt from being influenced by those who fund them. > > “The real question is not did the Pioneer Fund make you alter your scientific findings but why did the Pioneer Fund fund you?” > > Weizmann is a psychology professor at York University who has analysed the scientific data used by Rushton. He describes Rushton’s work as “lousy science.” > > “It’s not so much a question of whether or not they influence an individual scientist but rather the scientists they choose to fund in the first place,” Weizmann added. > > “I think evolutionary psychologists – the straight ones – are very embarrassed by all this. It’s like a dog trying to outrun its shadow. It never seems to be able to fully escape it.” If Rushton and the same old, same old, others were correct they would be recognized with most researchers citing the work of those racialists often and with reverence, as it is, it is not an ad hominem when it is the data that was looked at first, the evidence then came later showing that the errors in their data are not so innocent as they continue to push for conclusions and solutions that do not follow from that evidence, have no support where it counts and then one has too look at why they press for their lousy science. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I think you’d be surprised what many researchers on population genetics really think about intelligence and genetics. But you need to catch them in off-camera moments, so to speak, over a beer. > > [Here’s an example](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313) which I won’t bother to place in a quote for display, as I don’t think it’s relevant to the data. And this once again demonstrates a grasping at straws feeling. Not a single word about race was there. Once again the basic problem is that you can not identify when the scientists refer to all humans and when they consider race, not as often as you think, and then they report it a moot point. You have failed once again to find any good evidence of the genetic differences in intelligence among races. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/566 "2013-02-02T14:39:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And this once again demonstrates a grasping at straws feeling. Not a single word about race was there. > > Once again the basic problem is that you can not identify when the scientists refer to all humans and when they consider race, not as often as you think, and then they report it a moot point. You have failed once again to find any good evidence of the genetic differences in intelligence among races. I’m uninterested in pursuing discussions about which of us indulges more in ad hominen attacks. I will reiterate that you have not posted a single source citation, as nearly as I can remember, and you seem particularly partial to idiotic essays such as the one you cited from “rational Wiki.” Feel free to find a cite where Jensen’s character is assailed (other than to assail him because of his scientific conclusions) if you want to justify an ad hominem attack on him. May I also add you seem to have a bit of trouble grasping basic English? I did not say the Flynn fiasco mentioned “race.” You already know (if you have actually read any of my posts) what I think about the notion of “race.” I know it’s a convenient straw man to pretend my views of population genetics are wrapped up in a biological definition for “race,” but straw men are no more persuasive than your ad hominem attacks. What I said about the Flynn article where he suggests lower classes in New Zealand stop having so many babies in order to prevent further degradation of NZ’s intelligence gene pool, was that iiandyiiii might be surprised to know what many researchers in the field of population genetics really think about the association between genetics and intelligence. In the case of Flynn, he won’t come out and say the association is “racial,” but he certainly thinks lower intelligence is associated with lower classes, and you probably don’t need me to post New Zealand demographics for you to see which populations are represented in which SES classes. He certainly thinks lower intelligence breeds lower intelligence. For that comment, and for his followup suggestion that one solution would be easier access to birth control in the water, the way fluoride is in the water, he was castigated by quite a few people. He beat a hast retreat where he could, as do most of us when caught with our pants down. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/567 "2013-02-02T14:58:42Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’m uninterested in pursuing discussions about which of us indulges more in ad hominen attacks. I will reiterate that you have not posted a single source citation, as nearly as I can remember, and you seem particularly partial to idiotic essays such as the one you cited from “rational Wiki.” Feel free to find a cite where Jensen’s character is assailed (other than to assail him because of his scientific conclusions) if you want to justify an ad hominem attack on him. As you are wrong even on what is a proper ad hominem you should continue to dream on, this is proper when the research itself is the one that is not really supporting what they claim. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > May I also add you seem to have a bit of trouble grasping basic English? I did not say the Flynn fiasco mentioned “race.” You already know (if you have actually read any of my posts) what I think about the notion of “race.” I know it’s a convenient straw man to pretend my views of population genetics are wrapped up in a biological definition for “race,” but straw men are no more persuasive than your ad hominem attacks. As others I checked on what is an ad hominem pointed out, the silly point here is to use that accusation of ad hominem itself in an attempt to change the subject, Race is the issue here, and it is clear that your constant irrelevant cites show that the point is indeed an attempt to equate race differences in intelligence to just plain intelligence differences among all humans. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > What I said about the Flynn article where he suggests lower classes in New Zealand stop having so many babies in order to prevent further degradation of NZ’s intelligence gene pool, was that iiandyiiii might be surprised to know what many researchers in the field of population genetics really think about the association between genetics and intelligence. In the case of Flynn, he won’t come out and say the association is “racial,” but he certainly thinks lower intelligence is associated with lower classes, and you probably don’t need me to post New Zealand demographics for you to see which populations are represented in which SES classes. He certainly thinks lower intelligence breeds lower intelligence. For that comment, and for his followup suggestion that one solution would be easier access to birth control in the water, the way fluoride is in the water, he was castigated by quite a few people. He beat a hast retreat where he could, as do most of us when caught with our pants down. And that is because you are still wrong, there are good reasons why even that seemingly more reasonable point of yours is not much supported either. > **[The argument that different races have genetically determined differences in...](https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/12/26/the-argument-that-different-ra-1)** > > The presumption being examined here is that humans are divisible into different groups (races would be one term for those groups) that are genetically distinct from one another in a way that causes those groups to have group level differences in... > [@](#): > > The presumption being examined here is that humans are divisible into different groups (races would be one term for those groups) that are genetically distinct from one another in a way that causes those groups to have group level differences in average intelligence, as measured by IQ. More exactly, this post is about the sequence of arguments that are usually made when people try to make this assertion. > > The argument usually starts out noting that there are dozens of papers that document group differences in IQ. I’ll point out right now that most of those papers are published in journals with editorial boards staffed in part or in total with well known racist scientists such as J. Philippe Rushton. That fact is not too important to what I have to say here, but since the usual argument about race and IQ starts out with “Hey, look at all these papers in these great journals” it is worth noting. > > Heritability of IQ measures is then proffered, often in reference to the famous “twin studies” which show a high heritability for IQ. Heritability is a measure derived from covariance between relatedness and some phenotype. Heritability is not genetic inheritance. It is scientifically incorrect and probably academically dishonest to assume or insist that a high heritability value means that something is genetic. It often is, but it need not be. The truth is, that there are many things that could have a high heritability value but that we know are not genetic, so we don’t make a heritability estimate. There are other things for which we have strong a priori biological arguments that hey are genetic, and we thus make heritability estimates as part of the research on those things. Then there are things that we don’t know the cause of, and in those cases, making an estimate of heritability is useful as an exploratory tool. But, and this is important, arriving at a high value for heritability does not indicate genetic inheritance. > [@](#): > > The final argument in favor of the inheritance of IQ via genes passed on from parent to offspring is usually to cite the twins separated at birth studies. These studies, however, simply do not show this. These twins are not separated at birth in the way most people think they are. Usually, the twins knew each other as they grew up, and/or knew commonly held family members. They lived in the same culture, usually in the same city, often in the same neighborhood, and sometimes even in the same physical house. They went to the same school and had the same diet. Separated at birth in these studies usually means grandma and grandpa took one of the twins to raise because mom and dad were strapped. Grandma and grandpa may have lived down the street. The kids may have attended the same school, even the same classes, and spent a lot of time together outside of school. > > I was separated (though not from birth) from my older brother, because he lived on the second floor of a two family house, and I lived on the first floor. By the exact criteria of the twin studies, we would be counted as separated because it happened early enough in my life. But, that household I grew up in was a single household that happened to be set up in a two family house. The two floors were connected by an internal rear stairway that led to locked doors (had we locks). I was rather shocked to realize at one point as a child that we were the only family in my neighborhood with two kitchens. (Or two bathrooms, for that matter.) > > There may be a small component of intelligence that is inherited, but it seems to be swamped by other factors. The insistence that genes determine intelligence and that these genes are divided up in our species by groups that are often defined racially is usually misguided, and is scientifically wrong. The supra-ultimate argument, after the final argument, brought up in this sort of conversation is usually that the anti-racist argument is a Politically Correct argument, yada yada yada. But it is actually a scientific argument, and the racialized intelligence argument is not. Making the latter a politically incorrect argument. > > Which is kind of funny. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/568 "2013-02-02T15:30:08Z")
BTW your silly dismissal of RationalWiki only shows that I’m correct in my often mentioned point that you do not pay attention, they do cite where they get what you accuse as “Idiotic” in that case it was: Weizmann, F., Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., &Ziegler, M. (1991). Eggs, eggplants and eggheads: a rejoinder to Rushton. Canadian Psychology. The point stands, you are ignorant of even the levels of support that guys like Rushton had. RationalWiki is just a place to become aware of what are the main problems with pseudoscience and their supporters. > **[Personality, Intelligence And "Race Realism"](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/personality-intelligence-and-race-realism)** > > A recently published paper makes unfounded claims about the relationship between the personality trait of conscientiousness and intelligence. This reflects a pseudoscientific theory of "race realism" in which socially desirable traits are... > [@](#): > > Rushton’s argument has been condemned not only for its unscientific basis but for promoting a “barely disguised hierarchy of humanness” in which “everything human and desirable is K and everything animalistic and evil is r” (Weizmann, et al., 1991). Perhaps this belief in a “hierarchy of humanness” can provide a clue as to why Templer would claim without any evidence at all that conscientiousness is positively correlated with intelligence. Templer supports Rushton’s theory of evolutionary selection for a ‘general factor of personality’ that combines all the socially desirable personality traits. Naturally, the general factor of personality is assumed to be ‘K-selected’ and not only that, it actually supported the development of greater intelligence in human evolution if the theory is to be believed. Therefore, Templer argues that some races have evolved not only larger brains and higher intelligence than others but this is because of their socially desirable traits, including greater conscientiousness. Therefore, it seems that Templer has just decided that conscientiousness and intelligence must be positively correlated because it fits into this hierarchy of humanness. > > A serious scientific problem with this hierarchy of humanness theory is that it appears to be built on a house of cards. Not only is the claim for a positive association between conscientiousness and intelligence contrary to evidence, nearly all the assumptions built into this hierarchical theory appear to be unfounded. For example, Muncer (2011) has argued that evolutionary theory does not support the existence of a general factor of personality. The environmental heterogeneity of environments during human evolutionary history supports a diversity of traits, because certain traits would be adaptive in some environments and not in others. Rushton’s theory on the other hand requires that a homogenous suite of personality traits ordered along a single dimension has been adaptive though all of human history, which would require a constant homogenous environment throughout this vast period. Weizmann et al. (1991) dissected Rushton’s theory in detail and showed how scientifically wanting it really is. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/569 "2013-02-02T16:43:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As others I checked on what is an ad hominem pointed out, the silly point here is to use that accusation of ad hominem itself in an attempt to change the subject, Race is the issue here, … A more accurate characterization of the subject is; “what is the possibility that different populations may have genes or gene sequences that result in better cognitive skills, and what evidence there is for either side of the argument?” You and **iiandyiiii** continuing to claim that there is no evidence for **Chief Pendant’s** side of the debate is truly baffling, since he’s provided quite a bit. Now you may be of the opinion that the evidence is weak, and that is fair. But then it is incumbent upon you, as he has stated numerous times, to offer scientific studies that are more convincing than the ones he’s provided. Simply insisting that he supply evidence that is closer to proof, isn’t really helping you. The game of attacking and trying to discredit his sources as agenda driven, by linking to people and sites every bit as agenda driven (to put it mildly) is unconvincing to say the least. This is a tactic I see very often from the left, and you specifically. It’s as if you expect people like Rushton to get funding from the NAACP. Look at the studies themselves. That is the evidence CP is basing his position on. If your opinion is that he is wrong, provide counter scientific studies that make his moot. But there’s been none or very little of that. Stridence in opposition may be motivating, but if doesn’t result in a superior argument, or in this case, finding scientific studies that overpower the ones you are just trying to vilify, it’s really does you no good. My position is that I wouldn’t be surprised either way. No doubt nurture plays a huge role, but if physical attributes like eye shape, skin color, stature, and hair type, and running ability can be reliably passed from one generation to the next, then why not a brain that, due to physical differences of it, might be better? It would come as zero surprise to me if evolution resulted in different populations having a different sized X or was better at Y. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/570 "2013-02-02T16:50:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > A more accurate characterization of the subject is; “what is the possibility that different populations may have genes or gene sequences that result in better cognitive skills, and what evidence there is for either side of the argument?” > > You and **iiandyiiii** continuing to claim that there is no evidence for **Chief Pendant’s** side of the debate is truly baffling, since he’s provided quite a bit. Nope, you are once again confusing the specific evidence of genetic evidence of difference in intelligence with slight differences in genes affecting very specific medical issues. What I see so far is that the jump is made from the small changes in medical conditions and the attempt still continues to equate this into the even less supported assumption that that can also be applied to intelligence differences among races. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/571 "2013-02-02T17:05:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, you are once again confusing the specific evidence of genetic evidence of difference in intelligence with slight differences in genes affecting very specific medical issues. Why can’t slight differences in genes result in a medical condition of a larger, or better, brain? And why couldn’t that account for the differences revealed in testing and the studies? ---
**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:** [February 2, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/572 "2013-02-02T17:20:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Why can’t slight differences in genes result in a medical condition of a larger, or better, brain? And why couldn’t that account for the differences revealed in testing and the studies? Because you still have to find if that difference is beneficial and what genes are involved, as pointed before many times: chances are that virtually all humans have them. And it is likely that any issues with genes will have repercussions and benefit all humans. > **[A response to "Liberal Creationism."](https://slate.com/culture/2007/12/a-response-to-liberal-creationism.html)** > > In response to James Watson's remarks concerning the intelligence of blacks, Slate's William Saletan wrote a series of pieces on race, IQ, and... > [@](#): > > Saletan places faith in an in-depth task force report from the American Psychological Association, titled “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,” dating from 1996. The task force, Saletan admits, “doesn’t conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence.” Saletan’s rapid summary makes it sound as though the task force drew the necessary dots, then, experiencing a failure of nerve, refused to connect them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The APA made its conclusions absolutely clear: There is some inconclusive evidence that culture factors account for the IQ gap between blacks and whites, and there is “even less empirical support for a genetic explanation.” > > Furthermore, the APA task force lays out—finally!—the real heart of the conflict. To understand what is really being fought over when we fight over the IQ gap between blacks and whites, its authors explain, you must think through an analogy. Imagine two wheat fields. Now imagine two genetically identical sets of seeds. (The analogy was first made famous by the Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin.) Now imagine each field is planted with these two identical seed stocks. Field No. 1 is given the best possible inputs: sunshine intensity, rain, soil nitrates, etc. Field No. 2 is given much less of all of the above. Within each field, inputs are kept uniform. Inevitably, the first field grows a healthier supply of grain than the second. But here is the rub: Within each field, the variation in outcomes is entirely hereditary. Between the two fields, the variation in outcomes in entirely environmental. And Rushton has just coasted after what he “found” in the 90’s, so the point there is still relevant. After so many years of not having any evidence for genes as the reason for the difference in intelligence, then the continuation pushing those ideas has to move one to consider where they are coming from. > **[Leading race "scientist" dies in Canada](https://www.salon.com/2012/10/06/leading_race_scientist_dies_in_canada/)** > > Jean Philippe Rushton's death marks the end of an era of academic racism > [@](#): > > In recent years, Rushton spoke on the alleged IQ deficiencies of minorities at conferences of the racist American Renaissance magazine and website, and published a number of articles in that magazine. His work also is often published on racist websites, including the anti-immigrant hate site [VDARE.com](http://VDARE.com). In 2002, after renting several academic mailing lists, Rushton mailed an abridged version of Race, Evolution and Behavior to 40,000 people — a mailing paid for by the Pioneer Fund, the race science outfit that he led for several years. > > Reacting to complaints from scientists who had received the mailing, the book’s original publisher, Transaction, disavowed the smaller booklet and said that the abridged version had been “purged” of any “evidentiary basis.” > > In 2002, Rushton became president of the Pioneer Fund, which has for decades funded dubious studies linking race to characteristics like criminality, sexuality and intelligence. Pioneer has long promoted eugenics, or the “science” of creating “better” humans through selective breeding. Set up in 1937 and headed by Nazi sympathizers, the group strove to “improve the character of the American people” through eugenics and procreation by people of white colonial stock. Pioneer has financed a number of leading race scientists, lavishing large sums each year on those who work to “prove” inherent racial differences that the vast majority of scientists regard as nonsense. > > As a teacher, Rushton was given several positive reviews on the [RateMyProfessor.com](http://RateMyProfessor.com) website, like the student who wrote, “Cutting edge research into race differences. One of the few professors not afraid to undertake ground breaking research.’’ > > But a majority of the reviewers rated him “poor quality.’’ > > “He epitomizes the overall capacity of the human species to rationalize superficial ignorance towards others,” one student wrote. “Not a good prof,” another wrote. “His work on race and ethnicity makes me wonder if I’m in the 19th. Don’t take him if you want to keep your sanity.” ---
**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:** [February 2, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/573 "2013-02-02T17:24:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Why can’t slight differences in genes result in a medical condition of a larger, or better, brain? And why couldn’t that account for the differences revealed in testing and the studies? It could, but there’s no reason to believe it right now. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/574 "2013-02-02T17:30:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It could, but there’s no reason to believe it right now. Could be. But that means that you’re automatically ascribing all the differences pointed to up to nurture. Given the evidence presented, that seems to be an odd assumption to make. It may very well be correct in the end, but nurture and only nurture as the explanation seems odd. Tangential question to parse out some underlying beliefs. Given that the fastest human sprinters all have West African ancestry, do you think that can be completely attributed to nurture? Or do you think that genetics are actually playing a role, as well? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/575 "2013-02-02T17:38:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Because you still have to find if that difference is beneficial and what genes are involved, as pointed before many times: chances are that virtually all humans have them. And it is likely that any issues with genes will have repercussions and benefit all humans. > > [A response to "Liberal Creationism."](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_dilettante/2007/12/dissecting_the_iq_debate.html) > And Rushton has just coasted after what he “found” in the 90’s, so the point there is still relevant. > > After so many years of not having any evidence for genes as the reason for the difference in intelligence, then the continuation pushing those ideas has to move one to consider where they are coming from. > > [http://www.salon.com/2012/10/06/leading\_race\_scientist\_dies\_in\_canada/](http://www.salon.com/2012/10/06/leading_race_scientist_dies_in_canada/) Do you really think this cite is instructive in any way? Please. This is just the sort of tactic I was pointing to. Racist websites, whatever they may be publish his findings. Big deal? You’re just trying to condemn him by association. And you do this repeatedly. It’s a waste of time. Logical Fallacies for ten triillion, Alex. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/576 "2013-02-02T17:45:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Could be. But that means that you’re automatically ascribing all the differences pointed to up to nurture. Given the evidence presented, that seems to be an odd assumption to make. It may very well be correct in the end, but nurture and only nurture as the explanation seems odd. I’m not ascribing anything, except the causes we have already verified to exist (which all happen to be in the category of “nurture”). Essentially, I’m saying this: The gap exists, and we know that at least a part of the explanation for the gap is environmental/nurture/non-genetic. There remains a chunk of the gap that is unexplained, and no existing hypothesis to explain this remaining part of the gap has been confirmed (or even come close to being confirmed). > [@](#): > > Tangential question to parse out some underlying beliefs. Given that the fastest human sprinters all have West African ancestry, do you think that can be completely attributed to nurture? Or do you think that genetics are actually playing a role, as well? I don’t know. Chances are, all or almost all of the fastest human sprinters have European ancestry as well, and many of them may have Native American ancestry. “Nurture” factors undoubtedly play a role- Jamaica’s over-representation in sprinting is at least partially explained by the Jamaican culture of sports, which heavily emphasizes sprinting far more than most other nations’ cultures. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/577 "2013-02-02T17:56:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Could be. But that means that you’re automatically ascribing all the differences pointed to up to nurture. Given the evidence presented, that seems to be an odd assumption to make. It may very well be correct in the end, but nurture and only nurture as the explanation seems odd. It is not as the evidence presented is lousy to assume that genes are driving the intelligence difference. > [@magellan01](#): > > Tangential question to parse out some underlying beliefs. Given that the fastest human sprinters all have West African ancestry, do you think that can be completely attributed to nurture? Or do you think that genetics are actually playing a role, as well? > **[Continuous geographic structure is real,](http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/continuous-geog.html)** > [@](#): > > 1. What are the implications of these differences? Coyne writes: > > …and goes on to (appropriately) dismiss certain pernicious ideas like the hard-to-kill one that IQ is genetically different between different races. However, he does leave open the possibility that a trait like intelligence could vary genetically between races, although it seems unlikely to him, he says there is no evidence supporting this, and in any event even a statistically-detectable difference between populations would be swamped by the within-population variability in such a trait. As pointed before, slight differences in some conditions can have genetic support, but as the failure of the recent medicine for blacks showed, it is likely that currently the harm is in the strong possibility that many other cultures and groups are limiting the potential of many of their members by assuming our differences in sport performance are all in the genes. Jumping from this fussy state of affairs to asserting that genes are involved in differences in intelligence is not justifiable or as other researchers reported, a moot point. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/578 "2013-02-02T17:59:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do you really think this cite is instructive in any way? Please. This is just the sort of tactic I was pointing to. Racist websites, whatever they may be publish his findings. Big deal? You’re just trying to condemn him by association. And you do this repeatedly. It’s a waste of time. Logical Fallacies for ten triillion, Alex. And you clearly missed the cites that show that your complaint about logical fallacies is just a ruse to change the subject, it remains relevant to point where the ideas of racialist researchers came from when they were discredited by their own peers; as been pointed many times before, it is relevant to mention that many others have found the reprehensible reasons why they continue to push discredited information after finding that the science they used was lousy. Lets not forget that it was the Chief and others that brought that discredited (both in science and ethics) source into this. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/579 "2013-02-02T18:28:54Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not ascribing anything, except the causes we have already verified to exist (which all happen to be in the category of “nurture”). Essentially, I’m saying this: The gap exists, and we know that at least a part of the explanation for the gap is environmental/nurture/non-genetic. There remains a chunk of the gap that is unexplained, and no existing hypothesis to explain this remaining part of the gap has been confirmed (or even come close to being confirmed). This is helpful in understanding you. And I agree with most of it. The problem I have is at the end. It seems that you are using “confirmed” to pretty much mean “proven”, which I think is an unrealistically high bar. Alternatively, if you look at a piece of evidence, it will (hopefully) unseat a hypothesis or support it. think those are fairer metrics. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t know. Chances are, all or almost all of the fastest human sprinters have European ancestry as well, and many of them may have Native American ancestry. “Nurture” factors undoubtedly play a role- Jamaica’s over-representation in sprinting is at least partially explained by the Jamaican culture of sports, which heavily emphasizes sprinting far more than most other nations’ cultures. Yes, many do have European ancestry, and it could very well be that some “magic” happens when those gene sets comingle. But the fact remains that all the fastest humans have West African ancestry. If it is lacking, then they are not one of the fastest humans. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/580 "2013-02-02T20:49:37Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > 100 years ago, when women were not very represented in mathematics fields, someone might be inclined to represent that outcome difference as “genetic.” But it would be easy to find opportunity and cultural differences driving that difference. In point of fact, the obvious putative environmental explanations turned out to account for a relatively large amount of the outcome differences, and today that debate is down to the finer points, with whatever pattern difference is left fairly trivial. So the big black-white-Asian STEM gap shows evidence of intrinsic skillset differences but the big gender STEM gap doesn’t. Why’s that? > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > One of the reassuring things for me is the observation (and I think this has been studied) that intelligence as a mate selection criterion is reasonably powerful. That is, highly intelligent blacks tend to be comfortable pairing with highly intelligent whites, and the same thing happens at the um…lower end. So with any luck, we’ll get these damn populations admixed a whole lot better over the following few years, and you and I can quite sniping at each other–at least, in the US. Given your beliefs, wouldn’t that be a catastrophe? You’re approving race pollution. Good for the inferior ones if they can upgrade to the next tier, but not so good for the superiors because they get dragged down to the median between the two populations. Given that, Asians should stick to themselves (or Jews), whites should stick to themselves or see if they can get lucky with an Asian, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100.md?page=30)