# 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:** 53
**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 25, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1041 "2013-02-25T23:03:12Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Wouldn’t you expect the developmental processes to be somewhat different though from the factors they looked at? What evidence do you have to show that discrimination pushes down scores in one group, while say pushing it up in others (eg. Ashkenazi Jewish & East Asian high group averages?). > > Then you have to wonder how those factors would affect things like [cranial capacity](http://abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/brain-size-and-correlates-with-iq/), [reaction time measures](http://www.csuohio.edu/business/academics/mlr/documents/Pesta_08_intell_race_iq.pdf), differences from age 3 upwards, larger group differences on backward digit span (more demanding) relative to forward digit span memory tests etc? I don’t find your Gish Gallop persuasive. The brain-size to “race” data is mostly crap. Trying to link reaction time to intelligence is even weaker. Find the genes. Science is hard. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1042 "2013-02-26T05:22:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t find your Gish Gallop persuasive. The brain-size to “race” data is mostly crap. Trying to link reaction time to intelligence is even weaker. Find the genes. Science is hard. The reality is that there are multiple lines of evidence that point to differences being due to environmental and genetic factors, rather than strictly environmental. Calling it a “gish gallop”, or whatever, doesn’t change that. As for the brain size data [Ralph Holloway](http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085211)for one doesn’t appear to think the data is “cr8p”. The evidence shows a consistent pattern of differences over time and which suggests an adaptive origin to the differences. Note that the differences in cranial capacity are intercorrelated with numerous other musculoskeletal trait differences, which makes it harder to believe that they’re purely environmental differences. Earlier in the thread I also mentioned the example of differences in brain morphology between Australian Aborigines and European australians (larger visual cortex area in the Aborigines). Again, visual cortex surface area is highly heritable suggesting that genes are a factor in the differences. A more recent paper notes: > [@](#): > > Our findings do have clear implications for neuroscience research. Racial and ethnic background accounts for some of the variability in brain structure and so this demographic needs to be consistently incorporated into neuroscience research. Although this demographic characteristic is limited and does not necessarily capture the complex genetic and environmental influences that likely underlie our findings, it cannot be ignored. This is particularly important for image processing methods dependent on population atlases [5]. > > Twin and family studies provide consistent evidence for the role of both genetics and environmental influences in shaping the developing brain. Heritability effects differ by brain region, with highest familial relationships in the frontal lobe and moderate relationships in the hippocampus and amygdala [42]. As one might expect from such research, genetic differences are related to brain structure and function, and these influences appear strongest for areas of the brain involved in language, attention, visual, emotional and sensorimotor processing [43]. Likewise, the frequency of many alleles, including those involved in CNS function, differs substantially across ethnic and racial populations. These two separate observations have not been explicitly united. For example, the 5HTTLPR short/long polymorphism has been associated with differences in frontotemporal structure and function [44]–[47]. 5HTTLPR allele frequency also varies by ancestry: African-Americans exhibit a lower frequency of the s allele (25%) than do Caucasian Americans of European descent (40–45%), while the short allele is particularly common in some Asian populations [48], [49]. > **[PLOS One](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/)** ---
**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 26, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1043 "2013-02-26T06:21:09Z")
And of course they also notice this: > [@](#): > > The biological implications of our findings are unclear as we do not know what factors may be contributing to these observed differences. Like \*\*iiandyiiii \*\* noticed, the shape of something does not lead one to assign genes as the driver of intelligence differences among races. And the environment can not be ignored, it even affects the skull shape too as reported, as it was pointed before, the most consistent result is that the environment still play a huge factor on this, genetics, not so much. [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/02/it-pays-to-invest-in-early-education-says-a-nobel-economist-who-boosts-kids-iq.html](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/02/it-pays-to-invest-in-early-education-says-a-nobel-economist-who-boosts-kids-iq.html) > [@](#): > > James Heckman: Let me give you a startling finding about achievement gaps. Suppose you pay children in the 5th and 6th grades, right when you think of the achievement gap opening up between blacks and whites, to take an IQ test. > > Say you have unmotivated black kids living in the middle of the ghetto and white kids from Scarsdale or some other upper-class neighborhood. You give each kid who gets a successful answer one M&M – just give them an M&M – and you say for each point extra on the IQ test, each correct answer, I’ll give you one more M&M. It turns out that the gap between the black and white student in the IQ test scores vanishes – vanishes completely. > > Let me give you another startling finding. If you take disadvantaged, minority children starting at age six to eight weeks – I mean, they’re literally just born – and you follow these kids and give them intensive interventions for about eight years, you can boost their IQ at least up to age 21. You can see permanent differences between the treatment and control groups in both men and women, boys and girls. > > And so what do you do to boost these IQ scores? > > James Heckman: What you do is do what a normal middle-class parent does. Disadvantaged parents are simply not providing much information. That’s what these programs can do. They can encourage the child by saying, “Look, you were born into certain conditions, but there are other opportunities for you.” ---
**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 26, 2013, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1044 "2013-02-26T13:04:22Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Who says they’re substantially lower in decades prior? They may have been, but I haven’t seen such data. No one has put forward the notion that the Flynn effect has gone on forever- or even for more time then the data suggests. As for the rest of your question, I’m not going to bother trying to interpret the weird use of language. This is a tangent you’ve been focused on, and I feel no need to humor you. > > No- 60 years ago, I don’t believe the average black people had a “genuinely limited mental state” (whatever that means). I haven’t seen IQ test score data for black people from 60 years ago- but whatever it was, like Wicherts, I believe that people, on average, were not intrinsically less intelligent (again, whatever that means) in the past as compared to now (as Wicherts puts- it an IQ test score gap does not necessarily imply “real (i.e., latent) differences in intelligence”). There’s a lecture by Flynn, presented [here,](http://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/page/109/beyond-the-flynn-effect.htm) you might be interested in. Flynn summarizes some of his thoughts and addresses a few of the paradoxes I’ve mentioned upthread. WRT when the rise began, I think it’s Flynn’s position that these various effects go back to at least the early part of the 20th century: _“(3) The Mental Retardation Paradox: In 1900, the average IQ scored against current norms was somewhere between 50 and 70. If IQ gains are in any sense real, we are driven to the absurd conclusion that a majority of our ancestors were mentally retarded.”_ I am not so sure about the average black-white data, though, including the idea that the black-white gap is narrowing. [This article](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907168/#R22) does not think the black-white gap itself is narrowing, despite a general assertion by Flynn that it is: _“Similarly, race/ethnicity differences themselves were consistent with past findings, in that the race differences were ordered with Caucasian/NA/AA respondents’ scores higher than those of Hispanics’ scores, which were in turn higher than those of African Americans. There have been gradual shifts in the size of the race differences in math and other ability measures. For example, Hauser (1998) and Grissmer et al (1998) documented convergence of the race difference in data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. **Until the current study, this finding could be explained by a differential Flynn Effect in which minority scores increased at a steeper rate. However, we found no interaction in our data; the three different race categories each showed substantial FE’s, but they also tracked closely to the same consistent increase. The absence of race differences in FE patterns** also has implications for the various other theories. If FE patterns in the NLSY-Children emerged from within the family, or were related to average family size (e.g., Sundet, Borren, & Tambs, 2008), ethnic differences in family culture and family size could potentially create differential FE patterns; but those differences were not observed. If average educational quality is lower for minorities, this could lead to differential FE patterns; again, this finding did not obtain.”_ (bolding by CP) I think there is plenty of data that IQ scores are rising, and that these rising scores occur where education is improving and environmental influences are affecting certain sub-categories of IQ tests. This is not pure artifact; I don’t want to argue that the Flynn effect is not substantive in the sense that what is being measured is not changing. But what I think is not changing is the fundamental average difference among populations for a maximum outcome when exposed to similar nurturing. Yes; nurturing makes a difference. It makes a large difference. It may (or may not) make a difference on IQ scores that is larger than any inherent difference. None of that means the underlying average genetic differences are trivial. Flynn’s fundamental contention now (I think) is that there are feedback loops between nurturing and brain development such that a properly-nurtured brain rises in capacity for certain IQ sub-components. I remain perplexed why this is taken as evidence against genetically-driven maximum potentials. It’s the stubbornly persistent residual gap that is the sticking point. I agree with you that 100 years ago people were not less intelligent, so for me the whole Flynn conversation is about IQ tests themselves. And this, of course, is what I have been complaining about here: If IQ tests measure something substantive, that’s interesting. If they measure something less substantive, why is the Flynn effect promoted so heavily by egalitarians? (As an interesting aside, one of the first observations that IQ was rising was made by GIGObuster’s buddy, [Richard Flynn)](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v297/n5863/abs/297222a0.html). ---
**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 26, 2013, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1045 "2013-02-26T13:13:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > \*"James Heckman: Let me give you a startling finding about achievement gaps. Suppose you pay children in the 5th and 6th grades, right when you think of the achievement gap opening up between blacks and whites, to take an IQ test. > > Say you have unmotivated black kids living in the middle of the ghetto and white kids from Scarsdale or some other upper-class neighborhood. You give each kid who gets a successful answer one M&M – just give them an M&M – and you say for each point extra on the IQ test, each correct answer, I’ll give you one more M&M. It turns out that the gap between the black and white student in the IQ test scores vanishes – vanishes completely. > > Let me give you another startling finding. If you take disadvantaged, minority children starting at age six to eight weeks – I mean, they’re literally just born – and you follow these kids and give them intensive interventions for about eight years, you can boost their IQ at least up to age 21. You can see permanent differences between the treatment and control groups in both men and women, boys and girls. > > And so what do you do to boost these IQ scores? > > James Heckman: What you do is do what a normal middle-class parent does. Disadvantaged parents are simply not providing much information. That’s what these programs can do. They can encourage the child by saying, “Look, you were born into certain conditions, but there are other opportunities for you.”\* > [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/02/it-pays-to-invest-in-early-education-says-a-nobel-economist-who-boosts-kids-iq.html](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/02/it-pays-to-invest-in-early-education-says-a-nobel-economist-who-boosts-kids-iq.html) Unfortunately, as I’ve noted multiple times, the popular assumption that differences in black-white performance are due to SES is false, utterly unsupported by data. Wealthy black kids with educated parents underscore poverty-stricken whites with uneducated parents. You might also want to review the comments upthread on the M&M test, if you have already forgotten them. You will also find references against the idea that black kids are poorly motivated, or otherwise lazy about school. I recommend switching from PBS to journals for your citation support. ---
**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 26, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1046 "2013-02-26T13:39:17Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Unfortunately, as I’ve noted multiple times, the popular assumption that differences in black-white performance are due to SES is false, utterly unsupported by data. Wealthy black kids with educated parents underscore poverty-stricken whites with uneducated parents. Why of course, when researchers find the opposite evidence of what you claim it is an unsupported claim. Never mind that PBS is reporting what the researcher said and you resort to the shooting the messenger fallacy. It is indeed your bias on what the science is continuing to report. As mentioned, before conclusions, based on evidence, like Nesbitt and others continue to carry the day among the majority of researchers. The point stands, you only follow fallacies to get you going. And I do not have imaginary support like you have demonstrated time and time again. [/QUOTE] > **[Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3394457/)** > > This paper introduces the notion of genetic essentialist biases: cognitive biases associated with essentialist thinking that are elicited when people encounter arguments that genes are relevant for a behavior, condition, or social group. Learning ... > [@](#): > > There is much evidence now, in a variety of domains such as sexual orientation, criminality, mental illness, obesity, gender, race, and ethnicity, of causal relationships between genetic attributions explaining group differences and perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. **The common theme among these attributions is that they go beyond the scientific evidence, with weak genetic explanations being interpreted as strong genetic explanations, which results in the gene being endowed with an almost mystical ability to shape individual and group characteristics, and sociocultural and environmental elements largely being ignored.** Once people consider the notion that genes are relevant for understanding some kinds of human conditions they come to think of those conditions differently; the heritable component becomes the essential feature of the condition increasing its causal influence. And once we frame genes as the cause of a problem, we are likely to also dwell on the notion that genes will represent the solution, and genetic engineering or eugenic policies may show an increase in their appeal. > > The vast majority of this research has been conducted in Western cultural contexts, and although evidence for psychological essentialism has been found across many diverse cultural groups (e.g., Gil-White, 2001; Sousa et al., 2002), there is also evidence that some correlates of psychological essentialism, such as a tendency to favor dispositional over situational information in explaining the behavior of others (e.g., Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999), or tendencies to view the self in entity terms (e.g., Heine et al., 2001), are more pronounced in Western than East Asian contexts. Further, in one study Chinese were less likely than Canadians to incorporate biological information about a target in making future predictions about that target (Lee, 2009). Hence, it is possible that genetic essentialist biases are more pronounced in Western contexts than in some non-Western ones. It is important to assess the degree to which genetic essentialist biases emerge similarly across cultural contexts (see Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). > > Genetics research continues to produce important and intriguing new findings. On the one hand, such findings may eventually contribute to an increased quality of life in a wide variety of ways, from enhancing food production with genetically-modified foods to improving health-outcomes via gene-based therapies (although many of these have yet to live up to their promise: see Pearson, 2009, for a discussion on the questionable therapeutic benefits of the identification of even monogenic disorders). On the other hand, new genetic discoveries, as they are communicated to and understood by the general public, tend to evoke essentialist biases. Hence, discussions of such research can be associated with strengthened fatalistic cognitions, a reduced belief in the importance of the environment in shaping human behavior, and a decrease in perceived individual choice. Although the scientific importance of genetic research is beyond dispute, taking steps to ensure a reduction in the undesirable cognitions and behaviors that have so far dogged the study of genetics will go a long way towards fulfilling the great promise encompassed in such research. ---
**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 26, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1047 "2013-02-26T14:23:37Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Yes; nurturing makes a difference. It makes a large difference. It may (or may not) make a difference on IQ scores that is larger than any inherent difference. None of that means the underlying average genetic differences are trivial. And none of that means that “underlying average genetic differences” exist. You have no data that points to this conclusion to the exclusion of the various non-genetic explanations. There is no genetic evidence for “average genetic differences” in “maximum potential for intelligence”, so I find no reason to believe in such average differences between populations. > [@](#): > > Flynn’s fundamental contention now (I think) is that there are feedback loops between nurturing and brain development such that a properly-nurtured brain rises in capacity for certain IQ sub-components. I remain perplexed why this is taken as evidence against genetically-driven maximum potentials. It’s the stubbornly persistent residual gap that is the sticking point. I don’t believe Flynn (or I) are arguing that genetically-driven maximum potentials for intelligence don’t exist. They may exist individuals, but I see no reason to believe such possible average “maximum potentials” are different for different populations/races/ethnicities. > [@](#): > > I agree with you that 100 years ago people were not less intelligent, so for me the whole Flynn conversation is about IQ tests themselves. And this, of course, is what I have been complaining about here: If IQ tests measure something substantive, that’s interesting. If they measure something less substantive, why is the Flynn effect promoted so heavily by egalitarians? I don’t know of any “egalitarians”, so I can’t answer as to what these mythical beasts promote. I’ll let you know if I ever meet or hear of one other than from the straw-man ramblings of the whites-and-asians-are-smarter-crowd. IQ tests can measure something substantive without IQ-test-score-gaps indicating differences in average group intelligence- whether between past and present or two populations at the same time. Because we know conclusively of such gaps (like the past-present gaps of the Flynn effect) that have nothing to do with genetics (or “maximum potentials”), then similar gaps, whether past-present or two contemporary groups, and whether they are from IQ tests or some other tests, provide no data about genetics now. It’s all a distraction. If you want to make an assertion about genetics, back it up with **genetic data**. Find the genes. ---
**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 26, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1048 "2013-02-26T21:43:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Why of course, when researchers find the opposite evidence of what you claim it is an unsupported claim. Never mind that PBS is reporting what the researcher said and you resort to the shooting the messenger fallacy. It is indeed your bias on what the science is continuing to report. As mentioned, before conclusions, based on evidence, like Nesbitt and others continue to carry the day among the majority of researchers. > > The point stands, you only follow fallacies to get you going. And I do not have imaginary support like you have demonstrated time and time again. > [Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA - PMC](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394457/) I apologize; I missed your point again. The quote from that article seems to say genetic evidence is weak; that’s not the point I was making. I was making the point in response to your PBS link quoting Heckman (who seems to think the gap is explained by “disadvantaged” minority children), that poor SES is not an explanation for score gaps. Please take the time to re-read what you posted, and the point I made in response to it. Are you saying there is good data that shows SES normalization will normalize the academic scoring gap between whites/asians and blacks? If so, do you have a cite showing, for instance, that privileged black children perform equally to privileged (or even less privileged) whites on academic tests? ---
**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 26, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1049 "2013-02-26T21:48:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s all a distraction. If you want to make an assertion about genetics, back it up with **genetic data**. Find the genes. I agree the Flynn effect is a distraction, but I did not bring it up. I understand your discomfort with it. You want IQ to mean something, so the Flynn effect means something, but not something too important, because of the enormous black-white gap that is required if you accept Flynn’s research, and the startling paradox of retarded ancestors for all of us. As far as your “find the genes” mantra: If, in 1950, I posited that kids with Down syndrome\* probably have a genetic difference accounting for their difference in intelligence because I couldn’t get them up to par even with equivalent nurturing, would you reject a genetic hypothesis as “having zero evidence”? Or would you simply say that there is no absolute proof? \*Assume the specific genetic abnormality was not identified until 1959… ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1050 "2013-02-26T21:49:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And none of that means that “underlying average genetic differences” exist. You have no data that points to this conclusion to the exclusion of the various non-genetic explanations. There is no genetic evidence for “average genetic differences” in “maximum potential for intelligence”, so I find no reason to believe in such average differences between populations. … > > It’s all a distraction. If you want to make an assertion about genetics, back it up with **genetic data**. Find the genes. 1. The thing is that it’s a pretty robust finding that individual differences in cognitive ability are [significantly due to genetic variation](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/heritability-20.html). If you aggregate individuals into groups and see average differences you need to point to some environmental factors that are uniqely depressing or elevating scores in different groups. 2. Average differences are no smaller as you go up in SES. 3. If brain size and morphology which are linked to cognitive abilities (eg. the Australian Aborigines with larger visual cortex and greater visual memory than Europeans) that differs across groups that alone is a pointer against presuming these traits are equally distributed. 4. Mixed race individual perform intermediate to monoracial individuals. 5. Difference correlates with physical indexes of Caucasian admixture in the Black population. 6. Gaps are greater on more g-loaded tests (eg. the backward digit span compared to forward digit span) which have neurophysiological correlates such as brain neural conduction velocity, cerebral glucose metabolic rate, the latency and amplitude of evoked electrical brain potentials, the volume of white and grey matter, the mass of the prefrontal lobe, etc ([Gottfredson, 2011](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2010inequality.pdf)) So the onus is really on those claiming these differences are purely environmental to demand the tests that would show why anyone should think so. [James Lee](http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/lee-2009.pdf)suggested in his review of Richard Nisbett’s book “Intelligence and How to Get It” that admixture studies could resolve the debate. For example this kind of study is now being used to [look at the causes of medical disparities](http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/annurev-genom-082509-141523.pdf). ---
**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 26, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1051 "2013-02-26T22:31:13Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I agree the Flynn effect is a distraction, but I did not bring it up. I understand your discomfort with it. You want IQ to mean something, so the Flynn effect means something, but not something too important, because of the enormous black-white gap that is required if you accept Flynn’s research, and the startling paradox of retarded ancestors for all of us. More wrongness about IQ and the Flynn effect. I’m fine with moving on. > [@](#): > > As far as your “find the genes” mantra: > > If, in 1950, I posited that kids with Down syndrome\* probably have a genetic difference accounting for their difference in intelligence because I couldn’t get them up to par even with equivalent nurturing, would you reject a genetic hypothesis as “having zero evidence”? LOL- irrelevant- Down’s Syndrome is not a separate population of modern homo sapiens with a separate (or at least somewhat separate) history, ancestry, and heritage. But I’ll humor you- it would be a reasonable hypothesis, but so would developmental problems in the womb, or a viral disease, or many other possible explanations. We just didn’t know until later. ---
**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 26, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1052 "2013-02-26T22:32:28Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. The thing is that it’s a pretty robust finding that individual differences in cognitive ability are [significantly due to genetic variation](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/heritability-20.html). If you aggregate individuals into groups and see average differences you need to point to some environmental factors that are uniqely depressing or elevating scores in different groups. > > 2. Average differences are no smaller as you go up in SES. > > 3. If brain size and morphology which are linked to cognitive abilities (eg. the Australian Aborigines with larger visual cortex and greater visual memory than Europeans) that differs across groups that alone is a pointer against presuming these traits are equally distributed. > > 4. Mixed race individual perform intermediate to monoracial individuals. > > 5. Difference correlates with physical indexes of Caucasian admixture in the Black population. > > 6. Gaps are greater on more g-loaded tests (eg. the backward digit span compared to forward digit span) which have neurophysiological correlates such as brain neural conduction velocity, cerebral glucose metabolic rate, the latency and amplitude of evoked electrical brain potentials, the volume of white and grey matter, the mass of the prefrontal lobe, etc ([Gottfredson, 2011](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2010inequality.pdf)) Most of this is gobbledygook or just plain incorrect. Find the genes. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1053 "2013-02-26T22:54:56Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. If brain size and morphology which are linked to cognitive abilities This is the reason the world chess champion is an elephant. > [@](#): > > 1. Mixed race individual perform intermediate to monoracial individuals. Excellent elision of the truth, which is that there’s no correlation between percentage of African heritage and IQ (which is, by the way, the biggest problem with the genetic argument) > [@](#): > > 1. Difference correlates with physical indexes of Caucasian admixture in the Black population. No idea what this means, but if you’re saying that people who look white (but aren’t) test better than people who look black, then I’d say you just shot your argument in the foot. And if you’re trying to say that percentage of African heritage is correlated with IQ, then I’d just say you’re wrong. ---
**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 27, 2013, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1054 "2013-02-27T02:34:43Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > This is the reason the world chess champion is an elephant. And the reason microcephalics have some reason other than tiny brains to be so mentally challenged. :dubious: I don’t think it helps your case to make these sort of comments. It just makes you look like the smartass at the back of the class with nothing of substance to contribute. I’m not sure if iiandyiiii “find the genes” has commented on HMGA2, but there’s an example of a gene where [homozygotes with a simple C-for-T substitution](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120415150123.htm) had brains and IQs a couple percent larger. HMGA2 was only studied in a cohort of all Europeans. It’s not currently an explanation for different SIRE groups. But I think we are closer to finding the genes. ---
**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 27, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1055 "2013-02-27T02:39:53Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > LOL- irrelevant- Down’s Syndrome is not a separate population of modern homo sapiens with a separate (or at least somewhat separate) history, ancestry, and heritage. But I’ll humor you- it would be a reasonable hypothesis, but so would developmental problems in the womb, or a viral disease, or many other possible explanations. We just didn’t know until later. It would be a reasonable hypothesis, and so too is genetic causation a reasonable hypothesis for population differences. The reason it’s reasonable to hypothesize this is that, like Down syndrome, when no amount of focused nurturing normalizes outcomes, the residual difference is likely to be genetic. ---
**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 27, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1056 "2013-02-27T04:28:34Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > And the reason microcephalics have some reason other than tiny brains to be so mentally challenged. :dubious: > > I don’t think it helps your case to make these sort of comments. It just makes you look like the smartass at the back of the class with nothing of substance to contribute. > > I’m not sure if iiandyiiii “find the genes” has commented on HMGA2, but there’s an example of a gene where [homozygotes with a simple C-for-T substitution](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120415150123.htm) had brains and IQs a couple percent larger. HMGA2 was only studied in a cohort of all Europeans. It’s not currently an explanation for different SIRE groups. > > But I think we are closer to finding the genes. And that is what most scientists continue to report, I also noticed that it is still not a factor that can be a deal breaker: > [@](#): > > “Millions of people carry variations in their DNA that help boost or lower their brains’ susceptibility to a vast range of diseases,” said Thompson. “Once we identify the gene, we can target it with a drug to reduce the risk of disease. People also can take preventive steps through exercise, diet and mental stimulation to erase the effects of a bad gene.” As pointed many times before, the effects are bound to be not very important, the remedies will be applicable to most humans, and as mentioned many times before by experts a moot point regarding intelligence differences among races. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1057 "2013-02-27T05:09:03Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It would be a reasonable hypothesis, and so too is genetic causation a reasonable hypothesis for population differences. The reason it’s reasonable to hypothesize this is that, like Down syndrome, when no amount of focused nurturing normalizes outcomes, the residual difference is likely to be genetic. It’s because patients with Down’s Syndrome have high levels of a special _protein_ in their brains that alters cognitive function. Can you guess what the _protein_ is called? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1058 "2013-02-27T16:36:53Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I don’t think it helps your case to make these sort of comments. It just makes you look like the smartass at the back of the class with nothing of substance to contribute. Will the racists look down on me? ---
**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 27, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1059 "2013-02-27T16:55:53Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It would be a reasonable hypothesis, and so too is genetic causation a reasonable hypothesis for population differences. The reason it’s reasonable to hypothesize this is that, like Down syndrome, when no amount of focused nurturing normalizes outcomes, the residual difference is likely to be genetic. That’s all it is right now- a hypothesis. I see no reason to treat it as any better than any other hypothesis that hasn’t been ruled out- in fact, based on the admixture studies that have showed the gap correlates to self-ID but not African admixture, I’d treat it as weaker than other hypotheses. ---
**Author:** ![LMarie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@LMarie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LMarie)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/1060 "2013-03-04T21:40:33Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > If you have Netflix on demand, there is a very good National Geographic documentary available outlining The Genographic Project and most people could learn a lot about this by watching in it’s entirety. > > [Watch National Geographic: The Human Family Tree | Netflix](http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/National_Geographic_The_Human_Family_Tree/70122464?trkid=2361637) Have had this in my queue forever. Finally watching now…thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100.md?page=52) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100.md?page=54)