Lol, another ironically unsubstantiated claim.
Project much?
Let’s do this: Point out one claim I have made; represent to me that you are seriously skeptical of the claim; and I will attempt to support it.
In other words, put up or shut up.
No, of course I didn’t read that paper. I don’t need more data about the gap- I’ve already acknowledged (over and over again) that it exists. I’ve already stated what would count as evidence- find the genes for intelligence, and show their prevalence in different populations. No intelligence test data, no sociological data, no historical trends, nothing but the genes.
The vast majority of differences between populations are explained by culture. There’s no evidence that genes are the answer to this question. Until I see actual evidence, I have no reason to believe that test-score gaps aren’t explained by that which explains most of the gaps in history and in the world today- culture, in some manner or another.
GIGObuster said:
To which you replied:
At no point did GIGObuster suggest that evolution only involved skin and hair genes. The problem is that you were too quick to assume that he was wrong. His usage of ‘mostly skin deep’ was to remind you and others of the ineluctable fact that the genetic variation in the entire human species is remarkably low in comparison to that of the other Great Apes. That is to say, that variations between different ‘sire’ groups are superficial or minor in general.
There are certainly outlier populations that have exhibited stable positive mutations (Apolipoprotein AI-Milano as one example), but such anomalies can’t justifiably be applied to such populations in the manner suggested by your previous statements.
A weak correlation between a few genes for dopamine and educational attainment says nothing about intelligence between different populations.
The historical economic and “totem pole” data says nothing about genes for intelligence, and never will. Same with historical test-score data, or other sociological data. It’s just not credible that after a few decades of half-hearted efforts to close the gap, you’re ready to say it’s impossible- especially when some studies have shown it to have shrunk at various periods.
You’ve made a hypothesis to explain the test-score gap, and that’s it. Science is hard.
Correct, Gagundathar, to that I would add differences in bone structure and health related differences just to make forensic people and doctors happy, but as it was pointed before even the attempts at using old race definitions there just failed to take into account that medicines for black people turned to be as effective with white people.
The point is that the genetic differences are more related to adaptations to the environment and locations, intelligence is not much affected and the evidence for the assumed slight differences is lacking. Even at best it is not likely to go soon to the levels of a new species or race and most geneticists, biologists and anthropologists agree on that.
IMHO the ethical and sociological reasons of why the current effort by race realists is reprehensible has also to be taken into consideration, it is not surprising that even a previous citation (cited twice) from Chief Pedant concludes that it is not good to go forward with research on this matter if the minorities affected are not consulted and are part of the research, and one should never forget that harm also comes to melanin challenged people. 
if we hung up to old race definitions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/from-bang-to-whimper-a-heart-drugs-story.html?_r=0
This study from Harvardsuggests that the genetic explanation for the gap is unlikely because the gap gradually increases at a steady rate after age 4; genetic differences would generally show up at one age and the difference would stay the same at later ages.
GIGObuster said, "So yeah, it is indeed bullshit to claim that we or most scientists are not taking evolution into account, they do, it is just that the annoying thing for Chief Pedant and others is that it is still the genes being mostly skin deep.
I do not think it is a mischaracterization of that post (you can read it just upthread) that it is trying to support the idea that gene prevalence differences are mostly skin deep. Did you read the article he cited?
*“Given the fraught nature of the subject, the results are gratifyingly uncontroversial. Several of the differences Dr Quintana-Murci detected are in genes for the superficial racial markers of skin colour and hair form. Most of the others whose functions are known are connected either with diet or with resistance to disease…
All in all, the school of thought which holds that humans, for all their outward variety, are a pretty homogenous species received a boost.” *
This reporter is clearly reassuring the public that no significant evolutionary changes have driven differences other than minor ones such as skin color and hair form.
But if GIGObuster wants to accede that evolution has driven hundreds of signficant genes, as exemplified in the article I cited (1,800 genes, positively selected and therefore probably advantageous, grouped by SIRE category of asian, european and african, and involving major ontological categories such as neuronal function), well then my apologies for misunderstanding why he posted that response.
And it is still bullshit that we do not follow evolution or resort to creationist points, so apology accepted as I mentioned what you are saying on my previous post.
As for intelligence genes, from the paper you cited, we get bupkiss and unknown function brain ones.
Although you seem to be hung up on old race definitions, I am not. Feel free to read my posts upthread…
The reason ethical considerations are raised at all is obvious. All of the folks who study this area realize that:
- Gene prevalences differ among populations, and
- Those genes drive significant outcome differences
This creates a dilemma. Do we allow science to prove that populations differ genetically because that’s the truth, or do we step tenderly around a tender subject, which now has ethical considerations because it’s gonna crush the egalitarian paradigm?
If it were the case that genes are all pretty much the same for any signficant skillsets, and prevalences are the same, there’s no ethical issue at all, is there? We should fund all the research we can to hurry up and prove it. Erase, once and for all, the claims of those terrible, racist, non-egalitarians that our populations differ in their genes, and that their outcome differences are driven by those genetic differences.
Instead, scientists in this area have to concern themselves with what is becoming more obvious with every unraveling of the genome and its function, along with our evolutionary history and migration patterns. We are different genetically by population, and genes do evolve, and lucky descendant population do have gene prevalences driven by positive selection of advantageous genes…on and on in the wrong direction for egalitarians.
That’s why there’s “an ethical dilemma.”
It’s just silly to worry about “ethical considerations” if what you are about to prove is that we are all equal genetically. On the other hand, if you are engaged in research about to prove the opposite, the ethical red flag arises.
Nope, you are not even wrong.
And stop relying on the “inevitable Victory” tactic so much beloved by creationists.
The study you quote essentially says that if you measure the intelligence of babies under one year old, SIRE groups are about equal. * “By age two, however, substantial racial gaps emerge.”* Perhaps the difference is therefore environmental. The authors note that, *“Even after accounting for a host of demographic and socio-economic factors such as parental income, education, occupation, home environment, birth weight, region, and urbanicity, a substantial Black-White test score gap generally remains. Asians, on the other hand, tend to have systematically higher mean test scores than those of other races.”
*
They go on to point out that it may be that we may not be very good at testing little babies for “higher order thinking” and that “A final argument in defense of the genetic story would be one in which the racial differences are concentrated in higher order thinking (or general intelligence, “g”, which may not yet have emerged among one year olds.”
I’m a little underwhelmed. First, because I don’t think we’re very good at testing babies for g, and second, because we are still left with the same mysterious, unelucidated “environmental influences” that are not in the “host of demographic and socio-economic factors” they list. What’s left? Are we back to wealthy and educated black parents being incompetent as compared with poor and undereducated white and asian parents?
Finally, the hypothesis that “genetic differences would generally show up at age one” is completely unfounded. Where did you get that idea from? If the gap really is non-existent at 9 months, and shows up as the years go by, and shows up even when that kid is raised by highly educated parents and has no other known confounding variables, would not the most parsimonious conclusion be that higher thinking takes a while to develop, but is still driven by genes? Many other differences (age of sexual maturity is a typical example) don’t show up until later, and the experience of most parents I know is that the teenage brain is still about squash-level for maturation.
It would help if you read through the thread–at least my posts–before assuming you know what I even said.
- I don’t give a crap about how to define race, and it’s irrelevant.
- Differences among SIRE groups are irrelevant unless we as a society insist upon making social policy based on bad–read, egalitarian–science, or unless we level charges of “racism” and “discrimination” based on outcomes and not evidence of actual discrimination.
We do need to protect race-based AA, because the score gaps will not go away. They are driven by genes. Pretending they are not endangers race-based AA. I have presented this elsewhere in this thread, and you can go read those arguments.
Of course we need to treat one another with fairness, and in the last paragraph of your quote, it’s a complete strawman to conflate “race realism” (by which I think is meant the idea that we are not genetically equal) with some sort of crusade against “racial equity.” In point of fact, the opposite is true.
If we want to get to an equitable society–particularly with respect to proportionate represenation for SIRE groups at all levels of that society–we all have to become “race realists.” We all have to give up our cherished notions that all SIRE groups have the same ability, and we have to figure out ways to work with cards that mother nature gave us. If one of those cards is genetic differences, we should simply accept that, promote race-based AA, and move on. Pretending there are no differences–or that people who think there are differences automatically have ugly motives–is not going to get us anywhere.
I often use the example of women, who have average differences for many things from men. We don’t pretend those differences are not there. We figure out which ones are innate, and accommodate for those. We figure out which ones are simply outdated assumptions, and we correct those assumptions. The worst thing we could do for gender equality is ignore the real, genetically-driven differences in an effort to be “fair” or “ethical.”
Meh, as it was clear from your reply to **iiandyiiii **you do not know also what “multiple lines of evidence” means.
Your arguments are still silly. And it is clear that it is you who has not paid attention to what I said. Your points are even more irrelevant when ethics are taken into consideration.
And, as it is clear from your reply, it has to be remarked once again that claiming that the intelligence gap “are driven by genes” is bullshit, there is no genetic evidence as per your previous cite either, so you can not say that, a more honest thing remains to report that maybe someday something will be found, but it looks unlikely or IMHO it is likely to turn to be a factor that will not be deemed as important as other solutions that work better.
The paper isn’t simply data about a score gap. It’s a detailed discussion of how it appears to reflect selection over a certain period with reference to certain genes.
As noted above - I’ve already pointed you to genes linked to educational attainment that vary in prevalence across populations. It’s a truism that identifying further genes and looking at their prevalence would help resolve the issue.
In the meantime I think the default position should be that group differences reflect an aggregation of the environmental and genetic variation that explain individual differences. There is no evidence of any special X-factor that is depressing scores for a particular group (see David Rowe’s research). Also, controlling for socio-economic factors doesn’t eliminate differences.
Then there is actual physical evidence of brain differences, such with the visual cortex in Australian Aborigines and in brain size across populations (summary of papers here).
And from the first paper linked:
As far as I can see, once again I think most scientists are on the right track, they report that genes may be a factor, but not the main one, and for practical purposes not a very useful one to consider when looking for other more practical solutions.
By the way, it’s well known that the heritability of IQ increases with a child’s age. So if “the gap” is in part due to genetics, one would expect that it will be a lot more pronounced among adolescents and teenagers than among the very young. Which is exactly what you see.
When you have some specific counter arguments or scientific articles to post, I’d like to look them over. When, instead, you resort to self-aggrandizing puffery about your understanding of science and/or ethics, and your support articles are from the Economist, New York Times and bloggers, it’s a bit annoying to bother to reply. Feel free to reexamine the first article I cited and point out to me where I have confused exactly what the issue is: an ethical concern is raised precisely because research into population differences is potentially incendiary. Clearly, it would not be incendiary if the research simply proved an egalitarian hypothesis. But population genetics and an understanding of evolutionary biology are leading us in the opposite direction: we may have a lot of variation within populations, but there are real differences between populations that drive outcome differences. Science is not going to let us off that hook, and so we have to decide if it’s ethical to pursue the elucidation of differences. If we do, we need ethical straitjackets such as getting informed consent (and, I note wryly, typically the push for such “informed consent” tacitly admits that some groups should be informed more carefully than others…the theme underlying the concern is that the genetic science is not going to yield unexpected results).
As to your blogger, Mr Tim Wise:
First, his anti-racism training from the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond apparently left him with the mistaken impression that a key argument for population differences rests upon the idea that “Race is a scientifically valid category of human difference.” Read my posts upthread for why I think this is a ridiculous strawman, which he raises to the degree of “sub-speciation” by the end of the blog you cited. Perhaps the People’s Institute needs to add population genetics to their study courses so their students don’t get confused with so many strawmen to knock down.
Second, he finds comfort in this sort of reasoning:
“…if IQ gaps can be halved in less than half a decade of intensive educational instruction, genes cannot possibly be the culprit.”
That’s really lame (leaving aside arguments about the research itself), because it assumes that we are either all genes or all nurture, and so if we prove something is partly nurture, there must not be any nature. It’s like saying “The Pedant got better coaching for basketball and his skills improved; therefore even better coaching would get him into the NBA.” The whole problem with the black/white/asian gap is that, for blacks it improved once we put in place intensive programs, but then never closed. Essentially, we ameliorated environmental variables (see upthread for the ones that have been dismissed as reasons), and never got rid of the residual gap.
Finally, (and I encourage others here to read the blog article from your link), I smell fear. Your boy is actually coming around to figuring it out, and he’s having to shift his confidence in his long held genetic egalitarian belief. From the article:
*“Although the longstanding position of those of us who reject race as a scientific category has been that population groups are not the same as “races,” and thus, this research still doesn’t justify elevating race to a category of scientific fact, the population groups identified by the DNA markers did in fact bear a remarkable relationship to the self-identified racial groups of the persons whose genes were tested. In other words, differences were found, they were reasonably large in terms of the distinctiveness of the patterns discovered, and they did correlate with so-called racial categories, however those categories may themselves have been socially constructed. Does this mean that race is real? Well, it depends on what you’re looking for. It certainly means that there are persistent and real genetic differences that cluster within so-called racial groups, and more so than many *(by CP: I am guessing we’re talking about Timmy himself here 
) *have heretofore believed.”
*
He first pleads for his “sub-speciation” strawman, creating a ridiculous and fake assertion that sub-speciation should be the new standard. If you can’t show that, these population differences shouldn’t be paid much attention to. Nice try. Then, his bubble having been popped that there are no biological differences among SIRE groups, he resorts to an argument that the identified differences are in DNA not coding for significant differences. This is the classic pollyanna egalitarian view: apparently evolution only codes for genetic differences that don’t affect real-world skillsets for real-world outcomes. Yeah; sure. That’s why there’s an “ethical dilemma” in doing the research in the first place: We might end up proving we’re all equal genetically. :dubious:
Finally, he segues into a moral high ground discussion. He apparently wants to claim that any genetic differences shouldn’t prevent us from treating one another as moral equals, or creating a society in which all of us can participate.
Hello? I agree with him completely. That’s exactly the position I have taken in this and every other thread. We should accept the genetic differences among us as individuals and populations. We should treat one another as moral equals, with diverse skillsets handed out according to the capriciousness of Mother Nature. Where differences exist at a SIRE group level, we should create social constructs and policies to ameliorate outcome differences so that every group gets a seat at the feast.
It’s nice to see Mr Wise wising up. The vast majority of his essay is predicated upon the assumption that there may be genetic differences among populations, and a defense of what we should do if that turns out to be true. He’s coming around to a little population reality himself, and it’s a good thing, too. Science is not going to be kind to genetic egalitarians.
So what? I asked for data about the genes for high or low intelligence, and prevalences in different populations. You have none.
Yes, if there was actually evidence for your position then this might help resolve the issue.
And I think the default position should be that which explains most group differences- culture and environment, until there’s evidence otherwise.
Just like the anti-evolutionists say “evolution is on the way out”. Sorry- not only does your certainty speak poorly of your understanding of science, your certainty does not actually effect the reality of the evidence- you have none.
My position is that sociological data, like test-score gaps, cannot provide any information whatsoever about group genetics in a biased society with a history of oppression. Unless you have data from a perfectly egalitarian society, the only data that can actually provide any insight into genetics is genetic data- that is, find all the genes for high or low intelligence and show their supposed different prevalences in different populations.