Genetics driving the difference in **intelligence among “races” **is the key here, and no you, get bupkiss on that regard as evidence goes. There is more evidence on changes that are applicable to medicine and to all humans at large for differences in intelligence not so much at all.
Seriously? There are tons of researchers who reject the genetic explanation, including Frank Sweet, whose research has been discussed to death in this thread.
For another, James Flynn (of “Flynn effect” fame") compares the difference in IQ between whites in modern times and whites in the past to the current black-white test score gap, suggesting that the gap can be explained by environmental factors if “the average environment for Blacks in 1995 matches the quality of the average environment for Whites in 1945.”
In addition, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists and the American Anthropological Association both reject the genetic explanation.
Missed the edit, what I’m trying to say is that:
Genetics driving the difference in **intelligence among “races” **is the key here, and no you, get bupkiss on that regard as evidence goes.
There is more evidence on changes that are applicable to medicine on some groups and to all humans at large (like in the last article cited by the Chief).
For differences in intelligence or genes that are identified as such there is not much evidence at all. Or it is a moot point when environmental differences affect human intelligence more than the genetic ones and ethics and basic human rights makes even more so. Combine that with the idea that it is very likely that if specific genes are identified as affecting intelligence, chances are that they will be found to be present also in a good number of members of the “correct” races. (An idea based on the debacle of the hearth drug for blacks that it turned to be just as effective for other ethnic groups.)
QTF and it goes to the heart of one of my points, claiming that we are like anti-VAXers is bananas and a demonstrated bullshit point.
If there was an ounce of support on what what the chief said on his post where he compared us to antivaxers, it does follow that it would be easy to find scientific organizations would be very forthcoming with the condemnation of this so called equivalence with the anti-scientific positions of Dr Wakefield. As it happens, even when PBS bothers to ask what the experts report, they sound once again as we said they do, many times before:
Duplicate post
Environmental differences don’t explain group differences - there are significant differences even when you control for environmental variables such as SES. At this level cognitive abilities have similar levels of heritability to height. A significant portion of the variation is due to genetic variation. Accordingly, it’s reasonable to suspect part of the differences seen between groups are due to the same environmental and genetic factors that explain individual differences within groups.
Also, there is no evidence for some specific x-factor depressing minority achievement or elevating achievement for other groups. See the David Rowe research earlier.
Then you have more basic physical evidence brain size is linked with cognitive abilities and average brain size differs across groups. Also, mixed race individuals tend to perform intermediate to monoracial individuals from the respective populations.
Another thing is that group differences appear to be heavily g-loaded (linked to a number of brain correlates), as opposed to the differences seen between deaf or blind people and non-handicapped people which reflect cultural effects.
Lots of problems there, as mentioned before it is when differences on intelligence regarding race enters the picture is when the problems appear, when race is mentioned in the Wikipedia cite it has outdated references and cites Lynn 2003.
Same old, same old, comes up like a bad penny.
Frank Sweet is a researcher? I apologize. I thought he was more of a blogger. Since he seems to be your main cite here, I wonder if you can point me to one of his papers.
I’m looking for researchers in the general field of population genetics and evolution who make the claim that there are no differences between populations for genes driving neurobiological functions. Again, I am not saying there aren’t any; I just want to see how they phrase it.
Perhaps you can also quote the salient statements of the Associations you mention. In various statements I’ve seen for this type of organization, the dismissal for a genetic claim revolves around carefully-worded language that “race is not a biological construct” or the like. As I’ve pointed out ad nauseum, this is a strawman set up to reassure the public that one is not a “racist,” and is not the point.
The Flynn anti-genetic argument is a rather contorted one, but if you want to pursue that tangent later, I’ll see if I have time. I’m just trying to peel away your arguments one by one; when you lose ground in one area you start pursuing another.
I’m also still waiting for a study cite on lousy parenting, teacher expectations and oppositional culture, so I can review those data that you and Mr Sweet have found so convincing.
I hope it’s not inconvenient to ask for cites, but frankly (no pun intended), if you look through your posts here, they are a little light. I don’t count bloggers and newspaper or magazine editorials as scientific research. I hope you don’t either.
Finally, this is not a contest of public opinion. It’s not even a contest of the broadest opinion. It’s a question of where the evidence lies.
More conspiracy rubbish. It certainly makes it easy to dismiss your opponents, which would include pretty much the entire scientific establishment, when there’s a handy conspiracy you can lump them all in.
Nope- I have one argument- there is no evidence for your genetic explanation, so there is no reason to believe it. Maybe there will be evidence some day, but you have none today. That’s the argument I’ve stuck to the entire time. You’ve rotated 'round and 'round with a Gish Gallop of data, either unrelated to genetics or unrelated to intelligence (or both), none of it actually supporting the genetic explanation.
These are simply suggestions for reasonable, rational, non-genetic causes that have not been controlled for- while you’re certain of an explanation with no evidence, I’m far from certain about anything. But just for kicks:
For teacher expectations, read this- in short, teachers have lower expectations for black students then white students, and the lowered expectations actually lowers student performance. This isn’t even particularly controversial, and has been demonstrated in other countries (between the “dominant” ethnic group and other groups). No discussion of genetics here, just how lowered expectations affect education.
On differences in parenting skills, here and here. Again, no discussion of genetics- just how parenting skill differences affect development (and vary between populations).
On oppositional culture, the aforementioned Ogbu research (which has been challenged).
I’m not taking a position, or trying to support a hypothesis. I’m just pointing out the lack of evidence for yours- which you continue to dance around. You believe “blacks are inherently, genetically dumber, on average”, the evidence be damned. And even more ludicrously, you believe that widespread acceptance of this would actually help black people. That alone makes me question every single thing you say, not to mention the many, many straw-men you’ve built up and torn down, and the many misrepresentations of my arguments, and the many other just plain false statements about the facts.
Of course- and you have no evidence. I don’t know why you insist on clinging to an untested hypothesis- why not just wait to make up your mind until the genes are found? Why is it so important that everyone accept an untested hypothesis now?
You have no way of knowing this; no study has even come close to eliminating all environmental factors. And no study has found the genes for intelligence, and shown them to differ in prevalence among populations. In short, no reason to support the genetic explanation- it’s just another untested hypothesis.
Again, this seems to indicate that you do agree that there is some evidence for the genetic explanation, scant, weak, or insignificant as it may be. Is that right?
If I’m understanding you, it appears that you’d be fine with: “Genetics drives the difference in intelligence among populations.” Is that correct? Because your statement seems to have a problem with the word “race”. Correct? If so, I’d direct you to read what Chief Pedant has posted numerous times as far as an insistence on using the term “race” in the discussion. We can have this discussion without it. It just adds unnecessary emotion.
Personally, I think that statement is too strong. I’d offer, “Genetics accounts, at least partially, for differences in intelligence among populations.” It indicates that genetics plays a role, but even allows for the role to be small. So small to be, as you’ve said quite a few times, “moot”.
But again, the important distinction is that from your repeated statements pointing to mootness you do seem to agree that genetics plays a role in intelligence across various populations. That makes sense to me. I point to it only because of iiandyiiii’s mantra of “no evidence”.
Again, this seems to indicate that you do agree that there is some evidence for the genetic explanation, scant, weak, or insignificant as it may be. Is that right?
But lots of studies, which have been supplied, have eliminated various factors. As Paranoid Randroid indicated upthread, that is not meaningless. The studies were done and the environmental aspects that were controlled for didn’t seem to make a difference. You seem to want a super-perfect study where every possible aspect is controlled for. That would be great, but you know it’s an impossibility. (Which is why I think you take the position, actually.) Now, I agree that that results of such a study would be strong evidence as to whether genes are determinant for intelligence across populations, but these studies that actually have been done are evidence, as well. Albeit not as convincing. But you’re repeating your chant of “there is no evidence” is plainly wrong. You want evidence that is actually “proof” (identification of the actual gene(s)) or exceedingly strong evidence that would be the result of an super-perfect experiment that can never be done. Not only does that make no sense, you place a immensely unfair burden on the opposing side. You might as well say that unless the actual gene is identified (proof) you will accept nothing that supports the hypothesis as evidence. Do you see a problem with that?
Wrong, **iiandiii **is right, there is no evidence, you confuse evidence with research that **suggest **that genes are a factor in intelligent racial differences are , the point I make is that the bullshit is coming from **constantly **bringing research that does not point at the genetic differences as an explanation at all, it is almost always related to other issues, and you are just thinking that me entertaining that suggestion (I do it to point out that if that is so it is still a moot suggestion and there are unethical solutions from the proponents of those suggestions to boot) as being evidence.
The hypothetical suggestion (and it is generous to call it that) that there could be genetical differences regarding intelligence is only humored to make the other point I make: Scientists that entertain that suggestion report that it is bound to be a moot issue, because there are many other things to do, and on top of that, it is bound to affect all humans, once again I base that on what happened when researchers assumed that we could make a drug based on old concepts of human race or groups, white and people of other societal constructs do suffer too when science is ignored, we are one race and evolution is still there, but as medicine has found also, it is not a responsible idea to concentrate on racial differences when the trend is to look at individual conditions, all humans will be benefited, not just the ones that some reprehensible people insist they should be different and prejudged.
No, I don’t, actually. Science is hard. It’s perfectly reasonable to demand that genetic evidence is the only actual type of evidence that could possibly support the genetic explanation hypothesis. If it’s too hard to do right now, tough. There’s lots of things in science that we just can’t answer right now, but we hope to in the future. This looks like one of them. I find it ridiculous that anyone could possibly be as certain of this as CP is considering the zero genetic evidence; and even more ridiculous is his insistence that widespread acceptance of “blacks are inherently genetically dumber, on average” would actually help black people.
I think the portion I underlined is driving your thinking. Entertain for a moment, if you will, that an “intelligence gene” is found and the role of genetics in intelligence proves that not all populations are as intelligent as others? Then what?
It seems to me that the same way as environmental pressures and randomness have manifested themselves in certain populations having different skin colors, hair type, facial features, stature, that something that is fundamentally just an organ, might have been affected, as well. A study relating brain size with intelligence has already been presented. Why is it so outrageous to believe that the physicality of the brain would be immune from the workings of evolution?
I suggest you reread the posts by Paranoid Randroid, and feel free to rebut them if you can. But scientists often look for indirect evidence to look for evidence that will either support or kill a hypothesis. That is part of science. You keep saying “it’s hard”. Yeah, that is why they look for any evidence they can find. I think your position is akin to someone claiming that there is no evidence for a force that causes objects to fall to earth because we do not know precisely how gravity works.
Let me just add, the motivation of Chief Pendant, Chen, or anyone else is a useless distraction. The genetic explanation is either valid or it is not. Science is mum on what to do with the findings, regardless of what they are or how wise they might be.
Then why is it acceptable for them to ascribe motivations to GIGObuster, iiandyiiii, and others as part of the discussion? 
I already did. Anytime any particular explanation (like the parents’ economic status) is eliminated, it strengthens all remaining explanations (including the remaining environmental explanations) equally (using Bayesian thinking), and I don’t think this can count as evidence for any other individual explanation.
Sure, but I don’t think anything CP has found qualifies.
I don’t believe that comparison is valid at all. I’m just asking that a hypothesis of a genetic explanation actually be supported with genetic evidence. I don’t believe that sociological evidence provides any insight whatsoever into genetics.
And they accuse me (with reason) of not having good grammar, but it is clear who is not paying attention.
Again, researchers, cited even by the Chief, report that it is possible that there is something there, but at levels that makes it a moot point. That is what.
It is when so many years pass and no specific genes are identified for gene differences in intelligence and other factors are still present.
That identification and assessment of how genes could affect intelligence BTW is the first step on considering possible solutions of any gaps, and that is if (and it is big if) genes turn to be an issue with differences in intelligence among races.
As it stands, scientists see as more productive to look at the changes all humans are having. IMHO it is more reasonable to assume that a good chunk of humanity of any ethnicity is bound to have the same or **very **similar limiting issues with their genes, it is better to skip unreasonable hung ups with old race classifications and concentrate on individual issues.
Thank you for the cites. I’ll have to defer comment on the Teacher Expectation one, as it’s $15 to see the content. Specifically, I’m wondering what the basis for the antecedent scores was to get the predicted outcomes which varied according to expectations.
For the first “Parenting” cite. It basically suggests that poor parents are crummier parents and I agree with this. Poor parents are less educated, and frequently less bright. “Parents who talk a lot
to their children, ask questions, use many different
words, and discuss events are also
more likely to be highly educated, to have
high incomes, and to have few children, as
well as to have children with large vocabularies.
And these latter characteristics are themselves
associated with child vocabulary. Thus
in reality parental education might account
for the link between parental talking and
child language.”
But, as I said earlier, the problem with the “poor parent” explanation is that it doesn’t explain gaps when the parents are educated and wealthy.
The second cite for Parenting is more persuasive to me on the point that blacks are worse parents, even when SES is adjusted for, but I am still parsing out exactly what it is saying. It looks to me like the key point is that Southern black mothers increased their involvement with the cognitive development of their kids because it paid off better than other regional groups. I have trouble using the study to say much more than that, but I’d be happy to be corrected.