As the context shows, this is were the grasping at straws comes from, the “maybe” still refers to a lack of evidence regarding genes driving the differences in intelligence among races. And the cite was brought to show the levels of support people like Rushton, Lynn and others so dearly quoted by people like you actually have in scientific circles.
If there is one thing that can be learned from this thread is that the SDMB is as egalitarian as all hell (all quotes snipped for sanity).
If you are down to attacking a non-egalitarian position by attacking spokespersons for it, you are the one grasping at straws.
I have argued for, and presented cites for, the following:
- There are measurable and persistent outcome differences among populations of humans.
- These populations have measurable and specific differing prevalences for many, many genes.
- Genes for which the prevalences differ have been shown to be positively selected for (not simply a result of genetic drift, chance, or population bottlenecks), and
- These include genes which play roles in neurbiological functions.
- Despite 40 years of intense effort, millions and millions of dollars in social programs, and propositions for nurturing variables, not a single success story has stood the test of time for erasing differences among populations. This is particularly true in the US, where a history of discrimination and abuse toward blacks has created a concerted effort to go beyond “equality,” and through measures like race-based AA, artificially advance the SES of black Americans. And yet, even where SES has been totally erased, these stubborn differences persist, as they persist across the entire world–always in the same general pattern for outcomes.
Against this, you raise an opposition that amounts to nothing more than scolding that anyone could take the above data and come to a conclusion that human populations have net average different outcomes based on how nature has wired them. Your entire “evidence” to date has consisted of what you think is a net opinion among scientists that genetic egalitarianism is correct.
I am telling you that you are also wrong about that. The net opinion of leading scientists in the fields of genetics and intelligence, evolution, anthropology, and population genetics is NOT that human populations are genetically equal, even for intelligence. While it is true that they will not come out and say–as you apparently want them to–“Hey; blacks are dumber and faster,” neither will they come out and say, “Hey; all populations are genetically equal for the potential for measured outcomes like standardized exams and sprinting.” The are not going to tell Virginia there is no Santa Claus, but neither are they going to say, “Santa Claus is real.”
The reason is simple: Any statement that amounts to promoting a genetic difference among populations for very sensitive outcomes such as intelligence tests requires more effort to defend the misinterpretations of it than a scientist or their funding organization is willing to put up with. I encourage you again to read the Bruce Lahn story as a representative example.
On the other hand, scientists in these fields are very good at allowing Virginia to conclude there is no Santa Claus. Aside from refusing to make statements that our populations are genetically equal (which would put the matter to rest, if that’s what the racists need to shut them up), they present their scientific conclusions for a given study and just avoid editorializing at all. One such study I’ve given you shows 1800 positively selected genes (we humans only have 20-30K effective genes total, depending on how you count them) that cluster among even large population groups such as SIRE groups. The approach of most scientists is to reassure the public that “race is not a strict biological construct.” This is like saying “Santa lives as long as we hope for Christmas.” It’s meaningless.
May I suggest that instead of telling me all the time what scientists think, or pointing to vague broad essays scolding me or other non-egalitarians and making your own digest of what was said there, you actually quote someone in this field who says what you think he or she should be saying? I’ll then be able to look at exactly why you are drawing a conclusion that I think is incorrect.
I’ve given you an example of how one such “champion”–James Flynn–quoted here really thinks something quite different from how I think iiandyiiii represented his research. I guess I’m still waiting for a comment about Flynn’s current estimate of 85 for adult black IQ in the US. This number is the one that underpins his entire research. Is it correct?
As to his comments…he clearly thinks intelligence is hereditary. He clearly thinks the less educated have lower IQs and therefore create a net negative IQ trend by procreating disproportionately rapidly. It does not take a rocket scientist to look at the NZ demographics for the less educated and figure out immediately which populations are disproportionately represented there. That’s why he had to do the damage control in the first place. I reiterate my position that almost all of the scientists in this field have a private and frank position not put as bluntly in papers as in private or unguarded moments. Flynn is a good example, but not atypical. It’s a very delicate process to kill Santa Claus without killing joy.
Basically, all the scientists agree with CP but are afraid to say so (even the many who specifically say they disagree with the genetic hypothesis?), and he knows this because… he’s a mind reader?
We can also learn that Orcenio isn’t much for evidence that supports an alternate viewpoint, and hopes throwing an untidy fit will distract the debate.
No, that number does not “underpin his entire research”- but he discusses where it comes from here. His conclusion is that IQ test scores for black people, on average, have increased by about 6 points over the last 30 years or so, from an analysis of several tests. According to this data, the gap has shrunk. I don’t know why, going forward, anyone could conclude that the gap must be immutable.
So are you going to stop with the Rushton-esque “egalitarian” straw-man?
I gave some evidence/links ten pages ago, but they’ve been washed away by now…one might say washed away in a tide… a tide of egalitarianism! 
Nope, as mentioned before you need a cathedral of rhetoric just to come up empty in the end. You have no supporting cite to claim what you said about Flynn, Wikipedia gives us the context and so we have to conclude that you based all that screed in a misinterpretation, as it is usual in your case.
You are once again just claiming that evidence of specific genetic differences means that automatically we have genetical differences driving differences in intelligence, that is really just a hasty generalization fallacy.
The Irish? (See my reference to Lynn’s theories about the Irish up thread.)
Seriously, you know the secret opinions of the world’s scientists because they’re what, beaming messages into your brain?
Incidentally, what do you make of the presence of Neantdertal genes among the Yoruba? ( I got this from your link to Hawks’ site. Ignorance fought on my part. Who knew?) Do you see why this is a problem for your pet theories about black Americans?
From your Flynn cite (pp. 9 and 12:
“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 constancy of the black/white IQ gap is a myth. Blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ
points on whites over the last 30 years. Neither changes in the ancestry of those
classified as black nor changes in those who identify as black can explain more than a
small fraction of this gain. Therefore, environment has been responsible.”
These are, in fact, the numbers that underpin his entire research. That is, the mean black IQs which create the “rising” IQ for blacks begins in 1972 with a mean black adult IQ of 79. Seventy-nine average IQ for blacks! For the whole adult population! Flynn is not sure how far back this trend goes, so he is not sure how low the mean black IQ was before 1972. He considers military records and so on unreliable. You can read the paper to see the various machinations he uses to derive these baseline historic and current numbers.
But these are the exact numbers that drive his conclusion. That’s what I mean by “underpin his research.”
As I mentioned earlier, I have trouble with these numbers for the mean IQ of blacks, because I think they are ridiculously low. A mean IQ of 79 for an entire population puts half the entire population below an intellectually challenged threshhold. Does that seem likely to you for blacks in the US in 1972? And since there isn’t some magic thing that happened in '72, what does Flynn think the average black IQ was in 1942?
Psychometric testing is not a simple science; I understand that. But to conclude that “environment has been responsible” for IQ gains, and that therefore there is no genetic component when your baseline starting point puts half a population under an IQ of 80 is tough for me have pass the sniff test. Beyond that, just because environment has changed some of the IQ (if that’s true) would not lead to a pronouncement that all residual differences are environmental, particularly since SES has been so rigorously dismissed as a factor. If you give me better training and coaching for basketball, I’ll get better than I am now, but the fact that I improve doesn’t mean there’s no residual genetic difference between me and an NBA star.
Are you able to summarize this evidence, or point to post or link?
Oh my. I can’t say no to a fan!
Oh wait. Silly me. That was a link to my request for you to back up your claims that various West African civilizations were “Arab creations”. Oy; how I soooo tend to get confused 
it’s just such a long thread. 
I am not aware about Lynn’s theories about “the Irish” nor do I particularly care.
I think you are confused about what it means to have “Neandertal” genes. The recent research by Svante Pääbo about the introgression of Neandertal genes into the modern genome is not based on the idea that no “Neandertal” genes exist in all human populations. It’s based on an argument that there is an excess of Neandertal genes in non-africans and that analysis suggests this is from recent introgression. Since anatomically modern humans and Neandertals are theorized to have a common ancestor several hundred thousand years ago, “Neandertal” genes would be present in many human populations descending from that common ancestor. Any archaic genes are not the ones of current interest.
Possibilities for Neandertal genes in the Yoruba could be retention of archaic genes, continued gene flow between Neandertals and africans, or recent introduction via trans-saharan gene flow of Neandertal genes introgressed into non-african populations.
No; I do not see why this a problem for my “pet theories” and in fact I am wondering what those pet theories are. Is there something about my “pet theory” of black Americans you find scientifically unsupported? If so, what is it?
Not to worry. If you don’t have any evidence, you don’t have any evidence.
We know that if we gave modern IQ tests to people from 1945 (for example), on average they would score significantly lower then the modern average (so significantly below 100)- this is not-coincidentally called the Flynn Effect. Considering that Flynn has suggested (in 1995) that the “environment” for academic and intellectual development for black people may match that of white people from 1945, it would not be surprising at all that black people in 1995 scored the same as white people from 1945, for example. And just as the Flynn effect has nothing to do with genetics, the test-score gap may also have nothing to do with genetics.
Flynn noted an increase in test-scores. If, contrary to what Rushton asserts, the test-score gap has shrunk, then why should we believe it’s immutable? You can certainly dismiss the data if you like- frankly, I don’t care what you think, I’m just demonstrating that your conclusion is extremely weak and highly unscientific. With no genetic evidence, it’s just a hypothesis.
The irony of this response to Orcenio’s last post would be astounding, if one were not familiar with CP’s posting history.
I don’t get it. Maybe I’m missing something, but is the following an accurate summation of the two sides to this debate?
Chief Pedant’s side, and that of his supporters, who for some reason all have numbers after their names:
[ul]
[li]There may be genetic differences between different groups of people[/li][li]Different groups of people have different results on various tests[/li][li]Therefore test differences must be due to genetics[/li][li]You’re all a bunch of egalitarians (but I won’t tell you what that means)[/li][/ul]
Everyone else:
[ul]
[li]There’s lots of evidence that environmental differences have a huge impact on test scores[/li][li]There are no studies that show that genetics cause the test score differences[/li][li]There’s lots of studies that show that environmental differences could be responsible for the test gap[/li][li]The test gap is narrowing[/li][li]Therefore test differences probably aren’t due to genetic differences[/li][/ul]
Because if the above accurately summarizes the two sides then this really isn’t a debate at all; **Chief Pedant **is clearly wrong. In fact, none of his arguments touch on the central question at all, and everthing he’s said so far is a distraction.
That’s a fairly accurate summation, IMO.