Can you give me an example where I’ve used IQ data and cites for that IQ data? I don’t doubt there might be times when someone I’ve cited thinks the IQ gap is what you think it is, but that’s not the thing I am citing them for, I don’t think. Perhaps you can point me to where I did that.
I typically use test scores because they are easily quantifiable.
Again, I ask: Does iiandyiiii hold to the position that the current correct number for the mean adult black IQ in the US is 85, and in 1972 it was 79?
I have gone on record saying these numbers seem inappropriately low to me. Part of your confidence in why the difference is not genetic is that IQ scores are rising. The numbers that your expert, James Flynn, uses to underpin that rising IQ are the ones I just mentioned.
I want to understand your position: Is it that the current average adult black IQ in the United States is about 85?
BTW a few posts ago I pointed at Fryer and Leviit (2006) “The fact that the raw differences in test performance across races are so small, however, makes this argument [that genetic differences are at the root of racial gaps in intelligence] largely moot.”
What is happening is that indeed, what geneticists are reporting is that there is no evidence regarding genes driving the differences in intelligence among races, others can entertain the possibility, but even there they report that for practical purposes that it is a moot point.
And then the ugliness of the ethical and political issues crop up, making your points even more useless.
What is clear is that the meta-cognition compass is broken on some. And there is evidence even of what is going on here:
This biochemical fellow you cite rests his case on this idea: * “That (the complexity of genes underlying intelligence) means this: two different human populations could have easily developed differences in skin color between them, but differences in intelligence would have been extremely hard to develop, by chance or by natural selection.” *
I submit that is pure speculation. Evolution has not had difficulty driving cognition or any other complex trait. She throws mutations on the wall and sees what sticks, and often it turns out to be a surprisingly small change that ended up making a big difference. Earlier I gave you an example of a C for T substitution in HMGA2 that made an IQ difference of 2.6% in homozygotes for C verus homozygotes for T.
He also quotes some other scientists.
In one paper, they look at whether or not intelligence changes drove ASPM and MCPH selection. They do not think so, but in that paper, here’s what they think about genes and intelligence: “Variation in intelligence, as measured by standard IQ tests, is one of the most heritable behavioral traits identified to date in humans. With heritability estimates ranging from 25–40% in early childhood (19) to 80% in adulthood (20), IQ scores are the best available measures of intelligence for testing genetic associations.” (This is a nice way of saying that genes drive intelligence)
Another cite: “There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of substantial genetic influences on individual differences in general and specific cognitive abilities, especially in adults.”
And another: “The heritability of g is substantial. It increases from a low value in early childhood of about 30%, to well over 50% in adulthood, which continues into old age. Despite this, there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences. Here, we describe the human intelligence phenotype, summarise the evidence for its heritability, provide an overview of and comment on molecular genetic studies, and comment on future progress in the field.”
Intelligence has an enormous hereditary component. It is linked to our genes. You have to argue that, for any two individuals, the difference is genes but somehow at a group level the difference is environment. Then you have to get past the failure to show environmental differences are a cause of outcome differences among populations. It would help the egalitarian cause to be able to demonstrate an environmental cause which, when corrected, corrects the disparate outcome.
Not a single one of your quotes deals with genes driving race differences in intelligence. That “fellow” BTW is Michael White, biochemist and a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Genetics and the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology at the Washington University School of Medicine.
You are just pushing your fallacies and you are continuing to feed the wrong wolf.
From the JBHE article:
"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board’s 2005 data on the SAT:
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000."
Suppose the topic was genes driving height differences.
We have two populations with different average heights.
We find that height is highly hereditable for individuals. We don’t know the genes. Might be all sorts of genes in all sorts of people. Might be complex genetic factors working together. We know the two populations have different gene prevalences for many genes.
We also know that environment can stunt a kid.
We are utterly unable to get the short population to the height of the taller one no matter how many ways we manipulate the environmental variables to not only equalize them, but push them in favor of the short population.
But we continue to suspect that it’s more likely the environment, and continue to scold the heightists for their leap to a conclusion that it is likely to be genetic at the group level as well.
How slowly will I have to talk to get you to understand that the point is not whether or not there might be other variables?
The point is that income is not an environmental explanation. We can dissemble the other lame suppositions as soon as I figure out which other one you are championing. It seemed like you were championing the idea that blacks who took the SAT had lower grades. This is beyond stupid as a reason, since the whole discussion is based on the point that their outcomes as a group underperform other groups.
Yes. They have lower grades. They have lower test scores. They have lower academic performance, period.
What environmental factor are you championing? Low grades is not an environmental factor. It is an outcome.
As pointed before, I have little to complain about genes in some aspects, we have some evidence of our skin and several physical attributes, but once again they are not as huge as you imply; and then, as the evidence shows. You continue to go for a generalist fallacy when you want to claim that the same can be done with gene differences in intelligence between races.
"There are two key fallacies in these conclusions and both reflect the somewhat irresistible power of genetic essentialism. First, is the notion that heritability estimates calculated within groups are assumed to demonstrate that between-group differences are due to the postulated genes underlying the heritability. This fallacy reflects how the genes underlying heritable traits are assumed to be the sole factor (i.e., they represent a specific etiology) underlying both individual- and group-variability in the phenotype (see Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGffin, 2008). Demonstrating the appeal of this fallacy, research finds that people who use genetic explanations for individual differences are also more likely to use genes to explain perceived group differences for that same trait (Sternthal, Jayaratne, & Feldman, 2009).
The second fallacy is that the heritability of a trait is assumed to indicate that the trait cannot be modified by environmental elements – that is, a phenotype is viewed as a predetermined and immutable outcome of the underlying (but unidentified) genotype. But, of course, the heritability of any trait says nothing about its modifiability. That heritability is frequently interpreted in these erroneous ways (and for many topics in addition to race and intelligence), even by some behavioral geneticists and intelligence researchers, underscores how such arguments resonate with people’s essentialist biases. People often view intelligence in essentialist terms in that it is viewed as the immutable product of a fundamental cause (the genotype) that is coterminous with the individual’s race. Once these essentialist biases are prompted people focus their attention almost exclusively on the perceived underlying genetic foundation and thereby disempower environmental influences on intelligence."
And indeed this is the case here, an on top of this, it is even more illogical to assume that an specific environmental factor is being championed, this is a complex mix of environmental factors and very likely several are in play and not the same depending on the geographical location or time.
Based on the data I’ve seen, Flynn makes a good case for what the average test scores were in 1972 and 2002. I don’t know why this is such a big deal- every other thing you’ve cited shows the gap to be 1 SD or a little more… why is it so surprising if the gap is the same for IQ test scores?
So I asked you a question too- what do you hold the test score gap to be in SD?
I do not know what the academic test score gaps are in standard deviation. I have not personally been interested in trying to quantitate the difference by any measure other than direct performances on tests. But I submit there is a fundamental difference between academic tests and IQ tests. Sure; smarter kids do better, but an academic test is not a broad measure of intelligence. It’s a measure of the ability to master that particular body of information.
I am surprised that you accept a black IQ of 79 in 1972, and 85 now, because (unlike an academic test score) that IQ score correlates with a specific parameter of ability to function in daily life. Moreover, if Flynn’s analysis is correct, prior to 1972 it would have been even lower, back to some unknown starting point. 79 is well below the IQ level considered to be needed even by a semi-skilled laborer doing basic tasks.
To accept Flynn’s research, you must accept that an entire population of blacks all around you currently has an IQ of 85. This is (I think, from what little I do know) still a fairly marginal level of daily function. Does that seem about right to you (regardless of the reason for it)? Since IQs are sort of a bell curve, about half of an entire population can barely function at a basic skills level?
It’s not the “standard deviation” that I’m concerned with. It’s what that standard deviation means when applied to IQ, and what Flynn’s numbers are. I could give a science test, have half the class flunk it, and not take from that an assumption that they will be lifetime ditch diggers needing supervision. But if I give the same class an IQ test and half of them have an IQ below 85, that does have practical implications for their career aspirations.
This is what I mean by not passing a sniff test. I simply don’t see a pattern for black americans that suggests half of them are borderline handicapped mentally. I guess I don’t think that in the 1950s US blacks hovered around an IQ of 70 (extrapolating Flynn’s numbers), so I should correct an earlier statement of mine and say that I do reject these numbers from Flynn until I read more about psychometric testing.
Beyond that, I am kind of stunned that you accept those IQ numbers–even if you think it’s all the environment’s fault. There’s a big difference between saying, “This group underperforms on the skillset for academic mastery of content” and “This group has an average IQ of 85.”
Unlike you, I’m not encouraged that black americans have supposedly gained 6 points on the IQ gap if accepting that means accepting that the starting line was 79 in 1972. That’s 40 years of concerted effort to correct the “environmental influences” with a gain of less than 30% of the deficit.
I have often seen reference to the “fallacy” that, because genes drive intelligence at an individual level, they must drive intelligence at a group level. I’ve never quite understood why that’s automatically a fallacy. Only two factors create a group average for outcomes: genes and nurture.
I agree that nurture (environmental influences) must be taken into account, and has an influence. I think where we disagree is whether or not nurturing has already been reasonably accounted for in order to ascertain the residual gap between SIRE populations that is due to genetic prevalence differences. In the case of the academic skillset for mastery of content (test scores like SATs and the like), I believe it has been. I see no reasonable argument for “environmental” influences beyond things like parental education, affluence, school systems and the like. When these are accounted for, the pattern remains.
But instead of telling me I “disempower environmental influences” with my genetically “essentialist bias” against “a complex mix of environmental factors,” I’d like you to propose at least one or two of the environmental factors you find most persuasive, so I can evaluate whether or not I think they pass muster.
Just one, maybe? I’m looking for less rhetoric and more content.
Have you read much of Richard Lynn? 'Cause he asserts the average IQ of entire countries is in the 70s or even 60s (and, IIRC, high 50s for one or two ethnic groups). His data is complete crap, of course, but it’s hard for me to believe that Flynn’s data really surprises you unless you’ve ignored much of the literature.
You seem to think IQ tests are special- that they are magical tests that tell you with near-perfect accuracy a person’s raw intelligence. I don’t- I think they’re just another test with specific skills in mind- and there’s probably some sort of a correlation between intelligence (whatever it is) and those test scores, but considering that scientists can’t even agree on what intelligence is, I don’t feel confident that we have any good tests that measure it particularly well. So it’s not surprising at all that IQ tests, just another test, happen to show a similarly-sized gap (statistically speaking) to various academic tests. I’m surprised that you’re surprised, but maybe it makes sense if you ascribe special qualities to IQ tests. This whole time, when I’ve been saying the “test-score gap”, IQ tests have been included.
So we have Flynn’s data that shows the test-score gap (again, I’m including IQ test scores and other test scores altogether) has closed to some degree, and we have other data (like from the NAEP) that shows the gap has shrunk. There’s other data for various tests that does not show a shrinking gap, so I don’t think it’s iron-clad.
So there’s no reason to believe the gap is immutable and no genetic evidence for the genetic explanation for the test-score gap. There’s not really much left for your “black people are, on average, inherently genetically dumber” argument.
“Concerted effort”. Ha. You really are a comedian. And I don’t know why you’d think I’m “encouraged”- I think the efforts have been politically motivated, shoddy, and half-hearted at best.
Nope, as research is linked that shows why your position is just opinion and not what most researchers (that are not discredited) report, your screeds are just rhetoric. And are just perfect examples of a failure in meta cognition.
Allow me to slightly alter Chief Pendant’s request as to remove your objection to the phrasing:
*OK. Which expert says there is no evidence of genes that are driving the difference in intelligence among races.
PLEASE. A frigging cite, with a frigging study, if possible. Not some editorial.
Do. You. Have. Such. A. Cite.?
I would like to review what you consider to be such an obvious truth. I maintain that in the fields of population genetics, evolution and intelligence, that kind of statement is hard (not necessarily impossible, I guess) to find.
As I said above, you will find a lot of hedging; a lot of reassuring about how race is not strictly constructed biologically; a lot of reassurance about how we are all sort of mutts, and so on.
But I am just asking for you to find a cite that says there is no evidence of genes that are driving the differences among populations, so I can see who is saying that and put it in context.*
Chief, didn’t know if it was proper or not to attribute the quote to you, as I was adding words. Words I think you intended to include, but added words none the less.
