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 Hollowayfor 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:
And of course they also notice this:
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.
There’s a lecture by Flynn, presented here, 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 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).
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.
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]
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.
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 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.
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?
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…
-
The thing is that it’s a pretty robust finding that individual differences in cognitive ability are significantly due to genetic variation. 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.
-
Average differences are no smaller as you go up in SES.
-
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.
-
Mixed race individual perform intermediate to monoracial individuals.
-
Difference correlates with physical indexes of Caucasian admixture in the Black population.
-
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)
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 Leesuggested 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.
More wrongness about IQ and the Flynn effect. I’m fine with moving on.
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.
Most of this is gobbledygook or just plain incorrect. Find the genes.
This is the reason the world chess champion is an elephant.
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)
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
Will the racists look down on me?
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.
Have had this in my queue forever. Finally watching now…thanks.