# So, it's June... WHERE THE \*\*\*\* IS THIS LOOMING GENETIC CRISIS!? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 10, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669 "2010-06-10T16:22:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/121 "2010-12-23T14:49:16Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > That data just looks like a better broken down version of what I previously linked to. The simplest explanation is that it shows nothing more than a lack of interest on the part of the most talented black people in America. By the time you get to the MCAT test-takers you get very bright black people but maybe not the brightest; perhaps the brightest got into education. Why are you operating under the assumption that every American and every American subculture values achievement the exact same way? How come you are so uncomfortable with the idea that in an egalitarian society with basically egalitarian allelic distributions of all the genes (except those that help us cope with the immediate physical environment), people of different subgroups may choose to express their equivalent genius differently? For the group self-described as “black” who already want to be medical scientists or lawyers (or college students, in the case of SATs)–regardless of what their respective cultures might drive as choices for the culture as a whole–there is persistent, consistent and dramatic underperformance on standardized quantitative tests despite the same or better socio-economic background and identical preparation opportunity with identical curriculae for the material. This difference is not seen with other groups–new immigrant asians, for example. A cultural explanation for this marked average difference (not in matriculants, but in the pool taking the exams, since matriculants are selected as outliers) must go beyond some vague and unsupported notion that black culture simply doesn’t want their brightest minds to be successful in quantitatively-measured pursuits such as the STEM fields. What is your speculation, exactly–that black college students who thought they wanted to be doctors (or lawyers, for that matter) got swayed by their culture along the way and elected to underperform on entrance exams? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/122 "2010-12-23T15:03:41Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > The simplest explanation is that it shows nothing more than a lack of interest on the part of the most talented black people in America. By the time you get to the MCAT test-takers you get very bright black people but maybe not the brightest; perhaps the brightest got into education. Why are you operating under the assumption that every American and every American subculture values achievement the exact same way? I should address this notion in particular. While the MCAT is one example, along with LSAT, performance differences among various groups exist in every field, including educational exams and Olympic sprinting, or the Boston marathon. You will not find a field of academia where there are not race-based performance differences for group averages (where measured). Even if the brightest black minds have all been culturally driven into education, it’s the case that in education those brightest minds have significantly underperformed other self-described race/ethnicity groups. See [here](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/090406_graduate_school.htm) on Steve Sailer’s site, for example, but feel free to do your own due diligence. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/123 "2010-12-23T21:38:05Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > In other words the data cannot be used to support genes, environment or genes x environment which makes it an utter waste of time for this argument. That data only acts as a mirror: If you see genes = scientific r\*cist, if you see culture = really awesome human being. I don’t know why seeing genes as well as environmental factors makes you a bad person. Note that the ‘Jensenist’ view that group differences are explained by both genetic and environmental variation is pretty widely held. Albeit privately, to avoid castigation. > **[The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book))** > > The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy is a book published by Smith College professor emeritus Stanley Rothman and Harvard researcher Mark Snyderman in 1988. Claiming to document liberal bias in media coverage of scientific findings regarding intelligence quotient (IQ), the book builds on a survey of the opinions of hundreds of North American psychologists, sociologists and educationalists conducted by the authors in 1984. The book also includes an analysis of the reporting on intelligen... > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Feel free to enlighten me on Freeman’s 36 hour differences. Sorry, I meant Freedman. There is a brief summary here. > [@](#): > > The Freedmans decided to make behavioral comparisons between infants of differing ethnic backgrounds. They figured that newborn infants were still too young to be influenced by culture, so behavioral differences would probably be due to genetic differences. They located pregnant women of European or Chinese ancestry in the San Francisco area. The two groups were matched on such variables as years spent in the United States, quality of prenatal care, and income level. The babies of these mothers were tested soon after birth. > > Sure enough, there were big differences in temperament. The American babies cried loudly when angry and were hard to calm. The Chinese babies stopped crying almost immediately when picked up. The American babies turned their heads vigorously if a cloth was placed on the nose. (The Freedmans pointed out this was listed in American pediatric textbooks as the “normal” response.) However, the Chinese babies merely breathed through their mouths when their noses were covered. > > Why was it significant to the Freedmans that Navajo babies resembled Chinese babies in behavior? > > In further research the Freedmans found striking similarities in the behavior of Chinese and Navajo babies. The Navajo babies, when tested, resembled the Chinese babies in every way, but were unlike the Caucasian babies. This is significant because Navajos are descended from people of Asia who migrated over the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia around 10,000 years ago. One would expect genetically based behavior patterns to be similar in the two groups. [Genetic Influences on Personality? | in Chapter 11: Personality](http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch11_personality/genetic_influences_on_personality.html) > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Don’t whine politics, you can get the money, the technology is relatively cheap and the marker data is essentially free. There’s no excuses; go do it. I’m just going on what one of the authors wrote a couple of years ago, that they’d approached some research teams and basically been told it wouldn’t happen. > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > In your imagination there are no cultural barriers, only genetic barriers and there is plenty of motivation. In mine there are barriers, lack of motivation, but no genetic barrier. The only difference is that my pov enjoys more scientific support. What barriers are preventing europeans or asians from becoming top sprinters? As for motivation - who do you think the most celebrated athlete was in China before the Beijing olympics? (hint - it wasn’t a ping pong player). I’m not sure why you keep saying your POV enjoys more scientific support. Did you read the Entine article? ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/124 "2010-12-23T21:57:00Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I should address this notion in particular. While the MCAT is one example, along with LSAT, performance differences among various groups exist in every field, including educational exams and Olympic sprinting, or the Boston marathon. > > You will not find a field of academia where there are not race-based performance differences for group averages (where measured). Even if the brightest black minds have all been culturally driven into education, it’s the case that in education those brightest minds have significantly underperformed other self-described race/ethnicity groups. See [here](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/090406_graduate_school.htm) on Steve Sailer’s site, for example, but feel free to do your own due diligence. That website’s 2nd table says exactly what I have been saying. It shows that people of different ethnic groups, except those who are white, are specializing in different fields. It is most noticeable with Asians. Following the logic, it shows Blacks biased toward law careers within their group and an overall group bias of avoiding these tests and presumably these careers. I think, in a convoluted sort of way, Sailer is making the argument that there is little specialization and that it should be promoted. I would make the argument that it is not necessary and racist anyway. From what I can tell, you and **Chen019** would make the argument that it is some kind of bias in key alleles of performance-related genes that is well-associated with your SIRE term (I hate to disappoint you but you really need to get up-to-date on the findings in quantitative/molecular genetic studies to realize how cartoonish this is; so far **Chen019** is in the mid1900s with adoption studies and complicated but utterly-the-same variance partitioning approaches and you are in the 1800s with your group differences). On the one hand, you would make the argument that all these group differences have nothing to do with a lifetime of interaction upon interaction of a person’s skin tone with his or her society at large. Or on the other hand that they have nothing to do with interaction’s between a person’s recognition of their own talent and how their environs are saying to best express that talent. At the same time, I have never seen you or **Chen019** do anything but post that there are group differences and then post data that people hump those who are most accessible or that human subpopulations can evolve to meet the needs of their immediate environment, particularly if that need can be met by selection for alleles of single genes. You have completely failed to take your argument beyond this, even by analogy to other types of group differences. And you would fail if you tried because the data is not supporting your scientific racist world view. On the other hand, I actually can get the data that shows relationships between culture and people’s individual decisions and that data comes in the form of description, correlation, and various degrees of experimentation. We both know that this kind of information is present so why are you continuing to argue? Why not go mature in your hobby and actually learn something beyond these group differences on placement tests and the burgeoning field of studies demonstrating people hump. Look at all this data that you like so much but try to shed that racist thinking that affects all your analysis, you’ll see that there are alternative explanations for your group differences that explain a lot more than genes ever could. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/125 "2010-12-23T22:08:05Z")
@Inbred Mm domesticus, I’m guessing you didn’t read the Entine article then? I think it really is pretty incredible that you believe environment & motivation explain the inability of these massive populations to produce some spinters who can do 100metres under 10 seconds. I would suggest is reflects a strong ideological position - is that fair? ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/126 "2010-12-24T00:28:07Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > @Inbred Mm domesticus, > > I’m guessing you didn’t read the Entine article then? I think it really is pretty incredible that you believe environment & motivation explain the inability of these massive populations to produce some spinters who can do 100metres under 10 seconds. I would suggest is reflects a strong ideological position - is that fair? I knew I shouldn’t waste any more time on your links but I did anyway because I must be bored. That link was a giant summarization of this entire thread. Jesus Christ at least attack the argument from a different angle. You will never see me say that everyone has the exact same genetic complement leading to the only suitable explanation for individual differences being nurture. So quit wasting my time with links to the subject. What I will not do is extrapolate from the individual differences to the tidy racial differences racists like you want. You want to explain half a second or so in running speed in a specific event or the domination of a particular group in running marathons to genes and I will not accept it until the evidence is as clear as BRCA mutations and breast/ovarian cancer or MECP2 mutations and Rett Syndrome. Until that point sociology, anthropology and social psychology have more evidence supporting the position that nongenetic factors are the reasons for these group differences. Why don’t you address the fact that there has been nothing but failure in finding alleles of genes that consistently explain differences in affected and unaffected populations in complex disorders with clearly distinguishable phenotypes? People like you want to take every subtle population difference and make it due to a gene, but our absolute best analogous studies that have actually been done do not support this idea. It’s ignorant and unscientific and only really serves to perpetuate your racist beliefs. In regards to a strong ideological position, nobody would be here writing if it were not the case. That has no bearing on the fact that my opinion, my speculation, which is the only thing you and your links bring to the table, is based on the best available evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/127 "2010-12-24T01:17:21Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I > > Why don’t you address the fact that there has been nothing but failure in finding alleles of genes that consistently explain differences in affected and unaffected populations in complex disorders with clearly distinguishable phenotypes? People like you want to take every subtle population difference and make it due to a gene, but our absolute best analogous studies that have actually been done do not support this idea. It’s ignorant and unscientific and only really serves to perpetuate your racist beliefs. There are two possible explanations for average performance differences between any two groups being measured: Nurture and Nature. There is no question Nurture plays a part. I would be a better golfer with better Nurturing. However no amount of Nurturing would make me Tiger Woods. It’s a straw-man to pretend the only way of finding supporting evidence for Nature as the cause is to identify the exact genes and their mechanism. I have admitted openly many times that gene science is not there yet, although I’ve cautioned those who advance this straw man that gene science likely will get there some day. I caution you to be careful putting your eggs in that basket. The alternate way is to control for various putative Nurture variables. When we do that, what we find exclusively is evidence that differences persist among SIRE (Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity) groups despite equivalent nurturing. I’ve given you, for example, data which show the often-advanced explanations of socio-economic status or parental education fail when we look at SAT scores. I do not pretend that the evidence is absolute. I am personally persuaded by it, however, and I am disappointed that instead of counter-evidence, what you and others offer is a labeling that I am a racist. I’m not interested in whether or not I’m a racist. I am interested in whether or not my position is scientifically correct, and what I’d like in place of labels is some sort of data showing that when nurturing influences were properly controlled for, group average differences disappeared. To date, no such data exist. In fact, just the opposite is true. In every country, every political system, every historic environment and regardless of majority population you will find asians outperforming in STEM fields and blacks outperforming in sprinting. While you may not find that conclusive, I maintain it’s unreasonable to simply level a charge of “racism” as if that alone were sufficient to diminish the view opposite to your own. In the US in particular, extraordinary efforts on the part of academia have been unable to erase differences. Not money; not programs; not special treatment. Again, while that is not “absolute,” neither is it evidence for your position. It is evidence for my position that the differences are group average differences immutable to normalization of Nurturing variables, and therefore likely to be genetic. And I have already given examples of why SIRE groups cannot be considered to draw upon the same genetic pools. So the notion that the only differences must be phenotypic appearance differences has no support either. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/128 "2010-12-24T18:19:25Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There are two possible explanations for average performance differences between any two groups being measured: Nurture and Nature. There is no question Nurture plays a part. I would be a better golfer with better Nurturing. However no amount of Nurturing would make me Tiger Woods. It saddens me that you continue to discuss a debate in psychology from 50 years ago. Your ignorance of even the oldest studies on gene x environment interaction, the exciting field of epigenetics, and your complete inability to actually formulate a reply to what I wrote betrays this. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It’s a straw-man to pretend the only way of finding supporting evidence for Nature as the cause is to identify the exact genes and their mechanism. I have admitted openly many times that gene science is not there yet, although I’ve cautioned those who advance this straw man that gene science likely will get there some day. I caution you to be careful putting your eggs in that basket. Look up Frankel, quantitative trait loci and alcoholism in mice someday and you will see your confidence erode. Also, finding the exact genes, the means of their transcription, the mechanisms of the proteins they code for, and the interaction between all these elements and the environment from the nucleus outward are the only means by which to find conclusive evidence for the biological component of any characteristic. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The alternate way is to control for various putative Nurture variables. When we do that, what we find exclusively is evidence that differences persist among SIRE (Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity) groups despite equivalent nurturing. I’ve given you, for example, data which show the often-advanced explanations of socio-economic status or parental education fail when we look at SAT scores. The only way to do this in humans is completely unethical so it hasn’t been done. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I do not pretend that the evidence is absolute. I am personally persuaded by it, however, and I am disappointed that instead of counter-evidence, what you and others offer is a labeling that I am a racist. I’m not interested in whether or not I’m a racist. I am interested in whether or not my position is scientifically correct, and what I’d like in place of labels is some sort of data showing that when nurturing influences were properly controlled for, group average differences disappeared. I can’t give you ideal data in humans which would of course leave the hole for your belief system to doubt the information. The best I can give you off the top of my head are the highly repeatable studies on MAOA variants and parenting interacting in the development of various aggression-related traits. On the other hand, name a commonly used laboratory species. The classic example is Tryon Maze Bright and Dull rats. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > To date, no such data exist. In fact, just the opposite is true. In every country, every political system, every historic environment and regardless of majority population you will find asians outperforming in STEM fields and blacks outperforming in sprinting. While you may not find that conclusive, I maintain it’s unreasonable to simply level a charge of “racism” as if that alone were sufficient to diminish the view opposite to your own. And you will find their culture reasonably maintained as they go from one place to another as well; strongly correlated with who they prefer to hump. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > So the notion that the only differences must be phenotypic appearance differences has no support either. Of course there are phenotypic differences in appearance, behavior, metabolism, etc. Hell, I agree with you that there are phenotypic differences on a number of traits between people who call themselves black and people who call themselves white. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/129 "2010-12-24T19:17:33Z")
> [@](#): > > In the US in particular, extraordinary efforts on the part of academia have been unable to erase differences. Not money; not programs; not special treatment. Again, while that is not “absolute,” neither is it evidence for your position. It is evidence for my position that the differences are group average differences immutable to normalization of Nurturing variables, and therefore likely to be genetic. And I have already given examples of why SIRE groups cannot be considered to draw upon the same genetic pools. So the notion that the only differences must be phenotypic appearance differences has no support either. In the US in particular, extraordinary efforts have been made to discourage achievement, education, and social mobility in the black American ethnic group. For hundreds of years. The efforts that you reference are, by comparison, brief and trivial. On the one hand, you claim that a small infusion of Neandertal genes -not 3%, but possibly as much as 3% - is meaningful. On the other hand, the fact that black Americans are on average 18% European has no significance for you at all - you’re still making broad, disproven generalizations about “blacks”. Finally, it’s deeply weird that you don’t understand the meaning of nurture. You’re still claiming that roughly equal socio-economic status is the same as equal nurture. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/130 "2010-12-24T19:32:14Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > [Neandertal relative bred with humans: Previously unknown Siberian group left fingerprints in some humans’ DNA](http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/67985/title/Neandertal_relative_bred_with_humans) quoting from my earlier post: > [@](#): > > … The implications of the Neandertal genes are still being worked out, and will be, for decades. Those implications may not be positive for people who hold Neandertal ancestry. Further research will doubtless yield more complexity, contradictions, and anomalies. We ain’t out of the woods by a long shot. We’ve scarcely entered the woods. I’m waiting for CP or Chen, or anybody to argue that the Neandertal component is responsible for the advanced Melanesian civilization. > [@](#): > > In further research the Freedmans found striking similarities in the behavior of Chinese and Navajo babies. The Navajo babies, when tested, resembled the Chinese babies in every way, but were unlike the Caucasian babies. This is significant because Navajos are descended from people of Asia who migrated over the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia around 10,000 years ago. One would expect genetically based behavior patterns to be similar in the two groups. So Chen, if Native Americans are essentially the same as Chinese, why are you so hostile to Mexican Americans - those European - Central Asian hybrids? And why, in spite of those wonderful, cold adapted genetics, do Mexican Americans have so many problems relative to the US white population? For that matter, why do Native Americans proper, in Canada and the US, have so many problems? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/131 "2010-12-25T07:16:57Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > On the one hand, you claim that a small infusion of Neandertal genes -not 3%, but possibly as much as 3% - is meaningful. On the other hand, the fact that black Americans are on average 18% European has no significance for you at all - you’re still making broad, disproven generalizations about “blacks”. > > Finally, it’s deeply weird that you don’t understand the meaning of nurture. You’re still claiming that roughly equal socio-economic status is the same as equal nurture. This is not correct. With respect to admixture of genetic pools, what I suggest is that the expectation would be that individuals with a mixture of two populations would perform–as a group–somewhere between the two mixed populations. So, for instance, I’d expect American blacks to perform on IQ tests somewhere between Europeans and sub-saharan africans. This is indeed the case. I’d expect Haiti as a country to underperform the Dominican Republic (another example I’ve already given above). I don’t claim socio-economic status is exactly the same as equal nurture, but within the US as an example, it is roughly equal. That is to say, socioeconomic status gives one equal access to advantageous nurture. It roughly correlates with higher education and higher income. More importantly, though, I argue that no reasonable nurturing variables have been advanced to explain outcome differences in quantitative scores where socio-economic variables have been normalized. I recognize that for those who insist our differences must somehow be magically limited to genes which control only phenotypic appearances or disease states or sugar metabolism or anything but intelligence will always find some putative nurturing variable. Unfortunately to date the gap remains wide despite all efforts to address any of those variables. This is not only specific to the US and its history. It is a universally observed gap across the entire world, in every political system and every history. So, for example, a plea to the residual effect of slavery breaks down when one sees a performance difference in countries or populations without an enslavement history. Higher (and lower) academia–the very group who wants to attack those who consider genes the likely explanation for group performance differences–has the most control over eradicating those variables, and yet has never been able to do it. I consider it profoundly significant that the same educators who openly mock anyone who is not a genetic egalitarian are utterly unable to close the gap among the various Self-Identified Race and Ethnic groups despite extensive study about what the putative non-genetic variables might be and countless programs and funding directed at eliminating them. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/132 "2010-12-25T16:49:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Higher (and lower) academia–the very group who wants to attack those who consider genes the likely explanation for group performance differences–has the most control over eradicating those variables, and yet has never been able to do it. I consider it profoundly significant that the same educators who openly mock anyone who is not a genetic egalitarian are utterly unable to close the gap among the various Self-Identified Race and Ethnic groups despite extensive study about what the putative non-genetic variables might be and countless programs and funding directed at eliminating them. Seriously? You’re claiming that college educators have the power to tell black American women how and under what conditions they conceive and raise children? ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/133 "2010-12-25T20:09:39Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I recognize that for those who insist our differences must somehow be magically limited to genes which control only phenotypic appearances or disease states or sugar metabolism or anything but intelligence will always find some putative nurturing variable. “Our differences” huh? I have absolutely no problem with our differences, meaning individual differences, being, in some part, explicable by genetic variation. This should be uncontroversial at this point and it is what the nature-nurture argument was about. It’s really a sign of the racist bent that you think of “our differences” in terms of racial differences or subpopulation differences or SIRE differences or whatever way you want to organize humans into groups. Most people interested in the genetic basis for group differences are interested in classifying, for example, aggressive vs. nonaggressive, addicted vs. nonaddicted, republican vs. democrat, but you are obsessed with your own personal catalog of white skin-related vs. black-skin related differences. A little help with the term ‘phenotype’: Phenotype is a catch-all term for traits including behaviors.To rephrase what you said to make it appropriate you could say “…insist our differences must somehow be magically limited to genes which control only metabolic and appearance phenotypes but not cognitive phenotypes”. I was really only referring to melanocytes earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/134 "2010-12-26T08:26:31Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > So Chen, if Native Americans are essentially the same as Chinese, why are you so hostile to Mexican Americans - those European - Central Asian hybrids? And why, in spite of those wonderful, cold adapted genetics, do Mexican Americans have so many problems relative to the US white population? For that matter, why do Native Americans proper, in Canada and the US, have so many problems? Native Americans aren’t essentially the same as Chinese. [Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies - PMC](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/) I mentioned the Freedman study because it shows infant behaviour seems to differ amongst populations independent of cultural factors. Inbred Mm domesticus seems quite confident that group differences are explainable by cultural factors (even the 100 metre sprint!), but I think he’s determined to avoid any evidence to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/135 "2010-12-26T10:29:45Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There are two possible explanations for average performance differences between any two groups being measured: Nurture and Nature. There is no question Nurture plays a part. I would be a better golfer with better Nurturing. However no amount of Nurturing would make me Tiger Woods. According to Wikipedia, Tiger Woods is “half Asian (one-quarter Chinese and one-quarter Thai), one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch” - so not an example of race-based anything - and was introduced to golf at age 2. Your example supports nurture and argues against race-based differences. Glad to see you’ve come round. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/136 "2010-12-26T14:39:59Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Native Americans aren’t essentially the same as Chinese. [Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies - PMC](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/) > > I mentioned the Freedman study because it shows infant behaviour seems to differ amongst populations independent of cultural factors. Inbred Mm domesticus seems quite confident that group differences are explainable by cultural factors (even the 100 metre sprint!), but I think he’s determined to avoid any evidence to the contrary. No. You got caught in an obvious contradiction. Rather than acknowledging it, you plowed ahead, oblivious. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/137 "2010-12-26T16:35:49Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Native Americans aren’t essentially the same as Chinese. [Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies - PMC](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/) > > I mentioned the Freedman study because it shows infant behaviour seems to differ amongst populations independent of cultural factors. Inbred Mm domesticus seems quite confident that group differences are explainable by cultural factors (even the 100 metre sprint!), but I think he’s determined to avoid any evidence to the contrary. I haven’t read the page yet so I really shouldn’t comment, but… 36 hours after birth? That’s 36 hours. How is the brain developing during those 36 hours? Did you know that humans and animals show many developmental critical periods that have permanent consequences on behavior. Also, are you under the impression that during gestation there is nothing going on? That mothering does not occur during the ~6480 hours prior to birth? edit: nevermind it only took 5 seconds to read and they could not and did not control for maternal effects. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/138 "2010-12-26T22:34:42Z")
[Chinas, without PC hangups, is on it](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/12/supercomputers-and-mystery-of-iq.html) Watch this space: > [@](#): > > The study of intelligence quotient (IQ) is being conducted by BGI Hong Kong, [formerly] known as the Beijing Genomics Institute. It will survey DNA samples from 1,000 child prodigies from China’s best high schools, comparing them with samples from 1,000 children of average intelligence, searching for genetic variations. > > The study will examine protein coding genes of the extremely smart children, many of whom are expected to enroll at Harvard, Yale or Cambridge. The results will be correlated with each youngster’s school test scores, in hopes of learning how specific genetic variations affect intelligence… > > According to Professor Steve Hsu, who comes to the study from the University of Oregon, scientists have identified several candidate genes that may relate to IQ, although researchers are not yet sure. He said about 50 per cent of humans’ IQ is substantially [heritable]. “Scientists believe there are many genes that affect IQ, but none of them has been definitively discovered so far,” he said. “Although there are some candidates in published work, so far the results have not been replicated.” So-called IQ genes are those that influence cognitive capabilities, including verbal and spatial abilities, perceptual speed, memory and math skills… > > Yin Ye, BGI’s vice-president, said researchers have already made some discoveries about IQ genes, but “it’s too early to make public our results”. While reluctant to give further details about the experiment, he took pains to say the study was essentially focused on studying students’ aptitudes and suggesting occupations that would make the best use of their capabilities. > > Hsu said the genetic basis for intelligence and other characteristics or traits - known as phenotypes - was likely to be discovered in the next five or ten years. > > “Even if our planned study fails,” Hsu said, “it’s clear on the basis of trends in cost and capacity of sequencing [that] massive GWAS involving 100,000 or 1,000,000 individuals are right around the corner.” It’s a legitimately tough problem mathematically/scientifically, and even if true it’ll take some time to figure out, much as it takes time to solve any challenging problem. EDIT: Hsu [adds](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/12/supercomputers-and-mystery-of-iq.html): > [@](#): > > I should point out that my primary interest in this subject is NOT HBD (group differences). I would be just as interested in this research if there were only one ethnic group on the planet. The question of how DNA affects cognitive function is just an incredibly interesting one, and the confluence of economics and technology imply that there is the potential for a big advance in the next decade or so. By advance I do not mean one with practical applications – it’s pure science at least for another 20 years, I would guess. But see my earlier post referencing Fisher (of Fisher information) for what might be done on a longer timescale. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/139 "2010-12-26T22:45:35Z")
> [@](#): > > EDIT: Hsu adds: > Quote: > I should point out that my primary interest in this subject is NOT HBD (group differences). I would be just as interested in this research if there were only one ethnic group on the planet. The question of how DNA affects cognitive function is just an incredibly interesting one, and the confluence of economics and technology imply that there is the potential for a big advance in the next decade or so. By advance I do not mean one with practical applications – it’s pure science at least for another 20 years, I would guess. But see my earlier post referencing Fisher (of Fisher information) for what might be done on a longer timescale. This isn’t the “looming genetic crisis” addressed in the OP. It’s got nothing to do with the genetically diverse cultural group called black Americans, or the genetically diverse cultural group called white Americans. Your post is interesting, but off-topic. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/140 "2010-12-27T00:00:14Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > [Chinas, without PC hangups, is on it](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/12/supercomputers-and-mystery-of-iq.html) > > Watch this space:It’s a legitimately tough problem mathematically/scientifically, and even if true it’ll take some time to figure out, much as it takes time to solve any challenging problem. > > EDIT: Hsu [adds](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/12/supercomputers-and-mystery-of-iq.html): Could you please identify the person in this thread or elsewhere who is “So PC” that they can’t support the idea that there is a genetic variation is a contributor to individual differences in intelligence? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669.md?page=8)