# Statistically, blacks score poorly on IQ and IQ-proxy exams than whites, is black genetics to blame? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 29, 2011, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488 "2011-08-29T12:43:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/221 "2011-09-05T09:46:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > We had this conversation before, > > The survey did not include anthropologists or biologists, and few geneticists. Whoever did this survey is playing loose and fast with what an expert in the matter is, as it was in reality a grab bag of diverse fields that they surveyed. 1. There were members of the Behavioural Genetics Association and Cognitive Science Society. 2. If there was some biological or genetic reason to rule out the genetic explanation then intelligent members of the APA would have read about it. The reality is that there is no evidential or theoretical reason to rule out a partial genetic explanation. Even Francis Crick, DNA researcher, agreed that there was "much substance to [Jensen’s arguments](http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/N/M/). 3. The real interest of the survey is that the view that group differences can be entirely explained by environmental factors was very much a minority view. Three times as many considered genetic and environmental factors to be responsible (15% vs 45%). 4. As indicated, admixture studies as discussed by Harvard’s James Lee in his review of Richard Nisbett’s book would be the easiest way to rule out genetic variation as a factor. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/222 "2011-09-05T10:20:22Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. There were members of the Behavioural Genetics Association and Cognitive Science Society. Already noticed. Very few. > [@Chen019](#): > > 1. The real interest of the survey is that the view that group differences can be entirely explained by environmental factors was very much a minority view. Three times as many considered genetic and environmental factors to be responsible (15% vs 45%). You are still missing the point, the survey included many that were not expert on the subject and omitted many experts that had other views. ---
**Author:** ![SecondJudith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@SecondJudith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecondJudith)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/223 "2011-09-05T10:35:16Z")
> [@OscarGold](#): > > is black genetics to blame? No. “_Are_ black genetics to blame?” ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/224 "2011-09-05T11:00:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already noticed. Very few. > > You are still missing the point, the survey included many that were not expert on the subject and omitted many experts that had other views. You seem to be overlooking the point that ever since Jensen’s 1969 article this issue was a major source of contention and controversy. Particularly given the massive investment made in raising black academic achievement. Members of the American Educational Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association Behavior Genetics Association, American Sociological Association & Cognitive Science Society could reasonably be expected to have some knowledge of this debate and the relevant papers on the subject. If there was some reason to believe an environmental explantion alone would solve their “achievement gap” problem these people would have read about it! What’s interesting is that since that survey was undertaken more evidence in favour of a genetic explanation has come to light, as set out in the journal discussion I linked [above](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/225 "2011-09-05T13:31:42Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > I guess I don’t understand why some people maintain that population X and Y need to be “(taxonomically?) legitimate, useful classification(s)” in order for there to be identifiable genetic differences. I argue that there are aggregate genotypic IQ, etc. differences between social classes, college populations (e.g. Ivy Leaguers versus Community Collegers), states, ethnic groups, religious groups (e.g. Jews versus Jehovahs witnesses), immigrant group X versus immigrant group y, sexes, arbitrarily constructed groups such as “academically gifted” and “learning disabled,” etc. Basically, given a moderate within group heritability and a plausible mechanism for differentiation (social mobility, selection, evolutionary pressure, SES x membership retention rates, immigration selection, etc), I don’t see any a priori reason for not supposing _average_ genetic differences. And I’m not unique among hereditarian thinking people. For example, M & H spend 9/10ths of The Bell Curve dealing with geneotypic differences between social classes, which are about as “socially constructed” as you can get – and, of course, the major criticism of the book was that “races are social constructs.” So, your basic argument is that since we can set up any number of classifications based on social constructs, we can simply capriciously assign those differences to genetics. As to M & H and their tortured efforts to reach their own _a priori_ conclusion, I would think that that sort of dishonest effort would tend to dissuade one from either following in their footsteps or pointing to them as exemplars of one thought process. (I would agree that they are exemplars of one thought process, in the way that Bernie Madoff is an exemplar of one approach to investing, but I do not suggest that anyone follow Madoff.) ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/226 "2011-09-05T14:17:22Z")
**Chuck11** , **Chen019** and fellow travellers, [I have a question for you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=623109). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/227 "2011-09-05T16:06:43Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > You seem to be overlooking the point that ever since Jensen’s 1969 article this issue was a major source of contention and controversy. Particularly given the massive investment made in raising black academic achievement. Members of the American Educational Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association Behavior Genetics Association, American Sociological Association & Cognitive Science Society could reasonably be expected to have some knowledge of this debate and the relevant papers on the subject. > > If there was some reason to believe an environmental explantion alone would solve their “achievement gap” problem these people would have read about it! And their organizations should had published their official positions already supporting that survey, so where is that? The point stands, the survey you referred to was a survey of mostly experts on IQ testing from the 60’s, the focus was not the experts on biology or genetics, what I found in the other pit discussion was that the magnitude of how much one can attribute intelligence to genetics is still controversial and the evidence I found, specially from discussions of experts on the Nature Journal, is that the ones assigning most of the influence to genetics are in the minority nowadays, historically speaking the 60’s was the period where the attitudes and evidence began to change on many researchers so there is also the point that most of the newest evidence was not taken into account by many of the ones surveyed. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html) > [@](#): > > Watson’s first assertion could be read as scientifically supported: black Africans’ IQ scores are lower than those of white Europeans. But Watson’s use of ‘intelligence’ was interpreted as meaning ‘intrinsic cognitive ability’, ignoring how unfamiliarity with testing format, low quality of schooling, or poor health might depress IQ scores. There have been analyses showing average national IQs for sub-Saharan Africa to be approximately 30 points lower than average IQs for predominantly white European nations, and drawing a racial conclusion from those results1, 2. **A refutation of these analyses would provide an opportunity to advance understanding. Sadly, although these analyses can be refuted, as we and others have done3** , most of those who scorned Watson never knew they existed. Notice that this is the researcher in favor of continuing studies to check how genetics influence intelligence, the con side was not as generous, but this shows why I think the survey you have is outdated as well as not to the point. The analysis of the ones making strong connections of IQ with genetics have been refuted, and more research is needed to even begin to base policy decisions on the findings. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/228 "2011-09-06T04:11:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Notice that this is the researcher in favor of continuing studies to check how genetics influence intelligence, the con side was not as generous, but this shows why I think the survey you have is outdated as well as not to the point. The analysis of the ones making strong connections of IQ with genetics have been refuted, and more research is needed to even begin to base policy decisions on the findings. The analysis of making strong connections of IQ with genetics has been refuted? Err, that is incorrect. In fact a study just last month showed the importance of [genetics](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/09/genetic-differences-intelligence): > [@](#): > > To test his idea, researchers looked at more than half a million locations in the genetic code of 3,511 unrelated adults. Each of these sites is where people are known to have single-letter variations in their DNA, called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). These variations were correlated with the individuals’ performance in two types of psychometric tests that are established in assessing intelligence: one test measuring recalled knowledge (via vocabulary) and the second measuring problem-solving skills. > > They found that 40% of the variation in knowledge (called “crystallised intelligence” by the researchers) and 51% of the variation in problem-solving skills (“fluid-type intelligence”) between individuals could be accounted for by the differences in DNA. The results are published on Tuesday in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. In terms of group differences, this is what [James Lee wrote in reviewing Nisbett’s book](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909004097): > [@](#): > > We can readily see that the first two PCs perfectly separate East Asians, Europeans, and West Africans. The admixed American blacks are arrayed along a nearly straight line between the African and European clusters. The scattering toward the East Asian cluster most likely represents additional admixture with Native Americans. > > If Nisbett is truly confident that degree of European ancestry shows no association whatsoever with IQ, he should call for studies employing superior ancestry estimates of the kind displayed in Fig. 3. Note that the increased reliability of ancestry estimation does not obviate the need for a large sample. Even under an extreme hereditarian hypothesis assigning mean genotypic IQs of 80 and 100 respectively to the African and European ancestors of African Americans, we can only expect an increase of .2 IQ points for every percentage increase in European ancestry. The considerable IQ variation among African Americans makes an effect of this size difficult to detect in small samples. > > The ultimate test of the hereditarian hypothesis is of course the identification of the genetic variants affecting IQ and a tally of their frequencies in the two populations. Because of their likely small effects, we may have to identify dozens of such variants before we are able to make any confident inferences regarding the overall genotypic means of different populations. Although this task is currently within our technological means, it seems practically out of reach in the very short term. Ancestry estimation is much less costly than gene-trait association research and thus offers the advantage of an immediate increment toward the resolution of this issue. Such studies are unlikely to find funding given ethical concerns in the US and Europe. Of course those who genuinely believe in a pure environmental explanation should have nothing to worry about. 🙂 If they do happen, it would be most likely to happen in [China.](http://www.economist.com/node/16349434?story_id=16349434) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/229 "2011-09-06T04:32:44Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > The analysis of making strong connections of IQ with genetics has been refuted? Err, that is incorrect. In fact a study just last month showed the importance of [genetics](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/09/genetic-differences-intelligence): I did goof on that line, I meant the connections made to race with IQ. And of course the article you mention there does not mention race but inheritance. > [@Chen019](#): > > Such studies are unlikely to find funding given ethical concerns in the US and Europe. Of course those who genuinely believe in a pure environmental explanation should have nothing to worry about. 🙂 If they do happen, it would be most likely to happen in [China.](http://www.economist.com/node/16349434?story_id=16349434) It is still just among the Chinese, it is really a stretch to claim that they are looking for racial differences, the interest is in health and the intelligence part is still not the focus here. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/230 "2011-09-06T04:47:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I did goof on that line, I meant the connections made to race with IQ. > > And of course the article you mention there does not mention race but inheritance. > It is still just among the Chinese, it is really a stretch to claim that they are looking for racial differences, the interest is in health and the intelligence part is still not the focus here. My point was that, if people were serious about ruling out the hereditarian hypothesis, or that genetic variation was a causal factor, they could recommend the type of test that Lee suggests above. Those who genuinely believe there is no genetic role should after all have nothing to be concerned about. The reality is that with ethical restrictions on funding that kind of testing would be unlikely to happen in the US or Europe. That’s why I mentioned the article on China as a possible place that testing could happen if people wanted to resolve the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/231 "2011-09-06T09:25:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is still just among the Chinese, it is really a stretch to claim that they are looking for racial differences, the interest is in health and the intelligence part is still not the focus here. Steve Hsu [makes it clear](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8) (0:55 and on) that they are recruiting non-Han Chinese samples in order to allow for between population comparisons. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/232 "2011-09-06T09:45:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Should scientists study race and IQ? YES: The scientific truth must be pursued | Nature](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html) > Notice that this is the researcher in favor of continuing studies to check how genetics influence intelligence, the con side was not as generous, but this shows why I think the survey you have is outdated as well as not to the point. The analysis of the ones making strong connections of IQ with genetics have been refuted, and more research is needed to even begin to base policy decisions on the findings. Here was the “[refutation](http://psycnet.apa.org/critiques/49/4/389)” that the cited authors made: > [@](#): > > Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 2004, Vol 49(4), 389-396. Reviews the book by Lynn and Vanhanen (see record 2002-02309-000), which discusses the relationship between national IQ and national income for a sample of 81 countries, which is later extended to the group of all significant-sized nations in the world. Among this book’s strengths are that it argues for a point of view unpopular within the scientific community, it relies on hard data to make its points, its organization and clarity. Also, the book is expansive in its thinking and argumentation. All of these strengths considered, however, we believe that the arguments advanced in the book are flawed by an omnipresent logical fallacy and confusion of correlation with causation that undermines the foundation of the book. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) Their “refutation” consisted of pointing out that correlation does not imply causation, a point which Lynn and Vanhanen addressed. It has [since](http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/intellectual-classes-technological-progress-and-economic-development.pdf) [been](http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/national-iq-and-economic-outcomes.pdf) [demonstrated](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/rindermann-and-thompson-2011-cognitive-capitalism.pdf) that National IQ differences do cause GDP differences, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/233 "2011-09-06T10:26:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, your basic argument is that since we can set up any number of classifications based on social constructs, we can simply capriciously assign those differences to genetics.. This is what I said: “Basically, given a moderate within group heritability and a plausible mechanism for differentiation (social mobility, selection, evolutionary pressure, SES x membership retention rates, immigration selection, etc), I don’t see any a priori reason for not supposing average genetic differences.” Perhaps my [phraseology](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppose) was confusing. I was using suppose in the sense of “hypothesize.” It’s plausible that a between group difference has a genetic basis if within both groups differences have a genetic basis and if there is a plausible mechanism for genetic differentiation (social mobility, selection, evolutionary pressure, SES x membership retention rates, immigration selection, etc). To put it another way, these a priori arguments against genetic racial group differences are bunk. If you want to argue that the average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites can’t have a genetic basis because Blacks and Whites are “social constructs” please explain how it is that the average pigmentary difference has a genetic basis and so on. Now that I have demolished all your and other’s a priori arguments – and I have gone through them all if not on Straight Dope forums, elsewhere – I expect an admission that the differences could be genetic. And then I expect us all to move on and discuss what evidence there is for and against a genetic hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/234 "2011-09-06T11:57:29Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > **Chuck11** , **Chen019** and fellow travellers, [I have a question for you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=623109). I had a long reply, but somehow it was lost. Here’s a primer discussion by [Levin (1998)](http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_4.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/235 "2011-09-06T13:18:53Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > I had a long reply, but somehow it was lost. Here’s a primer discussion by [Levin (1998)](http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_4.pdf). Very entertaining. I like this bit: > [@](#): > > What of public discrimination? Having already argued that the state may act race-consciously to protect rights against attack, \*Race \*suggests that race-conscious welfare policies may be in order. While all welfare states may self-destruct sooner or later, as an increasing number of people batten off the public treasury, most whites, at least so far, prefer working and parenting children within marriage over the seductions of welfare. Consequently, a limited safety net might be stable in an all-white population. But the very different response of blacks to welfare incentives, including an illegitimacy rate nearing 70%, is by now familiar, making a safety net for blacks clearly unstable. If we must have welfare, \*Race \*suggests, blacks should be denied it or held to more stringent criteria. A general caution for libertarians is that institutions which don’t work in black or multiracial populations (public education is an example) need not, by that token, be intrinsically flawed. The problem may not be the institution, but the population. Yeah, us good hardworking white people try so hard to help those in need, but those lazy stupid rutting blacks just can’t help their animal nature. I don’t know why we even bother. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/236 "2011-09-06T14:19:04Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > To put it another way, these a priori arguments against genetic racial group differences are bunk. If you want to argue that the average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites can’t have a genetic basis because Blacks and Whites are “social constructs” please explain how it is that the average pigmentary difference has a genetic basis and so on. Now that I have demolished all your and other’s a priori arguments – and I have gone through them all if not on Straight Dope forums, elsewhere – I expect an admission that the differences could be genetic. And then I expect us all to move on and discuss what evidence there is for and against a genetic hypothesis. There are no _a priori_ arguments against genetic racial group differences. There is overwhelming evidence that the large super-groups that racialists enjoy identifying as “races” lack the coherence to support that word. There are clearly populations of humans who have shared characteristics within those populations, but none of those smaller populations are are recognized as “races” by most racialists. Intelligence is certainly hereditary. The measurement of said intelligence is problematic, at best. The abuse of the results of attempts to measure intelligence that are then trumpeted as “proof” of differences among (artificially constructed) “races” is generally undertaken by people who have other axes to grind. I have never argued the “the average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites can’t have a genetic basis,” so I can ignore your straw man argument. I have never asserted “_a priori_ arguments against genetic racial group differences,” only noting that the attempts to pretend that there are such “racial groups” have failed on the contradicting evidence. I do object to your false implication that because a large number of people in the world have similar skin tones, that we may legitimately group disparate people into “races” and then pretend that we can speak of them as homogeneous groups. Since you have only attacked a straw man position, I find your claim of “demolishing” any arguments to be a matter of utmost silliness. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/237 "2011-09-06T15:40:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I have never argued the “the average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites can’t have a genetic basis”… Ya, [I remember going back and forth with you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603182&page=11)on this before. It was never clear to me what your position was. Ok. Then maybe we can move on. Do you think that gene frequencies, at least given the [prevalent environment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norms_of_reaction), do not account for [any](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/beaver-and-wright-2011-school-level-genetic-variation-predicts-school-level-verbal-iq-scores-results.pdf) of the US African-American/European American IQ difference in the way that they seem to account for some other [differences](http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000490)? If so, why? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/238 "2011-09-06T15:54:45Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Very entertaining. I like this bit:Yeah, us good hardworking white people try so hard to help those in need, but those lazy stupid rutting blacks just can’t help their animal nature. I don’t know why we even bother. I thought that that was a pretty awesome paragraph too. It pushed the boundaries of the debate far to the right. Levin doesn’t pussy around like Murray. As for myself, I only want other hypotheses ruled out before claims of “discrimination” are bandied around. If some refuse to rule them out, I expect them to shut up about “racism.” ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/239 "2011-09-06T16:32:20Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > I thought that that was a pretty awesome paragraph too. It pushed the boundaries of the debate far to the right. Levin doesn’t pussy around like Murray. As for myself, I only want other hypotheses ruled out before claims of “discrimination” are bandied around. If some refuse to rule them out, I expect them to shut up about “racism.” You provide a citation that is not only a perfect example of scientific racism, but also suggests policy changes based on those racist conclusions—but you want to steer the discussion away from all the silly talk of racism? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/240 "2011-09-06T17:04:07Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > You provide a citation that is not only a perfect example of scientific racism, but also suggests policy changes based on those racist conclusions—but you want to steer the discussion away from all the silly talk of racism? I want to steer the discussion back on topic. As for “racism,” you seem to use that as a catch all term for any race related position that you don’t like. If you want to discuss problems with various “racisms” open another thread and we can do so there. As for the policy implications of racial differences, there is no one “racist” view – though most antiracists try to diagnose one. Generally, some “racists” argue for 1) meritocracy at the cost of statistical proportionality (Murray, Jensen, etc), 2) some argue for statistical proportionality at the cost of meritocracy (e.g. your liberal biorealists like Peter Singer), and 3) some argue for race consciousness and the right to segregate to avoid the problems (e.g. Salter, Levin, etc). Here’s a [diagram](http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/sarichpossibilities1.png) of the costs and benefits of the three major “racist” positions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488.md?page=13)