# 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:** 14
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/261 "2011-09-06T21:01:47Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > The distinction between intrinsic superiority and conditional superiority (i.e. superiority at y or in trait x) seem so obvious that I can only conclude that you’re being disingenuous in arguing line. Yes, I read Levin’s “don’t get me wrong— I’m not saying being dumber is necessarily a _bad_ thing!” disclaimer, and found it about as sincere as your paraphrasing. If intelligence is of negligible value as you imply, it’s a wonder so much effort is being devoted to measuring it and determining its purported causes. If the results were different, and blacks scored statistically _higher_ than whites on IQ tests, would you be researching race-based/genetic explanations with the same enthusiasm? It’s difficult to imagine. ---
**Author:** ![strugglingChristian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@strugglingChristian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/strugglingChristian)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/262 "2011-09-06T21:05:10Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Lynching happened after slavery. It was a mob punishment inflicted on black people. Slavery also lasted several centuries, not one. you are right. I just have my own definition of lynching, dont ask me why, I take any white person hanging a black person as a lynching. so i consider runaway slave hanging or punishment of slaves by hanging as a lynching. And though slavery did last several centuries, I was only referring to the time period when there was a United States. I don’t mean to sound stupid, English is not my first language and I am not a born and bred American. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/263 "2011-09-06T21:10:28Z")
> [@strugglingChristian](#): > > so i consider runaway slave hanging or punishment of slaves by hanging as a lynching. Which makes some sense, but that isn’t how the term is generally used. Lynching was mob justice and it was separate from slave owners punishing their slaves. > [@](#): > > And though slavery did last several centuries, I was only referring to the time period when there was a United States. The selection pressure you referred to would have existed before the U.S. did, though. I agree that the idea doesn’t pan out. ---
**Author:** ![strugglingChristian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@strugglingChristian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/strugglingChristian)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/264 "2011-09-06T21:20:56Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > No, it isn’t. Besides the fact that the timeframes simply aren’t long enough to have any significant impact on human characteristics, there’s no evidence of any breeding in the manner you suggest. The ability to suffer in the fields isn’t really a measure of fitness in any way that relates to competitive sports. And let’s not forget that poor whites were working under the same conditions. insufficient timeframe? how so? I would say even within the short period of transport from African to American shores, selective pressure was significant. ships carried hundreds of slaves (preselected mind you) and with an average 15% mortality rate, only the stoutest survived. And contrary to your opinion, there exists factual evidence of selective breeding by slave owners. Of course they were not specifically selecting for basketball prowess but the physical qualities they were selecting for would cross with success in the sports field. And though poor whites did work under same conditions, they were not subjected to the same selective pressure as whites who could not endure the work were not killed off and so could contribute to the ‘white’ genetic pool. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/265 "2011-09-06T21:24:02Z")
> [@strugglingChristian](#): > > insufficient timeframe? how so? I would say even within the short period of transport from African to American shores, selective pressure was significant. ships carried hundreds of slaves (preselected mind you) and with an average 15% mortality rate, only the stoutest survived. Because it didn’t last long enough and wasn’t concentrated enough to make a difference on an evolutionary scale. And if the selection pressure from the slave ships was that intense, you’d expect African-Americans to have much greater resistence to diseases than white people - and as far as I know, they don’t. This would also have no effect on basketball and sprinting. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/266 "2011-09-06T21:34:25Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > My statements seem pretty clear in that discussion. > You want to pretend that there are coherent “races” about whom we can make qualitative statements. I pointed out that no group large enough to be identified as a “race” has such coherent qualities. > Then you went off on a tangent about subspecies, trying to claim that they are the same (or not the same–you were unclear) as “races,” while I pointed out that serious biologists do not recognize any separate living “subspecies” in humanity, so playing word games to substitute “race” and “subspecies” is just that–a word game not supported by evidence. > > I am sure that there are differences among different human populations. Since I have never seen any reputable discussion of IQ testing that persuades me that it is more than a cultural indicator of education, I don’t buy into the claims that “Group X is smarter or dumber than Group Y.” > > Finding that there are limited populations that are more susceptible to obesity than other limited populations only indicates that certain situations (_i.e._, obesity in your link), may have a genetic component in addition to a cultural component. Claims for intelligence that ignore such factors become _a priori_ claims in the hands of racialists (_remember how much you dislike a priori logic_), and that is without even going into the issues of extrapolating limited results from one geographically identified group to multiple larger groups falsely included in an imaginary “race.” > Is it possible that “intelligence” (if we ever find a uniform way to measure it accurately), is, on average, greater or less in one group or another and that that difference is genetic. I would say yes. Given the wide disparities in testing outcomes and the lack of controls to actually examine the data, I would say that such is far from being demonstrated at this time. > > And, since the goups identified at this time as “races” are not sufficiently internally similar, any extrapolation from the current mixed bag of testing results to broad declarations about “races” is just foolish. Can you answer the following questions? Suppose there are two groups of dogs. One on the south side of town and one on the north side. The south group consists of 90 great danes and 10 poodles. The north group consists of 90 poodles and 10 great danes. Here are the questions: [ul] [li]Is there a difference - on average - between South Side Dogs and North Side Dogs?[/li][li]If yes, does this difference have a genetic basis?[/li][li]Are South Side dogs and North Side dogs “coherent” “species”?[/li][li]Is the answer to the second question dependent on the answer to the third question?[/li][/ul]Because, quite frankly, ISTM that what you’re doing is rhetorical gamesmanship. So I’m curious as to whether you will or can answer the above questions in a straightforward manner. [One other question that is not really meaningful in terms of the specific point above but has relevance to the broader issue - suppose someone measures the average size of these dogs and finds that SSD are much bigger than NSD. Can we conclude that there must be discrimination at work in favor of the favored SSD over the disadvantaged NSD?] ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/267 "2011-09-06T21:42:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > On the other hand, by some physical metrics, they appear to be clearly superior to whites. You mean having larger penises and being more sexually desirable than white men? ---
**Author:** ![strugglingChristian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@strugglingChristian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/strugglingChristian)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/268 "2011-09-06T21:48:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Because it didn’t last long enough and wasn’t concentrated enough to make a difference on an evolutionary scale. And if the selection pressure from the slave ships was that intense, you’d expect African-Americans to have much greater resistence to diseases than white people - and as far as I know, they don’t. This would also have no effect on basketball and sprinting. you mistake the understanding that it took millions of years for certain species to evolve as it actually taking millions of years. All it takes is one event. It may take millions of years for that event to happen but all it takes is one event. One example, and this happens in laboratories every day. I can apply selective pressure to bacteria on a plate and ensure that only those resistant to a certain antibiotic survive. Natural selection does take time, but slavery was not natural. Human driven selection can cut the the time it takes to make a difference significantly. The diseases that the ships did select for did result in slaves with resistance to those diseases. The diseases that current AAs are more affected by (diabetes, heart disease, etc.) would not have been selected out by slave ships as these are slow killers. ---
**Author:** ![strugglingChristian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@strugglingChristian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/strugglingChristian)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/269 "2011-09-06T21:51:18Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You mean having larger penises and being more sexually desirable than white men? is the perpetuation of stereotypes really acceptable in this forum? This guise of intellectual discussion is but a veneer for the same repulsive attitudes perpetuated elsewhere. ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/270 "2011-09-06T21:57:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You want to pretend that there are coherent “races” about whom we can make qualitative statements. I pointed out that no group large enough to be identified as a “race” has such coherent qualities. Then you went off on a tangent about subspecies, trying to claim that they are the same (or not the same–you were unclear) as “races,” I pointed out that some human populations met commonly used criteria for being considered taxonomic groupings, whether those groupings are understood as clades or subspecies. For example, major human populations as delineated by PCA fit Ernst Mayr’s commonly used definition of subspecies, [as Mayr himself stated](http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mayr-2002-biology-and-race.pdf). When the originator of a – commonly used, mind you – subspecies concept says that by his concept there are human subspecies, I’m apt to take his word for it. > [@](#): > > while I pointed out that serious biologists do not recognize any separate living “subspecies” in humanity Provide me with a citation for your claim. As I pointed out, the actual research on the matter – as opposed to your B.S. – shows that there is [**no consensus**](http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/status-of-the-race-concept.pdf) concerning human subspecies or race in the taxonomic sense. > [@](#): > > Since I have never seen any reputable discussion of IQ testing that persuades me that it is more than a cultural indicator of education, I don’t buy into the claims that “Group X is smarter or dumber than Group Y.” If you have never seen a study showing that IQ is more than a cultural indicator of education _on the individual level_, you obviously have read little of the [research](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2011SocialInequality.pdf). I’m guessing that you mean: “has persuaded me that the groups differences are more than a cultural indicator of education.” I’m not really sure what you mean by that. If an intelligence difference is caused by educational deprivation why would it cease to be an intelligence difference? > [@](#): > > Is it possible that “intelligence” (if we ever find a uniform way to measure it accurately), is, on average, greater or less in one group or another and that that difference is genetic. I would say yes. Given the wide disparities in testing outcomes and the lack of controls to actually examine the data, I would say that such is far from being demonstrated at this time. In this case, “intelligence” is operantly defined as “general mental ability (GMA).” “General mental ability” is, in turn, defined as the common variance shared by a battery of tests. Since all cognitive ability tests are, by definition, a measure of general mental ability any test is, to one degree of reliability or another, a measure of g. So your point about accurate measures is moot. You just need to use a number of different measures and to extract the common variance. I already l[inked to a paper](http://www.iapsych.com/articles/mcgrew2009.pdf) which discussed various lower order abilities and their measure. > [@](#): > > And, since the goups identified at this time as “races” are not sufficiently internally similar, any extrapolation from the current mixed bag of testing results to broad declarations about “races” is just foolish. They’re apparently “internally similar” enough to talk about “racial disparity,” “achievement/IQ gaps,” and “environmental causes.” Why would they need to be more similar to talk about genetic causes. This seems to be a major disagreement I have with many of you. No one seems to have a good reason for why there couldn’t be average genetic differences between heterogenous groups. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/271 "2011-09-06T21:57:59Z")
> [@strugglingChristian](#): > > is the perpetuation of stereotypes really acceptable in this forum? > This guise of intellectual discussion is but a veneer for the same repulsive attitudes perpetuated elsewhere. I’m not “perpetuating stereotypes”. Like Chen, Magellan and others I’m telling the truth. Anyway, I’m not insulting whites by merely asserting the undeniable fact that most white men have small penises any more than Chen, Chuck and co. are insulting blacks by saying most have low IQs. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/272 "2011-09-06T22:04:37Z")
> [@strugglingChristian](#): > > you mistake the understanding that it took millions of years for certain species to evolve as it actually taking millions of years. I didn’t make that mistake, and what you’ve written here doesn’t respond to what I did say. > [@](#): > > The diseases that the ships did select for did result in slaves with resistance to those diseases. I understand that. But you’re asking about a generalization about today’s African-Americans, not the ones who survived the middle passage centuries ago. > [@strugglingChristian](#): > > is the perpetuation of stereotypes really acceptable in this forum? He’s being sarcastic. ---
**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, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/273 "2011-09-06T22:20:42Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > No, it isn’t. Besides the fact that the timeframes simply aren’t long enough to have any significant impact on human characteristics, there’s no evidence of any breeding in the manner you suggest. The ability to suffer in the fields isn’t really a measure of fitness in any way that relates to competitive sports. And let’s not forget that poor whites were working under the same conditions. Why are they not long enough? I’d like to ask **Telemark** which assumption he disagrees with: 1. intelligence is [partially heritable](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/09/genetic-differences-intelligence) 2. there is plenty of extant genetic variation, probably due to a large number of genes of individually small effect — no additional mutations are required 3. selection can act if reproductive rates are impacted by these genes (i.e., by intelligence) 4. simple estimates suggest that 50,000 _could have_ been enough time to produce .5 SD (genetic) group differences See here for some elaboration on (2) and (3) using Greg Clark’s (economist at UC Davis) [data on English inheritances and family size](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/12/recent-natural-selection-in-humans.html). There’s a basic example also with [Ashkenazi jewish intelligence](http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-jewish-iq18-2009apr18,0,7978229.story). Hsu also has a discussion [here](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/demography-and-fast-evolution.html): > [@](#): > > So we have at least two documented cases of the descendants of the rich replacing the poor over an extended period of time. My guess is that this kind of population dynamics was quite common in the past. (Today we see the opposite pattern!) Could this type of natural selection lead to changes in quantitative, heritable traits over a relatively short period of time? > > Consider the following simple model, where X is a heritable trait such as intelligence or conscientiousness or even height. Suppose that X has narrow sense heritability of one half. Divide the population into 3 groups: > > Group 1 bottom 1/6 in X; \< 1 SD below average > Group 2 middle 2/3 in X; between -1 and +1 SD > Group 3 highest 1/6 in X; \> 1 SD above average > > Suppose that Group 3 has a reproductive rate which is 10% higher than Group 2, whereas Group 1 reproduces at a 10% lower rate than Group 2. A relatively weak correlation between X and material wealth could produce this effect, given the demographic data above (the rich outreproduced the poor almost 2 to 1!). Now we can calculate the change in population mean for X over a single generation. In units of SDs, the mean changes by roughly 1/6 ( .1 + .1) 1/2 or about .02 SD. (I assumed assortative mating by group.) \*\*Thus it would take roughly 50 generations, or 1k years, under such conditions for the population to experience a 1 SD shift in X. \*\* > > If you weaken the correlation between X and reproduction rate, or relax the assortative mating assumption, you get a longer timescale. But it’s certainly plausible that 10,000 years is more than enough for this kind of evolution. For example, we might expect that the advent of agriculture over such timescales changed humans significantly from their previous hunter gatherer ancestors. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/274 "2011-09-06T22:22:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Can you answer the following questions? > > Suppose there are two groups of dogs. One on the south side of town and one on the north side. The south group consists of 90 great danes and 10 poodles. The north group consists of 90 poodles and 10 great danes. Here are the questions: > > [ul] > [li]Is there a difference - on average - between South Side Dogs and North Side Dogs?[/li][li]If yes, does this difference have a genetic basis?[/li][li]Are South Side dogs and North Side dogs “coherent” “species”?[/li][li]Is the answer to the second question dependent on the answer to the third question?[/li][/ul]Because, quite frankly, ISTM that what you’re doing is rhetorical gamesmanship. So I’m curious as to whether you will or can answer the above questions in a straightforward manner. > > [One other question that is not really meaningful in terms of the specific point above but has relevance to the broader issue - suppose someone measures the average size of these dogs and finds that SSD are much bigger than NSD. Can we conclude that there must be discrimination at work in favor of the favored SSD over the disadvantaged NSD?] Excellent reply. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/275 "2011-09-06T22:56:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I didn’t say anyone had said it. I was commenting on the fact that a couple of posters here will trot out any survery or paper or factoid that they believe supports their point of view no matter how transparently flawed or incorrect it is. Oh, good. So now we all know that it is not a position held by anyone in this debate. It was just strawcasm. Fine by me. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/276 "2011-09-06T23:16:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Can you answer the following questions? > > Suppose there are two groups of dogs. One on the south side of town and one on the north side. The south group consists of 90 great danes and 10 poodles. The north group consists of 90 poodles and 10 great danes. Here are the questions: > > [ul] > [li]Is there a difference - on average - between South Side Dogs and North Side Dogs?[/li][li]If yes, does this difference have a genetic basis?[/li][li]Are South Side dogs and North Side dogs “coherent” “species”?[/li][li]Is the answer to the second question dependent on the answer to the third question?[/li][/ul]Because, quite frankly, ISTM that what you’re doing is rhetorical gamesmanship. So I’m curious as to whether you will or can answer the above questions in a straightforward manner. > > [One other question that is not really meaningful in terms of the specific point above but has relevance to the broader issue - suppose someone measures the average size of these dogs and finds that SSD are much bigger than NSD. Can we conclude that there must be discrimination at work in favor of the favored SSD over the disadvantaged NSD?] Allow me to point out that humans are not dogs nor are they bred. A poodle is a breed, it is both genetically homogenous and standardly different then other homogenous dog breeds. Humans are not bred. “the black race” is not a genetically homogenous dog breed. it is not genetically homogenous at all. This point has been made repeatly in many threads. ---
**Author:** ![strugglingChristian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@strugglingChristian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/strugglingChristian)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/277 "2011-09-06T23:27:31Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Allow me to point out that humans are not dogs nor are they bred. A poodle is a breed, it is both genetically homogenous and standardly different then other homogenous dog breeds. Humans are not bred. “the black race” is not a genetically homogenous dog breed. it is not genetically homogenous at all. This point has been made repeatly in many threads. apparently some readers don’t have the genes to understand this basic fact ---
**Author:** ![Uber\_the\_Goober](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/58956e/32.png) [@Uber\_the\_Goober](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uber_the_Goober)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/278 "2011-09-06T23:41:24Z")
To a racially motivated white person, black=different=stupid. Truthfully, from any white person’s perspective, black does indeed = different. But it is the stupidity of the white person to assume that different=stupid. I’m starting to believe that _racists_ are the evolutionary defectives…and that they are there own race of many different colors. And an inferior one at that. Can’t even put together a coherent argument. ---
**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, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/279 "2011-09-06T23:42:39Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > “the black race” is … not genetically homogenous at all. This point has been made repeatly in many threads. As I pointed out earlier, whether they are or not is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > To see this, imagine that we arbitrarily socially constructed two global populations, North Hemispherians and South Hemispherians. These groups would show average phenotypic differences – for example, average differences in skin reflectance. Now, we know that some of the average difference would be due to aggregated genetic differences – even though these two populations represent, from an ancestral genetic perspective, heterogenous + hybrid mixes (e.g. North-Eurasians + North Amerindians, etc versus largely hybrid South Americans + Africans, etc.). (This is why, of course, it’s nonsense to argue that “there can be no genetic differences” because “races are social constructs.”) So back to your question. Yes, “Africans” are a relatively heterogenous population. But 1) often the populations under discussion are not random samples of Africans (e.g. African Americans have mostly West African-African admixture) and 2) even when they are (as would be the case of immigrant “Blacks” in Europe), aggregate genetic differences can still be identified. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/280 "2011-09-06T23:45:51Z")
> [@strugglingChristian](#): > > apparently some readers don’t have the genes to understand this basic fact Real points based on actual human genetic variation is used in these debates. “human genetic variation does not support dividing humans into black/yellow/white races, here’s the science…” However some people always want to throw all this info out and talk about dog breeds. Why? that is not real. that is not humans. Dont try to use dog breeds to prove your points about humans. it works against you. [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=13) [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=15)