# 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:** 15
**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, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/281 "2011-09-06T23:52:54Z")
> [@echo6160](#): > > 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. Yawn…100 years of psychometric research has show that on average Black Africans and members of the African diaspora around the word are, according to Western standards, intellectually inferior. Likewise, 50 years of research (as reported in [Jones, 2011](http://216.109.65.20/Documents/Periodicals/ADR/adr-vol28-1.pdf#page=55)) has shown the East Asians are intellectual superior. The only serious question is: “Why?” ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/282 "2011-09-06T23:59:03Z")
> [@echo6160](#): > > 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. In that case **echo6160** , could you point out which of the [assumptions I’ve listed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14226144&postcount=273)that you disagree with? Maybe you could simply address the [evidence that has already been raised upthread](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/)? It seems that you are dismissing other arguments without even reading them. ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/283 "2011-09-06T23:59:34Z")
**strugglingChristian** , maybe I should expand on this a bit: > [@Marley23](#): > > 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. I seem to recall that by the time the Civil War ended slavery, there were about 4 million slaves in the U.S. Importation of slaves from Africa ended several decades earlier. I’ve never heard of slaves being purposefully bred, and if it did happen, it’s not likely it was at a large enough scale to make a difference. We can breed dogs and cats and mice to particular specifications because they have more offspring, breed faster, and don’t live as long as we do. Their breeding is also easier to control. None of that applies to slaves. So even if there were a few plantation owners who managed to control the breeding of a few slaves for a generation or two, for the most part you had millions of slaves reproducing on their own with each other, and also with horny white plantation owners, and some Native Americans and others. Since the abolition of slavery, it’s been increasingly acceptable for African-Americans descended from slaves to have relationships with whites, Asians, Latinos, and newer generations of immigrants from Africa. So even if slavery selected for people who were athletic and hearty and it made a difference in the overall population, how would you know, and wouldn’t that effect have been pretty diluted at this point? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/284 "2011-09-07T00:19:55Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Yawn…100 years of psychometric research has show that on average Black Africans and members of the African diaspora around the word are, according to Western standards, intellectually inferior. Likewise, 50 years of research (as reported in [Jones, 2011](http://216.109.65.20/Documents/Periodicals/ADR/adr-vol28-1.pdf#page=55)) has shown the East Asians are intellectual superior. The only serious question is: “Why?” Accepting for a moment the truth of your statement, I can think of some more significant questions, such as “and?” and “so what?” and “therefore…?” and “why do you personally give a shit?” ---
**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 7, 2011, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/285 "2011-09-07T00:44:43Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > In that case **echo6160** , could you point out which of the [assumptions I’ve listed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14226144&postcount=273)that you disagree with? > > Maybe you could simply address the [evidence that has already been raised upthread](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/)? It seems that you are dismissing other arguments without even reading them. Nah. I was really just threadfarting. Not threadshitting mind you, just threadfarting. I assumed it would be like farting in a crowded elevator…nobody \*really \*knows who did it. Except that my names on the post…darn. I didn’t think you’d make me come in and spray air freshener. I just saw this as a conversation that will legitimately lead to nothing at all…ever. And I get it that I shouldn’t have replied to a 6 page thread without reading it all. But I just wanted to call out the motives behind it all. People trying to be politically correct about things which will _no matter_ \*\*what \*\*offend many. I’ll just come out and say it. I have known many black people, and a few asian people. The black’s I’ve known were all dumb (really…just dumb) and the asians were kind of middle of the road academics. But I consider myself smart enough to not read anything into that obviously biased anecdotal evidence. Because I know there are smart black people, it’s just not the norm around here. And there’s dumb asians…it’s just not the norm around here. Is the goal of this discussion to finally achieve an argument which could be used to influence policymakers in some way to legislate something…in some way…which would affect one race or another? Basically who the hell cares that (alert: racially insensitive statement coming) blacks are dumb and asians are smart and whites are \*arrogant \*about it all? It aint gonna change anytime soon…and there aint a damn thing anyone can do about it without publicly (meaning gov’t) acknowledging things which are distasteful (racial stereotypes) and inciting mob violence (KKK rallys) and all that jazz. I’m of the firm belief that stereotypes exist for a reason. There’s obviously a trend _somewhere_. Are we gonna outlaw stereotyping? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/286 "2011-09-07T00:47:43Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Accepting for a moment the truth of your statement, I can think of some more significant questions, such as “and?” and “so what?” and “therefore…?” and “why do you personally give a shit?” I gave you an example [in the thread on that question](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14223697&postcount=36). You can avoid policies that assume that there should be equal group representation and assume discrimination or unfairness when that doesn’t happen (see below). Instead, I agree you should simply treat people as individuals and avoid looking at their group background. That’s a point that Professor Amy Wax makes. She proposes either adjusting disparate impact rule to reflect statistical differences, or abolishing it. > [@](#): > > The so-called 4/5 rule, under which an employer is presumptively liable if the percentage of minority applicants hired is less than 80% of those selected from the majority white population, reflects this assumption…These observations bode ill for employers’ efforts to comply with the disparate impact rule. The present reality of group differences, and the intransigence of the diversity-validity tradeoff, mean that even modestly useful personnel selection criteria will screen out too many minorities most of the time. Achieving racial imbalance will prove difficult or impossible for jobs that are moderately selective, and imposing even mildly demanding skill-based hurdles will often produce a workforce that leaves employers vulnerable to a disparate impact challenge. > > The proposal advanced here is that disparate impact law should be revised to reflect group disparities currently measured in actual on-the-job performance… > … > > The principal argument for repealing disparate impact is that, under present social conditions, racial imbalances in employment are exceedingly weak evidence of discrimination, either in the form of race-based disparate treatment or through unlawful disparate impact. > > The IOP data indicate that differences in the distribution of skill and human capital, not race-based exclusion or arbitrary barriers to employment, are the principal factors behind racial imbalances on the job. In light of these realities, the disparate impact rule is fatally overbroad and ensnares far too much conduct in its net. Under current social conditions, the vast majority of commonly employed selection procedures are valid and job related, and thus do not actually violate the disparate impact rule. Yet most personnel practices will routinely show enough adverse impact to create a prima facie case of discrimination, thereby shifting the burden of justification to employers. [Wax, Amy L., “Disparate Impact Realism“. Scholarship at Penn Law. Paper 361.](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/disparate-impact-realism-1.pdf) ---
**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 7, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/287 "2011-09-07T01:42:46Z")
Yes, you’re correct. Stereotypes exist for a reason. Countless people can testify to the fact that white men have small penises. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/288 "2011-09-07T01:51:52Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Yes, you’re correct. Stereotypes exist for a reason. > > Countless people can testify to the fact that white men have small penises. So? It’s either true or it’s not. Right now, though, it’s just a rumor. I can’t see the harm in you testing it if you wanted, regardless of the outcome. Knock yourself out. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/289 "2011-09-07T01:54:58Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Yes, you’re correct. Stereotypes exist for a reason. > > Countless people can testify to the fact that white men have small penises. And are greedy, genocidal, slaveowning warmongers. It’s just our _thing_, you know? But of course I’m sure that according to **Chen019** and **Chuck11** somehow the insulting stereotypes of white people aren’t true, while the insulting ones about blacks are. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/290 "2011-09-07T02:20:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That seems to create a conflict doesn’t it? How can a trait both be genetic and it not manifest itself in large groups in ways that we’d eventually see a difference? Do you hold the same for all physical traits? You may want there to be a conflict, but my statements are consistent. Intelligence is most likely hereditary, (as shorthand for “genetics plays a role in the development of intelligence in individuals”). OTOH, I have never been persuaded that the psychometricists have actually identified “intelligence,” just test scores. There may be overall differences in average intelligence among large groups, but nothing that I have seen indicates that such differences are significant. To use the favored example of the “race” promoters, if we look at fast sprinters, we find a significantly high number of them with West African ancestors. However, the fastest sprinters are actually outliers even within that group and I have seen no evidence that if we wandered into any racially mixed neighborhood in the U.S. and ordered every citizen to line up together and sprint for 100 meters, that all (or even most of) the black folks would beat all the white folks to the line–or even that any more than that one or two of the black folks would beat out everyone else, regardless of perceived “race.” And sprinting is just one single athletic ability that says nothing about the ability to run long distances, walk longer distances, perform well on the parallel bars, hurl a discus, pitch a baseball, or turn a wrench against a stubborn bolt. Similarly, all the efforts to measure “intelligence” seem to ignore any number of mental activities, even though the proponents of such tests are so enamored of their mythical _g_. So intelligence is hereditary. We have not found a legitimate and accurate way to measure it. There are multiple aspects of intelligence that are never measured, (while the aspects that are measured are invalidly compared across cultures). Claims that one group is “smarter” than another are based on flawed claims that measurements work. And beyond those problems, of course, is the separate issue that most people who want to talk about “race” like lumping lots of disparate groups together who are not that similar, then making broad generalizations about the groups as if they were similar. Is the “black race” taller or shorter than the “white race”? Are we talking about Maasai vs Greeks? Scandinavians vs pygmies? The question is meaningless and attempts to make similar comparisons of intelligence or athleticism or housekeeping abilities are equally meaningless. ---
**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 7, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/291 "2011-09-07T02:29:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So? It’s either true or it’s not. Right now, though, it’s just a rumor. I can’t see the harm in you testing it if you wanted, regardless of the outcome. Knock yourself out. Countless sexually unsatisfied white women can testify to it’s veracity. My mother was very glad she didn’t marry an anatomically inferior white man. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/292 "2011-09-07T02:30:07Z")
> [@strugglingChristian](#): > > And contrary to your opinion, there exists factual evidence of selective breeding by slave owners. It would be interesting to see this factual evidence. I never have. Beyond that, of course, even if a few random slave owners did practice breeding, it was never a common event and the actions on a handful of plantations throughout the Southern U.S. would have had no chance to actually modify the physical characteristics of the entire group in the limited time available to them. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/293 "2011-09-07T02:33:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So intelligence is hereditary. > We have not found a legitimate and accurate way to measure it. Psychometrics has greater predictive value than anything else in psychology. I recommend you read this [post](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/11/iq-compression-and-simple-models.html) and in particular Gottfredson’s paper linked within it. It’s also discussed in the [slides](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/google-genetics-and-intelligence.html) to this [Google talk](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/this-is-video-of-talk-i-gave-at-google.html). > [@tomndebb](#): > > but nothing that I have seen indicates that such differences are significant. The significance is that there is [group inequality](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf) in certain roles. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. ---
**Author:** ![Randvek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Randvek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randvek)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/294 "2011-09-07T02:34:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It would be interesting to see this factual evidence. I never have. Selective breeding among slave owners was extremely common. “I’ll sleep with that one, and that one, but not that one.” That’s selective breeding, right? ---
**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 7, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/295 "2011-09-07T03:01:16Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > In that case **echo6160** , could you point out which of the [assumptions I’ve listed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14226144&postcount=273)that you disagree with? > > Maybe you could simply address the [evidence that has already been raised upthread](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/)? It seems that you are dismissing other arguments without even reading them. Did you read it? From the leader of the Pioneer fund? You want to hold on to that kind of evidence? > **[Jean-Philippe Rushton](https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/jean-philippe-rushton/)** > > Jean-Philippe Rushton is a psychology professor, author of a handful of academic tomes and numerous articles, and a onetime fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation — and probably the most important race scientist at work today. > [@](#): > > Four months earlier, in June 2005, he published an article in Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, arguing that Asians are smarter than whites, who are in turn smarter than blacks. In this case, however, the journal’s editors apparently knew of Rushton’s racist background and also published three rebuttals. And the three rebuttals are also in the last link you gave us. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/296 "2011-09-07T03:04:09Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Psychometrics has greater predictive value than anything else in psychology. Damning with faint praise, given psychology’s ability to predict anything. > [@Chen019](#): > > I recommend you read this [post](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/11/iq-compression-and-simple-models.html) and in particular Gottfredson’s paper linked within it. > > It’s also discussed in the [slides](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/google-genetics-and-intelligence.html) to this [Google talk](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/this-is-video-of-talk-i-gave-at-google.html). > > The significance is that there is [group inequality](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf) in certain roles. I’ve read it long ago. It still makes the assumption that all these various tests are actually converging on some mythical _g_, rather than that they simply test language and skills that rely on a limited number of skills while ignoring others. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/297 "2011-09-07T03:29:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Did you read it? > > From the leader of the Pioneer fund? You want to hold on to that kind of evidence? > > [Jean-Philippe Rushton](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/jean-philippe-rushton) > > And the three rebuttals are also in the last link you gave us. Yes, people need to read the papers and decide where the weight of evidence lies. To me it seems overwhelmingly in favour of at least a partial genetic explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/298 "2011-09-07T03:37:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I’ve read it long ago. It still makes the assumption that all these various tests are actually converging on some mythical _g_, rather than that they simply test language and skills that rely on a limited number of skills while ignoring others. So if a test reveals that a child is intellectually handicapped, or that a person on death row lacks the mental capacity to form intent, you would dismiss it because they only measure a limited range of skills? Note also, with MRI scans neuroscientists are rapidly uncovering the neurobiological basis for fluid intelligence. > [@](#): > > In this review,we emphasize intelligence in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability (BOX 1). > Also called FLUID INTELLIGENCE (Gf)11, it is related to analytical intelligence12. Intelligence in this sense is not at all > controversial, and is best understood at multiple levels of analysis (FIG. 1). Empirically,Gf is the best predictor of > performance on diverse tasks, so much so that Gf and general intelligence (g, or general cognitive ability) might not be psychometrically distinct13,14. > [@](#): > www.yale.edu/scan/GT\_2004\_NRN.pdf ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/299 "2011-09-07T03:52:17Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > 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. Anthropologists have their own world and are entitled to their own language. Mayr, himself, noted that the definitions he was discussing included elements that were not strictly biological. Beyond that, while he never got arouind to identifying the specific groups on which he would hang the label of “race,” his discussion included a lot of smaller groups that, if accepted as “races” would have meant that he was not actually talking about the three or six or whatever big “races” that most people identify with that word. So we are back to populations with “race” being a misleading word. > [@Chuck11](#): > > 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. Again, you are moving the goalposts all over, using a smattering of polls from non-biologists, (with, interestingly enough, a decided trend toward avoiding the word “race.” > [@Chuck11](#): > > 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? I have read lots of those claims. They are unpersuasive. And if an intelligence difference was caused by educational deprivation, then it would cease to be a genetic issue. You need to see a genetic difference among (perceieved) “races”; I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-blacks-score-poorly-on-iq-and-iq-proxy-exams-than-whites-is-black-genetics-to-blame/594488/300 "2011-09-07T03:57:07Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Anthropologists have their own world and are entitled to their own language. Mayr, himself, noted that the definitions he was discussing included elements that were not strictly biological. Beyond that, while he never got arouind to identifying the specific groups on which he would hang the label of “race,” his discussion included a lot of smaller groups that, if accepted as “races” would have meant that he was not actually talking about the three or six or whatever big “races” that most people identify with that word. So we are back to populations with “race” being a misleading word… > > You need to see a genetic difference among (perceieved) “races”; I don’t. Populations, or at least major geographic populations essentially mean the same thing as [race](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/). > [@](#): > > This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material2. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people’s DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups1, 5. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans10. > > \*\*Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography5. Indeed, a person’s major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). \*\*There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing)10, 11, 12, and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary)6, 8, 13, 14. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a\_BX1.html](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html) [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=14) [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=16)