-
There were members of the Behavioural Genetics Association and Cognitive Science Society.
-
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.
-
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%).
-
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.
Statistically, blacks score poorly on IQ and IQ-proxy exams than whites, is black genetics to blame?
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.
No.
“Are black genetics to blame?”
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.
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.)
Chuck11, Chen019 and fellow travellers, I have a question for you.
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
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:
In terms of group differences, this is what James Lee wrote in reviewing Nisbett’s book:
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.
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.
Steve Hsu makes it clear (0:55 and on) that they are recruiting non-Han Chinese samples in order to allow for between population comparisons.
Here was the “refutation” that the cited authors made:
Their “refutation” consisted of pointing out that correlation does not imply causation, a point which Lynn and Vanhanen addressed. It has since been demonstrated that National IQ differences do cause GDP differences, etc.
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 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.
I had a long reply, but somehow it was lost. Here’s a primer discussion by Levin (1998).
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.
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.
Ya, I remember going back and forth with youon 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, do not account for any of the US African-American/European American IQ difference in the way that they seem to account for some other differences? If so, why?
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?
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 of the costs and benefits of the three major “racist” positions.
