I’m basing that on estimates of average european ancestry in african-americans.
**btw. Please explain why the 92% of the world population without West African ancestry have failed to come up more than a couple of sprinters who can run the 100 metres in under 10 seconds. **If you are right that the prevalence of genes across populations doesn’t matter then how do you explain that? See Entine’s calculation on the probability in relation to the dominance of 100 metre Olympic finals by people with West African ancestry.
Also see the data from the Slate article showing that genes linked to running fast do occur in different frequencies across racial groups. Note, those are only the genes they’ve identified to date.
Given you think that the prevalence of genes is equally distributed across populations why have 92% of the world population failed to come up with more than a couple of people able to run the 100 metres in under 10 seconds? One of those was part Aboriginal. Logically, if it doesn’t matter whether a person has west african, asian or european ancestry then why is this? See Entine’s calculation on the astonishingly long odds against this.
West Africans might be genetically better sprinters, but they’re not a race. Kenyans might be genetically superior distance runners, but they’re not a race either. What exactly is the point of this discussion?
That natural selection can favour different traits in different environments. There are some who think that populations are basically interchangeable. That there are no differences in the prevalence of certain genes, or certain traits.
Of course the example of athletics shows actually there are differences due to different evolutionary backgrounds. People resist this because they might then have to concede the same for some mental traits. But that is quite plausible too, in fact it would be a miracle if that weren’t the case.
What a revelation! I think you might be able to formulate a general theory to explain biological diversity based on this idea!
I would be pretty surprised if you couldn’t identify populations with genetically-based tendencies for above or below average intelligence, but since there aren’t really any environments where intelligence isn’t strongly selected for I would expect these populations to be isolated (geographically or culturally) small groups where the divergence is smallish and evolutionarily recent. Chances of significant differences between large groups are very low due to the amount of fucking around people do.
In short, you can’t even come up with a simple athletic trait which varies by race (as opposed to a much smaller population), and yet you still give credence to racial IQ theories. It’s laughable.
As for your comment that intelligence is selected for equally across environments, that is a bit of a stretch. Do you think the same traits would be selected for in year round tropical agricultural societies, where men can do less of the work and there is less demand for paternal provisioning, compared to those with harsher winters, stable property rights, and greater population density?
There are some basic physical differences you may not be aware of. Intelligence correlates with brain size (about .40 on MRI - www.yale.edu/scan/GT_2004_NRN.pdf).
Average brain size differs across populations ([International Journal of Neuroscience, 119:691–731, 2009](http://psychology. uwo.ca /faculty/rushtonpdfs/2009%20IJN. pdf)).
No, Chen. The test score gap is an American phenomenon. It’s not global. It’s not consistent across all US samples either. The real gap varies between 11 points and 8 points depending on the locale and other variables. So it’s never a full standard deviation difference. The gap varies from 3/4 of a standard deviation to half a std., and it’s not genetic.
There’s also no such thing as a uniform global black population. When you start with imaginary categories, gather imaginary data, you get imaginary results.
Gottfredson isn’t a geneticist, and knows very little about genetics.
And so on.
Still wrong, Chen. Still clueless. Still hoping that some scientific breakthrough will save your thoroughly discredited theories from the dunghill of pseudo-scientific garbage.
I’m a little late to the party, but you may need to consider that the one-drop rule isn’t very useful for racial studies. (N.B. Woods is only a quarter AA —ergo, *less *than a quarter of African ancestry.)
Which is what? And where is that estimate published?
Why? I have made no such asertion and see no reason to support a position I do not hold. I recognize that different populations are liable to have different characteristics. I simply deny your claim that a trait particular to one population (say, that of West Africa), can be generalized to a much larger region, such as all of Africa or all of sub-Saharan Africa.
The USA population is 28x that of Cuba, so as matter of simple arithmetical
proportion the USA should win 28x as many medals.
In the last 12 Olympics Cuba has won 6 of a possible 120 medals in the
100-200-400m dash events, including relays. Were the US to have won as many
medals in proportion to its size as Cuba it would have won all 120 medals in the
dashes. the actual US total is 56 medals: pretty darn good, but much fewer
relative to its population than Cuba.
I do not believe there is such as thing as an American “standard”. According to
the Wiki article Cuba is now ~65-25-10 White-mixed-Black.
The only thing that is moronic is to fail to recognize the obvious:
No matter what the system (Capitalist/Communist) economic status (rich/poor)
size (many people, few people) in any country with more than a handful of people
of primarily African descent, Blacks will dominate sprint completion.
Make that 4-5 million Cuban Blacks,and It is comparison of US whites to
Cuban blacks which provides the relevant evidence. There are about over
70x more American Whites than Cuban Blacks, yet Cuban Blacks have
won twice as many sprint medals
Nonsense.
In the last century Jamaican men and women won Olympic sprint medals as follows:
1948 (2 medalists-2 medals)
1952 (2 medalists-3 medals) plus 1 relay medal
1968 (1 medalist-1 medal)
1972 (1-1)
1976 (1-2 )
1980 (2-2)
1984 (1-2) plus 1 relay medal
1988 (1-1) plus 1 relay medal
1992 (2-3)
1996 (1-2) plus 2 relay medals
And be informed that Jamaica even now has only about ~2.8 million people.
Addressed but it occurs to me to add that if one were to combine the number
of medals won by all the tropical insular American countries then the proportional
results would be even less favorable to the US than the comparison with Cuba.
There several possible approaches to this issue. For example, West Africans
may simply come to produce the expected number of superior sprinters which
for reasons unknown they could be but are not producing now. On the other hand,
natural selection during the terrible ordeal of trans-Atlantic slave transport
may have produced an Afro-American population of much greater physical strength
than the average of the pool they were drawn from, with sprinting ability being
a rider to that.
Regardless, native West African underrepresentation does nothing to explain
African overrepresentation elsewhere.
I do not think anyone questions the great predominance of the African ancestral
component over the European, especially in Jamaica where ~90% of the population
is thought to be of fully African ancestry.
If you’re going to claim this you need to show a citation. For instance, the meta-analysis by Philip Roth showed a 1.1 standard deviation average difference. Group differences around the world are even larger.
Belowjob2.0 has a point. There is no “Black-White” gap. There are various gaps. In the US, the average (adult) African/European American gap is about 1.1 SD. In the UK, the average adult African/European British gap varies extensively depending on which African population one is referring to. When talking about IQ (or other) differences, one needs to specify the populations under discussion.
The average adult gap across the whole US is >1 SD (Flynn and Dickens, 2006). Regional (and global) variations can be explained both genetically (e.g. immigration patters) and environmentally.
I would be game for debating the issue, though I would change the question to “Is the heritability of the adult self and other identified African-American/European-American IQ gap > .3?” or “Do West-Southern-Central Africans and West Eurasians as characterized by Trishkoff, et al (2010) in “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans” have the same average genotypic IQ?”
Chen, I’m not doing your homework for you. You have seen, or certainly should have seen standardized test data from the past few years which show a gap in some states of half a standard deviation. Either you’re ignorant of a subject which you claim deep knowledge , or you’re deliberately ingoring data which contradict your thesis.
The test score gap isn’t global. The studies you reference attempt to conflate genetically distinct populations into one population because it suits their ideological biases. It’s not science.
One thing that always amazes me in these threads is how people insist that Blacks excel at certain sports because they are of African decent. But “Black” in the US means mixed decent. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that African Americans skew more towards certain athletic abilities than European Americans do. Maybe it’s precisely because they are of mixed ancestry that they do so, not because the are mostly of African ancestry.
This is the same Richard Lynn who wrote a book hyping his claims for IQ and national wealth, basing many of his “estimates” for any given nation’s IQ on samples as odd as a dozen schoolboys, tests administered under unclear circumstances to limited size groups dozens of years ago, or by “averaging” claimed IQ’s for two countries and then assigning that number to countries for which there was no data that lay between them.
Supporting one’s beliefs with the output of charlatans and liars does nothing to actually address the issue. Given the rubbish Lynn has used to identify IQ in so many nations, there is no reason to expect that his data is any better the next time around, particularly when his “new” data is probably based on the results he has already fraudulently published.