I do not mean to sound whiny, and I apologize if I came across that way. It’s true I think your position does not have a shred of data to back it up, and that if there were any nurturing influences that made sense, they would have been studied to death by now. There just aren’t any other than very soft, very speculative, very special-case-blacks-only putative “variables.”
Against this is a simple conclusion: Gene pools vary by SIRE group, and all of gene science is headed in a direction suporting that. Outcomes vary by SIRE groups, in the same consistent way and persistently across all social and political boundaries, and all histories. Nature affects all genes indiscriminately.
Why on earth would there NOT be genetically-driven differences for SIRE groups so widely separated in time that they self-identify because they don’t even look like one another anymore? Why would nature drive gene prevalence differences for all of the gene functions mentioned in Eric Wang’s article cited above (the gene ontology categories for these gene pool functions are…“host–pathogen interactions, reproduction, DNA metabolism, cell cycle,protein metabolism, and neuronal function”).
A reminder from the first page of Wang’s paper: “This ‘‘first-pass’’ analysis uncovers a surprising number of alleles with the fingerprint of recent positive selection, in contrast to other global approaches using less-sensitive methods . We outline several predominant biological themes among genes detected with this strategy and suggest that selection for alleles in these categories accompanied the major ‘‘out of Africa’’ population expansion of humankind andor the radical shift from hunter– gatherer to agricultural societies.”
Where do you think gene science and population analysis is taking us? One big homogeneous family? And if not, then disparate only for non-significant differences? Why would you think mother nature would care?
On the topic of gene clustering by “race” I thought I would mention one other cite.
And since I’m a bit weary of posting the same things over and over again, a link to a blog I like written by Jerry Coyne, along with his advice on which position to take in the race/intelligence debate:
*"How different are the races genetically?
Not very different…
Why do these differences exist?
The short answer is, of course, evolution.
What are the implications of these differences?
Not much. There are some medical implications…
Everyone wants to know, of course, if different races differ genetically in their abilities, especially intelligence. While I think there may be statistical differences among races in these things, it’s not as obvious that sexual (or natural) selection would operate as strongly on genes involving these traits as on superficial external characteristics. We just don’t know, and in the complete absence of data it is invidious to speculate on these things. It’s just as scientifically unsupported to say, for example, that there is no difference among populations in mathematical ability as it is to say that there are differences. In the absence of data, we must follow the apophatic theologians and remain silent."*
You can read the whole post if you are interested. In the end we have to decide what data we find persuasive, and I do think for most public consumption, then Coyne’s position is the safest. Speculation is invidious on this topic. I am amused at his advice to “follow the apophatic theologians and remain silent.”
As anyone who follows my comments has already read, it’s a matter of faith that there is no genetically driven significant difference among human populations. I obviously do not agree with Coyne that there is a complete adbsence of data on either side. The patterns we observe are remarkable data points.
See my reply to Inbred Mm domesticus, above.
The “gene ontology” groups are the kinds of groupings for the genes that vary (disease, neurophysiology, etc). However the body of the paper talks about how genes within these ontological groupings vary by those SIRE populations (and for the reason I mention, which is historic human migration patterns). Many many other papers show clustering of these genes by source population tied to geographic origins.
I believe that almost any further reading will convince you of gene clustering by SIRE group. It is not a particularly controversial topic.
Your case isn’t close to as strong as you make it out to be. Nurture really has not been taken into account, except for a few variables like SES. There really are many, many non-genetic factors that we have been unable to correct for (or even imagine, most likely).
Only fringe elements in the scientific world like the Pioneer Fund support the genetic hypothesis. If it were stronger, it would have the support of more than a tiny minority of scientists. You might complain about a conspiracy or fear of politics or whatever, but that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that just makes it too easy on your side.
Demanding data about the genes for high intelligence when discussing which groups are more likely to have these genes really is a reasonable position.
As to the question in the OP, we humans seem to have a need to invent an other to persecute. We fill in the details with whatever seems plausible at the time.
But don’t forget the mass of folks such as yourself who want to label–a priori–a conclusion that one population might have an average genetically-driven difference from another that is “superior” in any way is a “racist” conclusion.
I suggest that such a position throws a bit of cold water on any publicly-stated comment, much less any formal investigation which might lead to such a conclusion.
And the establishment by egalitarians that we must find the exact gene(s) responsible is a particular constrain applied only in humans, and only for intellect. It is applied only because of the perceived inflammatory nature of such a conclusion, and not because we use that degree of certainty to establish the cause of any other pattern. We’ll happily decide two sub-populations of dogs differ for various genetically-driven brain-related tasks without ever demanding genes.
I believe the actual putative nurturing factors you have advanced to date are:
Sloppy parenting
Teacher expectation
Peer pressure
Stereotype threat
History of oppression of grandparents and earlier generations
You find reassurance in a nurturing theory to explain why wealthy and educated black families have children who woefully underscore their wealthy and educated peers on standardized exams, and do so to such a degree that their scores are barely on par with a population that is financially destitute and whose parents did not complete high school.
You find those reasons substantially more persuasive than an argument which claims that nature is unlikely to have diddled around with only non-significant genes.
You still don’t quite get it- I don’t proscribe to any idea that “nature is unlikely to have diddled around with only non-significant genes”. I just don’t think social data like test scores can tell us anything at all about human genetics for characteristics like intelligence. I think it’s possible (though I have no evidence for it) that some groups are more likely to have genes for high intelligence- but I think it’s equally likely that the black SIRE group has such a likelihood as that non-black SIRE groups do. In this world with our recent history, I just don’t think test scores have anything at all to do with genetics when comparing such groups. Just like crime statistics, economic statistics, and similar things- they just don’t tell us anything at all about genetics.
With modern genetics science, a reasonable resolution to the debate could be made.
Use a US-based SIRE group of all self-identified “black” individuals.
Map their quantitative scores–SATs, e.g.–against the percentage of african, european and asian genetic admixtures.
While european genetic admixture averages about 20% in US self-identified blacks, the range is quite broad.
If it’s correct that european or asian genes drive a higher skillset for STEM-type quantitative exams, the prediction would be that on average, a higher percentage of non-african admixture would correlate with better scores, and since the entire group self-identifies as black, nurturing influences related to that factor would be relatively smoothed out.
I wonder if you would support such a study to lay to rest once and for all the “zero evidence” notion that genes influence different outcomes among SIRE groups for test-taking skillsets.
Or would it be the case that we decide such a study has enough potential for a “racist” outcome that we never support it?
In a nutshell, this is why such studies would not be done. The question can be resolved, and relatively definitively. It won’t be, because egalitarians will not allow it to be. In their hearts, they know that mother nature has been no more fair for the skillset driving a test-taking skill for quantitative sciences than she has been with the skillset for certain athletic abilities.
Sure, that sounds like an interesting study. In fact, it sounds so interesting that it has been done before.
No correlation was found between test scores and degree of African admixture among self-identified black individuals. Just another example of your hypothesis not fitting the facts.
It’s a bit fast and loose to present this cite as being particularly definitive, is it not? I encourage reading of the paper itself by those interested.
I am familiar with this isolated study. I am suggested we can do much better analysis than we have done in the past with new genetic markers.
I suspect you are aware that this nearly 35 year old study uses skin color as a proxy for degree of admixture, uses a small sample of black twins, and comes to a conclusion that within the group of black children, estimated admixture ranges from 15-35% don’t affect outcome on a heavily-coached set of psychometric tests, which the kids were paid to take (along with feeding them snacks and giving them dental care, as I recall). Within the group of black kids, social disparities were not found to correlate with test results, and the usual 1 standard deviation was found between black and white performance. If it were the case that most egalitarian supporters thought this paper had any real merit, more formal and extensive efforts at duplicating the results would have been done long ago to silence genetically inclined “racists.”
But let us say this study is a good start in the right direction to resolve such a contentious issue. What I’m wondering is whether or not it gives you enough confidence to support pursuit of better-designed, broader study. What I’d suggest is taking a larger pool of all-black self-identified individuals, and first sorting them into top-tier and bottom tier SAT (or equivalent) groups. Then, using modern genetics, estimate ancestral pools. If the bottom tier scorers are no less admixed than are the top-tier scorers, I agree this would lend support to an anti-gene hypothesis.
Would such a study be appropriate because it helps resolve an issue, or would it be inappropriate because at least one possible resolution is “racist”?
When it comes to labeling conclusions “racist” a priori of doing the best science you can to reach that conclusion, I have grave reservations. Since you have labeled some propositions “racist” by definition, I have significant doubt that you would be able to objectively evaluate–or even support the evaluation of–science potentially leading to that conclusion.
Then do better- do the study, and let me know the results.
Incorrect- it uses “blood group loci”. Skin color was also looked at, but not as a proxy for degree of admixture.
Any study is appropriate. I’d be interested in seeing the results of such a study.
I have labeled some propositions “racist” because it fits the definition and common use of the word. I’m not making a judgment- I’m like an umpire in this case. From my understanding of the word, it doesn’t matter whether a claim like “blacks are inherently less intelligent on average” has scientific backing or not. That’s a racist claim, whether it’s made by a dumbass ignorant hick in Alabama or a Ph. D. researcher at Cal Tech. Perhaps that should change if there were very solid evidence- but there’s not.