# Why do black pupils in the US underachieve academically when one factors out poverty? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948 "2009-01-25T20:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/601 "2015-02-13T12:20:43Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I never said Lee performed experiments. I said I wasn’t aware of any significant experiments since his review of the evidence as it was in 2009. He noted the overall evidence to date was inconclusive, and as noted proposed a means of resolving the debate. As I said, Piffer has looked at some alleles that are linked to cognitive abilities and those [aren’t distributed evenly across groups](http://www.unz.com/pfrost/population-differences-in-intellectual/). There’re only a small number of alleles identified so far though. > > If you are referring to Sandra Scarr, the main study I am aware of that she was involved in was the [Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study)? When tested at age 17 the adoptees performed consistently with the group average for their respective ethnic groups. While those with one white and one black parent averaged between the other two groups. > > Scarr has subsequently commented on the pressure of finding an environmental interpretation: Scarr also was involved in the study “Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population”. In it, they found no correlation between African admixture (among self-identified black children) and test scores. I know this study really peeves the “blacks are dumber” crowd, but if they really had a scientific objection to it, then they would just recreate the study. They haven’t. I don’t think they’re actually interested in science. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/602 "2015-02-13T12:23:21Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Baby steps. > I want to convince you that these pools are separated. That particular polymorphism appearing in such distinct disproportion is an example of two things: The branching point at out of africa, and the fact that genes flow only to descendant lines. > > We tend to study gene variants for disease, and for good reason. If you look at those variants, you find a broad average difference of gene variant frequencies between the two pools. We can also look at the physical reasons people self-identify and infer that other gene variations average frequencies exist. > > When we study gene variants for ordinary physiology, they also exist. > > When we look at gene variant introgression by archaic lines, that also exists. > > The complexity of gene interaction makes it extremely difficult to say, “this exact variation in this exact milieu of the genetic code is what drives this exact outcome.” This is true whether we are talking about bonobos v humans or population A v population B. > > But the overall pattern of evolutionary divergence for separated groups is much more likely to be the case than not, for any human trait. This is why any population geneticist so easily slips into “sub-saharan” and “non-african” gene pools language. It is also why it is equally easy to assuage the masses with wordsmithing that “well; this particular SNP is just one tiny thing and can’t possibly be extrapolated for the rest of the DNA code.” “Blah blah blah Sorry, I _still_ don’t have an African/Outside phenotype split example” would be less verbiage. And I don’t need someone who doesn’t know what a gene properly is, lecturing me on what population geneticists and other scientists do and don’t mean when they talk about gene pools, thanks. Not when I can read the scientists’ own organizations’ statements on race. And good job on ignoring the other post, the one that demolished your pitiful use of cites that don’t actually say anything like what you think they say (again). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/603 "2015-02-13T12:26:32Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > No. It goes to show us you cannot compare IQ or other standardized scores across decades. They are not static exams, statically delivered to identical cohorts. The debate will rage on forever about what, exactly, “an IQ” test measures. Ditto for any other standardized exam, such as the SAT. The SAT has trended down; not up, across the decades. It makes no sense to advance anti-genetic arguments using IQ results across decades without acknowledging an opposite trend for other standardized tests. The variables involved in who gets tested (and the tests themselves) are legion. Says you. I’m not convinced. Whatever was the cause of the difference in results across decades could also be responsible for differences across population groups. > [@](#): > > What doesn’t change is the general order of outcomes by self-identified group, whether one is comparing that over decades or across socioeconomic status. > To date nothing has changed that, even factoring out poverty. You can take the same exam, in the same time period, and compare SES or other cohorts. “What doesn’t change…” in a tiny, tiny period of time, with rather weak efforts to correct it. We’ve only been studying this with any degree of reasonable accuracy for a few decades, and the efforts to actually do something about it have been mostly pathetic. So this tells us nothing. Throughout history, we can find periods in which nearly every group was on the top or bottom of the socio-economic pyramid in various regions. > [@](#): > > Even James Flynn, whose name is so readily advanced in the crusade against genetics, doesn’t personally think genetics don’t drive intelligence differences among groups. > > Witness [Flynn’s hot water when he made some remarks about not bringing down the national IQ](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313)by making it too easy for the genetically underendowed to reproduce. He couldn’t back off that fast enough and pretend his comments about putting contraception in the water of those groups were just pretend. > > _“Otago University emeritus professor Dr Jim Flynn was commenting on census figures that show mothers without a higher education were the anchor of New Zealand’s current fertility rate. > Everyone knows if we only allowed short people to reproduce there would be a tendency in terms of genes for height to diminish. Intelligence is no different from other human traits.”_ Flynn hasn’t said that the cause of the test-score gap is differing genetics for intelligence. He hasn’t said that black people have inferior genes for intelligence on average. I’m sure you’d like to pretend you secretly know what he thinks – just like you’ve repeatedly asserted in the past that you know what I secretly think – but it’s not true. You don’t have any special insight into the thoughts of people who don’t actually accept that black people are inferior. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/604 "2015-02-13T12:28:00Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > They just work within groups, right? So if I have a group of self-identified whites, an IQ range measures something related to brain function. But if I test an asian and she scores higher, why that score only makes sense against other asians. She may well be dumber than rocks compared with a white who has a lower score… > > Yep. Nope. That’s not it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/605 "2015-02-13T18:00:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t really understand this phrase: “that lower IQ is a contributing factor towards then the lower IQ might be the cause of socioeconomic underperformance”. The placement of “then” and “might” are really confusing to me. That lower IQ is a contributing factor to socioeconomic underperformance. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/606 "2015-02-13T18:51:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That lower IQ is a contributing factor to socioeconomic underperformance. It’s possible, and it’s also possible that they are both symptoms of some other cause. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/607 "2015-02-13T22:26:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Flynn hasn’t said that the cause of the test-score gap is differing genetics for intelligence. He hasn’t said that black people have inferior genes for intelligence on average. I’m sure you’d like to pretend you secretly know what he thinks – just like you’ve repeatedly asserted in the past that you know what I secretly think – but it’s not true. You don’t have any special insight into the thoughts of people who don’t actually accept that black people are inferior. I’m pretty sure Flynn had an idea whether or not the Maori or Pakeha were at the top or bottom end of the educational spectrum when he made his comments… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/608 "2015-02-13T22:39:06Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > “Blah blah blah Sorry, I _still_ don’t have an African/Outside phenotype split example” would be less verbiage. > > And I don’t need someone who doesn’t know what a gene properly is, lecturing me on what population geneticists and other scientists do and don’t mean when they talk about gene pools, thanks. Not when I can read the scientists’ own organizations’ statements on race. > > And good job on ignoring the other post, the one that demolished your pitiful use of cites that don’t actually say anything like what you think they say (again). Best wishes trying to explain [human migration](http://jbiol.com/content/8/2/18/figure/F1?highres=y) to the masses while dancing around the out of africa branching along with introgression of archaic lineages. 'Cuz we’re just one big homogeneous family descended in a radial fashion from a central hub. Out of africa was no different from any other separation; evolution doesn’t tinker with neurophysiology, migration doesn’t separate branches, and every human on earth has exactly the same genes. :rolleyes: If we can wordsmith away “race” it must be the case that average gene pool differences for phenotypic outcomes don’t exist for africans and non-africans. (But don’t try telling that to the guy who is convinced he got stopped for driving while black.) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/609 "2015-02-14T00:17:26Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’m pretty sure Flynn had an idea whether or not the Maori or Pakeha were at the top or bottom end of the educational spectrum when he made his comments… 😉 Your surety has no bearing on whether or not something is true. Unless and until Flynn says that he believes black people are inherently intellectually inferior, on average, due to genetics, then I’m inclined to assume that he doesn’t think that they are. Most people don’t secretly agree with you. You have no special insight into the thoughts of me and others who disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/610 "2015-02-14T05:44:27Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Best wishes trying to explain [human migration](http://jbiol.com/content/8/2/18/figure/F1?highres=y) to the masses while dancing around the out of africa branching along with introgression of archaic lineages. > > 'Cuz we’re just one big homogeneous family descended in a radial fashion from a central hub. Out of africa was no different from any other separation; evolution doesn’t tinker with neurophysiology, migration doesn’t separate branches, and every human on earth has exactly the same genes. :rolleyes: > > If we can wordsmith away “race” it must be the case that average gene pool differences for phenotypic outcomes don’t exist for africans and non-africans. (But don’t try telling that to the guy who is convinced he got stopped for driving while black.) No-one’s denying out-of-Africa branching happened. What we’re denying is that it makes a significant enough difference, that it was strictly one-way migration, or that picayune SNP differences amount to any significant 2-way split in humanity that’s non-clinal. _Easily_ shown by there being no phenotype differences that are strictly African/Non-African. Especially the major ones racists have always used, like skin colour, hair texture, eye shape - all that obvious shit. None of them line up along continental lines. So now it’s down to penny-ante bullshit like it’s down to how many percentage points difference there is between creatine levels in Africa vs Out Of (but let’s only use endpoints in our studies :rolleyes:)- “Biological Race” has become a God of the Gaps ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/611 "2015-02-14T07:19:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Scarr also was involved in the study “Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population”. In it, they found no correlation between African admixture (among self-identified black children) and test scores. > > I know this study really peeves the “blacks are dumber” crowd, but if they really had a scientific objection to it, then they would just recreate the study. They haven’t. I don’t think they’re actually interested in science. Thanks for the reference. That study is mentioned in the review by Lee I mentioned earlier. Lee [comments](http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf): > [@](#): > > He goes on to cite two studies failing to find an association > between ancestry-informative blood-group markers and > IQ without mentioning that the handicaps of small sample size > and unreliable ancestry estimation rendered these two studies > virtually powerless to reject any hypothesis within the interval > of contention You’re right, someone should do an updated study. The late David C Rowe suggested a [study design in his final paper](http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/11/david-rowes-final-paper.php). Geneticist Daniel MacArthur [noted a few years ago](http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/02/18/more-on-race-and-iq/) that NIH funding for such a study would be unlikely, but the information may become available anyway: > [@](#): > > There’s no debate about whether this research is “permissible” – as Razib notes in a post on ScienceBlogs GNXP, while there will never be a large NIH-funded project explicitly exploring group differences in cognition, such data will emerge naturally from the synthesis of the types of studies ben describes above, all of which are already underway to some extent. As Razib argues, the genetic studies will become faster, cheaper and larger with advances in DNA sequencing technology. It’s only a matter of time before the relevant intersecting data-sets are used to crunch the numbers. And some [bloggers](http://humanvarieties.org/category/admixture-mapping/) have certainly looked at admixture mapping & associations with education & other outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/612 "2015-02-14T11:01:51Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Thanks for the reference. That study is mentioned in the review by Lee I mentioned earlier. Lee [comments](http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf): > > You’re right, someone should do an updated study. The late David C Rowe suggested a [study design in his final paper](http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/11/david-rowes-final-paper.php). > > Geneticist Daniel MacArthur [noted a few years ago](http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/02/18/more-on-race-and-iq/) that NIH funding for such a study would be unlikely, but the information may become available anyway: > > And some [bloggers](http://humanvarieties.org/category/admixture-mapping/) have certainly looked at admixture mapping & associations with education & other outcomes. So what – are you moderating your view from “blacks are definitely inferior, intellectually, on average due to genetics” to “blacks might possibly be inferior, intellectually, on average due to genetics”? If so, I suppose that’s progress of some sort. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/613 "2015-02-14T15:15:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So what – are you moderating your view from “blacks are definitely inferior, intellectually, on average due to genetics” to “blacks might possibly be inferior, intellectually, on average due to genetics”? If so, I suppose that’s progress of some sort. I think the “definitely” is something you’ve been injecting into every aspect of this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/614 "2015-02-14T17:20:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No-one’s denying out-of-Africa branching happened. What we’re denying is that it makes a significant enough difference, that it was strictly one-way migration, or that picayune SNP differences amount to any significant 2-way split in humanity that’s non-clinal. > > _Easily_ shown by there being no phenotype differences that are strictly African/Non-African. Especially the major ones racists have always used, like skin colour, hair texture, eye shape - all that obvious shit. None of them line up along continental lines. So now it’s down to penny-ante bullshit like it’s down to how many percentage points difference there is between creatine levels in Africa vs Out Of (but let’s only use endpoints in our studies :rolleyes:)- “Biological Race” has become a God of the Gaps Love that “strictly” because it is such a nice haven… What differentiates modern pools is “average” and not “strictly.” Thousands upon thousands of SNP variations occurring after the out of africa split, which was not “strictly” separated but was separated for the vast majority of changes, for the vast majority of sub-saharans. 1.6% of the entire Perlegen database representing evolutionary-driven changes for 1,800 genes in the Wang study I gave you. Not random and isolated SNPs; not founder effects; not bottleneck differences. Changes for 1.6% of the entire Perlegen database (1.6 Million SNP mappings). Changes that cluster by SIRE group. Changes that created a reproductive advantage. Changes in genes for “biological themes … including host– pathogen interactions, reproduction, DNA metabolismcell cycle, protein metabolism, and neuronal function.” DNA research is not going to be kind to those of you who cling to the idea we are all sort of a mish mash of equivalent pools. If it turns out to be correct that most post-african lineages have exposure to a Neandertal ancestor (and that is pretty much now broadly accepted), that will be introgression of an entire hominin genome into the eurasian pool, with hundreds of thousands of antecedent years of evolution for those gene variants. That’s a pretty nice library of genes for evolution to allow those descendant lines to choose from. We already know some of the genes weren’t helpful but that of that introgressed genome about 20% were adaptive enough to survive to today, almost wholly in non-african lineages. It is not going to turn out that there was some secret mass eurasian migration and homogenization back into africa from these out of africa lineages. We have done enough gene studies to know some backflow occurred into east africa, and some into the Sahel; an isolated example that you cite earlier from a semitic group into a small portion of the San. But not enough to make it inaccurate for modern population geneticists to talk about sub-saharan pools, and non-african pools as two average pools. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/615 "2015-02-15T00:28:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think the “definitely” is something you’ve been injecting into every aspect of this discussion. **CP** is certain (I believe). He’s never expressed any doubt whatsoever that I can recall. I don’t think **Chen** has either. If they have doubts, I’d love to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/616 "2015-02-15T09:37:27Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Love that “strictly” because it is such a nice haven…[…] _almost_ wholly in non-african lineages. Yeah, a little emphasis by me - tell me more about how _I’m_ the one using weasel words… > [@](#): > > It is not going to turn out that there was some secret mass eurasian migration and homogenization back into africa from these out of africa lineages. It’s no secret, we’ve already seen the evidence. And “_Mass_ migration” is your strawman. There does not have to be a mass migration to have significant impacts. Didn’t take a _mass_ migration to get Israelites to South Africa or Ethiopia, or Southern European genes into the Kalahari Desert… > [@](#): > > We have done enough gene studies to know some backflow occurred into east africa, and some into the Sahel; That “some” already is enough to make a mockery of any idea of African isolation. That “some” already shows that the Africa/Out gene map is a distinctly clinal one. That “some” is enough to show we haven’t done nearly enough to say we’ve done “enough gene studies” in Africa. And South Africa is neither the Sahel nor East Africa, yet there are the Out Of Africa lineages, in the Lemba and the Bushmen… > [@](#): > > an isolated example that you cite earlier from a semitic group into a small portion of the San. I think you’re confused - in this case, between the [Southern European genes in the Khoisan](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna.html#.VOBjuCgjTrc), and the [Semitic genes in the Lemba](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/09/us/dna-backs-a-tribe-s-tradition-of-early-descent-from-the-jews.html), a _completely_ different group. Do keep up. And learn what the word “isolated” means. Note that first article also says “the finding also shows – for the first time – that genetic material from our extinct cousin may be widespread in African populations.” Which tells me that the actual work on Neanderthal backflow into Africa is still to be done. Because every genetic study on actual Africans (rather than the artificially selected-for US A-A population) in recent years seems to turn up a surprise for race-ists \*. > [@](#): > > But not enough to make it inaccurate for modern population geneticists to talk about sub-saharan pools, and non-african pools as two average pools. Yeah, I’ve already said I don’t trust you in the least to interpret what geneticists are talking about - your interpretations are as unreliable as your cites (which demolition of, you _still_ are ignoring, BTW) and you always ‘conveniently’ leave off words from your _précis_, like “Black people” off “Sub-Saharan”. Or you think that European+South Asian = Total Out of African Population. I don’t trust you to correctly convey a cite that the sky is blue. \*which I use here to mean people who believe in the existence of biological races in humans, not necessarily bigots. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/617 "2015-02-15T11:17:33Z")
Mr Dibble, let’s use your [New Scientist cite by Catherine Brahic,](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna.html#.VOB_bvnF_Td) then: 1. Out of africa 65,000 years ago; neanderthal introgression 45,000 years ago 2. 3,000 years ago, out of africa genes back to east africa 3. 1,800 years ago, out of africa genes into the Khoisan And a sweet headline: _ **“Humanity’s forgotton return to africa revealed in DNA”** _ from the reporter, Ms Brahic, talking about the DNA work by David Reich. Our egalitarian heroine, Ms Brahic, creates a fabulously wordsmithed closer: _“Not only is western Eurasian DNA ancestry a global phenomenon, so is having a bit of Neanderthal living on inside of you.”_ (emphasis by CP) Cue Shangri La musical theme…game; set; match to MrDibble! Told ya! Oh, wait…asks CP: “…so we’re saying these sub-saharan/non-african gene pools of which the population genetecists speak are now composed of about the same average frequency for the gene variants which evolved in the 60,000 years between out of africa and back to africa? And that’s why it’s ridiculous to look for genetically-based outcome differences in the two pools?” Uhhhhh…not exactly. Not exactly. It’s just that sub-saharans aren’t strictly sub-saharan. Not strictly. But there’s “some” eurasian DNA there. Let’s poke behind the clever wordsmithing from Pollyanna Brahic, and look at data. You might start with doing some additional reading about [David Reich’s work around the incidence of prostate cancer in blacks versus whites.](http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals) _“Reich and his colleagues found seven genetic risk factors, which together constituted a hot spot of cancer risk. African American men who had the European version of all seven of the markers were no more likely to get prostate cancer than Europeans were; the African versions, though, were associated with elevated risk.”_ Perfectly ordinary language reflecting two completely different average gene pools, because the topic is disease, and no need for Ms Brahic to add breathless wordsmithing that leads the masses to think shared DNA is “a global phenomenon” that might somehow erase that difference. Here’s the takeaway in understanding averag genetic pools: These are two different average pools. And when we are talking about average differences in genetically driven outcome, all of a sudden we need to care about to what extent those pools are intermixed in the last 3,000 years, having been separated by 60,000 years prior. Was there such a huge mass migration that the two pools should be considered roughly the same? Maybe one really busy guy or busy group that boinked every sub-saharan group to give them eurasian genes after 60,000 years of separation? Methinks not, and methinks you don’t think so either. What you want to do, Mr Dibble, is find the exception and suggest it may well be the rule because not every sub-saharan has been tested for their degree of non-african admixture. Dream on, and keep adding “strictly” or other wordsmithing modifiers to hide behind. I don’t know how interested you are in reading source material instead of pap for the masses massaged by pollyannas, but here’s some of the language from [David Reich’s paper](http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2014_PNAS_Pickrell_West_Eurasian_ancestry_in_southern_Africa.pdf)which underpins your cite: _“First, we show that all Khoisan populations have some nonzero proportion of west Eurasian ancestry… " We applied this method to all Khoisan populations and included southern African Bantu speakers for comparison. The highest levels of west Eurasian ancestry are found in Khoe– Kwadi speakers, particularly the Nama, where our estimate of west Eurasian ancestry reaches 14% (although note we cannot distinguish between the impact of recent colonialism and older west Eurasian ancestry in the Nama using this method). Other populations of note include the Khwe, Shua, and Haikom, whom we estimate to have ∼5% west Eurasian ancestry.”_ I recommend you look at Table 1 on page 5 of the original paper, where admixture percentages for southern africa range from 0-5% for the most part (with an exception for a single Khoe Kwada subgroup at 14%), and east africa, where the percentages in groups studied range from 0 to 50% (the higher percentages being in the Cushitic and Semitic groups). Look; “non-africans” is not a “race.” “Sub-saharans” is not a “race.” And no population is pure anything. But what out of africa did is broadly separate two genetic pools such that it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that average outcome differences we see today are driven by average differences in those genetic pools. Ms Brahic’s earnest implication that, because “shared DNA is a global phenomenon,” we are one big DNA family, is useful only as reassurance to those uninterested in educating themselves with facts. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/618 "2015-02-15T13:52:13Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Look; “non-africans” is not a “race.” “Sub-saharans” is not a “race.” And no population is pure anything. That’s the first correct thing you’ve said. > [@](#): > > But what out of africa did is broadly separate two genetic pools Only if you’re predisposed to ignore the obvious clinal nature of the genetic map, especially around the Horn/East Africa. > [@](#): > > such that it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest No, it’s not. Bad assumptions and bad (or no) data give the lie to any notions of reasonableness. > [@](#): > > that average outcome differences we see today are driven by average differences in those genetic pools. Nope. Unless you have an intelligence geneset you wish to point out to us (Ooh, is it hiding in the Neanderthal genes?), this is all just smoke-and-mirrors. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/619 "2015-02-15T14:30:10Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Only if you’re predisposed to ignore the obvious clinal nature of the genetic map, especially around the Horn/East Africa. I still don’t understand **CP** ’s argument about this region. I thought it was extremely well known that, when traveling from village to village from (say) Somalia up the coast to Egypt and across to the Levant, the population of each village would be extremely similar, genetically, to the neighboring village along the way. Is he really arguing that there’s a break somewhere? I don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/620 "2015-02-15T15:21:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I thought it was extremely well known that, when traveling from village to village from (say) Somalia up the coast to Egypt and across to the Levant, the population of each village would be extremely similar, genetically, to the neighboring village along the way. Silly **iiandyiiii** , knowing _that_ would require actually being in Africa and doing studies there. Why do that when one has an obviously genetically identical pool of African proxies right on one’s doorstep? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Is he really arguing that there’s a break somewhere? That _seems_ to be his argument - the Red Sea and the Sahara are unique barriers in a way no other geographical features are. Oh, they’ll let people through, but only in one direction and just that one time, of course… Nile? What Nile? > [@](#): > > I don’t get it. It’s easy - if all the studies you cite are about endpoints, why, a clear split is as obvious as … say … the sky being blue. Clines are for scientists who do transect studies, not populations geneticists, who all agree with **CP** on everything, always, don’tchaknow? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948.md?page=32)