This is going to happen, sometime within the very near future. When it does, we can put the debate to rest (at least, as regards this particular comparison- other racial comparisons, say Gypsies vs. Europeans, will still need to be tested).
Although it’s possible there may be cultural biases at a much deeper level (some cultures may stress abstract thinking more than concrete, etc.). It isn’t the superficial questions about regattas that account for the difference though.
This article offers an interesting possibility: it’s the easier questions on the verbal section, not the harder questions, that are biased. The easier questions, it suggests, are more likely to be answered based on osmotic learning, learning from your daily life. If the test designers assume a daily life with “white” vernacular instead of AAVE, white students have a leg up on these questions. The harder questions tend to use language that’s learned through academic study, and on these questions, black students of similar academic backgrounds actually perform slightly better than white students.
Perhaps the easiest question to ask when confronted with the question of whether or not average differences in gene pools drive average outcome differences among self-identified “race” groups is why one would expect them not to…
Which is more likely? A Creationist-type explanation that doesn’t allow for evolution of genes or that we are subject to nature like every other animal group?
It is much more likely than not that gene pools which have diverged and evolved for tens of thousands of years will have driven differences in gene pools for descendant populations. Even more interestingly, our self-identified groupings create average gene pools that probably don’t even reflect the same recent ancestry. It is becoming increasingly accepted that something like 1-4% of many eurasian line gene pools is genetic introgression from archaic hominid lines such as Neandertal and Denisovans. This introgression is thought to have occurred after the out of africa migration for the descendant lines containing those genes (Roughly at the L3/M-N splits in mtDNA haplogroups.
Evolution operates for all animal groups, including ours.
The only reason we cling to a default notion–hope, really–is that we don’t want gene pools to drive differences. We think the social and cultural ramifications will be too painful to bear.
We wouldn’t think twice if an animal researcher told us a given group of species X had a different average performance outcome driven by 70,000 years of evolution than some other group of the same species.
This is a phenomenally weak attempt at redirection. The real question is, which is more likely? That centuries of organized and incredibly vicious violence against a racial group, violence that has systematically and deliberately denied members of the group the chance to equal education or the accumulation of wealth, would impact educational outcomes? or that this has no effect, but that there’s an undiscovered genetic cause for these different educational outcomes entirely coincidental to the centuries of organized systematic violence, terror, and theft?
Occam’s razor, dude.
Do you even read my posts? None of this contradicts any of what I’ve said. I’ve repeated many, many times that it’s entirely possible, and even likely, that different groups have different genes on average for some characteristics. It’s possible intelligence is one of these characteristics.
What you’ve failed to do is demonstrate that this is necessarily true for black people such that they have inferior genes for intelligence. That’s what this is about – claims about black people. If you just want to say “different groups are different” – fine. No argument. If you want to say “different groups may have different genes for intelligence on average” – fine, no argument.
But if you want to say “black people have inferior genes for intelligence, on average”, then you better have something more than these straw-man arguments that tell us absolutely nothing at all about black people.
And no, I don’t believe test scores tell us anything at all about the genes for intelligence.
If someone said that all success is based only on hard work, then, certainly, he would have be implying that anyone who isn’t successful didn’t work hard enough.
But who has said that the only determiner of success is hard work? There’s a huge component due to mere luck, and a huge component due to social support. It’s been said that a lot of people succeed due to good old American know-who.
Just to be clear once again, I used the term “lazier” for the underperforming because it points out the silliness of using “hard work” for those who do better.
For iiandyiiii to promote hard work as an explanation for success for some blacks is no different than saying (relative) laziness is the explanation for those who do less well. It just sounds nicer.
But I realize the eagerness with which one wants to inject that fabulously inflammatory term “racist” as early as possible into any discussion of genetically divergent pools. It quickly sidetracks the conversation into what is racist or not instead of what is correct or not. I note that, depending on how you want to define “racist,” whether or not a position is racist has not a single iota of bearing on whether or not a position is correct.
But feel free to play the racist card and dole out little lectures. It’s all part of the usual obfuscatory rhetoric around this issue.
Nope. It’s not black and white. Plenty of people don’t work particularly hard, but aren’t lazy.
Hard work is undoubtedly part of the explanation for some people’s success. Other people work just as hard and don’t succeed. Some lazy people succeed even though they’re lazy. Some lazy people fail. Some people fall in the middle, and succeed or fail. In general, hard work makes it more likely to succeed.
That doesn’t mean the ones that don’t make it are lazy. So no, I’m not saying “hard work” because it sounds nicer. I’m using that phrase because it’s probably part of the story, but definitely not all of it.
I see what you did there.
So you have some kind of Lamarckian idea that centuries of oppression have affected the gene pool of blacks?
Something that happened to Granpa keeps me from learning when presented with hugely greater opportunity to learn than an asian kid whose Granpa was not oppressed?
That centuries of oppression and vicious violence against Jews is so qualitatively different that their successes should not be considered against that history? It’s just blacks whose ancestral oppression affects today’s kids?
Occam’s razor indeed, until you explain exactly how what happened to Gramps keeps me from learning calculus.
Good luck with that theory. 
My dumbass brother begs to differ with you as well as my much smarter sisters. Same family. Same opportunity. Same nurturing. Completely different traits and performance outcomes.
With all due respect, hard work and laziness are two ends of the same spectrum. By definition whoever works harder is less lazy than whoever works less hard, and whoever is lazier works less hard than whoever works harder.
When you advance an explanation of “hard work” as a reason for success it is no different than advancing an explanation of “lazier” for whoever had the same ability as the hard worker but had less success.
It’s almost like you’re different people with different experiences, and maybe even different genes! Amazing!
I don’t think so. I don’t believe someone who prioritizes family or community more and work less is necessarily lazier than someone who prioritizes work more than family and community.
Life and success are not just about work.
This has so little to do with what I said that I wonder whether you bothered to read my post. No, I have no such idea.
Are you seriously under the misperception that racism is over?
Uh, yes. It’s entirely different. History is different, you know, for different social groups.
I genuinely think what happened to WhiteGramps kept you from learning history, not calculus. Let’s try for some education:
Small words:
-Gramps was effectively denied access to the GI Bill.
-Gramps was denied access to loans.
-Gramps was first to be fired from his job.
-Gramps couldn’t get good jobs he was qualified for.
-Gramps lived in a shitty neighborhood therefore and couldn’t accumulate wealth the way WhiteGramps could.
-Mom and Dad, like most kids of their generation, tried drugs. But unlike WhiteDad, Dad got arrested for trying drugs and thrown in prison. This is due in part to the shitty neighborhood Dad grew up in, due to the racism against Gramps, and in part due to racist police policies, and in part due to racist criminal codes.
-Dad couldn’t get a job with a felony record, even though White Dad committed similar felonies.
-So I grew up in a high-crime impoverished neighborhood with an overworked mom who hadn’t had access to educational opportunities that WhiteMom had had access to.
-Some dude on the Internet thinks it must be my genes that make studying more difficult for me.
Your magical “genes-did-it” handwaving is absurd in the face of a much clearer explanation.
Oh, pobrecito. You got called on your dog whistle, and nobody believes your explanation for why you used that particular whistle. If you don’t want to be suspected of being racist, there’s an easy path you can take.
“Same nurturing?” Can you demonstrate that? Have you no experience in this world of parental favoritism?
Just living under the same roof is far, far, FAR from “same nurturing.”
They also had the exact same group of friends growing up, as well as exactly the same teachers, and family traumas occurred at exactly the same times in their lives.
Look, of course there’s a genetic component to personalities. What’s not remotely clear is that there are significant differences in personality carried on the same genes that carry visible traits that we aggregate as race. The traits Chief Pedant suggests are carried on those genes are traits that are clearly explicable via historical forces like racist violence and theft, and imagining fantasy genes to explain what there’s already an explanation for is deeply suspicious behavior.
This is the only post I’ve read in the thread, but I strongly endorse it. My mom read me stories and stuff all day when I was very young. Then she had to go back to work, and my little brother got next to none of that. Then my grandmother moved in with us about the time my little sister was born, and treated my little sister like a queen.
My little sister and I are fine, mostly. My little brother killed himself about 20 years ago.