Why do black pupils in the US underachieve academically when one factors out poverty?

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

Of course skin color is the main indicator of the sociological grouping known as the “black race”. This doesn’t tell us anything at all about whether individuals of the “black race” have more genetic ancestry in common with each other than with those outside the “black race”. In fact, many inside the “black race” will be much more closely related, genetically, to non-black people than to other black people.

I don’t think this is correct, although I think I get your point. It’s a general physical appearance that extends beyond “skin color.”

But in any case, it’s been well shown that in the US, self-identification with “black” corresponds to about 80% sub-saharan ancestry while self-identification with “white” corresponds to 95%+ european ancestry.

These are group averages, which means that individual outliers exist. But of course we are talking about group averages for performances as well.

Self identification into “black” or “white” does create two groups with different average gene pools. This is not a controversial point, scientifically. The only “controversy” involves wordsmithing around whether those average pools are “scientifically definable” or “rigidly applicable” or nonsense like that.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

I don’t think this is correct, although I think I get your point. It’s a general physical appearance that extends beyond “skin color.”

But in any case, it’s been well shown that in the US, self-identification with “black” corresponds to about 80% sub-saharan ancestry while self-identification with “white” corresponds to 95%+ european ancestry.

These are group averages, which means that individual outliers exist. But of course we are talking about group averages for performances as well.

Self identification into “black” or “white” does create two groups with different average gene pools. This is not a controversial point, scientifically. The only “controversy” involves wordsmithing around whether those average pools are “scientifically definable” or “rigidly applicable” or nonsense like that.

“Sub-Saharan” and “European” doesn’t tell us much – there are plenty of sub-Saharan populations that are more closely related to European (and Asian, and other) populations, in terms of genetic ancestry, then they are to certain other far-flung sub-Saharan groups.

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

He provided no cites, and he’s talking specifically about African Americans. And actually African Americans are a pretty good example of my point – in terms of genetic ancestry, African Americans have a lot more in common, in general (on average), with white Americans then they do with, say, the Khoi San in Central and Southern Africa.

More wordsmithing. It’s true african americans are more likely to have european genes than the San. If the San and the west african groups (Yoruba, e.g.) are separated enough, they may have fewer genes in common than, say an 80% US african american with a european.

But self-identifying with “black” makes it much less likely that you have the same percentage of post-africa lineage genes, because 80% on average of your pool is still sub-saharan.

The argument around broad observed outcome differences in the black and white pools has to do with evolution post the out of africa migration, not who has more in common with whom.

With genes, it’s not a contest of quantity. It’s a matter of blind luck for ancestry. If my ancestral lineage only got one really good new gene variant driving performance X, that’s plenty if what we are looking at is outcomes for X. Only descendant lineages will get that gene, and it matters not what happens within all the branches which are not descendant lineages of the original group.

Genetic diversity and number of genes in common have nothing to do with the argument about whether or not it’s likely performance differences between sub-saharans and eurasians are driven by genes. What underpins that question is whether or not there is an isolating split between those two groups, far enough back for evolution to have driven differences.

Hint: the L3/M-N split out of africa about 70kya for mtDNA lineages.

[John_Mace]

@iiandyiiii

“Sub-Saharan” and “European” doesn’t tell us much – there are plenty of sub-Saharan populations that are more closely related to European (and Asian, and other) populations, in terms of genetic ancestry, then they are to certain other far-flung sub-Saharan groups.

Yes, both those are mostly East African, and blacks in the US are overwhelmingly West African in origin (for the part of their genetics that derives from Africa).

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

“Sub-Saharan” and “European” doesn’t tell us much – there are plenty of sub-Saharan populations that are more closely related to European (and Asian, and other) populations, in terms of genetic ancestry, then they are to certain other far-flung sub-Saharan groups.

That’s why it’s so unfair President Obama gets to self-identify as black.

He’s got european genes from his Mom, probably a bunch of out of africa genes from Pops from back-flow ancestors, but gets to use the race card ad lib whenever it’s going to get him a leg up. All w/o proving he’s very sub-saharan genetically.

Ah well; we’re talking averages…

[iiandyiiii]

@John_Mace

Yes, both those are mostly East African, and blacks in the US are overwhelmingly West African in origin (for the part of their genetics that derives from Africa).

“West African” is a massive group. Senegalese groups like the Wolof are probably more closely related to certain groups in Mauritania and Morocco (and other parts of North Africa) than to certain groups in, say, Gabon. Further, your point goes to show how useless and deceptive terms like “sub-Saharan African” are, when it comes to population genetics.

[MrDibble]

@magellan01

So, you agree that I’d be able to make a fortune be using skin color, among other physical features, as an indicator of what we’re talking about as the Black race?

Once you’ve cherry-picked the location, yes

Depends. But I’ll tell you what. I’ll take your bet in Australia. I get $100 for people who I visually correctly identify as being Aboriginal and $100 for people who I correctly identify as being Black, as we are discussing here.

Please define “Black” for me first.

Given that your previous attempts to do so for me were “dark skin and frizzy hair”, I’m going to assume you’re using a different definition of “Black” this time, one that allows you to exclude Aborigines.

You are blindfolded and do so randomly. Great. When do we start?

As soon as you define “Black”

Perhaps, you can now answer what I asked of you:

That I answered with a question doesn’t mean I didn’t answer. Of course the discussion has to do with Aborigines, and Andamanese, and Melanesians…they are all “black” in the US, where apparently “dark skin and frizzy hair” is the diagnostic criterion.

[Grotonian]

@MrDibble

As soon as you define “Black”

I was kidnapped and thrown by parachute into Nairobi. Then my captors picked me up and did the same thing in Reykjavik and then Shanghai.

I saw no signage, only people, and I had NO IDEA I had been on 3 continents. Of course, how would I know? I had no access to genetic testing or clear definitions of the races of the people I met. The three groups seemed vaguely dissimilar, but nothing I can really put my finger on.

You wouldn’t be able to tell the difference either, would you, Mr. Dibble, between the people of Nairobi, Reykjavik, and Shanghai?

Of course, you’re probably sharper than I. If you COULD tell a difference, would you be kind enough to share it with me?

[MrDibble]

@Grotonian

You wouldn’t be able to tell the difference either, would you, Mr. Dibble, between the people of Nairobi, Reykjavik, and Shanghai?

:rolleyes: Of course (on average), because you’ve cherry-picked such nice end-points of the continuum - but could you tell the difference between the people of Ituri Forest and North Andaman?

[iLemming]

It seems very arrogant to assume ‘white’, Anglo culture and education must suit those who are derived from the African continent. I think it’s naive and indeed folly to believe that just because we all breathe oxygen, we’re all the same. Cultural differences between whites and blacks who are raised in the same society are often pronounced. So, those who helm from distinctly different upbringings cannot realistically be expected to assimilate – square peg, round hole.

It’s a quaint notion, “God” creating all men equal. But reality tends fly in the face of scripture far more often than it rides its tailwind.

[John_Mace]

@iiandyiiii

“West African” is a massive group. Senegalese groups like the Wolof are probably more closely related to certain groups in Mauritania and Morocco (and other parts of North Africa) than to certain groups in, say, Gabon. Further, your point goes to show how useless and deceptive terms like “sub-Saharan African” are, when it comes to population genetics.

Then why did you bring up something that is primarily an attribute of some East Africans, when we’re talking mainly about West Africans? It’s certainly true that “African Americans” have a diverse genetic background on their African side, but it’s not quite the same as talking about the full genetic diversity of “Africans”. The one is a subset of the other.

[iiandyiiii]

@John_Mace

Then why did you bring up something that is primarily an attribute of some East Africans, when we’re talking mainly about West Africans? It’s certainly true that “African Americans” have a diverse genetic background on their African side, but it’s not quite the same as talking about the full genetic diversity of “Africans”. The one is a subset of the other.

From what I understand, it’s true of some West African populations as well. The geographic region of West Africa does not only contain populations that are more closely related to other West African populations than to groups outside the region. This goes for most geographic regions – many southern European populations along the Med might be more closely related to North Africans than to Scandinavians, for example; and some northeastern Asians might be more closely related to certain Native American groups than to some southeastern Asian groups.

[Grotonian]

@MrDibble

:rolleyes: Of course (on average), because you’ve cherry-picked such nice end-points of the continuum - but could you tell the difference between the people of Ituri Forest and North Andaman?

What’s to distinguish? I would properly classify them both as members of the negroid race. I can also identify certain racial markers over the phone. I certainly can’t tell blood type, but in the US, most aspects of race are heritable, some are cultural. That doesn’t mean there are no meaningful racial categories.

You’re certainly correct that racial classifications can get fuzzy. (What’s Obama? He’s just as white as he is black. Yet no one calls him the 44th white president, he’s the 1st black one.) But fuzzy doesn’t mean non-existent.

[iiandyiiii]

@Grotonian

What’s to distinguish? I would properly classify them both as members of the negroid race.

This is certainly not a proper classification, since those two groups (Ituri forest and Andaman islands) are nearly as far apart, in terms of genetic ancestry, as any two groups on earth.

[Grotonian]

@iiandyiiii

This is certainly not a proper classification, since those two groups (Ituri forest and Andaman islands) are nearly as far apart, in terms of genetic ancestry, as any two groups on earth.

No, I got it right, look it up. But I’m certainly willing to examine your evidence that either of those groups are not classified as negroids.

[magellan01]

@MrDibble

Once you’ve cherry-picked the location, yesPlease define “Black” for me first.

It would do you well to look at the thread title. We’re talking about Blacks in the U.S. NYC is a diverse city in the US. Want to pick an other city in the U.S., be my guest. If you don’t think black skin is genetic, I can’t help you. If you think that black skin is genetic but noting that else genetic can correlate with it, again, I can’t help you.

[iiandyiiii]

@Grotonian

No, I got it right, look it up. But I’m certainly willing to examine your evidence that either of those groups are not classified as negroids.

“Negroid” is not a classification based on genetic ancestry – it’s based on appearance. Andaman Islanders are pretty distant from nearly every other human population, in terms of genetic ancestry, but their closest genetic relatives are certain other Asian islanders near India (and, more distantly, some groups in India). They are not closely related at all to any African groups, including Ituri foresters (Mbuti).

[Shodan]

In the US, the SIRE of “black” correlates with about 80% of a genetic ancestry of sub-Saharan Africa. If there are ever enough Adaman Islanders in the US to significantly affect that, that will be significantly less true. Right now, there aren’t.

Like magellan01 mentioned, look at the thread title.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

We’ve been discussing the usefulness of terms like “sub-Saharan African”, “West African”, “Negroid”, and more, when it comes to genetic ancestry. Sometimes discussions include things that aren’t readily apparent in the thread title.

[Grotonian]

Back to the OP, in 15 years in public high schools, my experience has been that a lot of black kids suffer from a lack of ability coupled with a lack of motivation. That combination is academically deadly.

One could argue that either one causes the other, or both are independent, or that a lack of motivation is adopted as a face-saving device to cover a lack of ability. But in my experience, the two are highly correlated.

I have taught only in suburban schools. So most students, of all races, are usually successful. But my failure rate, which hovers around 4-6%, will inevitably have 3 black males out of 9 failures total. It’s problematic when I only have 7-10 black kids all day. 30-40% of my failures are black! Those statistics repeat around the school.

In my classes, a percentage below 70%, at any point, triggers a host of interventions. Mandatory tutoring with me, test re-takes, emails home, etc. The mandatory tutoring (essentially detentions) “motivate” almost all kids to keep their grades above a 70%. But not all.

And some can’t. High school Econ is gauged toward students of average ability. But not everyone has “average ability.” After I’ve taught Law of Demand, we’ve watched video clips, they’ve read their books, they’ve graphed it, and they’ve been exposed to countless examples, what do I do with a 17-year-old who doesn’t get it?

Well, I personally start over, one-on-one with the kid, after school. He may or may not retain enough to pass a test. Then I introduce Elastic and Inelastic Demand; and it all starts over. Then the Law of Supply. Same thing.

I don’t want to suggest that only black kids struggle with Econ. Lots of kids do. But the black kids I encounter struggle at a much higher rate than their peers.