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

[Chief_Pedant]

Sub-saharan and non-african are two average pools because, for most of the last 65,000 years, the out of africa migration created a splitting point in human evolution.

Gene variants introduced near to the beginning of that splitting point (archaic lines is one example; genes in the founding out of africa pool are another) are limited to one pool and not the other. For example, we currently see 1-4% of one pool having gene variants from an ancestral pool 200,000 years more separated than the common coalescence pool for the rest of the genetic makeup in both pools.

Separation like this drives different frequencies of gene variants, because even with the modern exchange of genes from one pool to another as humans have grown more mobile, there has not been time to homogenize both groups.

When we self-identify with “black,” we self-identify with the sub-saharan pool–the populations that did not leave africa. When we self-identify with “white” or “asian” we self-idenitfy with the M-N lineages that descended from the out of africa group which ended up in the Levant (specifically, the second peopling of the Levant).

Now let us turn to an outcome example. Let us postulate that a geneset underpinning maximum performance for power sprinting occurs with a high frequency in a west africa sub-saharan population. That geneset did not cross out of africa (or was evolved post-split). It had no mechanism to descend to non-africa lineages, on average.

What are we going to see if we insist on self-identifying with “black” or “white”?

If we take all comers for those self-identification categories, and look at an average outcome difference, there will be a superior outcome average for self-identified “blacks” even if a given self-identified black is some east african fellow (or even a Mbuti) who can barely jump.

And the difference will be because of a difference in average genetic pools with which that self-identification aligns.

It won’t be culture. It won’t be nurturing. It won’t be stereotype threat. It won’t be lousy parenting. It won’t be eurasian laziness.

It. Will. Be. Genes.
And the overwhelming probability will be that the next generation of 100 meter winners will self-identify as “black” because of an average genetic difference in the source pool with which that label self-identifies.

It may well be that it is beyond stupid to talk about a “black race.” It may well be that there is more total variation in sub-saharans than non-africans. It may be that between any two individuals on either side of the Gate of Grief, there is more in common than between any two sub-saharans.

None of that makes a hill of beans difference.

When we self-identify into sub-saharan and non-africa groups, we self-identify with a major split in human migration and evolutionary patterns that has driven gene variants which to large-enough frequency differences to effect an overall average difference.

[Chief_Pedant]

@MrDibble

You consciously pick the “average” gene pools you choose to use. Chief Pedant chooses to use one that just happens to line up with that used by racists. But that’s OK, because he says he doesn’t believe in biological races. He just believes in dividing people into groups along genetic lines :smack:

I picked neither the lumping nor the splitting. Any two reasonably separated populations will be driven to divergence by evolutionary forces. The degree of divergence for a given outcome may be tiny, or it may be large.

It is the self-identification of “black,” “white,” and “asian,” that aligns with the evolutionary and migration patterns at out of africa.

You could just as easily take a different self-identification and examine whether or not human history and evolution are likely to have driven divergence in those groups.

But if you use self-identification along black, white and asian, then you do align with one of the major splitting points where black and white/asian are separate by 65,000 years, and where white/asian have introgression of entire alternate genome that antedates the rest of our common ancestry by 200,000 years of evolution.

And that is why we will see genetically driven average outcome differences in those self-identified groupings. The self-identification aligns with one of the splits that happened in our migration and evolutionary history.

[MrDibble]

@Chief_Pedant

I picked neither the lumping nor the splitting.

Of course you did.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

Now let us turn to an outcome example. Let us postulate that a geneset underpinning maximum performance for power sprinting occurs with a high frequency in a west africa sub-saharan population. That geneset did not cross out of africa (or was evolved post-split). It had no mechanism to descend to non-africa lineages, on average.

What are we going to see if we insist on self-identifying with “black” or “white”?

If we take all comers for those self-identification categories, and look at an average outcome difference, there will be a superior outcome average for self-identified “blacks” even if a given self-identified black is some east african fellow (or even a Mbuti) who can barely jump.

And the difference will be because of a difference in average genetic pools with which that self-identification aligns.

It won’t be culture. It won’t be nurturing. It won’t be stereotype threat. It won’t be lousy parenting. It won’t be eurasian laziness.

It. Will. Be. Genes.

I’ll grant you this – in a hypothetical in which west Africans have a geneset for power sprinting, then it’s genes.

Good job. Feel free to declare victory – you managed to invent a hypothetical scenario in which genes are actually the best explanation (since they were part of the hypothetical assumption). No idea what this has to do with the real world, though, or for intelligence – we know of no such geneset for intelligence, much less its prevalence in various populations.

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

I’ll grant you this – in a hypothetical in which west Africans have a geneset for power sprinting, then it’s genes.

Good job. Feel free to declare victory – you managed to invent a hypothetical scenario in which genes are actually the best explanation (since they were part of the hypothetical assumption). No idea what this has to do with the real world, though, or for intelligence – we know of no such geneset for intelligence, much less its prevalence in various populations.

What this has to do with the real world is that mother nature keeps insisting on evolving genes, without respect to whether or not it is unfair to the separated groups which will not inherit those new gene variants.

So whether the trait is personality, height, disease, physiology, intelligence or hair, it’s much more likely than not that any two separated groups will have genetically-driven differences.

If the two groupings happen to be “sub-saharan” lines and “non-african” lines, well those two groups have been separated by 65,000 years, and various subsets within those two broad groups separated by even longer.

So it’s pretty pollyannish to insist that, until we find the exact gene variants driving a given divergence in outcome, we should assume the divergence is due to nurture and not nature.

While both nurture and nature drive outcomes, in the OP’s question SES is factored out. So then the question is whether it’s likely the evolutionary divergence for genes is at play as opposed to some weaker variable (sterotype threat; lousy parenting; peer pressure…). Since, to date, these non-SES putative explanations don’t seem to hold up for any group except blacks (indeed; they aren’t even needed), I don’t personally have much confidence that there is some secret non-genetic explanation. The general observed pattern of disparity holds true across all political boundaries, all societies, and all national histories. And within the particular political boundary of the US, it has been very carefully quantified across tens of thousands–millions, actually–of studied participants.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

What this has to do with the real world is that mother nature keeps insisting on evolving genes, without respect to whether or not it is unfair to the separated groups which will not inherit those new gene variants.

So whether the trait is personality, height, disease, physiology, intelligence or hair, it’s much more likely than not that any two separated groups will have genetically-driven differences.

How about sense of humor? Knuckle wrinkliness? Scrotum hairiness? Fingernail thickness? Blink rapidity? Bowel strength? Tone deafness? Snot viscosity? Are you seriously suggesting that every single human characteristic must necessarily vary genetically by race?

If the two groupings happen to be “sub-saharan” lines and “non-african” lines, well those two groups have been separated by 65,000 years, and various subsets within those two broad groups separated by even longer.

No they haven’t. The relationships are clinal. Most middle-eastern populations are pretty closely related to north African populations, which are pretty closely related to Saharan populations, which are pretty closely related to immediately sub-Saharan East African populations, which are pretty closely related to central/east African populations…

So it’s pretty pollyannish to insist that, until we find the exact gene variants driving a given divergence in outcome, we should assume the divergence is due to nurture and not nature.

While both nurture and nature drive outcomes, in the OP’s question SES is factored out.

SES is a tiny portion of “nurture”.

So then the question is whether it’s likely the evolutionary divergence for genes is at play as opposed to some weaker variable (sterotype threat; lousy parenting; peer pressure…).

Or day-to-day discrimination, societal representations and media depictions, institutional discrimination, and many more, which aren’t necessarily “weaker” variables than SES.

Since, to date, these non-SES putative explanations don’t seem to hold up for any group except blacks (indeed; they aren’t even needed), I don’t personally have much confidence that there is some secret non-genetic explanation.

We know your personal feelings about black people’s intelligence. We know that there is actual experimental evidence that refutes your feelings that you ignore, and we know that you and the rest of the ‘blacks-are-dumber’ crowd are too cowardly and uninterested in actual science to try and recreate that experiment.

The general observed pattern of disparity holds true across all political boundaries, all societies, and all national histories.

Utterly false. It holds for a tiny slice of history – a few decades of half-way decent testing and much less than half-way decent efforts to rectify such gaps.

Nothing you’re saying here is new – we’ve gone over it a hundred times. There’s actual experimental evidence out there… it’s old, but it’s good science. It may not be definitive – so recreate it. Do some actual science.

[Francorage]

@Marley23

To run it down very quickly: race is generally ill-defined, human being are fundamentally very much alike, individuals vary but averages of large groups tend to be very similar, and finally, people have attempted to prove various doctrines of racial superiority and inferiority since the advent of genetics. They have never done so and have exposed only their own prejudices in the process. That’s not to say everyone who asks this question is a racist, but in the attempts, a pattern emerges.

Humans ARE fundamentally alike. However, there ARE some “large groups” that have distinct advantages or disadvantages, one such group: African-Americans. Could it be possible that 400 years of unnatural selection could have caused some discrepancies later on down the line?
There was selective breeding this particular group to weed out genes that produce intelligent, independent thinkers (that could potentially cause problems for a slaveowner,) while simultaneously rewarding the largest, strongest, most athletic genes. In 2009, 77% of the NBA was Black, 67% of the NFL was Black, despite Blacks being 12% of the national population. Would it be a safe jump to say that the unnatural selection may have been as effective in selecting for athletic prowess as it was at neutralizing cognitive abilities?
Of course this doesn’t apply to ALL Blacks, but could certainly be applicable when talking about African-Americans, which are obviously more important than any of the others because 'Merica! (Sorry! Had to!) We also have to take into account, after selective reproduction, education was not readily available or equal, even up to the 20th century. All-in-all, these test scores should level themselves out with time.
I only wish the whole world would have unnaturally selected only the best and finest theast 2,000 years! I might have been a lot more of a man.

[iiandyiiii]

@Francorage

Humans ARE fundamentally alike. However, there ARE some “large groups” that have distinct advantages or disadvantages, one such group: African-Americans. Could it be possible that 400 years of unnatural selection could have caused some discrepancies later on down the line?
There was selective breeding this particular group to weed out genes that produce intelligent, independent thinkers (that could potentially cause problems for a slaveowner,) while simultaneously rewarding the largest, strongest, most athletic genes. In 2009, 77% of the NBA was Black, 67% of the NFL was Black, despite Blacks being 12% of the national population. Would it be a safe jump to say that the unnatural selection may have been as effective in selecting for athletic prowess as it was at neutralizing cognitive abilities?
Of course this doesn’t apply to ALL Blacks, but could certainly be applicable when talking about African-Americans, which are obviously more important than any of the others because 'Merica! (Sorry! Had to!) We also have to take into account, after selective reproduction, education was not readily available or equal, even up to the 20th century. All-in-all, these test scores should level themselves out with time.
I only wish the whole world would have unnaturally selected only the best and finest theast 2,000 years! I might have been a lot more of a man.

This is a widely accepted myth, but the reality was that slave-owners, for the most part, were not able to control the “breeding” of their chattel. They may have tried in some cases, but slaves couldn’t be controlled and penned and separated to the extent that cattle are – humans can open doors, sneak around at night, take advantage of a sleeping watchman, have secret trysts, etc.

Add this to the small number of generations in 400 years, and the incredibly frequent rape of female slaves, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to accept that “selective breeding” had a significant effect on the genetics of African Americans.

[Chief_Pedant]

By CP:
“So whether the trait is personality, height, disease, physiology, intelligence or hair, it’s much more likely than not that any two separated groups will have genetically-driven differences.”

@iiandyiiii

How about sense of humor? Knuckle wrinkliness? Scrotum hairiness? Fingernail thickness? Blink rapidity? Bowel strength? Tone deafness? Snot viscosity? Are you seriously suggesting that every single human characteristic must necessarily vary genetically by race?

I am suggesting to you that, where we find average performance outcome differences by self-assigned “race,” it’s much more likely than not that the differences will be genetically driven when we make reasonable accommodation for nurture.

I’m not trying to talk you out of nurture’s influence, or talk you into the idea that every single outcome difference is genes. I’m trying to convince you that the evidence for genetics is powerful and does not require a standard of “show me the exact genetic mechanism” in order for genetics to be the most persuasive explanation.

When we look at a competitive basketball game, we are looking at the combination of 65,000 years of evolutionary separation between a (mostly) west african genetic lineage and a (mostly) european or asian lineage. Out of africa separated those groups at a coalescence point 65,000 years ago with minimal backflow of genes in either direction. Modern self-identification creates an association with the genetic pools which vary for average gene frequency among those groups. Introduction of new gene variants since the original coalescence point (which may well antedate 65kya) means new variants are passed only to descendant lines.

What this means when we look at genes and performance outcomes for the skillset of basketball in the US is that:

1. “Race” is not a biologically definable category. (The Yoruba are not the Mbuti, and there is no given allele that makes you “black”)
2. Nurture has an effect on outcomes. Any given cultural niche has its own peculiarities (which may in part be driven by genes because culture itself is built around what our genes drive).
3. The difference in average performance outcomes for the skillset of basketball is most likely genetic and not nurture, even without identifying the exact genes or cultural influences.

Genes are the most powerful explanation because it is easy to show that, first of all, the average gene pools have been separated by 65,000 years or more, and we know evolution diverges. Second, we can make a reasonable correction for nurture. We can, for example, look at a basketball game crowd and see if whites seem interested in the game. We can look at school programs and see if the starting pools for participants are as large for whites as they are for blacks (How many white kids v how many black kids are in school programs for BB?) We can look at opportunity and see if white kids have more distractions than do black kids (family stability; coaching; facilities…). We can look at aspirations and decide if white kids want to give up an NBA dream for some other job at a greater rate than blacks.

In the end, the most reasonable explanation is genetic differences, driven by the fact that self-identification of “black” puts one in a pool where the average frequency for gene variants driving a superior basketball skillset is greater for black than it is for white self-identifications. So when we look at the average total BB outcome, it will be skewed toward blacks even if any given black is doing his calculus homework and any given white makes the Olympics for the hundred meter.

Genes. Averages frequency. Self-assigned labels which place one into a larger pool. Evolution. Migration.

In taking away SES and opportunity as putative nurturing influences for average academic outcomes, we haven’t left much on the table for a non-genetic explanation of such a stubbornly persistent and broad gap.

Get your arms around some of these concepts and leave behind the knee-jerk egalitarianism, and I am confident your prejudices about how mother nature runs the world will begin to fall away.

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

Add this to the small number of generations in 400 years, and the incredibly frequent rape of female slaves, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to accept that “selective breeding” had a significant effect on the genetics of African Americans.

The main effect was to introduce gene variants from european lines into what were otherwise mostly west african lines such that the current average admixture of self-identified blacks (with enslaved ancestry) in the US is about 20% european and 80% west african gene variants.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

I am suggesting to you that, where we find average performance outcome differences by self-assigned “race,” it’s much more likely than not that the differences will be genetically driven when we make reasonable accommodation for nurture.

Two things – we haven’t even come close to making “reasonable accommodation for nurture”, and there’s specific experimental evidence that refutes genetics as the driver.

I’m not trying to talk you out of nurture’s influence, or talk you into the idea that every single outcome difference is genes. I’m trying to convince you that the evidence for genetics is powerful and does not require a standard of “show me the exact genetic mechanism” in order for genetics to be the most persuasive explanation.

You’ve failed. The ‘evidence’ for genetics is not powerful at all – it’s weak and refuted by experimental evidence.

We don’t have to endlessly repeat this. You believe that most of “nurture” is contained by SES. I don’t – I believe SES is a very small portion of “nurture”. You believe (without any sort of testing data before a few decades ago and in most of the world) that the “present pattern” has been in place for all of history and around the world. I don’t. I see times in history in which nearly every group was “on top” and “on bottom” at some point in different societies. I believe that society and culture were responsible for various groups being on top and on bottom through history, and I see no reason to believe this doesn’t continue to be true now.

When we look at a competitive basketball game, we are looking at the combination of 65,000 years of evolutionary separation between a (mostly) west african genetic lineage and a (mostly) european or asian lineage. Out of africa separated those groups at a coalescence point 65,000 years ago with minimal backflow of genes in either direction. Modern self-identification creates an association with the genetic pools which vary for average gene frequency among those groups. Introduction of new gene variants since the original coalescence point (which may well antedate 65kya) means new variants are passed only to descendant lines.

What this means when we look at genes and performance outcomes for the skillset of basketball in the US is that:

1. “Race” is not a biologically definable category. (The Yoruba are not the Mbuti, and there is no given allele that makes you “black”)
2. Nurture has an effect on outcomes. Any given cultural niche has its own peculiarities (which may in part be driven by genes because culture itself is built around what our genes drive).
3. The difference in average performance outcomes for the skillset of basketball is most likely genetic and not nurture, even without identifying the exact genes or cultural influences.

Genes are the most powerful explanation because it is easy to show that, first of all, the average gene pools have been separated by 65,000 years or more, and we know evolution diverges. Second, we can make a reasonable correction for nurture. We can, for example, look at a basketball game crowd and see if whites seem interested in the game. We can look at school programs and see if the starting pools for participants are as large for whites as they are for blacks (How many white kids v how many black kids are in school programs for BB?) We can look at opportunity and see if white kids have more distractions than do black kids (family stability; coaching; facilities…). We can look at aspirations and decide if white kids want to give up an NBA dream for some other job at a greater rate than blacks.

If you believe this (and at least there’s not specific experimental evidence that I know of refuting your genetic hypothesis for basketball), then you should be able to quantify how interested white kids are in basketball vs black kids (for example – how much time do black kids on average play basketball, and how much time do white kids play basketball?). Because I’m certainly not convinced.

In taking away SES and opportunity as putative nurturing influences for average academic outcomes, we haven’t left much on the table for a non-genetic explanation of such a stubbornly persistent and broad gap.

More of the same disagreement. There are tons of potential nurture elements besides “SES and opportunity” (not that opportunity can really be measured and quantified, or has even come close to being equalized).

Get your arms around some of these concepts and leave behind the knee-jerk egalitarianism, and I am confident your prejudices about how mother nature runs the world will begin to fall away.

More bullshit “egalitarian” straw-man. I knew it was going to show up in this post somewhere.

No. I believe there are tons and tons of “nurture” elements besides finances. I believe that discrimination is still rampant in our society and most others, despite the progress made (it is better than it was in the past, but it’s not nearly good enough yet). I believe that black kids, on average, do not have the same opportunity to succeed – even when money is equalized. Black men are more likely to be treated poorly by police. Black kids are more likely to be treated poorly by teachers (as just two examples of many). Present discrimination on top of the legacies of past discrimination are still extremely powerful, I believe, and are easily as likely (or far more likely) to have an effect on test-score performance as supposed differing genetics.

[magellan01]

@Chief_Pedant

By CP:
“So whether the trait is personality, height, disease, physiology, intelligence or hair, it’s much more likely than not that any two separated groups will have genetically-driven differences.”

I am suggesting to you that, where we find average performance outcome differences by self-assigned “race,” it’s much more likely than not that the differences will be genetically driven when we make reasonable accommodation for nurture.

I’m not trying to talk you out of nurture’s influence, or talk you into the idea that every single outcome difference is genes. I’m trying to convince you that the evidence for genetics is powerful and does not require a standard of “show me the exact genetic mechanism” in order for genetics to be the most persuasive explanation.

When we look at a competitive basketball game, …

While I agree with your points, I do wish you would use sprinting and not basketball as a window into the gene-performance world. It is less dependent on a set of acquired skills than sprinting. It’s just cleaner.

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

While I agree with your points, I do wish you would use sprinting and not basketball as a window into the gene-performance world. It is less dependent on a set of acquired skills than sprinting. It’s just cleaner.

I thought you rejected the “blacks are inherently genetically inferior in intelligence on average” hypothesis.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

I thought you rejected the “blacks are inherently genetically inferior in intelligence on average” hypothesis.

I do reject it as a fact. Where did I state otherwise.? As I’ve said repeatedly, it may or may not be the case. And that if it turned out that intelligence is passed down the way other attributes are that align with race, that wouldn’t surprise me.

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

I do reject it as a fact. Where did I state otherwise.? As I’ve said repeatedly, it may or may not be the case. And that if it turned out that intelligence is passed down the way other attributes are that align with race, that wouldn’t surprise me.

You said you agreed with CP’s points – I took that to mean you agreed with his conclusion as well.

In fact, if I agreed with CP’s assumptions (his “points”), and rejected the experimental evidence that refutes his conclusion, then that conclusion might reasonably follow logically.

Here are his assumptions (which I disagree with), as I understand them: “nurture” has been entirely or almost entirely accounted for in testing and analysis (since socio-economic status represents all or most of “nurture”); black people have a mostly separate gene pool from non-black people; IQ testing has been rigorous across populations and around the world over the last several decades, and is a reasonable proxy for general intelligence; the patterns of black people on the “bottom” socio-economically have been repeated around the world and throughout history; the Scarr study that refutes the genetic explanation used poor scientific methodology.

I disagree with every one of these points (or at least feel they haven’t come close to being established as factual). Which ones do you agree with? I find the last one the most pathetic – even if the Scarr study used bad methods (and it didn’t, IMO), it would be very easy and cheap to recreate. The “blacks are dumber” crowd haven’t done it and refuse to do it, offering a number of excuses.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

You said you agreed with CP’s points – I took that to mean you agreed with his conclusion as well.

In fact, if I agreed with CP’s assumptions (his “points”), and rejected the experimental evidence that refutes his conclusion, then that conclusion might reasonably follow logically.

Here are his assumptions (which I disagree with), as I understand them: “nurture” has been entirely or almost entirely accounted for in testing and analysis (since socio-economic status represents all or most of “nurture”); black people have a mostly separate gene pool from non-black people; IQ testing has been rigorous across populations and around the world over the last several decades, and is a reasonable proxy for general intelligence; the patterns of black people on the “bottom” socio-economically have been repeated around the world and throughout history; the Scarr study that refutes the genetic explanation used poor scientific methodology.

I disagree with every one of these points (or at least feel they haven’t come close to being established as factual). Which ones do you agree with? I find the last one the most pathetic – even if the Scarr study used bad methods (and it didn’t, IMO), it would be very easy and cheap to recreate. The “blacks are dumber” crowd haven’t done it and refuse to do it, offering a number of excuses.

Look, I’ve explained myself to you quite a few times. You asked again. And I explained again. I asked you to show where I stated otherwise. Now instead of accepting of what I told you—clearly, repeatedly and consistently—directly, you want to glean some other conclusion be inference.

Look, here’s the deal. I’ve told you, today and other times, that IF CP or anyone else is of the opinion that it is a FACT that either 1) blacks are less intelligent or 2) intelligence differs along racial lines, I DISAGREE with those positions. Really, I must have told you this fifty times. How many more times would you like me to say it. How much clearer can I be?

Now perhaps you can bookmark this post so if you are ever again confused about what position I hold on this, and what position I reject, you can simply click and reread. I really don’t have the time or desire to get into the weeds again, only to have you ultimately understand a position I have stated, and stated again today, with crystal clarity.

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

Look, I’ve explained myself to you quite a few times. You asked again. And I explained again. I asked you to show where I stated otherwise. Now instead of accepting of what I told you—clearly, repeatedly and consistently—directly, you want to glean some other conclusion be inference.

Look, here’s the deal. I’ve told you, today and other times, that IF CP or anyone else is of the opinion that it is a FACT that either 1) blacks are less intelligent or 2) intelligence differs along racial lines, I DISAGREE with those positions. Really, I must have told you this fifty times. How many more times would you like me to say it. How much clearer can I be?

Now perhaps you can bookmark this post so if you are ever again confused about what position I hold on this, and what position I reject, you can simply click and reread. I really don’t have the time or desire to get into the weeds again, only to have you ultimately understand a position I have stated, and stated again today, with crystal clarity.

The “crystal clarity” gets a little murky when you say you agree with CP’s points about why it’s a fact that black people are less intelligent, which is why I asked.

I accept that you don’t agree with this assertion – I just seriously don’t understand how it’s possible to agree with CP’s points and disagree with his conclusion.

[MrDibble]

@magellan01

While I agree with your points, I do wish you would use sprinting and not basketball as a window into the gene-performance world. It is less dependent on a set of acquired skills than sprinting. It’s just cleaner.

Yes, iiandyiiii, why aren’t you using magellan’s preferred sport and not one that refutes the idea…

…because lord knows, there’s no cultural component to who does well in sprinting. Completely unlike basketball, that.

[MrDibble]

@Chief_Pedant

The main effect was to introduce gene variants from european lines into what were otherwise mostly west african lines such that the current average admixture of self-identified blacks (with enslaved ancestry) in the US is about 20% european and 80% west african gene variants.

Based on the latest data, it’s more like 73%.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

The “crystal clarity” gets a little murky when you say you agree with CP’s points about why it’s a fact that black people are less intelligent, which is why I asked.

Please show where I did so. Please be laser specific, as I’d like this to be cleared up once and for all.