How much are genetic variations responsible for the U.S. black-white IQ differences?

[Sarpedon]

Are you actually suggesting that performance on the Confucian examinations is analogous to an IQ test? Are you actually suggesting that the number to take those tests was a significant portion of the population? Are you actually suggesting that the Confucian examinations were the only way for Chinese to get wealthy or powerful? Have you ever read any piece of Chinese literature that describes these exams and the people who take them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since when are polls an acceptable method of establishing scientific consensus?

Also, are these testing gaps also seen in Europe?

 

[bilby]

Which pretty conclusively shows that intelligence is not genetic to a sufficiently significant degree to make a big difference.

If peasant boys had taken the highest honours only in the earliest years, with fewer and fewer doing so as time went on, that would support your position. But that is not what we see at all. At least, not according to you.

For two thousand years Chinese males with high IQ's had the largest number of children. Those with low IQ's became coolies and had no children at all. This is why Chinese average high IQ's, and why Chinese immigrants perform well academically and economically everywhere they live.

So you are saying that there were relatively few poor peasant boys; and that even so, they consistently outperformed the descendants of those selected for intelligence?

You are doing a fine job of showing how badly flawed your arguments are here.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Since when are polls an acceptable method of establishing scientific consensus?

Also, are these testing gaps also seen in Europe?

The scientific consensus is best established through the best explanations of the relevant data, as it seemingly was in this case. A poll is merely the best way to reflect the existence of a scientific consensus. The respondents were kept anonymous and were not analyzed by geography.

 

[Trodon]

Are you actually suggesting that performance on the Confucian examinations is analogous to an IQ test? Are you actually suggesting that the number to take those tests was a significant portion of the population? Are you actually suggesting that the Confucian examinations were the only way for Chinese to get wealthy or powerful? Have you ever read any piece of Chinese literature that describes these exams and the people who take them?

Yes.
Sort of. Most of the brightest took the exams.
No. Merchants could get rich. However, members of the Scholar Gentry had more prestige.
Yes.

 

[Trodon]

For two thousand years Chinese males with high IQ's had the largest number of children. Those with low IQ's became coolies and had no children at all. This is why Chinese average high IQ's, and why Chinese immigrants perform well academically and economically everywhere they live.

So you are saying that there were relatively few poor peasant boys; and that even so, they consistently outperformed the descendants of those selected for intelligence?

You are doing a fine job of showing how badly flawed your arguments are here.

You simply do not like what I am saying. In all civilizations intelligence had led to upward mobility. However for two thousand years it did to a greater extent in China.

 

[bilby]

So you are saying that there were relatively few poor peasant boys; and that even so, they consistently outperformed the descendants of those selected for intelligence?

You are doing a fine job of showing how badly flawed your arguments are here.

You simply do not like what I am saying. In all civilizations intelligence had led to upward mobility. However for two thousand years it did to a greater extent in China.

I don't like what you are saying, because your conclusions are exactly the reverse of those supported by your premises.

You provided the scenario, and the observed outcome. The logical conclusion I drew from what you provided is opposite from the conclusion you drew. We can't both be right.

Civil unrest has played less of a role in the history of China than in practically every other nation. It is not the case that exceptionally intelligent Chinese were singled out for extermination. The usual pattern has been for one dynasty to follow another fairly quickly.

For two thousand years the Imperial Exam System enabled young men who could pass the exams to enter the Scholar Gentry. Those who could were given generous incomes, and expected to have several wives, and many children. The Imperial Exams were open to Chinese men from every class and income group. Now of course, those born into the Scholar Gentry were more likely to receive the right education to pass the exams. Nevertheless, in every generation poor peasant boys took the highest honors.

1) - The Imperial Exams were open to Chinese men from every class
2) - those born into the Scholar Gentry were more likely to receive the right education to pass the exams
3) - in every generation poor peasant boys took the highest honors.

From 1 & 2, we can assume that, excluding any role played by genes, those born into the Scholar Gentry would be likely to take the highest honors.

If we then add your hypothesis - that the children of the most able scholars will, over time, show a further advantage due to genetic selection - we can see that this effect will be further enhanced, and the prediction of your hypothesis is therefore that in later generations, those born into the Scholar Gentry will be increasingly likely to take the highest honors.

But, according to you, in every generation poor peasant boys took the highest honors.

So we observe that the hypothesis is not supported by the evidence.

Whether you or I like it is irrelevant; YOUR information clearly indicates that your hypothesis is not supported.

You can either drop it, modify it, or continue to be wrong. What I do or do not like doesn't change the fact that those are the three options open to you at this point.

 

[Trodon]

3) - in every generation poor peasant boys took the highest honors.

This claim, by me, was poorly worded. I should have written it, "In every generation some poor peasant boys took the highest honors." The sons of men already in the Scholar Gentry tended to have higher IQ's, and better educations, so they tended to predominate among the exam winners. Nevertheless, there always were peasant boys who did well on the tests.

It has always been the case in a civilization that intelligent men tend to be more prosperous than unintelligent men, and to have more children who survive and reproduce. It was more the case in China because of the Imperial Exam system.

 

[bilby]

3) - in every generation poor peasant boys took the highest honors.

This claim, by me, was poorly worded. I should have written it, "In every generation some poor peasant boys took the highest honors." The sons of men already in the Scholar Gentry tended to have higher IQ's, and better educations, so they tended to predominate among the exam winners. Nevertheless, there always were peasant boys who did well on the tests.

It has always been the case in a civilization that intelligent men tend to be more prosperous than unintelligent men, and to have more children who survive and reproduce. It was more the case in China because of the Imperial Exam system.

Oh, I see. So you are saying that the value of knowing someone's race when seeking to assess his intelligence is nil, because even if there were huge differences in the distribution of intelligence between the sons of men already in the Scholar Gentry, and the sons of peasants, there always are peasant boys who will do well on the tests - In other words, the appropriate action is always to ignore race and look only at test results.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Trodon]

This claim, by me, was poorly worded. I should have written it, "In every generation some poor peasant boys took the highest honors." The sons of men already in the Scholar Gentry tended to have higher IQ's, and better educations, so they tended to predominate among the exam winners. Nevertheless, there always were peasant boys who did well on the tests.

It has always been the case in a civilization that intelligent men tend to be more prosperous than unintelligent men, and to have more children who survive and reproduce. It was more the case in China because of the Imperial Exam system.

Oh, I see. So you are saying that the value of knowing someone's race when seeking to assess his intelligence is nil, because even if there were huge differences in the distribution of intelligence between the sons of men already in the Scholar Gentry, and the sons of peasants, there always are peasant boys who will do well on the tests - In other words, the appropriate action is always to ignore race and look only at test results.

Thanks for clearing that up.

What I have been saying is that the races differ in average intelligence because of different populations pressures.

 

[bilby]

Oh, I see. So you are saying that the value of knowing someone's race when seeking to assess his intelligence is nil, because even if there were huge differences in the distribution of intelligence between the sons of men already in the Scholar Gentry, and the sons of peasants, there always are peasant boys who will do well on the tests - In other words, the appropriate action is always to ignore race and look only at test results.

Thanks for clearing that up.

What I have been saying is that the races differ in average intelligence because of different populations pressures.

And what I have been saying is that the evidence you have presented doesn't support this claim.

 

[Trodon]

What I have been saying is that the races differ in average intelligence because of different populations pressures.

And what I have been saying is that the evidence you have presented doesn't support this claim.

What evidence would you accept?

 

[bilby]

And what I have been saying is that the evidence you have presented doesn't support this claim.

What evidence would you accept?

Any evidence that does support your claim.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Compare the sizes of the two solid black slices. Everything outside of those solid black slices is "racist,"

Of course it isn’t. Racism would be favouring one kind of explanation and dismissing others due to preconceptions. Or the tendency to see support for those preconceptions in 'evidence' that doesn’t actually support them (or even suggests the contrary).

but among the intelligence experts the solid black slice of the pie is relatively thin. It doesn't mean they are correct, but I do think most people are completely unaware that "racism" is scientifically mainstream. It is received with either shock or disbelief.

I doubt it. The self-selected 18% of experts who (presumably) accepted the question terms broadly agree with the (even fewer) respondents here : most believe the differences are mostly not genetic and may well not be at all. Taking the same side of an argument more strongly isn't taking the other side.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Significant and durable differences between two groups whose averages have also significantly and persistently differed in wealth and educational achievement of the parents doesn't in no way indicate a genetic basis for those differences.

As should be obvious to any person with a passing understanding of how the whole idea of comparing hypotheses works.

In 1995 whites with family incomes of $10,000 or less averaged better SAT scores than blacks with family incomes of $70,000 or better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income.png

In 1995 whites whose parents only got high school degrees averaged higher SAT scores than blacks whose parents had graduate degrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Education.png

Not where I live. The lowest academic achievers are white working class males (see earlier ITT). It’s a funny kind of innate difference that stops at national borders.

"IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100."
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/Race-differences-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx

Which (since the second sentence is equally true of black and white parents) suggests some non-genetic influence if anything.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Of course it isn’t. Racism would be favouring one kind of explanation and dismissing others due to preconceptions. Or the tendency to see support for those preconceptions in 'evidence' that doesn’t actually support them (or even suggests the contrary).

but among the intelligence experts the solid black slice of the pie is relatively thin. It doesn't mean they are correct, but I do think most people are completely unaware that "racism" is scientifically mainstream. It is received with either shock or disbelief.

I doubt it. The self-selected 18% of experts who (presumably) accepted the question terms broadly agree with the (even fewer) respondents here : most believe the differences are mostly not genetic and may well not be at all. Taking the same side of an argument more strongly isn't taking the other side.

You seem to equate "racism" with "irrationality," which I suppose you can get away with since "racism" can mean just about anything. But I think I am on the same page as Underseer when he thought of anyone not answering "0%" as being "racist." That is how most people think of it, because, if it is not exactly 0%, then, if all environments between the races were perfectly equal, there would still be racial economic inequalities. Arguably, maybe a lot of respondents who answered "0%-40%" did so for the same reason beero1000 did: a statistically-minded person never answers exactly 0% or exactly 100% for anything, but they may allow values extremely close to 0%. But, they would still be in the minority at most, at 42% of the respondents (the 17% solid black slice would fully overlap with the 42%). The poll bears out the claims of Richard Nisbett and Linda Gottfredson: it is the scientific consensus among intelligence researchers that the racial IQ gaps are at least partly genetic, a consensus at great odds with the opinions of the public and with the opinions among other scientific fields, even with other sub-fields within psychology. I have an undergraduate psychology textbook with a few pages devoted to debunking Arthur Jensen.

 

[Jokodo]

The poll bears out the claims of Richard Nisbett and Linda Gottfredson:

As a matter of principle, a poll with an 18% response rate (self-selected) doesn't bear out anything.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The poll bears out the claims of Richard Nisbett and Linda Gottfredson:

As a matter of principle, a poll with an 18% response rate (self-selected) doesn't bear out anything.

The principle is that you don't like the results! When many lines of evidence accord with each other, then they bear out each other. This poll actually has double the response rate of Pew telephone surveys (9%), which isn't to say that the results are completely certain. Only probable.

 

[ronburgundy]

OK, how would you change the question to make it "science"? Should "0% of differences due to genes" be "0% (or less) of differences due to genes"?

I'm not going to do your work for you.

But what you're insinuating the way you are phrasing it is that everyone who doesn't think there are positive arguments for a strong genetic component is necessarily claiming there can't be one. That's a strawman.

I don't think his question makes such insinuation. He is asking people to state what they think the most likely answer is. Only people who think it is near certain that 100% of the observed white-over-black IQ gap is environmental should pick 0%, which logically includes both there being zero genetic difference and there being a genetic difference in the opposite direction of the observed difference. In either of those cases, the observed difference is 0% genetic. OTOH, if a person thinks there is no good evidence for strong genetic component but also thinks that the evidence for it being all environment is also weak thus is open to the possibility of some genetic component, they would pick 0%-40%.

When the scientifically most likely answer isn't even among the options offered except in a strawman version, we're deep in pseudoscience.

0%-40% is the scientifically and most likely accurate answer. It allows for true genetic influence on the racial IQ gap to be anywhere from the opposite in direction from the observed gap, to being in the same direction but only accounting for a sizable minority of that between group difference.
Given the evidence that environment does matter to the overall variance in IQ and the very strong evidence that blacks and whites have experienced massively different cognitive environments for dozens of generations, this makes 60%-100% genetics less plausible than 0%-40%, which being the only other range of values and the only to include 0% makes it the scientifically most reasonable estimate.

A poll in pseudoscience seems to be a rather melodramatic way to say that everyone who disagrees with your thesis is not being scientific.

True, but he's just following the lead of this board who have moved many threads on the race-iq differences from science to pseudoscience, regardless of whether the OP centers of valid scientific questions and data.

There's no option for 'we don't know,' for one thing.

That doesn't make the poll unscientific. Adding that option can lead to errors in measurement just as much as excluding it. While it can be a legit position, it is often "cop-out" answer that people who have an opinion but don't want to disclose it or don't want to bother thinking about the issue will default to.
Plenty of scientific polls deliberately exclude "don't know" options for that reason.
Just because your choosing an option, does not imply certainty. It is requesting you to choose your best guess among the provided options, which do in fact cover all possible accurate answers to the question. I am rather uncertain about the exact % and think 0% is more likely than anything close to 100%, but I am also aware of the mountain of failed attempts to use measurable environmental variables to explain the observed gap. That combined with the fact that black and white Americans represent highly selective and non-representative sub-samples of their respective "races" via extremely different "sample selection" methods over centuries makes me acknowledge the plausibility of some degree of genetic contribution to a gap between racial groups within the US. Thus, a wide range like 0%-40% is something I would be confident in placing a bet on, despite a degree of uncertainty.

 

[fromderinside]

You left out the probability there are interactive components in both the term genetic and environmental otherwise hokay.