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

[Duke Leto]

...

 

[laughing dog]

I'd like to know how much of the IQ difference in between US scientific racists and the rest of the US population is due to genetic variations.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I'd like to know how much of the IQ difference in between US scientific racists and the rest of the US population is due to genetic variations.

If you assume their high intelligence is due to their own intellectual diligence, you would be flattering them too much. The cause of the difference in averages is likely the same as the heritability of IQ generally.

 

[laughing dog]

I'd like to know how much of the IQ difference in between US scientific racists and the rest of the US population is due to genetic variations.

If you assume their high intelligence is due to their own intellectual diligence, you would be flattering them too much. The cause of the difference in averages is likely the same as the heritability of IQ generally.

Why on earth would one make the apparent counter-factual assumption that scientific racists have high intelligence? I asked an empirical question.

 

[Jokodo]

Thanks for cluing me into the ancient migration from Southeast Asia to Madagascar. I was a victim of the assumption that Europeans were the only significant seafarers, and, yeah, plainly not true.

I find it rather informative that you would make such an assumption. In at least one aspect - how much additional habitable land they opened up for human habitation - the Malayo-Polynesian wave of discoveries was indeed the most significant wave of human settlement in the last 2000 years, leaving the Europeans as distant seconds: The current population of Madagascar, New Zealand, and Hawaii (all of them uninhabited 2000 years ago, all of them with a thriving Malayo-Polynesian culture when first encountered by Europeans) alone is around 35 million. The total of the areas the Europeans met indiscovered is probably less than 3.5 millions (the largest junks being Mauritius and Réunion, for which we have recorded sightings by Arabs, so strictly speaking, they weren't even discovered by Europeans; the third place is taken by Iceland, pop. 250k and first settled by Vikings ~800, so not even part of the age of explorers, and the fourth place might already go to the Bermuda Islands).

 

[Canard DuJour]

Indeed. Here ya go :

"The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin." - Luigi Cavalli-Sforza.

Cavalli-Sforza is the world authority on population genetics who basically wrote the textbook. Now, were you to find his conclusion "lacking" or something and favour the opinion of some relatively obscure anthropologist, why should anyone care?

No, I agree! The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise. EO Wilson and WL Brown explain those problems of taxonomies of races in their paper here: "The Subspecies Concept and Its Taxonomic Application," 1953. It is worth reading for its educational value. The position that races are generally biologically useless is a different matter, and you can probably quote-mine Cavalli-Sforza effectively to that end (probably not Darwin), but that does not matter to me so much. I accept the spectral biological nature of races regardless of authorities at this point. The problem I would like to resolve is the question of whether human races are merging or splitting.

Any answer to that would depend how you differentiate races, and over what time-scale. Saying it doesn't matter how the races are differentiated, only whether they're differentiating is nonsense.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I investigated Cavalli-Sforza a little more, and the history of his opinions on race is interesting. He made a family tree of human "populations" in his 1994 textbook.



He was rightly criticized for this depiction because family trees of races are misleading at best. Such a tree may mislead viewers into thinking that a closer distance between two branches means a closer genetic relationship, but, as there is plenty of horizontal gene flow between two otherwise distant branches of the tree (i.e. between the caucasoid Indians and the mongoloid Chinese), they may be closely related in spite of distance branches on a family tree, and ANY such family tree is misleading. A better depiction of genetic racial similarities is through principal component analysis, which Cavalli-Sforza also depicted to his credit.



The illustration I most prefer is through cluster analysis, i.e. Tishkoff et al, 2009, page 1038.

Show

Cavalli-Sforza's views on human races apparently evolved over his lifetime. His earlier writings assume the reality and validity of human races, but his later writings are more dismissive of it, and he instead uses the word "populations" in a way that means the same biological concept as "race." The reason for this shift is found in a quote of AWF Edwards in the 2010 paper by Neven Sesardic titled, "Race: a social destruction of a biological concept." The excerpt from Neven Sesardić's paper is as follows:

Oddly, even the scholars who have been at the very forefront of empirical research on race are prone to use fallacious reasoning in order to downplay the importance of that concept. For instance, Cavalli-Sforza, geneticist and the lead author of the path-breaking History and Geography of Human Genes (CavalliSforza et al. 1994), states in a book co-authored with Walter Bodmer: "Races are, in fact, generally very far from pure and, as a result, any classification of races is arbitrary, imperfect, and difficult" (Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza 1976—italic added). Is any classification of races imperfect? Yes. Difficult? Perhaps. But arbitrary? No, this certainly does not follow from the premise, "as a result".

Speaking about Cavalli-Sforza, it is interesting that he tried to defuse potential political attacks on his research by a simple and sometimes surprisingly effective rhetorical ploy. At one point he just stopped using the term "race" and replaced it with a much less loaded expression "human population", which in many contexts he actually used more or less with the same meaning as "race". On one occasion this terminological switch gave rise to an amusingly ironic development, as described in the following episode involving Cavalli-Sforza's collaborator, Edwards:

When in the 1960s I started working on the problem of reconstructing the course of human evolution from data on the frequencies of blood-group genes my colleague Luca Cavalli-Sforza and I sometimes unconsciously used the word 'race' interchangeably with 'population' in our publications. In one popular account, I wrote naturally of 'the present races of man'. Quite recently I quoted the passage in an Italian publication, so it needed translating. Sensitive to the modern misgivings over the use of the word 'race', Cavalli-Sforza suggested I change it to 'population'. At first I was reluctant to do so on the grounds that quotations should be accurate and not altered to meet contemporary sensibilities. But he pointed out that, as the original author, I was the only person who could possibly object. I changed 'present races of man' to 'present populations of man' and sent the paper to be translated into Italian. When it was published the translator had rendered the phrase as 'le razze umane moderne'. (Edwards undated, unpublished manuscript)​

He stopped using the term because it's a crude and misleading oversimplification of the human biodiversity he was studying. The single anecdote recounted here might indicate either motivation on Cavalli-Sforza's part but this author's assumption of a politically motivated "rhetorical ploy" is little more than an ad-hominem.

AWF Edwards was thanked as a reviewer of this paper, and he is the author of "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy," which effectively struck down the most popular established argument against the biology of human races.

Which might be considered Edwards' fallacy. Edwards, while correct, doesn't actually contradict Lewontin. While more markers enable increasingly -astonishingly- precise identification of geographic ancestry, it's nontheless true that individuals are frequently more similar to members of remote populations than to members of their own. What's not clear is how the former is supposed to resurrect racial categorisation, since the degree of precision exposes its limitations. The recent genetic map of Britain, for example, maps ancestry from waves of European admixture since the last ice age among people who regard themselves as being of the same race. As with forensic anthropology, it's easy to identify which racial folk-category an individual or population fits, but that doesn't mean an anthropological or genetic basis for that categorisation has been identified. If "race" is now supposed to mean something more like clinal biodiversity, the redefinition is (i) crude and misleading for reasons that have nothing to do with political correctness, and (ii) certainly no scientific basis for prediction of innate intelligence by association with a racial folk category.

Now, a few researchers do indeed claim to find clustering sufficiently consistent with racial folk categories as would make them evident without first looking for them. But most don't and dispute the statistical/sampling methodology of those who do. My question wasn't whether you could find examples of the former, but why anyone should care that you prefer them?

He became much less considerate of modern misgivings about human races, apparently, than Cavalli-Sforza. The politics has caused games to be played with words. Since you are much less likely to get textbooks published and sold if you talk about "race" as though it is biologically significant, authors use different words to mean the same thing, and the needed science gets done, but it makes the science a confusing house of mirrors. Neven Sesardić's paper is one I highly suggest reading to clear the air.

Why? Neven somewhat rescues the term "race" from essentialism and discontinuity, but nothing to suggest science shouldn't ditch it in favour more precise concepts which leave no room for such confusion and misrepresentation (which would "clear the air"). Followed by the clumsy dig at Cavilli-Sforza. Then the ole "Lewontin fallacy" thing, omitting to mention that genetic identification of increasingly specific geographic ancestry is precisely why many researchers now regard racial categories as crude cultural artefacts. I'll admit to having lost patience there. Was there anything else?

 

[Trodon]

Secular liberals use the theory of evolution as a weapon against Protestant Fundamentalists, who they dislike. Then they ignore the Darwinian implications of heriditarianism and race realism on behalf of blacks, who they like.

Charles Darwin argued that what matters in evolution are not acquired characteristics, but innate characteristics. Darwinian evolution is consistent with the assertion that some people are innately more intelligent than others, that some races are intrinsically more intelligent than others, and that this really matters.

If the black - white race gap, not only in mental aptitude test scores, but in academic performance, was due exclusively, or even primarily to different environments we would see more variation. Even when blacks are born to married parents who are affluent and who have graduate degrees, they tend to score less well on SAT exams than whites whose parents are much less affluent and well educated.

This can be explained by the well understood genetic process of reversion to the average. Exceptional qualities are largely caused by rare recessive genes that seldom match in the children of exceptional parents.

 

[fromderinside]

... This can be explained by the well understood genetic process of reversion to the average. Exceptional qualities are largely caused by rare recessive genes that seldom match in the children of exceptional parents.

... or that the rules of the game were written by the whatevers leaving the not-so-muchs in a lurch.

Ask yourself: "Are blacks more violent than whites?". Now, without using white measures, prove it.

 

[Trodon]

... This can be explained by the well understood genetic process of reversion to the average. Exceptional qualities are largely caused by rare recessive genes that seldom match in the children of exceptional parents.

... or that the rules of the game were written by the whatevers leaving the not-so-muchs in a lurch.

Ask yourself: "Are blacks more violent than whites?". Now, without using white measures, prove it.

Although IQ tests were designed for whites of European descent, Orientals tend to do better than whites of European descent. White Gentiles average 100. Orientals average 106. American Negroes average 85. African Negroes average 70.

IQ scores are fairly stable throughout life. IQ scores accurately predict academic and economic success, and other outcomes in life.

Blacks and whites agree about what violence is. Blacks have a rate of violent crime that is about 7.5 times the white rate.

 

[fromderinside]

... or that the rules of the game were written by the whatevers leaving the not-so-muchs in a lurch.

Ask yourself: "Are blacks more violent than whites?". Now, without using white measures, prove it.

Although IQ tests were designed for whites of European descent, Orientals tend to do better than whites of European descent. White Gentiles average 100. Orientals average 106. American Negroes average 85. African Negroes average 70.

IQ scores are fairly stable throughout life. IQ scores accurately predict academic and economic success, and other outcomes in life.

Blacks and whites agree about what violence is. Blacks have a rate of violent crime that is about 7.5 times the white rate.

have you correlated all of this with income?

 

[One]

Secular liberals use the theory of evolution as a weapon against Protestant Fundamentalists, who they dislike. Then they ignore the Darwinian implications of heriditarianism and race realism on behalf of blacks, who they like.

Colonists of European descent have been using various notions of evolutionary superiority against other people of the Earth since they began their era of exploration in the 1400s.
These beliefs have been coupled with and heavily influenced by religious and political propaganda that ignores other cultural contributions within the scope of human history. These contributions include scientific, political, socio-economic, educational, medicinal and engineering advances that occurred elsewhere during the European Dark Age.

Until the modern era, it has been the trait of European colonists to explore, adopt useful information they require, then thoroughly decimate, colonize or enslave the remaining population they originally interacted with for exploitative gain. This sublimation was achieved by forcible Christian conversion, slavery, land grabs, imprisonment/indentured servitude, political dominance, the spreading of disease, etc. Those cultures with a longstanding infrastructure were able to regain their cultural and religious identities throughout these transitions.

The exception to this is the American Black. This is the only group in modern history without an ancestral record of their original religion, language, culture or place of origin, which have since been replaced by European names, Christian religion and the English language. As most aspects of their culture were summarily destroy and/or outlawed, the history of and origin of the American Black begins with slavery. Those enslaved in the Caribbean and/or colonized by the Spanish or French faired better in cultivating a hybrid culture in the aftermath.

Some academics in the modern era continue to use the theory of evolutionary superiority out of habit. They also apply these superior implications to social constructs based on the work of Charles Darwin, who they like. Opponents of their view point out frequently that Charles Darwin did not actually support social Darwinism, which they dislike.

Although IQ tests were designed for whites of European descent, Orientals tend to do better than whites of European descent. White Gentiles average 100. Orientals average 106. American Negroes average 85. African Negroes average 70.

Despite admitting that IQ tests were designed for and by whites of European descent to study the proficiency of traits whites believe are favorable, these tests are somehow considered non-racist because

- whites modestly placed themselves at IQ 100 - average.
- whites admit groups of Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have higher proficiency of said traits than they do
- modern tests have upgraded their terminology from group categories names such as "oriental," "gentile" and "negro"

IQ scores are fairly stable throughout life. IQ scores accurately predict academic and economic success, and other outcomes in life.

Translation: Besides being the standard by which everything is measured, whites are also more likely to achieve academic and economic success with traits they already have an inclination towards and find favorable in societies they created for themselves.

Blacks and whites agree about what violence is. Blacks have a rate of violent crime that is about 7.5 times the white rate.

The link between poverty and crime has been established long beyond petty boundaries of racial dynamics in the U.S. Poverties.org, for example, describes the link between poverty, violence, crime and drug use at an international level. On the microlevel, poverty and crime can be established by looking at a more benighn group. Let's take the Tibetan community here in NYC. I am affliated with several organizations that assist Tibetan refugees. Their youth and men are disenfrancised in Chinatown and often bullied. The resulting poverty issue has created a dirth of Tibetan gangs in Manhattan - all just as capable of violence as their Chinese counterparts.

But since black/white gets all the hype:
Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent.
45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children. - from the Economic Policy Institute

To my mind, poverty has more of a valid documented link than I.Q. in explaining crime/violence statistics in the case of American blacks.

If the black - white race gap, not only in mental aptitude test scores, but in academic performance, was due exclusively, or even primarily to different environments we would see more variation.

Even when blacks are born to married parents who are affluent and who have graduate degrees, they tend to score less well on SAT exams than whites whose parents are much less affluent and well educated.

The lack of variation says the opposite to me - that this is a systemic issue where standardized testing - based on European preferences of "favorable traits" - is used as a method to continue the paradigm of dominance. And the persistence in clinging to this paradigm has a heavy price: it is the main reason why we are lagging behind in educational standards among developed countries.

This can be explained by the well understood genetic process of reversion to the average. Exceptional qualities are largely caused by rare recessive genes that seldom match in the children of exceptional parents.

Thank you for explaining the mystery of George W. Bush. I'd always wondered about that...

[Disclaimer: My responses are within the perimeters of black/white dynamics outlined in this discussion. Secondly, European colonists are not the only group in the historical record to use theories of dominance for purpose of empire building.]

 

[fromderinside]

Originally Posted by Trodon
This can be explained by the well understood genetic process of reversion to the average. Exceptional qualities are largely caused by rare recessive genes that seldom match in the children of exceptional parents.

OK tendency to return to the mean over whatever. Exceptional qualities are largely caused by rare recessive genes (what? Citation please) I didn't find anything of the sort in "Genes in Conflict" by Burt and Trivers. I highly recommend you read it or at least  Intragenomic conflict