Intelligence, race and related issues.

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The concept of race used in all data showing racial differences in IQ is largely based on skin color and colloquial/social racial categories that do not reliably map onto to actual genetic clusters of people.

The concept of race is entirely based on skin color when it comes to distinguishing between caucasian and black. Perhaps trausti can enlighten us about the more important differences he has in mind that are not skin color.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is interesting.

Richmond is getting Kehinde Wiley’s new statue; and it’s in direct response to Confederate monuments

The sculpture will first live in Times Square when it is unveiled in New York City on September 27.

It will be transported to Richmond in December.

The bronze sculpture featuring a young African-American subject on a horse is Wiley's "direct response" to Confederate monuments that line Richmond's Monument Avenue and dot other southern cities.

I don't think Joe redneck is gonna be too happy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except Head Start appears to have turned counterproductive over time.

How so?

Seeing the pattern doesn't show how it came to be. AFIAK this has not been solved. It's only they have noticed that Head Start used to produce lasting advantages but in more recent times that has inverted, Head Start kids are behind their peers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is interesting.

Richmond is getting Kehinde Wiley’s new statue; and it’s in direct response to Confederate monuments

The sculpture will first live in Times Square when it is unveiled in New York City on September 27.

It will be transported to Richmond in December.

The bronze sculpture featuring a young African-American subject on a horse is Wiley's "direct response" to Confederate monuments that line Richmond's Monument Avenue and dot other southern cities.

I don't think Joe redneck is gonna be too happy.

I wonder how long it will last. It's going to piss off a lot of idiots.

 

[ruby sparks]

So let me try to understand the upshot of a few recent posts.....

There is no scientific/genetic basis for racial categories according to skin colour.

Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.

What about other supposed racial characteristics, physical features I mean (thick lips, wiry hair, big noses, big ears, etc)?

But is it still the case that racial differences in something like intelligence could still have a genetic component, just not directly because of skin colour?

For example, take two hypothetical populations, one dark-skinned the other light-skinned, reproducing over time in different environments. Would it not be the case that different selection pressures might result in differences in intelligence between the two populations?

I am almost certain that my limited understanding of genetics is going to limit my understanding of all this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

For example, take two hypothetical populations, one dark-skinned the other light-skinned, reproducing over time in different environments. Would it not be the case that different selection pressures might result in differences in intelligence between the two populations?

Possible? Sure. But it's a pretty bold claim that has been made repeatedly throughout history, always self serving and without actual evidence.

 

[barbos]

Group is a collection of individuals and if it was determined (and it was) that environment is not a factor then no matter how you group your individuals it will remain a non-factor

There is no scientific evidence showing that environment is not a factor contributing to variability in IQ. In fact, the evidence shows that environment definitely is a factor,

LOL, that sounds kinda weak. We started with claims that genes are irrelevant and all people are born exactly the same and ended up with claim that "environment is a factor"

yes, environment is about 25% but it's practically zero if you take into account that IQ itself is not a good measure of innate intelligence.

since genes fail to correlate with about 20%-40% of the variance in IQ.

That does not men that 20-40 is environment. It could still be heritable, that us beyond your control.

And, even the variance that does correlate with genes likely includes mediating causal roles of the environment. This, is why the size of the correlation is rather small at young ages and increases with age and experience.

You are trying to make this obviously bad fact sound good. The fact that environmental factors fades with age suggest that genes are systematically underestimated in these studies.

A plausible account of this is that genes that code for things unrelated to cognition (e.g., skin color) lead people to either seek out or have different experiences imposed upon them (e.g., racism), and those experiences in turn causally shape intellectual development.

IOW, not only is some individual variance completely independent from genes, but a sizable portion of the variance related to genes is actually caused by environmental factors that enhance genetic effects or allow genes unrelated to intellect to have an indirect influence.

That role of environment is more than enough to be able to give rise to any group level differences without genes that actually code for aspects of intellect playing any role in those group differences.

This conclusion does not follow from anything.

 

[barbos]

To say that race doesn’t exist based on skin color says nothing about differences between inbreeding population groups. Differences exist, whether you call it race or not.

But if the differences in IQ that exist are tied to skin color, which is only partially and not reliably tied to genetic clustering of human subgroups, then the differences in IQ between people categorized by skin color (which is mostly what all such data is) cannot be assumed to reflect any differences between actual genetic subgroups beyond what is incidental due to the overlap of those groups with socially defined "race".

Concept of race is not based on skin color, so all this rant was for noting

The concept of race used in all data showing racial differences in IQ is largely based on skin color and colloquial/social racial categories that do not reliably map onto to actual genetic clusters of people.

Skin color is not and have never been a basis for a race. Just ask Nazis
At best it was one (just one) of the features which was used to determine race in practice.

 

[barbos]

For example, take two hypothetical populations, one dark-skinned the other light-skinned, reproducing over time in different environments. Would it not be the case that different selection pressures might result in differences in intelligence between the two populations?

Possible? Sure. But it's a pretty bold claim that has been made repeatedly throughout history, always self serving and without actual evidence.

Nope. that's not bold claim at all. The bold claim which you keep making is that brain/intelligence is not subject to evolution.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

For example, take two hypothetical populations, one dark-skinned the other light-skinned, reproducing over time in different environments. Would it not be the case that different selection pressures might result in differences in intelligence between the two populations?

Possible? Sure. But it's a pretty bold claim that has been made repeatedly throughout history, always self serving and without actual evidence.

Nope. that's not bold claim at all. The bold claim which you keep making is that brain/intelligence is not subject to evolution.

Um... Yea it is. Why do you think I said otherwise? Some different species have brains so different you could be forgiven for thinking they are from different planets. Octopus brains for example.

 

[barbos]

Nope. that's not bold claim at all. The bold claim which you keep making is that brain/intelligence is not subject to evolution.

Um... Yea it is. Why do you think I said otherwise? Some different species have brains so different you could be forgiven for thinking they are from different planets. Octopus brains for example.

I don't follow, are you agreeing with me?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For example, take two hypothetical populations, one dark-skinned the other light-skinned, reproducing over time in different environments. Would it not be the case that different selection pressures might result in differences in intelligence between the two populations?

Possible? Sure. But it's a pretty bold claim that has been made repeatedly throughout history, always self serving and without actual evidence.

Tarzan was white, so were Jane and Boy, all three clearly superior to jungle dwelling natives for those who haven't seen the shows or read the books. White people are just smarter. Except, that is, for Nazis. Even Cheetah can make them think he's the Fuhrer, and make their planes crash.

 

[Politesse]

So let me try to understand the upshot of a few recent posts.....

There is no scientific/genetic basis for racial categories according to skin colour.

Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.

What about other supposed racial characteristics, physical features I mean (thick lips, wiry hair, big noses, big ears, etc)?

But is it still the case that racial differences in something like intelligence could still have a genetic component, just not directly because of skin colour?

For example, take two hypothetical populations, one dark-skinned the other light-skinned, reproducing over time in different environments. Would it not be the case that different selection pressures might result in differences in intelligence between the two populations?

I am almost certain that my limited understanding of genetics is going to limit my understanding of all this.

If so, it would be a coincidence; it still wouldn't have anything to do with the imaginary property of "race", they would be unrelated traits that happened to crop up in geographically isolated locations. All genes have their own distribution. Most genes are found in every living human. Some have a wide distribution across most continents. A few are found only in a few small communities. Some are found only in a few families. Geographic isolation is a factor in genetic distribution, but only one of a great many factors. And positing that there was ever a time without gene flow between Africa and Europe specifically is quite silly in any case, since we know that people have long traveled around and across the Mediterranean.

Thinking "hey, everyone in Denmark wears wooden shoes, therefore wooden shoes must be a property of the Danish race!" is about like noticing that all of your maternal cousins are all auto workers (because they are all children of your mother's brother who lives in Michigan where that is the only real industry), and concluding "aha, they're auto workers because they're my cousins". Not all correlations are meaningful, and not all meaningful correlations mean what you think they do before you really think about it.

But as has been pointed out many times in this thread already, "intelligence" is not a property directly associated with one's genetics in the first place. If there's a genetic component to it, it is difficult to detect as it is monumentally overshadowed by other more important factors such as schooling and enculturation. And for the same reason, it wouldn't be meaningful information to base social policy on.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So let me try to understand the upshot of a few recent posts.....

There is no scientific/genetic basis for racial categories according to skin colour.

Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.

What about other supposed racial characteristics, physical features I mean (thick lips, wiry hair, big noses, big ears, etc)?

But is it still the case that racial differences in something like intelligence could still have a genetic component, just not directly because of skin colour?

For example, take two hypothetical populations, one dark-skinned the other light-skinned, reproducing over time in different environments. Would it not be the case that different selection pressures might result in differences in intelligence between the two populations?

I am almost certain that my limited understanding of genetics is going to limit my understanding of all this.

If so, it would be a coincidence; it still wouldn't have anything to do with the imaginary property of race.

Thinking "hey, everyone in Denmark wears wooden shoes, therefore wooden shoes must be a property of the Danish race!" is about like noticing that all of your maternal cousins are all auto workers (because they are all children of your mother's brother who lives in Michigan where that is the only industry), and concluding "aha, they're auto workers because they're cousins". Not all correlations are meaningful, and not all meaningful correlations mean what you think they do before you really think about it.

But as has been pointed out many times in this thread already, "intelligence" is not a property directly associated with one's genetics in the first place. If there's a genetic component to it, it is difficult to detect as it is monumentally overshadowed by other more important factors such as schooling and enculturation. And for the same reason, it wouldn't be meaningful information to base social policy on.

Race is just an artificial, self-serving distinction. Within any person's defined "race" are an infinite number of differences within the population that can be used to categorize. Height, hairiness, weight, eye color, hair color, etc. The list is endless. Race really is for racists.

 

[Politesse]

Race is just an artificial, self-serving distinction. Within any person's defined "race" are an infinite number of differences within the population that can be used to categorize. Height, hairiness, weight, eye color, hair color, etc. The list is endless. Race really is for racists.

More to the point, you can define them pretty much any way you like, and reliably find "correlations" within your arbitraily divided group, and insist that those correlations mean your categorization was reasonable. Race would seem completely arbitrary, if it weren't the product of easily observable political trends.

 

[barbos]

Nazis ruined word "race". Can we just invent a new word?

 

[Politesse]

Nazis ruined word "race". Can we just invent a new word?

They do this all the time, indeed the modern white nationalist movement cannot be understood unless you pick up on all the bullshit word salad they spin out whilst trying not to say "race" in mixed company.

 

[barbos]

Evidence from behavioral genetic research suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. The American Psychological Association's report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995) states that there is no doubt that normal child development requires a certain minimum level of responsible care. Here, environment is playing a role in what is believed to be fully genetic (intelligence) but it was found that severely deprived, neglectful, or abusive environments have highly negative effects on many aspects of children's intellect development. Beyond that minimum, however, the role of family experience is in serious dispute. On the other hand, by late adolescence this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings no longer have similar IQ scores.[53]

Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.74), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0).[54] Recent adoption studies also found that supportive parents can have a positive effect on the development of their children.

Environment has zero effect on adult IQ.
It's actually a big relief for parents They don't need to worry about parenting too much, cause it has no effect on anything, period.

 

[Trausti]

Human population groups are different. But race does not exist. Or something.

Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

 

[Trausti]

Wiki says that the Fixation Index (Fst), or genetic population differentiation, between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans is 0.153. The Fst between North American wolves and coyotes is 0.153. But race does not exist. And coyotes are a social construct, apparently.