Intelligence, race and related issues.

[Trausti]

Race does not exist. But you should probably be aware of it when you do head imaging.

Evidence For Bias Of Genetic Ancestry In Resting State Functional MRI

Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rsfMRI) is a popular imaging modality for mapping the functional connectivity of the brain. Rs-fMRI is, just like other neuroimaging modalities, subject to a series of technical and subject level biases that change the inferred connectivity pattern. In this work we predicted genetic ancestry from rs-fMRI connectivity data at very high performance (area under the ROC curve of 0.93). Thereby, we demonstrated that genetic ancestry is encoded in the functional connectivity pattern of the brain at rest. We hypothesize that these observed differences are a result of known ethnicity-related variations in head and brain morphology, which may be carried forward through the rs-fMRI processing pipeline, rather than true neuronal differences. In any case, genetic ancestry constitutes a bias that should be accounted for in the analysis of rs-fMRI data.

 

[Trausti]

Remember, there is only one human population. There are no differences. None. Natural selection doesn't apply to humans.

Modeling the 3D Geometry of the Cortical Surface with Genetic Ancestry

Knowing how the human brain is shaped by migration and admixture is a critical step in studying human evolution [1, 2], as well as in preventing the bias of hidden population structure in brain research [3, 4]. Yet, the neuroanatomical differences engendered by population history are still poorly understood. Most of the inference relies on craniometric measurements, because morphology of the brain is presumed to be the neurocranium’s main shaping force before bones are fused and ossified [5]. Although studies have shown that the shape variations of cranial bones are consistent with population history [6, 7, 8], it is unknown how much human ancestry information is retained by the human cortical surface. In our group’s previous study, we found that area measures of cortical surface and total brain volumes of individuals of European descent in the United States correlate significantly with their ancestral geographic locations in Europe [9]. Here, we demonstrate that the three-dimensional geometry of cortical surface is highly predictive of individuals’ genetic ancestry in West Africa, Europe, East Asia, and America, even though their genetic background has been shaped by multiple waves of migratory and admixture events. The geometry of the cortical surface contains richer information about ancestry than the areal variability of the cortical surface, independent of total brain volumes. Besides explaining more ancestry variance than other brain imaging measurements, the 3D geometry of the cortical surface further characterizes distinct regional patterns in the folding and gyrification of the human brain associated with each ancestral lineage.

 

[Trausti]

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.

This makes no sense. If the genes offspring inherit from their parents do not code for intelligence, all life would be a smart as an amoeba.

 

[Trausti]

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.

To the contrary, it's very reliable.

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies

We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.

 

[Trausti]

This thread seems redolent of arguing with creationists back in the aughts.

 

[Politesse]

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.

This makes no sense. If the genes offspring inherit from their parents does not code for intelligence, all life would be a smart as an amoeba.

How do you quantitatively measure the "intelligence" of an amoeba, pray tell?

 

[Politesse]

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.

To the contrary, it's very reliable.

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies

We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.

So, uh, how many of the Taiwanese subjects identified as "African American"?

 

[Trausti]

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.

This makes no sense. If the genes offspring inherit from their parents does not code for intelligence, all life would be a smart as an amoeba.

How do you quantitatively measure the "intelligence" of an amoeba, pray tell?

How do you understand evolution and natural selection to work? Is a cat more intelligent than an amoeba? By what process do you think that happened?

 

[Trausti]

To the contrary, it's very reliable.

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies

So, uh, how many of the Taiwanese subjects identified as "African American"?

Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories.

I don't know that this could be clearer.

 

[Trausti]

Blasphemy!

Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race

American forensicanthropologists uncritically accepted the biological race concept from classic physical anthropology and applied it to methods of human identification. Why and how the biological race concept might work in forensic anthropology was contemplated by Sauer (Soc Sci Med 34 1992 107–111), who hypothesized that American forensic anthropologists are good at what they do because of a concordance between social race and skeletal morphology in American whites and blacks. However, Sauer also stressed that this concordance did not validate the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology that there are a relatively small number of discrete types of human beings. Results from Howells (Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 67 1973 1–259; Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 79 1989 1–189; Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 82 1995 1–108) and others using craniometric and molecular data show strong geographic patterning of human variation despite overlap in their distributions. However, Williams et al. (Curr Anthropol 46 2005 340–346) concluded that skeletal morphology cannot be used to accurately classify individuals. Williams et al. cited additional support from Lewontin (Evol Biol 6 1972 381–398), who analyzed classic genetic markers. In this study, multivariate analyses of craniometric data support Sauer's hypothesis that there are morphological differences between American whites and blacks. We also confirm significant geographic patterning in human variation but also find differences among groups within continents. As a result, if biological races are defined by uniqueness, then there are a very large number of biological races that can be defined, contradicting the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology. Further, our results show that humans can be accurately classified into geographic origin using craniometrics even though there is overlap among groups.

 

[Politesse]

Blasphemy!

Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race

American forensicanthropologists uncritically accepted the biological race concept from classic physical anthropology and applied it to methods of human identification. Why and how the biological race concept might work in forensic anthropology was contemplated by Sauer (Soc Sci Med 34 1992 107–111), who hypothesized that American forensic anthropologists are good at what they do because of a concordance between social race and skeletal morphology in American whites and blacks. However, Sauer also stressed that this concordance did not validate the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology that there are a relatively small number of discrete types of human beings. Results from Howells (Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 67 1973 1–259; Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 79 1989 1–189; Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 82 1995 1–108) and others using craniometric and molecular data show strong geographic patterning of human variation despite overlap in their distributions. However, Williams et al. (Curr Anthropol 46 2005 340–346) concluded that skeletal morphology cannot be used to accurately classify individuals. Williams et al. cited additional support from Lewontin (Evol Biol 6 1972 381–398), who analyzed classic genetic markers. In this study, multivariate analyses of craniometric data support Sauer's hypothesis that there are morphological differences between American whites and blacks. We also confirm significant geographic patterning in human variation but also find differences among groups within continents. As a result, if biological races are defined by uniqueness, then there are a very large number of biological races that can be defined, contradicting the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology. Further, our results show that humans can be accurately classified into geographic origin using craniometrics even though there is overlap among groups.

I am baffled by how you can read an article and even highlight its thesis without understanding that it directly and intentionally contradicts your point.

 

[Politesse]

Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories.

I don't know that this could be clearer.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[Politesse]

How do you quantitatively measure the "intelligence" of an amoeba, pray tell?

How do you understand evolution and natural selection to work? Is a cat more intelligent than an amoeba? By what process do you think that happened?

"Intelligent" has no meaning relative to an amoeba, and higly subjective meaning relative to a cat. A cat would do quite poorly on an IQ test for instance, lacking even the most basic understanding of the medium in which it was given, but routinely outperform humans on many tests of spatial reasoning.

 

[barbos]

Denying race is equivalent to denying species. Race is just stage between one specie and two or more.

 

[ruby sparks]

Blasphemy!

Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race

American forensicanthropologists uncritically accepted the biological race concept from classic physical anthropology and applied it to methods of human identification. Why and how the biological race concept might work in forensic anthropology was contemplated by Sauer (Soc Sci Med 34 1992 107–111), who hypothesized that American forensic anthropologists are good at what they do because of a concordance between social race and skeletal morphology in American whites and blacks. However, Sauer also stressed that this concordance did not validate the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology that there are a relatively small number of discrete types of human beings. Results from Howells (Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 67 1973 1–259; Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 79 1989 1–189; Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 82 1995 1–108) and others using craniometric and molecular data show strong geographic patterning of human variation despite overlap in their distributions. However, Williams et al. (Curr Anthropol 46 2005 340–346) concluded that skeletal morphology cannot be used to accurately classify individuals. Williams et al. cited additional support from Lewontin (Evol Biol 6 1972 381–398), who analyzed classic genetic markers. In this study, multivariate analyses of craniometric data support Sauer's hypothesis that there are morphological differences between American whites and blacks. We also confirm significant geographic patterning in human variation but also find differences among groups within continents. As a result, if biological races are defined by uniqueness, then there are a very large number of biological races that can be defined, contradicting the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology. Further, our results show that humans can be accurately classified into geographic origin using craniometrics even though there is overlap among groups.

I am baffled by how you can read an article and even highlight its thesis without understanding that it directly and intentionally contradicts your point.

I wouldn't necessarily assume he reads it.

 

[barbos]

I am baffled by how you can read an article and even highlight its thesis without understanding that it directly and intentionally contradicts your point.

I wouldn't necessarily assume he reads it.

We can't be sure authors themselves read what they wrote

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Wow, coyotes and wolves are different. Whoda thunkit? Wolves and humans are different races.

Our brains are different, that's odd too. No one has an identical brain to mine, not even a wolf. That's unreal.

We vary in height and all manner of appearance. That's odd as hell.

So, sameness is a myth after all, except for race, which means for a given race things are the same.

I should get out more, need a confederate monument in my front yard to worship maybe.

 

[ronburgundy]

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"

No, we never started with anyone implying that genes are irrelevant or that people are born the same. We started with your scientifically illiterate claims that evolution makes it "IMPLAUSIBLE" that racial groups would not differ in intelligence, and your claim that the "environment is not a factor [IOW, accounts for 0% of variance in intelligence]". I then exposed your immense ignorance of evolution, genetics, statistics, and how random variations are impacted by aggregation over large samples vs. at the individual level. Being incapable of responding to those facts, your now back peddling, directly contradicting yourself by now saying environment is a factor accounting for 25%, and claiming that I took the opposing extremist position that would be as scientifically illiterate as your position.

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.

IQ is the measure used to measure intelligence in all the genetic studies and all studies showing differences between racial groups. So, your now arguing something that implies there is no valid evidence that genes are at all linked to intelligence or that racial groups differ at all in actual intelligence (just on IQ tests your rejecting as invalid). That makes the entire thread about the source of racial differences intelligence moot.

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.

No, I am applying basic scientific reasoning about what the most plausible explanation is for the fact that overall genetic similarity only weakly predicts similarity in intelligence at young ages, but increases with age. The 60%-75% estimates are based upon adults and represent the highest estimates that include every possible direct and indirect heritable trait that has some influence on intellectual performance. That includes an infinite number of possible indirect pathways, mediated and moderated by environmental factors. The massive role of environment in mediating and moderating genetic effects is a consensus fact among those with even basic understanding (clearly not you) how biological variables are manifested in outward behavior. Thus, the a priori most probable reality is that only some portion of the variance in intelligence that is "heritable" is tied to variables that directly determine the cognitive system. Your argument which presume 100% of heritability is due to such direct influence is improbable, carries the burden of proof, and has no evidence to support it.

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.

Add basic evidence based reasoning skills to the many aspects of scientific literacy that you lack.

The variance between racial groups is only about 10% of the total variance in intelligence. Thus, even considering only the 25%-40% of variance that is not broadly "heritable" by direct OR indirect pathways, 100% of between race differences could easily be environmental. That's doesn't even count the most obvious, probable, and evidence supported environmental pathways, such as genetically determined skin color and other racial physical traits triggering differential environments within a racist culture.

I am not claiming that we know that 0% of racial group differences are genetic. You are the only one that has taken a 100% vs. 0% position. I am claiming that your position has no scientific basis or empirical support, b/c the known facts mean that even with a 75% within-population heritability estimate, there is more than enough unaccounted for variance for most and even all the between population variance to be environmental. Plus, we know for a fact that a number of genetically determined physical traits indirectly impact intellectual development via mediation from racist social systems, which means we know that the "heritability" estimate is an over-estimate of actual directed biological influence on cognitive development. The only rational question for which we have no good data is just how much it is over-estimated by.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

No one has made that claim. That is a strawman based upon your laughably wrong assumption that every single selection pressure that might possibly exist and might possibly have an effect an any existing trait did in fact exist and did in fact impact every trait in every possible way.

I already explained this to you, but let's see if this time can penetrate your wall of blind anti-science faith. By definition, general intelligence entails the most fundamental aspects of human cognition that would be relevant to reasoning and decision making in every probable environment in which pre-civilization humans existed. Thus, completely unlike highly environment dependent traits like skin color, height, etc.., general intelligence would be similarly adaptive across environments and thus would increase in all subgroups rather than diverge by increasing in some but decreasing in others. Different environments do not put different pressures on a given trait, unless those differences determine whether that given trait is adaptive.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

No one has made that claim. That is a strawman based upon your laughably wrong assumption that every single selection pressure that might possibly exist and might possibly have an effect an any existing trait did in fact exist and did in fact impact every trait in every possible way.

I already explained this to you, but let's see if this time can penetrate your wall of blind anti-science faith. By definition, general intelligence entails the most fundamental aspects of human cognition that would be relevant to reasoning and decision making in every probable environment in which pre-civilization humans existed. Thus, completely unlike highly environment dependent traits like skin color, height, etc.., general intelligence would be similarly adaptive across environments and thus would increase in all subgroups rather than diverge by increasing in some but decreasing in others. Different environments do not put different pressures on a given trait, unless those differences determine whether that given trait is adaptive.

IOW/TL;DR:

All environments humans live in will strongly select for intelligence, even if they do not select cultural changes that cause the advancement of technology.