Population of Blacks/Whites in US by IQ

[Trausti]

But it can tell you what % a person is Sub-Saharan African. Or what % someone is East-Asian. Etc. You think it's just an uncanny coincidence that people with high % Sub-Saharan African just happen to be "black"?

Mitochondrial DNA.

Nothing to do with anything you could see.

What are you talking about? I know you know that gene sequencing reveals % of Sub-Saharan African, or Northern European, etc. And I know you know that sequencing is done on nuclear DNA. Indeed, there's very little DNA in Mitochondria to sequence.

 

[untermensche]

Mitochondrial DNA.

Nothing to do with anything you could see.

What are you talking about? I know you know that gene sequencing reveals % of Sub-Saharan African, or Northern European, etc. And I know you know that sequencing is done on nuclear DNA, which isn't in Mitochondria. Indeed, there's very little DNA in Mitochondria to sequence.

You don't have a clue do you. Just prejudices and apparently a lot of information that appears at racist web sites.

To look at ancestry you look at mitochondrial DNA not nuclear DNA.

I won't waste my time explaining to you why. It is beyond you.

 

[Trausti]

What are you talking about? I know you know that gene sequencing reveals % of Sub-Saharan African, or Northern European, etc. And I know you know that sequencing is done on nuclear DNA, which isn't in Mitochondria. Indeed, there's very little DNA in Mitochondria to sequence.

You don't have a clue do you. Just prejudices and apparently a lot of information that appears at racist web sites.

To look at ancestry you look at mitochondrial DNA not nuclear DNA.

I won't waste my time explaining to you why. It is beyond you.

The limited amount of DNA left in the mitochondria is likely due to imprinting, i.e., so that the nuclear DNA and mitochondria work together to prevent heteroplasmy, and so the mitochondria and function/divide/repair itself. It helps with the maternal line history, sure. But otherwise, it's all nuclear DNA. You're aware that our kinship to Neanderthals and Denisovans is based on nuclear genome sequencing?

 

[untermensche]

You don't have a clue do you. Just prejudices and apparently a lot of information that appears at racist web sites.

To look at ancestry you look at mitochondrial DNA not nuclear DNA.

I won't waste my time explaining to you why. It is beyond you.

The limited amount of DNA left in the mitochondria is likely due to imprinting, i.e., so that the nuclear DNA and mitochondria work together to prevent hetroplasmy, and so the mitochondria and function/divide/repair itself. It helps with the maternal line history, sure. But otherwise, it's all nuclear DNA. You're aware that our kinship to Neanderthals and Denisovans is based on nuclear genome sequencing?

Nice dodge.

When you try to determine where a person's ancestors came from you HAVE to look at Mitochondrial DNA. You can't do it by looking at nuclear DNA.

But again this stuff is beyond you.

 

[Trausti]

The limited amount of DNA left in the mitochondria is likely due to imprinting, i.e., so that the nuclear DNA and mitochondria work together to prevent hetroplasmy, and so the mitochondria and function/divide/repair itself. It helps with the maternal line history, sure. But otherwise, it's all nuclear DNA. You're aware that our kinship to Neanderthals and Denisovans is based on nuclear genome sequencing?

Nice dodge.

When you try to determine where a person's ancestors came from you HAVE to look at Mitochondrial DNA. You can't do it by looking at nuclear DNA.

But again this stuff is beyond you.

The Y chromosome is located in the mitochondria, not nuclear DNA? When ancestry studies reference "genome wide" data, what do you think they mean?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080861/

But I don't think this is beyond you. Pride is a sin for a reason, unter.

 

[untermensche]

Nice dodge.

When you try to determine where a person's ancestors came from you HAVE to look at Mitochondrial DNA. You can't do it by looking at nuclear DNA.

But again this stuff is beyond you.

The Y chromosome is located in the mitochondria, not nuclear DNA? When ancestry studies reference "genome wide" data, what do you think they mean?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080861/

But I don't think this is beyond you. Pride is a sin for a reason, unter.

You can't look at the Y chromosome for women.

But you can look at Mitochondrial DNA for both sexes.

But this is tiresome.

There is no genetic test for "black" or "white".

These are artificial human categories.

There is ethnicity, meaning close relatives, but there is no such thing as "race" meaning distinct non-overlapping categories.

 

[Bomb#20]

'Humans do not divide into any discrete non-overlapping categories.'

So what? Who the hell is claiming "white" and "black" are discrete or non-overlapping? Are you unfamiliar with the words "half-breed", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octaroon" and all the rest of the terminology that has been used for centuries to describe the category overlap in this analog world full of analog categories? Science is perfectly capable of scientifically measuring somebody to be 44% black and 56% white.

Yes I'm familiar with those other meaningless terms.

Your opinion that they are meaningless is immaterial to the issue at hand -- the point is that those terms' existence and their centuries-long history in common usage constitute linguistic proof that "discrete and non-overlapping" are not any part of the race concept. People have been recognizing races of humankind at least since the age of Vasco da Gama, and have known that races overlap and that races are matters of degree rather than yes/no for pretty much that whole time. So for race denialists to come along now after all that history, and tell us that "race" means "discrete and non-overlapping" and then offer unneeded proofs that human ethnic groups overlap and are continuous rather than discrete, is nothing but a strawman argument -- a "killer amendment" the denialists are trying to saddle race with in order to get people to reject it. It's intellectually dishonest.

And no there is no genetic test to tell you if a person is 44% of this meaningless concept "black" and 56% of this meaningless concept "white".

Yeah, I didn't think you were interested in a serious discussion of this matter. Why don't you crawl back under your rock instead of interminably broadcasting your utter ignorance of the last fifty years of progress in genetics?

F.Y.I., not only is there such a genetic test, but it's so straightforward I could do it myself. Get your genome sequenced, send me a list of all your SNPs, give me a couple weeks, and I'll download the Yale database, I'll write some software, and I'll tell you what percentage of your ancestry is Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

You seem obsessed and desperate.

One can only wonder why.

I know you value free speech rights. I've seen you get into heated debates with other left-wingers about it -- it's one of the things I most respect about you.

So you're obviously aware that there are huge numbers of left-wingers who only care about free speech as long as a person is saying something they agree with. You're surely also aware that when left-wingers are in a mood to censor, expression of racist ideas is usually at the top of their suppress-list. And since it comes up so often, I expect you're quite familiar with the increasing tendency of left-wingers to claim, ludicrously, that it's racist simply to treat race as a real thing, even when the person who recognizes races exist doesn't claim one race is superior to another. Do the math. If we don't argue against the "There's no such thing as race" delusion today, then twenty or thirty years down the road your ideological allies may well make it illegal to argue against it. You probably aren't okay with that, so why the hell should I be okay with it?

Full disclosure: I also debate the topic because giving left-wingers an opportunity to make public fools of yourselves and reveal yourselves to be every bit as anti-science as right-wingers are seems to me like a good way to promote moderation and liberalism.

 

[Bomb#20]

When you try to determine where a person's ancestors came from you HAVE to look at Mitochondrial DNA. You can't do it by looking at nuclear DNA.

That's just ridiculous. You are a perfect storm of ignorance and arrogance. No, when you try to determine where a person's ancestors came from you HAVE to look at nuclear DNA. You can't do it by looking at mitochondrial DNA, for the painfully obvious reason that mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, whereas nuclear DNA is inherited from both the mother and the father. So when you're trying to figure out where a person's ancestors were 30,000 years ago, looking at mitochondrial DNA gives you information about exactly ONE of her ancestors -- her great-times-N grandmother along the all-female line -- whereas looking at nuclear DNA gives you information about ALL of them. (And of course, Y-chromosome studies are useless for overall ancestry information for the same reason. You need to use regular chromosomes.)

(Incidentally, the reason there are so many studies of mitochondrial DNA even though it's less informative than nuclear DNA for most questions of interest is simply that mitochondrial DNA is a lot easier to get hold of. The average cell has a lot of mitochondria.)

If you intend to go on disputing this point, please include a cite next time, a link to some expert who backs up your opinion, instead of continuing to talk as though the rest of us ought to take your word for it. It's obvious we're more familiar with the topic than you are.

 

[untermensche]

When you try to determine where a person's ancestors came from you HAVE to look at Mitochondrial DNA. You can't do it by looking at nuclear DNA.

That's just ridiculous. You are a perfect storm of ignorance and arrogance. No, when you try to determine where a person's ancestors came from you HAVE to look at nuclear DNA. You can't do it by looking at mitochondrial DNA, for the painfully obvious reason that mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, whereas nuclear DNA is inherited from both the mother and the father. So when you're trying to figure out where a person's ancestors were 30,000 years ago, looking at mitochondrial DNA gives you information about exactly ONE of her ancestors -- her great-times-N grandmother along the all-female line -- whereas looking at nuclear DNA gives you information about ALL of them. (And of course, Y-chromosome studies are useless for overall ancestry information for the same reason. You need to use regular chromosomes.)

(Incidentally, the reason there are so many studies of mitochondrial DNA even though it's less informative than nuclear DNA for most questions of interest is simply that mitochondrial DNA is a lot easier to get hold of. The average cell has a lot of mitochondria.)

If you intend to go on disputing this point, please include a cite next time, a link to some expert who backs up your opinion, instead of continuing to talk as though the rest of us ought to take your word for it. It's obvious we're more familiar with the topic than you are.

Nuclear DNA, except for the Y chromosome in men, is a random combination of genes from both parents.

To make it simple for you.

It is random pieces of two diverse lineages. But which piece belongs to which lineage is not always clear.

Mitochondrial DNA only comes from the mother. So we know that all the genes are part of the same lineage.

And of course it really is only a very small picture of the lineage and can only provide limited information. Obviously it cannot tell you about prior movement of ancestors just a very general idea of where some of them might have lived.

 

[untermensche]

Yes I'm familiar with those other meaningless terms.

Your opinion that they are meaningless is immaterial to the issue at hand -- the point is that those terms' existence and their centuries-long history in common usage constitute linguistic proof that "discrete and non-overlapping" are not any part of the race concept. People have been recognizing races of humankind at least since the age of Vasco da Gama, and have known that races overlap and that races are matters of degree rather than yes/no for pretty much that whole time. So for race denialists to come along now after all that history, and tell us that "race" means "discrete and non-overlapping" and then offer unneeded proofs that human ethnic groups overlap and are continuous rather than discrete, is nothing but a strawman argument -- a "killer amendment" the denialists are trying to saddle race with in order to get people to reject it. It's intellectually dishonest.

Those are meaningless terms invented by racists to determine how much they are supposed to hate somebody.

They have no real meaning, scientifically.

 

[George S]

Those are meaningless terms invented by racists to determine how much they are supposed to hate somebody.

They have no real meaning, scientifically.

I see. If you believe race is a racist term invented by racists and you're anti-racist then race doesn't exist.

Certain predictions can be made about members of groups descended from 19th century Africans. Or from Korea, Japan and Hong Kong. Or from Northern Europe. Or from central Australia. People call these groups groups because they share certain common characteristics. Name them as you will. It doesn't change the fact the I can predict which of these groups will perform well on tests designed to test something called IQ.

When I refer to African-American or "Black" I am referring to the same group that BLM is about. Namely those who self-identify as "Black." Give me a roomful (well, a stadiumfull would be more accurate) of these people and give an IQ test (as a Mensa proctor, I can) and I predict their average IQ will be about 85. Give me a roomful of non-Black (by self-identity) and I predict their average IQ will be about 102. Is this a "scientific meaning?" I'm not sure. It is a difference established by data. Is that "scientific" enough?
____
The University of California has some history about Ancient DNA... https://youtu.be/AZ2H9NUn150

 

[untermensche]

Those are meaningless terms invented by racists to determine how much they are supposed to hate somebody.

They have no real meaning, scientifically.

I see. If you believe race is a racist term invented by racists and you're anti-racist then race doesn't exist.

Certain predictions can be made about members of groups descended from 19th century Africans. Or from Korea, Japan and Hong Kong. Or from Northern Europe. Or from central Australia. People call these groups groups because they share certain common characteristics. Name them as you will. It doesn't change the fact the I can predict which of these groups will perform well on tests designed to test something called IQ.

When I refer to African-American or "Black" I am referring to the same group that BLM is about. Namely those who self-identify as "Black." Give me a roomful (well, a stadiumfull would be more accurate) of these people and give an IQ test (as a Mensa proctor, I can) and I predict their average IQ will be about 85. Give me a roomful of non-Black (by self-identity) and I predict their average IQ will be about 102. Is this a "scientific meaning?" I'm not sure. It is a difference established by data. Is that "scientific" enough?
____
The University of California has some history about Ancient DNA... https://youtu.be/AZ2H9NUn150

IQ tests look at prior exposure at critical stages to concepts tested on an IQ test and the language used on IQ tests.

If children are impoverished they will test lower.

It has everything to do with systemic racism and oppression for hundreds of years by very ignorant people who self identify as "white" and nothing to do with genes.

If I cover a cats eyes during critical stages of development the cat will never be able to see. No matter what the genes are.

 

[iolo]

I see. If you believe race is a racist term invented by racists and you're anti-racist then race doesn't exist.

Certain predictions can be made about members of groups descended from 19th century Africans. Or from Korea, Japan and Hong Kong. Or from Northern Europe. Or from central Australia. People call these groups groups because they share certain common characteristics. Name them as you will. It doesn't change the fact the I can predict which of these groups will perform well on tests designed to test something called IQ.

When I refer to African-American or "Black" I am referring to the same group that BLM is about. Namely those who self-identify as "Black." Give me a roomful (well, a stadiumfull would be more accurate) of these people and give an IQ test (as a Mensa proctor, I can) and I predict their average IQ will be about 85. Give me a roomful of non-Black (by self-identity) and I predict their average IQ will be about 102. Is this a "scientific meaning?" I'm not sure. It is a difference established by data. Is that "scientific" enough?
____
The University of California has some history about Ancient DNA... https://youtu.be/AZ2H9NUn150

IQ tests look at prior exposure at critical stages to concepts tested on an IQ test and the language used on IQ tests.

If children are impoverished they will test lower.

It has everything to do with systemic racism and oppression for hundreds of years by very ignorant people who self identify as "white" and nothing to do with genes.

If I cover a cats eyes during critical stages of development the cat will never be able to see. No matter what the genes are.

I suppose those cats would join the racists in voting Trump.

 

[iolo]

Those are meaningless terms invented by racists to determine how much they are supposed to hate somebody.

They have no real meaning, scientifically.

I see. If you believe race is a racist term invented by racists and you're anti-racist then race doesn't exist.

Certain predictions can be made about members of groups descended from 19th century Africans. Or from Korea, Japan and Hong Kong. Or from Northern Europe. Or from central Australia. People call these groups groups because they share certain common characteristics. Name them as you will. It doesn't change the fact the I can predict which of these groups will perform well on tests designed to test something called IQ.

When I refer to African-American or "Black" I am referring to the same group that BLM is about. Namely those who self-identify as "Black." Give me a roomful (well, a stadiumfull would be more accurate) of these people and give an IQ test (as a Mensa proctor, I can) and I predict their average IQ will be about 85. Give me a roomful of non-Black (by self-identity) and I predict their average IQ will be about 102. Is this a "scientific meaning?" I'm not sure. It is a difference established by data. Is that "scientific" enough?
____
The University of California has some history about Ancient DNA... https://youtu.be/AZ2H9NUn150

Given the busy-ness of 'white' racist slaveholders in raping slave women, and the quite common habit of 'passing', what exactly has that to do with genetics or - come to that - IQ tests? It is as scientific, surely, as a dead dog?

 

[untermensche]

IQ tests look at prior exposure at critical stages to concepts tested on an IQ test and the language used on IQ tests.

If children are impoverished they will test lower.

It has everything to do with systemic racism and oppression for hundreds of years by very ignorant people who self identify as "white" and nothing to do with genes.

If I cover a cats eyes during critical stages of development the cat will never be able to see. No matter what the genes are.

I suppose those cats would join the racists in voting Trump.

An organism, any organism, is a combination of genes and exposure, environment.

The genes can be known. The exposure is far more difficult to understand.

But racists always cling to easy answers.

 

[George S]

I see. If you believe race is a racist term invented by racists and you're anti-racist then race doesn't exist.

Certain predictions can be made about members of groups descended from 19th century Africans. Or from Korea, Japan and Hong Kong. Or from Northern Europe. Or from central Australia. People call these groups groups because they share certain common characteristics. Name them as you will. It doesn't change the fact the I can predict which of these groups will perform well on tests designed to test something called IQ.

When I refer to African-American or "Black" I am referring to the same group that BLM is about. Namely those who self-identify as "Black." Give me a roomful (well, a stadiumfull would be more accurate) of these people and give an IQ test (as a Mensa proctor, I can) and I predict their average IQ will be about 85. Give me a roomful of non-Black (by self-identity) and I predict their average IQ will be about 102. Is this a "scientific meaning?" I'm not sure. It is a difference established by data. Is that "scientific" enough?
____
The University of California has some history about Ancient DNA... https://youtu.be/AZ2H9NUn150

IQ tests look at prior exposure at critical stages to concepts tested on an IQ test and the language used on IQ tests.

If children are impoverished they will test lower.

It has everything to do with systemic racism and oppression for hundreds of years by very ignorant people who self identify as "white" and nothing to do with genes.

If I cover a cats eyes during critical stages of development the cat will never be able to see. No matter what the genes are.

There is a strong genetic component to performance on IQ tests. Believe it or not, there are language and culture neutral IQ tests these days. They don't contain the flaw that prior experience with the language of the test is assumed. Yes, you are right, children of the impoverished do test lower. They do so for two reasons: impoverishment of the parents can be predicted by their IQ, and, additionally the lack of nutrition and environment to flourish is missing.

The IQ seems to be about 80 to 90% genetic and 15 to 20% environmental.

Just like height. Mostly genetic, but lack of nutrition can stunt the growth.

Racism is a word coined in 1938. It is a theory of race superiority. Trotsky coined the word racist to describe those who held German bloodlines to be superior. It is a political word, not a scientific one.



Being "white" (as you see it) is a political statement having nothing to do with genes. Okay, so let's not use the terms Black and White and use "of predominantly African slave descent"* and "of predominantly Northern European descent." These are scientific groups. They are genetic groups. Their evolution has been different because they were in different environments. The skulls are different. The noses are different. The jaws are different. The skin is different. And you claim the brains cannot be? There are IQ differences between those of predominantly African slave descent and those of predominantly Northern European descent.
___
*Some who claim to be "black" use "of visibly African slave descent."

 

[untermensche]

The IQ seems to be about 80 to 90% genetic and 15 to 20% environmental.

People do not have IQ's. They have scores on a test. And the score can change a lot if a person cares enough to do the work to change it, just like SAT scores.

And this is a statistic pulled from thin air.

But statistically what does a difference between a score of 90 and a score of 100 mean?

How different are people who have differences like this?

Beware, this question is an "IQ test".

Here's another.

Who is more intelligent?

The person who can score high on a test or a person who can fix a car?

 

[untermensche]

Being "white" (as you see it) is a political statement having nothing to do with genes. Okay, so let's not use the terms Black and White and use "of predominantly African slave descent"* and "of predominantly Northern European descent." These are scientific groups. They are genetic groups. Their evolution has been different because they were in different environments. The skulls are different. The noses are different. The jaws are different. The skin is different. And you claim the brains cannot be? There are IQ differences between those of predominantly African slave descent and those of predominantly Northern European descent.

Is their visual system different? Is their auditory system different? Is their immune system different?

Are their sensations different?

Humans differ only in superficial ways. Height, hair color, skin color, shape of nose.

But there is no reason to think they have different cognitive systems.

And as far as skulls, people who self identify as white have thicker skulls in the frontal bone. What does that mean?

 

[George S]

The IQ seems to be about 80 to 90% genetic and 15 to 20% environmental.

People do not have IQ's. They have scores on a test. And the score can change a lot if a person cares enough to do the work to change it, just like SAT scores.

People do have an inherent skill. It is novel problem solving. "How good are you at solving new and different problems" is what is being measured today as g-factor. SAT scores attempt to predict scholastic aptitude. And surely someone who takes the time to practice SAT problems has a higher scholastic aptitude than someone who does not.

And this is a statistic pulled from thin air.

I admit to not quoting any particular expert. It is an estimate gleaned from personal research.

But statistically what does a difference between a score of 90 and a score of 100 mean?

If a child is tested the ratio to mental age is the meaning. If the average age 13 8th grader scores 100 an 8th grader who scores 90 has a mental age 90% of the average or .9x13 = 11.7, scoring the same as the average 7th grader.
Adult IQ scores are based on percentile and not mental age. The scores are "graded on a curve." Actual mental acuity peaks at at 20-24 and declines. At 18 it is almost at peak. An 18-yr-old with an IQ of 70 has the mental age of a 12 1/2 year old with 100 IQ. An 18-yr-old with an IQ of 85 has the mental age of a 15 year old with 100 IQ.

How different are people who have differences like this?

15-yr-olds act quite different from 18s, don't you think?

Beware, this question is an "IQ test".

Here's another.

Who is more intelligent?

The person who can score high on a test or a person who can fix a car?

A person who can learn to repeat an activity they have learned to do -- doing the actual fixing of a car -- does not require much problem solving ability. Those who can analyze a new and unknown problem they've never seen before in any car have an advantage at the car-repair business than those who cannot. Many intelligent people use their abilities in other fields and hire mechanics to fix their cars. Who is more intelligent? Someone who does all their own work or someone who pays experts?

 

[George S]

Being "white" (as you see it) is a political statement having nothing to do with genes. Okay, so let's not use the terms Black and White and use "of predominantly African slave descent"* and "of predominantly Northern European descent." These are scientific groups. They are genetic groups. Their evolution has been different because they were in different environments. The skulls are different. The noses are different. The jaws are different. The skin is different. And you claim the brains cannot be? There are IQ differences between those of predominantly African slave descent and those of predominantly Northern European descent.

Is their visual system different? Is their auditory system different? Is their immune system different?

Not much. A little. A lot. (respectively)
The biological systems are different enough so that organs transplanted across race have a higher likelihood of being rejected by the immune system than same-race transplants.

Are their sensations different?

Probably a little.

Humans differ only in superficial ways. Height, hair color, skin color, shape of nose.

But there is no reason to think they have different cognitive systems.

Well, testing indicates there is reason to think they have different cognitive abilities. Perhaps this is because of different underlying cognitive systems?

And as far as skulls, people who self identify as white have thicker skulls in the frontal bone. What does that mean?

It means that skulls have evolved along with skin color. Blacks have thicker skulls. I know. I was an x-ray tech in the army. The technique chart had different columns labelled "black skull" and "other skull." More KvP (penetration power) required. If the container for the brain can evolve in so short a time, brains can, too.