Population of Blacks/Whites in US by IQ

[Trausti]

Race does not exist. Repeat as often as necessary to sustain modern Lysenkoism.

Abstract: The Pediatric HIV/AIDS Cohort Study (PHACS), the largest ongoing longitudinal study of perinatal HIV-infected (PHIV) and HIV-exposed, uninfected (PHEU) children in the United States, comprises the Surveillance Monitoring of Antiretroviral Therapy [ART] Toxicities (SMARTT) Study in PHEU children and the Adolescent Master Protocol (AMP) that includes PHIV and PHEU children ≥7 years. Although race/ethnicity is often used to assess health outcomes, this approach remains controversial and may fail to accurately reflect the backgrounds of ancestry-diverse populations as represented in the PHACS participants.

In this study, we compared genetically determined ancestry (GDA) and self-reported race/ethnicity (SRR) in the PHACS cohort. GDA was estimated using a highly discriminative panel of 41 single nucleotide polymorphisms and compared to SRR. Because SRR was similar between the PHIV and PHEU, and between the AMP and SMARTT cohorts, data for all unique 1958 participants were combined.

According to SRR, 63% of study participants identified as Black/African-American, 27% White, and 34% Hispanic. Using the highest percentage of ancestry/ethnicity to identify GDA, 9.5% of subjects were placed in the incorrect superpopulation based on SRR. When ≥50% or ≥75% GDA of a given superpopulation was required, 12% and 25%, respectively, of subjects were placed in the incorrect superpopulation based on SRR, and the percent of subjects classified as multiracial increased. Of 126 participants with unidentified SRR, 71% were genetically identified as Eurasian.

GDA provides a more robust assessment of race/ethnicity when compared to self-report, and study participants with unidentified SRR could be assigned GDA using genetic markers. In addition, identification of continental ancestry removes the taxonomic identification of race as a variable when identifying risk for clinical outcomes.

http://journals.lww.com/md-journal/Abstract/2016/09060/Genetically_determined_ancestry_is_more.40.aspx

 

[Trausti]

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027739?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

[untermensche]

63% of study participants identified as Black/African-American, 27% White, and 34% Hispanic

This equals 124%. Is Hispanic a race?

Of 126 participants with unidentified SRR, 71% were genetically identified as Eurasian.

Is Eurasian a race?

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here? All this shows is that some people are more closely related than others.

 

[George S]

This equals 124%. Is Hispanic a race?

Of 126 participants with unidentified SRR, 71% were genetically identified as Eurasian.

Is Eurasian a race?

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here? All this shows is that some people are more closely related than others.

No, Hispanic is not a race, but it is a group which has common genetic heritage. Eurasian is not a race. White is not a race. Black is not a race. However, people who comprise Europe and Western Asia (to include, say, the Russians, Georgians, and so on) have distinct genetic markers as well.

What race am I? I am 34% Scots/Irish, 25% German, 25% Ashkenazi, 16% other European. 2.6% for Neanderthal DNA. What race am I?

To the group self-identified as African-Americans I am white. I had a white job (prof, comp sci). I speak white. I look white. A niece looks quite the same, and yet she has 12% negro.

The point I believe being made by Trausti was that self-identification and DNA may well yield different results. My extended family have all come to adopt the policy of writing Mixed (if available) or Other when asked about race. If everyone did that -- as you say, there is no such thing as race -- then there would be no racial statistics. Mixed race people did everything. No difference.

But when African-Americans identify themselves as Black in "Black Lives Matter" then statistics about those who self-identify as Black might well be meaningful.

Those group identities used in genetic reporting are geographic, and reflect the world 200 years ago before all this mixing going on. Genetic heritage reveals where your ancestors lived about 12-15 generations ago. We are almost all mutts now.

 

[ApostateAbe]

My thinking on the matter is: if a bunch of people think it is a race, and if you can identify it with a genetic test, then it is a race, the same way evolutionary biologists use the word.

 

[untermensche]

What race am I? I am 34% Scots/Irish, 25% German, 25% Ashkenazi, 16% other European. 2.6% for Neanderthal DNA. What race am I?

Where do these numbers come from? And 102.6%?

The point I believe being made by Trausti was that self-identification and DNA may well yield different results. My extended family have all come to adopt the policy of writing Mixed (if available) or Other when asked about race. If everyone did that -- as you say, there is no such thing as race -- then there would be no racial statistics. Mixed race people did everything. No difference.

Slightly different results. More similar than dissimilar results.

So what do we make of this?

I hope not this:

But when African-Americans identify themselves as Black in "Black Lives Matter" then statistics about those who self-identify as Black might well be meaningful.

What is significant is the police treating people differently based on the perceptions of the police. It has nothing to do with self reporting.

 

[George S]

For the 102% ask 23andMe.
The Neanderthal percentage is embedded in the other percentages. However, only people with European heritage have Neanderthals as ancestors.
Still, I am Mixed race. Or my race is human.

 

[untermensche]

For the 102% ask 23andMe.
The Neanderthal percentage is embedded in the other percentages. However, only people with European heritage have Neanderthals as ancestors.
Still, I am Mixed race. Or my race is human.

Not all Europeans have this alleged 2.3 %.

 

[George S]

For the 102% ask 23andMe.
The Neanderthal percentage is embedded in the other percentages. However, only people with European heritage have Neanderthals as ancestors.
Still, I am Mixed race. Or my race is human.

Not all Europeans have this alleged 2.3 %.

That is true 'only' does not imply 'all'.
Humanly yours...

 

[untermensche]

Not all Europeans have this alleged 2.3 %.

That is true 'only' does not imply 'all'.
Humanly yours...

But you said YOU have it.

And you still haven't said where the other numbers come from.

 

[George S]

That is true 'only' does not imply 'all'.
Humanly yours...

But you said YOU have it.

Yes I did. And I have European ancestry.

And you still haven't said where the other numbers come from.

When I said ask 23andMe, I thought you would recognize the company. They do genetic testing and give percentages of genetic geographic location. That location based on ancestors 12-15 generations ago. About 200 years ago before there was today's mixing. Locations as precise as a country sometimes and as large as a continent at other times. European, Dutch, German,Turkish, West Asian, East Asian, Nigerian, Native American, Pacific Islander, North African, Sub-Saharan African, for example.

 

[untermensche]

But you said YOU have it.

Yes I did. And I have European ancestry.

And you still haven't said where the other numbers come from.

When I said ask 23andMe, I thought you would recognize the company. They do genetic testing and give percentages of genetic geographic location. That location based on ancestors 12-15 generations ago. About 200 years ago before there was today's mixing. Locations as precise as a country sometimes and as large as a continent at other times. European, Dutch, German,Turkish, West Asian, East Asian, Nigerian, Native American, Pacific Islander, North African, Sub-Saharan African, for example.

200 years ago?

You mean the slave trade?

 

[Bomb#20]

You ignore the arguments like a religious fundamentalist.

What arguments are you claiming I have ignored? (FYI, "ignore" does not mean "find unconvincing".)

And saying systems resist change is just saying we can learn a lot about the human visual system from the visual system of a mouse.

If the system did not greatly resist change how would this be possible?

Well, since you have defined "systems resist change" to mean we can, you're in effect asking, "If we can't, how is it possible that we can?". Yet somehow I suspect you will remain blissfully unaware that you made a stupid argument.

Your unreasonable definitions aside, the fact remains that the human visual system is trichromatic, and the mouse visual system is dichromatic. So it is evidently possible for a system that resists chance to nonetheless evolve into a very different system; and it is evidently also possible for us to learn a lot about a system by studying a very different system.

And it was Gould who claimed that Darwin was speaking against the notion that gradual change was the only way evolution works.

(A) Quote him. The Gould passages you quoted upthread do make the claim you are attributing to Gould.

(B) Even if Gould said (somewhere else) what you claim he said, so what? Gould doesn't speak for Darwin. Darwin speaks for Darwin.

You obviously are incredibly ignorant of Gould's work.

You are obviously disinclined to limit your claims about other people to those you have evidence for. I've read most of Gould's "Natural History" articles. I'm familiar with the "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis. Are you familiar with it? You appear to be under the impression that it's a theory of non-gradual evolution. Are you ignorant of the fact that the "punctuations" Gould proposed are periods of rapid change lasting thousands of years? They are rapid in geological terms, but only because rocks accumulate so slowly. On a human scale the "punctuations" are very slow, very, what's the word for it, oh yes, "gradual".

 

[untermensche]

Your unreasonable definitions aside, the fact remains that the human visual system is trichromatic, and the mouse visual system is dichromatic. So it is evidently possible for a system that resists chance to nonetheless evolve into a very different system; and it is evidently also possible for us to learn a lot about a system by studying a very different system.

"Resists change" does not mean "no change".

Obviously humans have much larger eyes than mice, so the size of the eye has changed.

But the systems are so similar that the visual system of the mouse has taught us a lot about the visual system of the human.

Which most definitely is evidence the system resisted change. You can't learn about one system from looking at another unless they are very similar.

Humans and mice diverged about 75 million years ago. So in 75 million years so little change has occurred that both systems are extremely similar, not identical.

Compare this to the changes that have taken place in non systems, like the changes we see in the phenotype of the dog over the last few thousand years.

You have made no argument to even suggest the visual system has not resisted change. Over 75 million years.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The fact that black immigrants to the United States have shown achievements that are superior to native black Americans has been a phenomenon studied since at least the 1970′s. At first it was just the Caribbean blacks who were a subject of this unexpected outcome. As black Africans kept immigrating into the US, they showed even higher levels of achievement than the native blacks. Many scholars theorized on the reasons for these differences, from Thomas Sowell’s proposal that this disproved the validity of discrimination against native blacks as an explanation for their underachievement (Sowell, 1978), to other scholars who suggested that these immigrants were just the most highly driven members of their home countries as evidenced by their willingness to migrate to a foreign country (Butcher, 1990).

What most of these theories failed to predict was that the children of these immigrants would also show exceptional achievements, especially academically. It is only in recent years, as the immigrants have stayed long enough to produce a sufficiently high number of offspring, that it has been observed that they are over-represented among high academic achievers, especially when compared to native blacks, particularly at very elite institutions. What has been missed in the IQ debate is the full logical implication of these achievements: they have effectively nullified any arguments for a racial evolutionary explanation of the well-known IQ test score gap between blacks and whites. Even more fatal for the racial hereditarian side of the debate has been the corroborating data of school children performance in the UK, particularly when the black Africans are divided into their respective nationalities and tribal ethnicities, as reported in the latter section of this article.

Full article : The IQ Gap Is No Longer a Black and White Issue

 

[Bomb#20]

"Resists change" does not mean "no change".
...
You have made no argument to even suggest the visual system has not resisted change. Over 75 million years.

Why would I have made an argument suggesting such a thing? As you admit, "resists change" does not mean "no change". I didn't claim systems don't resist change. I merely pointed out that the immune system has changed; and I only pointed that out because you implied it hasn't.

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.

The immune system isn't only superficial and humans' immune systems differ. Even if the immune system resisted change, that wouldn't be a reason to think it hasn't changed. Moreover, unlike most other biological systems, the immune system doesn't resist change but actively promotes it -- it's a good way to stay ahead of constantly evolving diseases. Furthermore, nothing I wrote about the immune system depends on whether the visual system changes, with or without resistance to change. So for you to write "You have made no argument to even suggest the visual system has not resisted change. Over 75 million years.", as though that were a substantive criticism, is asinine. Your post is nothing but a red herring.

 

[untermensche]

Why would I have made an argument suggesting such a thing? As you admit, "resists change" does not mean "no change". I didn't claim systems don't resist change. I merely pointed out that the immune system has changed; and I only pointed that out because you implied it hasn't.

This sounds like something Trump would say when proven wrong.

Since my only point is that systems resist change.

Even the immune system. Even the skin. Which is a functioning system.

Moreover, unlike most other biological systems, the immune system doesn't resist change but actively promotes it -- it's a good way to stay ahead of constantly evolving diseases.

Pure nonsense.

The immune system has the ability to respond. It has no ability to anticipate or promote change, whatever that is supposed to mean.

And all that has kept humans slightly ahead of microorganisms, for the moment, are antibiotics and other human creations.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The fact that black immigrants to the United States have shown achievements that are superior to native black Americans has been a phenomenon studied since at least the 1970′s. At first it was just the Caribbean blacks who were a subject of this unexpected outcome. As black Africans kept immigrating into the US, they showed even higher levels of achievement than the native blacks. Many scholars theorized on the reasons for these differences, from Thomas Sowell’s proposal that this disproved the validity of discrimination against native blacks as an explanation for their underachievement (Sowell, 1978), to other scholars who suggested that these immigrants were just the most highly driven members of their home countries as evidenced by their willingness to migrate to a foreign country (Butcher, 1990).

What most of these theories failed to predict was that the children of these immigrants would also show exceptional achievements, especially academically. It is only in recent years, as the immigrants have stayed long enough to produce a sufficiently high number of offspring, that it has been observed that they are over-represented among high academic achievers, especially when compared to native blacks, particularly at very elite institutions. What has been missed in the IQ debate is the full logical implication of these achievements: they have effectively nullified any arguments for a racial evolutionary explanation of the well-known IQ test score gap between blacks and whites. Even more fatal for the racial hereditarian side of the debate has been the corroborating data of school children performance in the UK, particularly when the black Africans are divided into their respective nationalities and tribal ethnicities, as reported in the latter section of this article.

Full article : The IQ Gap Is No Longer a Black and White Issue

The author states:

"What most of these theories failed to predict was that the children of these immigrants would also show exceptional achievements, especially academically. It is only in recent years, as the immigrants have stayed long enough to produce a sufficiently high number of offspring, that it has been observed that they are over-represented among high academic achievers, especially when compared to native blacks, particularly at very elite institutions."

This is not what regression to the mean predicts. The regression to the mean would predict that, if black immigrants are overrepresented in the higher-IQ right tail end of the native black African distribution, then the children of the immigrants would tend to have lower IQ than their PARENTS, not lower than native black Africans. It would be expected that the IQs of children and grandchildren of higher-IQ immigrants would be intermediately between their parents and the native black African median. Such a regression to the mean among such immigrants has long been a strong argument in favor of hereditarianism (see this article).

 

[untermensche]

A child born to well off highly achieving black parents does not exist in the same world as a black child born in a broken home in some US slum.

So many black children are destroyed by the lingering effects of US racism.

That's why all racists want to look at are averages, not range, which says something about potential.

Worship of the average when it serves your preconceived agenda. Even if it is a meaningless statistic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact that black immigrants to the United States have shown achievements that are superior to native black Americans has been a phenomenon studied since at least the 1970′s. At first it was just the Caribbean blacks who were a subject of this unexpected outcome. As black Africans kept immigrating into the US, they showed even higher levels of achievement than the native blacks. Many scholars theorized on the reasons for these differences, from Thomas Sowell’s proposal that this disproved the validity of discrimination against native blacks as an explanation for their underachievement (Sowell, 1978), to other scholars who suggested that these immigrants were just the most highly driven members of their home countries as evidenced by their willingness to migrate to a foreign country (Butcher, 1990).

What most of these theories failed to predict was that the children of these immigrants would also show exceptional achievements, especially academically. It is only in recent years, as the immigrants have stayed long enough to produce a sufficiently high number of offspring, that it has been observed that they are over-represented among high academic achievers, especially when compared to native blacks, particularly at very elite institutions. What has been missed in the IQ debate is the full logical implication of these achievements: they have effectively nullified any arguments for a racial evolutionary explanation of the well-known IQ test score gap between blacks and whites. Even more fatal for the racial hereditarian side of the debate has been the corroborating data of school children performance in the UK, particularly when the black Africans are divided into their respective nationalities and tribal ethnicities, as reported in the latter section of this article.

Full article : The IQ Gap Is No Longer a Black and White Issue

It's what I have been saying all along: It's cultural, not genetic.