Population of Blacks/Whites in US by IQ

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But if you want to jump from that observation to the conclusion that science isn't capable of analyzing a blood sample and figuring out the guy it was taken from is 97% Caucasoid and 3% Negroid, that's something science is in the business of telling you you're underinformed about.

Really? I took a test that said I was 99% of European ancestry and 1% North African ancestry. A completely different test said I was 99.8% of European ancestry and 0.2% Native American/East Asian ancestry. The second test did not identify any North African at all. Many more discrepancies were present at the ethnicity level, but it's not like it was completely and totally wrong.

 

[Trausti]

Were race totally superficial differences you would be right. 84% of NFL lineman would be white if the differences were superficial.

Sports participation is largely cultural, sometimes discriminatory, and class-based. It was just a decade or two ago, that people were claiming blacks could not be quarterbacks or football managers. They're proving that wrong. Now besides that, in inner cities there is a huge focus on sports such as football and basketball as a way to get out of poverty. That's where the male role models are besides the high rate of crime and aggression by police in these areas. Few make it out but this no doubt has a large effect. There aren't tons of famous role models to become accountants. There aren't the same types of enrichment opportunities for youth in academics. There are often places you can go learn how to box, practice, and that's a thing, too in the city but hardly accessible in the suburbs or rural areas. There are hardly opportunities to become a great golfer either--you need to buy golf clubs and have good access to a country club or golf area.

It takes a special pair of blinders to think that human biodiversity does not play a role in racial athletic differences.

 

[Trausti]

You think "dark skin people" have sickle cell trait because they're "dark skin," and not because of an adaption to the environment?

Read carefully before telling me what I think, please. Both sickle cell trait and dark skin are adaptive. They are NOT (always) associated with the same genetic locii. Therefore the genetic markers for either cannot be reliably used to determine "race". Of course JonA tells me I'm misinformed about the absence of any purely scientific means to determine an individual's race, but as yet he has only offered a naked "nuh unh".

Well, by that standard, there's really no scientific way to reliably determine species, either. It's all on a continuum, really.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sports participation is largely cultural, sometimes discriminatory, and class-based. It was just a decade or two ago, that people were claiming blacks could not be quarterbacks or football managers. They're proving that wrong. Now besides that, in inner cities there is a huge focus on sports such as football and basketball as a way to get out of poverty. That's where the male role models are besides the high rate of crime and aggression by police in these areas. Few make it out but this no doubt has a large effect. There aren't tons of famous role models to become accountants. There aren't the same types of enrichment opportunities for youth in academics. There are often places you can go learn how to box, practice, and that's a thing, too in the city but hardly accessible in the suburbs or rural areas. There are hardly opportunities to become a great golfer either--you need to buy golf clubs and have good access to a country club or golf area.

It takes a special pair of blinders to think that human biodiversity does not play a role in racial athletic differences.

...

 

[bigfield]

Sports participation is largely cultural, sometimes discriminatory, and class-based. It was just a decade or two ago, that people were claiming blacks could not be quarterbacks or football managers. They're proving that wrong. Now besides that, in inner cities there is a huge focus on sports such as football and basketball as a way to get out of poverty. That's where the male role models are besides the high rate of crime and aggression by police in these areas. Few make it out but this no doubt has a large effect. There aren't tons of famous role models to become accountants. There aren't the same types of enrichment opportunities for youth in academics. There are often places you can go learn how to box, practice, and that's a thing, too in the city but hardly accessible in the suburbs or rural areas. There are hardly opportunities to become a great golfer either--you need to buy golf clubs and have good access to a country club or golf area.

It takes a special pair of blinders to think that human biodiversity does not play a role in racial athletic differences.

Don2 does not claim that human biodiversity does not play a role in racial athletic differences. His post lists social factors that play a role in influence sporting achievement by race, but social causes and genetic causes are not mutually exclusive.

It's plausible that the race of NFL linemen is influenced by both cultural and genetic factors. It's certainly plausible that professional sport has stronger appeal for people with fewer career opportunities, such as people in poor communities.

And as Don2 points out, racial demographics in professional sport have changed much more rapidly than the genetic makeup of the wider population. This suggests that some other factor other than genetics has an influence of racial demographics in professional sport. Black Americans have not suddenly evolved to become more suited to playing quarterback.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In the early to mid 1900s Jews were extremely over represented in pro basketball.

"The reason, I suspect, that basketball appeals to the Hebrew with his Oriental background," wrote Paul Gallico, sports editor of the New York Daily News and one of the premier sports writers of the 1930s, "is that the game places a premium on an alert, scheming mind, flashy trickiness, artful dodging and general smart aleckness." Writers opined that Jews had an advantage in basketball because short men have better balance and more foot speed. They were also thought to have sharper eyes, which of course cut against the stereotype that Jewish men were myopic and had to wear glasses, but who said stereotypes had to be consistent?

At the turn of the century, European Jews flooded off immigrant ships into the ghettos of the booming Eastern metropolises. New York and Philadelphia were the epicenters of the basketball world, with the dominant team, the Hebrews, ensconced in South Philly.

"Basketball is a city game," notes Sonny Hill, an executive adviser with the Sixers who has run a high-school summer league for more than 35 years. "If you trace basketball back to the 1920s, '30s, and '40s, that's when the Jewish people were very dominant in the inner city. And they dominated basketball."

Although New York turned out more Jewish stars in pure numbers, the SPHAs were basketball's best known and most successful all-Jewish team. From 1918 onward, the Hebrews barnstormed across the East and Midwest, playing in a variety of semipro leagues that were precursors to the NBA. In an incredible 22-season stretch, they played in 18 championship series, losing only five. In the early years of the Depression, the SPHAs surpassed both of Philadelphia's baseball teams, the Athletics and the Phillies, in popularity.

"Every Jewish boy was playing basketball," Harry Litwack told me a few years ago, before he passed away in 1999. Litwack starred for the SPHAs in the 1930s before moving on to coach Temple University in Philadelphia for 21 years. "Every phone pole had a peach basket on it. And every one of those Jewish kids dreamed of playing for the SPHAs."

"It was absolutely a way out of the ghetto," said Dave Dabrow, a guard with the original Hebrews. Dabrow, who eventually took a job coaching Jewish phenoms at South Philly High, died in 1996. "It was where the young Jewish boy would never have been able to go to college if it wasn't for the amount of basketball playing and for the scholarship."

http://www.jewishmag.com/45mag/basketball/basketball.htm

 

[George S]

In the early to mid 1900s Jews were extremely over represented in pro basketball.

"The reason, I suspect, that basketball appeals to the Hebrew with his Oriental background," wrote Paul Gallico, sports editor of the New York Daily News and one of the premier sports writers of the 1930s, "is that the game places a premium on an alert, scheming mind, flashy trickiness, artful dodging and general smart aleckness." Writers opined that Jews had an advantage in basketball because short men have better balance and more foot speed. They were also thought to have sharper eyes, which of course cut against the stereotype that Jewish men were myopic and had to wear glasses, but who said stereotypes had to be consistent?

At the turn of the century, European Jews flooded off immigrant ships into the ghettos of the booming Eastern metropolises. New York and Philadelphia were the epicenters of the basketball world, with the dominant team, the Hebrews, ensconced in South Philly.

"Basketball is a city game," notes Sonny Hill, an executive adviser with the Sixers who has run a high-school summer league for more than 35 years. "If you trace basketball back to the 1920s, '30s, and '40s, that's when the Jewish people were very dominant in the inner city. And they dominated basketball."

Although New York turned out more Jewish stars in pure numbers, the SPHAs were basketball's best known and most successful all-Jewish team. From 1918 onward, the Hebrews barnstormed across the East and Midwest, playing in a variety of semipro leagues that were precursors to the NBA. In an incredible 22-season stretch, they played in 18 championship series, losing only five. In the early years of the Depression, the SPHAs surpassed both of Philadelphia's baseball teams, the Athletics and the Phillies, in popularity.

"Every Jewish boy was playing basketball," Harry Litwack told me a few years ago, before he passed away in 1999. Litwack starred for the SPHAs in the 1930s before moving on to coach Temple University in Philadelphia for 21 years. "Every phone pole had a peach basket on it. And every one of those Jewish kids dreamed of playing for the SPHAs."

"It was absolutely a way out of the ghetto," said Dave Dabrow, a guard with the original Hebrews. Dabrow, who eventually took a job coaching Jewish phenoms at South Philly High, died in 1996. "It was where the young Jewish boy would never have been able to go to college if it wasn't for the amount of basketball playing and for the scholarship."

http://www.jewishmag.com/45mag/basketball/basketball.htm

That's interesting. Why is it they no longer do?

My point is that when there is non-discriminatory competition some identifiable groups can be seen to excel due to genetic heritage. It is clearly understood when the difference is physical. The brain is as subject to evolutionary pressure as much as any other organ. Obvious in the Darwin awards. Just as when running from the lion you don't have to outrun the lion, just your slower cousin, when reasoning will save your life you need not be exceptionally smart, just smarter than your stupid cousin.

Why the strong negative reaction when the same pattern is observed in the brain? These patterns become apparent when there is non-discriminatory competition in mental agility.

 

[bigfield]

In the early to mid 1900s Jews were extremely over represented in pro basketball.

http://www.jewishmag.com/45mag/basketball/basketball.htm

That's interesting. Why is it they no longer do?

My point is that when there is non-discriminatory competition some identifiable groups can be seen to excel due to genetic heritage. It is clearly understood when the difference is physical. The brain is as subject to evolutionary pressure as much as any other organ. Obvious in the Darwin awards. Just as when running from the lion you don't have to outrun the lion, just your slower cousin, when reasoning will save your life you need not be exceptionally smart, just smarter than your stupid cousin.

Why the strong negative reaction when the same pattern is observed in the brain? These patterns become apparent when there is non-discriminatory competition in mental agility.

There are likely multiple influences on the racial demographics of professional basketballers, including social factors that cause basketball to be more popular in some neighbourhoods, not merely as a leisure activity but as a potential career.

Unless you can control for those social influences, it's incorrect to conclude that the current racial makeup of professional sportspeople is due to genetic heritage. It's certainly plausible that genetic heritage is one of several factors, but your given reasoning in not valid.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In the early to mid 1900s Jews were extremely over represented in pro basketball.


http://www.jewishmag.com/45mag/basketball/basketball.htm

That's interesting. Why is it they no longer do?

Did you understand why they did to such an extent? The ghetto...role models...etc...anything look familiar?

How did these factors change? Think history. What kinds of big changes happened for jewish americans in the mid 1900s?

from wiki:

Leaders of the time urged assimilation and integration into the wider American culture, and Jews quickly became part of American life. During World War II, 500,000 American Jews, about half of all Jewish males between 18 and 50, enlisted for service, and after the war, Jewish families joined the new trend of suburbanization, as they became wealthier and more mobile.

How did this change role models in their culture? Did they need to take big risks like trying to become a sports pro to get out of the ghetto?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My point is that when there is non-discriminatory competition some identifiable groups can be seen to excel due to genetic heritage. It is clearly understood when the difference is physical.

Clearly it actually isn't understood as all variables aren't even considered. It's an exercise in correlations versus causations. If rigor is not applied, then it just looks like history repeating itself with the kinds of conclusions that arise.

The brain is as subject to evolutionary pressure as much as any other organ. Obvious in the Darwin awards. Just as when running from the lion you don't have to outrun the lion, just your slower cousin, when reasoning will save your life you need not be exceptionally smart, just smarter than your stupid cousin.

Speaking of which, the highest paid group in the US is allegedly Asian Indians who also are allegedly one of the lowest IQ groups. Explain.

...Why the strong negative reaction when the same pattern is observed in the brain? These patterns become apparent when there is non-discriminatory competition in mental agility.

By "strong reaction" you mean someone telling me i have blinders because i pointed out variables not considered?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sports participation is largely cultural, sometimes discriminatory, and class-based. It was just a decade or two ago, that people were claiming blacks could not be quarterbacks or football managers. They're proving that wrong. Now besides that, in inner cities there is a huge focus on sports such as football and basketball as a way to get out of poverty. That's where the male role models are besides the high rate of crime and aggression by police in these areas. Few make it out but this no doubt has a large effect. There aren't tons of famous role models to become accountants. There aren't the same types of enrichment opportunities for youth in academics. There are often places you can go learn how to box, practice, and that's a thing, too in the city but hardly accessible in the suburbs or rural areas. There are hardly opportunities to become a great golfer either--you need to buy golf clubs and have good access to a country club or golf area.

It takes a special pair of blinders to think that human biodiversity does not play a role in racial athletic differences.

Thank you for the insult, but I don't have blinders. I do notice that your post doesn't actually rebut anything I've written and responds to none of the points, it's just a personal attack and hand-waving. Accessibility, economics, role modeling, etc all effect outcomes. Everyone knows this and there is plenty of research on how those are variables in outcomes in all kinds of things.

 

[Bomb#20]

But if you want to jump from that observation to the conclusion that science isn't capable of analyzing a blood sample and figuring out the guy it was taken from is 97% Caucasoid and 3% Negroid, that's something science is in the business of telling you you're underinformed about.

Really?

Really.

I took a test that said I was 99% of European ancestry and 1% North African ancestry. A completely different test said I was 99.8% of European ancestry and 0.2% Native American/East Asian ancestry. The second test did not identify any North African at all. Many more discrepancies were present at the ethnicity level, but it's not like it was completely and totally wrong.

Not quite following what your objection is. Are you suggesting that the discrepancy between the two tests is grounds for saying "Really?" to my assertion

(a) because error bars of 0.2% at the race level imply science can't measure with 1% accuracy at the race level, or

(b) because a 1% discrepancy at the ethnicity level implies science can't measure with 1% accuracy at the race level, or

(c) because when I said "97% Caucasoid" what that means is "97.00000% Caucasoid", because you say so, and whether measurement is science or pseudoscience depends on your personal choice as to what level of exactitude ought to be demanded in each field, so 5% errors in carbon-dating are perfectly acceptable but 0.0001% errors in race identification would be enough to prove race is a social construct, or

(d) because "1% North African" counts as a 1% discrepancy at the race level rather than a 1% discrepancy at the ethnicity level because it contains the word "Africa"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Really?

Really.

I took a test that said I was 99% of European ancestry and 1% North African ancestry. A completely different test said I was 99.8% of European ancestry and 0.2% Native American/East Asian ancestry. The second test did not identify any North African at all. Many more discrepancies were present at the ethnicity level, but it's not like it was completely and totally wrong.

Not quite following what your objection is. Are you suggesting that the discrepancy between the two tests is grounds for saying "Really?" to my assertion

(a) because error bars of 0.2% at the race level imply science can't measure with 1% accuracy at the race level, or

(b) because a 1% discrepancy at the ethnicity level implies science can't measure with 1% accuracy at the race level, or

(c) because when I said "97% Caucasoid" what that means is "97.00000% Caucasoid", because you say so, and whether measurement is science or pseudoscience depends on your personal choice as to what level of exactitude ought to be demanded in each field, so 5% errors in carbon-dating are perfectly acceptable but 0.0001% errors in race identification would be enough to prove race is a social construct, or

(d) because "1% North African" counts as a 1% discrepancy at the race level rather than a 1% discrepancy at the ethnicity level because it contains the word "Africa"?

It's not an "objection," just skepticism. Plus, it's an analogy. Tests that you are discussing, continental ancestry tests, use orders of magnitude less snps than ethnicity composition tests. For example, tests I used had tested some hundreds of thousands of snps each. Continental ancestry tests may test less than 100 snps and do not promise 100% accuracy. And certainly these continental origin tests haven't had the same level of public scrutiny with millions of people testing and discussing results.

If you want to try to claim that "race" tests are the same thing as ethnicity composition tests, then you'll have to provide some mappings to whatever race categories you are discussing. Continental ancestry tests also don't seem to cover Australian aborigines well and to my knowledge, neither do ethnicity composition tests. So you should probably also speak to that.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's not an "objection," just skepticism. Plus, it's an analogy. Tests that you are discussing, continental ancestry tests, use orders of magnitude less snps than ethnicity composition tests. For example, tests I used had tested some hundreds of thousands of snps each. Continental ancestry tests may test less than 100 snps and do not promise 100% accuracy.

What the bejesus are you on about? I didn't say a bloody thing about "continental ancestry tests", or about what could or could not be determined by tests that use less than 100 SNPs. What I told Elixir is that there's a scientific means to determine an individual's race. If it were to take examining a hundred thousand alleles to do it, so what? That doesn't conflict with what I said.

"Continental ancestry test" is a misnomer anyway. There's no such thing as a test that can tell your ancestors are African but can't tell which part of Africa they were from. The world's number one gene-flow barrier is not the Mediterranean Sea but the Sahara desert. Genetically as well as anatomically, North Africans look a lot more like Europeans than like Sub-Saharan Africans. So a test that uses too few SNPs to recognize fine-grained ethnicities is not going to distinguish African from European unless you're a swallow. It's going to distinguish Sub-Saharan African from "lived in Europe or North Africa or West Asia". So either it really can tell a Moroccan from a Spaniard and a Spaniard from a Russian, which means it's quite a bit more than a "continental ancestry test", or else they're calling it a "continental ancestry test" as a euphemism for the category that must not be named.

If you want to try to claim that "race" tests are the same thing as ethnicity composition tests, then you'll have to provide some mappings to whatever race categories you are discussing.

I don't recall making any claim that some sort of test is the same thing as some other sort of test. You appear to be doing your damnedest to change the subject from what I said to something you'd like me to have said so you'd have better grounds for saying "Really?" at it.

But if what you're getting at is that you're challenging the ability of a test that can tell you you're 3/4 ethnic Italian and 1/4 ethnic Croatian to tell you you're Caucasoid, that's kind of like asking the paleontologist who identified a fossil as a tooth from an ice age giant beaver whether her methods can tell a mammal tooth from a lizard tooth. We already know Italian and Croatian are Caucasoid ethnicities. But that's determined by statistical correlations in traits of thousands of people; it's not something you conclude from examining one person's genome.

Continental ancestry tests also don't seem to cover Australian aborigines well and to my knowledge, neither do ethnicity composition tests. So you should probably also speak to that.

Why? I'd made no claims about "continental ancestry tests", and Jon didn't say the individuals he had in mind were aborigines. If it turns out there are some people in the world whom race measurement doesn't work on, whoop de do. Some people are genetically resistant to novocaine. Are you going to infer that anaesthesia is unscientific?

But in any event, the notion that ethnicity composition tests per se don't cover Australian aborigines well is mathematically ridiculous. If in fact the ethnicity composition tests currently available don't cover Australian aborigines well (which is of course perfectly plausible), the reason is undoubtedly that the statistical databases such tests rely on didn't sample enough aborigine DNA.

 

[George S]

Why-do-aboriginals-score-so-much-lower-on-IQ-tests-than-any-other-group-of-people*
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-aborig...er-on-IQ-tests-than-any-other-group-of-people
The last line of the above:

Anyway, we can't yet say with certainty how much of this deficit is due to genetics and how much to environment, but based on other results it seems likely to be mostly genetic.

*The question asked on Quora is not quite accurate...

There are a few populations that score as low or lower than the Australian aborigines, notably the Bushmen and pygmies

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_higher_than_our_grandparents?language=en