The anti-racist plausibility dilemma

[ApostateAbe]

The intelligence researcher Arthur Jensen claimed that the heritability of racial intelligence differences should be the "default hypothesis." Not that it is a dogma, but some claims follow much more easily from background knowledge than other claims, before the direct evidence is considered, and it helps decide who should have the preliminary burden of proof. The following image illustrates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While there are some idiots on the left that say that there can't be such differences the normal position is that there is no evidence that the averages differ in any important way.

 

[ApostateAbe]

If there were no phenotypic differences among races (phenotypes being observable macroscopic traits affected by both genes and environment), then it would be a strange coincidence given the background knowledge, and I may think, "That's odd... maybe there was no differential evolution after the geographic splitting of the human species." If there were physiological racial differences but no psychological racial differences, then it would be even stranger: did differential evolution happen everywhere except inside the skull? But, the phenotypic psychological differences among races are confirmed fact, genotypic or not, and those phenotypic differences serve as intermediate positive evidence for genotypic psychological differences among races, much like we would expect from evolutionary theory. The moral ideology seems to wrongfully reduce the perception of intermediate evidence to a perception of zero evidence, and perhaps absolutely-conclusive evidence is needed for only an intermediate acceptance of the claim. It is madness, whatever the moral interest.

 

[ronburgundy]

Are there environment differences between individuals? Yes, beyond any scientific doubt.
Are there environment differences between races? Yes, beyond any scientific doubt.
Are there there psychological differences between individuals due to environment? Yes, beyond any scientific doubt.
Are the psychological differences between races due to environment? No, because I'm a racist.


The point is that the first three facts are insufficient to favor any conclusion on the third question. Those facts merely make a yes answer possible, but since there are equal facts that make genetic and non-genetic answers possible, there is no rational basis to treat one as more plausible. This is why it is hardly ever valid to infer a likely cause of a particular event from generalities about the causal impact between variables. Only direct evidence of the causes of difference on a particular variable (i.e., IQ) between particular populations (i.e., blacks versus whites) can favor genetics over environment. And no, it is not valid to infer that both play a role because an additional undisputed fact is that the relative roles for each type of factor varies between 0% and 100% depending upon the variable and the who/what is being compared upon on it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Are there environment differences between individuals? Yes, beyond any scientific doubt.
Are there environment differences between races? Yes, beyond any scientific doubt.
Are there there psychological differences between individuals due to environment? Yes, beyond any scientific doubt.
Are the psychological differences between races due to environment? No, because I'm a racist.


The point is that the first three facts are insufficient to favor any conclusion on the fourth question. Those facts merely make a yes answer possible, but since there are equal facts that make genetic and non-genetic answers possible, there is no rational basis to treat one as more plausible. This is why it is hardly ever valid to infer a likely cause of a particular event from generalities about the causal impact between variables. Only direct evidence of the causes of difference on a particular variable (i.e., IQ) between particular populations (i.e., blacks versus whites) can favor genetics over environment. And no, it is not valid to infer that both play a role because an additional undisputed fact is that the relative roles for each type of factor varies between 0% and 100% depending upon the variable and the who/what is being compared upon on it.

It would be extraordinary to claim that 0% of the between-race difference is due to environmental differences, hardly less absurd than defaulting to 100%, as is most common. The 2013 expert survey by Rindermann, Coyle & Becker claims that 5% of intelligence researchers believe that the black-white gap is completely genetic, which I take to be a surprisingly high percentage of intelligence researchers. It was only 1% in the 1984 survey. The portion of the between race difference is likely to be intermediate, and there is an indirect way to quantify it: Spearman's hypothesis, also known as the Jensen effect. The more g-loaded (and heritable) a test is, the greater the black-white gap tends to be. The 2016 meta-analysis of Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek, titled, "Spearman's Hypothesis Tested on Black Adults: A Meta-Analysis," found a correlation between g-loading and black-white gap of r=0.57. The square of that value, 32%, is perhaps the best estimate of the portion of the black-white intelligence gap that is due to genetic variants.

 

[bigfield]

The 2016 meta-analysis of Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek, titled, "Spearman's Hypothesis Tested on Black Adults: A Meta-Analysis," found a correlation between g-loading and black-white gap of r=0.57. The square of that value, 32%, is perhaps the best estimate of the portion of the black-white intelligence gap that is due to genetic variants.

How do studies, including meta-analyses such as Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek, control for environmental factors, such as economic status and quality of life, that affect the various groups that are tested?

Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek include a study by Diaz et al [PDF] which compares the test results of Spanish and Moroccan samples. However Diaz et al reminds the reader that Raven SPM results may be affected by environmental factors:

However, it has to be taken into account that other aspects, such as nutrition, hygiene,welfare state, anxiety trait, stress, menstrual cycle, perceived difficulty or previous experience in answering tests (test wiseness), may influence the SPM score. In this context, Raven et al. (2001) in the SPM manual warns about nutrition, welfare state and hygiene in the increasing in general intelligence in the last generations in Western countries, “the Flynn effect” (Flynn, 1984, 1987). Benton and Roberts (1988) and Eysenck and Eysenck (1991) raise the argument that factors such as diet conditions or weight at birth affect reasoning. The study of Kumari and Corr(1998) showed the influence of the anxiety trait, stress and even the menstrual cycle in the SPM score.

How do researchers control for these factors? Diaz et al does not; their measures to obtain comparable samples in the two countries are limited to some basic demographic characteristics. They do not control for the factors listed above that contribute to the Flynn effect.

ETA: Diaz et al doesn't even control for race. Did Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek just assume all of the Spanish subjects were white and all of the Moroccan subjects were Arab-Berber?

 

[ApostateAbe]

How do studies, including meta-analyses such as Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek, control for environmental factors, such as economic status and quality of life, that affect the various groups that are tested?

Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek include a study by Diaz et al [PDF] which compares the test results of Spanish and Moroccan samples. However Diaz et al reminds the reader that Raven SPM results may be affected by environmental factors:

However, it has to be taken into account that other aspects, such as nutrition, hygiene,welfare state, anxiety trait, stress, menstrual cycle, perceived difficulty or previous experience in answering tests (test wiseness), may influence the SPM score. In this context, Raven et al. (2001) in the SPM manual warns about nutrition, welfare state and hygiene in the increasing in general intelligence in the last generations in Western countries, “the Flynn effect” (Flynn, 1984, 1987). Benton and Roberts (1988) and Eysenck and Eysenck (1991) raise the argument that factors such as diet conditions or weight at birth affect reasoning. The study of Kumari and Corr(1998) showed the influence of the anxiety trait, stress and even the menstrual cycle in the SPM score.

How do researchers control for these factors? Diaz et al does not; their measures to obtain comparable samples in the two countries are limited to some basic demographic characteristics. They do not control for the factors listed above that contribute to the Flynn effect.

ETA: Diaz et al doesn't even control for race. Did Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek just assume all of the Spanish subjects were white and all of the Moroccan subjects were Arab-Berber?

If environmental effects of any sort are responsible for the racial test gaps, then a negative correlation would be expected: the greater the heritability of the test, the lesser the gap. But, a large positive correlation was found instead. On consideration of this, maybe the estimate of 32% is too low, and it should be doubled to 64%.

 

[bigfield]

If environmental effects of any sort are responsible for the racial test gaps, then a negative correlation would be expected: the greater the heritability of the test, the lesser the gap. But, a large positive correlation was found instead.

Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek don't measure heritability; they measure g-loading, which I understand measures the cognitive effort required for the test.

Why would environmental effects cause the gap to narrow as the g-loading of a test increases?

 

[ApostateAbe]

If environmental effects of any sort are responsible for the racial test gaps, then a negative correlation would be expected: the greater the heritability of the test, the lesser the gap. But, a large positive correlation was found instead.

Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek don't measure heritability; they measure g-loading, which I understand measures the cognitive effort required for the test.

Why would environmental effects cause the gap to narrow as the g-loading of a test increases?

The strong relationship between g-loading and heritability is established.

 

[ApostateAbe]

And, no, the g-loading is not cognitive effort. It is cognitive ability. It is the factor common to all correlations among many types of tests. It is the quantity that IQ is designed to measure.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[bigfield]

Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek don't measure heritability; they measure g-loading, which I understand measures the cognitive effort required for the test.

Why would environmental effects cause the gap to narrow as the g-loading of a test increases?

The strong relationship between g-loading and heritability is established.

How strong?

And, no, the g-loading is not cognitive effort. It is cognitive ability. It is the factor common to all correlations among many types of tests. It is the quantity that IQ is designed to measure.

The g loading of a test defines how closely a test correlates with the g factor of a subject, and it achieves this by presenting more difficult questions, so it's incorrect to say that g loading is a direct measurement of cognitive ability (unless the g loading equals 1.0, which is never).

The 2016 meta-analysis of Te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek, titled, "Spearman's Hypothesis Tested on Black Adults: A Meta-Analysis," found a correlation between g-loading and black-white gap of r=0.57. The square of that value, 32%, is perhaps the best estimate of the portion of the black-white intelligence gap that is due to genetic variants.

Why is the square of that value the best estimate?

 

[iolo]

How can anyone compare races when we have only one?

 

[ApostateAbe]

How can anyone compare races when we have only one?

See this thread:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...iology-and-fraudulent-evolutionary-biologists

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How do these "g-loading correlated to heritability" tests control for gestational environment?

Example factors in gestational environments:
Drugs including tobacco, alcohol, and the more hardcore
Nutrition
Microbiome
Epigenetics

 

[untermensche]

Are there any known group differences in genes that determine cognitive abilities between races?

NO

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are there any known group differences in genes that determine cognitive abilities between races?

NO

Not identifying the gene doesn't mean there isn't one. Did people not inherit eye color before the genes were identified?

The only place where I think there might actually be a genetic difference is with the Ashkenazi Jews--and that's likely due to evolutionary pressure due to how they have been persecuted.

However, in all other cases we simply don't have data. There clearly are genes related to intelligence, whether there is a racial variation in their distribution is unknown.

 

[untermensche]

Are there any known group differences in genes that determine cognitive abilities between races?

NO

Not identifying the gene doesn't mean there isn't one. Did people not inherit eye color before the genes were identified?

The only place where I think there might actually be a genetic difference is with the Ashkenazi Jews--and that's likely due to evolutionary pressure due to how they have been persecuted.

However, in all other cases we simply don't have data. There clearly are genes related to intelligence, whether there is a racial variation in their distribution is unknown.

Saying there are variations in genes that produce cognitive abilities is not evidence.

It may turn out that all humans share the same genes for cognitive abilities and all cognitive differences are due to environment and exposure, not genetics.

To talk about genes and their relation to cognitive abilities requires knowing the specific genes.

Please tell me about the specific genes that determine cognitive abilities.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The intelligence researcher Arthur Jensen claimed that the heritability of racial intelligence differences should be the "default hypothesis." Not that it is a dogma, but some claims follow much more easily from background knowledge than other claims, before the direct evidence is considered, and it helps decide who should have the preliminary burden of proof. The following image illustrates.

ApostateAbe,

Let's say that instead of talking about the brain, we're talking about the liver. Would you say that because there are genetic differences between the races in, say, skin color, and there are genetic differences between individuals in liver function, then there are differences in liver function?
It seems to me that that would be an unwarranted conclusion. There might or might not be some (genetic) differences in liver function. And there might or might not be some differences in brain function, at least if the only basis for the assessment is that there are some differences between races in some other stuff, and that there are differences between individuals (liver and brain might be relevantly different for other reasons, but you'd need a different argument).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not identifying the gene doesn't mean there isn't one. Did people not inherit eye color before the genes were identified?

The only place where I think there might actually be a genetic difference is with the Ashkenazi Jews--and that's likely due to evolutionary pressure due to how they have been persecuted.

However, in all other cases we simply don't have data. There clearly are genes related to intelligence, whether there is a racial variation in their distribution is unknown.

Saying there are variations in genes that produce cognitive abilities is not evidence.

It may turn out that all humans share the same genes for cognitive abilities and all cognitive differences are due to environment and exposure, not genetics.

To talk about genes and their relation to cognitive abilities requires knowing the specific genes.

Please tell me about the specific genes that determine cognitive abilities.

The heritability shows there is a genetic effect.

 

[untermensche]

Saying there are variations in genes that produce cognitive abilities is not evidence.

It may turn out that all humans share the same genes for cognitive abilities and all cognitive differences are due to environment and exposure, not genetics.

To talk about genes and their relation to cognitive abilities requires knowing the specific genes.

Please tell me about the specific genes that determine cognitive abilities.

The heritability shows there is a genetic effect.

Nonsense.

People have children with higher or lower IQ's than themselves all the time.

If the child has a similar IQ it is because of environmental, not genetic factors.

And no child is a copy of either parent. A child is a mish-mash of random genetic information from both parents.