DNA, Race, and Intelligence in The New York Times

DNA, Race, and Intelligence in The New York Times

by Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei
Posted November 11, 2007 in DNA in General

Much excitement over at Gene Expression today over a New York Times article by Amy Harmon looking at genetic differences between races – In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice.

Jason Malloy was quoted with respect to his defense of James Watson’s comments about blacks last month. He writes of the NY Times article:

Nothing quite like this article has ever really appeared in the press. The underlying message is that the biological information environment is changing rapidly and if we don’t start opening up the tightly monitored public forum for it right now, we are endangering our ability to handle its potential revelations with any sort of real preparedness or rationality. We, as a civilization, can’t just keep silencing and punishing everyone who broaches these topics in a way that challenges our hopes and visions about human equality. The result is to shut down the discussion completely and disarm ourselves to ideas that are most likely – to some degree – correct.

Sure, I’d like to talk but how do I and everybody else go about becoming better educated on the issue first? The average person likely assumes that genes don’t play a huge role in differences between individuals simply because we’re constantly being told that our DNA is more than 99% the same. So what does it mean when we’re told that there are significant genetic differences between races and that these differences influence our physical appearance, susceptibility to disease, intelligence, etc.?

student & globeHere’s what I can say about the influence of genetics on intelligence and performance in everyday life – I don’t even think about it. Last week, one of the mothers at my son’s UK school, who’s from Afghanistan and doesn’t speak English well, asked me to explain one of the kids’ homework problems to her. She said neither she nor her husband could figure out what the teacher was asking for so her son wasn’t going to be turning in his homework on time. Do you think genetics figures into this situation much?

Maybe on a big picture level but day-to-day, children’s success today and in the future comes down to having parents who are fluent (or at least semi-fluent) in the local language and organized enough to plan ahead so that they’d know if they had a question about the homework and anything else that’s going on in school. There is no doubt that my son has an advantage when it comes to having motivated parents

What’s important to remember in the discussion about genetics and intelligence is that our genes carry us a certain distance but our environment–the people we come into contact with and the resources that are available to us–is also critically important in determining our future. A person with Albert Einstein’s genes born and raised by Bushmen is going to be very different than his twin born and raised in 21st century Manhattan. Transforming the infrastructure in African countries into a replica of the United States’ will improve people’s living conditions dramatically but there will still be unique differences brought about by differences in the citizens and the locale. It’s actually a relief to think that no matter how many McDonald’s and Starbucks pepper the globe, each place and its people retain their own identity. People are different from one another, but not always in a bad way.

HT: Renata McGriff of CareTALK

Tags: , , , , , , ,

(59 comments)


goldfade-divider-custom.gif

Related Posts:
Eye on DNA Headlines for 13 November 2007...
DNAWitness Bio-Geographical Ancestry DNA Test for Fighting Crime...
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) Nears Unanimous Consent Passage in U.S. Senate...
Eye on DNA Headlines for 8 November 2007...
New York To Collect More DNA for State Database...
Putting Your DNA To Use In Bad Economic Times...
Crazy Genetic Marketing Ideas...

RSS feed

59 Comments

Comment by Scott Subscribed to comments via email

Sorry, but as someone who works in Africa, this view is just a little too Panglossian for my taste. Gene Expression and its writers have historically been hostile to Africans and people of African descent, and it’s not only that good-ole-’liberal’ Jason Malloy who’s happy about this NYT article: the out-and-out racists, like Steve Sailer, are absolutely ecstatic.

Do you actually believe that, were Africans proven to have an IQ of 70, there’d be _any interest whatsoever_ in transforming the continent’s infrastructure into a replica of that of the United States? Get real. At this point, the only interest that Africa holds for the west is as a source of natural resources, and there’s rapidly diminishing commitment to any kind of aid, infrastructural or otherwise, to the place.

Dissemination of this kind of belief would merely make justifying another bout of neo-colonialism and resource-extraction a little easier. What folks like Malloy et al are trying to do is trying to resurrect the old Great Chain of Being, with Africans firmly positioned on the lower rungs. Besides filling whatever obscure psychological impulse lies behind such race-baiting, this will serve to further damage the case that Africans have for Western aid.

The most frustrating part of this is that the data do not actually support these beliefs. The IQ data from the continent is of terrible quality, such Malloy in his defence of James Watson was forced to resort to measures of schooling to shore up his conclusions. (A hint: African schools for the most part do not do a good job of teaching their students: if Malloy had ever been in one, he might have realised that.) But in this gene-crazy age, any explanation that invokes genetics and biology will automatically be privileged over one that invokes environmental effects, even at the New York Times.

Scott, Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You have a special perspective given your time in Africa. As I emphasized in my post, environment is critically important. I realize that my example of transforming African infrastructure is totally unrealistic but I don’t think we can argue that African countries need to be modernized so that its citizens get the clean water, food, healthcare, peace, etc. that they deserve. It is only then that children in Africa can begin to concentrate on anything more than surviving day to day.

I agree that genetic influences and constraints on a person’s potential is frequently overhyped especially coming from the vantage point of privileged people like me who think mostly of us and ourselves. Again, as I said in my post, genes don’t figure into basic living conditions and day-to-day living. A person of average intelligence deserves to live just as comfortably and happily as a person with an IQ of 120 and and same goes for a person of any IQ. So the idea that racists can employ IQ as a reason for continuing to oppress or ignore people with supposedly lower IQ is abhorrent. After all, the IQ cut-off that distinguishes between us and them can be changed at anytime, making some of us into them.

I know the history of the guys at Gene Expression and their affiliations. I may not agree with them on everything but the one thing I agree with is the need for discussion and debate. I know I learned a lot just from your one comment! Thanks again.

Comment by renata mcgriff Subscribed to comments via email

Bring Africans, African-Americans, etc. INTO the discourse. We also have opinions about the so-called “intelligence” of others, though knowing how damaging and distorted elevating oneself at the expense of the limitations of others can be — we have thus far remained SILENT — until now.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 

And for anyone who is wondering, here’s the definition for panglossian (I had to look it up):

characterized by or given to extreme optimism, esp. in the face of unrelieved hardship or adversity

I admit to being an optimist but try not to have my head in the sand all the time. :P

Comment by Daniel

Pangloss is the main character in the ol’ french novel by Voltaire called Candide. Pangloss was a Dr. actually. He was extremely optimistic, going on and on about the “best of all possible worlds,” despite his declining health due to chlamydia and other STDs.

 
 

[...] Smith of Slate included some of my comments in a round-up of blogs discussing the Sunday New York Times article regarding genetics, race, and [...]

 
Comment by Keith Subscribed to comments via email

One only has to look at New Orleans to see what happens when Africans are given a first world infrastructure. They did not bother updating or improving it over the years and it collapsed when stressed one day. This is why I share James Watson’s lament about the futility of trying to improve Africa.

Whoa, Keith. I don’t know whether to delete you or smack you. According to the US Census, blacks made-up just over 67% of the New Orleans population. I would say the blame lies with many people of various ethnicities and races, and probably includes the man at the top sitting in the Oval Office.

 
 
Comment by Scott

Leave it on. He’s a wonderful illustration of the entrenched attitudes toward Africans and African-Americans that underlie much of this debate. That post lies toward one end of a spectrum of assumptions about people of African descent that we find cropping up again and again in debates about race and genetics.

The other end of that spectrum – and perhaps the most insidious one – involves an unwillingness to learn anything about Africans and African-Americans, and a quiet assumption that there is nothing interesting to learn about that particular portion of humanity. We see those assumptions at work in, for example, Bruce Lahn’s papers on the distribution of microcephalin and ASPM variants, where one of the underlying _assumptions_ is that there’s a lack of cultural progress to be explained in Africa, and genetic results are deployed for that explanation – even if the genetic data don’t actually support that assumption. (They do not, in the microcephalin/ASPM case.)

Lahn made that assumption in his original archaeological speculations in the two 2005 Science papers, and they were repeated credulously and breathlessly by science writers. The ‘nice racism’ of the bloggers
quoted by Amy Harmon in her NYT article generally is of this variety: a built-in, bone-headed assumption that all explanations for human variability must be genetic, and a corresponding moral blindness about the ways in which such intellectual models have been used in the past.

Leave the post up: it’s a good reminder that the other form of racism still exists, that the squeaky-clean, blogger-driven, yuppified racism of the early 21st century isn’t the only variety around.

Comment by renata mcgriff Subscribed to comments via email

As an African-American and proud descendent of slaves from Alabama and Virginia, I will be a fully engaged participant in this 21st Century drama — and latest attempt of (fearful) groups to prove (to themselves) they are superior. Only the insecure (in their own position and beliefs of superiority) need impose blanket diminishment of others based upon genetic criteria. I am not a scientist — but a marketer. I would say, from my vantage point, Jazz and its derrvative — Rock and Roll — and the worldwide CULTURAL attraction clearly demonstrate more originality than enslaving and commoditizing human beings (buttressed by scientists of earlier centuries and their religious compadres) represents. If GREED equals intelligence, I concede the argument here and now. Why the fixation/obsession w/Africans/African-Americans, who have SURVIVED legal and institutionalized slavery, legally enforced Apartheid and Segregation — and made quality lives and contributed (original/innovative) some say GENIUS — Jazz from our own distinctive culture(s). I would like to see some of these racist scientists match Louis Armstrong’s GENIUS, on HIS terms. They would look very unintelligent, indeed. Perhaps, in a non-hyper capitalistic driven world, where commoditizing human beings doesn’t underwrite economics of Nations, intelligence might look quite different. Perhaps, if the “superior” races didn’t stack the deck by institutionalizing methods to elevate themselves (legacies at universities, to name one) at the expense of others — we would REALLY see what intelligence is…or not. Gov. George Wallace yelling SEGREGATION NOW, SEGREGATION FOREVER…and the South held America back from its promise and remains a blot on our collective humanity. It also speaks to his underlying FEAR that African-Americans may not be as unintelligent as is widely socialized and believed. Ditto, South Africa. Why impose Segregation and Apartheid on an “unintelligent” people — if they are so..unintelligent? Now, that’s a question to ponder…. Creating tests that skew toward the abilities and institutionalized preferential treatment of one group — to “prove” the limitations of groups not benefiting in the same manner — and using those tests to “prove” superiority — is more of the same. I say this with 21st Century bemusement and a determination I am sure my great-grandparents had when they were likewise challenged during American slavery and Segregation. Is there a gene for COURAGE???

 
 
Comment by Jason Malloy

First of all I’d like to point out that vicious personal attacks like this:

. What folks like Malloy et al are trying to do is trying to resurrect the old Great Chain of Being, with Africans firmly positioned on the lower rungs.

Are not only unsupported (and completely false) but are intentionally designed to poison the debate, and replace facts with insults. It isn’t helpful, and it’s ugly.

The IQ data from the continent [Africa] is of terrible quality, such Malloy in his defence of James Watson was forced to resort to measures of schooling to shore up his conclusions

This is incorrect. There are no conceptual or internal test features which differentiate the international assessment tests from the IQ tests. As I showed in my Watson post they are measuring the same construct. (correlation of results = .98)

When you examine the written tests more specifically, the African scores are not the result of some test artifact like a floor effect; item analysis and other measurement checks show the tests lack internal bias.

As I also showed in my post the tests are equally predictive of outcomes within and between African countries as they are in the West.

So the statement that the tests are poor quality are just assertions, and are contradicted by the data. The tests are not biased in the way that psychometricians use this term. It is important to familiarize yourself with how psychometricians actually evaluate test quality before you make assertions about matters like that. Intuition doesn’t cut it, testing is a science.

African schools for the most part do not do a good job of teaching their students: if Malloy had ever been in one, he might have realised that

I have read a number of papers on African schools. If the point here is to imply that poor quality schools invalidate the IQ measures, then this is incorrect; regardless of why the IQs are low, they reflect genuine skill deficits which predict important outcomes of interest.

If the point was I shouldn’t jump to any genetic conclusions for reasons such as poor schools, then my argument is being underestimated. I’m not basing such thinking on one data point, but on the way diverse kinds of evidence converge and more convincingly point in a certain direction.

This is why the media – far from being biased towards genetic explanations for racial gaps – systematically promotes factually incorrect statements about ethnic test score gaps to promote ideological environmental theories. For instance that gaps are explained by variables like income, parents, peers, stereotypes, schooling, or test bias. Meanwhile genetic theories are consistently omitted or are raised only to be mooted with factually incorrect criticisms (e.g. “Race does not exist” and has nothing to do with genetics). It is also why personal attacks are so typically used as a cheap substitute for informed and supported factual criticism.

These extraordinary handicaps are necessary only because no existing or plausible theories about the environment have made successful predictions, while genetics makes a number of successful predictions. (e.g. transracial adoption, cross-cultural consistency and specificity)

 
Comment by Scott Subscribed to comments via email

> It isn’t helpful, and it’s ugly.

Sorry, but from my perspective that’s not where the ugliness in this debate lies. One would expect that, given what’s at stake, proponents of the belief that Africans are an inferior grade of humanity – see below – would approach the topic with a good deal of moral seriousness, and a willingness to carefully entertain a whole variety of different explanations for, for example, African IQ test score results. Instead, what we see at Gene Expression and similar sites is a kind of adolescent eugenical glee, with genetic and biological explanations and African inferiority accepted a priori, _simply because it’s edgy_, and all objections dismissed as stodgy and ‘politically correct’*. There’s often a pro forma statement by you and yours that you used to be liberals on race issues but have since gotten better, but no evidence that you’ve ever _seriously_ evaluated alternative, confounding factors in these debates.

And there’s no doubt that the ultimate outcome here is to establish Africans and their descendants as an inferior grade of humanity… let’s not have any of that nonsense about how IQ doesn’t matter and _this time_ we can make ’separate but equal’ work. Look at how Lynn’s IQ test results were immediately take by one of his collaborators, Philippe Rushton, and used to buttress a completely nonsensical evolutionary model that depicted Africans as not merely unintelligent, but also violent, criminal, impulsive, promiscuous and selfish. Look at the model that Lynn and Vanhanen have established in _IQ and the wealth of nations_ – one that naturalises the present state of affairs in poor areas and poor countries, making such circumstances a matter of biology and thus more or less unamenable to any sort of amelioration.

This is especially the case in Africa, where IQ test score results are lowest and where people and institutions are poorest… two circumstances that I’d argue are linked, but not in the way that you assume. These data are already being used in arguments that aid of any sort to Africa should be cut, as it merely involves throwing good money after bad. Such arguments – to which you contribute directly, through your defence of Watson’s vapourings – have real consequences, in measures of populational health, disease burdens, social conflict.

Continuing high infant mortality rates, and dead children, are ugly. Having mean things said about you in a blog comment, not so much.

(*That term ‘h-bd realism’ that gets bandied about is illustrative. This goes back to the Human Biodiversity mailing list that Steve Sailer used to maintain seven or eight years ago, on which the Great and the Good of modern racial science – Lynn, Brand, Rushton, Murray, Miller, Whitney and so on – used to complain about the problems with the Lesser Breeds. Now Sailer has gone on more explicitly to immigration restriction and white nationalism at VDare.com [but he _loved_ your defense of Watson], and ‘race realism’ is a little too blunt, so the denizens of Gene Expression have found a nice, discreet substitute.)

> There are no conceptual or internal test features > which differentiate the international assessment
> tests from the IQ tests.

Do you have any idea of the circumstances in which IQ testing was done through the African continent, or for that matter of Richard Lynn’s history with these tests? Have you, for example, gone back and looked at the original papers in which these test results are reported? You will find, time and time again, testing done on small and unrepresentative samples, in cases where testing was taking place in languages in which the testees (often young students) were only marginally familiar, and in which their familiarity with test-taking procedures is poor – besides all of the issues of academic preparation and environments that this implies. (Even in the Rindermann 2007 article that functioned so prominently in your defence of Watson [in fact primarily a defence of Richard Lynn], resort to TIMSS and related test was undertaken in large part because of the weakness of the comparative IQ data [pp. 671-672]!)

What you will see, in a significant number of cases, is test administrators who are more honest than Lynn and Vanhanen, warning about the limitations of their testing environments and advising that the test results should not be accepted as is. This is, for example, the case with the Owen 1989 study of South African students, which Lynn once proclaimed as the “…best single study of the Negroid intelligence.” That claim was quietly dropped, once a sufficient number of people went back and noted that Owen (1989: 60, 62-68) warned that African testees were having language difficulties with the test environments, and did not himself assign IQ scores to the results. Similarly in the Ethiopian case (Kaniel and Fisherman 1991), IQ test results are drawn from an entirely unrepresentative Beit Yisrael/Falasha immigrant population _in Israel_, and the original researchers do not think the test results representative of the groups involved. Those are two examples of the quality of the IQ data that you so enthusiastically deploy to support Watson’s claims about the unintelligence of Africans.

>The tests are not biased in the way that >psychometricians use this term.

Right. Merely in a way that the rest of humanity uses the term.

>I have read a number of papers on African schools. > If the point here is to imply that
> poor quality schools invalidate the IQ measures, then this is incorrect; … I’m not
> basing such thinking on one data point, but on the way diverse kinds of evidence
> converge and more convincingly point in a certain direction.

I was referring to the TIMSS and related data used by Rindermann (2007). You cannot simply make the assumption that a 6th-grade-equivalent student in rural Ghana or Cameroon, for example – both countries that I have worked in – is getting the same education as a 6th-grade-equivalent student in Finland or Canada. And diverse kinds of evidence _do_ point to a certain direction: the extraordinarily non-privileged regimes within which African students take tests, regimes directly associated with poverty and severely underdeveloped educational infrastructures. Actual experience on the continent, however, does _not_ lead to the belief that Africans are on average severely mentally deficient, despite your waffling in the Watson defence about how such deficiency would manifest in population terms.

> Meanwhile genetic theories are consistently omitted or are raised only to be
> mooted with factually incorrect criticisms (e.g. “Race does not exist” and has
> nothing to do with genetics).

Then you need to actually read some substantial criticism. You also need to note that claims like “race does not exist” are quite correct in the context of race-concepts used popularly in America and elsewhere through most of the 20th century. Most of the recent claims that “race exists!” are actually claims that there is structure in the biological variability between human populations – which is unexceptionable, but very far from a claim that human evolutionary units on the subspecies level exist.

So, here’s a rather different criticism of the IQ tests done in Africa. If one accepts that those IQ tests are accurate reflections of average intellectual potentials in African populations, and that these potentials have existed over evolutionarily-significant time-scales (as for example Lynn and Rushton claim), then we would expect that such relatively low intellectual potentials would manifest themselves in a corresponding level of cultural advance, correct. After all, average IQ=70 is a pretty significant level of intellectual deficit: that should manifest itself one way or another. So why are the archaeological and palaeoanthropological records from Africa entirely comparable to those from putatively-more-intelligent parts of the world, over the entire period of modern human occupation of the Earth? Why do we have no continental differences in cultural advance between Africa and other continents?

Charles Murray, of _Bell Curve_ fame, once noted on h-bd that the low IQ test results from Africa were actually a _challenge_ to claims of cross-cultural reliability of such testing, not a substantiation of that testing. Shame he’s never had the guts to say that on a non-closed list….

Comment by renata mcgriff Subscribed to comments via email

I was “fortunate” enough to have been sent to a Catholic boarding school circa late 50s and early 60s, at the age of 9 years old through graduation from H.S. The school was based in Bucks County, PA on a former banking family estate. I graduated from H.S. Valedictorian. However, for (literally) ten mos. of the year, while receiving a superb education, it was reinforced that 1. I was different; 2. I was “fortunate” to be away from Harlem; 3. the nuns were doing me a FAVOR; 4. the superiority of Caucasians as the master race of history and justified in the actions they took in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Australia, etc. — and how fortunate I was to NOT live in Africa at this time. There wasn’t a minute of my young life where the nuns didn’t remind me I was different, less and “fortunate.” When will Caucasians STOP relentlessly trying to make this subjective case with their justifications, their tests based upon their value propsitions and skewed to their socialized, European-centric values? Now, I received an excellent education — but at a high price. What it taught me is the FEAR some people have and the extent they will go to either 1. erradicate those unlike themselves (Holocaust?); 2. how important the established pecking order is to maintaining this surreal value system(s) (legacies?); 3. how to be strong in the face of propaganda meant to ensure I would know my place within this pecking order — even if it meant amazing cruelty toward children. There is such a thing as EQ — totally absent from this discourse –and, as a marketer I can tell you becomming VERY valuable indeed. May I live long to see emotional quotient equal IQ — and the scientists, engineers, mathmeticians who have NONE, be subjected to vigorous (re)assessment. Mothers have high EQ, but throughout history been demeaned because of it. My people, though slaves, cared for and still do — the children of our captors/Caucasians. EQ is what Gandhi and MLK had, in spades. India would have exploded/imploded without it. Ditto, the United States. How does one measure EQ? The nuns who taught me and their ilk, sent in to destroy the self-esteem and teach inaccurate histories of indigenous peoples, while celebrating St. Patrick’s Day and Columbus Day — had none. What kind of “intelligence” did it take to survive, thrive my “fortunate” upbringing – while enduring systematic erosion of everything I am, my people were/are — and maintain empathy for the “master race” STILL reduced to such cruelty, and make a productive life? Questions to ponder….

 
 
Comment by KB

Which Africans are they talking about? While there are genetic differences between races, there are also more than one “type” of black person (haplotypes). Africans are the oldest humans on earth and are therefore the most diverse. Is there any study which shows differences within the continent?

I guess as black people we have moved up from being 3/5 human to 99.99% human. So much for progress.

I suggest the public start reading about Marcus Garvey. Read about the “Black Star Liner”.

 
Comment by fsfsdfd Subscribed to comments via email

Excellent points Scott, but didn’t Malloy’s post say that the TIMSS data and other sets from Rindermann were technically IQ tests? Rindermann threw up more problems with the data in there, but he seems rather… revoltingly politicized with how he treated all the educational problems in SS africa as reflective of the population being mentally retarded, and this gem:

“and many reports of everyday behaviour from officials, traders, journalists, ethnologists and other scientists in 19th century to this day… ”

Yes, yes, because we all know those pre-modern journalists and the like who traveled throughout SS africa saw mass destitution and a profound poverty of development wherever they went. Jesus, how can a credible psychologist go off spewing bile like this?

 
Comment by Jason Malloy

Scott, again, your moral indignation is not a substitute for knowledge about psychometric testing.

These are empirical matters, and you just can’t argue with me on this topic in any meaningful way while being so uninformed about the issues under discussion.

You will find, time and time again, testing done on small and unrepresentative samples, in cases where testing was taking place in languages in which the testees (often young students) were only marginally familiar, and in which their familiarity with test-taking procedures is poor

Like I said in my post, the scores are just as low in the large, representative samples. When researchers look at how the subjects are answering the test items it does not support that they simply don’t know how to take tests. There are many ways to get a question wrong, and they are getting the questions wrong in predictable ways. When the SSA subjects are tested on nonverbal measures which are instructed in their language, the scores are not appreciably higher. When you test SSA subjects who only speak the written test language at home, the scores are not appreciably higher. When you test SSA subjects on elementary cognitive tasks, which take less than a second to complete (e.g. how quickly you can react to a light on a console), the scores are not appreciably higher.

Even in the Rindermann 2007 article that functioned so prominently in your defence of Watson … resort to TIMSS and related test was undertaken in large part because of the weakness of the comparative IQ data

It isn’t “resorting to” anything, TIMSS is a well conducted international IQ test! This is extremely inconvenient to your arguments, I realize this, so I fully understand why you are trying to gloss over the results from these tests. They show the same exact results as all the other testing references.

You cannot simply make the assumption that a 6th-grade-equivalent student in rural Ghana or Cameroon, for example – both countries that I have worked in – is getting the same education as a 6th-grade-equivalent student in Finland or Canada.

I don’t assume this in any way. Since the best predictor of quality of teaching is the IQ scores of the teachers themselves, it is pretty much axiomatic that the SS African schools are far, far worse than schools you find in Canada and Finland.

I’m a little puzzled (and amused) at the irony in you repeatedly claiming that I believe Africans are “inferior” because I report that they have lower IQ scores. I do not believe this, any more than you believe they are “inferior” because you are saying they have lower quality schools or live in poverty. All of these things are facts, and there is nothing inherent in any of these facts that tell us how to feel about the people themselves. Denying that Africans have low IQ scores will not help Africans anymore than denying that Africans live in poverty will help Africans. In fact both denials greatly reduces our ability to engage problems as they are and work to ameliorate the conditions of this region.

Most of the recent claims that “race exists!” are actually claims that there is structure in the biological variability between human populations – which is unexceptionable, but very far from a claim that human evolutionary units on the subspecies level exist.

I don’t really accept that variation below the species level is better described with a category “subspecies” that means anything substantively different than ‘race’ or ‘population’. Words like ‘demes’, ‘populations’, ‘races’, ‘lineages’, and ’subspecies’ can’t help but to mean the same thing: a selected convenience grouping of phylogenetically related individuals below the species level.

If you are trying to argue that human races are not as genetically differentiated as other animals, you are incorrect. From a quantitative standpoint human races are averagely to highly genetically differentiated in comparison with other widely dispersed mammals.

then we would expect that such relatively low intellectual potentials would manifest themselves in a corresponding level of cultural advance, correct. After all, average IQ=70 is a pretty significant level of intellectual deficit: that should manifest itself one way or another. So why are the archaeological and palaeoanthropological records from Africa entirely comparable to those from putatively-more-intelligent parts of the world, over the entire period of modern human occupation of the Earth?

You are asking if the historical record is consistent with a lower IQ in Sub-Saharan Africa than other parts of the world? The one attempt I’ve seen to actually quantify this question, measuring the sophistication of technology in each world region beginning in 1000 B.C. until today, found that it pretty much is. Sub-Saharan African populations have consistently trailed Europe and Asia, on average, in technological development for at least 3000 years.

I see no reason to travel back any further since the intelligence difference could have feasibly evolved even in the last 1000 years.

More to the point many factors influence history, regional power, and economic development, and this is as true today as it was in the past, so I am not thrilled about any mono-causal IQ ‘theory of history’, nor do I believe viewpoints about genetic differences in traits like intelligence in any way need to be predicated on such a curious idea.

In closing, until people who are convinced that nongenetic theories are the only reputable or meritorious way to understand these issues can offer me any serious theories for why children of African descent adopted into high income white households score so much lower on intelligence tests than their mulatto, Asian, and white adopted siblings, I see no reason to take their bombastic religious rhetoric seriously.

The evidence is more consistent with my viewpoint than it is yours, which is why it is much easier for me to present data, and it is much easier for you to call names.

Comment by fsfsdfd Subscribed to comments via email

“You are asking if the historical record is consistent with a lower IQ in Sub-Saharan Africa than other parts of the world? The one attempt I’ve seen to actually quantify this question, measuring the sophistication of technology in each world region beginning in 1000 B.C. until today, found that it pretty much is. Sub-Saharan African populations have consistently trailed Europe and Asia, on average, in technological development for at least 3000 years.

I see no reason to travel back any further since the intelligence difference could have feasibly evolved even in the last 1000 years.”

Yes Malloy, SS africa has always been a profound technological backwater. The Benin empire didn’t exist. Nor the Yoruba city-states. Or the Mali, Songhai, and Ghana empires, or the kanem-bornu empire, or Hausaland, or the Ashanti confederacy, or just the huge array of the afro-islamic states in general. And then there’s Nubia, and the Swahili states, and Ethiopia/Axum. No, they’re all just afrocentric propaganda. We all know East Asia and Europe have always been the same too.

Hell, we also know that the ice age somehow created a difference of 30-38 points between eurasians and SS africans, along with a huge slew of other behavioral, biochemical, and physical differences. And that these have been the sole detriment of every single human historical variable and factor. Oh, and they’ve remained completely unchanged too.

Well wait, no, I’m just parroting what you and many like you believe. That’s what Rushton and Lynn’s work is saying, right? You’ve always seemed to a huge fan of them. Well Malloy, I’m very, very sorry to say that there’s more to sub-saharan african history than the hilarious caricature Rushton painted in his book, which he believed served as the backbone of the 3-way hierarchy being seen throughout history. There’s plenty of real, credible historical work to back this up. It’s not hard to find. So I’m kind of amazed how you can say something that hilariously ignorant.

As for that paper, exactly what is that saying? I, unfortunately, don’t have time to read it now, but are you seriously using that to buttress your thesis about history being so deterministic? Um, yeah, that form of anthropology has been considered a fringe view since the mid 20th century. Unless you’re really out to prove that? The idea that races are just hardwired for failure and success?

I even made a little post about this on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race%2C_Evolution%2C_and_Behavior#Other_criticisms

Now I wonder if the race realist community will cover this?

But wait:

“More to the point many factors influence history, regional power, and economic development, and this is as true today as it was in the past, so I am not thrilled about any mono-causal IQ ‘theory of history’, nor do I believe viewpoints about genetic differences in traits like intelligence in any way need to be predicated on such a curious idea.”

Well yeah Malloy, it’s pretty obvious that those things are dependent on far more than genetics. Of course, your ideology would collapse if you honestly went with that. Racialism, race realism, whatever is basically dependent on a blinding ignorance of anything non-genetic. makes all sorts of arbitrary
decisions about what values to ascribe to social traits that CURRENTLY are posessed by select populations. It doesn’t take past traits into consideration, or take a realistic measure about the nature of social behaviour. IE, you basically just take a glance at what people are doing worldwide right now, these little snapshots, and conclude they’ve ALWAYS been that way, and that state is largely, if not wholly genetic. Economic collapse in Nigeria? Oh, must be because they’re retarded. East Asia doing fine? Smart orientals again, nothing else. You know those things are driven along by much more than just genes. Change just one little variable, and downstream, the culture, the people, the society etc. change drastically.

“In closing, until people who are convinced that nongenetic theories are the only reputable or meritorious way to understand these issues can offer me any serious theories for why children of African descent adopted into high income white households score so much lower on intelligence tests than their mulatto, Asian, and white adopted siblings, I see no reason to take their bombastic religious rhetoric seriously.”

Alright Malloy, I’ll come out- this is Dresidian here. You know, the same person you decided to ban for a year from your blog because I said “s**t”, acted somewhat abrasively, and misread your posts. I really do love how you told me in those email exchanges how Lynn whole-heartedly believed the real african IQ was 80 after correcting for all those transient environmental variables (though I think that’s still too low), yet now you’re here pushing them off as being retarded again. And then, you even had the gall to wave off those african immigrants in the US as being SOMEHOW purely reflective of those on the top of the populations of retards. Jesus.

As for the minnesota twin study, remember that tidbit I mentioned on how the study is completely invalid because it was looking at home environment, which is now understood to typically exert little effect on IQ? Let’s also not forget how nearly all of the low IQ whites in the sample dropped out before it was completed, and how most of the black adoptees has significantly more difficult pre-placement histories. The IQ’s of the parents wern’t even tested. I mean, were the IQ’s of the adoptees even tested before they went on adoption? Because all I’ve seen were the scores shortly after they were adopted, and then their scores at 17. The vast majority of twin studies show average heritabilities of 50:50, so I’m not sure why you’d need to wave this study around- even if accurate, it’s still a very small sample size- as being so integral to your worldview.

“I’m a little puzzled (and amused) at the irony in you repeatedly claiming that I believe Africans are “inferior” because I report that they have lower IQ scores. I do not believe this, any more than you believe they are “inferior” because you are saying they have lower quality schools or live in poverty. All of these things are facts, and there is nothing inherent in any of these facts that tell us how to feel about the people themselves. ”

What’s this relativistic garbage? High intelligence obviously is a better, more desirable trait than low intelligence, so you could definately call it “superior”. Of course, I don’t think you could really make true labels of “inferiority” and “superiority” if you believed these differences to be innate, but since you’re a heredtiarian, well, I guess you do think africans are inferior. Kind of like Sailer and other racialists trying to sidestep being called racial supremacists because they can admit blacks are better at running, jumping, dancing, and stand-up comedy. Jesus. That really does compare to being able to build advanced civilization, doesn’t it?

“In fact both denials greatly reduces our ability to engage problems as they are and work to ameliorate the conditions of this region.”

Sure. If africans really are mentally retarded, then so be it. But we’re talking about… Africa here. Sub-saharan africa. A place of well over half a million people. How many substantial populations in the world have an average IQ fixed at the mentally retarded range? Beyond just a handful of aboriginal and khoisan tribes here and there? The thing here is that it’s completely INSANE. There’s so much in african history, so many highly intelligent and prosperous people to come out of it, so much that you can just realize by a hilariously cursory glance at it all to realize his surreal it is. A continent of retards. That’s what you believe. The way you hold so hard to it doesn’t say much about the ideal of meritocracy and political you people seem to worship, to act as if it’s the only thing important in this debate. It suggests something kind of deranged. I mean hell, it’s kind of hard to hide any real feelings of malicious intent throughout GNXP’s history. The way you all typically seem to slather at the idea of modern genetics “proving you right”, acting almost gleefuly at the idea of human nature being so fragmented, tearing at people’s senses of humanity, and the various pieces of anti-black bile you’ve published over the years, like that one venemous screed Godless wrote about 3 years back on South Africa. Yet, you claim to despise people like racial nationalists and supremacists, have banned them and permitted them from your boards, even though your tone on the topic of the nature-nurture debate differs barely at all.

I’m not even going to go into the almost fetishistic delight you went at a couple of years ago at Lahn’s work, as insane as the idea of that mechanism was to begin with.

You’re not fooling very many people.

Comment by DC

Economic collapse in Nigeria? Oh, must be because they’re retarded. East Asia doing fine? Smart orientals again, nothing else.”

Yeah, it’s just like that. The Great Depression was caused by a nearly worldwide inbreeding depression. The “baby boom” was caused by some large-scale random coincidence activating black genes for hornyness that are somewhat distributed even in the white population, but usually silent due to white decency-genes; or perhaps, by some virus has copied the black gene for hornyness and it spread quicker, so there’s no need to invoke the idea of miscegenation and the genetic coincidence, which perhaps would be insufficient. Somewhat like the gay-germ-theory, or toxoplasmosis.

This idea of viruses stealing black genes and spreading black behavior outside the black population boundaries may explain all the atrocities, crimes, dumbness and indecency committed by pure white breeds. So, despite certain nose shapes revealing character or absence thereof, there’s the noise added by genes spread virally.

Perhaps the nazi holocaust was the black gene’s fault after all, aided with european high-intelligence genes. Then you get combined the genes that determine the individual invention of mass production (probably Henry Ford being the first mutant) and genes for wild, violent and indecent behavior. The sad result were the gas chambers.

This should warn us of the dangers of miscigenation. Different from short-term viral epidemics, it would have phyletically lasting effects. The first generation hybrids are not as terrible since much of the european intelligence is dilluted with african dumbness, but as genes segregate independently eventually we will face genotypes that unite the qualities of immorality and intelligence that brought us the nazis, or even worse.

And they may well look just like white people, like James Watson does, despite of a large amount of black genes, so we would not have the aid of physiognomy to help us seeing who is good and who is not (just like when there are viruses). A dark future may come if we don’t use some terminator-like techonology to induce speciation between blacks and whites.

In the other hand, besides not nearly compensating such danger, perhaps anytime a black person is doing something good, it has something to do with a vius that stole white people’s good genes. The same thing could be applied to asians, so we don’t need to invoke Galton’s idea that the asian civilization was founded by white people. Their genes could have travelled through viruses. That’s something that lends strong support to Diamond’s “guns, germs and steel” idea, make it suddenly appears much more feasible. After all, there are genes.

So the African Question puts us in a dilemma.

Perhaps a genetical aid program, with sperm donation from gifted whites to the African continent could eventually bring enough intelligence to the continent so it will prosper by itself. Just imagine how many Bill Gates, Donald Trump and other generically-gifted folks like them could do for Africa with just a daily wack-off or having sex with condoms! Of course their first generation of mixed children wouldn’t be as smart and rich as if they had children with white women, but eventually the copies of the genes will eventually meet again in single individuals, adding up intelligence. Eventually, only black skin and maybe other harmless features of african populations would remain.

The sperm donation of gifted individuals could bring to Africa such a development rate unseen in the whole history, as usually the natural rate of substitution of genes is far more slow than what would be possible with sperm donation (and viral causes for development don’t last much – probably dumbness viruses have some intrinsic advantage over intelligence viruses in the same niche, and the effect is similar to that of the decreasing virullency of epidemics with time). It’s way much cheaper than any sort of aid with infrastructure and other non-genetic meaningless things like education, and far more effective, longlasting than things like education, as the genes are passed on to the next generation, but the education goes down to zero again.

But that solution has the potential problem I foresaw earlier, multiplied ten-fold by the quality of the genes of theses white-gene donors I imagined. If Germany almost alone did all that harm even after a recession following the First War (a black dumbness virus?), the menace of a whole continent with the genes for such richness and evil is something that the world hasn’t yet seen and probably no one is capable of imagining. Such evil and intelligence combined isn’t present in anyone’s genes, so it’s literally beyond the abilities of any present day human being to grasp what could really mean. All that we can know is that it would be the worst menace whit– humankind ever faced, and possible the one that could lead us all to extinction.

So that isn’t going to be the sort of Final Solution we’d want… as we’re civilized, we can’t really suggest something like the other Final Solution – the one that was brought by the combination of black cruelty and white intelligence genes. We need something more human. The terminator-like technology to induce biological speciation would be the best solution, I think. To kill all black people would be unethical, just like extincting some monkey species. Perhaps if we let them alone in Africa, they would eventually biologically evolve in something like white people, but passing by the natural stages of intelligence development, without the dangerous simultaneity of evil and intelligence that haunts us with nonsegregation and miscegeneation.

Yeah, I know, Godwin’s law and all that. But I think it was funny anyway. Don’t take it too seriously. I think that it’s perfectly possible that some people consider other races genetically/inherently inferior in some abilities but at the same time aren’t nazioids. Somewhat like “biological egalitarians” (or something that sounds less strawmanesque) often acknowledge that there are real “proximal” differencies, but that these don’t imply in ultimate genetic causations or less rights for these people or anything. I don’t know in which place most “racial ‘realist’” people stand, anyway.

I recall one of the silliest “arguments” against the “skin deep” assertion was to show pictures of african albinos, showing that they don’t have exactly the same patterns of facial features of european people in general. As if “skin deep” was supposed to be taken so literally that we would not expect even differences that exist, say, between europeans themselves. Other argument I recall was someone in a prototype of sarcasm pointing that is odd that the epicanthic fold is a culturally determined trait.

I know that it is somewhat “ad hominem”, but come on, seems like that some people don’t spend much time seeing people in the real world and need these sort of picture to know that facial features do differ geographically.

Ironically it’s somewhat akin to showing a picture of the bush of Socrates to promote afrocentrism.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Scott Subscribed to comments via email

> Like I said in my post, the scores are just as low in the large, representative samples.

Which are the large, representative samples of African IQ tests, in for example the Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) and Lynn 2006 books? The Ethiopian and South African cases that I mentioned, where Lynn and Vanhanen used data for ‘national IQ’ scores despite the researchers’ explicit argument that the data should not be so used? The case of Equatorial Guinea, where the national IQ estimate is derived from a sample of 48 adolescents in a school for children with developmental disabilities… in Madrid (Fernandez-Ballestros et al 1997)? Sierra Leone, where the researcher involved in the actual testing explicitly noted the culture-boundedness of the administered tests in a limited (Temne) population? Nigeria, where, for one study, Lynn and Vanhanen picked the lower of two average scores for the test group – despite the researcher’s statement that the later and higher average was probably more accurate – and in a second case amalgamated _eight_ group scores for different age groups and degrees of schooling? (The last two examples from Dinkins et al 2007 (’Mind the gaps… in theory method and data: re-examining Kanazawa (2006)’, BJHP 12: 167-178).)

These are not mere words to be ignored because the patterning of test scores is similar to the patterning of test scores in other samples: they are warnings about validity from the people who actually administered the tests.

Should I go on? That Dinkins et al article (p. 175) sums it up: “It is clear that Lynn and Vanhanen’s ‘national’ data are not accurate, representative or valid for the purposes to which they have been put.” Lynn has been massaging IQ test data for years, to the disadvantage of Africans. With anyone else, such contempt for data sources would be properly seen as academic fraud: when claims are being made about issues as fundamental and fraught as the comparative intelligence of populations (especially historically disadvantaged ones), one expects the absolutely highest standards of academic integrity – but not with Lynn, apparently. And you and the rest of his groupies just love him for it.

It is _not_ the case that one can ignore the deficiencies of the African IQ testing data by simply accumulating more poor examples and ignoring the circumstances in which testing was done. At this point, you are on schedule to claim that the TIMSS and similar tests stand in, given the intercorrelations between tests – but these are not IQ tests, they require particular kinds of educational knowledge for good performance, and the correlations between test results are just that – correlations – that do not in fact lead a priori to the conclusion that causality flows from IQ test score to school results. (In a related context, see for example Wilkinson and Pickett [2007], ‘Economic development and inequality affect IQ: a response to Kanazawa’, BJHP 12:161-166.)

> It isn’t “resorting to” anything, TIMSS is a well conducted international IQ test!

Read the section of the Rindermann article on IQ tests that I noted. And really? TIMSS is an IQ test? I’ve actually read some of the literature that TIMSS puts out, plus a number of articles that cover the TIMSS tests, and nowhere do they claim that TIMSS is an IQ test. Thus, the TIMSS User Guide (Martin [ed] 2005) calls it a set of tests of student achievement. Rindermann is also pretty careful about not calling TIMSS and related tests IQ tests (although he quite properly talks about the relationship between knowledge and cognitive ability). It would be convenient for your case if it _was_ an IQ test, given the poor quality of the IQ testing actually done in African countries. However, questions like “…why does a candle go out under a cover. fossil fuels arise from what?” (TIMSS questions from Rindermann 2007) are hardly questions that can be answered without a fair amount of school background. Again from Rindermann (p. 671) “In comparison to the student assessment studies, the representativeness and comparability of the samples used in these studies of intelligence test results is low.”

This is the point that you start to talk about the high correlation of test results with IQ tests in similar circumstances…. including the Rindermann paper. However, that doesn’t make TIMSS an IQ test: that’s not what it was designed for, and it _does_ require a similar quality of schooling in the different countries where it is administered to be truly comparable. Rindermann (2007: 689) is, however, unrealistic about what that involves: “… the quality of environment of children is normally relatively homogenous; parents who speak in their mother tongue in a grammatically correct manner probably also use a large vocabulary, probably also help their children with school problems, also explain their educational rules, also send their children to better schools with better classmates and more demanding instruction…” Do you think that this bourgeois idyll actually holds for the Ghanaian or Botswanan children of subsistence farmers and market traders who made up a large proportion of the students tested through TIMSS?

> Since the best predictor of quality of teaching is the IQ scores of the teachers themselves, it is >pretty much axiomatic that the SS African schools are far, far worse than schools you find in >Canada and Finland.

And the fact that the students don’t have easy access to textbooks, that their teachers have only minimal education in teaching itself, that they may be continually pulled out of school to engage in economic activities, that they are frequently working to theories and programmes of education entirely unchanged from the colonial area, when they were to be trained to be labourers… none of that is significant, eh? It’s all those dumb African teachers…

> All of these things are facts, and there is nothing inherent in any of these facts that tell us how > to feel about the people themselves.

Righty-ho. After all, we have no historical precedents to indicate how people have related to populations thought to be intellectually inferior, do we? No data on that! We can just declare those folks ’separate but equal’ and everything will be fine – this time. Richard Lynn, for example, is vitally concerned with the welfare of people in disadvantaged areas of the world: that’s why he wrote _Dysgenics_ and _IQ and the wealth of nations_. And Gene Expression is just full of concern for those IQ=70 Africans, isn’t it? Man, you folks agonise over the problem of how to best assist such people, don’t you?

Give me a break.

>If you are trying to argue that human races are not as genetically differentiated as other
> animals, you are incorrect.

Sorry, but I know the development of that FAQ pretty well… from the note of origin printed at it’s very top. (It’s ironic that the best argument for subspecies status among humans has been made by a guy who is, IIRC, a forester, but that’s the way it goes.) You’ll note that the author relies on autosomal markers, while discounting the significance of mtDNA markers. That’s because the patterning in mtDNA markers actually supports a distinction between low-diversity humans (and other large mammals without recognised subspecies) and higher Fsts among species with recognised subspecies. The author also doesn’t take any account of the criterion of distinct evolutionary trajectories for subspecies designation, and that is a question on which we have a lot of – negative – palaeoanthropological data.

> The one attempt I’ve seen to actually quantify >this question, measuring the sophistication of technology in each world region beginning >in 1000 B.C. until today, found that it pretty much is.

The authors of that study – no archaeologists – made three fundamental mistakes. The first is that they ignored the warnings in their primary data source (Peregrine and Ember 2001): there’s a correlation between the intensity of archaeological research in a particular region and the likelihood that data on archaeological occurrences – including technological ones – will be uncovered. This is not an issue in the Murdockian model that they use, because that model is concerned with living populations. Second, many of their archaeological claims are simply nonsense: two cases at random thus that iron was being used in Asia Minor in the 3rd millennium BC, for example – meteoric iron was, as it was in many other areas, but smelted iron would not arrive until a thousand years later – or that cities existed in Greece at 1000 BC. Third, they rank technological systems that, while certainly different, are not differentially complex.

Now, I realise that such work articulates with your fundamental take on the world – that quantified data, even if erroneous, are better than non-quantified data, even if more accurate. But for this you’d actually have to get acquainted with some archaeological data, not rely on a drive-by on African history undertaken by a bunch of economists. If you take a look at archaeological data… not merely from the last 3000 years, but from the Middle Pleistocene until the historical period…. you will find no evidence for African cultural lag (MacEachern, S. 2006, Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ: racial science and cultural evolution in the 21st century, _World Archaeology_ 38(1): 72-92 and references therein). Jared Diamond is, perhaps, better-intentioned, but he’s also no authority on African history.

>I see no reason to travel back any further since the intelligence difference could have feasibly >evolved even in the last 1000 years.

On the other hand, your hero Richard Lynn appears to think that modern Africans are the cognitively unchanged descendants of the hominids who occupied the continent 250,000 years ago (p. 141 of Lynn, R. 2003. The geography of intelligence. In _The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen_ (ed. H. Nyborg). Boston, MA: Pergamon). And this is, of course, fundamental to the evolutionary fantasies of Rushton and, more recently, Kanazawa.

>I see no reason to take their bombastic religious rhetoric seriously.

Right. It’s so much more comfortable to believe the writings of a racist who’s been caught out misusing IQ data multiple times over the last decades.

Scott

 
 
Comment by Jason Malloy

ME: The tests are not biased in the way that psychometricians use this term.

YOU: Right. Merely in a way that the rest of humanity uses the term.

Yep, this statement pretty much sums up your contribution to this debate. You don’t understand testing, and you don’t need to. It’s incorrect because you say it’s incorrect, no deeper or serious understanding of how it works is necessary.

Then you have the nerve to suggest I’m the ignorant one who is avoiding data:

African inferiority accepted a priori, _simply because it’s edgy_… but no evidence that you’ve ever _seriously_ evaluated alternative, confounding factors in these debates.

Well if I’m really so uninformed about the available research evidence and have never examined alternative theories then it should be pretty easy to expose my dubious arguments with your own literature citations. So if you have citations that contradict my claims or that support a contradictory hypothesis then please provide them, instead of just shouting about how ignorant and evil I am.

Comment by fsfsdfd Subscribed to comments via email

Oh, I meant to post this:

“Racialism makes all sorts of arbitrary
decisions about what values to ascribe to social traits that CURRENTLY are posessed by select populations. It doesn’t take past traits into consideration, or take a realistic measure about the nature of social behaviour.”

I lost part of it because my computer locked up while I was posting this. Thank god that doesn’t happen often.

 
 
Comment by fsfsdfd Subscribed to comments via email

Oh, another edit:

“Of course, I don’t think you could really make true labels of “inferiority” and “superiority” if you believed these differences to be innate,”

I meant to say that you couldn’t make those kinds of judgements of inferiority and superiority if you believed the differences to be non-innate. Vice versa who those that think they are, though.

Comment by fsfsdfd Subscribed to comments via email

One last thing Malloy- there’s alot that went unanswered in those emails that I originally asked, such as the EXACT correlation between brain size/cranial capacity and IQ (yes, I know of the correlation, but I meant specific CC’s and how much those translate into IQ differences) and the topic of the IQ’s of the bushmen, aborigines, and papuans. I just dropped out because I lost interest.

So, do you also believe that the bushmen have an IQ of 54, and that the aborigines and papuans have IQ’s in the low 60’s? That extreme?

 
 
Comment by Jason Malloy

Dresidian,

Obviously I knew it was you: the clear absence of any sort of comprehension, the breathless outrage…

Yes Malloy, SS africa has always been a profound technological backwater… As for that paper, exactly what is that saying? I, unfortunately, don’t have time to read it now, but are you seriously using that to buttress your thesis about history being so deterministic?

Do you understand what the statement ‘on average’ means? Go argue with Jared Diamond. He’s the one who argued that the trajectory of technological underdevelopment of SS Africa began with the geographic contingencies of the Neolithic.

What I am taking from your absurd and acrid rant is that you didn’t read what I wrote, since I stated the opposite of what you are claiming I did. Scott was the one attempting to use (unquantified) history to refute an intelligence difference, which means Scott is the one who believes that IQ is a deterministic variable.

I’m trying to tease apart how the environment affects modern population groups in modern circumstances using quantitative research evidence, not have a ridiculous and insoluble slapfight about what kind of average IQ it would take to maintain the Ashanti Empire! You have no real evidence for that and neither do I.

Let’s also not forget how nearly all of the low IQ whites in the sample dropped out before it was completed, and how most of the black adoptees has significantly more difficult pre-placement histories

The correction for the white attrition (as well as the attrition of the other groups) was included in the final quoted numbers. It certainly wasn’t “almost all” of them. And even a double correction would still leave a 13 point gap. Furthermore, we already know the IQs of white children adopted by white parents from a number of adoption studies. Even without this group the data is certainly informative. Also adoption studies show that pre-placement variables do not have significant long term effects on IQ. And certainly not to the tune of 18 IQ points. As another example, even severely malnourished Asian war orphans eventually developed IQ scores at the population mean and above. Do you believe the black children in MTRAS had worse preplacement experiences in Minnesota, than the severely malnourished Asian war orphans?

even if accurate, it’s still a very small sample size

The MTRAS had a perfectly informative sample size of 105 black transracial adoptees at follow-up, and it wasn’t even the only American longitudinal study with relevant data. So yes, these are the kind of numbers that permit a measure of confidence.

I really do love how you told me in those email exchanges how Lynn whole-heartedly believed the real african IQ was 80 after correcting for all those transient environmental variables (though I think that’s still too low), yet now you’re here pushing them off as being retarded again

I already explained this to you. 70 is the measured or phenotypic IQ of current SS Africans, I never denied this. It is also apparently an accurate and unbiased score. Lynn believes that the genotypic IQ of SS Africans is 80. That is when nonadmixed white and black environments are equalized (e.g. through adoption) Africans will score 20 points below Europeans.

You don’t “correct” a current IQ score based on the hypothetical genotype. It wouldn’t predict anything. The purpose of the IQ test is not to give you an estimate of genetic potential, it is to predict useful outcomes.

High intelligence obviously is a better, more desirable trait than low intelligence, so you could definately call it “superior”.

Yes, and lack of poverty is better than poverty. Neither one tells anything about the value of a person. That is a metaphysical judgment, not an itemized one.

How many substantial populations in the world have an average IQ fixed at the mentally retarded range? … The thing here is that it’s completely INSANE … A continent of retards. That’s what you believe.

You unsurprisingly did not comprehend my post, where I addressed this specifically: Again, you can call it whatever you’d like, “retarded” or not, but it won’t change the fact that the IQ of 70 is not a biased measurement in the way psychometricians use this term. Do you understand? From an academic and economic standpoint the IQ of 70 means the same thing and has the same measured consequences for Africans as it does for Westerners with an IQ of 70.

This is not a question that is resolved by how it makes you feel. This is not a question that is resolved by how it conforms to your intuition. This is a empirical issue that can only be resolved with quantitative data. Do you understand that, Dresidian?

Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

“Obviously I knew it was you: the clear absence of any sort of comprehension, the breathless outrage…”

Showing anything resembling emotion online means one is “outraged”. Sure.

“Do you understand what the statement ‘on average’ means? Go argue with Jared Diamond. He’s the one who argued that the trajectory of technological underdevelopment of SS Africa began with the geographic contingencies of the Neolithic.”

You didn’t say anything about “averages”. You made some vague allusion to SS africa’s relatively poor overall historical devleopment compared to east asian and europe, and threw up a paper that made little more than a very basic assessment of technological progress. What should I even be following?

And I think Diamond’s work is largely bunk, so why bring him up?

“What I am taking from your absurd and acrid rant is that you didn’t read what I wrote, since I stated the opposite of what you are claiming I did. Scott was the one attempting to use (unquantified) history to refute an intelligence difference, which means Scott is the one who believes that IQ is a deterministic variable.”

I think Scott was simply using abit of historical evidence that calls it into question. Then again, we’ll have to hear what he says.

“I’m trying to tease apart how the environment affects modern population groups in modern circumstances using quantitative research evidence, not have a ridiculous and insoluble slapfight about what kind of average IQ it would take to maintain the Ashanti Empire! You have no real evidence for that and neither do I.”

Oh, maybe. Going in line with a sort of “cognitive elite” paradigram, it probably didn’t require that substantially high intelligence to manage that state, but I’d say it’s quite higher than 70, wouldn’t you?

“The correction for the white attrition (as well as the attrition of the other groups) was included in the final quoted numbers. It certainly wasn’t “almost all” of them.”

Alright, so what sort of correction did they make? Would you care to quote them? How many dropped out?

“Furthermore, we already know the IQs of white children adopted by white parents from a number of adoption studies. Even without this group the data is certainly informative. ”

“Also adoption studies show that pre-placement variables do not have significant long term effects on IQ. And certainly not to the tune of 18 IQ points. As another example, even severely malnourished Asian war orphans eventually developed IQ scores at the population mean and above. Do you believe the black children in MTRAS had worse preplacement experiences in Minnesota, than the severely malnourished Asian war orphans?”

So what exactly what sort of pre-placement problems did the black children have?

And how are these studies even connected to the MTRAS?

“The MTRAS had a perfectly informative sample size of 105 black transracial adoptees at follow-up, and it wasn’t even the only American longitudinal study with relevant data. So yes, these are the kind of numbers that permit a measure of confidence.”

Um, 105 people out of the 30+ million blacks in the US is representative? Do you have anything else beyond the MTRAS? Again, what was the IQ of the children before being put on adoption? And what other longitudal studies are you talking about?

Do you also have anything to say about that tidbit with parental environment? Because, I’ve never seen anyone bring that up, which is kind of bizzare.

“I already explained this to you. 70 is the measured or phenotypic IQ of current SS Africans, I never denied this. It is also apparently an accurate and unbiased score. Lynn believes that the genotypic IQ of SS Africans is 80. That is when nonadmixed white and black environments are equalized (e.g. through adoption) Africans will score 20 points below Europeans.”

So what is your actual stance on the IQ of SS africans? You’re not being very clear, nor have you been in much of your discourse on this.

Also, I fail to see how some “pure” blacks in the south are really representative of anything. Using african-americans as a proxy for the IQ of SS africans is ridiculous to begin with. Most of the admixture for US blacks came from breeding with poor whites, indentured servant whites, and slave whites, who would have come from a huge range of IQ’s to begin with, and since they mostly did this freely, assortive mating obviously would have been going on. Let’s also not forget how the ancestors of african-americans came from a HUGE array of different backgrounds, over such huge timeframes.

Really, acting like the white admixture in american blacks as being so concordent with what whites contributed would basically require all of the whites on the IQ distribution back then (which was somehow exactly the same as it is today) contributing perfectly proportional admixture to all of the black IQ variations, with assortive mating being thrown completely out the window. It’s absurd. It would be interesting for someone to look into the proper demographic history of white admixture in african-americans to truly get a proper picture, so right now, this is very poor speculation.

“You unsurprisingly did not comprehend my post, where I addressed this specifically: Again, you can call it whatever you’d like, “retarded” or not, but it won’t change the fact that the IQ of 70 is not a biased measurement in the way psychometricians use this term. Do you understand? From an academic and economic standpoint the IQ of 70 means the same thing and has the same measured consequences for Africans as it does for Westerners with an IQ of 70.”

Um, why are you arguing such basic semantics? Psychometricians commonly use the term “retardation” for that range. I know that people in that sort of population would be due to familial retardartion, not organic retardation. Why put such emphasis on these definitions?

“This is not a question that is resolved by how it makes you feel. This is not a question that is resolved by how it conforms to your intuition. This is a empirical issue that can only be resolved with quantitative data.”

I was just saying the same to you, but why act like you’re so unique?

“Do you understand that, Dresidian?”

Yes. You can get off your superiority complex now.

 
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

“You don’t “correct” a current IQ score based on the hypothetical genotype. It wouldn’t predict anything. The purpose of the IQ test is not to give you an estimate of genetic potential, it is to predict useful outcomes.”

Maybe I shouldn’t have used the term “correct”- I meant after removing the effects of malnutrition, poor health conditions etc.

 
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

“Yes, and lack of poverty is better than poverty. Neither one tells anything about the value of a person. That is a metaphysical judgment, not an itemized one.”

This isn’t hard to understand. Higher intelligence is superior to lower intelligence. I mean, that obviously doesn’t tell us much about who’s life is worth more than another, and certainly not in the moral sphere, but in judgements of value, wouldn’t you have to conclude africans are inferior to whites? Be honest.

“What I am taking from your absurd and acrid rant is that you didn’t read what I wrote, since I stated the opposite of what you are claiming I did. Scott was the one attempting to use (unquantified) history to refute an intelligence difference, which means Scott is the one who believes that IQ is a deterministic variable.”

Let me clarify again- I was just offering up some counter-evidence to you using the supposed under-development of SS africa as something against them having IQ’s remotely equivalent to westerners. I was also pointing out the profound contradictions you showed here with you, amazingly, admitting that genes aren’t everything, compared to most of what you and your crowd typically say and believe.

Maybe I’m being just too abrasive. Have you ever moved beyond Rushton and the like’s work? Because you’ve still been praising their research and works, and others like them over the past few years.

I just get abit unnerved when someone holds onto such intellectualy bankrupt “scholarship”. I’ll make it clear- REB is one of the worst books I’ve ever read.

Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Malloy, do you know where I can download a full PDF file of the MTRAS study?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by renata mcgriff Subscribed to comments via email

Quantitative data requires (African/African-American) participants. Heretofore, as the owner of a health-related media company with strategic partnerships with Yahoo!, Google, Medicare, Verizon and others — I will ask African-Americans NOT to participate until there is a responsible body of oversight (such as ICANN for the Internet) to form a concensus as to the purpose of the collection — and, further, to answer questions as to why the FOCUS has been and remains strictly about the defacto retardation of Africans/African-Americans. Thank you for this exchange. You have been most enlightening. High time we put you under a microscope — in the media — and ask some of our OWN questions.

Comment by renata mcgriff Subscribed to comments via email

Further…high time we ask WHO has been/is FUNDING this kind of research and prevent African-Americans from participation. Charlie Rangel (D)-Harlem, is the head of the House, Ways and Means Committee — or, for those of you less intelligent/informed, the total United States BUDGET, in Congress. He is the sponsor of Hillary Clinton (D)-NY Senate in New York, and, consequently the possible sponsor of the next President of the United States. He is also an old family friend. I think I and Prof. Gates up at Harvard need to bring this discussion to Mr. Rangel’s attention, so he can (re)consider ALL appropriations until a board of oversight with responsible leadership is put into place. Thank you, gentlemen.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Also:

“The MTRAS had a perfectly informative sample size of 105 black transracial adoptees at follow-up, and it wasn’t even the only American longitudinal study with relevant data. So yes, these are the kind of numbers that permit a measure of confidence.”

I should have said how the MTRAS should be used as so “damning” when it pales to the amount of other twin and adoption studies out there. Here’s one example:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288305

“Dozens of studies, including >8,000 parent-offspring pairs, >25,000 pairs of siblings, >10,000 twin pairs, and 100s of adoptive families, all converge on the conclusion that the heritability of g is ~50% (Bouchard and McGue 1981). ”

What would you say is more emperical? The few hundred in MTRAS or these 75,000 people? Am I just misquoting something with this assessment here? Remember that in heritability measurements, the finalized heritability is just a compiled averaging of all the differences found between the various twins studied. As in, not all twins show the same differences. And with heritability again, it’s just the twins going throughout their lives. When few people are exposed to the sort of intervention environments that are basically at the heart of this debate. Basically, twin studies have little authority on that.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Jason Malloy

You didn’t say anything about “averages”.

Yes I did. I specifically said “on average”. Please read more carefully.

…profound contradictions you showed here with you, amazingly, admitting that genes aren’t everything, compared to most of what you and your crowd typically say and believe.

I don’t know one researcher who believes “genes are everything”. And in the future please don’t project beliefs onto me based only on what you believe “my crowd” believes. And especially don’t tell me what my beliefs are after I tell you the opposite.

What would you say is more emperical? The few hundred in MTRAS or these 75,000 people?

The latter isn’t a ’study’, it is a meta-analysis of basically every behavior genetic study up to that date. And of course the issue of within-race heritability is far better supported than behavioral genetic differences between groups. The former is no longer in doubt at all.

By no means do I believe the current transracial adoption studies, etc, are the final word on the subject. My point is simply that my viewpoint is better supported as of this date, and more easily follows from the available evidence than contradictory nongenetic opinions. And yet those opinions are perversely the only ones allowed in the public conversation. This gives average people such as Scott a powerful false sense that I must somehow be avoiding a bunch of data that supports his viewpoint, even though no such data exists.

But what isn’t appreciated is that we have much more reliable genetic ways of testing these questions today, so I could actually be falsified quite easily. One study could shut me up pretty quickly. Strange then that I’m the one who wants these studies done, while the nongenetic crowd resists them. Charles Murray tried to get a pan-ideological team of researchers together to do a genetic study, but no one on the other side of the divide was willing to do them. Similarly, some members of the public like Mrs. Mcgriffe above want to opt out of genetic and psychological research altogether.

If people against hereditary explanations are really so confident that people like me are wrong, wouldn’t they be more confident that the science will be on their side? The subtext of their fear of research is they suspect people like me are right, not that the data will be manipulated. After all, the whole reason Murray was trying to get the no-gene scientists on board was so they could have full oversight over the project.

Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

“Yes I did. I specifically said “on average”. Please read more carefully.”

Your comment was pointless, either way.

“I don’t know one researcher who believes “genes are everything”. And in the future please don’t project beliefs onto me based only on what you believe “my crowd” believes. And especially don’t tell me what my beliefs are after I tell you the opposite.”

I didn’t mean it literally, but I’m not going to repeat myself. Lynn’s “Race Differences in Intelligence”, which you praise, basically says that the ice age has been almost the sole detriment of all human historical variables. How am I getting this wrong? Stop side-stepping your own hypocrisy.

“The latter isn’t a ’study’, it is a meta-analysis of basically every behavior genetic study up to that date. And of course the issue of within-race heritability is far better supported than behavioral genetic differences between groups. The former is no longer in doubt at all.”

It’s the same thing really.

“By no means do I believe the current transracial adoption studies, etc, are the final word on the subject. My point is simply that my viewpoint is better supported as of this date, and more easily follows from the available evidence than contradictory nongenetic opinions.”

Hahhaaha, are you serious? Again, the majority of twin studies show an average heritability of 50:50 for IQ. You keep using the MTRAS, in spite of how it pales in comparison to the rest of what behavior genetics has turned up, and how that study was built on a strawman.

“And yet those opinions are perversely the only ones allowed in the public conversation. This gives average people such as Scott a powerful false sense that I must somehow be avoiding a bunch of data that supports his viewpoint, even though no such data exists.”

Oh, of course that data exists. I just posted it. Hereditarianism is a fringe view in psychology. It’s more scientifically substantial than environmentalism, but no less a minority view.

“But what isn’t appreciated is that we have much more reliable genetic ways of testing these questions today, so I could actually be falsified quite easily. One study could shut me up pretty quickly. Strange then that I’m the one who wants these studies done, while the nongenetic crowd resists them.”

Well, I don’t see anything wrong with studying human behavior and the like.

“Charles Murray tried to get a pan-ideological team of researchers together to do a genetic study, but no one on the other side of the divide was willing to do them. Similarly, some members of the public like Mrs. Mcgriffe above want to opt out of genetic and psychological research altogether. “

What?

“If people against hereditary explanations are really so confident that people like me are wrong, wouldn’t they be more confident that the science will be on their side?”

I’m one of those people that opts for a middle-ground, and I’m pretty confident here.

“The subtext of their fear of research is they suspect people like me are right, not that the data will be manipulated.”

The morality issue again? I obviously don’t want you, or others like you to be right, but nor would I want those with an environmentalist position to be right. It’s been stressed so much, but far right extremists would be no less dangerous than far left extremists if the data somehow conformed to their views.

Either way, I never understood why political equality and meritocracy are treated as so important in this debate. I mean, that’s what any remotely decent human being would uphold. Are people supposed to just shut up and use that as some kind of fall-back position regardless as to who’s right? Much of what I’ve seen pushed off by the GNXP crowd over the years doesn’t really fall in line with it. Again, let’s look at the Lahn controversy. Those alleles were supposed to be linked to major evolutionary changes in the brain? And africans had a particularly low frequency of those alleles, right? Wouldn’t that mean people lacking those alleles, africans especially, are somehow less sapient? How could the full range of political equality apply to such a major biological difference? I’m not saying that genocide would have happened, but it just seems pretty damn hypocritical when that pops up.

Of course, so few people saw anything bizzare the idea of Lahn’s work. Major evolutionary changes in the brain being due to just a couple of alleles that randomly popped up in one human, these alleles showing a profound variation even within populations. This ignoring how such major changes in neurological structure take roughly a million years or more to occur in primates, hominids especially, how that would require major changes in gene expressions, not just a handful of chance alleles, and how such changes would cover far more than just the ability to manage agriculture, live in cities, and write. What sort of cognitive diffrentiation is there for something that small among humans? I mean wow, how many people out there lack those capabilities? Of course, the whole obsession came at the differences between the african and eurasian samples. Few people noting how the alleles were completely absent in southeast asia, and showed their highest frequency among papuans and native americans.

This did happen awhile ago, but it’s an interesting little incident for your philosophy. What bothers me in this debate though? Hereditarianism, and likewise environmentalism, if true, would basically eliminate any real sense of a common biological human nature. I guess much of the popular revulsion to racial differences has come from some freakish association with the holocaust and extreme forms of racial discrimination, but I guess I’m one of those few that’s seen a real existential problem with it. Either way, don’t say I only care because of how some backwoods neo-nazis would feel if the data was on their side. I mean, how much better are you guys? You’re definitely not “nazis”, but I’ve always been amazed how race realists/racialists/hereditarians/etc. seem to show such a profound apathy and disregard to so many billions of people. Again, environmentalists are no better, but jesus…..

“After all, the whole reason Murray was trying to get the no-gene scientists on board was so they could have full oversight over the project.”

What study has Murray done?

Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

“Again, environmentalists are no better, but jesus…..”

Also- I’ll admit they seem to have more utopian aims, but I think Pinker layed out what’s really wrong with that outlook. I still think The Blank Slate was an awful book overall.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Jason Malloy

…and, further, to answer questions as to why the FOCUS has been and remains strictly about the defacto retardation of Africans/African-Americans… Further…high time we ask WHO has been/is FUNDING this kind of research and prevent African-Americans from participation.

renata mcgriff, what research are you referring to here? I’ve mentioned only one American study in this entire thread, and it was intended to explore the effects of a major natural environmental intervention (adoption), not to prove anyone was retarded.

And the African data is mainly educational testing and other practical-minded research. You have an extremely distorted view of the conversation and of the data we’re discussing.

Comment by renata mcgriff Subscribed to comments via email

Get ready for more scrutiny of this sordid little discussion. You aint’s seen nothing yet…. So, get ready to have a broader discussion that isn’t limited to what I have seen/read here.

 
 
Comment by Jason Malloy

Me: And of course the issue of within-race heritability is far better supported than behavioral genetic differences between groups

You: It’s the same thing really

and:

Hahhaaha, are you serious? Again, the majority of twin studies show an average heritability of 50:50 for IQ. You keep using the MTRAS, in spite of how it pales in comparison to the rest of what behavior genetics has turned up

*Sigh*… No it isn’t the same thing, Dresidian. Within group heritability does not speak to between group heritability. Sorry, I can’t continue playing ping-pong with these childish errors. It’s a waste of time. This is one of several legitimate reasons you were banned from GNXP.

This is my last comment on this post.

Sorry to Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei, for any breeches of etiquette on my part that may have occurred while a guest in her comment section.

Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

“*Sigh*… No it isn’t the same thing, Dresidian. Within group heritability does not speak to between group heritability.”

I should have clarified- I was using that as a reference to two things you said.

“The latter isn’t a ’study’, it is a meta-analysis of basically every behavior genetic study up to that date.”

I was using “study” and “meta-analyses” as the same things. I just saw no real reason to differentiate the two, which probably confused you with that statement.

“Within group heritability does not speak to between group heritability.”

The two really are not that different, and I never, ever understood why there’s such a debate over it. You look at the heritability of a trait in one individual, or twins in this case. Why shouldn’t heritabilities on just a few individuals apply to anyone? Yes, of course those people have their own unique experiences that could create such a difference, but why shouldn’t those experiences have the same effect regardless of who you’re looking at? Maybe I’ve just never fully understood it, but it’s a meaningless statement either way. And, I might just be letting my own opinion “get in the way”, but why even make this issue such a huge contention?

And what does my mentioning of the twin studies have to do with it? It’s quite true that that’s what they typically turn up, contrary to the hilariously small range of evidence you keep using- IE, MTRAS and barely anything else.

“Sorry, I can’t continue playing ping-pong with these childish errors. It’s a waste of time.”

How are these “childish”?

“This is one of several legitimate reasons you were banned from GNXP.”

I really don’t see how that’s legitimate at all. I mean, I guess that can be seen as grounds for some sort of banning, but for a YEAR?!?! Sorry, that’s just revoltingly petty and authoritarian. How many other people have you brought that down on?

Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Oh wow, I didn’t even notice Scott’s reply from yesterday until now.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Just one last thing Malloy- you’ve pretty much dropped out, but since you seem to nit-pick nearly everything I say, when you said africa has trailed “consistently behind europe and east asia on average” for thousands of years, how do you even quantify that? Again, human social progress is NOT so deterministic, and I should have mentioned that in many ways were those african civilizations and cultures on equivalent levels or ahead of east asia and Europe in many time frames. That’s what I saw kind of wrong with your statement.

 
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Scott, if you’re still here, where did Malloy get those quotes from Rindermann explaining how the g factor explained so much of the various tests variances? He looked at more than just TIMSS data, so what about the rest? And what about that one bizzare quote where he was using the poor state of education in much of SS africa as being so heavily reflective of the extremely low IQ’s of africans, and the IQ’s that supposedly went in line with the TIMSS data etc.?

 
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

One last thing- have you dug up anything on the topic of the other profoundly low IQ populations Lynn came up? Those being the papuans, aborigines, bushmen and pygmies?

 
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Well, another thing- Scott, where could I get the Rindermann papers? I guess I have to join the GNXP yahoo group to get ahold of them, but I don’t see the point of going through that with Malloy’s attitudes.

Do you also have an email I can contact you by? Mine is internetchum@yahoo.com I’m sorry if this is clogging anything up Hsein-Hsein.

 
Comment by Scott Subscribed to comments via email

Material sent – at least some of it, while the rest will have to wait until next week. On the subject of low IQ results from San-speaking, Papuan and other populations… these (again) present real problems for folks who accept such results as indicating the actual intelligence of these populations. Such belief indicates both a flight from ethnographic data and the profound contempt of Malloy et al for such people, with the assumption that foraging and horticultural lifestyles could be picked up by an 8-year-old-equivalent.

Henry Harpending’s statement about the intelligence of ‘Bushmen’, from Sarich and Miele’s book _Race_, originated on Steve Sailer’s h-bd mailing list seven or eight years ago, and is an illustration of the challenges involved for such folks. Harpending is quite willing to accept a lack of intelligence among Africans… except for the population where he actually had extensive ethnographic knowledge, San people, whom he thought quite intelligent. (One of the signal characteristics of the IQ-enthusiasts in this discussion is their complete lack of interaction with the populations they so casually denigrate.) It would be interesting to ask Harpending now if he’s as accepting of IQ test results in Africa with claims of a San IQ=54…

 
 
 
 
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Really Malloy, alot of commentators have noted how much of a non-sequiter the differences between within and between group heritability are. Just keep waving this off as my own non-existent reading comprehension and justification for your insane posting policies though.

Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Yes Scott, I’ll be getting back to you, thanks.

 
 
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Yes, I’ll be getting back to you, thanks alot Scott.

 
Comment by Jason Malloy

I apologize to Scott, who is apparently a professor of African anthropology, for missing his reply as well. This blog doesn’t stack the posts in the chronological order they are posted like other blogs I am used to.

Since I missed it, I may add another final reply, but I can’t right now.

 
Comment by brazilian meteor Subscribed to comments via email

wait a second.
does the IQ test cover the other sorts of intelligence most psychologists claim to exist? criativity, for instance? is there any study on how the ‘race factor’ influence the ‘emotional Q’, the capacibility to create and such as?

maybe even more interesting and anedoctal: has anyone stopped to measure the IQ of people who consider themselves racists?

 
Comment by Andy Subscribed to comments via email

Black immigrants do better than Whites & Asians

March 19, 2007
Black Immigrants, An Invisible ‘Model Minority’
By Clarence Page

WASHINGTON-Do African immigrants make the smartest
Americans? The question may sound outlandish, but if you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up.

In a side-by-side comparison of 2000 census data by
sociologist John R. Logan at the Mumford Center, State University of New York at Albany, black immigrants from Africa average the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country, including whites and Asians.

[Comment edited for brevity and copyright considerations]

 
Comment by Ezrah Subscribed to comments via email

1.) Firstly, the so called I.Q test is not developed
enough to measure intelligence. e.g how do you measure the intelligence of an educated person and a non educated person using the same test. How do you measure artistic intelligence, right vs left brain intellectual functions, emotional intelligence, artistic intelligence, spiritual intelligence and physical intelligence.

2.) ‘their’ recent studies have concluded that human
achievements are not totally dependant on genes, i.e
we are not slaves to genes. Therefore intelligence or I.Q level is not a constant by can be improved, and can also be detered from developing due to:
a. poor diet
b. poor upbringing, parenting, environmental
stimulation
c. culture
Taking all this into consideration its obvious that
people at the bottom of social-economic structures
exist in environments not conducive for mental
development. Its that simple…if you live well and
eat well your mind and body will develop to their full capacity.
-do you think the brain size of a child drinking clean water will be the same as that of one without access to clean water and sanitation. How about the child without access to a library???
In conclusion this shows that “if” its true that black people’s I.Q are lower it should follow to also conclude that the reason is because the oppression, poverty, and lack of investment in education, mental stimulation and training.

3.) Culture and Social engineering:

a. African Americans- Saletan’s study said that African Americans I.Q is generally higher than continental African I.Q because many African Americans have European blood. This study is wrong because it failed to account for the fact that children of African immigrants in America generally perform better in school than both white and African Americans.
- The reason why immigrant African children do better in school than African American children is purely cultural. African immigrant parents demand more from their children than African American parents. Another point of interest is that in my observation the average intellectual performance of African American children has deteriorated in the recent years due to family breakdown and pop culture .
- The reason why Asian children do very well in school is also because of their culture and parental demands on the children…well, the study forgot to mention that Asian children also commit suicides at higher rates because of the pressure from parents.
- The reason why white children relatively do well in school is because the parents own and control
everything, the whites generally give their children a lot of freedom to express themselves and provide them with all they need,

Many traits amongst races are not DNA based but
cultural, however cultural traits eventually become
genetic if repeated.
Are I.Qs genetic and racial?:-
- African Americans perform better in sports and music than everyone else around the world. Is this genetic and racial? No, blacks in Brazil and Congo don’t perform as well as blacks in America in sports, therefore there is a cultural and social base to it.
- Blacks in Kenya out-ran everyone else in the world
in the marathon, is this genetic and racial? No,
blacks in Ghana, Zimbabwe and America generally can’t run the marathon

b.) Africans
FACT – Poverty, social instability and cultural
stagnation are not good for brain & physical growth
and intellectual development-in my opinion some cultural tendencies in Africa which dont promote intellectual development.

Right Brain vs Left Brain

The brain is divided into two major hemispheres, known as the left and right hemispheres of the brain.
The left brain, in general, is characterized by most
western people (and some Asians), and handles,
sequential and linear processing/thought. The right
brain, in general, is characterized by most African
people (and some Asians) and handles synthesis and
the ability to see wholes. These two ‘brains’ do not
look at life in the same way.

Left Brain
- Logical
- Sequential
- Rational
- Analytical
- Objective
- Looks at parts

Right Brain
- Random
- Intuitive
- Holistic
- Synthesizing
- Subjective
- Looks at wholes

In general, schools tend to favor _left-brain modes of thinking_, while downplaying the right-brain ones.
Left-brain scholastic subjects focus on logical
thinking, analysis, and accuracy. Right-brained
subjects, on the other hand, focus on aesthetics,
feeling, and creativity.

- Many of the traits of ‘intelligence’ CAN be improved upon, these include adaptability to a new situation, cognitive capabilities, logical thinking, abstract thinking, originality, alertness, common-sense, productiveness and creativity.

- IQ test, used to ‘validate’ the ‘war against
Blacks’, are based on left brain qualities and
virtually ignore right brain qualities.

- There are certain capabilities which IQ tests can’t measure. They include creativity, non-academic
talents, musical capability, manual dexterity,
interpersonal skills etc.

- Psychologists have discovered that mood, anxiety,
stress, environment, education, culture and abode may influence IQ test rating variably.

- [Intelligence] can be developed to the fullest
possible expression with right information, practice
and experience. And IQ test scores can only identify
your current level of mental alertness, not your
constant intelligence factor.

- IQ tests measure, for the most part, what a person
has learned, not what he or she is capable of doing in the future (his potential).

- IQ tests are not very reliable. The scores may vary as much as 15 points from one test to another, while emotional tension, anxiety, and unfamiliarity with the testing process can greatly affect test performance.

‘Intelligence’ is not static and one way
‘intelligence’ can be improved is by altering ones
brainwaves

- ‘Intelligence’ can be improved simply by retraining a person’s brain by using neurofeedback:

- Brain waves can be enhanced to create conditions for optimum learning, thinking, studying

- Dr. Siegfried Othmer says that “brainwave training
clearly facilitates the organization of mental
functioning so that the child can exhibit his native
intelligence. The results are so striking that they
must compel us to revisit the whole issue of whom we
are calling mentally retarded.”

- ‘…Significant post-test increases in IQ scores
were observed in 10 EEG-responsive subject…’

- Psychologoist have identified multiple
‘intelligenses’ and testing shows that no student was found to be in the top five on every measure.

* Linguistic intelligence (“word smart”)
* Logical-mathematical intelligence
(“number/reasoning smart”)
* Spatial intelligence (“picture smart”)
* Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”)
* Musical intelligence (“music smart”)
* Interpersonal intelligence (“people smart”)
* Intrapersonal intelligence (“self smart”)
* Naturalist intelligence (“nature smart”)

 

For those involved in this discussion, you may be interested in this week’s New Scientist article – Intelligence genes’ reveal their complexity.

The research, led by Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, identified six genes that were strongly associated with high or low intelligence, but even the most powerful of these accounted for just 0.4 per cent of the variation in intelligence between individuals. The six together accounted for about 1 per cent of the variation in intelligence. Dozens of previous studies on twins and adopted children have established that about half of the variation in intelligence is down to environment, but almost all of the genetic component has yet to be uncovered.

 
Comment by Ezrah Subscribed to comments via email

DNA pioneer James Watson is blacker than he thought

JAMES WATSON, the DNA pioneer who claimed Africans are less intelligent than whites, has been found to have 16 times more genes of black origin than the average white European.

An analysis of his genome shows that 16% of his genes are likely to have come from a black ancestor of African descent. By contrast, most people of European descent would have no more than 1%.

The study was made possible when he allowed his genome – the map of all his genes – to be published on the internet in the interests of science.

“This level is what you would expect in someone who had a great-grandparent who was African,” said Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics, whose company carried out the analysis. “It was very surprising to get this result for Jim.”

Watson won the Nobel prize, with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, after working out the structure of DNA in 1953. However, he provoked an outcry earlier this year when he suggested black people were genetically less intelligent than whites.

This weekend his critics savoured the wry twist of fate. Sir John Sulston, the Nobel laureate who helped lead the consortium that decoded the human genome, said the discovery was ironic in view of Watson’s opinions on race. “I never did agree with Watson’s remarks,” he said. “We do not understand enough about intelligence to generalise about race.”

The backlash against Watson forced him to step down as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York state, after 39 years at the helm. He had said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospects for Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

The analysis by deCODE Genetics, an Icelandic company, also shows a further 9% of Watson’s genes are likely to have come from an ancestor of Asian descent. Watson was not available for comment.

James Watson: genetic risk to diseases compared with other people of European ancestry

- Age-related macular degeneration (blindness) – 20% less than average

- Asthma – 31% less than average

- Breast cancer – 1.45 times greater than average

- Coeliac disease – 66% less than average

- Colon (bowel) cancer – 16% greater than average

- Glaucoma – 1.42 rimes greater than average

- Inflammatory bowel disease – 31% less than average

- Multiple sclerosis – 29% greater than average

- Heart attack – 33% less than average

- Obesity – 5% greater than average

- Prostate cancer – 1.02 times greater than average

- Psoriasis – 31% less than average

- Restless leg – 29% less than average

- Rheumatoid arthritis – 20% greater than average

- Type 1 diabetes – 65% less than average

- Type 2 diabetes – 33% greater than average

Results are calculated by comparing one person’s genetic sequence to the sequences of other participants in studies published in world literature on genetic risk for disease

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3022190.ece

Comment by brazilian meteor Subscribed to comments via email

I clearly remember a recent report from my hometown university that concluded racism could influence negatively the scores of coloured students. It makes a lot of sense to me and you bet I’m going after that son of a bitch. Maybe you guys won’t take it seriously, since the report was held by a bunch of ‘dumb brazilians’, but I sincerely intend to improve the debate here.
one thing most of you seem to have missed, as mr saletan stated lately: these results we are leaning over were found by the pioneer fund, a well-known racist organization. how reliable is a racial study conducted on a ground like that? the user renata mcgriff – clearly and notoriously a black woman – tried to open eyes for that issue before, but no one in this forum really cared. are you guys wallowing into the puddle that the pioneer fund created already? are we starting to overlook the blackman’s opinion because we think he is too dumb to be right?

sorry ’bout my lame english, btw.

 
Comment by Dresidian Subscribed to comments via email

Yeah, I find this study rather strange- did they ever go into any real detail regarding his geneaology and ancestry? And what’s the deal with listing those disease frequencies and genetic disorders for him? Although these vary profoundly by ethnic group, these also vary just as much as within them. Not to mention these all have varying heritabilities, and flucuate constantly- how can they pinpoint such things to all of africa?

 
 

[...] the comments in response to the Wired article, it’s clear that race (as always) is a hot button subject especially as it relates to [...]

 
Comment by online doctor

One of the more interesting articles about DNA, race, and intelligence. It never surprises me that there are such differing interpretations of the same data.

I don’t think there will ever be enough verified data to determine what the influence of genetics on intelligence and performance is. Therefore, we will never have a consensus of views on the topic.

 
Comment by ashna prasad Subscribed to comments via email

Wow! There is a lot of hostility here. I am neither white nor black. Anyway, whatever the outcome to the research has been, it is what it is, which is scientifically true. I am sure it’s been tested over and over again before being publicized. Adding to it, I ask why such negativity instead of looking at it in a positive manner? To me, how I look at it is, there is now room for improvement and making our HUMAN RACE overall…BETTER. Now, those who oppose, you prove it wrong! Simple!!! Otherwise, sheesh

Comment by Plasius

calm down, ashna. don’t take the ‘nature’ arguments for granted. the topic is not entirely undisputed, as one can mesure by the extent of this very thread.
serious researchers have been contesting these papers from DAY ONE and, as far as I know, everyone in the field agree there is much more to be discovered on this matter.
nothing have been proved yet( and we don’t know if it will ever be), so it doesnt need to be DISPROVED. what we have in the moment is EVIDENCE and EVIDENCE by ITSELF doesn’t PROVE anything.

 
 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Search Eye on DNA


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


ARCHIVE


RANDOMIZED BLOGROLL


We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health
information:
verify here.
Eye on DNA is not a substitute for medical advice. Always ask your healthcare provider or genetic counselor for information specific to you.

Mendel's Garden

Healthcare 100 - eDrugSearch.com



View Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD's profile on LinkedIn

Bloggers' Rights at EFF