Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Bowser, Jul 4, 2017.
I didn't say that. I'm simply saying that that study has no relevance to this discussion.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You did say that. You're a liar.
There is no established "black difference".
No IQ testing program comparing "races" has ever corrected for a single one of the major environmental factors known to affect IQ test results. Not one. And there are several.
No IQ testing program comparing "races" has ever compared genetically defined "races". (Hint: there aren't any).
- - -
No, they are not. That's retard tier error.
What answer would that be?
Aside from the obvious pattern: you can't tell a country from a city from an island.
You're wasting everybody's time with pseudoscientific drivel.
I'm not lying. I'm telling the truth. I think that you have an emotional need to look down on other people so you have embraced racism to make yourself feel better about your own failures and insecurities. There is no scientific reason why human populations should be differentiated in a polygenic trait like intelligence which would be favored by natural selection in all environments. All statistical variables you can list related to measured intelligence and standard of living can be explained by environmental factors and there is no reason to assume a genetic basis. The genetic hypothesis has been refuted by empirical evidence including genetic data.
The brain's development (and hence that of the intellect) is profoundly influenced by environmental and developmental factors. Genetically identical groups of rats deprived of environmental stimuli were measured as less intelligent and had less cerebral folding than rats given environmental stimuli. In the modern world, there is no equivalence of social and physical environments between Africans/African Americans and Europeans/Euro- and Asian Americans. Therefore any intelligence difference one might measure (say in mean SAT scores, AFQT Tests etc.) cannot be shown to have anything to do with genetic differences between groups. There are far easier explanations for these differences, including social discrimination (stereotype threat), toxic environment, and malnutrition (which are all differentially visited upon African Americans). The heritability of intelligence (how much the trait is determined by genes or environment) has been estimated at around 0.50. This means that intelligence is about 50% genes and 50% environment. With this much environmental contribution, only experimental or observational designs that can equalize environment can give you any reasonable explanations. For the most part, this is impossible in racially stratified societies. - Joseph Graves
Oh, I get it. You think that that difference in living conditions is due to the race(s) of the inhabitants.
Can you break it down for me a bit and show me how "race" has led to the differences in living conditions in Haiti, as compared to Japan?
I think you want to wave your hands and hope there's an argument somewhere in the general direction you're waving. That strikes me as the behaviour of somebody who has a barrow to push, rather than somebody who is following evidence where it leads.
The simplest assumption would appear to be that you have a racist agenda, which doesn't respect evidence. But I could be wrong. We'll see.
Also, you sound like you're angry or upset about some aspect of this discussion. Why is that?
I'm not the one pushing fake unreviewed genetic studies to support my position.
There is a difference and it's undisputed. And these mysterious "environmental factors" all combine in all times and places to produce the same result? And when reality is unpleasant you can always retreat into nihilism and pretend race "doesn't exist".
Moderator note: Zwitterion has been permanently banned from sciforums for making threats to another member.
The genetic study was published in a book that was edited and contained contributions from some of the top experts on intelligence testing and genetics. Don't pretend like Graves has no credibility to speak on the subject when he clearly does.
Environmental factors are of course in place in all times and places. For example culture is an environmental factor. You are comparing groups that are different culturally so there is always going to be a difference. The only way to make a comparison between a measured phenotypic trait exhibited by different genotypes is to raise those genotypes in the same environment. This can not be done in humans especially different socially-defined racial groups given that these groups have different life experiences in the environments they are raised in. Since the differences between the groups even include psychological differences including psychological disturbance from racism controlling Socioeconomic variables is not a proper control of the environment. Comparing different countries and cities and making the argument that genetic differences between the groups determine life outcomes when there are many environmental factors that lead to the results we see is completely inconsistent with experimental quantitative genetics which shows that these comparisons are not reasonable and this line of argument only serves racist ideological agendas. The only real way to make your case would be to study the human genome itself and see if there is a difference in the genes related to intelligence and how they are distributed between geographic populations. That is exactly what Graves did with these genome-wide association studies and they do not produce the result that you want. So all you are left to do is whine about it. I guess you will have to whine somewhere else as you broke the rules of the board but here are the conclusions of that very real and credible genetic study which refutes your argument.
Furthermore, all genetic hypotheses for phenotypic variance require that genotypes are assayed in equivalent environments, not just at time of assay, but for at least two previous generations to equalize maternal effects. This never happens in racialized and socially stratified societies. Thus it can be argued that if one wishes to see the cognitive performance of the socially subordinated improve, then these people should be provided with equalized education, nutrition, health care, and freedom from differential exposure to toxic materials like lead. We know that psychosocial stress influences brain development (McEwen & Gianaros 2011) and that environmental factors influence a variety of complex phenotypes in quite complex ways (Zhang et al., 2012). Therefore it matters a great deal how one addresses the question of the existence and origin of intelligence disparity. The more complex the trait, the more likely it is to be disrupted by poor environment. This is crucial since racialized societies do not provide members of socially defined races equal environmental circumstances. Thus we will never really be able to launch a credible research program on the genetic differentials of intelligence associated with genomic variation associated with ancestry, until such social justice is achieved. Unfortunately, this has never really been the aim of those most invested in this research.
Source: Race, Genomics, and IQ: Slight Return for Intelligence Quotient: Testing, Role of Genetics and the Environment and Social Outcomes, Ed. Joseph Kush, Nova Scientific Publishers, pp. 69 –86 (2013)
Makes some good points.
Well we can test this by placing a native of the Congo and a native of Iceland in the Congo jungle for a week and see who is smart enough to survive. I bet it'll be the Congo native.
When you are talking about tiers of intelligence, you need to look at the survival rate of the native habitants in their specific environment everywhere and their success rate over the past few hundreds of thousands of years.
And if your argument is that these natives remained "underdeveloped" and therefore not quite as smart, you need to look at the "stupid" dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere from all our advanced toys, which may become the death of the human race.
The natives don't pollute, they use available resources with a minimal impact on their environments and it's only when "advanced" people begin to cut down their forests and pollute their rivers and lakes and infect the local population with deadly diseases, that the underdeveloped populations have no defense against the introduction of artificially created unnatural modes of living.
You can ask the American Indian about "intelligence" and "respect for nature" after half of them died from European introduced "smallpox".
The native European (I am one of them) has been the greatest invading race of any. They have always been good at killing, in so many ways its astounding .
Smart? Not so much. Evil? Often........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now what would you call that?
Interestingly, take a Congo native and raise him/her in a modern environment and they may go to college and become a doctor or a scientist. i.e. become very smart. How does that happen if there is a lack of brain power?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nobody knows what it is.
For all anyone can determine by the studies so far, some populations of black people have the highest genetically determined average IQs of any human beings on the planet. That would be consistent with the research thus far, corrected for environment etc.
They aren't mysterious. They are research validated and recorded, quantified and measured, replicably observable facts of reality.
I don't. I observe you have no idea what you are talking about when when you use the word "race" in a biological context.
The abuse of statistics involved is flagrant enough to raise suspicions of outright lying. Obscuring that abuse by adopting a format resistant to argument and objection is further evidence of bad intentions.
Video is for propaganda, for conning the rubes. That's what that is.
(You need an example? Here's one - just one, of several obvious:
Somewhere in there - the video, the sillyass video from that ignorant little girl, and the book - some jackoff tries to argue that the fat tails on the IQ Bell Curve indicate a disproportionate effect on upper end class ("race", which he never defines) performance from a small change in the mean IQ score of that class. He makes a big deal of that.
It's an invalid argument. Why? Because he omits the key fact that the correlation between IQ and intellectual performance breaks down at the upper end of the IQ range - in that fat tail. The correlation he needs does not exist in that part of the Curve. There is no consistent measurable or quantifiable difference in intellectual performance between and IQ of 130 and an IQ of 145 in the real world. His argument depends on there being one. So that argument of his is garbage.
Now: do you think he knows that? )
Richard Feynman's measured IQ was 125 - significantly lower than his sister's. He barely made it into the fat tail. Here is a picture of the cover of his biography: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51wL1-JJHiL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
Meanwhile: The mean score on a factor test of a population is one famous place consistent environmental influences have visible effects. If you haven't ruled them out - at least the ones you know about, for chrissake - you haven't even begun to explain those scores. And if you started out with a sociological categorization of your populations, you have explicitly introduced a slew of environmental variables you could have omitted with more rigorous design - now you have a lot of work to do in ruling them out. Haven't started? Then shut up and buckle down.
There are many environmental factors that have an effect on IQ including social discrimination (stereotype threat), environmental toxicity (pollution), malnutrition, education, diet, stress, parenting, national culture, trouble sleeping, mental illness and diseases (ex. Multiple Sclerosis and Malaria).
"The fact that African-Americans or any other group may score differently from another doesn't tell you about the nature. The environmental difference, you simply can't compare the genetic basis, it's pure and simple quantitative genetics. You don't even have to know the nature of the environment. It's simply the fact the two groups are not comparably the same in environmental conditions that make any apportions in the genetic variance of a trait impossible. So you can find that in Falconer's Introduction to Quantitative Genetics." - Joseph Graves
I think you missed the original claim.
No I did not. You can measure many of the variables that I mentioned and there is a lot of statistical research on this. As Graves said though we don't need an objective measure to quantify environmental difference. We need only establish that environmental differences exist to maintain that comparisons of phenotypic traits with the assumption that variation has a genetic basis can not be made.
So you can't measure any of these things, and even though they vary from place to place, they all combine to produce the same result everywhere.
That's a laughable violation of parsimony and you're a politically motivated pseudoscientist.
I clearly said that you can measure several of them. Which variables do you think can't be measured? You are the one promoting pseudoscience. There is no scientific reason why IQ differences between groups can't be entirely caused by environmental differences.
You're the one introducing vague "environmental variables" to explain a consistent pattern which is parsimoniously explained by genetics. You tell me which combination of "environmental variables" are responsible in each case.
Separate names with a comma.