Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Phill, Mar 27, 2016.

?

What do you think is causing racial/national differences in cognitive ability tests?

  1. Culture and Environment only

    42.9%
  2. Genes only

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Mostly Culture and Environment

    21.4%
  4. Mostly Genes

    14.3%
  5. Genes and Culture/Environment

    21.4%
  6. Unsure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,421
    Good luck getting race - or nationality - out of that.

    btw: the article is I believe a bit off in some key respects, such as this:
    The key factor not clarified, and critical here, is between-population difference.

    Also: It's not true that the remaining variability in height is genetic, merely because diets have been reduced in influence. Other factors abound, that can vary or not vary between populations independently of diet. And it's not quite true, or informative anyway, that one has identified genetic contribution to "height" by eliminating the environmental variables that influence height. A genetic vulnerability or immunity to various childhood diseases endemic or absent from various places, for example, will affect height. Do people really want to say that these kinds of genetically mediated factors are "height" genetics? When they have these 108 polymorphisms that "explain" 3% of schizophrenia, say, what exactly have they found? A heightened vulnerability to fungal toxins in commercially processed food?
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2016
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,187
    Human differentiation still falls below that.

    At a guess, you are American, yes? Which would explain your obsession. For example, are you aware that up until a few thousand years ago, Caucasians in Europe were actually black? In other words, the adaptation to have white skin is a very recent event.

    And if we are to follow your rules, then Obama can classify himself as Caucasian because he is half Caucasian and his "shared ancestry", not only genetically, but also in his upbringing, was Caucasian. So why do you say no?

    And once more, please provide some scientific proof to support your arguments in this thread.

    The article discusses environmental effects on genes than anything else, which is pretty much what most of us have said earlier on in the thread.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    If Phill is who I think he is (Mikemikev) then he is British. You can look this poster up on Google if you want to know his post history.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    But do you agree that the authority you rely on, Templeton, misrepresented Wright's Fst statistic to make his argument, and his argument, therefore, is in fact nonsense? Do you agree that you just copy paste papers because you like the conclusion, and in fact have no understanding of what they say?
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,187
    I disagree.

    As has been repeated numerous times now, too numerous to count, "race" does not exist in biology. Race is a social and political construct, which you have repeatedly argued and demonstrated. You are arguing based solely on colour. Genetically, we are all so mixed that your argument becomes pure nonsense. Funnily enough, you have completely disregarded the fact that the white colour, or what you are deeming to be race by shared ancestry, is a very recent event and that for the majority of time that Homo sapiens existed, they were black. Lighter skin colour is simply an adaptation to the cooler climate and not a result of a different race evolving. In other words, Homo sapiens are still just one race with very few variation that are, in every sense of the word, cosmetic. There are no sub-species. There are no "major races". There is no biological or scientific evidence of "race" or "major races". The advance of the study of genetics has shown that such concepts do not exist in science. So race pervades in society not because it exists, but because people like you demand they exist for reasons only known to yourselves. Unless you have scientific data, such as genetic studies, to demonstrate otherwise, you are, to put it bluntly, fighting a losing battle. This is a science sub-forum. I would suggest if you wish to argue the existence of race with people who care or believe you, you can simply go back to Stormfront or any other white supremacist website you obviously frequent. It isn't welcome here.

    Intelligence, as has been demonstrated multiple times now, is affected more by environment than anything else. Do you have any scientific data to support your contention that it is purely genetic? No, you do not. The survey you relied on in the OP to argue this point also points out that environment, when all environmental factors are added together, play a much larger role. The authors of the survey deliberately misrepresented it by splitting up all environmental factors to get the result they wanted, but even they admitted that if all environmental factors were grouped together, those environmental factors would play a much bigger role in affecting intelligence than just genetic factors.

    You have been repeatedly asked to provide some evidence or scientific support for what you have presented and you have provided virtually none. Your say so means nothing on this site.

    Have I made myself clear? Either provide scientific data to support your contention or this thread will follow the other racial supremacist threads and end up in the Cesspool where they belong.
     
  9. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    So can you explain where Templeton got his 0.25 Fst value from? Also explain why <0.25 Fst invalidates race, but not species such as the human/chimp 0.18 Fst.

    Ad nauseam assertions are not a scientific argument.

    I defined race by ancestry, not skin color. I claimed genomic similarity inferred ancestry, which has not been challenged, and provided data showing genomic similarity. You are not questioning my data, you are lying about my definitions. Strawman argument.

    I never said IQ was "purely genetic". More strawman lies. I cannot even get to any arguments to estimate BG heritability, because you simply deny race and IQ are valid concepts, pushing this simply by repeating brazen lies ad nauseam. Perhaps this is your concious tactic. Perhaps you are emotionally worked up. I don't know.

    The survey is incidental to the debate. Relying on it would be an authority argument. It's hilarious you accuse me of relying on it, then claim it supports you. I am not bringing it up at all.

    I am currently trying to engage your "argument" (copy pasting Templeton) that Fst <0.25 invalidates race. Rather than engage on this point you type the above hostile subject changing irrelevant drivel after simply writing "I disagree". It is you that is not supporting yourself with scientific argumentation.

    Yes, I'm providing data. I provided data on genomic similarity to establish shared ancestry. You strawmanned my definition. I provided data on species Fst to undercut your <0.25 copy paste argument. You told me you "disagree" and changed the subject all over the place and threatened to bin the thread. When I provide data you simply ignore it and make up strawman lies, add in some ad hominem, accuse me of your fallacies, then threaten to bin the thread. Strawman arguments are forbidden by your rules. Probably you should ban yourself. Go to "extreme-Marxism.org" or "Lysenko.com" or whatever.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2016
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    Back to basics:
    Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy. Modern biology is a vast and eclectic field, composed of many branches and subdisciplines.

    So, claiming that "race does not exist in biology" may be just a tad less than accurate.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,187
    Did you not read the study EgalitarianJay posted?

    He provides a very good explanation in that paper, with links to where the value comes from and why they are used.

    One commonly used threshold is that two populations with sharp boundaries are considered to be different races if 25% or more of the genetic variability that they collectively share is found as between population differences (Smith, et al., 1997). A common measure used to quantify the degree of differentiation is a statistic known as pairwise fst. The pairwise fst statistic in turn depends upon two measures of heterozygosity. The frequency with which two genes are different alleles given that they have been randomly drawn from the two populations pooled together is designated by Ht, the expected heterozygosity of the total population. Similarly, Hs is the average frequency with which two randomly drawn genes from the same subpopulation are different alleles. Then,fst=(Ht-Hs)/Ht. In many modern genetic studies, the degree of DNA sequence differences between the randomly drawn genes is quantified, often with the use of a model of mutation, instead of just determining if the two DNA sequences are the same or different. When this done, the analysis is called an Analysis of MOlecular VAriation (AMOVA), and various measures of population differentiation analogous to fst exist for different mutation models. Regardless of the specific measure, the degree of genetic differentiation can be quantified in an objective manner in any species. Hence, human races can indeed be studied with exactly the same criteria applied to non-human species. The main disadvantage of this definition is the arbitrariness of the threshold value of 25%, although it was chosen based on the observed amount of subdivision found within many species.

    As for Chimpanzees:

    The Upper Guinea and Gulf of Guinea populations are above the 25% threshold for contrasts with each other and with all other chimpanzee populations. However, the three regions sampled in equatorial Africa are all well below the 25% threshold used for the recognition of subspecies. Hence, there are three races or subspecies of common chimpanzees using the threshold criterion: P .t. verus in the Upper Guinea region, P. t. ellioti in the Gulf of Guinea region, and the chimpanzee populations from equatorial Africa, which includes three of the traditional morphological subspecies.

    So once again, do you have any scientific evidence to counter this?

    Actually it is a scientific argument and supported with "science".

    You have provided nothing but your say so.

    And yet you are grouping by skin colour. Remember the little squares and circles you drew?

    You defined race by ancestry? Big woop! Show the scientific evidence to support your definition.

    You have literally provided no scientific data or evidence to support any of your arguments.

    Oh I'm sorry, you tried to define it by "race".
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,187
    Oh, so now you are trying to distance yourself from your own OP?

    Ah, you are the gift that keeps on giving..

    You have been provided with numerous studies and papers which distinctly explain this.

    I can only assume that you are thick or such a bigot that a) you refuse to read what has been provided or b) you refuse to acknowledge it because it does not fit into your personal ideology. Given your posting history on this subject matter on this site and elsewhere, I would say it's a bit from each column.

    I have provided you with numerous links, more than you deserve. You have provided nothing at all, while demanding we provide evidence. In short, your behaviour is that of a troll with a bigoted agenda and your purpose here is propaganda. I allowed you the benefit of the doubt and hoped that you would support your argument so that we could have a robust discussion on this issue. Instead, you have repeatedly refused to back up any of your claims with anything even remotely scientific and you have instead, copied and pasted diagrams and gifs from white supremacist sites, with absolutely zero input from anything even remotely scientific.

    Your bee in whatever bonnet you have has been to try to prove that race exists and that blacks are somehow less intelligent than whites because they are black. That has been the crux of your argument. You have flamed and trolled, demanding that everyone provide proof, which you not only refused to read, but complained about it having been provided.. You demand that people provide explanations of what they are posting and you complain if we paste any portions of these studies that you clearly have not read and do not understand. What you have quoted from the OP, you are now trying to distance yourself from because even that survey clearly does not support your contention and clearly advises that environmental factors rate higher than genetic factors when it comes to intelligence.

    The concept of "race" is invalidated because there is absolutely no genetic evidence that "race" exists for humans. We are not genetically different enough to warrant being a different species based solely on where we are born or the colour of our skin. You argue shared ancestry, then draw arbitrary circles around ethnic groups indicating shared ancestry, while being unable to explain with any scientific proof how any of those ethnic groups actually share a genetic ancestry. What was clearly evidenced in your little circles was that you are basing shared ancestry solely on skin colour. Despite the fact that skin colour variation is something that only happened a few thousand years ago and that for the majority of our existence on this planet, skin colour was predominantly black or dark. Those white Europeans you are saying "shared ancestry" without any scientific evidence to show that they shared ancestry and despite scientific evidence showing that they clearly did not share ancestry, were, until quite recently, black. As were Asians. To wit, different skin colour means diddly squat:

    Skin color is historically the locally adaptive trait most commonly considered by European cultures as a “racial trait” in humans. Skin color is an adaptation to the amount of ultraviolet (uv) radiation in the environment: dark skins are adaptive in high uv environments in order to protect from radiation damage that can kill and burn cells and damage DNA if not protected by melanin, and light skins are adaptive in low uv environments in order to make sufficient vitamin D, which requires uv (Hochberg & Templeton, 2010;Jablonski & Chaplin, 2010). The geographical distribution of skin color follows the environmental factor of uv intensity. Skin color differences do not reflect overall genetic divergence. For example, the native peoples with the darkest skins live in tropical Africa and Melanesia. The dark skins of Africans and Melanesians are adaptive to the high uv found in these areas. Because Africans and Melanesians live on opposite sides of the world, they are more highly genetically differentiated than many other human populations (Figure 2) despite their similar skin colors. Europeans, who are geographically intermediate between Africa and Melanesia, are likewise intermediate at the molecular genetic level between Africans and Melanesians, even though Europeans have light skins that are adapted to the low uv environment of Europe. Skin color differences in humans are not a reliable indicator of overall genetic differentiation or evolutionary history. Moreover, skin color varies continuously among humans in a clinal fashion rather than categorical ecotypes (Relethford, 2009). Hence, there is a compelling biological reason to exclude skin color as the racially-defining adaptive trait under the ecotype concept of race.

    It does not indicate shared ancestry. Regardless of the arbitrary colour lines you drew, the groups you put into the groups you drew do not actually share ancestry, yet you put them in there anyway based, as can be clearly evidence, on skin colour alone. I have to admit, I am still laughing at that one.


    Your argument is based on the premise that Homo sapiens evolved independently however many times to provide the number of distinct races that exist, to the point that each group were genetically dissimilar enough to warrant being classified as completely different species or to be classified as "sub species". In a matter of a few thousand years.


    There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this actually happened. Do you have any actual scientific evidence to support this? Anything at all aside from your say so?

    You provided data?

    Where?

    What scientific data have you provided that supports your claims? Because I am not seeing any. What? You think your quote of Darwin and his comments about race qualifies as scientific data? This was explained to you as to why it does not count. Primarily because he had absolutely no knowledge of DNA and genetics like we do now, which clearly show that there is no such thing as "race". All I am seeing is you arguing based solely on your unfounded personal opinion, and whining about links that have been provided because you refuse or cannot read them and whining about quotes that are provided from those links to answer your questions, not to mention whining and accusing everyone of strawman, when it is clear you do not understand what that actually means. If this is the scientific data of which you speak, I can say with absolute certainty that you fail at scientific data.
     
  13. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    Taking one point at a time. Can you find Fst 0.25 for subspecies in Smith 1997? Also, since it is "commonly used", can you find the statistic being used outside human races? Incidentally yes I have read Templeton's paper closely over many years and checked the references.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2016
  14. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    No, you only referenced Templeton's assertion on this point. You then go into an irrelevant rant replete with ad hominem, ad nauseam assertions, genetic fallacy, guilt by association, claiming you have backed yourself up with sources and data when you haven't, bashing your skin color strawman etc. Hilariously you then claim to be "scientific".

    I'm very happy to demonstrate to the board that genomic PCAs have nothing to do with "skin color" (if they are stupid enough to believe that), but I'd like to take one point at a time and clear up the lie you copy pasted from Templeton first. I ask you to find the quote from Smith 1997 because it simple isn't there, and I cannot quote something which does not exist.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2016
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,187
    Oh for goodness sake.

    Smith likely got it from Dean Amadon. You can read his paper here: https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v051n06/p0250-p0258.pdf

    Smith's paper can be downloaded from here: https://www.zenscientist.com/index.php/pdflibrary2/func-finishdown/1147/ - You need to scroll down until you find his paper on page 13 of the actual paper itself (pdf format).

    This should provide you with the background you require.

    Now, please provide scientific evidence to support your claims in this thread.
     
  16. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    Your sources refer to the "75% rule" for the level of classification separability of organisms in contact zones based on a handful of continuous morphological traits, not Fst.

    The concept of infraspecific taxa has been used at least since Linnaeus ’ time (1753). Qualitative definitions have been proffered by Darwin (1896), who considered varieties to be incipient species, potentially evolving into full species; Mayr (1963), defined subspecies as “ geographi- cally defined aggregates of local populations which dif- fer taxonomically from other such subdivisions of the species ” ; and Frankham et al. (2002), who stated they were “ ... populations partway through the evolutionary process of divergence toward full speciation. ” Qualitative definitions have been criticized as arbitrary because some groups classified qualitatively as subspecies are not differentiated based on multiple characters ( Wilson & Brown 1953; Mallet 2001).

    Traditionally, subspecies have been defined by morphological traits or color variations, but recent critics are concerned that these traits may not reflect underlying genetic structure and phylogenies. This concern stems from recent work in which phylogenetic patterns of genetic variation were not concordant with some subspecies classifications defined by morphology (Zink 1989; Ball & Avise 1992; Zink et al. 2000; Zink 2004).

    The only quantitative subspecies definition we found was the 75% rule (Amadon 1949; Patten & Unitt 2002) that states a subspecies is valid if 75% or more of a population is separable from all (or > 99% of ) members of the overlapping population. Although the 75% rule is more quantitative than other definitions, there is disagreement about the 75% threshold and the number of characters that should be used when comparing populations (Patten & Unitt 2002).


    http://watchdogwire.wpengine.netdna...2006-Report-on-ESA-Subspecies-Controversy.pdf
    This source states that using morphological traits is discordant to "phylogenetic patterns of genetic variation", ie. ancestry inferred by genomics. And this has nothing to do with Fst. Modern genomics can classify organisms, ie. assign them a position in or near to a cluster relative to other clusters, with 100% accuracy. You can't find anyone except Templeton using 0.25 Fst to impugn a taxonomy, and only in the context of human race, because it's an ad hoc race denial piece of nonsense. And this is what you use to arrogantly assert how "science" you are?

    You want evidence that taxonomies are based on ancestry? That genomics infers ancestry? Is the one above good enough? I'm not sure I can be bothered debating with someone who fails to acknowledge basic concepts in biology. It's easy to refute calculus by denying 1 + 1 = 2 ad nauseam. Trouble is it makes you look like an idiot.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2016
  17. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    I discussed Phill's argument with Joseph Graves some time ago.....

    By the way Phill I think it is good that you have taken your argument to a scientific Message Board.

    I would not like to see this thread closed. You really should fulfill Bell's request by providing a scientific source that backs your argument. If you don't that can reasonably be interpreted as trolling and grounds to ban you or close the thread.
     
  18. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    Specifically was
    Specifically what is it in my argument that you doubt? That classification is based on ancestry? That ancestry is inferred by genomics? Perhaps you don't like "race", defined by ancestry, and would like me to say "population", defined by ancestry, or "genetic ancestry", defined by ancestry.
     
  19. EgalitarianJay Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    My main problem with your argument is that race by definition refers to a division between groups. You haven't provided any criteria for dividing groups by race only said that they can be classified by shared ancestry. It would be helpful if you provided one or a few primary sources that support your argument especially since this has been requested of you numerous times.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,187
    Except that the human population, or more to the point, the specific populations you have grouped into "races" were not separable from all or each other group. They may not "share an ancestry" by how you define it, but there was still constant contact and continues to be, with the influx of migration out of Africa and more importantly, between different regions throughout human history.

    Which is why they fall well below the 25% range and which is why there are no sub-species or "races" among Homo sapiens and with the world being what it is, is not likely to be either.

    And keep in mind, you are suggesting that a few thousand years was enough for what? 5 or 6 independent groups to evolve independently and at around the same time to have distinct traits that cannot be found in any other population or group.

    We know that this has not occurred because every trait can also be found independently in other groups around the world.

    There are more differences within a population group, or what you are determining a group that share an ancestry, than there are between different groups. Doesn't this explain to you how and why 'race' does not exist?

    Human populations can be defined along geographic, political, linguistic, religious, or ethnic boundaries. Using a common definition that groups populations into major continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South America), many studies have shown that approximately 90% of genetic variation can be found within these populations, and only about 10% of genetic variation separates the populations. Thus, the great majority of genetic differences can be found between individuals from any one of the major continents, and, on average, only a small proportion of additional differences will be found between individuals from two different continents. Furthermore, because human history is a history of population movement, and because humans are extraordinarily adept at sharing their DNA, the genetic boundaries between populations are typically indistinct. For any given DNA sequence or gene, two individuals from different populations are sometimes more similar to one another than are two individuals from the same population.

    The fact that humans are relatively homogeneous at the DNA level, combined with the fact that between-population variation is modest, has significant social implications. Importantly, these patterns imply that the DNA differences between individuals, and between populations, are relatively scant and do not provide a biological basis for any form of discrimination.

    To put it bluntly, groups did not evolve in absolute isolation from each other. There has been continual overlap in our history, between different and varied groups. There are no specific or arbitrary genetic boundaries between groups. That does not exist. Which is why distinct genetic traits can be found in all populations. This clearly shows that there has been continuous mixing in the past, present and there will be in the future as well. And it explains why we are not as diverse as we may think we are.

    There is a paper that discusses pretty much what you are arguing. Titled "Patterns of Human Diversity, within and among Continents, Inferred from Biallelic DNA Polymorphisms" it distinctly discusses and disagrees with Templeton's findings and comments. This was a genetic study of different groups, expecting to find that geographical separation would have resulted in 'races'. I would suggest you read it and see their findings. It is a very interesting read.

    As I have repeatedly asked you, please provide some scientific evidence to support your claim.
     
  21. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    So because you're changing the subject I take it you admit your 0.25 Fst claim was wrong?
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,187
    No I do not think it is wrong.

    Now, since you are no longer in a position to twist yourself further into a pretzel, please support your argument with some scientific evidence. I have not tried to change the subject. You have done everything but support your argument. I have given you more than enough chances. My sole aim here now is to get you to try to support your argument. You have yet to do so.

    You have wasted enough of my and everybody's time. If you fail to support your argument in this thread, I will close it and cesspool it and you will face moderation for trolling (just to start). This thread is now on its 12th page. It won't go further if you fail to substantiate your claims with some scientific evidence. Have I made myself clear now? So stop dodging, stop trying to change the subject. Support your claims with scientific evidence or you are done here.
     
  23. Phill Banned Banned

    Messages:
    144
    I am supporting my claim, by contradicting your race denial fallacies. How can my claim stand if race is an invalid concept? When I demonstrate the incorrectness of one of your race denial fallacies, you refuse to admit it and change the subject to a different fallacy. Which of your fallacies would you like me to address next? Lewontin's fallacy? Gene flow impugning a taxonomy? Whether I define race by "skin color"?

    Besides, whether or not "race doesn't exist" for some non-sequitur nonsense reason applied nowhere else in biology, which may just be a cheap way to avoid the question, clearly human variation exists, and there is variation in IQ. So this whole line is something of a diversion, as I expect it is intended to be. What do you think is causing IQ variation between "social races" and nations?

    For example when children who are "socially East Asian" are adopted by people who are "socially White", they exhibit the same high non-verbal IQ. Why? Why do people "called Black by a racist society because they look like they have African ancestry when science shows this is wrong" have such persistent low scores all over the world?
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2016
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page