Thanks for the very informative comments.
Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability
- Thread starter Phill
- Start date
- Status
EgalitarianJay
Registered Senior Member
Read this article.
I will explain this in a little more detail. It's not my argument that just because there are environmental variables that affect IQ that the cause of racial IQ gaps must be 100% environmental. My argument is that because there is no genetic component to racial IQ gaps the cause must be 100% environmental. The high heritability of intelligence in no way indicates that there is a genetic component to racial gaps in IQ. You can have a high heritability for intelligence and still have a 100% environmental cause. This can be explained through a hypothetical experiment.
Suppose we took a pair of identical twins each with a genetic potential to score 140 on an IQ test. Let's raise the first twin in the best environment imaginable. Great parents, great schools, great neighborhood, great nutrition etc. The best environment we can provide. Now let's take the other twin and raise them in the worst environment imaginable. No parents, no school, no neighborhood, poor nutrition etc. Basically raised in virtual isolation with no human contact and only enough nutrition to survive. Once they reach adulthood we give them an IQ test. The first twin scores a 140 on the test. The second twin's behavior is so feral they will not even understand how to take the test. They can't read. They can't speak. They simply aren't capable of matching their twin in intellectual ability. Same genes, different outcome. Environment is 100% the cause of differences in IQ.
Now let's look at an example of the real world. White and Black Americans score differently on IQ scores on average. We know that there is an environmental difference between the populations. Black Americans are descended from slaves brought from Africa to America. This enslavement lasted hundreds of years involving back breaking labor, beatings, rape and murder. Blacks during this time were given only the most basic necessities for survival, food, clothing and shelter. They were taught to speak English but it was illegal for them to learn how to read (why do you think that is?). Over generations these environmental conditions affected the psychology of African-Americans and their health. After slavery was abolished Blacks were then oppressed for about 100 years deprived of equal education, housing, jobs etc. IQ testing was invented in the 20th Century. When Whites and Blacks were tested Whites had a mean of 100 and Blacks a mean of 85. The environmental component to these scores is obvious.
After the Civil Rights movement environmental conditions for Blacks gradually improved. Research shows that the Black-White IQ gap was reduced from 1972 to 2002 by about 4-7 IQ points (Dickens and Flynn, 2006). So we know that the Black-White IQ gap is not immutable. In 2016 the Black American IQ average is estimated to be about 93 (Nisbett, personal communication). Research also shows that when controlling for certain environmental variables the Black-White IQ gap can be eliminated (Brooks-Gunn et al. 1996).
Taking all of that in to consideration it is evident that racial IQ gaps are 100% environmental in cause.
Last edited:
Yes he did. That's your mantra. You didn't scientifically show this. He explained why there can't be any meaningful correlation that you think exists. You think the bullshit study you linked nullifies reality. The fact you want to press this bullshit non correlation puts you on the intellectually dishonest crank ring of Dante's Inferno.
I've read it before. It shows between group variation in IQ related genes. I've no idea why you or the author claim otherwise.
His post isn't irrelevant. It's irrelevant to you based on your desire to push your intellectually dishonest agenda.
EgalitarianJay
Registered Senior Member
No, it doesn't. This is what the author had to say about the article.
Joseph Graves said:
If you can point out quotes and references in the article that support between group variation in IQ related genes feel free to do so.
I don't see why I should have to construct your argument for you. Why don't you give us a summary of the article in your own words?
EgalitarianJay
Registered Senior Member
You're the one who said that the article showed between group distribution in IQ related genes. If that's true (it isn't) then you should back up your claim.
In fact you posted it claiming it showed no between group variation, or "not unevenly distributed" as you put it.
You started this bullshit discussion so how about you explaining why the paper you linked isn't scientific illiterate bullshit. So far you're just playing the crank. As evidenced by the content of the post I'm responding to.
EgalitarianJay
Registered Senior Member
It does. The author himself said it does. If you read it you can see that it does show that IQ related genes have no racial association. You are claiming the opposite so you should back up your assertion.
If you are bringing in a source to support your position you have to be prepared to establish the credibility of that source. Your argument here is "I have this source that agrees with me". That's not good enough. You are going to need to go into a lot more detail. Specify which genes we are looking at, how are they distributed, which sources are referenced. "Joseph Graves agrees with me" is something that can just be dismissed.
EgalitarianJay
Registered Senior Member
I don't need to repeat the details of the article. If you want to discuss the content then read it for yourself and provide feedback. I simply stated that this article shows that IQ related genes do not show a racial association. The details and sources that are referenced are contained in the article. The credibility of the source is verified by the qualifications of the author. I can summarize the arguments and findings of the article but what we are arguing about here is your claim that the article shows between group variation in IQ related genes. I have read it and it does not. The author reports the exact opposite. Anyone can read the article themselves and see that you are wrong so if you are still defending that position provide evidence.
Well you are just making an argument from "authority". Whether Joseph Graves is any kind of authority outside your mind is another question.
So you've read the paper and you can see some IQ related genes and how they are distributed and you can't report that here in your own words? Why not?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Joseph L. Graves Jr(Professor of African studies, etc...)
"The human species does not contain biological races now nor has it at any time in the past 250,000 years."
https://www.enotalone.com/personal-growth/5043.html
From that premise (complete lunacy) there can be no racial differentiation of IQ because there is no racial differentiation.
Ok
hahahahaha
There are no races
People only look like there are different races because of social injustice.
That guy is a hoot.
My brother from another mother?
"The human species does not contain biological races now nor has it at any time in the past 250,000 years."
https://www.enotalone.com/personal-growth/5043.html
From that premise (complete lunacy) there can be no racial differentiation of IQ because there is no racial differentiation.
Ok
hahahahaha
There are no races
People only look like there are different races because of social injustice.
That guy is a hoot.
My brother from another mother?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
OK
oops
(that was a tad harsh)
Give the guy his due, he does state:
"These studies indicate that individual difference in human intelligence is determined by many genes of small effect. Thus the evidence summarized above suggests that we can state that cognitive performance is definitely influenced by genetic variation, that cognitive performance is heritable (and therefore varies by families)..."
...................................................................................................................
(it would seem that he only gets irrational when talking about "race")
oops
(that was a tad harsh)
Give the guy his due, he does state:
"These studies indicate that individual difference in human intelligence is determined by many genes of small effect. Thus the evidence summarized above suggests that we can state that cognitive performance is definitely influenced by genetic variation, that cognitive performance is heritable (and therefore varies by families)..."
...................................................................................................................
(it would seem that he only gets irrational when talking about "race")
So far this persons argument reminds me of an argument Futulist would make without the goofy irrelevant graphs and the doomsday irrelevance.
You're playing the crank. Any credibility you had when you started this is gone. You keep claiming others have made no analysis while you do just that. Make no analysis. Crank whine Phill.
Of course not. Where would you get that? I said it means you have to be very careful about how you define those populations, and completely thorough in dealing with confounding variables, to have the slightest hope of discovering valid genetic correlations even - let along causes.phill said:
And since this care has not been taken, and the due diligence not performed, the relationship between population genetics and population cognitive abilities is at the present time speculative.
Interesting example. Recent work by John Komlos and others have pretty much blown the long accepted and "scientific" estimates of the heritability of height at the population level. Komlos himself is on record as observing that as far as his work shows there is no significant variance in inherited height among the human populations on this planet - that aside from a couple of known physical subtypes of humans such as the Bushmen tribes in central and southern Africa, we are all genetically about the same height. The illusion was created by an uneven distribution of overlooked environmental factors.phill said:
You are missing the point. That only gets you the individual, and their ancestral community - not the race. You can discover that one person's ancestry is a coastal community in Norway, and another person's is a coastal community in Portugal, and a third is descended from a coastal community in Sierra Leone. Evenly spaced along the eastern Atlantic ocean. But you cannot, from the cluster membership alone, assign two of them to one race and the third to another. You have to find out, first, what race those clusters belong to. And that will require sociological information.phill said:
The "genetic clusters" are gene pools, usually geographically located. They are not races. All the sociological races feature - within them - many such clusters. You can only identify the race associated with a particular cluster by gathering racial information - sociological racial information - about that community or geographical area.
Or as I put it: most people know what race other people think they belong to. So if you have a gene cluster, and you want to assign it to a "race" for some reason, the way to do it is by asking the members of that cluster what race they are. Or asking their neighbors. Or looking at photographs of the people who live there. Or guessing based on geography and history. Or guessing based on the sociological race assigned to some cluster you think is similar. Or some such method. You can't make the assessment from the genetic data alone, because there are no genetically defined races. No one has taken the human genetic heritage and divided it up into races based on its internal relationships and natural clustering. The species is divided into races first, sociologically, mostly on essentially trivial criteria known to be subject to rapid evolutionary change such as skin color, and only then are the "genetic clusters" assigned to one race or another - regardless of their genetic similarity to each other.
More to the point, "accepting" that the differences in the test results have been shown to have an identifiable degree or percentage of genetic cause on the basis of such horseshit evidence is denying all of the sciences except psychology. Including statistics.sculptor said:
For example: Anyone who "accepts" evidence for the genetic distribution of cognitive abilities on a US racial population scale, from research that did not control for childhood lead exposure, stereotype bias, and genetic vulnerability to lead exposure and stereotype bias (which is research I believe not to exist yet), is fooling themselves.
And when faced with otherwise competent, educated, professional people so willing to fool themselves in such obvious ways, the person seeking understanding is indeed led to ask "Why?".
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
John H. Komlos
"Height variations within a population are largely genetic"
John Komlos is an American economic historian
"Komlos himself is on record as observing that as far as his work shows there is no significant variance in inherited height among the human populations on this planet."
is just silly
"Height variations within a population are largely genetic"
John Komlos is an American economic historian
"Komlos himself is on record as observing that as far as his work shows there is no significant variance in inherited height among the human populations on this planet."
is just silly
- Status