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

[iceaura]

How do you square this with us all being genetically the same height as you assert below?

As John Komlos and several other researchers have concluded from their years of data and analysis, you mean? I see nothing out of square.

If we consistently see the same patterns between ancestry and outcome, is not the default hypothesis genetics?

That depends. One consistently sees the same patterns between ancestry and outcome for religion and spoken language, for example. Genetics is not the default hypothesis.

Populations can be well defined, can you explain how they are not?

Sure they can. But you have to do it - nobody's going to do that for you. And if you haven't done it, you are going to get worthless data and draw invalid conclusions.

What variables specifically are you concerned about?

For starters, a few of the things famous for affecting cognitive ability - such as neurotoxin exposure. When you have at least dealt with them, we can move on to the careful screening for hidden variables. Right now you haven't even addressed the basics.

Not at all. It's really very simple. Sample people all over the world, take their genotypes, identified only by a random number, and then plot them according to similarity (PCA is good for this). You'll see the Blumenbach partition: East Asians, Caucasoids, SS Africans, and Native Americans.

Until you do that, it hasn't been done - and speculations as to what you would discover remain speculations.

Personally, I think you would probably get a couple of your presupposed categories, such as "Native Americans" (which will include a good share of Asia), and possibly "Caucasoids" almost (but not quite) aligned with modern US standard "white" (not Brazilian standard "white", and not original US standard "white", - modern US only) and also a bunch of equivalently distinct clusters from the Australasian and African and the IndoEuropean theaters that you can't make fit. But that's also mere speculation. Go for it.

Meanwhile, don't pretend it's been done. There are no genetically defined human races. And the fact that the "black" race seems to be some kind of catchall for every human population with melanistic skin is strong evidence that whenever you get around to this difficult task that particular race is going to vanish from your categories like a puff of smoke in breeze.

Really? Could you explain how it contradicts Visscher's work in the area? You can find references to it in this excellent paper: Still Missing, by Eric Turkheimer.

The link is to an irrelevant and badly written paper on familial and individual heritability. It may be excellent in its field, but we were talking about population level genetics.

It's probably just my biases that are causing me to laugh.

That or stupidity. Take your pick.

 

[sculptor]

"Race" is a social construct. In biology, "race" is not really scientifically valid.

You can laugh as much as you want about it, does not mean you are correct.

OK
RACE
Seems to have morphed int a construct where using the word is tantamount to dressing up as one of Garibaldi's men and jumping into a bull ring.
It has meant different things during different times:
eg:

Many poorly educated people seem to think it synonymous with "sub species". Which it ain't!
And then, we have a subset of archaeology which uses craniometrics to identify the origin of the person whose skull has been found.
The labels have changed over the years from caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid through white, black and yellow to more refined terms------.
I consider psychology(including studies into testing for intellectual ability) as a sub discipline of anthropology(my main course of study and a degree). As such, considerations of differences has always been appreciated with a studied dispassionate mindset.

To ignore all differences is insanity. To categorize differences by "race" is using too broad a brush to yield any precision.

Your eye tells you that there is a difference----------but what does your eye focus on?
Skin color? = Bad choice?
Cranial morphology? Maybe a tad better?

Bottom line "race" is not just a social construct.
However, the responses from using that word are a hindrance to intellectual pursuits.

So........................
It would seem that we need a new label(set of labels?) along with a new classificatory schema.

...........................................
back to intelligence testing
If you were looking for the best (wo) man for the job, would you go with general intelligence(g) or a high non g score?
.........................................
When I registered my children for grade school(almost 30 years ago), one of the questions was "race?" to which I wrote "human".
Out of the anthropology/archaeology context, it was becoming apparent that other people were using the word differently, and in a myopic meaningless way.

RACE
Perhaps, the time has come for me to eschew that word when referencing humans.

............................
In closing:
The iq tests do have some validity. But only IF they are used for what they are and not for what they ain't. And, they only measure some factors--------
................
I'g go for a non g that selected for the task at hand.

 

[Bells]

Many poorly educated people seem to think it synonymous with "sub species". Which it ain't!
And then, we have a subset of archaeology which uses craniometrics to identify the origin of the person whose skull has been found.
The labels have changed over the years from caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid through white, black and yellow to more refined terms------.
I consider psychology(including studies into testing for intellectual ability) as a sub discipline of anthropology(my main course of study and a degree). As such, considerations of differences has always been appreciated with a studied dispassionate mindset.

To ignore all differences is insanity. To categorize differences by "race" is using too broad a brush to yield any precision.

Your eye tells you that there is a difference----------but what does your eye focus on?
Skin color? = Bad choice?
Cranial morphology? Maybe a tad better?

Bottom line "race" is not just a social construct.
However, the responses from using that word are a hindrance to intellectual pursuits.

So........................
It would seem that we need a new label(set of labels?) along with a new classificatory schema.

Okay..

If you take two healthy people of the same sex, one white and one black and you lay out all of their internal organs onto a table. Can you tell just by looking at their organs that they are from different races? How about their blood? If they are both O+, can you tell what race they are from? Can you tell from that that it is what can only be called a cosmetic difference? Can you tell which continent they are from?

Despite notions to the contrary, there is only one human race. Our single race is independent of geographic origin, ethnicity, culture, color of skin or shape of eyes — we all share a single phenotype, the same or similar observable anatomical features and behavior.

Science highlights these similarities in our embryonic development, physiology (our organ-based systems), biochemistry (our metabolites and reactions), and more recently, genomics (our genetic makeup). As a molecular biologist, this last one is indeed the most important to me — data show that the DNA of any two human beings is 99.9 percent identical, and we all share the same set of genes, scientifically validating the existence of a single biological human race and one origin for all human beings. In short, we are all brothers and sisters. [What is the Difference between Race and Ethnicity? ]

Biologically speaking, one clear example is that most diseases afflict all of us — diseases like cancers and cardiovascular and neurological disorders, as well as viral, microbial and parasitic infections. Obviously, there are differences in how individual humans respond to various diseases or infections; some never suffer from cancer and may be immune to assorted infections. This may be due to factors such as diet, exercise, overall health or environmental conditions. However, the fact that a human population, irrespective of geography or ethnicity is susceptible to the same diseases, coupled with the existence of multiple pandemics , is a clear indication of how identical we are.

Genetically speaking, studies have shown that there is much greater genetic variation within a given human population (e.g., Africans, Caucasians, or Asians) than between populations (Africans vs. Caucasions), indicating that human variation cannot be subdivided into discrete races. ​

You, and everyone else, has been conditioned and taught from birth, to classify people based on how they look, ie, race and it has been like that for centuries. The reality is that there is no such thing biologically speaking.

Just because someone is from a different continent, or their ancestry indicates they are from a different continent, does not mean that they are a different race.

Genetically speaking, they can look at continental ancestry, but that will not provide any information on the person's skin colour as such or what you determine to be "race".

There is a book called Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age, I would suggest you read it because it provides a very good description from a genetic standpoint and also from a social and political standpoint.

To put it bluntly, a person's genetic ancestry can indicate greater genetic markers that shows they have African ancestry, for example. But that person may not look African and may be white. They could very well be white or Asian in appearance. Does that make them "black"? Or "white"? You know, as far as "race" and how your "eyes" see the difference?

I'll put it another way. I have a cousin who has light brown hair, has blue/green coloured eyes and white skin. Her parents are dark skin with green eyes on her mother's side and dark skin with brown eyes on her father's side. Genetically speaking, our ancestry hails from Africa and Europe. Does this make her white or black? The kicker is she lives in South Africa. She moved there during the Apartheid regime because she married a white man who hails from there. She was classified as being "white" "caucasian" as a "race", despite the fact that her parents would both classify as "black" under their regime (and they were when they were denied the right to ride in the "whites only" train carriage when they went to visit her after her marriage). When she and her very white husband had a child, he was born with dark skin, dark hair and dark brown eyes. So he was classified as "black" and questions were then raised as to how two people who were "white" racially, could have had a "black" child. They had to move and did not return until apartheid was abolished.

See how the very concept of "race" is ridiculous and does not exist in biology? They could track the genes that showed her African ancestry as much as it would show her European ancestry. But in no way could that indicate what "race" she would be under the social and political definition of "race". Under what you are touting "race" exists, she is "white". But genetically speaking, she is European as much as she is African. So what "race" is she? Or are you just going to go by what your eyes tell you to classify her?

 

[sculptor]

Despite notions to the contrary, there is only one human race

ergo--my response "human"

Bells:
actually
from birth--through childhood and adolescence
I never had any racial bias(one of my sons has the name of a "black" friend..."Cedric" Cedric the elder was a fireman retired and works as an actor---you may have seen him in "Backdraft")
(Taller, bigger, more talented, and more handsome than I)

I was introduced to craniometrics while studying anthropology/archaeology.
Those who were capable/well studied seemed to think that craniometrics = morphology was sufficient to declare the "race" of the cranium under study.
.....................
The dicipline of craniometrics led researchers to speculate that there were obvious Australasian skulls in south america-------recently supported by finding a denisovan dna "hot spot' in south america.

That science of craniometrics ain't bunk------------and it doesn't have anything to do with soft tissues. It exclusively relies on the study of the morphology of skulls.
so
Your example is beyond the pale of craniometrics.
............................
Peronally:
I've had 2 "black" lovers in my life. One of whom While dancing with me in the nco club (we) almost started a "race riot' when an obviously horny "black" fellow approached us on the dance floor and said(to her): "why don't you stick with your own kind bitch" ............ as he spoke- a group of white guys stood up and a group of black guys stood up---------we were on the ragged edge of blood sweat and tears and trips to the medics. I managed to calm everyone down by reminding them that the post was just about as good as they could expect from the army, and screwing that up was stupid and foolish. So we finished the dance, and left for more privacy.
The second one thought that I was "kinda cute"(as was she).
Oh to be young again.............
(sigh)

I ain't no racist-----------just a rather well educated intellectual snob. It ain't the race and it ain't the body---------it's always been the brains that "turned me on".

.........................
As more dna sequencing is studied, we'll know more. Meanwhile, relax and watch the beauty of the science unfold.
How does one study epigenomics? By proxy?
How so?

 

[iceaura]

The dicipline of craniometrics led researchers to speculate that there were obvious Australasian skulls in south america-------recently supported by finding a denisovan dna "hot spot' in south america

None of that has anything to do with the sociological races. There may have been - and if so probably still are - populations harboring significant Denisovan genetics in South America, but that does not mean any of those people are of any particular sociological race different from their neighbors. All the supposed races - including apparently the much despised and discriminated against "Indios" of the Americas - incorporate multiple genetic clusters of that kind. We have recently discovered that the white "race" harbors clusters of Neandertal genetics, for example.

This would be among the factors one would need to control for, in any attempt to correlate genetically based variance in the cognitive abilities of populations with the "race" of the populations.

The entire endeavor is a waste of time, imho.

 

[Bells]

Bells:
actually
from birth--through childhood and adolescence
I never had any racial bias(one of my sons has the name of a "black" friend..."Cedric" Cedric the elder was a fireman retired and works as an actor---you may have seen him in "Backdraft")
(Taller, bigger, more talented, and more handsome than I)

I was introduced to craniometrics while studying anthropology/archaeology.
Those who were capable/well studied seemed to think that craniometrics = morphology was sufficient to declare the "race" of the cranium under study.
.....................
The dicipline of craniometrics led researchers to speculate that there were obvious Australasian skulls in south america-------recently supported by finding a denisovan dna "hot spot' in south america.

That science of craniometrics ain't bunk------------and it doesn't have anything to do with soft tissues. It exclusively relies on the study of the morphology of skulls.
so
Your example is beyond the pale of craniometrics.

No one is saying craniometric is bunk. Far from it. But you seem to have it wrong when it comes to "races".

You seem to believe that craniometric variation can determine "race". Right... Let's see..

Relethford proceeds to consider craniometric or skull variation. Here the picture is different, as Relethford finds that crania are “geographically structured” (2009:18). The differences cluster according to geographic region and reflect genetic relationships: “Global patterns of craniometric variation reflect largely underlying patterns of genetic relationship, which in turn reflect geographic structure” (2009:19). However, even though there are recognizable clusters, “there are no abrupt breaks in the relationship between phenotypic and geographic distance . . . indicating that decisions for subdivision into clusters (or races) are going to be subjective” (2009:19). Relethford explains that although it is possible to discern geographic ancestry by continent, the number of groups which could be classified and the geographic cutoffs would be “subjective decisions” (2009:20).

[...]

A different question is whether Sauer’s stance remains valid, given the increased sophistication of measurement and quantification in forensic anthropology. Here two articles in the Race Reconciled volume are especially insightful–the increasing sophistication of measurement and quantification only reinforces Sauer’s claim that forensic anthropology does not confirm traditional race classifications, even when race-identification probabilities are reported from skeletal remains.

The first article, Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race, obviously takes its title in reference to Sauer. The authors specifically tackle physical differences between U.S. blacks and whites, noting that there have been historically low rates of interracial marriage, given legal restrictions persisting in some states until the 1960s, and that “unofficial social penalties for interracial relationships and marriage included violence and murder” (Ousley et al. 2009:69). Different continental ancestry combined with institutional racism makes it possible to discern a “clear craniometric separation of American blacks and whites” (Ousley et al. 2009:72).

However, the authors support Sauer’s contention that craniometric separation does not confirm traditional racial categories. “Sauer’s additional suggestion that differences in American blacks and whites did not validate the traditional biological race concept is likewise supported by our results” (Ousley et al. 2009:73).

Why? The authors highlight just how many social differences could be discerned by forensic anthropologists. Given an original sample of bones classified into social groups, a forensic anthropologist can with high probability predict to which group another case of bones belong. They can separate Japanese from Chinese from Vietnamese, or northern Japanese from southern Japanese. Or, and perhaps most incredibly, “white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races” (2009:74). Group bones by birth-year, run the statistics, and then introduce a new sample: the sample can be accurately classified, and a new race born every fifty years!

Forensic anthropologists sort real physical variation into categories we have made socially relevant. “There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless. We can only concur with Howells’ modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘There are no races, only populations’” (Ousley et al. 2009:74). (Livingstone’s original quote [1962:279] was “There are no races, there are only clines”.)

The second article, Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: Sex and race does not have a provocative title, but is perhaps an even more incredible piece. The authors begin with sex identification, showing how sex is reliably estimated from a few craniometric variables, and how a prior identification of a roughly 1:1 sex ratio is unimportant for making the call.

Things change when it comes to racial identification. Here, they take a set of bones from “Mr. Johnson” and compare them to a world database: “The results from these analyses fairly unambiguously estimate Mr. Johnson’s origin as an Easter Islander” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:81). However, since Mr. Johnson’s bones were found in Iowa, plugging in the Iowa probabilities allows Mr. Johnson to be reliably predicted as white. Forensic anthropologists base their estimates on the known prior composition of the population. If the same bones from Mr. Johnson had been found in Hawaii, they would have estimated “Easter Islander” or if found in Gary, Indiana, they would have estimated “American Black”:

Using the Iowa priors, the highest posterior probability is for “American White” at 0.6976. The identification of “Easter Islander,” which had the highest posterior when we used an uninformative prior, now has a relatively low posterior probability (0.0449). In contrast, using the Hawaii priors the posterior probability that “Mr. Johnson” was an “Easter Islander” is 0.9068, whereas the posterior probability that he was an “American White” was 0.0188. Using the Gary, Indiana prior the highest posterior probability (0.5342) was for “American Black” with “American White” having the second highest posterior probability (0.2728). (Konigsberg et al. 2009:82)​

What actually happens is forensic anthropologists match bones probabilistically against known existing assortments. Those assortments can be anything socially relevant. Changing the context of bone discovery could lead to different predictive classification–of the same bones: “The use of different priors also shows the importance of prior information, as ‘Mr. Johnson’ would have been classified as a Pacific Islander had his remains been found on Hawaii and as an ‘American Black’ had his remains been found in Gary, Indiana” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:83).


Forensic anthropologists “often do bring prior information to their cases, though this information is typically implicit, unstated, and not quantified” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:84). Estimates are always probabilities, and probabilities rely on pre-existing information, such as a self-reporting census. Rather incredibly, the authors conclude that “forensic anthropologists are not particularly adept at identifying races when they must deal with a very heterogeneous population at large, and this is the one setting in which a definitive racial identification would be useful” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:86). Guessing Mr. Johnson’s bones, when found in Iowa, were “probably white” is a guess anyone could make based on the Iowa census.​

So.. You were saying?

 

[Bells]

Peronally:
I've had 2 "black" lovers in my life. One of whom While dancing with me in the nco club (we) almost started a "race riot' when an obviously horny "black" fellow approached us on the dance floor and said(to her): "why don't you stick with your own kind bitch" ............ as he spoke- a group of white guys stood up and a group of black guys stood up---------we were on the ragged edge of blood sweat and tears and trips to the medics. I managed to calm everyone down by reminding them that the post was just about as good as they could expect from the army, and screwing that up was stupid and foolish. So we finished the dance, and left for more privacy.
The second one thought that I was "kinda cute"(as was she).
Oh to be young again.............
(sigh)

Err Okay...?

Is this meant to show something? You do understand that you are merely providing further examples of just how "race" is a social and political construct?

That even in anthropology, it does not really exist either, even when studying skulls is taken into consideration.

I mean sure, back in the good old days where "negroes", as Phill likes to refer to black people, were considered sub-human or less than white people because of the supposed shape of their skull and brow, race was vitally important. You do understand that part of history, yes?

And it is wrong. Exceptionally wrong, as science has shown.

I ain't no racist-----------just a rather well educated intellectual snob. It ain't the race and it ain't the body---------it's always been the brains that "turned me on".

You are also approaching this from a position of privilege. Tell me, do you think telling us you bonked two black people is supposed to suggest that 'race' somehow exists? You have failed to account for the science, which clearly shows that race does not exist in "science". It doesn't exist in biology, genetics, anthropology. It only matters in people's brains and perceptions.

As more dna sequencing is studied, we'll know more. Meanwhile, relax and watch the beauty of the science unfold.

The beauty has unfolded.

Perhaps it's time for you to let go of the old ways and embrace the new knowledge that science unfolded.

And oh yeah, the Denisova "hot spot" in South America was more likely the result of interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. Just saying.

 

[sculptor]

Err Okay...?
You are also approaching this from a position of privilege.

That is complete and total bullshit. You do not know me, nor the poverty in which I was raised.(are you a closet racists? Are you making economic class assumptions based solely on assumptions of race?)

Tell me, do you think telling us you bonked two black people is supposed to suggest that 'race' somehow exists?

I wouldn't say bonked----------it was mutual---who bonked whom? The attractor was the conversations. The first was well educated, but in different disciplines than I, so she had different perspectives on the same subjects-----While I usually beat her at chess, she usually beat me at scrabble----and then, the army transferred her out of my life. The second was less well educated, but had insights into people of which I was wholly deficient. She intuitively understood the subtexts of our interactions with others while I stood by clueless.

You have failed to account for the science, which clearly shows that race does not exist in "science". It doesn't exist in biology, genetics, anthropology. It only matters in people's brains and perceptions.

As previously mentioned, the science is changing--------(adapted from chan-zen "the only constant is change")
And, as previously mentioned above: "To categorize differences by "race" is using too broad a brush to yield any precision."
Are Australasians a different "race"?(see above)

The beauty has unfolded.

Nope. Much like walking through meadows in springtime different flowers bloom at different times.
Much of what I learned as a student is different now---julie brigham grette, et.al turned palioclimatology on it's head----klaus schmidt, et all turned the 'neolithic revolution on it's head. What we think we know should always be viewed as in transition. And that is the beauty of watching the science unfold. If you study the sciences, every day is springtime with new flowers to delight the mind and senses.

And oh yeah, the Denisova "hot spot" in South America was more likely the result of interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. Just saying.

Perhaps?
Perhaps that is why the high altitude EPAS1 mutation, believed to have come from denisovans, which is common in Tibetans seems lacking in the Quechua and Aymara.

I repeat: As more dna sequencing is studied, we'll know more. Meanwhile, relax and watch the beauty of the science unfold.
We ain't in the summer of knowledge yet. Much like the bees pollinating the flowers, appreciate the researchers whose fruits are a delight to the mind.

How does one test for epigenetic mutations?

Everyone understand the Garibaldi reference?

 

[Bells]

That is complete and total bullshit. You do not know me, nor the poverty in which I was raised.

This may sound heartless, but you are the one waxing the lyrical about people you have had sex with to try to convince me that you are not racist.

It is akin to the 'I have black friends' defense. And you are offended that I comment on your approaching this from a position of privilege?

I'll be blunt, your sex life doesn't really have anything to do with this thread. Your saying that you had whatever with two black people does not really have anything to do with this thread. The only thing it has shown is that you, like many, will utilise the 'I have black friends' defense.

I wouldn't say bonked----------it was mutual---who bonked whom?

Bonked is often used in Australian slang to mean "sex".

Look dude, no one really cares who you had sex with or when. It has nothing to do with this thread. We get it, you "have black friends".

The attractor was the conversations. The first was well educated, but in different disciplines than I, so she had different perspectives on the same subjects-----While I usually beat her at chess, she usually beat me at scrabble----and then, the army transferred her out of my life. The second was less well educated, but had insights into people of which I was wholly deficient. She intuitively understood the subtexts of our interactions with others while I stood by clueless.

Ooookay then.

Good for you. Once more, we get it.. You "have black friends".

As previously mentioned, the science is changing--------(adapted from chan-zen "the only constant is change")
And, as previously mentioned above: "To categorize differences by "race" is using too broad a brush to yield any precision."
Are Australasians a different "race"?(see above)

I am not the one claiming that people who look different they must be a different "race".

Nope. Much like walking through meadows in springtime different flowers bloom at different times.
Much of what I learned as a student is different now---julie brigham grette, et.al turned palioclimatology on it's head----klaus schmidt, et all turned the 'neolithic revolution on it's head. What we think we know should always be viewed as in transition. And that is the beauty of watching the science unfold. If you study the sciences, every day is springtime with new flowers to delight the mind and senses.

Oookay.. Once again, you are yet to provide any scientific proof of "race". All you have done has been to reiterate the social and political concept of "race".

I repeat: As more dna sequencing is studied, we'll know more. Meanwhile, relax and watch the beauty of the science unfold.

Remember, I'm not the one pitching a fit because someone dared suggest that "race" is a social and political invention and does not really exist in biology in the context of this discussion. You are the one who went off his proverbial nuts, decided to divulge information about their sex lives and discuss craniometrics to try to prove that "race" exists, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.

I am watching the beauty unfold. You seem to be stuck in the 1950's.

How does one test for epigenetic mutations?

That would depend..

 

[Phill]

Look at the names of the "Institutes" they sent notice to and sent the participants of one they sent the survey to.

Linda Gottfredson, for example, belongs to both organisations and has been soundly criticised for her racist ideology and frankly peddles pseudoscience.

If you want a better idea, just look at the list of people who receive money for research from the Pioneer Fund, a neo-Nazi organisation that peddles racism and pseudoscience and funds research into anything that claims that whites are superior to other races.

These people are peddling pseudoscience and it is racist pseudoscience at that.

It's kind of ironic that Gottfredson wrote a paper on the pseudoscience of the "no differences" crowd, noting that they tend to resort to mindless name calling in the place of scientific rebuttal. Anyway, just putting that out there for now, and I'll get to your other points in time.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

It's kind of ironic that Gottfredson wrote a paper on the pseudoscience of the "no differences" crowd, noting that they tend to resort to mindless name calling in the place of scientific rebuttal. Anyway, just putting that out there for now, and I'll get to your other points in time.

I've read that paper. Gottfredson is obviously a racist who loves Rushton's work. All she did in that paper is recap Rushton's discredited research and whine about his critics condemning his work.

I am going to email some more geneticists today showing both Piffer and Graves' papers to them and asking for their position on whether genes related to IQ show racial association.

If I get responses I will let you know.

 

[sculptor]

That would depend..

On what, precisely?
..............................................................................................
Bells, you seem to be really hung up on this "race" thing.
Are you sure that this ain't projection?

 

[iceaura]

It's kind of ironic that Gottfredson wrote a paper on the pseudoscience of the "no differences" crowd, noting that they tend to resort to mindless name calling in the place of scientific rebuttal. Anyway, just putting that out there for now, and I'll get to your other points in time.

Mine are first in line, and shorter, and easier. And they have nothing to do with any "no differences" crowd, nor does name calling appear in them. Take #101, say, most recent.

The observation is that you have confused individual and family heritability with population level genetic traits, completely, (to the point of offering badly written and muddled and poorly reviewed studies on familial heritability as evidence against John Komlos's et al findings).

and you have explicitly mistaken the direction of implication in the current racial classifications: you have repeatedly stated that the ability to assign a genetic cluster to a given race supports the assumption of variance in genetics explaining measured racial variance in cognitive abilities.

Both of those are basic errors in reasoning, committed right here in this thread - they have nothing to do with any studies, evidence, existence of races, etc.

I repeat: As more dna sequencing is studied, we'll know more. Meanwhile, relax and watch the beauty of the science unfold

Meanwhile, let's step hard on the bad reasoning and invalid presumptions currently causing so much sociological harm,

especially as they invoke nonexistent scientific support, and back it with ridicule from belligerent incomprehension. Like this guy:

Ok
hahahahaha
There are no races
People only look like there are different races because of social injustice.

Right?

Because it's completely obvious that people do not look like there are different races. They look like there are different skin colors, heights, skull shapes, hair textures, tooth morphologies, degrees of facial symmetry, body fat distribution, style of body movement, likely income status (a racial criterion in Brazil), and so forth. These are features one can see. Taxonomically, they don't mean jack - if you met some "scientist" who was trying to divide frogs, dogs, roses, or butterflies, into racial groups based on color, what would you think of them?

Say you met someone who thought that yellow Labrador retrievers and yellow Cocker spaniels were in one race of dogs, and black Labs and Cockers in another, and when you ventured to doubt the biological basis of his classification scheme he said this:
"Ok. Hahahahaha. There are no dog races. Dogs only look like there are different races because of social injustice."

 

[Bells]

On what, precisely?

Exactly what it is you are doing or looking for. There are different techniques.

..............................................................................................
Bells, you seem to be really hung up on this "race" thing.
Are you sure that this ain't projection?

Why are you so intent on changing the subject? Do you have anything to support your claims in this thread? Yes or no? If no, I'd suggest you either back up your claims or stop trying to take the thread off topic with your personal history about who you slept with and when. If yes, then please post it and stop trying to take the thread off topic with personal comments.

You have been provided with more than enough information to clearly show that "race" in the context of this thread does not exist because your "eyes" look at people who look different and you think that makes them a different race.

If you have any actual scientific support to back up your claim, please post it.

I'll put it this way, your "because I say so" style of argument doesn't cut it here. Nor will your continued attempt to get personal, work with me.

 

[PhysBang]

It's kind of ironic that Gottfredson wrote a paper on the pseudoscience of the "no differences" crowd, noting that they tend to resort to mindless name calling in the place of scientific rebuttal. Anyway, just putting that out there for now, and I'll get to your other points in time.

Pointing out that someone is a racist and interacts with neo-nazis is not mindless. This is important information.

 

[sculptor]

Did you not investigate this when first posted?
Here it is again:

Who was Madison Grant?
Madison Grant was the author of the book The Passing of the Great Race in 1916, an elaborate work of racial hygiene detailing the "racial history" of Europe. The most important of Grant's concerns with the changing "stock" of American immigration of the early 20th century (characterized by increased numbers of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, as opposed to Western and Northern Europe), Passing of the Great Race was a "racial" interpretation of contemporary anthropology and history, stating race as the basic motor of civilization.

The problem with racial prejudice---------------
Eugenics may not have been the most repugnant misuse of "science", but sure comes close.
As an avid eugenicist, Grant further advocated the separation, quarantine, and eventual collapse of "undesirable" traits and "worthless race types" from the human gene pool and the promotion, spread, and eventual restoration of desirable traits and "worthwhile race types" conducive to Nordic society:

Sound familiar?
His delineation of "race" was Nordics, and undesirables.
Grant categorized the Alpines as being the lowest of the three European races, with the Nordics as the pinnacle of civilization.
OK
Here we have "white" people divided into 3 races.............................forget egalitarianism--------this was a prelude to genocide.

As previously mentioned "race" has meant different things during different times.
Much of which, I find repugnant.

 

[sculptor]

Back on subject:
What do you think is causing racial/national differences in cognitive ability tests?

What if Ernst Haeckel was onto something with ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?
Much of his ideology has been discounted. But, what if it held a grain of truth---a baby--(if you will) that was thrown out with the bath water?

It seems that differences in scores in cognitive ability tests are largely attributed to small changes in several genes.
(now comes the nurture part-------seasoned with a dash of epigenetics)
Piaget?
Let us suppose that as the embryo develops it is influenced by different environmental factors and epigenetic alterations.
Let us further suppose that those small changes in many genes represent various aspects of intelligence.
If so, then as epigenetics alters the timing of switching on or off various genes, we may have moments where other stressors may tend to encode for slightly different development(both good and bad).

Has anyone done a comparative analysis of the dna of a 2 percenter vs someone with a 100pt average? Or an 80?
Anyone up on this?
What would you expect to find?
Mutations for genius? Mutations for ................?

Again: How does one test for various epigenetic alterations?

The simple things like poor diet leading to fewer, and shorter children are easy.
But unless we break open the set "cognitive ability" and more precisely understand and test for particular traits/specific abilities, we will not know how to analyse the influences of epigenetics, or eating fish, or drinking milk, or breathing forest or meadow or city air.......or climate........etc...etc...on the developing embryo.


Your thoughts?

 

[iceaura]

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

Misinterpretation of largely fictional correlations due to racial and nationalistic mythology, would be the obvious and immediate initial hypothesis.

It seems that differences in scores in cognitive ability tests are largely attributed to small changes in several genes.

By whom? Why? What does "changes" mean?

If so, then as epigenetics alters the timing of switching on or off various genes, we may have moments where other stressors may tend to encode for slightly different development(both good and bad).

Has anyone done a comparative analysis of the dna of a 2 percenter vs someone with a 100pt average? Or an 80?
Anyone up on this?
What would you expect to find?
Mutations for genius? Mutations for ................?

I would expect to find that epigenetic variation was largely independent of mutation over any time scale shorter than 100 generations. I would find questions that mixed epigenetic heritage with mutational change likely to be confused, and certain to be confusing.

 

[sculptor]

...
By whom? Why? What does "changes" mean?
....

"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)..."
From Graves:
https://mega.nz/#!XYM2nC6R!AEZlCSvxf6v4DXvHNHx-CD-v4EdJAi8kJhRybucyfTo

 

[iceaura]

"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)..."

And the relevance here, of that, is what, exactly? They haven't even separated out the epigenetic stuff on the familial level. What could anyone possibly argue from that, bearing on a genetic contribution to "racial/national differences in cognitive ability tests"?