EgalitarianJay
Registered Senior Member
Continued....
The statements of Graves and Reznick show us that there is no scientific basis for the evolutionary arguments of Rushton and other racists. Far from being nonsense what Graves argued is based on empirical evidence.
I didn't say there was no human variation just no scientific basis for claiming that there are genetic differences related to intelligence between races. Bells was the one that said that the psychologists surveyed read like a member list of a white power conference. Since the subjects of the survey are anonymous we can't make that assessment however we can look at the methodology of the authors and their motives.
They contacted specific psychologists who had a fixation on intelligence differences. Notice that most of the people they invited to take part in the survey did not respond (only 20%). While I can't say that the ones who did are racists I imagine that the few that bothered to participate already had an interest in the idea that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. So the subjects were most likely biased. Also the references cited in the study and language of the authors suggests to me that they were trying to prove a point of where mainstream science stands on this issue. This is basically an update of the Snyderman and Rothman survey which attempts to be more technical than its predecessor.
One problem that I find with this whole affair is that I don't think most psychologists have enough knowledge of genetics to give an informed opinion on the subject. This survey would be more credible if its subjects came from multiple disciplines including genetics, biology, anthropology and neuroscience in addition to psychology and included questions about how the subjects believe genetic differences related to intelligence came about. Basically we'd need to see how much knowledge the subjects had of evolution and genetics to determine that they really had an informed opinion on the topic.
Templeton looked at Chimpanzees and Humans and compared the Fst values as well as whether or not their populations belonged to distinct evolutionary lineages. He found that some chimpanzee populations fit the criteria for classification as subspecies (biological races) but none of the human populations did. As far as Sewall Wright's threshold for subspecies is concerned it is debatable whether an Fst value below 0.25 invalidates a population from being classified as a subspecies but it is generally accepted by population geneticists that this value is the point at which we see fixation of different alleles in subpopulations.
By environment. Consider the fact that some IQ differences by nation belie the racial matrix of people like Rushton. For example if White Europeans are one race which presumably have the same level of intelligence why do Eastern European countries have lower IQs and higher rates of poverty than Western European countries? Why do we see the same difference between Northeast Asian populations and Southeast Asian populations? If intelligence determines attributes such as wealth and social organization why is North Korea poorer and their government in disarray compared to South Korea? If Northeast Asians evolved in the cold to be the most intelligent race why are their most recent derivative population, the Native Americans, impoverished with less cultural achievement and lower IQs? Why is it that Greece, Italy and Egypt countries with significant historical cultural achievement are not the top nations in the world today? Islamic countries had a golden age hundreds of years ago. Why are they not as advanced now? Europe had a dark age hundreds of years ago. Why are they the most advanced people now? Many Latin American countries are run by people of predominately European descent. Why aren't they First World countries if Whites are so smart?
This idea of a highly consistent pattern in Life History Variables that supposedly validates the idea of genetic differences related to intelligence between races doesn't work when you look at human variation in its totality. There only appears to be a pattern when you selectively site data and practice confirmation bias.
Environmental differences easily explain national differences in IQ.
My argument is that there is no scientific basis for claiming there are genetic differences related to intelligence between races. I cited several studies establishing this fact. Based on the principles of quantitative genetics in order to test your hypothesis environments would need to be equal in order to show that there are differences in genetic potential between different genotypes. Population genetic research shows that human intelligence is not unevenly distributed across geographic populations (Graves, 2015).
If human populations do not structure in to biological races and genetic research does not show that humans evolved to have differences in average intelligence between populations then there is simply no basis for claiming that the hereditarian theory is based on objective reasoned science. The 100% environmental theory for the cause of national differences in IQ is perfectly scientifically respectable and empirically valid.
David Reznick said:
The statements of Graves and Reznick show us that there is no scientific basis for the evolutionary arguments of Rushton and other racists. Far from being nonsense what Graves argued is based on empirical evidence.
I didn't say there was no human variation just no scientific basis for claiming that there are genetic differences related to intelligence between races. Bells was the one that said that the psychologists surveyed read like a member list of a white power conference. Since the subjects of the survey are anonymous we can't make that assessment however we can look at the methodology of the authors and their motives.
They contacted specific psychologists who had a fixation on intelligence differences. Notice that most of the people they invited to take part in the survey did not respond (only 20%). While I can't say that the ones who did are racists I imagine that the few that bothered to participate already had an interest in the idea that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. So the subjects were most likely biased. Also the references cited in the study and language of the authors suggests to me that they were trying to prove a point of where mainstream science stands on this issue. This is basically an update of the Snyderman and Rothman survey which attempts to be more technical than its predecessor.
One problem that I find with this whole affair is that I don't think most psychologists have enough knowledge of genetics to give an informed opinion on the subject. This survey would be more credible if its subjects came from multiple disciplines including genetics, biology, anthropology and neuroscience in addition to psychology and included questions about how the subjects believe genetic differences related to intelligence came about. Basically we'd need to see how much knowledge the subjects had of evolution and genetics to determine that they really had an informed opinion on the topic.
Templeton looked at Chimpanzees and Humans and compared the Fst values as well as whether or not their populations belonged to distinct evolutionary lineages. He found that some chimpanzee populations fit the criteria for classification as subspecies (biological races) but none of the human populations did. As far as Sewall Wright's threshold for subspecies is concerned it is debatable whether an Fst value below 0.25 invalidates a population from being classified as a subspecies but it is generally accepted by population geneticists that this value is the point at which we see fixation of different alleles in subpopulations.
By environment. Consider the fact that some IQ differences by nation belie the racial matrix of people like Rushton. For example if White Europeans are one race which presumably have the same level of intelligence why do Eastern European countries have lower IQs and higher rates of poverty than Western European countries? Why do we see the same difference between Northeast Asian populations and Southeast Asian populations? If intelligence determines attributes such as wealth and social organization why is North Korea poorer and their government in disarray compared to South Korea? If Northeast Asians evolved in the cold to be the most intelligent race why are their most recent derivative population, the Native Americans, impoverished with less cultural achievement and lower IQs? Why is it that Greece, Italy and Egypt countries with significant historical cultural achievement are not the top nations in the world today? Islamic countries had a golden age hundreds of years ago. Why are they not as advanced now? Europe had a dark age hundreds of years ago. Why are they the most advanced people now? Many Latin American countries are run by people of predominately European descent. Why aren't they First World countries if Whites are so smart?
This idea of a highly consistent pattern in Life History Variables that supposedly validates the idea of genetic differences related to intelligence between races doesn't work when you look at human variation in its totality. There only appears to be a pattern when you selectively site data and practice confirmation bias.
Environmental differences easily explain national differences in IQ.
My argument is that there is no scientific basis for claiming there are genetic differences related to intelligence between races. I cited several studies establishing this fact. Based on the principles of quantitative genetics in order to test your hypothesis environments would need to be equal in order to show that there are differences in genetic potential between different genotypes. Population genetic research shows that human intelligence is not unevenly distributed across geographic populations (Graves, 2015).
If human populations do not structure in to biological races and genetic research does not show that humans evolved to have differences in average intelligence between populations then there is simply no basis for claiming that the hereditarian theory is based on objective reasoned science. The 100% environmental theory for the cause of national differences in IQ is perfectly scientifically respectable and empirically valid.
Last edited:
