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

[EgalitarianJay]

I'll just copy paste in my answer to your copy paste of your post.

Of course there will be variation due to geopolitical factors. It would probably require several essays to answer all of these questions. But you're really looking at a different question: national wealth and achievement differences, not IQ differences. For example Europe probably has higher technical achievement than East Asia due to creativity and individuality differences.

So are you saying that IQ doesn't necessarily determine creativity, national wealth or achievement?

I would also note that variation within major races is posited, eg. North East versus South East Asians. You seem to be bashing a strawman that anybody claimed otherwise. And of course Native Americans have been separated for 20,000 years, lending more support to the recent evolution of intelligence theory.

How is it that there can be significant variation within a race and still be a racial hierarchy in intelligence? Is this variation caused by genes or environment? As for Native Americans and the recent evolution of intelligence theory are you talking about The 10,000 Year Explosion? If so, I haven't read the book so I can't comment on its research. If you have let us know. Also perhaps you could explain what your specific views are on the evolution of human intelligence and the evidence supporting a racial hierarchy.

I base my views on the evolution of human intelligence on the arguments of C Loring Brace:

Abstract

Traits that are clinally distributed are under the control of selective forces that are distributed in graded fashion. Traits that cluster in certain regions are simply the results of relatedness and are not adaptively important. Traits that are of equal survival value for all human populations should show no average difference from one population to another. Human cognitive capacity, founded on the ability to learn a language, is of equal survival value to all human groups, and consequently there is no valid reason to expect that there should be average differences in intellectual ability among living human populations. The archaeological record shows that, at any one time during the Pleistocene, survival strategies were essentially the same throughout the entire range of human occupation. Both archaeological and biological data contribute to the picture of the slow emergence of human linguistic behavior and its subsequent maturation. The similarities in human capability were not the result of a sudden, recent, and localized common origin. Instead, the widely shared common human condition was the consequence of a long-term adaptation to common conditions during which specific unity was maintained by low but nontrivial rates of genetic exchange among groups. The differences in human lifeways that have arisen since the end of the Pleistocene--and in most instances much more recently--have had too little time to have had any measurable effect on the generation of inherited differences in intellectual ability. When average group differences in "intelligence" test scores are encountered, the first conclusion to be drawn is that the circumstances under which intellectual capabilities are nurtured and developed are not the same for the groups in question. Where such tests show different "racial" averages in test scores, this should be taken as an index of the continuing effects of "race" prejudice and not of inherent differences in capability.


Source: An Anthropological Perspective on "Race" and Intelligence: The Non-Clinal Nature of Human Cognitive Capabilities Journal of Anthropological Research Vol. 55, No. 2, 3 JAR Distinguished Lectures (Summer, 1999), pp. 245-264

 

[Phill]

I base my views on the evolution of human intelligence on the arguments of C Loring Brace:

The argument that, assuming out of Africa is even true, human evolution stopped 100,000 years ago for no reason with no evidence? Good one.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

The argument that, assuming out of Africa is even true, human evolution stopped 100,000 years ago for no reason with no evidence? Good one.

That's not the argument being made. The argument is that because human intelligence has equal survival value in all environments it doesn't show a clinal distribution. Brace provided biological and archeological evidence backing up his argument.

Read the article for yourself:

https://mega.nz/#!nRVH3RaZ!ZN_jzo2REdop-_iz1PWACTJ6lp8HHlxhIY-m-tntc_I

Yesterday I purchased Chris Stringer's book Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth. Stringer told me via email that this book covers race and human intelligence in detail. When I am finished reading I will update the thread with his arguments.

 

[Phill]

The argument is that because human intelligence has equal survival value in all environments it doesn't show a clinal distribution. Brace provided biological and archeological evidence backing up his argument.

Read the article for yourself:

https://mega.nz/#!nRVH3RaZ!ZN_jzo2REdop-_iz1PWACTJ6lp8HHlxhIY-m-tntc_I

Why don't you briefly run through the points of evidence?

 

[iceaura]

We are expected to believe a hodge podge of environmental variables all combine in different ways all over the world in all of the cultures and racial mixes and produce the same racial pattern every time?

No. We are assuming that defining human "races" according to skin color is absurd, and no such pattern (even if it existed) would be meaningful.

You might also note that you are confused about the "hodge podge", because you have overlooked the summary nature of even an accurate and meaningful IQ test averaged over a population. In other words, you are talking about the "same" sociological pattern. The average skin racial pattern of omega 3/6 ratio in the diet is obvious, for example: and it happens to align and overlap quite well with the average skin racial pattern of literacy and local income inequality, childhood stress and neurotoxin (maternal and prenatal also) exposure, breastfeeding and nutrition, and so forth. These are sociological (and geographical) patterns that align and overlap with other sociological (and geographical) features such as skin color racial identity.

I would also note that variation within major races is posited, eg. North East versus South East Asians.

Problem is, in addition to being posited it's measured: and it's bigger than the variation between the "major races", and it correlates with location and culture and other environment rather better than with "race", major or minor.

This happens when you try to make sense of the IQ variation in terms of "major races" and "minor races" defined according to skin color. Nothing works, which is not surprising because you have no biological mechanism connecting skin color and IQ, but instead of simply abandoning your major and minor race presumption (as a scientist would) you flail around trying to find some other way of defining skin color races that will line up with your IQ scores. Geography! Skull shape! Genetics!

Give up.

 

[Phill]

No. We are assuming that defining human "races" according to skin color is absurd, and no such pattern (even if it existed) would be meaningful.

Well you are just lying, since we have been over this. I defined race by ancestry, as it was always defined. Why do you need to rely on cheap lies to defend your position?

 

[iceaura]

Well you are just lying, since we have been over this. I defined race by ancestry, as it was always defined.

Well, you didn't. You said you were going to, but none of your defined races were based on ancestry, and when I handed you examples of various people whose skin color gave you a different answer than their ancestry you went with skin color every time.

 

[Phill]

Well, you didn't. You said you were going to, but none of your defined races were based on ancestry, and when I handed you examples of various people whose skin color gave you a different answer than their ancestry you went with skin color every time.

More lies. Where did I do that?

 

[iceaura]

More lies. Where did I do that?

When you put the Siberians and North American reds in one race, and the Russian whites in a different one. When you drew a circle that included the Maasai with the Mbuti in the same race but separated the southern Indians and many of the Ethiopians from the French. When you denied that the Irish and Scottish and Welsh and Gypsy were different races. And so forth.

Clearly ancestry means nothing to you, if it conflicts with your skin color assessment.

 

[Bells]

More lies. Where did I do that?

Here, in this post with this graphic, which was actually the "shared ancestry" of a person who had their DNA looked at to look at their ancestry as much as they could. That is that person's "shared ancestry". It has nothing to do with race.

You or someone you know or know of, drew circles which clearly align with skin colour and tried to argue race. Which is ridiculous.

That graphic is actually someone's whole ancestry that they could find in their DNA. You tried to break it down and you were solely by skin colour by drawing those ridiculous circles and tried to claim that 'racial clusters' existed. They aren't racial clusters, you dolt. They are representative of what that person's ancestry contains.

And then you later tried to argue in different threads, that people share ancestry and that shared ancestry determines race. That graphic you posed clearly contradicts you. But you went and put little circles and tried to argue race.

There is only so much we can laugh at you at your complete lack of understanding at what is meant by "shared ancestry" when you post such things before your lack of understanding has to be pointed out to you in the hope that you will start to understand just how ridiculous and downright stupid your argument actually is.

 

[Phill]

Here, in this post with this graphic, which was actually the "shared ancestry" of a person who had their DNA looked at to look at their ancestry as much as they could. That is that person's "shared ancestry". It has nothing to do with race.

Lol. It shows genomic similarity between individuals. Each of the dots is one individual. You mean you totally failed to understand how these PCAs are made? Since shared ancestry is inferred from genomic similarity and shared ancestry defines race it has everything to do with race.

You or someone you know or know of, drew circles which clearly align with skin colour and tried to argue race. Which is ridiculous.

The circles include a range of skin colors and necessarily group by genomic similarity, since it is a plot of genomic similarity. If I was grouping by "skin color" why didn't I put Japanese with Europeans? Why do I include South Asians with Europeans? Your cheap strawman lie that you repeat ad nauseam grows tiresome.

That graphic is actually someone's whole ancestry that they could find in their DNA. You tried to break it down and you were solely by skin colour by drawing those ridiculous circles and tried to claim that 'racial clusters' existed. They aren't racial clusters, you dolt. They are representative of what that person's ancestry contains.

You are just repeating yourself.

And then you later tried to argue in different threads, that people share ancestry and that shared ancestry determines race. That graphic you posed clearly contradicts you. But you went and put little circles and tried to argue race.

Are you denying that this graphic shows genomic similarity? Are you denying that genomic similarity infers shared ancestry? If you want I can link to the author of the graphic, and pull up plenty of sources to support me. But I'll guess you'll ban me on some technicality for disagreeing with your Communist Lysenkoist pseudoscience nonsense.

There is only so much we can laugh at you at your complete lack of understanding at what is meant by "shared ancestry" when you post such things before your lack of understanding has to be pointed out to you in the hope that you will start to understand just how ridiculous and downright stupid your argument actually is.

Cheap name calling adds nothing to your already bankrupt argument, which is basically repeating "no it isn't" like a petulant child.

 

[Bells]

Lol. It shows genomic similarity between individuals. Each of the dots is one individual. You mean you totally failed to understand how these PCAs are made? Since shared ancestry is inferred from genomic similarity and shared ancestry defines race it has everything to do with race.

Correction on my part. It is McDonald's known population values. I should have looked for the cross hairs.

McDonald tends to do the BGA analysis by presenting similar graphs for each individual who has such searches done.

To wit, your drawing arbitrary circles around what you deem to be races is still incorrect and contradictory to what you have argued about "race" and shared ancestry. You are going with colour and colour only. Which you even admit..

The circles include a range of skin colors and necessarily group by genomic similarity, since it is a plot of genomic similarity. If I was grouping by "skin color" why didn't I put Japanese with Europeans? Why do I include South Asians with Europeans? Your cheap strawman lie that you repeat ad nauseam grows tiresome.

Well no, for white supremacists like you, the Japanese would be classified as "yellow", wouldn't they?

The fact that you are trying to argue genomic similarity between these ethnic groups and defining them as races based on skin tone says quite a bit.

Are you denying that this graphic shows genomic similarity? Are you denying that genomic similarity infers shared ancestry? If you want I can link to the author of the graphic, and pull up plenty of sources to support me. But I'll guess you'll ban me on some technicality for disagreeing with your Communist Lysenkoist pseudoscience nonsense.

I am saying that you are misrepresenting what that graph actually represents.

Then again, considering you probably got it off Stormfront, which has made quite a bit of use of that graph and misrepresenting it, this would not surprise me.

Especially when one considers who you tried to argue about shared ancestry previously and pretty much determined that "race" is based on such a standard, while ignoring actual genomic ancestry of people in the UK, as one example, and how their genetic ancestry was so varied in that there was little connection between the populations of the UK.

But you are literally grouping people by color matching them as best you can. Which is probably why you tried to separate North India and South India and tried to isolate France from the rest of Europe.

Cheap name calling adds nothing to your already bankrupt argument, which is basically repeating "no it isn't" like a petulant child.

And once again, you are yet to provide any actual scientific proof to support any of your arguments. Gee, what a surprise.

Your say so means nothing. Show proof with science.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Why don't you briefly run through the points of evidence?

The article provides the following evidence:

1. There are adaptive traits all human populations have in common (ex. salinity, iron content and blood pressure and other biochemical and physiological features).

2. Human intelligence has adaptive value.

3. Modern humans evolved from Homo Erectus based on mandibular evidence.

4. Based on Archeological evidence human populations during the Pleistocene Epoch shared hunting strategies.

5. Modern humans evolved articular speech which distinguishes them from the Apes and all human populations share the evolutionary trademarks of this development (ex. Broca's area).

6. Human brain size attained modern levels and ceased to expand during the Middle Stone Age.

7. All human children learn language during the same age span and each group is capable of learning other languages.

8. Differences in human life ways around the world arose so recently from the perspective of evolutionary history that there has been no time for any differential adaptive response to have occurred.


By the way is this Mikemikev? Your writing patterns are so easy to recognize.

If so, I recommend that you read the article in full. Interestingly Brace had some notable disagreements with Chris Stringer about the nature of why human intelligence is uniform across populations. Whereas Stringer argues that the recency of human origins in Africa did not provide enough time for human populations to differentiate intellectually Brace argues in his paper that the slow emergence of human linguistic behavior and gene flow throughout human populations resulted in a commonality in average intelligence for all human populations. Basically as humans began to learn language their intelligence grew rapidly and the selective forces that brought about this change were the same throughout the world.

 

[Phill]

Correction on my part. It is McDonald's known population values. I should have looked for the cross hairs.

McDonald tends to do the BGA analysis by presenting similar graphs for each individual who has such searches done.

To wit, your drawing arbitrary circles around what you deem to be races is still incorrect and contradictory to what you have argued about "race" and shared ancestry. You are going with colour and colour only. Which you even admit..



Well no, for white supremacists like you, the Japanese would be classified as "yellow", wouldn't they?

The fact that you are trying to argue genomic similarity between these ethnic groups and defining them as races based on skin tone says quite a bit.


I am saying that you are misrepresenting what that graph actually represents.

Then again, considering you probably got it off Stormfront, which has made quite a bit of use of that graph and misrepresenting it, this would not surprise me.

Especially when one considers who you tried to argue about shared ancestry previously and pretty much determined that "race" is based on such a standard, while ignoring actual genomic ancestry of people in the UK, as one example, and how their genetic ancestry was so varied in that there was little connection between the populations of the UK.


But you are literally grouping people by color matching them as best you can. Which is probably why you tried to separate North India and South India and tried to isolate France from the rest of Europe.


And once again, you are yet to provide any actual scientific proof to support any of your arguments. Gee, what a surprise.

Your say so means nothing. Show proof with science.

So I think we're at an impasse.

Phill: "I define race by ancestry, which I infer from genomic similarity, using these plots of genomic similarity."
Bells: "You define race by skin color. There is variation within races, therefore there is NO connection. I want scientific proofs."

No need for any more iterations I think.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

So I think we're at an impasse.

Phill: "I define race by ancestry, which I infer from genomic similarity, using these plots of genomic similarity."
Bells: "You define race by skin color. I want scientific proofs."

No need for any more iterations I think.

How similar do populations have to be to distinguish them as races separate from other races? What primary sources do you have that support your argument?

 

[Phill]

How similar do populations have to be to distinguish them as races separate from other races? What primary sources do you have that support your argument?

More similar. Which part of my argument do you have doubts about. Perhaps I can address it without resorting to authorities.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

More similar. Which part of my argument do you have doubts about. Perhaps I can address it without resorting to authorities.

Sources would be helpful as they flesh out an argument and show that your position is widely accepted by the scientific community. As it is you have defined race by shared ancestry between populations that are more similar.

I don't have a problem with the idea that some populations are more similar than others and that they have shared ancestry. But that alone doesn't seem like a reliable basis to categorize groups as different races.

Templeton (2013) for example defines races as separate divisions within a species that exhibit an objective degree of genetic divergence or descend from distinct evolutionary lineages. The key is that there is some scientific criteria that justifies the division.

 

[Bells]

More similar. Which part of my argument do you have doubts about. Perhaps I can address it without resorting to authorities.

So by your argument, Obama is Caucasian.

How about your provide some scientific back up for your argument?

Or more to the point, 'resort to authorities' to support your argument in this thread.

For example:

Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of variation -- it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.

Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, the world is colorblind. That is, it should be.

"Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," says Templeton. "Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity."

Templeton used the same strategy to try to identify race in human populations that evolutionary and population biologists use for non-human species, from salamanders to chimpanzees. He treated human populations as if they were non-human populations.

"I'm not saying these results don't recognize genetic differences among human populations," he cautions. "There are differences, but they don't define historical lineages that have persisted for a long time. The point is, for race to have any scientific validity and integrity it has to have generality beyond any one species. If it doesn't, the concept is meaningless."

[...]

Templeton analyzed genetic data from mitochondrial DNA, a form inherited only from the maternal side; Y chromosome DNA, paternally inherited DNA; and nuclear DNA, inherited from both sexes. His results showed that 85 percent of genetic variation in the human DNA was due to individual variation. A mere 15 percent could be traced to what could be interpreted as "racial" differences.

"The 15 percent is well below the threshold that is used to recognize race in other species," Templeton says. "In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There's lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it's basically at the individual level. The between-population variation is very, very minor."

Among Templeton's conclusions: there is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. Yet, sub-Saharan Africans and Melanesians share dark skin, hair texture and cranial-facial features, traits commonly used to classify people into races. According to Templeton, this example shows that "racial traits" are grossly incompatible with overall genetic differences between human populations.

"The pattern of overall genetic differences instead tells us that genetic lineages rapidly spread out to all of humanity, indicating that human populations have always had a degree of genetic contact with one another, and thus historically don't show any distinct evolutionary lineages within humanity," Templeton says. "Rather, all of humanity is a single long-term evolutionary lineage."

[Source]​

The study of which, EgalitarianJay posted above.

You need to provide something more substantial than your say so. Because looking at it, there is very little scientific support for your argument, if at all.

 

[sculptor]

fyi
https://www.theguardian.com/science...-is-unhelpful-genes-play-a-role-in-who-we-are

 

[Phill]

So by your argument, Obama is Caucasian.

No.

Your Templeton reference sets up an arbitrary threshold for "enough" difference to make a distinction. Any difference justifies a distinction. Hilariously, the difference between humans and chimps (Fst 0.18) is less than Templeton's misrepresentation of Wright's (Fst 0.25 for great differentitation) definition. Why does Templeton take Wright's great differentiation value and claim it means no differentiation? I guess he is just a liar.