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

[Bells]

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

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

For example when children who are "socially East Asian" are adopted by people who are "socially White", they exhibit the same high non-verbal IQ. Why? Why do people "called Black by a racist society because they look like they have African ancestry when science shows this is wrong" have such persistent low scores all over the world?

Oh, now you want to go back to discuss the subject of this thread despite pages of you arguing that race exists and also trying to distance yourself from the survey you linked in the OP which you falsely believed supported your assertion that IQ is somehow connected to race, when the survey results themselves clearly show that environmental factors play a much bigger role? And who are you quoting? Links? Anything scientific?

So in direct contradiction to what has been clearly demonstrated throughout this thread with scientific evidence which clearly shows you are wrong, you still expect people to go by just your say so?

You have not supported your claim in any way. You demand and expect others to provide evidence, while you provide nothing whatsoever.

There have been numerous studies posted in this thread, clearly showing adoption studies which absolutely prove you wrong. For example, from a paper posted earlier in the thread:

Adoption studies may tend to underestimate the role of environment and overstate the role of genetics due to the restricted social class range of adoptive homes. Adoptive families are generally of relatively high SES. Moreover, observation of family settings by the HOME technique (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment; Bradley et al., 1993; Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Crane, 1998) shows that the environments of adoptive families are much more supportive of intellectual growth than are those of non adoptive families.

[...]

We can be confident that the environmental differences that are associated with social class have a large effect on IQ. We know this because adopted children typically score 12 points or more higher than comparison children (e.g., siblings left with birth parents or children adopted by lower SES parents), and adoption typically moves children from lower to higher SES homes. A meta-analysis available at the time of the Neisser et al. (1996) article found an effect of adoption of lower SES children by upper-middle-class parents of 12 points (Locurto, 1990). A subsequent adoption study by Duyme, Dumaret, and Tomkiewicz (1999) found that the IQ difference between children adopted by upper-middle-class parents and those adopted by lower SES parents was about 12 points. A recent meta-analysis by van IJzendoorn, Juffer, and Klein Poelhuis (2005) found an average effect of adoption of 18 points. However, these authors considered some studies in which adoption was compared with extremely deprived institutional settings.​

Your comments are unfounded and not supported by scientific studies. If you scroll down to page 146 of the paper quoted above and read about the difference between whites and blacks and adoption studies, you will see just how and why you are wrong.

If you wish to argue environmental factors, which include discrimination, stereotyping (which you clearly demonstrates exists), the effect of poverty, lack of proper nutrition for the parents and their offspring, breastfeeding, upbringing and where, education of the parents and the children, etc, and the varying rates of availability of these important environmental factors to minority groups, then have at it. Because that is what you are left with and it has everything to do with institutionalised bigotry and "racism" based on ideology which you have espoused in this and other threads on this site.

But support your claims with actual science. Your say so means absolutely nothing. You have provided virtually nothing scientific and you have demanded others support their arguments while refusing to do so yourself. This makes you a troll and your time here is quickly running out. Support your claims with scientific papers and studies. Provide links to what you are quoting. Or stop wasting people's time because we are trying to discuss this with you. But you need to support your claims and arguments. You keep saying you are, but you have not. You have made claims about IQ and race that are not supported by science. Hell, it isn't even supported by your own OP. You have made claims about race and "shared ancestry" that is not supported by science.

 

[Bilbo_Swaggins]

Bells, that's objectively wrong. They've accounted for all of those environmental factors- look at the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

And of course, the Turkheimer study. Talking about that or Eyferth is basically just masturbation at this point: it's been *very* thoroughly shown that the heritability of IQ goes up in adolescence. Group differences are basically never observed in childhood.

They've tested every last factor which could possibly depress IQ and they've come up with nutrition, inbreeding, parasite load, and to a lesser degree, prenatal environment. But none of those things are at play to such an extent as would explain the US Black-White IQ gap.

The only two remaining hypotheses seem to be stereotype threat- which isn't a thing, if research has anything to say about it- and "culture."

To which I say: if Black culture makes people mentally deficient literally regardless of where they are on Earth, and does so in every such environment (no randomly selected adult black population, anywhere, ever, has been tested to have IQs equalling or exceeding that of Whites), then that would be even more indicting than to shrug your shoulders and say "alright, they're a little less bright."

 

[Phill]

Oh, now you want to go back to discuss the subject of this thread despite pages of you arguing that race exists and also trying to distance yourself from the survey you linked in the OP which you falsely believed supported your assertion that IQ is somehow connected to race, when the survey results themselves clearly show that environmental factors play a much bigger role? And who are you quoting? Links? Anything scientific?

So in direct contradiction to what has been clearly demonstrated throughout this thread with scientific evidence which clearly shows you are wrong, you still expect people to go by just your say so?

You have not supported your claim in any way. You demand and expect others to provide evidence, while you provide nothing whatsoever.

Your hypocrisy and dishonesty is disgusting. You introduced the "race does not exist" nonsense, supporting your claim with ridiculous copy pasted fallacies. I am not trying to distance myself from the survey, I am not discussing it because it is incidental to the question in the OP. I told you this. Why do you continually lie? You claim I "provide nothing whatsoever" a transparent lie, while linking to material which is demonstrably false. So if I did "provide nothing", it would be better than what you provide.

There have been numerous studies posted in this thread, clearly showing adoption studies which absolutely prove you wrong. For example, from a paper posted earlier in the thread:

Adoption studies may tend to underestimate the role of environment and overstate the role of genetics due to the restricted social class range of adoptive homes. Adoptive families are generally of relatively high SES. Moreover, observation of family settings by the HOME technique (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment; Bradley et al., 1993; Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Crane, 1998) shows that the environments of adoptive families are much more supportive of intellectual growth than are those of non adoptive families.​

​

What? The point of adoption is to control for environment. So remaining variation is expected to be genetic. It doesn't make any difference what the relative SES of adoptive families is.

We can be confident that the environmental differences that are associated with social class have a large effect on IQ. We know this because adopted children typically score 12 points or more higher than comparison children (e.g., siblings left with birth parents or children adopted by lower SES parents), and adoption typically moves children from lower to higher SES homes. A meta-analysis available at the time of the Neisser et al. (1996) article found an effect of adoption of lower SES children by upper-middle-class parents of 12 points (Locurto, 1990). A subsequent adoption study by Duyme, Dumaret, and Tomkiewicz (1999) found that the IQ difference between children adopted by upper-middle-class parents and those adopted by lower SES parents was about 12 points. A recent meta-analysis by van IJzendoorn, Juffer, and Klein Poelhuis (2005) found an average effect of adoption of 18 points. However, these authors considered some studies in which adoption was compared with extremely deprived institutional settings.

​

You do know that IQ is much affected by environment in children, and shows increasing heritability and stabilisation in adulthood? Child IQ is not reliable. IQ gains from childhood intervention programs are lost in adulthood. This was pointed out earlier, did you forget? Why not look at longitudinal studies that continue into adulthood, such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Is it because they don't support you?

Your comments are unfounded and not supported by scientific studies. If you scroll down to page 146 of the paper quoted above and read about the difference between whites and blacks and adoption studies, you will see just how and why you are wrong.

You should try constructing your own arguments from your sources. I will not do it for you.

If you wish to argue environmental factors, which include discrimination, stereotyping (which you clearly demonstrates exists), the effect of poverty, lack of proper nutrition for the parents and their offspring, breastfeeding, upbringing and where, education of the parents and the children, etc, and the varying rates of availability of these important environmental factors to minority groups, then have at it. Because that is what you are left with and it has everything to do with institutionalised bigotry and "racism" based on ideology which you have espoused in this and other threads on this site.

No, why would I? The consistent global pattern controls for these. The burden is on you to demonstrate these factors in multiple combinations all over the world producing the same racial pattern, and also that somehow "White bigotry" is at the root of all of these variables manifesting and producing low Black IQs and high non-verbal IQs in East Asians. To me that sounds like a joke. Genetics is the simple Occam's razor variable, your contrived hodge-podge of asserted variables needs demonstration. I very much doubt I will see that. Can you quantify global variation in even one of your factors? Why do East Asians in America experience "positive racism"? Why do Blacks in Haiti still suffer under "bigotry"? Also Blacks in London and Guangdong province? Are we expected to believe that "racism" has exactly the same effect everywhere? Who is responsible for this "racism"? God?

But support your claims with actual science. Your say so means absolutely nothing. You have provided virtually nothing scientific and you have demanded others support their arguments while refusing to do so yourself. This makes you a troll and your time here is quickly running out. Support your claims with scientific papers and studies. Provide links to what you are quoting. Or stop wasting people's time because we are trying to discuss this with you. But you need to support your claims and arguments. You keep saying you are, but you have not. You have made claims about IQ and race that are not supported by science. Hell, it isn't even supported by your own OP. You have made claims about race and "shared ancestry" that is not supported by science.

You think that copy pasting fallacies from a cherry picked paper that agrees with your POV constitutes "scientific discussion"? I am engaged in scientific discussion, with your copy pastes rather than you. You support your assertion that a hodge-podge of environmental variables explains the difference, rather than shared genetics. Of course you need an excuse to ban me, because your "logic" isn't going to "win".

 

[Bilbo_Swaggins]

People can correctly state their own race, confirmed by genetics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

(Did we need a study for that? Really?)

Henry Harpending, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Richard Lewontin and others have found inter-ethnic human Fst values to be between .1 and .15 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020815420693).

This is the proportion of between group to within group variation. It's also the increased likelihood that the average gene will be shared with a coethnic compared to the likelihood that the same gene will be shared with someone else https://coonublog.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/on-the-ethnic-kinship-coefficient/

So yes, race is a real, genetic thing. It's equivalent to first cousin kinship.

 

[Bilbo_Swaggins]

Seriously, guys, did you think two Blacks could have a baby and it'd come out as a Native Hawaiian? Genes are the sole determinant of race.

I really shouldn't have had to explain this.

 

[Bells]

People can correctly state their own race, confirmed by genetics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

(Did we need a study for that? Really?)

Henry Harpending, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Richard Lewontin and others have found inter-ethnic human Fst values to be between .1 and .15 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020815420693).

This is the proportion of between group to within group variation. It's also the increased likelihood that the average gene will be shared with a coethnic compared to the likelihood that the same gene will be shared with someone else https://coonublog.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/on-the-ethnic-kinship-coefficient/

So yes, race is a real, genetic thing. It's equivalent to first cousin kinship.

Oh goody, another one.

Genetically, there is no evidence of "race". This has been proven time and again.

People identify themselves by racial groups because we have always been taught that race exists. But genetically and biologically, people of different ethnicity are not that different, or genetically different enough to qualify as being so different that they are defined as a different species of Homo sapiens. You do understand that, yes?

Have you read through this thread? Because if you had, you would have seen that we provided paper and study after study, clearly detailing just how genetically similar we are.

Suffice to say, for "race" to exist, it would mean that each "race" or groups of people would have had to evolve individually and be different enough to genetically classify as being a different race or sub-species. This would have had to happen in only a few thousand years. It would mean that this would have had to happen in isolation from other groups. We know this has not happened and we know this because genetic traits exist in all populations, insofar as there is no genetic trait that only exists in only one "race". A difference of 10 - 15% is not enough to classify as a "race". At all. A paper discussing the ease of classifying racial identity when performing studies is not evidence that race does not exist. What it clearly shows is just how pervasive "race" is socially and politically.

There is absolutely no genetic foundation for distinct human sub-species to define them as race because we are so similar. There is more genetic variation within a group, than there is between groups. What there is clear evidence of is social and political desire and need for race.

Seriously, guys, did you think two Blacks could have a baby and it'd come out as a Native Hawaiian? Genes are the sole determinant of race.

I really shouldn't have had to explain this.

Two "blacks" what? Africans? Australian Aboriginal? Someone from Papua New Guinea? Are you aware that "Native Hawaiians" or Melanesian's are classified as "blacks" by racial description?

To wit, your argument makes no sense.

And considering the fact that white people can and do give birth to black babies and vice versa, should tell you something. For example, last year, a black Nigerian couple gave birth to a white child, with blonde hair and blue eyes. They are still trying to determine if there is a history of Albino in either family (no evidence of this as yet) and the family are certain there are no "whites" in their ancestry. The tragic story of Sandra Laing comes to mind, a black girl, born to two white apartheid supporter parents. And before you ask, no, the mothers had not slept with different "races". Sandra Laing was clear evidence of African ancestry that existed many generations previously and had only made itself known when she was born:

Her parents, Abraham and Sannie Laing, were white - indeed, as members of the Nationalist Party, they were fervent supporters of South Africa's apartheid regime - and yet their daughter undeniably looked black, with her brown skin and tightly curled hair.

Her African features were almost certainly a throwback to an unknown ancestor whose DNA, having lain dormant for generations, had emerged in her. But when Sandra was a schoolgirl, this aspect of genetics was unknown and there was no such thing as a DNA test.

[...]

Both Sannie, who is of Dutch descent, and Abraham, whose family originated from Germany, could trace back their white ancestry through several generations.

As Afrikaners, they had been indoctrinated in the Boer belief that to be white was pure and that people of mixed race were unstable and less intelligent.

They kept Sandra out of the sun and, in their rural community, no one drew attention to her toffee-coloured complexion until she started school.
​

So is she white by "shared ancestry"? Since her ancestry was predominantly white and her ancestry is of white Europeans, what Phill earlier classified as being a "major race".. Or is she "black"? I mean, how far back does this "shared ancestry" go to classify as being "white" or to self identify as being "white"? Sandra Laing is of white European ancestry and yet, she is black. Considering that it was only up until a few thousand years ago that Europeans were black, what do you think the answer is to that question?

Socially and politically, Sandra was classified as being "black". She was denied her rights, she was kicked out of school and her parents fought in court to classify her as white. That one drop rule, so far back in her family tree that no one even knew of it and there was no record of it, manifested itself. She is a "white" South African, of Dutch and German ancestry, who has black skin, because deep in her ancestry, there was a black person in the mix. But if we are going to argue "shared ancestry", she is a Caucasian, part of the "major race" that Phill argued so fervently existed, but she has black skin.

So how should she 'self identify'? "Black African"? Her parents are white Europeans. So her ancestry, genetically, is European. And yet, people would expect her to tick "black".

Your question of whether two blacks have a native Hawaiian becomes ridiculous, because under social and political rules, Native Hawaiians would be classified as being "black". And if the genes are there, they could very well have a child that looked Melanesian.

A prime example of that are Melanesian's of the Solomon Islands. Black skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. There is no evidence of European ancestry. And yet, blonde hair and blue eyes are something that one would associate in Europe. But here we are, some people in the Solomon Islands have blonde hair and blue eyes.. Blonde hair does not exist solely in the Solomon Islands. The trait naturally occurs in some tribes in Papua New Guinea and some Australian Aboriginal tribes, as well as in Europeans exclusively. It is a genetic trait.

First, one must note that this is not an isolated feature in Oceania. Rather, blondism crops up in the Solomon Islands, in New Guinea, as well as among some Australian desert groups. This in itself should make us skeptical of the model of European admixture. Additionally, blue eyes, which exhibits a higher frequency in Europeans than blonde hair, is not similarly common in these populations. But all this speculation is now a historical curiosity. The results are widely known from conference presentations that have been reported, but finally the paper is out in Science which solves the “riddle” of hair color in Oceania at the level of genetic causation.​

Interestingly, the people of the Solomon Islands are closer to Africans genetically than other groups from Oceania. But yet, here they are, with blonde hair and blue eyes and black skin. Which is evidence that the same traits can also exist in other populations. It is a throw back to the same genetic mixture and mutations that existed in the migration out of Africa and it has stuck around and makes itself known on random occasions.

Skin colour, which is often used to classify "race" is something that did not occur because they evolved separately from the rest of the world. It was simply a case of adaptation for Europeans and for Asians. And it is relatively new in human evolution. It does not mean that they are different races.

So, when you scoff about two black people having a "native Hawaiian child", I will scoff back at the ignorance of such a comment.

All you have done is prove that "race" is purely a social and political construct with your argument. So thank you. Because you just proved and made my point for me.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Bells, that's objectively wrong. They've accounted for all of those environmental factors- look at the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

And of course, the Turkheimer study. Talking about that or Eyferth is basically just masturbation at this point: it's been *very* thoroughly shown that the heritability of IQ goes up in adolescence. Group differences are basically never observed in childhood.

They've tested every last factor which could possibly depress IQ and they've come up with nutrition, inbreeding, parasite load, and to a lesser degree, prenatal environment. But none of those things are at play to such an extent as would explain the US Black-White IQ gap.

The only two remaining hypotheses seem to be stereotype threat- which isn't a thing, if research has anything to say about it- and "culture."

To which I say: if Black culture makes people mentally deficient literally regardless of where they are on Earth, and does so in every such environment (no randomly selected adult black population, anywhere, ever, has been tested to have IQs equalling or exceeding that of Whites), then that would be even more indicting than to shrug your shoulders and say "alright, they're a little less bright."

Stereotype threat is definitely a thing. Research has shown that when controlling for Socioeconomic Status along with family and neighborhood quality the Black-White IQ gap can be eliminated (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1996). The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study had methodological flaws admitted by its own authors.

The study to which Rushton and Jensen (2005) allocate so much space is the single adoption study that provides any support whatever to the hereditarian position. This is a study by Scarr and Weinberg (1976; Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992), which examined adoptees into White families who had two White biological parents, two Black biological parents, or one Black and one White parent. The study is more difficult to interpret than the other two, one of which assigns Black children, who were probably equivalent in expected IQ, to either Black or White middle-class families and the other of which assigns both Black and White children to the same environment. The Scarr and Weinberg study held neither race nor expected IQ nor adoptive setting constant. An additional problem with the Scarr and Weinberg study is that the Black children were adopted at a later age than the others, which would prompt an assumption of lower initial IQ for them. In addition, the Black children’s mothers had lower educational levels than did those of the other two groups, which also would prompt an assumption of lower initial IQ. Finally, the “quality of placement” was higher for White children than for other children. All of these facts combined mean that it is not possible to know what to predict under either a hereditarian model or a pure environmental model.

The average IQ of the White children at age 7 to 8 years was 112, that of mixed-race children 109, and that of Black children 97. The results are consistent with the assumption that the middle-class family environment resulted in a substantial gain in IQ for all groups. They do not rule out a genetic contribution to explain the gap because the Black children had lower IQs than those of either of the other two groups. Because of the likelihood that the Black children had lower IQs to begin with, for both genetic and nongenetic reasons, however, the results do not give strong support to the hereditarian model. At age 17 the White children had IQs (as measured by another test) of 106, the mixed-race children 99, and the Black children 89. These results are not materially different, in terms of size of the gap, from those at age 7 to 8. The Black children at the earlier point had IQs 15 points lower than those of the White children and at the later point had IQs 17 points lower. The gap was 3 points at age 7 to 8 between White children and mixed-race children and 7 points at age 17.

Rushton and Jensen (2005), however, wish to emphasize the relative difference at the two ages. Because the genetic influence on IQ asserts itself progressively over the life span, they maintain that the greater gap at the later age is reflective of a genetic contribution to the gap. In fact, Rushton and Jensen give as one of their main reasons for reviewing the Scarr and Weinberg study in such depth is that it continues out to the older ages (the other two reasons being that it is the “largest” and “best-known”). There are several flaws with the developmental argument. First, the relative magnitude of differences at the two ages are slight, and second, and more important, the life span data that Rushton and Jensen themselves cite do not support the claim that more of the IQ variance at age 17 is genetically driven than at earlier ages. Evidence of a greater genetic contribution to IQ occurs only after the age of 20 (see their Figure 3). Finally, Weinberg et al. (1992) noted that the scores of the adolescent Black and mixed-race children have to be interpreted in light of the fact that these children as a group had severe adjustment problems, a fact that Rushton and Jensen do not mention. The Scarr and Weinberg study thus provides nothing more definite than the likelihood that middle-class environments raise the IQs of children of all racial combinations. Many aspects of design weakness have to be overlooked to infer any support at all for the hereditarian model.

(Source)
​

Rushton tried to use the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study in his debate with Graves to show that adoption could control for the environment but was quickly rebuffed by Graves who pointed out that adoption has a psychological affect on adopted children especially children phenotypically classified as different races. The stress of being adopted in to the home of a people of a different race and stereotype threat can have a negative psychological impact on the test scores and grades of Black adoptees.

(Start at 1:33:55)

People can correctly state their own race, confirmed by genetics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

(Did we need a study for that? Really?)

Henry Harpending, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Richard Lewontin and others have found inter-ethnic human Fst values to be between .1 and .15 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020815420693).

This is the proportion of between group to within group variation. It's also the increased likelihood that the average gene will be shared with a coethnic compared to the likelihood that the same gene will be shared with someone else https://coonublog.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/on-the-ethnic-kinship-coefficient/

So yes, race is a real, genetic thing. It's equivalent to first cousin kinship.

Ancestry Informative Markers (AIMs) can be used to identify recent continental ancestry and this ancestry not surprisingly corresponds to self-identified race/ethnicity. But that doesn't make those categories races. Using enough AIMs one could distinguish between populations within those continents such as Spanish from Portuguese, Northern Italians from Southern Italians or even one town from the next. Does that make those groups separate races? There are no biologically definable races in the human species. No sub-species.

This has been proven with analysis of human genetics. Race is not akin to first cousin kinship. Everyone outside your neutral family is technically your cousin albeit distantly as we all descend from a common ancestor. So-called racial characteristics like skin color are as trivial as your hair or eye color. They are adaptive traits that have no social meaning and were only assumed to have significant biological meaning by racist societies.

 

[Bells]

Your hypocrisy and dishonesty is disgusting. You introduced the "race does not exist" nonsense, supporting your claim with ridiculous copy pasted fallacies. I am not trying to distance myself from the survey, I am not discussing it because it is incidental to the question in the OP. I told you this. Why do you continually lie? You claim I "provide nothing whatsoever" a transparent lie, while linking to material which is demonstrably false. So if I did "provide nothing", it would be better than what you provide.

Your argument throughout this thread has been based solely on race. My pointing out that "race" does not exist is supported by biology and genetics. I asked you to support your contention of "race" existing, you have to date, been unable to do so. I also addressed the fallacy of your argument from the OP that one's "race" affects one's intelligence. Your refusal to acknowledge established science in this field is your failing and no one else's. Saying that I am a hypocrite for pointing out the ways in which you are wrong in just about every sense of your argument or stance is just foolish. From the start, I have hoped and expected you to refer to and provide scientific backing for your argument. I have provided you with numerous links to studies and articles, which detail just how and why "race" does not exist in the fields of genetics, biology and I have also provided you with enough information to show just how IQ tests are not the best way to test for intelligence between ethnic groups and between countries. I have also provided you with studies and papers which detail how environment has a greater influence on IQ, which is also supported by the survey you posted in the OP. In other words, the question you posed in your OP and elsewhere in this thread has been answered repeatedly. Just because you refuse to believe is not my problem. You completely failed to support any of your arguments in this thread and expected everyone to believe you because you say so. You have failed.

What? The point of adoption is to control for environment. So remaining variation is expected to be genetic. It doesn't make any difference what the relative SES of adoptive families is.

The point of adoption showed that when one is adopted, one is usually adopted into a wealthier family, who are more supportive of education than a lower socioeconomic family the adopted child may have come from. This alone caused a jump in IQ. Had you scrolled down to the paper I provided that looked at the genetic link and the environmental link and looked at different "races" and what they found? Clearly you had not. They found that environment was the biggest factor and that "race" had absolutely no bearing. There were also papers posted and studies which detailed just how intelligence is valued different across different cultures and that until tests could be made to factor in these different societal values, no clear indication of IQ could or should be made. You also disregarded that too.

Let's put it this way, you have provided nothing to support your stance in this thread on any subject that has been brought up in the thread.

You do know that IQ is much affected by environment in children, and shows increasing heritability and stabilisation in adulthood? Child IQ is not reliable. IQ gains from childhood intervention programs are lost in adulthood. This was pointed out earlier, did you forget? Why not look at longitudinal studies that continue into adulthood, such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Is it because they don't support you?

And even in adulthood, the environment they spent their lives in will have an effect. Stereotyping, which we have seen from you in this thread, is just part of the problem. Access to education is another issue that will affect IQ, as are society's beliefs and attitudes regarding "intelligence". EgalitarianJay covered this point quite well.

Your own link provides the flaws and discusses the lack of genetic link in race and intelligence and stated that it could not be conclusive. Did you not even bother to read the first paragraph of what you posted?

You should try constructing your own arguments from your sources. I will not do it for you.

And you should try providing sources to support your argument. You are yet to do so and you keep expecting everyone else to provide evidence. This is, by any definition, the actions of a troll. To wit, perhaps you should have a read of this site's rules and pay particular attention to the section dedicated to "trollling". You fit the bill completely.

No, why would I? The consistent global pattern controls for these. The burden is on you to demonstrate these factors in multiple combinations all over the world producing the same racial pattern, and also that somehow "White bigotry" is at the root of all of these variables manifesting and producing low Black IQs and high non-verbal IQs in East Asians. To me that sounds like a joke. Genetics is the simple Occam's razor variable, your contrived hodge-podge of asserted variables needs demonstration. I very much doubt I will see that. Can you quantify global variation in even one of your factors? Why do East Asians in America experience "positive racism"? Why do Blacks in Haiti still suffer under "bigotry"? Also Blacks in London and Guangdong province? Are we expected to believe that "racism" has exactly the same effect everywhere? Who is responsible for this "racism"? God?

You literally have not read anything provided in this thread, have you?

And just for your information, the burden is on you to prove your arguments in this thread. You have not done so despite repeated requests that you do so. You are making all these claims without any form of support at all. In short, you are simply trolling because you demand that everyone provide proof and then you refuse to support any of your extraordinary claims made throughout this thread. It is laughable that you seem to believe this is acceptable behaviour.

You think that copy pasting fallacies from a cherry picked paper that agrees with your POV constitutes "scientific discussion"? I am engaged in scientific discussion, with your copy pastes rather than you. You support your assertion that a hodge-podge of environmental variables explains the difference, rather than shared genetics. Of course you need an excuse to ban me, because your "logic" isn't going to "win".

You engaged in a discussion where everyone else was discussing the science of it while you were harping on about the racial aspect of it without any science to back up your argument.

That's not how it works here. You made claims and it is up to you to back it up.

You have not provided anything whatsoever to support your claims. Just your say so. Which means zilch. This isn't a white supremacist site that I know you frequent. This is a science subforum and you are expected to support your argument with scientific proof on this sub-forum. You have to support your claims. Everyone else has supported their arguments with links and quotes to studies and papers. You haven't done that at all. You demand we provide proof and then whine and moan because you don't want to read them and you request we break it down for you so you don't have to read the links, or you whine when we copy and paste the portions that deal specifically with the subject at hand.

I have given you ample time to support your claims. You haven't done so. At all.

Instead, your argument is literally racist pseudoscience. None of your claims are supported by genetics or biology. None.

 

[Phill]

Rushton tried to use the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study in his debate with Graves to show that adoption could control for the environment but was quickly rebuffed by Graves who pointed out that adoption has a psychological affect on adopted children especially children phenotypically classified as different races. The stress of being adopted in to the home of a people of a different race and stereotype threat can have a negative psychological impact on the test scores and grades of Black adoptees.

But a positive impact on East Asians, specifically in non-verbal IQ. This is also the case with malnourished Koreans, which was a third world country at the time, adopted by Europeans. I think genetics is more likely.

 

[Phill]

Suffice to say, for "race" to exist, it would mean that each "race" or groups of people would have had to evolve individually and be different enough to genetically classify as being a different race or sub-species. This would have had to happen in only a few thousand years. It would mean that this would have had to happen in isolation from other groups.

You simply fail to understand basic biological taxonomy.

 

[iceaura]

Bells, that's objectively wrong. They've accounted for all of those environmental factors- look at the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study did not even control for maternal lead and stress exposure, let alone the myriad other sociological factors muddled and hidden in adoption.

The assumption that sociologically cross-racial adopted children are adopted by a statistically identical sociological population of adoptive parents, and then raised the same as same-race adoptive children, for example, is not merely dubious but presumptively invalid. It has to be overtly established.

People can correctly state their own race, confirmed by genetics

You have it backwards. The genetics are assigned to "race" based on people's identification, self and otherwise. They cannot be used to "confirm" what was used to define them in the first place.

We have recently seen many examples of people surprised to find that their genetically established ancestry differed from what they had assumed based on their sociological racial identity. Their sociological racial identity was not altered to fit - they were still white, red, black, etc, just as before. And they were just as correct in their self-identification as they had always been. Because your race assignment, in the US, has absolutely nothing to do with your genetic code, in the first place.

Seriously, guys, did you think two Blacks could have a baby and it'd come out as a Native Hawaiian? Genes are the sole determinant of race.

I really shouldn't have had to explain this.

Here's a picture of a couple of Blacks who had an entire family of Native Hawaiian babies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ative_Hawaiian_missionary_family,_c._1878.jpg
Here's another: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...ched_grass_house_taken_by_J._A._Gonsalves.jpg
A few more pictures Native Hawaiians who might be expected to have babies resembling their parents:
You seem to be assuming that Native Hawaiians and "Blacks" are in different races. Why?

But a positive impact on East Asians, specifically in non-verbal IQ. This is also the case with malnourished Koreans, which was a third world country at the time, adopted by Europeans. I think genetics is more likely.

The genetics involved don't provide you with a race. If you think genetics are more likely, fine - but note that you have no idea what they are, or what their association with your skin-color based "races" would turn out to be.

Lots of Koreans would self-identify as racially distinct not only from Malaysians and Mongols, but from Han and Japanese as well.

 

[Phill]

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study did not even control for maternal lead and stress exposure, let alone the myriad other sociological factors muddled and hidden in adoption.

So maternal lead exposure explains the consistent global IQ pattern? Lol.

The assumption that sociologically cross-racial adopted children are adopted by a statistically identical sociological population of adoptive parents, and then raised the same as same-race adoptive children, for example, is not merely dubious but presumptively invalid. It has to be overtly established.

The assumption that all adopted Black children go to families that drop their IQ to their population mean is statistically preposterous.

You have it backwards. The genetics are assigned to "race" based on people's identification, self and otherwise. They cannot be used to "confirm" what was used to define them in the first place.

Nope, the clusters are not formed from race information, but genomic similarity.

We have recently seen many examples of people surprised to find that their genetically established ancestry differed from what they had assumed based on their sociological racial identity. Their sociological racial identity was not altered to fit - they were still white, red, black, etc, just as before. And they were just as correct in their self-identification as they had always been. Because your race assignment, in the US, has absolutely nothing to do with your genetic code, in the first place.
Here's a picture of a couple of Blacks who had an entire family of Native Hawaiian babies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ative_Hawaiian_missionary_family,_c._1878.jpg
Here's another: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...ched_grass_house_taken_by_J._A._Gonsalves.jpg
A few more pictures Native Hawaiians who might be expected to have babies resembling their parents:
You seem to be assuming that Native Hawaiians and "Blacks" are in different races. Why?

This has become laughable.

The genetics involved don't provide you with a race. If you think genetics are more likely, fine - but note that you have no idea what they are, or what their association with your skin-color based "races" would turn out to be.

Lots of Koreans would self-identify as racially distinct not only from Malaysians and Mongols, but from Han and Japanese as well.

Yes, Koreans are racially distinct from Japanese. Do you have some kind of mental disability that prevents you from understanding nested classifications, or are you trolling?

 

[iceaura]

So maternal lead exposure explains the consistent global IQ pattern? Lol.

You can "Lol" after you've measured. Not before. It's among the several known factors you have not controlled.

The assumption that all adopted Black children go to families that drop their IQ to their population mean is statistically preposterous.

Of course. So?

Also, the notion that you have in your possession a Black population, and it has a mean IQ that you have measured and can be usefully compared with others, is preposterous.

Nope, the clusters are not formed from race information, but genomic similarity.

Yours are not. Your clusters are formed according to sociological ("self" and other) identification. That's what you said, remember? In the US and Western countries, that is based on skin color - so you have the Koreans in the East Asian race with the Han and Mongols, and you have a problem with the Malaysians.

Yes, Koreans are racially distinct from Japanese. Do you have some kind of mental disability that prevents you from understanding nested classifications,

Then you will of course cease and desist from lumping them with all those other races in your reporting on IQ variation. Right?

Btw, "nested" usually means one inside another. I confess to being unable to determine, in advance, which racial classifications you have decided to call "nested" and which you have decided are not "nested" together, except by assuming that when you talk about white and black and "Asian" people, when you talk about self-identification etc, when you clearly have no other criteria at hand besides waving at some kind of genetics you assume will match your presuppositions whenever you get around to them, you are simply reiterating the standard US skin color categories.

If you have some other criterion than skin color, now's the time to describe it. It has to account for your "nesting" of the Han and Mongols, the Maasai and Mbuti, but separation of the non-Bantu Ethiopians from the Spanish and the southern Indians from the French.

 

[Phill]

You can "Lol" after you've measured. Not before. It's among the several known factors you have not controlled.
Of course. So?

Also, the notion that you have in your possession a Black population, and it has a mean IQ that you have measured and can be usefully compared with others, is preposterous.
Yours are not. Your clusters are formed according to sociological ("self" and other) identification. That's what you said, remember? In the US and Western countries, that is based on skin color - so you have the Koreans in the East Asian race with the Han and Mongols, and you have a problem with the Malaysians.
Then you will of course cease and desist from lumping them with all those other races in your reporting on IQ variation. Right?

Btw, "nested" usually means one inside another. I confess to being unable to determine, in advance, which racial classifications you have decided to call "nested" and which you have decided are not "nested" together, except by assuming that when you talk about white and black and "Asian" people, when you talk about self-identification etc, when you clearly have no other criteria at hand besides waving at some kind of genetics you assume will match your presuppositions whenever you get around to them, you are simply reiterating the standard US skin color categories.

If you have some other criterion than skin color, now's the time to describe it. It has to account for your "nesting" of the Han and Mongols, the Maasai and Mbuti, but separation of the non-Bantu Ethiopians from the Spanish and the southern Indians from the French.

If you are you just going to keep repeating that this is based on skin color there is no point bothering with you. So your next post will link to this image followed by the words "this is not based on skin color", or you're on ignore.

BTW here's a nice plot that shows the divide between Koreans and Japanese.

Note also the blue dot in the Korean cluster, who is most likely a Zainichi Korean. Is this because of "skin color" somehow? Can you explain how they make genomic PCAs, and show us where "skin color" comes into it? Lol.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Phill, please provide a link to the maps you just provided. And just be advised, I have read the actual study that graphic is from.

And just an FYI, the study in question found a very close relationship genetically between Japan and Korea.

You know, it pays to not attempt to misrepresent diagrams from studies on forums like this one.

So I await your linking and analysis of the study in question. I'll give you a hint, it was completed in 2008.

 

[Phill]

You know, it pays to not attempt to misrepresent diagrams from studies on forums like this one.

Forums with lying POV-pushing power-abusing Marxist mods?

 

[iceaura]

If you are you just going to keep repeating that this is based on skin color there is no point bothering with you. So your next post will link to this image followed by the words "this is not based on skin color", or you're on ignore.

That is not based on skin color.

That's why it doesn't show your races.

Your racial classifications - such as the motivations for those little boundary lines you drew on that graph earlier, which you wisely omit now - are based on skin color, and that is why you can't find them on that graph. There is no "Black" racial cluster, for example, that matches your "self-identification" or "ancestry" criteria, or any of your other attempted functional criteria. There are no "white", "red", "yellow". or "brown" clusters either.

Give up. Nobody has genetically defined any human races yet, and if they ever do they won't match your sociological races. You have proved that, with your links - if anyone needed proof.

 

[Bells]

Forums with lying POV-pushing power-abusing Marxist mods?

Provide a link please. Last warning.

 

[Phill]

That is not based on skin color.

That's why it doesn't show your races.

Your racial classifications - such as the motivations for those little boundary lines you drew on that graph earlier, which you wisely omit now - are based on skin color, and that is why you can't find them on that graph. There is no "Black" racial cluster, for example, that matches your "self-identification" or "ancestry" criteria, or any of your other attempted functional criteria. There are no "white", "red", "yellow". or "brown" clusters either.

Give up. Nobody has genetically defined any human races yet, and if they ever do they won't match your sociological races. You have proved that, with your links - if anyone needed proof.

Anyone can look at this and see how it should be divided. Do you see a smooth continuum (which could still be divided)? No, you see orthogonal clusters of variation at vertices and end-points. At least, most people could see that.

 

[Phill]

And just an FYI, the study in question found a very close relationship genetically between Japan and Korea.

The fallacy you keep repeating is that in biology there is some arbitrary limit on "enough" between group variation to justify distinctiveness. When presented with distinct clusters you say there is "not enough" difference between them, with no reference to anything. This is just something in your head which derives from your "racial equality" political fantasy POV. In fact any difference which can create a distinct cluster justifies a taxonomy, any taxonomy. Your fallacious arguments are only applied to race. Show me in other subspecies how we calculate "enough" difference? You won't be able to, or at least anybody trying to will be contradicted with counter examples.