Racial differences largely genetic?

[biased]

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

Thoughts on this? I've had a friend use this to justify his "intellectual racism" as he calls it. Show me something to disprove him. This article/research/evidence suggests that there are innate genetic differences within intelligence ie africans have a lower IQ according to the g factor than asians or caucasians.

 

[LuisDantas]

Race is an often contested concept, but isn't it supposedly genetic in definition?

Because if so, then sure, racial differences in IQ will be genetic. As will any other kinds of racial differences, including favorite color.

However, how meaningful (from a statistical viewpoint) are those differences?

Reading the article, which is indeed surprisingly named "Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic", I see that it includes this correct yet incomplete statement:

Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause

I would say that the significance is also in dispute. Among other reasons, because it is unclear what even a clear and huge difference in typical IQs among races would imply.

 

[biased]

Race is an often contested concept, but isn't it supposedly genetic in definition?

Because if so, then sure, racial differences in IQ will be genetic. As will any other kinds of racial differences, including favorite color.

However, how meaningful (from a statistical viewpoint) are those differences?

I deal with a lot of empiricists, scientific materialists, STEM majors who work and study in those fields and they assure me that race is 100% valid category that is useful for certain groups. For example, certain races react different to certain drugs and for a genetic example look at how the africans adapted to sickle-cell and malaria.

My science education is poor but I try to stay informed.

 

[George-ananda]

I believe we should use the more narrow term of ethnic group as race is too broad a term.

Yes, I do believe there are genetic differences (with considerable overlap) between ethnic groups that effect mental and physical abilities and traits of all sorts. There are an untold number of different types of intelligence so an IQ score does not tell the full picture.

However, this is misconstrued as a bad thing when it's not. One group may be on average higher on one type of skill or intelligence but on average be lower in a different mental or physical ability. Society is advantaged to have people with somewhat different skill sets. Who wants a society of all math geeks.

So don't let this bother you because although we talk about ethnic group averages, an individual of any group can fall anywhere on the scale.

 

[biased]

However, this is misconstrued as a bad thing when it's not. One group may be on average higher on one type of skill or intelligence but on average be lower in a different mental or physical ability. Society is advantaged to have people with somewhat different skill sets. Who wants a society of all math geeks.

So don't let this bother you because although we talk about ethnic group averages, an individual of any group can fall anywhere on the scale.

I agree with you. For example, this friend believes africans to be physically superior to asians and caucasians yet psychologically/mentally/intellectually inferior. The statistics seem to reflect this fact too so I see where he gets his logic.

Anyway I believe what you are referring to are "outliers" and why we should not be racist/prejudice is because it is best to take people on a case by case basis. Generalizations/stereotypes are useful for keeping you safe but this is the internet, I think the safety margin is quite high. At least physically.

 

[Jiggerj]

Thoughts on this? I've had a friend use this to justify his "intellectual racism" as he calls it. Show me something to disprove him. This article/research/evidence suggests that there are innate genetic differences within intelligence ie africans have a lower IQ according to the g factor than asians or caucasians.

Sure there's a genetic difference. Tell your friend that those Africans are 100% human. The rest of us are only 96% human and 4% Neanderthal. :yes:

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

No, this is nothing but racist twaddle.

First there is no such thing genetically as "race"; no gene for "race" which is a social construct to begin with. Most genetic variation is within races not across them. Basically that means that I have more genetic material in common with a randomly chosen African-American than I do with another white person.

Secondly intelligence is lowly correlated if at all with genetics. Sure if two smart people have a kid, then chances are that the child might be intelligent, but they still need the right environment and education.

IQ tests which are the criteria in such "studies" are pretty flawed too. They often test things such as how big your vocabulary is. Well what if your first language isn't English? Then you wouldn't do as well. IQ is a very, very small part of intelligence; almost negligible. In fact probably the only thing IQ is an accurate measure of is how good of a test taker you are.

Guess What? Racism Isn't Good Science | Jesse Larner

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Reading the article, which is indeed surprisingly named "Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic", I see that it includes this correct yet incomplete statement

The article is a summary of sorts of this paper: Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability

 

[fallingblood]

It's bunk. Much of the problem with these IQ tests that were given is that they favor a Euro-American group. So it is no surprise that people living in Africa are going to score lower. The tests basically make sure of that.

More so, genetically, there is little difference between humans. In fact, a white person can be genetically closer to a black person, than to another white person. Race has to validity in biological reality.

Yes, one can find variations in groups that are isolated. That is environment though, not genetics. The fact that one can find large differences in IQ between people who are wealthy of one "race" and people who are poor of one "race" should suggest that it isn't race that is the determining factor.

 

[biased]

It's bunk. Much of the problem with these IQ tests that were given is that they favor a Euro-American group. So it is no surprise that people living in Africa are going to score lower. The tests basically make sure of that.

More so, genetically, there is little difference between humans. In fact, a white person can be genetically closer to a black person, than to another white person. Race has to validity in biological reality.

Yes, one can find variations in groups that are isolated. That is environment though, not genetics. The fact that one can find large differences in IQ between people who are wealthy of one "race" and people who are poor of one "race" should suggest that it isn't race that is the determining factor.

SO IOW it's 100% nurture (environment) and 0% nature (genetics)? Your claim is that the IQ tests are biased towards Africans because of a cultural or socioeconomic reason? Is that correct? Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[fallingblood]

SO IOW it's 100% nurture (environment) and 0% nature (genetics)? Your claim is that the IQ tests are biased towards Africans because of a cultural or socioeconomic reason? Is that correct? Correct me if I am wrong.

I'm sure there is some nature to do with IQs. However, it isn't based on race. If IQ is genetic at all, it would reason that individuals who have IQs, who do produce offspring, would most likely have children with higher IQs, or at least that potential. However, I would say it is more environment than anything. People living in poverty often score lower on IQ tests. They also have a disadvantage because often they don't get the same education. In fact, their education is often far less than someone who is more wealthy.

As for IQs tests being biased, it would be both cultural and socioeconomic. I've taken a variety of IQ tests (I'm not talking about ones on the internet, but professionally administered ones). There is a clear bias for people who grew up European or American. The ideas were often Euro-centric, which would make many others less able to answer those questions. Not to mention, often people who are poorer, because of their education (which is largely based on socioeconomics), aren't prepared to take such tests.

 

[biased]

As for IQs tests being biased, it would be both cultural and socioeconomic. I've taken a variety of IQ tests (I'm not talking about ones on the internet, but professionally administered ones). There is a clear bias for people who grew up European or American. The ideas were often Euro-centric, which would make many others less able to answer those questions. Not to mention, often people who are poorer, because of their education (which is largely based on socioeconomics), aren't prepared to take such tests.

When you say there is a "clear bias for people who grew up European or American"/Eurocentric can you give me some concrete examples? I'm looking for like a minimum of 5.

thank you

 

[Copernicus]

SO IOW it's 100% nurture (environment) and 0% nature (genetics)? Your claim is that the IQ tests are biased towards Africans because of a cultural or socioeconomic reason? Is that correct? Correct me if I am wrong.

Fallingblood is correct. This controversy started back in the 1960s, when the US was struggling with its apartheid problem. The white supremacist side used the "scientific" standard of IQ testing to fight school desegregation, among other things. It really heated up in the 1970s. See, for example, Academic Ignorance and Black Intelligence, an Atlantic Monthly article published in 1972, on exactly the same issue. After all these years, we are still debating this issue, and racism is still going strong in America (despite the Supreme Court having declared it dead).

To be crystal clear, the rebuttal of the "genetic argument" is that the claim is based solely on a statistical pattern grounded in IQ testing. No racially-linked genes or DNA sequences have been isolated that are shown to explain the effect. The reality of that pattern is not under dispute--African Americans usually do more poorly on IQ tests. The rebuttal focuses on the assumptions underlying IQ testing--that it actually measures "intelligence"--the culturally-biased conditions under which the tests are given, and cultural differences in behavior. What Bill Labov showed in his famous sociolinguistic study of language testing (which tended to show a smaller vocabulary in African American children) was that something as simple as the race of the person administering the test could produce radically different results. There is also evidence that the test score gap can be radically altered by changing environmental factors--exactly what you wouldn't expect if the IQ testing differences were genetic (see The Black-White Test Score Gap).

It should be clear after half a century of debate that people won't stop waving the IQ flag to fan the flames of racism. As Noam Chomsky once asked, how would it change public policies even if there were some kind of genetic difference in intelligence between the races? The answer is that it would have no effect at all. It would not justify apartheid. It would not lead to different, more rational policies. The only reason it even gets debated is the subtext of racial animosities. It is a "safe" way to fan those flames, because we are talking about "objective" studies here--hard evidence, not prejudice.

 

[biased]

Fallingblood is correct. This controversy started back in the 1960s, when the US was struggling with its apartheid problem. The white supremacist side used the "scientific" standard of IQ testing to fight school desegregation, among other things. It really heated up in the 1970s. See, for example, Academic Ignorance and Black Intelligence, an Atlantic Monthly article published in 1972, on exactly the same issue. After all these years, we are still debating this issue, and racism is still going strong in America (despite the Supreme Court having declared it dead).

To be crystal clear, the rebuttal of the "genetic argument" is that the claim is based solely on a statistical pattern grounded in IQ testing. No racially-linked genes or DNA sequences have been isolated that are shown to explain the effect. The reality of that pattern is not under dispute--African Americans usually do more poorly on IQ tests. The rebuttal focuses on the assumptions underlying IQ testing--that it actually measures "intelligence"--the culturally-biased conditions under which the tests are given, and cultural differences in behavior. What Bill Labov did in his famous sociolinguistic study of language testing (which tended to show a smaller vocabulary in African American children) was that something as simple as the race of the person administering the test could produce radically different results. There is also evidence that the test score gap can be radically altered by changing environmental factors--exactly what you wouldn't expect if the IQ testing differences were genetic (see The Black-White Test Score Gap).

It should be clear after half a century of debate that people won't stop waving the IQ flag to fan the flames of racism. As Noam Chomsky once asked, how would it change public policies even if there were some kind of genetic difference in intelligence between the races? The answer is that it would have no effect at all. It would not justify apartheid. It would not lead to different, more rational policies. The only reason it even gets debated is the subtext of racial animosities.

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does that study alter anything of what you said? I know it's an important study but I only understand it on a unconcious level. I have little formal scientific training.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Most Asian families I am aquainted with have very strict parents who care greatly about their childrens education. They apply a work ethic to education.

It would be my guess if an Asian couple adopted a black child, their children would do quite well in school.

 

[Copernicus]

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does that study alter anything of what you said? I know it's an important study but I only understand it on a unconcious level. I have little formal scientific training.

Not in the slightest. First of all, from the Wikipedia page you linked to: "As Scarr & Weinberg (1976) note, transracial adoption studies only control for family environment, not social environment." It isn't just a matter of who your parents are. If teachers have low expectations, that can bias the experience and attitudes of children towards academic pursuits. Their study did show differential effects of environment on IQ scores. Black children raised by white parents do tend to score more highly on IQ tests. However, the study did not really control social environment, and it isn't at all clear what the conditions were like under which the tests were administered, from the viewpoint of the subjects. The problem remains that IQ testing is not an objective measure of intelligence, and it cannot be linked to genetic makeup, only socially-stratified demographic groups.

 

[George-ananda]

Not in the slightest. First of all, from the Wikipedia page you linked to: "As Scarr & Weinberg (1976) note, transracial adoption studies only control for family environment, not social environment." It isn't just a matter of who your parents are. If teachers have low expectations, that can bias the experience and attitudes of children towards academic pursuits. Their study did show differential effects of environment on IQ scores. Black children raised by white parents do tend to score more highly on IQ tests. However, the study did not really control social environment, and it isn't at all clear what the conditions were like under which the tests were administered, from the viewpoint of the subjects. The problem remains that IQ testing is not an objective measure of intelligence, and it cannot be linked to genetic makeup, only socially-stratified demographic groups.

What do you think about the athletic ability of African Americans versus other ethnic groups of the world?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Most Asian families I am aquainted with have very strict parents who care greatly about their childrens education. They apply a work ethic to education.

It would be my guess if an Asian couple adopted a black child, their children would do quite well in school.

So do a lot of west Africans pressure their children to do well in school in fact their education systems are much harder than what we have in the UK

 

[George-ananda]

Most Asian families I am aquainted with have very strict parents who care greatly about their childrens education.

I think discipline and conservative behavior in general are also partially genetically based. I would guess Asians are more genetically programmed for conservative behavior.

In general I'm of the opinion that genetic factors are generally underrated by people when considering both individual and group differences. It might not seem fair that there are group differences but they're there anyway.

 

[Copernicus]

What do you think about the athletic ability of African Americans versus other ethnic groups of the world?

I think that it is fairly ordinary. An added bonus for African Americans, when it comes to certain sports, is that those sports (and certain genres of music) represent occupations that have been opened up to them. They have a harder time in those which present greater social barriers to them, but they still manage to break ground in new areas from time to time. (Go, Tiger!) One tends to devote more time and effort to pursuing occupations that promise the most opportunities for wealth and advancement.