Racial intelligence is a function of both nature and nurture

[Thomas Wainwright]

Racial intelligence is like any other human trait, which is a complex interaction between a person's genetic makeup AND the environment in which a person is socialized. Consequently, those who argue that racial intelligence has no biological component are extremely likely to be mistaken. Although psychometric testing is neither a reliable nor accurate measure of intelligence, it doesn't imply that we cannot, and should not look to other sources as a barometer and indicator of racial intelligence.

 

For instance, Africa has no historical or indigenous civilization to boast, except for the civilizing influence of the Arabs, Persians, and Europeans; as indeed, without the civilizing effect of Indo-Germanic peoples they would have no culture, and no civilization whatsoever. Suffice to say that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was built by people who are not wholly of African descent; which means that black people cannot be wholly credited for creating one of the most dominant civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean; as on the contrary, the Ancient Egyptian civilization is mostly attributed to the cultural, ethnic, and biological heritage of misogynized populations (mostly, Semitic and Indo-aryan) in the Horn of Africa.

 

Moreover, African states generally have the LOWEST per capita income, Gross Domestic Product, Purchasing Power, and scientific and technological development out of any continent across the globe (with South Africa as the only exception, which is only the case because S.A. still has a powerful mercantile-class that is White, a largely White bureaucratic-class, and a scientific community which is predominantly White).

 

Suffice to say, the majority of African American children still live below the poverty line and there has been little if any improvements to the standard of living of blacks in America since the Civil Rights Act was signed into law in 1965. Consequently, the economic disadvantage of African Americans cannot be solely attributed to economic discrimination by the White majority, because such discrimination applies to any other minority in America; but Asian Americans (Korean, Chinese, Japanese....and Indian etc.) have more or less managed to overcome the worst of racial prejudice and discrimination, and are generally more successful in economic terms than the African American population.

 

Furthermore, Dr Ian Jones of the University of Gloucestershire, UK, a Visiting Professor at MIT and Harvard is a leading expert on race and racism, who has commented that the African American population is mostly "working-class", but the majority of Asians and Whites are Middle-class in America.

 

Suffice to say, there is compelling evidence that the economic disadvantage of blacks is not entirely a result of racial discrimination by Whites because Asians are generally more successful than blacks despite also being the target of discrimination by Whites. In other words, the economic disadvantage of blacks is not entirely a result of the environment, such as black culture, structural disadvantage, and racial discrimination by the White majority in America. On the contrary, it is highly probable that the economic disadvantage of blacks has a biological component, which is responsible for the racial intelligence of black people in general.

 

As indeed, almost every human trait conceivable has some sort of biological component and it would be foolish to suggest that any particular trait is solely the result of a person's environment. Among the mainstream scientific communities in North America and Europe, it is well documented that almost every human trait conceivable has some sort of biological base, with the exception of racial intelligence; which is a curious anomaly in the scientific paradigm of "nature AND nurture" as being the complex and causal determinant of phenotypic evolution (which includes racial intelligence); as both the scientific community and political establishment are bent on promoting "good race relations"; but such a moral imperative would be called into doubt, and indeed, there would be a sound rationale to implement discriminatory policies if it could be proven that Asians and Whites are more intelligent than Blacks.

 

So far, no one has yet managed to provide any direct and conclusive evidence to demonstrate that there is, indeed, a genetic base attributed to differential IQ; but that is not to say that we cannot or should not use the "nature AND nurture hypothesis" as a conjectural premise that racial intelligence is, indeed, like any other human trait, which is not solely dependent on cultural factors, nor the social environment of an entire group of people. In other words, black intelligence is not entirely a result of black culture, structural disadvantage, and racial discrimination by Whites; but rather, it is highly probable as a result of the black genome as much as being a result of the socially-diverse environment of the global diaspora of black people.

 

Likewise, the fact that blacks in America are over-represented amongst the prison population is not solely the result of black culture and the social deprivation of black people generally; but the criminality of blacks must also have a biological base, which makes them more prone to criminal activity than any other race in America.

 

Which begs the question: As concerning the scientific community, academia, and politicians, when will they ever come to terms with the evidence of America's history, and therefore, come to terms with the reality of black intelligence, criminality, and sexual prowess, which is not entirely a result of historic and persisting racial injustice at the hands of the White majority; but instead, there is compelling evidence to suggest that such a discerning trait among black people must also have a genetic base, which is one of the causal determinants of such a defining feature among the black people of America?

 

Reference:

Dr. Richard Lynn - IQ and The Global Bell Curve:

Steve Jones, a professor of genetics at University College London has commented that "it'll be extremely FOOLISH to deny that there is a heritable component in intelligence, as it's extremely FOOLISH to deny that there is a heritable component to almost anything (04:31/09:44)":

 

Biological determinism

The Flynn Effect does NOT claim that differential I.Q. between black and white people is not partly attributed to a genetic component based on racial difference between the two groups (1:40/3:57):

Edited June 15, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

[imatfaal]

Racial intelligence is like any other human trait, which is a complex interaction between a person's genetic makeup AND the environment in which a person is socialized. Consequently, those who argue that racial intelligence has no biological component are extremely likely to be mistaken. Although I.Q. is neither a reliable nor accurate measure of intelligence, it does not mean that we cannot, and should not look to other sources as a barometer and indicator of racial intelligence.

Race is very much a social construct - unless you have big problems with the out-of-africa idea then surely you agree that all humans were based in africa a couple of hundred of thousands of years ago and that is a very short period when thought of in evolutionary terms.

 

For instance, Africa has no historical or indigenous civilization to boast, except for the civilizing influence of the Arabs, Persians, and Europeans; as indeed, without the civilizing effect of Indo-Germanic peoples they would have no culture, and no civilization whatsoever. Suffice to say that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was built by people who are not wholly of African descent; which means that black people cannot be wholly credited for creating one of the most dominant civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean; as on the contrary, the Ancient Egyptian civilization is mostly attributed to the cultural, ethnic, and biological heritage of misogynized populations (mostly, Semitic and Indo-aryan) in the Horn of Africa.

Try at least a wikipedia search before you make comments with such an implicit racist and bigoted undertone.

 

Moreover, African states generally have the LOWEST per capita income, Gross Domestic Product, Purchasing Power, and scientific and technological development out of any continent across the globe (with South Africa as the only exception, which is only the case because S.A. still has a powerful mercantile-class that is White, a largely White bureaucratic-class, and a scientific community which is predominantly White).

Unsurprising as much of the continent has been (and still is) the battleground for competing foreign ideologies to play out their cruel games and desire for empire.

 

Suffice to say, the majority of African American children still live below the poverty line and there has been little if any improvements to the standard of living of blacks in America since the Civil Rights Act was signed into law in 1965. Consequently, the economic disadvantage of African Americans cannot be solely attributed to economic discrimination by the White majority, because such discrimination applies to any other minority in America; but Asian Americans (Korean, Chinese, Japanese....and Indian etc.) have more or less managed to overcome the worst of racial prejudice and discrimination, and are generally more successful in economic terms than the African American population.

A bit of support to that might be useful.

 

Furthermore, Dr Ian Jones of the University of Gloucestershire, UK, a Visiting Professor at MIT and Harvard is a leading expert on race and racism, who has commented that the African American population is mostly "working-class", but the majority of Asians and Whites are Middle-class in America.

 

Suffice to say, there is compelling evidence that the economic disadvantage of blacks is not entirely a result of racial discrimination by Whites because Asians are generally more successful than blacks despite also being the target of discrimination by Whites. In other words, the economic disadvantage of blacks is not entirely a result of the environment, such as black culture, structural disadvantage, and racial discrimination by the White majority in America. On the contrary, it is highly probable that the economic disadvantage of blacks has a biological component, which is responsible for the racial intelligence of black people in general.

Again with the unsupported generalization that seems to be based on another bald assertion. To even show your premise is valid a little evidence that racial discrimination is equally opprobrious upon different races cultures backgrounds etc. is required. After that then maybe the argument that follows from your premise can be considered - until then it is supposition upon supposition.

 

As indeed, almost every human trait conceivable has some sort of biological component and it would be foolish to suggest that any particular trait is solely the result of a person's environment. Among the mainstream scientific communities in North America and Europe, it is well documented that almost every human trait conceivable has some sort of biological base, with the exception of racial intelligence; which is a curious anomaly in the scientific paradigm of "nature AND nurture" as being the complex and causal determinant of phenotypic evolution (which includes racial intelligence); as both the scientific community and political establishment are bent on promoting "good race relations"; but such a moral imperative would be called into doubt, and indeed, there would be a sound rationale to implement discriminatory policies if it could be proven that Asians and Whites are more intelligent than Blacks.

I think the only sector of humanity that I haven't heard this form of logic applied to it is the White AngloSaxon Protestant; and if I had been born and raised far from London I am sure I would have heard that one too. At present I have witnessed inhuman and degrading discrimination against autochthonic populations all around the world by rich nations desperate for raw materials and cheap labour - and I am convinced that until the jackboot of oppression is removed from the face then discussions about racial intelligence are at best mistakenly distractive and and at worst deliberate camouflage

 

 

As yet, nobody has ever managed to provide conclusive evidence to prove that there is a biological component attributed to racial intelligence; but that is not to say that we cannot or should not use the "nature AND nurture hypothesis" as a conjectural basis that racial intelligence, is indeed, like any other human trait, which is not solely dependent on the social environment of an entire group of people. In other words, black intelligence is not entirely a result of black culture, structural disadvantage, and racial discrimination by Whites; but instead, it is highly probable as a result of the black genome as much as being a result of the socially-diverse environment of the global diaspora of black people.

As a scientific basis for argument it's dodgy but could lead to research that might be useful - but I can already smell the approaching socio-cultural kicker that follows and it's vile; the premise 'we don't actually know - but let's proceed on the basis we are correct and see what happens' really only works when you are looking for an excuse and an empty rationale.

 

Likewise, the fact that blacks in America are over-represented amongst the prison population is not solely the result of black culture and the social deprivation of black people generally; but the criminality of blacks must also have a biological base, which makes them more prone to criminal activity than any other race in America.

Great correlation and lack of causation. Arrest one hundred black men and one hundred white men in the war against drugs - if 5 pct have a baggie of dope; then your prison population has a over-representation of black men. If your police force actually stop more blacks than whites then your statistical anomaly is exacerbated.

 

Which begs the question: As concerning the scientific community, academia, and politicians, when will they ever come to terms with the evidence of America's history, and therefore, come to terms with the reality of black intelligence, criminality, and sexual prowess, which is not entirely a result of historic and persisting racial injustice at the hands of the White majority; but instead, there is every reason to suggest that such a discerning trait among black people must also have a biological base, which is the causal determinant of such a defining feature among the black people in America?

Tell you what; once we have got to a level playing field when there is true equality of opportunity, a complete absence of racial stereotyping and profiling, when discrimination is a distant memory; then we can start to look at this idea - until then this form of thinking is part of the problem not the solution.

[Arete]

Racial intelligence is like any other human trait, which is a complex interaction between a person's genetic makeup AND the environment in which a person is socialized. ...

 

So far, no one has yet managed to provide any direct and conclusive evidence to demonstrate that there is, indeed, a genetic base attributed to differential IQ; ...

 

 

"it'll be extremely FOOLISH to deny that there is a heritable component in intelligence, as it's extremely FOOLISH to deny that there is a heritable component to almost anything (04:31/09:44)":

 

You are implying that intelligence is significantly heritable, and any observed differences are due to heritable differences rather than phenotypic plasticity in response to the environment.

 

There's a number of issues:

a) You don't demonstrate that there is significant differences in intellect explained when categorizing by race.

b) IQ is standardized by the test group - therefore comparisons of IQ from different test groups are invalid.

c) Even if you had proof that there were differences in intelligence, in order to prove heritability significantly explains the observed differences above and beyond plastic response to the environment you need a common garden experiment. Arm waving statements about all traits having an element of heritability don't suffice.

d) The actual evidence suggests that environment plays a larger role in the development of intellect than heritable components:

 

"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero"

http://pss.sagepub.c.../14/6/623.short

 

"IQ, is perhaps 48%; narrow-sense heritability, the relevant quantity for evolutionary arguments because it measures the additive effects of genes, is about 34%."

http://www.nature.co...l/388468a0.html

 

"large environmentally induced IQ gains between generations suggest an important role for environment in shaping IQ"

http://psycnet.apa.o.../rev/108/2/346/

 

etc.

[Joatmon]

I am quite elderly now, but have had more experience with people of different races than most. I therefore feel my opinion is worth considering.

In my time I have worked under, with, and over people of several different nationalities - a lot of the time in a teaching role.

If you put two people side by side there is no denying that there are differences that are visible and invisible due to their genetic heritage. One of those differences will be intelligence. However, for any difference you chose there will be a wide range and I have found that these ranges are so wide and the overlap so great that I doubt that the average intelligence, as demonstrated to me, is much different for any chosen group.

Because my experience has been mostly teaching technical matters all my foreign students were well educated before coming into my hands. This raises another question in my mind. What do we mean by intelligence? IMO if the only reason for lack of knowledge is lack of education then that does not prove lack of intelligence. If the ability to learn was always there that person was always intelligent. If there is a genetic link to that ability then it will be passed on in the usual way. Don't assume a person is not intelligent just because the life he has led results in a lack of knowledge!

[Arete]

Don't assume a person is not intelligent just because the life he has led results in a lack of knowledge!

 

Which is why in all studies testing differential heritability - regardless of the study species or the trait in question, one needs to conduct a common garden experiment to rule out plastic response of phenotype to environmental heterogeneity. In the absence of such a controlled experiment, all one has is speculation.

[swansont]

Racial intelligence is like any other human trait, which is a complex interaction between a person's genetic makeup AND the environment in which a person is socialized. Consequently, those who argue that racial intelligence has no biological component are extremely likely to be mistaken. Although psychometric testing is neither a reliable nor accurate measure of intelligence, it doesn't imply that we cannot, and should not look to other sources as a barometer and indicator of racial intelligence.

 

For instance, Africa has no historical or indigenous civilization to boast, except for the civilizing influence of the Arabs, Persians, and Europeans; as indeed, without the civilizing effect of Indo-Germanic peoples they would have no culture, and no civilization whatsoever. Suffice to say that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was built by people who are not wholly of African descent; which means that black people cannot be wholly credited for creating one of the most dominant civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean; as on the contrary, the Ancient Egyptian civilization is mostly attributed to the cultural, ethnic, and biological heritage of misogynized populations (mostly, Semitic and Indo-aryan) in the Horn of Africa.

 

Moreover, African states generally have the LOWEST per capita income, Gross Domestic Product, Purchasing Power, and scientific and technological development out of any continent across the globe (with South Africa as the only exception, which is only the case because S.A. still has a powerful mercantile-class that is White, a largely White bureaucratic-class, and a scientific community which is predominantly White).

 

There are a number of arguments as to why living in Africa would be a handicap to constructing a civilization which have nothing to do with race. I suggest Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and, Steel for a good summary of those arguments. As you note, this is a complex subject, which is why jumping to a conclusion, especially one that suggests bigotry, should not rely on exceedingly shoddy and vague arguments.

[Thomas Wainwright]

Which is why in all studies testing differential heritability - regardless of the study species or the trait in question, one needs to conduct a common garden experiment to rule out plastic response of phenotype to environmental heterogeneity. In the absence of such a controlled experiment, all one has is speculation.

 

Yes, I agree that in the absence of such a controlled experiment, all we have is speculation. However, it wouldn't be impossible to manipulate the environment in order for such an experiment to take place. At the same time, it's important to remember that such a controlled experiment would be interdisciplinary, which would involve the collaboration of experts from several disciplines (namely, psychology, anthropology, and genetics); that would literally involve the use of human guinea pigs, which is completely against the ethics of contemporary social science practice in the West. However, such an experiment could still be carried out in non-Western countries, such as Russia and China, which is on account of their appalling record on human rights:-

 

Objective: To create a suitable and controlled environment (social, cultural & economic) for the purpose of studying human guinea pigs. The purpose of the experiment would be to control for variables, such as a child's formative experience, socioeconomic class, cultural background, and differential opportunities; which would be carried out for the purpose of observing individual difference due to heritable factors, such as hereditary intelligence in this case.

 

Method: To procure an abandoned country estate in the former Tsarist empire for the purpose of this experiment. The estate must be several hundred acres of premium farm land. The palace or country house must have several hundred rooms, which are nearly identical for the purpose of the experiment. The subject of this experiment would be several hundred neonatal and adopted children who are from every conceivable racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic background. For the purpose of the controlled experiment, all the subjects under study will be either male or female, which is important to eliminate the variable of gender or biological sex difference. The subjects under study must be neonatal infants who are no more than 3 months old, which is important to control for the variable of socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic difference. It is important to procure as large a sample as possible, which is important to reduce the amount of error in the experiment. The subjects will be reared and educated in a homogenous environment to control for racial, ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic difference; which will be necessary to observe the extent of genetic variation among the sample in respect of differential IQ. The sample will be ordered and classified according to racial and ethnic origin without the knowledge of the people being studied. Racial classification will be used for statistical purposes to derive a correlative relationship between race and median IQ i.e. The Bell Curve. If there is deviation in the median IQ of different groups within the sample, then I think we can safely conclude that there is indeed a genetic component which is responsible for differential IQ between the races. This would prove once and for all, that some races are biologically more intelligent than others.

 

However, it is not absolutely crucial to carry out such a controlled experiment in the first place. Already, there are circumstances favorable to observing the hereditary component to intelligence, which does not require the homogenization of social, cultural, and economic factors. Take for example, the case of post-Apartheid South Africa which is politically dominated by the blacks (which rules out any chance of racial discrimination by the Whites, and one would expect the blacks to have priority of access to social, economic, and political resources). Nevertheless, we find that the blacks still have a lower per capita income and the number of black graduates is still proportionately less than the respective figures for the Whites in South Africa. Statistically, such differences cannot be wholly accounted for by the "plastic response of phenotype to environmental heterogeneity" because the difference between black and white per capita income, and the difference in educational attainment, is too great to be wholly accounted by human adaptation. If black and white people occupy the same geographic territory, then there is no reason why the blacks shouldn't have the same standard of living and education as white people. Statistically, such differences between the black and white community are too great to be wholly accounted for by human adaptation to environmental heterogeneity. By inference, we thereby observe that it is highly probable that such differences are indeed the manifestation of a biological base for intelligence, whereby, the level of intelligence will naturally differ according to the biological variable of race.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

[iNow]

Except, as was shared with you in like the very first reply... race is not a biologically recognized variable. It is instead little more than a social construct.

[Thomas Wainwright]

Except, as was shared with you in like the very first reply... race is not a biologically recognized variable. It is instead little more than a social construct.

 

Not according to Dr. Ian Jones, lecturer in Sociology at the University of Gloucestershire, who is a Visiting Professor at MIT and Harvard. Strictly speaking, although Jones is neither a geneticist nor biologist, he still has the benefit of rubbing shoulders with some of the top scientists in America who've said that race is a biologically recognized variable, which is contrary to your opinion.

 

Race is biologically real, according to Dr. Neil Risch, which he expounded in a study by Stanford University, and subsequently published in The American Journal of Human Genetics, 2004:

 

[Arete]

Statistically, such differences between the black and white community are too great to be wholly accounted for by human adaptation to environmental heterogeneity.

 

If only you were the reviewer on my ecological speciation papers. I could have gotten away with so much absolute bollocks and called it science. To call an observed difference between observed clusters an observed heritable differentiation, science demands considerably more evidence:

 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/341015?uid=2&uid=4&sid=56260901913

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00796.x/full

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000644

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4l476117611q364/

[Thomas Wainwright]

To call an observed difference between observed clusters an observed heritable differentiation, science demands considerably more evidence:

 

Perhaps you could explain why it is that, historically, Europeans who have migrated to Africa did not descend to the same level as the natives in terms of their intellectual faculty? Conversely, you might also try to explain why those blacks who have migrated to developed countries have never managed to attain the same I.Q. level as the host society, which is a consistent reality over several generations of the immigrant descended peoples being adapted to a different environment?

 

There is no reason at all why the immigrant descended population should not have the same median-IQ as the host society because there is no reason that their environment should be any different to the indigenous population. If there is any observable difference over the course of several generations, then that is surely a result of heritable differentiation.

[iNow]

Not according to Dr. Ian Jones, lecturer in Sociology...

Well golly gosh gizzards and gum drops... There's a sociology professor who has a differing opinion. Yep, you've clearly just put the hammer down on my comments.

 

The melanin content in a human persons skin does not provide the information you think it does. The genes of two people of completely different skin colors can, in fact, very often be MUCH more similar than the genes of two people sharing the same dermal tone.

 

You can continue to choose to ignore relevant facts and continue to cling tightly to your ignorance, but you will continue to look stupid when doing so.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29

 

Racial groupings may correspond with patterns of social stratification, helping social scientists to understand the underlying disparities among racially defined groups of people.[4] Additionally, law enforcement utilizes race to create profiles of wanted suspects in an expeditious manner.

 

While scientists use the concept of race to make practical distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, the scientific community feels that the idea of race is often used by the general public[5] in a naïve[6] or simplistic way, erroneously designating wholly discrete types of individuals. Among humans, race has no cladistic significance—all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[7][8] Regardless of the extent to which race exists, the word "race" is problematic and may carry negative connotations.[9] Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[10][11][12] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[13] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[6][14]

 

As people define and disseminate different conceptions of race, they actively create contrasting social realities through which racial categorization is achieved in varied ways.[15] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[16][17] These constructs can develop within various legal,[15][18] economic,[18] and sociopolitical[19][20] contexts, and at times may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations.[19]

 

<...>

 

In biology the term "race" is used with caution because it can be ambiguous, "'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'".[7] Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies.[41] One main obstacle to identifying subspecies is that, while it is a recognised taxonomic term, it has no precise definition.[42]

 

<...>

 

Most modern anthropologists and biologists came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation.[53]

 

The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors,[54] and Ashley Montagu who relied on evidence from genetics.[55] E. O. Wilson then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies".[56]

 

<...>

 

One result of debates over the meaning and validity of the concept of race is that the current literature across different disciplines regarding human variation lacks consensus, though within some fields, such as biology, there is strong consensus.

 

Please note how well referenced the parts I shared are. This is not based on some single individual crusade to rid the world of distinction. Race is truly a term rejected in biology due to the many ways it is found lacking, inaccurate, and without utility.

 

 

 

 

Race is a classification system lacking a basis in modern biology but which is sometimes used to categorize humans into variously perceived populations or groups by various perceived discrete heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, ethnicity, or linguistic, social, or other status. Although lacking in scientific validity as a phenomenon of natural science, the concept of race remains...

Edited June 16, 2012 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought.

For whatever value it may have, the psychologists who study such things say that intelligence comes in a variety of forms.

The number of varieties seems to depend on whom you ask, but this one is fairly typical (and the differences between the competing ideas don't affect my point).

Crystallized Intelligence

Fluid Intelligence

Quantitative Reasoning

Reading & Writing Ability

Short-Term Memory

Long-Term Storage and Retrieval

Visual Processing

Auditory Processing

Processing Speed

 

Let me know if you find a model of intelligence where "racial intelligence" is actually a defined term, so that we can sensibly discuss it on a science page.

Of course, since ,as has already been pointed out, race is a rather meaningless term, I suspect that no such model exists.

 

That brings into question any assertion which starts "Racial intelligence is like any other human trait..."

[Ringer]

Perhaps you could explain why it is that, historically, Europeans who have migrated to Africa did not descend to the same level as the natives in terms of their intellectual faculty? Conversely, you might also try to explain why those blacks who have migrated to developed countries have never managed to attain the same I.Q. level as the host society, which is a consistent reality over several generations of the immigrant descended peoples being adapted to a different environment?

 

There's no reason to explain what hasn't been supported. Meaning you haven't shown any evidence that intellectual faculty between races differs in a strongly meaningful way. Your second statement is only, AFAIK, valid in America. If we were using that I would ask you to explain why Asians have a higher intellectual faculty. Also, if it is so strongly affected by genetic make-up by race, why is it that asian children that are transracially adopted have been shown to have lower intellectual faculties, by a fairly large amount, than other Asian children. You would also have to explain why it is that the average IQ of minorities has risen at a much higher rate than the IQ of whites, if it is mostly genetic the increase in average socio-economic status of minorities and stability of status of whites shouldn't coincide as much as they do.

 

There is no reason at all why the immigrant descended population should not have the same median-IQ as the host society because there is no reason that their environment should be any different to the indigenous population. If there is any observable difference over the course of several generations, then that is surely a result of heritable differentiation.

 

That is blatantly wrong.

 

 

As an example of you completely assumed 'facts' let's take a look at the one easiest to get data on, that blacks are imprisoned more because that are genetically disposed to doing more crimes.

 

I will use a simple sample of blacks being arrested for drugs vs. whites being arrested for drugs. If there were no racial bias to this the difference in use and imprisonment should mirror each other fairly closely. According to This Study white people do more drugs on every account. I want you to take that in for a minute and really think on it. White people are doing more drugs than blacks, and the other minorities as well. Well then, since there isn't a racial bias to arrests or imprisonment white people are getting nailed left and right for drugs, right? Of course not, to really put it in perspective;

 

• SAMHSA reported that in 2002, 24 percent of crack cocaine users were African American and 72 percent were white or Hispanic, yet more than 80 percent of defendants sentenced for crack cocaine offenses were African American. (Source)

 

Read that whole paper if you want to really get into that, but it's a different issue. That point I'm trying to make is that what you are saying is blatantly wrong in almost every aspect. Since there hasn't been a major observable difference in the rates whites and blacks have been put in jail for drugs it shouldn't have anything to do with environment according to you. Obviously this is wrong, as it is with your statement of intelligence.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Thomas,

This is just a reminder that we have rules against racial slurs, or slurs against any person are not permitted here, as per section 2.1 of the forum rules:

Section 2: Posting
To maintain civility in discussions on SFN, the following rules are enforced:

Be civil.

• No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.
• Avoid the use of vulgar language.
• Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.

!

Moderator Note

Please keep the above in mind while using SFN.

[Arete]

Perhaps you could explain why it is that, historically, Europeans who have migrated to Africa did not descend to the same level as the natives in terms of their intellectual faculty?

 

First off, You haven't demonstrated that there is an observable difference between the two categories, which iNow points out have little biological meaning. So you're starting from a false premise.

 

Even if there were, sympatry certainly does not imply identical environment. Different phenotypic responses in genetically homogeneous populations is a well studied phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia....ypic_plasticity http://www.sciencema...4/5541/321.full As such, the observation of two distinct phenotypes can, in no way lead to a conclusion that genetic differences are responsible.

 

For a third time, to even hypothesize about the heritability of trait you need to control the environment - a common garden experiment, like this: http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0010229 and even when you do conduct a common garden experiment, it's not definitive, as the same genome can produce different phenotypes even in the same environment: http://www.pitt.edu/...ept/pdf/700.pdf As such, you need to conduct a functional study to identify the actual genetic component responsible for the observed phenotype differences, like a knock out experiment http://www.iscid.org...-out_Experiment, like this one: http://www.pnas.org/...3/27/10352.full

Edited June 16, 2012 by Arete

[Thomas Wainwright]

Well golly gosh gizzards and gum drops... There's a sociology professor who has a differing opinion. Yep, you've clearly just put the hammer down on my comments.

 

I think you like to cite any evidence that supports your hypothesis, but you also have a tendency to ignore other evidence which doesn't support your argument. Did I not tell you that "Ian Jones PhD is a Sociology professor who has derived his opinion on the basis of his consistent interaction with the scientific community at Harvard"? However, you conveniently ignored the fact that Dr Jones' opinion is premised on the prevalent scientific opinion at Harvard; but instead, you say that his opinion is not scientifically valid, based on the ostensible grounds that his expertise is Sociology instead of biology/genetics. Nevertheless, I can assure you that I am far better acquainted with Jones than any other person on this forum. Whatever his field of specialism, it is of no consequence whatsoever to the content of this debate, because the only thing that matters in this case is the actual source of Jones' information, which I can assure you is the prevalent scientific opinion at America's top research university. De facto, Harvard is consistently rated as the top research institution in the world by the Times Higher Educational Supplement. Given that this is the case, who are you to say that Jones' opinion is not scientifically valid?

 

Also, you have conveniently ignored all the evidence of a recent study by Dr Neil Risch at Stanford (published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, 2004), which postulated that race is a real biological classification because there is always a strong correlation between a person's racial classification and other phenotypic variables such as intelligence:

 

 

The melanin content in a human persons skin does not provide the information you think it does. The genes of two people of completely different skin colors can, in fact, very often be MUCH more similar than the genes of two people sharing the same dermal tone.

 

I absolutely agree that the genes of two people of different "races" can, in fact, very often be MUCH more similar than the genes of two people who belong to the same "racial" classification. The premise of your argument is that "race" is not a real biological category, because there is always more genetic variation within the same "racial" category, and less variation between different "races". For instance, two people of the same height can have a lower proportion of genes in common than two people of different height. Hair color is another example, whereby, two people with the same hair color can often have a lower proportion of genes in common than two people whose hair is a different color; and in the latter case, the genes can be much more similar.

 

Whereas on the one hand, you say that "race" or phenotype does not statistically correlate with intelligence; but on the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the African phenotype has a strong positive correlation with a person's ability to excel in track and field events, and other sports, whereby such a phenotype is far better adapted than the Mongoloid or European. On average, Europeans cannot go toe to toe with blacks in a boxing match, nor is it the case that they can often out maneuver a black person belonging to the same weight division.

 

At the same time, the Mongoloid phenotype is strongly correlated with a relatively smaller stature than Blacks and Europeans.

 

Given that there is always a positive/negative correlation between "race" and other phenotypic traits such as height and athletic prowess, then it is indeed a curious anomaly that you somehow deny that there is any such correlation between "race" (as a phenotype) and intelligence (as a phenotypic trait). If it's not "racist" to draw the observation that blacks are superior athletes, then why is it "racist" to observe that White people are more intelligent?

 

If you had adapted a more studied approach at the outset, then you would have understood that this article is hinged on the conjectural premise that intelligence (as a phenotypic trait) is not wholly a function of environmental variables; but on the contrary, intelligence is to a certain degree biologically determined, which is strongly correlated with racial classification as a phenotype.

 

De facto, conjecture is a powerful scientific method to infer the existence of laws and phenomena which cannot be directly observed, i.e. the world of imaginary numbers, formal logic, mathematical theorem, anti-matter, black holes, big band theory, relativity, quantum physics, sub-atomic particles, and Darwin's theory of evolution etc. Consequently, the conjectural premise of this article belongs to a different order, which is essentially far superior to any supposition, i.e. "the earth is flat; the earth is at the center of the universe; the different species of plants, insects, and animals have no common genetic ancestor" etc.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

[iNow]

If it's not "racist" to draw the observation that blacks are superior athletes, then why is it "racist" to observe that White people are more intelligent?

It's not only racist, but meaningless. As has already been described to you repeatedly, the concept of white and black are little more than amorphous social constructs not themselves demarcated in biology or genetics in the way you continue to suggest.

 

Since you seem to think that whites are so much smarter, and since you are almost certainly white yourself, it's a shame you're continuing to miss and remain blind to such a painfully simple point.

 

It's also a shame that you continue to argue based on such logical fallacies like appeal to authority and non-sequitur.

[Ringer]

I think you like to cite any evidence that supports your hypothesis, but you also have a tendency to ignore other evidence which doesn't support your argument. . . .

 

Could you cite sources to all these facts you keep describing? Because you haven't given a single source as evidence so you have nothing other than asking us to taking your word on it (and I doubt anyone will).

[Thomas Wainwright]

.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

[Arete]

cite any evidence that supports your hypothesis

 

Please start taking you own advice and cite some actual evidence to prove any of your assertions and stop arm waving.

 

Given that this is the case, who are you to say that Jones' opinion is not scientifically valid?

 

This is an appeal to authority. Please show us the data which proves that race significantly explains an observed difference in intelligence.

 

Also, you have conveniently ignored all the evidence of a recent study by Dr Neil Risch at Stanford

 

a) you and I have different definitions of "recent"

b) please learn how to properly cite an article if you wish you use it as evidence

c) Youtube is not peer reviewed scientific evidence.

 

Whereas on the one hand, you say that "race" or phenotype does not statistically correlate with intelligence

 

No, you claim that it does. Please provide evidence.

 

Given that there is always a positive/negative correlation between "race" and other phenotypic traits such as height and athletic prowess

 

Always? again, evidence needed.

 

then why is it "racist" to observe that White people are more intelligent?

 

Please provide the observations that show this.

 

which is strongly correlated with racial classification as a phenotype.

 

Again, just because you say so?

 

De facto, conjecture is a powerful scientific method to infer the existence of laws and phenomena which cannot be directly observed, i.e. the world of imaginary numbers, formal logic, mathematical theorem, anti-matter, black holes, big band theory, relativity, quantum physics, sub-atomic particles, and Darwin's theory of evolution etc. Consequently, the conjectural premise of this article belongs to a different order, which is essentially far superior to any supposition, i.e. "the earth is flat; the earth is at the center of the universe; the different species of plants, insects, and animals have no common genetic ancestor" etc.

 

Sorry, but no. Evolutionary biology is a physical science. Hypotheses are justified using observations and statistical analysis - experiments which do this were cited to you and ignored in my previous post. Conjecture is not a scientific approach to hypothesis testing.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Arete

[CharonY]

Evidence is especially needed considering that many of the premises can be trivially proven to be false. For instance

Given that there is always a positive/negative correlation between "race" and other phenotypic traits such as height and athletic prowess

 

It is obvious that the diversity of heights in Africa encompasses pretty much the whole range of human heights ranging from pygmies in central Africa, whereas in Sudan (I think) you can easily find people way over 6ft. And this is likely to be true for basically all genetic traits considering that the largest genetic diversity in humans is found in Africa (which also supports the out-of-Africa theory).

[John Cuthber]

 

Given that there is always a positive/negative correlation between "race" and other phenotypic traits such as height and athletic prowess, ...

Given that correlation, all the winners at the forthcoming Olympics should be the same colour.

Anyone betting on that?

[Thomas Wainwright]

Given that correlation, all the winners at the forthcoming Olympics should be the same colour.

Anyone betting on that?

 

No, the correlation is based on statistical data from previous Olympic games, which can be used to forecast that a higher percentage of the winners will be black as far as track and field events go - which is on the basis of the existing data demonstrating that black athletes tend to excel, and outclass other competitors. Obviously, there is no certainty that all the winners in track and field events will be the same colour -- and it's by no means guaranteed that Mongoloid or European athletes will always be the winners as far as the 100 metres breast stroke is concerned -- but the existing data can be used to statistically predict that the majority of winners will be black.

 

On the balance of probability, it is highly likely that most if not all the winners in track and field events will be black; because on average, they are superior to other people who compete in the same event.

 

The law of probability will also predict that the best gymnastics competitors will usually be Mongoloid or European; seldom have we been witness to a black person winning the Gold Medal for gymnastics.

 

At the same time, it's my bet that amongst all the winners in track and field events, the percentage who are black will be far greater than the percentage of whites who compete in the same event.

 

Such a correlation implies that, on average, there is an observable differentiation in terms of athletic prowess, which is strongly correlated with skin colour. Obviously, such a differentiation cannot be wholly attributed to the "plasticity of phenotype according to environmental heterogeneity" (and it would be implausible to suggest otherwise); but instead, it is logically, and partly attributed to the fact that differential athletic prowess is, to some extent, biologically determined.

 

Why should the observable differential in I.Q. (and educational attainment) be any different from the observable differential in athletic prowess, which is strongly correlated with skin colour?

Edited June 18, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

[iNow]

Why should the observable differential in I.Q. (and educational attainment) be any different from the observable differential in athletic prowess, which is strongly correlated with skin colour?

You do realize, right, that merely ignoring the refutations of your point does not rebut them? You do realize that continuing to repeat an invalid assertion without providing any new information does not suddenly and magically make it valid, right?

 

Adding to the debunking of your stance that has already been shared above, I will remind you that the idea of race is not relevant in biology or genetics. It is only relevant in sociology. It is a social construct generated almost solely by the way people perceive the world around them. It is an emergent property from the way humans classify and categorize things, but not a true demarcation between humans or genetic groups. Despite this, you continue to draw conclusions that are ultimately genetic in nature, and hence your assertions are completely separated from reality. They are baseless, unfounded, and frankly wrong.

 

You are seeking to assign characteristics to a group based solely on a genetic trait that simply doesn't exist. You are engaging consistently in a fallacy of composition, appeals to authority, and argument from remedially false premises. You should reflect on this feedback and adjust your approach accordingly.

 

The correlation differences you cite are weak, at best, but even if I stipulate that they exist... The much more accurate explanation is one of socioeconomic status, and the availability of both resources and opportunity. They are local differences, cultural in nature, yet you're asserting genetics and you are wrong in elementary ways.