Race and Intelligence

[Mikemikev]

It's observed that intelligence measured by IQ differs consistently by nation and race. Is this due to genetics or the environment and culture, or some combination? What arguments and data support your view?

[Prometheus]

Could you provide links to the research: it's hard to comment without seeing it.

[Mikemikev]

There's a rather broad literature with a range of views. I'd recommend this as a good starting point.

 

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

 

These guys support the significantly genetic causality, and I find their arguments compelling. Essentially the racial difference is a highly consistent finding across the world, through transnational adoption, and various cultures and racial mixes. It seems immune to educational intervention, and no environmental variables have been identified to explain it. This strongly implicates genetic differences as the cause.

[Daecon]

How, exactly, are they defining "race"?

[Mikemikev]

How, exactly, are they defining "race"?

By ancestry, same as Darwin. Did you not look at the paper? I recommend it.

[Daecon]

Here's another link: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism

[Mikemikev]

Here's another link: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism

Your link argues against race defined by skin color.

[Daecon]

It also points out that J. Philippe Rushton is a racist hack.

[Mikemikev]

It also points out that J. Philippe Rushton is a racist hack.

Probably because it's a misnamed Leftist pseudoscience source which thinks meaningless name calling works as scientific rebuttal.

[Daecon]

No, papers trying to correlate "race" with intelligence are the pseudoscience.

[Mikemikev]

No, papers trying to correlate "race" with intelligence are the pseudoscience.

Race is correlated with intelligence. Literally no academic psychologist disputes that.

[EdEarl]

Race is correlated with intelligence. Literally no academic psychologist disputes that.

Really! Race (human categorization) from Wikipedia:

Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.[1][2][3][4][5][6] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense,[7] starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.

 

Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[10] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[11] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.

 

Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[17] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[12] or simplistic way, and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Scientifically there are no races. Thus, the academic psychologists you claim equate race and intelligence cannot be scientists, and the correlation must be based on bigotry. Do you have references to substantiate your statement?

[kisai]

Race is correlated with intelligence. Literally no academic psychologist disputes that.

 

Why am I incredibly skeptical of your claim that every psychologist in the world agrees with you?

[Mikemikev]

Really! Race (human categorization) from Wikipedia:

 

Scientifically there are no races. Thus, the academic psychologists you claim equate race and intelligence cannot be scientists, and the correlation must be based on bigotry. Do you have references to substantiate your statement?

"argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."

 

No infrasubspecific taxa are recognized by the ICZN in any species, simply because there are too many to name. How does this contradict race defined by shared ancestry? Are you claiming that scientists cannot use infrasubspecific taxa? Why? Because they aren't recorded with a trinomial? So basically you are saying one organization doesn't record names at a certain level of subclassification, so that level can't exist. That's nonsense. Do you think Wikipedia is a reliable source? No agenda driven editorial groups?

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mikemikev

[EdEarl]

Your unsubstantiated statements are as worthless as mine. I'm not going to have a shouting contest with you. Do you have references that define various races genetically or not? If you do, cite them. If you don't go away. The Wiki article cites its references, you don't.

[Memammal]

As far as I have read up on this subject:

 

IQ is no longer regarded as a reliable measure of intelligence.

Environmental factors have a more significant impact on intelligence than genes. This is supported by real-world case studies where babies or toddlers from underprivileged and traditionally underperforming backgrounds were raised in environments that are more conducive to proper first-world upbringing (good nutrition, loving and caring family, peer mentoring, access to proper education, etc).

As for the question as to whether separate races really exist, read this short summary of the various schools of thought: Do Races Exist? Contemporary Philosophical Debates.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Memammal

[Mikemikev]

Your unsubstantiated statements are as worthless as mine. I'm not going to have a shouting contest with you. Do you have references that define various races genetically or not? If you do, cite them. If you don't go away. The Wiki article cites its references, you don't.

 

My source defines race by ancestry, as did Darwin. How do you define taxonomy? Presumably you accept taxonomy in non humans? Is that not based on ancestry? Phenetic or genetic similarity? Please tell me you accept classification of non humans? How do we classify? Why can't we apply the same concept to humans?

 

 

As far as I have read up on this subject:

 

IQ is no longer regarded as a reliable measure of intelligence.

Environmental factors have a more significant impact on intelligence than genes. This is supported by real-world case studies where babies or toddlers from underprivileged and traditionally underperforming backgrounds were raised in environments that are more conducive to proper first-world upbringing (good nutrition, loving and caring family, peer mentoring, access to proper education, etc).

As for the question as to whether separate races really exist, read this short summary of the various schools of thought: Do Races Exist? Contemporary Philosophical Debates.

 

Nope. Transracially adopted children show the same pattern. Especially interesting is the higher East Asian IQ remains after adoption by Whites. And IQ is supported as a good measure of intelligence by mainstream psychology. Why do you think otherwise?

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mikemikev

[iNow]

Race is correlated with intelligence. Literally no academic psychologist disputes that.

Seriously? Well, that's one way to immediately erase any credibility you may have hoped to achieve here.

[EdEarl]

There's a rather broad literature with a range of views. I'd recommend this as a good starting point.

 

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

 

These guys support the significantly genetic causality, and I find their arguments compelling. Essentially the racial difference is a highly consistent finding across the world, through transnational adoption, and various cultures and racial mixes. It seems immune to educational intervention, and no environmental variables have been identified to explain it. This strongly implicates genetic differences as the cause.

This reference refutes Rushton-Jensen 30 years:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Sternberg-commentary-on-30years.pdf

 

There is no consensus that any race exists.

Edited May 27, 2016 by EdEarl

[Mikemikev]

Seriously? Well, that's one way to immediately erase any credibility you may have hoped to achieve here.

I see. So presumably you have some data showing no correlation between race and intelligence? Or is your "science" based on parroting the politically correct position du jour?

This reference refutes Rushton-Jensen 30 years:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Sternberg-commentary-on-30years.pdf

 

There is no consensus that any race exists.

Could you summarize the main points? I get bored in debates where people link to a paper saying "this refutes you". Am I expected to construct your argument for you? What in the paper refutes Rushton and Jensen? I have summarized their argument above.

[Prometheus]

My source defines race by ancestry, as did Darwin. How do you define taxonomy? Presumably you accept taxonomy in non humans? Is that not based on ancestry? Phenetic or genetic similarity? Please tell me you accept classification of non humans? How do we classify? Why can't we apply the same concept to humans?

 

Haven't read the paper, so won't comment on that until i have. On the above particular point though i find it illuminating to consider basketball players. We could classify basketball players as a separate race - after all height has a significant genetic component. Would it then make sense to start looking at intelligence of basketball players vs non-basketball players?

[Mikemikev]

Haven't read the paper, so won't comment on that until i have. On the above particular point though i find it illuminating to consider basketball players. We could classify basketball players as a separate race - after all height has a significant genetic component. Would it then make sense to start looking at intelligence of basketball players vs non-basketball players?

No because race is defined as having shared ancestry, as found in biological taxonomy. Basketball players are defined as basketball players. You are just redefining my definition of race. Why? "We could define your terms differently, ha, what then?". That isn't an argument. And incidentally, yes you could look at the intelligence of basketball players.

[Prometheus]

Shared ancestry is a red herring. We all have a shared ancestry from Africa if we go back in time far enough. The only pertinent question is whether there are genetically distinct populations and whether they differ by some measure of intelligence: ancestry - that is the historical antecedents of a population - is irrelevant to this. You posit populations today differ by intelligence. Today, not in the distant past. Therefore ancestry need not be considered in this question, only the genetic diversity of populations today.

 

Your division by ancestry is just as arbitrary as my division by height.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Prometheus

[Memammal]

Nope. Transracially adopted children show the same pattern. Especially interesting is the higher East Asian IQ remains after adoption by Whites. And IQ is supported as a good measure of intelligence by mainstream psychology. Why do you think otherwise?

 

The whole nature vs nurture debate is a somewhat contentious one. I recently read a book with commentary by leading scientists on a number of scientific idea's that need to be retired and the one that you are advancing was one of them. Differentiations based on "race" as well as using "IQ" as a reliable measure of intelligence are among the many topics that are regarded as past their sell-by date in said book (This Idea Must Die edited by John Brockman of Edge.org).

 

In any event, this from Wikipedia:

 

Environment and intelligence research investigates the impact of environment on intelligence. This is one of the most important factors in understanding human group differences in IQ test scores and other measures of cognitive ability. It is estimated that genes contribute about 20-40% of the variance in intelligence in childhood and about 80% in old age. Thus the environment and its interaction with genes account for a high proportion of the variation in intelligence seen in groups of young children, and for a small proportion of the variation observed in groups of mature adults. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_intelligence).

 

Re IQ:

 

The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone is a fallacy according to the largest single study into human cognition which found that it comprises of at least three distinct mental traits...The results question the validity of controversial studies of intelligence based on IQ tests which have drawn links between intellectual ability race, gender and social class and led to highly contentious claims that some groups of people are inherently less intelligent that other groups. Instead of a general measure of intelligence epitomised by the intelligence quotient (IQ), intellectual ability consists of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility. Although these interact with one another they are handled by three distinct nerve “circuits” in the brain, the scientists found. “The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html)

 

But in the new millennium, is the IQ test still an effective means of measuring general intelligence? According to the general consensus, the answer is "no." (http://www.medicaldaily.com/iq-test-accurate-way-measure-intelligence-or-are-mental-abilities-something-you-cant-put-297244)

 

PS. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study examined the IQ test scores of 130 black or interracial children adopted by advantaged white families... One of the studies' findings was that the IQs of transracially adopted black children did not differ significantly from that of (white) children raised by their biological parents in the same area.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Memammal

[Mikemikev]

Shared ancestry is a red herring. We all have a shared ancestry from Africa if we go back in time far enough. The only pertinent question is whether there are genetically distinct populations and whether they differ by some measure of intelligence: ancestry - that is the historical antecedents of a population. Let me state that again: you posit populations today differ by intelligence. Today, not in the distant past. Therefore ancestry need not be considered in this question, only the genetic diversity of populations today.

 

Your division of ancestry is just as arbitrary as my division by height.

 

Ancestry defines my question. So you are simply avoiding my question. No problem, sit it out.

 

All organisms share ancestry at some level. Classification is based on more or less shared ancestry, not some false binary shared or not shared. Are you claiming people cannot share ancestry relative to other people now? Am I somehow not related to my brother more than you because we are all from Africa (allegedly)? What nonsense.

 

Are you also going to have us believe people of all races don't show racial preferences in reality, and that knowing the genetic abilities of each group is useful information?

 

Racial classification is far more predictive and polically relevant than your more arbitrary question.

 

You can also define race by genetic similarity if you want. It works out pretty much the same as ancestry.

 

The whole nature vs nurture debate is a somewhat contentious one. I recently read a book with commentary by leading scientists on a number of scientific idea's that need to be retired and the one that you are advancing was one of them. Differentiations based on "race" as well as using "IQ" as a reliable measure of intelligence are among the many topics that are regarded as past their sell-by date in said book (This Idea Must Die edited by John Brockman of Edge.org).

 

In any event, this from Wikipedia:

 

Environment and intelligence research investigates the impact of environment on intelligence. This is one of the most important factors in understanding human group differences in IQ test scores and other measures of cognitive ability. It is estimated that genes contribute about 20-40% of the variance in intelligence in childhood and about 80% in old age. Thus the environment and its interaction with genes account for a high proportion of the variation in intelligence seen in groups of young children, and for a small proportion of the variation observed in groups of mature adults. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_intelligence).

 

Re IQ:

 

The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone is a fallacy according to the largest single study into human cognition which found that it comprises of at least three distinct mental traits...The results question the validity of controversial studies of intelligence based on IQ tests which have drawn links between intellectual ability race, gender and social class and led to highly contentious claims that some groups of people are inherently less intelligent that other groups. Instead of a general measure of intelligence epitomised by the intelligence quotient (IQ), intellectual ability consists of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility. Although these interact with one another they are handled by three distinct nerve circuits in the brain, the scientists found. The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people, (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html)

 

But in the new millennium, is the IQ test still an effective means of measuring general intelligence? According to the general consensus, the answer is "no." (http://www.medicaldaily.com/iq-test-accurate-way-measure-intelligence-or-are-mental-abilities-something-you-cant-put-297244)

Your sources are laughable. Would you like to reference a panel of academic psychologists? Try the APA for example.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mikemikev