Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[Perpetual Student]

What is meant by "banning" in this context? Is this really a meaningful question? How could something like this kind of research be banned? Who would do the "banning"? National governments? State governments? University boards or chancellors? Biology or social science department heads? If one could successfully ban such research in the US, how could the Brits or the Chinese, for example, be prevented from taking on the task?

 

[Ts4EVER]

It shouldn't be banned, however, I fail to see how one would do meaningful research in this matter. I was always under the impression that iq tests mostly measure people's ability to finish iq tests. Wouldn't be surprised if future scientists will look at them like we do at the head measuring people of the bad old days.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

It shouldn't be banned, however, I fail to see how one would do meaningful research in this matter. I was always under the impression that iq tests mostly measure people's ability to finish iq tests. Wouldn't be surprised if future scientists will look at them like we do at the head measuring people of the bad old days.

Many people already do that. The IQ test was invited in the early 1900s by Alfred Binet who originally intended to use it to identify children with developmental problems who needed special education. He never intended it as a way to rank a person's mental ability but soon after it was created that is exactly what other psychologists did and then they started using them as measuring standards of human worth labeling those with low scores as morons and developing the idea that the over-reproduction of mentally deficient individuals would lower the average intelligence of society (dysgenesis).

I don't think people realize how many flaws are inherent in the tests themselves. They just hear a score and believe it indicates the innate ability to perform mental tasks. The tests at best show your ability to answer questions. Your performance can vary for a numbers of reasons from your education quality to your degree of acculturation with answering the type of questions being asked. Obviously there is some genetic component to your ability to take an IQ test. The mere fact that you are human means you can take a test meant for human beings that a dog can not and the reason is because of genetic differences.

Some people do have a natural aptitude or "gift" for certain tasks that have a genetic basis. Some people can draw with photogenic accuracy. Other people can barely draw anything recognizable. I have no doubt that there is a genetic basis to human drawing ability that has something to do with pattern recognition and the ability to draw things the way they are shaped which some people are naturally better at doing than others. But how many people can draw with photogenic accuracy and what is the probability that you yourself are capable of doing that? Odds are if you have a parent who can draw well you will likely be able to do it also because the more genetically related people are the more likely they are to inherent certain traits, even mental traits.

Now what does that have to do with IQ and Race? For one thing IQ tests do not measure intelligence. Intelligence is difficult to define but a reasonable definition is the ability of the brain to process information in order to perform tasks. Those tasks can vary from anything that requires mental function from your ability to solve complex mathematical problems to your ability to carry a conversation to your ability to draw. There are many mental abilities an IQ test can not measure and your score is not indicative of your ability to do everything.

In addition to the IQ tests inability to address all cognitive abilities there is also the fact that intelligence is highly dependent on developmental and environmental factors as much so as genetic ones. This means that how you were raised and where you were raised is as important to how intelligent you become and how well you can potentially score on an IQ test as whose genes you inherited.

So we know that there are variances in individual innate mental ability due to genetic variance. How do we know whether or not there are variances in group innate mental ability? Since intelligence is a polygenic trait (multiple genes determine the expression of the trait) and we don't have the ability to identify all genes that determine the trait (which would make this debate much simpler) the best indicator of whether or not genes for intelligence are unevenly distributed across geographic populations is to look at the genetic variance between those populations and assess whether the variance can account for differences in intelligence. Since there is very little genetic differentiation between human populations there is no basis for assuming that a trait like intelligence is differentiated between populations and since there is no legitimate genetic reasoning to assume such differentiation exists the question of the probability of human races being genetically differentiated in genes that determine intelligence becomes an unreasonable question to ask.

The theory is false therefore the research is useless.

The only people who continue to make a positive argument for the genetic hypothesis either don't understand evolutionary genetics or have an ideological axe to grind. We don't need a ban on this research because it's so obscure that it has no hope of gaining relevance. The only time it did is when society was more accepting of these type of views.

 

[Dinwar]

I don't think people realize how many flaws are inherent in the tests themselves.

To be clear, I've never supported the idea that intelligence has a racial component. I don't think we can measure intelligence at this point, not in any meaningful way at any rate. The issue is that the question shouldn't be declared outside the realm of science because of political concerns. The science is bad, yes--but let's let this idea fail on its merits (or rather, lack there of), rather than pretending that it doesn't exist.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

To be clear, I've never supported the idea that intelligence has a racial component. I don't think we can measure intelligence at this point, not in any meaningful way at any rate. The issue is that the question shouldn't be declared outside the realm of science because of political concerns. The science is bad, yes--but let's let this idea fail on its merits (or rather, lack there of), rather than pretending that it doesn't exist.

I agree. Let the issue be addressed and the research critiqued like any other scientific theory. It's controversial but theories should not be censored because they are controversial.

 

[Delvo]

If the work in general is pseudoscientific and motivated by ideological bias surely that should be pointed out.

I notice that, in that generic form, your statement would include pseudoscience motivated by the ideological bias that certain differences between the races must not exist, as well as that they must exist.

Racial hereditarianism is a fringe theory which has been thoroughly discredited

You use that phrase several times but I'm not sure what you mean by it. The idea that all differences between races are or must be hereditary? The idea that they're all genetic (not the same thing)? Either of the above, applied particularly to differences in intelligence and not necessarily other traits? The idea that any such differences even might possibly be hereditary/genetic?

Even if a 'black' and a 'white' child grow up on the same block, watch the same television channels, go to the same school etc, even if they both have identical intelligence and personalities, the 'black' child will still suffer from racial prejudice - simply for being 'black'.

Where is the evidence for that claim?

There are no evolutionary differences in the brain corresponding to 'race divisions'

Actually, there are at least four genes which are known to affect brain development and have been under strong forces of natural selection resulting in certain alleles spreading inordinately quickly in certain regions: ASPM, DAB1, MCPH1, and SV2B. (I think I've seen some others named but can't recall them.) The exact phenotypic results they lead to in the brain are not known, but some must exist for natural selection to have been acting on. In one case, a correlation with IQ has been checked for and not found. A couple of them might somehow have a connection to language tonality, although nobody knows how or what other effects might be included with that. And for most genes in the human population in general, even less is known about their functions than about these.

Also, outside of genetics, slight differences in average brain size between regions have long been known, which a recent Oxford study has (at least partially) linked to differences in the sizes of the visual cortex and eyes, indicating that it's about seeing (particularly in poorly-lit environments) and/or handling more raw data from bigger retinas, rather than thinking in general.

Even if no connection between any of this and IQ exists, the fact that these difference exist and have been the subjects of scientific studies proves your claim false.

human 'races' are not divided according to evolutionary differences. What they are divided by are cultural differences which can be associated with cosmetic physical characteristics.

How did the differences in physical characteristics that you're talking about happen without evolutionary differences?

I was always under the impression that iq tests mostly measure people's ability to finish iq tests. Wouldn't be surprised if future scientists will look at them like we do at the head measuring people of the bad old days.

The tests at best show your ability to answer questions... IQ tests do not measure intelligence.

I don't think we can measure intelligence at this point, not in any meaningful way at any rate.

Then where is the alternative explanation for why the test results never show any set of separate distinct kinds of gifts/talents even when testers are trying to find some, always instead show strong positive correlations among different subjects and question types just like what would happen if there were a single thing called "intelligence" being measured, and are so tightly linked to a variety of real-life "intelligent/unintelligent" decisions? And where is the research/analysis supporting whatever this mysterious alternative explanation is, and why do its proponents never state their case for it?

Since there is very little genetic differentiation between human populations there is no basis for assuming that a trait like intelligence is differentiated between populations

Total genetic difference between the races is many times greater than it would need to be for this. We certainly get a lot of varieties of skin color out of about 6-12 genes affecting that (plus environmental effects), and the list of genes/alleles that have been found so far with the kind of geographic distribution we're talking about here is in the upper hundreds or lower thousands, most of which still have unknown functions. "Unkown" means not only that we can't say what they are for, but also that we can't say what they aren't for.

That means they remain available as potential explanations for any and all observable difference between races, until either geneticists determine every gene's function or somebody else provides a non-genetic explanation that completely accounts for 100% of the observed difference in question. The latter runs into something like the "you can't prove a negative" problem. No matter how many environmental explanations are checked and fail, it won't be proof that the cause isn't another one that just hasn't been thought of and tested yet.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I notice that, in that generic form, your statement would include pseudoscience motivated by the ideological bias that certain differences between the races must not exist, as well as that they must exist.

You could make that argument. I feel that I have shown that racialist research is both pseudoscience and motivated by racist ideology.

You use that phrase several times but I'm not sure what you mean by it. The idea that all differences between races are or must be hereditary? The idea that they're all genetic (not the same thing)? Either of the above, applied particularly to differences in intelligence and not necessarily other traits? The idea that any such differences even might possibly be hereditary/genetic?

By racial hereditarianism I'm talking about theories of genetic differences that cause mental differences between races aka Racialism or Scientific Racism.

Where is the evidence for that claim?

While not necessarily an absolute truth racism in America obviously exists and can have a negative psychological effect on the victims of it and this is especially true in the Black community. Racism comes in many forms and can even effect IQ score (stereotype threat).

I would post links but my post count isn't high enough yet. You could search for stereotype threat on Google Scholar. Studies show that when Black American students are aware of the fact that Black score on average lower than Whites on IQ tests they get a lower score than when they statistics is not mentioned. Racism can effect a child's self-esteem which can also effect academic success.

For this reason you absolutely can't control for the environment between races because life experience will be different.

Total genetic difference between the races is many times greater than it would need to be for this. We certainly get a lot of varieties of skin color out of about 6-12 genes affecting that (plus environmental effects), and the list of genes/alleles that have been found so far with the kind of geographic distribution we're talking about here is in the upper hundreds or lower thousands, most of which still have unknown functions. "Unkown" means not only that we can't say what they are for, but also that we can't say what they aren't for.

That means they remain available as potential explanations for any and all observable difference between races, until either geneticists determine every gene's function or somebody else provides a non-genetic explanation that completely accounts for 100% of the observed difference in question. The latter runs into something like the "you can't prove a negative" problem. No matter how many environmental explanations are checked and fail, it won't be proof that the cause isn't another one that just hasn't been thought of and tested yet.

As Graves explained in the Pseudoscience of Psychometry paper population genetic theory doesn't support the position that a polygenic trait like intelligence would be genetically differentiated across geographic populations. Most of that genetic variation is non-coding DNA and the phenotypic differences it can account for would be related to small genetic mutations such as for the genes that account for skin and eye color like you said not major biological systems like the function of the human brain.

Actually, there are at least four genes which are known to affect brain development and have been under strong forces of natural selection resulting in certain alleles spreading inordinately quickly in certain regions: ASPM, DAB1, MCPH1, and SV2B. (I think I've seen some others named but can't recall them.) The exact phenotypic results they lead to in the brain are not known, but some must exist for natural selection to have been acting on. In one case, a correlation with IQ has been checked for and not found. A couple of them might somehow have a connection to language tonality, although nobody knows how or what other effects might be included with that. And for most genes in the human population in general, even less is known about their functions than about these.

Also, outside of genetics, slight differences in average brain size between regions have long been known, which a recent Oxford study has (at least partially) linked to differences in the sizes of the visual cortex and eyes, indicating that it's about seeing (particularly in poorly-lit environments) and/or handling more raw data from bigger retinas, rather than thinking in general.

Even if no connection between any of this and IQ exists, the fact that these difference exist and have been the subjects of scientific studies proves your claim false.

Please show us the Oxford study. My understanding of the genes you mentioned is that the author speculated on the evolutionary importance of the genes themselves. What was their evidence that the genes you mentioned were linked to brain development and the the genes were the product of natural selection? Did they provide any evidence or just assert this?

Based on what I've read (ex. Lieberman 2001) while there are slight variations in brain size there is a greater degree of correlation between latitude than geographic location. Only by aggregating cranial size measurements from diverse populations and not controlling for body size (which is linked to head size) have scholars like Rushton come to the conclusion that there are racial hierarchies in brain size. Alot of older studies which claimed to find racial hierarchies in brain size failed to use control variables that made the data they based their claims on comparable (see Tobias 1970) Scientific research on this subject (ex. Beals, Smith and Dodd 1984) indicate that brain size does not determine intelligence within the normal species range and there are no hierarchies in Brain size.

The evolutionary reasoning for racial hierarchies in brain size being linked to intelligence altogether is a false premise. Within species differences in brain size do not determine intelligence on an individual or regional level.

EgalitarianJay: Do you have any studies that directly address Rushton's claims of brain size differences between races?


Graves: The evolutionary arguments are more important than any physical measurements because they address why and how any physical difference could exist. If Rushton cannot explain the mechanism that is responsible for any reputed difference, then his argument collapses like a house of cards. This is why his 1994 book was entitled Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. Its goal was to explain using evolutionary theory (the only scientific means to explain human variation) why racial differences in intelligence exist. As I point out in my work, evolutionary science does not support this conclusion.

As for supposed physical differences in head (or brain size). First, there has been no systematic measurement of cranial sizes for sufficient numbers of populations in humans. This is important because Africa and Asia are huge continents with many populations/ethnic groups. No physical measurement taken from 1 or a few populations could be expected to represent all Africans or Asians.

Second, the relationship between "intelligence" and brain size/body ratio holds broadly over species level, but not within a species. So we can infer that Velicoraptor was more intelligent than T. Rex, but we cannot infer that any specific raptor was more intelligent than another due to differences in that ratio. In the same way we cannot infer that a larger brain gives more cognitive power in humans. Frederich Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, had an incredibly small head and brain. Autopsy of his brain did reveal that his cerebral cortex had an incredibly high number of folds. But even if we could determine that there was a difference in cerebral cortex folding between Africans and Asians, we could not determine that that difference was due to genetic differences.

The brain's development (and hence that of the intellect) is profoundly influenced by environmental and developmental factors. Genetically identical groups of rats deprived of environmental stimuli were measured as less intelligent and had less cerebral folding than rats given environmental stimuli. In the modern world, there is no equivalence of social and physical environments between Africans/African Americans and Europeans/Euro- and Asian Americans. Therefore any intelligence difference one might measure (say in mean SAT scores, AFQT Tests etc.) cannot be shown to have anything to do with genetic differences between groups. There are far easier explanations for these differences, including social discrimination (stereotype threat), toxic environment, and malnutrition (which are all differentially visited upon African Americans). The heritability of intelligence (how much the trait is determined by genes or environment) has been estimated at around 0.50. This means that intelligence is about 50% genes and 50% environment. With this much environmental contribution, only experimental or observational designs that can equalize environment can give you any reasonable explanations. For the most part, this is impossible in racially stratified societies.

I made all these points to Rushton directly in our 1997 debate at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. To say the least he really had no cogent response.

Dr. Joseph L. Graves, Jr.
Associate Dean for Research
Professor of Biological Sciences
Joint School of Nanosciences & Nanoengineering
Suite 2200, Rm 104
North Carolina A&T State University
UNC Greensboro
2901 E. Lee St.
Greensboro, NC 27401

 

[Jono]

Since there is very little genetic differentiation between human populations there is no basis for assuming that a trait like intelligence is differentiated between populations and since there is no legitimate genetic reasoning to assume such differentiation exists the question of the probability of human races being genetically differentiated in genes that determine intelligence becomes an unreasonable question to ask.

The theory is false therefore the research is useless.

But the question is not "if" such differentiation exists or not. Clearly, there is such a differentiation otherwise we would have nothing to talk about. No, the question is "why" the differentiations exist and also why they persists to be, over-all, continously (and quite consistently) observed even with the enormous work of improving the socio-economical enviroment (which is even moreso interesting to know considering that the Flynn-effect has basically come to a halt). The old argument that "racism" is a reliable and approximatable 'downer' on intelligence seem to almost solely apply to afro-americans, but not east-asian or jewish americans (where it, if anything, by the same logic seems to have had the direct opposite effect).

Second, the relationship between "intelligence" and brain size/body ratio holds broadly over species level, but not within a species.

Well brain size is correlated with IQ within families. Out of about five or so studies, I think one study (of course the one chosen by Nisbett) didn't find one. E.g the swedish one "Birth characteristics and risk of low intellectual performance in early adulthood:..."(Bergvall N, Iliadou A, Tuvemo T, Cnattingius S. Pediatrics 2006) and "The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin"(Posthuma D, De Geus EJC, Baare WFC, Pol HEH, Kahn RS, Boomsma DI. Nat Neurosci 2002). There is an interpersonal genetic variance of intelligence, as with so much else. However, to go from that to group-differences with, in particular, is a lot more difficult for a number of reasons. Beyond the political sensetivity of the implications, we can't quantify the mechanics causing intellecual variances very precisely. We can easily enough approximate if it is there or not, and if and how it persists. We can also incorporate the several known mechanics of intellectual abilities, in order to more closely get an idea. Data suggests (like how PL Roth et al's meta-analysis line up very similary to other studies), convergently, a genetic variable appearing probable but... the extent of it, how notable or marginal/miniscule, for between-group differences doesn't seem possible to specifically quantify/determine. So, Graves et al can always point out that there isn't a strong enough suggestion for us to take it all at any certainty, which is a fair point. But to dismiss research and researchers thereof as, mostly, racist bigotts is a position which is deplorably and strangely ignorant of its own ideological bias.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

But the question is not "if" such differentiation exists or not. Clearly, there is such a differentiation otherwise we would have nothing to talk about. No, the question is "why" the differentiations exist and also why they persists to be, over-all, continously (and quite consistently) observed even with the enormous work of improving the socio-economical enviroment (which is even moreso interesting to know considering that the Flynn-effect has basically come to a halt). The old argument that "racism" is a reliable and approximatable 'downer' on intelligence seem to almost solely apply to afro-americans, but not east-asian or jewish americans (where it, if anything, by the same logic seems to have had the direct opposite effect).

I'm talking about genetic differentiation not variation in IQ score between groups. It's simply not true that the IQ scores don't converge when you control for the environment. Refer back to the studies by Nisbett that I cited which show that not only can intervention programs reduce the gap and the controlling for family and neighborhood quality along with Socioeconomic Status eliminates the gap but there is no correlation between IQ and racial ancestry (admixture studies show that more European ancestry does not correlate with high IQ in Black Americans).

There's plenty of psychometric research showing that the IQ gap can be eliminated. Actually eliminating it on a wide scale in the real world is obviously hard.

So, Graves et al can always point out that there isn't a strong enough suggestion for us to take it all at any certainty, which is a fair point. But to dismiss research and researchers thereof as, mostly, racist bigotts is a position which is deplorably and strangely ignorant of its own ideological bias.

I see the whole attempt to prove that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence as being like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

If it's a bad theory as Graves is arguing then it should be abandoned.

Now I can't say with any certainty that people who are at least open to the idea are all racist bigots. I don't know how every individual person feels I can only analyze their behavior and racists can be good at trying to mask their racist feelings. What I can say with certainty is that there is a proven track record of people advancing the theory of racial inferiority to have done so to advance racist social agendas. So there is a documented history of linking this type of research to politics. If you talk to modern racists to day on websites where they aren't hiding their racism (though some strangely are in denial that they are racists even when they express overt racial hatred) they clearly view Race & IQ research as the strongest scientific evidence that racial superiority and inferiority exists.

When people who have an interest in this topic tell me they are not racists I am reasonably skeptical. But I don't need to confirm that racist bigotry exists in the mind of anyone I'm debating. The real issue is that this research is particularly appealing to people with racist ideological views and the belief in it is socially harmful. But I still believe that as it is a scientific theory it can be critiqued and either confirmed as valid or falsified.

 

[Jono]

I'm talking about genetic differentiation not variation in IQ score between groups. It's simply not true that the IQ scores don't converge when you control for the environment. Refer back to the studies by Nisbett that I cited which show that not only can intervention programs reduce the gap and the controlling for family and neighborhood quality along with Socioeconomic Status eliminates the gap but there is no correlation between IQ and racial ancestry (admixture studies show that more European ancestry does not correlate with high IQ in Black Americans).

Nisbett noted on one source that found the gap, through having bend over backwards in trying to peek at increasingly smaller pools of the high-income afro-americans (with little note on actual admixture), had lessened from one SD (allthough a gap remained). Furthermore, admixture of european ancestry in afro-american people is widespread, with individual fluctations naturally but nevertheless a lot of black people in the US have such admixture. As it is, I'm not aware of any study that has done a large dna-analysis of IQ and degree of ancestry along the spectrum (save for a few older ones, who found a positive correlation, which in turn has been criticised by Jensen and Nisbett alike).

I see the whole attempt to prove that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence as being like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

If it's a bad theory as Graves is arguing then it should be abandoned.

I consider it premature to say that it is a certainty. As such it is also bad to say that there is an "it" involved and a singular, specified "theory" and that research pertaining to this argumentative ghost should be abandoned. It reads like an effort of trying to saddle the horse backwards. If the extreme-enviromentalists main arguments (as they are) are about the absence of certainty and hard enough reliability in making extreme-hereditarian claims, then neither side can honestly call for an abandonment of research regarding the ever-persistant interplay between nature and nurture as pertained to human cognitive abilities (as well as other physiological aspects).

Now I can't say with any certainty that people who are at least open to the idea are all racist bigots. I don't know how every individual person feels I can only analyze their behavior and racists can be good at trying to mask their racist feelings. What I can say with certainty is that there is a proven track record of people advancing the theory of racial inferiority to have done so to advance racist social agendas.

Of course, I don't disagree. Likewise, a few of the direct opposite of the spectrum have entrenched biases based on ideological preferences as well. It is hardly unsurprising that there would be very similar handicaps of rationale at both ends of such a wide range of content and potential implications. Burning someone for having been partly funded by the Pioneer Fund, though, is as stupid an argument to throw away a given study/paper as it would be to do the same simply because they were awoved marxists or funded by heavily politicized ends as so. I hope you agree on that note at least.

they clearly view Race & IQ research as the strongest scientific evidence that racial superiority and inferiority exists.

There are plenty of people who do that, yes. But I disagree with such, excuse my pun, black-n-white dimensions. When it comes to "superiority" and "inferiority", apart from a very specific context, it muddies the water of comprehending nature at large. Whether or not genders, biogeographical groups, sub-ecotypical traits clustered to X gives probability for Y, I do not hold my view of human compassion on the false (and at times dangerous) myth that we're all equally endowed with the same stuff. For those that do, I can understand the importance of purporting such a myth. But I do not see why we can't strive for equality under the law of the land even though we may not be all equally big, tall, small, thin, smart, aestethically pleasing, loud, quiet, risk taking, careful, tempered, passionate etc.

When people who have an interest in this topic tell me they are not racists I am reasonably skeptical. But I don't need to confirm that racist bigotry exists in the mind of anyone I'm debating.

You are free to regard me as a racist, or whatever phrase or term fits your own view best. I don't really care. I do care if, for whatever reason and term you pick, you choose to use it as a "card" in order to stigmatize content as a way of not dealing with it (not saying that you are doing that, just making a general point).

But I still believe that as it is a scientific theory it can be critiqued and either confirmed as valid or falsified.

Well it is not technically a "theory". It's merely a process of approximating the nature-nurture mechanics of our very being, and there is a spectrum involved on research leaning to different sides of that pendulum. Some who get involved will and have probably been less unbiased than one would've hoped. As it is, we've seen over 60-70 years of a nurture-end radicalism, as a response to the past's preferences for the opposite, which peaked in the 70's and has gradually milded down and taking steps back in favour of genetic variability, correlation and causation. We're regressing (or progressing) toward the mean-balance in comparison to the extremeties of old (in my opinion) with regards to the nature-nurture wars. And... we're learned alot (though not nearly enough) about what makes us tick and why.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Nisbett noted on one source that found the gap, through having bend over backwards in trying to peek at increasingly smaller pools of the high-income afro-americans (with little note on actual admixture), had lessened from one SD (allthough a gap remained). Furthermore, admixture of european ancestry in afro-american people is widespread, with individual fluctations naturally but nevertheless a lot of black people in the US have such admixture. As it is, I'm not aware of any study that has done a large dna-analysis of IQ and degree of ancestry along the spectrum (save for a few older ones, who found a positive correlation, which in turn has been criticised by Jensen and Nisbett alike).

The admixture studies that I'm referring to were mostly if not all conducted before a major genomic study that looked at DNA was possible. What they did was look at indicators of mixed ancestry such as skin color and facial features to determine degree of mixed ancestry within the group of Blacks studied and found that there was no correlation between the indicators of mixed ancestry and high Black IQ which means that "White" genes don't make Black people smarter as would be predicted if European ancestry was correlated with greater intelligence.

I consider it premature to say that it is a certainty. As such it is also bad to say that there is an "it" involved and a singular, specified "theory" and that research pertaining to this argumentative ghost should be abandoned. It reads like an effort of trying to saddle the horse backwards. If the extreme-enviromentalists main arguments (as they are) are about the absence of certainty and hard enough reliability in making extreme-hereditarian claims, then neither side can honestly call for an abandonment of research regarding the ever-persistant interplay between nature and nurture as pertained to human cognitive abilities (as well as other physiological aspects).

That isn't what is being argued. What is being claimed is that the hereditarian argument is false and as it has been falsified research on the subject should be abandoned especially since the research itself is socially harmful. Basically the position of opponents to racialism is that it's like Creationism. It shouldn't be taught in schools and should not get funding because the research is based on a bad theory.

Of course, I don't disagree. Likewise, a few of the direct opposite of the spectrum have entrenched biases based on ideological preferences as well. It is hardly unsurprising that there would be very similar handicaps of rationale at both ends of such a wide range of content and potential implications. Burning someone for having been partly funded by the Pioneer Fund, though, is as stupid an argument to throw away a given study/paper as it would be to do the same simply because they were awoved marxists or funded by heavily politicized ends as so. I hope you agree on that note at least.

I think ideological motivation are relevant to discussion because they can illustrate how people can come to biased conclusions. I certainly don't believe in citing one's ideology as a basis for dismissing their research which is Poisoning the Well.

There are plenty of people who do that, yes. But I disagree with such, excuse my pun, black-n-white dimensions. When it comes to "superiority" and "inferiority", apart from a very specific context, it muddies the water of comprehending nature at large. Whether or not genders, biogeographical groups, sub-ecotypical traits clustered to X gives probability for Y, I do not hold my view of human compassion on the false (and at times dangerous) myth that we're all equally endowed with the same stuff. For those that do, I can understand the importance of purporting such a myth. But I do not see why we can't strive for equality under the law of the land even though we may not be all equally big, tall, small, thin, smart, aestethically pleasing, loud, quiet, risk taking, careful, tempered, passionate etc.

I definitely disagree with the idea that any of our social policies should be based on the conclusions of such research. Even if racialism was correct I would not support racist political views and I don't think human abilities have to be equal for people to be treated equally.

You are free to regard me as a racist, or whatever phrase or term fits your own view best. I don't really care. I do care if, for whatever reason and term you pick, you choose to use it as a "card" in order to stigmatize content as a way of not dealing with it (not saying that you are doing that, just making a general point).

I can't say for certain that you are a racist. I'm not trying to put you on a racist-hunting trial to begin with I just feel it is relevant to discuss ideological motivations for supporting such research. To determine whether or not you are a racist I would have to know more about your views on race.

On The Phora message board I did exactly that when a poster claimed that proponents of racialism were generally not racists. The poster accepting my challenge to test the claim by asking posters to fill out a questionnaire and making a poll asking people if they were racist then looking out their answers and post history to find consistency. If the answers weren't racist and their post history didn't indicate that they were they got a pass.

Not a single poster passed the test and over half of them admitted in the poll that they were racists. Now this is a message board where people make overt racist comments so it's easier to detect racism but I would not be surprised to find the exact same type of people posting on boards like this where their ideological views are less likely to be accepted.

Well it is not technically a "theory". It's merely a process of approximating the nature-nurture mechanics of our very being, and there is a spectrum involved on research leaning to different sides of that pendulum. Some who get involved will and have probably been less unbiased than one would've hoped. As it is, we've seen over 60-70 years of a nurture-end radicalism, as a response to the past's preferences for the opposite, which peaked in the 70's and has gradually milded down and taking steps back in favour of genetic variability, correlation and causation. We're regressing (or progressing) toward the mean-balance in comparison to the extremeties of old (in my opinion) with regards to the nature-nurture wars. And... we're learned alot (though not nearly enough) about what makes us tick and why.

The nature-nurture wars are only loosely related to this topic. Certainly our behavior and capacities are affected by both nature and nurture. I don't know of any scientists who take the Blank Slate Theory seriously any more. However what people like racialists are trying to do is argue that certain groups of people have different natures which is a separate issue from whether nature plays a role in human behavior in general.

To make that argument one would have to show that these groups are fundamentally different in ways that can account for these alleged differences in nature. The argument is that any observed difference in human behavior between the groups is innate and of course genetic and evolutionary arguments are the only scientific means by which this can be achieved. Since population genetic theory doesn't support the racialist argument and they can not come up with experiments that produce their claims many scientists maintain that their claims are bogus.

The racialist theory has been falsified. We may still be learning about our own human nature but some theories about human nature are false. A good parallel to this topic would be Astronomy and Astrology. We're still learning about the Universe and astronomy is a legitimate scientific field where plenty of research is done to test various hypotheses about the world around us but astrology is a concept that scientists generally don't accept to be valid.

 

[Jono]

The admixture studies that I'm referring to were mostly if not all conducted before a major genomic study that looked at DNA was possible. What they did was look at indicators of mixed ancestry such as skin color and facial features to determine degree of mixed ancestry within the group of Blacks studied and found that there was no correlation between the indicators of mixed ancestry and high Black IQ which means that "White" genes don't make Black people smarter as would be predicted if European ancestry was correlated with greater intelligence.

Admixture studies were, like I said, mainly conducted before the modern dna and genom projects. On this we agree. You are, however, claiming that these older studies showed a negative correlation, which is not correct. Some may have, I don't rightly recall many beyond the more known like Witty/Jenkins and Herskovits in the 30´s. Shuey (some three decades later) based on 18 studies that they predominantely (16 out 18) favoured the positive correlation between white ancestry in afro-americans and higher IQ scores, as did the MTAS (Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study) and for South Africa we found similar positive correlation of white admixture in black people (Owen, 'The suitability of Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices for various groups in South Africa'). Furthermore, Rowe also found (as did Lynn independantly) that admixtured black-white people tended to be in the intermediate between in notably unmixed black and white groups. So, to claim that there is no, or next to no data in favour of some hereditarian validity is simply not correct, based on available evidence. Nevertheless, as I wrote in my previous reply, the earlier studies were research from their time and place and, while consistent with the contiously given observations, can't be used as end-of-the-day finalized hard evidence like so (likewise, even less so for your case with Jenkins and Herskovits work).

For some recent curiosa I just googled up (I haven't really taken the time to study it myself), on the Jensen-effect:
* Self-reported white ancestry among US blacks : A Jensen effect
Excerpt:

So the fact that ancestry was correlating more strongly with ASVAB (subtests) than does skin color, among blacks, is quite impressive when such effect has been biased downward.

As a short conclusion. Earlier, Nisbett (1995, pp. 5-6) says that one way to narrow the race-IQ debate is to establish the relationship between racial admixture and IQ. The three types of estimates are : skin color, blood groups, self-reported ancestry. The first one is defective, Nisbett argued, because it is a poor reliable estimate, although the empirically found correlation of 0.15-0.20 is not lower than what a hereditarian hypothesis would have predicted (Jensen, 1973, pp. 222-223). As for the second one, he considers the studies by Scarr (1977) and Loehlin (1973) as having successfully rejected the hereditarian hypothesis. As Jensen (1998, pp. 478-481, 525-526) noted however, this is not the case, insofar as the methodology is unsound and the indicators clearly unreliable due to the phenomenon of allele disassociation over the generations among the racially hybridized population. For the latter one, Nisbett cites the Witty & Jenkins 1934 study. But as Chuck (abc102, July.13.2008, Occidentalist, July.13.2011) and Mackenzie (1984, p. 1226) noted, this study is not without methodological problems. In any case, we have already seen that the Add Health and the NLSY97 do not replicate the Witty/Jenkins study and even found, as for the latter, a Jensen effect.

Here is a follow-up article by the same:
*IQ advantage of multiracials : A Jensen Effect
Excerpt:

For obtaining these correlations, I use the estimates of B-W g-loadings and non-g-loadings, as well as B-W d gap reported in my earlier post on IQ regression to the mean (Hu, April.18.2013). Given this, the Jensen effect is apparent, and to this can be added another Jensen effect test by Chuck (May.9.2013) in another article on the Scarr et al. (1977) admixture data among US blacks.

That isn't what is being argued. What is being claimed is that the hereditarian argument is false and as it has been falsified research on the subject should be abandoned especially since the research itself is socially harmful. Basically the position of opponents to racialism is that it's like Creationism. It shouldn't be taught in schools and should not get funding because the research is based on a bad theory.

Again, there isn't a "theory". There is the observations of inequality in scores and the continous research on the nature-nurture aspects of the 'why' and 'how'. You may have a specific bone to pick with hereditarian arguments, but to pretend that it is null and void in is not only premature, it is even less reasonable than to abandon sociological musings on the same matter.

I think ideological motivation are relevant to discussion because they can illustrate how people can come to biased conclusions. I certainly don't believe in citing one's ideology as a basis for dismissing their research which is Poisoning the Well.

Then we agree.

Even if racialism was correct I would not support racist political views and I don't think human abilities have to be equal for people to be treated equally.

Again we agree.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

Some people do have a natural aptitude or "gift" for certain tasks that have a genetic basis>>>>>>>>>>>>

As a comparison its clear that many People of African descent have terrific athletic ability. Evolution surely has acted over the last 100,000 since the "Out of Africa" migration and split.

 

[dann]

I was always under the impression that iq tests mostly measure people's ability to finish iq tests. Wouldn't be surprised if future scientists will look at them like we do at the head measuring people of the bad old days.

Stephen Jay Gould criticized both "the head measuring people" and the IQ testers in The Mismeasure of Man.

 

[angrysoba]

Stephen Jay Gould criticized both "the head measuring people" and the IQ testers in The Mismeasure of Man.

However, some of the Mismeasure of Man has been said to have been mismeasured itself:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ismeasured-skulls-in-racial-records-dispute/1

 

[Jono]

However, some of the Mismeasure of Man has been said to have been mismeasured itself:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ismeasured-skulls-in-racial-records-dispute/1

Yes, the above article linked to this study of that given debacle. Also, some of Gould's critique on IQ and on 'g' have been met (in and out of mainstream academia) with quite alot of criticism in turn. E.g, as seen in John B Carrol's article "Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man".

Does anyone know if (and if so, where) Gould included a response (in his books or appendix thereof in subsequent editions) to the critique he recieved regarding these two seperate issues? I'm at the moment looking for more responsums from Gould but not yet dug up any, so I'm hoping someone here can save me some time and point me in the direction.

 

[Cainkane1]

Professor Shockley got embarrassed when he said some races were more intelligent than others. He was accosted by black Yale and Harvard graduates and scientists.

 

[AlBell]

Professor Shockley got embarrassed when he said some races were more intelligent than others. He was accosted by black Yale and Harvard graduates and scientists.

Did the asians and ashkenazi jews treat him to dinner and drinks?

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Admixture studies were, like I said, mainly conducted before the modern dna and genom projects. On this we agree. You are, however, claiming that these older studies showed a negative correlation, which is not correct.

The ones by Nisbett which I was referring to showed statistically low correlation. It should be considered that color bias in society at large and by teachers can generate the outcome of lighter-skinned Blacks doing better academically and on IQ tests because of preferential treatment which is why Nisbett focused on studies where all the students did well on the tests and the authors of the study looked to see if the most exceptional among them showed signs of mixed ancestry.

Modern DNA studies would be much better than looking at external characteristics in order to quantify degree of continental ancestry. I know of no recent studies that have done this even though it is scientifically possible.

Yes, the above article linked to this study of that given debacle. Also, some of Gould's critique on IQ and on 'g' have been met (in and out of mainstream academia) with quite alot of criticism in turn. E.g, as seen in John B Carrol's article "Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man".

Does anyone know if (and if so, where) Gould included a response (in his books or appendix thereof in subsequent editions) to the critique he recieved regarding these two seperate issues? I'm at the moment looking for more responsums from Gould but not yet dug up any, so I'm hoping someone here can save me some time and point me in the direction.

Gould died in 2002 so he won't be making any responses to any more articles about his work. I have the 1996 edition of The Mismeasure of Man and he did forward the book with responses to critics. I emailed one of the authors of the Mismeasure of Science article from your first link some time ago and got the following response:

1) Do you consider Gould to have been a credible scholar (vs. a fraud)?


In the PLOS Biology article, the coauthors and I obviously didn't want to commit the same offense that we are demonstrating that Gould did, namely making accusations of bias and fraud against deceased scholars. What we do show is that at least his work on Morton was riddle with errors and some (we didn't have time to go into all of them in the PLOS piece, we will publish a longer and more detailed version soon) could only be interpreted as either very, very sloppy scholarship, intense bias, or intentional misconduct.

As our data are only relevant to the Morton case, I can't go beyond that to say whether Gould was an overall fraud vs. a credible scholar (e.g. I have little reason to doubt his measurements of shells), but a growing number of people are taking a second look at much of his body of work and finding similar inconsistencies or problems. An article by Will Saletan will be coming out in a month in Discover Magazine addressing exactly that issue. So, we will have to decide as an entire academic community, after all of his work has received a similar amount of detailed reanalysis, whether Gould was a 'fraud', but at least we know for know that there are some factual reasons to look into it in the first place.



2) What is your personal opinion on the use of cranial capacity and brain size to claim racial differences in intelligence?

As we state in the article, there is no reason to believe that cranial capacity is highly correlated with intelligence. Morton did not believe so; Gould invents that as a reason to use Morton's work as a straw man. Personally, I don't even know if what we measure as intelligence today is an appropriate measure of 'cognitive capacity', which is what we are really after. In any case, I in no way endorse the idea of racial differences in intelligence, nor using any measure, whether they be cranial capacities, brain sizes, or even IQ scores themselves, to claim such differences. Again, as we stated in the article, neither did Morton. His purpose in measuring skulls and reporting data was to show that the groups of humans around the world were created separately by God, in order to work around the Biblical discrepancy of 'if we are all descended from Adam and Eve 4,000 years ago, how did we all come to look so different?'.

 

[Jono]

The ones by Nisbett which I was referring to showed statistically low correlation.

Yes the two done in the 30's. Again, I refer to my previous post.

Modern DNA studies would be much better than looking at external characteristics in order to quantify degree of continental ancestry. I know of no recent studies that have done this even though it is scientifically possible.

I agree, which is why (once more, with the track record of some hereditarian basis being plausible) I think it is premature, and incorrect, to say conclusively that there is no hereditarian basis for cognitive between-group differences (just as it is premature to say conclusively that there is) and call for an end to research done on this matter.

Gould died in 2002 so he won't be making any responses to any more articles about his work.

I think everyone here knows that (at least I hope so).

emailed one of the authors of the Mismeasure of Science article from your first link some time ago and got the following response:

Good find. I often email authors, scientists et al myself if and when I believe a response would highlight a given issue (or position) further.