< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Impact of slavery on IQ

 
Gamril
 
Avatar
 
 
Gamril
Total Posts:  156
Joined  25-05-2017
 
 
 
13 June 2017 14:53
 
Lausten - 13 June 2017 12:47 PM
Art Dodger - 13 June 2017 10:35 AM
Gamril - 04 June 2017 05:30 AM

Honest question here…  if you believe in the heritability of IQ and selective pressures driving Its usefulness, what do you think 400 years of slavery did to this populations IQ.  I’m assuming many intelligent people killed themselves, were killed, not allowed to reproduce, etc as survival had little to do with passing on IQ.

Slaves were not bred like dogs, and intelligent slaves where prized.  So, there are likely no effects of the institution of slavery on IQ.

Thanks A.D. Gamril keeps making assumptions, but his last post says he’s open to being corrected, so we’ll see. I took 3 African American Studies courses back in the day, and I recently visited 2 plantations in New Orleans. I picked 2 that focused on the slave instead on the “big house”. In one of them, they showed us the architecture that came directly from Africa. Slaves didn’t just pick cotton. I also learned a few stories of African royalty that ended up in slavery because their rivals captured and sold them.

It’s easy to think of slaves as people without histories, with no skills from their home cultures. That’s because the system of slavery was designed to have people think like that. It was a very successful system and we’re just getting to the task of undoing it.

You say I’m making assumptions but I’m not sure where?  Saying slavery was different in different places is pretty obvious. But not really an answer to anything.  Who said it was?  But the dehumanization was a commonality?  The relevant population to this discussion is African Americans.

I’m not sure what your sources are but I’d gladly read them.  In terms of suicide, I’m using sources such as this.  https://doi.org/10.2307/jahist/97.1.39

I wasn’t specifically claiming slaves were bred but that the situation wasn’t one fostering the flourishing of studious types and further that restricted movement limited much choice in the matter.  However, this is covered in a book by Ned sublets whose a great historian. 
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr;=&id=iwCKCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT11&dq=slave+breeding&ots=s-jmGU69Fb&sig=IQ8U7a-ijxdgf6tIrb4Zc8KuWu8#v=onepage&q=slave breeding&f=false

 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
13 June 2017 15:10
 
Gamril - 13 June 2017 02:53 PM

You say I’m making assumptions but I’m not sure where?

In your original post, for one thing:

Honest question here…  if you believe in the heritability of IQ and selective pressures driving Its usefulness, what do you think 400 years of slavery did to this populations IQ.  I’m assuming many intelligent people killed themselves, were killed, not allowed to reproduce, etc as survival had little to do with passing on IQ. 

Gamril - 13 June 2017 02:53 PM

Saying slavery was different in different places is pretty obvious.

Not really. Lots of people know little about the institution and don’t know much about the history. And again, you simply said “400 years of slavery” which is a pretty broad generalization.

Gamril - 13 June 2017 02:53 PM

But not really an answer to anything.  Who said it was?

Nobody.

Gamril - 13 June 2017 02:53 PM

But the dehumanization was a commonality?  The relevant population to this discussion is African Americans.

The dehumization you speak of was a function of the institution as practiced, the social and cultural norms and mechanisms which supported it, and the lived experiences of the people who were themselves enslaved.

 
 
Lausten
 
Avatar
 
 
Lausten
Total Posts:  268
Joined  12-09-2016
 
 
 
13 June 2017 17:54
 
Gamril - 13 June 2017 02:53 PM

You say I’m making assumptions but I’m not sure where?

Like these. You actually started the sentence with “I’m assuming”.

Things like reading, math, critical thinking, leadership etc that are correlated with “G” don’t seem to be particularly useful in this environment.  Those who had these traits would’ve been less likely to survive and if the did less likely to be viewed as valuable and able to reproduce.

I would think 400 years is not much if a population is left alone but not if 9 out of 10 are being slaughtered.

I’m assuming many intelligent people killed themselves, were killed, not allowed to reproduce,

One of your links was a partial article that started out saying there isn’t much evidence for suicide. The other got a warning about malicious code. Not sure I want to keep clicking on your links.

 
 
pyrrho
 
Avatar
 
 
pyrrho
Total Posts:  24
Joined  03-10-2009
 
 
 
13 June 2017 22:40
 

There are many assumptions flying around here and they’re not all coming from Gamril.
Gamril:  “if you believe in the heritability of IQ…”  Assumption.
Gamril:  400 years of slavery had an adverse effect on intelligence.  Assumption.
Art Dodger: ” intelligent slaves where (sic) prized.  So, there are likely no effects of the institution of slavery on IQ.”  Assumption.
Lausten: ” the system of slavery was designed to have people think like that.”  Assumption.

Some-or all-of these assumptions (and many others implicit) may be true.  Slavery- in all it’s myriad historical forms- may or may not have played a role in shaping the genotype- whatever it is.

So was can we say at this point?

Brain function may or may not be somewhat different in different human populations, depending on how those functions and populations are defined.
The history of those populations (and the individuals in them who survived to mating age) may or may not have had something to do with these differences-if they exist.
Theoretical considerations lend support to the hypothesis that different traits, if differentlally selected for, might eventually have different prevalences in subgroups of the population- again depending on how such traits and subgroups are defined.

IMO we would need expert opinion (and good luck finding it) to advance the argument beyond this point.  And it goes without saying that the whole discussion is toxic and dangerous on some level.  Inevitably, someone will accuse someone else of “race-baiting.”
So why bother?

 
Gamril
 
Avatar
 
 
Gamril
Total Posts:  156
Joined  25-05-2017
 
 
 
14 June 2017 05:32
 
pyrrho - 13 June 2017 10:40 PM

There are many assumptions flying around here and they’re not all coming from Gamril.
Gamril:  “if you believe in the heritability of IQ…”  Assumption.
Gamril:  400 years of slavery had an adverse effect on intelligence.  Assumption.
Art Dodger: ” intelligent slaves where (sic) prized.  So, there are likely no effects of the institution of slavery on IQ.”  Assumption.
Lausten: ” the system of slavery was designed to have people think like that.”  Assumption.

Some-or all-of these assumptions (and many others implicit) may be true.  Slavery- in all it’s myriad historical forms- may or may not have played a role in shaping the genotype- whatever it is.

So was can we say at this point?

Brain function may or may not be somewhat different in different human populations, depending on how those functions and populations are defined.
The history of those populations (and the individuals in them who survived to mating age) may or may not have had something to do with these differences-if they exist.
Theoretical considerations lend support to the hypothesis that different traits, if differentlally selected for, might eventually have different prevalences in subgroups of the population- again depending on how such traits and subgroups are defined.

IMO we would need expert opinion (and good luck finding it) to advance the argument beyond this point.  And it goes without saying that the whole discussion is toxic and dangerous on some level.  Inevitably, someone will accuse someone else of “race-baiting.”
So why bother?

You are right we are all throwing around assumptions to some degree which made it strange that I was seemingly “being called out on it”.  My intention when using words like “assumingly” is to try to get across that I don’t know everything which is in contrast to some posters who are a little to overconfident in their discourse.

I’m definitely not trying to race bait.  I primarily brought this topic up due to how posters responded to the Charles Murray and Muherjee podcasts.  My so called assumptions

Gamril:  “if you believe in the heritability of IQ…”  Assumption.
Gamril:  400 years of slavery had an adverse effect on intelligence.  Assumption

#2 I came into this discussion not believing this at all.
For # 1 in the podcast discussions mentioned above it seemed that A) this was overwhelmingly supported and it was taken further in those threads that B ) if that was true than races must vary because they had different environments/pressures. 

Personally, I lean towards supporting A) but not really B).  So my whole intent here was to ask if you believe in both A and B what role could the conditions of slavery possibly play on outcomes we observe on IQ tests.  Posters could feel it plays no role or like some have said its impossible to tell, etc.  But again I’m not pushing any theory per se just trying to understand how others think slavery fits into this discussion.

And I’m sorry if my link was not working but the book is by Ned Sublette, ” The American Slave Coast”.  Also I’d love to see anyone else’s sources as I’m far from an expert on these topics and glad to read other perspectives.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
29 December 2018 08:35
 
Gamril - 04 June 2017 05:30 AM

Honest question here…  if you believe in the heritability of IQ and selective pressures driving Its usefulness, what do you think 400 years of slavery did to this populations IQ.  I’m assuming many intelligent people killed themselves, were killed, not allowed to reproduce, etc as survival had little to do with passing on IQ.

Black Americans are about 80% African ancestry and 20% European ancestry. Black Africans have an average IQ of about 70, whereas American whites have an average of 100. We would expect from those numbers that black Americans have an average IQ of only 76, but in actual fact they have an average of 85. The puzzle is why their IQ is so high, not so low. Perhaps slavery had an upward selection pressure on IQ (smarter slaves are more productive), but I suspect the correct answer lies in the Flynn effect. American slaves were treated harshly but they had food security, and this changed the genetic expressions in favor of greater intelligence as a secular trend.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15999
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
29 December 2018 10:28
 
Abel Dean - 29 December 2018 08:35 AM
Gamril - 04 June 2017 05:30 AM

Honest question here…  if you believe in the heritability of IQ and selective pressures driving Its usefulness, what do you think 400 years of slavery did to this populations IQ.  I’m assuming many intelligent people killed themselves, were killed, not allowed to reproduce, etc as survival had little to do with passing on IQ.

Black Americans are about 80% African ancestry and 20% European ancestry. Black Africans have an average IQ of about 70, whereas American whites have an average of 100. We would expect from those numbers that black Americans have an average IQ of only 76, but in actual fact they have an average of 85. The puzzle is why their IQ is so high, not so low. Perhaps slavery had an upward selection pressure on IQ (smarter slaves are more productive), but I suspect the correct answer lies in the Flynn effect. American slaves were treated harshly but they had food security, and this changed the genetic expressions in favor of greater intelligence as a secular trend.

I doubt the assumption that “Black Africans have an average IQ of about 70…” Unless you’re using a test aimed at white middle class Americans and giving it to villagers who haven’t had formal education.

IQ is partially hereditary but also partially environmental. I saw an article recently that indicated a strong environmental influence was how much an infant in its first few hears was spoken to, and that in the US it was estimated that middle class children heard something like 30,000,000 more words than poor children during the first years of life, and this had a major influence on IQ. Unfortunately, I don’t have the reference.

Be this as it may, there was something discussed in a newspaper column by Gwynne Dyer (although he hasn’t included this column in his archives, I read it in the Edmonton Journal in late summer, 2003). I’ve posted this before elsewhere, but it seems relevant. He said that results of the national British exam for admission to middle school (whatever that means in England), taken by something like 80,000 students, had been broken down according to race and that the expected distribution had been found: Asians had the highest average scores, Caucasians were in the middle, and Blacks had the lowest average score. But then the scores for Blacks were further divided into those who came from a North American or Caribbean background, and those who came directly from an African background. And the average score for the latter was higher than even the Asian average. So if you want to talk cultural influences….

Unfortunately I can’t provide references.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
29 December 2018 12:14
 
burt - 29 December 2018 10:28 AM
Abel Dean - 29 December 2018 08:35 AM
Gamril - 04 June 2017 05:30 AM

Honest question here…  if you believe in the heritability of IQ and selective pressures driving Its usefulness, what do you think 400 years of slavery did to this populations IQ.  I’m assuming many intelligent people killed themselves, were killed, not allowed to reproduce, etc as survival had little to do with passing on IQ.

Black Americans are about 80% African ancestry and 20% European ancestry. Black Africans have an average IQ of about 70, whereas American whites have an average of 100. We would expect from those numbers that black Americans have an average IQ of only 76, but in actual fact they have an average of 85. The puzzle is why their IQ is so high, not so low. Perhaps slavery had an upward selection pressure on IQ (smarter slaves are more productive), but I suspect the correct answer lies in the Flynn effect. American slaves were treated harshly but they had food security, and this changed the genetic expressions in favor of greater intelligence as a secular trend.

I doubt the assumption that “Black Africans have an average IQ of about 70…” Unless you’re using a test aimed at white middle class Americans and giving it to villagers who haven’t had formal education.

IQ is partially hereditary but also partially environmental. I saw an article recently that indicated a strong environmental influence was how much an infant in its first few hears was spoken to, and that in the US it was estimated that middle class children heard something like 30,000,000 more words than poor children during the first years of life, and this had a major influence on IQ. Unfortunately, I don’t have the reference.

Be this as it may, there was something discussed in a newspaper column by Gwynne Dyer (although he hasn’t included this column in his archives, I read it in the Edmonton Journal in late summer, 2003). I’ve posted this before elsewhere, but it seems relevant. He said that results of the national British exam for admission to middle school (whatever that means in England), taken by something like 80,000 students, had been broken down according to race and that the expected distribution had been found: Asians had the highest average scores, Caucasians were in the middle, and Blacks had the lowest average score. But then the scores for Blacks were further divided into those who came from a North American or Caribbean background, and those who came directly from an African background. And the average score for the latter was higher than even the Asian average. So if you want to talk cultural influences….

Unfortunately I can’t provide references.

Richard Lynn and his colleagues concluded an average IQ of 70 for black Africans. Some researchers have claimed a higher average—Jelte Wicherts and his colleagues concluded an average of 80—but this remains a low value. I expect that the value of Lynn et al. is more likely, in part because their value is close to the best fit lines of the scatter plots of IQ vs. GDP per capita (regardless of the causal direction) and of IQ vs. skin color (perhaps the most offensive correlation in science). If a value much higher than 70 was the truth for black Africans, then it would be an outlier. Everyone agrees on the low IQ of black Africans, from 20 to 30 points lower than whites, and anything else would be anomalous, so the question should not be whether it is true, but, “why?” It could be due to genetics, environment, or some mixture of both. Genetics looks more likely at this point, because the pattern follows black Africans wherever they emigrate all over the world (after a few generations, not the first generation, which skews high due to the brain drain immigration pattern), they have smaller cranial capacities, it is on line with the skin color correlation, they have low frequency of genetic variants that code for intelligence (among the few hundred we have found so far), they have low IQs even after adoption into white families, and it is what we expect from the validation of Spearman’s hypothesis: a strong positive correlation exists between the black-white IQ gap of tests and the heritability of those tests. This is not the way it should be, but it is the probable truth one way or the other, not to be easily dismissed.

You brought up the objection that blacks can be subdivided by ancestry into different average IQ values. I believe it, but it does not follow that the differences are therefore cultural only. I don’t know about the British data, but I know that black Africans who emigrate to America tend to have a much higher average IQ than black Americans at large. They tend to go to grad school and become doctors and so on. Does it follow that the billion black Africans within Africa have the same average IQ as these select immigrants? Not so. To legally migrate from poor African nations to America requires being in the top tier of one’s own IQ distribution. It requires graduating secondary school, having no criminal record, being a long-term planner, and being exceptionally rich.

Again, this is not the way it should be, but, if the cause of racial intelligence differences is mostly genetic, then a solution is immediately at hand. This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius CRISPR. Of secondary importance is that we need not blame intractable white racism for all sorts of racial inequality in the world. That is why we need to be real about the true causes, even if it means agreeing with scientific racism or whatever.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15999
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
29 December 2018 20:51
 
Abel Dean - 29 December 2018 12:14 PM
burt - 29 December 2018 10:28 AM
Abel Dean - 29 December 2018 08:35 AM
Gamril - 04 June 2017 05:30 AM

Honest question here…  if you believe in the heritability of IQ and selective pressures driving Its usefulness, what do you think 400 years of slavery did to this populations IQ.  I’m assuming many intelligent people killed themselves, were killed, not allowed to reproduce, etc as survival had little to do with passing on IQ.

Black Americans are about 80% African ancestry and 20% European ancestry. Black Africans have an average IQ of about 70, whereas American whites have an average of 100. We would expect from those numbers that black Americans have an average IQ of only 76, but in actual fact they have an average of 85. The puzzle is why their IQ is so high, not so low. Perhaps slavery had an upward selection pressure on IQ (smarter slaves are more productive), but I suspect the correct answer lies in the Flynn effect. American slaves were treated harshly but they had food security, and this changed the genetic expressions in favor of greater intelligence as a secular trend.

I doubt the assumption that “Black Africans have an average IQ of about 70…” Unless you’re using a test aimed at white middle class Americans and giving it to villagers who haven’t had formal education.

IQ is partially hereditary but also partially environmental. I saw an article recently that indicated a strong environmental influence was how much an infant in its first few hears was spoken to, and that in the US it was estimated that middle class children heard something like 30,000,000 more words than poor children during the first years of life, and this had a major influence on IQ. Unfortunately, I don’t have the reference.

Be this as it may, there was something discussed in a newspaper column by Gwynne Dyer (although he hasn’t included this column in his archives, I read it in the Edmonton Journal in late summer, 2003). I’ve posted this before elsewhere, but it seems relevant. He said that results of the national British exam for admission to middle school (whatever that means in England), taken by something like 80,000 students, had been broken down according to race and that the expected distribution had been found: Asians had the highest average scores, Caucasians were in the middle, and Blacks had the lowest average score. But then the scores for Blacks were further divided into those who came from a North American or Caribbean background, and those who came directly from an African background. And the average score for the latter was higher than even the Asian average. So if you want to talk cultural influences….

Unfortunately I can’t provide references.

Richard Lynn and his colleagues concluded an average IQ of 70 for black Africans. Some researchers have claimed a higher average—Jelte Wicherts and his colleagues concluded an average of 80—but this remains a low value. I expect that the value of Lynn et al. is more likely, in part because their value is close to the best fit lines of the scatter plots of IQ vs. GDP per capita (regardless of the causal direction) and of IQ vs. skin color (perhaps the most offensive correlation in science). If a value much higher than 70 was the truth for black Africans, then it would be an outlier. Everyone agrees on the low IQ of black Africans, from 20 to 30 points lower than whites, and anything else would be anomalous, so the question should not be whether it is true, but, “why?” It could be due to genetics, environment, or some mixture of both. Genetics looks more likely at this point, because the pattern follows black Africans wherever they emigrate all over the world (after a few generations, not the first generation, which skews high due to the brain drain immigration pattern), they have smaller cranial capacities, it is on line with the skin color correlation, they have low frequency of genetic variants that code for intelligence (among the few hundred we have found so far), they have low IQs even after adoption into white families, and it is what we expect from the validation of Spearman’s hypothesis: a strong positive correlation exists between the black-white IQ gap of tests and the heritability of those tests. This is not the way it should be, but it is the probable truth one way or the other, not to be easily dismissed.

You brought up the objection that blacks can be subdivided by ancestry into different average IQ values. I believe it, but it does not follow that the differences are therefore cultural only. I don’t know about the British data, but I know that black Africans who emigrate to America tend to have a much higher average IQ than black Americans at large. They tend to go to grad school and become doctors and so on. Does it follow that the billion black Africans within Africa have the same average IQ as these select immigrants? Not so. To legally migrate from poor African nations to America requires being in the top tier of one’s own IQ distribution. It requires graduating secondary school, having no criminal record, being a long-term planner, and being exceptionally rich.

Again, this is not the way it should be, but, if the cause of racial intelligence differences is mostly genetic, then a solution is immediately at hand. This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius CRISPR. Of secondary importance is that we need not blame intractable white racism for all sorts of racial inequality in the world. That is why we need to be real about the true causes, even if it means agreeing with scientific racism or whatever.

Well, I disagree strongly with your assumptions. But since there is no way to factor out cultural differences (based on IQ tests being strongly biased in WEIRD directions) that I know of we simply will have to accept a difference of opinion.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
29 December 2018 21:14
 
burt - 29 December 2018 08:51 PM
Abel Dean - 29 December 2018 12:14 PM
burt - 29 December 2018 10:28 AM
Abel Dean - 29 December 2018 08:35 AM
Gamril - 04 June 2017 05:30 AM

Honest question here…  if you believe in the heritability of IQ and selective pressures driving Its usefulness, what do you think 400 years of slavery did to this populations IQ.  I’m assuming many intelligent people killed themselves, were killed, not allowed to reproduce, etc as survival had little to do with passing on IQ.

Black Americans are about 80% African ancestry and 20% European ancestry. Black Africans have an average IQ of about 70, whereas American whites have an average of 100. We would expect from those numbers that black Americans have an average IQ of only 76, but in actual fact they have an average of 85. The puzzle is why their IQ is so high, not so low. Perhaps slavery had an upward selection pressure on IQ (smarter slaves are more productive), but I suspect the correct answer lies in the Flynn effect. American slaves were treated harshly but they had food security, and this changed the genetic expressions in favor of greater intelligence as a secular trend.

I doubt the assumption that “Black Africans have an average IQ of about 70…” Unless you’re using a test aimed at white middle class Americans and giving it to villagers who haven’t had formal education.

IQ is partially hereditary but also partially environmental. I saw an article recently that indicated a strong environmental influence was how much an infant in its first few hears was spoken to, and that in the US it was estimated that middle class children heard something like 30,000,000 more words than poor children during the first years of life, and this had a major influence on IQ. Unfortunately, I don’t have the reference.

Be this as it may, there was something discussed in a newspaper column by Gwynne Dyer (although he hasn’t included this column in his archives, I read it in the Edmonton Journal in late summer, 2003). I’ve posted this before elsewhere, but it seems relevant. He said that results of the national British exam for admission to middle school (whatever that means in England), taken by something like 80,000 students, had been broken down according to race and that the expected distribution had been found: Asians had the highest average scores, Caucasians were in the middle, and Blacks had the lowest average score. But then the scores for Blacks were further divided into those who came from a North American or Caribbean background, and those who came directly from an African background. And the average score for the latter was higher than even the Asian average. So if you want to talk cultural influences….

Unfortunately I can’t provide references.

Richard Lynn and his colleagues concluded an average IQ of 70 for black Africans. Some researchers have claimed a higher average—Jelte Wicherts and his colleagues concluded an average of 80—but this remains a low value. I expect that the value of Lynn et al. is more likely, in part because their value is close to the best fit lines of the scatter plots of IQ vs. GDP per capita (regardless of the causal direction) and of IQ vs. skin color (perhaps the most offensive correlation in science). If a value much higher than 70 was the truth for black Africans, then it would be an outlier. Everyone agrees on the low IQ of black Africans, from 20 to 30 points lower than whites, and anything else would be anomalous, so the question should not be whether it is true, but, “why?” It could be due to genetics, environment, or some mixture of both. Genetics looks more likely at this point, because the pattern follows black Africans wherever they emigrate all over the world (after a few generations, not the first generation, which skews high due to the brain drain immigration pattern), they have smaller cranial capacities, it is on line with the skin color correlation, they have low frequency of genetic variants that code for intelligence (among the few hundred we have found so far), they have low IQs even after adoption into white families, and it is what we expect from the validation of Spearman’s hypothesis: a strong positive correlation exists between the black-white IQ gap of tests and the heritability of those tests. This is not the way it should be, but it is the probable truth one way or the other, not to be easily dismissed.

You brought up the objection that blacks can be subdivided by ancestry into different average IQ values. I believe it, but it does not follow that the differences are therefore cultural only. I don’t know about the British data, but I know that black Africans who emigrate to America tend to have a much higher average IQ than black Americans at large. They tend to go to grad school and become doctors and so on. Does it follow that the billion black Africans within Africa have the same average IQ as these select immigrants? Not so. To legally migrate from poor African nations to America requires being in the top tier of one’s own IQ distribution. It requires graduating secondary school, having no criminal record, being a long-term planner, and being exceptionally rich.

Again, this is not the way it should be, but, if the cause of racial intelligence differences is mostly genetic, then a solution is immediately at hand. This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius CRISPR. Of secondary importance is that we need not blame intractable white racism for all sorts of racial inequality in the world. That is why we need to be real about the true causes, even if it means agreeing with scientific racism or whatever.

Well, I disagree strongly with your assumptions. But since there is no way to factor out cultural differences (based on IQ tests being strongly biased in WEIRD directions) that I know of we simply will have to accept a difference of opinion.

My opinions on such topics are hated so much by so many people that I would go crazy if I could not accept differences of opinion. I would not ask anyone to have complete agreement with my general perspective, but I think intermediate probabilistic agreement can be warranted. The racial hereditarian view of human intelligence has far more empirical credit than is widely believed, so much credit (as I summarized it) that the position has won over a majority of psychologists who specialize in the study of intelligence, according to one academic poll, much to the surprise/skepticism of science nerds and academics outside that field. I am discouraged by the reality that so many academics in so many other fields are stuck in the ideological trenches, going as far as to deny the biological reality of human races, as though the human species is a special exception to the patterns of evolution. This train is on a crash course with reality, a reality to be revealed by the genome-wide association studies now in progress involving millions of test participants. Those studies will decode every common genetic variant that codes for academic achievement, a close correlate of human intelligence, which we already know beyond reasonable doubt to be about 74% a matter of genetic variants within each race. If it turned out that human racial intelligence differences have nothing to do with genetic differences, then it would be a miracle, and belief in this miracle is the established dogma of almost everyone who stands up for the poor and downtrodden in the world. They will accept massive anti-scientific conspiracy theories before they accept the correct science, after the correct science is plainly at odds with that dogma. I fear that time. A bunch of liberals in the world have already accepted conspiracy theories relating to genetically-modified foods, and GMOs don’t even conflict with any liberal dogmas.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17990
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
29 December 2018 22:37
 

Why wouldn’t IQ be related to genetics, everything else is. The issue that makes this topic taboo is that there is no positive use for such data.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
30 December 2018 05:43
 
GAD - 29 December 2018 10:37 PM

Why wouldn’t IQ be related to genetics, everything else is. The issue that makes this topic taboo is that there is no positive use for such data.

A popular zealous ideology with roots in World War 2 makes it a taboo topic, not the lack of utility. Very many people in the world want no more race and class inequality. If the causes are all about genetics and if we are real about it, then it will be the easiest thing we can change in the age of CRISPR. Otherwise, it will be the exclusive domain of the rich. I expect that genetic engineering of humans will remain criminalized all over the world, and rich couples will go to an IVF clinic on a cruise ship in international waters just to get genetically-engineered superbabies with maximal intelligence, health, beauty and ambition, increasing the race gaps and class gaps exponentially further.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
30 December 2018 08:00
 
Abel Dean, to Burt - 29 December 2018 12:14 PM

Richard Lynn and his colleagues concluded an average IQ of 70 for black Africans. Some researchers have claimed a higher average—Jelte Wicherts and his colleagues concluded an average of 80—but this remains a low value. I expect that the value of Lynn et al. is more likely, in part because their value is close to the best fit lines of the scatter plots of IQ vs. GDP per capita (regardless of the causal direction) and of IQ vs. skin color (perhaps the most offensive correlation in science). If a value much higher than 70 was the truth for black Africans, then it would be an outlier. Everyone agrees on the low IQ of black Africans, from 20 to 30 points lower than whites, and anything else would be anomalous, so the question should not be whether it is true, but, “why?” It could be due to genetics, environment, or some mixture of both. Genetics looks more likely at this point, because the pattern follows black Africans wherever they emigrate all over the world (after a few generations, not the first generation, which skews high due to the brain drain immigration pattern), they have smaller cranial capacities, it is on line with the skin color correlation, they have low frequency of genetic variants that code for intelligence (among the few hundred we have found so far), they have low IQs even after adoption into white families, and it is what we expect from the validation of Spearman’s hypothesis: a strong positive correlation exists between the black-white IQ gap of tests and the heritability of those tests. This is not the way it should be, but it is the probable truth one way or the other, not to be easily dismissed.

You brought up the objection that blacks can be subdivided by ancestry into different average IQ values. I believe it, but it does not follow that the differences are therefore cultural only. I don’t know about the British data, but I know that black Africans who emigrate to America tend to have a much higher average IQ than black Americans at large. They tend to go to grad school and become doctors and so on. Does it follow that the billion black Africans within Africa have the same average IQ as these select immigrants? Not so. To legally migrate from poor African nations to America requires being in the top tier of one’s own IQ distribution. It requires graduating secondary school, having no criminal record, being a long-term planner, and being exceptionally rich.

Again, this is not the way it should be, but, if the cause of racial intelligence differences is mostly genetic, then a solution is immediately at hand. This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius CRISPR. Of secondary importance is that we need not blame intractable white racism for all sorts of racial inequality in the world. That is why we need to be real about the true causes, even if it means agreeing with scientific racism or whatever.

That (above boldfaced) seems like a pretty outrageous claim. Can you link a book or article(s) Wicherts has written on the subject of Western-style intelligence testing of Africans? For instance, I’m curious about translations not only of somewhat concrete words, but abstract concepts involved, as well. And how are the tests administered? Is it typically part of normal school-day routines, or is it perhaps somewhat invasive? That is, How is Western-style intelligence testing received by the people being tested? How are individuals chosen to be tested? Do potential test participants have an opportunity to decline being tested?

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
30 December 2018 09:21
 
nonverbal - 30 December 2018 08:00 AM
Abel Dean, to Burt - 29 December 2018 12:14 PM

Richard Lynn and his colleagues concluded an average IQ of 70 for black Africans. Some researchers have claimed a higher average—Jelte Wicherts and his colleagues concluded an average of 80—but this remains a low value. I expect that the value of Lynn et al. is more likely, in part because their value is close to the best fit lines of the scatter plots of IQ vs. GDP per capita (regardless of the causal direction) and of IQ vs. skin color (perhaps the most offensive correlation in science). If a value much higher than 70 was the truth for black Africans, then it would be an outlier. Everyone agrees on the low IQ of black Africans, from 20 to 30 points lower than whites, and anything else would be anomalous, so the question should not be whether it is true, but, “why?” It could be due to genetics, environment, or some mixture of both. Genetics looks more likely at this point, because the pattern follows black Africans wherever they emigrate all over the world (after a few generations, not the first generation, which skews high due to the brain drain immigration pattern), they have smaller cranial capacities, it is on line with the skin color correlation, they have low frequency of genetic variants that code for intelligence (among the few hundred we have found so far), they have low IQs even after adoption into white families, and it is what we expect from the validation of Spearman’s hypothesis: a strong positive correlation exists between the black-white IQ gap of tests and the heritability of those tests. This is not the way it should be, but it is the probable truth one way or the other, not to be easily dismissed.

You brought up the objection that blacks can be subdivided by ancestry into different average IQ values. I believe it, but it does not follow that the differences are therefore cultural only. I don’t know about the British data, but I know that black Africans who emigrate to America tend to have a much higher average IQ than black Americans at large. They tend to go to grad school and become doctors and so on. Does it follow that the billion black Africans within Africa have the same average IQ as these select immigrants? Not so. To legally migrate from poor African nations to America requires being in the top tier of one’s own IQ distribution. It requires graduating secondary school, having no criminal record, being a long-term planner, and being exceptionally rich.

Again, this is not the way it should be, but, if the cause of racial intelligence differences is mostly genetic, then a solution is immediately at hand. This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius CRISPR. Of secondary importance is that we need not blame intractable white racism for all sorts of racial inequality in the world. That is why we need to be real about the true causes, even if it means agreeing with scientific racism or whatever.

That (above boldfaced) seems like a pretty outrageous claim. Can you link a book or article(s) Wicherts has written on the subject of Western-style intelligence testing of Africans? For instance, I’m curious about translations not only of somewhat concrete words, but abstract concepts involved, as well. And how are the tests administered? Is it typically part of normal school-day routines, or is it perhaps somewhat invasive? That is, How is Western-style intelligence testing received by the people being tested? How are individuals chosen to be tested? Do potential test participants have an opportunity to decline being tested?

Wicherts et al. and Lynn et al. each wrote many dueling papers on the matter of black African IQ, with Wicherts et al. representing the environmentalist (anti-racist) side of the debate (average IQ=80) and Lynn et al. representing the hereditarian (racist) side of the debate (average IQ=70). The paper of Wicherts et al. that kicked off the battle was:

Wicherts, Dolan and van der Mass, 2010, “The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers.”

I can’t easily answer your questions, but you can find the full text of the paper online at this link if you would like leads to their sources so you can hunt down the answers:

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010c.pdf

Wicherts et al. accused Lynn et al. of biasing their selection of African IQ tests in favor of lower scores, whereas Lynn et al. accused Wicherts et al. of biasing their selection of African IQ tests in favor of higher scores.

It may be shocking to learn that the anti-racist side of the debate among intelligence researchers concludes an average IQ of 80 for black Africans, as though this is high, but this is the reality. Your true objection does not seem to be whether the scores are accurate but whether they are biased. The scores are unlikely to be extremely biased, because they are in line with correlates of intelligence including GDP per capita.

If you doubt the accuracy of the scores, then I expect that is the wrong approach regardless. If we were to discover that there is something greatly systemically wrong with both Wicherts et al.‘s and Lynn et al.‘s analyses of the diverse sets of tests, then it does not follow that we should therefore ignore them. They remain the best analyses we have, the best reflection of the probable truth, and we have no reason except ideological dogma to assume equivalence of intelligence among the races, be it genetic or completely not genetic. It would be much like assuming that all races have equal average bodily height, or declaring uncertainty, because we found something potentially wrong with the way height is measured all over the world. We don’t do this for height, and yet we want to pick apart the data and find any reason to maintain our belief in intelligence equivalence among the races. We hate the data. Not just the claimed cause of the data, but the data itself.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
30 December 2018 09:37
 
Abel Dean, to nv - 30 December 2018 09:21 AM

. . .

If you doubt the accuracy of the scores, then I expect that is the wrong approach regardless. If we were to discover that there is something greatly systemically wrong with both Wicherts et al.‘s and Lynn et al.‘s analyses of the diverse sets of tests, then it does not follow that we should therefore ignore them. They remain the best analyses we have, the best reflection of the probable truth, and we have no reason except ideological dogma to assume equivalence of intelligence among the races, be it genetic or completely not genetic. It would be much like assuming that all races have equal average bodily height, or declaring uncertainty, because we found something potentially wrong with the way height is measured all over the world. We don’t do this for height, and yet we want to pick apart the data and find any reason to maintain our belief in intelligence equivalence among the races. We hate the data. Not just the claimed cause of the data, but the data itself.

It’s not so much that sort of belief itself, as it is simple respect. How many past psychological positions have been debunked? Plenty, obviously. For instance, if you were the mother of an autistic child during the 1960s, you were likely to be branded a refrigerator. Simple respect took a beating. Overconfidence in psychological positions seems still to be the order of the day, most unfortunately.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›