‹ First  < 5 6 7
 
   
 

Race is not just biological: it is a core of biology

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17726
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2019 18:03
 
nonverbal - 23 January 2019 11:51 AM
GAD - 23 January 2019 08:53 AM

Most every complexity can be simplified, of course. Garret provided a bit more than what’s simple, as he described one of several causes of tribalistic prejudices. Wouldn’t it be nice if simple explanations were more commonly explicated for examination in a discussion forum? By the way, that was an excellent example of tribal instincts with the Planet of the Apes actors—assuming it’s a true story. Do you have an available source?

I think I’ve posted this more then once but here is one from 2015

https://forum.samharris.org/forum/viewreply/805984/

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
23 January 2019 20:16
 
Twissel - 21 January 2019 03:47 AM

talking about Race when it comes to humans makes little sense:
because human babies are born so underdeveloped, post-natal conditions have a disproportionately high impact on development, more so than in species that can fend for themselves in a matter of hours after birth/hatching.
This applies especially to the brain, which gets trained by its current environment: if we were determined by Race (i.e. had key behaviors encoded in our DNA), then these behaviors would be the ones of Early Humans: we should be able to detect difference in hunter/gather traits, but how would we even begin to test for that?

But relevant for today is the plasticity of the brain when it comes to learning the very latest in social, economic, scientific and technological knowledge, something that cannot be imparted by our DNA, since mutation rates are just way slow to keep up.
Example: almost all children in the world today learn to read and write, and have no problem with it, given proper access to basic education. We haven’t encountered any ethnic group that can’t do that, or has a particularly hard time learning to read and write at an early age.

It was a surprise when I first learned this, but our genetic variants tend to have the greatest effect when we are adults, not when we are children. This is seen in heritability studies of many psychological traits but especially IQ. When we are young, the heritability value of IQ is low. But, as we age, the heritability value increases, and it plateaus in late adolescence. As children, our IQ can be higher than genetically expected or lower than genetically expected, but, as adults, only then do we become what we were born to become. Thomas Bouchard called this, “the Wilson effect.” I think most people are raised with the assumption that all healthy newborn babies are the same on the inside, and that the various forces of our environment alone shape the growing children into varying ability and personality we see among adults in the world. This is the popular “blank slate” perspective. The science of heritability tells us something very different. It lends a very different perspective of the world, even without consideration for racial variation. But, racial variation brings further perspective. It turns out that not all races learn to read and write with no problem. Some races tend to do it but have problems with it. At Year 9, only 71.7% of Indigenous Australian students are at or above the national minimum standard for reading, compared to 93.6% of non-Indigenous students. In the sparsely-populated Northern Territory of Australia, only 32.9% of Year 9 Indigenous Australian students meet the minimum reading standard, compared to 91.5% of non-Indigenous Australian students. Their neural plasticity helps, but it has limits. Plastic is not clay. The average IQ of Indigenous Australians is only 60. It is a first-world nation, and yet their IQ is 10 points lower than that of blacks in Africa.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17726
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2019 21:05
 
Garret - 23 January 2019 03:03 PM
GAD - 23 January 2019 08:53 AM

I get it. I think it can be more simplified, humans are tribal, we love tribes and groups and science shows we are evolved to be tribal. One of my favorite stories is from the original Planet of the Apes movie, all the actors and extras had to wear the monkey makeup all days as it was to hard to remove, one of the actors noted that at lunch all the chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans would all naturally sit together by group just by the costume they wore.

Tribal is the Is and saying there is no reason to be tribal because our DNA is so similar is the Ought, even if it is a true statement.     

 

I’m not debating IF tribalism exists… which is what you seem to think is what I’m debating.
I’m talking to you about WHY tribalism exists.

Besides which, tribalism is not a static fact.  It’s meaning, scope, and intensity has varied significantly throughout human history, so if you think just saying “it’s tribalism!” is any sort of explanation, you’re not thinking very deeply about the subject.

Regardless, the concept of tribalism is a poor defense of whether or not race is a genetically relevant category.  Either the DNA can show that race is a genetically relevant concept or not, but tribalism has nothing to do with genetics, unless there is evidence of genetically homogeneous characteristics of Patriots and Rams fans, though I’m pretty sure we can agree that this is evidence of tribalism with no genetic component.  And if tribalism can exist without genetic components, then it prove that race and DNA are not synonymous.

Obviously we are not debating if tribalism exists as there is no debate there. Nor are we arguing about why it exists nor am I using it as an argument for or against race as a genetically relevant category.

 

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  512
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
23 January 2019 21:14
 

and?

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  512
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
23 January 2019 21:35
 
Abel Dean - 23 January 2019 08:16 PM
Twissel - 21 January 2019 03:47 AM

talking about Race when it comes to humans makes little sense:
because human babies are born so underdeveloped, post-natal conditions have a disproportionately high impact on development, more so than in species that can fend for themselves in a matter of hours after birth/hatching.
This applies especially to the brain, which gets trained by its current environment: if we were determined by Race (i.e. had key behaviors encoded in our DNA), then these behaviors would be the ones of Early Humans: we should be able to detect difference in hunter/gather traits, but how would we even begin to test for that?

But relevant for today is the plasticity of the brain when it comes to learning the very latest in social, economic, scientific and technological knowledge, something that cannot be imparted by our DNA, since mutation rates are just way slow to keep up.
Example: almost all children in the world today learn to read and write, and have no problem with it, given proper access to basic education. We haven’t encountered any ethnic group that can’t do that, or has a particularly hard time learning to read and write at an early age.

It was a surprise when I first learned this, but our genetic variants tend to have the greatest effect when we are adults, not when we are children. This is seen in heritability studies of many psychological traits but especially IQ. When we are young, the heritability value of IQ is low. But, as we age, the heritability value increases, and it plateaus in late adolescence. As children, our IQ can be higher than genetically expected or lower than genetically expected, but, as adults, only then do we become what we were born to become. Thomas Bouchard called this, “the Wilson effect.” I think most people are raised with the assumption that all healthy newborn babies are the same on the inside, and that the various forces of our environment alone shape the growing children into varying ability and personality we see among adults in the world. This is the popular “blank slate” perspective. The science of heritability tells us something very different. It lends a very different perspective of the world, even without consideration for racial variation. But, racial variation brings further perspective. It turns out that not all races learn to read and write with no problem. Some races tend to do it but have problems with it. At Year 9, only 71.7% of Indigenous Australian students are at or above the national minimum standard for reading, compared to 93.6% of non-Indigenous students. In the sparsely-populated Northern Territory of Australia, only 32.9% of Year 9 Indigenous Australian students meet the minimum reading standard, compared to 91.5% of non-Indigenous Australian students. Their neural plasticity helps, but it has limits. Plastic is not clay. The average IQ of Indigenous Australians is only 60. It is a first-world nation, and yet their IQ is 10 points lower than that of blacks in Africa.

I’m not arguing that intelligence isn’t inheritable.  I’m contesting that you can predict intelligence using race as your primary variable.

Disease and malnutrition correlate more strongly with difference in IQ between nations than race does.  And by “more strongly”, I mean that the disease and malnutrition burden correctly predicts IQ differences of nations, while race doesn’t.

The burden of disease and the IQ of nations.

The debate on the roles of genes and the environment in determining racial (or population) differences in IQ is one of the most
controversial in psychological literature. The thesis according to
which differences in IQ test scores among races (and, consequently,
among nations or continents) are in part genetic, is based only on
indirect argument (Hunt, 2012): at the current status of science, in
fact, no genes related to cognitive abilities and differing among populations have been identified (Carson & Beckwith, 2009). The same
categorisation of populations in races is, therefore, questionable:
despite its extensive use in social sciences, the concept of “race” applied
to humans is, in fact, ambiguous (Hunt & Megyesi, 2008), since it has no
confirmed biological foundation (Barbujani, 2005; Jorde & Wooding,
2004). There is, rather, much direct evidence, based on epidemiological
and psychological studies, indicating, both at the individual and international levels, the strong impact of environmental factors, such as
health or socioeconomic conditions, on a population’s IQ (Nisbett
et al., 2012).

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17726
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
24 January 2019 01:01
 
Garret - 23 January 2019 09:14 PM

and?

Funny, for some reason I feel no motivation to reiterate what you couldn’t follow in the first place. If you want to play in the pee pool you need to be able to understand and read the currents. Go back and study the thread and see if you can improve your skills.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
24 January 2019 05:27
 
Garret - 23 January 2019 09:35 PM
Abel Dean - 23 January 2019 08:16 PM
Twissel - 21 January 2019 03:47 AM

talking about Race when it comes to humans makes little sense:
because human babies are born so underdeveloped, post-natal conditions have a disproportionately high impact on development, more so than in species that can fend for themselves in a matter of hours after birth/hatching.
This applies especially to the brain, which gets trained by its current environment: if we were determined by Race (i.e. had key behaviors encoded in our DNA), then these behaviors would be the ones of Early Humans: we should be able to detect difference in hunter/gather traits, but how would we even begin to test for that?

But relevant for today is the plasticity of the brain when it comes to learning the very latest in social, economic, scientific and technological knowledge, something that cannot be imparted by our DNA, since mutation rates are just way slow to keep up.
Example: almost all children in the world today learn to read and write, and have no problem with it, given proper access to basic education. We haven’t encountered any ethnic group that can’t do that, or has a particularly hard time learning to read and write at an early age.

It was a surprise when I first learned this, but our genetic variants tend to have the greatest effect when we are adults, not when we are children. This is seen in heritability studies of many psychological traits but especially IQ. When we are young, the heritability value of IQ is low. But, as we age, the heritability value increases, and it plateaus in late adolescence. As children, our IQ can be higher than genetically expected or lower than genetically expected, but, as adults, only then do we become what we were born to become. Thomas Bouchard called this, “the Wilson effect.” I think most people are raised with the assumption that all healthy newborn babies are the same on the inside, and that the various forces of our environment alone shape the growing children into varying ability and personality we see among adults in the world. This is the popular “blank slate” perspective. The science of heritability tells us something very different. It lends a very different perspective of the world, even without consideration for racial variation. But, racial variation brings further perspective. It turns out that not all races learn to read and write with no problem. Some races tend to do it but have problems with it. At Year 9, only 71.7% of Indigenous Australian students are at or above the national minimum standard for reading, compared to 93.6% of non-Indigenous students. In the sparsely-populated Northern Territory of Australia, only 32.9% of Year 9 Indigenous Australian students meet the minimum reading standard, compared to 91.5% of non-Indigenous Australian students. Their neural plasticity helps, but it has limits. Plastic is not clay. The average IQ of Indigenous Australians is only 60. It is a first-world nation, and yet their IQ is 10 points lower than that of blacks in Africa.

I’m not arguing that intelligence isn’t inheritable.  I’m contesting that you can predict intelligence using race as your primary variable.

Disease and malnutrition correlate more strongly with difference in IQ between nations than race does.  And by “more strongly”, I mean that the disease and malnutrition burden correctly predicts IQ differences of nations, while race doesn’t.

The burden of disease and the IQ of nations.

The debate on the roles of genes and the environment in determining racial (or population) differences in IQ is one of the most
controversial in psychological literature. The thesis according to
which differences in IQ test scores among races (and, consequently,
among nations or continents) are in part genetic, is based only on
indirect argument (Hunt, 2012): at the current status of science, in
fact, no genes related to cognitive abilities and differing among populations have been identified (Carson & Beckwith, 2009). The same
categorisation of populations in races is, therefore, questionable:
despite its extensive use in social sciences, the concept of “race” applied
to humans is, in fact, ambiguous (Hunt & Megyesi, 2008), since it has no
confirmed biological foundation (Barbujani, 2005; Jorde & Wooding,
2004). There is, rather, much direct evidence, based on epidemiological
and psychological studies, indicating, both at the individual and international levels, the strong impact of environmental factors, such as
health or socioeconomic conditions, on a population’s IQ (Nisbett
et al., 2012).

Many variables correctly predict international IQ differences among nations, just because IQ is correlated with so many variables. The question is about the causal directions of those correlations. Disease is just one of many correlates and one of many speculated causes of the international IQ differences. Daniele and Ostuni (the authors of this study) controlled for some of the other correlating variables: national income per capita, average years of schooling, average temperature, and latitude. Controlling for the variables of average temperature and latitude would have effectively countered the racial hereditarian hypothesis, because the established theory claims that racial IQ differences follow from ancestral climate. But, Daniele and Ostuni ignored the strongest correlate to international IQ found in the literature: skin pigmentation. The darker the average skin color, the lower the average IQ. Templer and Arikawa, 2006, which Daniele and Ostuni cited, quantified the correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among Old World nations. They found a value of r = -0.92. The reason why skin pigmentation is expected to serve as such a strong predictor is because peoples migrate—the indigenous peoples in their homelands today are often not where their ancestors were 20,000 to 100,000 years ago, as migrations, colonizations and conquests happened all throughout human history, but skin pigmentation is a direct reflection of average temperatures all throughout one’s ancestral lines. Templer and Arikawa found that skin pigmentation is a much stronger correlate of IQ than modern temperature. If the competing scholars really want to get serious, then they need to make skin pigmentation their primary control variable. They can put “race” to the side, because, like you say, it is ambiguous.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21694
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
24 January 2019 05:38
 
burt - 23 January 2019 02:39 PM
EN - 23 January 2019 02:17 PM
burt - 23 January 2019 12:34 PM
EN - 23 January 2019 11:03 AM
GAD - 23 January 2019 08:53 AM

Tribal is the Is and saying there is no reason to be tribal because our DNA is so similar is the Ought, even if it is a true statement. 

I agree. Tibalism is what is basic to our nature.

The Rams suck.

Go Rams. (Had enough of New England)

You are a ramist, sir!

I wanted to be a chiefist this year but they let me down. However, footballs at dawn if you insist.

Speaking of tribalism, what is the general Texan attitude toward Mexicans? Is it disrespectful as in California?

If you don’t like Mexicans in Texas, you are in the wrong damn state. They are everywhere.  They build our roads and mow our lawns, and make damn good food.  There are a large percentage of folks with Mexican descent, and from San Antonio south it’s basically Mexico.  Yes, there are haters,  but overall we get along. Most of them are Cowboy fans, it seems.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15886
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
24 January 2019 06:10
 
EN - 24 January 2019 05:38 AM
burt - 23 January 2019 02:39 PM
EN - 23 January 2019 02:17 PM
burt - 23 January 2019 12:34 PM
EN - 23 January 2019 11:03 AM
GAD - 23 January 2019 08:53 AM

Tribal is the Is and saying there is no reason to be tribal because our DNA is so similar is the Ought, even if it is a true statement. 

I agree. Tibalism is what is basic to our nature.

The Rams suck.

Go Rams. (Had enough of New England)

You are a ramist, sir!

I wanted to be a chiefist this year but they let me down. However, footballs at dawn if you insist.

Speaking of tribalism, what is the general Texan attitude toward Mexicans? Is it disrespectful as in California?

If you don’t like Mexicans in Texas, you are in the wrong damn state. They are everywhere.  They build our roads and mow our lawns, and make damn good food.  There are a large percentage of folks with Mexican descent, and from San Antonio south it’s basically Mexico.  Yes, there are haters,  but overall we get along. Most of them are Cowboy fans, it seems.

Just wanted to check general attitudes among the anglos which, at least when I was in high school, was not high in California. I didn’t notice this until I got to Austin in 66 and saw how all the Spanish names were anglicized (Guadalup…? Really?), whereas in California people were quite proud of the Spanish heritage and tried to keep the Spanish pronunciations, while at the same time looking down on the local Mexicans. But Cowboy fans? That’s got to say something about the IQ of the entire state, far more than any written culturally biased test.

Am in San Miguel de Allende at the moment and for the next week so will be sampling lots of the damn good food. Then Tucson for two months where it’s pretty good too, and you can get better Margaritas than anywhere in Canada.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3350
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
24 January 2019 06:49
 

Any moderately intelligent Canadian knows how to combine the four ingredients that go into making their own Margarita.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15886
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
24 January 2019 07:21
 
LadyJane - 24 January 2019 06:49 AM

Any moderately intelligent Canadian knows how to combine the four ingredients that go into making their own Margarita.

Still doesn’t have the…je ne sais quoi… of a real one. Margaritas are just not part of the Canadian gene pool. To see this as a fact I only need point to your first words: “Any moderately intelligent Canadian…” Obviously anybody with real Margarita genes would have said “Any Canadian worth his or her salt…”

[ Edited: 24 January 2019 07:23 by burt]
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3350
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
24 January 2019 07:34
 

That would’ve been over the top fer a humble Canadian like moi.  And I’m not a sel out.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15886
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
24 January 2019 13:03
 
LadyJane - 24 January 2019 07:34 AM

That would’ve been over the top fer a humble Canadian like moi.  And I’m not a sel out.

Bien, you are salt of the Earth, eh.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  512
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
24 January 2019 16:47
 
Abel Dean - 24 January 2019 05:27 AM
Garret - 23 January 2019 09:35 PM
Abel Dean - 23 January 2019 08:16 PM
Twissel - 21 January 2019 03:47 AM

talking about Race when it comes to humans makes little sense:
because human babies are born so underdeveloped, post-natal conditions have a disproportionately high impact on development, more so than in species that can fend for themselves in a matter of hours after birth/hatching.
This applies especially to the brain, which gets trained by its current environment: if we were determined by Race (i.e. had key behaviors encoded in our DNA), then these behaviors would be the ones of Early Humans: we should be able to detect difference in hunter/gather traits, but how would we even begin to test for that?

But relevant for today is the plasticity of the brain when it comes to learning the very latest in social, economic, scientific and technological knowledge, something that cannot be imparted by our DNA, since mutation rates are just way slow to keep up.
Example: almost all children in the world today learn to read and write, and have no problem with it, given proper access to basic education. We haven’t encountered any ethnic group that can’t do that, or has a particularly hard time learning to read and write at an early age.

It was a surprise when I first learned this, but our genetic variants tend to have the greatest effect when we are adults, not when we are children. This is seen in heritability studies of many psychological traits but especially IQ. When we are young, the heritability value of IQ is low. But, as we age, the heritability value increases, and it plateaus in late adolescence. As children, our IQ can be higher than genetically expected or lower than genetically expected, but, as adults, only then do we become what we were born to become. Thomas Bouchard called this, “the Wilson effect.” I think most people are raised with the assumption that all healthy newborn babies are the same on the inside, and that the various forces of our environment alone shape the growing children into varying ability and personality we see among adults in the world. This is the popular “blank slate” perspective. The science of heritability tells us something very different. It lends a very different perspective of the world, even without consideration for racial variation. But, racial variation brings further perspective. It turns out that not all races learn to read and write with no problem. Some races tend to do it but have problems with it. At Year 9, only 71.7% of Indigenous Australian students are at or above the national minimum standard for reading, compared to 93.6% of non-Indigenous students. In the sparsely-populated Northern Territory of Australia, only 32.9% of Year 9 Indigenous Australian students meet the minimum reading standard, compared to 91.5% of non-Indigenous Australian students. Their neural plasticity helps, but it has limits. Plastic is not clay. The average IQ of Indigenous Australians is only 60. It is a first-world nation, and yet their IQ is 10 points lower than that of blacks in Africa.

I’m not arguing that intelligence isn’t inheritable.  I’m contesting that you can predict intelligence using race as your primary variable.

Disease and malnutrition correlate more strongly with difference in IQ between nations than race does.  And by “more strongly”, I mean that the disease and malnutrition burden correctly predicts IQ differences of nations, while race doesn’t.

The burden of disease and the IQ of nations.

The debate on the roles of genes and the environment in determining racial (or population) differences in IQ is one of the most
controversial in psychological literature. The thesis according to
which differences in IQ test scores among races (and, consequently,
among nations or continents) are in part genetic, is based only on
indirect argument (Hunt, 2012): at the current status of science, in
fact, no genes related to cognitive abilities and differing among populations have been identified (Carson & Beckwith, 2009). The same
categorisation of populations in races is, therefore, questionable:
despite its extensive use in social sciences, the concept of “race” applied
to humans is, in fact, ambiguous (Hunt & Megyesi, 2008), since it has no
confirmed biological foundation (Barbujani, 2005; Jorde & Wooding,
2004). There is, rather, much direct evidence, based on epidemiological
and psychological studies, indicating, both at the individual and international levels, the strong impact of environmental factors, such as
health or socioeconomic conditions, on a population’s IQ (Nisbett
et al., 2012).

Many variables correctly predict international IQ differences among nations, just because IQ is correlated with so many variables. The question is about the causal directions of those correlations. Disease is just one of many correlates and one of many speculated causes of the international IQ differences. Daniele and Ostuni (the authors of this study) controlled for some of the other correlating variables: national income per capita, average years of schooling, average temperature, and latitude. Controlling for the variables of average temperature and latitude would have effectively countered the racial hereditarian hypothesis, because the established theory claims that racial IQ differences follow from ancestral climate. But, Daniele and Ostuni ignored the strongest correlate to international IQ found in the literature: skin pigmentation. The darker the average skin color, the lower the average IQ. Templer and Arikawa, 2006, which Daniele and Ostuni cited, quantified the correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among Old World nations. They found a value of r = -0.92. The reason why skin pigmentation is expected to serve as such a strong predictor is because peoples migrate—the indigenous peoples in their homelands today are often not where their ancestors were 20,000 to 100,000 years ago, as migrations, colonizations and conquests happened all throughout human history, but skin pigmentation is a direct reflection of average temperatures all throughout one’s ancestral lines. Templer and Arikawa found that skin pigmentation is a much stronger correlate of IQ than modern temperature. If the competing scholars really want to get serious, then they need to make skin pigmentation their primary control variable. They can put “race” to the side, because, like you say, it is ambiguous.

So your contention is that the alleles that control skin color also control intelligence?

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15886
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
24 January 2019 17:04
 
Garret - 24 January 2019 04:47 PM
Abel Dean - 24 January 2019 05:27 AM
Garret - 23 January 2019 09:35 PM
Abel Dean - 23 January 2019 08:16 PM
Twissel - 21 January 2019 03:47 AM

talking about Race when it comes to humans makes little sense:
because human babies are born so underdeveloped, post-natal conditions have a disproportionately high impact on development, more so than in species that can fend for themselves in a matter of hours after birth/hatching.
This applies especially to the brain, which gets trained by its current environment: if we were determined by Race (i.e. had key behaviors encoded in our DNA), then these behaviors would be the ones of Early Humans: we should be able to detect difference in hunter/gather traits, but how would we even begin to test for that?

But relevant for today is the plasticity of the brain when it comes to learning the very latest in social, economic, scientific and technological knowledge, something that cannot be imparted by our DNA, since mutation rates are just way slow to keep up.
Example: almost all children in the world today learn to read and write, and have no problem with it, given proper access to basic education. We haven’t encountered any ethnic group that can’t do that, or has a particularly hard time learning to read and write at an early age.

It was a surprise when I first learned this, but our genetic variants tend to have the greatest effect when we are adults, not when we are children. This is seen in heritability studies of many psychological traits but especially IQ. When we are young, the heritability value of IQ is low. But, as we age, the heritability value increases, and it plateaus in late adolescence. As children, our IQ can be higher than genetically expected or lower than genetically expected, but, as adults, only then do we become what we were born to become. Thomas Bouchard called this, “the Wilson effect.” I think most people are raised with the assumption that all healthy newborn babies are the same on the inside, and that the various forces of our environment alone shape the growing children into varying ability and personality we see among adults in the world. This is the popular “blank slate” perspective. The science of heritability tells us something very different. It lends a very different perspective of the world, even without consideration for racial variation. But, racial variation brings further perspective. It turns out that not all races learn to read and write with no problem. Some races tend to do it but have problems with it. At Year 9, only 71.7% of Indigenous Australian students are at or above the national minimum standard for reading, compared to 93.6% of non-Indigenous students. In the sparsely-populated Northern Territory of Australia, only 32.9% of Year 9 Indigenous Australian students meet the minimum reading standard, compared to 91.5% of non-Indigenous Australian students. Their neural plasticity helps, but it has limits. Plastic is not clay. The average IQ of Indigenous Australians is only 60. It is a first-world nation, and yet their IQ is 10 points lower than that of blacks in Africa.

I’m not arguing that intelligence isn’t inheritable.  I’m contesting that you can predict intelligence using race as your primary variable.

Disease and malnutrition correlate more strongly with difference in IQ between nations than race does.  And by “more strongly”, I mean that the disease and malnutrition burden correctly predicts IQ differences of nations, while race doesn’t.

The burden of disease and the IQ of nations.

The debate on the roles of genes and the environment in determining racial (or population) differences in IQ is one of the most
controversial in psychological literature. The thesis according to
which differences in IQ test scores among races (and, consequently,
among nations or continents) are in part genetic, is based only on
indirect argument (Hunt, 2012): at the current status of science, in
fact, no genes related to cognitive abilities and differing among populations have been identified (Carson & Beckwith, 2009). The same
categorisation of populations in races is, therefore, questionable:
despite its extensive use in social sciences, the concept of “race” applied
to humans is, in fact, ambiguous (Hunt & Megyesi, 2008), since it has no
confirmed biological foundation (Barbujani, 2005; Jorde & Wooding,
2004). There is, rather, much direct evidence, based on epidemiological
and psychological studies, indicating, both at the individual and international levels, the strong impact of environmental factors, such as
health or socioeconomic conditions, on a population’s IQ (Nisbett
et al., 2012).

Many variables correctly predict international IQ differences among nations, just because IQ is correlated with so many variables. The question is about the causal directions of those correlations. Disease is just one of many correlates and one of many speculated causes of the international IQ differences. Daniele and Ostuni (the authors of this study) controlled for some of the other correlating variables: national income per capita, average years of schooling, average temperature, and latitude. Controlling for the variables of average temperature and latitude would have effectively countered the racial hereditarian hypothesis, because the established theory claims that racial IQ differences follow from ancestral climate. But, Daniele and Ostuni ignored the strongest correlate to international IQ found in the literature: skin pigmentation. The darker the average skin color, the lower the average IQ. Templer and Arikawa, 2006, which Daniele and Ostuni cited, quantified the correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among Old World nations. They found a value of r = -0.92. The reason why skin pigmentation is expected to serve as such a strong predictor is because peoples migrate—the indigenous peoples in their homelands today are often not where their ancestors were 20,000 to 100,000 years ago, as migrations, colonizations and conquests happened all throughout human history, but skin pigmentation is a direct reflection of average temperatures all throughout one’s ancestral lines. Templer and Arikawa found that skin pigmentation is a much stronger correlate of IQ than modern temperature. If the competing scholars really want to get serious, then they need to make skin pigmentation their primary control variable. They can put “race” to the side, because, like you say, it is ambiguous.

So your contention is that the alleles that control skin color also control intelligence?

You need to ask the Pigeon, he’d say that for all we know that is a reasonable assumption.

 
‹ First  < 5 6 7