Racial IQ Gap, Nature versus Nurture

[stuper1]

The latest "Conversations with Coleman" podcast is a discussion with Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist. Coleman Hughes is a young black American writer. One thing they talk about is the IQ gap between blacks and whites, which it sounds like they both believe to be a real thing, not just an artifact of faulty testing. (And always keep in mind that this is just talking about averages -- there will always be brilliant individual blacks and stupid individual whites, e.g. me.) If the average-IQ gap is real, the question then is whether that is due to nature (genetics) or nurture (culture)? Weinstein likes to call it hardware versus software, which is interesting.

Weinstein says that hardly anybody wants to do real research on this question because they are afraid that they might find out the answer is genetics not culture. He says that he thinks there should be research done because he is very certain (but not 100%) that the answer is not genetics but culture, and once that is demonstrated then there will be more will to try to fix the problem. He does say however that if the answer is genetics, then he can't think of any good ways to fix the problem.

So, let's say that there's maybe a 5% or less chance that they would find that the IQ gap is due to genetics not culture. If that is the case, my question is: is it just better not to even do the research? What if the answer does turn out to be genetics not culture? What would we even do with that information? The implication is that if the average-IQ gap is due to genetics, then no amount of education is going to close that average gap.

I hate to say that it's better to stay ignorant on certain questions, but maybe in this case it is really true that it's better not to open Pandora's box. What do you folks think?

[Xan]

I would like to think that if that were discovered, it would only change things for the positive.

It's already the case that in any actual, on-the-ground situation, individual variation vastly overwhelms any general tendencies. So it's already the case, and would still be even in that "it's all genetics" world you stipulate, that we should judge each person on his merits and character rather than on generalities.

What such a conclusion WOULD do for us is we'd stop getting a lot of hang-wringing about "why is group X not achieving as much as group Y overall on this-or-that metric".

[Cortopassi]

I don’t know how you’d set this up. You’d have to control for life experience and education from what, birth until an IQ test can be taken across a statistically significant number of blacks and whites?

Don’t know how you can do it without having a million ways to question validity regardless of the outcome.

Is there an easier way? Has human white and black genomes been sequenced, and has any difference been noticed, other than whatever sets skin color?

Personally I think it is culture/environment.

[Xan]

Personally I think it is culture/environment.

I would like to think so, too, and that would I expect be the "better" answer.

But is that realistic? Why would we expect every group (for however you define "group") to have exactly the same genetic predisposition to IQ as every other group? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if that were the case? It may well be that the difference is swamped by culture/environment. But it would be kind of staggering if there were zero genetic difference.

[Cortopassi]

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/ ... t-century/

The link says 99.9% of the genome across races is identical, among other things. Interesting stuff.

[Xan]

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/ ... t-century/

The link says 99.9% of the genome across races is identical, among other things. Interesting stuff.

That just tells us that all the genetic variation we see across humanity is due to that .1% difference. Doesn't mean it isn't powerful.

Let's take long-distance running as an example. The best in the world are pretty much all Kenyans. Would you claim that it's because their culture values long-distance running, and so they're better at it? Or are they just genetically generally built better for long-distance running than others? I think clearly it's the latter.

I am NOT saying that any group has a generally lower IQ than any other group; I really don't know. But I certainly would be surprised. In fact I would be surprised if it weren't the case. It still may be that the cultural factors for IQ (but I would say, not for running) overwhelm any genetic predisposition.

[stuper1]

And yet every winner of the Olympic 100m dash and marathon has been from Africa (different parts of the continent for different race lengths) for the last 50 some years. So clearly, at least to me, the 0.1% of genetic racial difference does cause some measurable macro differences. The open question is whether there are brain differences. The mind and body are incredibly interconnected via nerves, hormones, other chemicals, etc., so I would be surprised if there were not brain differences between races.

[Libertarian666]

And yet every winner of the Olympic 100m dash and marathon has been from Africa (different parts of the continent for different race lengths) for the last 50 some years. So clearly, at least to me, the 0.1% of genetic racial difference does cause some measurable macro differences. The open question is whether there are brain differences. The mind and body are incredibly interconnected via nerves, hormones, other chemicals, etc., so I would be surprised if there were not brain differences between races.

The average Ashkenazi IQ is about one standard deviation above the mean, i.e., about 115, so there are far more Ashkenazis with IQs of 160 or more than in the general population.

This accounts for the fact that Ashkenazis, despite being about 0.3% of the world's population, win about 25% of Nobel Prizes in science.

Ashkenazis also have a much higher incidence of certain hereditary brain malfunctions like Gaucher's disease, whose victims have even higher average IQs than the average Ashkenazi.

These facts are probably not unrelated: see https://web.archive.org/web/20050701173 ... socsci.pdf.

[glennds]

I think it's a slippery slope and a Pandora's box. And why stop at races? What about ethnicities i.e. do Germans have higher IQ than Italians? Japanese vs. Chinese? Where does it all end, and how is the information useful? Could it just as easily create a hierarchy and encourage divisive tribalism and a justification for rational racism?

And as someone else pointed out, there's an extensive number of ways to challenge the validity of the results. Everything seems to be allegedly rigged these days. Unless the results are deemed inconclusive, I just see more than can go wrong than right.

Besides, the whole notion of IQ (let alone IQ testing methodologies) is not without controversy.

Plus we already have have some sort of binary predisposition (especially in the US IMO) with needing one thing to be "better" and hence the other to be worse (or winner/loser) which I do not think would be helpful in an exercise such as this.

[jalanlong]

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/ ... t-century/

The link says 99.9% of the genome across races is identical, among other things. Interesting stuff.

Let's take long-distance running as an example. The best in the world are pretty much all Kenyans. Would you claim that it's because their culture values long-distance running, and so they're better at it? Or are they just genetically generally built better for long-distance running than others? I think clearly it's the latter.

Hey Jimmy The Greek lost his career over that idea!

[StinkyToes]

And yet every winner of the Olympic 100m dash and marathon has been from Africa (different parts of the continent for different race lengths) for the last 50 some years.

This is false.

Men's marathon winners during the last 50 years include Stefano Baldini of Italy, Hwang Young-cho of South Korea, Gelindo Bordin of Italy, Carlos Lopes of Portugal, Waldemar Cierpinski of East Germany, and Frank Shorter of the USA. Women's winners include Constantina Tomescu of Romania, Mizuki Noguchi of Japan, Naoko Takahashi of Japan, Valentina Yegorova of Russia, Rosa Mota of Portugal, and Joan Benoit of the USA.

Since 1984, when the first women's Olympic marathon was contested, 2/3 of the women's marathon winners have been from continents other than Africa.

Up until last year, the world record in the marathon was held by a white UK woman, Paula Radcliffe. She ran that record in 2003. It remains the #2 time in the women's marathon and likely would still be the record today if not for advances in shoe technology.

The winner of the men's 100 meters at the 1980 Olympics, Alan Wells, was white. Women's 100 meter Oympics winners include Lyudmila Kondratyeva of the USSR, Annegret Richter of West Germany, and Renate Stecher of Easy Germany. All were white.

[Cortopassi]

I think it's a slippery slope and a Pandora's box. And why stop at races? What about ethnicities i.e. do Germans have higher IQ than Italians? Japanese vs. Chinese? Where does it all end, and how is the information useful? Could it just as easily create a hierarchy and encourage divisive tribalism and a justification for rational racism?

And as someone else pointed out, there's an extensive number of ways to challenge the validity of the results. Everything seems to be allegedly rigged these days. Unless the results are deemed inconclusive, I just see more than can go wrong than right.

Besides, the whole notion of IQ (let alone IQ testing methodologies) is not without controversy.

Plus we already have have some sort of binary predisposition (especially in the US IMO) with needing one thing to be "better" and hence the other to be worse (or winner/loser) which I do not think would be helpful in an exercise such as this.

Yes. There's already discrimination within races and ethnicities and cultures. Northern vs. southern Italians. North vs. south in the US. Light skinned vs. dark skinned asians and blacks. Don't need to add yet something else to divide us.

[Libertarian666]

I think it's a slippery slope and a Pandora's box. And why stop at races? What about ethnicities i.e. do Germans have higher IQ than Italians? Japanese vs. Chinese? Where does it all end, and how is the information useful? Could it just as easily create a hierarchy and encourage divisive tribalism and a justification for rational racism?

And as someone else pointed out, there's an extensive number of ways to challenge the validity of the results. Everything seems to be allegedly rigged these days. Unless the results are deemed inconclusive, I just see more than can go wrong than right.

Besides, the whole notion of IQ (let alone IQ testing methodologies) is not without controversy.

Plus we already have have some sort of binary predisposition (especially in the US IMO) with needing one thing to be "better" and hence the other to be worse (or winner/loser) which I do not think would be helpful in an exercise such as this.

In an ideal world, group results wouldn't matter.

We don't live in an ideal world.

In the real world we live in, some political factions claim that any disparity in results between groups can be attributed solely to "systemic racism".
If in fact every group were on average the same in abilities, that might be a valid claim.

However, we know, with as much certainty as we know anything else outside the physical sciences, that there are significant differences in intelligence between certain groups.

This demolishes the political claim that these results must be due to "systemic racism".

That's why these facts matter.

[WiseOne]

I agree that there's a big culture factor, because success in formal education procedures has a lot to do with the outcomes of IQ tests. And you have to take the test seriously. But there's another factor that might explain part of the IQ gap: maternal drug & alcohol use during pregnancy.

Contrary to what is often claimed, blacks do use drugs at a higher rate than other races. Also, black mothers are much more likely to have their babies during prime drug-use years (teens/early twenties). I saw plenty of teenage mothers (some having their 4th baby at age 17, for example), fetal alcohol syndrome and such during residency, and guess which race was about 100% of those cases. Or, they'd show up for care only late in the pregnancy. I even remember one case where a young woman came to the ER complaining of abdominal discomfort, and the pregnancy was discovered on X-ray. She said she thought she was getting fat.

[barrett]

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/ ... t-century/

The link says 99.9% of the genome across races is identical, among other things. Interesting stuff.

Let's take long-distance running as an example. The best in the world are pretty much all Kenyans. Would you claim that it's because their culture values long-distance running, and so they're better at it? Or are they just genetically generally built better for long-distance running than others? I think clearly it's the latter.

Hey Jimmy The Greek lost his career over that idea!

Yes, he did lose his career. He wasn't totally off in his assessment but he could have been a lot more tactful. Among other stuff, he said:

"The black is a better athlete to begin with, because he's been bred to be that way. Because of his high thighs and big thighs that go up into his back. And they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs, you see."

The research on Ashkenazi Jew IQ that Tech posted the link for was included in the book The 10,000 Year Explosion (same authors). Another book, The Sports Gene, by David Epstein has a section on the 100 meters being dominated by athletes of West African descent and another about the Kalenjin distance runners from Kenya. The latter have a huge advantage in part because they tend to have slender lower legs which allows the "pendulum" to swing back and forth while requiring less energy. NBA players almost without exception have very long arms relative to their height (this is something that is measured as it's no longer a secret that it confers a big advantage). The best baseball hitters all have exceptional eyesight.

Reading The Sports Gene actually had the effect of reducing my interest in sports because I could no longer accept the narrative that much of what I was seeing was dedication or "heart".

[glennds]

In the real world we live in, some political factions claim that any disparity in results between groups can be attributed solely to "systemic racism".
If in fact every group were on average the same in abilities, that might be a valid claim.

However, we know, with as much certainty as we know anything else outside the physical sciences, that there are significant differences in intelligence between certain groups.

This demolishes the political claim that these results must be due to "systemic racism".

That's why these facts matter.

Ah yes. And with the substantive backing of undeniable facts grounded in objective science and statistical proof, the "racism" could then become a rational basis for a societal hierarchy.
What they today call "systemic racism" could be appropriately named and actually expand once the restrictions of political correctness are demolished. At that point we can finally live in a more enlightened world where instead of resisting nature we embrace it for what it is.
Is that why these facts matter?

[Libertarian666]

In the real world we live in, some political factions claim that any disparity in results between groups can be attributed solely to "systemic racism".
If in fact every group were on average the same in abilities, that might be a valid claim.

However, we know, with as much certainty as we know anything else outside the physical sciences, that there are significant differences in intelligence between certain groups.

This demolishes the political claim that these results must be due to "systemic racism".

That's why these facts matter.

Ah yes. And with the substantive backing of undeniable facts grounded in objective science and statistical proof, the "racism" could then become a rational basis for a societal hierarchy.
What they today call "systemic racism" could be appropriately named and actually expand once the restrictions of political correctness are demolished. At that point we can finally live in a more enlightened world where instead of resisting nature we embrace it for what it is.
Is that why these facts matter?

The only fair social policy is for everyone to have the opportunity to make the best use of whatever ability they have.

One political party is claiming that our present social policy doesn't provide that opportunity to certain groups, on the basis that those groups have worse results.

If all groups had the same inherent abilities, that might be true.

However, all groups do NOT have the same inherent abilities, and the disparity in results between groups reflects those different average group abilities. Thus, their reasoning is unsound.

That's why the facts matter.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

[glennds]

Ah yes. And with the substantive backing of undeniable facts grounded in objective science and statistical proof, the "racism" could then become a rational basis for a societal hierarchy.
What they today call "systemic racism" could be appropriately named and actually expand once the restrictions of political correctness are demolished. At that point we can finally live in a more enlightened world where instead of resisting nature we embrace it for what it is.
Is that why these facts matter?

The only fair social policy is for everyone to have the opportunity to make the best use of whatever ability they have.

One political party is claiming that our present social policy doesn't provide that opportunity to certain groups, on the basis that those groups have worse results.

If all groups had the same inherent abilities, that might be true.

However, all groups do NOT have the same inherent abilities, and the disparity in results between groups reflects those different average group abilities. Thus, their reasoning is unsound.

That's why the facts matter.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Okay, let's accept for the moment that the facts matter. The facts being that we have now empirically proven the inferiority of certain groups. Once we had them, how could/should these facts be used? Is there a specific social policy you are thinking of that these facts would abolish? Are there other applications for the facts?

[Cortopassi]

One political party is claiming that our present social policy doesn't provide that opportunity to certain groups, on the basis that those groups have worse results.

If all groups had the same inherent abilities, that might be true.

However, all groups do NOT have the same inherent abilities, and the disparity in results between groups reflects those different average group abilities. Thus, their reasoning is unsound.

That's why the facts matter.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Take a newborn suburban white child, drop him into the south side of Chicago, or a slum in India or Brazil and have them grow up in whatever the prevalent social structure is. Do the reverse with a black child.

What's likely to happen?

I can't make it any clearer than that either. We are on opposite sides of a great divide.

[Xan]

Ah yes. And with the substantive backing of undeniable facts grounded in objective science and statistical proof, the "racism" could then become a rational basis for a societal hierarchy.
What they today call "systemic racism" could be appropriately named and actually expand once the restrictions of political correctness are demolished. At that point we can finally live in a more enlightened world where instead of resisting nature we embrace it for what it is.
Is that why these facts matter?

The only fair social policy is for everyone to have the opportunity to make the best use of whatever ability they have.

One political party is claiming that our present social policy doesn't provide that opportunity to certain groups, on the basis that those groups have worse results.

If all groups had the same inherent abilities, that might be true.

However, all groups do NOT have the same inherent abilities, and the disparity in results between groups reflects those different average group abilities. Thus, their reasoning is unsound.

That's why the facts matter.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Okay, let's accept for the moment that the facts matter. Once we had them, how could/should these facts be used? Is there a specific social policy you are thinking of that these facts would abolish? Are there other applications for the facts?

The popular thinking of the age blames "systemic racism" for unequal outcomes between groups. If there is some other fact uncovered that better explains unequal outcomes, then you won't see all the bellyaching about them. Affirmative action, whose goal is to ensure equal outcomes among races, would probably be the poster child.

WiseOne raises a great point I hadn't even thought of. If such maternal problems were disproportionately allocated among racial groups, then that certainly would explain unequal outcomes. And, sure enough, if we accept that as a big part of the explanation, then the fix is a REAL fix, which is working with the affected communities to prevent the actual problem, rather than a FAKE fix of requiring racial quotas in hiring or whatever else.

[Libertarian666]

Ah yes. And with the substantive backing of undeniable facts grounded in objective science and statistical proof, the "racism" could then become a rational basis for a societal hierarchy.
What they today call "systemic racism" could be appropriately named and actually expand once the restrictions of political correctness are demolished. At that point we can finally live in a more enlightened world where instead of resisting nature we embrace it for what it is.
Is that why these facts matter?

The only fair social policy is for everyone to have the opportunity to make the best use of whatever ability they have.

One political party is claiming that our present social policy doesn't provide that opportunity to certain groups, on the basis that those groups have worse results.

If all groups had the same inherent abilities, that might be true.

However, all groups do NOT have the same inherent abilities, and the disparity in results between groups reflects those different average group abilities. Thus, their reasoning is unsound.

That's why the facts matter.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Okay, let's accept for the moment that the facts matter. The facts being that we have now empirically proven the inferiority of certain groups. Once we had them, how could/should these facts be used? Is there a specific social policy you are thinking of that these facts would abolish? Are there other applications for the facts?

Individuals should be free to seek and attain whatever goals they can achieve by voluntary action. If they wish to help people they perceive as unfairly treated, with their own resources (e.g., charitable donations), that is fine, and in fact anything else would be unfair.

However, government and publicly funded institutions should treat all people the same. That means no racial quotas or similar policies based on group membership.

[glennds]

Ah yes. And with the substantive backing of undeniable facts grounded in objective science and statistical proof, the "racism" could then become a rational basis for a societal hierarchy.
What they today call "systemic racism" could be appropriately named and actually expand once the restrictions of political correctness are demolished. At that point we can finally live in a more enlightened world where instead of resisting nature we embrace it for what it is.
Is that why these facts matter?

The only fair social policy is for everyone to have the opportunity to make the best use of whatever ability they have.

One political party is claiming that our present social policy doesn't provide that opportunity to certain groups, on the basis that those groups have worse results.

If all groups had the same inherent abilities, that might be true.

However, all groups do NOT have the same inherent abilities, and the disparity in results between groups reflects those different average group abilities. Thus, their reasoning is unsound.

That's why the facts matter.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Okay, let's accept for the moment that the facts matter. The facts being that we have now empirically proven the inferiority of certain groups. Once we had them, how could/should these facts be used? Is there a specific social policy you are thinking of that these facts would abolish? Are there other applications for the facts?

Individuals should be free to seek and attain whatever goals they can achieve by voluntary action. If they wish to help people they perceive as unfairly treated, with their own resources (e.g., charitable donations), that is fine, and in fact anything else would be unfair.

However, government and publicly funded institutions should treat all people the same. That means no racial quotas or similar policies based on group membership.

No quarrel there, but you didn't answer my question as to how facts proving inferiority of certain groups would be helpful in the objective you state. If I'm reading your earlier comment correctly, you state your belief to this effect, and then you say facts supporting the same matter.

[vnatale]

One political party is claiming that our present social policy doesn't provide that opportunity to certain groups, on the basis that those groups have worse results.

If all groups had the same inherent abilities, that might be true.

However, all groups do NOT have the same inherent abilities, and the disparity in results between groups reflects those different average group abilities. Thus, their reasoning is unsound.

That's why the facts matter.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Take a newborn suburban white child, drop him into the south side of Chicago, or a slum in India or Brazil and have them grow up in whatever the prevalent social structure is. Do the reverse with a black child.

What's likely to happen?

I can't make it any clearer than that either. We are on opposite sides of a great divide.

I know a family that adopted two children (boy & girl) from Romania. When I have seen them they look like typical American children. They have great parents who have been able to give them all that parents in this country can offer their children.

When looking at them I thought how different their lives would have been if they had remained in Romania as orphans.

Same kids. Two completely different environments.

Vinny

[stuper1]

One political party is claiming that our present social policy doesn't provide that opportunity to certain groups, on the basis that those groups have worse results.

If all groups had the same inherent abilities, that might be true.

However, all groups do NOT have the same inherent abilities, and the disparity in results between groups reflects those different average group abilities. Thus, their reasoning is unsound.

That's why the facts matter.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Take a newborn suburban white child, drop him into the south side of Chicago, or a slum in India or Brazil and have them grow up in whatever the prevalent social structure is. Do the reverse with a black child.

What's likely to happen?

I can't make it any clearer than that either. We are on opposite sides of a great divide.

Yeah, but you are begging the question. What is it that causes that great divide to persist? Why have some societies managed to develop out of the muck of mere subsistence into technological powerhouses, while others have lagged far behind? Was it just luck? Being in the right place at the right time? Magic dirt?

The scientific question is: if you do your proposed experiment with 1 million white kids on the south side of Chicago and 1 million black kids in Beverly Hills, on average which ones are going to turn out more successful? I think we might all be surprised at the results.

[Cortopassi]

I’m not getting this guys. If there are differences more than skin color, nose shape, eye shape, etc, it’s all going to be in the noise over a large sample. Some will do better, some will do worse.

If you believe otherwise, that’s your right, but you’re never going to be able to prove it, and any attempt to prove it on a large scale will not result in anything good coming of it, if you’d even be able to attempt it.

Seems it’s the right place at the right time to me. Haven’t there been empires around the world that have risen and fallen over the centuries? Of all colors and technological advancements for the times?

When I mentioned great divide I actually meant us here, on this forum!