Watson: Blacks less intelligent than whites

When 'Bell Curve' came out, I read it. I've always followed the field... but there is no real evidence of across the board racial differences-- in every race there are those that top the intelligence quotient charts. It is sad, to see these thoughts being said in 2007 by an eminent scientist. There is much that is needed to help Africa, India, Asia... to bring up living standards in many parts of the world--and part of that is brining up education levels, people in poverty simply don't have the same educational opportunities that many of us here at ImmInst, and in wealthy nations take for granted.

The idea that all ethnic groups have the same distribution of IQs or even the same average IQ is nonsense. If that did indeed turn out to be the case then it would essentially amount to the proof of the existence of God - a politically correct god and who was concerned with the politics of race. The notion of equality of average IQs across ethnic groups is the equivalent of "Intelligent Design" for the secular Left. Pure fantasy and nothing more. The fact is that one group is going to be on top in terms of average IQ and one is going to be on the bottom. That is the only logical and rational position. So the real question isn't whether there are any differences in average IQ between racial groups - we already know the answer: yes. The question is whether such differences are significant enough to have a noticeable impact at a societal level, and if so, what, if anything, should be done about it.

The IQ difference between racial groups has nothing to do with race and everything to do with economics, politics and "culture.
What you present as fact is nothing more than your very flawed personal opinion

Missminni, what YOU present is also a personal opinion and may very well be flawed. You do not know with absolute certainty the answer, yet you respond in such a manner. Perhaps your problem is that to you intelligence is connected with worth and if black people are less intelligent they would be worth less (not worthless). The idea probably repulses you and that's why you are responding in such a black and white fashion.

What does hitler got to do with anything? I'm not even gonna respond to that. You make it seem like that a person who comes from a certain group can't possibly know anything about the group. Watson clearly couldn't have said what he did without actually hating blacks, right? I'm sure his statement was a product of a freudian esque psychological trauma *sarcasm*. Sometimes the world isn't nice, fair or forgiving but you just have to accept the way it is, even if it conflicts with your personal beliefs.

Perhaps different races have different average iq's. Perhaps it's genetically bound or only enviromental driven, you honestly don't know. You don't know because NOONE truly knows yet. However, the research we have today shows us that's it's more probable that there is an intelligence variation amongst the different races that's not dependent on enviromental variations. That's life, deal with it.

First of all "the research we have today" is based on the dominant culture's point of view. Let me just leave it there.
And as for your comment "That's life, deal with it?" Are you now the authority on life as well as racial intelligence? I wonder how many years of life you have under your belt that makes you such an authority.

OK time to step in.

First of all calm down everyone and acknowledge what has already been said: this is clearly a politically charged issue and that means to have a rational discussion everyone must show greater than normal tolerance and patience with one another. Cease beginning to attack one another and start focusing back on the ideas. There are many good reasons to be sensitive on the matter but if we are to have any kind of an in depth analysis of the substantive aspects of the idea then we must be calm, disciplined and as critically analytical as possible.

Next I want to add my 2 cents.

1. Intelligence itself is still too vaguely defined to be sufficiently objective about in this matter. Look at just how we are still arguing over it in terms of AI.

2. The validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence is arguably too culturally subjective and other measures are still not carefully tested for validity either.

3. The issue of epigenetic factors that refer back to the nurture issue, and are significantly impacted by environmental factors of access to resources, pre and post natal nutrition, and cognitive developmental aspects influenced by culture, cannot be effectively filtered by current methods to be able to compare one culture to another in terms of intelligence.

4. The definition of culture and race is itself too subjective and lacks a modern scientific basis for making significant claims about.

5. The connection of intelligence to genes is also too vaguely defined to have a very meaningful discussion over.

6. The connection of genes to culture and race is still nascent a study as well, especially when the fact is that the concept of racial purity is a myth and the vast majority of all arbitrarily defined racial groupings are basically misleading because a majority of all such supposed groupings are varieties of mixes, unless they are still living in isolated, aboriginal conditions.

7. Historically too many of the reasons that such claims of racial superiority and inferiority are made are also more associated with political and economic agendas than scientific and go a long way to making any such claims suspect, not to mention all too easily misunderstood. While a scientific analysis may be possible, too many of the factors I have previously mentioned have not been, nor have ever been adequately addressed first and filtered out to have such a discussion in a truly meaningful manner.


Recently I read some articles on how hard it has been to actually prove the association of specific genes and intelligence and I suggest the original study is important to this discussion as well. Please review the findings before raising the rhetoric level around here any further. In fact more and more it looks like a complex set of genes and more importantly the relationship of them to the gene switches that control them. In other words we are back to focusing not any specific relationship of genes, culture and race, but more importantly the epigenetic factors that are influenced by environmental factors ALONG with INDIVIDUAL expression of a complex set of genes.

Intelligence and genes claims:

'Intelligence genes' proving hard to find: study
http://news.yahoo.co...ce_071128185555

http://www.newscient...complexity.html

http://www.physorg.c...s115488873.html

http://www.scienceda...11105073104.htm
http://www.behaviora.../content/3/1/19
http://www.scienceda...60427161424.htm
http://www.webmd.com...igence-in-genes

Intelligence, Race, and Genetics
Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Kenneth K. Kidd: Yale University January 2005 - American Psychologist: Vol. 60, No. 1, 4659 http://www.apa.org/j...es/amp60146.pdf

Abstract: In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link.

Conclusion
In conclusion, intelligence is, at this time, ill defined. Although many investigators study IQ or g as an operational definition of intelligence, these operationalizations are at best incomplete, even according to those who accept the constructs as useful (e.g., Carroll, 1993).

Research suggests that properties of intelligence beyond g may be somewhat different from those of
g (e.g., Gardner, 1983; Sternberg et al., 2000, 2001). Race is a social construction, not a biological construct, and studies currently indicating alleged genetic bases of racial differences in intelligence fail to make their point even for these socialdefined groups. In general, we need to be careful, in psychological research, to distinguish our folk conceptions of constructs from the constructs themselves.

OK time to step in.

First of all calm down everyone and acknowledge what has already been said: this is clearly a politically charged issue and that means to have a rational discussion everyone must show greater than normal tolerance and patience with one another. Cease beginning to attack one another and start focusing back on the ideas. There are many good reasons to be sensitive on the matter but if we are to have any kind of an in depth analysis of the substantive aspects of the idea then we must be calm, disciplined and as critically analytical as possible.

Next I want to add my 2 cents.

1. Intelligence itself is still too vaguely defined to be sufficiently objective about in this matter. Look at just how we are still arguing over it in terms of AI.

2. The validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence is arguably too culturally subjective and other measures are still not carefully tested for validity either.

3. The issue of epigenetic factors that refer back to the nurture issue, and are significantly impacted by environmental factors of access to resources, pre and post natal nutrition, and cognitive developmental aspects influenced by culture, cannot be effectively filtered by current methods to be able to compare one culture to another in terms of intelligence.

4. The definition of culture and race is itself too subjective and lacks a modern scientific basis for making significant claims about.

5. The connection of intelligence to genes is also too vaguely defined to have a very meaningful discussion over.

6. The connection of genes to culture and race is still nascent a study as well, especially when the fact is that the concept of racial purity is a myth and the vast majority of all arbitrarily defined racial groupings are basically misleading because a majority of all such supposed groupings are varieties of mixes, unless they are still living in isolated, aboriginal conditions.

7. Historically too many of the reasons that such claims of racial superiority and inferiority are made are also more associated with political and economic agendas than scientific and go a long way to making any such claims suspect, not to mention all too easily misunderstood. While a scientific analysis may be possible, too many of the factors I have previously mentioned have not been, nor have ever been adequately addressed first and filtered out to have such a discussion in a truly meaningful manner.


Recently I read some articles on how hard it has been to actually prove the association of specific genes and intelligence and I suggest the original study is important to this discussion as well. Please review the findings before raising the rhetoric level around here any further. In fact more and more it looks like a complex set of genes and more importantly the relationship of them to the gene switches that control them. In other words we are back to focusing not any specific relationship of genes, culture and race, but more importantly the epigenetic factors that are influenced by environmental factors ALONG with INDIVIDUAL expression of a complex set of genes.

Intelligence and genes claims:

'Intelligence genes' proving hard to find: study
http://news.yahoo.co...ce_071128185555

http://www.newscient...complexity.html

http://www.physorg.c...s115488873.html

http://www.scienceda...11105073104.htm
http://www.behaviora.../content/3/1/19
http://www.scienceda...60427161424.htm
http://www.webmd.com...igence-in-genes

Intelligence, Race, and Genetics
Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Kenneth K. Kidd: Yale University January 2005 - American Psychologist: Vol. 60, No. 1, 4659 http://www.apa.org/j...es/amp60146.pdf

Abstract: In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link.

Conclusion
In conclusion, intelligence is, at this time, ill defined. Although many investigators study IQ or g as an operational definition of intelligence, these operationalizations are at best incomplete, even according to those who accept the constructs as useful (e.g., Carroll, 1993).

Research suggests that properties of intelligence beyond g may be somewhat different from those of
g (e.g., Gardner, 1983; Sternberg et al., 2000, 2001). Race is a social construction, not a biological construct, and studies currently indicating alleged genetic bases of racial differences in intelligence fail to make their point even for these socialdefined groups. In general, we need to be careful, in psychological research, to distinguish our folk conceptions of constructs from the constructs themselves.

Thank you kindly for stepping in and adding some real intelligence to this conversation. Much appreciated.

Much of intelligence is genetically determined. So it is to expect, that there are differences between races and people from different descent, since they differ much in their (average) genetical makeup. I don't see, why many start crying if the average IQ of blacks is smaller than that of whites, but not if the IQ of an arbitrary person is smaller than the average IQ within his society. Both is equally worse for the ones concerned.

How do theories of racial differences in IQ deal with the Flynn effect? Are the rising scores the result of epigenetic inheritance? Whatever they are due to, it implies that "racial" differences in IQ are mutable over time.

The Flynn effect never fully level out the differences between the races.

Edited by dr_chaos, 12 December 2007 - 05:28 PM.

First of all calm down everyone and acknowledge what has already been said: this is clearly a politically charged issue and that means to have a rational discussion everyone must show greater than normal tolerance and patience with one another. Cease beginning to attack one another and start focusing back on the ideas. There are many good reasons to be sensitive on the matter but if we are to have any kind of an in depth analysis of the substantive aspects of the idea then we must be calm, disciplined and as critically analytical as possible.

There really cannot be rational discussion on this issue. What happened to Watson proves that much. Anyone who draws conclusions similar to his risks having their career completely destroyed no matter what field they are in. Ten years from now someone who doesn't like you at work could google your name and end whatever job you had. And if you're in any kind of managerial role it could be used to collect a hell of a lawsuit against you personally and your company. There is no innocent until proven guilty in these kinds of cases, it's guilty until proven innocent.

With those kinds of consequences for those on one side of the issue "rational discussion" just becomes a circle jerk for the other side. So there may as well be no discussion.

That is one reason I go out of my way to not be informed on this issue, and not examine the data too closely. Because if I did I would risk the possibility that I could draw the wrong conclusion. Presently all I know is that I know individual people from just about every background with exceptional ability. And in the end that is all that really matters. Individual people.

With those kinds of consequences for those on one side of the issue "rational discussion" just becomes a circle jerk for the other side.

what's sad is so much of science is becoming so politically charged. Take the global warming issue as another example, there no longer is good global climate science as a result, it's either demonstrate the IPCC is right, or you don't get funded.

When 'Bell Curve' came out, I read it. I've always followed the field... but there is no real evidence of across the board racial differences-- in every race there are those that top the intelligence quotient charts. It is sad, to see these thoughts being said in 2007 by an eminent scientist. There is much that is needed to help Africa, India, Asia... to bring up living standards in many parts of the world--and part of that is brining up education levels, people in poverty simply don't have the same educational opportunities that many of us here at ImmInst, and in wealthy nations take for granted.

The idea that all ethnic groups have the same distribution of IQs or even the same average IQ is nonsense. If that did indeed turn out to be the case then it would essentially amount to the proof of the existence of God - a politically correct god and who was concerned with the politics of race. The notion of equality of average IQs across ethnic groups is the equivalent of "Intelligent Design" for the secular Left. Pure fantasy and nothing more. The fact is that one group is going to be on top in terms of average IQ and one is going to be on the bottom. That is the only logical and rational position. So the real question isn't whether there are any differences in average IQ between racial groups - we already know the answer: yes. The question is whether such differences are significant enough to have a noticeable impact at a societal level, and if so, what, if anything, should be done about it.

The IQ difference between racial groups has nothing to do with race and everything to do with economics, politics and "culture.
What you present as fact is nothing more than your very flawed personal opinion

Missminni, what YOU present is also a personal opinion and may very well be flawed. You do not know with absolute certainty the answer, yet you respond in such a manner. Perhaps your problem is that to you intelligence is connected with worth and if black people are less intelligent they would be worth less (not worthless). The idea probably repulses you and that's why you are responding in such a black and white fashion.

What does hitler got to do with anything? I'm not even gonna respond to that. You make it seem like that a person who comes from a certain group can't possibly know anything about the group. Watson clearly couldn't have said what he did without actually hating blacks, right? I'm sure his statement was a product of a freudian esque psychological trauma *sarcasm*. Sometimes the world isn't nice, fair or forgiving but you just have to accept the way it is, even if it conflicts with your personal beliefs.

Perhaps different races have different average iq's. Perhaps it's genetically bound or only enviromental driven, you honestly don't know. You don't know because NOONE truly knows yet. However, the research we have today shows us that's it's more probable that there is an intelligence variation amongst the different races that's not dependent on enviromental variations. That's life, deal with it.

First of all "the research we have today" is based on the dominant culture's point of view. Let me just leave it there.
And as for your comment "That's life, deal with it?" Are you now the authority on life as well as racial intelligence? I wonder how many years of life you have under your belt that makes you such an authority.

Alright, then I want you to show me where this bias comes up that you keep talking about. If you say we have a factor that invalidates the research you need to explain what it is, where and how it invalidates the findings before you make a claim.

I never said I was an authority on either life or racial intelligence, I was merely pointing out that you can't be sure that you're right and that's why it's irrational to hold a certain position so firmly as you do. One should always be open to new ideas and be constantly able to reevaluate their beliefs. It's the only way to better ourselves. As for my age it's 19 years old, not enough to make me an authority in anything but again, I never claimed to be one, you did.

You said "Thank you kindly for stepping in and adding some real intelligence to this conversation. Much appreciated" which implies that your thinking or your agreement with Lazarous Long somehow show a higher degree of intelligence than those who doesn't share your views. You could say that you're dividing this discussion into two groups, one who agrees with you and one who doesn't, your group is more intelligent. Where does it differ from when people say that "western thinking" is more intelligent than "black thinking"? I really can't see a difference. If intelligence is too complex to measure how can you be sure of what is intelligent?

And may I ask, why did you attack me in your post? There's no reason to be rude.

Again I respectfully ask everyone to simply walk away from the person to person confrontations. Stop asking for, making, or replying to personal attacks. If we try and return to as objective as *humanly* possible a manner of analysis perhaps there is a chance we can at least here at Imminst go beyond the politicization of science that permeates this and all too many discussions.

Please both of you step back, missimmi and stargazer, the issue is not about us.

Stargazer the articles and literature I cited do address the question of bias. Please consider it a starting point for discussion.

allow me to add some points.
keep in mind, that these are not from sources such as respectable journals, but correlative evidence of differences in cultures and/or race.


There has been discussion of resaons/excuses why blacks, whites, asians, and other races differ. But I've yet to hear a couple I have bee pondering lately. Why is it that the continent with some of the greatest natural resources in the world, gold, diamonds, oil can never seem to cease killing each other or commiting a weekly village massacre. And other locales such as Iceland which have next to nothing as far as resources go, can have one of the highest standards of living in the world?

It would seem that the proverbial "poor, lives in the desert shithole" description of Africa is a deeply flawed one. While many are in fact poor, it is not due to a lack of resources, but rather some other difference that has yet to be elucidated on by a "resepctable journal" assuming of course that any "respectable journal" would tarnish its virginal, pure as the driven snow image with controversy like this.

There is also the excuse that it is primarily due to the "white mans" enslavement of the black man that this country is so great. Well then, maybe Iceland with its 95%+ white population, could do with an influx from Africa to maintain their stratospheric level of living. While these points don't state anything specifically, I'd really love to see some studies done as to why the hell this is.

Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link.

What about Comt, Dysbindin 1, and IGF 2? They are without any doubt linked to intelligence. FADS2 too. It allows children to use breast milk more efficiently and thereby increases IQ.

Much of intelligence is genetically determined. So it is to expect, that there are differences between races and people from different descent, since they differ much in their (average) genetical makeup. I don't see, why many start crying if the average IQ of blacks is smaller than that of whites, but not if the IQ of an arbitrary person is smaller than the average IQ within his society. Both is equally worse for the ones concerned.

How do theories of racial differences in IQ deal with the Flynn effect? Are the rising scores the result of epigenetic inheritance? Whatever they are due to, it implies that "racial" differences in IQ are mutable over time.

The Flynn effect never fully level out the differences between the races.

William T. Dickens and James R. Flynn write that blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002; if this is true, it is hard to explain IQ differences as purely genetic. Something else is going on. http://en.wikipedia....ession_ended.3F

They are without any doubt linked to intelligence.

http://www.behaviora.../content/3/1/19

Dr Chaos they are also related to schizophrenia. Did you bother to read the citations I listed in the above post on how difficult it is to classify not only any single gene as related to intelligence but even groups of genes. None are shown to be specifically about intelligence, or exclusive to *race*, even if you have a genetically valid definition of race. There are clearly characteristics of race that we associate with those groups but few if any members of most populations appear to be exclusively a single race.

'Intelligence genes' proving hard to find: study

If you are willing to rely on the genes you have said are *undoubtedly linked* to intelligence and claim these are somehow more about one race than another then are you also willing to accept that the race you associate with those genes is more subject to mental disease than other races?

Dr Chaos they are also related to schizophrenia. Did you bother to read the citations I listed in the above post on how difficult it is to classify not only any single gene as related to intelligence but even groups of genes. None are shown to be specifically about intelligence, or exclusive to *race*, even if you have a genetically valid definition of race.

Yes, I did.
Your link on dysbindin said:

http://www.webmd.com...igence-in-genes
May 3, 2006 -- A gene called dysbindin-1 (DTNBP1) may be tied to intelligence, scientists report in Human Molecular Genetics.

The scientists studied a region of a particular chromosome. That chromosome region is where the DTNBP1 gene is located.

The DTNBP1 gene has previously been associated with schizophrenia, write the researchers. They included Katherine Burdick, PhD, of the psychiatry research department of the Zucker Hillside Hospital, which is part of the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System.

(...)


That particular sequence explained about 3% of the variation in test scores in healthy people and about 2% of the variation in test scores in participants with schizophrenia or a related disorder.

Considering, that we are talking about one single gene 3% are a truly big effect. The same is true for comt:

COMT genotype and cognitive ability: a longitudinal aging study(There is another study on comt which is better but I can only access through my universities network. It states an effect of about 3% in normal adults as well).


Then there is this 2 studies you posted, showing effects for another 6 genes which sum up to 1% and another 37 genes which sum up to 1% (in children whose intelligence is much less heritable). Again this is a whole lot if you assume that there are still many genes to be found. I should add up to a heritability of 0.5 to 0.8 for IQ overall. So in the end it all boils down to the question how the genes are distributed between the races which we don't know at this day.

If you are willing to rely on the genes you have said are *undoubtedly linked* to intelligence and claim these are somehow more about one race than another then are you also willing to accept that the race you associate with those genes is more subject to mental disease than other races?

If the genes that I mentioned are the intelligence genes which have different frequencies in the races and therefore are associated with one or several of them, then this is true. But this is far from sure and especially for the comt gen it is hard to draw a conclusion about the risk for schizophrenia it confers:

There are studies, which state the Val allel of comt ( ->the "dumber" one) increases risk for schizophrenia at example:

-> Association between Val^108/158 met polymorphism of the COMT gene and schizophrenia - Egan 2001

But there are also studies which show the opposite and blame the met polymorphism:

->Association study of a functional catechol-O-methyltransferase gene polymorphism in Japanese schizophrenics

And of course there are studies which don't link comt and schizophrenia at all:

-> Lack of association of the COMT (Val158/108 Met) gene and schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of case–control studies

Interestingly there are several studies in Caucasians making Val the reason for this disease, while the one which blames met was done in Asians. So maybe they aren't contradictory at all.

Another interesting fact is, that african americans have 200% higher risk for developing schizophrenia, which is mainly but not completly due to environmental factors:

Race and risk of schizophrenia in a US birth cohort: another example of health disparity?
Background Immigrant groups in Western Europe have markedly increased rates of schizophrenia. The highest rates are found in ethnic groups that are predominantly black. Separating minority race/ethnicity from immigration in Western Europe is difficult; in the US, these issues can be examined separately. Here we compared rates of schizophrenia between whites and African Americans and evaluated whether the association was mediated by socioeconomic status (SES) of family of origin in a US birth cohort.
Results African Americans were about 3-fold more likely than whites to be diagnosed with schizophrenia [Rate Ratio (RR) = 3.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.71–6.27]. After adjusting for indicators of family SES at birth, the RR was about 2-fold (RR = 1.92; 95% CI: 0.86–4.28). Using multiple imputation in the model including family SES indicators, the RR for race and schizophrenia was strengthened in comparison with the estimate obtained without imputation.

Conclusion The data indicate substantially elevated rates of schizophrenia among African Americans in comparison with whites in this birth cohort. The association may have been partly but not wholly mediated by an effect of race on family SES.http://ije.oxfordjou.../short/36/4/751

When you have scientific studies to support this claim they can be posted in the genetics section but they must be from responsible sources.

Here's one:

http://psychology.uw...npdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability” in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294.

Is the above paper legitimate science? Is it from a respectable journal? I'm actually serious in asking this, since it's outside my field. I did read some of it, (it's long) and the scholarship seemed ok, but again, not my field. It does appear to be a paper one should be aware of if one is going to argue in this arena, and I should warn you, the conclusions they present are not politically correct. From the tone of things, I'd say that what we need here is a good old fashioned book burning! The above paper and the Bell Curve should probably be tossed on the fire. How you implement this with ones and zeroes is admittedly a bit of a quandary.

These articles also deserve a review in reference to Rushton and Jenson as they are the rebuttals of the claims being made. The authors have been making their claim for some time but clearly they are not widely accepted as offering either a clear definition of race, nor intelligence by what is considered a solid objective standard and even their extrapolation asserts a 50-50 relation of heredity AND environment based solely on statistical *inference* not specific genes. Given that the relationship even they offer is at best 50/50, it is impossible to distinguish how genes are dominant nor which genes are relevant. And no clear taxonomy of such genes has ever been both proposed and tested.

http://taxa.epi.umn....ls/pppl/200504/

Considering, that we are talking about one single gene 3% are a truly big effect. The same is true for comt:

BTW, Dr_Chaos 3% of an ill defined test population, with ill defined parameters and even worse defined dependent relationships is not a "truly big effect", it is statistically irrelevant and highly suspect to draw any conclusions with about *race & intelligence* from these studies. The studies themselves are not adequately constructed and defined in those terms and we are still developing a relational model of the genes themselves and the epigenetic switching variables that influence them.

To go back to the issue of genes and just intelligence, we do not have a single *dominant* gene influencing intelligence but a vast relationship of multiple genes and influential factors. Do genes effect intelligence? Obviously but does environment effect the genes that impact intelligence? Undoubtedly.

Do we have a set of genes that is clearly understood to control intelligence in just individuals such that we can do a genetic assay of one individual in relation to another with significant predictive certainty ?

No

Do we have the ability to adequately filter out the impact of environmental factors to determine if specifically racial differences exist genetically for only intelligence?

No.

So lastly do we even have a set of these genes defined as a cogent set that dominate intelligence, which have been assayed for racial distribution by what may be considered a valid genetic description of race?

No.

These being the case how can valid claims of any certainty in this matter be made?

When you have scientific studies to support this claim they can be posted in the genetics section but they must be from responsible sources.

Here's one:

http://psychology.uw...npdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability” in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294.

Is the above paper legitimate science? Is it from a respectable journal? I'm actually serious in asking this, since it's outside my field. I did read some of it, (it's long) and the scholarship seemed ok, but again, not my field. It does appear to be a paper one should be aware of if one is going to argue in this arena, and I should warn you, the conclusions they present are not politically correct. From the tone of things, I'd say that what we need here is a good old fashioned book burning! The above paper and the Bell Curve should probably be tossed on the fire. How you implement this with ones and zeroes is admittedly a bit of a quandary.

The APA (American Psychology Association) is well-respected and publishes many books and probably close to 100 academic journals on psychology are related subjects. See http://www.apa.org/j...als/catalog.pdf.

From the tone of things, I'd say that what we need here is a good old fashioned book burning! The above paper and the Bell Curve should probably be tossed on the fire. How you implement this with ones and zeroes is admittedly a bit of a quandary.

Book burning...why? Isn't it better to look at the problem square in the face and decide what, if anything, needs to be done to correct it? Certainly, if the claims of the article are true, then it will not remain hidden forever.

IQ is not a predictor of performance, ( http://www.rosstrain...les/budget.html ) or even academic success ( http://www.washingto...6011600788.html ) . I'm not saying that it does not help, but there are many studies I've read (without the time to find them all, well time I'd spare to devote to the task) that show that IQ does not always mean any quantifiable 'success'.

As Asimov wrote:
http://www.haverford...ram/Asimov.html

I grew up hearing that I had a high IQ, breezing by other kids at all ages, then realizing that it didn't really mean much and only set me up to expect things to come easily. I try to teach my high IQ children that their work ethic and responsibility will get them farther in life.

Niner while it should be apparent that Ludongbin and I clearly disagree on the subject of this thread I think we are in complete accord with respect to the topic of *book burning*. It is never a good idea and tends to glorify myths into disproportionate importance, not to mention that by attempting to bury ideas in that manner inevitably results in even greater harm to those the attempt is meant to protect.

I realize that you probably spoke from the perspective of the passions that surround not merely the debate but the historical abuse of the debate, nevertheless I hope that you can see how you are in error and amend that thought to instead find motive to study the matter in detail and challenge it instead on the numerous weaknesses it possesses. Attack the idea on substantive grounds and not merely you and we here but all who go on to study the subject will benefit from this better understanding.

Review the rebuttals and the substance of the paper in question, it is peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal but that does not mean it is suddenly accepted as *scientific fact*, only that the authors have made a cogent case based on what passes for scientific standards of method. It does not mean those methods have been carefully scrutinized nor the results repeated by subsequent testing.

Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link.

What about Comt, Dysbindin 1, and IGF 2? They are without any doubt linked to intelligence. FADS2 too. It allows children to use breast milk more efficiently and thereby increases IQ.

I'm surprised you did not mention MCPH1.

Again I will try and highlight the difficulty as it is currently seen to tie specific genes to intelligence, no one gene *regulates* either intelligence or all the other genes and all the genes that *influence* intelligence are interactive and sensitive to a variety of environmental factors; HIGHLIGHTED by the importance of genes controlling the ability to use breast milk more efficiently.

Second, none of these genes that are suspected of having strong influence over developmental intelligence can be conclusively associated with the categorizations of race as they applied *phenotypically* for the purposes of the studies aforementioned.

Third, The relationship of multiple genes working sequentially, in tandem, and dynamically at different developmental phases is not yet adequately defined and how this interactivity is also influenced by environmental factors, which interface epigenetic switches is most certainly not adequately integrated into the model for developmental intelligence.

Fourth, I will add another minor point in contest of the methodology of the studies. Racial genetic tags are associated with long term mutational markers that are similar to the ones used to identify migratory trends. They are not in themselves clearly understood or defined. They are also not applied as a selection method for the subjects in the aforementioned studies and lastly as numerous analysis of these markers have shown in large populations, pure racial types tend to be more rare than dodo birds. The only groups that lay any real claim to such *racial purity* are the populations that have lived in extreme isolation for thousands of years.

The populations being used for testing purposes are all suspect as mixed racial groups regardless of the phenotypic appearance, hence all conclusions drawn about race (even if the biology of race can be carefully defined and identified genetic) are suspect as well. The design of these types of groups studies are not valid scientifically in light of more recent discoveries and I think the authors need to go back to the drawing board and create model for testing because the ones offered do not pass muster as either objective or able to provide adequate controls.

Oh and I almost forgot #5, there is no way *yet* (and these studies do not adequately do so) to filter individual differences for intelligence that account for wider variation and are more important than the ill defined group differentiation in the conclusions associated with groups defined as *race* in predominantly phenotypic terms.

Some people might say the proof is in the pudding. You have to admit Africa is backwards. People will stop saying/thinking things like this if and when they develop some kind of a modern society.

IQ is not a predictor of performance, ( http://www.rosstrain...les/budget.html ) or even academic success ( http://www.washingto...6011600788.html ) . I'm not saying that it does not help, but there are many studies I've read (without the time to find them all, well time I'd spare to devote to the task) that show that IQ does not always mean any quantifiable 'success'.

As Asimov wrote:
http://www.haverford...ram/Asimov.html

I grew up hearing that I had a high IQ, breezing by other kids at all ages, then realizing that it didn't really mean much and only set me up to expect things to come easily. I try to teach my high IQ children that their work ethic and responsibility will get them farther in life.

No reasonable person would ever make the claim that high IQ always implies success or good academic performance.

Some people might say the proof is in the pudding. You have to admit Africa is backwards. People will stop saying/thinking things like this if and when they develop some kind of a modern society.

The fact that Africa is backwards has more to do with it's vast geography, climate, & diversity of tribal languages, that not only kept the various tribes isolated but made them ripe for colonial exploitation.
Europe, on the other hand, being smaller and easier to travel would have encouraged more contact between the various people and exchange of ideas and culture. Also, Europeans, not having that much in the way of natural resources were forced to reach out beyond their boundaries and be more aggressive and innovative.
I think the geography of Africa had a lot to do with why and how the culture and the people developed. The same might be said of Native Americans. Perhaps the genetics of a people might be influenced by their geography too. I obviously don't have a background in science or genetics, but some common sense might be factored in for good measure.

Nutritional deficiencies could factor into this.
In Raising the World’s I.Q., the Secret’s in the Salt

Worldwide, about two billion people — a third of the globe — get too little iodine, including hundreds of millions in India and China. Studies show that iodine deficiency is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation. Even moderate deficiency, especially in pregnant women and infants, lowers intelligence by 10 to 15 I.Q. points, shaving incalculable potential off a nation’s development.

Malnutrition Is Cheating Its Survivors, and Africa’s Future

Well over half of sub-Saharan children under 5 lack iron, vital to developing nervous systems, the Micronutrient Initiative, a Canadian research organization, reported in 2004. They often have trouble concentrating and coordinating brain signals with movements, like holding a pencil, that are crucial to education.
Another 3.5 million children lack sufficient iodine, which can lower a child’s I.Q. by 10 or more points. More than a half million suffer vitamin A deficiency, which cripples young immune systems; merely ensuring adequate vitamin A can lower child mortality by more than one- fifth. Children lacking vitamin B12, regularly measured nowhere in Africa, have impaired cognitive skills and do poorly on tests.

Nutritional deficiencies could factor into this.
In Raising the World’s I.Q., the Secret’s in the Salt

Worldwide, about two billion people — a third of the globe — get too little iodine, including hundreds of millions in India and China. Studies show that iodine deficiency is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation. Even moderate deficiency, especially in pregnant women and infants, lowers intelligence by 10 to 15 I.Q. points, shaving incalculable potential off a nation’s development.

Malnutrition Is Cheating Its Survivors, and Africa’s Future

Well over half of sub-Saharan children under 5 lack iron, vital to developing nervous systems, the Micronutrient Initiative, a Canadian research organization, reported in 2004. They often have trouble concentrating and coordinating brain signals with movements, like holding a pencil, that are crucial to education.
Another 3.5 million children lack sufficient iodine, which can lower a child’s I.Q. by 10 or more points. More than a half million suffer vitamin A deficiency, which cripples young immune systems; merely ensuring adequate vitamin A can lower child mortality by more than one- fifth. Children lacking vitamin B12, regularly measured nowhere in Africa, have impaired cognitive skills and do poorly on tests.

Exactly. Nutrition would be a major factor. The problem with scientific study is it often isolates a specific concept without considering the greater whole. You cannot draw a substantial conclusion about any people by examining a few of their genes.

Niner while it should be apparent that Ludongbin and I clearly disagree on the subject of this thread I think we are in complete accord with respect to the topic of *book burning*. It is never a good idea and tends to glorify myths into disproportionate importance, not to mention that by attempting to bury ideas in that manner inevitably results in even greater harm to those the attempt is meant to protect.

I realize that you probably spoke from the perspective of the passions that surround not merely the debate but the historical abuse of the debate, nevertheless I hope that you can see how you are in error and amend that thought to instead find motive to study the matter in detail and challenge it instead on the numerous weaknesses it possesses. Attack the idea on substantive grounds and not merely you and we here but all who go on to study the subject will benefit from this better understanding.

Review the rebuttals and the substance of the paper in question, it is peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal but that does not mean it is suddenly accepted as *scientific fact*, only that the authors have made a cogent case based on what passes for scientific standards of method. It does not mean those methods have been carefully scrutinized nor the results repeated by subsequent testing.

Yes, you are correct that I spoke from the perspective of the passions surrounding this debate. The passions are large enough that a Nobel laureate was fired for commenting on it. As elrond mentioned upthread, it's not inconceivable that any of us could have our careers tarnished or ruined for similar reasons. ImmInst itself could be in jeopardy as a host of these discussions. I find this intellectual climate, which is not the doing of any of us here, rather chilling.

Have any of you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? It was a book about this sort of thing. It has it's good and bad parts, looking back on it some of the arguments the guy makes are pathetic. One ironically amounts to zebras being genetically inferior to hoarses and that contributed to why europeans industrialized before africans. But anyways, I haven't heard about this Watson thing on the news at all. Have I just not noticed it or do the news channels think nobody will care? Maybe they're keeping it quiet for some reason.

Niner while it should be apparent that Ludongbin and I clearly disagree on the subject of this thread...

Is it clear that we disagree? Psychometric testing and genetics are certainly not my areas of expertise but I think the following quote from the Rushton/Jensen article cited earlier nicely summarizes my broad view of the debate:

As E. O. Wilson (1978) aptly noted: “We are not compelled to believe in
biological uniformity in order to affirm freedom and dignity” (p. 52). He went on
to quote the sociologist Bressler (1968): “An ideology that tacitly appeals to
biological equality as a condition for human emancipation corrupts the idea of
freedom. Moreover, it encourages decent men to tremble at the prospect of
‘inconvenient’ findings that may emerge in future scientific research” (E. O.
Wilson, 1978, p. 52). Denial of any genetic component in human variation,
including between groups, is not only poor science, it is likely to be injurious both
to unique individuals and to the complex structure of societies.

I'm curious to know why it's always the Black/White intellectual dicotamy that is referenced. How about the fact that Orientals and Jews both score higher on IQ tests than everyone else. Judeo-Orientals are smarter than both Whites and Blacks. Why not talk about this fact?

This thread should finally end the dispute over which race is smarter: http://www.sciforums...ead.php?t=32453