Support NeoGAF

[Count Dookkake]

We accept physical differences.

I see no need to refuse the possibility of mental ones.

 

[kswiston]

The studies I've glanced at seem to say that whatever correlation there is goes down with age, which would be consistent with the hypothesis that environment is far more important than genetics.

Correlation does decrease some with age, but it still remains pretty high in adulthood. I don't think any study has suggested that there isn't a strong genetic factor to intelligence, even if they conclude that environment can be more important. Actually, from what I have read, environment has a much stronger influence in impoverished and low income areas, whereas genetic influences are much more pronounced in affluent areas. Basically, if you are getting what you need to reach your potential in terms of nutrition and social stimulation as a child, genetics are going to be the differentiating/limiting factor. If those social/nutritional needs are not met, than genetics aren't going to have the opportunity to matter as much.

 

[devilhawk]

Honestly, I would imagine that at the point something becomes racist, it stops being science.

I don't think it is that simple. There isn't the same uproar when geneticists look at traits in the positive light like East African distance running. Even in the last decade there has been more evidence of genetic ties than were initially thought and immediately dismissed.

The fact is there are going to be differences in the races. As we elucidate more about genetics this will only become more apparent. Some of the results are going to be controversial. Some of them may just be polygenic, some may be just predispositions, some may be epigenetic, and some may incontrovertible.

I don't know anything about the author referenced in the OP. He may be the biggest asshole in the world and his work deservedly dismissed. I don't think this subfield of genetics (differences in sets of human population) should be dismissed just because you might not like the answers though. Like always, we should wait til unbiased and independent researchers produce repeatable results and go from there.

 

[Cyan]

I don't know anything about the author referenced in the OP. He may be the biggest asshole in the world and his work deservedly dismissed. I don't think this subfield of genetics (differences in sets of human population) should be dismissed just because you might not like the answers though.

The author in the OP isn't a geneticist or biologist. His dissertation was in public policy.

 

[Aristion]

What do you guys think? Is rejecting and condemning a certain field of science justified because it might be racist?

There are several factors that weigh into the different IQ tests. For instance, blacks often feel pressure to disprove stereotypes regarding intelligence in their community, so they often don't perform well under pressure due to the fact that there's more of a burden upon them.

The same thing occurs with women and mathematics. Women often feel anxiety because of the stereotypes involving women not being good at mathematics.


Tim Wise has an excellent article refuting the claim that African American IQ is statistically lower than White American IQ.

 

[devilhawk]

The author in the OP isn't a geneticist or biologist. His dissertation was in public policy.

Oh, then carry on.

 

[DY_nasty]

There are several factors that weigh into the different IQ tests. For instance, blacks often feel pressure to disprove stereotypes regarding intelligence in their community, so they often don't perform well under pressure due to the fact that there's more of a burden upon them.

The same thing occurs with women and mathematics. Women often feel anxiety because of the stereotypes involving women not being good at mathematics.


Tim Wise has an excellent article refuting the claim that African American IQ is statistically lower than White American IQ.

This could explain why Jeremy Lin sucks now.

 

[Aristion]

This could explain why Jeremy Lin sucks now.

LOL, perhaps.

And also why white professional basketball players often suck compared to black basketball players (or so the belief goes). There's the stereotype that white guys are naturally athletically inferior to black guys, but that's absolutely false.

It's all a psychological illusion.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I don't think it is that simple. There isn't the same uproar when geneticists look at traits in the positive light like East African distance running. Even in the last decade there has been more evidence of genetic ties than were initially thought and immediately dismissed.

The fact is there are going to be differences in the races. As we elucidate more about genetics this will only become more apparent. Some of the results are going to be controversial. Some of them may just be polygenic, some may be just predispositions, some may be epigenetic, and some may incontrovertible.

I don't know anything about the author referenced in the OP. He may be the biggest asshole in the world and his work deservedly dismissed. I don't think this subfield of genetics (differences in sets of human population) should be dismissed just because you might not like the answers though. Like always, we should wait til unbiased and independent researchers produce repeatable results and go from there.

I was responding to the OP's proposition. Science is fact-based, racism is not.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Most tests are able to define what they are testing. I have never heard a satisfactory definition of "intelligence."

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

A "public discussion" about differences in IQs between races?
There are a lot of scientists talking about IQ differences with respect to sex, environment, genetics, race, etc. To date, there is NO direct scientific evidence for genetics being a cause for differences in IQ between whites and blacks. There are a lot of factors that can affect IQ. I see no problem talking about IQ differences as long as they're scientifically sound. Just keep all the bullshit and politics out. The problem with discussing in a public setting is people who have no idea what they are talking about are weighing in -and many, I'm sure, have agendas. And I'd say that Politico isn't the best choice of venue when calling for a reasonable public discussion.

 

[dbztrk]

It's like with Sickle Cell Anemia- yes, the people with it are all black. But it has nothing to do with them being black and everything to do with it being an evolutionary defense against Malaria that developed in a region where the people happened to have black skin.

For the most part this is true. However it must be noted that not all people with Sickle Cell Anemia are "black" but most have African Ancestry. Sickle Cell It's quite prevalent amongst Greeks due to their African Ancestry, Also, there is another form of Sickle Cell that is prevalent in India due to their own malarial issues.

 

[kirblar]

LOL, perhaps.

And also why white professional basketball players often suck compared to black basketball players (or so the belief goes). There's the stereotype that white guys are naturally athletically inferior to black guys, but that's absolutely false.

It's all a psychological illusion.

A tendency for higher testosterone production among African-Americans in the US is a real thing, though, creating that false impression.. But again, it's not the same genes at work for skin color and testosterone.

 

[Count Dookkake]

A tendency for higher testosterone production among African-Americans in the US is a real thing, though, creating that false impression.. But again, it's not the same genes at work for skin color and testosterone.

lol at the bolded.

 

[kirblar]

lol at the bolded.

Yeah, was trying to differentiate the group from people of African descent in general, lol.

 

[devilhawk]

A tendency for higher testosterone production among African-Americans in the US is a real thing, though, creating that false impression.. But again, it's not the same genes at work for skin color and testosterone.

But they could certainly be linked. If they are close enough in map units on a chromosome it is difficult to get one trait without the other even though they may be entirely unrelated.

 

[kirblar]

But they could certainly be linked. If they are close enough in map units on a chromosome it is difficult to get one trait without the other even though they may be entirely unrelated.

If I recall correctly, it's a correlation unique to the US, suggesting something else at work. (could be totally off on this, however.)

 

[devilhawk]

If I recall correctly, it's a correlation unique to the US, suggesting something else at work. (could be totally off on this, however.)

Oh, I don't know if they are linked or not. I was just suggesting a mechanism in which they could be associated despite being unrelated.

 

[Angelus Errare]

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest racial differences in IQs are due to race itself. In fact, all reputable researchers attribute it to economic background, as the data is nearly a perfect match.

Winner, Winner

Also all you need to know about Jason Richwine is that he opposes immigration for hispanics because they test lower on IQ tests and would "damage" the country or something with their idiocy.

It's almost classical racism. Usually you don't see it in such a pure form.

Chicken Dinner.

 

[Antiochus]

What the two ton elephant people refuse to touch when discussing about the Richwine affair is, and that was the heart of what his research implies: Why is it a good idea to import more children of low skilled immigrants, who on average need much more help than American ones, when the American education system is already creaking on the seams?

There has yet to be a convincing argument against that question.

 

[kirblar]

What the two ton elephant people refuse to touch when discussing about the Richwine affair is, and that was the heart of what his research implies: Why is it a good idea to import more children of low skilled immigrants, who on average need much more help than American ones, when the American education system is already creaking on the seams?

There has yet to be a convincing argument against that question.

Because they tend to have higher reproductive rates, helping keep the US from running into the same elderly quagmire that Japan and other developed nations are experiencing right now.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

What the two ton elephant people refuse to touch when discussing about the Richwine affair is, and that was the heart of what his research implies: Why is it a good idea to import more children of low skilled immigrants, who on average need much more help than American ones, when the American education system is already creaking on the seams?

There has yet to be a convincing argument against that question.

...too easy

 

[Antiochus]

Because they tend to have higher reproductive rates, helping keep the US from running into the same elderly quagmire that Japan and other developed nations are experiencing right now.

So one gets more of them in order to prop up the pension system. What happens when those immigrant children become older? Does one open the doors again for more of their kind so to get more progeny to support it further?

 

[justjohn]

Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that hispanic is not a race? Even Mexican is not a race. There are hispanics who wouldn't look out of place in sweden and some with skin as dark as sudanese.
He keeps going on about intelligence yet he makes this simple mistake.

But of course he already knows this and all this iq talk like the others who keep bringing it up have absolutely no interest in discussing it just being racist dickwads.

Even if some races were more intelligent than others, so what? Whats there to talk about?

 

[kirblar]

So one gets more of them in order to prop up the pension system. What happens when those immigrant children become older? Does one open the doors again for more of their kind so to get more progeny to support it further?

There's a sustainable level of population growth. You'd much rather shoot above it than below it, because digging out of it is very difficult.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

It seems to me it's mostly based on logic. It doesn't take into account creativity or emotional intelligence. Ends up making an exclusive association between intelligence and logic, failing to take into account two of the things that have been of the utmost importance in human evolution.

If we're takling about the Wechsler test, then it measure far more than just logic. Broadly, the four categories it measures are verbal comprehension, processing speed, working memory, and perceptual reasoning. Subtests include matrix reasoning (which are logic-based and may be what you are thinking of; another type of IQ test called Raven's Progressive Matrices is based entirely on these types of tests), general knowledge, concept/word assocations (questions range from "how is an animal like an orange?" to "how are friends and enemies similar?"), digit span (how many digits you can repeat, forward, backward, interspersed with letters, etc.), basic calculations, recreating an image using colored blocks, and so on.

I agree with you that no IQ test can accurately measure creativity or emotional intelligence, but that isn't what they are designed to do. It is just one tool among many used to determine a person's strengths and weaknesses (oftentimes an IQ test will reveal previously unknown strengths in a child or evidence of a learning disorder).

 

[CornBurrito]

Is there a better one?

It doesn't really work that way. You can't base policy off a terrible test simply because a better one doesn't exist.

 

[Mr.Pig]

Relevant article:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell?currentPage=all

 

[zero shift]

I use to believe in IQ tests until I took Psychology courses and saw how the APA attempted to back them up. The fact that the Flynn Effect and the Stereotype Threat exist really nullifies them. Its even worse when you put people through more modern intelligence tests and see them scattered. IQ certainly measures something indeed, but I wouldn't go as far to say all of intelligence.

 

[diehard]

Did the people here saying they took the test take the one you take "for fun" in half an hour in middle school or the one that takes a few hours with multiple observers (aka a real one)?

 

[abic]

The very reactions he stated are the ones already seen early in this thread.

The topic is too emotional for people to talk about rationally, with many posters already raising anecdotal evidence or specific subsample evidence to try to (and fail to) disprove larger statistical surveys.

Unfortunately this thread isn't going to change any minds and getting involved will only burn.

 

[East Lake]

The very reactions he stated are the ones already seen early in this thread.

The topic is too emotional for people to talk about rationally, with many posters already raising anecdotal evidence or specific subsample evidence to try to (and fail to) disprove larger statistical surveys.

Unfortunately this thread isn't going to change any minds and getting involved will only burn.

"Everybody but me is irrational"

 

[Amibguous Cad]

So one gets more of them in order to prop up the pension system. What happens when those immigrant children become older? Does one open the doors again for more of their kind so to get more progeny to support it further?

Yeah, pretty much. As long as the US has relatively slow birth rates and is pretty successful at assimilating immigrants, why not?

You would be more likely to avoid accusations of racism if you used words like "children" instead of "progeny," and avoided the phrase "their kind" altogether. Their usage in this case was completely accidental, I'm sure.

 

[Modern times Cairn]

edit.No surprise there.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Some words about your reason for posting this would help us determine how to treat you,

 

[abic]

"Everybody but me is irrational"

"Meaningless snide post"

 

[Angelus Errare]

Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that hispanic is not a race? Even Mexican is not a race. There are hispanics who wouldn't look out of place in sweden and some with skin as dark as sudanese.
He keeps going on about intelligence yet he makes this simple mistake.

But of course he already knows this and all this iq talk like the others who keep bringing it up have absolutely no interest in discussing it just being racist dickwads.

Even if some races were more intelligent than others, so what? Whats there to talk about?

There was an entire thread on this, lets just say many GAF members think latinos s either a race or they're all white.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Does anyone know how researchers that think like Richwine manage to reconcile supposedly genetic differences in IQ with the Flynn Effect?

(Basically, average IQs have been rising ever since we started administering IQs. We have to renorm every once in awhile to make it so that 100 is the new average. If you go back far enough, the previous average would test as mentally handicapped today).

 

[TCRS]

Some words about your reason for posting this would help us determine how to treat you,

"I'm not going to look at the facts, instead I will find reasons to attack you."

There are several factors that weigh into the different IQ tests. For instance, blacks often feel pressure to disprove stereotypes regarding intelligence in their community, so they often don't perform well under pressure due to the fact that there's more of a burden upon them.

The same thing occurs with women and mathematics. Women often feel anxiety because of the stereotypes involving women not being good at mathematics.


Tim Wise has an excellent article refuting the claim that African American IQ is statistically lower than White American IQ.

Hmm that is actually quite interesting, will read the article later.

 

[Antiochus]

There's a sustainable level of population growth. You'd much rather shoot above it than below it, because digging out of it is very difficult.

Shoot above it? Then you better pray that this nation will have enough, and ever increasing, numbers of high paying jobs easily accessible for those ever increasing numbers of low skilled immigrants. And as we all know, recent trends in the last 20-30 years indicate it has been easier, not harder, for those in the lower socioeconomic stratum to assimilate upwards in income and climb out of their class.

 

[East Lake]

"Meaningless snide post"

Snide but not meaningless. It's funny because you and TCRS are supposedly defending rationality or science, but instead of responding to the objections raised you resort to this sad accusation that people here can't act rationally or won't accept the truth. You took the easy way out brother.

 

[Angelus Errare]

"I'm not going to look at the facts, instead I will find reasons to attack you."

What "facts" exactly?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

edit.No surprise there.

So you're saying these are the numbers you'd expect for those countries?

....Glad we go that out of the way

 

[Aristion]

Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that hispanic is not a race? Even Mexican is not a race. There are hispanics who wouldn't look out of place in sweden and some with skin as dark as sudanese.
He keeps going on about intelligence yet he makes this simple mistake.

But of course he already knows this and all this iq talk like the others who keep bringing it up have absolutely no interest in discussing it just being racist dickwads.

Even if some races were more intelligent than others, so what? Whats there to talk about?

Well, if some races were more intelligent than others it would justify racial discrimination in the workplace, education and housing.

 

[CornBurrito]

The very reactions he stated are the ones already seen early in this thread.

The topic is too emotional for people to talk about rationally, with many posters already raising anecdotal evidence or specific subsample evidence to try to (and fail to) disprove larger statistical surveys.

Unfortunately this thread isn't going to change any minds and getting involved will only burn.

I'm not seeing how pointing out socioeconomic factors is anecdotal or emotional.

 

[User 100115]

IQ is a terrible measure of intelligence.

SO much this.

I tested in high school as having a ridiculously high IQ. Doesn't mean a damn thing, I am still an uneducated housewife.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Not at all similar. Intelligence has to do with socioeconomics more than biology.

Please consider revising this statement. You mean to say "mean differences between populations of humans have more to do with socioeconomics than biology". Genetics provides the range inside which your intelligence will fall, and environmental factors control where you fall inside that range. Biology is obviously strongly related to intelligence.

The Flynn effect suggests that it's not biological and could be strongly associated with early childhood nutrition/more familiarization with standardized tests, though.

The Flynn effect does not suggest that intelligence is non-biological. See above.

 

[daviyoung]

Measuring intelligence is like measuring beauty. Futile.

 

[Mumei]

The author in the OP isn't a geneticist or biologist. His dissertation was in public policy.

Let's ask a geneticist, then! Introduction, a couple questions about etiology and definitions, and the final question; click the link for the rest and links in the text~

A Q&A with a geneticist

Last week there was some debate across the blogosphere about race and IQ (again), much of it springing from the controversy of Jason Richwine's dissertation, "IQ and Immigration Policy." You can read my thoughts here, here, and here. One helpful critique made of these posts by Razib Khan held that they could use more science. Razib added some of that in his own post which was rooted in this paper:"Characterizing the Admixed African Ancestry of African Americans."

I read the paper, understood most of it, but was basically lost trying to understand the graphs. (It's true that my math and science foundation is fairly weak.) So I read it again. Still not quite getting it, I reached out to one of the authors -- geneticist Neil Risch, who directs the Institute for Human Genetics at University of California San Francisco. Professor Risch agreed to chat with me via e-mail. He also sent me these two papers ("The Importance of Race and Ethnic Background in Biomedical Research" and "Assessing Genetic Contributions to Phenotypic Differences Among 'Racial' and 'Ethnic' Groups"), which I found enlightening and would urge everyone to read.

I want to thank Professor Risch for his time. Our conversation is below.

[...]

One question pops out at me. You indicate some suspicion to referring to African-Americans as a "race" but (in some of your research) you support using "race" in terms of collecting med data and disease studies. Is this a case of a definition -- though it may be imperfect, clunky and at times even misleading -- still telling us something? From what I gathered from those articles "race" can be a proxy not just for genetic stuff, but for social phenomenon too (such as access to health care.) Am I seeing that right? Is it correct to say, for instance, "Yes, race is a social construct, but this does not make it meaningless." It still useful to look at "race," for instance, when studying sickle-cell. Perhaps some day, when we have more refined technique, it won't be.

Definitions can indeed be "clunky." I would use the phrase race/ethnicity rather than just race because in common parlance it is a better description. I tend to think that race has been used more in terms of continental origins (Africa, East Asia, Europe, Americas). On that basis, one would not characterize African Americans as a racial group, but rather as an ethnic group. We sort of implied this in the Genome Biology paper. The reason is that African Americans typically have European as well as African ancestry (and possibly other ancestries as well) and are also culturally distinct from Africans. Sort of similar to Latinos - who from a genetic ancestry standpoint can be nearly anything. Hence our use of race/ethnicity.

Just to opine a bit, I think part of the problem is the notion of a causal relationship -- i.e. "dark-skin" or "blackness" causing sickle-cell -- as opposed to a more geographic definition that might encompass people regardless of skin color.

Yes, exactly. Groups living in isolation from each other for long periods of time have acquired many genetic differences. The large majority of those are due to "genetic drift" -- i.e. random fluctuations in gene frequencies. That also includes many genetic variants that code for traits and diseases. But then there are some genetic variants that differ in frequency due to differential selection pressure in different environments. The best examples are for genes that confer resistance to malaria. One of those causes sickle cell disease in those who carry two mutations; those who carry one copy have sickle cell trait, which is generally benign but confers greater resistance to severe malaria infection. Mutations for sickle cell disease are found at pretty high frequency in some African populations, but also found in parts of the middle east and India. Beta thalassemia is another disease where carriers are offered greater protection from malaria. This disease is more common around the Mediterranean (e.g. Greeks).

Then there is G6PD deficiency. Mutations for that are found at increased frequency in parts of Africa, but also in the Middle East. The mutations underlying these disorders generally differ geographically, which is another indication that while the mutations are different ancestrally, they achieved high frequency in different populations for similar reasons (i.e. resistance to malaria). Another more recent example is a gene called ApoL1. There are a couple of genetic variants found in West Africans (and African Americans); when carrying two of these, there is an increased risk for kidney disease if hypertensive. It was shown that these variants likely provide some immunity from African Sleeping Sickness (tsetse fly disease) which may have led to them becoming more common where the disease is prevalent.

Various populations have an increased frequency of genetic diseases, which are often unique. Probably a lot or most of it is just chance, but perhaps not all of it. Proving historical selective advantages can be pretty challenging. So, as I mentioned above, groups living in isolation developed their own genetic (and cultural) profiles. Generally, there is no cause and effect between the traits that differentiate groups. East Asians have dark hair and eat with chopsticks. But there is no causal relationship. You can use a whole variety of different traits to place individuals into the same categories, but those traits may have nothing to do with each other etiologically.

[...]

One last question. Your paper on assessing genetic contributions to phenotype, seemed skeptical that we would ever tease out a group-wide genetic component when looking at things like cognitive skills or personality disposition. Am I reading that right? Are "intelligence" and "disposition" just too complicated?

Joanna Mountain and I tried to explain this in our Nature Genetics paper on group differences. It is very challenging to assign causes to group differences. As far as genetics goes, if you have identified a particular gene which clearly influences a trait, and the frequency of that gene differs between populations, that would be pretty good evidence. But traits like "intelligence" or other behaviors (at least in the normal range), to the extent they are genetic, are "polygenic." That means no single genes have large effects -- there are many genes involved, each with a very small effect. Such gene effects are difficult if not impossible to find. The problem in assessing group differences is the confounding between genetic and social/cultural factors. If you had individuals who are genetically one thing but socially another, you might be able to tease it apart, but that is generally not the case.

In our paper, we tried to show that a trait can appear to have high "genetic heritability" in any particular population, but the explanation for a group difference for that trait could be either entirely genetic or entirely environmental or some combination in between.

So, in my view, at this point, any comment about the etiology of group differences, for "intelligence" or anything else, in the absence of specific identified genes (or environmental factors, for that matter), is speculation.

 

[Desty]

And you are basing that opinion on what? Because the APA disagrees with you.

It's like boiling a painting down to a single number. You have collapsed the object down too far and have lost too much information.

However, I think IQ tests can tell when something is majorly wrong like retardation or severe brain diseases.