Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

The lie of race and intelligence

jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some people have claimed that race is somehow correlated to intelligence, due to genetic factors. They further claim that certain races are inferior or less intelligent due to genetics. However, it is actually because minority groups plagued by poverty are exposed to more lead and other environmental factors detrimental to mental health, while minority groups that are not in financial trouble such as asians are not exposed to the same factors. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Iodine deficiency and certain diseases that are more prevalent in non-White populations also play a role, according to Wikipedia.

Here, you cans see that minority races are exposed to more lead and therefore have higher blood lead levels, proving that the correlation between race and intellegence may not be genetic. http://upload.wikimedia.org...
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 9:08:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's clearly no relation between intelligence and race, nor between intelligence and gender. Having brain differences does not equal having differences of IQ, even IQ measures given by, ie IQ tests, are not indicative of intelligence, but of logical thinking which can be trained and wich does not represent something as complex as intelligence. Intelligence involves so much more than logic, like empathy, sensitivity and creativity, things that IQ tests can not measure.

If we were to be guided by the achievements of the races, then chinese are the most intelligent, since Terence Chi-Shen Tao is the most intelligent person in history, having an IQ of 230. Followed by korean Kim Ung-Yong (210) armenian Kasparov (190), hungarian woman Judit Polgar (170), and Albert Einstein (jewish) that had an stimated IQ of 160. And so on.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:02:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Some people have claimed that race is somehow correlated to intelligence, due to genetic factors. They further claim that certain races are inferior or less intelligent due to genetics. However, it is actually because minority groups plagued by poverty are exposed to more lead and other environmental factors detrimental to mental health, while minority groups that are not in financial trouble such as asians are not exposed to the same factors. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Iodine deficiency and certain diseases that are more prevalent in non-White populations also play a role, according to Wikipedia.

Here, you cans see that minority races are exposed to more lead and therefore have higher blood lead levels, proving that the correlation between race and intellegence may not be genetic. http://upload.wikimedia.org...

How do you differentiate between that interpretation of the data, and the alternative interpretation, which says that poor environments are actually caused by - and not a cause of - intellectual deficits?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:


Here, you cans see that minority races are exposed to more lead and therefore have higher blood lead levels, proving that the correlation between race and intellegence may not be genetic. http://upload.wikimedia.org...

That theory is completely asinine.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:


Here, you cans see that minority races are exposed to more lead and therefore have higher blood lead levels, proving that the correlation between race and intellegence may not be genetic. http://upload.wikimedia.org...

That theory is completely asinine.

According to the CDC, "The adverse health effects of lead exposure in children are well described and include intellectual and behavioral deficits," so your assertion appears to be completely baseless. [http://www.cdc.gov...]
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:


Here, you cans see that minority races are exposed to more lead and therefore have higher blood lead levels, proving that the correlation between race and intellegence may not be genetic. http://upload.wikimedia.org...

That theory is completely asinine.

According to the CDC, "The adverse health effects of lead exposure in children are well described and include intellectual and behavioral deficits," so your assertion appears to be completely baseless. [http://www.cdc.gov...]

Of course lead is harmful to intelligence. That wasn't the point.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:


Here, you cans see that minority races are exposed to more lead and therefore have higher blood lead levels, proving that the correlation between race and intellegence may not be genetic. http://upload.wikimedia.org...

That theory is completely asinine.

According to the CDC, "The adverse health effects of lead exposure in children are well described and include intellectual and behavioral deficits," so your assertion appears to be completely baseless. [http://www.cdc.gov...]

Of course lead is harmful to intelligence. That wasn't the point.

According to plenty of studies, those from poor sociodemographic backgrounds (which disproportionately includes minorities) are disproportionately affected by high lead concentrations.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:18:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:


Here, you cans see that minority races are exposed to more lead and therefore have higher blood lead levels, proving that the correlation between race and intellegence may not be genetic. http://upload.wikimedia.org...

That theory is completely asinine.

According to the CDC, "The adverse health effects of lead exposure in children are well described and include intellectual and behavioral deficits," so your assertion appears to be completely baseless. [http://www.cdc.gov...]

Of course lead is harmful to intelligence. That wasn't the point.

According to plenty of studies, those from poor sociodemographic backgrounds (which disproportionately includes minorities) are disproportionately affected by high lead concentrations.

I don't doubt that for a second. But that doesn't even come close to explaining the data.

1. It doesn't account for the normal curve distribution of black IQ.
2. It can't account for the fact that black IQ has remained stable for 100 years across the entire United States.
3. It can't account for transracial adoption studies which show that black children brought up in white households have about the same IQ as black children brought up in black households.
4. It doesn't account for the fact that blacks who live in areas without high concentrations of lead have the same average IQ as blacks in general.
neunari
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:18:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:
1. It doesn't account for the normal curve distribution of black IQ.
2. It can't account for the fact that black IQ has remained stable for 100 years across the entire United States.
3. It can't account for transracial adoption studies which show that black children brought up in white households have about the same IQ as black children brought up in black households.
4. It doesn't account for the fact that blacks who live in areas without high concentrations of lead have the same average IQ as blacks in general.

What gene expression studies say

publication in nature and actual pdf
http://www.nature.com...
http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/34/478-7370/pdf/nature10524.pdf

press release
http://www.nih.gov...

"Our brains are all made of the same stuff. Despite individual and ethnic genetic diversity, our prefrontal cortex shows a consistent molecular architecture. For example, overall differences in the genetic code ("genetic distance") between African -Americans (AA) and caucasians (cauc) showed no effect on their overall difference in expressed transcripts ("transcriptional distance").
The vertical span of color-coded areas is about the same, indicating that our brains all share the same tissue at a molecular level, despite distinct DNA differences on the horizontal axis. Each dot represents a comparison between two individuals. The AA::AA comparisons (blue) generally show more genetic diversity than cauc::cauc comparisons (yellow), because caucasians are descended from a relatively small subset of ancestors who migrated from Africa, while African Americans are descended from a more diverse gene pool among the much larger population that remained in Africa. AA::cauc comparisons (green) differed most across their genomes as a whole, but this had no effect on their transcriptomes as a whole"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:29:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:27:18 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:18:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:
1. It doesn't account for the normal curve distribution of black IQ.
2. It can't account for the fact that black IQ has remained stable for 100 years across the entire United States.
3. It can't account for transracial adoption studies which show that black children brought up in white households have about the same IQ as black children brought up in black households.
4. It doesn't account for the fact that blacks who live in areas without high concentrations of lead have the same average IQ as blacks in general.

What gene expression studies say

publication in nature and actual pdf
http://www.nature.com...
http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/34/478-7370/pdf/nature10524.pdf

press release
http://www.nih.gov...

"Our brains are all made of the same stuff. Despite individual and ethnic genetic diversity, our prefrontal cortex shows a consistent molecular architecture. For example, overall differences in the genetic code ("genetic distance") between African -Americans (AA) and caucasians (cauc) showed no effect on their overall difference in expressed transcripts ("transcriptional distance").
The vertical span of color-coded areas is about the same, indicating that our brains all share the same tissue at a molecular level, despite distinct DNA differences on the horizontal axis. Each dot represents a comparison between two individuals. The AA::AA comparisons (blue) generally show more genetic diversity than cauc::cauc comparisons (yellow), because caucasians are descended from a relatively small subset of ancestors who migrated from Africa, while African Americans are descended from a more diverse gene pool among the much larger population that remained in Africa. AA::cauc comparisons (green) differed most across their genomes as a whole, but this had no effect on their transcriptomes as a whole"

What would that prove?
neunari
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:30:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:29:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:27:18 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:18:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:

What would that prove?

your kidding right?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:32:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:30:04 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:29:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:27:18 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:18:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:

What would that prove?

your kidding right?

I mean, I know you're suggesting that it proves the difference isn't genetic, I just don't know how exactly.
neunari
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:33:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:32:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:30:04 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:29:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:27:18 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:18:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:
I mean, I know you're suggesting that it proves the difference isn't genetic, I just don't know how exactly.

Do you believe differences in intelligence that would be genetic are due to gene expression?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:35:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:33:36 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:32:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:30:04 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:29:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:27:18 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:18:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:
I mean, I know you're suggesting that it proves the difference isn't genetic, I just don't know how exactly.

Do you believe differences in intelligence that would be genetic are due to gene expression?

I have no idea.
neunari
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:37:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:35:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:33:36 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:32:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:30:04 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:29:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:27:18 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:18:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:
I have no idea.

There's the problem
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:39:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:37:51 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:35:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:33:36 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:32:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:30:04 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:29:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:27:18 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:18:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:46:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:43:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:18:51 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/28/2014 7:05:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:29:32 PM, jh1234l wrote:
I have no idea.

There's the problem

Can you try to explain what that excerpt was saying in simple terms? It used a lot of technical language and concepts.
neunari
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:48:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:39:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can you try to explain what that excerpt was saying in simple terms? It used a lot of technical language and concepts.

The study I cited deals with measuring gene transcripts using RNA microarrays
http://en.wikipedia.org...(genetics)

When we run an analysis on the Transcirptome we are basically looking at all RNA molecules produced by a population of cells
http://www.nature.com...

"In multicellular organisms, nearly every cell contains the same genome and thus the same genes. However, not every gene is transcriptionally active in every cell " in other words, different cells show different patterns of gene expression. These variations underlie the wide range of physical, biochemical, and developmental differences seen among various cells and tissues and may play a role in the difference between health and disease. Thus, by collecting and comparing transcriptomes of different types of cells or tissues, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of what constitutes a specific cell type and how changes in transcriptional activity may reflect or contribute to disease.

A transcriptome represents that small percentage of the genetic code that is transcribed into RNA molecules " estimated to be less than 5% of the genome in humans (Frith et al., 2005). The proportion of transcribed sequences that are non-protein-coding appears to be greater in more complex organisms. In addition, each gene may produce more than one variant of mRNA because of alternative splicing, RNA editing, or alternative transcription initiation and termination sites. Therefore, the transcriptome captures a level of complexity that the simple genome sequence does not (Figure 1)."

In the particular study I cited published in nature,
http://biostat.jhsph.edu...
http://www.nature.com...
Deals with measuring the transcriptome throughout development in the prefrontal cortex. We can get an inside look at which genes turn on and off through development using synthesized genetic variation and SNP's to which the study uses about 625,000, about all the genes polymorphic for the human prefrontal cortex.

"To explore the relationship between the genome as a whole and the
PFC transcriptome as a whole, we compared genetic distance and
transcriptional distance in all possible pairwise subject comparisons
(Fig. 4). Although individual SNPs clearly have an impact on the
expression of individual genes (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 6)
globally, there is no association of genetic distance between individual
humans with the similarity of their prefrontal transcriptional profiles
(Fig. 4, R2 5 0.002)."

"Global comparison of genetic and transcriptional differences between subjects.
Each point represents a comparison of two subjects in the collection. Genetic
distance between subjects is depicted on the x axis as the number of differing
alleles over the portion of the genome interrogated. Transcriptional distance is
shown on the y axis as 1 minus the correlation across all gene expression values
from the subjects (as used in Fig. 1c). Each subject comparison is coloured to
indicate the races (AA, African American; Cauc., Caucasian) of the two
individuals involved in the comparison. The thick black curve is an estimate of
the local mean (loess, span 5 0.25) of transcriptional distance as it varies across
genetic distance. The thin black curves depict fits to the residuals around this
mean. Only African American and Caucasian sample comparisons are
visualized here (.96% of the collection)."

If there is any genetically predisposed phenotype that controls intellectual ability it doesn't correlate to race.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:51:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:48:42 PM, neunari wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:39:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can you try to explain what that excerpt was saying in simple terms? It used a lot of technical language and concepts.

The study I cited deals with measuring gene transcripts using RNA microarrays
http://en.wikipedia.org...(genetics)

When we run an analysis on the Transcirptome we are basically looking at all RNA molecules produced by a population of cells
http://www.nature.com...

"In multicellular organisms, nearly every cell contains the same genome and thus the same genes. However, not every gene is transcriptionally active in every cell " in other words, different cells show different patterns of gene expression. These variations underlie the wide range of physical, biochemical, and developmental differences seen among various cells and tissues and may play a role in the difference between health and disease. Thus, by collecting and comparing transcriptomes of different types of cells or tissues, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of what constitutes a specific cell type and how changes in transcriptional activity may reflect or contribute to disease.

A transcriptome represents that small percentage of the genetic code that is transcribed into RNA molecules " estimated to be less than 5% of the genome in humans (Frith et al., 2005). The proportion of transcribed sequences that are non-protein-coding appears to be greater in more complex organisms. In addition, each gene may produce more than one variant of mRNA because of alternative splicing, RNA editing, or alternative transcription initiation and termination sites. Therefore, the transcriptome captures a level of complexity that the simple genome sequence does not (Figure 1)."

In the particular study I cited published in nature,
http://biostat.jhsph.edu...
http://www.nature.com...
Deals with measuring the transcriptome throughout development in the prefrontal cortex. We can get an inside look at which genes turn on and off through development using synthesized genetic variation and SNP's to which the study uses about 625,000, about all the genes polymorphic for the human prefrontal cortex.

"To explore the relationship between the genome as a whole and the
PFC transcriptome as a whole, we compared genetic distance and
transcriptional distance in all possible pairwise subject comparisons
(Fig. 4). Although individual SNPs clearly have an impact on the
expression of individual genes (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 6)
globally, there is no association of genetic distance between individual
humans with the similarity of their prefrontal transcriptional profiles
(Fig. 4, R2 5 0.002)."

"Global comparison of genetic and transcriptional differences between subjects.
Each point represents a comparison of two subjects in the collection. Genetic
distance between subjects is depicted on the x axis as the number of differing
alleles over the portion of the genome interrogated. Transcriptional distance is
shown on the y axis as 1 minus the correlation across all gene expression values
from the subjects (as used in Fig. 1c). Each subject comparison is coloured to
indicate the races (AA, African American; Cauc., Caucasian) of the two
individuals involved in the comparison. The thick black curve is an estimate of
the local mean (loess, span 5 0.25) of transcriptional distance as it varies across
genetic distance. The thin black curves depict fits to the residuals around this
mean. Only African American and Caucasian sample comparisons are
visualized here (.96% of the collection)."

If there is any genetically predisposed phenotype that controls intellectual ability it doesn't correlate to race.

lol. This is just more of the same stuff. How is this supposed to help me?
Spawktalk
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 1:59:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
(1/2)

"To begin with, a 2001 meta-analysis published in Personnel Psychology of more than 100 studies which included more than 6 million participants found that blacks score, on average, about 16-17 points lower than whites on IQ tests (1). The same meta-analysis also showed that Hispanics have a higher mean IQ mean than blacks but a lower mean IQ than whites. Other studies have shown that East Asians and certain groups of Jews have higher mean IQ's than whites do (2).

Most researchers who study intelligence realize that IQ tests don't perfectly measure intelligence, but they also realize that a measure doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. IQ tests measure traits like mathematical ability and general knowledge which are commonly thought to at least make up part of intelligence. And how well you do on an IQ test predicts how well you will do in school and how much money you will end up making (3) (4). IQ is also stimulated by going to school (6). Additionally, how well a person does on an IQ test has been shown to correlate with how intelligent they think they are and how intelligent people that know them think they are (72). And people in professions that obviously require a good deal of intelligence, such as doctors, lawyers, and professors, score much higher on IQ tests than people in less cognitively demanding jobs do (7). So there are some pretty good reasons to think that IQ tests measure intelligence.

Some people worry that IQ tests aren't reliable. This means that how well people do on IQ tests is largely dependent on the circumstances under which they happen to be taking the test. For instance, people might think that what a person happens to eat for breakfast, or how they happen to feel that day, or even what the weather out side is like, might have an important impact on how well a person does on an IQ test. The feared result of this would be that IQ tests would measure unique features of the test taker at the moment he was taking the test and not anything stable about a person. This fear is easy to dispel. Studies on IQ test reliability show that how well a person does on an IQ test one day predicts with an extreme degree of accuracy how well they will do on an IQ test taken on another day (8).

But even if IQ tests didn't reliably measure intelligence, they would still measure something important. And because of this, racial differences in IQ would still matter. For instance, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstien's analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth demonstrated that many of the social inequalities between the races disappear or significantly lessen when you control for IQ (9). They found that blacks were actually more likely than whites to graduate from high-school and college once you controlled for IQ. They also found that controlling for IQ causes the wage gap between whites and blacks to shrink from blacks making 77% of what whites make to blacks making 98% of what whites make. Additionally, it was found that controlling for IQ decreased the black/white gap in incarceration rates by about 75%.

We've seen that IQ tests measure something important and that is related to intelligence. Ad we've seen that the races differ in mean IQ and that this accounts for a lot of the racial inequality found in contemporary America. But this doesn't tell us why the races differ in intelligence. Most race realists take what is called a hereditarian position on this question. A hereditarian believes that a substantial part of racial differences in intelligence are due to genes. This does not mean that all of the differences are due to genes. And it does not mean that they are inevitable. Again, race realists are not genetic determinists. Here I'm going to review some of the evidence in favor of hereditarianism. This review isn't meant to be comprehensive. This is a massive subject. I'll further limit my review to data concerning the IQ difference between blacks and whites because there is more data about this gap than there is for any other racial IQ gap.

The first explanation most people think of when they hear that the blacks score lower than whites on intelligence tests is that black intelligence is depressed by poverty. While this is an plausible first guess, most researchers recognize that SES actually has very little to do with the B/W IQ gap. As explained in a report on intelligence issued by the American Psychological Association, the fact is that the majority of the B/W IQ gap remains after controlling for socio-economic status (10). In fact, poor white children score better on standardized tests than rich black children do (11). And the IQ gap between rich black and white children is greater than the IQ gap between poor black and white children (12).

Another common environmental explanation of the B/W IQ gap is that blacks score worse than whites on intelligence tests because of discrimination. This theory is often formulated in a vague way that doesn't easily lend itself to testing. However, it is generally agreed upon that American society was more racist in the past than it is today. This fact leads us to a testable prediction: if racism has decreased in America over the least century, and racism causes the B/W IQ gap, then the B/W IQ gap should have decreased over the last century as well. Researchers who have reviewed decades worth of data have shown that this is not the case. The B/W IQ gap has been basically the same since we first measured it in 1918 (13). It seems hard to imagine that a gap caused by racism wouldn't be reduced by the massive strides towards racial equality that the United States has seen over the last 100 years.

Another popular environmental explanation for the B/W IQ gap is that IQ tests are biased in such a way that they favor whites over blacks even though blacks are just as intelligent as whites. A large number of studies have shown that IQ tests are equally predictive of life outcomes for both blacks and whites (14). And the questions that whites find the hardest on an IQ test are the same as the questions that blacks find the hardest (14). This suggests that IQ tests measure intelligence equally well in both populations and that the tests are not biased.

Another popular environmental explanations for the B/W IQ gap is that black families raise their children in such a way that leads to them being less intelligent. For instance, it is claimed that black families talk to their infants less, read fewer books to them, keep less educational material around the house, and don't encourage their children to value education to the degree that white parents do. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption study casts doubt on this kind of explanation. This study showed that black children adopted into the homes of middle class white families end up with the same IQs as black children raised in black families (15). It therefore seems highly unlikely that anything involving family practices can account for the B/W IQ gap.

Yet another environmental explanation for the B/W IQ gap states that it is accounted for by a large number of environmental factors each of which make only a small contribution to the gap. Specific factors normally mentioned in such an argument include stress, exposure to toxins, and mal nutrition. Two facts that I have already noted show that these explanations are unlikely. First, all of these variables are more common among the poor than among the wealthy. If they account for the B/W IQ gap then we should expect that controlling for income would control for most of the B/W IQ gap. But, as we have seen, it does not. In fact, as I have already noted, the B/W IQ gap is largest among blacks and whites from rich families. This fact is pretty hard to reconcile with the view that the B/W IQ gap is caused by something like malnutrition. Secondly, for virtually all of these variables blacks and whites were more unequal in the past than they are now.
Spawktalk
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 2:00:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
(2/2)

"This should lead us to expect that the B/W IQ gap has decreased over time. But, as we have seen, it has not.

As has been shown, the evidence suggests that racism, poverty, differences in family life, nutrition, exposure to toxins, test bias, ect, cannot explain most of the B/W IQ gap. This alone makes a genetic explanation of the gap probable. But there is also evidence specifically in favor of a largely genetic explanation.

First, there the implausibility of absolute egalitarianism (the view that genes play no role in the B/W IQ gap). We know that the races evolved to posses differences in height, body size, body shape, skeletal features, blood types, organ sizes, ect. In fact, just about every aspect of our bodies seems to have evolved to differ at least a little between the races. The idea that intelligence just so happens to be an exception to these selective pressures seems highly implausible. On a molecular level, just about every polymorphic gene variant tested differs in frequency between the races (16). And there are thousands of genes involved in producing complex traits like intelligence. The idea that the races just so happen to posses identical frequencies of each of these thousands of variants is extremely improbable.

Second, there is data concerning brain size. Meta analyzes of huge numbers of studies have established the smarter a person is the larger their brain will tend to be (17). And there are specific gene variants which are associated with both larger brains and greater intelligence (18). One possible explanation for why people with this gene variant have both larger brains and greater levels of intelligence is that the gene variant makes people smarter by increasing their brain size. Additionally, changes in brain size across time predict changes in intelligence over time (19). Lastly, it is generally true that the larger a brain region is the larger its effect will be. And intelligence is produced by a large number of different brain regions (20). So it is entirely predictable that larger brains will tend to cause people to be more intelligent. This is relevant to racial differences in intelligence because there is a vast literature showing that white people have larger brains than black people do (21). This race difference in brain size has been found around the world and has been found to be present as early as infancy (22). And controlling for brain size has been estimated to decrease the B/W IQ gap by about 6 points (72). So it seems likely that white people have evolved to posses larger brains than blacks and that this explains part of the B/W IQ gap.

Thirdly, there is data on the IQ of mixed race children. If the B/W IQ gap is mostly due to genetics then the children of black and white inter racial couples should have mean IQs roughly in-between the mean IQs of blacks and whites. After all, half of their genes that affect intelligence came from a black person and half from a white person. There are a variety of studies that confirm this (5). And the trans-racial adoption data previously referred to shows that mixed race children have intermediate IQ's even when they are raised in the same environment as the blacks and whites they are being compared to.

A fourth source of evidence comes from studies on white admixture and IQ. Measuring a black persons level of white admixture is a way of genetically measuring the extent to which their ancestors bred with white people. The greater the level of white admixture present in a black persons genome to more their genome resembles that of a white person. The hereditarian position predicts that a black person's degree of white admixture will be positively associated with their intelligence level. There are two sources of evidence which suggest that this prediction is accurate. First, there are studies on skin color (67). The lighter a black person's skin is the more white admixture they probably posses. And studies have found that the lighter a black persons skin is the more intelligent they are likely to be. Secondly, studies which directly measure white admixture at the molecular level have found that the greater the level of white admixture present in a black persons genome the greater their family income and level of educational attainment is likely to be. (69). Of course, neither of these variables are equivalent to intelligence. But, as we have already seen, both are highly correlated with intelligence.

A fifth piece of evidence comes from sub-test heritability. IQ scores are averages based on how someone did on a variety of mental tests. And, using twin studies, it has been shown that some of these tests are more heritable than others. It has also been found that the B/W IQ gap is larger on some tests than it is on others. It turns out that the B/W IQ gap is larger for the most heritable mental tests and smallest for the least heritable ones (23). This is obviously predicted by a theory which states that most of the gap is due to genetics. But it is extremely difficult to explain with any theory that does not.

Finally, there are a several studies which have compared the frequencies with which the races posses specific genes that have been associated with intelligence. They have found that white populations posses genes that predict high intelligence with a greater frequency than black populations do (24) (25)."

Citations can be found at:
http://spawktalk.blogspot.com...
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:06:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To throw some more to this party. Studies that show how religious people have lower IQ than atheists.

Strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity:
http://psr.sagepub.com...
http://arstechnica.com...

Atheists score an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than agnostics, 3.82 points higher than liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than other dogmatic persuasions:
http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Developed nations show strong relationship between low religiosity and high IQ:
http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Atheism correlates with higher intelligence:
http://spq.sagepub.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
neunari
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 9:15:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 1:59:31 AM, Spawktalk wrote:
(1/2)
(2/2)
Finally, there are a several studies which have compared the frequencies with which the races posses specific genes that have been associated with intelligence. They have found that white populations posses genes that predict high intelligence with a greater frequency than black populations do (24) (25)."

^This is ultimately the only piece of evidence that would have any stake in this conversation and it's ruined by poor sourcing.

http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com...

only has publication in open access journals.
http://scholar.google.com...
And as a paper has only been cited 3 times.

And this source
http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com...

Suffers from a lot of the same problems. Has only been cited once since 2013, and doesn't seem to have been published in any worthwhile journal at all which is never a good sign.
http://scholar.google.com...

Above and beyond that there are problems with the methodology of your sources. While correlating IQ and certain other phenotypes to SNP frequency sounds like a good idea on paper due to things like coevolution and polypheletic gene interactions and the fact that IQ may not be an objective measure of intelligence your going to have a lot of miss rather than hit information when it comes to weather we can use these SNP's to explain entire gaps between population groups.

Once again gene expression studies have already been made concerning this particular topic measuring the very Transcription and expression of genes to get a comprehensive look at how each SNP effects gene expression.

This is what we did for the prefrontal cortex, (the most recently evolved part of our brains)

http://www.nih.gov...
"Having at our fingertips detailed information about when and where specific gene products are expressed in the brain brings new hope for understanding how this process can go awry in schizophrenia, autism and other brain disorders," said NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, M.D.

Both studies measured messenger RNAs (mrna)or transcripts. These intermediate products carry the message from DNA, the genetic blueprint, to create proteins and differentiated brain tissue. Each gene can make several transcripts, which are expressed in patterns influenced by a subset of the approximately 1.5 million DNA variations unique to each of us. This unique set of transcripts is called our transcriptome " a molecular signature that is unique to every individual. The transcriptome is a measure of the diverse functional potential that exists in the brain."

http://www.nature.com...
http://biostat.jhsph.edu...
"To explore the relationship between the genome as a whole and the
PFC transcriptome as a whole, we compared genetic distance and
transcriptional distance in all possible pairwise subject comparisons
(Fig. 4). Although individual SNPs clearly have an impact on the
expression of individual genes (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 6)
globally, there is no association of genetic distance between individual
humans with the similarity of their prefrontal transcriptional profiles
(Fig. 4, R2 5 0.002)"

Global comparison of genetic and transcriptional differences between subjects.
Each point represents a comparison of two subjects in the collection. Genetic
distance between subjects is depicted on the x axis as the number of differing
alleles over the portion of the genome interrogated. Transcriptional distance is
shown on the y axis as 1 minus the correlation across all gene expression values
from the subjects (as used in Fig. 1c). Each subject comparison is coloured to
indicate the races (AA, African American; Cauc., Caucasian) of the two
individuals involved in the comparison. The thick black curve is an estimate of
the local mean (loess, span 5 0.25) of transcriptional distance as it varies across
genetic distance. The thin black curves depict fits to the residuals around this
mean. Only African American and Caucasian sample comparisons are
visualized here (.96% of the collection)."

If you want an idea of how many SNP you can get in a Microarray study
"DNA resources and analysis. DNAfor genotyping was obtained from the cerebella
of 266 of the total 269 samples in the collection and applied to either Illumina
Infinium II 650K or Illumina Infinium HD Gemini 1M Duo BeadChips according
to manufacturer"s protocols. Only genotypes common to both platforms are
analysed here. Genotypes were called using BeadExpress software. SNPs were
removed if the call rate was ,98% (mean call rate for this study .99%), if not in
Hardy"Weinberg equilibrium (P , 0.001) within Caucasian and within African
American races separately, or not polymorphic (MAF ,0.01). The total number
of SNPs remaining in the analysis was
625,439 (96.2%)"

almost every SNP polymorphic for the human prefrontal cortex

There are other gene expression studies using Microarrays as well that repeat this process using race or ethnicity as a variable and they have similar findings.

http://www.nature.com...

"Large-scale association studies with cortical thickness in adolescents
Given that left-right asymmetry of the brain is a well-known phenomenon35,36 that may be triggered by left-right differential gene expression,37,38 we analyzed each hemisphere separately. Highest associations with left cortical thickness were found for SNPs on chromosome 15 (Figure 2a, Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 1), with one SNP, rs7171755 (^6;=W22;0.01973; P=1.12 " 10W22;7), passing the threshold of Bonferroni-corrected significance (the Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold for association with the selected 54R01;837 SNPs, on the left and right hemispheres, was P=4.56 " 10W22;7). In the right hemisphere, highest associations with cortical thickness were found on chromosome 11 (Supplementary Figure 2); however, none remained significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. rs7171755 was associated with right cortical thickness at P=3.22 " 10W22;4 (^6;=W22;0.0134; Table 2). Neither handedness nor ethnicity influenced this association. It is worth pointing out that our gene selection procedure resulted in significant gene enrichment: estimation of the variance explained by the SNPs using Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis27 indicated that the 59R01;643 selected SNPs explain 13.3% (s.e.=0.093, P=0.02) of the total variance in left cortical thickness, a fivefold enrichment relative to the 22.2% (s.e.=0.195, P=0.03) variance explained by considering all 506R01;932 genotyped SNPs simultaneously."

https://www.eva.mpg.de...
http://www.nature.com...

race, pH and postmortem interval (PMI) counted for only
< 2% of variance while gender accounted for ~8%

In light of this information I have to ask you do you have any microarray gene expression data that proves that races diverge significantly in terms of gene expression in the brain?
Spawktalk
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 10:36:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To begin with, I disagree that the only relevant data is evidence from molecular genetic studies. In everyday life we often infer that populations differ for genetic reasons without specifying specific genes involved in said difference. For instance, I strongly believe that the height difference between zebras and cats is genetic in origin in-spite of the fact that I don't know any of the specific gene loci involved. Similarly, people recognized that males and females differed for innate reasons long before anyone had seen a chromosome. And behavioral geneticists have been comparing concordance rates between monozygotic and dizgotic twins to estimate the heritability of traits within human populations for the better part of the last hundred years. So, in general, there is no rule saying that we cannot determine that populations differ due to genes without specifying the genes involved in that difference.

The relevant scientific question is this: do genetic models of the difference makes testable predictions that don't involved specific genes? If they do then we will be able to scientifically test the hypothesis without looking directly at the genome. In the case of racial differences in intelligence I think that the genetic model makes many predictions than an environment-only model does not. For instance, as I went over in my previous post, the heritability of an IQ sub-test correlates with the size of the B/W IQ gap on it. This is an important prediction that a genetic model would make but an environment-only model would not.

It is true that the two sources you mentioned have rarely been cited and were published in questionable places. But this does not invalidate the work. This only indicates that we need to be careful when evaluating it. And I invite such carefulness. If you read one of the papers and think that it contains a serious error then by all means mention it. But you can't just dismiss the work because it wasn't published somewhere prestigious and cited heavily. This is especially true for work such as this which many places wont publish due to its controversial nature.

Finally, to answer your question, no I don't have any data on racial differences in gene expression in the brain. However, for the reasons outlined above, I don't believe that such data is necessary.
neunari
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 1:24:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 10:36:15 PM, Spawktalk wrote:
To begin with, I disagree that the only relevant data is evidence from molecular genetic studies. In everyday life we often infer that populations differ for genetic reasons without specifying specific genes involved in said difference. For instance, I strongly believe that the height difference between zebras and cats is genetic in origin in-spite of the fact that I don't know any of the specific gene loci involved. Similarly, people recognized that males and females differed for innate reasons long before anyone had seen a chromosome. And behavioral geneticists have been comparing concordance rates between monozygotic and dizgotic twins to estimate the heritability of traits within human populations for the better part of the last hundred years. So, in general, there is no rule saying that we cannot determine that populations differ due to genes without specifying the genes involved in that difference.

People also believed in God and Zeus and witches back in the day.
We tend to hold intuitions and believe a lot of things we can't yet definitively prove;
we did so with race and it turns out those beliefs were mostly unfounded.
There's nothing unfair about that, it's the way science works

There's a thing called "Verification", a process where you actually make sure your hypothesis or held belief is correct. For instance, I'm pretty sure if we did a genetic test on zebras and cats we'd verify that differences in the structure of their bodies are genetic. We've verified things like sex differences in the brain and we've verified monozygotic and dizigotic twins share a significant portion of their phenotype from their DNA.

The relevant scientific question is this: do genetic models of the difference makes testable predictions that don't involved specific genes? If they do then we will be able to scientifically test the hypothesis without looking directly at the genome.

No, the question is this: "Which model is actually true or holds up?" as in, "If I ran a gene expression study on these 2 models which one would actually be proven?"

If, for whatever reason, we don't have access to gene expression studies at the moment we can build up degrees of certainty by utilizing indirect tests and models for those tests but all that has to come face to face eventually with genetic and gene expression studies when we get to them.


It is true that the two sources you mentioned have rarely been cited and were published in questionable places. But this does not invalidate the work.

It's simply something to watch out for, especially if they go against common theories in science

Finally, to answer your question, no I don't have any data on racial differences in gene expression in the brain. However, for the reasons outlined above, I don't believe that such data is necessary.

Maybe back before the gene expression studies came in this would be understandable
but not now.