It's oft argued that race is too arbitrary to test IQ with. Is it really? No. People's common Self-Identification of their Major Racial Group is Incredibly accurate. and not anything like the arbitrariness Race deniers claim. Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies Hua Tang,1 Tom Quertermous,2 Beatriz Rodriguez,4 Sharon L. R. Kardia,5Xiaofeng Zhu,6 Andrew Brown,7 James S. Pankow,8 Michael A. Province,9Steven C. Hunt,10 Eric Boerwinkle,11 Nicholas J. Schork,12 and Neil J. Risch3,13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/ Abstract We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of Four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced Four major clusters, which showed near-Perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed." So anytime (and every day) you read some study from 'house scientists' like Joseph Graves, who BTW, can tell race well enough to work at a Black College!, don't believe it. `
With the amount of controls needed for the researchers to get the results they were seeking, we may as well agree that when it comes to important things like medicine that individualized testing, not race-based testing, is the way to go.
With Medicine, I agree. Tho even in Medicine there are Racial proclivities, probabilities, and indicators. I was referring mainly to the claim that IQ tests were inaccurate because Race was too arbitrary, but I neglected to put IQ in the Headline. My error. `
Did this study need its own thread? I already addressed it in a previous discussion. Here is the relevant content again a long with an educational video on Race & Medicine for those interested: While population geneticists can identify the geographic origins of the majority of a person's ancestry that does not mean that the genetic clusters they identify are biological races. Ancestry and biological race are not the same. The study you cited uses the algorithm STRUCTURE which could find genetic clusters within the the same geographic location and call those populations races. Modern population geneticists do not consider population and race to be synonymous. The scientific definition of race used by evolutionary biologists is a sub-species that is on the cusp of speciation. The concept of race in biology, anthropology and genetics has not been considered to be applicable to human genetic variation for nearly a decade according to mainstream scientific consensus. The concept has been eradicated from discussion in high school and college textbooks. Much like Intelligent Design and Creationism begging to be taught in academia it is simply not the case that your racial schemes have support among reputable scientists today. Some disagreement in the scientific community and consensus are two different things. Scientific Consensus Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. List of Scientific Organizations representing Scientific Consensus supporting my sources: 1. The American Psychological Association 2. The American Anthropological Association 3. The Genetics Society of America 4. The National Academy of Sciences 5. The American Institute of Biological Sciences
Part II: A Scientific Answer to the Race Question The text highlighted in blue is the key point here. Humans do differ in physical traits as a result of adapting to different environments where certain traits were more beneficial but those traits do not mirror genetic relationships and as a species the genetic variation between human populations is much smaller than between most species. So physical characteristics associated with the word race are real and ancestry is real which means that certain biological traits can be identified, distinguished and have utility in modern science and real world situations. A population geneticist can identify Ancestry Informative Markers and give ethnicity estimates that to agree conform to self-identified race or ethnicity. A Biological Anthropologist can study the skeleton, teeth or DNA of physical remains and assess population relationship based on that. Biomedical researchers can use genetic research to identify health risks associated with genetic composition. However the small amount of genetic variation between populations and much greater variation within them does have implications for genetic relationships between people and many aspects of life that are commonly associated with racial background that have nothing to do with biology. Question: Assume 100 Chinese men in a shower, 100 Englishmen in another shower and 100 Kenyans in another shower. Could you identify each group? Todd Disotell: You could probably sort them out fairly well. Of course there are many....if you want to try to actually find what out criteria were we would actually find great difficulty. We could perhaps use skin color. But I would say that if we took a larger sampling of people there would be people where the skin color argument wouldn't work. If we sample them down at the genetic level where it really matters...skin color is actually a very minor trait due to relatively few loci perhaps only 5 genes are responsible for the variation in skin color. If got down to the genetic traits which are what were are talking about here, we're talking about the selection regime we're talking about what is ultimately responsible for these differences....I would probably would not be able to sort out these 3 groups of individuals if I was looking at their genes themselves. Question: Is it possible to arrive at a biological definition of race that would be acceptable to people in your field? Steven Jones: It's obviously true that there are geographic differences in human populations that's obviously the case, look at you and look at me! We look different. But if we were to look beneath the skin there wouldn't be a complete split. So actually the human race is remarkable compared to other primates in one way, it's so boring. We're so similar to each other from place to place. Question: But at the same time, at the other side of the argument, one can't deny that there is a hereditary component in IQ. Steve Jones: Oh no I think you would be extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in intelligence. It is extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in almost anything. Most things have some "heritability" as we say. You will probably some day find a few of the genes that underlie some of that heritability. But what that will tell you about Race & IQ I have no idea, I would imagine almost nothing. The quotes from the videos above represent scientific consensus on the subject of the concept of biological race and its applicability to modern humans. Of course there is disagreement within the scientific community over whether or not biological races exist. The viewpoint of Joseph Graves, Todd Disotell and Steve Jones is more in line with what most evolutionary biologists, population geneticists and biological anthropologists think. Richard Dawkin's viewpoint is closer to that of naturalists who label all observable differences that they see within a population without concern for the degree of genetic variance. When scientists say that race is only "skin deep" they mean that there are no major genetic differences beyond cosmetic appearance between human populations. Some traits can be of importance in certain situations such as darker skin providing resistance to sunlight or and some traits can be problematic for health such as having a genetic predisposition to a disease like Sickle-Cell Anemia or Tay-Sachs but these differences do not have social importance and shouldn't be confused with belief in racist pseudoscience (i.e. racial differences include differences in mental characteristics that determine cultural traits and have social importance). These viewpoints are clearly different: Racial Naturalism - We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes in forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. This is Edwards’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance. - Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale vs. Scientific Racism - Asians are behaving like Asians. Africans are behaving like Africans. There is no other explanation other than a biological one to explain the consistency of these behavioral patterns around the world. To say that race doesn't exist can not be true because otherwise you could not be finding these predictions.....These are racially ordained behaviors. We've got to get to grips with them. We've got to stop pretending we are all the same under the skin when we are not. - J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behavior presentation at John Jay College of Criminal Justice Socially-defined racial groups have their basis in the idea that humans can be grouped based on their external anatomical traits with the assumption that those traits are identifiers of significant biological differences between humans and are correlated with mental and cultural characteristics. There's no question that those traits are real but they don't define who you are, what you are capable of and how you should be treated.
Part III: Scientific Consensus vs. Scientific Racism Just in case new readers get the false impression that Joseph Graves is my own source I want to point out that I have many. Here is a list of some of the scholars I have cited on the subject of race and science. Scholars cited by EgalitarianJay 1) C Loring Brace 2) Ken Richardson 3) David Reznick 4) Robert Sussman 5) Stephen C. Stearns 6) Derek A. Roff 7) Fred Weizmann 8. William H. Masters 9) Virginia E. Johnson 10) Melville J. Herskovits 11) Phillip V. Tobias 12) Kenneth L. Beals 13) Courtland L. Smith 14) Stephen M. Dodd 15) Marvin Zuckerman 16) Nathan Brody 17) Cornelius H. Vanderwolf 18. Stephen Jay Gould 19) Joseph L Graves 20) Michael Weisberg 21) Carl Bergmann 22) Janet Monge 23) Leonard Lieberman 24) Theodosius Dobzhansky 25) Ashley Montagu 26) Fatimah Jackson 27) Jelte Wicherts 28. Conor Dolan 29) Timothy Z Keith 30) Matthew Robert Reynolds 31) Puja G. Patel 32) Kristen P. Ridley 33) Joel Vandersluis 34) Jason Lewis 35) Henrik Kaessmann 36) Scott MacEachern 37) Robert Sternberg 38. Elena L. Grigorenko 39) Kenneth K. Kidd 40) Richard Nisbett
Part IV: Genome-wide Association Studies Refute Scientific Racism Genome-wide Association studies are the death blow to Scientific Racism. Population Geneticists already refuted these arguments decades ago but now that the human genome has been sequenced and we have conclusive evidence that genetic differences between human populations do not determine differences in intelligence. Source: Genome-wide quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive ability using pooled DNA and 500K single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays Genes, Brains and Behavior, 7, 435–446 (2008 )
At any rate, your linked article had nothing to do with IQ, let alone establish a connection between self identifying people and IQ test results.
Au Contrare. If People's self-Identified AND Biological Race are the Same, it takes the arbitrariness, which some seek to impart/ambiguate/invalidate the test results with, Out of the equation. So while I took responsibility for not putting IQ in the title line, it was made clear in FIRST LINE of my OP which you missed/Whiffed on... as well as the logic therein. `
RE your first point, the article you linked to concedes that, "association studies among ethnically admixed populations are particularly vulnerable to spurious association." Also, "... African Americans have a continuous range of European ancestry that would not be detected by cluster analysis but could strongly confound genetic case-control studies. Furthermore, our analysis likely underrepresents individuals with recent mixed ancestry (who would require more complex categorization) and other groups typically underrepresented, such as South Asians. Further study is required to evaluate the correlation between genetically determined groupings and SIRE for these individuals." And lastly, "Without proper controlling of [certain] nuisance factors, cluster analyses based on genetic markers sometimes overlook important components of population structure, while producing artifact clusters other times." To your second point, it doesn't make a difference whether or not you placed "IQ" in the title. Your linked article made absolutely no connection between its hypothesis and IQ test results. It was simply about race and the confounding impact it could have on case-control studies. Lastly, this study would probably suit the argument to distinguish groups by ethnicity instead of race, especially with the findings between the Japanese and Chinese. Also, ethnic groups were compared to each other in America, not to anyone in their ancestral homelands.
Good points. Taxonomy26 is trying to blend Racial Naturalism (Dawkin's view) with Scientific Racism (Rushton's view). In other words if the study in the OP validates the position that self-identified race/ethnicity has a genetic basis corresponding to biological racial groups then IQ scores (purportedly highly heritable) also have a genetic basis and average IQ score differentials between groups are to a degree caused by genetic differences between groups. My posts address and refute all of these arguments and directly address the study in the OP. One important thing to consider though in Dr. Graves' presentation where he analyzed and refuted the arguments of Rushton is that he states that even if there were no biological races you could still have populations that differ in genes that determine intelligence. So the research in Tang et al. (2004) could just as easily be used to argue that Japanese are smarter than Chinese or English are smarter than Germans. Taxonomy26 degrees with the definition of biological race preferring the population model and a definition of subspecies which considers any observable morphological variation that is ancestry informative to validate the existence of biological races. My sources maintain that a subspecies refers to an objective degree of genetic differentiation defining sub-species as populations within a species that are on the cusp of speciation (Taxonomic and Lineage models). When it comes to race and intelligence since by my primary source's own admission two different populations could still have genetic differences that determine intelligence differentials the validity of the concept of race is less important than the objective partitioning of genes related to intelligence and how they compare between populations. That's where the research on Genome-wise Association studies comes in which show that genes related to intelligence are not distributed in a way that conforms to racial schemes. If intelligence genes do not show a racial association then there will not ever be any sort of genetic intelligence test that will ever show that one group is smarter than another due to genetic differences. This would be like an Astrologist telling you that one day with the advances in astronomical research they will find a way to tell your fortune if only scientists would discover enough stars and planets in order to give you more accurate predictions. The reason Charles Murray ducked a debate with Joseph Graves is because he wants to wait and see if genetic research validates his racial theories in The Bell Curve. He will be prepared with the right amount of research for this discussion around the same time that biologists and anthropologists present that $10,000,000 reward for the capture of Bigfoot. PSEUDOSCIENCE begins with a hypothesis— usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible— and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored. Notice how often, when you are asked by a friend about what should be a question of fact if the topic were not pseudoscience, the opening phrase is, “Do you believe in ESP?” (or flying saucers, or prophecy, or Bigfoot)... not, is the evidence good, but rather, do you believe, without raising dull questions of evidence. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate and find out what’s actually going on, or to test various possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to “congenial conclusions,” grinding ideological axes, appealing to pre-conceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. Not just Creationists, but 20th Century pseudoscientists of all flavors, from J. B. Rhine and Immanuel Velikovsky to Rupert Sheldrake, have underlying their claims and assertions an anachronistic world-view that essentially rejects all or most of the tested, reliable findings of science as “unacceptably materialistic!” The general public tends to view pseudoscientists as “mavericks” who are working slightly beyond the “accepted” boundaries of science. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Pseudoscientists invariably represent a world-view which is not simply unscientific or pre-scientific, but rather militantly antiscientific. - Rory Coker
In the old days, we called them races but nowadays we use genetic clusters to describe different ethnic groups which are shown in a PCA plot. Eurasians tend to cluster together in a long line from East Asians to Europeans, when more than 800 individuals are sampled. Africans are genetically isolated from Eurasians or the rest of the human population and West Asians overlap with Europeans because they share similar haplogroups.
:^) There are already Genetic IQ tests, several, as HUNDREDS of Genes have been found that affect intelligence in the in just the last few years. (Plomin et al) As with just about every other trait/disease/etc, there WILL indeed be group Race Differences. In the case of IQ, it would be at least as highly likely expected as any other trait, because we have 100 Years of IQ tests, and 80 years of highly correlated SAT tests to merely CONFIRM, not just unexpectedly stumble on, as some other traits. Once again you Unwittingly Stepped in your own idea/philosophy. A Beauty it is too! Non-Plussed! "Egalitarianism", YOUR politics/handle IS an "Emotionally Appealing Hypothesis" that all races have identical IQs (most would Like to believe) despite our obvious physical and internal adaptations to much more varied local conditions than most other animals/mammals, and leaving humans more strongly morphologically marked than Most other subspecies. And it's "spectacularly implausible" that every group on every continent developed the Identical intelligence. Makes no sense if you believe in Evo, or even if you don't!. James Watson, Nobel Prize Winner co-discovering DNA http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php ...In his interview with the Times on Oct. 14th, we learned that: ... [Watson] is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the Testing says Not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address." These thoughts were a continuation of an important theme in his new book Avoid Boring People: ... "there is No firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically Separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved Identically. Our Wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will Not be enough to make it so." I Love your "Pseudos"! because ALL of Your ideas are as Self-defeating as one can get. Another one or two already backfired. This one really "spectacularly". `
Finding genes related to intelligence and finding an uneven distribution of those genes across geographic populations is clearly not the same thing. The genetic research that refutes your argument is right in front of your eyes and you don't know how to respond to it. Case in point: I consistently tested in the genius range (98th Percentile or Top 2%) on standardized academic achievement tests. A genetic intelligence test failed to predict my intelligence in the high range. They have a disclaimer that says their test can only detect specific genetic markers related to intelligence. One of the creators of the test got the same result and states that the test can not tell you how smart you are. Theatlantic.com - Genetic Intelligence Tests Are Next to Worthless This is proof that your claim is false. Graves, Jones, Lewontin, Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza and many other population geneticists and evolutionary geneticists have been saying this for years. A letter with over 140 signatories was published in The New York Times Book Review including many of the world's top geneticists who reject Scientific Racism and the misrepresentation of their work by writers like Nicholas Wade who support those conclusions. That's Game, Set and Match. Your claim is wrong therefore you lost the debate. But predictably you will flee the debate or deny that you are wrong. What you will not do is respond to the genetic research I presented which refutes your claim. You don't know what Egalitarianism means.... Egalitarianism noun 1. the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Egalitarian noun 2. a person who advocates or supports egalitarian principles. Egalitarianism means that all people are equal in VALUE and deserve equal rights under the low. It has nothing to do with biological sameness or equality in ability. An Egalitarian believes that all people have equal worth as a human being. That means a person with Down's Syndrome has equal value as someone with a genius-level intellect. A super star athlete is not better than a fat slob. Greater athleticism? Yes. But both have equal rights and equal worth as a human being. Egalitarian Quotes: 1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence 2. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "I have a Dream Speech" at The March on Washington A true Egalitarian Your argument is the one that is emotional. My position is supported by scientific consensus. Proponents of Scientific Racism have no more credibility in the scientific community than Astrologists, Parapsychologists, Cryptozoologists and Creationists. In fact you would have a better chance at finding a recent academic debate with those groups rather than a proponent of Scientific Racism. Who has championed the position you support (Scientific Racism) in an actual academic setting in the last 30 years besides this clown? PSEUDOSCIENCE persuades using misinformation, appeals to widespread belief, rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation, rather than presenting valid evidence (which presumably does not exist). Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars, and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the “Galileo Argument.” This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries … therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! What is more, anyone who has ever heard of Galileo must be aware that Galileo’s ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. It was the established religion which rejected Galileo’s findings, preferring instead a familiar pseudoscience which Galileo’s findings contradicted. Pseudoscientists are fond of the term “proof,” as in, “I'll pay anyone $10,000 if they can prove Bigfoot does not exist!” Or, “ ...if you can prove the earth revolves around the sun,” or “ ...if you can prove that at least some UFOs are not spacecraft from other worlds.” The money is safe, because the concept of a “proof” comes from mathematics and formal logic, and has no counterpart in any description of things, phenomena and processes in our real world. A late-20th-Century magician and mentalist offered $10,000 to anyone who can prove that hypnosis exists. He's in no danger of having to pay up, but his money would be just as secure if he offered $10,000 to anyone who can prove that hypnosis does not exist! - Rory Coker
No real answer above. Just the usual Smoke and Mirrors. Intentionally Distracting/Discussion-Sabotaging/Baiting Youtubes (one 30 Years old, another of Obama/WTF), Graphics, etc And yet more off topic personal Anecdote/Smoke/Deflection. (Nor does your volume-adding/fake substance, anecdotal, and Unverified NO number, Personal IQ claim have anything to do with this debate.) (And even within you have the Unwittingly CONTRADICTORY a "High Average"/"superior" claim... along with the much more Aggressive "consistently in the top 2%", in which the word 'average' wouldn't have shown up. I know.) Egalitarianism, a Prejudicial stance, IS/remains an "emotionally appealing Hypothesis" that is "spectacularly unlikely." And everyone who read my last knows it. Your Pseudo description is your whole philosophy. Pseudo and intentionally Deflecting Nonsense/Juvenile Baiting Boobtubes.. Gameover. EDIT, Yet Much More Juvenile Pictures and endless Distractions below Mutimedia nonsense `
"What you will not do is respond to the genetic research I presented which refutes your claim." - EgalitarianJay I must be psychic! P.S. If you don't think that taking a genetic intelligence test and showing evidence that it doesn't support your conclusion that genetic intelligence tests can predict your IQ doesn't refute your claim then you are delusional plain and simple. That's literally a direct test of your hypothesis which anyone is free to take themselves. I encourage anyone who has taken an ancestral DNA test (which Taxonomy26 previously claimed confirmed his racial theories when I presented my data in a thread) to go to DNA.Land and take their trait prediction test which analyzes genetic markers for several traits including intelligence and see what results they get. The image above show my results. They contradict the report from a 5th grade psychological assessment for an IQ test my class participated in (I got the highest score). The AncestryDNA result was good enough for Taxonomy26. The DNA.Land test result contradicting official psychometric testing was not. If you can find a better online genetic intelligence test or an actual study on a representative sample go ahead and provide it. Plomin's study only shows that genes have been identified that are related to intelligence, not that they are associated with specific populations. The research presented by Graves shows that intelligence genes are not unevenly differentiated across geographic populations. That's the end of the debate and any reasonably intelligent person would see it that way.
Useless chart. Some of these features are PHYSIOLOGICAL, therefore have no bearing on an observation of behaviour. More the point ... all of these behavioral differences are easily explained by culture.
Correct. Check this thread for critiques of Rushton's work exposing the pseudoscientific nature of his research. I would appreciate some feedback on the genetic research if you have time for that. How someone can say that genetic intelligence tests exist and validate their argument but then turn around and say that a genetic intelligence test that I took (direct test of his claim) isn't relevant to the thread (but AncestryDNA results are) is mind-boggling. The mental gymnastics that people perform to deny evidence baffles the mind of any reasonable person but such is the nature of pseudoscience...... PSEUDOSCIENCE displays a remarkable and characteristic indifference to fact. Writers tend simply to make up bogus “facts”— what Norman Mailer calls “factoids”— where needed, instead of going to the trouble of consulting reliable reference works, much less investigating directly. Yet these fictitious facts are often central to the pseudoscientist’s argument and conclusions! This can also be seen in the fact that pseudoscientists never revise. The first edition of any pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book may go through innumerable new printings, over decades or centuries. Even a book with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page is just reprinted as it is, over and over. Compare to college science textbooks, which usually see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts, ideas, discoveries, experiments and insights in science. - Rory Coker
Wrong! There is no such thing a "biological race" amongst humans. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684745
Oh look, a "disagreeing" study! I'm Shocked! I can find a hundred. (which does NOT make me "Wrong") Oh the logic issues pile up by the minute. (Ironically, in an IQ thread) The issue is .. using your knowledge, can you debate the issue in real world use/terms. NO. I can, You cannot. You last post was beyond belief. Beyond discrediting. An embarrassment unmatched here in YEARS. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ding-75-genetic.472120/page-7#post-1069676919 Oh Baby! `
I was going to post the OP again in the most recent thread, your silly and now lost "stump" thread.. since it's apparent that Even 99.86% of the 'civilian' population can get Race right.. (as per who cares" SEWALL WRIGHT) But I see you snuck in a post I missed among/because of Egalitarian Jay's megaposts. Of course, my Op did not say anything about IQ. My point was that it makes the Red Herring that there is no such thing as race, and that people can't delinate it well enough for testing .. False. THEREFORE IQ testing of said groups IS possible, and indeed happening and been happening for decades. Unrefuted. `
What? This is literally the first three lines in your OP: "It's oft argued that race is too arbitrary to test IQ with. Is it really? No." Also, you are making logical leaps. You know that right?
I'm only making "logical leaps" if you missed/Ignore the OP Study. LOL (I know "studies" are foreign to your posting)
Your study did not support your claim that race is not too arbitrary to test IQ with. It didn't even have the terms "IQ" or "intelligence" in it. That's because it was all about confounding in case-control association studies in regards to race/ethnicity and genetic structure. Feel free to reread your own opening post and study some of the terms in your own link. You may also want to read the entire article, especially the discussion section at the end pretty carefully. It is a link you cited. Nothing wrong with listening to what it says in its entirety.
It doesn't need to. Any valid construct can be correlated with any other valid construct. They don't need to list every single other construct in each paper.
