Race and IQ gap

I was curious what you thought about the race and IQ gap that exists.

Do you think the IQ gap stems from genetics, environment/culture or a combination?

I'd argue the gap exists primarily from genetic differences - IQ is about 80% heritable for adults.

I'm curious to hear cogent responses to the 1) regression of the mean, 2) adoption studies, 3) gene expression differences, 4) admixture studies and 5) brain volume/structure differences in Whites, Blacks and Asians.

1) Groups of Black and White parents w/ the same IQ, from the same socio-economic background, will have children born w/ different IQ's mirroring the average IQ's of their respective races.

2) Adoption studies have been performed in the Netherlands, Belgium and the United States involving malnourished Korean infants raised by White families. The children displayed higher IQ than the White native average and were nearly identical to the IQ of the South Korean national average. Another adoption study, involving adopted Black, White, Mulatto, and Asian children in the United States raised in Minnesota by middle class, mostly White families showed Blacks having the lowest IQ, mulattos in between and Whites w/ the highest.

3) Several genes have been identified to express for differences in brain volume and hormonal levels that vary in frequency by race.

4) Like the Minnesota Adoption study, numerous admixture studies done on Blacks and Hispanics show correlation between lighter skin and higher intelligence.

5) Two dozen studies measuring IQ and brain size using MRI technology have been performed - all showing a 0.3-0.4 correlation w/ brain size and IQ. MRI data and other brain volume measurements have shown East Asians have the largest brain volume followed by Whites and then Blacks. Additionally, East Asians have the highest measured IQ, 106, followed by Whites at 100, and Blacks at 85.

All the completely separate data from various fields is in agreement w/ the idea that racial IQ gaps are the result of genetic differences between the races.

 

I take the stance of Dr. Watson

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

"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."

 

it's all racist inspired crap, people using stats on unrelated tests and not understanding the relevance of the tests or the particular conditions involved...they see a number and think that's all they need to know...

hong kong, taiwan and singapore score higher than china, huh!!!? how can that be these chinese/asians are supposedly superior how can they be be superior to the motherland of china?...do you think that maybe some other factors are involved like environment (education, health, diet,social restrictions)?...and the motherland china 1/6th of humanity scores no better than any western European country...and I'd bet the mortgage that South Korea scores higher than north korea, poverty/nutrition are huge factors in IQ scores.....

blue states have higher iq than red states? how is that possible? ...adopted kids are generally adopted into stable, well educated, and financially advantaged families that can offer an improved environment that promotes mental stimulation/development... as I said it's the environment a child is raised in that ultimately determines iq not where they are born or the colour of their skin...

 

Bwahaha

Larger brains were mutations whose byproduct was greater intelligence. However the caveat was that the larger brains required more energy to operate, luckily increased intelligence and more specifically pattern recognition, provided the exponential growth necessary to compensate for rising energy costs of running high tech hardware in our heads. The interesting note is that biological intelligence appears to have somewhat plataeu'd. If we are to continue to increase intelligence at any meaningful rate, integration with computers and electronics will have to become commonplace. Computers will eventually enable us to identify deficiencies in certain genetic diaspora and offer a solution to "improve" others who are deficient in certain areas of function, should they so choose of course.

 

ASPM and MCPH1 are genes relating to brain size found in Whites that aren't found in Blacks; brain size is correlated w/ IQ.

These two genes probably partially explain why Whites have larger brain volume than Blacks.

Btw, how do you explain adoption studies of Korean babies raised by Whites families that had significantly higher IQ than the native White population and were nearly identical to Korea's national IQ average?

 

You have a lot assertions but no links to back it up. As far as I know, you just made this up.

 

If you try to prove me wrong, you'll probably learn something. OTOH, if I just gave a dozen links, you'll likely scroll past them and not bother to challenge me on the facts.

Which assertion do you want to prove me wrong?

 

These egalitarians types are like young earthers, they say evolution differences are only skin color despite numerous other visible traits and the mountainous scientific studies. Evidence supports the OP, IQ is about 80% heritable. Remember this egalitarian stance is like a religion to them, they'll froth at the mouth more than any religious person would, because their entire world view is based around it. They need it for AA, their social programs ect ect.

 

Utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*). There is almost NO correlation between brain size and intelligence. Have you seen a blue whale do calculus? Oh, maybe you are talking about the largest brain to body mass ratio? Well, then hummingbirds should be inventing nanotechnology. Here is an article debunking the belief that there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence. From the article:

"Grant says that this finding offers scientists a new way to approach the study of brain evolution and intelligence and, perhaps more importantly, suggests that looking at sheer brain size has very little to offer in understanding cognitive abilities."

Also, here are some articles about environmental conditions that affect intelligence in a huge way.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline - How lead in our gasoline created generations of stupid brutes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/iodization-effect-on-iq-2013-7 - The effect iodinied salt had in raising the average IQ.
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn1990.pdf - The link between early nutrition and intelligence.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:RIAN.0000005917.52151.e6#page-1 - Shows the correlation between prenatal mercury exposure and decrease test performance.

So, as you can see there are many things that can affect intelligence besides genes. Notice that most of these affect the poor disportionately more than the wealthy? Well, now you know and knowing is half the battle.

 

Let's start with this one:

 

complete BS Einstein had a smaller then average brain but his IQ was a great deal higher than normal estimated at 160...so explain why Einstein didn't have an enormous head to fit all those brains?...you can't because size is not related to intelligence, intelligence is dependent on efficiency of function...

ahh, I did...do I need to repost?

how do several different countries with the same ethnic population have different scores? according to you that just isn't possible, and overwhelmingly the largest number of them (China) have identical scores to "white" europeans...how do the two koreas have different results? are north koreans white? just maybe it's because the north is impoverished, nutritionally disadvantaged and lacks the highly developed educational system South Korea has...

 

your assertions are so riddled with inconsistencies they don't even hold up to basic logic...

- - - Updated - - -

when you have something relevant to offer let us know...

 

so you deliberately feign ignorance to retain a racist ideology behind facade of pseudoscience you don't comprehend...

any reputable geneticist will confirm-there are no races, we are essentially identical under our skin...skin color/body morphology are insignificant differences ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ

 

Race denial originates largely from Marxist Jews using a variety of fallacies. Here is a comprehensive list:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_realism

As other posters have pointed out, recently selected brain genes have been discovered which are not distributed evenly between races. This fact is backed up by a cursory look at the world showing mixing happens within races before between them. The East Asian "straight hair" gene for example or the separate Caucasoid/Mongoloid skin color genes. Coop 2009 found recently selected genes which differentiate Nigerians, Han and French have spread within races, but not between them.

 

There's actually been two dozen IQ studies using MRI scans to measure brain volume. Each one showed 0.3-0.4 correlation w/ brain volume and intelligence.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/RandRProgressIntell2003.PDF

 

Europeans and Asians have inherited 1-5% of Neanderthal DNA as Homo sapiens out of Africa interbred with the Neanderthals in the Mediterranean around 60,000 years ago, which gave rise to the IQ gap between non-Africans and Africans with no Neanderthal admixture. Neanderthal cranial capacity was slightly larger than that of modern humans and they invented stone tools known as 'flakes', which were more efficient than the blades adopted by Homo sapiens.

 

I think we dont yet know because isolating genetic contribution from environment for such polygenic and imprecisely defined trait is damn hard. I have found seemingly good sources and reputable scientists arguing for both positions. If they cannot reach a conclusion, how can I with much less knowledge? I cannot.

I think it is likely that environment plays a substantial role. But whether genetics is important or not, particularly genetic variation along racial lines, I dont dare to predict.

 

Yes there are races. As Henry C. Harpending (American anthropologist and population geneticist at the University of Utah) says its mere word play to deny it.

[video=youtube;nhBYAPok6ek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhBYAPok6ek&list=PLYcuLAArq58R7sWjyL4rflpT 8CmQuM7Ba&index=17[/video]

Play on words all you like, but race exists.

 

Of course IQ tests do not measure intelligence. Intelligence is a social construct. IQ tests were designed for a particular reason, guess what that was.

 

IQ tests were not so much designed as evolved from the fact that any set of given tests of mental ability, such as repeating numbers backward, matching patterns, assembling blocks, defining words, always show a strong (~75%) positive correlation with other. The general factor is extracted as IQ. This factor has been shown to be stable over an individuals life and the best known predictor of life success. To deny its validity is to deny reality, it satisfies every requirement of a reality based scientific construct.

Do you deny that people differ in their ability to repeat numbers backward and assemble blocks etc.? Empirical tests refute you. Do you deny these abilities are strongly correlated? Empirical tests refute you. Do you deny the common factor has strong predictive utility for important real world abilities? Empirical tests refute you.

 

Post the empirical tests.

I deny that what current IQ tests test for in the totality of intelligence.
Intelligence tests are a 20th century invention.
They were designed to measure school success.
A single test across a variety of cultures is dumb, what makes someone smart in rural Montana is not the same as Manhattan.

 

No, anyone can verify. It's mainstream psychology. ~Edit/focus on the topic~ It isn't a test of "culture". It's a test of an important biologically based brain variable.

 

So you can't post the empirical studies you speak of, color me shocked.

What if I point you to some that prove my point
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1987.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1434872?uid=3739664&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102573703773

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ng-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/


BTW lobbing an insult at me is ridiculous, I studied this as part of my early career, I likely know more about IQ and its history than 99% of the population. Your cut and paste nonsense from guys like Arthur Jenson just shows your lack of knowledge. BTW if you believe in the genetic argument (some peoples just are born smarter) then your Jew hate will take a hit. Read the Bell Curve and you will see Ashkenazi Jews scored highest.

 

http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/mainstream.html

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

4. The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation).

5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

6. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain, uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered.

Practical Importance

9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

10. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

11. The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or multifaceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to perform well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management): it is a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that require only routine decision making or simple problem solving (unskilled work).

12. Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. When individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in comparison.

13. Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or "transferability" across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as other "intelligences."

Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences

14. Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin.

15. Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different environments within the same family.

16. That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter.

17. Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate.

18. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenalketonuria), nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to some extent.

Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences

19. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years show that gaps in academic achievement have narrowed a bit for some races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves.

20. Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade. However, because bright youngsters learn faster than slow learners, these same IQ differences lead to growing disparities in amount learned as youngsters progress from grades one to 12. As large national surveys continue to show, black 17- year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds in reading, math, and science, with Hispanics in between.

21. The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians or Hispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and genetic heredity are involved.

22. There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.

23. Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families.

24. Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors-the white admixture is about 20%, on average--and many self-designated whites, Hispanics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on intelligence relies on self- classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social and biological distinctions among groups (no one claims otherwise).

Implications for Social Policy

25. The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means.

The following professors-all experts in intelligence an allied fields-have signed this statement:
Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
John B. Carroll, U.N.C. at Chapel Hill
Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
David B. Cohen, U.T. at Austin
Rene W. Dawis, University of Minnesota
Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve U.
Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota
Hans Eysenck, University of London
Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology
Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve U.
Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
Linda S. Gottfredsen, University of Delaware
Richard J. Haier, U.C. Irvine
Garrett Hardin, U.C. Berkeley
Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
Joseph M. Horn, U.T. at Austin
Lloyd G. Humphreys, U.Ill. at Champaign-Urbana
John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
Douglas N. Jackson, U. of Western Ontario
James J. Jenkins, U. of South Florida
Arthur R. Jensen, U.C. Berkeley
Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
Nadeen L. Kaufman, Cal. School of Prof. Psych., S.D.
Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
Nadine Lambert, U.C. Berkeley
John C. Loehlin, U.T. at Austin
David Lubinski, Iowa State University
David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota
Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine
Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota
R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia
Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburg
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Cecil R. Reynolds Texas A&M University
David C. Rowe University of Arizona
J. Philippe Rushton U. of Western Ontario
Vincent Sarich, U.C. Berkeley
Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia
Frank L. Schmidt University of Iowa
Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A&M University
James C. Sharf, George Washington University
Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
Del Theissen, U.T. at Austin
Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve U.
Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington University
Philip Anthony Vernon, U. of Western Ontario
Lee Willerman, U.T. at Austin