White heritage proportional to IQ for Blacks and Hispanics...

On another thread, someone claiming to cite Richard Nisbett, claimed admixture studies showed 0 correlation with White heritage and IQ - in other words, Blacks with more White heritage - measured using various methods - do not have higher IQ than Blacks with less White heritage:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=350804&page=50&p=1063922947#post1063922947

I felt the claim was sufficiently demolished with a quote from Philip Rushton citing actual studies showing positive correlation between White ancestry in Blacks and IQ:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=350804&page=51&p=1063926158#post1063926158

and another poster provided research showing the IQ/race correlation is linked to genes rather than environment:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=350804&page=51&p=1063926541#post1063926541

However, this poster has not responded, in part, due to the thread being closed.

Interestingly, if this is indeed a claim Nisbett makes, it is another example of him being wrong.

 

This is the evidence cited by Nisbett showing no correlation between degree of White ancestry and high Black IQ.



Direct Tests of Heritability of the Black–White IQ Difference


Most important, Rushton and Jensen (2005) ignore or misrepresent a large
literature dealing with the most direct sort of evidence, which relates to the
influence of European ancestry on Black intelligence. U.S. “Black” populations
contain as much as 30% European genes. This means that an individual who is
identified as Black could have anywhere from 100% African ancestry to mostly
European ancestry (true of as much as 15% of some U.S “Black” subpopulations;
Herskovits, 1930). This allows us to identify the extent to which percentage
African ancestry, variously assessed, is associated with IQ. Five different types of
studies allow for an estimation of the effect of relatively African versus relatively
European genes on IQ. I report these below in increasing order of what I take to
be their probativeness.

Skin Color

There are numerous studies of the association between skin color and IQ. Skin
color can be used as at least a weak proxy for racial admixture. We can ask
whether lighter, presumably more European, skin is associated with higher IQ. Of
course, if it were, this would constitute only modest support for the genetic
hypothesis because there would be valid grounds for assuming that more social
and economic advantages accrued to people with relatively light skin than to
people with relatively dark skin and that these advantages would be reflected in
higher IQs. In fact, however, the correlation between lightness of skin and IQ,
averaged over a large number of studies reviewed by Shuey (1966), is in the
vicinity of .10. The average correlation between IQ and judged “Negroidness” of
features is even lower.

Self-Reports of European Ancestry


Another way to determine the genetic origins of the Black–White difference is to examine the tails of the distribution of Black IQ. We can ask whether Blacks having a significant degree of European heritage are more likely to have high IQ scores. The extreme high-end tail of the IQ distribution should be especially telling, because on the hereditarian theory one would expect people at the tail to be particularly likely to have substantial European ancestry. Jenkins (1936) identified 63 children in a sample of Black Chicago schoolchildren with IQs of 125 or above, and 28 with IQs of 140 or above. Degree of European ancestry was assessed on the basis of self-reports about parents and grandparents. Children with IQs of 125 or above, as well as those with IQs of 140 or above, were slightly less likely to have substantial European ancestry than was estimated to be characteristic of the U.S. Black population as a whole at the time. The results are consistent with a model of zero genetic contribution to the Black–White gap. Rushton and Jensen do not mention this study.

Children in Postwar Germany Born to Black and White American Soldiers

Eyferth (1961) examined the IQs of several hundred German children fathered
by Black GIs during the post-1945 occupation and compared them with the
IQs of children fathered by White GIs. The children of the Black GIs had an
average IQ of 96.5. The children of the White GIs had an average IQ of 97.
Because the (phenotypic) Black–White gap in the military was similar to that for
the U.S. population, these data imply that the Black–White gap in the U.S.
population as a whole is not genetic, even in part (Flynn, 1980, pp. 87–88 ). The
results seem particularly telling because it seems highly likely that environmental
conditions were inferior for Black children.

How do Rushton and Jensen (2005) treat this study, so telling on the face of
it? They give it only two sentences of description and then proceed to critique it
on two main grounds. First, 20% to 25% of the “Black” fathers were North
African. But one would have to assume preposterously high IQ scores on the part
of the North African portion of the Black population to make up for the substantial
difference between offspring of Blacks and Whites predicted by their hereditarian
theory. Second, Rushton and Jensen assume that Black soldiers were more
rigorously selected than Whites and so might have had IQs nearly as high as those
of the White soldiers. Blacks in the military did indeed have higher IQs than did
Blacks in the general population, but the same was true of White soldiers
compared with the general White population. Flynn (1980) has argued that the
evidence indicates that the gap in IQ between Black and White soldiers was the
same as that in the U.S. population at large.

Mixed-Race Children Born to Either a Black or a White Mother

If the Black–White IQ gap is largely hereditary, then children having one
Black and one White parent should have the same IQ on average, regardless of
which parent is Black. But if one assumes that mothers are particularly important
to the intellectual socialization of their children and if the socialization practices
of Whites are more favorable to IQ development than those of Black mothers,
then children of White mothers and Black fathers should have higher IQs than
children of Black mothers and White fathers. This could of course not have a
plausible genetic explanation. In fact, it emerges that children of White mothers
and Black fathers have IQs 9 points higher than children with Black mothers and
White fathers (Willerman, Naylor, & Myrianthopoulos, 1974). This result in itself
suggests that most of the Black–White IQ gap is environmental in origin. But
because mothers are not the only environmental influence on the child’s IQ, the
9-point difference might be regarded as a very conservative estimate of the
environmental contribution to the gap.

What do Rushton and Jensen (2005) have to say about this study? Because the
White mother–Black father pairs averaged 1 year more of education than the
Black mother–White father pairs, they conclude the study is uninterpretable! Of
course, there can be no basis for assuming that 1-year’s difference in education on
the part of the parents could possibly translate into an expected 9 IQ point
difference for the children.

Studies Measuring European Ancestry Through Blood Group Indicators


Different races have different frequencies of various blood groups. If the
hereditarian model is correct, Blacks having more blood groups characteristic of
Europeans should have higher IQs. But Sandra Scarr and her colleagues (Scarr,
Pakstis, Katz, & Barker, 1977) found that the correlation between IQ and
“European” heritage among Blacks as measured by blood groups was only .05 in
a sample of 144 Black adolescent twin pairs. They found a typical correlation of
.15 between skin color and IQ, which suggests that the comparable correlations
between skin color and IQ in other studies are due not to more European genes on
the part of light-skinned Blacks but to social and economic advantages accruing
to individuals with lighter skin.


Another blood-group study, by Loehlin, Vandenberg, and Osborne (1973),
also examined the association between Europeanness and IQ in a sample of
Blacks. In this study, the estimated Europeanness of blood groups (rather than the
Europeanness of individuals, estimated from their blood groups) was correlated
with IQ in two small samples of Blacks (Loehlin et al., 1973). A .01 correlation
between IQ and the extent to which blood group genes were more characteristic
of European than African populations was found. In another small sample, they
found a nonsignificant, –.38 correlation, such that blood groups associated with
Europeanness predicted lower IQ scores.


How do Rushton and Jensen (2005) deal with these data, so apparently
damning of an even partially hereditary model? They report that “these studies
failed to choose genetic markers with large allele frequency differences between
Africans and Europeans” (p. 262). Of course, on the hereditarian hypothesis, the
markers would have to have been worthless to yield a zero difference between the
populations studied.


Rushton and Jensen (2005) add only a few studies to the list above concerned
with racial admixture, and those have extremely weak findings, poor methodology,
tangential relevance, or a combination of the three. For example, they cite
one study by Lynn (2002), which found a correlation of .17 between self-report
of skin color as “very dark,” “dark brown,” “light brown,” or “very light” and a
10-word vocabulary test score. Another study, by Rowe (2002), is merely yet
another showing that Blacks have lower IQ scores than Whites. Still other studies
ask us to believe that average IQ scores of 70 (in the retarded range) for samples
of Africans and for the Black children in a particular Georgia county could
possibly be an accurate reflection of genotypic IQ in pure African populations.
This would mean that an individual 2 standard deviations from the mean would
only manage to reach an IQ of 100, which is average for Western White
populations.


Rushton and Jensen (2005) end the empirical part of their article with a
scorecard. The scorecard results: hereditarian model (
); culture-only model (0).
But any sensible reading of the directly relevant research would have to
conclude that there is no support whatever in these studies for an even
partially hereditarian model. On the contrary, the converging methodologies
provide strong evidence that the genetic contribution to the Black–White IQ
gap is close to zero and do not even suggest a direction for any possible
genetic contribution.


Source: HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 302–310

 

Results of our PCA-based ancestry estimation method. (A) Graphical illustration of approach: Euclidean distances from a given individual's coordinates in PCA space (i.e., “loadings&#8221 and the West African centroid (“a&#8221 and the European centroid (“b&#8221 along PC1 for PCA space that includes Europeans, African Americans, and West Africans. (B) Local ancestry estimation using the PCA sliding window approach and associated HMM for number of chromosomes for a given individual (i.e., “0,” “1,” or “2&#8221 with African ancestry. (C–F) Individual ancestry estimates of 4 representative African-American individuals (denoted 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Fig. 2A) in our dataset of 365 individuals. The colors represent two chromosomes of West African ancestry (blue), two chromosomes of European ancestry (red), or one chromosome of West African and one chromosome of European ancestry (green). (G) Mean ancestry of 365 African-American individuals at each window across chromosome (chrom) 1, chrom 11, chrom 12, and chromosome X (X Chr). The black line shows the overall mean estimated ancestry. Red bands indicate +3 and −3 SDs from the mean ancestry. (All chromosomes are reported in Fig. S10).

Quantifying patterns of population structure in Africans and African Americans illuminates the history of human populations and is critical for undertaking medical genomic studies on a global scale. To obtain a fine-scale genome-wide perspective of ancestry, we analyze Affymetrix GeneChip 500K genotype data from African Americans (n = 365) and individuals with ancestry from West Africa (n = 203 from 12 populations) and Europe (n = 400 from 42 countries). We find that population structure within the West African sample reflects primarily language and secondarily geographical distance, echoing the Bantu expansion. Among African Americans, analysis of genomic admixture by a principal component-based approach indicates that the median proportion of European ancestry is 18.5% (25th–75th percentiles: 11.6–27.7%), with very large variation among individuals. In the African-American sample as a whole, few autosomal regions showed exceptionally high or low mean African ancestry, but the X chromosome showed elevated levels of African ancestry, consistent with a sex-biased pattern of gene flow with an excess of European male and African female ancestry. We also find that genomic profiles of individual African Americans afford personalized ancestry reconstructions differentiating ancient vs. recent European and African ancestry. Finally, patterns of genetic similarity among inferred African segments of African-American genomes and genomes of contemporary African populations included in this study suggest African ancestry is most similar to non-Bantu Niger-Kordofanian-speaking populations, consistent with historical documents of the African Diaspora and trans-Atlantic slave trade.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/786.long

 

So the issue was your misrepresentation of Nisbett claiming no correlation exists in all admixture studies, and not Nisbett actually claiming all studies show zero correlation apart from his three cherry-picked flawed studies out of several others the fraud ignored?

Back with the copy-pastes again? No wonder you couldn't answer the question when you were called out for extensive copy/pasting.

 

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Intelligence and How to Get It (Working Paper).pdf

12. Racial Admixture Studies
Nisbett: Rushton and Jensen [8] failed to deal fully enough with the most direct genetic evidence—the racial ancestry of a given individual. Since the genes in the U.S. Black population are about 20% European [153], the hereditarian model predicts that Blacks with more European genes should have higher IQs. However, the review of studies on skin color by Shuey [6] showed only a .10 to .15 correlation, not those of the .20 to .30 or higher that might have been expected under the hypothesis (assuming we ignore the social advantages that accrue to Blacks with lighter skin). Moreover, studies of blood groups, some of which are common in European populations and rare in African populations, and vice versa, show no relation with African American IQ scores [154,155].
Other studies have also examined the effects of racial ancestry and need to be taken into account. Eyferth [156], a German psychologist, studied the IQs of several hundred illegitimate children of German women fathered by Black American GIs during the post-World War II (1945) occupation, and compared them to those fathered by White GIs. The children fathered by the Black GIs had an average IQ of 96.5 and the children fathered by the White GIs had an average IQ of 97.
Another study identified 63 Black Chicago school children with IQs of 125 or above, and 28 children with IQs of 140 or above, asked them to report their racial inheritance [157,158]. These children reported slightly less European ancestry than the best estimate for the Black population as a whole. There is also a study of 4-year-old Mixed-Race children born to White versus Black mothers by Willerman et al. [159]. It found, contrary to the hereditarian prediction that children of mixed-parentage should have the same average IQ regardless of which parent is Black, that the children of White mothers and Black fathers had a 9-point IQ advantage over those of Black mothers and White fathers (mean IQs = 102, 93; Ns = 101, 2. In another study, Moore [149] examined a small number of 7-year-olds adopted by middle-class White parents which found no difference in IQ between the 9 children with two Black biological parents and the 14 with one Black and one White biological parent (IQs = 109, 107, respectively).
Finally, it is worth noting that the reason Rushton and Jensen [8] give for the African American population having an average IQ of 85 rather than 70, is that “Black” Americans have about 20% European genetic admixture. Of course, following the simplest version of this logic, if the admixture of European genes in the Black population were 60% instead of 20%, then African Americans would have an average IQ of 115!
Intelligence and How to Get It 33
Rushton & Jensen: Nisbett’s citations of what he terms “direct evidence” for the nil heritability of Black-White IQ differences are peculiarly old. The median year of publication being 1960 (range 1934 to 1986). Most are weak and non-decisive and have not been replicated even once. Some are so old and recycled that Jensen [24] and Loehlin [2] dealt with them 35 years ago! Nisbett’s account ignored several more recent studies. Here we will consider the skin color studies, Eyferth’s German study and the others of Mixed-Race children, blood groups and DNA, and the Mixed-Race population of South Africa.
12.1. Skin Color Studies
Rowe [52] updated Shuey&#8217;s [6] review showing that lighter-skinned African Americans average higher IQs than their darker-skinned counterparts. For example, Lynn [160] examined the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) survey of a representative sample of the adult population. The 442 Blacks were asked whether they would describe themselves as &#8220;very dark,&#8221; &#8220;dark brown,&#8221; &#8220;medium brown,&#8221; &#8220;light brown,&#8221; or &#8220;very light.&#8221; The correlation between these self-ratings and a 10-word vocabulary test score was .17 (P < .01). Similarly, Rowe [161] examined the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and found the Black adolescents averaged a lower verbal IQ than the White adolescents, with the Mixed-Race group falling in between. Nor are the findings likely due to lighter-skinned African Americans being treated better through &#8220;expectancy effects&#8221; or &#8220;labeling theory,&#8221; as Nisbett implies they might be. For example, in Scarr and Weinberg&#8217;s [146] Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, some children were misclassified, with their adoptive parents wrongly believing that the mixed-race children had two Black biological parents. Yet these children averaged the same IQs as those of other mixed-race children correctly believed by their adoptive parents to have had one Black and one White biological parent.
Early studies of brain weight data also fit the genetic admixture hypothesis. Bean [116] found, as did Pearl [118], that among Blacks the greater the amount of White admixture (judged independently from skin color), the higher the mean brain weight at autopsy. Subsequently, Rushton [130] examined 37 East-Asian-European hybrids from the U.S. National Collaborative Perinatal Project and found they fell intermediate in brain size and IQ to the non-mixed parental groups.
12.2. Eyferth&#8217;s German Study
Three studies of racially mixed individuals at first appear to support culture-only theory against the genetic hypothesis. Eyferth [156] reported IQ data for out-of-wedlock children fathered by soldiers stationed in Germany after World War II and then reared by White German mothers. The mean IQs for 83 White children and for 98 Mixed-Race children were both about 97 (97.2 for the Whites, 96.5 for the Mixed-Race). However, as Loehlin et al. [2, pp. 126-128] noted, these results are ambiguous for three reasons. First, the children were still very young when tested. One-third of the children were between 5 and 10 years of age, and two-thirds between 10 and 13. As shown in Figure 2, behavior genetic studies show that while family socialization effects on IQ are often strong before puberty, after puberty they dwindle, sometimes to zero. Second, the Black GIs likely had higher than average IQ scores because there was rigorous
Intelligence and How to Get It 34
selection in the U.S. Army at the time, with a rejection rate for Blacks on the pre-induction Army General Classification Test of about 30%, compared to 3% for Whites. Third, 20 to 25% of the &#8220;Black&#8221; fathers were not in fact African Americans but French North Africans, that is, largely Caucasians.
Nisbett&#8217;s citation of Willerman et al.&#8217;s [159] report of a nine-point IQ advantage for the four-year-old offspring of couples with a White mother and a Black father compared to those from the offspring of a Black mother and a White father is at best, very weak evidence. Loehlin et al. [2, p. 126] noted that the White mothers may have had a higher IQ than did the Black mothers since they averaged almost a year more schooling. Also not mentioned by Nisbett is that the two sets of Mixed-Race children averaged an IQ of 98, intermediate to the White and Black children in the larger sample from whom they had been drawn (IQs = 105 and 91, respectively; [162, p. 43]. Similarly, with regard to Moore&#8217;s [149] study which found no difference between 7-year-old adopted children with only one versus two Black biological parents, a follow-up to adolescence would be informative.
12.3. Blood Groups and DNA
As Nisbett correctly surmised, existing studies of blood groups have provided no support for the hereditarian perspective. Both Loehlin et al. [2] and Scarr et al. [146] found that blood groups that distinguish African from European ancestry did not predict IQ scores in Black samples. However, these studies provide genetic markers with too little variation in allele frequencies to make detection likely between Africans and Europeans [25, pp. 480, 524 n.64).
Molecular genetic technology was far less sophisticated in the 1970s. In future studies, individual admixture should be calculated through the use of DNA markers, as is already done in medicine. McKeigue [163] has shown how admixture mapping has greater statistical power than family-linkage studies. In comparison with association studies, admixture mapping requires far fewer markers to search the genome and is less affected by allelic heterogeneity. Statistical-analysis programs for admixture mapping are now available, and a genome-wide panel of markers has been assembled for populations of West AfricanEuropean admixture.
Of course, there are still some who maintain that &#8220;races&#8221; do not exist at the genetic level. Tang et al.&#8217;s [164] study of 3,636 individuals who donated a DNA sample and identified themselves as being White, East Asian, African-American, or Hispanic argues strongly against this popular, though misinformed, contention. The study found that the self-identifications clustered almost perfectly according to 326

 

I wonder why Jay has decided not to respond to whether he fabricated the claim that there is 0 correlation in all White-Black admixture studies, or if Nisbett falsified this himself?

 

I obviously meant low correlation not literally zero. The correlations are so low that the results support an environmental model.

Anyway I am done debating you as a find you to be nothing but an obnoxious character assassin arguing in bad faith who is not worth debating. That last thread got closed for a reason, because of your personal attacks. I don't have time for people who debate like you and apparently neither do the moderators so this will be my last post in this thread. Oh and I won, again.

 

Why would a correlation alone suggest any model? Why have you not addressed correlations between families, but not within, suggesting a genetic model?

 

Really? Nisbett averaged the correlation coefficients of all the studies? Where does he do that, and how 'low' does the correlation need to be to support the 'environmental model'?

Oh, perhaps I missed that since he seems to omit several admixture studies, doesn't he?

 

The poor little thing has run away crying with snot all over his face shouting "I BE THE WINNER Y'ALL"

I guess he doesn't have a copy paste about family correlations.

 

Such is how it goes when trying to debate someone who is only interesting in establishing white intellectual supremacy- and to hell with the facts.

 

This is just lame ad hominem and you failed to address the point. Because you can't.

 

Which facts have been ignored by the other side when the poster you're quoting made a claim up wholesale and is dodging several admixture studies?